Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rockpond

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

Recommended Posts

You may have misread Nehor.  He never said "most" and could have been identifying a subset of those desiring to be in polygamous marriages (perhaps those marrying for nonreligious reasons)  as opposes to making a general statement.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post

I pretty much expect that polygamy will eventually be made legal in the United States. Based upon the SSM ruling, it would not even have to be a religious issue, although that would be the strongest argument. The original reason that it was made illegal was that it was repugnant to the mainstream society, which at the time was pretty strongly conservative Christian.

Quoted from the ruling "Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void, and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offence against society.… In the face of all this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life. Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law."

 

Based upon the recent Supreme Court ruling, it would not even have to be a religious thing.

After pondering this a bit, I don't really care one way or the other right now. If it becomes legal, I doubt that the Church will authorize it again. Like the Law of Consecration, it is part of the restitution of all things, but not currently practiced. The church as a whole was not ready for either practice. I don't think that part has changed.

 

Glenn
 

Share this post


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

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.

 

Not at all.
The Church should be recognizing marriages that it believes God accepts and that God would recognize the authority behind.

When it comes to temple marriage (marriage by priesthood authority) the Church is clear that at present only straight monogamous marriage can be performed with any authority.
But what of state/civil marriages?  Where does the state have authority to create a marriage that is considered valid to God?  What authority do they have that God recognizes as legitimizing a marriage?

See, this is the issue.  If we consider the earthly authority by which a state creates a marriage to be valid before God, then by what right can we say that a polygamous marriage performed by the same authority is invalid?  They are joined by the same authority, under the same law.
What God joins together is what God considers acceptable.  What the state joins together is what the state considers acceptable.  The idea that God accepts one state marriage and not the other when neither are joined by his authority or law anyway seems strange.

The law of the state doesn't come from God, and any marriage bound by that authority would be equally binding, no matter if monogamous, polygamous, etc.
To say one is valid and the other invalid when they are joined by the same laws and authority makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post

The Church doesn't have to legally recognize any marriages outside of its own Temples. It generally does, but it doesn't have to.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, rockpond said:

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. 

I was clear that I was talking about what I had seen and I was born long after the Manifesto. I am not talking about LDS though I suspect that in this generation polygamy would be more dangerous to LDS then it was in the 19th century.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I was clear that I was talking about what I had seen and I was born long after the Manifesto. I am not talking about LDS though I suspect that in this generation polygamy would be more dangerous to LDS then it was in the 19th century.

Okay... just remember that many who practice polygamy here in the US are doing it for the same reasons that our own church members did it well into the 20th century.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Okay... just remember that many who practice polygamy here in the US are doing it for the same reasons that our own church members did it well into the 20th century.

As the only valid reason I can come up with is obeying the apostles who hold the keys to authorize these kinds of marriages I doubt it. They might think they are but they are dead wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

As the only valid reason I can come up with is obeying the apostles who hold the keys to authorize these kinds of marriages I doubt it. They might think they are but they are dead wrong.

D&C 132 is also a reason.

Basically, they didn't accept the manifesto.  That may make them "dead wrong" but it doesn't make their practice of polygamy all about sex as you implied.

I'm not defending all of them.  I think that what Warren Jeffs has done with the practice is evil.  Nor can I defend everything that Joseph Smith did with the practice.  But we also have to realize those who practice polygamy for the reasons that Joseph, Brigham, and others taught believe they are doing what God wants them to do.  Diminishing it to something else relfects on our own ancestors as well.

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

An idealized "basic unit" doesn't address the issue

Confusing statement.   Are you denying the existence or importance of the family?  The family IS the "basic unit".

12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

If they choose the former they can limit which marriages they consider valid to ones our gospel allows for (currently, only monogamous straight marriage).

Basically true.  But that is only applicable to members of the church.  The STATE (society) is concerned only about the socio/economic stability of the "basic unit" (i.e. marriage/family), NOT the religious aspects.

12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

If the choose the latter and say God approves of state marriage regardless of priesthood involvement they have no right to limit the kind.

The Church is only commenting on the lifestyle being lived within the "family arrangement" and teaching that a righteous marriage/family is ordained of God.  I think you are completely missing the points I am making in my previous post.

12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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".

This is NOT what I am saying.  You pulled that out of thin air.  Very disjointed.

12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Either God approves of a marriage or he doesn't.

Only in accordance with the teachings of the Church.  The STATE (society) does NOT care, only with aspects of the contract (marriage license issued by the government which the Church has NO legal authority) and stepping in when abuses are occurring or to decide custody or allocation of property in case of separation/divorce.

12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

NO.  Blatantly untrue.  God actually approves of ALL marriages (except, of course, SSM and any deviant relationships).  If you are married in the "true" church (in the Temple), and live faithfully to the end, then God gives utmost approval (and that marriage will be valid in the next life).  If you are married in church (any denomination), then God is somewhat disappointed but IS happy that you have taken the responsible course in rearing a stable family (BUT that marriage will NOT be of force in the next life).  If you are married civilly, then there is the possibility that you will have less motivation for honoring your commitments in the long term.

The Book of Mormon gives a very excellent description about the dynamics of what the Church is responsible for and what the STATE is responsible for (read later chapters of Mosiah and beginning chapters of Alma).  There can be minimal overlap between the two.  TSS made an excellent point in his post, quoted here:

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

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

 

Edited by longview

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, rockpond said:

A naive and ignorant view. 

And if I ask you to explain what is "naïve and ignorant" about it, will you reply with anything other than disdainful dismissal?

 

Share this post


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

And if I ask you to explain what is "naïve and ignorant" about it, will you reply with anything other than disdainful dismissal?

 

Disdainful dismissals are your forte.  I'll explain why I considered your statement "naive and ignorant".

You wrote:  "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."

Your suggestion that one man, one woman marriage is what "everyone simply understood marriage to be" ignores the Bible, world cultures, and our own church history.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, rockpond said:

D&C 132 is also a reason.

Basically, they didn't accept the manifesto.  That may make them "dead wrong" but it doesn't make their practice of polygamy all about sex as you implied.

I'm not defending all of them.  I think that what Warren Jeffs has done with the practice is evil.  Nor can I defend everything that Joseph Smith did with the practice.  But we also have to realize those who practice polygamy for the reasons that Joseph, Brigham, and others taught believe they are doing what God wants them to do.  Diminishing it to something else relfects on our own ancestors as well.

I said mostly, not exclusively. I have seen working multi-partner relationships and was even tempted to join a very stable one back when I was in college.

On the whole though they are an unstable trainwreck.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

On the whole though they are an unstable trainwreck.

Is that true for our past polygamist church members (my ancestors) or just people practicing today?

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Disdainful dismissals are your forte.  I'll explain why I considered your statement "naive and ignorant".

I thank you for your gracious condescension.

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

You wrote:  "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."

Your suggestion that one man, one woman marriage is what "everyone simply understood marriage to be" ignores the Bible, world cultures, and our own church history.

As you know, Mister Rockpond, we have been over this many times.

As you know, Mister Rockpond, plural marriage is not an exception to the one man, one woman marriage tradition.

As you know, Mister Rockpond, each woman in an LDS plural marriage was married to one husband, and to exactly none of the other wives.

As you know, Mister Rockpond, each of those pairings was a distinct marriage.

And thus it is.

 

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

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

:DYou're not from Utah?

Share this post


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

I thank you for your gracious condescension.

As you know, Mister Rockpond, we have been over this many times.

As you know, Mister Rockpond, plural marriage is not an exception to the one man, one woman marriage tradition.

As you know, Mister Rockpond, each woman in an LDS plural marriage was married to one husband, and to exactly none of the other wives.

As you know, Mister Rockpond, each of those pairings was a distinct marriage.

And thus it is.

 

Plural marriage (LDS version) is one man, multiple women.  Attempts to wedge it into the new "one man, one woman" model are laughable.

But that's not even what we were talking about.  You claimed that everyone simple understood marriage to be a certain thing.  That is false.

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Plural marriage (LDS version) is one man, multiple women.  Attempts to wedge it into the new "one man, one woman" model are laughable.

Wrong. But thanks for playing.

Plural marriage (LDS version) is one man, multiple concurrent marriages, each with one and only one woman.

But you knew this, of course.

22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But that's not even what we were talking about.  You claimed that everyone simple understood marriage to be a certain thing.  That is false.

No, it's true.

Words may have a range of meanings, but every word denotes a certain irreducible core meaning. If it were not so, communication would be impossible.

And "marriage" is no exception.

Regardless of the wide variety of marriage customs and arrangements that have existed across the world and throughout history, they have all had certain indispensible features in common. If it were not so, we wouldn't be talking about the varieties of marriage at all, but something else.

It is their shared commonalities that makes it possible to even see them as belonging to the same category of things. And right there at the irreducible core of them all is a man and a woman.

Even in the sink of iniquity that was late Rome, no state apparatus was ever arrogant enough to commit such an act of lèse-majesté as to try to radically redefine marriage.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry if this is a bit of a side issue , but is there a reason why a man and a woman could not create and sign a business contract for, let's say , a year in which was outlined his responsibilities and her responsibilities and financial terms etc. , and by doing so , bypass the marriage and divorce problems ? Of course there would have to be provisions in case of children arriving , but I just wonder what lawyers have to say about it. 

Share this post


Link to post

I would assume that the judge might take it upon him/herself to dismiss the contract if he sees the relationship or conditions as moving beyond it.

Not all Prenups are honored by participants and the judges at times side with them, so I don't see why this would be any different.

Not a lawyer of course.

Found this commentary on Prenups from a lawyer that you might find interesting:

http://www.ivkdlaw.com/the-firm/our-articles/prenuptial-agreements-and-lawyering/5-realities-about-prenuptial-agreements-—-why-having-one-may-be-a-bad-choice-for-your-marriage/

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post

I can see the point about prenups. My idea is to replace the marriage contract, which basically says nothing, with a pure business contract for a fixed term , renewable at the agreement of both parties. No marriage per se , just a fixed term agreement. I know it doesn't sound very romantic. This idea came because I read that in Australia, if a couple lives together for as little as 3 months, the State considers that a marriage and subject to the 50/50 split of assets etc. In other jurisdictions in takes about 3 years for such to kick in. Some areas do not accept common law marriages at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Gray said:

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. 

You misunderstand the basis for the SSM decision:  Equal protection of the laws.  Gender is not the basis.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, rockpond said:

Is that true for our past polygamist church members (my ancestors) or just people practicing today?

More true of people today but many of the plural marriages in the LDS past were also trainwrecks. Different kind of trainwreck though.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

I can see the point about prenups. My idea is to replace the marriage contract, which basically says nothing, with a pure business contract for a fixed term , renewable at the agreement of both parties. No marriage per se , just a fixed term agreement. I know it doesn't sound very romantic. This idea came because I read that in Australia, if a couple lives together for as little as 3 months, the State considers that a marriage and subject to the 50/50 split of assets etc. In other jurisdictions in takes about 3 years for such to kick in. Some areas do not accept common law marriages at all. 

"Your honor, I would like to sue for breach of contract. It clearly stipulated that my husband was required to do the dishes on all day beginning with a T and an M."

"I was ill and unable to."

"The contract stipulates only five off days a year and you wasted them golfing."

"Two of those days also involved picking up the kids which was covered in your side of the contract so technically we are both in breach of the contract."

"Yes, but your penalties are higher. You are required to visit my mother an two times this year to make up the difference as spelled out in section 7 paragraph 14 subparagraph 3.

"Your honor, I argue that her penalties involving having to come with me to a hockey game three times due to her negligence be seen as ample recompense for that penalty."

"Your honor, he is distorting the issue. Both penalties should be applied in full."

"Your honor, I would also point out that she has been negligent in her required affection as specified in....

(Judge shoots himself)

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, rockpond said:

Is that true for our past polygamist church members (my ancestors) or just people practicing today?

Without an influx of new participants particularly women polygamy is unsustainable.

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/27/2016 at 9:19 PM, Russell C McGregor said:

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

 

I+want+to+create+an+updated+version+of+t

don't be jealous.  ;)

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...