Would you be out if polyandry is reinstated?

[Jeff Lebowski]

We recently unpacked most of our books as we settle in our 20 month old house. Working long hours and having young children hasn't lent itself to a lot of time or motivation for that sort of thing. At any rate, I pulled out my copy of Rough Stone Rolling and In Sacred Loneliness and wanted to revisit a couple of points form this exchange:


The reference is not from RSR as I previously stated. It's actually from Todd Compton's In Sacred Loneliness. Sorry this post is as long as it is, but here's the reference and relevant quotes, some of which addresses Lebowski's subsequent comments below:


The concept that a civil marriage is invalid turns the polyandry issue on it's head: they are Joseph's wives by divinely legal priesthood sanction, not the other way around.

A later explanation on this matter is this quote from ISL, p. 17 in an 1861 speech by Brigham Young:


However, with that said, there is scriptural and other LDS support that polygyny will be reintroduced in the last days. Isaiah 4:1:

Very interesting. Thanks.

I can understand the logic, but I categorically reject the notion of someone secretly declaring everybody's marriage as invalid and then picking off the wives one by one. I guess this is why we don't talk about polygamy in church. The seedy underbelly of polygamy is too shocking. Warren Jeffs is closer to Joseph Smith than many of us are comfortable admitting.

[cowboy]

I'm a little confused. Assuming willing parties and the lack of compulsion, and mutual love and affection, how do we judge what is morally acceptable and what isn't? Is it acceptable to allow homosexuals to marry, but keep polygamy and polyandry illegal? If so, why?

I'll go out on a limb and say that I expect both to be instituted in the afterlife to some extent. Why? Because it is clearly possible to have deeply love more than one person. I'm thinking specifically of people who lose a spouse early in life and remarry, perhaps having children with both spouses. Should they have to choose in the afterlife? If we assume that there is no such thing as jealousy or selfishness in heaven it seems to me that choosing would be unnecessary.

[LA Ute]

I'll admit that I don't know what to make of polygamy. I am still trying to sort that out. For those interested, I posted in another thread this link to an interesting Mormon History Association paper that was published in Dialogue in 1986:

Determining and Defining 'Wife:' The Brigham Young Households

Brigham was married to a lot of women over his lifetime, and the author addresses every marriage and categorizes each one. He also discusses what is known and unknown about how many of the marriages were actually conjugal. The piece is very informative, seems thorough, and is a pretty quick read.

I'm descended from one of Brigham's brothers so his family history is interesting to me. I not only have a ton of distant Young cousins from Brigham (Steve Young is my 5th cousin, for example) but I've got a ton of others from my own direct GG-grandfather, who had 9 wives. (I came through the 5th.) The sheet my family took the information from attempted to identify which marriages were “in name only.” We don’t know the source of the information, but all of his marriages were listed as conjugal unions. As my brother said to me, "Who knew?"

I'm a little confused. Assuming willing parties and the lack of compulsion, and mutual love and affection, how do we judge what is morally acceptable and what isn't? Is it acceptable to allow homosexuals to marry, but keep polygamy and polyandry illegal? If so, why?

I'll go out on a limb and say that I expect both to be instituted in the afterlife to some extent. Why? Because it is clearly possible to have deeply love more than one person. I'm thinking specifically of people who lose a spouse early in life and remarry, perhaps having children with both spouses. Should they have to choose in the afterlife? If we assume that there is no such thing as jealousy or selfishness in heaven it seems to me that choosing would be unnecessary.

This expresses well a part of polygamy that I am still sorting out in my own mind.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm a little confused. Assuming willing parties and the lack of compulsion, and mutual love and affection, how do we judge what is morally acceptable and what isn't? Is it acceptable to allow homosexuals to marry, but keep polygamy and polyandry illegal? If so, why?

Before I respond, were you directing this to my post tonight or to this thread in general?

[clackamascoug]

In the multiple dimension scenario, I could be married to thousands of women, and my wives in those dimensions could be married to thousands of men in other dimensions. Upon death, and when the dimensions collapse into a true celestial reality, I would be sealed to thousands of women, and they too would be sealed to thousands of husbands, and we all would be sealed to Jesus Christ.

Personally, I think Joseph's glimpse into celestial life styles of the rich and famous, left him confused as to his ability to distinguish between the plurality of marriage, and his inability to distinguish between multiple dimensions of reality.

Sure the concept is out there, but when you place a lot of the church's dichotomies into the multiple dimension mode, they seem more understandable.

[scottie]

In the multiple dimension scenario, I could be married to thousands of women, and my wives in those dimensions could be married to thousand of men in other dimensions. Upon death, and when the dimensions collapse into a true celestial reality, I would be sealed to thousands of women, and they too would be sealed to thousands of husbands, and we all would be seal to Jesus Christ.

Personally, I think Joseph's glimpse into celestial life styles of the rich and famous, left him confused as to his ability to distinguish between the plurality of marriage, and his inability to distinguish between multiple dimensions of reality.

Sure the concept is out there, but when you place a lot of the church's dichotomies into the multiple dimension mode, they seem more understandable.

[old_gregg]

In the multiple dimension scenario, I could be married to thousands of women, and my wives in those dimensions could be married to thousand of men in other dimensions. Upon death, and when the dimensions collapse into a true celestial reality, I would be sealed to thousands of women, and they too would be sealed to thousands of husbands, and we all would be seal to Jesus Christ.

Personally, I think Joseph's glimpse into celestial life styles of the rich and famous, left him confused as to his ability to distinguish between the plurality of marriage, and his inability to distinguish between multiple dimensions of reality.

Sure the concept is out there, but when you place a lot of the church's dichotomies into the multiple dimension mode, they seem more understandable.

[clackamascoug]

I'm here all week...

[cowboy]

Before I respond, were you directing this to my post tonight or to this thread in general?

Just the issue in general. There is a lot of evidence of at least the appearance of compulsion that will keep me from ever defending polygamy the way it was practiced in the church.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Just the issue in general. There is a lot of evidence of at least the appearance of compulsion that will keep me from ever defending polygamy the way it was practiced in the church.

Gotcha.

Here is a short stab at your question: It seems to me that our laws should not preclude a segment of our society from enjoying the benefits of marriage in a legitimate fashion (with the partner they love). But I don't think the government is obligated to recognize every form of marriage conceivable. I don't think polygamy should be illegal, but I don't think the government needs to legally recognize more than one marriage at a time.

[Portland Ute]

Gotcha.

Here is a short stab at your question: It seems to me that our laws should not preclude a segment of our society from enjoying the benefits of marriage in a legitimate fashion (with the partner they love). But I don't think the government is obligated to recognize every form of marriage conceivable. I don't think polygamy should be illegal, but I don't think the government needs to legally recognize more than one marriage at a time.

I still fail to see why government needs to recognize ANY form of marriage. IMO, all this discussion about gay marriage and polygamy, etc., would be easiliy resolved if the government just got out of the business of recognizing any marriage.

Let marriage and relationships be the stuff of individuals and their churches.

[All-American]

I still fail to see why government needs to recognize ANY form of marriage. IMO, all this discussion about gay marriage and polygamy, etc., would be easiliy resolved if the government just got out of the business of recognizing any marriage.

Let marriage and relationships be the stuff of individuals and their churches.

Inheritance, for one.

[Applejack]

Gotcha.

Here is a short stab at your question: It seems to me that our laws should not preclude a segment of our society from enjoying the benefits of marriage in a legitimate fashion (with the partner they love). But I don't think the government is obligated to recognize every form of marriage conceivable. I don't think polygamy should be illegal, but I don't think the government needs to legally recognize more than one marriage at a time.

I agree. I think you can support government-sanctioned gay marriage while opposing government-sanctioned plural marriage. However, I haven't heard a good reason why plural marriage should be criminalized. I think the end is near for polygamy as a crime, and I think the gay marriage movement will largely be the reason: it's hard to argue that two loving gay individuals should receive the imprimatur of government, while three or four loving individuals should not only be unsanctioned, but a crime.

[Harry Tic]

Polyandry is the only thing that makes sense with quantum mechanics. It's quite possible that I'm actually sealed to thousands of different women in different dimensions, and that my wife is sealed to thousands of men. Regardless of the ultimate future reality, I'm going to be prepared with at least having considered the possibility.

Can you imagine Joseph trying to teach multiple universes to the 1830's crowd, let alone us today.

I just discovered this Clackamas gem from way back in 2010. "6.5" my butt. Clack consistently hits above his weight, whatever that weight may be.

I could go with polyandry under two conditions: (1) Clack is the GA in question; and (2) he actually looks just like his avatar. In that case, I got nothing to worry about.

*EDIT* Whoops. Missed the updated cosmological theory by Clack on page 3 of the thread. It's only getting better. Maybe Clack's domestic pet in all these multiple universes with multiple wives is Schroedinger's Cat.

[cowboy]

Gotcha.

Here is a short stab at your question: It seems to me that our laws should not preclude a segment of our society from enjoying the benefits of marriage in a legitimate fashion (with the partner they love). But I don't think the government is obligated to recognize every form of marriage conceivable. I don't think polygamy should be illegal, but I don't think the government needs to legally recognize more than one marriage at a time.

Why not? Again, assuming mutual love and consent, why shouldn't everyone be afforded the hundreds of laws at a federal level that married couples, currently only heterosexual couples thanks to DOMA, enjoy?

These are included in the tax code, immigration laws, reciprocity among the states, military benefits, etc., all of which provide advantages and rights to couples who are married, as that is defined in DOMA (one man, one woman). If we are making the case that everyone should be afforded these rights between those they love, why draw the line at two people? I could be missing something, but your response seems identical to the response of those who favor civil unions for gay couples but not marriage. BTW, the first sentence in this paragraph is a direct quote from PAC, so I'd be dishonest if I didn't source it.