General Conference: Moving Away From Traditional Marriage Definition?

[Gray]

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.

 

By that definition, the law of chastity will still not have changed if gay marriage becomes accepted in the church. 

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

You said you were "responding to the claim that..." implying that i used the phrasing "today's approach to chastity." I didn't. I said "the law of chastity."

[Scott Lloyd]

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

Oops!

 

Very observant, calmoriah. Bravo!

Edited April 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

By that definition, the law of chastity will still not have changed if gay marriage becomes accepted in the church. 

I refer you to the quotation in my sig line from Elder Nelson.

 

Judicial fiat or government legislation are not binding on the Church's doctrinal definitions.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Daniel2]

By that definition, the law of chastity will still not have changed if gay marriage becomes accepted in the church.

Well said....

In fact, even the definition/wording of the law of chastity in the temple wouldn't have to be changed if gay marriage is allowed.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Daniel2

[Scott Lloyd]

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...?

I wasn't privy to the backstory behind the change, so I don't know what, if anything, warranted it.

 

But I've already given my view on this: The content of the proclamation does not constitute new doctrine, but I believe the action of drafting and publishing the proclamation was divinely inspired. Given subsequent events, the action was remarkably prescient -- as Sister Oscarson noted in her address at the women's session last Saturday.

[Daniel2]

You said you were "responding to the claim that..." implying that i used the phrasing "today's approach to chastity." I didn't. I said "the law of chastity."

I could have used better, more precise words in my initial post. I clarified my intent in subsequent posts, and am happy to leave it at that clarification.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Daniel2

[Buckeye]

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

 

Nothing per se. But since many on this board are dismissive of anything taught that is not "doctrine" I would think it better to quote an authoritative source rather than wikipedia.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well said....

In fact, even the definition/wording of the law of chastity in the temple wouldn't have to be changed if gay marriage is allowed.

Again, the Church of Jesus Christ is not beholden to secular judges or legislative bodies with regard to how it doctrinally defines marriage.

[Daniel2]

I wasn't privy to the backstory behind the change, so I don't know what, if anything, warranted it.

"If anything".....?

So, the Ensign made a significant change in a word that you know feel may not have been warrented... they just accidentally or mistakenly or for no good reason at all made a change to the two official, authoritative venues to disseminate conference messages to the world, including the website which could correct an inadvertently made mis-substitution....?!

De Nile ain't just a river....

Edited April 1, 2015 by Daniel2

[Scott Lloyd]

Nothing per se. But since many on this board are dismissive of anything taught that is not "doctrine" I would think it better to quote an authoritative source rather than wikipedia.

I could have quoted an authoritative source. The Wikipedia quote was handy, and it was accurate, so I went with it.

 

Furthermore, reciting temple content outside of the temple would violate not only this board's guidelines but my personal policy.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

"If anything".....?

So, the Ensign made a significant change in a word that you know feel may not have been warrented... they just accidentally or mistakenly or for no good reason at all made a change to a talk....?!

De Nile ain't just a river....

CFR that it was the Ensign that made the change as opposed to President Packer himself, exercising his personal privilege as a Church leader.

[Gray]

I refer you to the quotation in my sig line from Elder Nelson.

 

Judicial fiat or government legislation is not binding on the Church's doctrinal definitions.

 

I agree with that, but I'm just saying gay marriage doesn't clash with the definition you provided, or the definition in the temple endowment, as Daniel2 observed

[Daniel2]

CFR that it was the Ensign that made the change as opposed to President Packer himself, exercising his personal privilege as a Church leader.

Strawman... not to mention that ironically, you're parsing my words.

In my original post, I said "the powers that be" made the change... which includes the possibility of it being Elder Packer, himself... Whether it was Packer or someone else in a position of power to make the change in the Ensign is entirely irrelevant to my point.

The change was made, and it hasn't been changed back to "revelation" on the website again, nor by Packer in subsequent conferences or Ensign articles.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Daniel2

[thesometimesaint]

Even the Church doesn't support an overly literal interpretation of the PotF

[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:

 

 

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

Kudos to you both.

Thank you, sir.

 

And I agree the posting was indeed timely -- just in time for April 1.

 

I was tempted to carry this thing on longer, just to see how many more rep points I could amass, but prudence dictates otherwise.

 

I must commend Gray, Buckeye, SeekingUnderstanding and Daniel2, who easily could have indulged in smugness but instead graciously awarded me rep points or, in the case of Daniel2, paid me a compliment.

 

There were a couple of glaringly suspicious elements. Granted, most people aren't acquainted well enough with the Young Women presidency to have noticed that Cynthia Pratt was an invention, but, to my knowledge, the Young Women general presidency has never had a third counselor.

[Daniel2]

I could have quoted an authoritative source. The Wikipedia quote was handy, and it was accurate, so I went with it.

Furthermore, reciting temple content outside of the temple would violate not only this board's guidelines but my personal policy.

It is not a violation of the board guidelines to share information from the temple ceremony that is already readily available from church sources outside the temple--which the wording of the law of chastity, as described in the temple, clearly is. Strange you are being evasive about this... but it's rather tangential anyway, so probably too much time spent on this aspect. I think we're on the same page now. Edited April 1, 2015 by Daniel2

[Scott Lloyd]

It is not a violation of the board guidelines to share information from the temple ceremony that is already readily available from church sources outside the temple--which the wording of the law of chastity, as described in the temple, clearly is. Strange you are being so evasive about this.

It would violate my personal standard to quote something verbatim and identify it as coming from the temple ceremony. To me it's a matter of reverence.

 

And if, as you say, the information is already available anyway from other sources -- one of which I quoted -- I don't concede that I'm being evasive.

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree with that, but I'm just saying gay marriage doesn't clash with the definition you provided, or the definition in the temple endowment, as Daniel2 observed

It clashes with the intent of the definition, which is what matters.

[Scott Lloyd]

Even the Church doesn't support an overly literal interpretation of the PotF

What do you mean by "overly literal"?

[jwhitlock]

Thank you, sir.

 

And I agree the posting was indeed timely -- just in time for April 1.

 

I was tempted to carry this thing on longer, just to see how many more rep points I could amass, but prudence dictates otherwise.

 

I must commend Gray, Buckeye, SeekingUnderstanding and Daniel2, who easily could have indulged in smugness but instead graciously awarded me rep points or, in the case of Daniel2, paid me a compliment.

 

There were a couple of glaringly suspicious elements. Granted, most people aren't acquainted well enough with the Young Women presidency to have noticed that Cynthia Pratt was an invention, but, to my knowledge, the Young Women general presidency has never had a third counselor.

 

Well played, young man.

[Daniel2]

Again, the Church of Jesus Christ is not beholden to secular judges or legislative bodies with regard to how it doctrinally defines marriage.

I don't believe anyone's said the church IS "beholden" to secular judges or legislative bodies on how they define their doctrines...

But I would say that doctrine seems incredibly hard to define, sometimes... and the church and its doctrines certainly may be influenced by external forces, including judges, legislation, and society... and who's to say that such couldn't be by God's mysterious design and unknown ways...?

Edited April 1, 2015 by Daniel2

[Scott Lloyd]

Strawman... not to mention that ironically, you're parsing my words.

In my original post, I said "the powers that be" made the change... which includes the possibility of it being Elder Packer, himself... Whether it was Packer or someone else in a position of power to make the change in the Ensign is entirely irrelevant to my point.

The change was made, and it hasn't been changed back to "revelation" on the website again, nor by Packer in subsequent conferences or Ensign articles.

You fussed at me for saying I didn't know the backstory about why the change was made.

 

I was speaking the truth. I don't know it. I haven't conversed with President Packer about it or anyone else who is in a position to know.

[Daniel2]

You fussed at me for saying I didn't know the backstory about why the change was made.

I was speaking the truth. I don't know it. I haven't conversed with President Packer about it or anyone else who is in a position to know.

No, Scott. I didn't "fuss at you for not knowing the backstory"--I don't know the particulars, either.

I am "fussing at you" for your apparent denial that the change in wording was significant, that it indicates that either Elder Packer himself or the other powers that be behind editing conference talks for online and print publication felt the change was warranted, and that significance is directly related to the fact that whomever made the change apparently didn't want it to be in print for Packer to refer to the Proclamation as "a revelation."

Edited April 1, 2015 by Daniel2

[Scott Lloyd]

No, Scott. I didn't "fuss at you for not knowing the backstory"--I don't know the particulars, either.

I am "fussing at you" for your apparent denial that the change in wording was significant, that it indicates that either Elder Packer himself or the other powers that be behind editing conference talks for online and print publication felt the change was warranted, and that significance is directly related to the fact that whomever made the change apparently didn't want it to be in print for Packer to refer to the Proclamation as "a revelation."

Because I don't know the backstory, I don't know that it was significant, and I submit that you can't know such a thing either -- not without further information. All you can do is speculate and draw inferences.

 

And in any event, I don't see that it matters much whether the content of the proclamation is regarded as new revelation, or whether the act of issuing the proclamation at that specific point in time was inspired and directed by God, as I fervently believe it was.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd