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

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

It's OK, you and your friends can just ignore it. After all it just some random none binding document. If we could even call it a document. Your case is a sound one built on a sturdy foundation. I will look to you and your friends for further light and wisdom.

[Saint Sinner]

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.No. We do not.

Russell, can you expand on your reasoning so I can better understand. I'm not critical of your comments just trying to get a better grasp.

To add: If I'm understanding to the slightest degree, there is contention over word choice. In that regard, I'm inclined to agree with you.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Saint Sinner

[ttribe]

It's OK, you and your friends can just ignore it. After all it just some random none binding document. If we could even call it a document. Your case is a sound one built on a sturdy foundation. I will look to you and your friends for further light and wisdom.

 

[Teancum]

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).

Well While I generally agree Jospeph Smith did say when trying to convince Nancy Rigdon to enter plural marriage with him that God can command and revoke and what was wrong under one circumstance may be right under another. Of course this leaves the door open for all sorts of possibilities.

[Calm]

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.

Okay, I get what you mean by that.  I was thinking simply in terms of potential marriages that did not happen, not how it affected the view of Utah in others' eyes, etc.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I agree that I didn't really hear the "caste system" idea... just the principle behind it.  And I can tell you that, while I was in primary when the priesthood revelation was announced, I grew up being taught that blacks had been denied the priesthood because they were less valiant in the preexistence.

 

We joined when I was 7 in 1983 (post OD2). I clearly understood this reasoning by the time I served my mission. And, believe me, I wasn't taught it at home.

Edited September 1, 2015 by BookofMormonLuvr

[Calm]

Plural marriage was synonymous with eternal marriage. 

 

 

Given as time went on once after the 50s, iirc, where the plural marriage rate was the highest, it steadily dropped rather than raised, I find it hard to believe that this was as written in stone as is often claimed.  There were men and women getting sealed outside of plural marriage.  Did they think their marriage was any less eternal?  Plus it seems to me that plural marriage rate would rise or at least hold steady rather than drop to a relatively low rate since if this was believed and taught consistently, over time more and more would be solidly invested in thinking plural marriage was the only way to exaltation and insist on having the opportunity.

[Calm]

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. 

Many LDS in my experience view homosexual behaviour as an abomination.  While gay marriage may not be in the scriptures, they assume since it is a subset of homosexual behaviour it is still the same.  

 

Plural marriage was always taught as only appropriate when God commanded it.  You have in Jacob a command not to live it.  You have in D&C 132 a command to live it.  While I can imagine it was shocking to those families involved who have invested emotionally, physically, mentally and spiritually in it, I find it hard to believe it would be a bigger shift in perspective for something that is viewed as abomination to part of exaltation than God didn't command it, commanded it and has now removed the command again.  Not saying it wasn't hard, just saying that it would be harder to shift a view of homosexuality.

[Teancum]

Yes. A brazen and naked falsehood.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.See above. 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.

What an amazing twisting of words! You are very talented. Are you a politician by chance?

[Russell C McGregor]

Russell, can you expand on your reasoning so I can better understand. I'm not critical of your comments just trying to get a better grasp.

To add: If I'm understanding to the slightest degree, there is contention over word choice. In that regard, I'm inclined to agree with you.

For sure.

President Tanner is quoted as saying that the Priesthood ban then in force was something that "we," presumably meaning the Church or its leaders, could not change.

Since the ban was ended by revelation, that does not contradict what President Tanner said; rather, it reinforces it. A lot of Church leaders through the years, starting at least as early as David O. McKay, wanted to end the ban, but it wasn't up to them.

And that despite the fact that Brigham Young himself said that the day would come.

It wasn't a moral issue. Blacks weren't banned from holding the Priesthood because it was morally wrong for them to do so.

However, same sex "marriage" is a moral issue. No prophet has ever predicted that the day will come when wrong will become right, or immorality will become moral. Prophets have predicted "perilous times" when people would be "without natural affection" and "change the truth of God into a lie," but they clearly saw the wickedness of such times as exactly that: wickedness. Widespread homosexuality has always been seen as wickedness.

The notion of same sex "marriage" is an attempt to sanctify wickedness. Same sex "marriage" in the Church -- or even more absurdly, in the Temple -- is a wicked, filthy fantasy which, if it ever came into fruition, would utterly pollute, degrade and desecrate all that is holy. It is and always will be a moral and doctrinal impossibility.

I hope this helps.

[Russell C McGregor]

What an amazing twisting of words! You are very talented. Are you a politician by chance?

So you have no substantive counter-argument, so you resort to making intentional false accusations.

How unsurprising.

As you perfectly well know, I have twisted no words. A man with three wives is a man in three marriages, not a man in a four-person marriage. I'm not making that up; it's just the way it is. (Or was.)

Likewise, the third wife is not a woman with one husband and two wives, she's a woman with one husband.

Those who try to pretend that it was a four-person marriage are the ones doing the twisting.

You know this to be true.

[Teancum]

So you have no substantive counter-argument, so you resort to making intentional false accusations.How unsurprising.As you perfectly well know, I have twisted no words. A man with three wives is a man in three marriages, not a man in a four-person marriage. I'm not making that up; it's just the way it is. (Or was.)Likewise, the third wife is not a woman with one husband and two wives, she's a woman with one husband.Those who try to pretend that it was a four-person marriage are the ones doing the twisting.You know this to be true.

Oh lighten up Russel old boy. I was yanking your chain a bit. I can't find the winky things when posting from my iPad.

So sure I agree it was not group marriage. if that was all your argument was fine. But clearly the man in polygamy was not married to one woman. It was one man married to many women which I think was the point of the poster you responded too.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Teancum

[Russell C McGregor]

Oh lighten up Russel old boy. I was yanking your chain a bit. I can't find the winky things when posting from my iPad.

So sure I agree it was not group marriage. if that was all your argument was fine. But clearly the man in polygamy was not married to one woman. It was one man married to many women.

Okay, I apologise for jumping down your throat.

FWIW, when you don't have emoticons, you can always use punctuation marks. ; )

You're right about the polygamist, but I was taking issue with the "group marriage" model.

[ttribe]

Okay, I apologise for jumping down your throat.

FWIW, when you don't have emoticons, you can always use punctuation marks. ; )

You're right about the polygamist, but I was taking issue with the "group marriage" model.

 

[Teancum]

Okay, I apologise for jumping down your throat.

FWIW, when you don't have emoticons, you can always use punctuation marks. ; )

You're right about the polygamist, but I was taking issue with the "group marriage" model.

Well we agree then! How about that! :-)

[Damien the Leper]

For sure.President Tanner is quoted as saying that the Priesthood ban then in force was something that "we," presumably meaning the Church or its leaders, could not change.Since the ban was ended by revelation, that does not contradict what President Tanner said; rather, it reinforces it. A lot of Church leaders through the years, starting at least as early as David O. McKay, wanted to end the ban, but it wasn't up to them.And that despite the fact that Brigham Young himself said that the day would come.It wasn't a moral issue. Blacks weren't banned from holding the Priesthood because it was morally wrong for them to do so.However, same sex "marriage" is a moral issue. No prophet has ever predicted that the day will come when wrong will become right, or immorality will become moral. Prophets have predicted "perilous times" when people would be "without natural affection" and "change the truth of God into a lie," but they clearly saw the wickedness of such times as exactly that: wickedness. Widespread homosexuality has always been seen as wickedness.The notion of same sex "marriage" is an attempt to sanctify wickedness. Same sex "marriage" in the Church -- or even more absurdly, in the Temple -- is a wicked, filthy fantasy which, if it ever came into fruition, would utterly pollute, degrade and desecrate all that is holy. It is and always will be a moral and doctrinal impossibility.I hope this helps.

That helps immensely and makes a great deal of sense. Thanks for being patient and explaining.

[Russell C McGregor]

That helps immensely and makes a great deal of sense. Thanks for being patient and explaining.

Off-topic: I've noticed that sometimes someone will quote a post, and all the formatting is lost. Is that because you're on a small device, or is something else going on?

[sethpayne]

Okay, I apologise for jumping down your throat.

 

 

Mods -- can we pin this thread?  Please???

[rockpond]

For sure.

President Tanner is quoted as saying that the Priesthood ban then in force was something that "we," presumably meaning the Church or its leaders, could not change.

Since the ban was ended by revelation, that does not contradict what President Tanner said; rather, it reinforces it. A lot of Church leaders through the years, starting at least as early as David O. McKay, wanted to end the ban, but it wasn't up to them.

And that despite the fact that Brigham Young himself said that the day would come.

It wasn't a moral issue. Blacks weren't banned from holding the Priesthood because it was morally wrong for them to do so.

However, same sex "marriage" is a moral issue. No prophet has ever predicted that the day will come when wrong will become right, or immorality will become moral. Prophets have predicted "perilous times" when people would be "without natural affection" and "change the truth of God into a lie," but they clearly saw the wickedness of such times as exactly that: wickedness. Widespread homosexuality has always been seen as wickedness.

The notion of same sex "marriage" is an attempt to sanctify wickedness. Same sex "marriage" in the Church -- or even more absurdly, in the Temple -- is a wicked, filthy fantasy which, if it ever came into fruition, would utterly pollute, degrade and desecrate all that is holy. It is and always will be a moral and doctrinal impossibility.

I hope this helps.

 

I love the lengths you guys will go to to explain the difference between the racist priesthood/temple ban and gay marriage while totally missing the point for which the comparison is relevant.

[Russell C McGregor]

I love the lengths you guys will go to to explain the difference between the racist priesthood/temple ban and gay marriage while totally missing the point for which the comparison is relevant.

I love the lengths you guys will go to to pretend that a comparison between two unlike things is "relevant" on precisely the point were they are most unlike.

[rockpond]

I love the lengths you guys will go to to pretend that a comparison between two unlike things is "relevant" on precisely the point were they are most unlike.

 

And what do you presume that "point" to be?  Why do you think we bring it up?

 

And would you be interested to know why I think the race-based ban is relevant to the question of gay marriage?

[Russell C McGregor]

And what do you presume that "point" to be?  Why do you think we bring it up?

 

And would you be interested to know why I think the race-based ban is relevant to the question of gay marriage?

I think you (speaking collectively) bring it up because you suppose that if one thing can change, so can another.

I would expect someone who claims to understand LDS life and teaching to also understand why the differences are significant, and the resemblances trivial.

[rockpond]

I think you (speaking collectively) bring it up because you suppose that if one thing can change, so can another.

I would expect someone who claims to understand LDS life and teaching to also understand why the differences are significant, and the resemblances trivial.

 

I understand both the differences and resemblances.  But I don't bring it up to show that since the race ban changed, so can the church's position on gay marriage.  That's a tangent often used, I suppose because one can presume that BY's prophesy was fulfilled in the removal of the ban.  Which is fascinating to me but, again, not the reason I think the ban is relevant to the gay marriage debate.

[Damien the Leper]

Off-topic: I've noticed that sometimes someone will quote a post, and all the formatting is lost. Is that because you're on a small device, or is something else going on?

No. I thought SS asked a good question. You and I clash a lot but this explanation was insightful. I'm working on being less antagonistic and more reasonable.

I am on my cell phone.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Valentinus

[HappyJackWagon]

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

If Joseph started in 1835 with Fanny, and the first manifesto ws issued in 1890 then that is 55 years. Tack on the 15 years between the 1st and 2nd manifesto you get a total of about 70 years which is 2-3 generations. That's how I came up with "generations".