So Is Pope Francis Leading The Catholics Into Tolerance, Did The Lds Church Just Lose A Political Ally?

[Stone holm]

You wrote that with a straight face? Tell me you don't really think we are that ignorant or that naive?

Sitting in a quorum meeting where the average number of marriages per member was about 2 1/2 and you said what about gay promiscuity?

[lotharson]

As a non-denominational Christian, I think the LSD church can no longer be considered a cult

Lothar's son - Lothars Sohn

http://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/

[california boy]

It's not a slippery slope thinking. The argument doesn't assert that gay marriage will lead to polyamorous marriage, for example. Rather, it shows that the principle used to justify one, also justifies the other. If one of the essential features of marriage entails a union of two persons, then the principle of "equal treatment under the law," while necessary, is insufficient.

Are there any Mormons out there that think it is a bit hilarious that a member of the church would be arguing multiple marriage partners as being a bad thing? For heaven's sake, Joseph Smith redefined what marriage was over 150 years ago. What happened to the highest level of Celestial marriage? Ran, have you no idea that the church once fervently believe in polygamy. Can anyone explain why a Mormon would be using this argument against gay marriage???

Edited August 4, 2013 by california boy

[Stone holm]

Are there any Mormons out there that think it is a bit hilarious that a member of the church would be arguing multiple marriage partners as being a bad thing? For heaven's sake, Joseph Smith redefined what marriage was over 150 years ago. What happened to the highest level of Celestial marriage? Ran, have you no idea that the church once fervently believe in polygamy. Can anyone explain why a Mormon would be using this argument against gay marriage???

Well I took it to be polyamorist marriages, in other words group marriages. Also we never approved of other religions engaging in polygamy.

[Calm]

As a non-denominational Christian, I think the LSD church can no longer be considered a cult

Intentional typo or not, Lothar's Son?

[Stone holm]

As a non-denominational Christian, I think the LSD church can no longer be considered a cult

Lothar's son - Lothars Sohn

http://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/

Is this a random comment or directed at something?

[Ran]

Are there any Mormons out there that think it is a bit hilarious that a member of the church would be arguing multiple marriage partners as being a bad thing? For heaven's sake, Joseph Smith redefined what marriage was over 150 years ago. What happened to the highest level of Celestial marriage? Ran, have you no idea that the church once fervently believe in polygamy. Can anyone explain why a Mormon would be using this argument against gay marriage???

Catholic here, not Latter Day Saint. I apologize for the confusion.

[california boy]

Catholic here, not Latter Day Saint. I apologize for the confusion.

Well that does clear up some of the confusion. Sorry.

[thesometimesaint]

Are there any Mormons out there that think it is a bit hilarious that a member of the church would be arguing multiple marriage partners as being a bad thing? For heaven's sake, Joseph Smith redefined what marriage was over 150 years ago. What happened to the highest level of Celestial marriage? Ran, have you no idea that the church once fervently believe in polygamy. Can anyone explain why a Mormon would be using this argument against gay marriage???

None that I know of. What we do say is that God is one to set the standards, not man. Not sure how that is applicable in the US where we are supposed to have a separation of Church and State.

JS didn't redefine marriage. Polygamy has been with us for many a millennia. And specific to Christianity.

From Wiki:

Periodically, Christian reform movements that have aimed at rebuilding Christian doctrine based on the Bible alone (sola scriptura) have at least temporarily accepted polygyny as a Biblical practice. For example, during the Protestant Reformation, in a document referred to simply as "Der Beichtrat" (or "The Confessional Advice" ),^[42] Martin Luther granted the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, who, for many years, had been living "constantly in a state of adultery and fornication,"^[43] a dispensation to take a second wife. The double marriage was to be done in secret, however, to avoid public scandal.^[44] Some fifteen years earlier, in a letter to the Saxon Chancellor Gregor Brück, Luther stated that he could not "forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture." ("Ego sane fateor, me non posse prohibere, si quis plures velit uxores ducere, nec repugnat sacris literis.")^[45]

"On February 14, 1650, the parliament at Nürnberg decreed that, because so many men were killed during the Thirty Years’ War, the churches for the following ten years could not admit any man under the age of 60 into a monastery. Priests and ministers not bound by any monastery were allowed to marry. Lastly, the decree stated that every man was allowed to marry up to ten women. The men were admonished to behave honorably, provide for their wives properly, and prevent animosity among them

The highest degree in Celestial Kingdom is still there, and if we are required to practice polygamy. Then we will practice it. OTOH That is hardly a requirement for those whom it isn't required of. Does any Saint really believe that because GBH didn't practice earthly polygamy he is automatically excluded from the highest degree of Celestial Kingdom?

[Jaynee Doe]

Does any Saint really believe that because GBH didn't practice earthly polygamy he is automatically excluded from the highest degree of Celestial Kingdom?

I have an elderly uncle who does. In fact, he believes the reason the Church now teaches that people will be able to meet and marry someone after death is because polygamy ended, thereby making it impossible for many men to marry two or more wives while on earth. He has every intention of taking on another wife after he's passed away so that he can enter the highest degree of the CK. And while he's never said so to me, I presume he believes GBH will do the same.

[BCSpace]

Do his comments about gays in Brazil mark a major change in Catholic policy, or just a slight nuance that brings the Catholic position and the Mormon position into alignment?

There's been no change whatsoever in either Catholic or LDS doctrine on homosexuality as far as I can tell.

[Robert F. Smith]

Are there any Mormons out there that think it is a bit hilarious that a member of the church would be arguing multiple marriage partners as being a bad thing? For heaven's sake, Joseph Smith redefined what marriage was over 150 years ago. What happened to the highest level of Celestial marriage? Ran, have you no idea that the church once fervently believe in polygamy. Can anyone explain why a Mormon would be using this argument against gay marriage???

And polyandry as well. Yes, it is ironic that those who were so persecuted for their non-standard marriages have now forgotten that history and have joined the ranks of their former persecutors.

Bringing "equal protection of the law" into the discussion guarantees that the Supreme Court will finally agree to allow a very broad range of types of "marriage," each separate group practicing whatever it deems appropriate. A great many people believe that that is what freedom is all about, regardless of theoretical social consequences.

Last Sunday I sat in a group discussion in which some people wanted to blame all societal ills on the gay community, or at least the dissolution of the family in America. However, some participants observed that those social ills have nothing to do with such a very small group, and it is doubtful that the heterosexual community can shift the blame for their own failed marriages onto others. The family is in trouble throughout major parts of the Western World, and it will serve no useful purpose to ignore the actual causes.

[Stone holm]

And polyandry as well. Yes, it is ironic that those who were so persecuted for their non-standard marriages have now forgotten that history and have joined the ranks of their former persecutors.

Bringing "equal protection of the law" into the discussion guarantees that the Supreme Court will finally agree to allow a very broad range of types of "marriage," each separate group practicing whatever it deems appropriate. A great many people believe that that is what freedom is all about, regardless of theoretical social consequences.

Last Sunday I sat in a group discussion in which some people wanted to blame all societal ills on the gay community, or at least the dissolution of the family in America. However, some participants observed that those social ills have nothing to do with such a very small group, and it is doubtful that the heterosexual community can shift the blame for their own failed marriages onto others. The family is in trouble throughout major parts of the Western World, and it will serve no useful purpose to ignore the actual causes.

IMNSHO gay marriage has zero to do with the current status of heterosexual marriage failure. Gays are just a convenient scapegoat for people bewildered by societal change

[Storm Rider]

And polyandry as well. Yes, it is ironic that those who were so persecuted for their non-standard marriages have now forgotten that history and have joined the ranks of their former persecutors.

Bringing "equal protection of the law" into the discussion guarantees that the Supreme Court will finally agree to allow a very broad range of types of "marriage," each separate group practicing whatever it deems appropriate. A great many people believe that that is what freedom is all about, regardless of theoretical social consequences.

Last Sunday I sat in a group discussion in which some people wanted to blame all societal ills on the gay community, or at least the dissolution of the family in America. However, some participants observed that those social ills have nothing to do with such a very small group, and it is doubtful that the heterosexual community can shift the blame for their own failed marriages onto others. The family is in trouble throughout major parts of the Western World, and it will serve no useful purpose to ignore the actual causes.

And what are the major causes of the crumbling nature of the family unit - father, mother, and children?

[Stone holm]

And what are the major causes of the crumbling nature of the family unit - father, mother, and children?

In rural areas it has been the decline in the family as a cohesive economic unit. In urban areas the decline in ethnic communities and generalized disenchantment with religion as being irrelevant to actual issues of concern to people. The general population will only accept scapegoating for so long.

[california boy]

And what are the major causes of the crumbling nature of the family unit - father, mother, and children?

I remember a while back when my daughter was in high school. She was in a class with about 30 students. The teacher asked how many ate dinner with their families. Of the 30 students only my daughter and another LDS girl raised their hand. The rest told of just rummaging through the refrigerator for cold pizza and taking it up to their room to eat while playing on the computer.

Just because people get married and have children does not necessarily mean they are a family. 50% of marriages end in divorce. What percentage of Americans do just one thing each week as a family?

This was all happening long before gays started to get the right to marry. Preventing gays from marrying does nothing to "fix" the families of America. Somehow it is easier to find a scapegoat than to address the problem.

[Stone holm]

I dunno. There seems to be an interesting generational thing here. People bewail current families, but when I was a kid and running cross-country the only people who showed up at our cross-country meets were my parents and my dog. They even came to away meets. Now maybe half or more of the parents show up, plus Uncles and Aunts in some cases. Same is true of track meets. So I don't know as this generation is any worse than ours. But the thing they don't do is go to work at ma and pa's store in the evenings, after work and during the summer, or work on their parents farm -- because their parents don't have a store and they don't have a farm. It may well be that a family that plays together stays together -- but I would tend to bank more on the family that works together stays together and hardly any of them have the opportunity to do that anymore, not because they don't work, but because they work for someone else.

[why me]

I remember a while back when my daughter was in high school. She was in a class with about 30 students. The teacher asked how many ate dinner with their families. Of the 30 students only my daughter and another LDS girl raised their hand. The rest told of just rummaging through the refrigerator for cold pizza and taking it up to their room to eat while playing on the computer.

Just because people get married and have children does not necessarily mean they are a family. 50% of marriages end in divorce. What percentage of Americans do just one thing each week as a family?

This was all happening long before gays started to get the right to marry. Preventing gays from marrying does nothing to "fix" the families of America. Somehow it is easier to find a scapegoat than to address the problem.

Why should this be a surprise. The boundaries of what exactly is a family has now changed beyond recognition. Why should the traditional family survive such boundary shifts? Very few people know how to define the family these days. The old formula of man, woman and children no longer matters. The definitions are shifting and chaos seem to be influencing the family now.

Edited August 7, 2013 by why me

[california boy]

Why should this be a surprise. The boundaries of what exactly is a family has now changed beyond recognition. Why should the traditional family survive such boundary shifts? Very people know how to define the family these days. The old formula of man, woman and children no longer matters. The definitions are shifting and chaos seem to be influencing the family now.

Are you suggesting that this is the problem? Virtually every marriage starts out with the "old formula of man, woman and children:" Fewer than 50% succeed under that formula. Less than 1% of marriages start out as man, man, chlldren. To try and blame the collaps of families on that less than 1% is to just look for a scapegoat and does nothing to address the problem. That failure rate of man, women, children has not changed much since gay marriage started.

If you want to start a thread about the causes of failure of the family, you should. But to include anything about that cause being as a result or even a contribution to that problme coming from gay marriage would be a dishonest assertion.

[Ran]

Are you suggesting that this is the problem? Virtually every marriage starts out with the "old formula of man, woman and children:" Fewer than 50% succeed under that formula. Less than 1% of marriages start out as man, man, chlldren. To try and blame the collaps of families on that less than 1% is to just look for a scapegoat and does nothing to address the problem. That failure rate of man, women, children has not changed much since gay marriage started.

If you want to start a thread about the causes of failure of the family, you should. But to include anything about that cause being as a result or even a contribution to that problme coming from gay marriage would be a dishonest assertion.

One hypothesis:

The decline of families, composed of husband, wife and their biological children, can partly be traced to certain interventions and a secularizing culture punctuated by social movements that revolted against sexual norms informed by the prevailing Judeo-Christian world view. These interventions, which include no-fault divorce and the normalization of a contraceptive mentality that was especially facilitated by the introduction of the oral contraceptive pill, accelerated the weakening of society's commitment to the marital norms of permanence, monogamy, and fidelity, and obscured or disassociated the intrinsic connection between coitus and offspring. This secularizing culture and the corresponding interventions most certainly predated the growing disposition to sexual diversity, and so it is unintelligible to blame the collapse of the traditional family on the gay marriage movement.

[Robert F. Smith]

And what are the major causes of the crumbling nature of the family unit - father, mother, and children?

I'd like to know your thoughts on the matter, but I'll make several surmises: First, the nuclear family is a mistake, and we put far too much of a burden on it. We need to return to the extended family (the multigenerational family of Mosiah 2:5). However, since people no longer remain in one place or region any longer (education, jobs, etc.), that may not be possible. Thus, ersatz extended families may be necessary within one's religious or social community.

Even with that, the family faces a litany of centrifugal forces which can destroy their cohesion: television, pornography and other addictions, a shrinking middle class (relative pay has been decreasing for decades, forcing most families to have both spouses work full time), careerism for either or both spouses, etc., leaving the members of most families like ships passing in the night. Finally, the cost of having children (in money and time) has been skyrocketing, and the fertility rate dropping. Is Western civilization in suicide mode? One may turn the clock back to the 1950s in a place like Utah Valley, but what about the remainder of Western culture?

Edited August 7, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[why me]

Are you suggesting that this is the problem? Virtually every marriage starts out with the "old formula of man, woman and children:" Fewer than 50% succeed under that formula. Less than 1% of marriages start out as man, man, chlldren. To try and blame the collaps of families on that less than 1% is to just look for a scapegoat and does nothing to address the problem. That failure rate of man, women, children has not changed much since gay marriage started.

it is more than just the 1%. It is a basic attack on the traditional family. As I said, very few people can give a definition of what is a family these days. In the past, the definition was simple. But now such a definition has been made into something complicated and confusing. Why wouldn't such a change effect the traditional family as a value for a the well being of society. And if I were to give the traditional definition of a family as my own, people would look at me as a neanderthal man, Postmodernity has certainly made an impact on societies as grand narratives are now fragmented and dispersed

[Robert F. Smith]

......................................... The old formula of man, woman and children no longer matters. The definitions are shifting and chaos seem to be influencing the family now.

The old nuclear family formula is not so old and is failure prone for a host of reasons, and holding it up as the ideal is idolatry. Only the authentically old extended family has any hope of survival.

[Robert F. Smith]

it is more than just the 1%.

CFR.

So called "gay marriage" is quite rare, and would be a minuscule fraction of 1% of the total marriages in America. Only about 4% of the overall population is even homosexual (2% female and 2% male)

It is a basic attack on the traditional family. As I said, very few people can give a definition of what is a family these days. In the past, the definition was simple. But now such a definition has been made into something complicated and confusing. Why wouldn't such a change effect the traditional family as a value for a the well being of society. And if I were to give the traditional definition of a family as my own, people would look at me as a neanderthal man, Postmodernity has certainly made an impact on societies as grand narratives are now fragmented and dispersed

One might want to look at the continuing high value placed on families in many non-Western cultures. But, of course, most of them are extended and not nuclear families. Many of them live in compounds with aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, and greatgrandparents. We need to get back to basics. Scapegoating the homosexual community gets us nowhere.

[why me]

I'd like to know your thoughts on the matter, but I'll make several surmises: First, the nuclear family is a mistake, and we put far too much of a burden on it. We need to return to the extended family (the multigenerational family of Mosiah 2:5). However, since people no longer remain in one place or region any longer (education, jobs, etc.), that may not be possible. Thus, ersatz extended families may be necessary within one's religious or social community.

Even with that, the family faces a litany of centrifugal forces which can destroy their cohesion: television, pornography and other addictions, a shrinking middle class (relative pay has been decreasing for decades, forcing most families to have both spouses work full time), careerism for either or both spouses, etc., leaving the members of most families like ships passing in the night. Finally, the cost of having children (in money and time) has been skyrocketing, and the fertility rate dropping. Is Western civilization in suicide mode? One may turn the clock back to the 1950s in a place like Utah Valley, but what about the remainder of Western culture?

It seems that the forces of evil are attacking the western family. The liberalization of the media is one example. And I am not referring to a liberal, conservative paradigm but to the relaxation of what can be shown on the television and what can now be seen on the internet etc. Also, the socioeconomic system in the West is also too blame by bringing into the structure the economic values of productivity, efficiency and insecurity compouded by an ideology of competitiveness And a false understanding of happiness and what it is. Happiness has become a commodity to be sought after...a sort of mass media induced definition of what happiness is--- of having everthing that one can possibly accumulate.