Nicene Creed Challenge

Ronan brings up over at BCC regarding President Hinckley's 'challenge' this past General Conference for us to read the Nicene Creed. I was going to post my thoughts there, but the conversation has long since gone the way of talking about the mechanics of the creed, and I wanted to bring up a different point unrelated to the text itself.

I invite you to read that definition and compare it with the statement of the boy Joseph.

How many members of the Church took up President Hinckley's invitation? How many ward and stakes initiated programmes to help their members meet this goal? How many members of the Bloggernacle blogged about it (beside Ronan of course)?

Which is kind of odd when you think of it. The Nicene Creed has three paragraphs; the Book of Mormon has several thousand. Or maybe it's not that odd after all. Maybe were more like Naaman than we care to admit.

Calamaties and Wickedness

Hurricane Katrina reminds me of a post I wrote last year partly regarding Hurricane Jeanne.

In one person’s “testimony”, he made mention that God’ hand is evident in the recent barrage of hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. He made particular reference to Hurricane Jeanne and God’s hand guiding it wherever it goes.

My response was as follows:

Naturally, I have a problem with this thought. I have a problem believing that God directed a hurricane to the poorest countries in the western hemisphere in order that one and a half thousand people would be killed. What horrendous sins could these 1,500 men, women and children committed that would warrant God sending a relentless hurricane to a country already reeling from thousands killed this spring in massive floods and February in civil war.

I've been thinking about this concept; the idea that God punishes the wicked with natural disasters. It seems that many ancient prophets foretold of a future time where people would be more wicked and there would be more calamities.

I have a thought though. What if all these calamities are not a direct result of our wickedness?

Presumably, God can see all things past, present and future. One can assume then thousands of years ago, he knew that a day would come where the earth would be plagued by earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, and the like. He also knew that the inhabitants of the earth would be more base and more willing to turn their backs on Him.

Perhaps, however, He told the prophets of these calamities not because he Was going to use them to punish us, but to use them as a sign. Perhaps all these calamities are not divinely created or guided. Perhaps they are all natural. Perhaps he saw them happening and told the prophets about them so that we, in the future, could use them as an indication that we need to be more righteous.

Male Primary Teachers

I belong to a Primary message board site and last couple of days there has been this huge hoopla about male teachers in Primary. Somehow some presidents are saying that in the "guidelines" it states that if a male is called to teach Primary then it has to be as a couple (husband/wife team) or 2 males, doors are to remain always open and that any member of the presidency can walk in unannounced at any given moment. When I posted the question of where this so called guidleline is no one seems to know. I also pointed out that males were being dumped on (on this site regarding this particular post) and that men aren't the only ones that are abusers of children.

I also pointed out that if the church (according to the Utah wards that were posting) had set these guidelines to protect the children then how is it that men can teach in Young Men or in Scouts where the chances are greater for risk factor as they meet a lot away from the actual building (camps etc).

Has anyone actually seen this guideline set out by the church?

Adam as Our Father

It is well known among Mormons that critics of the church accuse Brigham Young of teaching a doctrine that stated Adam, the first man, was the god of our spirits. Often we hear that Brigham Young was misquoted or the quotes were taken in context.

I came across a number of quotes today by Brigham Young regarding this doctrine. If it was a single quote, I can see how members of the Church could use the defence that is was misquoted or out of context. Given the number of references to the principle, it would seem that this was something Brigham Young believed and taught. Not only that, but he claimed it to be true doctrine.

How much unbelief exists in the minds of Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me - namely that Adam is our father and God ..Then he said, 'I want my children who are in the spirit world to come and live here. I once dwelt upon an earth something like this, in a mortal state. I was faithful. I received my crown and exaltation...I want my children that were born to me in the spirit world to come here and take tabernacles of flesh that their spirits may have a house, a tabernacle...' (Brigham Young, Deseret Weekly News, June 18, 1873, page 308)

Who was the Savior begotten by?....Who did beget him? His Father, and his father is our God, and the Father of our spirits, and he is the framer of the body, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Who is he? He is Father Adam; Michael; the Ancient of Days. (President Brigham Young, Feb. 19, 1854, Brigham Young Addresses, 1850-1854, Vol. 2, by Elden J. Watson, sheet 179 (in chronological order), Historical Dept. Church, Ms d 1234, Box 48 Fd. 11)

Some have grumbled because I believe our God to be so near to us as Father Adam. There are many who know that doctrine to be true. (Brigham Young, October 7, 1857, Journal of Discourses 5:331).

Some years ago I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam being our Father and God...It is one of the most glorious revealments of the economy of heaven... (President Brigham Young, in the Tabernacle, General Conference, October 8, 1861, 10:30 a.m.; Brigham Young Addresses, 1860-1864, Vol. 4, by Elden J. Watson, sheet 134 (in chronological order), Historical Dept. Church, Ms d 1234, Box 49 fd 8)

I tell you more: Adam is the father of our spirits. He lived upon an earth, he did abide his creation and did honor to his calling and priesthood and obeyed his master or lord, and probably many of his wives did the same, and they lived and died upon an earth and then were resurrected again to immortality and eternal life. (Brigham Young, October 8, 1854, Brigham Young Addresses, 18509-1854, Vol. 2, by Elden J. Watson, sheet 221 (in chronological order), Historical Dept. Church, Box 49 fd 12)

These aren't all statements made in an interview with Mike Wallace or Larry King; some are statements made by the president of the Church during General Conference.

So, why was it dropped? President Kimball declared it a false doctrine in the October 1976 General Conference.

We warn you against the dissemination of doctrine which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.

If President Hinckley came to General Conference and announced a doctrine that was not in the scriptures, would we be able to use President Kimball's admonition to denounce it as false doctrine? This isn't like revealing a new practise (such as plural marriage) or stopping an old practise (such as withholding priesthood from Blacks); this is revealing a new doctrine.

Book of Mormon Challenge Redux

President Hinckley issued a challenge to the world in the August issue of the Ensign and through a letter to all wards and stakes. His challenge was for everyone to read or reread the Book of Mormon.

I offer a challenge to members of the Church throughout the world and to our friends everywhere to read or reread the Book of Mormon.

Nowhere in this sentence does he give timeframe or suggest that the challenge consist of reading a specific amount each day. Later on in his message, does point out the following:

If you will read a bit more than one and one-half chapters a day, you will be able to finish the book before the end of this year.

It is not clear, however, that this information is strictly part of the challenge or simply FYI.

So, strictly speaking, I guess I am meeting President Hinckley's challenge after all. Nevertheless, I didn't stop reading the Book of Mormon and start over; I simply kept going where I was already.

Propets old and new alike

The scriptures give us many examples of prophets in the Old and New Testaments. Then the keys were removed off the earth not to return until the "present" time of Joseph Smith. As I have been studing the Book of Mormon as well as the Doctrice and Covenants this past while, the same thought keeps cropping up. Why is it that the keys were not returned until Joseph Smith? Was it planned this way in the pre-existance? I mean the righteousness of the people was not any less great in say the 1700's as it was when Joseph was 14. There have been many great men that have walked the earth in between the last prophet and Joseph. Why not any of them? And why a boy of 14? I mean I have 4 sons and if I were to think back at their life at 14, well let's just say, getting them up in the morning to get to Seminary was enough of a struggle in their life. I remember when President Kimball died and President Benson was called. It floored me as a very young adult, that they would pick just as aged a man as the previous Prophet. I remember asking why on earth the church did not pick a young man who would live for a few more years and the reply always came back "cause by their age, tempation has long left them and they have proven themselves to the Lord." Well Joseph hadn't proven anything at 14.

Are the answers in the scriptures and when I get to that part of my reading, my head is nodding too much to have absorbed it? Christ knew from a very very young age what his mission in life was to be. He knew of his life with his Father. Did Joseph as well? He saw many many visions in his short life but did he ever see his life in the pre-existance? Was there a time when he stepped forward, as Christ did, and said pick me Father? Or would our Father just have chosen him instead of asking for volunteers?

Paramount Theatre

As predicted, the new company formed from the Cineplex Galaxy and Famous Players merger has sold off the Paramount Theatre in Lethbridge.

Empire Theatre, formerly based in Atlantic Canada and owned by the same company that owns the Canadian grocer Sobey's, has acquired 27 theatres across Canada, including the Paramount Theatre in downtown Lethbridge.

With the acquisition, Empire Theatre is now the second largest movie theatre chain in Canada. Empire stated that it "will analyze each of the Cineplex theatres and figure out which ones need to be renovated or replaced with new cinemas". This is good news for the Paramount, which has long been neglected by Famous Players and is rapidly becoming derelict.

Hopefully it will see popularity that once made it the movie theatre in Lethbridge.

Gender Roles

I don't want to beat this dead bloggernacle horse too much, but yesterday's elders quorum lesson brought a couple of things up I wanted to address here. I should point out that I did address them there as well.

The lesson was titled "The Noble Calling of Parents". Naturally, the discussion led to the roles mothers and fathers play in raising a family.

The first thing that irked me was when someone said that motherhood is the more important of the two parental roles. I entirely disagree with this statement. Motherhood is not more important than fatherhood. In fact, fatherhood is not more important than motherhood. They are equal. Neither is better or more necessary. Both mother and father may have different roles in raising children, but each role is essential.

Actually, I find the idea that motherhood is more important to be somewhat offensive, suggesting that my role as a parent is less valued than Mary's. Is it any wonder so many fathers take a backseat role in raising children? After all, if we're regarded as less than mothers anyhow, why not let mothers live up to the expectation.

Another statement that irked me was the idea that women are more patient (or compassionate, or kind, or understanding, etc) than men. If this really is true, I wouldn't be surprised if it was due to cultural conditioning within the Church. After all, if men are repeatedly taught they are not naturally patient, compassionate, loving and so forth and need the priesthood to have those qualities, perhaps they start to believe it.

In our home, I am the more patient one. I am the one who gets frustrated less easily. I am the one who can react more calmly in a stressful situation. Mary isn't a loose cannon or just hanging by a string—don't get me wrong—but in this case, we don't fit the stereotypical mould.

One other comment was regarding mothers working at home. Some members of the quorum used the Proclamation to say that a woman's place is in the home. I pointed out that the proclamation does not say a woman is to stay home or not work outside of the home; it says that she should nurture the children.

One brother made a comment along the lines of how children could be nurtured if they are in daycare. I suppose the same way as if they were in grade two or grade nine.

If there was one thing I came away from that lesson with (besides an appreciation for the instructor for inciting so much discussion and participation), it is the fact that I am tired of the downplaying of men's roles and attributes simply in an effort to appease the feminists (i.e. women should stay home, but they are more loving and motherhood is more important, etc).

Coachman Inn, Regina, SK

When my cousin announced several months ago that he would be married in Swift Current, Saskatchewan, we decided to use the opportunity to make a trip out to Regina. Mary looked through the Regina Yellow Pages and phoned various hotels until she found what seemed to be a good price. Coachman Inn had the cheapest prices and was very close to downtown (where our tourist destinations would be). She reserved a non-smoking room for us a couple of months in advance. They told her to phone a little closer to the time to confirm our room.

Shortly before we left last week, Mary phoned Coachman Inn to confirm our room and they told her that none of the non-smoking rooms available. They also denied that she had been promised one. They told her that if she phoned the morning we were coming they would put an ozone machine in our room to clear out the smoke. That should have been our first clue.

Before we went to church this past Sunday, Mary phoned Coachman Inn to let them know we would be arriving that afternoon between four and five o'clock. They said they had already placed the ozone machine in the room. We thought this was a sign of good customer service. Read on to see how wrong we were.

We arrived at Coachman Inn around 16:15. I should have realised that since it was east of Broad Street, we would have been in trouble. I brushed it off. Mary and my mum, who was travelling with us, waited in the lobby for twenty minutes to get our keys. Finally, my mum found a housekeeping staff and said no one was at the front desk. Finally, someone arrived and apologised, saying he had been indisposed.

The counter staff at the Coachman Inn finally gave us our keys and we went to our room. Our room still smelled of cigarette smoke. As well, there was a smell of mildew in the air. The carpets were filthy. There were no hangers. There was no phonebook. There was no deadbolt on the door. The TV had six channels and they could only be accessed by pressing the 'FAV' button on the remote control. When we opened up the fridge, a very strong mildew smell permeated the room and I became nauseous.

We went back to the Coachman Inn front desk and complained of the smell and the TV. He said there was nothing he could do about the smell, but he would look at the TV.

While we were waiting back in our first Coachman Inn room, he phoned us back to let us know that a non-smoking room just became available after a customer cancelled. We took it.

The new Coachman Inn room smelled better than the first, and there were three hangers, even though only one of them was whole. The TV worked properly. Those were the best qualities of the new room. The room was accessed off the alleyway. There was no kitchenette. There was no deadbolt on the door. The curtains did not close all the way. The beds were very old and the box springs and mattresses did not match. The mattresses were very soft. The carpet was still filthy. The bedspreads had holes. The pillows were very thin. The bathroom sink took forever to drain. The air conditioner eventually froze over with a layer of ice.

During what was to be our first night at the Coachman Inn, our children became sick. Regan threw up around 23:00 and roughly, every hour, at least one of them was vomiting. At that rate, it did not take long to use up our towels, washcloths, sheets and bedspreads. I went to the front desk to get some new towels and a pillow. The new front desk attendant said he would come back to our room with them. He did show up with new towels and a new pillow. Three hours later, I had to go to the front desk again asking for more. He refused to give me any and told me to buy paper towels at 7-Eleven.

We woke up in our Coachman Inn room around 08:30 and got things cleaned up. We decided we should try to give the children a bath. The showerhead leaked when you turned on the faucet. The plug for the tub was covered in some brown film. The tub had black mildew in the corners. The plug did not seal and the tub leaked during the bath.

We decided it was time to phone around for a new place to stay. We could not stay at Coachman Inn for two more nights. We found Victoria Park Motor Inn was a nice place. It was less than 20 dollars more and was a brand new motel.

Mary and my mum went to the Coachman Inn front desk to get our money back. I stayed in our room to pack up. After I loaded everything in the van, I decided to check around the room to make sure I did not miss anything. That is when I noticed one of the box springs had "19.99, 1 pc" written on it in a Jiffy marker. It is also when I noticed not only garbage under the bed, but a mousetrap as well. That was the last straw. We were out of there in a flash.

The Victoria Park Motor Inn was a motel on a different level. It had a real lobby. We could use a baggage cart for our luggage. Our rooms were next to each other and had never had someone light up a cigarette within them. We had mirrors that we did not need to duck to use. Our air conditioning worked. We had a brand new TV with more channels. The blinds closed. The beds were firm. The curtains and bedspreads matched. We had a table and chairs. We had a closet. We had a laundry stool. There was a hot tub and fitness centre downstairs. There were laundry facilities. There was a free continental breakfast (toast, bagels, muffins, cookies, juice, etc) each morning. There was free Internet access in the lobby. There was an elevator. There was an ice machine. There was a complimentary newspaper each morning. When we needed new bedding and towels in the middle of the night, they had them ready for us at the front desk.

As soon as we were unpacked, the four of us laid down on our beds, shut off the lights and slept for several hours.

Our stay there was a much better stay. We decided at that point, that there is no value in going for the cheapest price when choosing accommodations. We refuse to stay at Coachman Inn in the future, and will likely chose Victoria Park Motor Inn as our place of accommodation every time we visit Regina in the future.

Hello to all

Well I tried and tried to just cut and paste my post under the other intro but it wouldn't work. I have been sitting here for last 8 hours working on my calling and getting things set up so I can leave tomorrow morning to spend some time with Kim and his family. I keep telling him if he lived here then it would make it so much easier for him to pop over and help me when I get stuck on something. But of course that would mean I would have to move away from the computer and let someone else have access to it and I don't know if I am ready for that lol.

I love learning and am always looking for ways to increase my brain load. I love this blog site as it makes me think everytime someone says "what do you think about this scripture". Many times I holler at the computer to whoever posted and say doesn't anyone ever read just for the sake of reading.???? But I guess if we did that with our scriptures we surely wouldn't learn as much.

I truly enjoy church history and can never understand why others don't feel the same way. We have our oldest son and his 7 year old son living with us this summer and we have been finding ways to incorporate the gospel into their lives (our son is inactive and has been for about 12 years). Our grandson now asks for his turn to say prayer and Sunday night he announces that when he turns 8 he wants to be baptized like his cousins. I spend so much of my time worrying about doing member missionary work "out there" that I forgot I have my own family to work with.

It has been great having a daughter and SIL that are active living so close distance wise with us as our son spends half of his time there. They have the same "rules" as we do, family prayer, family home evenings, church on Sunday etc and he is seeing that there is a part of his life that is missing. We talk a lot just in every day conversation about the church, our callings and what is going on so he can see that he is missing a lot. I sincerely hope that he finds a place to move to that is in our area still.

Well that is it about me. I of course, am not as opinionated as Kim is and am more tactful when telling people off (lol) but I am very proud of the work Kim does and his never ending need to learn and study.

Reading

My mum posted over at her personal blog asking who else is taking part in President Hinckley's challenge. I'm not. I was writing up an explanation why I decided not to, but it got so long I decided to do a post.

First, I finished reading the Book of Mormon last year. We finished in companionship study this spring. We finished it in family study this summer. I think I've had my fill.

Second, I am studying the Doctrine and Covenants right now. I have spent way too much time on the Book of Mormon the last few years that I have spent little time on the other books (yes, we do have more scriptures than just the Book of Mormon).

Third, I do not read the scriptures just for the sake of reading them. It is not a reasonable goal to read just because. If the scripture were meant to only be read, they would have been written by novelists. I can see how just reading it would be helpful for those who rarely or never read it, but I don't see the point of it for me.

Fourth, I do not have the time to study the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. On my mission, I did. But other things take up my time now.

Lastly, I am reading The Book of Mormon: A Reader's Edition. It is a much easier read and one gains a better appreciation for the structure of the book and the words of the Lord than by simply reading it in the conventional form.

I understand President Hinckley's reasons for extending the challenge. It will benefit a lot of people. I just don't see any reason for me to do it.

Who goes there?

Hi, my name is Rick Beres.

Kim was kind enough to invite me to post here, and I thought it might help if you knew a little about me.

My two children and wife (of eleven years and counting) live in Magrath, Alberta and they're kind enough to let me live there too - if I behave myself. I was born in Lethbridge and raised in Magrath. And to answer the question that I'm sure is burning inside you, I am not a member of the Church of Latter Day Saints. My wife and children are LDS though, and I'm sure you can imagine how happy my in-laws were about my wife marrying a non-member; but all that is water under the bridge, as they say.

I work in Lethbridge as an IT Manager at the largest law firm in town (insert shameless plug for North & Company here), and have various hobbies related to graphics, design and computer programming. I am a geek.

I enjoy a good discussion on most topics, especially social policy, politics and the eccentricities of members of the LDS faith.

That's me in a nutshell.
I'm looking forward to contributing to this blog.
-rick

Two New Bloggers

All of us at Our Thoughts would like to welcome two new bloggers to the fray. One of them as been a regular commenter here for over a year and the other is more recent.

Sally Haysom (some may know her as Smiles) is from Vancouver, BC, and has commented frequently here. She is also my mum. I felt a little like President Hinckley during priesthood session of the last General Conference when he was talking about his son becoming a general authority. Everyone else seemed to be down with it, so we decided to have her aboard. And we finally broke out of Alberta boundaries.

Rick Beres is from Magrath. Since Larry Bates has some ties to Raymond (a well-known rival of Magrath), we may get to see some good ol' church ball worthy words. Rick has only recently been commenting here, but he has a unique, strong viewpoint that we liked and thought he'd make a good addition to the team.

I'll let them introduce themselves. Please welcome them out.

If you are reading this and are LDS, Canadian and living in Canada, drop me a line if you'd like to blog here.

Creation

It seems common among the Church membership—at least based on my limited experience in three Canadian province and three US states—to reject evolution in support of creationsim.

I have to wonder how creationists reconcile Abraham 4:21:

And the Gods prepared the waters that they might bring forth great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters were to bring forth abundantly after their kind; and every winged fowl after their kind.

Every living, moving creature (and birds) came from the water?

Be

I was reading in 1 Corinthians, chapter 11 this morning when I came across verse eleven:

Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

I have read this verse several times, but as I reflected on it this morning, one other scripture came to mind.

This scripture is found in 2 Nephi 2:25 and is Lehi's counsel to his son Jacob:

Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

I hardly ever pay attention to such simple verbs as the conjugated 'to be', but these two verse make it stand out.

According to these two verses, we exist because Adam fell and we also exist so that we may attain joy. Paul seems to say that a man cannot "be" without a woman. In other words, he cannot attain joy without marriage. This is an interesting thought given what we read in D&C 131:1-4:

In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; and if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

Bloggernacle Choir

Our Thoughts recently received the distinction of being a Bloggernacle Choir blog over at David Sundwall's LDS and Mormon Blogs.

Bloggernacle Choirs are group LDS blogs that are prone to cover many diverse topics and defy categorization. Bloggernacle Choirs are among the best blogs and are good place to start for those new to the Bloggernacle (but please check out us solo bloggers too).

Thanks for the recognition, David. Thanks to all the great posters on Our Thoughts.

Regina Bloggersnacker?

We'll be in Regina, Saskatchewan, next week. I don't suppose anyone in the bloggernacle will be there at the same time, eh?

Anyone?

Hello?

Just Do It

"...and now, if you believe all these things see that ye do them." Mosiah 4:10

Don't you think the last part is the biblical version of Just Do It? There is some advertising agency out there that stumbled across this truth and found a way to market it and in some bizarre way, that sold running shoes.

Yet, this scripture isn't trying to sell us a thing. Instead, it is trying to guide us and pull us out of our apathy by letting our belief be our motivator. Belief that we can repent and be forgiven. That humility is powerful and life changing.

And if you want to run on a lonely road while you ponder this truth...I'm sure Nike wouldn't mind.

Prayer

Most members of the Church I know (and some other Christians I know) take time out before eating meals to say a prayer. Generally, the prayer asks for God to bestow a blessing upon the food. Often the prayer will include elements not related to the food (bless the less fortunate, keep someone safe, etc).

These same people, at least from what I have witnessed, normally do not pray over snacks. This is interesting because sometimes the snacks they eat are the same amount of food they eat for some of their meals. For example, they may have some toast with peanut butter and jam for breakfast, and they may also have the same thing for a snack at some point. They may have a BLT sandwich for dinner, and a future snack may also be a BLT sandwich.

It would seem then that saying a food prayer doesn't have anything to do with the amount of food one is eating. One would think it must be something about the way we formalise our meals that gives them the weight of requiring a prayer. Yet when we have friends over for a party (a more formal snack than one a single person enjoys), it is rare for a prayer to be said over the snacks.

So why do people say prayer over meals and not snacks?

Smoky Smith Died

Smoky Smith died yesterday. He was the last suriving recipient of the Victoria Cross.

A true hero has died.

Boss

My boss was fired today.

I have no details. I just know it was because of something he allegedly did. He was there when I arrived and an hour later he was up in the dean's office talking to her and the head of human resources. That was the last I saw of him. He apparently never saw it coming.

He was a good boss. In fact, he was the best boss I ever had. He was always open to any new ideas I had for the website. He was always willing to buy me a new book to learn new skills. He almost always took my side in issues. He always was willing to accommodate any time off I needed. He challenged me and it was because of him I now know JavaScript and ColdFusion.

I am still in shock and was nauseous all day. I could not focus and was quite unmotivated.

Things are so up in the air. I am in a union, so things seem to be secure for me at this point, but who knows.

Government Stay Out of Marriage

I have heard several people both in and out of the Church that have suggested in response to gay marriage to have the government stay out of marriage. They have suggested that it churches should define marriage and governments should perform only civil unions.

I used to agree with this position. After thinking about this some last night, I am not so sure it is that easy.

Even if churches defined marriage, the government would still need to recognise those marriages as being legal unions. This would be necessary in order to recognise spousal rights and benefits (health care, insurance, access to information, and so forth). That would mean the state would need to recognise any definition the individual churches would decide. Granted, most would determine that marriage is between a man and a woman. There are others, however, that would define it as between two persons, and others that would define it as between two or more persons. This would mean the state would need to define unions between two men, a father and daughter, a man and three women, and the other endless combinations.

Is that something we are willing to accept just so the government stayed out of marriage?

In addition, if the churches defined marriage, would they also be responsible for exercising divorce? If so, we must recognise that some churches may be patriarchal in nature, and potentially would not grant divorce to a woman who is in a physically abusive marriage or would not recognise the rights to property of a wife. As well, some churches may not grant divorce in any case.

Taking defining marriage away from the state can open up a huge assortment of problems, and I am not so sure I want to go there.