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

[CV75]

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. 

I'm not dismissing it as an experience you accept as authentic, I just don't share it. Can you 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.

[rockpond]

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:

 

As a percentage of the population (using the numbers reported in your link)

 

Mormons went from 1.7% of the US population to 1.6%.  That's a 17% reduction in the 7 year span they reported. (0.1 div by 1.7)

 

In that same year, the Protestants had a 9% reduction and the Catholics experienced a 13% reduction.

 

While "Unaffiliated" showed an increase (as a percentage increase in their share of the population) of over 41%.

 

I stand by my statement.

[Mars]

As a percentage of the population (using the numbers reported in your link)

 

Mormons went from 1.7% of the US population to 1.6%.  That's a 17% reduction in the 7 year span they reported. (0.1 div by 1.7)

 

In that same year, the Protestants had a 9% reduction and the Catholics experienced a 13% reduction.

 

While "Unaffiliated" showed an increase (as a percentage increase in their share of the population) of over 41%.

 

I stand by my statement.

 

fair enough

[rockpond]

I'm not dismissing it as an experience you accept as authentic, I just don't share it. Can you 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.

 

The scriptures don't really use the terminology "compound in one" and "gender distinction".  Those strike me as secular, arm of the flesh type concepts.  

 

Seriously though, to answer your question, for a person with homosexual orientation their "opposite" and their helpmeet is a person of the same gender.

[Mars]

wait.

 

2007 us population = 301.2M and % mormon: 1.7
2014 us population = 318.9M and % mormon: 1.6

2007 us mormon population = 1.7% of 301.2M = 5120400
2014 us mormon population = 1.6% of 318.9M = 5102400

diff = 18000

18000 is what percentage of 5120400?  that'll show how much we went down by

((5120400 - 5102400) / 5120400) = 0.00351535036

so we lost .35%?

where are you getting 17%?  i get math but i always have a hard time using it as a language to describe the way numbers change.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Mars

[Mars]

i mean... 17% is close to a fifth.  if we lost a fifth of our membership we'd have lost close to 1 Million.  something like 800K.

 

i'm sorry, rockpond, i just don't follow.

[rockpond]

wait.

 

2007 us population = 301.2M and % mormon: 1.7

2014 us population = 318.9M and % mormon: 1.6

2007 us mormon population = 1.7% of 301.2M = 5120400

2014 us mormon population = 1.6% of 318.9M = 5102400

diff = 18000

18000 is what percentage of 5120400?  that'll show how much we went down by

((5120400 - 5102400) / 5120400) = 0.00351535036

so we lost .35%?

where are you getting 17%?  i get math but i always have a hard time using it as a language to describe the way numbers change.

 

i mean... 17% is close to a fifth.  if we lost a fifth of our membership we'd have lost close to 1 Million.  something like 800K.

 

i'm sorry, rockpond, i just don't follow.

 

 

You're calculating the numbers of members and, then, the percentage reduction in US membership.

 

But I just realized that I made an error... I'm sorry.  It should be 6%, NOT 17.  How the heck did I do that!?  (0.1 / 1.7 = .059)

 

So 6% is the percentage of OUR share of the US population by which we decreased (0.1 divided by 1.7) which I calculated to be able to do an apples-to-apples comparison to the other religious groups' data you cited.  

 

So that does actually make us look better than the 9% and 13% of the other religious groups.  But I don't think it is insignificant either.

Edited September 3, 2015 by rockpond

[Mars]

our share going down is one thing

 

whether or not we're losing members is another thing.

 

i thought that's what the original assertion was?  you and russell c mcgregor going back and forth over whether or not other churches were bleeding membership?

[Mars]

anyway.  enough derailment from me.

 

i guess i stand by my own original post, as well. 

 

perhaps i misunderstood your original point.  i don't believe we're bleeding membership based on the results of this poll, despite our share of the total religious/irreligious going down.  since that piece of the pie is contingent upon the entire united states' population change, and i'm more interested in our own change, i guess i've made my point and done my best to hear yours.  not much more to add.

[Buckeye]

I'm not dismissing it as an experience you accept as authentic, I just don't share it. Can you 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.

 

I'm glad you've backed off, but you were being dismissive of the validity of mine and other's spiritual experiences. You said "We know the secular often takes on the appearance of the spiritual. When spiritual decisions succumb to that aspect of the arm of flesh ..." That is per se dismissal of another's experience.

 

 

Edit to answer your question:

 

Any two people combined in marriage come together with differences that compliment each other. Gender is one of these, but not the only one, and certainly not necessary. Race, language, and many many other characteristics allow for complimentariness. Moreover, I believe that two items can be complimentary even if they are identical or have identical roles. Consider a pair of eyes or hands. Consider a missionary companionship. Missionary companionships compliment each other even though both members are the same gender. So too SS couples.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Buckeye

[CV75]

The scriptures don't really use the terminology "compound in one" and "gender distinction".  Those strike me as secular, arm of the flesh type concepts.  

 

Seriously though, to answer your question, for a person with homosexual orientation their "opposite" and their helpmeet is a person of the same gender.

The term “compound in one” comes from 2 Nephi, and is part of the larger discussion of the law of opposition and the meaning of the subsequent Garden of Eden events, including the marriage of Adam (male) and Eve (female).

 

Two of the same element cannot form a “compound in one,” so two of the same gender can’t meet the criterion for “helpmeet” in the sense of mutual opposition and atonement. Two like things exist without contrast or distinction, and without an opposing complement remain as dead, having no “at-one-ment.”

 

The beings of Adam and Eve are spiritually the same in every respect except for their gender. But two men are spiritually identical in every respect, including gender. The opposition and atonement permit the generation of “begotten sons and daughters of God,” bringing them from God’s presence as inhabitants of the earth (D&C 76:24).

 

I don't think you've established the principles of opposition or atonement for a male-male union. For example, using 2 Nephi, how would these scriptures be properly paraphrased or contextualized to allow it?

[Gray]

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?

 

Plural marriage is a synonym for polygamy, isn't it? It's just LDS jargon that means polygamy. Kind of a softer way of saying the same thing. 

 

Very similar to same sex marriage vs gay marriage. 

[CV75]

I'm glad you've backed off, but you were being dismissive of the validity of mine and other's spiritual experiences. You said "We know the secular often takes on the appearance of the spiritual. When spiritual decisions succumb to that aspect of the arm of flesh ..." That is per se dismissal of another's experience.

By responding, I was showing that such experiences are indeed worthy of consideration—they are all we have to go by. I am not dismissing your experiences. I am considering the results of them and seeing the promotion of something that is at variance with eternal principles.

 

Any two people combined in marriage come together with differences that compliment each other. Gender is one of these, but not the only one, and certainly not necessary. Race, language, and many many other characteristics allow for complimentariness. Moreover, I believe that two items can be complimentary even if they are identical or have identical roles. Consider a pair of eyes or hands. Consider a missionary companionship. Missionary companionships compliment each other even though both members are the same gender. So too SS couples.

All of God’s children being equal, gender is the only eternally differentiating spiritual attribute between them. All other divine attributes can be held by those of either gender. According to 2 Nephi, gender is essential for the fullness of the blessings available through opposition and atonement.

 

The examples you provided are confusing. Yes, two eyes are basically identical but one is on the left side and the other on the right; the brain brings the opposing images together (and they belong to a single individual; same with hands). There are no such things as opposite races, languages, etc. I see a difference between eternal attributes and talents, but even opposing talents (gift of gab, gift of silence) can be developed and held by anyone regardless of gender. I don’t think your examples square with the law of opposition as laid out in 2 Nephi.

 

SS couples do not share the same fundamental, complementing makeup as Adam and Eve.

[Gray]

By responding, I was showing that such experiences are indeed worthy of consideration—they are all we have to go by. I am not dismissing your experiences. I am considering the results of them and seeing the promotion of something that is at variance with eternal principles.

 

All of God’s children being equal, gender is the only eternally differentiating spiritual attribute between them. All other divine attributes can be held by those of either gender. According to 2 Nephi, gender is essential for the fullness of the blessings available through opposition and atonement.

 

The examples you provided are confusing. Yes, two eyes are basically identical but one is on the left side and the other on the right; the brain brings the opposing images together (and they belong to a single individual; same with hands). There are no such things as opposite races, languages, etc. I see a difference between eternal attributes and talents, but even opposing talents (gift of gab, gift of silence) can be developed and held by anyone regardless of gender. I don’t think your examples square with the law of opposition as laid out in 2 Nephi.

 

SS couples do not share the same fundamental, complementing makeup as Adam and Eve.

 

Well, male isn't really the opposite of female either. We're way more alike than different.

[Scott Lloyd]

This thread is based on a reference to two Ensign magazine articles by Elder Bruce C. Hafen, the first in the August issue and the second in the September issue, published on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the family proclamation.

 

We haven't yet explored in any depth either of these articles. I desire now to begin to do that.

 

In the first article, Elder Hafen puts the dizzyingly rapid acceptance of same-sex "marriage" in the broader context of the gradual erosion of the legal concept of marriage "whose historic purpose was to promote society’s interest in having biological parents rear their own children in stable homes."

 

 

In a nutshell, advocates began using potent individual-liberation ideas to challenge laws that had long supported the interests of children and society in stable family structures. Courts and legislatures accepted many of these individualistic ideas, even when the ideas damaged larger social interests. For example, no-fault divorce was first adopted in California in 1968 and then spread across the United States. No-fault significantly changed the way people thought about marriage. Under the old divorce laws, married people couldn’t just choose to end their marriage; rather, they had to prove spousal misconduct, like adultery or abuse. In those days only a judge representing society’s interests could determine when a divorce was justified enough to outweigh the social interest in marital continuity.

As originally conceived, no-fault divorce had worthy goals. It added irretrievable marriage breakdown, regardless of personal fault, as a basis for divorce—which simplified the divorce process. In theory, only a judge, who still represented society’s interests, could decide whether a marriage was beyond repair. But in practice, family court judges deferred to the personal preference of the couple and eventually liberated whichever partner wanted to end the marriage.

These legal changes accelerated a larger cultural drift that no longer saw marriage as a relatively permanent social institution but rather as a temporary, private relationship, terminable at will—without seriously considering how divorce damaged children, let alone how it damaged society. Before long, judges’ doubts about society’s right to enforce wedding vows gave married couples the false impression that their personal promises held no great social or moral value. So now, when marriage commitments intrude on personal preferences, people are more likely to walk away. They see marriage as a “nonbinding commitment,” whatever that contradiction means.

Reflecting these new attitudes, courts expanded the parental rights of unwed fathers and began to give child custody and adoption rights to unmarried individuals. This uprooted the long-established preference that family law had given, whenever possible, to the married, two-parent biological family. Both experience and the social science research had clearly shown—and still show—that a family headed by married, biological parents almost always provides the best child-rearing environment. But over time, the unwed-parent cases contributed to, and were influenced by, skyrocketing rates of unmarried cohabitation and births outside marriage.

Further, in 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court granted individual women the right to choose abortion, thereby rejecting long-held cultural beliefs about the social interests represented by unborn children and by elected legislators who until then had collectively decided the value-laden question of when life begins.

Talking about no-fault divorce leads logically to a brief comment about same-sex marriage. This has become a difficult and poignant topic, even though only 17 years ago, no country in the world had legally recognized same-sex marriage. So how could this very idea burst upon the international scene precisely when the historic concept of marriage had lost so much public value during the previous four decades?

One likely answer is that the “personal autonomy” theory of the first U.S. pro-same-sex marriage case in 2001 simply extended the same individualistic legal concept that had created no-fault divorce. When a court upholds an individual’s right to end a marriage, regardless of social consequences (as can happen with no-fault divorce), that principle may also seem to support an individual’s right to start a marriage, regardless of social consequences (as can happen with same-sex marriage).

In other words, when people see man-woman marriage as just a matter of personal preference rather than as society’s key social institution, it’s little wonder that many would now say of same-sex marriage that individuals should be free to marry as they choose. That’s what can happen when we lose track of society’s interest in marriage and children. Clearly God loves all of His children and expects us to treat one another with compassion and tolerance—regardless of private conduct we may or may not understand. But it is a very different matter to endorse or promote that conduct by altering a legal concept—marriage—whose historic purpose was to promote society’s interest in having biological parents rear their own children in stable homes.

 

From the time I was very young -- and probably before that -- prophets have been warning about the steady breakdown of the family unit in society. The legal redefinition of marriage is thus symptomatic of that breakdown -- and, in that light, it is quite understandable that the Church of Jesus Christ would have opposed it over the years, including the Prop 8 campaign, in which the efforts of Latter-day Saints had a reasonable chance of succeeding and, in fact, did succeed for a time.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Well, male isn't really the opposite of female either. We're way more alike than different.

I too don't get the opposing thing. My wife and I are a lot alike and a lot different. Our differences don't fall on stereotypical gender norms. The only difference between all men and all women is their reproductive organs, and given that the modern church is silent and agnostic about the function of those in the hear-after, I'm not sure how relevant that difference is.

Edited September 3, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[cinepro]

This thread is based on a reference to two Ensign magazine articles by Elder Bruce C. Hafen, the first in the August issue and the second in the September issue, published on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the family proclamation.

 

We haven't yet explored in any depth either of these articles. I desire now to begin to do that.

 

In the first article, Elder Hafen puts the dizzyingly rapid acceptance of same-sex "marriage" in the broader context of the gradual erosion of the legal concept of marriage "whose historic purpose was to promote society’s interest in having biological parents rear their own children in stable homes."

 

 

From the time I was very young -- and probably before that -- prophets have been warning about the steady breakdown of the family unit in society. The legal redefinition of marriage is thus symptomatic of that breakdown -- and, in that light, it is quite understandable that the Church of Jesus Christ would have opposed it over the years, including the Prop 8 campaign, in which it had a reasonable chance of succeeding and, in fact, did succeed.

 

I've long since wondered how same-sex marriage is a greater "threat" to traditional marriage than divorce is.   If Elder Hafen is correct, then the adoption of "no fault divorce" laws over the last 50 years is probably (and logically) a far more destructive force against traditional heterosexual marriages than SSM will ever be.

 

Yet, the Church really hasn't said much about no-fault divorce laws.  And I don't recall hearing stories of LDS wards standing on street corners protesting against such laws.

 

It would make far more sense to me if instead of focusing on  SSM, the Church focused it's efforts on making it more difficult for married couples to get divorced.   But I wonder what kind of reception that would get from the public at large.  Do people really have a problem with no-fault divorce (other than other people getting divorced?)  Would it really be a good thing for society if it were much more difficult to get divorced, and if spousal misconduct had to be proven in order to be legally divorced? 

 

Were the days before no-fault divorce really "the good ol' days"?

Edited September 3, 2015 by cinepro

[ALarson]

I've long since wondered how same-sex marriage is a greater "threat" to traditional marriage than divorce is

I have also wondered this.  How on earth is another couple getting married a "threat" to my marriage?  Divorce I understand.  A divorce could destroy my marriage.  But same-sex marriage is in no way a threat to destroying the union of myself and my wife.  The comparison is an odd one, IMO.

[Teancum]

This thread is based on a reference to two Ensign magazine articles by Elder Bruce C. Hafen, the first in the August issue and the second in the September issue, published on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the family proclamation.

 

We haven't yet explored in any depth either of these articles. I desire now to begin to do that.

 

In the first article, Elder Hafen puts the dizzyingly rapid acceptance of same-sex "marriage" in the broader context of the gradual erosion of the legal concept of marriage "whose historic purpose was to promote society’s interest in having biological parents rear their own children in stable homes."

 

 

From the time I was very young -- and probably before that -- prophets have been warning about the steady breakdown of the family unit in society. The legal redefinition of marriage is thus symptomatic of that breakdown -- and, in that light, it is quite understandable that the Church of Jesus Christ would have opposed it over the years, including the Prop 8 campaign, in which the efforts of Latter-day Saints had a reasonable chance of succeeding and, in fact, did succeed for a time.

 

How will the legalization of same sex marriage reduce or impact the number of persons who will enter into traditional heterosexual marriages?  In other words how will this erode the traditional family and reduce the number of children in such "stable homes?"

[Scott Lloyd]

I've long since wondered how same-sex marriage is a greater "threat" to traditional marriage than divorce is.   If Elder Hafen is correct, then the adoption of "no fault divorce" laws over the last 50 years is probably (and logically) a far more destructive force against traditional heterosexual marriages than SSM will ever be.

 

Yet, the Church really hasn't said much about no-fault divorce laws.  And I don't recall hearing stories of LDS wards standing on street corners protesting against such laws.

 

It would make far more sense to me if instead of focusing on  SSM, the Church focused it's efforts on making it more difficult for married couples to get divorced.   But I wonder what kind of reception that would get from the public at large.  Do people really have a problem with no-fault divorce (other than other people getting divorced?)  Would it really be a good thing for society if it were much more difficult to get divorced, and if spousal misconduct had to be proven in order to be legally divorced? 

 

Your post is confusing in that you assert the Church "hasn't said much about no-fault divorce laws," yet in that very phrasing, you embed a hypertext link leading to a search page showing several hits in which Church leaders have indeed addressed this topic.

 

It should be noted that even in the recent Ensign article under discussion here, Elder Hafen did not categorically condemn no fault divorce laws, but rather decried their application in a way that contributed to marriage breakdown:

 

As originally conceived, no-fault divorce had worthy goals. It added irretrievable marriage breakdown, regardless of personal fault, as a basis for divorce—which simplified the divorce process. In theory, only a judge, who still represented society’s interests, could decide whether a marriage was beyond repair. But in practice, family court judges deferred to the personal preference of the couple and eventually liberated whichever partner wanted to end the marriage.

 

 

 

Were the days before no-fault divorce really "the good ol' days"?

 

I do believe we were better off when fatherlessness was not so rampant in society, as fatherlessness drives all other social ills.

 

Of course, a number of factors contribute to fatherlessness, not just the too-easy granting of divorces.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

I've long since wondered how same-sex marriage is a greater "threat" to traditional marriage than divorce is.   If Elder Hafen is correct, then the adoption of "no fault divorce" laws over the last 50 years is probably (and logically) a far more destructive force against traditional heterosexual marriages than SSM will ever be.

 

Yet, the Church really hasn't said much about no-fault divorce laws.  And I don't recall hearing stories of LDS wards standing on street corners protesting against such laws.

 

It would make far more sense to me if instead of focusing on  SSM, the Church focused it's efforts on making it more difficult for married couples to get divorced.   But I wonder what kind of reception that would get from the public at large.  Do people really have a problem with no-fault divorce (other than other people getting divorced?)  Would it really be a good thing for society if it were much more difficult to get divorced, and if spousal misconduct had to be proven in order to be legally divorced? 

 

Were the days before no-fault divorce really "the good ol' days"?

 

The fundamental problem with opposing no-fault divorce is that our church prizes agency over all else. It's kind of tough to say that people should not be allowed to end their marriages just so that we can keep up the "marriage" stats. Wasn't it Brigham who championed the no-fault divorce laws in Utah?

[HappyJackWagon]

 

CV75- 

Two of the same element cannot form a “compound in one,” so two of the same gender can’t meet the criterion for “helpmeet” in the sense of mutual opposition and atonement.

Can two of the same race be a compound in one? Can two of the same religion be a compound in one? Can two of the same socioeconomic group be a compound in one? Where does the opposition end when does similarity become acceptable?

 

I truly don't understand your infatuation with this concept of the Law of Opposition as if that is somehow the grandest fullfillment of one's potential and the greatest law to which every other law is subserviant. Maybe I need a primer on the law of opposition but I don't recall ever hearing of this law in any kind of religious context. To me it sounds like a red herring, distracting from the real discussion.

Edited September 3, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[CV75]

Well, male isn't really the opposite of female either. We're way more alike than different.

 

I'm sorry you're having a hard time keeping up. See a couple of posts above  (461):

 

“The beings of Adam and Eve are spiritually the same in every respect except for their gender. But two men are spiritually identical in every respect, including gender. The opposition and atonement permit the generation of “begotten sons and daughters of God,” bringing them from God’s presence as inhabitants of the earth (D&C 76:24).”

 

This remark sheds no light on how same-sex marriage squares with the laws of opposition and atonement. How do you think it squares?

[DJBrown]

How will the legalization of same sex marriage reduce or impact the number of persons who will enter into traditional heterosexual marriages?  In other words how will this erode the traditional family and reduce the number of children in such "stable homes?"

 

A couple of responses, if you don't mind me jumping in.

 

First, I believe the esteem we all feel toward marriage is impacted.  This is especially true of the younger generation.  It is one more thing that erodes respect for marriage.  

 

Second, it has been articulated by same-sex marriage advocates that the true intention for many in that community is to rid society of marriage entirely.  Those that seek such a change feel that marriage is restrictive and keeps people from being truly independent and free.  Some of the thinkers in the LGBT community have gone so far as to state this- that the real goal is to get rid of marriage all together.  

 

One of the things that is not appreciated or recognized is the nature of many same-sex relationships, including marriage.  A surprisingly high percentage of these relationships are "open" - meaning the individuals in the relationship are allowed to have sexual relationships with other people.  And many are promoting such an idea, not just in the LGBT community, but for heterosexual couples as well.  It is my belief that this is the next line in the battle- open marriage vs. traditional monogamous marriages.  I think the prevalence of swinging couples will increase over time.  And Hollywood will provide plenty of entertainment that incorporates that lifestyle.

 

Altogether, these things change marriage dramatically.  

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well, male isn't really the opposite of female either. We're way more alike than different.

Yeah we all have fingers and a nose.

 

There are significant differences.