Fed judge to decide constitutionality of gay marriage today

[pjbrownie]

Yes Prop 8 is now struck down—I’m perplexed. I’m a student of history and can’t help but see the irony of the LDS Church using the opposite legal argument that they used to plead for plural marriage—the interest of the state in keeping marriage between a man and a women—whereas in the 1880’s the state should but out of such private affairs—marriage was no business of the state.

I saw that too, but of course the real difference is that in 1880 the church knew polygamy was approved by God. Now we have the opposite, we know gay relations are condemned by god, so I think the church is just trying to fight for what's right with whatever means are available.

From such a longitudinal view, these arguments seem like sweet justice to the legislative decisions over a century ago—the state has no business in dictating the ideal form of relations between persons. One can’t help but see the plural marriage practitioners rubbing their hands to use this jurisprudence. If the 14th amendment guaranteed equal protection under the law—now in marriage matters—why limit the number to only 2? Are not 3 or 4 party marriages in need of as much equal protection? We could veritably find ourselves back in 1880 arguing the validity of Edmunds-Tucker. One also wonders if this is the elephant in the room for the LDS Church. Are they as frustrated with gay marriage or are they worried about the theological questions that may be raised again over polygamy is the basis for the Manifesto were to be removed by law?

possibly, but I doubt it. Practically speaking almost everyone is dead set against polygamy, so even if it was legal again, I think very few would practice it unless explicitly commanded to through the church. I just don't see that being a big concern for the Church with everything else going on these days. We've got much bigger fish to fry. Porn, gay marriage, adultery, divorce without adequate cause, etc. All these are far bigger issues than polygamy would be.

But onto the substance of the ruling: It was irritating—less from that normative question of should gay have the right to marry, but the nature of the trial, its intimidation factors against the Proposition 8 supporters, and its lopsided process. Buried in its ruling is an even more nefarious problem, the Federal government overturning what ought to be a state matter—again—another violation of the 10th amendment—which almost has no teeth and will be subject to the supremacy clause once again. The further neutering of the Republic is at stake here.

Yep. One more nail in the coffin of the republic.

Not that gay rights advocates of the left are the only ones that use this tactic—DOMA was a legislative law in the opposite direction but just as complicit in republican small r suicide. Why does everything have to be affirmed at the Federal level? The higher we go up in the process of governance, the more we hand the reigns of governance over to academic elites and away from the hands of the people. We use this hammer to settle all matters of law permanently. Why do we have to do this? Why do things have to be settled permanently? Are we that sick of seeing these kinds of battles on our newspaper’s front page? Why do we care what California does if we live in Utah? Because we know that it trickles up federally and then trickles down as a hammer to the rest of us. We have this collective understanding—think Roe v. Wade. This is the core crux of the Tea Party movement—the return to the Federalist concept that has been eroded essentially since the Civil War—a push to the swinging back of a progressive-internationalist bent that needs to be corrected. What this ruling does is reaffirm the big over the small, top-down governance and not bottom up. And this is why it was bad and why we should be worried about it.

This problem goes clear back to Abraham Lincoln. I don't believe we'll ever return to the anti-federalist (I assume that's what you meant) position until after the cleansing of America.

Rensai, I doubt the polygamy thing as well from the Church's standpoint. I wrote this for a more liberal/mainstream audience and I was throwing it out as a carrot for them to chew on. I think the Church is more worried about the eroding of the family to a point where it puts us into bondage with the state. They'll also worried about the eroding of religious freedom as the jurisprudence for gays becoming a protected status will force the church to do things it doesn't want to do--at first to keep its tax-exempt status--which it doesn't want to lose, and then for other things like human resource law at LDS employment, and eventually temple ordinances--which is the endgame essentially. If you can prove harm to someone (depression and suicide) because civil laws deny marriage, what about those that have the same harm done to them because of cultural disapproval, not anything codified in law? What about those that commit suicide because their church won't let them marry their same-sex other in the temple? They will sue to show harm and that's where this goes.

[Hyrcanus]

If we remove God from the equation politically, few of our religious beliefs, and even our right to practice our religion wholly can maintain their footing. We can't have one set of rules for church, and another for politics. When I hear people say to leave religion out of politics I want to scream. If you do it, you are denying the Creator. When the majority of us deny the Creator we cannot hold together a moral system of government. People have been prodded into believing that they are hypocrites to live freely while denying a legal recognition of immoral behavior, but once we legally recognize immoral behavior by leaving our religious beliefs at the door when we head to the polls, we have kicked the foundation from under the whole system. Without a constant, nothing is sacred.

I don't think gay marriage is the turning point. The turning point is in our rear view mirror.

I don't think we should wholly disregard God in our political considerations. I think we should evaluate what powers we're giving to government in order to defend our beliefs will be turned on us when a party of the opposite persuasion gains the majority. It's only a separate set of rules insofar as we presently have separate systems. The water gets muddied when we begin to assign similar powers to both Church and State. Churches have an appropriate role in performing, authorizing and ordaining marriages. Governments at most have a role in recording them (AT MOST).

We want our system to allow a maximum reasonable degree of personal freedom to practice ones chosen religion. Our church was nearly destroyed, brought literally to its knees before a too powerful government on a moral crusade to break religious freedom's back. While we're presently advocating for a good cause, to slow the rampant progress of immoral behavior in our country, we're doing it using very nearly identical arguments to the ones levied against us 140 years ago. We have to recognize that whatever the moral justice we think our position holds, we're continuing to give government increasing power that it has a clear history of abusing at the first opportunity.

I sincerely believe that someday we'll have a government we can entrust with these sorts of issues, one wholly aligned with God and his purposes, until then we're as likely to be beaten with the crop that we're handing government as we are to benefit from the control that it gives them.

[ChelC]

If we remove God from the equation politically, few of our religious beliefs, and even our right to practice our religion wholly can maintain their footing. We can't have one set of rules for church, and another for politics. When I hear people say to leave religion out of politics I want to scream. If you do it, you are denying the Creator. When the majority of us deny the Creator we cannot hold together a moral system of government. People have been prodded into believing that they are hypocrites to live freely while denying a legal recognition of immoral behavior, but once we legally recognize immoral behavior by leaving our religious beliefs at the door when we head to the polls, we have kicked the foundation from under the whole system. Without a constant, nothing is sacred.

I don't think gay marriage is the turning point. The turning point is in our rear view mirror.

I don't think we should wholly disregard God in our political considerations. I think we should evaluate what powers we're giving to government in order to defend our beliefs will be turned on us when a party of the opposite persuasion gains the majority. It's only a separate set of rules insofar as we presently have separate systems. The water gets muddied when we begin to assign similar powers to both Church and State. Churches have an appropriate role in performing, authorizing and ordaining marriages. Governments at most have a role in recording them (AT MOST).

We want our system to allow a maximum reasonable degree of personal freedom to practice ones chosen religion. Our church was nearly destroyed, brought literally to its knees before a too powerful government on a moral crusade to break religious freedom's back. While we're presently advocating for a good cause, to slow the rampant progress of immoral behavior in our country, we're doing it using very nearly identical arguments to the ones levied against us 140 years ago. We have to recognize that whatever the moral justice we think our position holds, we're continuing to give government increasing power that it has a clear history of abusing at the first opportunity.

I sincerely believe that someday we'll have a government we can entrust with these sorts of issues, one wholly aligned with God and his purposes, until then we're as likely to be beaten with the crop that we're handing government as we are to benefit from the control that it gives them.

There is nothing here I disagree with. I do however disagree that it would work as an effective strategy to protect rights in a society that fails to recognize God and natural law. I believe the promise to Lehi in large part is a numbers game. When we believe in God, we prosper. When we don't, we languish. This is true on every level, including government. I don't believe we can expect to have liberty when we do not obey God's law. History says we wont. No matter what our Constitution says, no matter how libertarian our viewpoints, the wicked cannot abide it.

[ithink]

Are they as frustrated with gay marriage or are they worried about the theological questions that may be raised again over polygamy is the basis for the Manifesto were to be removed by law?

I think the LDS church is terrified that the legal interdiction on plural marriage will be removed. If it is, then what justification would there be to continue to avoid it? It will indeed be ironic if the gays take on the gov for their form of marriage and win, considering the history of the church and polygamy.

[NoGreaterLove]

I read an article about a year ago talking about the effects that legalizing gay marriage had on various church organizations that refused to perform gay marriages. They actually stopped performing marriage ceremonies. Will our bishops have to stop performing them? What will happen when a gay person is not allowed access to our temple just because he or she is gay? Will they file a lawsuit and take it to the supreme court? I could not find the article, however I did find this.

Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts [Paperback]
Douglas Laycock (Editor), Jr. Anthony Picarello (Editor), Robin Fretwell Wilson (Editor)

"The editor of a new book,Same Sex
Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging
Conflicts, summarizes the general issue this
way: “All six contributors (to the book)—
religious and secular, left, center and right
agree that same sex marriage is a threat to
religious liberty.” The demand for same sex
marriage brings in its wake a demand for
identical treatment of same sex couples and
opposite sex couples. Churches that resist
this demand can have their tax exempt status
challenged, can be investigated by “human
rights commissions,” and can have parts of
their operation shut down completely."

Wow! Maybe our temples!?

[Amore Vero]

I think the LDS church is terrified that the legal interdiction on plural marriage will be removed. If it is, then what justification would there be to continue to avoid it?

The justification for not bringing it back again is because God stopped it & wanted it to end.

Polygamy would not work today anyway in the Church, because for the 1st time in history on a large scale, righteous women today have woken up & now understand their equality in marriage, as God wanted them to. Unlike most men & even many women in the 1800's who considered 'women' like property, to be collected & controlled. Righteous women today have high self-worth & self-respect & would never marry into such a severely abusive arrangement as polygamy is, inspired or not, because they know they don't have to marry now if they don't think they will be happy, they can just wait til the next life to marry.

Unlike the women of the 1800's, who usually only went along with polygamy because they were falsely told that they had to marry & be sealed to a man 'in this life' to make it to the Celestial Kingdom. We now know that was not true, women can wait til the next life to marry & still receive all blessings. If they had known the truth, most women then would not have married & endured polygamy either.

[NoGreaterLove]

The justification for not bringing it back again is because God stopped it & wanted it to end.

Polygamy would not work today anyway in the Church, because righteous women today understand their equality in marriage unlike men & women did in the 1800's & women are not considered like property to be collected & controlled anymore. Righteous women today have high self-worth & self-respect & would never marry into such a severely abusive arrangement as polygamy is, inspired or not, because they know they don't have to marry now if they don't think they will be happy, they can just wait til the next life to marry.

Unlike the women of the 1800's, who usually only went along with polygamy because they were falsely told that they had to marry & be sealed to a man to make it to the Celestial Kingdom. We now know that was not true, women can wait til the next life to marry & still receive all blessings. If they had known the truth, most women then would not have married & endured polygamy either.

I completely disagree with everything you just said and I believe it is against the teachings of Christ.

[Fiannan]

The justification for not bringing it back again is because God stopped it & wanted it to end.

Polygamy would not work today anyway in the Church, because for the 1st time in history on a large scale, righteous women today have woken up & now understand their equality in marriage, as God wanted them to. Unlike most men & even many women in the 1800's who considered 'women' like property, to be collected & controlled. Righteous women today have high self-worth & self-respect & would never marry into such a severely abusive arrangement as polygamy is, inspired or not, because they know they don't have to marry now if they don't think they will be happy, they can just wait til the next life to marry.

Unlike the women of the 1800's, who usually only went along with polygamy because they were falsely told that they had to marry & be sealed to a man 'in this life' to make it to the Celestial Kingdom. We now know that was not true, women can wait til the next life to marry & still receive all blessings. If they had known the truth, most women then would not have married & endured polygamy either.

Give me a break, if anything women would be far more open to polygamy than in the past. In the 19th Century, the people were still highly influenced by Victorian "morality" which was, like so many other things, based on the philosopies of man, mingled with a bit of scripture. Women today do not look at sexuality as a sin in and of itself -- perhaps this is one of the positive things about the sexual revolution. There are many, many women, member and non-member alike who would have no problem with polygamy. And while there would be some in the church who would hate it, they would not be foreced to live it. They would, however, be expected to respect the decisions of women who chose to live this principle.

As for economics, in an age of economic equality, an age that, with all the positives, comes with the negative of often having to choose between career and family, polygamy makes a huge amount of sense. In such a group marriage the responsibilities of earning money and caring for children could be shared. Women would not have to limit their childbearing due to costs or losing their jobs. In a cooperate setting then childcare would be shared between the wives -- and so you would not have to drop off your kids at a daycare where people are paid to pretend they like your kids. Women who helped nurse each other's kids, cared for them in play, and knew that their children, and their sister-wives's kids, shared the same father (thus were all one big extended family) would likely be far more nurturing and provide an excellent home environment for all the kids.

[KOMYU]

Quote:
The justification for not bringing it back again is because God stopped it & wanted it to end.

Polygamy would not work today anyway in the Church, because righteous women today understand their equality in marriage unlike men & women did in the 1800's & women are not considered like property to be collected & controlled anymore. Righteous women today have high self-worth & self-respect & would never marry into such a severely abusive arrangement as polygamy is, inspired or not, because they know they don't have to marry now if they don't think they will be happy, they can just wait til the next life to marry.

Unlike the women of the 1800's, who usually only went along with polygamy because they were falsely told that they had to marry & be sealed to a man to make it to the Celestial Kingdom. We now know that was not true, women can wait til the next life to marry & still receive all blessings. If they had known the truth, most women then would not have married & endured polygamy either.

Amore you have never been asked to live it, therefore you like the rest of us know nothing of it's spirituality and the blessings associated with it. I believe President Smith stated that it is an eternal law that is still present but not observed at this time. Or something to that effect. Others can enlighten with exact quote I'm sure. One thing is for sure, I felt absolutely no spirit in what you have said.

[ithink]

Polygamy would not work today anyway in the Church, because for the 1st time in history on a large scale, righteous women today have woken up & now understand their equality in marriage, as God wanted them to.

Is that what we are taught in the temple?

Unlike most men & even many women in the 1800's who considered 'women' like property, to be collected & controlled.

Women are not chattel, but because they were once considered such, or because you are told by your public school system they were, you believe it! But tell me, do you think Abigail Adams was chattel to John? Was Mary to Joseph? Was Emma to Joseph? Was Eve, to Adam?

Righteous women today have high self-worth & self-respect & would never marry into such a severely abusive arrangement as polygamy is

You are fiend of the infernal pit and ought to cease your blasphemes against Joseph Smith, John Taylor, Brigham Young, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Adam, Moses, and others who have entered into such an order, and even God himself, who is the grand author of it!

, inspired or not, because they know they don't have to marry now if they don't think they will be happy, they can just wait til the next life to marry.

Really? Is there marriage in the next life? Is that a heresy?

Unlike the women of the 1800's, who usually only went along with polygamy because they were falsely told that they had to marry & be sealed to a man 'in this life' to make it to the Celestial Kingdom . We now know that was not true, women can wait til the next life to marry & still receive all blessings. If they had known the truth, most women then would not have married & endured polygamy either.

Most can't handle the whole truth. You are one of them. Monogamy is not the order of the celestial kingdom, is it?

[Amore Vero]

Give me a break, if anything women would be far more open to polygamy than in the past.

I said 'righteous' women, with an ounce of self-worth & self-respect, would never put themselves & their children through such abuse on this earth, when they have the option to just wait to marry in the next life. And even if they must eventually accept plural marriage in the next life at least it will be alot easier there with totally righteous men living it correctly. Wise women would wait.

Of course there has been & will always be desperate women who would take a man at any cost to themselves or their children. We see that today everywhere, in & out of the Church.

And I disagree on the economics also. You base your belief on the idea that it's 'ok' or even 'a good thing' for wives to work. Wives should never have to work for money their whole lives. With how hard & rare it is for a man to be able to keep one woman happy & support her & do his half of all the childcare & housework, instead of pass it off to others, how in the world could a man do all that & support & keep happy 2,3 or 43? It's impossible in this life.

[Hyrcanus]

I think the LDS church is terrified that the legal interdiction on plural marriage will be removed. If it is, then what justification would there be to continue to avoid it?

The justification for not bringing it back again is because God stopped it & wanted it to end.

Polygamy would not work today anyway in the Church, because for the 1st time in history on a large scale, righteous women today have woken up & now understand their equality in marriage, as God wanted them to. Unlike most men & even many women in the 1800's who considered 'women' like property, to be collected & controlled. Righteous women today have high self-worth & self-respect & would never marry into such a severely abusive arrangement as polygamy is, inspired or not, because they know they don't have to marry now if they don't think they will be happy, they can just wait til the next life to marry.

Unlike the women of the 1800's, who usually only went along with polygamy because they were falsely told that they had to marry & be sealed to a man 'in this life' to make it to the Celestial Kingdom. We now know that was not true, women can wait til the next life to marry & still receive all blessings. If they had known the truth, most women then would not have married & endured polygamy either.

Celestial marriage still works in the Church today. I'm not sure why you'd think the Lord would institute an inherently abusive institution. It worked in the early Church just as it could work tomorrow, individual Saints submitting their will to God's and doing exactly as he asks us to. It had nothing to do with women who were "unenlightened" or "falsely taught" as you suggest. I imagine some of the women in the early church would be irritated to hear you calling them ignorant of the truth. Women like Eliza R. Snow vigorously defended Celestial Marriage, recognizing it was God's will. Women in the Church today aren't any smarter then she was in her time. Men in the Church aren't any smarter then any of the early leaders of the Church for that matter.

The law of the Lord we live is based on the will of the Lord, not our notions of being "enlightened" or smarter then past generations. That should be true for each of us yesterday, today and forever.

[Amore Vero]

Amore you have never been asked to live it, therefore you like the rest of us know nothing of it's spirituality and the blessings associated with it.

You don't know what I have been asked to live with or what I know. But one things for sure, Heavenly Father will tell anyone on earth all they want to know about polygamy & when it's an abomination & when it's a righteous thing & how it's supposed to be lived & why the Lord would ask it & the sacrifices, torments & blessings associated with it. I suggest you ask him for further light & knowledge on the subject. He will tell you anything you want to know.

[Amore Vero]

Monogamy is not the order of the celestial kingdom, is it?

Yes, it probably is, for the majority.

[Amore Vero]

Celestial marriage still works in the Church today. I'm not sure why you'd think the Lord would institute an inherently abusive institution. It worked in the early Church just as it could work tomorrow, individual Saints submitting their will to God's and doing exactly as he asks us to. It had nothing to do with women who were "unenlightened" or "falsely taught" as you suggest. I imagine some of the women in the early church would be irritated to hear you calling them ignorant of the truth. Women like Eliza R. Snow vigorously defended Celestial Marriage, recognizing it was God's will. Women in the Church today aren't any smarter then she was in her time. Men in the Church aren't any smarter then any of the early leaders of the Church for that matter.

It seems that you know very little about the realities of polygamy & what really went on & why Heavenly Father let it be lived & why he took it away. I again suggest further study & prayer on it to understand why I say what I do.

Another thought, just because something is an inspired teaching does not mean it wouldn't be abusive & horrible, at least in this life. From things like 'Abraham about to sacrifice Issac' to 'women enduring pregnancy & childbirth' to 'keeping covenants to unrighteous adulterous abusive spouses'. These things all bring eventual blessings even if they are often torturous & abusive while in the midst of the sacrifice. Polygamy is no different, so if there is an out for women, wise women would wait. For self-respecting women it is less painful to live singly through this life than with a man who loves another woman.

And yes, the women of the 1800's were falsely told they had to marry & be sealed in this life or they wouldn't make it. Thus why many women went along with it who wouldn't otherwise have endured it. Now women know the truth & most would just wait.

[Hyrcanus]

Celestial marriage still works in the Church today. I'm not sure why you'd think the Lord would institute an inherently abusive institution. It worked in the early Church just as it could work tomorrow, individual Saints submitting their will to God's and doing exactly as he asks us to. It had nothing to do with women who were "unenlightened" or "falsely taught" as you suggest. I imagine some of the women in the early church would be irritated to hear you calling them ignorant of the truth. Women like Eliza R. Snow vigorously defended Celestial Marriage, recognizing it was God's will. Women in the Church today aren't any smarter then she was in her time. Men in the Church aren't any smarter then any of the early leaders of the Church for that matter.

It appears you know very little about the realities of polygamy & what really went on & why Heavenly Father let it be lived & why he took it away. I again suggest further study & prayer on it to understand why I say what I do.

Another thought, just because something is an inspired teaching does not mean it wouldn't be abusive & horrible. From things like 'Abraham about to sacrifice Issac' to 'women enduring pregnancy & childbirth' to 'keeping covenants to unrighteous unfaithful abusive spouses'. These things all bring eventual blessings even if they are often torturous & abusive while in the midst of the sacrifice. Polygamy is no different, so if there is an out for women, wise women would wait. For self-respecting women it is less painful to live singly through this life than with a man who loves another woman.

And yes, the women of the 1800's were falsely told they had to marry & be sealed in this life or they wouldn't make it. Thus why many women went along with it who wouldn't otherwise have endured it. Now women know the truth & most would just wait.

Instead of casting aspersions on my knowledge (or lack thereof) of what the practice of polygamy entailed for the early saints, why don't you back up your assertions with some evidence? I'm not suggesting that there were no problems, but as the other examples you cite, I'm pointing out that the net balance for the Saints worthy enough to practice Celestial Marriage was a net positive experience. It didn't require stupid women lack self-respect for it to work. It required righteous men and women willing to live the law the Lord had set forward.

[Amore Vero]

I'm pointing out that the net balance for the Saints worthy enough to practice Celestial Marriage was a net positive experience. It didn't require stupid women lack self-respect for it to work. It required righteous men and women willing to live the law the Lord had set forward.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree again with all that you said. I do not believe at all that it was a positive thing for most people involved, far from. Many women did put up a great smile & support about it all in public, while only in private expressing their true feelings for fear of punishment.

And I firmly believe that the whole reason Heavenly Father allowed it to be lived was not because the men of that time were worthy & ready for it, but to wake up the women to their divine worth & station & to have the pain of polygamy cause them to finally stand up for right & not let men continue to disrespect & control & abuse them as most had for 6000 years.

Heavenly Father knows & knew that he had to wake up the women of the Church to their true & equal power & position in marriage & society if he was ever going to be able to establish Zion. As soon as the women started to wake up to their equality in every way, he took the painful trial away & ended the practice. Pain is the greatest motivator to wake people up, when nothing else will work & nothing else had worked to get women to wake up throughout history, not even serious abuse from men. But polygamy is one of the most painful abuses known to women, so coupled with the spirit that LDS women had, it finally worked to wake them up.

Of course it looks like it ended for far different reasons, but that was just the way he used to stop it. It had served it's purpose. Had he really wanted it to go on or had the majority of men really been worthy of it, he could have easily found a way for it to continue. One things for sure, Heavenly Father does not raise up children on the backs of depressed, neglected & abused mothers. That does not produce good & strong children & families.

[braingrunt]

I don't read Jacob 2 that way: that polygamy will exist whenever it is legal.

[p51-mustang]

I think the LDS church is terrified that the legal interdiction on plural marriage will be removed. If it is, then what justification would there be to continue to avoid it?

The justification for not bringing it back again is because God stopped it & wanted it to end.

Polygamy would not work today anyway in the Church, because for the 1st time in history on a large scale, righteous women today have woken up & now understand their equality in marriage, as God wanted them to. Unlike most men & even many women in the 1800's who considered 'women' like property, to be collected & controlled. Righteous women today have high self-worth & self-respect & would never marry into such a severely abusive arrangement as polygamy is, inspired or not, because they know they don't have to marry now if they don't think they will be happy, they can just wait til the next life to marry.

Unlike the women of the 1800's, who usually only went along with polygamy because they were falsely told that they had to marry & be sealed to a man 'in this life' to make it to the Celestial Kingdom. We now know that was not true, women can wait til the next life to marry & still receive all blessings. If they had known the truth, most women then would not have married & endured polygamy either.

Sounds like nonsense to me

[p51-mustang]

The standing law of the lord is one man and one women (See Jacob 2). When numbers of covenant people are small he will order polygamy to be practiced for a time to build up numbers. We also know that after the cleansing happens so many men will be killed in all the wars that "7 women will take hold of one man to take away her reproach". So, it sounds like it will be practiced again in the not so distant future.

[Rensai]

I think the LDS church is terrified that the legal interdiction on plural marriage will be removed. If it is, then what justification would there be to continue to avoid it?

The justification for not bringing it back again is because God stopped it & wanted it to end.

Polygamy would not work today anyway in the Church, because for the 1st time in history on a large scale, righteous women today have woken up & now understand their equality in marriage, as God wanted them to. Unlike most men & even many women in the 1800's who considered 'women' like property, to be collected & controlled. Righteous women today have high self-worth & self-respect & would never marry into such a severely abusive arrangement as polygamy is, inspired or not, because they know they don't have to marry now if they don't think they will be happy, they can just wait til the next life to marry.

Unlike the women of the 1800's, who usually only went along with polygamy because they were falsely told that they had to marry & be sealed to a man 'in this life' to make it to the Celestial Kingdom. We now know that was not true, women can wait til the next life to marry & still receive all blessings. If they had known the truth, most women then would not have married & endured polygamy either.

Sounds like nonsense to me

it is nonsense.

[Fiannan]

Amore Vero writes:

I said 'righteous' women, with an ounce of self-worth & self-respect, would never put themselves & their children through such abuse on this earth, when they have the option to just wait to marry in the next life.

So no woman who lived in polygamy in the 19th Century was righteous or had self-worth?

As for today, you are making quite an assertation, aren't you? I am not talking about people like Tiger Woods or Bill Clinton and the women they had on the side -- that is quite the opposite of polygamy, and people who mess around are far from inclined to think about an eternal commitment or forming a family unit that is based on the law of consecration. The women who would consider polygamy are maybe a bit unconventional, but then again being an active LDS person is unconventional in our society, isn't it? Yet for someone to say such women are questionable in their character and psychology not only throws mud at people who might be open to a lifestyle supported by God, but is quite the opposite of feminism itself which, at least in its rhetoric, supports women as rational beings who can make informed choices.

[Amore Vero]

So no woman who lived in polygamy in the 19th Century was righteous or had self-worth?

As I said before, many righteous women with self-worth who didn't want to live it in the 1800's were forced to live polygamy if they wanted to stay married to their husband who lived it & righteous single women had to go along with it because of the false threat that they had to marry & be sealed to a man in this life or they wouldnt make it.

[Fiannan]

So no woman who lived in polygamy in the 19th Century was righteous or had self-worth?

As I said before, many righteous women with self-worth who didn't want to live it in the 1800's were forced to live polygamy if they wanted to stay married to their husband who lived it & righteous single women had to go along with it because of the false threat that they had to marry & be sealed to a man in this life or they wouldnt make it.

Again, you speak in inflamatory rhetoric with neither statistical or even anctedotal evidence to back you up. What percentage of women were forced to live in polygamy and how did that compare with how many were forced (arranged marriages) into monogamy? Your assumption is that polygamy is so horrible that only a mentally ill woman would go into it without kicking and screaming in protest. Is that actually the case, or are you propagandizing against a marriage arrangement that many women enjoyed then, and even enjoy today?

[braingrunt]

Amore goes too far for me but we have had other threads discussing polygamy where various evidence came out that many women found plural marriage odious, and even felt coerced. I did not look into this evidence myself, so I can't vouch for it; but I ask myself, why wouldn't it be true? The Lord proscribes polygamy in Jacob 2 for a reason. Like everything else the Lord proscribes I suppose he does it for our happiness or well being. Jacob 2 implies that polygamy, (perhaps more especially when not sanctioned) is deleterious to a woman's tenderness and even chastity.

I think Jacob 2 makes it clear that God does not like to sanction polygamy in this life. He grudgingly sanctioned david and solomon and their wives but made it clear he found their (extreme) polygamy distasteful.

One point where I part with amore: "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people". The Lord wanted some righteous seed raised up, and if the women had all said, 'nah I'll pass and get my man in the next life' then the purposes of God to raise up seed would have been frustrated. You can not willfully frustrate the purposes of god and expect blessings waiting for you in the next life. Therefore I would believe these women were told aright: if they wanted to be exalted they needed to be sealed here and now. Now when the Lord does not purpose to raise up seed via polygamy, a woman is not penalized if no righteous man comes her way.

I agree, based on logic and math that the majority exalted beings will be monogamous. I'm willing to be wrong on this, I have no revelation on my side but I don't yet see how widespread polygamy is possible... You'd have to see my comments in another thread to understand why. But once again, there may be some factors which blow my math and logic away, they just haven't been revealed to me.