Would you be out if polyandry is reinstated?

[wuapinmon]

HEY! I did that to match MRD's title. Take it up with him.

I guess I'm one-a them square pegs. Also, you didn't capitalies Polyandry to match.

[creekster]

I'm glad members like you are dying out. Nothing personal against you just your doctrine.

That's too bad. I didnt even know he was sick.

[jay santos]

That's too bad. I didnt even know he was sick.

His kind is. The Orson Hydists are still around but they're in danger of extinction.

[landpoke]

Not a member, but would I get to watch?

[Coach McGuirk]

Seems like there would be a lot of Mormon street cred that could be had.

[TripletDaddy]

Seems like there would be a lot of Mormon street cred that could be had.

I could finally start wearing my favorite t shirt to ward activities!

[pellegrino]

I could finally start wearing my favorite t shirt to ward activities!

I think our youth program just found a new fund raiser.

[Katy Lied]

I'm glad members like you are dying out. Nothing personal against you just your doctrine.

I think this comment goes too far. I think it is sort of offensive.

Perhaps you could have said "I'm glad that this sentiment is not so prevalent any more." Then you could focus on the doctrine and not the personal attack on him.

[Indy Coug]

I think this comment goes too far. I think it is sort of offensive.

I don't think your comment went far enough.

[clackamascoug]

I'm glad members like you are dying out. Nothing personal against you just your doctrine.

It's not my doctrine. My post said that Polyandry makes sense in one the most popular scientific hypothesis of the day. I didn't say I was "all in" on the idea, it just fits the puzzle of string theory.

However, I'll raise your 1 "gladness" with 2 "concerneds" - regarding "your doctrine" that allows for wishing for the death of others voicing scientific theories that meet the criteria of the current thread. Nothing against you, of course.

[jay santos]

It's not my doctrine. My post said that Polyandry makes sense in one the most popular scientific hypothesis of the day. I didn't say I was "all in" on the idea, it just fits the puzzle of string theory.

However, I'll raise your 1 "gladness" with 2 "concerneds" - regarding "your doctrine" that allows for wishing for the death of others voicing scientific theories that meet the criteria of the current thread. Nothing against you, of course.

I detest the Orson Hyde doctrine of cosmos, extreme theosis, preoccupation with physical body and sex and justication of polygamy. Its unbiblical and unChristian. It's taken us 100 years but we're putting it behind us. Of course I don't wish you to die. Duh. Come on people. Just your doctrine.

[marsupial]

Since the other poll is running neck and neck, I thought it would be interesting to see just how far our devotion will go. Suppose the prophet gets to secretly marry your wife, with or without your knowledge or consent. You still in?

If you answer yes in the other poll but no here, please share your thinking.

Does it have to be the prophet... I mean, no offense to TSM, but c'mon! The polygamous men get to take on more youthful wives and we're stuck marrying 90-year-old men.

[doctorcoug]

Does it have to be the prophet... I mean, no offense to TSM, but c'mon! The polygamous men get to take on more youthful wives and we're stuck marrying 90-year-old men.

Don't you get it? You marry a rich 40 year old and you have fifty years of hell. You marry a rich 90 year old, and it is six months of the nasty, most disgusting intimacy known, but, it is only six months, then you are filthy rich.

[Devildog]

The sex part is the only thing that skeeves me out. I don't need a tunnel buddy, thanks.

This literally made me laugh out loud.

After reading through the thread, and spending time reviewing this site... I have concluded that I am far less sophisticated, educated, and devoted than many that post here.

I suspect that I may be quite a bit meaner and more primitive also...

Not only would I be out.... but there is a very real chance people could get physically hurt...badly.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm not sure this poll is set in a fair light. There is still a lot of unanswered questions about so-called polyandry in the early Church.

Bushman notes in RSR that when the concept of sealing couples together was revealed in Nauvoo, there was the corrollary concept that men and women who were civilly married were not in a legitimate relationship condoned by God because that couple were not sealed by a priesthood authority. It is similar to the idea that baptisms performed by someone other than a LDS priesthood holder are not valid. LDS Nauvoo couples were distraught in accepting that their current civil marriages were not valid, and it was one of the driving motivators for them to complete the temple so that they could be sealed and have a legitimate relationship.

That needs to be taken into consideration when considering Joseph's sealing to other women who were civilly married. Joseph's polyandry was a qualified polyandry if it can be fairly called polyandry at all. His sealings to married women were not polyandry in his world-view because civil marriages were not valid anyway.

I read RSR and I don't remember that explanation. You sure you didn't copy that from the fair.org site? Either way, it seems like a wife in a civil marriage ought to be off-limits don't you think? And how would this explain not getting the husband's permission in some cases?

I assume that you are aware that BY continued polyandry? One of BY's wives had been sealed to JS and was still married to her original husband (Zina Huntington?). Not to mention that we practiced celestial polyandry (married women sealed to dead prophets) for many years

If Josephy's "polyandry" were reintroduced in Mormonism, I do not believe it would generally involve sealing couples together where one of the other participants is already sealed to someone else.

Don't worry about it. It is not coming back. The Correlation Dept. would veto it in a heartbeat.