General Conference: Sustaining Traditional Marriage Definition

[JLHPROF]

 

If the primary audience of gen con is active church membership and we are seeing an increase in the number of talks reinforcing the idea that marriage is only between a man and a woman... what might that tell us?

 

That they are trying to stem the tide of error and worldliness that is creeping in among active members who are falling into false paths.

Those who aren't active may be less reachable at that point.

Edited May 3, 2015 by JLHPROF

[rockpond]

That some general authorities spend too much time on MD&DB?

... Sort of makes me wish I had been more civil in some of my posts.

Ha! Best post of the day!

[rockpond]

That they are trying to stem the tide of error and worldliness that is creeping in among active members who are falling into false paths.

Those who aren't active may be less reachable at that point.

Well, I doubt we're seeing heterosexual ("OSA" for Scott) members entering into homosexual marriages. So I'm suggesting that maybe an increase in the number of talks on the matter reflects an awareness of an increasing number of members who are not agreeing with the Brethren regarding this issue.

[Russell C McGregor]

Well, I doubt we're seeing heterosexual ("OSA" for Scott) members entering into homosexual marriages. So I'm suggesting that maybe an increase in the number of talks on the matter reflects an awareness of an increasing number of members who are not agreeing with the Brethren regarding this issue.

If (hypothetically) there were such members, then they would be wrong, in a state of apostasy, and in need of repentance.

But there's another point you're missing. While fondly imagining that only active members listen to Conference, being perhaps unaware of the extent to which missionary and reactivation efforts include invitations to Conference sessions, there is the fact that making the Church's position clear to the world at large, and making sure the record reflects the fact that we are standing firm on this issue is something worth doing, even if nobody is listening.

There are those misguided individuals who are confidently predicting that, forty years hence, the Church will be wholeheartedly embracing "same sex marriage" and trying to pretend that it never did anything else. Well, here's my prediction: by the time that forty-year period is up (so Scott doesn't have to start a new clock) "same sex marriage" will be an all-but forgotten fad, like mullets or bell-bottom trousers. There will probably still be the occasional "gay couple" who will "get married," but they'll simply be regarded as oddballs by everyone else, including most "gays."

But there will at that time be some other social issue, some new bit of publicly advocated wickedness, that others will be demanding that the Church accepts. Don't ask me what it will be; I haven't the glimmerings of an idea. Remember that, forty years ago, nobody could have predicted that "same sex marriage" would be anything other than the punchline of a ribald joke. And when the Church's enemies (within as well as without) start confidently predicting that the Church will sooner or later fold on that new issue, citing the Priesthood ban as their precedent, we will be able to point back to the second decade of the century, when "same sex marriage" was such a big noise, and how the Church stood firm then.

Won't that be a good thing?

[rockpond]

If (hypothetically) there were such members, then they would be wrong, in a state of apostasy, and in need of repentance.

But there's another point you're missing. While fondly imagining that only active members listen to Conference, being perhaps unaware of the extent to which missionary and reactivation efforts include invitations to Conference sessions, there is the fact that making the Church's position clear to the world at large, and making sure the record reflects the fact that we are standing firm on this issue is something worth doing, even if nobody is listening.

There are those misguided individuals who are confidently predicting that, forty years hence, the Church will be wholeheartedly embracing "same sex marriage" and trying to pretend that it never did anything else. Well, here's my prediction: by the time that forty-year period is up (so Scott doesn't have to start a new clock) "same sex marriage" will be an all-but forgotten fad, like mullets or bell-bottom trousers. There will probably still be the occasional "gay couple" who will "get married," but they'll simply be regarded as oddballs by everyone else, including most "gays."

But there will at that time be some other social issue, some new bit of publicly advocated wickedness, that others will be demanding that the Church accepts. Don't ask me what it will be; I haven't the glimmerings of an idea. Remember that, forty years ago, nobody could have predicted that "same sex marriage" would be anything other than the punchline of a ribald joke. And when the Church's enemies (within as well as without) start confidently predicting that the Church will sooner or later fold on that new issue, citing the Priesthood ban as their precedent, we will be able to point back to the second decade of the century, when "same sex marriage" was such a big noise, and how the Church stood firm then.

Won't that be a good thing?

I'd love for Scott to add your prediction to his countdown and we'll wait and see who is correct.

[Russell C McGregor]

I'm not aware of anyone who has made that argument (thought I have frequently seen it put forward as a strawman).

 

Try this post: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64928-the-clock-is-running-on-this-false-prophecy/page-4#entry1209467374

[rockpond]

Try this post: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64928-the-clock-is-running-on-this-false-prophecy/page-4#entry1209467374

I was referring specifically to this argument: "since the government has redefined marriage, homosexual behavior is now OK under the law of chastity so long as it's within a marriage".

[Russell C McGregor]

I was referring specifically to this argument: "since the government has redefined marriage, homosexual behavior is now OK under the law of chastity so long as it's within a marriage".

And the claim that "The church has just made it an exception" is equivalent to the claim that homosexual behaviour would have been okay under the Law of Chastity were it not for the fact that "the church," however defined, had affirmatively done something to change that.

[rockpond]

And the claim that "The church has just made it an exception" is equivalent to the claim that homosexual behaviour would have been okay under the Law of Chastity were it not for the fact that "the church," however defined, had affirmatively done something to change that.

I'm not understanding that claim... Can you give a little more context? And, who is making that claim?

[Russell C McGregor]

I'm not understanding that claim... Can you give a little more context? And, who is making that claim?

It's a direct quote from the link I provided. California Boy is making that claim.

[rockpond]

It's a direct quote from the link I provided. California Boy is making that claim.

Got it. But that's not the same claim as the one I was asking Scott about.

[Russell C McGregor]

Got it. But that's not the same claim as the one I was asking Scott about.

It's close enough as makes no never mind.

Scott said:

"There are some who have purveyed a fanciful notion that since the government has redefined marriage, homosexual behavior is now OK under the law of chastity so long as it's within a marriage."

You responded:

"I'm not aware of anyone who has made that argument (thought I have frequently seen it put forward as a strawman)."

And what California Boy said was:

"I think you are probably right. Is all it would take is for church leaders to start looking at the sin of sexual relations outside of marriage as being the law of chastity. I don't remember a exception to this when it comes to gay relations. The church has just made it an exception."

 

So Caliboy is essentially saying that the Law of Chastity would have permitted homosexual behaviour within "same sex marriage" were it not for the fact that "The church has just made it an exception."

Not a very material difference, is it?

[california boy]

It's close enough as makes no never mind.

Scott said:

"There are some who have purveyed a fanciful notion that since the government has redefined marriage, homosexual behavior is now OK under the law of chastity so long as it's within a marriage."

You responded:

"I'm not aware of anyone who has made that argument (thought I have frequently seen it put forward as a strawman)."

And what California Boy said was:

"I think you are probably right. Is all it would take is for church leaders to start looking at the sin of sexual relations outside of marriage as being the law of chastity. I don't remember a exception to this when it comes to gay relations. The church has just made it an exception."

 

So Caliboy is essentially saying that the Law of Chastity would have permitted homosexual behaviour within "same sex marriage" were it not for the fact that "The church has just made it an exception."

Not a very material difference, is it?

 

 

You are comparing apples to oranges.  Scott is claiming that since the government has redefined marriage, homosexual behavior is now OK under the law of chastity so long as it's within a marriage."

 

Homosexuality has always been a sin and that hasn't changed.,

 

What I have stated is that for the first time in church history, the church is telling some of it's members celibacy is better than getting legally married.  The law of chastity has also always been defined as sex outside of marriage is a sin. Now that is no longer true.  You can still be legally married and still be sinning.  

 

Can you find any statement by any church leader prior to 2004 that celibacy is perfered over marrriage?  Can you find a statement by any church leader that says the law of chastity is anything but sex outside of marriage is a sin?  No you can not.  And that was my point.  

 

Now because of gay marriage, the church has changed both of those positions because now gays can be legally married.  I also have stated numberous times that the church has every right to define the law of chastity any way it wants.  I have never stated that  that since the government has redefined marriage, homosexual behavior is now OK.  You are misrepresenting my point and what I actually said.

[rockpond]

It's close enough as makes no never mind.

Scott said:

"There are some who have purveyed a fanciful notion that since the government has redefined marriage, homosexual behavior is now OK under the law of chastity so long as it's within a marriage."

You responded:

"I'm not aware of anyone who has made that argument (thought I have frequently seen it put forward as a strawman)."

And what California Boy said was:

"I think you are probably right. Is all it would take is for church leaders to start looking at the sin of sexual relations outside of marriage as being the law of chastity. I don't remember a exception to this when it comes to gay relations. The church has just made it an exception."

 

So Caliboy is essentially saying that the Law of Chastity would have permitted homosexual behaviour within "same sex marriage" were it not for the fact that "The church has just made it an exception."

Not a very material difference, is it?

 

California Boy responded but I'll just add that I agree... the material difference here is a lack of reference to the government.  We don't even have a national decision on legalized gay marriage much less a global one.  And yet, many of us hope for the day when the marriages of our gay and lesbian brothers & sisters can be recognized by the Church.

 

I still hold that government recognition and the Lord's recognition are two separate and distinct things.  I believe California Boy feels the same.

 

Scott's phrase "since the government has redefined marriage" is not a part of the equation for us.

 

And the second half of his statement "homosexual behavior is now OK under the law of chastity so long as it's within a marriage" ignores some of the nuance we've discussed.  If that's what you want to do, it's fine but it won't advance the discussion or get us closer to understanding one another.

[Russell C McGregor]

You are comparing apples to oranges.  Scott is claiming that since the government has redefined marriage, homosexual behavior is now OK under the law of chastity so long as it's within a marriage."

 

Homosexuality has always been a sin and that hasn't changed.,

 

What I have stated is that for the first time in church history, the church is telling some of it's members celibacy is better than getting legally married.  The law of chastity has also always been defined as sex outside of marriage is a sin. Now that is no longer true.  You can still be legally married and still be sinning.  

 

Can you find any statement by any church leader prior to 2004 that celibacy is perfered over marrriage?  Can you find a statement by any church leader that says the law of chastity is anything but sex outside of marriage is a sin?  No you can not.  And that was my point.  

 

Now because of gay marriage, the church has changed both of those positions because now gays can be legally married.  I also have stated numberous times that the church has every right to define the law of chastity any way it wants.  I have never stated that  that since the government has redefined marriage, homosexual behavior is now OK.  You are misrepresenting my point and what I actually said.

What you "actually said" was that the Church had "just made an exception" to the use of legal marriage as the accepted boundary for the Law of Chastity.

Reading that in plain English, it appears to say that, had the Church not changed anything, homosexual activity would have simply become acceptable within the Law of Chastity whenever same sex couples became legally married.

If that is not what you intended to say, then I will accept your clarification. But I do not regard my original reading as in any way idiosyncratic.

[california boy]

What you "actually said" was that the Church had "just made an exception" to the use of legal marriage as the accepted boundary for the Law of Chastity.

Reading that in plain English, it appears to say that, had the Church not changed anything, homosexual activity would have simply become acceptable within the Law of Chastity whenever same sex couples became legally married.

If that is not what you intended to say, then I will accept your clarification. But I do not regard my original reading as in any way idiosyncratic.

 

I am glad you recognize finally my point.  Thank you.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

I don't profess to be, I am.

 

Ergo, you profess to be so. Professing to be something simply means declaring that one is that thing.

 

Or did you mean to say, "I don't merely profess to be, I am"?

 

 But this is more to the point I was getting at.

 

If the primary audience of gen con is active church membership and we are seeing an increase in the number of talks reinforcing the idea that marriage is only between a man and a woman... what might that tell us?

 

 

That the Church leaders, in their wisdom, are aware of the spread of falsehood with regard to divine principles and are determined to counter it whenever and however they appropriately can. It has ever been so and will continue to be so on into the future until the millennial day. This is their role. It should come as no surprise that they are fulfilling it.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, I doubt we're seeing heterosexual ("OSA" for Scott) members entering into homosexual marriages. So I'm suggesting that maybe an increase in the number of talks on the matter reflects an awareness of an increasing number of members who are not agreeing with the Brethren regarding this issue.

Well, if there are, the clear pronouncements of the Church leadership will leave them without excuse, will it not?

 

By the way, I put in my sig line that I have "OSA," because you were fussing earlier that nobody ever characterizes heterosexual individuals as "having opposite-sex attraction." I'm demonstrating that I'm quite comfortable with that phrase and will readily apply it to myself if it lessens the stress level in your politically correct mind.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I'd love for Scott to add your prediction to his countdown and we'll wait and see who is correct.

We'll just tack it on to your 40-year prediction, which, by the way, now stands at 39 years, 9 months, 6 days, 18 hours, 55 minutes and 15 seconds.

 

(I've learned that the app limits the number of timers I can have running simultaneoulsy.)

 

Edited to add:

 

Russell does bring up an intriguing thought, though. It is quite possible -- and, I suspect, probable -- that the gay activist movement's insistence on marriage is almost entirely symbolic. That is, they don't really cherish or desire the institution itself all that much, and once acceptance of SS"M" has become widespread enough, they will move off from this particular political tack and go on to something else.

 

Time will tell; 40 years is probably long enough for it to have become clear.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

What you "actually said" was that the Church had "just made an exception" to the use of legal marriage as the accepted boundary for the Law of Chastity.

Reading that in plain English, it appears to say that, had the Church not changed anything, homosexual activity would have simply become acceptable within the Law of Chastity whenever same sex couples became legally married.

If that is not what you intended to say, then I will accept your clarification. But I do not regard my original reading as in any way idiosyncratic.

Your original reading is pretty much how I read it -- and what I had in mind.

 

Homosexual behavior has always been regarded by the Church as vile sin. The Church did not have to add any proviso to retain that position once society went off the rails and began to legitimize same-sex "marriage." The idea that it would have had to do so is just plain wacky.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

Russell does bring up an intriguing thought, though. It is quite possible -- and, I suspect, probable -- that the gay activist movement's insistence on marriage is almost entirely symbolic. That is, they don't really cherish or desire the institution itself all that much, and once acceptance of SS"M" has become widespread enough, they will move off from this particular political tack and go on to something else.

 

That's not what I'm hearing from the "regular ol' gay people" in my life... those who were never really activists but who greatly anticipated their right to be married.  Perhaps if you had more personal relationships with this variety of people in your life, you (and Russell) wouldn't see gay marriage as a political tack.

[rockpond]

Well, if there are, the clear pronouncements of the Church leadership will leave them without excuse, will it not?

 

It doesn't seem to be working that way.  The number of Saints feeling differently seems to be growing.

 

 

By the way, I put in my sig line that I have "OSA," because you were fussing earlier that nobody ever characterizes heterosexual individuals as "having opposite-sex attraction." I'm demonstrating that I'm quite comfortable with that phrase and will readily apply it to myself if lessens the stress level in your politically correct mind.

 

I figured as much and thought I would try to respect your request by describing you that way.  Surprisingly, however, after all our discussion you still think the advice to stop using SSA has something to do with being politically correct.  I thought we were clear that it was a matter of kindness and courtesy.  (Those who know me best, know that I shun political correctness.)

Edited May 4, 2015 by rockpond

[california boy]

We'll just tack it on to your 40-year prediction, which, by the way, now stands at 39 years, 9 months, 6 days, 18 hours, 55 minutes and 15 seconds.

 

(I've learned that the app limits the number of timers I can have running simultaneoulsy.)

 

Edited to add:

 

Russell does bring up an intriguing thought, though. It is quite possible -- and, I suspect, probable -- that the gay activist movement's insistence on marriage is almost entirely symbolic. That is, they don't really cherish or desire the institution itself all that much, and once acceptance of SS"M" has become widespread enough, they will move off from this particular political tack and go on to something else.

 

Time will tell; 40 years is probably long enough for it to have become clear.

 

I know a lot of gay couples who are married.  They all cherish their marriages just as much as any straight couple I know.  But you are right about something.  The legalization of gay marriage is not the end.  As soon as gay marriage is legalized, I think the shift will immediately turn to fighting discrimination in the workplace and in housing.  It is still legal to discriminate against gays in many states.  We need a national law to stop discrimination.  Hopefully this is something even you can get behind since the church supports non discrimination laws.  After all no true Mormon would fight discrimination against gays.

[Storm Rider]

I know a lot of gay couples who are married.  They all cherish their marriages just as much as any straight couple I know.  But you are right about something.  The legalization of gay marriage is not the end.  As soon as gay marriage is legalized, I think the shift will immediately turn to fighting discrimination in the workplace and in housing.  It is still legal to discriminate against gays in many states.  We need a national law to stop discrimination.  Hopefully this is something even you can get behind since the church supports non discrimination laws.  After all no true Mormon would fight discrimination against gays.

 

I am not so sure.  If I am renting out a part of my home, such as a mother-in-law's apartment, etc. I don't feel like I need to lease to anyone that seeks to lease the apartment that I advertised. If someone is going to be such a close part of my family/home environment I want to like them, enjoy them regardless of anything else.  Based on that criteria I suspect that I will discriminate against whole lot of people; family members and strangers alike.  Just sayin. 

[Scott Lloyd]

It doesn't seem to be working that way.  The number of Saints feeling differently seems to be growing.

 

I've not seen any numbers to that effect, but if that's the case, as I said, so long as they are at odds with the Church position on this matter, and the Church continues to make its position clear, they will find themselves without excuse.

 

 

I figured as much and thought I would try to respect your request by describing you that way.

 

 

I haven't made a request. I, in fact, don't care whether you characterize me as heterosexual or as having opposite-sex attraction. I'm simply demonstrating that I don't object to the latter.

 

 Surprisingly, however, after all our discussion you still think the advice to stop using SSA has something to do with being politically correct.  I thought we were clear that it was a matter of kindness and courtesy.  (Those who know me best, know that I shun political correctness.)

 

 

From the view over here, it is a term that is perfectly accurate, serviceable and non-abusive, but you object to it because a political pressure group has arbitrarily and unilaterally decreed it verboten. That is the very essence of political correctness. You might shun political correctness in other applications, but in this instance you fit well within the pattern.

 

Moreover, because I refuse to comply with your objection, in a prior thread I was lumped with bigots who use racial epithets that decidedly are offensive, an attack so vitriolic that it drew a reprimand from one of the moderators, but one which you abetted after the fact by awarding a rep point for it. It was after that happened that I added the line in my signature below, the one in maroon type, a sort of personal manifesto, if you will.

 

Edited to add:

 

I daresay everyone or virtually everyone who insists on political correctness would claim to be doing it out of "kindness and courtesy."

Edited May 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd