Originally Posted By EighthDwarf Well, I think you hit the mark ecdc. The church's position on gay marriage, in my opinion, has everything to do with polygamy. I believe they fear a relaxation of marriage rules would pave the way for polygamy to become officially legal. That would cause massive problems in the church. Hence the gay-marriage fight for the church - it is a fight of self-preservation. There are bigger problems in the world of course, but maybe not any bigger for Mormonism than this one.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>We were forced to stop practicing polygamy, the only reason the church stopped was because if we didn't the church was going to be dissolved (officially) and all our property was going to be confiscated. Not what I call much of a choice.<< You're exactly right. But today Mormons portray this as some kind of revelation from God; it was not. They also strongly minimize the role of polygamy in the early church so as to try and make it seem as if the church didn't reverse itself on the single most important part of its practice. So my larger point remains the same: Mormons changed their single most important practice and their most important theological concept, immediately after they said they never, ever would or could. So it doesn't fly to say "but this is really, REALLY important unlike that other stuff!"
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF You know, I think I'm going to sit this one out. I think I have said all I can ever say on this subject. I am tired of saying the same things over and over and over again. I spent the past few days in the hospital after having a heart attack on Thursday. While a blood clot is the culprit here, I've been under strict orders to keep the stress level down. My job is the main contributing factor in that area, but I find lately when I come into WE that the crap I see around here only adds to it. A lot of my daily frustration is channeled here, and right or wrong, it's not really who I am. Participating in WE is a constant reminder of what's all wrong with the world these days. I thought I was more resilient and thick-skinned than this, but it's apparent my energy is needed elsewhere.
Originally Posted By utahjosh I wouldn't fear polygamy being re-instated in the LDS Church. I just don't think it will in the near future. Maybe in the next life, or in the millennium. It's not needed now. And it's NEVER been policy that polygamy was necessary to get to heaven. Only a small percentage of early LDS members even practiced it. And I disagree that the reason the LDS Chruch is encouraging the traditional marriage has to do with polygamy. It has to do with our fundamental belief that the Family (mom, dad, kids) is the basic unit of society, and of the eternities.
Originally Posted By Elderp "I believe they fear a relaxation of marriage rules would pave the way for polygamy to become officially legal." I don't get it, how would legalization of polygamy be a problem for the church?
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <<And it's NEVER been policy that polygamy was necessary to get to heaven. Only a small percentage of early LDS members even practiced it.>> Are you sure? Brigham Young: "Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 266). Brigham Young: "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269).
Originally Posted By utahjosh <But today Mormons portray this as some kind of revelation from God; it was not.> God can reveal or give instructions that make logical and economic sense. He's a smart guy.
Originally Posted By ecdc Elderp, I'm not trying to pick on you. I'm just deeply saddened to see someone like you apparently relinquish your free agency and your thoughtfulness to simply follow the crowd on this topic. You and your wife are clearly very good, decent people. I've come to respect what both of you have to say on these boards, even if I don't always agree. But you're better than your posts on this particular topic. I'm a firm believer in the truth that injustices can only occur when good people sit back and do nothing. There will always be bigots in this world, be they racist, homophobic, sexist - whatever. But they can only promote and perpetrate their bigotry when people like you and me let them. Don't sit back and do nothing. I have no doubt that you're well respected in your ward and in your family. You can stand up and make a difference. You can be an example of what's right instead of what's easy. You won't change the fight for an amendment to strip people of the same rights you enjoy, but you can change your corner of the world.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "It has to do with our fundamental belief that the Family (mom, dad, kids) is the basic unit of society, and of the eternities." And I ask again - how would the federal government allowing gay couples to wed in civil ceremonies change this for you and your church??
Originally Posted By DAR I'm still trying to find how gay marriage will negatively affect any heterosexual person in this country. Or how it will break up the American family? I just can't see it. I can only see positives because maybe it will encourage heterosexual couples to strenghthen their bonds and their families. Not to mention it leaves more of the ladies to enjoy the magic of the DAR-man.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <<I don't get it, how would legalization of polygamy be a problem for the church?>> Because fundamentalist members would want to practice it and the church would have no grounds by which to quell it. Then Mormonism would be marginalized - far from the mainstream Christian church Mormonism is trying to be.
Originally Posted By utahjosh Eighth, when Brigham Young said the 1st quote, Polygamy was a policy of the church. People who fight against God are damned, in general. The 2nd quote is probably true. I was talking more about THIS LIFE - it's not necessary to be married to 2 women in this life to be exalted. But if there are lots more good women in heaven than men, and marriage is required for exaltation, than sure, it's gonna be required.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>And it's NEVER been policy that polygamy was necessary to get to heaven. Only a small percentage of early LDS members even practiced it.<< Josh, I'm not saying this to be rude, but to honestly help you because I like you. You only embarrass yourself with stuff like this. This is so far off the mark it's not even close to reality. If you want people to take your comments on your religion seriously, you have to show that you are well-versed in it. Go pick up Kathryn Daynes book, "More Wives than One" and get back to us. (Daynes is a BYU professor, an active Mormon, and President of the Mormon History Association this year. Don't try the anti-Mormon label with her.)
Originally Posted By DAR <<I spent the past few days in the hospital after having a heart attack on Thursday. While a blood clot is the culprit here, I've been under strict orders to keep the stress level down>> You take care of yourself, okay?
Originally Posted By Elderp "If you want people to take your comments on your religion seriously, you have to show that you are well-versed in it." I have to admit I am having the same feelings about you. You said the SLC temple was shut down in 1890, but the truth is it wasn't completed until 1893.
Originally Posted By utahjosh I don't claim to know every bit of history - or even every bit of doctrine in the LDS Church. But I try my best to be a loving, faithful person, and I continually educate myself on things I feel are most worthwhile.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<I spent the past few days in the hospital after having a heart attack on Thursday. While a blood clot is the culprit here, I've been under strict orders to keep the stress level down>> I don't have any blood clots (at least none that I know of) and I find that sometimes its just best to stay away from this forum.
Originally Posted By mele Sending good vibes your way, BlueDevil. I hope you're feeling as good as possible soon.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Yeah, BlueDevil, take it easy!! There are others here to fight the good fight - you chill and get better.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "So, if the voters passed an initiative in California that amended the state constitution to ban gay marriage, then that by definition could not be unconstitutional (at least per the state constitution)." Yes and no. If it is determined at the federal level that gays can marry and to deny them would be a violation of equal protection, then no state constitution can take away rights granted by the feds. Moreover, it is possible that the state's supreme court could make that call somehow.
