- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Just wondering if anyone besides me find it HUGELY ironic that a church that stretched the boundaries of marriage to include polygamy, is now bent on restricting the definition of marriage to be ‘one man, married to one woman.” Not really. I do not think polygamy has anything to do with gay marriage. They are separate and distinct practices. Polygamy has been around for thousands of years and is still practiced and well accepted in many parts of the world. In many cases it is more the norm of society than monogamy. Although homosexuals have been around just as long their relationships have not been institutionalized like a man woman relationship. This a new frontier to integrate them into societies all over the world. My personal belief is the church can fight it all they want but it is inevitable. Gay marriage is a hot topic that is not going to cool down. The church may never accept it within its practices, but they should stop wasting resources to bend society to their will.
Yeah, doesn’t surprise me at all – for the same reason Cadence stated so well. Polygamy is an integral part of the Bible, and even the Book of Mormon has an “exception” clause. Well … I find it ironic, even if I understand the reasons. They aren’t the same thing (religious), but from an outside (secular) view, they are related to the same notion of freedom of choice. I constantly find myself feeling indifference about the issue of gay marriage. I guess I was a fence-sitter in the preexistence when that topic came up
😆 being neither hot nor cold.I’m not indifferent. I tend to support whichever side isn’t talking at the moment, since generally the arguments on each side always revert to “I’m right and you’re wrong! Na-na-na-na-na!!” Good point Ray, I feel the same way about this and other things. I guess I was thinking of both polygamy and gay marriage in terms of American contemporary norms, not scriptural norms.
The thing that bothers me the most is that when the Church is pressed about their plural marriage past, the response is to distance it as a long-since abandoned practice – almost responding as if it is foolish and uninformed for anyone to even mention it anymore. AND YET, LDS men are being sealed to multiple women in the temple in the case of death or divorce of a previous spouse. And of course LDS women can only be sealed to one man on this earth regardless of circumstances. I don’t think anyone can deny this is a relic of plural marriage and an indication that the doctrine remains at least in a spiritual/sealing sense. I disagree with the official position on gay marriage as well as any past or current plural marriage practice (sealing or actual). But of course I respect the Church’s right to hold these positions. I just do find some irony and dishonesty in a sense when we take such a leadership role on gay marriage issues.
I wonder if we’ll see the day that the church will accept and allow gay marriage, perhaps maybe not ever solemized in the temple, but allow gay members of the church to marry one another and continue to be members of the church. There were probably some members back in days of polygamy who wondered if they’d see the day when that was no longer practiced. Church policies and practices certainly do change over time, sometimes quite dramatically, especially if seen through a somewhat myopic telephoto lens. Many leaders and members writing at the time of polygamy seemed convinced it was an eternal principle that would continue until Christ returned. I wonder what they’d think of the state of affairs now, where folks practicing this eternal principle cannot even remain in the church or join the church, let alone carry on normally in regular US societies. It’s an interesting paradigm shift. Will we see another regarding homosexuality? Societies by nature are dynamic things, that change and adapt, and “advance” and “progress” until the mindset of the norm is completely different than it was before. Many upstanding leaders of the 19th century condoned and supported enslaving different races… often justifying the practice on moral and religious grounds. Two centuries later that single mindset would be considered criminal, if not insane. Will the norm similarly change in regards to gay marriage? It would be interesting to time-machine ahead a couple of centuries to find out. I think shifts do happen, although it is likely they will happen slowly. Because our top leadership is generally older, with opinions and mindsets learned many years ago and seeks generally to work within existing frameworks of thought, the change can be glacially slow. However, opinions are changing. My son’s generation, even in Utah, takes a more liberal view than my generation. Eventually those young people will make their way into church leadership and at least some changes will take place. As a church, we are definitely more into status quo than leading the charge. This is in stark contrast to Joseph Smith who completely shook up social norms! There is a mindset in the church, I think from the beginning, that views change as a threat. It was that apocalyptic fear of change, combined with having to adapt to the vast cultural, economic and social changes brought about by the industrial revolution, in my opinion, that was so attractive to early church members. We therefore inherited a society of people fearful of change, and I think this is reflected in our culture to this very day.
Personally, I think the rate of change is rooted in the principle that the tree only can be pruned according to the strength of the root. Traumatic surgery kills as often as it saves – especially if minor surgery is enough for the moment. I think the leadership generally believes this and uses consensus as a means of not endangering the tree as a whole. To use a different analogy, the band can continue to play on an ocean liner that is turning continually, but when a speedboat switches direction suddenly, passengers can get thrown around violently and even go overboard quite easily. I think there is a purpose behind changing course only with consensus, and, ironically, perhaps, for this group, it is rooted in a concern for the safety of the passengers and not risking the boat capsizing.
Our history supports this position, frankly. Sure, Joseph’s time was free-wheeling and wild – but it also had the most schisms and most active, violent, dangerous persecution. It might appear to be exciting and appealing as we look back upon it, but people generally sank or swam – or died in the process. There is a time for explosiveness and sudden change in a young, evolving organization, but if such radical and constant change continues, those organizations tend never to mature – or they die. I understand the allure, and I would love to see more radical change in some areas (quite a few, actually), but I understand that it can’t happen too quickly.
Old-Timer wrote:Our history supports this position, frankly. Sure, Joseph’s time was free-wheeling and wild – but it also had the most schisms and most active, violent, dangerous persecution. It might appear to be exciting and appealing as we look back upon it, but people generally sank or swam – or died in the process. There is a time for explosiveness and sudden change in a young, evolving organization, but if such radical and constant change continues, those organizations tend never to mature – or they die. I understand the allure, and I would love to see more radical change in some areas (quite a few, actually), but I understand that it can’t happen too quickly.
Wow Ray, very well said. You put that observation into great words.
I find the whole gay marriage issue quite unclimatic to be honest. I just don’t really care. I have very little doubt that 200 years from now, gay marriage will be “okay” and just another part of the culture. Will the commandments change and allow the practice to be okay to receive “exaltation” in the Celestial kingdom? I think so, just like it polygamy was required for awhile and now it is a sin. The church will evolve slowly over time – whether one believes it to be the “one and only living true church on the earth.” cwald, I agree with your statement above except for the timeline of 200 years. I think a policy decision will come much more rapidly. It only took thirteen years (?) after black Civil Rights for the prophet to say “the day for worthy males of all races has come concerning the priesthood.” If gay marriage becomes the law of the land, then I think that within a couple of decades, the church will follow suit. The church doesn’t like being antiquated, it is a PR problem of the first magnitude.
Just my opinion, senility is possible.
George wrote:cwald,
I agree with your statement above except for the timeline of 200 years. I think a policy decision will come much more rapidly.
Yeah, I won’t argue with that. I hope you are you correct, and I hope the practice is not as “wicked” and “detrimental” to society and the family as we are taught at church. I don’t believe it is, but I don’t know. I don’t anything.
Probably my most biggest grip about the church stance on marriage. They have distanced themselves so far from polygamy and any mention of it in our past, that the women who gave so much, who endured so much, who suffered so much, the wives of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor (and their ink), are no longer mentioned in church texts. They have become the “forgotten women” of the Church. It reminds one of the “forgotten boys of Short Creek. It stinks. History is history, it should never be rewritten.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.