Response to the Church's response to the Gay Marriage ruling

[_readtoomuch]

Ok I just don't get it. I have read the church's response to the Gay Marriage rulings in Utah and I just can't remain silent. I know I am not the first person to express these thoughts but I just need to tell people how I feel. Does anyone remember the words of Brigham Young while speaking in General Conference? God is a polygamist and we too must be a polygamist in order to return and live with God in the Celestial Kingdom. Look it up in the Journal of Discourses. Now I am not sure how he would know this by any other means except God told him or perhaps he was told by Joseph Smith (who would have received it from God) or maybe he was just being untruthful. In my opinion, this is something that would not qualify as an opinion. Either he or Joseph was told it by God or he is just being untruthful. Needless to say, I don't think you will find any such information in the scriptures about God living the life of a polygamist. Now the Church does hold him out to be a Prophet, Seer and Revelator. So for conversation sake I will take the position that he found this information out via some divine manifestation. Polygamy in the United States and perhaps in most but not all other areas of the world falls outside mainstream definition of traditional marriage. The Church says that Marriage is instituted by God as being between a man and a woman. Yet, based on my observation, the church's real position is expressed more accurately as being between a man and more than one woman. It is absolutely the policy of the church to allow a man to be sealed to more than one woman in the Temple. (only requirement is that it can only be for living spouses, you can't be sealed to two living woman at the same time. If your first sealed wife passes away, you can be sealed to another. If that wife passes away, you can be sealed to yet another and so on)

Yet, women can only be sealed to one man. Period. This is current policy in the church. At the time of this writing, at least 3 Apostles fall into this category as well as many others all over the church. Can this be defined in any other way except as spiritual polygamy? Yes, not practicing on earth but setting ourselves up for polygamy in the next life. Polygamy is a doctrine in the Mormon Church. This is not debatable. This is not open for interpretation. Yet the Mormon Church; leaders in the world for promoting non-traditional marriage both on this earth (as in the past) and for our lives after this life; proclaims to the world that marriage is between a man and woman. The FLDS problems; although not an LDS issue; are directly a result of the past and current LDS doctrine on polygamy. It just seems to me that it is ironic that the LDS church would be fighting against the rights of others to marry the way they want to, when for so many years, Mormons were willing to go to prison to stand up for the right to practice un-traditional marriage. The LDS church had actually been disenfranchised and the leaders either in prison or in hiding before the manifesto had been announced. Our Church was simply willing to go through hell (figuratively speaking) in order to live the way they wanted. The law really didn't matter too much. Recall the famous picture of George Q. Cannon wearing his prison striped clothes. He was in jail for being a polygamist. The doctrine of Polygamy meant a great deal to the early brethren of the church. The only thing left for the Government to do was to come and actually take possession of all the church assets. It was at this precise moment when President Woodruff stepped in and proposed what now has become known as the 1890 Manifesto. Based on the words of the LDS Church (in LDS.org and the new essay on Polygamy) we now know that the 1890 manifesto was very untruthful and designed to deceive the government and the world. I would ask you to considered a simple question: If the Lord told Woodruff to stop practicing polygamy or solemnizing new plural marriages as suggested in the 1890 manifesto supplements found in the D&C, why did the church keep doing it? Seems to me if the Lord really told him to stop or in other words conveyed to Woodruff the idea that the Lord wanted Polygamy to end, I believe he would have stopped it. I don't think the church would have continued for 14 more years requiring then President Joseph F. Smith to come out with a new Manifesto claiming in so many words "this time, we really mean it". I am of the opinion that most members of the church have no idea of what I am talking about. This is why it isn't a major problem for many members today. Did Woodruff conveniently use the Lord as a credibility tool to pass the Manifesto? It certainly looks like it. If so, what else has the church claimed divine intervention for convenient purposes? Is it easy to understand why we are losing so many of our youth as well as adults given these types of situations? Take Joseph Smith and the Word of Wisdom, if God really told Joseph that wine is not for the belly, wouldn't it seem reasonable that Joseph, having heard it straight from God's mouth that wine shouldn't be used for drinking, would have refrained from using it? Yet he had no problem with the use of alcohol or the documenting of this use to be a part of church history. This too is public knowledge but not very well known in the church. My point I am trying to make is how can we know what is really true? How can we know what is really doctrine versus a theory? How can we know what is just a policy versus a God mandated doctrine or a cultural custom? The church just denounced 130 years of doctrine regarding the blacks and the priesthood. What is next? I have no idea.

Is the Gay lifestyle a choice or are they born that way? The church teaches it is a choice. But I would ask those who are not gay to consider my point. Did you choose to be non gay? Did you say to yourself "I think I will not be gay"? I bet you did not go through that process. A straight guy would simply find himself comfortable in his attraction of the opposite sex or he would not. I just can't believe I could simply choose to be attracted to a man. In fact, I can say I have never been attracted to a man. Isn't is possible that somehow the Gay community feels the same way but in a different way? Who is to say? Who am I to say that they shouldn't be able to pursue their happiness in the way they want? Isn't this a free country? What right do I have or anyone for that matter to tell them what they cannot do?

So why is the Church making such a big deal on what others do who are not of the faith of Mormonism? Doesn't the articles of faith in so many words say we let others live according to the dictates of their own conscience?

I don't fault the church for having their values and standards. But, Gay Marriage is a legal issue that will ultimately be settled by the United States Supreme Court. It is difficult at times to separate secular issues from religious issues. But it seems to me this is one item that we bring more negative goodwill to the church than positive goodwill. Will the church 20 years from now, concede by distancing themselves from the "theories of today" and allow a more liberal vein of thought permeate into the church. Just like Polygamy; same sex marriage might very well be the Achilles Heel of our generation.

[_angsty]

Preach on. I don't really understand it either.

[_Ludd]

Ok I just don't get it. I have read the church's response to the Gay Marriage rulings in Utah and I just can't remain silent. I know I am not the first person to express these thoughts but I just need to tell people how I feel. Does anyone remember the words of Brigham Young while speaking in General Conference? God is a polygamist and we too must be a polygamist in order to return and live with God in the Celestial Kingdom. Look it up in the Journal of Discourses. Now I am not sure how he would know this by any other means except God told him or perhaps he was told by Joseph Smith (who would have received it from God) or maybe he was just being untruthful. In my opinion, this is something that would not qualify as an opinion. Either he or Joseph was told it by God or he is just being untruthful. Needless to say, I don't think you will find any such information in the scriptures about God living the life of a polygamist. Now the Church does hold him out to be a Prophet, Seer and Revelator. So for conversation sake I will take the position that he found this information out via some divine manifestation. Polygamy in the United States and perhaps in most but not all other areas of the world falls outside mainstream definition of traditional marriage. The Church says that Marriage is instituted by God as being between a man and a woman. Yet, based on my observation, the church's real position is expressed more accurately as being between a man and more than one woman. It is absolutely the policy of the church to allow a man to be sealed to more than one woman in the Temple. (only requirement is that it can only be for living spouses, you can't be sealed to two living woman at the same time. If your first sealed wife passes away, you can be sealed to another. If that wife passes away, you can be sealed to yet another and so on)

Yet, women can only be sealed to one man. Period. This is current policy in the church. At the time of this writing, at least 3 Apostles fall into this category as well as many others all over the church. Can this be defined in any other way except as spiritual polygamy? Yes, not practicing on earth but setting ourselves up for polygamy in the next life. Polygamy is a doctrine in the Mormon Church. This is not debatable. This is not open for interpretation. Yet the Mormon Church; leaders in the world for promoting non-traditional marriage both on this earth (as in the past) and for our lives after this life; proclaims to the world that marriage is between a man and woman. The FLDS problems; although not an LDS issue; are directly a result of the past and current LDS doctrine on polygamy. It just seems to me that it is ironic that the LDS church would be fighting against the rights of others to marry the way they want to, when for so many years, Mormons were willing to go to prison to stand up for the right to practice un-traditional marriage. The LDS church had actually been disenfranchised and the leaders either in prison or in hiding before the manifesto had been announced. Our Church was simply willing to go through hell (figuratively speaking) in order to live the way they wanted. The law really didn't matter too much. Recall the famous picture of George Q. Cannon wearing his prison striped clothes. He was in jail for being a polygamist. The doctrine of Polygamy meant a great deal to the early brethren of the church. The only thing left for the Government to do was to come and actually take possession of all the church assets. It was at this precise moment when President Woodruff stepped in and proposed what now has become known as the 1890 Manifesto. Based on the words of the LDS Church (in LDS.org and the new essay on Polygamy) we now know that the 1890 manifesto was very untruthful and designed to deceive the government and the world. I would ask you to considered a simple question: If the Lord told Woodruff to stop practicing polygamy or solemnizing new plural marriages as suggested in the 1890 manifesto supplements found in the D&C, why did the church keep doing it? Seems to me if the Lord really told him to stop or in other words conveyed to Woodruff the idea that the Lord wanted Polygamy to end, I believe he would have stopped it. I don't think the church would have continued for 14 more years requiring then President Joseph F. Smith to come out with a new Manifesto claiming in so many words "this time, we really mean it". I am of the opinion that most members of the church have no idea of what I am talking about. This is why it isn't a major problem for many members today. Did Woodruff conveniently use the Lord as a credibility tool to pass the Manifesto? It certainly looks like it. If so, what else has the church claimed divine intervention for convenient purposes? Is it easy to understand why we are losing so many of our youth as well as adults given these types of situations? Take Joseph Smith and the Word of Wisdom, if God really told Joseph that wine is not for the belly, wouldn't it seem reasonable that Joseph, having heard it straight from God's mouth that wine shouldn't be used for drinking, would have refrained from using it? Yet he had no problem with the use of alcohol or the documenting of this use to be a part of church history. This too is public knowledge but not very well known in the church. My point I am trying to make is how can we know what is really true? How can we know what is really doctrine versus a theory? How can we know what is just a policy versus a God mandated doctrine or a cultural custom? The church just denounced 130 years of doctrine regarding the blacks and the priesthood. What is next? I have no idea.

Is the Gay lifestyle a choice or are they born that way? The church teaches it is a choice. But I would ask those who are not gay to consider my point. Did you choose to be non gay? Did you say to yourself "I think I will not be gay"? I bet you did not go through that process. A straight guy would simply find himself comfortable in his attraction of the opposite sex or he would not. I just can't believe I could simply choose to be attracted to a man. In fact, I can say I have never been attracted to a man. Isn't is possible that somehow the Gay community feels the same way but in a different way? Who is to say? Who am I to say that they shouldn't be able to pursue their happiness in the way they want? Isn't this a free country? What right do I have or anyone for that matter to tell them what they cannot do?

So why is the Church making such a big deal on what others do who are not of the faith of Mormonism? Doesn't the articles of faith in so many words say we let others live according to the dictates of their own conscience?

I don't fault the church for having their values and standards. But, Gay Marriage is a legal issue that will ultimately be settled by the United States Supreme Court. It is difficult at times to separate secular issues from religious issues. But it seems to me this is one item that we bring more negative goodwill to the church than positive goodwill. Will the church 20 years from now, concede by distancing themselves from the "theories of today" and allow a more liberal vein of thought permeate into the church. Just like Polygamy; same sex marriage might very well be the Achilles Heel of our generation.

I'm not intending to defend one point of view or another on this topic, but I do think your interpretation of the "Manifesto" is incorrect. Read it. Read it very closely. Nowhere in that text does Wilford Woodruff suggest that polygamy is no longer doctrinal or that, from that point forward, it would be the policy of the church that polygamy was against God's commandments, etc. Nope. All he says is that the court of last resort has proclaimed polygamy illegal, that he intended to acknowledge that reality, and that he would use his position to encourage the members of the church to no longer enter into any marriages that were contrary to the "law of the land." I think they (the FP and Q12) envisioned, at that time, that they would continue to sanction plural marriages, but would do so outside of the country. That's what they did to a great extent (although they also continued to sanction some plural marriages in the USA). In any case, the Manifesto does NOT say that polygamy had been "rescinded" by God in any way. That interpretation came down the road, I admit. But that's not what the Manifesto actually says.

Also, the WoW (D&C 89) does not say that wine is not for the belly. You need to go read that section again as well. It also is not given as a commandment. It was almost a century later before it was interpreted as a "commandment" by Heber J. Grant, after Utah provided the final vote to rescind the 18th amendment to the US constitution (something he apparently wasn't very happy about).

[_readtoomuch]

Wow, what a response. Perhaps I had the wording slightly wrong but section 89 clearly states that wine and strong drinks are not good. If Joseph heard that right from the Lord's mouth, then you would think that the greatest Prophet who has done more for mankind save Jesus Christ would have heeded the Lord's words. I think the Polygamy issue is also very simple if you think about it. The Manifesto was presented to the body of the Church in Oct 1890. It was sustained and as far as the world or Government knew, Polygamy was no longer being solemnized in the Temples. Yet, the church kept on doing them for 14 more years. (as per LDS.org). Simply stated, everywhere the church practiced polygamy, it was illegal. Yet that didn't stop the church. Only until the church's assets were about to be taken did they cry uncle.

If the Lord really wanted President Woodruff to stop all new plural marriages, I believe he would have done it. Yet he did not.

I wonder if the church is considering re-instating William Law and his wife now that the Church has vindicated him. I guess the Expositor wasn't really a bunch of lies.

[_Fence Sitter]

Welcome,

I would suggest that in recent years the Church has furiously backpedaled on its stance of choice versus nature and no longer openly teaches that homosexuality is always a choice. In their horrific website dedicated to trying to explain why it is okay to be bigoted against gay people the Church states officially.

No one fully knows the root causes of same-sex attraction. Each experience is different. Latter-day Saints recognize the enormous complexity of this matter. We simply don’t have all the answers

See Mormons and Gay.org or why it is okay to say we really love gays while hating them at the same time.

In the future some anonymous church spokesperson will quietly announce in an obscure part of a church website, that the church does not know why it took the stance it presently follows regarding gay marriage, and blame it all of the social pressures of the time.

Wouldn't it be nice if the church had someone who could directly ask God tough questions about complex matters like race, marriage and sexuality and relay His will to His chosen people?

At least we know we are supposed to go shopping.

[_Ludd]

Wow, what a response. Perhaps I had the wording slightly wrong but section 89 clearly states that wine and strong drinks are not good. If Joseph heard that right from the Lord's mouth, then you would think that the greatest Prophet who has done more for mankind save Jesus Christ would have heeded the Lord's words. I think the Polygamy issue is also very simple if you think about it. The Manifesto was presented to the body of the Church in Oct 1890. It was sustained and as far as the world or Government knew, Polygamy was no longer being solemnized in the Temples. Yet, the church kept on doing them for 14 more years. (as per LDS.org). Simply stated, everywhere the church practiced polygamy, it was illegal. Yet that didn't stop the church. Only until the church's assets were about to be taken did they cry uncle.

If the Lord really wanted President Woodruff to stop all new plural marriages, I believe he would have done it. Yet he did not.

I wonder if the church is considering re-instating William Law and his wife now that the Church has vindicated him. I guess the Expositor wasn't really a bunch of lies.

Sorry, I hadn't realized until now that the user name you chose when you registered on this board was meant to be ironic. I get it now.

Anyway, carry on. I won't trouble you any further with the "facts" -- although I would be interested to see you cite the part of OD1 where it says that polygamy is, from that point forward, contrary to the will of God or the doctrine of the church.

[_bcspace]

Look it up in the Journal of Discourses.

Non doctrinal work. Always has been. Always will.

Yet, based on my observation, the church's real position is expressed more accurately as being between a man and more than one woman. It is absolutely the policy of the church to allow a man to be sealed to more than one woman in the Temple. (only requirement is that it can only be for living spouses, you can't be sealed to two living woman at the same time. If your first sealed wife passes away, you can be sealed to another. If that wife passes away, you can be sealed to yet another and so on)

So? Each sealing is between a man and a woman.

Yet, women can only be sealed to one man. Period. This is current policy in the church.

Actually, they can be sealed to more than one man same the same as a man can be sealed to more than one woman. Of course this does not necessarily imply anything about a future marriage relationship as early Church history attests.

Can this be defined in any other way except as spiritual polygamy? Yes, not practicing on earth but setting ourselves up for polygamy in the next life. Polygamy is a doctrine in the Mormon Church. This is not debatable.

Correct.

This is not open for interpretation. Yet the Mormon Church; leaders in the world for promoting non-traditional marriage both on this earth (as in the past) and for our lives after this life; proclaims to the world that marriage is between a man and woman.

No conflict here.

It was at this precise moment when President Woodruff stepped in and proposed what now has become known as the 1890 Manifesto. Based on the words of the LDS Church (in LDS.org and the new essay on Polygamy) we now know that the 1890 manifesto was very untruthful and designed to deceive the government and the world.

We don't know any such thing. We do know it was difficult to get some apostles to stop. But there was still some expectation that the Supreme Court would rule in our favor.

Take Joseph Smith and the Word of Wisdom, if God really told Joseph that wine is not for the belly, wouldn't it seem reasonable that Joseph, having heard it straight from God's mouth that wine shouldn't be used for drinking, would have refrained from using it? Yet he had no problem with the use of alcohol or the documenting of this use to be a part of church history. This too is public knowledge but not very well known in the church.

If you would actually read D&C 89, you would see that it wasn't initially given as a commandment.

My point I am trying to make is how can we know what is really true? How can we know what is really doctrine versus a theory? How can we know what is just a policy versus a God mandated doctrine or a cultural custom? The church just denounced 130 years of doctrine regarding the blacks and the priesthood. What is next? I have no idea.

Nothing has change regarding the ban. It is still doctrine. It hasn't been apologized for. The recent topical addition puts it's institution on the level of Divine inspiration. Almost nothing different was said there that was said in 1978.

"Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."
Bruce R McConkie

That was long ago and you guys are still acting like it never happened.

So currently, all the Church has done is present a different aspect of the doctrine in order to deflect criticism in PR fashion.

Is the Gay lifestyle a choice or are they born that way? The church teaches it is a choice.

There is still no evidence of it being inborn. But as you should well know, if it were, it can only be a reoccurring genetic aberration at best because in that case, homosexuals can't naturally reproduce without some force or force of will involved.

My own experience living and working in gay communities is that it quite often at the very least is a choice in the sense that people get caught up in some perverted fad and run with the type of people they get along with or had the misfortune to meet when they were in a social bind.

But consider LDS doctrine on the subject. We know there is a alcoholism gene. But that hasn't changed anything about the Word of Wisdom. So like-wise, the discovery of a "gay gene" will not change LDS doctrine on homosexuality and gay marriage. the principle is found in Ether 12:27

Who is to say? Who am I to say that they shouldn't be able to pursue their happiness in the way they want? Isn't this a free country? What right do I have or anyone for that matter to tell them what they cannot do?

No one is seeking to take away your rights. SSM is a welfare issue and there is no compelling reason for any state to recognize SSM. At the same time, there is and has been nothing preventing you in any state from marrying, except perhaps anti sodomy laws which, disgusting and abominable as your lifestyle choice is, I believe people should be free to behave sexually, privately, and with adult consent, in any way they choose.

So why is the Church making such a big deal on what others do who are not of the faith of Mormonism? Doesn't the articles of faith in so many words say we let others live according to the dictates of their own conscience?

Yes, but we also have our own conscience as well. Homosexuality and SSM is a grave threat to marriage because it provides an improper example of male and female role models and it provides an alternative to the ideal which we should all be striving for. It's also akin to the reasons why society does not allow pornography to be publicly displayed and more often than not seeks to drive away prostitution. There is no valid or effect alternative to marriage as per LDS doctrine in society.

In addition, the homosexual lifestyle choice has been shown scientifically (though now such research is suppressed) to carry with it risk factors unrelated to 'discrimination'. 30% of all child sex abuse is homosexual for example.

I don't fault the church for having their values and standards. But, Gay Marriage is a legal issue that will ultimately be settled by the United States Supreme Court.

It will and seemingly likely in your favor despite the gross constitutional violations needed to get there. However, just because they rule in your favor doesn't settle the issue. There is no such thing as 'settle law' and bad laws can be overturned. It depends on what society chooses to accept and in this case as one can plainly see, they are wont to choose evil.

It is difficult at times to separate secular issues from religious issues.

It is absolutely impossible to separate as the one always determines and is a reflection of the other.

But it seems to me this is one item that we bring more negative goodwill to the church than positive goodwill. Will the church 20 years from now, concede by distancing themselves from the "theories of today" and allow a more liberal vein of thought permeate into the church. Just like Polygamy; same sex marriage might very well be the Achilles Heel of our generation.

The Church, a master of PR, has successfully lulled many of you into thinking some of it's doctrines have changed when they have not. The evidence is in your anger and dismay at the Church's response to the gay marriage ruling. You thought all was going your way until now, that the Church was becoming 'enlightened' as you see it. I say the Church will weather this like it has on other issues with no change in the already enlightened doctrine.