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.