US Supreme Court could discuss 'Sister Wives' case

[Joel]

[Sarah]

Once again we have two very different forms of plural marriage. The first an earthly one, fraught with all the emotional and physical issues that it engenders. I do not foresee any possibility of this sort of plural marriage ever returning to the church.

The other form is plural marriages in the life to come. This is, in my thinking, something that we are much more likely to encounter. Not in this life but in the next. However even considering this form of plural marriage creates, for many, conflict. This is due I think to our inability to separate it from its earthly form. We are not able to understand, while in this life, how such relationships might work in the next life because we only have our earthly experiences as a frame of reference.

It is in this form that we are faced with the prospect of a woman with multiple husbands or with persons who might never have been spouses in this life at all. This form of after life plural marriage is implicit in the widely held belief, no only among Latter-day Saints but in the general population as well, of human relationships continuing after death.

Without this form the afterlife would be filled with severed relationships and with the eternal suffering that would result. This is something I can simply not accept as reasonable in any fashion. It would turn the next life into a sort of hell where people long to be with loved one and are denied that association.

Exactly. I remember talking to a friend who happened to be in the same ward with a former boyfriend whom she was not married to. I remembered these two as inseparable during high school, and always kissing. She said it was so awkward to be around him. And of course - she had this intimate relationship with this guy and now they could not touch, or even really talk to each other anymore. Despite the fact that I don't feel they should have been that intimate in high school, can you imagine someone who had been married in this life to multiple spouses, and suddenly everyone only has one mate to share emotional, mental, spiritual, and physical intimacy with, and you must forever cut yourself off from an individual that you had once shared intimacy with here on earth? I don't see those bounds being reasonable.

And to Melissa's question, if there was one that you had a relationship with in the last life, you will have the opportunity to be worthy of each other as husband and wife, even if you did not have that chance here.

Yes, we can have relationships to a certain degree with others of the opposite sex who are not our spouses, but think about your relationships with those of the opposite sex in your ward? It would not be appropriate to spend any length of time together with someone of the opposite sex. Is there any other man besides your husband you can be emotionally intimate with? Perhaps your father or brother to a certain degree? When you become emotionally, mentally and spiritually intimate with someone, to have the crowning opportunity of physical intimacy to go along with that, fulfills that desire to express love and affection to one another.

[brianj]

Okay so we established that monogamy is the standard unless....and we have established that we do not know the nature of the relationship in the next life. We're on the same page here.

Would I ask him to decide between two of his earthly wives...no. The wives can decide. If they both want him and are okay with sharing then what do I care- it has nothing to do with me.

Polygamy is hurtful to women, God said so himself in Jacob. If you honestly think that a husband being officially married to her rather than just being with her are really different...think again. Marriage makes it "legal" but that piece of paper does nothing else to soften the pain or hurt.

Just as I was unmarried one day and married the next, the only thing that changed was a piece of paper. It felt weird to say a few words then hey, we're good now to do whatever we please with eachother.

A husband simply gaining a piece of paper with another woman doesn't mean it wouldn't be painful to the first wife. My point is, men are told to not covet other women or lust other women and wives hold him to it...the pain is very real when he lusts after another woman! So somehow God says it's okay and the wife simply adjusts and all is well as long as she is "righteous" enough. No issues! Simply view it as a trial and burden of sacrifice that will bring greater blessings....to that I say bullsh*t.

If God requires me to have my heart ripped to shreds to be worthy of Him then he will magically piece it back together- I have to question why? There are many sacrifices we make to follow Him...having your heart pierced to shreds while your husbands gets another woman is very abusive! And this mentality members have is so wrong. Oh if she were just more prayerful or more kind or more giving or less jealous or more righteous...Yada yada.

Would men be okay if the tables were turned? But we assume because women are built the way they are, they will learn to be okay with it? Could you learn to be okay with your wife having multiple husbands? Wouldn't you question something?

I think it would be best to rephrase that first sentence to read: "Okay so we established that monogamy is the standard, during the time from the fall of Adam and Eve until the millennium, unless..." If polygamy is the way of the Celestial Kingdom, as some of us believe and others don't, then I expect that it will be commonplace during the millennium.

I don't believe your assertion that polygamy is [always] hurtful to women. I cited an article at lds.org that quotes a polygamist wife calling it the greatest blessing of her life, along with the "severest" trial. I expect every single adult in a polygamous relationship will find that relationship a severe trial, but if that's what Heavenly Father one day expects of us then I will accept His will. I am going through a trial right now that makes even just holding on to hope very difficult, and Joseph Smith taught that a religion must require the sacrifice of all things to produce the faith necessary for salvation, so I will accept this trial and any other that I am called to endure. I just won't accept them without whining and complaining - at least not yet.

If the tables were turned, yes it would be okay. If I were called to have multiple wives it would be extremely difficult to accept that calling, I would need a strong spiritual confirmation before I could, and I would expect a lot of sore trials to arise from that calling. If I were married to a beautiful and worthy woman who was called to have multiple husbands I would have more difficulty accepting the idea because it's so foreign to me, but if I received spiritual confirmation I would endure the trial. Yes, I would question it - but I also question almost every other trial I am called to endure. I sure hope questioning isn't a gross sin!

Regarding your use of the word abusive, labeling the idea of your husband being called to have multiple wives abusive, I take issue with that concept. Heavenly Father loves us perfectly. He is not abusive. Sure, it can feel that way when we are suffering greatly. I wonder if Elizabeth Smart ever felt abused by Heavenly Father when she was a captive. I expect many victims of sex trafficking feel abused by God. As do people who get married and see their spouse die at the start of their marriage, or a child die in infancy. But the worst trials we can be called to endure are not coming because of an abusive Father. They come because of a loving Father who is trying to help us become perfect.

[skmo]

I didn't realize that Utah has a law that outlaws multiple partner cohabitation.
Seems a little draconian to me.

I don't know if this has changed, but at one point oral and anal sex was also illegal, even among spouses.

[JohnnyL]

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=42923444&nid=14 ... wives-case

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court could discuss a request Thursday from the polygamous family from TV's "Sister Wives" to hear their case for legalizing polygamy.

High court action on the family's appeal could come as early as Monday following the conference Thursday at which the justices considered adding new cases to their calendar and rejected most pending appeals.

The Supreme Court is on a pace to hear fewer than 1 percent of the 7,500 appeals it is likely to consider this term.

Kody Brown and his four wives want a review of an appeals court's decision that upheld a unique provision of Utah's polygamy law that bans cohabitation with other partners even if the man is legally married to just one woman.

The ruling overturned a 2013 legal victory for the Browns from a lower court. The family now lives in Las Vegas.

If polygamy is ever legalized in the U.S., it will be interesting to see if the church allows or condones it again. Sure hope not. X(

In some polygamous cultures, each wife has a room walled to the main house or the next wife's wall, with an outside door--her own "house". But with licensing here, that doesn't work well, huh?

The church had proposed, in the Constitutional amendment, that marriage was "one man, one woman". To me that's a pretty firm stance on polygamy. Since it didn't pass, though, who knows? I'd say to get 15 P, S, and R to agree on something is likely going to be pretty good...

[JohnnyL]

I highly doubt the church would allow it simply because it becomes legal. The church has been talking alot about how it doesn't change with popular demand or with cultural changes. I would expect the garments to be made smaller and women to give blessing before I would expect polygamy...good grief. We don't need that drama!

Cohabitation (related to polygamy case) was decriminalization and then we see the church firm it's stance against polygamy by not baptizing if ones parents are involved and they don't denounce the practice. And with legalization of gay marriage, the chuch implemented the baptism rule for kids in gay marriage housholds.

If polygamy is legalized (which wouldn't happen anytime soon) I would expect the church to implement a standard to combat this from getting in.

I really have no idea why people believe that polygamy is coming back or that it's something we should have been living but stopped only because of the law. God is monogamous first and foremost!
Reference?

Would the men in our church still be willing to live polygamy if all your extra wives were imigrants who needed a safe home to raise their children (they already had) and it involved nothing physical just you providing for her and her kids?
That's so far away from the definition of marriage, it couldn't be marriage. That's often called taxes, and yes, we are supporting many immigrants and their children, and citizens too, already. ;) It's also called fast offerings, and yes, ... already.

That was king Limhi's solution.

If god calls a man to live polygamy, expect that he is not asking of you what you believe polygamy is. It will be based on your priesthood and not you as a man. You may simply be asked to stretch yourself further and sacrifice for no compensation or forsee able benefit to you. This is actually the only scenario that I could see polygamy ever happening again.

[Ezra]

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=42923444&nid=14 ... wives-case

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court could discuss a request Thursday from the polygamous family from TV's "Sister Wives" to hear their case for legalizing polygamy.

High court action on the family's appeal could come as early as Monday following the conference Thursday at which the justices considered adding new cases to their calendar and rejected most pending appeals.

The Supreme Court is on a pace to hear fewer than 1 percent of the 7,500 appeals it is likely to consider this term.

Kody Brown and his four wives want a review of an appeals court's decision that upheld a unique provision of Utah's polygamy law that bans cohabitation with other partners even if the man is legally married to just one woman.

The ruling overturned a 2013 legal victory for the Browns from a lower court. The family now lives in Las Vegas.

If polygamy is ever legalized in the U.S., it will be interesting to see if the church allows or condones it again. Sure hope not. X(

In some polygamous cultures, each wife has a room walled to the main house or the next wife's wall, with an outside door--her own "house". But with licensing here, that doesn't work well, huh?

The church had proposed, in the Constitutional amendment, that marriage was "one man, one woman". To me that's a pretty firm stance on polygamy. Since it didn't pass, though, who knows? I'd say to get 15 P, S, and R to agree on something is likely going to be pretty good...

That's interesting since the church still teaches it was a commandment. Scriptures still say so as well. And the opposite as well. It's just so interesting that the contradictions exist with no real guidance one way or the other??

[JohnnyL]

We have statements from early church leaders that polygamy is required for exaltation. And we have a statement from Isaiah that in the last days seven women will come to a man to take away their reproach. In 2 Ne 14:1 the word reproach has a footnote referencing the topical guide. But in Isaiah 4:1 the footnote says: "IE the stigma of being unmarried and childless."

I don't believe this describes LDS polygamy in the 19th century. Today we have a great many women who are avoiding marriage until it's too late for them, and many who desire to never have a child. The time will come when these women have been humbled and sincerely desire to be part of a family and have children. The humbling will need to be great because they will have to turn away from their worldliness and their desire to "own" a man and be the center of his attention.

https://bookofmormonnotes.wordpress.com ... -by-grego/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Reasons why this doesn't seem like what it appears. I especially like the context part.

[JohnnyL]

I disagree.

Only an unrighteous, insensitive and carnal man would embrace something as awful as polygamy.

My thoughts EXACTLY about Abraham, Moses, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and the other great men who laid the foundations of this work! ;(

[JohnnyL]

I disagree.

Only an unrighteous, insensitive and carnal man would embrace something as awful as polygamy.

The men who are okay with polygamy especially at a time when its strictly condemned, are also prideful.
Cause if the tables turned they wouldn't be as accepting and vocal about defending it.

The only guys I know who discuss and are hoping for polygamy are men whose wives don't appreciate them and are selfish, but are way too good to leave their wives or the church.

And sorry to disappoint, but most wouldn't mind the other way around, either--half the work and double the current peace in their lives. "Go complain, nag, and whine to the other one" would be the hallmark phrase in these polyandrous homes.

[JohnnyL]

I think it would be best to rephrase that first sentence to read: "Okay so we established that monogamy is the standard, during the time from the fall of Adam and Eve until the millennium, unless..." If polygamy is the way of the Celestial Kingdom, as some of us believe and others don't, then I expect that it will be commonplace during the millennium.

I don't believe your assertion that polygamy is [always] hurtful to women. I cited an article at lds.org that quotes a polygamist wife calling it the greatest blessing of her life, along with the "severest" trial.

Hmm... That last sentence also sounds like it's talking about monogamous marriage. Or, single life.

[Fiannan]

God is a kind God and is sensitive to women (unlike many men today and in the past) and he cares about women's well-being.

But does that infer that God is akin to how our 21st Century interpretation sees sensitivity? An examination of Numbers 31: 14-18 seems to illustrate that it is a far more complicated issue.

[JohnnyL]

The irony of a plethora of, shall we say "unrighteous" people wanting and enjoying living in polygamous relationships--such as the "Sister Wives" family--and legally fighting for this right, is rich in this thread...

[Fiannan]

The only guys I know who discuss and are hoping for polygamy are men whose wives don't appreciate them and are selfish, but are way too good to leave their wives or the church.

I have noticed that both men and women who divorce usually wind up marrying someone just like the one they left. Whatever energy of attraction we put off does not change throughout life. So polygamy would probably result in a man having three or four women like the first one he married.

I have noticed that men who like the idea of polygamy usually are the ones who have good marriages where there is a strong sense of equality. Men in bad marriages wanting to double the trouble? Highly unlikely.

And sorry to disappoint, but most wouldn't mind the other way around, either--half the work and double the current peace in their lives. "Go complain, nag, and whine to the other one" would be the hallmark phrase in these polyandrous homes.

Polygamy can involve polyandry but usually did not in the Utah experience. Polygamy means one husband and multiple wives, usually with only relations between the husband and the wives. True, there were marriages in which the women were intimate with each other as well and that would mean the relationship was also polyandrous. In secular polyandry today you usually have this sort of situation, but, ironically, a colleague of mine posted a video on a social media site we both are on of a woman who was in a relationship with two men. I thought this ironic as I do not think she is into men.

[brianj]

https://bookofmormonnotes.wordpress.com ... -by-grego/
Reasons why this doesn't seem like what it appears. I especially like the context part.

I disagree with this author's conclusions. First off, there is a shame to voluntarily choosing to remain single and not have children. Second, when he says that LDS women wouldn't want to get married just to be married, he seems to be focusing on longer term church members.

What I have described expecting is that when bad things come, when the tribulations make the entire North American continent unsafe except for Zion (which I assume means the City of Zion as well as outposts or suburbs that will be established, possibly surrounding established temples), people will try fleeing to the Saints for their own safety. Most of these people will accept the gospel. Since women will greatly outnumber men at that point, women who discover they have been deceived into believing career and freedom are more important than family will want a husband and children.

[Ezra]

I disagree.

Only an unrighteous, insensitive and carnal man would embrace something as awful as polygamy.

My thoughts EXACTLY about Abraham, Moses, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and the other great men who laid the foundations of this work! ;(

They were pretty awful. Other then all the great things they did.

[brianj]

I have noticed that both men and women who divorce usually wind up marrying someone just like the one they left. Whatever energy of attraction we put off does not change throughout life. So polygamy would probably result in a man having three or four women like the first one he married.

I have noticed that men who like the idea of polygamy usually are the ones who have good marriages where there is a strong sense of equality. Men in bad marriages wanting to double the trouble? Highly unlikely.

What I have observed is that men who are in bad relationships sometimes want polygamy because that way they can give the first wife the minimum amount of time they should devote to letting her put him through hell, then go to someone who truly loves him and with whom he can be happy. For several years in my marriage I felt this way. I was never going to divorce because, except for something like abandonment or adultery, I view divorce as a violation of covenants.

[Fiannan]

The irony of a plethora of, shall we say "unrighteous" people wanting and enjoying living in polygamous relationships--such as the "Sister Wives" family--and legally fighting for this right, is rich in this thread...

Speaking of irony a while back I was in a conversation with a young woman in which the issue of religious beliefs and reproduction came up. I noted that less religious people tend not to have many kids (which is of course supported by demographic research) but she said that she was an atheist and wanted a lot of kids, noting that the ultimate, foundational, purpose of existence is to reproduce. At least she had the spirit of true Darwinianism, not the fluffy humanism of today that abandons God, but keeps all the feel good aspects of Christianity.

The thing is, I have encountered women who made it no secret that they would not mind polygamy, one even had friends joking with her that she was destined to be my second wife. I did not encourage her, nor a couple of others who have...well, advanced the notion of polygamy could be the ideal way of life. All are quite educated and secular women. One even said that she liked Mormonism, even though she was atheist, and could see it advantageous to raise children in the faith.

You see, I believe there are plenty of women who still have a natural desire to have families, and even though they may be quite secular, they might enter into an LDS polygamist relationship. Today they do not have that option and many such women actually, at least in northern Europe, wind up marrying Muslim men and agreeing to raise the children Muslim. Women ´find men who stand for something attractive and they find men who want children to be desirable as well. Blue-state men and European men do not fit the bill in either respect. A return to LDS polygamy would swell our ranks. I will note too that the typical viewer of "Sister Wives" is young and female. Why do you suppose that is?

[Fiannan]

I have noticed that both men and women who divorce usually wind up marrying someone just like the one they left. Whatever energy of attraction we put off does not change throughout life. So polygamy would probably result in a man having three or four women like the first one he married.

I have noticed that men who like the idea of polygamy usually are the ones who have good marriages where there is a strong sense of equality. Men in bad marriages wanting to double the trouble? Highly unlikely.

What I have observed is that men who are in bad relationships sometimes want polygamy because that way they can give the first wife the minimum amount of time they should devote to letting her put him through hell, then go to someone who truly loves him and with whom he can be happy. For several years in my marriage I felt this way. I was never going to divorce because, except for something like abandonment or adultery, I view divorce as a violation of covenants.

Okay, I am sure these situations exist as well. One can imagine the anguish a man in such a situation must feel whenever the topic of eternal marriage comes up and the idea that he will be with such a woman (only) in the eternities.

[Melissa]

God is a kind God and is sensitive to women (unlike many men today and in the past) and he cares about women's well-being.

But does that infer that God is akin to how our 21st Century interpretation sees sensitivity? An examination of Numbers 31: 14-18 seems to illustrate that it is a far more complicated issue.

Yep...bring up a verse that talks about killing all women who are not virgins but keeping the young girls alive to have as sex slaves.

Wonderful scripture to bring up Fiannan.

Cold blooded murder of women is wrong, so was stoning and public humilitaion. Christ prevented the stoning of a woman because women do matter. It's not that complicated. It's just as*holes that complicate it because they don't know right from wrong or are past feeling.

Stop quoting the old timers under the old law, we don't live that way. Thank goodness or 2/3's of us may be sentenced to death.

[braingrunt]

I disagree with Fiannan on just about everything having to do with sex and gender. I point this out, because I don't want some people here to feel justified in painting all of us who accept polygamy in some degree, with the same brush. I believe in monogamy for the most part.

[Fiannan]

I disagree with Fiannan on just about everything having to do with sex and gender. I point this out, because I don't want some people here to feel justified in painting all of us who accept polygamy in some degree, with the same brush. I believe in monogamy for the most part.

So what do you believe?

In regards to polygamy I think many Mormons feel that it was a commandment, something to be endured, a test. Okay, any non-Mormon could tear through that nonsense in minutes.

Another point of view is that the central aspect of human existence (biologically speaking) is reproduction and God established polygamy as a means to facilitate that. Add to that view that polygamy is a means to eugenic quality and then you get a pretty good fit with the prophets of the Restoration and, ironically, while an evolutionist would not like to say God was at the center of this aspect of human existence they would find it quite rational.

So what do you feel there braingrunt? I would like to know.

[braingrunt]

I believe, in the context of this present discussion, that many decent uncontrolling people with concern for the feelings of their wives, practiced polygamy because they felt they were under divine mandate. In fact I have ancestors which I know fit most or all of that description.

I also have a family history story of one wife being neglected and facing near starvation for herself and her kids while another wife was cared for. Seriously messed up. Sick.

Bad things happen under polygamy. Good stuff for this church happened too. We let it alone and let God weigh the costs and benefits.

[skmo]

In regards to polygamy I think many Mormons feel that it was a commandment, something to be endured, a test. Okay, any non-Mormon could tear through that nonsense in minutes.

So what? I don't care what Mormon people believe, I certainly don't give a damn what the non-Mormons (which I am, at the moment) think. I care about what I think, I care what my wife thinks, and I care what God thinks. Other than my two dogs, the list ended there, and I already know what my dogs think.

Polygamy was brought to the early LDS people, they failed miserably to live it as God commanded, it was removed. It no longer matters because it's not something that applies to us today. If God wants it brought back, He can do so, and it'll be up to the prophet to give us God's words about it. Then the people live it and are blessed or they don't and it's removed and perhaps they're punished.

[brianj]

Cold blooded murder of women is wrong, so was stoning and public humilitaion. Christ prevented the stoning of a woman because women do matter. It's not that complicated. It's just as*holes that complicate it because they don't know right from wrong or are past feeling.

Stop quoting the old timers under the old law, we don't live that way. Thank goodness or 2/3's of us may be sentenced to death.

Respectfully Melissa, Leviticus 20:10 states that adulterers and adulteresses are to be put to death. The Torah (the Books of Moses) doesn't state the method of execution, but stoning is a method of execution outlined in the Talmud. And EXECUTION IS NOT MURDER!

Regarding your statement about our Savior prevent the stoning of a woman, I challenge the first part of your assertion. The stoning was not prevented. People who were trying to use the legally prescribed punishment for adultery to put the Savior in a corner, but the answer left them feeling guilty enough that they chose to not throw stones. The execution wasn't stopped because women matter or because execution is cruel.

I have to conclude by asking you this: There is nothing in the gospels to mention the man who was committing adultery with this woman. But, since he must have been caught in adultery in order for her to be caught, we can assume that her partner in sin was caught and punishment meted out. Does this convince you that men don't matter? Or is the execution of men acceptable but the execution of women unacceptable?

And if execution under the law is wrong, as you assert, then does the divine revelation of laws requiring execution mean that that revelation was wrong and the source of that revelation was wrong?

Mortality is a tiny portion of the time from when your spirits were created until the final judgement, and could be called the blink of an eye. Execution under the law shortens the length of your mortal life, but will not prevent the condemned from having a full experience or being able to repent of their sins.