Jump to content

Robert Gehrke: Utah should decriminalize polygamy — but legally it can’t


Recommended Posts

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/09/11/robert-gehrke-utah-should/comments/#twt-comments

Surprised to see the Trib advocate this but here we are.

My own take on the issue: the gov't of UT and State Supreme Court won't legalize polygamy at all.

It won't really matter though, some US state (MN?) will legalize it after Canada does (following Kenya, other African countries, Denmark which already have), and based on freedom of religion (not the freedom of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, no; but the freedom of religious practice of other groups.

Wondering though when we might hear an announcement about this in General Conference, 5, 10 20 years? 

 

 

 

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

On the tenth of Novem… I mean Never . 

On day one of the Millennial Reign.  Don't want all those resurrected polygamists walking around getting arrested.

Link to comment

The announcement would be that only the First Presidency has the keys to authorize plural marriage and until they authorize it or delegate that decision making power to someone else anyone entering plural marriage will be excommunicated. Would be a good time to bust out the scripture in Jacob that has sometimes caused issues.

Link to comment

Even if UT legalized polygamy the church would not practice it. If the church even tried to practice polygamy within any short amount of time after legalization then problems arise. First, allowing the practice to continue in the church would allow for OD1 to be recognized as political rather than revelation. Growing up I remember a faith promoting rumor that, like the United Order, "the Saints just weren't ready to live polygamy." Thankfully, most members I've come into contact with over the last 5-6 years disregard such an excuse. Secondly, it would seem as though the Lord was waiting on UT to finally legalize polygamy.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

...............................

Wondering though when we might hear an announcement about this in General Conference, 5, 10 20 years? 

No.  There would be no reason for such an announcement.

As for a change in the state law, that would require either (1) a state constitutional convention and rewrite, or (2) a U.S. Supreme Court overturn it as unconstitutional, which would negate that part of the Utah state constitution.  The latter is most likely, as you seem to understand.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Jake Starkey said:

The LDS Church would lose more than 1/2 of its active female congregants if it ever said, "Sure, let's do spiritual wivery."

Probably.  But the Church would never use such a crude term for a Celestial principle.

Link to comment

I suspect that there is a possibility that the Lord would require plural marriage to be reinstated, just to give "casual Mormons" a chance to identify themselves by leaving.

I don't expect that the Lord needs to do this, however, as I suspect the way the world is going, there will be plenty of "casual Mormons" leaving in due course anyway.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Valentinus said:

Even if UT legalized polygamy the church would not practice it. If the church even tried to practice polygamy within any short amount of time after legalization then problems arise. First, allowing the practice to continue in the church would allow for OD1 to be recognized as political rather than revelation. Growing up I remember a faith promoting rumor that, like the United Order, "the Saints just weren't ready to live polygamy." Thankfully, most members I've come into contact with over the last 5-6 years disregard such an excuse. Secondly, it would seem as though the Lord was waiting on UT to finally legalize polygamy.

Why would they assume OD1 was strictly political? If plural marriage were reinstated it would support OD1 where it is clear in the reasoning that this is allowed because it has become impossible to practice and that God approved the change because of this. If we could practice it and did not it would be more damaging to OD1, though still not very damaging.

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Why would they assume OD1 was strictly political? If plural marriage were reinstated it would support OD1 where it is clear in the reasoning that this is allowed because it has become impossible to practice and that God approved the change because of this. If we could practice it and did not it would be more damaging to OD1, though still not very damaging.

Was OD1 revelation or a response to the government? It can't be both.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I suspect that there is a possibility that the Lord would require plural marriage to be reinstated, just to give "casual Mormons" a chance to identify themselves by leaving.

I don't expect that the Lord needs to do this, however, as I suspect the way the world is going, there will be plenty of "casual Mormons" leaving in due course anyway.

God sure runs an exclusive club. Less than one person per thousand is an active member, and it needs to be winnowed further? Frankly I’m glad I’m going to hell. 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

God sure runs an exclusive club. Less than one person per thousand is an active member, and it needs to be winnowed further? 

That's always been the way. Many are called but few are chosen.  Not all will choose God's kingdom.  And fewer still will choose to follow every law required to receive the blessings of exaltation.

People get what they want and are willing to live for.  Not exclusivity.  Agency.

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Frankly I’m glad I’m going to hell. 

Nah....you don't strike me as nearly wicked enough.  

Link to comment
57 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

If polygamy was to become the law of the land and the LDS Church endorsed it, the institution would still ban currently practicing  polygamists from membership.

Of course. It's an issue of priesthood authority.  Only polygamous marriages sealed by correct authority would be recognized.

Although since a lot of members seem to accept priesthood marriage and civil marriage as equally valid, that would be hypocritical not to do the same in these hypothetical situations.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

God sure runs an exclusive club. Less than one person per thousand is an active member, and it needs to be winnowed further? Frankly I’m glad I’m going to hell. 

Yes, even those who make the Telestial are advancing beyond what they were before and should count as a divine win. 

Link to comment

If it was made legal based on freedom to practice religious beliefs, the church would not reinstate it again, but such an action  might validate and vindicate the reason why the Church leaders in the past thought they should have been able to do it. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

That's always been the way. Many are called but few are chosen.  Not all will choose God's kingdom.  And fewer still will choose to follow every law required to receive the blessings of exaltation.

People get what they want and are willing to live for.  Not exclusivity.  Agency.

I do love this about Latter-day Saint theology (or whatever we call Mormonism these days)

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Nah....you don't strike me as nearly wicked enough.  

I was using hell in the Latter-day Saint way (which sounds pretty great) not the Protestant version. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...