Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiannan
MarginOfError, the Prophet Nathan pointed out to David that God had given him 6 wives (opps, God gave him this blessing) and then David had to go and arrange the death of an innocent man to get his wife. So the sin was not polygamy if God was the author of the blessing. The reason for Nathan's analogy of someone rich and then taking something from someone that didn't have as much was intended to illustrate David's selfish act. Again, polygamy was never the question.
|
Was this not a polygamous marriage that was not sanctioned by God. That there is very relevant.
Quote:
|
And again, for you to bring up our church to condemn these people would be akin to condemning them for eating pork since eating pork is considered a transgression by orthodox Jews. These polygamists are not Jews so a rabbi would have no greater authority to them than Thomas Monson. As for saying it's immoral based on the law you have to remember that laws can change. Pornography used to be illegal and now it's widespread and legal in the USA. Yet in China it's illegal. So because it's legal in the USA is it moral? Same with polygamy. Polygamy is legal in many nations so does that make geography the most important factor in whether something is moral or not? God is no respector of persons or governments. Polygamists in the USA feel that the teachings of God promoted by Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, John Taylor, etc. are still valid and should take a superior position in people's lives than the laws of a flawed state.
|
Morality is a fluid construct that changes over time and, yes, geography. Polygamists in the USA are certainly free to believe that certain teachings should take a superior position than the laws of the state. In doing so, however, they should be prepared to accept the consequences that the state imposes on them. There has been plenty of evidence to show that it won't change, the law suits defending the right to religious practices that are contrary to state law have been exhausted, and it won't change. They're stuck in a position where what they do is either illegal or it is immoral. You can't talk your way out of that, and you'll not find any General Authority to tell you differently.
Quote:
|
Oh, and Elphaba, maybe what SisterofJared is refering to is that if a man has two wives -- one with 6 kids and the other with 4 then they can qualify for food stamps per household but he can't be inluded as one of the members of both households. So the food stamp office would grant them assistance based on one household with a husband, wife and 6 kids while the other household would have to apply as a "single" mother with 4 kids.
|
Then the father should be paying child support to all of the families as well.