mikbone

What if the USA's position on polygamy changed?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, LDSGator said:

That would be my answer as well. How could they get baptized? 

On my mission, in Oklahoma, we had a "don't ask" policy about immigration status.  I can't speak with any experience on this topic, but I could imagine a similar policy about plural marriage status in some countries.  Not saying it's right or not.  Just that I have personal experience with the church purposefully not asking a specific question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LDSGator said:

That would be my answer as well. How could they get baptized? 

If its a legal and lawful wedding in the eyes of the relevant government, should that be an impediment to baptism? Similar situations apply in Malaysia, where, under certain circumstances, Moslems may have more than one legal wife. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

If its a legal and lawful wedding in the eyes of the relevant government, should that be an impediment to baptism?

My understanding of the term "legal and lawful" as it relates to the Restored Church is that something is "legal" with respect to secular law and "lawful" with respect to divine commandment. Thus, as long as the practice of plural marriage has been proscribed by the Lord and/or his Church, polygamy practiced with living spouses cannot be "lawful" even if it is "legal". In this respect, it is no different from homosexual "marriage".

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

If its a legal and lawful wedding in the eyes of the relevant government, should that be an impediment to baptism? Similar situations apply in Malaysia, where, under certain circumstances, Moslems may have more than one legal wife. 

In my personal, strictly subjective opinion, polygamy should not forbid you from getting baptized. However, the church disagrees with me. I have no issue whatsoever with playing by their rules here, it’s their church. 
 

From a legal standpoint, I have zero problem with polygamy being legal. Like gay marriage it’s none of my affair. 

Edited by LDSGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dprh said:

On my mission, in Oklahoma, we had a "don't ask" policy about immigration status.  I can't speak with any experience on this topic, but I could imagine a similar policy about plural marriage status in some countries.  Not saying it's right or not.  Just that I have personal experience with the church purposefully not asking a specific question.

Understand. When it comes to things like immigration “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is 100% fine. Even though again, in my own, subjective opinion, no human is “illegal” in this country. Bring me your poor, huddled masses yearning for freedom. 

Edited by LDSGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ironhold said:

There is a lot going on in today's society that needs to be examined more closely. 

For example, many men have decided, for one reason or another, that their collection of anime girl statues is better company that any real woman could ever be. While some of these individuals are legitimately unwell in the sense of losing touch with reality, others have had such negative experiences with women - or known so many men who have - that they literally do not trust any flesh and blood woman to have their best interests at heart. These people have functionally removed themselves from the gene pool, let alone the dating pool, and so even if they're otherwise "high value" they won't be contributing unless they can be convinced to give it a go, that there's a woman out there who loves him for him. 

Additionally, a knock-on effect of the rise of "girl power" is that "women stringing along multiple men" has become a sign of how "powerful" a woman is. There are women who actually make their money selling home-made pornographic photos and videos of themselves through social media or otherwise engaging in "adult" activities for profit, often never even interacting face-to-face with the people they get their money from. While it's often joked that many of these women are doing it "because their family needs the money" [1], the simple fact is that one woman can easily get a large number of men so caught up in her that they don't consider other women.

Just these two trends alone are enough that many men, particularly younger men, are no longer involved in the dating scene, let alone having children. 

The overall coarsening of the culture and the destruction of the nuclear family is also producing situations where men who would have been regarded as perfectly acceptable spouses in years past are now being overlooked as "inadequate" in some fashion, such as not making "enough" money or not being attractive "enough". The women making these judgments regard themselves as entitled to someone or something far better, and refuse to consider anyone who falls below their standards. [2]

We also now have situations where men and women alike are going "Why get married when I can spend all of my time and attention on myself?". This is especially problematic in countries like Japan and China where the birth rates are plummeting so low that the governments are having to offer financial incentives for people to marry and have children. 

 

 

I'll address these points, though the specific examples you gave are anecdotal:

 

[1] Some men don't trust women and are 'Going their own way'. The MGTOW movement is understandable, and the men who do it I accept. It's sad, but it's a consequence of the fact that men are at risk every time they speak to women. A single accusation with no proof is often enough to end a man's career, and there are enough examples of false accusations that it's become a real thing. It's exacerbated by the fact that there are no overarching rules: Men are still expected to make the first move, for instance. They are expected to be the initiators. Many in the 'Me, too' movement use poorly assessed initiations as examples of men harassing them, despite those some harassments being welcome in other circumstances. Women initiate 70% of all divorces and those court-mediated divorces still overwhelmingly favour women.  I understand this. They have made a decision and I respect it, though I think they're making the wrong choice.

[2] When you refer to 'women stringing along men', you're referring to younger women. Statistically speaking, women overwhelmingly have the power in gatekeeping relationships up until the age of 35. Once that age is hit, men tend to lose interest. This is why women are finding at about 35 that there are 'No more good men'. What they mean by that is that there are no more men that they are attracted to, that earn what they are expecting, that treat them with the deference they have become used to. This often renders them embittered at men in general. By the age of 48, men tend to become more happy while women tend to become more unhappy.

[3] Men find women between the ages of 20-24 the most attractive, regardless of whether they're 20, 30, 40 or 50. Handy-dandy image here:

 

Men are always attracted to women in their early 20s - even as they age CREDIT: Dataclysm: Who We Are When We Think No One?s Looking / Christian Rudder

 

This is just fact. What this means is that a woman who has spent their life pursuing a career, finding men who are attractive and successful, find themselves unable to attract the people they did as they gain age. Hit 30, and it starts to fail. Hit 35, and they feel invisible to men.  If you've become a manager, own your own house, have kept fit, most women wonder why they can't find a man any more.

This is why. The successful men who take care of themselves, become a manager and get their own house are dating 20-24 year olds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Traveler said:

My opinion - We will not see polygamy practiced in the church until Zion is established as its own nation.

 

The Traveler

I had a companion on my mission that pointed to Acts 2:20-21 saying that ALL things needed to be restored before the second coming will happen, including polygamy.  I pointed out that polygamy had already been restored....  And then stopped.  It didn't change his mind, but it makes sense to me.  It needed to happen, and now it doesn't anymore.

Quote

20 And he shall send aJesus Christ, which before was preached unto byou:

21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of arestitution of all things, which God hath bspoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dprh said:

I had a companion on my mission that pointed to Acts 2:20-21 saying that ALL things needed to be restored before the second coming will happen, including polygamy.  I pointed out that polygamy had already been restored....  And then stopped.  It didn't change his mind, but it makes sense to me.  It needed to happen, and now it doesn't anymore.

 

I think the greater problem is the connecting of that which is spiritual with that which is physical concerning define laws, ordinances and covenants.  Many can understand that with divine law that there is a letter of the law and a spirit of the law but seldom do they track such differences through ordinances and covenants as well.  In the parable of the 10 virgins we learn that just because something has been restored that not all participating will benefit.  Whenever such discussions take place - I am reminded of Jesus speaking at the last supper indicating that he would be betrayed by someone present.    It is interesting that not one Apostle figured out it was Judas but rather asked - "L-rd is it I".

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dprh said:

I pointed out that polygamy had already been restored....

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.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dprh said:

I had a companion on my mission that pointed to Acts 2:20-21 saying that ALL things needed to be restored before the second coming will happen, including polygamy.  I pointed out that polygamy had already been restored....  And then stopped.  It didn't change his mind, but it makes sense to me.  It needed to happen, and now it doesn't anymore.

 

Odd thing for the chap to think...but many missionaries are impressionable and like to research "deep doctrine", some of which is false. The word Restoration means returning something back to what it originally was. The first and standard marriage relationship is 1 man and 1 woman. Plural marriage will never be required of anyone...it is not something that is 100% coming back to the church someday. And, even if it does, no one will be required to enter into multiple marriage covenants...as one is all you need to qualify for exaltation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, scottyg said:

Odd thing for the chap to think...but many missionaries are impressionable and like to research "deep doctrine", some of which is false. The word Restoration means returning something back to what it originally was. The first and standard marriage relationship is 1 man and 1 woman. Plural marriage will never be required of anyone...it is not something that is 100% coming back to the church someday. And, even if it does, no one will be required to enter into multiple marriage covenants...as one is all you need to qualify for exaltation.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A discussion elsewhere led me to dig into Utah’s recently-amended bigamy statute.  I knew it had recently been downgraded to a misdemeanor-infraction; but they also defined it in such a way that it punishes you for undertaking the ritual, not for cohabitation (unless you’re also committing any one of several other crimes).  So whereas it used to be you were committing a new crime for every night you spent with a plural wife—it appears the crime is now a one-and-done sort of thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

A discussion elsewhere led me to dig into Utah’s recently-amended bigamy statute.  I knew it had recently been downgraded to a misdemeanor-infraction; but they also defined it in such a way that it punishes you for undertaking the ritual, not for cohabitation (unless you’re also committing any one of several other crimes).  So whereas it used to be you were committing a new crime for every night you spent with a plural wife—it appears the crime is now a one-and-done sort of thing.

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!

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

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!

The federal law that permitted Utah Territory to convene a constitutional convention and apply for statehood, conditioned statehood on Utah prohibiting polygamy in perpetuity.  One could make a lot of hay over whether such a restriction is even legal, or what the ramifications would be if Utah were to buck this provision and totally legalize polygamy.  But I think the State legislature would rather not test a provision that might be interpreted as a lawful basis (or excuse) to undo statehood, dissolve the legislature, fire the governor, and unseat two Republican senators while we go have another state constitutional convention.  :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Just_A_Guy said:

The federal law that permitted Utah Territory to convene a constitutional convention and apply for statehood, conditioned statehood on Utah prohibiting polygamy in perpetuity.  One could make a lot of hay over whether such a restriction is even legal, or what the ramifications would be if Utah were to buck this provision and totally legalize polygamy.  But I think the State legislature would rather not test a provision that might be interpreted as a lawful basis (or excuse) to undo statehood, dissolve the legislature, fire the governor, and unseat two Republican senators while we go have another state constitutional convention.  :D 

Bring it on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But I think the State legislature would rather not test a provision that might be interpreted as a lawful basis (or excuse) to undo statehood, dissolve the legislature, fire the governor, and unseat two Republican senators while we go have another state constitutional convention.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

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.

FWIW, I believe it has been the position of the AG’s office for some time that they wouldn’t prosecute stand-alone polygamy unless there were other crimes being committed concurrently.

On your scenario B:  I absolutely believe that the current presidential administration would bring such a suit if they thought it was capable of knocking two Republicans out of an otherwise deadlocked Senate and the White House had a big package it wanted passed.  The suit likely wouldn’t prevail in the long term; but it would give the VP grounds to bar the Utah delegation from the Senate floor for a few precious hours or days.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

On your scenario B:  I absolutely believe that the current presidential administration would bring such a suit if they thought it was capable of knocking two Republicans out of an otherwise deadlocked Senate and the White House had a big package it wanted passed.  The suit likely wouldn’t prevail in the long term; but it would give the VP grounds to bar the Utah delegation from the Senate floor for a few precious hours or days.  

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

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

I wonder how the current Supreme Court would rule on such a case these days?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, dprh said:

I had a companion on my mission that pointed to Acts 2:20-21 saying that ALL things needed to be restored before the second coming will happen, including polygamy.  I pointed out that polygamy had already been restored....  And then stopped.  It didn't change his mind, but it makes sense to me.  It needed to happen, and now it doesn't anymore.

 

Abraham would like a word with your old companion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We  believe in the restitution (restoration) of all things, which then induces the question, "Was polygamy already restored and then taken away"? If polygamy is seen as already having been restored, then it is less likely the Church will move forward with authorizing polygamy. If polygamy isn't seen as being restore then there is a higher probability the Church could move forward and authorize it once again.

The purpose of polygamy is to raise a righteous seed. The Lord's kingdom could easily benefit from more righteous fathers rearing more righteous children who are taught, in their youth, to love and serve God. The hardship though, is think upon how many priesthood holders have left the Church, and if they were polygamists then that means more children would lose out on these blessings.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly in this country there have been lots of reports over the last couple of years in the media about a growing movement within younger generations of multiple partner relationships. Both polygamy and polyandry are being seen as acceptable choices, and noises are being made about changing bigamy laws to reflect this.  Social norms are so changed that relationships and sexuality seem to have no boundaries.  

 

Wondering if anything like this is reported over the pond?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now