Polygamy? It's positively biblical

Nineteenth-century Americans coupled it with slavery, calling both "the twin relics of barbarism." Today, it is used as a scare image to deter people from approving same-sex marriage, lest it lead down a slippery slope to that horror of horrors.

But what, exactly, is bad about it? Looking at the Texas sect at the Yearning for Zion ranch, so much in the news, will not tell us, because that sect allegedly forced underage girls into marriage. The case then becomes one of child sexual abuse, a crime hardly unknown in the monogamous family, although it gets less splashy publicity when it occurs there. Disturbing things are fun to contemplate when they can be pinned on distant "deviants," but threatening when they occur in families like one's own.

Mormon polygamy of the 19th century was not child abuse. Adult women married by consent, and typically lived in separate dwellings, each visited by the husband in turn. In addition to their theological rationale, Mormons defended the practice with social arguments - in particular that polygamous men would abandon wives or visit prostitutes less frequently. Instead of answering these arguments, however, Americans hastened to vilify Mormon society, publishing semi-pornographic novels that depicted polygamy as a hotbed of incest and child abuse.

Self-righteous Americans hastened to stigmatize Mormon marriage as "patriarchal," while participating contentedly and uncritically in an institution (monogamy) so patriarchal that, for many years, women lost all property rights upon marriage and could not even get a divorce on grounds of cruelty. In one respect, Mormon women were miles ahead of their sisters living in monogamy: They got the vote in the territory of Utah in 1871, 49 years before the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment gave the vote to women all over the nation.

The hypocrisy of the monogamist majority reached its height in the denial (often heard in Congress) that there could be a serious religious argument for polygamy: hypocrisy, because the monogamists were denying their own heritage. Joseph Smith did not pull polygamy out of the air. He found it in the Old Testament, where many patriarchs are represented as polygamous. The very wording of the Ten Commandments, a chief pillar of American public morality then as now, presupposes polygamy. In Deuteronomy, the commandment not to "covet" is divided into two parts. The command not to covet the neighbor's spouse is addressed only to men, and the command not to covet the neighbor's house, field, etc., is addressed to all of the people of Israel. A standard Torah commentary used in my temple puts it this way: "Because men could have more than one wife, an unmarried woman could covet another's husband and even end up married to him."

Yet in 1878, the U.S. Supreme Court would uphold an anti-polygamy statute with these words, extraordinary from justices who were supposedly Bible readers: "Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people." (The Jews were in fact an Asiatic people, but mainstream Christians usually forgot that, thinking of Jesus as a blond, blue-eyed child. So the justices did not see themselves as repudiating their biblical heritage, although this is precisely what they were doing.)

All this shows us a deplorable, if ubiquitous, human tendency: People who feel threatened by a new group demonize the group by imputing to it allegedly nefarious practices in the areas of gender and sexuality. Think of anti-Semitism in European history, Islamophobia, and - perhaps above all - fear and loathing of gays and lesbians.

But what should we say about polygamy itself, in our own time? What, if anything, is really wrong with it?

First, as traditionally practiced, polygamy is one-sided. Men have rights that women do not. Sex equality could, then, give the state a strong interest in disallowing religious claims to practice polygamy, as long as the one-sidedness is maintained.

What about, though, a practice of plural contractual marriages, by mutual consent, among adult, informed parties, all of whom have equal legal rights to contract such plural marriages? What interest might the state have that would justify refusing recognition of such marriages?

Well, children would have to be protected, so the law would have to make sure that issues such as maternity/paternity and child support were well articulated. Beyond this, a regime of polygamous unions would, no doubt, be difficult to administer - but not impossible, with good will and effort. It is already difficult to deal with sequential marriages and the responsibilities they entail.

The history of Mormon polygamy shows us that the state and public opinion are very bad judges of what adult men and women may reasonably do. When people are insecure, they cling to the "normal" and vilify those who choose to live differently. Someday down the road, we may recognize that adults are entitled, as John Stuart Mill saw long ago, to conduct such "experiments in living" as suit their own plans and projects, as long as they inflict no harm on nonconsenting parties. The state must protect vulnerable dependents: children and the elderly. It must also protect adult men and women against fraud and force. Beyond that, it should leave the field of intimate sexual choice to a regime of private contractual arrangement. If polygamy turns out to be a bad idea, it won't survive the test of free choice over time.

That's a lot of interpretation without any substantiation! Got any references? Or are you channeling good old Martin this morning. :-)

Martin Luther
"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter." (De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329-330.)

So is Colo right? Is this just a Catholic straw man to put down a Protestant leader?

***Polygamy? It’s positively biblical**

About as biblical as passing on a widow to the next brother as a wife.
Some things we just don’t do today and haven’t been done for 2000 years.
Polygamy has always been a source of interfamily troubles. Gideon had many wives and sons till one son killed all the others and declared himself king.

David had several wives and the new king would naturally kill all his brothers to protect his throne. That is why Bathsheba and Nathan conspired to make Solomon king.

Solomon had many wives, probably to cement alliances with tribes and other nations. They brought idolatry into his nation.

That is why the Christian standard has been...1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Tts 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

Besides, if men had many wives today, that means some would have NO wife at all.

That is from G-d, and thus it is G-d's to define what those rights are.

I think the point of these authors is that the definition of what God has defined is a bit more broad than society currently allows for. Personally, I'm happy with the definition we have now. Besides believing it is as God would have it, I think it best suited to bring the greatest happiness.

Well, you know what, rape is practiced in 100% of all cultures. And I'm sure that Satanic ritual rape or Muslim vengeance rape has added "religious" elements to some of this violence. So what? All kinds of behavior exists simultaneously in the bulk of cultures. But we don't start defining what is healthy for society by how prevalent it is across cultures.

You should be careful about using such an argument, as marriage is also practiced in 100% of all cultures. I hardly think marriage should be thrown out along with rape.

So the question is: Why are you casting your lot with such a crowd?

Of course, discussing such issues is hardly to agree with them. You are discussing them, but from your posts indicate you do not agree with them. So it is possible to discuss what other people believe, without agreeing with them, so that one can be informed about what other people think and believe. :-)

That's a lot of interpretation without any substantiation! Got any references? Or are you channeling good old Martin this morning. So is Colo right? Is this just a Catholic straw man to put down a Protestant leader?

You don't have to be an occultic channeler...You don't have to cite an apologist of the same denomination as the person being discussed...like Mormons frequently do by going to an apologist.

You just need to be aware of some social scientists who've done a bit of historical digging themselves. And one such person was author Philip L. Kilbride, whose 1994 book Plural Marriage for Our Times? A Reinvented Option, discusses the Martin Luther situation. (See pp. 63-64)

Here's the URL for it: http://books.google.com/books?id=XeW-uMWwSHwC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=%22martin+luther%22+polygamy+divorce+scandal+christians&source=web&ots=P6ylOvQdVi&sig=xhvUPqWXWveF-Vy67YZCeelopr0&hl=en#PPP1,M1

I agree with that. But you went beyond "discussion."

Usually when folks post other writers, it's usually because (1) it supports what they themselves are trying to say; or (2) they want others to shoot holes in a target that's quite deserving of target practice.

Since #2 doesn't seem to fit what you did, that leaves #1.

You should be careful about using such an argument, as marriage is also practiced in 100% of all cultures. I hardly think marriage should be thrown out along with rape.

No, I've seen that argument over & over again. And it's a stupid one. It doesn't matter how many cultures any practice is practiced, whether it's healthy or unhealthy, right or wrong, legit or illegit, etc.

The reason why is because in any culture that's large enough, all you have to do is to find one case of it being practiced and presto! before long you get your % up to 78%! (Real impressive). Under such a poor social science junk myth, any deviant sexual practice would qualify as "practiced" in the majority of cultures!

David did not commit adultery nor manslaughter. However, Uriah also did not commit -- to marriage! Uriah instead preferred to be at the point of the spear, fighting at the sides his buddies and leading his fellow warriors. A hero! All got what they wanted.

BTW, when you are ever in a real fight -- check your foxhole buddy to see what kind of hero he wants to be. Here's the clue -- some are best "left to their own devices". That's how I read the Uriah Tale.

Martin Luther: "Indeed, I detest divorce so much, that I prefer bigamy rather than divorce"

In spite of Luther's feelings, modern society has accepted that bigamy is worse than divorce. Of course, divorce is not that great either!

Matthew 5:32
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

No doubt there's a lot of adultery going on in modern society with our high divorce rate! Fortunately, God's grace is available for all who repent.

1 Samuel 1:6-7

6 [This embarrassed and grieved Hannah] and her rival provoked her greatly to vex her, because the Lord had left her childless.

7 So it was year after year; whenever Hannah went up to the Lord’s house, Peninnah provoked her, so she wept and did not eat.

Polygamy is a wonderful thing.

David did not commit adultery nor manslaughter.

OK, I'm starting to find responding to your posts a waste of time. If you won't believe the Bible, then you won't believe anything I write:

"Then David sent messengers to get her. She [Bathsheba] came to him, and he slept with her...Then she went back home. The woman conceived and sent word to David, saying, 'I am pregnant.'" (2 Sam. 11:4-5)

"Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Urriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites." (Nathan the prophet) (2 Sam. 12:9)

Agreed. Of course, it's your argument.

Are you dense? I used a stupid argument to show how stupid Turley was. I didn't come up with it first. YOU did. You cited Turley. You accept Turley as some kind of authority figure.

(And if you dislike Luther so much, maybe you should return to the Catholic faith you apostatized from).

The alternative for Hannah was spinsterhood. Hooray for Peninnah!

Still, the two might have performed the dance of "motivated cooperation" with a bit less acrimony, one suspects. As you mention such acrimony seems a hallmark of polygamy.

Still ... better than spinsterhood, childlessness and bastardy.

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.