We have always had that view.
What? Actually the church has never held that view.
The church historically practiced polygamy and continues to include polygamy as a part of its doctrine. (I know many LDS men who are "sealed" — or religiously married — to multiple women who have either died or divorced them, meaning they believe that after they die they will have multiple wives.)
We can quibble over whether the word "recognize" makes the statement technically true about the church's current stance — I can already anticipate someone pointing out that the church doesn't currently ask the government to "recognize" polygamous temple marriages — but in the past the church absolutely wanted to have open, real-world polygamous marriages that were recognized. So from a historical perspective this statement is nothing short of a lie.
And I'd disagree with the counter argument over the word "recognize" and say it's pretty close to a lie about the church's current postion; after all the church itself "recognizes" polygamous marriages, even if the government doesn't.
I'm all for rigorous debate on this topic. I understand and respect the fact that many gay marriage proponents and Mormons (and people who are both, such as myself) have varying views on this topic.
But I'm nothing short of appalled when an official statement includes something that is so obviously misleading.
This post interested me because you say "the church has never held that view" in regards to marriage only being between a man and a woman, but then your sole argument is polygamy. What does that have to do with the above statement?
ReplyDeleteThe LDS Church didn't say in its statement that its always had the view of marriage being between only ONE man and ONE woman. The statement said the LDS Church has always had the view of marriage being between MAN (male) and WOMAN (female). That can include marriage being between one man and several women (like it once did but no longer does), but does not (and never has, like the statement said) include man to man, or woman to woman.
It is okay if you don't support the LDS Church's response, but please don't claim it to be false just because you don't understand or agree with it.
Keri, thanks for reading! I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree in this case because I still think the statement was false. I would argue that saying "a man" or "a woman" is basically equivalent to saying "one man" or "one woman." Otherwise, why not say "men and women" or something along those lines?
DeleteEven it it had say "marriage between man and woman" as you allude to, that would have been more factually correct, as those terms have historically been used in the proverbial sense. But to insert an "a" between each noun is to make it singular. I think the church did this on purpose to boot, in order to obfuscate the historic practice of polygamy. At very best, this was a very sloppily written press release, though I'm doubtful the church would do something so haphazardly.
Anyway, I think it's also worth pointing out that the church still absolutely believes in polygamy. It's part of the doctrine of the church and polygamous marriages are performed all the time in the temple. I know plenty of men who are sealed to multiple women, and if you're a practicing Mormon I'm sure you do was well. Polygamy was "ended" as an "earthly" practice for political reasons, but the doctrine hasn't really changed (which is unfortunately in my opinion).
Anyway, like I said, I doubt either of us are going to persuade the other, but based on my my background as a writer, teacher and rhetorician I think my interpretation of the statement is correct. I suspect you feel similarly about your own interpretation.