Posted on 01/06/2011 10:02:12 AM PST by Alex Murphy
Even though the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints officially renounced polygamy in 1890, a religious studies expert says that mainstream Mormons are nearly evenly split over whether it should continue to be practised. W. John Walsh said Wednesday in B.C. Supreme Court that the LDS church's official position remains that polygamy is banned, but that it's possible that somewhere between 50 and 60 per cent of the church's members "would like a return of polygamy, which they see as a holy practice."
The other half would not like to see a return of polygamy and deem it to be "an archaic practise," said Walsh, who was testifying as an expert on behalf of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in a constitutional reference case that will determine the validity of Canada's law prohibiting polygamy. (The FLDS split from the mainstream church over the practise of polygamy and the FLDS is the largest group of so-called "fundamentalist Mormons" in North America. Walsh estimated that there are 50,000 fundamentalist Mormons in North America, 10,000 of whom belong to the FLDS.)
If Walsh is right, that suggests that if Canada's law is struck down, it could cause a major schism in the LDS church and would likely mean a large contingent of disaffected Mormons wanting to immigrate to Canada.
[SNIP]
There is no doubt in my mind that your attitude toward plural marriage will determine your place in eternity. Those who choose 'plural' or 'celestial' marriage have a chance at the highest realm of heaven the celestial kingdom while those who don't may find themselves alone for all eternity.
[SNIP]
If men were eternally limited to only one wife each, some women would never have the opportunity for exaltation."
(Excerpt) Read more at communities.canada.com ...
and to date ..... I have NEVER heard a single member express a desire for the return to the Abrahamic Patriarchal Order (polygamy).
You may have never heard it - but you didn't say anything about not desiring it for yourself, either.
Well, since they’ll (Mormon men) be eternally in the process of becoming gods, having multiple wives in eternity, engaging in sex, keeping those wives perpetually pregnant, then logically, why not multiple wives now and get a head start on godhood and lotsa kids? - From a woman’s point of view, the idea of being barefoot and pregnant for all eternity would tend to make me, from a mortal perspective, TIRED. I suppose I’d have to cook and clean, too. - I know. It’s a “man thing”. :o)
I’m answering my post. Just had a flash. Polygamy sounds to me like it pretty much adheres to the “Napoliatane” doctrine that’s mentioned in Revelation. That doctrine was denounced when Christ addressed the various churches in Asia.
And it's possible that Mr. Walsh harbors secret sexual fantasies about small children, but my not knowing him nor being a mind reader makes my speculation about what his thinking is just as absurd as his claim to know what 50-60% of Mormons think, esp. since that would include an awful lot of Mormon women who most assuredly would not want its return and then to get to those numbers would mean most me do. What precisely does he base this guesstimate on? Saying "It's possible" shows the statement to be baseless speculation. As an active member of the Church I NEVER hear ANYONE speaking in favor of polygamy nor wanting it to return, so this person is making an absurd claim with no backing other than his biases. Polygamy is not seen as a sacred practice in a time it has not been commanded, so that statement is just silly. Indeed, the practice of it without command of the Lord would result in excommunication.
Besides, we come up against the same conclusions with your opinion. It is an opinion, not doctrine. D&C 132 IS STILL PRINTED IN THE D&C, and ETERNAL POLYGAMY IS STILL TAUGHT, AND YOU KNOW IT.
Believing LDS women go through life worrying their husbands will choose someone else as first wife after the resurrection.
Personally, I think you paint a too-rosy picture of the life of a typical Mormon exalted goddess....
I’m glad to hear that.
BZZZTTT! Wrong.
Present-day plygs do quite well in "farming" the social services like welfare, ADC, etc. Along with sending some of the wives out to get a paying job.
According to Mormon theology God is polygamous. They won’t tell you the exact number. It has to be a lot because these celestial women populated this world(More than the 72 virgins the Muslims promise).
Polygamy is the “higher order”. All Mormons eventually want to live in the higher order (Celestial Kingdom). You would be surprised how many Mormons don’t know their Mormon theology.
Growing up in Salt Lake I knew dozens of Mormon missionaries that told me that they didn’t know what a personal relationship with Jesus was.
But it is a very dynamic religion. Even the history keeps on changing. ;-)
I respectfully disagree.
I only said that it is not something JS invented and has biblical justification. That list of perverse you listed is not biblical, in fact, just the opposite. Many of them were punished by death.
There are cases were polygamy is very humane. In the case of widows with children(who may or may not be ill), unmarried women who cannot find a suitable man(who may or may not be ill), a homeless woman in need of care...etc
Polygamy is not always about sex. There many other potential issues which are quite rational. In some cases, if whole family agrees, it is just the right thing to do.
One has to wonder why the bashers can't just practice their own religion and leave others to do the same. Why the need to tear down? Why the need to misrepresent and latch onto every absurd claim about Mormons they come across with no critical thought nor analytical view of the claims? An obvious fool makes a statement that "it's possible" 50-60% of Mormons want something with no basis for his claim, and these people just pick it up and run with it. This is a Michael Moore-level of thinking and believing about people, practices and opinions about which you are opposed and have no real understanding of.
If some Democrat came along and said with some faux authority that "It's possible 50-60% of Republicans are racist" or "It's possible George W. Bush had a role in planning 9-11," these gullible people on here would cry foul--as well they should. But if a Mormon hater uses such sloppy thinking and such faux academic analysis, they lap it up like mindless puppies. The hypocrisy is stunning.
It is amazing how quickly a culture's values can be undermined. During the 1992 campaign when it was revealed that Clinton had smoked pot and dodged the draft, I and many others thought there is no way he'd ever be elected based on those reasons alone.
How far and how rapidly the bar has been lowered.
And risk having to talk with the bishop and possible excomm?
All your comments are nonsense, starting with the claim High Priests "fight" to Home Teach single women. High priests are assigned single women because with the vast age difference (high priests are nearly always men over 50) you greatly decrease the likelyhood of a romantic interest developing between either party. And in any event, you home teach in pairs, not by yourself, so it's hardly some opportunity to hit on women as you absurdly imply. And all members are entitled to home teachers so someone needs to do it. It makes sense it should be more established older men.
As for the above comment from your post, no LDS woman thinks like that because it's not even doctrinal. Your "First wife" is the first woman you're sealed to. Again, just like this John Walsh you're a non-Mormon claiming to know what Mormons think--and getting it laughably wrong.
Second question:
1 Corinthians 7
8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.
How do you reconcile that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.