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.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By nuclearfuels
      Kenya legalized polygamy in 2014.  Any readers here serve mission there and have to tell investigators they'd need to stop the practice before being able to be baptized? I understand in Latin America a lot of married people split up but forgo the legal part of making the divorce official and that has to be done before they can be baptized.
      Germany is trying to indirectly legalize polygamy for one of their migrant culture's beliefs. 
      My wife and I support our ancestors who practiced polygamy, to say nothing of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob practicing polygamy.
      Curious as to your thoughts:
      Will other African countries and European countries following suit? Will / Should people in Congress - Ilhan, Tlaib, Romney, Bishop, etc. allow migrants here to practice what their faith encourages?  Declining populations (Japan, Europe) really have two options: welcome in higher fertility populations from other countries or legalize polygamy. 
       
      Pushed by politicians, polygamy enjoys a heyday among Christians in ...
      Germany: Citizenship for Polygamous Migrants?  
    • By SouthernMo
      The timeline and reasons of how the idea of polygamy evolved into practice is perplexing.  It is causing me doubt how scriptures are to be obeyed, and how to trust the revelatory process.  Let's look at the pattern Joseph Smith followed:
      March 1830 - Joseph Smith publishes the Book of Mormon (supposedly scripture) which contains commandments from God.  The only discussion of polygamy is found in Jacob 2, which clearly condemns the practice.  However, there is a provision given for exceptions: only to 'raise up seed' if God commands it.
      The Gospel Topics Essay on Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo states that "After receiving a revelation commanding him to practice plural marriage, Joseph Smith married multiple wives and introduced the practice to close associates."  The only revelation I know of on polygamy came in July 1843 (D&C 132), yet Joseph Smith had married 22 (by some count) additional wives by July 1843.
      2 Big Questions:
      1. What revelation did Joseph Smith receive (per the mentioned Gospel Topic Essay) before the D&C 132 revelation that told him to practice polygamy, despite the Book of Mormon's 1830 prohibition (with exception)?
      2. In light of the Jacob 2:30 provision for the allowance of polygamy to "raise up seed unto me..." why are there no (known) children that emerged from Joseph Smith's plural wives?  Joseph apparently did not use polygamy to 'raise up seed.'
    • By HappyJackWagon
      I want to respond to a couple of statements made by Julianne from the now closed "Weed" thread, because she absolutely nails it. She is spot on and I think the discussion at this level needs to occur before any progress can be made on the SSM issue.
      She wrote...
      Speaking as a straight, white, man, I recognize that I come to the traditional church teachings of priesthood, sealing, polygamy/polyandry, and SSM from a certain privileged position. The church's teachings and practices benefit me and they always have. Even though there is little to no evidence for how celestial families will actually be organized and function in the CK I used to think I had it all figured out. Obviously, I thought, marriage is essential to have legal physical intimacy which is necessary for creating offspring with one or multiple wives. Yet there is no firm teaching about how spirits are created. Are they born like a baby is born into mortality? There is no evidence or teaching for that, but it is widely assumed. That assumption then justifies polygamy while discrediting polyandry and even SSM. After all, if the entire purpose is to create spirit offspring and it is thought that it happens in a way similar to creating biological offspring, then it makes sense. But that is ALL based on assumptions.
      Based on these assumptions many are willing to condemn others to lives (and possibly even an eternity) of loneliness.
      So (we) don't even know what the afterlife looks like. It is unknown. Yet we think (we) have enough information to condemn and judge others, and since most of us come at it from positions of privilege, we are in the position to enforce our dogma upon the less privileged. The church is not unique in behaving this way. It is how society has always worked. But recognizing the assumptions for what they are and being humble about how much we really don't know, can help society improve.
      Julianne also stated...
      How can one categorically dismiss SSM when there is little to nothing known about family organization in the next life, even regarding a variety of heterosexual family organizations. Which sealings will be valid? Polygamy/polyandry? Only those which benefit men? Who are the children sealed to? There is a lot of "The Lord will work it out" mentality, which is fine because it acknowledges a lack of understanding and knowledge. The problem comes when one then loses all humility and attempts to define how family relationships will or will not work for other people. I agree with Julianne that the polygamy/polyandry topic is closely tied to the SSM topic and must be ironed out.
      So maybe this can be a thread that can be commented on instead of derailing other threads when this subject comes up.
       
      *Julianne, I hope I didn't misunderstand or misrepresent you. I really appreciated where you were trying to take the discussion.
    • By DBMormon
      Knowing the background of the Lucy Walker story (if you don't, I can not emphasize enough the need to understand the story - resources below), I am curious how those who both know the story and who are faithful to the restoration and Church authority answer the following question.
      Do you take the position that Joseph deceived Lucy Walker about God commanding him to take her as a plural wife, or do you subscribe to a God whose morality has him commanding a man in a father/daughter dynamic to change his relationship with this 16 year old girl living in his home effectively as his foster daughter into a husband/wife dynamic? I am also open to other perspectives that hold some other ground but wood tool answers will not be acceptable in this post (have faith, God will work it out on the other side, go pray about it and get your own answer knowing people get competing answers)
      The question is not how does someone other than yourself come down or arrive at a perspective on this question but rather where do you personally come down on this question. I am deeply hoping that you wont avoid all-together or avoid using the mechanism that you know by the spirit that the Church is true hence you don't concern yourself with such conundrums. Instead what is your personal take on this historical issue.
      While this historical story has been largely ignored, I think it is the most important story in all of Mormonism. bigger than the Book of Abraham, bigger than Helen Mar Kimball and Fanny Alger, bigger than first vision accounts, and Race and Priesthood.
      http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2017/12/premium-lucy-walker-spiritual-experiences/
      http://www.yearofpolygamy.com/tag/lucy-walker-smith/
      http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/23-LucyWalker.htm
      http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/plural-wives-overview/lucy-walker/
    • By MiserereNobis
      LDS friends,
      The issue of polygamy was brought up in another thread and one poster argued that it was a system that was inherently unequal towards women. From an external 21st century viewpoint, this seems true. One husband with many wives appears to be a situation where the one man has more authority, power, what-have-you over each individual wife. For example, a man with four wives would seem to be a set-up where each wife is only a 1/4 of the relationship.
      I'm wondering how posters here view this, not only as it was practiced in the 19th century, but how polygamy will be practiced in the celestial kingdom. Is polygamy simply a natural outgrowth of patriarchy? In particular, sisters, how do you feel about the prospect of sharing your husband with many other women in the celestial kingdom? Or am I misunderstanding LDS doctrine concerning this?
      The Catholic Church is patriarchal insofar as it limits the priesthood to men, and we agree with you that in this mortal life gender roles have a part to play. However, the division of gender isn't inherent in our understanding of heaven, so I think the LDS view here is unique and I'm interested in not only the official doctrines, but the thoughts and feelings of those who believe it.
      Thanks!
      +PAX+
       
×
×
  • Create New...