Answers To Common Questions - New Era, March '15

[why me]

Not the direction I was headed.

 

Maybe it's not something you can understand unless you've been through it.  Let me try it this way...

 

You grow up being taught that polygamy started with a revelation from God and ended with a revelation from God.

 

Turns out it just isn't that clear.  Polygamy began in the shadows.  The 1890 Manifesto didn't end it.  It wasn't interpreted in 1890 the way we interpret it today.  I've heard time and time again the betrayal members feel as they learn this.  The role of a prophet gets called into question.  It's all something that one can work through but one has to stay long enough to work through the original feelings of betrayal to work through it.

 

You can feel free to deny its happening.  I'm not able to prove it to you.  You and Scott can make jokes about members just not being smart enough to know the history.  Or, we can all admit that it's happening, and work towards solutions.

To my understanding, there were revelations. However, it may not be how one sees revelations. For example, it is obvious Joseph received some sort of instruction to begin polygamy. But how did he receive it? We know that he claimed later that angel with a sword came and told him to get a move on when it came to polygamy. What joseph told fanny is not known. And fanny was not exactly forthcoming with information. And the practice did not begin in the shawdows if we consider joseph asking fanny's relative if it were okay for fanny to be sealed to him.

 

And the official declaration can be said to be a revelation but how did that revelation come about? It could have been a strong feeling of intuition or an experience of thought with the help of the imagination of what would come if polygamy did not stop.

 

And if we fast forward this to the proclamation of the family, I consider this to be a revelation that was god inspired. However, other members don't see the proclamation this way. But something inspired the proclamation because it is more relevant now than when it was published. So, who is to claim that polygamy wasn't inspired? To my mind, it was perfectly clear why it needed to be practiced.

[why me]

I absolutely agree with you that it is the parents responsibility to teach their children the gospel and even history of the church.  But not all teenagers have parents that are active.  Not all teenagers have parents that are even members.  In some instances the parents may even be the ones questioning the beliefs of the church.

 

I always felt that the church did play a key role in helping to educate my children.  Isn't that why we have the seminary program, sunday school etc??

 

Why even have a question and answer section in the New Era if the church is only going to half heartily answer the questions?

 

Just my thoughts.  I guess others see little importance in how the church deals with it's history.

The purpose of seminary is to educate teenagers to live god inspired lives and not to teach history that is outside the scope of the scriptures. For example, when the new testament is studied it is the job of semonary or institute to give a history of christianity, complete with details of roman customs and jewish customs and a biography of the roman emperor or its govenors? The seminary manual covers a lot.There is JSs polygamy issue and background, and a context of why polygamy was stopped and that it didn't end in 1890. What more should be said? And if teenagers do not go to seminary or institute later who can be blamed for not knowing the facts?  True, not all parents can teach the stuff at home nor do they have time to do so or want to do so. And not all teenagers want to hang in seminary at 7am. These days most teens are sleeping with their iphones, hanging on the phone 24/7 and have no interest in anything except what their friends are doing 24/7 and many have a concentration span of 10 minutes.

 

I am waiting for the catholic church to teach its history to catholic teens. I am also waiting for protestant churches to do it also. But...I just don't see it happening. So, why do mormons need to be experts in mormon history. The best thing that a  teacher can do is to offer books for further reading. For example, for the visions of joseph smith one can recommend the cheesman book or if they want to read more of church history the teacher can recommend the O'Driscoll book about hyrum etc. Teens need to be encouraged to read more independently.

[california boy]

The purpose of seminary is to educate teenagers to live god inspired lives and not to teach history that is outside the scope of the scriptures. For example, when the new testament is studied it is the job of seminary or institute to give a history of christianity, complete with details of roman customs and jewish customs and a biography of the roman emperor or its govenors? The seminary manual covers a lot.There is JSs polygamy issue and background, and a context of why polygamy was stopped and that it didn't end in 1890. What more should be said? And if teenagers do not go to seminary or institute later who can be blamed for not knowing the facts?  True, not all parents can teach the stuff at home nor do they have time to do so or want to do so. And not all teenagers want to hang in seminary at 7am. These days most teens are sleeping with their iphones, hanging on the phone 24/7 and have no interest in anything except what their friends are doing 24/7 and many have a concentration span of 10 minutes.

 

I am waiting for the catholic church to teach its history to catholic teens. I am also waiting for protestant churches to do it also. But...I just don't see it happening. So, why do mormons need to be experts in mormon history. The best thing that a  teacher can do is to offer books for further reading. For example, for the visions of joseph smith one can recommend the cheesman book or if they want to read more of church history the teacher can recommend the O'Driscoll book about hyrum etc. Teens need to be encouraged to read more independently.

 

Ok, this will be my last comment.  I am absolutely amazed at what some members are willing to rationalize to justify what the church does.  We are not talking about an entire book on polygamy to answer the question correctly.  Two more sentences would have been a factual answer to when polygamy ended as has been demonstrated by a few posters on this thread.  

 

I taught seminary for a number of years.  There is an entire YEAR devoted to church history.  In all of those years, I did know that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy.  What I never knew is that he married a 14 year old girl in secret, and other men's wives not telling Emma.  That is a big difference.  And I was the teacher.  Yet some here are defending the fact that the church can not or does not have the ability to teach that history truthfully and honestly even when it is easy to do so?  At this point, one has to ask, what kind of church do we have here that is unwilling to add a couple of sentences to make such a simple answer honest and complete.  And THAT is the question many are asking themselves as they walk away from the church.

 

What has become glaringly apparent is that some members are willing to believe and stay in the church no matter what the churches says or claims.  They take it as their own mission to defend the church in all things at all costs.

 

Some don't trust all that the church teaches, but are willing to stay in the church because they like the community and believe that the church strengthens and enriches their lives even if the church is not always truthful about it's history.  They feel that they can not defend the church in all things and for all of the past mistakes.

 

And some, sadly walk away from the church, because they believe that the church of Christ should be honest and truthful place to learn about its history and doctrine.

Edited February 28, 2015 by california boy

[Danzo]

Ok, this will be my last comment.  I am absolutely amazed at what some members are willing to rationalize to justify what the church does.  We are not talking about an entire book on polygamy to answer the question correctly.  Two more sentences would have been a factual answer to when polygamy ended as has been demonstrated by a few posters on this thread.  

 

I taught seminary for a number of years.  There is an entire YEAR devoted to church history.  In all of those years, I did know that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy.  What I never knew is that he married a 14 year old girl in secret, and other men's wives not telling Emma.  That is a big difference.  And I was the teacher.  Yet some here are defending the fact that the church can not or does not have the ability to teach that history truthfully and honestly even when it is easy to do so?  At this point, one has to ask, what kind of church do we have here that is unwilling to add a couple of sentences to make such a simple answer honest and complete.  And THAT is the question many are asking themselves as they walk away from the church.

 

What has become glaringly apparent is that some members are willing to believe and stay in the church no matter what the churches says or claims.  They take it as their own mission to defend the church in all things at all costs.

 

Some don't trust all that the church teaches, but are willing to stay in the church because they like the community and believe that the church strengthens and enriches their lives even if the church is not always truthful about it's history.  They feel that they can not defend the church in all things and for all of the past mistakes.

 

And some, sadly walk away from the church, because they believe that the church of Christ should be honest and truthful place to learn about its history and doctrine.

For what it is worth, I agree that it would have been better to add a sentence or two that answer.   Sometimes, I think we end up believing a mythological history at church instead of a real history.  We seem to think that the whole gospel program down to green jello , funeral potatoes and white shirts and ties was revealed to Joseph Smith at the first vision.  We think that when the church changes policy, all of the members obey immediately and no questions are asked.

 

However, looking closer, reading the scriptures and especially reading the doctrine and convents, as well as studying the history and looking around at the other members in our congregations we can easily see that isn't the case.

People (including and especially leaders) are in constant need of correction.   We can't even home teach every month.  Leaders get excommunicated.  People break covenants.  (And I am just talking about the wards I have been in)

 

It would be illogical to think the church (especially in 1890) would be able to turn on a dime.  Group-think didn't exist then and doesn't exist now. The members need to be constantly corrected and chastised.  We receive revelations, ponder them and implement them when we are ready.

 

When I first thought deeply about the 1890 manifesto (sometime in my mid teens).  It seemed weird and cruel to me to think that polygamy stopped on a dime.  People just don't change their family structure instantly. What happened to all of the virtual widows such a policy would create?  When I looked into it more, I was relieved that polygamy had a phasing out period.  When I found that the revelation wasn't clear the first time and had to be reissued in 1904, I felt that those saints at the turn of the century were a lot like me and the people I know.  Sometimes I don't get things right away. Many times, I need clarification after receiving revelation.  And many times I rebel at first when changes need to be made.

 

The more I learn about history, the more comfort I have in knowing that I am not a total freak. That people in the past were like those today. We learn, we struggle, we make mistakes, but we also receive revelation, we need to repent, we are absolutely dependent on the atonement and despite our weaknesses, we have a chance at obtaining Zion in spite of ourselves.  

If the lord could use those types of people to do his work in the past, he might have some use for me.

[theplains]

The magazine targeting the rising LDS generation (New Era) decides to tackle some challenging issues but:

a) Gives shallow answers which includes misleading information

b) Misses the easy step of linking to the essays and other approved sources

https://www.lds.org/new-era/2015/03/be-a-missionary-now/answers-to-common-questions?lang=eng

Questions include (amongst others):

<snip>

 

Why do you have other scriptures? Isn’t the Bible enough?

 

I would have included another question --  Why do WE have other scriptures? Isn't the Book of

Mormon enough?

 

We are Christians. We believe in Jesus Christ. 

 

Do Mormons believe Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian since they also believe in Jesus Christ

(aka, Michael the Archangel)?

 

The scientific evidence we have cannot prove or disprove the Book of Mormon. Archaeological

or genetic research in the Americas, for instance, is ongoing and often raises more questions than

it answers.

 

When the LDS Church uses the term 'the Americas', does it refer to the entire land mass beween

the north and south poles?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[omni]

It would be illogical to think the church (especially in 1890) would be able to turn on a dime.  Group-think didn't exist then and doesn't exist now. The members need to be constantly corrected and chastised.  We receive revelations, ponder them and implement them when we are ready.

 

When I first thought deeply about the 1890 manifesto (sometime in my mid teens).  It seemed weird and cruel to me to think that polygamy stopped on a dime.  People just don't change their family structure instantly. What happened to all of the virtual widows such a policy would create?  When I looked into it more, I was relieved that polygamy had a phasing out period.  When I found that the revelation wasn't clear the first time and had to be reissued in 1904, I felt that those saints at the turn of the century were a lot like me and the people I know.  Sometimes I don't get things right away. Many times, I need clarification after receiving revelation.  And many times I rebel at first when changes need to be made.

 

 

The issue at hand is new plural marriages were being authorized by the highest levels of church leadership - even some apostles were marrying additional wives post-manifesto.  It's completely understandable that some/many polygamous families remained intact post-manifesto as there really was no easy or right way to dissolve the marriages.  However, it should be more than reasonable for one to expect the brethren to "stop on a dime" and immediately cease approving new plural marriages.

[Duncan]

The issue at hand is new plural marriages were being authorized by the highest levels of church leadership - even some apostles were marrying additional wives post-manifesto.  It's completely understandable that some/many polygamous families remained intact post-manifesto as there really was no easy or right way to dissolve the marriages.  However, it should be more than reasonable for one to expect the brethren to "stop on a dime" and immediately cease approving new plural marriages.

 

correct me if I am wrong but the revelation ceased polygamy but it wasn't spelled out in entirety so people moved to the Mexican colonies and Alberta and places like that to marry and so there was confusion in some people's minds as to the extent of this revelation-i.e was it stopping marriages in Utah only?

Edited March 1, 2015 by Duncan

[carbon dioxide]

 

I taught seminary for a number of years.  There is an entire YEAR devoted to church history.  In all of those years, I did know that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy.  What I never knew is that he married a 14 year old girl in secret, and other men's wives not telling Emma.  That is a big difference.  And I was the teacher.  Yet some here are defending the fact that the church can not or does not have the ability to teach that history truthfully and honestly even when it is easy to do so?  At this point, one has to ask, what kind of church do we have here that is unwilling to add a couple of sentences to make such a simple answer honest and complete.  And THAT is the question many are asking themselves as they walk away from the church.

I did not learn the specifics of the wives of Joseph Smith had in Church.  I learned it outside of church meetings on my own time.  I do not feel lied to or bitter in anyway.  The Church main focus is to bring people to Christ and prepare them for judgement.  Learning about how hold Helen Mar Kimball was when she was sealed to Joseph has no bearing on that.  Having looked at the issue, I really don't see the big deal.  We should be doing a lot of study on our own.  We should not expect the church to spoon feed us everything.  Do you really think that adding a couple of sentences to a lesson would solve anything.  All that would do is raise more questions which would probably result in a 15-20 minute side track to explain what was brought up in the few sentences. 

 

There is a lot of things in Church doctrine and history the Church does not cover.  It is the job of parents and our job to study these issues out.  Members should be actively seeking and learning.  We should not be lazy and expect the Church to do this for us.

[Danzo]

The issue at hand is new plural marriages were being authorized by the highest levels of church leadership - even some apostles were marrying additional wives post-manifesto.  It's completely understandable that some/many polygamous families remained intact post-manifesto as there really was no easy or right way to dissolve the marriages.  However, it should be more than reasonable for one to expect the brethren to "stop on a dime" and immediately cease approving new plural marriages.

 

 

I don't think it is reasonable for the brethren (especially in that time period) to "stop on a dime".  

 

 

I don't think that the apostles were as united on the issue at first.  If you read the D&C, most of the apostles had trouble doing anything "on a dime".  There were later even some apostles that were excommunicated (john w taylor and mathias cowley, I think) as a result of the change. 

The revelation did not contain a road map to implementation, Also it was not clear if it applied only to Utah, or to the whole church. There was the issue of cohabitation and sealings (Still today someone can be sealed to more than one person, but cannot cohabitate). These were items that were worked out later (some of it is still ambiguous doctrinal).

 

The whole "brethren are always united, never disagree and always act in unison" is a myth.  Right along with the myth that the restoration happened in 1820 in its complete form.

 

The truth is, the church is still being restored. Knowledge is given line upon line (even with the brethren).  Unity is a goal rather than a fact. Zion is coming but not here yet.

 

One persistent myth I constantly hear about, especially on this board,  is that the church is one  person, with one thought and one mind. We are not the borg, not yet at least. Even the leaders still have separate thoughts and actions that are not always consistent with each other.

Edited February 28, 2015 by Danzo

[Tacenda]

I don't think it is reasonable for the brethren (especially in that time period) to "stop on a dime".

I don't think that the apostles were as united on the issue at first. If you read the D&C, most of the apostles had trouble doing anything "on a dime". There were later even some apostles that were excommunicated (john w taylor and mathias cowley, I think) as a result of the change.

The revelation did not contain a road map to implementation, Also it was not clear if it applied only to Utah, or to the whole church. There was the issue of cohabitation and sealings (Still today someone can be sealed to more than one person, but cannot cohabitate). These were items that were worked out later (some of it is still ambiguous doctrinal).

The whole "brethren are always united, never disagree and always act in unison" is a myth. Right along with the myth that the restoration happened in 1820 in its complete form.

The truth is, the church is still being restored. Knowledge is given line upon line (even with the brethren). Unity is a goal rather than a fact. Zion is coming but not here yet.

One persistent myth I constantly hear about, especially on this board, is that the church is one person, with one thought and one mind. We are not the borg, not yet at least. Even the leaders still have separate thoughts and actions that are not always consistent with each other.

I read the other day, can't remember, oh how convenient right? Anyway, I read that after the manifesto they continued polygamous marriages and just placated the government. They continued these marriages in secret.

[omni]

correct me if I am wrong but the revelation ceased polygamy but it wasn't spelled out in entirety so people moved to the Mexican colonies and Alberta and places like that to marry and so there was confusion in some people's minds as to the extent of this revelation-i.e was it stopping marriages in Utah only?

I don't see anywhere in OD1 where it states the ban on polygamy applies only to the U.S. or its territories.

[Danzo]

I read the other day, can't remember, oh how convenient right? Anyway, I read that after the manifesto they continued polygamous marriages and just placated the government. They continued these marriages in secret.

 

I think the real question, is how many were done before and how many were done after the manifesto.

 

Perhaps someone here knows the answer.

 

If there was no change, then the manifesto didn't mean anything.

 

If there was a significant drop, then the manifesto must have meant something.

 

Do you know the answer?

[Duncan]

I don't see anywhere in OD1 where it states the ban on polygamy applies only to the U.S. or its territories.

 

 

that's the problem that people back then saw as well and FYI Canada was not a territory of the US!!!!

[Danzo]

I don't see anywhere in OD1 where it states the ban on polygamy applies only to the U.S. or its territories.

 

Are you advocating unquestioning obedience to everything ever presented? or do you allow for people to question, ponder, seek more revelation on the issue?

 

The important thing about the manifesto is that there is no "Or Else" attached to it.  Without an "or else", there is no significance of the severity of the offence.  Is it like the commandment to honor the Sabbath? To do home teaching? Not drink coffee? Pay Tithing? Pay a Fast offering?

 

The "Or Else" was attached in the 1904 manifesto, which, I think served to clarify the issue for most involved.

[omni]

Are you advocating unquestioning obedience to everything ever presented? or do you allow for people to question, ponder, seek more revelation on the issue?

 

 

 

I would advocate that prophets follow their own revelations from God.  From the Second Manifesto: 

 

"Inasmuch as there are numerous reports in circulation that plural marriages have been entered into, contrary to the official declaration of President Woodruff of September 24, 1890, commonly called the manifesto, which was issued by President Woodruff, and adopted by the Church at its general conference, October 6, 1890, which forbade any marriages violative of the law of the land, I, Joseph F. Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, hereby affirm and declare that no such marriages have been solemnized with the sanction, consent, or knowledge of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

And I hereby announce that all such marriages are prohibited, and if any officer or member of the Church shall assume to solemnize or enter into any such marriage, he will be deemed in transgression against the Church, and will be liable to be dealt with according to the rules and regulations thereof and excommunicated therefrom.

Joseph F. Smith,

President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

 

 

 

 

The leaders of the Church (including the Presidency) were aware of and sanctioned a number of marriages post-manifesto.  And for the record, polygamy was illegal in Mexico at the time as well.

 

 

The important thing about the manifesto is that there is no "Or Else" attached to it.  Without an "or else", there is no significance of the severity of the offence.  Is it like the commandment to honor the Sabbath? To do home teaching? Not drink coffee? Pay Tithing? Pay a Fast offering?

 

The "Or Else" was attached in the 1904 manifesto, which, I think served to clarify the issue for most involved.

 

 

Can you point me to any statements from a prophet backing this up?  I'm not really sure how this would work in any situation.  If a client tells me I need to provide them an important report by the end of the week and I don't deliver, I can't imagine getting away with the excuse that they provided no "or else" clause.  I expect it would only be more significant if God revealed to me an Official Declaration and I didn't obey.

[Duncan]

I would advocate that prophets follow their own revelations from God.  From the Second Manifesto: 

 

 

 

The leaders of the Church (including the Presidency) were aware of and sanctioned a number of marriages post-manifesto.  And for the record, polygamy was illegal in Mexico at the time as well.

 

 

 

Can you point me to any statements from a prophet backing this up?  I'm not really sure how this would work in any situation.  If a client tells me I need to provide them an important report by the end of the week and I don't deliver, I can't imagine getting away with the excuse that they provided no "or else" clause.  I expect it would only be more significant if God revealed to me an Official Declaration and I didn't obey.

 

 

I am by no means an expert but maybe collectively the Church didn't do these things but obviously single leaders acting on their own accord performed them, not all but some-I am wondering out loud but were these marriages performed in the Temple? because if they weren't then perhaps they were for time only as Church leaders, I presume, have legal authority to marry folks according to the laws of the land wherever they want to get hitched

[why me]

I read the other day, can't remember, oh how convenient right? Anyway, I read that after the manifesto they continued polygamous marriages and just placated the government. They continued these marriages in secret.

Actually this was not true. The practiced officially ceased because the saints in utah were threatened by the US army. The saints had enough persecution in their lives before they arrived to utah to wish to experience more persecution over persecution. As the seminary manual stated some polygamy continued to 1904 but officially the practiced stopped. At times we need to see what the saints were experiencing during those times in the past when threats were common. If the saints were allowed religious freedom, the history of the lds church would be radically different.

[Ham Clam]

I think the correlation board needs to be addressed. Why is it so hard to get any changes into the curriculum? Both Dan Peterson and David Bokovoy. were on the board at different times and some points and even they recognized the difficulty.  

[JLHPROF]

I am by no means an expert but maybe collectively the Church didn't do these things but obviously single leaders acting on their own accord performed them, not all but some-I am wondering out loud but were these marriages performed in the Temple? because if they weren't then perhaps they were for time only as Church leaders, I presume, have legal authority to marry folks according to the laws of the land wherever they want to get hitched

 

Sorry, but this is incorrect.

It was not single leaders acting on their own.  It was a majority of members of the Quorum of the 12/First Presidency, not a couple of rebels that either married additional wives, performed additional sealings, or sent others to do so.

And yes, there were some performed in temples, or at the very least, earlier plural marriages outside of temples while in hiding were resealed in temples when the opportunity arose.

[omni]

I am by no means an expert but maybe collectively the Church didn't do these things but obviously single leaders acting on their own accord performed them, not all but some-I am wondering out loud but were these marriages performed in the Temple? because if they weren't then perhaps they were for time only as Church leaders, I presume, have legal authority to marry folks according to the laws of the land wherever they want to get hitched

 

It looks like JLFPROF already beat me, but yes, the highest levels of Church leadership were aware of and approved many of the post-manifesto marriages.  It seems as if the leadership was telling the general membership and the world-at-large one thing, while approving additional marriages for Church leadership (as most the new marriages were to those who held leadership positions).  This is what President Woodruff said during the confiscation case under oath two weeks after the declaration (Woodruff's responses bolded).

 

Any person entering into plural marriage after that date [24 September 1890],

would be liable to become excommunicated from the church.

Q. In the concluding portion of your statement [the Manifesto] . . . Do you understand

that the language was to be expanded and to include the further statement of

living or associating in plural marriage by those already in the status? A. Yes, sir; I

intended the proclamation to cover the ground, to keep the laws — to obey the law

myself, and expected the people to obey the law.

Q. Was the manifesto intended to apply to the church everywhere? A. Yes, sir.

Q. In every nation and every country? A. Yes, sir; as far as I had a knowledge in

the matter.

Q. In places outside of the United States as well as within the United States?

A. Yes, sir; we are given no liberties for entering into that anywhere — entering into

that principle.

Q. Your attention was called to the fact, that nothing is said in this manifesto

about the dissolution of the existing polygamous relations. I want to ask you, President

Woodruff, whether in your advice to the church officials, and the people of the church,

you have advised them, that your intention was -—• and that their requirement of the

church was, that the polygamous relations already formed before that [Manifesto]

should not be continued, that is, there should be no association with plural wives; in

other words, that unlawful cohabitation, as it is named, and spoken of, should also

stop, as well, as future polygamous marriages? A. Yes, sir; that has been the intention.

 

[tonie]

Are you advocating unquestioning obedience to everything ever presented? or do you allow for people to question, ponder, seek more revelation on the issue?

 

The important thing about the manifesto is that there is no "Or Else" attached to it.  Without an "or else", there is no significance of the severity of the offence.  Is it like the commandment to honor the Sabbath? To do home teaching? Not drink coffee? Pay Tithing? Pay a Fast offering?

 

The "Or Else" was attached in the 1904 manifesto, which, I think served to clarify the issue for most involved.

 

The LDS Church Official stance is that the Manifesto was "authoritative and binding". 

 

"Whitney then read the Manifesto, and Lorenzo Snow, President of the Quorum of the Twelve, moved that the document be accepted as “authoritative and binding.” A vote was then taken, which was “unanimous”.

[canard78]

It looks like JLFPROF already beat me, but yes, the highest levels of Church leadership were aware of and approved many of the post-manifesto marriages. It seems as if the leadership was telling the general membership and the world-at-large one thing, while approving additional marriages for Church leadership (as most the new marriages were to those who held leadership positions). This is what President Woodruff said during the confiscation case under oath two weeks after the declaration (Woodruff's responses bolded).

Do you have a linked source Omni?

Every one of the bolded statements were untrue so I'd be interested in seeing them in their original context if possible.

[cinepro]

Is god a civil law god? Does civil and god's law conflict at times? Should the church support civil law if that law goes against god's law? The role of the church is to see that humanity attempts to follow god's law. If not, what would the church be for? Also, civil law seems to be going further away from god's law. What should members do when this is the case?

 

 

Please read what I said.

 

It would be as if the Church told the members for years that they shouldn't gamble because it is illegal.  Then suddenly Las Vegas pops up, and now you can gamble legally.  It obviously wouldn't make gambling moral in the eyes of the Church, but now the teaching would have to change so that the members understood that while it is legal, it is morally wrong.

 

Until recently, the argument against gay unions has been framed in the context of gay people being like unmarried LDS, so it's only fair that neither group can have "intimate relations" with another person.  But now that homosexuals can be legally married in many places, they are suddenly not like other LDS who aren't legally married.  Now the guidelines on chastity can't be based on "marriage", because as long as the church recognizes legal, secular marriages as being valid, the logical implications of gay marriage are unavoidable (apart from moral considerations).

[omni]

Do you have a linked source Omni?

Every one of the bolded statements were untrue so I'd be interested in seeing them in their original context if possible.

 

Sorry, should have added that earlier.  Here it is on pg. 52 of the document.  It was also printed in the Deseret News at the time if you want to do a search for it.

[theplains]

Sorry, should have added that earlier.  Here it is on pg. 52 of the document.  It was also printed in the Deseret News at the time if you want to do a search for it.

 

It uses the term "without Church authority" to depict how these polygamous marriages could occur.

This would imply there were invalid.

 

Regards,

Jim