Polygamists see open door for acceptance

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, July 4, 2003 | Ron Strom

[JohnHuang2]

"Polygamy is the next civil-rights battle."

That's the new battle cry of proponents of "Christian polygamy" who say their lifestyle is one step closer to being accepted after the Supreme Court's controversial decision last week invalidating state sodomy laws.

A website set up for media to get information about the pro-polygamy movement enthusiastically hails the Lawrence v. Texas decision, quoting from the majority opinion that Americans now have "... the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention."

As WorldNetDaily reported, critics of the decision believe the court has usurped the role of lawmakers, establishing a far-reaching precedent that threatens any law based on moral choices, including incest and polygamy.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia includes examples of non-traditional marriages in his dissenting opinion, saying laws against the practice are now open to review.

Scalia talks of "state laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity," saying "every single one of these laws is called into question by [the Lawrence] decision."

Said the polygamy website: "Obviously, this [decision] means enormous ramifications for the civil rights of adult, freely-consenting, marriage-committed polygamists."

The site links to a much more extensive site called TruthBearer.org, a page dedicated to promoting "Christian polygamy."

It's introductory page states, "As preached here at this ministry, Christian polygamy is only about life-long-committed (hence, NONpromiscuous), consensual, NONabusive, loving Christian marriage. The only educational matter here is that this is about men ever-growing in other-centered, ministerial, giving, selfless love in marriage to more than one woman (as Christ so selflessly and givingly loves the Churches)."

The organizers say their aim is not to legalize polygamy, but merely to decriminalize it. They don't believe government has any role whatsoever in regulating marriage.

A link to biblicalpolygamy.com presents what its creators claim are reasons that "polygamy really is biblical."

Another site on "Christian polygamy" (which appears to have been created by those who established TruthBearer.org) states:

"Only a few short years ago, the mere suggestion of putting the words 'Christian' and 'polygamy' beside each other as one term would have been laughed at. It would have been called a 'contradiction in terms' and an 'oxymoron.'

"But no one is laughing anymore.

"After much patient prayer, love, and work by committed Christ-centered, Spirit-led, Scripture-believing evangelical conservative Christians, from all kinds of different denominational backgrounds, the Truth is being believed and spread to others! Christian polygamy has become a reality and is now being taken very seriously in a number of spheres of influence."

The Rev. Jerry Falwell, WorldNetDaily columnist and nationally known Christian minister, spoke strongly against the practice of having multiple wives, telling WND: "Christian polygamy is an oxymoron." Falwell condemned the Lawrence ruling, saying it opened the door to "bestiality, pedophilia, even drug use" in the privacy of one's home.

TruthBearer.org, based in Old Orchard Beach, Maine, was founded by Mark Henkel in 1994.

"You are speaking to a diehard constitutional conservative," Henkel told WorldNetDaily, saying his support for the Lawrence v. Texas decision and polygamy is in line with the framers of the Constitution.

"My fellow conservatives are making a terrible mistake" by condemning the ruling, he said. "They are reacting like knee-jerk liberals."

Henkel compared marriage to Social Security, citing some conservatives' desire to privatize the government retirement program.

"Why not privatize marriage?" he asked rhetorically. "Why is big government a part of marriage?"

Henkel says marriage in the Bible is never linked to government and that today, the feds should not be able to dictate to Americans: "You're only allowed one wife."

Christians who believe the state should regulate marriage, he says, "are trusting in the false god of socialist government."

Referring to the sodomy case, Henkel told WND: "Lawrence v. Texas has kicked open a whole new door for us."

He says the ruling effectively voided every anti-polygamy law on the books, assuring that "whatever consenting adults choose to do" is permissible.

TruthBearer.org's strategy, says Henkel, is to persuade "conservative, Bible-believing Christians" of the appropriateness and superiority of polygamy. When they are won over, Henkel says the liberal "tolerance-oriented" people will then come into line.

While Henkel uses the polygamy of biblical patriarchs as part of his defense of the practice, Falwell says those Old Testament men were sinning by taking multiple wives.

"The Bible very clearly condemns Christian polygamy," he said. "[The Old Testament patriarchs] all did it in defiance of the Word of God. … God's plan was Adam and Eve – not Adam and Steve, and not Adam and several Eves."

Henkel's movement is clear to point out that its philosophy is not based on historic Mormon polygamy: "Christian polygamy is not Mormon polygamy. The two have two distinctly separate foundational reasons and two distinctly separate histories. They draw no basis from each other."

[Elsie]

Was one of the conditions of statehood a disavowal of polygamy by the CLDS?

---

Here ya go...

 

---

 

http://www.archives.utah.gov/exhibits/Statehood/concon.htm

 

---

 

In the decade preceding the turn of the century, Utah and its citizens experienced an easing of the suffocating pressure applied by the federal government in its crusade to smash Mormon plural marriage. That relaxation was a consequence of the Wilford Woodruff Manifesto eliminating polygamy as a doctrine of the church. It was a time in which President Benjamin Harrison also would issue a manifesto -- his offered amnesty to polygamists. That same year '1893' members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints dedicated their Salt Lake Temple forty years after construction of the edifice began in Great Salt Lake City. And, of course, it was the decade in which Utah's dream came true and its half-century struggle for statehood became reality. 

  http://historytogo.utah.gov/cc1119state.html

 

---

 

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/history/plural_marriage/Legislation_EOM.htm

 

---

 

JOSEPH L. RAWLINS

Joseph Lafayette Rawlins was born 28 March 1850 near Millcreek in Salt Lake City. He was the son of Joseph Sharp Rawlins and Mary Frost Rawlins, who were among those following Brigham Young on the trek to Utah in 1849. Rawlins was one of the early students to attend the University of Deseret and was an excellent student. He also attended Indiana University, where he was a charter member of Beta Theta Pi and president of the debating society. It was while studying law that Rawlins first had thoughts about drawing Utah into the national mainstream. He knew that polygamy would need to be eliminated and political parties drawn along national party lines rather than the religious lines of the anti-Mormon Liberal party and the pro-Mormon Peoples party. He organized the Democratic Club of Utah in 1884, but its existence was short-lived.

The issuance of the Manifesto in 1890 discouraging future polygamy greatly affected Utah's party system. Leaders in the two opposing political camps realized that local parties stood in the way of the territory's progress toward statehood. In 1891 both the Democratic and Republican parties were organized in Utah; Rawlins was an active Democrat.

http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/r/RAWLINS,JOSEPH.html

 

---

 

Just a few..........

[Elsie]

One could also mention that the main reason for plural marriage in the early Church was because they were so many widows that needed to be cared for, due to the fact that killing a Mormon was not legally murder, at least in Missouri during those times.

 

I suppose you could mention it, but it goes against the LDS 'scripture' that I just posted........

 

D&C 132:6 

And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.

Just what WAS the man/woman ratio by the time the Mormons (Some of them, anyway) got out of Missouri?

 

Surely there was no justification for an LDS leader to have taken an ALREADY married woman, was there?

[Elsie]

Has anyone else noticed that the 'Official' LDS organization can 'claim' that the rebel, jackleg Mormons are not REALLY Mormons (or LDS) but get REALLY huffy when Catholics and Protestants say that they are 'christian'?

[Elsie]

that they NOT are 'christian'?

---

(Note to Bonehead self: PROFFREAD!)

[sandydipper]

HooRay! Just what I need - another wife. :(

[RnMomof7]

I think not. Mormanism has shed a lot over the years that it is not ever going back to. JMO.

Pologamy is still a doctrine of the LDS it was never removed from the doctrine it was only suspended.

I full expect that it will again become a present day practice of the LDS as soon as it is legal there will be another prophecy to restore it...

[Grig]

"And just WHO where those 5%???"

Those chosen by the Lord.

"commanded me................ ok, just WHERE is this COMMAND??"

You make me laugh. Most all of the New Testement is an after the fact account just like OD1, and your attitude clearly shows that even if a direct quote from the Lord was provided to you, you will still attack it. You clearly have no respect for any part of the D&C when it is directly quoting the Lord, so complaining that OD1 doesn't says more about you than you probably realize.

OD1 is clear and sufficient for every member of the Church to establish that God commanded an end to the practice then. If you don't like the format or content, tough cookies, pleasing you isn't the objective.

Sorry about the him/her thing though, picking an effeminate name like that makes it an easy mistake to make. It was not deliberate and wont be deliberate the next time it happnes too. :)

[Grig]

"Yeah... and the LDS organization USED TO forbid BLACKS from priesthood, but has changed to suit the social mores."

Again you show how you love to attibute motives the same way the liberal media does to smear conservatives.

[Wrigley]

I'm sure you noticed the answer to number three was not completly answered. A more complete answer would have been "Yes, one of the reasons polygamy was ended was to get statehood."

[Grig]

"I report: you decide."

Actually, you distort. You've had it explained before that it is not required for a person to enter into a plural marriage to abide by the new and an everlasting covenant unless the person is commanded to do so. So God commanding an end to plural marriages doesn't stop anyone from abiding by that covenant.

To suggest otherwise is to promote the same reasoning used by abusive and child molesting nutcases. You don't want to do that, do you?

"(You'll note the question was not answered.)"

I did answer it. My answer was 'That makes no difference either way.' and I explained why as well. I don't really care if you like that answer or not.

I'm sure you would have loved for me to walk into the setup so you could put me on the defensive, but you will have to try much harder than that. They suffered a lot worse things than a lack of statehood for their beliefs, and were willing to suffer more too. It was only at God's command that the practice was stopped, and that is not a change in doctrine any more than taking the gospel to the gentiles was.

[Grig]

"Has anyone else noticed that the 'Official' LDS organization can 'claim' that the rebel, jackleg Mormons are not REALLY Mormons (or LDS) but get REALLY huffy when Catholics and Protestants say that they are [not] 'christian'? "

A Mormon is a member of a specific church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. It is quite factual to say that a person is is not a memeber is not a Mormon.

A Christian is one who professes a belief in Christ and follows a religion based on His teaching. Mormonism is based on the teaching of Christ (just not the orthodox view of them) and we do profess a belief in Christ. Look up 'christian' in the dictionay and you'll find no requirement for orthodoxy, so it is incorrect to say that Mormons are not Christian. Feel free to call us unorthodox Christians however.

[Elsie]

I did answer it. My answer was 'That makes no difference either way.' and I explained why as well. I don't really care if you like that answer or not.

Do you REALLY believe that if the poly had NOT been dropped, utah would be a state today??

[Elsie]

Sorry about the him/her thing though, picking an effeminate name like that makes it an easy mistake to make. It was not deliberate and wont be deliberate the next time it happnes too. :)

107 posted on 07/05/2003 11:11 AM CDT by Grig 

---

To: Elsie

"Yeah... and the LDS organization USED TO forbid BLACKS from priesthood, but has changed to suit the social mores."

Again you show how you love to attibute motives the same way the liberal media does to smear conservatives.

108 posted on 07/05/2003 11:20 AM CDT by Grig

---

 Ok...............

[Elsie]

your attitude clearly shows that even if a direct quote from the Lord was provided to you, you will still attack it.

 

Nope, it's more like............

 

.... that even if an alledgely direct quote from the Lord was provided to you, you will still attack question it in light of existing biblical writings.

 

Then, if it doesn't line up, I will NOT say, "Well, that part of my Bible must have been translated poorly."

---

"And just WHO where those 5%???"

Those chosen by the Lord.

And just HOW was this accomplished?  [RHIP, perhaps?]

[longtermmemmory]

Palimoney is not recognized in states with no common law marriage. In most staes you CAN't be common law married.

[longtermmemmory]

animials are property and consent is irrelevant.

[breakem]

so you claim you can have sex with animals that you own and they don't have to give consent. Well that's certainly 1 interpretation. So why can't you have sex with your own children. You have control over them?

[Noachian]

Thanks for the LDS info. It clears up some questions I had.

[Elsie]

Here is some more on statehood.....
http://historytogo.utah.gov/czane.html


You should go to the official LDS web area to read what the organizations position is on things today..........

http://scriptures.lds.org