The March Continues: Up Next- Plural Marriage

[Jeanne]

48 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Do you think it’s jealousy or more about an orientation to equality and a mutually egalitarian relationship that cause you to be against polygamy?   

I’m against it too, I think it’s hurtful to society and the individuals involved.  I would be jealous in a polyandrous relationship, but I think their are more compelling reasons not to get involved in that kind of relationship.  

To me, if women want to live that way...and they have a choice..well..okay...

However..it would not be for me ...but heck..what would I do with two men??  Fun to think about..I have so many things to do around the house.☺️  It should be said that it would be nice if world was fair.

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Society will go where society wants. It’s Societys’ planet, not Mormonism's. 

 

sorry, nope.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Now I will ask you the same question.  Would you have a problem with one man marrying two sisters? Or would you have a problem with a man marrying another mans wife?

Two sisters? If it complied with Jacob, no. Another man’s wife? Probably, but I would need more information.

Edited May 26, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m saying a legal polygamous marriage seems preferable to mistresses.  

I agree. Yet the former is illegal and reprehensible according to most, but the latter is not.

[Exiled]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

So you would allow it for step siblings and if one were adopted?

I don't know about that one as well. That seems too Maury Povich for me. However, neighbors of mine growing up married and then wife's father married husband's mother. It worked out too.

[Bernard Gui]

26 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I don't know about that one as well. That seems too Maury Povich for me. However, neighbors of mine growing up married and then wife's father married husband's mother. It worked out too.

Should we use Maury as our moral compass?

[6EQUJ5]

21 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

And so it begins....the next predictable step.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2777734-ronaldinho-reportedly-will-marry-his-2-fiancees-in-august-ceremony

Thoughts?

This is fantastic!

It was unjust that the Church was forced to abandon plural marriage.  I have no problem if others want to practice it.  

Why would LDS have any problem with the practice of plural marriage by others?

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

This is fantastic!

It was unjust that the Church was forced to abandon plural marriage.  I have no problem if others want to practice it.  

Why would LDS have any problem with the practice of plural marriage by others?

This is actually a good question.  For those who believe polygamy was once given by God and later revoked, should there be a moral objection to the practice?

(Obviously there are those both members and non members who don't think it came from God).  But for those who believe it did, the only moral objection they can hold for living polygamy would be the kind held towards any broken commandment.

Today polygamy breaks a commandment, like so many other things we see daily.  But the morality of the practice hasn't changed.  Having more than one spouse isn't immoral.  Disobedience to God is.

[6EQUJ5]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

This is actually a good question.  For those who believe polygamy was once given by God and later revoked, should there be a moral objection to the practice?

(Obviously there are those both members and non members who don't think it came from God).  But for those who believe it did, the only moral objection they can hold for living polygamy would be the kind held towards any broken commandment.

Today polygamy breaks a commandment, like so many other things we see daily.  But the morality of the practice hasn't changed.  Having more than one spouse isn't immoral.  Disobedience to God is.

I 100% agree with you.

It is crazy to me that LDS people would object to others living in a polygamous relationship.  Sure, we dont' have to believe they have been authorized by God to practice it. But they should still have the freedom that was stripped from our ancestors.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

This is fantastic!

It was unjust that the Church was forced to abandon plural marriage.  I have no problem if others want to practice it.  

Why would LDS have any problem with the practice of plural marriage by others?

Perhaps the same problem God has with fornication, open marriages, etc., as Moses, Jacob, Jesus and other prophets have warned, 

“And now I, Jacob, spake many more things unto the people of Nephi, warning them against fornication and lasciviousness, and every kind of sin, telling them the awful consequences of them.”

As for LDS practicing it, the restriction of Jacob 1-3 come into the picture. 

Edited May 26, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[JLHPROF]

56 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Perhaps the same problem God has with fornication, open marriages, etc., as Moses, Jacob, Jesus and other prophets have warned, 

But that causes definition issues too.

To put unauthorized plural marriage into the fornication category we have to define what makes it so.

Is it:

1. The number of spouses?  It can't be because when polygamy is allowed multiple spouses aren't wrong, so simply the number isn't inherently immoral or sinful or all plural marriage ever would be.

2. The  unauthorized nature of the plural marriages today?  God doesn't authorize (by authority from him) 99% of the marriages on earth today.  Only temple marriage is authorized by God's authority.  So is every other kind of marriage immoral too?  Is God's authorization required to prevent a marriage from being fornication?

3. The legality of the marriage?  It can't be that because it is legal in many countries yet we forbid it, and SSM is legal in our country and we forbid that.  So acceptability under the law of the land cannot be the problem either in a kind of marriage.

See, to have an issue with the correctness of polygamy practised today we have to find an element in it to condemn.  Choosing either number of participants, obedience to civil laws, or lack of God's authorization all cause difficulties.

Please find the element of polygamy  today that would make it comparable to fornication and other similar sins. Thanks.

[Marginal Gains]

9 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

The family declaration relates to the belief system of 0.2% of the earths population. Society will go where society wants. It’s Societys’ planet, not Mormonism's. Nobody is forcing Mormonism to go there, and I’m pretty confident nobody is going to force Mormons to marry more than one partner.

You seem to be worried about agency and choice - but surely that’s all part of “the plan”?

 

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

sorry, nope.

Which bit - that society will go where it decides, rather than where 0.2% of the planets population thinks it should go? Or that the planet doesn’t belong to just 0.2% of it’s population?

And why, “Nope”?

Edited May 26, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Calm]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m saying a legal polygamous marriage seems preferable to mistresses.  

It is strange that the law does not agree in the US and allow for legal polygamy, but has no issue with however many unmarried partners an individual has.

I can see requiring all previous partners to agree first, an individual should not be able to engage in another marriage contract without the agreement of their current partner(s)...but if there is agreement, why not?

Edited May 26, 2018 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Which bit - that society will go where it decides, rather than where 0.2% of the planets population thinks it should go? Or that the planet doesn’t belong to just 0.2% of it’s population?

And why, “Nope”?

The bit where you said "It’s Societys’ planet, not Mormonism's."

Nope, this earth does not belong to society.  It belongs to God.  We just live here and delude ourselves that we own anything.

[Marginal Gains]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The bit where you said "It’s Societys’ planet, not Mormonism's."

Nope, this earth does not belong to society.  It belongs to God.  We just live here and delude ourselves that we own anything.

Which God?

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Marginal Gains said:

Which God?

"The only God with which we have to do."

[Marginal Gains]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The bit where you said "It’s Societys’ planet, not Mormonism's."

Nope, this earth does not belong to society.  It belongs to God.  We just live here and delude ourselves that we own anything.

 

9 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Which God?

 

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

"The only God with which we have to do."

The God of Islam?

The Christian God?

The LDS Mormon version of God?

The FLDS Mormon version of God?

The Community of Christ Mormon version of God?

Thetans?

And so on...

People create God in their own image.

Edited May 26, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

But that causes definition issues too.

To put unauthorized plural marriage into the fornication category we have to define what makes it so.

Is it:

1. The number of spouses?  It can't be because when polygamy is allowed multiple spouses aren't wrong, so simply the number isn't inherently immoral or sinful or all plural marriage ever would be.

2. The  unauthorized nature of the plural marriages today?  God doesn't authorize (by authority from him) 99% of the marriages on earth today.  Only temple marriage is authorized by God's authority.  So is every other kind of marriage immoral too?  Is God's authorization required to prevent a marriage from being fornication?

3. The legality of the marriage?  It can't be that because it is legal in many countries yet we forbid it, and SSM is legal in our country and we forbid that.  So acceptability under the law of the land cannot be the problem either in a kind of marriage.

See, to have an issue with the correctness of polygamy practised today we have to find an element in it to condemn.  Choosing either number of participants, obedience to civil laws, or lack of God's authorization all cause difficulties.

Please find the element of polygamy  today that would make it comparable to fornication and other similar sins. Thanks.

Jacob, chapters 1 through 3, the words of the Savior and the Prophets, the Family declaration, and the law of chastity are the best information we have. What more is needed?

Quote

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; For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

 

[california boy]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Two sisters? If it complied with Jacob, no. Another man’s wife? Probably, but I would need more information.

Well then it appears you are only looking at how marriage should be from a religious perspective.  That is not how society passes laws.  Laws are based on the Constitution not on what someone believes God may or may not have said.  So I don't really see your objection to legalizing different marriage relationships.  

[california boy]

16 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Platonic marriages, birth control, abortion.... all make this objection moot. Marriage is more about loving relationships and companionship and less about reproduction, or so we are told.

Or so we are told?  How many marriages do you think there are where the only time the couple has sex is in hopes of having more children?  Sometimes you seem to live in this fantasy world that is not where close to reality.  It used to be quite common for families to have 10 or more children. That was generations ago.  Are you really going to disparage anyone who uses birth control because they don't comply with your world view?

[Bernard Gui]

47 minutes ago, california boy said:

Or so we are told?  How many marriages do you think there are where the only time the couple has sex is in hopes of having more children?  Sometimes you seem to live in this fantasy world that is not where close to reality.  It used to be quite common for families to have 10 or more children. That was generations ago.  Are you really going to disparage anyone who uses birth control because they don't comply with your world view?

No. You must be kidding. That is not even close to what I said. One of the arguments used against the traditional concept of marriage between a man and a woman is that companionship and support are more important and compelling factors than procreation. Childless couples (by choice, age, or nature) are used as examples. The old arguments that incest, age disparity, and other deviations from the norm could result in problems with the progeny are made moot by platonic relationships (no sexual contact either by choice or for medical reasons), same sex marriages, surgery, and the wide-spread use of birth control and abortion. For example, the argument that incest is improper because it can result in birth defects no longer stands.

Edited May 26, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

10 hours ago, strappinglad said:

May I suggest that there are quite a few non-Mormons in the world who would have little to argue with in the Proclamation.

May I suggest that only  0.2% of the world population think that Mormon leaders speak for God.  The majority of Americans do not agree with the Proclamation.  Even less think it comes from God.  

Sometimes I get the feeling that Mormons believe the whole world thinks like they do and they are not happy when the world deviates from their world view.  Many Mormons think that laws should be enacted so that others will legally be forced to live their beliefs. If one guy in Brazil decides to marry two women, then something must be done.  No rational reason is given. No legal reason is given.  And the fact that at one time Mormons fully believed that you had to live the law of polygamy in order to enter into the highest degree of Celestial glory is cast aside.  NOW Mormons believe one man one women marriage.  NOW that is the moral way God wants the world to live.  So NOW that is what they are going to defend.  Is it so difficult to connect the dots to see how hypercritical this whole rational is?

[california boy]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

No. You must be kidding. That is not even  close to what I said. One of the arguments used against the traditional concept of marriage is that companionship and support are more important factors than procreation. Childless couples, by choice or by nature, are used as examples. The old arguments against incest, age disparity, and other deviations from the norm because of the potential problems with progeny are made moot by platonic relationships (no sexual contact either by choice or for medical reasons), same sex marriages, and the wide-spread use of birth control and abortion. 

So what do you believe?  Is birth control acceptable to you?  Is marrying solely for companionship and support acceptable to you?

[Bernard Gui]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

If one guy in Brazil decides to marry two women, then something must be done.

That something was done by non-Mormons. The only thing Mormons can do is terminate church membership. The hypocrisy is in accepting and even elevating having mistresses but demonizing plural marriages. Mormons adhere strictly to the doctrines explicitly stated in Jacob 1-3. There is no hypocrisy on their part.

[Bernard Gui]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

So what do you believe?  Is birth control acceptable to you?  Is marrying solely for companionship and support acceptable to you?

Check my edit which I made before this comment.