Utah Polygamy Law Declared Unconstitutional

[JLHPROF]

It seems odd to me that a church teaching sex outside of marriage is against the will of God but sex within the bounds of marriage is a beautiful thing encouraged by God.  Yet for gay couples, sex outside of marriage is preferable to sex within the bounds of marriage.  Something just doesn't ring true.

 

I don't think that the Church is teaching that sex for gay couples is acceptable or even preferable under any circumstances.

I don't think God recognizes same sex marriages as meaning anything so that sex within or without of the "marriage" would make no difference from a sin perspective.  Having a civil marriage doesn't lessen the sin.

[cdowis]

Just what does the church expect gay couples to do that are not members of the church?

The same thing the church expects of a man living in a legal polygamous marriage if he requests baptism into the church ==>

 

 

 Live the commandments of God respecting sexual morality

[ERayR]

How did a thread on polygamy get hijacked to SSM?

[cdowis]

I think he got his threads mixed up.  I did not notice this until after I responded to his posts.

[bluebell]

It seems odd to me that a church teaching sex outside of marriage is against the will of God but sex within the bounds of marriage is a beautiful thing encouraged by God.  Yet for gay couples, sex outside of marriage is preferable to sex within the bounds of marriage.  Something just doesn't ring true.

 

It's probably not ringing true because it's not at all what the church actually teaches.

 

No where does the church teach that for gays, sex outside of marriage is preferable to sex within marriage.  The church teaches that homosexual sex is immoral both inside and outside of marriage.

 

SSM must be more immoral than couples living together.  Even though that position is directly opposed to what we have known about the law of chastity since the beginning of time.

 

 

I don't believe the church teaches that it's more immoral.  I think it teaches that it's a sin just like couples living together, but a sin for a different reason.

 

If, as the church teaches, sex must be kept within the bounds the Lord has set or it is a sin, and homosexual sex is outside of those bounds, then it is a sin under any circumstances.  

[JLHPROF]

How did a thread on polygamy get hijacked to SSM?

 

Because the rulings on polygamy and SSM came down back to back, and were issued for similar legal reasons (rights, privacy, etc), and both have repercussions to Mormonism, and because both are unpopular topics with varying people, and so on, and so on...

 

But Polygamy is an eternal doctrine restored to Mormonism that has been temporarily revoked so is currently unacceptable.  SSM is an attempt to legitimze sin as acceptable.  It is fascinating that the two rulings came side by side, and perhaps even means something.

[ERayR]

Because the rulings on polygamy and SSM came down back to back, and were issued for similar legal reasons (rights, privacy, etc), and both have repercussions to Mormonism, and because both are unpopular topics with varying people, and so on, and so on...

 

But Polygamy is an eternal doctrine restored to Mormonism that has been temporarily revoked so is currently unacceptable.  SSM is an attempt to legitimze sin as acceptable.  It is fascinating that the two rulings came side by side, and perhaps even means something.

 

What are the repercussions to Mormonism that you see? 

[california boy]

 

It's probably not ringing true because it's not at all what the church actually teaches.

 

No where does the church teach that for gays, sex outside of marriage is preferable to sex within marriage.  The church teaches that homosexual sex is immoral both inside and outside of marriage.

 

 

I don't believe the church teaches that it's more immoral.  I think it teaches that it's a sin just like couples living together, but a sin for a different reason.

 

If, as the church teaches, sex must be kept within the bounds the Lord has set or it is a sin, and homosexual sex is outside of those bounds, then it is a sin under any circumstances.  

I completely agree that this is the churches current positon on homosexual behavior

 

 

 

If the church believes that SSM is immoral, then the world is a more moral place without SSM, and a less moral place with SSM.  

 

Even if you disagree with the premise, the argument itself is logical, isn't it?

 

 

Has the church said?  I'm not aware of anything the church has taught on the subject.

 

I was responding to this post which, if I am reading it right, you felt that SSM makes the world more immoral.  When in fact, it does not change the morality one bit.  As you indicate, it is the same immorality in the eyes of the church whether a gay couple is married or not.  Which does make one wonder why the church even cares about SSM.  If the immorality is the same, then what difference is it whether a gay couplle is married or not.

 

I am not sure how we got onto SSM in this thread.  This discussion should probably move to the "How does ssm effect the chruch thread.

[bluebell]

I completely agree that this is the churches current positon on homosexual behavior

I was responding to this post which, if I am reading it right, you felt that SSM makes the world more immoral. When in fact, it does not change the morality one bit. As you indicate, it is the same immorality in the eyes of the church whether a gay couple is married or not. Which does make one wonder why the church even cares about SSM. If the immorality is the same, then what difference is it whether a gay couplle is married or not.

I am not sure how we got onto SSM in this thread. This discussion should probably move to the "How does ssm effect the chruch thread.

First, I did not say I thought SSM would make the world more immoral, I said that the church seems to believe that it would.

In a later post I clarified that it was the legitimizing of sin that was the issue with SSM.

To be completely clear though, I'm not a spokesman for the church. I've tried to speak in terms of "ifs" and the like because I definitely don't feel qualified to make pronouncements on these issues.

[california boy]

First, I did not say I thought SSM would make the world more immoral, I said that the church seems to believe that it would.

In a later post I clarified that it was the legitimizing of sin that was the issue with SSM.

To be completely clear though, I'm not a spokesman for the church. I've tried to speak in terms of "ifs" and the like because I definitely don't feel qualified to make pronouncements on these issues.

fair enough

[EllenMaksoud]

I completely agree that this is the churches current positon on homosexual behavior

 

 

 

I was responding to this post which, if I am reading it right, you felt that SSM makes the world more immoral.  When in fact, it does not change the morality one bit.  As you indicate, it is the same immorality in the eyes of the church whether a gay couple is married or not.  Which does make one wonder why the church even cares about SSM.  If the immorality is the same, then what difference is it whether a gay couplle is married or not.

 

I am not sure how we got onto SSM in this thread.  This discussion should probably move to the "How does ssm effect the chruch thread.

Yes, I am just wondering how a Polygamy thread got into SSM too.  C Boy, you don't get to have all the fun here, ya know.

 

I am just hoping that if it gets back into the church, it is not abused, and is done according to the direction of Heavenly Father, administered by the Prophet, that there are no 14 year old girls in it, no welfare fraud, that they not part from the SLC church, that they ask me, and that I get to wear pants to church like them.   Um well maybe they are bloomers, or leggings or ... ?

[thesometimesaint]

What are the repercussions to Mormonism that you see? 

 

None really. The State shouldn't be in business of defining sin, and the Church shouldn't be in the business of defining law.

[Bob Crockett]

None really. The State shouldn't be in business of defining sin, and the Church shouldn't be in the business of defining law.

I agree on the first point but not the second.   If unions, corporations, atheists, drug users, plaintiffs' personal injury lawyers, environmentalists, foreign governments and fugitives living in Cuba have a voice in influencing legislation, then certainly so should churches.  Although Thomas Jefferson would disagree with me, the separation of church and state doctrine applies only to the conduct of the federal government.

[thesometimesaint]

I agree on the first point but not the second.   If unions, corporations, atheists, drug users, plaintiffs' personal injury lawyers, environmentalists, foreign governments and fugitives living in Cuba have a voice in influencing legislation, then certainly so should churches.  Although Thomas Jefferson would disagree with me, the separation of church and state doctrine applies only to the conduct of the federal government.

 

I think they all should have a say just not the last word. On that I think we and Jefferson would agree.

[JLHPROF]

What are the repercussions to Mormonism that you see? 

 

No guaranteed repercussions, but it opens up several possibilities.

I want to be clear that I neither anticipate or desire any of these results, but only list them as things I am sure are being discussed at high levels so that appropriate responses can be prepared.

 

1. Not the least of which is future lawsuits of discrimination when the Church refuses to perform some legal weddings and not others.

2. The polygamy ban within the Church came as a result of the legal bans.  If the legal bans are gone, polygamy COULD (but probably won't) be restored.

3. Excommunication for SSM or Polygamy which are now acceptable would legally fall under discriminatory practices (which would make the Church no friends and would draw comparisons publicly to less savory organizations).

4. Missionary work could become harder if the Church is seen as opposing societally acceptable and legal relationships.

5. If the church were to change ANY of its public positions on polygamy or SSM it would have definite repercussions.  It would also open the gate for other activists, such as Ordain Women to push their equality causes.

 

So, do I think any of these will for sure happen?  Doubt it, but these are potential repercussions of the two Utah rulings that the Church (and Mormonism) are undoubtedly considering.

[strappinglad]

What began as a search for " polygamy in China " led me to this site which gives a decent overview of different marriage forms in history. One can scroll down to see how marriages were seen in different times and cultures. There is an article on the overview of Mormon practices that looks reasonably accurate. What struck me was the fluidity of the idea of marriage in varied times and places.

http://marriagepartner.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3822

[rockpond]

No guaranteed repercussions, but it opens up several possibilities.

I want to be clear that I neither anticipate or desire any of these results, but only list them as things I am sure are being discussed at high levels so that appropriate responses can be prepared.

 

1. Not the least of which is future lawsuits of discrimination when the Church refuses to perform some legal weddings and not others.

2. The polygamy ban within the Church came as a result of the legal bans.  If the legal bans are gone, polygamy COULD (but probably won't) be restored.

3. Excommunication for SSM or Polygamy which are now acceptable would legally fall under discriminatory practices (which would make the Church no friends and would draw comparisons publicly to less savory organizations).

4. Missionary work could become harder if the Church is seen as opposing societally acceptable and legal relationships.

5. If the church were to change ANY of its public positions on polygamy or SSM it would have definite repercussions.  It would also open the gate for other activists, such as Ordain Women to push their equality causes.

 

So, do I think any of these will for sure happen?  Doubt it, but these are potential repercussions of the two Utah rulings that the Church (and Mormonism) are undoubtedly considering.

 

I think this is a comprehensive list.  My feedback on the points should anyone care (though they probably don't)...

 

1.  We refuse to perform a lot of legal weddings right now.

 

2.  Agreed.

 

3.  We already excommunicate for a number of things that are currently acceptable in society.

 

4.  I think this is true and I suspect in some ways it is already happening.

 

5.  I feel like it just did that with the article on Race and the Priesthood, changing a public position (though it could be argued that they already had done that with respect to the Randy Bott incident), and throwing that gate wide open for other equality causes.

[EllenMaksoud]

Sister Maksoud, we are not amused at your very lame and disrespectful attempt at humor.