Posted by: Loran Blood | July 5, 2015

Rational Faiths Fouls its Nest Yet Again

Rational Faiths rarely disappoints (you may see their new cover photo celebrating the juvenile antics of Bree Newsome if you decide to follow the link here).

I think it behooves us, while yes, being a civil, temperate, and restrained as possible, to also be unflinchingly honest about the nature and dynamics of the LDS Left, represented now by the New Order Mormon movement (NOM) or “reform” Mormons who’s literary and ideological presence in concentrated primarily on the Internet. As we look at this I will try to be unflinching and philosophically substantive as well as allowing that LDS can and do differ in ideological and philosophical respects. This, however, must be granted but granted with the proviso that the purpose of the gospel is to prepare us to meet the Savior at his second advent, and that critical to that preparation is that the saints must become one in mind, heart, core values, and perspective. If we are not one, we are not His.

That which is to become the core or nucleus around which we are to enter into this oneness with each other is truth, and truth, being that which is, was, and will be within the realm of all existent reality, becomes a reef of sharp and jagged rocks upon which one’s ship will founder if one finds oneself in conflict with it.

The doctrine contained in the Proclamation on the Family warns us that the calamities and upheavals foreseen by the Lord’s servants the prophets, from the beginning until the present time will inevitably fall upon us if we persist in ignoring, perverting, corrupting, and distorting His most sacred laws, commandments, and councils. The following review of this essay at Rational Faiths can be seen in this light.

“There is a theory that if a person traveled back in time and confronted her earlier self, the universe would explode.  This appears to be what has happened with the new anti-gay marriage letter put out by the LDS Church and set for widespread distribution this Sunday in all congregations in the U.S. and Canada.

The modern LDS Church is against any marriage not composed of “a man and a woman.  But the earlier LDS Church was most decidedly in favor of marriages not composed of “a man and a woman.” (Read: Polygamy.)

When the modern LDS Church confronts its earlier self . . . Ka-Boom!”

Actually…no. Plural marriage was a decidedly minority practice among the 19th century Latter-day Saints, and was a religious sacrament strictly controlled by priesthood law and authority and strictly limited to those called or authorized to practice it. The default form of marriage throughout this period remained monogamy, and remained so for the vast majority of 19th century saints.

Indeed, theologically, plural marriage is considered wholly outside moral and gospel parameters unless the Lord directs his prophet on the earth at that time to institute in among his people. The Book of Jacob in the Book of Mormon utterly forbids it grounded in these conditions.

Nor is the practice of plural marriage limited to 19th century LDS. It was practiced with the Lord’s approval be a number of the OT prophets and ancient patriarchs, and several of the early Church Fathers considered it a legitimate adjunct to monogamous marriage.

Whatever the case may be, divinely authorized plural marriage, despite its deviation from the default norm, is still heterosexual, and contains within it all the potential and relevant characteristics that must inhere in the marriage covenant to define that covenant as marriage, i.e. the creation of posterity, raising up seed unto the Lord, replenishing the earth, and creating, as it were, safe passage into the celestial kingdom.

Homosexual marriage – a gross violation of the law of chastity and the very concept of human sexual relations qua human sexual relations by definition – does not.

Secondly here, it is not clear what the author means by “anti-gay” as the church is pro-law of chastity and tasked, by divine commandment and authorization, to accomplish its four-fold mission, at the head of which is perfecting the saints. It is, indeed, against homosexuality and the sexual practices and relationships attendant to it, but it is not “anti” other human beings (and when a progressive brands one as “anti” something he believes in, as if being so is, by that very fact, a sign of mental or moral inferiority, one may be sure that his philosophical battle has already been lost, and it is now your task to make that explicitly clear).

“In its zeal to show how opposed it is to gay marriage, the LDS Church has written a letter that ends up throwing Church history under the bus, flatly contradicts LDS scripture, and brands its first six presidents as “immoral” violators of the law of chastity.”

As we will see, it does nothing of the kind, and as the author has grounded his argument here in the existence of plural marriage within the 19th century church while ignoring its clear presence in the OT as well as the doctrine surrounding and mediating it, he has embroiled himself in some critical fallacies of reasoning here, not the least of which is the false analogy between heterosexual marriage of any kind and homosexual coupling.

“From the letter:
“Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God and is central to His plan for His children and for the well‐being of society.”
We will leave aside the fact there is no record of God ever instituting marriage between a man and a woman.”

The author if this statement is a member of the church, but a member of the church who is not of the church, but only in it. One can see here, as in so many other cases, that Corbin’s doctrinal knowledge is critically poor, and regardless of his views on homosexual marriage, his inability to construct logical, internally consistent, doctrinally accurate/relevant arguments on this issue are directly related to that lack of doctrinal understanding.

Of course, the idea that God instituted the practice of marriage is a core church truth claim (He instituted it before the world was created, before we were created, and before the universe was created. Indeed, marriage is one of those eternal principles that never was, like consciousness and intelligence itself, created or “instituted” in a general, universal way. It is instituted among different families of God the Father, but was never at any time not a principle of the gospel). Corbin is, of course, innocent of all this.

“Instead, we ask the more pertinent question: If “marriage between a man and a woman” is “central to [God’s] plan for His children,” what are we to make of polygamy?”

A serious, meek, and humble study of the doctrines of the gospel and of church history will make this clear.

“The reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that polygamy was not “central to God’s plan.” This is at odds with D&C 132:4, which states that “no one can reject this covenant (of plural marriage) and be permitted to enter into [God’s] glory.”

Those weary of pointing out the answer to this argument to those who should know better will bear with me here. No one who is called to any practice, principle, or responsibility in the church, of whatever kind, and who refuses that responsibility, can attain to a fullness of glory in the celestial kingdom. This is as true of the Word of Wisdom as it is of plural marriage or tithing. We are judge by that which we know relative to our degree of obedience to that which we know. Damnation is not only damnation in hell; it is simply a stopping of progression at a certain point, that point at which we determine we will no longer live by every word that proceedeth forth out of the mouth of God.

No church leader ever meant to teach that plural marriage was a genera requirement of exaltation. Otherwise, the vast majority of the saints would have practiced it, not just a small percentage who were called/allowed to do so.

““Sexual relations outside of such a marriage are contrary to the laws of God pertaining to morality.”

Congratulations! You just labeled the first six presidents of the LDS Church as “immoral.””

Corbin does not accept the concept of authorized priesthood administrators on earth or the claim of the reality of living prophets, as if those marriages were sealed by proper priesthood authority, they were (as Nathin clearly understood King David’s to be), as moral as monogamous marriages, rendering Corbin’s criticism here moot.

“What is possessing the LDS Church to write such things?”

Shall we play “let’s pretend” with Corbin?

No, let’s not.

“While early Mormons no doubt believed that taking plural wives was commanded of God, and was essential to their exaltation, in no sense could such marriages be considered “legal and lawful.” In fact, they were in direct violation of the laws of the land. Whether in the U.S. or in Mexico.”

Historically false, at the time they were instituted, and at the time they were being practiced in Utah, which was a territory of the United States, not a state, anti-polygamy laws coming only much later.

And, in any case, Corbin should be a bit more logically cautious here, as the recent SCOTUS decision on homosexual marriage is, itself, of deeply questionable legality, as the text and original intent and meaning of the Constitution are nowhere to be found within it.

“And again, we find a contradicting passage in the scripture. D&C 132:62 says there is no sin in plural marriage:

“And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.”

No violation of the Law of Chastity there.”

Again, an illimitable void where doctrinal knowledge should be (whether he accepts it or not). Yes, if 10,000 virgins are given a man by this law (the law of the priesthood and the sealing power), all are justified, and under no other circumstances.

We need go no further here, save for one nugget of leftist angst that Corbin could apparently not restrain himself from adducing, despite its utter irrelevance and even deeper silliness:

“And if the Spirit should so move, the question might also be raised as to why the LDS Church is expending resources and mobilizing thousands to make clear to its members that the Supreme Court doesn’t dictate Mormon doctrine on gay marriage, while maintaining radio silence on the racist murders of nine African-Americans at a Charleston church, together with the burning of six black churches in the South.”

The priorities of the LDS Church are on full display for the world to see.

And for members of the LDS Church to see, as well.”

Even the New York Times, the leading organ of the radical American Left (outside the Nation, and MSNBC) has attempted to bring some rationality to the recent church burning hysteria

Nor has the church, to my knowledge, said anything about the massive pandemic of black racial violence, rioting, looting, flash mobbing, and knockout gaming that has enveloped much of the nation for a number of years now and shows no signs of abating.

Rational Faiths really should make at least some attempt to begin living up to its intellectual pretensions.



  1. Let us not also forget plural marriage wasn’t a marriage between the man and his existing wives, but each marriage was its own entity, a singular contract between man and wife.

    And therefore is still founded in the same principles that governed monogamy.

  2. Let us also not forget plural marriage was not between a man and his already existing wives and the new wife. but was between solely the man and wife as a singular contract, though entered into more than once.

    therefore it is still founded in the same principles that govern monogamy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: