Comments on: Big Love’s disclaimer needs a disclaimer

By: Jen

Jen — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 02:57:21 +0000

I am *personally* against polygamy but don’t understand why it is illegal. Consenting adults should be able to enter into whatever kind of personal relastionships they desire.

There are many abuse problems (financial fraud, physical and sexual abuse) within polygamous groups that need to be resolved, more than anything else. Perhaps because these groups are so marginalized and in hiding, they can get away with such horrible behavior. If they were brought out of hiding, through the legalization of polygamy (which, come on, it should be a Constitutional right), these problems would decrease dramataically.

By: a random John

a random John — Sun, 05 Mar 2006 05:24:12 +0000

This is probably going to end up drawing more attention to LDS beliefs and practices. Right or wrong there is a widespread belief in the Church that at least some people in the CK will be polygamous. It is also clear that a form of plural marriage is practiced in the Church in that if a man is widowed he can be sealed to his second wife. We don’t discuss the implications for the hereafter, but it is easy to assume what will happen.

By: Eric Russell

Eric Russell — Sat, 04 Mar 2006 19:38:19 +0000

The new Entertainment Weekly review gave the show an A-. Not bad. One interesting line from the review, â€œJust one commandment: Thou shalt not call them Mormons.â€

By: DB

DB — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 22:37:22 +0000

There is also a practical dimesion to this matter that is easy to lose sight of. “Tapestry” is essentially a “single issue” interest group, with a similarly focused agenda. I doubt any large organization, be it the LDS church, or the state governments of Arizona and Utah, with the many competing demands made on them for resources and attention, will ever be seen as “doing enough” (from their view).

Comments?

By: John C

John C — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 16:55:05 +0000

Aimee,
I think that it is safe to say that the fate of the oft-temple married appears obscure. There appears to be sufficient variation in practice that clear rules are hard to draw. Also, of course we believe in it. People did it and we don’t (usually) call them bad people for having done it. But we do not and we do believe that those who do incur God’s wrath, not his pleasure (at least, those who say they do it in His name).
Tapestry’s point appears to be that the church really wishes it could do it, but this nasty business of remaining legal is all that prevents them. I don’t see that as accurate portrayal of the circumstances.

By: Aimee

Aimee — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 07:06:15 +0000

Well, I am a little confused because I thought that we did still belive in it, even though we don’t practice it. I mean, we talk about it happening in the afterlife… so doesn’t that mean that we still do believe in it to some extent? I don’t want it to be part of doctrine personally, but this group may not be totally off the mark. We may no longer practice it, but does that mean we have rejected the idea of it all together?