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

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It's a pretty textbook example of no true Scotsman. Whether or not one sustains one 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. 

It's clear form your response that you don't have a clue about what you are talking about. Oh well.

 

If you are member of the church today, can you practice polygamy? Why not?

Edited September 4, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Gray]

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.

 

Incorrect. Rockpond may receive any personal revelation on any topic he wishes. What he may not do, under church procedure, is hold you accountable for his personal revelation. 

[Gray]

Yeah when you get a "revelation" that goes against scripture. Then what? Just go with it?  Are you serious?

 

This is pretty basic LDS teaching.

 

This happens all the time in the church, at all levels.

[Gray]

Under this model there is no point in praying... just believe exactly what the leaders say.  But wait, we've already established that they can be wrong, in unison, for many decades.  Hmmm.

 

That way lies Stepfordism, not true religion. 

[Gray]

It's clear form your response that you don't have a clue about what you are talking about. Oh well.

 

If you are member of the church today, can you practice polygamy? Why not?

 

Of course you can practice polygamy. But you must accept the consequences (excommunication). You can't define polygamy as something other than polygamy because it's convenient for you to do so. Hence the discussion of the no true Scotsman fallacy. 

 

In this case, it's "no true plural marriage." 

[CV75]

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.

Now that you mention it, “this thing” could refer to the “one body” as well as a condition of no opposition, because that is how those who oppose God direct their energies (they must need destroy the five things listed, and to the degree they reject the Atonement, they indeed destroy their salvation).

 

The opposition between mercy and justice is demonstrated in other scriptures (Alma 42, Alma 34, Mosiah 3 and other places). Wisdom is associated with knowledge and power with faith; these opposing forces are both good and work well together according to Alma 32. All the interactions contribute to His eternal purposes (the immorality and eternal life of man which involves exaltation and the continuation of the seeds, etc.) and are all expressed through the experience of Adam and Eve, people of opposing genders brought into a marriage.

 

Nothing is forced on the text at all, just clear associations being made with other text in the same volume of scripture. Most text cannot be fully understood in isolation, and is certainly helped when read in context with other text.

 

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.

When Lehi mentions the tree of knowledge and the tree of life, they are both good. One is forbidden and the other (with all the others) not, but that does not make one good and one bad.

Exclamation point.

 

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.

Yes is somehow relates to them. It relates and refers to everything from verse one onward, perhaps more particularly verse 5, so Adam and Eve are covered. Just because the scriptures are organized into verses, chapters, book, etc. doesn’t mean the message isn’t tied into a whole or that it must be sequentially understood. My general invitation to study the chapter includes studying the rest of the scriptures that relate to it.  “One body” can refer to just about anything, and they all point to God’s eternal purposes for His children. That is why I’m focusing on the ultimate practical application of this scripture to Adam and Eve and by extension, us.

 

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.

The first parents were Adam and Eve, who were created male and female. The definition of “parents” is “father and mother” or “ancestors.” I think Lehi understood parents to be comprised of a male and female couple. Nephi certainly referred to them this way (1 Nephi 5:11). A scripture word search of “parent” brings up many references to Adam and Eve. Lehi did not have to make a special point about gender because the word "parent" covers it, and is a key element in the principles he teaches. Not much of a proof text.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Now that you mention it, “this thing” could refer to the “one body” as well as a condition of no opposition, because that is how those who oppose God direct their energies (they must need destroy the five things listed, and to the degree they reject the Atonement, they indeed destroy their salvation).

 

The opposition between mercy and justice is demonstrated in other scriptures (Alma 42, Alma 34, Mosiah 3 and other places). Wisdom is associated with knowledge and power with faith; these opposing forces are both good and work well together according to Alma 32. All the interactions contribute to His eternal purposes (the immorality and eternal life of man which involves exaltation and the continuation of the seeds, etc.) and are all expressed through the experience of Adam and Eve, people of opposing genders brought into a marriage.

 

Nothing is forced on the text at all, just clear associations being made with other text in the same volume of scripture. Most text cannot be fully understood in isolation, and is certainly helped when read in context with other text.

Okay so you need Alma to understand what Lehi meant when he was talking to his son. It's fine to interpret it this way, but it is not apparent from the text itself. 

 

 

When Lehi mentions the tree of knowledge and the tree of life, they are both good. One is forbidden and the other (with all the others) not, but that does not make one good and one bad.

Exclamation point.

So its your opinion that the tree of knowledge and the tree of life are in opposition to each other?

 

 

Yes is somehow relates to them. It relates and refers to everything from verse one onward, perhaps more particularly verse 5, so Adam and Eve are covered.

And men are instructed sufficiently that they ^aknowgood from evil. And the ^blaw is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is ^cjustified; or, by the law men are ^dcut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever.

 

So from this you get that "it" refers to Adam and Eve and their "opposing" genders. I give up. Peace and more power to you!

Edited September 4, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[ALarson]

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?

Divorce selfies?  I haven't heard about those before!  But, much better than seeing anger, bitterness and fighting (especially if there are kids involved).

 

I do find it ironic when reading the concern regarding the ease of obtaining divorces in this Ensign article (the no-fault divorces).  It reminded me of the ease of obtaining divorces in Utah during the early days of the church.

[rockpond]

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).

 

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

 

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

 

2 Nephi 2 doesn't mention gender.  You are reading that into it.

 

But those verses do seem to make a good case against celibacy which ought to give us pause on our current counsel to gay church members.

[HappyJackWagon]

Divorce selfies?  I haven't heard about those before!  But, much better than seeing anger, bitterness and fighting (especially if there are kids involved).

 

I do find it ironic when reading the concern regarding the ease of obtaining divorces in this Ensign article (the no-fault divorces).  It reminded me of the ease of obtaining divorces in Utah during the early days of the church.

Exactly. Divorces were so easy all they had to do was abandon the family and the divorce was assumed...at least enough for each spouse to remarry.

 

There are examples of polygamous wives leaving with soldiers who came into town or leaving with a wagon train heading to the gold rush. The church's position on marriage sure was different 130 years ago.

[ALarson]

Exactly. Divorces were so easy all they had to do was abandon the family and the divorce was assumed...at least enough for each spouse to remarry.

 

There are examples of polygamous wives leaving with soldiers who came into town or leaving with a wagon train heading to the gold rush. The church's position on marriage sure was different 130 years ago.

I agree.  Also, others came from other states to Utah to get divorces because of how easy it was to obtain one (and also I believe that it wasn't legal in most other states).  I read at one time the number of divorces granted by Brigham Young and it was a large number.  IIRC, one could obtain a divorce in one day too.

 

And, don't forget that the first 6 Prophets were divorced (and one from his first, legal wife).  

Edited September 4, 2015 by ALarson

[HappyJackWagon]

I agree.  Also, others came from other states to Utah to get divorces because of how easy it was to obtain one (and also I believe that it wasn't legal in all states).  I read at one time the number of divorces granted by Brigham Young and it was a large number.  IIRC, one could obtain a divorce in one day too.

 

And, don't forget that the first 6 Prophets were divorced (and one from his first legal wife).  

Weren't Brigham & Heber C Kimball considered the most married and most divorced men in the country.

[ALarson]

Weren't Brigham & Heber C Kimball considered the most married and most divorced men in the country.

I haven't heard that but I wouldn't be surprised.

 

I have read that the state of Utah became known as a "divorce mill" (a region to which people "flocked" to get easy divorces).

Edited September 4, 2015 by ALarson

[rockpond]

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

 

I locked it but not because I was "losing" (which I'd disagree with).  I locked it because after 5 pages the discussion had become lame and unproductive.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I locked it but not because I was "losing" (which I'd disagree with).  I locked it because after 5 pages the discussion had become lame and unproductive.

My apologies to KevinG. Sorry Kevin!

[ALarson]

I locked it but not because I was "losing" (which I'd disagree with).  I locked it because after 5 pages the discussion had become lame and unproductive.

That was my take on it too (I didn't know whether you'd locked it or not).  It's not a good comparison to what happened here.  But, I know the person who started the thread has the right to lock it (if they are a contributor) and Scott started this thread.

[CV75]

Okay so you need Alma to understand what Lehi meant when he was talking to his son. It's fine to interpret it this way, but it is not apparent from the text itself.

From the start, I was speaking of the laws of opposition and atonement. 2 Nephi 2 is just a starting spot for discussion and understanding. Of course other text is helpful, even needful.

 

So its your opinion that the tree of knowledge and the tree of life are in opposition to each other?

They were originally in opposition as the text states, and for a purpose I listed in a previous post. The Atonement brings them together as one so that God’s purposes are fulfilled. For now, we access the tree of knowledge through our physical/temporal experience, and access the tree of life through our spiritual/eternal experience. Because of the Resurrection, our access to the tree of life will be also accessed physically and our access to knowledge becomes eternal. Thus opposing principles, all good, are brought together.

 

And men are instructed sufficiently that they ^aknowgood from evil. And the ^blaw is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is ^cjustified; or, by the law men are ^dcut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever.

 

So from this you get that "it" refers to Adam and Eve and their "opposing" genders. I give up. Peace and more power to you!

Yes, and I explained how in relation to the other verses and scripture. “Men” in this verse refers to all God’s children who came from Adam and Eve, and it relates to the scriptures about Adam and Eve and how the laws of opposition and atonement play out for them (gender- and otherwise) and their descendants. This verse introduces the will of the Lord for them, which is laid out in terms of opposition and atonement.

 

 

2 Nephi 2 doesn't mention gender.  You are reading that into it.

Puh-leeeze. You need to read my posts and catch up from where you said you weren't going to engage anymore.

 

But those verses do seem to make a good case against celibacy which ought to give us pause on our current counsel to gay church members.

I thought you were tired of this (as evidenced by not reading my posts!) because you felt it had nothing to do with the thread or the article – but your posts certainly reflect the societal “confusion” and its victims the article talks about! LOL

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Puh-leeeze. You need to read my posts and catch up from where you said you weren't going to engage anymore.

Believe it or not, I really really tried. But I agree we are not getting anywhere with this.

[rockpond]

Puh-leeeze. You need to read my posts and catch up from where you said you weren't going to engage anymore.

 

I thought you were tired of this (as evidenced by not reading my posts!) because you felt it had nothing to do with the thread or the article – but your posts certainly reflect the societal “confusion” and its victims the article talks about! LOL

 

Actually, I said that I didn't think Scott wanted his thread to be about me and how I came to my convictions & beliefs about gay marriage.  I'm happy to discuss the ideas relate to the Ensign articles.  So with respect to that, I'll repeat my responses that earned your brilliant rebuttal of "puh-leeze".

 

2 Nephi 2 doesn't mention gender.  You're reading that into it.

 

And, the verses you cited 11-12 make a good case against celibacy (especially with respect to the weight you're putting on them).  That ought to give us pause about our current advice to gay church members.

[Scott Lloyd]

I've let this thread continue in this vein for too long now and have even contributed to it myself to some degree. I should have heeded rockpond's warning.

I now fear that it is on the verge of being closed by the moderators for getting too personal. To preclude that from happening, I will now lock it myself for a temporary cooling off period.

Reopening this thread and hoping to direct the dialogue back to the topic of the articles by Elder Hafen in the August and September Ensign magazine and related subjects such as the family proclamation and its 20th anniversary, the doctrine and position of the Church of Jesus Christ on marriage, etc.

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

As can be seen from the above, I was explicit about locking and then reopening the thread and my reasons for doing so.

I notice that SeekingUnderstanding and rockpond each gave a rep point to the post where I said I was locking the thread, so they must have agreed with my having done so. Perhaps you would like to take it up with them.

I was motivated partly by the fact that rockpond was starting to get hammered a bit too excessively on personal grounds. Instead of letting the thread proceed toward what I saw as an inevitable train wreck and permanent closure by the moderators, I decided to try to pre-empt that.

But I'll tell you what: If you think my behavior here "suspect," you have the option of reporting me to the moderation team. I encourage you to do so. And, if you please, report back to us any response you receive from them. I would be very interested to hear it. Meanwhile, spare us the board nannying.

Finally, you have the recourse to depart this thread altogether if you don't like what is going on here. I, for one, would not be too terribly broken up if you did so.

Now, I would like it very much if we could stay on topic, which is the Ensign articles written by Elder Hafen and related subjects such as the family proclamation and its 20th anniversary, the doctrine and position of the Church of Jesus Christ on marriage, etc.

Edited September 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I haven't heard that but I wouldn't be surprised.

 

I have read that the state of Utah became known as a "divorce mill" (a region to which people "flocked" to get easy divorces).

CFR that Utah became a "divorce mill." And give us a time period, please.

[ALarson]

CFR that Utah became a "divorce mill." And give us a time period, please.

I stated that "I have read" that Utah became known as a "divorce mill".  I've read this in several places, but here are a few links (dates are there too for the time period):

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=BBk-AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=Utah+%22divorce+mill%22&source=bl&ots=JIoAnRtHgo&sig=9hga6YjY5DwI3nZn-LMy7_7IpVg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBGoVChMIr6evr_XdxwIVyIwNCh0lCgxO#v=onepage&q=Utah%20%22divorce%20mill%22&f=false

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=hNLwEt_htKkC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=Utah+%22divorce+mill%22&source=bl&ots=vT11vaWiKP&sig=dimSWurm3UhKc--LsvdMnejN2_c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC8Q6AEwA2oVChMIr6evr_XdxwIVyIwNCh0lCgxO#v=onepage&q=Utah%20%22divorce%20mill%22&f=false

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=tcRJ4VpjE2MC&pg=PA407&lpg=PA407&dq=divorce+legal+Utah+1850%27s+Brigham+Young+granted&source=bl&ots=dv9EPgmyK2&sig=hjKXj3GlYwfseaXI6DQias2BPEs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAmoVChMIxrvM7uHdxwIVBM2ACh3SIA0N#v=onepage&q=%22divorce%20mill%22&f=false

Edited September 4, 2015 by ALarson

[Jeanne]

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".

If Prophets and Apostles are infallible why would we follow them instead of our own personal prayer and relationship with God?  I so agree with what you have said here.

[CV75]

Believe it or not, I really really tried. But I agree we are not getting anywhere with this.

I believe it; that post was for rockpond.

 

Actually, I said that I didn't think Scott wanted his thread to be about me and how I came to my convictions & beliefs about gay marriage.  I'm happy to discuss the ideas relate to the Ensign articles.  So with respect to that, I'll repeat my responses that earned your brilliant rebuttal of "puh-leeze".

 

2 Nephi 2 doesn't mention gender.  You're reading that into it.

 

And, the verses you cited 11-12 make a good case against celibacy (especially with respect to the weight you're putting on them).  That ought to give us pause about our current advice to gay church members.

LOL Well, exceeeeewz me!

 

If your read my other posts (that's twice now!), you will see how 2 Nephi 2 covers gender through the application of the laws of opposition and atonement to the various references to Adam and Eve and their descendants. I know that doesn't help your argument.

 

Yes, those verses can and should be used to support a case against celibacy because they pertain to the marital relationship exemplified between Adam and Eve which fulfills God’s purposes. This is most consistent with our teachings about chastity.

 

But stop trying to change the subject--either bow out of the discussion (as you did once already) or engage on a more productive level. My brilliant rebuttals weer only designed to match the level of your last 2 or 3 posts.

[Scott Lloyd]

I stated that "I have read" that Utah became known as a "divorce mill".  I've read this in several places, but here are a few links (dates are there too for the time period):

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=BBk-AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=Utah+%22divorce+mill%22&source=bl&ots=JIoAnRtHgo&sig=9hga6YjY5DwI3nZn-LMy7_7IpVg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBGoVChMIr6evr_XdxwIVyIwNCh0lCgxO#v=onepage&q=Utah%20%22divorce%20mill%22&f=false

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=hNLwEt_htKkC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=Utah+%22divorce+mill%22&source=bl&ots=vT11vaWiKP&sig=dimSWurm3UhKc--LsvdMnejN2_c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC8Q6AEwA2oVChMIr6evr_XdxwIVyIwNCh0lCgxO#v=onepage&q=Utah%20%22divorce%20mill%22&f=false

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=tcRJ4VpjE2MC&pg=PA407&lpg=PA407&dq=divorce+legal+Utah+1850%27s+Brigham+Young+granted&source=bl&ots=dv9EPgmyK2&sig=hjKXj3GlYwfseaXI6DQias2BPEs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAmoVChMIxrvM7uHdxwIVBM2ACh3SIA0N#v=onepage&q=%22divorce%20mill%22&f=false

Thank you.

 

So it appears this was a condition that was recognized by government officials of the day who did take steps to correct it.

 

If divorce was too easily obtained back then, it was probably arising from the unusual circumstance of plural marriage in the territory and the anxious desire that women not be locked into a plurality-of-wives arrangement if they found it unbearable. I see this as an indication of kindness, consideration and mercy on the part of President Young and the leaders of the Church.

 

Obviously, with plurality of wives being a thing of the distant past, circumstances are different today, in which has emerged to the detriment of society what author Barbara Defoe Whitehead has called "the divorce culture".

Edited September 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd