Redefining Marriage to it's Biblical Definition

[nuclearfuels]

Background: Many years ago I was researching Temples. Heard thru the grapevine that HQ (not sure who) discussed making mini-Temples such as part of a stake center would be converted to facilitate Temple ordinances - for members who did not live near a Temple. 

So - the ask here:

Have any discussions or rumors of discussions on redefining marriage occurred at HQ to the polygamous standard where legal (not the LGBT type of redefining marriage which I'm sure have been discussed at length, many times)? Example: If the US legalizes polyamory (as Waterton, MA already did) what would the Church's response be?

Would it be similar to the Church's response to medical and recreational marijauna? It's legalized, all things in moderation, Dr. recommended it for me, etc. Temple recommend issued, no problem. (I have no problem at wll w/ this approach btw. The goal is to get people into Temples not keep them out.)

So - have any of you heard of something like:

I'm thinking of a hypothetical setting such as: 

- Mission Presidents in Africa have shared w/ HQ that more families would accept the Savior's restored gospel if they could join w/ thier polygamous wives and children. It is legal in this country. We have told them the current accepted standard is one man, one woman. 

- HQ mtg agenda items might include:

--- Future missinoary work: Regions:

1. China, in time.

2. Middle East. Primary religion: Islam which includes polygamy. Suggested approaches:??? Accepting families who live the law of the land or continue w/ the current approach which would cause poly families to sever, and lead to fewer converts.

--

Then-Elder Nelson visited my stake and for the preisthood leadership bascially asked what questions we had. I was tempted to ask this question but didn't want to get excommunicated, turned into dust, or stigmatized against any and all future leadership callings - more so than I already have been stigmatized by my general presence.  

 

[Calm]

There are plenty of places where polygamy is already legal and yet the Church has not changed its rules. Why would it be different because it happens in the US? 

Edited February 24, 2023 by Calm

[california boy]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

There are plenty of places where polygamy is already legal and yet the Church has not changed its rules. Why would it be different because it happens in the US? 

There were plenty of places where gay marriage was legal.  Why did the Church decide to make such a heavy handed commitment to take away. that right from California gay couples?

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

There were plenty of places where gay marriage was legal.  Why did the Church decide to make such a heavy handed commitment to take away. that right from California gay couples?

Irrelevant to the standard the Church requires of its members, which is what the opening post asked. When gay marriage became legal in the US, there was no change in whether or not it was acceptable for members to participate in gay marriage. 

Edited February 24, 2023 by Calm

[carbon dioxide]

The legality of something really does not matter whether the church recognizes it or not.   Wickedness or not is not decided on whether it is legal.  Porn, alcohol, drugs, prostitution, and other things can be legal but still against the standards of the church and God's laws.  Likewise something can be illegal does not mean it is wickedness.   Driving 35 mph in a 25 mph zone may be illegal but its not violating any of God's laws.   If one gets caught, they get a ticket.  That is it. 

[california boy]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

Irrelevant to the standard the Church requires of its members, which is what the opening post asked. When gay marriage became legal in the US, there was no change in whether or not it was acceptable for members to participate in gay marriage. 

I was refering not to the doctrine of it, but rather the fact that the Church did not act on becoming politically involved in gay marriage UNTIL it became legal in the U.S.    Just because something is legal in other parts of the world, the Church seems, at times, to only start acting when it starts happening in the U.S.  

My only point.  

Edited February 24, 2023 by california boy

[Dario_M]

Polygamory? That doesn't belong in the LDS church. It must be a marrage between 1 partner. And it must be the Opposite SEX. Not the SAME sex (unfortunaly cry😭)

Edited February 24, 2023 by Dario_M

[Calm]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

I was refering not to the doctrine of it, but rather the fact that the Church did not act on gay marriage UNTIL it became legal in the U.S.    Just because something is legal in other parts of the world, the Church seems, at times, to only start acting when it starts happening in the U.S.  

My only point.  

There are different laws around the world on activism in churches plus I know we had some activism in Canada on the lottery that no one was aware of in the US that I could see, so I wouldn’t assume that just because we haven’t heard of the Church acting elsewhere means they haven’t been active anywhere.  I also assume the Church weighs the pros and cons on what best serves its overall mission and that may differ for different countries, When the Church has a big enough legal presence to not only have an effect and it’s legal for them to do so, but be able to call out media and get noticed for misrepresenting them, that’s when I would start looking for action, but again if they judge it isn’t going to be a net positive for its mission, I wouldn’t expect to see it.

And I am fully aware that the Church doesn’t share its decision making process so we don’t know if they actually reasoned that way or they don’t care about what happens outside the US legal wise.

[Dario_M]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

There were plenty of places where gay marriage was legal.  Why did the Church decide to make such a heavy handed commitment to take away. that right from California gay couples?

I also don't understand that. 

Why may i not mary a nice gay Mormon man in the temple?✝️

It would make the lifes a lot more easyer for a bunch of people (include me) if gay marrage whas allowed in the church. For gay people and for lesbian people.

 

And then i can finaly follow the law of chastity again. Win win. 

Edited February 24, 2023 by Dario_M

[Pyreaux]

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

I was refering not to the doctrine of it, but rather the fact that the Church did not act on becoming politically involved in gay marriage UNTIL it became legal in the U.S.    Just because something is legal in other parts of the world, the Church seems, at times, to only start acting when it starts happening in the U.S.  

My only point.  

It didn't happen that way. Its a fascinating untold story leading up to it. The church didn't get involved until the California court declared that anti-discrimination civil right law trumped constitutional right to discriminate on the basis of religious belief (Like why its legal for Catholic Schools to hire only Catholic teachers, etc.). The court ruled in favor of an unmarried lesbian that was denied artificial insemination at a Catholic Hospital. The LDS Adoption agency would have been next for catering to only straight couples, if prop 8 didn't pass. Thats why they supported the latest gay rights bill, because it supported religious rights.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I was refering not to the doctrine of it, but rather the fact that the Church did not act on becoming politically involved in gay marriage UNTIL it became legal in the U.S.    Just because something is legal in other parts of the world, the Church seems, at times, to only start acting when it starts happening in the U.S.  

My only point.  

I think it dates back to the fact that it was not a "noticiable issue" here in the US until it became an issue here- we were still considered an "American church" since most of our members were only in the US.

Now times have turned and we now have iirc, more members outside the US than in.  We are just now becoming a truly international church.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!

[mfbukowski]

47 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

It didn't happen that way. Its a fascinating untold story leading up to it. The church didn't get involved until the California court declared that anti-discrimination civil right law trumped constitutional right to discriminate on the basis of religious belief (Like why its legal for Catholic Schools to hire only Catholic teachers, etc.). The court ruled in favor of an unmarried lesbian that was denied artificial insemination at a Catholic Hospital. The LDS Adoption agency would have been next for catering to only straight couples, if prop 8 didn't pass. Thats why they supported the latest gay rights bill, because it supported religious rights.

Oh yeah.  This is right- 

[Amulek]

4 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Example: If the US legalizes [polyamory] (as Waterton, MA already did) what would the Church's response be?

Would it be similar to the Church's response to medical and recreational marijauna? It's legalized, all things in moderation, Dr. recommended it for me, etc. Temple recommend issued, no problem. (I have no problem at wll w/ this approach btw. The goal is to get people into Temples not keep them out.)

My wife and I go to the same doctor. If she were to recommend polygamy, even in moderation, I strongly suspect my wife would want a second opinion.

 

Edited February 25, 2023 by Amulek

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

It didn't happen that way. It’s a fascinating untold story leading up to it. The church didn't get involved until the California court declared that anti-discrimination civil right law trumped constitutional right to discriminate on the basis of religious belief (Like why its legal for Catholic Schools to hire only Catholic teachers, etc.). The court ruled in favor of an unmarried lesbian that was denied artificial insemination at a Catholic Hospital. The LDS Adoption agency would have been next for catering to only straight couples, if prop 8 didn't pass. Thats why they supported the latest gay rights bill, because it supported religious rights.

Documentation please.  Would be useful to have as part of the time line.  I knew the SF Catholic Archbishop had invited the Church and other faiths to join their efforts.  I had not heard the above.

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/13573/california-supreme-court-rules-against-doctors-who-declined-to-inseminate-lesbian

Do you have the info on LDS Adoption agency?  

Edited February 25, 2023 by Calm

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

There are different laws around the world on activism in churches plus I know we had some activism in Canada on the lottery that no one was aware of in the US that I could see, so I wouldn’t assume that just because we haven’t heard of the Church acting elsewhere means they haven’t been active anywhere.  I also assume the Church weighs the pros and cons on what best serves its overall mission and that may differ for different countries, When the Church has a big enough legal presence to not only have an effect and it’s legal for them to do so, but be able to call out media and get noticed for misrepresenting them, that’s when I would start looking for action, but again if they judge it isn’t going to be a net positive for its mission, I wouldn’t expect to see it.

And I am fully aware that the Church doesn’t share its decision making process so we don’t know if they actually reasoned that way or they don’t care about what happens outside the US legal wise.

Maybe I am wrong.  It was just a minor point that I thought might be relevant to the question being raised.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

It didn't happen that way. Its a fascinating untold story leading up to it. The church didn't get involved until the California court declared that anti-discrimination civil right law trumped constitutional right to discriminate on the basis of religious belief (Like why its legal for Catholic Schools to hire only Catholic teachers, etc.). The court ruled in favor of an unmarried lesbian that was denied artificial insemination at a Catholic Hospital. The LDS Adoption agency would have been next for catering to only straight couples, if prop 8 didn't pass. Thats why they supported the latest gay rights bill, because it supported religious rights.

I don't think you are right.  But I am not going to make this a thread about gay marriage. 

[Pyreaux]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Documentation please.  Would be useful to have as part of the time line.  I knew the SF Catholic Archbishop had invited the Church and other faiths to join their efforts.  I had not heard the above.

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/13573/california-supreme-court-rules-against-doctors-who-declined-to-inseminate-lesbian

Do you have the info on LDS Adoption agency?  

Info from my personal digital archives on Prop 8:

Prior to Prop 8 a case against the Catholic owned "North Coast Women's Care Medical Group, Inc." was decided on "1 April 2008" {***no joke} in the "California Supreme Court". The decision held those who are licensed by the State cannot treat homosexual couples differently than heterosexuals. Then I have a bunch of LA Times quotes from prior to Prop 8 by Dean R Broyles, Marc Stern (the American Jewish Congress) and Chai Feldblum (Georgetown University Professor), about how alarmed every church that provided essential and social services, and their lawyers, were and how religious rights were about to lose big against sexual rights.

I have no details of anything specifically directed at the LDS Social Services, only that it is licensed by the State of California and is discriminatory by only adopting out to straight couples, and so prior to Prop 8, stood in legal jeopardy of having its licenses to function denied. So, it certainly looks like the prime motivation for the Church to become involved.

I will now start a long search online for information from 2008 with no guarantees, but you now have as much searchable information as I have at this juncture, perhaps you'll find something before I do.

Edited February 25, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

Thanks.  Showing that a religious right was clearly removed prior to Prop 8 (at least in the view of those pushing Prop 8 ) shows (at least) stopping gay marriage being recognized by the state was not the only focus of some/most religious groups nor was it fear of the possibility of rights being removed, but dealing with the reality of such…not referring to anyone on the board, but I have seen the narrative messed up at times by both conservatives and liberals and it’s good to get it straight.

If you find something, PM me please.

Back to the original subject….

Edited February 25, 2023 by Calm

[carbon dioxide]

5 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

I have no details of anything specifically directed at the LDS Social Services, only that it is licensed by the State of California and is discriminatory by only adopting out to straight couples, and so prior to Prop 8, stood in legal jeopardy of having its licenses to function denied. So, it certainly looks like the prime motivation for the Church to become involved.

I don't understand that.  Did not one need to get a bishop recommend to even use LDS social services?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

Did not one need to get a bishop recommend to even use LDS social services?

Yes, but how is that different than needing to be married to access Catholic services, which discrimination was found to be illegal? In order to adopt through LDSSS, one had to be an active, current temple recommend holding sealed couple, same as now for just the consultation service (they don’t handle adoptions themselves, impossible for singles, unmarried couples, nonmembers, or same sex couples.

https://providentliving.churchofjesuschrist.org/lds-family-services/adoption-resources/getting-started?lang=eng

The actual adoption service shut down anyway in 2014 due to a stated lack of babies…several other agencies did so as well as several countries started to limit foreign adoptions.

[Jaydes]

I sure hope no such discussions are occuring. If they do institute such a policy, I would be leaving the church. Luckily they seem to be avoiding it though 

[The Nehor]

Will I see my dream bisexual polycule protected by law and endorsed by the Church’s leadership in my lifetime?

 

All signs point to no.

 

A poly joke: How do you destabilize a group marriage or polyamorous group relationship?

Invite a straight guy to join. 🥁

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

On 2/24/2023 at 2:34 PM, Calm said:

There are plenty of places where polygamy is already legal and yet the Church has not changed its rules. Why would it be different because it happens in the US? 

I wish I could give many more approvals, thank you for this response. I am certain he knows the policy of the Church, for the last 120-130 years ago. Nor why he includes marijuana in the discussion, he knows the answers, so what is is the asking? Certainly, not because he does not know, 

[Benjamin McGuire]

7 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

I wish I could give many more approvals, thank you for this response. I am certain he knows the policy of the Church, for the last 120-130 years ago. Nor why he includes marijuana in the discussion, he knows the answers, so what is is the asking? Certainly, not because he does not know, 

I think though that this reveals a challenge with the way that the Church has historically dealt with certain issues. They prefer to rely on interpretation, if you will, of established principles rather than formulating and adopting new guidelines. These issues are all a part of this - as are a number of additional ones. Often, the principle of legality is one that has been raised historically. It was easy enough to claim that marijuana use was bad when it was illegal (just as it was easy to claim that drinking alcohol was bad when it became illegal). We didn't even have to redefine the Word of Wisdom. Current LDS teachings on the Word of Wisdom suggest that Marijuana is bad because of its addictive nature. But this is a problem - after all, sugar is addictive, caffeine is addictive, (this could be a long list) - and the LDS Church really isn't going to codify addiction into the Word of Wisdom. For the longest time, the main moral complaint against gay sex was that it was sex between people who were not legally married. Once they could legally get married, the narrative had to change. The same has been true of polygamous unions (at least in the United States). So polygamy comes up again if it gets legalized (don't get me wrong, the LDS Church has an especially challenging relationship with polygamy because of its history and the association of polygamy with heresy in the Church).

The need isn't for the Church to change what it accepts (and I say this as a blanket statement - independent of whether or not the Church may change what it accepts in specific areas). The need is for the Church to do a better job explaining what it finds offensive and why it is offensive - and in that way, the Church will have fewer of these circumstances - where it ends up having to second guess its own history of policy explanations. While we have several of these issues that the Church is dealing with now, I think that there are a lot of gray areas that will need to be dealt with in the future. To illustrate what I mean by this (explaining its moral objections), I might point to the way that Catholicism uses Natural Law theory as the basis for many of its moral pronouncements. I am not endorsing the LDS Church adopt natural law theory - I think that this would be a mistake. But, what I am suggesting is that the LDS Church may eventually need something that amounts to more than a case-by-case approach to the issues that confront its membership - because as it is, the Church's approach to any one question is subject to a variety of external and internal changes.

[nuclearfuels]

On 2/26/2023 at 8:21 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

what I am suggesting is that the LDS Church may eventually need something that amounts to more than a case-by-case approach to the issues that confront its membership - because as it is, the Church's approach to any one question is subject to a variety of external and internal changes.

Therefore, re-instituting or not re-instituting polygamy?