Zelder wrote:That's a stretch. If a person is jealous that their spouse gets married when they die, they have serious issues. There is a huge difference between having two living spouses in your house and getting remarried after your spouse dies.
If at the end of the day you honestly believe that you will end up with all of them in the CK, It's still polygamy. It's just a change in location. So why not allow them to all be married here on earth?
consiglieri wrote:If two men (or two women) can marry, what legal principle would then prohibit a man and two women from getting married?
Well, the California Supreme Court specifically addressed this bogeyman and disposed of it in In Re Marriage cases.
Under the heading of amazing coincidence, Glenn Beck is talking about this precise issue on his radio show right now--that allowing gay marriage "changes the equation" of marriage and opens the door to any other "changes in the equation."
Wait a minute. Now he's playing a clip from Santorum saying the same thing.
It's a good thing court decisions never get reversed.
All the Best!
--Consiglieri
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
Stormy Waters wrote:If the only reason you stopped drinking was because of prohibition, it would make sense that you might pick it up again when it became legal again. In the first official declaration it was made quite clear that the reason the church was abandoning polygamy was because of societal pressures.
Also as others have pointed out, a man can still be sealed to more than one woman at a time as long as the other wives are dead. So doctrinally it's a perfectly reasonable expectation that the church would resume polygamy if it were made legal. Realistically the church wouldn't because it would be a PR nightmare.
Maybe but Jacob Chapter 2 makes it clear that polygamy is the exception not the rule.
Thank you!!! BC and I have been arguing this for years. LOL
Once an abomination, always an abomination. There is simply no excuse for Joseph.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
harmony wrote:Once an abomination, always an abomination. There is simply no excuse for Joseph.
I agree that polygamy should have never been reinstated in the early Church.
The thing is, it was never part of the ancient church. There was nothing to reinstate. Had Joseph truly understood the Bible... well, and if he'd been an honorable man... he'd have understood that polygamy was cultural, not religious.
God never ordered it, Nathan notwithstanding.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Harmony wrote:The thing is, it was never part of the ancient church. There was nothing to reinstate. Had Joseph truly understood the Bible... well, and if he'd been an honorable man... he'd have understood that polygamy was cultural, not religious.