06-06-2006, 05:19 PM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Clinton Township, MI
Posts: 3,126
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Its all about the suit |
|
06-06-2006, 05:20 PM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,506
|
Quote:
Do I agree with the church and this amendment? Nope..... |
|
06-06-2006, 05:23 PM | #33 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,175
|
Quote:
Therefore, what? Does this mean you just have something else to complain about regarding the church? |
|
06-06-2006, 05:27 PM | #34 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,506
|
Quote:
|
|
06-06-2006, 05:29 PM | #35 | |
Board Pinhead
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the basement of my house, Murray, Utah.
Posts: 15,941
|
Quote:
__________________
"The beauty of baseball is not having to explain it." - Chuck Shriver "This is now the joke that stupid people laugh at." - Christopher Hitchens on IQ jokes about GWB. |
|
06-06-2006, 05:29 PM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,175
|
That's cool. You don't want to answer the question, just say so.
|
06-06-2006, 05:35 PM | #37 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,506
|
Quote:
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. |
|
06-06-2006, 05:40 PM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,175
|
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. |
06-06-2006, 05:44 PM | #39 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,506
|
Quote:
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. |
|
06-07-2006, 12:57 AM | #40 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
__________________
Masquerading as Cougarguards very own genius dumbass since 05'. |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|