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

[wuapinmon]

Doesn't it seem like this thread contains a lot of self-loathing? Everyone seems to hate polygamy and yet, if asked, would probably say that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that D&C is from the mouth of God via Joseph's pen--at least we're asked questions akin to this statement in the temple recommend interview.

All this vilification of polygamy seems to suffer from amnesia about our Church's roots. Look at the words of OD-1......"try and use my influence."

The problem I see with the gay - polygamous marriage argument is that allowing polygamy opens up the door to any marriage, polyandrous, group, anthropomorphic. "Why can't I marry my dog...he loves me and I love him?"

[UtahDan]

Doesn't it seem like this thread contains a lot of self-loathing? Everyone seems to hate polygamy and yet, if asked, would probably say that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that D&C is from the mouth of God via Joseph's pen--at least we're asked questions akin to this statement in the temple recommend interview.

All this vilification of polygamy seems to suffer from amnesia about our Church's roots. Look at the words of OD-1......"try and use my influence."

The problem I see with the gay - polygamous marriage argument is that allowing polygamy opens up the door to any marriage, polyandrous, group, anthropomorphic. "Why can't I marry my dog...he loves me and I love him?"

I think it is easy to overdo "polygamy is evil" for church members because we have tried so hard to move away from it. But you are right that there is an paradox inherent in saying more than "it is not authorized now." I am okay with that paradox. I would be right on LA's heels as he went screaming into the night were it ever reinstated.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Doesn't it seem like this thread contains a lot of self-loathing? Everyone seems to hate polygamy and yet, if asked, would probably say that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that D&C is from the mouth of God via Joseph's pen--at least we're asked questions akin to this statement in the temple recommend interview.

All this vilification of polygamy seems to suffer from amnesia about our Church's roots. Look at the words of OD-1......"try and use my influence."

"Self-loathing"? That's one of the more useless and overused expressions in discussions on religion.

[wuapinmon]

"Self-loathing"? That's one of the more useless and overused expressions in discussions on religion.

How else would you describe the feeling I'm modifying with those two words?

[UtahDan]

How else would you describe the feeling I'm modifying with those two words?

I have alway liked "cognitive dissonance." People don't really hate themselves. It is more like a failure to connect A to B.

[wuapinmon]

I have alway liked "cognitive dissonance." People don't really hate themselves. It is more like a failure to connect A to B.

But that's a regretting function........I think the calling of polygamy "evil" or "barbaric" or what have you is suspect. I'm not defending polygamy, but I don't think I can look back with scorn or derision at my family's and church's history (Yes, I'm a convert, but my great-great-great grandpa was a scout with the 1847 party) without feeling like I'm serving two masters.

[PaloAltoCougar]

...The problem I see with the gay - polygamous marriage argument is that allowing polygamy opens up the door to any marriage, polyandrous, group, anthropomorphic. "Why can't I marry my dog...he loves me and I love him?"

The "people will be marrying their pets" argument never made any sense to me during the Prop 8 debates. We're talking about consenting adults. Letting a couple of dudes marry doesn't open the door for Fifi or any other species. But I concede that the consenting adults argument, taken alone, would open the door to multi-party marriages.

[YOhio]

The "people will be marrying their pets" argument never made any sense to me during the Prop 8 debates. We're talking about consenting adults. Letting a couple of dudes marry doesn't open the door for Fifi or any other species. But I concede that the consenting adults argument, taken alone, would open the door to multi-party marriages.

You're just not open to reason on this issue.

[Sleeping in EQ]

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

I was trolling a bit, but I do think that many Mormons have some unhealthy cognitive dissonance on this issue. Some Mormons now advance the very arguments that were advanced by persecutors of the Church in the late 19th century.

I also think that if push comes to shove, the Church would be better off managing polygamy than trying to maintain the ban.

[wuapinmon]

bump

[Indy Coug]

Think about polygamy from this direction: there are multiple cultures that allow polygamy (eg. Islam and many cultures in Africa). As it currently stands, these people can't be baptized if they have more than one wife. Are we going to in perpetuity have a stance that will either completely preclude these people from joining the church or at the bare minimum force them to split up their families?

[UtahDan]

Think about polygamy from this direction: there are multiple cultures that allow polygamy (eg. Islam and many cultures in Africa). As it currently stands, these people can't be baptized if they have more than one wife. Are we going to in perpetuity have a stance that will either completely preclude these people from joining the church or at the bare minimum force them to split up their families?

That is a very, very interesting question. It seems like we are in a doctrinal limbo on this. On the one hand, you have our history, section 132 and the current practice of allowing the sealing plural wives when the previous wife or wives are deceased. So the concept seems to be alive and well.

On the other hand, I think we have tried very hard to distance ourselves from the past and to make it clear that this is not what we do now. As you point out, the parties to plural marriages cannot be baptized. I have to think that this is to prevent fundamentalists from taking plural wives before they are members and then trying to avail themselves of the ordinances. But what about Muslims and Africans? The government makes exceptions for them. I know there was a Muslim family who attended my high school who were middle eastern and had at least to mothers, maybe three.

We have drawn a bright line rule and it has the unintended consequence you mention. But if you draw a bright line rule the other way and authorize baptisms of those who are parties to plural marriages then you have to deal with whether you also seal them, if not why not, and what the perception will be. Perception shouldn't matter but it does, of course.

[Clark Addison]

The point that Indy brings up is very interesting. In an earlier post, bluegoose expressed a wish for polygamy to be officially repudiated. I don't know if that is going to happen, but is the church unofficially saying the same thing right now? 120 years ago, the church's position was that the only reason they were (kind of) stopping polygamy was because of the legal issues. If church authorities still feel this way, is there any reason for people who are in a legal polygamous relationship to be denied baptism? This certainly give the impression that the problem is with polygamy itself, and is no longer a legal issue.

Looking at it another way, let's say that the "slippery slope" argument for gay marriage is correct. Let's assume that by 2020, 38 states make gay marriage legal. The Supreme Court says that community standard have changed, and make marriage between any number or gender of consenting adults the law of the land. So polygamy is legal (I know the hypothetical has problems, don't fight it). So the question is, what would the church do in this situation? I would be very, very, very shocked if the church reinstated polygamy in this situation. Again, it seems the current leadership of the church has an issue with polygamy, at least in this life.

[LA Ute]

My answer on this remains the same: If polygamy returns as a Church practice, my first response will be to run screaming into the night. Beyond that I don't know what I would do.

[Indy Coug]

Even if tomorrow it became legal nationally and the church immediately reinstated polygamy, what percentage of Melchizedek Priesthood holders would ever actually be asked to practice it?