jwhitlock Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 The problem is, 50 years from now the statistics will show that Church leaders were wrong. And how do I know this? Well, they have to be wrong because we're starting from a baseline of 0% of children of gay parents having married parents. We're starting from a baseline of 0% of gay partners being married. So 50 years from now, things might be almost the same (with very few gay marriages), or things might be a little better (with few gay couples being married), but there's no way we could have fewer gay couples married! So unless there is some way in which having married, committed, monogamous gay couples is worse than having unmarried, uncommitted gay couples, things will have to be at least a little better. And unless the Church is going to start arguing that gay couples should not be allowed to create or adopt children, then children will continue to be raised by gay parents and we have to ask whether we want those parents to be married or not. What is better for the children? I think having married gay parents is better than unmarried gay parents. So it's tough to see an outcome where people look back and say "Gee, those Mormons were right. Things were better when gay people couldn't get married and had to live together and raise children without the commitment that marriage implies." It could happen, but I don't see how. This scenario makes several assumptions. First, we don't have enough data yet on the effects of gay couples adopting and raising children. Although I suspect that only the most committed gay couples want to raise children (I don't see any evidence that the overwhelming majority of gays are interested in doing so), we do know that for children to be well adjusted, parents need to have total long term commitment and fidelity to each other. While SSM supporters claim that the rather dismal rates of long term total gay monogamy will rise with SSM, that still remains to be proven. Saying that you're starting from a base of 0% of children and that the percentage can only go up is not totally correct. The real statistic you want to look at is the percentage of children who are successfully raised by gay couples. If you're starting with 0% because there are no marriages, and the percentage of children with problems in gay marriages is greater than those who succeed, things are indeed actually worse than they were before. It's not tough to see where the Mormons "will be right". If same sex marriages cannot demonstrate a clear increase in total, monogamous commitments over the long term, then children in those gay marriages will be faced, at a minimum, with the same issues that come with heterosexual divorce and couples living together. If the majority of gay marriages where children are involved end in divorce, then the long term effect will be negative and worse than it is today without SSM. That's why I think the concept of monogamish that tends to come with SSM is such a problem. The increasing problems that come with marriage breakups have been clear for years, and I don't see SSM reversing or stabilizing that trend. Rather, I see it contributing to the overall decline, which is not a good thing for society. Of course, if we as a society were committed to addressing the deterioration in marriage relationships, we might be having a different conversation. But reality has shown that is not happening.
pogi Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) The problem is, 50 years from now the statistics will show that Church leaders were wrong. And how do I know this? Well, they have to be wrong because we're starting from a baseline of 0% of children of gay parents having married parents. We're starting from a baseline of 0% of gay partners being married. So 50 years from now, things might be almost the same (with very few gay marriages), or things might be a little better (with few gay couples being married), but there's no way we could have fewer gay couples married! Can statistics demonstrate the mind of the Lord? What kind of sex-ed are they going to start teaching in schools now? Is it going to look something like "The Little Black Book - Queer in the 21st Century"? It was written with public funds by the Boston-based AIDS Action Committee, with help with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and the Boston Public Health Commission as a "safe sex" pamphlet. A word of caution, if you choose to google this booklet, be warned that it contains graphic nudity and explicit and vulgar language. In a word, it is FILTHY. I will not post the link as I am guessing it is against board policy. I am not saying that this is going to get into sex-ed in schools any time soon, but when the government is paying for and distributing this type of material in or out of school as a "safe sex" guide, it is DISTURBING!!! Is this a turn for the better or worse? Also, be advised that there are apparent false roomers that hundreds of these pamphlets were passed around at a conference for 5-th to 9th graders. The truth is that several of these pamphlets were "accidentally" left on a booth at the conference. Edited February 12, 2015 by pogi
carbon dioxide Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 The problem is, 50 years from now the statistics will show that Church leaders were wrong. That assumes that we have 50 years left. According to the climate change soothsayers, the last thing people will be worried about gay marriage 50 years from now. In fact many of the large cities where gay marriage is strongly supported will be flooded out by the oceans 50 years from now. I think history in the end will show us to be right. When Christ comes and everything settles, some people may ask what ever happened to those who practiced gay marriage. They will look around and not find any examples of it. It will all have been done away like all other wicked practices. It will be hard to find gay marriage support when Satan has been bound for a 1000 years. 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 It appears that the Church has decided to add this interview to the home page of lds.org: https://www.lds.org/church/news/churchs-doctrine-on-chastity-will-never-change-says-elder-christofferson?cid=HPTH020515638〈=eng.
HappyJackWagon Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 It appears that the Church has decided to add this interview to the home page of lds.org: https://www.lds.org/church/news/churchs-doctrine-on-chastity-will-never-change-says-elder-christofferson?cid=HPTH020515638〈=eng.It's fascinating to me how a church built upon continuing revelation, and therefore change, would make absolute statements about what will or will not EVER change. 1
JLHPROF Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 It's fascinating to me how a church built upon continuing revelation, and therefore change, would make absolute statements about what will or will not EVER change. It's fascinating to me how many members refuse to differentiate between unchanging eternal truth and man-made administrative decisions. (Not that you could get any of us to agree on which items are which, but there should be an understood difference).
DBMormon Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) It's fascinating to me how many members refuse to differentiate between unchanging eternal truth and man-made administrative decisions. (Not that you could get any of us to agree on which items are which, but there should be an understood difference).I don't think people are struggling with the fact there are immutable eternal truths. Rather I think Members like me are hesitant to say that how the framework that any human understands and interprets that eternal truth is eternal immutable and never changing. God's truth is eternal, our grasp of it is always missing the target at least slightly as fallible humans try to understand the divine. Edited February 12, 2015 by DBMormon 2
HappyJackWagon Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 It's fascinating to me how many members refuse to differentiate between unchanging eternal truth and man-made administrative decisions. (Not that you could get any of us to agree on which items are which, but there should be an understood difference).I understand the difference but I struggle to understand how and why people feel like they have a perfect understanding of God's will. If it is perfect, it will not change. If there is some human fallibility mixed in with the understanding then absolutely anything can change, even those things we once thought were the perfect word of God.
JLHPROF Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) I don't think people are struggling with the fact there are immutable eternal truths. Rather I think Members like me are hesitant to say that how the framework that any human understands and interprets that eternal truth is eternal immutable and never changing. God's truth is eternal, our grasp of it is always missing the target at least slightly as fallible humans try to understand the divine. I understand the difference but I struggle to understand how and why people feel like they have a perfect understanding of God's will. If it is perfect, it will not change. If there is some human fallibility mixed in with the understanding then absolutely anything can change, even those things we once thought were the perfect word of God. Then I take it you don't believe God ever spoke directly to man and told us his will with no interpretation necessary? I would agree with you if we are referring to interpreting impressions, feelings, whisperings etc.But, to use one example, exactly how could Joseph have misinterpreted the first vision or the angel with the drawn sword? Pretty clear. Join no Church. Live polygamy or else. Sometimes God speaks directly. Those things said should not be up for debate. If we are able to determine that God has spoken directly on a subject (and it is not fallible men interpreting feelings) then we should not be arguing. So, as to the subject of this thread - Has God EVER spoken directly to man and established his law of chastity?If YES then it can never change. If NO then a corrective revelation could happen. Elder Christofferson seems to believe the first. Edited February 12, 2015 by JLHPROF
DBMormon Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 Then I take it you don't believe God ever spoke directly to man and told us his will with no interpretation necessary? I would agree with you if we are referring to interpreting impressions, feelings, whisperings etc.But, to use one example, exactly how could Joseph have misinterpreted the first vision or the angel with the drawn sword? Sometimes God speaks directly. Those things said should not be up for debate.I do believe God has spoken to man. But even with direct communication something is always lost in the translation. If you disagree answer me this? Why were revisions constantly needed in revising the D&C? 1
DBMormon Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 how could Joseph have misinterpreted the angel with the drawn sword? Did he ask to shake the angel's hand. If not there very well could be a giant misinterpretation of that event. Joseph himself admitted that some revelations came from God, Some from Satan, and some from man and that he didn't always get it right. Not saying that is my view but showing that it again is not as simple as you want to make it. 1
JLHPROF Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 Did he ask to shake the angel's hand. If not there very well could be a giant misinterpretation of that event. Joseph himself admitted that some revelations came from God, Some from Satan, and some from man and that he didn't always get it right. Not saying that is my view but showing that it again is not as simple as you want to make it. Such skepticism can really make religion seem like a pointless endeavor. I guess we have to take everything on faith in the end. There's always a skeptic with an alternate answer. I mean, that man 2000 years ago who died and came back to life...maybe he was just in a coma. 2
mfbukowski Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 I don't think people are struggling with the fact there are immutable eternal truths. Rather I think Members like me are hesitant to say that how the framework that any human understands and interprets that eternal truth is eternal immutable and never changing. God's truth is eternal, our grasp of it is always missing the target at least slightly as fallible humans try to understand the divine.There you go! We all have to go with our own interpretations because that's all we have.
mfbukowski Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) Such skepticism can really make religion seem like a pointless endeavor.I guess we have to take everything on faith in the end. There's always a skeptic with an alternate answer.I mean, that man 2000 years ago who died and came back to life...maybe he was just in a coma.There have been books written about that, and it cannot be disproved. That doesn't mean it is correct eitherhttp://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passover_Plot Edited February 12, 2015 by mfbukowski
cinepro Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 That's why I think the concept of monogamish that tends to come with SSM is such a problem. The increasing problems that come with marriage breakups have been clear for years, and I don't see SSM reversing or stabilizing that trend. Rather, I see it contributing to the overall decline, which is not a good thing for society. Of course, if we as a society were committed to addressing the deterioration in marriage relationships, we might be having a different conversation. But reality has shown that is not happening. I guess that is a huge unknown. How many same-sex marriages will actually result in lasting marriages? Will the divorce rate be lower, higher or the same as heterosexual marriages? I agree that if the divorce rate is significantly higher, that would probably have a net negative effect on society. There are a lot of factors to consider, but another big one will be how accepting future generations of LDS are towards these marriages.
Rob Osborn Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 There is no such thing as the positive things from gay parents. Thats like saying that pornography has great benefits to society. Its all blasphemous.
Calm Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 Did he ask to shake the angel's hand. If not there very well could be a giant misinterpretation of that event. Joseph himself admitted that some revelations came from God, Some from Satan, and some from man and that he didn't always get it right.No, he didn't. This is a false memory of David Whitmer. 1
jwhitlock Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 I guess that is a huge unknown. How many same-sex marriages will actually result in lasting marriages? Will the divorce rate be lower, higher or the same as heterosexual marriages? I agree that if the divorce rate is significantly higher, that would probably have a net negative effect on society. There are a lot of factors to consider, but another big one will be how accepting future generations of LDS are towards these marriages. With the emphasis the church puts on marriage, future LDS will need to be committed to the church's understanding of marriage (eternal, total fidelity, etc.) This will be in direct conflict to a society that will continue to attack marriage in general. I don't think that it will matter whether future LDS accept gay marriage or not. The church's emphasis on strong marriage in and of itself will be the challenge they have opposed to a world that denigrates all marriages as out of touch with progressive thought. 1
ksfisher Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 Did he ask to shake the angel's hand. If not there very well could be a giant misinterpretation of that event. Joseph himself admitted that some revelations came from God, Some from Satan, and some from man and that he didn't always get it right. Not saying that is my view but showing that it again is not as simple as you want to make it. In light of Cal's rebuttal, perhaps this would be a good thing to CFR.
ksfisher Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 No, he didn't. This is a false memory of David Whitmer. CFR, see above. I'd be interested to find out the details.
DBMormon Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) No, he didn't. This is a false memory of David Whitmer.And you can prove that? I would welcome proof on that as it would help rid me of a false assumption though it also it gets dicey once we say David is not very credible as a witness except on the things we want him to be credible on. Edited February 12, 2015 by DBMormon
DBMormon Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 In light of Cal's rebuttal, perhaps this would be a good thing to CFR.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Whitmer
DBMormon Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_WhitmerThough I now see that the actual revelation has been discoveredhttp://www.deseretnews.com/article/705337036/Newly-found-revelation-of-Joseph-Smith.html?pg=allhttp://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Attempt_to_sell_copyright Cal.... Thank you. Also I would correct that since he left the Church before the trip to sell the copyright and was not part of those called to go, my guess is this is not a false memory so much as him repeating a fasle rumor... which I have continued myself. In that light his credibility as a witness is not affected. Believe it or not I welcome new truth and can now never repeat that again. Thanks againBill Edited February 13, 2015 by DBMormon 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 13, 2015 Author Posted February 13, 2015 To some it might seem weird that the early Church leaders would contemplate selling the copyright in the first place. (It was a bit puzzling to me for a while.) As I have read about and contemplated it, I have come to the conclusion that what they were really endeavoring to do in that historic context was more like selling limited publishing rights to the Book of Mormon in Canada, similar to what the modern Church did a few years ago when it sold publishing rights to Doubleday for a commercial edition of the Book of Mormon.
Calm Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) my guess is this is not a false memory so much as him repeating a fasle rumor.I was giving him the benefit of the doubt as in someone told him something he misremembered, but I suspect you are right….either way he was not there and he was wrong. Thanks for doing the research on your own, I had to go off and do a bit of housecleaning for once. Edited February 13, 2015 by calmoriah
Recommended Posts