Storm over the Mormons - for Non-Mormons

[Magic Man]

I knew you wouldn't get it.

No, I get it. That's why I explained it as "convoluted rationalizations". I'm just trying to get that across to you.

It's not the same at all.

OK. You weren't allowed to practice polygamy for a long time, and then all of a sudden you were, and then you weren't again. Regardless of what you call it (doctrine, or permission, or what have you), it's something that was not allowed and then allowed and then not allowed.

Was there ever a time when plural marriage was not doctrine? No.

Was there ever a time when same sex marriage was not doctrine? Yes.

Answer X does not equal Answer Y.

They are different.

You're still looking at it in terms of the covoluted terms your religion likes to use to rationalize things. Doctrine or not, plural marriage was not allowed at first, and then it magically was, and then all of a sudden it wasn't anymore. That's as basic as it gets. Just stop thinking in terms of "doctrine" and such. That only complicates matters unnecessarily.

 

[Sunstone]

It is acceptable - it's just not practiced.

Maybe you missed the part where I said the doctrine was the same - even before Joseph Smith started practicing it.

The doctrine has always been that permission was required. Throughout history, sometimes we've had permission. Sometimes we have not. Whether or not we have permission has nothing to do with the validity of plural marriage.

Gay marriage on the other hand has always been prohibited. It's not a situation where permission may be given or taken away.

Interesting distinction. But I still figure the church will come up with an out in years to come.

 

[Watchmen]

No, I get it. That's why I explained it as "convoluted rationalizations". I'm just trying to get that across to you.



OK. You weren't allowed to practice polygamy for a long time, and then all of a sudden you were, and then you weren't again. Regardless of what you call it (doctrine, or permission, or what have you), it's something that was not allowed and then allowed and then not allowed.



You're still looking at it in terms of the covoluted terms your religion likes to use to rationalize things. Doctrine or not, plural marriage was not allowed at first, and then it magically was, and then all of a sudden it wasn't anymore. That's as basic as it gets. Just stop thinking in terms of "doctrine" and such. That only complicates matters unnecessarily.

But when it was not allowed the first time it was still doctrine - it was still in the canon. That's the distinction and I can't be any more plain. If it's convuluted it's only because you make it so.

 

[Autodidact]

Hey, Watchmen, call it what you want, just speed the day.

 

[Katzpur]

You're still looking at it in terms of the covoluted terms your religion likes to use to rationalize things. Doctrine or not, plural marriage was not allowed at first, and then it magically was, and then all of a sudden it wasn't anymore. That's as basic as it gets. Just stop thinking in terms of "doctrine" and such. That only complicates matters unnecessarily.

Explain the "magical" part. That's where you lost me.

Why should we stop thinking of it as "doctrine" when that's what it is? There are (1) doctrines and there are (2) policies and practices. You may not make a distinction between the two, but we do and since it's our religion, we get to call the shots. The only time it gets complicated is when someone who doesn't know any better insists on mixing up the two.

 

[Watchmen]

No, Katzpur, you're wrong. All the gays and atheists know better than us. Forget about all your years in the church - all your years in primary, sunday school, relief society, seminary, family home evening, scripture reading, mutual, general conference, ward conference, stake conference, temple sessions, and so on. Forget it all. They no better than us. We must have been absent when they gave the "magical" lesson.

 

[Sunstone]

But when it was not allowed the first time it was still doctrine - it was still in the canon. That's the distinction and I can't be any more plain. If it's convuluted it's only because you make it so.

Frubals for explaining in this thread how the Church looks at it. I figure the Church will at some point in the future drop its political opposition to gay marriage, and maybe even go so far as to figure out a way Mormons can be theologically reconciled to gay marriage. But given the distinction you've drawn, that's going to be an uphill task.

 

[DeepShadow]

You're still looking at it in terms of the covoluted terms your religion likes to use to rationalize things.

This isn't rationalizing, it's tracking a specific process. Like it or not, these distinctions between "doctrine" and "practice" are what the church had to negotiate to make any prior changes, and they'll have to go through them again to make new ones.

To ignore the process while demanding the result is like a child demanding ice cream when there's none in the house, and then throwing a fit when Mom and Dad talk about going to the store. This is the process we have to go through.

 

[linwood]

This isn't rationalizing, it's tracking a specific process.

DS, there will be no agreement on this subject.

I just want you to understand that anyone who is not indoctrinated and immersed in Mormon ideology can only see this for what it is.

It`s rationalizing.

You will never convince any non-mormon it is anything else as we aren`t seeing the world through an urim and thummim.

 

[Father Heathen]

Oh - I hate this ****.

The Mormons hate me - the gays hate me - father heathen hates me.

The fact that I can't make anyone happy probably means I'm right.

I'm tired of this.

Hate you? I think you take **** waaay too personally. I hate no one. I just hate logical fallacies and inconsistencies, and is it not understandable that one might be passionate about equality, liberty, rights and justice?

 

[DeepShadow]

I just want you to understand that anyone who is not indoctrinated and immersed in Mormon ideology can only see this for what it is.

It`s rationalizing.

...okay, then it's a rationalization process that will have to be repeated. Call it what you want, Watchmen is describing the process by which the church might change in the future. You can call that process whatever you want, but lumping all the features together and calling them identical doesn't help the situation.

If we're going to change positions on this, we'll have to do it without disturbing a certain set of ideas. Call them "doctrines" or "ideals" or "covenants" or "blue jays" or "rationalizations," but they are the obstacles in the say of reconciling these ideas. Frankly, I'm shocked that Sunstone is the only one who has figured out that Watchmen is giving you the basic diplomatic tools to deal with Mormons on this issue. You're just like the Catholic missionaries who got all offended when the Incas tried to exchange myth-tales with them.

 

[DeepShadow]

Frubals for explaining in this thread how the Church looks at it. I figure the Church will at some point in the future drop its political opposition to gay marriage, and maybe even go so far as to figure out a way Mormons can be theologically reconciled to gay marriage. But given the distinction you've drawn, that's going to be an uphill task.

Frubals for recognizing the intent of Watchmen's post. If it weren't for you, I'd think Linwood might be right.

 

[Magic Man]

But when it was not allowed the first time it was still doctrine - it was still in the canon. That's the distinction and I can't be any more plain. If it's convuluted it's only because you make it so.

I'm not sure how to make it any more plain to you. It's only convoluted because the Mormon church makes it so. Something wasn't allowed, then it was, now it isn't again. The terms the church uses for those different situations to rationalize them are meaningless.

Explain the "magical" part. That's where you lost me.

Well, one day it was allowed, and then the next it wasn't, just because someone decided it was.

No, Katzpur, you're wrong. All the gays and atheists know better than us. Forget about all your years in the church - all your years in primary, sunday school, relief society, seminary, family home evening, scripture reading, mutual, general conference, ward conference, stake conference, temple sessions, and so on. Forget it all. They no better than us. We must have been absent when they gave the "magical" lesson.

Who said we know it better than you? All I'm doing is simplifying it. There's no real need for the terms you use.

This isn't rationalizing, it's tracking a specific process. Like it or not, these distinctions between "doctrine" and "practice" are what the church had to negotiate to make any prior changes, and they'll have to go through them again to make new ones.

To ignore the process while demanding the result is like a child demanding ice cream when there's none in the house, and then throwing a fit when Mom and Dad talk about going to the store. This is the process we have to go through.

Who's demanding the result? We're saying gay marriage is going to be legalized, and then at some point, the Mormon church will magically accept it.

And, yes, it is rationalizing. I'm sure the church will jump through the same hoops to make gay marriage suddenly OK.

 

[Watchmen]

mball, I'll have to direct you to Phil from now on because he's the only non-Mormon who "gets it."

 

[Magic Man]

...okay, then it's a rationalization process that will have to be repeated.

And that's exactly what we're saying.

Call it what you want, Watchmen is describing the process by which the church might change in the future. You can call that process whatever you want, but lumping all the features together and calling them identical doesn't help the situation.

If we're going to change positions on this, we'll have to do it without disturbing a certain set of ideas. Call them "doctrines" or "ideals" or "covenants" or "blue jays" or "rationalizations," but they are the obstacles in the say of reconciling these ideas. Frankly, I'm shocked that Sunstone is the only one who has figured out that Watchmen is giving you the basic diplomatic tools to deal with Mormons on this issue. You're just like the Catholic missionaries who got all offended when the Incas tried to exchange myth-tales with them.

I'm not sure you quite understand what happened here. Autodidact said that after gay marriage was made legal, the Mormon church would at some point suddenly make it acceptable, as they've done with other things. Watchmen said they wouldn't do that, and explained that that's because of the distinction surrounding "doctrine" and such.

 

[Magic Man]

mball, I'll have to direct you to Phil from now on because he's the only non-Mormon who "gets it."

I get it, which is probably why he's saying the same thing I am, just in a different way. As I said, it's very convoluted, which is the way the process will be for making gay marriage acceptable to the church.

 

[linwood]

Frankly, I'm shocked that Sunstone is the only one who has figured out that Watchmen is giving you the basic diplomatic tools to deal with Mormons on this issue.

I don`t plan on dealing with religious bigots on this or any other social topic.
I plan on running over their ideology as has been the progression of humanity for as long as I know.
Their myths have no place in my life.

You're just like the Catholic missionaries who got all offended when the Incas tried to exchange myth-tales with them.

I`m not offended at all, just slightly amused and disgusted.

Not to mention that your comparison is entirely misplaced as your ideology isn`t attempting to share anything.
It is attempting deny people the very same rights you already possess.

That`s the disgusting part.

Your rationalizations are nothing to me, I couldn`t be less interested.

 

[DeepShadow]

I'm not sure you quite understand what happened here. Autodidact said that after gay marriage was made legal, the Mormon church would at some point suddenly make it acceptable, as they've done with other things. Watchmen said they wouldn't do that, and explained that that's because of the distinction surrounding "doctrine" and such.

He said it wouldn't happen THAT WAY. And in the process, he laid out the architecture of ideology that the would have to be negotiated for it to change ANY OTHER WAY.

Anyone who comes to the table hoping to get the church to change on an issue will have to respect that architecture of ideology. Tossing the architecture aside as "rationalization" is not respecting it, even if it's true.

Hopefully the people who talk to our church leaders about this issue will be more like Sunstone.

 

[DeepShadow]

I don`t plan on dealing with religious bigots on this or any other social topic.
I plan on running over their ideology as has been the progression of humanity for as long as I know.

WOW, Linwood, you should make that your sig!

 

[Magic Man]

He said it wouldn't happen THAT WAY. And in the process, he laid out the architecture of ideology that the would have to be negotiated for it to change ANY OTHER WAY.

Look, all I'm saying is that it will change. I don't care how it will change, it will.

Anyone who comes to the table hoping to get the church to change on an issue will have to respect that architecture of ideology. Tossing the architecture aside as "rationalization" is not respect it, even if it's true.

Again, who's coming to the table hoping to get the church to change on an issue? All we're saying is that once the goal of legalization for gay marriage is reached, only then will the Mormon church decide it's OK.

Hopefully the people who talk to our church leaders about this issue will be more like Sunstone.

I'm sorry you misinterpretted what was going on here.