Search This Blog

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

186: EROSION: THE BEGINNING OF THE GREAT DIVIDE

 
One word came to me today. The word was erosion. Erosion is the gradual wearing away, the process of undermining, of deterioration, of weakening to a state of final destruction of. What is interesting is that erosion usually divides. A gulf is formed where there are two sides. You can no longer stand on middle ground or if you are, as shown in the photo above, you would be standing in mud.

Today is a historic day. The Supreme Court ruled that part of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional on June 26. In a pair of landmark rulings, the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, giving married gay couples access to federal benefits — and declined to rule on Prop 8, paving the way for same-sex couples to wed again in California.
 
Here is a photo taken this morning in front of the Supreme Court. What caught my eye was the scaffolding around the building. The U.S. Supreme Court Building's West Front Façade is undergoing construction to address deterioration and erosion due to age, weather and nature. Years ago, a modillion (a support projecting from a wall) from the pediment cornice failed and fell to the ground. Emergency repair work has been performed on the West Portico over several years during summer recess of the Court, but now full restoration work is underway. I find that symbolic.
 
 
 
Here is a photo of some LDS supporters of the decision for Marriage Equality.

 

Edith Windsor, the 84-year-old woman who brought the case against DOMA, said that the ruling ensured that the federal government could no longer discriminate against the marriages of gays and lesbians. “Children born today will grow up in a world without DOMA, and those same children who happen to be gay will be free to love and get married,” she said.

A few weeks ago on the front page of MSN.com, there was an article on how new parents keep their relationship strong. See the photo of these two men. The photo suggests that these two men are the parents of this baby.  Our world is becoming ever more confused. My heart is saddened to think that children will be raised without ever having a female mother... or for that matter, a male father.


 
 
Bottomline: From the beginning of time, Satan's main purpose was to separate the man from the woman which started in the Garden. And if Satan could divide, he could conquer and defeat them. There is power in the couple of man and woman. It is creative power. It is the same power of God which is to bring forth new life. The divine couple of male and female when "fused" together is limitless... any other  type "fusing" is an abomination of desolation.
...

20 comments:

  1. Science, mother nature, God, everything decrees that homosexuals are not to be parents. Abominations, indeed. I just pray the Church will take a strong stand against this and not back down. There is no safety in compromising with Satan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wouldn't hold my breath. The Church has not taken a hard stance when it comes to the Boy Scouts and homosexuality, so why should this be any different?

      My current, skeptical position would have the Church capitulating on this issue over the next 5-10 years...maybe sooner.

      Delete
    2. Couldn't agree more. I think people would be shocked by some of the things Isaiah said about the church and its people in the last days.

      I wouldn't be surprised to see further capitulation by the church over worldly things. Just 5 days ago, my children were invited to hang out on Facebook. More "erosion" will be happening; the trick is (1) recognizing it and (2) making sure it doesn't erode our families' standings before God.

      Delete
  2. I take an exceptional stand. I don't think marriage between a man and a woman should ever have become answerable to the 'state'--

    Yes, I believe it is sad that homosexuals believe they can be a family, but the erosion has been taking place for decades, as heterosexual marriage has become something to take lightly--so easy to divorce.

    It is overall unrighteousness that has led to this, not just the unrighteousness of those who suffer with SSA. Heterosexuals have downgraded marriage very well on their own.

    And the idea that divorce is acceptable (even in the church) and remarriage. I know I hold a minority opinion, but I don't believe that remarriage should be allowed. I do think there may be times when divorce (or at least separation) is necessary, but remarriage should be unthinkable--

    So, yes, erosion, yes it is--

    but it began to erode when the state told people they had to get a license to get married--

    and that was quite a long time ago--

    the plan for a man and a woman has been attacked for a long, long time--

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with most of your post except I believe innocent parties to divorce (i.e., those who kept their temple covenants throughout) should be allowed re-marriage.

      Here's another minority "opinion" for you.....
      “If a man commit adultery, he cannot receive the celestial kingdom of God. Even if he is saved in any kingdom, it cannot be the celestial kingdom” (HC 6:810)
      (If the minority I'm in includes Brother Joseph, I'm good with that.)

      Delete
    2. Remarriage unthinkable? Sorry, I disagree.

      Delete
    3. My life is also filled to the brim with remarried people--

      That's fine that you don't agree, and I am willing to leave it up to Jesus to judge--

      what I say below explains more why I think it is such a bad practice--

      the breaking of sealings--

      If heterosexuals are too impatient to wait for the Lord to sort things out LATER, how can *we* expect homosexuals to wait for the blessings of 'marriage'--

      the hypocrisy is rank--

      I am not offended that you disagree; my life is full of remarried people--

      would I tell them, face to face, how I feel? No--

      but this blog essay is talking about erosion, and so I speak up--

      if you don't think one kind of erosion affects another, then--

      well, there isn't much I can say.

      Jesus will judge, and when He does, I will accept what He says and does--

      if He says, "it was all right for people to marry, divorce, marry divorce, to break sealings and be re-sealed"--

      then I wonder what he will say about homosexuals who wanted to have 'companionship'--

      I am not for, even remotely, any kind of immorality. If homosexuals must wait for fulfillment, then heterosexuals should have to wait for fulfillment--

      the rules of morality should apply to everyone.

      Yes, it is hard when a man or a woman is abused and finds him/herself in a terrible marriage or is abandoned.

      I can understand how divorce might be necessary for protection--

      but not remarriage. You don't need to apologize to me for disagreeing. I'm not apologizing to you for disagreeing. As I said, I would never tell: friends and family members--

      that I think they have been wrong to remarry.

      We are talking about principles here. And some rather heavy things.

      I won't seek out homosexuals who are engaged in immorality of any kind and tell them they are wrong either.

      I keep my mouth shut.

      But I believe what Jesus said in the New Testament and in the Book of Mormon, verse 32 of chapter 12 of 3 Nephi--

      I didn't say it; the Lord did.

      I am sure, however, that things will work out for all who repent, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. I believe in the atonement--

      but to pretend something is right when it is clearly stated to the opposite by the Lord is never wise.

      Delete
  3. There are no innocent people. Even people who remain married to the 'one and only' are not innocent. Innocence is found in babies, not in people old enough to marry and resist or commit adultery or old enough to accept or reject a companion--

    I don't believe in innocence when it comes to marriage; it does not exist. Though many people remain married, we all hurt each other in one way or another--

    All children will make mistakes and cause parents some kind of heartache; all parents will make mistakes and cause some kind of hurt to children--

    and spouses.

    ReplyDelete
  4. A man and woman who love each other can share each others DNA. Their make up. They combined can create life while loving each other. No matter how much two men love each other, or two women, they will never be able to create life. We all know this is obvious. Whether they want children or not they themselves CANNOT DO IT.

    The ultimate love is to create life and to sacrifice yours for others. When the Abomination of Desolation enters the Temple that generation will see the Lord's coming.

    Abomination: taking something holy and perverting it
    Desolation: Empty, barren, desolate

    The abominable practice is desolate.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Vince, I think that has already happened with remarriage (after divorce) in the temple.

    I mean, as in being re-sealed. I think it's terribly wrong. I'm talking about the 'church' allowing sealings to be cancelled and then allowing people to be re-sealed.

    You are correct about the amazing and incredible blessing of a man and woman being able to share each others DNA by creating life.

    However, sometimes it happens without love, and sometimes people who love each other dearly cannot accomplish it, because not all righteous people are blessed with fertility; not all who love are blessed with posterity.

    How many heterosexuals really appreciate this gift when they have it? Too few, I fear. As for homosexuals, I will let God judge them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. continuing from above:

    Homosexual 'marriage', which can't be a real marriage, probably would never have been an issue in the church if there had not been the hypocrisy of breaking sealings and allowing people to be re-sealed.

    The 'church' brought this upon 'itself' through its flagrant disregard of the sacredness of the sealing powers--

    and has nobody to blame but 'itself'--

    immorality is immorality, whatever form it takes--

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Holy Spirit of Promise does the sealing. That kind of marriage is put together and given from above. Most of us are not sealed in this manner. We are sanctimonious and look good from the rameymptum.
    There is a great deal more to this than we have considered.
    If we repent and ask God perhaps he will tell us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @7:57; that is the key--repentance.

      Delete
  8. Anonymous @ 5:09:

    I don't know your opinion about Denver. I believe him to be a prophet. After converting, he married in the Temple and was divorced under 3 years I believe. He remarried and is with that spouse of his. I agree that being sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise is what its all about.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Vince--

    Denver Snuffer? A prophet? Um, no, I don't think he is. I have read some of his blog, and I agree with some of what he has to say, but he's still just a human and capable of making mistakes.

    Denver doesn't trump what Jesus says about divorce and remarriage either. Nobody can. Joseph F. Smith was also divorced; he was also a polygamist; that doesn't make it right.

    I don't believe these people can't repent, though. But what Jesus taught the Nephites in the most pure book should not be so quickly discounted--

    it doesn't matter if many that *we* love are remarried. More people doing a sin doesn't make it more right. We live in very decadent times, obviously, if *we* accept sin so easily.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sir. I invite you to read the books Mr. Snuffer has published. Give them honest consideration. I recommend you begin with The Second Comforter Conversing with the Lord Through the Veil. You will change your mind. I don't speak for Mr. Snuffer or for anyone other than myself. Mr. Snuffer's works invite us to repent and come to an understanding of the covenant Our Father has made and to encounter our Christ. Snuffer's works are doctrinally in harmony with the Book of Mormon, the temple instruction and Joseph Smith not to mention all other scripture I am familiar with. If you repent you will encounter Our Father and His Son. If we do the works we will KNOW the truth of the doctrine. This IS my experience.
    Snuffer is no less a prophet than Abinadi or Samuel the Lamanite.
    Yes, I sustain Thomas Monson. Paradox? No. Please read the book. I am not referring to the divorce question or opinions in the least. I studied each and every blog post (and each and every comment before they were discontinued) and read each book. Had I not started with the book I mention above, compared it to Book of Mormon teachings and temple instruction and put repentance to the test I would likely have considered Mr. Snuffer a fanatic blogger with just a few casual reads. Would that Abinadi blogged.
    With utmost sincerity I invite you to read the book and act in faith. President Monson spoke to us in conference last about obedience. He mentioned that all of our questions and light will flow to us through obedience. It is a very deep talk but easily dismissed as another story of young Tommy's exploits; this time setting a fire in Vivian Park up Provo Canyon.
    Mr. Snuffer's book is a practical guide to obedience to and understanding of these covenants we make but don't know the meaning of. You are sincere. Do this inquiry. The light you are looking for will begin to flow and scripture will open even wider to your view. I believe you will find you love it and the seed will begin to swell within you. You will be delighted.
    My best to you and all seekers of The Truth.
    How marvelous are His ways.
    I am 7:57 above.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @11:16--

    You do realize that you are proselyting for Denver Snuffer (or his books) on a private blog?

    I made the comments I made, because I felt there was a discrepancy. Yes, I do feel that what happened the other day with the Supreme Court was wrong.

    But I was trying to point out that it is just the tip of the iceberg, because immorality of all types is rampant.

    You were the one who implied that remarriage is all right, because someone you deem to be a prophet has remarried (after divorce, in the temple, including re-sealing)--

    and I quoted Jesus Christ in the Book of Mormon.

    You know, it's nice that you found a book you like. I have a lot of books I like, but I would never consider coming on here and telling people to read them.

    Except the Book of Mormon. Quite frankly, the Book of Mormon is enough for me, and I don't need someone else to tell me how to repent; the Book of Mormon does a good enough job of that.

    This has nothing to do with President Monson. This really has nothing to do with Denver Snuffer. I just wonder if you realize you are proselyting.

    Recommending a book, because you sense that someone has common interests (world history or gardening or *whatever*) may be a kind thing to do, but telling someone that they need to learn about a 'prophet' and receive religious/spiritual instruction--

    is proselyting. I know that LDS like to proselyte; I served a full-time mission myself; I will tell people that I have had a good experience with the Book of Mormon, and I will tell people that I have a testimony of Jesus Christ. I don't go beyond that. I would never cross that line--

    I don't need a missionary for Denver Snuffer right now, and I'm not sure that the owner of this blog would appreciate it. If he does, fine; he can say that this is a site that promotes the teachings of Denver Snuffer. Until then, maybe you had better start your own blog. Unless you are the owner of this blog, and if you are, I think you ought to be more open about that--

    Your blog is appreciated for what it is, for the insights and information you bring here, not as a tool to sell books for and promote the ideas of another person--

    ReplyDelete
  12. Judging from the comments on this thread, I wonder... What sort of "division" is really taking place among us, and what would The Lord have to say about it? Wait a minute, He does have something to say in 3 Nephi 12.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @8:55--

    Chapter 12 does have a lot to say.

    I apologize to Vince or anonymous at 11:16 if I have sounded snide or contentious--or as though I am scolding.

    The fact is that *we* LDS like to proselyte. We like to sell ideas, religion, 'things', etc.

    And that's all right, as long as a person knows he/she is doing it.

    As an LDS I made covenants to mourn with those who mourn and comfort those who stand in need of comfort and to bear others burdens. And to stand as a witness of God (Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ)--

    as an LDS I feel quite comfortable sharing with other LDS my testimony of the Book of Mormon, and I will share my testimony of Jesus Christ with anyone when I feel prompted.

    I don't feel that it is appropriate for me even to suggest that others read particular conference talks or books on religious/spiritual topics. I just don't think it's my business or my place. The idea of 'every member a missionary' can be so overextended as to make every LDS feel that he/she needs to tell others how to live, what to believe, etc. And, though that is something most of *us* accept about our culture, I am saying here that I wonder if 11:16 knows he/she is doing it. That is all. If he/she knows he is doing it and feels good about it, then I just have to say, "I don't want to be proselyted; thank you--not for Denver Snuffer's writing, even if it is good."

    I come on here, because I like what 'unknown' who does this blog posts--

    I read it, and, yes, I comment. I apologize if my comments have offended anyone.

    And if 'unknown' is comfortable with the books of Denver Snuffer being "sold" on here, then that is certainly his business, too; that is his right--

    but I can say that I don't want to be proselyted--

    Thank you.

    Divisions; yes. I fear there are many divisions, 8:55. I am sorry for any lack of peace my words may have generated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 8:55 Here.
      Yes, there is plenty of contending in these comments. But I would propose that the premise of this particular blog post is exactly what it supposedly preaches against.

      It isn't outright said, but I get the feeling that the author is telling us "love the sinner, hate the sin." But I would ask: how do you know that a person is a "sinner" unless you are judging them as such?

      He laments that children are being raised in a world without male fathers or female mothers, but I don't hear any sympathy for children of single parents, or of abusive parents, or of neglecting parents, or appreciation that children have an opportunity to come out of those types of homes into loving ones. Do gay parents possess a lesser quality of love for their children? Is there some sort of study saying that gays are less doting? Where does this theology come from? Certainly not the Book of Mormon.

      Christ taught us to reconcile ourselves with our brothers (didn't say "only hetero..."). In fact, he told us that even if we were with someone we deemed an adversary that we should agree with them, or walk a mile with them, or give them our coat, or pray for them and turn our other cheek to them. Our language should be "yea, yea or nay, nay" so that we can avoid going down the road of judgment (like this post does).

      I don't know if being gay is Satanic like this post implies. All I can say is that I don't dare cast a stone that direction. But I believe that this post does a better job of dividing us from our fellow men than the decision by the Supreme Court does. We need to look carefully to see exactly what is "Satanic" here. It seems to me that contention is proclaimed as abominable more so than homosexuality. The Book of Mormon is full of admonitions to love all man and avoid contending. There is not a peep about gays one way or another.

      If it is true that we will be judged in the same manner we extend judgment, then our hearts should be saddened for ourselves because of our lack of mercy and compassion for our gay brothers and sisters.


      Delete