Polygamy Becoming Popular, but not with LDS

[Bernard Gui]

37 minutes ago, pogi said:

If religious liberty can so easily be stripped from others, than what protection have we?  Religious liberty only works when it is applied to all religion, and not just Mormonism.  If we do not protect religious liberty for everybody, then we are putting our own religious rights at risk. 

Moroni 8 states that baptizing children is an "evil abomination", it also states that worshiping false Gods and idols is an abomination, I could probably go on.  I am sure that you are not in favor of making Catholic child baptism illegal, or the worship of Allah or Hindu Gods?  Prohibition and the WoW?  I could go on, but I think my point is sufficiently clear that if we don't protect the rights of others to worship "how, where, and what they may", then we should not expect protection ourselves.  

As far as abortion goes, I don't know of any religions that perform abortion as a religious right.  Also, I only believe in religious liberty to the extent that religious practices do not infringe upon the rights of others. 

As of today, plural marriage is illegal in the US and many other countries. The Mormons tried the "religious freedom" route and failed. I prefer to stand with Jacob and and the Family Proclamation. I would not support a movement to legalize plural marriages.

 I don't see the Church becoming a friend of the litigants for that reason when it inevitably comes up, but stranger things have happened. I am no longer surprised by anything. As Brigham said (see below) there are lots of kittens and cats waiting to get out of the bag. 

Edited August 2, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Stargazer]

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Given Jacob, I don't know how we can take that stand. Like abortion.....even though it may be a common and in most places legal practice, it is not right.

Granted, Jacob is talking about the Lord's people, but I think monogamy is a general principal good for all people.

I see you changed your signature!  Very thought provoking -- and I thought the "good blade" signature was pretty cool! This is even better!

 

[pogi]

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

As of today, plural marriage is illegal in the US and many other countries. The Mormons tried the "religious freedom" route and failed. I prefer to stand with Jacob and and the Family Proclamation. I would not support a movement to legalize plural marriages.

 I don't see the Church becoming a friend of the litigants for that reason when it inevitably comes up, but stranger things have happened. I am no longer surprised by anything. As Brigham said (see below) there are lots of kittens and cats waiting to get out of the bag. 

I understand your motivation to stand up with Jacob and the Family Proclamation.  I too stand up with them and encourage all to listen and obey, however I don't believe in enforcing my personal beliefs on others when they infringe upon their rights to practice religion as they please.  Here is the question I have - should we strive to make our own personal religious beliefs the law of the land (like some Muslims are doing with Sharia law), or should we stand up for the rights of all religions to practice according to the dictates of their own conscience?

Yes, Mormons tried to make polygamy legal at one point, even in light of Jacob's words. I see no justification to change our position on polygamy given our history and our current position on religious liberty.  If polygamy does become a legal battle, the church would have difficulty not looking incredibly hypocritical if they came out in opposition of the practice given their bold stance on religious liberty, the 11th article of faith, D&C 134, and our history of the religious practice.

The church is pretty clear where they stand on this issue:

https://www.lds.org/religious-freedom?lang=eng

Also, see the "learn more" links at the bottom of the page.  They are great resources where the church argue my points beautifully.  Here are some good snippets with my own emphasis:

Quote

 

Why does it matter so much? 

Agency is essential in Heavenly Father’s plan of salvation, and religious freedom ensures we can use our agency to live and share what we believe. Everyone needs to have that freedom, no matter what they believe.

Yet despite its importance, religious freedom is increasingly under assault around the world. That’s why the Apostles have spoken about this topic dozens of times in the last decade. As prophets, seers, and revelators, they recognize the need to defend religious freedom. Each of us has a role to play. 

Find simple ways to help protect the rights of everyone to act on their beliefs. You can attend city council meetings, vote, and contact your government representatives to express your views. Get involved in the democratic institutions and conversations around you.

 

 

Quote

 

Freedom of religion is a basic principle of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a fundamental human right.  Moral agency, the ability to choose right from wrong and to act for ourselves, is essential to God’s plan of salvation.  Religious freedom ensures that people can exercise their agency in matters of faith.

The Church’s eleventh article of faith states, “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”  Religious freedom embraces not only the right to freely worship but also to speak and act based on one’s religious beliefs.  In a modern revelation, the Lord states that just laws should be “maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh … [t]hat every man may act … according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.”1  Governments cannot “exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience.”2  Thus, governments are bound “to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief.”3

Religious freedom safeguards the right of all people to hold their own religious beliefs and express them openly without fear of persecution or being denied equal rights of citizenship.  It ensures that people can freely choose or change their religion, teach their faith to their children, receive and disseminate religious information, gather with others to worship, and participate in the ceremonies and practices of their faith.  It protects individuals from religious discrimination in employment, housing and other basic services, and prevents people from being denied the right to have a business, occupation, or professional license based on their religion.

Freedom of religion protects not only individuals, but also the religious organizations that make faith communities possible.  It encompasses the right to form churches and other religious institutions, such as religious schools and charities.  It affords such institutions the freedom to establish their doctrines and modes of worship; to organize their own ecclesiastical affairs; to determine requirements for membership, ecclesiastical office, and employment; and to own property and construct places of worship.  “[W]e do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship” or to “dictate forms for public or private devotion.”4

Many of these principles are embodied in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .”  International human rights documents likewise recognize the universality of freedom of religion and belief.  Article 18 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

Religious freedom is not absolute.  Limits on religious activities are appropriate where necessary to protect compelling interests, such as the life, property, health, or safety of others.  But such limitations should be truly necessary, rather than an excuse for abridging religious freedom.  Where the law constrains religious freedom, Latter-day Saints believe in obeying the law while seeking protection for their fundamental rights through such lawful means as may be available in each jurisdiction or country.

Latter-day Saints believe in defending the religious freedom of others just as readily as their own.  The Prophet Joseph Smith declared, “I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves.”5

Early Latter-day Saints codified this sentiment in a Nauvoo City ordinance guaranteeing tolerance for all faiths: “Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Nauvoo, that the Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Latter-day Saints, Quakers, Episcopals, Universalists, Unitarians, Mohammedans [Muslims], and all other religious sects and denominations whatever, shall have free toleration, and equal privileges in this city ...”6

Doctrine & Covenants 101:77-78.
Doctrine & Covenants 134:2.
Doctrine & Covenants 134:7.
Doctrine & Covenants 134:4.
History of the Church 498–99 (1991) (discourse given by Joseph Smith on July 9, 1843, in Nauvoo, Illinois) (reported by Willard Richards).
Ordinance in Relation to Religious Societies, City of Nauvoo, [Illinois] headquarters of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, March 1, 1841
https://www.lds.org/religious-freedom/understand

 

 

 

 

 

[thesometimesaint]

The Church is in countries where polygamy is legal. We don't baptize them, but tell them to take care of their families.

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, pogi said:

Here is the question I have - should we strive to make our own personal religious beliefs the law of the land (like some Muslims are doing with Sharia law), or should we stand up for the rights of all religions to practice according to the dictates of their own conscience?

At some point a majority of the people has to agree on what will be the substance and particulars of our law. I'm not sure I am ready to die for polygamy. On the other hand, I'm really grateful for no more meatless Fridays.

I'm not sure of what you are advocating. Are you in favor of religions having laws separate and potentially contradictory to civil laws?

Edited August 4, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

The Church is in countries where polygamy is legal. We don't baptize them, but tell them to take care of their families.

As we and they should.

[pogi]

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I'm not sure of what you are advocating. Are you in favor of religions having laws separate and potentially contradictory to civil laws?

That is an interesting question, but not really what I am talking about. The LDS church today pretty well follows the 12th article of faith in that respect, but it is clear that there are exceptions to that rule in our history.  Joseph Smith instigated the religious law of plural marriage via revelation in D&C 132 and lived contrary to civil law in obedience to religious law.  There is also the question of what to do if a government is/becomes corrupt and outlaws the practice of religious observance, such as baptism, sacrament, etc. Which law do you obey?  That is besides the point though.

Really, all that I am advocating is exactly what the church has stated in the link that I provided in my post above.  What I am personally saying is that the government was wrong for denying the legal rights and constitutionally sanctioned religious liberty in the practice of plural marriage with the early Mormons, and that they are still wrong for denying the legal practice to other religious organisations today.  I am not commenting on whether or not other religious organizations are right or wrong for practicing their religion contrary to civil law. 

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, pogi said:

That is an interesting question, but not really what I am talking about. The LDS church today pretty well follows the 12th article of faith in that respect, but it is clear that there are exceptions to that rule in our history.  Joseph Smith instigated the religious law of plural marriage via revelation in D&C 132 and lived contrary to civil law in obedience to religious law.  There is also the question of what to do if a government is/becomes corrupt and outlaws the practice of religious observance, such as baptism, sacrament, etc. Which law do you obey?  That is besides the point though.

Really, all that I am advocating is exactly what the church has stated in the link that I provided in my post above.  What I am personally saying is that the government was wrong for denying the legal rights and constitutionally sanctioned religious liberty in the practice of plural marriage with the early Mormons, and that they are still wrong for denying the legal practice to other religious organisations today.  I am not commenting on whether or not other religious organizations are right or wrong for practicing their religion contrary to civil law. 

Thank you. Given Jacob's conditions for allowing polygamy, do we still need it to "raise seed"? 

[thesometimesaint]

At 66 years old I sure hope not.

[JLHPROF]

On 8/3/2017 at 11:13 AM, thesometimesaint said:

The Church is in countries where polygamy is legal. We don't baptize them, but tell them to take care of their families.

Which is ridiculous when you think about it.

To deny salvation to people who are breaking no commandment.

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Which is ridiculous when you think about it.

To deny salvation to people who are breaking no commandment.

Then upon what basis does the Church excommunicate polygamists?

[thesometimesaint]

OD 1

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

OD 1

Sometimes I wonder if anyone actually read OD 1...

"I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land."  Not much of a commandment.

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Which is ridiculous when you think about it.

To deny salvation to people who are breaking no commandment.

Do you think Jacob 2 is a commandment?

[Bernard Gui]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Sometimes I wonder if anyone actually read OD 1...

"I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land."  Not much of a commandment.

This?

Quote

There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice,

 

Edited August 5, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Which is ridiculous when you think about it.

To deny salvation to people who are breaking no commandment.

Monogamy is currently a commandment.

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Do you think Jacob 2 is a commandment?

Not to this dispensation or people.

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Quote

There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice,

This?

Still no commandment.  Just an organizational policy.  Also, completely historically untrue.

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Monogamy is currently a commandment.

CFR - where since the giving of D&C 132 did God specifically command that monogamy is the only acceptable form of marriage.  I know where the Church says it, but where did God say it?
(And don't say the "Proclamation on the Family".  That isn't God speaking.)

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Which is ridiculous when you think about it.

To deny salvation to people who are breaking no commandment.

Salvation isn't being denied.

It's being postponed. 

Slight difference there.

Think of the people who lived in India in say, 1000 BC.  They never so much as heard of Jesus Christ, let alone got a chance to be baptized.  

If you don't get your opportunity here, you get it there.  It's all good.

I can't believe I have to explain it to you.

Edited August 6, 2017 by Stargazer

[thesometimesaint]

10 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Sometimes I wonder if anyone actually read OD 1...

"I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land."  Not much of a commandment.

How many polygamous marriages do you see in the Church today, even in those in lands where it is legal?

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Salvation isn't being denied.

It's being postponed. 

Slight difference there.

Think of the people who lived in India in say, 1000 BC.  They never so much as heard of Jesus Christ, let alone got a chance to be baptized.  

If you don't get your opportunity here, you get it there.  It's all good.

I can't believe I have to explain it to you.

So why keep sending missionaries.  It wouldn't be denying anyone the gospel, just postponing it.  If there are no blessings in being a member of the church that are being denied, then it seems like the church should totally focus on the work for the dead.  Imagine how many people a missionary could baptize in 2 years in the temple.

[california boy]

On 8/3/2017 at 5:45 PM, pogi said:

I understand your motivation to stand up with Jacob and the Family Proclamation.  I too stand up with them and encourage all to listen and obey, however I don't believe in enforcing my personal beliefs on others when they infringe upon their rights to practice religion as they please.  Here is the question I have - should we strive to make our own personal religious beliefs the law of the land (like some Muslims are doing with Sharia law), or should we stand up for the rights of all religions to practice according to the dictates of their own conscience?

Yes, Mormons tried to make polygamy legal at one point, even in light of Jacob's words. I see no justification to change our position on polygamy given our history and our current position on religious liberty.  If polygamy does become a legal battle, the church would have difficulty not looking incredibly hypocritical if they came out in opposition of the practice given their bold stance on religious liberty, the 11th article of faith, D&C 134, and our history of the religious practice.

The church is pretty clear where they stand on this issue:

https://www.lds.org/religious-freedom?lang=eng

Also, see the "learn more" links at the bottom of the page.  They are great resources where the church argue my points beautifully.  Here are some good snippets with my own emphasis:

 

Why does it matter so much? 

Agency is essential in Heavenly Father’s plan of salvation, and religious freedom ensures we can use our agency to live and share what we believe. Everyone needs to have that freedom, no matter what they believe.

Yet despite its importance, religious freedom is increasingly under assault around the world. That’s why the Apostles have spoken about this topic dozens of times in the last decade. As prophets, seers, and revelators, they recognize the need to defend religious freedom. Each of us has a role to play. 

Find simple ways to help protect the rights of everyone to act on their beliefs. You can attend city council meetings, vote, and contact your government representatives to express your views. Get involved in the democratic institutions and conversations around you.

 

 

Quote

  Quote

 

Freedom of religion is a basic principle of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and afundamental human right.  Moral agency, the ability to choose right from wrong and to act for ourselves, is essential to God’s plan of salvation.  Religious freedom ensures that people can exercise their agency in matters of faith.

The Church’s eleventh article of faith states, “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”  Religious freedom embraces not only the right to freely worship but also to speak and act based on one’s religious beliefs.  In a modern revelation, the Lord states that just laws should be “maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh … [t]hat every man may act … according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.”1  Governments cannot “exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience.”2  Thus, governments are bound “to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief.”3

Religious freedom safeguards the right of all people to hold their own religious beliefs and express them openly without fear of persecution or being denied equal rights of citizenship.  It ensures that people can freely choose or change their religion, teach their faith to their children, receive and disseminate religious information, gather with others to worship, and participate in the ceremonies and practices of their faith.  It protects individuals from religious discrimination in employment, housing and other basic services, and prevents people from being denied the right to have a business, occupation, or professional license based on their religion.

Freedom of religion protects not only individuals, but also the religious organizations that make faith communities possible.  It encompasses the right to form churches and other religious institutions, such as religious schools and charities.  It affords such institutions the freedom to establish their doctrines and modes of worship; to organize their own ecclesiastical affairs; to determine requirements for membership, ecclesiastical office, and employment; and to own property and construct places of worship.  “[W]e do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship” or to “dictate forms for public or private devotion.”4

Many of these principles are embodied in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .”  International human rights documents likewise recognize the universality of freedom of religion and belief.  Article 18 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

Religious freedom is not absolute.  Limits on religious activities are appropriate where necessary to protect compelling interests, such as the life, property, health, or safety of others.  But such limitations should be truly necessary, rather than an excuse for abridging religious freedom.  Where the law constrains religious freedom, Latter-day Saints believe in obeying the law while seeking protection for their fundamental rights through such lawful means as may be available in each jurisdiction or country.

Latter-day Saints believe in defending the religious freedom of others just as readily as their own.  The Prophet Joseph Smith declared, “I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves.”5

Early Latter-day Saints codified this sentiment in a Nauvoo City ordinance guaranteeing tolerance for all faiths: “Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Nauvoo, that the Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Latter-day Saints, Quakers, Episcopals, Universalists, Unitarians, Mohammedans [Muslims], and all other religious sects and denominations whatever, shall have free toleration, and equal privileges in this city ...”6

Doctrine & Covenants 101:77-78.
Doctrine & Covenants 134:2.
Doctrine & Covenants 134:7.
Doctrine & Covenants 134:4.
History of the Church 498–99 (1991) (discourse given by Joseph Smith on July 9, 1843, in Nauvoo, Illinois) (reported by Willard Richards).
Ordinance in Relation to Religious Societies, City of Nauvoo, [Illinois] headquarters of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, March 1, 1841
https://www.lds.org/religious-freedom/understand

 

Yeah well we all know the church doesn't really believe this do they.  Especially all the part you put in bold.  Actions speak much louder than words.

 

 

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Not to this dispensation or people.

Still no commandment.  Just an organizational policy.  Also, completely historically untrue.

CFR - where since the giving of D&C 132 did God specifically command that monogamy is the only acceptable form of marriage.  I know where the Church says it, but where did God say it?
(And don't say the "Proclamation on the Family".  That isn't God speaking.)

That is a stupid standard of proof and I reject your CFR. If you want me to retract my statement for not meeting your CFR I want you first to establish that you are of sound mind to make this incredibly specific demand with a notarized handwritten note from your fourth grade teacher in cursive establishing that fact.

Edited August 6, 2017 by The Nehor

[Bernard Gui]

15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Not to this dispensation or people.

Still no commandment.  Just an organizational policy.  Also, completely historically untrue.

CFR - where since the giving of D&C 132 did God specifically command that monogamy is the only acceptable form of marriage.  I know where the Church says it, but where did God say it?
(And don't say the "Proclamation on the Family".  That isn't God speaking.)

I do believe Jacob 2 is a commandment applicable to all, but I can see how you might interpret it as limited to the Lehites. It was interpreted as applicable to all by the LDS leaders before and after the Manifesto

We don't know what commandments Lehi gave to them to which Jacob is referring. I suspect they were in part the commandments God gave to Adam.

i don't take the Proclamation lightly.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 6, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

On ‎8‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 0:46 AM, Bernard Gui said:

Thank you. Given Jacob's conditions for allowing polygamy, do we still need it to "raise seed"? 

That really should be left up to God to judge.  But it also depends on how you interpret "raising seed".  The way I interpret it, Joseph Smith was the seed that was being raised to God through the practice of polygamy.  It is not necessarily talking about an increase in offspring as Joseph had no children through polygamy.

I think it also important to note that Jacob was not speaking of "allowing" polygamy in legal terms.  He was not saying that we should legally restrict other religions from practicing according to the dictates of their own conscience.  

I see no condition anywhere for allowing infant baptism, but as you know, that should not be used as an excuse to restrict the religious rights of others.  Spiritual law should not be enforced legally when it infringes upon the rights of other religions to practice their religious rites. 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

That is a stupid standard of proof and I reject your CFR. If you want me to retract my statement for not meeting your CFR I want you first to establish that you are of sound mind to make this incredibly specific demand with a notarized handwritten note from your fourth grade teacher in cursive establishing that fact.

Oh Nehor...have I ever told you how much you make me smile. 

You said monogamy is currently a commandment.
Commandments come from God.
I'd like to see where God said monogamy is currently a commandment that supersedes the commandment he gave in D&C 132.
But you don't have to if you don't want to.

Edited August 6, 2017 by JLHPROF