So here's a hypothetical question...If the current ban on polygamy is challenged in the Supreme Court and somehow made legal (in the same fashion as SSM,not just decriminalized),what does TSCC do? Do they revert back to D&C 132? Or do they not risk losing more members? I apologize if this topic has already been discussed...I haven't been on in a while. I hate polygamy, but this would be interesting to watch...

LD$, Inc is trying to mainstream its image and institutionally-sanctioned adultery doesn't fit.

It is an interesting question, one that I've wondered about.

The church never got rid of polygamy, technically, they still encourage it. It's just that your first wife has to die before you marry your second one. The husband can be sealed to as many wives as he wants this way.

I think it would put the church in an awkward place. Right now they are arguing tooth and nail that marriage is between one man and one woman, so what the laws did change and they could go back to their roots and legally allow one man and many women.

Personally, I think, in today's political climate, they would stay in the one man, one woman side of the fence. Polygamy proved to disastrous for the early church for the current leaders to want to go back to that. But, who knows, maybe they would start allowing it quietly?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/2015 12:53PM by Finally Free!.

Most of the church statements are actually "marriage between a man and a woman" which is technically different than one man and one woman. Under polygamy, a man that marries a woman can have another marriage with another woman since all of his marriages were between a man and a woman. This is my take, at least.

It's important to understand that the second and successive partners are not "wives" even though the church calls them that to make them appear to be legitimate which they are not and they are not "marriages" since that is clearly illegal under the polygamy laws.

These relationships were merely simple "sealings". It is important to note that in most European counties so-called "temple marriages" (or to be more correct "sealings") are not recognized as legal marriages and require couples to be joined in civil ceremonies.

One of Brigham's many "wives" sued for divorce and alimony, but lost on both counts since the court determined that there was never a marriage in the first place which is, of course, true of all Mormon so-called "plural marriages".

Re-instating it would go completely against their current tactic to brand themselves as "mainstream christian."
It would also lose them millions of members.

Whether it's legal or not, they won't go back to it.

But wouldn't it be fun if they did? Could you imagine "Meet the Mormons2: The Bishop's Wives"?

I watch that fer sur! :D



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/2015 04:42PM by brothernotofjared.

The Utah law against Mormon-style polygamy "unlawful cohabitation" was ruled unconstitutional by the Federal District Court in December 2013. This ruling decriminalized what the Mormon Church had been forced to abandon.

The is no reason for a Supreme Court ruling. The Mormon Church could begin again to practice polygamy just like they previously did without legal recourse. The old claim "the law forced polygamy to end" is no longer valid.

A true lobbyist for the child molesters out there.

In terms of polygamy, that means all of them, and if you're not aware of that reality you need to educate yourself.

Reynolds v. USA is settled law, and the Supreme Court isn't going to overturn it. All they need to do is what they did in Brown v. The Board where they ruled that segregation is inherently unequal.

Polygamy is inherently abusive, period.

SLC
Channeling his g-g-grandmother's ghost on this one

First of all I am completely against "child bride" marriages. They are wrong and should always be illegal and should be strictly enforced.

Polygamy is legally defined as being legally married to more than one person at the same time. Mormons were never in violation of that law since they were always careful to only have one legally married partner.

An additional law was passed making so-called "unlawful cohabitation" illegal and was referred to by Mormons as "UC". It was this law that forced the church to finally abandon having multiple partners in marriage-type relationships.

The district court ruling against the "unlawful cohabitation" law made it clear the existing polygamy law is still in force. But this law was never enforceable against Mormon "plural marriage". Legally speaking, there never was more than one marriage at a time.

"Spoken like a true lobbyist for the child molesters out there."

Holy unnecessary hyperbole Batman!!!!

what about the Federal law ('Edmunds-Tucker' ?)??

eta: Wiki says REPEALED in 1978...WOW!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/2015 04:39PM by GNPE.

Quoting Wikipedia: "The charge of "unlawful cohabitation" was used in the late nineteenth century to enforce the Edmunds Act, and other federal anti-polygamy laws against the Mormons in the Utah Territory, imprisoning more than 1,300 men. However, incidents of cohabitation by non-polygamists were not charged in that territory at that time." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohabitation_in_the_United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States

I would also argue Utah "Common Law" statutes apply...

http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE30/htm/30_01_000405.htm

The only provision in this one that seems to invalidate its application in determining whether cohabitation amounts to marriage is:

>are legally capable of entering a solemnized marriage under the provisions of this chapter;

I note "Templar" ducked the child abuse issue, turning the same blind eye to that one as the State of Utah has for who-knows-how-long...

The reality is all of the polygamist groups in Utah and Colorado City have many members who routinely enter into "celestial" marriages with one or more underage brides, and that's the dirty little secret nobody wants to acknowledge.

Those who know me and can keep a confidence are welcome to e-mail me, and I'll provide ironclad documention of that reality as well as the reasons I'm qualified to speak to the subject.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/2015 11:41PM by SL Cabbie.

For some unknown reason, you seem to feel that I am in favor of polygamy. Nothing could be further from the truth. I was only citing the law as it currently exists in Utah as a result of the Federal District Court ruling. I'll leave it at that.

Your "inattention" to what you're saying is apparent to those of us with experience in such matters.

Your "logic" consists of saying because a second or third marriage doesn't have legal status, it doesn't exist.

Nonsense. That's strictly doublespeak.

The problem in Utah is there's no "will" to prosecute those individuals, period.

Mormon polygamy would not be legalized because it doesn't allow for same sex unions, which isn't legal now...and child brides and coerced marriage wouldn't be included...so, pretty much impossible.

DWaters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the current ban on polygamy is challenged in the Supreme
> Court and somehow made legal (in the same fashion as
> SSM,not just decriminalized),what does TSCC do?

There is no longer a "ban on polygamy" except for multiple legal marriages (i.e. more than one "legal" marriage at the same time) which was never the case with Mormon plural marriage. Only the first wife was a legal married partner. All subsequent ones were only "sealings" which the church incorrectly called marriages. Joseph Smith only had one wife in the eyes of the law and it was Emma. He often stated in public that Emma was his only wife and legally speaking he was absolutely correct.

SSM only slightly changed state enacted marriage laws. The states can still determine their own marriage laws other than those against marriage between partners of the same sex.

Same sex partners cannot practice legal polygamy any more than heterosexual couples. Marriage laws still apply to all married couples in the same way including SSM unions.

when JS was alive/married... was there NO (state, local) law against Polyg?

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> when JS was alive/married... was there NO (state,
> local) law against Polyg?

Your statement is not correct. Every state and the Federal Territory where Mormons engaged in plural marriage had laws against polygamy when they resided there.

Polygamy is legally defined as having more than one legal wife at the same time. Mormon plural marriage as practiced by Joseph Smith and other Mormons were never in violation of those laws since there always was only one legal marriage. Smiths "sealings" were not legal marriages. They were not even marriages. Eleven of the women "sealed" to him were legally married to other men.

it's a QUESTION, not a statement...

"?" at the end.

My bad. I quickly misread "was there" as "there was". I'm so used to hearing that BS statement from TBMs, I "knee-jerk" responded.

Could those "extra wives" (the "sealed wives) be correctly called "Concubines".

You are correct. Another common term for such relationships is "Mistresses". "Wives, the mormon term, is not correct.

The church doesn't allow polygamy among members even in countries in Africa where it is legal.

They don't like their polygamous reputation.

When the Mormon Church passed the so-called Second Manifesto which really did away with plural marriage they stated that it applied to all Mormons everywhere.

I'm sure you are correct. Although the church may now practice open plural marriage, I'm sure they don't want to do so. The fundamentalist groups can now be in "the open" as two different polygamous families have been in their own television programs.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/2015 08:47PM by Templar.

All the church has to say is that it has not been revealed to reinstate at this time.

You know how God gives different commandments for different times according to His plan and all (eye roll).

The church will never go back to polygamy. It's only possible future growth lies in appearing more mainstream. This enables them to glean from the uninformed unchurched and to poach from other denominations.

Polygamy is dead. Even if it's made legal.

The reason they won't bring polygamy back is because the current leaders are too old to be able to enjoy it, and the way they choose the prophet ensures that they will always be too old for it.
If the leadership was young men then they would bring it back despite the problems it would have to their growth.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that states can ban polygamy, even in cases where it is a religious practice. The ruling even mentions that the government can ban religious practices, when they conflict with established law, and cites human sacrifice as a theoretical example. Since no one can have a polygamist marriage, regardless of their religion, there isn't a 14th amendment case one can make on the subject.

However, in the 1990s, Congress passed a feel good piece of legislation called the Restoration of Religious Freedom Act, that was signed into law by Bill Clinton. RRFA allows religious groups to be except from laws, that infringe on their established religious practices.

I believe the law makes specific exceptions for certain crimes like polygamy, and human sacrifice, but I am not familiar enough with it, other than that it is extremely problematic. Laws are created for a reason, and allowing a get out of jail card, because of religious faith, both undermines them, and is incredibly unfair to people whose mythology does not allow them to engage in morally questionable behavior.

forbiddencokedrinker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe the law makes specific exceptions for
> certain crimes like...human sacrifice...


Surely you jest, M'sieur???

There's no way they would go back, even if it was legal. The church leaders are totally embarrassed by their polygamous past. If they weren't, they'd be talking about polygamy and how it was the true form of marriage and were persecuted for their beliefs. The church tries to pretend it never existed. Just read their manuals. They only mention the first wives, like Emma.

They are mainstreaming hardcore. And they obviously receive no real revelation from God and so that equals, no polygamy.

They want to grow and be respected. Bringing back polygamy would do the opposite. They don't want that. The generation of leaders today did not grow up with polygamy. They'd rather forget about.

Polygamy is already legal in parts of the world (eg. Africa) where the Church has missions, branches, wards, and stakes, and investigators who are polygamists are told that being a polygamist in today's Church (even where legal) is against the current laws of God, and polygamist investigators cannot be baptized until and unless they give up all but one wife.

That says it all. The Church isn't going back to allowing/supporting polygamy. Interestingly, however, the Church doctrinally continues to support Mormon-style polygamy in the next life, as can be seen by the way temple sealings work and the way current Church leaders who've remarried after a spouse has died talk about it. So on the one hand, the practice of polygamy in this life is gone, but on the other the doctrine and belief and practice of polygamy in the larger Mormon theology and worldview continues.

I agree that the Brighamite branch of the LDS church will never reinstate polygamy as a practice, even if it were made legal.

However, there would be splinter "restorationist" groups that would leave and create their own branches or remain hidden in plain sight among the membership.

Interesting...but let me clarify some of the legal minded comments. If someone cohabitates with another and "purports" that person is a spouse when he/she is not the legal spouse, that classifies as Bigamy and is still illegal, punishable as a 3rd degree Felony (at least in Texas). So there still is a criminal element to plural marriage if cohabitation is involved. If there are separate residences,still unlawful if purporting marriage. As far as the spiritual Union deal...I guess that's A-OK.

But it very interesting the church won't abandon the doctrine. I wouldn't be so sure they wouldn't at least entertain the idea if all barriers were removed. I mean, they are still Mormons?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2015 11:22AM by DWaters.

DWaters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But it very interesting the church won't abandon
> the doctrine.

They can't really abandon the doctrine since D&C 132 and the teachings of BY and other prominent mormon leaders made it clear that only polygamists become gods. That's one of the main reasons the unholy fifteen often remarry (become temple sealed) after the death of their first wife. They usually marry an elderly TBM single female. Howard W. Hunter is a good example.

Growing up in Utah, I was always told that polygamy will again be practiced during the millennium. Right now it has just been put on hold.

1. TSCC does not allow polygamy even in countries where it is legal and converts are already married to multiple wives. Indeed, it forces converts to get rid of all but one wife!
2. I don't think TSCC would lose so many members because it would insist that the practice is voluntary. It might require earlier wives to give consent.
3. Some non-members might even convert so as to have recognition of their current relationships. It would also be a boon in sub-Saharan Africa.