06-06-2006, 03:16 PM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
Quote:
For the record, however, I don't think that the First PResidency is likely to be relying on this sort of lawyer-ish interpretational technique to take the position that it has. Instead, I think it is more likely that they are urging support for broader reasons.
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
|
06-06-2006, 03:24 PM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
This does pose an interesting question for the courts: would it be unconstitutional for an LDS person to remarry in the temple for time and all eternity since, according to the belief of the person trying to remarry, he would already be currently married to someone else. I doubt very much the law would hinge on the subjective belief of the person being married, but it is always a possibility. |
|
06-06-2006, 03:31 PM | #23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
Quote:
You may be right, of course, although there is some iurony in ther fact that you are arguing the language isn't ambiguous, given some of your earlier claims about the danger of such an amendment. Either wya, as I said, I am reasonably sure this is not the basis for the church's approach.
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
|
06-06-2006, 03:45 PM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
I think I just explained that very question. As for what I said earlier, my statement was that either: 1) this amendment is not ambiguous and it is dangerous (my opinion) or 2) it is ambiguous (others' opinion, you included I think) and could lead to dangerous application by the courts. Anyway, my position is very well-known on this topic, so I will get out of this debate and let the rest of you hammer away at it for a while. Last edited by Cali Coug; 06-06-2006 at 03:54 PM. |
|
06-06-2006, 04:00 PM | #25 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,016
|
Quote:
|
|
06-06-2006, 04:00 PM | #26 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
06-06-2006, 04:03 PM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
Quote:
Secoind, You did not EXPLAIN the question, you merely asserted that bringing "a second man or woman . . . into the union" makes the relationship run afoul of the proposed amendment's language. WHy? THe amendmnent says a marriage is between a man and a woman, but it says nothing about how many marriages one man can enter simultaneously. Just as one person can be a member of multiple business patnerships simultaneously, why can't a man (or a woman) be in mulitple marriages simultaneously, under this proposed amnedment, as long as they are all between a man and a woman? IOW, the second wife or husband would not be "introduced" into the existing union. Instead, the second wife or husband would be part of a new and unique union. Nothing in the amendment says it must be an exclusive relationship. What about the amewndment says you can't have more than one marriage simultaneously? If you once again think I am simply missing your clear explanation, I will leave it at that; I certainly have been known to miss things before.
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
|
06-06-2006, 04:50 PM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
|
Irony
I just wanted to respond to hoya and fusnik on the issue of whether the church's current position and past paractice are, when viewed together, ironic or not and then I am going to walk away from this debate for now.
The following statements are intended to demonstrate by analogy why I believe there is no irony and why I do not believe any explanation for what is percieved as an inconsistency by some is required: Joseph Smith drank alcohol. It is ironic that he later revealed the word of wisdom and we are owed an explanation for this incosistency. Nephi cut Laban's head off. Yet later when Laman and Lemuel seek to kill Lehi and Nephi, Nephi just listens as the voice of the Lord rebukes them. This is ironic that it is okay to murder sometimes but not other times and this inconsistency should be explained. The church at one time told all membersof the church to come to the Salt Lake valley, yet now they encourage college students to go to school locally and build up the institue where they live. This is ironic and the incosistency should be explained. At one time the members of the church lived the law of consecration but during the 20th century, the church derided "communal" and socialist forms of government as antithetical to free agency. This is ironic and requires explanation. The children of Israel were commanded to live the law of Moses which included animal sacrifice. Christ told his disciples that they should no longer do this. This is ironic and requires explanation. 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.
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo Last edited by UtahDan; 06-06-2006 at 04:53 PM. |
06-06-2006, 05:06 PM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,506
|
Joseph Smith example not applicable as the Word of Wisdom initially wasn't instituted for complete constraint.....
Here is why it is ironic... The church still practices polygamy. A man is still allowed to join himself in polygamous sealings. Couple the current doctrine, and policy with the past and you find the irony of a church throwing it's weight behind an amendment that calls for traditional marriage to be between 'a' woman and 'a' man..... If the church truly had disavowed itself from polygamy, like it has alcohol, like it has the thought of coming to Zion, as it has the law of consecration, naturally no irony would exist, but since it has not, and continues to allow for polygamous sealings, it's wholly ironic.... |
06-06-2006, 05:10 PM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,175
|
Quote:
Therefore, what? Are you just pointing out irony for the sake of pointing it out? |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|