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

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • woot
    Resident Science Cop
    • Nov 2008
    • 5531

    #1

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

    "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.
  • UtahDan
    *
    • Nov 2008
    • 14496

    #2
    I am much more comfortable with the church saying "this is our current understanding of God's will" or "this is what God currently commands" than I am with any argument that tries to cite precedent on this issue. As you point out, there are just too many exceptions, and the truth is that the church teaches that God has commanded different things on this issue at different times.

    Comment

    • SoonerCoug
      Joycelyn Elders Supporter
      • Nov 2008
      • 4680

      #3
      Originally posted by UtahDan View Post
      I am much more comfortable with the church saying "this is our current understanding of God's will" or "this is what God currently commands" than I am with any argument that tries to cite precedent on this issue. As you point out, there are just too many exceptions, and the truth is that the church teaches that God has commanded different things on this issue at different times.
      Why do you think he didn't say it the way that makes you more comfortable? I would think that a great legal mind like Oaks would realize that his statement contradicted our history.
      Last edited by SoonerCoug; 10-17-2009, 02:11 PM.
      That which may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. -C. Hitchens

      http://twitter.com/SoonerCoug

      Comment

      • UtahDan
        *
        • Nov 2008
        • 14496

        #4
        Originally posted by SoonerCoug View Post
        Why do you think he didn't say it the way that makes you more comfortable?
        I think, if you boil it down, it is because he and I disagree over whether the bolded statement is correct:

        "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."
        EDIT: Unless he is suggesting that polygamy has always been contrary to God's law. I would be surprised if that is what he means, but I think I might be able to agree with that too.
        Last edited by UtahDan; 10-17-2009, 02:16 PM.

        Comment

        • SoonerCoug
          Joycelyn Elders Supporter
          • Nov 2008
          • 4680

          #5
          Originally posted by UtahDan View Post
          I think, if you boil it down, it is because he and I disagree over whether the bolded statement is correct:
          Maybe it was just a mistake or a lapse of judgment.
          That which may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. -C. Hitchens

          http://twitter.com/SoonerCoug

          Comment

          • UtahDan
            *
            • Nov 2008
            • 14496

            #6
            Originally posted by SoonerCoug View Post
            Maybe it was just a mistake or a lapse of judgment.
            I think I've just had an epiphany. It was a mistake or a lapse of judgment...only old people have those...Oaks is an old guy...he must be wrong because he is old! Maybe we can't rely on what these old guys say!

            (Did I just save us some time?)

            Comment

            • SoonerCoug
              Joycelyn Elders Supporter
              • Nov 2008
              • 4680

              #7
              Originally posted by UtahDan View Post
              I think I've just had an epiphany. It was a mistake or a lapse of judgment...only old people have those...Oaks is an old guy...he must be wrong because he is old! Maybe we can't rely on what these old guys say!

              (Did I just save us some time?)
              When did I say that only old people have a lapse of judgment?

              When did I say he must be wrong because he's old?

              All I said was that I don't think he would have made that analogy, and I can see a real difference between his recent talks and talks from five years ago, and I think his old age could be an element or contributing factor in the changes that I see.

              You're using absolutes that I did not use.
              That which may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. -C. Hitchens

              http://twitter.com/SoonerCoug

              Comment

              • woot
                Resident Science Cop
                • Nov 2008
                • 5531

                #8
                There's no question that this was a lapse in judgment on Oaks' part. Regardless of the off-base comparison with the civil rights movement, he's just wrong by any objective measure about what he's arguing.

                Comment

                • Fiyero
                  Banned
                  • Nov 2008
                  • 5266

                  #9
                  Originally posted by woot View Post
                  ...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/
                  There's a huge difference between an earthly marriage and an eternal sealing. Think of it as the law of tithing being a simplified version of the law of consecration. Elder Oaks was one man married to one woman, and when she passed away he was unmarried, and afterwards again became one man married to one woman.

                  There have been times when God's law of polygamy was commanded and times when it was suspended. woot the person whose argument you borrowed appears to have overlooked the fact that the prophets in question only followed it during times of commandment. Was the author indirectly commending the prophets for their obedience? The reason I ask is because I suspect that's what his article looks like to anyone even vaguely familiar with the scriptures.

                  Comment

                  • Viking
                    Banned
                    • Jun 2009
                    • 6470

                    #10
                    Originally posted by Fiyero View Post
                    There's a huge difference between an earthly marriage and an eternal sealing. Think of it as the law of tithing being a simplified version of the law of consecration. Elder Oaks was one man married to one woman, and when she passed away he was unmarried, and afterwards again became one man married to one woman.

                    There have been times when God's law of polygamy was commanded and times when it was suspended. woot the person whose argument you borrowed appears to have overlooked the fact that the prophets in question only followed it during times of commandment. Was the author indirectly commending the prophets for their obedience? The reason I ask is because I suspect that's what his article looks like to anyone even vaguely familiar with the scriptures.
                    On the topic of marriage, the LDS Church would be better off staying mum. Those that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...

                    Polygamy was a sordid practice and I suspect one that began as a cover for JS's adulterous relationships. Really, the Church should just stay out of it.

                    Comment

                    • Fiyero
                      Banned
                      • Nov 2008
                      • 5266

                      #11
                      What surprises me about this very thread is that people have been attacking polygamy for 170 years- volumes have been written to attack and to defend; but now, the idea that an apostle remarried after his wife died is supposed to be some uncanny new angle? Elder Oaks continues to be one man married to one woman.

                      Comment

                      • SoonerCoug
                        Joycelyn Elders Supporter
                        • Nov 2008
                        • 4680

                        #12
                        Originally posted by Fiyero View Post
                        What surprises me about this very thread is that people have been attacking polygamy for 170 years- volumes have been written to attack and to defend; but now, the idea that an apostle remarried after his wife died is supposed to be some uncanny new angle? Elder Oaks continues to be one man married to one woman.
                        I think they are referring to the fact that Elder Oaks is sealed to two women.

                        Even in divorce, a man must remain sealed to his ex-wife until his ex-wife remarries. Even if he remarries, the Church will not cancel the sealing. It is only canceled if the woman is going to remarry.

                        I think the idea is to guarantee the ex-wife admission to the highest level of the CK through her ex-husband. Why do you think the Church insists on having a policy that treats men and women differently with respect to sealing cancellation? It's a form of "polygamy on paper" that is against the will of a divorcee, but somehow they must think it's spiritually important. I don't understand the practice at all.
                        Last edited by SoonerCoug; 10-18-2009, 11:00 AM.
                        That which may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. -C. Hitchens

                        http://twitter.com/SoonerCoug

                        Comment

                        • Sizzle
                          #ThisIsY
                          • Nov 2008
                          • 9004

                          #13
                          Originally posted by SoonerCoug View Post
                          Why do you think he didn't say it the way that makes you more comfortable? I would think that a great legal mind like Oaks would realize that his statement contradicted our history.
                          Because he is senile. It is he only feasible possibility.

                          Comment

                          • Viking
                            Banned
                            • Jun 2009
                            • 6470

                            #14
                            Originally posted by Fiyero View Post
                            What surprises me about this very thread is that people have been attacking polygamy for 170 years- volumes have been written to attack and to defend; but now, the idea that an apostle remarried after his wife died is supposed to be some uncanny new angle? Elder Oaks continues to be one man married to one woman.
                            Really? The Church absolutely practices eternal polygamy. My step-dad is sealed to his first wife (she passed away) and now my mother (sealed to him). He's an afterlife polygamist. No debate.

                            Comment

                            • SoonerCoug
                              Joycelyn Elders Supporter
                              • Nov 2008
                              • 4680

                              #15
                              Originally posted by Sizzle View Post
                              Because he is senile. It is he only feasible possibility.
                              I'm glad you're posting in the religion forum now, but you seem to be quite sarcastic toward me lately. In fact, it seems most of your posts are sarcastic and directed toward me. Any particular reason?

                              Why do you think Elder Oaks chose to use an argument that contradicts our history, as UtahDan and others have pointed out?

                              Maybe old age is not a factor, and maybe it wasn't a lapse of judgment. That is my theory, but I might be wrong. You are certainly entitled to disagree with me, and I'd be happy to discuss our opinions if you would express your opinion.
                              Last edited by SoonerCoug; 10-18-2009, 11:37 AM.
                              That which may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. -C. Hitchens

                              http://twitter.com/SoonerCoug

                              Comment

                              Working...