rockpond Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 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.I agree that successful polygamy is tought to achieve. Not sure what you mean when you say " But who cares what the prophets think when "freedom" (read license and libertinism without conscience) is the ultimate goal." The Brethren recently have been speaking out a lot regarding religious freedom. Shouldn't those in the US who have religious beliefs that include polygamy be permitted that freedom?
rockpond Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 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?No. I am definitely not saying that the Lord is commanding polygamy now. I hope I didn't give that impression. But if he ever were to command it, as the Church still holds polygamy to be a true principle, wouldn't we first want it to be legal so that we don't have to deal with the circumstances that prompted the Manifesto?
guerreiro9 Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 I agree that successful polygamy is tought to achieve. Not sure what you mean when you say " But who cares what the prophets think when "freedom" (read license and libertinism without conscience) is the ultimate goal." The Brethren recently have been speaking out a lot regarding religious freedom. Shouldn't those in the US who have religious beliefs that include polygamy be permitted that freedom?Define permitted. Allowed or given tax advantages for engaging in...-guerreiro9
rockpond Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 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.So are you okay with making polygamy legal?
guerreiro9 Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 So are you okay with making polygamy legal?Define legal-guerreiro9
rockpond Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 Define permitted. Allowed or given tax advantages for engaging in...-guerreiro9Allowed.
rockpond Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 Define legal-guerreiro9As in, not prohibited by law. Reversing Reynolds v US.
guerreiro9 Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 As in, not prohibited by law. Reversing Reynolds v US.Allowed yes. Treated equal with one man one woman (and unfortunately ssm) no.
JAHS Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) One of the reasons why the church tried to continue to practice polygamy in the early days of the church, even after it was made illegal, was because they believed it was their constitutional right to practice their religion the way they wanted to, the same as gays believe it is their right to get married. So I can understand why some might say that if polygamy was made legal it might in some way vindicate what the early church claimed was their right 130 years ago. Edited July 2, 2015 by JAHS
Bobbieaware Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 I agree that successful polygamy is tought to achieve. Not sure what you mean when you say " But who cares what the prophets think when "freedom" (read license and libertinism without conscience) is the ultimate goal." The Brethren recently have been speaking out a lot regarding religious freedom. Shouldn't those in the US who have religious beliefs that include polygamy be permitted that freedom?Much if not most of the polygamy that will take place in the future will have nothing to do religion. It will be just another "lifestyle choice" in a wicked society where virtually anything and everything goes. A society where innocent children's minds will be polluted on a daily basis with with poisonous, ungodly propaganda. The Lord said those who offend little children -- in this case by robbing them of their innocence -- should volunteer to have a millstone fastened to their necks and drowned in the depths of the sea as an act of proper penance.In 3 Nephi the Lord warns us that latter-day Gentile America will become the most prideful and rebellious nation on the face of the earth. And regardless of what some progressive folks on this board say, we are well on our way to fulfilling that prophecy, and the recent Supreme Court ruling has thrown open the doors.
Buckeye 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?Correction. Polygamy is already legal in the U.S. (or at least courts have struck done criminal laws against it and those rulings are on appeal). This is a suit for something more than legality - actual state recognition of the marriage(s). That's more than Reynolds was aiming for. He was just trying to stay out of jail, not to get marriage benefits.
rockpond Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 Allowed yes. Treated equal with one man one woman (and unfortunately ssm) no.So are you suggesting that our current religious beliefs about marriage be given preferential treatment over the religious beliefs of others?
carbon dioxide Posted July 2, 2015 Author Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) Much if not most of the polygamy that will take place in the future will have nothing to do religion. It will be just another "lifestyle choice" in a wicked society where virtually anything and everything goes. A society where innocent children's minds will be polluted on a daily basis with with poisonous, ungodly propaganda. The Lord said those who offend little children -- in this case by robbing them of their innocence -- should volunteer to have a millstone fastened to their necks and drowned in the depths of the sea as an act of proper penance.In 3 Nephi the Lord warns us that latter-day Gentile America will become the most prideful and rebellious nation on the face of the earth. And regardless of what some progressive folks on this board say, we are well on our way to fulfilling that prophecy, and the recent Supreme Court ruling has thrown open the doors.Muslims practice polygamy. I am sure as more immigrate to America in the coming decades they will want to practice it. America is becoming more wicked. It probably will deserve all the claimed disasters that climate change people are saying. I sometimes wonder the wisdom of praying for rain in drought. Why should God send rain when all the people are going to do is continue to ignore and turn up the wickedness. Perhaps real disaster is the only thing that will wake up some people and get them to repent. Edited July 2, 2015 by carbon dioxide
rockpond Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 Much if not most of the polygamy that will take place in the future will have nothing to do religion. It will be just another "lifestyle choice" in a wicked society where virtually anything and everything goes. A society where innocent children's minds will be polluted on a daily basis with with poisonous, ungodly propaganda. The Lord said those who offend little children -- in this case by robbing them of their innocence -- should volunteer to have a millstone fastened to their necks and drowned in the depths of the sea as an act of proper penance.In 3 Nephi the Lord warns us that latter-day Gentile America will become the most prideful and rebellious nation on the face of the earth. And regardless of what some progressive folks on this board say, we are well on our way to fulfilling that prophecy, and the recent Supreme Court ruling has thrown open the doors.How can you possibly say that "Much if not most of the polygamy that will take place in the future will have nothing to do religion." There are other religions that believe in polygamy. Are you suggesting that polygamy is offensive? If so, how do you personally reconcile that with past prophetic teachings regarding polygamy?
Robert F. Smith Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 Shouldn't we (LDS) celebrate this? Reynolds v US was a disaster for our church. I would think we'd applaud its reversal.Dream on, buddy !!
Robert F. Smith Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 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. You might be missing the point: The recent decision was not a same sex marriage decision so much as it was an expansive equal marriage rights decision. As a matter of secular law, having nothing to do with religious law. Reynolds will be reversed, and that will mean that those wishing to have plural marriages will be able to do so.
rockpond Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) Dream on, buddy !!Yeah, I know. I just don't get how the Church and a majority of church members can be opposed to it.What would BY, who sent Reynolds as a sacrificial lamb, say? What would Pres. Woodruff say?! Edited July 2, 2015 by rockpond 1
tonie Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 You might be missing the point: The recent decision was not a same sex marriage decision so much as it was an expansive equal marriage rights decision. As a matter of secular law, having nothing to do with religious law. Reynolds will be reversed, and that will mean that those wishing to have plural marriages will be able to do so. It is very much plausable that Windsor, invalidated Reynolds. Windsor was about the Defence Of Marriage Act (DOMA) provision that defined marriage. SCOTUS essentially ruled that marriage is a matter left to the States and ruled that the praticular section of DOMA was not valid. I think a polygamist, could have challenged DOMA just the same as Windsor did. 1
guerreiro9 Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 So are you suggesting that our current religious beliefs about marriage be given preferential treatment over the religious beliefs of others?No I am suggesting that acts which are more beneficial to the country should be promoted more heavily than those which are less so.I see monogamous hetereosexual marriages as being the most beneficial and therefore worthy of the most promotion.Polygamous unions with a single husband and multiple wives provide some value to the country, but not nearly as much as monogamous and should not be promoted to the same extent if at all.Polygamous unions with a single wife and multiple husbands provide less value still.Homosexual marriages provide no value and while I believe they should be allowed they should not be promoted.Religion does not enter into it.In some cases religious beliefs align with the needs of the state. I don't suppose you're going to argue that the child tax credit unfairly favors Mormons because they are encouraged to multiply and replenish are you?-guerreiro9
tonie Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 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. Did God command an end to the practice? If so where/when did God specifically command an end to the practice. I agree with you that continueing polygamy "not a wise thing to keep doing because of how the American government would have come down hard against the Church. 2
strappinglad Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) When I was a child, there was " the Lord's Day Act " , wherein it was illegal to work on Sunday. The law had been framed by the prevailing majority Christians. The cops could fine you for doing any type of commercial work, and they did. That law passed away. Up until my 30s there were laws prohibiting regular stores from opening on Sunday. They were deleted also. Now , Sunday is really just another shopping day. In Nevada, brothels are legal. They are highly regulated and taxed like any business. Nevada, where there are lots of Mormons even in State and Federal leadership. Where is the cry to make it all illegal again? I haven't seen it. There are actually good arguments that making it legal is best for all concerned. Polygamy should never have been illegal in the first place. The serial monogamy/ infidelity we have now is much more destructive to society in my opinion. Where polygamy is practiced in other parts of the world it is regulated by economic forces. I am afraid that I am in agreement with a couple of other libertarians and the article of faith which allows all to worship what they may, be that Christ or snakes. We are taught that we were sent here to see if we would willingly follow God's will. Hard to do if everywhere we turn we find laws restricting our legitimate choices. Has the war on drugs been successful? Has prostitution been eradicated? If not, why not? Sorry, I'm rambling. Happy Canada Day Duncan. Edited July 2, 2015 by strappinglad 1
Coreyb Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 I hope that polygamy in all its forms is legalized. I don't think this will happen in the next few years, but it will eventually. If nothing else, it will force the Church Hierarchy's hand into dealing with our doctrine and history beyond a few well crafted essays.
Coreyb Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 I hope that polygamy in all its forms is legalized. I don't think this will happen in the next few years, but it will eventually. If nothing else, it will force the Church Hierarchy's hand into dealing with our doctrine and history beyond a few well crafted essays.Reading this I know I sound cynical, but I promise I have more hope than skepticism
Robert F. Smith Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 No I am suggesting that acts which are more beneficial to the country should be promoted more heavily than those which are less so.I see monogamous hetereosexual marriages as being the most beneficial and therefore worthy of the most promotion.This was the false sociology offered and accepted in the Reynolds decision. ........................................................................................Polygamous unions with a single wife and multiple husbands provide less value still...................................................................................The correct term is "polyandry."
sunstoned Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 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.I believe you might be looking at this from the wrong perspective. The glass half empty so to speak. Perhaps this ruling is part of a larger plan. One that will open the door to the legal practice of polygamy. I think there is a reason that section 132 is still part of the D & C.
Recommended Posts