The John Dehlin Quiz In Support Of A Change Within Lds Regarding Ssa And Ordaining Women

[omni]

Do you have the complete letter? Or just this excerpt? Was it a hyperbole?

JLHPROF originally provided the quote from a book that I believe he owns. I don't have a copy, but if he sees this he may be able to provide more info. If you'll notice the quote was in 1857, relatively early on in Utah polygamy where it was openly encouraged to be practiced. One could suspect the problems to only be exasperated as time went on.

Edited October 12, 2013 by omni

[JLHPROF]

JLHPROF originally provided the quote from a book that I believe he owns. I don't have a copy, but if he sees this he may be able to provide more info. If you'll notice the quote was in 1857, relatively early on in Utah polygamy where it was openly encouraged to be practiced. One could suspect the problems to only be exasperated as time went on.

I don't - the book just has the quote and reference.  The book is easily accessible (and affordable) - Mormon Polygamy by Richard S. Van Wagoner Signature Books.

[Daniel2]

This, of course, is true for LGBT who prioritize their LGBT over their spirituality--i.e. who identify themselves ("who they truly are") more by their sexual orientation than by their orientation to Christ, and who manifest their priorities in their behavior. It is false where their priorities and self-identification are reversed, and their behavior follows suit.

 

The same, in principle, holds for any and all of us with inclination that run contrary to godliness. Confirmed adulterers may not find the Church all that spiritually conducive.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

False dichotomy.  There are many Christians in same-sex relationships who self-identify as both fully gay AND fully Christian, and who's behavior manifests their priorities of loving and being oriented both towards their spouse and towards Christ.  For many, the two are not in conflict.  For them, there is no conflict between loving a same-sex spouse and the inclination towards godliness.

 

If confirmed adulterers "may not find the church all that spiritually conducive," perhaps "the church" needs to do a better job of following Christ's example towards both a) the adulterous woman and b) his correction of the members of the church who attempted to condemn her. 

 

Daniel2

[Glenn101]

If confirmed adulterers "may not find the church all that spiritually conducive," perhaps "the church" needs to do a better job of following Christ's example towards both a) the adulterous woman and b) his correction of the members of the church who attempted to condemn her. 

 

Daniel2

 

Yes Christ truly told the woman "Neither do I condemn thee".

 

Jesus was not attempting to correct members of the church, but "the scribes and Pharisees" who were "tempting him, that they might have to accuse him."

 

But Jesus also told the woman, "go and sin no more."

 

This is in accord with the attitudes of the leadership and teachings of the church or rather I should say that the attitudes of the church leadership and teachings are in accord with that scripture (and others).

 

Glenn

Edited October 12, 2013 by Glenn101

[CV75]

So when the breathren say that SSM can't happen and "it will always be so" we can take it that it might not apply to the next generation even if it applies to us?

No, because polygamy is only one application of marriage, which by eternal definition is the new and everlasting covenant between a man and a woman, as exemplified by Adam and Eve’s marriage (before there was time against which “always” and “never” could be used in relative ways).

 

Because polygamy is only introduced as needed, “always” and “never” are relative terms. But the eternal covenant is only between a man and a woman, so “always” and “never” are not relative when it comes to male-female or same-sex unions respectively. 

[wenglund]

False dichotomy.  There are many Christians in same-sex relationships who self-identify as both fully gay AND fully Christian, and who's behavior manifests their priorities of loving and being oriented both towards their spouse and towards Christ.  For many, the two are not in conflict.  For them, there is no conflict between loving a same-sex spouse and the inclination towards godliness.

 

It isn't a false dichotomy for the vast majority of Christians who believe and understood Christ when he said: "No man can serve two masters." (Mt 6:34) I don't doubt that there are Christians who may self-identify as adulterers and Christian, and who may suppose that they can serve both masters without conflict. Again, I suspect that there isn't any sin of any magnitude that at least some Christian may creatively view as consistent and conducive with their belief in Christ. So?

 

If confirmed adulterers "may not find the church all that spiritually conducive," perhaps "the church" needs to do a better job of following Christ's example towards both a) the adulterous woman and b) his correction of the members of the church who attempted to condemn her. Daniel2

 

As much as the Church has done so, it hasn't and won't suffice in making things conducive for confirmed adulterers (or any other types of sinners, particularly those involving sacred procreative powers), and this because of the Church's compliance with the Saviors edict to "go and sin no more." In other words, the problem isn't with the Church judging too harshly or condemning (the Church is geared towards saving souls rather than condemning them), but with the sinners continuing to serve their sins rather than Christ. There servitude to sin is what makes the Church non-condusive, and not the other way around, though, as prophesied, some will see up as down and down as up, and good as bad and bad as consistent with Christ. Such is the world we now live in.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[canard78]

I'm sat watching a Steven Fry documentary about the persecution and bigotry directed at gay people around the world.

It saddens me that the church I am a part of has fellow members and leaders who say and believes things that perpetuates this negativity.

[california boy]

No, because polygamy is only one application of marriage, which by eternal definition is the new and everlasting covenant between a man and a woman, as exemplified by Adam and Eve’s marriage (before there was time against which “always” and “never” could be used in relative ways).

 

Because polygamy is only introduced as needed, “always” and “never” are relative terms. But the eternal covenant is only between a man and a woman, so “always” and “never” are not relative when it comes to male-female or same-sex unions respectively. 

Am I the only one who thinks it is silly for members of the church to argue whether SSM will EVER be a part of the gospel?  Especially when it takes pretzel twisting to explain their position.  Either God will institute the practice or He won't.  If God never does, then like most here believe, SSM will not be instituted.  If God does institute SSM then every faithful member will say "forget what was ever said about SSM in the past.  God has spoken."  Campaigning for it one way or the other seems irrelevant, at least to me.  The same would be true with reintroducing polygamy.

[CV75]

Am I the only one who thinks it is silly for members of the church to argue whether SSM will EVER be a part of the gospel?  Especially when it takes pretzel twisting to explain their position.  Either God will institute the practice or He won't.  If God never does, then like most here believe, SSM will not be instituted.  If God does institute SSM then every faithful member will say "forget what was ever said about SSM in the past.  God has spoken."  Campaigning for it one way or the other seems irrelevant, at least to me.  The same would be true with reintroducing polygamy.

This is irrelevant to my post, which is an explanation of how the words “always” and “never” can be used in a relative sense--a perfectly good use of my time!

 

Prognosticating what will or will not happen is not the same as accepting or explaining the way things are, and why, or how they work. Do you have an issue with faithful members discussing any of these? (rhetorical question)

[wenglund]

I'm sat watching a Steven Fry documentary about the persecution and bigotry directed at gay people around the world.

It saddens me that the church I am a part of has fellow members and leaders who say and believes things that perpetuates this negativity.

 

Can you give some examples where statements of your fellow members and leaders have perpetuated persecution and bigotry against gay people--particularly within the last decade? I ask so as to test for the fallacy of guilt-by-association, judgmentalism, or hyperbole.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

Can you give some examples where statements of your fellow members and leaders have perpetuated persecution and bigotry against gay people--particularly within the last decade? I ask so as to test for the fallacy of guilt-by-association, judgmentalism, or hyperbole.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I don't want to start a gay marriage debate on this thread (you and I have already done that) but to answer the question you posed:  I see Prop 8 as something members/leaders did that perpetuated "persecution and bigotry against gay people".

[wenglund]

I don't want to start a gay marriage debate on this thread (you and I have already done that) but to answer the question you posed:  I see Prop 8 as something members/leaders did that perpetuated "persecution and bigotry against gay people".

 

While I ardently disagree, and I may view your example as extremist and an uncharitable and manipulative abuse of the words "persecution and bigotry," and I may think it trivializes significant/legitimate cases of persecution and bigotry, you are entitled to your opinion. I am just wondering if you are consistent in viewing Prop 8 as also perpetuating persecution and bigotry against children, since it clearly defines marriage in adult terms as between a man and a woman? In other words, I am wondering just how silly you are willing to get with your accusations.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

While I ardently disagree, and I may view your example as extremist and an uncharitable and manipulative abuse of the words "persecution and bigotry," and I may think it trivializes significant/legitimate cases of persecution and bigotry, you are entitled to your opinion. I am just wondering if you are consistent in viewing Prop 8 as also perpetuating persecution and bigotry against children, since it clearly defines marriage in adult terms as between a man and a woman? In other words, I am wondering just how silly you are willing to get with your accusations.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Given that marriage is such a fundamental part of most people's lives, I don't see it as trivializing other cases of persecution & bigotry to also label Prop 8 as such.  I know you don't see it that way but you did ask for examples.

 

As for children, I believe there is substantial legal precedence for minors not having the same set of rights as adults.  But you are welcome to say that they are being persecuted for their age.

[wenglund]

Given that marriage is such a fundamental part of most people's lives, I don't see it as trivializing other cases of persecution & bigotry to also label Prop 8 as such.  I know you don't see it that way but you did ask for examples.

 

If you think that having one's relationship legally defined as a domestic partnership rather than as a marriage, is anything close to lynch mobs and burning crosses and the inability to vote or sit anywhere on the bus or in theaters, or not drink from certain fountains, or not stay in certain hotels, or not work at certain jobs, or live in certain parts of town, then I seriously question your sense of proportion and perspective. And, you are right, I did ask for examples. However, I was hoping for less asinine examples.

 

As for children, I believe there is substantial legal precedence for minors not having the same set of rights as adults.  But you are welcome to say that they are being persecuted for their age.

 

Such a silly thought wouldn't cross my mind. But, at least you aren't consistent.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

If you think that having one's relationship legally defined as a domestic partnership rather than as a marriage, is anything close to lynch mobs and burning crosses and the inability to vote or sit anywhere on the bus or in theaters, or not drink from certain fountains, or not stay in certain hotels, or not work at certain jobs, or live in certain parts of town, then I seriously question your sense of proportion and perspective. And, you are right, I did ask for examples. However, I was hoping for less asinine examples.

 

 

 

 

Such a silly thought wouldn't cross my mind. But, at least you aren't consistent.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I don't think it compares to lynch mobs though it does compare to being seated in the back of the bus.

 

I try to be consistent as possible in my application of the constitution, for that reason I have to support legal marriage equality.  And, look, I've got all these "activist" judges agreeing with me.  

[wenglund]

I don't think it compares to lynch mobs though it does compare to being seated in the back of the bus.

 

In some respects mountains are comparable to mole hills.

 

I try to be consistent as possible in my application of the constitution, for that reason I have to support legal marriage equality.  And, look, I've got all these "activist" judges agreeing with me.  

 

Oh...good...now we can look forward to you starting endless threads on legal marriage equality for children, incestuous relations, bigamy, between friends, humans and animals, inanimate object, and the like, realizing that it may be just a matter of time for "activist" judge to agree with you, just as with SSM. Keep weaving that handbasket.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

In some respects mountains are comparable to mole hills.

 

 

 

 

Oh...good...now we can look forward to you starting endless threads on legal marriage equality for children, incestuous relations, bigamy, between friends, humans and animals, inanimate object, and the like, realizing that it may be just a matter of time for "activist" judge to agree with you, just as with SSM. Keep weaving that handbasket.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

It was a joke, Wade.  I don't believe them to be activist judges and I was in favor of marriage equality before the recent court rulings were handed down.

 

I've also never argued in favor of any of those concepts (marriage for children, incestuous relations, bigamy, bestiality).

[wenglund]

It was a joke, Wade.  I don't believe them to be activist judges and I was in favor of marriage equality before the recent court rulings were handed down.

 

I know it was a joke. That was apparent in the parenthesis. I was playing along with the joke.

 

I've also never argued in favor of any of those concepts (marriage for children, incestuous relations, bigamy, bestiality).

 

Okay, so again, at least you aren't consistent.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

Okay, so again, at least you aren't consistent.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I'm consistent from a constitutional perspective.  I am definitely not consistent to your views.

[wenglund]

I'm consistent from a constitutional perspective.  I am definitely not consistent to your views.

 

Just out of curiosity (not to derail the thread much further), and as a test of your consistency, what constitutional arguments you have used in favor of SSM that don't apply to bigamy, polygamy, incestuous marriages, marriages of under-aged children, etc.?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

Just out of curiosity (not to derail the thread much further), and as a test of your consistency, what constitutional arguments you have used in favor of SSM that don't apply to bigamy, polygamy, incestuous marriages, marriages of under-aged children, etc.?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Your judgement of my "consistency" isn't really something I give much weight to.

Due process and equal protection under the law are the constitutional arguments in favor of marriage equality.

As a believing Mormon, libertarian, and polygamist descendant, I don't have a problem with the legalization of other forms of marriage providing they are entered into by consenting adults and that we provide proper protection for children created from those unions.

[emarkp]

Due process and equal protection under the law are the constitutional arguments in favor of marriage equality.

Actually, no they're not. But I won't derail this into politics, just rejecting your assertion. However, based on the following, I have to ask:

 

As a believing Mormon, libertarian, and polygamist descendant, I don't have a problem with the legalization of other forms of marriage providing they are entered into by consenting adults and that we provide proper protection for children created from those unions.

Do you reject "The Family : A Proclamation to the World" as false doctrine? Do you belive the 1st Presidency to be apostate?

[rockpond]

Actually, no they're not. But I won't derail this into politics, just rejecting your assertion. However, based on the following, I have to ask:

Do you reject "The Family : A Proclamation to the World" as false doctrine? Do you belive the 1st Presidency to be apostate?

You are more than welcome to reject my assertion but that is the constitutional basis being used by judges across the nation to approve marriage equality.

And my answer is no to both of your questions.

[emarkp]

marriage equality. And my answer is no to both of your questions.

"Marriage" means husband and wife. Making up new words doesn't make you (or a judge) right.

Now the proclamation was pretty clear about marriage being about husband and wife. I don't see how you can accept it and the 1st presidency yet reject what marriage means.

[rockpond]

"Marriage" means husband and wife. Making up new words doesn't make you (or a judge) right.

Now the proclamation was pretty clear about marriage being about husband and wife. I don't see how you can accept it and the 1st presidency yet reject what marriage means.

Who's making up new words? I'm still using the same term: marriage.

The Proclamation sits prominently on the piano in the center of my home. It tells me that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. I accept that and have, in fact, followed it. So my life is a testament that I have not rejected what marriage means nor have I rejected the first presidency.

That is my religious belief. And since I support religious freedom, I recognize that others believe differently. Many people believe in a god that affirms same gender marriages as well. So if my religious beliefs regarding marriage and your religious beliefs regarding marriage are to receive legal recognition... So should my neighbor's beliefs (as long as they do not harm others).

And that is how I support the First Presidency, the Proclamation, religious freedom, and marriage equality.

That's the 1st amendment argument and the one that is closest to my heart. But it's the 14th amendment argument that the judges seem to be using to legalize marriage equality.