Quantcast

Comments about ‘Elder Russell M. Nelson speaks to BYU graduates: Disciples of Jesus Christ are defenders of marriage’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Aug. 15 2014 1:30 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
jsf
Centerville, UT

no equivocating on this issue.

Shimlau
SAINT GEORGE, UT

you're right, it doesn't get any plainer than this.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

Unless you're planning on raising your own army, seceding from the U.S., and declaring sectarian warfare on the rest of us, you may just have to learn to accept that there are other faiths, as equally entitled to our own interpretation of Scripture as you are to yours. While we don't ask you to adopt our beliefs, or even respect them, as long as you're part of this country, you do need to respect that we have a right to have them, as others do to reject both of ours.

My religion, like yours, also believes that marriage is sacred, a gift of God. However, we differ diametrically from yours on the subject of marriage equality. You can "declare your truth to the world" until the cows come home. It's still false in our doctrine.

the greater truth
Bountiful, UT

@A Quaker

Regardless, we can and should speak up publically and profess our beliefs and views on what is right and wrong, and what is best for society, and influence the making and creating of law.

That is how our system works.

We should not sit idly by while others, destroy our communities, society, and country.

They equally have no right to dictate to us and our communities.

Hooky
Riverton, UT

I'm glad Elder Nelson chose to speak out about this. I don't think Latter-day Saints (myself included) have done nearly enough to defend the true order of marriage in the public square. Instead, we have allowed the much more vocal proponents of gay marriage to push us into being silent. Now is the time to speak out in defense of the truth, and not fear retribution, no matter what that retribution may be.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

I wonder about a sect that claims to speak in the name of God and yet spends resources in excluding instead of embracing his children.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Baccus,
Of whom do you speak?

Where are ld_ lib and open minded, who usually argue so vociferously in defense of gay marriage?

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@heGreaterTruth: I'm curious. Who's dictating what to you? No one has the right to tell you who to permit in your Meetinghouses and Temples or which rites to perform or for whom. By the way, that being the case, what makes you think you have the right to force others to obey your religious dictates?

From the point of view of my religion, I see society becoming fairer and more ethical with the recent developments. If you see it as decay, well... I feel quite free to disagree with you.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Quaker,
At what point will the courts invalidate marriages performed in our temples and meeting houses because we do not call homosexual unions "marriages"? Don't say that won't happen, Barry and the demo, through Obama care have already shown liberal ideas trump 1st amendment religious freedom, and the court narrowly agreed with the constitution. It may not happen again, and our history has shown the feds will disenfranchise the church and confiscate it's property if it doesn't like us. Google edmunds-tucker acts. The Feds HAVE dictated to us. Learn more history before campaigning around on your high horse.

Would you see polygamy and incest between consenting adults as fairer and more ethical? How about lowering the age of consent? It's 14 in some parts of South America? At what point do YOU draw the line? Where does it stop being fair and start being decay? Or is ANYTHING decay for liberals?

Longfellow
Holladay, UT

A Quaker, it is a bit more complex than you represent. 20 years ago the subject of gay marriage was not even discussed in public and individuals who believed as Russell Nelson could chose pretty much any profession. Today, gay marriage is gaining public acceptance and legal status (at least until, and if the SCOTUS rules differently). However, any profession associated with marriage and obstetrics is now, in a number of states,closed to anyone who wishes to remain true to the tenants of a religion that believes as Russell Nelson. Indeed, these people are forced to obey secular dictates and abandon their religion if they wish to pursue these professions.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

@ LostinDC

Lost, I have no problem with Elder Nelson stating his opinion and beliefs. As an LDS (or former) who still cares deeply for the church, I find contradictory and damaging to the gospel teachings that separate and divide people. But that is just my opinion, as an ld_lib open minded I feel entitled to express.

The LDS church is very controversial in the U.S. and around the world. If the church goal is to preach the gospel to "all". Then don't make your work harder. If you are going to tell me that the gospel shouldn't compromise, i would ask you to review the history of the church.

Also, how do you know that SSM is against God's will? Tradition? scriptures? revelation ?
I venture to say that is mostly tradition and tradition should have no bearing in accepting or rejecting principles or customs that are good for the people.

intervention
slc, UT

@lost in DC
"Of whom do you speak?"
So the article is about an LDS leaders speech, who do you think Buccas is talking about?

bengel
Sandy, UT

Though the view of the LDS Church may differ from others, it is important for those who claim membership to heed Elder Nelson's call. If you believe God has taken a position on this issue, it is important to engage in civic, civil dialogue and the political process. You must accord others with differing views the same right.

For members of the LDS Church whose views are in opposition to what Elder Nelson said, I suggest you are being intellectually inconsistent and doctrinally disingenuous. The fifteen men who collectively, in their official capacities as members of their respective quorums, the Quorum of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, signed "The Family - A Proclamation to the World," as prophets, seers, and revelators. Their signatures witness that words of the Proclamation are God's words.

They either speak for God, or they do not. LDS members claiming they sustain them as prophets, seers, and revelators, while saying they got this one wrong, engage in double think beyond the capacity of the ordinary mortal. You cannot eat your cake and have it too.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@LostInDC: I speak not from liberalism, but from a 350+ year-old Religious Society of Friends doctrine based in Equality. Equality of men and women in the Meeting, in the secular world, in governance, and in the home -- in rights, in property, and in responsibility. Equality of blacks and whites in the right to liberty and justice. If you call Emancipation, desegregation, or Women's Suffrage "liberalism," then you don't understand simple Christian principles or Genesis 1:27 the way we do.

Your slippery slope argument ignores the essential definition of marriage: two unrelated adults, joining as next-of-kin for their lifetime. Our religious view that the genders of such couple are inconsequential to God, our Meeting, or the community doesn't change anything about individual eligibility for marriage, nor the number therein.

@LongFellow: Hyperbole much? Since when does an obstetrician have to participate in abortion? As for marriage, ministers cannot be compelled to officiate rites. Others, engaged in providing services to the public must obey their state laws. Not all states include sexual orientation in their nondiscrimination statutes, so you're free move somewhere you can discriminate.

intervention
slc, UT

@bengel
Yet you seem to have no problem ignoring these same leaders counsel to not call other members faith into question.
"You cannot eat your cake and have it too."

bengel
Sandy, UT

@intervention

If only those free of inconsistencies could point them out, no one’s neighbor would ever be warned.

Assume I questioned the faith of others, thus acting contrary to prophetic counsel. That has nothing to do with whether my point is valid. You are attacking me, not my argument.

The fifteen signatories to the Proclamation signed in their official capacities as members of the two presiding quorums of the LDS Church. In other words, they signed as prophets, seers, and revelators. They held themselves out as speaking for God. A fair reading of the Proclamation yields no other interpretation.

If they spoke for God when they signed the Proclamation, then support of same-sex marriage is contrary to God’s will. It’s that simple.

intervention
slc, UT

I disagree I think acknowledging the fact that you choose to question others faith because they pck and choose which counsel from your leaders they follow when you are clearly doing the same is pertinent to the coversation.

Bob A. Bohey
Marlborough, MA

It's my belief, arrived at from my faith and testimony that speeches like Elder Nelson's are the instruments that propagate discrimination and inequalityin the world today. My faith teaches children that in order to create a society that is fair and equal and to truly love others they must to grow up and be the polar opposite of people like Elder Nelson. That is how my faith practices freedom of religion.

Lilalips
Attleboro, MA

@ A Quaker and Baccus, Any close reading of the New Testament would confirm that Jesus did not intend to embrace all beliefs and behaviors. His admonition was always, "Keep the Commandments"... and in Matthew we find: Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. There was plenty of homosexuality around during the time of Christ. The Greeks were notorious for it in the ancient world. In fact, the Jews tried to guard against it seeping into their own culture. In Christianity,loving homosexuals does not mean loving homosexuality OR embracing it. It has always been a sin and will always be so regardless of what popular culture says. However, we need to support and embrace those who struggle with this sin the same way we embrace those who struggle with any other sin or vice. The struggle is what makes us familiar with God.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@Lilalips: With their consent and permission, you may possibly be able to speak for your own denomination, but I can recognize instantly that you don't speak for mine, and hence you can't speak for all of Christendom.

When Quakers sit in worship in Meeting, we frequently are covered by the Light. There, we reach discernment in the presence and with the guidance of the Lord, who as promised (Matthew 18:20), sits with us in Meeting. He guides us with His love and wisdom and teaches us.

Gay people are neither sinful nor "disordered," any more so than left-handers, pygmies, or "gingers." God loves all His children and enjoys variety in His creation. The love of one gay person for another is no different or less pure than the love of one straight person for another. God knows this and soon the rest of us will learn this too.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments