Will Polygamy follow Same Sex Marriage?

What about:
Support legalizing polygamy if gay marriage is legalized but against church acceptance of either. (This being different than being for legalization of both. It’s the difference between wanting to have both (the option in the OP) and not thinking that opponents of polygamy have a leg to stand on if they support same-sex marriage.)

You need some more nuance here. Does “legalizing” polygamy mean you don’t throw polygamists in jail or that you issue them as many marriage licenses as they want and extend spousal Social Security benefits to all the spouses who don’t work? I’m for not throwing them in jail, but at the same time am opposed to conferring government benefits on them, Likewise with same-sex relationships. And the church should accept neither.

I’m always amused by those who attempt to use legalized polygamy as an argument against civil marriage equality. As an openly gay man in a long-term, committed polyandrous relationship, I believe that consenting adults ought to be able to form the family relationships of their choosing. I also believe that legal sanction is the best way for society to avoid abuses in family relationships. Legalized plural marriage simply would never have spawned a Warren Jeffs or an Ervil LeBaron. Granted, legalization of polygamy will require some creative legislative solutions in a system entirely based on monogamy. I expect that an LLC-like arrangement may prove necessary for plural relationships, should they receive legal recognition.

As for the LDS church, I’m cautious about predicting their eventual response to marriage equality. Perhaps with the passing of enough octogenarians, a new generation of leaders may seek the necessary inspiration to recognize same-sex unions. It’s easy for me to say they’ve painted themselves too far into a corner with their anti-marriage-equality and anti-gay activism, but cringe-inducing official statements didn’t stop them from making a change in priesthood ordination. All it takes is a McConkie-esque “We now speak with greater light and knowledge.”

When it comes to plural marriage, however, I don’t see the LDS church ever returning to endorsement. Modern LDS self-identity hinges upon the repeated refrain of “SERIOUSLY–We’re not polygamists anymore!” What was once the focal point defining Mormonism for the public, has now become the “unclean thing,” with which modern LDS leaders shun association at all costs. The modern LDS ideal is a stable of dressage horses, not a stable of wives. The only way I see the LDS church sanctioning polygamy again, would be under a genuinely apocalyptic world disaster, wherein the male LDS population was decimated. Even then, however, I suspect the response would be “home teaching nightmare,” rather than taking on additional wives.

…they’d go with same-gender marriages but continue to cite Official Declaration 2 as reason against polygamous ones. Do you mean OD1? OD2 ended the ban on blacks. OD1 stopped plural marriage precisely because it was illegal. Should it become legal I don’t see how OD1 could reasonably be used as reason against plural marriage.

It’s certainly possible to be for polygamy (of both stripes) and against same-sex marriage. Polygamous contracts are between two people, even if one of those people is also in a contract with another. It does not mean that it’s a sexual free-for-all.

Considering the Church does not allow polygamous marriage even in places where it is legal, it’s highly doubtful they’d allow it if it became legal in just the US. I expect it will become legal soon, however, fitting with the apocolyptic scripture “7 women will take hold of 1 man . . .”

Howard [#8]:

Thanks for catching that mistake. I meant to write OD#1. If someone from W&T could edit that for me — I’d be much obliged. Also, you said:

Should it become legal I don’t see how OD1 could reasonably be used as reason against plural marriage.

The church presently refuses to acknowledge/solemnize polygamous marriages in countries where they are legal according to the laws of that country. And, though someone like you or I may not be able to “see how OD1 could reasonably be used as reason against plural marriage” — someone like President Gordon Hinckley does see how it can:

Question 4: What is the Church’s position on polygamy?
[…]
If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church. An article of our faith is binding upon us. It states, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” (A of F 1:12). One cannot obey the law and disobey the law at the same time.
[…]
More than a century ago God clearly revealed unto His prophet Wilford Woodruff that the practice of plural marriage should be discontinued, which means that it is now against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows polygamy, the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage.

(What are People Asking About us?)

His point is very telling because he first frames his answer in terms of the civil illegality of people obtaining more than one state-issued marriage license.

The Church, of course, has no jurisdiction whatever in this matter,

he says — as if to wipe his hands of the matter.

Yet — as if realizing the loophole he just opened up for members who live in nations that do not outlaw plural marriages, as well as any who might try to skip state-authorization for a plural union [thus rendering their additional spouse fully legal] — he makes sure to add:

Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church.

And on what basis would that be?

More than a century ago God clearly revealed unto His prophet Wilford Woodruff that the practice of plural marriage should be discontinued, which means that it is now against the law of God.

Oh, the “revelation” which it states:

To Whom It May Concern:

Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.

What circular reasoning we have here. Wilford says that since its against the laws of the state, then it would be best if the saints stop doing it. Then Gordon says that since Wilford said we shouldn’t, then it doesn’t matter if it’s against the laws of the state or not.

It’s that kind of mind-set [that shown by Pres. Hinckley] that made me predict a few years back that when both are legalized by the government, the LDS church would begin sanctioning same-gender marriages before they would ever reinstitute/allow polygamous marriages.

I’m for legalized gay marriage and polygamy (although I don’t really like it and think it should be given close scrutiny to guard against abuse), but while I’m against the church supporting polygamy again I’m fairly indifferent to whether it condones gay marriage, so I just said against church acceptance of both since I don’t see the church accepting gay marriage soon anyway 🙂

Humm, given the anti-plural marriage rhetoric Justin quotes I wonder if the brethren have considered the impact of plural marriage on the building construction fund? One man’s income spread across the equivalent of several families would have the effect of lowering tithing receipts quite a bit, wouldn’t it? Not to mention the start up chaos they would need to manage to re-institute it.

Well I guess it was just a passing fancy when God revealed it and finally sent an angel with a drawn sword to motivate Joseph to live it. Or perhaps it’s just a failed experiment and God was wrong. Or perhaps Joseph was just a lecher as so many otherwise faithful choose to believe and Brigham being a man after all also liked the idea! Or who knows, perhaps the church is adrift in apostasy.

Yes as least in theory, but probably not in practice given the natural tendencies and desires of men vs women if both were allowed, and of course that isn’t the traditional form of Mormon polygamy so I don’t think that position carries a lot of merit.

I’ve suggested that Joseph would have added polyandry to plural marriage based on; 1) my belief that network marriage challenges both genders to transcend their jealousy, possessiveness and selfishness to become more Christlike (which after living a polyamorous lifestyle I believe is one of the main reasons God commanded plural marriage) 2) because Joseph was sealed to married women with living husbands and 3) Joseph practiced polygyny before giving it to the saints to live and he may well have been practicing polyandry before he died.

Oh interesting Justin, I wasn’t aware the first plural marriage performed by Joseph Smith was himself to another married woman! But I meant how it was typically practiced, I doubt many LDS chapel Mormons are aware of the information you cite.

mh [#21]:

I was thinking of Lucinda Harris when I wrote that. Was he sealed to Fanny Alger — or were there just circulated claims that they were married? Don’t his plural wives show up on FamilySearch-dot-org?

Either way — with 11 polyandrous unions, I think my “Polyandrous claim” is still fair, except I may have been wrong about the 1st part [the polyandrous union may have been the 2nd one then].

The bad angel on my shoulder is hoping that polygamy follows in the footsteps of gay marriage. I say this only because there is no way the church will go back to it and yet the adoring public would resurrect all of the old polygamy quotes. A Mormon moment for sure.

#25 – Yes, and at least whatever the legality of option (1) in the eyes of the Lord (I’m assuming that Joseph Smith was authorized by HF to take this fair maiden as a plural wife and therefore could legitimately “bang” her in the barn or wherever they chose to get convival) that option (2) will NEVER be legitimate in the eyes of the Lord. All the self-soothsaying and praise in the eyes of men (and women) won’t make it so. If HF does, in fact, change His views on gay marriage, then He can and will make it known, but I can bet the farm with confidence that memo ain’t coming down.
Methinks that any serious attempt, now that for all practical purposes the “gay cat” is out of the bag (or closet), on the part of some fringe group advocating polygamy to legalize it will cause Elder Dallin Oaks et al. to freak. Sure, we can say with confidence that by revelation the plural marriage spigot was shut off in the US in 1890 (worldwide in 1904), and it would take another revelation to crack that spigot open again…BUT…it’ll be a PR disaster even if the main LDS Church retains the status quo.
Me, I’m content to practice serial monogamy, it costs me plenty in support payments and legal fees as it is; why double-down on the deal? As the late Vince Lombardi advised his ever-wayward running back, Paul Hornung (who constantly missed bed check in camp and had ever-increasing fines levied against his pay)..”Hornung, if you can find a woman in this county (some isolated rural spot in the Wisconsin North Woods), call me, and we’ll both go!”

At least on occasional Tuesdays, I’m in favor of “marriage equality” across the board. That is, you can legally marry the consenting adult of your choice. Period. Regardless of sex, marital status, or degree of consanguinity.

As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, and is fully aware of the circumstances, you ought to be able to enter a legal relationship without government interference. That people find it “icky” ought not be a reason to disallow legal marriage. It’s not marriage equality if I say that people can marry the consenting adult of their choice only if I approve of their relationship. That sounds exactly like the marriage inequality that people find problematic.

Summary of results (for a sample size of 61), courtesy of Justin’s calculations:

Church acceptance of polygamy [69% for — 31% against]
Church acceptance of same-gender marriage [44% for — 56% against]

Legalized same-gender marriage [61% for — 39% against]
Legalized polygamy [48% for — 53% against]

I just noticed I’d labeled “church acceptance of polygamy” backwards [I’d put the “against”s as being “for”, and vice versa] — so now that there’s 69 votes — the results now stand:

Legalized same-gender marriage [59% for — 41% against]
Legalized polygamy [46% for — 54% against]

Church acceptance of same-gender marriage [44% for — 57% against]
Church acceptance of polygamy [30% for — 70% against]

So the single most popular position is being against the church reinstating polygamy, come hell or high-water [which is about what I expect, and supports the prediction I’ve made] — and a majority were against the state even legalizing women and men having plural spouses, whereas the majority were for the state legalizing same-gender unions [which is about what I expected too].