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

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

 

 

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?"

 

The problem is in the fundamental redefinition of marriage. Because of that redefinition, marriage no longer has the force of law to privilege what it once did. Elder Hafen expressed it this way:

 

Laws have also given a privileged status to relationships based on marriage and kinship—not to discriminate against single and unrelated people but to encourage biological parents to marry each other and to raise their own stable children, who are the key to a stable continuing society. Such laws thus express society’s social interests in its children and in its own future strength and continuity.

 

Elder Hafen apparently believes -- and I agree with him -- that the ideal situation is a couple committed through marriage raising their own biological children in a stable home life.

 

He concludes:

 

 

The doctrine is clear—and is substantiated by years of research. We don’t need to return to the family laws of yesteryear, but if we could just care more about our children and their future, people would marry before becoming parents. They would sacrifice more, much more, to stay married. Children would be raised, whenever possible, by their biological parents. Ideally, there would be no elective abortions or unwed births. Of course, some exceptions are needed—some divorces are justified, and adoption is often heaven-sent. Yet in principle, the 1995 proclamation on the family says it perfectly: “Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.”¹⁵

But we are suffering from collective amnesia. We are not hearing the mystic chords of eternal, or even recent, memory. The enemy of our happiness wants to convince us that the sacred, long-term bonds of family affection are confining, when in fact no relationships are more liberating and fulfilling.

Building a good marriage is not easy. It is not supposed to be easy. But when a confused culture confuses us about what marriage means, we may give up on each other and ourselves much too soon. Yet the gospel’s eternal perspective, as taught in the scriptures and the temple, can help us transcend the modern marital chaos until our marriages are the most satisfying, sanctifying—even if also the most demanding—experiences of our lives.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

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.  

 

Indeed.

 

Thank you.

[CV75]

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.

I see that Scott prefers to take the discussion in a different direction, so I'll ease off discussing the incompatibility of same-sex marriage with the eternal laws of opposition and atonement. EDIT: looks like he's OK with our continuing this conversation.

 

The law of opposition is that opposing elements are a compound in one; the of atonement is that opposing elements are brought into a compound in one by God.

 

Yes, you most certainly do need a primer of the law of opposition. I recommend beginning with 2 Nephi 2.

 

The "real discussion" is about the marriage articles, and the Hafen article in particular discusses marriage in terms of temple doctrine, which is founded (as supported by the doctrines in 2 Nephi 2) upon these two laws (opposition and atonement).

Edited September 3, 2015 by CV75

[Teancum]

The problem is in the fundamental redefinition of marriage. Because of that redefinition, marriage no longer has the force of law to privilege what it once did. Elder Hafen expressed it this way:

 

Elder Hafen apparently believes -- and I agree with him -- that the ideal situation is a couple committed through marriage raising their own biological children in a stable home life.

 

He concludes:

  Scott I really do not have any argument that the best place to raise children is in a home with one father and one mother.  That is one of the reasons I think plural marriage abhorrent.  I think a father with 5 wives and 20 children cannot hardly be a father that is invested in relationships that are meaningful with his children let alone his wives. 

 

I think children do better in a monogamous marriage than they would a homosexual marriage and family.

 

But I cannot see how same sex marriage will reduce at all how often and well the heterosexual population enters into traditional marriages. I think polygamy would threaten that situation more.

[rockpond]

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?

 

You've got a number of assumptions here that I disagree with.  But, my first question is, can you narrow down "2 Nephi" a bit for the purpose of discussion?

[cinepro]

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.

 

My link showed 19 results for the phrase "no fault divorce" on the LDS website (which I believe goes back to the early 1970s for the Ensign and Conference Talks). 

 

Of those 19, two refer to the recent Hafen comment under consideration, three refer to the same comment by Elder Oaks in 2012, three refer to the same comment by Elder Oaks in 2007, six refer to a comment by President Hinckley from 1991, and two refer to the same comment by Elder Cook in 2011 (quoting President McKay from 1969).

 

So there are really only seven quotes.  That's hardly a rallying cry for the members to oppose no-fault divorce laws and to seek their repeal.  It's more of a "Oh darn, this happened in the past and now there's lots of divorces!"  Compare that to the number of times the world-wide scope of Noah's flood has been mentioned over the same time period:

 

http://blog.mediumcouncil.org/?p=185

 

 

 

I also can't see any rational reason to oppose no-fault divorce laws.  It's my understanding that without them, a person who wants a divorce would have to actually do something to their spouse to warrant a divorce (abuse, infidelity etc.)  Was it really the case that people who wanted to get divorced but didn't have an abusive or disloyal spouse were staying together and ultimately finding stability and happiness in their marriages before no-fault divorce?

 

Because it seems like the law was creating a really bad incentive for spouses who wanted a divorce to misbehave when they might have otherwise gotten divorced first.  I don't know if that's what was actually happening, but it seems like that would be what the system was encouraging.

[Scott Lloyd]

I see that Scott prefers to take the discussion in a different direction, so I'll ease off discussing the incompatibility of same-sex marriage with the eternal laws of opposition and atonement.

 

The choice is yours, but I don't object to your continuing to pursue the line of conversation you have been here.

[CV75]

The choice is yours, but I don't object to your continuing to pursue the line of conversation you have been here.

Cool; thank you!

[Scott Lloyd]

My link showed 19 results for the phrase "no fault divorce" on the LDS website (which I believe goes back to the early 1970s for the Ensign and Conference Talks). 

 

Of those 19, two refer to the recent Hafen comment under consideration, three refer to the same comment by Elder Oaks in 2012, three refer to the same comment by Elder Oaks in 2007, six refer to a comment by President Hinckley from 1991, and two refer to the same comment by Elder Cook in 2011 (quoting President McKay from 1969).

 

So there are really only seven quotes.  That's hardly a rallying cry for the members to oppose no-fault divorce laws and to seek their repeal.  It's more of a "Oh darn, this happened in the past and now there's lots of divorces!"  Compare that to the number of times the world-wide scope of Noah's flood has been mentioned over the same time period:

 

http://blog.mediumcouncil.org/?p=185

 

 

 

I also can't see any rational reason to oppose no-fault divorce laws.  It's my understanding that without them, a person who wants a divorce would have to actually do something to their spouse to warrant a divorce (abuse, infidelity etc.)  Was it really the case that people who wanted to get divorced but didn't have an abusive or disloyal spouse were staying together and ultimately finding stability and happiness in their marriages before no-fault divorce?

 

Because it seems like the law was creating a really bad incentive for spouses who wanted a divorce to misbehave when they might have otherwise gotten divorced first.  I don't know if that's what was actually happening, but it seems like that would be what the system was encouraging.

Once again, I don't see Elder Hafen as calling for the repeal of no-fault divorce laws, or even condemning them per se.

 

Rather, he has pointed out that the application of such laws has made it too easy to obtain a divorce, a symptom of the general breakdown of the family unit in society.

 

This has happened when judges have abdicated their responsibility to determine whether in a given instance a divorce really is justified. As Elder Hafen explained it:

 

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.

 

Edited September 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

I see that Scott prefers to take the discussion in a different direction, so I'll ease off discussing the incompatibility of same-sex marriage with the eternal laws of opposition and atonement. EDIT: looks like he's OK with our continuing this conversation.

 

The law of opposition is that opposing elements are a compound in one; the of atonement is that opposing elements are brought into a compound in one by God.

 

Yes, you most certainly do need a primer of the law of opposition. I recommend beginning with 2 Nephi 2.

 

The "real discussion" is about the marriage articles, and the Hafen article in particular discusses marriage in terms of temple doctrine, which is founded (as supported by the doctrines in 2 Nephi 2) upon these two laws (opposition and atonement).

I'm very familiar with 2 Nephi 2 and don't recall anything about the Compound in One or Opposing elements. Can you try putting this into more precise language so I can understand. Both of those phrases are very vague and are not scriptural so I'm not following what you're trying to say.

[Buckeye]

Once again, I don't see Elder Hafen as calling for the repeal of no-fault divorce laws, or even condemning them per se.

 

Rather, he has pointed out that the application of such laws has made it too easy to obtain a divorce, a symptom of the general breakdown of the family unit in society.

 

This has happened when judges have abdicated their responsibility to determine whether in a given instance a divorce really is justified. As Elder Hafen explained it:

 

It's not abdicating to decide that couples, not judges, have the best position to determine whether their marriage should continue.

 

Do you likewise criticize the FP for "abdicating" their judicial role by allowing members to decide how to pay tithing?

Edited September 3, 2015 by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

I see that Scott prefers to take the discussion in a different direction, so I'll ease off discussing the incompatibility of same-sex marriage with the eternal laws of opposition and atonement. EDIT: looks like he's OK with our continuing this conversation.

 

The law of opposition is that opposing elements are a compound in one; the of atonement is that opposing elements are brought into a compound in one by God.

 

Yes, you most certainly do need a primer of the law of opposition. I recommend beginning with 2 Nephi 2.

 

The "real discussion" is about the marriage articles, and the Hafen article in particular discusses marriage in terms of temple doctrine, which is founded (as supported by the doctrines in 2 Nephi 2) upon these two laws (opposition and atonement).

 

Do you have any citations where church leaders have specifically referred to male-female marriage as an "opposition"? Everything I've read (at least recently) paints a couple as a compliment - pretty much the opposite of, well, "opposition." I can't understand how a marriage is supposed to be a union of two equal members who (1) compliment each other and (2) oppose each other.

[Scott Lloyd]

  Scott I really do not have any argument that the best place to raise children is in a home with one father and one mother.  That is one of the reasons I think plural marriage abhorrent.  I think a father with 5 wives and 20 children cannot hardly be a father that is invested in relationships that are meaningful with his children let alone his wives. 

 

I think children do better in a monogamous marriage than they would a homosexual marriage and family.

 

But I cannot see how same sex marriage will reduce at all how often and well the heterosexual population enters into traditional marriages. I think polygamy would threaten that situation more.

Again, because marriage has been redefined, it no longer is the powerful legal instrument it once was to encourage, protect and privilege the rearing of children in a stable home environment by their own biological parents (a man and a woman) committed to their well-being. Being thus redefined, it now has little or no better efficacy than a shack-up arrangement between two uncommitted people, be they of the same or different gender.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

Yeah we all have fingers and a nose.

 

There are significant differences.

 

The similarities are far more significant.

[Scott Lloyd]

It's not abdicating to decide that couples, not judges, have the best position to determine whether their marriage should continue.

Under some circumstances, the couple (or one or the other of them)  may not be in the best position or the ones best qualified to make that determination, especially as it impacts innocent children. That is why in theory, the state (represented by the family court judge) becomes a third party in arriving at the decision.

 

Do you likewise criticize the FP for "abdicating" their judicial role by allowing members to decide how to pay tithing?

 

I don't see the relevance of this.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

You've got a number of assumptions here that I disagree with.  But, my first question is, can you narrow down "2 Nephi" a bit for the purpose of discussion?

That should be 2 Nephi 2. The law of opposition is laid out along with the story of Adam and Eve and the atonement. The doctrine is a package and serves as the basis for the September article.

 

To additionally comment on your original post (”Seriously though, to answer your question, for a person with homosexual orientation their "opposite" and their helpmeet is a person of the same gender.”):

 

We do not know what Adam and Eve’s respective sexual orientations were. We do know the opposing attributes are found in their respective genders, and this is the only difference mentioned between them (Genesis 1:27).

 

Their orientation is not mentioned, and I suppose it is impossible to define an opposite orientation because anyone's orientation falls along a spectrum. Regardless of his orientation or any other attribute, the person of one gender’s “opposite” can only be a person of the complementing gender as represented in the story of Adam and Eve.

 

Recognizing mortal situations where one's gender is confused, self-directed or indeterminate, for now let's just discuss how same-sex marriage squares with the law of opposition and atonement.

[HappyJackWagon]

Again, because marriage has been redefined, it no longer is the powerful legal instrument it once was to encourage and privilege the rearing of children in a stable home enviornment by their own biological parents (a man and a woman) committed to their well-being. Being thus redefined, it now has little or no better efficacy than a shack-up arrangement between two uncommitted people, be they of the same or different gender.

This is a dangerous argument. Claiming that biological parents are fundamentally more stable than non-biological parents opens a can of worms. I know many adoptive parents who would disagree.

 

So which is more stable? A 2 parent adoptive household or a single biological parent household? a 2 parent biological household where both parents are drug addicts?

 

I believe the most stable household is where the parent(s) love and seek the best welfare of the children. Sometimes this will be a biological household, and sometimes it will be an adoptive household. Sometimes it will be a single parent, sometimes it will be gay parents. The best household is where the child is loved and the parents are committed to meeting the needs of the child.

Edited September 3, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[DJBrown]

This is a dangerous argument. Claiming that biological parents are fundamentally more stable than non-biological parents opens a can of worms. I know many adoptive parents who would disagree.

 

So which is more stable? A 2 parent adoptive household or a single biological parent household?

 

I believe the most stable household is where the parent(s) love and seek the best welfare of the children. Sometimes this will be a biological household, and sometimes it will be an adoptive household. Sometimes it will be a single parent, sometimes it will be gay parents. The best household is where the child is loved and the parents are committed to meeting the needs of the child.

 

The research on this is quite clear.  The most healthy environment for raising children is a home where the child lives with both biological mother and father who are married.  Of course there are exceptions.  But by far, this is what the research shows.

 

Children raised in same-sex parental households fair about the same as children in single mother households.

[Scott Lloyd]

This is a dangerous argument. Claiming that biological parents are fundamentally more stable than non-biological parents opens a can of worms. I know many adoptive parents who would disagree.

 

So which is more stable? A 2 parent adoptive household or a single biological parent household?

 

I believe the most stable household is where the parent(s) love and seek the best welfare of the children. Sometimes this will be a biological household, and sometimes it will be an adoptive household. Sometimes it will be a single parent, sometimes it will be gay parents. The best household is where the child is loved and the parents are committed to meeting the needs of the child.

There are always exceptions, but in general, the ideal situation is children being reared by their own biological mother and father who are responsible and committed to their well-being.

 

And no, that's not a "dangerous argument," and your saying it doesn't make it so.

 

We can deal with the exceptions as they occur; that's what family courts are for.

[Russell C McGregor]

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

 

In which case, you were listening to the wrong source.

[Buckeye]

Under some circumstances, the couple (or one or the other of them)  may not be in the best position or the ones best qualified to make that determination, especially as it impacts innocent children. That is why in theory, the state (represented by the family court judge) becomes a third party in arriving at the decision.

 

I don't see the relevance of this.

 

The relevance is agency. The FP trusts members to decide tithing. Yet you don't think couples should be allowed the agency to decide whether they stay married.

 

And, as you know, when divorce happens the state does play a significant role in ensuring that children's interest are looked after and that the split leaves each part of the couple in a fair position. But the actual decision of whether to stay married - that is something that no judge should be given power over to the exclusion of the couple itself. You wouldn't approve of a judge deciding who people should marry in the first instance - "I rule that Scott should marry Sherri Dew." So why should a judge have that power over a separation? This is a particularly odd position to hear from you considering that (I'm pretty sure) after Obergefell you argued that the government should "get out of the marriage business." (my paraphrase). If government shouldn't be in the marriage business, why should it be in the divorce business?

[CV75]

I'm very familiar with 2 Nephi 2 and don't recall anything about the Compound in One or Opposing elements. Can you try putting this into more precise language so I can understand. Both of those phrases are very vague and are not scriptural so I'm not following what you're trying to say.

All I can say is re-familiarize yourself it. The term "compound in one" is a direct quote from the chapter. I used the word "element" to convey Lehi's use of the word "things" and to reference a variety of other words he uses for specific references. I consider both "compound in one" and Lehi's language (which i only paraphrased) as scriptural.

[Russell C McGregor]

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. 

 

But for anyone with an IQ above room temperature (in Celsius) the distinction between people who've never heard of the Church and those whose membership covenants obligate them to sustain its leaders is non-trivial.

 

And thank you for the citation that demonstrates that the "No True Scotsman" fallacy does not apply.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Russell C McGregor

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The similarities are far more significant.

OK.

[rockpond]

That should be 2 Nephi 2. The law of opposition is laid out along with the story of Adam and Eve and the atonement. The doctrine is a package and serves as the basis for the September article.

 

To additionally comment on your original post (”Seriously though, to answer your question, for a person with homosexual orientation their "opposite" and their helpmeet is a person of the same gender.”):

 

We do not know what Adam and Eve’s respective sexual orientations were. We do know the opposing attributes are found in their respective genders, and this is the only difference mentioned between them (Genesis 1:27).

 

Their orientation is not mentioned, and I suppose it is impossible to define an opposite orientation because anyone's orientation falls along a spectrum. Regardless of his orientation or any other attribute, the person of one gender’s “opposite” can only be a person of the complementing gender as represented in the story of Adam and Eve.

 

Recognizing mortal situations where one's gender is confused, self-directed or indeterminate, for now let's just discuss how same-sex marriage squares with the law of opposition and atonement.

 

The "opposition" referred to in 2 Nephi 2 is the good vs evil, choice & accountability, yielding to temptation type opposition (thus its relation to the atonement).  It strikes me as quite a stretch to read that chapter and determine that it's saying there must be "opposition" in the genitalia of one's helpmeet.