Same Sex Marriage

[thesometimesaint]

Well let's use numbers from today. More than half of members are not active. About half of the active members don't have recommends. How is that any different?

ETA: Why do you think the church was so reluctant to get rid of polygamy? Why did it cause the formation of splinter groups that currently teach polygamy is required?

 

 

Possession of TR's in this life are not required for exaltation.

[JLHPROF]

Possession of TR's in this life are not required for exaltation.

 

Fine, how about tithing?  word of wisdom?  keeping of temple covenants?  correct wearing of the garment? 

 

There are many laws "required" for exaltation that have about the same % today of members living as lived plural marriage when it was required.  The argument that only a small percent (scholars disagree on how many, 5-20%) of members lived plural marriage at its peak is not evidence that it was not taught as necessary for exaltation from 1852-1890.  It is only evidence that members keep the laws they choose, just as they do today.

[halconero]

Fine, how about tithing?  word of wisdom?  keeping of temple covenants?  correct wearing of the garment? 

 

There are many laws "required" for exaltation that have about the same % today of members living as lived plural marriage when it was required.  The argument that only a small percent (scholars disagree on how many, 5-20%) of members lived plural marriage at its peak is not evidence that it was not taught as necessary for exaltation from 1852-1890.  It is only evidence that members keep the laws they choose, just as they do today.

 

Please refer to the quotes I posted.

[bluebell]

Fine, how about tithing?  word of wisdom?  keeping of temple covenants?  correct wearing of the garment? 

 

There are many laws "required" for exaltation that have about the same % today of members living as lived plural marriage when it was required.  The argument that only a small percent (scholars disagree on how many, 5-20%) of members lived plural marriage at its peak is not evidence that it was not taught as necessary for exaltation from 1852-1890.  It is only evidence that members keep the laws they choose, just as they do today.

 

I think in order to compare the two (the less active today with the monogamous of the early church), one would have to first prove that those who chose not to participate in polygamy did so because they did not care/believe it really affected their exaltation or no longer associated with the church though their names remained on the roles.

 

Since most people who are less active or who don't have a temple recommend are or don't because they don't believe the doctrinal claims of the church, or don't believe it will make a difference in the hereafter, or don't consider themselves 'mormons', it wouldn't be an equal comparison to attempt to compare their numbers with people who very much believed in the teachings of the church or who actively considered themselves to be members in good standing but still did not follow a commandment that was necessary for exaltation.

 

Though, I don't know that this information is available to use in the comparison.

[thesometimesaint]

Fine, how about tithing?  word of wisdom?  keeping of temple covenants?  correct wearing of the garment? 

 

There are many laws "required" for exaltation that have about the same % today of members living as lived plural marriage when it was required.  The argument that only a small percent (scholars disagree on how many, 5-20%) of members lived plural marriage at its peak is not evidence that it was not taught as necessary for exaltation from 1852-1890.  It is only evidence that members keep the laws they choose, just as they do today.

 

Tithing is required, but the amount varies for $0.00 to whatever.

 

Word of Wisdom is required, but subject to your doctor tells you.

 

Keeping Temple covenants is required if you have made them.

 

Correct wearing of the Garment is required if you made the covenant.

 

It could have been 99.999% the principle is still the same. If you weren't asked there was/is no requirement.

[Scott Lloyd]

This is false.  State recognized marriage provides a host of legal rights like making medical decisions, inheritance benefits, protection of children, etc.  Those rights have been realized in the states where gay marriage is now recognized and are being fought for (and won) in other states as we speak.

All of which could have been enacted -- and were rapidly on their way to being enacted -- without changing the definition of marriage.

 

I daresay all of that would have happened within the time it is now taking for the courts and the gay rights movement to compel the states one by one to redefine marriage.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Tithing is required, but the amount varies for $0.00 to whatever.

 

Word of Wisdom is required, but subject to your doctor tells you.

 

Keeping Temple covenants is required if you have made them.

 

Correct wearing of the Garment is required if you made the covenant.

 

It could have been 99.999% the principle is still the same. If you weren't asked there was/is no requirement.

To be fair, it must be acknowledged that receiving and keeping temple covenants is a requirement for exaltation for anyone who has ever lived or ever will live.

 

And while that opportunity will be provided for those who have not had it in mortality, it is not wise for those who do have that opportunity to put it off.

[thesometimesaint]

To be fair, it must be acknowledged that receiving and keeping temple covenants is a requirement for exaltation for anyone who has ever lived or ever will live.

 

And while that opportunity will be provided for those who have not had it in mortality, it is not wise for those who do have that opportunity to put it off.

 

Agreed.

[Senator]

All of which could have been enacted -- and were rapidly on their way to being enacted -- without changing the definition of marriage.

 

 

 

Can you (or anyone else for that matter) show me what the practical differences are/would be between a civil union and a marriage?  other than the title..

[thesometimesaint]

Can you (or anyone else for that matter) show me what the practical differences are/would be between a civil union and a marriage?  other than the title..

 

A rose by any other name... .

[Senator]

A rose by any other name... .

 

Yes, I understand that.

 

Like I said, other than the title

[Scott Lloyd]

Can you (or anyone else for that matter) show me what the practical differences are/would be between a civil union and a marriage?  other than the title..

From the standpoint of a gay couple seeking those specific legal benefits, probably none. Which goes to my point that  it was not/is not necessary to redefine marriage, except, as I said before, it amounts to a symbolic victory for those seeking the normalization of homosexuality in society and to compel others to recognize that normalization.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

All of which could have been enacted -- and were rapidly on their way to being enacted -- without changing the definition of marriage.

 

I daresay all of that would have happened within the time it is now taking for the courts and the gay rights movement to compel the states one by one to redefine marriage.

 

You think getting all 50 states and the federal government to enact consistent civil union legislation would have taken less time?

 

Not a chance.

 

Marriage was the existing law... much easier to just treat all equally under existing law than to create new ones.

[Senator]

From the standpoint of a gay couple seeking those specific legal benefits, probably none. Which goes to my point that  it was not/is not necessary to redefine marriage, except, as I said before, it amounts to a symbolic victory for those seeking the normalization of homosexuality in society and to compel others to recognize that normalization.

Ok

 

Do you have the same opposition towards civil unions as you do SSM?

[JLHPROF]

"We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us...It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them." - Brigham Young

 

We can't ignore this part of the quote.  Be polygamists in faith - why do you think that was included?  Just as with a member who has no opportunity to receive their endowments during their life today can be assured of future opportunity.  That's what Brigham was saying to the membership about polygamy in those days.  The rest of the quote makes that clear.

 

------

 

"I attended the school of the prophets. Brother John Holeman made a long speech upon the subject of Poligamy. He Contended that no person Could have a Celestial glory unless He had a plurality of wives. Speeches were made By L. E. Harrington O Pratt Erastus Snow, D Evans J. F. Smith Lorenzo Young. President Young said there would be men saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God with one wife with Many wives & with No wife at all." - Wilford Woodruff

 

Saved not exalted.  Salvation is NOT exaltation, even in the Celestial Kingdom.

 

------

 

"Then President Young spoke 58 Minuts. He said a Man may Embrace the Law of Celestial Marriage in his heart & not take the Second wife & be justified before the Lord." - Wilford Woodruff

 

True, but this quote doesn't refer to exaltation.

 

--------

 

"When a debate in the School of the Prophets arose when one claimed that "no man who has only one wife in this probation can ever enter [the] Celestial kingdom," both Wilford Woodruff and John Taylor disagreed." - Wilford Woodruff

 

Also not a reference to exaltation.  There will be plenty of single/monogamous people in the Celestial Kingdom.  But according to the teachings of the time they won't be Gods.  Obviously that teaching has changed.

 

--------

 

In 1892, Wilford Woodruff and others were asked, in essence, "if Joseph Smith had ever taught you at Nauvoo or anywhere else during his lifetime, that in order for a man to be exalted in the hereafter, he must have more than one wife?"

 

Woodruff: I don't know that I ever heard him make use of that expression or use that form of expression.

 

Bathsheba W. Smith: I never heard of that.

 

Joseph C. Kingbury: No sir. He did not teach me that. He did not say anything about that....I heard it preached from the stand that a man could be exalted in eternity with one wife.

 

OK, there is at least one reference that MIGHT make your point (the other's don't disagree with my claim that the GA's taught polygamy was required for exaltation in that time).

However, the post-manifesto date of this reference does perhaps show the change in doctrine I have referred to.  And considering they continued with underground polygamy at this time I think they still considered it essential.

I still see NO evidence from the administrations of Brigham Young & John Taylor that they ever taught that polygamy (or at least a conversion to such if no opportunity was provided) was not a requirement for exaltation.

 

[thesometimesaint]

Ok

 

Do you have the same opposition towards civil unions as you do SSM?

 

I think the state should get out of the marriage business altogether. Make them all civil unions, a legally enforceable contract.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

It could have been 99.999% the principle is still the same. If you weren't asked there was/is no requirement.

Everyone was asked and invited. As Scott has pointed out, there could be some disconnect between the rhetoric and what the leaders actually felt to be true. As shown in Halconero's quotes, if one looked hard enough, some exceptions were made for those trying to live the principal of polygamy but were unable. That said, a very common interpretation on the ground was that Polygamy was required for the highest degree of Celestial Glory. I think the best explanation for this is similar to what we tell single women in the church today - it will be taken care of in Heaven. In other words, everyone in Heaven would be polygamists even if they weren't here.

This is manifest in the personal journals I have seen. It is also manifest in the difficulty of giving up the principle. It is the reason that some saints continued to practice it long after it was an excommunicable offense. They really believed it was required.

Edited April 24, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[toon]

http://nypost.com/2014/04/23/married-lesbian-threesome-expecting-first-child/

I think that we can see from this article what can happen when marriage leaves the traditional man/woman definition behind. We now have throuples where three women can be married together and have a baby.

I think that polygamy will soon be legal.

 

Maybe I should have read through the thread first, but I think I'm missing the point.  No state has recognized this throuple (why not a trio, as I understand that threesome might imply something else).

 

In fact, the article states:

 

No state in the union recognizes three-way marriages — but these women insist their unconventional union is very real to them.

 

and

 

Massachusetts law-enforcement sources said they wouldn’t go after any of the lovebirds unless the third “wife” sought some kind of recognized marital benefit, such as filing joint tax returns.

[thesometimesaint]

Everyone was asked and invited. As Scott has pointed out, there could be some disconnect between the rhetoric and what the leaders actually felt to be true. As shown in Halconero's quotes, if one looked hard enough, some exceptions were made for those trying to live the principal of polygamy but were unable. That said, a very common interpretation on the ground was that Polygamy was required for the highest degree of Celestial Glory. I think the best explanation for this is similar to what we tell single women in the church today - it will be taken care of in Heaven. In other words, everyone in Heaven would be polygamists even if they weren't here.

This is manifest in the personal journals I have seen. It is also manifest in the difficulty of giving up the principle. It is the reason that some saints continued to practice it long after it was an excommunicable offense. They really believed it was required.

 

No they weren't. I have no idea as to what it will be like in Heaven. But here on earth polygamy is dead end game. There are always more males born than females. Meaning that those excess males can have no opportunity for marriage. Add in polygamy and the problem is self reenforcing.

 

They can believe anything they want, and if 2 or more adult consenting women want to marry the same man. I can think of no legally consistent way to outlaw it. That doesn't mean I think it is logical or even a good thing to do.

[toon]

Molotov cocktails are traditional and add a spice of pizzazz to any good opposition struggle. Good to stick with the classics.

 

I thought the classics were along the lines of a flaming bag of poo on the doorstep.

[Scott Lloyd]

Ok

 

Do you have the same opposition towards civil unions as you do SSM?

My views are consistent with the Church's on this topic.

[toon]

I think that muslims will be claiming their right to be polygamous. Then, of course we will have throuples of same sex marriages. Or we can other possibilities too. Brother marrying sister etc. All rights should be respected in such a system of moral anarchy. Marriage laws were in place to bring a sense of harmony to a society. Thus, it was illegal for same sex couples to marry. It was illegal for polygamous marriages to exist. And it was illegal for three women to marry or 3 men to marry. But now, in the age of individual rights, we have immense possibilities to experiment in marriage.

We can only wait and see just how this will impact society.

 

Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria.

[Buckeye]

All of which could have been enacted -- and were rapidly on their way to being enacted -- without changing the definition of marriage.

 

I daresay all of that would have happened within the time it is now taking for the courts and the gay rights movement to compel the states one by one to redefine marriage.

 

If this is true, then we can only blame ourselves for not engaging in the public sphere to help gay couples acquire all of the benefits of marriage except for the name.  Maybe our time and dollars would have been better spent on those efforts than on Prop 8.  If polygamy really is the next marriage "front," maybe we should get ahead of the game and start actively supporting marriage benefits for polygamous couples, except for the name "marriage."  Who's game?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

No they weren't.

Yes they were. If you have some evidence that polygamy was on an invitation only basis, I'd love to see it.

 

 

I have no idea as to what it will be like in Heaven. But here on earth polygamy is dead end game. There are always more males born than females. Meaning that those excess males can have no opportunity for marriage. Add in polygamy and the problem is self reenforcing.

 

They can believe anything they want, and if 2 or more adult consenting women want to marry the same man. I can think of no legally consistent way to outlaw it. That doesn't mean I think it is logical or even a good thing to do.

No disagreement here. Even in Heaven the numbers don't add up given the high mortality of children under 8 throughout history and the fact that more boys die before 8 than girls. A good discussion here:

http://bycommonconsent.com/2008/12/01/its-raining-men-celestial-demographics-again/

Edited April 24, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[toon]

I do it quite easily with the understanding that plural marriage is acceptable if and only if God mandates it. And that has not been the case since the practice was discontinued in the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

But how to you reconcile the Church arguing for the legal right based on religious freedom principles with others arguing for that same right?

 

It's one thing to believe that plural marriage is only acceptable if God mandates it.  It's another to decry on religious freedom principles the history of legal persecution of the Church for the practice of plural marriage while at the same time argue that similar practices should be illegal if practiced by others.