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

[KevinG]

Geesh. You're challenging me here on not answering a CFR on a different thread? I'll have to go look that up because I don't recall seeing it.

 

 

It was my mistake posting on the wrong thread.  But I would appreciate your response over on the other thread by providing a reference there.  

Edited September 1, 2015 by KevinG

[ALarson]

He said "we" can't change it. He never said God couldn't do it.

I agree. And again, I never said that "we" lifted the ban.  So what's your point?  Are you saying that you don't believe God can make changes again?  

Edited September 1, 2015 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

rockpond asserted a few days ago that the expectation that the Church will one day drop its doctrine regarding the definition of marriage and begin solemnizing homosexual relationships in the temples is "ahead of schedule" on the arbitrary 40-year timeline and even ventured the suggestion that we shave five to 10 years off the timeline.

 

Comes now the September issue of the Ensign magazine with two articles by Elder Bruce C. Hafen affirming the Lord's definition of marriage, particularly as it pertains to the temple:

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/08/the-proclamation-on-the-family-transcending-the-cultural-confusion.p1?lang=eng

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/09/the-temple-and-the-natural-order-of-marriage?lang=eng

 

So, as reflected in the official magazine of the Church of Jesus Christ, we are nowhere closer to the change that rockpond and Dehlin predict than we were seven months ago when I started the countdown clock.

 

Which now shows this much time remaining in the 40 years:

 

39 years, 5 months, 1 week, 3 days, 2 hours, 56 minutes and 29 seconds.

I say don't worry about it Scott. When it does happen you'll probably be gone, running through the flowery fields in paradise.

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree. And again, I never said that "we" lifted the ban.  So what's your point?  Are you saying that you don't believe God can make changes again?  

There are viable possibilities (forms of life on other planets is an example) and possibilities so outlandish on their face that they are not viable (the world being flat fits into that category).

 

In President Tanner's day, the possibility the priesthood restriction would be lifted fit into the first category, as prophets had said in the past that one day it would happen. Desinfulization of homosexual behavior fits into the second category (not a viable possibility).

[Scott Lloyd]

I say don't worry about it Scott. When it does happen you'll probably be gone, running through the flowery fields in paradise.

In 39 years and five months I could very well be around and coherent, in which case, I will quite happily ring the termination bell on this outlandish prediction.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

There are viable possibilities (forms of life on other planets is an example) and possibilities so outlandish on their face that they are not viable (the world being flat fits into that category).

 

In President Tanner's day, the possibility the priesthood restriction would be lifted fit into the first category, as prophets had said in the past that one day it would happen. Desinfulization of homosexual behavior fits into the second category (not a viable possibility).

 

Does a claim of "non-viable possibilities" conflict with your earlier claim that God works through mysterious means we do not understand? How can we ever write off any possibility as being so outlandish God could never do it?

[ALarson]

There are viable possibilities (forms of life on other planets is an example) and possibilities so outlandish on their face that they are not viable (the world being flat fits into that category).

 

In President Tanner's day, the possibility the priesthood restriction would be lifted fit into the first category, as prophets had said in the past that one day it would happen. Desinfulization of homosexual behavior fits into the second category (not a viable possibility).

In your opinion.  Others disagree.  And as you and Russell keep stressing, God is the one who decides when and if change will occur.  It doesn't seem to matter how many leaders say it will never happen or what you and others believe. "We" won't decide if a change will be made.

Edited September 1, 2015 by ALarson

[HappyJackWagon]

"ALL HUMAN BEINGS—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

I recognize this as a good attempt but I still don't feel it addresses the process by which spirit children are created in the eternities. It hints that gender is essential characteristic of identity and purpose but it doesn't describe that purpose. I assume that they were likely hinting at gender being necessary for eternal procreation but I'd rather not rely on an assumption.

 

I'll also note that the Proclamation is neither canonized scripture, nor is it proclaimed to be a "revelation".

[Scott Lloyd]

I recognize this as a good attempt but I still don't feel it addresses the process by which spirit children are created in the eternities. It hints that gender is essential characteristic of identity and purpose but it doesn't describe that purpose. I assume that they were likely hinting at gender being necessary for eternal procreation but I'd rather not rely on an assumption.

 

I'll also note that the Proclamation is neither canonized scripture, nor is it proclaimed to be a "revelation".

It has been called a "revelatory document".

 

I agree with that descriptor in that I believe God directed the issuance of the proclamation at a time when it was sorely needed. That said, I acknowledge that the document does not declare new doctrine, but rather, reaffirms doctrine that was already had in the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

The imprimatur of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles makes it binding upon the Latter-day Saints.

[KevinG]

I can just see this attempt at rationalization used at the judgement bar of God...

 

"Sorry Lord, the Prophet didn't say "thus saith the Lord", and include it in the D&C, so I figured it was optional."

 

[HappyJackWagon]

It has been called a "revelatory document".

 

I agree with that descriptor in that I believe God directed the issuance of the proclamation at a time when it was sorely needed. That said, I acknowledge that the document does not declare new doctrine, but rather, reaffirms doctrine that was already had in the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

The imprimatur of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles makes it binding upon the Latter-day Saints.

It wasn't called a "revelation" or a "revelatory document" by anyone involved with its issuance. That would be more meaningful than a church officer, unassociated with the creation of the document, describing it that way in a talk. Though I fully accept it is her opinion it is revelatory.

 

ETA- I consider it to be rather telling that it has not been added to canonized scripture. Maybe some day it will be but for now it is a proclamation of belief, not revelation.

Edited September 1, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[Scott Lloyd]

Does a claim of "non-viable possibilities" conflict with your earlier claim that God works through mysterious means we do not understand? How can we ever write off any possibility as being so outlandish God could never do it?

Because some things simply are that way.

 

Do you deny that there could be propositions so utterly at odds with God and His truth as we understand it that we could safely declare them to be without viability? What about the proposition that the Atonement of Christ be declared null and void? How about the proposition that God has ceased to love His children? That henceforth and forever, there will be no more life after death?

 

Again, pre-1978, one could comfortably hold out hope that the priesthood would be granted to all worthy males, because prophets in the past had declared it would happen. In contrast, no prophet or apostle has ever declared that homosexual behavior will one day cease to be sinful; they have declared just the opposite, in fact.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

It wasn't called a "revelation" or a "revelatory document" by anyone involved with its issuance. That would be more meaningful than a church officer, unassociated with the creation of the document, describing it that way in a talk. Though I fully accept it is her opinion it is revelatory.

 

 

So much for giving female "church officers" the status of General Authorities, huh?

 

You self-appointed progressive Mormons need to get your stories straight.

 

 

ETA- I consider it to be rather telling that it has not been added to canonized scripture. Maybe some day it will be but for now it is a proclamation of belief, not revelation.

 

And I consider it quite telling that the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are its signatories, that it has never been disavowed, but on the contrary, as been reaffirmed again and again.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Danzo]

The end of polygamy was a MASSIVE change. I don't think it can be overstated. For generations it was taught as essential for exaltation. It was prophesied that it must always be practiced. Eliminating polygamy not only destroyed existing families but it altered the trajectory of the entire church. It was a huge change. It's obviously a very complex issue in 19th century Utah as they struggle to attain state hood, face ever escalating laws aimed to stop the practice, federal prosecution, refusal to seat elected state officials in congress, the need for multiple manifestos. The change effected the entire fabric of the church.

 

It only was officially and openly practiced for  about 40 years. how is that generations?

[Gray]

The rate of plural marriages had dropped on its own prior to the federal prosecution. It might have been minimal all on its own if left alone, affecting percentagewise few families.

Church members were aware of a time when plural marriage had not existed. There was Jacob that taught it was only to be done when God commanded it.

In what way would ending of plural marriage been larger then?

 

The most sublime form of marriage (considered so at the time, I believe), an institution deemed necessary for exaltation by Brigham Young, was redefined as equivalent to adultery, the sin next to murder. That's pretty big. Gay marriage is small potatoes compared to that. There isn't even anything in the scriptures about gay marriage. 

[Russell C McGregor]

Well, the change happened even though Pres. Tanner stated it wouldn't.

No. He did not.

He said that "we" couldn't change it, not that it couldn't change.

The Priesthood ban was always expected to end at some point; the Law of Chastity is not.

The Priesthood ban was not a moral issue. The Law of Chastity is.

And, change can happen again. Stating that it won't does not preclude that it can happen. We agree.

No. We do not.

[HappyJackWagon]

So much for giving female "church officers" the status of General Authorities, huh?

 

You self-appointed progressive Mormons need to get your stories straight.

After you were adamant that women were not General Authorities but rather officers, and backed it up with sources, I accept that they are officers, not general authorities. It wouldn't be my choice to make that distinction but you proved your point in that regard. I dare not call a woman a general authority for fear that I would be chastised for inaccurate and inprecise language.

 

And like I said, the opinion of a person, male or female, who wasn't associated with the document doesn't hold the authority of making it a "revelatory document". Its a good a opinion, but that's all.

[ALarson]

So much for giving female "church officers" the status of General Authorities, huh?

 

You self-appointed progressive Mormons need to get your stories straight.

I believe it was you who stated women couldn't be General Authorities, but only "officers", not HappyJackWagon.  He's most likely just obliging your request to remember that.

[KevinG]

It wasn't called a "revelation" or a "revelatory document" by anyone involved with its issuance. That would be more meaningful than a church officer, unassociated with the creation of the document, describing it that way in a talk. Though I fully accept it is her opinion it is revelatory.

 

ETA- I consider it to be rather telling that it has not been added to canonized scripture. Maybe some day it will be but for now it is a proclamation of belief, not revelation.

 

As a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, I participated in the process of drafting “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” It was a remarkable experience for all of us. As Church leaders travel the world, we see things—both within the Church and outside the Church. We were troubled by much of what we were seeing. We could see the people of the world wanting to define the family in ways contrary to God’s eternal plan for the happiness of His children.  In the midst of all that was stirring on this subject in the world, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles could see the importance of declaring to the world the revealed, true role of the family in the eternal plan of God. We worked together, through the divinely inspired council system that operates even at the highest levels of the Church, to craft a proclamation that would make the Lord’s position on the family so clear that it could not be misunderstood. - M. Russel Ballard, March 2006 General Conference

 

 

Three things about the title are worth our careful reflection. First, the subject: the family. Second, the audience, which is the whole world. And third, those proclaiming it are those we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators. All this means that the family must be of tremendous importance to us, that whatever the proclamation says could help anyone in the world, and that the proclamation fits the Lord’s promise when he said, “Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same” (D&C 1:38). - Henry B Eyring, February 1998 General Conference

 

The proclamation is a prophetic document, not only because it was issued by prophets but because it was ahead of its time. It warns against many of the very things that have threatened and undermined families during the last decade and calls for the priority and the emphasis families need if they are to survive in an environment that seems ever more toxic to traditional marriage and to parent-child relationships. - M. Russel Ballard, October 2005 General Conference

Edited September 1, 2015 by KevinG

[DJBrown]

I recognize this as a good attempt but I still don't feel it addresses the process by which spirit children are created in the eternities. It hints that gender is essential characteristic of identity and purpose but it doesn't describe that purpose. I assume that they were likely hinting at gender being necessary for eternal procreation but I'd rather not rely on an assumption.

 

I'll also note that the Proclamation is neither canonized scripture, nor is it proclaimed to be a "revelation".

 

As far as purpose- I think it is pretty easy to say that the purpose is to be exalted, becoming God the Father and having eternal increase.  Eternal increase is eternal parenting.  And everything in the church, canon, and declarations maintain, quite adamantly, that parents are mothers and fathers together.  

 

As far as it being official doctrine, consider the following statements:

 

When introducing the Proclamation, President Hinckley stated, "With so much of sophistry that is passed off as truth, with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world, we have felt to warn and forewarn. In furtherance of this we of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles now issue a proclamation to the Church and to the world as a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history. I now take the opportunity of reading to you this proclamation..."

 

LDS.org states, "With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith (emphasis added)."

 

President Eyring stated, "The title of the proclamation on the family reads: “The Family: A Proclamation to the World—The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Three things about the title are worth our careful reflection. First, the subject: the family. Second, the audience, which is the whole world. And third, those proclaiming it are those we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators. All this means that the family must be of tremendous importance to us, that whatever the proclamation says could help anyone in the world, and that the proclamation fits the Lord’s promise when he said, “Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same”

 

Elder Ballard, "False prophets and false teachers are also those who attempt to change the God-given and scripturally based doctrines that protect the sanctity of marriage, the divine nature of the family, and the essential doctrine of personal morality. They advocate a redefinition of morality to justify fornication, adultery, and homosexual relationships. Some openly champion the legalization of so-called same-gender marriages. To justify their rejection of God’s immutable laws that protect the family, these false prophets and false teachers even attack the inspired proclamation on the family issued to the world in 1995 by the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles."

 

Elder Perry, "The doctrine of the family and the home was recently reiterated with great clarity and forcefulness in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” It declared the eternal nature of families and then explained the connection to temple worship. The proclamation also declared the law upon which the eternal happiness of families is predicated, namely, “The sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

 

And many, many more.  

 

What more do you want than an official statement from the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles which has become the reference for countless talks and statements on doctrine.  

 

[Scott Lloyd]

It only was officially and openly practiced for  about 40 years. how is that generations?

From Ancestry.com:

 

In general we think of a generation being about 25 years - from the birth of a parent to the birth of a child. We also generally accept that the length of a generation in earlier periods of history was closer to 20 years when humans mated younger and life expectancies were shorter.

 

So 40 years is scarcely two generations. He is right -- barely.

[Scott Lloyd]

I believe it was you who stated women couldn't be General Authorities, but only "officers", not HappyJackWagon.  He's most likely just obliging your request to remember that.

I was saying he was being inconsistent, which, if he had held to his earlier view, he would have been.

 

But he has now acknowledged that I was right.

[ALarson]

Delete 

Edited September 1, 2015 by ALarson

[Russell C McGregor]

You're claiming that it is a lie to suggest the church has not always held to the standard of a (one) man, a (one) woman? Interesting.

Yes. A brazen and naked falsehood.

My statement regarded the number of marriage participants which is widely accepted church history. I can provide you links if you need to research this.

I know all about plural marriage. You are carefully and consciously misrepresenting it.

There has never in the history of the Church been a different "number of marriage participants." Every LDS marriage has consisted of a husband and a wife. Every plural wife was married to her husband and to none of the wives. Every polygamous husband was married to each of his wives severally, not to all of them together. When Ann Eliza Webb Dee Young divorced Brigham, it did not dissolve his one and only marriage with N participants in it; it dissolved his marriage with her, and had absolutely no effect upon any of his other marriages.

Because that's what plural marriage is: a plural number of concurrent marriages.

Each of those marriages consists of one man and one woman.

You're making an assumption that I am claiming more than this. As I stated, the church has altered it's official position on the constitution of marriage a couple of times now in its relatively brief history. I'm suggesting that it is not out of the realm of possibility that it could be altered yet again. Please show me the lie.

See above.

 

"Yes"- you have a reference describing how spirit children are created in the eternities? Would you mind sharing this reference to enlighten the rest of us?

Your question was, "is there a doctrine that would eliminate SS couples from being able to organize spirit children without end in the eternities?"

The answer is yes.

[CV75]

Wait, eternal marriage is a state in when men and women are perpetually placed in opposition to one another? So if Heavenly Father is good, then I guess that makes Heavenly Mother into .... the adversary?? 

Opposition is not necesarily adversarial (justice and mercy, spirit and letter, spiirt and element, spiritual and temporal, charity and law, etc.); the Atonement brings these opposing forces into an eternally functional relationship.

This is a thought experiment. A lot of our idea about why SS couples couldn't be exalted is because of assumptions we place on the role of gender in eternal creation. We assume there will be similar procreative processes as exist in mortality. I'm trying to see if there is any revelation to back up that assumption.

 

I'm not understanding your doctrine of opposition for male and female not to "remain dead". Can you elaborate on this so I can make sense of it?

The temple doctrine backs up that assumption, as I've pointed out twice from the article I linked. Regardless of the the similarities and differences between the spiritual and physical processes abound, procreative processes according to the Lord always require the two genders working together --"a compund in one" -- in covenant under the life-generating properties of His Atonement; there is no other way for life to be generated than to have an atonement.

 

Without the ability to procreate, each partner remains as "one body" dead, having no life-generating power (or eternal lives with eternal increase, continuation of the seeds, etc. per D&C 132).