Suburban Polygamy

[Wes Mantooth]

Momus Orpheus Chaos I'll think about it.

Please Skylla....

Please Nemesis....

Please Rhad....

Please Argos....

Please uhhhhh

Please Mods don't ban the Bondman.

[juliann]

Please Mods don't ban the Bondman.

We will put in a good word to us for you, Bond Manlytooth.

[BCSpace]

Let them live in peace .... Let no law legitimize their lifestyle with the state.

Are you advocating that the laws shouldn't be enforced, or that the laws criminalizing their relationship be abolished?

Yes to the latter.

If as you say, they are consensual adults, following thier belief, not hurting anyone, why shouldn't the state sanction their relationship?

I say that you allow the marriages, as long at the participants enter into the relationship voluntarily and are above the age of 18, without exception.

I can handle it.

They sure seem like a well adjusted family. Though I can't possibly imagine how any man can be a decent father to 21 children.

But unlike the homosexual lifestyle choice, you have proper male and female role models as parents.

[Tsuzuki]

Oh good...polygamists with Tivo and Guitar Hero.

Don't worry. You won't have to play Guitar Hero with them if you don't want to. Though personally, I prefer Dance Dance Revolution.

[Thinking]

They should switch to a lifestyle that's legal. If polygamy is legalized...then they can do their thing...but for now America says no polygamy, and they obey the law.

Would you say that to black people in the sixties wanting to sit at the front of the bus?

It's not right to compare polygamists to blacks because polygamy is a choice and skin color is not a choice (unless you are Michael Jackson).

[juliann]

It's not right to compare polygamists to blacks because polygamy is a choice and skin color is not a choice (unless you are Michael Jackson).

Good point...if that was the comparison. But it wasn't about either of those...it was about the laws regulating them.

[Thinking]

Good point...if that was the comparison. But it wasn't about either of those...it was about the laws regulating them.

If it's about the laws regulating them, then it is "about either of those" because a black person cannot choose to not be black in order to sit in the front of the bus. A man who believes in polygamy can choose to only have one wife until the law is changed.

Perhaps a better comparison would have been been paramutual betting in Utah. It's illegal, but some people think that it should be legalized. Betting is a choice, and while it's illegal, those who think it's OK can refrain, even though they disagree.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

I don't beleive that adult, consensual polygamy (or polygany for that matter) is immoral, as long as any kids involved in the family are taken care of to a 'minimum standard'.

And therefore, should not be illegal.

I also believe in civil resistance to 'unjust' laws.

None of the above means I condone any 'abusive' family set-up. They should be dealt with as harshly as any other. The fact that it may happen to be a polygamous one has nothing to do with it.

[Abulafia]

Juliann,

What's your point? The fundamental issue, I believe is over the nature of God and what Godhood actually means. If God is a polygamist with a few million baby making (is that spirit babies? I never quite worked it out) wives, and the whole purpose of our existence is to learn how to fit into a celestial kingdom where we to become Gods need to be doing the same thing, then fair and well, they are practising a celestial lifestlyle at a time when most social conventions and mores look on polygamy as nothing more than an archaic lifestyle used to ensure the continuation of the species where child death rates are high, to put women out to the fields with on site babysitters, or to look after the widows, add to that religious motives to make as many muslims/...add any other religion that wants converts by childbirth...... and that's about it.

Now if God isn't a great eternal polygamist with lots of babymaking wives (and this must be the justification for polygamy, since ...heck and blast...it doesn't work the other way around....ie women marrying more than one man) then I dunno. What's the point?

What I find most insidious about polygamy (and seems the Romney bloke agrees) is that it perpetuates the idea that women are fundamentally unequal to men. And well...they just aren't.

If it worked both ways...men could marry more than one woman, and women could marry more than one man, then yep...I'd be all for it. Same goes for the CK!!

Mary

[selek]

The world is coming to an end! Repent!

I just agreed with both Thinking and Renegade of Phunk within two posts in the same thread.

Is this not the true sign of the Apocalypse!?!

[juliann]

Juliann,

What's your point? The fundamental issue, I believe is over the nature of God and what Godhood actually means.

Mary, you have developed a habit of blowing into threads without even knowing what they are about and derailing them with off the wall questions. What a story about a modern suburban polygamist family has to do with the nature of God is beyond me. The story about them didn't delineate their theology, if you wish to find out more about it then your own thread would be in order. And I have no idea where you are going with your polygamist God stuff but I have no need to talk you out of it, especially when it is completely off-topic.

This article is about Independent (non-Mormon) polygamist families that live with everyone else and their right to do so. (We even have a man from a group in England who comes to our conference.) If you want to learn more about them do a search on Sunstone West where a couple of women did a presentation. Please don't derail another thread.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Is this not the true sign of the Apocalypse!?!

In the interests of saving the world, we need to find something we disagree on. And quick!!!

Hmmmmmm.......

What I find most insidious about polygamy (and seems the Romney bloke agrees) is that it perpetuates the idea that women are fundamentally unequal to men. And well...they just aren't.

I could think all kinds of things about polygamy. Personally.

But as long as the women (and let's not forget the nutty man in all this! ) who get involved in polygamy choose that life of their own free will, then it's frankly none of my business.

...it shouldn't be anybody else's business either. And I would hope that Romney would respect that - regardless of his personal views about it.

The only way it could be anybody else's business is if it can be shown to 'harm' any children involved.

Of course, quantifying what 'harm' is might become the stickiest point of all...

[Olavarria]

They have a very beutiful family. I hope God is merciful to them.

I dont feel as bad for people who grew up in that arrangement and then ignorantly continue on because they dont know any better. I just sigh and leave them in the hands of our merciful Father.

However, I dont feel bad for members of the church who were at one time in good standing and then decide to leave the church to join these people. As beutiful as plural marriage is or can be, I follow living prophets.

I like to imagine that 20th centuary apostates who say "the bretheren are in error" and choose the dead Brigham Young over the living Gordon B. Hinkly, will, I imagine, get to meet Brigham Young in the spirit world and BY will tell them "You blew it, you didnt follow my example. When I was on the earth I followed a living prophet and put his teachings above those of the dead ones. If you really wanted to follow my example then you would have done the same. I had Joseph; but you had Heber, George, Joseph Fielding, Harold, Spencer, Ezra, Howard and Gordon. If I was in your shoes then I would have followed them."

[Jaybear]

Perhaps a better comparison would have been been paramutual betting in Utah. It's illegal, but some people think that it should be legalized. Betting is a choice, and while it's illegal, those who think it's OK can refrain, even though they disagree.

I believe that a more apt comparison would be the use of peyote in religious ceremonies.

Lets not forget that these people are entering into polygamous marriage with the sincere belief that that they are following God's commandment.

Her Annum: I like to imagine that 20th centuary apostates who say "the bretheren are in error" and choose the dead Brigham Young over the living Gordon B. Hinkly, will, I imagine, get to meet Brigham Young in the spirit world and BY will tell them "You blew it, you didnt follow my example. When I was on the earth I followed a living prophet and put his teachings above those of the dead ones. If you really wanted to follow my example then you would have done the same. I had Joseph; but you had Heber, George, Joseph Fielding, Harold, Spencer, Ezra, Howard and Gordon. If I was in your shoes then I would have followed them."

I was under the impression that the holy spirit topped the living prophet. Otherwise "Pray, Pay and Obey" becomes "Pay and Obey"

I suspect that these people have prayed and are convinced through the holy spirit that they are righteous in their actions.

[Del March]

Nothing is wrong with what this group is doing, except that what they're doing is against the law.

But is the law fair and just?

Actually you do have a choice to become a polygamists. It's easy. Just find some more partners that you and your spouse both agree upon and have them move in. The reason you don't is that you've known since you can remember that monogamy was right because that's what your parents did, right?

Which is precisely why I said that I do NOT have a choice: I don't have a choice because I was trained from infancy to never even consider polygamy as a possibility. I may have a physical choice, but mentally, I am much more restricted in what feels "right" to me.

Those people, on the other hand, grew up with both possibilities right under their eyes: they had the example of polygamy at home, and the example of monogamy everywhere else. They grew up believing that both set-ups were acceptable. Thus when the time to choose arrived, they actually had a real mental and emotional choice before them, between two equally acceptable options. And as a I said, the fact that the majority of their siblings actually chose monogamy indicates to me that for them too, monogamy was clearly a valid option.

Do you really think anyone can be taught a fair and balanced view of both polygamy and monogamy? I don't think it's possible due to the fact that our parents were one or the other (or something else) and we learn alot of things in life from imitating our parents.

As I said, they had polygamy at home, and monogamy everywhere else. Compared to us who had only monogamy anywhere we turned, they were given a choice. We are the ones who were completely brainwashed, and forced into one mold only.

You don't think polygamy is a habit going back to Joseph Smith and the gang? He cooked it up,

He didn't. He just read the Bible.

but his followers and their descendents are among those who continued (and continue) the practice. You don't think that factors in to polygamy continuing down family lines?

Of course I do! It's obviously no coincidence: only in those families is polygamy presented as a valid alternative, which is why they are the only families in which some kids choose to practice it when they grow up.

I would present it the other way around, though: we, in our families, effectively enforce monogamy on ourselves and on our kids, by never presenting any other set-up as a valid option. We are in effect the oppressive, brainwashing ones. Funny, heh?

They should switch to a lifestyle that's legal.

Is this what you would have said to homosexuals back when it was a crime? Is this what you would say today to gays living in countries where it is still illegal? Just wondering.

[Thinking]

I believe that a more apt comparison would be the use of peyote in religious ceremonies.

I agree.

[Olavarria]

I believe that a more apt comparison would be the use of peyote in religious ceremonies.

Lets not forget that these people are entering into polygamous marriage with the sincere belief that that they are following God's commandment.

I was under the impression that the holy spirit topped the living prophet. Otherwise "Pray, Pay and Obey" becomes "Pay and Obey"

I suspect that these people have prayed and are convinced through the holy spirit that they are righteous in their actions.

The Holy Spirit guides the Prophet, and the Holy Spirit will never give you as an individual a revelation that contradicts the word revealed to the Prophet. The Holy Spirit wil not tell the Prophet "Y" and then you "X".

[Jaybear]

The Holy Spirit guides the Prophet, and the Holy Spirit will never give you as an individual a revelation that contradicts the word revealed to the Prophet. The Holy Spirit wil not tell the Prophet "Y" and then you "X".

You realize that this means when a modern day polygamist, receives clear and undeniable spiritual confirmation that polygamy is a true and eternal doctrine, that they must therefor conclude that the current LDS prophet has taken the LDS church into apostasy.

What other conclusion would follow?

[Abulafia]

Deleted...Juliann. Apologies, I thought the original article was about mormon off-shoots. Not non-mormons with entirely no connections to mormons.

Mary

[Pahoran]

It's not right to compare polygamists to blacks because polygamy is a choice and skin color is not a choice (unless you are Michael Jackson).

You're not thinking very carefully, Thinking. Nobody was comparing polygamists to blacks. It is true that skin colour is not a choice, but which end of the bus we ride in is. I was comparing laws against polygamy (which would theoretically make it impossible to be a polygamist) to laws discriminating against blacks (which could not and did not make it impossible to be black.) An unjust law is an unjust law. Must they at all times be obeyed, or are there exceptions? If the latter, what is the standard for deciding when an exception is justified? Popularity? Political correctness? What?

Regards,

Pahoran

[juliann]

Deleted...Juliann. Apologies, I thought the original article was about mormon off-shoots. Not non-mormons with entirely no connections to mormons.

Mary

S'ok. Some of the independents may have been LDS at some point, but as the article said, many of them came from polygamist families.

[Yme]

The Holy Spirit guides the Prophet, and the Holy Spirit will never give you as an individual a revelation that contradicts the word revealed to the Prophet. The Holy Spirit wil not tell the Prophet "Y" and then you "X".

This is an issue that is often discussed in our household and may be relevant here.

In 1831 the Holy Spirit supposedly gave the Prophet Smith a revelation (D&C 58) which included instructions "to obey the laws of the land". Then, in 1843, according to the Prophet's Smith's diary as quoted in the history of the church, the Holy Spirit supposedly gave Smith a revelation to practice polygamy in contradiction to the law of the land at that time.

So if the Holy Spirit can give the Prophet contradicting revelations, why is it unreasonable to think that the Holy Spirit may give revelations that contradict what He gave someone else?

Fair question?

[Pahoran]

Yme,

that's what I ask. Y U.

This is an issue that is often discussed in our household and may be relevant here.

In 1831 the Holy Spirit supposedly gave the Prophet Smith a revelation (D&C 58) which included instructions "to obey the laws of the land". Then, in 1843, according to the Prophet's Smith's diary as quoted in the history of the church, the Holy Spirit supposedly gave Smith a revelation to practice polygamy in contradiction to the law of the land at that time.

So if the Holy Spirit can give the Prophet contradicting revelations, why is it unreasonable to think that the Holy Spirit may give revelations that contradict what He gave someone else?

Fair question?

Can you tell the difference between an exception and a contradiction?

Fair question?

Because if you can, then you know that there aren't any "contradicting revelations" in view.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Thinking]

You're not thinking very carefully, Thinking. Nobody was comparing polygamists to blacks.

????

They should switch to a lifestyle that's legal. If polygamy is legalized...then they can do their thing....but for now America says no polygamy, and they obey the law.

Would you say that to black people in the sixties wanting to sit at the front of the bus?

Now I'll get back to the rest of your quote.

It is true that skin colour is not a choice, but which end of the bus we ride in is. I was comparing laws against polygamy (which would theoretically make it impossible to be a polygamist) to laws discriminating against blacks (which could not and did not make it impossible to be black.) An unjust law is an unjust law. Must they at all times be obeyed, or are there exceptions? If the latter, what is the standard for deciding when an exception is justified? Popularity? Political correctness? What?

Here's the difference between the "laws against polygamy" and the "laws against blacks." (I'll use your terminology.)

The laws against polygamy do not discriminate. The laws state that nobody may be a polygamist. They do not say that this man can be a polygamist, but that man can't.

The laws which the blacks fought DID discriminate. Those laws said that this man can sit here, but that man can't. This man can drink out of that fountain, but that man can't.

If the law stated that NOBODY was allowed to sit in the front of the bus, then what Rosa Parks did would have meant nothing.

Did you read Jaybear's post? He found a better comparison than I did.

I believe that a more apt comparison would be the use of peyote in religious ceremonies.

[Oracle]

Yme,

that's what I ask. Y U.

Can you tell the difference between an exception and a contradiction?

Fair question?

Because if you can, then you know that there aren't any "contradicting revelations" in view.

Regards,

Pahoran

Huh? Have you been smoking some of that peyote, Pahoran? In Yme's case, the exception was in direct contradiction to the established rule. It would require permanent residence on the island of subjective truth to try and delineate on this one.