Misdefining "family"

[T-Shirt]

Even in states where gay couples can legally marry, it does not alter the marriages of opposite - sex couples. They do not "redefine" the word for everyone else, nor do they impose a same-sex definition on all other marriages.

Daniel

Proponents of same-sex marriage have, indeed, changed the long held traditional definition of, "marriage" in order to suit their own wants and have attempted to force that definition on the rest of the world. This is what jkwilliams said was a bad thing. Well, in this case, I agree with him. Edited December 12, 2013 by T-Shirt

[rockpond]

Let's not get too carried away here.  Yes the racist explanations for the ban have been disavowed.  Yes, there were false teachings spun to explain a practice.  Am not sure, however, that you can say that the recent statement goes quite so far as to say the ban for the time it was in place was a false principle, or that the ban itself has been condemned.  Maybe it does, but I didn't read it that way -- what I read was that the ban was instituted during a time of rampant and ubiquitous racism -- it was allowed to remain in place until a time when the cultural racism of America had become thoroughly politically incorrect and racial tensions had subsided.  Did the Lord have a purpose in leaving it in place?  I suspect we have to draw the conclusion that He did.  But I tend to think of the Lord as being somewhat like Harry Seldon in that certain things are allowed or condemned at certain times in order for life on Earth to develop and evolve towards a certain end.  We don't know what the Lord saw or what He was thinking -- His thoughts are not our thoughts.  All the release says is that the racist theological nonsense that got spun to explain the ban was not true or accurate.  Is it possible that there will be some other big changes?  Yes, possibly so long as they do not structurally crumble the way we view the hereafter.  We aren't going to do away with the concept of a physical resurrection, we aren't going to bounce Christ out of the godhead, we aren't going to do away with the Priesthood, and we aren't going to do away with the Snow Couplet, and we aren't going to do away with eternal marriage and families at the pinnacle of the Temple teachings.  So while it is possible that we may see women being ordained as Priestesses and High Priestesses and holding callings now reserved for males, it ain't likely that we are ever going to see SSM in the Temple.

 

I'm sorry, Stone Holm, you and I agree on a lot of things but I disagree here.

 

There is no indication (either in this latest article by the church or elsewhere) that the Lord put the ban in place.  And there is no indication that it was His will that it stay in place.

 

I read the article as stating that the ban was instituted due to racist cultural norms of the time.  The article disavowed all teachings about the ban.  And, it condemned all racism.  If the ban was racist, how was it not condemned?

 

And if we were wrong about the Lord's desires for blacks being married in the temple, how do we know we aren't wrong about gays not being allowed to be married in the temple?  Both are policies of the church that do not have roots in direct revelation.

[Bob Crockett]

Proponents of same-sex marriage have, indeed, changed the long held traditional definition of, "marriage" in order to suit their own wants and have attempted to force that definition on the rest of the world. This is what jkwilliams said was a bad thing. Well, in this case, I agree with him.

I don't think that argument has much meaning. So what? Is "tradition" a good thing, or a bad thing? It has long been a tradition to beat your kids. Is that a good thing or bad thing? It has long been a tradition for women to marry young. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Does God want us to beat our kids, lest the child be spoiled? Does God want women to marry as soon as they are biologically capable of doing so?

Tradition is no measuring stick for what God wants.

[rockpond]

The only implications are that some believe since the priesthood ban changed so too will same sex marriage be given a shot in our temples. Forget it- not gonna happen. The entire doctrine of Christ rests on the facts of marriage between man and woman only.

 

The entire doctrine of Christ rests on the facts of marriage between man and woman only?  Really?  CFR.

 

And let me start you out with this from the Prophet Joseph:   “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

 

p.s.  I don't think that because the priesthood ban changed that SSM will be "given a shot in our temples".  I believe that we (including the leaders of this church) can make errors... that we can succumb to cultural and mortal prejudices.  The priesthood ban is simply an example of that -- one which has now mostly played out.

[rockpond]

Proponents of same-sex marriage have, indeed, changed the long held traditional definition of, "marriage" in order to suit their own wants and have attempted to force that definition on the rest of the world. This is what jkwilliams said was a bad thing. Well, in this case, I agree with him.

 

That's a very egocentric view.  By that logic, we have also forced our heterosexual definition of marriage on the homosexual community.  Is that morally correct?  Is it in line with A of F 11 and D&C 134?

[T-Shirt]

I don't think that argument has much meaning. So what? Is "tradition" a good thing, or a bad thing? It has long been a tradition to beat your kids. Is that a good thing or bad thing? It has long been a tradition for women to marry young. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Does God want us to beat our kids, lest the child be spoiled? Does God want women to marry as soon as they are biologically capable of doing so?

Tradition is no measuring stick for what God wants.

I think you completely missed the whole point. Oh, well, I don't want to derail the thread. I was only trying to point out the flaw in jkwilliams argument.

[T-Shirt]

That's a very egocentric view.  By that logic, we have also forced our heterosexual definition of marriage on the homosexual community.  Is that morally correct?  Is it in line with A of F 11 and D&C 134?

Wow.

[Rodeo]

That's a very egocentric view.  By that logic, we have also forced our heterosexual definition of marriage on the homosexual community.  Is that morally correct?  Is it in line with A of F 11 and D&C 134?

What? Are you serious? Marriage has always been defined as a union between male and female and nothing else. Then the gay agenda comes along and decides they want to redefine it to their likening. I dont even recognize two gay people as "married" even if some ceremoby did take place between them. They remain not married regardless of what a court rules.

[T-Shirt]

What? Are you serious? Marriage has always been defined as a union between male and female and nothing else. Then the gay agenda comes along and decides they want to redefine it to their likening. I dont even recognize two gay people as "married" even if some ceremoby did take place between them. They remain not married regardless of what a court rules.

Careful, you're letting your homophobia show. (Whatever that means)

[california boy]

The argument you make is really similar to the argument the fundamentalists have made against the Manifesto. It wasn't a revelation. It wasn't stated as "thus saith the Lord." It doesn't look like a D&C section. Thus, the Manifesto is not the word of God not matter what General Authorities have said to the contrary.

You also point to a circumstance where the church has, indeed, changed its stance and in a big way. But, they are not the same.

Keep up the good fight, but you've probably realized it is disingeuous to keep claiming that the Church is likely to, or should, change on this particular point.

Where I live in Los Angeles, there are plenty of Christian churches which admit gays to the congregration, bless their unions and some have gays in the priesthood. What do you think of their doctrine generally? This one is just down the street from where I live; the pastor is a lesbian, and the local LDS congregation is constantly teaming up with this congregation for community service events. http://www.st-stephens.org/wp/?page_id=533.

 

Withholding temple marriage from blacks without a revelation from God to do so in indeed very similar to witholding temple marriage from gays without a revelation from God.  This issue is so much the same that the only difference is that one group is black and the other is gay.  I think that is about as close as you can get to being similar.

 

You have gotten this part wrong however.  In all of my posts, I have not advocated the church to allow gay temple marriage.  The only statement I have made (one which no one has disputed) is that this policy was decided by the leaders of the church on their own accord and not from a revelation from God.  Whether gays should be allowed to marry in the temple or not is completely up to God.  I have absolutely no idea how likely God is to act on this or not.  How could I or anyone else.  He has been silent on this subject.  What is clear is that God demands sexual relations to take place within the confines of marriage.

 

And on that we will end the thread and think about Christmas.

[rockpond]

What? Are you serious? Marriage has always been defined as a union between male and female and nothing else. Then the gay agenda comes along and decides they want to redefine it to their likening. I dont even recognize two gay people as "married" even if some ceremoby did take place between them. They remain not married regardless of what a court rules.

 

Quite serious.  And marriage has been defined differently throughout the ages from poly-amorous unions, to ownership of women, religious only, civil recognition, etc.

 

And you, personally, don't have to recognize them as married.  But I think most gay people are open-minded and kind enough to continue to recognize heterosexual marriages.

 

As for me, I recognize heterosexual marriages, homosexual marriages, and polygamous marriages.  I think that they can all be valid based on the personal beliefs of those involved.

 

p.s.  Is it appropriate for me to ask you to answer my questions if you're going to respond to my posts?  Maybe that's out of line.  I dunno.

Edited December 12, 2013 by rockpond