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

[rockpond]

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

 

Nope, it was the right source, the Holy Spirit.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

 

 

You seriously don't see the difference?

 

In some (very many, actually) instances, a squabbling, selfish couple do not have due concern about how their actions impact their children. It then falls to the state to step in and protect the interests of those chlldren.

 

Your decision to misuse your agency in how you pay your tithing might impact your own spiritual well-being, but it does not harm others.

 

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?

 

Decisions carry with them responsibilities. The decision they have already made -- to marry each other -- carries with it the responsibility to try to make that marriage work, if they can. If they refuse to accept that responsibility, and that refusal is harming their children, the state has a legitimate interest to intervene.

 

And no, I've never said the state should get out of the marriage business. Don't ascribe to me arguments I don't recognize.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

No, it is opposition in all things rockpond That is what the scriptures say.

 

I can see why you think it doesn't, because it goes against your preconceived notions that gay marriage is good and should happen in the temple.

[CV75]

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.

Complement – not compliment. A complement completes and goes well with something. Like many of the things Lehi mentions, the examples I gave, and many other scriptural things (first and last, beginning and end, etc.). In these cases, opposing principles complement, just as male and female.

 

A "compound in one" does not oppose itself but acts in concert to bring to pass the purposes of God and not vanish away (2 Nephi 2:11-13). I recommend reading the chapter with fresh eyes. The "compound in one" is able to do this because its component elements are harmonized or reconciled through the atonement, where God exercises mercy and justice as a "compound in one."

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Nope, it was the right source, the Holy Spirit.

It can't be it goes against church teaching. It is the wrong spirit. You are not privileged to receive such a revelation before the prophet. You are not the correct person to receive such.  So sorry.

[Buckeye]

Complement – not compliment. A complement completes and goes well with something. Like many of the things Lehi mentions, the examples I gave, and many other scriptural things (first and last, beginning and end, etc.). In these cases, opposing principles complement, just as male and female.

 

A "compound in one" does not oppose itself but acts in concert to bring to pass the purposes of God and not vanish away (2 Nephi 2:11-13). I recommend reading the chapter with fresh eyes. The "compound in one" is able to do this because its component elements are harmonized or reconciled through the atonement, where God exercises mercy and justice as a "compound in one."

 

Seeing that you have nothing to cite, I will assume this is just your pet theory. Thanks.

[Buckeye]

It can't be it goes against church teaching. It is the wrong spirit. You are not privileged to receive such a revelation before the prophet. You are not the correct person to receive such.  So sorry.

 

I'm pretty sure LDS doctrine teaches that every person has the right to their own personal revelation. Rockpond never claimed authority beyond that.

[CV75]

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.

The scripture says "an opposition in all things" and uses a few examples. There are more examples of "all things" scriptural and otherwise! Gender is represented in Adam and Eve. The description of the opposition between justice and mercy abounds throughout the scriptures and is used as the main explanation for the atonement.

 

You are not showing how same-sex marriage squares with these principles.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm pretty sure LDS doctrine teaches that every person has the right to their own personal revelation. Rockpond never claimed authority beyond that.

I think Mola is pointing out the obvious implication that two conflicting premises cannot both be true.

[Buckeye]

You seriously don't see the difference?

 

In some (very many, actually) instances, a squabbling, selfish couple do not have due concern about how their actions impact their children. It then falls to the state to step in and protect the interests of those chlldren.

 

Your decision to misuse your agency in how you pay your tithing might impact your own spiritual well-being, but it does not harm others.

 

Decisions carry with them responsibilities. The decision they have already made -- to marry each other -- carries with it the responsibility to try to make that marriage work, if they can. If they refuse to accept that responsibility, and that refusal is harming their children, the state has a legitimate interest to intervene.

 

And no, I've never said the state should get out of the marriage business. Don't ascribe to me arguments I've never made.

 

So, in your world, the squabbling selfish couple shouldn't be trusted with the weighty decision of whether to stay married - even though they were trusted with the initial decision to get married - and the state should intervene to ensure that the children continue to be raised in the home of that squabbling selfish incompetent couple?

 

Of course decisions come with responsibility. Divorce does not allow a parent to walk away from responsibilities to children and the former spouse. But forcing people to stay married only makes the matter worse. It's no different than forcing people to stay working together in a limited partnership when they've decided to part ways. The government has an interest in making sure the separation is fair, but it doesn't force people to stay employed together. That's called slavery. Forcing marriage is no different; it's actually worse.

 

Answer me this: if there are no children to consider, would you allow for no-fault divorce?

[Russell C McGregor]

Nope, it was the right source, the Holy Spirit.

 

The Holy Ghost (normal LDS usage) does not testify to unholy things.  The Kingdom of God is not filthy, and there cannot any unclean thing enter into the Kingdom of God.  Same sex "marriage" is a travesty and a doctrinal impossibility which has become a major plank in Satan's platform, and is in direct opposition to the Kingdom of God.

 

Along with those who promote it.

 

Anyone who promotes it, while claiming to be a Latter-day Saint, is ipso facto showing himself to be in apostasy.

 

This is not at all controversial.

 

Do not question any poster's church standing.You are out of the thread.

[CV75]

Seeing that you have nothing to cite, I will assume this is just your pet theory. Thanks.

In my recollection, anything leadership has had to say on the "complementary" nature of marriage has to do with the functional leveraging of the husband and wife's differences, some of which include the most fundamental gender roles. But just one example to accommodate you; yu can search for many more if your are receptive to finding them: "We’ll Ascend Together by Linda K. Burton, Relief Society General President" https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/well-ascend-together?lang=eng

 

“In fact, they are exact opposites, but they complement each other and are suited to each other. Working together, they are stronger.”

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The scripture says "an opposition in all things" and uses a few examples. There are more examples of "all things" scriptural and otherwise! Gender is represented in Adam and Eve. The description of the opposition between justice and mercy abounds throughout the scriptures and is used as the main explanation for the atonement.

 

You are not showing how same-sex marriage squares with these principles.

Examples given in 2 Nephi (lets see if we can detect a pattern):

 

Happiness / punishment

Righteousness / Wickedness

Holiness / Misery

Good / Bad

Life / Death

Incorruption / Corruption

Happiness / Misery

Sense / insensibility

 

In each case, we have one desirable attribute and one undesirable attribute. In order to understand happiness we must know misery. According to CV75 and Mola, marriage follows this pattern. We have one desirable gender and one undesirable gender. Which is which?

[rockpond]

It can't be it goes against church teaching. It is the wrong spirit. You are not privileged to receive such a revelation before the prophet. You are not the correct person to receive such.  So sorry.

 

That's right... because Church teachings can never be wrong.  Why do I keep forgetting that.  Oh wait...

[rockpond]

The scripture says "an opposition in all things" and uses a few examples. There are more examples of "all things" scriptural and otherwise! Gender is represented in Adam and Eve. The description of the opposition between justice and mercy abounds throughout the scriptures and is used as the main explanation for the atonement.

 

You are not showing how same-sex marriage squares with these principles.

 

But a female spouse does not represent opposition for a male with a homosexual orientation.

 

I'm not going to drag Scott's thread down a tangent of how I believe gay marriage fits within our Heavenly Father's plan.  I've explained it before but am not interested in taking the time to do it again with you because it won't get us anywhere.  You feel differently.  You interpret scripture differently.  That's fine and neither of us is going to convince the other.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

In my recollection, anything leadership has had to say on the "complementary" nature of marriage has to do with the functional leveraging of the husband and wife's differences, some of which include the most fundamental gender roles. But just one example to accommodate you; yu can search for many more if your are receptive to finding them: "We’ll Ascend Together by Linda K. Burton, Relief Society General President" https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/well-ascend-together?lang=eng

 

“In fact, they are exact opposites, but they complement each other and are suited to each other. Working together, they are stronger.”

 

Uh, your quote was referring to our left and right hands.

[Scott Lloyd]

So, in your world, the squabbling selfish couple shouldn't be trusted with the weighty decision of whether to stay married - even though they were trusted with the initial decision to get married - ...

Umm, at the time they made "the initial decision to get married," there were no children in the picture. You seriously don't see this as making a difference?

 

 

... and the state should intervene to ensure that the children continue to be raised in the home of that squabbling selfish incompetent couple?

 

 

"Incompetent" is a word you have inserted. Being squabbling and selfish does not necessarily make them incompetent. We charge family courts with the responsibility to make that determination.

 

Of course decisions come with responsibility. Divorce does not allow a parent to walk away from responsibilities to children and the former spouse. But forcing people to stay married only makes the matter worse.

 

 

Maybe, maybe not. Faced with a judicial determination, the couple might be more inclined to make the effort to repair the relationship than they otherwise would have been. Again, we leave it to family courts to make that determination.

 

It's no different than forcing people to stay working together in a limited partnership when they've decided to part ways. The government has an interest in making sure the separation is fair, but it doesn't force people to stay employed together. That's called slavery.

 

The welfare of innocent children is not part of a business arrangement. I find it disturbing that you seem so cavalier about the interests of children.

 

Forcing marriage is no different; it's actually worse.

 

 

You have no way of knowing that in every instance. The only thing we can do is consider it on a case-by-case basis. That's what family courts are for.

 

Answer me this: if there are no children to consider, would you allow for no-fault divorce?

 

I wouldn't be nearly as interested in it in that event.

 

By the way, I have never disallowed for no-fault divorce. I have only agreed with Elder Hafen that, in all-too-many instances, it is implemented in such a way as to be detrimental to society.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

That's right... because Church teachings can never be wrong.  Why do I keep forgetting that.  Oh wait...

So "the Holy Spirit" has told you that the prophets and apostles are wrong and that you are right?

 

Oh my. This is beginning to sound familiar.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

So "the Holy Spirit" has told you that the prophets and a apostles are wrong and that you are right?

 

Oh my. This is beginning to sound familiar.

 

Nope. Personal revelation is personal and applies strictly to me.  No bearing on the prophets and apostles.  I'm responding to accusations that I was listening to something other than the Spirit.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That's right... because Church teachings can never be wrong.  Why do I keep forgetting that.  Oh wait...

You are missing it Rockpond. It is not with in your stewardship to receive such a revelation. After a revelation is given and only after an authoritative revelation from an authorized servant of God is given, may you ask  God to confirm it. You are not authorized to receive some revelation to "correct" anything as far as the church as a whole is concerned even in a personal matter.

 

Weather or not the church has been wrong about something is not up for debate or dispute.

 

It is who is authorized to receive such a revelation. The scriptures have out line the process. And you should be be rejecting your revelation. It goes against scripture.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Nope. Personal revelation is personal and applies strictly to me.  No bearing on the prophets and apostles.  I'm responding to accusations that I was listening to something other than the Spirit.

Just keep telling your self that. You have no foundation for that claim.

[rockpond]

Examples given in 2 Nephi (lets see if we can detect a pattern):

 

Happiness / punishment

Righteousness / Wickedness

Holiness / Misery

Good / Bad

Life / Death

Incorruption / Corruption

Happiness / Misery

Sense / insensibility

 

In each case, we have one desirable attribute and one undesirable attribute. In order to understand happiness we must know misery. According to CV75 and Mola, marriage follows this pattern. We have one desirable gender and one undesirable gender. Which is which?

 

Very well ilustrated.  It's quite a stretch to suggest that male genitalia / female genitalia fits in that list from 2 Nephi.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm pretty sure LDS doctrine teaches that every person has the right to their own personal revelation. Rockpond never claimed authority beyond that.

And you are missing it as well.

[rockpond]

You are missing it Rockpond. It is not with in your stewardship to receive such a revelation. After a revelation is given and only after an authoritative revelation from an authorized servant of God is given, may you ask  God to confirm it. You are not authorized to receive some revelation to "correct" anything as far as the church as a whole is concerned even in a personal matter.

 

Weather or not the church has been wrong about something is not up for debate or dispute.

 

It is who is authorized to receive such a revelation. The scriptures have out line the process. And you should be be rejecting your revelation. It goes against scripture.

 

Personal revelation applies to me.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think Mola is pointing out the obvious implication that two conflicting premises cannot both be true.

Very shrewd observation. Even though I did not mention this this is also correct.