DiscussMormonism.com

The worst nightmare of the LDS church leaders is in my opinion the legalization of polygamy. And, it's probably coming sooner than most people think. There have already been several opening salvos for legalizing polygamy, but I think the following presages a win for polygamy advocates:

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/02/460404 ... low-a.html

The bill doesn't appear to specifically mention polygamy, but if the two parent per child limit is eliminated, legal relationships that by definition create more than two parents for a child, like polygamy, are sure to benefit.

In any case, I think legalization of polygamy is the LDS church's worst nightmare because of the status of polygamy in LDS doctrine. In fact, look at Official Declaration 1 and it gives the exact reason why the practice ceased.

Official Declaration 1 wrote:Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.

In other words OD 1 was ONLY about submitting to laws, not about any change in LDS beliefs. Well where does that leave the LDS church when the laws have changed? The church only has two options, neither of them good.

Option #1: The most likely option is that they continue with the status quo and continue to forbid polygamy. The church has spent too much time and money attempting to mainstream to reverse course now. But now it is in a position of advocating a practice when it was illegal and forbidding the same practice when it is legal. Not to mention a small but not insignificant chunk of LDS members in Utah, Idaho, and Arizona will probably leave the church over this. And the church will be put into the really awkward position of disciplining members for doing something perfectly legal which past prophets also practiced (it's a given some faithful members will openly try out polygamy). It will represent the final triumph of PR over any belief in LDS doctrines.

Option #2: The less likely option is that the LDS church reinstitutes polygamy. Since the OD1 only mentioned legal barriers as the reason for stopping, it would make sense to start up the practice again. I doubt the church would take this option as it would likely result in a larger percentage of Mormons leaving. The church would shrink to an insignificant size and largely be located in Idaho, Arizona, and Utah; the LDS church would have to drop any and all pretensions of being a global church.

There is also a third option, I suppose: declaring polygamy wrong. Had they done this with OD1, they wouldn't have to worry about this situation.

Postscript: In my opinion, this was the whole reason for opposing proposition 8 in California. I'm in the minority on this one, but I really don't think the church gave a crap about gay marriage. They simply wanted to forestall future legalization of polygamy. I also think this is why the church has put nothing but token efforts into stopping legalization of gay marriage in other states, they simply don't care about the issue. The whole point was to win the battle in the hopes of stalling institutionalization of alternative marital arrangements. It hasn't stalled so the church really doesn't care anymore.

Postscript: In my opinion, this was the whole reason for opposing proposition 8 in California. I'm in the minority on this one, but I really don't think the church gave a crap about gay marriage.

I mostly agree. I think the implications for polygamy were a major motivating factor behind the church's Prop 8 involvement, but I think the church's hatred for gays was another. Plus, they thought they could make strides toward acceptance by "mainstream" Christianity by banding together against a common enemy. It seems the church may have miscalculated on all fronts, although the Supreme Court is still a wildcard. I think Kennedy will come down on the right side on it, but if he doesn't, it could set back the gay-rights cause decades.

OD1 has been an embarrassment for the church for over 100 years. Pathetic excuse for a "revelation." It's not even written in faux Jacobean English.

Should this happen, they'll go with Option 1. They'll say God has forbidden it, even it takes a new revelation.

Equality wrote:I mostly agree. I think the implications for polygamy were a major motivating factor behind the church's Prop 8 involvement, but I think the church's hatred for gays was another. Plus, they thought they could make strides toward acceptance by "mainstream" Christianity by banding together against a common enemy. It seems the church may have miscalculated on all fronts, although the Supreme Court is still a wildcard. I think Kennedy will come down on the right side on it, but if he doesn't, it could set back the gay-rights cause decades.

OD1 has been an embarrassment for the church for over 100 years. Pathetic excuse for a "revelation." It's not even written in faux Jacobean English.

You two just cleared up a lot for me. The church's high-profile efforts for Prop 8 didn't make much sense to me, though they seem to have believed they could do what they did without a lot of backlash. They were shocked when the reaction was as harsh as it was.

The church always does things it believes are in its best interests, and this is the most reasonable explanation for why they went to bat against gay marriage.

I also don't think it's that big a problem for the church. The church already forbids polygamy in nations where it is allowed. They will just say something like "we've always said monogamy was the rule and polygamy is the exception only at times when God commands it and God has commanded that we not be polygamous now" and then cite Jacob chapter 2 and put their fingers in their ears when someone asks about D&C 132. It's not like the church has not been living with the numerous doctrinal and practical inconsistencies on polygamy for the last 170 years anyway.

THe church today hates polygamy. They wish it had never been practiced. The polygamy issues gets in the way of their mainstreaming and missionary efforts. They hate talking about it. They don't bring it up unless they have to, and when they do they downplay it as something that only a couple guys did back in the 1800s and the church banned it in 1890 and if any member is caught doing it they are excommunicated on the spot. As far as the current church leadership is concerned, the issue of polygamy is dead and it will never come back. It doesn't matter what the scriptures say. Positive PR and mainstreaming the religion are what matters now.

Equality wrote:I also don't think it's that big a problem for the church. The church already forbids polygamy in nations where it is allowed. They will just say something like "we've always said monogamy was the rule and polygamy is the exception only at times when God commands it and God has commanded that we not be polygamous now" and then cite Jacob chapter 2 and put their fingers in their ears when someone asks about D&C 132. It's not like the church has not been living with the numerous doctrinal and practical inconsistencies on polygamy for the last 170 years anyway.

I think the church has been able to ignore the foreign country issue because I'm guessing the number of foreign polygamists who want to join the LDS church is almost zero. My impression is that polygamy is the domain of the rich in Arab and African countries where it is practiced (rich here is relative, some tribal chief may be poor by western standards, yet rich in comparison to the other members of his tribe). Those who are relatively rich tend not to join the LDS church.

I'm not so sure they can continue to ignore it when it's in their backyard. What happens when some GA's child becomes a legal polygamist? I think the church's softening stance towards apostates in recent years (no September 6 events recently) is probably due to the fact that they have kids and grandkids leaving over the standard ex-Mo issues. The GA's are for the most part clueless about the rank and file church members, but they know what is going on in their own families. Just a hypothical.

Won't the commodities be THRILLED! Now instead of singularly nagging the Hell out of the head of the household, she will have companions.

I predict the Church will eventually say it is allowed as long as you don't have sex with your plural wives because we all know that when Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage it wasn't about sex. Anyone who is accused of having sex with a plural wife can ask the all important question "So where are the children?"

Aristotle Smith wrote:The worst nightmare of the LDS church leaders is in my opinion the legalization of polygamy. And, it's probably coming sooner than most people think. There have already been several opening salvos for legalizing polygamy, but I think the following presages a win for polygamy advocates:

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/02/460404 ... low-a.html

The bill doesn't appear to specifically mention polygamy, but if the two parent per child limit is eliminated, legal relationships that by definition create more than two parents for a child, like polygamy, are sure to benefit.

In any case, I think legalization of polygamy is the LDS church's worst nightmare because of the status of polygamy in LDS doctrine. In fact, look at Official Declaration 1 and it gives the exact reason why the practice ceased.

Official Declaration 1 wrote:Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.

In other words OD 1 was ONLY about submitting to laws, not about any change in LDS beliefs. Well where does that leave the LDS church when the laws have changed? The church only has two options, neither of them good.

Option #1: The most likely option is that they continue with the status quo and continue to forbid polygamy. The church has spent too much time and money attempting to mainstream to reverse course now. But now it is in a position of advocating a practice when it was illegal and forbidding the same practice when it is legal. Not to mention a small but not insignificant chunk of LDS members in Utah, Idaho, and Arizona will probably leave the church over this. And the church will be put into the really awkward position of disciplining members for doing something perfectly legal which past prophets also practiced (it's a given some faithful members will openly try out polygamy). It will represent the final triumph of PR over any belief in LDS doctrines.

Option #2: The less likely option is that the LDS church reinstitutes polygamy. Since the OD1 only mentioned legal barriers as the reason for stopping, it would make sense to start up the practice again. I doubt the church would take this option as it would likely result in a larger percentage of Mormons leaving. The church would shrink to an insignificant size and largely be located in Idaho, Arizona, and Utah; the LDS church would have to drop any and all pretensions of being a global church.

There is also a third option, I suppose: declaring polygamy wrong. Had they done this with OD1, they wouldn't have to worry about this situation.

Postscript: In my opinion, this was the whole reason for opposing proposition 8 in California. I'm in the minority on this one, but I really don't think the church gave a crap about gay marriage. They simply wanted to forestall future legalization of polygamy. I also think this is why the church has put nothing but token efforts into stopping legalization of gay marriage in other states, they simply don't care about the issue. The whole point was to win the battle in the hopes of stalling institutionalization of alternative marital arrangements. It hasn't stalled so the church really doesn't care anymore.

Yes it appears the LDS church only agreed to follow the law; polygamy is still Doctrine.

I think your post script is completely incorrect. It was the proponents of prop 8 who argued in favor of polygamy, and just visit any LDS themed board and mention polygamy and prop 8, you will find the majority of LDS argueing that polygamy is in fact a one man one woman institution - because polygamist marriages are entered in to with one man one woman at a time.

The LDS do not fear polygamy, I am sure there are many who, for nonsexual intent, await the day when 7 woman shall cleave unto one man.

The Church faced more hostility than it bargained for with prop 8, and I believe it does not want to subject its members to that again; which is way there hasn't been the open rally of troops to other ssm laws.