tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8254272216866737058.post3118075775202686718..comments2024-02-14T14:53:03.810-07:00Comments on Καθολικός διάκονος: "Then shall they be gods, because they have no end" (D&C 132:20)Deacon Scotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01385969740195992108noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8254272216866737058.post-19990102808245149212009-03-26T19:58:00.000-06:002009-03-26T19:58:00.000-06:00Nothing of worth to say other than this is a very ...Nothing of worth to say other than this is a very interesting post. And I don't watch TV, but I would find Big Love interesting if they tackled some of the (obvious?) difficulties of trying to live a polygamous lifestyle as a norm.The Ironic Catholicnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8254272216866737058.post-4003329344140999202009-03-26T21:14:00.000-06:002009-03-26T21:14:00.000-06:00We don't watch much tv either that is why we&#...We don't watch much tv either that is why we're watching it on DvD. In a way, it is the same argument used to justify gay marriage, namely that it is so weird and wrong because society does not accept it.<br><br>I'll tell you the story of my great-great grandmother, who was forcibly married to a my great-great grandfather and who disliked it tremendously. ONe of the reasons that the State of Utah is tolerant of it is because many of our leaders, like our governor, former governor, and attorney general do not oppose it on principle.Dcn Scott Dodgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09994604395739905637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8254272216866737058.post-50099565707210168142009-03-27T10:16:00.000-06:002009-03-27T10:16:00.000-06:00Polygamous roots here too. The current UT gov. and...Polygamous roots here too. The current UT gov. and I are distant relations, going back to the same polygamous people. Which, isn't saying too much. I have a lot of "cousins" because of these relationships.<br><br>Anyway! We DVR and watch Big Love at our house, ummm, religiously.<br><br>It gets into more depth, of their beliefs, and their struggles to live polygamy.<br><br>I agree it is an apologetic for living whatever kind of relationship you like, among consenting adults. One of the writers (there are several) is Dustin Lance Black. He was raised LDS and left for a homosexual lifestyle. He wrote the screen play for "Milk", a film about gay activist Harvey Milk. Who, became CA first openly gay elected official.Faith's Mysteryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15478185405784948950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8254272216866737058.post-86886244522186792452009-03-27T10:30:00.000-06:002009-03-27T10:30:00.000-06:00"He wrote the screen play for 'Milk'&...<i>"He wrote the screen play for 'Milk'"</i><br><br>Makes sense. I was surprised that Michael Bronski, reviewing the movie in <i>Cinaste</i>, lambasted <i>Milk</i> as a poor film. In both instances, the same agenda certainly seems to be in play.Dcn Scott Dodgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09994604395739905637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8254272216866737058.post-31666713224128969822009-03-28T11:44:00.000-06:002009-03-28T11:44:00.000-06:00In your blog you state that LDS allows plural marr...In your blog you state that LDS allows plural marriage aka polygamy in those nations where it is legal and you mention something about Gordon B. Hinckley saying this was so. I belive you are incorrect on this as former LDS President Hinckley clearly stated that "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. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows polygamy, the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage."<br><br>This is from speech given in October 1988. <a href="http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-22-26,00.html" rel="nofollow">Gordon B. Hinckley on Polygamy & Other Social Issues</a><br><br>The speech shows tha LDS are in basic agreement on issues of gay marriage with Catholics, but that LDS are more liberal on abortion issue that Catholic Church.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8254272216866737058.post-25917547729171969522009-03-28T13:08:00.000-06:002009-03-28T13:08:00.000-06:00First of all, thank you for your thoughtful and co...First of all, thank you for your thoughtful and constructive comment. In that same constructive spirit, I must point out that your reply simply begs the question. After all, what is at stake here is whether it is in fact the case that those who practice polygamy in countries where it can be done legally and openly are forbidden from joining the LDS Church. I think it is true that once somebody has joined, even in the countries that allow polygamy, if not a polygamist beforehand, they are not free to begin practicing it once a member.<br><br>When President Hinckley, in an interview on <a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0412/26/lkl.01.html" rel="nofollow"><i>Larry King Live</i></a> condemned polygamy and pointed to its illegality in the U.S., citing the 12th <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1" rel="nofollow"><i>A of F</i></a>, he also stated that it is not even doctrinal. If it is not doctrinal, then how does one get around <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132" rel="nofollow"><i>Doctrine & Covenants Section</i> 132</a>? It has been shown definitively by D. Michael Quinn and other historians that polygamy was practiced among the LDS after the 1890 <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/od/1" rel="nofollow"><i>Manifesto</i></a>, this was the primary reason for the establishment of the LDS colony in Juarez, Mexico, but the practice even persisted for a time right here in Utah in the Church after 1890. So, the <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/od/1" rel="nofollow"><i>Manifesto</i></a> did not end polygamy in the LDS Church.<br><br>While you are correct that we are politically in agreement about so-called gay marriage and about abortion, we differ considerably as to the bases on which we arrive at these political commitments, which, precisely as political commitments, are not the most important things. A man married to more than one woman is, sacramentally-speaking, as well as from the perspective of natural law, not married at all, probably not even to his first wife because he does not understand several important things about the very nature of marriage. In the same way, two people of the same sex, regardless of the depth of their commitment to each other, cannot be married. The fact of their not being able to enter into marriage does nothing to diminish whatever good that may be present in their relationship.Dcn Scott Dodgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09994604395739905637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8254272216866737058.post-13741748677754117662009-03-28T19:36:00.000-06:002009-03-28T19:36:00.000-06:00Yes read your comments on subject of plural marria...Yes read your comments on subject of plural marriage aka polygamy. Went to LDS church website and they are in agreement with your statement about some plural marriages continueing after manifesto. From LDS website: "The Bible indicates that Abraham, Jacob, and others of the Lord’s servants had multiple wives (see Genesis 16:1–3; 29:23–30; 30:4, 9; Judges 8:30; 1 Samuel 1:1–2). Joseph Smith asked God why He had permitted this practice and was told that God had commanded it for specific purposes. One reason given by the Lord for plural marriage is mentioned in the Book of Mormon: “If I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall [have only one wife]” (Jacob 2:30; see also v. 27). <br><br>After God revealed the doctrine of plural marriage to Joseph Smith in 1831 and commanded him to live it, the Prophet, over a period of years, cautiously taught the doctrine to some close associates. Eventually, he and a small number of Church leaders entered into plural marriages in the early years of the Church. Those who practiced plural marriage at that time, both male and female, experienced a significant trial of their faith. The practice was so foreign to them that they needed and received personal inspiration from God to help them obey the commandment. <br><br>When the Saints moved west under the direction of Brigham Young, more Latter-day Saints entered into plural marriages. <br><br>Influenced by rumors and exaggerated reports, the United States Congress, beginning in 1862, enacted a series of laws against polygamy that became increasingly harsh. By the 1880s many Latter-day Saint men were imprisoned or went into hiding. <br><br>In 1889 in the face of increasing hardships and the threat of government confiscation of Church property, including temples, Wilford Woodruff, President of the Church at the time, prayed for guidance. He was inspired to issue a document that officially ended the sanction of plural marriage by the Church. The document, called the Manifesto, was accepted by Church members in a general conference held in October 1890 and is published in the Doctrine and Covenants as Official Declaration 1 (see also “Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto” following Official Declaration 1). <br><br>Just as the practice of plural marriage among the Latter-day Saints began gradually, the ending of the practice after the Manifesto was also gradual. Some plural marriages were performed after the Manifesto, particularly in Mexico and Canada. In 1904, President Joseph F. Smith called for a vote from the Church membership that all post-Manifesto plural marriages be prohibited worldwide. <br><br>More recently, President Gordon B. Hinckley has reiterated that plural marriage is “against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows [the practice of a man having more than one wife], the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage” (“What Are People Asking about Us?” Ensign, Nov. 1998, 72). <br><br>Groups who teach polygamy today are not part of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."<br><br><a href="http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&index=16&sourceId=9887ec6f164b2110VgnVCM100000176f620a____" rel="nofollow">Polygamy</a><br><br>As too D&C 132, it like many parts of scripture in Bible we no longer follow such as references to slavery, we no longer allow slavery even though scriptures allow for it. Revelation changes things just as the Apostle Peter received revelation about clean & unclean things, the parts of the Bible about unclean foods remains, just not follwed. See Acts 10 vrs 10 to 16.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8254272216866737058.post-32988933023612624092009-03-28T20:39:00.000-06:002009-03-28T20:39:00.000-06:00As Christians, the reason we do not follow a lot o...As Christians, the reason we do not follow a lot of what is taught in the Jewish Scriptures, or, what is commonly referred to as the Old Testament, is that we read these texts through the lens of the New Testament. For example, look at <i>Acts</i> 15 for an account of the relationship of Gentile converts to Christianity to the Law of Moses. Despite this ruling, Judaizers persisted in the Church for some time, including Peter, who could not seem to make up his mind about this issue, even after his experience in Joppa with Cornelius. It is not a case of God changing His mind, the Law was fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ.<br><br>The version of polygamy you present is highly selective and not exactly in accord with the documented facts. There is a lot of good literature, some of which is written by Latter-day Saints, like Richard Bushman, that paints a more accurate picture of both Joseph Smith, Jr.'s polygamist activities, including taking the wives of other men and secretly <i>"marrying"</i> teenage girls, and polygamy as it was subsequently practiced in the LDS Church, even after the <i>Manifesto</i>. The practice of polygamy ended because to continue it was to threaten the very existence of LDS Church.<br><br>Peter's revelation that he could dine with the Roman Cornelius and his family is not akin to revelation changing, it is an indication of the fulfillment of the prophecy first given to Abraham in <i>Genesis</i> 22 that through his seed all the nations of the earth would be blessed. Of course, this was Jesus Christ, who allows all to share in the one covenant God establishes between Himself and humanity. This thread about the covenant extending beyond Israel to encompass the whole world is a thread that runs consistently throughout the Jewish Scriptures, in prophets Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Isaiah, and in an especially strong and even humorous manner in <i>The Book of Jonah</i>. As to the relationship of Jesus Christ to the Law, I refer anyone to <i>Romans</i>, roughly chapters 5-9.<br><br>Besides, if what you say is true, why can a man be sealed to more than one woman for time and eternity, even if he is only free to do so after the death of his previous wife? In other words, there is nothing in LDS belief or practice that would lead one to conclude anything other than that the LDS accept plural marriage as a theological and eternal principle.<br><br>God does not change or change His mind. God is not capricious. This was the subject of Pope Benedict's Regensburg address with regard to certain strands of Islamic thought.Dcn Scott Dodgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09994604395739905637noreply@blogger.com