Church Of Christ Lawsuit

[sethpayne]

Agreed.

But if it is no longer illegal, and the primary reason according to the manifesto that it was withdrawn was that it is illegal, it does make me wonder why it wouldn't be restored.

 

"Oh, it was just a test/incident/we-don't-know-why thing" doesn't cut it for me.  It was restored as a commandment.  It was revoked to save the Church from prosecution/persecution.  If the reason for the revocation is ever fully removed why wouldn't it be restored?  Did something change about the practice in the eyes of God?

Well, I happen to think Joseph was deceived when it comes to polygamy. To me that's the biggest reason it wouldn't make a comeback. It was an awful mistake that nearly destroyed the Church. Good riddance.

[bluebell]

Agreed.

But if it is no longer illegal, and the primary reason according to the manifesto that it was withdrawn was that it is illegal, it does make me wonder why it wouldn't be restored.

 

"Oh, it was just a test/incident/we-don't-know-why thing" doesn't cut it for me.  It was restored as a commandment.  It was revoked to save the Church from prosecution/persecution.  If the reason for the revocation is ever fully removed why wouldn't it be restored?  Did something change about the practice in the eyes of God?

 

It wasn't condoned in Jacob's day by God, even though it was 'legal,' so i don't see why whether or not it's legal would make a difference today.

[strappinglad]

If the Feds had never prosecuted/persecuted The Church for polygamy, there would still have come a time when the practice would have been severely restricted or ended. As the Church expanded to a worldwide effort there would have been broader repercussions . Also, the problem of skewed demographics would have raised other issues. Just how many " lost boys " would the Lord have accepted ?

Edited June 3, 2015 by strappinglad

[sethpayne]

If the Feds had never pros/persecuted The Church for polygamy, there would still have come a time when the practice would have been severely restricted or ended. As the Church expanded to a worldwide effort there would have been broader repercussions . Also, the problem of skewed demographics would have raised other issues. Just how many " lost boys " would the Lord have accepted ?

Maybe I'm not following you but LDS men served jail time over polygamy.

[Damien the Leper]

Who is Church of Christ?

[JLHPROF]

Well, I happen to think Joseph was deceived when it comes to polygamy. To me that's the biggest reason it wouldn't make a comeback. It was an awful mistake that nearly destroyed the Church. Good riddance.

 

That is your opinion and you are welcome to it.  That has no relationship to the doctrine of plural marriage in Church history, where it is taught that it came from God and that God himself revoked it due to legal pressures against the Church (and people complaining about having to live it).

 

It wasn't condoned in Jacob's day by God, even though it was 'legal,' so i don't see why whether or not it's legal would make a difference today.

 

Good point.  It was illegal in John Taylor's day and God approved.  It was legal in Jacob's day and God disapproved (due to wickedness).  Perhaps the legal status of a marriage really does mean nothing to God as I've proposed may times on this board.

 

I was just looking at what would prevent the Church from accepting it back if God commanded again.

[JLHPROF]

If the Feds had never pros/persecuted The Church for polygamy, there would still have come a time when the practice would have been severely restricted or ended.

 

CFR, or is that just your opinion?  Because I see no evidence that God was always planning to revoke plural marriage in the teachings and revelations of the early Church.

[strappinglad]

Maybe I'm not following you but LDS men served jail time over polygamy.

I think I fixed the statement . Had the Church NEVER been in legal difficulty ...

[strappinglad]

CFR, or is that just your opinion?  Because I see no evidence that God was always planning to revoke plural marriage in the teachings and revelations of the early Church.

I assumed that the Church would not have had a worldwide appeal if it continued with polygamy. Upon further reflection, I see that Islam accepts polygamy and look at how vast they are. Mind you, if the practice was very broadly practiced , the demographics would still force some king of change. My opinion ( as almost always ).

Edited June 4, 2015 by strappinglad

[Damien the Leper]

Still wondering who Church of Christ is. Can we get a link?

[rockpond]

Agreed.

But if it is no longer illegal, and the primary reason according to the manifesto that it was withdrawn was that it is illegal, it does make me wonder why it wouldn't be restored.

 

"Oh, it was just a test/incident/we-don't-know-why thing" doesn't cut it for me.  It was restored as a commandment.  It was revoked to save the Church from prosecution/persecution.  If the reason for the revocation is ever fully removed why wouldn't it be restored?  Did something change about the practice in the eyes of God?

 

I agree with your logic but wonder about this line from OD1:  "...and the opposition of sixty millions of people..."

 

Could that opposition (which likely still exists -- an is probably more than 60 million) be held to as a reason to uphold OD2 even in the face of legalized polygamy in the US (which nullifies most of the remaining reasons given in the manifesto)?

[JAHS]

Well, the SSM rights are one of the tools that Kody Brown and family argued to get the unlawful cohabitation clause overturned.

 

And since most polygamous marriages are religious ceremonies only I don't think we'll ever again see a fundamentalist sent to jail for polygamy in our lifetimes.  (Underage marriage, tax fraud, sure.  But not polygamy).

 

Spiritual polygamous marriages are basically completely legal now.  If the Church really wanted they could resume polygamous sealings (not just posthumous ones) as long as they stuck to one legal marriage.  And once SSM is fully legal there will be polygamists arguing for their rights too (and they'll probably get it eventually).

 

An applicable news article about this subject today:

 

"Utah defends anti-polygamy law, saying it prevents abuse"

"The decision decriminalized polygamy, but bigamy — holding marriage licenses with multiple partners — is still illegal. If the ruling stands, Utah's law would be like most other states that prohibit people from having multiple marriage licenses. In most polygamous families, the man is legally married to one woman but only "spiritually married" to the others."

 

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2580376-155/utah-defends-anti-polygamy-law-saying-it

[Stone holm]

I don't see the Church reinstituting plural marriage just because it may become legal.  The Book of Mormon specifically condemns plural marriage, and the teachings as I understand them are consistent with the position that it is only for times which the Lord may decree.  In other words, short of some sociological or apocalyptic incident, it is unlike to be reinstated.  On the other hand, since in the latter days it was stated that seven women would clamor for a man's name, it could happen.  But it would take something major to happen, just as it would probably take a major economic collapse for the Church to actually get serious about the United Order -- its a lot less painful to just defer such things to the Millennium rather than have to confront them in the here and now.  Look how long it was possible to defer the extension of the Priesthood by simply saying that the Africans would get it during the millennium -- wasn't that comforting enough.  And if it worked that well for something like racism, surely it would work for things like plural marriage and the United Order.

[Stone holm]

Still wondering who Church of Christ is. Can we get a link?

Sorry can't copy link via my IPad, but if you google, Church of Christ same sex marriage lawsuit it should pop up.

[Okrahomer]

Sorry can't copy link via my IPad, but if you google, Church of Christ same sex marriage lawsuit it should pop up.

http://www.ucc.org/north-carolina-marriageequality-10102014

[Russell C McGregor]

So, if at some point in the future when gay marriage is legal throughout the US, and some court decides that our Church can no longer perform legally-recognized marriages in our US temples (because we don't also perform gay marriages), can I assume that you will agree that it is NOT a violation of our religious freedoms under the same logic you espouse here?

As you know, you are comparing apples and glockenspiels. As you know, the law in the dwindling number of morally non-bankrupt US states doesn't single out particular religious groups and forbid them from performing legally binding marriages. As you know, those states uphold a morally non-bankrupt definition of marriage, which they then apply impartially.

As you know, your attempted parallel was not valid.

But then, I suppose that's rather inevitable. Because, as you know, you haven't a valid parallel to offer.

[Stone holm]

Thanks Okrahomer for coming to the rescue.  JAHS, I read the opinion -- its pretty clear that the Court in the Utah case really wanted to overrule U.S. v. Reynolds, but refrained from doing so because it had recently been cited as still good law by SCOTUS.  If any prosecutor is stupid enough to bring a clean (no welfare fraud, sex with minor, etc.) case against a polygamist sect that we are going to see it go up, my guess it is most likely that some version of Islam which still practices it will trigger it -- but could be wrong.  The overall arch of history and some evolutionary biologist tend to support it,  I believe E.O. Wilson in one of his books classified humankind as mildly polygamous by nature  (and no I don't remember which of his books).  The nuclear family doesn't quite work well with our current economic system, so there is going to be pressure for changes until something that does work gathers steam -- it will be some type of variance of the nuclear family, but exactly what I have no idea.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I'm confused...

Which Church of Christ are you talking about? There are many.

[rockpond]

Thanks Okrahomer for coming to the rescue.  JAHS, I read the opinion -- its pretty clear that the Court in the Utah case really wanted to overrule U.S. v. Reynolds, but refrained from doing so because it had recently been cited as still good law by SCOTUS.  If any prosecutor is stupid enough to bring a clean (no welfare fraud, sex with minor, etc.) case against a polygamist sect that we are going to see it go up, my guess it is most likely that some version of Islam which still practices it will trigger it -- but could be wrong.  The overall arch of history and some evolutionary biologist tend to support it,  I believe E.O. Wilson in one of his books classified humankind as mildly polygamous by nature  (and no I don't remember which of his books).  The nuclear family doesn't quite work well with our current economic system, so there is going to be pressure for changes until something that does work gathers steam -- it will be some type of variance of the nuclear family, but exactly what I have no idea.

 

For better or worse, there seems to be a certain amount of tolerance in our current society for a man fathering children with multiple women while only being married to one at a time (if that).  It seems like some guy could make a case that goes something like this:  "Hey, my neighbor is divorced and has children with both his ex-wife and his current wife.  He makes his children travel back and forth to be able to spend time with both biological parents.  I want to do what he is doing but without actually divorcing the first wife and making my children split their time between two homes."

[Yirgacheffe]

I can't imagine that it would bother me too much.  Church members deal with it in Europe already, and it would be a really simple thing to go get a legal marriage beforehand.

 

I have repeatedly stated (many times) that i think the government should get completely out of the marriage business all together-grant civil unions instead-and that churches can do marriage ceremonies for whoever wants them.

And you could say that churches should quit doing the work of the state by being "officials" in this area.  Really when it comes down to it the objection is over the use of the word marriage by the state. 

Edited June 4, 2015 by Yirgacheffe

[Damien the Leper]

I'm confused...

Which Church of Christ are you talking about? There are many.

United Church of Christ. Not even close to the same thing. Stone didn't include the "United" part.

[Damien the Leper]

As you know, you are comparing apples and glockenspiels. As you know, the law in the dwindling number of morally non-bankrupt US states doesn't single out particular religious groups and forbid them from performing legally binding marriages. As you know, those states uphold a morally non-bankrupt definition of marriage, which they then apply impartially.As you know, your attempted parallel was not valid.But then, I suppose that's rather inevitable. Because, as you know, you haven't a valid parallel to offer.

Lots of opinion here but I see what you're saying. I don't agree but I get it. Utah has been morally bankrupt since the 1850s. But then again, this was never a Christian nation but rather promoted vague and arbitrary deistic notions to the religious portion of the early states.

[Stone holm]

Rockpond -- yeah, what we have now outside the Church, and increasingly inside the Church is serial monogamy -- also, grandparents are playing an increasing role in the rearing of children.  Since 2008 when by necessity children moved back in with their parents, there is a growing trend that they are not moving back out even when they find employment.  So we have a great variety of situations developing, one of which is the single parent household and another is multi-generational household.  It would appear to me that children being raised by a loving group of adults might actually be a superior situation to either the single parent household, or the two parent household where both parents are working 40 to 60 hours.  Exactly how that will all sugar out remains to be seen, but don't think the attempt to nail back together the 1950's two parent nuclear household is actually going to be sustainable in the long run, so possibly we need to be seriously looking at what kind of a system actually has a chance of working in our present economic system as there seems to be a much stronger loyalty to our economic system than to preserving the traditional nuclear family -- either that or the Churches are going to have to get serious about overthrowing the economic system in favor of one that is more conducive to survival of the nuclear family.  I don't think continuing the harangue about the decline of the family, while supporting a system that yanks it apart is working very well.

[bluebell]

And you could say that churches should quit doing the work of the state by being "officials" in this area.  Really when it comes down to it the objection is over the use of the word marriage by the state. 

 

Yes, you could easily say that.

[Stone holm]

My apologies Valentinus!  The important point in my mind was the strategy of the lawsuit, not the particular Church involved.  My apologies if I offended anyone else with the incomplete name of the Church.