Recent Survey (via Jana Reiss)

[Gray]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Nope! No matter how you mix and match a marriage contract, the Adam and Eve template is always between a man and a woman, no matter how many might be on either side of the aisle. Something conveniently forgotten about this template is that God is a party to the contract, and He can authorize any number of participants in the authorized template, but it's a man-woman template.

There's an issue with your math here. 1 + 1 ≠ n where n>2

 

 

[CV75]

57 minutes ago, Gray said:

There's an issue with your math here. 1 + 1 ≠ n where n>2

Huh? You know it's not about math, it's about template. Whenever the covenant is established, it is only a man and a woman making and entering into it.

And there's an issue with your henosis here: can you relate to how, in the marriage covenant,1 + 1 = 1?

[Gray]

On 6/30/2017 at 11:07 AM, clarkgoble said:

The only real solution that would work within the LDS model without throwing out most of the Mormon conception of deification is a combination of polyandry and polygyny.

That's certainly more equitable. But if everyone is marrying everyone, doesn't marriage start to lose its meaning?

On the other hand, Celestial marriage doesn't HAVE to be seen as a sexual relationship at all. Maybe it's more like a partnership for the purpose of bringing ever more order from chaos in the universe. In that case again, the anxiety of polygamy leaves, but then again the anxiety over gay marriage might also leave

[Gray]

On 6/30/2017 at 1:55 PM, clarkgoble said:

I think the argument is that you can have multiple marriages but that each marriage has to be an Adam and Eve. Your argument basically is that if the type is able to handle multiple marriages it ought mean anything you want, but I confess I don't see that. In one sense symbolisms are arbitrary, but effectively what you're saying is that Adam and Eve don't represent their sexes but just marriage. While the allegorization drive can of course end up removing any literal meaning, you're still faced with the problem of there being no history of the reading you are making. Effectively it reduces to "scripture can mean anything we want it to mean."

But again as a practical matter for Mormons our practices are based upon what the current prophet. But then for SSM would say, well by that measure they could overthrow any doctrine.

Effectively though what is going on is a rejection of history/tradition as offering even a burden of proof and the assumption that SSM should be church law because they want it. At that point, what possibility of discussion is there? We'd at best be discussing the beliefs of the 12 (which seem pretty clear) or how much social pressure will overthrow doctrine. The only two examples are polygamy and blacks and the priesthood. The former shows the church was very willing to stand up to social pressure until its very existence was threatened. The latter shows that most of the 12 were willing to change it early but that a single vote was able to prevent it for a few decades. Further that was with a doctrine that always said blacks would one day have the priesthood. (We can debate when most thought it would take place but the key is everyone thought it would take place whereas there's no authorities saying gay marriage would happen)

Adam and Eve, as portrayed in our temples, are youthful and white. Does that mean marriage is only valid for whites or young people? I don't think so. So why get stuck on gender? Yes, most relationships have a man and a woman. That's how we reproduce. But nature has engineered homosexuality as well, so these archetypes can't represent every relationship if we're stuck on gender.

Those are some valid points about gay marriage, but homosexuality didn't really become a widely discussed topic within the church until the 20th century. The race issue has been with us since the very beginning.

 

[Gray]

On 6/30/2017 at 4:57 PM, CV75 said:

Huh? You know it's not about math, it's about template. Whenever the covenant is established, it is only a man and a woman making and entering into it.

And there's an issue with your henosis here: can you relate to how, in the marriage covenant,1 + 1 = 1?

"A" is synonymous with "1". Marriage is between 1 man and 1 one woman. Polygamy is not between 1 man and 1 woman.

 

Edited July 2, 2017 by Gray

[CV75]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

"A" is synonymous with "1". Marriage is between 1 man and 1 one woman. Polygamy is not between 1 man and 1 woman.

We've been through all that. Each covenant in LDS plural marriage is between a man and a woman so the covenant henosis is maintained between that pair. When the spouses enter the covenant, it is with one spouse at a time, not as a group.

[clarkgoble]

8 hours ago, Gray said:

Adam and Eve, as portrayed in our temples, are youthful and white. Does that mean marriage is only valid for whites or young people? I don't think so. So why get stuck on gender? Yes, most relationships have a man and a woman. That's how we reproduce. But nature has engineered homosexuality as well, so these archetypes can't represent every relationship if we're stuck on gender.

I don't quite understand your logic here since you are conflating a superficial element of the story (what they look like which isn't in any account) with essential elements of the story (they are male and female).

[clarkgoble]

8 hours ago, Gray said:

On the other hand, Celestial marriage doesn't HAVE to be seen as a sexual relationship at all. Maybe it's more like a partnership for the purpose of bringing ever more order from chaos in the universe. In that case again, the anxiety of polygamy leaves, but then again the anxiety over gay marriage might also leave

Again we can of course throw out all the scriptures on the topic along with the discussions of this. The point is that there's a lot of explicit talk that would need to be jettisoned. Again we can in theory believe anything we want. What you aren't doing is providing readings that could justify that beyond just throwing out texts.

[Gray]

19 hours ago, CV75 said:

We've been through all that. Each covenant in LDS plural marriage is between a man and a woman so the covenant henosis is maintained between that pair. When the spouses enter the covenant, it is with one spouse at a time, not as a group.

This seems to be an argument specially constructed to deal with a mathematical criticism, but not an argument that accurately represents the nature of polygamy.

[Gray]

18 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't quite understand your logic here since you are conflating a superficial element of the story (what they look like which isn't in any account) with essential elements of the story (they are male and female).

Why is gender essential and not superficial?

[Gray]

18 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Again we can of course throw out all the scriptures on the topic along with the discussions of this. The point is that there's a lot of explicit talk that would need to be jettisoned. Again we can in theory believe anything we want. What you aren't doing is providing readings that could justify that beyond just throwing out texts.

I don't know of any reading that justifies your suggestion of polyandry. And again, none of the text explicitly deals with gay marriage, so we're talking about applying principles taught in scripture to a brand new issue. There will never be a 1:1 relationship between the text and gay marriage. But it's very easy to support gay marriage on Biblical (or scriptural) principles. The teachings of Jesus work well for that purpose.

Edited July 3, 2017 by Gray

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, Gray said:

This seems to be an argument specially constructed to deal with a mathematical criticism, but not an argument that accurately represents the nature of polygamy.

LOL but you're the one making ineffectual mathematical criticisms!

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Why is gender essential and not superficial?

Because Prophets of God have said so?

[Gray]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

LOL but you're the one making ineffectual mathematical criticisms!

Polygyny is a relationship between a man and multiple women. That's not the same thing as a man and a woman. Ergo not traditional marriage by the usual definition. 1+1 does not equal 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc. Pretty simple.

[Gray]

27 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Because Prophets of God have said so?

They used to say that race was essential too. They are of course entitled to their opinion, the same as the rest of us.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Polygyny is a relationship between a man and multiple women. That's not the same thing as a man and a woman. Ergo not traditional marriage by the usual definition. 1+1 does not equal 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc. Pretty simple.

And thus you've made another ineffectual mathematical criticism of polygamy.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

I don't know of any reading that justifies your suggestion of polyandry. And again, none of the text explicitly deals with gay marriage, so we're talking about applying principles taught in scripture to a brand new issue. There will never be a 1:1 relationship between the text and gay marriage. But it's very easy to support gay marriage on Biblical (or scriptural) principles. The teachings of Jesus work well for that purpose.

But that's the logic I don't quite follow. Clearly homosexuality was known. That they didn't think gay marriage was valid surely means something.  

To say it's very easy to find support for gay marriage seems dubious at best. It seems that the main arguments for it are more ethical rather than arising in anyway from scripture or tradition. Especially for Mormons.

Don't get me wrong. I think there are arguments one could make for gay marriage. There are for instance things like "the conservative case for gay marriage" which argues for it as a way to limit social evils such as promiscuity. But that's not really what I'm getting at. Especially for Mormons who pretty well have an ontology of two sexes in an essential way, it seems like a whole lot need jettisoned to make the argument you are attempting to make.

I also think you dismiss the Adam and Eve typology as being undermined by polygamy too easily. The problem for your argument along that line was that the culture out of which the Adam and Eve motif arose was itself polygamous. So I don't think polygamy can do the job you think it should. That's because a polygamous relationship was seen as a set of Adam/Eve pairs. Even polyandry would fit into that understanding. (And indeed was explicit in the idea of levirate marriage where there's a duty to marry a widowed sister in law)

The problem again though is that none of this understanding relates to homosexuality. The best you could argue is that in a polygamous marriage there's the possibility of homosexuality. This became, as I recall, a big issue in the Manti polygamous group that formed in the 90's. There was a schism over whether a man could sleep with both wives simultaneously effectively entailing lesbian relations. What's interesting is that, so far as I know, this never popped up as a matter of discussion in 19th century Mormonism nor made it into the Old Testament. (Actually I think anti-Mormon editorials and cartoons may have obliquely raised the issue but I don't know of any Mormon responses in the 19th century. I can't recall if Quinn brings that issue up although he speculates on the Louie B. Felt & May Anderson relationship. I've not read that book in ages, but I think he may have claimed Louie had relations with her sister-wives but I don't recall there being any evidence for it)

Edited July 3, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

They used to say that race was essential too. They are of course entitled to their opinion, the same as the rest of us.

Again, this is just the argument that anything could change therefore appeal to precedence doesn't matter. You do understand why that is a weak argument, right? I could by the same argument say that marriage itself will be jettisoned since precedence of the importance of marriage doesn't matter. 

While I understand why you have to make this move, I'm a bit at a loss for why you see it as a particularly persuasive argument.

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

And thus you've made another ineffectual mathematical criticism of polygamy.

Not ineffectual. Polygamy falls outside of the boundaries of "marriage is between a man and a woman"

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again, this is just the argument that anything could change therefore appeal to precedence doesn't matter. You do understand why that is a weak argument, right? I could by the same argument say that marriage itself will be jettisoned since precedence of the importance of marriage doesn't matter. 

While I understand why you have to make this move, I'm a bit at a loss for why you see it as a particularly persuasive argument.

It's not just a matter of "this could change" - it's a matter of "these ideas haven't been floating around the church that long, and they're constantly in flux." They don't have the strong moorings that other doctrines have. And an appeal to scriptural mandates doesn't really help, unless all you're looking for is prooftexts.

[Gray]

29 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

But that's the logic I don't quite follow. Clearly homosexuality was known. That they didn't think gay marriage was valid surely means something.  

Homosexually wasn't well understood and the kinds of relationships they would have encountered don't resemble modern gay marriage. That goes for straight marriage as well.

 

29 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

To say it's very easy to find support for gay marriage seems dubious at best. It seems that the main arguments for it are more ethical rather than arising in anyway from scripture or tradition. Especially for Mormons.

Ethical arguments are dubious by nature for Mormons?

 

 

29 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Don't get me wrong. I think there are arguments one could make for gay marriage. There are for instance things like "the conservative case for gay marriage" which argues for it as a way to limit social evils such as promiscuity. But that's not really what I'm getting at. Especially for Mormons who pretty well have an ontology of two sexes in an essential way, it seems like a whole lot need jettisoned to make the argument you are attempting to make.

Obviously I disagree. I don't think there is anything about Mormonism that requires a rejection of gay marriage. I think most of what's driving it in Mormonism is  a deference to conservative Christian theology in a vacuum of any other sources of information on the topic, and a unique theology that simply doesn't take homosexuality into account at all (in other words, a doctrinal vacuum that has been plugged, for now, by borrowed doctrines from other traditions).

[clarkgoble]

23 minutes ago, Gray said:

Ethical arguments are dubious by nature for Mormons?

No. But they are quite different from appeals to revelation. Further I think most adopt a certain skepticism towards pure ethical arguments. Even in philosophy grounding ethical arguments are quite hard. So in most applied ethics you end up using agreed upon ethical principles as premises for further arguments. The difficulty in a Mormon context is that the agreed upon starting points might be different from secular society at large. But clearly many Mormons accept the more secular ethical arguments which is why many accept gay marriage.

Quote

It's not just a matter of "this could change" - it's a matter of "these ideas haven't been floating around the church that long, and they're constantly in flux." They don't have the strong moorings that other doctrines have. And an appeal to scriptural mandates doesn't really help, unless all you're looking for is prooftexts.

Yeah, that's more or less what I disagree with. I know you keep coming back to that, but homosexuality just isn't a new phenomena. Gay marriage is about legitimizing gay relationships. But again, gay relationships appear to have been fairly well known. I think Quinn establishes that quite well.

Quote

Obviously I disagree. I don't think there is anything about Mormonism that requires a rejection of gay marriage. I think most of what's driving it in Mormonism is  a deference to conservative Christian theology in a vacuum of any other sources of information on the topic, and a unique theology that simply doesn't take homosexuality into account at all (in other words, a doctrinal vacuum that has been plugged, for now, by borrowed doctrines from other traditions).

Well, I guess we'll just end up disagreeing. To me the key things that make gay marriage difficult within a Mormon context are precisely the the places we differ from conservative Christian theology. So I have a hard time seeing conservative theology being the driver. The entire theology of salvation for Mormons is wrapped up with marriage between a man and a woman. That's really blasphemous to most Christians. To dismiss the male/female divide to that aspect of salvation as accidental seems to require dismissing a major part of Mormon theology.

I think that were it not for those theological elements people would be much, much more open to gay marriage as a way of legitimizing relationships for homosexuals. I just don't think it's primarily a remnant of homophobia tied to conservative Christian theology. Indeed I'd say that for traditional Christians gay marriage is open to them in a fashion it's just not for Mormons. The main dividing line appears much more to be between those who accept a sola scripture position tied with inerrancy and those who emphasize the place of tradition. So Catholics are not open to it more due to the role tradition plays. Conservative Evangelicals reject it due to how they see the New Testament as determinative of practice.

Edited July 3, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

They used to say that race was essential too. They are of course entitled to their opinion, the same as the rest of us.

Who are "they"?

Edited July 3, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[california boy]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Again, this is just the argument that anything could change therefore appeal to precedence doesn't matter. You do understand why that is a weak argument, right? I could by the same argument say that marriage itself will be jettisoned since precedence of the importance of marriage doesn't matter. 

While I understand why you have to make this move, I'm a bit at a loss for why you see it as a particularly persuasive argument.

There is something about both denying someone the full blessings of the gospel that tie withholding the priesthood and temple marriage from blacks and withholding priesthood blessings and temple marriage for gays. It just seems like marriage is the very core of the plan of salvation.  To deny anyone the ability to marry and fully participate in the plan of salvation seems counter to the concept of the gospel of Jesus Christ being universal and needed for all of God's children.  I think that is why so many Mormons changed their views about allowing blacks to hold the priesthood and have temple marriage long before the change took place.  I think that is why so many Mormons are changing their views about allowing gay couples to marry and have temple marriages.  And yeah, I don't see gay marriage happening any time soon in the Mormon church either.  But what happens when the majority of Mormons think that just because someone is gay, they shouldn't be denied the blessings of marriage.  

 

[clarkgoble]

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

There is something about both denying someone the full blessings of the gospel that tie withholding the priesthood and temple marriage from blacks and withholding priesthood blessings and temple marriage for gays. It just seems like marriage is the very core of the plan of salvation.  To deny anyone the ability to marry and fully participate in the plan of salvation seems counter to the concept of the gospel of Jesus Christ being universal and needed for all of God's children.

I agree. That's why it's a vexing problem. 

The solution, that they can get married in the next life is understandably not particularly attractive - even though it is what single members get told. So people somewhat understandably want a solution in this life. It's just that unlike blacks and the priesthood there doesn't appear to be a solution that is compatible with Mormon theology. Grey's solution is to just jettison major parts of Mormon theology but hopefully people understand why that's not particularly appealing to people who believe in those doctrines.

The middle ground is one based upon Paul that we talked about. That marriage is just to prevent sexual promiscuity. Thus there'd be gay marriage for this life with an implicit divorce at death.  However I suspect most gay people would find that ultimately little more appealing than no marriage at all.

Edited July 3, 2017 by clarkgoble