Posted on 06/12/2007 2:31:05 PM PDT by deaconjim
What's untrue in the article?
the marriages aren’t legal to their second, third, etc..wives, and that is why the govt won’t do anything about them. Look, there is no difference between them, and Hugh Hefner living with 3 girlfriends. That is why I don’t care so much.
However the laws are wht they are and they should be enforced or change them.
LOL!!!!
Deuteronomy 17:17 specifically warns against practicing polygamy--a warning ignored by a handful of Biblical characters: "He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray."
This is precisely what happened to Solomon (700 wives; 300 concubines according to 1 Kings 11:3). The result of Solomon holding "fast to them in love" (1 Kings 11:2) was that "his wives led him astray." (1 Kings 11:3). "As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lrod his God...So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the Lord; he did not follow the Lord completely..." (1 Kings 11:4,6)
“HBO’s “Big Love” about a fictional polygamous family.”
The really fictional part are the three slim urban hotties.
The “Mormon Corridor” knows much better.
I disagree w/you. Otherwise you are saying there is absolutely no difference between marriage and cohabitation.
Ouch!!! That’s gonna leave a mark!!!!
polygamist aren’t married to their extra wives legally, but only in their reglious beliefs. They are typically married to their first wives, and the others just live with them. So, yes, I see that as very similar to Hugh Hefner, cept he isn’t married to any of his girlfriends, he is just living with all of them.
Who said that men can't get pregnant? This was Joseph Smith's "pregnancy." (And Brigham Young and John Taylor & other LDS prophets & general authorities were this practice's "godparents.")
Thanks for reminding us all that there are a few Taliban Christians out there. As for myself, I'd rather go to hell with the Mormons, or Catholics, or Lutherans or Jews or whomever else it is that you have a problem with, that go to heaven with your Taliban christians. (Small "c" intentional, because the Taliban part is more important to your type)
Post 34--I was agreeing w/you & adding something.
So not sure why you're starting in on me & "bashing" me. You're not part of one of those narrow little brands of Taliban Christians, are you? :)
A Republican Representative, I think from California, and also Rick Santorum, were both absolutely thrashed in the media for bringing this up during the last big round of ballot measures to define marriage.
Marriage = one man and one woman.
Marriage = one man and one man.
Marriage = one woman and one woman.
Marriage = one man and two woman.
One word change, and who is to say which word should be changed.
Up until recently in the state of Ohio
Marriage = one man owns one woman
due to an antiquated law.
Now before you get that look on your face I do not belive that its OK for a man to have more than one wife, The Bible's greatest example were Adam and Eve. And I think its a pattern that we should emulate.
I for one would be absolutey content with just one. :)
Agreed, however, it doesn't give it the same condemnation given to homosexuality ("an abomination")...
One can view the passage you quoted as an injuction against, but not a specific condemnation as was given to homosexuality, which was goldstategop's point. For the record, I stand squarely for the Bible's preference, monogamy, between one man and one woman...
the infowarrior
It’s quite apparent what your agenda is from your other posts. Some of us are just too busy fighting the war on Lieberals to entertain diversions from religious bigots.
Going back to about the first dozen years following the "declaration," LDS prophets still approved about two dozen plural marriages (most in Mexico). So that knocks down the "115" to about "100." And if THEY couldn't absolutely adhere to the new divine formula for about a dozen years, then what's the big deal if fundamentalist Mormons couldn't adhere to it for a period of time about seven times longer than that?
It has nothing to do with "rights". The fact is, "Mormon" means something. When someone uses the term "Mormon", it is well understood what it means. To use that well-known meaning in relation to people who are not "Mormon" is misleading.
I can understand the unintentional mistake that some make, of thinking that modern-day polygamists are somehow related to the LDS Church. But for journalists to persist in perpetuating the falsehood is annoying. But, I suppose that's what journalists do.
Besides, they are following Mormonism the way it was taught by Brigham Young and Joseph Smith, and maintain that it was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who corrupted the “true” religion.
I understand their claimed position. They're entitled to believe that if they choose. I'm not trying to deny them what ever belief they would like to have.
My only complaint is that it effectively associates a group with the LDS Church that is not related in any way.
It wouldn't be much different from persisting in referring to Methodists as "fundamentalist Catholics" (or, perhaps more appropriately, the other way around) simply because they both use the Bible and believe that Jesus is the son of God. They share a distant, common history and some beliefs, but the two organizations aren't related at all.
I wasn't "trying" to tell you anything other than what I told you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.