Polygamy is the new marriage-rights frontier

[_bcspace]

I do not.

Why not? The church says it's perfectly moral and legitimate when authorized.

Indeed. While I currently don't, I could be persuaded because of, for example, my libertarian streak on marijuana legalization (I'm 50/50 on that). While the state has no compelling interest in recognizing gay marriages (let them marry all they want just don't recognize them), they would have a compelling interest (the possibility of children raised in an ideal heterosexual marriage plural or otherwise) in this case.

I've never believed polygamy is all about the male libido

Yet it's the main thrust of criticism against the LDS Church.

It's just ironic to hear people like you opposing legalization of something your own scriptures tell us is ordained of God.

Sure. I understand.

[_bcspace]

The article is also interesting because here is a highly educated woman arguing against the standard anti Mormon spin that plural marriage is all about sex.

[_Fence Sitter]

The article is also interesting because here is a highly educated woman arguing against the standard anti Mormon spin that plural marriage is all about sex.

In the same way that standard bigoted anti gay marriage rhetoric says it's all about the family.

Your strawmen fail, consistently.

[_DarkHelmet]

I don't have a big problem with polygamy if everyone involved is consenting. Typically, though, polygamous societies are coercive to young women and girls. The biggest issue I have with Mormon polygamy is it is either an ex-communicable sin, or a command from God, depending on what the church leaders say. If you personally believe it is a sin, but your church leaders tell you to practice it, too bad, you have to do it. If a man and his wife both want to have a polygamous marriage, but the church is against it, too bad, no sister wives for you.

[Guest]

If you personally believe it is a sin, but your church leaders tell you to practice it, too bad, you have to do it

Why? This is America. If you belong to an organization, you abide by it's rules. If you don't want to abide, you don't have to and said organization doesn't have to keep you. If your parents believe and train their family that way and you still don't believe, then you must become a pioneer. There will be pain, but it's still your choice to modify the situation into which you've been born and create a new situation for your posterity. Because we have a free society (The Democrats are changing that but it's still relatively true), organizations that don't appeal will not thrive. This is what LDS doctrine is all about.

[_Willy Law]

That gay marriage "rights" lead to plural marriage rights .

Which, in my opinion, is the main reason the church fought gay marriage. It did not take a genius to see that polygamy would follow close behind. Legal polygamy in Utah will be a major headache for the church. After all the only reason the abandoned God's Law was to comply with the law of the land. Now that the law is about to change it should be open season on YW again. Praise to the man.

[_bcspace]

Legal polygamy in Utah will be a major headache for the church.

I doubt it. They're already dealing with it in Africa and the fact that upwards of a million practitioners of plural marriage already exist in the USA doesn't stop them from excommunicating wherever they find it.

After all the only reason the abandoned God's Law was to comply with the law of the land.

No, it was the legal existence of the Church.

Now that the law is about to change it should be open season on YW again.

Why should it? Plural marriage is still not authorized by God.

[_DarkHelmet]

If you personally believe it is a sin, but your church leaders tell you to practice it, too bad, you have to do it

Why? This is America. If you belong to an organization, you abide by it's rules. If you don't want to abide, you don't have to and said organization doesn't have to keep you. If your parents believe and train their family that way and you still don't believe, then you must become a pioneer. There will be pain, but it's still your choice to modify the situation into which you've been born and create a new situation for your posterity. Because we have a free society (The Democrats are changing that but it's still relatively true), organizations that don't appeal will not thrive. This is what LDS doctrine is all about.

It would be nice if that's the way it worked. How easy is it for a young woman in a polygamous society to turn down a polygamous marriage request because she feels it's a sin? As you say, she is free to leave the organization and create a new path for her and her posterity, just as many ex-mormons did. We know how that turned out for Nancy Rigdon. What does that say about the church, and the men trying to coerce young women into a polygamous marriage?

[_Chap]

You are the one who expressed doubt that Smith had sex with the women he was sealed to. The Temple Lot affidavits, referenced in that thread, are good evidence you are wrong. You were asked repeatedly to say whether you thought the women who swore those affidavits were lying under oath. You gave no response, which is why I am asking you to respond now.

Well, do you think those wives of Joseph Smith were lying? And if not, doesn't that show that Joseph Smith had sex with several of his plural wives, contrary to your expressed doubts?

You don't seriously believe you'll get an answer from our cut-and-run expert, do you?

Surprise! You are right. I come back to this thread after a while, and here is bcspace, acting as if :

1. He had never expressed skepticism about Smith having sex with his plural wives ("where are the children" etc.)

2. He had never been confronted with the evidence from the Temple Lot case in which several of Smith's plural wives, faithful Mormon women, swore affidavits saying that they had sex with him, affidavits which were submitted to the court by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

3. He had never been asked to explain the mismatch between (1) and (2).

Bcspace is acting like a coward.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

If you belong to an organization, you abide by it's rules. If you don't want to abide, you don't have to and said organization doesn't have to keep you.

I don't know about you, but I would prefer to exercise ownership and responsibility over said organization by lobbying to have these silly rules revoked.