Two New Ensign Articles Affirming Marriage Between A Man And A Woman

[Scott Lloyd]

rockpond asserted a few days ago that the expectation that the Church will one day drop its doctrine regarding the definition of marriage and begin solemnizing homosexual relationships in the temples is "ahead of schedule" on the arbitrary 40-year timeline and even ventured the suggestion that we shave five to 10 years off the timeline.

 

Come now the August and September issues of the Ensign magazine with two articles by Elder Bruce C. Hafen affirming the Lord's definition of marriage, particularly as it pertains to the temple:

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/08/the-proclamation-on-the-family-transcending-the-cultural-confusion.p1?lang=eng

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/09/the-temple-and-the-natural-order-of-marriage?lang=eng

 

So, as reflected in the official magazine of the Church of Jesus Christ, we are nowhere closer to the change that rockpond and Dehlin predict than we were seven months ago when I started the countdown clock.

 

Which now shows this much time remaining in the 40 years:

 

39 years, 5 months, 1 week, 3 days, 2 hours, 56 minutes and 29 seconds.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Teancum]

I agree with you that the Church will never back down on it position about homosexual marriage.

 

I am not sure why though so many of you seem to take glee in beating on Rockpond about this.  Or even Dehlin who is now no longer a member in case you have forgotten.

[Calm]

I find this article interesting in conjunction with various controversies:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/09/church-handbooks-the-written-order-of-things?lang=eng

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree with you that the Church will never back down on it position about homosexual marriage.

 

I am not sure why though so many of you seem to take glee in beating on Rockpond about this.  Or even Dehlin who is now no longer a member in case you have forgotten.

Last time I posted about it, rockpond brought it up and asked for a read-out. It was when he claimed things were "ahead of schedule" in having his hope fulfilled. I hadn't brought it up for several months prior to that.

 

And Dehlin's loss of membership does not stop him from making misguided predictions.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Damien the Leper]

The Lord's definition of marriage according to the LDS church is more accurate. This isn't a bait for a fight, Scott. But specifying and clarification is absolutely necessary. The Lord's definition of marriage according to the LDS church has no bearing, authority or relevance to Atheists, Buddhists, various Christian groups, Jews, Native Americans, etc. The scope of that definition is limited to ONLY 14 million people.

[provoman]

I agree with you that the Church will never back down on it position about homosexual marriage.

I am not sure why though so many of you seem to take glee in beating on Rockpond about this. Or even Dehlin who is now no longer a member in case you have forgotten.

Some, I suppose, probably just feel the need to badger others.

[Scott Lloyd]

Some, I suppose, probably just feel the need to badger others.

As I said, rockpond brought it up last time.

[cinepro]

I'm not saying it will ever change, but if it did, I think it would be possible for some Church leaders to be loudly and firmly insisting that the change isn't coming just before it happens.

 

Granted, I look a the rostrum in General Conference and don't see much potential for waves on this issue. 

 

But then again, I wonder who would have sat in General Conference in 1940 and thought to themselves "I bet when Elder Kimball becomes Prophet he'll give the priesthood to the negros."

Edited September 1, 2015 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not saying it will ever change, but if it did, I think it would be possible for some Church leaders to be loudly and firmly insisting that the change isn't coming just before it happens.

 

Granted, I look a the rostrum in General Conference and don't see much potential for waves on this issue. 

 

 

This is my nominee for the board's most blatant understatement of 2015.

 

But then again, I wonder who would have sat in General Conference in 1940 and thought to themselves "I bet when Elder Kimball becomes Prophet he'll give the priesthood to the negros."

 

 

This remains an apples-to-oranges comparison. It was expected that the priesthood would one day come to all worthy men. One was not at odds with the doctrines of the Church to think that.

 

On the other hand, the notion of homosexual behavior being one day not only desinfulized (to coin a term) but solemnized in the temple is so utterly outlandish as to not even constitute a live possibility.

 

I commend the Hafen articles to everyone for an enlightened understanding of this matter.

 

Edited to add:

 

Who among the leaders of the Church in 1978 was "loudly and firmly insisting" that the priesthood restriction would never be lifted?

 

Or was anybody back then saying, "I bet when Elder Monson is president of the Church, it will become OK to shack up outside of marriage"?

Edited September 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Brian 2.0]

Since we're not even 1/40th of the way through his timeline... I would think it too soon to declare anything proving you right yet.

[Damien the Leper]

This remains an apples-to-oranges comparison. It was expected that the priesthood would one day come to all men. One was not at odds with the doctrines of the Church to think that.

 

On the other hand, the notion of homosexual behavior being one day not only desinfulized (to coin a term) but solemnized in the temple is so utterly outlandish as to not even constitute a live possibility.

 

I commend the Hafen articles to everyone for an enlightened understanding of this matter.

 

Edited to add:

 

Who among the leaders of the Church in 1978 was "loudly and firmly insisting" that the priesthood restriction would never be lifted?

I'm going to take something out of Saint Sinner's playbook. There isn't a place for SSM within the framework and theology. Various doctrines would have to change or dropped. I don't see this happening and I don't believe it a good thing.

Ugh...I just agreed with Scott Lloyd. That alone is enough to get me out of OD (where I belong) and thrown into the prison known as the telestial kingdom.

[provoman]

I'm going to take something out of Saint Sinner's playbook. There isn't a place for SSM within the framework and theology. Various doctrines would have to change or dropped. I don't see this happening and I don't believe it a good thing.

Ugh...I just agreed with Scott Lloyd. That alone is enough to get me out of OD (where I belong) and thrown into the prison known as the telestial kingdom.

Here is another ray of sunshine for you. The Telestial Kingdom is not prison, it is as you accurately described a kingdom; a Kingdom of Heaven.

[cinepro]

This is my nominee for the board's most blatant understatement of 2015.

 

 

This remains an apples-to-oranges comparison. It was expected that the priesthood would one day come to all men. One was not at odds with the doctrines of the Church to think that.

 

On the other hand, the notion of homosexual behavior being one day not only desinfulized (to coin a term) but solemnized in the temple is so utterly outlandish as to not even constitute a live possibility.

 

I commend the Hafen articles to everyone for an enlightened understanding of this matter.

 

Edited to add:

 

Who among the leaders of the Church in 1978 was "loudly and firmly insisting" that the priesthood restriction would never be lifted?

 

I have no problem comparing apples to oranges.  They're both fruit.  They both grow on trees.  You can get juice from both of them.  Both splatter when hit with a baseball bat.  When looked at among the totality of objects in this world, they're actually probably far more similar than they are different.

 

That being said, I don't disagree with anything you are saying.  You have totally and perfectly summarized the Church's current thinking.  But the weird thing about change is that it means something that was one way becomes different.  Since we can't know what the future holds, it seems a little odd to argue that something won't change by firmly affirming the way it is right now. 

 

I don't know how close the last Church leader's affirmation of the Priesthood Ban was to 1978.  I also don't know how close the last affirmation of polygamy was to 1890.  If I did know, I wouldn't be expecting future changes to follow the same rule.  I was just saying that I think it is possible for some leaders to loudly resist forthcoming changes (and even try to stop them) by publicly insisting that the change isn't coming. 

 

I'm not saying that is what is happening here.  I'm just saying that I don't read stuff like that and think "Wow, there's no way this is ever going to change in the next 39 years."  At the very least, it lets us know who might have to die* or be called on a mission to South America before the change can happen.

 

*Elder Hafen is 74.  I pray that God grants him many days on this Earth, but the odds of him being involved in any decisions 40 years from now are actuarily slim.

Edited September 1, 2015 by cinepro

[Damien the Leper]

Here is another ray of sunshine for you. The Telestial Kingdom is not prison, it is as you accurately described a kingdom; a Kingdom of Heaven.

I have no desire to be in any of the kingdoms. If God thinks for one minute that he's going to put me in one of those 3 kennels...we are going to have a serious problem.

[cinepro]

I would also point out that, should the unlikely happen and change on this issue is imminent in 2055, I don't foresee anyone running into President Bednar's office and slamming down a copy of the September 2015 Ensign and saying "But we can't bend on this!  Elder Haffen wrote this article 40 years ago, and we must stay true to what he said!"

Edited September 1, 2015 by cinepro

[Thinking]

rockpond asserted a few days ago that the expectation that the Church will one day drop its doctrine regarding the definition of marriage and begin solemnizing homosexual relationships in the temples is "ahead of schedule" on the arbitrary 40-year timeline and even ventured the suggestion that we shave five to 10 years off the timeline.

 

Comes now the September issue of the Ensign magazine with two articles by Elder Bruce C. Hafen affirming the Lord's definition of marriage, particularly as it pertains to the temple:

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/08/the-proclamation-on-the-family-transcending-the-cultural-confusion.p1?lang=eng

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/09/the-temple-and-the-natural-order-of-marriage?lang=eng

 

So, as reflected in the official magazine of the Church of Jesus Christ, we are nowhere closer to the change that rockpond and Dehlin predict than we were seven months ago when I started the countdown clock.

 

Which now shows this much time remaining in the 40 years:

 

39 years, 5 months, 1 week, 3 days, 2 hours, 56 minutes and 29 seconds.

 

I've been told many times that what is in the official magazines of the LDS Church is not necessarily the official doctrine of the LDS Church. I've also been reminded many times about continuing revelation when commenting on a change in LDS doctrine. So which is it Scott? Rigid unchangeable doctrine or continuing revelation?

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm going to take something out of Saint Sinner's playbook. There isn't a place for SSM within the framework and theology. Various doctrines would have to change or dropped. I don't see this happening and I don't believe it a good thing.

Ugh...I just agreed with Scott Lloyd. That alone is enough to get me out of OD (where I belong) and thrown into the prison known as the telestial kingdom.

You not only agreed with me, you compounded the act by doing so sensibly.

[Damien the Leper]

You not only agreed with me, you compounded the act by doing so sensibly.

Don't rub it in ya jerk! Damn Saint Sinner.

[Scott Lloyd]

I would also point out that, should the unlikely happen and change on this issue is imminent in 2055, I don't foresee anyone running into President Bednar's office and slamming down a copy of the September 2015 Ensign and saying "But we can't bend on this!  Elder Haffen wrote this article 40 years ago, and we must stay true to what he said!"

The sexual revolution began more than 40 years ago, and the Church of Jesus Christ is holding firm on the doctrine that was in place in the late sixties. No special dispensation being granted today for shack-ups. Couples living together without benefit of marriage still must either marry or separate before they join the Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

I've been told many times that what is in the official magazines of the LDS Church is not necessarily the official doctrine of the LDS Church. I've also been reminded many times about continuing revelation when commenting on a change in LDS doctrine. So which is it Scott? Rigid unchangeable doctrine or continuing revelation?

False dichotomy.

[Nevo]

I don't know how close the last Church leader's affirmation of the Priesthood Ban was to 1978.

 

I don't know either, but there was this quote from N. Eldon Tanner a little over a decade earlier: "The church has no intention of changing its doctrine on the Negro. Throughout the history of the original Christian church, the Negro never held the priesthood. There’s really nothing we can do to change this. It’s a law of God." ("The Swarming Mormons," Seattle Magazine, December 1967, 60).

[JLHPROF]

I agree with you that the Church will never back down on it position about homosexual marriage.

 

Yeah, they'll ordain women first. 

 

...it's only a matter of time.  All it takes to go down the wrong path is time and pressure.  Give the Church 2000 years and it would be as unrecognizable to what Joseph Smith restored as many Christian churches today are to the Church of Christ and the apostles.     

[ksfisher]

I find this article interesting in conjunction with various controversies:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/09/church-handbooks-the-written-order-of-things?lang=eng

"The mysteries of the gospel are found in plain view, in the handbook."

President Uchtdorf

(Passed on by my stake president who heard the quote in a coordinating council meeting.)

[Russell C McGregor]

I've been told many times that what is in the official magazines of the LDS Church is not necessarily the official doctrine of the LDS Church. I've also been reminded many times about continuing revelation when commenting on a change in LDS doctrine. So which is it Scott? Rigid unchangeable doctrine or continuing revelation?

 

Y'know, if you ever tried to apply yourself to some actual "thinking," Thinking, it might occur to you that it isn't a binary solution set.  Some doctrines are eternal, and others are subject to further revelation.  The former Priesthood ban, which the Church's critics are getting ever more feverishly eager to milk before it gets too stale, was always understood to be in the latter set; the Law of Chastity is in the former set.

[Thinking]

Y'know, if you ever tried to apply yourself to some actual "thinking," Thinking, it might occur to you that it isn't a binary solution set.  Some doctrines are eternal, and others are subject to further revelation.  The former Priesthood ban, which the Church's critics are getting ever more feverishly eager to milk before it gets too stale, was always understood to be in the latter set; the Law of Chastity is in the former set.

 

Did I say anything about the Priesthood ban?