A clear statement....

[_Bazooka]

The point in Elder Perry's speech is that this doctrine is arguably the doctrine that the entire CoJCoLDS is founded upon.

Wait...what...hang on...the doctrine of monogamy is what the entire CoJCoLDS is founded upon...
Subby, I think you need to sit down, I have to tell you something.
http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org

If someone has references that show the church giving money to support the Jim Crow laws (Democratic authors) or finds a "A Proclamation on Polygamy" of comparable extent and emphasis then, please, post.

Happy to help...
http://www.LDS.org/scriptures/dc-testam ... 2?lang=eng

Otherwise, it is as i have stated. The position on marriage is not just a social, cultural, or political one - it is intrinsically linked to the paramount doctrine for the structure of the church and the Gospel.

How many wives in heaven does Brigham Young have?
Come to think of it, how many wives does Heavenly Father have?

As we still see in the posts above, some posters are so deeply entrenched they still have "faith" that this position will change in 20 years....this is tantamount to believing that the church, any real church, will eventually allow for there to be only 5 commandments instead of 10...though arguably the Baptist already have.

I believe it's called "continuing revelation" and the Church has 'form' when it comes to changing its doctrinal position on marriage when society puts enough pressure on....

[_subgenius]

...(snip)...
I believe it's called "continuing revelation" and the Church has 'form' when it comes to changing its doctrinal position on marriage when society puts enough pressure on....

Drifting, as usual you rely on fantasy.
I have not denied the continuing revelation aspect of the church, i even acknowledged it.
But this is not a tantamount issue...this is not anywhere near the same value of doctrine as priesthood for blacks or polygamy or any other skeleton you want to parade from BY's treasure chest.
This is why you would try to confuse SSM with civil rights...when they have no relationship at all...even the more educated LGBT recognize that...to equate SSM with the civil rights movement of the 1960's defiles that cause...even Jesse Jackson has offered great insight on how insulting that comparison can be.

So, yes the church subscribed to polygamy and then renounced it...woohoo how illuminating of you!...but...they held fast to opposite sex marriage though out...this simple distinction you have yet to grasp...in your desperate attempts to homogenize everything and everyone to the least common denominator you have negated and nullified any value for everything. You have a fantasy world that is much more delusional than anything a TBM could ever derive....on this matter, mainly because of the simple fact that a TBM must, and does, recognize that mankind is flawed, that some things are indeed better and worse than other things.....

[_Bazooka]

So, yes the church subscribed to polygamy and then renounced it...woohoo how illuminating of you!...but...they held fast to opposite sex marriage though out...

What you meant to say was that the Church has held fast to opposing same sex marriage up to now.
Which, as you acknowledge, is no indication that the Church will oppose it "tomorrow".

People in 1977 would have been correct in stating that the Church has held fast to prohibiting black people from holding the Priesthood, but not the year after.

And in 1889 that the Church held fast to Polygamy being the Celestial order of marriage, but not the year after.

That the Church is likely to change it's position on same sex marriage is 'likely' based on looking back at how the Church behaves when faced with social pressures and societal activism. Take this Conference as a prime example. Last year the Church had held fast to not allowing women to offer a prayer from the pulpit in General Conference, this year...well, you get the point.

All that's left to debate is the timescale and what level of social and member activism will prompt the change.

[_subgenius]

What you meant to say was that the Church has held fast to opposing same sex marriage up to now.
Which, as you acknowledge, is no indication that the Church will oppose it "tomorrow".

People in 1977 would have been correct in stating that the Church has held fast to prohibiting black people from holding the Priesthood, but not the year after.

And in 1889 that the Church held fast to Polygamy being the Celestial order of marriage, but not the year after.

again, you seemingly have no ability to see the comparative value of your examples to the OP.
In 1977 and 1889 these doctrines were not critical to the church's theological structure anymore than they were to any other church...similarly would have been how suffrage influenced doctrine and revelation.
Your stubborn refusal to recognize this distinction is either from denial or trolling.

That the Church is likely to change it's position on same sex marriage is 'likely' based on looking back at how the Church behaves when faced with social pressures and societal activism. Take this Conference as a prime example. Last year the Church had held fast to not allowing women to offer a prayer from the pulpit in General Conference, this year...well, you get the point.

yes...the point is that you are unable to discern the difference between church tradition and actual church doctrine.
You are still trying to argue that the church will eventually revise the 10 commandments down to 5, based on social changes....and Elder Perry clearly states otherwise, and that has held true throughout all of church history.

All that's left to debate is the timescale and what level of social and member activism will prompt the change.

that one is easy....never. (see also OP)

[_Droopy]

Because I'm confused...

If the Trailerpark ever has a gravestone, this should be the epitaph.

[_Droopy]

And in the future, if the Church actually does allow for gay marriage...

But they won't, nor will they allow cohabiting couples to be baptized, or remain in the Church if members, or wink and nod at adultery, or hold branch wife-swapping parties, give TR recommends to married couples practicing BDSM, or anything else of the kind.

The present social circumstances in which we find ourselves, in which the world is expected to stop and everybody get off until the fundamental basis of civilization (marriage and family) is redefined and reconceptualized out of existence to placate the tortured sexual predilections of perhaps 3% of the population, the vast majority of which will never avail themselves of their newfound "rights," and have no intention of so availing themselves, is a twitching canary who's last heartbeats should be taken seriously for what they portend for the future.

[_Droopy]

People in 1977 would have been correct in stating that the Church has held fast to prohibiting black people from holding the Priesthood, but not the year after.

Here we go again...

Clearly separate your apples from your oranges, Baz, and then come back and try again.

And in 1889 that the Church held fast to Polygamy being the Celestial order of marriage, but not the year after.

It was never "the" celestial order of marriage, but a part of it, and not required for salvation or exaltation, as the sheer scarcity of human beings ever required to practice it, either in this dispensation or, given our scriptural record, in the ancient past, makes sufficiently clear.

Further, plural marriage, as doctrine, still stands, and has never been repudiated or altered. The practice, however, most certainly was, and this has, of course, substantial precedent, both as a matter of doctrine and practice throughout the history of the church on earth.

That the Church is likely to change it's position on same sex marriage is 'likely' based on looking back at how the Church behaves when faced with social pressures and societal activism. Take this Conference as a prime example. Last year the Church had held fast to not allowing women to offer a prayer from the pulpit in General Conference, this year...well, you get the point.

1. Please feel free to point to any aspect of church doctrine that was ever changed in the past due to social pressure that can't be easily argued against as a matter of self-serving interpretive bias.

2. Woman praying in GC was a policy (and the orginal letter sent throughout the Church in the seventies mentioned only a "recommendation"), not a doctrine, so this would appear to be grasping at very thin straws here (and an utter triviality, to boot, that only exercises the minds of people fixated on everything but the terrible questions).

All that's left to debate is the timescale and what level of social and member activism will prompt the change.

You've utterly failed thus far to provide a logical argument showing why I or anyone else should accept your conclusions, and until you have a much better grasp of LDS doctrine, you've only got the NOM/apostate choir to look forward to.

[_Bazooka]

Please feel free to point to any aspect of church doctrine that was ever changed in the past due to social pressure that can't be easily argued against as a matter of self-serving interpretive bias.

Blacks holding the Priesthood

[_Fence Sitter]

But they won't, nor will they allow cohabiting couples to be baptized, or remain in the Church if members, or wink and nod at adultery, or hold branch wife-swapping parties, give TR recommends to married couples practicing BDSM, or anything else of the kind.

The present social circumstances in which we find ourselves, in which the world is expected to stop and everybody get off until the fundamental basis of civilization (marriage and family) is redefined and reconceptualized out of existence to placate the tortured sexual predilections of perhaps 3% of the population, the vast majority of which will never avail themselves of their newfound "rights," and have no intention of so availing themselves, is a twitching canary who's last heartbeats should be taken seriously for what they portend for the future.

The same arguments you use here could have been/were applied by those Church members advocating against interracial marriage and defending polygamy.

Do you believe the Church has always maintained the exact same views on sexuality, birth control or abortion? As technology and scientific understanding have advanced so has our understanding of those issues. The Church has moved away from labeling homosexuality as a sin as more and more evidence shows that it is not always a choice.

You may be right, the Church may never move to allow gay people a Church sanction marriage, but certainly if it did, it could be done while still maintaining a version of the laws of chastity, where sexual relations are only approved of within a marriage, be it between same sex couples or opposite sex couples.

[_subgenius]

Please feel free to point to any aspect of church doctrine that was ever changed in the past due to social pressure that can't be easily argued against as a matter of self-serving interpretive bias.

Blacks holding the Priesthood

you did not read Droopy's post correctly.....(interpretive bias)
but if you consider this to have been the result of social pressure then please, back up your assertion with evidence....CFR
or concede now that this is simply a fantasy of yours