Originally Posted By utahjosh Whatever makes you feel better about your understanding of my personal faith...
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Did the Law of Chastity change at some point? Did it used to say "between a man and his wives," for example? Would it still permit a husband to have sex with multiple wives as long as he was legally married to all of them, or as long as God's revealed policy indicated that it was okay as he revealed to the early prophets? And since gay couples can have children and can build stable homes and families, couldn't the Law of Chastity just as easily apply to them as well, or are families created with the help of science somehow not included?
Originally Posted By utahjosh It's been "husband and wife" as long as I've known. That works for polygamy or traditional marriage.
Originally Posted By ecdc Your personal faith is great - I'm all for that. But you're not talking about that--you are talking about the history of the LDS church in an inaccurate way when you talk about polygamy. Despite no longer being Mormon, I have a dog in this fight because I published a book that dealt heavily with the Manifesto, post-manifesto polygamy, the 2nd manifesto, and the shunning of polygamists in the early 20th century. It may seem silly to most that I keep harping on it, but facts matter, and the facts here are important to me and worth remembering accurately.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <a href="http://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng" target="_blank">http://www.lds.org/topics/fami...lang=eng</a> The tenets in the above document will not be changed, sorry guys. "We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."
Originally Posted By ecdc Why? The Proclamation on the Family wasn't a revelation, was never claimed as a revelation. It can easily be changed. If you don't believe me, Boyd K. Packer, speaking at Conference in 2010, called the Proclamation a "revelation," but that was edited out in the printed text and changed to "a guide." Are you saying a guide can't be changed? That's the point - even the temple ceremony has been changed multiple times. Why can't the Proclamation?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer "We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife." So the sacred powers of procreation can't include medical professionals who might be able to help a husband and wife conceive and carry a baby to term?
Originally Posted By ecdc The thing is, citing the Proclamation on the Family is the perfect example of why I'm right. It's exactly in line with the LDS past: Release an authoritative political statement that seems immutable and members treat as relevatory...then watch it change.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>"We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."<< Wait ... Sacred powers of procreation are to be employed? So it actually outlaws surrogate parenthood, not gay marriage? This Gentile is getting confuzzled.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer If the sacred powers of procreation are only employed between a man and his wife, what about good old recreational sex? Or is sex only allowed when procreation is possible?
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "And you are failing to see the huge leap from polygamy to gay marriage." What makes it a huge leap?
Originally Posted By EdisYoda If you want to look at the dictionary defination of "procreation": verb (used with object) 1. to beget or generate (offspring) 2. to produce; bring into being verb (used without object) 3. to geget offspring 4. to produce; bring into being Origin: 1530-40; <Latin procreatus, past participle of procreare to breed Nothing about sex... interesting
Originally Posted By tiggertoo Even if they did change, who cares? Many churches have changed their doctrines as society deems specific tenets intolerable. I cited before that the great unchanging Catholic church as of 1866 stated that slavery was not against the God divine law, whereas today, you wouldn't hear anything like this from the Pope. The criticism lashed against the Mormon church to this end seems empty, even hypocritical.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<If the sacred powers of procreation are only employed between a man and his wife, what about good old recreational sex? Or is sex only allowed when procreation is possible?>> If that is true, I've been having illicit sex for the past 30 years... both Rosie and Ann had tubal ligations. I guess my life has been more exciting than I thought it was!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "The criticism lashed against the Mormon church to this end seems empty, even hypocritical." It would only be hypocritical if anyone was saying that the Mormon church's shifting positions were fundamentally different in kind than other churches' shifting positions. As far as I can see, nobody said that, and a couple of us said exactly the opposite.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Even if they did change, who cares?<< I have no problem with changes. In fact, I welcome them. What I have a problem with is the attitude exactly displayed here by Josh, and replicated ad infinitum across the LDS church. When you believe something comes directly from God, you won't be in a big hurry to change it. That's how we end up with a church that doesn't allow black people to fully participate until 1978—because God wants it this way. It's how we end up with a church that still doesn't allow women to fully participate, that doesn't allow gays to fully participate. This, "It comes from Jesus, so it'll never change," is the problem; it absolves human error of responsibility and somehow assigns discrimination to God. So it's worth pointing out the history.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Wow! All this chat ...... from a guy who translated the book of Mormon by shoving his head in a bag! FASCINATING.
Originally Posted By Labuda Firstly - wow, this thread sure took off yesterday! That being said: I published a book that dealt heavily with the Manifesto, post-manifesto polygamy, the 2nd manifesto, and the shunning of polygamists in the early 20th century. It may seem silly to most that I keep harping on it, but facts matter, and the facts here are important to me and worth remembering accurately. If you don't want to post it here, would you mind emailing me the title so I can see if I can acquire a copy? I won't likely read it immediately, but I'd like to get it "in my reading pile".
Originally Posted By TomSawyer "This, "It comes from Jesus, so it'll never change," is the problem; it absolves human error of responsibility and somehow assigns discrimination to God. So it's worth pointing out the history." Bingo
