Mixed messages and the future of the church

[ttribe]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

I understand your position, but I hope you would also understand mine. I believe marriage of between one man and one woman. Anything else including ssm is an aberration, meaning different than the norm, hence my question. Unless we agree on what marriage is we will constantly be at odds, and I won’t be silenced if and when the topic comes up again. 

He "won't be silenced if and when the topic comes up again" - translates to - "I'll compare SSM to incest and bestiality because they are the same thing in my eyes!"

How's that "love and compassion" the Church talks about working out in this case? Any comments from other defenders?  Do you agree with Bernard's statements of equivalence?

[jkwilliams]

18 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks. Should the law impose limits on age, numbers of partners, family relationships? Who is capable of giving consent?

Of course. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

He "won't be silenced if and when the topic comes up again" - translates to - "I'll compare SSM to incest and bestiality because they are the same thing in my eyes!"

How's that "love and compassion" the Church talks about working out in this case? Any comments from other defenders?  Do you agree with Bernard's statements of equivalence?

Generally speaking, comparisons to abusive and inherently non consensual activities are not helpful. 

[Bernard Gui]

21 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I don't need to pretend anything.  You referred to SSM being an aberrant behavior and then equated it to - "...other aberrant types of marriage such as child, serial single parent childbirth, open marriages, incest, zoophilia, multiple partners, etc." - some of which are clearly not only aberrant but indicative of severe mental illness and/or harm to children.  You did so with no qualification, no distinction, and no apparent sense of the inherent and essential differences between SSM and these other items in your list.  The pejorative is plain in the way you phrased your opinion.

If not pejorative, then that leaves you with one or more of the following: 1) a poor command of the English language; 2) a complete lack of decorum; or 3) you are backtracking because you realize what you said was absurd on its face.

No backtracking here, boss. And I clearly understand what aberrant means; that is why I chose that word specifically. Anything other than a union between one man and one woman is a departure from the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Of course there may be a hierarchy of aberrance, but none of them is marriage.

I understand that challenging things different than the norm can be uncomfortable for some. 

I believe the Church has the right and responsibility to oppose anything that pretends to be marriage but is not. 

Edited June 14, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

It is a general statement not directed at any one person. And my LDS friends want to "help" me meaning they think I am a deceived apostate and spiritually bankrupt.

That's too bad.  I don't personally know of many ex-mormons that I believe to be spiritually bankrupt.   Maybe if they were of the really caustic and hate filled or had gone of the hedonism deep end?  You strike me as angry (if I may be so judgemental as to say that) at the church and the members, but not caustic and hate filled.  

But maybe I just don't know you well enough.       

[Teancum]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I understand your position, but I hope you would also understand mine. I believe marriage of between one man and one woman. Anything else including ssm is an aberration, meaning different than the norm, hence my question. Unless we agree on what marriage is we will constantly be at odds, and I won’t be silenced if and when the topic comes up again. 

Nobody expects you to be silent but your inclusion of SSM with the other things you mention is simply ludicrous.  And since your position seems to be simply based on your personal faith and what you think God says don't be surprised that many dismiss your position. Thank goodness in the USA we are (slowly) moving beyond the imposition of behavior and religious "morals" on others that don't believe, though it is still a struggle and there is some backsliding.

So for polygamy, it does not meet your definition.  And the LDS Church still has a component of it. Are you quite fine with that?

 

[Teancum]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

ou strike me as angry (if I may be so judgemental as to say that) at the church and the members, but not caustic and hate filled.  

I am well past the angry state.  But I can be outspoken in some of my views.  

[Bernard Gui]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Of course. 

What is your rationale for opposing polygamy, communal marriage, or marriage between consenting relatives?

[Teancum]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's too bad.  I don't personally know of many ex-mormons that I believe to be spiritually bankrupt.   Maybe if they were of the really caustic and hate filled or had gone of the hedonism deep end?  You strike me as angry (if I may be so judgemental as to say that) at the church and the members, but not caustic and hate filled.  

That was a bit of hyperbole.  But they do think they need to help me and more like I am a lost soul.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

What is your rationale for opposing polygamy, communal marriage, or marriage between consenting relatives?

I didn’t realize I opposed those things. 

[ttribe]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

No backtracking here, boss. And I clearly understand what aberrant means; that is why I chose that word specifically. Anything other than a union between one man and one woman is a departure from the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Of course there may be a hierarchy of aberrance, but none of them is marriage.

I understand that challenging things different than the norm can be uncomfortable for some. 

I believe the Church has the right and responsibility to oppose anything that pretends to be marriage but is not. 

Since you're such a fan of quoting definitions, let me help you with this one from the Cambridge Dictionary (bold, mine):

pejorative

adjective

  formal

us

/pɪˈdʒɔːr.ə.t̬ɪv/

uk

/pɪˈdʒɒr.ə.tɪv/

 

expressing disapproval, or suggesting that something is not good or is of no importance

[Bernard Gui]

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

He "won't be silenced if and when the topic comes up again" - translates to - "I'll compare SSM to incest and bestiality because they are the same thing in my eyes!"

How's that "love and compassion" the Church talks about working out in this case? Any comments from other defenders?  Do you agree with Bernard's statements of equivalence?

I am neither looking nor hoping for agreement. I will criticize any arrangements that depart from a union between one man and one woman. 

Just like I would oppose anything that violates the commandment not to steal from shoplifting a candy bar to mugging to armed robbery to defrauding thousands of senior citizens of their life savings to invading another country to take their homes, possessions, and resources. Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery. Thanks 

[ttribe]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Generally speaking, comparisons to abusive and inherently non consensual activities are not helpful. 

But Bernard will NOT BE SILENCED!

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I am neither looking nor hoping for agreement. I will criticize any arrangements that depart from a union between one man and one woman. 

Just like I would oppose anything that violates the commandment not to steal from shoplifting a candy bar to mugging to armed robbery to defrauding thousands of senior citizens of their life savings to invading another country to take their homes, possessions, and resources. Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery. Thanks 

Way to double down on those false equivalencies!  It just gets better with every post!

How critical are you of the Church's polygamous past?

Edited June 14, 2021 by ttribe

[Bernard Gui]

24 minutes ago, Teancum said:

My personal view it that marriage is best when between one and another partner. And not multiple partners. I am heterosexual so SSM does not work for me but I would include it in the definition.

I think plural marriage is less than ideal though I would not object to persons entering into it if it is mutually agreed on and not based on a religious requirement like it was (is in eternity) for the LDS Church.

I think open marriages are bad things and I could not do it. But some can make it work. If the couples agree then fine.

 

Ideally I think heterosexual between a one man and one woman or one same sex person and another one is best.

 

Thanks. 

[Bernard Gui]

12 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Nobody expects you to be silent but your inclusion of SSM with the other things you mention is simply ludicrous.  And since your position seems to be simply based on your personal faith and what you think God says don't be surprised that many dismiss your position. Thank goodness in the USA we are (slowly) moving beyond the imposition of behavior and religious "morals" on others that don't believe, though it is still a struggle and there is some backsliding.

So for polygamy, it does not meet your definition.  And the LDS Church still has a component of it. Are you quite fine with that?

 

It would appear CB wants me to be silent about ssm. We have crossed paths before.

 I really can’t be concerned with those who dismiss my position because it is faith based. So is theirs. 

All the things I mentioned and more are being practiced by people today and some are trying to be normalized. I believe the Church has the right to oppose anything claiming to be lawful marriage other than that between one man and one woman. Making something legal does not necessarily make it moral. There must be some rationale that would not condone marriage between consenting relatives, for example. I cannot think of a non-religious rationale that precludes multiple-partner marriages. 

[The Nehor]

29 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

 I said nothing about forklifts, but zoophilia is a real thing. Do you agree that marriage is between one man and woman, or are there variants that are legitimate? Is the Church allowed to take a position against them, or just not allowed to oppose ssm?

I couldn't resist mentioning forklifts. I mean have you seen what those slutty little things wear? They are basically asking for it.

Ahem, anyways, I believe that at this time God only recognizes heterosexual monogamous marriages and heterosexual polygynous and more rarely heterosexual polyandrous marriages but the latter two are only allowed if all earlier spouses are dead or the sealing has been cancelled (making that one monogamous). I think he only recognizes marriages made in the temple as sealings as fully legitimate and binding.

God has a lesser acceptance of similar heterosexual marriages acknowledging that they are not explicitly sinful. In other words it is not fornication. God does not recognize homosexual marriages as far as I know but being concerned with legitimacy may miss the point. I doubt God thinks in those terms or that he takes our laws and customs that seriously. I expect that homosexual and heterosexual temporal/secular marriage are much closer in God's eyes than many would like to admit, both transitory states that do not last. He acknowledges that all such relationships exist and some are legalized and, as God tends to do, works for the good of those in them in whatever way God sees fit. He is not in denial but probably not accepting either.

Despite my hopes and dreams forkliftysexual marriages are probably considered downright perverse.

All of this is subject to change due to new revelation and/or forklifts achieving sentience.

As to the Church taking a position we already have. We fought the gay marriage fight and lost. We largely conceded and moved on to other concerns. It can oppose what it likes but opposing legalized gay marriage right now is probably like advocating to bring back prohibition. It won't work where the Church is a minority and doesn't have any allies with enough support to legally fight it and many of those allies aren't worth working with anyways. They can and do continue to say it is sin. It is treated as sin with all that implies. I do worry sometimes that this becomes a pet project of many because it is one sin they are confident they will not slip into. If so perhaps there are other sins that need more attention. Focusing on a sin that someone is personally never likely to commit seems inherently unhealthy. It would be like a eunuch who won't shut up about fornication. Maybe look at things you actually fall short in instead. And of course general exceptions for people in leadership positions who are required to teach certain elements of the gospel and revelators who are supposed to speak on revelatory topics and yada yada.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

It would appear CB wants me to be silent about ssm. We have crossed paths before.

 I really can’t be concerned with those who dismiss my position because it is faith based. So is theirs. 

All the things I mentioned and more are being practiced by people today and some are trying to be normalized. I believe the Church has the right to oppose anything claiming to be lawful marriage other than that between one man and one woman. Making something legal does not necessarily make it moral. There must be some rationale that would not condone marriage between consenting relatives, for example. I cannot think of a non-religious rationale that precludes multiple-partner marriages. 

You left out forklifts.

[Bernard Gui]

13 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Way to double down on those false equivalencies!  It just gets better with every post!

How critical are you of the Church's polygamous past?

Not at all, other than if some people abused their situation. Jacob chapters 2 and 3 define my attitude towards monogamous and plural marriages. 

 

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not at all, other than if some people abused their situation. Jacob chapters 2 and 3 define my attitude towards monogamous and plural marriages. 

 

How convenient.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not at all, other than if some people abused their situation. Jacob chapters 2 and 3 define my attitude towards monogamous and plural marriages. 

 

Then you misspoke when you said marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. 

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Then you misspoke when you said marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. 

I believe Bernard would see polygyny as parallel marriages as opposed to a marriage with multiple partners. He can correct me if I am wrong. There is a difference. 

[Bernard Gui]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I couldn't resist mentioning forklifts. I mean have you seen what those slutty little things wear? They are basically asking for it.

Ahem, anyways, I believe that at this time God only recognizes heterosexual monogamous marriages and heterosexual polygynous and more rarely heterosexual polyandrous marriages but the latter two are only allowed if all earlier spouses are dead or the sealing has been cancelled (making that one monogamous). I think he only recognizes marriages made in the temple as sealings as fully legitimate and binding.

God has a lesser acceptance of similar heterosexual marriages acknowledging that they are not explicitly sinful. In other words it is not fornication. God does not recognize homosexual marriages as far as I know but being concerned with legitimacy may miss the point. I doubt God thinks in those terms or that he takes our laws and customs that seriously. I expect that homosexual and heterosexual temporal/secular marriage are much closer in God's eyes than many would like to admit, both transitory states that do not last. He acknowledges that all such relationships exist and some are legalized and, as God tends to do, works for the good of those in them in whatever way God sees fit. He is not in denial but probably not accepting either.

Despite my hopes and dreams forkliftysexual marriages are probably considered downright perverse.

All of this is subject to change due to new revelation and/or forklifts achieving sentience.

As to the Church taking a position we already have. We fought the gay marriage fight and lost. We largely conceded and moved on to other concerns. It can oppose what it likes but opposing legalized gay marriage right now is probably like advocating to bring back prohibition. It won't work where the Church is a minority and doesn't have any allies with enough support to legally fight it and many of those allies aren't worth working with anyways. They can and do continue to say it is sin. It is treated as sin with all that implies. I do worry sometimes that this becomes a pet project of many because it is one sin they are confident they will not slip into. If so perhaps there are other sins that need more attention. Focusing on a sin that someone is personally never likely to commit seems inherently unhealthy. It would be like a eunuch who won't shut up about fornication. Maybe look at things you actually fall short in instead. And of course general exceptions for people in leadership positions who are required to teach certain elements of the gospel and revelators who are supposed to speak on revelatory topics and yada yada.

Thanks for the expansive reply. There is much on which we agree. 

Indeed, we all fall short, especially you and I. While I don’t consider defending marriage a Don Quixote-esque endeavor, I do wish you well on your pet quest. Here’s a model that attracted my attention. Maybe a little old, like me, but still has some good hours left. 
https://www.ebay.com/itm/331167008613?chn=ps&gbraid=0AAAAAD_QDh_MaIKAhHvEuCsK9fIkPbwPg&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-117182-37290-0&mkcid=2&itemid=331167008613&targetid=1262749492782&device=m&mktype=pla&googleloc=9033462&poi=&campaignid=10454521904&mkgroupid=122766957512&rlsatarget=pla-1262749492782&abcId=2146002&merchantid=6296724&gclid=CjwKCAjw_JuGBhBkEiwA1xmbRTlCEvyeoamTCHqUiVfUN2wAWO5BzxVJDVOrcxPuvG_PdLifaJCiixoCKkkQAvD_BwE

Edited June 15, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You left out forklifts.

No one can forget forklifts. See above. 

Edited June 15, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks for the expansive reply. There is much on which we agree. 

Indeed, we all fall short, especially you and I. While I don’t consider defending marriage a Don Quixote-esque endeavor, I do wish you well on your pet quest. Here’s a model that attracted my attention. Maybe a little old, like me, but still has some good hours left. 
https://www.ebay.com/itm/331167008613?chn=ps&gbraid=0AAAAAD_QDh_MaIKAhHvEuCsK9fIkPbwPg&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-117182-37290-0&mkcid=2&itemid=331167008613&targetid=1262749492782&device=m&mktype=pla&googleloc=9033462&poi=&campaignid=10454521904&mkgroupid=122766957512&rlsatarget=pla-1262749492782&abcId=2146002&merchantid=6296724&gclid=CjwKCAjw_JuGBhBkEiwA1xmbRTlCEvyeoamTCHqUiVfUN2wAWO5BzxVJDVOrcxPuvG_PdLifaJCiixoCKkkQAvD_BwE

What is wrong with you? That is clearly a transgendered forklift. Gross!!!!!!