LDS Freedom Forum

Posted: **February 10th, 2018, 5:31 am**

Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan.

Why doesn't this say a man and a woman?

Seems very precise and deliberate.

Is this leaving room for the return of polygamy?

Posted: **February 10th, 2018, 6:09 am**

Posted: **February 10th, 2018, 8:10 am**

I'm not native English speaker, so correct me if I am wrong. The way it is, is grammatically correct. The Proclamation is not talking about marriage between one man and one woman, but about marriage between man and woman in general. Right?

Posted: **February 10th, 2018, 8:15 am**

JackBuckeye wrote: ↑February 10th, 2018, 5:31 am Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan.

Why doesn't this say a man and a woman?

Seems very precise and deliberate.

Is this leaving room for the return of polygamy?

Now ask yourself the same question with a small difference and see if your question still makes sense:

Marriage between man and man is essential to His eternal plan.

Why doesn't this say a man and a man?

Seems very precise and deliberate.

Is this leaving room for the return of polygamy?

or alternatively:

Marriage between woman and woman is essential to His eternal plan.

Why doesn't this say a woman and a woman?

Seems very precise and deliberate.

Is this leaving room for the return of polygamy?

More precise to your point would be something like:

Marriage between man and women is essential to His eternal plan.

Now this would seem more precise and deliberate, at least in my mind.

Posted: **February 10th, 2018, 9:05 am**

Marc makes very good points. If the issue is what the grammar allows, then full-on group polyamory would be left open. "Man and woman doesn't say how many of each" kind of thing.

It's a stretch.

Posted: **February 10th, 2018, 10:36 pm**

The church tried to pass a constitutional amendment that would limit marriage to only one man and one woman.

It failed. Maybe because of Satan? maybe because of the Lord?

Posted: **February 10th, 2018, 11:02 pm**

I just read The Family A Proclamation to the World on my mantle.

First paragraph "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. . ."

Paragraphs 4 (procreation) and 7 (marriage) use the phrase "man and woman" but since they are both expounding on the first paragraph where the distinction was already made to be "a man and a woman" I don't think there is any hidden meaning.

Posted: **February 10th, 2018, 11:13 pm**

Michelle wrote: ↑February 10th, 2018, 11:02 pm I just read The Family A Proclamation to the World on my mantle.

First paragraph "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. . ."

Paragraphs 4 (procreation) and 7 (marriage) use the phrase "man and woman" but since they are both expounding on the first paragraph where the distinction was already made to be "a man and a woman" I don't think there is any hidden meaning.

Confirmed. Just read it.

Posted: **February 24th, 2018, 5:09 am**

Who writes or talks like this? It's certainly not a grammar pattern that would be used in formal, informal or colloquial writing or speech by a vast majority of English speakers. This pattern might be used by a speaker whose native language is not English. It's certainly not a pattern that you would expect in an otherwise eloquent and precisely worded document.

Posted: **February 24th, 2018, 6:01 am**

marc wrote: ↑February 10th, 2018, 8:15 am
JackBuckeye wrote: ↑February 10th, 2018, 5:31 am Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan.

Why doesn't this say a man and a woman?

Seems very precise and deliberate.

Is this leaving room for the return of polygamy?
Now ask yourself the same question with a small difference and see if your question still makes sense:

Marriage between man and man is essential to His eternal plan.

Why doesn't this say a man and a man?

Seems very precise and deliberate.

Is this leaving room for the return of polygamy?
or alternatively:

Marriage between woman and woman is essential to His eternal plan.

Why doesn't this say a woman and a woman?

Seems very precise and deliberate.

Is this leaving room for the return of polygamy?
More precise to your point would be something like:

Marriage between man and women is essential to His eternal plan.
Now this would seem more precise and deliberate, at least in my mind.

Very good Marc!

Posted: **February 24th, 2018, 6:03 am**

Lyster wrote: ↑February 10th, 2018, 9:05 am Marc makes very good points. If the issue is what the grammar allows, then full-on group polyamory would be left open. "Man and woman doesn't say how many of each" kind of thing.

It's a stretch.

HA!

LDS Freedom Forum

Not a man a woman?

Not a man a woman?

Re: Not a man a woman?

Re: Not a man a woman?

Re: Not a man a woman?

Re: Not a man a woman?

Re: Not a man a woman?

Re: Not a man a woman?

Re: Not a man a woman?

Re: Not a man a woman?

Re: Not a man a woman?

Re: Not a man a woman?