General Conference: Sustaining Traditional Marriage Definition

[Scott Lloyd]

This thread's purpose is to highlight statements from leaders at general conference that sustain and confirm the fact that the Church continues to affirm that the Lord's definition of marriage as conveyed by His servants is between a man and a woman, thus ruling out the notion of same-sex "marriage."

 

As the women's meeting is now an official general conference session, I am beginning now to highlight these quotations, drawing from Saturday's meeting. I will, of course, continue as this coming weekend's sessions get underway.

 

Others are welcome to start a thread as a counterpart to this one in which quotes from the conference are presented that indicate the Church is moving away from the traditional definition of marriage and moving toward the predicted day when homosexual behavior will be embraced in the Church and same-sex "marriage" will be solemnized in the temples. In fact, I may start that thread myself, though I don't expect there will be anything to contribute to it.

 

And now, to get things started, this is from Saturday's women's session as reported by KSL:

 

 

This year also marks the 20th anniversary of "The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” which former Church President Gordon B. Hinckley delivered to the General Relief Society meeting in September of 1995. Conference-goers Saturday saw a presentation of the proclimation expressed in a special video by different kinds of families in many countries.

"Little did we realize then how very desperately we would need these basic declarations in today's world," said Sister Bonnie L. Oscarson, Young Women General President. "Let us be defenders of marriage as the Lord has ordained it while continuing to show love and compassion for those with differing views."

 

In another report I saw, Sister Oscarson was quoted as calling the family proclamation "revelatory." Interesting terminology in view of the back-and-forth there has been on this board as to whether the proclamation counts as a revelation.

 

Let me say parenthetically how highly I esteem Sister Oscarson. She was my "mission mom" very briefly during the last month of my mission when her husband, Paul, was called to preside over the newly created Sweden Goteborg Mission that was formed from a division of the Sweden Stockholm Mission. They were both very young when called. Sister Oscarson was scarcely older than the missionaries they led.

 

Over the years, I have been proud of them both as I have observed what has become of them. After my mission, a temple was constructed in Stockholm, and in recent years, President Oscarson was temple president and Sister Oscarson was temple matron.

 

 

Edited to add:

 

Apparently, someone got confused, so let me be clear: I am referring in this thread to the current, April 2015 general conference, not to other general conferences.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ksfisher]

What towns did you serve in?  I was a missionary in Sweden from 87 to 89, but the Göteborg mission was gone by then.  Trollhättan was my first area.

 

(Forgive me for the thread derail,  you don't run into a lot of missionaries who served in Sweden)

[Scott Lloyd]

What towns did you serve in?  I was a missionary in Sweden from 87 to 89, but the Göteborg mission was gone by then.  Trollhättan was my first area.

 

(Forgive me for the thread derail,  you don't run into a lot of missionaries who served in Sweden)

No problem. I love to talk about my mission (1974-76).

 

My towns were Vaxjo (sorry, can't find a font for the Swedish characters), Malmo, Landskrona, Stockholm (mission office), Gavle and Karlskrona.

 

As I said, they divided the mission not long before I went home. I had been serving under President Richard Oscarson. They called his brother to preside over the new mission, and the two presidents were in the country simultaneously for a time. Later, they called their father to be mission president in Scotland, so that meant the three of them were serving simultaneously.

 

As you mentioned, the Goteborg mission was discontinued and absorbed back into the Stockholm mission not long afterward.

 

The Oscarsons are a remarkable family.

Richard was temple president in St. Louis while Paul was temple president in Stockholm. And a third brother, Don, was in the first St. Louis temple presidency, just after the temple was dedicated. He it was who created "City of Joseph," the first Nauvoo pageant, which has since been replaced by a new pageant.

[ksfisher]

I served in Vaxjo and Malmo as well.  Malmo had two thriving branches at the time, Vaxjo two priesthood holders.  Malmo was my favorite area to serve in.

[Scott Lloyd]

I served in Vaxjo and Malmo as well.  Malmo had two thriving branches at the time, Vaxjo two priesthood holders.  Malmo was my favorite area to serve in.

Malmo, according to this, is a full-fledged stake headquarters now, though there is only one ward in the city proper.

 

Sounds like Vaxjo was continuing to languish when you were there, as it did when I was there. It had only a presiding elder (it was a dependent branch on Jokoping), one Aaronic Priesthood holder, several women and a gaggle of kids.

 

Did you know Hans Mattsson? I didn't, though I have been saddened to see what has happened to him. According to Dehlin's Facebook page, he will keynote the next Ex-Mormons Conference in Salt Lake City, which likely indicates he is not just a troubled doubter now but is a fully formed anti-Mormon.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ksfisher]

Malmo, according to this, is a full-fledged stake headquarters now, though there is only one ward in the city proper.

 

 

The Lund and Malmo Wards meet in the chapel in Malmo, with the Lund Ward covering part of Malmo.

 

https://www.lds.org/maps/#ll=55.63504,13.131225&z=11&m=google.road&q=malmo%20sweden&find=stake:525456

 

 

Edit: no, I'm wrong, there is a chapel in Lund now.

Edited March 31, 2015 by ksfisher

[Scott Lloyd]

More from Sister Oscarson:

 

There is a war going on in this world in which our most cherished and basic doctrines are under attack. I am speaking specifically of the doctrine of the family. The sanctity of the home and the essential purposes of the family are being questioned, criticized and assaulted on every front.

 

(Emphasis mine)

Edited April 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Here's a more complete quote of Sister Oscarson than the KSL snippet I provided in the OP:
 

Little did we realize then, how very desperately we would need these basic declarations in today's world as the criteria by which we could judge each new wind of worldly dogma coming at us from the media, the Internet, scholars, TV and films, and even legislators. The proclamation on the family has become our benchmark for judging the philosophies of the world, and I testify that the principles set forth within this statement are as true today as they were when they were given to us by a prophet of God nearly 20 years ago.

 

[rockpond]

More from Sister Oscarson:

The sanctity of the home and the essential purposes of the family are being questioned, criticized and assaulted on every front.

Im curious if anyone here can share examples of this in their own lives. I wonder if it's the area that I live in (a very religious area) that I just don't feel this happening. My neighbors, friends, and even work associates all seem to highly value the importance of family. I assume others are having a different experience, maybe you could share so I can understand.

[The Nehor]

The other thread is longer. Does this disprove your prophecy?

[Daniel2]

Im curious if anyone here can share examples of this in their own lives. I wonder if it's the area that I live in (a very religious area) that I just don't feel this happening. My neighbors, friends, and even work associates all seem to highly value the importance of family. I assume others are having a different experience, maybe you could share so I can understand.

I second this post... this is my experience, as well, and I'd love to hear any others' experiences to the contrary.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Daniel2

[tonie]

Does this count:

 

“It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest-lived nations of which we have record have been monogamic. Rome, with her arts, sciences and warlike instincts, was once the mistress of the world; but her glory faded. She was a mono-gamic nation, and the numerous evils attending that system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook her.”  George Q. Cannon

 

“Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman Empire... Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a hold sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers.” -- Brigham Young

Edited April 2, 2015 by tonie

[rockpond]

Does this count:

 

“It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest-lived nations of which we have record have been monogamic. Rome, with her arts, sciences and warlike instincts, was once the mistress of the world; but her glory faded. She was a mono-gamic nation, and the numerous evils attending that system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook her.”  George Q. Cannon

 

“Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman Empire... Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a hold sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers.” -- Brigham Young

 

They didn't get the memo that the Roman Empire fell because of homosexuality.  

[Duncan]

I think the family is under attack from within the family itself i.e a plethora of addictions that are trying to meet unmet needs/wants, people marrying too young or too quickly, having kids too soon-stuff like that

[Gray]

Is the "attack on the family" really an income disparity problem? The families that aren't holding together or the marriages not being formed in the first place seem to be concentrated along the lower spectrum of income levels, if recent Facebook infographics are to be believed (I know, I know)

[jwhitlock]

Im curious if anyone here can share examples of this in their own lives. I wonder if it's the area that I live in (a very religious area) that I just don't feel this happening. My neighbors, friends, and even work associates all seem to highly value the importance of family. I assume others are having a different experience, maybe you could share so I can understand.

 

Certainly.

 

In the urban school district next to us, it has become a badge of "honor" for young women ages 13 and up to have children out of wedlock. We've seen some with three children before they hit 20. Often the grandmothers of the young girls are the ones taking care of the children. The teenager's mother is often not even in the picture, and the teen herself doesn't care, because the school system provides full day care from early morning until well into the evening. Much of what the government does in enabling behavior has the unintended consequence of removing the responsibility of the teen caring for her children.  It's a very, very real problem.

[The Nehor]

Does this count:

 

“It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest-lived nations of which we have record have been monogamic. Rome, with her arts, sciences and warlike instincts, was once the mistress of the world; but her glory faded. She was a mono-gamic nation, and the numerous evils attending that system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook her.”  George Q. Cannon

 

“Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman Empire... Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a hold sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers.” -- Brigham Young

The Roman Empire lasted about half a millennia, almost a full millennia if you count the Republic years too. Most nations do not continue that long.

[Scott Lloyd]

Does this count:

 

“It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest-lived nations of which we have record have been monogamic. Rome, with her arts, sciences and warlike instincts, was once the mistress of the world; but her glory faded. She was a mono-gamic nation, and the numerous evils attending that system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook her.”  George Q. Cannon

 

“Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman Empire... Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a hold sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers.” -- Brigham Young

This thread pertains only to the current general conference. Please do not derail the topic.

[Scott Lloyd]

Im curious if anyone here can share examples of this in their own lives. I wonder if it's the area that I live in (a very religious area) that I just don't feel this happening. My neighbors, friends, and even work associates all seem to highly value the importance of family. I assume others are having a different experience, maybe you could share so I can understand.

The fact that anyone is even entertaining the notion of illicit sexual behavior one day being accepted in the Church is evidence of that.

 

I've not seen it so much in my own neighborhood, but I've certainly seen it on this board.

[Scott Lloyd]

The other thread is longer. Does this disprove your prophecy?

It is indeed longer -- and more active.

 

But other than my impish April Fool's prank yesterday, no one has provided any examples of what was called for in the OP.

.

[tonie]

This thread pertains only to the current general conference. Please do not derail the topic.

Not sure that teachings of Prophets about monogamy is a derail in a topic about marriage; but that is why I prefaced with "Does this count."

What do you consider "current"?

[Storm Rider]

Im curious if anyone here can share examples of this in their own lives. I wonder if it's the area that I live in (a very religious area) that I just don't feel this happening. My neighbors, friends, and even work associates all seem to highly value the importance of family. I assume others are having a different experience, maybe you could share so I can understand.

 

I don't know if it that difficult to find examples of the challenges to the family in today's society.  In my extended family and, if social polling is to be believed, divorce is at an all-time high.  More importantly, if the CDC is to be believed, 40.6% of all live births come from unwed mothers.  Of my six siblings three have been divorced and the rest of us have remained married to our first spouse for over 30 years.  

 

In addition, more people live together rather than in a marriage.  Combine this with the fact that 22% of our children live in poverty and I begin to wonder exactly how can anyone think that marriage is a strongly supported social construct in the the USA today?  

 

Rock, are you seriously questioning that the idea of having a family of a father and mother with children is under attack today or are you striving to close your eyes to reality?  This is not difficult to see or understand.  Maybe we should back up and have you define what you think society would look like to you and Daniel if the idea of the traditional family was actually under attack?  What would be different than what we see?  

[rodheadlee]

Im curious if anyone here can share examples of this in their own lives. I wonder if it's the area that I live in (a very religious area) that I just don't feel this happening. My neighbors, friends, and even work associates all seem to highly value the importance of family. I assume others are having a different experience, maybe you could share so I can understand.

So what are you looking for? None of my friends from high school stayed married to their first wife or husband, most broke up due to adultery. Most of the males refuse to get married again and have women over just for sex. Some of the women are in the same exact position. All of them have children who have been used in custody battles to"get back" at their spouse.  I think my wife and I are the only couple of the whole group still married to our original spouse. The hilarious part is we were told in a marriage and family life class at the local junior college that our marriage would never work because we got married too young. That was 42 years ago. We are not sealed  but we took the for better or for worse, in sickness or in health, until death do us part vows serious.

[rockpond]

So what are you looking for? None of my friends from high school stayed married to their first wife or husband, most broke up due to adultery. Most of the males refuse to get married again and have women over just for sex. Some of the women are in the same exact position. All of them have children who have been used in custody battles to"get back" at their spouse.  I think my wife and I are the only couple of the whole group still married to our original spouse. The hilarious part is we were told in a marriage and family life class at the local junior college that our marriage would never work because we got married too young. That was 42 years ago. We are not sealed  but we took the for better or for worse, in sickness or in health, until death do us part vows serious.

 

Congrats on 42 years!  That's awesome.

 

I wasn't looking for anything in particular... just examples of how "The sanctity of the home and the essential purposes of the family are being questioned, criticized and assaulted on every front." (Sister Oscarson).

 

I do know several families going through marital difficulties and some that are actually divorcing.  It's very sad.  Our bishop spends a lot of time trying to help couples.  But I feel like everyone agrees that divorce is still a negative and should be avoided.  I'm not aware of anyone questioning that or criticizing couples who stay together.  Also, the divorce rate in the US has been declining for several decades so I'm not seeing the "assault".

 

Basically, I'm just curious how people are seeing that quote play out in their lives.

[Scott Lloyd]

Not sure that teachings of Prophets about monogamy is a derail in a topic about marriage; but that is why I prefaced with "Does this count."

You have your answer.

 

What do you consider "current"?

I'm quite puzzled you have to ask that. The perameters are quite specific in terms of time frame and subject.

I mean the general conference that began last Saturday with the general women's meeting and continues this weekend with three sessions on Saturday and two on Sunday. And the subject is statements that have been and will be made that sustain the Church's position defining marriage as between a man and a woman and by implication ruling out the notion of same-sex marriage.

Edited to add:

Looking back, I see that I did not explicitly state that I was referring to this current April 2015 general conference rather than each and every general conference going back to the the beginning of Church history. I took it for granted that would be obvious and  everyone would share my frame of reference, but apparently that's not the case.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd