Popular Post california boy Posted June 30, 2017 Popular Post Posted June 30, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, CV75 said: I think you're missing some of nuances of what went on, and haven't given it a very respectful representation, but the answers to your questions are found in the D&C. Joseph Smith did not seek to legally redefine marriage, only to practice according to his religious conscience. In the decades after his death, the Church certainly sought constitutional protection for her members' religious freedom to practice plural marriage, which likely entailed decriminalizing religious polygamy. But never was it about the constitutional right for a man and woman to marry. We weren't talking about whether what Joseph Smith did was illegal. We were talking about redefining marriage. Scott made the claim that Joseph Smith was only doing what was done in the Old Testament. D&C is modern scripture, so what is found there would be a NEW definition of marriage. I have yet to see a scripture where God told his prophets to start to marry other peoples wives before the time of Joseph Smith. If you have a scripture to support Scotts assertion, then please share that. Of all the people on earth, the ones that do not have a right to complain about gay marriage being a new definition of marriage is the Mormons given their history. In every sense of the word, their very doctrine was a new definition of marriage. The persecuted become the persecutors. If you want to discuss the constitutional right for gays to marry we can certainly do that . . . once again. Or you could just read the Supreme Court ruling for yourself. Edited June 30, 2017 by california boy 5
california boy Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 7 hours ago, Jude2 said: What do you mean by support? I believe it is scripturally and temple covenant wrong however I'm not going to tear someone out of their bed room or etc. Etc. What I really feel is deep down wrong and extremely selfish are gay couples deliberately adopting babies or creating babies to raise without a mother or father; two women getting pregnant with donated sperm or two men finding a womb to borrow. That has got to be one of the most selfish acts there can be, they are only thinking of themselves and not the needs of the child. The first woman a little boy knows is his mother who feeds him at her breast, a gay couple can't give that experience to a baby. A father teaches a little girl to respect herself, the way a father treats a little girl's mother teaches her how a boy should treat her. Father's teach their children to respect their mother and lest mine did. All he had to say was Do What Your Mom Said! and we all jumped. They are not forming a real family but a mock image of it, ok throw something at me but that is the truth. You may have a point, but gay couples are not ripping children out of the arms of loving mothers and fathers. Gay couples are stepping up to the plate and raising children that have been abandoned by children caused by irresponsible heterosexual males and females. If everyone raised the children they gave birth to, then there would be no children for gay couples to raise. It has been pointed out that if anything, perhaps the greatest positive benefit to society of gay marriage is to have children that have been abandoned, now raised in a loving and secure family. Your examples are a bit far fetched. My mother was unable to breast feed. Gay couples can provide the exact same experience that I received. (not that I remember it). Both parents teach a little girl to respect herself by the way they respect her. Children learn how to respect each other by how the COUPLE respect each other. It is not the job of just one parent. If either parent fails in treating the other person with respect, then the child does not get the positive role model on how to respect themselves and others. Mostly your post is about your own prejudice and has no foundation in fact as countless studies have shown. 4
JulieM Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Polygamy as practiced by early Mormons was not a redefinition of marriage. God had sanctioned plural marriage from yesterday. And what about polyandry? Joseph married other men's wives, how is that not a redefinition of marriage? Also, where is there a record that God sanctioned this type of marriage "from yesterday"? 4
CV75 Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, california boy said: We weren't talking about whether what Joseph Smith did was illegal. We were talking about redefining marriage. Scott made the claim that Joseph Smith was only doing what was done in the Old Testament. D&C is modern scripture, so what is found there would be a NEW definition of marriage. I have yet to see a scripture where God told his prophets to start to marry other peoples wives before the time of Joseph Smith. If you have a scripture to support Scotts assertion, then please share that. Of all the people on earth, the ones that do not have a right to complain about gay marriage being a new definition of marriage is the Mormons given their history. In every sense of the word, their very doctrine was a new definition of marriage. The persecuted become the persecutors. If you want to discuss the constitutional right for gays to marry we can certainly do that . . . once again. Or you could just read the Supreme Court ruling for yourself. It seems "somebody" is redefining "redefining" and it depends what "redefining" is. Marriage as defined (directly or in terms of who has a right or qualification) in legal or constitutional terms seems to be appropriate for discussion of both ssm and plural marriage. Marriage as defined in scriptural-based or traditional terms is easy (man and a woman), and that is what Joseph Smith was doing, no matter who he was sealed to or how outrageous one may wish to make it appear without having (or rather, acknowledging) all the facts. Edited June 30, 2017 by CV75
california boy Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 16 minutes ago, CV75 said: It seems "somebody" is redefining "redefining" and it depends what "redefining" is. Marriage as defined (directly or in terms of who has a right or qualification) in legal or constitutional terms seems to be appropriate for discussion of both ssm and plural marriage. Marriage as defined in scriptural-based or traditional terms is easy (man and a woman), and that is what Joseph Smith was doing, no matter who he was sealed to or how outrageous one may wish to make it appear without having (or rather, acknowledging) all the facts. Yeah ok. You obviously don't think marrying other peoples wives and calling that marriage is a redefinition. And I know why. You simply can not defend that position when you look at the actions of Joseph Smith. Marriage in the Old Testament, which is what Scott used to support his statement were not sanctioned by any government either. So why all the sudden does whether something is legal become the criteria for whether something is a redefinition of marriage. Having the state be involved in the legality of marriage has not been in existence since the Old Testament times. You and Scott want to use Old Testament precedence to claim that polygamy was practiced before. Then you want to change the ground rules and say that the definition of marriage has to include state sanctions of those marriages. If that is the criteria, then polygamy has never been a legitimate form of marriage. It has never been sanctioned by the government in Old Testament times, nor in modern times. Joseph Smith redefined what marriage has EVER been in the history of mankind when he started marrying other men's wives and said they were sanctioned by God. And that is exactly what we are talking about. That redefinition of marriage that didn't exist before ever in history. Marrying one man and one woman is not the same definition of marriage as marrying one man and many women and other men's wives. You really have to twist things to make that one work. Which you have done. 4
stemelbow Posted June 30, 2017 Author Posted June 30, 2017 16 hours ago, Jude2 said: What do you mean by support? I believe it is scripturally and temple covenant wrong however I'm not going to tear someone out of their bed room or etc. Etc. Support means, agree with, in this sense. By reading your post, it doesn't seem like you support SSM at all. 16 hours ago, Jude2 said: What I really feel is deep down wrong and extremely selfish are gay couples deliberately adopting babies or creating babies to raise without a mother or father; two women getting pregnant with donated sperm or two men finding a womb to borrow. huh? what's selfish about deliberately adopting babies without a mother or father? 16 hours ago, Jude2 said: That has got to be one of the most selfish acts there can be, they are only thinking of themselves and not the needs of the child. Really? you think so? Do you know any one who has adopted a child? Are they really just selfishly thinking of themselves and not the needs of the child? 16 hours ago, Jude2 said: The first woman a little boy knows is his mother who feeds him at her breast, a gay couple can't give that experience to a baby. A father teaches a little girl to respect herself, the way a father treats a little girl's mother teaches her how a boy should treat her. Father's teach their children to respect their mother and lest mine did. All he had to say was Do What Your Mom Said! and we all jumped. They are not forming a real family but a mock image of it, ok throw something at me but that is the truth. 3
CV75 Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 1 hour ago, california boy said: Yeah ok. You obviously don't think marrying other peoples wives and calling that marriage is a redefinition. That is correct. I'm using it in legal, constitutional, traditional and religious ways. How are you using the term? In the same way ssm doesn't redefine marriage?
california boy Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, CV75 said: That is correct. I'm using it in legal, constitutional, traditional and religious ways. How are you using the term? In the same way ssm doesn't redefine marriage? I really think we have reached an impasse. I have been pretty clear on what I think is a redefinition of marriage. Joseph Smith introduced a new form of marriage that has never been sanctioned by either the law, tradition, or God. That pretty much qualifies as a new definition of marriage to me. It is as simple as that. 4
Meerkat Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 21 hours ago, stemelbow said: I'm curious how we do that? Wouldn't upholding that gay marriage be legal, as in defending it, also mean you are approving it? or Would you suggest that one can accept that it's a law (not because they are want to defend the institution, but because it is settled as law), but disapprove of that law? Would upholding this law suggest one is approving the reasons why it is law? And, wouldn't that suggest upholding means one approves of it? I don't think so. Luke 20 addresses the principle of obeying the law of the land: "Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Cæsar, or no? 23 But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me? 24 Shew me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Cæsar’s. 25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which be Cæsar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s. 26 And they could not take hold of his words before the people: and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace." I don't think many would argue Rome was a moral society, or that her taxes were spent for moral purposes. It was, in many ways, as we are now. Still, Christ supported the law of the land, so much so he expounded on it, and why, in Matthew 17: 24 ¶ And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? 25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? 26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. 27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.
thesometimesaint Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 2 hours ago, JulieM said: And what about polyandry? Joseph married other men's wives, how is that not a redefinition of marriage? Also, where is there a record that God sanctioned this type of marriage "from yesterday"? Because Old Testament prophets, and leaders did it. David married Saul's wives. God told David he would have given him more wives.
JulieM Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 (edited) 11 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: Because Old Testament prophets, and leaders did it. David married Saul's wives. God told David he would have given him more wives. But Saul had died, correct? Joseph married other men's wives when the man was still living and legally married to his wife. As far as I know, there is not a case of polyandry recorded in the Bible. Also, is there a record that David actually married Saul's wives or did he just live with them after Saul's death (sincere question)? I know there's a record that he had many wives, but is there evidence he actually married Saul's wives? Edited June 30, 2017 by JulieM
CV75 Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 8 minutes ago, california boy said: I really think we have reached an impasse. I have been pretty clear on what I think is a redefinition of marriage. Joseph Smith introduced a new form of marriage that has never been sanctioned by either the law, tradition, or God. That pretty much qualifies as a new definition of marriage to me. It is as simple as that. OK (you haven't been clear to me). And the Adam and Eve model is a model for plural marriage (both polygamous and polyandrous) since Adam is obviously the template for all men and Eve is the template for all women.
JulieM Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, CV75 said: OK (you haven't been clear to me). And the Adam and Eve model is a model for plural marriage (both polygamous and polyandrous) since Adam is obviously the template for all men and Eve is the template for all women. Adam married other men's wives? When did he live polyandry? Or do you believe Eve practiced polyandry?
ksfisher Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, Meerkat said: I don't think so. Luke 20 addresses the principle of obeying the law of the land: "Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Cæsar, or no? 23 But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me? 24 Shew me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Cæsar’s. 25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which be Cæsar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s. 26 And they could not take hold of his words before the people: and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace." I don't think many would argue Rome was a moral society, or that her taxes were spent for moral purposes. It was, in many ways, as we are now. Still, Christ supported the law of the land, so much so he expounded on it, and why, in Matthew 17: 24 ¶ And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? 25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? 26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. 27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee. Did Christ so much support the law of the land or did He just want His disciples to be focusing on other things? When prophets in the past had been asked to do things that were clearly wrong, (I'm thinking Daniel and praying to a false god) they took a stand. Here, I believe, Christ is saying this really isn't something to worry about. Not paying the tax would cause more problems than just paying and getting on with more important things. 1
ksfisher Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 17 minutes ago, california boy said: Joseph Smith introduced a new form of marriage that has never been sanctioned by...God. I'm not sure who I should trust here. A prophet of God who had spoken to the Savior face to face - or some anonymous guy on the internet. Hmmm..... 1
california boy Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 8 minutes ago, CV75 said: OK (you haven't been clear to me). And the Adam and Eve model is a model for plural marriage (both polygamous and polyandrous) since Adam is obviously the template for all men and Eve is the template for all women. Since you haven't been able to show how Joseph Smith did not introduce a new definition of marriage by marrying other men's wives, something that has never been sanctioned by law, tradition or God, I don't really see the point of bringing up Adam and Eve. Were Adam and Eve real people? Was this a metaphor? Does the church even know the answers to these questions? Do you know the answers?
california boy Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 1 minute ago, ksfisher said: I'm not sure who I should trust here. A prophet of God who had spoken to the Savior face to face - or some anonymous guy on the internet. Hmmm..... Well I might suggest reading all of the discussion before deciding. Because right now you look like someone who is making a knee jerk reaction to one post.
CV75 Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 6 minutes ago, california boy said: Since you haven't been able to show how Joseph Smith did not introduce a new definition of marriage by marrying other men's wives, something that has never been sanctioned by law, tradition or God, I don't really see the point of bringing up Adam and Eve. Were Adam and Eve real people? Was this a metaphor? Does the church even know the answers to these questions? Do you know the answers? I don't think I can effectively show you something you are unwilling to acknowledge. Of course there are answers. It really doesn't matter if a template is a real person or a metaphor. Temporal and spiritual and all that. Now if you don't like the metaphor, then I'm sure you are more than willing to change the definition LOL
ksfisher Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 8 minutes ago, california boy said: Well I might suggest reading all of the discussion before deciding. Because right now you look like someone who is making a knee jerk reaction to one post. I've read through your arguments. I don't agree with your understanding of what Joseph Smith was commanded to do.
JulieM Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 1 minute ago, ksfisher said: I've read through your arguments. I don't agree with your understanding of what Joseph Smith was commanded to do. That's not the point. Even if that was the first time polyandry was commanded, it would constitute a redefinition of how marriage had previously been practiced.
JulieM Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 6 minutes ago, CV75 said: I don't think I can effectively show you something you are unwilling to acknowledge. Of course there are answers. It really doesn't matter if a template is a real person or a metaphor. Temporal and spiritual and all that. Now if you don't like the metaphor, then I'm sure you are more than willing to change the definition LOL But again, where do we have a record that Adam (or Eve) practiced polyandry?
ksfisher Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 7 minutes ago, JulieM said: That's not the point. Even if that was the first time polyandry was commanded, it would constitute a redefinition of how marriage had previously been practiced. I've never said anything about definitions. I'm talking about commandments.
JulieM Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, ksfisher said: I've never said anything about definitions. I'm talking about commandments. That's fine, but it's not what was being discussed. Have you really read california boy's posts? They are about redefining marriage. Edited June 30, 2017 by JulieM
CV75 Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 8 minutes ago, JulieM said: But again, where do we have a record that Adam (or Eve) practiced polyandry? I'm sorry, you evidently are misunderstanding what I wrote and I don't want to get into a protracted exchange based on a misunderstanding I don't think I can correct.
JulieM Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 Just now, CV75 said: I'm sorry, you evidently are misunderstanding what I wrote and I don't want to get into a protracted exchange based on a misunderstanding I don't think I can correct. You stated: "And the Adam and Eve model is a model for plural marriage (both polygamous and polyandrous) since Adam is obviously the template for all men and Eve is the template for all women." Where did they serve as a model for a polyandrous marriage? Are you admitting you were wrong to include it above?
Recommended Posts