Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rockpond

Starting the path to legal polygamy in the U.S.

Recommended Posts

The Brown family (of the reality TV series "Sister Wives") has taken up the banner of religious freedom and is fighting for polygamy to be legal in Utah (not just decriminalized -- which they already accomplished).  Hopefully this will be the case that goes all the way to SCOTUS and removes the ban for the whole country.  Article here and a relevant quote from it...

""Sister Wives" stars Kody Brown and his four wives Meri, Christine, Janelle and Robyn are reportedly pushing for polygamy legalization in Utah. In fact, the lawyers for the family had recently asked a federal appeals court to uphold a ruling that "decriminalized" plural marriages in the state.

Based on the lawsuit filed by the Browns, the family made famous by the TLC reality show "Sister Wives" contended that Utah's polygamy ban violated the constitutional rights of Americans to liberally engage in their religion, noting the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) practice of plural marriage."

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure how I feel about it being recognized by the government. I do t know if I like the idea of the government legitimizing every personal belief about marriage. 

But I do support it being decriminalized. 

Share this post


Link to post

Thus begins the real reason the LDS Church has been so politically active in opposing gay marriage.

No seer stone was needed to see that once gay marriage was ruled constitutional, plural marriage would be the next milestone.

And once plural marriage is legal in the United States, on what basis will the LDS Church refuse to reinstitute it?

Interesting times.

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Thus begins the real reason the LDS Church has been so politically active in opposing gay marriage.

No seer stone was needed to see that once gay marriage was ruled constitutional, plural marriage would be the next milestone.

And once plural marriage is legal in the United States, on what basis will the LDS Church refuse to reinstitute it?

Interesting times.

It's legal in countries where the church is right now and the church hasn't reinstitute it yet.  I don't see why it would be different if it became legal here.

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

on what basis will the LDS Church refuse to reinstitute it?

On the basis of what God commands.   It is up to you to decide if there is ANY church that is divinely led by God and act accordingly.

Edited by longview

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure how I feel about it being recognized by the government. I do t know if I like the idea of the government legitimizing every personal belief about marriage. 

But I do support it being decriminalized. 

One would think that being decriminalised ought to be sufficient.

But it appears that, like the New Privileged Class, everyone wants their particular marital arrangements to receive direct government sanction -- and, by extension, legally enforceable expectations of active support by private actors, regardless of their personal principles and beliefs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

And once plural marriage is legal in the United States, on what basis will the LDS Church refuse to reinstitute it?

All the narcissistic assumptions of US-centrism encapsulated in a single sentence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, longview said:

On the basis of what God commands.   It is up to you to decide if there is ANY church that is divinely led by God and act accordingly.

The challenge will be that if there are three legal kinds of marriages (monogamy, polygamy, and SSM) and the Church teaches that 2/3 are sins, they are going to have to explain what validates a monogamous marriage bound only by the state in the eyes of God.

A monogamous state marriage is no more ordained of God than any other civil marriage.  Because true marriage has nothing to do with the state.
Now, if we are talking about marriages by GOD'S authority that's an entirely different issue.
The Church can't have it both ways.  Either the state has the right to declare who is truly married and who isn't, or they don't.

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

All the narcissistic assumptions of US-centrism encapsulated in a single sentence.

 

You can mock but President Nelson just admitted (in the Jan 10 YSA Devotional) that it was the US decision on gay marriage that prompted them to take action.  Other countries have had legal recognition of gay marriage for years.

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

One would think that being decriminalised ought to be sufficient.

But it appears that, like the New Privileged Class, everyone wants their particular marital arrangements to receive direct government sanction -- and, by extension, legally enforceable expectations of active support by private actors, regardless of their personal principles and beliefs.

 

As long as any one person's beliefs about marriage are codified into law, others will want equality.  Go figure.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

You can mock but President Nelson just admitted (in the Jan 10 YSA Devotional) that it was the US decision on gay marriage that prompted them to take action.  Other countries have had legal recognition of gay marriage for years.

That is true.

But in none of those countries has the Church been flushed into that particular sewer.

Nor have any traitors managed to pose as Latter-day Saints while trying to subvert the Church's doctrines.

(With which doctrines, needless to say, the recent decisions are fully compatible, contrary to the intentionally false claims of the intractably wicked.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

That is true.

But in none of those countries has the Church been flushed into that particular sewer.

Nor have any traitors managed to pose as Latter-day Saints while trying to subvert the Church's doctrines.

(With which doctrines, needless to say, the recent decisions are fully compatible, contrary to the intentionally false claims of the intractably wicked.)

 

Traitors posing as LDS while subverting church doctrines.  You crack me up, Russell. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Because true marriage has nothing to do with the state.

Society has a serious vested interest in the long term stability (and hopefully happiness) of the "basic unit" which consists of mother, father, children.  The state does not need to dictate religious formalities (or absence of any belief).  When the "basic unit" breaks down, crime tends to increase, poverty spreads, abuse becomes more prevalent, etc.

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Either the state has the right to declare who is truly married and who isn't, or they don't.

Marriage is like a contract.  Both parties must take the relationship seriously and commit to the long term fidelity of the "basic unit".  If there are breaches, only the state has the prosecution and enforcement authority to deal with various problems with broken marriages/broken families.  We would NOT want the churches to have legal authority (except maybe to perform marriage vows).  A marriage license is the minimum required.  Any religious rituals are optional (in accordance with your beliefs).

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, longview said:

Society has a serious vested interest in the long term stability (and hopefully happiness) of the "basic unit" which consists of mother, father, children.  The state does not need to dictate religious formalities (or absence of any belief).  When the "basic unit" breaks down, crime tends to increase, poverty spreads, abuse becomes more prevalent, etc.

Marriage is like a contract.  Both parties must take the relationship seriously and commit to the long term fidelity of the "basic unit".  If there are breaches, only the state has the prosecution and enforcement authority to deal with various problems with broken marriages/broken families.  We would NOT want the churches to have legal authority (except maybe to perform marriage vows).  A marriage license is the minimum required.  Any religious rituals are optional (in accordance with your beliefs).

Sorry.  I don't approve of SSM, but this argument is weak.  An idealized "basic unit" doesn't address the issue I raised.
The Church can either say "only God's authorized marriages are valid" or the Church can say "the state can authorize marriages".

If they choose the former they can limit which marriages they consider valid to ones our gospel allows for (currently, only monogamous straight marriage).
If the choose the latter and say God approves of state marriage regardless of priesthood involvement they have no right to limit the kind.

They cannot sit there and reasonably say "non-priesthood civil marriages performed by the state are approved by God as long as they are in the image of a priesthood marriage".
Either God approves of a marriage or he doesn't.  Either God approves of the authority that binds a straight monogamous marriage or he doesn't.  If God approves of state authority to bind a marriage, then any marriage they bind would be valid.  If God is limiting his approval to marriages performed by his authority then civil monogamous marriages are just as invalid as SSM in the eyes of God.
 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Traitors posing as LDS while subverting church doctrines.  You crack me up, Russell. 

Who is it that mocks?

Incidentally, I never said the traitors in question would succeed in subverting Church doctrines.

And they won't.

 

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Sorry.  I don't approve of SSM, but this argument is weak.  An idealized "basic unit" doesn't address the issue I raised.
The Church can either say "only God's authorized marriages are valid" or the Church can say "the state can authorize marriages".

If they choose the former they can limit which marriages they consider valid to ones our gospel allows for (currently, only monogamous straight marriage).
If the choose the latter and say God approves of state marriage regardless of priesthood involvement they have no right to limit the kind.

They cannot sit there and reasonably say "non-priesthood civil marriages performed by the state are approved by God as long as they are in the image of a priesthood marriage".
Either God approves of a marriage or he doesn't.  Either God approves of the authority that binds a straight monogamous marriage or he doesn't.  If God approves of state authority to bind a marriage, then any marriage they bind would be valid.  If God is limiting his approval to marriages performed by his authority then civil monogamous marriages are just as invalid as SSM in the eyes of God.
 

Actually JHL, that's really rather silly.

The Church can pick and choose which civil marriages it recognises, and it is entirely valid for it to recognise those civil marriages that are doctrinally coherent.

If we apply your logic consistently, we'd have to claim that if a person disagrees with the Vietnam War, such a person cannot agree with WWII.

God can approve of a valid marriage performed by some civil authority, and disapprove of an invalid marriage performed by that same authority. The earthly legitimacy of the authority does not override the intrinsic validity or otherwise of the marriage in question.

 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, consiglieri said:

And once plural marriage is legal in the United States, on what basis will the LDS Church refuse to reinstitute it?

I would stick with the "God said no" rationale that has worked for the last century and has kept practicing members from practicing it even in nations where it is legal.

2 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

What would be so bad about the church bringing back polygamy if it becomes legalized?

Nothing. I just doubt they will.

 

On a personal note I do not want polygamy legal. I have seen many examples of people living this kind of relationship and it is usually a timebomb masquerading as a dramafest. I pity the divorce judges who are going to have to sort out the fallout and the children born to fools whose main interest in polygamy is desperate pursuit of the perfect orgasm.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, rockpond said:

As long as any one person's beliefs about marriage are codified into law, others will want equality.  Go figure.

But as you perfectly well know, Mister Rockpond, and contrary to the propaganda so assiduously circulated by those who hate the truth, the former commitment to authentic, traditional marriage did not represent "any one person's beliefs about marriage." It represented what everyone simply understood marriage to be.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Thus begins the real reason the LDS Church has been so politically active in opposing gay marriage.

No seer stone was needed to see that once gay marriage was ruled constitutional, plural marriage would be the next milestone.

And once plural marriage is legal in the United States, on what basis will the LDS Church refuse to reinstitute it?

Interesting times.

Of course, the LDS Church will not reinstate plural marriage, and the general membership does not appear to want it.  However, it will become as legal as same sex marriage, and for the same constitutional reasons.  Muslims and the FLDS will be practicing that, but not the LDS.

As to the "real reason" the LDS Church successfully supported Prop 8 in California and similar legislation in other states, well, I'm not going to second guess the Brethren, but am not sure they even realized the full consequences of their action.  Would be nice to have a frank interview with Elder Oaks now -- he might be able to give some perspective in retrospect.  Your Byzantine assumption clearly goes too far, Counselor.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

One would think that being decriminalised ought to be sufficient.

But it appears that, like the New Privileged Class, everyone wants their particular marital arrangements to receive direct government sanction -- and, by extension, legally enforceable expectations of active support by private actors, regardless of their personal principles and beliefs.

 

I don't see the church giving up their right to legally marry. Do you?

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

But as you perfectly well know, Mister Rockpond, and contrary to the propaganda so assiduously circulated by those who hate the truth, the former commitment to authentic, traditional marriage did not represent "any one person's beliefs about marriage." It represented what everyone simply understood marriage to be.

A naive and ignorant view. 

Share this post


Link to post

It may be legalized, but I don't think the legal argument for polygamy is as strong as the legal argument for gay marriage. A ban on polygamy does not discriminate on gender lines, after all. 

Edited by Gray

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The challenge will be that if there are three legal kinds of marriages (monogamy, polygamy, and SSM) and the Church teaches that 2/3 are sins, they are going to have to explain what validates a monogamous marriage bound only by the state in the eyes of God.

A monogamous state marriage is no more ordained of God than any other civil marriage.  Because true marriage has nothing to do with the state.
Now, if we are talking about marriages by GOD'S authority that's an entirely different issue.
The Church can't have it both ways.  Either the state has the right to declare who is truly married and who isn't, or they don't.

The state can not dictate church beliefs, and the church can not dictate law to the state.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I would stick with the "God said no" rationale that has worked for the last century and has kept practicing members from practicing it even in nations where it is legal.

Nothing. I just doubt they will.

 

On a personal note I do not want polygamy legal. I have seen many examples of people living this kind of relationship and it is usually a timebomb masquerading as a dramafest. I pity the divorce judges who are going to have to sort out the fallout and the children born to fools whose main interest in polygamy is desperate pursuit of the perfect orgasm.

You think most who engage in polygamy do so in "pursuit of the perfect orgasm"?  That's a rather shocking statement from someone who is LDS.  

And I'd be willing to guess that the second prophet of this dispensation probably holds the record for the most polygamous divorces.  And he's unlikely to be outdone anytime soon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
  • 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 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.
    • By DBMormon
      Knowing the background of the Lucy Walker story (if you don't, I can not emphasize enough the need to understand the story - resources below), I am curious how those who both know the story and who are faithful to the restoration and Church authority answer the following question.
      Do you take the position that Joseph deceived Lucy Walker about God commanding him to take her as a plural wife, or do you subscribe to a God whose morality has him commanding a man in a father/daughter dynamic to change his relationship with this 16 year old girl living in his home effectively as his foster daughter into a husband/wife dynamic? I am also open to other perspectives that hold some other ground but wood tool answers will not be acceptable in this post (have faith, God will work it out on the other side, go pray about it and get your own answer knowing people get competing answers)
      The question is not how does someone other than yourself come down or arrive at a perspective on this question but rather where do you personally come down on this question. I am deeply hoping that you wont avoid all-together or avoid using the mechanism that you know by the spirit that the Church is true hence you don't concern yourself with such conundrums. Instead what is your personal take on this historical issue.
      While this historical story has been largely ignored, I think it is the most important story in all of Mormonism. bigger than the Book of Abraham, bigger than Helen Mar Kimball and Fanny Alger, bigger than first vision accounts, and Race and Priesthood.
      http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2017/12/premium-lucy-walker-spiritual-experiences/
      http://www.yearofpolygamy.com/tag/lucy-walker-smith/
      http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/23-LucyWalker.htm
      http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/plural-wives-overview/lucy-walker/
    • By Maidservant
      Elder Quentin L. Cook opens Black Church Leadership Summit
      Mormon Newsroom YouTube bit
      Transcript of Elder Cook's remarks
      Highlights for me:  Mentions meeting Bernice King while (both) attending the Pope (sweet); affirming LGBT rights in the society (nice); that (unlike many churches of the day) blacks (the few) and whites worshiped together in the same early Mormon Church (let's not forget that; beautiful); 'battle' and 'attack' imagery (I really challenge that, not how I see the world, but I find it fascinating that our religious, in fact human, struggle continues to be encapsulized that way); his challenge to the challenge to the colonial narrative (cool, it's time; although let's not overdo it, colonial narrative, not to mention colonialism, is alive and well and still doing damage); continued affirmation of the Church's very specific stance on religious freedom (what it means and what it looks like) (ok); reiterating the Church's persecution foundation (what?! sigh; let's DO forget that).
      And this spectacular quote from the Prophet Joseph.
      ///A few months before he was killed by a mob in 1844, our prophet, Joseph Smith, taught that moral agency was essential for each individual: “God cannot save or damn a man only on the principle that every man acts, chooses and worships for himself; hence the importance of thrusting from us every spirit of bigotry and intolerance towards a man’s religious sentiments, that spirit which has drenched the earth with blood.” ///
      My hero.  (The Prophet, not Elder Cook )
      Lots more in the talk . . .
       
    • By MiserereNobis
      LDS friends,
      The issue of polygamy was brought up in another thread and one poster argued that it was a system that was inherently unequal towards women. From an external 21st century viewpoint, this seems true. One husband with many wives appears to be a situation where the one man has more authority, power, what-have-you over each individual wife. For example, a man with four wives would seem to be a set-up where each wife is only a 1/4 of the relationship.
      I'm wondering how posters here view this, not only as it was practiced in the 19th century, but how polygamy will be practiced in the celestial kingdom. Is polygamy simply a natural outgrowth of patriarchy? In particular, sisters, how do you feel about the prospect of sharing your husband with many other women in the celestial kingdom? Or am I misunderstanding LDS doctrine concerning this?
      The Catholic Church is patriarchal insofar as it limits the priesthood to men, and we agree with you that in this mortal life gender roles have a part to play. However, the division of gender isn't inherent in our understanding of heaven, so I think the LDS view here is unique and I'm interested in not only the official doctrines, but the thoughts and feelings of those who believe it.
      Thanks!
      +PAX+
       
×
×
  • Create New...