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

[HappyJackWagon]

 

 

Without the ability to procreate, each partner remains as "one body" dead, having no life-generating power (or eternal lives with eternal increase, continuation of the seeds, etc. per D&C 132).

Thanks for the added context. My only point is I don't know what the process for eternal procreation is and I don't think anyone else does either, which leaves us making assumptions about how that will work and the purpose of "seed" in eternity.

[HappyJackWagon]

As a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, I participated in the process of drafting “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” It was a remarkable experience for all of us. As Church leaders travel the world, we see things—both within the Church and outside the Church. We were troubled by much of what we were seeing. We could see the people of the world wanting to define the family in ways contrary to God’s eternal plan for the happiness of His children.  In the midst of all that was stirring on this subject in the world, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles could see the importance of declaring to the world the revealed, true role of the family in the eternal plan of God. We worked together, through the divinely inspired council system that operates even at the highest levels of the Church, to craft a proclamation that would make the Lord’s position on the family so clear that it could not be misunderstood. - M. Russel Ballard, March 2006 General Conference

 

 

Three things about the title are worth our careful reflection. First, the subject: the family. Second, the audience, which is the whole world. And third, those proclaiming it are those we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators. All this means that the family must be of tremendous importance to us, that whatever the proclamation says could help anyone in the world, and that the proclamation fits the Lord’s promise when he said, “Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same” (D&C 1:38). - Henry B Eyring, February 1998 General Conference

 

The proclamation is a prophetic document, not only because it was issued by prophets but because it was ahead of its time. It warns against many of the very things that have threatened and undermined families during the last decade and calls for the priority and the emphasis families need if they are to survive in an environment that seems ever more toxic to traditional marriage and to parent-child relationships. - M. Russel Ballard, October 2005 General Conference

OK- excellent rebuttal.

 

I'll no longer claim that those associated with the proclamation haven't stated or hinted at it's "prophetic" origin.

[stemelbow]

In 39 years and five months I could very well be around and coherent, in which case, I will quite happily ring the termination bell on this outlandish prediction.

Well, and that's pretty weird, Scott. But what will happen when you it comes out you are wrong? Everyone will be forgiving and loving. What brings some people happiness is just silly and absurd to others, I guess.

[Gray]

Many LDS in my experience view homosexual behaviour as an abomination.  While gay marriage may not be in the scriptures, they assume since it is a subset of homosexual behaviour it is still the same.  

 

Plural marriage was always taught as only appropriate when God commanded it.  You have in Jacob a command not to live it.  You have in D&C 132 a command to live it.  While I can imagine it was shocking to those families involved who have invested emotionally, physically, mentally and spiritually in it, I find it hard to believe it would be a bigger shift in perspective for something that is viewed as abomination to part of exaltation than God didn't command it, commanded it and has now removed the command again.  Not saying it wasn't hard, just saying that it would be harder to shift a view of homosexuality.

 

While it's true that plural marriage was always viewed as an "only when commanded" kind of thing, I don't think anyone was thinking that it would be discontinued. It was a big part of the "restoration of all things" prior to the second coming. And families were ripped apart when it ended.

 

Regarding the gay marriage thing. There is nothing in the restoration scriptures (BOM, D&C,  POGP) about homosexuality at all. All you have is one statement in Leviticus (which bans numerous things that we feel are okay now) and one or two from Paul (who also said women shouldn't speak in church and was against straight marriage generally). Neither discuss gay marriage of course, as it didn't exist.

 

All that would need to be done is to say that the scant references in the Bible to homosexuality were regarding fornication and prostitution (which is true). They weren't addressing monogamous gay marriage, as it didn't exist at the time. Easy peasy. Oh, and we could also mention that we inherited our attitudes about gay people from assumptions made about them by traditional Christians and the surrounding culture, which is also true. Very similar to the assumptions we once held about the curse of Ham, which was used to justify slavery by Americans generally. We once believed in that and taught it, but the church now rejects that assumption/folk doctrine.

 

It would be no sea change for us to accept gay marriage. Not really, not from a perspective of canon and historical context and revelation. 

Edited September 2, 2015 by Gray

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I understand both the differences and resemblances.  But I don't bring it up to show that since the race ban changed, so can the church's position on gay marriage.  That's a tangent often used, I suppose because one can presume that BY's prophesy was fulfilled in the removal of the ban.  Which is fascinating to me but, again, not the reason I think the ban is relevant to the gay marriage debate.

RRRRRRRRiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhttttttttttttttt. But this is exactly what you are doing. Bringing up the priesthood ban and the reversal as justification for holding to the notion that ssm will happen one day. 

 

If it is not, then why don't you explain what you are doing. I noticed that you conveniently left that out of your post.

[rockpond]

RRRRRRRRiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhttttttttttttttt. But this is exactly what you are doing. Bringing up the priesthood ban and the reversal as justification for holding to the notion that ssm will happen one day. 

 

If it is not, then why don't you explain what you are doing. I noticed that you conveniently left that out of your post.

 

Because it is evidence that our beloved prophets, seers, and revelators can sometimes be wrong on really big things, for a really long time.  Which isn't to say we shouldn't heed their counsel, just that we need to recognize and accept their fallibility.

[DJBrown]

Because it is evidence that our beloved prophets, seers, and revelators can sometimes be wrong on really big things, for a really long time.  Which isn't to say we shouldn't heed their counsel, just that we need to recognize and accept their fallibility.

 

I asked previously and got no response.  Can you provide any reference to today's prophets stating that the ban was wrong?  The essay did not state that.  It stated that the theories to explain the ban were wrong.  Not the ban itself.  I think people are using the Priesthood ban incorrectly here.  You are making a very big leap.  Multiple prophets, including David O. McKay, stated that they had approached the Lord with pleas to remove the ban.  And each said they received the answer that the ban was to remain for now.  I don't think any prophet or apostle today or since the removal of the ban were argue that President McKay or others were wrong.  

 

Similarly, the practice of polygamy in the early years of the church was eventually changed.  But that does not mean the practice when the saints were commanded by the Lord was wrong.  

Edited September 2, 2015 by DJBrown

[CV75]

Thanks for the added context. My only point is I don't know what the process for eternal procreation is and I don't think anyone else does either, which leaves us making assumptions about how that will work and the purpose of "seed" in eternity.

Cool.

 

The "spiritual mechanics" challenge often distracts the conversation away from the doctrines of opposition and atonement that were realized in Adam and Eve, in order to argue for same-sex eternal procreation. But these fundamental doctrines actually establish the two-gender and covenant requirements for procreating and organizing spirit children. The Atonement was received by the married couple, and the married couple is a “compound in one” comprised of opposing (in a complementing sense) genders.

[HappyJackWagon]

I asked previously and got no response.  Can you provide any reference to today's prophets stating that the ban was wrong?  The essay did not state that.  It stated that the theories to explain the ban were wrong.  Not the ban itself.  I think people are using the Priesthood ban incorrectly here.  You are making a very big leap.  Multiple prophets, including David O. McKay, stated that they had approached the Lord with pleas to remove the ban.  And each said they received the answer that the ban was to remain for now.  I don't think any prophet or apostle today or since the removal of the ban were argue that President McKay or others were wrong.  

 

Similarly, the practice of polygamy in the early years of the church was eventually changed.  But that does not mean the practice when the saints were commanded by the Lord was wrong.  

I agree that the church did not disavow the ban like they did the doctrines taught explaining the ban. However, I don't think it's a "very big leap" when the church disavowed all racism, past and present. By not disavowing the ban they leave this whole issue up in the air. The racism still exists as members still try to justify it, even though there is no doctrine or revelation implementing the ban.

 

This is a case where the church is saying, mistakes were made, but they are unwilling to go all the way so they leave this huge question out there. It's not helpful.

 

David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism goes into depth about McKay's efforts to lift the ban and cited the lack of unity in the Q15 at the time as a hinderance to lifting the ban.

 

So we know racism is bad. We know mistakes have been made. We know the theories/doctrines taught by church leaders about why the ban existed are false, but we don't know why the racist ban existed in the first place. It remains an unresolved mess.

[DJBrown]

I agree that the church did not disavow the ban like they did the doctrines taught explaining the ban. However, I don't think it's a "very big leap" when the church disavowed all racism, past and present. By not disavowing the ban they leave this whole issue up in the air. The racism still exists as members still try to justify it, even though there is no doctrine or revelation implementing the ban.

 

This is a case where the church is saying, mistakes were made, but they are unwilling to go all the way so they leave this huge question out there. It's not helpful.

 

David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism goes into depth about McKay's efforts to lift the ban and cited the lack of unity in the Q15 at the time as a hinderance to lifting the ban.

 

So we know racism is bad. We know mistakes have been made. We know the theories/doctrines taught by church leaders about why the ban existed are false, but we don't know why the racist ban existed in the first place. It remains an unresolved mess.

 

 

You, again, are conflating two things.  You are suggesting that the ban was a mistake.  I see no justification for such a claim in any church publication.  Many of the brethren have stated that the ban was from heaven, but we will not understand it in this life.  I really think the common tendency to declare the ban a mistake is opening the door to apostasy for many members of the church.  And I don't think it is justified.  

 

Was it a mistake for God to command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac?  What a dangerous thing to conclude that Abraham was just mistaken and not really following God.  That is what we are doing today when we search for ways that the prophets are wrong.  And least in my opinion.

[CV75]

Which isn't to say we shouldn't heed their counsel, just that we need to recognize and accept their fallibility.

I think this is what the Lord intended when He established His doctrine for the Nephites (3 Nephi 11). The first thing He did after announcing His gospel was ordain mere mortals (who were fallible, see 3 Nephi 23:11) to teach His word and perform His ordinances. A key element of that doctrine is to not employ the spirit of contention against those He has chosen to lead His people. I think if we employ the spirit of charity instead to sustain them, there would be no pride, enmity, anger, doubt, etc. stirred up against them in consequence of either their teachings or their fallibility.

[rockpond]

I asked previously and got no response.  Can you provide any reference to today's prophets stating that the ban was wrong?  The essay did not state that.  It stated that the theories to explain the ban were wrong.  Not the ban itself.  I think people are using the Priesthood ban incorrectly here.  You are making a very big leap.  Multiple prophets, including David O. McKay, stated that they had approached the Lord with pleas to remove the ban.  And each said they received the answer that the ban was to remain for now.  I don't think any prophet or apostle today or since the removal of the ban were argue that President McKay or others were wrong.  

 

Similarly, the practice of polygamy in the early years of the church was eventually changed.  But that does not mean the practice when the saints were commanded by the Lord was wrong.  

 

I think the essay does say that the ban was wrong.  In several different places but quite clearly here:  "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

 

You can also couple the essay statements with the newly revised header to OD2:  "Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice."

[rockpond]

I think this is what the Lord intended when He established His doctrine for the Nephites (3 Nephi 11). The first thing He did after announcing His gospel was ordain mere mortals (who were fallible, see 3 Nephi 23:11) to teach His word and perform His ordinances. A key element of that doctrine is to not employ the spirit of contention against those He has chosen to lead His people. I think if we employ the spirit of charity instead to sustain them, there would be no pride, enmity, anger, doubt, etc. stirred up against them in consequence of either their teachings or their fallibility.

 

I agree.

[ALarson]

I think this is what the Lord intended when He established His doctrine for the Nephites (3 Nephi 11). The first thing He did after announcing His gospel was ordain mere mortals (who were fallible, see 3 Nephi 23:11) to teach His word and perform His ordinances. A key element of that doctrine is to not employ the spirit of contention against those He has chosen to lead His people. I think if we employ the spirit of charity instead to sustain them, there would be no pride, enmity, anger, doubt, etc. stirred up against them in consequence of either their teachings or their fallibility.

I agree, well stated.

 

I do see a lot of everyone agreeing that leaders are fallible, however, I see very little of some on here actually being able to be specific regarding any mistakes that have been made.  I think the closest is in saying that Brigham Young may have been mistaken with implementing the ban.

 

I even see written that Joseph Smith made mistakes and was fallible, but when push comes to shove, most will rarely admit where he made these mistakes (ie. how he lived polygamy and so on).

Edited September 2, 2015 by ALarson

[DJBrown]

I think the essay does say that the ban was wrong.  In several different places but quite clearly here:  "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

 

You can also couple the essay statements with the newly revised header to OD2:  "Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice."

 

Those are not adequate at all in saying the ban was wrong.  The church is simply against all racism.  Does that mean we think Christ was wrong by coming only to those of Israel?  Of course not.  

 

Not understanding the purpose for something does not mean that something is wrong.

[rockpond]

Those are not adequate at all in saying the ban was wrong.  The church is simply against all racism.  Does that mean we think Christ was wrong by coming only to those of Israel?  Of course not.  

 

Not understanding the purpose for something does not mean that something is wrong.

 

The priesthood/temple ban was racist by definition.  And the Church has "unequivocally" condemned all past racism in "any form".

 

I think that's about as clear a statement as we'll ever get that the ban was wrong.  I understand if you interpret it differently.  But that is the point I make in bringing up the priesthood/temple ban as a reason why gay marriage policies may someday change.

[HappyJackWagon]

You, again, are conflating two things.  You are suggesting that the ban was a mistake.  I see no justification for such a claim in any church publication.  Many of the brethren have stated that the ban was from heaven, but we will not understand it in this life.  I really think the common tendency to declare the ban a mistake is opening the door to apostasy for many members of the church.  And I don't think it is justified.  

 

Was it a mistake for God to command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac?  What a dangerous thing to conclude that Abraham was just mistaken and not really following God.  That is what we are doing today when we search for ways that the prophets are wrong.  And least in my opinion.

No. I'm not conflating 2 things. In fact I distinctly addressed the ban and the theories as separate things. I just happen to believe that both the ban and the theories are racist.

 

Can you provide references for many of the brethren who have stated the ban was from heaven, POST the Race and the Priesthood essay? I'm curious to read them if they exist. But I want them to be after the essay since because the essay represents a change in the official position on other racist teachings so I want to see how the ban is treated by the brethren in the modern context.

 

You see no justification for claiming the ban was a mistake but I see no justification for claiming the ban wasn't a mistake. In the context of the church's disavowal of racism of all kinds and the lack of a revelation implementing the ban, I see no reason whatsoever to try to justify it. The church already admitted to making a mistake in how they taught about the ban so why not also admit the ban itself was a mistake?

[Gray]

Those are not adequate at all in saying the ban was wrong.  The church is simply against all racism.  Does that mean we think Christ was wrong by coming only to those of Israel?  Of course not.  

 

Not understanding the purpose for something does not mean that something is wrong.

 

The ban was racist. The church is against all racism. Therefore....

[HappyJackWagon]

Those are not adequate at all in saying the ban was wrong.  The church is simply against all racism.  Does that mean we think Christ was wrong by coming only to those of Israel?  Of course not.  

 

Not understanding the purpose for something does not mean that something is wrong.

What is the benefit of treating the ban as a God mandated ban? There's no evidence it was God mandated. All we know is it was racist and we can't explain why it was there. So why defend it? If there's a racist practice that negatively impacts an entire race I think the church has the responsibility to explain it or denounce it.

[DJBrown]

What is the benefit of treating the ban as a God mandated ban? There's no evidence it was God mandated. All we know is it was racist and we can't explain why it was there. So why defend it? If there's a racist practice that negatively impacts an entire race I think the church has the responsibility to explain it or denounce it.

 

I don't pretend to know the mind of God on all things.  If we dismiss the ban as a mistake, we must also conclude that God sending Christ to Israel first was also a mistake.  I, for one, am not comfortable making such a conclusion.  

 

Do you think the brethren believe Christ was a racist when He called the Samaritan woman a "dog?"  

[Zakuska]

What is the benefit of treating the ban as a God mandated ban? There's no evidence it was God mandated. All we know is it was racist and we can't explain why it was there. So why defend it? If there's a racist practice that negatively impacts an entire race I think the church has the responsibility to explain it or denounce it.

 

We see the exact same ban played out in the book of Acts. Perhaps it was God repeating a pattern he used before to sift the seeds?

[DJBrown]

What is the benefit of treating the ban as a God mandated ban? There's no evidence it was God mandated. All we know is it was racist and we can't explain why it was there. So why defend it? If there's a racist practice that negatively impacts an entire race I think the church has the responsibility to explain it or denounce it.

 

What was the benefit of treating Abraham's intent to slay Isaac as a God mandated act?  How about the trial of faith?

[ALarson]

Those are not adequate at all in saying the ban was wrong.  The church is simply against all racism.  Does that mean we think Christ was wrong by coming only to those of Israel?  Of course not.  

 

Not understanding the purpose for something does not mean that something is wrong.

I think the essay makes it pretty clear that the church's stand is that the ban originated with Brigham Young and did not come from God.  

 

However, I do believe that many members still believe that if it began under the direction of a Prophet of God (and continued with many more Prophets of God), it was from God.

Edited September 2, 2015 by ALarson

[HappyJackWagon]

I don't pretend to know the mind of God on all things.  If we dismiss the ban as a mistake, we must also conclude that God sending Christ to Israel first was also a mistake.  I, for one, am not comfortable making such a conclusion.  

 

Do you think the brethren believe Christ was a racist when He called the Samaritan woman a "dog?"  

Who's conflating?

 

I can denounce the ban as racist and it has NOTHING to do with Christ. The actions of Brigham instituting a racist ban that lasted over 120 years is not the same thing as Christ being born in Israel and teaching the jews. It's quite an absurd comparison. Christ and Brigham are not equal.

 

Regarding the "dog" comment, it is my understanding that Christ was describing how the Samaratins were in a position of merely receiving the unwanted scraps from the table of the jews. It wasn't racist, but rather a commentary on the social environment of his day.

 

ETA- If the prophet announced at the next conference there would be a ban on all red heads going to the temple would you consider that of God? Would you expect the church to explain the ban or would you expect me to explain why the ban was NOT of God.

Edited September 2, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[Zakuska]

 

Regarding the "dog" comment, it is my understanding that Christ was describing how the Samaratins were in a position of merely receiving the unwanted scraps from the table of the jews. It wasn't racist, but rather a commentary on the social environment of his day.

 

 

Not Racist?!   And there the Argument (Product of his environment) raises its head once again.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Zakuska