Religious Freedom Conference, Phoenix area

[rockpond]

49 minutes ago, ERMD said:

Procreation?  

 

Really??

Some.  Yes.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Looking at this quote:

The sea change in the legal definition of marriage in our time is a morphing of marriage from being regarded as a social institution primarily for the raising of children into being regarded as a free association --- easily entered into, and easily dissolved --- primarily for the meeting of the emotional needs of the partners in the marriage. Thus, traditional man/woman marriage is under attack as merely a social construct that can just as easily be replaced or disregarded with no ill effects on society or children.

My reactions are these:

First, since when did we consider marriage to be a "social institution"?  I thought we held it in much higher regard than that...

He is speaking to the legal approach to marriage, not the LDS cultural approach, in my view.

Edited January 23, 2017 by Calm

[california boy]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

What he was saying is that it used to be a given that man/woman marriage was embedded in the fabric of society. It was a "social institution," in that it was the warp and woof of society. That has degraded (and arguably more from changing heterosexual mores than from homosexual, in my opinion). Now, it is increasingly seen as non-essential. How many people live together now? How many children live and are brought up in households where the parent(s) aren't married? As a school teacher, I can tell you that this is rapidly increasing. Married households may be the minority.

I think this is part of the problem with Elder Oaks.  He seems to direct his remarks as if it is gay marriage that has caused this problem.  It is him that is linking the two when in fact, there is no relationship to the two issues.  Whether a gay couple can marry has NO effect on how heterosexual couples enter into marriage.

3 hours ago, rongo said:

As for the second, in my notes (but not included in my write-up) was a reference to President Faust in the 2nd Worldwide Training broadcast (I think it was in 2004). He said the same thing: that marriage is not an arrangement for the meeting of the needs of the adults entering into the marriage --- it's actual purpose is for the raising of children. I don't think many people today (including many LDS) really think of the purpose of marriage in this way.

But that is not how marriage is viewed.  This is a totally false understanding of how marriage has always been viewed.  There are MANY reasons why couples marry that have nothing to do with raising children.  The very structure of how health care is provided, hospital visits and decision making, insurance, banking, debt liability, holding property, inheritance, taxes etc.  I could literally go on forever about how a married couple is viewed differently than two people living together that  as NOTHING to do with raising children.  The truth is, how children are raised has very little to do with whether a couple is married or not.

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, ERMD said:

Procreation?  

 

Really??

Yes. Of course. I know lots of gay couples raising children. Their work is no less procreation (and no less glorious) than when hetero couples raise adopted children. "Creation" is much more than just providing DNA and giving birth. It's giving one's life. That's why Christ is correctly given the title of our father even though he didn't 'procreate' us in the typical sense.

 

[Buckeye]

7 hours ago, rongo said:

...

Aggressive secular forces, including the deterioration of the legal definition of the family, are challenging to Church doctrine, but the Church and its leaders are unable to change fundamental doctrine. Some Latter-day Saints don’t understand this, and suppose that we can vote to change doctrine, or that voting to change fundamental doctrine is inevitable over time. Everyone must understand that Church doctrine on the law of chastity will NOT change.

The sea change in the legal definition of marriage in our time is a morphing of marriage from being regarded as a social institution primarily for the raising of children into being regarded as a free association --- easily entered into, and easily dissolved --- primarily for the meeting of the emotional needs of the partners in the marriage. Thus, traditional man/woman marriage is under attack as merely a social construct that can just as easily be replaced or disregarded with no ill effects on society or children. When the Proclamation on the Family was issued in 1995, the reaction of most was that it was stating the obvious, and they didn’t see what the big deal was. Now, several parts of it are controversial and at the heart of the struggle, showing its necessity.

...

Thanks for the write-up Rongo. This sounds very similar to other addresses I've read in the past few years.

I don't have time to address everything, but I did want to address the notion (discussed in the above-cited portion of Rongo's OP) that marriage is primarily about children rather than the couple. That simply is not what the LDS church has traditionally taught. As one example, just look at the current answer to "what is marriage" as posted on LDS.org (quoted in full below; https://www.lds.org/topics/marriage?lang=eng)

Oddly enough, other than calling marriage a part of God's plan for his "children", the answer does not mention children a single time. Why not? Because marriage is firstly about the couple. For many marriage, children also come and they are a great joy. I've got 5 of these joys myself. But the children are not part of the marriage. They part of the family. The marriage is between the couple - first, last, and always. The primary purpose is the unity of the two.

Children are really wonderful. But they simply are not part of a marriage, much less the primary purpose of a marriage. Elder Oaks should know this very well, considering that his current marriage has produced exactly 0 children. After his first wife passed, Elder Oaks remarried in 2000. No children have been born in the past 16 years. Yet I'm pretty sure that he considers his marriage real.

Quote

What is marriage?

In The Family: A Proclamation to the World, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles proclaim that “marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.” When a man and woman are married in the temple, their family can be together forever. This is a common goal of Latter-day Saints.

Life's greatest joys are found in the family. Strong family relationships require effort, but such effort brings great happiness in this life and throughout eternity. In our Heavenly Father's plan of happiness, a man and a woman can be sealed to one another for time and all eternity. Those who are sealed in the temple have the assurance that their relationship will continue forever if they are true to their covenants. They know that nothing, not even death, can permanently separate them.

The covenant of eternal marriage is necessary for exaltation. The Lord revealed through Joseph Smith: “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; and if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase” (D&C 131:1-4).

After receiving the sealing ordinance and making sacred covenants in the temple, a couple must continue in faithfulness in order to receive the blessings of eternal marriage and exaltation. The Lord said:

“If a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; … and if [they] abide in my covenant, … it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world” (D&C 132:19).

Those who are married should consider their union as their most cherished earthly relationship. A spouse is the only person other than the Lord whom we have been commanded to love with all our heart (see D&C 42:22).

Marriage, in its truest sense, is a partnership of equals, with neither person exercising dominion over the other, but with each encouraging, comforting, and helping the other.

Because marriage is such an important relationship in life, it needs and deserves time over less-important commitments. Couples can strengthen their marriage as they take time to talk together and to listen to one another, to be thoughtful and respectful, and to express tender feelings and affection often.

Marriage partners must be loyal to one another and faithful in their marriage covenants in thought, word, and deed. The Lord has said, “Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else” (D&C 42:22). The phrase “none else” teaches that no person, activity, or possession should ever take precedence over the marriage relationship.

Married couples should stay away from anything that could lead to unfaithfulness in any way. Pornography, unwholesome fantasies, and flirtations will erode character and strike at the foundation of marriage. (Learn how the gospel protects and heals families from the effects of pornography.)

Couples should work together to manage their finances and cooperate in establishing and following a budget. Wise money management and freedom from debt contribute to peace in the home.

Finally, couples must center their lives in the gospel of Jesus Christ. As couples help one another keep the covenants they have made, attend church and the temple together, study the scriptures together, and kneel together in prayer, God will guide them. Their companionship will sweeten through the years; their love will strengthen. Their appreciation for one another will grow.

 

 

Edited January 23, 2017 by Buckeye

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think this is part of the problem with Elder Oaks.  He seems to direct his remarks as if it is gay marriage that has caused this problem.  It is him that is linking the two when in fact, there is no relationship to the two issues.  Whether a gay couple can marry has NO effect on how heterosexual couples enter into marriage.

Or the sorry state of heterosexual marriage. I agree with you that much more of the onus for the decline of marriage rests with heterosexuals. 

But that is not how marriage is viewed.  This is a totally false understanding of how marriage has always been viewed.  There are MANY reasons why couples marry that have nothing to do with raising children.  The very structure of how health care is provided, hospital visits and decision making, insurance, banking, debt liability, holding property, inheritance, taxes etc.  I could literally go on forever about how a married couple is viewed differently than two people living together that  as NOTHING to do with raising children.  The truth is, how children are raised has very little to do with whether a couple is married or not.

I think you are correct that this is *now* how marriage is viewed. I think that is the Brethren's message. It has declined to where it is, as Oaks said, "regarded as a social institution primarily for the raising of children into being regarded as a free association --- easily entered into, and easily dissolved --- primarily for the meeting of the emotional needs of the partners in the marriage." I think that society at large (overwhelmingly heterosexual) no longer regards marriage as having much to do with raising children, and everything to do with, as I said, meeting emotional needs of the adults. Regardless of how closely it may or may not have matched this definition in the past (and I agree with him that generations ago, marriage was much more centered on child-raising than it is now), their message is that it should. 

I would like to hear more rhetoric from the Church directed at heterosexual culpability for the decline of marriage, since much of it stems from societal acceptance of the sexual revolution. There is a lot of pain and suffering from not living the law of chastity. And, I think we will hear more along these lines. 

The take-away from people I heard from (some came up after and wanted to talk about it and compare notes) was that we need to do more on our end to be tolerant and accommodating, where possible. So, that was the "tone," as we understood it.  

[Buckeye]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

Or the sorry state of heterosexual marriage. I agree with you that much more of the onus for the decline of marriage rests with heterosexuals. 

 

 

I think you are correct that this is *now* how marriage is viewed. I think that is the Brethren's message. It has declined to where it is, as Oaks said, "regarded as a social institution primarily for the raising of children into being regarded as a free association --- easily entered into, and easily dissolved --- primarily for the meeting of the emotional needs of the partners in the marriage." I think that society at large (overwhelmingly heterosexual) no longer regards marriage as having much to do with raising children, and everything to do with, as I said, meeting emotional needs of the adults. Regardless of how closely it may or may not have matched this definition in the past (and I agree with him that generations ago, marriage was much more centered on child-raising than it is now), their message is that it should. 

I would like to hear more rhetoric from the Church directed at heterosexual culpability for the decline of marriage, since much of it stems from societal acceptance of the sexual revolution. There is a lot of pain and suffering from not living the law of chastity. And, I think we will hear more along these lines. 

The take-away from people I heard from (some came up after and wanted to talk about it and compare notes) was that we need to do more on our end to be tolerant and accommodating, where possible. So, that was the "tone," as we understood it.  

Serious question Rongo. If you have to pick one as primary, do you consider your marriage to be primarily about your relationship with your spouse or primarily about raising your children? 

For me, I'm a very dedicated father. But I would never say that my marriage is primarily about raising children.

[rongo]

52 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Thanks for the write-up Rongo. This sounds very similar to other addresses I've read in the past few years.

I don't have time to address everything, but I did want to address the notion (discussed in the above-cited portion of Rongo's OP) that marriage is primarily about children rather than the couple. That simply is not what the LDS church has traditionally taught.

I mentioned my note about President Faust's quote from 2004 (the first time I had heard this idea. I remember being struck by the thought at the time). It's on page 2, upper left hand corner, footnote 11. 

http://tinyurl.com/h75acx4

I think this is one key teaching for our time that we have had at least since 1995.

Edited January 23, 2017 by rongo

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Serious question Rongo. If you have to pick one as primary, do you consider your marriage to be primarily about your relationship with your spouse or primarily about raising your children? 

For me, I'm a very dedicated father. But I would never say that my marriage is primarily about raising children.

Honestly? Both my wife and I would say for our kids. We love each other very much, but we can't separate our love for our children from our "couples love." And they aren't mutually exclusive. I think that's the problem. Most modern people, including most LDS, see marriage, contra the Brethren's teachings, just as the world does: as a thing that is primarily about the parents and secondarily about the children. And what do we have to show for it? A lot of messed up kids and messed up adults trying to meet their needs. Our needs are met as mom and dad, husband and wife, as we meet our children's needs. It isn't zero-sum or either/or. 

I know people who genuinely cultivate their marriage and courtship to the detriment of their family. One extended family member, an outstanding and wonderful person who has served in a stake presidency, married his high school sweetheart in the temple right out of high school. He didn't serve a mission because he couldn't risk losing her, and they have been in love and absolutely devoted to each other throughout their life. True love if there ever was! Each of their children are completely inactive, and when I've discussed this with my parents, they have both told me that they were "too much in love with each other." They were so devoted to each other that their children didn't get the focus they should have. And the family was raised fully active in the Church. 

My wife and I roll our eyes and gag a little at the near-constant "weekly date night" culture in the Church (or, on another level, "girls' night out" or "boys night out"). To us, every night is date night, and date night almost always means having our kids with us --- and it's been this way since they were babies. We took them everywhere --- and still do. I know that most couples think this is stifling, and they "just need some time alone, without the kids." We always missed our kids, even if they were only gone for a couple of hours. 

[Gray]

30 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Serious question Rongo. If you have to pick one as primary, do you consider your marriage to be primarily about your relationship with your spouse or primarily about raising your children? 

For me, I'm a very dedicated father. But I would never say that my marriage is primarily about raising children.

Yeah, I think of fatherhood or parenthood as a separate thing from marriage (although ideally a married couple is raising children). I am not married to my child!  

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

I think we have to be very careful when using religion for the freedom of religion question in law. 

SEE http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/father-and-son-plan-to-use-the-bible-to-defend-themselves-against-charges-of-raping-a-13-year-old-girl/

Which matches my view that religious beliefs do not give out a line-item veto on existing laws unless said laws are clearly designed only to infringe religion and have no compensating social benefit.

I think the LDS should have got away with plural marriage in arguing the law (though they had little to no chance of succeeding). I do not think religious organizations should have a line-item veto to violate laws mandating what insurance has to cover or to pay less then minimum wage or anything of that nature.

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Honestly? Both my wife and I would say for our kids. We love each other very much, but we can't separate our love for our children from our "couples love." And they aren't mutually exclusive. I think that's the problem. Most modern people, including most LDS, see marriage, contra the Brethren's teachings, just as the world does: as a thing that is primarily about the parents and secondarily about the children. And what do we have to show for it? A lot of messed up kids and messed up adults trying to meet their needs. Our needs are met as mom and dad, husband and wife, as we meet our children's needs. It isn't zero-sum or either/or. 

I know people who genuinely cultivate their marriage and courtship to the detriment of their family. One extended family member, an outstanding and wonderful person who has served in a stake presidency, married his high school sweetheart in the temple right out of high school. He didn't serve a mission because he couldn't risk losing her, and they have been in love and absolutely devoted to each other throughout their life. True love if there ever was! Each of their children are completely inactive, and when I've discussed this with my parents, they have both told me that they were "too much in love with each other." They were so devoted to each other that their children didn't get the focus they should have. And the family was raised fully active in the Church. 

My wife and I roll our eyes and gag a little at the near-constant "weekly date night" culture in the Church (or, on another level, "girls' night out" or "boys night out"). To us, every night is date night, and date night almost always means having our kids with us --- and it's been this way since they were babies. We took them everywhere --- and still do. I know that most couples think this is stifling, and they "just need some time alone, without the kids." We always missed our kids, even if they were only gone for a couple of hours. 

That's helpful but avoids the question. No one said the relations had to be mutually exclusive. But per Elder Oaks, has to take primacy and that one should be the relationship with children. That's his argument- not that kids should be equally important but that they should be more important. 

So I'll ask again. If one must be more important, which one is it for you?  Right now it sounds like you reject the primacy premise and want equality. That's fine, but that's different from elder oaks is arguing. 

[thesometimesaint]

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Which matches my view that religious beliefs do not give out a line-item veto on existing laws unless said laws are clearly designed only to infringe religion and have no compensating social benefit.

I think the LDS should have got away with plural marriage in arguing the law (though they had little to no chance of succeeding). I do not think religious organizations should have a line-item veto to violate laws mandating what insurance has to cover or to pay less then minimum wage or anything of that nature.

I agree, but unfortunately the USSC doesn't. They get to decide what a valid "deeply held religious belief" is. 

[rongo]

I scooped the Deseret News.  

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865671741/Elder-Oaks-urges-all-Church-members-to-defend-religious-freedom.html

[ERMD]

On 1/23/2017 at 1:40 PM, thesometimesaint said:

So are older couples required by law to divorce?

Say what?

[ERMD]

On 1/23/2017 at 2:27 PM, rockpond said:

Some.  Yes.

Granted, it's been over 25 years since I graduated from medical school, but I can't quite figure out how a SSM couple can procreate.

[ERMD]

On 1/23/2017 at 3:27 PM, Buckeye said:

Yes. Of course. I know lots of gay couples raising children. Their work is no less procreation (and no less glorious) than when hetero couples raise adopted children. "Creation" is much more than just providing DNA and giving birth. It's giving one's life. That's why Christ is correctly given the title of our father even though he didn't 'procreate' us in the typical sense.

 

As I stated above, I've been out of med school for some time.  Even so, and assuming that my undergrad biology degree has any worth whatsoever, the definition of procreate does not fit what SSM couples are doing.

The push to re-define marriage continues.  Now the cancer is spreading to other words.

[rockpond]

18 hours ago, ERMD said:

Granted, it's been over 25 years since I graduated from medical school, but I can't quite figure out how a SSM couple can procreate.

The same way OSM couples procreate when one of the two has infertility issues.

[thesometimesaint]

18 hours ago, ERMD said:

Say what?

It is a simple question with a complex answer. If the only function of marriage is to produce children(Reproduction), what happens when we're well past the age for having children? Must we be required by law to divorce?  IE; My wife is 64 and I'm 65. Quite frankly we don't want any more children, at least in this life. I'm quite content with my Grandchildren. I get to spoil them rotten and send them home to their parents.  

Edited January 26, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[Buckeye]

23 hours ago, ERMD said:

As I stated above, I've been out of med school for some time.  Even so, and assuming that my undergrad biology degree has any worth whatsoever, the definition of procreate does not fit what SSM couples are doing.

The push to re-define marriage continues.  Now the cancer is spreading to other words.

Biological procreation is not necessary for eternal offspring. If it were, we would not seal adopted children to parents. At the present, SS couples cannot procreate in the biological sense (though those boundaries are being pushed and, IMO, will be breached in my lifetime). But that's besides the point. The real question is whether someone can have eternal increase - children - in a SS relationship. And the answer to that is clearly yes.

What's at issue isn't so much the definition of 'procreate' as 'parent' and 'child.' And while some would like to limit parent-child definitions to a strictly 1950s procreation nuclear family, that's never been a limitation set in scripture or the gospel. Else Christ would not be the Father and my sister's adopted son would not be sealed to her and her husband.

[Buckeye]

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

It is a simple question with a complex answer. If the only function of marriage is to produce children(Reproduction), what happens when we're well past the age for having children? Must we be required by law to divorce?  IE; My wife is 64 and I'm 65. Quite frankly we don't want any more children, at least in this life. I'm quite content with my Grandchildren. I get to spoil them rotten and send them home to their parents.  

And as I mentioned earlier, the fact that (following his first wife's death) Elder Oaks got married a post-menopausal woman with whom he has had no children during their 16+ year marriage shows that Elder Oaks does not really believe reproduction to be the primary purpose of marriage.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Buckeye said:

And as I mentioned earlier, the fact that (following his first wife's death) Elder Oaks got married a post-menopausal woman with whom he has had no children during their 16+ year marriage shows that Elder Oaks does not really believe reproduction to be the primary purpose of marriage.

Yep... my grandpa married and was sealed to his second wife WELL AFTER either of them were still able to procreate in the natural sense (nor were they still raising any children from their previous marriages).  We can't very well accept those marriages and deny same sex marriages on the grounds that "they can't procreate".

[Bob Crockett]

On 1/23/2017 at 1:27 PM, Buckeye said:

Yes. Of course. I know lots of gay couples raising children. Their work is no less procreation (and no less glorious) than when hetero couples raise adopted children. "Creation" is much more than just providing DNA and giving birth. It's giving one's life. That's why Christ is correctly given the title of our father even though he didn't 'procreate' us in the typical sense.

 

Sure you do.  I've seen the statistical studies of the number of gay couples raising children they've adopted.  I'd be surprised it is more that 200 couples in California.  

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Sure you do.  I've seen the statistical studies of the number of gay couples raising children they've adopted.  I'd be surprised it is more that 200 couples in California.  

This is from 2010, but the number is likely to have gone up rather than down due to the legal changes.

It would seem to contradict your claim:

"U.S. Census data from 2010 revealed an emerging trend in American adoptions; despite considerable prejudice in some quarters and legal barriers in states; same-sex couples are adopting children in growing numbers.^[7] According to these figures, of the 115,064 same-sex households with children, about 16 percent or 18,400 were bringing up one or more adopted children."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption_in_the_United_States

[rongo]

8 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Sure you do.  I've seen the statistical studies of the number of gay couples raising children they've adopted.  I'd be surprised it is more that 200 couples in California.  

I know more than one such couple in my town in south-central Arizona of 50,000. Only 200 couples in all of California (and California is . . . California), of all states, seems like a really, really low estimate.