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
Capella
BAKERSFIELD, CA

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.

lds4gaymarriage
Salt Lake City, UT

Capella
2Samuel 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.
LDS4
Since the INDIVIDUAL man God gave them to in v.11 was to lie with them, they were more than just window dressing.

Capella
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?
LDS4
God, 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.

sharrona
layton, UT

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)

FreeAndClear
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

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.

Bill in Nebraska
Maryville, MO

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.

Brahmabull
sandy, ut

Bill in Nebraska said: At no time has the LDS Church ever condemned the practice of Polgamy

Prophet 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.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

Brahmabull
Bill in Nebraska said: At no time has the LDS Church ever condemned the practice of Polgamy

Prophet 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.

LDS4
It 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 comment

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