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

[thatjimguy]

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.

 

I think this sums it up. No one knows if the Lord will ever bring polygamy back.

 

If he does, don't you think that SSM made it easier for us to practice it if it were to come about?

 

If we did stop SSM, and polygamy does come back, how hypocritical would it be for us say anything about not being able to follow our religious beliefs.

[rockpond]

Yep... It was a matter of religious freedom for the Saints in the 19th century. I'm not sure why it seems to no longer be viewed as a matter of religious freedom.

[Ahab]

Yep... It was a matter of religious freedom for the Saints in the 19th century. I'm not sure why it seems to no longer be viewed as a matter of religious freedom.

If polygamy becomes legal and the reason it becomes legal is due to a religion, then it will be viewed as a matter of religious freedom.

But if it's not for a religious reason, then it will be viewed as just another secular law, not because of religion.

[Coreyb]

If polygamy becomes legal and the reason it becomes legal is due to a religion, then it will be viewed as a matter of religious freedom.

But if it's not for a religious reason, then it will be viewed as just another secular law, not because of religion.

But if the change is made, for whatever reasons, and it allows religious individuals to better practice their religious principles with legal sanction, is it not still a triumph for religious freedom in general?

[CV75]

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.

Of course you're not trying to pervert my message (and I didn't say that either). What do you think "...ssm of any variety, as we have seen, is poised to undermine religious freedom..." actually means?

 

Perhaps you are dodging discussion of the lumping of same-sex poly[what?] with polygamy.

[Ahab]

But if the change is made, for whatever reasons, and it allows religious individuals to better practice their religious principles with legal sanction, is it not still a triumph for religious freedom in general?

It would be but most would not consider it religious freedom, just freedom in general.

As an analogy pick something else that is now legal for everybody including people practicing their own religion. It's both secular freedom as well as freedom of religion and most just consider it freedom in general.

[california boy]

If I am reading these posts arguing against polygamy correctly are you guys saying that sometimes God calls something sinful and sometimes that exact thing is allowed and not a sin any longer?

Yet aren't those exact same posters the ones saying that God views SSM as sinful but will never allow it??? I don't get your position.

[carbon dioxide]

If I am reading these posts arguing against polygamy correctly are you guys saying that sometimes God calls something sinful and sometimes that exact thing is allowed and not a sin any longer?

Yet aren't those exact same posters the ones saying that God views SSM as sinful but will never allow it??? I don't get your position.

Something is sinful if it is out of bounds of God's command.  Sometimes God commands polygamy and sometimes he does not.  That is established in the scriptures.  SSM has as much scripture supporting it as a man being able to marry his living room sofa.  I guess there is a one in a billion chance God could suddenly say "Gay marriage is fabulous" and would sanction it.  Enough time has passed since Adam and Eve that if God was going to sanction it, it would have been done by now. 

 

Keep in mind that polygamy maintains the male/female relationship.  In polygamy, there is no claim that the wives can have relations with each other.  Polygamy does not go against the natural order of things.

[Gray]

Something is sinful if it is out of bounds of God's command.  Sometimes God commands polygamy and sometimes he does not.  That is established in the scriptures.  SSM has as much scripture supporting it as a man being able to marry his living room sofa.  I guess there is a one in a billion chance God could suddenly say "Gay marriage is fabulous" and would sanction it.  Enough time has passed since Adam and Eve that if God was going to sanction it, it would have been done by now. 

 

Keep in mind that polygamy maintains the male/female relationship.  In polygamy, there is no claim that the wives can have relations with each other.  Polygamy does not go against the natural order of things.

 

Both polygamy and homosexuality occur in nature.

[Stone holm]

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

No, I don't think the Church leadership will celebrate this or like having our history of non traditional marriage brought again into the public sphere. I think that it should be legalized, but I don't think it will be accepted legally like SSM, because there are secular arguments that can be made against it. However the State based RFRA statutes being peddled by Elder Oaks might actually pave the way for a successful argument for legalization for certain groups like the FLDS on the issue.

[carbon dioxide]

No, I don't think the Church leadership will celebrate this or like having our history of non traditional marriage brought again into the public sphere. I think that it should be legalized, but I don't think it will be accepted legally like SSM, because there are secular arguments that can be made against it. However the State based RFRA statutes being peddled by Elder Oaks might actually pave the way for a successful argument for legalization for certain groups like the FLDS on the issue.

Whatever secular arguments made against polygamy either exist also in monogamy or can be overcome by changing the law which is easy to do.  If it is possible to make SSM legal, it should be possible to make polygamy legal.  If the courts and lawmakers have the courage to do it.

[carbon dioxide]

Both polygamy and homosexuality occur in nature.

Yes they do.  Though my reference of natural order of things would be the scriptural viewpoint.  God created male and female to be together and so forth. 

[JLHPROF]

Yes they do.  Though my reference of natural order of things would be the scriptural viewpoint.  God created male and female to be together and so forth. 

 

Unless you believe Adam was a polygamist too...

[thesometimesaint]

The Christian world has pretty well forgotten about Lilith.

[JLHPROF]

The Christian world has pretty well forgotten about Lilith.

 

Personally, I can't wait until the Millennial reign and the entire world is confronted by God approved polygamy, resurrected polygamists with their resurrected eternal companions everywhere you look, and the truth known instead of hidden about who was a polygamist (Adam, Christ, Noah, Isaac, etc).

Basically, when people can no longer claim the practice is "wrong".  The same old complaints about the practice are getting old and will be moot when that happens.

Edited July 5, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Ahab]

Personally, I can't wait until the Millennial reign and the entire world is confronted by God approved polygamy, resurrected polygamists with their resurrected eternal companions everywhere you look, and the truth known instead of hidden about who was a polygamist (Adam, Christ, Noah, Isaac, etc).

Basically, when people can no longer claim the practice is "wrong". The same old complaints about the practice are getting old and will be moot when that happens.

I agree that everyone living on this planet then will not be claiming that practice is wrong for the ones living it, but that will be after this planet has already been cleansed from the ones who would say it is wrong.

Until then, we'll just have to live with people who are wrong on that issue, and on some other things too.

[bcuzbcuz]

Personally, I can't wait until the Millennial reign and the entire world is confronted by God approved polygamy, resurrected polygamists with their resurrected eternal companions everywhere you look, and the truth known instead of hidden about who was a polygamist (Adam, Christ, Noah, Isaac, etc).

Basically, when people can no longer claim the practice is "wrong".  The same old complaints about the practice are getting old and will be moot when that happens.

Dream on. Does your wife know you're itching to have multiple wives?

[JLHPROF]

Dream on. Does your wife know you're itching to have multiple wives?

 

My wife and I have both accepted this practice and doctrine.

As far as itching goes...that's hardly a correct sentiment.

 

And there's no dreaming involved if you actually believe in the restored gospel.  If you don't, well, that's a whole different issue.

[Stone holm]

Whatever secular arguments made against polygamy either exist also in monogamy or can be overcome by changing the law which is easy to do.  If it is possible to make SSM legal, it should be possible to make polygamy legal.  If the courts and lawmakers have the courage to do it.

Not so sure about that. Tax implications, welfare implications, property issues all become more complicated when you move from a one on one relationship. Don't get me wrong, I am not opposed to legalization, I just think that there will be secular arguments that the Court may be more willing to view as legitimate. U.S. v Reynolds was poorly written and even more poorly reasoned.

[why me]

Making room for polygamists is a natural consequence of saying yes to SSM by the supreme court. And rightly so. One cannot give freedom for gays and lesbians to marry and deny polygamists the same rights. Once marriage is taken out of the female/male relationship, it is difficult to deny such equal rights to polygamists.

 

I am hoping for the legalization of polygamy. It would create an unintended cosequence for allowing gays to marry and it would be a natural conclusion that such marriages between consensual aduts must be respected and permited in a liberal, pluralistic society.

[california boy]

Something is sinful if it is out of bounds of God's command. Sometimes God commands polygamy and sometimes he does not. That is established in the scriptures. SSM has as much scripture supporting it as a man being able to marry his living room sofa. I guess there is a one in a billion chance God could suddenly say "Gay marriage is fabulous" and would sanction it. Enough time has passed since Adam and Eve that if God was going to sanction it, it would have been done by now.

Keep in mind that polygamy maintains the male/female relationship. In polygamy, there is no claim that the wives can have relations with each other. Polygamy does not go against the natural order of things.

Something is sinful only when God says it is sinful. Past history is irrelevant no matter how long something has been a sin or not

For example, drinking alcohol was not a sin for thousands of years. Christ himself drank it. Yet very recent in time it became a sin simply because God willed it not because it had been a sin since the beginning of time. Scripture support is also irrelevant There was no scriptural support that suggested drinking alcohol is a sin. In fact there is scripture supporting alcohol consumption

Look. I am not advocating for gay marriage in the church. Is all I sm saying is that time is irrelevant when it comes to the will of God. These scripture/time/tradition arguments are completely irrelevant.

Edited July 5, 2015 by california boy

[rodheadlee]

Both polygamy and homosexuality occur in nature.

In lower life forms.

[why me]

Something is sinful only when God says it is sinful. Past history is irrelevant no matter how long something has been a sin or not

For example, drinking alcohol was not a sin for thousands of years. Christ himself drank it. Yet very recent in time it became a sin simply because God willed it not because it had been a sin since the beginning of time. Scripture support is also irrelevant There was no scriptural support that suggested drinking alcohol is a sin. In fact there is scripture supporting alcohol consumption

Look. I am not advocating for gay marriage in the church. Is all I sm saying is that time is irrelevant when it comes to the will of God. These scripture/time/tradition arguments are completely irrelevant.

Basically, the US is governed by the ideology of liberalism, which basically is pluralistic.

 

The effects of the supreme court decision will be drastic. Basically, with such a decision by the supreme court, the US was pushed into a post-christian society. And of course this is what the liberal wing within the ideology of liberalism wanted. They wanted the united states to become post-christian through the undermining of christian moral values which basically had its roots in puritanism. And this is quite a shift in a short period of time.

 

Liberals within as an ideology of liberalism basically wants to give more freedom of choice when it comes to moral issues. And yet, they wish to have more control over economic liberalism by imposing more state intervention. Conservatives within the ideology of liberalism wish to have a free market with very little government intervention but they also wish to control the liberal moral direction of liberalism initiated by liberals. However, now that marriage is no longer only between woman and man, it is only a matter of time before polygamy is legal. In a pluralistic liberal, secular society, people do need freedom of choice. And polygamy is a choice that now should not be denied to adults such as the man who is married to two women who share nine children between them. Why should the second 'wife' be denied the same rights as the first wife? And if men can marry other men and women can marry other women, why should not a man be married to two women if it is all consensual?

Edited July 6, 2015 by why me

[Stone holm]

In lower life forms.

Define lower life form?

[Stone holm]

Making room for polygamists is a natural consequence of saying yes to SSM by the supreme court. And rightly so. One cannot give freedom for gays and lesbians to marry and deny polygamists the same rights. Once marriage is taken out of the female/male relationship, it is difficult to deny such equal rights to polygamists.

 

I am hoping for the legalization of polygamy. It would create an unintended cosequence for allowing gays to marry and it would be a natural conclusion that such marriages between consensual aduts must be respected and permited in a liberal, pluralistic society.

While I suspect the Church feared this type of reasoning, I do not see that legalizing poligamy is necessarily a logical result of legalizing SSM. There is no minority involved. The logical path to legalizing poligamy would be through a State proceeding down the logic of RFRA. It would be through a free exercise claim, rather than an equal protection claim...unless you somehow brought through the kids, that might be an equal protection argument and there was a discussion of the impact of not allowing gay couples to marry upon their children.