Harry Reid & Enda

[Scott Lloyd]

Are you also willing to admit that our latter day prophets and apostles could be speaking with limited understanding on the subject of homosexuality and gay marriage as well?

For me, "The Family: a Proclamation to the World," published by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, makes such a notion inconceivable.

 

And furthermore, I regard the publication of the proclamation as remarkably prescient and timely, given what has happened since.

 

I'm on record as predicting it will one day be canonized, perhaps as OD 3.

[Scott Lloyd]

Feel free to clarify.

I don't see meaningful benefit for the Church to abandon its values and principles for any reason.

[rockpond]

I don't see meaningful benefit for the Church to abandon its values and principles for any reason.

 

And yet we have.  Except those were derived from "limited understanding".

[rockpond]

For me, "The Family: a Proclamation to the World," published by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, makes such a notion inconceivable.

 

And furthermore, I regard the publication of the proclamation as remarkably prescient and timely, given what has happened since.

 

I'm on record as predicting it will one day be canonized, perhaps as OD 3.

 

Not sure what that has to do with anything.  It doesn't say anything about homosexuality.

 

Although, if you do think that the proclamation precludes the possibility of gay marriage than I'm not sure how you consider it to be prescient.  The proclamation was published in 1995, four years after the marriage equality battle began in Hawaii (the first state where the Church jumped into the fray on this matter).

 

I do remember your OD3 prediction.

[Scott Lloyd]

And yet we have.  Except those were derived from "limited understanding".

Hogwash.

[Scott Lloyd]

Not sure what that has to do with anything.  It doesn't say anything about homosexuality.

 

From the proclamation:

 

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan.

 

The part I have put in bold precludes by definition the very notion of same-gender marriage.

 

 

Although, if you do think that the proclamation precludes the possibility of gay marriage than I'm not sure how you consider it to be prescient.  The proclamation was published in 1995, four years after the marriage equality battle began in Hawaii (the first state where the Church jumped into the fray on this matter).

I believe at that time many people (and I'll include myself in this) did not foresee the momentum with which the movement for same-gender marriage would sweep the country.

 

And it didn't occur to me that there would be ostensibly active members of the Church who would be arguing seriously and vocally that God might repeal the law of chastity as it pertains to homosexuality, or that God's servants through the ages have been wrong in teaching that it is a sin.

 

In light of what has happened, the proclamation is very much an anchor today as prophetic pronouncements and proclamations are meant to be.

[CV75]

Got it.  I also used to be able to live in a faith realm where that kind of logic worked for me.

And now you live in one that conflates a verb with a noun? Where is th logic in that?

 

You’re trying to logicize that the leaders once taught that the plural marriage practice was a value, when they only actually taught its eternal value, and they placed a high value on it. The practice of plural marriage was only possible because marriage is the value, which covenant was established before the foundation of the world.

 

This is why the repeal of the practice is not a repudiation of the marriage value.

[rockpond]

And now you live in one that conflates a verb with a noun? Where is th logic in that?

You’re trying to logicize that the leaders once taught that the plural marriage practice was a value, when they only actually taught its eternal value, and they placed a high value on it. The practice of plural marriage was only possible because marriage is the value, which covenant was established before the foundation of the world.

This is why the repeal of the practice is not a repudiation of the marriage value.

Wait -- "they placed a high value on it" (your words) but it's not a value? Ummm, ok.

And strawman alert: I never argued that they repudiated the value of marriage.

I think you know as well as I do that there was a time when church leaders taught the criticality of the practice of polygamy here on earth. Do I really need to start pasting in those quotes?

[rockpond]

From the proclamation:

The part I have put in bold precludes by definition the very notion of same-gender marriage.

I believe at that time many people (and I'll include myself in this) did not foresee the momentum with which the movement for same-gender marriage would sweep the country.

And it didn't occur to me that there would be ostensibly active members of the Church who would be arguing seriously and vocally that God might repeal the law of chastity as it pertains to homosexuality, or that God's servants through the ages have been wrong in teaching that it is a sin.

In light of what has happened, the proclamation is very much an anchor today as prophetic pronouncements and proclamations are meant to be.

You left out the earlier language in the proclamation that also says that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and the family is central to the Creator's plan.

They are beautiful and true statements.

And they do not preclude the "very notion of gay marriage".

I also have not argued that God would repeal the law of chastity as it pertains to homosexuality. Your response to me this evening seems full of non-sequiturs.

[CV75]

Wait -- "they placed a high value on it" (your words) but it's not a value? Ummm, ok.

And strawman alert: I never argued that they repudiated the value of marriage.

I think you know as well as I do that there was a time when church leaders taught the criticality of the practice of polygamy here on earth. Do I really need to start pasting in those quotes?

I see that you sincerely don't understand the difference, and I guess that's understandable.

 

They placed a high value on marriage in the form and practice of plural marraige. But the practice itself was not the underlying principle or value. The practice was founded upon the principle or value of marriage (the new and everlasting covenant) between a man and a woman. Even if one wishes to use the term the "principle of plural marriage," it is founded upon the greater principle of marriage between a man and a woman, under circumstances where God commands it.

 

You tried to argue that they abandoned their values by abandoning plural marriage. But clearly marriage is the value and plural marriage is the practice. They did not abandon the value, otherwise they would have adandoned marriage. Not meant to be a strawman, but to show that your argument isn't sound.

[Scott Lloyd]

You left out the earlier language in the proclamation that also says that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and the family is central to the Creator's plan. They are beautiful and true statements.And they do not preclude the "very notion of gay marriage".

They exclude it by definition. By defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, the proclamation in effect says the contrary arrangement is not approved of God and is not consistent with the eternal plan. To deny this is to ignore what prophets and apostles have said repeatedly and unanimously and to claim loopholes in what to a reasonable mind is the clear intent in the proclamation as expressed.

 

I also have not argued that God would repeal the law of chastity as it pertains to homosexuality. Your response to me this evening seems full of non-sequiturs.

Then what is it you are doing by harboring and propounding the notion that gay sex and gay marriage might at any time be deemed acceptable in the Church?

[rockpond]

I see that you sincerely don't understand the difference, and I guess that's understandable.

 

They placed a high value on marriage in the form and practice of plural marraige. But the practice itself was not the underlying principle or value. The practice was founded upon the principle or value of marriage (the new and everlasting covenant) between a man and a woman. Even if one wishes to use the term the "principle of plural marriage," it is founded upon the greater principle of marriage between a man and a woman, under circumstances where God commands it.

 

You tried to argue that they abandoned their values by abandoning plural marriage. But clearly marriage is the value and plural marriage is the practice. They did not abandon the value, otherwise they would have adandoned marriage. Not meant to be a strawman, but to show that your argument isn't sound.

 

To recap the discussion...

 

Scott said:  "The Church's values are what they are, and there can be no meaningful benefit derived from abandoning or diluting those values..."

 

To which I responded with a quote from President Woodruff in OD1 showing that there could actually be some benefit.  I suggested that a more nuanced view of the restoration is appropriate.

 

Your counter is that they "placed a high value" on the practice of plural marriage but that IT was not a value.

 

Got it.

[rockpond]

They exclude it by definition. By defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, the proclamation in effect says the contrary arrangement is not approved of God and is not consistent with the eternal plan. To deny this is to ignore what prophets and apostles have said repeatedly and unanimously and to claim loopholes in what to a reasonable mind is the clear intent in the proclamation as expressed.

Then what is it you are doing by harnoring and propounding the notion that gay sex and gay marriage might at any time be deemed acceptable in the Church?

 

The fact that God ordains marriage between man and woman does not preclude him from also ordaining marriage for homosexual couples.

 

And you've said that our leaders sometimes speak with limited understanding.  I'm just agreeing.

 

We believe in ongoing revelation.  Read our history... things that were once unacceptable became acceptable through the revelatory process.

[Scott Lloyd]

The fact that God ordains marriage between man and woman does not preclude him from also ordaining marriage for homosexual couples.

 

Ask any of the Brethren who were in the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve at the time the proclamation was published if that is consistent with the intended message. Then get back to us with their response.

[rockpond]

Ask any of the Brethren who were in the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve at the time the proclamation was published if that is consistent with the intended message. Then get back to us with their response.

 

No need.  I think they'd agree with you.  But, as you've noted, sometimes the Brethren speak with limited understanding.

[CV75]

To recap the discussion...

 

Scott said:  "The Church's values are what they are, and there can be no meaningful benefit derived from abandoning or diluting those values..."

 

To which I responded with a quote from President Woodruff in OD1 showing that there could actually be some benefit.  I suggested that a more nuanced view of the restoration is appropriate.

 

Your counter is that they "placed a high value" on the practice of plural marriage but that IT was not a value.

 

Got it.

I don't think you got it.

 

You said: “Per President Woodfruff, we have found meaningful benefit in abandoning some values.” In this case, only plural marriage was abandoned, not the principle of marriage. But you are using a conflation of the two to promote the feasibility of accepting gay “marriage.” Where true marriage is the only divinely-instituted means for couples to become exalted, its gay substitute would require an abandoning of that principle, or that value.

 

But OD1 does not abandon the principle of marriage, only the practice of plural marriage. That was my counter. The practice of gay “marriage” isn’t even marriage. The problem is in accepting it as legitimate a form of Church marriage in 2013 as plural marriage was until 120+ years ago.

 

Then, to help you see the difference, I pointed out that placing a high value on a practice does not make the practice the very value it is based upon. Gay “marriage” is not based on the value of marriage. People may change the definition of marriage to make its gay counterfeit appear legitimate, or they may say the practice is the principle, both these approaches are faulty, especially as far as the Church is concerend.

[rockpond]

I don't think you got it.

 

You said: “Per President Woodfruff, we have found meaningful benefit in abandoning some values.” In this case, only plural marriage was abandoned, not the principle of marriage. But you are using a conflation of the two to promote the feasibility of accepting gay “marriage.” Where true marriage is the only divinely-instituted means for couples to become exalted, its gay substitute would require an abandoning of that principle, or that value.

 

But OD1 does not abandon the principle of marriage, only the practice of plural marriage. That was my counter. The practice of gay “marriage” isn’t even marriage. The problem is in accepting it as legitimate a form of Church marriage in 2013 as plural marriage was until 120+ years ago.

 

Then, to help you see the difference, I pointed out that placing a high value on a practice does not make the practice the very value it is based upon. Gay “marriage” is not based on the value of marriage. People may change the definition of marriage to make its gay counterfeit appear legitimate, or they may say the practice is the principle, both these approaches are faulty, especially as far as the Church is concerend.

 

I agree that we only abandoned the practice, not the principle.  To say that the practice of plural marriage was not a value suggests to me that you are diminishing the contemporary teachings (and sacrifices) of the time which very much established the practice as a value.

 

For me, gay marriage is very much based on the value of marriage.  And family.  And the eternal relationships that we are meant to build (or "re-build"?) here in this life.

[Scott Lloyd]

No need.  I think they'd agree with you.  But, as you've noted, sometimes the Brethren speak with limited understanding.

The point is that you're assigning to the proclamation an implied meaning that you admit the signatories themselves did not intend. That strikes me as legalistic gymnastics. That may fly in a governmental arena but not as applied to divinely inspired writings.

[rockpond]

The point is that you're assigning to the proclamation an implied meaning that you admit the signatories themselves did not intend. That strikes me as legalistic gymnastics. That may fly in a governmental arena but not as applied to divinely inspired writings.

 

Nope, I am agreeing with you that I am confident the Brethren intended the Proclamation to be (in part) a statement against gay marriage.  I think that's why it was written & published when it was... in the early stages of the marriage equality battle.

 

I am also saying that these same good Brethren who lead the church are mortals.  They are fallible and sometimes speak with limited understanding.  We learn from our own history that sometimes prejudices can get in the way of receiving truth.

 

And, I'm saying that despite what might have been their intent in writing the document, I accept what they actually wrote.  And it still fits with my personal beliefs regarding gay marriage.  The text doesn't preclude the possibility of future revelation regarding gay marriage.  And maybe that was an inspired move on the part of the authors.

[Scott Lloyd]

  The text doesn't preclude the possibility of future revelation regarding gay marriage. 

Viewed in context, it does.

 

And maybe that was an inspired move on the part of the authors.

 

You're fantasizing that the Brethren would be "inspired" to unwittingly leave open a perceived loophole by which their explicit and intended meaning could be contradicted in the future. I don't believe God so inspires His servants. That's a very tenuous conjecture indeed.

 

And one fraught with danger. On the basis of it, you could pretty much disregard any teaching that didn't suit you on the theory that the Brethren, despite how united they appear to be in expressing the teaching, are being influenced by their own prejudices and will one day be contradicted by revelation.

[CV75]

I agree that we only abandoned the practice, not the principle.  To say that the practice of plural marriage was not a value suggests to me that you are diminishing the contemporary teachings (and sacrifices) of the time which very much established the practice as a value.

 

For me, gay marriage is very much based on the value of marriage.  And family.  And the eternal relationships that we are meant to build (or "re-build"?) here in this life.

I think you might need to think on it a bit more.

 

My saying that the practice of plural marriage was not a value is a matter of definition. It has nothing to do with the “contemporary teachings (and sacrifices) of the time” which still don’t change those definitions, no matter how highly esteemed the practice.

 

You focused on the high regard (value) given the practice, and not the actual value, or even the value (high regard) of the value. Now you introduce the “worth” of marriage in justifying gay “marriage.” But this relies on how you misuse the term when you say, “the value of marriage,” or the “the value of family”, which gets back to the artificial utility one can place on these divinely inspired institutions, not the divinely inspired values themselves. That makes it easy to adopt the wrong definition of “marriage.”

 

The Church's pattern for eternal relationships that we are meant to build was laid out in the Garden of Eden.

[thesometimesaint]

South Africa during Apartheid, and women while a majority, are treated like a minority in much of the world would be counter examples.

[rockpond]

Viewed in context, it does.

You're fantasizing that the Brethren would be "inspired" to unwittingly leave open a perceived loophole by which their explicit and intended meaning could be contradicted in the future. I don't believe God so inspires His servants. That's a very tenuous conjecture indeed.

And one fraught with danger. On the basis of it, you could pretty much disregard any teaching that didn't suit you on the theory that the Brethren, despite how united they appear to be in expressing the teaching, are being influenced by their own prejudices and will one day be contradicted by revelation.

If the document is inspired, than wouldn't the words be what God wanted and not what the men intended?

And it's not dangerous because I am living by what is currently revealed to us.

[rockpond]

I think you might need to think on it a bit more.

My saying that the practice of plural marriage was not a value is a matter of definition. It has nothing to do with the “contemporary teachings (and sacrifices) of the time” which still don’t change those definitions, no matter how highly esteemed the practice.

You focused on the high regard (value) given the practice, and not the actual value, or even the value (high regard) of the value. Now you introduce the “worth” of marriage in justifying gay “marriage.” But this relies on how you misuse the term when you say, “the value of marriage,” or the “the value of family”, which gets back to the artificial utility one can place on these divinely inspired institutions, not the divinely inspired values themselves. That makes it easy to adopt the wrong definition of “marriage.”

The Church's pattern for eternal relationships that we are meant to build was laid out in the Garden of Eden.

Sorry, I'm not on board with your word games... If something was "highly valued" then I consider it a value.

It's alright though. I think Scott agrees with you.

[CV75]

Sorry, I'm not on board with your word games... If something was "highly valued" then I consider it a value. It's alright though. I think Scott agrees with you.

I have no word game, just a certain perception.

 

The pearl of great price (Matthew 13:45-46), was an object, not a value. Figuratively, it represents the kingdom of heaven. The kingdom of heaven is a conglomeration of principles that establish the highest order of righteousness. Each of these principles is a value and the Church has adopted them.

 

We can still highly value something that is not a principle. Highly valuing money, for example, doesn't make money the principle. What makes one put money above charity is not a resonance with a divine value to love but with a carnal, sensual and devilish value to look out for oneself. Both sets of values are "spiritual" in nature, and not "physical." The difference is that divinity holds spiritual matters above physical things, and ungodliness holds physical things above the spiritual matters.