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

[thesometimesaint]

Shouldn't we (LDS) celebrate this?  Reynolds v US was a disaster for our church.  I would think we'd applaud its reversal.

 

No.

[Robert F. Smith]

Been tried:

 

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

Yeh, and it was also tried by the Charles Manson Family.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

They also made the Dred Scott decision.  There are precedents and then there are precedents . . .

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

What is more likely is that lower courts will decide the case based on the new guidelines/precedent.  It will not even need to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, which already has too large a workload.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Plural marriage is still a formal doctrine of the LDS Church, but it can only be practiced when it suits the Lord.  It is currently in abeyance.  It could be reintroduced tomorrow, but that is not likely.

[KevinG]

Plural marriage is still a formal doctrine of the LDS Church, but it can only be practiced when it suits the Lord.  It is currently in abeyance.  It could be reintroduced tomorrow, but that is not likely.

 

Right on.  The core doctrine here, that no one needs to elaborate on, write new essays about, or reconsider due to an earthly courts decision is:  "We do what the Lord commands, when He commands it."  

[Glenn101]

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. 

 

 

Section 132 is about much more than polygamy.

[Glenn101]

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

 

Times have changed and opinions have changed.Here is a quote from the majority opinion in Reynolds vs The United States:

"Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void (2 Kent, Com. 79), and from the earliest history of England, polygamy has been treated as an offence against society. After the establishment of the ecclesiastical courts, and until the time of James I, it was punished through the instrumentality of those tribunals not merely because ecclesiastical rights had been violated, but because upon the separation of the ecclesiastical courts from the civil the ecclesiastical were supposed to be the most appropriate for the trial of matrimonial causes and offences against the rights of marriage, just as they were for testamentary causes and the settlement of the estates of deceased persons."

 

It would seem that the recent Supreme Court decision has pretty much countered that argument.

 

Glenn

[Ahab]

At some point I think the SCOTUS will need to define what the word marriage means if they're ever going to say something doesn't qualify as a marriage that is a right of every American.

At this point that's all they've decided. That every American has the right to marriage. And that one form of marriage is not a "lesser" form of marriage than another form of marriage. So if they're ever going to say that the Constitution doesn't give any American their right to anything that American considers a "marriage" they're going to have to put a "but" in there somewhere to explain what does not constitute a marriage that every Ametican has the right to have.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Ahab

[bcuzbcuz]

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?

Are you even married? I mean one man, one woman type of marriage.

Polygamy is an abomination. Be happy with living and honouring one partner. Check out "Escape" by Carolyn Jessop, and read for comprehension. Find out what polygamy can become.

[KevinG]

If we were to judge monogamy based on those who abuse spouses and exercise unrighteous dominion, we would have to throw out the entire institution of marriage.  The polygamist, apostate offshoots of the LDS Church have less to do with the principal as taught by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, than a modern monogamous Temple marriage today.

[Zakuska]

Section 132 is about much more than polygamy.

Agreed.  A case for swinging using it could be made using it.

[KevinG]

Agreed.  A case for swinging using it could be made using it.

 Perhaps you missed this part...

 

"...by my [Gods] word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood..."

 

That sort of negates any argument that someone can take the authority to marry upon themselves.

 

P.S. I just saw your comment on the cake thread.  You are on a roll.

Edited July 2, 2015 by KevinG

[TheSkepticChristian]

Polygamy is an abomination. Be happy with living and honouring one partner. Check out "Escape" by Carolyn Jessop, and read for comprehension. Find out what polygamy can become.

 

and polygamists say that most people (in a normal marriage) commit adultery.

 

So if consenting adults want to practice polygamy, what is wrong with it? Do you have secular reasons?  

Edited July 2, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[rockpond]

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.

Not trying to pervert your message, just seeking to understand better.

I've read the article you linked. I see in it some fears of religious freedoms being undermined by marriage equality, but no actual examples.

[rockpond]

No.

Why not? If we can't celebrate the reversal of Reynolds v US (a case the church had hoped to win) should we disavow our doctrine of polygamy?

[Zakuska]

 Perhaps you missed this part...

 

"...by my [Gods] word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood..."

 

That sort of negates any argument that someone can take the authority to marry upon themselves.

 

P.S. I just saw your comment on the cake thread.  You are on a roll.

If he who holds the power oks the swinging.

[rockpond]

Plural marriage is still a formal doctrine of the LDS Church, but it can only be practiced when it suits the Lord. It is currently in abeyance. It could be reintroduced tomorrow, but that is not likely.

Reynolds was our case in which we were hoping to win the right to practice our religion. Even if the Lord isn't going to command that polygamy be practiced, why wouldn't we want this issue of religious freedom to finally be settled in our favor? Or was poor Brother Reynolds separated from him family and sent to hard labor in vain?

[rockpond]

Are you even married? I mean one man, one woman type of marriage.

Polygamy is an abomination. Be happy with living and honouring one partner. Check out "Escape" by Carolyn Jessop, and read for comprehension. Find out what polygamy can become.

Yes, I am a man married/sealed to a woman.

Section 132 doesn't define polygamy as an abomination. We stopped practicing polygamy because it became illegal.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

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.

You don't know many polygamist, do you?

There are many successful families. It is hilarious to me that so many LDS think that only they can do it correctly or for the right motivations, and anyone else can't.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Section 132 doesn't define polygamy as an abomination. We stopped practicing polygamy because it became illegal.

 

 

Polygamy was certainly declared illegal during the Utah-era anti-polygamy crusade (i.e., from 1862 onward). The Saints refused to comply with the law during that period because they believed: a) that the law was unconstitutional and violated their right of religious worship; and b) that God had commanded them to practice plural marriage despite the potential legal penalties. The Church believes in honoring and sustaining the law, but it does not believe that members must surrender their religious beliefs or conscience to the state. Not surprisingly, the question comes down to whether Joseph was a Prophet and whether God commanded his actions.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Illegal

 

 

From the 1860s to the 1880s, the United States government passed laws to make this religious practice illegal. These laws were eventually upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. After receiving revelation, President Wilford Woodruff issued the following Manifesto, which was accepted by the Church as authoritative and binding on October 6, 1890. This led to the end of the practice of plural marriage in the Church.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng

[KevinG]

You don't know many polygamist, do you?

There are many successful families. It is hilarious to me that so many LDS think that only they can do it correctly or for the right motivations, and anyone else can't.

 

For the right motivations does not equal with the proper authority.

 

Both authority and adherence to doctrines are required.

 

In this there is no distinction between monogamy and any other form of marriage.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

For the right motivations does not equal with the proper authority.

 

Both authority and adherence to doctrines are required.

 

In this there is no distinction between monogamy and any other form of marriage.

But understanding the motivations serves to understand people better. The LDS have adopted this view that modern polyganists are sex crazed maniacs bedding 14-year-old girls for the mere pleasure of indulging in as much sex as their hearts desire. When, in fact, most are motivated by the same things early Mormon ployganists were... the belief that you HAVE to engage in the practice to inherit the highest degree of glory.

Now...

A main argument I see is that marriage must be preserved the way it is because men and women having and raising children to carry on the culture is vital and can only be maintained trough heterosexual marriage. How, exactly, does polygany fly in the face of that like homosexual marriage does?

Frankly, polygamy would be a benefit in some segments of our society. For example, the African-American population. With the overwhelming number of black men in prison, in gang lifestyles, etc... polygany offers a good answer. Women would be able to choose from among the responsible men, married or not, who would be a good provider and father to her children. This would help alleviate a major problem in the black community and major cause of disfunction... the lack of fathers.

 

Edited July 2, 2015 by BookofMormonLuvr

[KevinG]

But understanding the motivations serves to understand people better. The LDS have adopted this view that modern polyganists are sex crazed maniacs bedding 14-year-old girls for the mere pleasure of indulging in as much sex as their hearts desire. When, in fact, most are motivated by the same things early Mormon ployganists were... the belief that you HAVE to engage in the practice to inherit the highest degree of glory.

Now...

A main argument I see is that marriage must be preserved the way it is because men and women having and raising children to carry on the culture is vital and can only be maintained trough heterosexual marriage. How, exactly, does polygany fly in the face of that like homosexual marriage does?

Frankly, polygamy would be a benefit in some segments of our society. For example, the African-American population. With the overwhelming number of black men in prison, in gang lifestyles, etc... polygany offers a good answer. Women would be able to choose from among the responsible men, married or not, who would be a good provider and father to her children. This would help alleviate a major problem in the black community and major cause of disfunction... the lack of fathers.

 

 

You presume too much about LDS attitudes.  I can point to any number of believing Saints who do not believe that modern polygamists are all "sex crazed maniacs bedding 14 year olds" (Warren Jeffs would be a pervert even if he wasn't part of a Mormon offshoot).  I can cite many Latter-day Saints who don't think the principle was required to be practiced to receive the highest degree of glory, including Brigham Young himself.  His is often misquoted by anti-mormons and Mormons alike.

 

Once you get past the "ick factor" for most people most arguments against polygamy would condemn monogamy today as a failed system.

 

However, the few people who manage to honor their marriages, counsel with their spouse, eschew petty jealousy, and seek to serve them as Christ served all humankind...  they are the only people I can see succeeding fully in monogamy or polygamy, to the extent they will be inheritors of eternal increase and glory.  Monogamy and polygamy are not inherently greater or lesser than each other.  However obedience to the Lord's commands in any age and time is far superior to trying to "go it on our own."

[BookofMormonLuvr]

You presume too much about LDS attitudes.  I can point to any number of believing Saints who do not believe that modern polygamists are all "sex crazed maniacs bedding 14 year olds" (Warren Jeffs would be a pervert even if he wasn't part of a Mormon offshoot).  I can cite many Latter-day Saints who don't think the principle was required to be practiced to receive the highest degree of glory, including Brigham Young himself.  His is often misquoted by anti-mormons and Mormons alike.

 

Once you get past the "ick factor" for most people most arguments against polygamy would condemn monogamy today as a failed system.

 

However, the few people who manage to honor their marriages, counsel with their spouse, eschew petty jealousy, and seek to serve them as Christ served all humankind...  they are the only people I can see succeeding fully in monogamy or polygamy, to the extent they will be inheritors of eternal increase and glory.  Monogamy and polygamy are not inherently greater or lesser than each other.  However obedience to the Lord's commands in any age and time is far superior to trying to "go it on our own."

Abraham didn't seek Melchizedek's (Shem's) permission to receive Hagar from Sarah. A worthy family patriarch after consultation with his wife, and the LORD, is not under the obligation of seeking permission, from a leader, to take on additional wives. It is a familial matter.

Edited July 2, 2015 by BookofMormonLuvr