Text of Marriage amendment

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

There are only two possible explanations for all of this:

1. The leaders of the church, whatever dispensation you are taking about, make things up as they go along and then offer post hoc rationalizations for their behavior (or don't or can't explain it at all).

2. God gives us instruction and guidance for our day that is often inconsistent with guidance and instruction He has given a thousand years ago, one hundred years ago, or yesterday.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I struggle to understand how one can find irony (and apparently with some relish) in the current position of the church and believe number 2 (above) to be true. If you don't believe 2 then we really are going to continue to talk past one another. Anyone who wants the last word on this may have it.

Don't you think the difference between your analagous examples and this situation. Polygamy is a doctrine of the church right? Indeed, The Lord commanded Joseph Smith to practice it: "Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.” (D&C 132.32)

Wilford Woodruff’s 1890 Manifesto (Official Declaration #1) clearly demonstrates that the practice of polygamy was abandoned because of the laws “enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages . . . I [Woodruff] hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws.” At no point does he write that the doctrine of polygamy was to be abandoned, or that it was erroneous. He merely indicates that the church has stopped because of the laws of the land. In fact, Pres. Woodruff allowed polygamous marriages for those who were living outside of the USA, such as the saints in Mexico. Presidents Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, and Joseph F. Smith all sanctioned some plural marriages, even illegally in the US, as late as 1904.

Although I’m open to the idea that we no longer believe this to be correct doctrine, I have yet to hear/read/see anything of substance from today’s church leadership dealing with these apparent inconsistencies. If they want to tell us that the Lord only wants marriages between one man and one woman, that’s fine; I just would like some clarification on the historical interpretation of this doctrine.

I’m guess I am not so sure I want the federal government defining marriage for me – especially when it entails acceptance of a definition that may not coincide with the doctrines of the church.

All though one thing that no one ever mentions is the financial impact this could have. The tax advantages of being married are quite nice. If homosexuals could get married it essentially would would force all our taxes to increase (although I concede that the effects could possibly be small). You have a certain amount of tax revenue. You pass a law that lowers that tax revenue well to get that back you would have raise taxes for everyone. Again how much they would raise is debate but that issue is still out there. I guess for me the most important aspect in this debate is the possibility of paying more money so I am in favor of keeping a marriage between a man and a woman.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

As President Packer likes to say,

Therefore, what?

Are you just pointing out irony for the sake of pointing it out?

He asked why it was ironic, I supplied reason why I believed it was....

Do I agree with the church and this amendment?

Nope.....

[JohnnyLingo]

Do I agree with the church and this amendment?

Nope.....

At the risk of sounding like a broken record player...

Therefore, what?

Does this mean you just have something else to complain about regarding the church?

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

At the risk of sounding like a broken record player...

Therefore, what?

Does this mean you just have something else to complain about regarding the church?

What is the purpose in you asking this question?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

All though one thing that no one ever mentions is the financial impact this could have. The tax advantages of being married are quite nice. If homosexuals could get married it essentially would would force all our taxes to increase (although I concede that the effects could possibly be small). You have a certain amount of tax revenue. You pass a law that lowers that tax revenue well to get that back you would have raise taxes for everyone. Again how much they would raise is debate but that issue is still out there. I guess for me the most important aspect in this debate is the possibility of paying more money so I am in favor of keeping a marriage between a man and a woman.

This is exactly why I am for the amendment. I pay enough in taxes and don't want to pay any more than I have to.

[JohnnyLingo]

That's cool. You don't want to answer the question, just say so.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

That's cool. You don't want to answer the question, just say so.

I answered your question....

I posted what I did because I thought the church's position was highly ironic and I did not agree with the church throwing its weight around publically with its membership.

[JohnnyLingo]

Okay.

So it has no bearing on anything. You're not planning on writing any letters or rethinking your membership in the church over this.

I see.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Okay.

So it has no bearing on anything. You're not planning on writing any letters or rethinking your membership in the church over this.

I see.

You are a pretty sad dude....

I wrote my share of letters this week concerning the political actions of the church as requested. I am voicing my opinion here.....

Why you take exception, or ask stupid questions is beyond me.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by All-American

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."


From the looks of it, the wording would eliminate the legitimacy of "civil unions" or other unions similar to marriage.

Thoughts?

That's great. It's exactly how it should be.