Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bsjkki

Oaks address about SSM makes national news

Recommended Posts

Since the birth rate among traditional religions is much higher than among irreligious people, the long term advantage is to those who opt to raise traditional families.  However, in the meantime, since the percent of those being raised in broken families is so high, we must deal with a lot of non-traditional households -- the new normal.

Quote
Quote

Approximately 50% American children will witness the breakup of a parent's marriage. Of these, close to half will also see the breakup of a parent’s second marriage.  (Furstenberg, F.F., Nord, C.W., Peterson, J.L., and Zill, N. (1983). "The Life Course of Children of Divorce." American Sociological Review 48(5): 656-668.)

One of every 10 children whose parents have divorced will also see three or more subsequent parental marriage breakups. (Gallager, Maggie. The Abolition of Marriage: How We Destroy Lasting Love)

Of all children born to married parents this year, fifty percent will experience the divorce of their parents before they reach their 18th birthday. (Patrick F. Fagan and Robert Rector, "The Effects of Divorce on America," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, May 2000.)

https://www.thespruce.com/children-of-divorce-in-america-statistics-1270390 .

 

Edited by Robert F. Smith

Share this post


Link to post

I can't help but wonder if his talk was given with the purpose of reminding people that even though the Brethren Supported the LoveLoud Festival, the doctrine/gospel teachings on the matter have not changed.

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, bsjkki said:

As I listened to conference yesterday, I knew Elder Oaks remarks would make it into the news cycle. Today I saw this story as I perused the headlines. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/religion/top-mormon-leader-reaffirms-faith-s-opposition-gay-marriage-n806226  Not surprising and as one poster stated on the general discussions thread on general conference, I liked that he came out and outlined the church's position and also talked about the process of how the proclamation on the family was written. Overall, the article was fair

Oaks on Saturday reiterated a church belief that children should be raised in heterosexual married households, not by gay parents or couples who live together but aren't married. He lamented that fewer children in the United States aren't raised in what the religion considers the ideal households.

"Even as we must live with the marriage laws and other traditions of a declining world, those who strive for exaltation must make personal choices in family life according to the Lord's way whenever that differs from the world's way," Oaks said.

 

\

Awful headline and opener -- so inaccurate. He was reaffirming what we stand for in relation to the family proclamation, not fanning opposition to anything.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, FearlessFixxer said:

I can't help but wonder if his talk was given with the purpose of reminding people that even though the Brethren Supported the LoveLoud Festival, the doctrine/gospel teachings on the matter have not changed.

Supporting the First Amendment, of "freedom of speech", has nothing to do with any doctrinal shift. Not sure how these two could be confused? 

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Supporting the First Amendment, of "freedom of speech", has nothing to do with any doctrinal shift. Not sure how these two could be confused? 

Agreed; it is another part of the First Amendment that does.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Agreed; it is another part of the First Amendment that does.

Don't leave it hanging, go on and finish. 

Share this post


Link to post

Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise their of.

Our wonderful Christian Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley just voted to allow countries to kill homosexuals for merely being homosexuals.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise their of.

Our wonderful Christian Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley just voted to allow countries to kill homosexuals for merely being homosexuals.

I do not agree with the practice, but the two statements are congruent. But maybe I should not even make the comment in order not to derail the thread.

Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise their of.

Our wonderful Christian Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley just voted to allow countries to kill homosexuals for merely being homosexuals.

Do you know why Nikki Haley voted against the U.N. resolution when the Trump administration has been saying all along they are against the death penalty being used against those whose alleged crime is being gay, transgender, etc?

Edited by Bobbieaware

Share this post


Link to post

John 15:19King James Version (KJV)

19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Do you know why Nikki Haley voted against the U.N. resolution when the Trump administration has been saying all along they are against the death penalty being used against those whose alleged crime is being gay, transgender, etc?

No I don't. And hate to venture a guess. But quite a few American Christians are the Old Testament type. Where God tells them to kill the homosexual.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

No I don't. And hate to venture a guess. But quite a few American Christians are the Old Testament type. Where God tells them to kill the homosexual.

And although you now admit you don't know the actual reason why the US voted against the resolution, you originally presented that down vote as if it was evidence the administration supports those nations that execute people for being gay. Meanwhile, the reality of the matter is that the reason why the US didn't vote for the resolution is because it broadly condemned the death penalty FOR ANY REASON and called for the eventual total abolition of the death penalty worldwide. In other words, the resolution was too broad. Therefore, those news outlets that said the US voted against the resolution because the US won't condem those nations that execute homosexuals for being homosexual amounts to lying by omission.

 What follows was taken from the Snpoes website:

Responding to such criticisms, U.S. State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert said during a 3 October press briefing that the much of the reporting on the United States’ position on the resolution had been misleading, and that despite appearances the U.S. “unequivocally condemns” the application of the death penalty to homosexuality, adultery, and religious offenses:

As our representative to the Human Rights Council said last Friday, the United States is disappointed to have voted against that resolution. We voted against that resolution because of broader concerns with the resolution’s approach in condemning the death penalty in all circumstances, and it called for the abolition of the death penalty altogether. We had hoped for a balanced and inclusive resolution that would better reflect the positions of states that continue to apply the death penalty lawfully, as the United States does. The United States unequivocally condemns the application of the death penalty for conduct such as homosexuality, blasphemy, adultery, and apostasy. We do not consider such conduct appropriate for criminalization.

 

Edited by Bobbieaware
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Then why did Nikki Haley vote for it? It would have been a simple matter to vote against it, or to have abstained.

Share this post


Link to post

 

6 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Then why did Nikki Haley vote for it? It would have been a simple matter to vote against it, or to have abstained.

An abstention, to my mind, at least, shows either apathy or fear. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 

An abstention, to my mind, at least, shows either apathy or fear. 

That is not normally what it means in the minds of most people.

Share this post


Link to post
On Thursday, October 05, 2017 at 8:52 AM, thesometimesaint said:

No I don't. And hate to venture a guess. But quite a few American Christians are the Old Testament type. Where God tells them to kill the homosexual.

How many is “quite a few?”   And at what point does  “just a few”  become “quite a few?”  

(Yes, I know that even if there is only one person who believes God is telling them to kill “the homosexual,” that is one person too many.  But that is not my question.)

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 

An abstention, to my mind, at least, shows either apathy or fear. 

I still remember when my mom would give me that cold silent stare when I did something wrong. VERY Effective.

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said:

How many is “quite a few?”   And at what point does  “just a few”  become “quite a few?”  

(Yes, I know that even if there is only one person who believes God is telling them to kill “the homosexual,” that is one person too many.  But that is not my question.)

Dominonism

SEE http://www.newswithviews.com/Nelson/kelleigh284.htm

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

I still remember when my mom would give me that cold silent stare when I did something wrong. VERY Effective.

Your mother was a wise woman, clearly.  But I don't think the two situations are equivalent, somehow. Nikki Haley's cold silent stare isn't going to move any mountains -- she's not their mother.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/5/2017 at 11:00 PM, The Nehor said:

That is not normally what it means in the minds of most people.

Do you know how most people think about this? I don't know, but do I know how I think about it -- that an abstention means you either got no skin in the game (a recusal, in other words), or you either don't care or are worried people are going to think poorly of you if you actually take a stand.  Don't care, or are afraid to take a stand.  That's what is meant by abstention, after all.

From Wikipedia on Abstention: "An abstention may be used to indicate the voting individual's ambivalence about the measure, or mild disapproval that does not rise to the level of active opposition. Abstention can also be used when someone has a certain position about an issue, but since the popular sentiment supports the opposite, it might not be politically expedient to vote according to his or her conscience. A person may also abstain when they do not feel adequately informed about the issue at hand, or has not participated in relevant discussion. In parliamentary procedure, a member may be required to abstain in the case of a real or perceived conflict of interest."

As I understand it, the measure being voted upon contained verbiage which the United States was not in agreement with. If the US isn't in agreement with it, should she not then vote against it?  Active opposition as opposed to passive-aggressive wishy-washy whistling past the graveyard?

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...