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

[rockpond]

Yes, because the surrendering churches are doing so well.

 

I don't think it's a result of acceptance of gay marriage.  There's a general trend (at least in the US) away from organized religion.  We see it in our numbers as well.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

 

Since the Church of Jesus Christ never opposed employment or housing access for gay people, and since it never advocated that families kick out their children with SSA, there's not been much of an erosion evolution.

 

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.

 

Faithful Latter-day Saints -- even those with loved ones beset with SSA -- by and large embrace the Church's position on the matter (Elder Christofferson is a good example). They will continue to do so. As Russell pointed out, it is the faith groups who are capitulating who seem to be suffering the erosion of membership.

 

 

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.

 

Come on. It has not been that long ago when homosexual behavior had just as much disapprobation in society as do "the things mention." We've seen how quickly societal whims can change.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think it's a result of acceptance of gay marriage.  There's a general trend (at least in the US) away from organized religion.  We see it in our numbers as well.

But if anything, it is the more conservative faith groups, such as the Church of Jesus Christ, who are weathering the trend the best. Acceptance of gay marriage is part and parcel of the trend you identify.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

Since the Church of Jesus Christ never opposed employment or housing access for gay people, and since it never advocated that families kick out their children with SSA, there's not been much of an erosion evolution.

 

Faithful Latter-day Saints -- even those with loved ones beset with SSA -- by and large embrace the Church's position on the matter (Elder Christofferson is a good example). They will continue to do so. As Russell pointed out, it is the faith groups who are capitulating who seem to be suffering the erosion of membership.

Come on. It has not been that long ago when homosexual behavior had just as much disapprobation in society as do "the things mention." We've seen how quickly societal whims can change.

 

Actually, the church did oppose employment/housing access/discrimination back in the 90's (Colorado Amendment 2) filing an amicus brief in the Romer v Evans case.

 

I agree that faithful LDS "by and large embrace the Church's position on the matter" but it seems that is slipping.  Recent polls have LDS acceptance of gay marriage up in the high 20% area.  We can see if that grows as time goes on though I'm sure you'll see it as a sign of increased wickedness.

[rockpond]

But if anything, it is the more conservative faith groups, such as the Church of Jesus Christ, who are weathering the trend the best. Acceptance of gay marriage is part and parcel of the trend you identify.

 

I don't think we have sufficient data to say that confidently.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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."

Gonna need more context than that. I have no idea what he meant.

 

 

And you don't need to change anything. If one assumes that "legal", always means "earthly government" then you might need to.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Actually, the church did oppose employment/housing access/discrimination back in the 90's (Colorado Amendment 2) filing an amicus brief in the Romer v Evans case.

 

I agree that faithful LDS "by and large embrace the Church's position on the matter" but it seems that is slipping.  Recent polls have LDS acceptance of gay marriage up in the high 20% area.  We can see if that grows as time goes on though I'm sure you'll see it as a sign of increased wickedness.

I am sorry RockPond where did the church every advocate for discrimination for gays over the pulpit?

 

And what does the general of acceptance of anything with in the rank and file of the membership have to do with God's law? You act as if the church is a democracy.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

You would think this would be clear. Oh well.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Scott Lloyd]

Actually, the church did oppose employment/housing access/discrimination back in the 90's (Colorado Amendment 2) filing an amicus brief in the Romer v Evans case.

 

 

You've repeatedly made this accusation, but you've never definitively documented it. There could be reasons for filing an amicus brief that don't pertain to certain aspects of the legislation, such as access to housing and employment. Maybe the Church didn't like it because the Church was afraid it would lead to gay martiage.

 

In the 1970s, for example, the Church opposed the ERA not because the Church was opposed to equality of women under the law, but rather, because they saw it as being too broad in its implications and perhaps opening the door to undesirable consequences.

 

 

I agree that faithful LDS "by and large embrace the Church's position on the matter" but it seems that is slipping.  Recent polls have LDS acceptance of gay marriage up in the high 20% area.  We can see if that grows as time goes on though I'm sure you'll see it as a sign of increased wickedness.

 

To the extent it happens, it would be a result therefrom and indicate the need for more teaching among our own membership. But I don't see any need for hand-wringing just yet. The inactivity rate in the Church, as I understand it, has always been around 40 percent or more. There could be a correlation there. Those who are active and faithful members are bound to be well exposed to the fact that homosexual behavior is contrary to the laws of God, and resisting that position requires deliberate and energetic effort  and dealing with the extremely uncomfortable fact that one who has such a sentiment is very much at odds with the teachings of the prophets and the apostles.

 

By the way, you side-stepped my question.

 

Assuming the Church doesn't change its views on homosexuality (and it won't), at what point in this 40-year time frame will we begin to see a clear diminution in the size of our membership as a result? Twenty years on? 30? Five? Next year? What?

 

Bear in mind that though we've seen a slowing in growth in recent years, we've not seen an actual loss in membership at any time in recent memory, perhaps ever. If this were to happen anytime soon, it would be ominous indeed. When will that occur, do you think?

Edited September 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

I am sorry RockPond where did the church every advocate for discrimination for gays over the pulpit?

 

And what does the general of acceptance of anything with in the rank and file of the membership have to do with God's law? You act as if the church is a democracy.

 

General acceptance by the membership has nothing to do with God's law.  The church is not a democracy.

 

The church did not advocate for discrimination against gays over the pulpit, it did so through an amicus brief in the Romer v Evans case.

[Calm]

"because I do not see a clear indication in any statements from recent prophets that anything but the theories to explain the ban were wrong."

One of those theories is the Levite lineage alone you are using so what does that indicate about the theory?

Edited September 3, 2015 by calmoriah

[rockpond]

You've repeatedly made this accusation, but you've never definitively documented it. There could be reasons for filing an amicus brief that don't pertain to certain aspects of the legislation, such as access to housing and employment. Maybe the Church didn't like it because the Church was afraid it would lead to gay martiage.

 

I don't know whether or not the leaders of the time felt that non-discrimination ordinances for gays would lead to gay marriage.  The fact is that they opposed them.  I don't know how to document the Romer v. Evans brief.  The case of Colorado's Amendment 2 is easy enough to find information on.  But I don't know where it's documented that Church leaders asked Rex E Lee to file an amicus brief.  So you can dismiss it.

 

You can also dismiss the praise given to Anita Bryant by Spencer Kimball and Gen RS President Barbara Smith back in June of '77 when Ms. Bryant was fighting against anti-discrimination ordinances for gays.

 

You can also dismiss the Mark E Peterson editorials written between 1977-1979 and published in the Church News which attached the gay rights movement.

 

I assume the church had no ability to influence passage of the anti-discrimination ordinance that was voted down in 1998 by the SLC council.

 

I assume you'll find it irrelevant that anti-discrimination legislation was put before the Utah legislative body in 2008, 2009, and 2010 and failed each time.  Did the Church support anti-discrimination back then?

 

Was the Church working behind the scenes to protect LGBT rights for decades but they just couldn't manage to get anything passed in Utah until 2015?

 

If you'd like to think that the Church has always supported rights for gay people there's no way I can convince you otherwise.  But, my understanding of the recent legislation that was just passed is that your employer STILL retains the right to fire people for being gay.  True or false?

[rockpond]

To the extent it happens, it would be a result therefrom and indicate the need for more teaching among our own membership. But I don't see any need for hand-wringing just yet. The inactivity rate in the Church, as I understand it, has always been around 40 percent or more. There could be a correlation there. Those who are active and faithful members are bound to be well exposed to the fact that homosexual behavior is contrary to the laws of God, and resisting that position requires deliberate and energetic effort  and dealing with the extremely uncomfortable fact that one who has such a sentiment is very much at odds with the teachings of the prophets and the apostles.

 

By the way, you side-stepped my question.

 

Assuming the Church doesn't change its views on homosexuality (and it won't), at what point in this 40-year time frame will we begin to see a clear diminution in the size of our membership as a result? Twenty years on? 30? Five? Next year? What?

 

Bear in mind that though we've seen a slowing in growth in recent years, we've not seen an actual loss in membership at any time in recent memory, perhaps ever. If this were to happen anytime soon, it would be ominous indeed. When will that occur, do you think?

 

I have no idea what the timeline might be.  As I indicated... too many factors.  Recent concessions and changes by the Church will certainly help.

 

The slowing growth rate has been going on for decades, at least the best we can tell with the numbers provided.  The numbers, however, have gaps and inconsistencies.  But, assuming the general trend continues, I'd expect actual membership losses would occur within the next two decades though I highly doubt such numbers would ever be shared publicly or with church members.

 

And to bring it back to your point about needing to teach the members (which relates to the thread topic), yes -- clearly the leaders feel the need to teach the man-woman marriage model.  They seem to rarely miss a chance to mention it in their addresses.  Even the video clips of the recent Sabbath Day teachings from the GA training session have Elder Bednar referencing "man-woman marriage" rather than just "marriage".  And then there is this recent Ensign.  Their need to teach it over and over again coupled with what I'm seeing/hearing in my own circles and the increase gay rights activities of members leads me to conclude that the Brethren see that they are losing the hearts and minds of members on this matter.  And their tightening their grip.  I expect that to continue for some time.

Edited September 3, 2015 by rockpond

[CV75]

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.

A few other options to consider as you progress in your perspective: societal trends that reflect the arm of the flesh and promote secular over religious values will bring “the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets” and “the testimony of earthquakes, …the testimony of the voice of thunderings, and the voice of lightnings, and the voice of tempests, and the voice of the waves of the sea heaving themselves beyond their bounds” and other commotion.

 

As far as what the Lord will do through his servants, or what His servants will seek from Him, I think that has more to do with availing the blessings of the temple – a fullness of the laws of opposition and atonement as discussed in the Hafen Ensign marriage article – to all of God’s children, living and dead.

[rockpond]

A few other options to consider as you progress in your perspective: societal trends that reflect the arm of the flesh and promote secular over religious values will bring “the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets” and “the testimony of earthquakes, …the testimony of the voice of thunderings, and the voice of lightnings, and the voice of tempests, and the voice of the waves of the sea heaving themselves beyond their bounds” and other commotion.

 

As far as what the Lord will do through his servants, or what His servants will seek from Him, I think that has more to do with availing the blessings of the temple – a fullness of the laws of opposition and atonement as discussed in the Hafen Ensign marriage article – to all of God’s children, living and dead.

 

For many of us, acceptance of gay marriage was a spiritually based decision and not a matter of following societal trends/secular values.

[Calm]

It is going to be really interesting to see it all play out. Hoping it is not also heartbreaking for many.

[Gray]

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.

 

So plural marriage, when not deemed acceptable, amounts to adultery. That doesn't mean that it wasn't a plural marriage as well. It means it was an unauthorized plural marriage from the viewpoint of church policy. There are many people in plural marriages right now, all over the world. The fact that they're not authorized by our church does not mean they are not plural marriages. 

 

 

 

No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.^[1] When faced with a counterexample to auniversal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing").^[2]

Edited September 3, 2015 by Gray

[Mars]

I don't think it's a result of acceptance of gay marriage.  There's a general trend (at least in the US) away from organized religion.  We see it in our numbers as well.

 

not exactly

 

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

[CV75]

For many of us, acceptance of gay marriage was a spiritually based decision and not a matter of following societal trends/secular values.

I understand.

 

We know the secular often takes on the appearance of the spiritual. When spiritual decisions succumb to that aspect of the arm of flesh, they promote that which is at variance with the eternal laws of opposition and atonement as discussed in the Ensign marriage article. Because they are eternal, the Lord teaches these laws through various means for both spiritual and temporal application. I've head it said that we are spiritual beings having a temporal probation, and because of that our spiritual capacity for making choices and decisions can become either more temporal or more eternal in nature. That is why variance with these laws is going in the wrong direction.

[Calm]

So plural marriage, when not deemed acceptable, amounts to adultery. That doesn't mean that it wasn't a plural marriage as well. It means it was an unauthorized plural marriage from the viewpoint of church policy. There are many people in plural marriages right now, all over the world. The fact that they're not authorized by our church does not mean they are not plural marriages.

I have never heard a y one use Plural marriage save in an lds context. If it only applies to plural marriages by church authority, do all the people practicing nonlds polygyny get logically included?

[rockpond]

not exactly

 

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

 

I'm not sure what point you are making... there's a LOT of data in that article.  Can you clarify?

[rockpond]

I understand.

 

We know the secular often takes on the appearance of the spiritual. 

 

I assure you, my decision was spiritually based and only came after many years of studying scripture, the teachings of our prophets, and sincere prayer.

[Mars]

I'm not sure what point you are making... there's a LOT of data in that article.  Can you clarify?

 

sure.

 

i agree that we see a general trend away from organized religion and/or religion in general in america.  we may see it locally and personally in our own religion as well, but i think that survey - as it asks by way of self identification - indicates that our religion is not going along with that trend.  we went down in a statistically insignificant way.  as such i disagreed with the final part of your post, highlighted in bold:

 

I don't think it's a result of acceptance of gay marriage.  There's a general trend (at least in the US) away from organized religion.  We see it in our numbers as well.

[Buckeye]

I understand.

 

We know the secular often takes on the appearance of the spiritual. When spiritual decisions succumb to that aspect of the arm of flesh, they promote that which is at variance with the eternal laws of opposition and atonement as discussed in the Ensign marriage article. Because they are eternal, the Lord teaches these laws through various means for both spiritual and temporal application. I've head it said that we are spiritual beings having a temporal probation, and because of that our spiritual capacity for making choices and decisions can become either more temporal or more eternal in nature. That is why variance with these laws is going in the wrong direction.

 

If you're going to dismiss the spiritual basis for my testimony of SSM, you will have to also dismiss the spiritual basis for my testimony of the BOM, Joseph Smith and the restoration. 

[CV75]

I assure you, my decision was spiritually based and only came after many years of studying scripture, the teachings of our prophets, and sincere prayer.

I understand, but in connection with the articles referred to in this thread, please describe how the conclusion that same-sex marriage is an eternal principle squares with the laws of opposition and Atonement. For example, “Adam and Eve” is a compound in one based on gender distinction, and this compound is the marital state in which they received and applied the teachings and blessings of the Atonement as a model for their progeny, the rest of God’s children in this world.