Jump to content

Polyamory Approved


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I agree. Even lf legalize there is no way the LDS Church will institute plural marriage again.

I can imagine some scenarios. For example, devastatingly decreasing populations, mass defections from the Church, and reluctance of many members to have children. Anecdotally, we notice in our community the surprising increase of the number of people, including couples, who decline to have children and have replaced them with pets. 

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I agree. Even lf legalize there is no way the LDS Church will institute plural marriage again.

I agree that under the current leadership--and current social attitudes--it's virtually unthinkable the Church actually would re-institute plural marriage, just like many presume the Church will never endorse same-sex marriage.

Social attitudes can change by 180 degrees in a matter of decades, and I believe if society ever fully embraces plural relationships in the future, it's entirely possible that in the not-so-near future, the Church could change on that point.   

Of course, I also remain convinced the Church will also someday embrace temple marriage for same-sex couples, too... albeit after some turnover from current leadership and with the ongoing growing social acceptance (and recognize I'm in the minority on that point... ha).  

Edited by Daniel2
Link to post
23 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Way back when ssm was legitimized some of us said redefining marriage would make many new things acceptable and that polyamory was next....and were roundly mocked for it. Here we go....

https://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/20200701/somerville-votes-to-recognize-polyamorous-domestic-partnerships-it-is-one-of-first-in-nation

What’s next in our Brave New World?

Pedophilia

Link to post
38 minutes ago, Islander said:

Pedophilia

😥😥😥

Link to post
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Hard to understand why today's LDS membership would view legal recognition of plural marriage between consenting adults as a bad thing..

Some of the members are comfortable and even desirous of it being legal, it is not a given position as should be clear from this board.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, strappinglad said:

and replace them with a whole different crowd.

I don't see that as likely.  There are other aspects of our beliefs that would limit those interested in plural marriage, imo, from joining.  There are some fundamentalists that believe the Priesthood ban should never have been lifted.  Those wanting polyamory for wider social choices might frown on the Word of Wisdom.  Other religions open to plural marriage such as Islam disagree strongly with certain Christian teachings about God.

I think it would be a very limited "crowd" that meets agreement with all other things Restored Gospel, but must have plural marriage allowed so that is the only thing keeping them from joining the Church.

And if we allow plural marriage, does that mean polyandry as well as polygyny?

Edited by Calm
Link to post
3 hours ago, Islander said:

Pedophilia

There are signs on the horizon. 

Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

This sentence may need some tweaking:

Just adding "a man can have more than one marriage" would be sufficient.

Would be really interesting if it was "a person may be allowed to have more than one marriage at a time", and not just "man".

Edited by Calm
Link to post
4 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

agree that under the current leadership--and current social attitudes--it's virtually unthinkable the Church actually would re-institute plural marriage, just like many presume the Church will never endorse same-sex marriage.

A big problem would be if the Church okayed it for the men to have multiple marriages, but not women.  Any social benefit that might come from the Church accepting this social change would massively be outweighed by the perception of sexism if it went only halfway in accepting the new social standard.

Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 7/2/2020 at 3:08 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Way back when ssm was legitimized some of us said redefining marriage would make many new things acceptable and that polyamory was next....and were roundly mocked for it. Here we go....

https://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/20200701/somerville-votes-to-recognize-polyamorous-domestic-partnerships-it-is-one-of-first-in-nation

What’s next in our Brave New World?

Just a thought,

Years ago when I started reading about how countries like Germany handled LGBT issues, I thought that's how they should do it here.  The religious right kept pushing, pushing and pushing.  Know what happens when you keep doing that?  Eventually, the other side pushes back.  The likes of us who come from broken, disenfranchised backgrounds outnumber the privileged classes by quite a bit now (always have) and well, here we are.  Considering the victory we had in the supreme court, I do wonder how much longer this can go on.  Besides loving the federal civil rights protections I now have, this really has been some showstopping stuff for me to watch play out.  Either way, for those of us who were never on the good side of the privilege spectrum, this won't end.  If both sides could have come to some sort of agreement we'd have been just fine, far as I can tell that's never how it's been.  Seems like that's just how it is here, people have to fight over everything and in the end, when one side loses, wow do they lose.  Times are bad and people are angry, with the amount of anger in US society now who knows how far all this will go. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/us/lgbtq-supreme-court-religious-freedom.html

Also, do hope you're not trying to shove the whole poly thing on LGBT people, ewwwww!  Not all of us are into that thank you very much!  Besides, I'd be the one fighting over the fuschia hello kitty/my little pony apron, monogamy keeps the drama down.

Edited by poptart
Link to post

The OP rings well in the ear, but the fact is that We the People have created laws through our leges to organize and regulate our culture and social organizations to maximize for us the benefits of living in our community.

The creation of social organizations that we call 'family' can benefit and detract from our communal and individual lives.

Because obligations are created that affect parents, children, relatives, property, etc., the government through its laws step in and regulate these interactions and obligations.

To suggest that government should not be involved in regulating marriage and the possible outcomes of it is simply not sensible.

Link to post
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, Islander said:

Pedophilia

Consent is the HUGE difference between a) pedophilia and b) all other forms of legal marriage (whether between plural, opposite-sex, or same-sex spouses).

I don’t believe pedophilia will ever be legalized. 

Edited by Daniel2
  • Like 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Consent is the HUGE difference between a) pedophilia and b) all other forms of legal marriage (whether between plural, opposite-sex, or same-sex spouses).

I don’t believe pedophilia will ever be legalized. 

Is consent the only limiting criteria for relationships? 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to post
On 7/3/2020 at 8:56 AM, Bernard Gui said:

Hypocritical simply to note a current event that confirms a prediction made when marriage was redefined? I don’t agree....

Interesting question. 

In light of Jacob 2 and the arguments made by the Church at the time, it was legal, moral, and a matter of religious freedom, so IMO the government was wrong. Of course anyone who did not nor does not believe the Book of Mormon is the word of God would disagree.  Taking multiple partners without the formalities of legal marriage has been winked at by the same government and even celebrated in our popular culture. That seems hypocritical to me.

In the same light, anyone now advocating for anything other than marriage between one man and one woman is violating the law of God and are accountable to him. According to the modern prophets there will be adverse consequences for this, but of course those who do not believe there are prophets and eternal laws will disagree.

The Church has no legal authority to control who marries whom or what, but only to advocate for the truth and raise a warning voice. It does have the right to decide who gets to be a member.

 

Gay marriage isn't any more multiple spouse marriage than straight marriage.  Polygamy, a marriage that was championed by the very church that you are a member of IS a multi spouse marriage.  You have no problem blaming the gays, while you sit there as member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which is the biggest institution that has ever promoted and sanctified multiple spouse marriages.

It was hypocritical for members of the Church to stir up fear of multiple spouse marriages due to allowing gays their civil rights then, and yes it is hypocritical of you to go after gays now.  Tell me, what would you call it other than hypocritical?

  • Like 1
Link to post
5 hours ago, california boy said:

Gay marriage isn't any more multiple spouse marriage than straight marriage.  Polygamy, a marriage that was championed by the very church that you are a member of IS a multi spouse marriage.  You have no problem blaming the gays, while you sit there as member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which is the biggest institution that has ever promoted and sanctified multiple spouse marriages.

It was hypocritical for members of the Church to stir up fear of multiple spouse marriages due to allowing gays their civil rights then, and yes it is hypocritical of you to go after gays now.  Tell me, what would you call it other than hypocritical?

Some people get it (I think...)

https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/signs-times/religious-conservatives-have-lost-lgbtq-rights-battle-it-s-time-surrender

Others, not so much.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/us/lgbtq-supreme-court-religious-freedom.html

https://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-romania-referendum-20181005-story.html

As someone who's LGBT, I feel your pain, from what i've seen in your posts you're not only civil, you're willing to compromise on things.  Won't lie, I'm not that way, neither are many others who've been harmed.  We're loving every minute of this.  I had said this earlier, if the religious powers that be would have put their homophobic bigotry aside and been civil none of this would have happened.  For years, many of em stirred the hornets nest, now that the tides have turned and people see the writing on the wall, I do think some of em are scared, good. 

It's going to be interesting to see how all this plays out, most people in this country don't realize we're one of the few places in the world with the religious freedoms we have.  People like to point out countries like Russia that is very anti LGBT, guess what?  They also banned a lot of other religious orgs, it's amazing Lutherans and Catholics are still allowed.  Freedom is a delicate thing, people don't appreciate that all it takes is angering people enough and if/when they rise up in substantial numbers, things like this not only happen, the rage doesn't go away it just keeps growing.  For me it's hilarious watching the backpeddling as some people come to terms with the monster they helped create, it's like the best spectator type entertainment i've ever had.  Best part, it's free.  I would not worry friend, I do think we're going to win this.  I'm quite sure the nay sayers will say otherwise, meanwhile we can just sit back and watch the fun.  Oh!  I'm sure you heard this phrase growing up, esp. during the 2000's, now it's our turn to use the expression.  America, love it or leave it lol.  Thing is, where?  Question I have is how far with the folks who hate LGBT rights go esp. now that we've had a huge win, if the court starts dictating what religious institutions can and/or can't do, they'll either cave or leave (if they can).  Some of the FLDS people learned the hard way that doesn't always work out. 

Hope you see where i'm coming from, won't lie this is just a tad bit mean but as someone who's had a bad life and has been harmed badly, well there it is.  What the LGBT community had to endure at the hands of bad people was inexcusable, karma is a thing and I do think some people are about to learn that the hard way.  God speed friend. 

Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, california boy said:

Gay marriage isn't any more multiple spouse marriage than straight marriage.  Polygamy, a marriage that was championed by the very church that you are a member of IS a multi spouse marriage.  You have no problem blaming the gays, while you sit there as member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which is the biggest institution that has ever promoted and sanctified multiple spouse marriages.

It was hypocritical for members of the Church to stir up fear of multiple spouse marriages due to allowing gays their civil rights then, and yes it is hypocritical of you to go after gays now.  Tell me, what would you call it other than hypocritical?

Islam is bigger. 

Jacob 2 is not hypocritical. It is God’s will. SSM is not his will.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to post
8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Is consent the only limiting criteria for relationships? 

No.

Link to post
On 7/3/2020 at 8:25 PM, Bernard Gui said:

EDIT: This sentence may need some tweaking:

Quote

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

 

The actual term used by the Church is "plural marriage" not polygamy.  A man married to two women in that context is mathematically: 

2 X (a man and a woman)

The fact that it's the same man in both cases doesn't change that the fact that each marriage in a plural marriage is independent in itself. It's not a man with a harem.

 

Link to post
3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Islam is bigger. 

Jacob 2 is not hypocritical. It is God’s will. SSM is not his will.

That is your answer?  You know we were talking about in the U.S. since that is where the article you posted was about.  Since Muslins don't practice polygamy in the U.S., you can't really use them in your answer.  And I never said Jacob 2 was hypocritical.  Read it again.  

Quote

 

Gay marriage isn't any more multiple spouse marriage than straight marriage.  Polygamy, a marriage that was championed by the very church that you are a member of IS a multi spouse marriage.  You have no problem blaming the gays, while you sit there as member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which is the biggest institution that has ever promoted and sanctified multiple spouse marriages.

It was hypocritical for members of the Church to stir up fear of multiple spouse marriages due to allowing gays their civil rights then, and yes it is hypocritical of you to go after gays now.  Tell me, what would you call it other than hypocritical?

 

 

Link to post
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, california boy said:

Since Muslins don't practice polygamy in the U.S.,

Not quite accurate. It isn’t legal, but some practice it anyway. 
 

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90857818

Quote

No one knows how many Muslims in the U.S. live in polygamous families. But according to academics researching the issue, estimates range from 50,000 to 100,000 people.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2007/07/why-american-muslims-don-t-care-to-legalize-polygamy.html

Quote

For one thing, they may be almost as numerous as the fundamentalist Mormons who make all the headlines (and score big ratings for HBO). Debra Mubashshir Majeed, a religious studies professor at Beloit College who is researching a book on American Muslim polygamy, estimates that less than 1 percent of American Muslims indulge in the practice—and these practitioners are most often African-American Muslims or recent immigrants from West Africa. That percentage may seem infinitesimal, given that the most recent estimate of the American Muslim population puts their numbers at 2.35 million, but it does mean there are perhaps as many as 20,000 American Muslim polygamists. In comparison, the current best guess about the number of fundamentalist Mormons involved in polygamy in the United States, Mexico, and Canada is only 37,500, according to Brooke Adams, who covers the polygamy beat at the Salt Lake Tribune. (Yes, polygamy has its own beat—in Utah, at least.) And while Muslim polygamists are quiet now, their political awareness may grow over time; after all, fundamentalist Mormon polygamists lived for decades in disparate and secretive communities, only recently emerging to claim their place at the civic table.

 

Edited by Calm
Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

No problem. He is still a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which is one of the  the biggest institutions that has ever promoted and sanctified multiple spouse marriages.  The point remains the same. 

It was hypocritical for members of the Church to stir up fear of multiple spouse marriages due to allowing gays their civil rights then, and yes it is hypocritical of you (Bernard) to go after gays now.  Tell me, what would you call it other than hypocritical?

  •  
Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, california boy said:

That is your answer?

Yes. We’ll have to agree to disagree. No one is “coming after” gays. 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to post
4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The actual term used by the Church is "plural marriage" not polygamy.  A man married to two women in that context is mathematically: 

2 X (a man and a woman)

The fact that it's the same man in both cases doesn't change that the fact that each marriage in a plural marriage is independent in itself. It's not a man with a harem.

 

Context is everything.

Link to post
6 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

No.

What are some criteria that you think are valid?

Link to post
On 7/3/2020 at 6:04 PM, Bernard Gui said:

There are signs on the horizon. 

What signs are you referring to?

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...