Jump to content

President Nelson Press Conference - LGBT Issues


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

I hope you are right and that a simple, direct response would have sufficed. However, the entire LGBT issue has become a cause celebre.   If a few of the local newspapers had not followed up with a series of questions, then the national newspaper certainly would have.  I just think that their response - one that demanded that the listener connect the dots - clearly kept the common follow-up questions to a minimum.  

I am positive that they knew the question was coming and they discussed how best to handle it and remain in control of the discussion.

Link to comment
7 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 missed the news conference, so I just now listened to this part (from your link).  It's a pretty generic answer (didn't really address anything specific to the question as you state).  But, it was also an ok generic answer I think for the time and place (not much time to go into specifics, I guess).  Kind of disappointing, but understandable.

I do think it's a bit weird how Pres. Oaks interjected, but maybe that was the manner in which they answered other questions too?

Pres. Eyring really had a weird, open mouth look though....that was strange.  I honestly have not observed any of them when they are just speaking extemporaneously, so that was new for me.

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
6 hours 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. 

The commandments and God's teachings have been taught from the beginning.  Prophets have always been God's mouthpieces upon the earth.

First of all, the question of being gay or not is not black or white.  Said another way, human sexuality is malleable; there is a range of feelings, attractions, etc.  Based upon your hypothesis what are we to do with those individuals attracted to young people?  children? non-human entities?  The perversions of humanity as are wide and deep as the mind can chance to dream up.  Nothing is off limits and, based on your hypothesis, we should allow each and every one to experience their chosen relationships as long as "love' is present.  That is the very problem with this entire issue - it is strictly, totally, and completely carnal.

I believe that God has demanded self-discipline and self-control. Some things are completely verboten.  Is it easy for those that desire what has been forbidden?  Of course not!  Should we as individuals and society simply make allowances for anyone that is challenged by what is difficult.  "Oh, Johnny, this looks hard for you - okay, you get a pass and can ignore any of God's teachings that cause you a problem.  After all, mortal man has always known better than God what is best for mankind."  

You stated, "no marriage, family nothing."  First, there may be no marriage and I promise you that a gay single person would not be the first single person to have lived their life in such a manner.  Why are gays given the pass?  Because, because, well because they are gay and they need to have their sexual outlets?  Oh please, Tacenda, surely there must be a better argument!  They are not unique and never have been.

"They won't have a family"  Well, duh!  Two men cannot make kids together any better than two women can.  Homosexual relationships are sterile; they have never been anything but sterile.  The gay relationship is nothing but a shadow of a relationship between a man and a woman.  It is an imitation, a fake placebo of what has always been intended from the beginning. What your recommendation does is tell us to not only accept the counterfeit, but support it.  Why?

The test for all of humanity is to treat others as we would want to be treated - it does not matter what kinds of obstacles or challenges the individual has. The gay issue if irrevelant in this - they are not a special challenge for God's people.  Trying to make it sound like a gay person has it uniquely more difficult than every other human that has ever lived or ever will live is patently false. That argument has been created to engender pity based on a lie.  They are not unique and their challenges are not unique.  They were not the first humans to have it be difficult and they will certainly not be the last.  

Facile arguments do not work because they are based on lies and half-truths.  I only know of one being that has ever fought against God and taught humans that we should indulge in our carnal desires, let loose our commitments to obedience to God's commandments, and to do whatever feels good.  That being will live eternity in his own hell just as we humans will live in our own hell if we base our lives on a commitment to the arm of flesh.  The road is narrow - but it is not hidden.  It is clear for all to see, but many will fall away for a whole range of reasons.....and none of them unique and each of them spawned by Satan. 

 

Edited by Storm Rider
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

The commandments and teachings have been taught from the beginning.  Prophets has always been God's mouthpieces upon the earth.

First of all, the question of being gay or not is not black or white.  Said another way, human sexuality is malleable; there is a range of feelings, attractions, etc.  Based upon your hypothesis what are we to do with those individual attracted to young people?  children? non-human entities?  The perversions of humanity as are wide and deep as the mind can chance to dream up.  Nothing is off limits and, based on your hypothesis, we should allow each and everyone of them to experience their chosen relationships as long as "love' is present.  That is the very problem with this entire issue - it is strictly, totally, and completely carnal.

I believe that God has demanded self-discipline and self-control. Some things are completely verboten.  Is it easy for those that desire what has been forbidden?  Of course not!  Should we as individuals and society simply make allowances for anyone that is challenged by what is difficult.  "Oh, Johnny, this looks hard for you - okay, you get a pass and can ignore any of God's teachings that cause you a problem.  After all, mortal man has always known better than God what is best for mankind."  

You stated, "no marriage, family nothing."  First, there may be no marriage and I promise you that a gay single person would not be the first single person to have lived their life in such a manner.  Why are gays given the pass?  Because, because, well because they are gay and they need to have their sexual outlets?  Oh please, Tacenda, surely there must be a better argument!  They are not unique and never have been.

"They won't have a family"  Well, duh!  Two men cannot make kids together any better than two women can.  Homosexual relationships are sterile; they have never been anything but sterile.  The gay relationship is nothing but a shadow of a relationship between a man and a woman.  It is an imitation, a fake placebo of what has always been intended.

The test for all of humanity is to treat others as we would want to be treated.  Trying to make it sound like a gay person has it uniquely more difficult than every other human that has ever lived or ever will lived is patently false. That argument has been created to engender pity based on a lie.  They are not unique and their challenges are not unique.  They were not the first humans to have it be difficult and they will certainly not be the last.  

Facile arguments do not work because they are based on lies and half-truths.  I only know of one being that has ever fought against God and taught humans that we should indulge in our carnal desires, let loose our commitments to obedience to God's commandments, and to do whatever feels good.  That being will live eternity in his own hell just as we humans will live in our own hell based on commitments to the arm of flesh.  The road is narrow - but it is not hidden.  It is clear for all to see, but many will fall away for a whole range of reasons.....and none of them unique and each of them spawned by Satan. 

 

Nah...Satan didn't want to give us our free agency remember?

Kind of wish I hadn't brought this issue up with you, you're kind of the last person that I should have done that with on this board, not to be rude. And I'm sensing zero empathy. I wasted my time, and wasting it now. :(  P.S. Joseph Smith was attracted to young people, he didn't have children with all of his wives except Emma, that we know of. So what's up with that? What's right about saying it's a commandment to marry these particular women or women that have husbands already? So that's ok but a gay couple that want to be married in monogamy is wrong and they can adopt. I hate when you sort of indicated that gays are pedophiles by bringing up the other hypothesis, maybe you didn't mean to. Helen Mar Kimball was 14, a young person!

Link to comment

"Based upon your hypothesis what are we to do with those individual attracted to young people?  children? non-human entities?"

Tell them sex with those who can't consent or reciprocate is not mutual love.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Nah...Satan didn't want to give us our free agency remember?

Kind of wish I hadn't brought this issue up with you, you're kind of the last person that I should have done that with on this board, not to be rude. And I'm sensing zero empathy. I wasted my time, and wasting it now. :(  P.S. Joseph Smith was attracted to young people, he didn't have children with all of his wives except Emma, that we know of. So what's up with that? What's right about saying it's a commandment to marry these particular women or women that have husbands already? So that's ok but a gay couple that want to be married in monogamy is wrong and they can adopt. I hate when you sort of indicated that gays are pedophiles by bringing up the other hypothesis, maybe you didn't mean to. Helen Mar Kimball was 14, a young person!

Tacenda, I think you are wrong about my sense of empathy.  However, I have found very few voices that clearly respond to the rather mundane arguments offered by those that are sensitive to the Gay agenda.  

I think you might want to spend some time studying the gay lifestyle and their views on monogamy.  Monogamy is the exception and not the rule and there is a whole range of additional behaviors that you will begin to understand as destructive personally and societally.  

My intention was not to conflate those who choose a gay lifestyle and those who choose to have relationships with young people or children.  I think what I said is that humans are capable of all kinds of perversions and are only limited by the imaginations of humans.  

I think you are off base and not even rational to accuse Joseph of preferring young people.  Their ages ran the gamut in the same way that Brigham's did.  Regardless, why are you bringing up Joseph when the topic was LGBTQs?  This approach in a discussion tends to throw the entire discussion to the wind thinking that if we accuse one then we accuse all.  The rightness or wrongness of Joseph's teachings on eternal marriages has nothing in common with those who choose to live a gay lifestyle.  

Tacenda, you can run hot and cold on church topics and, at times, on God it seems.  You are not unique and we all have those adventures and struggles of faith.  However, on this gay topic I encourage you to spend more time studying it.  Come to understand their chosen lifestyles - those that appear wholesome, monogamous relationships to the other end of the spectrum.  Review the health challenges that are directly related to their sexual activities.  Spend time studying their thought process and ideas about what is a good society and what is not.  Study the activists - they are the ones guiding the movement.  Then let's talk again on what you have found and if you have changed your mind.  

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Calm said:

"Based upon your hypothesis what are we to do with those individual attracted to young people?  children? non-human entities?"

Tell them sex with those who can't consent or reciprocate is not mutual love.

I think that answer does well when we talk about children, but it begins to get very grey when it turns to young adults.  Who judges and why?  If all we need is the consent of society then the door is open for what was verboten yesterday becoming perfectly acceptable today. 

We have seen this in human societies before.  Ancient Sparta being only one example where a society agreed that sexual relationships between children and men was acceptable.  Sparta was the exception in human societies, but they still existed. 

The slippery slope of just needing society to declare something good and wholesome, like gay marriage, does not actually result in gay marriage being good and wholesome.  All it means is that humans have accepted this lifestyle at the present time.  Spiritual morality no longer plays a role and our society; it has been shackled by the enlightened Left and their secular agenda. They have long since instructed us that God has no place in the public square.  

Edited by Storm Rider
Link to comment

There was a time not long ago when one rarely ever heard about LBGT issues.  Now it seems that that I hear about it everywhere in the media ect.  I hope that the Church moves in a direction back to where it was a long time ago where it rarely comes up.  Hopefully with the new first presidency, we will get less LGBT and more other stuff that members might be more interested in.  If the church does not talk about gay marriage over the next 5 years, I would be happy with it. 

Link to comment
9 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:

 
Quote

 

Quote

Brady Mcombs with the Associated Press.  Good morning. Uh, President, how do you plan to approach LGBT issues?  This has obviously been a hot-button topic for many religions in recent years.


President Nelson:  Thank you, thank you Mr. Mcombs.  God loves his children.  And he wants them to have joy. We know that there are challenges with the commandments of God.  Challenges to be worthy to enter His holy presence when we're through with this mortal experience, and we're trying to help people find happiness and joy in this life and prepare for  their great possibilities in the world ahead.

God love his children, we love them, and there is a place for everyone who wishes to... do so, with, regardless of his challenges, to be with us in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

President Oaks: Surely, President, your statement of the love of God for all of his children is the pole-star for our relationship to every living person on this planet.  At the same time, because of God's love for his children, he has given us commandments, he has given us a plan, to achieve the highest blessings he has for His children. And as leaders of the Church, we have the responsibility to teach love, and also to teach the commandments of God, and the high destination that he has prescribed for his children, all of which is embodied in the Plan of Salvation...

President Nelson: ...so we've got the Love/Law balance here...

President Oaks: yeah, the "Love of the Lord" and the "Law of the Lord."

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 was listening to the press conference when my partner came into the room.  He wanted to know what I was watching.  I told him it was a press conference with the new president of the Mormon church.  He stood there watching it.  Honestly he could barely understand any of what they were saying.  He asked me if I knew what they were talking about.  I told him yes. because I was used to the language.  From an outsiders perspective, there is so much jargon and assumed understanding of terms and teachings, he really couldn't follow what was being said.  Everything seemed like double talk to him.  He asked me if they answered the question.  I told him, kind.of.  I had to interpret what was meant the best I could.  

It was not just this question, it was pretty much all of the questions.  When asked about all white male leadership, what my partner got out of the answer is that Mormons believe God wants an all white male American leadership and it was not their fault at all.  That seemed a bit ridiculous to him.  Does God only love white male Americans?  The whole "different flavor" comment made him wonder what planet these men are on.  Are blacks chocolate?  Indians strawberry?  He wasn't sure how anyone could possibly refer to different races as "flavors".  His comment was that clearly these guys don't deal with much diversity.  

He wanted to know why they called President Nelson president instead of prophet?  He was even more confused when I told him that the entire quorum of twelve are prophets.  Then he wanted to know what the quorum of the 12 was.  So I had to explain that they were the apostles.  So then he was confused whether they were apostles or prophets.  I told him they were both.    Is revelator a made up word?  No, John is referred to as a revelatory.  So what is the difference between a prophet and a revelatory.  What is a seer? That sounded to hm like something from Greek Mythology.  What's a 70?  And why can they be different races but not the apostles.    What are the Joseph Smith papers?  Are they like the book where his Great Great Grandfather is mentioned? (He meant the D&C.  He has a few family members that are still Mormon.  His family roots goes back to William C.  Bennett)

Granted not all of these are only "Mormon words" but a lot of them only Mormons commonly use to refer to leaders in the church.  He also thought that President Nelson must have picked all the people asking the questions because before answering any question he kept commenting about how well he knew them and/or their families.  I told him they were local reporters and he probably has had dealings with them before.  He did comment on how bright and alert President Nelson appeared for being 93.  That impressed him.  And he did feel like President Nelson had a good sense of humor.

I had a different take on the news conference, as I am sure most of you did.  I don't think for us that are used to the Mormon lingo realize how foreign so many of the terms we use are.  What was clear is that the church leaders are very aware of the important issues facing the church.  What also seemed clear is that they had no idea what to do to change any of the issues facing the church.  It looks like it is going to be a steer the same course.  But I really didn't expect anything different.  Honestly, I can't figure out how to deal with these issues that face the church today either.  I did wonder why the church did not invited more national news media to the event.  It seems like it should have been a more national newsworthy event.  Were the major networks and newspapers invited, but none of them felt it was of any great importance to hear the new leader of the Mormon Church?

Link to comment
14 hours ago, cinepro said:

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?

They answered the question that should have been asked.

Link to comment
17 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'm so glad they had a press conference, this was very rare and provided unique insight.  The new leaders absolutely sound like they are old men in their 80s and 90s.  Their responses were unpolished and they sounded very much like products of their generation and their ideas on topics like this LGBT topic or the role of women are very much in line with the thinking of their generation in general.

All that being said, I also was very disappointed in the answers on the LGBT question.  The response from Elder Nelson essentially equating the LGBT community as a "challenge" and talking about keeping the commandments.  This response was actually much less charitable than more crafted messages like what we see presented on the https://mormonandgay.lds.org/ website or other media where some form of outreach and nuance is attempted to this community.  

What this tells me is that Nelson and Oaks personally have more traditionally bigoted positions on this issue than what is getting approved for public consumption.  Throughout this press conference I felt like I was seeing the men behind the curtain, and just how regular people these guys are, with prejudices and backwards thinking from their generations.  Sure, they are sweet and nice and kind like many grandparents that I'm sure everyone has interacted with, and I appreciate that they want to serve and that they have some wisdom to share.  But if I had a choice between having someone their age running a huge institution, or a younger and more dynamic person, I would take the younger person every day of the week.  

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

What this tells me is that Nelson and Oaks personally have more traditionally bigoted positions on this issue than what is getting approved for public consumption.  

Passive voice. "what is getting approved for public consumption."

Translate for us. Who is tempering and taking the hard edges off of the bigots' stances, then? Keeping in mind that you are alleging that the bigots are the ones in charge with absolute say.

Are you saying that junior apostles are finessing their statements before they're ready for public consumption? Or nameless PR bureaucrats in the Church Office Building?

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, rongo said:

Passive voice. "what is getting approved for public consumption."

Translate for us. Who is tempering and taking the hard edges off of the bigots' stances, then? Keeping in mind that you are alleging that the bigots are the ones in charge with absolute say.

Are you saying that junior apostles are finessing their statements before they're ready for public consumption? Or nameless PR bureaucrats in the Church Office Building?

I don't know exactly how the process works and who all is involved in creating the correlated messages that get made public.  I imagine there are multiple layers of committees and approvals. 

I can only compare the outputs to the way they responded in the press conference yesterday, I believe there is a difference in tone and positioning that really didn't go over very well.  

Link to comment
11 hours 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?

Yes

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Danzo said:

Yes

This. 

cinepro asked: "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?"

He would need to change all of the things that the Church says and teaches that progressives probably regard as only PR-expedient lip service. If that were removed and we went all Westboro, that would be worse than the status quo, wouldn't it?

The thing is, even in the days of "A Letter to a Friend," the Brethren expressed (and meant) only love and compassion for our gay brothers and sisters. The sticking point is that to many gays and progressives, words and even sincere feelings don't matter as long as the Church still teaches that it is a sin. 

Link to comment
18 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.  They did okay.  Press conferences are off-the-cuff by design.  After years of watching Pres. Nelson in a composed, controlled, practice, polished atmosphere (that is, speaking in General Conference), the juxtaposition can amplify the awkwardness of ad hoc speaking.

Plus, Pres. Nelson was just ordained as the Presiding High Priest.  He is in charge of 16 million people.  He is the Lord's prophet now.  I have heard people express feelings of being overwhelmed when they are called as a bishop or a Relief Society president.  Imagine, then, the pressure he was feeling in his first moments functioning in his new calling.

So let's cut 'em some slack.  They'll get better.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
8 hours ago, california boy said:

I had a different take on the news conference, as I am sure most of you did.  I don't think for us that are used to the Mormon lingo realize how foreign so many of the terms we use are. 

I think that's true. Pres. Hinkley was much better at this sort of thing. But as others said, expecting someone that old to feel confident in a press conference I'd definitely be anxious about seems a bit much. They clearly want to answer questions but the problem with doing that is that any poorly chosen word will be leapt upon as evidence to attack you. That's why you see such huge differences in speaking practices when say a US president becomes president. This was true even for people used to speaking before an audience like Pres. Obama. But was extremely true for people like Bush. The only ones who manage to do well are those with a lot of media experience or innate skill like Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan. For everyone else it's extremely difficult. 

Clearly Nelson wanted to communicate acceptance and love, much like some of Uchtdorf's talks did. However he's just not good at it. And there's nothing wrong with that. 

As for the Mormon-speak I'd like to see a bit less of that. However let's be honest. The only people who care about that press conference are for the most part Mormons.

Link to comment

I was taken aback not just by the response to the LGBTQ question but nearly all of them.  I don't think they were able to address any of them specifically, at least with much clarity or thought.  I found it quite embarrassing really.  They seem really unable to deal with people, or effectively understand others, based off of the press part of it.  The announcement was also a bit of an embarrassment, as I see it.  None of yesterday's events were encouraging to me, quite the opposite.  

Link to comment
58 minutes ago, rongo said:

This. 

cinepro asked: "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?"

He would need to change all of the things that the Church says and teaches that progressives probably regard as only PR-expedient lip service. If that were removed and we went all Westboro, that would be worse than the status quo, wouldn't it?

The thing is, even in the days of "A Letter to a Friend," the Brethren expressed (and meant) only love and compassion for our gay brothers and sisters. The sticking point is that to many gays and progressives, words and even sincere feelings don't matter as long as the Church still teaches that it is a sin. 

It is interesting.  It seems like there is no reason to be anything other than the westboro baptism crew if the Church is concerned that many gays and progressives don't think it matters if the Church teaches it is a sin.  I think the generalized "it" is a big part of the problem. 

There are no homosexual members of the Church, they say.

if you're gay, you're an apostate, we're told.
 

How is that effectively different than a Westboro Baptist position?  

 

Link to comment

Me and my wife watched the press conference this morning.

Afterword my wife commented to me that the answers weren't what the questioners wanted to hear but what we needed to hear.  We were both quite impressed with the answers given. What also impressed us is how much President Nelson cared about the reporters personally.

Overall I was quite impressed and me and my wife felt confident these men were called of god.  

I think that like many teachings of Christ in the new testament. Those who were not ready for the message will get nothing out of it and those who were ready for the message got a lot out of it. 

I think this may be by design.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, rongo said:

This. 

cinepro asked: "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?"

He would need to change all of the things that the Church says and teaches that progressives probably regard as only PR-expedient lip service. If that were removed and we went all Westboro, that would be worse than the status quo, wouldn't it?

The thing is, even in the days of "A Letter to a Friend," the Brethren expressed (and meant) only love and compassion for our gay brothers and sisters. The sticking point is that to many gays and progressives, words and even sincere feelings don't matter as long as the Church still teaches that it is a sin. 

Notice I said "change any current doctrines or policies", and you responded by defending what the Church says and teaches.

As the cliche goes, "what you do yells so loud in my ears I can't hear what you say."

I can't speak for gay LDS, but if any of them didn't believe the LDS version of God "loves" them in spite of the protestations of President Nelson, I wouldn't blame them.

I think a lot of my disappointment in this is that as we've discussed previously on this board in the last 10 years, I see this as becoming a bigger and bigger wedge issue among younger LDS.  This isn't just a problem for the minuscule number of LDS or potential LDS who are actually gay.  It's a much bigger problem because we have generations of LDS growing up who aren't gay themselves, but will be much more accepting of homosexual behavior.  There will always be the faithful orthodox who support the Church's strict prohibition against any sexual activity, but it's the larger middle ground of youth that will start to be more and more accepting of homosexual activities in committed, monogamous, legally-married relationships that are going to be a problem for the future of the Church.

It would have been nice to see even the slightest awareness of these trends being acknowledged by the Prophet and leader of the Church, even if he doesn't have the foggiest idea of how to deal with it and intends to double-down on telling homosexuals that God loves them so much that he wants them to bottle up their sexual urges for the rest of their lives with the faith that they will be magically transformed into eternal heterosexuals in the hereafter.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/18/most-u-s-christian-groups-grow-more-accepting-of-homosexuality/

 

FT_15.12.15_homosexualityChristianGroups

Edited by cinepro
Link to comment

It's not ToastMasters. This kind of criticism is unbecoming. It has no impact on the truth of the doctrine, nor the direction of the Church. We all have weaknesses and strengths. Heaven forbid someone not come across that way. What a travesty. As far as the message itself: I have a hard time seeing those that are 'pro-LGBT-not-a-sin'  types as not being disingenuous, to some degree. Everyone knows what the answer will be, to a question like that. No. Nothing is changing. Nothing is ever changing. It isn't "like the Priesthood ban", or any other such policy change. It's a morality position that has been affirmed, and re-affirmed. It is eternal; from before the foundation of the world. Forever and ever. If they were to be more "direct", it would simply have been a shifted goal post to another gripe. The objective from this crowd is not to seek understanding and be reconciled to it. It's about objection until the Church fits their worldview.

Now, does this mean that we should cease to seek for any way that the Lord would have us show love and appreciation for our brothers and sisters, regardless their circumstances? No. And I hope no member of this Church would think otherwise. We should walk as the Savior walked, talked as He talked, and feel as He felt (within the mortal capacity we have).  Those of you who are criticizing the Prophet and his fellow servants might have had a hard time with some of the messages the Savior used(at times he left things to be digested). Some mentalities he had (he offended some with His direct and frank manner). And even some of his actions (A whip in the temple because of the money changers ). Perhaps it's time for a reality check?

Maintaining a moral position, given through revelation; shown as revelation in the Old and New Testament, as well as in Latter-Day's is not a lack of love. What President Nelson said simply reaffirms that. We have the Standard Works. We have 'The Family: A Proclamation to the World'. We have Prophets and Apostles who continue to repeat it for us what they have received *from the Lord*, despite such assurances previously being known to us. It's. Not. Changing.


 

 

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, Mormonopolis said:

It's not ToastMasters. This kind of criticism is unbecoming. It has no impact on the truth of the doctrine, nor the direction of the Church. We all have weaknesses and strengths. Heaven forbid someone not come across that way. What a travesty. As far as the message itself: I have a hard time seeing those that are 'pro-LGBT-not-a-sin'  types as not being disingenuous, to some degree. Everyone knows what the answer will be, to a question like that. No. Nothing is changing. Nothing is ever changing. It isn't "like the Priesthood ban", or any other such policy change. It's a morality position that has been affirmed, and re-affirmed. It is eternal; from before the foundation of the world. Forever and ever. If they were to be more "direct", it would simply have been a shifted goal post to another gripe. The objective from this crowd is not to seek understanding and be reconciled to it. It's about objection until the Church fits their worldview.

Now, does this mean that we should cease to seek for any way that the Lord would have us show love and appreciation for our brothers and sisters, regardless their circumstances? No. And I hope no member of this Church would think otherwise. We should walk as the Savior walked, talked as He talked, and feel as He felt (within the mortal capacity we have).  Those of you who are criticizing the Prophet and his fellow servants might have had a hard time with some of the messages the Savior used(at times he left things to be digested). Some mentalities he had (he offended some with His direct and frank manner). And even some of his actions (A whip in the temple because of the money changers ). Perhaps it's time for a reality check?

Maintaining a moral position, given through revelation; shown as revelation in the Old and New Testament, as well as in Latter-Day's is not a lack of love. What President Nelson said simply reaffirms that. We have the Standard Works. We have 'The Family: A Proclamation to the World'. We have Prophets and Apostles who continue to repeat it for us what they have received *from the Lord*, despite such assurances previously being known to us. It's. Not. Changing.


 

 

well...until it does.  I'd agree with these guys it's not going to change.  They seem to me to be, as much as anybody else, traditionalists, business as usual types.  

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