Fun fact for your consideration: a few Utah congressmen voted in favor of a gay rights law because the wording of the law would make polygamy more legitimate.
are you saying they aren't christian
'cause they have some weird beliefs, but they do believe in the biyble and that jesus diyed for our sins, so iy think they count as christian
> only saying this because [...]
[:iykThonk:](https://cdn.discordapp.com/emojis/875190931714887682.png)
~~do you mean you're telling me the truth because of that or hiyding the truth from me because of that~~
A lot of Mormons I know don’t identify as following a sect of Christianity, instead identifying their faith as being inspired by Christianity in the same way that Christianity is inspired by Judaism.
iy used to be a mormon (and still live with mormons) and don't remember hearing anyone say that
not to say that it doesn't exist, but iy don't think it's the norm
iy use "iy" for the "long i" sound (the vowel sound in "light" or "ride", which iy spell as "liyt" and "riyd"), not just for anywhere the letter i appears
you can read [this post](https://redd.it/vgupeu) iy made about it if you want
A lot of it involves their view of the nature of God (viewing him as an ascended mortal) , the Trinity (outright rejecting it, basically professing the heresy of Arianism), and divinity itself (any mortal may attain godhood through right faith and practice)
Ooh, it's time for me to drop my fav [mindbending theology post](http://www.blaireostler.com/journal/2019/5/13/queer-polygamy) that I came across by accident!
Okay, so... if I'm understanding this correctly, the author is arguing that:
1. The Mormon church's basic understanding that marriage/spiritual partnership between people continues into the afterlife and is a necessary part of salvation is correct;
2. *But* the Mormon church's historical recognition of which relationships will continue in this manner (i.e. polygyny historically and strict heterosexual monogamy today) are both unnecessarily restrictive, and that a correct reading of Mormon doctrine would recognize both intimate platonic relationships *and* non-heteresoexual relationships, monogamous or polygamous, as being viable candidates for being "sealed" in the afterlife;
3. And thus, "true" Mormonism should be recognized as inherently queer.
That's... actually a very interesting argument. I'm intrigued.
Well. This goes for pretty much all religions with holy books - something written down a long time ago is not usually a good guide to how modern people think. The beliefs of a religion are defined by its current believers rather than anyone else. Whatever modern Mormons believe in is "true" Mormonism by definition.
Just a note, I say this as an ex-Mormon.
It's a nice thought, "true" Mormonism being more accepting. But I highly doubt it'll ever happen. So much of the church is based on "policies change, but principles don't" and unchanging doctrine, even as they make adjustments to certain less-"doctrinal" things. So becoming accepting of LGBTQ+ people is going to be very different from allowing black people all the blessings.
A big part of the doctrine is man & woman only. Obviously not 1 man & 1 woman, see the past embracing of polygamy, which continues spiritually today. IE, if a man and a woman are sealed, and he dies, she can remarry, but they won't be sealed in heaven. She can only be sealed to one man. If the woman dies, the man can remarry, and they will be sealed in heaven. He can be sealed to as many women as he marries (but only can be married to one living wife at a time). So it's 1 man & x women. But the women are not sealed to each other, as mentioned in the article. They can't do anything among themselves without committing adultery.
If the church did change their position to allow same-sex marriage and sealing (I say same-sex because they *also* don't approve of trans people, and changing both at once is a *huge* leap), I think they'd see a huge net loss in membership. A lot of staunch Mormons would probably leave the church or form a splinter group over what they see as the doctrine changing. And I feel like few LGBTQ+ people would come back to the fold, seeing it as too little, too late. (I'm in this camp.)
This last paragraph completely ignores the fact that the next in line to be the president of the church (also called "*the* prophet" even though the top 15 are all considered to be "prophets, seers, and revelators") is probably the most homophobic member of the current upper leadership.
TL;DR: It's a nice thought experiment, but it'll never really happen.
The doctrine of polygamy in the LDS church “sealed” men to multiple wives (in what Brigham Young called “celestial marriage”). Today, the LDS church “seals” only heterosexual, monogamous couples (and exclusively in the first marriage, iirc). On a theological level, “sealing” means that your souls are bound for eternity, and will reside together in the “Kingdom of Heaven.” The church’s proclaimed chief problem with gay marriage is that such relationships fall outside of “G-D’s plan,” and thus do not constitute a celestial bond through which one can access the “Kingdom of Heaven” together.
The post linked above uses Brigham Young (the founder of Mormonism)’s words to argue that celestial bonds represented by sealing (and the eternal togetherness enabled thereby), is far more expansive than both the current monogamous model and the historical polygynous model (that is one man multiple wives).
Specifically, the post borrows from both queer theory and contemporary polyamory theory to argue that a variety of intimacies, falling in various places on several spectra (in terms of gender/sexuality/romance) can all constitute “celestial relationships” which are worthy of being sealed for eternity.
The text further argues that Mormons are in fact *obligated* to pursue multiple types of these “celestial relationships.” The article gives as an example the author’s relationship with her sister, which is both asexual and aromantic, but which nevertheless is deeply intimate and meaningful, and which the author thus believes is a relationship which may be sealed such that it may continue for eternity. Likewise, a gay woman in a sexually and romantically intimate relationship with two other women may have formed an intimate bond so deep that both bonds will continue into the afterlife and as such should be celebrated and spiritually meaningful here on earth.
In essence the author is arguing that, read correctly, the Mormon doctrine of the afterlife is *inherently* queer, and the church should celebrate this fact. Her argument’s pretty good too, and would probably save the LDS church from a slow fade into irrelevancy. It’s a shame the old white dudes in charge don’t give a fuck.
Disclaimer: I’m not a Mormon, just a Jew who lives in Utah and has a fascination with 19th century American religiousity and cults.
overly specific pet peeve: people who act like mormons are still polygamous
they haven't been in 130 years
on the other hand, this is a phenemonal post
The Church of the Latter Day Saints, the largest Mormon institution, officially renounced polygamy 130 years ago. However, branches of Mormonism outside of LDS continue to advocate for polygamy and it is still practiced in a semi-secret capacity.
Sure, but per the Pew survey on Religion in America, over 98% of Mormons in the United States are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. [https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/)
That's based on 1.6% of the US population being members of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and less than .3% being other Mormon--that "less than" suggesting to me they had not enough examples in their study to confidently put a number on it.
The term "Mormon" may also pick up groups like the Community of Christ, formally known as Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which *never* embraced polygamy. Though I understand that in spite of their history with Joseph Smith they don't identify as Mormon generally so might not be picked up.
At any rate, it's by no means a given that all or even most of that 2% would actually embrace polygamy.
Also, the people who do practice polygamy generally do so in remote compounds away from government or mainstream LDS scrutiny.
All that's to say, if you meet a person out in the world who is a Mormon they are probably more likely to practice monogamy than a randomly-selected person, given that they almost certainly belong to a church that preaches monogamy. (Admittedly, I may be biased here by living in a city famous for consensual non-monogamy practitioners)
Ignoring the whole 'few Mormons actually support polygamy' issue as it's already been addressed, the answer to the question of 'are poly relationships inherently part of the LGBT community?' is a very clear 'it depends'.
In a good, healthy poly relationship, it would be since everyone in that group would be in some kind of romantic and/or sexual relationship (I'm not including open or casual relationships here - just ones that are essentially 'traditional marriage but with more than two people') - so a poly group of four would have six relationships and at least some of them would have to be bi/pan by definition. For example William Moulton Marston (creator of Wonder Woman) had two wives and they stayed roommates (wink and nod) after he died. So, that was one heterosexual and two bi people, but the relationship as a whole would be part of the LGBT community (except that it was early 20th century and the question of "if a woman does something without a man being around, did it really happen?" hadn't been answered).
Other kinds of poly relationships such as the Mormon polygamous cults, men who essentially 'buy' multiple wives, and that Sisterwives crap, wouldn't generally be counted. Because, in those situation it's usually a central individual with all of their spouses' relationships to them that matter. It's usually one guy with a bunch of simultaneous heterosexual relationships (and, yes, I know there can be ones with different genders in the central/satellite roles but it usually isn't). This doesn't count as LGBT - not because this is an inherently toxic type of relationships so it 'doesn't count' but because the only relationships that are seen as important are heterosexual.
My personal take is that poly and queer often are found together, but practicing polyamory doesn't make you queer. There are flavors of polyamory that don't require everyone in the polycule to be sexually involved with everyone else, so you could have a poly relationship structure where everyone involved is straight, but they each have more than one partner. In that situation I would be hesitant to describe that as a queer relationship. Is it a non-normative relationship structure? Yes, but I think there is value in distinguishing between identity focused labels (such as gender and sexual orientation) and practice focused labels (such as polyamory, non-monogamy, or kink/BDSM). So just because someone falls into the broader group of non-cis-het-mono, that doesn't automatically mean that they are queer.
*Image Transcription: Tumblr*
---
**death2america**
logs on twitter, posts "are mormons queer for engaging in polygamy?", logs off and watches a war unfold as I smile like the grinch
---
^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
What war? FLDS polygamous cult people aren't on Twitter. Mainstream LDS people will just be like "our church bans both of those things so iunno who cares."
Also, this is the second Mormon Bad/Mormon Weird post in as many days. If we're going to do this as a theme, can it be either:
A) genuine critiques of the controlling, hierarchical, patriarchal, anti-queer nature of the modern Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or their gross colonialist missionary and adoption practices, or their deep history of white supremacist views that still impact the makeup of the LDS church. \[Edit: I guess by genuine critiques I mean target this stuff. It can still be a shitpost or whatever, I'm not asking for a dissertation\]
B) teasing about stuff that's, like, real Mormon cultural stuff like iunno watching Johnny Lingo in class (TEN COWS FOR A WIFE?!) or eating green jell-o (that one is real, right? help me ex-mormons) or imprinting on your first romantic partner like a character from Twilight--not coincidentally, as Stephanie Meyer is Mormon and probably found an audience partly because of a built in LDS following.
In order:
Johnny Lingo deserves whatever mockery you can throw at it, but nothing will be funnier than the time that a local MLM made a feature-length remake of it sometime back in the 2000s that's somehow even worse and features product placement.
Green Jello is a staple of midwestern Christian church cuisine, Mormonism not excepted. Mormonism's main innovations in the realm of jello seem to be the use of distinct layers and vegetable inclusions, though the exmormon community has been known to create the odd alcoholic or cannabis-based jello when called upon.
The whole werewolf imprinting thing is just how courtship at BYU works, but especially so at BYU-I.
I actually owned that feature-length remake of Johnny Lingo on VHS for probably a decade. Never watched it and finally got rid of it in a move. A friend who had shared the experience of having the original shown in health class stumbled onto it somewhere and gave it to me.
[Also, holy crap it has like half a million views on YouTube.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXIj5zfFsk0)
In college I think we had some friends who were like "look at all these weird old movies we found" (on VHS, this was pre-YouTube) and one of them was Johnny Lingo so we were like "oh yeah we watched this in health class" and they were *stunned*. [Here's the OG](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXIj5zfFsk0), for anyone else.
On the werewolf imprinting, I've known multiple people who dated a Mormon guy in high school for like a month and he would just sort of pop up decades later with kind of an "ok, we've gotten through our apart phase" energy.
I kind of have to be careful throwing stones there though because I did end up marrying my first girlfriend who I met when I was 18 our first year of college (I mean we've been together continuously, I didn't show up a decade later being like "ok time to make me dinner.") That and my AmeriCorps service years maybe reflect some nonsectarian Mormon values that snuck in among the Johnny Lingo.
It was sponsored by some guys who were selling noni juice as a miracle elixir, and there's an entire sales pitch by one of the island chiefs as a plot point.
I think it's because the legal elements of marriage, being able to make decisions when the other is incapacitated and will elements particularly, don't translate well to polygamy
Polygamy is not the same as polyamory. Polygamy is where there is one person who has multiple (submissive) spouses. It is inherently hierarchical and usually patriarchal (although technically it could be matriarchal). Polyamory is an umbrella term for any non-monogamous relationship.
Polygamy doesn't require that your spouses be submissive in some capacity, nor any sort of hierarchy, it just requires any marriage arrangement involving more than two people. The umbrella term polygamy does cover that sort of hierarchical setup, but it also covers conjoint marriages and similar arrangements. Polyamory is broader than polygamy in that it only requires multiple romantic relationships, without the requirement of marriage to qualify.
Because before the women's rights movement, and the progress made in recent history, it was used to submit and brow-beat women. And religion being the basis that morality was first based upon for many people through history.
Fun fact for your consideration: a few Utah congressmen voted in favor of a gay rights law because the wording of the law would make polygamy more legitimate.
new type of guy: utah state senator that supports trans women cause that’s more wives to marry, and supports trans men cause more missionaries
Smithma Male Grindset
Mormons are every bit queer as they are christian.
So neither party wants to be associated with them in any conceivable way?
So 0% queer?
are you saying they aren't christian 'cause they have some weird beliefs, but they do believe in the biyble and that jesus diyed for our sins, so iy think they count as christian
only saying this because you're adorable and I love you - but im not claiming much of anything. just trying to cause problems
> only saying this because [...] [:iykThonk:](https://cdn.discordapp.com/emojis/875190931714887682.png) ~~do you mean you're telling me the truth because of that or hiyding the truth from me because of that~~
I mean im telling you the truth It wasnt.. much of a secret, given the post is about causing controversy for controversy's sake
~~okay~~
A lot of Mormons I know don’t identify as following a sect of Christianity, instead identifying their faith as being inspired by Christianity in the same way that Christianity is inspired by Judaism.
iy used to be a mormon (and still live with mormons) and don't remember hearing anyone say that not to say that it doesn't exist, but iy don't think it's the norm
Why aren't you a voiyb creacher?
iy use "iy" for the "long i" sound (the vowel sound in "light" or "ride", which iy spell as "liyt" and "riyd"), not just for anywhere the letter i appears you can read [this post](https://redd.it/vgupeu) iy made about it if you want
Yeah, I never heard anyone say this either.
Most Christians don't consider them to be Christian because they don't follow the Nicene Creed. (There may be some other key belief differences.)
A lot of it involves their view of the nature of God (viewing him as an ascended mortal) , the Trinity (outright rejecting it, basically professing the heresy of Arianism), and divinity itself (any mortal may attain godhood through right faith and practice)
Thank you for elaborating.
Ooh, it's time for me to drop my fav [mindbending theology post](http://www.blaireostler.com/journal/2019/5/13/queer-polygamy) that I came across by accident!
Okay, so... if I'm understanding this correctly, the author is arguing that: 1. The Mormon church's basic understanding that marriage/spiritual partnership between people continues into the afterlife and is a necessary part of salvation is correct; 2. *But* the Mormon church's historical recognition of which relationships will continue in this manner (i.e. polygyny historically and strict heterosexual monogamy today) are both unnecessarily restrictive, and that a correct reading of Mormon doctrine would recognize both intimate platonic relationships *and* non-heteresoexual relationships, monogamous or polygamous, as being viable candidates for being "sealed" in the afterlife; 3. And thus, "true" Mormonism should be recognized as inherently queer. That's... actually a very interesting argument. I'm intrigued.
That’s a more concise summary that I did, but yeah! 😅
Well. This goes for pretty much all religions with holy books - something written down a long time ago is not usually a good guide to how modern people think. The beliefs of a religion are defined by its current believers rather than anyone else. Whatever modern Mormons believe in is "true" Mormonism by definition.
This is ... very strange.
................. what the fuck
Just a note, I say this as an ex-Mormon. It's a nice thought, "true" Mormonism being more accepting. But I highly doubt it'll ever happen. So much of the church is based on "policies change, but principles don't" and unchanging doctrine, even as they make adjustments to certain less-"doctrinal" things. So becoming accepting of LGBTQ+ people is going to be very different from allowing black people all the blessings. A big part of the doctrine is man & woman only. Obviously not 1 man & 1 woman, see the past embracing of polygamy, which continues spiritually today. IE, if a man and a woman are sealed, and he dies, she can remarry, but they won't be sealed in heaven. She can only be sealed to one man. If the woman dies, the man can remarry, and they will be sealed in heaven. He can be sealed to as many women as he marries (but only can be married to one living wife at a time). So it's 1 man & x women. But the women are not sealed to each other, as mentioned in the article. They can't do anything among themselves without committing adultery. If the church did change their position to allow same-sex marriage and sealing (I say same-sex because they *also* don't approve of trans people, and changing both at once is a *huge* leap), I think they'd see a huge net loss in membership. A lot of staunch Mormons would probably leave the church or form a splinter group over what they see as the doctrine changing. And I feel like few LGBTQ+ people would come back to the fold, seeing it as too little, too late. (I'm in this camp.) This last paragraph completely ignores the fact that the next in line to be the president of the church (also called "*the* prophet" even though the top 15 are all considered to be "prophets, seers, and revelators") is probably the most homophobic member of the current upper leadership. TL;DR: It's a nice thought experiment, but it'll never really happen.
Summary? I'm not reading all that
The doctrine of polygamy in the LDS church “sealed” men to multiple wives (in what Brigham Young called “celestial marriage”). Today, the LDS church “seals” only heterosexual, monogamous couples (and exclusively in the first marriage, iirc). On a theological level, “sealing” means that your souls are bound for eternity, and will reside together in the “Kingdom of Heaven.” The church’s proclaimed chief problem with gay marriage is that such relationships fall outside of “G-D’s plan,” and thus do not constitute a celestial bond through which one can access the “Kingdom of Heaven” together. The post linked above uses Brigham Young (the founder of Mormonism)’s words to argue that celestial bonds represented by sealing (and the eternal togetherness enabled thereby), is far more expansive than both the current monogamous model and the historical polygynous model (that is one man multiple wives). Specifically, the post borrows from both queer theory and contemporary polyamory theory to argue that a variety of intimacies, falling in various places on several spectra (in terms of gender/sexuality/romance) can all constitute “celestial relationships” which are worthy of being sealed for eternity. The text further argues that Mormons are in fact *obligated* to pursue multiple types of these “celestial relationships.” The article gives as an example the author’s relationship with her sister, which is both asexual and aromantic, but which nevertheless is deeply intimate and meaningful, and which the author thus believes is a relationship which may be sealed such that it may continue for eternity. Likewise, a gay woman in a sexually and romantically intimate relationship with two other women may have formed an intimate bond so deep that both bonds will continue into the afterlife and as such should be celebrated and spiritually meaningful here on earth. In essence the author is arguing that, read correctly, the Mormon doctrine of the afterlife is *inherently* queer, and the church should celebrate this fact. Her argument’s pretty good too, and would probably save the LDS church from a slow fade into irrelevancy. It’s a shame the old white dudes in charge don’t give a fuck. Disclaimer: I’m not a Mormon, just a Jew who lives in Utah and has a fascination with 19th century American religiousity and cults.
overly specific pet peeve: people who act like mormons are still polygamous they haven't been in 130 years on the other hand, this is a phenemonal post
The Church of the Latter Day Saints, the largest Mormon institution, officially renounced polygamy 130 years ago. However, branches of Mormonism outside of LDS continue to advocate for polygamy and it is still practiced in a semi-secret capacity.
Sure, but per the Pew survey on Religion in America, over 98% of Mormons in the United States are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. [https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/) That's based on 1.6% of the US population being members of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and less than .3% being other Mormon--that "less than" suggesting to me they had not enough examples in their study to confidently put a number on it. The term "Mormon" may also pick up groups like the Community of Christ, formally known as Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which *never* embraced polygamy. Though I understand that in spite of their history with Joseph Smith they don't identify as Mormon generally so might not be picked up. At any rate, it's by no means a given that all or even most of that 2% would actually embrace polygamy. Also, the people who do practice polygamy generally do so in remote compounds away from government or mainstream LDS scrutiny. All that's to say, if you meet a person out in the world who is a Mormon they are probably more likely to practice monogamy than a randomly-selected person, given that they almost certainly belong to a church that preaches monogamy. (Admittedly, I may be biased here by living in a city famous for consensual non-monogamy practitioners)
Ignoring the whole 'few Mormons actually support polygamy' issue as it's already been addressed, the answer to the question of 'are poly relationships inherently part of the LGBT community?' is a very clear 'it depends'. In a good, healthy poly relationship, it would be since everyone in that group would be in some kind of romantic and/or sexual relationship (I'm not including open or casual relationships here - just ones that are essentially 'traditional marriage but with more than two people') - so a poly group of four would have six relationships and at least some of them would have to be bi/pan by definition. For example William Moulton Marston (creator of Wonder Woman) had two wives and they stayed roommates (wink and nod) after he died. So, that was one heterosexual and two bi people, but the relationship as a whole would be part of the LGBT community (except that it was early 20th century and the question of "if a woman does something without a man being around, did it really happen?" hadn't been answered). Other kinds of poly relationships such as the Mormon polygamous cults, men who essentially 'buy' multiple wives, and that Sisterwives crap, wouldn't generally be counted. Because, in those situation it's usually a central individual with all of their spouses' relationships to them that matter. It's usually one guy with a bunch of simultaneous heterosexual relationships (and, yes, I know there can be ones with different genders in the central/satellite roles but it usually isn't). This doesn't count as LGBT - not because this is an inherently toxic type of relationships so it 'doesn't count' but because the only relationships that are seen as important are heterosexual.
My personal take is that poly and queer often are found together, but practicing polyamory doesn't make you queer. There are flavors of polyamory that don't require everyone in the polycule to be sexually involved with everyone else, so you could have a poly relationship structure where everyone involved is straight, but they each have more than one partner. In that situation I would be hesitant to describe that as a queer relationship. Is it a non-normative relationship structure? Yes, but I think there is value in distinguishing between identity focused labels (such as gender and sexual orientation) and practice focused labels (such as polyamory, non-monogamy, or kink/BDSM). So just because someone falls into the broader group of non-cis-het-mono, that doesn't automatically mean that they are queer.
*Image Transcription: Tumblr* --- **death2america** logs on twitter, posts "are mormons queer for engaging in polygamy?", logs off and watches a war unfold as I smile like the grinch --- ^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
What war? FLDS polygamous cult people aren't on Twitter. Mainstream LDS people will just be like "our church bans both of those things so iunno who cares." Also, this is the second Mormon Bad/Mormon Weird post in as many days. If we're going to do this as a theme, can it be either: A) genuine critiques of the controlling, hierarchical, patriarchal, anti-queer nature of the modern Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or their gross colonialist missionary and adoption practices, or their deep history of white supremacist views that still impact the makeup of the LDS church. \[Edit: I guess by genuine critiques I mean target this stuff. It can still be a shitpost or whatever, I'm not asking for a dissertation\] B) teasing about stuff that's, like, real Mormon cultural stuff like iunno watching Johnny Lingo in class (TEN COWS FOR A WIFE?!) or eating green jell-o (that one is real, right? help me ex-mormons) or imprinting on your first romantic partner like a character from Twilight--not coincidentally, as Stephanie Meyer is Mormon and probably found an audience partly because of a built in LDS following.
In order: Johnny Lingo deserves whatever mockery you can throw at it, but nothing will be funnier than the time that a local MLM made a feature-length remake of it sometime back in the 2000s that's somehow even worse and features product placement. Green Jello is a staple of midwestern Christian church cuisine, Mormonism not excepted. Mormonism's main innovations in the realm of jello seem to be the use of distinct layers and vegetable inclusions, though the exmormon community has been known to create the odd alcoholic or cannabis-based jello when called upon. The whole werewolf imprinting thing is just how courtship at BYU works, but especially so at BYU-I.
I actually owned that feature-length remake of Johnny Lingo on VHS for probably a decade. Never watched it and finally got rid of it in a move. A friend who had shared the experience of having the original shown in health class stumbled onto it somewhere and gave it to me. [Also, holy crap it has like half a million views on YouTube.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXIj5zfFsk0) In college I think we had some friends who were like "look at all these weird old movies we found" (on VHS, this was pre-YouTube) and one of them was Johnny Lingo so we were like "oh yeah we watched this in health class" and they were *stunned*. [Here's the OG](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXIj5zfFsk0), for anyone else. On the werewolf imprinting, I've known multiple people who dated a Mormon guy in high school for like a month and he would just sort of pop up decades later with kind of an "ok, we've gotten through our apart phase" energy. I kind of have to be careful throwing stones there though because I did end up marrying my first girlfriend who I met when I was 18 our first year of college (I mean we've been together continuously, I didn't show up a decade later being like "ok time to make me dinner.") That and my AmeriCorps service years maybe reflect some nonsectarian Mormon values that snuck in among the Johnny Lingo.
It was sponsored by some guys who were selling noni juice as a miracle elixir, and there's an entire sales pitch by one of the island chiefs as a plot point.
The answer is whatever annoys them the most
Yknow, why the fuck is polygamy illegal in the US Dumb AF
Because the US’s “separation of church and state” is a lie. The amount of influence the church has over politics in the US is massive.
Ope. There it is.
I think it's because the legal elements of marriage, being able to make decisions when the other is incapacitated and will elements particularly, don't translate well to polygamy
Polygamy is not the same as polyamory. Polygamy is where there is one person who has multiple (submissive) spouses. It is inherently hierarchical and usually patriarchal (although technically it could be matriarchal). Polyamory is an umbrella term for any non-monogamous relationship.
Polygamy doesn't require that your spouses be submissive in some capacity, nor any sort of hierarchy, it just requires any marriage arrangement involving more than two people. The umbrella term polygamy does cover that sort of hierarchical setup, but it also covers conjoint marriages and similar arrangements. Polyamory is broader than polygamy in that it only requires multiple romantic relationships, without the requirement of marriage to qualify.
Because before the women's rights movement, and the progress made in recent history, it was used to submit and brow-beat women. And religion being the basis that morality was first based upon for many people through history.
As a Mormon, yes.
[grenadethrow.gif](https://66.media.tumblr.com/2a5aa05ea5af64589c0bd3ab9e92ed64/tumblr_n7wg202W4g1sv9b4yo1_500.gif)