Disappointed with Nelson's talk

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Despite your claim for astute reading and thinking, that's the most you can gather from my comments?

Frankly, I attributed more to you than that. Thank you for clearing up my misconception.

Arch, based on more than just this thread, that's what a lot of your philosophy boils down to in its most fundamental form.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Tex

I hardly see how that's comparable in any degree.

It highlights that attempts to be brutally honest are in general more notable for their brutality than their honesty. It is comparable in that no person who has just lost their spouse wants to be told that their beloved departed is, well, in hell. Not even if it true. I think he was making a larger point and is correct on the doctrine, of course. I just think there were other ways to illustrate the point without it potential landing on the wrong people. That is not a reproach, just my opinion.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think Jay makes a good point. Elder Nelson took some real liberties in his interpretation of the scripture.

Given the sheer volume of material presented at conference, I wonder closely each talk is parsed. And I wonder how common it is for a GA to critique a fellow GA?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

It highlights that attempts to be brutally honest are in general more notable for their brutality than their honesty. It is comparable in that no person who has just lost their spouse wants to be told that their beloved departed is, well, in hell. Not even if it true. I think he was making a larger point and is correct on the doctrine, of course. I just think there were other ways to illustrate the point without it potential landing on the wrong people. That is not a reproach, just my opinion.

His comment was not "brutal" nor was it telling someone their dearly departed went to hell. Let's have some perspective here, shall we?

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I think Jay makes a good point.

I'm shocked, shocked!

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by Tex

His comment was not "brutal" nor was it telling someone their dearly departed went to hell. Let's have some perspective here, shall we?

He was mocking the beliefs of those who recently lost loved ones.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

He was mocking the beliefs of those who recently lost loved ones.

mock: "to treat with contempt or ridicule"

Maybe some hear some contempt or ridicule in Elder Nelson's voice. I didn't.

[Indy Coug]

Not being together forever is NOT the same as "going to hell", nor did Elder Nelson exclude the possibility that such a situtation may be rectified through future temple work.

Mocking? Elder Nelson wasn't mocking, he was teaching doctrine. Obviously, having a church that actually has doctrine is going to inevitably put it at odds with other's beliefs; and as we see here that includes its own membership who don't seem to understand and/or accept its own church's doctrine.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by grapevine

BRM in sevenly deadly heresays said it was waste of time to do vicarious work for someone that flat out rejected gospel to eat drink and be merry, And I can't remember were I read this but SWK said same thing of how he knew a couple that rejected the gospel but just knew they would be together. SWK said they could say that a hunderd times but would do no good. And in MOF said vicarious temple work is for those that don't have the oppurtunity.

I recently heard a high councilor say how the temple would help some people who didn't make it in this life. Will God be mocked if they rejected it now. Temple work won't do then if you reject it now.


SWK told of someone that was killed an hour after civil marriage in Salt Lake could of gone to temple since God won't be mocked. Another morbid story before Rexburg Temple was built couple got married in Rexburg no temple there a week later groom killed in accident. Planned to go. Nelson is not the first to say such things. Kimball and McConkie and several others said just as much. Job to teach doctrine. Not what sounds popular.

It's opinions like these that make me wish Elder Nelson would be a little more careful in his phrasing.

I actually enjoyed Elder Nelson's talk. I don't think his intent was to condemn any departed loved ones--it was to encourage those who are married to honor their covenants and those who aren't married to set temple marriage as an important goal. I particularly liked his thought that all activities in the Church are directed toward the goal of creating exalted families. I think the obituary example was a little overboard and unnecessary as he'd already made his point, but that's just my opinion.

On a sidenote, the number of times you hear the Proclamation quoted as "marriage between a man and a woman is sacred" make me wonder if the Church is really understanding others' objection to Prop 8. I think we all agree that heterosexual marriage is sacred; the objection is to how large of a role a religion should play in secular politics.

[DrumNFeather]

I once dated a catholic girl and the subject of marriage came up. I noted that in my religion we got married for time and all eternity and we discussed how in hers it is until death do you part. I inquired as to whether or not she would want to be married to her spouse beyond dead and she said that she would prefer to "just be with God" after death. So, perhaps when you have this perspective, being married for time and all eternity isn't such a big deal.

I will say she was a bit of an extremist Catholic, but and interesting remark nonetheless.

Perhaps if it is not a part of your core belief system, it is irrelevant to your after life experience.

[BYU71]

I really enjoyed the hope and positive messages in the Sunday Morning session.

For me personally, the first two talks in the afternoon took my spirits down a bit. I am not arguing with them doctrinally, they were just the kind of talks I would give my kids about what would happen to them by mean men if they broke the law and went to jail.