Jana Riess Directly, Openly And Publicly Opposes Elder Nelson

[Scott Lloyd]

Again, Terryl Givens said the same thing, a comment you also did not respond to. 

As a matter of fact, I had not seen that comment until just now, when I did a Google search to find the last time you had accused Joseph of having "serious character flaws."

 

I listened to a portion of the podcast. Not only did Givens unwisely allow Dehlin to put words in his mouth, he greatly overstated his point.

 

But that is of no great moment. If I don't regard apostles and prophets as being perfect (and I don't, although I hold them in higher regard than you apparently do), then I definitely don't regard academics and philosophers as being perfect.

 

 

Of course, your deflecting rather than answering the questions.... but I expected as much

 

Think that if you like; I won't allow you to goad me into taking this thread off the rails.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Look up in the thread. Scott provided a link to a statement from Elder Christofferson joining others in the twelve condeming homosexuality as a sin and an unchangeable law.

Thank you.

 

Here again is that quote from Elder Christofferson on the mormonsandgays.org site:

 

There shouldn’t be a perception or an expectation that the Church’s doctrines or position have changed or are changing. It’s simply not true, and we want youth and all people to understand that. The doctrines that relate to human sexuality and gender are really central to our theology. And marriage between a man and a woman, and the families that come from those marriages – that’s all central to God’s plan and to the opportunities that He offers to us, here and hereafter. So homosexual behavior is contrary to those doctrines – has been, always will be – and can never be anything but transgression. It’s something that deprives people of those highest expectations and possibilities that God has for us.

 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

actually.... yes.  In these discussion boards, we have people who will stridently defend the Church and it's actions no matter what, even when it was likely wrong.  In defending those points they draw their logic from certain ideas that sound really good.  Once a flaw is pointed out or once and exception is found that show their logc is flawed, they either call names or they abandon answering the questions.  I think the two points and questions I made to Scott were good and deserve a rebuttal.  His ignoring them indicates a good answer is lacking in my mind.

 

Edited to add: I don't think the Church is necessarily wrong or that Scott is on LGBT issues, only that his logic defending his points is severely flawed in my opinion. 

uh'hu..

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Thank you.

 

Here again is that quote from Elder Christofferson on the mormonsandgays.org site:

Yeah, I saw this but I have concluded that some people have some unknown vested interested in making homosexuality acceptable esp gay marriage that it would not matter who and how the message was said, that it is a sin and that is is never going to happen, that there really is no point in talking about it. What has been said about the topic is sufficient for the vast majority of active believing LDS, that I am always left befuddled that a certain few posters continue with the pipe dream that the church is just "wrong" on this issue. That some day there will be a revelation about it being "OK". I feel very safe in proclaiming that it is never going to happen.

 

I have seen no reason to conclude that it is going to change. "Thats what they said about racial marriage".

 

One should ask "Is it"? Did they release a proclamation signed by the first presidency and released in an official capacity condemning interracial marriage? I think not. There is nothing in the past, in the church, changing something like gay marriage and making it acceptable. It has been repeatedly condemned and has been commended for years.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Scott Lloyd]

Yeah, I saw this but I have concluded that some people have some unknown vested interested in making homosexuality acceptable esp gay marriage that it would not matter who and how the message was said, that it is a sin and that is is never going to happen, that there really is no point in talking about it. What has been said about the topic is sufficient for the vast majority of active believing LDS, that I am always left befuddled that a certain few posters continue with the pipe dream that the church is just "wrong" on this issue. That some day there will be a revelation about it being "OK". I feel very safe in proclaiming that it is never going to happen.

 

I have seen no reason to conclude that it is going to change. "Thats what they said about racial marriage".

 

One should ask "Is it". Did they release a acclimation signed by the first presidency and released in an official capacity commending interracial marriage? I think not. There is nothing in the past in the church changing something like gay marriage and making acceptable. It has been repeatedly condemned and has been commended for years.

Well, I just passed my 60th birthday. By any reasonable expectation, I can expect to be around for another 30 years or so.

 

Maybe after that much time has passed, I'll come back on this board, if it's still around, or its successor, if there be such a thing, and revisit whether their prognostications have come true about the Church declaring sexual sin non-sinful and consistent with temple worthiness and sealing ordinances.

 

LIke you, I don't expect things will have changed in that regard. Elder Nelson said it well:

 

Sin, even if legalized by man, is still sin in the eyes of God.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

 

I'm not sure I'm clear on what your point is in bringing this up in the context of our discussion here. So I guess I'll let it pass without further comment.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm not sure I'm clear on what your point is in bringing this up in the context of our discussion here. So I guess I'll let it pass without further comment.

Because we, or I have brought up the family proclamation, that this is evidence that it "could" change. But once again, when we look at it this, it is not an apples to apples comparison. 

Edited August 22, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[SmileyMcGee]

Oh, that's what you were doing.

I think you're unkind in your tone and your last few comments are meant to mock other posters and not engage in actual discussion.

Edited August 22, 2014 by SmileyMcGee

[Scott Lloyd]

I live in a country where there is no public debate over same-sex marriage. It is legal, and has been for most of a decade now. And I'm okay with that. The legislation defines marriage "for civil purposes" as "the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others," with the proviso that "officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs." I don't consider that the state's definition of marriage "for civil purposes" must be identical to my "religious" definition of marriage, as long as my religious beliefs are legally protected. 

 

I'm not an enthusiastic supporter of gay marriage by any stretch—I'm still old-fashioned enough to think that homosexuality is disordered and not really something to be embraced and celebrated—but I also don't think it's helpful for Church leaders to be claiming that anyone who supports gay marriage is not a (real) disciple of Christ. Yes, prophets are within their right to speak "hard things," but that sort of rhetoric is only going to push more good people out of the Church (and prevent others from coming in).

 

 

I, on the other hand, have never seen any lasting benefit to watering down the doctrines and teachings of the Church for the mere purpose of attracting converts or helping the disaffected to feel more comfortable. Sooner or later, the truth becomes obvious to them, and they end up feeling deceived.

 

 

I know what you're saying, but it seems to me that the scriptures also provide a precedent for going easy on "the weakest of all the saints." Take the Word of Wisdom or the doctrine of plural marriage, for example. Where would the Church be if it had taken a hard line on these things from day one? Would it have been worth it to lose most of the missionary harvest in Great Britain and Scandinavia during the defining decades of the 1840s and 1850s?

 

In Section 86, the Lord says: "Pluck not up the tares while the blade is yet tender (for verily your faith is weak), lest you destroy the wheat also [but rather] let the wheat and tares grow together until the harvest is fully ripe" (vv. 6-7). Maybe Elder Nelson feels the harvest is fully ripe, but I'm not so sure. I think the Church may still have some growing left to do. 

 

 

Gradual acceptance of new doctrine and practice -- such as the Word of Wisdom and plurality of wives -- is one thing. Acquiescing to the corruption of long-held beliefs and long-understood doctrines and commandments -- such as those relating to marriage -- is quite another. I can see the Lord going easy on his people with the former, granting them a time and space for transition and such, but expecting them to draw a distinct line with the latter.

I just saw this link from Daniel Peterson's blog and thought it relevant here.

 

Titled "How to Shrink Your Church in One Easy Step," the article posits that "Every major American church that has taken steps towards liberalization on sexual issues has seen a steep decline in membership."

Edited August 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

To Buckeye:

 

I'm not sure I'm clear on what your point is in bringing this up in the context of our discussion here. So I guess I'll let it pass without further comment.

 

 

Because we, or I have brought up the family proclamation, that this is evidence that it "could" change. But once again, when we look at it this, it is not an apples to apples comparison. 

 

Well, on the assumption that's what he meant, I will respond.

 

I find it remarkable that he would ignore the point of comparison I chose and substitute one of his own that was less apt.

 

I compared the family proclamation to the "The Father and the Son," the 1916 doctrinal exposition by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for good reason.

 

The doctrinal exposition has been a source of enlightenment to us for nearly a hundred years, in that it clarifies and explains the senses in which the scriptures refer to Jesus Christ as "Father":

 

1. As Creator of Heaven and Earth

 

2. As the "Father" of those who abide in His gospel

 

3. As "Father" by divine investiture of authority

 

The content of the exposition was not new doctrine at the time it was issued; rather, it emphasized and clarified existing doctrine that was, if not present, at least implied in the scriptures. Therefore, because it didn't break new ground, it technically was not a revelation. Nevertheless, I firmly believe the issuance of the doctrinal exposition was a divinely inspired act that has blessed mankind for nigh on a century.

 

Similarly, the family proclamation, while it didn't break new ground, did emphasize and underscore knowledge, principles and laws that have long been had by the Latter-day Saints but which some, in recent times, seem determined to ignore or dismiss. Therefore, I regard its issuance as a divinely inspired move, just as I regard the issuance of the doctrinal exposition on the Father and the Son as a divinely inspired move.

 

So it won't do to dismiss the family proclamation as uninspired on the pretext that the wording of a single general conference talk that initially referred to it as a revelation was changed between delivery and publication.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You're kind of a douche.

Yeah? Good thing I give a crap what you and others think.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yeah? Good thing I give a crap what you and others think.

I've already reported the drive-by vulgar insult and violation of board rules. Hopefully, a moderator will act on it shortly.

 

Meanwhile I suggest we not respond in kind.

[Tacenda]

Bye-bye SmileyMcGee and good riddance!  That kind of talk is lame. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I've already reported the drive-by vulgar insult and violation of board rules. Hopefully, a moderator will act on it shortly.

 

Meanwhile I suggest we not respond in kind.

Yeah, you are right.

[SmileyMcGee]

Bye-bye SmileyMcGee and good riddance! That kind of talk is lame.

At times you have to call a spade a spade and not beat around the bush with passive aggressive snark.

[DBMormon]

uh'hu..

bless you!

[SmileyMcGee]

I've already reported the drive-by vulgar insult and violation of board rules. Hopefully, a moderator will act on it shortly.

Meanwhile I suggest we not respond in kind.

I hope the mods take into consideration the snarky behavior of Mola Ram before they determine an appropriate punishment for my original post. Edited August 22, 2014 by SmileyMcGee

[Buzzard]

I hope the mods take into consideration the exceedingly douchey behavior of Mola Ram before they determine an appropriate punishment for actions.

Friend, the first law of getting out of a hole is to stop digging.  You do realize you are making a vulgar reference to feminine hygiene on a religious board, don't you?

[USU78]

Obviated.

Edited August 22, 2014 by USU78

[Tacenda]

At times you have to call a spade a spade and not beat around the bush with passive aggressive snark.

I guess it's a common word and I'm old fashioned or just old.  I hear it spoken by my son once in awhile, it still bugs and I get on him about it.  I guess I don't like it when people aren't civil.  Maybe put it in a nice way...that what he said/did was out of line? 

[Buzzard]

Dang. The first decent SSM thread in weeks and I missed out on the fireworks. 

While I stand foursquare behind orthodoxy, I think I understand why Sister Riess has such an issue with Elder Nelson and his talk aside from the probability that she is just more socially liberal.  

I'll bet dimes to donuts that Sister Riess has friends for sure, and possibly family, who are gay.  Not that that there's anything wrong with that   .  And she makes "compassion" the central pillar of her objection.  In my limited experience, many members who love people with SSA feel that there is a binary choice. You either accept your loved one AND his or her behavior and reject the teachings and maybe even the institution of the church, or you kick your loved one to the curb in defense of the gospel.  It's hard, and it's a lot trickier than simply loving the sinner and hating the sin.

IMHO, what Elder Nelson understands and that Sister Riess doesn't understand is that to uncritically love and "accept" people who are involved in serious sin is that it is supremely uncompassionate, it that's even a word.  You are helping to sentence them to an eternity of regret.  And it's a knife edge ridge to negotiate, because while it is our duty to help others repent, it is also against the gospel to behave like jerks towards them-heck even to think jerky thoughts. And of course there is that whole problem of the fact that we have a few rough edges that need smoothed off by repentance ourselves.  Somewhere between self-righteous hypocrisy and self-immersion in the wickedness of the world is the right answer, and we each have to work out the balance.  

I'll submit that Elder Nelson is closer to that balance than Sister Riess.  She obviously disagrees. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Dang. The first decent SSM thread in weeks and I missed out on the fireworks. 

While I stand foursquare behind orthodoxy, I think I understand why Sister Riess has such an issue with Elder Nelson and his talk aside from the probability that she is just more socially liberal.  

I'll bet dimes to donuts that Sister Riess has friends for sure, and possibly family, who are gay.  Not that that there's anything wrong with that   .  And she makes "compassion" the central pillar of her objection.  In my limited experience, many members who love people with SSA feel that there is a binary choice. You either accept your loved one AND his or her behavior and reject the teachings and maybe even the institution of the church, or you kick your loved one to the curb in defense of the gospel.  It's hard, and it's a lot trickier than simply loving the sinner and hating the sin.

IMHO, what Elder Nelson understands and that Sister Riess doesn't understand is that to uncritically love and "accept" people who are involved in serious sin is that it is supremely uncompassionate, it that's even a word.  You are helping to sentence them to an eternity of regret.  And it's a knife edge ridge to negotiate, because while it is our duty to help others repent, it is also against the gospel to behave like jerks towards them-heck even to think jerky thoughts. And of course there is that whole problem of the fact that we have a few rough edges that need smoothed off by repentance ourselves.  Somewhere between self-righteous hypocrisy and self-immersion in the wickedness of the world is the right answer, and we each have to work out the balance.  

I'll submit that Elder Nelson is closer to that balance than Sister Riess.  She obviously disagrees. 

A very thoughtful and astute analysis, Buzzard.

 

One of the things I object to most about her blog post is the simplistic assumption that to be compassionate -- or to be regarded so -- one must cave in to the pressure to deny that homosexual behavior is sinful and unacceptable.

 

I said before but will reiterate here that the Brethren have set for us a very good example of having and showing compassion while at the same time sustaining principles and values. Which is why I winced when I saw their compassion mocked on the blog post.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I guess it's a common word and I'm old fashioned or just old.  I hear it spoken by my son once in awhile, it still bugs and I get on him about it.  I guess I don't like it when people aren't civil.  Maybe put it in a nice way...that what he said/did was out of line? 

I guess you and I are both old-fashioned, Tacenda.

 

But then, I did just pass my 60th birthday.

 

Edited to add:

 

Old-folks' discounts, here I come! In the past few years, I have already twice ordered off the senior menu at Denny's.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I hope the mods take into consideration the exceedingly douchey behavior of Mola Ram before they determine an appropriate punishment for actions.

I have not used vinegar   in any of my posts. So I have to reject what you are saying.

[ERayR]

I guess it's a common word and I'm old fashioned or just old.  I hear it spoken by my son once in awhile, it still bugs and I get on him about it.  I guess I don't like it when people aren't civil.  Maybe put it in a nice way...that what he said/did was out of line? 

 

It is still used as a vulgarity and has no place in civil discourse.