Polygamy: Not just for Mormons anymore?


Just_A_Guy
 Share

Recommended Posts

The thing is that most of the sources with regards to this particular topic are dubious but for those interested they can search a bit about May Anderson and Louie B. Felt as an example (I can provide other names as well). But AGAIN, there is NO factual evidence but just pure speculation and personal interpretation of these relationships.

And composer Evan Stephens, primarily on the grounds that he never married, liked music, spent some time living in New York, wrote children's stories, and had a vast number of business associates--some of them, confirmed males. :rolleyes:;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I am still becoming familiar with lds.net, is it not at least a rule of thumb that one should stay on topic? This thread has taken a very strange turn from one concerning polygamy and polyamory to lesbianism. Just my opinion, but the entire conversation is based upon nothing more than complete and utter speculation and it is akin to gossiping on a personla level. To paint the wives who were engaged in polygamy as having sexual relations with each other, with not a shred of evidence, is to me, just bizarre. Why anyone's mind would go there in the first place is the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting. I was reading some articles on polygamy and the argument that gay-marriage will lead to polygamy. This idea was argued to be totally ridiculous, but then in the comments there were a billion "if people want to, what's wrong with it" posts concerning polygamy.

Point being, the argument might be easy to make look ridiculous on paper, but the reality I see is that the gay-marriage thing is, without question, a gateway argument for the legalization of polygamy (and any other crazy versions of marriage one could come up with).

As a Mormon who was raised on the idea of polygamy (and therefore, whereas it is foreign to my sensibilities, it is not objectionably theologically or in principle (being a guy may play into this a bit)), I'm not quite sure how to feel about this. Part of me reverts to the traditional post-manifesto Mormon ideology of "it will return someday because all things must be restored" and find the irony of it potentially returning through homosexual "rights" intriguing. Another side of me, as would be expected, finds the idea terrifying.

Edit: Here's the article I was looking at btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Mormon who was raised on the idea of polygamy (and therefore, whereas it is foreign to my sensibilities, it is not objectionably theologically or in principle (being a guy may play into this a bit)), I'm not quite sure how to feel about this.

Unauthorized polygamy is theologically objectionable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And composer Evan Stephens, primarily on the grounds that he never married, liked music, spent some time living in New York, wrote children's stories, and had a vast number of business associates--some of them, confirmed males. :rolleyes:;)

JAG, hence I said the claims are weak but I wanted to answer it rather than dismiss it with comments about boogers. Personally, I think addressing the issue, (even if we accept and agree the claim is wild and speculative) is important. I think is one of the tools we can use to defend our Faith or do a rebuttal on inaccurate information. I am not keen about brushing off things, because there may be someone reading who may be truly interested and dismissing it without at least addressing it partially doesn't help (just my opinion).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote an absurd statement about boogers, right? What did I base that on? My absurd statement based on nothing more than speculation about something that has no basis is comparable to the statement adoyle made.

If adoyle had asked, "I wonder if two wives ever had a relationship?" that would have been better than the purely speculative "One thing to consider is that it's possible that when polygamy was practiced, some of the wives might have had relationships with each other."

Considering that the church's stance has been that acting on homosexual feelings/urges is sinful, that is more than just an absurd statement--it is offensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote an absurd statement about boogers, right? What did I base that on? My absurd statement based on nothing more than speculation about something that has no basis is comparable to the statement adoyle made.

If adoyle had asked, "I wonder if two wives ever had a relationship?" that would have been better than the purely speculative "One thing to consider is that it's possible that when polygamy was practiced, some of the wives might have had relationships with each other."

Considering that the church's stance has been that acting on homosexual feelings/urges is sinful, that is more than just an absurd statement--it is offensive.

I actually read Adoyle's statement as your first interpretation. I didn't take offense but I understand now how you see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JAG, hence I said the claims are weak but I wanted to answer it rather than dismiss it with comments about boogers. Personally, I think addressing the issue, (even if we accept and agree the claim is wild and speculative) is important. I think is one of the tools we can use to defend our Faith or do a rebuttal on inaccurate information. I am not keen about brushing off things, because there may be someone reading who may be truly interested and dismissing it without at least addressing it partially doesn't help (just my opinion).

Perhaps the most effective way to respond to such wild and speculative claims is to call them out for the nonsense they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was the implication in my post otherwise? If so, it was not meant to be.

You talked about the idea of polygamy being made legal as a marriage option in the US, which wouldn't be under the Church's direction, and then made an unqualified statement that polygamy isn't objectionable theologically. I guess you didn't separate your thoughts so they got tied together via proximity. Good to know that's cleared up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You talked about the idea of polygamy being made legal as a marriage option in the US, which wouldn't be under the Church's direction, and then made an unqualified statement that polygamy isn't objectionable theologically. I guess you didn't separate your thoughts so they got tied together via proximity. Good to know that's cleared up.

Yeah...no. Only implying that the theological conflict of polygamy vs. obeying the law of the land gets removed from the mix. Not suggesting that this will mean anything. It's just interesting to think about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the most effective way to respond to such wild and speculative claims is to call them out for the nonsense they are.

Yeah; though its efficacy is dubious.

For example: After Harry Reid repeated the rumor that Mitt Romney was a tax cheat and a felon (giving himself plausible deniability by saying "hey, it's out there, and I'm just sayin' he needs to address it"), certain elements of the conservative movement replied "hey, it's out there that Harry Reid is a pedophile--not that we'd make such nasty accusations; but he does need to address it."

Lots of people continue to think Romney is a tax cheat. But not many people really think Reid is a pedophile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Yeah...no. Only implying that the theological conflict of polygamy vs. obeying the law of the land gets removed from the mix. Not suggesting that this will mean anything. It's just interesting to think about.

Seems to me that if we are obligated to follow the law of the land in contradiction to our faith then we should all think that abortion is just swell here in the good ole U.S.A. We are obligated to follow the doctrines of our respective faiths even at the risk of imprisonment, or worse, rather than disobey God's commands. That's what being persecuted for Jesus' sake is all about. In some cases, in some countries, its what martyrdom is all about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me that if we are obligated to follow the law of the land in contradiction to our faith then we should all think that abortion is just swell here in the good ole U.S.A. We are obligated to follow the doctrines of our respective faiths even at the risk of imprisonment, or worse, rather than disobey God's commands. That's what being persecuted for Jesus' sake is all about. In some cases, in some countries, its what martyrdom is all about.

I'm pretty sure we aren't being forced to participate in abortions. Your analogy would be akin to having Brigham Young force non-Mormons into polygamy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hidden

Polygamy was and always will be an abomination - no righteous man who holds the priesthood can look upon polygamy as a legitimate, divine or eternal practice as it makes property and second-class citizens out of women and objects of pleasure for men. The Lord delights in the chastity of women and there is nothing virtuous, chaste or lovely about polygamy... it is a disgusting, evil and abhorrent practice which, truth be known, wasn't even taught let alone revealed by the prophet Joseph. Here is how polygamy got started inside the church:

Jacob Cochran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And here's a summation of the actual and truthful events that took place in Nauvoo that ultimately led to Joseph's persecution, his martyrdom and eventual persecution of the Saints:

Pure Mormonism: Why I'm Abandoning Polygamy

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share