Polygamy and Polyamory on the rise

[Krisjhn]

Polyamory and polygamy are gaining a strong foothold in the US. These practices have gained a greater foothold in Canada and parts of Europe. This is a very interesting article about a polyamorous/polygamous couple in the land of the Dutch.

I do not think it will be long [my guess? five to ten years] before polyamory and polygamy will begin to be accepted in this country. I believe that if gay marriages are legalized in the US it will only be a few short years before polygamy does the same.

So, what does this mean for the LDS. It puts us in a bit of a bind. Do we approve of polygamy or do we disapprove?

If we disapprove then we put ourselves in the difficult position of having to explain our once embracement of the practice. We could no longer claim that we are just following the law, hence our opposition to polygamy, as we do now.

If we approve then, do we once again take up the practice and bring back into the fold the fundamentalists? And if we approve does this have the potential of alienating us further from other Christian denominations with the possibility of us loosing the acceptance and understanding ground we have gained in the last 10-20 years.

Here are a few excerpts from the two articles I linked to above for those of you to busy to go and read the entire length of both articles. Though I highly recommend you do.

Here Come the Brides

Plural marriage is waiting in the wings.

by Stanley Kurtz

12/26/2005, Volume 011, Issue 15ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2005, the 46-year-old Victor de Bruijn and his 31-year-old wife of eight years, Bianca, presented themselves to a notary public in the small Dutch border town of Roosendaal. And they brought a friend. Dressed in wedding clothes, Victor and Bianca de Bruijn were formally united with a bridally bedecked Mirjam Geven, a recently divorced 35-year-old whom they'd met several years previously through an Internet chatroom. As the notary validated a samenlevingscontract, or "cohabitation contract," the three exchanged rings, held a wedding feast, and departed for their honeymoon.

Although neither Mirjam nor Bianca had had a prior relationship with a woman, each had believed for years that she was bisexual. Victor, who describes himself as "100 percent heterosexual," attributes the trio's success to his wives' bisexuality, which he says has the effect of preventing jealousy.

In short, while the Dutch triple wedding set the conservative blogosphere ablaze with warnings, same-sex marriage advocates dismissed the story as a silly stunt with absolutely no implications for the gay marriage debate. And how did America's mainstream media adjudicate the radically different responses of same-sex marriage advocates and opponents to events in the Netherlands? By ignoring the entire affair.

Yet there is a story here. And it's bigger than even those chortling conservative websites claim. While Victor, Bianca, and Mirjam are joined by a private cohabitation contract rather than a state-registered partnership or a full-fledged marriage, their union has already made serious legal, political, and cultural waves in the Netherlands. To observers on both sides of the Dutch gay marriage debate, the De Bruijns' triple wedding is an unmistakable step down the road to legalized group marriage.

November 30, 2005

Stuck on Youse

Polyamorous relationships aren't any less committed -- they're just a bit more crowded

CATHY GULLI

When an old flame walked back into Helen's life just a few months before she was to walk down the aisle with another man, there was only one solution: marry her fianc

[Log]

We disapprove.

[Hacedor Costoso]

As I stated in another thread...

The government should sanction contracts between people. If three people (or 30) want to hook up and their all protected and obligated by contract - let em!

Churches don't have to sanction such contracts and call them marriage.

Hacedor

[charity]

Wickedness, whether by contract or not, is still wickedness. And yes, that is a judgmental statement. Holy matrimony and fidelity = good. Contracts and multiple partners = bad.

[BobHewson]

Contracts and multiple partners = bad.

I don't understand how you can say that, and how you can call polygamy wickedness. It's still technically doctrine, if only for the afterlife right now. If it was legalized in the US it would be interesting to see which direction the church took.

-Bob

[Confidential Informant]

It's already legal, most folks just don't know it yet. Read Lawrence v. Texas.

C.I.

[The Dude]

Very strange....

But less strange, to me, than gay marriage

Have there been any studies on the success rates of such relationships in a liberal society (not polygamy practiced by the LDS or FLDS?) Do they tend to divorce more frequently than tranditional marriages?

[charity]

God's law is what makes the difference. All of God's laws apply to all His children, whether they are members of any church or not. He evidently will be merciful for those who don't know what the law is, but that does not mean the law is not in effect.

At this time, polygamy is against God's law. Those who practice it, whether in formal or informal situations, are committing sin. And only polygamous marriages performed by God's authorized servants are legal and moral.

During the time plural marriage was practiced in Utah, there were no merely civil polygamous marriages. Plural marriages were performed only in temples, or what served as temples until there were temples. I would take from this, that even if governments are to make such marriages legal, they would not have God's sanction and thus be sinful. My opinion.

[aznative]

charity

even if governments are to make such marriages legal, they would not have God's sanction and thus be sinful.

So if the government were to allow polygamous marriages, we would be sinning if we entered into them?

*edited spelling

[Nisfor]

I guess under that definition of "God's Law" any marriage outside the temple would be a "sin". Please, either picket in front of the courthouse and churches of other denominations to prevent these "abominations" from occurring, or treat whatever anyone wants to term a "marriage" with the respect that you would the marriage of someone of another denomination.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

A new question in my mind is more this: If the government legalized plural marriages, we can safely assume the Church will not suddenly on the day or week tell everyone, "Hey, it's okay now everyone! You can start marrying away!" The Lord's house is a house of order and more than likely when it is restored in this mortal realm of life it will be tightly controlled with approvals and so such. However, my question is not IF the Lord would in time subsequently reinstate the practice among the saints, but rather if the Lord would restore it as he did with Joseph, wherein the revelation was not made for the public at first and only a few entered in privately?

An intersting (and totally irrelevant to our eternal welfare) question.

[charity]

aznative: "So if the government were to allow polygamous marriages, we would be sinning if we entered into them?"

That would be my underestanding. I could be wrong. I would think that the same thing would apply as to gay marriages. The Church will not recognize gay marriages even though a state may. I would think the same would be with polygamous ones, since the Lord has withdrawn the commandment.

[NauvooSaint]

I will oppose polygamy and the like regardless if the LDS/Mormon church leadership come out with a claimed revelation to begin it's practice again. I would also preach against it if the United States courts allowed it's practice.

Charity,

What will you do if the LDS/Mormon president came out and declared they would again practice it in the Mormon church? Will you believe it's from God or that it's okay?

Bradley E. Barnhart, priest (RLDS Restorationist)

Springfield, OR.

P.S. LDS D&C 132 also mentions God's approval of concubines.....LDS D&C 132 is a fabrication. What about the claim that Moses and Issac were polygamists? What about Joseph being told to prepare himself to begin practicing polygamy and then telling Emma later to accept those women already given to Joseph? I still believe Joseph was a true prophet and an HONEST man with all my research into the polygamy issue.

[aznative]

He may have withdrawn the commandment, but this does not make it an unacceptable practice, does it? I mean this is already somrthing that was once endorsed, practiced, and encouraged by the church and it's leaders, and ordained of God. Homosexual marriages, on the other hand, have not been endorsed, practiced, and encouraged by the church, it's leaders, or God.

So if any current members entered into a polygamous relationship if it were legalized be disciplined by the Church?

*edited spelling

[charity]

Nauvoo Saints asked me: "What will you do if the LDS/Mormon president came out and declared they would again practice it in the Mormon church? Will you believe it's from God or that it's okay?"

If the prophet said it was from God, I would accept it. Why wouldn't I? I accept the prophet as God's prophet, seer and revelator.

And to answer aznative. I would think that if polygamy were legalized, but not reinstated by the Church, that a member would be disciplined. But that is just what I think. The prophet listens to God, not to me.

[aznative]

And to answer aznative. I would think that if polygamy were legalized, but not reinstated by the Church, that a member would be disciplined. But that is just what I think. The prophet listens to God, not to me.

Just curious as to what others think about this also. I really don't have a decision made for myself yet in regards to the question. It would be interesting to hear others, though

[katherine the great]

'Polyamory?" I don't think I've ever heard that word. Is that just a euphemism for "sexual promiscuity?"

[aznative]

Here Katherine....... click here.

[NauvooSaint]

For many years, LDS/Mormons have always claimed polygamy was a dead issue. 'We haven't practiced it for decades, etc..' Drop it. It's never been a dead issue.....because it's still in the LDS D&C 132 and quoted as scripture. As mentioned earlier by another....it's still considered doctrine. Do as you will folks wickedness is still wickedness no matter who wraps it in the whole cloth of claimed righteousness. I will stand against you.

My trust is in God....not man.

Bradley E. Barnhart, priest (RLDS Restorationist)

Springfield, OR.

[aznative]

Bradley, what about biblical polygamy?

[Connolly]

If we disapprove then we put ourselves in the difficult position of having to explain our once embracement of the practice.

There is no difficulty whatsoever.

It has been LDS doctrine from the beginning when polygamy was revealed that there are times when God authorizes and requires it, and there are times when he forbids it. The church has never changed is stance on that.

[charity]

katharine, my link to what aznative posted won't work. So if this is a duplicate to what he said, I apologize.

polyamory: participation in multiple and simultaneous loving or sexual relationships

I am sure that being loving without being sexual is not what is meant in the topic of this thread.

[katherine the great]

Here Katherine....... click here.

Wow. Alrighty then....

[charity]

Nauvoo Saint, It has never been my understanding that polygamy was "dead." It was a principle in practice at one time and not now. But the Church did not say it was wrong when it was practiced at God's command. And we believe in the restoration of all things. I have always assumed it would be restored at some future time, whenever the Lord commands.

And wickedness is what God says it is. What God commands is never wicked.

[1dc]

So if any current members entered into a polygamous relationship if it were legalized be disciplined by the Church?

Yes. That person would likely be excommunicated. Persons in other countries where the practice is legal are not baptized. If you do a search this was posted previously. Probably many times.