Temple crisis

[Vort]

22 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Joseph Smith taught ' "A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary [to lead] unto life and salvation." 

Now in today's modern church what pray tell do the majority of members really sacrifice? Compared to 100 years ago, very, very little is required of rank and file membership. Being a member of the Church today is very easy for a significant portion of members-especially in the US.

I think it is more likely today than at any time in the post.  Official Declaration 1 explicitly states that the reason why the Church discontinued polygamy was specifically b/c God revealed to Wilford Woodruff what would happen if it did not do so-the Church leaders would be jailed and the Church would collapse. 

All it takes right now is a reversal of the Supreme Court decision and the actual reason for discontinuing polygamy will be gone.

I disagree about the imminent return of plural marriage. Other than that, I largely agree with the sentiments expressed by @yjacket.

[Sunday21]

1 hour ago, yjacket said:

Joseph Smith taught ' "A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary [to lead] unto life and salvation." 

Now in today's modern church what pray tell do the majority of members really sacrifice? Compared to 100 years ago, very, very little is required of rank and file membership. Being a member of the Church today is very easy for a significant portion of members-especially in the US.

I think it is more likely today than at any time in the post.  Official Declaration 1 explicitly states that the reason why the Church discontinued polygamy was specifically b/c God revealed to Wilford Woodruff what would happen if it did not do so-the Church leaders would be jailed and the Church would collapse. 

All it takes right now is a reversal of the Supreme Court decision and the actual reason for discontinuing polygamy will be gone.

Edited March 24, 2017 by Sunday21

[yjacket]

11 hours ago, Vort said:

I disagree about the imminent return of plural marriage. Other than that, I largely agree with the sentiments expressed by @yjacket.

Let me be clear.  I'm not so sure of an imminent return of plural marriage in the Church, I think it is probably highly unlikely but I really have no clue.  My point being that the IMO the actual reasoning God gave the Prophets for discontinuing it is imminently in danger of being obsolete.

With SCOTUS's decision on SSM, they have no grounds to support Reynolds vs US.  All it would take is a really good lawyer and a court willing to take up the issue and a good court case-IIRC there are lawsuits out there on this issue.  The biggest challenge right now is that most bigamy laws are not enforced and one needs standing for the SCOTUS to take it up (i.e. someone needs to get legally get married twice and then be prosecuted for it).  Once the legal requirements are gone-then it wouldn't surprise me in the least if it came back.

[Sunday21]

I don't think that we will have a return to plural marriage and I am so glad. I would have to stop spending time in the homes of my married friends. How creepy to think that your friend's husband was shopping for a new wife! We have many different ethnic groups in my ward. Some of the mem from Latino cultures feel it is polite to flirt. From the perspective of my 'no-fun, Calvinist' heritage, this is serious creepy especially if the man in question has 40 years on me. I have heard that the creepy older guy problem is the reason for the split off of midsingles in which older singles are not allowed to attend younger singles events. Good rule!

[Guest]

I seriously doubt plural marriage is going to make a comeback.  Unlike gay marriage, there is virtually no push for the legalization of plural marriage in mainstream America.  Unlike gay marriage, the only people supporting it would be Islamic extremists and a very small number of freaks in splinter Utah polygamist groups.  Also, unlike the case of gay marriage, there is a huge perception that the children of polygamous marriages are . . . disadvantaged, to say the least, if not abused.  A common example is the French Algerian riots back in 2005, where it was claimed that the rioting youth were delinquent partially because a number of them supposedly came from polygamous North African families and lacked a father figure.  I am not saying I necessarily agree with this citation in the case of French Arab youth, but this was a sentiment held by many people.  There is a perception polygamy leads to welfare abuse (which, given the antics of some splinter groups and Islamic extremists in Europe, is not entirely inaccurate).  Also, the FLDS have done a great job showing everything wrong with polygamy, and have hardened public stances against polygamy.  I would say we are probably farther from legalizing polygamy than we were 50 years ago, especially in the current political and social environment.  If the Supreme Court heard such a case, I think they would easily be able to legally distinguish it from gay marriage, even from a liberal point of view.

Edited March 24, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[yjacket]

2 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

I would say we are probably farther from legalizing polygamy than we were 50 years ago, especially in the current political and social environment.

Totally disagree with this.  Shows like Big Love, Sister Wives, etc.?

But you are probably right, quite frankly I'm not sure members of the Church have enough faith to have polygamy back again.  More members are accepting of a complete perversion of God's laws (homosexuality and homosexual marriage) than they are of polygamy.

What a perversion in today's society.  The God ordained law as specified in D&C 132 is regarded more repugnant-even among God's people-than the perversion. Members have bought into the lie about polygamy (it's horrible, abuse,etc.) yet they ignore and have bought into the lie about homosexual relationships.

Sick, sick world.  One day Christ will return and set it all right.

[estradling75]

2 hours ago, yjacket said:

Let me be clear.  I'm not so sure of an imminent return of plural marriage in the Church, I think it is probably highly unlikely but I really have no clue.  My point being that the IMO the actual reasoning God gave the Prophets for discontinuing it is imminently in danger of being obsolete.

While that is indeed the reason God gave.  But lets not forget the teachings of Jacob in the Book Of Mormon.  He clearly teaches that non-plural marriage is the Lord's default state of a people.  Plural marriage is only acceptable when explicitly commanded by God.  So if the reason God gave for stopping the practice is eliminated that does not mean that it automatically comes back.  After all as far as we can tell during the entire History of the Book of Mormon God did not allow it, and they had some seriously righteous time periods.

[yjacket]

4 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

While that is indeed the reason God gave.  But lets not forget the teachings of Jacob in the Book Of Mormon.  He clearly teaches that non-plural marriage is the Lord's default state of a people.  Plural marriage is only acceptable when explicitly commanded by God.  So if the reason God gave for stopping the practice is eliminated that does not mean that it automatically comes back.  After all as far as we can tell during the entire History of the Book of Mormon God did not allow it, and they had some seriously righteous time periods.

I totally agree. And I'm not advocating for it to come back or for it to not come back. Just that it wouldn't surprise me if it did. The topic started on the out of wack ratio of females to males who are temple worthy and the solution to it.  Polygamy is one way to solve it-and in line with scriptural reasons for doing so.

Edited March 24, 2017 by yjacket

[zil]

26 minutes ago, yjacket said:

The topic started on the out of wack ratio of females to males who are temple worthy and the solution to it.  Polygamy is one way to solve it-and in line with scriptural reasons for doing so.

You seem to have missed the point - we have too few men going to the temple so that the backlog of deceased men needing their work done is growing faster (or shrinking more slowly) than the backlog of deceased women needing their work done.

Your polygamy post was in response to an off-shoot in the thread about currently-living women in the church outnumbering currently-living men (and thus many living women have no (member) husbands).  While the math works in that scenario, it does not help in any way to reduce the existing backlog of deceased men needing temple work done (I suspect it could actually hinder it).

[mordorbund]

1 hour ago, zil said:

You seem to have missed the point - we have too few men going to the temple so that the backlog of deceased men needing their work done is growing faster (or shrinking more slowly) than the backlog of deceased women needing their work done.

Your polygamy post was in response to an off-shoot in the thread about currently-living women in the church outnumbering currently-living men (and thus many living women have no (member) husbands).  While the math works in that scenario, it does not help in any way to reduce the existing backlog of deceased men needing temple work done (I suspect it could actually hinder it).

Oh, I think a renewal of D&C 132 still solves the problem. In this case, take the women who have already been endowed by proxy and seal them to the men who have already been endowed by proxy - regardless of who they were married to in this life. What's that? Your grandmother's work has been done but not your grandfather's? I guess you better get to the temple pretty quickly!

[Guest]

2 hours ago, yjacket said:

Totally disagree with this.  Shows like Big Love, Sister Wives, etc.?

But you are probably right, quite frankly I'm not sure members of the Church have enough faith to have polygamy back again.  More members are accepting of a complete perversion of God's laws (homosexuality and homosexual marriage) than they are of polygamy.

What a perversion in today's society.  The God ordained law as specified in D&C 132 is regarded more repugnant-even among God's people-than the perversion. Members have bought into the lie about polygamy (it's horrible, abuse,etc.) yet they ignore and have bought into the lie about homosexual relationships.

Sick, sick world.  One day Christ will return and set it all right.

Then again, i never dreamed we would be seriously debating whether teenage boys claiming to be transsexual should be allowed to use the girls locker room, yet here we are...

[zil]

35 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Oh, I think a renewal of D&C 132 still solves the problem. In this case, take the women who have already been endowed by proxy and seal them to the men who have already been endowed by proxy - regardless of who they were married to in this life. What's that? Your grandmother's work has been done but not your grandfather's? I guess you better get to the temple pretty quickly!

...You mean get to the temple and do grandpa's work before we seal grandma to someone else? 

So, the threat of grandma being sealed to someone other than grandpa will get men to the temple for grandpa?  This does not seem probable to me.

[The Folk Prophet]

17 hours ago, yjacket said:

Joseph Smith taught ' "A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary [to lead] unto life and salvation." 

Of course this means a willingness to sacrifice all things -- not that the religion must literally cause each adherent to sacrifice everything.

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, yjacket said:

But you are probably right, quite frankly I'm not sure members of the Church have enough faith to have polygamy back again.  More members are accepting of a complete perversion of God's laws (homosexuality and homosexual marriage) than they are of polygamy.

Not that it matters, because without actual statistical proof of some sort it's all guesswork...but.... I don't agree.

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, estradling75 said:

While that is indeed the reason God gave.  But lets not forget the teachings of Jacob in the Book Of Mormon.  He clearly teaches that non-plural marriage is the Lord's default state of a people.  

I do not believe this teaching is clear, and neither did those who taught explicitly otherwise in the church in the days of polygamy. It's only "clear" through the eyes of our current society and interpretation of things.

With the rest of your post, I agree.

[Just_A_Guy]

5 hours ago, yjacket said:

Let me be clear.  I'm not so sure of an imminent return of plural marriage in the Church, I think it is probably highly unlikely but I really have no clue.  My point being that the IMO the actual reasoning God gave the Prophets for discontinuing it is imminently in danger of being obsolete.

With SCOTUS's decision on SSM, they have no grounds to support Reynolds vs US.  All it would take is a really good lawyer and a court willing to take up the issue and a good court case-IIRC there are lawsuits out there on this issue.  The biggest challenge right now is that most bigamy laws are not enforced and one needs standing for the SCOTUS to take it up (i.e. someone needs to get legally get married twice and then be prosecuted for it).  Once the legal requirements are gone-then it wouldn't surprise me in the least if it came back.

I don't think it's quite such a smooth progression.  The overarching issue in Reynolds was religious freedom; whereas Obergefell was concerned with equal protection, individual dignity, privacy, and a bunch of other scattershot arguments.  

I think that an unlikely alliance of increased promiscuity and increasing Muslim immigration will cause America to ultimately become more tolerant of openly bigamous relationships; probably within my lifetime.  But I think the justifications will be along the lines of Obergefell; and the primary holding of Reynolds--that religious freedom is not absolute--will probably remain on solid ground for the foreseeable future.  In an increasingly de-Christianized society the trend will be for less religious autonomy, not more.

I would be mildly surprised to see the Church re-authorize polygamy; because frankly I think we failed at it the first time around.  Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith, and (I think, but could be wrong) Wilford Woodruff and Lorenzo Snow, all had polygamous relationships that failed.  I have several dysfunctional instances of polygamy in my own family tree; and so does Just_A_Girl.  As a church I think we have a long ways to go before we can equal the strength and devotion of our pioneer ancestors--let alone, exceed them.  

Edited March 24, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

30 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I would be mildly surprised to see the Church re-authorize polygamy; because frankly I think we failed at it the first time around.

This is my opinion. In fact, in my opinion this is why polygamy was withdrawn in the first place.

[yjacket]

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

As a church I think we have a long ways to go before we can equal the strength and devotion of our pioneer ancestors--let alone, exceed them.  

Completely agree.

[yjacket]

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Not that it matters, because without actual statistical proof of some sort it's all guesswork...but.... I don't agree.

You are probably right, I was being hyperbolic. So I agree with your statement that you don't agree with me (I don't agree with mysefl???) :0

[yjacket]

4 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

Then again, i never dreamed we would be seriously debating whether teenage boys claiming to be transsexual should be allowed to use the girls locker room, yet here we are...

Amen to that!

[yjacket]

6 hours ago, zil said:

You seem to have missed the point - we have too few men going to the temple so that the backlog of deceased men needing their work done is growing faster (or shrinking more slowly) than the backlog of deceased women needing their work done.

Your polygamy post was in response to an off-shoot in the thread about currently-living women in the church outnumbering currently-living men (and thus many living women have no (member) husbands).  While the math works in that scenario, it does not help in any way to reduce the existing backlog of deceased men needing temple work done (I suspect it could actually hinder it).

Yes you are right my response was to an offshoot not the main thread.  My apologies for the threadjack :-(.

[Mike]

23 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I have no problem with polygamy reinstated in the Church.  I see faithful members today having more than one wife already, each with their own set of children.  They divorce the wife, but they can't divorce their children so they have to maintain the relationship with the ex-wife.  I don't really see much of a difference between that and polygamy. 

Do really mean that? You don't see a difference? Unless I misunderstood, you described a situation where my Mom and Dad divorce. My Dad remarries. (Does my Mom remarry?) Now Dad and his second wife are raising me? So Dad obtained custody? What about my Mom? I see a lot of difference between your scenario and polygamy. 

[mordorbund]

4 hours ago, zil said:

...You mean get to the temple and do grandpa's work before we seal grandma to someone else? 

So, the threat of grandma being sealed to someone other than grandpa will get men to the temple for grandpa?  This does not seem probable to me.

Even if it doesn't, I've now reduced the sealing backlog for women.

[Vort]

39 minutes ago, yjacket said:

 

4 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

As a church I think we have a long ways to go before we can equal the strength and devotion of our pioneer ancestors--let alone, exceed them.  

Completely agree.

I should have quoted this part of JAG's post, as well. I agree with it, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise by agreeing with only the statement about us (them) having failed to live polygamy correctly the first time around.

[zil]

2 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Even if it doesn't, I've now reduced the sealing backlog for women.

The backlog for women isn't what we were trying to reduce.