Polygamy Predictions.

[Fiannan]

You know, in 1970 most states had laws against homosexuality and the majority of the US population supported these laws. Since then things have certainly changed -- you can see homosexual characters in movies and on TV, many cities have domestic partnership laws, the topic of gay marriage is widely discussed, and bi-sexuality is the newest popular trend for young women.

That's quite a change in less than 4 decades.

Now consider that the Reynold's case that stated that polygamy was not something that could be protected under the 1st. Amendment since America was founded as a Christian nation (ignoring the Bible's not ever condemning polygamy). If that Christian nation thing is no longer considered politically correct (and polygamy is starting to become a subject of debate) and people don't seem to be so prudish about these kinds of issues then when (if ever) do you believe polygamy might be at least recognized as a legitimate form of arrangement?

1) Never.

2) Oh, I think we'll have to wait until the Mellenium.

3) In about 50 years, 40, 30, 20, 10. Which?

My personal view is that people will be safely be able to live in polygamist arrangments (without coersive government attacks on personal liberty) in about 20 years.

[CrimsonKairos]

If a constitutional amendment recognizing gay marriages was adopted (heaven forbid), there'd be no real case to forbid polygamy.

I wonder what the term would be for three or more gays who want to share one civil union? Polyunity?

[sixpacktr]

I think we have 10 years. I think that we will quickly go downhill and have gay marriage become accepted and lawful.

The real question after that: will the Church reintroduce Polygamy as a practice then? We no longer will be outside the law, as in 1890.

Remember, polygamy wasn't widespread in the church even when it was practiced. If I remember right, only about 2-3% of the men were polygamists. It was almost like a calling...

[JcDean78]

No way. My wife is the ONLY one, there will be no others.

[Gwen]

The real question after that: will the Church reintroduce Polygamy as a practice then? We no longer will be outside the law, as in 1890.

Remember, polygamy wasn't widespread in the church even when it was practiced. If I remember right, only about 2-3% of the men were polygamists. It was almost like a calling...

i don't think the church would reintroduce polygamy. not while common man is running the govenment anyway. although i could be wrong. lol the reason i'd say no is that the ones who would push to have it legal are already giving the church a negative conotation. they are the ones that will be seen, will be involved in the passing of the laws, the ones that will be thought of if it happens. the church is already having a difficult time seperating itself from these ppl. to "join in" because it's legal would only make matters worse. i can't see how there would be any spiritual gain by doing such. if i'm wrong and they did, though i'd have a hard time with it, i would definatly take it up in prayer and trust my heavenly father, doesn't change my testamony.

[Guest Username-Removed]

Everything I have read on the subject seems to me that it worked pretty well for the early mormons. I know most woman think that its bad, because simply they would have someone else to compete with. But I think it actually evens things out in the marriage, in many ways. There was a lot of problems it solved, but there was also some problems it created. Im pretty nuetral on the subject - my worst fear would be havng someone tell me who to marry. I cant imagine poligamy without the law of consecration. One wife enough proved incredibly expensive for me, I cant imagine the possibility of two or more divorces at the same time! Im sure that would delete all the tithing funds of the church in a few seconds!!!!

[sixpacktr]

I guess that is why I asked. As the documentary last night pointed out: we have become mainstream. We are no longer looked at with fear or suspicion as we once were (although, having spent the last 10 years in the South, there still is a lot of prejudice and outright lies that go on in some of the churches there).

Pres Packer once stated that he worried that we had become too accepted by the rest of the world, and in actuality that should not be the case. I tend to believe him. The First Vision put us immediately at odds with the rest of the religious world. Polygamy set the civil authorities against us, as well as others.

I don't know, but I think that something HUGE is going to happen sometime in the future that will once again set us apart from the world in a way that will shake the faith of many, that will act as a great winnowing out of those with an insufficient testimony. We currently kind of cling to the WofW as setting us apart, but with the studies in on smoking, drinking, etc., now the world, while still regarding us as kind of weird, can see the benefits of this lifestyle. We are seen as nice (if deluded) people, with strong families and work ethic, and as people that don't want to offend anyone.

If, however, polygamy were once again embraced, I see the world immediately shunning us again. I can't see any other issue (except for animal sacrifice??) that would push the world's buttons so badly. Something has to drive them to want to drive us away from them and kill us if possible.

[Blessed]

Polygamy is still practiced in other countries. I, personally, never see it coming back for the LDS, however, since it is practiced in other countries... one could have a case. Maybe.

[JcDean78]

Everyone here who wants or thinks multiple wives are ok, should read this.

http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,105-1-11-1,00.html

There is no pulral. It is 'man' and 'wife'. That is it, thats all we are supposed to be, and I will NEVER take on a second wife. I am sealed to mine for all of time and eternity.

[Nate]

Everyone here who wants or thinks multiple wives are ok, should read this.

http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,105-1-11-1,00.html

There is no pulral. It is 'man' and 'wife'. That is it, thats all we are supposed to be, and I will NEVER take on a second wife. I am sealed to mine for all of time and eternity.

And if your wife were to die at a young age and you were to remarry and reseal to another?

Should the question be more for polygamy for THIS life or eternities? What I mean is if you have someone in your ward who has a sealing to more than one spouse living or dead is that not polygamy in a sense?

[a-train]

I think the change in public opinion regarding the legalization of gay marriage is only a glimmer in our media's eye. The legal oposition to gay marriage has NOT decreased whatsoever, but has been emboldended over the last few years in the form of state constitutional ammendments defining marriage between only a man and a woman.

Since the Massachusettes Supreme Judicial Court's rulings in November of 2003 and February of 2004 brought a new awareness to the nation that the definition of marriage in constitutional law was not already exclusive to heterosexual couples, almost half the states in the union have passed amendments to insure the definition of marriage be between a man and a woman.

Today, about 41 states have laws that prevent gay marriage, but since the constituionality of these laws could be feasably challenged, amendments have been brought forth in half of them.

In many states, voters flocked to the polls to support these ammendments, an example being South Carolina where 78% of the vote supported Amendment 1 which defined marriage as only legal in heterosexual couples.

Furthermore, efforts to create unions of similar status have failed miserably in many states as well. In 2006, Colorado introduced Amendment initiative 43 which defined marriage heterosexually and Referendum I which would create domestic partnerships applicable to homosexual couples. Amendment 43 passed, but Referendum I failed.

Here, in the Show-Me-State, some 70% of voters approved a gay marriage banning amendment in 2004 in a sharp voter turn out increase.

Currently, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, and New Jersey offer civil unions to homosexual couples, New Mexico and New York have no laws either way, and Massachusettes stands alone allowing homosexual marriage. The remaining 41 continental states maintain laws or even amendments banning homosexual marriage.

Some point to Arizona where a 2006 Proposition to ban gay marriage failed with 51.4% saying no and 48.6% saying yes (hardly a landslide within 2%). However, a number of voters who voted 'no' have said the language of the Proposition extended restrictions to unwed heterosexual couples that kept them from voting 'yes' on an otherwise favorable action of state government.

Frankly, I see little swing in favor of homosexual marriage. Additionally, it appears to me at least that even the most secular Americans have a strong disgust for polygamous unions. Regardless of the logic or understanding, the sentiment is there and is not on its way out.

Furthermore, if polygamy was nationally legalized today I doubt seriously that our current Church leadership or that of the rising generation would seek to re-inact the practice, but would rather go on hoping the LORD would allow a pass on the issue. I doubt they would even ask the LORD about it for fear He would say to them what He said to Joseph.

For a serious reality check, peruse this site: www.christianpolygamy.info

Freeky eh?

-a-train

[shanstress70]

Everyone here who wants or thinks multiple wives are ok, should read this.

http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,105-1-11-1,00.html

There is no pulral. It is 'man' and 'wife'. That is it, thats all we are supposed to be, and I will NEVER take on a second wife. I am sealed to mine for all of time and eternity.

I've never heard another LDS man say this. So, if your current prophet said that you should take another wife, you would not do it?

What about if Christ comes back while you are still on this earth and commands you to?

Would you do so in the CK if you were so directed? There are men in your church who are sealed to more than one woman, so you can't be so sure it won't happen in the afterlife, according to the LDS belief system.

[sixpacktr]

A-train,

I agree. I don't think that the law makers have the backbone to pass the gay rights bills. It is poison to them. That way they can say they are all for it and then do nothing because of the evil religious right. However, seeing how they operate, they will do as they did with abortion and go the court route, where they have a much better chance of having those laws declared unconstitutional (how they do it, I don't know, but they do) and proceed.

That will open the door to all sorts of legal marriages.

I also think that no one would ask the Lord (if it were made legal) for fear of the answer. But Joseph fought it and fought it until he was told in no uncertain terms to do it or else. The Lord has his own timetable, and PM might not be part of it, I'm just speculating wildly here, but if it comes back I think that will be a severe trial for some and the persecutions will come back...

[JcDean78]

<div class='quotemain'>

Everyone here who wants or thinks multiple wives are ok, should read this.

http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,105-1-11-1,00.html

There is no pulral. It is 'man' and 'wife'. That is it, thats all we are supposed to be, and I will NEVER take on a second wife. I am sealed to mine for all of time and eternity.

I've never heard another LDS man say this. So, if your current prophet said that you should take another wife, you would not do it?

What about if Christ comes back while you are still on this earth and commands you to?

Would you do so in the CK if you were so directed? There are men in your church who are sealed to more than one woman, so you can't be so sure it won't happen in the afterlife, according to the LDS belief system.

I am not going to judge others or try and justify doing that. I know the Church Leaders are more than capable to make the right decisions and guide us with the restored Gospel.

I will say for me, it would not be right and unless God commanded me then I would do no such thing ever. If my wife died, I would live out the rest of my life here alone until I can be with her again. Life here is just the blink of an eye in eternity.

[the_jason]

What I want to know is, why are we trying to predict when polygamy will be legal? Does it really matter to us at this point? If it were to become legal our Church leaders will prayerfull direct us accordingly.

[StrawberryFields]

What I want to know is, why are we trying to predict when polygamy will be legal? Does it really matter to us at this point? If it were to become legal our Church leaders will prayerfull direct us accordingly.

I was thinking the same thing. :)

[CrimsonKairos]

The thing that all of you have overlooked is the golden wombat of destiny.

It all hangs on him.

[Palerider]

I mention this each and every time the topic of Polygamy is brought up......why would anyone want this????....think about it ......all the MOTHER IN LAW'S a guy would have..........

[CrimsonKairos]

Speaking of mothers-in-law...funny fact:

An anagram of mother-in-law is woman hitler.

Bwahahahahahaha, mwahahahahaha, gwahahahahaha, ah that's rich!

[Palerider]

Speaking of mothers-in-law...funny fact:

An anagram of mother-in-law is woman hitler.

Bwahahahahahaha, mwahahahahaha, gwahahahahaha, ah that's rich!

[Dr T]

"woman hitler" That is hilarious!

[Fiannan]

One wonders though, what would be the result of polygamy on eugenic quality of the country, spiritual values or the problem of illigit births? Personally, I believe polygamy would only be practiced by people of strong faith -- and that would be LDS, fundamentalists and even those of a more spiritualistic nature. These people probably possess genetic qualities higher than the average person and that would improve the overall quality of the gene pool.

[prisonchaplain]

My personal view is that people will be safely be able to live in polygamist arrangments (without coersive government attacks on personal liberty) in about 20 years.

I'd say within 10 years of the Supreme Court declaring that all states must recognize any gay unions performed in other states--or even that all states must legalize them.

[begood2]

One wife is all that I'll ever need, to love and honor for eternity!

[Outshined]

I'd say within 10 years of the Supreme Court declaring that all states must recognize any gay unions performed in other states--or even that all states must legalize them.

I agree; same-sex marriage is the first step, as it has been in Europe.

As for the Church, I have no reason to believe that they will reinstate polygamy.