Polygamy Becoming Popular, but not with LDS

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Ever hear of Bernardo Gui?

Yeah, I've always wondered about your name choice... but you weren't Torquemada so it's all cool

 

[Daniel2]

On ‎7‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 0:09 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Back in the Prop 8 days, a few of us (who were immediately castigated) predicted that polygamy would be the next fence to be broken down.

To be clear: not everyone "castigated" those who suggested that polygamy would eventually be legalized, after same-sex marriage bans were overturned.  As a liberal supporter of marriage equality for same-sex couples, I've advocated in favor of the (civil) legalization of polygamy since I've been posting on this forum (about 15 years, now).

As a descendent, myself, of LDS polygamists who's ancestral family had to flee from the United States to the Mormon colonies in Mexico to peacefully practice their religion (which included polygamy), and even if Mormonism never re-authorizes polygamy in mortality again as it once did, I cannot understand how modern Latter-day Saints would object to striking down the current government bans on polygamy, if nothing else but in the name of supporting religious liberty for all (the support of which current LDS Church leadership has been openly, staunchly, and repeatedly vocal about supporting in recent years). 

Edited July 31, 2017 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

On ‎7‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 8:07 PM, carbon dioxide said:

I for one will not disavow and discredit our past. It is sad that the Church sometimes wants to do that.  That fact that we don't currently practice polygamy should not mean we distance ourselves and pretend that the practice was wrong in the 19th century.  Should we disavow and discredit the Law of Moses because it that was then and this is now?  I don't think so.  Just because that was done away does not mean it was not valid during those days.

Especially since eternal LDS plural marriage is still occurring in the sense that men are still being sealed to more than one woman for time and all eternity--just only to one living woman at a time.

Edited July 31, 2017 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

On ‎7‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 8:44 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Unfortunately, we won't be participating now that it's finally catching on.

Upon what do you base this assumption/assertion....?

If one believes the sources about modern polygamy under Joseph Smith, it wasn't particularly popular, eagerly-anticipated, or joyfully-embraced by the church as a whole the first time it was introduced, either...

Edited July 31, 2017 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

On ‎7‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 8:53 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

It isn't so much an LDS concern, since we no longer practice plural marriage (and are not likely to do so in the near future, even if it is legal),

Same question I posted previously... upon what do you base this assertion/assumption...?

Edited July 31, 2017 by Daniel2

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Upon what do you base this assumption/assertion....?

If one believes the sources about modern polygamy under Joseph Smith, it wasn't particularly popular, eagerly-anticipated, or joyfully-embraced by the church as a whole the first time it was introduced, either...

An abrahamic test isn't supposed to be popular, eagerly anticipated, or joyfully embraced.

[Daniel2]

On ‎7‎/‎30‎/‎2017 at 11:44 AM, 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.

Well said, Katherine.  As I've also been saying, all of those types of issues would need to be addressed if the government decided to recognize polygamy as a form of civil marriage.  It also illustrates why "marriage equality" isn't particularly accurate when it comes to comparing a marriage between more than two people vs. a marriage between two people... the "equal" part becomes incredibly complicated when you're trying to balance rights of competing simultaneous spouses in the event of death, divorce, or division of property/inheritance, etc. 

Even though "marriage equality" may not be an apt term, I agree that constitutional principles of personal and religious liberty should protect and preserve individuals' right to practice their religious (or non-religious) values which compel them to practice polygamy, so long as all involved are consenting adults.

Edited July 31, 2017 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, USU78 said:

An abrahamic test isn't supposed to be popular, eagerly anticipated, or joyfully embraced.

While I'm somewhat shocked to actually understand and agree with you that "an Abrahamic test isn't supposed to be popular, eagerly anticipated, or joyfully embraced," are you suggesting that LDS polygamy was "an Abrahamic test"?  If so, upon what basis? 

And do you believe [LDS polygamy] was only "an Abrahamic test," or do you believe polygamy was/is also an eternal principle?  That is, do you or do you not believe that there will be exalted polygamists (those who received exaltation as polygamists and in will remain in eternal polygamist marriages)?

For the record, in my view, for something to qualify as an "Abrahamic test," the implication is that it wouldn't involve actually going through with the unsavory commandment... According to the story, Abraham may have been commanded to kill his son, but God likewise sent an angel to stop him from doing so after seeing that Abraham was willing to obey, regardless of the personal cost.  LDS plural marriage wasn't 'a commandment that was given to test obedience but stopped before such marriages forming eternal families occurred or were consummated'... It was taught as a foundational principle of the church for decades and across multiple generations of prophets and apostles and is still believed to be a fixture of LDS belief within the Celestial Kingdom, so I'm confused as to how you can suggest it would only be "an Abrahamic test."

Edited July 31, 2017 by Daniel2

[USU78]

12 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

While I'm somewhat shocked to actually understand and agree with you that "an Abrahamic test isn't supposed to be popular, eagerly anticipated, or joyfully embraced," are you suggesting that LDS polygamy was "an Abrahamic test"?  If so, upon what basis? 

And do you believe as it only "an Abrahamic test," or do you believe was/is it an eternal principle?  That is, do you or do you not believe that there will be exalted polygamists (those who received exaltation as polygamists and in will remain in eternal polygamist marriages)?

It's all over section 132.

Though people tended later to forget, the first generation understood all too well. See, eg, Brigham envying the poor shlub in the hearse.

[thesometimesaint]

19 hours 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.

 

The down side to polygamy is having more than one Mother-in-Law. Sorry mom I couldn't resist. You did a wonderful job raising such a delightful daughter.

[Daniel2]

17 minutes ago, USU78 said:

It's all over section 132.

Though people tended later to forget, the first generation understood all too well. See, eg, Brigham envying the poor shlub in the hearse.

Please quote verses that so indicate.

From my perspective, the fact that a commandment is difficult, unsavory, or unappealing doesn't mean it automatically qualifies as "an Abrahamic test."  That title holds a distinct quality beyond merely being an unpopular commandment, at least from how I understand the reference to Abraham.

But even so, can you please address the other portion of my post?  Namely,

Quote

And do you believe [LDS polygamy] was only "an Abrahamic test," or do you believe it was/is an eternal principle?  That is, do you or do you not believe that there will be exalted polygamists (those who received exaltation as polygamists and in will remain in eternal polygamist marriages)?

Edited July 31, 2017 by Daniel2

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Upon what do you base this assumption/assertion....?

If one believes the sources about modern polygamy under Joseph Smith, it wasn't particularly popular, eagerly-anticipated, or joyfully-embraced by the church as a whole the first time it was introduced, either...

I mentioned earlier that the sarcasm alert beacon should have been turned on. The popularity, anticipation,and joyful enthusiastic embrace for polygamy is found in our pop culture which is the driving force for morality today.

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

To be clear: not everyone "castigated" those who suggested that polygamy would eventually be legalized, after same-sex marriage bans were overturned.  As a liberal supporter of marriage equality for same-sex couples, I've advocated in favor of the (civil) legalization of polygamy since I've been posting on this forum (about 15 years, now).

As a descendent, myself, of LDS polygamists who's ancestral family had to flee from the United States to the Mormon colonies in Mexico to peacefully practice their religion (which included polygamy), and even if Mormonism never re-authorizes polygamy in mortality again as it once did, I cannot understand how modern Latter-day Saints would object to striking down the current government bans on polygamy, if nothing else but in the name of supporting religious liberty for all (the support of which current LDS Church leadership has been openly, staunchly, and repeatedly vocal about supporting in recent years). 

Well, the oft-quoted exposition on sexual morality and polygamy by Jacob, brother of Nephi, is reason enough for LDS to vehemently oppose polygamy today. It has nothing to do with religious liberty, unless one equates libertines with patriots. Maybe this reminder will help.....

Quote

Jacob 2

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.
33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.

 

[Bernard Gui]

19 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yeah, I've always wondered about your name choice... but you weren't Torquemada so it's all cool

 

In addition to being a rather proficient and eloquent inquisitor, he is also my favorite chacter in one of my favorite books and movies. The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco.

F. Murray Abraham's portrayal of him in the movi.e. is masterful, hence the avatar. His demise is awesome.

I have this fantasy of one day being a famous Mormon Inquisitor. No one expects the Mormon Inquisition. Maybe a name like S. Heber Young would do the trick. 🔥

Edited August 1, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Upon what do you base this assumption/assertion....?

If one believes the sources about modern polygamy under Joseph Smith, it wasn't particularly popular, eagerly-anticipated, or joyfully-embraced by the church as a whole the first time it was introduced, either...

We were doing it before it was cool.

[USU78]

11 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Please quote verses that so indicate.

From my perspective, the fact that a commandment is difficult, unsavory, or unappealing doesn't mean it automatically qualifies as "an Abrahamic test."  That title holds a distinct quality beyond merely being an unpopular commandment, at least from how I understand the reference to Abraham.

But even so, can you please address the other portion of my post?  Namely,

In answer to your first question (quoting from https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2011/a-reconciliation-of-polygamy):

Quote

Finally, starting with verse 34, the Lord turns to the topic of polygamy. He begins the discussion with a statement of fact: “God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife.” In the verses that follow, the Lord will answer the question he then poses: “And why did she do it?”

The Lord has apparently chosen to explain his reasoning and reveal his mind on polygamy in terms of a specific analogy between two situations that occurred to one man, Abraham. The Lord’s subsequent explanation of polygamy centers around an analogy the Lord himself posits between his commandment to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac and his commandment to Abraham to marry Hagar polygamously. In verse 36 the Lord explains: “Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness”.

Now, given the importance of his children having a correct understanding of their Father’s mind on this topic, we cannot believe that this analogy was chosen capriciously. This is not an arbitrary analogy being made,. and since it is the onlyanalogy being made, we must pay attention to it and try to understand why that analogy was chosen.

God wants us to see how and why he views those two situations as analogous: sacrifice Isaac; take Hagar to wife. By choosing the story of Isaac to be the analog of the story of polygamy the Lord reveals his mind to us and constrains forever and irrevocably any discussion we, his children, might choose to have on the subject of polygamy.

We must understand correctly why the Lord elects to use this particular analogy, or we are likely to seriously err in our understanding of the role and place of polygamy in God’s plan for his children.

The first and most telling point to note about the analogy is that the story of Isaac is a story of sacrifice. The Lord is telling us that the term “Abrahamic sacrifice” refers not only to the story of Isaac but applies to the story of Hagar as well.

Edited August 1, 2017 by USU78

[USU78]

11 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

But even so, can you please address the other portion of my post?  Namely,

No, I don't believe I care to follow you down that there rabbit hole.

[Bernard Gui]

44 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

We were doing it before it was cool.

Thank you. Someone understands! And finally now that it's cool, we're not wearing the colors.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

In addition to being a rather proficient and eloquent inquisitor, he is also my favorite chacter in one of my favorite books and movies. The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco.

F. Murray Abraham's portrayal of him in the movi.e. is masterful, hence the avatar. His demise is awesome.

I have this fantasy of one day being a famous Mormon Inquisitor. No one expects the Mormon Inquisition. Maybe a name like S. Heber Young would do the trick. 🔥

I love The Name of the Rose! The movie was a bit disappointing (as almost all movies are when you've read the book first). The movie highlighted sensationalist things over the deeply intriguing aspects found in the book.

So, which LDS poster here would S. Heber Young burn at the stake first?

 

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, the oft-quoted exposition on sexual morality and polygamy by Jacob, brother of Nephi, is reason enough for LDS to vehemently oppose polygamy today. It has nothing to do with religious liberty, unless one equates libertines with patriots. Maybe this reminder will help.....

 

Whoa, the Book of Mormon says polygamy is wrong?

How did Joseph Smith and Brigham Young explain that once polygamy was practiced? I'd be interested in any words of theirs, if available, instead of modern day apologists.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Whoa, the Book of Mormon says polygamy is wrong?

How did Joseph Smith and Brigham Young explain that once polygamy was practiced? I'd be interested in any words of theirs, if available, instead of modern day apologists.

The speech Jacob gave condemning having multiple wives (and banning concubinage) included a proviso saying that if God wanted to use it he would command his people. Without that command they were to stick with the one wife standard. The defense is built into the scripture. It is a condemnation of non-divinely commanded polygamy.

[USU78]

8 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I love The Name of the Rose! The movie was a bit disappointing (as almost all movies are when you've read the book first). The movie highlighted sensationalist things over the deeply intriguing aspects found in the book.

So, which LDS poster here would S. Heber Young burn at the stake first?

 

Me! Me!

[Daniel2]

13 hours ago, USU78 said:

No, I don't believe I care to follow you down that there rabbit hole.

In all sincerity, why would you refuse to answer:

• Do you believe [LDS polygamy] was only "an Abrahamic test," or do you believe it was/is an eternal principle?  
• Do you or do you not believe that there will be exalted polygamists (those who received exaltation as polygamists and in will remain in eternal polygamist marriages)? 

Far from being "a rabbit hole," those two questions cut to the heart of the exact scope of the thread (and even more so than our side discussion about Abrahamic Tests...).  I'm puzzled why you won't answer them--they don't seem to be difficult or complex questions to answer, but even if you feel that's the case, you're welcome to add any additional information you'd like to clarify and give context as you wish.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

We were doing it before it was cool.

I appreciate the comment, but it doesn't address my question of why some current members of the LDS church are asserting that God will never authorize polygamy again.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Daniel2

[Robert F. Smith]

On 7/31/2017 at 9:49 AM, Daniel2 said:

Same question I posted previously... upon what do you base this assertion/assumption...?

Just based on dead reckoning among the Mormons I have met over the years.  There seems to be a singular distaste for polygyny.  I get the same notion from this board.  Nothing scientific, mind you.  Just my impression of modern Mormon opinion.  I have no idea what the Lord might have in mind.