Jana Riess Directly, Openly And Publicly Opposes Elder Nelson

[Paddy]

Although I agree with Elder Nelsons comments, I find the whole marriage concept an insignificant moral issue in comparison to so many others. It's repeated emphasis gives an impression that the church leadership is insular even though I don't believe that is the case. From an international perspective it just appears to be an American church issue. Does the church feel so much pressure over this issue??

Edited August 22, 2014 by Paddy

[Robert F. Smith]

My understanding is that, prior to prohibition, the Word of Wisdom wasn't considered a commandment and obedience was not a requirement for a temple recommend.  The Church arguably considers obedience ot the Word of Wisdom much more seriously than it did pre-probibition.  (I didn't say the repeal of prohibition, itself, strengthended it, only that it is "stronger" than pre-prohibition.)

 

Also, it's my understanding that pre-prohibition, we were a nation of drunkards.  Yes, there are other substances to deal with today, and even the comsumption of alcohol is still a problem.  But I think there's some evidence that we are a much more sober society today than we were in the 1700's and 1800's.

While what you say is true, we as a society have yet to come to terms with the proper approach to the common need by people for recreational drug use (whether alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, cannabis, cocaine, opiates, meth, ecstasy, etc., or just plain old, natural endorphines).  A lot of addictive personalities can fall victim to any one or several such "masters" of their fate.  We have yet to deal realistically with that, much less a host of other problems faced by our society -- marriage between a man and a woman being one relationship which seems to be on the rocks.

[Hamba Tuhan]

You have made an elementary category mistake in believing that the citizens of the United States of America are part of a theocracy. 

 

I think there is a world of difference between (1) mistakenly believing that the US is a theocracy and (2) accurately reporting the sorrow of prophets when the Saints, having professed a belief in prophets and revelation, then choose to use the democratic process to defy clear and specific prophetic counsel.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Hamba Tuhan

[The Nehor]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the government of the United States of America.  Each has a very different Constitution, and each must be true to its founding documents.  You have made an elementary category mistake in believing that the citizens of the United States of America are part of a theocracy.  Unless and until virtually all Americans become Mormons, they have a right to follow and be loyal to the equal protection provisions of the U. S. Constitution.

 

Issues such as proper marriage relations recognized by the States and by the Federal Government are to be decided by standard democratic procedures entailed in our three branches of government: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.

 

For example, the U. S. Supreme Court decided in 1878 (Reynolds v USA) that non-traditional Mormon polygyny was illegal, and the government sought to enforce that decision -- leading eventually to an end to Mormon polygyny.  The secular and religious powers in the USA are very separate, even though some ultra-religious persons seem to froth at the mouth when their particular religious views are not honored by the secular powers.

 

I don't think the prophet was surprised or shocked that Prohibition went away. I am not either. I do think the prophet was disappointed that the Saints helped to end it via the democratic process despite prophetic counsel not to. Other states in the east rejected the proposed amendment while Utah and Idaho with majority LDS populations ratified it.

 

Saying so is not agitating for theocracy or whatever weird fantasy you imagine I was concocting.

[The Nehor]

Unfortunately you can't reason with men who think they are above scrutiny or criticism...

 

You can't because their scrutiny and criticism comes from a better source then pundits on the internet and I am perfectly okay with that and in fact prefer following men whose criticism comes from such a source.

[ksfisher]

Unfortunately you can't reason with men who think they are above scrutiny or criticism...

Is this your opinion or do you know it for a fact? I'm asking because you make it sound as if you know this to be a fact. If it is a fact how do you know this? Do you know that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve can't be reasoned with? Do you really know that? Do you know that they believe themselves above scritiny and criticism?

[Bernard Gui]

The battle for the definition of marriage is over. 

More and more people reject even the necessity of marriage.

We are simply left with mop-up operations.

I see the time approaching when the Church gets out of

the marriage business and simply performs temple sealings after legal marriages.≈

The requirement for sealing would be that the couple be heterosexual, which, I suppose

would satisfy all parties......except those who find it hateful that the Church would not

allow same-sex partners to be sealed. But that brings up the whole Abrahamic covenant

thing, which, of course would have to be jettisoned to accommodate that. But who would

care...that's such an old-fashioned notion.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Regarding the OP...

Well, here’s a concept: I can be a disciple of Christ and a supporter of nontraditional marriage. In fact, I can support nontraditional marriage precisely

because I am a follower of that good shepherd, the one who preached compassion.

 

 

Some friends were discussing this very question with Sister Gui and me the other night. Is it compassionate

to allow sin without consequence?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

[The Nehor]

Regarding the OP...

 

Some friends were discussing this very question with Sister Gui and me the other night. Is it compassionate

to allow sin without consequence?

 

Except for when teaching children or people break secular law we are rarely responsible for creating the consequences for people's actions. That is usually God's job isn't it? Maybe Satan helps a bit? Hmmmmm.......not sure.

[tonie]

As noted in the quote above, marriage was created by God and it cannot be redefined or altered by legislative edict or judicial fiat.

Except that it has been redefined and altered. Do majority votes, legislative acts, judicial rulings have any bearing on what God deems as marriage? I think we would both agree not the slightest, "For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom". As for altering marriage, unfortunately it started long ago:

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended."

[Hamba Tuhan]

 

As a rather pedantic historian, I may simply point out the anachronism present in the title.

[LDSGuy]

Good for her. Not all of us agree that God has made his will clear regarding the definition of marriage.

God made his will clear through " The Family: A Proclamation to the World."

[Scott Lloyd]

The battle for the definition of marriage is over. 

More and more people reject even the necessity of marriage.

We are simply left with mop-up operations.

I see the time approaching when the Church gets out of

the marriage business and simply performs temple sealings after legal marriages.≈

The requirement for sealing would be that the couple be heterosexual, which, I suppose

would satisfy all parties......except those who find it hateful that the Church would not

allow same-sex partners to be sealed. But that brings up the whole Abrahamic covenant

thing, which, of course would have to be jettisoned to accommodate that. But who would

care...that's such an old-fashioned notion.

The battle may be over in the worldly theater, but the current cause for concern is that the battle ground is encroaching on the territory of the Church of Jesus Christ, with some individuals advocating not only that sin be legitimized but that it be sanctified in our temples.

When you have some Church members like Riess rhapsodizing about their support for "non-traditional marriage," I suppose in their minds, there's no suitable reason not to offer temple sealings for such relationships.

That's why I think occasional reminders and admonitions such as Elder Nelson's are needed.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

By way of clarification, in 2010, the church itself corrected a conference talk by Elder Nelson in which, from the pulpit, he had labeled the Family Proclamation to be "a revelation." In the printed version of the talk in the Ensign and online archives, the word "revelation" was replaced with the word "guide":

The demotion from "it qualifies as a revelation" to "it's a guide that members should follow" is significant...

See also:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=NKz2U_TeO4ycygSS84KYDA&url=http://www.mormonsformarriageequality.org/edits-to-boyd-k-packers-talk/&cd=6&ved=0CCgQFjAF&usg=AFQjCNEcjQYfNB1ft4H01zTlBjtmQLoTgQ&sig2=LIbAQpA1pignuTwiW33Aeg

My intent in mentioning the family proclamation was not to argue over whether or not it can be called a revelation, but rather to refute the rather weird notion that the Brethren are divided over how God defines marriage.

But to address your point, at the same time desiring not to derail this thread, I'll give my theory about why the wording of the conference talk was changed. While I fervently believe that issuing the proclamation was an act inspired by God, the content of the proclamation does not break any new ground, declare any new doctrine or change any existing practices in the Church. It is thus not so much like, say, Declarations 1 and 2 in the Doctrine and Covenants as it is like the First Presidency's Doctrinal Exposition on the Father and the Son, which was issued in the early 20th century and likewise reaffirmed and clarified existing doctrine and teachings as opposed to breaking new ground.

To use the change in wording of the conference talk as an occasion to minimize or marginalize the family proclamation is, I firmly believe, misguided. There have only been a handful of such proclamations issued in the history of the Church, and the fact that this one was signed by all members of the First Presidency and the Twelve underscores its vital importance and prescience.

Furthermore, I renew my prediction that it will one day be canonized as scripture.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

Regarding the OP...

 

Some friends were discussing this very question with Sister Gui and me the other night. Is it compassionate

to allow sin without consequence?

 

Equally important is the question: "who's role is it to impose consequences for sin?"  In dealings with our fellowman, where their actions do not directly affect us, and where we have no authority/responsibility other than to warn, it would seem that we should leave the consequences to God.  That is unless we do not trust that His consequences will be severe enough. 

[Buckeye]

...

 

To use the change in wording of the conference talk as an occasion to minimize or marginalize the family proclamation is, I firmly believe, misguided. There have only been a handful of such proclamations issued in the history of the Church, and the fact that this one was signed by all members of the First Presidency and the Twelve underscores its vital importance and prescience.

Furthermore, I renew my prediction that it will one day be canonized as scripture.

 

Too bad the 1875 proclamation was never cannonized.  Maybe Utah would still be voting democratic.  And the mormons would be running unions and occupy wallstreet.

 

 

THE EXPERIENCE OF MANKIND has shown that the people of communities and nations among whom wealth is the most equally distributed, enjoy the largest degree of liberty, are the least exposed to tyranny and oppression and suffer the least from luxurious habits which beget vice. Under such a system, carefully maintained there could be no great aggregations of either real or personal property in the hands of a few; especially so while the laws, forbidding the taking of usury or interest for money or property loaned, continued in force.

ONE OF THE GREAT EVILS with which our own nation is menaced at the present time is the wonderful growth of wealth in the hands of a comparatively few individuals. The very liberties for which our fathers contended so steadfastly and courageously, and which they bequeathed to us as a priceless legacy, are endangered by the monstrous power which this accumulation of wealth gives to a few individuals and a few powerful corporations. By its seductive influence results are accomplished which, were it more equally distributed, would be impossible under our form of government. It threatens to give shape to the legislation, both State, and National, of the entire country. If this evil should not be checked, and measures not taken to prevent the continued enormous growth of riches among the class already rich, and the painful increase of destitution and want among the poor, the nation is likely to be overtaken by disaster; for, according to history, such a tendency among nations once powerful was the sure precursor of ruin.

YEARS AGO IT WAS PERCEIVED that we Latter-day Saints were open to the same dangers as those which beset the rest of the world. A condition of affairs existed among us which was favorable to the growth of riches in the hands of a few at the expense of many. A wealthy class was being rapidly formed in our midst whose interests in the course of time, were likely to be diverse from those of the rest of the community. The growth of such a class was dangerous to our union; and, of all people, we stand most in need of union and to have our interests identical. Then it was that the Saints were counseled to enter into co-operation. In the absence of the necessary faith to enter upon a more perfect order revealed by the Lord unto the Church, this was felt to be the best means of drawing us together and making us one.

A UNION OF INTERESTS was sought to be attained. At the time co-operation was entered upon the Latter-day Saints were acting in utter disregard of the principles of self-preservation. They were encouraging the growth of evils in their own midst which they condemned as the worst features of the systems from which they had been gathered. Large profits were being consecrated in comparatively few hands, instead of being generally distributed among the people. As a consequence, the community was being rapidly divided into classes, and the hateful and unhappy distinctions which the possession and lack of wealth give rise to, were becoming painfully apparent. When the proposition to organize Zion’s Co-operative Mercantile Institution was broached, it was hoped that the community at large would become stockholders; for if a few individuals only were to own its stock, the advantages to the community would be limited. The people, therefore, were urged to take shares, and large numbers responded to the appeal. As we have shown, the business proved to be as successful as its most sanguine friends anticipated. But the distribution of profits among the community was not the only benefit conferred by the organization of co-operation among us.

CO-OPERATION has submitted in silence to a great many attacks. Its friends have been content to let it endure the ordeal. But it is now time to speak. The Latter-day Saints should understand that it is our duty to sustain co-operation and to do all in our power to make it a success. The local co-operative stores should have the cordial support of the Latter-day Saints. Does not all our history impress upon us the great truth that in union is strength? Without it, what power would the Latter-day Saints have? But it is not our doctrines alone that we should be united, but in practice and especially in our business affairs.

Your Brethren:

Brigham Young, Daniel H. Wells, Wilford Woodruff, Orson Pratt, Lorenzo Snow, Franklin D. Richards, Brigham Young Jr., George A. Smith, John taylor, Orson Hyde, Charles C,. Rich, Erastus Snow, George Q. Cannon, Albert Carrington

1875

[Nofear]

I would venture to guess that many of the Brethren are similarly concerned about the increasing influence of plutocracy in the United States and nations in the world in general. But, other social battles are to be fought and so it hasn't and suspect won't enter the mainstream of dialogue anytime soon (e.g. general conference).

 

Nonetheless, the time will come when our Lord announces his authority over the earth. This will greatly annoy the powers that be. (see Revelations 11:15,18)

[SmileyMcGee]

Is this your opinion or do you know it for a fact? I'm asking because you make it sound as if you know this to be a fact. If it is a fact how do you know this? Do you know that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve can't be reasoned with? Do you really know that? Do you know that they believe themselves above scritiny and criticism?

Where do you think you learned to get so defensive when someone infers that they aren't? You really think they are open to criticism from anyone other than their superiors? Look at the OP of this thread... Do you think such a thread would exist if they fostered an environment where criticism of them from rank and file members was not taboo?

[SmileyMcGee]

You can't because their scrutiny and criticism comes from a better source then pundits on the internet and I am perfectly okay with that and in fact prefer following men whose criticism comes from such a source.

thank you for proving my point.

[ksfisher]

Where do you think you learned to get so defensive when someone infers that they aren't? You really think they are open to criticism from anyone other than their superiors? Look at the OP of this thread... Do you think such a thread would exist if they fostered an environment where criticism of them from rank and file members was not taboo?

I'm asking how you know that the brethren can't be reasoned with and how you know that they consider themselves above "scrutiny and criticism." Your post sounded as if you know these things. I'm asking how you know this, or is it mearly your opinion.

Edited August 22, 2014 by ksfisher

[Nofear]

Michael Otterson, a person in a position to actually know and not merely speculate, affirms that the General Authorities (both Brethren and Sisters) make significant effort to know, understand, and respond to the concerns and feelings of the membership in general.

 

http://www.millennialstar.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Context-Missing-From-Womens-Discussion-May-29-2014.pdf

[The Nehor]

thank you for proving my point.

 

I only proved your point if you are narcissistic enough to imagine that only your criticism and scrutiny matter and voila, here we are.

[Senator]

I suspect we'll at some time see the accusation in the OP's title, to be found in another of Smac's bullet point listings of actionables against a Latter-day Saint.

 

There's been alot of derail in this thread away from the title's statement, which was the point to get across.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Senator

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

thank you for proving my point.

Typically when people say this no points have been proved. Kinda funny actually.