Plural Marriage

[Guest bizabra]

My understanding is that marriage was outlawed for priests due to the rise in "inherited" bishoprics and pastorages, with the property going to sons who may or may not intend to actually BE pastors to the flock they inherited. It was so that the property rights would remain in the church and not be lost over time.

In other words, the local married bishop would pass his lands and duties on to his eldest son, who may NOT have a priestley calling and might then fritter away the holdings, which wold be lost to the church.

Forbidding priests to marry solved this problem nicely, though priests often continued to have mistresses and children, the kids were illegitimate, thus, unable to inherit anything from their fathers. Problem solved!

[Laureltree]

I think plural marriage was needed but like all things " they change do to need" I will not say some did not take it way out of control, but I believe it is what saved the church. There were so many men killed that were mormon, if it would not have been for that law, many of the woman would have been made to marry non-members in order to keep there land or they would have simply lost that land...this would have ened up with many of te members to have fallen away...Because of this law we still own alot of this land, and the church membership has grown instead of dwindled...I simply think it has helped to look at it in many ways..................

[Fiannan]

My understanding is that marriage was outlawed for priests due to the rise in "inherited" bishoprics and pastorages, with the property going to sons who may or may not intend to actually BE pastors to the flock they inherited. It was so that the property rights would remain in the church and not be lost over time.

I have heard this too. Also, local royals families did not like the idea that a smart peasant kid could rise through the ranks and wind up marrying a royal. So with this political reality, combined with guys who did not like women anyway, Gregory banned marriage for the clergy.

Lauraltree, simple demographics for Brigham Young's time show a slight majority for women in the Church but not a huge one. There were a lot of LDS men who just did not want to marry (just like many worthy mamma's boys you find in the special intererst singles activities).

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Fiannan@Dec 28 2005, 12:22 PM

However, the Bible is strong on marriage and celibasy is totally contrary to scripture.

The Bible is strong on marriage. However, marriage is not commanded, and celibacy was something Paul encouraged for those who wanted to totally dedicate themselves to gospel work. I'm not Catholic, so I have no need to defend the REQUIREMENT of celibacy for their priests.

My reading of Scriptures finds liberty in this area. If one marries, do it right. Men, love your wives sacrificially. Wives, give men the respect they need and usually deserve. Parents, discipline, but do not suffocate or demean your children. Children, obey your parents. If you remain single, do use the 'free time' this gives you for the Lord's work.

As for the choir boy thing, all I am referring to is that if you tell men who want to have a family they cannot become priests then you are going to get two extremes of men entering the priesthood -- highly dedicated men willing to sacrifice sex and family or men who are repressing urges and trying to sublimate them towards a spiritual ideal.  Problem is, whenever you repress something too much it will someday come back and dominate you -- try not thinking about the color blue, nomatter what you do right now, pretend that to think about blue will be a sin...see my point?

I see the reasoning, but disagree. Most men are prone to having "wandering eyes." Yet, we tell them to "repress their sexual desires." Men are to devote themselves to their wives only. Likewise, if a believer finds him/herself tempted by same-sex attraction, we encouage him/her to "repress sexuality," seek deliverence from the temptation, and find resolution in a heterosexual relationship, or in celibacy.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by sugarbay@Dec 28 2005, 10:09 AM

Just had to drop in and see if you guys had beat this dead horse to death again...  B)

←

She may be bloodied, but we still hear an occasional wimper, and see an occasional leg kick.

[Fiannan]

Likewise, if a believer finds him/herself tempted by same-sex attraction, we encouage him/her to "repress sexuality," seek deliverence from the temptation, and find resolution in a heterosexual relationship, or in celibacy.

I agree but they should come to terms with what is causing the desires -- not just say "God, I am so evil, I will instead become a monk and give my sin to you to handle". And I wonder the logic of telling men who want to be church officials that they cannot have sex and marriage. Talk about increasing the likelyhood of people unable to control what is a stumbling block being placed in dangerous situations.

I would rather a church official be married, asexual or looking for a heterosexual relationship.

Also, I will try to go back to my original point that if a religion takes the stand that sex is in some way part of some sort of original sin (did the Jews who also have the Old Testament believe that? Actually, I'm curious) and that not marrying is a higher order than marriage then is it a wonder why European Christianity took such a strong stand against polygamy? If one wife is to keep us out of sin and do the dirty work of procreation then having more than one wife must be really nasty!

[Guest bizabra]

Thought this was interesting:

http://www.christianpolygamy.com/

I agree that these folks have every right to practice their religious beliefs as they see fit. The legal, civil, and biblical rituals they advocate jibe very well with my libertarian POV. ESP. with regards how they are not breaking the law by obtaining a legal, yet NOT religious, divorce. They do not claim more than ONE civil wife, yet consider themselves bound to all of them.

[Guest bizabra]

Here is an excerpt from another web page. I know I have read this same sort of claim before and thought it interesting: Here is the web page: http://www.nccg.org/fecpp/Stivers2.html

#12 - Church Tradition Opposes Polygamy

The opposition of the early Church to polygamy can be explained by the early infection of the Gnostic heresy. The same Church Councils which condemned polygamy, also condemned marriage altogether for priests. Church Tradition, while not to be dismissed lightly, nevertheless, was errant at times.

In the words of Martin Luther,

"Suppose that the dear fathers' opinion and teaching about a bigamist was such [as described above: JS] - what does it matter to us? It does not obligate us to hold and to teach that view. We must found our salvation on the words and works of man as little as we build our houses of hay and straw" (Luther's Works, vol. 41,p.16l).

[Luther's many favorable references to bigamy should be tempered by the knowledge that he defined "bigamy" as any second marriage, whether simultaneous or successive. It was not until later in life that he adopted a friendly view toward the polygamy we are discussing here and as evidenced by the reference quoted above. I say this for the benefit of scholars who may be confused when they verify my sources.]

Tertullian's rejection of polygamy was based solely upon his rejection of the Cultural Mandate (The Anti-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, p.53). He is typical of that era among the "orthodox".

Monogamy was the rule among Western Christians because Roman civil law was monogamous - the law of pagan Rome. Among the "barbaric" Christians of northern Europe, polygamy was permitted during the early years, even up to the reign of Charlamagne, the Frankish king who had four wives. The Popes appear to have made frequent exceptions to the rule of monogamy.

Christians in the East, beyond the Byzantine frontiers (often called the "Nestorian Church", which was the largest body of Christians for a millennium, spreading into China and India) has always permitted polygamy, even to this day (see the works of Aramaic scholar, George Lamsa, Harper & Row).

Among Protestants, few seem to realize that, at one time, a man could be a polygamist and a good Lutheran at the same time. In fact, polygamy was one of the rights fought for by the German Lutherans during the Thirty Years War. After the Peace of Westphalia in 1650, the Frankish Kreistag at Nuremburg permitted bigamy perpetually (see Kostlin's, Martin Luther, ii, 475 sqq. as quoted in The History of Human Marriage by Edward Westermark, Allerton Book Co., N.Y., 1922, vol. 3, p. 51).

Why these abortive attempts at polygamy? It probably has much to do with the tenacious hold Roman civil law has upon our legal traditions

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Fiannan@Dec 28 2005, 04:33 PM

(did the Jews who also have the Old Testament believe that [sex was part of God's response to the Fall]? Actually, I'm curious)

Perhaps the Orthodox Jewish answer to the age-old question of masturbation will give you a hint at an answer. Traditionally, evangelicals have held that the primary sin with the practice is that of lust. "How can you please yourself without lusting?" the reasoning goes. My rabbi friend says it is different for Jews. For them the sin is in "wasting the seed." The Mosaic law specifically prohibits wasting the seed. Thus, condoms would also be a violation. So, my sense is that the primary purpose of sex was procreation, though there was no prohibition against enjoyment.

[Fiannan]

Good references Bizabra, I have posted the quotes here before that Martin Luther was pro-polygamy and said that the Bible, nowhere, taught that polygamy was wrong.

So let's look at the issue in this context:

Polygamy is not a sin as defined by the Bible.

Polygamy, while not something God probably considered the norm (otherwise way more women would be conceived than men) was probably something that would be practiced by the most devout people -- with more kids from such families than the norm.

Our culture's opposition to polygamy stems from Roman (Pagan) customs in which allowed for only one wife (in legal terms) but allowed a man as many male and female sexual partners (often slaves) as he wanted.

The recognition of these facts should at least allow for more tolerance of polygamists both from our history and those who choose polygamy today.

[Guest sugarbay]

This horse ain't dead yet? I am going to get the vet and have it put down humanely. B)

[Snow]

Originally posted by bizabra@Dec 28 2005, 07:52 PM

Thought this was interesting:

http://www.christianpolygamy.com/

I agree that these folks have every right to practice their religious beliefs as they see fit.  The legal, civil, and biblical rituals they advocate jibe very well with my libertarian POV.  ESP. with regards how they are not breaking the law by obtaining a legal, yet NOT religious, divorce.  They do not claim more than ONE civil wife, yet consider themselves bound to all of them.

←

Don Milton, the author, is a moron.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Fiannan@Dec 29 2005, 01:06 AM

So let's look at the issue in this context:

Polygamy is not a sin as defined by the Bible.

In a vacuum in which only the Bible is considered, you'd be correct. However, of course, today, in the United States, you're wrong on two counts. First, Caesar says it's a sin, and there is no compelling spiritual reason to go against the government on this. 2. Your church has banned the practice, so for the sake of unity and deference of authorities you believe God has put in place, polygamy would be a sin for you.

Polygamy, while not something God probably considered the norm (otherwise way more women would be conceived than men) was probably something that would be practiced by the most devout people -- with more kids from such families than the norm.

You're going opposite directions here. On the one hand, you concede that God does not consider polygamy the norm (i.e., it wasn't his original plan in the Garden). Then, you turn around and say that polygamy is what the most devout (i.e. most God-pleasing) people did.

Large families were considered a blessing in the biblical era. One did not have to be very devout to attempt to have one. Those who practiced polygamy were not trying to appease God. They had their own reasons for enlarging the family business.

Our culture's opposition to polygamy stems from Roman (Pagan) customs in which allowed for only one wife (in legal terms) but allowed a man as many male and female sexual partners (often slaves) as he wanted.

This is over the top! You admit that polygamy is not God's norm, then say that those who endorse monogamy (God's norm) are guilty of buying into paganism.

The recognition of these facts should at least allow for more tolerance of polygamists both from our history and those who choose polygamy today.

I am not versed in the history of Mormon polygamy, but am I wrong in guessing that the practice of polygamy is one of the early distinctives that most enraged non-LDS? There is no excuse for the violent response, but let us not underplay just how revolutionary the family model was in mid-nineteenth century America.

As for today, polygamist are either heretic Mormon offshoots, and/or they are social renegades. In either case, they have taken a secondary family living arrangement that was grounded in ancient culture, and turned it into a religious imperative. For what? Why?

Ironically, tolerance is indeed what America will likely grant them...in about twenty years, IMHO.

[lisajo]

so PC why are you really here? just for some mormon entertainment? why are you so interest in this religion? i mean come on are you really that bored? their are some here that all they want to do is convert you...cant you see that?

[Prend1]

Originally posted by lisajo@Dec 30 2005, 02:40 AM

so PC why are you really here? just for some mormon entertainment? why are you so interest in this religion? i mean come on are you really that bored? their are some here that all they want to do is convert you...cant you see that?

←

I for one like having him around. I am not interested in converting him. He provides some very insightful answers that make complete sense to me. I always appreciate gospel truth no matter where it comes from. So keep it up PC!!

[lisajo]

Originally posted by Prend1+Dec 30 2005, 09:03 AM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-lisajo@Dec 30 2005, 02:40 AM

so PC why are you really here? just for some mormon entertainment? why are you so interest in this religion? i mean come on are you really that bored? their are some here that all they want to do is convert you...cant you see that?

←

I for one like having him around. I am not interested in converting him. He provides some very insightful answers that make complete sense to me. I always appreciate gospel truth no matter where it comes from. So keep it up PC!!

←

oh dont get me wrong i really like PC he's a great guy!

[Fiannan]

First, Caesar says it's a sin, and there is no compelling spiritual reason to go against the government on this. 2. Your church has banned the practice, so for the sake of unity and deference of authorities you believe God has put in place, polygamy would be a sin for you.

True, and in Sweden you cannot tell an audience you believe homosexuality is immoral. Just because Ceasar says something is a sin, that doesn't mean it's a sin in God's eyes. Your main point about LDS practice is correct (in a way). To be honest, a non-LDS Christian should have no moral hangups about being a polygamist. As for LDS practices, polygamy has been suspended, not made a sin as such, but, like the Jews, suspended. That does imply it will come back. However, being LDS and polygamist would be to go against church policy and get you excommunicated.

You're going opposite directions here. On the one hand, you concede that God does not consider polygamy the norm (i.e., it wasn't his original plan in the Garden). Then, you turn around and say that polygamy is what the most devout (i.e. most God-pleasing) people did.

Large families were considered a blessing in the biblical era. One did not have to be very devout to attempt to have one. Those who practiced polygamy were not trying to appease God. They had their own reasons for enlarging the family business.

No I am not. Did God design it that there would be a 50-50 split in demographics and gender? No. Women survive to adulthood more than men -- especially when wars are taking place. God probably recognizes that more men go homosexual than women. God probably recognizes that less men than women want to settle down.

For most people monogamy would be the rule, but God also set the stage for polygamy as well. The Mosaic Law allows for it. And if it were a sin he could have instructed Abraham to adopt monogamy within his own family. He did not.

The only way we can get a perspective on the mindset of people in Biblical times would be to examine the mindset of peoples in the Middle East in regards to polygamy today. Yes, you will find that more fundamentalist Muslims (and some Christians and Jews) there will be more likely to adopt polygamy. And whether you like the Mormon Fundamentalists in the USA today or not you have to admit that many, if not most, raise huge families to the glory of God (not some sort of eugenics experiment).

This is over the top! You admit that polygamy is not God's norm, then say that those who endorse monogamy (God's norm) are guilty of buying into paganism.

I said that demographics would allow for polygamy but most people would pair off in monogamist relationships. Much the same way (excuse the analogy) that most people marry people within 5 years of their age but, since men have no real "biological clock" some men will wind up divorced or widowed and marry women 20 or 30 years younger than them -- and have all the necessary hardware and functionings to make a family with the younger woman.

As for why polygamy was not accepted by many leaders of the early Christian faith (in Rome) the point I was making was that traditionally Roman culture was monogamist (allowing for mistresses of both genders). The fact that Rome became the center of Christianity in the west meant that some cultural norms became part of what was known as Christianity. Much the same way that Mormons generally feel you should have a white shirt and tie on when blessing the sacrament -- although in a spiritual sense you could probably bless the sacrament wearing a toga or nothing at all and it would have the same meaning. Polygamy, as Martin Luther pointed out, was not accpepted in western Christianity due to traditions, not the Bible.

I am not versed in the history of Mormon polygamy, but am I wrong in guessing that the practice of polygamy is one of the early distinctives that most enraged non-LDS? There is no excuse for the violent response, but let us not underplay just how revolutionary the family model was in mid-nineteenth century America.

Perhaps, but there were religious organizations which were in existence during Joseph Smith's times that practiced wife swapping or no sex at all and they were not attacked. There was something special about the restored gospel that brought in the hornets.

Ironically, tolerance is indeed what America will likely grant them...in about twenty years, IMHO.

Maybe less than 20 years. I do believe social disapproval of polygamy is dying out and that more people will come to embrace it -- probably with the LDS coming in a bit later.

[Prend1]

oh dont get me wrong i really like PC he's a great guy!

←

Okay...just checking!!

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by lisajo@Dec 30 2005, 02:40 AM

so PC why are you really here? just for some mormon entertainment? why are you so interest in this religion? i mean come on are you really that bored? their are some here that all they want to do is convert you...cant you see that?

←

So, that's what's going on here. You think Fiannan is trying to lure me in with the hopes that one day the LDS Church will re-authorize polygamy?

I can see it now. .

Sorry, Lisajo. I know the fellow means well...but, when it comes to this temptation, I'll have to invoke a great response that originates in Georgia,

"That dog don't hunt."

[prisonchaplain]

Prend1 says:  I for one like having him around. I am not interested in converting him. He provides some very insightful answers that make complete sense to me. I always appreciate gospel truth no matter where it comes from. So keep it up PC!!

Awwww...Shucks. Well...uh...jeepers. Thanks.

Lisajo responds to Prend1:  oh dont get me wrong i really like PC he's a great guy!

Awwww...Shucks. Well...uh...double jeepers. Double thanks too.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Fiannan@Dec 30 2005, 11:53 AM

Just because Ceasar says something is a sin, that doesn't mean it's a sin in God's eyes.

I beg to differ. Barring a government law that violates God's commandments, we should submit to secular regulations. Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Romans 13:1 (TNIV)

No I am not.  Did God design it that ...(list of several valid reasons why there may be more godly women than men). ... For most people monogamy would be the rule, but God also set the stage for polygamy as well.  The Mosaic Law allows for it.  And if it were a sin he could have instructed Abraham to adopt monogamy within his own family.  He did not.

You are back to reasons why God might allow polygamy. I've not argued against the notion that polygamy was probably part of God's "permissive will." However, God's best for us is found in Genesis 2. Ironically, Jesus invoked it again in the gospels, and seemed to call for a return to that higher standard. And, once again, whatever you believe about divorce and remarriage, or whether bishops were required to marry, 1 Timothy is very clear, that they are to have but ONE wife.

Perhaps, but there were religious organizations which were in existence during Joseph Smith's times that practiced wife swapping or no sex at all and they were not attacked.  There was something special about the restored gospel that brought in the hornets.

I'm not suggesting that polygamy was the only reason. However, much as some evangelicals get heated over homosexual marriages, because they strike at the heart of the institution of marriage, I'm guessing many of those frontier folk (who did not grow up on a steady diet of tolerance, political correctness, or multiculturalism) responded out of shock and disgust, and committed some atrocities against what they believed was a threat to civilization itself.

Maybe less than 20 years.  I do believe social disapproval of polygamy is dying out and that more people will come to embrace it -- probably with the LDS coming in a bit later.

It's not that social disapproval of polygamy is dying down. It's that postmodernism has replaced the Judeo-Christian ethical system as the foundation for our cultural assumptions. "Whatever works for you!" Frankly, the gate-opener for polygamy is homosexual marriage. If such alternatives are legalized, why forbid a marriage arrangement that does have some religious tradition to it?

[Behunin]

The reason for polygamy was for breeding. The Lord needed a strong, growing LDS population when the gospel was restored.

I do not like polygamy, it hurts me. Emma did not like polygamy, it hurt her.

It is true that polygamy will return. Those that have already participated in it will do so again in the next life, if they choose, not on this side of the veil, but in the resurrection . The LDS missionaries are strong here on this side of the veil and plural marriage is not required. I am so glad that God will not force me to participate in plural marriage. I don't share, Emma did not want to share either. Free will is an eternal law. God will not force anyone to obey or disobey, He will not force anyone to heaven, or to hell. By our actions we choose. Force is Lucifer's plan. (you all knew that, sorry for stating the obvious).

What I have always wondered about is why was it just Adam and Eve? Why wasn't it Adam and Eve and Sarah and Martha and Julie and Rosemary and Veronica? The population would have grown must faster.

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by Behunin@Dec 31 2005, 07:01 AM

I am so glad that God will not force me to participate in plural marriage. I don't share, Emma did not want to share either. Free will is an eternal law. God will not force anyone to obey or disobey, He will not force anyone to heaven, or to hell. By our actions we choose.

According to Joseph Smith, he didn't feel he had much choice...

"The same God that has thus far dictated me and directed me and strengthened me in this work, gave me this revelation and commandment on celestial and plural marriage, and the same God commanded me to obey it. He said to me that unless I accepted it, and introduced it, and practiced it, I, together with my people would be damned and cut off from this time henceforth. We have got to observe it. It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction."

- Prophet Joseph Smith, Contributor, Vol. 5, p. 259

"When that principle was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith ... he did not falter, although it was not until an angel of God, with a drawn sword, stood before him; and commanded that he should enter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterly destroyed, or rejected, that he moved forward to reveal and establish that doctrine."

- Prophet Joseph F. Smith, "Plural Marriage for the Righteous Only-Obedience Imperative-Blessings Resulting", Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.28 - p.29

In my very humble opinion, if a woman doesn't feel comfortable with polygamy, she should not be LDS. This is the issue that started me on the track to realizing that I would never be happy in that religion - after I was a member for 7 years or so.

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by Laureltree@Dec 28 2005, 03:36 PM

I think plural marriage was needed but like all things " they change do to need" I will not say some did not take it way out of control, but I believe it is what saved the church. There were so many men killed that were mormon, if it would not have been for that law, many of the woman would have been made to marry non-members in order to keep there land or they would have simply lost that land...this would have ened up with many of te members to have fallen away...Because of this law we still own alot of this land, and the church membership has grown instead of dwindled...I simply think it has helped to look at it in many ways..................

←

I don't think plural marriage was necessary.

According to your argument, it was necessary because the widows needed to marry Mormon men, but the first official plural wife was 16 year old Fanny Alger, who was no widow.

Also, according to this quote: ["For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and Just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles."

- Prophet Joseph Smith, The Joseph Smith Revelations Text and Commentary, p. 374-37.]

Joseph Smith counseled the brethren to marry Native Americans, so they were not LDS widows either.

There's also the fact that Joseph Smith married women who were already married to other men - I'm sure you've seen the LDS geneology page for this already.

LDS Apostle John A. Widtsoe said himself that what you think is a myth: "Members of the Church unfamiliar with its history, and many non-members, have set up fallacious reasons for the origin of this system of marriage among the Latter-Day Saints. The most common of these conjectures is that the Church, through plural marriage, sought to provide husbands for its large surplus of female members. The implied assumption in this theory, that there have been more female than male members in the Church, is not supported by existing evidence. On the contrary, there seem always to have been more males than females in the Church....The United States Census records from 1850 to 1940, and all available Church records, uniformly show a preponderance of males in Utah, and in the Church." ("Evidences and Reconciliations," p. 391.)

There are census records to prove that there have always been more males than females in Utah until 1960.

I too struggled with these issues when I was a member, and tried to believe the excuses that were spouted off to me. Each excuse failed. Once again, I believe strongly that no woman should be a member of the LDS church unless she is comfortable with polygamy.

[Behunin]

I agree, polygamy was not necessary. I disagree that Joseph Smith did not have much choice. If he chose not to participate in it, then my educated guess would be that he would be removed as prophet. However, he always had a choice. Emma also had a choice. She wanted to be with her husband, other women included, until he was murdered. Then she decided to stay in Nauvoo. At last the hurt of plural marriage ended for her. At least that was the illusion.

I can understand why you would feel that women who are LDS have to accept polygamy. I am sure many do. I am LDS and I do not. I do not deny it, I just don't agree with it. Whatever happens to be because of my feeling, well, I guess that is what happens. My husband does not agree with it either, so I guess we will both be banished!