Polygamy--What if...

[_JohnStuartMill]

First of all, it negates the Proclamation of the family. It places the woman on unequal ground with the man.

So does the priesthood. The leadership could easily get around this snag by redefining "equal" to include things that are manifestly "not equal", just as they have with the patriarchal priesthood stuff.

My TBM wife and many other women would declare war against the suits. It would bring new meaning to the word "relief society". The women (and honorable men) would destroy their craft once and for all. It's a different world now. Women know they have rights and men have no legal power over them.

Utah divorce rates would be the highest in the nation. Heh.

No faithful woman (or respectable man) would intentionally desire to live in such a way as to contract or spread diseases either.

Well, if the Mormon ideal of sexual exclusivity for the women and promiscuity for the men (within marriage) were followed, then there shouldn't be a higher incidence of STDs. Just sayin'.

[_Kevin Graham]

Polygamy will be legalized in my lifetime, I believe. The arguments against it are religiously based and in todays secular progressive society, it is only a matter of time.

[_Seven]

What would happen if the LDS church reinstated earthly polygamy?

Many would leave the church, some would stay.

Those who went along with it would consider themselves the most righteous; you know, followers of the prophet and all that.

This would be just another example of how Christ separates the wheat from the tares; proof of the last days.

Those that would not go along with it would be considered less valiant and either too weak to follow the prophet or so worldly that they can't see the light.

Just like in the early days of the church.

~td~

That is exactly what I believe.


I wonder if anyone would have a problem with their spouse remaining a member of the LDS church while this is being practiced if they promise to remain monogamous?

I know it would be very difficult for me to stay supportive of my TBM spouse if he participates in a church that resumes this immoral and destructive practice.

[_Seven]

"Inconceivable"
First of all, it negates the Proclamation of the family. It places the woman on unequal ground with the man.

One thing that has always bothered me about the Proclamation of the family, (and even Prop 8) is the very careful wording that leaves the door open for future polygamy.

Notice how they won't define marriage "between ONE man and ONE woman."
I firmly believe that was intentional.


Here's the Proclamation:

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.

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

[_why me]

I believe that there were two reason for it: one, to raise up a righteous seed and this is what happened. Two, to test the faithfulness of the saints. Some passed and some failed.

I can't say that god knew that Joseph Smith would be killed when he was killed. Nothing is predetermined since we all have free agency.

CFR

also,

didn't' you get the memo? It's just simply called agency now. There is nothing free about it when you cannot be selective about the consequence.

What do you want a CFR about? I told you what I believe. Should I CFR myself?

But here is one example where faith may have been involved:

Joseph Smith realized that the introduction of plural marriage would inevitably invite severe criticism. After the Kirtland experience, he knew the tension it would create in his own family; even though Emma, with faith in his prophetic calling, accepted the revelation as being from God and not of his own doing, she could not reconcile herself to the practice. Beyond that, it had the potential to divide the Church and increase hostilities from outside. Still, he felt obligated to move ahead. "The object with me is to obey & teach others to obey God in just what he tells us to do," he taught several months before his death. "It mattereth not whether the principle is popular or unpopular. I will always maintain a true principle even if I Stand alone in it" (TPJS, p. 332).

And here it shows that he was not comfortable with the practice:

Although certain that God would require it of him and of the Church, Joseph Smith would not have introduced it when he did except for the conviction that God required it then. Several close confidants later said that he proceeded with plural marriage in Nauvoo only after both internal struggle and divine warning. Lorenzo Snow later remembered vividly a conversation in 1843 in which the Prophet described the battle he waged "in overcoming the repugnance of his feelings" regarding plural marriage.

"He knew the voice of God—he knew the commandment of the Almighty to him was to go forward—to set the example, and establish Celestial plural marriage. He knew that he had not only his own prejudices and pre-possessions to combat and to overcome, but those of the whole Christian world…; but God…had given the commandment" [The Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow, pp. 69-70 (Salt Lake City, 1884)].

Even so, Snow and other confidants agreed that Joseph Smith proceeded in Nauvoo only after an angel declared that he must or his calling would be given to another (Bachman, pp. 74-75). After this, Joseph Smith told Brigham Young that he was determined to press ahead though it would cost him his life, for "it is the work of God, and He has revealed this principle, and it is not my business to control or dictate it" (Brigham Young Discourse, Oct. 8, 1866, Church Archives).

http://www.lightplanet.com/Mormons/dail ... ry_EOM.htm

[_why me]

"Inconceivable"
First of all, it negates the Proclamation of the family. It places the woman on unequal ground with the man.

One thing that has always bothered me about the Proclamation of the family, (and even Prop 8) is the very careful wording that leaves the door open for future polygamy.

Notice how they won't define marriage "between ONE man and ONE woman."
I firmly believe that was intentional.


Here's the Proclamation:

We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

Really good point. I think that you are on to something here. I think that if polygamy was reinstated I would choose harmony, liz and TD to be my plural wives and send their husbands on missions if any of them are married.

[_truth dancer]

Polygamy will be legalized in my lifetime, I believe. The arguments against it are religiously based and in todays secular progressive society, it is only a matter of time.

Yes and no.

I do not think it is possible, in the United States of America to have a laws where certain marriage rights are given to men and not women. (I'm assuming you are discussing polygyny as practiced in the early days of Mormonism).

Which means, men could be married to numerous women, who could all be married to multiple men, who in turn are married to numerous women, who have many male partners, then there are bisexual folk who would hook up with various partners... In other words, group marriages and all sorts of mess.

I think it is much to much for our legal system when one begins to think of marriage rights including insurance, parental rights, divorce, inheritance, welfare, medicaid, social security, etc. etc. etc. Already the system can barely keep up. (Have you filled out any school forms lately... smile)?

Having said this, it is clear people no longer care in what sorts of alternative partnering people ingage.

~td~

[Guest]

Here's another problem I have with the reasons for initiating polygamy:

Joseph claimed he was restoring the true church, the very church that Christ established.

Yet, he wanted to restore also the "ancient order of things" from the Old Testament.

So -- which is it? New Testament or Old Testament?

Are we restoring the Church that Jesus Christ created (no polygamy) - or are we restoring the ancient practices of the peoples of the old testament?

Wasn't Jesus supposed to come to do away with the law, to fulfill the law -- to change the ancient order of things?

It sounds like Joseph was just picking and choosing the parts that he liked. And he liked the part about having sex with lots of babes.

[_Ray A]

And here it shows that he was not comfortable with the practice:

Although certain that God would require it of him and of the Church, Joseph Smith would not have introduced it when he did except for the conviction that God required it then. Several close confidants later said that he proceeded with plural marriage in Nauvoo only after both internal struggle and divine warning. Lorenzo Snow later remembered vividly a conversation in 1843 in which the Prophet described the battle he waged "in overcoming the repugnance of his feelings" regarding plural marriage.

He was probably more worried about being exposed, that was the real "repugnance" he felt, since this was 1843, which the Laws eventually did. Have you read the William Law Interview?

"Did Emma, the elect lady, come to your house and complain about Joseph?"

"No. She never came to my house for that purpose. But I met her sometimes on the street and then she used to complain, especially because of the girls whom Joseph kept in the house, devoting his attention to them. You have overrated her, she was dishonest."

"Do you mean to say that she was so outside of the influence Joseph had over her?"

"Did you ever hear of abortion being practiced in Nauvoo?"

"Yes. There was some talk about Joseph getting no issue from all the women he had intercourse with. Dr. Foster spoke to me about the fact. But I don't remember what was told about abortion. If I heard things of the kind, I didn't believe in them at that time. Joseph was very free in his talk about his women. He told me one day of a certain girl and remarked, that she had given him more pleasure than any girl he had ever enjoyed. I told him it was horrible to talk like this."

Hyrum L. Andrus, in his biography of Joseph Smith, also revealed that Joseph once joked with an older male member that when he received the revelation on polygamy, the first thought he had was to ask him for his (obviously beautiful) teenaged daughters. This book is now OP.

But I understand you dismiss all this as "apostate lies", and you possibly believe William Law was a corrupt man.

[_ktallamigo]

Polygamy will be legalized in my lifetime, I believe. The arguments against it are religiously based and in todays secular progressive society, it is only a matter of time.

I agree, especially since gay marriage is being legalized in state after state.