hope_for_things Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 39 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said: Please keep in mind, I pointed out that Brigham Young was married to each wife (not in a traditional sense as we would understand it using modern lingo) and not that all of these wives were part of one big marriage because inevitably stupid people try and compare polygamy to SSM. But the Lord's law throughout history (as it pertains to the appropriate parties for any one marriage) has always been one man and one woman. Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary. I also find it interesting, that you were the one who inserted the word "traditional" into this conversation. I never used it. Traditional marriage carries certain baggage with it now, thanks to the SSM debate, and I didn't use it intentionally. It was you who confused the issue by inserting it unnecessarily into the conversation. You're right I did bring the word traditional into the discussion so you make a fair point on that. I don't agree with your assertion that Brigham's polygamy and marriage to over 50 women, meets the standard definition for one man and one woman marriage. You can't look at each marriage in isolation like that, it makes no sense. That's like saying that a serial adulterer is actually faithful to each of his partners on a one on one basis. As long as the adulterer is only having sex with one partner at a time, then its not adultery. Similar to marriage, as long as the married couple is in the same bedroom alone then they are a one man and one woman marriage, think nothing of when the man leaves the room how he goes into a different bedroom and he's now in a one man and one woman marriage with a different woman. This makes no sense! Also, not sure about this, maybe someone else with more knowledge about the history can comment, but isn't there some evidence for polyandry with Brigham as well? As for the rules around God's law, I don't want to debate that.
Gray Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 20 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said: CFR that the 55 women were married to each other. Otherwise, my claim that each of Brigham Young's 55 marriages were between one man and one woman stands. I don't think they were married to each other. But Brigham Young was certainly married to them. That's the lopsided nature of polygamy. I understand what you're getting at, but the math simply doesn't work out. 1
CV75 Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: The church considers SSM a sin that constitutes apostasy and is worthy of excommunication. You don't think that the word "abnormal" that I used is appropriate? The church certainly doesn't represent SSM as a normal behavior. The Church is the first to recognize that sin is normal (that is why she is here!). The Church also recognizes that not everyone considers ssm a sin. But sin and normalcy are not the public debate; balancing protected class, civil rights and special protection for religious freedom are, and that is where we see the Church engaging in compromise. So I do not think using the word "abnormal" to characterize her position for debate or in doctrine is appropriate.
JLHPROF Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Ha! So all of Brigham's marriages were between one man and one woman. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Nice defense of polygamy there, this one had me laughing out loud! LOL big time! Brigham, the big supporter of traditional marriage. It's true. In NO plural marriage are the women married to each other. Brigham Young had 55 marriages. In each marriage, he was the husband and there was one wife. As I said, polygamy is just a different form of traditional marriage. Unlike SSM which is a redefinition of marriage beyond what God established. 1
stemelbow Posted July 11, 2016 Author Posted July 11, 2016 50 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said: Sorry, my position is that each of Brigham Young's marriages (the actual sealing) were all between one man and one woman. I am not claiming that the marriage some how extended beyond that and that each wife of Brigham Young had a claim to another wife as an eternal companion any more that any of my brothers' or sisters' spouses have a claim to me or my wife. We are sealed through marriage, but I am not their husband nor do I have a marital claim to them any more than Brigham Young's wives were also each others' wives. Sorry for the confusion. Ok I gotcha. Sorry for the confusion I may have added.
hope_for_things Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 20 minutes ago, CV75 said: The Church is the first to recognize that sin is normal (that is why she is here!). The Church also recognizes that not everyone considers ssm a sin. But sin and normalcy are not the public debate; balancing protected class, civil rights and special protection for religious freedom are, and that is where we see the Church engaging in compromise. So I do not think using the word "abnormal" to characterize her position for debate or in doctrine is appropriate. This is from Handbook 2: Quote The Lord’s law of chastity is abstinence from sexual relations outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. … Adultery, fornication, homosexual or lesbian relations, and every other unholy, unnatural, or impure practice are sinful. The word unnatural is used, and its a synonym for abnormal in the dictionary search I just did. I think the legal position of the church is calculated to do exactly what you've stated, but I think the messaging from the church, whether that's Boyd Packer's infamous talk, or the messaging members hear on Sunday each week are definitely espousing the belief that SSM is abnormal, not traditional, unnatural, however you want to call it. That message is understood by members, loud and clear.
Mystery Meat Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: It's true. In NO plural marriage are the women married to each other. Brigham Young had 55 marriages. In each marriage, he was the husband and there was one wife. As I said, polygamy is just a different form of traditional marriage. Unlike SSM which is a redefinition of marriage beyond what God established. I agree in so far as polygamy is just another form of man-woman marriage. By the very fact that there are multiple marriages involving the same man I think it looks a lot different in practice than what we have come to call traditional marriage. But the point still stands. Polygamy is still man-woman marriage. SSM is not.
hope_for_things Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 24 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: It's true. In NO plural marriage are the women married to each other. Brigham Young had 55 marriages. In each marriage, he was the husband and there was one wife. As I said, polygamy is just a different form of traditional marriage. Unlike SSM which is a redefinition of marriage beyond what God established. Different form of or a redefinition of, it boils down to a semantics argument. They are both very different. 2
stemelbow Posted July 11, 2016 Author Posted July 11, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Mystery Meat said: CFR that the 55 women were married to each other. Otherwise, my claim that each of Brigham Young's 55 marriages were between one man and one woman stands. When I said it's debatable to some extent, I had something like this in mind: Quote Joseph Smith (martyred) Dec 23, 1805 Sharon, Windsor Co. Vermont Zina Diantha Huntington Jan 31 – 1821 Watertown, Jefferson Co. N.Y. were sealed husband & wife for time & all eternity (Prest. Brigham Young acting proxy for the deceased). Brigham Young & Zina Diantha Smith were then sealed husband & wife for time by H.C. Kimball in presence of William D. Huntington, & Henry B. Jacobs & J.D.L. Young, Henry B. Jacobs expressed his willingness that it should be so in the presence of these witnesses done at 15 m. to 6. http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2006-fair-conference/2006-zina-and-her-men-an-examination-of-the-changing-marital-state-of-zina-diantha-huntington-jacobs-smith-young Meaning in the ceremony wherein Brigham was sealed to Zina, she was also sealed to Joseph with Brigham as proxy. to make oddness more real of the event, her first husband Henry Jacobs participated as witness to the event. This makes the notion that it was between one man and one woman seem at least a little like a simplified explanation. It was between one woman and a dead man and a live man, with another husband watching. I don't know characterizing something like this as between one man and one woman doesn't seem quite right. but if that works for you, I'm ok with it. I just wish they continued to refer to her as Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young. 'Tis interesting when she was sealed to Brigham she took upon her new married name of Smith (although she was originally married to Joseph, I believe in 1841, months after her first marriage). Edited July 11, 2016 by stemelbow
ALarson Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 2 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said: I agree in so far as polygamy is just another form of man-woman marriage. By the very fact that there are multiple marriages involving the same man I think it looks a lot different in practice than what we have come to call traditional marriage. There were also multiple marriages that involved the same woman (her being married to more than one man). I do see the point you're attempting to make (polygamy vs. SSM), but it is more complicated than polygamy just involving one man and one woman. 1
stemelbow Posted July 11, 2016 Author Posted July 11, 2016 29 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: It's true. In NO plural marriage are the women married to each other. Brigham Young had 55 marriages. In each marriage, he was the husband and there was one wife. As I said, polygamy is just a different form of traditional marriage. Unlike SSM which is a redefinition of marriage beyond what God established. Well that sounds like arbitrarily saying stuff. If polygamy is traditional marriage, then so is SSM. It has two grown and willing participators being joined together just the same (husband and wife, if that's needed to define roles is as workable between two men or two women as it is between a man, who happens to be married to many women, and a woman).
JLHPROF Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 22 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Well that sounds like arbitrarily saying stuff. If polygamy is traditional marriage, then so is SSM. It has two grown and willing participators being joined together just the same (husband and wife, if that's needed to define roles is as workable between two men or two women as it is between a man, who happens to be married to many women, and a woman). No, that is not accurate. Both monogamous and polygamous marriages feature a husband and a wife in the manner of the first marriage established by God: Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 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. Genesis 2:23 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. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. SSM does NOT fill the definitions established by the original marriage and therefore necessitates a redefinition of the term marriage.
ttribe Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 55 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: It's true. In NO plural marriage are the women married to each other. Brigham Young had 55 marriages. In each marriage, he was the husband and there was one wife. As I said, polygamy is just a different form of traditional marriage. Unlike SSM which is a redefinition of marriage beyond what God established. Correction - Brigham Young had 55 marriages SIMULTANEOUSLY. Whether that is "a different form of traditional marriage" depends entirely on what your tradition is. BTW, these semantic games do no favor for apologetics as it relates to the practice of polygamy; it just comes off as dishonest. 1
stemelbow Posted July 11, 2016 Author Posted July 11, 2016 2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: No, that is not accurate. Both monogamous and polygamous marriages feature a husband and a wife in the manner of the first marriage established by God: Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 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. Genesis 2:23 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. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. SSM does NOT fill the definitions established by the original marriage and therefore necessitates a redefinition of the term marriage. I agree that one man and one woman is pretty traditional when it comes to marriage. What I don't agree with is marriages, particularly in Brigham's situation, as being traditional. The women saw each other and worked with each other more often than they individually did with Brigham. It's almost as if some, in agreeing to marry Brigham, also agreed to be bound to other women. I was trying to be fantastic sounding, as it came off to me when you suggested early Mormon polygamy is traditional marriage. I'm not really trying to advocate the notion that SSM is traditional.
JLHPROF Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 9 minutes ago, ttribe said: Correction - Brigham Young had 55 marriages SIMULTANEOUSLY. Whether that is "a different form of traditional marriage" depends entirely on what your tradition is. My definition of tradition is to look at the first marriage. Husband/male and Wife/female with a charge to multiply and replenish. No rule against a husband having more than one wife. But no allowance for any marriage that doesn't meet these guidelines. Quote BTW, these semantic games do no favor for apologetics as it relates to the practice of polygamy; it just comes off as dishonest. Hardly dishonest. And I have no interest in apologetics which are more concerned with public perception. Just getting doctrinally correct to the word of God. Nothing else matters. 1
ttribe Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 1 minute ago, JLHPROF said: My definition of tradition is to look at the first marriage. Husband/male and Wife/female with a charge to multiply and replenish. No rule against a husband having more than one wife. But no allowance for any marriage that doesn't meet these guidelines. Hardly dishonest. And I have no interest in apologetics which are more concerned with public perception. Just getting doctrinally correct to the word of God. Nothing else matters. If that's your position, then apologetics aimed at helping in conversion or re-conversion is absent from your list of priorities; diplomacy isn't just a government activity. BTW, I didn't say your position is dishonest. I said it comes off as dishonest. There's a big difference in there.
CV75 Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: This is from Handbook 2: The word unnatural is used, and its a synonym for abnormal in the dictionary search I just did. I think the legal position of the church is calculated to do exactly what you've stated, but I think the messaging from the church, whether that's Boyd Packer's infamous talk, or the messaging members hear on Sunday each week are definitely espousing the belief that SSM is abnormal, not traditional, unnatural, however you want to call it. That message is understood by members, loud and clear. Sin is no longer natural for a covenant-abiding saint; his nature has changed; sin has become abhorrent to him. That is consistent with Church "messaging." In the "Church square" we use religious language: “And now, my son, all men that are in a state of nature, or I would say, in a carnal state, are in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; they are without God in the world, and they have gone contrary to the nature of God; therefore, they are in a state contrary to the nature of happiness. And now behold, is the meaning of the word restoration to take a thing of a natural state and place it in an unnatural state, or to place it in a state opposite to its nature?” (Alma 41:11-14). The nature of people keeping the covenant promotes the divine nature; a state opposite this would be unnatural for them. SSM is therefore unnatural for a covenant-keeping saint. Edited July 11, 2016 by CV75 1
hope_for_things Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 18 minutes ago, CV75 said: Sin is no longer natural for a covenant-abiding saint; his nature has changed; sin has become abhorrent to him. That is consistent with Church "messaging." In the "Church square" we use religious language: “And now, my son, all men that are in a state of nature, or I would say, in a carnal state, are in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; they are without God in the world, and they have gone contrary to the nature of God; therefore, they are in a state contrary to the nature of happiness. And now behold, is the meaning of the word restoration to take a thing of a natural state and place it in an unnatural state, or to place it in a state opposite to its nature?” (Alma 41:11-14). The nature of people keeping the covenant promotes the divine nature; a state opposite this would be unnatural for them. SSM is therefore unnatural for a covenant-keeping saint. Sounds like we agree that the messaging from the church is about SSM being abnormal. I forgot why you were disagreeing with me originally now. :-)
Mystery Meat Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 1 hour ago, ttribe said: Correction - Brigham Young had 55 marriages SIMULTANEOUSLY. Whether that is "a different form of traditional marriage" depends entirely on what your tradition is. BTW, these semantic games do no favor for apologetics as it relates to the practice of polygamy; it just comes off as dishonest. I am not sure why it would be interpreted as dishonest, unless someone was looking for things to gripe about or be offended (etc.). I have said that polygamy is not "traditional marriage" as the term is used to today. I have acknowledged that it was probably pretty different from what my marriage to my one wife looks like today. However, that does not change the fact that each of BY's marriages was between one man and one woman. Hardly dishonest and anyone who would claim as much is just looking for ways to be upset.
cinepro Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 I think Thomas Jefferson had it right when he said: "In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." The trick is for the Church to figure out what is "style" (i.e. policy) and what is "principle" (i.e. doctrine). And then swim or stand accordingly. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 2 hours ago, JLHPROF said: It's true. In NO plural marriage are the women married to each other. Brigham Young had 55 marriages. In each marriage, he was the husband and there was one wife. As I said, polygamy is just a different form of traditional marriage. Unlike SSM which is a redefinition of marriage beyond what God established. I'm curious if Brigham would consider his family, wives and children, as one family, or if he'd think of it as his 55 different families to whom he is sealed. 2
ttribe Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 28 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said: I am not sure why it would be interpreted as dishonest, unless someone was looking for things to gripe about or be offended (etc.). I have said that polygamy is not "traditional marriage" as the term is used to today. I have acknowledged that it was probably pretty different from what my marriage to my one wife looks like today. However, that does not change the fact that each of BY's marriages was between one man and one woman. Hardly dishonest and anyone who would claim as much is just looking for ways to be upset. The fact that you can't (won't) even try to understand how someone might consider representing polygamy as several separate and distinct marriages between one man and one woman, as well as your desire to make the hearer accountable for any resulting breakdown in communication, is informative. The inability to put yourself into someone elses's shoes in a conversation does not serve you well. 1
Mystery Meat Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 2 minutes ago, ttribe said: The fact that you can't (won't) even try to understand how someone might consider representing polygamy as several separate and distinct marriages between one man and one woman, as well as your desire to make the hearer accountable for any resulting breakdown in communication, is informative. The inability to put yourself into someone elses's shoes in a conversation does not serve you well. But that is what polygamy is: individual marriages of one man and one woman. Yes, the man is always the same and it is not like marriage between one man and one woman, but that is why bringing up polygamy in a SSM conversation doesn't work.
stemelbow Posted July 11, 2016 Author Posted July 11, 2016 11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I'm curious if Brigham would consider his family, wives and children, as one family, or if he'd think of it as his 55 different families to whom he is sealed. Well that he moved many of the wives in together, that they themselves formed unions with each other, that they worked with each other to make the house run, I think there's at least evidence of an answer to that. There's no reasonable way to call Brigham's situation as a traditional marriage scenario. The whole issue with polygamy was that it broke tradition.
CV75 Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 47 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Sounds like we agree that the messaging from the church is about SSM being abnormal. I forgot why you were disagreeing with me originally now. :-) LOL I think it has to do with a couple of contextual nuances: 1) the public discussion and terminology is one thing (which you recognize); 2) the doctrinal terminology is another; 3) in both cases the term "abnormal" is not used to describe ssm; 4) in doctrinal and handbook language, "unnatural" means in opposition to the higher way the Lord designed, intended and commanded us to choose to behave physically in the flesh, by covenant (Moses 3:5-9 and the rest of the Garden story).
Recommended Posts