And It Begins. Bring On The Lawsuits To Make Polygamy Legal In America.

[guerreiro9]

This was the false sociology offered and accepted in the Reynolds decision.

The correct term is "polyandry."

Reynolds went beyond what I have described and imposed a ban on polygamous marriages. In my opinion this is unconstitutional and will be overturned.

If we as a society are no longer able to promote actions we deem beneficial for fear we will hurt the feelings of those not willing to engage in them we are in serious trouble.

Polygamy can be used to describe both polyandry and polygyny (as I have done) and doesn't require people to turn to Google to lookup a definition.

-guerreiro9

Edited July 2, 2015 by guerreiro9

[rockpond]

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

Sorry but your beliefs about which relationships are beneficial don't carry much constitutional weight. But I respect your opinion.

Our 19th century prophets and apostles certainly proclaimed the benefits of plural marriage (and not just the spiritual benefits). Were they wrong?

[rockpond]

Reynolds went beyond what I have described and imposed a ban on polygamous marriages. In my opinion this is unconstitutional and will be overturned.

If we as a society are no longer able to promote actions we deem beneficial for fear we will hurt the feelings of those not willing to engage in them we are in serious trouble.

Polygamy can be used to describe both polyandry and polygyny (as I have done) and doesn't require people to turn to Google to lookup a definition.

-guerreiro9

In the US you can promote that which you feel is beneficial. The Church has been publicly promoting its views with respect to marriage for 20 years now (if not more). What you cannot do, here in the US, is pass laws that violate the constitution.

[Tacenda]

I think it will put the church between a rock and a hard place, if polygamy is made legal.  Because those that believe in it and think they need it to be exalted will want to start right away living it or will think seriously about it.    

 

But IMO, the church had to leave in D&C section 132 because if it didn't, then all the polygamy would have been in vain.  And would put doubt in people's minds if they thought polygamy really wasn't a commandment.  And I think the present church may not fully believe it's own doctrine, since they treat it like the plague.  They will never live polygamy again.  They know it will totally make the church into just one of the many LDS break off groups.  They don't want to be in the same camp the current polygamists.  Our church is not Joseph Smith's church.  It's hardly recognizable from it's beginnings.  It's a progressive church, it will never be regressive, IMO. 

[guerreiro9]

Sorry but your beliefs about which relationships are beneficial don't carry much constitutional weight. But I respect your opinion.

Our 19th century prophets and apostles certainly proclaimed the benefits of plural marriage (and not just the spiritual benefits). Were they wrong?

If you're basing your arguments upon what is "constitutional" you've built your house upon sand. Until last week favoring heterosexual marriages was constitutional and now it is not.

Currently favoring marriages between any two people is constitutional, which means polygamous marriages are deemed of less value. Someone's beliefs carry weight, I guess just not mine. I'll just shut up and pay my taxes and leave it to my betters to decide which actions to promote with my money.

Polygamous marriages can be beneficial in certain circumstances and the 19th century pioneers were an example of this.

That does not mean it's beneficial at all places and at all times.

-guerreiro9

[PeterPear]

So it becomes legal. But will be immoral as SSM and not accepted by the LDS Church.

[guerreiro9]

In the US you can promote that which you feel is beneficial. The Church has been publicly promoting its views with respect to marriage for 20 years now (if not more). What you cannot do, here in the US, is pass laws that violate the constitution.

When I say promotion I am talking about grants, subsidies, and tax breaks. I don't think that is what the Church has been doing.

Here let me fix this for you:

What you can do, here in the US, is pass laws whose constitutionality can be upheld or denied by the supreme court based upon how many sitting justices were appointed by which party at the time the case makes it's way to the court.

Or in other words the most important factor in determining if something is constitutional is WHEN the case reaches the Supreme Court and not what is actually in the Constitution.

I can't tell you how much I hate politics...

-guerreiro9

Edited July 2, 2015 by guerreiro9

[MorningStar]

I would expect that people from other countries who are already living it will push to have it legalized here on top of the people living it illegally here.  I won't be surprised if it takes less than 5 years.  It takes a village to raise a child.  Before we know it, the village will be allowed to all marry each other. 

[The Nehor]

Either it happens or it doesn't.

 

I wouldn't see it as some kind of vindication for the saints. They framed their argument under the free exercise of religion. I doubt that will be the major argument now. My guess is it will use the 14th amendment, which, while it barely existed for the Reynolds case was not used by any Mormon to defend polygamy.

[The Nehor]

I would expect that people from other countries who are already living it will push to have it legalized here on top of the people living it illegally here.  I won't be surprised if it takes less than 5 years.  It takes a village to raise a child.  Before we know it, the village will be allowed to all marry each other. 

 

Been tried:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneida_Community

[Gray]

Won't it be harder to legalize polygamy since the supreme court already ruled against it once (albeit in a very old decision)?

[The Nehor]

Won't it be harder to legalize polygamy since the supreme court already ruled against it once (albeit in a very old decision)?

 

Not necessarily. While precedent is important it could be tried on new grounds. The Church tried it on freedom of religion. It is unlikely the same argument will be used. If they argue it based on the 14th Amendment and cite the recent SSM ruling it would be a different tact to the case. While Reynolds would undoubtedly be brought up the Supreme Court can reverse a decision particularly if the case is argued on different and more legally convincing grounds.

[Gray]

Not necessarily. While precedent is important it could be tried on new grounds. The Church tried it on freedom of religion. It is unlikely the same argument will be used. If they argue it based on the 14th Amendment and cite the recent SSM ruling it would be a different tact to the case. While Reynolds would undoubtedly be brought up the Supreme Court can reverse a decision particularly if the case is argued on different and more legally convincing grounds.

 

Good point

[rockpond]

When I say promotion I am talking about grants, subsidies, and tax breaks. I don't think that is what the Church has been doing.

Here let me fix this for you:

What you can do, here in the US, is pass laws whose constitutionality can be upheld or denied by the supreme court based upon how many sitting justices were appointed by which party at the time the case makes it's way to the court.

Or in other words the most important factor in determining if something is constitutional is WHEN the case reaches the Supreme Court and not what is actually in the Constitution.

I can't tell you how much I hate politics...

-guerreiro9

Justice Kennedy, the swing vote on gay marriage was appointed by our most conservative president in memory: Ronald Reagan.

[rockpond]

If you're basing your arguments upon what is "constitutional" you've built your house upon sand. Until last week favoring heterosexual marriages was constitutional and now it is not.

Currently favoring marriages between any two people is constitutional, which means polygamous marriages are deemed of less value. Someone's beliefs carry weight, I guess just not mine. I'll just shut up and pay my taxes and leave it to my betters to decide which actions to promote with my money.

Polygamous marriages can be beneficial in certain circumstances and the 19th century pioneers were an example of this.

That does not mean it's beneficial at all places and at all times.

-guerreiro9

So polygamy was beneficial on the 19th century back when our prophets were teaching its virtues but now it's not. I guess that also means that our current prophet and apostles could eventually be wrong about gay marriage. Per your conclusion, their proclamations about marriage have an expiration date.

[CV75]

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?

I am opposed at this particular juncture in US and Church history because that would also legalize same-sex poly[what?]…, and ssm of any variety, as we have seen, is poised to undermine religious freedom. Compounding perversion always compounds religious suppression. I think the same environment that existed at the time OD1 came out still exists, just perhaps more insidiously, so I think that instruction still holds for the benefit of the Church.

[CV75]

So polygamy was beneficial on the 19th century back when our prophets were teaching its virtues but now it's not. I guess that also means that our current prophet and apostles could eventually be wrong about gay marriage. Per your conclusion, their proclamations about marriage have an expiration date.

For goodness sake, no. Perversion has always and always will undermine religious freedom.

[Storm Rider]

So polygamy was beneficial on the 19th century back when our prophets were teaching its virtues but now it's not. I guess that also means that our current prophet and apostles could eventually be wrong about gay marriage. Per your conclusion, their proclamations about marriage have an expiration date.

 

        One more time, must be read slowly to comprehend the point, When the Lord, God, Heavenly Father, Creator, the Big Boss, Big Cahuna, The ONE, directs a prophet, a people, a group, to act, to choose a specific path, to perform then that same entity is authorized to follow, to fulfill, to do what God has commanded.  HOWEVER, now here is the catch, when that same God does not command or direct there can be no action, no decision, no right to act.  Are you getting the distinction?  It is not about being wrong; it is about following God's commands.  This is not a difficult concept to grasp unless one is purposely being obtuse.

[The Nehor]

Justice Kennedy, the swing vote on gay marriage was appointed by our most conservative president in memory: Ronald Reagan.

Who, if he ran today on the same platform he ran on then, would be accused of being a liberal. I love politics.

[rockpond]

One more time, must be read slowly to comprehend the point, When the Lord, God, Heavenly Father, Creator, the Big Boss, Big Cahuna, The ONE, directs a prophet, a people, a group, to act, to choose a specific path, to perform then that same entity is authorized to follow, to fulfill, to do what God has commanded. HOWEVER, now here is the catch, when that same God does not command or direct there can be no action, no decision, no right to act. Are you getting the distinction? It is not about being wrong; it is about following God's commands. This is not a difficult concept to grasp unless one is purposely being obtuse.

Yes, obviously I get that distinction. No need for goofy emoticons. But that wasn't what we were discussing.

[rockpond]

I am opposed at this particular juncture in US and Church history because that would also legalize same-sex poly[what?]…, and ssm of any variety, as we have seen, is poised to undermine religious freedom. Compounding perversion always compounds religious suppression. I think the same environment that existed at the time OD1 came out still exists, just perhaps more insidiously, so I think that instruction still holds for the benefit of the Church.

How has SSM undermined religious freedom?

[Ahab]

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.

I think of God's commands to a man to have more than one wife were something like "you should marry her" and "yes I'm saying you have my approval". Speaking of the times when God commanded men to have more than one wife. And then later when speaking to Wilford, when he was the presiding prophet on this Earth, it was more like "take a look at the situation now, considering what would happen if men continued to take more than one woman as a wife now with my approval" with God and Wilford both being able to see that it would be the wisest course of action to simply discontinue that practice. Not that God wanted the men with more than one wife to annul their marriages. It just changed from "yes take another wife, I approve" to "neh, no, not the wisest thing to do at this point, better not".

[CV75]

How has SSM undermined religious freedom?

I said, "...ssm of any variety, as we have seen, is poised to undermine religious freedom..." Please don't pervert my message. See http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/the-divine-institution-of-marriage, notably “How Would Same-Sex Marriage Affect Religious Freedom?” for examples.

 

Same-sex poly[what?amorous?] "marriage" would be a civil construct as far as I can tell, and not a religious practice recognized as having any reasonable congruency with the aims of civilization.

[KevinG]

 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

 

I do, but then again as long as its the law of the land I'm not turning down the tax credits on my crazy large posterity!

[KevinG]

It is extremely ironic that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, prevented by the US Federal Government from exercising their beliefs in the late 19th century, may now be in a position to hold the line on plural marriage in the early 21st century regardless of how the government changes the law.  (I sheepishly admit this is a "pass the popcorn" moment for me.)

 

Set aside for a moment people who argue it's nontraditional (it can be found throughout the Bible among God's anointed) or those who think it is icky (which is never a really good way to judge commandments of God). Also set aside faith promoting myths like "there weren't enough faithful men". 

 

There are good reasons for the early Saints practice of the principle, primarily forming dynastic relationships among early church leaders and clans of tested, faithful Saints that were set apart from the world.  This still benefits the Saints today.  Just ask a congregation today to raise their hands if they are descended from polygamists and you will still see strong faithful members flowing from those lineages. 

 

However- the Saints, much less the world still have so much to learn about unselfishness and faithfulness in monogamous marriage, I cannot see the polygamous portions of the principle working well today.  I suppose if the Lord wants us to return to the practice He will also supply the necessary testimony and knowledge to do so along with the commandment.  But who would listen and be selfless enough to succeed?