Time to Legalize Polygamy?

[Bernard Gui]

On 11/2/2022 at 9:26 PM, Calm said:

That is how I read it.

Then what  is the sinful “plurality of men and women,” which he sets up in contrast with the Saintly “plurality of wives?”

[The Nehor]

50 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Then what  is the sinful “plurality of men and women,” which he sets up in contrast with the Saintly “plurality of wives?”

Fornicators and adulterers. A common defense of polygamy amongst some of the Saints was that a lot of people are polyamorous/cheaters/cads/whatever (though not in those words) and they can be respectable but we do the same thing ‘by the book’ and are called barbaric.

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Fornicators and adulterers. A common defense of polygamy amongst some of the Saints was that a lot of people are polyamorous/cheaters/cads/whatever (though not in those words) and they can be respectable but we do the same thing ‘by the book’ and are called barbaric.

I have made that point many times. Go ahead and take as many “lovers” as you wish, but don’t sign any papers.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I have made that point many times. Go ahead and take as many “lovers” as you wish, but don’t sign any papers.

Will do!

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Will do!

Of course that was a generic “you,” but go ahead and do what you want.

[Tacenda]

This is very scary, it is like the Jonestown massacre and other cults that ended their lives directed by the leader.

 

[nuclearfuels]

On 10/26/2022 at 4:18 PM, teddyaware said:

no chance

Respectfully, I disagree. 

Imagine how higher our missinary conversion rate would be when the Middle East opens. 

Increases in all-cause death leave few other remedies, IMHO

[nuclearfuels]

On 10/26/2022 at 4:19 PM, pogi said:

Should we intentionally and actively fight for the opposite of the direction the world is heading (so as to be "not of the world") even when such position conflicts with our own doctrine and historical practice?

Agreed.

And if you'll pardon the pun, politics makes strange bed fellows

 

[nuclearfuels]

On 10/26/2022 at 4:36 PM, JAHS said:

It would require a revelation and agreed upon by all 15 apostles and sustained by members of the Church.

Possibly. 

I'm not sure Official Declarations, OD1 and OD2 = revelation in the sense of D&C 138, Family Proc, the Living Christ proc, the Restoration Proc. 

If the OD's suspended the celestial law of marriage, seems like all that would be needed would be a lifting of the suspension - after a confidential pilot program was researched. Good info leads to good revelation, bruh

[nuclearfuels]

On 10/26/2022 at 5:14 PM, pogi said:

We are supposed to honor, support, sustain, and abide by the law of the land. 

Yep. 

See CBD

[nuclearfuels]

On 10/26/2022 at 5:24 PM, blackstrap said:

Well, if we want to be able to convert some Africans and some Muslims, we should embrace it. 😀

100% correct

[Stargazer]

On 10/26/2022 at 10:24 PM, blackstrap said:

Well, if we want to be able to convert some Africans and some Muslims, we should embrace it. 😀

And if we want to be able to offend pretty much everyone else, we shouldn't.

24 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

100% correct

I doubt that they would join the church just because of that. And aren't they supposed to join the church because they have a testimony of the truthfulness of it? Not whether we let the men have multiple wives?

I once heard a story that Muhammed tried to convince the Jews in his area to become Muslims, either by designating Jerusalem as the direction one should pray, or adding it to Mecca as an approved prayer direction. But it didn't work, so he cancelled that plan. I don't know if this is an apocryphal tale, or a fact, so...

[blackstrap]

27 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

And if we want to be able to offend pretty much everyone else, we shouldn't.

There is an " unless " missing . 

[Stargazer]

6 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

There is an " unless " missing . 

Yes, I know. The topic is scandalous enough as it is, without adding to it. Scandalous to certain parties here, I mean.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, nuclearfuels said:

If the OD's suspended the celestial law of marriage, seems like all that would be needed would be a lifting of the suspension - after a confidential pilot program was researched. Good info leads to good revelation, bruh

So do you sign up for that or do you submit an application?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Respectfully, I disagree. 

Imagine how higher our missinary conversion rate would be when the Middle East opens. 

Increases in all-cause death leave few other remedies, IMHO

While possible if war ramps up and it focuses more on confrontation of armies rather than invasion of civilian areas where women are as likely to be killed as men, at the moment there is one extra male for every female and with less fertile women around than fertile men simply due to a shorter fertility cycle, I don’t think the need is as great as you are imagining.

While there may be many men multiple women would be willing to marry, that doesn’t imply that these same women are willing to marry on a time share basis.

Edited November 24, 2022 by Calm

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Respectfully, I disagree. 

Imagine how higher our missinary conversion rate would be when the Middle East opens. 

Increases in all-cause death leave few other remedies, IMHO

You do know the gender gap is going the other way right. With the one-China policy and Covid killing more men than women you want to embrace polygamy as a solution to what exactly?

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

If the OD's suspended the celestial law of marriage, seems like all that would be needed would be a lifting of the suspension

OD1 did absolutely nothing to change the doctrine of the Church nor has any new revelation done so.  D&C 132 is still scripture and plural marriage is still correct doctrine.  OD1 stopped it to save the Church and created a moratorium on the practice.  There is absolutely no doctrine and nothing doctrinal in the Church preventing it starting again if the Lord ever felt the time was right.  All the doctrine surrounding the practice remains intact - only the permission was withdrawn.

If Joseph was correct when he restored the doctrine then the truth he established remains even if currently prohibited by the Lord:

“... [Joseph Smith taught] the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man on the earth, and that without obedience to that principle no man can ever attain to the fullness of exaltation in the celestial glory."- William Clayton, Joseph Smith's secretary, Historical Record, v. 6, p. 226

[Rivers]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

OD1 did absolutely nothing to change the doctrine of the Church nor has any new revelation done so.  D&C 132 is still scripture and plural marriage is still correct doctrine.  OD1 stopped it to save the Church and created a moratorium on the practice.  There is absolutely no doctrine and nothing doctrinal in the Church preventing it starting again if the Lord ever felt the time was right.  All the doctrine surrounding the practice remains intact - only the permission was withdrawn.

If Joseph was correct when he restored the doctrine then the truth he established remains even if currently prohibited by the Lord:

“... [Joseph Smith taught] the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man on the earth, and that without obedience to that principle no man can ever attain to the fullness of exaltation in the celestial glory."- William Clayton, Joseph Smith's secretary, Historical Record, v. 6, p. 226

How do you reconcile this with Jacob 2?

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, Rivers said:

How do you reconcile this with Jacob 2?

Jacob 2 circumstances has so many different things mitigating it that any similarities to the ordinances restored to Joseph is purely coincidental.

People love to use it to prooftext and ignore all context of the situation.