What does the church do if and when polygamy is legalized?

[SeattleUte]

I agree with this. The rest of your post conjecturing about what the Supreme Court might do is, well, pure conjecture.

Is this a troll? First you say the Supreme Court is a political animal (despite lifetime appointments) and acknowledge there is no American political mandate for polygamy. I agree with this and quibble only with your futuristic speculations. Now this.

[RobinFinderson]

You know SU, the more I look at your avatar, the more I realize why BYU probably banned the Rodin piece... I think it made too many of the priesthood holders feel a bit inadequate below the belt.

[Donuthole]

You know SU, the more I look at your avatar, the more I realize why BYU probably banned the Rodin piece... I think it made too many of the priesthood holders feel a bit inadequate below the belt.

I agree. I'll never have calves that big, try as I may.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

You know SU, the more I look at your avatar, the more I realize why BYU probably banned the Rodin piece... I think it made too many of the priesthood holders feel a bit inadequate below the belt.

I purposely had my wife check out Michelangelo's David so she would lower her expectations before marriage and told her that the work is a masterpiece partly because of the anatomical correctness. She now thinks that Michelangelo is a total hack for giving her false hopes.

[PaloAltoCougar]

I purposely had my wife check out Michelangelo's David so she would lower her expectations before marriage and told her that the work is a masterpiece partly because of the anatomical correctness.... []

I tried this when we viewed the masterwork but the conversation degraded over the question of why he wasn't circumcised.

[KillerDog]

On the subject of whether polygamy legalization could rise out of gay marriage legalization, I don't think we know until we see the method for the legalization of gay marriage. There have been very creative legal decisions in the past and there could be in the future. In addition, the SCOTUS doesn't seem interested in the gay marriage question. I think this is because they don't want to create the legal troubles the federal courts would have if gay marriage was forced on the states under one of the current Con Law systems. I believe the SCOTUS will force the states to make marriage legal through democratic vote to prevent the legalization of polygamy etc.

On the subject of legalized polygamy, if polygamy was made legal, the Church would adopt one of the arguments against it "right now" and move forward. The puritanical and victorian morality is too far ingrained in our culture to allow for the adoption of something so...out there. Personally, I find the very idea hilarious. I would like to see polygamy legalized so I can observe the excitement.

[UtahDan]

Actually no, I was just trying to point out how ridiculous SIEQ's point was about there being some kind groundswell of support from women and singles within the church for the practice.

I'm now thinking that SIEQ is playing me like a fiddle. Victorian Uncle Tom?

When I read that earlier today I thought, you know, SIEQ trolls with such intelligence and subtlety, no one may pick up on it.

[Coach McGuirk]

I just asked my wife if she would be cool if I brought in a couple more of her if the church changed their mind on polygamy. Response, "Are you kidding? No way in hell."

So, I am out, boys.

[Solon]

I imagine there has been extensive discussion about this, perhaps someone can direct me to that thread.

With that being said, I don't see much of an obstacle in the way of legalizing polygamy if gay marriage is ever legalized. And I think it's only a matter of time until that happens.

The manifesto specifically says that polygamy is abolished on the grounds that it violates the law of the land. Rather than doctrinally repudiating the practice, I read that upholding the law of the land is a higher priority than polygamy.

So, what happens when it's not the law of the land anymore? This is a pandora's box for the Church, because the Church is left in the position of either sanctioning new plural marriages and upholding the doctrine that is discussed throughout the D&C and has never ben repudiated, or new revelation will have to come out prohibiting plural marriage.

The latter IMO is even more troublesome than the overturning of the priesthood ban. An abundance of scripture in the D&C establishes that polygamy goes beyond what the black priesthood ban was- it's clearly a doctrine and established practice of the church but for the laws of the land. If you repudiate polygamy, then you repudiate a fairly significant teaching and practice espoused by Joseph Smith.

The reality is that the church will never again sanction plural marriage (at least I hope not) and the legalization of the practice will have no effect on the church's practice- even though the strict doctrine will direct otherwise.

As I understand it, polygamy is currently legal in a large part of the world - those parts ruled by Islamic law.

And these comparisons with the past are a bit of a red herring. Marriage historically has been more about social status, economics, citizenship, legitimate children, and inheritance. Today's expectations of marriage, while still concerned with these issues, are more focused on individual fulfillment, love, romance, etc. Not to imply that ancient peoples didn't fall in love (they did), but other factors figured prominently in their selection of marriage partner(s),

[LA Ute]

I tried this when we viewed the masterwork but the conversation degraded over the question of why he wasn't circumcised.

Believe it or not, this actually came up in my practice once. Honest. I read that the David depicts circumcision as it was done anciently. According to one report I read, much less . . . tissue was taken in those days. I'm not sure why that might have changed. You can read all about that theory at this site, wonderfully named as "The Circumcision Reference Library:"

http://www.cirp.org/library/history/peron2/

To me, however, that piece has the aroma of crackpottery. Here is what seems to be a more scholarly explanation:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1279184

And there are some pretty funny efforts at explanation here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/0,,-82066,00.html

[PaloAltoCougar]

Believe it or not, this actually came up in my practice once. Honest. I read that the David depicts circumcision as it was done anciently. According to one report I read, much less . . . tissue was taken in those days. I'm not sure why that might have changed. You can read all about that theory at this site, wonderfully named as "The Circumcision Reference Library:"

http://www.cirp.org/library/history/peron2/

To me, however, that piece has the aroma of crackpottery. Here is what seems to be a more scholarly explanation:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1279184

And there are some pretty funny efforts at explanation here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqu...-82066,00.html

That was interesting reading; thanks for those. In my (dare I say "our") youth, pretty much every guy had been given the treatment (I recall one in high school who wasn't and was mocked by the rest of us--but who's laughing now?). Now, the tide seems to have shifted in favor of preservation.

[Solon]

Believe it or not, this actually came up in my practice once. Honest. I read that the David depicts circumcision as it was done anciently. According to one report I read, much less . . . tissue was taken in those days. I'm not sure why that might have changed. You can read all about that theory at this site, wonderfully named as "The Circumcision Reference Library:"

http://www.cirp.org/library/history/peron2/

To me, however, that piece has the aroma of crackpottery. Here is what seems to be a more scholarly explanation:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1279184

And there are some pretty funny efforts at explanation here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqu...-82066,00.html

I don't have time to read all these tonight (too tired) but do they have a hypothesis for how Hellenistic Jews "undid" their circumcisions? [e.g. 1 Maccabees 1.15-16. That's always been a head-scratcher for me.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The only way the church brings back polygamy is if the first presidency pushes it. Period. And I just don't see that happening. Even if polygamy is legalized (quite unlikely, IMO), I doubt it ever sees much traction nationally since it is a fundamentally oppressive and sexist practice.

[UtahDan]

Is this a troll? First you say the Supreme Court is a political animal (despite lifetime appointments) and acknowledge there is no American political mandate for polygamy. I agree with this and quibble only with your futuristic speculations. Now this.

You can handle being trolled. I'm sure of it.

[Solon]

a fundamentally oppressive and sexist practice.

Society seems to think so, and nobody would argue with this with regard to FLDS underage brides, but there's some interesting research on 19th century LDS polygamy in the west that suggests that it actually allowed women more freedom than they normally might have enjoyed. In a way, Frontier Polygamy offered more freedom to women because the men were absent so often, and women therefore had a lot more autonomy over their households while Dad was off visiting his other wives.

Generally speaking, women on the frontier had more say in the workings of the family, since they were expected to contribute so much just to ensure survival. In the 1890s, this translated fairly easily to political power, which is why we have Wyoming giving women the right to vote first, Colorado electing the first women to a state legislature, Utah being the first to elect a female state senator, and Montana sending the first woman to Washington (as a representative).

So, western women seem to have had more power than their eastern counterparts, and it seems to me that in some cases polygamy could have exaggerated this.

But I understand that modern polygamy would be quite different.