General Conference: Moving Away From Traditional Marriage Definition?

[Avatar4321]

This thread may end up longer than the other one, but I expect zero content from conference being posted here.

[Daniel2]

This thread may end up longer than the other one, but I expect zero content from conference being posted here.

I don't expect anything from April 2015's conference.... will this thread still be open for April 2030's session, I wonder....? Then we'll see some glimmers of hope....

[Bernard Gui]

In this thread, you are invited to post quotes from general conference that indicate the Church is moving away from that definition and moving toward the predicted day when the Church will accept and embrace homosexual behavior, allow same-sex "marriage," and solemnize it in the temples.

After exhaustive research and careful parsing, I found this quote from the April 2006 Conference, so you need to reset the timer.

"Marriage is the foundry for social order.... That union is not merely between husband and wife......"

Edited April 1, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

Scott -- I'd love to see a source for those pushing for same-sex marriage in the temple.  Can you point me to some examples?

The only possible justification I have seen given is that early in the church, men were sealed to leaders- really whole families to other families- with the fathers as "adopted sons". Of course that is not marriage, and is a gross distortion of the idea of "adoption" to cite that as a justification for same-sex sealings. Nevertheless I keep hearing that "in the early church men were sealed to other men."

Yes, as adopted "sons". Big difference.

[mfbukowski]

Yep. Older, experienced people are prejudiced, closed-minded, and don't think critically. They don't know what's going on and need to die off before the much more enlightened younger generation can create utopia.

I came of age in the sixties, and have seen many trends seen as "progressive", melt into ashes along with flying cars. For every action there is a reaction. It was clear to me in 1970 that the triumph of communism was inevitable, as well as the certian knowledge that nearly all of the people in the US would live in communes by the year 2000. We trusted no one over thirty because they simply were from another universe.

Oops.

Present feminism is nothing like it was in 1970, either.

We shall see. This world is very hard to predict. If it was easy, the stock market would have made everyone rich by now

Seth knows a bit about that.

Edited April 1, 2015 by mfbukowski

[teddyaware]

After exhaustive research and careful parsing, I found this quote from the April 2006 Conference, so you need to reset the timer.

"Marriage is the foundry for social order.... That union is not merely between husband and wife......"

 

Just for accuracy's sake, after the word 'wife' there is a comma that is followed by these words: "it includes a partnership with God."

[Kenngo1969]

Just for accuracy's sake, after the word 'wife' there is a comma that is followed by these words: "it includes a partnership with God."

I think that's what Bernard was alluding to when he said he "parsed" it carefully.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

If God is simply waiting for some of the older members to either die or be ready for it, then He is favoring the older generation at the cost of the younger (who, if folks on this board on to be believed, are leaving or will leave due to the Church's stance). That makes no sense and I have a hard time believing God is so motivated. In fact, I find it ludicrous.

 

Some relevant viewpoints from your fellow posters:

One more point.  The phrase "As you read, ask yourselves: Would a loving God do that to his children?" seems to be an attempt to say that anything that doesn't fit my image of who God should be is not part of the gospel.  But God is not created in man's image, we are created in his.

 

 

Yes.  This exactly.

 

Think of all the things that happen to people every day-all the horrible trials that God asks us to go thru-and then see if her way of finding out if something is of God actually makes sense?

 

She might as well have just said "Ask yourself this, would a loving God do anything that you don't agree with or understand?" and it would be just as valid of a way to discern truth as her question is.

 

I hate that phrase.  God's ways are not our ways.  What we see as loving and what God sees as loving are two entirely different things.

[Scott Lloyd]

I came of age in the sixties, and have seen many trends seen as "progressive", melt into ashes along with flying cars.

And even if they do get traction, why is it foregone that the Church of Jesus Christ will be altered thereby? We're -- what? -- 50 years out from the beginning of the Great Sexual Revolution of the 1960s. Yet the law of chastity remains what it was in the era of "Father Knows Best," "the Donna Reed Show" and "The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet."

[Scott Lloyd]

To my chagrin and embarrassment, I am obliged to admit that upon further examination, I did run across a remark in last weekend's women's session that might offer some hope to those expecting that the Church's position on marriage will change. It's from Sister Cynthia Pratt, third counselor in the Young Women general presidency. In the interest of candor, I'll be the first to present it here:

 

Though none of us can know what the future holds, we must be content for now with the understanding that marriage is between a man and a woman and follow the counsel in "The Family: a Proclamation to the World."

Edited to add:

 

April Fool's joke. See post #116.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Daniel2]

Yet the law of chastity remains what it was in the era of "Father Knows Best," "the Donna Reed Show" and "The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet."

I see it differently...

The church HAS had changes over the years about what sexual practices are allowable.

Specifically, I'm referring to the letters from the First Presidency in the 80's restricting then removing the restrictions of certain non-intercourse-specific "unholy and impure practices."

Also, condemnation by leaders of masturbation seems to be on an ever-decreasing volume.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

To my chagrin and embarrassment, I am obliged to admit that upon further examination, I did run across remark in last weekend's women's session that might offer some hope to those expecting that the Church's position on marriage will change. It's from Sister Cynthia Pratt, third counselor in the Young Women general presidency. In the interest of candor, I'll be the first to present it here:

I am pleasantly surprised both by Sister Pratt's comment, and in your timely posting of it.

Kudos to you both.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

HappyJackWagon, on 31 Mar 2015 - 2:43 PM, said:

Also, do we know the authorship of the Proclamation? I think knowing who wrote it could make a difference in how it is viewed. For example, if it was written primarily by attorneys, I would think it would be less likely to become cannonized scripture, which after 20 years it still hasn't. Would we say "I know the proclamation is the word of God as revealed to the prophet's attorneys and subsequently accepted by the Q15"

 

It reminds me of another thread where JLHPROF stated the bible was written by prophets. Really? Do we know that to be true or is there ample evidence to the contrary? Are we attributing the Proclamation as a prophetic writing when it could have been meant initially to be a faith statement as part of alawsuit against gay marriage? And if it was part of a legal position is it impossible to think that it could be altered in the future in some meaningful way?

Scott Lloyd: The proclamation bears the signatures of all three members of the First Presidency and all 12 members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. That is sufficient to the moment.

 

The topic of authorship is interesting to me. I've recently seen claims that the primary author is Richard Wilkins who was heavily involved with the World Congress of Families, an anti-gay group that is listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Final revisions of the proclamation were then made by the Kirton-McConkie law firm and then of course signed by the Q15.

 

Here's a link to the World Congress of Families "Recognizing Our Shared Committment to the Natural Family". I think you will find some similarities in language. http://worldcongress.org/wcf2_spkrs/wcf2_wilkins.htm

 

ETA- Personally, the context and time at which the document was produced, and by whom, provides some insight into the intentions behind it and not necessarily a revelation from God. I wonder if the provenance of the document is the reason why it has not been canonized.

Edited April 1, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[thesometimesaint]

Daniel 2:

 

"Specifically, I'm referring to the letters from the First Presidency in the 80's restricting then removing the restrictions of "unholy and impure practices."

 

To be fair neither those restrictions nor their remove constituted a change in doctrine. I think it embarrassed enough ordinary members, Bishops, Stake Presidents, and ultimately the First Presidency that their removal was inevitable. It's a matter between only the couple and the Lord. We're really not out to publicly embarrass people.

Edited April 1, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Daniel2]

Daniel 2:

"Specifically, I'm referring to the letters from the First Presidency in the 80's restricting then removing the restrictions of "unholy and impure practices."

To be fair neither those restrictions nor their remove constituted a change in doctrine. I think it embarrassed enough ordinary members, Bishops, Stake Presidents, and ultimately the First Presidency that their removal was inevitable. It's a matter between only the couple and the Lord. We're really not out to publicly embarrass people.

I agree, SS... I wasn't asserting such changes were doctrinal, per se... I was responding to the claim that today's approach to chastity is the same as it was during the Leave-It-to-Beaver-50's, and those changes I listed demonstrate, to me, that some approaches to sexual behaviors have changed.

Even so, I'm not sure that it's "doctrine" that marriage will never be an option for same-sex couples--but even so, doctrine sometimes evolves, too.

[Daniel2]

The topic of authorship is interesting to me. I've recently seen claims that the primary author is Richard Wilkins who was heavily involved with the World Congress of Families, an anti-gay group that is listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Final revisions of the proclamation were then made by the Kirton-McConkie law firm and then of course signed by the Q15.

Here's a link to the World Congress of Families "Recognizing Our Shared Committment to the Natural Family". I think you will find some similarities in language. http://worldcongress.org/wcf2_spkrs/wcf2_wilkins.htm

ETA- Personally, the context and time at which the document was produced, and by whom, provides some insight into the intentions behind it and not necessarily a revelation from God. I wonder if the provenance of the document is the reason why it has not been canonized.

Great info and insightful post. Thanks!

According to at least the powers that be that are responsible for Ensign correlation, it was important enough to clarify that the Proclamation is "a guide," not "a revelation."

Edited April 1, 2015 by Daniel2

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I agree, SS... I wasn't asserting such changes were doctrinal, per se... I was responding to the claim that today's approach to chastity is the same as it was during the Leave-It-to-Beaver-50's, and those changes I listed demonstrate, to me, that some approaches to sexual behaviors have changed.

Even so, I'm not sure that it's "doctrine" that marriage will never be an option for same-sex couples--but even so, doctrine sometimes evolves, too.

Not to mention attitudes toward birth control have changed dramatically.

[Scott Lloyd]

 I was responding to the claim that today's approach to chastity is the same as it was during the Leave-It-to-Beaver-50's, and those changes I listed demonstrate, to me, that some approaches to sexual behaviors have changed.

 

Re-read my post. I didn't say "today's approach to chastity," I said "the law of chastity."

 

Wikipedia has a workable definition of the law of chastity:

 

The law of chastity is a moral code defined by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). According to the church, chastity means abstinence from sexual relations before marriage, and complete fidelity to one's spouse during marriage.

 

I stand by my statement that the law of chastity, as defined above, has not changed in the years since the late '50s and early '60s.

[Scott Lloyd]

Great info and insightful post.

Thanks!

According to at least the powers that be that are responsible for Ensign correlarion, it was important enough to clarify that the Proclamation is "a guide," not "a revelation."

Sister Oscarson called it a "revelatory" document.

 

As far as I can tell, she hasn't been slapped down yet.

[Buckeye]

Re-read my post. I didn't say "today's approach to chastity," I said "the law of chastity."

 

Wikipedia has a workable definition of the law of chastity:

 

I stand by my statement that the law of chastity, as defined above, has not changed in the years since the late '50s and early '60s.

 

Why not just use the definition from the temple endownment?

[Scott Lloyd]

The topic of authorship is interesting to me. I've recently seen claims that the primary author is Richard Wilkins who was heavily involved with the World Congress of Families, an anti-gay group that is listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Final revisions of the proclamation were then made by the Kirton-McConkie law firm and then of course signed by the Q15.

 

Here's a link to the World Congress of Families "Recognizing Our Shared Committment to the Natural Family". I think you will find some similarities in language. http://worldcongress.org/wcf2_spkrs/wcf2_wilkins.htm

 

ETA- Personally, the context and time at which the document was produced, and by whom, provides some insight into the intentions behind it and not necessarily a revelation from God. I wonder if the provenance of the document is the reason why it has not been canonized.

CFR that Wilkins wrote it and that Kirton and McConkie tweaked it.

 

And it matters little in any case. If I have position and I ask someone to help me with the wording before I publish it, it's still my position.

[Scott Lloyd]

Why not just use the definition from the temple endownment?

You don't like the one I provided? What's wrong with it?

[Daniel2]

Sister Oscarson called it a "revelatory" document.

As far as I can tell, she hasn't been slapped down yet.

What do you see is the difference between her use of the term "revelatory" vs. Packer' use of the term "a revelation" that warrented the change in the publication of Packer's talk...?

[Daniel2]

Re-read my post. I didn't say "today's approach to chastity," I said "the law of chastity."

Wikipedia has a workable definition of the law of chastity:

I stand by my statement that the law of chastity, as defined above, has not changed in the years since the late '50s and early '60s.

And re-read what I said.

I didn't say you were wrong.

I said that from my perspective ("I see it differeny..."), changes in "sexual practices" (I never said "the law of chastity") have occured.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Daniel2

[Calm]

Here's a link to the World Congress of Families "Recognizing Our Shared Committment to the Natural Family". I think you will find some similarities in language.

 

That is from 1999, any similarities might be a result of reading the Proc.