The Folk Prophet

Yeah, that's a perspective I hadn't thought of. Could be.

On a serious note: can you imagine this actually happening? Of course it wouldn't. A. If the state legislature were to make such a change it would probably largely go unnoticed by the federal powers that be. B. There's no way they'd ever try to undo statehood and all that. No way. C. The state legislature would have woke-ness on their side. Which, as we all know, is the true powers that be right now. I'm not suggesting I really think they should. I don't, actually, much care. If I were to be pressed I'd say polygamy between consenting adults should be between those consenting adults, of course. I don't think it should be a "legal" marriage, per se, as far as like....taxes or something go. But otherwise.... I also seem to recall reading something somewhere that someone in the Utah power scheme at the time explicitly said they weren't going to enforce even the misdemeanor law. I don't particularly really care...but...if asked (or, apparently if not asked, as proven by this very response), I'd say keeping it illegal in any regard was sheer nonsense and total cowardice.

Bring it on!

I'm not sure it's upsetting. Just not the core understanding most have. And...as much as it's a fine theory, that's all it really is in the end.

Which is such a weird thing. Essentially, you can live with and brown-chicken-brown-cow 30 women (or men) as much as you like and you're fine. But declare yourself committed by marital vows and...CRIME! Just weird. Sure...the "other" crimes should be crimes. As in applying for multiple benefits for multiple marriages or the like where the law doesn't allow. And the obvious underage or forced or other similar issues. But that declaring yourself married sans these other problematic issues should be criminal is just baffling to me. Get it on with whoever you like. But don't you dare call it a marriage!

I have often wondered if I hadn't been born into the Church if I would have struggled to accept it or if I'd even entertain considering it. It's a difficult premise because I know I'm quite pigheaded on my faith in the gospel. But........ that pigheaded faith is concretely based on spiritual experiences. So I don't explore Scientology or...the Jehovah Witnesses or what-have-you because I already know what I know and that knowledge precludes (or, perhaps excludes) the possibility that other churches could be the correct path back to God. But....I was taught to think that way! I was taught by my mother and primary teachers and in seminary, etc., etc. that we pray to know the truth directly from God via the Spirit and that it is from the Spirit and the Spirit alone we can know the truth of the gospel. But.... what if I hadn't been taught that? I don't know. Would I be as pigheaded in something that, having been taught what I was, doesn't make sense to me, but maybe would had I been taught differently? How much of my reasoning on the matter is a mere product of what I was taught? That being said...I fully outright reject a lot of what I was taught in, say...college, about, say....music theory... so that implies there might be some independent thinking there, right? But it's not exactly the same thing as core beliefs that were drilled into me from diaper day one. So I tend towards being forgiving....while also staying pigheaded? It's a real conundrum of an existence I guess.

There are no ordinances in the life hereafter. All ordinances must be done in this life. That's why we do work for the dead. Edit: I realized I might have misspoken. More accurately: The saving ordinances we do in this life must be done in this life...etc. We don't really know if there are other post mortal ordinances. But the ones we do here, baptism, endowment, sealing and so forth must be done in mortality.

I understand what you're saying. Perhaps we can acknowledge that we're talking past each other a bit on this specific point. You are saying that it's not an eternal principle, meaning that not everyone will be required to live it. I am saying it is an eternal principle in that those who entered into it enter into it eternally. I tend to stand by my view that we do not know for sure whether we will be "required"* or not. I do tend to agree with you that it won't be the standard...maybe.... Another side of me thinks maybe it will. ??? *the quotes are implying the following: Nothing is "required". We have agency. The question is simply this: does plural marriage equate to greater glory? If it does then those who do not participate will not have that glory. If it doesn't lead to greater glory then it doesn't.

I generally agree with this. But I also don't think it's particularly harmful (as suggested by @clbent04) to ponder and wonder and even discuss, though I do also see and relate to @Vort's sensitivity on that side of things. I guess the question isn't whether anyone would be required to live plural marriage (I think your statement on that is actually an unknown...), but whether or not anyone who wanted to would be allowed to. If anyone who wants to can then it does, indeed, apply to everyone, eternally speaking. Since we understand so little of what eternal relationships will be like I'm not so sure we can say with any certainty what will and won't be of value to us in that regard in the eternities. It's easy to apply our mortal insecurities and jealousies and perversions to the matter...but none of those will actually be of any note then. We really don't understand this principle at all. I think it's generally best to just leave it at that. We accept it as a true principle. We don't currently practice it. And that's about the end of our understanding.

This is all correct, I think, except the very first statement, which is that it is odd for someone to think that. It's a very common idea. I've heard it a lot. It was particularly, even more so, common in yesteryear. It's fallen out of fashion somewhat nowadays...but not so much that it could reasonably be considered "odd" for someone in the church to think it.

And...by the way, and for what it's worth: for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified. D&C 132:63

Putting aside the appeal to scripture as the arbiter of all eternal facts (an idea that falls apart pretty quickly), and putting aside the fact that reading D&C 132 a certain way does, indeed, call it an eternal principle (which, I know...can also be read as simply referring to the sealing power in marriage itself rather than plural marriage, or only specifically applied to Emma)... Does it not logically connect for you that plural marriage has to be an eternal principle unless there are exactly the same amount of men and women exalted?

See my previous reply to @Just_A_Guy. I'm not sure my thinking is even clear on it, but I've expanded on my thinking at least there.

This is a fair point, but I don't think it fully logically connects. If Hitler wins World War II it's bad. We defeat him. Period. Don't get me wrong though. I get your point. I just don't necessarily see the full connection. There are certain things that are our business even if they aren't our business. Most things aren't, and the principle of freedom means we should live and let live on most issues (though there's a broader disconnect, it seems, when you're comparing apples to...potato bugs or something...). But it seems to me like the murder of babies should be everyone's business and everyone should have the right to pursue the means to stop it whether it's your baby or not. To connect that, logically, to the fact that others will then say, "well anyone can interfere in anything that oughtn't be their business then", disregards the severity of what it actually means to murder babies, I think. It's like saying that seatbelt laws equate to the potential that the government might tell you what kind of music you can and cannot listen to on your drive to work. Some people think that way. And I suppose (as I said, I do get your point) that there is some level of legitimate slippery-slope concern in many matters. But even with the potential slipper-slopes, it strikes me that it really ought to be a one at a time battle. You think like the supreme court judges seem to on some of these matters. Which is to say, you think like a lawyer. And it's an interesting question I've struggled with. Upholding the law over morality. I struggle on that concept, but think I sort of understand the idea. Don't make me a supreme court justice along those lines. I'll immediately simply vote in favor of my moral code in every case! Sure...I get your point. But I cannot help but wonder if the approach could somehow be defined as an exception due to the nature of the severity of the crime. We shouldn't bomb Hitler's army because he may bomb ours in return seems like a guaranteed losing strategy. Maybe I'm missing some important nuance though. I don't think this is necessarily true. Saying you won't get automatically excommunicated for something is not the same as saying it's justified. I don't disagree, per se. I simply don't know what to think on the matter. I have a very hard time with the, "go ahead and kill the little innocent person then" thinking no matter what. But I acknowledge the complexities. Just so we're clear, this is the entire debate. Where people buy into the abortion debate is entirely based on when life begins. My response to you is based on an "if they're a baby then they're a baby" idea. I make no claim as to when the life begins other than the implication by church policy that all abortion (pending those two exceptions) is wrong. Obviously that may be a better safe than sorry and a sanctity-of-sex approach to the matter, policy-wise. But that's the best I can figure. Legally, I might be able to allow for compromise accordingly. Anyhow...I don't think I'm really even debating you on the matter. I'm just thinking as I type and.... I dunno.

The D was left unspoken because that's part of the mind-blowing implication thing I was referencing.

Once again....murder...... of babies....... millions of them. I expect you're not trying to say this, and I'll leave you to clarify, but... "don't use that method to stop them from murdering babies because then maybe it'll be used to take away our guns" doesn't quite work for me. On the rape and incest thing -- I'm just not sure how I feel or think about that. If they count as babies then they count as babies. Why should rape or incest justify the murder of an innocent little baby? You were raped? Oh...well...okay then. Go ahead and slit that baby's throat then and put it in that trash bin over there. On the other hand I am not, actually (despite how I may seem on many matters) unsympathetic to the idea that if I could carry a baby and was raped by some scumbag that then I'd have to go through carrying that baby...that would be exceedingly physiologically difficult. I understand that. Which is why I say I don't know how to feel. From a straight up logic only point of view...what does justify slitting that baby's throat and putting it in the trash bin? I'm not unsympathetic...but I'm also not unsympathetic to the baby getting its throat slit. So....

Is there such a thing as heavy-handed when it comes to the fight against the murder of millions of babies?

And, incidentally @clbent04, this question of women being more righteous than men IS the reason for polygamy. As @Just_A_Guy has pointed out before (among others) it actually doesn't make any more children than monogamy. But it does have the potential to raise more righteous children because of the reality that there are more righteous women. And...when push comes to shove, it is absolutely requisite to have some form of plural marriage if A. Sex is eternal and B. Marriage between a man and a woman is required for exaltation and C. There aren't the exact same amount of women and men that become exalted. I don't know about you, or anyone else, but pondering on the implications of these things is moderately mind blowing.

I think it stands to reason that there are more righteous women than men. I also think it stands to reason that there are more excellent black basketball players than white ones. But it does not stand to reason that therefore if a man is black he must be good at basketball. Which is, I believe, the point you're getting at. Women, overall, are more righteous than men is a very different statement than saying a woman, by nature of her being a woman, is automatically more righteous than a man. That's clearly false.

What we know: We have a Mother in Heaven. What we don't know: There are several Heavenly Mothers. And.... you know what they say about assuming...right?

And:

Semantically challenging. Do all things need to "be" restored, or to "have been" restored? I'm not sure there's a legitimate argument to be made that one idea is more correct than the other. That being said.... there's a broader point that you could have made instead of stopping. Polygamy IS restored. It's being practiced even as we speak. The principle of being sealed to more than one wife is still a true and practiced principle. It just only happens with one living wife at a time. That, in my book, counts as restored. That being said... I'm not sure the interpretation of the idea of the restoration of all things isn't pseudo doctrine at best. Not very useful to argue over.

Thoughts on one of Andrew Lloyd Webber's latest?

Has anyone seen the In The Heights movie? It showed up available on VUDU. Worth a rent? Purchase? None of the above?

I was just reading the plot summary on Wikipedia, and even with just the summary, apparently the book does (as suspected) address some of these issues much more convincingly. Who has time to read though? Maybe an audio version of the book.