Oaks on religious freedom

[scottie]

I don't recall your postings in other threads but it seems to me that the question of the legalization of polygamy (and, in general, all forms of alternative marriage sooner or later) needs to be considered after same-sex marriage is recognized. What is happening in Canada confirms this, IMO. Of course, bringing up polygamy in the news just opens a wound for the church that never seems to heal. This makes me wonder if one of the reasons the church is pushing so hard for marriage to be defined legally is the leaders don't want to deal with all the negative PR associated with polygamy again. With same-sex marriage they, at least, have some other churches as allies. When polygamy comes up people usually only associate it with one church, at least in this country.

Yes, the PR, but also the internal problems with D&C 132.

[woot]

Would the church declare sex before marriage to be okay if the world wanted it to?

The church does not operate according to what the world.believes.

The end of polygamy and racism show otherwise. I'm not convinced that the same will happen with homosexual issues, but the church stands to lose a great deal of its membership over the next several decades if it doesn't follow suit.

[TripletDaddy]

Would the church declare sex before marriage to be okay if the world wanted it to?

The church does not operate according to what the world.believes.

God must have really wanted statehood for Utah.

[Indy Coug]

God must have really wanted statehood for Utah.

Is that why it took Him 40+ years to come around on this issue?

[TripletDaddy]

Is that why it took Him 40+ years to come around on this issue?

What do you mean by "this" issue?

[Indy Coug]

What do you mean by "this" issue?

Whatever issue it was that was getting in the way of statehood.

[TripletDaddy]

Whatever issue it was that was getting in the way of statehood.

Oh. I don't know why God waited. I'm sure he was really happy that Utah obtained statehood, though. ESP after commanding everyone to LEAVE the East so they could be free to worship as they saw fit out West.

Hey, things change, I get it.

[statman]

I for one have no issue calling it a sin, although I would also have no issue with the church changing it's stance and allowing it. I do have an issue with any group fighting to deny rights to a minority group of people.

I don't have a problem with calling it a sin either - especially if it's done with an outreach effort to make the sinners feel less alienated (which is what the Church has been trying to do recently).

But there are places in the world - like Canada, where the definition of "hate speech" has been so dumbed down that Church leaders - ours and others - could literally be jailed for calling homosexuality a sin. Some preachers have been jailed for such actions in Canada - although I don't recall ever hearing that any LDS folks have had that happen to them yet.

The good news is that because of a couple of very public cases (criminal "hate speech" charges against conservative columnist Mark Stein was a big one, as was the one where Ann Coulter was not allowed to speak at a University in Ottawa "because of her hateful attitude towards Muslims" (although those who stopped her from speaking didn't actually use any of her words to prove she was hateful, just her attitude...). Ironically, at the time she was supposed to speak, the sweet, cuddly Islamist muslims that she was being so hateful towards decided to riot at the University...

Anyway, because of the pure silliness of a few very public cases, the interpretation of hate speech has been brought up for reconsideration lately. A Canadian governemnt panel on antiterrorism said that they really can't do their job if their not allowed to name Islamists as the main threat to the country from terror. They brought up the cases against Stein and Coulter and said that going out of your way to ignore obvious threats because of PC anti-hate speech laws is not only stupid, it's dangerous, and that Political Correctness was making Canada a much more dangerous place than it has to be. Yeah. Rationality is bubbling to the surface...

[Jeff Lebowski]

Is that why it took Him 40+ years to come around on this issue?

There were countless statements from church leaders pre-manifesto stating that the church would NEVER abandon polygamy, under any circumstances. That's one of the reasons WW released the statement without getting approval from the 12. They never would have agreed to it. They all found out about it by reading the newspaper.

In a way they were right. They continued to practice it secretly for several years, which is really odd if you think about it. If it was in fact God that commanded them to stop practicing polygamy as you are clearly implying here, then why did the top church leadership continue to practice it for twenty years or so?

[LA Ute]

God must have really wanted statehood for Utah.

My guess (just based on reading what Wilford Woodruff said) is that the Lord mainly wanted to avoid the destruction of the church.

[Moliere]

My guess (just based on reading what Wilford Woodruff said) is that the Lord mainly wanted to avoid the destruction of the church.

If God really wanted polygamy he could have kept it.

[LA Ute]

If God really wanted polygamy he could have kept it.

Correct. He could also have kept the Holocaust from occurring, not to mention WWII and every other evil that has befallen mankind. Must be some reason why He didn't!

[Indy Coug]

If it was in fact God that commanded them to stop practicing polygamy as you are clearly implying here, then why did the top church leadership continue to practice it for twenty years or so?

I'm not implying anything. I'm merely responding to the comment about how badly God wanted statehood for Utah.

[Uncle Ted]

If God really wanted polygamy he could have kept it.

Yes, all He had to do is let the mormons create their zion in Texas instead of letting a good number of them die pushing handcarts through the snow...

The Texas Republic and the Mormon Kingdom of God

From its earliest days of colonization, Texas sparked the imagination and ambition of some of North America’s greatest leaders. Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, was one such man. His interest in Texas coincided with the strategic goal of Sam Houston, the president of the young Texas Republic, to create a buffer zone between the areas of Anglo settlement and Mexico. History has until now hidden how close the ambitions of these two men came to carving out a Mormon Kingdom of God in the Republic of Texas.

In 1844 Smith and his followers were received with political jealousy, religious suspicions, and distaste by their neighbors in Nauvoo, Illinois. Smith looked outside the United States for both refuge and empire. Times were difficult for Texas president Sam Houston, as well. Texas faced the wrath of the Comanches on the western frontier and of Santa Anna on the disputed southern border. To make matters worse, the U.S. Congress was balking on the annexation issue. Houston was desperate, in debt, and looking for assistance from England, France, or perhaps even the Mormons. Smith appointed an ambassador to the Texas Republic, and secret negotiations began in earnest.

According to Mormon records, Houston agreed to sell Smith a disputed strip of land between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande. Before the Mormon leader could take further action, however, he was murdered by a mob in Illinois. In the leadership succession crisis that ensued, the negotiations were abandoned.

Yet, the secret negotiations cannot be seen as a total failure. Houston remained a friend to the Mormons throughout his political career and was later instrumental in ending the Utah War of 1857–58. In addition, a group of Mormon settlers emigrated to the Texas Republic on the eve of statehood and became an important part of the Texas cultural mosaic.

[tooblue]

But there are places in the world - like Canada, where the definition of "hate speech" has been so dumbed down that Church leaders - ours and others - could literally be jailed for calling homosexuality a sin. Some preachers have been jailed for such actions in Canada - although I don't recall ever hearing that any LDS folks have had that happen to them yet.

Before you get too hyperbolic, the only case where a preacher was arrested for describing homosexual sex as a sin, that I know of, was in Great Britain, not Canada.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ch-battle.html