Jump to content

President Nelson Press Conference - LGBT Issues


Recommended Posts

My husband was literally just telling me about the news conference (I haven't watched it yet) and he said that while it started out a bit awkward that he felt like president Nelson was inspired in his answers, especially in regards to LGBT issues.

I guess I'll have to watch it to see how it comes across to me.

 

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, cinepro said:

 

Why couldn't they just say something clear and unambiguous?  Was the question that unexpected that it caught them off-guard?

 

Sounds like they are approaching the press conference as teachers first, speaking in general terms.  May be out of habit, may be intentional.

Link to comment

TBH the whole press conference seemed goofy but then again I haven't ever been in a position like that where you have to answer questions on live TV. I think, if anything, they learned that these issues won't go away and solving 21st century issues with 20th century methods don't work. I thought the question about Brazil was dumb, like the future there is like anywhere else in the world? like, what was that guy wanting them to say? the Church is planning on building a giant rollercoaster out of marshmallows? 

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Why couldn't they just say something clear and unambiguous?  Was the question that unexpected that it caught them off-guard?

What was unclear? There's a place for everyone but you have to follow the revealed commandments. 

That said Elder Eyring's face during the question was priceless. LOL. I thought the way Elder Oaks entered in was a bit weird. I think they knew the question was coming  and were a bit anxious about it. However I didn't find a problem with the answers.

As others said I would read too much into it. I'd hate to be in such a setting having to answer questions.

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, cinepro said:

First, let me say that the press conference was perhaps the first time I've ever heard President Nelson speak off-the-cuff (i.e. not reading prepared remarks), and I was not instilled with confidence.  I enjoyed listening to the first presentation where the First Presidency was introduced, but my heart sank when listening to the Press Conference afterward.

Specifically, the first question and response, heard at 2:05:10 here:

I listened to this driving in to work today, and I just couldn't believe it.  The question was "how do you plan to approach LGBT issues?"

The response doesn't appear to be in the same universe as the question, other than them both being in English.  They don't mention "LGBT issues", or homosexuality, or same-sex attraction, or anything specific to the question.  They respond using highly coded and contextualized words that someone familiar with LDS doctrines might be able to interpret, but how is that the proper response in a press conference?

My interpretation of President Nelson's and Oaks' response is that they said this:

"Thanks Brady.  No changes expected.  Homosexual actions are still considered a sin, and members of the Church will still be expected to resist those impulses.  We also still oppose same-sex marriage.  We believe this is how God's plan works, and will lead them to happiness in the eternities even though it may be painful here on Earth.  We love and pray for all those with same-sex attractions, but there won't be any changes on this."

Why couldn't they just say something clear and unambiguous?  Was the question that unexpected that it caught them off-guard?

 

One thing that kind of annoyed me about the questions, is that a good deal seem to assume that it is up to these men to change Church doctrine. I don't think it can be expected for these men to change God's law in effect for 3500 years plus. I suppose there are a few associated policies the Church may change, like those regarding the minor children of gays, but otherwise the press shouldn't be expecting a change in Church doctrine just because a new Presidency comes in. It's not exactly like voting for president of the United States.

Rather than say "no change expected" this new Presidency wishes to make the Church as welcoming as possible while making it clear they don't expect God's law to change, so in that respect I think that is what they tried to talk to. I've never viewed Nelson as a word-smith, and he confirmed that in as somewhat rambling answer, but for those who don't like his style, I would think they won't be concerned about it for 20 years or the like.

Link to comment

I have a friend who grew up in the Church, quit some years ago but she was saying why would anyone want to come back to the Church if it is basically the same when they left, come back to what? if the reason they left is still there then, why come back?

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Considering the huge changes that have been made regarding how the Church approaches LGBT issues over the last few decades, there is probably much more latitude than we might assume.

But if the doctrine is clear and it isn't going to be changed, what a great opportunity for our Prophet to clearly declare the doctrine regarding homosexuality! 

I understand the PR principle of answering the question you wish they had asked, but apparently President Nelson wished Reporter Brady had asked "President Nelson, does God love his children?  And how important is it to keep the commandments?  And will keeping the commandments bring me joy?"

I got the sense that there was a difference between love and the law, but shouldn't they be tied together? God hates me so he gave me laws to prove that hate? if you feel guilty at church then you're doing it right? I don't get it! but how does God show me he loves me, especially if I were LGBTQ? 

Link to comment
18 hours ago, Duncan said:

I have a friend who grew up in the Church, quit some years ago but she was saying why would anyone want to come back to the Church if it is basically the same when they left, come back to what? if the reason they left is still there then, why come back?

Yet, people do come back to the same Church that they left.  Who changed - the Church or the individual?  For those who leave due to choosing the ways of the world - sin - then their heart changes, they change and return to the Light they once knew well.  For those who leave for reasons of intellectual disagreements due to history, etc., they come to realize what is important and what is not or they find answers to their questions that make things clear again.  

God forbid that the Church one day chooses to run after every tinkling cymbal of complaint and whine.  

The Holy Spirit is a remarkable teacher - seldom does it bust into one's life, grab your heart and force you to see the Light. Rather, it waits patiently until an individual is ready to answer the door where God has been waiting to be re-invited in to one's heart. 

Edited by Storm Rider
Link to comment
2 hours ago, cinepro said:

First, let me say that the press conference was perhaps the first time I've ever heard President Nelson speak off-the-cuff (i.e. not reading prepared remarks), and I was not instilled with confidence.  I enjoyed listening to the first presentation where the First Presidency was introduced, but my heart sank when listening to the Press Conference afterward.

Specifically, the first question and response, heard at 2:05:10 here:

I listened to this driving in to work today, and I just couldn't believe it.  The question was "how do you plan to approach LGBT issues?"

The response doesn't appear to be in the same universe as the question, other than them both being in English.  They don't mention "LGBT issues", or homosexuality, or same-sex attraction, or anything specific to the question.  They respond using highly coded and contextualized words that someone familiar with LDS doctrines might be able to interpret, but how is that the proper response in a press conference?

My interpretation of President Nelson's and Oaks' response is that they said this:

"Thanks Brady.  No changes expected.  Homosexual actions are still considered a sin, and members of the Church will still be expected to resist those impulses.  We also still oppose same-sex marriage.  We believe this is how God's plan works, and will lead them to happiness in the eternities even though it may be painful here on Earth.  We love and pray for all those with same-sex attractions, but there won't be any changes on this."

Why couldn't they just say something clear and unambiguous?  Was the question that unexpected that it caught them off-guard?

 

I suspect that many of us would have like to have heard a direct response to the question. However, I have found that most humans don't really enjoy a direct answer to questions and absolutely never does a politician answer with a straight answer because they have learned that people don't want that type of response.  

It is my guess that the Brethren were not interested in having the event turned into a monotonous, unending pursuit by the press on why the evil Mormon empire does not "love" the poor LGBT community. What they gave the LGBT community and the press is an unequivocal response that God loves them, the prophet and his apostles love them and that God has provided the path of happiness for each of his children to follow.  Not surprisingly, there was no argument, no rebuttal unending, just a nod of the head and moved along.  

Link to comment
Just now, Storm Rider said:

Yet, people do come back to the same Church that they left.  Who changed - the Church or the individual?  For those who leave due to choosing the ways of the world - sin - then their heart changes, they change and return to the Light they once knew well.  For those who leave for reasons of intellectual disagreements due to history, etc., they come to realize what is important and what is not or they find answers to their questions that make things clear again.  

God forbid that the Church one day choose to run after every tinkling cymbal of complaint and whine.  

The Holy Spirit is a remarkable teacher - seldom does it bust into one's life, grab your heart and force you to see the Light. Rather, it waits patiently until the individual is ready to answer the door where God has been waiting to be re-invited in to one's heart. 

Assuming people felt the light at Church, or just came and went through the motions without the motions going through them. We all know that some issues don't go away, there have been gay people for centuries, "the poor you will always have", the STP principle (cliques) mind you one friend said they can't ever recall feeling the spirit at Church but because they have felt the spirit they come to Church

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Yet, people do come back to the same Church that they left.  Who changed - the Church or the individual?  For those who leave due to choosing the ways of the world - sin - then their heart changes, they change and return to the Light they once knew well.  For those who leave for reasons of intellectual disagreements due to history, etc., they come to realize what is important and what is not or they find answers to their questions that make things clear again.  

God forbid that the Church one day choose to run after every tinkling cymbal of complaint and whine.  

The Holy Spirit is a remarkable teacher - seldom does it bust into one's life, grab your heart and force you to see the Light. Rather, it waits patiently until the individual is ready to answer the door where God has been waiting to be re-invited in to one's heart. 

Reverse it Storm, what if you were told you cannot love your wife but a man instead, now tell me how that would go over. Any empathy at all at their plight? What kind of God indeed would do this to somone, in Pres. Packer's words. Yet it has happened. And clearly it's not always a choice to be gay but when it's not, can you see how it would feel. Or how would it feel to be told that you mustn't act on that love? No marriage, family nothing. Just go along and then you will be changed in the afterlife. Does that sound fun, knowing you would be married to a man? See how this works, my little made up scenario?

I think this is a test for all humankind. Just as God put several ethnicities out there. He is behind the gay children as well. Now is the test on how they will be treated, too bad humankind did a horrible job with those of a different color. 

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, cinepro said:

First, let me say that the press conference was perhaps the first time I've ever heard President Nelson speak off-the-cuff (i.e. not reading prepared remarks), and I was not instilled with confidence.  I enjoyed listening to the first presentation where the First Presidency was introduced, but my heart sank when listening to the Press Conference afterward.

Specifically, the first question and response, heard at 2:05:10 here:

I listened to this driving in to work today, and I just couldn't believe it.  The question was "how do you plan to approach LGBT issues?"

The response doesn't appear to be in the same universe as the question, other than them both being in English.  They don't mention "LGBT issues", or homosexuality, or same-sex attraction, or anything specific to the question.  They respond using highly coded and contextualized words that someone familiar with LDS doctrines might be able to interpret, but how is that the proper response in a press conference?

My interpretation of President Nelson's and Oaks' response is that they said this:

"Thanks Brady.  No changes expected.  Homosexual actions are still considered a sin, and members of the Church will still be expected to resist those impulses.  We also still oppose same-sex marriage.  We believe this is how God's plan works, and will lead them to happiness in the eternities even though it may be painful here on Earth.  We love and pray for all those with same-sex attractions, but there won't be any changes on this."

Why couldn't they just say something clear and unambiguous?  Was the question that unexpected that it caught them off-guard?

 

Meh. I kinda get your paraphrase, but I also think there is value in resisting the dominant narrative by refusing to directly address the false construction of "LGBT issues" and focusing on the perspective of eternal truth. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, cinepro said:

First, let me say that the press conference was perhaps the first time I've ever heard President Nelson speak off-the-cuff (i.e. not reading prepared remarks), and I was not instilled with confidence.  I enjoyed listening to the first presentation where the First Presidency was introduced, but my heart sank when listening to the Press Conference afterward.

Specifically, the first question and response, heard at 2:05:10 here:

I listened to this driving in to work today, and I just couldn't believe it.  The question was "how do you plan to approach LGBT issues?"

The response doesn't appear to be in the same universe as the question, other than them both being in English.  They don't mention "LGBT issues", or homosexuality, or same-sex attraction, or anything specific to the question.  They respond using highly coded and contextualized words that someone familiar with LDS doctrines might be able to interpret, but how is that the proper response in a press conference?

My interpretation of President Nelson's and Oaks' response is that they said this:

"Thanks Brady.  No changes expected.  Homosexual actions are still considered a sin, and members of the Church will still be expected to resist those impulses.  We also still oppose same-sex marriage.  We believe this is how God's plan works, and will lead them to happiness in the eternities even though it may be painful here on Earth.  We love and pray for all those with same-sex attractions, but there won't be any changes on this."

Why couldn't they just say something clear and unambiguous?  Was the question that unexpected that it caught them off-guard?

It was evident from the way the press framed their questions -- how will the Church address [you name it: LGBT, millennials, women, Mexico, Brazil, etc.] from a heavily social and economic perspective -- that the world has a tendency to divide people into interest and special interest groups. But the responses generally reflected the attitude that the Lord sees and loves His children as individuals, and the same, and that we all share more issues in common (natural disasters, life challenges, etc.), whether facing them or helping others who do. They answered the questions as ministers would be expected to, and from the basic principles that drive any further expounding.

I would love to see a critique of how the reporters carried out their responsibilities! :) Fumbling, bad hair (for a TV guy!) and a frazzled neurotic (yes, I mean appearances only!).

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Duncan said:

I have a friend who grew up in the Church, quit some years ago but she was saying why would anyone want to come back to the Church if it is basically the same when they left, come back to what? if the reason they left is still there then, why come back?

Maybe they changed? Happens.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

I suspect that many of us would have like to have heard a direct response to the question. However, I have found that most humans don't really enjoy a direct answer to questions and absolutely never does a politician answer with a straight answer because they have learned that people don't want that type of response.  

It is my guess that the Brethren were not interested in having the event turned into a monotonous, unending pursuit by the press on why the evil Mormon empire does not "love" the poor LGBT community. What they gave the LGBT community and the press is an unequivocal response that God loves them, the prophet and his apostles love them and that God has provided the path of happiness for each of his children to follow.  Not surprisingly, there was no argument, no rebuttal unending, just a nod of the head and moved along.  

The press conference was limited to a certain number of questions from assigned reporters, 5 local, one national, and two international iirc.  It doesn't seem likely that they would have all focused on asking questions about LGBT relations with the Church if they had answered the question directly.

I am not saying they did wrong, just pointing out the situation was significantly controlled from the beginning to prevent the event from turning into a free for all.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Duncan said:

I have a friend who grew up in the Church, quit some years ago but she was saying why would anyone want to come back to the Church if it is basically the same when they left, come back to what? if the reason they left is still there then, why come back?

Maybe the reason they left wasn't entirely "there." Maybe they've changed.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Reverse it Storm, what if you were told you cannot love your wife but a man instead, now tell me how that would go over. Any empathy at all at their plight? What kind of God indeed would do this to somone, in Pres. Packer's words. Yet it has happened. And clearly it's not always a choice to be gay but when it's not, can you see how it would feel. Or how would it feel to be told that you mustn't act on that love? No marriage, family nothing. Just go along and then you will be changed in the afterlife. Does that sound fun, knowing you would be married to a man? See how this works, my little made up scenario?

I think this is a test for all humankind. Just as God put several ethnicities out there. He is behind the gay children as well. Now is the test on how they will be treated, too bad humankind did a horrible job with those of a different color. 

 

It would not go over well or be fun but you obey. If special circumstances merit exceptions in the commandments God should have said something.

Humanity may not be super tolerant but you have to remember that tribalism is basically built into our DNA. While I commend the grand experiment the United States and other nations are trying to be it is defiance against our very natures. We did poorly because the deck was stacked to make it so. That is not an excuse for not trying to overcome these biases but tolerance and acceptance are not humanity’s genetic defaults. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Not sure how you wanted him to answer the question. It seems reaffirming Gods love for all is vital

If God woke up tomorrow and decided he hated gay people and wanted them to be miserable, would he need to tell President Nelson to change any of the current doctrines or policies in order to make them feel more hated and miserable?

Edited by cinepro
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, cinepro said:

If God woke up tomorrow and decided he hated gay people and wanted them to be miserable, would he need to tell President Nelson to change any of the current doctrines or policies in order to make them feel more hated and miserable?

I do think there is a significant difference between telling someone they are a child of God and are loved and telling them God hates them and is dooming them eternally to misery.

It may not be interpreted as different by some.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...