US Supreme Court could discuss 'Sister Wives' case

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
User avatar
Col. Flagg
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 16961
Location: Utah County

US Supreme Court could discuss 'Sister Wives' case

Post by Col. Flagg »

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=42923444&nid=14 ... wives-case" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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(

Ezra
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4357
Location: Not telling

Re: US Supreme Court could discuss 'Sister Wives' case

Post by Ezra »

It would be interesting. I hope it happens just out of curiosity

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: US Supreme Court could discuss 'Sister Wives' case

Post by brianj »

I have no scriptural basis for this, but I believe that if the church had won the Reynolds v. United States case we would still have some level of polygamy within this church. I doubt the Supreme Court will hear the case because Brown hasn't been charged with a crime, but it would be interesting to see how they rule.

I firmly believe that at some future point, probably within my mortal life, polygamy will return to the church. I have mixed feelings about this. I wouldn't want to do something that would hurt a beloved wife, and I feel inadequate to provide for and care for multiple wives, but I know several worthy sisters who never found a husband and wish for polygamy so they can be married sooner rather than later.

I'LLMAKEYAFAMOUS
captain of 100
Posts: 800

Re: US Supreme Court could discuss 'Sister Wives' case

Post by I'LLMAKEYAFAMOUS »

brianj wrote:I have no scriptural basis for this, but I believe that if the church had won the Reynolds v. United States case we would still have some level of polygamy within this church. I doubt the Supreme Court will hear the case because Brown hasn't been charged with a crime, but it would be interesting to see how they rule.

I firmly believe that at some future point, probably within my mortal life, polygamy will return to the church. I have mixed feelings about this. I wouldn't want to do something that would hurt a beloved wife, and I feel inadequate to provide for and care for multiple wives, but I know several worthy sisters who never found a husband and wish for polygamy so they can be married sooner rather than later.
Why do you believe this would return to the Church? Just because there are some women who aren't married and would like to be would never be reason enough to reinstate this. I can think of a whole host of reasons why it would never happen, and maybe two max of why it would.

User avatar
Melissa
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1697

Re: US Supreme Court could discuss 'Sister Wives' case

Post by Melissa »

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!

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?

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.

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13110
Location: England

Re: US Supreme Court could discuss 'Sister Wives' case

Post by Robin Hood »

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

braingrunt
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2042

Re: US Supreme Court could discuss 'Sister Wives' case

Post by braingrunt »

Robin Hood wrote:I didn't realize that Utah has a law that outlaws multiple partner cohabitation.
Seems a little draconian to me.
At least compared to what else we allow.

User avatar
bbsion
captain of 100
Posts: 419
Contact:

Re: US Supreme Court could discuss 'Sister Wives' case

Post by bbsion »

Melissa wrote: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!

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?

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.
I think a lot of your post is rather full of assumption so I do not really care to address a lot of it. But I am a little curious about this: "I highly doubt the church would allow it simply because it becomes legal. The church has been talking a lot about how it doesn't change with popular demand or with cultural changes." The manifesto itself got rid of polygamy because it became illegal. Why not the opposite? The church has evolved quite a bit since it was restored. Some would argue that it has evolved to satisfy popular demand. This is not the case in all things (i.e. recent policies about gays), but it is at least worth noting the changes in the church over the years that have corresponded with "popular demand".

tribrac
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4367
Location: The land northward

Re: US Supreme Court could discuss 'Sister Wives' case

Post by tribrac »

Just my luck, the church will change position* on this when I am too old to have more kids.



* by change position I mean they will re-emphasize the position that the church has always held that polygamy is the right way, and clear up the confusion caused by a few members who got carried away in their own private interpretation. (yes, that is sarcasm)

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

Re: US Supreme Court could discuss 'Sister Wives' case

Post by Sarah »

Melissa wrote: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!

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?

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.
I agree that I don't think the Lord will decide to command it be practiced again just because it becomes legal now. We would be sending the message to the world that it is okay for everyone, which it is not, and we would get more heat for our stance on gay marriage.

If it does come back it will be after the saints have their own government, and the wicked are separated from the righteous. In fact, one reason I believe it was taken away was that the saints were becoming too mixed in with the Gentiles for the practice to continue in righteousness.

Benjamin_LK
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2502
Location: Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: US Supreme Court could discuss 'Sister Wives' case

Post by Benjamin_LK »

Bringing back now would only draw more attention to the chirch not practicing SSM. I honestly feel it is something only for after the wicked have been really soundly defeated, plus it is not an important issue relative to many others in the Proclamation.

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: US Supreme Court could discuss 'Sister Wives' case

Post by brianj »

Robin Hood wrote:I didn't realize that Utah has a law that outlaws multiple partner cohabitation.
Seems a little draconian to me.
There's a bill in the Utah legislature that would loosen Utah's polygamy law by allowing cohabitation. In one of the forums here I saw a thread attacking that bill as an infringement on freedom of religion. I just can't understand some people.
I'LLMAKEYAFAMOUS wrote:Why do you believe this would return to the Church? Just because there are some women who aren't married and would like to be would never be reason enough to reinstate this. I can think of a whole host of reasons why it would never happen, and maybe two max of why it would.
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.
Melissa wrote: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.

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!
I can agree with you here. This is confirmed in Jacob 2:30, where we are taught that polygamy is only permissible when commanded through prophecy. But there is prophecy that this will happen in the future. But I question your last statement that God is monogamous. On what do you base this? The practice of sealing multiple wives to one man continues today! I am not aware of a single prophecy claiming that monogamy is the way of the Celestial Kingdom.


Here's what I expect will happen: very bad things. We have prophecy of a great civil war in our future as part of the coming tribulations. Government as we know it will collapse until it is restored as originally intended. During this time of tribulation there will be no law and no law enforcement. I do believe there will be some form of gathering during that time, and that the only peace to be found will be in the gathering places of Zion. At that time, when refugees (almost entirely women and children) come to the Saints for safety, I believe polygamy will return as a way to place these people in families, provide for them, and to raise up righteous seed to the Lord. But I don't believe polygamy could return at this time. Unrighteous government needs to be eliminated, the Saints need to e humbled, and society around us needs to be humbled enough to allow us follow that commandment when it comes.

User avatar
Sandinista
captain of 100
Posts: 518
Location: Ohio

Re: US Supreme Court could discuss 'Sister Wives' case

Post by Sandinista »

Why can't you people get it? The Lord will never condone Polygamy, nor the Church re-institute it. The reason for polygamy in the early Church is clearly stated in Jacob 5:27-30.

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

If you look at the task that was facing the Saints as they were asked to settle large portions of a very unfriendly territory, raise a generation that would be strong enough to lay the foundations for a world-wide Church, and quickly establish the Church as a viable and growing religion it was necessary to have people, and large numbers of them. Polygamy was the marriage dynamic that produced two large generations of born-in-the-covenant dedicated Latter-day Saints that provided much of the ecclesiastical, financial, and cultural foundation that has allowed the Church to become a world-wide Church today.

Just as the Lord said in Jacob, "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." Polygamy was a tool the Lord used to accomplish his purposes.

And don't even begin to argue that Polygamy is the "New and Everlasting Covenant." If you do it just shows your misunderstanding of what that is.

User avatar
Melissa
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1697

Re: US Supreme Court could discuss 'Sister Wives' case

Post by Melissa »

brianj wrote:
Robin Hood wrote:I didn't realize that Utah has a law that outlaws multiple partner cohabitation.
Seems a little draconian to me.
There's a bill in the Utah legislature that would loosen Utah's polygamy law by allowing cohabitation. In one of the forums here I saw a thread attacking that bill as an infringement on freedom of religion. I just can't understand some people.
I'LLMAKEYAFAMOUS wrote:Why do you believe this would return to the Church? Just because there are some women who aren't married and would like to be would never be reason enough to reinstate this. I can think of a whole host of reasons why it would never happen, and maybe two max of why it would.
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.
Melissa wrote: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.

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!
I can agree with you here. This is confirmed in Jacob 2:30, where we are taught that polygamy is only permissible when commanded through prophecy. But there is prophecy that this will happen in the future. But I question your last statement that God is monogamous. On what do you base this? The practice of sealing multiple wives to one man continues today! I am not aware of a single prophecy claiming that monogamy is the way of the Celestial Kingdom.


Here's what I expect will happen: very bad things. We have prophecy of a great civil war in our future as part of the coming tribulations. Government as we know it will collapse until it is restored as originally intended. During this time of tribulation there will be no law and no law enforcement. I do believe there will be some form of gathering during that time, and that the only peace to be found will be in the gathering places of Zion. At that time, when refugees (almost entirely women and children) come to the Saints for safety, I believe polygamy will return as a way to place these people in families, provide for them, and to raise up righteous seed to the Lord. But I don't believe polygamy could return at this time. Unrighteous government needs to be eliminated, the Saints need to e humbled, and society around us needs to be humbled enough to allow us follow that commandment when it comes.
Go to lds.org and type in monogamy. It's stated very clearly that the standard is and always has been monogamy. There have been times the Lord has authorized a different system but monogamy is always the Lord's prefered method.

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. God's form of marriage is monogamy, polygamy is likely useful for some situations but is certainly not ideal. No where in the church can you find polygamy teaching stating it's the way to the celestial kingdom. If it was, I think every memeber would be aware of that fact.

The whole freaking point of the LDS church is to make covenants and live a Christ like life to return home, we are sealed as families to hopefully be able to be together as that family unit in the Celestial kingdom. To say that polygamy is the way to make it is blasphemous! It goes against EVERYTHING we do as active members of this church!! I would hope that every woman would revolt if this teaching of polygamy was taught during our Sunday worship or words were added to the sealing ceremony indicating the marriage was incomplete until some further day when more women could join us at the alter....geez.

If 95% of people are opppsed, it goes to say that it may not actually be what we are programmed to live. I fully believe that every man in this modern day church period who are desirous for polygamy or cause their wives pain or fear over this desire or expectation of his, will absolutely be humbled and put in his place at some time. Much like all the men who think they are superior or bosses or hurt their wives over porn use or infidelity. God doesn't take kindly to men who hurt their wife! He destroys them!

Mormons surely can be some egotistical people thinking they are entitled to stuff. Go outside of our church to.any Christian religion who follows the bible (where polygamy is present with some examples) and tell them they need to practice polygamy to make it to heaven and they will kick you out so fast.

I'm so tired of all these people who believe polygamy is coming back and they will get more wives to themselves. So sickening!! If God can make a baby out of rocks, he can surely fill the need of single women desiring an eternal companion without hurting others in the process.

Oh, I also don't think you are aware of what heaven really will be like. A man being sealed to more than one wife during this lifetime doesn't mean polygamy as you may think it means. Being sealed to and procreating with are two different things. I'm sealed to my ancestors but I surely won't be procreating with them, but I do expect to have them after this life!

Not all this reply is directed at you specifically by the way, it's just easier to post it all at once.

User avatar
Col. Flagg
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 16961
Location: Utah County

Re: US Supreme Court could discuss 'Sister Wives' case

Post by Col. Flagg »

Polygamy was a big mistake and should never have existed among the Saints. Do a little research into the origins of it and how it infiltrated the early church - the results just might surprise you. :-o

It's an abomination.

braingrunt
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2042

Re: US Supreme Court could discuss 'Sister Wives' case

Post by braingrunt »

I disagree.

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: US Supreme Court could discuss 'Sister Wives' case

Post by brianj »

Melissa wrote:Go to lds.org and type in monogamy. It's stated very clearly that the standard is and always has been monogamy. There have been times the Lord has authorized a different system but monogamy is always the Lord's prefered method.

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. God's form of marriage is monogamy, polygamy is likely useful for some situations but is certainly not ideal. No where in the church can you find polygamy teaching stating it's the way to the celestial kingdom. If it was, I think every memeber would be aware of that fact.

The whole freaking point of the LDS church is to make covenants and live a Christ like life to return home, we are sealed as families to hopefully be able to be together as that family unit in the Celestial kingdom. To say that polygamy is the way to make it is blasphemous! It goes against EVERYTHING we do as active members of this church!! I would hope that every woman would revolt if this teaching of polygamy was taught during our Sunday worship or words were added to the sealing ceremony indicating the marriage was incomplete until some further day when more women could join us at the alter....geez.

If 95% of people are opppsed, it goes to say that it may not actually be what we are programmed to live. I fully believe that every man in this modern day church period who are desirous for polygamy or cause their wives pain or fear over this desire or expectation of his, will absolutely be humbled and put in his place at some time. Much like all the men who think they are superior or bosses or hurt their wives over porn use or infidelity. God doesn't take kindly to men who hurt their wife! He destroys them!

Mormons surely can be some egotistical people thinking they are entitled to stuff. Go outside of our church to.any Christian religion who follows the bible (where polygamy is present with some examples) and tell them they need to practice polygamy to make it to heaven and they will kick you out so fast.

I'm so tired of all these people who believe polygamy is coming back and they will get more wives to themselves. So sickening!! If God can make a baby out of rocks, he can surely fill the need of single women desiring an eternal companion without hurting others in the process.

Oh, I also don't think you are aware of what heaven really will be like. A man being sealed to more than one wife during this lifetime doesn't mean polygamy as you may think it means. Being sealed to and procreating with are two different things. I'm sealed to my ancestors but I surely won't be procreating with them, but I do expect to have them after this life!

Not all this reply is directed at you specifically by the way, it's just easier to post it all at once.
As you asked, I went to lds.org and did a search on monogamy. The very first item returned was the article Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo. It ends with a statement that we all should remember: "The precise nature of these relationships in the next life is not known..." Since we don't know, we can only speculate. I know men who became widowers, or whose wives left the church, and who were subsequently sealed to another woman for time and eternity. Focusing on the widowers whose wives were sincerely trying to live the gospel when they passed, what of them? Are you convinced they will give their hearts to two women, but will be cruelly forced to choose one woman and toss the other out?

Your second paragraph suggests that you believe plural marriage is hurtful to women. Without sufficient righteousness from all involved I do see that it can be, and probably is, hurtful to all who participate, but if you or I are called to participate in a plural marriage and the Holy Spirit confirms that calling, then I hope that we will have an experience similar to Helen Mar Kimball who called polygamy one of the "severest" trials of her life but also "one of the greatest blessings." Sure, some guys will react as you imply ("Goodie! I get more wives!") but that's not a righteous or worthy attitude to have. I believe that participating in plural marriage is one of the greatest trials we could be asked to endure, for many of us far greater than sacrificing our lives. But that doctrine would not exist if it were not for our blessing and benefit.

Finally, keep in mind that although you are sealed to ancestors, you are not sealed to any of them as a spouse. Though you are, or will be, sealed to children, you will not be sealed to them as a spouse. I would expect people to procreate with spouses but not with other family members!

User avatar
Melissa
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1697

Re: US Supreme Court could discuss 'Sister Wives' case

Post by Melissa »

brianj wrote:
Melissa wrote:Go to lds.org and type in monogamy. It's stated very clearly that the standard is and always has been monogamy. There have been times the Lord has authorized a different system but monogamy is always the Lord's prefered method.

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. God's form of marriage is monogamy, polygamy is likely useful for some situations but is certainly not ideal. No where in the church can you find polygamy teaching stating it's the way to the celestial kingdom. If it was, I think every memeber would be aware of that fact.

The whole freaking point of the LDS church is to make covenants and live a Christ like life to return home, we are sealed as families to hopefully be able to be together as that family unit in the Celestial kingdom. To say that polygamy is the way to make it is blasphemous! It goes against EVERYTHING we do as active members of this church!! I would hope that every woman would revolt if this teaching of polygamy was taught during our Sunday worship or words were added to the sealing ceremony indicating the marriage was incomplete until some further day when more women could join us at the alter....geez.

If 95% of people are opppsed, it goes to say that it may not actually be what we are programmed to live. I fully believe that every man in this modern day church period who are desirous for polygamy or cause their wives pain or fear over this desire or expectation of his, will absolutely be humbled and put in his place at some time. Much like all the men who think they are superior or bosses or hurt their wives over porn use or infidelity. God doesn't take kindly to men who hurt their wife! He destroys them!

Mormons surely can be some egotistical people thinking they are entitled to stuff. Go outside of our church to.any Christian religion who follows the bible (where polygamy is present with some examples) and tell them they need to practice polygamy to make it to heaven and they will kick you out so fast.

I'm so tired of all these people who believe polygamy is coming back and they will get more wives to themselves. So sickening!! If God can make a baby out of rocks, he can surely fill the need of single women desiring an eternal companion without hurting others in the process.

Oh, I also don't think you are aware of what heaven really will be like. A man being sealed to more than one wife during this lifetime doesn't mean polygamy as you may think it means. Being sealed to and procreating with are two different things. I'm sealed to my ancestors but I surely won't be procreating with them, but I do expect to have them after this life!

Not all this reply is directed at you specifically by the way, it's just easier to post it all at once.
As you asked, I went to lds.org and did a search on monogamy. The very first item returned was the article Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo. It ends with a statement that we all should remember: "The precise nature of these relationships in the next life is not known..." Since we don't know, we can only speculate. I know men who became widowers, or whose wives left the church, and who were subsequently sealed to another woman for time and eternity. Focusing on the widowers whose wives were sincerely trying to live the gospel when they passed, what of them? Are you convinced they will give their hearts to two women, but will be cruelly forced to choose one woman and toss the other out?

Your second paragraph suggests that you believe plural marriage is hurtful to women. Without sufficient righteousness from all involved I do see that it can be, and probably is, hurtful to all who participate, but if you or I are called to participate in a plural marriage and the Holy Spirit confirms that calling, then I hope that we will have an experience similar to Helen Mar Kimball who called polygamy one of the "severest" trials of her life but also "one of the greatest blessings." Sure, some guys will react as you imply ("Goodie! I get more wives!") but that's not a righteous or worthy attitude to have. I believe that participating in plural marriage is one of the greatest trials we could be asked to endure, for many of us far greater than sacrificing our lives. But that doctrine would not exist if it were not for our blessing and benefit.

Finally, keep in mind that although you are sealed to ancestors, you are not sealed to any of them as a spouse. Though you are, or will be, sealed to children, you will not be sealed to them as a spouse. I would expect people to procreate with spouses but not with other family members!
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?

User avatar
Col. Flagg
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 16961
Location: Utah County

Re: US Supreme Court could discuss 'Sister Wives' case

Post by Col. Flagg »

braingrunt wrote:I disagree.
Only an unrighteous, insensitive and carnal man would embrace something as awful as polygamy.

User avatar
Melissa
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1697

Re: US Supreme Court could discuss 'Sister Wives' case

Post by Melissa »

Col. Flagg wrote:
braingrunt wrote: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.

I can actually view polygamy as a seperate thing outside of the early church or old prophets stories. My view on polygamy have nothing to do with Joseph Smith or early LDS. My testimony or faith is not in anyway dependant on accepting or denying early practice of polygamy by LDS pioneers. So, I don't have a religious devotion to it. Thus no religious skewedness (if that's a word, lol) on my views or beliefs. Get to the basics or matters of the heart and it feels wrong!

Thank you c.Flagg for defending what few are willing to....women and the fact that they actually matter beyond sacrificing the womb and hearts.

User avatar
Col. Flagg
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 16961
Location: Utah County

Re: US Supreme Court could discuss 'Sister Wives' case

Post by Col. Flagg »

Melissa wrote: Thank you c.Flagg for defending what few are willing to....women and the fact that they actually matter beyond sacrificing the womb and hearts.
:YMHUG: Somebody has to... there are far too many men (even in the church) with cold hearts and unrighteous desires for unrighteous dominion. X( Any man willing to trample on the feelings and emotions of a woman to satisfy his own will or desires... is a cad and cod... and not a man.

braingrunt
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2042

Re: US Supreme Court could discuss 'Sister Wives' case

Post by braingrunt »

:) Again, I'll have to say I disagree. And you're attacking strawmen, fake people packed with little more than sex and domination. Go ahead and attack them. Or if there are real people like that then you can attack them too. :)

Your view is also fixated on some dude named Jacob Cochran; but who the heck cares about Jacob Cochran when there are prophets nearby?

User avatar
gkearney
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5346

Re: US Supreme Court could discuss 'Sister Wives' case

Post by gkearney »

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.

User avatar
Melissa
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1697

Re: US Supreme Court could discuss 'Sister Wives' case

Post by Melissa »

gkearney wrote: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.
And what happens when we get to the other side and we have our knowledge of our pre-existance restored and find that we have a desire to be with someone else than who we married on earth? Do you also believe that we should not be denied the association with those we had closeness with before we came to our very short earth experience?

Just a thought about how much we really don't know much beyond or before this mortal journey. I also believe that we will have the ability to associate with anyone and everyone we desire to. But we will have a spouse, as far as we are taught her on earth. We will associate with many different people.

User avatar
gkearney
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5346

Re: US Supreme Court could discuss 'Sister Wives' case

Post by gkearney »

Melissa wrote:
And what happens when we get to the other side and we have our knowledge of our pre-existance restored and find that we have a desire to be with someone else than who we married on earth? Do you also believe that we should not be denied the association with those we had closeness with before we came to our very short earth experience?

Just a thought about how much we really don't know much beyond or before this mortal journey. I also believe that we will have the ability to associate with anyone and everyone we desire to. But we will have a spouse, as far as we are taught her on earth. We will associate with many different people.
To answer your question I simply do not know and I have no opinion on such a scenario as you describe. I do believe that all will be made happy and that no one will ever be forced into a relationship that all the parties are not happy with.

Your right of course and this is just my point. We simply do not, and in fact can not, possibly understand how such relationships might work out. The problem is we are taking as a guide in this our earthly experiences and trying to apply those to situations so very different than what we currently find ourselves in. However there are many, many people who have had more than one spouse on this earth and who were separated from them not by divorce but rather by death and I do not think those relationships devolve away like so much dust just to avoid the idea of plural marriage.

So I agree with you. In this life we are to have but one spouse. I do not expect the church to ever change the current stand on this issue, nor would I ever want it to. That said I am willing to consider that in the next life with a more expansive view of human relationships that we might have there such familiar relations might take some form. Likely a form I can not imagine with my limited earthy view of things.

Post Reply