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

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.

To The Best Of My Knowledge

I hadn't heard that it was terribly out of balance in Germany after WW2. Bombs really don't discriminate on the basis of sex. I do know that for several years women far out numbered men in Paraguay due to all their wars. As that has now been many decades past I would imagine that that is no longer the case.

Share this post


Link to post

To The Best Of My Knowledge

I hadn't heard that it was terribly out of balance in Germany after WW2. Bombs really don't discriminate on the basis of sex.

Being at the front lines does though. In Bavaria, there were .6 million soldiers removed from the marriage market in a former population of 7 million.

According to this site, the ratio of men to women when from slightly over one to one to about 2/3 to 1 for the age of 20 and then slowly increasing up to the age of 75 where men were about 80% women in numbers (that is if I read the graphs right, too lazy to try and find the actual data). https://editorialexpress.com/cgi-bin/conference/download.cgi?db_name=FEMES11&paper_id=172

Share this post


Link to post

I was once "felt out" by another Muslim woman; this reminded me of the incident. In her case I think it was for her to meet her lesbian drives. People can get away with a lot if they don't talk about it.

Share this post


Link to post
My libertarian nature tells me that the government should respond to what people want, rather than mandating what people can get.

Sure, as long as government doesn't benefit more than the ideal. Hence gays should (and can in any state right now) marry all they want. Just don't give it legal status.

Share this post


Link to post

BCSpace:

I'd go one step further don't have governments recognizing any marriages. Make them all Civil Unions like any other enforceable contract. Let the churches, Mosques, Synagogues, what have you, enforce their own rules on their own members.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd still recognize the ideal marriage. The government of society has a responsibility to maintain and incentivize what's best for society.

Share this post


Link to post

Here is thought.....

Let's say that ssm is the slippery slope.to.polygamy, whats to say such is not Gods plan inorder to re-re-institute polygamy?

Not that God wanted ssm, but that in His forknowledge, He would use the legalization of ssm best in His favor for the benefit of the Saints; the Saints stopped polygamy because of gov persecution, so riding the coat tails of ssm would provide a legal basis in favor of polygamy.

Anything is possible. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

Share this post


Link to post

My wife is more in favor of it than I am.

My wife said I could have another wife if she can have another husband.

Needless to say I have no desire to. Being married to one woman is tough enough. The early Saints were either commanded by God to marry more than one woman or totally insane. I dont see a rational man adopting it. Though I would much rather see a man with many wives taking care of his children then a man sleeping around with multiple women and leaving his partners and children high and dry.

Regardless, Im not super concerned about it.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

I have. In Isaiah. Which i think is quoted in the BoM.

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

No doubt.

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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

I dont think it ever ceased to exist.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd still recognize the ideal marriage. The government of society has a responsibility to maintain and incentivize what's best for society.

There is no such thing as an "ideal marriage". Just ones that are more successful than others.

That is open to discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
I'd still recognize the ideal marriage. The government of society has a responsibility to maintain and incentivize what's best for society.

There is no such thing as an "ideal marriage". Just ones that are more successful than others.

That is open to discussion.

In this context, the ideal is that which is defined by LDS doctrine.

Share this post


Link to post

Interestingly, In the Journal of Discourses, Volume 11, P266, Brigham Young makes some interesting statements regarding the practice. While he does write about actually doing it, he also mentions that being polygamous in your heart has many benefits. It is interesting to think on what "Polygamy in your heart", might mean.

Some Mormons live very sheltered lives, or just dissemble about the issue because they think it is a secret or "private". I think it is cute how they dance around the real issues. What many may not realize is that gen X folk and younger have been exploring various aspects of polygamy for a long time. From 2010 until very recently, I was living in a house with both male and female residents and for a portion of that time, I was effectively the "House Mom", cooking the evening meal, and cleaning house. Sometimes it was all women, and others men were there too. There were no orgies, or drunken drug parties. From a purely sociological point of view, there were commonalities in our house with those that live polygamous relationships. Believe me, Mormons do not have the corner on the practice. If you are wont to do that, you can in our culture if no part of the relationship needs to be publicly documented.

I am polygamous in my heart, though I will never come any closer to actually experiencing it than I did in my previous experiences. What ever the GA says, I believe it can happen in non FLDS Mormon and other households and I have no issue with it. My only caveat would be that my own reaction to finding out about child abuse, wife abuse, or dysfunctional conduct would surpass any law known to man.

Share this post


Link to post

Interestingly, In the Journal of Discourses, Volume 11, P266, Brigham Young makes some interesting statements regarding the practice. While he does write about actually doing it, he also mentions that being polygamous in your heart has many benefits. It is interesting to think on what "Polygamy in your heart", might mean.

Some Mormons live very sheltered lives, or just dissemble about the issue because they think it is a secret or "private". I think it is cute how they dance around the real issues. What many may not realize is that gen X folk and younger have been exploring various aspects of polygamy for a long time. From 2010 until very recently, I was living in a house with both male and female residents and for a portion of that time, I was effectively the "House Mom", cooking the evening meal, and cleaning house. Sometimes it was all women, and others men were there too. There were no orgies, or drunken drug parties. From a purely sociological point of view, there were commonalities in our house with those that live polygamous relationships. Believe me, Mormons do not have the corner on the practice. If you are wont to do that, you can in our culture if no part of the relationship needs to be publicly documented.

I am polygamous in my heart, though I will never come any closer to actually experiencing it than I did in my previous experiences. What ever the GA says, I believe it can happen in non FLDS Mormon and other households and I have no issue with it. My only caveat would be that my own reaction to finding out about child abuse, wife abuse, or dysfunctional conduct would surpass any law known to man.

I don't see it as "working" for more than a very short time amongst very limited number of people. Population dynamics, and birth rates would end it in just a few generations. Plus add in all the societal problems of having large numbers of unattached young males, and it is courting disaster. That being said I'm all for personal choice and if all parties have given informed consent. Whom am I to object.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see it as "working" for more than a very short time amongst very limited number of people. Population dynamics, and birth rates would end it in just a few generations. Plus add in all the societal problems of having large numbers of unattached young males, and it is courting disaster. That being said I'm all for personal choice and if all parties have given informed consent. Whom am I to object.

Well there are circumstances that we do not now face which could force the issue. Perhaps another war, using conscripts, with South America, China, or even a civil war here in America? To me, the talk of some people is just frightening. And a lot of the <40 folk I know do not even believe in our government. I just cringe when people say we have a democracy. I would rely on Heavenly Father to save us but the morality in the West continues to circle the drain.

I wonder what our population demographics were like just post the war of 1812? Something pushed Joseph Smith into polygamy, or at least talk of it. Just saying that God told him to do it is over simplification. Some how we keep avoiding an unheard of pandemic like the years of the Black Plague. What happens if disease suddenly out smarts us? I was recently on a very heavy course of two different antibiotics. Before that I was on a PICC line. What happens if economic and medical circumstances force doctors to just let many of us die?

Even 911 had people, particularly our government running around screaming like little girls. Rather than school the American people to defend themselves, they used to ensuing situation to program Americans to be helpless and dependent. We did not have the business people like we had after WWII, who had seen real trials, and came home to build a nation. Rather mostly all we have now are kids who have never known anything but plenty, and the only crisis many of them have faced is the girl they got pregnant, or how to wheedle Dad out of the car.

Many Mormons have been brought up in a situation where they never truly faced a test of their faith like many generations before them. My own parents were run out of Oklahoma by drought, so they did not have the choices that we had.

That tiny rock that blew up in Russia, injured 1100 people. What if that had happened over LA, or New York? I am sorry if I sound like a doom sayer. We just need to realize that for the time of human existence, things have been rather quiescent here on earth.

Share this post


Link to post

Sure, as long as government doesn't benefit more than the ideal. Hence gays should (and can in any state right now) marry all they want. Just don't give it legal status.

By that thinking, would you be just as ok if the government took away the tax exempt statice of say the Mormon church? You could still be Mormon and practice your religion, you just wouldn't get to write off your tithing and other church donations and the church would be forced to divert millions to the government in taxes. While every other church would still have a tax exemption. Sound ok with you???

Share this post


Link to post

By that thinking, would you be just as ok if the government took away the tax exempt statice of say the Mormon church? You could still be Mormon and practice your religion, you just wouldn't get to write off your tithing and other church donations and the church would be forced to divert millions to the government in taxes. While every other church would still have a tax exemption. Sound ok with you???

The government has always had that power. But Equality under the Law, plus the First Amendment, and European history are real barriers to taking that action against any one religious group.

Share this post


Link to post

The government has always had that power. But Equality under the Law, plus the First Amendment, and European history are real barriers to taking that action against any one religious group.

Exactly. And it is the same reasons why most Americans believe that gays should have Equity under the Law as well. We are all Americans.

Share this post


Link to post

Exactly. And it is the same reasons why most Americans believe that gays should have Equity under the Law as well. We are all Americans.

I'm all for gay's having equal rights under the law. Where I disagree is that marriage per say isn't a unrestricted right(none of them are), but a religious concept. That is why I'm in favor of getting the State out of the marriage business altogether, and make them all Domestic Partnerships(A legally enforceable contract).

Share this post


Link to post
Sure, as long as government doesn't benefit more than the ideal. Hence gays should (and can in any state right now) marry all they want. Just don't give it legal status.
By that thinking, would you be just as ok if the government took away the tax exempt statice of say the Mormon church? You could still be Mormon and practice your religion, you just wouldn't get to write off your tithing and other church donations and the church would be forced to divert millions to the government in taxes. While every other church would still have a tax exemption. Sound ok with you???

State recognition of gay marriage has never been about rights because gays have always been able to marry in any state. It's a welfare issue. Should I, because I belong to the LDS Church, receive welfare benefits on that basis? Of course not. On the other hand, the state does have a compelling reason to benefit the ideal marriage which has a lot to do with raising children with the proper male and female role models.

Share this post


Link to post

Bcspace what is the proper role model for males and females, and should the State tests parents annually to certify they are proper role models?

Share this post


Link to post
Bcspace what is the proper role model for males and females, and should the State tests parents annually to certify they are proper role models?

The proper role model is heterosexual husband and wife. Single parents also match because they are not united with the same sex. And no, the state should not certify, check for children, or otherwise second guess etc. All they need to do is benefit and recognize only this ideal. Everything else is legal as long as a reasonable age limit is set but not recognized by the state. I actually think plural marriages would be okay but recognized separately.

Share this post


Link to post

Marriage is essentially a religious ceremony. Why should the State recognize any marriage? IMNTBHO They all should be domestic partnership contracts enforceable by the State.

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 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?
    • By MeeMee
      My question as I am still a new convert is how many times can you be sealed to someone or others. Say for example you were sealed to your current husband but he pass away. Years later down the line you meet someone and want to get sealed with the new husband instead. How does it work in the end. I never understand this and every time I ask someone nobody seems to really want to explain it. Please clarify only if you truly have the answer.
      Thank You
       
    • By HappyJackWagon
      I want to respond to a couple of statements made by Julianne from the now closed "Weed" thread, because she absolutely nails it. She is spot on and I think the discussion at this level needs to occur before any progress can be made on the SSM issue.
      She wrote...
      Speaking as a straight, white, man, I recognize that I come to the traditional church teachings of priesthood, sealing, polygamy/polyandry, and SSM from a certain privileged position. The church's teachings and practices benefit me and they always have. Even though there is little to no evidence for how celestial families will actually be organized and function in the CK I used to think I had it all figured out. Obviously, I thought, marriage is essential to have legal physical intimacy which is necessary for creating offspring with one or multiple wives. Yet there is no firm teaching about how spirits are created. Are they born like a baby is born into mortality? There is no evidence or teaching for that, but it is widely assumed. That assumption then justifies polygamy while discrediting polyandry and even SSM. After all, if the entire purpose is to create spirit offspring and it is thought that it happens in a way similar to creating biological offspring, then it makes sense. But that is ALL based on assumptions.
      Based on these assumptions many are willing to condemn others to lives (and possibly even an eternity) of loneliness.
      So (we) don't even know what the afterlife looks like. It is unknown. Yet we think (we) have enough information to condemn and judge others, and since most of us come at it from positions of privilege, we are in the position to enforce our dogma upon the less privileged. The church is not unique in behaving this way. It is how society has always worked. But recognizing the assumptions for what they are and being humble about how much we really don't know, can help society improve.
      Julianne also stated...
      How can one categorically dismiss SSM when there is little to nothing known about family organization in the next life, even regarding a variety of heterosexual family organizations. Which sealings will be valid? Polygamy/polyandry? Only those which benefit men? Who are the children sealed to? There is a lot of "The Lord will work it out" mentality, which is fine because it acknowledges a lack of understanding and knowledge. The problem comes when one then loses all humility and attempts to define how family relationships will or will not work for other people. I agree with Julianne that the polygamy/polyandry topic is closely tied to the SSM topic and must be ironed out.
      So maybe this can be a thread that can be commented on instead of derailing other threads when this subject comes up.
       
      *Julianne, I hope I didn't misunderstand or misrepresent you. I really appreciated where you were trying to take the discussion.
×
×
  • Create New...