- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Sorry that I can’t cut, paste and quote the way I’d like on my phone. If the church is really that concerned about legalization of polygamy, why didn’t they use the essays as an opportunity to stand up for one man/one woman marriage? Wouldn’t that have been the time to say that in spite of the ancient practice of polygamy, and in spite of early LDS church members’ experimental resumption of that practice, the marriage of one man and one woman is the only one ordained of God?
I think it’s because they were looking backward instead of forward. I don’t think anyone can bring themselves to say it was a misstep, and THAT mistake is going to cost us dearly. We’re now on the current events record as having absolutely no objection to polygamy other than that it’s not polygamy season right now.
LookingHard wrote:DarkJedi wrote:it’s bad enough we discuss religion here, politics is too much
:thumbup:
😆 Polygamy seems so very one-sided. If there is a push to legalize polygamy (and this is not all that crazy IMHO–I could see it happening), what about its close associate polyandry? If THAT domino falls, open relationships could certainly happen–multiple men and woman being intermarried to both sexes, and in communal settings as it were. Where is the bottom on this? But, in specific regard to polyandry, one of the concerns is the inherently misogynistic problems in male dominate patriarchal orders. At one time, the church was a proponent of polygamy. But, openly polyandrous relationships would be as opposed as the stance on gay marriage is now.
The church is in a precarious position when it comes to polygamy. Members of the church are still being sealed to multiple spouses in the eternities. I wonder if the church woild get to a point when it no longer allows multiple sealings for either men or women. It just seems weird on some level that there’s sort of a free for all when it comes to sealings to ex and dead spouses. I cant see the US legalizing polygamy any time soon, there’s not public support for it.
I think one thing that comes into play with Polygamy (and polyandry) deals with companies and them having to cover possibly HUGE families. I think businesses will be fighting that unless there is some prevision for “benefits only have to be extended to 1 partner and kids”. It sure gets messy. If there ever is a push for polygamy, I can’t see that polyandry won’t be along for the ride. Otherwise it is seen as sexist.
I tend to think that we won’t end up with legalized polygamy because of the financial strain it would put on social services and the urgent need of gay marriage proponents to show that the slope isn’t slippery after all. I think polygamy could make its way successfully through lower courts, but that the SCOTUS will hold the line. Like others are saying, it boils down to politics and there isn’t enough public support for it.
But the thought of our church’s current stance on polygamy bolstering the position of fundamentalists and (who knows?) their potential new partner in their quest – polygamous Muslims on this continent – makes me a little ill. Makes me a lot ill. Why doesn’t it seem to bother the brethren? That’s what I don’t get.
Roadrunner wrote:The church is in a precarious position when it comes to polygamy. Members of the church are still being sealed to multiple spouses in the eternities. I wonder if the church woild get to a point when it no longer allows multiple sealings for either men or women. It just seems weird on some level that there’s sort of a free for all when it comes to sealings to ex and dead spouses.
I cant see the US legalizing polygamy any time soon, there’s not public support for it.
I am interested in some information on this. At one time, my understanding was that if a man got a divorce, his temple sealing remained in place, as it was for a woman. But, if a man remarried, his first sealing remained in place UNLESS his ex-wife remarried, in which case her temple-sealing to her ex would be canceled, allowing her to be resealed.
Someone told me that this has since changed: when a man or a woman (either one) remarry, their original temple sealing to their spouse was canceled. Anyone know what the policy is if any?
I believe if this issue went through the courts, it would apply to both polygamy and polyandry, as has been said by others. And I think that would be one of the big sticking points for the church. They allowed men to marry multiple women, but women couldn’t marry multiple men. My understanding is that men can still get sealed to multiple women in the temple, if they’re spouse dies and they remarry. But, women are not allowed to be sealed to more than one man if they’re spouse dies. Is this correct? Or do I not understand this fully? Ray, you could probably clear that one up?
And, as Ann said, I believe the church had an opportunity to really separate itself from polygamy by renouncing it through the essays, but they didn’t really step away from it at all. They kind of doubled down on it by saying that it was an inspired doctrine, but that it was only for that time period. If they came out and opposed legalizing it now, they would be saying that it was fine for us to live it for 50+ years, but it’s not okay for anybody else now. Slippery slope indeed…
I believe the policy is now: A living woman can only be sealed to one husband.
A living man can be only sealed to one wife who is alive. However if a sealed wife dies, the husband can be sealed to another wife without canceling a previous sealing.
A deceased woman can be sealed to all men to whom she was married during her life.
A deceased man can be sealed to all women to whom he was married during his life.
Deceased couples who were divorced in life can be sealed by proxy. This is so children can be sealed to someone.
This last one surprised me but it’s true.
LookingHard wrote:I think one thing that comes into play with Polygamy (and polyandry) deals with companies and them having to cover possibly HUGE families. I think businesses will be fighting that unless there is some prevision for “benefits only have to be extended to 1 partner and kids”. It sure gets messy.
If there ever is a push for polygamy, I can’t see that polyandry won’t be along for the ride. Otherwise it is seen as sexist.
That’s a good point. Plus I’d love to (not) see that income tax form.
Roadrunner wrote:A deceased woman can be sealed to all men to whom she was married during her life.
This one is surprising to me. Suppose a woman is divorced in life, but was sealed to her husband, and ended up having a civil marriage to another man. Are we talking about her being sealed after death by proxy to the man she ended up being civilly married to?
Roadrunner wrote:I believe the policy is now:
A living woman can only be sealed to one husband.
A living man can be only sealed to one wife who is alive. However if a sealed wife dies, the husband can be sealed to another wife without canceling a previous sealing.
A deceased woman can be sealed to all men to whom she was married during her life.
A deceased man can be sealed to all women to whom he was married during his life.
Deceased couples who were divorced in life can be sealed by proxy. This is so children can be sealed to someone.
This last one surprised me but it’s true.
Very interesting. Thanks for clearing that up. So if polygamy became the next push in the courts, would the church’s stance be that we oppose polygamy…unless you’re dead?
I suppose, if that was the church’s position, whenever the issue came up, the Q15 could simply respond with, “Over my dead body!” and really mean it!
😆 Rob4Hope wrote:This one is surprising to me. Suppose a woman is divorced in life, but was sealed to her husband, and ended up having a civil marriage to another man. Are we talking about her being sealed after death by proxy to the man she ended up being civilly married to?
Yup, essentially the position of the church in situations where all the spouses are deceased is, “Seal them all, let God sort it out!”
I’ve been thinking about this and have a scenario: What if….a fine, upstanding, TR-holding member comes to the conclusion that he/she is gay….he/she meets another member with the same qualifications and they decide to get married…..they have a find, upstanding friend who is a temple worker that is willing to marry them….
If they decide to get married in the temple….can the church deny them? Would that not set off one heck of a lawsuit?
I know this is kinda far fetched but maybe this is one of the reasons that the church has it’s panties in a wad toward gay folks.
Just sayin…..
Edit: Oh, let me throw this in the mix. The couple are rather elderly and proclaim that they have no desire for sexual relations…they just desire to be married.
No lawsuit would be heard. Religions have the right to marry whomever they choose. Black letter law. Also, a sealing has to be scheduled, and it can be performed only by an ordained sealer. The temple presidency is involved in that scheduling, as is the shift coordinator. It’s an involved process. Anything outside that process, and the Church would not sanction it and would not issue a marriage license. No license, no marriage.
The scenario is essentially impossible, even without the lawsuit question.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.