"Love as you should not Love"

[Brent]

Third paragraph.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/ ... illennials

[wtfluff]

Probably something Aunt Wendy told him to say.

Doesn't it sound like something a ~50-year-old virgin, who married an ~80-year-old widower would say?


But honestly, it really is a bit of a stupid statement. Then again, it's probably not a great idea to take love/relationship advice from a 93-year-old former heart surgeon who believes in magic...

[JustHangingOn@57]

What in the world does that even mean? He is speaking to young adults, not 5 year olds. SWK had no problem telling adults that oral sex was taboo. So come on RMN, enough with the euphuisms. Unless he really is talking about eating food, in which case I totally stand corrected.

[moksha]

"He tempts us to eat things we should not eat, to drink things we should not drink."

That is quite some attack on Big Macs and the extra large shakes at Crown Burger.

[Red Ryder]

“One size really can fit all who are here tonight,” said Sister Nelson. “Whatever is said over the pulpit can fit each one of you perfectly because the Holy Ghost will tailor-make whatever is said to fit you. I don't know what you need to hear, but the Lord does.”

At first I thought she was referring to garments sizing. Too bad the Holy Ghost couldn’t tailor-make garments.
Then I realized the extreme fanaticism of this statement. Whatever is said over the pulpit, you can interpretate it however you want as the Lord speaking to you through the Holy Ghost. No wonder religious delusions seep into the minds of people like Brian David Mitchell and Ron Lafferty.

Love as you should not love? That’s a carefully worded, thinly vailed way of saying homosexuality is Satan’s enticement.

Who the hell are they to tell people who and how to love? This church continues to be toxic and controlling as ever.

[Red Ryder]

He should have just said:

“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 marry as we should not marry!”

[Not Buying It]

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.

[redjay]

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

As soon as someone starts babbling on about beelzebub they lose credibility in the eyes of anyone who isn't a fundamentalist. So the anti-gay rhetoric just follows the pure absurdity of a very old man.

[Jeffret]

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?

This is probably pretty much what you'll get.

It really is weird, though. They're so upset about people loving, but show little concern for people hating. I would be a lot more concerned and speak out more about hate. But, they're worried about people loving too much. Or not loving the right kind of people.

[Corsair]

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?

Yes, this is what I expect from the Nelson presidency. I am in the ridiculous position that I would not mind seeing Oaks and Nelson be even more open about their condemnation of the LGBT community. I am fully aware of what this might mean to thousands of quietly suffering LGBT youth in our wards. It's a risk, but I'm not the guy with any control over the bully pulpit in general conference. I simply hope that Nelson and Oaks unintentionally encourage LGBT youth to leave and find a new social group.

[slavereeno]

“One size really can fit all who are here tonight,” said Sister Nelson. “Whatever is said over the pulpit can fit each one of you perfectly because the Holy Ghost will tailor-make whatever is said to fit you. I don't know what you need to hear, but the Lord does.”

Then I realized the extreme fanaticism of this statement. Whatever is said over the pulpit, you can interpretate it however you want as the Lord speaking to you through the Holy Ghost. No wonder religious delusions seep into the minds of people like Brian David Mitchell and Ron Lafferty.

There are two parts to this... The first is a doubling down on everybody has to fit into the same mold mentality. Then the second softens it? I guess? So if what is taught over the pulpit is "Pay 10% of your gross to LDS inc." Can the wholly ghost then say to me "Pay 10% on the money you normally spend on Doritos"?

[wtfluff]

It really is weird, though. They're so upset about people loving, but show little concern for people hating.

Little concern for people hating? When you strip away the vague niceties in Mr. Nelson's speech, that's really what it comes down to: He's a bigot, and he hates homosexuals.

The same with all of Mr. Oak's speeches about "religious freedom". Religious Freedom to the Q15 bigots means: "I reserve my right to discriminate and hate homosexuals."

They're not concerned about people hating, because: They are in fact, the haters.

[alas]

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.

[mooseman]

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.

Of course it will be modus operandi, because it can cover so much and so little. Homosexuality, masturbation, oral, anal, premarital, birth control, furries....anything they want to shame for. It can be whipped out and used by a hardliner because "we all know what he meant" but is vauge enough it doesnt send more casual members to doubt or be afraid their kink is mentioned.

[alas]

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.

Of course it will be modus operandi, because it can cover so much and so little. Homosexuality, masturbation, oral, anal, premarital, birth control, furries....anything they want to shame for. It can be whipped out and used by a hardliner because "we all know what he meant" but is vauge enough it doesnt send more casual members to doubt or be afraid their kink is mentioned.

More importantly, it is vague enough that the press doesn't blast him for homophobia.

[Grace2Daisy]

“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!”

I'm not sure who wrote this for him. . . . not sure if he is attacking the gay folks in the church, or BYU soaking, or what's happening in everyones bedroom. If BY had made this statement I sure it would be a racial one, but maybe Wendy wrote this for him and Nelson needs to step up in his own bedroom.

[Brent]

It's a dog whistle. Straight up dog whistle.

[Jeffret]

The same with all of Mr. Oak's speeches about "religious freedom". Religious Freedom to the Q15 bigots means: "I reserve my right to discriminate and hate homosexuals."

That's an essential part of it, but there's a little bit more. First, they want to reserve their right to discriminate against anyone. Gays are their current favorite target, but it's not limited to just them. They also want to discriminate against transgender people. Or others.

There's another essential aspect of their push for religious freedom. They want to have the "freedom", which should really be read as "privilege", to have their comments and teachings and elevated to a higher level. They want to be given a higher deference and to be free from criticism. They don't want their religious ideas to have an equal opportunity in the discussion and consideration; they want them to be given special regard, because they are religious. They're terrified that they would be common and given no particular attention or adulation.

[Jeffret]

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.

[Anon70]

It really is weird, though. They're so upset about people loving, but show little concern for people hating. I would be a lot more concerned and speak out more about hate. But, they're worried about people loving too much. Or not loving the right kind of people.

THIS

If only we worried about being kind, loving, compassionate, helpful. But, no, better to worry about what's going on in their bedrooms