thesometimesaint Posted July 30, 2017 Posted July 30, 2017 19 hours ago, Garden Girl said: Hello TSS... You make the mistake that many on this board make... You don't read a post carefully or completely... You did not read my post carefully...(see the first one listed above, which was in response to your very broad and positive statement in tone, made as if it were actually factual. (See the middle statement, which should have actually been listed first followed by my response). I would normally just let this go, but your response to me of one hour ago so misrepresents what I said that I just can't... First, you make a very broad and positive statement, without any qualification whatsoever, that one thing about our (LDS) subculture that is disappointing is that we marry not just for this life but for eternity, then ignore the very ones we're married to. Again, without any qualification... just as if it is a general fact of our subculture. Well it is not a fact, so I responded that: I understood that this type of thing can and does occur in some spouse relations, but that it was not true for the majority of LDS. You completely ignore my statement that yes it can and does occur, and accuse me of thinking LDS are somehow immune from problems that plague other marriages, and of having an "old faux" sociolocical view. (Not true!) Second, if I was a non-member reading your original statement, I would come away with the impression that in the LDS subculture, it is disappointing that even though they marry not just for this life but eternity, they then ignore the very ones they're married to... It is not until your post of one hour ago that you admit that, like mine, this is not the case with your marriage either... and offer a clarification... By the way TSS, I hope this finds you well... we are all abuzz here on the coast because of the upcoming eclipse on Aug 21st... Every hotel/motel is booked for outrageous prices... community services are planning for an influx of 100,000+ additional visitors to our normal summer increase. The sun's/moon's paths start across the U.S. right here in Depoe Bay/Gleneden Beach where I live... and is expected to plunge us into darkness beginning at 10:21 a.m. for approx 2 mins... it's going to be a logistical nightmare for emergency services/local med facilities. We locals have been advised to stock up on food supplies, gas. water, meds, pet food, cash, etc, to stay off of our electronic devices. and to stay home... I believe all of our Church meetings for that week are cancelled... Some locals are renting out parking spaces in their driveways, and for tents on lawns... police/fire are marking off spaces in open areas for camping, etc... yesterday I bought a pair of special glasses for viewing the eclipse... the store clerk said they had already sold over 100 pair so far that day... GG If our worst problem in life is that non-members misunderstand the principle of Eternal marriage means to LDS. Then our problems are minor indeed. Many still believe we practice polygamy, and have young brides jumping out of the windows in the Salt Lake City Temple into the Great Salt Lake to escape.
Popular Post katherine the great Posted July 30, 2017 Popular Post Posted July 30, 2017 Maybe this has already been mentioned but I think the primary problem legalized polygamy is going to face has to do with community property and inheritance laws. It would require a major rewrite of existing laws. For instance, in community property states: How does this work? As it stands, everything my husband and I have acquired during our thirty years of marriage is joint property. During my childrearing years, he was the sole provider and the law recognizes my contribution during those years, even though it wasn't monetary. If we divorce, our net worth is split equally and if he dies, our net worth becomes mine. I can see how my husband might be an attractive mate to another woman because he's an alpha male has some wealth (and he's pretty good looking and has a great personality). Let's say hubby decides to take another wife and starts having children with her. She doesn't work because she is busy having babies and caring for them. Then hubby dies after five years. How does the law deal with the estate? Does half of my income for the five years they were together go into the pot? What if she wants a divorce after 5 years? What are her rights? Then add a couple more wives just for fun. Any lawyers have any thoughts on how this could work? From what I understand, Brigham Young's will was an absolute nightmare to execute and no one ended up really happy with the settlement. Of course his will was complicated by the fuzzy line that existed between corporation and individual, but that aside, settling with the wives and children was very difficult. 5
Stargazer Posted July 30, 2017 Posted July 30, 2017 On 7/29/2017 at 11:17 AM, thesometimesaint said: i do too. but seriously LDS aren't exempt from the problems that afflict too many couples. Uh, earth to TSS: I don't think I said that LDS are exempt from anything. I said: "I love talking with my spouse. I'd rather talk to her than anyone else!" Thus exempting myself from your overgeneralization. There was no requirement to suggest that I thought the problem might not exist simply because I exempted myself from the general case. Your "I do too" was sufficient as a response. And do have a nice day!
Stargazer Posted July 30, 2017 Posted July 30, 2017 2 hours ago, katherine the great said: Maybe this has already been mentioned but I think the primary problem legalized polygamy is going to face has to do with community property and inheritance laws. It would require a major rewrite of existing laws. For instance, in community property states: How does this work? As it stands, everything my husband and I have acquired during our thirty years of marriage is joint property. During my childrearing years, he was the sole provider and the law recognizes my contribution during those years, even though it wasn't monetary. If we divorce, our net worth is split equally and if he dies, our net worth becomes mine. I can see how my husband might be an attractive mate to another woman because he's an alpha male has some wealth (and he's pretty good looking and has a great personality). Let's say hubby decides to take another wife and starts having children with her. She doesn't work because she is busy having babies and caring for them. Then hubby dies after five years. How does the law deal with the estate? Does half of my income for the five years they were together go into the pot? What if she wants a divorce after 5 years? What are her rights? Then add a couple more wives just for fun. Any lawyers have any thoughts on how this could work? From what I understand, Brigham Young's will was an absolute nightmare to execute and no one ended up really happy with the settlement. Of course his will was complicated by the fuzzy line that existed between corporation and individual, but that aside, settling with the wives and children was very difficult. One of my worst nightmares is having to live the law of plural marriage. At least here on earth. I expect to be a bit more "evolved" in the eternities. Assuming I make it that far. Order of greatest fears as an LDS church member: Having to be the husband in a plural marriage Being called as a bishop (I've been a branch president of a small branch, but... order of magnitude time) Being called to be a patriarch (I'm delighted at the prospect of personal revelation, but being "ON" for getting revelation for others? Oh, dear...) Being called to the nursery In an earlier post, Tacenda provided a frowny-face in response to the general topic, but if she were in a plural marriage, she would have the easiest of the two tasks. The frowny-face is only because she doesn't want to share her toys! (Just kidding, Tacenda!) The lawyer thing you mention is just the tip of the iceberg. What's the most serious implication? It is this: think of the poor hubby -- trying to keep just one wife happy is hard enough (and how few actually accomplish that worthy objective -- yours being the obvious exception, katherine!). In a plural marriage he has two, three, or even more, each with her own particular "druthers", to try to keep happy! Is this something that he can even dream of accomplishing? Only a super man can do this -- and how few of us are genuinely super? Being optimists, of course, many of us like to imagine that we are -- but this is delusion. We are merely men. Dare I mention Harcourt Fenton Mudd? 2
Calm Posted July 30, 2017 Posted July 30, 2017 "she would have the easiest of the two tasks." Meaning what?
The Nehor Posted July 30, 2017 Posted July 30, 2017 21 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: How can we have laws that only apply to one group? See an LDS disciplinary hearing over the Word of Wisdom or a Catholic tribunal over heresy or two parties agreeing to meet with an arbiter to resolve a dispute or even a country club membership's rules. We have lots of laws that only apply to some groups. In most cases they voluntarily bind themselves to those laws. A version of Sharia is practiced in the United States and other western countries in some communities where both parties are willing to accept the judgement. It is not a big deal. Although LDS courts are now used almost solely for church discipline for violation of the commandments go back in time and you can see them ruling on water rights, property disputes, and much much more. A couple of Muslims seeing a Sharia arbiter is not the violent overthrow of the Western legal system. 2
bluebell Posted July 30, 2017 Posted July 30, 2017 37 minutes ago, Stargazer said: It is this: think of the poor hubby -- trying to keep just one wife happy is hard enough (and how few actually accomplish that worthy objective -- yours being the obvious exception, katherine!). In a plural marriage he has two, three, or even more, each with her own particular "druthers", to try to keep happy! Is this something that he can even dream of accomplishing? Only a super man can do this -- and how few of us are genuinely super? Being optimists, of course, many of us like to imagine that we are -- but this is delusion. We are merely men. Dare I mention Harcourt Fenton Mudd? In my marriage, my I spend as much time trying to keep my husband happy as he does trying to keep me happy, and how much harder would it be to keep him happy if he could just go hang out with another wife who was doing a better job at it than i was?!? The pressure would be huge. It would be like when parents get divorced and each parent spends all of their energy focused on giving the kid whatever he wants so that he'll like them more than the other parent. It would be difficult to ever be honest in disagreements or have a voice for plural wives, knowing that it might push the husband to enjoy being with a different wife more. 2
katherine the great Posted July 30, 2017 Posted July 30, 2017 9 minutes ago, bluebell said: In my marriage, my I spend as much time trying to keep my husband happy as he does trying to keep me happy, and how much harder would it be to keep him happy if he could just go hang out with another wife who was doing a better job at it than i was?!? The pressure would be huge. It would be like when parents get divorced and each parent spends all of their energy focused on giving the kid whatever he wants so that he'll like them more than the other parent. It would be difficult to ever be honest in disagreements or have a voice for plural wives, knowing that it might push the husband to enjoy being with a different wife more. I find it hard to believe that anyone could be more interesting or attractive than you. I'd feel sorrier for the intruder. 1
katherine the great Posted July 30, 2017 Posted July 30, 2017 55 minutes ago, Stargazer said: One of my worst nightmares is having to live the law of plural marriage. At least here on earth. I expect to be a bit more "evolved" in the eternities. Assuming I make it that far. Order of greatest fears as an LDS church member: Having to be the husband in a plural marriage Being called as a bishop (I've been a branch president of a small branch, but... order of magnitude time) Being called to be a patriarch (I'm delighted at the prospect of personal revelation, but being "ON" for getting revelation for others? Oh, dear...) Being called to the nursery In an earlier post, Tacenda provided a frowny-face in response to the general topic, but if she were in a plural marriage, she would have the easiest of the two tasks. The frowny-face is only because she doesn't want to share her toys! (Just kidding, Tacenda!) The lawyer thing you mention is just the tip of the iceberg. What's the most serious implication? It is this: think of the poor hubby -- trying to keep just one wife happy is hard enough It really does just complicate everything on all sides. So why bother?
bluebell Posted July 30, 2017 Posted July 30, 2017 19 minutes ago, katherine the great said: I find it hard to believe that anyone could be more interesting or attractive than you. I'd feel sorrier for the intruder.
Stargazer Posted July 30, 2017 Posted July 30, 2017 7 minutes ago, bluebell said: In my marriage, my I spend as much time trying to keep my husband happy as he does trying to keep me happy, and how much harder would it be to keep him happy if he could just go hang out with another wife who was doing a better job at it than i was?!? The pressure would be huge. It would be like when parents get divorced and each parent spends all of their energy focused on giving the kid whatever he wants so that he'll like them more than the other parent. It would be difficult to ever be honest in disagreements or have a voice for plural wives, knowing that it might push the husband to enjoy being with a different wife more. Well, your marriage sounds lovely! My wife and I seem to do the same thing, actually. I was attempting to be humorous, by the way, but if I had a second wife I would be bending over backwards trying my best to give both of them equal attention, equal affection, and equal everything. A freaking nightmare! 2
USU78 Posted July 30, 2017 Posted July 30, 2017 1 hour ago, Stargazer said: One of my worst nightmares is having to live the law of plural marriage. At least here on earth. I expect to be a bit more "evolved" in the eternities. Assuming I make it that far. Order of greatest fears as an LDS church member: Having to be the husband in a plural marriage Being called as a bishop (I've been a branch president of a small branch, but... order of magnitude time) Being called to be a patriarch (I'm delighted at the prospect of personal revelation, but being "ON" for getting revelation for others? Oh, dear...) Being called to the nursery In an earlier post, Tacenda provided a frowny-face in response to the general topic, but if she were in a plural marriage, she would have the easiest of the two tasks. The frowny-face is only because she doesn't want to share her toys! (Just kidding, Tacenda!) The lawyer thing you mention is just the tip of the iceberg. What's the most serious implication? It is this: think of the poor hubby -- trying to keep just one wife happy is hard enough (and how few actually accomplish that worthy objective -- yours being the obvious exception, katherine!). In a plural marriage he has two, three, or even more, each with her own particular "druthers", to try to keep happy! Is this something that he can even dream of accomplishing? Only a super man can do this -- and how few of us are genuinely super? Being optimists, of course, many of us like to imagine that we are -- but this is delusion. We are merely men. Dare I mention Harcourt Fenton Mudd? Star Trek reference. Yay! 2
strappinglad Posted July 30, 2017 Posted July 30, 2017 2 hours ago, Stargazer said: , she would have the easiest of the two tasks. ! (Just kidding, Tacenda!) Now you've gone and done it ,Stargazer, that is an example of what NOT to say to a plural wife !!
Bernard Gui Posted July 30, 2017 Author Posted July 30, 2017 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: See an LDS disciplinary hearing over the Word of Wisdom or a Catholic tribunal over heresy or two parties agreeing to meet with an arbiter to resolve a dispute or even a country club membership's rules. We have lots of laws that only apply to some groups. In most cases they voluntarily bind themselves to those laws. A version of Sharia is practiced in the United States and other western countries in some communities where both parties are willing to accept the judgement. It is not a big deal. Although LDS courts are now used almost solely for church discipline for violation of the commandments go back in time and you can see them ruling on water rights, property disputes, and much much more. A couple of Muslims seeing a Sharia arbiter is not the violent overthrow of the Western legal system. I understand all that, but an arbiter in a civil dispute would have no standing with the US legal system or criminal courts, no?
cdowis Posted July 30, 2017 Posted July 30, 2017 (edited) I assume that someone has already posted this, but the position of the church would be opposed to legalizing polygamy. It is ONLY to be practiced by worthy members of the church with the authorization of the one who holds the key. It is not to be practiced by Babylon and would be an abomination. Jacob made this very clear. Edited July 30, 2017 by cdowis
strappinglad Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 Does the Church not have a presence in countries where polygamy is legal? If true, what happens there if a man with 4 wives and 12 children wants to be baptized? Same as in the US if a FLDS wanted to join?
carbon dioxide Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 6 hours ago, katherine the great said: Maybe this has already been mentioned but I think the primary problem legalized polygamy is going to face has to do with community property and inheritance laws. It would require a major rewrite of existing laws. Lawmakers have no problems writing up new laws. They really don't need to change much anyway. Legal contracts similar to prenup agreements can be written up before the marriage so the issue of property would be decided before the marriages.
bluebell Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 35 minutes ago, strappinglad said: Does the Church not have a presence in countries where polygamy is legal? If true, what happens there if a man with 4 wives and 12 children wants to be baptized? Same as in the US if a FLDS wanted to join? As I understand it, they aren't allowed to be baptized. The church doesn't want to break up the family so would never ask it of someone in that position.
Calm Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 (edited) 52 minutes ago, strappinglad said: Does the Church not have a presence in countries where polygamy is legal? If true, what happens there if a man with 4 wives and 12 children wants to be baptized? Same as in the US if a FLDS wanted to join? Last I heard (from returned senior missionaries) they are told to continue their commitments to their family rather than be baptized as those countries generally have great stigma attached to divorce so the wives and children would suffer greatly, possibly even be social outcasts with no real future even if the husband continued to financially care for them. Edited July 31, 2017 by Calm
Calm Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 (edited) 32 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: Lawmakers have no problems writing up new laws. They really don't need to change much anyway. Legal contracts similar to prenup agreements can be written up before the marriage so the issue of property would be decided before the marriages. How do prenups hold up when children are added to the mix? Or circumstances are different then expected (perhaps a wife is paralyzed in an auto accident, is the whole family including the other wives responsible for medical costs?) How often are they challenged? That would cost money to defend even if won. Edited July 31, 2017 by Calm
katherine the great Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said: Lawmakers have no problems writing up new laws. They really don't need to change much anyway. Legal contracts similar to prenup agreements can be written up before the marriage so the issue of property would be decided before the marriages. Okay, the keyword being "can" be written up. In community property states would it be a requirement? Since anything I earn is by law also my husband's, if my husband entered into a plural marriage without a prenup and our husband dies, would that wife be entitled to half of my assets as well? 1
The Nehor Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: I understand all that, but an arbiter in a civil dispute would have no standing with the US legal system or criminal courts, no? Yeah.....and?
MiserereNobis Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 8 hours ago, The Nehor said: or a Catholic tribunal over heresy We have a long and storied tradition of dealing with heretics. I sense your jealousy
Bernard Gui Posted July 31, 2017 Author Posted July 31, 2017 10 hours ago, Stargazer said: Dare I mention Harcourt Fenton Mudd? 👍
Bernard Gui Posted July 31, 2017 Author Posted July 31, 2017 21 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: We have a long and storied tradition of dealing with heretics. I sense your jealousy Ever hear of Bernardo Gui?
Recommended Posts