Same-Sex Marriage: Opening the Door to Polygamy

With the decision by the Iowa Supreme Court and an enactment of a statute Vermont Legislature sanctioning same-sex marriage, a great deal of commentary, filled with understandable but unwarranted optimism, has appeared on the possibility of same-sex marriage being legislated in additional states, including New Jersey.

Advocates are dismissive of the slippery-slope argument — that is, by allowing same-sex couples to marry, then any restrictions on a parent marrying his child or his couch will logically fall. Such views are easily ridiculed if not rebutted, but the next logical step in this debate — namely, polygamy — is not readily dismissed and must be honestly considered by those who favor same-sex marriage.

We tend to think that culture wars are a unique affliction of our unsettled age. In the 19th century, however, the country was engulfed in a moral struggle not only against slavery but also — and often with comparable fervor — against Mormon polygamy. From Joseph Smith’s revelation in the early 1830s that included plural marriage to the official repudiation of this teaching by the Mormon Church in 1890, Mormons were furiously persecuted and relentlessly prosecuted for their practice of polygamy.

The platform of the Republican Party in 1856 famously called for the prohibition in the territories of “those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery.” Moreover, the state constitutions of Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Utah all have provisions banning polygamy and Congress required these anti-polygamy provisions as a condition of admission to statehood in all these states except Idaho.

This constitutional struggle over polygamy culminated in 1878 when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Reynolds v. United States. A bigamist named George Reynolds was prosecuted in the Utah territory. Reynolds sought a conduct exemption to the criminal prohibition of polygamy based on the guarantee of the free exercise of religion under the first amendment. With the correct observation that the practice of polygamy is incompatible with American political institutions, the Court determined that the prohibition was well within the authority of Congress in the territories.

Mormon polygamy was defeated by a culture stable enough in its understanding of public morality, particularly at the elite level, to thwart this great challenge. That understanding has essentially vanished today.

Proponents of same-sex marriage invariably wonder what harm would be presented by allowing couples of the same sex to marry. Of course, by ignoring sexual complementarity and violating the natural law, the common good is undermined; in other words, our moral ecology will be damaged. But our intellectual elites who dominate the courts, the universities and the editorial offices of newspapers are animated by a radical individualism on social issues and they have no concern at all for public morality and refuse to acknowledge any such harm. Then what is the case against polygamy? Allowing a man (or woman) to enter into plural marriage will not prohibit others from marrying in the monogamous tradition. It would not interfere with that arrangement in any way. Churches would still be free to marry couples in conformity with their own teachings.

What is more, it should be acknowledged that, unlike same-sex marriage, plural marriage has a long and established tradition throughout many parts of the world. Finally, with the easy availability of unlimited divorce, serial polygamy is already thoroughly commonplace in Europe and America. What is the difference between taking three or four wives at once or one after the other?

With the exclusively libertarian premises that are relied on today for such questions, the case for polygamy is stronger than that of same-sex marriage. For the libertarian, any case against polygamy is based on nothing more than ignorance and fear. After all, most people know homosexuals. How many polygamists does anyone know? Perhaps such irrational opposition should be stigmatized as “polyphobia.”

With numerous Mormon fundamentalists (excommunicated Mormons who practice polygamy) in this country and increasing immigration from Islamic countries where polygamy is enthusiastically practiced, plural marriage is not a concern based on hysteria or conjecture. Indeed, the intellectually casual embrace of same-sex marriage by its advocates is remarkably oblivious to this problem. Instead of mocking opposition to same-sex marriage as the irrational product of a benighted religious tradition, advocates must be forced to confront the inescapable logic of their own argument. If marriage is to be deconstructed to satisfy a “right” that never occurred to anyone until the day before yesterday, then certain ineluctable ramifications must be addressed.

Are those “same-sex marriage proponents” the gay clergy and their respective congregants in the "mainstream" Presbyterian, Episcopalian, the United Church of Christ, and the Lutheran (ELCA} churches? Naw, it couldn't be. They are all part of the bride of Christ because they believe in the trinity creed.

Perhaps your standard works' reading overload has kept you from your remedial Bible lessons? [You know if you just don't like picking up a Bible, Joseph copiously copied two dozen of its 17th-century language English translation...
...word-for-word into the supposedly mostly 'pre-Mormon christ' era of the BoM...
...imagine that, 17th-century thees and thous in a pre-Christ document...
...it's gotta be one of the 7 wonders of the world that Nephi & Moroni & company could so well prophesy far ahead of their times & know that one day English-speaking people would say their thees and thous...
...but wait a minute, early 19th-century U.S. folks didn't really talk in thees and thous language other than Bible talk...
...it wasn't otherwise part of their everyday language...
...anyway, these two dozen word-for-word chapter liftings doesn't even count the hundreds of Bible verses & phrases he lifted --
...-- some even before Christ uttered them as recorded in the Bible & poured them right into the BoM...
...and if you don't like the KJV, well, Joseph still somehow managed to get most of your canonized JST right...
...oh, wait a minute...your JST isn't canonized is it? Here, Joe was repeatedly COMMANDED by the Lord in your D&C (& recorded elsewhere) to "finish the translation" and your leaders can't even be bothered to canonize these "revelations"...tisk, tisk...
...but wow! I digress]

Here are some verses for your remedial Bible training:
Matthew 25:1-12.
How many virgins are waiting for Jesus the groom, here? (10 -- and No, this isn't a story about polygamy...so keep your thoughts pure here).
Now, all 10 virgins are expectin' to see the Lord Jesus, right? They've got their lamps with them, right? What do they discover -- too late -- that they lack? (Oil)
What does oil symbolically represent in this parable? (The Holy Spirit -- An energy-less one waiting for the return of Christ is a spirit-less one)
So, how many does Jesus shut the door on? (Half)
Moral lesson of the story: Even up to half of those bumpin' elbows with those that Jesus the Bridegroom receives won't be received by Him. (Is that "news" to you? And could it be that as a Mormon you're so used to seeing a mere mortal spouse as an eternal partner that you've missed out on the Isaiah, Hosea, Corinthians, Ephesians, Revelation, and gospel parable passages that talk about Christ as our ONLY eternal bridegroom?)

Remedial Bible Lesson #2:
24Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field.
25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away.
26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27 "The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?'
28 "'An enemy did this,' he replied. "The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?'
29 "'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.'" (Matthew 13:24-30)

So, based upon your repeated posts to Elsie & myself, you apparently didn't know there were "weeds" & "tares" (Matt. 13:25,27) mixed & match with pure wheat in the "Kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 13:24-26) -- did you? (That's what happens at night when folks sleep -- v. 25 -- the devil doesn't sleep). So what are us Presbyterians, Episcopalians & Lutherans who serve the king to do according to v. 28? "Do you want us, Oh, King, to yank up these 'weeds' and 'tares?'" "No," He replies, "lest you also yank out by error and division my wheat as well." (v. 29) "Let them grow together until the harvest." (v. 30)

(You're not recommending we go against the King's orders on this, are you?)

May I also recommend in your OT remedial reading that you be sure to cover prophets like Jeremiah & Hosea. Things were so bad in Hosea's time, that God instructed him to marry a practicing prostitute who remained one!

[Not exactly something we'd see a general authority or bishop order a Mormon to do, right? Might kind of ruin a temple recommend 'to do' checklist -- both the orderer and the recipient...
Oh, and this brings up a good question...Since LDS "restored" all original things practiced in Adam's "church"
-- that's always "news" to us Evangelicals
-- that LDS prophets teach that Adam had a "church"
-- why, Hosea MUST have had a temple recommend checklist that his "bishop" (originated from a Greek word, BTW, meaning "overseer") oversaw.
Tell us, CUH, how did Hosea and his wife manage to pass their temple recommends, anyway, given Homer's continued "cottage industry?"]

And Jeremiah wasn't what we might call a "people of God cheerleader" based upon what "wonderful" things they were up to during those times.

But, ComeUpHigher, as you go merrily on your necro-baptismal way, please continue to "encourage" Presbyterians, Episcopalians, UCCites, and Lutherans to reform their ways
-- as the plight of weeds & tares won't be a pleasant one.
And we need all the reformational help we can get (and that's "reformational" as in r-e-F-o-r-m-a-t-i-o-n-a-l NOT r-e-s-t-o-r-a-t-i-o-n-a-l...as the Bible never talks about a 100% apostasy...
...though Jesus raises it as an eventual possibility at the very end of times when He asked the question would he find faith on earth when he returned? And that Q should make both Christian and Mormon wince -- realizing what all church structures may resemble upon His return.)

That's because the Evil Men of Old REMOVED it from the BIBLE - you BOOB!

Well, how'd ya expect me to know what "plain and precious things" (1 Nephi 13:28) were removed from "the book of the Lamb of God" when Joe's Book of Mormon just doesn't hardly elaborate at all on that? Ya gotta cut me slack on this, Mormon dude! :)

But ya gotta love it, Mormon Dude, that LDS thousands and thousands of times over can't even resist using 1 Nephi 13:28 as a proof-texting hammer to hit the early Church over the head with when according to the dates affixed by Mormons to 1 Nephi, the early church didn't even yet exist!

I mean, LDS say 1 Nephi was written between 600-592 B.C.! That's Old Testament times! Old Testament prophets didn't talk about a "Book of the Lamb!"

Yet, just as Joseph saw fit to insert his own commentary into 1 Nephi (that he thought the early church removed things needing "restoration"), his fellow Mormons follow exactly in his footsteps.

(And we're supposed to cower at their marvelous Mormonite ability to proof-text an accusation that even from a Mormon perspective wasn't ever aimed at the church of Christ??? But do we ever hear Mormon apologies for this? Repentance for this wildly out-of-context accusational proof-texting? Do we ever see intellectually honest LDS grassroots folks stepping out on a limb to hold LDS writers & speakers accountable who trump up this verse and hurl it at the historic Christian church? No? Stay-in-line cowardice doesn't bode well in an authoritarian hierarchical man-made structure)

That's because the Evil Men of Old REMOVED it from the BIBLE - you BOOB!

Els, a good rendition of a Book of Mormon-wielding basher-using-a-supposedly-6oo-year-pre-Christ's-Church verse to hit over the historic church's head!

When I ponder this, I could imagine having the following convo with a Mormon -- starting with his bashing:

"Aha!" "Plain & precious thing, remover, you!" "You post-Christ church people removed them, didn't you!"
"Uh. Removed what?"
"Plain & precious things."
"Like what?"
"Like all the things we've restored."
"How do you know they were originally there?"
"'Cause our prophets tell us so"
"And they know this how?"
"'Cause Heavenly Father told them so"
"And you know that how?"
"A burning in my bosom"
"And this voice Joseph Smith heard. Was it always reliable?"
"Oh, of course"
"This voice always lived up to 2 Nephi 9:20's presentation of who God is? That 'he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it?'"
"Oh, indeed"
"Well, what about the voice Joseph heard in D&C 130:14-15?"
"What about it?"
"Joseph said: "...I heard a voice repeat the following: 'Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man'"
"And?"
"Well, he didn't live til 85 did he? Nor did Jesus return, did he?"
"But he still saw that face when he died"
"Well, in that way, we're ALL going to see His face. (You don't need to be a 'prophet' or 'seer' to say we're going to see Jesus' face when we die.) Do you know the context for this claim?"
"He was wondering when Jesus would return"
"He was more than wondering. Joseph said he was 'praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man' (D&C 130:14) and he claimed a voice responded with the 'if thou livest until thou are 85, thou shalt see the Son of Man...' (v. 15)
"And?"
"Well, Joseph then said this voice told him 'therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter' So he claimed this voice was God's revelation"
"And?"
"Well, didn't the Mormon god know when Joseph would see the Son of Man's face?"
"Of course."
"Then what's with this '85' number? Why would a God who 'knows all things' (2 Nephi 9:20) ever even say 'if' on anything that's 100% in His control -- the death of a saint? He didn't know if Joseph would live to be 85 or not? And why '85?' That wasn't any different of a number than if he had used 80, 75, 70, 65, 60, etc.? No Mormon prophet has expounded upon the significance of 85, has he?"
"Not to my knowledge."
"So why did Joseph record this as canonized 'revelation?'"
"He heard a voice. Unlike you, our God continues to speak to our prophets."
"And so your prophets have added hundreds & thousands of revelations to the D&C since Joseph died?"
"Uh, no."
"Just hundreds?"
"Uh, no"
"Dozens?"
"Uh, no"
"A dozen?"
"Well, not exactly"
"A handful?"
"Well, that depends if you include manifestos or not. Both of the big social ones weren't exactly written as 'Thus saith the Lord'"
"So, PERSONAL revelations aplenty. But CANONIZED revelations, the D&C has hardly thickened, eh?"
"You might say that"
"Well, don't grassroots Mormons believe in PERSONAL revelations they receive within themselves"
"Oh, definitely"
"Does that make you prophet status, then?"
"No"
"So if a prophet has many PERSONAL, uncanonized revelations and you have many PERSONAL, uncanonized revelations, why do you need him again?"
"Amos 3:7. God doesn't do anything without telling his prophets"
"So, I could get good weather forecasts if I asked your prophet?"
"Don't be profane"
"What? God isn't the author of weather?"
"Of course, He is. But his revelations hold weighty imports beyond the weather"
"You mean like Brigham telling his people for over 25 years that Adam was God? Or the supposed necessity of shedding your own blood for your sins?"
"Prophets are men, and don't always speak as God"
"What about when they are before the Salt Lake tabernacle and telling the saints for over 25 years that Adam is God?"
"Well, that's not canonized revelations."
"Well, what good is your Amos 3:7 application if we always have to wait for LDS to 'officialize' God's revelation? I mean it took the LDS church til 1880s to 'officialize' Smith's first vision and the Pearl of Great Price. Your 50-year wait isn't going to help people process God's 'ongoing' revelation, is it?"
"Well, we not only sustain our prophets, but we vote what revelations are to be canonized."
"Could you imagine, though, Jeremiah's unpopular prophecies being sustained by God's unruly people (at that time) in a vote?"
"Well, God always has a remnant of faithful people."
"Exactly. That's what Christians say as to why the so-called universal apostasy of the Christian church was never fully apostate. God ALWAYS has a remnant of faithful people."
"But Joseph said Christ failed in His mission to keep a church together"
"But Jesus prophesied in Matt. 16:18 that the gates of hell would NEVER prevail against it. And in Eph. 3:21, Paul prophesies that the church would glorify God through ALL ages. Are you calling Jesus & Paul false prophets?"
"No"
"In your opinion, did the gates of hell prevail against Jesus' church?"
"Well, maybe temporarily."
"About 1500 years is what you call 'temporarily?'"
"Well, a day to the Lord is as 1,000 years"
"Yeah, how convenient of a proof text for that. What about Paul? The church hasn't glorified God throughout ALL ages?"
"Well, if it did, the church wouldn't have needed a full restoration, would it have?"
"So Paul was a false prophet?"
"Somebody may have altered the text there."
"And Joseph Smith corrected it in the JST?"
"Uh, no."
"Besides, how could Joseph historically put himself above the authors of the Bible by correcting them when even the voices he was hearing couldn't properly forecast the future?"
"What do you mean?"
"Joseph prophesied -- -"Verily thus saith the Lord" (D&C 114:1) that David W. Patten would "perform a mission unto me ["me"=the Mormon god] next spring in company with others, even twelve including himself, to testify of my name and bear glad tidings unto all the world." (D&C 114:1)
"And?"
"Well, David W. Patten died, and never made the mission in company with 11 others. Your Mormon god didn't know this in advance? Or your Mormon god didn't know that the "united order" established to care for the poor wouldn't be an "everlasting order," after all? (D&C 104:1) Where's your "United Order" today? Joseph also claimed that "temple lot" in the "New Jerusalem" (D&C 84:2-3) was "appointed by the finger of the Lord in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri" (D&C 84:3) and that "Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city of New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple SHALL BE REARED IN THIS GENERATION." (D&C 84:4) Where's the temple in Independence, MO reared in Joseph's generation? The bottom line is it only takes one theft to be convicted as a thief; one murder to be convicted as a murderer; and one false prophecy to be convicted by the Holy Ghost as a false prophet. Come out, LDS, of the leaky umbrage of false prophesy. Come to the True Prophet who speaks to us now, and with 100% revelatory accuracy, Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1-2)."

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.