Polygamy, the new handbook and the law
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2020 1:29 pm
In the new handbook it lists a series of offences that automatically require holding a disciplinary membership council.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... e_number17
Most of those are obvious breaches of the law, regardless of how the Church feels about them, but plural marriage seems to me to be the odd one out. For instance, both Mr Oaks and Mr Nelson have entered into plural marriage arrangements. They haven't just remarried because their wife has died, they have purposefully entered into a plural marriage arrangement. But no disciplinary membership council for them. It's a bit much excommunicating law abiding loving polygamists simply because all their wives are alive (and that's the only difference between polygamists who will currently be excommunicated and Oaks & Nelson who won't).
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/02 ... turn-days/
Now even Utah is downgrading polygamy to an infraction less than a parking ticket, with the expressed purpose of separating the law abiding loving polygamists from those who abuse wives and children so the police can deal with the latter and leave the former well alone. I'm pretty sure getting a parking ticket isn't going to get you hauled into a disciplinary membership council, so why should plural marriage?
Sins That Require Holding a Membership Council
Murder
Rape
Sexual assault conviction
Child or youth abuse
Abuse of a spouse or another adult (as outlined in 38.6.2.4)
Predatory behavior (violent, sexual, or financial)
Incest
Child pornography (as outlined in 38.6.6)
Plural marriage
Serious sin while holding a prominent Church position
Most felony convictions
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... e_number17
Plural Marriage. A membership council is required if a person knowingly enters into a plural marriage. Some plural marriages may occur in secret, with a spouse not knowing about one or more other spouses. Withdrawing a person’s Church membership is required if a person knowingly enters into plural marriage.
Most of those are obvious breaches of the law, regardless of how the Church feels about them, but plural marriage seems to me to be the odd one out. For instance, both Mr Oaks and Mr Nelson have entered into plural marriage arrangements. They haven't just remarried because their wife has died, they have purposefully entered into a plural marriage arrangement. But no disciplinary membership council for them. It's a bit much excommunicating law abiding loving polygamists simply because all their wives are alive (and that's the only difference between polygamists who will currently be excommunicated and Oaks & Nelson who won't).
The Utah Senate on Friday gave final approval 27-0 to a bill that would reduce polygamy among consenting adults to an infraction — an offense below some traffic tickets — essentially decriminalizing the practice.
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/02 ... turn-days/
Now even Utah is downgrading polygamy to an infraction less than a parking ticket, with the expressed purpose of separating the law abiding loving polygamists from those who abuse wives and children so the police can deal with the latter and leave the former well alone. I'm pretty sure getting a parking ticket isn't going to get you hauled into a disciplinary membership council, so why should plural marriage?