Posted on 05/18/2008 12:35:02 AM PDT by ansel12
What is wrong with polygamy?
Nineteenth-century Americans coupled it with slavery, calling both "the twin relics of barbarism." Today, it is used as a scare image to deter people from approving same-sex marriage, lest it lead down a slippery slope to that horror of horrors.
But what, exactly, is bad about it? Looking at the Texas sect at the Yearning for Zion ranch, so much in the news, will not tell us, because that sect allegedly forced underage girls into marriage. The case then becomes one of child sexual abuse, a crime hardly unknown in the monogamous family, although it gets less splashy publicity when it occurs there. Disturbing things are fun to contemplate when they can be pinned on distant "deviants," but threatening when they occur in families like one's own.
Mormon polygamy of the 19th century was not child abuse. Adult women married by consent, and typically lived in separate dwellings, each visited by the husband in turn. In addition to their theological rationale, Mormons defended the practice with social arguments - in particular that polygamous men would abandon wives or visit prostitutes less frequently. Instead of answering these arguments, however, Americans hastened to vilify Mormon society, publishing semi-pornographic novels that depicted polygamy as a hotbed of incest and child abuse.
Self-righteous Americans hastened to stigmatize Mormon marriage as "patriarchal," while participating contentedly and uncritically in an institution (monogamy) so patriarchal that, for many years, women lost all property rights upon marriage and could not even get a divorce on grounds of cruelty. In one respect, Mormon women were miles ahead of their sisters living in monogamy: They got the vote in the territory of Utah in 1871, 49 years before the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment gave the vote to women all over the nation.
The hypocrisy of the monogamist majority reached its height in the denial (often heard in Congress) that there could be a serious religious argument for polygamy: hypocrisy, because the monogamists were denying their own heritage. Joseph Smith did not pull polygamy out of the air. He found it in the Old Testament, where many patriarchs are represented as polygamous. The very wording of the Ten Commandments, a chief pillar of American public morality then as now, presupposes polygamy. In Deuteronomy, the commandment not to "covet" is divided into two parts. The command not to covet the neighbor's spouse is addressed only to men, and the command not to covet the neighbor's house, field, etc., is addressed to all of the people of Israel. A standard Torah commentary used in my temple puts it this way: "Because men could have more than one wife, an unmarried woman could covet another's husband and even end up married to him."
Yet in 1878, the U.S. Supreme Court would uphold an anti-polygamy statute with these words, extraordinary from justices who were supposedly Bible readers: "Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people." (The Jews were in fact an Asiatic people, but mainstream Christians usually forgot that, thinking of Jesus as a blond, blue-eyed child. So the justices did not see themselves as repudiating their biblical heritage, although this is precisely what they were doing.)
All this shows us a deplorable, if ubiquitous, human tendency: People who feel threatened by a new group demonize the group by imputing to it allegedly nefarious practices in the areas of gender and sexuality. Think of anti-Semitism in European history, Islamophobia, and - perhaps above all - fear and loathing of gays and lesbians.
But what should we say about polygamy itself, in our own time? What, if anything, is really wrong with it?
First, as traditionally practiced, polygamy is one-sided. Men have rights that women do not. Sex equality could, then, give the state a strong interest in disallowing religious claims to practice polygamy, as long as the one-sidedness is maintained.
What about, though, a practice of plural contractual marriages, by mutual consent, among adult, informed parties, all of whom have equal legal rights to contract such plural marriages? What interest might the state have that would justify refusing recognition of such marriages?
Well, children would have to be protected, so the law would have to make sure that issues such as maternity/paternity and child support were well articulated. Beyond this, a regime of polygamous unions would, no doubt, be difficult to administer - but not impossible, with good will and effort. It is already difficult to deal with sequential marriages and the responsibilities they entail.
The history of Mormon polygamy shows us that the state and public opinion are very bad judges of what adult men and women may reasonably do. When people are insecure, they cling to the "normal" and vilify those who choose to live differently. Someday down the road, we may recognize that adults are entitled, as John Stuart Mill saw long ago, to conduct such "experiments in living" as suit their own plans and projects, as long as they inflict no harm on nonconsenting parties. The state must protect vulnerable dependents: children and the elderly. It must also protect adult men and women against fraud and force. Beyond that, it should leave the field of intimate sexual choice to a regime of private contractual arrangement. If polygamy turns out to be a bad idea, it won't survive the test of free choice over time.
Yes and no. An example of "no" is that part of King Solomon's kingdom was taken away & given to someone else upon his death. Why? Because his foreign wives had led his heart astray (1 Kings 11:3-4, 9-11). Had he already been warned in the Torah before he was even born to stay away from many wives, lest his heart would be "led astray." (Yup, see Deut. 17:17 and Lev. 18:18).
As for "yes," ya need to remember that when Jacob entered into polygamy, (1) it was NOT of his own doing; and (2) God had not even come down with the 10 commandments yet. The commandment on not committing adultery codified what God had already communicated to Adam & Eve--Gen. 2:23-25 about 2 people becoming one...not multiple people becoming one.
Illustration: Let's say you're a landowner with boundary issues of trespassers who are establishing permanent pathways you don't want on your land. You know that these trespassers should generally know what's your property even though nothing is marked. You are more likely to "prosecute" a trespasser if you have a SPECIFIC sign that says "No trespassing" with boundaries clearly marked. That's what the 10 commandments did. It wiped away all "excuses" for moral trespassing in the areas it covered. Your new signs as a landowner doesn't mean the trespassing is new if you suddenly started prosecuting for it. It just means those trespasses are more clearly identified, and the reader of the sign is without excuse.
I am honest enough to know the twelve tribes were built by God and how it was done was never condemned by God since he ordained it.
Please go back over post#85 about Jacob's family. Are you seriously trying to tell us that God overlooked the youngest brother (Joseph) being sold into poverty? Isn't the true story of Jacob's family was that what man intended for harm & evil, God worked it out for good (Gen. 50:20)?
Isn't the true story of his family that despite evil--
Reuben's adultery...
Judah's adultery with a family member...
revenge...deception...envy...jealousy...violence...
that the sovereign glory of God is displayed as He sprouts a Messiah to come forth from a sinful people to cover the sin of the Messiah's ancestors, the Messiah's people group, the gentites to be grafted into "the family?"
The problem is Christians have gone from walking by faith in the death burial and resurrection of Jesus to going around trying to establish their own righteousness which is of the Law.
Not at all. The problem is that too many Christians lower the perfect standard communicated by Jesus (Matthew 5:48)--and then, double the error by failing to realize that rather than lowering His standard, He has simply said, "Here, I am inserting the perfect righteousness of my son, Jesus, into your place because you can never attain it." (Paul says Jesus is our Righteousness in 1 Cor. 1:30).
Just because we communicate God's perfect standards, whether it be monogamy or His righteousness, doesn't mean we are trying to establish our own righteousness. The Law and the Gospel are necessary to proclaim; because for many, if they see no need for the gospel, the Law is what God uses to convict them on that need.
You can also find murder, rape and theft in the Old Testament. Polygamy is never promoted or given approval in scripture. The bad results of polygamy are clearly exposed in scripture. The writer merely reveals Mormanism as a cult.
As the article admits, slavery is biblical too.
you need an explanation for that like a fish needs a bicycle
Yet is is also clear that polygamy was allowed and legitimate. I gave the example of Samuel -- his father and mother and step-mother were all honorable, btw -- because without an allowance for polygamy a Samuel would not have been. His mother was barren! She either would have never married, or once married would have been divorced/annulled for being barren.
Today we have in our society nearly one-third bastards -- children born out of wedlock -- and you would keep those single mothers banned from having a husband for name and support?
To me such an uncaring attitude is a callous and false devotion.
I think you’re right.
Hey, don’t posters like ‘allmost’ remind you of the Democratic Protesters?
You know, they have the right to protest, but they want the Republican protesters shut down, because those ‘people’ have no right to protest against their protesting.
And they can say anything like “kill Bush”, or “The BUSH OIL CO made 3 trillion in profit” and don’t have to explain it, whereas, if you say “President Bush made a statement today”, you are lambasted and asked for source references.
Happy tenth!
While the discussion on polygamy is very informative, if that were the case with the YFZ Ranch case, I doubt there would be such a huge problem.
That would mean that the women had the right to actually choose a ‘mate’.
What they are doing at the YFZ Ranch is POLYGYNY.
At least what they ‘claim’ they are doing is POLYGYNY.
I have this feeling that Warren Jeffs thinks he is spiritually married to every female, (and some of the male boys)
Martin Luther Said: Polygamy Is Permissible
"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter." (De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329-330.)
Any Protestants that have heard of this?
CULT:
Studies of the psychological aspects of cults focus on the individual person, and factors relating to the choice to become involved as well as the subsequent effects on individuals. Under one view, an important factor is coercive persuasion which suppresses the ability of people to reason, think critically, and make choices in their own best interest.
Studies of religious, political, and other cults have identified a number of key steps in this type of coercive persuasion:[27]
1. People are put in physically or emotionally distressing situations;
2. Their problems are reduced to one simple explanation, which is repeatedly emphasized;
3. They receive unconditional love, acceptance, and attention from the leader;
4. They get a new identity based on the group;
5. They are subject to entrapment and their access to information is severely controlled.
“and is even used for female animal mates boarding the ark in Genesis 7. (I don’t think we would call them “wives”). “
Well, I know of some that would.
Well, who "legitimized" Abram sleeping once with Hagar? Sarai did. Who was this woman to "legitimize" this for every culture to come? Even Sarah after the fact labeled Hagar as only a servant & slave (Gen. 16:5; 21:10-12). Abraham also spoke accordingly, as did Moses, as did Hagar herself, as did the apostle Paul (Gal. 4:21-31), and as did the Angel of the Lord in Gen. 16.
And since when can a slave "consent" to her master giving her over to sleep with someone else, whether a mock "marriage" title is attached to it or not? (What? You think that if a plantation owner told her husband, "here, this slave is your second wife" that this would hold water morally, ethically, or legally?)
I gave the example of Samuel -- his father and mother and step-mother were all honorable, btw -- because without an allowance for polygamy a Samuel would not have been.
(Oh, give me a break.) Look up "Ethel Waters" online & study her great life. Besides what her life became, what's also "note-able" about her genesis? Her father was a rapist. So would you "lecture" us all that were it not for some supposed mythical "allowance" for rape that Ethel Waters would not have been?
There's all kinds of folks alive whose father was either a stranger-rapist or a familiar-rapist (incest). Our sovereign God was not surprised by their births. They are not illegitimate people--only the violence that created them was illegitimate. Our sovereign God is not handcuffed even by the immoral, violent acts of mankind.
To me, your devotion toward extending some kind of legitimizing label to each & every biological father, including by extension of your logic, even rapists & incest perpetrators, is a bizarre, extreme devotion that lacks thought and comes across as uncaring for victims of rape & incest.
As for having a father or not having one--or having a husband or not having one, the Bible makes it clear that God is a father to orphans and a husband to widows (Deut. 10:18; Psalm 68:5, etc.). The name of a rapist or incest perp is not worth bearing, and as for cohabiting fathers, some women would just as soon their names vanished in the same whirlwind that took them away into others' arms.
Whatever it was, it was wrong. To be careful with my words — that ranch and that cult were incompatible with and a clear and present danger to the state, to our civil society, and thus subject to being hammered down into dust that is ground into the earth.
The statement involved one royal union--and one only.
Take a look at Luther's motivation with that royal union. Luther knew from Scripture that polygamy led a man's heart astray (Deut. 17:17; 1 Kings 11:3-4, 9-11). But he also knew from Scripture that divorce is something God "hated" (Mal. 2:16).
He knew that this royal union was going to take place, anyway. The only question was whether a divorce to the first wife would or would not precede it. Since Luther knew God "hated" divorce, he likewise hated it with every fiber of his being.
So Luther was indeed between "a rock and a hard place." Does it make what he did right? (No) Does this context that Mormons "conveniently" leave out help explain his action? (Yes).
The fact is, Luther's ethics in this case were more motivated by being "anti-divorce" than by being "pro-polygamy"--which, BTW, he also despised. (And what was his main motivation for despising polygamy? He felt it would be a scandal to potential new converts, who would be chased away by its practice if common among Christians.)
So, TheDon, I would wish that you & every Mormon who continues to bring this up to speak the fuller truth about polygamy in the 16th century. How about by starting a simple acknowledgement that Luther wished polygamy to be "quarantined" to that royal quarters. (And "quarantine" is hardly a role of advocacy).
If you want me to, I can point to very specific Mormon leaders, who, in the early 20th century, wanted to "quarantine" polygamy in the Mormon community. Reed Smoot and his secretary, Karl Badger (even though Badger was himself the product of a polygamous union), for example (circa 1904-1906). By about that time, and a few years after, half of the Mormon general authorities were monogamous...and many of them wished it would be so quarantined. The LDS prophet Grant in the 1930s likewise went on an anti-polygamy reform even though he himself had had three wives. He, too, wished to "quarantine" it.
I guess I'm just not understanding how it is that Luther gets finger-pointing from Mormons for wanting to quarantine polygamy, but LDS reformers early in the 20th century receive commendation for the same thing? (Anybody want to explain that little inconsistency?)
Just responding to your post at 93: "I always agree with you and when it seems like I’m not, then it is computer thing."...tickled my funny bone ;)
It is a man's duty to have children. Two. A boy and a girl. Enough to bring hope for the future. If a woman is barren, there is that much less reason to marry her. Certainly that would be the main consideration if a man is allowed only one wife. So it was great to Samuel that his Dad could have multiple wives, for his own mother was a barren woman, and if polygamy was not allowed -- divorce, then no Samuel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.