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

[Scott Lloyd]

While we are on the subject of the detriment to society of the collapse of marriage and the proliferation of divorce, we ought not neglect what is perhaps the most important portion of Elder Hafen's August Ensign article:

 

 

Effects on Marriage and Children

Now consider the effect of these changes on marriage and children. Since about 1965 the U.S. divorce rate has more than doubled, although it has dipped slightly in recent years—partly because the number of unmarried couples has increased by about 15 times, and their frequent breakups aren’t included in the divorce rate. Today about half of all first marriages end in divorce; about 60 percent of second marriages do. The United States is the world’s most divorce-prone country.⁶

Today 40 percent of U.S. births are to unmarried parents. In 1960 that number was 5 percent.⁷ About 50 percent of today’s teens now consider out-of-wedlock childbearing a “worthwhile lifestyle.”⁸ The percentage of children in single-parent families since 1960 has increased fourfold, from 8 percent to 31 percent.⁹ Over half of today’s U.S. marriages are preceded by unmarried cohabitation.¹⁰ What was highly abnormal in the 1960s is the new normal.

In Europe, 80 percent of the population now approves of unmarried cohabitation. In parts of Scandinavia, 82 percent of firstborn children are born outside marriage.¹¹ When we lived in Germany recently, we sensed among Europeans that, in many ways, marriage is no more. As a French writer put it, marriage has “lost its magic for young people,” who increasingly feel that “love is essentially a private matter which leaves no room” for society to say anything about their marriage or their children.¹²

Nonetheless, the children of divorced or unwed parents have about three times as many serious behavioral, emotional, and developmental problems as children in two-parent families. By every measure of child well-being, these children are far worse off. And when children are dysfunctional, society becomes dysfunctional. Here are some examples of that dysfunction, acknowledging that some elements in such general trends may have multiple causes. In the past five decades:

• •

  Juvenile crime has increased sixfold.

• •

  Child neglect and all forms of child abuse have quintupled.

• •

  Psychological disorders among children have all worsened, from drug abuse to eating disorders; depression among children has increased 1,000 percent.

• •

  Domestic violence against women has increased, and poverty has shifted increasingly to children.¹³

How serious are these problems? As President Hinckley said in 1995, these issues were his “most serious concern.” And the trends that troubled him then are now measurably worse. As a Time magazine writer put it:

“There is no other single force causing as much measurable hardship and human misery in this country as the collapse of marriage. It hurts children, it reduces mothers’ financial security, and it has landed with particular devastation on those who can bear it least: the nation’s underclass. …

“The poor [have uncoupled] parenthood from marriage, and the financially secure [blast] apart their [own] unions if [they] aren’t having fun anymore.”¹⁴

 

 

This is something that ought to alarm every faithful Latter-day Saint, and, if we can't reverse the trend, we ought at least to be a substantial counter-culture in confronting it.

 

That means doing what prophets have urged us to do for generations: Safeguard, promote, preserve and champion the traditional family as the most basic unit of our society.

Edited September 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

I believe it; that post was for rockpond.

 

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.

You are the only one impressed with this law of opposition mess you're trying to apply to SSM. You've repeated yourself multiple times but have yet to make a compelling or even a plausible case.

 

Maybe you should consider bowing out or perhaps making a cogent argument.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

While we are on the subject of the detriment to society of the collapse of marriage and the proliferation of divorce, we ought not neglect what is perhaps the most important portion of Elder Hafen's August Ensign article:

 

 

This is something that ought to alarm every faithful Latter-day Saint, and, if we can't reverse the trend, we ought at least to be a substantial counter-culture in confronting it.

 

That means doing what prophets have urged us to do for generations: Safeguard, promote, preserve and champion the traditional family as the most basic unit of our society.

On this I wholeheartedly agree. Divorce, while sometimes the right choice, is always sad and we should make every effort to encourage better marriages, better preparation for marriage, as well as work to create back-up support in our communities and churches for the children that find themselves in less than ideal situations.

Edited September 4, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[rockpond]

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.

 

I understand what you are trying to say with the law of opposition and the atonement.  And we've countered that with a discussion of the different items mentioned with respect to the law of opposition.  It doesn't specifically refer to gender -- that's your interpretation and not one that I agree with.  Further, a heterosexual male-female couple isn't "opposition" it's complimentary.  As a helpmeet should be.

 

I'm glad we agree with those verses supporting a case against celibacy.  That's a concern I have with current church policy for gay members and one of the scriptural supports of gay marriage.

[rockpond]

While we are on the subject of the detriment to society of the collapse of marriage and the proliferation of divorce, we ought not neglect what is perhaps the most important portion of Elder Hafen's August Ensign article:

 

 

This is something that ought to alarm every faithful Latter-day Saint, and, if we can't reverse the trend, we ought at least to be a substantial counter-culture in confronting it.

 

That means doing what prophets have urged us to do for generations: Safeguard, promote, preserve and champion the traditional family as the most basic unit of our society.

 

Shocking statistics and very sad.  I agree that we should be a substantial counter-culture against those effects.

[CV75]

You are the only one impressed with this law of opposition mess you're trying to apply to SSM. You've repeated yourself multiple times but have yet to make a compelling or even a plausible case.

 

Maybe you should consider bowing out or perhaps making a cogent argument.

So you really know what impresses me? LOL That is nutty. I’ve only responded to questions asked of me; there will naturally be some repetition (you'll notice--um, maybe not--a progression in the answers as well) when the same questions are asked in different ways.

 

From your posts, I wouldn’t expect you to understand the case (yet, anyway), so of course it would not be compelling or plausible to you (yet).

 

If you have any reasonable questions, I’ll be happy to respond. But do your homework first and don’t pretend to be familiar with the reference when you can’t recognize terms that I use from it.

[CV75]

I understand what you are trying to say with the law of opposition and the atonement.  And we've countered that with a discussion of the different items mentioned with respect to the law of opposition.  It doesn't specifically refer to gender -- that's your interpretation and not one that I agree with.  Further, a heterosexual male-female couple isn't "opposition" it's complimentary.  As a helpmeet should be.

I think you're confused here. Go back to the discussion on the four (at least) ways the law of opposition is expressed and used (and yes, these are covered in 2 Nephi 2 even by itself). Are you trying to bury that post (#583) by denying it occurred, or did your forget it, miss it, or not comprehend it?

 

I'm glad we agree with those verses supporting a case against celibacy.  That's a concern I have with current church policy for gay members and one of the scriptural supports of gay marriage.

Of course a perverse take on scripture would be used to support gay marriage. Same-sex marriage is a thing of naught, for it has no purpose as exemplified by the parental characters in the Garden of Eden story.

[rockpond]

I think you're confused here. Go back to the discussion on the four (at least) ways the law of opposition is expressed and used (and yes, these are covered in 2 Nephi 2 even by itself). Are you trying to bury that post (#583) by denying it occurred, or did your forget it, miss it, or not comprehend it?

 

Of course a perverse take on scripture would be used to support gay marriage. Same-sex marriage is a thing of naught, for it has no purpose as exemplified by the parental characters in the Garden of Eden story.

 

Can you discuss this without being so adversarial?  ("trying to bury that post", deny it, "perverse take") Or, am I misreading your tone?  If so, I apologize.  Just expressing how it feels on this end.

 

I do recall your four versions of "opposition" but I don't agree.  Opposition is not complimentary, nor is it liberating or differentiating. It is opposition.  Your placing concepts in there and I see no justification for them.

 

I don't see any reason why a gay couple could not also form a "compound in one" wherein they love, commit, and serve.  Growing jointly together as couples and families should.

 

Yes, Adam and Even were male & female.  Obviously that needed to be so that they could produce progeny.  But that doesn't provide us with an application for our homosexual brothers and sisters looking for their place in God's plan.

[theplains]

EV Protestants will surrender to the gay juggernaut before we do, and you can take that to the bank.

 

Hopefully all camps will endure to the end.

 

Jim

[Storm Rider]

Yes, Adam and Even were male & female.  Obviously that needed to be so that they could produce progeny.  But that doesn't provide us with an application for our homosexual brothers and sisters looking for their place in God's plan.

 

I don't think there will ever be a conclusion except that we agree to disagree.  The only application for all who come unto Christ is to repent of their sins and to become like him.  I don't think there is a place for anyone that demands to come to Christ and remain exactly like they are at that moment.  The spirit that motivates us to not repent or tells us that it is not necessary is not playing on God's team.  God seeks after our broken heart and contrite spirit and then he heals us.

 

Walking away from all sin; desiring to abandon all sin; picking up our cross and following after him is not easy, but it is demanded of all that will follow Him.  We disagree on what is and what is not sin, but we all need to find out what God calls sin.  Looking the other way; demanding a burning bush; refusing to acknowledge what the scriptures have said and what modern prophets have said is not the path of a faithful disciple of Christ.  It is a path that leads away from the Savior.

 

Faithful disciples of Christ recognize and acknowledge sin in their own lives and strive to remain viligent that sin does not enter further into their lives.  They fail and sin enters in, but they willingly repent and renew their desire to follow him.

[jkwilliams]

Shocking statistics and very sad.  I agree that we should be a substantial counter-culture against those effects.

Seems to me it would be more productive to focus on encouraging people to enter into and sustain loving and committed marriages than to spend energy fighting the lost battle to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

[rockpond]

Seems to me it would be more productive to focus on encouraging people to enter into and sustain loving and committed marriages than to spend energy fighting the lost battle to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

 

True.  And it would seem that the Church has given up the battle over the legal right.  But, demanding celibacy of gay church members at this point (rather than allowing for marriage) doesn't seem like it will help the cause of strengthening marriage.

[rockpond]

I don't think there will ever be a conclusion except that we agree to disagree.  The only application for all who come unto Christ is to repent of their sins and to become like him.  I don't think there is a place for anyone that demands to come to Christ and remain exactly like they are at that moment.  The spirit that motivates us to not repent or tells us that it is not necessary is not playing on God's team.  God seeks after our broken heart and contrite spirit and then he heals us.

 

Walking away from all sin; desiring to abandon all sin; picking up our cross and following after him is not easy, but it is demanded of all that will follow Him.  We disagree on what is and what is not sin, but we all need to find out what God calls sin.  Looking the other way; demanding a burning bush; refusing to acknowledge what the scriptures have said and what modern prophets have said is not the path of a faithful disciple of Christ.  It is a path that leads away from the Savior.

 

Faithful disciples of Christ recognize and acknowledge sin in their own lives and strive to remain viligent that sin does not enter further into their lives.  They fail and sin enters in, but they willingly repent and renew their desire to follow him.

 

I completely agree.

[Scott Lloyd]

Seems to me it would be more productive to focus on encouraging people to enter into and sustain loving and committed marriages than to spend energy fighting the lost battle to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

 

 

True.  And it would seem that the Church has given up the battle over the legal right.  But, demanding celibacy of gay church members at this point (rather than allowing for marriage) doesn't seem like it will help the cause of strengthening marriage.

 

The doctrinal teachings of the Church are clear: You don't strengthen marriage as an institution or the family unit bu redefining it to excuse or rationalize the breaking of the law of chastity, whether that be the allowing of non-marital relationships or homosexual ones.

 

From the statement I quoted yesterday:

 

A family built on marriage of a man and a woman is the best setting for God’s plan of happiness to thrive. That is why communities and nations generally have encouraged and protected marriage between a man and a woman, and the family that results from their union, as privileged institutions. Sexual relations outside of such a marriage are contrary to the laws of God pertaining to morality.

 

Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We invite all to review and understand the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

 

Also,

 

“Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance.

“If members engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth.

“While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender. If members feel same‐gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinances” (Handbook 2, 21.4.6).

 

 

These things have been expressed and repeated so often, it is not realistic to expect the Church will ever capitulate on or back away from them.

Edited September 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

The doctrinal teachings of the Church are clear: You don't strengthen marriage as an institution or the family unit bu redefining it to excuse or rationalize the breaking of the law of chastity, whether that be the allowing of non-marital relationships or homosexual ones.

 

From the statement I quoted yesterday:

 

 

Also,

 

 

These things have been expressed and repeated so often, it is not realistic to expect the Church will ever capitulate on or back away from them.

Obviously, the church is not going to change its doctrines, but at some point one realizes that the battle over same-sex marriage is over, and as I say, it seems more productive to do positive things to strengthen marriages and families rather than waste energy on a battle that has been lost.

[Scott Lloyd]

Obviously, the church is not going to change its doctrines, but at some point one realizes that the battle over same-sex marriage is over, and as I say, it seems more productive to do positive things to strengthen marriages and families rather than waste energy on a battle that has been lost.

"Positive things" like what? Reaffirming the family proclamation? I see that happening quite a bit.

 

Or publishing articles like those by Elder Hafen in the August and September Ensign issues?

 

Other than making its position clearly known on lds.org in response to anticipated inevitable inquiries from news media and others, in what way is the Church "wast[ing] energy on a battle that has been lost"?

[CV75]

Can you discuss this without being so adversarial?  ("trying to bury that post", deny it, "perverse take") Or, am I misreading your tone?  If so, I apologize.  Just expressing how it feels on this end.

*ahem* Can you? I think you’re simply projecting an adversarial tone onto my posts. If I was being adversarial I would call you names and accuse (and not just offer options for what might be going on) when responses seem to ignore what I posted. Neither would I simply critique your posted ideas.

 

I do recall your four versions of "opposition" but I don't agree.  Opposition is not complimentary, nor is it liberating or differentiating. It is opposition.  Your placing concepts in there and I see no justification for them.

I find that to be a very narrow and rigid take on what is happening in the Garden of Eden with the principle of opposition. Here is a more detailed break-down:

 

Opposition as adversarial: righteousness and wickedness, holiness and misery, good and bad (verse 11).

 

Opposition as complementary (both by receiving the atonement, and by answering the ends of the atonement): Verses 15, and 19-25 show the complementary role of parents (mother and father, opposite sexes) in bringing the plan of happiness (“joy”) to fruition. This is the model for all God’s children. Verse 10 shows how, by answering the ends of the atonement, punishment and happiness are complementary. The Hafen article as it touches on Adam and Eve reflects this complementary role of the opposite sexes. The teachings about mercy and justice being reconciled in the Atonement reflects a complementary relationship between two otherwise opposing principles.

 

Opposition as liberating by enabling choice or agency: “…the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life,,, so that he should act for himself. …man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.” (verse 16).

 

Opposition as differentiating by providing a contrasting reference point for existence: “if it should be one body [and not a compound in one] it must needs remain as dead …wherefore, all things must have vanished away” (Verses 11 and 13). If all things were the same thing, there would be no sense of or viability in what anything is.*

 

And of course I’ve been explaining how gender is addressed in this and related references.

 

* Gay marriage does not form a compound in one of the partners because they are of the same gender. The compound in one of 2 Nephi 2 specifies that opposing principles be brought together.

 

I don't see any reason why a gay couple could not also form a "compound in one" wherein they love, commit, and serve.  Growing jointly together as couples and families should.

Yes, it is a romantic notion.

 

Yes, Adam and Even were male & female.  Obviously that needed to be so that they could produce progeny.  But that doesn't provide us with an application for our homosexual brothers and sisters looking for their place in God's plan.

Their marriage was needed for progency and more, such as to fully receive the Lord and fulfll all His purposes. Exaltation is for couples ("parents," meaning opposite genders) and their families who likewise receive the Lord and His Atonement as Adam and Eve did. The application to people of any/every sexual orientation is the same; they can all follow suit if not in this life, the next. We are all born the same way, we all die the same way, we make the covenants the same way.

[jkwilliams]

"Positive things" like what? Reaffirming the family proclamation? I see that happening quite a bit.

 

Or publishing articles like those by Elder Hafen in the August and September Ensign issues?

 

Other than making its position clearly known on lds.org in response to anticipated inevitable inquiries from news media and others, in what way is the Church "wast[ing] energy on a battle that has been lost"?

I think motivated churches can and should develop and support programs that help individual families build and strengthen marriages. Lots of organizations sponsor workshops and other programs. I know there are occasional family relations Sunday School classes, but I could see the church doing something more hands-on, perhaps even in the broader community.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think motivated churches can and should develop and support programs that help individual families build and strengthen marriages. Lots of organizations sponsor workshops and other programs. I know there are occasional family relations Sunday School classes, but I could see the church doing something more hands-on, perhaps even in the broader community.

I could see merit to this sort of thing.

[jkwilliams]

I could see merit to this sort of thing.

Churches can do a lot more than give talks.

[rockpond]

*ahem* Can you? I think you’re simply projecting an adversarial tone onto my posts. If I was being adversarial I would call you names and accuse (and not just offer options for what might be going on) when responses seem to ignore what I posted. Neither would I simply critique your posted ideas.

I find that to be a very narrow and rigid take on what is happening in the Garden of Eden with the principle of opposition. Here is a more detailed break-down:

Opposition as adversarial: righteousness and wickedness, holiness and misery, good and bad (verse 11).

Opposition as complementary (both by receiving the atonement, and by answering the ends of the atonement): Verses 15, and 19-25 show the complementary role of parents (mother and father, opposite sexes) in bringing the plan of happiness (“joy”) to fruition. This is the model for all God’s children. Verse 10 shows how, by answering the ends of the atonement, punishment and happiness are complementary. The Hafen article as it touches on Adam and Eve reflects this complementary role of the opposite sexes. The teachings about mercy and justice being reconciled in the Atonement reflects a complementary relationship between two otherwise opposing principles.

Opposition as liberating by enabling choice or agency: “…the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life,,, so that he should act for himself. …man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.” (verse 16).

Opposition as differentiating by providing a contrasting reference point for existence: “if it should be one body [and not a compound in one] it must needs remain as dead …wherefore, all things must have vanished away” (Verses 11 and 13). If all things were the same thing, there would be no sense of or viability in what anything is.*

And of course I’ve been explaining how gender is addressed in this and related references.

* Gay marriage does not form a compound in one of the partners because they are of the same gender. The compound in one of 2 Nephi 2 specifies that opposing principles be brought together.

Yes, it is a romantic notion.

Their marriage was needed for progency and more, such as to fully receive the Lord and fulfll all His purposes. Exaltation is for couples ("parents," meaning opposite genders) and their families who likewise receive the Lord and His Atonement as Adam and Eve did. The application to people of any/every sexual orientation is the same; they can all follow suit if not in this life, the next. We are all born the same way, we all die the same way, we make the covenants the same way.

Creating new definitions for "opposition" doesn't make them true. You're just taking scriptural concepts of complimentary, liberating, and differentiating and trying to tie them to the principle of opposition. But that tie in isn't supported by the scriptures. What you're doing is intellectually interesting to me but I don't agree that your conclusions are correct.

Your insistence that compound in one must mean opposite genders is equally unsupported, IMO. Helpmeet is the term from the Adam/Eve account and there is no scriptural declaration that helpmeet must be the opposite gender.

Again, you've got a very interesting take on it all. And I'll try to read the entirety of Elder Hafen's article this weekend. But I just have to disagree with the conclusions your arriving at.

[Scott Lloyd]

Churches can do a lot more than give talks.

OK.

 

But you've suggested workshops. Most workshops I've attended amount more-or-less to assortments of talks. (Not that there's anything wrong with talks.)

[jkwilliams]

OK.

 

But you've suggested workshops. Most workshops I've attended amount more-or-less to assortments of talks. (Not that there's anything wrong with talks.)

I'm just saying that we need not limit ourselves.

[sethpayne]

OK.

 

But you've suggested workshops. Most workshops I've attended amount more-or-less to assortments of talks. (Not that there's anything wrong with talks.)

 

What kind of workshops are you going to, Scott?  If you are just sitting there doing nothing ... then whoever is running the "workshop" isn't very good at their job.

[CV75]

Creating new definitions for "opposition" doesn't make them true. You're just taking scriptural concepts of complimentary, liberating, and differentiating and trying to tie them to the principle of opposition. But that tie in isn't supported by the scriptures. What you're doing is intellectually interesting to me but I don't agree that your conclusions are correct.

Your insistence that compound in one must mean opposite genders is equally unsupported, IMO. Helpmeet is the term from the Adam/Eve account and there is no scriptural declaration that helpmeet must be the opposite gender.

Again, you've got a very interesting take on it all. And I'll try to read the entirety of Elder Hafen's article this weekend. But I just have to disagree with the conclusions your arriving at.

I am not using new definitions (see the last link below), neither are these new applications of the principle. As you pointed out, Lehi is scripturally applying each application in just those few verses of scripture in 2 Nephi 2.

 

“Compound in one” does not mean two opposite genders. It means a union or placement of any two opposing principles. The two opposing genders (as in opposite sexes) are brought together through marriage to create their “compound in one” (Genesis 2:24). That they are “opposite” is shown in the several scriptures that use the two genders in the contrasting sense (showing “oppositeness”, along with other contrasting principles:

 

1 Nephi 8: 27, “And it was filled with people, both old and young, both male and female…”

 

2 Nephi 10: 16, “Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female…”

 

2 Nephi 26: 33, “… he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female…”

 

Alma 1: 30, “… therefore they were liberal to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, whether out of the church or in the church…”

 

Alma 11: 44, “Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous…”

 

As far as “an help meet” goes, I think Eve is consistently referred to as a female character, a woman, one of the first the parents (meaning mother and father, as defined by Nephi). The only time the phrase is ever used in scripture is in reference to Eve. That “declares” everything!

 

Every other use of the phrase is a human invention, and completely corrupt at that: The word “helpmeet” was a new word created in the late 17th century (c. 1670), from an erroneous reading of the 1611 Bible (Genesis 2:18, 20). The noun-adjective phrase was hyphenated and mistaken as a modified noun. It's a non-existent, make-believe word (scripturally speaking)! http://blog.oup.com/2009/01/helpmeet/

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opposition

Look at 5-11 definitions of “opposition”; these are not at all adversarial relationships. To me, #11 is interesting in relation to gender because gender is likewise the most basic, distinct unit of character or attribute that distinguishes the children of God from one another. I also like the tie-in of this definition of “opposition” with the concept of “the Word.”