Family proclamation founded on irrevocable doctrine: President Oaks

[2BizE]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

No, because that's not what polygamy was.

It wasn't one man and multiple women in one marriage.  It was one man with multiple marriages, each to one woman.

Marriage is always one man and one woman, even if the man has more than one marriage.

Interesting. So you believe the PoF is word crafted in a way that still accommodates plural marriage as an accepted doctrine currently.  

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

It isn't trying to justify it. It's simply pointing out that plural marriage as practiced by the church was multiple simultaneous two person M-F marriages, not one marriage with more than two people.

No it really was mental gymnastics.

[Fether]

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Brigham Young would disagree with you.

True

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

No. 

Hypothetically, though, wouldn't there be bigamous polygamy and lawful polygamy, were polygamy legal?

 

My understanding of bigamy is that any ‘marriage’ relationships engaged in at that same time as a legal marriage are not actual marriages…”the act of going through a marriage ceremony while already married to another person”…I could call it marriage fraud perhaps.  So people are going through a legitimate marriage service, but it is fraudulent because being single is required to participate in such.  If polygamy were legal, then any legal marriage ceremony would result in a legal relationship unless there was another reason to prevent a legal marriage, such as too close of a family relationship (brother/sister, for example) or involving a minor or someone not legally competent.  Of course, they could be pretending to get married by using fake papers, fake name, or something.  Nothing stops people from being jerks/abusive just because they could legitimately have multiple marriages.  If only legal marriage ensure a decent family life.  How great would that be.

Polygamists (legal) who mistreat their spouses are more immoral to me than a bigamist who tries to provide all their non spouses with a family life, especially if they were open to their spouses about not being legally married and having a long term affair(s) with their first spouse.

Not sure what point you are trying to make here, honestly.

Edited April 5, 2022 by Calm

[Fether]

13 hours ago, 2BizE said:

If that were the case the the PoF would make space for plural marriage between a man and many women.

Does it not make room? As far as I can tell, it does.

Edited April 5, 2022 by Fether

[T-Shirt]

2 hours ago, the narrator said:

Yes, but the possessive simply makes it "his woman" or wife or girlfriend or concubine or whatever. My point remains though-that there was no "marriage" as you understand the term.

Take that argument to every English translation of scripture and see how far it gets you.  Context determines the meaning.  Of 37 English translations I can find, 34 render it, "his wife", two use the word, "they" and the other one uses the Hebrew transliteration, "his isha"  Every Hebrew source I can find says that context would indicate, "wife" rather than, "woman" or any other possible translation.  You can't have a wife without a marriage.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, pogi said:

Technically he said that it is "founded on unchangeable doctrine", and not that it itself is an unchangeable doctrine.  That is an important difference. 

He characterized the proclamation as a “teaching” for conveying the unchangeable doctrines (see my partial transcription earlier in this thread). So whether the doctrines are comprehensively expressed in the proclamation or found piecemeal elsewhere, they are nonetheless unchangeable. 
 

I suppose the proclamation itself could be changed at some point in the future in the sense of being expanded or perhaps its wording being refined. But I don’t believe the precepts it teaches will ever be rescinded conceptually. They are timeless and, yes, unchangeable. 

Edited April 5, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[the narrator]

11 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Take that argument to every English translation of scripture and see how far it gets you.  Context determines the meaning.  Of 37 English translations I can find, 34 render it, "his wife", two use the word, "they" and the other one uses the Hebrew transliteration, "his isha"  Every Hebrew source I can find says that context would indicate, "wife" rather than, "woman" or any other possible translation.  You can't have a wife without a marriage.

The Hebrew simply denotes that the woman is possessed by the man. "Wife" is picked because that is the best representation of the sort of relationship they had--and yes, for all intense and purposes, they were "married." But that does not mean that any marriage ceremony or rite was performed. Similarly, any two persons can have a common law marriage, where they refer to each other as husband and wife without every actually being married.

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Correct. Because sexual orientation is a late 19th-century social construct with no historical precedent. It's 'real' only the sense that other social constructs are -- i.e., people believe in them. Church leaders know this, and every academic I've ever worked with also knows this.

Well of course I agree everything we know is a social construct, but I am not sure about THE CONSTRUCT first being CONSTRUCTED in the 19th century.

Plato speaks of the superiority of men loving men, as opposed to women, because women were only needed for reproduction, but after all, men could actually THINK! Women were just breeding machines 😱🤯 !

And of course the biblical word/idea/construct "sodomite/ism" obviously goes back before the 19th century.

Aren't those seen as "sexual orientations"?

I just think it is a bad argument since to me all "intellectuals" (begging the question, obviously!) know that,  because of language, all of human knowledge is a social construct, so when the construct was constructed becomes irrelevant to it being a construct.  🧐

Words create reality and it us obvious to me that "sexual orientation" was clearly known, perhaps in a different language game before the late 19th century.

The argument to me is itself a construct invented in the 20th century to enhance gay pride as being some new and modern and therefore superior development, when it is as old as language itself 

 

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

We don’t…if by that you mean their ancestry.  If you mean simply skin color, then you can have twins who are different races.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/561472/Twins-different-coloured-eyes-hair-skin

If physical characteristics, is this woman black or white?

This:

Is someone who has black parents, but has decided to live as ‘white’ because they are light skinned black or white?  Does their race depend on what type of culture they choose to live in or physical characteristics or ancestry?  Their actual biology or what people assume their biology is?

And their children, if they see themselves as white, what biologically has changed if they suddenly perceive themselves as black?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2021/10/13/white-black-multiracial-passing-census/

https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/12/opinions/rachel-dolezal-france/index.html

If you read what I actually said you would see I accounted for that.

That is why we use the "quote" function so one can compare the construction of the statement with the construction of the reply, to see if the alleged "correction" was justified 

Edited April 5, 2022 by mfbukowski

[T-Shirt]

23 minutes ago, the narrator said:

The Hebrew simply denotes that the woman is possessed by the man. "Wife" is picked because that is the best representation of the sort of relationship they had--and yes, for all intense and purposes, they were "married." But that does not mean that any marriage ceremony or rite was performed. Similarly, any two persons can have a common law marriage, where they refer to each other as husband and wife without every actually being married.

Eve did not walk down an aisle with a wedding dress and a veil, she did not have a Maid of Honor or Bridesmaids and Adam did not have a Best Man, there was no ring or reception after.  However, when Adam says that God gave a woman to be with him and they were instructed to multiply and replenish the earth, and considering the sacred nature of marriage throughout the bible, and the context of the story, and all translations and Hebrew scholars, it is quite evident that there was a marriage.  Eve was clearly Adams wife.  I am sure you would not argue that if I said, "The crane lifted the steel beam to the top of the building." that I could possibly be referring to a bird doing the lifting.  We understand words by context.

Edited April 5, 2022 by T-Shirt

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

I called exactly no one a liar. No one. I pointed out how bad their argument looks. That's it.
 

You said they were being "disingenuous", which also means dishonest, insincere, and "pretending something is true that you know isn't true". 

It didn't seem unreasonable to assume, by your use of that word, that you were saying people were lying.

Quote

As to celebrities, I think we can agree most celebrities and their lifestyles can hardly be considered mainstream.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/202010/polyamory-has-become-little-more-mainstream

https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20210326-ethical-non-monogamy-the-rise-of-multi-partner-relationships

https://www.her.ie/life/ethical-non-monogamy-open-relationships-mainstream-heres-542537

It's more mainstream and acceptable than polygamy is (or likely ever will be).

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

When a man has multiple marriages with different women, isn’t that called bigamy?   Why does the church always refer to what they practiced as polygamy ?

Bigamy is typically used as a legal term.  In that someone is legally married to one spouse and pretends they aren't so that they "legally" marry another spouse.  Polygamy, as the term is almost always used, doesn't attempt to get the law to legitimize more than one marriage.  

Edited April 5, 2022 by bluebell

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

If you look at localised subsets sure. Not when you look at wider groups though

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/30/AR2009043002485.html

 

As I said above. I accounted for this in my original statement 

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Bigamy is typically used as a legal term.

Well it's big of me to also point out it can also be used in puns likely to cause groans 

 

 

[filovirus]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

If the church changed its doctrine that SSM didn’t keep someone from being able to make and keep their baptismal covenants, then I imagine it would be the same for everyone.

If the church didn’t change its teachings on that issue, then getting baptized will remain different for someone in a SSM than for those in heterosexual marriages.  The SSM person would have to divorce and leave their family before being able to be baptized and the heterosexual person wouldn’t.

As it stands right now, SS marriage is counter to what God has currently revealed to the world. A person in a SS marriage would need to repent in order to join themselves to His church.

That being said: I have extreme faith that God has a plan for all people and I have hope that God will be just according to the light and knowledge that each individual has received, and merciful to a measure beyond comprehension.

If God ever changes some of the points associated with the Law of Chastity, I will wholeheartedly give my support. I do remember that Israel suffered for 200 years in captivity, which means things move in God’s time, and not ours.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He characterized the proclamation as a “teaching tool” for conveying the unchangeable doctrines (see my partial transcription earlier in this thread). So whether the doctrines are comprehensively expressed in the proclamation or found piecemeal elsewhere, they are nonetheless unchangeable.

Direct quote from your transcription:

Quote

A uniquely valuable teaching to help us prepare for eternal life, the greatest of all the gifts of God, is the 1995 proclamation on the family.

I agree with that, but in no way is this a declaration of unchangeable revealed doctrine and truth - that no part may change.  Generally speaking, I think he is correct.  But again, if gender is eternal (they seem to be equating gender with sex here) then what do we make of intersex individuals?  Are they eternally intersex?  The dichotomy of male and female is a false one. 

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I suppose the proclamation itself could be changed at some point in the future in the sense of being expanded or perhaps its wording being refined. But I don’t believe the precepts it teaches will ever be rescinded conceptually. They are timeless and, yes, unchangeable. 

Again, it is based on doctrine.  That is all he said.  

I understand this is your belief, but his talk doesn’t demonstrate that it is anything more than that. 

Edited April 5, 2022 by pogi

[kimpearson]

A few example of doctrine that would never change.

 

***
PLURAL MARRIAGE
May 17, 1888: “We are not going to stop the practice of plural marriage until the Coming of the Son of Man.” (Wilford Woodruff, Manti temple dedication, quoted in journals of Heber J. Grant and John Henry Smith)
October 6, 1890: “And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.” (Wilford Woodruff, OD 1)
***
1878: “Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential, to the salvation or exaltation of mankind.... I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false.... [W]hoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it.”
— Joseph F. Smith, 1878 (quoted in Harrell TIMD Chpt. 15)
1891: “We, the First Presidency and Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, … represent to your Excellency the following facts: We formerly taught to our people that polygamy, or celestial marriage, as commanded by God through Joseph Smith, was right; that it was a necessity to man’s highest exaltation in the life to come. That doctrine was publicly promulgated by our president, the late Brigham Young, forty years ago, and was steadily taught and impressed upon the Latter-Day Saints up to a short time before September, 1890.… In September, 1890, the present head of the church in anguish and prayer cried to God for help for his flock, and received permission to advise the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that the law commanding polygamy was henceforth suspended.”
— December 18, 1891 letter, First Presidency and Twelve to United States President Benjamin Harrison
1912: “Celestial marriage is essential to a fulness of glory in the world to come, as explained in the revelation concerning it; but it is not stated that plural marriage is thus essential.”
— Charles W. Penrose (First Presidency)
INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE
1863: “Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” (Brigham Young, JOD 10:10)
1973: “Surely no one of you who is an heir to a body of more favored lineage would knowingly intermarry with a race that would condemn your posterity to penalties that have been placed upon the seed of Cain by the judgments of God.” (President Harold B. Lee, Decisions for Successful Living, p. 168).
Today: “Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that … mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.” (Gospel Topics Essay on Race and the Priesthood)
BIRTH CONTROL
1954: “When a man and a woman are married and they agree … to limit their offspring to two or three, and practice devices to accomplish this purpose, they are guilty of iniquity which eventually must be punished.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 2:273)
Today: “Physical intimacy between husband and wife … is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife…. The decision about how many children to have and when to have them is extremely personal and private. It should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.” (General Handbook 38.6.4)
SEXUAL ORIENTATION
1969: “Many have been misinformed that they are powerless in the matter, not responsible for the tendency, and that God ‘made them that way’. This is as untrue as any other of the diabolical lies Satan has concocted. It is blasphemy. Man is made in the image of God. Does the pervert think God to be ‘that way’?" (Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, Chpt. 6 (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft) 1969, p. 85)
1995: “There is some widely accepted theory extant that homosexuality is inherited. How can this be? No scientific evidence demonstrates absolutely that this is so. Besides, if it were so, it would frustrate the whole plan of mortal happiness…. The false belief of inborn homosexual orientation denies to repentant souls the opportunity to change and will ultimately lead to discouragement, disappointment, and despair.” (James E. Faust, Sept. 1995 First Presidency Message, Ensign)
2006: “The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions – whether nature or nurture – those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.” (Dallin H. Oaks interview, 2006)
2015: “Even though individuals do not choose to have such [same-sex] attractions, they do choose how to respond to them.” (M. Russell Ballard, “The Lord Needs You Now,” Ensign, Sept. 2015)

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

No, because that's not what polygamy was.

It wasn't one man and multiple women in one marriage.  It was one man with multiple marriages, each to one woman.

Marriage is always one man and one woman, even if the man has more than one marriage.

The polygamists I know justify it in exactly this way.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

A few example of doctrine that would never change.

 

***
PLURAL MARRIAGE
May 17, 1888: “We are not going to stop the practice of plural marriage until the Coming of the Son of Man.” (Wilford Woodruff, Manti temple dedication, quoted in journals of Heber J. Grant and John Henry Smith)
October 6, 1890: “And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.” (Wilford Woodruff, OD 1)
***
1878: “Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential, to the salvation or exaltation of mankind.... I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false.... [W]hoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it.”
— Joseph F. Smith, 1878 (quoted in Harrell TIMD Chpt. 15)
1891: “We, the First Presidency and Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, … represent to your Excellency the following facts: We formerly taught to our people that polygamy, or celestial marriage, as commanded by God through Joseph Smith, was right; that it was a necessity to man’s highest exaltation in the life to come. That doctrine was publicly promulgated by our president, the late Brigham Young, forty years ago, and was steadily taught and impressed upon the Latter-Day Saints up to a short time before September, 1890.… In September, 1890, the present head of the church in anguish and prayer cried to God for help for his flock, and received permission to advise the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that the law commanding polygamy was henceforth suspended.”
— December 18, 1891 letter, First Presidency and Twelve to United States President Benjamin Harrison
1912: “Celestial marriage is essential to a fulness of glory in the world to come, as explained in the revelation concerning it; but it is not stated that plural marriage is thus essential.”
— Charles W. Penrose (First Presidency)
INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE
1863: “Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” (Brigham Young, JOD 10:10)
1973: “Surely no one of you who is an heir to a body of more favored lineage would knowingly intermarry with a race that would condemn your posterity to penalties that have been placed upon the seed of Cain by the judgments of God.” (President Harold B. Lee, Decisions for Successful Living, p. 168).
Today: “Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that … mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.” (Gospel Topics Essay on Race and the Priesthood)
BIRTH CONTROL
1954: “When a man and a woman are married and they agree … to limit their offspring to two or three, and practice devices to accomplish this purpose, they are guilty of iniquity which eventually must be punished.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 2:273)
Today: “Physical intimacy between husband and wife … is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife…. The decision about how many children to have and when to have them is extremely personal and private. It should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.” (General Handbook 38.6.4)
SEXUAL ORIENTATION
1969: “Many have been misinformed that they are powerless in the matter, not responsible for the tendency, and that God ‘made them that way’. This is as untrue as any other of the diabolical lies Satan has concocted. It is blasphemy. Man is made in the image of God. Does the pervert think God to be ‘that way’?" (Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, Chpt. 6 (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft) 1969, p. 85)
1995: “There is some widely accepted theory extant that homosexuality is inherited. How can this be? No scientific evidence demonstrates absolutely that this is so. Besides, if it were so, it would frustrate the whole plan of mortal happiness…. The false belief of inborn homosexual orientation denies to repentant souls the opportunity to change and will ultimately lead to discouragement, disappointment, and despair.” (James E. Faust, Sept. 1995 First Presidency Message, Ensign)
2006: “The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions – whether nature or nurture – those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.” (Dallin H. Oaks interview, 2006)
2015: “Even though individuals do not choose to have such [same-sex] attractions, they do choose how to respond to them.” (M. Russell Ballard, “The Lord Needs You Now,” Ensign, Sept. 2015)

We are slow learners.

[ttribe]

52 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You said they were being "disingenuous", which also means dishonest, insincere, and "pretending something is true that you know isn't true". 

It didn't seem unreasonable to assume, by your use of that word, that you were saying people were lying.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/202010/polyamory-has-become-little-more-mainstream

https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20210326-ethical-non-monogamy-the-rise-of-multi-partner-relationships

https://www.her.ie/life/ethical-non-monogamy-open-relationships-mainstream-heres-542537

It's more mainstream and acceptable than polygamy is (or likely ever will be).

It is just as possible to be disingenuous with oneself as it is with others.

[HappyJackWagon]

13 hours ago, jerryp48 said:

If that strikes you as hubris this definitely will.  God’s law of celestial marriage will never be expanded to include same-sex couples.  It’s not hubris it’s just seeing things as they really are.  Polygamy and the priesthood ban were tough doctrines but were not dialectically opposed to God’s eternal plan.  Marriage is about the propagation of family and procreation and it furthers God’s work. It’s hubris to assert that scripture and prophets haven’t been ultra-clear on marriage and how it fits into God’s eternal plan.  If we truly want to help those members with SSA we’ll stop filling their heads with false ideas of future doctrinal changes that absolutely won’t happen and start working on ways to truly help them move forward.

You're right. That definitely strikes me as hubris  

Not to beat a dead horse with the obvious, BUT...there are plenty of marriages where there is no procreation or even the potential of procreation. This could be due to age, disability, contraceptive choices etc. which begs the question of whether a marriage with no possibility of procreation fails to meet God's plan or do his work? If the answer is "no" that is incredibly offensive to anyone married in such a situation and to parents who raise adoptive children. I have a 70 year uncle who just married a 72 year old woman. No procreation happening there, yet there is more to marriage than procreation. 

Please tell me how a SSM differs from other non-procreative marriages? Are all non-procreative marriages opposed to God's law of marriage? Are they just pretending at marriage because it's better than being alone? Or is that OK because in the next life they may sxually procreate little spirits? Is that how it works? Does anyone even know or claim to know?

Are SSM couples who adopt not helping to accomplish God's plan in raising good children?

Yes- IMO your post is full of hubris.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Direct quote from your transcription:

I agree with that, but in no way is this a declaration of unchangeable revealed doctrine and truth - that no part may change.  Generally speaking, I think he is correct.  But again, if gender is eternal (they seem to be equating gender with sex here) then what do we make of intersex individuals?  Are they eternally intersex?  The dichotomy of male and female is a false one. 

Again, it is based on doctrine.  That is all he said.  Even if he claimed the doctrine itself is binding doctrinal truth for the church, that doesn't necessarily make it so.  Brigham made many claims that proved prophetic fallibility. 

I understand this is your belief, but his talk doesn’t demonstrate that it is anything more than that. 

It’s not just President Oaks. The entire First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles were signatories to the proclamation at the time it was published. Church leaders have continually, consistently and unitedly reaffirmed it since then. It doesn’t work to try to marginalize it by comparing it to some quirky thing Brigham Young is reported to have said on this occasion or that. And the assumption is baseless that the proclamation will be disavowed if one merely waits long enough for the current leadership to die off. 

Edited April 5, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, ttribe said:

It is just as possible to be disingenuous with oneself as it is with others.

Is it?  How to you 'pretend that something is real when you know it's not" with yourself?

[CA Steve]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Is it?  How to you 'pretend that something is real when you know it's not" with yourself?

I can't speak for others but I do it all the time.

"I'll start my diet tomorrow after this meal of burger and fries that isn't really all that bad for me."

"I can hit the snooze button one more time and still make it to work on time."

"My kid would never do something like that."