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

[beefytee]

Most people in civilizaton really do think polygamy is evil and have for thousands of years.

Where does this info come from? It has been present is several cultures around the world until very recently and is still in several.

[UtahDan]

As for the rest of your post, your conjectures about future generations are, well, pure conjecture.

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

[Color Me Badd Fan]

When you consider how much polygamy is rooted in LDS Church history, and the fact that it's still practiced in the temples, do you view that as being fairly hypocritical? If you would have left the church in 1850, why stay in it today? (That's something I ask myself all the time, so you wouldn't be alone).

Because I think it's a huge error that's been corrected over the last 125 years or so through practice, though not necessarily doctrine. I think there's a lot more right with the church then there is wrong. I also don't like the idea that a man can still be sealed to two women in the event a widower gets married again, but the reverse isn't true for a widow that does the same thing. As was mentioned previously on this forum, Stake Presidents and Bishops just say that it will all be eventually handled in a reasonable manner.

[SeattleUte]

Where does this info come from? It has been present is several cultures around the world until very recently and is still in several.

Let's see, in the West it was present among the tent dwelling ancient Hebrews who never experienced an iron age and gave us Adam and Eve, Jonah and Naoh, among the barbarian tribes of Europe who never had a written language until they developed one to translate the bible after conversion to Christianity. The Greeks and Romans didn't practice it and outlawed it. It has always been outside "civilization" in the West. Calling polygamy a relic of barbarism is one of most succinctly accurate things I've ever read.

[tooblue]

Upcoming court cases in British Colombia will result in polygamy being legalized in Canada within the next couple of years IMO.

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/l...shColumbiaHome

Same sex marriage was legalized in Canada nationwide in 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-se...iage_in_Canada

[Sleeping in EQ]

Believe me, I wouldn't personally have a problem if the SC overturned gay marriage bans. I would just love for the SC to then draw an arbitrary line in the sand and not find a fundamental right to plural marriage.

Just imagine if plural marriage were practiced on a wide scale by a major religion in the US. I'm not really sure if the results would be that much different from what we've seen out of the Green clan and Colorado City. Women are turned into a commodity and isolated from outside influences in order to keep them with the clan. Because Brother Rulon wants to marry his 16 year-old niece, some 16-18 year-old boy needs to be weeded out of the clan to create the room. The practice really is barbaric and shouldn't have any place in any Western society.

Exhibit 17665532 of what I'm talking about when I gesture to repression and self-hate.

Many of the problems of contemporary polygamy surfaced because it was made illegal. Those who continued to practice it (and who had, in the beginning, a wink and a nod from Churck leadership to do it), turned to child brides within their own communities long after the manifesto.

Eliza R. Snow was not just some "commodity" and your elitist Victorian patronizing is unwarranted. Frankly, many women liked polygamy because they had independence and didn't have a husband trying to push sex on them all the time. The relief society was at its strongest during polygamy. When polygamous women in the territory of Utah were the first to vote they were gung ho on polygamy. Yes, there was a downside and there were some abuses (like Brigham Young giving one of his daughters to Wilford Woodruff as a wife), but those were the exceptions.

Legalizing polygamy could put an end to the FLDS and similar groups (that do harbor abuse, I believe) once and for all.

And never mind the fact that some of the growing number of singles in the Church would go for it.

In a word, you've gone uncle Tom to your Victorian masters, CMBF.

[SeattleUte]

i'd like to thank this thread for providing me with a new avatar.

Shoot. I will miss your old one. I had gotten used to conflating you with him, hearing his honeyed tones every time I read a post of yours.

[beefytee]

Let's see, in the West it was present among the tent dwelling ancient Hebrews who never experienced an iron age and gave us Adam and Eve, Jonah and Naoh, among the barbarian tribes of Europe who never had a written language until they developed one to translate the bible after conversion to Christianity. The Greeks and Romans didn't practice it and outlawed it. It has always been outside "civilization" in the West. Calling polygamy a relic of barbarism is one of most succinctly accurate things I've ever read.

So you really do consider African culture "savage", eh?

Nice that you could forget about Asia too.

[Indy Coug]

Believe me, I wouldn't personally have a problem if the SC overturned gay marriage bans. I would just love for the SC to then draw an arbitrary line in the sand and not find a fundamental right to plural marriage.

Just imagine if plural marriage were practiced on a wide scale by a major religion in the US. I'm not really sure if the results would be that much different from what we've seen out of the Green clan and Colorado City. Women are turned into a commodity and isolated from outside influences in order to keep them with the clan. Because Brother Rulon wants to marry his 16 year-old niece, some 16-18 year-old boy needs to be weeded out of the clan to create the room. The practice really is barbaric and shouldn't have any place in any Western society.

I hope you're enjoying your incestuous eternal marriage to your spiritual sister.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Is marrying plurally a fundamental right under the Constitution? Who could possibly argue that the framers had that in mind?

It would be interesting to sit at table with Madison, Hamilton, Jay, and let's throw in Adams and Jefferson, and ask them if plural marriage were a fundamental right. After they dismiss the question with the appropriate SU sneer of derision, one could follow it up with "How about two guys tying the knot, are you cool with that?" SU, are you saying they would endorse this notion?

I drew heat more than a decade ago when, in the early stages of Prop. 22 (a Prop. 8 precursor), I wondered if part of the Church's support for the proposition arose from a fear that gay marriage would open the door for plural marriage (CardiacCoug mentions this concern in this thread). I certainly see differences between gay marriage and plural marriage, but a key (and, I think, compelling) argument for gay marriage is that two consenting adults should be able to enter into a union. If that's a fundamental right for two, why wouldn't it be for three, or twelve? Or are you a numberophobe?

[SeattleUte]

SU, are you saying they would endorse this notion?

No. The Constitution isn't supposed to be all things legal. I would not support a Supreme Court decision concluding gay marriage is a fundamental right.

But it has already concluded heterosexual marriage is, so why not polygamy (per your reasoning)?

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Exhibit 17665532 of what I'm talking about when I gesture to repression and self-hate.

Many of the problems of contemporary polygamy surfaced because it was made illegal. Those who continued to practice it (and who had, in the beginning, a wink and a nod from Churck leadership to do it), turned to child brides within their own communities long after the manifesto.

Eliza R. Snow was not just some "commodity" and your elitist Victorian patronizing is unwarranted. Frankly, many women liked polygamy because they had independence and didn't have a husband trying to push sex on them all the time. The relief society was at its strongest during polygamy. When polygamous women in the territory of Utah were the first to vote they were gung ho on polygamy. Yes, there was a downside and there were some abuses (like Brigham Young giving one of his daughters to Wilford Woodruff as a wife), but those were the exceptions.

And never mind the fact that some of the growing number of singles in the Church would go for it.

In a word, you've gone uncle Tom to your Victorian masters, CMBF.

So SU, do you really think there wouldn't be any popular support for polygamy? According to SIEQ, the legalization of polygamy very well could result in the resumption of the practice within the church and women within the church would be at the forefront of the movement.

For some reason, I'm skeptical that women within the church today after experiencing about 100 years of a polygamy-free church would readily embrace the practice like their foremothers (is this a word?) did. Maybe I'm just speaking out of my ass, but I can honestly say that I can't think of a single woman I know that's a member of the church that would be cool with her husband taking on a second wife. Hell, most Mormon women have a cow upon finding out that there husbands are looking at porn. Just imagine if they found out that he wanted to marry another woman.

I don't doubt the Relief Socity during the polygamist period was really strong. The Saints lived out on the fringe of the western frontier in an exceedingly isolated community. The us against them ethic was probably quite powerful. I'm sure whatever kind of Relief Society that exists in Colorado City could kick the crap out whatever the main church can offer now. They're isolated (Colorado City is in Mohave County, AZ, any recognizable arm of the state/county government resides in Kingman, AZ- the only thing in between them is the Grand Canyon and a six hour drive, the location of Colorado City is no accident) and their us against them ethic is off the charts. They make Little House on the Prairie dresses that they sell online, our women just have relationships with their husbands and maintain their homes (some even have careers!) so they don't have as much dedication to the Relief Society.

[SeattleUte]

So SU, do you really think there wouldn't be any popular support for polygamy? According to SIEQ, the legalization of polygamy very well could result in the resumption of the practice within the church and women within the church would be at the forefront of the movement.

Are you suggesting that women inside and outside the LDS Church in general are of like mind on gender related issues?

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Are you suggesting that women inside and outside the LDS Church in general are of like mind on gender related issues?

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?

[Donuthole]

Shoot. I will miss your old one. I had gotten used to conflating you with him, hearing his honeyed tones every time I read a post of yours.

That's funny. It never occurred to me that those who know him might associate his voice with my posts (though it should have, as I still hear the voice of Montgomery Burns every time I read a PAC post). His voice is very memorable, in a soothing way. Even though I haven't heard him speak in over 3 years, I can still hear his voice as well as if I had spoken with him yesterday.