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

[Scott Lloyd]

That doesn't seem to leave a whole lot of wiggle room, does it?

Nope.

 

Yet, inexplicably, we still get pushback and naysaying.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

"What if I have reservations of my own regarding the Church’s position on this subject?

Members who . . . have doctrinal questions should make a diligent effort, including earnest prayer and scripture study, to find solutions and answers themselves. Church members are encouraged to seek guidance from the Holy Ghost to help them in their personal lives and in family and Church responsibilities."

Hmm... Sounds a lot like our discussion earlier. Interestingly, they unlike Russell don't make this a litmus test issue for Latter-day Saints.

[Russell C McGregor]

"What if I have reservations of my own regarding the Church’s position on this subject?

Members who . . . have doctrinal questions should make a diligent effort, including earnest prayer and scripture study, to find solutions and answers themselves. Church members are encouraged to seek guidance from the Holy Ghost to help them in their personal lives and in family and Church responsibilities."

Hmm... Sounds a lot like our discussion earlier. Interestingly, they unlike Russell don't make this a litmus test issue for Latter-day Saints.

 

Nor did they, unlike the apostates, simply tell people to stick to what they feel good about.

 

You (no doubt inadvertently) snipped this bit:

 

“If members still need help, they should counsel first with their bishop. If necessary, he may refer them to the stake president. “. . . Stake presidents who need clarification about doctrinal or other Church matters may write in behalf of their members to the First Presidency” (Handbook 2, 21.1.24).

 

When does a member still need help?  From the context, it's clearly when they still have reservations regarding the Church’s position.

Edited September 4, 2015 by Russell C McGregor

[SeekingUnderstanding]

When does a member still need help? From the context, it's clearly when they still have reservations regarding the Church’s position.

A member needs help if the proscribed prayer reflection and scripture study don't provide answers, obviously.

[HappyJackWagon]

Scott,

 

I find your locking of the thread and subsequent reopening 2 hours later to be suspect. Obvioulsy, the forum allows you to do it but you appear to be manipulating the system to shut down discussion you don't like.

 

Open thread

See you are losing argument

Close thread saying that people are being mean

Open thread again when you and your buddy will be less likely to face opposition to your POV

[stemelbow]

I don't get all the arm flailing and hand motioning. 'Tis obvious apostles and prophets have been wrong in the past. They will be wrong again. They, just like the rest of us, happen to see through a glass darkly, even Paul and apostle, prophet, seer and revelator said as much. Another prophet, seer and revelator instructed us to dissent when we are informed. Now I suppose we can quibble about whether prophets and apostles are ever wrong, I suppose, but that does no good, since it obvious they are, can be, and most likely will be wrong about something. That's just how life goes.

I say have fun repeating the mantra of "I'll follow, no matter what". To me, its a bad mantra to live by and even those who suggest they live by it, struggle to take it seriously.

The prophets aren't supposed to be infallible. It doesn't hurt to say, "I don't think I buy that".

[KevinG]

Scott,

 

I find your locking of the thread and subsequent reopening 2 hours later to be suspect. Obvioulsy, the forum allows you to do it but you appear to be manipulating the system to shut down discussion you don't like.

 

Open thread

See you are losing argument

Close thread saying that people are being mean

Open thread again when you and your buddy will be less likely to face opposition to your POV

 

Hmmm... I seem to remember a thread about a week back where someone was losing an argument and closed it.  At least Scott reopened the thread.  Is your outrage reserved for only those you disagree with?  Selective much?

[CV75]

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?

Yes, 2 Nephi 2 does list those items, and also refers to “all things” and then applies the principle to the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve. It also mentions justice and mercy (verse 12), which elsewhere are framed as robbing each other unless there is atonement, and knowledge and life (verse 15) as in opposition to each other. All these things are good, so their opposition is also good. We obviously use the terms “opposite sex” and “same sex” all the time; gender is good.

 

I think I’ve stated this, but “an opposition” can be either complementary (by receiving the atonement), adversarial (by rejecting the atonement), liberating (by enabling choice or agency), or differentiating (by providing a reference to exist). All these relationships are seen in the chapter. Here is how gender is covered by the principle:

 

In verse 12, the “it” that was created refers to the sentient “body” mentioned in verse 11 and refers to Adam, Eve and “all men,” the “inhabitants of the earth,” and “all the children of men” that came after them (verses 5, 8, 9). We learn “it” was created male and female in verse 15, and as Adam and Eve received the Atonement in the Garden of Eden (the Hafen article) as a compound in one. “It” was not created as a single gender; if it was, it could not be a compound in one (verse 11), exist (verse 13), or generate life (verses 11, 23).

 

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.

See above. The complementing/functional opposition is in the gender, the opposite sex.

 

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

Yes, to describe marriage of opposite genders. "Opposite sex."

[ALarson]

Hmmm... I seem to remember a thread about a week back where someone was losing an argument and closed it.  At least Scott reopened the thread.  Is your outrage reserved for only those you disagree with?  Selective much?

Did HappyJackWagon close a thread about a week back?  I don't remember that, but would like to have a link to it if you have one.  Thanks!  (And, I know you didn't specify that it was him, but you were responding to his comment).

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Hmmm... I seem to remember a thread about a week back where someone was losing an argument and closed it.  At least Scott reopened the thread.  Is your outrage reserved for only those you disagree with?  Selective much?

Only contributors can close (their own) threads, and HappyJackWagon appears to be only a member. Just saying. That being said, I have no reason to question Scott's motives in closing his thread for a few hours. I think it was a good move.

[ALarson]

Scott,

 

I find your locking of the thread and subsequent reopening 2 hours later to be suspect. Obvioulsy, the forum allows you to do it but you appear to be manipulating the system to shut down discussion you don't like.

 

Open thread

See you are losing argument

Close thread saying that people are being mean

Open thread again when you and your buddy will be less likely to face opposition to your POV

I laughed and thought the exact same thing when I saw that he'd locked it  

 

Scott was taking a trouncing and others here were making very valid points and correcting him when he suddenly closed this thread.  At least he did reopen it.

Edited September 4, 2015 by ALarson

[ALarson]

Only contributors can close (their own) threads, and HappyJackWagon appears to be only a member. Just saying. That being said, I have no reason to question Scott's motives in closing his thread for a few hours. I think it was a good move.

Yes, a very good move for him.  But, it's reopened now and the conversation can continue which is good for those who still want to discuss this topic.

Edited September 4, 2015 by ALarson

[KevinG]

Did HappyJackWagon close a thread about a week back?  I don't remember that, but would like to have a link to it if you have one.  Thanks!  (And, I know you didn't specify that it was him, but you were responding to his comment).

 

No it was Rockpond.  I'm just noticing a trend where HappyJackWagon saves his outrage for causes he disagrees with while remaining silent about the same offenses for others he does agree with.

[Gray]

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.

 

CFR on all points, please

[Gray]

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.

 

It's a pretty textbook example of no true Scotsman. Whether or not one sustains one's leaders has no bearing on whether one has elected to enter into polygamy. Polygamy is polygamy, and apparently being a polygamist is equivalent to adultery in the church's eyes. 

 

But, as you seem to be reverting back to passive aggressive jabs ("IQ above room temperature"), I'm going back to my policy of not acknowledging your posts. Nothing personal, I just don't need the negativity. 

Edited September 4, 2015 by Gray

[ALarson]

No it was Rockpond.  I'm just noticing a trend where HappyJackWagon saves his outrage for causes he disagrees with while remaining silent about the same offenses for others he does agree with.

Do you have a link to that thread (or just the title and I'll find it?).  Thanks.

 

ETA:

Do you mean this thread?  Are you sure that Rockpond locked it?  It appears he was still asking questions and discussing the topic, but maybe he did lock it.  I don't see that there was any heated argument going on though:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65918-utah-and-marital-affairs/?p=1209528319

Edited September 4, 2015 by ALarson

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Yes, 2 Nephi 2 does list those items, and also refers to “all things” and then applies the principle to the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve. It also mentions justice and mercy (verse 12), which elsewhere are framed as robbing each other unless there is atonement, and knowledge and life (verse 15) as in opposition to each other. All these things are good, so their opposition is also good. We obviously use the terms “opposite sex” and “same sex” all the time; gender is good.

I don't read vs 12 like you do. After saying that opposition is necessary, Lehi lists all the consequences that would happen if there was no opposition. The end of vs 12 reads "Wherefore, this thing [no opposition] must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God." First there is a list of 5 things. How did you decide which was opposed to which? Do you think that the "wisdom of God" is opposed to his "eternal purposes"? What makes you think that mercy is opposed to justice in this verse? In my view it is a real big stretch and can't be read from the text, only forced on the text.

 

 

I think I’ve stated this, but “an opposition” can be either complementary (by receiving the atonement), adversarial (by rejecting the atonement), liberating (by enabling choice or agency), or differentiating (by providing a reference to exist). All these relationships are seen in the chapter. Here is how gender is covered by the principle:

That is fine that you feel that way, but that is not the argument that Lehi is makes at all. When ever Lehi mentions opposition, there is one good thing and one bad thing. Period.

 

In verse 12, the “it” that was created refers to the sentient “body” mentioned in verse 11 and refers to Adam, Eve and “all men,” the “inhabitants of the earth,” and “all the children of men” that came after them (verses 5, 8, 9).

Adam and Eve aren't mentioned until vs 19, but this it somehow refers to them? One body does not refer to a corporal or sentient body. It is the opposite of being a compound in one. Things are either in opposition (a compound in one) or they are one body. I really can't follow this type of logic. It's like you assume the chapter is saying something and then you go back and try and force it into the text. That just doesn't work for me. Sorry. 

 

 

We learn “it” was created male and female in verse 15, and as Adam and Eve received the Atonement in the Garden of Eden (the Hafen article) as a compound in one. “It” was not created as a single gender; if it was, it could not be a compound in one (verse 11), exist (verse 13), or 

generate life (verses 11, 23).

Verse 15, mentions our first parents it doesn't mention "male" or "female". If he was trying to make a point about gender don't you think he would have been more specific? Adam and Eve are nowhere mentioned as being in opposition. The only time Eve is mentioned at all is a passing reference to partaking the fruit. Again, no mention of gender anywhere in the chapter, only glancing reference to Eve (partook of the fruit, and God created our first parents). It's great you want to read the chapter this way, but it is proof texting at best and wresting at worst.

Edited September 4, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Gray]

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.

 

Which is why I always wear stripes with polka dots. Opposition in ALL things. 

 

Either that or opposition is referring to a good vs evil kind of thing. But whatever

Edited September 4, 2015 by Gray

[HappyJackWagon]

No it was Rockpond.  I'm just noticing a trend where HappyJackWagon saves his outrage for causes he disagrees with while remaining silent about the same offenses for others he does agree with.

First, I don't recall Rockpond closing a thread. It's possible I missed it. A lot happens on this board that I don't notice. Are you any different?

It would also depend on the momentum of the conversation. If someone, anyone, closes a conversation because they are losing an argument I'd be willing to speak up (if I notice it). I doubt that's what Rockpond did though because it's not his style. Scott, on the other hand closes his threads regularly. I don't know any stats but it seems like he closes more threads than even the moderators

 

I'll work hard to show my outrage for things that don't bother me in the future. p)

[SeekingUnderstanding]

First, I don't recall Rockpond closing a thread. It's possible I missed it. A lot happens on this board that I don't notice. Are you any different?

It would also depend on the momentum of the conversation. If someone, anyone, closes a conversation because they are losing an argument I'd be willing to speak up (if I notice it). I doubt that's what Rockpond did though because it's not his style. Scott, on the other hand closes his threads regularly. I don't know any stats but it seems like he closes more threads than even the moderators

 

I'll work hard to show my outrage for things that don't bother me in the future. p)

A thread Rockpond opened was locked, but Rockpond never claimed to close it. I assumed it was the mods. Unless Kevin has some inside information, it seems poor form to accuse someone without some type of evidence.

[KevinG]

A thread Rockpond opened was locked, but Rockpond never claimed to close it. I assumed it was the mods. Unless Kevin has some inside information, it seems poor form to accuse someone without some type of evidence.

 

The mods always leave a comment when locking threads.  This one just closed all by itself.  I assumed it was Rockpond because the conversation was going in a way he didn't like.  He would have to verify that.

 

I wanted to continue discussing the issue and started a new thread with the questions from the old one.  It did not get closed.

Edited September 4, 2015 by KevinG

[ALarson]

The mods always leave a comment when locking threads.  This one just closed all by itself.  I assumed it was Rockpond because the conversation was going in a way he didn't like.  He would have to verify that.

If you're referring to the thread I linked to above, it's not a very good comparison for what took place here.

 

It's a control thing.  I get that those who start a thread (and are a contributor) can lock it, but the locking and reopening and so on is all about control (especially when it's done at the time the contributor is taking a beating.)  It's just interesting to see the pattern.

Edited September 4, 2015 by ALarson

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The mods always leave a comment when locking threads.  This one just closed all by itself.  I assumed it was Rockpond because the conversation was going in a way he didn't like.  He would have to verify that.

 

I wanted to continue discussing the issue and started a new thread with the questions from the old one.  It did not get closed.

I'm not sure that they do. Reference this thread:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65690-do-the-essays-confirm-anti-mormon-lies/

 

No comment, locked and I'm pretty sure "members" can't lock their own threads...

 

Rockpond can of course tell us.

[HappyJackWagon]

Which is why I always wear stripes with polka dots. Opposition in ALL things. 

 

Either that or opposition is referring to a good vs evil kind of thing. But whatever

So which is better, opposition or unity?

 

 

Matthew 12:25

²⁵ And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

Having a united household makes sense. Claiming that the theory of opposition is proof that God is opposed to SSM is just a little bit of a stretch. There is clearly plenty of scriptural backing that suggests unity and not opposition are good.

[cinepro]

This is an interesting article on the disposition of some recent divorces:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/09/03/on-the-viral-rise-of-divorce-selfies-and-the-death-of-traditional-marriage/

 

If a no-fault divorce brings someone peace, joy and the other fruits of the spirit, I wonder if that's a sign that it is a good thing in the eyes of the Lord?