Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

BCSpace

Plural Marriage: The New Marriage-Rights Frontier

Recommended Posts

For purposes of expanding my knowledge base, could you provide reference to the institute manual that debunks the 7 woman shall cleave unto one man, I have never read anything on that verse other than what is in the BOM.

If plural spouse were legal in the US, I agree it could not be limited to men having harems.

However, the history of polygamy in the Church shows that it was limited to selected men having more than one wife with whom carnal relations were permitted.

First, you need to read D&C 132 more carefully as well as the history of JS' sealings to other men's wives.

Second, the OP is about polygamy being made legal. That has nothing to do with anything the church has done or will do.

Share this post


Link to post

One, I thought you were claiming nothing more than wishing to expand your knowledge base as you had only ever read the verse in the BoM. Two, this is what the BoM institute manual says. "

2 Nephi 14:1. “Seven Women … One Man”


  • A great number of the men will be killed in battle or taken captive, leaving the women with the destitution of being both widows and childless."

One, I was just seeking understanding on the verse, as until this thread I was not aware that Isaiah stated the same thing...I usually always ignore and do not read Chapter headings. I also did not want Juliann to think I was questioning her knowledge on the subject, hence I qualified the call for reference.

Two, even though I was just seeking to expand my knowledge on the verses, that certainly does not preclude me from recognizing that that the 26 word sentence in the BoM Institute manual is quite disappointing in teaching what the verse might be about compared the paragraph in the OT Institute Manual of the same/similar verses in Isaiah 4 .

The OT Institute Manual for Isaiah 4 has paragraphs for the entirety of Isaiah 4, compared to the BoM Institute manual for 2 Nephi 14 which is only 3 sentences covering only verse 1 and 2 (excluding the 1 sentence for the Chapter heading).

Share this post


Link to post

First, you need to read D&C 132 more carefully as well as the history of JS' sealings to other men's wives.

As with you from less than I week ago, I did not realize that Section 132 has limited support for the idea that a woman could have two living concurrent husband, hence I stated "history of polygamy in the Church shows that it was limited to selected men having more than one wife with whom carnal relations were permitted'" - of the sexual relations, if any, between those "sealed" to Joseph Smith is certainly not a topic for this thread nor seems to be a topic permitted on the board.

Second, the OP is about polygamy being made legal. That has nothing to do with anything the church has done or will do.

And yet, Bcspace the author of the OP has broached the subject of the Church and the legalization of polygamy. And discussing what the Church would do certainly is within the topic of the OP. Espeacially given the topic was lasted posted on a month ago, and only with the past day brought up again for discussion about following the GA in regard to polygamy in the future.

There is also your comment:

"...it is that no one even considers the reality it will also mean polyandry. So fellows, it may be your wife that is seeking other husbands."

Nevertheless, I think we all agree that the Church will not automatically re-institute polygamy - and yes polygamy is the appropriate term because it covers both polyandry and polygyny - because the Western Christian world no longer considers plural spouse barbarism. However, given the that the reasons the Church stopped polygamy was because it was deemed illegal and the persecution and prosecution that would follow it polygamy was continued then the reason for ceasing polygamy are gone.

Share this post


Link to post

Two, even though I was just seeking to expand my knowledge on the verses, that certainly does not preclude me from recognizing that that the 26 word sentence in the BoM Institute manual is quite disappointing in teaching what the verse might be about compared the paragraph in the OT Institute Manual of the same/similar verses in Isaiah 4 .

The OT Institute Manual for Isaiah 4 has paragraphs for the entirety of Isaiah 4, compared to the BoM Institute manual for 2 Nephi 14 which is only 3 sentences covering only verse 1 and 2 (excluding the 1 sentence for the Chapter heading).

Let's not pretend that this was your claim. You claimed that the BoM manual painted the "very opposite" picture of that "very bleak" one in the OT manual.

Share this post


Link to post

As with you from less than I week ago, I did not realize that Section 132 has limited support for the idea that a woman could have two living concurrent husband, hence I stated "history of polygamy in the Church shows that it was limited to selected men having more than one wife with whom carnal relations were permitted'" - of the sexual relations, if any, between those "sealed" to Joseph Smith is certainly not a topic for this thread nor seems to be a topic permitted on the board.

I don't see any limitations on a woman in 132. Both parties must go through the appropriate ritual. So how is being annointed a limitation for women? Is a sealing a limitation for men?

Nevertheless, I think we all agree that the Church will not automatically re-institute polygamy - and yes polygamy is the appropriate term because it covers both polyandry and polygyny - because polygamy is Western Christian world no longer considers plural spouse barbarism. However, given the that the reasons the Church stopped polygamy was because it was deemed illegal and the persecution and prosecution that would follow it polygamy was continued then the reason for ceasing polygamy are gone.

The western Christian world (whatever that is) considers polygamy an abomination. Certainly outside pressure triggered some soul searching about polygamy, but it has always been the exception not the rule. So to say that was the reason for ceasing it is inconsistent with your position the church would not start up polygamy if it was legal.

Share this post


Link to post

Let's not pretend that this was your claim. You claimed that the BoM manual painted the "very opposite" picture of that "very bleak" one in the OT manual.

you are correct I did post that, and when I realized that I had not deleted that sentence before posting, I edited the post to delete the "opposite" statement.

You might take note my edit was done at 4:58pm and my original post was at 4:57pm and your post was posted at 5:05pm....so yes, I did post "opposite" then immediately deleted it. Clearly, you had "quoted" my post within the time frame that I was editing my post and you posted 4 minutes after I had already immediately edited my statement.

However, once again, wanting to expand my knowledge on the subject certainly does not preclude from making commentary.

And I stand by my position that I was asking Juliann for the reference because I was genuinely interested in learning more on the subject. Juliann has on several occasions posted things which I have never read before, though at least one the things I heard as "mormon myth" but something Juliann posted demonstrated it was not mormon myth; so I had no doubt that Juliann knew what she was referring too in terms of the 7 women and 1 one man verse.

Share this post


Link to post

Juliann,

the other day you made a statement about section 132 and another posters interpretation that section 132 provided for a woman to enter into a polygamous relation or more specifically polyandry. As many times as I have read section 132 I did not realize that either.

As for the Western Christian world considering polygamy an abomination, that was a reference to IIRC a lower court ruling against Reynolds or it was from a lower court ruling against another LDS Polygamist.

So yes, the Western Christian world has viewed polygamy as wrong if not evil. Just because the world changes its views on polygamy does not mean the Church will immediately institute polygamy.

However, the Church ceased polygamy because of the persecution and prosecution due to polygamy being deemed illegal by the world - so there is some ground that the Church would start up polygamy again if it was not illegal.

Share this post


Link to post

Late Corp. of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 10 S. Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478 (1890).

It is distinctly stated in the pleadings and findings of fact, that the property of the said corporation was held for the purpose of religious and charitable uses. But it is also stated in the findings of fact, and is a matter of public notoriety, that the religious and charitable uses intended to be subserved and promoted are the inculcation and spread of the doctrines and usages of the Mormon Church, or Church of Latter-Day Saints, one of the distinguishing features of which is the practice of polygamy — a crime against the laws, and abhorrent to the sentiments and feelings of the civilized world. Notwithstanding the stringent laws which have been passed by Congress — notwithstanding all the efforts made to suppress 49*49 this barbarous practice — the sect or community composing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints perseveres, in defiance of law, in preaching, upholding, promoting and defending it. It is a matter of public notoriety that its emissaries are engaged in many countries in propagating this nefarious doctrine, and urging its converts to join the community in Utah. The existence of such a propaganda is a blot on our civilization. The organization of a community for the spread and practice of polygamy is, in a measure, a return to barbarism. It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western world. The question, therefore, is whether the promotion of such a nefarious system and practice, so repugnant to our laws and to the principles of our civilization, is to be allowed to continue by the sanction of the government itself; and whether the funds accumulated for that purpose shall be restored to the same unlawful uses as heretofore, to the detriment of the true interests of civil society.

Share this post


Link to post

David B, now I am totally confused as you agree that polygamy is considered an abomination because you clearly said "Western Christian world no longer considers plural spouse barbarism"

I don't know anything about this author, maybe she is well qualified, but it appears she is a film critic and writes a column in a local newspaper.... so it may not be surprising that she can't seem to clearly separate LDS from other groups...not to mention she claims Mormon sister wives were engaging in lesbianism... This bit was also left out of the OP...

I’m finding also a rationale for polyandry. I had an angry man call me recently, and he said, “I’m angry at the polygamists because they’re hoarding all the women.” There are a lot of men who might at this point be interested in the alpha female. We’re opening up to new and creative sexual forms in order to deal with our socioeconomic crisis. So stay tuned.

So as those who look ahead to endless women to choose from, it may actually end up creating a caste system with the alpha males and alpha females limiting selection for everyone else. In fact, any complaints from women about wanting equality are usually met with scary articles about the demise of real men. So it actually all comes together nicely. Women will have the money and when men are no longer real men, they will follow the money just like powerless women do.

Share this post


Link to post

Had the persecution and prosecution of the Saints by the State been much less strenuous and the attitude of the world surrounding them been more ' live and let live ', would we still be practising polygamy today?Would the practice be limited? Would we be just a tiny backwater church kind of like the Hutterian Brethern?

Share this post


Link to post

Juliann,

the other day you made a statement about section 132 and another posters interpretation that section 132 provided for a woman to enter into a polygamous relation or more specifically polyandry. As many times as I have read section 132 I did not realize that either.

As for the Western Christian world considering polygamy an abomination, that was a reference to IIRC a lower court ruling against Reynolds or it was from a lower court ruling against another LDS Polygamist.

So yes, the Western Christian world has viewed polygamy as wrong if not evil. Just because the world changes its views on polygamy does not mean the Church will immediately institute polygamy.

However, the Church ceased polygamy because of the persecution and prosecution due to polygamy being deemed illegal by the world - so there is some ground that the Church would start up polygamy again if it was not illegal.

Revelation teaches that polygamy will exist in the last days, but not within the Church again.

Share this post


Link to post

Revelation teaches that polygamy will exist in the last days, but not within the Church again.

What revelation is that?

Share this post


Link to post

Had the persecution and prosecution of the Saints by the State been much less strenuous and the attitude of the world surrounding them been more ' live and let live ', would we still be practising polygamy today?Would the practice be limited? Would we be just a tiny backwater church kind of like the Hutterian Brethern?

Plural marriage was fading out on its own by the time the feds got involved strongly enough to shut it down (IIRC it was the work of Kathyrn Daynes that provided the stats that showed this, but it's been awhile since I read up on it so I may be confusing her with someone else who studied the historical evolution of plural marriage). If it was still practiced, chances are it would be a very, very limited sort of practice.

Share this post


Link to post

Juliann, I did not use the word "abomination" or at least I can not find where I did.

I used the term "barbarism" which is taken from a SCOTUS 1890 - which referred to polygamy as barbarism.

" the practice of polygamy — a crime against the laws, and abhorrent to the sentiments and feelings of the civilized world."

"this barbarous practice"

"The organization of a community for the spread and practice of polygamy is, in a measure, a return to barbarism."

I also stated that with the Western World no longer considering polygamy barbarism, does not automatically mean the Church would start up polygamy again. But I did state that there is ground to think the Church might bring it back given that the reason for the Church ending polygamy was due to the repercussion of the world considering polygamy barbarism.

And as I stated Bcspace is the author of the OP in this thread - albeit a word for word copy and paste - yet Bcspace entertained the topic of what the Church would do if the world was accepting of polygamy.

Share this post


Link to post

After a couple of years there are more girls than boys( about 5 % more ). Polygamy will work well after the folks are over 75 because the ratio of men to women at that age is significantly over balanced. I agree that the " lost boys " syndrome is a serious impediment to

long term polygamy. Maybe that's why the patriarchs sent their boys far away to get a wife.

Statistically it nearly balances out at about menopause. Men traditionally are more risk takers than women are.

http://nationalatlas.gov/articles/people/a_gender.html

Probably that's why. It's also why I don't believe polygamy will ever be a predominate practice. An unattached unemployed young man is the most dangerous thing alive to a society.

Share this post


Link to post

. An unattached unemployed young man is the most dangerous thing alive to a society.

For this reason,I foresee a whirlwind approaching China.

Share this post


Link to post

They're already starting to experience just the first of the strong winds. It is going to get much worse, and the results won't be pretty.

Share this post


Link to post

They're already starting to experience just the first of the strong winds. It is going to get much worse, and the results won't be pretty.

At some point, it may come down to the PRC having to do what the earliest Romans did because they didn't have enough marriageable women, and their neighbors, the Sabines, wouldn't let any of their single women come to Rome to become wives: go and steal some.

What countries around PRC are there which have women to spare? Those countries might be the target of a Chinese invasion, perhaps. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know of any around China. :pardon:

Well, war itself reduces the number of marriageable young men.

Why were there so many American soldiers occupying Germany who came home with German brides? Because those who would have been their husbands were killed. That's where I got my wife from.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, war itself reduces the number of marriageable young men.

Why were there so many American soldiers occupying Germany who came home with German brides? Because those who would have been their husbands were killed. That's where I got my wife from.

TTBOMK Germany is no where near China on the map. But I could be wrong.

Congratulations. Germany is a beautiful country. I've always wanted to visit it. But alas it doesn't look like I'll get the chance.

Share this post


Link to post

TTBOMK Germany is no where near China on the map. But I could be wrong.

Congratulations. Germany is a beautiful country. I've always wanted to visit it. But alas it doesn't look like I'll get the chance.

TTBOMK? <_<

Germany's sex ratio was unbalanced due to war; China's is unbalanced due to policy. Similar outcome; different cause. Except that the ratios are opposite.

Share this post


Link to post

To the best of my knowledge, I am guessing.

Share this post


Link to post

To the best of my knowledge, I am guessing.

Oh, to be able to hear the tone of that statment !

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, to be able to hear the tone of that statment !

B:)

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By nuclearfuels
      Kenya legalized polygamy in 2014.  Any readers here serve mission there and have to tell investigators they'd need to stop the practice before being able to be baptized? I understand in Latin America a lot of married people split up but forgo the legal part of making the divorce official and that has to be done before they can be baptized.
      Germany is trying to indirectly legalize polygamy for one of their migrant culture's beliefs. 
      My wife and I support our ancestors who practiced polygamy, to say nothing of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob practicing polygamy.
      Curious as to your thoughts:
      Will other African countries and European countries following suit? Will / Should people in Congress - Ilhan, Tlaib, Romney, Bishop, etc. allow migrants here to practice what their faith encourages?  Declining populations (Japan, Europe) really have two options: welcome in higher fertility populations from other countries or legalize polygamy. 
       
      Pushed by politicians, polygamy enjoys a heyday among Christians in ...
      Germany: Citizenship for Polygamous Migrants?  
    • By SouthernMo
      The timeline and reasons of how the idea of polygamy evolved into practice is perplexing.  It is causing me doubt how scriptures are to be obeyed, and how to trust the revelatory process.  Let's look at the pattern Joseph Smith followed:
      March 1830 - Joseph Smith publishes the Book of Mormon (supposedly scripture) which contains commandments from God.  The only discussion of polygamy is found in Jacob 2, which clearly condemns the practice.  However, there is a provision given for exceptions: only to 'raise up seed' if God commands it.
      The Gospel Topics Essay on Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo states that "After receiving a revelation commanding him to practice plural marriage, Joseph Smith married multiple wives and introduced the practice to close associates."  The only revelation I know of on polygamy came in July 1843 (D&C 132), yet Joseph Smith had married 22 (by some count) additional wives by July 1843.
      2 Big Questions:
      1. What revelation did Joseph Smith receive (per the mentioned Gospel Topic Essay) before the D&C 132 revelation that told him to practice polygamy, despite the Book of Mormon's 1830 prohibition (with exception)?
      2. In light of the Jacob 2:30 provision for the allowance of polygamy to "raise up seed unto me..." why are there no (known) children that emerged from Joseph Smith's plural wives?  Joseph apparently did not use polygamy to 'raise up seed.'
    • By nuclearfuels
      So now that President Nelson has shown us how he roles and how the inspiration he receives roles, I can't help but ask/ponder aloud with my cyber-ward-family/friends (I don't know any of you well enough to consider our relationship to be that of frenemies, my apologies):
      - I figure we have maybe two years until the BSA program (love it or hate it) will be replaced
      - Several years ago, maybe 10+ years, there was talk about mini-Temples being created in levels other the main entry level of stake centers; wondering if this idea might come back?  Really I'm just looking for an excuse to goto Ireland and a Temple openhouse seems to be that opportunity; slainte!
      - Wondering if any of you have written to General Authorities and asked about topics like these; anyone received a response?  Since "marriage" has been legally "redefined," I'm curious to ask the GA's if redefining marriage in the vein of Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and many others defined marriage.  Waiting for SCOTUS to "redefine marriage" again (before reinstituting), would be more palatable no doubt, but aren't we on kind of an accelerated time schedule/ last days etc.?  And when you attend the Temple, don't the Sisters outnumber the Brothers by a factor of 3 to 1, on average?
×
×
  • Create New...