The potential legalization of polygamy in Canada

[rubondfan2]

I would bet the murder rate and general over all corruption along with the repression of women would go up.

Was this sarcasm or was this a serious posit on the debate at hand?

[Suzie]

And I don't care a whit whether or not they are happy.

I see. Well, we have a different opinion then. I want to believe we aren't modern day Pharisees, walking around with a stick, pointing out what religion groups follow God's commandments and who don't.

I think as members of the LDS Chuch we have enough in our plate to deal with our many weaknesses and shortcomings to be worried about another Church and their religion views and practices. One of our articles of Faith states:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

It's their religion and I respect that. Just like the LDS Church claim to follow modern revelations they (these groups) also claim the same and I don't believe it's my place to interfere with their religious convictions (again as long as there is no abuse or minors involved).

[TL10]

Well, you could say that we're polygamists because so many of us consider Hockey as our second spouse. Apart from that though, I for one, have not noticed such issues in the news myself.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

You'll find a number of Christians though want there to be a thin line between law and doctrine. If it's not in line with doctrine then it's against god and should pretty much be against the law then. A vast number seem to want the country to run by biblical law rather than laws that might include those who either have another faith or no faith with no other reasoning than " our faith is right, the rest either live by our rules or are damned" I hear all too often " this country was founded as a christian country and by God the only way to run it is the way of the Christians, all who oppose us should burn or leave" Not saying this is the view of majority, but also not sure it's the view of the minority.

And the Prohibition Era is a good example of religious law spilling into social policy. Nearly all of the American founders were men of faith, but they were careful to ensure that freedom on conscience, to believe in another god, or no god at all, and to live according to one's beliefs, was not overrun by religious law. The Christians who would like to see social policy subjegated to religious dictates imagine themselves to be of the same mind as our founders. But our founders would wholeheartedly disapprove.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

I see. Well, we have a different opinion then. I want to believe we aren't modern day Pharisees, walking around with a stick, pointing out what religion groups follow God's commandments and who don't.

The whole point of the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds was to set a standard by which genuine Christianity can be distinguished. We need to continue to uphold that standard. For instance, the Kansas church that has protested soldier's funerals and are now protesting at the funerals of the Tucson shooting victims; when a group like this calls themselves Christians, we need to aptly demonstrate why this claim is false and champion the virtues of true Christianity.

I think as members of the LDS Chuch we have enough in our plate to deal with our many weaknesses and shortcomings to be worried about another Church and their religion views and practices.

Polygamy, as practiced by these schismatic groups, creates many victims. They close themselves off to society, and within their cloister, they break laws by creating sexual unions between adult men and girls too young to consent. When I say that I care nothing about their happiness, I'm keeping these practices in mind. Though I'm not Mormon, I take great offense when religion is used to cause suffering. These men should be in prison.

Aside from the social responsibility to oppose these groups, a doctrinal argument must also be made because when these people claim to be followers of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, the world will look to the LDS Church to clear up the discrepency. While you're right that you don't need to hunt down and expose heretics, the time does come when it's necessary to defend the faith.

It's their religion and I respect that. Just like the LDS Church claim to follow modern revelations they (these groups) also claim the same and I don't believe it's my place to interfere with their religious convictions (again as long as there is no abuse or minors involved).

Well, why not? Lincoln once remarked that it's impossible for God to be both for and against something. Either polygamy was ended in the LDS Church by verifiable edict of the Holy Spirit, or it wasn't. God's wrath waxed hot against false prophets who prophesied those things which God did not say. If these people are claiming inspiration in their practice of polygamy, and in fact it wasn't inspiration, then a great offense has been committed against the heavens and a refutation of such a falsehood is in short order.

[Just_A_Guy]

And the Prohibition Era is a good example of religious law spilling into social policy. Nearly all of the American founders were men of faith, but they were careful to ensure that freedom on conscience, to believe in another god, or no god at all, and to live according to one's beliefs, was not overrun by religious law. The Christians who would like to see social policy subjegated to religious dictates imagine themselves to be of the same mind as our founders. But our founders would wholeheartedly disapprove.

I would respectfully disagree with the idea that the founders would have opposed prohibition on separation-of-church-and-state grounds. Most were fine with "blue laws" of various types, provided they were enacted on the state level.

I daresay most of them would have objected to Prohibition because it was coming from the federal government, not because it enforced semi-religious norms.

[Suzie]

For instance, the Kansas church that has protested soldier's funerals and are now protesting at the funerals of the Tucson shooting victims; when a group like this calls themselves Christians, we need to aptly demonstrate why this claim is false and champion the virtues of true Christianity.

Oh, so you want to become the Christian Police? Not me (no matter how much I disagree with this group or any other for that matter).

Polygamy, as practiced by these schismatic groups, creates many victims. They close themselves off to society, and within their cloister, they break laws by creating sexual unions between adult men and girls too young to consent. When I say that I care nothing about their happiness, I'm keeping these practices in mind. Though I'm not Mormon, I take great offense when religion is used to cause suffering. These men should be in prison.

It's ironic that you stated this because you are describing the early LDS Saints at the time of Joseph Smith. He taught polygamy in secrecy at first, members had to close themselves off to society (in a way), several of them (including leaders) went to jail for practicing polygamy (unlawful cohabitation) and Joseph Smith (among others) married girls who probably you would consider too young to consent. So keeping this in mind (and we are not talking about whether or not God gave a revelation) but just mere historical facts.... What's the difference do you see between THEN and NOW? If you want to put them in jail, then you agree that Joseph and others should have been jailed as well.

Aside from the social responsibility to oppose these groups, a doctrinal argument must also be made because when these people claim to be followers of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, the world will look to the LDS Church to clear up the discrepency. While you're right that you don't need to hunt down and expose heretics, the time does come when it's necessary to defend the faith.

What's the problem with them claiming they follow the teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young? Have you ever read what these two leaders taught about polygamy?

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

I would respectfully disagree with the idea that the founders would have opposed prohibition on separation-of-church-and-state grounds. Most were fine with "blue laws" of various types, provided they were enacted on the state level.

I daresay most of them would have objected to Prohibition because it was coming from the federal government, not because it enforced semi-religious norms.

I'm in perfect agreement with this. Thank you for clarifying.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

Oh, so you want to become the Christian Police? Not me (no matter how much I disagree with this group or any other for that matter).

I want to stand up for what is right and true, regardless of what light you want to put that in. Whistleblower would be a more accurate description.

It's ironic that you stated this because you are describing the early LDS Saints at the time of Joseph Smith. He taught polygamy in secrecy at first, members had to close themselves off to society (in a way), several of them (including leaders) went to jail for practicing polygamy (unlawful cohabitation) and Joseph Smith (among others) married girls who probably you would consider too young to consent. So keeping this in mind (and we are not talking about whether or not God gave a revelation) but just mere historical facts.... What's the difference do you see between THEN and NOW? If you want to put them in jail, then you agree that Joseph and others should have been jailed as well.

I would make my true feelings for Smith and Young better known, but I will refrain out of respect for this site. Let's please drop that avenue of discussion.

What's the problem with them claiming they follow the teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young? Have you ever read what these two leaders taught about polygamy?

In all honesty, much of what I know about that time and what was taught I gleaned from a book called Saints by my favorite author Orson Scott Card who also is a stout Mormon. I would doubt that Card would attack his own faith and the books seemed to be written in a reconciliatory manner, framing the practice in a very positive light while also not concealing the pain that it caused to some, including Smith's wife. If you'd like to educate me further, I'm certainly open to it. But to re-emphasize my earlier point, I would prefer that any further discussion on this not be designed to extrapolate my true feelings for Joseph Smith. Thank you.

[Suzie]

I would make my true feelings for Smith and Young better known, but I will refrain out of respect for this site. Let's please drop that avenue of discussion.

It makes no sense to drop it really since you are the one that brought the LDS position on this topic and both of them talked extensively about it. I just tried to illustrate the fact that the things you find so wrong such as marrying young girls, they should be in jail, etc are the things early Saints went through.

In all honesty, much of what I know about that time and what was taught I gleaned from a book called Saints by my favorite author Orson Scott Card who also is a stout Mormon. I would doubt that Card would attack his own faith and the books seemed to be written in a reconciliatory manner, framing the practice in a very positive light while also not concealing the pain that it caused to some, including Smith's wife. If you'd like to educate me further, I'm certainly open to it. But to re-emphasize my earlier point, I would prefer that any further discussion on this not be designed to extrapolate my true feelings for Joseph Smith. Thank you.

Well, don't take it wrong but the information you may seek is what it took me years of study, it's not something that can be passed. However, you may search google for good web sites that may talk about it (non-anti sites).

Let me clarify that I do not condone polygamy, however I don't see anything wrong with the practice.

[Backroads]

Polygamy, as practiced by these schismatic groups, creates many victims. They close themselves off to society, and within their cloister, they break laws by creating sexual unions between adult men and girls too young to consent. When I say that I care nothing about their happiness, I'm keeping these practices in mind. Though I'm not Mormon, I take great offense when religion is used to cause suffering. These men should be in prison.

Well, then, can't the law for polygamy make illegal such practices? To suggest that all polygamous situations are bad is grossly unfair. These groups may certainly be going against all ethics and morals, but can't the law deal with those rarer situations as they occur?

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

Well, then, can't the law for polygamy make illegal such practices? To suggest that all polygamous situations are bad is grossly unfair. These groups may certainly be going against all ethics and morals, but can't the law deal with those rarer situations as they occur?

The problem is enforcement. When you're dealing with a cloistered community where cooperation with law enforcement is highly discouraged, it's difficult to even know the abuse is happening and it can remain hidden for years and even generations. The recent federal raid on the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints in Texas highlights the difficulty of locating victims in this tight lipped community. What prompted the raid was a 16 year old girl who reported being physically and sexually abused.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

It makes no sense to drop it really since you are the one that brought the LDS position on this topic and both of them talked extensively about it. I just tried to illustrate the fact that the things you find so wrong such as marrying young girls, they should be in jail, etc are the things early Saints went through.

I guess I'm not saying to drop it altogether since I am kind of curious. I just don't want the conversation to get me in trouble with the gingerbread cookie.

Well, don't take it wrong but the information you may seek is what it took me years of study, it's not something that can be passed. However, you may search google for good web sites that may talk about it (non-anti sites).

I understand you took great pains to come to a full understanding of the history behind this practice and here I come along and flippantly request a full exposition. What I'm after is nothing exhaustive, but rather a cursory explanation of the practice as understood by an average Mormon. When people ask me to explain a Catholic belief, I never refer them to the Catechism, but instead I explain Church teaching as I understand it. That's all I'm asking.

Let me clarify that I do not condone polygamy, however I don't see anything wrong with the practice.

This seems like a contradictory statement. What do you mean by this?

[Soulsearcher]

The problem is enforcement. When you're dealing with a cloistered community where cooperation with law enforcement is highly discouraged, it's difficult to even know the abuse is happening and it can remain hidden for years and even generations. The recent federal raid on the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints in Texas highlights the difficulty of locating victims in this tight lipped community. What prompted the raid was a 16 year old girl who reported being physically and sexually abused.

One thing to remember with the scenario you are talking about. The reason in these places for being tight lipped it loyalty to Faith and their religious leaders. With the FLDS, they put their faith in their Prophet and will not act against him as they believe he's guided by god. One has to be very careful to dismiss this while preaching a very similar standpoint themselves. I've heard a lot about "well the prophet/pope/ect said so i did" and while it makes sense to you others just kinda shake their heads and wonder exactly why you don't see what's really going on. I'm not agreeing with what's going on in these compounds but to dismiss the fact it's done because of unconditional faith , misplaced or not, belittles all faiths that use the same logic. "well I'm allowed to do it but those lost souls are just crazy" is very easy to turn around.

[Suzie]

I understand you took great pains to come to a full understanding of the history behind this practice and here I come along and flippantly request a full exposition. What I'm after is nothing exhaustive, but rather a cursory explanation of the practice as understood by an average Mormon. When people ask me to explain a Catholic belief, I never refer them to the Catechism, but instead I explain Church teaching as I understand it. That's all I'm asking.

Just like the topic of Blacks and the Priesthood:

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/36633-issues-brigham-young.html

I studied and continue studying the topic, I don't have a full understanding of these issues and I don't think I will ever have it (can anyone?)However, since I'm a Church history researcher my position may not be the typical one you are seeking.

Most members still think the reason for polygamy was a way to deal with the numerous single mothers or women in the Church who needed a husband. Entirely a myth. The commandment to practice polygamy, it's recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 132 (one of our books of scripture). However, there is so much into the mix from whether these marriages involved intimacy or not, from post-manifesto plural marriages (including an Apostle and Prophet) to John Taylor allegedly receiving a vision from Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith who asked him to continue the practice and much, much, much more. It's endless to be honest!

Maybe you would like to address specific issues within this topic?

This seems like a contradictory statement. What do you mean by this?

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I meant that I don't support Polygamy (just as I don't support Gay Marriage) HOWEVER, I don't see an issue with these practices for those who don't think like me (legally speaking).

[Guest mormonmusic]

Actually, during my recent excursion into Canada, some of the locals were talking about this possiblity. I believe it is mostly Muslim immigration that is driving this. Frankly, I think it has more legitimacy than same sex marriage does, and I am not sure why the latter is getting more attention in the U.S. section of the continent.

There was a case before the Supreme Court at one time to redefine the family as two-same sex people and a biological father and mother to assist with the distribution of health benefits.

Also, apparently polyandry is legal in parts of Canada:

Check out the section on human polyandry at the link below:

Polyandry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[TL10]

Guys, I doubt the relevance of this topic today here in Canada. It may or may not have been a major issue back in 2007, but from what I've seen in the news in the past few months, this issue is completely unheard of.

And even if there was such an issue, it would have a tough time against Conservative/tradationalist reigions such as Quebec and Alberta, it's just not going to happen.

[Soulsearcher]

Guys, I doubt the relevance of this topic today here in Canada. It may or may not have been a major issue back in 2007, but from what I've seen in the news in the past few months, this issue is completely unheard of.

And even if there was such an issue, it would have a tough time against Conservative/tradationalist reigions such as Quebec and Alberta, it's just not going to happen.

You are aware that the case is currently going through court in BC right? started just before the end of 2010?

[Backroads]

The problem is enforcement. When you're dealing with a cloistered community where cooperation with law enforcement is highly discouraged, it's difficult to even know the abuse is happening and it can remain hidden for years and even generations. The recent federal raid on the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints in Texas highlights the difficulty of locating victims in this tight lipped community. What prompted the raid was a 16 year old girl who reported being physically and sexually abused.

In this kind of community, you're always going to have problems. This type of community cares little for the laws.

I guess I don't agree that polygamy should be banned just because of such situations as this.

Why ruin it for everyone?

[Cosmicore]

Canada keeps going down a slippery slope. I believe it's just readying for the NWO (I'm a conspiracy theorist.) We've already legalized gay marriage. What's next? Weed? (marijuana) I love my country to death but I sure as hell don't like it's choices!

[TL10]

Canada keeps going down a slippery slope. I believe it's just readying for the NWO (I'm a conspiracy theorist.) We've already legalized gay marriage. What's next? Weed? (marijuana) I love my country to death but I sure as hell don't like it's choices!

Honestly, I think we could be worse off. Look at Somalia, not really the happiest place on earth. Sure, I'm not to thrilled about same sex marriage and all that, but we should be happy with what we've got. We're pretty darn lucky to be living in a free country where there's a democracy, whereas many are not.

Edited January 19, 2011 by TL10

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

In this kind of community, you're always going to have problems. This type of community cares little for the laws.

I guess I don't agree that polygamy should be banned just because of such situations as this.

Why ruin it for everyone?

The libertarian in me thinks that people who want to practice this should be left alone. But as think about it, society has an interest in protecting the institution of marriage and maintaining an intransigent definition of it. I could pretend that if people redefine marriages, such as in gay marriage, polygamy, etc, it doesn't have an effect on the rest of society, but I know better.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

Most members still think the reason for polygamy was a way to deal with the numerous single mothers or women in the Church who needed a husband. Entirely a myth. The commandment to practice polygamy, it's recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 132 (one of our books of scripture). However, there is so much into the mix from whether these marriages involved intimacy or not, from post-manifesto plural marriages (including an Apostle and Prophet) to John Taylor allegedly receiving a vision from Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith who asked him to continue the practice and much, much, much more. It's endless to be honest!

Maybe you would like to address specific issues within this topic?

Certainly. How can polygamy be viewed as moral or divinely warranted when our gender ration is nearly 50/50? It seems to me that a lot of men get left out in the cold and two classes of men are created; the alphas who marry several women, and the plebians who must sacrifice marriage, family, and intimacy to make this happen. It seems that in this zero sum game, there are a lot of losers.

That would be my first question.

[Backroads]

The libertarian in me thinks that people who want to practice this should be left alone. But as think about it, society has an interest in protecting the institution of marriage and maintaining an intransigent definition of it. I could pretend that if people redefine marriages, such as in gay marriage, polygamy, etc, it doesn't have an effect on the rest of society, but I know better.

I see.

But should people who practice polygamy without abuse (even against the law) be punished exactly the same as those who do have the abusive conditions?

[FunkyTown]

Canada keeps going down a slippery slope. I believe it's just readying for the NWO (I'm a conspiracy theorist.) We've already legalized gay marriage. What's next? Weed? (marijuana) I love my country to death but I sure as hell don't like it's choices!

Err... Weed has been decriminalized for several years in Canada, Cosmicore. It hasn't caused the end of civilization.

It only resulted in fewer legal battles to arrest and imprison someone with the stuff. Frankly, if they criminalize marijuana again, they should criminalize alcohol as well. The number of times I've seen drunken hooligans out causing fights has been a whole lot more than the number of times I've seen stoned hooligans out causing fights.

I won't smoke marijuana or drink alcohol. I'm just as anti-alcohol as I am anti-marijuana, but marijuana affects me a whole lot less than alcohol.