The Quiet before the Storm

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not sure that is what Scott was suggesting.  Not at all.  As any historian or anthropologist could tell you, polygamy has been quite common historically, and is current in the Muslim world.

Of course.  No one is disputing that.  But let's also not pretend that polygamy was not a redefinition of marriage in the United States. As a historian and anthropologist, I am sure you recognize that there are many definitions of rituals other countries and cultures have that Americans don't accept as being true here. I will give you an example.  I once visited the island of Nias in Indonesia.  They have their own definition of what a man is.  They build small towers of stones that are, I would guess, about 6' tall.  When a young person wants to become a man, they have to leap over the stone without getting smacked in a, well, very sensitive part of the male body.  Until they can do that, they can not be called a man.  In their society, I would still not be defined as a man because there is no way I could make such a leap.  Yet most people in the United States would indeed define me as a man.

 

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Correct.  Definitions do change all the time, and the notion of non-traditional marriage has become almost quotidian in the USA.  The change in the law permitting gay marriage applies equally well to other forms of non-traditional marriage equally well.  Or are you going to oppose polygamy now?  Suddenly you no longer accept "equal protection of the laws"?

Of course I don't oppose polygamy.  Who other people marry has absolutely no affect on who I marry and love.  Nor does it have any affect on my life, my beliefs, my morality or society.  When we start throwing out equal protection of the law, the very foundation of our Constitution collapses.  

Edited February 19, 2021 by california boy

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

So Rush Limbaugh is a "saint" worthy of testimony in your ward?

The gospel net brings in all kinds. We have our share of Iscariots.

[Stargazer]

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The gospel net brings in all kinds. We have our share of Iscariots.

That's rather uncalled for. Calling people traitors because they have a different political outlook is an extremity that I should think we not go to.

[Kenngo1969]

@MiserereNobis

I wonder, who makes the better beer, observant Catholics ...

Or lapsed members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

https://wasatchbeers.com/beer/nitro-polygamy-porter/

(I assume ... though, yes, I've heard the old saying about what A$$-U-ME-ing does ... that the purveyor of the latter is a lapsed Latter-day Saint ... or perhaps he simply delights in making fun of us.  If the latter, certainly, he's in good company there. )  If I were a betting man, I would bet that observant Catholics make better beer than lapsed Latter-day Saints do, but, of course, being an observant Latter-day Saint, I would have no way to know for sure.

Edited February 19, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

................ let's also not pretend that polygamy was not a redefinition of marriage in the United States. As a historian and anthropologist, I am sure you recognize that there are many definitions of rituals other countries and cultures have that Americans don't accept as being true here.................................

I just don't think that Scott was claiming that polygamy was acceptable in the USA in the 19th century, nor have I made such an absurd claim.  His argument was based on ancient history, and he is correct.  Until the 21st century, anything other than monogamy between a man and a woman was automatically rejected in the USA.  Of course times have changed.

[Robert F. Smith]

47 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

@MiserereNobis

I wonder, who makes the better beer, observant Catholics ...

Or lapsed members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

https://wasatchbeers.com/beer/nitro-polygamy-porter/

(I assume ... though, yes, I've heard the old saying about what A$$-U-ME-ing does ... that the purveyor of the latter is a lapsed Latter-day Saint ... or perhaps he simply delights in making fun of us.  If the latter, certainly, he's in good company there. )  If I were a betting man, I would bet that observant Catholics make better beer than lapsed Latter-day Saints do, but, of course, being an observant Latter-day Saint, I would have no way to know for sure.

In ancient Egypt, the two most important staples were bread and beer.  When the population was busy building the pyramids and other large monumental structures, the state paid them with bread and beer.  They had factories for the production of both, and were quite good at it.  I have no idea what their beer tasted like, but everyone drank it.

[Kenngo1969]

48 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In ancient Egypt, the two most important staples were bread and beer.  When the population was busy building the pyramids and other large monumental structures, the state paid them with bread and beer.  They had factories for the production of both, and were quite good at it.  I have no idea what their beer tasted like, but everyone drank it.

Small wonder.  The water would've killed many of them! Fortunately, in the developed world, that's less of a problem.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In ancient Egypt, the two most important staples were bread and beer.  When the population was busy building the pyramids and other large monumental structures, the state paid them with bread and beer.  They had factories for the production of both, and were quite good at it.  I have no idea what their beer tasted like, but everyone drank it.

Beer and bread.  Almost but not quite enough to satisfy me.  A sunny place like that would be good for growing tomatoes, though.  And some basil.  For pizza!  So pizza and beer!

Burrrrpp!  Excuse me.

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

@MiserereNobis

I wonder, who makes the better beer, observant Catholics ...

Or lapsed members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

https://wasatchbeers.com/beer/nitro-polygamy-porter/

(I assume ... though, yes, I've heard the old saying about what A$$-U-ME-ing does ... that the purveyor of the latter is a lapsed Latter-day Saint ... or perhaps he simply delights in making fun of us.  If the latter, certainly, he's in good company there. )  If I were a betting man, I would bet that observant Catholics make better beer than lapsed Latter-day Saints do, but, of course, being an observant Latter-day Saint, I would have no way to know for sure.

I've had that Polygamy Porter. I saw it in the liquor store and had to buy a sixer. It's pretty good (I'm a fan of porters).

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In ancient Egypt, the two most important staples were bread and beer.  When the population was busy building the pyramids and other large monumental structures, the state paid them with bread and beer.  They had factories for the production of both, and were quite good at it.  I have no idea what their beer tasted like, but everyone drank it.

17th century Catholic monks in Bavaria drank only beer for Lent (they gave up solid food and needed a source of nutrition).

Here's a story about them and also about a guy in 2011 who gave it a try.

40 days with 4 or 5 beers a day? Yum  

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/these-17th-century-monks-did-a-beer-fast-for-lent-90886

 

[Kenngo1969]

48 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I've had that Polygamy Porter. I saw it in the liquor store and had to buy a sixer. It's pretty good (I'm a fan of porters).

I'll have to take your word for it ... not that I don't want to, mind you! 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

17th century Catholic monks in Bavaria drank only beer for Lent (they gave up solid food and needed a source of nutrition).

Here's a story about them and also about a guy in 2011 who gave it a try.

40 days with 4 or 5 beers a day? Yum  

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/these-17th-century-monks-did-a-beer-fast-for-lent-90886

Interesting article.  You do know that Joseph Smith and the Brethren originally drank alcoholic beverages?  Until the divine advice we call The Word of Wisdom was received, which is now obligatory if one wishes to enter the temple.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

Beer and bread.  Almost but not quite enough to satisfy me.  A sunny place like that would be good for growing tomatoes, though.  And some basil.  For pizza!  So pizza and beer!

..........................

Problem is that basil had to be imported from India with the spice trade, and the tomate was native to the Americas, and the Italians couldn't use it until 16th century explorers brought it back to the Old World.  So too for any form of pasta, which had to wait for Marco Polo to get back from China.  Then it became all the rage in sunny Italia.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

That's rather uncalled for. Calling people traitors because they have a different political outlook is an extremity that I should think we not go to.

Not the political view. It is how it is expressed.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Interesting article.  You do know that Joseph Smith and the Brethren originally drank alcoholic beverages?  Until the divine advice we call The Word of Wisdom was received, 

And long after...

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I just don't think that Scott was claiming that polygamy was acceptable in the USA in the 19th century, nor have I made such an absurd claim.  His argument was based on ancient history, and he is correct.  Until the 21st century, anything other than monogamy between a man and a woman was automatically rejected in the USA.  Of course times have changed.

I think you missed the point I was trying to make.  Scott was suggesting that Joseph Smith did not change the definition of marriage when he introduced polygamy.  That occurred and was practiced by Mormons almost entirely in the United States.  So yes, Joseph Smith did change the definition of marriage in the United States.  I specifically stated the change in definition of marriage occurred in the United States in my comment to Scott.  

I might also point out that Obergefell only changed the definition of marriage in the United States as well. I hope that makes my post to Scott more clear.

Edited February 20, 2021 by california boy

[Kenngo1969]

6 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

17th century Catholic monks in Bavaria drank only beer for Lent (they gave up solid food and needed a source of nutrition).

Here's a story about them and also about a guy in 2011 who gave it a try.

40 days with 4 or 5 beers a day? Yum  

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/these-17th-century-monks-did-a-beer-fast-for-lent-90886

 

Thanks for passing that along, MiserereNobis.  it's interesting.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

I think you missed the point I was trying to make.  Scott was suggesting that Joseph Smith did not change the definition of marriage when he introduced polygamy.  That occurred and was practiced by Mormons almost entirely in the United States.  So yes, Joseph Smith did change the definition of marriage in the United States.  I specifically stated the change in definition of marriage occurred in the United States in my comment to Scott.  

I might also point out that Obergefell only changed the definition of marriage in the United States as well. I hope that makes my post to Scott more clear.

So, if I understand you correctly, Joseph Smith changed the standard definition of marriage in the USA only because of the harshly negative reaction of everyone to his introduction of polygyny.  Since bigamy was already illegal, are you saying that he somehow managed to create even tighter restrictions on monogamy than existed beforehand (say the Edmunds Act and the Reynolds decision)?  Because I just don't see that being a valid claim.

Edited February 20, 2021 by Robert F. Smith

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So, if I understand you correctly, Joseph Smith changed the standard definition of marriage in the USA only because of the harshly negative reaction of everyone to his introduction of polygyny.  Since bigamy was already illegal, are you saying that he somehow managed to create even tighter restrictions on monogamy than existed beforehand (say the Edmunds Act and the Reynolds decision)?  Because I just don't see that being a valid claim.

Not really saying that.  What I am saying is that the Mormons changed the accepted definition of marriage in the United States by embracing polygamy as an institution.  It is a redefinition the rest of the country rejected.  Before their redefining polygamy for themselves, it was not really practiced in any significant way.  

The United States reaffirmed monogamy as being the only acceptable definition of marriage in the United States by passing the Edmunds Act and the Reynolds decision.  By doing that, they affirmed that the new definition of marriage practiced by the Mormons was not allowed to take hold in the United States. 

Gay marriage on the other hand, was first practiced illegally by some individuals.  The country realized that gay couples did deserve the right to marriage under the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution and allowed that new definition of marriage which eventually did become legal. The law recognized that if single spouse marriages were allowed for straight citizens, it must also be allowed for gay citizens.

Having more than one wife is significantly different than allowing gay citizens the same existing rights that straight citizens receive.

If the United Stated ever decides to redefine marriage in this country to include multiple spouses, then I would assume those that are gay could also legally marry multiple spouses.  That is what Equal Protection is under the Constitution.  

Edited February 20, 2021 by california boy

[dougtheavenger]

On 2/17/2021 at 9:37 PM, california boy said:

"right to marry"

The "right to marry"?

The right to have your personal relationship recognized by the state as a legally binding and enforcible contract? I don't think so. At some point, perhaps in the not so distant future, this will be adjudicated in a court with 12 judges that include Mathew, Mark and James.

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, dougtheavenger said:

The "right to marry"?

Yes. If a hetero couple has a right to marry, so does a gay couple. Equal Protection.

3 hours ago, dougtheavenger said:

The right to have your personal relationship recognized by the state as a legally binding and enforcible contract? I don't think so. At some point, perhaps in the not so distant future, this will be adjudicated in a court with 12 judges that include Mathew, Mark and James.

That's fine. Don't try to take their job then

Edited February 20, 2021 by Meadowchik

[Scott Lloyd]

On 2/19/2021 at 12:21 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

I just don't think that Scott was claiming that polygamy was acceptable in the USA in the 19th century, nor have I made such an absurd claim.  His argument was based on ancient history, and he is correct.  Until the 21st century, anything other than monogamy between a man and a woman was automatically rejected in the USA.  Of course times have changed.

 

16 hours ago, california boy said:

I think you missed the point I was trying to make.  Scott was suggesting that Joseph Smith did not change the definition of marriage when he introduced polygamy.  That occurred and was practiced by Mormons almost entirely in the United States.  So yes, Joseph Smith did change the definition of marriage in the United States.  I specifically stated the change in definition of marriage occurred in the United States in my comment to Scott.  

I might also point out that Obergefell only changed the definition of marriage in the United States as well. I hope that makes my post to Scott more clear.

Robert is quite correct. My argument was indeed based on the fact that polygamy had existed from ancient times and was in fact existing in parts of the world during Joseph’s and Brigham’s day and continued to exist thereafter. (Have you ever seen “The King and I”?)

To imply that the Latter-day Saints invented plural marriage and thereby conceptually redefined marriage — or that the entirety of “the rest of Christianity” believed such a thing — is absurd on its face. 
 

And arbitrarily restricting the scope of my reference to the United States alone is a straw man of your own making. It is an irrelevancy that does nothing but cloud the issue, because, unlike polygamy, prior to the late 20th century, there had never been a time in the history of the known world when marriage between persons of the same sex existed. It truly was a re-definition. 

Edited February 20, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Not really saying that.  What I am saying is that the Mormons changed the accepted definition of marriage in the United States by embracing polygamy as an institution.  It is a redefinition the rest of the country rejected.  Before their redefining polygamy for themselves, it was not really practiced in any significant way.  

Not so.  The LDS Church certainly practiced polygyny, but that practice did in no sense redefine marriage in the USA.  It was certainly unacceptable in the USA, even if practiced in other countries.  Moreover, the LDS never asserted any connection to the practice in other countries (Oriental and Middle Eastern), but only with ancient biblical practice.

3 hours ago, california boy said:

The United States reaffirmed monogamy as being the only acceptable definition of marriage in the United States by passing the Edmunds Act and the Reynolds decision.  By doing that, they affirmed that the new definition of marriage practiced by the Mormons was not allowed to take hold in the United States. 

A practice is not a "new definition," unless that practice is acceptable.  Since polygyny was already illegal as bigamy, your claim is completely hollow.  There was no redefinition of marriage in the USA at that time.  The LDS Church hit a brick wall.  No inroads were made.  In retrospect one can now see that the Reynolds decision and the Edmunds Act were both wrong Constitutionally under the Equal Protection Clause, but the Supreme Court was not very enlightened in those days -- as we can see also in Dred Scott.  It would take more than another century to allow the 14th Amendment to take hold in a number of areas.  In the meantime, deep-seated prejudices reigned supreme.

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Gay marriage on the other hand, was first practiced illegally by some individuals.  The country realized that gay couples did deserve the right to marriage under the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution and allowed that new definition of marriage which eventually did become legal. The law recognized that if single spouse marriages were allowed for straight citizens, it must also be allowed for gay citizens.

The "country realized" no such thing.  It was the U.S. Supreme Court which did the recognizing.  The people had voted against it, and U.S. law (passed by Congress) only recognized marriage between one man and one woman.  That's Federal Law, and it was supported by Barack Obama.  Once the U.S. Supreme Court spoke, the Federal and State laws crumbled.  Why?  Because no vote of the majority can hold against the Constitution.  The entire country fell into line, as it should have.  Civil rights had become much more expansive.

Quote

Having more than one wife is significantly different than allowing gay citizens the same existing rights that straight citizens receive...............

Nor under the Equal Protection Clause.  In fact, Islam is practiced widely in the USA, and one of its provisions is that plural marriage is legal.  The U.S. prohibition of plural marriage is wrong Constitutionally under both the Free Exercise of Religion Clause and under the Equal Protection Clause.  It has nothing to do with how someone feels personally about a particular practice.  The majority popular view is irrelevant under the Constitution.

[california boy]

10 hours ago, dougtheavenger said:

The "right to marry"?

The right to have your personal relationship recognized by the state as a legally binding and enforcible contract? I don't think so. At some point, perhaps in the not so distant future, this will be adjudicated in a court with 12 judges that include Mathew, Mark and James.

Virtually every single district court in this country and the Supreme Court would disagree with you.  Did you miss that?

Whether Mathew, Mark and James agree has yet to be revealed.  Even if you believe the Church has a living prophet, none have yet to declare they have a revelation from God on gay marriage.  In fact, the only claimed revelation on anything related to LGBT issues is the one President Nelson claimed concerning not baptizing underaged children of gay children and calling gay couples apostates.  And that on has been rescinded.

 

[california boy]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Robert is quite correct. My argument was indeed based on the fact that polygamy had existed from ancient times and was in fact existing in parts of the world during Joseph’s and Brigham’s day and continued to exist thereafter. (Have you ever seen “The King and I”?)

Maybe you could point to me where polygamy was ever an accepted definition of marriage in the United States.  

No one including me has never said that in other cultures, polygamy was and is currently practiced.  What I stated is that Mormons redefined marriage IN THE UNITED STATES

Sorry for the bold, but I have repeated that claim regularly in this thread.  Maybe you and others will finally notice what I actually said. 

Other countries and other cultures also accepted gay marriage before it became legal in the United States.  The Netherlands, for example redefined marriage long before the United States did.

 

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To imply that the Latter-day Saints invented plural marriage and thereby conceptually redefined marriage — or that the entirety of “the rest of Christianity” believed such a thing — is absurd on its face. 

And ONCE AGAIN, I never implied that.

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And arbitrarily restricting the scope of my reference to the United States alone is a straw man of your own making. It is an irrelevancy that does nothing but cloud the issue, because, unlike polygamy, prior to the late 20th century, there had never been a time in the history of the known world when marriage between persons of the same sex existed. It truly was a re-definition. 

My point is this. The Mormon Church changed the definition of marriage in the United States.  Period.  That is all I am saying and that is all I have ever claimed.