Jana Riess Directly, Openly And Publicly Opposes Elder Nelson

[smac97]

It's a decent talk.

I always seek personal inspiration and revelation when making my voting decisions.

I always try to be respectful of others.

I am not deterred by the objection that I am attempting to legislate morality. I am however very much concerned with the sort of mortality that is being legislated.

Oakes is obviously fine with legislating certain forms of morality, even when such (immoral) actions are based on mutual consen of parties involved.

Plenty of laws disregard the consent of the parties involved. Drug transactions involve consenting parties. So does prostitution. So do incestuous relationships. And so on.

That said, I respect and appreciate your consideration of the consent of involved parties. While that is not necessarily a dispositive consideration, it should certainly be a big one.

 

I feel very strongly, and believe this is a belief that has been confirmed to be via religious confirmation, that the only sort of morality govt should be involved in legislating is based on consent and the violation of property rights and personal choice.

That is a useful guideline, but it runs into some difficulties when applied in the real world. "Morality" is a broad and somewhat amorphous concept. Moreover, your proposal seems to selectively condemn religionists for voting based on their religious beliefs. In my view, people should be free to enact laws which conform to the Constitution. If those laws are based on the moral views of the majority of voters, then so be it. As Elder Oaks aptly put it: "Many areas of the law are based on Judeo-Christian morality and have been for centuries."

 

In other respects the govt should treat citizens equally irrespective of their private behavior.

Well, sorta. The Constitution's 14th Amendment takes care of that. But a law which prohibits certain behaviors usually does not treat citizens unequally. For example, laws against same-sex marriage retained a definition of marriage that applied to all people, regardless of sexual orientation.

And again, your comment sounds like a useful guideline, but what does "private behavior" mean? If a man has sex with a prostitute, and picks up an STD, then goes home and passes it on to his wife, then that "private behavior" ends up affecting others in a very real way. And laws pertaining to same-sex marriage are not about "private behavior" at all, but rather about state recognition of certain type of contract.

 

Law should be concerned protecting equally the right to all-any action that does not violate another's property, violate contractual obligations, or violate others consent.

In general, I agree with you.

 

Of people wish to marry who ever why does the govt get involved?

Because it's a contract. Because it is the most basic and most important unit of society. Because there are many, many legal ramifications when a marriage is created and when it is ended.

 

If there is a religion that is willing to perform the marriage who cares.

Indeed. But what if that religion starts getting punished in myriad ways for not performing or recognizing same-sex marriages?

 

As for special preference for married people, that just does not make sense to me. Provide the tax advantage based on how the marriage performs, not whether there is a marriage, otherwise you are saying we are willing to provide tax benefit to useless relationships of they are heterosexual but not good ones of they are homosexual.

The concept behind the government creating incentives to marry is simple: Marriage is generally the best vehicle for the creation and rearing of the next generation of taxpayers. The government cannot compel the production of those taxpayers, but it can create incentives.

 

It is time to move past the fight about SSM and look at how to restructure tax benefits in away that makes a large portion of This debate irrelevant.

Politically, perhaps. But I don't think the Church's stance is based on tax benefits.

In closing, I respect and appreciate your remarks. Although we disagree on some things, I think we agree on many others. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 24, 2014 by smac97

[mormonnewb]

It would be anachronistic for our scriptures to deal with issues of same-sex attraction and/or marriage since the notions of sexual identity and specifically homo- and heterosexuality are late 19th-century social constructs. The only place to turn for inspired guidance, therefore, is recent and current prophets ... which thankfully we have.

While it is true that some of our current terms for homosexuality (e.g., lesbian) didn't come into popular usage until the 18th century, homosexual relationships were around long before Paul Revere's midnight ride ("One if by gay. Two if by lesbian. The gays are coming!").

In fact, the Ancient Greek poet Sappho of Lesbos was writing openly about same-sex love during the 6th century BC. And even earlier than that, the OT talks quite explicitedly about the men who came to rape the MALE angels visiting Lot. Homosexual sex acts were not unknown to the ancient Jews nor to those Jews living in the midst of the Roman Empire during Jesus' day.

So while it's obvious why Christ didn't address modern issues like stem cell research or rap music, it's not quite as clear why He didn't pay more attention to sexual practices that were fairly widespread throughout the empire.

(Note: By widespread, I don't mean to say that "everybody was doing it." Instead, I mean it in the same sense that, in modern times, domestic violence is widespread. Even though the vast majority of men do not batter their wives, the issue is widespread in the sense that we are ALL aware of it. I strongly suspect that most 1st century Jews were similar aware of homosexuality.)

[Calm]

Hamba is talking about identity, not behaviour. Sexual identity as we know it today didn't exist in the past. They were much more fluid in one sense but may be best described as nonexistent, context dictating the type of behaviour to a great extent.

He's talked before on this:

"150 years ago there were no 'gay' people. Of course, there were also no 'straight' people then either. Both 'heterosexuality' and 'homosexuality' -- and therefore the entire notion of 'sexual identity' -- are late 19th-century social constructs. As is always the case with newly hegemonic ideas, these constructions have become so reified in the West over the past century and a half that we now have trouble seeing them as anything other than essential, material, and always-already existing, but to speak of homo- or heterosexuality before the end of the 19th century is demonstrably ahistorical. And until very recent times -- the change in large part due to the reach of both traditional Euro-American colonialism and the Western entertainment industry's increasingly pervasive colonising of the global imagination -- it remained anachronistic to speak of 'gay' and 'straight' identities or 'orientations' outside of the West."

More in depth:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/59874-bsa-considering-ending-ban-on-homosexuals/page-11#entry1209217303

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58775-from-whence-cometh-my-attractions/#entry1209167928

But perhaps you are saying sexual identity doesn't matter as the behaviour existed and he could have just addressed that.

But weren't there laws already in place addressing homosexual behaviour? Isn't it possible that Christ didnt feel the need to repeat the teaching of a law that was being followed relatively well or was at least widely acknowledged and not used to twist for one's own benefit as some were?

Edited August 24, 2014 by calmoriah

[Teancum]

Faced with the choice, I'll cast my lot with the prophets and apostles.

Keep in mind prior LDS prophets have redefined and defended passionately and aggressively a marriage system that was most certainly a variant from the marriage of their day. And they argued it as a superior form of marriage, that the Church would never give it up and indeed would be in apostasy if it did. Indeed they taught it was required for the highest level of of reward in the next life.

The church and it leaders suffered mightily to defend plural marriage. To me it is a bit ironic now that they argue the traditional form of one man and one woman marriage is God ordained, that God wanted it this way and man cannot change it.

Well man, in the form and power of the United Stated of America did force a change in marriage upon those claiming a superior form that allegedly came from God.

[Storm Rider]

Keep in mind prior LDS prophets have redefined and defended passionately and aggressively a marriage system that was most certainly a variant from the marriage of their day. And they argued it as a superior form of marriage, that the Church would never give it up and indeed would be in apostasy if it did. Indeed they taught it was required for the highest level of of reward in the next life.

The church and it leaders suffered mightily to defend plural marriage. To me it is a bit ironic now that they argue the traditional form of one man and one woman marriage is God ordained, that God wanted it this way and man cannot change it.

Well man, in the form and power of the United Stated of America did force a change in marriage upon those claiming a superior form that allegedly came from God.

 

There is a long, long, long, distance between marriage between man and woman regardless of the number of wives and any other form of union or marriage between the same gender.  It is not surprising at all that the leadership would stand strongly against such a distortion of what God has ordained.  

 

The rest that you bring up is meaningless when the attempt is to compare SSM and what has been known as marriage for thousands of years. 

[Teancum]

There is a long, long, long, distance between marriage between man and woman regardless of the number of wives and any other form of union or marriage between the same gender.  It is not surprising at all that the leadership would stand strongly against such a distortion of what God has ordained.  

 

The rest that you bring up is meaningless when the attempt is to compare SSM and what has been known as marriage for thousands of years.

The general populace found polygamy fairly abhorrent, But the main point of my post is, the the apostles and prophets Scott will always cast his lot with are less than consistent. It was not an argument for or against gay marriage or anything Elder Nelson said.

[Tacenda]

Keep in mind prior LDS prophets have redefined and defended passionately and aggressively a marriage system that was most certainly a variant from the marriage of their day. And they argued it as a superior form of marriage, that the Church would never give it up and indeed would be in apostasy if it did. Indeed they taught it was required for the highest level of of reward in the next life.

The church and it leaders suffered mightily to defend plural marriage. To me it is a bit ironic now that they argue the traditional form of one man and one woman marriage is God ordained, that God wanted it this way and man cannot change it.

Well man, in the form and power of the United Stated of America did force a change in marriage upon those claiming a superior form that allegedly came from God.

Agree, and I've read a few quotes from past leaders that monogamous marriages were wrong, for lack of a better word, and the command was polygamy, even purported to keep the men "young, fresh and spritely".

Edited August 24, 2014 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

The general populace found polygamy fairly abhorrent, But the main point of my post is, the the apostles and prophets Scott will always cast his lot with are less than consistent. It was not an argument for or against gay marriage or anything Elder Nelson said.

The principle as expressed in Jacob 2:27-30 is that monogamy is the requirement unless God, for His own purposes, decrees plurality of wives. In teaching plurality of wives, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and the others were conforming to the will of God. Church leaders who live today likewise conform to the will of God as it has been made known to them. There is not a Church leader living today who would condemn the leaders of yesteryear for conforming to God's will as pertaining to plurality of wives, as you well know. There is no inconsistency among them, nor is there inconsistency in my determination to follow them in their role as spokesmen for God, whatever the time, place and setting might be.

You purport to be a Church member who has served in leadership positions. From that I surmise there was a time when you understood all this. It saddens me to think you have lost that understanding.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

Agree, and I've read a few quotes from past leaders that monogamous marriages were wrong, for lack of a better word, and the command was polygamy, even purported to keep the men "young, fresh and spritely".

And yet BY encouraged women to choose a monogamous relationship over a plural one, even granting easy divorces for women.

[sunstoned]

The general populace found polygamy fairly abhorrent, But the main point of my post is, the the apostles and prophets Scott will always cast his lot with are less than consistent. It was not an argument for or against gay marriage or anything Elder Nelson said.

 

 

Consistency is not one of our strong points when you look at our history.  Prophets have come down very clearly on several key doctrines only to have them reversed several decades later.    

[Calm]

What human is consistent?

[Bikeemikey]

What human is consistent?

Presumably one that is the spokesperson of an unchanging God.

Asking our prophets to be consistent shows a dramatic misunderstanding of what being a prophet is.

[wenglund]

If there is a revelation, where is it?

 

The scriptures intimate that God need not command us in all things, or in other words God need not always spell things out for us in minute detail. This is no more true than with matters that are blatantly obvious--as with marriage consisting between a man and a woman.

 

However, regardless of what has been revealed on the matter or what may yet be revealed, it matters not to those who trust more in themselves than in the leaders chosen by and ordained of  God, and/or who bow themselves down to the world and pop culture, since that is where there ears are tuned, oft dogmatically.

 

Choose ye this day...

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

Consistency is not one of our strong points when you look at our history.  Prophets have come down very clearly on several key doctrines only to have them reversed several decades later.    

To the extent that's true, perhaps it is due to the fact that the world itself is inconsistent and it is necessary from time to time for the Almighty to adapt His directives to changing circumstances within the broader framework of immutable truth and principles of righteousness that may not always be clear in the moment to the understanding of fallible mortals.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

Consistency is not one of our strong points when you look at our history.  Prophets have come down very clearly on several key doctrines only to have them reversed several decades later.

Which "key doctrines" did you have in mind here?

Thank you,

-Smac

[Analytics]

The principle as expressed in Jacob 2:27-30 is that monogamy is the requirement unless God, for His own purposes, decrees plurality of wives....

 

My understanding is that back in the day, Mormon polygamists didn't see it this way.  They claimed that polygamy was God's way, and that monogamy was introduced by pagans and is the source of many of the world's problems:

 

“This law of monogamy, or the monogamic system, laid the foundation for prostitution and the evils and diseases of the most revolting nature and character under which modern Christendom groans…”

- Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, v. 13, p. 195

 

“It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest-lived nations of which we have record have been monogamic. Rome, with her arts, sciences and warlike instincts, was once the mistress of the world; but her glory faded. She was a monogamic nation, and the numerous evils attending that system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook her.”

- Apostle George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, v. 13, p. 202

 

“Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman Empire... Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a hold sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers.”

 

- Prophet Brigham Young, Deseret News, August 6, 1862

[Scott Lloyd]

My understanding is that back in the day, Mormon polygamists didn't see it this way.  They claimed that polygamy was God's way, and that monogamy was introduced by pagans and is the source of many of the world's problems:

 

“This law of monogamy, or the monogamic system, laid the foundation for prostitution and the evils and diseases of the most revolting nature and character under which modern Christendom groans…”

- Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, v. 13, p. 195

 

“It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest-lived nations of which we have record have been monogamic. Rome, with her arts, sciences and warlike instincts, was once the mistress of the world; but her glory faded. She was a monogamic nation, and the numerous evils attending that system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook her.”

- Apostle George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, v. 13, p. 202

 

“Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman Empire... Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a hold sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers.”

 

- Prophet Brigham Young, Deseret News, August 6, 1862

We would do well here to consider the context of the times and to remember that the Latter-day Saints were under bitter and incessant attack by the press and politicians of the day for their acceptance and practice of plurality of wives. It is hardly surprising that, under the circumstances, there would be some push-back on the part of some of the Church leaders, who pointed out -- quite correctly -- that monogamy as it was then being practiced was attended by its own set of ills; that the attackers were wrong in their assumption that God had always required monogamy and had never endorsed plural marriage.

 

If, in their eagerness to defend themselves and the Church, they overstated some points and spoke under the limited understanding they then possessed, well, I can forgive them for it at the same time being grateful for the light and understanding that has come to the people of God since then.

[Teancum]

The principle as expressed in Jacob 2:27-30 is that monogamy is the requirement unless God, for His own purposes, decrees plurality of wives. In teaching plurality of wives, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and the others were conforming to the will of God. Church leaders who live today likewise conform to the will of God as it has been made known to them. There is not a Church leader living today who would condemn the leaders of yesteryear for conforming to God's will as pertaining to plurality of wives, as you well know. There is no inconsistency among them, nor is there inconsistency in my determination to follow them in their role as spokesmen for God, whatever the time, place and setting might be.

You purport to be a Church member who has served in leadership positions. From that I surmise there was a time when you understood all this. It saddens me to think you have lost that understanding.

 

It is fairly clear the Jacob condemns polygamy and has nothing in mind like the polygamy practiced by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. You also fail to address the salient points of what was consistently taught for 50 years being abandoned not really due to revelation but due to the power of the US government.

 

Additionally while we are at it, Jacob and D&C 132 conflict where Jacob condemns David and Solomon's polygamy and D&C 132 sanctions it.

 

Yes I am a member and yes I did serve in leadership including being a bishop and even recently almost 6 years on the high council. So what? View change as knowledge is gained. And since you seem to feel it appropriate to be personal I will as well....it saddens me as well that you seem willing to simply accept things from LDS leaders that you would never ever accept in other circumstances. 

[cdowis]

My understanding is that back in the day, Mormon polygamists didn't see it this way.  They claimed that polygamy was God's way, and that monogamy was introduced by pagans and is the source of many of the world's problems:

 

 

Monogamy was introduced in the Garden of Eden.

 

Goes to show how LDS leaders can sometimes say very silly things.

[ksfisher]

It is fairly clear the Jacob condemns polygamy and has nothing in mind like the polygamy practiced by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. You also fail to address the salient points of what was consistently taught for 50 years being abandoned not really due to revelation but due to the power of the US government.

 

Additionally while we are at it, Jacob and D&C 132 conflict where Jacob condemns David and Solomon's polygamy and D&C 132 sanctions it.

 

Yes I am a member and yes I did serve in leadership including being a bishop and even recently almost 6 years on the high council. So what? View change as knowledge is gained. And since you seem to feel it appropriate to be personal I will as well....it saddens me as well that you seem willing to simply accept things from LDS leaders that you would never ever accept in other circumstances. 

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice.

OD 1

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng

Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us,

OD 1

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng

I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. …

OD 1

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng

This sounds like the revelation you are asking for.

[Scott Lloyd]

It is fairly clear the Jacob condemns polygamy and has nothing in mind like the polygamy practiced by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

Jacob quotes the Lord as as saying, "For if I will ... raise up seed unto me, I will command my people [to practice plurality of wives]; otherwise, they shall hearken unto these things [i.e. the forbiddance of such a practice]. There is no differentiation here of a separate category covering "the polygamy practiced by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young." That is your own mental construct.

 

You also fail to address the salient points of what was consistently taught for 50 years being abandoned not really due to revelation but due to the power of the US government.

 

 

I did not fail to address it. I said that whatever the prophets teach at any given time that conforms to the will of God is right. There is no inconsistency in that. And ksfisher correctly identified a revelation in this instance, one that is detailed in the Doctrine and Covenants under OD 1.

 

Additionally while we are at it, Jacob and D&C 132 conflict where Jacob condemns David and Solomon's polygamy and D&C 132 sanctions it.

 

 

Please see this response to that anti-Mormon attack. I think Michael Fordham of FairMormon handles it very well. Ben McGuire adds some insights as well.

 

Yes I am a member and yes I did serve in leadership including being a bishop and even recently almost 6 years on the high council. So what? View change as knowledge is gained. And since you seem to feel it appropriate to be personal I will as well....it saddens me as well that you seem willing to simply accept things from LDS leaders that you would never ever accept in other circumstances. 

 

I accept things based on my own reasoning and as I seek and receive spiritual confirmation.

 

But, as the saying goes, "Choose you this day ...."

Edited August 25, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Teancum]

 

I accept things based on my own reasoning and as I seek and receive spiritual confirmation.

 

But, as the saying goes, "Choose you this day ...."

As do I.

[Teancum]

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice.

OD 1http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng

Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us,

OD 1http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng

I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. …

OD 1http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng

This sounds like the revelation you are asking for.

It was painfully obvious to all what would happen to the LDS church had it not capitulated to the federal government. It's leaders had been out in prison, John Taylor died in hiding, it's members disenfranchised, it's property seized upon. Call that a revelation if you will but if so why not deliver it earlier before it appeared that defeat was inevitable?

[ksfisher]

It was painfully obvious to all what would happen to the LDS church had it not capitulated to the federal government. It's leaders had been out in prison, John Taylor died in hiding, it's members disenfranchised, it's property seized upon. Call that a revelation if you will but if so why not deliver it earlier before it appeared that defeat was inevitable?

I would call it a revelation because the person to whom it was given, President Woodruff, calls it one. Why it came when it did? Only the giver of the revelation, the Savior, can answer that.

If you have faith that Wilford Woodruff was a prophet you will believe when he says he saw what he saw. If you don't believe, there is no proof and the whole thing sounds very foolish.

[tonie]

Jacob quotes the Lord as as saying, "For if I will ... raise up seed unto me, I will command my people [to practice plurality of wives]; otherwise, they shall hearken unto these things [i.e. the forbiddance of such a practice]. There is no differentiation here of a separate category covering "the polygamy practiced by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young." That is your own mental construct.

Care to demonstrate how there isn't a differentiation? If you are suggestion that Joseph did practice polygamy to raise up seed, what are the implications?