Just_A_Guy

CofChristCousin, I think you're making it unnecessarily difficult. For example, polygamy has historically been interpreted as merely a series of independent marriages that did not bind any of the wives to each other legally. Visitation is decided quite easily by a simple amendment to a state's advance-health-care-directive act laying down a default rule that the "senior spouse" governs (the parties are free to execute a power-of-attorney that would overrule the default statutory rule, just as people can do now). The main issue would be property division--and, again, it's nothing another couple hundred pages in the tax code couldn't address. The "it's too complicated" meme was used against gay marriage, too; but it crumbles pretty quickly in the face of a compelling equal-rights argument.

Ditto regarding polygamy. How many well-respected personalities in politics, industry, show biz, ad nauseum engaged in "practical polygamy" by having mistresses concurrently with spouses? As did most stories regarding homosexuality, up until a few decades ago. By your own admission--nor had there been for gays, when Loving came out. But long-term polygamous marriages have existed continuously for millennia, whereas long-term gay relationships have not. Which type of relationship is the real interloper to the definition of "marriage"? Again, you seem to be channeling the majority view circa 1967.

There's nothing wrong with confessing we don't "know", but I think it's important not to let that lull us into some kind of "testimonial nihilism" ("I don't know, so I can't know--and neither can anyone else"). To some it is given to believe on the words of those who know--but to others it is, indeed, given to know. (D&C 46:13-14).

The issue here, is that the LDS leadership strongly discourages any kind of "marriage" ceremony performed after a sealing. The practical consequence here would be that temple marriages would be deemed "second-class" or "quasi" marriages, from a legal point of view. I don't think that's a concession our leadership is currently willing to make, though the situation may change a few decades down the road as long-established traditions about the definition and implications of civil "marriage" become murkier.

Forty years ago when Loving came down, was there any "organized sentiment or movement within western countries to permit" gay marriage?

My opinions: 1. If they don't feel the spirit right then, they aren't worthy. I've refused the sacrament at times because I was in the middle of a prolonged disagreement with a family member. 2. As long as they have a basic understanding of what they are doing, I don't see a problem. My two-year-old daughter takes the sacrament weekly. 3. The right hand is the hand of covenant (there are quotations out there from Joseph F. Smith backing this up). Using the right hand for the sacrament is preferable, but not mandatory. 4. At the moment, nothing. Later, I'm sure he'll want to have a discussion. 5. The natural man in me does. I try to remind him that it's none of my business.

Oh, good grief . . .

Of course, SecondHand Lions took the easy way out by later establishing that the uncles' story was, in fact, true.

I frankly am not "scared" by the prospect of legalized polygamy. But, placing that aside for the moment: There is a rising demand among Muslim immigrants--here and in other western nations--that their new governments recognize pre-existing polygamous marriages. Like gay marriage itself--it is an issue that applies to only a tiny fraction of our population, but nonetheless will need to be addressed in our statutory code at some point.

I think Justice Scalia's dissent to Lawrence touched on the issue, and it's been a frequent talking point in academic circles with respected names coming out on both sides of the question (Legal scholars rush in where society fears to tread). Legal scholarship is preoccupied with bizarre and unlikely hypotheticals that may or may not ever come to pass in the real world, and the law is tailored around such hypotheticals to a surprising extent.

But would his words and his presence really "fix it", Danni? My marriage went through a phase very much like yours. Yes, I wasn't paying my wife proper attention--but I had kind of closed down, because experience had taught me that she really didn't want someone to "fix things" as much as she just wanted someone to vent to. It's extremely hard to see your spouse going to pieces and knowing (or at least feeling like) there's not a darned thing you can do about it. Your husband's behavior is selfish, but do consider the possibility that it may be a defense mechanism. Both of you may need to adjust your expectations a little bit.

Redistributionist, yes. But we've got the crowd; got the food; got the band--we may as well have the party. I'm thinking this'll die in committee. Quickly.

Just a couple of observations: Huh. Per Mary Jane Woodger's book (quoting McKay's son, IIRC), it was because he prayed about it--in his capacity as President of the Church--and was told "no". Darius Gray, you mean? I don't particularly care what others say--or what he might claim--he has been "given permission" to teach (and I suspect that in this case it's more of the former than the latter). I could impute the same type of official Church sanction to various members of BYU's Religious Education Department who still teach elements of the old view. While the Church has renounced many/most/all of the previous explanations for the policy and the application of the policy, no one with any authority to do so has renounced the origin of the policy. It may well be that God felt the Church needed such a policy at a particular point in its history to prevent alienating incorrigibly racist members--but I must confess I find the idea of the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve instituting a Church-wide practice that was in direct contravention of God's plan for the Church to be extremely unsettling. I'm open to the idea that prophets and apostles individually may err--and even collectively, may occasionally adopt unproductive courses of action. But I'm not open to the idea that God could still sanction a church whose leadership had unitedly denied the ordinances of the Gospel to a segment of the human race in contravention of God's expressed wishes. God has in the past--and, in the D&C, repeatedly threatened to--cast off churches for sins that were far more trivial than what Brigham Young and his contemporaries allegedly did.

You're not alone; my wife and I have never subscribed to cable/dish in our 6 years of marriage. We're not really ideologically opposed to TV; just don't need it enough to justify the cost. We get our news over the internet and our entertainment from DVDs borrowed from our public library--and if the library doesn't have it, surfthechannel.com usually does.

I don't want to be Pollyanna-ish or pretend that the Republican party doesn't have issues at present; but it strikes me that this talk about the party being "torn apart" by its socially conservative platform is far more smoke than fire--perpetuated, in large part, by people who threw their lot in with some other party years or even decades ago. I remember a very liberal (lesbian, in point of fact) Civil Procedure professor of mine who, way back in 2005, lamented the chaotic state of the Democratic party and expressed her resigned opinion that the Neocons would be carrying the day for the foreseeable future. A change in ideology isn't what brought the Democrats of the wilderness. I doubt such a move would do much for the Republicans, either.

I'd complement your bishop for being so supportive re your endowment. However, space can get limited at a sealing ceremony and it strikes me as a bit presumptuous for anyone--even a bishop--to invite himself to that event. However, if your fiancee would like to have the bishop at your sealing, and there's room, then I'd warn you about straying into "Bridezilla" territory if you demand that the guy not be there.

I would like to think that had President McKay received a revelation ending the policy and then duly informed the Twelve, they would have fallen into line. As it was, though, I seem to remember reading that President Kimball's raising the issue before the Quorum of the Twelve in 1978 was carefully timed to take advantage of the fact that one of the Quorum's most strident defenders of the ban (Mark E. Petersen) was out of town at the moment. When he returned to Salt Lake, the policy change was presented to him as a fait accompli.

It's probably worth pointing out that President David O. McKay explicitly prayed for permission to remove the ban--sometime in the late 1950s, if I remember correctly. Permission was denied.

The story of the M/S St. Louis is indeed compelling, but in point of fact a slight majority of her passengers survived the war.

Have you had previous relationships? If so, what were things like after you broke up? If women you break up with don't tend to wind up crazy and bitter, I'd say go for it. If they do . . . I'd say spare yourself the aggravation. Unless, of course, you think she's The One.

I doubt this will be convincing to non-Mormons, but what is the point of warning against false prophets if there aren't also going to be true ones running around? Why not just condemn "prophets" generally? Why bother giving a means to distinguish the true from the false prophets (i.e. "by their fruits ye shall know them")? You'll probably hear that scripture where Jesus says that "the law and the prophets were until John", but if that means that there would never be any prophet after John the Baptist then you have to discount the future prophets spoken of by John the Beloved in the eleventh chapter of the book of Revelation. In fact, you'd have to throw out the entire book of Revelation, since it is inherently prophetic and its author lived after John the Baptist.

You mean women DON'T enjoy cooking? (running away . . . )

Well, if you wanna get nit-picky, he's more of a left-hand man. (Violingirl: Silly pun on my part. During Sunday services, the Bishop sits up front with his two counselors--traditionally, the first counselor will be on his right and the second counselor will be on his left.)

Haven't followed up on this like I should, but does that mean I can trade in my '96 Toyota Corolla (which still gets 34 mpg) and get $10,000 towards my new Dodge Ram?

OK, the thread title is hyperbole. But did anyone else catch this tidbit in President Obama's latest speech?