Compromise is the key

[HappyJackWagon]

39 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How come nobody ever cries for children in the households of fundamentalist polygamists? They must wait until adulthood as well and must renounce the lifestyle in which they were raised.

I hear this a lot. One difference I see is the history between the LDS church and the fundamentalist breakoffs. They broke off specifically because 1- the lds church was in apostasy in their failure to continue practicing polygamy and  2- because as fundamentalists they wanted to continue living the eternal law.

Not only is there is a history of breakoff but there is also a history of fundamentalist groups like the Kingstons sending members into traditional lds wards to participate in order to receive baptismal and temple ordinances. For whatever reason some of the fundamentalist groups consider the church to hold the keys to the ordinances while simultaneously being in apostasy for rejecting polygamy. They see the church as a placeholder and gatekeeper to the temple. I don't know how widespread that practice is among fundamentalists to "act" like regular lds but I don't doubt that it has happened. For that reason I can see the brethren being cautious about allowing children of known polygamists to receive ordinances under false pretenses.

I don't know that there is a similar history among LGBT to seek ordinances under false pretenses but it seems clear the church wants to paint both groups with the same brush of apostasy to validate the refusal to allow them the saving ordinances.

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Already answered, Scott.  They are different issues.  One is a legal activity the other illegal, for one. 

And I've responded to this by saying that polygamy per se is in effect legal as there is no enforcement against it.

Quote

One is a religious teaching the other is not, for another. 

The effect is the same: Children are obliged to wait until they have grown out of a home environment at odds with the teachings of the Church. Whether it pertains to a religious teaching or not makes no difference. This is smoke blowing.

Quote

 

And on top of that, no one is "bashing the Church leaders".  On that you are over-reacting. 

 

I'm not buying it. I've seen some very unkind things said about the Church and its leaders in the reaction to the news of the policy. Things that have deeply saddened me, in fact.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is hair-splitting.

Polygamy is de facto legal. There hasn't been any enforcement of anti-polygamy laws per se in the United States since the Short Creek raid in the 1950s.

So?  it doesn't mean the Church has reason to support polygamy.  Indeed the Church has every reason to distance itself from polygamy, and one such reason is it's illegal as to the letter. 

It's clear, people don't see the two situations as similar, and thus see your comparison as apples and oranges.  Just trying to answer your question, and not so interested in why you disagree with those who see them as different. 

[stemelbow]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

And I've responded to this by saying that polygamy per se is in effect legal as there is no enforcement against it.

Which is silly.  The Church has good legal reason to distance itself from fundamentalist polygamy.  Thus, it's much more reasonable for the Church to say children in such families should wait.  But, SSM is legal.  There is no such legal reason for the Church to distance itself SSM.   

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

The effect is the same: Children are obliged to wait until they have grown out of a home environment at odds with the teachings of the Church. Whether it pertains to a religious teaching or not makes no difference. This is smoke blowing.

Not really.  You aren't considering the differences.  There are differences and that's why people don't see as much a reason treat the two as the same. 

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I've seen some very unkind things said about the Church and its leaders in the reaction to the news of the policy. Things that have deeply saddened me, in fact.

So?  No one is bashing the Church here. 

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I hear this a lot. One difference I see is the history between the LDS church and the fundamentalist breakoffs. They broke off specifically because 1- the lds church was in apostasy in their failure to continue practicing polygamy and  2- because as fundamentalists they wanted to continue living the eternal law.

Not only is there is a history of breakoff but there is also a history of fundamentalist groups like the Kingstons sending members into traditional lds wards to participate in order to receive baptismal and temple ordinances. For whatever reason some of the fundamentalist groups consider the church to hold the keys to the ordinances while simultaneously being in apostasy for rejecting polygamy. They see the church as a placeholder and gatekeeper to the temple. I don't know how widespread that practice is among fundamentalists to "act" like regular lds but I don't doubt that it has happened. For that reason I can see the brethren being cautious about allowing children of known polygamists to receive ordinances under false pretenses.

I don't know that there is a similar history among LGBT to seek ordinances under false pretenses but it seems clear the church wants to paint both groups with the same brush of apostasy to validate the refusal to allow them the saving ordinances.

Both groups in fact are in apostasy. Homosexual behavior -- even when called marriage -- is not compatible with the teachings of the Church, and it is false doctrine that it is or ever can be.

[california boy]

2 hours 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?

I give up.  You are welcome to believe that a husband that has 6 wives is only married to one woman if you want.  I can't even figure out why you think this is important enough to so distort the meaning of polygamy (more than one spouse)

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

it's certainly outside of the "one man one woman" paradigm. 

That I agree with.
But I see no evidence of it being outside of the established Genesis account of the original marriage, which was the one God gave to mankind.  Unlike SSM.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

One is legal and one is not.

different.

Laws of men.  Not laws of God.
Under laws of God one is legal (with permission) and the other never is.  Reverse of the laws of men, just like most moral items.

[HappyJackWagon]

48 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Both groups in fact are in apostasy. Homosexual behavior -- even when called marriage -- is not compatible with the teachings of the Church, and it is false doctrine that it is or ever can be.

Yes- now that they changed the definition of apostasy to include hmosxual behavior. It's very convenient for their efforts to link the two for this horrible policy.

I marvel at the certitude so many have about what "ever can be". A Bible, a Bible, I already have a Bible and need no more Bible. A church built on the foundational claims of continuing revelation is on shaky ground when they stamp out the possibility of future revelation and understanding. It's quite ironic, actually.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes- now that they changed the definition of apostasy to include hmosxual behavior. It's very convenient for their efforts to link the two for this horrible policy.

I marvel at the certitude so many have about what "ever can be". A Bible, a Bible, I already have a Bible and need no more Bible. A church built on the foundational claims of continuing revelation is on shaky ground when they stamp out the possibility of future revelation and understanding. It's quite ironic, actually.

I marvel at the certitude so many have that "new revelation" can contradict what God has already established.
Continuing revelation has NEVER meant a change to eternal laws and patterns.  It refers to additional information and situation specific instruction.  Not to a change to things of eternity.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

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. 

I don't think you are using the legally defined understanding.  For example,

http://family-law.lawyers.com/blogs/archives/18570-virginia-bigamy-law-a-crime-in-two-marriages.html

"The defendant argued on appeal that he could not be convicted of having multiple marriages because his second marriage was void ab initio under Va. Code § 20-43.  In other words, he could not be convicted of having two marriages if the second marriage never existed in the first instance."

Both in the title and here it refers to the husband being in two marriages, not one marriage with two wives.

[Gray]

25 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That I agree with.
But I see no evidence of it being outside of the established Genesis account of the original marriage, which was the one God gave to mankind.  Unlike SSM.

The Genesis account doesn't include the "marriage is between one man and one woman" formulation that the church is now using. The Old Testament is generally very tolerant of polygamy. 

[Gray]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't think you are using the legally defined understanding.  For example,

http://family-law.lawyers.com/blogs/archives/18570-virginia-bigamy-law-a-crime-in-two-marriages.html

"The defendant argued on appeal that he could not be convicted of having multiple marriages because his second marriage was void ab initio under Va. Code § 20-43.  In other words, he could not be convicted of having two marriages if the second marriage never existed in the first instance."

Both in the title and here it refers to the husband being in two marriages, not one marriage with two wives.

Such a person would have both multiple marriages and multiple wives. It would be misleading to say that the man had one wife, right? Ultimately the man's marriage would include multiple wives. The wives' marriages would include one shared husband. 

In polygyny, the husband has more than one wife, but the wife has only one husband. That's how the word is defined. 

Edited July 12, 2016 by Gray

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Huh?

The policy was said to protect the children of same sex marriages..not be baptized was for their own good.  Going to church and hearing that your parents were living in sin would be hard right?  But if they don't talk about it, what is there to worry about as far as baptizing all 8 year olds?

[JLHPROF]

23 minutes ago, Gray said:

The Genesis account doesn't include the "marriage is between one man and one woman" formulation that the church is now using. The Old Testament is generally very tolerant of polygamy.

Agreed.
God's design doesn't limit number of wives.  The "one man/one woman" is a more recent claim.
It merely establishes God's purpose and design in marriage.  He performed the first marriage ceremony/sealing.

Gen 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.
Gen 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.

God designed marriage to be the combination of male and female for the purpose of multiplying and replenishing.  Polygamy can meet this design.  SSM is in violation of it.
All else is just mortal wishful thinking and will come to an abrupt end eventually.

Edited July 12, 2016 by JLHPROF

[hope_for_things]

47 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I marvel at the certitude so many have that "new revelation" can contradict what God has already established.
Continuing revelation has NEVER meant a change to eternal laws and patterns.  It refers to additional information and situation specific instruction.  Not to a change to things of eternity.

I marvel at all certitude!  :-) 

[Mystery Meat]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I give up.  You are welcome to believe that a husband that has 6 wives is only married to one woman if you want.  I can't even figure out why you think this is important enough to so distort the meaning of polygamy (more than one spouse)

Whoa, whoa, whoa. If you are going to try and dialogue with me, please do not misrepresent what I have said. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the above misrepresentation was not intentional. I have never said that a husband with 6 wives was only married to one woman. Ever. I have said, in fact, that he has multiple spouses. However, each of his spouses are part of a separate marriage contract/covenant. In other words, a polygamist who has six wives has six different marriages, not one. That is what I am saying. Each of his marriages is between one man and one woman.

[Mystery Meat]

46 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I marvel at all certitude!  :-) 

Believe it or not, it is possible to be certain. In fact, the Book of Mormon has an example of one man who teaches that it was not possible and that man was an Anti-Christ.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Mystery Meat said:

Believe it or not, it is possible to be certain. In fact, the Book of Mormon has an example of one man who teaches that it was not possible and that man was an Anti-Christ.

Of course he only thought he was certain, but in the end it turned out that his certainty was an illusion.  

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

Whoa, whoa, whoa. If you are going to try and dialogue with me, please do not misrepresent what I have said. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the above misrepresentation was not intentional. I have never said that a husband with 6 wives was only married to one woman. Ever. I have said, in fact, that he has multiple spouses. However, each of his spouses are part of a separate marriage contract/covenant. In other words, a polygamist who has six wives has six different marriages, not one. That is what I am saying. Each of his marriages is between one man and one woman.

LOL. That is what you met?  I really have to laugh about this. After prop 8 won, I attended a rally in San Francisco. I held up s sign. It said "the Mormon church allowed Brigham 'Ypung  56 marriages, but they won't allow us one.   

I was actually interviewed by the news media  I told them I used to be a member of the Mormon church and I was ashamed at what the church had done to take away the civil rights of gay couples. My quote ended up being picked up by AP.  I guess nothing has changed   Unfortunately   At least for the Church

 

[CV75]

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Of course he only thought he was certain, but in the end it turned out that his certainty was an illusion.  

No, Korihor, in the end, said that he always knew there was a God (Alma 30:52), but that he chose to believe lies instead because they were pleasing to the carnal mind (verse 53).

[hope_for_things]

47 minutes ago, CV75 said:

No, Korihor, in the end, said that he always knew there was a God (Alma 30:52), but that he chose to believe lies instead because they were pleasing to the carnal mind (verse 53).

The lens of understanding shapes the way individuals view the world, and that tends to change throughout life.  Mystery Meat might identify with certainty today, and you may agree with him.  5, 10, 15 years down the road perhaps that earlier certainty will look much different.  Ever changed your mind about something?  God certainly has...

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, Jeanne said:

The policy was said to protect the children of same sex marriages..not be baptized was for their own good.  Going to church and hearing that your parents were living in sin would be hard right?  But if they don't talk about it, what is there to worry about as far as baptizing all 8 year olds?

I didn't say they never talk about it, just that they don't hammer on it week after week, as was claimed.

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours ago, stemelbow said:

So?  it doesn't mean the Church has reason to support polygamy.  Indeed the Church has every reason to distance itself from polygamy, and one such reason is it's illegal as to the letter. 

 

The Church has every bit as much reason to distance itself from any homosexual behavior, including a so-called same-sex marriage. Homosexual behavior is absolutely at odds with the teachings of the Church. Always has been. Always will be.

Quote

It's clear, people don't see the two situations as similar, and thus see your comparison as apples and oranges.  Just trying to answer your question, and not so interested in why you disagree with those who see them as different. 

"People don't see the two situations as similar"? Are there more than one of you there posting under the screen name stemebow?

[Scott Lloyd]

16 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Which is silly.  The Church has good legal reason to distance itself from fundamentalist polygamy.  Thus, it's much more reasonable for the Church to say children in such families should wait.  But, SSM is legal.  There is no such legal reason for the Church to distance itself SSM.   

Not really.  You aren't considering the differences.  There are differences and that's why people don't see as much a reason treat the two as the same. 

 

Something can be deeply and morally wrong even though it is legal. The Church has every reason to distance itself from such a thing whether it is legal or not. See the quotes from Elders Nelson and Andersen in my sig lilne.

Besides, children born into polygamous households are just as innocent and have just as much claim on compassion as children being reared in a domestic situation where homosexual behavior is the lifestyle.

Quote

So?  No one is bashing the Church here. 

I've seen the Church bashed here aplenty. In fact, my primary reason for being on this board is to defend the Church. It's a never-ending task.

 

Edited July 13, 2016 by Scott Lloyd