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

[Gray]

50 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yes, hope_for_things:

This comes directly from Epicureanism, though it was oft-repeated in various contexts throughout the Greek-influenced world:

See also:

 

Maybe King Benjamin was corrupted by Epicureanism too.

Quote

27 And see that all these things are done in wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength. And again, it is expedient that he should be diligent, that thereby he might win the prize; therefore, all things must be done in order.

 

 

 

[Sky]

I don’t think anybody really knows how the “natural” and the “supernatural” worlds interact with each other in relation to the things that we do or don’t do.  It’s interesting to think about and discuss, though.  

In Mormon theology, we come to this earth to gain the experience of having a physical body.  What we do with the body we are given is important.  Satan may do what he can to get us to mistreat or misuse our “mortal tabernacles.”  This is the lens of how I view President Nelson’s comments.  

Some of us have an innate attraction to the same sex, others of us don’t.  Attractions in and of themselves aren’t sinful, it’s what we do with them that matters.  If I were to sit down and talk with President Nelson, I’m sure he’d probably agree with my interpretation of his words.  

I must say, though, that I do feel bad for the LGBTQ members of the Church that were further wounded by his remarks.  When they hear that who they love is wrong, it’s gotta hurt.  

 

[USU78]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Just in case you think I am doing this...I am not.

I just think it may be detrimental to personal growth to emphasize Satan's influence over admitting one has less admirable qualities that need working on when encouraging people to work on being better people.

I am also open to being wrong about it.  Perhaps it is more motivating to think of oneself as fighting against an enemy.

"... an enemy hath done this."

The parable suggests to my mind that just as wheat people and tare people are cheek by jowl and impossible to separate, our own weakness and fecklessness are cheek by jowl with the enemy's enticements.

Edited February 21, 2018 by USU78
Where'd those "e"s come from?

[USU78]

19 minutes ago, Sky said:

I don’t think anybody really knows how the “natural” and the “supernatural” worlds interact with each other in relation to the things that we do or don’t do.  It’s interesting to think about and discuss, though.  

In Mormon theology, we come to this earth to gain the experience of having a physical body.  What we do with the body we are given is important.  Satan may do what he can to get us to mistreat or misuse our “mortal tabernacles.”  This is the lens of how I view President Nelson’s comments.  

Some of us have an innate attraction to the same sex, others of us don’t.  Attractions in and of themselves aren’t sinful, it’s what we do with them that matters.  If I were to sit down and talk with President Nelson, I’m sure he’d probably agree with my interpretation of his words.  

I must say, though, that I do feel bad for the LGBTQ members of the Church that were further wounded by his remarks.  When they hear that who they love is wrong, it’s gotta hurt.  

You'd rather he lie to spare their feelings?

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Maybe King Benjamin was corrupted by Epicureanism too.

Surely you're not going to argue that acceptance of certain physical limitations to our righteous desires is the same thing as, say, choosing to use drugs in moderation or lie just a little?

 

Edited February 21, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you suggesting that if we feel intense, inappropriate anger or hatred after we are baptized, it must be from the influences of Satan, otherwise we were baptized under false pretenses (at the age of eight for many of us, which is not known for having reached the age of self control, but knowing right from wrong)?

Not necessarily, I think it depends on the light, and how much of it, one has when he takes His name upon him. While there may be some eight-year olds who can relate, but I’m thinking more in terms of what we do when we partake of the sacrament, receive the priesthood and temple covenants, etc., which I think most in this conversation can relate to or at least understand.

The Lord acknowledges that we can do many things of our own free will (D&C 58:27-28), and rewards us accordingly. And yet at the same time we are to confess His hand in all things (D&C 59:21). From my experience, I think we can do the same with wickedness; we can do plenty of that on our own too, but who is pleased when we do that, and who are we serving when we do that?

In your specific example, when a saint feels intense, inappropriate anger or hatred, which indicates to me that it is not conducive or “necessary for our survival,” he has a choice of acting on it or not. The adversary would be pleased for him act one way, the Lord another. The adversary may actively entice him to leverage those feelings to commit sin, and the Holy Ghost may actively entice him not to. Or the angry man may simply be left to himself to be tested. He also has a choice of calling upon the Lord or not, calling upon his various resources to engage various means of self-mastery and control or not, etc. As far as a child goes, who has claim upon his parents for his maintenance, I think inappropriateness would be defined for his level of development.

[Gray]

7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Surely you're not going to argue that acceptance of certain physical limitations to our righteous desires is the same thing as, say, choosing to use drugs in moderation or lie just a little?

 

Both the moderate use of drugs (alcohol) and deception is endorsed in scripture. But I'm positive that's not what hope_for_things meant by moderation in all things.

[Amulek]

10 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

21 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 ...

This comes directly from Epicureanism, though it was oft-repeated in various contexts throughout the Greek-influenced world

Ah, yes. Moderation in all things. Or, at least, in all the things that the person making the appeal to moderation wants to indulge in. 

I mean, nobody really thinks that moderation is actually good for all things (e.g., marital fidelity, spousal abuse, theft, murder, etc.), so you have to put somethings outside the box of things which are allowed to be subject to moderation, but then you're right back to where you were to begin with. Some things are always proscribed and others aren't, and some people are always going to carp about there not being enough (or maybe they think there are too many) things inside the box - especially if they reject the notion that God has been involved in the deciding. 

[stemelbow]

10 hours ago, USU78 said:

You'd rather he lie to spare their feelings?

How would he possible know if God is involved and approving of another particular relationship?  It seems to me he wouldn't know.  This sounds far more about his own biases then any special knowledge given him of God.  For all he knows God has directed two women into each other's arms, or two men.  

I grant he probably thinks the scriptures are more descriptive than they appear to some of the rest of us.  He may think God has inspired him to tell everyone else they are wrong about it all.  But in that, he may be completely wrong.  

 

[Rain]

10 hours ago, Sky said:

I don’t think anybody really knows how the “natural” and the “supernatural” worlds interact with each other in relation to the things that we do or don’t do.  It’s interesting to think about and discuss, though.  

In Mormon theology, we come to this earth to gain the experience of having a physical body.  What we do with the body we are given is important.  Satan may do what he can to get us to mistreat or misuse our “mortal tabernacles.”  This is the lens of how I view President Nelson’s comments.  

Some of us have an innate attraction to the same sex, others of us don’t.  Attractions in and of themselves aren’t sinful, it’s what we do with them that matters.  If I were to sit down and talk with President Nelson, I’m sure he’d probably agree with my interpretation of his words.  

I must say, though, that I do feel bad for the LGBTQ members of the Church that were further wounded by his remarks.  When they hear that who they love is wrong, it’s gotta hurt.  

 

I agree, but I think we can learn, little by little, the differences in natural and supernatural influences just like we can with the differences between our own thinking/feeling and the whisperings of the Spirit. 

I think it is a good thing if we are choosing good and can't explain whether we were influenced by the Spirit or our own thinking/feeling, but, with being unable to explain why, I think that is a better thing thing to know which influenced us .

I've been thinking a lot of the problem solving wheel the last few weeks. The first step on it is to identify the problem.

With what you said it makes me wonder if it is important to learn just what is influencing us in our bad choices. Take the problem of over-eating. Some would identify the problem as over-eating. But what if you found that 95% of the time you did it because of your natural appetite and 5% of the time because of temptations. Or what if you found out the opposite - 95% temptations and 5% appetite? The problem would be where the influences are coming from. There is a good chance you would choose different ways for dealing with the 2 extremes.

It's something I will be thinking about. Thanks for opening up those questions for me!

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yes, hope_for_things:

This comes directly from Epicureanism, though it was oft-repeated in various contexts throughout the Greek-influenced world:

See also:

 

All ideas found in Christianity have had some level of influence from other sources.  Are you claiming any particular concept is somehow immune to this process?  

[USU78]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

How would he possible know if God is involved and approving of another particular relationship?  It seems to me he wouldn't know.  This sounds far more about his own biases then any special knowledge given him of God.  For all he knows God has directed two women into each other's arms, or two men.  

I grant he probably thinks the scriptures are more descriptive than they appear to some of the rest of us.  He may think God has inspired him to tell everyone else they are wrong about it all.  But in that, he may be completely wrong.  

 

You really can't conceive of a universe where there are good men tuned into a G-d Who has everyone's good at heart at considerable pain to Himself, can you?

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Ah, yes. Moderation in all things. Or, at least, in all the things that the person making the appeal to moderation wants to indulge in. 

I mean, nobody really thinks that moderation is actually good for all things (e.g., marital fidelity, spousal abuse, theft, murder, etc.), so you have to put somethings outside the box of things which are allowed to be subject to moderation, but then you're right back to where you were to begin with. Some things are always proscribed and others aren't, and some people are always going to carp about there not being enough (or maybe they think there are too many) things inside the box - especially if they reject the notion that God has been involved in the deciding. 

I wasn't attempting to make an absolutist claim for moderation, and certainly wouldn't support moderation in abuse or murder.  If someone wants to make a reasonable case for limits in how we should treat others, or the case that certain classes or groups of people are less worthy of love, then I would ask for a reasonable argument to be presented for those moral proscriptions. 

As far as I can tell from the few quotes we have from President Nelson's talk, his argument for creating such limits was based on an appeal to authority and on a narrow reading of certain scriptures.  This perspective runs contrary to general teachings in the Christian tradition, and that's what I'm pointing out.  

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You really can't conceive of a universe where there are good men tuned into a G-d Who has everyone's good at heart at considerable pain to Himself, can you?

Conceive of?  Sure.  Are you saying you can't conceive of a world wherein God works upon individuals, leading them in directions that others might see as taboo, most likely due to their own cultural shaping?  

[rongo]

24 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You really can't conceive of  . . .

 

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Conceive of?  Sure. . . .

I think all this talk of conceiving is really thinly-veiled code for talk about fornication/adultery and resulting pregnancy. And in a roundabout way, homosexuality . . .  

(To give this the RMN treatment) . . .

[USU78]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Conceive of?  Sure.  Are you saying you can't conceive of a world wherein God works upon individuals, leading them in directions that others might see as taboo, most likely due to their own cultural shaping?  

WRT homosexuality?  Nope. 

And there's this:  The well have no need of a physician.  However the broken heart or sick soul got that way, G-d seeks to heal it.  That other fellow?  Not so much.

Edited February 21, 2018 by USU78

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, USU78 said:

"... an enemy hath done this."

The parable suggests to my mind that just as wheat people and tare people are cheek by jowel and impossible to separate, our own weakness and fecklessness are cheek by jowel with the enemy's enticements.

Furthermore, to minimize the role of Satan and his minions in enticing people to do wrong comes perilously close to fulfilling what was prophesied in the Book of Mormon would happen in the last days:

Quote

22 And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none—and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance.

(2 Nephi 28:22)

It is prudent to know and beware of one's enemy; it is imprudent not to.

 

[stemelbow]

39 minutes ago, USU78 said:

WRT homosexuality?  Nope. 

Well....there ya go.  God simply can't be guiding those who are gay in their relationships in yoru view.  It's not even a conceivable thing.  

39 minutes ago, USU78 said:

And there's this:  The well have no need of a physician.  However the broken heart or sick soul got that way, G-d seeks to heal it.  That other fellow?  Not so much.

It seems to me when it comes to this issue, the biggest healing that has to occur often deals with those who are gay having to heal from the often inconceivability of those who are leading them in Church.  "Is God talking to me or not?"  

"no...not at all."  says the leader.  

[USU78]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well....there ya go.  God simply can't be guiding those who are gay in their relationships in yoru view.  It's not even a conceivable thing.  

I cannot conceive how one goes from the numerous instances of disapprobation of homosexual behavior in Scripture to the Proclamation to "just kidding, forget what I've been saying for 3K+ years."  How could anybody possibly honestly do it?  The mind boggles.  Please 'splain it to me.

Quote

 

It seems to me when it comes to this issue, the biggest healing that has to occur often deals with those who are gay having to heal from the often inconceivability of those who are leading them in Church.  "Is God talking to me or not?"  

"no...not at all."  says the leader.

 

  The mindset that demands others bend on non-negotiables in order to be good people is morally and ethically indistinguishable from the schoolyard bully's demand for others' lunch money.

[cinepro]

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To those who are marginalizing or discounting the role of Satan in influencing men and women to choose evil, I wonder what you make of the doctrine that Satan will be bound for the duration of Christ’s millennial reign. What’s the purpose of binding him if he doesn’t pose that big of a problem anyway? 

That's one of those ideas that I don't think works, so I'll have to believe it when I see it.

Besides, I'm not even sure how solid the idea of "Satan being bound" really is.  I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it … I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it.

[cinepro]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I cannot conceive how one goes from the numerous instances of disapprobation of homosexual behavior in Scripture to the Proclamation to "just kidding, forget what I've been saying for 3K+ years."  How could anybody possibly honestly do it?  The mind boggles.  Please 'splain it to me.

 

Which has more scriptural support?  The idea that homosexuality is bad, or the idea that black skin is curse from God?

[cinepro]

A question for those who support the theory that Satan and his minions are the source of actual temptations such as the desire to engage in homosexual behavior.

Is it your belief that these temptations can be eliminated through some combination of righteousness and Priesthood power?  For example, do you believe that a righteous Priesthood holder could eliminate homosexual desires by raising his arm to the square and casting out the temptation using the Priesthood?

I'm not referring to being able to resist the temptation.  I'm talking about having the actual evil spirits and their attendant influence removed so that the temptation is fully removed.

The follow up question for anyone who would say "yes."  Why has the Church totally abandoned this idea in its approach to homosexuality?  Wouldn't the most effective and logical approach be to tell LDS who experience these temptations to simply live righteously and use the power of the Priesthood to eliminate the desire?

 

[stemelbow]

27 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I cannot conceive how one goes from the numerous instances of disapprobation of homosexual behavior in Scripture to the Proclamation to "just kidding, forget what I've been saying for 3K+ years."  How could anybody possibly honestly do it?  The mind boggles.  Please 'splain it to me.

God didn't write the scriptures.  People did.  It's easier for me, I suppose.  Gray has a great quote in his sig line "Despite its religious merits, scripture should not be seen as an infallible manual to divinity. Instead, scripture is the textual result of a human effort to reflect the divine" - David Bokovoy.

When you view scripture that way, you don't necessarily see it as God telling us proscriptive things.  

27 minutes ago, USU78 said:

  The mindset that demands others bend on non-negotiables in order to be good people is morally and ethically indistinguishable from the schoolyard bully's demand for others' lunch money.

I think people are plenty enough and diverse enough for me to accept that there are essentially no non-negotiable, or very few.

 

[USU78]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

God didn't write the scriptures.  People did.  It's easier for me, I suppose.  Gray has a great quote in his sig line "Despite its religious merits, scripture should not be seen as an infallible manual to divinity. Instead, scripture is the textual result of a human effort to reflect the divine" - David Bokovoy.

When you view scripture that way, you don't necessarily see it as God telling us proscriptive things.  

If we decontextualize things sufficiently well, we can imagine all sorts of things about G-d's views on sexual misbehavior.

Notice, please, that G-d merely points out the likely consequences of poor choices.  He doesn't necessarily make them happen, at least not in the Mormon view of things.  David, I imagine, would be puzzled by your using his excellent quote to justify unwarranted and insupportable novelties.

Quote

I think people are plenty enough and diverse enough for me to accept that there are essentially no non-negotiable, or very few.

Eating pork  ...  plainly negotiable.  Eating poop  ...  plainly nonnegotiable.  

Turning fundamental cosmology and temple covenants on their heads:  more akin to eating poop, in my view.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

That's one of those ideas that I don't think works, so I'll have to believe it when I see it.

Besides, I'm not even sure how solid the idea of "Satan being bound" really is.  I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it … I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it.

I'm not clear on what you mean by "I'll  have to believe it when I see it." Do mean you doubt this teaching is written down anywhere? I've seen it taught a lot. This, for example, is in the Gospel Principles manual, the one designed to give a basic understanding of the doctrines of the Church to investigators and newly baptized members, among others. Quoted within the paragraph excerpt below are three scriptural passages that support the teaching, including one  that explicitly declares it.

 

Quote

 

Satan Bound

During the Millennium, Satan will be bound. This means he will not have power to tempt those who are living at that time (see D&C 101:28). The “children shall grow up without sin unto salvation” (D&C 45:58). “Because of the righteousness of [the Lord’s] people, Satan has no power; wherefore, he cannot be loosed for the space of many years; for he hath no power over the hearts of the people, for they dwell in righteousness, and the Holy One of Israel reigneth” (1 Nephi 22:26).

 

 

 

Incidentally, if you type in the Google search string "Satan will be bound" (with the quotation marks) you will get about 27,100 hits, from LDS as well as non-LDS sources.

Edited February 21, 2018 by Scott Lloyd