Church policy change on same sex marriage

[The Folk Prophet]

Weird. 

[wenglund]

30 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Weird. 

..if not also  terribly ill-informed. But, false equivalencies  have long been a staple of the  Left.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Folk Prophet]

25 minutes ago, wenglund said:

..if not also  terribly ill-informed. But, false equivalencies  have long been a staple of the  Left.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't think ill informed is the problem. 

[anatess2]

13 hours ago, unixknight said:

I think @MormonGator has a point though, in the way we in the West see this stuff. 

It's a fact that we're constantly bombarded with media and clothing styles meant to appeal to peoples' sexual desires, and it isn't just men.  Pick up any random romance novel, any drama TV show or movie, and most comedies... Somebody is getting cheated on.  It's our favorite source of drama as a culture, and boy, does this culture love to lure people away from their spouses.  We're surrounded by media that wants us to think about sex 24/7 if at all possible and so it's more critical now than ever before that the marriage be able to push back against it. 

If the bedroom cools down in a marriage then temptation has a much easier time getting in.  Even marriage counsellors and therapists will tell you exactly the same thing @MormonGator said.  

I agree with you that divorce has more to do with a lack of love than a lack of pouncing each other, but a bad sex life where there used to be a good one is one of the primary symptoms of that emotional loss.

It’s not “The West”.  It’s the “First World”.  Where people don’t have concerns of starvation and dependency on family and God anymore so they find “Love” i  hedonistic places.

Tear the US down to 3rd World levels and you’ll see marriages reflect Godly standards once more.

[unixknight]

11 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

It’s not “The West”.  It’s the “First World”.  Where people don’t have concerns of starvation and dependency on family and God anymore so they find “Love” i  hedonistic places.

Tear the US down to 3rd World levels and you’ll see marriages reflect Godly standards once more.

I'm sticking to "the West."  I feel pretty comfortable considering Japan a First World nation and they still have a very traditional view of marriage.  China too.  There's a heavy sense of duty in those cultures that's virtually nonexistent on this side of the planet.

That said, I do agree that most of our social problems can only exist in a culture that's "advanced" to the point where people have time for this stuff.  The Roman Empire is a good example.  I have seen some pretty compelling research that shows that Rome fell gradually because of its own decadence and complacency, and not because of external attack.

Edited April 12, 2019 by unixknight

[Just_A_Guy]

9 hours ago, Scott said:

I'm not calling The Folk Prophet out specifically, but it is amazing to me how many conservatives on this forum (which shall remain name-less) condemn those with same gender attraction while refusing to even criticize the president (who should be a role model) for far greater sins including having sex with other people's wife's; cheating on his own wives (several times of course), committing marital rape, brag about grabbing women's "intimate parts" without consent, etc. 

 

Oh, we’ve gone the rounds on Trump.  

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Oh, we’ve gone the rounds on Trump.  

And your love and worship for the man is getting old JAG.  

[anatess2]

41 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I'm sticking to "the West."  I feel pretty comfortable considering Japan a First World nation and they still have a very traditional view of marriage.  China too.  There's a heavy sense of duty in those cultures that's virtually nonexistent on this side of the planet.

That said, I do agree that most of our social problems can only exist in a culture that's "advanced" to the point where people have time for this stuff.  The Roman Empire is a good example.  I have seen some pretty compelling research that shows that Rome fell gradually because of its own decadence and complacency, and not because of external attack.

Japan is not a good example as Christianity is a very small minority in Japan.  But disregarding that - they just got bombed 70-some years ago.  The American family did not break down until the 70's.  Japan was in its recovery period all through the 70's.  Today, Japan's broken families is rising due to "women empowerment".  They got to a point where they are rich enough and economically stable enough for that luxury.

China, also minority Christians, is not a First World country.  It is a developing country (hence it is exempt from Climate Change regulations).  But even then, divorce rates in the industrialized cities of China has become a government concern.

Now, a better example is Brazil.  Brazil - a predominantly Christian country - has a staggering rise in divorce rates rising in tandem with its rate of industrialization.

[anatess2]

9 hours ago, Scott said:

I'm not calling The Folk Prophet out specifically, but it is amazing to me how many conservatives on this forum (which shall remain name-less) condemn those with same gender attraction while refusing to even criticize the president (who should be a role model) for far greater sins including having sex with other people's wife's; cheating on his own wives (several times of course), committing marital rape, brag about grabbing women's "intimate parts" without consent, etc. 

 

This is intellectually disingenuous.  First of all - we don't "condemn those with same gender attraction".  Rather, we "condemn the sin of same gender sex."  Second of all, Trump supporters did not elect Trump because he cheated on his wife just like W Bush supporters did not support W Bush because he is a drunk and Bill Clinton supporters did not elect Bill Clinton because he is a rapist and Reagan supports did not elect Reagan because he chased skirts in Hollywood.  But yes, tons of people elected Obama because he is black.

[unixknight]

12 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Japan is not a good example as Christianity is a very small minority in Japan.  But disregarding that - they just got bombed 70-some years ago.  The American family did not break down until the 70's.  Japan was in its recovery period all through the 70's.  Today, Japan's broken families is rising due to "women empowerment".  They got to a point where they are rich enough and economically stable enough for that luxury.

China, also minority Christians, is not a First World country.  It is a developing country (hence it is exempt from Climate Change regulations).  But even then, divorce rates in the industrialized cities of China has become a government concern.

Now, a better example is Brazil.  Brazil - a predominantly Christian country - has a staggering rise in divorce rates rising in tandem with its rate of industrialization.

Christianity is beside the point.  The point is that it's the West right now where marriage is considered to be all about emotion and nothing else except maybe job or tax benefits, and how marrying for love seems to correlate with higher divorce rates.

[Guest Mores]

10 hours ago, Scott said:

OK, but could you marry someone from a different sex that you didn't find attractive?  I know I couldn't.  

Just curious.  

I don't know if your example is in the same league.  

That's because you're only looking at it from the angle of sex and personal preference.  I'm looking at it from the perspective of absolute truth and the commandments of God.

If God commanded that we all get into homosexual marriages, then I could indeed do it.  I'm as heterosexual as they come.  But we don't do things simply because we prefer to do it.  You don't get very far in life doing only those things we prefer.  We do things because we're supposed to.  They're the right thing to do.  God commands us to.  Why is this so difficult to understand?

God commanded us to multiply and replenish the earth.  God declared that homosexual acts are an abomination.  God has declared that the family unit with both a mother and a father is the basic and most important unit of society AND the Church.

Why are you so hell bent on feeling sorry for homosexuals to the point that you're willing to encourage (not just excuse, but encourage) their behavior in the face of divine mandate?  As members of God's Kingdom on earth, is not the primary purpose to bring all people to Christ?  Why then are you so intent on telling them it's okay to stay away from Him?

[anatess2]

10 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Christianity is beside the point.  The point is that it's the West right now where marriage is considered to be all about emotion and nothing else except maybe job or tax benefits, and how marrying for love seems to correlate with higher divorce rates.

Christianity is relevant, though.  Because Marriage means differently for Christians than other faiths or lack thereof.  How do you even define LOVE outside of a Judeo-Christian setting?  Without that religious anchor then Love becomes - "oh, he is soooo cute!  I'm so in love!".  Christians are expected to know better.

Edited April 12, 2019 by anatess2

[The Folk Prophet]

51 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This is intellectually disingenuous.  

Disingenuous is too kind. It was either a blatant lie, or it was based on tremendous ignorance or stupidity.

And @MormonGator, @LiterateParakeet and @JohnsonJones liked and thanked the post?!

Are you kidding me?

Everyone here is condemnatory of Trump for his sexual sins. Every single one of us, even Trump supporters like @anatess2, believe those things to have been grievously wrong. And if Trump doesn't repent of it he'll stand accountable at judgement day. Duh.

Claiming that "conservative" on this board refuse to criticize the president for such things is such a ridiculous head-in-the-sand comment.... Seriously you three? Are you really so consumed with animosity towards conservative views that you're willing to get in bed with that kind of nonsense?

[unixknight]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Christianity is relevant, though.  Because Marriage means differently for Christians than other faiths or lack thereof.  How do you even define LOVE outside of a Judeo-Christian setting?  Without that religious anchor then Love becomes - "oh, he is soooo cute!  I'm so in love!".

Except that marrying for love is not unique to Christianity nor is it even a component of it.  Christianity has been dominant in Europe for over two thousand years but marriage for love?  That's never been universal in history and it didn't change with the growth of Christianity.  Marrying for love (or not) has more to do with culture than religion.

18 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Claiming that "conservative" on this board refuse to criticize the president for such things is such a ridiculous head-in-the-sand comment.... Seriously you three? Are you really so consumed with animosity towards conservative views that you're willing to get in bed with that kind of nonsense?

That's a common card to play against Trump supporters because it's an attempt to paint them as hypocritical. 

[Guest Scott]

10 minutes ago, unixknight said:

That's a common card to play against Trump supporters because it's an attempt to paint them as hypocritical. 

Because a lot of are.  So are a lot of other non-Trump supporters.  

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, unixknight said:

That's a common card to play against Trump supporters because it's an attempt to paint them as hypocritical. 

With some truth to it. Many conservatives threw Bill Clinton under the bus for his sexual indiscretions but are quick to give Trump a pass. And many liberals were quick to worship Bill Clinton back in the 90's while demanding Trump be burned at the stake.  The only time both parties sacrifice one of their own when it comes to sexual matters is in cases like Mark Foley or Anthony Weiner.

Both sides are full of hypocrites. 

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Scott said:

Because a lot of are.  So are a lot of other non-Trump supporters.  

Yup. Hypocrisy is universal.  

[Guest Scott]

53 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Everyone here is condemnatory of Trump for his sexual sins.

While that may be true,  among some forum members, I see a lot less condemnation (in forum posts) towards Trump than I do towards those with same gender attraction.   

Do you really want me to create a tally sheet with numbers?     That would really be pointless and create contention.   if you don't see this without me pointing out, then you aren't looking.  

I still stand by my point that people tend to excuse or ignore the sins of people who they agree with, while at the same time being harsher with people that they don't.  

Edited April 12, 2019 by Scott

[Guest Scott]

1 hour ago, Mores said:

Why are you so hell bent on feeling sorry for homosexuals to the point that you're willing to encourage (not just excuse, but encourage) their behavior in the face of divine mandate?  As members of God's Kingdom on earth, is not the primary purpose to bring all people to Christ?  Why then are you so intent on telling them it's okay to stay away from Him?

Saying that they have a difficult challenge and being sympathetic to it is not the same as encouraging their behavior. I quoted you not to encourage their behavior,  but to point out the challenges they face.  

You mentioned marrying someone that you weren't sexual attracted to, which would certainly be a challenge, but I can't even imagine the challenge of marrying someone of a different sex than you were attracted to.  The two challenges don't seem equal.  

That's what happened to my cousin.  His ex-wife (they were both LDS) both tried to make it work, but it didn't and neither could deal with the challenge.     I don't think I could either.

Could you?  Please answer honestly.  Could you deal with the challenge of marrying someone of a different sex than you were attracted to?   I don't think I could, but then again, I'm weak.  

Edited April 12, 2019 by Scott

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, Scott said:

Do you really want me to create a tally sheet with numbers?   
 

Yes! 

[Traveler]

19 hours ago, MormonGator said:

All 12 of my wives agree! 

This is indeed a great exception - even by church standards.  (and yet I would be surprised if in reality, all your wives agreed with each other - and even more so; all agree with you in this or any other matter).

 

The Traveler

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

This is indeed a great exception - even by church standards.  (and yet I would be surprised if in reality, all your wives agreed with each other - and even more so; all agree with you in this or any other matter).

 

The Traveler

Plural marriage is complicated, I don't suggest trying it at home. Your first wife might get irritated. 

[Traveler]

16 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Plural marriage is complicated, I don't suggest trying it at home. Your first wife might get irritated. 

I have done the math - even with just 3 the majority of the time someone is going to be irritated - and I believe it goes up exponentially from there. -- much worse than sibling reverally with children. 

 

The Traveler

Edited April 12, 2019 by Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

38 minutes ago, unixknight said:

That's a common card to play against Trump supporters because it's an attempt to paint them as hypocritical. 

Which is fine when there is evidence, as is sometimes the case, that a conservative is being hypocritical. There is no evidence of that being the case on this board. There is, in some cases, compromise because of the world we live in. But to claim that the conservatives on this board, who are also morally conservative Latter-day Saints, are okay-dokey with adultery and abusing women is pathetic.

Why is it that we conservatives allow that progressives on the board have good intentions but are simply misguided on the solutions, but the progressives paint conservatives as willfully evil? We're being called willful hypocrites who don't really care about immorality, only about political power and bashing gays.

21 minutes ago, Scott said:

While that may be true,  among some forum members, I see a lot less condemnation (in forum posts) towards Trump than I do towards those with same gender attraction. 

Which proves what? That homosexuality is good?

Give me a break, Mr. Non-sequitur.

You find me a post by anyone, any time, on this forum saying that Trump's adultery was a-okay and we can talk. Until then your point has no merit whatsoever. Trump's indiscretions have nothing to do with homosexuality and the theoretical discussions we have about how individuals struggling with that desire should approach dealing with it.

21 minutes ago, Scott said:

PS, before referring to people's posts as ignorant or stupid, you may want to learn something about throwing stones in glass houses.

If you don't want your ideas referred to as ignorant or stupid then maybe you shouldn't blanket accuse faithful Latter-day Saints of being pro-adultery. How do you expect us to respond to that? Did you expect hugs in response to your post?

Edited April 12, 2019 by The Folk Prophet

[anatess2]

47 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Except that marrying for love is not unique to Christianity nor is it even a component of it.  Christianity has been dominant in Europe for over two thousand years but marriage for love?  That's never been universal in history and it didn't change with the growth of Christianity.  Marrying for love (or not) has more to do with culture than religion.

That's a common card to play against Trump supporters because it's an attempt to paint them as hypocritical. 

Well, there it is... define LOVE in your phrase "Marriage for Love".

Yes, marrying for love is not unique to Christianity, Judaism, or Islam - the believers of the book of Genesis.  After all, the light of Christ is in all of us.  But we can't talk apples to apples unless we all have the same understanding of what Love is.  Even among Christians, the word Love is used in very vague terms a lot times replacing Love for Lust when the good book is very clear on the matter.

To say that "marriage for love" is non-existent until fathers quit arranging marriages for their daughters is not accurate.  Marriage for love existed all the way to the time of Adam.  You can say, "Marriage of female choice" or "Marriage of classless choice" was not common but you can't say those marriages are deprived of Love.  That's the same argument as saying, "Marriage restricted by gender" - a restriction on choice - are deprived of Love.

The Victorian idea of "Marriage for love" is basically a form of women's liberation - where women became empowered to marry without regard to power or class (a form of "rich privilege").  But what we see is that women were empowered to marry for sexual attraction... not Love... as that movement led to women to be just as scandalous as the men.

 

Edited April 12, 2019 by anatess2