Reader comments
BYU professor speaks on LDS polygamy
166 comments | Read story
The Deuce | 11:54 p.m. May 23, 2009
Once Gay/Lesbian marriage is accepted into law, polygamy is not far behind. The
same arguments that are used to sanction gay marriage can also be used for
polygamy. I say we are a progressive society. Anyone disagree?
Jancis M. Andrews | 8:15 a.m. May 24, 2009
Polygamy is not a question of morality. It's a question of women's
equality rights. There is no equality in a relationship where there is one man
and several women fighting for his emotional and sexual attention, and his
financial support for them and their children. Only the first wife is protected
legally, the remainder are merely concubines in his harem, and cannot benefit
from the man's health insurance, dental benefits, life insurance, spousal
pension,and an equal division of property on his death. This is why the UN has
condemned polygamy as a contravention of women's rights which also harms
their children because polygamy impoverishes them. Polygamy comes from the dark
ages when women had no rights and were mere chattels to be traded among men.
It's way past time this shameful practise was kicked into the garbage can
of history where it belongs. The year is 2009 AD, not 2009 BC.
Comments continue below
Not condoning polygamy | 11:12 a.m. May 24, 2009
but I was stunned to find out in my adult life that without it, I wouldn't
be on this Earth.
Say what you will about polygamy, but that fact alone has certainly altered my perception of the practice.
The question of polygamy is can there be a fair, consenting relationship among all involved. It must be very difficult, to say the least.
Say what you will about polygamy, but that fact alone has certainly altered my perception of the practice.
The question of polygamy is can there be a fair, consenting relationship among all involved. It must be very difficult, to say the least.
Shelly | 1:22 p.m. May 24, 2009
First, polygamy today is not sanctioned by God. Only when it is, has it
flourished and been acceptable to him. Prophets of old were given God's
blessing in polygamy. We must keep this in perspective.
The FLDS have perverted the practice and we are now seeing the shocking details of abuse and inequality as "men" lived their own definition of it. The LDS have a history of it, but no desires to revive it.
It is not an institution that is compatible with today's society. We must do all we can to destroy any maladaptive behaviors (homosexuality included) in order for future generations to have a fighting chance at normalcy.
The FLDS have perverted the practice and we are now seeing the shocking details of abuse and inequality as "men" lived their own definition of it. The LDS have a history of it, but no desires to revive it.
It is not an institution that is compatible with today's society. We must do all we can to destroy any maladaptive behaviors (homosexuality included) in order for future generations to have a fighting chance at normalcy.
Ummmmmmmmm Gag | 1:42 p.m. May 24, 2009
Polygamy is so gone, or should be. I get nauseated hearing about it all of the
time.
GB | 2:41 p.m. May 24, 2009
Interesting article, especially the part describing the prosecutor's,
defense attorney's, and judge's statements/positions. I wish the
article had described more of the trials.
To Big Love Justin @11:31 - I have similar suspicions about Noah. It seems suspiciously convenient that he just happened to receive a revelation about building an ark just before a flood came. His "revelation" would have been much more believable if its timing hadn't coincided so perfectly with world events.
I'm being facetious (in case that's not obvious). The Lord helps people survive in the world they live in. I don't think the timing of the ark revelation or the polygamy revelation has to be disconnected from world events for it to be authentic.
To Big Love Justin @11:31 - I have similar suspicions about Noah. It seems suspiciously convenient that he just happened to receive a revelation about building an ark just before a flood came. His "revelation" would have been much more believable if its timing hadn't coincided so perfectly with world events.
I'm being facetious (in case that's not obvious). The Lord helps people survive in the world they live in. I don't think the timing of the ark revelation or the polygamy revelation has to be disconnected from world events for it to be authentic.
D | 2:48 p.m. May 24, 2009
POLYGAMY: IF TRUE (AGREEABLY TRUE), MARK WITH AN (X): FACTS OR FICTION
(QUASI-FACTS OR QUASI-FICTION)
( ) ASYMMETRIC HUMAN RIGHTS
( ) ASYMMETRIC EQUAL RIGHTS
( ) ASYMMETRIC HUMAN DIGNITY
BASED ON ASYMMETRIC LAWS.
SIGNED: DEBATER
( ) ASYMMETRIC HUMAN RIGHTS
( ) ASYMMETRIC EQUAL RIGHTS
( ) ASYMMETRIC HUMAN DIGNITY
BASED ON ASYMMETRIC LAWS.
SIGNED: DEBATER
Cats | 3:05 p.m. May 24, 2009
I'm no fan of polygamy, but it must be pointed out that the polygamy of
today is a far cry from the polygamy of the 19th century. What goes on in the
Jeffs situation is really sick and cannot be compared in any way to the polygamy
that was strictly controlled over a hundred years ago. Those who fight
polygamy, as it is practiced today, confirm this.
In the 19th century only about 2%-5% of the membership practiced it. One had to be called to the practice and couldn't just do it at will. There were no arranged marriages and no underage marriages. In addition, divorce laws strongly favored women. It was very easy for a woman to get out of a polygamous marriage. It was very difficult for a man to get out of one because it was considered that he had responsibilities to his wife and children.
Unlike the FLDS culture, no women in 19th century Utah were forced into polygamous marriages. Neither Joseph Smith or Brigham Young EVER taught that polygamy was necessary to enter the Celestial Kingdom.
You can see the two situations are quite different.
In the 19th century only about 2%-5% of the membership practiced it. One had to be called to the practice and couldn't just do it at will. There were no arranged marriages and no underage marriages. In addition, divorce laws strongly favored women. It was very easy for a woman to get out of a polygamous marriage. It was very difficult for a man to get out of one because it was considered that he had responsibilities to his wife and children.
Unlike the FLDS culture, no women in 19th century Utah were forced into polygamous marriages. Neither Joseph Smith or Brigham Young EVER taught that polygamy was necessary to enter the Celestial Kingdom.
You can see the two situations are quite different.
Get A Brain | 3:12 p.m. May 24, 2009
Polygamy was never sanctioned by God. Some women once had the wool pulled down
darn hard over their eyes.
Only men sanctioned it for their fleshy desires.
Only men sanctioned it for their fleshy desires.
Day dreamer | 3:16 p.m. May 24, 2009
Polygamy is true for the man who indulges.
Wasted people | 3:21 p.m. May 24, 2009
It is interesting how SOME but few men of the LDS church still defend polygamy.
There are still deviates drawn to this religion of abuse.
Re: Big Love Justin | 3:29 p.m. May 24, 2009
One of the things that often gets overlooked when people are criticizing the
revelation to cease polygamy is that the members of the LDS church were already
making plans to pick up and move out the country a second time. They had their
debts closed, their homes and businesses ready to shut down at a moment's
notice, food stored up, a plan to leave, and even a place to go. They'd
left the country to live their lives as God told them to once before, and they
were ready and willing to do it again. It wasn't like they had to stay put
and take the abuse if they didn't feel it was what they were supposed to
do. Their parents had left their homes and started over a number of times, and
they were prepared to do it themselves. The only reason they DIDN'T leave
was because the prophet and his apostles prayed for direction, and the answer
they received was to stay put and to stop practicing polygamy.
Funny how critics don't ever seem to acknowledge the plans that were in place, or the fact that the Mormons were used to moving.
Funny how critics don't ever seem to acknowledge the plans that were in place, or the fact that the Mormons were used to moving.
Proud of my past | 3:31 p.m. May 24, 2009
My grandfather would often say he was proud to be a polygamist child. He would
add how happy they were as a family.
It should have been noted that many Husbands/fathers left the U.S. and traveled to Mexico, so they could be with all their wives and children. There in Mexico within the Mormon Colonies they provided love and peace for all their children.
Plural marriage was not a gospel principle easy to live, not every husband or wife lived it perfectly, it demanded true love, the love the Apostle Paul and for the LDS that Moroni taught. For pure love, suffereth long, is kind, envieth not, is not provoked, thinkth no evil.
My Great Grandmother, who was the second wife wrote: "There was no jealousy or enmity between us. We loved and enjoyed each other. Learned to depend on each other."
Through reading many journals I can firmly state the Polygamy lived by my ancestors have no resemblance to the way the FLDS or many others who now practice polygamy live.
Like a monogamous marriage, plural marriage can work well or it can end in divorce. Is it immoral no I don't think so.
It should have been noted that many Husbands/fathers left the U.S. and traveled to Mexico, so they could be with all their wives and children. There in Mexico within the Mormon Colonies they provided love and peace for all their children.
Plural marriage was not a gospel principle easy to live, not every husband or wife lived it perfectly, it demanded true love, the love the Apostle Paul and for the LDS that Moroni taught. For pure love, suffereth long, is kind, envieth not, is not provoked, thinkth no evil.
My Great Grandmother, who was the second wife wrote: "There was no jealousy or enmity between us. We loved and enjoyed each other. Learned to depend on each other."
Through reading many journals I can firmly state the Polygamy lived by my ancestors have no resemblance to the way the FLDS or many others who now practice polygamy live.
Like a monogamous marriage, plural marriage can work well or it can end in divorce. Is it immoral no I don't think so.
Anonymous | 3:39 p.m. May 24, 2009
Put this article in the tribune so some of the rest of us can comment.
c almond | 3:40 p.m. May 24, 2009
Re: Not condoning polygamy
There are people who would not exist were it not for rape or incest, I hope that fact wouldn't cause people to question the morality of those.
Re: Big Love Justin
When laws were changed allowing women to initiate divorce, the suicide rate among women dropped 20%. While there are, in general, benefits to a child who has married parents, I do not believe they outweigh the drawbacks of a suicidal or dead mother.
There are people who would not exist were it not for rape or incest, I hope that fact wouldn't cause people to question the morality of those.
Re: Big Love Justin
When laws were changed allowing women to initiate divorce, the suicide rate among women dropped 20%. While there are, in general, benefits to a child who has married parents, I do not believe they outweigh the drawbacks of a suicidal or dead mother.
Stewart | 3:43 p.m. May 24, 2009
The "serial polygamy" of today where men and women live together for
awhile and then move on leaving millions of single mothers requiring support
from the state is far worse than that of 19th Century polygamy. Today's
"serial polygamy" causes much more harm to women and children than LDS
polygamy of over a century ago. It is even more harmful than the FLDS polygamy
of today. It is so common today that we don't even see it or even care.
Oh, please!!! | 3:47 p.m. May 24, 2009
Re Cats...oh sure! Polygamy has been the same through out time. It has always
been abusive. Don't kid yourself unless you have lived in a polygamist
relationship, AND please don't speak unless you know how polygamy truly is.
Also, men are good for covering their tracks for you mindless ones out there who
know nothing about polygamy! History is reported from A MANS POINT OF VIEW on
polygamy and never a woman's.
An Observer | 3:55 p.m. May 24, 2009
It's clear the negative nabobs of humanity have no understanding of TRUE
polygamy as instituted by God.
All we get from them now is profligated false notions and information about it, and historical inaccuracies,
mixed with theor own supposedly learned and progressive view of how things should be,
a reflection of their own twisted views of polygamy, womanahood, marriage, equality,...
not helped by a liberal media promoting a corrupted version of it.
I guess where you find true doctrines of God you will always find opposition.
All we get from them now is profligated false notions and information about it, and historical inaccuracies,
mixed with theor own supposedly learned and progressive view of how things should be,
a reflection of their own twisted views of polygamy, womanahood, marriage, equality,...
not helped by a liberal media promoting a corrupted version of it.
I guess where you find true doctrines of God you will always find opposition.
Anonymous | 4:01 p.m. May 24, 2009
GB there was no flood and no way to keep two of every species on earth. We still
haven't successfully documented all of life on earth. Jew took the flood
story during their Babylonian captivity. Read the story of Gilgamesh.
GENETICS | 4:10 p.m. May 24, 2009
Reader comments
BYU professor speaks on LDS polygamy BUT:
"DNA/RNA POLYGAMOUS BEHAVIORAL GENES"
Signed: Debater
BYU professor speaks on LDS polygamy BUT:
"DNA/RNA POLYGAMOUS BEHAVIORAL GENES"
Signed: Debater
To Cats at 3:05 pm | 5:02 p.m. May 24, 2009
Have you ever read a book on polygamy that wasn't published by Deseret Book
or CES? Most of what you said in your post is flat wrong. You need to engage
in the scholarship before making a comment. I suggest you read B. Carmon
Hardy's Solemn Covenant, Richard Van Wagoner's Mormon Polygamy: A
History, Sarah Barringer Gordon's the Mormon Question, or, relating to
Joseph Smith, Todd Compton's In Sacred Loneliness. In those books you will
find that 1) the 5-10% estimate was wrong; 2) that Joseph Smith and others
married underage girls; 3) that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young stated on several
occasions that their followers needed to enter polygamous unions to inherit the
celestial kingdom. And much, much, more. I suggest you start reading some
serious scholarship on the subject before making a comment. You might be
interested to know that all of these books have received major historical awards
in the profession.
Too Bad | 5:36 p.m. May 24, 2009
It's too bad that the government ever got involved in marriage in the first
place. Marriage should have stayed an event for the churches. If that were the
case, Mormons would never have given up polygamy and would be seen today as the
same type of cult the FLDS are. We wouldn't have been having these dumb
arguments about what God said or says. We wouldn't care who marries who.
We could concentrate on issues that count... like killing everybody else who
doesn't believe like we do. Get it?
To: Shelly 1:22 | 5:38 p.m. May 24, 2009
Polygmy is good because it is God's commandment to man. Joesph Smith and
Bringham Young are great examples of the blessings of plural marriage. Today if
the Mormon church would have honored the comandment for plural marriages, and
had confidence in the Lord's will, the Mormon church would be a thousand
times successful and millions of more people would be saved. Always follow and
obey the Prophet Joseph Smith and you will never go wrong.
Mike McSweeney | 9:42 p.m. May 24, 2009
I read of a survey conducted recently in Israel. More than half stated that in
Israel marriage should come under control of the state. Ironically, the
majority of those who answered in that way, also said they personally would
never choose to marry at all.
People seem to overlook that the attack on polygamous marriage is not the end of the secularist's battle - no, in fact all traditional marriage ideals remain permanently under review.
People seem to overlook that the attack on polygamous marriage is not the end of the secularist's battle - no, in fact all traditional marriage ideals remain permanently under review.
How much do you love God? | 10:40 p.m. May 24, 2009
Was polygamy EVER God's will?
The Old Testament has depictions saying it was.
Joseph Smith said it was.
The Book of Mormon says it can be.
And yet, many people say that it absolutely, positively could NEVER be, primarily lumping their arguments under the banner of "it's just too much to expect".
Foolish thinking.
A person with faith in God, REAL faith, does whatever is asked of him by God. Abraham being willing to literally kill his own son is a perfect example of "weird but correct". True, Abraham was stopped by the angel but he was WILLING to carry out the sacrifice and IT WAS ACCOUNTED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.
The problem is that many of you think that God asks nothing but easy milk-and-cooky decisions.
But here is what Christ said of our mortal existence:
Matthew 10:34-35 - "Think NOT that I am come to send peace on earth: I came NOT to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."
"Hard" doesn't equal "wrong".
The Old Testament has depictions saying it was.
Joseph Smith said it was.
The Book of Mormon says it can be.
And yet, many people say that it absolutely, positively could NEVER be, primarily lumping their arguments under the banner of "it's just too much to expect".
Foolish thinking.
A person with faith in God, REAL faith, does whatever is asked of him by God. Abraham being willing to literally kill his own son is a perfect example of "weird but correct". True, Abraham was stopped by the angel but he was WILLING to carry out the sacrifice and IT WAS ACCOUNTED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.
The problem is that many of you think that God asks nothing but easy milk-and-cooky decisions.
But here is what Christ said of our mortal existence:
Matthew 10:34-35 - "Think NOT that I am come to send peace on earth: I came NOT to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."
"Hard" doesn't equal "wrong".
Here's another one... | 10:50 p.m. May 24, 2009
Luke 12: 51 "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you,
Nay; but rather division:"
How can this be, that the Son of God, whose very name is the Prince of Peace, said that he came not to unite, but to divide? Not to bring together, but to cause divisions?
He WILL bring peace to all who choose to follow him, but first the wicked will be separated from the righteous and it is this "separating" that will cause contention, even often father against son, mother against daughter, son against daughter and even husband against the wife.
Everyone will choose what they think of Christ. Even if you choose not to choose you still have made a choice.
Polygamy is right only when God commands it. If He commands it, it is right. If He doesn't, it is most assuredly wrong. Will He command it again? That is up to Him.
How can this be, that the Son of God, whose very name is the Prince of Peace, said that he came not to unite, but to divide? Not to bring together, but to cause divisions?
He WILL bring peace to all who choose to follow him, but first the wicked will be separated from the righteous and it is this "separating" that will cause contention, even often father against son, mother against daughter, son against daughter and even husband against the wife.
Everyone will choose what they think of Christ. Even if you choose not to choose you still have made a choice.
Polygamy is right only when God commands it. If He commands it, it is right. If He doesn't, it is most assuredly wrong. Will He command it again? That is up to Him.
coveting fools | 12:10 a.m. May 25, 2009
Quit making up stuff.
LDS Practice It Today | 8:43 a.m. May 25, 2009
Why is the fact that the LDS Church continues the spiritual practice of plural
marriage rarely addressed? Today, LDS men who have either divorced or lost their
wife through death can be sealed to another wife while retaining the sealing of
the former wife. This can and does result in one LDS man having multiple wives
spiritually sealed to him. Several of our general authorities have more than one
wife sealed to them. However, LDS women cannot be sealed to more than one man. I
am not criticizing this but it amazes me that every time a plural marriage
thread comes up this is not discussed. The LDS Church believes in this principle
and practices it today AS FAR AS THEY ARE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO. And before someone
jumps on here and blanket denies this please do a little research. I have
several active LDS friends who are sealed to more than one woman.
Also, Cats is right that it was very easy for women in polygamous relationship to get a divorce and the rate was actually very high. But JS and BY DID state numerous times that it was an eternal principle and a celestial requirement.
Also, Cats is right that it was very easy for women in polygamous relationship to get a divorce and the rate was actually very high. But JS and BY DID state numerous times that it was an eternal principle and a celestial requirement.
no one here, was there | 9:51 a.m. May 25, 2009
No one alive today was present for what took place in the 18th century.
So all your conjecture stated as fact is about as smart as the cat that had a squirrel come up behind it, while the cat was looking for the squirrel in front of it. Funny to watch. Point is this: You can only see the present and look in front of you to the future. YOU WEREN'T THERE. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. STOP BOTHERING US WHO KNOW IT ALL. oops, didn't mean to let that slip out.
FOR ALL YOU WHO COMMMENTED: GO GET A LIFE. Go do some good instead of prattling on making comments in a cyber environment. Get out and do some good somewhere.
So all your conjecture stated as fact is about as smart as the cat that had a squirrel come up behind it, while the cat was looking for the squirrel in front of it. Funny to watch. Point is this: You can only see the present and look in front of you to the future. YOU WEREN'T THERE. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. STOP BOTHERING US WHO KNOW IT ALL. oops, didn't mean to let that slip out.
FOR ALL YOU WHO COMMMENTED: GO GET A LIFE. Go do some good instead of prattling on making comments in a cyber environment. Get out and do some good somewhere.
tyler | 10:18 a.m. May 25, 2009
It's sad that few people have even a remote idea why Joseph Smith, Brigham
Young and others were inspired to take on polygamy. Read the bible and tell me
that God was angry with Abraham and others for having many wives. He was not. In
fact he condoned it. I know that scares people.
I had a hard time understanding this revelation at first. For those who say Joseph Smith was merely trying to satisfy sexual desires consider this: There was no such thing as birth control in any form back then and he only had offspring from Emma... That's more than a coincidence to me. Also read and study church history. Truman G. Madson will tell you in his lectures what an incredibly hard thing it was for such a people with such conservative values.
Polygamy served it's purpose at that time as it did in the time of Abraham and others. A loving God condoned it under his law to help women (many were widows) as well as build the kingdom. Please truly study the journals of those involved, before denouncing it.
I had a hard time understanding this revelation at first. For those who say Joseph Smith was merely trying to satisfy sexual desires consider this: There was no such thing as birth control in any form back then and he only had offspring from Emma... That's more than a coincidence to me. Also read and study church history. Truman G. Madson will tell you in his lectures what an incredibly hard thing it was for such a people with such conservative values.
Polygamy served it's purpose at that time as it did in the time of Abraham and others. A loving God condoned it under his law to help women (many were widows) as well as build the kingdom. Please truly study the journals of those involved, before denouncing it.
For the 9:51 Genius | 10:26 a.m. May 25, 2009
"no one here, was there | 9:51 a.m. May 25, 2009
No one alive today was present for what took place in the 18th century. So all your conjecture stated as fact is about as smart as the cat that had a squirrel come up behind it, while the cat was looking for the squirrel in front of it. Funny to watch. Point is this: You can only see the present and look in front of you to the future. YOU WEREN'T THERE. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. STOP BOTHERING US WHO KNOW IT ALL. oops, didn't mean to let that slip out.
FOR ALL YOU WHO COMMMENTED: GO GET A LIFE. Go do some good instead of prattling on making comments in a cyber environment. Get out and do some good somewhere."
You mean all of us here who commented on the article like YOU did?
Oops....
No one alive today was present for what took place in the 18th century. So all your conjecture stated as fact is about as smart as the cat that had a squirrel come up behind it, while the cat was looking for the squirrel in front of it. Funny to watch. Point is this: You can only see the present and look in front of you to the future. YOU WEREN'T THERE. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. STOP BOTHERING US WHO KNOW IT ALL. oops, didn't mean to let that slip out.
FOR ALL YOU WHO COMMMENTED: GO GET A LIFE. Go do some good instead of prattling on making comments in a cyber environment. Get out and do some good somewhere."
You mean all of us here who commented on the article like YOU did?
Oops....
Robo | 10:37 a.m. May 25, 2009
Polygamy is bashed and bashed ad naseum, yet infidelity and adultery are readily
forgiven if not celebrated throughout most of society. Apparently it is OK to
cheat on your spouse, have multiple sex partners, and range the earth like an
alley cat, yet it is totally abhorent that someone be openly married to more
than one person. Where is all of this energy to bash infidelity, sexual
perversion, and the destruction of marriage? I also wonder how the debate would
go if it were one woman and several husbands.
wilma aebischer | 10:54 a.m. May 25, 2009
I think those who have written the present emails have no idea about History of
the US let alone the LDS Church. My great Grandfather was a plygamous, he also
was a great man who helped bring in the Handcart Company. One of his wives
decided she wanted out of that Polygamous marriage, she was granted a divorce,
and then he turned around and performed the marriage when she married another
man. He also did not live with both women at the same time according to family
history. As a woman, I am not strong enough to live polygamy, I have been
married to the same man for 65 years. However in during the victorian time of
the 1800's women did not work out of the home, a polygamous marriage many
times was to provide support for the woman, and that only. So those of you who
do not understand history or want to, you had better get educated as to what is
really historical. You who are not members of the LDS church, have no idea what
you are talking about.
Elaine | 11:04 a.m. May 25, 2009
With the passage of Same-Sex Marriage, polygamy will soon become legal. There
will be no reason to stop it. If polygamy is legalized it will mean that bigamy
will not longer be a crime. See how many of our laws are intertwined.
Anyway who says that polygamy will be 1 man and multiple women. It could go the other way! Just think ladies this could be a good thing or a nightmare beyond belief.
Anyway who says that polygamy will be 1 man and multiple women. It could go the other way! Just think ladies this could be a good thing or a nightmare beyond belief.
D | 11:19 a.m. May 25, 2009
ISSUES OF: POLYGAMY & DEMOCRACY ("COMMON CONSENT")
QUOTE:..."To have any influence, we have to pay tribute to all of the Caesars that rule in a democracy," she said. "For better or worse, we have met our Caesars, and they are us."
CAN A SECULAR CHURCH-STATE "DEMOCRACY" IMPLY "COMMON CONSENT?"
Signed: Debater
QUOTE:..."To have any influence, we have to pay tribute to all of the Caesars that rule in a democracy," she said. "For better or worse, we have met our Caesars, and they are us."
CAN A SECULAR CHURCH-STATE "DEMOCRACY" IMPLY "COMMON CONSENT?"
Signed: Debater
D | 11:23 a.m. May 25, 2009
TO: 10:54 a.m. May 25, 2009
Polygamy is NOT for the GERONTOCRACY.
Signed: Debater
Polygamy is NOT for the GERONTOCRACY.
Signed: Debater
Missionary work | 11:24 a.m. May 25, 2009
All my great grand pappys had multiple wives and each time they would get one a
little bit younger then the last one and it was tasty for their new adventure.
Then one of my grand pappys would be gone for a long period of time doing
missionary work while his wives worked the farm and attended to the squealers
and he return back home with a new wife. Now that was the life.
Sarah | 11:48 a.m. May 25, 2009
I'm really curious. What motiviates all these anti-mormon folks to read
deseret news, ldstoday, or whatever to find articles like this and make some
comment about how wrong Joseph Smith was for example? Are they doing it because
they think God will reward them for speaking the "truth"? Are they
doing it because they feel mormons are preventing them from "marrying"
someone of the same sex, or some other sin? Are they just trying to destroy
anything that speaks against their choices. Are they bitter about something?
What is it? Please, someone enlighten me.
Anonymous | 4:10 p.m. May 25, 2009
NOWHERE in the Old Testament can you find God commanding or approving of a
polygamous marriage. NOWHERE!
But you CAN find God commanding "Thou shalt not commit adultery".
But you CAN find God commanding "Thou shalt not commit adultery".
lizybeth | 4:21 p.m. May 25, 2009
My dream is to have every single one of those polygamist men have to share their
wives with other men. Then we'll see how "wonderful" the
principal was. It first of all wasn't fair, sexist and abusive. Women got
married, got knocked up and left on their own for most of the time. They were
used. Like I say, if women could have as many husbands as they wanted, we would
see how quickly those polygamists would see how unkind the whole thing was.
People deserve better than to be in concubines.
Re: to Cats | 5:10 p.m. May 25, 2009
I suggest you read B. Carmon Hardy's Solemn Covenant, Richard Van
Wagoner's Mormon Polygamy: A History, Sarah Barringer Gordon's the
Mormon Question, or, relating to Joseph Smith, Todd Compton's In Sacred
Loneliness.
I have read In Sacred Loneliness and other books. One thing you have neglected to mention is some of the accounts of the polygamous wives of Joseph Smith recounting angelic manifestations convincing them plural marriage was true. Reference Lucy Walkers account of an angel appearing to her. Several of Josephs plural wives also had remarkable spiritual gifts. When I read this I told myself there is something going on here that all anti-polygamist fail to mention about Mormon Polygamy. You know these things are in the book but you only point out the negative side of what you have read. Why must you do that. Withholding information about the sacred and not allowing people to make a fair judgment on the issue,.
I have read In Sacred Loneliness and other books. One thing you have neglected to mention is some of the accounts of the polygamous wives of Joseph Smith recounting angelic manifestations convincing them plural marriage was true. Reference Lucy Walkers account of an angel appearing to her. Several of Josephs plural wives also had remarkable spiritual gifts. When I read this I told myself there is something going on here that all anti-polygamist fail to mention about Mormon Polygamy. You know these things are in the book but you only point out the negative side of what you have read. Why must you do that. Withholding information about the sacred and not allowing people to make a fair judgment on the issue,.
In Sacred Loneliness | 5:17 p.m. May 25, 2009
Anybody who wants to understand polygamy should read the book "In Sacred
Loneliness" by Todd Compton. This book recognizes the 33 wives of Joseph
Smith Jr.
Emma Hale - 22 years old
Fanny Alger - 16 years old
Sarah Ann Whitney - 17 year old
Flora Ann Woodworth - 16 years old
Lucy Walker - 17 years old
Sarah Lawrence - 17 years old
Helen Mar Kimball - 14 years old
Nancy Winchester - 14 years old
How dare we ignore these young women and pretend they never married Joseph. To do so would be a dishonor to their memories.
Emma Hale - 22 years old
Fanny Alger - 16 years old
Sarah Ann Whitney - 17 year old
Flora Ann Woodworth - 16 years old
Lucy Walker - 17 years old
Sarah Lawrence - 17 years old
Helen Mar Kimball - 14 years old
Nancy Winchester - 14 years old
How dare we ignore these young women and pretend they never married Joseph. To do so would be a dishonor to their memories.
Arkad | 5:40 p.m. May 25, 2009
Anonymous:
You claim that nowhere in the Old Testament has God commanded or approved of polygamous marriage.
1) Abraham was polygamous
2) Issac was polygamous
3) Jacob was polygamous
4) Joseph was polygamous
5) Moses was polygamous
These men were all righteous men and well regarded by God. (David and Solomon both committed sin by marrying idolatrous women.)
In Exodus 21:10; Deuteronomy 21:15 The Lords Prophet Moses is explaining the 10 commandments (given in Exodus 20) and providing the regulations on plural marriage. In 2 Samuel 12:8 The Lords Prophet Nathan is explaining to King David that The Lord gave David many wives, however (as explained in vs 9) David sinned in wanting that which had not been given him (adultery).
See also: Genesis 16:1-11; Genesis 25:1; Genesis 29:28; Genesis 30:4,9 & 26; 2 Samuel 2:2; 2 Samuel 5:13; 2 Samuel 12:7-9; Isaiah 4:1.
You claim that nowhere in the Old Testament has God commanded or approved of polygamous marriage.
1) Abraham was polygamous
2) Issac was polygamous
3) Jacob was polygamous
4) Joseph was polygamous
5) Moses was polygamous
These men were all righteous men and well regarded by God. (David and Solomon both committed sin by marrying idolatrous women.)
In Exodus 21:10; Deuteronomy 21:15 The Lords Prophet Moses is explaining the 10 commandments (given in Exodus 20) and providing the regulations on plural marriage. In 2 Samuel 12:8 The Lords Prophet Nathan is explaining to King David that The Lord gave David many wives, however (as explained in vs 9) David sinned in wanting that which had not been given him (adultery).
See also: Genesis 16:1-11; Genesis 25:1; Genesis 29:28; Genesis 30:4,9 & 26; 2 Samuel 2:2; 2 Samuel 5:13; 2 Samuel 12:7-9; Isaiah 4:1.
Anonymous | 5:56 p.m. May 25, 2009
To Arkad,
"Abraham was polygamous" - Abraham was also a liar and a thief. Just because he was a polygamist does not mean God commanded it or endorsed it. The same is true for Issac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses. You have shown NOWHERE in scripture where God commanded or endorsed their polygamy. NOWHERE!
You say these men were "righteous"... But in EVERY case, scriptures contain record of the SINS of these men - for example, Numbers 20 records Moses' blasphemy and sin against God.
Neither Exodus21:10 nor Deuteronomy21:15 contain "regulations on plural marriage." Plural marriage is not mentioned. 2 Samuel also records oter "prophets" making false prophecies, and the "prophet" Nathan making several mistakes. His endorsement of David's harems is NOT the command or endorsement of God for polygamy.
None of the Genesis citations you give supports your empty claim. I repeat, NOWHERE in the Old Testament does God command or approve of polygamy.
You have failed.
"Abraham was polygamous" - Abraham was also a liar and a thief. Just because he was a polygamist does not mean God commanded it or endorsed it. The same is true for Issac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses. You have shown NOWHERE in scripture where God commanded or endorsed their polygamy. NOWHERE!
You say these men were "righteous"... But in EVERY case, scriptures contain record of the SINS of these men - for example, Numbers 20 records Moses' blasphemy and sin against God.
Neither Exodus21:10 nor Deuteronomy21:15 contain "regulations on plural marriage." Plural marriage is not mentioned. 2 Samuel also records oter "prophets" making false prophecies, and the "prophet" Nathan making several mistakes. His endorsement of David's harems is NOT the command or endorsement of God for polygamy.
None of the Genesis citations you give supports your empty claim. I repeat, NOWHERE in the Old Testament does God command or approve of polygamy.
You have failed.
RE: In Sacred Loneliness | 6:02 p.m. May 25, 2009
Tells us why shoud we believe anything Todd Compton writes?
There is no honor in intentionally decieving others.
There is no honor in intentionally decieving others.
RE: Anonymous 5:56 p.m | 6:43 p.m. May 25, 2009
Please check Numbers chapter 12. It totally blows away what you have written.
Direct from God's mouth - God accepts Moses and reviles Aaron and Miriam
for criticizing Moses for a polygamous marriage
The debate | 6:52 p.m. May 25, 2009
Why would anyone want to be a polygamist? Imagine all those mothers-in-law! Good
grief!
To Sacred Loneliness 5:17pm | 7:20 p.m. May 25, 2009
Compton is pretty close. The evidence is solid on 28 wives. The additional 5
from Compton lack documentation and are possible, but impossible to confirm. For
example, Nancy Winchester.
Why mention only Emma and 7 others if we should honor each one?
You will recognize that Compton used the term "dynastic" for marriages that occurred to link families together and typically did not involve conjugal relations.
How many children did Joseph father from those other 7 wives you listed? None. He was certainly able, given that Emma gave birth to their youngest son 5 months after Joseph's death.
The first purpose of these plural marriages was not sex, and often did not involve it at all.
Why mention only Emma and 7 others if we should honor each one?
You will recognize that Compton used the term "dynastic" for marriages that occurred to link families together and typically did not involve conjugal relations.
How many children did Joseph father from those other 7 wives you listed? None. He was certainly able, given that Emma gave birth to their youngest son 5 months after Joseph's death.
The first purpose of these plural marriages was not sex, and often did not involve it at all.
KMD | 7:25 p.m. May 25, 2009
I grew up in the rural area of Michigan, and I am the only member of The Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. Just giving background to what I am
typing. My sister in law's sister met this man who was the local Navy
recruiter said he was separated. They have a relationship, she gets pregnant.
He gets back with wife. Even though they keep dating. He even takes the child to
his house to his wife(they had one child) for visitations. This goes on for
years, while he is still married. She gets pregnant again. This finally gets his
wife to divorce him. My point is, how much different is this from polygamy?
And funny thing is once he was divorced from his wife, they tried to have a
normal relationship and it fails. They both are married to other people and
only see each other when its his time to have them for visitation. Or how about
this, man has 21 children from 20 different woman, cannot afford to pay child
support. This is in my local news recently.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Rabbis join NJ gay marriage debate 9:03 a.m.
- Afghan buildup on faster timetable 9:01 a.m.
- Salahi denies crashing W.H. party 8:58 a.m.
- Suspect in police slayings killed 8:55 a.m.
- Arrests made in Roy slayings 8:35 a.m.
- Bowden meeting with school officials 8:01 a.m.
- FIFA: Ireland won't be in WCup 8:00 a.m.
- Florida's Dunlap arrested, charged 8:00 a.m.
- Stocks climb early as dollar slides 7:59 a.m.
- China: Talk, not sanctions on Iran 7:49 a.m.
- Hall reprimanded by MWC
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal
- Utes won't respond to Hall
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game
- Cougs begin bowl preparations
- Mitchell called intelligent, controlling
- Y. student vanished in China
- Max Hall issues apology
- Daughter: Mitchell fed me my pet
- BYU says Hall incident resolved
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
899 - Cougars beat Utes in overtime481
- Hall reprimanded by MWC384
- Max Hall issues apology382
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal317
- Utes won't respond to Hall264
- BYU is champion of the state140
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies123
- Cave to be sealed with body inside120
- Religion in politics is tiresome113
Live 'Twittologue' Dec. 2, 4:00 p.m. with Jason Chaffetz. Click for more.
I wanted to tell them not to go. I dropped subtle hints. "My money is on...
When I was a kid, I worshipped my grandpa. He was undoubtedly my hero....
Latest comments
So, if I have a stomach ache, headache, bachache, etc, or any other basic...
Hey is'nt that self defence? When somebody threatens to do bodily harm, Than...
This spoken from the ponderous hills of Draper whilst looking down on the...
When Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries allows a christian to carry the...
I am shocked and appalled that Max would suddenly act like a bad Utah fan.
Mike you took the time out of your day to criticize his grammar? He spoke...
Actually not all prophets come off as grandiose and mad... Thomas S....
I am so sick of the apologists for both schools. Both schools have a fan base...
Why don't we just go back to being better parents. If we do a better job of...
Seriously, let the old kodger go. Studies and social experiments have shown...
Advertisements
The Warren Jeffs modern-day scandal is now being shown for how sick and controlling polygamy can be.
A son of this guy has written a book on the atrocities they suffered.
I find it odd that the LDS church had "prophetic revelation" as soon as the US Marshall's cracked down on the polygamy. It is foolish to believe they (either LDS or FLDS)are the "one-true church"
GOOD POINT made in this article: Divorce...Remarriage is indeed "SERIAL POLYGAMY". Which is rampant in Evangelical Christianity. The stats are no different than those in mainstream culture.
The benefits and sanctity of One Man-One Woman for life...are well documented. Too bad so many women
(who now initiate 74% of all divorces) have bought into the lie that divorce is for the better.
There are evil forces at work. The enemy has gotten "in the house" of all churches.