NOM

Anon70 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:28 pm If only we worried about being kind, loving, compassionate, helpful. But, no, better to worry about what's going on in their bedrooms

And it's not really about the bedroom. Especially as Nelson has so oddly put it here. For some time, the Church has tried to make a distinction between what someone feels (what they call same-sex attraction) and what someone does (sexual activity). They have tried to claim that feeling attracted to someone of the same sex isn't a sin, but acting on it is. Nelson is talking about love, which might be a feeling or might be an action, but he really isn't clear about it.

Is it wrong for a parent to love a gay son? Or to love their gay daughter?

Is it really the love that is the problem in a gay relationship (from the Church's demands)? Is it a problem that two men love and care for each other, supporting each other in life? What about the relationship between Jesus and the disciple whom he loved? Or when David loved Johnathon?

Love and sex aren't the same thing, though they can be related.

Reading the stories on Sam's site, it's clear that the Church has little interest in love. When someone confesses to shared sexual activity, no one ever relates that the Bishop asks whether they love each other. Or whether it was consensual. Or whether their partner respected their desires.

This is fabulous news. Since Uncle Russell and Aunt Wendy aren't specifying how we shouldn't love, that means we can love like we SHOULD love! And they are leaving it up to members to decide what that means, using the spirit of course.
So have fun everyone!

Grace2Daisy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:28 pm or BYU soaking

Say what???

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:26 am Will this be the modus operandi for the Nelson Presidency? Vague statements the hard core members can interpret as condemnation of homosexuality that are vague enough so as not to offend the progressive sensibilities of young folks in the Church? Or was this just a fluke and can we expect tough talk from President Nelson in the future?

What a weird statement anyway. Most of the Brethren are pretty weird once you take off the rose colored glasses.

It's been the modus operandi for a long time now, I think. When Ordain Women asked the Brethren to pray about women receiving the priesthood, they got DHO's talk that never really explained why they could not pray about it but did make everyone know that asking uncomfortable questions would be punished. Rather than straightforwardly explaining the church position regarding homosexual marriage, they made vague pronouncements about defending the family. They've stopped talking about masturbation in conference. Instead they make comments about "impure practices."

I would bet it's going to get worse. Public relations is as paramount as the fundamentalist worldview. I can't imagine how this will help the church grow, though. It seems too slick. It seems disingenuous.

StarbucksMom wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:09 pm

Grace2Daisy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:28 pm or BYU soaking

Say what???

I'll just drop this right here! Safe for work.

http://beehivebugle.com/2014/09/05/soak ... u-campus1/

Tldr; it's ok to soak it; but against the LoC if ya stroke it!

Jeffret wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:55 pm

alas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:45 am On Facebook, a friend had published an article with the headline, "Satan tempts us to love as we should not love" and the first comment read:

"I stopped reading at "Satan tempts us to love." Where can I join the church of Satan?"

Yeah, if Satan tempts us to love, I think more people will do it than if it is a commandment. We just don't seem to do it much as a commandment.

That's great!

The churches these days have been putting their hate on fine display. Their love is in little evidence but their hate abounds. Is there any surprise that people are leaving in droves? Especially the youth?

When the churches tell us that we shouldn't love or be loved and Satan tempts us to love, I know which I'd rather follow.

Right?^^^

And don't forget RMNs whole "God's love is not unconditional" thing. Who even WANTS to go there? He really has some screwed up ideas about love. It's kind of poetically ironic that he is a heart surgeon and his ideas and beliefs about love are so destructive.

It's a straight-up dog whistle, if you ask me.

It's also interesting to me that E Nelson considers sexual orientation to be merely an "appetite"...

achilles wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:16 am It's also interesting to me that E Nelson considers sexual orientation to be merely an "appetite"...

I suspect that's not really the case. Almost certainly he assumes that straight, cisgender, strict gender roles, and male are all the natural, inherent state of being. They are fundamental and essential. They are the standards by which everything else is measured. Being straight is a fundamental, godly nature. Being gay is merely an appetite. From his perspective it's not really that sexual orientation is merely an appetite, but that any aspect that he doesn't like must be reduced to merely an appetite.

Though it is kind of interesting that his phrasing states that love is an appetite. It's certainly not clear that he feels love is an essential or important characteristic. Or that it can be far-reaching and encompassing.

I'm gonna play God's Advocate here since the devil is clearly winning this current battle.

To give RSM a little benefit of the doubt, There are things we love as we should not love. We love big houses, expensive cars, unsustainable lifestyles. We love The Facebook, the Snapchatter, the Twitter. We love watching TV/movies. We love convenience.

Maybe there are a few things that society has come love as we should not love.

Of course, if I was a betting man (which I am on rare occasion), my guess is RSM is referring to anything other than non-traditional heteronormative love, as defined by the COB. I don't think he's referring to love of vanity, slothfulness or Social Media. He's an old man that is stuck in his ways, we shouldn't be too surprised by stuff like this. However, the church has a recent history of trying to be inclusive (and failing) and rather lengthy history of warning against too much excess, too much entertainment and too much vanity. These are things I find my guilty of occasionally loving as I should not love.

However, the paragraph is very problematic with my above description of love

“These appetites are absolutely essential for the perpetuation of life. So, what does the adversary do?” He asked. “He attacks us through our appetites. He tempts us to eat things we should not eat, to drink things we should not drink, and to love as we should not love!”

RSM is referring to things that are essential for the perpetuation of life. Food, Drink and Love (sexual reproduction) are essential to perpetuating life. Love of wealth and social status is not essential to perpetuating life.

What are things we eat that we should not eat? Maybe he's referring to drugs here, but it's a vague statement. Marijuana can be good to eat in appropiate moderation. Sugary desserts and lots of red meat are rarely, if ever, good to eat.

Drinks - Again, you could argue poison, untreated water, etc are bad, but I don't think Satan goes around tempting the majority of people to drink toilet water. RSM is likely referring to coffee and alcohol - which are proven acceptable or even good in moderation.

So the last one is Love, I'm betting RSM is referring to love as in sexual reproduction and not love of vanity.

Yup, it's really hard to play God's advocate on this one. Church of Satan wins again.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 1:02 pm Yup, it's really hard to play God's advocate on this one. Church of Satan wins again.

Do I have to pay tithing to the Church of Satan? He is tempting me to "love", after all.

Corsair wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 1:21 pm

Kishkumen wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 1:02 pm Yup, it's really hard to play God's advocate on this one. Church of Satan wins again.

Do I have to pay tithing to the Church of Satan? He is tempting me to "love", after all.

He tempts us to pay some things we should not pay!

Veiled Bigotry. It's the latest entre on the Mormon menu.

alas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:45 am"I stopped reading at "Satan tempts us to love." Where can I join the church of Satan?"

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:20 pm
I'll just drop this right here! Safe for work.

http://beehivebugle.com/2014/09/05/soak ... u-campus1/

Tldr; it's ok to soak it; but against the LoC if ya stroke it!

Thanks RR! I actually have heard of this. I was talking with someone whose dad is a BYU bishop. She called it "docking" and said her dad reported it's a huge problem up there.
Off topic, but crazy stuff:
1-that they still consider themselves "virgins",
2-the kid in the article saying his bp just gives him a "slap on the wrist" when he confesses,
3-that they'll solve the problem by sending Dallin up there to give a soaking/docking is evil seminar