Polygamy

[johnny]

Lehi,

Yes, they volunteer for celibacy (which only makes sense because the church's responsibility to the widows and orphans of priests is eliminated). But that denial of one of the most fundamental needs of mankind, to engender legitimate offspring, runs counter to scripture.

Like you say they volunteer for celibacy. It makes sense because this is what Jesus and Paul taught. Both Jesus and the apostle Paul taught celibacy for those who can receive it (see Matt 19:12 and 1Cor 7:8 below).

Whatever Paul meant, one wife or a wife, Catholic bishops (all of whom were priests at one time) are in direct violation of the commandment of God that they be married.

If it was a commandment of God to be married WHY would both Jesus and the apostle Paul endorse celibacy for those who can receive it (see Matt 19:12 and 1Cor 7:8 below)?

Matt.19

[12] For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

1Cor.7

[7] For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

[8] I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

[Bee Eff]

1Cor.7

I believe that this chapter is not endorsing remaining single at all, it is discussing the behavior of those that are single. The chapter is speaking of adultery and concern of being unable to find someone to marry.

1 Cor. 7:8-9

8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

This is counsel against adultery. It is not counsel to remain single.

1 Cor. 7:25-33

25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.

27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;

30 And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;

31 And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.

32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:

33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

He is not talking to children. He is talking to adults that have not been able to find a mate. He is talking to those who are troubled at not being able to marry yet. He states the exact same thing that the LDS Church teaches.

He describes the difficulties of marriage. This is stating that an unmarried Christian, full of Christian desire, will strive to serve the Lord. The married man will try to keep his wife happy and may, in the process, lose sight of the goal. In this world we are shown many things that appear to make people happy. Marriage is a difficult thing that requires work. If one is not careful the things of the world will become desirable to us, not out of a desire to fall away, but out of a desire to quickly assuage your wife's dissatisfaction with this mortal existence.

Paul is stating that the Christians that cannot marry and are stressing over such should not be concerned. He is stating, "Don't worry about it."

Now, why is he stating this? Paul is stating this because the unmarried Christians are concerned because they are not married. In the LDS Church the unmarried (who we would label virgins as well, I hope) are concerned about the same thing. It is sad that they do not read the words of Paul and understand them.

[Bee Eff]

Maybe what you fail to grasp is that even if the church had the green light to continue this practice they would continue to ban it. It was a bad policy then and an even worse one now. If you follow the gist of what the presidents of the church have said is that the time and place for polygamy is over. It is gone and not well remembered.

Again, Pres. Hinckley, "If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church."

As much as the law of polygamy was enjoined by some to obey earlier it is enjoined by all today to abandon it.

President Hinckley continues, "More than a century ago God clearly revealed unto His prophet Wilford Woodruff that the practice of plural marriage should be discontinued, which means that it is now against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows polygamy, the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage."

You still fail to grasp the LDS view.

The practice was discontinued as a whole because the Church is a whole. There is nothing that is commanded in one part of the world that is not commanded in another. There is nothing that is condoned in one part of the world that is not condoned in another. We are a unified whole.

On top of this, the activities of the Church outside the U.S. were also being questioned after the stement that the Church would suspend the practice. The concern was that polygamous members would move to the U.S. with their polygamous families and thus polygamy would continue to be practiced within the U.S.

............................................

If any other LDS is capable of explaining this to Ron, please feel free to jump in and explain this to him.

[johnny]

Bee Eff,

I believe that this chapter is not endorsing remaining single at all, it is discussing the behavior of those that are single. The chapter is speaking of adultery and concern of being unable to find someone to marry.

Why does Paul say in verse 8 "to the unmarried ... abide even as I"?

He is not talking to children. He is talking to adults that have not been able to find a mate. He is talking to those who are troubled at not being able to marry yet. He states the exact same thing that the LDS Church teaches.

In verse 8 Paul is talking to "the unmarried".

Paul is stating that the Christians that cannot marry and are stressing over such should not be concerned. He is stating, "Don't worry about it."

In verse 8 Paul is saying "abide even as I" which is single.

[Bee Eff]

Bee Eff,

Why does Paul say in verse 8 "to the unmarried ... abide even as I"?

In verse 8 Paul is talking to "the unmarried".

In verse 8 Paul is saying "abide even as I" which is single.

The greek term for unmarried directly translates to single.

In verse 8 he states:

1 Cor. 7:8-9

8 I say therefore to the [single] and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Singles should abide in chastity, they should not commit adultery or fornication. Thus:

Paul says to the singles and the widows, "you are in a good state if you maintain your chasitity even as I do. But, if you don't think you can handle yourself and thus remain chaste, marry: it's better to be married than to be an adulterer or a fornicator and go to hell."

[LeSellers]

Maybe what you fail to grasp is that even if the church had the green light to continue this practice they would continue to ban it.

Yes, based on Jacob 2. Jacob did, indeed condemn plural marriage, but he carefully allowed the God could command His people. Unless the possibility of plurality of wives actually exists, why bother with the loophole?

Further, Doc&Cov 132 makes it clear that plural marriage falls within the scope of righteousness, as defined by the Lord.

Finally, while OD1 is the current position of the Church (and one I do not anticipate changing any time soon), it, just like Jacob 2, leaves the whole matter in the hands of the Lord. He commanded it in 1831~2 and He rescinded it in 1890.

It was a bad policy then and an even worse one now.

On the second, I might agree, assuming the Lord does not "command His people". But as to the first, I vehemently disagree. Either Joseph (and following him, Brigham, John Taylor, and Wilford Woodruff) was acting under the direction of the Lord or he (and they) was not. The scripture (Doc&Cov 132) says he was, you say he was not. I know where I stand on this.

If you follow the gist of what the presidents of the church have said is that the time and place for polygamy is over. It is gone and not well remembered.

What does that have to do with what the Lord commands?

Again, Pres. Hinckley, "If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church." As much as the law of polygamy was enjoined by some to obey earlier it is enjoined by all today to abandon it.

That is the current stand. No question or argument about that.

Even in countries where civil or religious law allows polygamy, the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage."

This is quite true, but it has nothing to do with what may, or may not, be the commandment of the future. Fortunately or not, this has nothing to do with what you or I feel about the matter.

Lehi

[Bernard Gui]

The simple reason Green is sitting in prison is because he was found guilty of bigamy not polygamy. There aren't any statues against polygamy only bigamy. While I completely agree that the moral failings of celebrities should be placed up there with that of other crimes they simply have not broken any legal laws only moral ones.

OK. Green was found guilty of bigamy. Why are there laws against bigamy?

If Green had not married the second woman, but just had had relations and children with her,

would he be in prison?

Bernard

[Ron Beron]

'Bee Eff' writes,

You still fail to grasp the LDS view.

I do not fail to grasp the LDS view at all. I daresay I have probably been grasping this view longer than you have.

The practice was discontinued as a whole because the Church is a whole. There is nothing that is commanded in one part of the world that is not commanded in another. There is nothing that is condoned in one part of the world that is not condoned in another. We are a unified whole.

That is not entirely true, either. While it was banned within the U.S. it was practiced within the borders of Mexico. This, unfortunately, came back to haunt us with the return of the splinter groups.

If any other LDS is capable of explaining this to Ron, please feel free to jump in and explain this to him.

Stop such sophomoric posturing. I simply disagree with you. I find your argument favoring the practice of polygamy to be offensive to the modern sensibilities of the church. It is now and probably forevermore a dead issue or in the immortal words of Monte Python...

"'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!

'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies!

'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig!

'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!!

THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!"

[Ron Beron]

OK. Green was found guilty of bigamy. Why are there laws against bigamy?

If Green had not married the second woman, but just had had relations and children with her,

would he be in prison?

Bernard

Good question. The laws against bigamy protect the injured party against the manipulation of the other. It is simply fraud. As to your second question. Probably not. I realize there is a double standard here which is not recognized by the courts. It used to be, but not anymore.

[johnny]

Bee Eff,

Singles should abide in chastity, they should not commit adultery or fornication. Thus:

Paul says to the singles and the widows, "you are in a good state if you maintain your chasitity even as I do. But, if you don't think you can handle yourself and thus remain chaste, marry: it's better to be married than to be an adulterer or a fornicator and go to hell.

How can long can the single Mormon remain chaste or unmarried ... what does the Mormon Church say about being unmarried for a lifetime for the kingdom of heaven's sake (Matt 19:12)?

[Bee Eff]

I find your argument favoring the practice of polygamy to be offensive to the modern sensibilities of the church. It is now and probably forevermore a dead issue or in the immortal words of Monte Python...

I do not favor members of the Church practicing polygamy. In this thread I have only stated that those that do not have injunctions against polygamy and wish to practice it should be allowed to.

The Church has never been against polygamy. The Church has only ever made a stance that the practice of polygamy by the Church was suspended. The only reason it was suspended is because of the U.S. actions against the Church and its members, this is stated directly in the portion of the Official Declaration I quoted for you.

The Church believes that polygamy, when sanctioned by God, is a God endorsed, good, healthy, fulfilling, happy, loving, exhalting, and much more descriptives form of marriage. It simply does not currently practice it.

[Bee Eff]

Bee Eff,

How can long can the single Mormon remain chaste or unmarried ... what does the Mormon Church say about being unmarried for a lifetime for the kingdom of heaven's sake (Matt 19:12)?

Matthew 19:9-12

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

10

[Ron Beron]

Lehi writes,

Yes, based on Jacob 2. Jacob did, indeed condemn plural marriage, but he carefully allowed the God could command His people. Unless the possibility of plurality of wives actually exists, why bother with the loophole?

Let's be clear. Do you honestly see anymore in the near future the possiblity of God giving the green light for polygamy in the church? Theoretically if God did command it I would obey, but it would conflict with our avowed beliefs in obeying the laws of the land.

Further, Doc&Cov 132 makes it clear that plural marriage falls within the scope of righteousness, as defined by the Lord.

And now they aren't?

Finally, while OD1 is the current position of the Church (and one I do not anticipate changing any time soon), it, just like Jacob 2, leaves the whole matter in the hands of the Lord. He commanded it in 1831~2 and He rescinded it in 1890.

I can live with that.

On the second, I might agree, assuming the Lord does not "command His people". But as to the first, I vehemently disagree. Either Joseph (and following him, Brigham, John Taylor, and Wilford Woodruff) was acting under the direction of the Lord or he (and they) was not. The scripture (Doc&Cov 132) says he was, you say he was not. I know where I stand on this.

Whoa! I never said they weren't. I am saying that polygamy is antithetical to our beliefs currently because it goes against the laws of our land and the mispractice of it historically.

What does that have to do with what the Lord commands?

Presumably they have the ear of God.

This is quite true, but it has nothing to do with what may, or may not, be the commandment of the future. Fortunately or not, this has nothing to do with what you or I feel about the matter.

I agree. Personally, I take a very libertarian view towards polygamy. If it is practiced ala "Big Love" I can see no harm in it, but unfortunately, the classic example is the FLDS.

[Ron Beron]

'Bee Eff' writes,

The Church has never been against polygamy.

Look, you may not see the current position of the church to be anti-polygamous, but I do. I think they have toughened their stand since 1890 until we are more anti-polygamous than most Americans.

The Church has only ever made a stance that the practice of polygamy by the Church was suspended. The only reason it was suspended is because of the U.S. actions against the Church and its members, this is stated directly in the portion of the Official Declaration I quoted for you.

That is probably true. I think that it has probably gone beyond that now.

The Church believes that polygamy, when sanctioned by God, is a God endorsed, good, healthy, fulfilling, happy, loving, exhalting, and much more descriptives form of marriage. It simply does not currently practice it.

Please supply some references for that. I don't believe it. Somehow, seeing it in practiced in Arizona, Texas, and Utah has left me a bit cold.

[johnny]

Bee Eff,

Matthew 19 is speaking to the divorced or widowed as to being made eunuchs. Christ is stating the same thing. It is better to be an eunuch than be a fornicator or adulterer.

Matthew 19 is speaking about those who are single.

Again I ask ... How can long can the single Mormon remain chaste or unmarried ... what does the Mormon Church say about being unmarried for a lifetime for the kingdom of heaven's sake (Matt 19:12)?

[LeSellers]

In verse 8 Paul is saying "abide even as I" which is single.

This is not a given. On what basis do people assume that Paul was unmarried? There are alternatives to the prevailing theory.

Saul was a Jew, and married. (In I, all Jews married. It was demanded by their culture.) There is no record of his wife, just as there is no record of a wife of any of the Apostles (except an aside regarding Peter's, i.e., he had a mother-in-law, ergo, a wife, and the cryptic notation that the others had the right to take a "sister" along with them in their journeyings). Wives were simply not a matter of this sort of record in that period. This lack is not evidence of anything.

We should be safe in assuming that Saul's (later Paul's) wife was also a Jew, and, given his orientation, she'd probably have been like him in terms of fidelity to Judaism. Suppose she left him over this. Paul, I believe, would not have divorced her.

So, Paul would have been married, but being virtuous, the state he advocated for the "αγαμοις" ("unmarried" - masculine) and the "χηραις" ("deficient" - feminine, not necessarily widows) was to remain chaste while they were not married. There is no reason to assume anything else.

You are reading more into a single word, "καγω", than it warrants. The context of this passage is "whatever Paul actually was". Frankly, the standard answer, unmarried, doesn't fit the larger context, that of his being a cultural Jew, when that culture required his being married.

Lehi

[johnny]

Lehi,

This is not a given. On what basis do people assume that Paul was unmarried? There are alternatives to the prevailing theory.

Paul was obviously unmarried when he wrote this verse. Paul references his celibate way of life in verses 7 and 8. Some interpreters believe that he had previously been married and widowed; there is no clear evidence either for or against this view, which was expressed already at the end of the second century by Clement of Alexandria.

You are reading more into a single word, "καγω", than it warrants. The context of this passage is "whatever Paul actually was". Frankly, the standard answer, unmarried, doesn't fit the larger context, that of his being a cultural Jew, when that culture required his being married.

Paul's celibate view is consistent with the words of Jesus.

[johnny]

Bee Eff,

The Church believes that polygamy, when sanctioned by God, is a God endorsed, good, healthy, fulfilling, happy, loving, exhalting, and much more descriptives form of marriage. It simply does not currently practice it.

Why didn't the apostle Paul endorse polygamy?

In 1Cor 7:2 Paul called it fornication instead of "good, healthy, fulfilling, happy, loving, exhalting".

In polygamy women are married to the same husband, in polygamy each wife DOES NOT have their own husbands. In 1Cor 7:2 Paul says "avoid fornication ... let every woman have her own husband."

[LeSellers]

How can long can the single Mormon remain chaste or unmarried

For a lifetime if necessary. "Chaste or unmarried"? In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "chaste" does not mean asexual, it means "following the law of chastity", if one is married, one can be chaste and sexually active with his spouse, if one is not married, he can still have sex, as long as it's with his spouse. (Some people wold put a smiley here, I won't because there's nothing funny about this.)

what does the Mormon Church say about being unmarried for a lifetime for the kingdom of heaven's sake (Matt 19:12)?

Nothing as far as I can tell. We're more like the ancient Jews: we believe all men should marry.

If there is anything to this, I believe it is a temporary condition. I'd say the application is to people like missionaries, whose calling is to be unmarried for the term of their service. I see nothing in the passage (nor in 1Cor 7: to make me believe otherwise.

But, I do not know.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Paul was obviously unmarried when he wrote this verse.

Not so obviously.

Paul references his celibate way of life in verses 7 and 8.

"Celibate", meaning not sexually active, not '"unmarried". Paul never said he was celibate, nor that he was unmarried.

Some interpreters believe that he had previously been married and widowed; there is no clear evidence either for or against this view, which was expressed already at the end of the second century by Clement of Alexandria.

Indeed, "there is no clear evidence". But, remember, Paul was a Jew of the "straitest sect", a Pharisee. To believe he'd be unmarried ignores all the evidence. Whether he was a widow or separated from his wife is not terribly significant, since he was married.

He felt that being married, even to one wife, was a distraction from service. That, however, does not mean that, as you pointed out earlier, marriage is not "honourable".

Paul's celibate view is consistent with the words of Jesus.

They are consistent in my view, too. We see their import differently.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Why didn't the apostle Paul endorse polygamy?

Why did he not condemn it?

In 1Cor 7:2 Paul called it fornication instead of "good, healthy, fulfilling, happy, loving, exhalting".

That is not what he says. You're reading into this a lot more than is there.

In polygamy women are married to the same husband, in polygamy each wife DOES NOT have their own husbands. In 1Cor 7:2 Paul says "... let every woman have her own husband."

This is false. As I said earlier, I have seven children, and each one has his own father.

Lehi

[Bernard Gui]

Good question. The laws against bigamy protect the injured party against the manipulation of the other. It is simply fraud. As to your second question. Probably not. I realize there is a double standard here which is not recognized by the courts. It used to be, but not anymore.

I can see the fraudulence of being married to two women, each of which is unaware of the other.

This was not the case with Green nor is it with polygamists. Having a girl (and children) in every port is similarly fraudulent, but not illegal. So, there must be some other reason why polygamy (bigamy, if you wish) is illegal. It seems to me that every non-religious argument against polygamy can also be made against promiscuity, and since promiscuity is vastly more prevalent and celebrated than polygamy I am at a loss to understand why polygamy is so demonized.

Bernard

[Neighbor]

Cutting to the core of the discord over polygamy, it is the same as ever. We have a guy at work who has many wives in his home county that we've nick-named Flavor-Flave. No one hates him over having many wives. Maybe it's because he isn't a Mormon and it's accepted practice where he's from?

Anyway, going to the 'way-back' machine, in reading contemporary accounts of polygamy as practiced by the early LDS we can find ample acts of ill will that surely are not anything a man with the Spirit of Christ in him would dare to think, let alone do. John D. Lee's book comes to mind, as the book by the apostate wife of Brigham Young, and many other newspapers, magazines and books of the time give accounts of. The evidence is so overwhelming that it is a folly to try to prove one inaccurate and then try to project it to all accounts.

The issue now is over those who believe the matter is that of abuse and not so much polygamy...even though it is still illegal in the USA.

As for the arguments of young women marrying older men or even marrying at a young age - if a singular male were to marry a singular female who was under 16, isn't this allowed with the girl's consent and the parents consent in the presence of a Justice of the Peace? .... even today? So this brings back to focus that the issue is that of young women who are married either against their will or by coercion of some sort or long standing brain washing to where a person is out of touch with reality.

Don't we think there is a limit to protection given our children from the world? It bothers my wife that when she hears the ladies interviewed that they seem out of touch and brainwashed and not in possession of normal parental emotions and responses.

I think it was wrong to do what they did as they did - both sides - but there seems to be a stink from the compound....?

[Ron Beron]

I can see the fraudulence of being married to two women, each of which is unaware of the other.

This was not the case with Green nor is it with polygamists. Having a girl (and children) in every port is similarly fraudulent, but not illegal. So, there must be some other reason why polygamy (bigamy, if you wish) is illegal. It seems to me that every non-religious argument against polygamy can also be made against promiscuity, and since promiscuity is vastly more prevalent and celebrated than polygamy I am at a loss to understand why polygamy is so demonized.

Bernard

Green was brought to trial because he was charged amd found guilty of criminal nonsupport in addition to four counts of bigamy because his family received welfare money that he failed to repay. Secondly, he was also tried on rape charges because several of his "wives' were underage at the time (13). Generally, cases of polygamy are not prosecuted because of the inequities associated with it. Usually the only time such cases are brought before the court is when they become highly visible as is the case with Green and the Texas FLDS. They had lived under some scrutiny for several years until it became evident that children were involved.

Frankly, I am astounded that promiscuity is not grounds for at least divorce in this country. With no-fault divorce it does rankle.

You might find the following article from Reason magazine an interesting read... http://www.reason.com/news/show/35731.html

[AKS]

Is there a rational position for being against the practice of polygamy?

Yes.

The ratio of males to females is a rational argument against polygamy.

Further we have a very recent case study that reveals potential problems of polygamy (and I might add the logical conclusion if the number of people practicing polygamy approaches the society population void of other circumstances such as war or disease that targets males!!). This is also a rational argument. Bee eff comes across, to me, as a whiny spoiled kid hell bent on convincing the masses of the usefulness of a demonstrably damaging practice that his own church has condemned. You couldn't make it up...