Reader comments
Readers' forum: Don't legalize polygamy
254 comments | Read story
Arthur | 1:57 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
The only things stopping multiple marriage:
1.Current definition of marriage (gay marriage would take that off the list)
2.Bad recent history (isn�t stopping/didn�t stop gay marriage/normal marriage/racial equality)
3.Its wrong (Just an opinion. SSM takes this off the list too.)
4.Its sick (Same)
5.It�ll never happen. (Has been said of many things that happened)
6.I said No! (Opinion)
7.Abuse, neglect, underage issues. (That goes for all relationships of all types)
8.Needs a new marriage contract (definitely. Shouldn�t be too hard though, with SSM we�re re-writing them anyway)
9.The spouses don�t have equal rights. (Did they have equal rights as multiple partners? Then no rights are lost, just gained, even if its less than 50%)
10.Without religious reasons or power over spouses no one would want this. (Who are we to say! Opinion. It�s a big world and people are already practicing this in the US without legal consent or any spousal rights) (However this reason is legitimate in that there might not be enough people help push this issue.)
11. Multiple marriage doesnt apply to equal protection. (True, but mangling marriage would be harder but is doable too.)
If SSM breaks through, theres only reason 10 & 11 stopping polygamy.
1.Current definition of marriage (gay marriage would take that off the list)
2.Bad recent history (isn�t stopping/didn�t stop gay marriage/normal marriage/racial equality)
3.Its wrong (Just an opinion. SSM takes this off the list too.)
4.Its sick (Same)
5.It�ll never happen. (Has been said of many things that happened)
6.I said No! (Opinion)
7.Abuse, neglect, underage issues. (That goes for all relationships of all types)
8.Needs a new marriage contract (definitely. Shouldn�t be too hard though, with SSM we�re re-writing them anyway)
9.The spouses don�t have equal rights. (Did they have equal rights as multiple partners? Then no rights are lost, just gained, even if its less than 50%)
10.Without religious reasons or power over spouses no one would want this. (Who are we to say! Opinion. It�s a big world and people are already practicing this in the US without legal consent or any spousal rights) (However this reason is legitimate in that there might not be enough people help push this issue.)
11. Multiple marriage doesnt apply to equal protection. (True, but mangling marriage would be harder but is doable too.)
If SSM breaks through, theres only reason 10 & 11 stopping polygamy.
Roberta | 2:22 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
Take my word from one who knows. Polygamy is the most CORRUPT lifestyle anyone
can ever get caught and trapped in. The polygamist men are the filthiest animals
that god has ever created and placed on this earth. Polygamy has nothing to do
with religion. I believe polygamist use god for their scapegoat to brainwash
stupid ignorant unlearned women into sick lifestyle.
Comments continue below
realitycheck | 2:24 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
to awesomeron - 1:34pm
i certainly agree that pedophilia is in its own sick class of people, and has nothing to do with 2 party or multi-party marriage. I'm not sure which of my posts you were refering to, but never intended anyone to get the opinion that I was putting everyone into the same class. I was probably refering to someone elses post and wasn't clear enough...
pedophiles are nasty - mariage (between people) is not.
i certainly agree that pedophilia is in its own sick class of people, and has nothing to do with 2 party or multi-party marriage. I'm not sure which of my posts you were refering to, but never intended anyone to get the opinion that I was putting everyone into the same class. I was probably refering to someone elses post and wasn't clear enough...
pedophiles are nasty - mariage (between people) is not.
Anonymous | 2:24 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
"If SSM breaks through, theres only reason 10 & 11 stopping
polygamy."
It is already here: Mass, Conn. Norway, Great Britain, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, South Africa and Canada. Watch it grow!
It is already here: Mass, Conn. Norway, Great Britain, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, South Africa and Canada. Watch it grow!
realitycheck | 2:36 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
re Arthur 1:57pm
item 1 not true. definition of marriage is a union between 2 people. regardles of sexual orientation. Gay marriage doesn't take anything off the list. Still prohibits multi-party marriage.
item 2 i agree. bad history (although I would add "entirely bad history" rather than "recent")
item 3 opinions don't count
item 8 no new contract is required for same-sex marriages. Still 2 people. You need an entirely new contract for polygamy, with more than 2 people actually signing it.
item 9 in California, most couples have equal rights to the property (barring a pre-nup).
I think you're entirely wrong with your statement that only 10 and 11 are stopping it. I think item 8 would be the clincher. It would stop most people from joining a polygamist marriage, simply because the prior wives would have to agree IN WRITING on a binding contract. But it would ensure that only those people that REALLY want it would do it.
I imagine it would be more women that love the other woman, and don't really care that there is a man involved. So it would really be same-sex marriage with some guy stuck supporting them.
ok by me...
item 1 not true. definition of marriage is a union between 2 people. regardles of sexual orientation. Gay marriage doesn't take anything off the list. Still prohibits multi-party marriage.
item 2 i agree. bad history (although I would add "entirely bad history" rather than "recent")
item 3 opinions don't count
item 8 no new contract is required for same-sex marriages. Still 2 people. You need an entirely new contract for polygamy, with more than 2 people actually signing it.
item 9 in California, most couples have equal rights to the property (barring a pre-nup).
I think you're entirely wrong with your statement that only 10 and 11 are stopping it. I think item 8 would be the clincher. It would stop most people from joining a polygamist marriage, simply because the prior wives would have to agree IN WRITING on a binding contract. But it would ensure that only those people that REALLY want it would do it.
I imagine it would be more women that love the other woman, and don't really care that there is a man involved. So it would really be same-sex marriage with some guy stuck supporting them.
ok by me...
re anonymous 2:24pm | 2:44 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
didn't know multi-person marriages were legal in Mass, Conn, etc.
when did this happen?
or did you mean 2-person marriages? it's still 2 people - don't see how that helps the multi-person marriage case at all. Unless they come up with a new contract and new multi-party laws.... that everyone (including other wives) must sign...
you see, there are already laws for 2-person marriage. No laws for multi-person marriages.
I suggest you all get out your pens and start drafting an outline.....
when did this happen?
or did you mean 2-person marriages? it's still 2 people - don't see how that helps the multi-person marriage case at all. Unless they come up with a new contract and new multi-party laws.... that everyone (including other wives) must sign...
you see, there are already laws for 2-person marriage. No laws for multi-person marriages.
I suggest you all get out your pens and start drafting an outline.....
Arthur | 2:44 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
re: Anonymous | 2:24 p.m.
Which is why I wont be faking surprise when I find out my new neighbors are legal polygamists in a decade.
Which is why I wont be faking surprise when I find out my new neighbors are legal polygamists in a decade.
Arthur | 3:01 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
re: realitycheck
1. Legal definition of marriage is a union between a free man and free woman. (Well in most states so far)
2. I guess thats a matter of perspective, but we do agree at least some bad history exists.
3. My point exactly.
8. Again that probably depends on the state. Anything with bride or groom on it would have to be revised for SSM.
9. What did you mean by couples?? I cant imagine that stands for all live in relationships. I've heard under certain conditions (longterm co-habitation) a boyfriend or girlfriend is entitled to your property legaly after a breakup but that isnt standard.
1. Legal definition of marriage is a union between a free man and free woman. (Well in most states so far)
2. I guess thats a matter of perspective, but we do agree at least some bad history exists.
3. My point exactly.
8. Again that probably depends on the state. Anything with bride or groom on it would have to be revised for SSM.
9. What did you mean by couples?? I cant imagine that stands for all live in relationships. I've heard under certain conditions (longterm co-habitation) a boyfriend or girlfriend is entitled to your property legaly after a breakup but that isnt standard.
Paperwork | 3:15 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
I cant imagine the paperwork/laws for something like multiple marriages could be
all that hard. Its not like its a new situation.
You'd just need an additional marrige for that you ammend onto your marriage application with additional spots for spouses.
Rules for divorce would change to an equal percentage divided among all parties on situation of divorce, even if its one person leaving they are only entitled to what their percentace would be at the time. Calculating 33% or 20% is not much harder than 50%.
Child custody could be handled the same as its handled now, paternal parents dont change. Tax issues would remain the same with no additional benefit. Insurance remains the same, dependants are dependants wether spouse or child. Not all that hard.
You'd just need an additional marrige for that you ammend onto your marriage application with additional spots for spouses.
Rules for divorce would change to an equal percentage divided among all parties on situation of divorce, even if its one person leaving they are only entitled to what their percentace would be at the time. Calculating 33% or 20% is not much harder than 50%.
Child custody could be handled the same as its handled now, paternal parents dont change. Tax issues would remain the same with no additional benefit. Insurance remains the same, dependants are dependants wether spouse or child. Not all that hard.
Enough! | 3:18 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
Polygamist men are rodents. These men even build holes in the ground to hide
deep within. I say to you folks out there, if you happen to come across one of
these rodent holes near you. Go get get your garden hose and stick it deep
within the hole and turn on the water, and then wait and watch the magnificent
bubbles surface to the top. It will simply make for a good day.
realitycheck | 3:30 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
re Arthur
1 - thank you for clarifying "in most states". I don't think it will be long before you have to change that to "a few states"
8 - very few (if any) laws state "bride" or "groom". Most state "spouse".
9 - couple means 2. a couple of apples = 2 apples. and I should have clarified - I meant married couples.
my point is that most laws concerning marriage and divorce, property rights of married couples, etc are written for 2 person marriages and often don't differentiate between the two parties as far as the sex of the party goes. So minimal change would be require.
no laws concerning marriage and divorce, property rights of married couples, etc address multi-person marriages. So they would all have to be written.
I would vote to legalize multi-person marriages if the law included the requirement that all parties sign a contract for it. I think the man would have a hard time getting his other wife (or wives) to sign up for it.
and if they did, I think it would be because the women REALLY like each other and the guy is simply a 3rd party (SSM with benefactor)
1 - thank you for clarifying "in most states". I don't think it will be long before you have to change that to "a few states"
8 - very few (if any) laws state "bride" or "groom". Most state "spouse".
9 - couple means 2. a couple of apples = 2 apples. and I should have clarified - I meant married couples.
my point is that most laws concerning marriage and divorce, property rights of married couples, etc are written for 2 person marriages and often don't differentiate between the two parties as far as the sex of the party goes. So minimal change would be require.
no laws concerning marriage and divorce, property rights of married couples, etc address multi-person marriages. So they would all have to be written.
I would vote to legalize multi-person marriages if the law included the requirement that all parties sign a contract for it. I think the man would have a hard time getting his other wife (or wives) to sign up for it.
and if they did, I think it would be because the women REALLY like each other and the guy is simply a 3rd party (SSM with benefactor)
re paperwork | 3:36 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
each time you went to get married, ALL spouses (including those already married)
would have to sign.
you really think it would be easy for the guy to get his earlier wives to agree? It would also remove some rights to property that the grown children may foresee, as younger new wives came on board to have all new children...
perhaps the paperwork wouldn't be too difficult, but getting people to sign them would be. And I imagine the lawyers would be the real winners...
I'm not against it if rights are retained. I think it would be fun to watch... I also think most religious polygamists would continue to hide, train young girls to marry in their "temples", and never get the approval of the state - simply because the other wives wouldn't sign. (and many wouldn't even allow their women to know the law exists...)
you really think it would be easy for the guy to get his earlier wives to agree? It would also remove some rights to property that the grown children may foresee, as younger new wives came on board to have all new children...
perhaps the paperwork wouldn't be too difficult, but getting people to sign them would be. And I imagine the lawyers would be the real winners...
I'm not against it if rights are retained. I think it would be fun to watch... I also think most religious polygamists would continue to hide, train young girls to marry in their "temples", and never get the approval of the state - simply because the other wives wouldn't sign. (and many wouldn't even allow their women to know the law exists...)
Paperwork | 4:17 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
RE: re paperwork "perhaps the paperwork wouldn't be too difficult, but
getting people to sign them would be. And I imagine the lawyers would be the
real winners..."
I'd agree. But hey people (and groups of people especially) constantly amaze me with the things they want to do. But I'm sure there will be some that will for whatever reason.
I'd agree. But hey people (and groups of people especially) constantly amaze me with the things they want to do. But I'm sure there will be some that will for whatever reason.
John Pack Lambert | 5:29 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
To the 8:21 commentator,
You do not say where your ancestors who practiced polygamy lived, however if they lived in Utah than the notion that there was no divorce is 100%. Many women in Utah granted divorce, and at the time Utah had some of the most liberal divorce laws in the nation, only granting divorces when a wife asked for it.
Your ancestor being ignorant of such a situation if they were in Utah may be true, but there were many divores in Utah, so to say a woman was stuck in a marriage and had no choice if her husband was taking a second wife is entirely false.
I do not have much hope of convincing people of the processes used in that time, because the key was the Holy Ghost testifying to people of the rightness of a thing that was against their culture, and since it is not currently sanctioned of the Lord the Holy Ghost will not currently provide such a testimony.
However, there is a process through which people willingly follow direction they know is from God, even when it is hard for them to accept it at the time.
You do not say where your ancestors who practiced polygamy lived, however if they lived in Utah than the notion that there was no divorce is 100%. Many women in Utah granted divorce, and at the time Utah had some of the most liberal divorce laws in the nation, only granting divorces when a wife asked for it.
Your ancestor being ignorant of such a situation if they were in Utah may be true, but there were many divores in Utah, so to say a woman was stuck in a marriage and had no choice if her husband was taking a second wife is entirely false.
I do not have much hope of convincing people of the processes used in that time, because the key was the Holy Ghost testifying to people of the rightness of a thing that was against their culture, and since it is not currently sanctioned of the Lord the Holy Ghost will not currently provide such a testimony.
However, there is a process through which people willingly follow direction they know is from God, even when it is hard for them to accept it at the time.
John Pack Lambert | 5:36 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
To the 10:43 commentator,
Have I ever said anything on this post that is in support of polygamy?
I would point out that I even said I disagree with the ruling in Shepp v. Shepp.
Just because I will not sit down and let people put up a bunch of posts that claim all polygamy is based on religion and ignore the fact that even in the United States there are thousands of Hmongs and other people not practicing polygamy based on a command from God, does not mean that I think anyone should practice polygamy.
Just because I am not willing to stand up and say that Joseph Smith and every prophet down to and including Heber J. Grant was an immoral man because they practiced polygamy at that time does not mean that I in any way encorage it today.
I accept fully that Thomas S. Monson holds all the keys. Polygamy can only be an acceptable practice (this is different than a practice that occurs) when approved of God. It is only approved of God when the one man authorizes it. Thomas S. Monson is that man and he does not authorize it.
Have I ever said anything on this post that is in support of polygamy?
I would point out that I even said I disagree with the ruling in Shepp v. Shepp.
Just because I will not sit down and let people put up a bunch of posts that claim all polygamy is based on religion and ignore the fact that even in the United States there are thousands of Hmongs and other people not practicing polygamy based on a command from God, does not mean that I think anyone should practice polygamy.
Just because I am not willing to stand up and say that Joseph Smith and every prophet down to and including Heber J. Grant was an immoral man because they practiced polygamy at that time does not mean that I in any way encorage it today.
I accept fully that Thomas S. Monson holds all the keys. Polygamy can only be an acceptable practice (this is different than a practice that occurs) when approved of God. It is only approved of God when the one man authorizes it. Thomas S. Monson is that man and he does not authorize it.
Anonymous | 5:42 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
John pack Lambert why don't you go visit your Bishop. You are a disturbed
boy. And by the way, what do you know about marriage? Are you married--YES or
NO? If you are not then please put some duck tape across your mouth.
realitycheck | 6:04 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
re John Pack Lambert 5:29pm
please explain how "the Holy Ghost" provides testimony.
what does he/she look like? did he/she have to take the stand to provide testimony, or put a hand on the bible (or book of mormon)?
is there a written transcript? was this done before a jury, or in a closed courtroom? do you have video?
on your 2nd post -
are you trying to tell us that Tommy Monson has discussions with God? got video of that? and you state he has the keys - I assume you mean the keys to the kingdom of God (or heaven). do you really think that a person that leads a good life will be rejected simply because he/she didn't talk to Tommy and get keys or a pass or something?
I'm trying to understand. So Joe Smith and Herbert Grant were immoral because they practiced polygamy when... the Holy Ghost hadn't provided them testimony to do so?
And whatever Tommy Monson says is the religious law? so he's kind of the pope of mormons?
just trying to understand - especially the Holy Ghost giving testimony. Haven't quite gotten my head around that one yet.....
please explain...
please explain how "the Holy Ghost" provides testimony.
what does he/she look like? did he/she have to take the stand to provide testimony, or put a hand on the bible (or book of mormon)?
is there a written transcript? was this done before a jury, or in a closed courtroom? do you have video?
on your 2nd post -
are you trying to tell us that Tommy Monson has discussions with God? got video of that? and you state he has the keys - I assume you mean the keys to the kingdom of God (or heaven). do you really think that a person that leads a good life will be rejected simply because he/she didn't talk to Tommy and get keys or a pass or something?
I'm trying to understand. So Joe Smith and Herbert Grant were immoral because they practiced polygamy when... the Holy Ghost hadn't provided them testimony to do so?
And whatever Tommy Monson says is the religious law? so he's kind of the pope of mormons?
just trying to understand - especially the Holy Ghost giving testimony. Haven't quite gotten my head around that one yet.....
please explain...
re anonymous | 6:09 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
john pack lambert stated in a post on a previous article that he is a college
student (probably majoring in mormonism) and is about 19 years old. Don't
think he does much except read the book of mormons and post on these
articles.
but I bet he can recite every word in the book of mormons. it's just too bad he doesn't actually think about it... young people are so easily swayed once they get their teeth into something...
but I bet he can recite every word in the book of mormons. it's just too bad he doesn't actually think about it... young people are so easily swayed once they get their teeth into something...
John Pack Lambert | 6:09 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
I have to say many people are putting the horse before the cart.
In the context of polygamy, same-sex marriage is legal in all states. That is to say in no state can you be charged with a crime in relation to same-sex marriage, there is no law against it.
On the other hand, every state, as far as I know, has laws that make it so the government can throw you in jail for being a polygamist. Being a polygamist is grounds to deney an immigrant citizenship or to terminate their right of legal residency.
So, people talking about the paper work have put the cart way before the horse. Maybe first we should talk about why Tom Greene spent some of his time in jail for the crime of having multiple wives and whether this should be a crime.
This is a very different issue than whether the government should allow someone to have more than one person legally recognized as their wife.
In the context of polygamy, same-sex marriage is legal in all states. That is to say in no state can you be charged with a crime in relation to same-sex marriage, there is no law against it.
On the other hand, every state, as far as I know, has laws that make it so the government can throw you in jail for being a polygamist. Being a polygamist is grounds to deney an immigrant citizenship or to terminate their right of legal residency.
So, people talking about the paper work have put the cart way before the horse. Maybe first we should talk about why Tom Greene spent some of his time in jail for the crime of having multiple wives and whether this should be a crime.
This is a very different issue than whether the government should allow someone to have more than one person legally recognized as their wife.
John Pack Lambert | 6:25 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
Let me try to make the issue clear.
Currently, if someone goes out and marries two women, he can be sent to jail for it in every state.
So legalizing polygamy would be like legalizing marijuana. It would mean it would no longer make it so you could get sent to jail.
For this level of legality, same-sex marriage is legal in every state. You can be sent to jail for being married to someone of the same sex in absolutely no states in the United States.
Do I think we should make polygamy legal. No, no more than I want to legalize marijuana. However, I do wish people would discuss what legalizing polygamy would really mean and not get into discussions about creating state recognition for polygamy that are way off the wall.
You can even argue that there is something unworkable about legal but unrecognized polygamy, I do not think there is, but you could argue that, but no one has, they have just assumed if we stop having criminal penalties assined to it we must at the same time have the state pro-actively recognize it.
Currently, if someone goes out and marries two women, he can be sent to jail for it in every state.
So legalizing polygamy would be like legalizing marijuana. It would mean it would no longer make it so you could get sent to jail.
For this level of legality, same-sex marriage is legal in every state. You can be sent to jail for being married to someone of the same sex in absolutely no states in the United States.
Do I think we should make polygamy legal. No, no more than I want to legalize marijuana. However, I do wish people would discuss what legalizing polygamy would really mean and not get into discussions about creating state recognition for polygamy that are way off the wall.
You can even argue that there is something unworkable about legal but unrecognized polygamy, I do not think there is, but you could argue that, but no one has, they have just assumed if we stop having criminal penalties assined to it we must at the same time have the state pro-actively recognize it.
John Pack Lambert | 6:35 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
To the 5:42 comentator,
So do I have to say that polygamy is always at all times immoral to be a good member of the Church?
That would require me to say that Brigham YOung was immoral.
What specifically have I said that is unacceptble?
Did I disagree that polygamy can spead STDs? No, I just pointed out that homosexuality speads STDs and we can not use that as a reason to make it illegal, the Suprem Court in Lawrence v. Texas said that homosexual actions are private and beyond government regulation. I do not support this ruling, but the nature of the rule of law is that laws need to be consistent, and if a constitutional principal applies to one thing, when you fail to apply it to something else it has to be done so that you are not using logic that would better apply in the first case.
So do I have to say that polygamy is always at all times immoral to be a good member of the Church?
That would require me to say that Brigham YOung was immoral.
What specifically have I said that is unacceptble?
Did I disagree that polygamy can spead STDs? No, I just pointed out that homosexuality speads STDs and we can not use that as a reason to make it illegal, the Suprem Court in Lawrence v. Texas said that homosexual actions are private and beyond government regulation. I do not support this ruling, but the nature of the rule of law is that laws need to be consistent, and if a constitutional principal applies to one thing, when you fail to apply it to something else it has to be done so that you are not using logic that would better apply in the first case.
AB | 6:38 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
To Reality check at 6:04 , Please do not refer to our prophet in such a
disrespectful way. It is rude, hasn't your mom ever taught you manners??
John Pack Lambert | 6:41 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
My statement about Heber J. Grant may have been misleading.
I should have been more definite. I do sustain Heber J. Grant and all his predecessors back to Joseph Smith and all his successors down to and including Thomas S. Monson as the presidents of the church and the one man at their time who holds the overall keys of the sealing power.
My point is that I will not engage in attacks on pural marriage that could be seen to say that Heber J. Grant was an evil man because he had more than one wife simultaneously. The fact that President Grant only had one wife still alive when he was president of the church does not end the fact that he had had an overlap of wives in the past, and he was fully willing to tell people of his two wives when he had them both.
However, polygamy is not authorized by the Lord now and those who practice it are in fact guilty of adultry. Do I make myself clear?
I should have been more definite. I do sustain Heber J. Grant and all his predecessors back to Joseph Smith and all his successors down to and including Thomas S. Monson as the presidents of the church and the one man at their time who holds the overall keys of the sealing power.
My point is that I will not engage in attacks on pural marriage that could be seen to say that Heber J. Grant was an evil man because he had more than one wife simultaneously. The fact that President Grant only had one wife still alive when he was president of the church does not end the fact that he had had an overlap of wives in the past, and he was fully willing to tell people of his two wives when he had them both.
However, polygamy is not authorized by the Lord now and those who practice it are in fact guilty of adultry. Do I make myself clear?
Tom Greene | 6:45 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
Did not spend his time in prison for polygamy. He was sentenced for illegally
marrying a minor and for non-support of children.
John Pack Lambert | 6:48 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
To the 6:09 poster,
I wish I was about 19 years old, then I could go on a mission and teach using the principals of preach my gospel.
As it is I did go on a mission in 2000, and I was 19 at the time, so you do the math.
I was hoping realitycheck would have a change of heart as Zeezrom did, but I have seen that atleast I will not be the person who speaks the words that will allow the spirit to touch his heart, so from now on I will refuse to respond to his goading, irrevrent, disrespectful and provocative questions and ignore his posts entirely.
One more thing, it would really help if people specified what I said that they disliked instead of going on generic and wideranging attacks. It would be nice if people maybe even quoted objectionable phrases, so I could see what was at issue instead of just guessing.
I wish I was about 19 years old, then I could go on a mission and teach using the principals of preach my gospel.
As it is I did go on a mission in 2000, and I was 19 at the time, so you do the math.
I was hoping realitycheck would have a change of heart as Zeezrom did, but I have seen that atleast I will not be the person who speaks the words that will allow the spirit to touch his heart, so from now on I will refuse to respond to his goading, irrevrent, disrespectful and provocative questions and ignore his posts entirely.
One more thing, it would really help if people specified what I said that they disliked instead of going on generic and wideranging attacks. It would be nice if people maybe even quoted objectionable phrases, so I could see what was at issue instead of just guessing.
If some of you want | 6:51 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
to believe that your leaders did received (and will receive) spiritual guideance
to start polygamy then that is up to you. But I hope you will use common sense
and realize that in doing so you are believing foolishness. Just watch the news
and listen to the past stories (not your glossed over church stories). My
great-great grandmothers story and many other stories I've read will burn
in my heart and I will know the truth. Your great desire to believe this stems
from not wanting to believe the things you've been told for much of your
life. You don't want to give up your dreams and your heroes. But I can
attest to you that these dreams of this lifestyle is false, hurtful and will
only bring people heartache.
John Pack Lambert | 7:11 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
I seem to have been wrong on Tom Green, although his case was called a
"bigamy prosecution".
However, Rodney Holm was convicted for plural marriage. More importantly, the Utah Supreme Court on appela upheld the state law making polygamy a crime.
The point is that there are criminal penalties attached to polygamy. The question is, as with marijuana, ought this to be? I answer yes. However we have to ask questions based on what the law actually is.
However, Rodney Holm was convicted for plural marriage. More importantly, the Utah Supreme Court on appela upheld the state law making polygamy a crime.
The point is that there are criminal penalties attached to polygamy. The question is, as with marijuana, ought this to be? I answer yes. However we have to ask questions based on what the law actually is.
Arthur | 7:38 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
"But I can attest to you that these dreams of this lifestyle is false,
hurtful and will only bring people heartache.'
I've never met anyone who drempt of this lifestyle. Ive also read about the personal feelings of some of those who practiced it and their initial reluctance too.
But as far as common sense and inspiration I believe differently. Ive read many a past story too and while there are the bad there are also the good. Its not unusual for people to throw out all the good due to one bad incident. Claiming what you've read and what you know supersedes the collective experiences of everyone else is doubtful.
I've never met anyone who drempt of this lifestyle. Ive also read about the personal feelings of some of those who practiced it and their initial reluctance too.
But as far as common sense and inspiration I believe differently. Ive read many a past story too and while there are the bad there are also the good. Its not unusual for people to throw out all the good due to one bad incident. Claiming what you've read and what you know supersedes the collective experiences of everyone else is doubtful.
D | 10:58 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
Reader comments: Do or Don't legalize polygamy
IF TRUE MARK WITH AN (X): TO SORT OUT AND WEED OUT FALLACIES
( ) EX-FLDS ARE BEING USED AS A FOCUS GROUP.
( ) ANTI-FLDS ARE BEING USED AS A FOCUS GROUP.
( ) NON-FLDS ARE BEING USED AS A FOCUS GROUP.
( ) "PRO-FLDS WITH MENTAL RESERVATIONS" ARE BEING USED AS A FOCUS GROUP.
( ) AT THE END, CANADA WILL LEGALIZE POLYGAMY BASED ON ALL OF THE INPUTS FROM THE FOCUS GROUPS ABOVE.
( ) AT THE END, THE U.S. WILL LEGALIZE POLYGAMY BASED ON ALL OF THE INPUTS FROM THE FOCUS GROUPS ABOVE.
( ) DEBATER USES THEM ALL AS FOCUS GROUPS.
NOTICE OF MORAL RIGHTS OTHER CREDITS AND ATTRIBUTIONS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TO DEBATER AS PREVIOUSLY STATED AS FACTS AND FICTION, QUASI-FACT AND QUASI-FICTION, FOCUS GROUP(S) AND RESEARCH, IN PREVIOUS CLAIMERS AND DISCLAIMERS.
IF TRUE MARK WITH AN (X): TO SORT OUT AND WEED OUT FALLACIES
( ) EX-FLDS ARE BEING USED AS A FOCUS GROUP.
( ) ANTI-FLDS ARE BEING USED AS A FOCUS GROUP.
( ) NON-FLDS ARE BEING USED AS A FOCUS GROUP.
( ) "PRO-FLDS WITH MENTAL RESERVATIONS" ARE BEING USED AS A FOCUS GROUP.
( ) AT THE END, CANADA WILL LEGALIZE POLYGAMY BASED ON ALL OF THE INPUTS FROM THE FOCUS GROUPS ABOVE.
( ) AT THE END, THE U.S. WILL LEGALIZE POLYGAMY BASED ON ALL OF THE INPUTS FROM THE FOCUS GROUPS ABOVE.
( ) DEBATER USES THEM ALL AS FOCUS GROUPS.
NOTICE OF MORAL RIGHTS OTHER CREDITS AND ATTRIBUTIONS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TO DEBATER AS PREVIOUSLY STATED AS FACTS AND FICTION, QUASI-FACT AND QUASI-FICTION, FOCUS GROUP(S) AND RESEARCH, IN PREVIOUS CLAIMERS AND DISCLAIMERS.
It was said prviously... | 8:50 a.m. Jan. 17, 2009
tp let the polygamous groups make their case about how they will equally treat
everyone and let them sign documents to prove it. We all know this probably
won't happen, but let them try. Maybe it will help them to think things
through (something that most of us know that they don't often do.) This
will solve everything. If they can treat everybody with respect and equal
rights which is required in this country let them show us they can do it!
tunnel vision | 10:26 a.m. Jan. 17, 2009
Do you know in this world polygmy is legal in more countries that same sex
marriage - American stop trying to froce your life stylre on the world. Bigots!
tommy | 10:44 a.m. Jan. 17, 2009
Did you know that Brigham Young never had a revelation to practice polygamy? I
recently read his history and he never had any kind of revelation about anything
whatsoever. So what is it with you men on this post, who are so intent on having
a bunch of wives. Please tell me? I am listening.
re: John Pack Lambert | 10:58 a.m. Jan. 17, 2009
I sympathize with the points you're making, but when the best rebuttals
here boil down to "Polygamy = bad, and you're evil for even playing
devil's advocate on its behalf" and swipes at your religion as in the
6:04 & 6:09 posts, I think your well-argued position is falling on deaf
ears.
SSM blows the doors to polygamy wide open, but too many people here can't seem to digest that idea.
SSM blows the doors to polygamy wide open, but too many people here can't seem to digest that idea.
Lindy | 11:13 a.m. Jan. 17, 2009
To John P lambert,
You are one whacked dude. We would all expect you of all people to jump in on the bandwagon. By the way, are you even married?
You are one whacked dude. We would all expect you of all people to jump in on the bandwagon. By the way, are you even married?
Lurking around | 11:19 a.m. Jan. 17, 2009
Re: JPL, nice to see are always on STANDBY.
The devils Advocate ?? | 11:29 a.m. Jan. 17, 2009
Ummmm, I think tommy is correct about Brigham Young. I also did some reading on
the subject.
Anonymous | 12:03 p.m. Jan. 17, 2009
Hello, J P Lambert..what's the old cat got your tongue or something?
He is correct... | 12:11 p.m. Jan. 17, 2009
Brigham was just following what Joseph Smith told him. So is the FLDS church.
The problem with some | 12:23 p.m. Jan. 17, 2009
religions is that you think that you can't admit that anything is wrong
with any of your current or past ways of thinking. You wouldn't have to
say that any leader was "bad" in every way. But obviously they had
problems in some ways. It has been shown over and over that polygamy only caused
heartache for the Mormon church, You can't live it down and yet you still
defend it (and at the same time condemn it now). This is hypocritical. A number
of churches now admit their mistakes and problems they had in the past (like the
Catholic church) but they also accentuate their strenths. Your church should
humble itself and do the same.
TM | 1:00 p.m. Jan. 17, 2009
to 12:11
That will never be proved. B.Young could say, do much whatever he pleased, and change things suit himself back in those days. Just blame Joseph Smith or someone else for everything...i'm not going for the polygamy baloney!
That will never be proved. B.Young could say, do much whatever he pleased, and change things suit himself back in those days. Just blame Joseph Smith or someone else for everything...i'm not going for the polygamy baloney!
Good Grief! | 1:06 p.m. Jan. 17, 2009
Oh, nice, now we have Brigham Young blaming Joseph Smith for his practicing
polygamy. That is about the lamest thing I have heard. Give me a break!
wayne | 1:10 p.m. Jan. 17, 2009
"I think the government should encourage marriages in which a child has a
father � not just a fraction of a father"
A man married to one woman has 6 kids. A man married to two has three by each. Assuming they both love their children similarly, why would the bigamist be a "fraction of a father"?
Monogamy is a particular form of social contract (spread most strongly by the pagan Romans, very much against the traditions of the monotheistic semites - Jews, Arabs, early Christians). Scientific study shows humans as a species are NOT monogamous. Like many animals, our tendency to choose more than one sexual partner is tied closely to our biology (on average, individuals differ). Some % of people will fall in love with more than one person. If that is reciprocated, and society prevents their union, it is very similar to preventing the union of any two people who love each other, and wish to commit to a lifetime of caring for the other.
A man married to one woman has 6 kids. A man married to two has three by each. Assuming they both love their children similarly, why would the bigamist be a "fraction of a father"?
Monogamy is a particular form of social contract (spread most strongly by the pagan Romans, very much against the traditions of the monotheistic semites - Jews, Arabs, early Christians). Scientific study shows humans as a species are NOT monogamous. Like many animals, our tendency to choose more than one sexual partner is tied closely to our biology (on average, individuals differ). Some % of people will fall in love with more than one person. If that is reciprocated, and society prevents their union, it is very similar to preventing the union of any two people who love each other, and wish to commit to a lifetime of caring for the other.
Anonymous | 1:19 p.m. Jan. 17, 2009
Hey, I think we should all just go out and mess around with whoever we please.
Brigham Young could do it and so should we. Also, let the gays do whatever they
want as well. Lets all just do away with marriage to one partner. 1 Woman + 2
husbands, 1 man + 2 wives. Gay boys + multiple boy toys. It sounds like fun
super fun to me.
Re Wayne | 1:35 p.m. Jan. 17, 2009
Yes, we are biological fools. Many female animals mate with a different males
every year. So what's the big problem folks?
realitycheck | 2:08 p.m. Jan. 17, 2009
my apologies for offending John and AB. I guess it would be easier to accept
your opinions if some of your beliefs weren't so strange. And when John
Pack Lambert starts going off about Holy Ghost testimony and keys to the
kingdom, it begs ridicule. Sorry.
John Pack Lambert - perhaps if you refrained from making posts like your 5:29 and 5:36 posts - where you start going off into the more bizarre aspects of your religion, then I wouldn't have tried to show you how strange you sound....
anyway - didn't mean to offend you that much. Just wanted you to see for yourself how out-there you sound. This forum isn't a pulpit so perhaps you can keep the excessively bizarre religious rhetoric to yourself.... thanks - and again, my apologies.
John Pack Lambert - perhaps if you refrained from making posts like your 5:29 and 5:36 posts - where you start going off into the more bizarre aspects of your religion, then I wouldn't have tried to show you how strange you sound....
anyway - didn't mean to offend you that much. Just wanted you to see for yourself how out-there you sound. This forum isn't a pulpit so perhaps you can keep the excessively bizarre religious rhetoric to yourself.... thanks - and again, my apologies.
realitycheck | 2:21 p.m. Jan. 17, 2009
to Re Wayne 1:35pm
no one said you can't mate with as many males or females as you want, every year. Just don't marry more than one.
clear enough?
no one said you can't mate with as many males or females as you want, every year. Just don't marry more than one.
clear enough?
To "How Nice" | 2:29 p.m. Jan. 17, 2009
Why don't you do your research? Brigham Young originally said that he would
rather die than practice polygamy (or some such words) this is a fact. After he
was convinced to practice it he apparently got over it (with over fifty
"wives") and lots of children. But that's what he initally said.
I agree that someone shouldn't blame another for their behavior, but he
wouldn't not have started it had he not been convinced by Joseph Smith.
OH? | 6:18 p.m. Jan. 17, 2009
Re: 2 :29
Oh come on! Brigham Young may have said it but he did mean it. HA!
Oh come on! Brigham Young may have said it but he did mean it. HA!
Calvin | 6:47 p.m. Jan. 17, 2009
This blog keeps getting funnier all the time. Brigham Young wasn't a 2 year
old and he knew exactly what he was doing. Polygamy makes him look like the
normal male womanizer who plays the humble bumble bee when everyone was watching
him. And then stings when they aren't looking. my opinion he was nothing
less then a con artist. It is very lame to blame Joseph Smith for his
weaknesses. Some of you people out there need a brain scan to make certain you
truly have a functional brain.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- High school girls basketball: Top 20 1:40 a.m.
- High school swimming rankings 1:28 a.m.
- High school girls basketball rankings 1:19 a.m.
- High school boys basketball rankings 1:00 a.m.
- Preps of the week 12:49 a.m.
- Y. volleyball beats UVU 12:46 a.m.
- Sports on the air 12:43 a.m.
- Utah Jazz: Game at a glance 12:40 a.m.
- Williams' late jumper tops Spurs 12:34 a.m.
- Revive full food tax? 12:19 a.m.
- Cougars going back to Vegas
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil
- Witness: Mitchell stalked victims
- TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl
- Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing
- Bring the true spirit of Christmas
- Utes excited to go to San Diego
- BYU professor remembered
- Winter weather is here to stay
- TCU's BCS game missing something
- Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing
261 - TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl203
- Letters: Global warming a lie156
- Cougars going back to Vegas147
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil134
- George lost in rivalry hatefest119
- Ed Smart 'appalled' at testimony100
- Harpring's NBA career is over96
- Utahns want health care reform bills78
- Utes excited to go to San Diego75
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Latest comments
When Boozer was shooting the free throws, why Sloan didn't substitute Mathew...
actions, I will be forced to be accountable for them. I refuse. I am an...
What's with the Utah fans flashing the double L sign?
@mark: So Sam da Ham... you were just making it up?" I'm a climate...
"I have no idea why BYU fans are talking smack about bowl opponents. Even if...
You say to "quit whining and play somebody." Isn't that what everyone is...
Reading these comments, I start wondering-- Whatever happened to faith? Why...
All those numbers when all you reall need to know is that BYU has beat Utah...
All thos numbers when all you reall need to know is that BYU has beat Utah...
So Sam da Ham, when you said this: "Not so. Al Gore is poised to make...
Advertisements
Please state your place of work. I want to boycott it.