Mormon First Presidency member addresses Vatican assembly on 18 November

  • Thread starter Thread starter NeuroTypical
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
NeuroTypical said:
I just heard about this thing and was a bit excited:
Click to expand...
I won’t lie, I was a bit excited, too.

However, I’m converting from LDS to Catholic. So I was excited on both fronts.

If our leaders can love like this, why can’t we? :signofcross:
 
NeuroTypical said:
It looks like the colloquium happened. Here’s Pope Francis with LDS Apostle and member of the first presidency Henry B. Eyring in Vatican City:
http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/files/2014/11/1441851.jpg
(This must have been before they headed over to the beverage service. ;))

I don’t know why, but all my original links are dead. I’m looking for more, but searching for events that happened in the Vatican isn’t quite my forte - does anyone have active links?

I’d love to watch videos from this gathering, or read transcripts.

[edit] I found one news article:The Washington Post - Pope says children have a right to grow up in a family with a father and a mother
Click to expand...
Must have been a success. Nobody burst into flames. 😃
 
NeuroTypical said:
I found updated links: humanum.it/en/videos/#colloquium

It has highlights from many of the speakers. Looks like Pres. Eyring’s video is 7 from the left - you can also find the video here:
youtube.com/watch?v=ceDqz5ditH4

The full transcript of his talk (the Vatican is calling it a “witness”) is here:

TRANSCRIPT: President Eyring Addresses the Vatican Summit on Marriage
Click to expand...
You can watch what I think is his whole speech here on Youtube it’s 13 minutes long, I didn’t compare it to the transcript though, so I’m not sure it’s the whole thing. He is the most emotional speaker I’ve listened to so far.
 
zaffiroborant said:
I don’t see the Catholic church accommodating polygamy any more than they would accommodate same sex marriage.
Click to expand...
I apologize for my lack of clarity. I was not suggesting that the Catholic Church accept polygamy as an eternal, valid, conjugal relation. I was speaking in the context of a conference of people representing different faiths discussing marriage in relation to culture and civil society. In that context, it is important to “accommodate” (make allowances for the inclusion of) people - polygamists - with views different than the predominant view. I made no allusion towards accommodating polygamy. There will have to be a plan, of course, for polygamists transitioning into a non-polygamous marriage, culture, and civil society. But they should not be excluded for any particular sin, just as all other participants were allowed to participate despite their particular sins.
 
Tarquin said:
I apologize for my lack of clarity. I was not suggesting that the Catholic Church accept polygamy as an eternal, valid, conjugal relation. I was speaking in the context of a conference of people representing different faiths discussing marriage in relation to culture and civil society. In that context, it is important to “accommodate” (make allowances for the inclusion of) people - polygamists - with views different than the predominant view. I made no allusion towards accommodating polygamy. There will have to be a plan, of course, for polygamists transitioning into a non-polygamous marriage, culture, and civil society. But they should not be excluded for any particular sin, just as all other participants were allowed to participate despite their particular sins.
Click to expand...
In a discussion of what marriage is ,why, if polygamy does not fit into the definition of what marriage is, should polygamists be given a voice to define marriage?
 
zaffiroborant said:
In a discussion of what marriage is ,why, if polygamy does not fit into the definition of what marriage is, should polygamists be given a voice to define marriage?
Click to expand...
Who said he supports polygamy? Not all Mormons support it. In fact, the lds doesn’t support polygamy. The flds does.
 
jimmy said:
Who said he supports polygamy? Not all Mormons support it. In fact, the lds doesn’t support polygamy. The flds does.
Click to expand...
Try reading Section 132 of the Doctrine & Covenants. Polygamy is alive and well as a doctrine of the LDS church, it is just not practiced for the most part.

At least two of the LDS apostles are polygamists due to their sealing of a second wife after the death of their first wives. The LDS believe that marriages sealed in their temples continue on after death, and these apostles are polygamists according to their own doctrine. LDS men can be sealed to a new wife after the death of the first. However, women who are sealed to their first husbands cannot be sealed to a second husband if they become widowed.

Also, there are limited instances where men are sealed to two living women. This happens when the man and his first wife civilly divorce. The sealing is not cancelled at the time of divorce. If the man wishes to marry again in the temple to a new wife, she can be sealed to him. He technically becomes a polygamist. A divorced LDS woman can request a cancellation of a sealing, but only if she can be immediately sealed to another man in the temple. If she remarries a non-Mormon, she cannot obtain a sealing cancellation (unless she happens to be well connected to General Authorities who can help her bypass the normal rules).
 
jimmy said:
mormon.org/faq/practice-of-polygamy

I will take the word of Mormons when they say they oppose polygamy.
Click to expand...
I suggest you read Section 132 of the Doctrine & Covenants, which is LDS scripture.

lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng

I am a former Mormon, and I know what the LDS church teaches. Oh, and I have an LDS friend who is divorced from her first husband but is still sealed to him. He has since remarried and his second wife was sealed to him in the temple. He is a polygamist according to the sealing records of the LDS church.
 
zaffiroborant said:
In a discussion of what marriage is ,why, if polygamy does not fit into the definition of what marriage is, should polygamists be given a voice to define marriage?
Click to expand...
What is your problem! You are being obtuse.

If you want to know why polygamists should be given a voice at the Vatican (or anywhere) to define marriage, you should address that question to someone who is willing to defend it. As far as what I have said, your question is a “straw man.” I no more argued that polygamist should “define marriage” than I argued that the Catholic church should accommodate polygamy or same sex marriage, your insinuations to the contrary notwithstanding.

But, yes, we will have to “accommodate” polygamy. We “accommodate” the polygamy of the Patriarchs with a brief caveat: “In the Old Testament, the polygamy of patriarchs and kings is not yet explicitly rejected.” We may “accommodate” polygamists by not burning them at the stake, by not sealing their lips, by letting them air their grievances and opinions and then, when they are willing to listen, give wiser counsel. That is what I see Humanum as doing. They don’t just chatter on some strict, narrow rail. They approach the relationship of man and woman as something that goes beyond marriage,and marriage as something more profound than one man and one woman having sex together, as becomes obvious when one reads or listens to even a few of the presentations at Humanum 2014.

Are polygamists human? Can they reason? Are they not capable of love? Do they not believe in some form of marriage? The speakers addressed gender identity, how God reveals his presence through marriage, the damage to our culture and children when we reject God’s plan for marriage and sexual relations, gender ideologies, how the covenant of marriage and the conjugal relationship parallels our intimate relationship with God, and so on. There are those who believe that people with wrong beliefs should be ostracized and given no voice. I am not such a one. I believe heretics should be given a voice. How else know they are heretics? Polygamists should be given a voice. How else know which arguments to address? Why talk about the Bible to an atheist who engages in polygamy because she thinks it’s healthy? Address the health issues. Why talk to a Mormon about the health issues that come with polygamy? For them the core issue is that it is a commandment from God. To the atheist seeking health, explain the physical and psychological problems. To the Mormon seeking to do God’s will, explain God’s will.
And we too are at fault, for when marriages are exposed to the wind and the rain, we have paid little attention. When the needs of children succumb to the wishes of adults, we have often remained silent. Love is reduced to a consumer item, an airbrushed image, or a slogan to export. It will not work
Click to expand...
 
jimmy said:
mormon.org/faq/practice-of-polygamy

I will take the word of Mormons when they say they oppose polygamy.
Click to expand...
*Which *Mormons? 😉
iepuras said:
I suggest you read Section 132 of the Doctrine & Covenants, which is LDS scripture.

lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng

I am a former Mormon, and I know what the LDS church teaches. Oh, and I have an LDS friend who is divorced from her first husband but is still sealed to him. He has since remarried and his second wife was sealed to him in the temple. He is a polygamist according to the sealing records of the LDS church.
Click to expand...
I am confident you know more than one such case. I do. Joseph Fielding Smith, tenth president of the Mormon church married Louise E. Shurtleff in 1898 (died in 1908), Ethel Reynolds in 1908 (died 1937), and Jessie Evans in 1937 (died 1971), if my numbers are correct. He wrote that his wives or any wives would be his in eternity:
“We believe that the family will go on. I get a great deal of comfort out of the thought that if I am faithful and worthy of an exaltation, my father will be my father, and I will be subject to him as his son through all eternity; that I will recognize and know my mother and she will be my mother in all eternity; and my brothers and sisters will be my brothers and sisters for all eternity; and that my children and my wives will be mine in eternity. I don’t know how some other people feel, but that is a glorious thought to me. That helps to keep me sober.” - Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2
Click to expand...
To switch the question around a bit, that Jesus was asked by the Pharisees, “Which wife shall he have in heaven?” the Prophet would answer, “All of them, of course.” Howard Hunter, the 14th president of the church, and who died in 1995, had two wives whom he said he was looking forward to being reunited with (or “re-trinitied”!? - "What God has joined threegether, let no man trisect.). More recently, Apostle Dallin Oaks married his second wife (I think it was in 2001). And Apostle Russell Nelson married his second wife in 2006. Then there are the quieter polygamists, that don’t get media attention, who speak up from time to time.

If I have dates or details wrong, I apologize. If corrected, I will make every effort not to repeat the error(s). Otherwise, I give this information sincerely believing it to be accurate.
 
Tarquin said:
I am confident you know more than one such case. I do.
Click to expand...
I probably do, but I tend to mind my own business so I don’t always know all the nitty gritty about these things. Actually, there is at least one more instance I can recall.

My friend’s circumstances are always very clear in my mind because we were in a young single’s ward together, and I had actually met her ex-husband and his second wife as they attended the other single’s ward in the city. I got to hear about all the drama. The second wife absolutely loathes my friend because she is the second wife and not the first. My friend would love to obtain a sealing cancellation but she cannot as she is still single (and not trying to rush to the altar again). From her perspective, the second wife can have him for eternity.

I was an old maid in the LDS church (I didn’t get married until the scandalous age of 30), and I firmly believed for many years that the only way that I would have my eternal sealing was to become a man’s plural wife. Of course, I was expecting that this would all happen after death. Also, my husband was not a “righteous priesthood holder” so even though I was married, I was afraid that I would end up being assigned as someone else’s wife for eternity.
 
Tarquin said:
What is your problem! You are being obtuse.

If you want to know why polygamists should be given a voice at the Vatican (or anywhere) to define marriage, you should address that question to someone who is willing to defend it. As far as what I have said, your question is a “straw man.” I no more argued that polygamist should “define marriage” than I argued that the Catholic church should accommodate polygamy or same sex marriage, your insinuations to the contrary notwithstanding.

But, yes, we will have to “accommodate” polygamy. We “accommodate” the polygamy of the Patriarchs with a brief caveat: “In the Old Testament, the polygamy of patriarchs and kings is not yet explicitly rejected.” We may “accommodate” polygamists by not burning them at the stake, by not sealing their lips, by letting them air their grievances and opinions and then, when they are willing to listen, give wiser counsel. That is what I see Humanum as doing. They don’t just chatter on some strict, narrow rail. They approach the relationship of man and woman as something that goes beyond marriage,and marriage as something more profound than one man and one woman having sex together, as becomes obvious when one reads or listens to even a few of the presentations at Humanum 2014.

Are polygamists human? Can they reason? Are they not capable of love? Do they not believe in some form of marriage? The speakers addressed gender identity, how God reveals his presence through marriage, the damage to our culture and children when we reject God’s plan for marriage and sexual relations, gender ideologies, how the covenant of marriage and the conjugal relationship parallels our intimate relationship with God, and so on. There are those who believe that people with wrong beliefs should be ostracized and given no voice. I am not such a one. I believe heretics should be given a voice. How else know they are heretics? Polygamists should be given a voice. How else know which arguments to address? Why talk about the Bible to an atheist who engages in polygamy because she thinks it’s healthy? Address the health issues. Why talk to a Mormon about the health issues that come with polygamy? For them the core issue is that it is a commandment from God. To the atheist seeking health, explain the physical and psychological problems. To the Mormon seeking to do God’s will, explain God’s will.
Click to expand...
And just about everything you’ve said here could be said about homosexuals and same sex marriage, yet they were not included in the gathering.
 
National Review has fine Catholic essay (written by Maggie Gallagher) regarding the colloquium, especially LDS President Eyring’s speech there.

Rome’s Extraordinary Ecumenical Event
For the Vatican it was a truly unusual event, with people from every part of the globe and nearly every major faith tradition — Catholics and Protestants, Jews and Jains, Mormons and Muslims, not to mention Sikhs, Hindus, and Buddhists, pouring into Rome to share their faith traditions’ insights
Click to expand...
At the end of this extraordinary three days Archbishop Chaput took the microphone to invite us to the 2015 World Meeting of Families in Philadelphia. “I’ve been a bishop for 26 years, a priest for more than 40 years, and this was the most interesting colloquium I’ve been to in my life,” he said.
Click to expand...
The conference ended not with a statement but with a promise: A movie will be made to express our deepest affirmations. Jacqueline Rivers and Reverend Gene Rivers read from the script for the story, the story of our lives:
“For on earth marriage binds us across the ages in the flesh, across families in the flesh, and across the fearful and wonderful divide of man and woman, in the flesh. This is not ours to alter,” it reads. “It is ours, however, to encourage and celebrate. . . . This we affirm.”
Click to expand...
After that, we all stood and applauded for what seemed like ten minutes, reluctant to leave, reluctant to have it end, which of course it should not, because now our task is to find new ways to go forth and carry on the great human story of the generations.
Click to expand...
 
I also enjoyed Lord Jonathan Sacks speech, Mr. Sacks is the former Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom. I liked not only his support of marriage and specifically monogamy, but also his discussion on what a covenant is. I think Mormons have a very different view on covenant, it is much more a list of agreements and bargains than it is an agreement to form a family.

Here’s a link to Lord Jonathan Sacks speech.
 
zaffiroborant said:
I also enjoyed Lord Jonathan Sacks speech, Mr. Sacks is the former Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom. I liked not only his support of marriage and specifically monogamy, but also his discussion on what a covenant is. I think Mormons have a very different view on covenant, it is much more a list of agreements and bargains than it is an agreement to form a family.

Here’s a link to Lord Jonathan Sacks speech.
Click to expand...
I just watched his witness speech. I liked it too. Here’s the YouTube link for it.

youtu.be/fQzt6gGwvJQ
 
PaulDupre1 said:
What will the Mormon do during the coffee break? Stand around and cluck his tongue at all the infidels who are going to hell for drinking coffee?

😃
Click to expand...
I told my Mormon neighbor that I was Catholic and he turned white. We let Muslims conduct religious service at the National Cathedral so I guess it is OK for a Mormon to speak at the Vatican.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top