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

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Why would the Church look "quite different" in 39 years if it holds to its current stance?

[ALarson]

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. 

Then you consider all of Joseph's plural marriages to be legal?  He was legally wedded to all of the women he married?

Edited September 2, 2015 by ALarson

[rockpond]

Why would the Church look "quite different" in 39 years if it holds to its current stance?

 

I think membership numbers would diminish considerably.

[Guest]

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.

I would know that "Angel" was not of God and he would have to run me through. Within the first two books of scripture, God established the first institution, "Marriage between male and female" and the first commandment to "multiply and replenish the earth". All who speak of the Church changing it' position, do so with the hope that this Church is ruled in Gov't and Doctrine by 15 old men and not by God through them. If you believe it is a Church of "men" only then why remain...if I find it is just a man made church, then I will not remain. Then my search for the most "Godly Church" will begin again. I worship the Father in the name of Christ...and any Church I belong to must do the same and follow the commandments of God, in this there can be no compromise.

Edit ot add: I have not called anyone out for their beliefs by name, nor have I spoken of disrespecting other...so why the cheap shot? It is possible to have respect for the opinions of others without showing disrespect...your comment is implying disrespect for my beliefs according to God's word and his Church. God's word and doctrine from the time of Adam until now has been maintained in almost every faith under the "Abrahamic Covenant" of one God, and Law. In every age, the Patriarchs and Prophets of old, the coming of Christ and the early or primitive Church, The Book of Mormon, Prophets and the restoration. The point being is that because other people are open enough to hope for or believe that God may see it this way, does not change the 1,000's of years of established doctrine, nor the 1,000's of missed opportunities that the Prophets of God from Eden on have missed to inform otherwise. This does not mean I am indifferent to the feelings of others or the feelings of my own child, I am speaking of theology, not opinions. Also please do not use such an approach to try an express what you think lies within my head or heart...disappointing.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Pa Pa

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Then you consider all of Joseph's plural marriages to be legal?  He was legally wedded to all of the women he married?

Did JS sin? With regards to these marriages?

Edited September 2, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[stemelbow]

I think membership numbers would diminish considerably.

Membership growth has slowed in recent years. I don't know it has anything to do with the homosexual position, but overall, we might one day see the numbers to diminish in the coming years. This, to me, represents one policy that will change among quite a few. But overall, what I hope for is a general change in direction--from legal/control the message based to open, free. the model will have to be, as I see it, love and tolerance over message control. Afterall, it seems to me, God is far more interested in us building relationships with each other, including more people, and loving the good, than He is about whether or not we can accurately define he who will one day find the Celestial Kingdom.

[stemelbow]

Did JS sin? With regards to these marriages?

If he didn't then he certainly had no need of the Savior, and his boasting to have done more than Jesus would take on a whole new meaning.

Edited September 2, 2015 by stemelbow

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I come up with an apt comparison. Lets look to the WoW. Currently the WoW prohibits smoking marijuana . However smoking it is not specifically spelled out. However we have been counseled that it is a sin and that you cannot get a temple recommend if you engage in that. People could claim that we need a revelation on the matter and that all the prophets have just given their opinion on the matter.  What I ask is what on earth makes people think this law will change? If this law is not likely to change why one earth would you think that Gay marriage will change?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If he didn't then he certainly had no need of the Savior, and his boasting to have done more than Jesus would take on a whole new meaning.

Good grief. Stop being obtuse. Did he specifically sin with regard to these marriages? Yes or no.

 

I am not asking you if he sinned in general.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Then you consider all of Joseph's plural marriages to be legal?  He was legally wedded to all of the women he married?

They were legally binding under God's law.

[rockpond]

Membership growth has slowed in recent years. I don't know it has anything to do with the homosexual position, but overall, we might one day see the numbers to diminish in the coming years. This, to me, represents one policy that will change among quite a few. But overall, what I hope for is a general change in direction--from legal/control the message based to open, free. the model will have to be, as I see it, love and tolerance over message control. Afterall, it seems to me, God is far more interested in us building relationships with each other, including more people, and loving the good, than He is about whether or not we can accurately define he who will one day find the Celestial Kingdom.

 

I agree.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think membership numbers would diminish considerably.

Which means they did something wrong huh?

[stemelbow]

Good grief. Stop being obtuse. Did he specifically sin with regard to these marriages? Yes or no.

 

I am not asking you if he sinned in general.

He probably did. I've sinned with regard to my marriage, to some extent and another, so I imagine others have to, which might include JS. Plus he had so many women to sin against, it most likely happened. In fact, I believe we have a record of a time when translating when he unrighteously, it appears, chastised Emma and then was unable to translate. Ehh...we all sin, even in our marriages.

[rockpond]

I come up with an apt comparison. Lets look to the WoW. Currently the WoW prohibits smoking marijuana . However smoking it is not specifically spelled out. However we have been counseled that it is a sin and that you cannot get a temple recommend if you engage in that. People could claim that we need a revelation on the matter and that all the prophets have just given their opinion on the matter.  What I ask is what on earth makes people think this law will change? If this law is not likely to change why one earth would you think that Gay marriage will change?

 

I think there are plenty of gospel based reasons to not smoke marijuana but technically, it is not prohibited by the Word of Wisdom (Section 89) nor any subsequent prophetic interpretations that I am aware of.

 

To be clear, I am not suggesting that anyone should smoke marijuana.  I believe an understanding of the gospel and Heavenly Father's plan for us prohibit its use (rather than the WoW).

[rockpond]

Which means they did something wrong huh?

 

No, not necessarily.

[ALarson]

They were legally binding under God's law.

So yes, you need to change the definition of the word "legal" or "legally" in order for the participants in plural marriage relationships in the early days of the church to be obedient to the "Law of Chastity".  

 

What do you believe Joseph meant when he stated this?

 

"What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one."

[Scott Lloyd]

I think membership numbers would diminish considerably.

Just as there continue to be many people who regard sex outside of marriage as wrong even 50 years after the beginning of the sexual revolution, there may well continue even 40 years from now to be those who see homosexual behavior has contrary to the laws of God. So it's not necessarily a given that society's confusion about marriage and the family will portend the disintegration of the Church of Jesus Christ, your doomsday predictions notwithstanding.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Zakuska]

Membership growth has slowed in recent years. I don't know it has anything to do with the homosexual position, but overall, we might one day see the numbers to diminish in the coming years. This, to me, represents one policy that will change among quite a few. But overall, what I hope for is a general change in direction--from legal/control the message based to open, free. the model will have to be, as I see it, love and tolerance over message control. Afterall, it seems to me, God is far more interested in us building relationships with each other, including more people, and loving the good, than He is about whether or not we can accurately define he who will one day find the Celestial Kingdom.

Is he not going to "Cut the work short in Righteousness"? Romans 9:28

[Scott Lloyd]

I think membership numbers would diminish considerably.

What do you mean by "diminish considerably," and how long before that result becomes clear? I presume  you think it will happen within your arbitrary 40-year timetable, but how early on?

 

And do you mean the total membership will diminish, or just the rate of growth?

 

Also, what other taboos will have fallen by the wayside in the meantime? Polygamy? Incest? Adult-child sexual relations (think NAMBLA)? Will acceptance of these things also ravage the membership numbers of the Church of Jesus Christ unless it gets with the times and accepts them?

Edited September 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

Fewf! luckily everything becomes explainable in retrospect!

"I was blessed by God" a person may say in one instant, then later realize, "actually this supposed "blessing" was nothing but a curse". We'd really never know because our life often keeps on going when some "blessing" is bestowed upon us. We can't go back and retry to see if more were in store if those cursed "blessings" weren't put upon us.

That is why it is good to stay close to the Spirit, scriptures, Church, leaders, saints, etc. And we can go back in a sense, by repenting and seeing things differently (for the better, of course!):

 

"In Biblical Hebrew, the idea of repentance is represented by two verbs: שוב shuv (to return) and נחם nacham (to feel sorrow). In the New Testament, the word translated as 'repentance' is the Greek word μετάνοια (metanoia), "after/behind one's mind", which is a compound word of the preposition 'meta' (after, with), and the verb 'noeo' (to perceive, to think, the result of perceiving or observing). In this compound word the preposition combines the two meanings of time and change, which may be denoted by 'after' and 'different'; so that the whole compound means: 'to think differently after'. Metanoia is therefore primarily an after-thought, different from the former thought; a change of mind and change of conduct, "change of mind and heart", or, "change of consciousness"." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repentance#Etymology

[Russell C McGregor]

According to my sources he was excommunicated for adultery (ie he entered into polygamy after the practice had been discontinued).

 

I'm sure that no true Scotsman would enter into a plural marriage without permission, so we can safely say that Lyman was not a son of Scotland.

No, it would not. Since Jacob 2 demonstrates that plural marriage is only acceptable when commanded, and since the President of the Church is the only one who has the keys of that ordinance, anyone purporting to enter into it without permission is ipso facto not entering into a valid plural marriage.

Thus, adultery is all that is left. Your "no true Scotsman" fallacy does not apply.

[Russell C McGregor]

I think membership numbers would diminish considerably.

Yes, because the surrendering churches are doing so well.

[JulieM]

No, it would not. Since Jacob 2 demonstrates that plural marriage is only acceptable when commanded, and since the President of the Church is the only one who has the keys of that ordinance, anyone purporting to enter into it without permission is ipso facto not entering into a valid plural marriage.

What about Joseph's plural marriage to Fanny Alger that took place before Joseph received the sealing keys?

[Damien the Leper]

Thank you for demonstrating that your "expertise" in Mormon things is negligible.EV Protestants will surrender to the gay juggernaut before we do, and you can take that to the bank.

I don't know. The Acts 29 and Westminster Reformed camps are equally staunch.

[rockpond]

Just as there continue to be many people who regard sex outside of marriage as wrong even 50 years after the beginning of the sexual revolution, there may well continue even 40 years from now to be those who see homosexual behavior has contrary to the laws of God. So it's not necessarily a given that society's confusion about marriage and the family will portend the disintegration of the Church of Jesus Christ, your doomsday predictions notwithstanding.

 

What do you mean by "diminish considerably," and how long before that result becomes clear? I presume  you think it will happen within your arbitrary 40-year timetable, but how early on?

 

And do you mean the total membership will diminish, or just the rate of growth?

 

Also, what other taboos will have fallen by the wayside in the meantime? Polygamy? Incest? Adult-child sexual relations (think NAMBLA)? Will acceptance of these things also ravage the membership numbers of the Church of Jesus Christ unless it gets with the times and accepts them?

 

Not really a doomsday prediction and I'm not gonna try to make predictions on membership because the church keeps evolving (in small ways) on the matter of homosexuality anyway.

 

My perspective is this... Gay people are no longer "staying in the closet".  The more and more church members know someone that they love who is gay.  And more and more church members seem to be growing uncomfortable with the church's position with respect to their gay loved ones.  This, in my experience, seems to be even more true with the younger generation.  As this trend continues, I think it will encourage either the seeking of further revelation of the matter or it will cause the further erosion of membership growth rates.

 

Since I don't consider gay marriage to be a taboo or comparable to the things you mention, I'll politely decline your other questions.