Comments about ‘Answering questions about marriage and family’

Thanks to the Eyres for some linguistic help on a very difficult subject. I don't know if we will ever get to a time when people "get it" that we don't do polygamy! I guess all we can do in the meantime is be patient and give clear but strong answers....and maybe, like this article suggests, use the questions to talk about how important families are to us and to testify of the eternal nature (and eternal relevance) of families.

I am so glad there are people who see the difference between "curious about the Church" and "interested in the Church"! A few years ago one of the speakers in General Conference also made this distinction. I remember vividly when I was asked to help as the missionaries taught a girl who was an exchange student living in an LDS family. They had more or less nagged at her to take the discussions "in order to understand what we believe", which she finally agreed to. I waas thoroughly disheartened when the missionaries started pushing her to pray about things they were teaching - she only wanted to understand what we believed. Needless to say, she never let them teach her again. If they had shown respect and just given her information, she might have pondered it and gone from "curious" to "interrested", but she never got the chance.

What is an appropriate response when people ask about polyandry?

Question: How is it that spending a few hours on one weeknight as a family, coupled with Church sporting and youth activities that separate children from parents and from each other outside of the home, in addition to a fixation with one's dead ancestors, evidence of "very strong" family ties?

Re:Polygamy existed on a limited basis, partially because the frontier life and the persecution that the church was suffering had reduced the number of active male members and there were women and children who needed to be taken care of.

LDS Apostle John Widtsoe: The most common of these conjectures is that the Church, through plural marriage, sought to provide husbands for its large surplus of female members. The implied assumption in this theory, that there have been more females than male members in the Church, is not supported by existing evidence. On the contrary, there seem always to have been more males than females in the Churchâ¦The United States census records from 1850 to 1940, and all available Church records, uniformly show a preponderance of males in Utah, and in the Church. Indeed, the excess in Utah has usually been larger than for the whole United Statesâ¦. (Evidences and Reconciliations, pages 390-391)

"Mormons have a highly family-centric theology, believing that God is literally our spiritual father and that we lived as spirit persons with our heavenly parents before coming to this earth. Marriage and procreation provide the physical bodies that allow additional spiritual siblings to come from the spiritual pre-life into mortality. Hopefully, understanding that we have these beliefs makes it easier for others to see why we feel it is so important to protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and to understand that the church is not anti-gay but pro-marriage."

The logic in this argument doesn't follow:

Gay couples cannot have children. Therefore, are the Eyre's suggesting that gay people should still get married in heterosexual marriages to effect child rearing? If not, then what is the relevance of gays marrying each other. Additionally if gay's do have children, then what? Are they of the "tough it out" breed who will urge people to persist in marriages that are miserable and doomed for failure on the aggregate?

Additionally, Sharrona is right - the census data does not justify the Eyre's population argument for the ratio of men to women.

"Sharrona is right - the census data does not justify the Eyre's population argument for the ratio of men to women."

But, you gotta admit that that is certainly a great sounding answer.

Even if it is factually challenged.

I have my own ideas on why polygamy and polyandry came about. And my reasoning makes perfect sense. But, it probably wouldn't get posted, so I will keep it to myself.

'Gay couples cannot have children.' - Mormoncowboy | 11:09 a.m. Feb. 3, 2012

This, is true.

But a few counter points to this claim in support of 'traditional families.'

1) Heterosexuals are not required, to actually HAVE children, in a marriage.

2) If child rearing was a requirement, you would be single after you could no longer, have children.

3) This is a simplistic claim. As gay people cannot have children, ON THEIR OWN...

however, we have many examples that use science, to create children.

Examples:

Octo-mom.
14 kids. No husband.

John and Kate plus 8. In-vitro fertilization to have six children and raise two more. The couple is now divorced.

I mean no disrespect to you personally, cowboy...

I just want to point out the logical holes in the claim of child-rearing.

HOLD ON HERE, we hear the word's of "Family First", but here's two guys that forget what it means, to talk about this garbage, and ignore the real truths. Many have noted that President Barack Obama seems to have a bit of a messianic complex. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said in a speech on the Senate floor that Obama has taken it too far and must remember that he's not Jesus Christ. Hatch said. "Someone needs to remind the president that there was only one person who walked on water, and he did not occupy the Oval Office." Hatch, of course, was referring to Jesus. Then you got this guy. The jobless rate reported today is "corrupt as it can be" because President Barack Obama's administration has decreased the size of the workforce, Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show. According to the Department of Labor, employers added almost a quarter of a million jobs in January. According to Limbaugh, it eliminated 2 1/2 million positions. The number of jobs not available to be filled exploded by an unprecedented, record number of 1.2 million, he said.

Continued below

"Family First" Part II

Continued "Falily First" Part II

All should boycott J.C. Penney if they stand behind Ellen DeGeneres. While your company is a household name, I do not agree with your irresponsible choice of standing behind gay marriage. The homosexual content is highly offensive and not family-friendly advertising. Two major American department stores came under fire by a homophobic hate group today, making us wish we had more money to spend at those stores. First came news that Macy's had ticked off the group One Million Moms because the company featured a wedding cake with two grooms on in a wedding-registry promotion in its most recent mail catalog. Funny that JCPenney thinks hiring an open homosexual spokesperson will help their business when most of their customers are traditional families. More sales will be lost than gained unless they replace their spokesperson quickly. Degeneres is not a true representation of the type of families that shop at their store. The majority of JC Penney shoppers will be offended and choose to no longer shop there.


I told you I would tell you the truths.

I didn't say you would like them.

These are my views, not yours.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not allowed polygamy. We believe in marriage between a man and a woman, male and female, husband and wife only. "Family First".

Not garbage like this below.

All should boycott J.C. Penney if they stand behind Ellen DeGeneres. While your company is a household name, I do not agree with your irresponsible choice of standing behind gay marriage. The homosexual content is highly offensive and not family-friendly advertising. Two major American department stores came under fire by a homophobic hate group today, making us wish we had more money to spend at those stores. First came news that Macy's had ticked off the group One Million Moms because the company featured a wedding cake with two grooms on in a wedding-registry promotion in its most recent mail catalog. Funny that JCPenney thinks hiring an open homosexual spokesperson will help their business when most of their customers are traditional families. More sales will be lost than gained unless they replace their spokesperson quickly. Degeneres is not a true representation of the type of families that shop at their store.

WE are offended by these evil persons.

Lastly here, for someone that serves Utah with Pork and Earmarks, and is a Member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (like I am to), he's talking about the leader of his (Jesus Christ) and our Church when he says this. "Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said in a speech on the Senate floor that Obama has taken it too far and must remember that he's not Jesus Christ. Hatch said. "Someone needs to remind the president that there was only one person who walked on water, and he did not occupy the Oval Office." Hatch, of course, was referring to Jesus".

Therefore disfellowshiping is in proper order here to. Plus he needs to be removed from his seat in Office Nov. 2012.

"Family First."

As I have said on many occassions polgamy was practiced on a limited basis. One had to be called and asked to enter into a polgamus relationship. Generally those who did had the means to do so. I come from a polgamy ancestry. I have no regrets nor do I apologize for my ancestors. One reason is because I don't know the reason why they were called to obey this practice at that time. Therefore, it is not my place to decide who is wrong or who is right. Do I believe it was directed through a prophet of the Lord and by Jesus Christ himself who directed it? Yes, by all means. Do I also believe it was the Lord Jesus Christ who told President Wilford to stop the practice? Yes. Nothing else matters after that. The reasons will be revealed to us in the Millenium.

I hold to the Proclamation to the World, The Family as the Lord's revelation through his prophets to direct us in these the Latter Days, the dispensation of the fullnes of time. That document isn't for just Latter Day Saints but the entire world. I hold to that and it carry's the warning that goes with it.

The family is fine and should be the anchor to society.

I do not believe any one is saying "Family Second." If anyone is, I would like to see, otherwise, the argument is preaching to the choir.

My comments, how do you advance beliefs that promote families where the family consists of a heterosexual couple --- with or without children.

In essence, what do you with:

Single adults? (gay or straight) Do they receive salvation?

Gay people in committed relationships? Is the gospel not for them/us as well?