Surprised this apologetic view of polygamy hasn't come up here yet

[LA Ute]

I thought it was interesting. I must admit I want her to be right.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...gamy.html?pg=2

(Apologies if already posted somewhere.)

[scottie]

I couldn't get past his second sentence:

The Mormon Church has not practiced plural marriage for more than 120 years, ...

[Pheidippides]

I thought it was interesting. I must admit I want her to be right.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...gamy.html?pg=2

(Apologies if already posted somewhere.)

Interesting. I would also like to believe that but for the fact that's pretty clearly not what was preached. The FLDS doctrine of needing x many wives for exaltation in no way originated with them. And then you have the eternal principle doctrine. Both were stated openly and often by Brigham Young, and the latter by Joseph Smith all the time. So I think her assertion falls flat on it's face almost by it's terms.

[Moliere]

Hudson said she believes that "in the eternities we will have the privilege of living under the law, not the exception to the law." In this world, however, the reinstitution of plural marriage in the LDS Church will only happen if the Lord commands it.

So why do we still seal together polygamous marriages? Are those sealings meaningless?

I've had a discussion with my wife where I told her I would not remarry in the temple if she were to die, because I don't want a polygamous marriage now or in the afterlife. She told me she wanted me to remarry and I asked if she wanted to share me with another woman. She said "no" and that it would all be taken care of in the afterlife, to which I told her I'd rather be safe than sorry.

Bottom line is that polygamy is still in the church's theology and if it is the exception and not the rule, then we are still under the exception.

[Uncle Ted]

Maybe the FAIR, the MDL, etc. are all taking the wrong approach about this. Maybe they just need to simply point out that President Obama's own father was a polygamist and state that all that crap is in the past. moveon.org

[pellegrino]

the woman is nutters. I can't believe anyone would ever take her presentation seriously. If this is a sample of what FAIR's "symposium" is offering then they really are worse off than I thought. What a joke.

[CardiacCoug]

I couldn't get past his second sentence:

Absolutely -- after that line there is total loss of all credibility.

The author of that article is either totally ignorant about Church history or intentionally deceptive. You can't possibly make any other argument about that sentence.

[TripletDaddy]

Along those lines, I have noticed a trend to completely disassociate ourselves from these FLDS folks, as well as other polygamous sects. Statements such as "there is no relationship whatsoever to the LDS Church" seem equally disingenuous.

It isn't just this woman. Even our beloved GBH, a man very adept at public speaking, spoke to a similar degree when he was being interviewed by Larry King (or was it 60 mins?).

I'm not sure how someone can say that there is absolutely no relationship whatsoever between the sects and the LDS Church. In fact, there is a very direct relationship between the two, although they are distinct entities and do not work in conjunction with each other.

However, the offshoot practices cut too close to the bone to acknowledge that we have more in common than differences.

I'm not surprised LA Ute wishes this article were true. I think we all wish it were true.

[Pheidippides]

Absolutely -- after that line there is total loss of all credibility.

The author of that article is either totally ignorant about Church history or intentionally deceptive. You can't possibly make any other argument about that sentence.

In a limited defense, that's the statement of the articles author, not the woman who presented at the symposium. Although I already pointed out my issued with her statements.

[LA Ute]

I couldn't get past his second sentence:

Why? That was the reporter's statement, not Valerie Hudson's, although he was rounding a bit too much. It's been 118 years since 1893 and maybe he was counting from the Manifesto, when officially sanctioned plural marriages stopped. (Yes, I know plural marriages continued until 1904 or so, but I understand those were performed "on the down-low.")

EDIT: I was typing while niku was posting.

[CardiacCoug]

Bottom line is that polygamy is still in the church's theology and if it is the exception and not the rule, then we are still under the exception.

Yep. I have told this story before I think but when I was at BYU I was teaching a Sunday School lesson dealing with polygamy.

I said something like, "I don't think any of us really understand why polygamy became part of our history and I'm grateful we aren't asked to practice polygamy anymore."

Some obnoxious dude puffed his chest out and said, "We WILL be polygamists in the Celestial Kingdom and we're all going to have to get used to that idea." Our Bishop was a BYU religion professor and nodded his head in agreement with that.

I think for orthodox Mormons there is no question whatsoever that polygamy is still part of the theology and clearly the Temple policies support them in that belief.

[CardiacCoug]

Why? That was the reporter's statement, not Valerie Hudson's, although he was rounding a bit too much. It's been 118 years since 1893 and maybe he was counting from the Manifesto, when officially sanctioned plural marriages stopped. (Yes, I know plural marriages continued until 1904 or so, but I understand those were performed "on the down-low.")

EDIT: I was typing while niku was posting.

Sure I saw it was the reporter, but is it too much to ask the religion reporter for the Deseret News to have a modicum of knowledge about post-manifesto polygamy?

I'm sure Elder Eyring would be surprised to learn that his grandfather's post-manifesto plural marriage was outside of Church sanction. Seems odd since he kept going to the regular old Mormon Church until he died in 1957.

[LA Ute]

I think for orthodox Mormons there is no question whatsoever that polygamy is still part of the theology and clearly the Temple policies support them in that belief.

Valerie Hudson is suggesting that they are wrong. Hey, the notion that widely accepted Mormon teachings or beliefs are wrong or mistaken is certainly not unwelcome or unfamiliar on this board.

Seriously, if you think about it, what she argues is surely very upsetting to the hard-core types who simply accept the eternal nature of polygamy as an iron-clad truth. [EDIT: I my experience that group is 100% men.] As I said, no one knows whether she us right but I hope she is. (And I am an orthodox Mormon! ) I doubt we will see a General Conference talk this fall rebutting her point of view.

[CardiacCoug]

Valerie Hudson is suggesting that they are wrong. Hey, the notion that widely accepted Mormon teachings or beliefs are wrong or mistaken is certainly not unwelcome or unfamiliar on this board.

Seriously, if you think about it, what she argues is surely very upsetting to the hard-core types who simply accept the eternal nature of polygamy as an iron-clad truth. [EDIT: I my experience that group is 100% men.] As I said, no one knows whether she us right but I hope she is. (And I am an orthodox Mormon! ) I doubt we will see a General Conference talk this fall rebutting her point of view.

Gotcha. It would have been better if she had talked about Temple sealing policies and tried to explain those.

I would also say to support Valerie's point then that the fact that the Church doesn't seem to be planning to assert its legal right to polygamy on the basis of freedom of religion is also pretty good evidence that if God ever wanted polygamy He sure doesn't want it now. Because I think the Church would have a pretty good chance at succeeding in that type of legal challenge.

[LA Ute]

Gotcha. It would have been better if she had talked about Temple sealing policies and tried to explain those.

I would also say to support Valerie's point then that the fact that the Church doesn't seem to be planning to assert its legal right to polygamy on the basis of freedom of religion is also pretty good evidence that if God ever wanted polygamy He sure doesn't want it now. Because I think the Church would have a pretty good chance at succeeding in that type of legal challenge.

I have to admit, part of me laughs at the idea of polygamy becoming constitutionally protected and the church reinstating it. Call it black humor, I guess. What a horrifying mess that would be. IMO, it would be the end of the church as we know it.