The Return of Mormon Polygamy?

The American Conservative ^ | November 21, 2014 | Rod Dreher

[2ndDivisionVet]

Ross Douthat has a thought-provoking reflection on the future of religion, both globally and in America. He says that it’s dangerous to assume that the future will look like the present, only moreso. Which Catholics in 1940 would have foreseen something as epochal as the Second Vatican Council, coming just 20 years later? Who could have anticipated that China is on track to having the largest Christian population in the world, and that Africa would be sending missionaries to the West? But here we are. Douthat calls attention to Will Saletan’s Slate piece saying that the Mormon Church has a clear theological method to change doctrine, has done so (on polygamy and other issues), and will do it on homosexuality eventually. Saletan points out that the Mormons have a history of changing doctrine to make it easier for them to get along in American society.

Douthat comes at it from a different place:

So context matters — and while I don’t know how many Mormons would frame it exactly this way, I think one way to read that context is to look at the revelation suspending polygamy and see God basically blessing a political-cultural bargain between the Latter Day Saints and the United States, in which Mormons would be granted the liberty required to thrive in return for adapting themselves to American familial norms … as adapt they did, becoming the archetype of 1950s bourgeois normality and then remaining archetypal long after that norm had ceased to meaningfully exist.

But if that bargain was real, and not only real but divinely-sanctioned, then what should pious Mormons today make of the fact that the United States now seems to be going back on the deal....

[LS]

Once the definition of marriage changed from “man and woman” it is inevitable that the next thing to change is “one”. No doubt in my mind that if courts are consistent they will have to permit this-—to the Muslims’ approval. Next will come child marriage and animal marriage, perhaps not in that order.

[ThePatriotsFlag]

To me, polygamy makes more sense than homosexual marriage.

[elcid1970]

Smithmas time will soon be here,
And mishies all are full of cheer....

[Flatus I. Maximus]

What the...?

Did he marry an entire girls high school?!

[ravenwolf]

Soon muslims will be coming here in droves to marry their favorite goat.

---

I do not take these experts on Mormonism serious either,

[ravenwolf]

And here come the lies and half truths.

[ravenwolf]

Mormon Polygamy was for a certain time period only.

---

I don`t see where God commanded polygamy in the case of Abraham or Jacob but he obviously approved of it.

[ReformationFan]

Exactly. In polygyny(one man to two or more wives), at least a child might be conceived whose father and mother are married to each other. That would never happen in a same-sex union since(obviously) neither of the two “husbands” or two “wives” can naturally conceive a child as a result of the “marriage”. Of course, such a common-sense view of reality is probably considered a “hate-crime” nowadays.

[supercat]

Once the definition of marriage changed from “man and woman” it is inevitable that the next thing to change is “one”.

Actually, I would posit that the most universal aspects of marriage is that every union must involve *exactly one male* and *at least one female*. Typically it involves exactly one female, but that's not quite so universal. A relationship with two females and zero males violates the "exactly one male" requirement, and one with zero females and two males violates both requirements. Unlike those, a relationship involving two females and one male would abide by both required criteria for marriage, and would be closer to abiding by the requirements for a monogamous marriage.

[supercat]

Of course, such a common-sense view of reality is probably considered a “hate-crime” nowadays.

I would expect that in almost any tribe throughout history, females could be classified into the following categories:

1. Those who would have sexual relations with exactly one specific man, who would respond very unfavorably if anyone else sought to have sexual relations with her.
2. Those who were not having sexual relations with anyone, but whose exclusive sexual services might be acquired by a man who was favored by the woman and/or her father.
3. Those who would make sexual services available on a non-exclusive basis.

I would further expect that just about everyone in most tribes would know, or could readily find out, which women had established exclusive sexual relationships, and with whom.

The principles that many females would have a sexually-exclusive bond to exactly one male, many others would aspire to do so, and everyone would know who was bound to whom, are almost universal and can be observed even in tribes which have never heard of Western religions. As such, they cannot be reasonably described as a product of Western religious bigotry. On the other hand, vocal religious people who focus on the religious issues and ignore the secular basis for marriage make it easier for homosexual activists to dodge the fundamental secular issue which is that the term "marriage" was introduced to describe the union of a female to exactly one male, and thus a homosexual union simply isn't a marriage.

[HLPhat]

>>When there is a need the Lord commands polygamy

Matt 19:5-6
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
NIV

What does TWO mean?

[GenXteacher]

1 man, 1 woman= civilization. Anything else is barbarism.

[MeganC]

1 man, 1 woman= civilization. Anything else is barbarism.

I guess we have barbarism given that most children these days don't grow up with both of their birth parents in the same household.

[GenXteacher]

You guess correctly, I think.