BrahmabullBill in Nebraska said: At no time has the LDS Church ever
condemned the practice of PolgamyProphet Gordon B. Hinckley said:
"I condemn it, yes, as a practice because I think it is not
doctrinal"Bill is contradicting a prophets words. I know he
will say it was only president Hinckley's opinion, but I disagree and that is a
weak argument. So here you have Bill in Nebraska taking liberty to say
what the church has and hasn't said concerning polygamy instead of listening to
a prophets voice on the matter. I think a prophet of god, who supposedly has
revelation from god, has more of a say than Bill. LDS4It WAS
doctrinal 150 years ago because it was in the scriptures. The Manifesto,
because it was sustained via Common Consent, made the continual practice NOT
doctrinal. GBH was probably referring to practicing it today, not the practice
as a whole. Unless ANYONE's opinion is backed up via scripture or by a sustained
statement, it's just that...an opinion.
To say that gay marriage ties into polygamy is a farce on it's face.
As, gay marriage is still MONOGAMY. Not, polygamy! How
did two people who remain faithful to each other mean marrying...
many wives?? That is not, monogamy. The 'slippery slope'
argument is based on hypotheticals. And does NOT take into account the damage
done to marriage by: Britney Spears 55hr marriage. Kim
Karsashian's $10 million dollar, 72 day marriage or.. Bristol Palin
having a child OUTSIDE, of marriage. **'Bristol Palin has book deal'
- By Hillel Italie - AP - Published by DSnews - 03/01/11 'Bristol
Palin, 20, has become a celebrity in her own right, through her broken
relationship with her child's father, Levi Johnston...' - article
So, to claim that gay marriage will lead to 'other options' does NOT mean gay
marriage advocates support.... 'open' marriages. As some
of the 'family values' canidates, do.
Bill in Nebraska said: At no time has the LDS Church ever condemned the practice
of PolgamyProphet Gordon B. Hinckley said: "I condemn it, yes,
as a practice because I think it is not doctrinal"Bill is
contradicting a prophets words. I know he will say it was only president
Hinckley's opinion, but I disagree and that is a weak arguement. So here
you have Bill in Nebraska taking liberty to say what the church has and hasn't
said concerning polygamy instead of listening to a prophets voice on the matter.
I think a prophet of god, who supposedly has revelation from god, has more of a
say than Bill. Either Bill is mistaken, or he simply chose to ignore it and
pretend it wasn't said. That is a common practice - to quote prophets when it
benefits your arguement, and to claim it is only opinion when it goes against
your arguement.I would think that the highest authority in the
church's opinion counts much more than Bill's, but that is just me.
Sharrona: At no time has the LDS Church ever condemned the practice of Polgamy.
We have never apologized for the practice, nor should we. It is not up to Mitt
Romney to condemn it nor apologize for it. It was practiced in biblical times
and by prophets of God. It is clear that YHWH (Jehovah, Jesus Christ) was okay
with it as long as he ordained its use. It is also clear that he condemned it
only when it was disobeyed as it was in David and Solomon when they took wives
that were not given to them. It also was condemned in the Book of Mormon, but
if approved by God it was okay as the Book of Mormon so states. This is the
problem most evangelicals fail to understand. Since, Joseph Smith was a prophet
of God and was told to practice it, he did so. That is all that needs to be
said. If you check the laws when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints stated it would discontinue the practice that those who practicing
polgamy were released from prison and allowed to live in it. Yes, the
government did intervene, which is unconstitutional.
Glad Lane realizes that "polygamy did threaten women's equality." It
still does and I wish Romney would condemn the practice rather than joke about
it. This article however, really doesn't grasp the historical significance of
the conflict between the US government and Brigham Young's theocracy. Back then
the LDS church had political aspirations for ruling not only the US, but also
the world under the auspices of the "Kingdom of God." This was an
actual political, (though secret ) entity, composed of 50 men including 2 non
members. Polygamy wasn't entirely the issue -the setting up of a territory
within the United States, that was proposing to live under a different set of
laws, was at the crux of the matter. This is not, I believe, the intention of
the modern-day LDS church.
LDS4, Genesis 2:22(The LORD(YHWH)GOD(Elohim)verse 24, Therefore shall a man
leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall
be one flesh. In Genesis 2:24, when the marriage covenant is ordained, man
and woman are designated as "one flesh"one unit. God is indeed
creating a Family modeled after His own characteristics, but not all Godlike
characteristics are found in one sex or gender, any more than they are found in
one race. It bears repeating that God did not create a superior and inferior
sex, any more than He created a superior and inferior race.The
divine intention for husband and wife was for monogamy.He repeats it for the N.T
Church, (YHWH) said, For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and
be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? (Mt 19:5)
Capella2Samuel 12 refers to God giving David "Saul's palace and his
wives and the kingdoms of Israel and Judah"...We aren't told if these wives
were for cohabitation. LDS4Since the INDIVIDUAL man God gave them to
in v.11 was to lie with them, they were more than just window dressing.CapellaBut in 2 Sam.5:13 David took many wives and concubines, direct
disobedience, no "command" of God. What about "not multiplying
wives" is unclear here?LDS4God, not David, gave David those
wives in 2Samuel 12:8. David didn't multiply wives unto himself. God wanted
David to have them and gave them to him and said that if they weren't enough, He
9GOD) would have given him more. God then gave the women to another INDIVIDUAL
man thus allowing (commanding?) him to be polygamous.We also know
that Paul's command that bishops and elders have only one wife shows that
polygamy was at least tolerated in the early Church otherwise such a restriction
would not have been given.To say that polygamy is definitionally
sinful is clearly unbiblical.
KJK in SLC;I agree that 2Samuel 12 refers to God giving David
"Saul's palace and his wives and the kingdoms of Israel and Judah".
The spoils of fallen kings were given to their successors in ancient times, for
care-taking and real estate claims. We aren't told if these wives were for
cohabitation. But in 2 Sam.5:13 David took many wives and concubines, direct
disobedience, no "command" of God. What about "not multiplying
wives" is unclear here?The Book of Mormon had no problem with
condemning it either.God made His covenant with Abraham, Jacob,
David and Solomon- all human beings, imperfect, with their sins and blemishes
published forever in God's Word. Neither David's adultery or murderous schemes,
nor the others' plural wives and pathetic paternal mistakes nullified God's
covenant. Neither did His covenant say anywhere that He approved of all of
their life's actions. Everyone here making the same insinuative
mistake is beyond "specious". It is unfounded and extra-biblical. We
can agree on that.With regard to polygamy, there are no scriptures
that command it and plenty that condemn it. Let's move on. You will never win
this using God's Book or Mormon's.
MiP:I agree that saying something doesn't make it so. My definition of a
prophet is when the God of the Bible gives him that office and gift,
(Heb.5:4-11). Christ did not even take the office of High Priest, rather the
Father bestowed it upon His Son. Prophets were first instituted in Deuteronomy
18:15-22. "Long ago God spoke in many different ways to our
fathers through the prophets... but now in these days He has spoken to us
through His Son..." (Heb.1:1) And the Son has said, one wife, in all four
Gospels.Abraham did not have wives and concubines. He had Sarah,
took Hagar without God's permission, and married Keturah as a widower.Gramajane: Your definiton makes perfect sense for Mormons, but not Biblical
followers. A prophet is one to whom God gives that title. No Jews consider
Abraham a prophet, because God's Word never does. He is called Father Abraham
by all Jews and Biblical Christians. Your verses are not germain:
Gen.25:1 simply says that Abraham married again, after Sarah's death. Hagar was
never called his wife, nor was his and Sarah's coniving sanctioned by God.Please read.
"A patriarch is not a prophet, and none are recorded with plural
wives."-CapellaJust because you state it, doesn't make it
correct.Are you saying that Abraham is not a prophet? If so, what is
your definition of prophet, then?It is clear, from the bible, that
Abraham had wives and concubines (plural).It is clear, from the bible,
that Abraham had spoken to God and recieved a covenant with him.It is
clear, from the bible, that Abraham was considered a just a holy man.Of
course if Moses "forbade" polygamy it would matter little to Abraham,
as Abraham lived generations before. Bottom line: A patriach is a
father. A prophet is one who speaks with/for God. I believe Abraham was both,
and of all the things the bible is not ambiguous on was the fact that Abraham
had children with more than one woman, yet was favored in the site of God.
You know what's really funny? As more and more states allow gay marriage, and
further corrode/evolve the concept of one man/one woman marriage, it is
inevitable that there will be more pressure to allow "other choices".
One of the first of those options will naturally be the allowance of some form
of polygamy in states.My prediction? The pressure will be in
"liberal" states, and/or states with a higher African and/or Muslim
population. Some state will break the barrier and allow plural marriage in that
state.The Mormon Church won't be behind the movement, won't sponsor
the movement, may even condemn the movement (as in Prop 8). You will actually
have the situation where there will be non-Mormon (of any sect) polygamists in
other states, and it won't be Utah. And the church will not just gasp, "oh
good, now it's OK again. All right everyone, line up and marry all those other
single sisters."They will be the "hold outs" for the
traditional marriage. How ironic.
My problem with Mitt Romney is that he will not take a position on polygamy, or
say anything condemning it!
In the last General Conference Elder Christofferson gave a talk of counsel and
teaching to us. There are many on this board who reflect upon these same
teachings."The Book of Mormon contains the account of a man
named Nehor. It is easy to understand why Mormon, in abridging a thousand years
of Nephite records, though it important to include something about this man and
the enduring influence of his DOCTRINE. Mormon was seeking to warn us, knowing
this philosophy would surface agin in our day." Many of the individuals
represent Nehor and his followers especially Korihor. For those who have a firm
commitment to the Gospel, I suggest you read these chapters in Alma about these
two men.People who say the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints changes its Doctrine, clearly do not understand the Doctrine itself.
They refuse to submit that further revelation comes as it is needed. Revelation
is continuing and a Prophet 150 years may not have had the entire revelation,
only what was needed then. As far as beer is concerned, President Young taught
against it during his time frame and it was adapted as the standard still today.
Some people on here are quick to dismiss quotes by mormon prophets from a
hundred or more years ago, saying it doesn't apply to our day and time. Yet,
they give quotes from the bible from thousands of years ago and cite them as
truth for our time. It is a double standard. The church keeps
flip-flopping on many issues. People say we abandoned polygamy because we have
to keep the laws of the land. Polygamy was illegal while mormons practiced it
for years. How does that work?? We can drink beer, then we can't
drink beer. We do believe in the doctrine of polygamy, then we don't believe it
is a doctrine. Temple ceremony changing constantly. It just doesn't make sense.
Mitt Romney emphasized in his opening statement at debate last night that
fidelity to wife, family and country with it's constitutional guarantee of
individual rights is what sets him apart from Gingrich.The reason
legislators such as Gingrich are vulnerable to corruption is because they were
not idependently wealthy and sought to make their fortune when the lobbyists
came knocking at his door.Romney made his fortune on his own in
private business and it allows him the opportunity to be self insured against
the corruption found at the seat of power in our national government.
Plural marriage was the popular issue. The real issue was the need for Utah to
adopt American capitalism and a two party system in order to gain entry into the
Humm, some think Bible patriarchs are not prophets? If God talks to a man,
and tells him what to do, and to tell others to do, to me that is a prophet. Didn't God talk to Abraham (quite a lot if I remember) (no pun intended) and told him to do things etc. I sure think the Jews consider him a prophet?
Here are some KJV Bible scripture references and some ref for further scriptures
(LDS have the Bible listed FIRST, in our cannon) for any who want to go to the
source for what the Bible and further LDS cannon says on plural marriage. (an
easy way on line is to go to LDS.org where there is a topical guide in the study
helps-- that I got this list from, if you don't have a Bible handy. "See also Gen. 16:1â11; Gen. 25:1; Gen. 29:28; Gen. 30:4, 9, 26;
Ex. 21:10; Deut. 17:15â17; Deut. 21:15; 2 Sam. 2:2; 2 Sam. 5:13; 2 Sam.
12:7â9; 1 Kgs. 11:1â4; 2 Chr. 13:21; 2 Chr. 24:3; Isa. 4:1; Ether
10:5; D&C 132:52, 61â62; Official Declaration 1."There were also about 3 ref from BofM from book of Jacob, but I didn't know if
the copy paste of that much would work. -- the basis of those I didn't copy was
that when God says it is to do, and when he says not, and if it is done wrong it
causes grief and suffering.
"U.S. democracy was invented in the New World" Us democracy was based
on the ancient Roman senate prior to the emperors. Now, correct me if I am
wrong, were not very similar things said about Kennedy and his Catholicism? This
is also akin to having a presidential candidate German descent whose
grandparents fought on the side of Germany during WWII.... Oh wait.. the pope
was part of the Hitlerjungend....
So as someone on here indicated that they thought that Deut. 17:17 meant that
plural marriage was spoken against-- I propose that it was taken out of context.
The verses above indicated in the same wording that the king was not to
"multiply horses to himself" -- do we take that to mean he was only
allowed ONE horse? I rather doubt that. I do understand that some kinds had
hundreds of horses and some whole harems of wives, and that what was really
spoken against the MOST was taking wives from other faiths. --- while I find in
2 Sam 12:8 we find the prophet quoting God saying "I gave thee thy masters
wives..." I believe when God says something is commanded to multiply (sex
AFTER marriage with spouse) it is good, but when it is condemned by God (outside
of marriage of a man to a woman) it is wrong. Again, I am really glad we are not
called to practice it now. I also believe that in the KJV, you can read for
yourself, Jesus is descended from a plural marriage line though his mother Mary.
Capella posted:Deuteronomy 17:17: "Neither shall he multiply wives
for himself, lest his heart turn away;". David and Solomon disobeyed God
here. 2Sam.5:13; 12:11; 1Kings 11:3,4, to cite a few.key word is
"Himself". A man can't arbitrarily choose to have multiple wives.
The Lord has to authorize it. David's polygamy was OK when God gave him
the wives. But when David took one on his own ambition, complicated by a murder,
he was in the wrong.
I think what is more relevant is who is practicing polygamy now (or more
recently). Newt practice polygamy for 6 years, until he was caught by his 2nd
wife in 1999. He ask her if they could have an "open marriage"
(Polygamy) and she refused.
Capella: Gramajane and others who purport that Biblical prophets practiced
polygamy have no authorized Biblcal support. No polygamous prophet is recorded
in the KJV and Moses forbade it. KJK: To claim that Abraham wasn't a
prophet is specious.C: Receiving blessings from the Lord does not
mean that He endorses every aspect of your life. Many early LDS prophets
condemned David's adultery and said that his coniving Uriah's death cost him
eternal condemnation. KJK: Agreed, but in 2 Sam 12:7-12, God
reprimands David for his adultery and reminds David that He (God) was the one
that gave David his wives and also said that if they weren't enough, He (God)
would have given him more. God then says that as punishment, God was to take
those wives from him and would give them to another INDIVIDUAL man who was to
lie with them in the sun. If polygamy were wrong, God wouldn't have
given David those wives nor offered to give David even more. Nor would God have
turned around and given those women as wives to another INDIVIDUAL man. Solomon's sin wasn't polygamy, but that he married idolatrous women.
As an issue, it is a non-starter. Only the liberal media cares about it. No
one else does.
I love how easy it is to twist words,quote scripture and words of past leaders
and then tie it into today's world. Plural marriage as a doctrine is not morally
wrong when commanded by the Lord to practice it. None of us were alive in the
1800's so trying to analyze the why's and the mindset of those people is
fruitless. So what if someone's past ancestors were practising plural marriage,
were slave traders, horse thieves, bank robbers etc etc. A
candidate should be judged on his integrity, honesty, and moral standing. The
polygamy debate left the station a long time ago so let's get on with the real
issues of the day. geesshhhhhh
Gramajane and others who purport that Biblical prophets practiced polygamy have
no authorized Biblcal support. No polygamous prophet is recorded in the KJV and
Moses forbade it. These incorrect statements should have been corrected by
Bible-believers. A patriarch is not a prophet, and none are recorded with
plural wives. Abraham, Jacob, (not Isaac, as Joseph and others here keep
insisting), Saul, David and Solomon were biographed with their cultural
practice. Jesus said God allowed divorce, but the New Testament gives the
caveats. He obviously allows free agancy, from the Garden forward.Receiving blessings from the Lord does not mean that He endorses every aspect
of your life. Many early LDS prophets condemned David's adultery and said that
his coniving Uriah's death cost him eternal condemnation. So don't use David as
your proof-text.Grama claims that "the Bible no where condemns
this practice". So everyone here just accepts that, despite all the
scriptural refs cited by Sharrona & others? Deuteronomy 17:17:
"Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn
away;". David and Solomon disobeyed God here. 2Sam.5:13; 12:11; 1Kings
11:3,4, to cite a few.Really unbelievable.
My wife and I each have polygamy in our family history. We have talked a great
deal about the families and the children that came as a result. We don't deny it
or try to hide it. It is a fact and commandment our ancestors chose to obey at
the time. Neither one of us would have any notion of trying it ourselves. I
predict that polygamy will become a major legal issue in coming years, but not
due to any LDS or FLDS connection. The Muslim population in this country is
exploding and they will surely challenge the Christian based laws on the subject
soon. They could easily piggyback off the whole gay marriage debate to question
the constitutional basis of one man, one woman. We could all be in for a wild
legal ride! It could easily happen during a Mitt Romney presidency. I would
expect him to bring a balanced realistic perspective to the debate.
Did you know that in countries where polygamy is practiced, men live an average
of 9 years longer.
The key word of course is "practice." Plural marriage continues to be
a correct Biblical principle of course, it's just that Utah in particular has
incorporated serious anti-plural marriage statutes as well as constitutional
clauses into the state's legal system, so that of all places in the world it is
the most anti-"polygamy." The catch however, is that all the
"Christian and civilized society" rationale used by the US Supreme
Court in Reynolds V US to uphold these crippling laws have been utterly
undermined. Santorum it correct. You will have gay marriage in all or most of
the US states. And yes, tossing the Christian-biased court rulings aside, if you
have that there is indeed no Constitutional validity in restricting plural
marriage. So no, Mormons don't "practice" plural marriage. That's what
Newt Gingrich does. In serial form. But for the LDS church to even state that
plural marriage is a correct principle, even though conceding to obey prevailing
legal regulations in the matter, is a "thought crime" also upheld by
the Supreme Court, that puts the church in jeapardy of being dissolved and
confiscated by the Federal Government...again.
Wait - I thought Romney had 15 wives? You mean he only has one?? Somebody better
Any Christian church who uses the Bible as its basis for their faith also had
polygamy in their past. There were several highly revered Old Testament
prophets who practiced it. That should end ANY criticism of the LDS Church on
@Thinkman"Doctrine and Covenants section 132. Go read it and
tell me the LDS Church doesn't still adhere to the principle of
polygamy."-------Go to the Old Testament book of Genesis
and read about circumcision and tell me that Christianity doesn't still adhere
to the principle of circumcision.Anybody who thinks the LDS Church
still adheres to polygamy can teach it in his/her next Sacrament meeting talk.
Then that person can wait for a church court soon after.
John Pack Lambert 8:13 The number of Evangelical Christian polygamists is
significantly higher than people have admitted?? Then they would not
be Bible beleiving Christians(followers of Christ)and His Apostles and would be
living in sin.And(Jesus) said, For this cause shall a man leave
father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife(not wives): and they twain shall
be one flesh?( MT: 19:5) ordain Elders in every city, as I had
appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of ONE wife(not wives), having
faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. (Titus 1:5,6). Disqualifies
young LDS missionaries as well. But those who obey Gods WORD truly
show how completely they love him. That is how we know we are living in him.(1
John 2:5 NLT).
Perhaps this polygmy thing is being given a bad wrap, maybe it would be a good
thing to have thirty two first ladies.
Thinkman: d&c 132 talks of polygamy and no the church does not practice it
now. Religion shouldn't matter anyway.
One problem is that the Romney family is tied to Polygamy in ways that most LDS
members are not. When polygamy became illegal it was Mitt's great grandfather
that moved to Mexico (where there was no law or enforcement) to continue the
practice. There are still many Romney's that still live in Mexico. This fact
alone will make it easy fodder for critical public review and late night TV
The Book of Mormon and the Doctrine & Covenants are in conflict regarding
the historical morality of Polygamy as regards David and his wives. But the
132nd Section makes it clear that as a doctrine (not a practice)polygamy is
still an eternal principal that cannot be denied. Because of this, whether
Mormons like it or not, it remains an issue for discussion and condemnation.
Joseph Smith said that some revelations were of God, some of Satan,
and some of men.
While were at it let's make candidates with ancestors that had slaves or fought
for the South relevant to the campaign.
Polygamy wasn't about necessity of the species, it was about a true test of
obedience... the real question facing the early church, as splinters of apostate
groups threatened to pull it apart at the seams, was whether one truly believed
in the prophetic Restoration enough to abandon society altogether for God. Most
of the men who initially practiced it, loathed it, but were committed to the
cause of Zion. The prophet was the only man authorized by God to
institutionalize it, and likewise the prophet abolished it. While it was
practiced in the church it was a HUGE challenge, causing great stresses to the
families it created--especially among the women who struggled to balance their
commitment to God with the natural feelings of their hearts, loneliness, envy,
and all that comes with sharing the love of your life. Likewise,
when Polygamy was abolished, those most faithful to the cause of Zion, abandoned
it posthaste, while those who were converted to something other than God and His
Prophet refused to obey, and were cut off. God continues this process today,
though not nearly as radical, he asks his saints to serve missions, do
hometeaching, abstain from worldly influence... etc...
The issue of polygamy being practiced by ancestors of Mitt Romney is about as
relevant as was the issue of slave holding practiced both by President Obama's
Luo ancestors in Africa and by George Washington Overall, his fourth great
grandfather, and Mary Duvall, his fifth great grandmother, both on his white
mother's side. Not relevant.
So, Mitt Romney's great grandfather was polygamous and supported his wives and
children. Barack Obama's father was polygamous and abandoned his wives and
children. Which is more meritorious?
The only way polygamy can come into the debate is by linking it with gay
marriage. But the discussion of polygamy is further away from modern events than
is gay marriage. These candidates had no direct effect on the 1890 polygamy
debate but can influence the gay marriage debate. Therefore that link is
tenuous.If I was running and was asked about polygamy then that questioned
would be answered by another question; "What does the President of the
President Gordon B. Hinkley's response to polygamy on 60 minutes is; "It's
behind us." So, why do some members want to bring the
discussion back, especially online, as if they know more than the rest of us,
even though it is contrary to any mission discussion?"When any
Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such
teaching, he has been promptly reproved." Willford Woodruff 1890
@what in tucket?"The demographics of the time the Church was in its
early phase required polygamy."Utah was majority male until
I wish people would avoid going to far when defending the Church. It is very hard to say what percentage of members "practiced
polygamy". The 2% figure cited by Bill is generally considered a far to
low figure. Of course it depends on how you count. 1-who is practicing
polygamy. 2-how are you counting it? 3-who do you count as members (such as do
you look at Utah, or the Church as a whole) 3-what of men on missions who have
multiple wives at home?If you take the number of men at any given
time who have multiple wives at that time and compare it to the total membership
of the Church, you will get a much lower number as a percentage than if you take
a longer range sample of men and look at if they ever have multiple wives at the
same time and only compare them to the total adult male population in the
Church. More relevant to this discussion Romney never knew his
polygamists great-grandfathers since they died before his birth.
Way more males than females die before the age of 8. This means it is very
likely that more men than women will be in the celestial kingdom. How will God
work this out. I don;t know, but claims to know how it will happen are odd.
Decesed women can be sealed to multiple husbands. My great-grandmother has been
sealed to at least three different men.The Bible dictionary makes no
statements regarding plural marriage. The article about marriage does mention
that marriages performed by the sealing power can last beyond this life, but
makes no mention of mutiple spouses at a given time period.Bruce R.
McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" was never endorsed by the body of the
Church in conference assembled as doctrinal. It was based on his opinions
gained from reading the scriptures and other resources as well as considering
issues in his own mind. Beyond this the Bible Dictionary says of itsefl
"It is not intended as an official or revealed endorsement by the Church of
the doctrinal ... maters sent forth". The part I skipped delineated other
types of matters not endorsed.Many statements made by BRC were
"quite a large group" is an extreme exageration. If you count all the
people who accept that Polygamy is a permissible practice (among whom only about
half the adult males ever actually have multiple wives) in British Columbia,
Montana, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Colorado, South Dakota, Chihuahua and Morelos
states in Mexico, and a few people largely living isolatedly in Wyoming and
California and maybe even a few other states, the largest estimate of that
population is 40,000. The number of Muslims in New York City who would at least
affirm polygamy is a permissible practice may well rival this number, and the
number of actual Muslim or Hmong polygamists in the United States probably
exceeds the number of polygamists who claim to follow the teachings of Joseph
Smith.The number of Evangelical Christian polygamists is
significantly higher than people have admitted. It would not surprise me if
Chicago has a higher percentage of polygamists than Salt Lake City, and
Massachusetts than Utah.
Gordon B. Hinckley clearly stated that practicing polygamy in our day and time
is wrong. A reading of Jacob 3 clearly says that polygamy is immoral and
repulsive in the sight of the Lord except when he specifically allows this
practice.Obama has more recent ancestors who belong to religious
groups that clearly accepted polygamy than does Romney.
The demographics of the time the Church was in its early phase required
polygamy. 15 religions failed because they had too few men. After a generation
or two demographics improved and polygamy was not longer necessary. You would
have to search a long time to find a member in favor of polygamy now. Of course
bigamy is not unheard of.
Actually to those who think the LDS Church wants to wash this under the rug are
wrong. At NO TIME has the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day-Saints
apologized for their practice of polgamy, nor do I ever see it being done. By the way as much as some would like to have it said, MORMON DOCTRINE
is not formal LDS Church Doctrine, nor should it ever be construed as such.
Though I may agree with it I don't endorse all of it. However, I do believe
that polgamy will at some time be practiced again and when done under the
direction of the Priesthood of God, will be fine. Those who condemn it because
of the FLDS do not understand it nor do they wish to understand it. It is my
opinion that the Lord was already in the process of rescinding the practice of
polgamy before the legislature and courts interviened.If it was to
be put back in force, though I feel inadequate to do so I would adhere to the
voice of the Prophet of the Lord, hands down.Remember ONLY 2% of all
members ever practiced polgamy.
There is not enough space to write it here, but anyone can become clearer in his
or her understanding and discussion of polygamy if he reads the
"Manifesto" and accompanying excerpts from additional talks by
Willford Woodruff on the subject. Taken at face value, they are powerful
witnesses to his prophetic calling. These writings can put a lot of
controversy and personal interpretations to rest. They can be found at the end
of the Doctrine and Covenants published by the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day-Saints. They are only 2-3 pages long but suffice to give an accurate
description of why and how the practice was discontinued.
Romney's tax returns going back to 1984 are just as important.
It shouldn't be relevant though if I were a betting man I have to think at some
point if it hasn't already happened Romney's going to get stuck with a "do
you condemn Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's polygamous practices?" type
question by someone who wants to trap him in a lose/lose situation.
I am still trying to figure out the relevance of this article to Romney and the
campaign. This is old news at best and has been well discussed for years. It has
nothing to do with selecting a candidate and helping America get things going in
the right direction. I can read the history books to know about polygamy. What
this has to do with politics now still is a mystery to me. Let's focus on how
these candidates will make changes and help Americans. I am tired of hearing
these side-shows. Show me the beef and how we are going to make America great
What did I tell you?The story of it all will go on and on and on...
Assuming the question of polygamy didn't state which side of the veil was being
referred to, one could say, yes, the Church still does believe in, and practice
plural marriage. Not in this life, perhaps, however, but how many of our male
members are sealed to more than one spouse? Without going into detail, there is
much in our scripture telling us the polygamy question is not over, and in this
country it is a question of the law, not of the Church's doctrine. I don't
presume to know about other countries where multiple wives are legal. But if it
does come up, I'm sure--I hope--the requirements surrounding the practice at the
time, which kept it to a minimum and called for accountability from the men
involved, will also be brought up. The trouble with living by the sound byte is,
nothing is really understood as it should be, because no one takes the time to
pay attention to the other person's thoughts. Each is too busy thinking up his
own sound byte.
Mitt will loase this argument every time. Mormons created this mess and cannot
wipe the history under the rug like they would like.
Does it go on unchecked with a nudge and a wink in Colorado city and hildale?
Razzle2,The LDS Church does practice polygamy. It may not be a
practice in "this life" but the doctrine is still in place as it
relates to the celestial kingdom.Joseph Smith needed a revelation to
justify his taking on more wives than Emma. Wilford Woodruff needed a
revelation to justify his staying out of jail and providing a way for Utah to
become a State.Wilford Woodruff, nor has any president of the LDS
Church since, rescinded the doctrine of polygamy (aka plural marriage). Go read
the LDS KJV Bible Dictionary (aka, Bruce R Mckonkie's Mormon Doctrine). You
will see that I am right.
While the LDS church no longer practices polygamy, it is still practiced by
quite a large group within Utah as well as Arizona and Colorado. At the same
time, most people do not know the differences between FLDS and LDS. They are as
big as the differences between Baptists and Southern Baptists (which is quite a
big difference, unless you aren't familiar with the two religions).Right or wrong, polygamy will play a part in the 2012 campaign. Gay marriage
is a hot button topic that gets a ton of media attention. But polygamy
continues on in Utah and even grows from year to year. It just doesn't get the
media attention. Expect that to change soon. Also expect legislators that were
quick to pass laws regarding gay marriage to suddenly jump on the enforcement
bandwagon with regards to polygamy as the campaign season gets rolling.
Rick Santorum's reference between Gay Marriage and Polygamy was not a swipe at
Romney, although convenient.His argument was that if you change the
definition of marriage of one man and one woman, how far done the slippery slope
do we go? Polygamy will be the next debate and then the next debate
will be there is no definition for marriage at all.
Its becoming a common misconception among LDS that polygamy was bad and that it
was discredited by LDS leaders. The LDS Church stopped practicing polygamy to
follow the laws of the land. No Church leader has ever stated that the Church
was wrong in practicing polygamy and they never will.
@Thinkman "Doctrine and Covenants section 132. Go read it and tell me the
LDS Church doesn't still adhere to the principle of polygamy."OK, I read it. The LDS Church does not adhere to the principle of polygamy in
any country legal or illegal. If you practice it you will be excommunicated.Now go read the Book of Mormon and see the affirmation of polygamy's
Since the Bible shows most all OT prophets practicing plural marriage and so
Jesus has it in his mothers ancestors, and the Bible does not speak against it,
but does say not to marry out of the faith, plus the Bible speaks against
adultery in all it's forms ( pre marital sex is one form) --- I hardly think
Evangelicals have a leg to stand on to condem Anyone for his ancestors
Biblically condoned actions. There is not supposed to be any religious
Polygamy has zero relevance to Romney or his presidential bid. However, with
that said, it will be relevant because people (media) will make it an issue. It
might be a plus for the church, however, as an explanation of that belief from
Mitt to millions may put the myth to rest once and for all for the church.
When Rick Santorum changed the subject when college students asked him about gay
marriage, Rick Santorum instead chose to talk about polygamy. Many
of my friends on the FB asked me 'Is that a shot at Romney?' Here is
how I look at it: 'If the LDS church is NOT polygamys, then 'no' it would not
APPLY to the lds church, correct?' While Utah was the final state to
deny polygamy, it was done. In 1890. Even Amendment 3 in the Utah
constitution changed marriage from 'two people' to 'one man and one woman' in
2004. It is the EXAMPLES like 'Sister wives' and examples of the
FLDS that promote the idea that the LDS church still supports polygamy. Not, 'liberal propaganda.'
Doctrine and Covenants section 132. Go read it and tell me the LDS Church
doesn't still adhere to the principle of polygamy. Will it be relevant in 2012
campaign? Likely no and shouldn't be.
Taboo subject will be revealed, discussed, twisted, turned, etc. to the Nth
degree.You can count on it!