Do Latter Day Saints today Really Condemn Polygamists? - Big Love (2006) Discussion

[–] latebar7609 10 years ago

It was abolished about 100 years ago. The reason was political. The person who was the prophet at the time......I forget who....... ran for president and he knew there was no way in hell that Americans would vote for a polygamist so he abolished polygamy. I've heard conflicting stories about polygamy being part of the original LDS church. If it was in the original part of Doctrine and Covenants and it was on the tablets found by Joseph Smith then the true church is the FLDS because they still practice polygamy. The LDS does not recognize them as part of the true church because of polygamy being abolished. Confused yet?


reply

[–] VerbalGoddess 10 years ago

Are you a member of the LDS church?

reply

[–] latebar7609 10 years ago

No I'm not but I did research on it when I started watching Big Love.



reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] latebar7609 10 years ago

Desertdude1953, thank you for that detailed history lesson! It's been so many years ago since I did the research I remembered wrong. I knew it was for a political reason but I really thought it was because someone ran for president. I don't know why I thought that. Anyway, I do thank you for that. I love learning something new.

So I'm interested in your opinion since you are Mormon. What do you think of the portrayal of polygamy and the LDS on this show? Do you think it's accurate?

"We also contend that all of the offshoot groups are apostates and do not have the right to confer the Aaronic or Melchzedek Priesthoods on their male members." In my research I did not run across this but I can google it as soon as I'm done here. I won't ask you to type out a couple of paragraphs on this. :) I know what an apostate is. I'm just unfamiliar with Aaronic and Melchzedek.
What offshoot groups are you speaking of? Are you talking about the FLDS groups that proclaim to have a Prophet for a leader, i.e Warren Jeffs? Because I've never heard of offshoots from the LDS.



reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] latebar7609 10 years ago

Thanks again! I'm loving the history lesson.


reply

[–] chucknorrissinspiration 10 years ago

Good education, thank you. It's good to see a thread not full of sh$t flinging arguments for a change on this site(at least for the shows I frequent most). I was curious to the answer of the OP's question but too lazy to go on a googling spree. Just finished season 5. Loved it. I'll miss the show.

reply

[–] al666940-3 10 years ago

If one day the SCOTUS declared polygamy lawful, the very next day the head of the LDS would have a revelation telling him it's OK to flip-flop back into polygamy.

Just listen to mormons' excuses and explanations about it. They all come across as biding their time until it can be reversed, not like realizing it was and is wrong.

If fact, if slavery were made lawful, I'm pretty sure mormons (and a few Protestant groups and even traditionalist Catholics) would have no problem finding their way back into their previous religious assumptions justifying it in the past (they all supported slavery as being OK'ed by God, or at the very least, the inherent inferiority of non whites). Never mind what would become of women if misogyny were also made lawful.

I'm yet to find a mormon (I live in Zapopan Mexico, right next to a mormon temple) who actually denounces polygamy as wrong/evil. They all only go as far as saying "it's no longer allowed/required". Even the Catholics can accept their previous support of racism/nazis/geocentrism was wrong and unjustified, not that "it's no longer required".

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] al666940-3 10 years ago

"As a member of the LDS church, I will never admit that it was wrong or unjustified. It was necessary at the time"

Wow, you just confirmed my post.

Necessary, as slavery was necessary to build the old US of A, and bringing civilization to them savages (those people of colour your church wouldn't allow into the priesthood), or at least bringing THEM into civilization?

Just want to test exactly what actions you consider were OK because you deem them "necessary". It's one thing to say "it was wrong, but in that time/context/whatever it was an understandable error/misjudgement", and quite another to say "it was necessary, deal with it and get over it".

Even the Catholics today can admit their way of evangelizing the Americas (destroying the native culture to force conversions) was WRONG, not "necessary", WRONG. Understandable when viewed in that time and context, but still, WRONG. And I'm talking about the people (Jesuits) who often enough bothered to live with the natives, learn their languages, and fight/die alongside them to protect from European predation (check out The Mission).

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] al666940-3 10 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_polygamy#Criticism_of_plural_marriage

I don't know, even taking into account the LDS replies to the criticism, reads pretty sickening to me (marrying minors, other men's wives, blood relatives, marrying more women a man could possibly pay attention to, etc).

"polygamy isn't anywhere near the atrocities of slavery or the the evangelizing of aboriginal people."

Only because it was stopped before it spread like cancer.

"In order to be able to enter the Celestial Kingdom, women have to be sealed in a Temple ceremony to a Priesthood holder (a male)."

How convenient for them males.

"Many of the sealings were spiritual marriages only"

Then such pairings were not really marriages in any straight meaning of the word. If that's truly the case, why did it take the threat of loss of statehood and asset forfeiture to FORCE the LDS elders to switch gears?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_polygamy#U.S._federal_government_actions_against_polygamy

"When the Pioneers came West many of them died, leaving many widows."

Any group of people in strange lands could make that claim (European conquistadores, vikings even). Heck any war torn region also. Yet I must've missed all the religions in such regions (Orthodox in Russia, Protestants in Germany, etc) advocating for polygamy to "take care" of all them widows and (female) orphans.

"but also it was no longer necessary"

And your basis of that is? Because if that was true then why so many splintering fundie groups within Mormonism that have continued the practice?

"there were reasons for polygamy"

And I'm sure there were reasons also behind every other excess and crime anywhere. Stating "there were reasons" is the fallback excuse of tyrants and despots. Oh and self righteous people whom I never want to see in power (like Mr 47% Romney).

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] al666940-3 10 years ago

"I know you and many others want to vilify Joseph Smith and Mormons in general."

Do I? Show one single word of me crapping on Mormons in general (the LDS leaders is something else), or even Smith or Young. They were as transparent and obvious as David Koresh. Whomever followed them was properly warned and cannot claim ignorance.

"Yes modern day polygamists are horrible, but the Mormons that practiced polygamy in the 1800's didn't practice domestic violence."

Why are they horrible? Because they claim they are simply doing what their forefathers did (all the way to Abraham).

How is their polygamy different? The very nature and inherent mechanics of polygamy are the ones that enable the abuse, no matter how well intended the participants are.

Some things, like underwear and tooth brushes, are not designed to be shared. And by "things" I mean spousal relationships, not women (I think the same of polyandry).

"Your rabid hatred? That I don't understand."

Because it only exists in your head next to your other straw men constructs.

"We did what we could to survive."

And how exactly did everyone else, whom also ventured west and fought the natives, survive without the (clearly in your mind) invaluable practice of polygamy? Because they seemed to have done just fine without it. Heck you still cannot argue away the fact that nobody else practiced it, and yet faced worse challenges. I don't remember Hernan Cortez and his men needing to marry dozens of women to survive, and they fared worse than any mormon ever did.

just answer this: if made legal, how long until the LDS received another revelation OKing it, again?

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] al666940-3 10 years ago

Mm, interesting if indeed true.

However polygamy last time I checked was forbidden on a federal level http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Legalization

So it's really about as legal in Utah as cannabis growing/selling is in Colorado.

It's still illegal at federal level, and the next president can order the DEA on his day of inauguration to rain crap on all of them and even prosecute state officers for drug trafficking.

So no wonder the LDS hasn't jumped on it yet.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] al666940-3 10 years ago

"In the case of polygamist fundamentalist Mormons, they are only legally married to the first wife and are spiritually married to the rest."

Mm, and how serious are such marriages? Meaning, do those men keep them women after they age and either lose their looks or can no longer give birth to more kids, or are they delegated to either house work (no different from being the maid) or literally cast out?

Even in the Bible, the story of Abram, Sarah and Abigail left very clear which woman counted (and which one didn't) when the chips were down, regardless of their prior understanding. Every woman considering such lifestyle should remember that.

"The Church does still practice polygamy, but only in the afterlife."

Mm, I remember in the gospel of Luke this story about Jesus being asked by the Sadducee several questions about marriages in the afterlife, and he clearly states that in the afterlife, there won't be any such thing as husbands and wives.

Hence why the so famous "Until death do us part".

So unless we have very different Bible translations, not sure where you're getting your afterlife marital info from.

"Don't count on it. In states where it is sold for medicinal and now recreational uses it is too big of a money maker in terms of tax revenue. "

Not really, not anymore:
http://www.vocativ.com/money/taxes/colorado-marijuana-tax/

Plus as Jim Crow proved (by turning away black business) and several southern states are proving now like Indiana (by turning away gay business), ideology can indeed trump greed. Curious indeed that Utah got smart and actually engaged its gay community before passing such laws, thus avoiding the mess Indiana, Georgia and others are now in.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] latebar7609 10 years ago

Thank you so much for all your great information.

You did clear up something for me. The entire time I was watching Big Love I kept thinking "Why are they so worried about getting arrested? As long as Bill doesn't try to legally marry more than one woman or commit welfare, tax, or insurance fraud then what he's doing isn't illegal." You cleared that up with the statement about Utah being a common law state. You did say something about polygamy being decriminalized. Does that mean that as long as you don't commit any of the fraud I mentioned above; the state leaves you alone?

Polygamy itself isn't immoral. It's when it becomes what it did on the compound that Warren Jeffs ran. Polygamy isn't bad. It's underage girls, forced marriages, etc. that is bad. This is in response to what that other guy was saying.



reply

[–] belizcik 9 years ago

Excellent explanation. This show helped me a lot to understand the real meaning of polygamy and also that is OK and even useful during certain times and circumstances- when all agree.

For myself I don't think I could ever accept sister wifes but within limits, standards and as described by yourself above, I don't find it wrong anymore.

"revenge is a dish best served cold"

reply