Massacre in Mexico a Stepping Stone Toward Legalization of Polygamy?

[Metis_LDS]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not antipolygamy, but do you really think a marriage as described in the scripture as in name only for respectability with the women providing for all their own needs is really the type of marriage the Church would be supportive of?

Calm what I think is that whatever this is it is the women who want it to happen.  It points to a huge shift that will occur in society.  The Lord will rule himself during the 1000 years of peace. As for his approval of this???  For everyone else I am happy to say there is the Lord's Polygamy and then there is polygamy.  So if this scripture means that multiple women are married to one man than it is polygamy.

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

The Lord will rule himself during the 1000 years of peace.

Given the original placement of the chapter, I don't interpret this as happening during the millennium...what reproach would be taken away by marriage rather than seeking forgiveness of the Lord during that time?  Much more likely imo, this refers to the times of tribulations prior to the second coming.

The reproach may be lack of children (it is written from the perspective of Isaiah, a man of a culture where the status of women was measured to a great deal by her having children) or possible women who had been promiscuous or were and were seeking respectability and maybe even safety (there is a sense of desperation in the "take hold" phrase to me) through marriage.

I haven't watched A Handmaid's Tale, so I may be getting the premise wrong, but it is in a future where most women are infertile resulting in a twisted religious community where women are treated as property, etc.  Such is a common trope in post apocalyptic fiction.  I think given history it is relatively easy to imagine disasters resulting in a more primitive future with a society where women have to fear for their lives again if they do not have protection of a powerful male or groups of males.

Here is one translation that conveys what I get out of it.

Quote

In that day so few men will be left that seven women will fight for each man, saying, “Let us all marry you! We will provide our own food and clothing. Only let us take your name so we won’t be mocked as old maids

https://biblehub.com/isaiah/4-1.htm

"Reproach" is most often replaced by "disgrace" in variations.

Since the Gospel teaches there is no shame in being unmarried, childless, chronically ill, or in other situations that many see as deprivations or hardships, this panicked need to be married no matter what would not be taking place in a Zion society.

Edited November 15, 2019 by Calm

[Metis_LDS]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Given the original placement of the chapter, I don't interpret this as happening during the millennium...what reproach would be taken away by marriage rather than seeking forgiveness of the Lord during that time?  Much more likely imo, this refers to the times of tribulations prior to the second coming.

I think it is a scripture saying if a society is really stressed (7 to 1 female to male ratio) something is going to pop.  I believe that the thin layer (getting thinner) of civility is important.  It is however thin and when greatly stressed things go out the window quickly,  more so when no hope is in sight.  Such as the long years to repair female to male ratios.  

[gopher]

The more relevant question for this board is:  will it be a stepping stone for the legalization of gay polygamy?

[Metis_LDS]

57 minutes ago, gopher said:

The more relevant question for this board is:  will it be a stepping stone for the legalization of gay polygamy?

When I saw your comment I didn't know if I should laugh or cry.  I have been some confused of late about what goes on this board.

[BlueDreams]

15 hours ago, Metis_LDS said:

We will not name anyone but I have seen strong anti plural marriage posts from some members of this board.  That's fine, but what would be their take on this scripture?

I’m not sure what is meant by anti-polygamy. I’m personally anti-living it for me as is my husband where one wife was more than he expected. 
 

i never ever took that verse as a literal expectation. It’s Isaiah. He’s notorious for symbolic writing. I take this in context with ch 13 the things and people described indicate a corrupt society where its priorities, order, and religion are destroyed or brought low. The “daughters of zion” are left. Since women are often used as symbols of the body of the church or of a nation, I view it as having the people being stripped of their pride, materialism, and false gods...each person with their own form of pride and idols. What’s left are a humbled people wanting to be given the name of one husband to “remove their reproach” ...aka Jesus. In short it shows abject repentance and a returning to god’s path and ways.

i don’t see this as a plug for polygamy, let alone an indication that we’ll be polygamous in the millennium 

Kinda surprised anyone would, considering the way it describes the marriage is definitely not one anyone would describe as a normative marital relationship and the context and the author. 

with luv, 

BD

Edited November 15, 2019 by BlueDreams

[Metis_LDS]

23 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

i don’t see this as a plug for polygamy, let alone an indication that we’ll be polygamous in the millennium 

Thanks for the input.  Everyone has their viewpoint.

[gopher]

On 11/15/2019 at 7:09 AM, Metis_LDS said:

When I saw your comment I didn't know if I should laugh or cry.  I have been some confused of late about what goes on this board.

My intent was to make you laugh not cry.  It's a running joke that every thread here eventually turns into a discussion of homosexuality. This is a confusing board especially if you are neither a critic not an apologist.  But there are often some interesting discussions, at least until they go off the rails and get shut down.

[The Nehor]

I have no moral objections to polygamy but I am with the "does not need to be literal" crowd.

The preceding verse talks about gates lamenting and mourning and the verse afterwards talks about a particularly nice tree branch that belongs to God with good fruit. Are we to look forward to maybe eating from that branch (if we are lucky, how much fruit can one branch hold?) and literal animated gates bemoaning their state?

Another common and plausible interpretation of that verse is the seven women symbolize the seven suburbs of Jerusalem clinging to the holy city and saying we want your name, a symbol of mass conversions from those outside who ask nothing but just want to be identified with the holy city. That obviously could have millenial fulfillment and fits in the idea that the Church and those in it are the wife of Christ.

For those looking for literal fulfillment are they imagining seven women in the Millenium being filled with "reproach" for not being married and running to any man and asking for a marriage that requires nothing from him but sex? Sounds like a chauvinist fantasy to me and not something you would see in a terrestrial world. It is pathetic in a telestial world.

[nuclearfuels]

On 11/14/2019 at 12:53 PM, smac97 said:

Here:

It seems like the criminal penalties for polygamy have already been removed, at least in a de facto way.

I dislike de facto negation of a criminal statute.  If we want to decriminalize polygamy, then let's have the legislatures do it, rather than the prosecutors (who do so by ignoring or refusing to apply the statute).

I wonder if this will happen.  That doesn't mean polygamous marriages become legally recognized, just that entering into one is not, in and of itself, a criminal act.  

Fornication and adultery statutes appear to be very much on the decline.  See here:

If we as a society can accommodate rampant out-of-wedlock sex and procreation, can we also accommodate sex and procreation in polygamous relationships?

Back to the first article:

Yes, that will almost certainly happen.

Here's an interesting bit:

Interesting stuff.

I think this is the only feasible approach to this issue (short of decriminalizing polygamy).

I'm not sure it should be legalized, but decriminalization is worth considering.

Alas, alimony is one of the complicating factors in polygamy.

Moreover, alimony seems to be an increasingly antiquated notion.

In Utah, the policy is to not prosecute polygamy as a lone offense.  However, I could understand that a person involved in a polygamous relationship would still be nervous about being prosecuted (since it's just a "policy" to not prosecute it as a lone offense, rather than an actual law).

The entire article is worth a read.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm sure polygamy will be legalized, perhaps via SCOTUS legalizing polyamory according to existing incorporation laws of each state.

Whether the Church re-institutes the practice of polygamy is another matter entirely.

I pray for both but God doesn't seem to like it when I give Him ultimatums

 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

I pray for both

Out of curiosity, what benefit do you see if the Church approves polygyny again?

[nuclearfuels]

On 11/15/2019 at 2:31 AM, Calm said:

Quote

In that day so few men will be left that seven women will fight for each man, saying, “Let us all marry you! We will provide our own food and clothing. Only let us take your name so we won’t be mocked as old maids

https://biblehub.com/isaiah/4-1.htm

"Reproach" is most often replaced by "disgrace" in variations.

Since the Gospel teaches there is no shame in being unmarried, childless, chronically ill, or in other situations that many see as deprivations or hardships, this panicked need to be married no matter what would not be taking place in a Zion society.

That's my favorite scripture, Calm. 

While there is no shame in being unmarried, childless, chronically ill, etc. I believe those exceptions are taught to be temporary only and that the ideal is eternal marriage in the Temple, kids born in the covenant.

 

[nuclearfuels]

On 11/14/2019 at 6:34 PM, Metis_LDS said:

2 Nephi 14:1

1 ^aAnd in that day, seven women shall take hold of one man, saying: We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel; only let us be called by thy name to take away our ^breproach.

 

My favorite verse.

[InCognitus]

Just now, Calm said:

Out of curiosity, what benefit do you see if the Church approves polygyny again?

I was literally about to ask the same question, but you beat me to it. 

I'm not sure why the church would do that, given some of the reasons that I think polygamy was restored in this dispensation to begin with.  

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

That's my favorite scripture, Calm. 

Why?

[JLHPROF]

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

Out of curiosity, what benefit do you see if the Church approves polygyny again?

 

36 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I was literally about to ask the same question, but you beat me to it. 

I'm not sure why the church would do that, given some of the reasons that I think polygamy was restored in this dispensation to begin with.  

Well that's really the issue isn't it?

If we believe it's a Celestial eternal principle  (ie from God) that's temporarily prohibited as in Jacob 2 then bringing it back isn't an administrative Church decision but a much more important one.  And the benefits to that should be obvious.

If you think it was just a test, temporal in nature or not from God at all then it would be nothing but administrative.

 

Edited November 17, 2019 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

If we believe it's a Celestial eternal principle  (ie from God) that's temporarily prohibited as in Jacob 2 then bringing it back isn't an administrative Church decision but a much more important one.  And the benefits to that should be obvious.

There are, however, a number of eternal principles with attendant blessings we are required to wait for, such as resurrection and the health blessings that come with it.

In mortality, some eternal principles might not work that well and therefore it makes sense to delay until we are actually celestial in order to truly benefit from them.  I suspect in most ways, polygamy (polyandry and polygyny) is likely one of those.

And as long as it is coming, then what is it in particular that leads those who want it in the here and now if possible to desire it?

Edited November 17, 2019 by Calm

[InCognitus]

58 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

On 11/14/2019 at 4:34 PM, Metis_LDS said:

2 Nephi 14:1

1 ^aAnd in that day, seven women shall take hold of one man, saying: We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel; only let us be called by thy name to take away our ^breproach.

 

My favorite verse.

What I am about to post has already been discussed in this thread (with some disagreement), but unlike prior posts I will back up my opinion with what I think are some credible sources.   

Isaiah 4:1 really should be included at the end of chapter 3, and it goes along with Isaiah 3:25 where it says "Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war".  This is a situation that befalls Israel because of their disobedience.  The two sources I give to support this view are:

1. I have two different editions of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, one from 1944 (complete Bible text) and the other from 1970 (parallel columns of changes only with JST on the left, KJV on the right), both published by Herald Publishing House (RLDS).  Both of them show Isaiah 4:1 from the KJV as Isaiah 3:27 of the JST (at the end of chapter 3).   It seems that this placement was intended by Joseph Smith in the JST.
2. Our LDS edition of the Bible from 1983 and current edition online, include a footnote for verse 1:  Footnote a:  "IE because of the scarcity of men due to wars.  See 3:25.", and Footnote b:  "Isaiah 3:25 (24-25)"  Link to church website:  Isaiah 4:1

 

Edited November 17, 2019 by InCognitus

[InCognitus]

34 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

If we believe it's a Celestial eternal principle  (ie from God) that's temporarily prohibited as in Jacob 2 then bringing it back isn't an administrative Church decision but a much more important one.  And the benefits to that should be obvious.

Jacob 2 (verse 30 specifically) is exactly one of the reasons I said what I said in my comment.  In that verse there are two important stipulations given:  (1) to raise up seed unto God, (2) only when God commands it. 

The chapter heading to Official Declaration 1 in the Doctrine and Covenants states, "After receiving revelation, President Wilford Woodruff issued the following Manifesto, which was accepted by the Church as authoritative and binding on October 6, 1890. This led to the end of the practice of plural marriage in the Church."   

So my reasoning is this:  The church is no longer in its beginnings, therefore I'm not sure that God needs this practice brought back to "raise up seed" unto him, to build up the church.  And since the end of the practice of plural marriage was given by revelation from God, it would take another revelation from God for the practice to be instituted again.   I do see this as an eternal principle, but it is clearly stated in Jacob 2:30 as something that can only be practiced when God commands it.  Therefore I don't see the church simply reinstating the practice just because it becomes legal to do it.

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, nuclearfuels said:

2 Nephi 14:1

1 ^aAnd in that day, seven women shall take hold of one man, saying: We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel; only let us be called by thy name to take away our ^breproach.

I was discussing this thread with my wife after I made my first post in response to this, and she said, "Well, if this verse does apply to a time just before the millennium, the seven women taking hold of one man would be because all the other men are off playing video games somewhere".  I THINK she was kidding (but I'm not sure).

Edited November 17, 2019 by InCognitus

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Out of curiosity, what benefit do you see if the Church approves polygyny again?

I know this question wasn't directed at me, but I'm going to add my 0.02 anyway.  IMO the church will never go there.  Polygamy in the 19th and 20th centuries has caused much grief and trouble.  it is a miserable doctrine, and if JS hadn't felt that he needed other women, then we wouldn't even be having this conversion now.  In the early church it was practiced with deceit. Lying about it and sneaking behind Emma's back. Old men marrying young teenagers.  This is not of God. No way the church would want that polygamy monkey on its back again.  

Edited November 17, 2019 by sunstoned

[JLHPROF]

41 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

 The chapter heading to Official Declaration 1 in the Doctrine and Covenants states, "After receiving revelation, President Wilford Woodruff issued the following Manifesto, which was accepted by the Church as authoritative and binding on October 6, 1890. This led to the end of the practice of plural marriage in the Church."   

Led to, and in the Church.  Careful phrasing.  Not even Church leaders stopped for the next near 2 decades.

Quote

I do see this as an eternal principle, but it is clearly stated in Jacob 2:30 as something that can only be practiced when God commands it.  

You know, it's funny how this is always specifically applied to plural marriage.  Half the restored gospel "can only be practiced when God commands it".  And probably most of the other half.

But for some reason we like that we get to apply it to things that bother us.  Go figure.

[InCognitus]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You know, it's funny how this is always specifically applied to plural marriage.  Half the restored gospel "can only be practiced when God commands it".  And probably most of the other half.

But for some reason we like that we get to apply it to things that bother us.  Go figure.

I IS funny, because I've never had any problem with God commanding plural marriage, or the practice of it when it is commanded.  It's a total non-issue to me.  And if he brings it back again then fine.  I will accept it 100%.  It's always fun when God shakes things up a bit.  But did you even read Jacob 2:30?  

"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."

The "these things" in Jacob 2:30 is about NOT practicing plural marriage (verses 23-27), as it says in verse 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".

I'm not selectively applying the "when God commands it" idea to the principle of plural marriage, I am applying it here because that is exactly what the verse says! 

So the question I should ask you is this:  Does it BOTHER you that God specifically said "For if I will... I will command my people" regarding plural marriage in Jacob 2:30?    

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Led to, and in the Church.  Careful phrasing.  Not even Church leaders stopped for the next near 2 decades.

You know, it's funny how this is always specifically applied to plural marriage.  Half the restored gospel "can only be practiced when God commands it".  And probably most of the other half.

But for some reason we like that we get to apply it to things that bother us.  Go figure.

You are alleging selected application when the scripture in question is specifically about that application? What?

I think embracing the doctrine if it were legal would lead to a short burst of conversions and reactivations due to novelty but would die out quickly if plural marriage came back. I picture it requiring an appeal to the First Presidency and if I were them I would want their Priesthood leader to say they have been in good standing for years and request a letter from each individual involved to make sure they are all okay with it probably including any children old enough to speak independently. I would want proof that the economics of it will work. What about children already born? I would scrutinize very carefully anyone who has been divorced or previously been under church discipline. If there is a big age gap it will set off alarm bells. I would scrutimize even more if the husband already has more than one wife. My default answer would also be “no” unless proven otherwise or the spirit strongly says “yes”.

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

know this question wasn't directed at me, but I'm going to add my 0.02 anyway. 

I really would like to know the viewpoint of someone who is praying for its return, that is  unusual...at least in speaking about it.