Interesting Gordon B. Hinckley Quote

[VisionOfLehi]

They refrain from it, but I also think a lot of talking about it would get people up in arms, too.

IMO

[Elphaba]

Was it unconstitutional to disallow it?

Absolutely it was unconstitutional. It was clearly a violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of religion.

The LDS pioneers firmly believed polygamy was commanded by God, and therefore, it was a religious practice.

While I am sure there were individual cases that were sexually motivated, the "practice" of polygamy was not, nor did the vast numbers of people who practiced "the principle" think it was.

I have often wondered what the relationship with the fundamentalist polygamists and the Church would be today if its right to practice polygamy had been granted. Perhaps the serious schism would not have occurred, keeping the resulting corruption at bay.

These are the musings of a woman who stands in awe of the difficulties these members faced under the circumstances, whose First Amendment rights were definitely violated.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Do you mean the church isn't allowed to or the church simply refrains from it?

I think it refrains from it, especially with the young men and women, for whom I think it would be especially inspiring.

There is no mandate, however, that I know of not to talk about it. In fact, a few years ago I did a completely anecdotal survey of how Institute teachers responded to questions about polygamy. To a one they said no one had specifically prohibited them from discussing polygamy; however, there was no set lesson plan about it either.

I asked about this because a few young teens in my family knew virtually nothing about polygamy, including the fact that it is still practiced as defined by the doctrine, i.e., marriages/sealings of one man to his second, third, or ____ wife. They had never heard of that.

So, I don't really have an answer for you. All I can offer is my speculation, which is that the teachers are not discouraged from discussing it; however, the real-life experiences of the pioneers are not included in the lesson plans either.

Now, how rambling was that?

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

As far as we can tell in Biblical history, plural marriage has only been authorized at periods when the Lord needed to raise up a large number of the faithful in a short time. When it has not been necessary, it has not been authorized.

I can't speak for the Biblical history of polygamy.

However, I can speak to the Utah pioneers' history of polygamy regarding raising up a large number of faithful in a short time, and that is, it didn't happen.

Women can only become pregnant one child at a time. Her chances of getting pregnant are higher if she were the only wife of one husband, than if she were one of many wives to one husband.

In fact, historians conjecture a number of polygamists' wives had fewer children then they would have had in monogamous marriages.

Elphaba

[lilered]

The reason God recinded Polygamy in the church, could have been because this practice was against the law of the land and therefore a conflict existed.

From Marion G. Romney - Latter-day Saints should strictly obey the laws of the government in which they live. By our own declaration of faith we are committed to do so, for we declare to the world that “we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” (A of F 1:12.)

This we do in harmony with the Lord’s command:

“Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

“Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet.” (D&C 58:21–22.)

“Civil authority is of divine origin. It may be more or less adapted to the needs of man; more or less just and benevolent, but, even at its worst, it is better than anarchy. Revolutionary movements that aim at the abolition of government itself are contrary to the law of God. …” (Doctrine and Covenants Commentary [Deseret Book Co., 1954], p. 339.)

When the “rule of law” breaks down in a family, a community, a state, or a nation, chaos reigns.

The kingdoms of heaven are to be free from chaos, because no one will be in any one of them who does not by his own free will obey the laws thereof.

A Latter-day Saint should strictly obey every law of God, including the constitutional laws of the land in which he lives, and do it with a good and honest heart.

In this day of declining morals and increasing disrespect for law, we can all profitably review and check our own performance against the Ten Commandments, which are basic laws of God not only, but also constitute the foundations of Judeo-Christian secular law. (end of quote)

[VisionOfLehi]

Absolutely it was unconstitutional. It was clearly a violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of religion.

The LDS pioneers firmly believed polygamy was commanded by God, and therefore, it was a religious practice.

While I am sure there were individual cases that were sexually motivated, the "practice" of polygamy was not, nor did the vast numbers of people who practiced "the principle" think it was.

I have often wondered what the relationship with the fundamentalist polygamists and the Church would be today if its right to practice polygamy had been granted. Perhaps the serious schism would not have occurred, keeping the resulting corruption at bay.

These are the musings of a woman who stands in awe of the difficulties these members faced under the circumstances, whose First Amendment rights were definitely violated.

Elphaba

Actually, I agree, and I still think it's unconstitutional. The same with same-sex unions (I don't use the word "marriage" there, as it's been used as a word to denote a sacred union between man and woman for thousands of years across many cultures and religions.)

I think it's more than just freedom of religion that it violates. I steps over the bounds of the 3 branches of governments and takes power of choice away from the people.

[Elphaba]

The thing is, our Constitution was framed by Christian men for a moral and God-fearing society.>snip<And they aren't just our values, they were the values of the founding fathers and the citizens of our fledgling country.

Actually, the founding fathers were not Christian men, for the most part. They were men of the enilightenment, who ranged from atheist, to strong deists, to no belief about God one way or the other.

What the founding fathers did do is encourage their constituencies to attend one or more of the various Christian churches available at the time. They did this because they believed it would benefit the fledling colonies.

But for the most part, none of our founding fathers actually "feared" the Christian God.

Obviously it's more complicated than this; nevertheless, they did believe in a God who was a Creator, as Jeffersen referred to in the Declaration of Independendence. This Creator was only that--an entity that created the universe, including mankind. It then removed itself and let mankind make its own destiny, without interference from a deity of any kind.

Thus, there is no mention of a god in the Constitution, and those mentioned in the Declaration are more deist in nature than Christian.

I like to explain it like this: if the FF were such God-fearing men, they probably would have institutionalized a Christian state religion.There were a few to choose from at the time, including that of Martha Washington.

(In fact, Washington walked with his wife to church every Sunday, but removed himself from the room when it came time to take the LDS equivalent of the sacrament. As such he was called a "non-communicant.")

Anyway, if a federal religion had been legislated by God-fearing men, which would have obviously been a Christian one, Joseph would never have been allowed to form the Church.

Food for thought.

Elphaba

[MrNirom]

I asked about this because a few young teens in my family knew virtually nothing about polygamy, including the fact that it is still practiced as defined by the doctrine, i.e., marriages/sealings of one man to his second, third, or ____ wife. They had never heard of that.

This is probably why sometimes the church doesn't encourage us to talk about it. We sometimes leave some very important things out.. and people get the wrong idea.

Reading this quote I would have just learned that Mormons still practice polygamy.

When talking about it.. if we don't take the time to mention... if he has a 2nd wife and is sealed to her.. the first must be dead.. or if he has a 3rd he is sealed to.. that the 1st and 2nd are required to be dead.

It is important to note that marriage to more than one; breathing, living, scratch your eyes out.. wife at a time is not tolerated, it is not practiced in the LDS Church and will result in the individuals engaged in such activity to be ex-communicated.

[Elphaba]

I think it's more than just freedom of religion that it violates. I steps over the bounds of the 3 branches of governments and takes power of choice away from the people.

Which is why we have the constitution, including the Bill of Rights. It is to protect the few from the tyranny of the many.

In this case, the "few" is the LDS Church. I completely agree with you that the practice of "Celestial Marriage," commonly known as polygamny, should have been, and still should be, a constitutional right.

I suspect the fundamentalists will soon take this to a higher court, perhaps even the SCOTUS. And because of the precedent set by Lawrence v. Texas, I don't see how the polygamists will lose.

Elphaba

[VisionOfLehi]

Honestly, I hope they do. Challenge it and win, that is.

Even legalized, doesn't mean people will jump and do it. And in the Church it'd still be disallowed unless the Prophets declare it's once again reinstated.

[Fiannan]

Do you mean the church isn't allowed to or the church simply refrains from it?

Nah, it's bad PR and so books and manuels are written AS IF polygamy never existed. Problem is, all this does is work in favor of the anti-Mormons.

I remember reading about a famous atheist (don't remember his name) who started out as a devout Christian who I assume was raised in one of those "God is like a teddy bear" style churches. He had read the New Testament but not the Old. He went on to divinity school and there he was exposed to the parts where the Hebrews were commanded to ethnically cleanse non-Hebrew races (except for the young female virgins) from off the map. He then rejected God and gravitated to atheism.

Now if you expose people to WHY the Hebrews were to do the things they did, or even the examples of Nephi doing a jihad on cousin Laban, then people will have a comprehensive view of the scriptures and be less likely to freak out when an anti of any type hits them with slanted propaganda. Hide polygamy like a Klan man would hide his family tree if he found out his great grandmother was black and you risk providing the anti people a psychological right hook against an uninformed LDS person growing up in a culture of intentional denial.

[Fiannan]

The reason God recinded Polygamy in the church, could have been because this practice was against the law of the land and therefore a conflict existed.

From Marion G. Romney - Latter-day Saints should strictly obey the laws of the government in which they live. By our own declaration of faith we are committed to do so, for we declare to the world that “we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” (A of F 1:12.)

This we do in harmony with the Lord’s command:

“Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

“Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet.” (D&C 58:21–22.)

“Civil authority is of divine origin. It may be more or less adapted to the needs of man; more or less just and benevolent, but, even at its worst, it is better than anarchy. Revolutionary movements that aim at the abolition of government itself are contrary to the law of God. …” (Doctrine and Covenants Commentary [Deseret Book Co., 1954], p. 339.)

When the “rule of law” breaks down in a family, a community, a state, or a nation, chaos reigns.

The kingdoms of heaven are to be free from chaos, because no one will be in any one of them who does not by his own free will obey the laws thereof.

A Latter-day Saint should strictly obey every law of God, including the constitutional laws of the land in which he lives, and do it with a good and honest heart.

In this day of declining morals and increasing disrespect for law, we can all profitably review and check our own performance against the Ten Commandments, which are basic laws of God not only, but also constitute the foundations of Judeo-Christian secular law. (end of quote)

Yep, if people become lawbreakers they might dress up like Indians and throw tea off boats, harass tax collectors, and start smuggling goods from countries that the government has forbidden them to trade with. The horrors of it all. And if things get really, really bad then those filthy lawbreakers might get celebrated one day with a day where people go water skying, eat lots of hamburgers and hot dogs and watch fireworks displays at the local stadium.

[MrNirom]

Nah, it's bad PR and so books and manuels are written AS IF polygamy never existed. Problem is, all this does is work in favor of the anti-Mormons.

Hide polygamy like a Klan man would hide his family tree if he found out his great grandmother was black and you risk providing the anti people a psychological right hook against an uninformed LDS person growing up in a culture of intentional denial.

I agree with you! The problem I see here is Mormons are criticized because they do or did practice polygamy.. and criticized because we don't want to bring it up or discuss it.

They love it when we say.. We don't practice polygamy anymore. Because that... is a lie.. and now they have you for lying. Like I stated in an earlier post.. it is important to note that we do not practice polygamy in the physical form.. but the spiritual form only.

We lose many members to the information provided on the internet. So many half truths, and twisted stories. I understand that they don't want to bring up all these thing and address it but rather tuck it away and hope that by not talking about it... it goes away. Problem is.. this internet will not let that happen. The Church needs to be the one who talks about the issues of the past.. so that the anti people have no hold on us.

I was watching a movie the last night. This sheriff accidentally shot this innocent man in a cross fire with outlaws. The man died and so he took the body to his family and told them that he was the one who killed him, it was an accident.

Later in the movie.. one of the hired hands had found out from the outlaws that their former employer had been killed by the sheriff. They were angry and thought badly of the sheriff and began questioning his loyalty to them.. so they went and informed the family of what the sheriff had done.. only to find out that he had been honest and upfront.

Sometimes.. I think it is hard for many to admit to the things of the Church that weren't perfect. We want it to be.. because it is the Lord's Church. Everything should go just perfectly! But it can't.. and it won't. There is always some human being that messes it up.. gives us a bad name.. does something or says something they aren't suppose to. And then there is me who writes these things being somewhat critical of what the leaders are doing. Maybe they know something I don't... and I should trust a bit more. If we did everything to please the Anti people.. just where would we be then?

[lilered]

Yep, if people become lawbreakers they might dress up like Indians and throw tea off boats, harass tax collectors, and start smuggling goods from countries that the government has forbidden them to trade with. The horrors of it all. And if things get really, really bad then those filthy lawbreakers might get celebrated one day with a day where people go water skying, eat lots of hamburgers and hot dogs and watch fireworks displays at the local stadium.

Hum! Let me see if I can visualize this. God desires that the colonists rebel againt Mother England for higher taxes, so he sends a heavenly messenger down with a plan for the Boston Tea Party and other associated devilish excercises.

Sorry, can't quite get my mind wrapped around it.