Compromise is the key

[california boy]

9 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

Still waiting for someone to provide an answer to my CFR that the wives were married to each other. If you can't it is clear, that each marriage was between one man and one woman.

Why are you asking me?  I never made such a claim.  I only claim that polygamy is not a one man one woman marriage.  To argue otherwise is ridiculous.  By the very definition of polygamy, more than one spouse is involved in that marriage.  You can not find anywhere in the world that defines polygamy as a marriage between one man and one woman.

[Gray]

po·lyg·a·my

pəˈliɡəmē/

noun

noun: polygamy

1. 1.

   the practice or custom of having more than one wife or husband at the same time.

 

The only way the math works out is to somehow use multiplication when tallying up the wives. 1 wife x 1 wife x 1 wife = 1 wife, I suppose. But that's not he way it works. It's 1 + 1 + 1 = 3.

But, I suppose this kind of creative accounting could be used to justify being an active member of the church today and a polygamist. When speaking with your bishop, simply indicate that your marriage is a traditional marriage, a one man and one woman kind of thing. If he doesn't catch on that you really mean you are in five marriages simultaneously, so much the better.

[busybee]

On 08/07/2016 at 5:56 PM, hope_for_things said:

This whole issue has so many parallels to the plural marriage position of the church a little over 100 yrs ago, its uncanny.  I predict that the church will continue to moderate its stance on this issue, incrementally becoming less discriminatory and more in alignment with society.  

Yes. Because that is exactly what Jesus did. 

[california boy]

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

po·lyg·a·my

pəˈliɡəmē/

noun

noun: polygamy

1. 1.

   the practice or custom of having more than one wife or husband at the same time.

 

The only way the math works out is to somehow use multiplication when tallying up the wives. 1 wife x 1 wife x 1 wife = 1 wife, I suppose. But that's not he way it works. It's 1 + 1 + 1 = 3.

But, I suppose this kind of creative accounting could be used to justify being an active member of the church today and a polygamist. When speaking with your bishop, simply indicate that your marriage is a traditional marriage, a one man and one woman kind of thing. If he doesn't catch on that you really mean you are in five marriages simultaneously, so much the better.

exactly.  It is a silly argument.  

[busybee]

20 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

 

.... 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.   

Every week!! Are you serious?? I haven't heard a single talk addressing the subject of SSM in the past 15 years in church. There has been the odd discussion in a RS or Sunday School class, but every week?? Hyperbole much? 

Edited July 12, 2016 by busybee

[CV75]

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

As I mentioned in my post, there isn't any significant difference between the two terms.  

It depends; I explained how there is a significant difference. For some reason you prefer to use a word that the Church does not use to represent either her political or moral positions on ssm. For the purposes of this kind of thread discussion, I think it more constructive to find out what someone really means rather than insist they use words they have explained don't convey what they mean.

[Mystery Meat]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

Why are you asking me?  I never made such a claim.  I only claim that polygamy is not a one man one woman marriage.  To argue otherwise is ridiculous.  By the very definition of polygamy, more than one spouse is involved in that marriage.  You can not find anywhere in the world that defines polygamy as a marriage between one man and one woman.

So if you are not claiming the wives are married to each, who exactly are the other parties to the marriage beside the one husband and the one wife? 

[Mystery Meat]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

po·lyg·a·my

pəˈliɡəmē/

noun

noun: polygamy

1. 1.

   the practice or custom of having more than one wife or husband at the same time.

 

The only way the math works out is to somehow use multiplication when tallying up the wives. 1 wife x 1 wife x 1 wife = 1 wife, I suppose. But that's not he way it works. It's 1 + 1 + 1 = 3.

But, I suppose this kind of creative accounting could be used to justify being an active member of the church today and a polygamist. When speaking with your bishop, simply indicate that your marriage is a traditional marriage, a one man and one woman kind of thing. If he doesn't catch on that you really mean you are in five marriages simultaneously, so much the better.

Thats a good definition but it still doesnt change my point. A man that has more than one wife at the same time is participating in multiple (plural) one man one woman marriages. 

So the math, which doesnt have to be creative or fuzzy, actually looks like this:

M+W=1 Marriage

M+W=1 Marriage

M+W=1 Marriage

M+W=1 Marriage

Not:

M+W+W+W+W=1 Marriage

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Thats a good definition but it still doesnt change my point. A man that has more than one wife at the same time is participating in multiple (plural) one man one woman marriages. 

So the math, which doesnt have to be creative or fuzzy, actually looks like this:

M+W=1 Marriage

M+W=1 Marriage

M+W=1 Marriage

M+W=1 Marriage

Not:

M+W+W+W+W=1 Marriage

If one man has five wives, then his marriage is with five women. On the other side of that, wife number 5's marriage is with one man. It's a lopsided arrangement, but it's certainly outside of the "one man one woman" paradigm. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, busybee said:

Yes. Because that is exactly what Jesus did. 

Jesus turned things upside down and upset the status quo.  The contemporary LDS church is a very conservative institution, you don't see a lot of radical shifts from the church.  I'm hopeful for change still, but my observations of the contemporary church is that these changes are incremental, not radical like Jesus was.  

[hope_for_things]

47 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It depends; I explained how there is a significant difference. For some reason you prefer to use a word that the Church does not use to represent either her political or moral positions on ssm. For the purposes of this kind of thread discussion, I think it more constructive to find out what someone really means rather than insist they use words they have explained don't convey what they mean.

 

I guess we just disagree on the significance or lack thereof.  

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

I don't see how.

Alright.  I think I see what you're saying.  You are saying marriage is the ceremonial covenant between two people.  it is not the results of the covenant, and it does not include any implicit promises--like women agreeing to marrying a man who is already married and their implicit agreement to join with, support, or acknowledge the other's wives. 

That's fine.  I guess we see marriage differently.  I see marriage as more than the marriage covenant, more than the ceremony and promise to each other. 

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

Still waiting for someone to provide an answer to my CFR that the wives were married to each other. If you can't it is clear, that each marriage was between one man and one woman.

As far as I've seen no one is saying the wives married each other.  This has been a weird distraction that seemed to give some the impression you are trying to argue that polygamy was traditional.  But, for instance, I would argue polygamous marriages, particularly those wherein a man or woman was already married to another, carry with it an implied responsibility to other's other than the one to which he/she marries.  I think it's clear, the way polygamy was practiced in Mormonism, women, for instance, were expected to, at least in some cases, support each other when they were married to the same man.  It seems pretty obvious, in the case of most of BY's wives, the women not only promised to BY, but accepted the responsibility of other women and children.  of course, for most, we aren't privy to exact wording.  But we do have cases wherein a ceremony constituted more than just one man and one woman covenanting with each other--of course, this is which you deny, I recognize. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Mystery Meat said:

So if you are not claiming the wives are married to each, who exactly are the other parties to the marriage beside the one husband and the one wife?   

It is husband and WIVES.

I honestly can not even believe that a Mormon, let alone anyone else would make the claim that polygamy is the marriage of one husband and ONE wife.  I can't even figure out how you even came up with this.  Or why you came up with this?  Do you need the PoF to be that literal?

That is like me arguing that while the PoF says the church believes in marriage of one man and one woman does not mean that they don't also believe in SSM  I believe in marriage of one man one woman.  That is not the ONLY type of marriage I believe in nor does the PoF state that is the ONLY type of marriage.  

Anyone can make any argument if they are willing to abandon all reasonably held definitions.  In this case the meaning of what a polygamist marriage is.

[Mystery Meat]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is husband and WIVES.

I honestly can not even believe that a Mormon, let alone anyone else would make the claim that polygamy is the marriage of one husband and ONE wife.  I can't even figure out how you even came up with this.  Or why you came up with this?  Do you need the PoF to be that literal?

That is like me arguing that while the PoF says the church believes in marriage of one man and one woman does not mean that they don't also believe in SSM  I believe in marriage of one man one woman.  That is not the ONLY type of marriage I believe in nor does the PoF state that is the ONLY type of marriage.  

Anyone can make any argument if they are willing to abandon all reasonably held definitions.  In this case the meaning of what a polygamist marriage is.

But you previously stated that the wives were not married to each other. So if they are not, how is plural marriage not exactly that: plural one man - one woman marriages?

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

But you previously stated that the wives were not married to each other. So if they are not, how is plural marriage not exactly that: plural one man - one woman marriages?

The fundies would be so proud! Someone needs to champion their cause. Why not let that be Mystery Meat?

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Alright.  I think I see what you're saying.  You are saying marriage is the ceremonial covenant between two people.  it is not the results of the covenant, and it does not include any implicit promises--like women agreeing to marrying a man who is already married and their implicit agreement to join with, support, or acknowledge the other's wives. 

That's fine.  I guess we see marriage differently.  I see marriage as more than the marriage covenant, more than the ceremony and promise to each other. 

What is so important about the marriage covenant if it isn't fidelity between two people?  Polygamy is in direct conflict to this essential fidelity.  This is at the core of why traditional marriage is in conflict with polygamy, because marriage is a contract between two people to be faithful to each other in every way, especially sexually.  Polygamy turns a core piece of marriage on its head.  It says that sexual fidelity is no longer in effect for one of the partners.  It destroys the essence of the marriage contract.  Without fidelity between the two parties, there is no point in marriage, it becomes meaningless.  

Now, I can say all that, and also be forgiving of my ancestors who practiced the plural marriage taught in early Mormonism.  I honor that they believed they were following a greater commandment, a commandment of sacrifice.  That they sincerely believed God was calling them to live a higher law.  I can honor that commitment even though I believe their reasoning was fallacious, while at the same time honoring their commitment to do something that was terribly difficult.  

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

What is so important about the marriage covenant if it isn't fidelity between two people?  Polygamy is in direct conflict to this essential fidelity.  This is at the core of why traditional marriage is in conflict with polygamy, because marriage is a contract between two people to be faithful to each other in every way, especially sexually.  Polygamy turns a core piece of marriage on its head.  It says that sexual fidelity is no longer in effect for one of the partners.  It destroys the essence of the marriage contract.  Without fidelity between the two parties, there is no point in marriage, it becomes meaningless.  

Now, I can say all that, and also be forgiving of my ancestors who practiced the plural marriage taught in early Mormonism.  I honor that they believed they were following a greater commandment, a commandment of sacrifice.  That they sincerely believed God was calling them to live a higher law.  I can honor that commitment even though I believe their reasoning was fallacious, while at the same time honoring their commitment to do something that was terribly difficult.  

IMO, the church can placate on many issues but this one, it is the thorn. No matter how much FairMormon provides the big picture on things, it can't fix the way Joseph and others lived polygamy.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Tacenda

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

What is so important about the marriage covenant if it isn't fidelity between two people?  Polygamy is in direct conflict to this essential fidelity.  This is at the core of why traditional marriage is in conflict with polygamy, because marriage is a contract between two people to be faithful to each other in every way, especially sexually.  Polygamy turns a core piece of marriage on its head.  It says that sexual fidelity is no longer in effect for one of the partners.  It destroys the essence of the marriage contract.  Without fidelity between the two parties, there is no point in marriage, it becomes meaningless.  

Now, I can say all that, and also be forgiving of my ancestors who practiced the plural marriage taught in early Mormonism.  I honor that they believed they were following a greater commandment, a commandment of sacrifice.  That they sincerely believed God was calling them to live a higher law.  I can honor that commitment even though I believe their reasoning was fallacious, while at the same time honoring their commitment to do something that was terribly difficult.  

Excellent contribution.  Thanks.

[ttribe]

3 hours ago, busybee said:

Every week!! Are you serious?? I haven't heard a single talk addressing the subject of SSM in the past 15 years in church. There has been the odd discussion in a RS or Sunday School class, but every week?? Hyperbole much? 

I'm guessing geographical location is playing a role in the difference between your perception and HFT's.  "Every week" may be a bit much, but it is certainly a very common topic for many of us in the U.S.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'm guessing geographical location is playing a role in the difference between your perception and HFT's.  "Every week" may be a bit much, but it is certainly a very common topic for many of us in the U.S.

A common topic at church? I question that as well.

The Church's stance on same-sex marriage is well known, and there's really no good reason to bring it up in church even once a month or once every six months, much less every week.

If it's a common topic because people keep complaining about the Church's stance, well, I'd call that a misuse of the time and setting intended to be devoted to Sabbath day worship and instruction.

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A common topic at church? I question that as well.

The Church's stance on same-sex marriage is well known, and there's really no good reason to bring it up in church even once a month or once every six months, much less every week.

If it's a common topic because people keep complaining about the Church's stance, well, I'd call that a misuse of the time and setting intended to be devoted to Sabbath day worship and instruction.

Well if it is not really talked about...then baptize little kids who have same sex family members..nothing to protect them from is there?

[ttribe]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A common topic at church? I question that as well.

The Church's stance on same-sex marriage is well known, and there's really no good reason to bring it up in church even once a month or once every six months, much less every week.

If it's a common topic because people keep complaining about the Church's stance, well, I'd call that a misuse of the time and setting intended to be devoted to Sabbath day worship and instruction.

You can disagree with me all you want, Scott.  It doesn't change my observation that the topic comes up in Gospel Doctrine and Priesthood Quorum meetings with regularity.  It may not be the prime focus of the discussion, but it does come up often.  And, no, I'm not talking about people "complaining about the Church's stance"; I'm talking about people bringing up the current developments in the SSM debate contextualized within the scripture, prophetic teaching, or lesson at hand.  I'm not sure why you would even bother debating with me on this.  If that's not your experience, great.  It is mine.

Edited July 12, 2016 by ttribe

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Well if it is not really talked about...then baptize little kids who have same sex family members..nothing to protect them from is there?

Huh?

[jkwilliams]

22 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You can disagree with me all you want, Scott.  It doesn't change my observation that the topic comes up in Gospel Doctrine and Priesthood Quorum meetings with regularity.  It may not be the prime focus of the discussion, but it does come up often.  And, no, I'm not talking about people "complaining about the Church's stance"; I'm talking about people bringing up the current developments in the SSM debate contextualized within the scripture, prophetic teaching, or lesson at hand.  I'm not sure why you would even bother debating with me on this.  If that's not your experience, great.  It is mine.

That's interesting. When the policy change happened in November, I decided not to bring it up at all because I didn't want it to upset the détente we have arrived at in our home, especially since all my kids (plus one soon-to-be son-in-law) were coming for Thanksgiving. It came up first when I was out running an errand with my son-in-law, who wondered if I had heard about it. He reminded me that one of his 7 brothers is gay, and he told me how distraught he (my son-in-law) had been over the new policy, especially since it directly affected his brother, who is married and has custody of his children from his previous temple marriage. He told me he had called his brother in tears to tell him he disagreed with the policy and that he loved and accepted him for who he is. My son-in-law essentially bore his testimony to me but chalked the policy up to a misguided attempt to avoid legal problems, which he expected the Lord would correct at some point. I wonder how he feels about Pres. Nelson's assertion that this was a revelation (again, I'm not going to bring it up). All three of my daughters (who are active in the church) asked me about it later, and all of them expressed opinions similar to my son-in-law's. I hadn't really thought how they would respond, but I suppose I am glad that none of them expressed unreserved support for the policy, and all of them said it really bothered their conscience. 

My wife told me that the policy shook her like nothing else ever has in all her years in the church. She said she shed a lot of tears and spent a lot of time in prayer and fasting. In the end, she doesn't support the policy, but she accepts that it's the way it is, and she can't change it.

Other than that, I haven't talked to any active members (other than here) about the policy, well, except my father, who thought I was making it up. Knowing how hardline my high priests group here is, I can imagine how a discussion of it would go if I went to priesthood meeting.

Edited July 12, 2016 by jkwilliams