Elder Christofferson To Church News: Doctrine Is Not Changing

[carbon dioxide]

 

 

There are a lot of factors to consider, but another big one will be how accepting future generations of LDS are towards these marriages. 

If we do our job teaching the younger generation, not too accepting. 

[Stone holm]

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.

Would like a CFR on the idea that nothing good comes of gay adoptions, the studies suggest otherwise.

[california boy]

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.

In my opinion, the biggest threat to marriage now and in the future is not gay marriage, but people believing that marriage in and of itself is no longer important.  There are going to be even higher percentages of people who believe that marriage is just a religious ritual.  And since they are not particularly religious, see no compelling reason to marry at all.

 

To a large extent, religion has created and encouraged this concept of marriage through fighting gay marriage by telling people that God has defined marriage.  When religion tells people that gay couples should not get married because God doesn't define marriage that way, they are also telling people that if you are not religious, there is no reason to marry.  That is a big problem.  It is sending a very destructive message about the institution of marriage.

 

No, the biggest threat to marriage is not gay marriage.  Not even close.  The biggest threat to marriage is divorce and the slipping away of the importance of being married in society.  It is too bad religion has not been working on those two issues rather than telling gay couples that marriage is not important for them and it would be better if they just shacked up together.

[Tacenda]

In my opinion, the biggest threat to marriage now and in the future is not gay marriage, but people believing that marriage in and of itself is no longer important.  There are going to be even higher percentages of people who believe that marriage is just a religious ritual.  And since they are not particularly religious, see no compelling reason to marry at all.

 

To a large extent, religion has created and encouraged this concept of marriage through fighting gay marriage by telling people that God has defined marriage.  When religion tells people that gay couples should not get married because God doesn't define marriage that way, they are also telling people that if you are not religious, there is no reason to marry.  That is a big problem.  It is sending a very destructive message about the institution of marriage.

 

No, the biggest threat to marriage is not gay marriage.  Not even close.  The biggest threat to marriage is divorce and the slipping away of the importance of being married in society.  It is too bad religion has not been working on those two issues rather than telling gay couples that marriage is not important for them and it would be better if they just shacked up together.

One thing Pres. Holland mentioned in his recent talk to the CES group at the Tabernacle was the fact that this generation is waiting a lot later to marry, one reason for that is that they think the world is probably going to end and why start a family etc.  I see that with one of my sons.  I constantly tell him that they've been saying that for years.  Maybe that's the mentality for many out there now.  

[Scott Lloyd]

In my opinion, the biggest threat to marriage now and in the future is not gay marriage, but people believing that marriage in and of itself is no longer important.  There are going to be even higher percentages of people who believe that marriage is just a religious ritual.  And since they are not particularly religious, see no compelling reason to marry at all.

 

To a large extent, religion has created and encouraged this concept of marriage through fighting gay marriage by telling people that God has defined marriage.  When religion tells people that gay couples should not get married because God doesn't define marriage that way, they are also telling people that if you are not religious, there is no reason to marry.  That is a big problem.  It is sending a very destructive message about the institution of marriage.

 

No, the biggest threat to marriage is not gay marriage.  Not even close.  The biggest threat to marriage is divorce and the slipping away of the importance of being married in society.  It is too bad religion has not been working on those two issues rather than telling gay couples that marriage is not important for them and it would be better if they just shacked up together.

Changing, and thus blurring, the definition of marriage feeds the attitude that marriage itself is not important.

[Rock_N_Roll]

  When religion tells people that gay couples should not get married because God doesn't define marriage that way, they are also telling people that if you are not religious, there is no reason to marry.  That is a big problem.  It is sending a very destructive message about the institution of marriage.

 

 

 

I've never thought of it this way, but I whole-hardheartedly agree with this. 

Hmmm...I'm going to have to ponder this. 

[carbon dioxide]

One thing Pres. Holland mentioned in his recent talk to the CES group at the Tabernacle was the fact that this generation is waiting a lot later to marry, one reason for that is that they think the world is probably going to end and why start a family etc.  I see that with one of my sons.  I constantly tell him that they've been saying that for years.  Maybe that's the mentality for many out there now.  

I say the same thing to myself but not because the world is going to end but the world is getting more and more screwed up.  Why would I want to bring children into a world not with just SSM but where people are so dumb that now a person gender can be changed according to the standards of society.  I will not even touch on all the political stuff.  I am glad I have my two sons but I also feel sorry for them.  At least I am on the downward part of my life.  Hopefully I will be gone in less than 40 years but they might be around for 80 more years.

Edited February 13, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[stemelbow]

The more this is getting argued the more it will reveal the difficulty of maintaining a redefining marriage position. It's like traditional Christians who argue Mormons can't be considered Christian. Words mean what we want them to mean. Uses of words evolve over time. Marriage itself can mean uniting of people to form families but it can also mean uniting matching parts. if marriage being redefined is such a problem then who threw a fit the first time someone used the word when they were welding two pieces together?

When religion tells people that gay couples should not get married because God doesn't define marriage that way, they are also telling people that if you are not religious, there is no reason to marry. That is a big problem. It is sending a very destructive message about the institution of marriage.

As fighting against SSM becomes passé, everyone will agree. It'll be like now everyone agrees that black people aren't inherently worse than others, but for some reason people used to think that.

[Stone holm]

The more this is getting argued the more it will reveal the difficulty of maintaining a redefining marriage position. It's like traditional Christians who argue Mormons can't be considered Christian. Words mean what we want them to mean. Uses of words evolve over time. Marriage itself can mean uniting of people to form families but it can also mean uniting matching parts. if marriage being redefined is such a problem then who threw a fit the first time someone used the word when they were welding two pieces together?As fighting against SSM becomes passé, everyone will agree. It'll be like now everyone agrees that black people aren't inherently worse than others, but for some reason people used to think that.

I suspect we are going to see even more changes to the concept. Currently our economic system is inconsistent with a 1950's view of a family and child rearing. As a result, my children's generation is struggling to one maintain their middle class lifestyle capabilities and rear their children. Grandparents, nannies, friends, and daycare are all playing an increased role as they try to cope. Although they all came from a huge family, none are considering intentionally having more than two children. They are drawn to childhood memories of food production, family production activities, and Scouts...all Church related, but repulsed by Church political activism and anti-intellectualism, so they view religion as a non starter with few exceptions. Not sure they completely reflect American attitudes, but I suspect they do, so religion has argued itself into an irrelevant position while they grapple with economic reality.

[Bobbieaware]

I've never thought of it this way, but I whole-hardheartedly agree with this.

Hmmm...I'm going to have to ponder this.

What you say you need to ponder is a perfect example of the reasoning of men sounding impressive at first blush, but when squared against the word of God falls apart. In the Bible, the Savior made it clear that there are some instances when and where some men must "make themselves 'eunuchs' (I.e. abstain from sexual relations) as a sacrifice to the Lord that he might inherit the kingdom God.

12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive. (Matthew 19)

It is so that men might live in accord with the above counsel of the Savior that the church counsels it's same sex attracted members to abstain from sexual relations outside of male/female marriage, thereby keeping the law of chastity so that he might be exalted in the resurrection of the just. Yes it is a great sacrifice, but by the Lord's own word it's not an impossible sacrifice to make for life on earth is short and eternity is forever. Those with enough faith to make such a sacrifice for the kingdom of heaven's sake will be numbered among the greatest heroes of eternity

Edited February 13, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[carbon dioxide]

The more this is getting argued the more it will reveal the difficulty of maintaining a redefining marriage position. It's like traditional Christians who argue Mormons can't be considered Christian. Words mean what we want them to mean. Uses of words evolve over time. Marriage itself can mean uniting of people to form families but it can also mean uniting matching parts. if marriage being redefined is such a problem then who threw a fit the first time someone used the word when they were welding two pieces together?

As fighting against SSM becomes passé, everyone will agree. It'll be like now everyone agrees that black people aren't inherently worse than others, but for some reason people used to think that.

Not everyone will agree.  As the world becomes more wicked, most will agree but it is required for us to stand our ground even as Noah stood his ground.  The wicked will be destroyed at some point.  We just need to be patient. 

[stemelbow]

Not everyone will agree.  As the world becomes more wicked, most will agree but it is required for us to stand our ground even as Noah stood his ground.  The wicked will be destroyed at some point.  We just need to be patient.

We need to patiently await people getting destroyed? hmmm...not sure that works for me.

[JLHPROF]

We need to patiently await people getting destroyed? hmmm...not sure that works for me.

 

Works for God...scriptures are full of prophecy of his waiting for the world to "ripen" in iniquity before Christ comes and judges.

[stemelbow]

Works for God...scriptures are full of prophecy of his waiting for the world to "ripen" in iniquity before Christ comes and judges.

And scripture is full of a lot of things. Much of it seems culturally manufactured, unfortunately. We ought to be able to rely far more on living revelation than we do on heavily influenced writings from people thousands of years ago. But we're not there yet as a group. so we'll hold on to things like, "just wait, people who are wicked will be destroyed" whatever that means and whoever the entails.

[Stone holm]

And scripture is full of a lot of things. Much of it seems culturally manufactured, unfortunately. We ought to be able to rely far more on living revelation than we do on heavily influenced writings from people thousands of years ago. But we're not there yet as a group. so we'll hold on to things like, "just wait, people who are wicked will be destroyed" whatever that means and whoever the entails.

The idea of waiting, sometimes yearning, for the destruction of Civilization seems a bit counterproductive.

[Calm]

Works for God...scriptures are full of prophecy of his waiting for the world to "ripen" in iniquity before Christ comes and judges.

But he doesn't just sit there and wait. He sends out his prophets and works on people's hearts to turn them around and he sorrows for those who do not.

[carbon dioxide]

We need to patiently await people getting destroyed? hmmm...not sure that works for me.

It is not about waiting for them to be destroyed. But understanding that the end will happen and the outcome is already set.  Gay marriage and all other wicked practices will come to an end.  Our job is to stand for Christ in all times and places. The real metal to that is when it is hard to do and when what we stand for is not popular.  SSM and other wicked practices the world gets excited about are all losers.  They will be practiced for a time but we can bank on the fact that when Christ comes, there will not be a SSM for a 1000 years.  Perhaps it might start up again when Satan is set free at the end of the 1000 year period but that will be short. Then the end will come, the earth receive its celestial glory and none of this stuff to return to the earth ever.  Satan knows his time is short.  He is running out of time.  So we can see more stuff coming down in the near future.  Satan is not going to stop with SSM.  He has more goodies for people to accept.

Edited February 13, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Stone holm]

It is not about waiting for them to be destroyed. But understanding that the end will happen and the outcome is already set.  Gay marriage and all other wicked practices will come to an end.  Our job is to stand for Christ in all times and places. The real metal to that is when it is hard to do and when what we stand for is not popular.  SSM and other wicked practices the world gets excited about are all losers.  They will be practiced for a time but we can bank on the fact that when Christ comes, there will not be a SSM for a 1000 years.  Perhaps it might start up again when Satan is set free at the end of the 1000 year period but that will be short. Then the end will come, the earth receive its celestial glory and none of this stuff to return to the earth ever.  Satan knows his time is short.  He is running out of time.  So we can see more stuff coming down in the near future.  Satan is not going to stop with SSM.  He has more goodies for people to accept.

When you say our duty to stand for Christ, I think that is true. So I feel that if asked, I would say don't do it, it is not in accord with the Heavenly Order. But if I were asked shall we pass legislation or file lawsuits seeking to deny others the ability to do it and to force them to conform with our religious beliefs, I would also say don't do it, it is not in accord with the Heavenly Order. So you see standing for Christ depends on exactly what you believe Christ stands for.

[Hamba Tuhan]

But if I were asked shall we pass legislation or file lawsuits seeking to deny others the ability to do it and to force them to conform with our religious beliefs, I would also say don't do it.

 

Precisely which criteria do you use to determine which of God's commandments should be enshrined in legislation? It would appear that you're fine with at least some of the ten given on Sinai having been turned into secular law.

[Stone holm]

Precisely which criteria do you use to determine which of God's commandments should be enshrined in legislation? It would appear that you're fine with at least some of the ten given on Sinai having been turned into secular law.

I am fine with any secular law that can be justified by secular logic that happens to also be a religious commandment, and if they ever come up with a rational secular reason for not supporting SSM, I will be fine with that as well.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I am fine with any secular law that can be justified by secular logic that happens to also be a religious commandment, and if they ever come up with a rational secular reason for not supporting SSM, I will be fine with that as well.

 

I have rational secular reasons aplenty; you just don't like/accept any of them.

[california boy]

What you say you need to ponder is a perfect example of the reasoning of men sounding impressive at first blush, but when squared against the word of God falls apart. In the Bible, the Savior made it clear that there are some instances when and where some men must "make themselves 'eunuchs' (I.e. abstain from sexual relations) as a sacrifice to the Lord that he might inherit the kingdom God.

12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive. (Matthew 19)

It is so that men might live in accord with the above counsel of the Savior that the church counsels it's same sex attracted members to abstain from sexual relations outside of male/female marriage, thereby keeping the law of chastity so that he might be exalted in the resurrection of the just. Yes it is a great sacrifice, but by the Lord's own word it's not an impossible sacrifice to make for life on earth is short and eternity is forever. Those with enough faith to make such a sacrifice for the kingdom of heaven's sake will be numbered among the greatest heroes of eternity

 

 

I am not quite sure I am reading you post correctly so maybe we should be clear what the definition of an eunich is.  This is a very complete definition as well as usage in ancient times of the term.

 

 

 

 

eu·nuch   (yo͞o′nək)

n.

1. A castrated man, traditionally employed as a harem attendant or as a functionary incertain Asian courts.

2. Often Offensive A man or boy whose testes are nonfunctioning or have been removed.

3. Derogatory An ineffectual or powerless man.

[Middle English eunuk, from Latin eunūchus, from Greek eunoukhos : eunē, bed + -okhos,keeping (from ekhein, to keep; see segh- in Indo-European roots).]

eu′nuch·ism n.

Word History: Eunuch goes back to the Greek word eunoukhos, "a castrated maleemployed to serve the women in the women's quarters of a household and to act aschamberlain," and the Greek word is derived from eunē, "bed," and ekhein, "to hold, tokeep." A eunuch is a "bed-keeper," so to speak. To avoid suspicion about the parentageof their children, upper-class men in many ancient societies would post eunuchs to guardand serve in the bedchambers of the women of their households. Nowadays, when theword eunuch is mentioned outside of discussions of history and ancient customs, it ismostly used metaphorically, in the sense "an ineffectual man." In ancient times, however,the eunuchs who served powerful people were often far from being ineffectual. Since theywere privy to the personal lives of ruling families and had the opportunity to acquirepolitically and financially useful information, some eunuchs amassed enormous personalfortunes and rose to positions of great power and responsibility.

American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

eunuch  (ˈjuːnək)

n

1. (Professions) a man who has been castrated, esp (formerly) for some office such as aguard in a harem

2. an ineffective man: a political eunuch.

[C15: via Latin from Greek eunoukhos attendant of the bedchamber, from eunē bed + ekhein tohave, keep]

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

eu•nuch  (ˈyu nək) 

n.

a castrated man, esp. one formerly employed by Oriental rulers as a harem guard orpalace official.

[1350–1400; Middle English eunuk < Latin eunūchus < Greek eunoûchos=eun(ḗ) bed + -ouchos, variant of -ochos, n. derivative of échein to keep, have]

eu′nuch•ism, n.

Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

 

 

 

I hope you are not suggesting that all gay men should be castrated.

[mfbukowski]

 

I am not quite sure I am reading you post correctly so maybe we should be clear what the definition of an eunich is.  This is a very complete definition as well as usage in ancient times of the term.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hope you are not suggesting that all gay men should be castrated.

 

Oh my gosh this is getting very old.

 

You twist every possible interpretation.  You cannot see what is right before you, all you see is gay bashing everywhere.

 

This is a clear example of heterophobia.

 

If you had actually read what the quote said, you would see that the intention of the quote was fully explained.

 

 

. In the Bible, the Savior made it clear that there are some instances when and where some men must "make themselves 'eunuchs' (I.e. abstain from sexual relations) as a sacrifice to the Lord that he might inherit the kingdom God.

 

No, it had nothing to do with castrating gays.

 

Unbelievable.

Edited February 14, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Bobbieaware]

I am not quite sure I am reading you post correctly so maybe we should be clear what the definition of an eunich is. This is a very complete definition as well as usage in ancient times of the term.

I hope you are not suggesting that all gay men should be castrated.

In His sermon on the mount, the Savior said the following:

29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. (Matthew 5 )

As far as I'm aware, there is not a single Christian denomination - including the LDS Church - that believes the Lord intended the above verses of scripture to be taken literally, Rather, it's almost unanimously understood that what the Savior is teaching is that if someone very near and dear to a believers heart becomes very destructive to his spiritual well-being, that it's better for the believer to end the relationship with that spiritually destructive person rather than be dragged down to hell along with him.

The same non-literal interpretation also holds true wihen the Lord says some men need to make themselves virtual eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. The expression doesn't mean that there are some men who should castrate themselves, but that there are situations in life when men should chose to be sexually celibate or abstinate for life, rather than violate the Lord's law of chastity that says sexual relations are only acceptable by God when engaged in by men and women who are legally and lawfully married.

Edited February 14, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[california boy]

Oh my gosh this is getting very old.

 

You twist every possible interpretation.  You cannot see what is right before you, all you see is gay bashing everywhere.

 

This is a clear example of heterophobia.

 

If you had actually read what the quote said, you would see that the intention of the quote was fully explained.

 

No, it had nothing to do with castrating gays.

 

Unbelievable.

You are jumping the gun a bit aren't you?  I was asking how Bobbie was inturpeting that scripture.  Bobbie is the one that quoted the scripture of the Eunich.  I really was asking why Bobbie brought up this scripture.  It is a fair question and I wanted to be clear about what she was saying before I said anything.  I also wondered if she knew what an Eunich was.  It is NOT someone who is celibate.  It is someone who has been castrated.  I wanted to make sure she understood what she was suggesting.

 

You don't think that it was fair for me to ask her for CLARIFICATION of her post?  Really?  geeeze