Jump to content

President Nelson Press Conference - LGBT Issues


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

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.

This is ultimately the problem far more than style or sincerity. There's no way many people will agree with the Church without major changes. Those major changes will require a lot of pretty clear explanation by God on the issue. This isn't something that can be dealt with as easy as the blacks and the priesthood revelation in 1978. I think pretty much regardless of what happens people need an explicit clarifying textual revelation more akin to D&C 138 or the like. That's a lot of weight for Nelson to have on his shoulders. (I'm sure both he and Oaks recognize this as well) Even if the answer is status quo, people will simply want to understand why.

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

My problem with this graph is that it says that homosexuality should be accepted by society.  That does not necessary mean that religious people or these churches should accept homosexual behavior.  I don't accept homosexual behavior but I can accept homosexuals living in society without fear of harassment or violence.  So where would I be on this poll?

How would you react to someone who tried to distinguish between celibate Mormons and non celibate Mormons?

  "Hey I am okay with the Mormons living next door as long as they don't have sex!"

That just sounds weird. So I don't think most groups really  distinguish between celibate homosexuality and non-celibate.

My guess is that on this graph you would fall in the 64% of Mormons who thinks homosexuals should not be accepted by society.

Oh and 65% of all statistics are made up on the spot and the remainder are based on the results of vague questions.

 

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

This is ultimately the problem far more than style or sincerity. There's no way many people will agree with the Church without major changes. Those major changes will require a lot of pretty clear explanation by God on the issue. This isn't something that can be dealt with as easy as the blacks and the priesthood revelation in 1978. I think pretty much regardless of what happens people need an explicit clarifying textual revelation more akin to D&C 138 or the like. That's a lot of weight for Nelson to have on his shoulders. (I'm sure both he and Oaks recognize this as well) Even if the answer is status quo, people will simply want to understand why.

In expecting an explanation by God do we expect anything more than a speech by a leader somewhere wherein he says something like "we were speaking with limited understanding..." ?  I'm curious, because God doesn't seem to really speak at all anymore.  D&C 138 is 99 years old and nearly every explanation I can think of by leader telling us about revelation seem to sum it up by saying revelation is feeling good about something.  

Link to comment
3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

I clearly get what you are saying and certainly agree that these men are not the kind of guys that deal with the press well.  That said, there wasn't a single question that could not have been predicted.  These men are good at public speaking when they prepare for it.  It seems like a little preparation would have gone a long way.

If the only people that care about that press conference are members, perhaps they should not have done it.  It didn't seem to accomplish a great deal.  A conference address or devotional might have been more in their comfort zone and certainly would not have confused the public quite so me.  If their objective was to reach out to a bigger audience, I would say it failed pretty spectacularly.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Thinking said:

They answered the question that should have been asked.

You think the big question is "Does God love all his children?"

Edited by california boy
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

In expecting an explanation by God do we expect anything more than a speech by a leader somewhere wherein he says something like "we were speaking with limited understanding..." ?  I'm curious, because God doesn't seem to really speak at all anymore.  D&C 138 is 99 years old and nearly every explanation I can think of by leader telling us about revelation seem to sum it up by saying revelation is feeling good about something.  

To say that there is limited understanding in a church that says they receive revelation...just doesn't work.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, cinepro said:

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.

Right.  Who are you going to believe, the leader of the LDS Church, or your lying eyes?

There is a large-scale and long-term and ongoing effort by some folks in the "gay community" to alienate gay Latter-day Saints from their faith.  This is demonstrated in the notion you are proposing, namely, that the leader of the LDS Church cannot relied upon to credibly state LDS teachings.

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

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.

I agree.  Unfortunately, the above-referenced effort is having some success.  

Why bother listening to the Mormons?  There are all sorts of critics and enemies of the LDS Church who are more than willing to proclaim to others what we believe.

I've never understood this mindset.  If I want to understand the precepts of a faith, I would give the leaders of that faith some presumption that they are speaking the truth about their faith.

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

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. 

We are "much more accepting" than prior generations in terms of people who violate the Law of Chastity in other ways (extra-marital sex, for example).  That is, we are becoming less judgmental and more compassionate and tolerant of people who choose to live that way.

However, the Church's teachings regarding the Law of Chastity are not changing for ourselves, and I'm not sure we are seeing some great groundswell amongst active, observant Latter-day Saints to abandon the Law of Chastity's prohibition against homosexual behavior for those who have covenanted to live according to that law.  

That being the case, I think that's the best way to go.  We maintain our standards, while finding ways to not be judgmental and not appear judgmental to others who do not live according to those standards.

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

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.

Oh, I don't know.  I can "accept" such relationships without agreeing with them, or with adopting the expectation that they should be imported into the Church.

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

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

I think the Brethren have demonstrated that they are quite aware of these trends.  There is a reason why such a statistically tiny issue (in terms of the number of people actually involved) gets such vastly disproportionate attention from the Church.

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

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

You mean the same way God wants single heterosexuals to bottle up their urges?

Or do I detect the aroma of a flagrant double standard?

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

with the faith that they will be magically transformed into eternal heterosexuals in the hereafter.

I have faith that God will sort such things out.  We needn't use denigrating slurs and sarcasm.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment

It was a weird mix of press conference, devotional.  Made me feel awkward because my expectation was press conference, but that didn't really happen in my view.

Can anyone else point to a press conference where comments were made like they were here?

I wish they hadn't called it a press conference, but maybe a Face to Face.

Link to comment

I apologize, but you need to explain to me why his response was a problem as isn't what the Church says and teaches its current doctrines and policies?

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

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

To say that there is limited understanding in a church that says they receive revelation...just doesn't work.

So you're saying that because God has revealed one thing that he should reveal all things?  Or that because a student has gone to a class for one day that they should be ready to graduate? 

God reveals his will "unto the faithful line upon line, precept upon precept" (D&C 98:12)

Link to comment
2 hours ago, cinepro said:

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

Cinepro, you really get it.  The church will do just fine by excommunicating every gay couple that wants to be involved in the church.  Their numbers are not that big.  But the majority of people can not for the life of them see what is evil about a gay man finding someone who he loves and wants to spend his life with .  The richness and fulness that brings to any human on this earth is not even a question.  What kind of person does not want another person to have that joy in their lives.   To call a gay person's wants and desires evil, what does that say about their own wants and desires?  Is the only difference is that they won the lottery are are not attracted to their same sex?  

The younger generation have close friends that are out.  They don't find one bit if difference between who they are and who their gay friends are, except that they are attracted to their same sex.  Only the very orthodox member would not want their friends to enjoy their lives with someone they also love.  The church can say NO, NO, NO all that it wants.  But the heart and the brain and the Spirit for most of these young people are saying WHY NOT? As president Nelson said, "God loves all his children."  Can you see how the message of the church to those that are gay is in conflict with that very belief?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, cinepro said:

Maybe when everyone hits 75% it will trigger the second coming and calamities....:diablo:

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

So you're saying that because God has revealed one thing that he should reveal all things?  Or that because a student has gone to a class for one day that they should be ready to graduate? 

God reveals his will "unto the faithful line upon line, precept upon precept" (D&C 98:12)

Okay..but limited understanding (IMO) comes close to something that may not be true.  Why would God do that?  Why reveal anything just part way...we still have a choice.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

Okay..but limited understanding (IMO) comes close to something that may not be true.  Why would God do that?  Why reveal anything just part way...we still have a choice.

A student embarking on the study of, say physics, has a limited understanding compared to another person with a PhD.  This is not because the students learning has been flawed in any way, but because the student is just embarking upon the journey of learning.

In the same way we are just embarking on our journey of understanding the mind and will of God.  Even apostles and prophets still learn.  We have a limited understanding not because there is anything wrong with what we have learned in the past, but because there is still so much more left to learn. 

Elder Uchtdorf does a very good job of explaining why God does not reveal everything to us all at once in his Sunday night devotional to the young adults.

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/archive/worldwide-devotionals/2018/01?cid=HP_TU_16-1-2018_dSNI_fBROADCAST_xLIDyL2-1_&lang=eng

 

Link to comment
43 minutes ago, california boy said:

I clearly get what you are saying and certainly agree that these men are not the kind of guys that deal with the press well.  That said, there wasn't a single question that could not have been predicted.  These men are good at public speaking when they prepare for it.  It seems like a little preparation would have gone a long way.

If the only people that care about that press conference are members, perhaps they should not have done it.  It didn't seem to accomplish a great deal.  A conference address or devotional might have been more in their comfort zone and certainly would not have confused the public quite so me.  If their objective was to reach out to a bigger audience, I would say it failed pretty spectacularly.

Yes. I think had I been advising them I'd have suggested waiting a little while before doing a press conference or doing a one on one discussion with a reporter they're familiar with. Overall though the press conference seems a predictable mistake. That's not a criticism. I think their heart is in the right place. But that was just very awkward at best. Further they should realize after Prop-8 no one's going to give them much leeway for misspeaking.

They really are trying. Some of those interviews for young adults demonstrate it too. It's just that I don't think they're working. Maybe that's partially the age gap in language/social understanding. Maybe it's their age and cognitive state making it hard to think quickly in such formats. (Again not in the least a criticism) However it's just not working the way they want. This goes back to me thinking it's not their intents but just their ability to communicate what they want to communicate in these formats.

These are brilliant men with tons of experience and great spirituality. While I've not met Nelson or Oaks, I've been around Eyring and you quickly know he's a prophet. But they're not playing to their strengths right now.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

How would you react to someone who tried to distinguish between celibate Mormons and non celibate Mormons?

  "Hey I am okay with the Mormons living next door as long as they don't have sex!"

That just sounds weird. So I don't think most groups really  distinguish between celibate homosexuality and non-celibate.

My guess is that on this graph you would fall in the 64% of Mormons who thinks homosexuals should not be accepted by society.

Oh and 65% of all statistics are made up on the spot and the remainder are based on the results of vague questions.

 

So it’s not a very nuanced poll, then. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, california boy said:

Cinepro, you really get it.  The church will do just fine by excommunicating every gay couple that wants to be involved in the church.  Their numbers are not that big.

It's not the number of people involved.  As you say, the actual application of the policy in question is very, very limited.

Rather, the source of the acrimony and angst is . . . you and yours.

Quote

But the majority of people can not for the life of them see what is evil about a gay man finding someone who he loves and wants to spend his life with .  

With respect, I don't think you can credibly speak for "the majority" of Latter-day Saints.  At all.

The issue isn't a lack of comprehension.  The Law of Chastity is rather clear, after all.  It's not hard to understand.  It's just hard for some to accept.

Quote

The richness and fulness that brings to any human on this earth is not even a question.  

Quite so.  The same could be said for "the richness and fulness" that can be found in some polygamous marriages.  Or by and between unmarried parents.

"Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.  For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.  For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."  (Romans 10:1-3).

Quote

What kind of person does not want another person to have that joy in their lives.  

Have you stopped beating your spouse yet?  

Or are loaded questions not worth your attention?

Quote

To call a gay person's wants and desires evil, what does that say about their own wants and desires?  

The Church has made great strides in improving how it treats issues pertaining to same-sex attraction.  You are demonstrating . . . something else.

Quote

Is the only difference is that they won the lottery are are not attracted to their same sex?

Alas, if this were a question I thought was posed in good faith, I would attempt to answer it.  But I don't, so I won't.

Quote

The younger generation have close friends that are out.  

Yes.  And we can get along quite well.  Reasonable minds can disagree about many things, including important things.

The problem arises when people who despise the LDS Church come along and presume to speak for the Church.  To tell others what we believe and why.  To cast us in the worst possible light.  To bear false witness.  To foment fear and angst and discord and hatred.  And perhaps worst of all, to alienate and cause the estrangement of gay Latter-day Saints from their faith and their families.

Consider the following scenario:

You are a young man who is raised as a faithful Mormon in a faithful Mormon family in a faithful Mormon community.

All your friends and family are Mormon.

But you have realized you are sexually attracted to members of your own gender.

You haven't told anybody, perhaps.

This is a deep, dark secret you must keep to yourself.

But this young man goes online and sees all sorts of horrible rhetoric.  He reads, for example, about the Church's policy regarding members who enter into a same-sex marriage, about how their children cannot received the ordinances of salvation that everybody else's children receive.  This policy is characterized in the absolute worse, most negative light possible.  No context is given.  Elder Christofferson's remarks are not given any attention.  The Church's explanation is either not mentioned, or else treated with contempt and derision.  It is instead replaced with the claim - the damnably false claim - that the LDS Church "hates" gay people. 

These people have no problem with telling the young man what his Church and its leaders and followers purportedly think about him.  That is, people already predisposed to dislike the Church begin and maintain a massive campaign to publicly excoriate and vilify the LDS Church.  This campaign is similar in design and tactics to those used to train Palestinian children to fear and loathe Jews.  That is, this struggling young man is all at once inundated with endless messages and declarations that the religion to which he belongs "hates" him.  That the General Authorities he has looked up to and admired "hate" him.  That some of his fellow Latter-day Saints "hate" him.  His worldview is upended.  All that he thought he knew was wrong.  Everyone, it seems, is telling him that his friends, his family, his church, "hate" him.  And let's keep in mind that these messages are not coming from his LDS friends and family and leaders, but from their enemies, people who are putting the vilest of words into the mouths of the Latter-day Saints.  "Your church, your leaders, and your fellow Mormons hate you" is the message being purveyed.  By enemies of the Latter-day Saints.  To the minds of impressionable and stressed-out teenagers.

How do you think that might make this young man feel?

Surely such a message would be an incredible stressor to an impressionable young man or woman.  And yet I have not seen much in the way of critics cautioning each other against publishing rhetoric designed to alienate Latter-day Saints from their faith.  Nevo emphasized this point as made in an Archives of Suicide Research article (emphasis added):

Quote

There were two important clinical implications found in the current study. First, it may seem counterintuitive that when individuals choose to leave their religion in order to experience more self-acceptance that they inadvertently experience more risk for suicide. Clinicians should be aware that leaving one's religion of origin may add additional stressors that ultimately place a client at additional risk for suicide. Further, the negative impact felt from leaving one's religion due to conflict has a stronger impact than the positive indirect impact through a reduction in internalized homophobia.

Sadly, we are witnessing people who are bound and determined to shove these stressors down the throats of LDS teens.

Your post is a depressingly stark example.

Quote

They don't find one bit if difference between who they are and who their gay friends are, except that they are attracted to their same sex.

And they may also not find one bit of difference between a married couple having sex and an unmarried couple having sex, except that . . . the latter couple is not married.

A rather significant difference, that.

Again, the Law of Chastity is not some ethereal, vague concept.  It is actually one of the clearest doctrines in the Church.  And it's not arbitrary, either.  Marriage matters.  The form of the marriage matters.  The purpose of the marriage matters.  God's approval of these things matters.

Quote

Only the very orthodox member would not want their friends to enjoy their lives with someone they also love.  

It's not a matter of what we "want" or don't "want."  It's a matter of what we believe is taught and commanded by God.

Here are a few thoughts:

1. Homosexual Conduct is Incompatible with Marriage: Marriage between a man and woman is ordained of God (and, as a corollary, sexual conduct outside of that union is per se sinful).  As the Church has stated:

Quote

A family built on marriage of a man and a woman is the best setting for God’s plan of happiness to thrive. That is why communities and nations generally have encouraged and protected marriage between a man and a woman, and the family that results from their union, as privileged institutions. Sexual relations outside of such a marriage are contrary to the laws of God pertaining to morality.

Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We invite all to review and understand the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

Pretty clear, that.

2. Homosexual Conduct is One of Many Types of Sexual Conduct Prohibited by God: Homosexual conduct is prohibited by God (as are many other forms of sexual sin). In their 14 November 1991 letterconcerning the importance of the law of chastity, the First Presidency declared: “Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual contact, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior, is sinful.”

I recognize that our current society, including some members of the Church, really really want to exempt homosexual conduct from the Law of Chastity.  There are all sorts of machinations which have been attempted, including radically re-defining the word "marriage," accusing the Brethren of hate-based bigotry for not toeing the currently trendy line of embracing and celebrating same-sex behaviors, and so on.  But I just don't think this will work. 

3. Severance from the Purpose of Sex: Homosexual conduct necessarily and always separates sex from its fundamental purposes: A) the strengthening of a union between husband and wife and B) procreation.  Elder Oaks put it this way:

Quote

Every Latter-day Saint knows that God has forbidden all sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage. Most are also aware of the Savior’s teaching that it is sinful for a man to look upon and lust after a woman (see Matt. 5:28; D&C 42:23; 63:16).

Attraction between man and woman was instilled by the Creator to ensure the perpetuation of mortal life and to draw husband and wife together in the family setting he prescribed for the accomplishment of his purposes, including the raising of children. In contrast, deviations from God’s commandments in the use of procreative powers are grave sins. President Joseph F. Smith taught:

“Sexual union is lawful in wedlock, and if participated in with right intent is honorable and sanctifying. But without the bonds of marriage, sexual indulgence is a debasing sin, abominable in the sight of Deity.”

4. All of Us Held to the Same Standard: Elder Oaks has spoken of the ongoing debate about "evidence or theories suggesting that 'there is substantial evidence for genetic influence on sexual orientation,'" about sexual behavior being "profoundly influenced by psychosocial factors such as parental and sibling relationships (especially during the formative years) and the culture in which we live," and how all of this is part of a "highly complex subject on which scientific knowledge is still in its infancy" and that "most scientists concede that the current evidence is insufficient and that firm conclusions must await many additional scientific studies."  The Church, having taken this into account, holds all members of the Church to the same standard of sexual conduct (see above).

5. Feelings are Not Determinative of Morality (Where God Has Spoken): Contrary to your suggestion (that we should just capitulate to whatever we "want" to do), our desires are not determinative of the standards imposed by the Law of Chastity. God has prohibited adultery amongst His children.  And fornication. God has also prohibited same-sex behavior amongst His children.  And other forms of exual behavior.

It is true that some of His children want to (and do) engage in adultery or fornication. This is wrong.  That they "want" or "desire" to engage in this point is not determinative.

It is also true that some of His children want to (and do) engage in same-sex behavior. This is wrong. That they "want" or "desire" to engage in this point is not determinative.

These same standard applies to all church members.  Nobody is privileged.  Nobody is exempt.  If we take desires out of the equation, and simply look at the standard of behavior imposed on church members, we see that the same standard is applied across the board. Once we see that, all the various arguments presented all the time based as they are on homosexuals being downtrodden because of their unfulfilled desires, fall apart.

Quote

The church can say NO, NO, NO all that it wants.  But the heart and the brain and the Spirit for most of these young people are saying WHY NOT? As president Nelson said, "God loves all his children."  Can you see how the message of the church to those that are gay is in conflict with that very belief?

I can see how distorting and mischaracterizing "the message of the Church," as people like you do, can create conflict.

Indeed, such conflict is apparently the intended objective of such distortions and mischaracterizations.

And, to some extent, people like you are achieving this objective.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
25 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Yes. I think had I been advising them I'd have suggested waiting a little while before doing a press conference or doing a one on one discussion with a reporter they're familiar with. Overall though the press conference seems a predictable mistake. That's not a criticism. I think their heart is in the right place. But that was just very awkward at best. Further they should realize after Prop-8 no one's going to give them much leeway for misspeaking.

They really are trying. Some of those interviews for young adults demonstrate it too. It's just that I don't think they're working. Maybe that's partially the age gap in language/social understanding. Maybe it's their age and cognitive state making it hard to think quickly in such formats. (Again not in the least a criticism) However it's just not working the way they want. This goes back to me thinking it's not their intents but just their ability to communicate what they want to communicate in these formats.

These are brilliant men with tons of experience and great spirituality. While I've not met Nelson or Oaks, I've been around Eyring and you quickly know he's a prophet. But they're not playing to their strengths right now.

 

I think you’re way off the mark in your perception. I felt they came across very well in the news conference and struck me as not only warm and affable but intelligent and articulate. 

The mistake would have been not to hold a presser. They would have seemed insular, if not cowering. 

I’m glad they’re not looking to you as a marketing consultant. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you’re way off the mark in your perception. I felt they came across very well in the news conference and struck me as not only warm and affable but intelligent and articulate. 

The mistake would have been not to hold a presser. They would have seemed insular, if not cowering. 

I’m glad they’re not looking to you as a marketing consultant. 

Well I'll certainly agree in that I'm also glad they're not looking to me as a marketing consultant too. However I think they could have achieved the same results without using that format. But thankfully they're not asking me.  A lot I think has to do with what their aims with the press conference were. Depending upon what they hoped to achieve maybe they achieved it.

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

A student embarking on the study of, say physics, has a limited understanding compared to another person with a PhD.  This is not because the students learning has been flawed in any way, but because the student is just embarking upon the journey of learning.

In the same way we are just embarking on our journey of understanding the mind and will of God.  Even apostles and prophets still learn.  We have a limited understanding not because there is anything wrong with what we have learned in the past, but because there is still so much more left to learn. 

Elder Uchtdorf does a very good job of explaining why God does not reveal everything to us all at once in his Sunday night devotional to the young adults.

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/archive/worldwide-devotionals/2018/01?cid=HP_TU_16-1-2018_dSNI_fBROADCAST_xLIDyL2-1_&lang=eng

 

Yes, that Sunday night address was masterful. 

And didn’t he do a good job of hiding the fact that (according to the mind readers on this board) he was seething with rage over having that very day been “dropped” or “demoted” from the First Presidency. Never mind that the First Presidency of which he had been a part ceased to exist on Jan. 2 when President Thomas S. Monson drew his last mortal breath. 

Link to comment
Quote

These are brilliant men with tons of experience and great spirituality. While I've not met Nelson or Oaks, I've been around Eyring and you quickly know he's a prophet. But they're not playing to their strengths right now.

This.

I think they really want to give members and even nonmembers if they want it a sense of connection or familiarity with the 15 since such desires are often mentioned, which is why they are doing the Face to Face stuff and press conferences as well as broadcasting more regional conferences and other talk venues, doing Facebook, etc.

Desire does not always equal ability to make things work, however.

I really admire them for trying something new and difficult at their age.  They are probably even more successful at it than most people who have been brought up posting their thoughts in videoblogs or spreading selfies around.  But I don't think they make it into "mission fully accomplished" in that many it seems felt there was awkwardness (including myself to the point I can't watch it right now).  Connection is harder to accomplish when it doesn't feel natural, even if the effort is appreciated.

My mom is in her late 80s and is refusing to do even the stuff she has been familiar with if it involves the least bit of having to think about what she has to do (she will happily manipulate a complicated washer and dryer setup because she is never happy with someone else doing her laundry, but refuses to even try to learn how to put a soap pod in and push the start button for the dishwasher because Dad always did that before he died and she never changes the channels on her TVs...intentionally at least, she has one for the news and the other for BYU TV...nor will she use a crock pot or microwave even though using the stove involves more effort and attention and pushing the possibility of an iPad makes her angry).

My father in law wouldn't even use a salt grinder when having dinner with us, luckily we had a small salt shaker in our 72 hour kit.

My dad ended up watching Law and Order episodes over and over in his last years (and had no dementia that I could tell),  he wanted to be engaged but without effort of thought in that area.  OTOH, he was trying new projects of woodworking, though he would only take the effort so far, customizing from others' plans was very limited.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Well I'll certainly agree in that I'm also glad they're not looking to me as a marketing consultant too. However I think they could have achieved the same results without using that format. But thankfully they're not asking me.  A lot I think has to do with what their aims with the press conference were. Depending upon what they hoped to achieve maybe they achieved it.

I haven’t read this thread thoroughly, but if what they were hoping to achieve was capitulation and compromise pertaining to the doctrines and values of the Church, yes, they did fail in that respect. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Calm said:

This.

I think they really want to give members and even nonmembers if they want it a sense of connection or familiarity with the 15 such since such desires are often mentioned, which is why they are doing the Face to Face stuff and press conferences as well as broadcasting more regional conferences and other talk venues.

Desire does not always equal ability to make things work, however.

I really admire them for trying something new and difficult at their age.  My mom is refusing to do even the stuff she has been familiar with if it involves the least bit of having to think about what she has to do (she will happily manipulate a complicated washer and dryer setup because she is never happy with someone else doing her laundry, but refuses to even try to learn how to put a soap pod in and push the start button for the dishwasher because Dad always did that before he died and she never changes the channels on her TVs...intentionally at least, she has one for the news and the other for BYU TV...nor will she use a crock pot or microwave even though using the stove involves more effort and attention and pushing the possibility of an iPad makes her angry).

My father in law wouldn't even use a salt grinder when having dinner with us, luckily we had a small salt shaker in our 72 hour kit.

Pardon, but this strikes me as unpalatably condescending. 

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