Teancum Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 It's interesting the way this was all laid out in D&C 132. In order to take another wife, a man must obtain the consent of the first wife. (D&C 132:61) However, if Emma refuses to allow Joseph to take other wives, she will be destroyed. (D&C 132:52-54)Yes. You got it.
riverogue Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Look carefully at the claim. It is saturated with weasel words. "Insiders have indicated." "... may have lost." "...up to 1 million members." (Emphasis mine.) So if, in reality, the Church lost anything shy of 1 million members (even as few as one member), the claimer can say the assertion is accurate. And never mind about documenting it if you attribute it to nebulous "insiders." If you can't pin something down as being true but hope it is the case and are trying to make an impression, express it in weasel words. Give me a breakwas the article any more dishonest than when the prophet stands up during general conference to claim that the church has 15 million members when about half of them don't even claim to be mormon anymore?
JLHPROF Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 So this is what we call adultery...oh wait for everyone accept Joseph Smith and his 19th century followers. Real marriage is a joining by God.If God doesn't have anything to do with the marriage and it is a state only affair then really, anything the state considers legal should be fair game. People can't have it both ways. You can't apply God's principles to man's institutions any more than you can apply man's principles to God's institutions.Either marriage is a mortal institution and God doesn't have an opinion. Or marriage is from God and the state can take a hike. 3
jkwilliams Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Real marriage is a joining by God.If God doesn't have anything to do with the marriage and it is a state only affair then really, anything the state considers legal should be fair game.People can't have it both ways. You can't apply God's principles to man's institutions any more than you can apply man's principles to God's institutions.Either marriage is a mortal institution and God doesn't have an opinion. Or marriage is from God and the state can take a hike.Marriage has traditionally been both a legal contract and a religious rite. It's not an either/or concept. In the USA, for example, a temple marriage is also a legal marriage. But one can get married civilly with no religious sanction, and it's still a "real" marriage.Now the law recognizes same-sex marriages, which can be performed in a civil or religious setting and still be real marriages. A religious entity retains the right not to perform or recognize such marriages, but that has no bearing on the law.
Thinking Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 People can't have it both ways. You can't apply God's principles to man's institutions any more than you can apply man's principles to God's institutions.Either marriage is a mortal institution and God doesn't have an opinion. Or marriage is from God and the state can take a hike. Or you can reevaluate your stance on marriage in order to become a state.
california boy Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Or you can reevaluate your stance on marriage in order to become a state.Great point. Mormons have a very unique situation when it comes to defining marriage as a religion and dealing with civil law. It seems people outside the church see it easier than people inside the church. I remember a person holding up a sign protesting the church's involvement in passing Prop 8. It said "Brigham Young had 56 marriages. We only want one" Most people got it. Mormons thought it was a "totally different issue". Now the church is the champion of "one man one woman marriage" Ironic? I think yes. I am glad this issue has finally been settled. Perhaps now the country can focus on other serious issues that also need our attention. 2
Avatar4321 Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Good points. Legalizing polygamy would raise all kinds of legal questions.Legalizing anything raises legal questions. Pretty much what legalizing means.
Gray Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Legalizing anything raises legal questions. Pretty much what legalizing means. Point being, it would be much more complicated to legalize polygamous marriage than it was to legalize gay marriage.
bluebell Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Point being, it would be much more complicated to legalize polygamous marriage than it was to legalize gay marriage. I agree. The more people you add to a legal contract, the messier it becomes. It would be very simple though to de-criminalize it, which seems to be what most polygamists are seeking. They don't want the government to legitimize each of their marriages, they just want to be able to live like a married couple without fear of prosecution. 2
bluebell Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 was the article any more dishonest than when the prophet stands up during general conference to claim that the church has 15 million members when about half of them don't even claim to be mormon anymore? I'm going to need to see a reference for that statement. I understand that you're new so might not be aware, but this is a formal Call For References (known as a CFR). You must provide references to support the statement that "half of LDS members don't even claim to be mormon anymore" or retract it. 1
jkwilliams Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 I agree. The more people you add to a legal contract, the messier it becomes. It would be very simple though to de-criminalize it, which seems to be what most polygamists are seeking. They don't want the government to legitimize each of their marriages, they just want to be able to live like a married couple without fear of prosecution. Though I'm not a fan of polygamy, I do think it's a waste of taxpayers' money to prosecute practitioners. Clearly, some polygamists have broken laws regarding child abuse and tax fraud, and those who do should be prosecuted. But prosecuting someone for simply living a relationship they prefer is pointless. 1
JLHPROF Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Marriage has traditionally been both a legal contract and a religious rite. It's not an either/or concept. In the USA, for example, a temple marriage is also a legal marriage. But one can get married civilly with no religious sanction, and it's still a "real" marriage.Now the law recognizes same-sex marriages, which can be performed in a civil or religious setting and still be real marriages. A religious entity retains the right not to perform or recognize such marriages, but that has no bearing on the law. Traditionally, not originally. Who does marriage belong to? God or the state? Just because the state took possession (they'll license/tax anything they can) doesn't give them any right to claim ownership of marriage, no matter how long that tradition has been going.
bluebell Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Though I'm not a fan of polygamy, I do think it's a waste of taxpayers' money to prosecute practitioners. Clearly, some polygamists have broken laws regarding child abuse and tax fraud, and those who do should be prosecuted. But prosecuting someone for simply living a relationship they prefer is pointless. I agree. I think that polygamy should be legal. It would make prosecuting criminal behavior of polygamists much easier, because they would not have to keep their polygamy a secret to begin with. I think this is one fight that Utah especially needs to just let die. 1
jkwilliams Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 I'm going to need to see a reference for that statement. I understand that you're new so might not be aware, but this is a formal Call For References (known as a CFR). You must provide references to support the statement that "half of LDS members don't even claim to be mormon anymore" or retract it. I would take his/her assertion with a grain of salt. That said, there are plenty of countries in which the number the church has on its records is much larger than the number of people claiming to be members in national censuses (censi?). For example, in 2012, the church said there were 182,964 members in Bolivia. According to the 2012 census, the population of Bolivia in 2012 was 10,027,254, so if we accept the church’s numbers, Mormons made up 1.82% of the population.However, in the 2012 Bolivian census, only .3% of the population, or 30,082 people, self-identified as Mormon. That is only 16% of the number of members the church claims. Dividing the total by the number of wards and branches indicates that there are, on average, 117 self-identified Mormons in each unit. Of course, I would assume that not all self-identified Mormons are active in the church, so the number of active members per unit is probably a bit lower. Similar discrepancies between the number on church records and self-identification have been seen in Mexico, Brazil, and Chile. However, in the US and Canada, the church's numbers compare pretty well to self-identification. So, I don't think half the church's members don't consider themselves to be LDS, but clearly a pretty good chunk do.
jkwilliams Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Traditionally, not originally. Who does marriage belong to? God or the state? Just because the state took possession (they'll license/tax anything they can) doesn't give them any right to claim ownership of marriage, no matter how long that tradition has been going. When marriage began, religion was the state, but there is no exclusive ownership of marriage. As Christ said, "Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which be Cæsar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s." Doctrines and teachings about marriage and its divine purposes belong to religion; civil laws governing the rights and responsibilities of civil marriages belong to the state.
JLHPROF Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 When marriage began, religion was the state, but there is no exclusive ownership of marriage. As Christ said, "Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which be Cæsar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s." Doctrines and teachings about marriage and its divine purposes belong to religion; civil laws governing the rights and responsibilities of civil marriages belong to the state. Actually, when marriage began there were only two people on the earth and God performed the wedding personally.And marriage predates the creation of the earth too. State marriage is no different than state religion - ie false ownership.
jkwilliams Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) Actually, when marriage began there were only two people on the earth and God performed the wedding personally.And marriage predates the creation of the earth too. State marriage is no different than state religion - ie false ownership. Insisting that the state enforce religious teachings about marriage is pretty much the same thing as having a state religion. The state does a lot of things that used to belong to religion: divorce, naming and registering a child, civil and criminal prosecution, and so on. The idea that our choice over thousands of years to place this authority in nonreligious hands is "false ownership" strikes me as quite odd. Once we got rid of the state religion, civil law had to take over, and most people are fine with that. Edited October 21, 2015 by jkwilliams
Gray Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) Actually, when marriage began there were only two people on the earth and God performed the wedding personally.And marriage predates the creation of the earth too. State marriage is no different than state religion - ie false ownership. Even if we are to take a fundamentalist approach to scripture, I don't recall any recounting of the Eden story where God officiates at the wedding. Or mention of a wedding at all. Edited October 21, 2015 by Gray 1
california boy Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Traditionally, not originally. Who does marriage belong to? God or the state? Just because the state took possession (they'll license/tax anything they can) doesn't give them any right to claim ownership of marriage, no matter how long that tradition has been going. I don't think the state has taken ownership of marriage. A person is free to marry without any federal or state interaction. It is ONLY when the person wants their marriage recognized by the government that they are required to take out a license and abide by the rules set forth by government to make that marriage legal. For example, the church could do temple sealings and have no governmental contract or license involved. It would be recognized by the church but not the government. Nothing really changed about marriage since the government got involved, only legal recognition of that marriage which makes total sense. The church does not involve itself in determining what is legal and what is not. The government does. 1
JLHPROF Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Even if we are to take a fundamentalist approach to scripture, I don't recall any recounting of the Eden story where God officiates at the wedding. Or mention of a wedding at all. Genesis 1:22-25 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Moses 2:28 And I, God, blessed them, and said unto them: Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Sounds remarkably like a certain marriage ceremony I am not at liberty to quote in full.
Gray Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Genesis 1:22-25 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Moses 2:28 And I, God, blessed them, and said unto them: Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Sounds remarkably like a certain marriage ceremony I am not at liberty to quote in full. I think you're reading something in that isn't there. Maybe it was more of a common law marriage.
JLHPROF Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 I think you're reading something in that isn't there. Maybe it was more of a common law marriage. Maybe it was "just a sealing" as some people like (incorrectly) to make the separation between ceremonies, and the marriage was earthly as you describe. ...nah
jkwilliams Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Maybe it was "just a sealing" as some people like (incorrectly) to make the separation between ceremonies, and the marriage was earthly as you describe. ...nah Technically speaking, Adam and Eve did not receive their endowment until later, so it couldn't have been a sealing, which would require endowment and priesthood.
JLHPROF Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Technically speaking, Adam and Eve did not receive their endowment until later, so it couldn't have been a sealing, which would require endowment and priesthood. Hmm...interesting notion.I can see where you would get that idea. (I don't agree but I totally get where that idea would come from).
jkwilliams Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Hmm...interesting notion.I can see where you would get that idea. (I don't agree but I totally get where that idea would come from). I counted it up once, and I think I did at least 220 endowments in my time. But I stand by my statement: technically speaking, the marriage happened before any of the covenants. If I've said too much, I invite the mods to delete my post.
Recommended Posts