LDS II: The Mormons

[Cat Tale]

What is the official LDS position on people like Warren Jeffs?

The official Church policy on polygamy given by President Hinckley is this "Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church... They are in violation of the civil law... They are subject to its penalties..." He goes on to say any members caught practicing polygamy "are excommunicated... Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church." He said that there is an article of faith that shows we need to be obedient to the laws of the land.

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

President Hinckley continues, "More than a century ago God clearly revealed unto His prophet Wilford Woodruff that the practice of plural marriage should be discontinued, which means that it is now against the law of God." And I find it particularly interesting how he says, "Even in countries where civil or religious law allows polygamy, the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous..." So even in parts of the world where Church members could legally practice polygamy, the Church does not permit it.

They are entitled to their privacy, and there is no logical reason why any non member would or should want to intrude upon them.

I must respectfully disagree. The legal affidavit shows otherwise:

1. Texas Penal Code. Section 22.02. Aggravated Sexual Assault $ first degree felony.
2. Texas Penal Code. Section 22.011. Sexual Assault $ first and second degree felonies.
3. Texas Penal Code. Section 25.01(a). Bigamy, (e) (2) $ first degree felony, if the person is 16 years of age or younger at the time.
4. Texas Penal Code. Section 25.01(a) (1) Bigamy, (e) (1) $ second degree felony, if the person is 17 years of age at the time.
5. Texas Penal Code. Section 34.01. Money Laundering $ first degree felony. if the value of the funds is $200,000 or more.
6. Texas Penal Code. Section 71(a)(1). Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity $ first degree felony.

Bigamy, sexual assaults against women and children... Warren Jeffs is right where he belongs, behind bars till he's 100 years old, which is when his first chance at parole will come up. We haven't even touched the tip of the iceberg concerning all the religious laws he broke, but those aren't punishable by earthly law.

The righteous practice of polygamy at a time when sanctioned by the Lord is in keeping with Eternal Law.
The FLDS do not recognise that the Lord withdrew His commandment to practice polygamy.

Right, but polygamy is not sanctioned by the Lord anymore on earth, in fact, now it's considered to be against the law of God. So there is no righteous practice of polygamy going on in the world today. Just because the FLDS church doesn't recognize God's order to discontinue the practice, doesn't make polygamy right. As the old saying goes, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." Warren Jeffs is right where he belongs, too bad he had to hurt so many children along the way.

 

[RandFan]

Be that as it may, the negative effects of poverty on children is not the topic of this thread. It is, I admit, an important topic; however, it should have a thread of its own.

Nothing about children is the topic of this thread. So why are you talking about children?

Why would I want to talk against poor parents, even if the topic of this thread were poverty and its effect on children?

Why would you want to talk against gay parents? How is it that you are not getting the analogy. Poor people have children. Gays and lesbians have children. Marriage can only help their families not hurt them. The fact is that you brought children into the discussion and children have nothing to do with the discussion.

 

[Loss Leader]

I raise the point, which is relevant, because in 2001 (yes, it's old data) 80% of heterosexual couples remained married after five years; 66% after 10 years; and 57% after 15 years. For male homosexuals in relationships, less than 1% remained together after just a year; after 1-3 years, 31% were still together; and after 4-7 years, 29%.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfi=IS04C02

You've completely misunderstood the graph. What it shows is that 58% of respondents had been in their current relationship for at least 4 years. 89% of respondents who were in a committed relationship had been with their partner for a year or more.

Note that your statistics for heterosexual couples add up to 203% while the graph for homosexual couples adds up to 100%. That's because they're measuring different things. They can't be compared.

Of course, none of this matters. What some or even most homosexuals may do has no bearing on whether some of them should be allowed to marry. You still haven't answered why the Mormon Church should involve itself in the issue of marriage between two people who don't care what the Mormon Church thinks.

 

[halleyscomet]

Why would I want to talk against poor parents, even if the topic of this thread were poverty and its effect on children?

Pro/con arguments re. marriage for poor people as contrasted with marriage for gays are not parallel.

It comes down to internal consistency. Arguments such as divorce rate and infidelity can't be used against homosexuals without facing the fact that economically disadvantaged people and political conservatives are far more prone to facing those problems than homosexuals. When you use those claims as an argument against marriage equality, you are, intentionally or not, also attacking the groups that are more likely to face those ills than homosexuals.

Each of the arguments made against gay marriage have been chipped away by statistics, until all that's left is religious belief. You have failed to demonstrate actual societal harm to children or families from gay marriage. As the sources from my recent posts have demonstrated, the very ills you proclaim as reasons to deny gays the right to marry, such as promiscuity, are REDUCED by the legalization of gay marriage.

 

[halleyscomet]

Thank you Cat. Most of what I knew about the LDS stance on polygamy is from the Irreligiosophy podcast and a few people I know in some of the splinter groups. Those sources made it sound like the modern LDS church was denying they ever sanctioned polygamay. From what I can gather, the LDS church did issue such denials during the time period when there were a lot of legal headaches around polygamy, but the modern church no longer denies it as part of their past. Is this a correct description of the situation?

And I find it particularly interesting how he says, "Even in countries where civil or religious law allows polygamy, the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous..." So even in parts of the world where Church members could legally practice polygamy, the Church does not permit it.

I can see a number of practical considerations for that decision. The primary one being immigration. What happens when a man with three wives moves to the US from a country where his marriage was legal? Canada has this problem with Muslim families. The end result is a set of laws granting the additional wives legal recognition under Canadian law. They also need to have a set of additional criteria to prevent people from doing things like flying to Iraq, marrying their three girlfriends and then flying back to Canada demanding recognition of their new brides.

As an additional complication, allowing polygamy in some areas would cause a migration of conservative Mormons, much like the one that lead Mitt Romney's grandfather to Mexico. This would drastically skew the church's membership, essentially creating a moderate home base in the US and extremist factions in areas where polygamy was legal. In the end, those members would probably sheer off into their own church, causing the LDS to hemorrhage members. They'd basically be creating and then exporting a new version of the RLDS.

Finally, there's the fact that in many of the nations where polygamy is legal, it's restricted to practitioners of particular religions. A Moron man probably COULDN'T fly to Iraq, marry a couple good Mormon girls and fly back, because I don't think Iraq allows that kind of shenanigan.

 

[Craig4]

Pup, your quoted remark of Dallin H. Oaks was directed to present members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who at this specific time are commanded by the Lord to not enter into polygamous relationships, not because it is against Eternal Law, but because the laws of the land in the US were changed by the satanic enemies of the LDS Church in order to persecute both LDS members and the LDS Church itself.

The righteous practice of polygamy at a time when sanctioned by the Lord is in keeping with Eternal Law.

The FLDS do not recognise that the Lord withdrew His commandment to practice polygamy.

That's okay. The state of Arizona and the FBI are very clear on the point of its illegality.

 

[Janadele]

...What's your view on interracial marriage Janadele?

The confounding of the language and racial characteristics did not happen by chance. The Lord God has His reasons for initiating such segregation. What our circumstances of race and language would be whilst in mortality was first determined in our pre mortal existence. Personally, my family, friends, and acquaintances are of Anglo-Saxon descent.

 

[RandFan]

Pro/con arguments re. marriage for poor people as contrasted with marriage for gays are not parallel.

You have a thesis about the health and well being of children. To arrive at this thesis, I posit, you have, in ad hoc fashion, linked the well being of children to whether or not gays and lesbians can marry. It's a very weak link. A stronger link would be the financial status of parents. To go out of your way to dismiss the financial status of parents but include the sexual orientation of parents as consideration for whether or not two people who love each other can marry is by definition special pleading.

To be morally consistent and intellectually honest you cannot pick and choose which groups we can allow to marry based on outcomes. Once we consider the affect of poverty on children the argument against gay marriage based on outcome of child well being quickly evaporates. No one would look at the facts (it is trivially true that poor children are disadvantaged) and conclude that poor people should not marry. So, even if we granted you the premise that gay parents would result in increased bad outcomes for children (I reject the premise, see below), it then requires special pleading to say gays and lesbians should not marry.

That said:

• *It's a finding of legal fact that that there is a scientific consensus that children reared in gay and lesbian households are no more at risk than heterosexual couples (see prop 8 trial finding of facts or links for discussions below).
• There is no evidence that forbidding gays and lesbians to marry would result in fewer children with gay and lesbian parents. Likewise, there is no evidence to demonstrate that allowing gays and lesbians to marry will result in an increase of children of gays and lesbians.

Any argument about children and allowing gays and lesbians to marry is fatuous at best and fallacious at worst. It's a non-sequitur, would require special pleading and is simply an attempt to find a rationale against gay marriage ad hoc.



*in the following pod cast (irreligiosophy), the hosts (two former Mormons), disect the evidence provided by the plaintiffs and defense in the prop 8 trial. Please note that it contains coarse language and is NSFW. I will also provide an additional link for those who would otherwise be offended.

Irreligiosophy: roposition 8

The Prop 8 Decision: The Findings of Fact (Everything We Should Learn From This Trial)

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You and others have repeatedly attacked my sources as lacking in credibility and of being anti-gay marriage propaganda "rags." I have simply noted that you have your own propaganda "voice" in the form of Gay Star News.

Here's the difference: I haven't quoted that publication.

Correction: I have no basis for accusing all same-sex couples of being detrimental to any children they may be raising.

Then why is this about same-sex marriage? If you are willing to allow heterosexual marriage, and rely on the already existing laws regarding child welfare to deal with individual cases as needs be, then why aren't in favor of allowing same-sex couples the right to marry and raise children, allowing the same laws regarding child welfare to apply to them as well?

 

[Foster Zygote]

"Mormon belief" is far too broad a topic to be accommodated by one thread.

Well then why don't you concentrate on why homosexuals should have their rights restricted because of your Mormon beliefs?

I am free to comment on poor people on a thread dedicated to that discussion.

You obviously realize how damaging your double standards regarding the source of detrimental factors in child welfare (however real or imagined) are to your argument.

I'm sorry, but I don't get your "drift."

I'm sure you do, as do the rest of us.

Pro/con arguments re. marriage for poor people as contrasted with marriage for gays are not parallel.

But the part that you are focusing on, the welfare of children, is the same issue. Ironically, you argue to prohibit same-sex marriage on these grounds without pointing to any scientific evidence of detriment. But when the well established fact that children are disadvantaged by a poor upbringing is mentioned, you claim that it doesn't apply. This is a double standard that discriminates against homosexuals. You may not like to have your arguments called bigoted, but that's the only description I can apply to your advocacy of unfair discrimination against homosexuals.

Perhaps you can elaborate.

The reasons for calling your arguments bigoted have already been clearly laid out for you. Relegating a class of citizens to second class status, unequal under the law because you don't approve of their sexual orientation, is bigotry.

Quite frankly, joobz, I'm unable to follow your line of reasoning.

You followed it just fine.

 

[skyrider44]

Now that we see marriage equality reduces homosexual promiscuity, I think we can agree that particular promiscuity argument is no longer relevant.

The sample size is much too small to justify your conclusion. Also, the time period gay marriages have been in effect is too short.

Given the role comprehensive sex education plays in reducing teen pregnancy and STD rates, what is your stance on sex education?

I'd like to see some statistics from geographically dispersed areas of the country before making a judgment.

It turns out in the USA homosexuals divorce at a lower rate than heterosexuals. Specifically 1.1% per year for same sex couples and 2% per year for heterosexual couples.

That's true--for now. But will it remain that way if gay marriage becomes legal nationwide?

Badgett, M.V. Lee; Herman, Jody L. (November 2011). Patterns of Relationship Recognition by Same-Sex Couples in the United States (PDF). The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law.

Overall, states that allow same-sex marriage have lower divorce rates.

Gay Marriage: States That Allow Same-Sex Unions Have Lower Divorce Rates

Since I doubt the gay population is large enough to impact the statistics directly, it's probably a result of other cultural factors. For example, the more progressive states are not only more likely to have legalized gay marriage, but have an older median age for first marriages. People who marry in their late 20's or older are far less likely to divorce than people who marry right out of high school. Progressive politics correlates with older ages for first marriages.

Nice, thoughtful analysis.

: By the way, I would advice against relying too heavily upon divorce rates as an argument. It's not exactly one that works out well for conservatives.

High divorce rates and teen pregnancy are worse in conservative states than liberal states

Red States Lead the Nation in Divorce

Atheism & Divorce: Divorce Rates for Atheists are Among the Lowest in America Why Do Conservative Christian Defenders of Marriage Get Divorced More Often?

It's difficult to know what impact nationwide gay marriage might have on
those statistics.

 

[Wolrab]

How is promiscuity any kind of argument? Good ol' Joe and Brigham and a slew of LDS founding fathers were (and will again if Janadelle has her way) using their total authority to screw whatever woman/girl they desired.

How does this compare to what two consenting adults do? Consent vs coercion. Sickening. The LDS has no moral authority to dictate anything anyone else does in the bedroom.

 

[skyrider44]

. . . No one has expressed any disagreement with the Mayo Clinic's page, only with your claim that it supports your argument.

How does the Mayo Clinic page not support my argument? How does it contradict my argument?

Again, what is the subject of this thread? It may have been split because of the high number of posts causing loading issues for some viewers, but this is still the LDS thread.

Yes, and why was it split? Answer: The issues raised (I'll use your language here) "[caused] loading issues for some viewers." What that means is that the subject matter exceeded the boundaries of the thread. You contradict yourself.

So if your Mormon faith really has nothing to do with the present topic, why are you discussing it here?

My Mormon faith relates to the present topic insofar as the Church has taken a position against gay marriage. But how, for example, do the garments Mormons wear relate to gay marriage (you probably saw the post). How is the character of Joseph Smith relevant to gay marriage? What part does anachronism in the BoM play in a debate about gay marriage? How is the B/A
conformant with a discussion about gay marriage?

: Right, guilty until proved innocent. And we have pointed out that the only sources that you have been able to provide stating that homosexuals are bad parents have relied on misrepresenting the research that actually says differently, or biased sources with a well defined political agenda.

Kindly note that I haven't said "homosexuals are bad parents." I have
quoted sources indicating that children do better when raised by a father and a mother. Please don't misquote me (which you do again in the next para.).

Why do you claim that Joseph Smith needs to be given the benefit of the doubt when there is no doubt that the Book Of Abraham is a fraud, yet claim that homosexuals should be presumed to be harmful as parents when you haven't been able to produce any evidence that they are? Where is the intellectual consistency in that?

Forgive me, but you take a leap of logic here wider than the mouth of the Grand Canyon. You also illustrate (far better than I can describe) your tendency to go off topic. Whether or not the B/A is a fraud and Joseph Smith is responsible for engineering that fraud, has nothing to do with the issue of same-sex marriage.

 

[joobz]

Clearly, you are reluctant to claim poor people shouldn't marry for the exact same reason why you say gays shouldn't marry.

Pro/con arguments re. marriage for poor people as contrasted with marriage for gays are not parallel.

Please explain why you believe these arguments are not parallel?
What is different with gays that would make the argument apply to them and not to poor people?

This is pure prejudicial bigotry.

Perhaps you can elaborate.

Once you answer the questions above, I believe I will be able to explain this point.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The confounding of the language and racial characteristics did not happen by chance. The Lord God has His reasons for initiating such segregation. What our circumstances of race and language would be whilst in mortality was first determined in our pre mortal existence.

So you speak Ænglisc? Do you know anything about the history of the language you speak? Do you know anything about how much it's changed?

Have a listen to this reading of the Lord's Prayer in Old English, and then tell me how pure your language is.

Personally, my family, friends, and acquaintances are of Anglo-Saxon descent.

Are you saying that you won't even be friends with someone who isn't what you consider Anglo-Saxon? What if you found out that there was some Norman in their genealogy?

 

[Empress]

Yes, and why was it split? Answer: The issues raised (I'll use your language here) "[caused] loading issues for some viewers." What that means is that the subject matter exceeded the boundaries of the thread. You contradict yourself.

Seriously? It means that the thread had gotten so long that some people were having trouble loading it, so it was closed and a second thread on the same topic was opened. That's all. It is SOP on message boards.

 

[RandFan]

How does the Mayo Clinic page not support my argument?

What is your argument? You don't consider the well being of children when it is pointed out to you that financial status is a strong predictor of the well being of children. You want us to consider the well being of children when it comes to being raised by gays and lesbians.

That's called moral inconsistency and intellectual dishonesty. Further, the consensus of experts is that children raised by gays and lesbians are no more at risk of harm than any other group, your cherry picked study not withstanding.

 

[Loss Leader]

My Mormon faith relates to the present topic insofar as the Church has taken a position against gay marriage.

You know what, skyrider44? I'm going to take up your cause for you. This is my best argument against gay marriage:

1. The goal of all humans should be to be righteous in the eyes of God and united with him in death.
2. Only through the Mormon faith may people truly be righteous and all that stuff I said in #1.
3. It is the obligation of the righteous to bring others to God through the Mormon church.
4. It is the obligation of those with sin to live righteously and to be faithful to the teachings of the Mormon church.
5. Homosexuality is a sin which prevents individuals from union with God in this life or in death.
6. Thus, it is the duty of Mormons to convince people to renounce their homosexuality and practice the Mormon faith (and it is the duty of sinners to be convinced).
7. Anything that makes it easier or more acceptable to be homosexual makes it more difficult to convince homosexuals to do that stuff I said in #1 and #5.
8. Gay marriage makes it easier for people to be homosexual.
9. Thus, gay marriage should not be allowed.

This appears to be the only honest, logically consistent argument against gay marriage that I can construct. Those who are so inclined may attack my logic. Don't bother attacking the truth value of any of the premises as I obviously don't believe they are true.

However, if the truth value of the premises is assumed, it would appear to be the duty of every right-thinking individual to actively make life as difficult for homosexuals as possible.

 

[Loss Leader]

Have a listen to this reading of the Lord's Prayer in Old English, and then tell me how pure your language is.

I believe she was referring to the Tower of Babel. God, I think she was saying, separated the races on purpose because it suited him. I'm not sure if she's saying the races should remain separate but that seems to be what she's driving at.

Seriously? It means that the thread had gotten so long that some people were having trouble loading it, so it was closed and a second thread on the same topic was opened. That's all. It is SOP on message boards.

As a moderator: This is exactly correct.

 

[Foster Zygote]

How does the Mayo Clinic page not support my argument? How does it contradict my argument?

You stated "Mayo suggests those are special vulnerabilities for gay men". That is not true. At no point does the Mayo Clinic ever make a statement about "special vulnerabilities for gay men". That is your fabrication.

Yes, and why was it split? Answer: The issues raised (I'll use your language here) "[caused] loading issues for some viewers." What that means is that the subject matter exceeded the boundaries of the thread. You contradict yourself.

No.

Let's look at what Loss Leader had to say at the end of the old thread:

Due to size, this thread has been split. This should make the topic easier on the JREF server and quicker to load for our members. The continuation thread may be found HERE. The cut-off point was an arbitrary artifact of how pages load. Please do not read anything into it.

And how he opened the new thread:

Welcome to the LDS continuation thread. Older posts can be found HERE. Feel free to quote or link to them as you see fit. The cut-off point was arbitrary. The only reason is due to the length of the thread. Thank you.

My Mormon faith relates to the present topic insofar as the Church has taken a position against gay marriage. But how, for example, do the garments Mormons wear relate to gay marriage (you probably saw the post). How is the character of Joseph Smith relevant to gay marriage? What part does anachronism in the BoM play in a debate about gay marriage? How is the B/A
conformant with a discussion about gay marriage?

If you really don't want to bring the Mormon religion into this discussion, then you need to ask that it be split off to a new thread.

Kindly note that I haven't said "homosexuals are bad parents." I have
quoted sources indicating that children do better when raised by a father and a mother. Please don't misquote me (which you do again in the next para.).

I see you're falling back on semantic games again

Forgive me, but you take a leap of logic here wider than the mouth of the Grand Canyon. You also illustrate (far better than I can describe) your tendency to go off topic. Whether or not the B/A is a fraud and Joseph Smith is responsible for engineering that fraud, has nothing to do with the issue of same-sex marriage.

It has everything to do with the double standards that you apply. You just don't want to address that problem.