Quantcast

Comments about ‘Is LDS polygamy history relevant to 2012 campaign?’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Jan. 18 2012 1:58 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
justamacguy
Manti, UT

Did you know that in countries where polygamy is practiced, men live an average of 9 years longer.

AZCoug
Mesa, AZ

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.

Capella
BAKERSFIELD, CA

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.

Kevin
Surrey, BC

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

Flashback
Kearns, UT

As an issue, it is a non-starter. Only the liberal media cares about it. No one else does.

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

LDSareChristians
Anchorage, AK

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.

LDSareChristians
Anchorage, AK

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.

Gramajane
OAKLEY, ID

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.

Munk
Cottonwood Heights, UT

"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....

Gramajane
OAKLEY, ID

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.

Gramajane
OAKLEY, ID

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? go figure?

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

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 union.

iron&clay
RIVERTON, UT

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.

Brahmabull
sandy, ut

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.

Bill in Nebraska
Maryville, MO

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.

oldirishman
Van Wert, OH

My problem with Mitt Romney is that he will not take a position on polygamy, or say anything condemning it!

crunchem
Cedar City, Utah

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.

MiP
Iowa City, IA

"A patriarch is not a prophet, and none are recorded with plural wives."
-Capella

Just 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.

Capella
BAKERSFIELD, CA

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.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments