carbon dioxide Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 A polygamist in Montana is about ready to start the process that may lead to legal polygamy "HELENA, Mont. (AP) — A Montana man has applied for a marriage license so he can legally wed his second wife. Nathan Collier of Billings said Wednesday that last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage inspired him to try to force the acceptance of polygamous marriages. He says he'll sue the state if his application is rejected...." https://www.yahoo.com/tv/s/polygamous-montana-trio-applies-wedding-license-193205283.html Don't think this will not happen. How many would assert that gay marriage would be where it is today just 10 years ago?
rockpond Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 A polygamist in Montana is about ready to start the process that may lead to legal polygamy "HELENA, Mont. (AP) — A Montana man has applied for a marriage license so he can legally wed his second wife. Nathan Collier of Billings said Wednesday that last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage inspired him to try to force the acceptance of polygamous marriages. He says he'll sue the state if his application is rejected...." https://www.yahoo.com/tv/s/polygamous-montana-trio-applies-wedding-license-193205283.html Don't think this will not happen. How many would assert that gay marriage would be where it is today just 10 years ago? Shouldn't we (LDS) celebrate this? Reynolds v US was a disaster for our church. I would think we'd applaud its reversal. 3
ELF1024 Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Shouldn't we (LDS) celebrate this? Reynolds v US was a disaster for our church. I would think we'd applaud its reversal. Not just no... but 1
Storm Rider Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 When God commands all things are possible and permissible. At the present time, polygamous marriages are not acceptable and will not be acceptable until the Lord commands such. I think the Church and its members are more prone to celebrate the free exercise of religion and the dictates of our consciousness rather the the simple practice of polygamy. In addition, the polygamy that this individual practices and that practiced by the early saints has very little in common. Nice effort, but you are mixing apples and oranges. 1
rockpond Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 When God commands all things are possible and permissible. At the present time, polygamous marriages are not acceptable and will not be acceptable until the Lord commands such. I think the Church and its members are more prone to celebrate the free exercise of religion and the dictates of our consciousness rather the the simple practice of polygamy. In addition, the polygamy that this individual practices and that practiced by the early saints has very little in common. Nice effort, but you are mixing apples and oranges. We haven't denied the principle of polygamy. The Church still holds it as an eternal doctrine. Why wouldn't we want to see it legalized? If we celebrate the free exercise of religion than we should celebrate the legalization of polygamy, right?
ELF1024 Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Why? If was supposed to have lasted longer than it did, it would have. To believe otherwise would be as much as admitting the the Church allowed it's doctrine to be forged by the will of the state. I am unwilling to believe that the doctrine changed for that reason. Secondly, Warren Jeffs.
rockpond Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 If was supposed to have lasted longer than it did, it would have. To believe otherwise would be as much as admitting the the Church allowed it's doctrine to be forged by the will of the state. I am unwilling to believe that the doctrine changed for that reason. Secondly, Warren Jeffs. The Church didn't allow its doctrine to be forged by the will of the state. We still hold polygamy as a true, eternal doctrinal principle. But the Church DID allow the practice of that particular doctrine to be forged by the will of the state. President Woodruff said as much: Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise. And I believe that Warren Jeffs exists because we pushed polygamy into the shadows. We had a number of prophets and apostles extol the virtues of polygamy -- were they wrong? 2
ELF1024 Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 And I believe that Warren Jeffs exists because we pushed polygamy into the shadows. We had a number of prophets and apostles extol the virtues of polygamy -- were they wrong? If they did so after the abandonment of polygamy, then yes, they were mistaken.
CV75 Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 We haven't denied the principle of polygamy. The Church still holds it as an eternal doctrine. Why wouldn't we want to see it legalized? If we celebrate the free exercise of religion than we should celebrate the legalization of polygamy, right?OK--explain why you want to see it legalized, and post a photo of you and your picket sign, LOL!!!
Bobbieaware Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) A polygamist in Montana is about ready to start the process that may lead to legal polygamy"HELENA, Mont. (AP) — A Montana man has applied for a marriage license so he can legally wed his second wife. Nathan Collier of Billings said Wednesday that last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage inspired him to try to force the acceptance of polygamous marriages. He says he'll sue the state if his application is rejected...."https://www.yahoo.com/tv/s/polygamous-montana-trio-applies-wedding-license-193205283.htmlDon't think this will not happen. How many would assert that gay marriage would be where it is today just 10 years ago?No surprise here. In his dissent to the recent SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage, Chief Justice John Roberts said that the ruling paves the way for plural marriage. Here are his words:"Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage." (Dissent of Chief Justice John Roberts) My carefully considered opinion in all of this is I believe the adversary and his earthly agents are planning to use this ruling, and future rulings, to completely destroy the moral foundations upon which the traditional family is based. And I believe the reason why some progressive Latter-day Saints are not worried about these developments is because they don't believe in a literal devil; or if they do believe in a literal devil they don't take the threats he and his earthly agents pose seriously enough. Edited July 1, 2015 by Bobbieaware
rockpond Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 If they did so after the abandonment of polygamy, then yes, they were mistaken. No, it was before. But I'm not aware of any prophetic statements or revelations undoing those pronouncements. So I'm very confused why there seems to be this sentiment among church members that it would be bad for polygamy to be legalized.
rockpond Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 No surprise here. In his dissent to the recent SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage, Chief Justice John Roberts said that the ruling paves the way for plural marriage. Here are his words:"Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage." (Dissent of Chief Justice John Roberts)My carefully considered opinion in all of this is I believe the adversary and his earthly agents are planning to use this ruling, and future rulings, to completely destroy the moral foundations upon which the traditional family is based. And I believe the reason why some progressive Latter-day Saints are not worried about these developments is because they don't believe in a literal devil; or if they do believe in a literal devil they don't take the threats he and his earthly agents pose seriously enough. How would legalization of polygamy "destroy the moral foundations upon which the traditional family is based"? Polygamy is a part of our doctrine. It's an eternal principle.
rockpond Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) OK--explain why you want to see it legalized, and post a photo of you and your picket sign, LOL!!! Sorry, I don't have a picket sign but I do believe in religious freedom. Are you opposed to the legalization of polygamy? And, if so, how do you reconcile that with Section 132? Edited July 1, 2015 by rockpond
Ahab Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 We haven't denied the principle of polygamy. The Church still holds it as an eternal doctrine. Why wouldn't we want to see it legalized?The doctrine is that we're to have only one wife unless God commands otherwise. The principle is still good for those who God commanded to have more than one wife, just as it would still be good for us if God commanded us to have more than one wife. And I'm talking about before death do we part. Having more than one wife is okay if one is parted by death.If we celebrate the free exercise of religion than we should celebrate the legalization of polygamy, right?No. Just as we don't celebrate the free exercise of agency when someone chooses to do something sinful, even though they still have the right to do wrong because of free agency.
CV75 Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 Sorry, I don't have a picket sign but I do believe in religious freedom. Are you opposed to the legalization of polygamy? And, if so, how do you reconcile that with Section 132?A picket sign can be easily procured. Have you ever used one, or used any kind of sign, poster, bumper sticker or sticker to express your political or religious views? In order fo me to properly answer your question, please explain why you want to see polygamy legalized.
carbon dioxide Posted July 2, 2015 Author Posted July 2, 2015 The Church didn't allow its doctrine to be forged by the will of the state. We still hold polygamy as a true, eternal doctrinal principle. But the Church DID allow the practice of that particular doctrine to be forged by the will of the state. President Woodruff said as much: Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise. And I believe that Warren Jeffs exists because we pushed polygamy into the shadows. We had a number of prophets and apostles extol the virtues of polygamy -- were they wrong?Many people cites abuses in polygamist families as justification that polygamy should be illegal. I believe that many of these abuses exist because polygamy is illegal. When something is forced underground, that is an ideal place for bad things to happen. There will always be abuses as there will always be in monogamy. I believe that a man that will treat a woman good in monogamy will do so in polygamy and a man that abuses a woman in polygamy will do so in monogamy. Men who abuse women will do so regardless of the situation they are in. 1
rockpond Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 The doctrine is that we're to have only one wife unless God commands otherwise. The principle is still good for those who God commanded to have more than one wife, just as it would still be good for us if God commanded us to have more than one wife. And I'm talking about before death do we part. Having more than one wife is okay if one is parted by death.No. Just as we don't celebrate the free exercise of agency when someone chooses to do something sinful, even though they still have the right to do wrong because of free agency. But it was only deemed sinful because it was made illegal. See OD2. 1
rockpond Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 A picket sign can be easily procured. Have you ever used one, or used any kind of sign, poster, bumper sticker or sticker to express your political or religious views? In order fo me to properly answer your question, please explain why you want to see polygamy legalized. Technically, it's more accurate to say that I do not have a problem with it being legalized. I am personally opposed to polygamy. But, I think citizens of the U.S. should be allowed to participate in polygamy under the 1st Amendment. So my short answer is: religious freedom. So why are you opposed? 1
rockpond Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 Many people cites abuses in polygamist families as justification that polygamy should be illegal. I believe that many of these abuses exist because polygamy is illegal. When something is forced underground, that is an ideal place for bad things to happen. There will always be abuses as there will always be in monogamy. I believe that a man that will treat a woman good in monogamy will do so in polygamy and a man that abuses a woman in polygamy will do so in monogamy. Men who abuse women will do so regardless of the situation they are in. I agree.
Ahab Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 But it was only deemed sinful because it was made illegal. See OD2.No, just not a wise thing to keep doing because of how the American government would have come down hard against the Church. And although our Father could have aided the Church through those trials if he had wanted the Church to continue that practice he thought it best to just stop commanding the practice.
rodheadlee Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 A polygamist in Montana is about ready to start the process that may lead to legal polygamy "HELENA, Mont. (AP) — A Montana man has applied for a marriage license so he can legally wed his second wife. Nathan Collier of Billings said Wednesday that last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage inspired him to try to force the acceptance of polygamous marriages. He says he'll sue the state if his application is rejected...." https://www.yahoo.com/tv/s/polygamous-montana-trio-applies-wedding-license-193205283.html Don't think this will not happen. How many would assert that gay marriage would be where it is today just 10 years ago? Oh sure, they wait until I'm in my 60s to make polygamy legal. 2
Bobbieaware Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) How would legalization of polygamy "destroy the moral foundations upon which the traditional family is based"? Polygamy is a part of our doctrine. It's an eternal principle.Because even under the best of divinely authorized circumstances (I.e. divine commandment, priesthood authority, prophetic and scriptural guidance, spiritual empowerment and wherewithal, holy covenants to live lives of true holiness within the marriage covenant) successful and child-friendly plural marriage is a difficult thing to successfully achieve. Without all these necessary elements plural marriage becomes a devil's playground, just as the Nephite prophet Jacob warned. But who cares what the prophets think when "freedom" (read license and libertinism without conscience) is the ultimate goal. God's law remains God's law no matter what unrighteously motivated humans do to override or circumvent that law, and they will be held resonsible for the sin, misery and destroyed lives that come as a consequence of the violation of those laws. Edited July 2, 2015 by Bobbieaware
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 Don't think this will not happen. How many would assert that gay marriage would be where it is today just 10 years ago? "We claim for everyone the God-given and Constitutional right to live their faith according to the dictates of their own conscience, without harming the health or safety of others" - Elder Oaks Just allow polygamy to be legal. Let's just live and let live 1
Storm Rider Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 We haven't denied the principle of polygamy. The Church still holds it as an eternal doctrine. Why wouldn't we want to see it legalized? If we celebrate the free exercise of religion than we should celebrate the legalization of polygamy, right? Let's start again, WHEN the Lord commands it, it happens. Are you of the impression that the Lord is now commanding the saints, or at least some of them, to practice polygamy at present? If so, please call the prophet I am sure he would like to know the mind of the Lord on this issue. We celebrate the free exercise of religion when religion is allowed to exercise freely. Has any religion started an action to gain approval from the courts? If so, more power to them. Based upon the logic of our SC they should be given the "right" to practice their religion. Just as we should allow those that belong to the Spaghetti Monster church should be able to marry spaghetti, and those that worship cats and dogs to do the same. Rights should be shared liberally among everyone that wants something; not because it is a religion but because they FEEL like it. If they feel like it, it must be good, right?
Recommended Posts