Polygamy Is Part Of Mormon Heritage

[Jason]

...such as happened when a brother declared that, in accordance with Acts 2:38, we must all be rebaptized in the name of Jesus Only, and that God is not a Holy Trinity, but that Jesus is the Father, Jesus is the Son, Jesus is the Holy Spirit (the fancy theological term for this 4th century heresy is monarchial modalism). Out of that prophetic word (which we deem false) grew Oneness Pentecostalism.

Hey Chap, what's the deal with these oneness folks? Why do the guys all seem normal enough, but the women seem so strange? They always (not once in a while) wear skirts or dresses, and most wear a head scarf.

I not saying there's anything wrong with that mind you, but is it a religious requirement?

[shanstress70]

<div class='quotemain'>

To me, the biggest problem is that marriage is arranged for young girls brought up in these communities. They often have no say in the matter, and are married at 14 or 15. This is rape, plain and simple.

There you go again. It is not rape plain and simple. Some of it may be morally reprehensible and some of it may be criminal but to dismiss all as simple rape is naive and uniformed

If an adult male has sex with an underage person, it is called statutory rape, at least in my state. I'm just goin' by the law, Sir!

[Maureen]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

To me, the biggest problem is that marriage is arranged for young girls brought up in these communities. They often have no say in the matter, and are married at 14 or 15. This is rape, plain and simple.

There you go again. It is not rape plain and simple. Some of it may be morally reprehensible and some of it may be criminal but to dismiss all as simple rape is naive and uniformed

If an adult male has sex with an underage person, it is called statutory rape, at least in my state. I'm just goin' by the law, Sir!

I believe you are correct shanstress:

Main Entry: statutory rape

Function: noun

: rape consisting of sexual intercourse with a person beneath an age (as 14 years) specified by statute

NOTE: Many state statutes also specify a minimum age of the perpetrator or an age differential (as at least four years) between the perpetrator and the victim. Consent of the victim and belief that the victim is of the age of consent are usually considered immaterial. Statutory rape is now codified under various names, such as rape in the second degree rape in the third degree unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, and criminal sexual conduct in the second degree.

M.

[prisonchaplain]

Hey Chap, what's the deal with these oneness folks? Why do the guys all seem normal enough, but the women seem so strange? They always (not once in a while) wear skirts or dresses, and most wear a head scarf. I not saying there's anything wrong with that mind you, but is it a religious requirement?

The skirts/dresses are typical of churches that emphasize modesty in dress (usually, primarily directed at the women). Used to be, makeup was prohibited too. The headcovering is specifically mentioned in the Bible, though most churches interpret the reference to be culturally influenced, and so, while recognizing the general call to modesty, would not specifically require headcovering, as such does NOT represent modesty today.

I remember hearing a gospel radio show in which the Pentecostal preacher was asked about women and makeup. The year was 1972. The minister's response: Now, I know I'm going to get letters and calls on this, but I've studied the Scriptures, and I've prayed on it and reached my conclusion. SOME OLD BARNS NEED A COAT OF PAINT. (Laughter).

The speaker would later become famous, venturing into TV ministry. Did you guess?

It was Jimmy Swaggart!

[Outshined]

If an adult male has sex with an underage person, it is called statutory rape, at least in my state. I'm just goin' by the law, Sir!

Unless they are married, which is also the law...

If you check, there are some disturbingly low marriage ages (with parental consent) in the US.

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'>

I don't see that polygamy is a problem. LDS, former LDS, branched off from LDS, Hindu, Tribal or whatever, why is it such a big deal to people? People should be free to do pretty much whatever they want, whatever they feel is right -- up to the point where it infringes on others' rights. Can anyone tell me how a group of people practicing polygamy hurts the community?

The US laws against polygamy were not enacted because polygamy was offensive, but rather to "go after" LDS. In that sense, such laws totally fly in the face of personal freedoms and freedom of religion (which the US is so proud of).

I have not studied the history of persecution of Mormons, but have always guessed the opposite--that it was shock and outrage at the practice of polygamy that led to the "going after" of the LDS. Do you have some sources I could look into to, because your argument here probably ties together all three or four strings on polygamy right now.

Neither point is true.

1. Polygamy was illegal prior to Joseph Smith practicing it.

2. Mormons were persecuted since The Church of Jesus Christ's inception. Such persecution included violence, murder, terrorism, theft and more. Public knowledge of plural marriage came on very late in the scene.

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

To me, the biggest problem is that marriage is arranged for young girls brought up in these communities. They often have no say in the matter, and are married at 14 or 15. This is rape, plain and simple.

There you go again. It is not rape plain and simple. Some of it may be morally reprehensible and some of it may be criminal but to dismiss all as simple rape is naive and uniformed

If an adult male has sex with an underage person, it is called statutory rape, at least in my state. I'm just goin' by the law, Sir!

Now I see one of the sources of your confusion. You don't understand the definition of statutory rape.

A minor can be legally married. If one is married and the sex is consensual, it is not rape, statutory or otherwise.

Let me start by saying that the vast majority of prophetic words I've heard have been specific to the group assembled, and very local in application. For example, "God is pleased with your worship--continue to seek my face." Or, "God is asking us to search our hearts, to repent of our wicked ways, to give up our pet desires, and trust him for all." After such a word, the pastor, or leader conducting the meeting, will usually call for a time of prayer--urging people to heed the word that's been given.

I'd ask for a specific example but that doesn't really seem like the kind of thing that I personally think too important, people say such all the time. However, if God himself revealed it, wouldn't be exactly on par with the scriptures?

[mom_of_jcchlsm]

<div class='quotemain'>

The US laws against polygamy were not enacted because polygamy was offensive, but rather to "go after" LDS. In that sense, such laws totally fly in the face of personal freedoms and freedom of religion (which the US is so proud of).

I have not studied the history of persecution of Mormons, but have always guessed the opposite--that it was shock and outrage at the practice of polygamy that led to the "going after" of the LDS. Do you have some sources I could look into to, because your argument here probably ties together all three or four strings on polygamy right now.

Bottom-line question: Did polygamy lead to persecution of Mormons, or was polygamy the weapon anti-Mormons chose to use to go after them?

PC,

there was tremendous persecution even before polygamy was introduced. The US law against polygamy was introduced to prevent Utah from becoming a state. Many feel that the Manifesto, which officially ended polygamy in the Church, was only issued in order to appease the government and make it possible to obtain statehood. Here's a very abreviated timeline:

1831 - Joseph Smith and followers chased out of Palmyra, NY - they go to Kirtland, OH.

1832 - Joseph Smith tarred and feathered, someone tries to poison him

1835 - doctrine of Eternal Progression brings cries of "blasphemy" against Joseph Smith and his followers

1836 - practice of polygamy first introduced

1846 - beginning of Mormon exodus to Utah, which was not a part of the USA at the time

1887 - Congress passes the Edmunds-Tucker Act

1890 - President Wilford Woodruff issues the Manifesto

1896 - Utah becomes the 45th state

1904 - excommunication becomes the official penalty for taking a second wife

[prisonchaplain]

if God himself revealed it, wouldn't be exactly on par with the scriptures?

It's easy to see why you would think so. When you think of prophecy you think of the Sacred Works, and of the pronouncements of Mormon prophets from JS forward. All of these tend to apply generally to all believers in all settings.

When pentecostals/charismatics think of prophecy, we think of the prophecies, or tongues and interpretations we hear in church services. These 'words from the Lord,' tend to be specific messages that God has for the local audience at that given time. A typical example, "God is pleased with your worship and your love for him...draw even closer, for He desires deeper communion with you." The message to that particular church will likely lead to a time where some will go to the front altar to pray, others might kneel at their seats, etc. Meanwhile, at a church 10 miles away, God's word may have been, "God is disgusted with your empty worship, while your works are lacking. Repent and return to your first love." Here, the result might be an immediate call to repentence, where people again might go to the altar or kneel at their seats and cry out to God. None of this will necessarily be recorded for widespread distribution--and six months later the messages might be reversed for these two churches.

[Maureen]

To me, the biggest problem is that marriage is arranged for young girls brought up in these communities. They often have no say in the matter, and are married at 14 or 15. This is rape, plain and simple.

There you go again. It is not rape plain and simple. Some of it may be morally reprehensible and some of it may be criminal but to dismiss all as simple rape is naive and uniformed.

Now I see one of the sources of your confusion. You don't understand the definition of statutory rape.

A minor can be legally married. If one is married and the sex is consensual, it is not rape, statutory or otherwise.

Snow, I think you are forgetting the major issue of this thread and that is "polygamy" - which is illegal. So shanstress is correct because the illegal marriages that take place in these communities are between an adult male and a minor female. They are not legal marriages therefore the consummation of this non-marriage is still statutory rape.

M.

[Outshined]

the illegal marriages that take place in these communities are between an adult male and a minor female. They are not legal marriages therefore the consummation of this non-marriage is still statutory rape.

True.

[Snow]

Okay - I'll conceed that.

[Ray]

prisonchaplain,

It appears as though I didn't make my point plain enough for you to understand.

I’m simply asking you to tell me how you would measure modern revelation from God against the Scriptures we already had when those modern revelations were given?

And btw, I think your most relevant reply so far was when you said:

My guess is that most would start from the opposite point--if the word given does not specifically contradict the Bible, we start with the presumption of validity.

But when I gave you this example to work with:

For instance, how would you use the Bible to either confirm or deny the thought that God authorized Joseph Smith to establish His church in these latter days?

You only said:

Quite frankly, had Joseph Smith gotten up in the middle of a meeting and said, "Thus saith the Lord, all Christian denominations are wrong, their pastors and professors are corrupt...there's been a general apostasy such that the Church has not truly existed for 1700 years..."

Chances are pretty strong that it would have been declared, quite instantaneously "not of God." Which, is pretty much what happened, even though Smith's revelation was pre-modern Pentecostalism.

Which seems to indicate that you don't even accept your own idea about how you should start with the presumption of validity, unless the word (or revelation) given specifically contradicted the Bible.

So, in other words, please show me an example of how you would measure modern revelation against the Bible, with your own idea suggesting that you should start with the presumption of validity, unless the word (or revelation) given specifically contradicted the Bible.

And btw, your example will probably be more effective if you use something which we [LDS] consider to be modern revelation, showing us how you would measure that revelation against the Bible.

And for perhaps what might be an easier example, how would you use the Bible to measure, either to confirm or deny, the thought that our heavenly Father and our Lord both personally appeared to Joseph Smith in a grove of trees, now referred to as the sacred grove, in answer to his prayer asking God which church he should join, with our Lord telling him that he should join none of them, citing some specific reasons why he shouldn't join with them, and then later telling him that he (Joseph) would be an instrument in His hands to restore His church to the Earth.

And if you'd like a more accurate account of what Joseph said happened, you can read his own words here:

http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1

And btw, I'm starting a new thread for discussion of this topic, since it seems we have gone slightly off-topic, but you might also want to illustrate how to measure modern ideas about polygamy against the Bible.

[john doe]

I think that late- 19th century LDS polygamy was a much different thing that what is being practiced by the modern-day polygamists, who have little, if any,association or roots embedded in the LDS church. When people go around condemning the LDS church for polygamy, they need to understand that what they are seeing today from those who practice it is much different from what went on over 100 years ago.

As for Jason's comments, I believe he is right, the Allred group has pretty much integrated itself into normal society. In fact, it is possible that you could live next door to a practitioner for years and not know that they are polygamists, and with the advent and acceptability of single-parent families, with the same man coming and going occasionally, it will become easier for them to integrate themselves into neighborhoods. Much of the time, if the participants in these types of groups don't tell you they are in it, you may never know. My wife has a good friend who has relatives and in-laws involved in it, and it is surprising how well they have blended in with the surrounding community. And I think that as long as they continue to support themselves and refrain from engaging in child abuse or statutory rape, or welfare fraud, they probably continue will be ignored by the community as a whole.

What has been going on with the Warren Jeffs group is disgusting in the extreme. Any of their participants or those who have stood by while knowing that those sick things have been going on without reporting it to authorities should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, as far as I'm concerned.

On a similar but slightly different note, I find it interesting that society as a whole condemns the practice of polygamy, but turns a blind eye to a far worse version of it, in my mind. A co-worker told me last night of a man she knows of, her sister's brother-in-law. This man(?) is around 25 years old, and has 5 children by 5 different women, all under the age of 5. He would have 9 children, but 1 miscarried, and 3 were aborted. He pays no child support for any of those children, and lives with none of the mothers. Yet society, as a whole, does not condemn this guy. Some guys might even admire that he lives like this. And as long as none of the women he slept with goes after him for child support, he probably will continue living like a normal guy. And even if the state does come after him, he can always go underground, working for money under the table that they can't touch. My question is, what makes a polygamist any worse than this guy? I'm not talking about the ones like the Jeffs group, I'm talking about the ordinary, run-of-the-mill polygamist, the one who generally obeys the law, doesn't get into the kinds of abuse that some of them do, pays his bills, supports his 'wives' and families, pays his taxes, doesn't put his 'wives' on welfare. Why is the polygamist seen as a worse man than the one who sleeps with the next woman who opens her legs, gets her pregnant, and leaves?

[Maureen]

On a similar but slightly different note, I find it interesting that society as a whole condemns the practice of polygamy, but turns a blind eye to a far worse version of it, in my mind....This man(?) is around 25 years old, and has 5 children by 5 different women, all under the age of 5...He pays no child support for any of those children, and lives with none of the mothers. Yet society, as a whole, does not condemn this guy...And as long as none of the women he slept with goes after him for child support, he probably will continue living like a normal guy. And even if the state does come after him, he can always go underground, working for money under the table that they can't touch. My question is, what makes a polygamist any worse than this guy?...Why is the polygamist seen as a worse man than the one who sleeps with the next woman who opens her legs, gets her pregnant, and leaves?

Why does there have to be a comparison. There are laws regarding child support and polygamy is illegal. I know of no-one in society that would congratulate the bum who avoids responsiblity for his children or the Polygamist who lives an unequal, lopsided lifestyle. Both arrangements are condemned by society.

M.

[prisonchaplain]

prisonchaplain,

It appears as though I didn't make my point plain enough for you to understand.

Or, perhaps you missed part of mine, which I'll explain below...because I believe I did answer your question...just not to your agreement.

I’m simply asking you to tell me how you would measure modern revelation from God against the Scriptures we already had when those modern revelations were given?

And btw, I think your most relevant reply so far was when you said:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

My guess is that most would start from the opposite point--if the word given does not specifically contradict the Bible, we start with the presumption of validity.

But when I gave you this example to work with:

For instance, how would you use the Bible to either confirm or deny the thought that God authorized Joseph Smith to establish His church in these latter days?

You only said:

Quite frankly, had Joseph Smith gotten up in the middle of a meeting and said, "Thus saith the Lord, all Christian denominations are wrong, their pastors and professors are corrupt...there's been a general apostasy such that the Church has not truly existed for 1700 years..."

Chances are pretty strong that it would have been declared, quite instantaneously "not of God." Which, is pretty much what happened, even though Smith's revelation was pre-modern Pentecostalism.

Which seems to indicate that you don't even accept your own idea about how you should start with the presumption of validity, unless the word (or revelation) given specifically contradicted the Bible.

Here's what you missed in your restatement of my words: Non-LDS Christians in general do not accept that the Gates of Hell succeeded in prevailing against the Church for 1700 years. We do not believe in the general apostasy of Christianity as a historic event. So, since The Holy Spirit gave some to be teachers, some to be bishops (overseers), we accept doctrinal formation in the Church. In my own movement, any prophetic utterances that contradicted the Sixteen Fundamentals of the Assemblies of God (a statement similar to the What We Believe section at lds.org) would be seen as probably contradicting the Bible.

In other words, unlike the LDS, new prophecies do not supercede what we have already received.

So, in other words, please show me an example of how you would measure modern revelation against the Bible, with your own idea suggesting that you should start with the presumption of validity, unless the word (or revelation) given specifically contradicted the Bible.

And btw, your example will probably be more effective if you use something which we [LDS] consider to be modern revelation, showing us how you would measure that revelation against the Bible.

What you really want is an example of a prophecy found lacking. In the 19-teens a prophecy went out, suggesting that Christians must be baptised in the name of Jesus only (Acts 2:38). Very quickly it became clear that the outcome was a denial of the Holy Trinity, in favor of monarchial modalism (Jesus = Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and acts out these different "modes"). Since the prophecy contradicted core church teachings, it was denounced. The result, a terribly wrenching split in Pentecostalism. Today, Oneness Pentecostalism (those who embraced the heresy) represents a very small % of the movement, much like the Mormon off-shoot schismatics.

And for perhaps what might be an easier example, how would you use the Bible to measure, either to confirm or deny, the thought that our heavenly Father and our Lord both personally appeared to Joseph Smith in a grove of trees, now referred to as the sacred grove, in answer to his prayer asking God which church he should join, with our Lord telling him that he should join none of them, citing some specific reasons why he shouldn't join with them, and then later telling him that he (Joseph) would be an instrument in His hands to restore His church to the Earth.

Since JS started with a denunciation of all existing Christian churches, it was a pretty quick call, I'm sure. JS started with a line in the sand, more or less saying, stay with the corrupt, incomplete Christian churches, or come join the restoration. Many have intimated here that there was intemperance on both sides of the line throughout the 19th century (no need to argue who was worse--irrelevent to this conversation). So, there was no attempt to win the hearts of churches, to build consensus for the new revelations. The appeal was for individuals to abandon their communities of faith in favor of a new community with pretty radical new understandings.

[john doe]

Why does there have to be a comparison. There are laws regarding child support and polygamy is illegal. I know of no-one in society that would congratulate the bum who avoids responsiblity for his children or the Polygamist who lives an unequal, lopsided lifestyle. Both arrangements are condemned by society.

But their situations can be seen as technically equal. Most polygamists are not legally married to their additional 'wives'. If they were to legally marry the additional 'wives', they would be covered under bigamy laws, and trigger a legal case against them as soon as the authorities are made aware of it. Instead, they consider themselves to be spiritually married, and some may actually go through some sort of religious ritual, but they are smart enough to not bring the government into the equation. Since adultery laws are either being repealed or ignored these days, they are nothing more than people shacking up with more than one woman. If the polygamist does his taxes legally, and takes care of the children he fathers, and provides for his 'wives', he falls off the radar of the authorities. Lots of people have children out of wedlock these days, if a man takes care of his family and his legal obligations, I personally don't have a problem with it.

Now, as for the scumbag I spoke of, just because you don't know anyone who condones his behavior, I can tell you there are definitely people out there who do, if not openly, then privately by their actions. There are plenty of people out there who employ these people and pay them under the table, and the arrangement benefits both parties. It's basically the same type of arrangment that those who employ illegal immigrants use.

[Maureen]

Now, as for the scumbag I spoke of, just because you don't know anyone who condones his behavior, I can tell you there are definitely people out there who do, if not openly, then privately by their actions. There are plenty of people out there who employ these people and pay them under the table, and the arrangement benefits both parties. It's basically the same type of arrangment that those who employ illegal immigrants use.

Does plenty constitute the majority of society; does plenty negate child support laws. The majority of society which includes the law still condemns those who choose to be irresponsible parents.

M.

[oaf1984]

Regarding the legality of Polygamy:

It is illegal is most places, not all.

The former soviet republic of Tajikistan is one that I can think of.

I have read a lot about what has been said, but would still like to put in my opinion.

I think that having a single wife is the ldeal, just like peace(as opposed to war, not the wife :-) ) is the ideal. However, there are circumstances where it does not work so well, and exceptions have to be made. I am sure that one can debte exactly what circumstances are allowed for days.

I am sure it would be uncomfortable to do it. I know I would be, I would see it as a sacrafice. Just like going to war would be a sacrafice.

[Outshined]

It is illegal is most places, not all.

It is legal (and practiced) in Africa and much of the Middle East, as well as parts of Asia and Europe. I'm not sure about South America.

[oaf1984]

Well if it were purely for legal reasons, maybe the church can take its billions and go to africa.

[Outshined]

Well if it were purely for legal reasons, maybe the church can take its billions and go to africa.

Exactly; which tells us that it's not about legal reasons...