Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Redefining Marriage to it's Biblical Definition


Recommended Posts

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.  

 

Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
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 by Calm
Link to comment

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. 

Link to comment
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 by california boy
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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 by Dario_M
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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!

Link to comment
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- 

Link to comment
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 by Amulek
Link to comment
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 by Calm
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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 by Pyreaux
Link to comment

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 by Calm
Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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, 

Link to comment
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? :)

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...