Jaybear Posted March 12, 2012 Posted March 12, 2012 If so, what will be the doctrinal basis for the continued ban on Mormon polygamy? The reason given for its discontinuation was that it was illegal, and continuing it would have destroyed the church. If it becomes legal, someone will have to come up with a new justification for continuing the church ban.Robert is wrong. Polygamy will not become legal in the US in the foreseeable future.From a pure academic perspective he has a point. However the supreme court, as currently situated is driven by politics. There is no political interest in legalizing polygamy.
blackstrap Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 Polygamy is legal in several countries in which the Church has a presence.No change in the policy in those countries...yet.
Buzzard Posted March 13, 2012 Author Posted March 13, 2012 Polygamy is legal in several countries in which the Church has a presence.No change in the policy in those countries...yet.In fact, if a person desires baptism in one of those countries but has plural wives, my understanding is that they cannot until they have only one. Not 100% sure about this, though.
Calm Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) In fact, if a person desires baptism in one of those countries but has plural wives, my understanding is that they cannot until they have only one. Not 100% sure about this, though.You are correct. They are welcome to attend church and participate that way. They are also not encouraged to divorce wives (they live in societies where this would often result in a terrible life for exwives and their children), but to care for their families as they should and wait for baptism. Edited March 13, 2012 by calmoriah
Grundelwalken Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 Robert is wrong. Polygamy will not become legal in the US in the foreseeable future.From a pure academic perspective he has a point. However the supreme court, as currently situated is driven by politics. There is no political interest in legalizing polygamy.I believe that if we ever come to a time where marriage is distorted beyond what we currently contend it to be, there will be no way to restrict plural marriage. Doesn't mean the church will reinstate the practice but the government won't be able to stop it. MW
Deborah Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 I don't see polygamy coming back in the church in our current society. Too many break off groups practicing an illegitimate form of plural marriage and the church would want to continue to separate itself from such groups.It is interesting that as hard as it was for the pioneer saints to embrace polygamy, it was just as hard to put it aside. After all by this time it was well accepted within the community, families were already established and it seemed to be working. Furthermore Brigham Young had given powerful sermons on how plural marriage was a requirement for exaltation (even though we know not everyone practiced it even in his day). What a difficult time for those saints and certainly a time of testing. It must have been a confusing time for the people and they would really have to pray about it to get the inspiration to do what was required.
Cobalt-70 Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 Robert is wrong. Polygamy will not become legal in the US in the foreseeable future.From a pure academic perspective he has a point. However the supreme court, as currently situated is driven by politics. There is no political interest in legalizing polygamy.I think that is too cynical a view of the Supreme Court. The justices are influenced by their politics, yes. However, they are also highly driven by a need to make the Court appear stable and self-consistent. If they hold that the marriage is truly a fundamental right, and/or that states cannot withhold or take away the right to marry on the basis of gender or sexual orientation, then it is not much of a step to say that polygamists have a fundamental right to marry too, particularly because it is an expression of religion. A state would have to make the difficult argument that it has a compelling interest to prevent people from marrying more than one other consenting adult.
Bob Oliverio Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 I believe that if we ever come to a time where marriage is distorted beyond what we currently contend it to be, there will be no way to restrict plural marriage. Doesn't mean the church will reinstate the practice but the government won't be able to stop it. Interesting comment. If it was legal, it would really put us in an awkward position. It was a founding principle and, as others have noted, arguably a requirement for exaltation based on statements of past leaders. Also, think about all the irony:When Joseph Smith began the practice it was illegal in Illinois. Yet today we come up with all the reasons to rationalize the practice even though it was "technically" in violation of doctrine (obey the laws of the land) and the rule of marriage in the book of commandments. And Smith publicly denounced it while privately practicing it.Now, if it became legal, how or what could the Church say to condemn such practice that wouldn't be an insult to those that practiced it in the past?? And what of those who are/will be practicing in in the Celestial Kingdom?Too many break off groups practicing an illegitimate form of plural marriage and the church would want to continue to separate itself from such groups.I think this very accurate and the driving force of the Church's position and attitude towards polygamy today in our efforts to mainstream and grow. But the issue got me thinking and I looked at how the Church portrays the topic of polygamy today with it's past prophets here:http://www.lds.org/churchhistory/presidents/leaders.jspIt's interesting. Beginning with George Albert Smith Jr., the first monogamous Prophet, all of their marriages are listed as "Significant Events" for these prophets. Yet for all Prophets before him, who all practiced polygamy, none of their wives or marriages are given the same recognition. I don't blame the Church for this difference of portrayal on this issue but, it's kind of sad that these women who were faithfully following our doctrine get "dissed" into such obscurity compared to those monogamous marriages. It does tell a lot about how much the Church wants to distance itself from this history.
volgadon Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 When the State of Israel was founded it had to absorb a lot of Jews and Arabs who had multiple wives (perfectly legal under Muslim law). So, even though the new state prohibited future polygynist marriages, those who already had multiple wives were permitted to live out their lives together. I don't know what the rule is in the occupied territories of the West Bank, but I imagine that polygyny is permitted.Yemenite Jews in Israel were strongly, and I do mean strongly, encouraged to separate from their multple wives. When I was a kid there were still a few former polygamists in the town where I grew up. The individuals I know of have all died off by now.
Bob Oliverio Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 CFRAccording to D&C 132, the principal was known to Joseph Smith in 1831. The church began in 1830. Pretty close to "founding"
Calm Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 (edited) Close to "founding" time, but surely it is not only timing that makes something a "founding" principle, especially since it wasn't seen as necessary to be taught to the Church as a whole at that time at least.In what aspect besides timing do you see it as a "founding principle". Edited March 14, 2012 by calmoriah
Buzzard Posted March 14, 2012 Author Posted March 14, 2012 Jessie Embry, who is at BYU (Redd Center for Western History), is the best expert on such questions and has done a lot of oral interviews on it over the years. She might appreciate you writing down your family information for her files.I actually contacted Professor Embry, and she graciously replied to my email She said that the topic had been discussed somewhat within the framework of polygamy as a whole and recommended her book "Mormon Polygamous Families", which I will try to track down. However, according to her, no comprehensive history of faithful LDS families living in plural marriage in the decades following the two Manifestos has been done. Hopefully, at some point an ambitious historian will take up the challenge.
Bob Oliverio Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 Close to "founding" time, but surely it is not only timing that makes something a "founding" principle, especially since it wasn't seen as necessary to be taught to the Church as a whole at that time at least.I'm not sure when the principal of plural marriage was acceptable to teach publicly nor what the decision was based upon. I suspect when BY was far enough away from what he perceived was "law", he felt safe to openly practice and teach it. But I also believe this was the same for Joseph Smith in many ways. While he, as our founding prophet found it meaningful to him shortly after founding the Church, I'm sure he needed to believe it was either safe to teach or that he believed he has enough control and no one would challenge him on it's practice. In hindsight it appears he never reached either threshold and it became his downfall. Hence the approach taken by BY. Nonetheless, the Church seems to think strongly enough to have changed the intro to D&C 132 to make it appear as an early principal of our founding Prophet today.In what aspect besides timing do you see it as a "founding principle". I think there is just too much evidence that many leaders early on believed it was required for exaltation that it's hard to separate polygamy from the need for exaltation early on. So if Smith was aware of it's meaning in 1831 - hard not to say it wasn't a founding principal.
Recommended Posts