Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"'Sister Wives' Family to Challenge Utah Bigamy Law" - ABC News - polygamy - mormon
abcnews ^ | today | FT

Posted on 07/12/2011 8:48:02 AM PDT by fishtank

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-85 last
To: GOPJ
When everything is ‘marriage’, nothing is marriage.

Bingo!

51 posted on 07/12/2011 10:11:03 AM PDT by Colofornian (The Mormon church regards 100% of the founding fathers as apostates from the 'true' church)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
You Said: "Polygamy is a return to barbarism."

Response: Of course polygamy is a return to barbarism. However, our entire society is returning to barbarism.

52 posted on 07/12/2011 10:11:51 AM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: AEMILIUS PAULUS

Yes, it is a barbaric society that butchers more innocent babies every day than were murdered on 9-11-2001 by Islamic terrorists.


53 posted on 07/12/2011 10:14:58 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (The tea party was and is about the right to govern ourselves, according to natural right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Yes, these states had to ban polygamy to be allowed into the union.

A Supreme Court decision in 1879, I believe, upheld a federal law which banned polygamy in U.S. territories such as Utah. That decision said that it was not a violation of Mormon religious freedom to limit marriage to 1 man and 1 woman.


54 posted on 07/12/2011 10:14:58 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: guardian_of_liberty
Animal Marriage. ?

Next will either be incestuous marriage (siblings, parent-child, etc) or lowering marriage age to 9 to satisfy the Muslims and pedophiles.

55 posted on 07/12/2011 10:17:16 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (In the land of the pigs, the butcher is king.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Retired COB

“At least polygamy is Biblical.”

Yupper, and it is also sanctioned by MadMo hissef.

Polygamy produces unmarried men. Unmarried men are - you guessed it, ‘Cannon Fodder’.

There is a reason polygamy was outlawed. One man/one woman works better than other deviations from that formula. And I did choose ‘deviation’ deliberately.

Why? Because reality just is.


56 posted on 07/12/2011 10:19:11 AM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles, Kill the EPA!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: meatloaf

“Any idea which dog has the biggest litters?”

The bigger the dog, the bigger the litter.

By your theory, you should marry Big SIS.

;-)


57 posted on 07/12/2011 10:20:48 AM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles, Kill the EPA!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

excellent point!


58 posted on 07/12/2011 10:27:16 AM PDT by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
..because one half of America is below average intelligence?

How do we explain Obama getting more than one half of the popular vote?

59 posted on 07/12/2011 10:32:56 AM PDT by Graybeard58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

I'm sure this will not be a popular opinion, but if a man (or a woman, for that matter) is stupid enough to want more than one spouse, then let the idiot have at it. It's really nothing to me.

The real problems are extensions of other, larger issues that need to be addressed... young people entering marriage before they are ready, whether "arranged" or by choice (not to mention viewing children as sex objects)... and people living off the government, which is what I believe a lot of these people do.

So long as a polygamous grouping is self-sufficient and everyone involved is of a mature age... I just don't care.

60 posted on 07/12/2011 10:32:59 AM PDT by TontoKowalski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro

“San Francisco, 2039:

“Do you, Oh’Bhama D’yleesh’ia Sho’n’tae, take this arificial person to be your lawfully recognized sexual partner.......””

Are you implying inflatable sex dolls had to struggle against the narrow minded Christians, and their sharp pointed crosses, for nearly thirty years before their “Rights” were recognized?

How awful!

;-)


61 posted on 07/12/2011 10:34:31 AM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles, Kill the EPA!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru; Retired COB
Polygamy produces unmarried men. Unmarried men are - you guessed it, ‘Cannon Fodder’. There is a reason polygamy was outlawed. One man/one woman works better than other deviations from that formula. And I did choose ‘deviation’ deliberately.

YUP.

That's what may become a dangerous demographic in Asia -- particularly in China & Northern India where sex-selection abortions have been so widespread & prominent for so long. When you have that many single men, I believe that at some point it will lead to a country waging warfare to provide more "wives" for their men.

62 posted on 07/12/2011 10:38:47 AM PDT by Colofornian (The Mormon church regards 100% of the founding fathers as apostates from the 'true' church)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru
Are you implying inflatable sex dolls had to struggle against the narrow minded Christians?

"Inflatable" will be the new "N" word.


63 posted on 07/12/2011 10:43:52 AM PDT by Iron Munro (The more effeminate & debauched the people, the more they are fitted for a tyrannical government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: PLD
I feel the same way.

I tuned in once just to see it, and my stomach was turning by the end of ten minutes. To see a bunch of people defying the sacred bonds of marriage and trying to adjust to it as “normal” - horrible.

I thought of all the good couples I knew, and how they are two halves of one unit, living for each other in an intimacy no third person can share - polygamy is an abomination. No other word for it. Scripture is right. And the kids! They'll never have even a chance at a real marriage.

64 posted on 07/12/2011 11:10:50 AM PDT by I still care (I miss my friends, bagels, and the NYC skyline - but not the taxes. I love the South.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
Thank you for the post.

"There are tens of thousands of plural families in Utah and other states. We are one of those families. We only wish to live our private lives according our beliefs," Kody Brown said

If Kody Brown et.al. wanted to live private lives then they should have stayed off reality TV. I don't think anyone thought the program "Sister Wives" was any thing but a precursor to legalize bigamy. That said, they have opened themselves up to scrutiny - and there is plenty of evidence that all is not peachy in polygamy land.

Alleged bankruptcy fraud, abuse of the food stamp system and a myriad of other questionable ethical practices have emerged.

See: http://tripleap.blogspot.com/ - June 11th and 12th posting for documentation.

I feel very sorry for the children who are being used as pawns in this attempt at public manipulation. It will be interesting to see the reaction to this purposely sanitized version of polygamy in contrast to the much publicized upcoming trial of Warren Jeffs.

65 posted on 07/12/2011 11:42:42 AM PDT by Pebcak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank; MizSterious

Here we go again ping.


66 posted on 07/12/2011 11:45:46 AM PDT by Pebcak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Retired COB
At least polygamy is Biblical.

By what standard - just because it is documented as occuring in the bible?

Murder, rape and incest are in the bible too - does that make it 'biblical' too?

67 posted on 07/12/2011 11:47:53 AM PDT by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

This was ALWAYS the next step after “homosexual” marriage.


The 1972 Gay Rights Platform

Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.

...and guess what’s next.....

Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.

http://www.article8.org/docs/general/platform.htm


68 posted on 07/12/2011 11:53:32 AM PDT by massmike (Massachusetts:Stopped hanging witches;started electing Kennedys.Coincidence?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: alancarp
” ... once this religious-(Bible-)based institution became secularized and subject to government benefits, it was only a matter of time before others wanted to have a piece of the pie too.”

Exactly right, which is why I have become an advocate of getting the government out of the marriage business completely and returning it to the religious sector.

69 posted on 07/12/2011 11:53:52 AM PDT by riverdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RWGinger

What should anger us all is the welfare benefits the sister wives and their children rape the taxpayer for

Now that would be of interest, except I haven’t seen the show to know.


70 posted on 07/12/2011 4:22:03 PM PDT by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
The rivalry between Jacob and Esau

Excuse me, but Jacob and Esau were TWINS, their rivalry has nothing to do with polygamy. You probably meant Isaac and Ishmael, and how Abraham's sin is still causing untold problems today. Other than this, you made an excellent point!

71 posted on 07/12/2011 5:51:15 PM PDT by Former Fetus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Former Fetus

“You probably meant Isaac and Ishmael, and how Abraham’s sin is still causing untold problems today.”

Indeed I did and did not even notice when I proofread. Sorry about that.


72 posted on 07/12/2011 9:58:44 PM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: wita

I have not seen this discussed with this particular polygamous family but other such families in plygamous cities like Hildale Ut and Colorado city AZ plus that “ ranch” in west Texas until it got raided. All were getting welfare benefits.
think about it
If it cn be proven that this particular sister wives familes is not getting benefits, good for them.


73 posted on 07/13/2011 8:13:21 AM PDT by RWGinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: the_devils_advocate_666

He/she shouldn’t be. We wouldn’t want to be intolerant now, would we? (/sarcasm)


74 posted on 07/13/2011 12:53:06 PM PDT by Pinkbell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie

That’s the problem, they aren’t honest about it. Generally, so long as you don’t attempt to get multiple concurrent marriage licenses, you can have a wife and any number of girlfriends at the same time, like Hugh Hefner does. In that sense, polygamy is otherwise left alone and in the closet for the most part. But now, I guess the polygamists want to get so in my face about it, and that’s where I say sorry, keep it to your private lives, and support your relationships out of your own pocketbook.


75 posted on 07/13/2011 1:18:23 PM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie

That’s the problem, they aren’t honest about it. Generally, so long as you don’t attempt to get multiple concurrent marriage licenses, you can have a wife and any number of girlfriends at the same time, like Hugh Hefner does. In that sense, polygamy is otherwise left alone and in the closet for the most part. But now, I guess the polygamists want to get so in my face about it, and that’s where I say sorry, keep it to your private lives, and support your relationships out of your own pocketbook.


76 posted on 07/13/2011 1:18:36 PM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

If there is a need to formalize our relationship we can go to a lawyer and do that.

Lot’s of work in the beginning that will require thinking about a committed relationship and may lead to both of us working on things we may not have given much thought to.

The fact that people don’t have the sense to see it that way is what’s wrong with the U.S.. You don’t need to ask everyone’s approval of something, but the gay lobby, and now some polygamists somehow are refusing to think about that option.


77 posted on 07/13/2011 1:20:52 PM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

David and Solomon were both polygamists. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think polygamy makes sense given the way social benefits go nowadays, but David’s real sin was conspiracy to murder someone to get a woman who was already married to him. He had plural wives at that time, that is why Nathan told him the Ewe lamb allegory, why couldn’t he be satisfied with the wives that he had instead of kill a man to get his wife? Additionally Solomon was super-polygamous, but was wrong for marrying polytheist wives and practicing their religion with them. Jacob had two wives (Leah and Rachel) and two concubines. No need to try and get a little revisionist with what goes on here. Not all these people in the Bible who practiced polygamy were bad, and often it wasn’t just the polygamy that made them bad at the same time. Stuff happens, I think living in the ancient world, and the conditions back then made polygamy more permissible. Today, it’s easier to do half a dozen other things than to practice polygamy; it’s really impractical unless you are a pretty rich guy, or don’t mind the child custody legal standings associated with marriage.


78 posted on 07/13/2011 1:28:20 PM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

David was the far better example of showing polygamy for what it is. The fact is, that there are plenty of bad temptations that come with being polygamous, and plenty of responsibility involved in it. For that reason, there’s plenty of reasons why, for the sake of common law, we shouldn’t have a need to sanction something that is an exception, and has plenty of potential for corruption at the same time.


79 posted on 07/13/2011 1:31:42 PM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009
Jacob had two wives (Leah and Rachel) and two concubines. No need to try and get a little revisionist with what goes on here.

Jacob was deceived into practicing polygamy. I don't think you'd elevate Jacob & his wives as the "all-star poster boy" foundation for polygamy, would you? Especially as the "foundation" for that was anything but God's truth ('twas deception).

Additionally Solomon was super-polygamous, but was wrong for marrying polytheist wives and practicing their religion with them.

Solomon was warned by God's Word as to what would happen if he did that. Solomon had ample access to read Deut. 17:17, did he not?

17 He MUST NOT take many wives, or his heart will be led astray.

What happened then to Solomon?

God judges him for this, and then takes away part of his kingdom (1 Kings 11:9-11). Sure, Solomon was as wise as they come...up until he did this. (We've all seen gifted men of God who don't finish strong)

And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and HIS WIVES TURNED AWAY HIS HEART. For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father....And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice, And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the LORD commanded. Wherefore the LORD said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant. (1 Kings 11:3-4, 9-11)

***

...David’s real sin was conspiracy to murder someone to get a woman who was already married to him. He had plural wives at that time, that is why Nathan told him the Ewe lamb allegory, why couldn’t he be satisfied with the wives that he had instead of kill a man to get his wife?

David's "real" sin?

Come now, just because a manslaughterer steals somebody else's wife doesn't absolutely negate their "lower" sins.

And, yes, David was a polygamist, but not necessarily with the women you've mentioned in the Nathan incident. The women involved were technically "concubines" that David inherited when he took over the kingdom.

Yeah, I know 2 Sam. 12:8-11 references them as "wives" -- but this word is also the same Hebrew word that references "female" animals that Noah took into his ship -- and I highly doubt these animals were married to the male animals.

(a) There's no mention anywhere that David slept with them; obviously, if you're a king who has inherited concubines, that would have been the right of the king.
(b) Their purpose in the palace was id'd as palace caretakers: "he left to take care of the palace" (2 Sam. 16:21)
(c) We have no record of children born from these woman;
(d) When David's son sleeps with them openly on the roof there's no record of David reacting like a jealous husband -- nor is there a moral twist given -- like the apostle Paul does to the Corinthian church...where in that case a man was sleeping with his father's wife. The way Abasalom is presented with openly sleeping with these women is not as one sleeping with his "stepmoms." These women are TWICE referenced there as "concubines."

This is why we need to read carefully. And if you read 2 Sam. carefully, you'll see the following prophesy by Nathan in 2 Sam. 12:11-12:

"Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’”

Now, Morpheus, when did this prophesy become fulfilled?

Answer: 2 Sam. 16: 20 Absalom said to Ahithophel, “Give us your advice. What should we do?” 21 Ahithophel answered, “Sleep with your father’s CONCUBINES whom he left to take care of the palace. Then all Israel will hear that you have made yourself obnoxious to your father, and the hands of everyone with you will be more resolute.” 22 So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof, and he slept with his father’s CONCUBINES in the sight of all Israel. (vv. 20-21)

Some of David's REAL wives (not just concubines) died or were removed from him (like Michal)...we are not certain how many were simultaneous to each other. But we can probably assume he was indeed a polygamist at some points of his life.

80 posted on 07/13/2011 2:46:01 PM PDT by Colofornian (Mormon mishies should ask propects to pray about Smith's 'first vision,' NOT the word-lifted BoM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009
Not all these people in the Bible who practiced polygamy were bad, and often it wasn’t just the polygamy that made them bad at the same time.

But all were sinners. The Bible doesn't attempt to portray David as "good" (vs. "bad"). Instead, it presents David as a man who was whole-hearted (even if not whole-actioned) toward God -- and that especially included David's prayer-and-worship life; and was a man who meshed with God's purposes.

And yes, Jesus says it's not the outside of you that makes you unclean, but what comes out of our hearts.

Men are oft' abnormally overabsorbed with the externals. God looks at us from the inside-out. Are we, as Jesus accused the legalists of being, whitewashed tombstones? (Dead on the inside; bright & white on the outside) Or, are we lukewarm where our external deeds don't match the presence of the Holy Spirit on the inside?

81 posted on 07/13/2011 3:08:45 PM PDT by Colofornian (Mormon mishies should ask propects to pray about Smith's 'first vision,' NOT the word-lifted BoM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Yes, but the point was that David’s sin was having sex with the wife of another man was the sin specifically, and not his other marriages, that he concurrently had.

Men are oft’ abnormally overabsorbed with the externals. God looks at us from the inside-out. Are we, as Jesus accused the legalists of being, whitewashed tombstones? (Dead on the inside; bright & white on the outside) Or, are we lukewarm where our external deeds don’t match the presence of the Holy Spirit on the inside?

If we read what Nathan said to David, it all started on the inside, in David’s heart, by lusting after Bathsheba, then exacerbating the circumstances until he became a murderer. I really don’t see where you try to argue on the faith and works part. Yes, in that sense, Jesus would emphasize the importance of what’s inside because it’s a matter here about cause and effect. The cause was the fact that a person allowed him or herself to be too preoccupied with the wrong thing up to the point of doing it.

Of course we need repentance, and therefore divine grace because we aren’t perfectly without sin, but it doesn’t mean that I have to wait till my deathbed to make the confessions. Hey making confessions to the clergy is a good thing, and they can talk and counsel with you about working to overcome some of the problems that might be facing you.


82 posted on 07/13/2011 3:26:04 PM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Jacob was deceived into practicing polygamy. I don’t think you’d elevate Jacob & his wives as the “all-star poster boy” foundation for polygamy, would you? Especially as the “foundation” for that was anything but God’s truth (’twas deception).

He didn’t divorce Leah, so it’s hard to say that he was deceived, based on how he took the situation over time. His children born from Leah were still heirs, and legitimate to his family. You have really lost me as to how what Jacob did was so bad of a thing. It’s also interesting to note how polygamy was such a curse to Jacob, when his child through Leah, called Judah, was pretty prominent throughout the remainder of the Bible, as he was the “ancestor” of Jesus Christ, Peter, James, John, Matthew, Paul, etc. and so forth. In the totality, Jacob’s polygamy wasn’t so bad of a thing. I doubt he also was all that begrudging of polygamy either, given that Leah remained his wife as well, and he certainly had relations + four children with her. There’s way too many positives that came out in his example. By the logic of him being tricked, was it a bad thing that the ancestor of Jesus, and modern-day Judaism was born of a plural wife?

I don’t know where you got your ideas about polygamy from, but you might need to reconsider the historical facts you are trying to present to me. As for today, it’s just not good for modern society when every little person who feels that they are such a pretty exception to the norm has to jump and holler for attention about it. It’s a little rediculous. I probably can’t find the legal muscle to take care of every last man with his harem like Hugh Hefner, but at the same time, polygamy should be at the position where people who try to practice it have to pay out of their own pockets, and we should be able to check up and profile a little to make sure some single mother, really is a single mother at the same time.

(a) There’s no mention anywhere that David slept with them; obviously, if you’re a king who has inherited concubines, that would have been the right of the king.

Sounds almost like apologists for polygamy there, in the idea that he didn’t have relations with the concubines. Absurd idea. It also doesn’t make sense with the rest of your context either. He did dismiss concubines, because they had been defiled by Absalom, a little confusion as to the timing.

I don’t know where you get your ideas from, but seriously, get used to talking to someone who is not a member of Mormonism for a change.

As far as I can tell, polygamy is neither workable by the state social policy or really what comes to most general individuals’ minds. getting a mistress is way cheaper.


83 posted on 07/13/2011 3:47:54 PM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009
Yes, but the point was that David’s sin was having sex with the wife of another man was the sin specifically, and not his other marriages, that he concurrently had.

(Thank you for clarifying your point)

...David’s sin was having sex with the wife of another man was the sin specifically...

No disagreement there...

and not his other marriages, that he concurrently had...

Q: Did not Nathan speak present-tense of David's current wives being given to another to sleep openly with before all Israel? (2 Sam. 12:11-12)
A: Yes -- and they BOTH turned out to be concubines in 2 Sam. 16:21-22. Had the prophesy been literal, then Absalom would have slept with more than two a few concubines in 2 Sam. 16.

So, that may imply that David was no longer married when we come to his encounter with Nathan, right?

We know that Saul took his daughter, Michal, David's wife, and gave her to another: But Saul had given his daughter Michal, David’s wife, to Paltiel son of Laish... (1 Sam. 25:44) And by 2 Sam. 6:23, Michal is mentioned as dead -- and childless up until her death.

Post-Michal, David then took two more wives: Ahinoam would have been his first (post-separated from Michal) wife. A true wife. Perhaps initially out of caring for a widow, he took a second wife -- Abigail, widow of Nabal of Carmel (2 Sam. 2:2). This relationship either was -- or became -- sexual, as she gave birth to a son (2 Sam. 3:3).

And here we see where Solomon began "learning" from his dear-old dad the traits of polygamy.

David's third wife, Maakah daughter of Talmai king of Geshur;
-- just like many of Solomon's wives were to be -- women who were exchanged between kingdoms. 'Twas an old custom back then that "peace covenants" could be better kept if one of your kingdom's daughters was the wife of a nearby kingdom. This was especially so when it was the King's daughter.

Well, by then, David noted there wasn't any difference 'tween six wives and three. Though we're not sure how many were simultaneous to each other. 2 Sam. 3:4 tells us David added wives Haggith, Abital, and Eglah.

So the Q then becomes: Did David disobey God's warning as provided in Deut. 17:17? Did David provide a bad example that was then taken to its extreme with his son, Solomon?

Sometimes, the folly of our own sin isn't even played out in our own lifetimes.

84 posted on 07/13/2011 3:50:56 PM PDT by Colofornian (Mormon mishies should ask propects to pray about Smith's 'first vision,' NOT the word-lifted BoM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009
He didn’t divorce Leah, so it’s hard to say that he was deceived, based on how he took the situation over time.

Sure he was deceived. Rachel was his first-betrothed, which in that culture was as good as marriage (notice Joseph almost "divorced" Mary to whom he wasn't even yet married). Yet Leah became his first wife. (It was Leah in the bridal chamber that night). At that point, he had one betrothed + one married. In his mind, that equaled two.

And knowing that he might be presenting Leah as a less-than-desirable (non-virgin) future wife in that culture, of course he didn't divorce Leah.

You have really lost me as to how what Jacob did was so bad of a thing.

It wasn't Jacob who deceived; his father-in-law deceived him.

My earlier point was that if somebody is implying that God sanctions polygamy (& I'm still not sure if that's a point you're making or not), that Jacob was nowhere near led of the Lord to go out and claim two wives. As it was, wife rivalry reigned in that household; 'twas hardly an endearing "model" household on which other families might follow as a "model" on which to build polygamy.

85 posted on 07/13/2011 3:59:06 PM PDT by Colofornian (Mormon mishies should ask propects to pray about Smith's 'first vision,' NOT the word-lifted BoM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-85 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson