A clear statement....

[_subgenius]

You do bring up an interesting observation...many posters who share your opinion, as expressed sarcastically here, seem to enjoy the notion that the mob rules...that the "pressure of society" - the wisdom of the collective is some how responsible for "change" in the church.

I don't enjoy it. I like many just observe that the church changes tend to reflect pressures from the rest of society to change. If the church really is just a man-made organization like you think all the other church's are then this is what I would expect. I wouldn't expect it if it is lead by God. Is the priesthood ban a mistake of men? If no then I have to wonder why God would ban a group of people. Seems no good reasons, and only an excuse of men. If it is, then I have to wonder why God is, as some have said, so late to the show all the time.

But that is just it, the evidence does not coincide with social pressure. For example, the priesthood ban being lifted due to "pressure" surely would have occurred when that pressure was being applied and when that pressure was at its peak...but it did not...it was a considerable amount of time later, and when that "pressure" had mostly waned.

As for it being the divine will of God, there is no reason to think it was not. It is nothing more than arrogance to assume that "man" would figure it out before God. I think you mistakenly exclude the divine nature in man to make his/her own choices...i think you fail to realize that the mob rule that sanctioned negroes being 3/8 of a human being is the same mob rule that sanctions the 8/8. Point being that it was divinity that gave us this agency so that we would learn...that we would grow, develop, and progress. Perhaps one could clamor about whining about "timing" but that has no real meaning on this topic...there is absolutely no merit, no virtue, nor any value derived by being "first" or "last" on any issue that is common to the temporal and spiritual organizations of man. Just as one may try to argue that God was late to the party one may also argue that man was too early....as you may well be aware, there are times that prolonging is more beneficial than being premature....nevertheless, neither of those are reasonably applicable here.

[Guest]

But that is just it, the evidence does not coincide with social pressure. For example, the priesthood ban being lifted due to "pressure" surely would have occurred when that pressure was being applied and when that pressure was at its peak...but it did not...it was a considerable amount of time later, and when that "pressure" had mostly waned.

The church as usual is slow to make changes as is usual for conservative groups. Pressure on the church was not actually that high during the 60's since they are an obscure group that was largely ignored. This was not as much the case in the 70's, and yes pressure was building as some have already shown.

As for it being the divine will of God, there is no reason to think it was not.

There is plenty of reasons showing it was not. Timing is one.

It is nothing more than arrogance to assume that "man" would figure it out before God.

Are you saying it took time for God to figure it out?

I think you mistakenly exclude the divine nature in man to make his/her own choices...i think you fail to realize that the mob rule that sanctioned negroes being 3/8 of a human being is the same mob rule that sanctions the 8/8. Point being that it was divinity that gave us this agency so that we would learn...that we would grow, develop, and progress. Perhaps one could clamor about whining about "timing" but that has no real meaning on this topic...there is absolutely no merit, no virtue, nor any value derived by being "first" or "last" on any issue that is common to the temporal and spiritual organizations of man. Just as one may try to argue that God was late to the party one may also argue that man was too early....as you may well be aware, there are times that prolonging is more beneficial than being premature....nevertheless, neither of those are reasonably applicable here.

Now we get to your usual incoherent rambling.

[_Albion]

I think it depends what you interpret as pressure. The overt demonstrations against BYU athletic teams and such which brought the issue to the news had indeed passed. But pressure remained, especially in areas such as south America where missionary efforts were booming and where so many converts, real and potential, had African blood which was not necessarily apparent.

[_Darth J]

i think you fail to realize that the mob rule that sanctioned negroes being 3/8 of a human being

You bet. The constitutional convention and subsequent ratification process by the states was just one big episode of pure, unadulterated mob rule.

[_subgenius]

i think you fail to realize that the mob rule that sanctioned negroes being 3/8 of a human being

You bet. The constitutional convention and subsequent ratification process by the states was just one big episode of pure, unadulterated mob rule.

in that instance yes....but i suppose i have overstated this simile.
ironically those opposed to slavery did not even want slaves counted at all...a sort 0/5 determination....but as slaveholders gained larger representation via an increased district population their mob ruled....of course, now we just exclude the tax free Indians from our counts.

nevertheless, ochlocracy is a valid assertion from me on the point of SSM. Governing by the influence and pressure on legislatures by a large amount of people is an ochlocracy, or a.k.a. "mob rule". The tyranny of the majority is being expressed by the LGBT...or at least trying to be. The Arab spring is a great example of mob rule though this would inevitably lead one to argue that the end justifies the means, which is another topic i suppose. There is a fine line between democracy (good) and ochlocracy(bad).
Currently we are seeing what Lincoln wrote about...that the rule of law is being disregarded in favor of the wild passions of the "mob". The LGBT have organized a ochlocracy of sorts and approach a tyranny of the masses....and it is by this "mob" that they derive their value, not by principle nor reason but merely by the hope of numbers. We have all seen their argument go all over the board, it is an inconsistent and desperate rationale...their current influence is derived more from quantity than from quality.
so, yes...mob rule

[Guest]

...(snip)...
I believe it's called "continuing revelation" and the Church has 'form' when it comes to changing its doctrinal position on marriage when society puts enough pressure on....

Drifting, as usual you rely on fantasy.
I have not denied the continuing revelation aspect of the church, i even acknowledged it.
But this is not a tantamount issue...this is not anywhere near the same value of doctrine as priesthood for blacks or polygamy or any other skeleton you want to parade from BY's treasure chest.
This is why you would try to confuse SSM with civil rights...when they have no relationship at all...even the more educated LGBT recognize that...to equate SSM with the civil rights movement of the 1960's defiles that cause...even Jesse Jackson has offered great insight on how insulting that comparison can be.

So, yes the church subscribed to polygamy and then renounced it...woohoo how illuminating of you!...but...they held fast to opposite sex marriage though out...this simple distinction you have yet to grasp...in your desperate attempts to homogenize everything and everyone to the least common denominator you have negated and nullified any value for everything. You have a fantasy world that is much more delusional than anything a TBM could ever derive....on this matter, mainly because of the simple fact that a TBM must, and does, recognize that mankind is flawed, that some things are indeed better and worse than other things.....

subgenius,

You might try actually looking up the word tantamount. When you do, you will find that it is an adjective meaning equivalent in force or effect, and (hopefully) understand why I am smiling right now at your repeated butchery of the English language.

(The word you were looking for here might have been paramount, which can be used as an adjective meaning of chief importance or as a noun meaning one of highest rank or authority.)

No need to thank me.

[_Bazooka]

One wonders if the Church's lack of effort in the fight against the scourge of same sex marriage in New Zealand isn't tantamount to a concession.

(please note the correct use of the word 'tantamount')

[_Darth J]

ironically those opposed to slavery did not even want slaves counted at all...a sort 0/5 determination....but as slaveholders gained larger representation via an increased district population their mob ruled....of course, now we just exclude the tax free Indians from our counts.

That's the new record for the stupidest thing I have read on this message board. The provision in Article I to count slaves as a fraction of a person was a compromise between the states with lots of slaves and the states with few slaves. It wasn't "mob rule" at all. If it were mob rule, then slaves would have been counted as a whole person because that would have vastly expanded the southern states' influence in the House. Where did you get this idea that the House of Representatives existed before Article I of the Constitution did? I have to ask because that's exactly what you are saying: "slaveholders gained larger representation via an increased district population."

Is it some kind of Back to the Future thing? Kind of like how Michael J. Fox had to make sure his parents would meet, Congress had a large delegation from the slave states to ensure that Article I would favor them when it created the branch of government they were part of?

Anyway, let's just be clear:

The California Supreme Court determined that under California law, same-sex couples have the same right to be married that everyone else does.

The majority of California voters decided to take away that right from that minor segment of the population.

And you're saying that recognition of same-sex marriage is about tyranny of the majority comparable to mob rule?

Maybe you would like to explain what cognizable right of yours is being taken away if two gay people get married.

I think Dallin H. Oaks current childless marriage of convenience is making a mockery of my marriage that produced two children. Is Dallin H. Oaks violating my rights, subgenius?

[_subgenius]

Drifting, as usual you rely on fantasy.
I have not denied the continuing revelation aspect of the church, i even acknowledged it.
But this is not a tantamount issue...this is not anywhere near the same value of doctrine as priesthood for blacks or polygamy or any other skeleton you want to parade from BY's treasure chest.
This is why you would try to confuse SSM with civil rights...when they have no relationship at all...even the more educated LGBT recognize that...to equate SSM with the civil rights movement of the 1960's defiles that cause...even Jesse Jackson has offered great insight on how insulting that comparison can be.

So, yes the church subscribed to polygamy and then renounced it...woohoo how illuminating of you!...but...they held fast to opposite sex marriage though out...this simple distinction you have yet to grasp...in your desperate attempts to homogenize everything and everyone to the least common denominator you have negated and nullified any value for everything. You have a fantasy world that is much more delusional than anything a TBM could ever derive....on this matter, mainly because of the simple fact that a TBM must, and does, recognize that mankind is flawed, that some things are indeed better and worse than other things.....

subgenius,

You might try actually looking up the word tantamount. When you do, you will find that it is an adjective meaning equivalent in force or effect, and (hopefully) understand why I am smiling right now at your repeated butchery of the English language.

(The word you were looking for here might have been paramount, which can be used as an adjective meaning of chief importance or as a noun meaning one of highest rank or authority.)

No need to thank me.

you are correct....there is no need to thank you....if you read for comprehension instead of just running spell and grammar check you would realize that "tantamount" is the word i intended to use. I was making the argument that one (ie Bazooka) can not make a reasonable comparison of the doctrine surrounding the priesthood ban with the doctrine surrounding opposite sex marriage....in other words these two concepts are not equal...or as i stated "not tantamount"....if it makes it easier, substitute the following phrase above "it is not the same issue..."

you are welcome

[_subgenius]

ironically those opposed to slavery did not even want slaves counted at all...a sort 0/5 determination....but as slaveholders gained larger representation via an increased district population their mob ruled....of course, now we just exclude the tax free Indians from our counts.

That's the new record for the stupidest thing I have read on this message board. The provision in Article I to count slaves as a fraction of a person was a compromise between the states with lots of slaves and the states with few slaves. It wasn't "mob rule" at all. If it were mob rule, then slaves would have been counted as a whole person because that would have vastly expanded the southern states' influence in the House. Where did you get this idea that the House of Representatives existed before Article I of the Constitution did? I have to ask because that's exactly what you are saying: "slaveholders gained larger representation via an increased district population."

Is it some kind of Back to the Future thing? Kind of like how Michael J. Fox had to make sure his parents would meet, Congress had a large delegation from the slave states to ensure that Article I would favor them when it created the branch of government they were part of?

you seem to not be aware that this concept was part of the Articles of Confederation (hint: amendment of 1783), which was not replaced by the Constitution until 1789.....are you saying that there were no "representatives" involved with the Articles??
You don't need Michael J Fox to know that Congress existed before the Constitution. I can travel back in time with a simple history book.
You can read about the Continental Congress, the Confederation Congress, the House of Representatives, etc....it is almost like being there...

Anyway, let's just be clear:

The California Supreme Court determined that under California law, same-sex couples have the same right to be married that everyone else does.

The majority of California voters decided to take away that right from that minor segment of the population.

And you're saying that recognition of same-sex marriage is about tyranny of the majority comparable to mob rule?

Maybe you would like to explain what cognizable right of yours is being taken away if two gay people get married.

I think Dallin H. Oaks current childless marriage of convenience is making a mockery of my marriage that produced two children. Is Dallin H. Oaks violating my rights, subgenius?

1. You neglected to state that the voters acted in accordance with the California law, which is a point i noted above...and i never stated that this act was, or was not a mob rule....but....i consider it not to be, because they are not governing by "influence and pressure on legislatures".
That is the distinction and that is why i provided a definition for ochlocracy...to avoid such confusion as you seemingly have.
The California voters did not "influence" or "pressure" legislature as a large group of people - they simply voted in accordance with the law and effectively were afforded the ability to be the legislature. Now we see an incredible effort by a large group of LGBT attempting to govern by "influence" and "pressure" legislature, and judicial. This influence and pressure is manifest by aggressive public relations and donations. They failed in their efforts with regard to the rule of California law - they could not out-vote their opposition. So, now they are left with a more undesirable and less virtuous effort.
If you can not discern the distinction between mob rule and voting then perhaps it is good that you are not practicing law.
2. My right being taken away is not the basis for all legislation. For example, not allowing a blind person to obtain a drivers license does not prevent me from obtaining a drivers license...so obviously it is about a perceived consequence. One could argue that society has an interest in the virtue of its citizens, the tax implications from the additional marriage deductions being taken, psychological implications on children, as well as possible conflicts in those areas where church and state share jurisdiction (ie catholics and birth control mandates)...these are just a few of the consequences that must be considered. There is no argument being made for the inherent right of SSM.....SSM is not intrinsic to human existence....neither is driving blind which is precisely how you would have us all resolve this issue.