I am very, very surprised that there is almost never any mention of the Mormon Church's REAL agenda behind Prop 8.

The Morg doesn't really care about the idea that homosexuals can "get married" legally. I mean, consider the small numbers of homosexuals within the general population, and the fact that homosexuals are far more promiscuous than the average heterosexual, which means, they are far less likely to get married to each other at all. Many of them would prefer to sleep around and NOT be in committed relationships. Clearly, allowing homosexuals to legally "marry" will have very little impact (certainly not a significant impact) on the culture. So, why the incredible panic from the Morg leadership over the idea of homosexual marriage??

Here is the reality of the ultimate effects of the marriage equality laws: If these kinds of laws finally DO pass, alternative marriages will become legal. Those alternative marriages will include man+man, woman+woman, and of course, man+woman+woman+woman+woman.

What will happen to mainstream Mormonism when polygamy is finally legal again? What possible excuse can the Morg give the world, and, more importantly, its own membership, for its prohibition of members from practicing polygamy, especially when polygamy is also known as "The New and Everlasting Covenant"?

Wilford Woodruff, Joseph F. Smith, and other Morg prophets, openly and vigorously taught that the Manifesto was NOT revelation. Of course, they had no choice but to say that. First of all, Wilford Woodruff did NOT publish the Manifesto as a revelation. It was clearly something that he wrote himself, without any help in authorship from "God". Thus, The New and Everlasting Covenant was temporarily suspended by decree, and NOT by revelation. Many years later, however, the Morg decided to tell the world, and its membership, that the Manifesto was, in fact, revelation. So, apparently, God himself decided that the word, "Everlasting" meant only 55 years, according to the more recent leadership.

The problem that the Morg has if marriage equity laws are passed, is that they will then have to make polygamy the Church's preferred form of marriage, since God clearly commanded Joseph's Myth to practice it and to teach it to the members. If the Morg refuses, they will be exposed for the frauds they all are, since polygamy is something that that was NOT done away with by the Manifesto. Polygamy was merely on temporary suspension following the Manifesto, but never completely abolished. This must be true, because the leadership continued to officiate polygamous marriages for another 15 years at minimum, according to witness back at the turn of the last century, AFTER the publication of the Manifesto. Without question, they did not believe that the Manifesto truly prohibited them from continuing the practice of polygamy. In fact, it wasn't until they were literally forced to completely suspend polygamy did they finally acquiesce. But it was never voluntary, nor was it done by commandment of God. Clearly, the leadership was NOT serious about abolishing an institution that they believed had been decreed by God. The sole purpose of the Manifesto was to bring Utah (still a territory of the U.S.) into compliance with the Rules and Laws of the U.S. in order to gain statehood, and to avoid legal and military reprisals from their masters in Washington.

If any individual state in the U.S. legalizes alternative marriages, the Morg literally has no shield to hide behind. They cannot contend that the Manifesto was revelation, when it clearly was NOT. Just read the damn thing, and it will become obvious. Then, read the statements of Woodruff, Joseph F. Smith, George Albert Smith, etc, who claimed publicly that the Manifesto was NOT a revelation.

That is Major Problem Number One - What the Manifesto says and what it MEANS.

Then, in light of that fact that, since The New And Everlasting Covenant must still be in effect, at least according to the revelation where that covenant was made, the Morg will no longer have any basis for excommunication of any of its members who attempt to practice polygamy, or who insist that it is their moral and/or spiritual obligation, or where they have received personal revelation that they must enter into a polygamous marriage with another person. If the Morg continues down their path of refusing to accept polygamy back into their "church", and the general membership is acutely aware of this massive discrepancy, then we will have Major Problem Number Two - The Hypocrisy of the Morg Leadership, and Their Apostasy.

On the other hand, if the Morg's leaders become intellectually honest know, I know - a clear impossibility), and they DO revert back to the way things used to be, since that is OBVIOUSLY what "God" wants them to do, then they will be faced with Major Problem Number Three: the Mass Defection of American and European Women from the Mormon Church. In fact, the general membership would plummet world-wide. This is on top of a membership that is already plummeting very rapidly. Thus, the Morg will NEVER allow polygamy. It would doom their "church". But, if they maintain that hard-core party line, especially in an environment where more and more members and non-members alike, are beginning to learn more about early Mormon history, compliments of shows like the wonderful TV series, Sister WIves, it will become general knowledge, among the American members at least, that during the first 55 - 70 years in the history of the Moron Church, a very large percentage of its members were polygamists, and that after the introduction of the Manifesto, there was another schism. Most members are totally unaware of the scale of the practice of polygamy that was practiced back then. Just wait until they learn! Whoops! There go even MORE members!!

Thus, marriage equality laws will force the polygamy issue down the throats of the Moron leaders, and a mass defection of members will become even more probable. At the VERY least, it would be a PR nightmare for the Morg.

So, let's all pray to the god of our choice, that the Morg suffers their worst nightmare, and that marriage equality laws are passed in all 50 states.


AND SOON.

I know this isn't the point of your post but could you point to a basis for this conclusion, please? I'll admit that when I was a TBM I assumed this was true but I had/have no evidence to support that belief.

_________________
Dipsnort, sniper of truth and aspiring Harriet Tubman of Mormonism

Well, if you need me to quote multiple anthropologic studies published in peer-reviewed journals, I suppose I could spend a couple of weeks digging up studies to that effect. On the other hand, having been in and around the wonderful world of gay for several years when my ex-wife decided that she wanted to be a lesbian, and hanging out with her friends, going dancing at gay bars on a regular basis for a couple of years, having a gay uncle, gay friends, gay employees, and gay patients, I think that I have had enough exposure to the gay subculture for enough decades now to make that comment with full confidence that it is basically true. In my experience, the older gay people get, the more inclined they are to settle down. However, many of them will live with a partner for a few years, and then move on to another, and another, etc. It is not much different in the heterosexual world in the U.S., given the fact that the divorce rate is so high, so that being married 4 or 5 times in one's lifetime is no longer unheard of. My father is on his 4th wife, and my mom on her 3rd husband. I'm on my second wife myself. No biggie.

In any case, ANYONE with ANY experience with gay men under the age of 40 should have a pretty clear understanding that MANY of them prefer to have a group of close friends, and then to have an endless string of sexual encounters, without commitment. This is not conjecture - it is a self-evident fact. But the thesis of my post remains intact, even if the vast majority of homosexuals prefer to marry. Because of the fact that there are not many homosexuals in the population, their marriages could not possibly have a significant impact on the culture of any nation, thereby negating the stated position of the LDS "church", that marriage equality laws would be detrimental to the culture and to the traditional family unit. That is their STATED objection, but it is NOT their true agenda. The Morg is terrified of POLYGAMY. Polygamy is a deal-breaker for MANY members. Thus, they do everything in their power to minimize its history, its impact on the early church, the rate at which it was practiced, etc. They wish to GOD they could just make it all go away, but they cannot. They cannot erase the fact that Joseph's Myth was a sexual predator, and that, in his mind, his ultimate reward for having hoodwinked a great number of people, was becoming able to justify satiating his insatiable sexual appetite.

To the victor go the spoils. Joseph's Myth was victorious over the minds of his converts . . . and to his bed went the spoils. If that fact ever becomes common knowledge among the brainwashed victims of Mormonism, there will be a mass exodus out of the Moron "Church". Thus, the Brethren will do whatever it takes to keep polygamy under wraps. Prop 8 was VERY important to them. Not since the Equal Rights Amendment was being proposed in the late '70s has the Moron "church" ever become so panicked and animated over a political issue. And their reaction to marriage equality laws far surpassed their panic over the ERA in '78 or '79.

Pretty good analysis, DrGroovy.
(Your second post is also informative.)
There has been some laxity already, that eases the practice of polygamy. Namely, by not enforcing laws prohibiting cohabitation, a lot of jurisdictions make it possible to practice polygamy, if the persons concerned are not legally married. Some get "unofficial" marriages; some don't even do that - they "live togther". Still, I think you are on to something, in suggesting that if "alternative marriages" were accepted, additional polygamous marriages would be enacted, they would be official marriages, and they would be publicized. If those who do practice polygamy are able to proudly broadcast their relations without fear of legal problems, that would undoubtedly hurry the results you foresee.

_________________
"Everyone has to find his own path." - Ip-Man

Thanks anyway, I don't need you to do that. As I said I have no hard evidence to support the conclusion you have drawn so I don't know whether it is true. What I do know is that it is also not uncommon for non-gay folks to have numerous uncommitted sexual encounters, particularly in their younger years.

_________________
Dipsnort, sniper of truth and aspiring Harriet Tubman of Mormonism

Statistically, homosexuals are just as (if not LESS) promiscuous than heterosexuals. That's a stereotype that gets used to demonize gays for years. It's not based in fact. And no, firsthand accounts don't count. Of COURSE people are hooking up at gay bars--that's what they do at "straight bars," too.

Secondly, the whole argument of "marriage equality leads to a slippery slop of polygamy" is preposterous. There's a big difference between an open marriage and polygamy. They are not even close to the same thing. Polygamy preys on young women as a finite resource, which leads to girls getting married younger and younger. Polygamy also ostracizes young men, who are seen as competition, and often end up chased out of the community because of this. I don't think the larger society as a whole will ever fully endorse this practice, because the results are much too damaging, especially when questions of consent are concerned.

The church is motivated by fear and homophobia, just like they were motivated by racism when they argued against civil rights for African-Americans. Plain and simple.

_________________
"If Lions could think, their Gods would have a mane and roar." - Xenophanes

"Wow! So the Bible is really a trilogy, and the Book of Mormon is 'Return of the Jedi?' I'm interested!" - Elder Cunningham, The Book of Mormon

That was going to be my question as well. I've only had a handful of gay friends, but I don't know of any of them who would fit this description.

_________________
"A mind stretched by a new idea can never go back to its original dimensions." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

However, I do think they would go into an outright panic if polygamy became legal, because then what would be their excuse not to practice it? They'd probably just say they didn't have any revelations to begin it again at this time, and that time would simply never come.

_________________
"A mind stretched by a new idea can never go back to its original dimensions." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

This is absolutely right Lavender. As a lesbian myself, I do not fit this stereotype and neither do my friends. It seems that the heteros , younguns seem to be the one's making the rounds. I have to do a lot more STD screening on my hetero patients than the gay ones.

Ok people, in an effort to stay on point here, I will be as P.C. as possible for all of those of you who like to criticize or openly disagree with insignificant points within a post, while totally ignoring the main point being made within that post.

For the sake of the main point, I will stipulate that homosexuals are mostly monogamous, and that heterosexuals are far, far more promiscuous than homosexuals. I will stipulate that my DECADES of VERY CLOSE contact with the gay communities of Chicago, Miami, and Dallas, and the impressions that were left upon me by that contact, were totally unique to my own personal experience and do NOT represent anything even resembling the truth of the gay culture. You all are absolutely correct, and I was profoundly wrong about the general behavior of homosexuals.

Now, to get back to the main point, the homosexual population is officially estimated at 3-5% of the general population (PRACTICING homosexuals, NOT bi-curious, gay-confused, deep in the closet, etc.). There is no way on earth that by allowing 4% of the general population to practice gay marriage, the traditional family unit is going to be threatened by it. The position of the Moron "church" to justify the rabid support of Prop 8, because the Brethren truly believed that marriage equality laws were going to create a huge wave of gay marriage that would destroy traditional marriage, or the culture, or whatever, was, and still is, a MASSIVE red-herring argument, designed to deflect attention from their true agenda of thwarting the re-emergence of polygamy. If polygamy becomes totally legal, the Moron "church" no longer has the law to hide behind as an excuse to disavow it. That would allow critics, and members themselves, to openly question its prohibition, while the "church" would no longer have a leg to stand on.

Imagine this:

"Hey Monson - now that polygamy is legal, why don't you petition God to allow the members to practice 'The New and Everlasting Covenant' again, so that we can all go to the celestial kingdom, and have dominion over our own worlds without number?"

This is the ULTIMATE PR nightmare for the Moron "church"'s Brethren.

I like you, Dr.Groovy.

You're twice as smart as half of us think,
and only half as wrong as most of us guess.
(Or something like that.) - Frodo's brother, Frogo.

You have a witty patience.

Although I did pick on one part of the post, I also made a separate post commenting on the polygamy issue. Just sayin'.

_________________
"A mind stretched by a new idea can never go back to its original dimensions." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

Agreed!

I'm just saying that the little points matter. If you can't be bothered to get small, "insignificant" facts straight, why should I trust your opinion about the big, overarching conclusions you're making?

Healthy skepticism!!

_________________
"If Lions could think, their Gods would have a mane and roar." - Xenophanes

"Wow! So the Bible is really a trilogy, and the Book of Mormon is 'Return of the Jedi?' I'm interested!" - Elder Cunningham, The Book of Mormon

PR Nightmare? Maybe.

Or maybe it's exactly what the old horny B@$T@RD$ want.

I was thinking about how divorce is handled and how you have to write up what happened as part of the paperwork leading up to getting married again after your first eternal marriage failed. I wonder how steamy some of the details get and whether the brethern ever get hot and bothered? Sorry, that's straying off subject a bit. But it is consistent with how explicit they got when my wife's X was excommunicated.

_________________
I resigned from the Church of THE Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (Feb 2011)

"For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad." - Luke 8:17

Well, if the "little points" regarding the general sexual habits of homosexuals are that important to you, then I would suggest that you do some research on your own. You can scour the internet, and look up literally dozens and dozens of studies conducted over the past 50 years, the vast majority of which demonstrate unequivocally, that homosexuals (most particularly male homosexuals, of whom there are roughly twice as many as there are lesbians) are extraordinarily promiscuous, generally speaking. There are only a handful of other lower-quality studies contradicting those findings.

Obviously, there are exceptions, and most of those studies were measuring rates of promiscuity among male homosexuals. In my opinion, those studies are not accurately depicting the rates of promiscuity among lesbians. In my experience, being very close with several lesbians (including my ex-wife), they are far less promiscuous than male homosexuals. In my experience with gay men, they are, by and large, quite promiscuous, and nearly always on the prowl. Several gay couples I have known have had open relationships, and often shared one night stands and other partners.

But again, regardless of whether the minor points of my post were anything but 100% accurate, the larger point that I was making is all that really mattered in my post. Your response is precisely why I have rarely ever bothered to waste my time posting anything online in ANY forum, EVER. There are so many raw nerves out there who just cannot resist spouting hyperbole or hypercriticisms at even the most brilliant, salient posts, that it behooves us who truly DO have VERY intelligent points to make, to keep our brains to ourselves. Don't you get tired of reading dumb posts made by people who never really thought them through? If so, then you really shouldn't chase away those of us who make intelligent, thought-provoking posts.

Honestly, the purpose of my post was to, hopefully, get enough ex-Mormons to discuss this thesis with their remaining Moron friends and relatives, until it becomes a more common thesis, so that WHEN (not IF) polygamy is at LEAST decriminalized, if not fully legalized, the members can have all of the same nagging doubts that this very same issue left me with. 15 years ago, one of the things that drove me from the Moron "church", among many others, was the fact that co-habitation was no longer illegal, and that there were thousands of polygamous marriages in existence throughout Utah, Arizona, Texas, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Alberta, Mexico, etc., and no one was getting in trouble. Clearly, even then, if the Moron "church" had decreed that polygamy was being re-introduced, there would be only minor resistance from local and state governments, because of the stature of the Moron "church" these days. In other words, the "church" would have gotten away with it, NO PROBLEM. That means, in light of the fact that the "church" no longer would have to be subjected to the Manifesto, there would be absolutely no valid reason for the "church" to continue with their suspension of "The New And Everlasting Covenant". I say "suspension" because it was never officially withdrawn by "God", or rejected by "church" leaders. It was merely ignored by virtue of the Manifesto. So, if it is merely suspended, it could and should be reinstated as soon as it is feasible to do so. In my opinion, it is clearly feasible today, and once polygamy IS legalized (or at least decriminalized), it will be absolutely feasible, and there will be no way for the "church" to deny that fact. At that point, the Brethren had better have a REALLY damn good excuse to not reinstate this most important commandment from "god". For those reading this who truly understand the profundity of "The New And Everlasting Covenant", the "church" will have no choice but to reinstate polygamy, or face losing all remaining credibility (what little is left) among the most hard-core members, especially those who are multi-generational, and who have studied "church" history and have a profound understanding of it.

Lavender, if your disagreement with a minor point in my post somehow clouds your mind and makes it impossible for you to see a self-evident larger truth contained in that same post, then I pity your inability to think rational thoughts. The point of my post was not an expression of an opinion. It was a carefully-considered observation. EVERY ex-Mormon who has ANY knowledge of the history of the Moron "church" understands the polygamy issue. And anyone who was ever active in the Moron "church" as an adult, and attended several different congregations throughout the United States, like I did, and was able to observe and get to know a good cross-section of the membership, would very easily be able to see that the vast majority of Morons would be mortified if polygamy was re-introduced into the "church". The general membership of the "church" is already mortified at the association of the LDS "church" with the TV program Sister Wives. They are absolutely terrified that the general public will be associating their LDS "church" with the FLDS churches. The fact is that most people DO make that association to one degree or another, and rightfully so. Both groups of believers still believe (or profess to believe) that Joseph's Myth was a prophet who communicated with "god", founded the Moron "church", and instituted polygamy. The association of the LDS "church" with polygamy has the potential to drive away potential converts at a rate that has never been seen before. It could be devastating for the Moron "church" for polygamy to be at the forefront of Mormon public image. I, for one, hope that it is. I also believe that the polygamy issue, if polygamy becomes legal, will have an even more profound effect on the existing membership of the "church". If fact, those members who would be most likely to leave on account of this massive discrepancy between polygamy legality and its continued non-practice, would be the multi-generational members, the ones whose children, and children's children, are intended to remain as the foundation of the "church". Without THOSE kinds of members, the church would fall apart rather quickly. It is the multi-generational membership that forms the majority of the TBMs. For them, it isn't just a church, it is their family heritage and cultural identity, just as important to them as their race and their language. It is THOSE members who must leave the church en masse before the collapse can possibly happen. The polygamy issue may just be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

THAT, Lavender, is why I posted. I want to get that thesis out there, to start infecting the minds of the people who are otherwise least likely to leave the "church". Those multi-generational members will never leave unless an in-your-face apostasy were to emerge. Then, THEY would be the MOST likely to leave, while those less well-versed in the history or principles of the "church" would fully accept alterations to the belief system, because their faith is based more heavily upon how attending church makes them "feel".

I'm quite sure that every person on this list has their own agenda, and most of you probably have an agenda that is far more benign than mine. My agenda is to spread the word that the Moron "church" is false, that it is a cult, and to do everything I can to accelerate the demise and ultimate collapse of the Mormon Church. Once that happens, then I can focus my attention on all of the rest of organized religion. But bringing the Moron "church" down is more personal. I believe that it sucks the life right out of people, and too many of my friends and family are still brainwashed by it. I hope that they can all free their minds someday soon.

In the meantime, Lavender, if you don't have something nice to say, don't say it, or, if you want to challenge something that someone has said, don't simply throw out a fantasy fact: "Statistically, homosexuals are just as (if not LESS) promiscuous than heterosexuals. That's a stereotype that gets used to demonize gays for years. It's not based in fact."

Talk about not being "able to get small, insignificant facts straight"!

The "fact" is, Lavender, that the vast majority of research on the subject of homosexual promiscuity has shown overwhelmingly, that, particularly among gay men (of whom there are twice as many compared to gay women), homosexuals are extremely promiscuous. Those are not cooked-up statistics, or studies done with the purpose of besmirching the reputation of the gay community. Many of those are statistics have been compiled by AIDS researchers, many, many government studies performed by government researchers from around the world on every continent, as well as other independent research from liberal universities who have absolutely NO axe to grind with gays or lesbians. On the other hand, there are a small number of studies, many of lower quality, that have shown opposing data, but the numbers of such studies are dwarfed by the studies that demonstrate the extreme promiscuity of homosexuals (men in particular) versus the heterosexual population.

And again, for the third time, the purpose of my post was NOT to denigrate homosexuals, or to cast them in any kind of a disparaging light. My original post is clearly NOT anti-gay. I fully SUPPORT marriage equality, and not just because it could bring down the Moron "church".

(DISCLAIMER: I am a hard-core Libertarian!)

I believe that two people who love each other should have every right in the world to marry and to have the same legal protections that heterosexuals possess when they get married.

HOWEVER, I ALSO BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE TO PRACTICE POLYGAMY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT, AS WELL. In one of your critiques, you wrote:

"Secondly, the whole argument of 'marriage equality leads to a slippery slop of polygamy' is preposterous. There's a big difference between an open marriage and polygamy. They are not even close to the same thing. Polygamy preys on young women as a finite resource, which leads to girls getting married younger and younger. Polygamy also ostracizes young men, who are seen as competition, and often end up chased out of the community because of this. I don't think the larger society as a whole will ever fully endorse this practice, because the results are much too damaging, especially when questions of consent are concerned."

You really need to control your typing a little better than that, Lavender. Nearly everything you said there is complete B.S., and is provably B.S.

First, the idea that marriage equality would NOT create an opportunity for polygamists to assert their rights to practice plural marriage is what is preposterous. Once gays are allowed to marry (i.e., the legal definition of marriage becomes flexible, and allows for alternative types of marriage), polygamists would have a legal basis for asserting their rights to practice polygamy under equal protection laws. Preposterous? I don't think so! Go ask an attorney who understands equal protection under the law, and the constitution. If any court rules that gay marriage laws must be upheld, there is absolutely NOTHING to stop polygamists, and they SHOULDN'T stop.

Second, yes, there IS a big difference between an open marriage and polygamous marriage. Polygamous marriage is a legitimate marriage, where the husband and his individual wives are monogamous with each other. Your contention that a man, of his own volition, asking a woman to marry him, of her own free will and volition, somehow preys on young women, clearly demonstrates to all of the readers just how little you know about polygamy. However, there are also similarities between open marriages and polygamy. In either case, all of the participating adults have consented to the nature of the relationship, and should be left the hell alone. But in neither case are there any victims, as long as there is no coercion being used to force someone to participate if that person is not a willing participant.

Third, polygamy does NOT "prey" on young women, necessarily. However, were young women preyed upon in the early Moron "church"? Yes. My great-great-great-great grandmother was one of them. Does it happen in the Warren Jeffs branch of the FLDS church? Yes. Does it happen in the AUB branch of the FLDS church? NO. If polygamy was legalized, would that behavior be the norm? HELL NO. If polygamy was legalized, you can bet your ass that there would be ZERO tolerance for marriages of anyone under the age of 18. That being said, anyone getting married at 18 years or older has just made a life decision as an adult, and no government has any right to tell an adult what they can or cannot do with their bodies or their lives, as long as they are not hurting anyone else.

Non-libertarians often make the argument that illicit drugs should remain illegal, because drugs hurt the individual, or they hurt society when the drug addict robs a 7-11 to pay for his next fix. That is highly debatable, and given the success of drug legalization in other countries (like Portugal, for example), there is no question that opposition to drug legalization is complete B.S. Other non-libertarians decry prostitution, and claim that the libertarian viewpoint should not permit the legalization of prostitution, because innocent wives get their hearts broken when the husband sleeps with a prostitute. Again, pure B.S. No one gets hurt. So, should we allow prostitution for single men only, then? If not, why not? Who gets hurt then? This is why conservatives are just as stupid as liberals. Both groups want to dictate to others how to live. As far as polygamy is concerned, who gets hurt, if its practice is limited to consenting adults? Answer: NO ONE. And if someone wants to use that old bromide, "We gotta protect the children!!", then I submit to you, dear readers, the bizarre, wonderful TV series, Sister Wives, where you can see for yourself whether or not children from polygamous marriages are "suffering", or are in any way "disadvantaged." I happen to think that kids brought up in monogamous Catholic households truly ARE suffering, and are disadvantaged, being brought up with all of that Catholic Guilt. What a terrible way to start your life. Let's outlaw Catholicism, shall we?

As far as your assertion that "Polygamy preys on young women as a finite resource, which leads to girls getting married younger and younger. Polygamy also ostracizes young men, who are seen as competition, and often end up chased out of the community because of this," you are describing the Warren Jeffs branch of the FLDS church, and their practice of polygamy. You have identified ONE group of polygamists who clearly have a problem, and lumped all of the other polygamists in with them. That is terribly intellectually dishonest, Lavender. In fact, that is a "big, overarching conclusion" is it not?? Furthermore, the practice of chasing the young men out of the community did NOT happen in the early LDS "church" - at least not on a church-wide basis, nor as a matter of church policy. Perhaps it happened in smaller outposts, far from SLC, but if so, it wasn't reported. That activity is a relatively new phenomenon, and the reasons for it are pretty obvious. The FLDS church does not have a missionary program. They aren't recruiting new members. Thus, by marrying exclusively within their own ranks, they have guaranteed that there will be a shortage of women if most of the men are practicing polygamy. That is an unsustainable system if the boys are allowed to hang around and grow up to full adulthood within the community. That system of marrying exclusively within their own ranks either guarantees monogamy, OR, as an alternative, it necessitates chasing the boys out of the community, so that a select few men can be polygamists. But that is a unique situation and cannot be used as a legitimate argument against polygamy, generally.

As far as your assertion that society will never fully endorse polygamy, that assertion is a moot point. Society as a whole has never fully endorsed homosexuality, but guess what? Homosexuality isn't going anywhere! It has been with us since the dawn of man, and it always will. Polygamy has been with us since the dawn of man, and it always will. Society's acceptance or rejection of either one is moot. They will always be with us. So, we have a choice. Do we accept those institutions as alternative lifestyles, where we may not endorse them, condone them, or ever desire to practice them, but still take the approach of "live and let live?" Or do we condemn them and try to make them illegal, and ostracize them, and do everything we can to interfere with their participants' pursuit of happiness? Should we condemn and ostracize homosexuals who wish to live monogamously, in committed relationships? Or how about polygamists who desire to do the same? Why all the fuss?

So, in the end, Lavender, your facts were non-factual, and your "little points" were nonsense, which leads me to say to you,

"I'm just saying that the little points matter. If you can't be bothered to get small, 'insignificant' facts straight, why should I trust your opinion about the big, overarching conclusions you're making?

Healthy skepticism!!"


INDEED!!

Whew. I'm exhausted.
Thanks for the clarification and expansion, DrGroovy.
I appreciate your primary purpose in posting the OP, and don't have a problem with that at all.
I was pretty interested in polygamy, and was following news from several groups, and had even registered on several very different types of polygamy forums - still am registered, but haven't visited in a pretty long while. So when Sister Wives came out, I thought I'd be as interested in that as I was in "Big Love". Well, there was a whole lot in Big Love I did not like, and I couldn't watch most of the last season of that show. Sister Wives threw even more cold water on that interest. I watched a couple of episodes, then stopped watching altogether. My wife asks, "Aren't you interested in that? Don't you want to watch it?" "No," I answer, "There's something wrong. It's not like Mormonism. That man seems to have a different agenda. I get the feeling he is 'collecting' wives, not marrying them for true love." I could be wrong! Wrong or right, though, I can't watch that show.

Btw, i agree with your conclusions, DrGroovy. "Sexual variety" if I may call it that, has been around since before written history. There are people on many forums for exmembers of various religions who complain of their treatment by fellow members of their religions. Sin being everywhere, and sexual sin being everywhere and of every sort, and surely, as I can tell you from personal experience or from the reports of my friends who have had personal experiences, the most religious person in one's church, may also be very sexually liberated, active, promiscuous. If we let sexual differences alienate us, we'll all be islands in a sea of hate and mistrust. We have to be able to say "no" when appropriate, assert ourselves and our dignity, and "give a little space" for those who aren't going to change their minds/behavior anyway.

As my son says, "Peace out."

Oh, damn, there I go preaching again.
"Well, shet my mouf!"

You don't say!

Not that you want an opinion from lowly, unimportant, uneducated me but you might consider trying to find a way to get your point across without going into attack mode.

_________________
Dipsnort, sniper of truth and aspiring Harriet Tubman of Mormonism

Gee, I didn't realize that defending one's position from over-the-top frivolous attacks that have no basis in truth, fact, or logic, was an "attack". Like, when two teams play football, there is "offense" and "defense". When the "defense" is defending their own end zone, they are not on offense. They are playing defense. In fact, if they play defense well enough, they can actually score points! But the scoring of those points is still not an act of playing offense. It is still, by definition, strictly defense.

Your comment of, "You don't say! " implies that my retort contained hyperbole and/or hypercriticisms. I would love to know which phrase or comment in my retort contained either of those things. Furthermore, you somehow believe that I was "going into attack mode." What did I say in my response that would qualify as an "attack"? Please let me know. I was very careful to ensure that everything in my response was factual and/or logical.

Thanks

DrGroovy, you're an above average essayist. That moves me to ask, what is your educational background, if you don't mind saying?