Jana Riess Directly, Openly And Publicly Opposes Elder Nelson

[SmileyMcGee]

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?

For that I apologize. I will refrain from using that word again and I have edited my posts to omit it.

Edited August 22, 2014 by SmileyMcGee

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

I am not sure what you were concocting, and it may well be that the current or past LDS Prophet (or any prophet for that matter) sorrows that his counsel is not followed 100%, just as the Pope in Rome may be in sorrow that the Italian people do not follow his counsel on a host of fundamental principles (abortion, contraceptives, etc., are legal in Italy).  People in a democracy have the power to decide such matters themselves.

 

I do hope that LDS prophets are realistic enough to understand that not all LDS attend Church, not all keep the Word of Wisdom, not all are endowed, not all are tithe-payers, not all do their assigned home-teaching, etc.  Brother Brigham used to sorrow that the LDS people lived largely on "borrowed light," instead of making their own decisions.  His counsel to them was to seek the witness of the Holy Spirit on any matter of any kind.  This life is a test.  Not an academic test.  But a test of our own decision-making powers, to see whether they will keep their second estate.  It is a life-long process and a learning experience.  We are godlings trying to find our way.  Obeying prophetic counsel just to be obeying it is not a true exercise of our free agency. Such are unprofitable servants (cf. Parable of the Talents).

[The Nehor]

Obeying prophetic counsel just to be obeying it is not a true exercise of our free agency. Such are unprofitable servants (cf. Parable of the Talents).

 

I disrespectfully disagree.

[Robert F. Smith]

she should be excommunicated, according to mormon doctrine, and precedent.

Not your decision.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

 

...................

"it is not our doctrines alone that we should be united, but in practice and especially in our business affairs."

1

Hear, hear!!

[Hamba Tuhan]

Hear, hear!!

 

Yeah, I really like this statement. Imagine where we could be today as a people if the Saints then had been 'unprofitable' enough to actually honour and obey this prophetic request!

[Scott Lloyd]

I am not sure what you were concocting, and it may well be that the current or past LDS Prophet (or any prophet for that matter) sorrows that his counsel is not followed 100%, just as the Pope in Rome may be in sorrow that the Italian people do not follow his counsel on a host of fundamental principles (abortion, contraceptives, etc., are legal in Italy).  People in a democracy have the power to decide such matters themselves.

 

I do hope that LDS prophets are realistic enough to understand that not all LDS attend Church, not all keep the Word of Wisdom, not all are endowed, not all are tithe-payers, not all do their assigned home-teaching, etc.  Brother Brigham used to sorrow that the LDS people lived largely on "borrowed light," instead of making their own decisions.  His counsel to them was to seek the witness of the Holy Spirit on any matter of any kind.  This life is a test.  Not an academic test.  But a test of our own decision-making powers, to see whether they will keep their second estate.  It is a life-long process and a learning experience.  We are godlings trying to find our way.  Obeying prophetic counsel just to be obeying it is not a true exercise of our free agency. Such are unprofitable servants (cf. Parable of the Talents).

But not fully understanding the purpose of prophetic counsel is hardly a good excuse for disregarding or disobeying it. One of the purposes of commandments is to develop faith.

Adam, when asked why he offered sacrifices said, " I know not, save The Lord commandedeth me." The understanding did come to him, but only after he had made the effort and exercised the faith to obey.

Jesus promised that if anyone will follow His teaching. That person will come to know it is of God.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

Thank you.

 

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

Elder Chrisstofferson chooses his words carefully.  

 

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. That being said, it’s important to remember a few things that people don’t always understand or remember. And that is that homosexual behavior is not the unforgiveable sin. The atonement and repentance can bring full forgiveness there, and peace. And secondly, I’d say though we don’t know everything we know enough to be able to say that same-sex attraction in and of itself is not a sin. The feeling, the desire is not classified the same as homosexual behavior itself. And the third point I would mention is that when people have those desires and same-sex attractions, our attitude is “stay with us.” I think that’s what God is saying “Stay with me.” And that’s what we want to say in the Church: “Stay with us.” Let’s work together on this and find friendship and commonality and brotherhood and sisterhood, here more than anywhere. It’s important that there be love, and that there be hope. Love is not to say acceptance or endorsement, but it is to say inclusion and not ostracism. We want to be with you and work together.

 

 

Notice he says it is a trangression.  Never calls it sin.    I think in our faith we make a an effort to define those differently.  Adam transgressed but didn't sin

 

Children can error and make transgressions but are not accountable to sin

 

I simply find it intertesting that he never chooses to call it sin.  Again I am not arguing that it is not sin, only I find Elder Christofferson to be careful in how he chooses his words.

[Bikeemikey]

Yes, please, preach smooth things unto us instead.

There is a large group in the church that accept the churches stance in SSM but believe that such a stance should not have protected and preferential status in state or federal legislation.

I fully support the churches doctrinal opposition on SSM, as well as the right of the church to engage in internal discipline for church members who violate SSM & SSA standards.

I fail to see where this requires me as a member of the church to attempt to change or impact legislation so that my personal and private religious views are protected and normalized in legislation.

I also fail to see how a change in national marriage laws can, is or will impact doctrine. Our doctrine is clear. Legal does not make something right. SSM is opposed to our doctrine.

For me SSM is just not a threat. Perhaps as many as 10% of people have SSA. Some data is more suggestive of sub 5%. This is only ever going to impact a few percent of the country. In my opinion it is a giant distraction from other more gross sins and moral decay represented by the growing inequality around the world and the the USA.

Inequality is mentioned as grievous sin-concern with about a 10-1 ratio (compared to sexual morality) in the BOM as a sign of societal decline. Seems like we are preaching opposition to an issue that at most will impact a few percent of people and remaining silent on an issue that is already impacting 10 times that many in the USA.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[teddyaware]

Elder Chrisstofferson chooses his words carefully.  

 

 

Notice he says it is a trangression.  Never calls it sin.    I think in our faith we make a an effort to define those differently.  Adam transgressed but didn't sin

 

Children can error and make transgressions but are not accountable to sin

 

I simply find it intertesting that he never chooses to call it sin.  Again I am not arguing that it is not sin, only I find Elder Christofferson to be careful in how he chooses his words.

A simple word search of the General Conference addresses will unmistakably demonstrate that the General Authorities often use the word transgression as an exact synonym for the word sin, just as Elder Christofferson did in the above quote. Is this is an example of wishful thinking by means of word parsing?

Edited August 23, 2014 by teddyaware

[Duncan]

I'm just going to throw these two ideas out there. In my reading of the Bible, because modern day scriptures are silent on SSA and SSM, the Bible doesn't say much if anything on SSM. Paul talks about not lusting but nothing about loving. if the standard works are just that the standard shouldn\t we throw out any ideas, doctrines etc. if they don't measure up to what is already revealed?

 

 “It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they read and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don’t care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator—please note that one exception—you may immediately say, ‘Well, that is his own idea.’ And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard church works (I think that is why we call them ‘standard’—it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false, regardless of the position of the man who says it.” Pres. Harold B. Lee (The Place of the Living Prophet, Seer, and Revelator [address delivered to seminary and institute of religion faculty, 8 July 1964], p. 14.)

 

So, based on this quotation Pres. Monson's word is the word but but it sounds to me that even someone who is a Prophet can contradict the scriptures and we can disregard it.

 

The other idea I have why does God allow SSA? what purpose does it serve in the eternal scheme of things? is he indifferent to it, is he hateful of it, it's here so he must see some reason for it. Also I don't know if I buy into the idea that SSA will change in the next life if you accept the idea that the same spirit that posesses your body when you die will be the clincher for eternity. Is someone with SSA supposed to want to change, not like this condition they are in yet supposed to love God and love themselves-how do you love yourself but want to change but knowing you are unable to in this life? 

[Hamba Tuhan]

I'm just going to throw these two ideas out there. In my reading of the Bible, because modern day scriptures are silent on SSA and SSM, the Bible doesn't say much if anything on SSM.

 

It would be anachronistic for our scriptures to deal with issues of same-sex attraction and/or marriage since the notions of sexual identity and specifically homo- and heterosexuality are late 19th-century social constructs. The only place to turn for inspired guidance, therefore, is recent and current prophets ... which thankfully we have.

[Duncan]

It would be anachronistic for our scriptures to deal with issues of same-sex attraction and/or marriage since the notions of sexual identity and specifically homo- and heterosexuality are late 19th-century social constructs. The only place to turn for inspired guidance, therefore, is recent and current prophets ... which thankfully we have.

 

 

very true but can we extend that idea to other issues of the day? Would that mean that prophets can say whatever they want and not to necessarily have the support of the scriptures? we throw out ideas of Pres. Young and sometimes Joseph Smith and others, why not Pres. Monson?

[Hamba Tuhan]

very true but can we extend that idea to other issues of the day? Would that mean that prophets can say whatever they want and not to necessarily have the support of the scriptures? we throw out ideas of Pres. Young and sometimes Joseph Smith and others, why not Pres. Monson?

 

Who is this 'we'?

[Duncan]

Who is this 'we'?

 

we, like members today don't espouse Adam-God, various ideas about Blacks and i'd imagine the idea of Joseph Smith's that the world is a composite of other worlds. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

we, like members today don't espouse Adam-God, various ideas about Blacks and i'd imagine the idea of Joseph Smith's that the world is a composite of other worlds. 

 

And to take your first example, who has provided clarity for us regarding 'Adam-God'?

[SmileyMcGee]

It would be anachronistic for our scriptures to deal with issues of same-sex attraction and/or marriage since the notions of sexual identity and specifically homo- and heterosexuality are late 19th-century social constructs. The only place to turn for inspired guidance, therefore, is recent and current prophets ... which thankfully we have.

Wait, you don't think that SSA existed in biblical times? Are we talking semantics here or are you saying that homosexuality did not exist until the 19th century?

[Duncan]

And to take your first example, who has provided clarity for us regarding 'Adam-God'?

 

Pres. Kimball, Elder McConkie, Elder Pratt. But How are to know if Some Prophet someday won't go over what is said today? What ideas can we throw out because of the scriptures? 

[Jeanne]

Elder Chrisstofferson chooses his words carefully.  

 

 

Notice he says it is a trangression.  Never calls it sin.    I think in our faith we make a an effort to define those differently.  Adam transgressed but didn't sin

 

Children can error and make transgressions but are not accountable to sin

 

I simply find it intertesting that he never chooses to call it sin.  Again I am not arguing that it is not sin, only I find Elder Christofferson to be careful in how he chooses his words.

Ouch..this means I have to completely read all the scriptures to understand who really sins.  Surely Joseph Smith transgressed alot..but at what point would it be a sin to lie and deceive your wife?

[ksfisher]

Elder Chrisstofferson chooses his words carefully.  

 

 

Notice he says it is a trangression.  Never calls it sin.    I think in our faith we make a an effort to define those differently.  Adam transgressed but didn't sin

 

Children can error and make transgressions but are not accountable to sin

 

I simply find it intertesting that he never chooses to call it sin.  Again I am not arguing that it is not sin, only I find Elder Christofferson to be careful in how he chooses his words.

The scriptures do, at times, use sin and transgression as synonyms, as in Mosiah 2:33:

For behold, there is a wo pronounced upon him who listeth to obey that spirit; for if he listeth to obey him, and remaineth and dieth in his sins, the same drinketh damnation to his own soul; for he receiveth for his wages an everlasting punishment, having transgressed the law of God contrary to his own knowledge.

Mosiah 2:33

And Eldet Tingey from the April 2006 conference:

"When we transgress the law, we sin."

The Great Plan of Happiness

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/04/the-great-plan-of-happiness?lang=eng

There are other examples, but these two are the most clear. I would use the two terms differantly, but that usuage does not seem to be consistant enough to make the distinction you are looking for.

[smac97]

A simple word search of the General Conference addresses will unmistakably demonstrate that the General Authorities often use the word transgression as an exact synonym for the word sin, just as Elder Christofferson did in the above quote. Is this is an example of wishful thinking by means of word parsing?

Elder Oaks has had some interesting thoughts on distinguishing/conflating "sin" and "transgression":

https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-student-manual/chapter-7-2-nephi-1-3?lang=eng

http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=566

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/10/sins-and-mistakes?lang=eng

And here is a thoughtful blog post about "sin" and "transgression" in the context of SSA:

http://mormonmatters.org/2008/06/26/sin-vs-transgression-striking-the-hornets-nest/

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

There is a large group in the church that accept the churches stance in SSM but believe that such a stance should not have protected and preferential status in state or federal legislation.

I fully support the churches doctrinal opposition on SSM, as well as the right of the church to engage in internal discipline for church members who violate SSM & SSA standards.

I fail to see where this requires me as a member of the church to attempt to change or impact legislation so that my personal and private religious views are protected and normalized in legislation.

I also fail to see how a change in national marriage laws can, is or will impact doctrine. Our doctrine is clear. Legal does not make something right. SSM is opposed to our doctrine.

For me SSM is just not a threat. Perhaps as many as 10% of people have SSA. Some data is more suggestive of sub 5%. This is only ever going to impact a few percent of the country. In my opinion it is a giant distraction from other more gross sins and moral decay represented by the growing inequality around the world and the the USA.

Inequality is mentioned as grievous sin-concern with about a 10-1 ratio (compared to sexual morality) in the BOM as a sign of societal decline. Seems like we are preaching opposition to an issue that at most will impact a few percent of people and remaining silent on an issue that is already impacting 10 times that many in the USA.

I am curious about your perspective on this talk by Elder Oaks: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/02/balancing-truth-and-tolerance?lang=eng&query=legislating+morality

Here's the relevant excerpt (bold emphasis added):

When believers enter the public square to try to influence the making or the administration of laws motivated by their beliefs, they should apply some different principles.

First, they must seek the inspiration of the Lord to be selective and wise in choosing which true principles they seek to promote by law or executive action.

...

Second, when believers promote their positions in the public square, they should always be tolerant of the opinions and positions of those who do not share their beliefs.

...

Third, believers should not be deterred by the familiar charge that they are trying to legislate morality. Many areas of the law are based on Judeo-Christian morality and have been for centuries. Western civilization is based on morality and cannot exist without it. As the second U.S. president, John Adams, declared: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bikeemikey]

I am curious about your perspective on this talk by Elder Oaks: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/02/balancing-truth-and-tolerance?lang=eng&query=legislating+morality

Here's the relevant excerpt (bold emphasis added):

Thanks,

-Smac

It's a decent talk.

I always seek personal inspiration and revelation when making my voting decisions.

I always try to be respectful of others.

I am not deterred by the objection that I am attempting to legislate morality. I am however very much concerned with the sort of mortality that is being legislated.

Oakes is obviously fine with legislating certain forms of morality, even when such (immoral) actions are based on mutual consen of parties involved.

I feel very strongly, and believe this is a belief that has been confirmed to be via religious confirmation, that the only sort of morality govt should be involved in legislating is based on consent and the violation of property rights and personal choice.

In other respects the govt should treat citizens equally irrespective of their private behavior.

Law should be concerned protecting equally the right to all-any action that does not violate another's property, violate contractual obligations, or violate others consent.

Of people wish to marry who ever why does the govt get involved? If there is a religion that is willing to perform the marriage who cares. As for special preference for married people, that just does not make sense to me. Provide the tax advantage based on how the marriage performs, not whether there is a marriage, otherwise you are saying we are willing to provide tax benefit to useless relationships of they are heterosexual but not good ones of they are homosexual.

It is time to move past the fight about SSM and look at how to restructure tax benefits in away that makes a large portion of This debate irrelevant.

[Scott Lloyd]

Elder Chrisstofferson chooses his words carefully.  

 

 

Notice he says it is a trangression.  Never calls it sin.    I think in our faith we make a an effort to define those differently.  Adam transgressed but didn't sin

 

Children can error and make transgressions but are not accountable to sin

 

I simply find it intertesting that he never chooses to call it sin.  Again I am not arguing that it is not sin, only I find Elder Christofferson to be careful in how he chooses his words.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Elder Christofferson chose his words carefully.

 

I believe that Elder Oaks, who is also featured prominently on that website (mormonsandgays.org), chose his words carefully.

 

Both men have a prominent background in the law and, as such, are accustomed through their training, skill, experience and temperament to being precise in their selection and use of words.

 

Furthermore, the entire website strikes me as being very carefully prepared and presented. While not backing away from principle or from the laws of God, it conveys compassion toward our brothers and sisters with SSA, the sort of compassion our Church leaders admonish us to have, the sort of compassion that unfortunately was the target of unwise and uncharitable mockery in the Jana Riess post.

 

I think we should beware of quibbling over specific terminology to the point we blunt the effect of the overall message. Like a dull knife, a blunted message can do more harm than good.

 

The thrust of Elder Christofferson's words that I quoted above can be easily ascertained, as they came in a Q & A response to the question, "Is the Church softening its position regarding same sex attraction?"

 

As has been quoted here, he was unequivocal in saying there should be no expectation that the Church has changed or is changing its position, that homosexual behavior is contrary to the doctrines relating to God's plan for His children, and (tellingly, in the context of this discussion) that it has been and always will be.

 

I see Elder Christofferson's use of the term "transgression" as being in line with how the Church itself is wont to use it in its publications and instructional materials.

 

For example, here are a few occurrences of the word in the Church encyclopedic publication True to the Faith (emphasis is mine):

 

Church Discipline

 

... district presidents have a responsibility to help members overcome transgression through repentance. The most serious transgressions such as serious violations of civil law, spouse abuse, child abuse, adultery, fornication, rape, and incest, often require formal Church discipline.

 

Repentance

 

... Serious transgressions, such as violations of the law of chastity, may jeopardize your membership in the Church. Therefore you need to confess these sins to both the Lord and His representatives in the Church. This is done under the care of your bishop or branch president and possibly your stake or mission president, who serve as watchmen and judges in the Church.

 

Hell

 

Latter-day revelations speak of hell in at least two ways. First, it is another name for spirit prison a place in the postmortal spirit world for those who have "died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets" (D&C 138:32).

 

Edited August 23, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Bikeemikey]

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Elder Christofferson chose his words carefully.

I believe that Elder Oaks, who is also featured prominently on that website (mormonsandgays.org), chose his words carefully.

Both men have a prominent background in the law and, as such, are accustomed through their training, skill, experience and temperament to being precise in their selection and use of words.

Furthermore, the entire website strikes me as being very carefully prepared and presented. While not backing away from principle or from the laws of God, it conveys compassion toward our brothers and sisters with SSA, the sort of compassion our Church leaders admonish us to have, the sort of compassion that unfortunately was the target of unwise and uncharitable mockery in the Jana Riess post.

I think we should beware of quibbling over specific terminology to the point we blunt the effect of the overall message. Like a dull knife, a blunted message can do more harm than good.

The thrust of Elder Christofferson's words that I quoted above can be easily ascertained, as they came in a Q & A response to the question, "Is the Church softening its position regarding same sex attraction?"

As has been quoted here, he was unequivocal in saying there should be no expectation that the Church has changed or is changing its position, that homosexual behavior is contrary to the doctrines relating to God's plan for His children, and (tellingly, in the context of this discussion) that it has been and always will be.

I see Elder Christofferson's use of the term "transgression" as being in line with how the Church itself is wont to use it in its publications and instructional materials.

For example, here are a few occurrences of the word in the Church encyclopedic publication True to the Faith (emphasis is mine):

I think you are correct here also.