Elder Ballard Speaks To The Young Adults About Three Things

[WysteriaBlue]

In my experience reading psychological materials, the endorphins released during the stimulation and excitement some get from pornography and other "process addictions" can and does create different neurological pathways in the brain...thus can lead to addictive tendencies for those that are more susceptible to these things.  I believe the church's stand against behaviours that can easily lead to addictictions, especially ones that damage and destroy marriages and relationships that are the core foundation of the church is quite understandable.  Let alone the degredation of the holiness of relations inside the marriage bonds.

 

Psychotherapy or talk therapy can also literally change the brain chemistry or wiring and that is why it is so effective and should be used in conjunction with psychiatric medications to heal those that suffer from many mental diseases and syndromes.

 

I will not cite sources or be more specific because the sources sre not from the LDS church and saying anymore might be considered to graphic....

 

I hope this might add just a bit to your discussions.

 

Respectfully,

WB

[Sky]

Sky, I don't mean to offend.

 

If you are making your best efforts under the circumstances to obey the commandments of God, I salute you.

 

I know you didn't mean to offend.  I was just trying to convey my own perspective and to make a plea (not just to you) to consider how some words my come across - unintentional or not.  

 

But I'm not offended, so no worries.  

[CV75]

I agree.

Similarly, I hope for the day when the Lord will allow for recognition of gay marriage within the church because its His will, without attributing that divinity to any dependent association with societal trends. (Other than the fact that something usually needs to prompt the question, which was also the case for lifting the ban in 1978.)

Many factors prompted Joseph Smith’s question just as they did President Kimball’s plea for confirmation – I wouldn’t attribute either to their wanting God to align with societal trends or hoping for God’s acceptance of societal trends. So the suggestion that “wanting the church to align with societal trends” is somehow worse than “hope for church acceptance of [societal trends]" doesn’t help the argument that revelation through the prophets for the benefit of the world mimics societal trends.

I don’t think the Lord conforms to our societies, but that He rather invites us to conform to His. At best, our societies reflect the light He sheds upon us all, but that light is still inferior to His revelations to the prophets, which are designed to bring us much further than the prevailing wisdom. Now folks can carp about this prophet and that prophet being wrong, but that still doesn’t show that God’s revelations are patterned after societal trends.

[rockpond]

Many factors prompted Joseph Smith’s question just as they did President Kimball’s plea for confirmation – I wouldn’t attribute either to their wanting God to align with societal trends or hoping for God’s acceptance of societal trends. So the suggestion that “wanting the church to align with societal trends” is somehow worse than “hope for church acceptance of [societal trends]" doesn’t help the argument that revelation through the prophets for the benefit of the world mimics societal trends.

I don’t think the Lord conforms to our societies, but that He rather invites us to conform to His. At best, our societies reflect the light He sheds upon us all, but that light is still inferior to His revelations to the prophets, which are designed to bring us much further than the prevailing wisdom. Now folks can carp about this prophet and that prophet being wrong, but that still doesn’t show that God’s revelations are patterned after societal trends.

 

Exactly... I don't attribute Joseph Smith's question or Pres. Kimball's plea to wanting God to align with or accept societal trends.  That's my point.  Similarly, my views on gay marriage cannot be reduced to simply a reflection of a societal trend that I want the Church to mimic.

[CV75]

Exactly... I don't attribute Joseph Smith's question or Pres. Kimball's plea to wanting God to align with or accept societal trends.  That's my point.  Similarly, my views on gay marriage cannot be reduced to simply a reflection of a societal trend that I want the Church to mimic.

Perhaps your views haven't been properly referenced or supported outside the context of current societal trends. Marriage was around before recorded history, and even in settings where its origin was not attributed to deity, it was a solemnized agreement following the particular mores of cultures all over the globe. So such views do appear to come across as, "The Church will (at least I hope/want/petition/argue/believe) eventually follow (adopt, mimic, accept, embrace, etc.) this trend; regardless, I'm going with it."

[rockpond]

Perhaps your views haven't been properly referenced or supported outside the context of current societal trends. Marriage was around before recorded history, and even in settings where its origin was not attributed to deity, it was a solemnized agreement following the particular mores of cultures all over the globe. So such views do appear to come across as, "The Church will (at least I hope/want/petition/argue/believe) eventually follow (adopt, mimic, accept, embrace, etc.) this trend; regardless, I'm going with it."

 

Or perhaps you are only hearing/reading my views & beliefs in that way.  My beliefs are what they are due to personal promptings of the Spirit, answers to prayer, and understanding of scripture... not societal trends.  As I've said, characterizing them otherwise is your prerogative but is not likely to lead to an improved mutual understanding.

[CV75]

Or perhaps you are only hearing/reading my views & beliefs in that way.  My beliefs are what they are due to personal promptings of the Spirit, answers to prayer, and understanding of scripture... not societal trends.  As I've said, characterizing them otherwise is your prerogative but is not likely to lead to an improved mutual understanding.

I think we all know there are limitations for both the sender and the receiver on how well another person’s “promptings of the Spirit, answers to prayer, and understanding of scripture” are conveyed in these board posts. That is why we are left with all the other means at our disposal to explain our views.

[Scott Lloyd]

So your intent was to "clarify"? Because it doesn't seem that you did. I, and many others who feel likewise, could care less about societal trends. We want recognition for gay marriage because we believe that it is the morally correct thing to do.

You're entitled to your opinion about the quality or effectiveness of my comment. But when it comes to saying what my intent is or is not, I claim supremacy in making that call.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Or perhaps you are only hearing/reading my views & beliefs in that way.  My beliefs are what they are due to personal promptings of the Spirit, answers to prayer, and understanding of scripture... not societal trends. 

 

And in so saying, you place yourself at odds with the united voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.

 

Thus, whether you intend it or not, I and others are faced with a choice in evaluating your expressed views. Whose scriptural and doctrinal understanding and professed spiritual experiences in this matter are we to  accept as authentic, yours or the Brethren's? We cannot choose both, because they are so diametrically opposed.

 

So, having "cast our lot with the prophets," so to speak, we must then evaluate why professedly active and faithful members of the Church are advocating something so extremely at odds with what the prophets and apostles are teaching unanimously today and have taught undeviatingly in the past.

 

Given that it would hardly have been as common a generation -- or even a decade -- ago to hear such advocacy from active Church members, it is very difficult to escape the conclusion that they have been influenced by today's rapidly changing attitudes in society far more so than by divine answers to prayers.

 

It's true I can't peer inside your head or heart. The only thing I can do is observe facts, conditions, stimuli, environment, history and draw my conclusions accordingly.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[WysteriaBlue]

Although I find the discussion interesting, are we still on topic with what Cinepro was trying to start a dialogue on in his opening post about Elder Ballard's talk to the younger people in the Church?  It seemed he had a lot to say...

 

I'm not tring to be rude, but maybe he really wantd to hear the feedback and thoughts about it.  

 

-WB

[Scott Lloyd]

Although I find the discussion interesting, are we still on topic with what Cinepro was trying to start a dialogue on in his opening post about Elder Ballard's talk to the younger people in the Church?  It seemed he had a lot to say...

 

I'm not tring to be rude, but maybe he really wantd to hear the feedback and thoughts about it.  

 

-WB

One of the three main points of Elder Ballard's talk (identified in the opening post and alluded to in the thread title) was to affirm the Church's doctrine on marriage. So it would seem that discussion on traditional marriage vs. the movement to redefine marriage would be on point.

 

But I suppose it's up to Cinepro to make that determination and to steer the discussion to lines more suited to his intent if he thinks it's drifting too far afield.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Mystery Meat]

And in so saying, you place yourself at odds with the united voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.

 

Thus, whether you intend it or not, I and others are faced with a choice in evaluating your expressed views. Whose professed spiritual experiences in this matter are we to  accept as authentic, yours or the Brethren's? We cannot choose both, because they are so diametrically opposed.

 

So, having "cast our lot with the prophets," so to speak, we must then evaluate why professedly active and faithful members of the Church are advocating something so extremely at odds with what the prophets and apostles are teaching unanimously today and have taught in the past.

 

Given that it would hardly have been common a generation -- or even a decade -- ago to hear such advocacy from active Church members, it is very difficult to escape the conclusion that they have been influenced by today's rapidly changing attitudes in society far more so than by divine answers to prayers.

 

It's true I can't peer inside your head or heart. The only thing I can do is observe facts, conditions, stimuli, environment, history and draw my conclusions accordingly.

 

I would add that Rockpond has added in the past that left with chosing between him and the prophets to always go with the prophets.

[rockpond]

You're entitled to your opinion about the quality or effectiveness of my comment. But when it comes to saying what my intent is or is not, I claim supremacy in making that call.

 

I would never suggest otherwise.

[rockpond]

I think we all know there are limitations for both the sender and the receiver on how well another person’s “promptings of the Spirit, answers to prayer, and understanding of scripture” are conveyed in these board posts. That is why we are left with all the other means at our disposal to explain our views.

 

Yes, but I'm telling you my beliefs on this subject are not a matter of wanting the church to simply adapt to a changing society.  Is that something you can accept?

[Sky]

I transcribed the portion of Elder Ballard's talk where he talked about marriage, and briefly about same-sex attraction.  

 

Start at 42:34 - 

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/watch/ces-devotionals/2014/05?cid=HPSU050414769

 

I want to talk to you about the third subject quickly and I want you to understand as carefully as I can the position of the Church on marriage. As our Heavenly Father has given us through the scriptures and The Family Proclamation to the World, that inspired document states: “The family is ordained of God, marriage between a man and a woman is essential to His eternal plan, Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.

 

Apostles are charged to be watchmen on the towers, to see and teach the doctrines of Christ. All of you know that the traditional definition of marriage is under attack today. There are those who are framing the discussion focused on terms of civil rights. The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve of Apostles explain the Church’s position and doctrine of God’s purposes and plan for His spirit children to experience mortal life, which is essential to our everlasting and eternal life. I would suppose many of you may not have read the statement issued earlier this year. I quote from the statement and ask you to listen carefully.

 

“Changes in civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments, regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We urge you to review and teach church members the doctrines contained in the proclamation to the world.  

 

The statement continues: “just as those who promote same-sex marriage are entitled to civility, the same is true for those that oppose it. As members of the Church, we are responsible to teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to illuminate the great blessings that flow from heeding God’s commandments, as well as the inevitable consequences of ignoring them. We invite you to pray that people everywhere will have their hearts softened to the truths of the gospel and that wisdom will be granted to those who are called upon to decide issues critical to society’s future.”

 

Now I know you love and support the Lord and sustain His prophets, but I also know that some of you may be confused on the many implications of the Church’s decision to sustain God’s revealed plan for His children. I also know that some of our youth struggle to understand the doctrine concerning the family in marriage and still remain kind, gentle, and loving towards those who do not agree. You may be afraid that you will be labeled as a bigot and as being intolerant.

 

You may know someone who struggles with same-sex attraction, who has made a decision to live in a same-gender relationship. Your love for that person as a son or daughter of God can create an inward struggle, as you try love and support him or her and still stand for the Lord’s eternal plan of happiness. Let us be clear tonight: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that the experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all of God’s children, including those with same-sex attraction. The Church does not teach or advocate shunning or other un-Christian like actions. We must love and strive to help, to understand that no one should ignore or discount the commandments of God.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Sky

[rockpond]

And in so saying, you place yourself at odds with the united voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.

 

Thus, whether you intend it or not, I and others are faced with a choice in evaluating your expressed views. Whose scriptural and doctrinal understanding and professed spiritual experiences in this matter are we to  accept as authentic, yours or the Brethren's? We cannot choose both, because they are so diametrically opposed.

 

So, having "cast our lot with the prophets," so to speak, we must then evaluate why professedly active and faithful members of the Church are advocating something so extremely at odds with what the prophets and apostles are teaching unanimously today and have taught undeviatingly in the past.

 

Given that it would hardly have been as common a generation -- or even a decade -- ago to hear such advocacy from active Church members, it is very difficult to escape the conclusion that they have been influenced by today's rapidly changing attitudes in society far more so than by divine answers to prayers.

 

It's true I can't peer inside your head or heart. The only thing I can do is observe facts, conditions, stimuli, environment, history and draw my conclusions accordingly.

 

And if I had been alive in 1950 and had said that I didn't believe the priesthood restriction was a direct commandment of the Lord nor did I believe that Blacks should have to wait until "all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood" I would have placed myself at odds with the unified voice First Presidency.  And yet, I would have been correct.

 

I'm not asking you to believe my views and make them a part of your own testimony.  I'm asking for you to accept my personal claim to my beliefs without belittling them and suggesting that I'm simply a slave to societal trends.

 

Do you consider it respectful when others claim that the church caved to societal pressure when we removed the priesthood restriction?  Is it respectful to accuse gay marriage supporters of the same thing?

Edited May 9, 2014 by rockpond

[Sky]

I was not alive in either the 1950's, 60's , and 70's, so I don't have any personal memory or experience with what the Church went through regarding the "blacks and the priesthood" restriction.  

 

But I have to say that it is very difficult for me to imagine a change in the doctrine to give allowance for monogamous same-sex relationships.  The Church would certainly a lot of backpedaling to do if that were to happen, and not exactly parallel to what happened in 1978 and the years following.  

 

Just sayin'...

Edited May 9, 2014 by Sky

[rockpond]

I was not alive in either the 1950's, 60's , and 70's, so I don't have any personal memory or experience with what the Church went through regarding the "blacks and the priesthood" restriction.  

 

But I have to say that it is very difficult for me to imagine a change in the doctrine to give allowance for monogamous same-sex relationships.  The Church would certainly a lot of backpedaling to do if that were to happen, and not exactly parallel to what happened in 1978 and the years following.  

 

Just sayin'...

 

The Church is still backpedaling on the priesthood ban... 35 years after OD2.  If additional revelation is received, we'll figure out a way to follow.  We adapted to polygamy after the prophet taught monogamy.  We adapted to monogamy again after prophets taught polygamy.  We adapted to restricting the priesthood after no such restriction existed.  And we adapted to the lifting of that restriction against Brigham Young's prophecy of when it would be lifted.

[Mystery Meat]

And if I had been alive in 1950 and had said that I didn't believe the priesthood restriction was a direct commandment of the Lord nor did I believe that Blacks should have to wait until "all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood" I would have placed myself at odds with the unified voice First Presidency.  And yet, I would have been correct.

 

I'm not asking you to believe my views and make them a part of your own testimony.  I'm asking for you to accept my personal claim to my beliefs without belittling them and suggesting that I'm simply a slave to societal trends.

 

Do you consider it respectful when others claim that the church caved to societal pressure when we removed the priesthood restriction?  Is it respectful to accuse gay marriage supporters of the same thing?

 

In one respect you would have been right and in another you would have been wrong.

[rockpond]

In one respect you would have been right and in another you would have been wrong.

 

How would I have been wrong?

[Mystery Meat]

How would I have been wrong?

 

We don't know that the restriction wasn't a direct commandment of the Lord.

[Mystery Meat]

I'm not asking you to believe my views and make them a part of your own testimony.  I'm asking for you to accept my personal claim to my beliefs without belittling them and suggesting that I'm simply a slave to societal trends.

 

We don't have to accept your personal claim to your beliefs in order to respect your right to them. You can tell me why you believe what you do and I can respect it, and I do. But me telling you that I think your views are influenced by society is not disrespecting your opinion. It is my opinion. You can respect that or not.

[rockpond]

We don't know that the restriction wasn't a direct commandment of the Lord.

We don't know that it was either. But you see my point... What we believe as truth now may or may not still be viewed that way in several decades.

[rockpond]

We don't have to accept your personal claim to your beliefs in order to respect your right to them. You can tell me why you believe what you do and I can respect it, and I do. But me telling you that I think your views are influenced by society is not disrespecting your opinion. It is my opinion. You can respect that or not.

So then, using that logic, is it respectful to tell you that your opposition to gay marriage is influenced by homophobia?

[Mystery Meat]

So then, using that logic, is it respectful to tell you that your opposition to gay marriage is influenced by homophobia?

 

If that is your opinion I can respect that.