Marriage Acceptance Question for NON-LDS

[AnthonyB]

This question is aimed at NON-LDS Christians who frequent this board.....

If a polygamous family turned up at your church, and the "marriages" were all between consenting adults and no laws had been broken would you....

1) Expect the man to seperate all but on wife.

2) Allow them to continue as they were for some time but counsel for separation

3) Accept them fully as a single blended family

This doesn't have to be a fundamentalist type "Mormon" could be Muslim or someone from certain parts of Africa.

If option 1 or 2, would the presence of kids make a difference?

Edited January 8, 2009 by AnthonyB

[cofchristcousin]

i'm not lds, i'm from Community of Christ. We have faced this, i think it was in the 1970's. We had polygamists from the Sora people of india asking for baptism. We baptized them, allowed them to stay in the marriages because it would have been devastating in that culture for the women who no longer had a husband. The women would not have been able to sustain themselves as divorced women. They were not permitted to take additional wives, beyond the ones they already had. Our church was challenged in inspired counsel to carry the burden of their sin. On your list, we were somewhere between 2 and 3.

Stacie

[prisonchaplain]

This question is aimed at NON-LDS Christians who frequent this board.....

If a polygamous family turned up at your church, and the "marriages" were all between consenting adults would you and no laws had been broken....

1) Expect the man to seperate all but on wife.

2) Allow them to continue as they were for some time but counsel for separation

3) Accept them fully as a single blended family

In the past some Christian missionaries have forced converts to separate from all but one wife, with disastrous results. These middle aged divorcees are now untouchable and unemployable. I believe most Protestant church leaders now would askew one and two, and go for #3, with the proviso that they would raise up their children to know that monogamy is what God intends for them and their descendents.

[NeuroTypical]

If a polygamous family turned up at your church, and the "marriages" were all between consenting adults would you and no laws had been broken....

Then we wouldn't be in my church. Polygamy IS illegal in America - laws would be broken.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is quite clear on the issue - you don't get to be baptized if you are engaged in polygamous relationships.

There may be a tiny handful of exceptions to the rule, but there's no sense arguing that the rule doesn't exist.

LM

[jolee65]

Yeah im thinking your refurring to the fundamentalist LDS church, or FLDS.

[Maureen]

If they were anything like the BIG LOVE family I would 3) Accept them fully as a single blended family. :)

[mel6890]

Number one definitely, i would treat it like any other sin

[AnthonyB]

Mel,

Can you give me a BCV for polygamy being a sin? (BCV -Book, Chapter, Verse) I can show that monogamy is the preferred option but I'm interested from where or why you would call it a sin?

Are you LDS or Evanglelical Christian? You profile is a little confusing as you list under the LDS section but then list Evanglelical groups, music and books?

[Guest ceeboo]

This question is aimed at NON-LDS Christians who frequent this board.....

If a polygamous family turned up at your church, and the "marriages" were all between consenting adults would you and no laws had been broken....

1) Expect the man to seperate all but on wife.

2) Allow them to continue as they were for some time but counsel for separation

3) Accept them fully as a single blended family

This doesn't have to be a fundamentalist type "Mormon" could be Muslim or someone from certain parts of Africa.

If option 1 or 2, would the presence of kids make a difference?

Aimed at non LDS Christians that frequent this board ???

HEY !!!!! That's me :):)

I pick # 4. Tell them to sit down and worship the Lord with the rest of us broken people.

Peace,

Ceeboo ( a non LDS frequenter )

[pam]

So I'm taking it from most..that if these people walked into an LDS Church they would be condemned and made to feel as sinners? So that makes the average person judge, jury right there?

I may not agree with the life style...but I sure wouldn't be kicking them out of my Church and telling them they are not welcome there. Whether they are breaking the law or not.

Not my place to do that.

Edited January 8, 2009 by pam

[AnthonyB]

Aimed at non LDS Christians that frequent this board ???

HEY !!!!! That's me :):)

I pick # 4. Tell them to sit down and worship the Lord with the rest of us broken people.

Peace,

Ceeboo ( a non LDS frequenter )

Ceeboo,

I'm sure you'd be charming and hospitalable. Without hopefully being too confrontational though would they be allowed to be RC baptized and recieve communion without getting divorced?

Actually have an OT Q for you? Given I was sprinkled RC but then baptized in a Church of Christ church, would I still (if I could get over the whole "real" presence concept, which sorry no matter how hard I try and understand and appreciate, I still feel somewhat queasy about) be eligible to take communion at an RC church?

(Sort of humourously, if I ever did join the LDS, I'd have to get baptized for the remission of sins for a 3rd time! (Which reminds me that I must do a post showing how baptism for remission of sins and justification by faith alone fit together for me))

[Guest ceeboo]

Ceeboo,

Without hopefully being too confrontational though would they be allowed to be RC baptized and recieve communion without getting divorced?

Actually have an OT Q for you? Given I was sprinkled RC but then baptized in a Church of Christ church, would I still (if I could get over the whole "real" presence concept, which sorry no matter how hard I try and understand and appreciate, I still feel somewhat queasy about) be eligible to take communion at an RC church?

NO, They would not be " allowed " to recieve holy Communion ( letter of the law )

I would note ( many and most Catholics who recieve Communion, Ceeboo included ) technically should not.

But we and I do :):)

OT question for Ceeboo??? UH OOOO, K, Go :)

[mel6890]

oops...sorry about that, i am actually nondenominational christian, and i didn't mean to claim i was mormon, I'm not sure how i managed that one, but I fixed it. thanks for pointing out my mistake =D.

ok now on to the topic, i probably should have expanded on my answer to avoid confusion. I would always welcome anyone into my church no matter what they have done because i know that in the eyes of God we are all equally sinful. I define polygamy as a sin because i think God was very clear on the parameters of marriage and anything outside of that is a sin. in Genesis, God created Eve to be Adam's Helper and so he didn't have to be alone. And he essentially conducted the first marriage ceremony right there in the garden of eden. It says in Genesis 2:24-25 "therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." also, 1st Corinthians 7:4 says, “For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.” A married man does not own his body, but rather he is a steward of

his body that belongs to his bride and his God." on that note, I think any thing that takes away from the oneness between one man and one woman in marriage is a sin. say a man has five wives, his attention is split among all of them so each one is only getting 1/5 of the emotional, physical and spiritual support she deserves. thats my very quick answer, if you want me to elaborate on or clarify anything let me know i'd be happy to, i usually only write what i absolutely have to to get my point across (thats my math background =D)

[AnthonyB]

Mel,

Thanks for the clarification on your faith.

I'd agree that the verses you quoted show the normative scriptural position is for one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others.

However you haven't provided a command against polygamy or any verse that forbids it.

You could argue that like divorce it was something that was allowed due to hardness of heart in the OT but however Jesus clearly clarified divorce not polygamy. You could hardly call Jacob's position as a hardness of heart issue, he had been promised Rachel but was given Leah, it wasn't his fault. (Although the story clearly shows some of the real problems with polygamy.) Suck it in son, you've been had, seems hardly fair!

I think that the lack of a clear negative commands allows some liberty on this topic. (I'm not of the persuasion that only those things listed as permitted in the bible are allowed but that God has given us a very short list of actions we should do, an even shorter list of things we shouldn't and whole lot of freedom to hopefully choose the best options for ourselves in whole heap of other areas.)

I don't know that every action that is not God's perfect chose for us is automatically a sin. I think scripture gives us some freedom to choose and not everybody all the time is going to always choose the highest path at every occasion. (Have you? I certainly haven't)

I think the general consensus on this thread has been that those already in a plural married state when coming to faith should be encouraged to be faithful to those committemnts.

Firstly they are not in the optimal marriage arrangement but they have made committment and vows to each other. Jesus it makes it clear that divorce is not ever God's intended hope for any marriage. Secondly, I doubt the best interest of the kids would be served by breaking marriages into which they may have been inoncently born into. Thirdly, following Paul's advice in Corinthians, that if your married you should not sek a divorce but to stay as in the state in which you were called (whether IMHO single, married or plurally married) is the optimal choice for Christians.

However I wonder and I'm happy to be corrected on this, whether there may not be a limited case for exceptions for missionaries to islamic countries. Getting the gospel out as best we can surely has high priority in Jesus teachings. Would it be a cultural advantage to have a plurally married Christian family in a strict islamic area? Would it allow greater access into their society, greater freedom of movement for the wives (there has been an historical gender imbalance in missionaries and being a single female is quite limiting in those areas). Does Paul's statement of being all things to all men in order to win some, have enough force to overcome the normative marriage imperiative?

We have learnt over the last century to put aside some of our Western mores that were not neccesarily scriptural mores to reach out to those in other cultures. We once enforced western ways as Christian ways. Does the ban on polygamy come from scripture or western culture? I eagerly concede that monogamy is not only normative from scripture, but appears to be IMHO the fairest and best way to be married. (Even biology, given the relatively equal numbers of each gender born, lends wait to monogamy.)

All that being said, I personally think plural marriage would be awfully tough on all involved. If hell hath no fury like a scorned wife, imagine two of them!

Edited January 9, 2009 by AnthonyB

[BenRaines]

Dang, I feel like a sinner every day. Oh wait, I am. Guess that is why I try to prepare myself each Sunday to attend Sacrament meeting in the right frame of mine and in a repentant attitude to partake of the sacrament.

Ben Raines

[AnthonyB]

OT question for Ceeboo??? UH OOOO, K, Go :)

I was tring to ask, what state I would be regarded as by the RC church....I am merely a lapsed RC or a heretic for having been rebaptized? I presume I wouldn't have to get rebaptised but have to repent of my 2nd baptism? (Not planing to go back to Rome, just curious)

[jolee65]

So I'm taking it from most..that if these people walked into an LDS Church they would be condemned and made to feel as sinners? So that makes the average person judge, jury right there?

I may not agree with the life style...but I sure wouldn't be kicking them out of my Church and telling them they are not welcome there. Whether they are breaking the law or not.

Not my place to do that.

I didnt read that anywhere , were did you read that?

Im assuming thats why your in a LDS sight you would except even if its FLDS.

[Maureen]

pam says:

So I'm taking it from most..that if these people walked into an LDS Church they would be condemned and made to feel as sinners? So that makes the average person judge, jury right there?

I'm with jolee here; I'm not clear why you would think that from the previous responses given. Edited January 12, 2009 by Maureen

[MorningStar]

I would welcome anyone at church just like any other visitor, but hopefully they would choose monogamy so they could get baptized.

[pushka]

I was tring to ask, what state I would be regarded as by the RC church....I am merely a lapsed RC or a heretic for having been rebaptized? I presume I wouldn't have to get rebaptised but have to repent of my 2nd baptism? (Not planing to go back to Rome, just curious)

I was wondering just the same thing the other day. I was raised and baptised RC and have recently been baptised LDS..

I wondered if the RCC saw the LDS baptism as invalid, as it also sees non Church marriage as invalid (not sure if that is just non RCC marriages, or whether the same applies to marriages in churches other than RC) therefore you/we are still RC in their eyes, but that perhaps we need to be excommunicated for our actions?

[prisonchaplain]

I was wondering just the same thing the other day. I was raised and baptised RC and have recently been baptised LDS..

I wondered if the RCC saw the LDS baptism as invalid, as it also sees non Church marriage as invalid (not sure if that is just non RCC marriages, or whether the same applies to marriages in churches other than RC) therefore you/we are still RC in their eyes, but that perhaps we need to be excommunicated for our actions?

I've seen an official RC document declaring LDS baptism invalid. However, that decision means that the LDS baptism is not an RC baptism, not what its ultimate significance might be. Thus, the statement, on very official letterhead, only contained a single sentence.

[AnthonyB]

I think that the Catholic church has a couple of levels of baptism (maybe types would be a better word).

If you come from some churches they'll except your baptism as legit. (eg Orthodox)

From other churches they'll presume your baptism legit but do some sort of covering baptism just in case it wasn't. (eg For some protestants)

For other churches they consider it no baptism (if you weren't baptised in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit or otherwise didn't meet their requirements for a baptism) (eg LDS and Oneness Pentecostals). Those people would need to be given the full baptism rights.

I suppose my question to any RC posters was does another baptism invalidate the RCC one.

[bytor2112]

oops...sorry about that, i am actually nondenominational christian, and i didn't mean to claim i was mormon, I'm not sure how i managed that one, but I fixed it. thanks for pointing out my mistake =D.

ok now on to the topic, i probably should have expanded on my answer to avoid confusion. I would always welcome anyone into my church no matter what they have done because i know that in the eyes of God we are all equally sinful. I define polygamy as a sin because i think God was very clear on the parameters of marriage and anything outside of that is a sin. in Genesis, God created Eve to be Adam's Helper and so he didn't have to be alone. And he essentially conducted the first marriage ceremony right there in the garden of eden. It says in Genesis 2:24-25 "therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." also, 1st Corinthians 7:4 says, “For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.” A married man does not own his body, but rather he is a steward of

his body that belongs to his bride and his God." on that note, I think any thing that takes away from the oneness between one man and one woman in marriage is a sin. say a man has five wives, his attention is split among all of them so each one is only getting 1/5 of the emotional, physical and spiritual support she deserves. thats my very quick answer, if you want me to elaborate on or clarify anything let me know i'd be happy to, i usually only write what i absolutely have to to get my point across (thats my math background =D)

So, how do you feel about Abraham? Or Jacob or Gideon? Or David......or Solomon, I think he had something like 700 wives and 300 concubines.

[ruthiechan]

You could hardly call Jacob's position as a hardness of heart issue, he had been promised Rachel but was given Leah, it wasn't his fault. (Although the story clearly shows some of the real problems with polygamy.)

There in lies the problem of unintended polygamy.

I would welcome anyone at church just like any other visitor, but hopefully they would choose monogamy so they could get baptized.

So, if a family of a husband and three wives plus whole passel of kids were living in a country that allowed polygamy wanted to be baptized into the church you do not think they should be able to get baptized?

Somehow that does not seem right to me.

[Heavenguard]

My friend is sort of in that situation. Her parents were legally separated, and after that time, her father had two children with another woman. He has now returned to my friend's family, his "first" one. My friend and her (full-blooded, of the same mother) sisters have accepted this fact of their father's other family. My friend's mom sort of just ignores it most of the time, but at times will go into a sort of frantic tantrum over the fact that her husband has another family when it comes up.

But this is what my friend says to her mother: it would be incredibly irresponsible for her father to just leave that family and abandon the mother to raise their two children by herself, and to leave the children fatherless.

And since this is a question about Christian church's attitudes, my friend is a Christian. Very few people in our church know about this situation (I could count on one hand). Her father is not a Christian, but his sin is in his past infidelity. (That is, if he does not continue to engage in that sort of relationship with the "other" woman.) But would it also not be a sin for him to abandon the other woman and his two young children? I can't really blame the other woman if she believed the marriage was over, and certainly the children don't deserve to lose their father.