Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

BREAKING NEWS: Major Article Exposing Churches "Prop 8" Activity in the Works


Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

I lived in CA during the push for Proposition 8 and volunteered many hours calling random people on the phone (during ward activities) to get others to support the church's movement/stance.  In retrospect, this is something I deeply regret because I think the church should have stayed out of this issue altogether.  Also, my views on who should be allowed to marry have greatly changed over the last 8-9 years; I now believe that gays should be allowed to marry.

My question is this?  

Given the church's history/past with polygamy, what right does it have to tell others what the family unit should look like?  

For example, I found this from a thread a few years back about Lorenzo Snow (posted by VideoGameJunkie):

"At age 30, LDS Church Apostle Lorenzo Snow married 18-year old Charlotte Squires.

At age 31, Snow married 33-year old Mary Adaline Goddard.

At age 31, he married 18-year old Sarah Ann Prichard.

At age 32, he married 26-year old Harriet Amelia Squires.

At age 34, he married 17-year old Eleanor Houtz.

At age 39, he married 24-year old Caroline Horton.

At age 43, he married 17-year old Mary Elizabeth Houtz.

At age 44, he married 16-year old Phoebe Amelia Woodruff. (had 7 children together)

At age 57, he married 16-year old Sara Minnie Ephramina Jensen. (had a child a year later. Lorenzo had actually been courting her since she was 14, but married at 16)."

IMO, it's very hypocritical of the church to proclaim what marriage should look like, especially when early church leaders (prophets) in their late 50's were marrying young teenage girls.  

The Church has always maintained that marriage is between man and woman. This remains true with polygamy as this standard is perfectly consistent with that. The Church does not believe polygamy is to be practiced, nor condoned all the time but that it is based upon authority given from God. We're simply living in an eras which we have no divine authority to do so. That may change or remain the same. So far as societal marriage goes, the Church is perfectly consistent with its own standards: that it is between man and woman. Since polygamy is not authorized by God at the current time, this means one man and one woman.  

And even today, young teenagers may marry adults. It's perfectly legal.

http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/state-by-state-marriage-age-of-consent-laws.html

 

Link to comment
22 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Who's being dishonest?  And simply because I'm wearing something that clearly identifies the organization with which I am affiliated doesn't mean I'm doing my alms before men, to be seen of them.  There's a difference between identifying my organization and identifying my-self.  If I wore a t-shirt that said, "See what Kenngo1969 is doing?  Isn't Kenngo1969 a great guy for doing it?" then you could certainly argue that I'm doing my alms before men, to be seen of them.  However, I fail to see how the same applies simply to identifying my organization.  And as USU78 points out, sometimes, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can't win: He goes "incognito" for a period of time on his mission and is accused of not being honest for an alleged attempt to conceal the organization he represents, but don't do that, on the other hand, and he's accused by those of your ilk of doing alms before men, to be seen of them.

MIAMIbe-DADE COUNTY

 

OCTOBER 26, 2016 3:39 PM

‘Mormon Helping Hands’ volunteers help in post-Hurricane Matthew cleanup effort

Norwan Andrade, Scott Castillo, Manuel Lagos are among the volunteers from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who traveled to Bunnell, Florida, to help with cleanup after Hurricane Matthew.
Gleen Rivas, Alejo Nuñez, Dylan Nuñez, Scott Castillo are among the volunteers from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who traveled to Bunnell, Florida, to help with cleanup after Hurricane Matthew.
Luz Patiño, Laura Perez are among the volunteers from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who traveled to Bunnell, Florida, to help with cleanup after Hurricane Matthew.
 
 
1 of 3
Gleen Rivas, Alejo Nuñez, Dylan Nuñez, Scott Castillo are among the volunteers from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who traveled to Bunnell, Florida, to help with cleanup after Hurricane Matthew.Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Photo provided to the Miami Herald

Miami Herald Staff

 

About 370 volunteers from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints traveled to Bunnell, Florida, to help with cleanup after Hurricane Matthew. Volunteers came from the Miami South Florida Stake, Miami Florida Stake, Boynton Beach Stake, Ft. Myers Stake, Deland Stake, Lake City Stake, and Sarasota Stake.

They worked throughout Flagler and Volusia counties on Saturday, Oct. 15, and Sunday, Oct. 16.

 
 
 
because newspapers love to write stories about individuals....not.
Edited by Johnnie Cake
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

IMO, it's very hypocritical of the church to proclaim what marriage should look like, especially when early church leaders (prophets) in their late 50's were marrying young teenage girls.  

What does a 45 year old man married to a 40 year old woman and a 50 year old man married to a 17 year old woman have in common in 1840?  Answer--Both situations involved a male married to a female.  Age differences might offend you personally but the scriptures do not give an age of when a person can get married or an limit on the age range between the spouse.  What the scriptures are clear on is that marriages are relationships and covenants between males and females only and that factual point is what the Church has proclaimed and continues to proclaim. 

Edited by carbon dioxide
Link to comment
1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

What does a 45 year old man married to a 40 year old woman and a 50 year old man married to a 17 year old woman have in common in 1840?  Answer--Both situations involved a male married to a female.  Age differences might offend you personally but the scriptures do not give an age of when a person can get married or an limit on the age range between the spouse.  What the scriptures are clear on is that marriages are relationships and covenants between males and females only and that factual point is what the Church has proclaimed and continues to proclaim. 

It wan't one woman...it was women/girls as in plural wives.  It was/is ok for BY to have 54 wives...but if two people of the same sex love each other and want to get married, then that's not ok?  The church once believed (and technically still believes) that it's acceptable for one man to have 50 plus wives; and now they proclaim to the world what the family unit should look like.    

Link to comment

Pretty much all of the world's countries allowed polygyny in the past and last time I checked, it was still a majority allowing it (in terms of numbers, not area or population, too lazy to check that).

While it was an anomaly at the time of early Mormon practice in the US, one can't say that for the rest of the world's history.  Same with young women marrying older men.  The early LDS saw themselves as restoring the practices of the Old Testament.

You can't make the same claim for homosexual marriage. That is a novelty, whether or not it is progress or a problem.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Darren10 said:

The Church has always maintained that marriage is between man and woman. This remains true with polygamy as this standard is perfectly consistent with that. The Church does not believe polygamy is to be practiced, nor condoned all the time but that it is based upon authority given from God. We're simply living in an eras which we have no divine authority to do so. That may change or remain the same. So far as societal marriage goes, the Church is perfectly consistent with its own standards: that it is between man and woman. Since polygamy is not authorized by God at the current time, this means one man and one woman.  

And even today, young teenagers may marry adults. It's perfectly legal.

http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/state-by-state-marriage-age-of-consent-laws.html

 

Not woman...but women.  So it's acceptable that the family unit can look like what BY practiced below (polygamy and polyandry), but two gay people who love each other and want to be together and married is unacceptable?  There are way more gay people in the world than members of the church -- and IMO -- it's a pointless fight the church will never win.  

IMG_1183.JPG

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

It wan't one woman...it was women/girls as in plural wives.  It was/is ok for BY to have 54 wives...but if two people of the same sex love each other and want to get married, then that's not ok?  The church once believed (and technically still believes) that it's acceptable for one man to have 50 plus wives; and now they proclaim to the world what the family unit should look like.    

"It was/is ok for BY to have 54 wives...but if two people of the same sex love each other and want to get married, then that's not ok? " - Correct.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Pretty much all of the world's countries allowed polygyny in the past and last time I checked, it was still a majority allowing it (in terms of numbers, not area or population, too lazy to check that).

While it was an anomaly at the time of early Mormon practice in the US, one can't say that for the rest of the world's history.  Same with young women marrying older men.  The early LDS saw themselves as restoring the practices of the Old Testament.

You can't make the same claim for homosexual marriage. That is a novelty, whether or not it is progress or a problem.

My point is this:  IMO the church has no business telling others what the family unit should look like, especially after everything that took place with polygamy; I think it's extremely hypocritical.  

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Pretty much all of the world's countries allowed polygyny in the past and last time I checked, it was still a majority allowing it (in terms of numbers, not area or population, too lazy to check that).

While it was an anomaly at the time of early Mormon practice in the US, one can't say that for the rest of the world's history.  Same with young women marrying older men.  The early LDS saw themselves as restoring the practices of the Old Testament.

You can't make the same claim for homosexual marriage. That is a novelty, whether or not it is progress or a problem.

"You can't make the same claim for homosexual marriage. That is a novelty, whether or not it is progress or a problem." - Very correct. It's only in our very modern era that homosexual marriage is state endorsed.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Your reply was to my post, "Society has a very significant interest in endorsing traditional marriage whereas I cannot think of one single benefit beyond romantic notions why it needs to endorse gay marriage." By 'interest' I did not mean "want" or "desire" but, "it's in their best interest whether they like it or not".

It's also in society's interest (in the way you're using the term) to keep gay marriage legal. Marriage has a positive stabilizing effect. We also have an interest in supporting the constitution and equal rights for all.

You can rail against marriage all you like, but I will continue to be pro-marriage. Marriage is a great institution. It shouldn't be limited to only those folks you personally think are "worthy" based on their gender.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

What does a 45 year old man married to a 40 year old woman and a 50 year old man married to a 17 year old woman have in common in 1840?  Answer--Both situations involved a male married to a female.  Age differences might offend you personally but the scriptures do not give an age of when a person can get married or an limit on the age range between the spouse.  What the scriptures are clear on is that marriages are relationships and covenants between males and females only and that factual point is what the Church has proclaimed and continues to proclaim. 

Do you believe that statutory rape laws are misguided, then?

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

MIAMIbe-DADE COUNTY

 

OCTOBER 26, 2016 3:39 PM

‘Mormon Helping Hands’ volunteers help in post-Hurricane Matthew cleanup effort

Norwan Andrade, Scott Castillo, Manuel Lagos are among the volunteers from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who traveled to Bunnell, Florida, to help with cleanup after Hurricane Matthew.
Gleen Rivas, Alejo Nuñez, Dylan Nuñez, Scott Castillo are among the volunteers from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who traveled to Bunnell, Florida, to help with cleanup after Hurricane Matthew.
Luz Patiño, Laura Perez are among the volunteers from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who traveled to Bunnell, Florida, to help with cleanup after Hurricane Matthew.
 
 
1 of 3
Gleen Rivas, Alejo Nuñez, Dylan Nuñez, Scott Castillo are among the volunteers from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who traveled to Bunnell, Florida, to help with cleanup after Hurricane Matthew.Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Photo provided to the Miami Herald

Miami Herald Staff

 

About 370 volunteers from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints traveled to Bunnell, Florida, to help with cleanup after Hurricane Matthew. Volunteers came from the Miami South Florida Stake, Miami Florida Stake, Boynton Beach Stake, Ft. Myers Stake, Deland Stake, Lake City Stake, and Sarasota Stake.

They worked throughout Flagler and Volusia counties on Saturday, Oct. 15, and Sunday, Oct. 16.

 
 
 
because newspapers love to write stories about individuals....not.

I suppose we'll simply have to disagree about the merits of not allowing someone who is opposed to an organization to drive the agenda when it comes to what that organization does.  In any event, no one is holding a gun to the editor's head demanding that his newspaper cover relief efforts undertaken by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members.  If the editor doesn't deem such efforts newsworthy, he doesn't have to cover them.

Thanks,

-Ken

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

"It was/is ok for BY to have 54 wives...but if two people of the same sex love each other and want to get married, then that's not ok? " - Correct.

It's very hypocritical IMO.  You might not see it that way, but others might think it's hypocritical.  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

Not woman...but women.  So it's acceptable that the family unit can look like what BY practiced below (polygamy and polyandry), but two gay people who love each other and want to be together and married is unacceptable?  There are way more gay people in the world than members of the church -- and IMO -- it's a pointless fight the church will never win.  

IMG_1183.JPG

Here's what I wrote. Bold is rhe related portion: "

The Church has always maintained that marriage is between man and woman. This remains true with polygamy as this standard is perfectly consistent with that. The Church does not believe polygamy is to be practiced, nor condoned all the time but that it is based upon authority given from God. We're simply living in an eras which we have no divine authority to do so. That may change or remain the same. So far as societal marriage goes, the Church is perfectly consistent with its own standards: that it is between man and woman. Since polygamy is not authorized by God at the current time, this means one man and one woman.  

And even today, young teenagers may marry adults. It's perfectly legal.

http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/state-by-state-marriage-age-of-consent-laws.html

Even in polygamous marriages, sex is between man and woman. Even if there is one man and multiple women it's still between man and woman. 

And when did Brigham Young practice polyandry? 

Edited by Darren10
Link to comment
59 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's also in society's interest (in the way you're using the term) to keep gay marriage legal. Marriage has a positive stabilizing effect. We also have an interest in supporting the constitution and equal rights for all.

You can rail against marriage all you like, but I will continue to be pro-marriage. Marriage is a great institution. It shouldn't be limited to only those folks you personally think are "worthy" based on their gender.

Stabalizing gay marriage has absolutely no positive effect on society. If all heterosexual couples produced the same amount of children homosexual couples, there would be absolutely no positive effect on society, no matter how stabalized their relations are through marriage. 

"...but I will continue to be pro-marriage" - Well, you got me there. I"m anti marriage. Yup, that's exactly what I was arguing about...marriage's bad effects on society. 

" It shouldn't be limited to only those folks you personally think are "worthy" based on their gender" - Yeah, let me know when homosexual couples can make new human beings together. Let me know when they can achieve exaltation. 

Edited by Darren10
Link to comment
50 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Here's what I wrote. Bold is rhe related portion: "

The Church has always maintained that marriage is between man and woman. This remains true with polygamy as this standard is perfectly consistent with that. The Church does not believe polygamy is to be practiced, nor condoned all the time but that it is based upon authority given from God. We're simply living in an eras which we have no divine authority to do so. That may change or remain the same. So far as societal marriage goes, the Church is perfectly consistent with its own standards: that it is between man and woman. Since polygamy is not authorized by God at the current time, this means one man and one woman.  

And even today, young teenagers may marry adults. It's perfectly legal.

http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/state-by-state-marriage-age-of-consent-laws.html

Even in polygamous marriages, sex is between man and woman. Even if there is one man and multiple women it's still between man and woman. 

And when did Brigham Young practice polyandry? 

Zina Huntington Jacobs

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

Stabalizing gay marriage has absolutely no positive effect on society. If all heterosexual couples produced the same amount of children homosexual couples, there would be absolutely no positive effect on society, no matter how stabalized their relations are through marriage. 

"...but I will continue to be pro-marriage" - Well, you got me there. I"m anti marriage. Yup, that's exactly what I was arguing about...marriage's bad effects on society. 

" It shouldn't be limited to only those folks you personally think are "worthy" based on their gender" - Yeah, let me know when homosexual couples can make new human beings together. Let me know when they can achieve exaltation. 

This is why I have grown tired of these threads.  As if the only marriages allowed are those that promise to bear children.  Darren has heard this before, yet still thinks it is a good argument.  Is anyone going to change their mind about gay marriage at the end of this thread?  With arguments like this, I would guess no.  Those that oppose gay marriage evidently think these are legitimate reasons to deny gays from marrying.  Those that support gay marriage see this argument as down right silly since we don't judge any other marriage by whether can or even want to procreate.  

What is the point?  Gay marriage is legal.  The Mormon church does not support it.  End of story.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Darren10 said:

You're factually correct but this answers the wrong post. You answered this post, "What do you base your numbers on and could you be specific as to your source? (For the record, I do believe you are numerically correct). Also, why in over 200 years of the Constitution do judges find only now the Constitutional right to marry whomever one wants to marry? " - So, why in over 200 years of constitutional history are we only now finding a constitutional right to gay marriage? 

As for the post you cited, does not the very arguments used in the courts to support gay marriage also apply to anyone who wants to marry anyone or anything?  

EDITED TO AD: Also, since you apparently find disagreeing with judges by someone like me laughable (after all, I'm just a mere voting citizen, do, what do I know?), then are you not setting up a society in which the judges have spoken and therefore we all must comply? Doesn't that shut up the voice of the people? And what role does the Legislative Branch of government have if their laws can be overturned by a mere dozen or so unelected officials and create new law out of it?

 

You are welcome to your opinion.  I just personally don't think it has much of a constitutional ground to stand on when all these other courts and judges have ruled completely opposite of your belief.  I am sure that doesn't matter one bit to you.  So carry on.

Link to comment

And while we're at it, My Dear Johnnie Cake ... 

... wasn't it you who started a thread just a week or two ago on this very Board professing to be gravely concerned about how something-or-other (proxy baptisms of such admittedly thoroughly-reprobate historical figures such as Hitler, I believe it was) adversely impacted the reputation of our (that is, your and my) beloved Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  Yet, now, it seems that you're so thoroughly unconcerned about the reputation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that you feel that its attempts to garner positive publicity (an effort undertaken, at least in part, to prevent its enemies from controlling the narrative regarding it) simply is an unseemly instance of "doing one's alms before men, to be seen of them."  It would seem to me that someone who is so concerned with the reputation of the Church of Jesus Christ as you profess to be would, at least, give the organization and its leaders the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their motivations for fomenting positive publicity, even if he happens to disagree with those efforts.

You, though, seem conflicted: A week or two ago, you were the equivalent of thoroughly aghast ... yes, positively aghast, you were :shok::blink: ... at the cavalier attitude displayed by those of us who were unconcerned about the notion that allowing proxy ordinances to be performed on behalf of someone who, undeniably, is one of history's most evil, most vile, most thoroughly reprobate figures (at least, what he did could be characterized as such) could negatively impact the reputation of the Church of Jesus Christ.  Yet, now, the Church of Jesus Christ shouldn't draw any attention to itself when it does something good, because that's simply "doing one's alms before men."

Pray tell, which is it, Johnnie Cake?  Are you genuinely concerned about the reputation of the Church of Jesus Christ, or aren't you?  Pick a horse and ride it. ;):) 

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

And while we're at it, My Dear Johnnie Cake ... 

... wasn't it you who started a thread just a week or two ago on this very Board professing to be gravely concerned about how something-or-other (proxy baptisms of such admittedly thoroughly-reprobate historical figures such as Hitler, I believe it was) adversely impacted the reputation of our (that is, your and my) beloved Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  Yet, now, it seems that you're so thoroughly unconcerned about the reputation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that you feel that its attempts to garner positive publicity (an effort undertaken, at least in part, to prevent its enemies from controlling the narrative regarding it) simply is an unseemly instance of "doing one's alms before men, to be seen of them."  It would seem to me that someone who is so concerned with the reputation of the Church of Jesus Christ as you profess to be would, at least, give the organization and its leaders the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their motivations for fomenting positive publicity, even if he happens to disagree with those efforts.

You, though, seem conflicted: A week or two ago, you were the equivalent of thoroughly aghast ... yes, positively aghast, you were :shok::blink: ... at the cavalier attitude displayed by those of us who were unconcerned about the notion that allowing proxy ordinances to be performed on behalf of someone who, undeniably, is one of history's most evil, most vile, most thoroughly reprobate figures (at least, what he did could be characterized as such) could negatively impact the reputation of the Church of Jesus Christ.  Yet, now, the Church of Jesus Christ shouldn't draw any attention to itself when it does something good, because that's simply "doing one's alms before men."

Pray tell, which is it, Johnnie Cake?  Are you genuinely concerned about the reputation of the Church of Jesus Christ, or aren't you?  Pick a horse and ride it. ;):) 

Can I not both be concerned when the good name of the church is besmirch by baptizing hitler and also hope for the church to provide true Christlike charity without the hope of recognition and public praise?  

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Can I not both be concerned when the good name of the church is besmirch by baptizing hitler and also hope for the church to provide true Christlike charity without the hope of recognition and public praise?  

I don't accept your premise that the good name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is "besmirched" by proxy ordinances, nor do I accept your premise that, strictly speaking, "the hope of recognition and public praise" is the aim of the Church of Jesus Christ when its service is publicized.  I stand by my assertion that Matthew 6:1 does not require that the Church of Jesus Christ allow its detractors to drive the narrative regarding it.  And if you're really concerned with the public image and good name of the Church of Jesus Christ, why not give it and its leaders the benefit of the doubt regarding their motivations when such service is publicized?

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
13 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

It wan't one woman...it was women/girls as in plural wives.  It was/is ok for BY to have 54 wives...but if two people of the same sex love each other and want to get married, then that's not ok?  The church once believed (and technically still believes) that it's acceptable for one man to have 50 plus wives; and now they proclaim to the world what the family unit should look like.    

Exactly, and how is that fair for the lone man that will have no prospects? If that is what it's all about, marriage and families, the single man that has no wives to find, is stuck. It is proven that there are not more females than male. So what do those poor males do? ETA: need to explain my post better, I'm speaking of the time that polygamy was lived in the early years of the church. 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment

There is a lot of conversation going around about how worried LDS women are that polygamy may be put back in place.  I wonder often if mormon priesthood holders have the same concern with their daughters who are young teenagers.  I believe that even the most elite of men would have to face the hardest in their faith.  It is easy to say well..we will just follow God's commandment if it ever comes to this..but I dare say..it would charge the very faithful with excommunication with the very thought of going against the  giving up a young daughter to an old friend of the family.  The thing is...no one has the right to define family. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't accept your premise that the good name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is "besmirched" by proxy ordinances, nor do I accept your premise that, strictly speaking, "the hope of recognition and public praise" is the aim of the Church of Jesus Christ when its service is publicized.  I stand by my assertion that Matthew 6:1 does not require that the Church of Jesus Christ allow its detractors to drive the narrative regarding it.  And if you're really concerned with the public image and good name of the Church of Jesus Christ, why not give it and its leaders the benefit of the doubt regarding their motivations when such service is publicized?

If you can't see how baptizing Hitler damages the image of the church and how performing charity works the comes with ulterior motives that seeks positive publicity for the image of the church then we have nothing more to discuss on this side thread high jack.  I wish you all the best

Edited by Johnnie Cake
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...