President Nelson Speaks to Young Adults in Las Vegas - Feb 17, 2018

[hope_for_things]

35 minutes ago, Senator said:

I'm currently reading the Gospels in the New Testament.  I am particularly struck this go around, at how many people were offended at what Jesus did and said; even of those closest to him.  I even found myself, with furrowed brow, bristling at things he said. So yeah, it's going to happen. It aught to happen as darkness tries to comprehend light. 

I'm continually learning, that, of the things we encounter in life that make us uncomfortable, to not automatically default to the conclusion that the thing must be necessarily wrong or faulty. It's still a work in progress.

Its all a matter of perspective.  Jesus was often offending his contemporary church hierarchy with radical departures from orthodoxy.  Perhaps viewing things from the lens that church leaders today like President Nelson who are trying to support the orthodoxy are the ones bristling at ideas of love and inclusion.

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I saw several FB posts about this on my social media feed this morning, and after reading more in context, I'm surprised anyone would think there's anything new or surprising in in what President Nelson is saying.  It doesn't strike me as Elder Nelson singling out or criticizing same-sex relationships in a greater manner or moreso than any other sexual behaviors or relationships that the Church considers to be inappropriate.

It seems to me that if you're a devout straight LDS young adult, you can (and most likely would) interpret Nelson's words as applying entirely to your straight predilections, and if you're a devout gay LDS young adult, you can (and mostly likely would) interpret Nelson's words as applying entirely to your gay predilections.

It's a shame that those that are over blowing this are focusing ONLY on the "love" part of Nelson's words.  I think it's also important that he spoke of food consumption and overeating.  While LDS culture/belief/practice does a great job emphasizing abstaining from alcohol and all forms of premarital sex, I think many Latter-day Saints (and I include myself as a former one in that designation) don't pay enough attention (or haven't historically) to the health advice about gluttony, abstaining from overeating, or reducing the consumption of meat.

Overall, from my perspective, any attempt to imply this talk is about any sort of "condemnation/indictment of gays and/or same-sex relationships" seems like a great over-exaggeration/distortion of Nelson's words.  While some critics may see value in trying to read mal-intent into every utterance from the new prophets words, I don't find that helpful at all, and think it's best to avoid misrepresenting what's been said and focus instead on actual issues. 

Good points.  I think this also shows the overall misguided perspectives the church has preached in recent years on the subject of mortal appetites in general.  The emphasis on the "not even once concept", which interestingly enough reminded me of that infamous book that his current wife wrote.  Rather than teaching concepts of moderation in all things, and balance, there seems to be a focus on perfection and exact obedience in our current Mormonism that I see increasingly worshiped as an idol of sorts.  I find it unhealthy, not pragmatic, and not even supported by the gospel tradition in any form.  This trend is alarming and disturbing to me, and I see this as a function of a fundamentalist approach.  

[Duncan]

It isn't exactley an unscriptural concept, in 2 Timothy 3:2,4 we read

"For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy...lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;"

 

That could be anyone, LDS or atheist or whatever

 

[Gray]

27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Good points.  I think this also shows the overall misguided perspectives the church has preached in recent years on the subject of mortal appetites in general.  The emphasis on the "not even once concept", which interestingly enough reminded me of that infamous book that his current wife wrote.  Rather than teaching concepts of moderation in all things, and balance, there seems to be a focus on perfection and exact obedience in our current Mormonism that I see increasingly worshiped as an idol of sorts.  I find it unhealthy, not pragmatic, and not even supported by the gospel tradition in any form.  This trend is alarming and disturbing to me, and I see this as a function of a fundamentalist approach.  

The perfectionism thing was big I think in the 80s and 90s in the early 00s. I think it's largely gone away, and I think the book you refer to is more of an outlier.

[Senator]

36 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its all a matter of perspective.  Jesus was often offending his contemporary church hierarchy with radical departures from orthodoxy.  Perhaps viewing things from the lens that church leaders today like President Nelson who are trying to support the orthodoxy are the ones bristling at ideas of love and inclusion.

Yes, one could view it that way. But I believe such a view would be in error as stated.

[rockpond]

9 hours ago, rchorse said:

I think it's too bad that some are jumping to negative conclusions about what he meant. Satan does tempt us to love as we should not love. If that's not true, then how does adultery happen? Not everything has to be interpreted through the sole lens of homosexuality. There are lots of instances of inappropriate and sinful love with straight people. My guess is that he was referring not to mere feelings of attraction, but to the nurturing of those feelings into love unauthorized by the commandments of God. And I believe he's probably referring to all such forms of love; straight, gay, or other.

I agree... I'm not sure what he meant and we don't have any context.  I can understand why many people are reading it the way that they are but I would really like to get the message in its entirety before making conclusions about what President Nelson meant.

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I invite you to post the full transcript when it is published, assuming it is published.

If I see the full transcript posted, I definitely will share it here.  I created this thread to recruit others to help me watch for the transcript.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I agree... I'm not sure what he meant and we don't have any context.  I can understand why many people are reading it the way that they are but I would really like to get the message in its entirety before making conclusions about what President Nelson meant.

I'm pretty sure that, if and when we get a transcript, it will only contain the language that has already been reported. Which leaves us with people projecting what they want to onto his words, and the "usual suspects" in comment sections, online fora, etc. pouncing on this as a shot across the bow or dog-whistling about homosexuality.

It is getting a little ridiculous.

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, Gray said:

The perfectionism thing was big I think in the 80s and 90s in the early 00s. I think it's largely gone away, and I think the book you refer to is more of an outlier.

You might be right, but from my perspective I'm seeing a resurgence of this exact obedience idea.  President Nelson in a 2013 talk to missionaries said "Obedience brings success; exact obedience brings miracles".  I also have family members who've served missions in recent years and have talked about this idea of obedience with exactness being emphasized in their missions.  I found plenty of posts on this subject of exact obedience in a google search and they are all in recent years.  I don't think this is going away, its seems to be increasing up from my vantage point.  

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS750US750&ei=P1iMWunRNunQ0gLswIx4&q=exact+obedience+mormon&oq=exact+obedience+mormon&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30k1.32183.40787.0.41016.26.23.3.0.0.0.148.2319.0j21.21.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..2.24.2332...0j0i131k1j0i131i46k1j46i131k1j0i67k1j0i10i67k1j0i10k1j0i22i10i30k1j33i160k1j33i21k1.0.tBg8qJTdjjo

 

[hope_for_things]

19 minutes ago, Senator said:

Yes, one could view it that way. But I believe such a view would be in error as stated.

Perhaps both views have some validity.  

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You might be right, but from my perspective I'm seeing a resurgence of this exact obedience idea.  President Nelson in a 2013 talk to missionaries said "Obedience brings success; exact obedience brings miracles".  I also have family members who've served missions in recent years and have talked about this idea of obedience with exactness being emphasized in their missions.  I found plenty of posts on this subject of exact obedience in a google search and they are all in recent years.  I don't think this is going away, its seems to be increasing up from my vantage point.  

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS750US750&ei=P1iMWunRNunQ0gLswIx4&q=exact+obedience+mormon&oq=exact+obedience+mormon&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30k1.32183.40787.0.41016.26.23.3.0.0.0.148.2319.0j21.21.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..2.24.2332...0j0i131k1j0i131i46k1j46i131k1j0i67k1j0i10i67k1j0i10k1j0i22i10i30k1j33i160k1j33i21k1.0.tBg8qJTdjjo

 

That's true - it still seems to be going strong in the mission program. That was certainly a thing when I was a missionary too. It's very unhealthy.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Gray

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm pretty sure that, if and when we get a transcript, it will only contain the language that has already been reported. Which leaves us with people projecting what they want to onto his words, and the "usual suspects" in comment sections, online fora, etc. pouncing on this as a shot across the bow or dog-whistling about homosexuality.

It is getting a little ridiculous.

I figure the full context will allow us all to better understand and interpret that one little quote.  Without the words of President Nelson's full message - this is just a futile exercise in eisegesis.

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

I saw several FB posts about this on my social media feed this morning, and after reading more in context, I'm surprised anyone would think there's anything new or surprising in in what President Nelson is saying.  It doesn't strike me as Elder Nelson singling out or criticizing same-sex relationships in a greater manner or moreso than any other sexual behaviors or relationships that the Church considers to be inappropriate.

It seems to me that if you're a devout straight LDS young adult, you can (and most likely would) interpret Nelson's words as applying entirely to your straight predilections, and if you're a devout gay LDS young adult, you can (and mostly likely would) interpret Nelson's words as applying entirely to your gay predilections.

It's a shame that those that are over blowing this are focusing ONLY on the "love" part of Nelson's words.  I think it's also important that he spoke of food consumption and overeating.  While LDS culture/belief/practice does a great job emphasizing abstaining from alcohol and all forms of premarital sex, I think many Latter-day Saints (and I include myself as a former one in that designation) don't pay enough attention (or haven't historically) to the health advice about gluttony, abstaining from overeating, or reducing the consumption of meat.

Overall, from my perspective, any attempt to imply this talk is about any sort of "condemnation/indictment of gays and/or same-sex relationships" seems like a great over-exaggeration/distortion of Nelson's words.  While some critics may see value in trying to read mal-intent into every utterance from the new prophet's words, I don't find that helpful at all, and think it's best to avoid misrepresenting what's been said and focus instead on actual issues. 

Thank you for taking the time to weigh in here. And thanks for being fair. I always appreciate that. I agree with what you've stated here. 

I especially agree that we would be better served by focusing on actual issues, because they absolutely do exist and need to be addressed. 

[kllindley]

29 minutes ago, Gray said:

That's true - it still seems to be going strong in the mission program. That was certainly a thing when I was a missionary too. It's very unhealthy.

I agree that the perfectionistic focus can be very unhealthy. I'm not so sure it's as prevalent as some think, even in the mission field. In my experience, there were a number of missionaries that needed the "exact obedience" talk regularly. Others needed to learn to accept their human imperfection with compassion. Overall, it seemed wiser to focus on exact obedience in large groups and moderate the message as needed in personal ministry. 

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I agree that the perfectionistic focus can be very unhealthy. I'm not so sure it's as prevalent as some think, even in the mission field. In my experience, there were a number of missionaries that needed the "exact obedience" talk regularly. Others needed to learn to accept their human imperfection with compassion. Overall, it seemed wiser to focus on exact obedience in large groups and moderate the message as needed in personal ministry. 

I don't think "exact obedience" is a term that's fit for either mass consumption or for a personal message. Just my opinion.

[Danzo]

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

President Nelson spoke on Saturday (17-Feb-2018) to young adults in Las Vegas.  Some of his remarks are generating a lot of social media feedback but what little is provided in the Mormon Newsroom report (linked below) doesn't really provide a lot of context.  Opening this thread in the hope that when the full transcript is published, assuming it is published, someone will post it here.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/president-nelson-las-vegas-millennials

Thanks for pointing the article out.  I look forward to the transcript. President nelson says some good things, things we should all pay attention to. 

The problem with false love is a big one in today's world.  I have seen it cause tremendous heartache for many people. 

I think this message is applicable to everyone.

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't think "exact obedience" is a term that's fit for either mass consumption or for a personal message. Just my opinion.

I probably needed it. I was known for being able to come up with a scriptural precedent for doing anything I wanted to do.  

[cinepro]

10 hours ago, rchorse said:

I think it's too bad that some are jumping to negative conclusions about what he meant. Satan does tempt us to love as we should not love. If that's not true, then how does adultery happen?

Think about what you are saying here.  What is adultery or fornication, and how does it "happen"?

You are suggesting that our desire to have sex with another person comes from the influence of disembodied spirits, either angels or devils, that exist among us and at inopportune times somehow dip their fingers into our brains and monkey with the works to make us feel sexually attracted to someone.  Is that really the best explanation for what happens?

What happens then, when a man and woman are engaged?  From what I understand, it is often common for two people, even devout LDS, to feel intense sexual attraction during courtship.  So, according to your theory, these attractions are being instigated by Satan and his minions.

But then they get married, and that night, they still feel the exact same attractions.  Only now you are suggesting that at the point they got married, the baton was passed from all the evil spirits hanging around to the Holy Ghost who is now encouraging them to have righteous intimacy.  

Everything is fine with the righteous spirits juicing up the couple for each other to make them want to have as much sex as possible (sometimes the righteous spirits are hitting the button on one half of the couple a little more than the other, but that's nothing a little counseling can't help with), until one day, one of the partners sees an attractive person that they are not married to.  Suddenly, the righteous spirits are shoved out of the way, and the evil spirits return and start hitting the exact same buttons to make them feel like having sex with this other person.  But then they go home that night and their spouse is looking pretty good, and the good spirits rush back in and hit the "sex" button that was previously being pushed by the bad spirits.

Does that sound like a good explanation for how adultery happens?  (And if satan's minions had that kind of power, why wouldn't they just make everyone attracted to the same sex?  Why bother with hetersexual attractions which can lead to marriage and procreation according to God's plan when they could short-circuit God's plan and win just by giving people homosexual urges?  Although it occurs to me I may have been the first person to ever realize this and the spirits that have been haunting my office trying to get me to look at the picture of the French figure skater whose top fell off might be reading this even as I type.  What have I done..?)

 

Anyway, how about this as an alternate explanation about how "adultery happens"?  Our bodies are an intricate, massively complex system which includes a massively complex, hormone riddled sex drive that is both very basic, and very complex, but which operates solely without any influence from supernatural forces.  And while there is a lot that appears to be common in the human experience when it comes to sex, there is a lot that is unique and not well understood.  But "adultery happens" from the exact same drives and urges from which married sex happens.  It is no different, except that it is directed to someone they are not married to, and they don't resist the urge.   Just as sometimes married people have to control their urges to have sex (health reasons, staying at the in-laws, etc.), unmarried people also have to control those urges. 

Is that really too far-fetched?

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I probably needed it. I was known for being able to come up with a scriptural precedent for doing anything I wanted to do.  

[CA Steve]

Just one problem with your observation here Cinepro.

You could also point out that the good that happens from these unions, like children, are completely the result of natural urges, that God had nothing to do with sending that child or his spirit.

[cinepro]

7 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

You could also point out that the good that happens from these unions, like children, are completely the result of natural urges, that God had nothing to do with sending that child or his spirit.

That does appear to be true, considering the number of children that are the result of un-married unions (including several good LDS I've known who had unmarried parents at the time they were born).

At the very least, the "evil spirit" theory would more logically lead to evil spirits doing everything they could to either give people homosexual urges, or to get them to not have heterosexual sex. 

Edited February 20, 2018 by cinepro

[rchorse]

13 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Think about what you are saying here.  What is adultery or fornication, and how does it "happen"?

You are suggesting that our desire to have sex with another person comes from the influence of disembodied spirits, either angels or devils, that exist among us and at inopportune times somehow dip their fingers into our brains and monkey with the works to make us feel sexually attracted to someone.  Is that really the best explanation for what happens?

What happens then, when a man and woman are engaged?  From what I understand, it is often common for two people, even devout LDS, to feel intense sexual attraction during courtship.  So, according to your theory, these attractions are being instigated by Satan and his minions.

But then they get married, and that night, they still feel the exact same attractions.  Only now you are suggesting that at the point they got married, the baton was passed from all the evil spirits hanging around to the Holy Ghost who is now encouraging them to have righteous intimacy.  

Everything is fine with the righteous spirits juicing up the couple for each other to make them want to have as much sex as possible (sometimes the righteous spirits are hitting the button on one half of the couple a little more than the other, but that's nothing a little counseling can't help with), until one day, one of the partners sees an attractive person that they are not married to.  Suddenly, the righteous spirits are shoved out of the way, and the evil spirits return and start hitting the exact same buttons to make them feel like having sex with this other person.  But then they go home that night and their spouse is looking pretty good, and the good spirits rush back in and hit the "sex" button that was previously being pushed by the bad spirits.

Does that sound like a good explanation for how adultery happens?  (And if satan's minions had that kind of power, why wouldn't they just make everyone attracted to the same sex?  Why bother with hetersexual attractions which can lead to marriage and procreation according to God's plan when they could short-circuit God's plan and win just by giving people homosexual urges?  Although it occurs to me I may have been the first person to ever realize this and the spirits that have been haunting my office trying to get me to look at the picture of the French figure skater whose top fell off might be reading this even as I type.  What have I done..?)

 

Anyway, how about this as an alternate explanation about how "adultery happens"?  Our bodies are an intricate, massively complex system which includes a massively complex, hormone riddled sex drive that is both very basic, and very complex, but which operates solely without any influence from supernatural forces.  And while there is a lot that appears to be common in the human experience when it comes to sex, there is a lot that is unique and not well understood.  But "adultery happens" from the exact same drives and urges from which married sex happens.  It is no different, except that it is directed to someone they are not married to, and they don't resist the urge.   Just as sometimes married people have to control their urges to have sex (health reasons, staying at the in-laws, etc.), unmarried people also have to control those urges. 

Is that really too far-fetched?

Talk about jumping to negative conclusions based on a few words...

My point was that President Nelson's comments are applicable to all sorts of sexual sin and not a direct shot at gays. I wasn't intending to offer an in-depth exposition on how adultery happens. It was a rhetorical question.

But I imagine you knew that already.

[cinepro]

Just now, rchorse said:

Talk about jumping to negative conclusions based on a few words...

My point was that President Nelson's comments are applicable to all sorts of sexual sin and not a direct shot at gays. I wasn't intending to offer an in-depth exposition on how adultery happens. It was a rhetorical question.

But I imagine you knew that already.

It wasn't a "rhetorical question" if you were trying to make a logical argument for the "evil spirit" theory of where sexual urges come from.  The idea that there are righteous and evil spirits battling over whether or not we are attracted to men or women (and whether or not we are married to that man or woman) raises a lot of un-rhetorical questions that people usually ignore.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Rather than teaching concepts of moderation in all things, and balance, there seems to be a focus on perfection and exact obedience in our current Mormonism that I see increasingly worshiped as an idol of sorts.

Exactly! Like you, I find it deeply troubling that our current prophets are teaching the words of Jesus instead of Greek philosophy. 

[Thinking]

If a full transcript is not released by the church it will be interesting to see how long it takes for a certain website to obtain a copy and publish it.