VideoGameJunkie Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 (edited) If the church repealed the law of chastity a lot more members would feel less guilty about their porn viewing. Oh and there'd be a lot more pre marital sexual relations. Edited November 14, 2015 by VideoGameJunkie
The Nehor Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 If the church repealed the law of chastity a lot more members would feel less guilty about their porn viewing. Oh and there'd be a lot more pre marital sexual relations.So more illegitimate children and people feeling less bad about sin? I am not seeing an upside here. 4
Zakuska Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 (edited) I think that is a presumptuous statement. How do you know that the only reason we don't practice polygamy today in America is the laws against it?Its not presumpuous at all. Read the history of polygamy.https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1The very manifesto gives the reason for the abandonment of the practice of polygamy:"And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.Wilford WoodruffPresident of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."Who better to know why the practice was abandond than the people who abandoned it themselves?So when the manifesto was given no revelation from God was given to recind his previous revelations and commands found in D&C 132 and the divine institution of Plural Marriage. It was simply stopped because the US Congress passed laws outlawing it. Edited November 15, 2015 by Zakuska
Ron Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 People have asked what's the difference between a child living with a heterosexual couple that's not married and living with gay parents who are married. Why should a child be baptized if their parents aren't married and are living in sin? If a child is a member of the church and wants their parents to repent of whatever sin they are committing, one situation is clearly more conflicting than the other. For a child's shacking up parents to repent, they would have to get married. For a child's SSM parents to repent, they would have to get divorced. That would be pretty sad if a child felt like they would need to beg their parents to get divorced. I just wanted to make that brief point in a sea of many, many SSM posts. Thats why the new policy is so repulsive to me. Why not just let the child get baptized without having to put pressure on their parent to do anything?
Robert F. Smith Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 ...and yet we still don't baptize people in a common law marriage until they get legally married.How narrow minded of us.Where do you find common law marriage in this day and age? Which foreign countries have it?
Robert F. Smith Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 ............................................................... In one way, similar to polygamist families in that separation of spouses has to resolve the issue, though the child could imagine that his father should leave (since he is not legally married to all of his wives, I am using this vague term) his other wives and stick only with his wife so not quite the same.......................................................There are countries in which polygamous marriage is legal, but in which the LDS Church will not allow it for its members.
VideoGameJunkie Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 I don't see an upside either, I'm just saying what would happen.
Robert F. Smith Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 You're thinking from a white North American Usa stand point again. A Syrian, Iraqian, Israelian, Lybian, would all be legally married under the law to all of them. How well is that going to go over when Muslim countries finally are opened up to the church? Do you really think the church is going to not let that many generations of polygamist be baptized into the church? Or are they going to hold Ezra-like divorce courts and leave millions of children fatherless? The current church policy on children of polygamists only targets those who are practicing polygamy against the law of the land.Lets be honest... the real issue the church has with gay marriage is an aversion to gay sex. Gays can be members as long as they pledge celebacy.So that's the real and only issue that can be legitimaley brought... even though SSM is a law of the land now.Not true, Zakuska. A number of African countries allow legal polygynous marriages, and the LDS Church does not recognize such marriages, even though they are legal in those countries. The RLDS Church (Community of Christ), on the other hand, has allowed baptism of such polygynous families in Africa. The State of Israel, by the way, does not allow any polygynous marriage, even if you are Muslim. They do not even allow mixed marriages to be performed within their borders (a Christian and a Jew can only marry by leaving the country).
Robert F. Smith Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 I think that is a presumptuous statement. How do you know that the only reason we don't practice polygamy today in America is the laws against it?There may be all kinds of reasons why the LDS Church has proscribed polygyny, but the primary, very practical reason is that the Feds were on the verge of completely disestablishing the Mormon Church if the practice was not stopped. It was an accommodation to the laws as decided by the U. S. Supreme Court.
Teancum Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 I don't think that is a fair characterization of things. Perhaps a little disingenuous, and I don't really care one way or the other about the new policy.The new policy ranks couples in same sex marriage in the same state of apostasy as polygamous marriage. They have moved from beyond simple fornication or adultery to intentionally making a mockery of a sacramental ordinance. A sort of "up yours, God." Or so the theory goes. So, a fellow who struggles with same sex attraction and cheats on his spouse and possibly abandons his family for a homosexual lifestyle is a cad and a cur, but he hasn't yet mocked a sacramental ordinance. A shacking up couple hasn't mocked a sacramental ordinance and, indeed, when they get married, they bow to the ordinance. Or so the theory goes. Now, the disingenuous out there will remark that "how can it be that getting married, when you're in a loving committed relationship with somebody [hope I got the PC buzzwords right there], that you're mocking a sacramental ordinance?" But, the church defines the sacramental ordinance. So, it would be somebody arguing: "Hey, I got baptized in a gay bathhouse with three of my closest friends, who are all in a loving, committed relationship with each other, and how can you say I am mocking God?" Or so the argument can go. It is difficult, I admit, to see each other's position. But what is significant to me is the concept of religious freedom. The church itself gets to define its policies. Not a bunch of homosexuals who really have no interest in attending the Church or allowing their children to do so. As I have stated many times on this board, every large stake in the church has homosexuals in their congregations who struggle their entire lives to keep themselves in check with the commandments of God. Many do. Many do not but repent and come back. There have been bishops I've known. I am aware of one general authority. They are very much likely to support the new policy as they are really no different than those of us who struggle with temptation our entire lives on different issues.I think your analysis is accurate as far as the church is concerned and the way they see it. However I do fail to see how a heterosexual couple shackling up is not a mockery of the marriage ordinance. Same with adultery. Both used to result in more ex communications than they do these days.
Teancum Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 Interesting. Do you mind expanding on this point? What does the LDS church tell converts that have polygamous marriages? What are they to do with their wives and children? Stay married but not have sex?They are not baptized unless they divorce all but one wife. 1
Ron Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 I still just can't wrap my head around why anyone would be denied the right to be baptized at any age if their parents are all for it!
The Nehor Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 They are not baptized unless they divorce all but one wife.And this is not encouraged.
Teancum Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 Or wait until two of his wives die. They can continue to participate in the Church, just not as baptized members. He doesn't have to separate from them at all. At least the instruction I heard did not mention this. It is not easy to refuse baptism to those who want to be baptized, but do you think the women and children the man accepted as his to protect and provide for should be crippled in their lives because he would like to be a member now (a godly responsibility but so is being a father)? He made the commitment to support them. They in very many of these countries will not be able to live as part of the community, but be outsiders if he divorces the mothers even if he were to financially continue to support them. If God reveals he desires these people to be part of his Church in the here and now, the rules will be changed, but they are God's rules, we believe.So I have a friend who was a mission president in Nigeria. Muslim family that had two wives in it wanted to convert. Could not unless one wife was divorced. That was not an option. Family still attends church for a year. One wife gets cancer and dies. Family gets baptized. One year later husband and wife go to temple and are sealed. Same day the living wife then is proxy for dead wife and dead wife is sealed to living husband. I kid you not.
The Nehor Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 I still just can't wrap my head around why anyone would be denied the right to be baptized at any age if their parents are all for it!Sounds like a personal problem.
The Nehor Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 So I have a friend who was a mission president in Nigeria. Muslim family that had two wives in it wanted to convert. Could not unless one wife was divorced. That was not an option. Family still attends church for a year. One wife gets cancer and dies. Family gets baptized. One year later husband and wife go to temple and are sealed. Same day the living wife then is proxy for dead wife and dead wife is sealed to living husband. I kid you not.Cool. 1
Ron Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 (edited) It just seems like we have strayed so far from a simple gospel where we have to start making all kinds of rules around who can get baptized. Edited November 15, 2015 by Ron
Ron Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 Why not just baptize any who wants to (and whose parents constent if they are minor). If there is conflict deal with it!
Teancum Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 Cool.I guess but it is an odd odd thing. Based on this nobody should argue that the LDS church not a polygamist religion.
Ron Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 (edited) Is there any precedent anywhere in any religious history where someone was not allowed to join a faith because of a sin their parents were doing? Edited November 15, 2015 by Ron
Duncan Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 don't know, but the Church isn't saying they can't ever join so...
Calm Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 So I have a friend who was a mission president in Nigeria. Muslim family that had two wives in it wanted to convert. Could not unless one wife was divorced. That was not an option. Family still attends church for a year. One wife gets cancer and dies. Family gets baptized. One year later husband and wife go to temple and are sealed. Same day the living wife then is proxy for dead wife and dead wife is sealed to living husband. I kid you not.Not the least bit surprised. I am glad there was no fuss over the dead wife.
carbon dioxide Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 The only reason polygamy was abandoned Calm was because it became illegal in the United States, and in order for Utah to become a state the bretheren had to abandond the God commanded practice.http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Utah_StatehoodSo it was so important that Utah became a state that the Church considered to give up a commandment of God to gain a couple of senators? If that is true, what else would they have done? Perhaps the Church would have given up the Book of Mormon for one extra representative in the house.
Recommended Posts