This month's Ensign features three (yes, count them!) articles on "Disciples and the Defense of Marriage." Talk about a broken record! The articles can be found on pages 34, 50, and 80.

Does TSCC not realize that the battle over marriage equality is over? Don't they get it that they lost? And why does TSCC continue with this OCD fascination with SSM? Haven't the members already heard the Morg's position on SSM at least a hundred times?

The first article by Q12 President Russell Nelson is the same old drivel that we have always heard -- "love means obedience," "proclaim the will of God," "we must be guardians of virtue," etc.

The second article is entitled "The Proclamation of the Family: Transcending the Cultural Confusion" by Bruce Hafen. In this article, Hafen writes that the Proclamation was "... a serious prophetic warning about a major international problem. And now, 20 years later, the problem is getting worse, which shows just how prophetic the 1995 warning was." Talk about delusional! This guy wouldn't know a prophecy if it jumped up and bit him on the ass.

Hafen continues, "Beginning in the 1960s, the civil rights movement spawned new legal theories about equality, individual rights, and liberation. The ideas helped the United States begin to overcome its embarrassing history of racial discrimination. They also helped the country reduce discrimination against women." Of course, what Hafen fails to mention is that LDS Corp. was one of the main perpetrators of bigotry against blacks (Priesthood and temple ban, BOM and PoGP narratives) and against women (the Equal Rights Amendment). I can't believe how this numb-nuts tries to twist things around, as if TSCC was 100% on-board with the civil rights and gender equality movements.

Much of the rest of Hafen's talk rails on the evils of no-fault divorce because it puts the interests of the individual ahead of the interests of society (as the Morg interprets it). In fact, Hafen states that marriage is all about benefiting society, and not about individual rights. In fact, he so diminishes individual rights that I was half expecting him to make a case for arranged marriages approved by society. All in all, an absolutely horrible article.

The final article was taken from "The Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt." It is entitled "He Taught Me the Heavenly Order of Eternity." Pratt writes that Joseph Smith taught him the heavenly order of things concerning eternal families, and the eternal union of the sexes, etc. Of course, the article conveniently fails to mention that PPP had at least 10 wives, and that Pratt was murdered by Hector McLean in Arkansas because Pratt had stolen McLean's estranged wife, Eleanor, to become another of his plural wives.

So, with all this blather about traditional marriage in the Ensign, the last article is written by an avid polygamist.

I have read a lot of church literature in my day but this month's Ensign would rate as the most hysterically funny if it only weren't so sad.

Was there any mention of this month's edition being dedicated to the memory of George Orwell?

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

George Orwell



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/01/2015 08:37PM by saucie.

See my post below.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2015 03:23PM by merryprankster.

Exactly! The more I see of this extreme drivel coming from Church Headquarters the more I am scared of the Mormons I know who are holding fast to the iron rod of Mormon doctrine. The scarier Mormonism got the more I wanted out. What is wrong with those still TBMs who are not appalled by the constant push to obedience and blind faith? Have their brains turned to complete mush?

I cannot assume they aren't getting it at church because I know they all read the Ensign magazine. How do I know they read it? Because they are ordered to read it. Scarier still.

The Hafen article, in particular, was extremely Orwellian.

Marriage was instituted for the good of society, not for the individual. People should not divorce because it is not good for society. No-fault divorce is wrong because it harms society, etc.

So, Hafen recommends that two people that are incompatible stay together because it is in society's best interests that they do so. He also argues that two people stay married even if one of them wants out and is living a loveless lie. How does that sound for a happy marriage?

So if either the husband or wives is controlling, abusive etc... it's OK to keep them married together!??

That sounds more like a farmers article on raising livestock.

Ironically, one the first no fault divorce statutes in the United States was enacted by the Utah Territorial Legislature in the 1850s with the apparent blessing of Brigham Young.

See http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1079847

Also ironically, Hafen's comments directly contradict Brigham Young's practices and opinion. According the exmormon website "Brigham Young reportedly granted over 1, 600 divorces during his presidency of the Church between 1847 and 1876. Although Young theoretically opposed divorce because it contradicted the Mormon belief in eternal marriage, he was willing to terminate contentious and other unworkable marriages"

Here is more detailed info from this website:

“Western divorce mills in the 19th-century seemed to be the height of laxity and permissiveness: the ultimate inducement to divorce-seekers to flee strict laws in their home stats and seek a divorce in more lenient jurisdictions. Consequently, divorce mills elicited impassioned criticism and indignant responses.

“During mid-century, Utah was branded a divorce mill as a result of Mormon policies concerning marriage and divorce. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was founded by Joseph Smith in Fayette, New York, in 1830, . . . it was at Nauvoo, Illinois, on July 12, 1843, that [founder Joseph] Smith received a revelation saying that Mormons must practice polygamy—meaning that one husband wed several wives. This innovation drew enormous enmity from outsiders; in 1844, an anti-Mormon mob lynched Joseph Smith.

“After this calamity, thousands of Mormons trekked to a desert in Utah that lay outside the boundaries of the United States. They hoped to live . . . free from . . . regulation by laws stipulating that marriages be monogamous. . . . In 1850, the United States Congress recognized Deseret as the Territory of Utah, which brought Mormons back within the jurisdiction of the United States. . . . Although the U.S. Congress enacted anti-polygamy statues in 1862, 1882 and 1884, Church officials refused until 1890 to abandon the practice.

“During these years, many Americans harshly criticized Mormon practices, for they saw polygamy as a threat to long-held and widely-cherished conceptions of marriage...

“In addition to polygamy, the divorce practices of the Latter-day Saints shocked Gentiles, as Mormons called non-Mormons. Beginning in 1847, Mormon Church leaders regularly granted divorces. Because they lacked the legal power to terminate marriages, they claimed they limited themselves to divorcing polygamous couples whose marriages fell within the jurisdiction of the Church. Brigham Young reportedly granted over 1, 600 divorces during his presidency of the Church between 1847 and 1876. Although Young theoretically opposed divorce because it contradicted the Mormon belief in eternal marriage, he was willing to terminate contentious and other unworkable marriages. On one day, he relieved George D. Grant of three wives and a few weeks later parted him from a fourth.

“Young personally lacked sympathy for men such as Grant: ‘[I]t is not right for men to divorce their wives the way they do,’ he stated in 1858. He had slightly more compassion for women. Although he often counseled a distraught wife to stay with her husband as long ‘as she could bear with him,’ he instructed her to seek a divorce if life became ‘too burdensome.’ In 1861, Young instructed husbands to release discontent wives.

“As news of Mormon Church divorces reached the Gentile world, public outrage against Mormons flared. After 1852, when the first Utah territorial legislature adopted a statute that permitted probate courts to grant divorces, many people became highly critical of lenient civil divorces as well.

“The 1852 Utah Territory statute was objectionable because in addition to listing the usual grounds of impotence, adultery, willful desertion for one year, habitual drunkenness, conviction for a felony, [and] inhumane treatment, it included an omnibus clause. According to this clause, judges could grant divorces ‘when it shall be made to appear to the satisfaction and conviction of the court that the parties cannot live in peace and union together and that their welfare requires a separation.’ In addition, the 1852 statute contained a loose residency requirement: a court need only be satisfied that a petitioner was ‘a resident of the Territory, or wished to become one.’

“As a result of the 1852 statute, civil divorces were easy to obtain in Utah Territory; a couple could even receive a divorce on the same day they applied for it. Unlike most other jurisdictions, Utah judges accepted collusion—an agreement to divorce between husband and wife. A married couple could appear in court, testify that they agreed to divorce, and receive a decree.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2015 03:27PM by merryprankster.

It's quite risky that the church calls "The Family: A Proclamation To the World" a prophecy imo...

You'd thing after the priesthood ban the church would be more cautious about calling things "prophecies", since it's very possible in the future they won't want it to be a prophecy. Oh well, it's their loss.

I think they will tone down the gay marriage rhetoric eventually. For NOW I think the will still talk about it a bit because they don't want to make it look like they're influenced by the outer world, so much that they'd stop talking about it immediately after it gets legalised in the US. However, I think the church knows it's best to stop talking about it, and in the long run I think it'll become rarer and rarer for them to openly oppose gay marriage. But for now they'll still oppose it occasionally because they don't want to make it look like they've changed their opinion on it just because of the ruling.

Aren't they going overboard with this anti SSM issue? They lost. It's now the law of the land. What does OCD have to do this issue and the morg!?? Do they want to lose more members because they are obsessed with SSM!?? Well it could happen...

The only issue with your Subject line is that ALL Ensign issues are ridiculous.

LOL.

Your point is very well taken. I stand corrected.

I think it's like blood letting. Keeping the wound open until the corpse is well completely bled out. The cult is truly a whited seplicre full of dead men's bones. May they just keep shooting (cutting) themselves and making fools of themselves. Truly demonstrates their continued stupidity.

One tiny quibble: Same Sex Marriage it not the law of the land.

It is an event that SCOTUS has now stated no state can infringe upon because it is a basic right. There are those who disagree, just as when SCOTUS announced that 'separate but equal' was okay, or that internment of Japanese-Americans was okay, 'just to be sure...', there were those who disagreed.

No state has needed to pass a law allowing SSM.

TSCC loves to feel persecuted. The supreme court ruling is perfect ammunition for TSCC to feel superior, righteous, and defend their honor. The TBMs band together as a persecuted bunch when stuff like this occurs. They feed off of it, because other than controversy they have nothing else interesting going on in their lives.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/01/2015 10:48PM by exldsdudeinslc.

SPOT ON!

I read through the articles yesterday. I laughed out loud when I got to the last article about Parley P. Pratt. As if a polygamist who was killed by the legal husband of one of his wives should be teaching anything to anyone about marriage. But most Mormons will lap it all up without knowing the real story.

I see and hear far too often, "things are bad and getting worse," whether it is about politics or society in general.

The fact is, divorce rates have remained pretty steady since the late 1970s. For those who came of age in post WWII America, the Sixties and Seventies were periods of great social change, and if the church ever needed to put out a proclamation about its opinions on marriage, it should have been in 1965, not 1995. That might have been considered prophetic. Thirty-years later? Give me a break..

Society (and marriage) is doing very well without the church, thank you.

For them to admit that they were wrong would causes a paradigmatic shift and they would lose money

You've got to hand it to the Mormons--they never say "uncle."

Sooner or later church authorities will realize that gay marriage has nothing to do with them.

Let's hope it's sooner than later with them on this!! But with the way the morg behaves it'll be more likely later!! They've got to play the "we're persecuted" card over this till people get sick of it first.