FLDS, NOT LDS, polygamy case

[ben_dy]

This seems to be a case that could really get interesting…

signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20051101-1433-wst-polygamousjudge.html

It would likely be prudent for the Utah Supreme Court to rule in favor of the judge, although writing the opinion might be tricky. If they make a ruling against allowing the man to keep his seat, they will surely be opening the door for a test case in the USSC. While the USSC surely could simply deny a writ of certiorari or uphold a lower courts decision without comment, the idea that it could end up as a case to be decided by the USSC is certainly worth considering. A number of years ago Sandra Day O’Conner made a comment to the effect that if a case in favor of polygamy based upon the right of free exercise of religion were brought before the USSC today, it would likely receive a favorable ruling.

If polygamy were decriminalized, it’s unlikely that the SLC LDS church would revert to the doctrine of yore only because of Official Declaration 1; however it would be interesting to see what the response would be for more conservative members of the church who continue to vie OD1 not so much a revelation but a matter of discipline and advice. Could cause a flurry of excitement in Utah - and it’s also interesting to note that the original charge was brought not by any law enforcement division (who have been instructed not to arrest or prosecute based upon bigamy) but rather by advocacy group of former polygamous wives - Tapestry Against Polygamy - which resulted in a 14-month investigation by the Utah Judicial Conduct Commission and the resulting finding that the judge was breaking, not upholding, the laws of Utah and this made him unfit to serve in a judicial capacity.

His lawyer gives a terrific summation of what’s at stake -

Steed’s attorney, Rod Parker, contends Utah’s bigamy statute is being unfairly applied and that at stake are constitutional issues of privacy, liberty and freedom of conscience and religion.

This is going to be, I think, one of those pivotal rulings with full effects not to be realized until such time as it does, or does not, reach the USSC. It’s certainly worth keeping an eye on!

 

[majick275]

Don’t be so sure that OD 1 would be a barrier. If you read it critically you can see that it never denies polygamy as a sacred principle nor does it even “command” anyone to stop. It says that they aren’t solemnizing any, aren’t teaching it and will use their “influence” to persuade otheres not too. It goes on to note that only the LDS prophet has the “keys” to this and thus only he can authorize it. Section 132 of the D&C is still canon and lays out all the details of it. All it takes is Gordon hinckley permission and any temple sealer can perform it. The ordinance itself is still written down and easy to do. A mailing to the temples and priesthood leaders and it’s right back.

I think it might be fair to say that after many generations of monogamy the current LDS GAs aren’t likely to copy the lusty Apostles of JS/BY times and want to acquire harems. They will have tough time though justifying a continued prohibition of polygamy because of their scriptures and past practices though.

Interesting court case and shines an unwelcome light on Utah government in that implies that Utah gives “tacit approval” of polygamy by knowingly allowing it in cases like this in direct violation of their agreement made to gain statehood. (and perpetuated in their state constitution)

 

[Tmaque]

majick275:

Don’t be so sure that OD 1 would be a barrier. If you read it critically you can see that it never denies polygamy as a sacred principle nor does it even “command” anyone to stop. It says that they aren’t solemnizing any, aren’t teaching it and will use their “influence” to persuade otheres not too. It goes on to note that only the LDS prophet has the “keys” to this and thus only he can authorize it. Section 132 of the D&C is still canon and lays out all the details of it. All it takes is Gordon hinckley permission and any temple sealer can perform it. The ordinance itself is still written down and easy to do. A mailing to the temples and priesthood leaders and it’s right back.

I think it might be fair to say that after many generations of monogamy the current LDS GAs aren’t likely to copy the lusty Apostles of JS/BY times and want to acquire harems. They will have tough time though justifying a continued prohibition of polygamy because of their scriptures and past practices though.

Interesting court case and shines an unwelcome light on Utah government in that implies that Utah gives “tacit approval” of polygamy by knowingly allowing it in cases like this in direct violation of their agreement made to gain statehood. (and perpetuated in their state constitution)

In a country where sodomy is legal, where sex clubs and swinging can thrive, there should be no law saying a man can’t cohabitate with, and be sexually involved with, two women, especially for honest religious reasons. At the very least we should condemn the hypocrisy. I’m all for banning this activity, IN ADDITION TO homosexual behavior and other lascivious activities that our society turns a blind eye to. But, if we’re going to allow the MORE perverse activity we shouldn’t be horrified by, and attempt to stop, the less perverse activity. This is akin to enforcing a law against burglary while letting armed robbery go unchecked.

It sickens me that the only living arrangement we find perverse anymore is one that, A. doesn’t violate any natural law, B. Has proven itself to be a stable living arrangment over the millenia, and C. was the most common societal form of marriage right up until the 19th century. We stand and cheer when a man is condemned and even imprisoned for practicing his religion, but say nothing when every manner of of perversion whirls around us and our families unchecked. We need to get a grip on reality.

Don’t worry about the LDS Church bringing polygamy back. The Church is keenly aware of social criticism and has been reacting to it for over 100 years. They are far more likely to sanction homosexuality than polygamy.

Please don’t misunderstand this post. I am totally against polygamy. But, I think homosexuality, pornography, etc. are FAR bigger threats to our families and society.

 

[majick275]

While I don’t disagree with you Todd, There is at least the tiniest vestigial stigma in our society that fornication, adultery, “swinging” and all the other bachanalia is wrong. They don’t claim it to be a divinely inspired principle that brings eternal exaltation.

The LDS polygamy on the other hand does just that.

I agree with you that that there are much more harmful sins out there going unchecked and being taught in schools and acceptable behavior BUT at least folks aren’t being told that they will be blessed for those sins.

 

[JohnnyR]

The Vatican says Mormon polygamy is a destruction of Christian marriage:

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum_en.html

Christ, therefore, having renewed marriage to such and so great excellence, commended and entrusted all the discipline bearing upon these matters to His Church. Again, in the very beginning of the Christian Church were repulsed and defeated, with the like unremitting determination, the efforts of many who aimed at the destruction of Christian marriage, such as the Gnostics, Manichaeans, and Montanists; and in our own time Mormons, St. Simonians, phalansterians, and communists. Mormons: sect founded in 1830 by Joseph Smith, which favored polygamy.

The Catholic Cathecmism says the following:

Adultery, divorce, polygamy, and free union are grave offenses against the dignity of marriage (CCC2400).

Polygamy is contrary to conjugal love which is undivided and exclusive (CCC1645).

Polygamy is not in accord with the moral law. [Conjugal] communion is radically contradicted by polygamy; this, in fact, directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive (CCC2387).

 

[Casen]

Tmaque:

In a country where sodomy is legal, where sex clubs and swinging can thrive, there should be no law saying a man can’t cohabitate with, and be sexually involved with, two women, especially for honest religious reasons. At the very least we should condemn the hypocrisy. I’m all for banning this activity, IN ADDITION TO homosexual behavior and other lascivious activities that our society turns a blind eye to. But, if we’re going to allow the MORE perverse activity we shouldn’t be horrified by, and attempt to stop, the less perverse activity. This is akin to enforcing a law against burglary while letting armed robbery go unchecked.

It sickens me that the only living arrangement we find perverse anymore is one that, A. doesn’t violate any natural law, B. Has proven itself to be a stable living arrangment over the millenia, and C. was the most common societal form of marriage right up until the 19th century. We stand and cheer when a man is condemned and even imprisoned for practicing his religion, but say nothing when every manner of of perversion whirls around us and our families unchecked. We need to get a grip on reality.

Don’t worry about the LDS Church bringing polygamy back. The Church is keenly aware of social criticism and has been reacting to it for over 100 years. They are far more likely to sanction homosexuality than polygamy.

Please don’t misunderstand this post. I am totally against polygamy. But, I think homosexuality, pornography, etc. are FAR bigger threats to our families and society.

I think this is a good post. I was just thinking the other day that it’s interesting that the very people that always say, “It’s not the governments business” when talking about pornographers, swingers, etc. are quick to call for government intervention when they encounter a group of polygamists. Hugh Heffner gets fame, fortune and a reality TV show and the FLDS get only scorn. However, I don’t see the LDS church sanctioning homosexuality… ever.

 

[ben_dy]

majick275:

Interesting court case and shines an unwelcome light on Utah government in that implies that Utah gives “tacit approval” of polygamy by knowingly allowing it in cases like this in direct violation of their agreement made to gain statehood. (and perpetuated in their state constitution)

I know that I’ve linked to this before, elsewhere, but it makes interesting reading in light of this case. As polygamy is not, in itself, prosecuted but rather tolerated in areas of Utah and Arizona, there was a joint publication of those state’s Attorneys Generals offices on dealing with the more harmful crimes which seems rampant in polygamous communities - namely domestic violence and child abuse. The document, “The Primer: Helping Victims of Domestic Violence and Child Abuse in Polygamous Communities” can be found here in PDF format and makes for interesting reading. It offers some insight as to why polygamous communities produce an atmosphere where domestic violence and child abuse is more likely to occur. The two questions it does not answer are: if polygamy has not been prosecuted in the past 30-40 years in these communities, why is the aspect of ‘fear and secrecy’ still so pronounced, and, if fear and secrecy were removed from the practice of polygamy, would the high instances of domestic abuse and child abuse decrease?

Other cultures, it has been argued, have successfully thrived with polygamy as the standard of marriage. What I don’t know (and, if someone does, I hope you will enlighten me) is if any studies have been done that relate to how women and children view the ‘success’ of such cultures. Even though we say that contemporary Western cultures, in which one man and one woman constitutes the only ‘legal’ definition of marriage has resulted in marriages of ‘equality’ we know that is not truly the case - for societal or religious or economic or (fill in the blank) reasons, some marriage remain male-dominated, some definitely matriarchal and some deemed one or the other when, in fact, the opposite is the true pattern of dominance (if there is any truth in the belief that we laugh at that which we find truest in ourselves, then the concept that the comedian uses in jokes in which a male implies that his home is his castle but what he does is what is wife tells him to do, has to have some truth to it: males may be allowed the perception, and present themselves, as roosters ruling the roost, yet many would acknowledge that if not for the hen the roost would be cold and lonely and not very functional).

Anyway - have a look at the document if you like, let’s keep an eye on this case and see, if those who brought suit prevail, where such a ruling might end up next if appealed, and, if it turns out that polygamy is a protected right, not only will it be interesting to see what the SLC LDS church has to say, but it will also be interesting (and hoped) that with an elimination for a need for secrecy amongst practitioners of polygamy, a decrease of domestic abuse and child abuse would, immediately, be achieved.

 

[ben_dy]

Tmaque:

It sickens me that the only living arrangement we find perverse anymore is one that, A. doesn’t violate any natural law, B. Has proven itself to be a stable living arrangment over the millenia, and C. was the most common societal form of marriage right up until the 19th century. We stand and cheer when a man is condemned and even imprisoned for practicing his religion, but say nothing when every manner of of perversion whirls around us and our families unchecked. We need to get a grip on reality.

Todd,

I’ve stricken out those points in which I am in agreement with you, but I wonder if you might comment further on the points you’ve made above. For example:

A. The Catholic Church makes a good argument (that has already been posted below) that polygamy does violate ‘moral’ law and, in the examples given, I would posit that the Church would also side with those who hold that polygamy violates natural law as well. Comment?

B. In which cultures, specifically, has polygamy " proven itself to be a stable living arrangment over the millenia" and were all involved in these arrangements satisfied and with and equally protected under the stability and the arrangement (i.e., were there adverse effects upon the stability of the females or young males in the society)?

C. In which cultures was polygamy " the most common societal form of marriage right up until the 19th century"?

Just looking for a few pointers in the right direction!

Thanks,

 

[amgid]

ben_dy:

A. The Catholic Church makes a good argument (that has already been posted below) that polygamy does violate ‘moral’ law and, in the examples given, I would posit that the Church would also side with those who hold that polygamy violates natural law as well. Comment?

The Catholic Church makes an “argument”. But whether it is a “good argument” is debatable. The Bible informs us that polygamy does not “violate moral law” neither “natural law,” that it had divine sanction and approval when practiced in OT times by ancient patriarchs and prophets, and that nowhere is it specifically condemned or prohibited in the NT. On the contrary, a case can even be made that it was permissible in early Christianity.

B. In which cultures, specifically, has polygamy “proven itself to be a stable living arrangment over the millenia”

Polygamy has been practiced in Islamic countries for many centuries, as well as in many African nations and tribes, and other communities as well; and wherever it has been practiced long enough to make such an observation possible, it has proved itself to be as “stable a living arrangement” as monogamy has been.

and were all involved in these arrangements satisfied and with and equally protected under the stability and the arrangement (i.e., were there adverse effects upon the stability of the females or young males in the society)?

Yes, “all involved in these arrangements were satisfied and with and equally protected under the stability and the arrangement,” and there were no “adverse effects upon the stability of the females or young males in the society”. The rate of family related problems has not been any greater among polygamous families than it has been among monogamous ones. (I exclude FLDS here, because they are an aberration in this observation. And they do not practice polygamy in a society in which it is permissible by law, or where it is socially acceptable.)

C. In which cultures was polygamy “the most common societal form of marriage right up until the 19th century”?

You may be right about this one. In most societies as far as I know, where polygamy has been practiced and has been socially acceptable, monogamy has been the more widely practised of the two. This is mainly due mainly to economic factors. It is expensive to keep a wife. Psychology may also have something to do with it. Some men may feel that one wife is as many as they can cope with. (Some may feel that even one wife is too many to cope with!)

amgid

 

[majick275]

The BoM appears to teach that polygamy in general is very wrong. It provides one verse that is interpreted by LDS to mean that for the specific purpose of “raising seed” GOD can and upon rare occasion does make exceptions. Other than that it seems to indicate that it is a wicked practice.

I find this contradictory to what the D&C NOW teaches in section 132 that indicates polygamy is a great thing. Brigham Young taught that when done right it was an economic benefit as well sice families could obtain economies of scale and complimentary skillsets that allowed for families to become vertically self sufficient small businesses. The original D&C was very clear in denouncing polygamy as evil.

The OT seems to teach by example that even when practiced by “righteous” men like prophets and patriarchs it is full of pitfalls and problems. Abraham has to exile son Ishmael, Jacob has to deal with deceit and manipulation and ends up with his sons selling their brother into slavery. David and Solomon both endured all manner of tragedy as a result of their polygamy.

Early Utah was fraught with problems resulting from polygamy DESPITE BY best efforts within a tightly controlled society to make it work.

Just where do we see polygamy as a good thing?

I find it very disturbing that the government in Utah (not accusing the LDS church here, just the state of Utah) has been so accomadating of the polygamists there in light of the professed commitment to stop it they made to gain statehood.

On the other hand I do realize that there are far worse morality issues in the world today nad I would like to see those addressed as well.

 

[ben_dy]

amgid:

The Catholic Church makes an “argument”. But whether it is a “good argument” is debatable. The Bible informs us that polygamy does not “violate moral law” neither “natural law,” that it had divine sanction and approval when practiced in OT times by ancient patriarchs and prophets, and that nowhere is it specifically condemned or prohibited in the NT. On the contrary, a case can even be made that it was permissible in early Christianity.

It would be silly of me to deny that there are OT instances of polygamy, or even that it may have been practiced in NT times - a good indication that it was, in fact, can be found in 1 Timothy 3 “2 Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, 3 no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money.” But, in reading 1 Corinthians 7, it seems unlikely that there was any practice of polygamy amongst that community. There is, of course, a case to be made that Christ never brought up polygamy because it was not the practice of the Jews in His time and geographical area as found within his comments in Matthew 5 & 19, and Mark 10.

Be that as it may, I agree with the post below (which I just glanced over) that, for me, polygamy would be far down on my list of other types of marriages which are now being sanctioned and could very probably be sanctioned under the present laws and interpretive branch whose duty it is to uphold or deny the constitutionality of those laws.

That said, I still must agree with the Church’s interpretation of polygamy of both a grave offense against the dignity of marriage, contrary to conjugal love which is undivided and exclusive, and not in accord with the moral law. It does seem, to me, that polygamy “directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive.” This is the teaching of the Catholic Church and if you will allow me to follow my belief, I will allow you the same privileges as laid out in D&C 132 and recognize that, if any laws are to be changed as regarding marriage to be the exclusive union between one man and one woman, I would much rather that change be confined to one based upon the free practice of religious belief and I would bet that the SLC LDS church would prefer that marriage be defined as between one man and one woman than to open the door to unions between any and all sexes in any configuration imaginable.

On a matter of the manner in which polygamy, if allowed by the USSC at some point as a matter of religious freedom to become law, I do wonder about the further implications: would companies that provide some sort of health benefit package to a worker and his/her family be required to provide benefits for a man, his 14 wives, and 42 children at the same rate as a man with one wife and two children? And, if not, could they then be charged with discrimination? It certainly wouldn’t provide an incentive to a manufacturing plant to build in RLDS country which, judging by the poverty levels and the dollar volume of government assistance programs, could benefit from industry yet this type of situation would certainly dissuade a corporation from any government incentives which might help to offset the costs of operations!

I do think that we agree, though (don’t we) that the SLC LDS church would be unlikely, after almost 100 years of not allowing polygamy (keeping in mind the ‘Smoot hearings’) to embrace the practice again even should it become legal?

amgid:

Polygamy has been practiced in Islamic countries for many centuries, as well as in many African nations and tribes, and other communities as well; and wherever it has been practiced long enough to make such an observation possible, it has proved itself to be as “stable a living arrangement” as monogamy has been.

Yes, “all involved in these arrangements were satisfied and with and equally protected under the stability and the arrangement,” and there were no “adverse effects upon the stability of the females or young males in the society”. The rate of family related problems has not been any greater among polygamous families than it has been among monogamous ones. (I exclude FLDS here, because they are an aberration in this observation. And they do not practice polygamy in a society in which it is permissible by law, or where it is socially acceptable.)

…continued…

 

[ben_dy]

…continued…

Although I have only travelled through, and stayed no length of time, in Islamic countries where polygamy is practiced, it is my understanding from reading both texts ancient and modern, that females (women and girls) and younger sons (who were and still are in many places still dispossessed - a common occurrence during the life of Christ, too, which made up the large class of the dispossessed and the expendable) upon the ascendency of the eldest son) are anything but satisfied with the arrangements. This cannot simply be attributed to the exposure of women to the ‘rights’ enjoyed by women in Western cultures nor in ‘oppression’ that might be part of Islamic law, for during the time of harems (well, really, I should say when harems openly flourished) and polygamy and concubinage were the norms, the rate of suicide among the plural wives were extraordinarily high and the ‘eunuchs’ served not only to protect the women from outsiders as to protect them from harming themselves. Today the rate of dissatisfaction - again, from what I have read, not from what I have experienced - seems to be high amongst women still, although this has been blamed, in part, on women being aware that in Western societies women enjoy a greater degree of autonomy.

As to the practice during the short life span of plural marriage as sanctioned by the LDS church, I have read accounts of many women (including Emma Smith) of being less than satisfied with the practice.

I also recall reading a FARMS review of a book (something with ‘sorrow’ in the title of the book) which indicated that polygamy was more of a ‘sorrowful’ experience for the women involved than one of joy. As I had not read the book, I did not complete the FARMS article and although I have read letters contemporary of the time of women writing, for instance, to friends back East and exalting in the practice, speaking of how pleasant it was to have like-minded ‘sisters’, I have read a greater number of letters from the same period that read as if the practice was one of great pain and requiring a great deal of forbearance with the women involved.

So, as I’m knowledgeable enough to know that in Islamic communities both past and present polygamy was not a satisfactory arrangement for a large number, if not the majority, of women involved, can you point me in a direction in which there is some documentation that is was a satisfactory arrangement for the women involved as and when practiced by the official LDS church? From all I have read (and have been told by a friend in law enforcement in SLC) the women and children in the FLDS communities live in a state of fear and abuse. I cannot imagine the latter in the early LDS community but I wonder if there is some data to indicate that the satisfaction rate was high for women during that time.

amgid:

You may be right about this one. In most societies as far as I know, where polygamy has been practiced and has been socially acceptable, monogamy has been the more widely practised of the two. This is mainly due mainly to economic factors. It is expensive to keep a wife. Psychology may also have something to do with it. Some men may feel that one wife is as many as they can cope with. (Some may feel that even one wife is too many to cope with!)

amgid

Ah! While you might think I would be in agreement here, I know (confining myself to Mosaic to times a bit post-Christ) that the rural culture of the farmer/peasant was a culture in which the male, only because of his sex, was able to enjoy a great deal of leisure when he was able to secure more females - whether by marriage, concubinage, adoption, slavery (as defined and the time and which also included the ‘expendable’ male), etc… The more females in a household, the more prosperous the male could hope to become - the only limitation being the acreage he possessed and his ability to acquire other acreage (not an easy task given the laws of God concerning land, but these laws seem to have been easily circumvented, at least for a period of seventy years). I know of no studies that have or even could determine a woman’s satisfaction with this arrangement, but I do know that it persisted throughout the age of empire and really only ceased as two things spread - urbanization and Christianity. So for the urban peasant/farmer male it was more economically sound to have many wives and females - as they did all the work - than to keep but one wife. As artisans began to arrive on the scene and as walled cities absorbed the villages surrounding, only then did it become more expensive to keep a wife. The expendables of the time, of course, were chiefly male and could not afford a single wife (or much hope of surviving very long).

 

[amgid]

majick275:

The BoM appears to teach that polygamy in general is very wrong.

It does not.

It provides one verse that is interpreted by LDS to mean that for the specific purpose of “raising seed” GOD can and upon rare occasion does make exceptions. Other than that it seems to indicate that it is a wicked practice.

That is not correct.

I find this contradictory to what the D&C NOW teaches in section 132 that indicates polygamy is a great thing.

You have not understood LDS scripture correctly.

Brigham Young taught that when done right it was an economic benefit as well sice families could obtain economies of scale and complimentary skillsets that allowed for families to become vertically self sufficient small businesses.

I need quotes–in context please–but still fail to see the relevance to the subject of the discussion.

The original D&C was very clear in denouncing polygamy as evil.

I presume you meant to say BoM; and in either case, that is not correct.

The OT seems to teach by example that even when practiced by “righteous” men like prophets and patriarchs it is full of pitfalls and problems.

The OT does not teach any such thing–“by example” or otherwise.

Abraham has to exile son Ishmael,

What has that to do with polygamy? Lots of people have “exiled their sons” (or done worse, including murdering them) and they were not “polygamously married”.

Jacob has to deal with deceit and manipulation and ends up with his sons selling their brother into slavery.

What has that to do with polygamy? Joseph’s brothers were jealous of him because his father loved him more than all the rest, because he had been “the son of his old age;” and also because Joseph kept having “dreams” which they didn’t like to hear. Lots of brothers have become “jealous” of their brother, and done terrible things to them; and they were not children of polygamous marriages. And in any case, the Bible tells us that Joseph’s being sold into slavery was providential, so that Jacob’s family could be preserved from the famine.

David and Solomon both endured all manner of tragedy as a result of their polygamy.

That had nothing to do with polygamy.

Early Utah was fraught with problems resulting from polygamy DESPITE BY best efforts within a tightly controlled society to make it work.

Sounds like a doubtful claim.

Just where do we see polygamy as a good thing?

Polygamy is permissible under divine law, when approved by God. It is no more “a good thing” or “a bad thing” than monogamy is, under the same conditions.

I find it very disturbing that the government in Utah (not accusing the LDS church here, just the state of Utah) has been so accomadating of the polygamists there in light of the professed commitment to stop it they made to gain statehood.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

On the other hand I do realize that there are far worse morality issues in the world today nad I would like to see those addressed as well.

Also irrelevant to the discussion.

amgid

 

[majick275]

amgid:

It does not.

Jacob 2 :
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one• wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the achastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
Read the whole chapter for proper context.

amgid:

That is not correct.

Jacob 2:
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up aseed• unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
Once again read the whole chapter.

amgid:

You have not understood LDS scripture correctly.

D&C 132:

37 Abraham received concubines•, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob• did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their cexaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.
Read the whole section for context but I think the meaning is obvious. The priniple of “increase” as an integral part of exaltation seems to be magnified by polygamy in this “scripture”.

amgid:

I need quotes–in context please–but still fail to see the relevance to the subject of the discussion.

This would require vast sections of the JoD and teachings of BY for all of the quotes. He spoke at great length, instructing the people on how to make polygamy “work” and benefit them. I made this comment as a response to your comment on economic factors in polygamy.

amgid:

I presume you meant to say BoM; and in either case, that is not correct.

No I meant the original D&C prior to section 132 being published which contained this :
History of the Church, vol. 2, pg. 247 (August 1835) “The clerk of every church should keep a record of all marriages solemnized in his branch. All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this Church should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.”(This was included in the first published Doctrine and Covenants and accepted unanimously by the Twelve before being published. This passage in every D&C edition until 1876 when D&C 132 was first introduced to the Doctrine and Covenants).

amgid:

The OT does not teach any such thing–“by example” or otherwise.

See below

amgid:

What has that to do with polygamy? Lots of people have “exiled their sons” (or done worse, including murdering them) and they were not “polygamously married”.

Ishmael had done nothing wrong, the jealousy of sarah towards Hagar resulted in this horrid situation. Read Genesis 21

amgid:

What has that to do with polygamy? Joseph’s brothers were jealous of him because his father loved him more than all the rest, because he had been “the son of his old age;” and also because Joseph kept having “dreams” which they didn’t like to hear. Lots of brothers have become “jealous” of their brother, and done terrible things to them; and they were not children of polygamous marriages. And in any case, the Bible tells us that Joseph’s being sold into slavery was providential, so that Jacob’s family could be preserved from the famine.

His sons had different mothers with different family “ranks”. Jacob loved Rachel not Leah and the concubines had the same issue as Hagar so there was discrimination within the family that caused the jealousies that directly resulted from polygamy.

amgid:

That had nothing to do with polygamy.

I disagree. Had David and Solomon been monogamous they would have avoided many great tragedies.

amgid:

Sounds like a doubtful claim.

Well if you read the history of the church and the JoD you will see vast accounts of polygamy related problems.

amgid:

Polygamy is permissible under divine law, when approved by God. It is no more “a good thing” or “a bad thing” than monogamy is, under the same conditions.

Yet the scriptures in the BoM and the original D&C say very plainly that it is a bad thing. Further section 132 is used as the basis for LDS claims that the family is the basic unit of the church. The nature of marriage is of the greatest importance so it CAN’T be neutral. It’s either right or wrong.

 

[ben_dy]

Folks - each one of you true to your own particular faith,

I am going to take a breather from this discussion as, with each message that is posted, I am more and more convinced that Dennis’ first message which kicked off this thread has been proven to be, although brief and not full of examples, basically true, and I say - with hopes that my observations will not be thought by any to be uncharitable toward any who have offered commentary, that the examples given in the messages that followed all proved Dennis’ original proposition and explored and explained the vast chasm that exists between the definitions of Catholic v. Mormon apologetics.

The only thing I see in common is something that should go without saying: that the Mormon ‘apologist’ has faith in his or her convictions as does the Catholic apologist. From that point on the divergence lies in a Mormon apologetics of * where that is the beginning and the end of any discussion, whereas the Catholic approach is with fides et ratio where the latter is where the Catholic begins the discussion with the hope that the former will be the result.

As one LDS member suggested (and I’m just too lazy to go back and look to find the source) organizations such as FARMS and FAIR are geared towards the LDS community of believers: as I would put it, to protect the faith within the community of the faithful. Catholic apologetics is primarily the reverse: it is practiced to defend and even to evangelize the faith to those who are without the community of faith - to the atheist, agnostic, our ‘separated brethren’, etc. While Mormon apologists can perhaps claim a high success rate of, perhaps, serving to keep the flock together, Catholic apologists seem to enjoy - even in the past century - a higher (or more visible) success rate of bringing home the lost: the proof of the latter is easily found amongst those ‘famous’ cases of bringing avowed atheists, agnostics, and separated brethren into the fold whom have gone on to become some of the Church’s greatest apologists in their own ways.

There is also a disparity of method, no doubt because of the differing beginning points of reference which distinguish Mormon apologetics from Catholic. I have mentioned them before and will not belabor the point.

I will, however, mention a recent event which exemplifies my observation.

On another thread on this board which deteriorated into nothing but fun and frivolity. I should note that I am not opposed and that I made my contribution but, I should add, the fun and frivolity has not been to the ‘expense’ nor directed at the LDS church and I have discerned not one comment which could be termed as uncharitable towards the LDS church. In this discussion there was a link to what - I concluded rather quickly - was a ‘parody’ of the Book of Mormon called “The Book of Zelph”. I read a chapter or two of the first ‘book’, realized it was parody: and not my flavor of parody - even though the good Lord knows I love Catholic parody when it is presented in a tasteful and not blasphemous manner - so I wrote The Book of Zelph off as quite uncharitable, distasteful and, what would be to Mormons, blasphemous parody. In going back to that topic in the next couple of days, however, I found that “Zelph” is, in fact, the name of a man part of Mormon culture and there was a link to a FARMS article in which I learned more of the man Zelph and how he came to be a fixture in Mormon culture than I ever wanted to know. I don’t know what role, if any, Zelph plays in what is taught, for example, in a BYU Church History class, but I found the evidence for Zelph sorely lacking and wondered why FARMS even thought the topic of his ‘finding’ and ‘history’ worthy of defense. It seems to go back to what some LDS insist is Joseph Smith’s inerrancy while others (and, from what I have read and understood, most of those here) would insist that Smith was not always inerrant, that prophets can err, that Smith erred on occasion, and that it is only those prophecies and revelations found in the unique Mormon canon that are, by necessity, to be believed as inerrant).

In sum, I’m leaving this discussion because of the ridiculous lengths to which the semi-official arm of the LDS church, FARMS, will go to ‘apologize’ over a fiction of a man named Zelph.

No, that’s not the real reason - the real reason(s) are found within the first five paragraphs of this message. It seems time, for me, to consider this discussion closed, the original point made, and move on to discussions less circular.

But for all who stay around - good luck! And maintain civil, if not gracious attitudes towards one another! Don’t be rude!*

 

[amgid]

majick275:

Jacob 2 :
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
Read the whole chapter for proper context.

You have not understood the scripture correctly.

Jacob 2:
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
Once again read the whole chapter.

You have not understood the scripture correctly.

D&C 132:
37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their cexaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.
Read the whole section for context but I think the meaning is obvious. The priniple of “increase” as an integral part of exaltation seems to be magnified by polygamy in this “scripture”.

You have not understood the scripture correctly.

This would require vast sections of the JoD and teachings of BY for all of the quotes. He spoke at great length, instructing the people on how to make polygamy “work” and benefit them. I made this comment as a response to your comment on economic factors in polygamy.

BY had his own opinions on the economics of polygamy, and I have mine. I cannot comment on his views without having his quotes, and the context in which he spoke them.

No I meant the original D&C prior to section 132 being published which contained this :
History of the Church, vol. 2, pg. 247…

It would appear that at this time the practice of polygamy had not been introduced into the Church.

Ishmael had done nothing wrong, the jealousy of sarah towards Hagar resulted in this horrid situation. Read Genesis 21

The Bible teaches that it was the will of God that Ishmael should be separated from Isaac so that each could develop separately into strong and independent nations as God had promised Abraham they should become. See Genesis 17:20; 21:12-13. This was true not only of Ishmael, but also of the other children that Abraham had by his numerous other concubines. See Genesis 25:6.

His sons had different mothers with different family “ranks”. Jacob loved Rachel not Leah and the concubines had the same issue as Hagar so there was discrimination within the family that caused the jealousies that directly resulted from polygamy.

The scripture makes it clear that the “Jealousy” had nothing to do with polygamy. It was the result of Jacob’s favouritism towards Joseph, and his dreams and visions that he would rule over them. And in any case, as I stated before, the Bible makes it clear that selling Joseph into slavery by his brothers was providential so that the promises of God to Joseph should be fulfilled, as well as preserving his father and all of his father’s household (including his jealous brothers) from the ravages of famine. And whether you like it or not, those twelve sons of the “polygamous” wives were destined by God to become patriarchs to the most important twelve tribes in human history.

I disagree. Had David and Solomon been monogamous they would have avoided many great tragedies.

And I disagree with you!

Well if you read the history of the church and the JoD you will see vast accounts of polygamy related problems.

I have read most of the JoD, although a long time ago, and I don’t recall coming across such “vast amounts of polygamy related problems”.

Yet the scriptures in the BoM and the original D&C say very plainly that it is a bad thing. Further section 132 is used as the basis for LDS claims that the family is the basic unit of the church. The nature of marriage is of the greatest importance so it CAN’T be neutral. It’s either right or wrong.

There is nothing wrong with polygamy when sanctioned by God.

amgid

 

[majick275]

that’s your analysis? I realize that you must really be giddy just thinking about becoming a God with a harem from everlasting to everlasting but the Scriptures sure teach otherwise. I showed you where even LDS scripture said that and you wave it off because they weren’t practicing it? (which is NOT true, JS certainly was) These scriptures all speak to the principle being bad.

Please show me how the scriptures I cited could possibly be interpreted to show polygamy as even a nuetral, much less “celestial” principle.

How’d that work out for Ishmael and his descendants?

How about those 12 patriarchs…The Bible shows problems starting right out the gate for those guys and to this day their descendants are persecuted…or “lost”.

That a merciful God made things work out as well as people would allow him to does not show polygamy a good thing. It shows that if/when we turn to God, his mercy and love can overcome the consequences of our wrong actions.

Polygamy is evil and is no more sanctioned by God than divorce was. (remember what Jesus said about that?)

 

[amgid]

majick275:

that’s your analysis?..

No comment.

amgid

 

[majick275]

no surprise

 

[amgid]

majick275:

no surprise

I meant to say that “no comment is required”.

amgid