Polygamy

[Cync]

Figured this one would have come up by now, but whats the thoughts here on polygamy? Further, whats the thoughts on that polygamist from Utah who went on Dateline and proudly took the country, most of which were born and raised on christian beliefs, that he was schtooking five women? Is it fair to allow the government to punish people who choose this way of life - sentancing those who choose to live a polygamous lifestyle to 25 years to life?

 

[p_p_man]

I don't know about Utah...

...but I do know that in the Middle East if a man wants to take more than one wife it is a long drawn out process. Firstly his present wife/wives must agree to it, then he must prove to the authorities that he is in a strong enough financial position to support the expanded family (including chidren from his wives); then the woman's family has to agree to the proposal; and finally his own family must agree.

All this can take a long time involving family meetings, both families together and separately, meetings with the local authorities, a long hard look at family finances and a host of other checks and balances.

It's not a matter of grabbing any woman you fancy and marrying her on a whim. The whole process is designed to protect all parties concerned. Personally I think it sounds quite civilised.

 

[mig]

I don' think polygamy is for me though the idea has some appeal.
I asked my wife what she thought. She just got my sleeping-bag
and pointed to the barn. So,bad idea.

 

[Angel]

I don't like laws telling us who we can and can't marry. I could not be in a marriage with more than one spouse... but if other people want to do it, why is it so wrong?

 

[Bastet]

well the law is the law. as far as polygamy is concerned, the law isn't inforced much in this country, especially in utah. two men were arrested in utah a while back for child abuse and incest. one man married off his 15 year old daughter to her uncle/his brother. she later ran away from her abusive uncle/husband and was found and brutaly beaten by her father/brother in law. the dad was charged with child abuse/assault and the uncle/husband was chaged with incest. neither one had polygamy charges brought up against them, even though both were active polygamists. by the way, is it only a coincidence that most polygamists are men with multiple wives and not the other way around?

 

[mig]

It goes back to the old 'my wife is my property thing'.

 

[OUTSIDER]

it's a strange question this, because if the guy and his wives are happy and the kids are all well in body and mind what reason can there be to jail this guy, I mean if he's being arrested because it goes against "gods law" then I don't think thats a goood enough reason.
Now I can understand jailing his ass if he'd married five women who didn't know about it but they all live together for god's sake, I think that the polygamy law need's to be clarified so that it's only illeagal where the women (and it is almost alway's women) don't know their marrying someone who's already married.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Why is a "gay" marriage contract to be considered legal and not a "multiple" marriage. It seems that if you are to throw out the old taboos and still be free, (let other live happy and free as they choose so long as it does not infringe upon your rights), then all "sex/marriage" contracts should be honored, or go back to the traditional definition.

Let's face it. If a gay couple can challenge Mother's Day, of all things, and we can aquiess to that, then surely a little polygamy cannot be that destructive to society or to women.

 

[Merelan]

It isn't just the my wife is my property thing. It also has to do with the simple fact that men go out and die in battle, leaving woman and children behind. It was the law that you took your brother's wife as yours and took care of them. Woman couldn't go out and work then, remember?
Now, it is similiar. You don't think those wives have a say in it? Ha! No, some might not. But you know sure as hell most do. Otherwise in the subtle ways a woman has, she can make his life miserable.
Growing up in a multi family home I always felt safe. There was always someone there to hold me when I cried, or felt scared and lonely. If something had happened to a parent the other wasn't left alone to care for the family on their own.
It is a personal choice, for most. And should be made between consenting adults. Not poor kids forced into it. Those men should be castrated, would help stop the abuse, then again, abuse happens in single families too.

 

[Weird Harold]

Now I can understand jailing his ass if he'd married five women who didn't know about it but they all live together for god's sake, I think that the polygamy law need's to be clarified so that it's only illeagal where the women (and it is almost alway's women) don't know their marrying someone who's already married.

Two interesting points to make about this case:

1: This man did not "go out and marry" five women! He married ONE, and lived with her and the other four long enough that the Sate of Utah could claim the four additional "wives" were common law wives. In effect, the State declared this man to be married to his four live-in mistresses so they could prosecute him!

2: "While Utah disavowed Polygamy in it's constitution so it could become a US state, it never actually wrote any laws making it a crime". I'm not sure how that quote from the HNN report squares against the fact they prosecuted under a law against BIGAMY, though. Perhaps having TWO wives is illegal, and having three or more isn't against the law? I did note that he was convicted on ten counts of BIGAMY, which implies that each common law wife was charged as a separate offense against the others?

Bastet asked, "by the way, is it only a coincidence that most polygamists are men with multiple wives and not the other way around?"

No, it is not coincidence that only men are charged with polygamy. A woman with more than one husband is guilty of Polyandry, not polygamy.

 

[Todd]

To understand the whole Utah thing you have to understand the Mormon religion.

The polygamy dilema of Mormonisn
Due to political pressure brought upon the LDS Church by the federal government over the issue of plural marriage, President Wilford Woodruff signed what has come to be known as The Manifesto, or Declaration 1. The Manifesto can be found following section 138 in the Doctrine and Covenants. This document was basically a promise to the United States stating that the LDS Church would submit to the laws of the land and desist from solemnizing plural marriages. The document, signed in 1890, also denied any accusations that the church was encouraging or performing any such marriages. However, despite this promise, the polygamy issue would not be laid to rest.

LDS historians and apologists have given numerous reasons as to why Joseph Smith felt it necessary to establish the covenant of plural marriage. One of the main arguments used by Mormon spokesmen was the fact that men mentioned in the Old Testament practiced polygamy. This is a historical fact, as both unbelievers (i.e. Lemech, the son of Cain, and Belshazzar, the king of Babylon) and believers (i.e. Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon) were known polygamists.

It must be noted that, biblically, polygamy was merely tolerated by God and never commanded by Him. The mere fact that in the beginning God created just Eve for the companionship of Adam points to the monogamous relationship between a man and a woman. This is confirmed by such passages as I Corinthians 7:2 where the apostle Paul states that "every man have his own wife," not wives. In I Timothy 3:2, monogamy was a qualification for church office, and in Matthew 19:5, even our Lord condoned monogamy when He stated "they twain (two) shall be one flesh."

While a Mormon would be excommunicated for practicing polygamy today, the command to engage in plural marriage is still included in modern editions of the Doctrine and Covenants. Section 132:4 declares: "For behold, I reveal unto you a new and everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory."

According to the introduction to volume 5 of the Documentary History of the Church (DHC), the revelation was written down in order to convince Smith's wife, Emma, of its authenticity. When exactly this "revelation" came to Joseph Smith is somewhat confusing. According to the same volume (5:501), Joseph Smith was given this revelation on July 12, 1843. However, the heading of section 132 states it was only recorded on that date only, for "this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831." It would seem that the latter would be more correct since D&C 132:52 records a warning to Smith's wife, Emma, to "receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph." Emma never liked the idea of polygamy, and despite a warning in verse 54 saying she would be destroyed if she did "not abide this commandment," she lived a full life. Her husband, on the other hand, would be dead within a year.

When the revelation was given or recorded is relatively unimportant and does not in any way solve the polygamy dilemma. There is plenty of evidence to show how Smith held to this view long before 1843 and even practiced it secretly. The real question is why was polygamy considered essential for exaltation in the early LDS Church while its practice today is grounds for excommunication?

A person would be hard-pressed to support polygamy by using the Book of Mormon. We find no reference within its pages that polygamy was practiced with God's permission. In fact, Jacob 2:27 reads, "Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none."

Some Mormons have countered with Jacob 2:30. This passage reads, "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." The usual argument insists that polygamy was allowed in the early years of Mormonism in order to "raise up seed." Proponents of this rebuttal say God allowed polygamy because there was an overabundance of women in the LDS Church, making it necessary for men to take on more than one wife. This argument is not supported by the facts and is actually refuted by LDS Apostle John Widtsoe. He wrote, "The United States census records from 1850 to 1940, and all available Church records, uniformly show a preponderance of males in Utah, and in the Church. Indeed, the excess in Utah has usually been larger than for the whole United States, as would be expected in a pioneer state. The births within the Church obey the usual population law -- a slight excess of males. Orson Pratt, writing in 1853 from direct knowledge of Utah conditions, when the excess of females was supposedly the highest, declares against the opinion that females outnumbered the males in Utah. (The Seer, p. 110) The theory that plural marriage was a consequence of a surplus of female Church members fails from lack of evidence" (Evidences and Reconciliations, p.391).

According to The Encyclopedia of Mormonism (Vol. 2 HISTORY OF THE CHURCH): "...polygamy had been practiced privately prior to the exodus, Church leaders delayed public acknowledgment of its practice until 1852. In August of that year, at a special conference of the Church at Salt Lake City, Elder Orson Pratt, an apostle, officially announced plural marriage as a doctrine and practice of the Church. A lengthy revelation on marriage for eternity and on the plurality of wives, dictated by Joseph Smith on July 12, 1843, was published following this announcement (D&C 132)." No doubt this practice came as quite a surprise to many of the converts who came to Utah from Europe. As far as they knew, polygamy was merely a vicious rumor propounded by enemies of the church. Why should they think otherwise? After all, the idea that Mormons were practicing polygamy was denied outright in the European edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. For example, D&C section CIX:4, which had been printed in Liverpool, England in 1866, read: "Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy; we declare that one man should have one wife; and one woman but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again." Bear in mind that this denial was a part of the Doctrine and Covenants until 1876 -- 24 years after polygamy became an official LDS doctrine!

In Utah the message was quite different. It would be only a short matter of time before plural marriage became a major theme in LDS theology. The same year that the above-mentioned Liverpool edition came out in 1866, Brigham Young preached, "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy" (Journal of Discourses (JOD) 11:269).

When this practice came under severe criticism, it was evident that LDS leaders would not go down without a fight. That Mormon leaders were determined to defend this doctrine can be easily documented.

On October 12, 1856, Heber C. Kimball (first counselor to Brigham Young) declared, "You might as well deny 'Mormonism,' and turn away from it, as to oppose the plurality of wives." (JOD 5:203).

In 1866, Brigham Young forcefully stated, "We are told that if we would give up polygamy--which we know to be a doctrine revealed from heaven and it is God and the world for it--but suppose this Church should give up this holy order of marriage, then would the devil, and all who are in league with him against the cause of God, rejoice that they had prevailed upon the Saints to refuse to obey one of the revelations and commandments of God to them." Later in the sermon President Young asked, "Will the Latter-day Saints do this? No" (JOD 11:239).

That same year, John Taylor, Mormonism's future third president, accused those who opposed polygamy within the LDS Church as "apostates." He said: "Where did this commandment come from in relation to polygamy? It also came from God...When this commandment was given, it was so far religious, and so far binding upon the Elders of this Church that it was told them if they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom would be taken from them. When I see any of our people, men or women, opposing a principle of this kind, I have years ago set them down as on the high road to apostacy, and I do to-day; I consider them apostates, and not interested in this Church and kingdom" (JOD 11:221).

In 1869 Wilford Woodruff, Mormonism's future fourth president, taught, "If we were to do away with polygamy, it would only be one feather in the bird, one ordinance in the Church and kingdom. Do away with that, then we must do away with prophets and Apostles, with revelation and the gifts and graces of the Gospel, and finally give up our religion altogether and turn sectarians and do as the world does, then all would be right. We just can't do that, for God has commanded us to build up His kingdom and to bear our testimony to the nations of the earth, and we are going to do it, come life or come death. He has told us to do thus, and we shall obey Him in days to come as we have in days past" (JOD 13:165 - p.166).

Even as late as 1879, Joseph F. Smith was insisting that plural marriage was essential for LDS exaltation. Speaking at the funeral of William Clayton, Mormonism's future sixth president, stated, "This doctrine of eternal union of husband and wife, and of plural marriage, is one of the most important doctrines ever revealed to man in any age of the world. Without it man would come to a full stop; without it we never could be exalted to associate with and become god..." (JOD 21:9).

During a message given in 1880, Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt said, "...if plurality of marriage is not true or in other words, if a man has no divine right to marry two wives or more in this world, then marriage for eternity is not true, and your faith is all vain, and all the sealing ordinances, and powers, pertaining to marriages for eternity are vain, worthless, good for nothing; for as sure as one is true the other also must be true." (JOD 21:296).

Despite the rhetoric, the federal government began its efforts to force the abandonment of polygamy on July 1, 1862. The Anti-bigamy Act defined the illegality of polygamy, but it was not really enforced for another 20 years. In 1882 the government enacted what was known as the Edmunds law. This provision "made the 'cohabiting' with more than one woman a crime, punishable by a fine not to exceed three hundred dollars, and by imprisonment not to exceed six months. This law also rendered persons who were living in polygamy, or who believed in its rightfulness, incompetent to act as grand or petit jurors; and also disqualified all polygamists for voting or holding office" (B. H. Roberts, Outlines of Ecclesiastical History, p.437). Five years later the Edmunds-Tucker Act became law. Its effects on the LDS Church proved to be the most devastating and are described in volume 5, page 320 of Messages of the First Presidency:

"During the entire period of the presidency of John Taylor, 1880 to 1887, relentless prosecution of men who had entered into the relationship of plural marriage was intensified.

"Under the provisions of the Edmunds-Tucker law the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was disincorporated, the Perpetual Emigration Fund Company was dissolved, and all property belonging to the Church, with the exception of buildings used exclusively for religious worship, was escheated to the government.

"Hundreds of men who had contracted plural marriages were heavily fined, and imprisoned. All persons who could not subscribe to a test oath which was provided especially for those who practiced or believed in the practice of plural marriage, were disfranchised.

"It became obvious that no human power could prevent the disintegration of the Church, except upon a pledge by its members to obey the laws which had been enacted prohibiting the practice of polygamy.

"It was under these circumstances that Wilford Woodruff was sustained as President of the Church, in April, 1889.

"September 24th, 1890, President Woodruff promulgated his Official Declaration to the Church and to the people of the United States, commonly referred to as The Manifesto."

The signing of the Manifesto was certainly a major blow to the "prophetic insight" of Mormonism's leaders. Perhaps Woodruff forgot that it was he himself who said his church would continue to practice polygamy"come life or come death." In light of the numerous statements made by several LDS leaders, it is difficult to take seriously Woodruff's claim that he acted according to the will of God. To do so would be to admit God has a very short memory, or that the previous comments from LDS leaders were outside of the will of God.

It would appear that the signing of the Manifesto was merely a ploy to get the federal government to relax its sanctions against the LDS Church. Evidence shows that polygamy continued despite the promise to abandon it. In 1899, then Apostle Heber J. Grant (he would become President in 1918) would plead guilty to unlawful cohabitation and be fined $100. In 1906, sixth LDS President Joseph F. Smith "pleaded guilty before Judge M. L. Rictchie in the District Court Friday to the charge of cohabitating with four women in addition to his lawful wife." He was fined $300, the maximum allowed by law. (Salt Lake Tribune, 11/24/1906).

Many Latter-day Saints viewed the abandonment of polygamy as religious treason. Almost immediately splinter groups were formed to carry on the "everlasting covenant" of celestial marriage. According to the December 11, 1997 issue of the New York Times, it is estimated that between 30,000 and 35,000 people practice polygamy today. Many modern polygamists skirt the letter of the law by legally marrying one wife, and then perform private services in what they feel is in accord with "God's law."

Fundamentalist Mormons who practice plural marriage have little to fear from the government. According to the June 28, 1998 edition of the Salt Lake Tribune, "even though polygamy is explicitly illegal under the Utah criminal code and prohibited in the state constitution, Utah law-enforcement agencies do not prosecute its practice."

Not only does the government ignore this practice, in many cases it actually subsidizes it. In the polygamous communities of Hildale (UT) and Colorado City (AZ), "fully 33 percent of the residents...are using U.S. Department of Agriculture food stamps to feed their families." Both cities "rank in the top 10 in the intermountain West in relying on Medicaid, which provides health care for the poor" (Salt Lake Tribune 6/28/98).

In today's world of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, John Taylor, and many other well-known heroes of the Mormon faith would be promptly excommunicated from the LDS Church for their participation in practicing their view of celestial marriage. LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie declared, "All who pretend or assume to engage in plural marriage in this day, when the one holding the keys has withdrawn the power by which they are performed, are guilty of gross wickedness" (Mormon Doctrine, pp.579). No doubt, if Brigham Young were alive, he would rebut this by stating, "Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be dammed..." (Journal of Discourses 3:266).

It would be incorrect to think polygamy is a dead issue within the LDS Church. While McConkie denounced the practice of polygamy in this life, he did say, "Obviously the holy practice will commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millenium." (Mormon Doctrine, p. 578). The most common answer as to why it is no longer a practice in the LDS Church is that it violates the law. Such an argument compels us to ask, "Does God really care what American law says?" A Mormon may argue that present circumstances reflect God's will regarding this subject, but a Mormon who chooses such a defense will find no support for this from leaders prior to 1890. Almost without exception, pressure from the United States to eliminate polygamy was looked upon as a direct refusal of recognizing God's will. Also, what about other countries where polygamy is legal? Is the LDS Church going to be so arrogant as to inflict American precedent upon its members in countries where polygamy is not outlawed?

The coming years may prove very interesting for the LDS Church and this issue. When Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor addressed a conference at the University of Utah back in 1993, she said she would probably vote in favor of overturning existing anti-polygamy laws should a case ever come before the Court. O'Connor's comments become real disconcerting when we find that she bases her views on the issue of "religious freedom." The question is which religion? It certainly is not Christianity. This was the conclusion of the Supreme Court in January of 1879 when George Reynolds was found guilty in a case known as Reynolds vs. United States. The court ruled that because polygamy was not a Christian practice, it was not protected under the guidelines of the Constitution. As a result, George Reynolds, a faithful Mormon and practicing polygamist, was sentenced to prison. It is highly unlikely that the current Supreme Court would interpret the Constitution in such a manner.

In recent years much has been said about same-sex marriages. Should any state succeed in allowing homosexual, same-sex marriages to become law, it is almost certain that polygamy will rush in on its heels. Should same-sex marriages become legal, there will be no moral high ground for the court to take. I can assure you that it will not be long before petitions come before our lawmakers demanding similar recognition for plural marriages.

Apparently I am not alone with this opinion. The late Mike Royko, columnist for the Chicago Tribune, expressed similar concerns in an article printed in the Salt Lake Tribune (12/15/96, pg.A5). Royko described a hypothetical situation in which he stated that all that would be necessary to get the polygamy campaign going is to have the media get behind it and start calling all those who disagree with the concept of multiple wives (husbands?) a bunch of mean-spirited "polyphobes." I have to agree since this type of tactic has worked so well in the past. With such a strategy, it may be only a matter of time before your 1040 form has multiple lines for "spouses" as it does for dependents.

How will the LDS Church react should polygamy become legal? It is hard to tell. It will certainly have a difficult time denouncing it since Doctrine and Covenants section 132 still encourages polygamous relationships. This could very well become a nightmare for the LDS public relations department. Should the LDS Church decide to go back to its teachings of the nineteenth century, I am sure that many of those Mormon fundamentalists will feel they have been vindicated.

 

[Weird Harold]

An interesting article, Todd. Thanks for digging it up.

 

[Pyper]

My two cents from the anthropological point of view...

I would just like to say that polygyny (that is, one man with two or more wives) is the NATURAL mating system of humans. Biological anthropologists stick us in there with gorillas and baboons when mapping out what primates have what system. There are many reasons for this, which I could go in to briefly if anyone is interested, but I would like to point out that 84% of the world's societies have some form of polygyny.

So if people want to have polygynous marriages, I have no problem with it, as long as everybody in the marriage is content with the arrangement.

 

[Todd]

An interesting article, Todd. Thanks for digging it up.

Your welcome, It wasn't much to dig up its in my personal writings documents.

 

[Tabby432]

Polygamy is general? Like everyone else I don't have a problem with it as long as it's with consenting adults.

The problem that I have with it in the U.S. is that it's illegal. Which makes it possible for the "unmarried" women with children to collect wellfare. This may be the exception and not the norm, but the cases where the state supports their lifestyle makes me angry.

The government has no place in ANY type of marriage between consenting adults. That includes supporting the women and children of these marriages. They can't have it both ways.

 

[Laurel]

Apparently, the biggest problem with the multiple wives situation is that these wives end up eligible for welfare. Reportedly, this man's family was taking in over $50,000 a year in government assistance. That's not necessarily fair, but it's not a reason to criminalize multiple marriages. It is a reason to fix the welfare laws.

What's shocking about this entire situation is that the man was convicted of a felony. I fail to see why polygamy should rank with rape and murder. Like the bans on gay marriages, this is yet another antiquated law based on Christian morality instead of on logic.

We all claim we want to be free to live our lives as we see fit, yet many of us support laws - anti-abortion, anti-drugs, anti-porn, anti-guns, anti-polygamy - that restrict the freedom of Americans for no good reason other than some people find those things distasteful. We need to begin to realize what true freedom means. It means that we must put aside our own biases and allow others the right to live as they choose. It means we must live our lives without believing everyone should live as we do - lest we want others to tell us how what we can and cannot do, believe, or think.

For the anti-polygamists out there (if there are any here): if the man next door has 4 wives and he is able to take care of them and their children, why is it your business? How does it affect YOU? And do you want THEM or anyone else to tell you how many children you can have?

 

[Problem Child]

I'm just jealous that one guy gets so much pussy. That's all.

 

[Bastet]

have you seen most of those homely radical offshoot mormon women who are in polygamist relationships? i don't know if you'd want that pussy, problem child. i know i wouldn't!

 

[OUTSIDER]

have you seen most of those homely radical offshoot mormon women who are in polygamist relationships? i don't know if you'd want that pussy, problem child. i know i wouldn't!

LMAO,....thinking about all that hot mormon sex....hold on I gotta stop I'm splitting up I'm laughing so much

 

[Todd]

Guess what blessing you get in the afterlife if you are a good mormon wife here on earth????































You get to be eternally pregnant birthing souls. Does that sound like such a blessing to any of you ladies who have been or who are pregnant?

 

[Andra_Jenny]

The child of a polygamist family was on the talk radio. The women would act as a coalition against the father to get thier way.

Now what is the guy getting, a lot of pussy, or a lot of henpecking?

 

[Merelan]

It isn't all roses people. And you would be surprised at the sex he isn't getting. There is a schedule, usually, but you all know how that can be. Work, stress etc. factors in to mess things up.
Trust me. The sex isn't as frequaent as you would think. With the other wives around, all the kids etc. And then, what happens when that many women live together? Yep. Their cycles tend to match closely. Think about that. 4-5 women having pms at the same time. Yep. Fun, fun, fun.
The issue with welfare is different, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the polygamy thing. It is meant that he, and the women, support their families themselves. As in any case, if you cannot afford the kids, don't have them. The whole set up was to protect and support the woman and her children. If you can't, then stay out of the bed.

 

[rambling man]

For better or worse or nothing else more than to point out a fact, polygamy is the only alternative lifestyle sanctioned by the religious texts of the major religions....

This guy was punished not because of his multiple wives, lots of folks do that. He was prosecuted because he went public and talked about his lifestyle. Seems like more of a first amendment issue here, they were muzzling him, keeping him from promoting what he did..

As for me, I cannot fathom why you would want more than one wife, unless there was some hot bi action going on, hehehe

 

[Mr.curious]

The way I see it is, why disappoint many women when I can stay home and disappoint One. LOL Just a thought.

 

[Weird Harold]

I'm surprise no one has pointed out...

It isn't all roses people.

Five wives also means five mothers-in-law!

What sane man would even think of polygamy?