Analytics Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 You are basing this on the assumption that Joseph had sufficient light and knowledge of "God's purpose in marriage" at the time he wed Fanny Alger. As you yourself pointed out, he was unfamiliar with the concept of eternal marriage and sealing at the time he married her. The Church in early Kirtland was very much a New England protestant Church, with many of their cultural beliefs where revelation had not yet been received. When Joseph married Fanny he was aware of the truth of the doctrine of plural marriage from his translation of the Bible, but he was not yet aware of the conditions under which plural marriage were to be solemnized. So in his lack of understanding, he took her in marriage, probably as a common-law wife. At the time of his marriage to Fanny, NO marriages were "authoritatively recognized, approved, encouraged, and made holy".God didn't introduce his law of marriage until later, at which time marriages were resolemnized for eternity where possible and desirable. And many saints chose to leave their mortal spouses for different eternal ones. First let me get this out of the way: I emphatically disagree that Fanny was Joseph’s common law wife. Common law marriage implies a couple acting like they are married and representing themselves to others as if they were married. The secrecy of Joseph’s marriage to Fanny precludes it from being a common law marriage; Joseph and Fanny didn’t act like they were married, they acted like they were having an affair. More to your point, I’m not asking about the new “light and knowledge” about marriage that Joseph Smith allegedly received. I’m asking about the “longstanding and traditional” concepts of marriage that Wade was talking about in the OP.
thesometimesaint Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 That is so deep Saint. Why don't you actually try to engage in the debate with something of substance? Not everything that USSC is good. In the US there is a right to marry. In the US we have the right to make contract of marriage with anyone of legal majority. In the US there must be an overriding governmental interest to interfere in the right of contract of marriage. No argument so far presented has persuaded the courts to keep illegal SSM. Never said it was. In fact I have repeatedly said I strongly disagreed with many of their decisions.
Senator Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 Scripturally, there is no eternal precedent for what we call romantic love, and certainly none that would show God requires it in a marriage. World........"meet the Mormons"
tonie Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 Wenglund, is there a singular purpose for marriage? Where does the Church teach the "purpose of marriage"? I ask because I have looked for statements from the Church along the lines of "The purpose of marriage is..." Or "God's purpose for marriage is..." All we really know about why marriage was instituted is that it was not good for man to be alone, therefore he should leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. 1
tonie Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 There is no X factor that will make homosexual activities not a sin for the very same reason that there is no X factor that will ever make adultery, fornication, or prostitution not a sin. Sin is sin and no amount of redefinition, or wishful thinking with change it. Joseph Smith - That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.""God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is,
JLHPROF Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 World........"meet the Mormons" What? It's true. Unless I missed something God himself has never spoken a word about romantic love let alone set it as a requirement for marriage. The scriptures DO have references to romantic love, but not outside of some person falling for another.I mean, Jacob was so in love with Rachel that he worked 7 years for her hand, was given Leah in marriage instead, and was still so in love he worked another 7 years for Rachel.I don't doubt that Jacob loved Leah, but I don't see any evidence he was romantically in love with her. And then there's Adam and Eve. Talk about your arranged marriage. Did Adam and Eve get to date, court or fall in love? Nope. God said "here's your one and only choice for a wife, hope you like her".
WysteriaBlue Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 (edited) sorry...inappropriate... Edited October 16, 2014 by WysteriaBlue
Senator Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 What? It's true. Unless I missed something God himself has never spoken a word about romantic love let alone set it as a requirement for marriage. The scriptures DO have references to romantic love, but not outside of some person falling for another.I mean, Jacob was so in love with Rachel that he worked 7 years for her hand, was given Leah in marriage instead, and was still so in love he worked another 7 years for Rachel.I don't doubt that Jacob loved Leah, but I don't see any evidence he was romantically in love with her. And then there's Adam and Eve. Talk about your arranged marriage. Did Adam and Eve get to date, court or fall in love? Nope. God said "here's your one and only choice for a wife, hope you like her". We're not weird, we're just scripturally correct! 1
Analytics Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 In the US there is a right to marry. In the US we have the right to make contract of marriage with anyone of legal majority. In the US there must be an overriding governmental interest to interfere in the right of contract of marriage. No argument so far presented has persuaded the courts to keep illegal SSM. Never said it was. In fact I have repeatedly said I strongly disagreed with many of their decisions. This gets at the heart of it. If I understand his point, Wade doesn't think that there is (or at least should be) a right to marry. Rather, marriage licenses are something the government grants to couples in order to forward its own agenda, which happens to coincide with God’s agenda.
Chaos Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 We will be closing threads that are excuses to churn old debates on the gay marriage debate. A topic must relate directly to the Church or it will be closed.
Recommended Posts