Even Dallin Oaks doesn't practice "god's law of marriage"?

[woot]

I'll admit that in the past I've posted my share of hit and run pot shots at Mormon leaders, but I've got to say that I find this thread rather distasteful. Woot, I like you. You bring a good deal of intelligence to the board, but it's pretty obvious you're not looking for honest dialogue in this thread. I enjoy the fact that non-believers like myself are tolerated here in the religion forum. It would be nice to keep it that way.

What is it that makes this any worse than what gets posted here every day? Should Oaks not be treated with respect? I wouldn't mind hearing honest dialogue on this topic, but I do think this one's pretty open-and-shut. Oaks is simply wrong on this one. I'm open to disagreement. I haven't called the man any names, and I haven't called into question his intelligence or his senility (not that doing so would be inappropriate given the quality of his arguments lately, but others have handled that one for me).

[Non Sequitur]

What is it that makes this any worse than what gets posted here every day? Should Oaks not be treated with respect? I wouldn't mind hearing honest dialogue on this topic, but I do think this one's pretty open-and-shut. Oaks is simply wrong on this one. I'm open to disagreement. I haven't called the man any names, and I haven't called into question his intelligence or his senility (not that doing so would be inappropriate given the quality of his arguments lately, but others have handled that one for me).

I have no interest in debating the merits of your argument, because it doesn't really interest me. I only posted what I did because I would like this forum to remain tolerant of apostates and fence-sitters. Sorry if it sounds like I'm calling you out. I really do enjoy most of your posts.

[il Padrino Ute]

I have no interest in debating the merits of your argument, because it doesn't really interest me. I only posted what I did because I would like this forum to remain tolerant of apostates and fence-sitters. Sorry if it sounds like I'm calling you out. I really do enjoy most of your posts.

NS, there is no need to apologize for decency.

[Viking]

Interesting that none of these examples show any man on man or woman on woman action.

And as for eternal polygamy, if you didn't know that men are still sealed to multiple women then you are obviously not up on your Mormon doctrine. The difference is that a man is sealed to a woman. It is not a threesome (I'm sure someone will post something funny about that). One man married to one woman. Seems to fit just fine.

I'm sorry. My step father is sealed to his first wife, who died. He was sealed for time and all eternity when he married my mom. He is sealed to two women for time and all eternity. He is an eternal polygamist.

[SoonerCoug]

This thread inspired my wife and me to read D&C 132 for our evening scripture study tonight. Interesting stuff. Not quite sure what to make of it. I did note the stuff about giving Joseph many wives and Emma being destroyed, which has always disturbed me, but right now I'm more interested in another issue.

I have had this question for a long time. Back in those days, did the "new and everlasting covenant" only refer to polygamous marriage? Don't the polygamists believe that the "new and everlasting covenant" only applies to polygamous marriage? I realize that there is a lot of discussion about sealing in D&C 132, but it all seems to be in the context of polygamy, especially since the section began with the inquiry about Abraham and his concubines, etc.

[SeattleUte]

"The ancient order of marriage is the divinely sanctioned union, recognized by the state, between one man and one woman." - Russel Ballard, quoted by Oaks

"We follow Jesus Christ by adhering to God's law of marriage, which is marriage between one man and one woman. This commandment has been in place from the very beginning."

-Mormon Apostle Dallin H. Oaks

* EXCEPT, if you are the Patriarch, Abraham, in which case you can be married to Sarah (who might be your half-sister), and to Sarah's slave girl, Hagar. The ancient order of marriage is pretty liberal when it comes to marrying siblings, cousins and slaves.
* EXCEPT, if you are Kind David or King Solomon, in which case you might have as many as 300 wives and 300 additional concubines, and copulating with and siring children by slaves was perfectly acceptable, both in the eyes of your citizens, and in the eyes of God, who sanctioned the practice.
* EXCEPT, if you are Jesus, and married to both Mary Magdalene and Elizabeth (and likely others), according to previous Mormon Church prophets
* EXCEPT, if you are Mormon Church founder and prophet Joseph Smith, in which case you can secretly practice polygamy to girls as young as 14, and also be married to women who are already married to other men. The ancient order of marriage demands, however, that you don't tell your first wife about all the others, because it makes her really mad. For that matter, it's best not to tell ANYONE except your good buddies, because then they might think twice about your apostolic calling.
* EXCEPT, if you are Mormon Church Prophet Brigham Young, in which case you can have as many as 55 wives married to you in this life, and untold numbers sealed to you in the life hereafter. It is also perfectly acceptable to divorce them if they don't take care of themselves, or expect you to take care of them.
* EXCEPT, if you are Mormon Church Apostles John Taylor, Lorenzo Snow, Wilford Woodruff, George Cannon, Heber Kimball, and on and on and on, in which case you can obtain a new wife every time your last wife gets worn out.
* EXCEPT, if your wife died, and you're a Mormon Church apostle, you can be sealed to another, much younger woman, so you'll get both of 'em in the eternities. (Dallin H. Oaks married June Dixon in 1952, who passed away in 1998. In 2000, he married Kristen McMain, both of whom are sealed to him for time and all eternity--contrary to the "ancient order of marriage.")

But other than THAT, the Mormons are absolutely correct in defending the "ancient order of marriage."

found at http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comm..._gods_ancient/

Most of these are obvious points. I'm really surprised that anyone, let alone a Mormon of all people, would even think about citing single male-single female marriage as the ancient order of god. He's contradicting not only the bible, but also his church's history, his church's doctrine, and his own life. Yikes.

I also laughed when I saw that Oaks cited Dinesh D'Souza, a notorious anti-science crackpot, in his talk. Oaks also "misspoke" when he referred to D'souza as a "professor". He's a right-wing commentator without a doctorate or an academic position.

I am not a big fan of this line of reasoning. I think Mormons leaders' lecherous and polygamous past, or Old Testament prophets' similar conduct, is good for a zing or a tweak (in demonstrating somewhat inconsistent positions vis-a-vis the gay marriage issue), but that's about it. This witticism has been played out.

Why quote scripture to them? The whole point is that we have moved beyond reliance on a thousands year old book as our sole moral guilde. Yes! Polygamy was a pillar of barbarism. Even the Romans and Greeks didn't do it. Don't cite it as support for gay marriage.

To me, the Bible is a beautiful artifact, an heirloom, and like my addled grandpa. I owe all to it, but I make my own decisions. I use reason and philosphical guidance extraneous to the Bible, and hard lessons learned the past few thousand years.

Dallen Oaks is absolutely right that people don't respect religion like they used to. Quote the Bible or religious tradition or your religious leaders as your authority in making a morally charged decision like whether to support gay marriage and a growing number of Americans will look askance at you. Rightly so, in my view.

[Viking]

I am not a big fan of this line of reasoning. I think Mormons leaders' lecherous and polygamous past, or Old Testament prophets' similar conduct, is good for a zing or a tweak (in demonstrating somewhat inconsistent positions vis-a-vis the gay marriage issue), but that's about it. This witticism has been played out.

Why quote scripture to them? The whole point is that we have moved beyond reliance on a thousands year old book as our sole moral guilde. Yes! Polygamy was a pillar of barbarism. Even the Romans and Greeks didn't do it. Don't cite it as support for gay marriage.

To me, the Bible is a beautiful artifact, an heirloom, and like my addled grandpa. I owe all to it, but I make my own decisions. I use reason and philosphical guidance extraneous to the Bible, and hard lessons learned the past few thousand years.

Dallen Oaks is absolutely right that people don't respect religion like they used to. Quote the Bible or religious tradition or your religious leaders as your authority in making a morally charged decision like whether to support gay marriage and a growing number of Americans will look askance at you. Rightly so, in my view.

Polygamy is easily one of the worst institutions the US has ever seen. Not slavery by a wide margin, but a horrid practice nonetheless.

[woot]

I am not a big fan of this line of reasoning. I think Mormons leaders' lecherous and polygamous past, or Old Testament prophets' similar conduct, is good for a zing or a tweak (in demonstrating somewhat inconsistent positions vis-a-vis the gay marriage issue), but that's about it. This witticism has been played out.

Why quote scripture to them? The whole point is that we have moved beyond reliance on a thousands year old book as our sole moral guilde. Yes! Polygamy was a pillar of barbarism. Even the Romans and Greeks didn't do it. Don't cite it as support for gay marriage.

To me, the Bible is a beautiful artifact, an heirloom, and like my addled grandpa. I owe all to it, but I make my own decisions. I use reason and philosphical guidance extraneous to the Bible, and hard lessons learned the past few thousand years.

Dallen Oaks is absolutely right that people don't respect religion like they used to. Quote the Bible or religious tradition or your religious leaders as your authority in making a morally charged decision like whether to support gay marriage and a growing number of Americans will look askance at you. Rightly so, in my view.

You seem to have missed the point entirely. Another of my posts in this thread might help clear up any confusion.

[creekster]

Polygamy is easily one of the worst institutions the US has ever seen. Not slavery by a wide margin, but a horrid practice nonetheless.

As referenced by SU, polygamy was seen with slavery in the 19th century as one of the twin relics of barbarism.

[Fiyero]

I have had this question for a long time. Back in those days, did the "new and everlasting covenant" only refer to polygamous marriage? Don't the polygamists believe that the "new and everlasting covenant" only applies to polygamous marriage? I realize that there is a lot of discussion about sealing in D&C 132, but it all seems to be in the context of polygamy, especially since the section began with the inquiry about Abraham and his concubines, etc.

IIRC the new & everlasting covenant was eternal marriage as a whole, and the reinstitution of polygamy was a part of that umbrella.

[Viking]

As referenced by SU, polygamy was seen with slavery in the 19th century as one of the twin relics of barbarism.

...and rightly so.