Times are getting tough for Polygamists...

[Don Corleone]

Looks like "Big Love" has stirred up more attention from the authorities then the real polygamists would appreciate: What do you mean I only get one (http://track.juno.com/s/lc?s=177246&u=http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-04-12-polygamy_x.htm?csp=24&RM_Exclude=Juno)

Now, this is probably a question for Pindar or somebody else more familiar with the Latter Day Saints. Most LDS folks I meet are very devout. Being a Methodist, we may disagree on dogmatic and theological grounds, but I certainly don't question their intentions. They clearly hold themselves to the standards they proclaim, and they don't do anything that isn't in keeping with their beliefs. So, I ask, where does the teaching on polygamy come from? Is it from the Book of Mormon? I've never read it (lazy, not closed-minded... I haven't even read the entire Old Testament :embarassed: ). But I just don't see where polygamy would be allowed. I know prior to the Captivity, many Jewish men kept concubines, and somewhere between the time of Ezra and Christ, that fell out of favor. It's clear that Christ lines up on the one-man, one-woman view of things. So where does the justification for one-man, several-women come from?

I know most LDS don't practice polygamy, and I'm not trying to tar anybody's reputation. I'm just seriously curious. LDS won't even drink coffee, so it's not like they play fast and free with allowing themselves to indulge in things they know they ought not to....

[Kralizec]

Mormons believe in the same Old Testament and New Testament (bar some minor differences of course that occur in different versions) as other christians, and in addition to that the Book of Mormon.

Another question: how do Mormons harmonize the existence of their post-Jesus prophets with Bible scriptures that say that there wouldn't be any? (in Revelation, I think- not sure though)

[Lemur]

Revalation. Man. Now there's a book I wish had gone into the Apocrypha pile. People get more wacked-out ideas from Revalation than from the rest of the Bible put together.

Joseph Smith approved of polygamy. The LDS gave it up as part of the deal for becoming integrated with the U.S. in the 1800s. Very old news. Practicing polygamists are all considered apostate.

P.S.: Pindar (a.k.a. "The AntiGah") can fill in all of these blanks better than the rest of us ever could.

[Ianofsmeg16]

Well everyone associates Polygamy with Mormons, you do realise that it was banned from the church in the very late 1800s. Most Mormons I know frown upon it as much as everyone else, in fact it annoys them slightly when its brought up.

EDIT: My mums a mormon, thats how i know :D

[Divinus Arma]

Polygamy? Fine.

"assigning" or "reassigning" teenage girls: sick and evil.

Banning young men so they can't become love interests for young girls: sick and evil.


This guy Jeffs give polygamy a bad name. What a bloody jerk off.

[Pindar]

So, I ask, where does the teaching on polygamy come from? Is it from the Book of Mormon?

Hello,

Polygamy and Mormonism: Polygamy is not taught in the Book of Mormon. Interestingly, in the text there is a group condemned for going in for the idea. The sense is they were lechers running amuck. Polygamy came to the fore as a principle in Mormon thought in the late 1830's as I recall, but wasn't openly taught until after the flight to the Rocky Mountains (1847). Its practice probably became the key identifier and source of tension between Mormons and the U.S. The U.S. actually declared war on Mormons in the 1850's. Apparently, some abolitionists in Washington expected the Utah Territory to join with the Confederacy, as polygamists were held as morally comparable with slave holders and thus likely to join together in their opposition to what is right and just.

Mormons consistently appealed to the notion of freedom of religion in their struggle with the Government. In 1878 the issue was brought before the Supreme Court in the Reynolds Case. The Court ruled against the practice. Government pressures increased: church leaders were hunted and imprisoned, properties were seized, assets confiscated etc. In 1890 the LDS Church issued statements know as the "Manifesto" where polygamy was to end. From that time forward it was no longer practiced among LDS in the U.S. Some Mormons fled to Mexico or Canada in the hopes of preserving their families. Other groups disavowed the Church's action taking the reversal as a sign the leadership had fallen and many small splinter groups emerged and went underground. At present, these groups survive in both the wilds of the desert, small cities like Colorado City in Arizona and as closet communities in Utah itself. I haven't seen Big Love, but from what I've heard, it sounds like it would be set with one of these closet groups in Utah.



But I just don't see where polygamy would be allowed. I know prior to the Captivity, many Jewish men kept concubines, and somewhere between the time of Ezra and Christ, that fell out of favor. It's clear that Christ lines up on the one-man, one-woman view of things. So where does the justification for one-man, several-women come from?
I know most LDS don't practice polygamy, and I'm not trying to tar anybody's reputation. I'm just seriously curious. LDS won't even drink coffee, so it's not like they play fast and free with allowing themselves to indulge in things they know they ought not to....

The idea behind polygamy in Mormon thought is tied to a larger rhetorical stance of the faith. This is the idea of a doctrinal restoration of what was. This includes both right understanding and authority to act regarding the things of God. Marriage is seen as Divinely instituted and polygamy as one possible form of marriage. Historically, polygamy was the norm. It both predates the Mosaic Period (recall the multiple wives of the Patriarchs) was practiced during it (recall the multiple wives of Moses) and continued afterwards. There are no disavowals of polygamy in the canon (New Testament or otherwise). Jews actually continued the practice up into the Tenth Century. Christians moved away from it as they adopted more and more the Greco-Roman model which was monogamy.

I think men are polygamous by nature: serial monogamy being one simple example. If that is correct, then it is interesting how polygamy is despised and rejected by so many, even among those who accept gay lifestyles in the name of tolerance. If Big Love becomes popular and depending on how they depict polygamists in the show, if will be interesting to see if that has an impact on ideas about polygamists in general.

[Lemur]

That was wildly informative. Thank you, Pindar.

[Pindar]

Another question: how do Mormons harmonize the existence of their post-Jesus prophets with Bible scriptures that say that there wouldn't be any? (in Revelation, I think- not sure though)

There are no scriptures that say there will be no more prophets. There is this:

"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD: And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it." -Amos 8 11-12

Which is taken as an Apostasy from the truth.

I think what you are thinking of is this:

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." - Revelation 22:18-19

This is sometimes taken as one reason any additional scripture should be rejected (including any scriptural claims by the Book of Mormon). The Mormon rejoinder would be the book is referring to itself: John's "Apocalypse" and not to any larger canon as at the time of his writing the Bible did not yet exist. Another example would be:

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you" -Deuteronomy 4:2

which if taken as precluding any additional scripture would exclude all texts that followed Deuteronomy which is grim news for most of the Bible. The Bible itself would gradually come together over the next few centuries following John as various texts came into or out of favor. The Book of Revelation was one that was in dispute but ultimately made it into the fold.

[Pindar]

That was wildly informative. Thank you, Pindar.

I live to serve. :bow:

[Byzantine Prince]

I think men are polygamous by nature: serial monogamy being one simple example. If that is correct, then it is interesting how polygamy is despised and rejected by so many, even among those who accept gay lifestyles in the name of tolerance.
I am sure women are serial monogamists as well. Why don't women get like 3 or 4 husbands?

I think that polygamy was created in order to make up for the lack of men in post-war periods when most of the men were killed in battle and women became single. In the Seleucid Empire it became so huge a problem that there were 2 women for 1 man in the whole empire. In some places there were no men at all. Polygamy is hereditary traditionalism for the most part.

Polygamy does not make sense numerically. The ratios of men to women are almost equal in our era.

[Strike For The South]

Polygamy undermines the whole concept of love anyway.

[Kralizec]

Thank you, Pindar. I found that very interesting.

Though I vaguely recall a verse about there not being any prophets until the second coming of Jesus, only false prophets. I'll see if I can find it.

[Don Corleone]

Yes, thank you very much Pindar. You've given me much food for thought. :bow:

[Pindar]

Thank you, Pindar. I found that very interesting.

:bow:


Though I vaguely recall a verse about there not being any prophets until the second coming of Jesus, only false prophets. I'll see if I can find it.

OK

[Pindar]

Polygamy undermines the whole concept of love anyway.


Why?

[Pindar]

Yes, thank you very much Pindar. You've given me much food for thought. :bow:

:bow:

[Strike For The South]

Why?

The idea of loving one person giving yourself up for the one love of your life. Not 3 or 4. Thats how I was always tuaght it was. A marrige is between one woman and one man and they pledge themselves to eachohter.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

There are no scriptures that say there will be no more prophets.

well it does say in matthew 24

''be careful that no one fools you. 5 many will come in my name, saying, 'i am the christ', and they will fool many people.''

[Pindar]

The idea of loving one person giving yourself up for the one love of your life. Not 3 or 4. Thats how I was always tuaght it was. A marrige is between one woman and one man and they pledge themselves to eachohter.

So how would you respond to someone who said: the idea of loving several persons, giving yourself up for the loves of your life: not just one, that's how I was always taught it was. A marriage is between women and a man and they pledge themselves to each other.

[Pindar]

well it does say in matthew 24

''be careful that no one fools you. 5 many will come in my name, saying, 'i am the christ', and they will fool many people.''


Verse 24 is even better: "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."

The issue for the believer or would be disciple appears to be discernment between the false and the true.

[Strike For The South]

So how would you respond to someone who said: the idea of loving several persons, giving yourself up for the loves of your life: not just one, that's how I was always taught it was. A marriage is between women and a man and they pledge themselves to each other.

However they may veiw it doesnt make it true. Love is singular. Ive liked allot of women in my young life but they were obviously nothing more than physical infatuations. Not to mention polygamy would open a whole host of problems not even relateing to the defintion of love. IMO it shouldnt even be up for legalty.

Edit: and to the above post I say its one of the recuuring themes of the bible. Dont be lured by nickel tricks and snake oil. There is one true Christ and he was the last prophet. And his kingdom shall reign agian. :yes:

[Pindar]

However they may veiw it doesnt make it true.

This statement could be returned in kind.


Love is singular.

Why?



Edit: and to the above post I say its one of the recuuring themes of the bible. Dont be lured by nickel tricks and snake oil. There is one true Christ and he was the last prophet. And his kingdom shall reign agian. :yes:

If Christ was the last prophet then one must reject all those who penned the New Testament.

There are also troubling statements like this in the text:

"Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul: And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar. -Acts 11:25-28

[Strike For The South]

Prophets is the wrong word I was talking more along the lines of Messiah type of deal. As for love people have differnet definitons and I probably wont change anyone minds that love is a man and a woman but as for polygamy being legal definitions of love dont matter. An old practice which needs to go the way of the Dodo.

[Pindar]

Prophets is the wrong word I was talking more along the lines of Messiah type of deal.

I see. So what you really wanted to say was Jesus is the Christ as Christ means Messiah. Is that right?


As for love people have differnet definitons and I probably wont change anyone minds that love is a man and a woman but as for polygamy being legal definitions of love dont matter. An old practice which needs to go the way of the Dodo.

This is simply a personal preference position then?

[Byzantine Mercenary]

If Christ was the last prophet then one must reject all those who penned the New Testament.

There are also troubling statements like this in the text:

"Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul: And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar. -Acts 11:25-28
hmm maybee i should start a thread on this subject, i always figure that the safest thing to do is to follow the four gospels as for the other new testamnet books, well, as you say jesus himself said that false teachings will come and be accepted and so perhaps some elements of the other new testament books are questionable as such i would prefer to base my beliefs on the teachings of the gospels, (wasn't the book of revelations nearly not in the bible?)

[Keba]

hmm maybee i should start a thread on this subject, i always figure that the safest thing to do is to follow the four gospels as for the other new testamnet books, well, as you say jesus himself said that false teachings will come and be accepted and so perhaps some elements of the other new testament books are questionable as such i would prefer to base my beliefs on the teachings of the gospels, (wasn't the book of revelations nearly not in the bible?)

False teaching and prophets might not need to actually refer to the religious kind.

I'm just speculating here, but modern science could fall under the category, and scientists could be false prophets, able to shake the foundations of faith in the faithful.

But then, I am an atheist, and have never read the bible.

As for polygamy, it is a traditional practice in some cultures, but seems to be dying out with the advent and domination of the western ideals.

[Lemur]

(wasn't the book of revelations nearly not in the bible?)
It almost got the axe. And to be honest, I wish the axe had fallen. Most of the early (3rd century) Church fathers rejected the text, but somehow it wound up back in. A brief primer on the book. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation)

[Byzantine Mercenary]

False teaching and prophets might not need to actually refer to the religious kind.

I'm just speculating here, but modern science could fall under the category, and scientists could be false prophets, able to shake the foundations of faith in the faithful.

But then, I am an atheist, and have never read the bible.

As for polygamy, it is a traditional practice in some cultures, but seems to be dying out with the advent and domination of the western ideals.
well most of science does not concern religious matters so i dont see the relevence of your point.

Ive yet to see science shake my faith significantly!

i would suggest looking at the bible even though you reject it, i have done the same with the quran and found it improved my understading of muslims considerably it would stop a lot of false assumptions about christianity if people knew more about the central message.

Back on topic polygamy does not look workable to me there are not enough women for everyone to be polygamous it just wouldn't work you would get favortites, how would you feel if you wife didn't think you were enough to satisfy her?

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I support polygamy. Quite frankly, I don't think one woman could handle all the love I've got to give.

Who's with me?

[Pindar]

hmm maybee i should start a thread on this subject, i always figure that the safest thing to do is to follow the four gospels as for the other new testamnet books, well, as you say jesus himself said that false teachings will come and be accepted and so perhaps some elements of the other new testament books are questionable as such i would prefer to base my beliefs on the teachings of the gospels, (wasn't the book of revelations nearly not in the bible?)

Of course limiting one's canon to the four Gospels doesn't speak to the fact all were written by someone other than the Christ. In fact, the traditional names associated with some of the Gospels is more a matter of convention than anything noting authorship in the texts themselves. The other issue is one needs to explain the seeming arbitrary quality of admitting some books and not others. For example, why are Paul's Epistles on the outs? Why include the Gospel of John, but not the Gospel of Thomas?

[Pindar]

Back on topic polygamy does not look workable to me there are not enough women for everyone to be polygamous it just wouldn't work you would get favortites, how would you feel if you wife didn't think you were enough to satisfy her?


I'm not aware of any polygamous societies where it was mandatory or was practiced by a majority of the populace. For example, in Mormondom, during its polygamous phase, less than 5% of the populace was involved.

[Strike For The South]

Pindar do you belive that polygamy should be legal?

[Pindar]

Pindar do you belive that polygamy should be legal?

Sure, why not? Marriage is a contract. It involves at minimum three parties: traditionally, the bride, the groom and the state. The state is the guarantor of the contract and in whose interests and overarching authority make the affair a civil act. The traditional civil objections one might use against gay marriage would not apply. Irrespective of personal preference one way or the other, under what legal standard should it be precluded? It seems, one is only left with a "yuckiness standard" which is not compelling.

Polygamy is distinct from pedophilia. A polygamy argument would follow the same standards as normal marriage save the number of participates would change.

[Byzantine Prince]

A man can love 3 wives sure, but can they love eachother in a sexual way. If the relationship is to be complete everyone has to have a connection with one another.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Hmm. A leader of an obscure cult, hounded and demonized by the feds, accused of molesting children and other things...

So when are the tanks gonna come with the CS gas?

Crazed Rabbit

[Lemur]

The traditional civil objections one might use against gay marriage would not apply. Irrespective of personal preference one way or the other, under what legal standard should it be precluded?
Could you please elaborate on the "traditional civil objections"? I'm not really clear on how you're arriving at polygamy = ok and gay marriage = bad. Please help me understand your reasoning.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

I saw a crazy looking guy with earings and such have a polygamists t-shirt this weekend.

[Pindar]

Could you please elaborate on the "traditional civil objections"? I'm not really clear on how you're arriving at polygamy = ok and gay marriage = bad. Please help me understand your reasoning.

I did not say: "polygamy = ok and gay marriage = bad". I did say that the traditional civil objections contra gay marriage don't apply to the polygamist issue. I'll give you an example:

Recognition of a contract in which the civitas is a participate implies the recognition of some good or benefit to the state. The benefits the state derives from marriage are many. One of these is a stable vehicle to produce future citizens/tax payers. Gay marriages are unable to do this. They are parasitic on society in this regard and thus vulnerable to criticism along these lines. This type of objection wouldn't apply to a polygamous marriage. Do you see?

[AntiochusIII]

I did not say: "polygamy = ok and gay marriage = bad". I did say that the traditional civil objections contra gay marriage don't apply to the polygamist issue. I'll give you an example:

Recognition of a contract in which the civitas is a participate implies the recognition of some good or benefit to the state. The benefits the state derives from marriage are many. One of these is a stable vehicle to produce future citizens/tax payers. Gay marriages are unable to do this. They are parasitic on society in this regard and thus vulnerable to criticism along these lines. This type of objection wouldn't apply to a polygamous marriage. Do you see?Ah, I see. Though such an argument is weak on its very base, being that it requires a contract to be of the benefit of the state, and that thus, it warrants that the state supercedes the rights of its citizens and so on. A very slippery slope, as the American concept--political and social, if not legal--of the state is to serve the citizens, not the state itself.

Not that I believe you subscribe to the argument in the first place. And it is quite beside your point, which I agree is valid.

[yesdachi]

This thread is a great example of why I like the org, a reasonably peaceful convergence of cultures where I can sometimes learn something. Thanks for sharing Pindar.

[Pindar]

Ah, I see. Though such an argument is weak on its very base, being that it requires a contract to be of the benefit of the state, and that thus, it warrants that the state supercedes the rights of its citizens and so on. A very slippery slope, as the American concept--political and social, if not legal--of the state is to serve the citizens, not the state itself.


States have interests. If the state is a signatory or operates as a guarantor of a contract then the state implicitly has interests that are distinct from and in some key sense do override individual interests. For example an individual cannot sell himself into slavery or even offer it as a term of contract. Further, any breach of contract requires enforcement of terms be carried out by the state. Vigilantism is not an option. Thus, the state is the ultimate arbiter of the terms of contract, the manner of breach and any penalties assigned. The buck stops with the state.

[Pindar]

This thread is a great example of why I like the org, a reasonably peaceful convergence of cultures where I can sometimes learn something. Thanks for sharing Pindar.

:bow: