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

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

Glee? Actually it is heart breaking that not only him but a number if those that claim to be saints seem to think this is not only plausible but undeniable that it will happen.

[stemelbow]

Glee? Actually it is heart breaking that not only him but a number if those that claim to be saints seem to think this is not only plausible but undeniable that it will happen.

whose saying it'll undeniably happen? I think you've bought into the hype from Scott, in suggesting this little prediction is meant to be none other than a bold declaration that ought to be accompanied with mocking and deriding from members.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I see the terms "legal and lawful" as applying primarily to laws of God and not men. If and when there is a conflict, the laws of God are pre-eminent.

Correct, those marriages in the early days were legal and lawful as far as God's laws. No one was going to get ex'ed over them. 

 

Not sure the point of even bring it up. It has no bearing on what is being talked about.

[Scott Lloyd]

They don't have to.  All they have to do, apparently, is not sign their names to it and it isn't doctrinal.

They don't have to sign their names to a declaration to assent to it. To presume that absence of signatures implies disagreement is absurd.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

whose saying it'll undeniably happen? I think you've bought into the hype from Scott, in suggesting this little prediction is meant to be none other than a bold declaration that ought to be accompanied with mocking and deriding from members.

Really?  So Rockponds 40 year prediction? That is just wild speculation in his mind is it? He is predicting that it will happen in 40 years and even said that it will happen before then. If that is not undeniable I don't know what is then.

 

And you are projecting. I have not mocked nor derided him. I have affirmed with boldness that he is wrong on this is issue.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[HappyJackWagon]

HUh? What are you talking about? You are still missing the point with this totally irrelevant sentence of yours.

 

Things are not sanctioned by God because they are legal in a country. You seem to think they should be.

Then the church may want to remove "legally and lawfully" from it's temple definition of chastity.

 

If the church claims a legal marriage to a spouse is required then yes, what the government defines as legal makes a difference. If they don't want that caviat there, the church can remove it.

[stemelbow]

Really?  So Rockponds 40 year prediction? That is just wild speculation in his mind is it? He is predicting that it will happen in 40 years and even said that it will happen before then. If that is not undeniable I don't know what is then.

 

And you are projecting. I have not mocked nor derided him. I have affirmed with boldness that he is wrong on this is issue.

I don't know why he gets any flack, about the time he offered his 40 year prediction I offered my 25 year one. I didn't get hassled over it as much though. But even with my 25 year one I would not intend to say it is an undeniable reality. I would suggest I could very well be wrong. I'd imagine Rockpond is similar on this.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

As has been pointed out, the very distinction of whether or not sex is "sanctioned by God" is whether or not a man and woman are legally married.   It's not a matter of priesthood or the spirit, it is only a matter of legality.

 

So some things are.

Currently, yes we must abide by the laws of the land. But lets say for a second that some country makes it illegal to marry. DO you suppose then that it would be OK for saints to shack up and have sex because it is illegal to marry? OR do they still need to be married in the temple to have those relations? The laws of God transcend those of this earth.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't know why he gets any flack, about the time he offered his 40 year prediction I offered my 25 year one. I didn't get hassled over it as much though. But even with my 25 year one I would not intend to say it is an undeniable reality. I would suggest I could very well be wrong. I'd imagine Rockpond is similar on this.

OK fine, it is not undeniable however it is still deemed plausible by you and others with your view?

[stemelbow]

OK fine, it is not undeniable however it is still deemed plausible by you and others with your view?

Sure plausible works.

[JulieM]

Then the church may want to remove "legally and lawfully" from it's temple definition of chastity.

 

If the church claims a legal marriage to a spouse is required then yes, what the government defines as legal makes a difference. If they don't want that caviat there, the church can remove it.

Legally and lawfully married leaves out all of the plural marriages, doesn't it? What about those marriages that were consummated by past Prophets and leaders that weren't legal marriages? Don't those violate the law of chastity?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Not really. Everyone agreed, at least before you came in, that legal and lawful were terms used to define the law of chastity. Now yo come in saying, essentially, legal and lawful have no bearing on chastity.

No, they do, but not from an earthly governmental stand point. Weather or not a government sanctions or outlaws something as legal and lawful or illegal and unlawful does not mean that God must accept/reject that.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Legally and lawfully married leaves out all of the plural marriages, doesn't it? What about those marriages that were consummated by past Prophets and leaders that weren't legal marriages? Don't those violate the law of chastity?

We have a winner.

[Buckeye]

Can you cite an instance where in the Quroum of the Twelve Apostles has disputed a declaration by the First Preisdency?

 

Significant portions of the 1949 FP statement have been disavowed by the Priesthood and Race essay. I assume you agree the essay is approved by the entire current FP/Q12?

[Buckeye]

They don't have to.  All they have to do, apparently, is not sign their names to it and it isn't doctrinal.

 

Be sure to pay close attention to what the two new apostles say in October Conference. Church doctrine will be limited to whatever they jointly say that has also been said by all other members of the FP/Q12. So if they don't speak about the PotF, well that proclamation is no longer doctrine.

 

Personally, I'm hoping they don't say anything about tithing. ... and Diet Coke.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Buckeye

[Guest]

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.

There are many who wish this to be someday, but Christ's Church can only support marriage between male and female or it will cease to be Christ's Church...as no such revelation could ever come from God; ever! Even God is bound by his own word, or as we know "...he would cease to be God".

[Buckeye]

There are many who wish this to be someday, but Christ's Church can only support marriage between male and female or it will cease to be Christ's Church...as no such revelation could ever come from God; ever! Even God is bound by his own word, or as we know "...he would cease to be God".

 

So if an angel came to you with a drawn sword and said you must support SSM ... oh, never mind.

 

Edit to add: I respect your right to define bounds outside which God would cease to be your God. At the same time, however, please respect others' right to believe in a God who could include SSM in the plan of salvation.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Buckeye

[rockpond]

There are many who wish this to be someday, but Christ's Church can only support marriage between male and female or it will cease to be Christ's Church...as no such revelation could ever come from God; ever! Even God is bound by his own word, or as we know "...he would cease to be God".

 

Cause God has had so much to say about gay marriage.

[HappyJackWagon]

There are many who wish this to be someday, but Christ's Church can only support marriage between male and female or it will cease to be Christ's Church...as no such revelation could ever come from God; ever! Even God is bound by his own word, or as we know "...he would cease to be God".

This is rather extreme. God will NEVER reveail this to his prophets? Ok. Interesting.

 

If he did he would cease to be God because God is bound to his own word? And how do you know his word? Oh, through teachings attributed to a past prophet though you refuse the possibility of a word from a current prophet? Interesting dilema.

[Jeanne]

Legally and lawfully married leaves out all of the plural marriages, doesn't it? What about those marriages that were consummated by past Prophets and leaders that weren't legal marriages? Don't those violate the law of chastity?

Bingo!

[ALarson]

Legally and lawfully married leaves out all of the plural marriages, doesn't it? What about those marriages that were consummated by past Prophets and leaders that weren't legal marriages? Don't those violate the law of chastity?

As I posted above, this is problematic.  Unless one tries to change the definition for what "legally" meant back then, the consummated plural marriages were breaking the current law of chastity. 

 

Apologists will claim repeatedly that Joseph only had one "legal" wife (in defense of his public statement that he only had one wife).  That sounds like the same meaning and definition we apply to it today.

Edited September 2, 2015 by ALarson

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

As I posted above, this is problematic.  Unless one tries to change the definition for what "legally" meant back then, the consummated plural marriages were breaking the current law of chastity. 

 

Apologists will claim repeatedly that Joseph only had one "legal" wife (in defense of his public statement that he only had one wife).  That sounds like the same meaning and definition we apply to it today.

But that is the point it is not problematic. Those past marriages did not violate the law of chastity. God's laws are not mans. Do you disagree?

[rockpond]

Really?  So Rockponds 40 year prediction? That is just wild speculation in his mind is it? He is predicting that it will happen in 40 years and even said that it will happen before then. If that is not undeniable I don't know what is then.

 

And you are projecting. I have not mocked nor derided him. I have affirmed with boldness that he is wrong on this is issue.

 

I don't consider the prediction to be an "undeniable" reality.  It is possible that the Church will hold to its current stance, even 39 years from now, and look quite different than the church looks today.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Cause God has had so much to say about gay marriage.

He already has. It is a sin and an abomination.

Homosexual activity is a sin. Just because it is legal now does not mean that it should be OK in the church.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Scott Lloyd]

Then the church may want to remove "legally and lawfully" from it's temple definition of chastity.

 

If the church claims a legal marriage to a spouse is required then yes, what the government defines as legal makes a difference. If they don't want that caviat there, the church can remove it.

As the wording of the temple endowment has been changed more than once over the years, I'm certain that if the Brethren ever see this as problematic, they can easily make another change in wording. Meanwhile, the doctrine and practice of the Church is what it is, and there is no room to interpret it as allowing homosexual behavior or recognizing homosexual relationships as marriages, legalistic nitpicking notwithstanding.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd