Article VI Blog

« A Little More Poking Around The Internet | Religion And Politics All Over The Map »

Little To Talk About . . .

Posted by: John Schroeder at 03:23 am, April 24th 2008 &mdash 21 Comments »

But since we like Mitt Romney here . . .

…feel free to spend your money here. Wear the stuff proudly!

To My Mormon Friends . . .

And Evangelicals are not your only problem. Timothy Egan, in the NYTimes writes of the FLDS compound in Texas and draws a direct line to Joseph Smith, the Mormon past and, unbelievably Mitt Romney.

Mormonism is the most homegrown of American religions, and the fastest-growing in the Western Hemisphere. There are more Mormons in the United States than Presbyterians. The church has been vocal about denouncing the renegade Mormons in Texas, and quick to point out that it abandoned polygamy in 1890, as a condition of Utah’s statehood.

For a long time, though, the church was at odds with basic American ideals, and not just because old guys sanctioned marital sex with dozens of teenage girls. What you see in Texas — in small part — is a look back at some of the behavior of Mormonism’s founding fathers.

When Mitt Romney, in his December speech about his religion, said, “My faith is the faith of my fathers — I will be true to them and to my beliefs,” he was taking on a load of historical baggage.

I am not sure what to make of this piece. Mormonism’s past is significant, but it is the past. I find little reason to write this piece other than to mix up the past and the present in people’s minds. To reinforce a historical connection that people are trying to break - to punish a group for a sin for which the group has long since recanted. This guy is apparently arguing for historical revisionism, but his argument is so mired in detail as to serve to make the assiciation he seems to argue against.

Then, of course, there is the historical baggage that every other religion carries with it. Longer ago, perhaps, but not always. Many churches supported slavery, a practice abandoned mere decades before the LDS stopped polygamy, and those same churches carried deep racism well into the 20th century. As a son of the south, I have attended more than a few in my life. “But only a few churches did that” comes the protest. Well, less than a majority of Mormons practiced polygamy as well.

I have made the point before that to the average American, polygamy is all they can associate with Mormonism. I believe this article to be evidence of that fact.

Lowell adds: This line tells you all you need to know about the article:

For a long time, though, the church was at odds with basic American ideals, and not just because old guys sanctioned marital sex with dozens of teenage girls.

What a smear. “At odds with basic American ideals?” Doesn’t that phrase cry out for just a bit of support? “Old guys sanctioned marital sex with dozens of teenage girls?” Does any serious student of that unique historical period describe what happened that way? Do they not have editors at the New York Times?

One of the books Egan cites as support for his article is “No Man Knows My History,” a deeply controversial anti-Mormon book by a well-regarded ex-Mormon author, Fawn Brodie. If that’s Egan’s source for understanding Mormon history, he needs to get out more. Maybe he should crack open Richard Bushman’s more recent, and widely-acclaimed work, “Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling,” which is certainly no valentine to Joseph Smith.

John and I have documented over the last two years that the truly bigoted pieces about Romney with the biggest circulation (i.e., in the MSM) come from liberals. A quick review of Egan’s past articles for the New York Times reveals that — big surprise!– he’s a solidly conventional liberal.

Final thought: It’s interesting to ponder what would be happening if Romney had won in Florida and then sailed on to be the presumptive nominee instead of McCain. As depressing as it is to say this, I think pieces like Egan’s would be all over the MSM and the blogosphere as well. We still have some work to do in this country.

Editors’ Note: Comments on this post have been closed. Thanks for your thoughtful contributions, which we hope have contributed to understanding (not necessarily agreement).
Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | 21 Comments » | Print this post | Email This Post

Recently:

21 Responses to “Little To Talk About . . .”

ttcstaff on 24 Apr 2008 at 6:27 am #

If you’re interested in learning more about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or Mormonism I would highly recommend this study available for purchase from TheThoughtfulChristian.com. Click here for more information.
kgbudge on 24 Apr 2008 at 12:33 pm #

ttcstaff,

Judging from the summary, it looks like this book may be a fair attempt to describe Mormonism. I say “may” because the summary is not, after all, the book, and I have had many bad experiences with Christian writers about Mormonism who can’t seem to get the chip off their shoulder. I would think the best source for what Mormons believe and practice would be Mormon writers.

From Egan’s article:

What you see in Texas — in small part — is a look back at some of the behavior of Mormonism’s founding fathers.

That’s the Big Lie in this unhappy episode.

Reputable scholars of the historical period when mainstream Mormons practice polygamy have, among other things, looked at age statistics for wives. The age distribution is not much different from that for monogamous non-LDS marriages of the time. At least one of Joseph Smith’s marriages was to a woman older than himself. So there’s a key difference between FLDS and 19th-century LDS: The latter did not engage in anything that could reasonable be described as systematic pedophilia.

A second key difference is that 19th-century LDS men who did not practice polygamy — a large majority — were not expelled from the Church or community. Polygamy was not seen as a commandment required of all men, but as a duty required of the best men to ensure every woman had a husband. As I understand it, FLDS do not have a place for monogamous men, which leads to things like teenage boys being kicked out of the community on flimsy pretexts to ensure at least a 2:1 ratio of nubile women to men.

A third key difference is that 19th-century LDS men who practiced polygamy were expected to support their families. Exceptions were made for men called on missions, but that was true of monogamous men called on missions as well. And the missionaries were supported by the Church, not by a department of welfare. This is in sharp contrast to the findings of the jury that convicted FLDS leader Warren Jeffs of welfare fraud.

A fourth and crucial difference is that 19th-century LDS polygamous marriages were at least as voluntary as monogamous non-LDS marriages of the day. A woman could say no, and many did. Furthermore, Brigham Young was quite open about the fact that he would pretty much grant a divorce to any woman who asked, but would require extremely solid grounds to grant a divorce to any man who asked. His theory was that marriage was a duty for a man that he was not entitled to back out of, but it was a choice for a woman and she was entitled to back out if the man didn’t treat her well. Chauvinist pig.

The last point is hard for a lot of folks unfamiliar with the realities of 19th-century LDS polygamy to believe, because they can’t imagine women voluntarily choosing it. Yet the evidence is that these women did.

I am bemused to hear the FLDS describe marriages after the first as “spiritual marriages” because they are not recognized by the law. In 19th-century LDS practice, a “spiritual marriage” would refer to one in which a man agreed to marry and provide for a woman but had no conjugal rights. Yes, such marriages were contracted — a number of Brigham Young’s marriages were in this category. I’m not sure what the theological reasoning was; such marriages were done away at the same time as more conventional polygamy.
TVHall on 24 Apr 2008 at 1:56 pm #

ttcstaff, if someone were “interested in learning more about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or Mormonism” why would they need to go anywhere other than one of that church’s own web sites?
Sherry on 24 Apr 2008 at 2:20 pm #

Now John, I do not agree. The “average American” works with, lives next to, or knows a member of the LDS church. There are some cases where a small group has so isolated themselves that they do not fit into one of these categories, but these are rare.

Those who fit in the category of: “polygamy is all they can associate with Mormonism” are extraordinarily uninformed. I think much higher of the “average American,” especially since the internet has made accurate information entirely accessible from the privacy of their own homes. In fact, they would have to be really isolated to not know about the humanitarian efforts, the emphasis on families and many other points of LDS doctrine since it has been so prominent in the news since the coverage for the 2002 Olympics. I can’t say the media always got it exactly right, but what I saw seemed pretty fair, and I don’t recall polygamy being mentioned much at all.

On the other hand, I think there is a political ax being ground here. I think there are those, especially in the MSM, who would like to pretend that the only thing Americans know is the Mormon-polygamy connection, and, in the hope that reality will someday imitate imagination, keep it alive with this sort of story. It is interesting to note that this story attempts to blur the line between the mainstream LDS church and the fictionalized history of some polygamist church. (The description doesn’t even match the FLDS from what I have been able to ascertain.) The article is mostly lies and personal opinions of those who are not LDS. Shame on you for even posting a link to it. (It might as well be a tabloid article. It has just as much basis in reality.)

However, I am seeing many attempts to link the currant LDS church to the currant practice of polygamy, even though there is no connection in reality. I do wonder how much of this does have to do with Mitt Romney. Is this some kind of last ditch effort to convince the uninformed that his religion is somehow worse then all others? There are some awful convenient coincidences in the currant events:

1. “In February, a woman calling herself “Jennifer” called 911 in Colorado Springs …, claiming that her father had locked her in her basement for days.” http://www.abc4.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=9fa70e48-2d47-4d39-83f8-369e11cde6c1 (This was originally carried nationally, though I am having trouble finding a copy of the old article. However, this ABC article is a wealth of information.)

2. Swinton was arrested in connection with that incident on April 16 and later released. She made the phony phone calls to the Texas authorities alleging child abuse at the YfZ ranch.

3. All of the children of the FLDS are forcefully removed from their homes. A CPS worker testifies that in her opinion the beliefs of the community will lead to these children committing abuse\crime later in life. She does not testify that there is any abuse or crime currently taking place or that there is any evidence of abuse or crime. The expert witness in the case admits that the only thing he knows about the FLDS is what is reported in the media. Despite the many lawyers calling for due process in the case all children of the community are remanded to CPS for immediate placement in foster care. No charges seem to have been filed against any of the adults at the YfZ ranch for child abuse.

3. A story that should have produced outrage for the violation of constitutional rights instead produces critiques of clothes, hairstyles, and makeup. (These media stories sounded an awful lot like the “popular” girls in highschool talking about the weird “nerds,” they even used some of the very same language.)

4. A congressman in Texas brags that he sponsored bills to specifically target the FLDS for their religious practices. (Not bigamy or cohabitation, but religion.) The media doesn’t seem to care.

5. The news stories are not being careful to identify the FLDS church as separate and distinct from the LDS church. This prompts a press release from the LDS church telling the media to be more careful. Now there is usually some kind of disclaimer at the very end of the articles.

6. The media seem to be living in their own little world where constitutional rights are less important then fashion sense. (I don’t think Americans are really this nitwitty. I think many of them are watching this media fest with the same disgust and outrage I am. I have been reading several blogs that indicate the media dog and pony show isn’t being swallowed. I know that isn’t conclusive proof, but I do think it shows that there are many Americans who realize that there is more at stake here then just making sure the kids have clothes from Walmart.)

So, does this all take place right now, with so much poor, false and misleading media coverage, because Mitt Romney is in the running for vice-president? I think it is something we need to think about.
CarlH on 24 Apr 2008 at 3:34 pm #

The New York Times today has a chilling look at the plight of non-Orthodox Christianity in Russia. Obviously, who is a “heretic” and who is not depends on who is providing the definition–and having the government do it is a very frightening thing indeed. A lesson here perhaps for those who seem intent on providing an American, political definition?
Lori on 24 Apr 2008 at 4:41 pm #

I’m sure you found that study guide interesting but actually the best source for learning about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints would not be a Presbyterian minister if you know what I mean. Better to go to the source….try www.Mormon.org, or lds.org.
CarlH on 25 Apr 2008 at 8:33 am #

What can only be described as a “puff piece” about Hillary’s supposedly underestimated faith appears in the Washington Times (of all surprising places).

For those in need of a good splash of cold water to drag them back to the sordid reality that is the Clinton campaign, AmericanPapist blog (gotta love the name!) uncovers some pretty blatant religious-identity-group (Catholic) pandering on the part of New York’s junior senatrix.

Somehow I don’t think it is her faith that is “underestimated”!
pj on 25 Apr 2008 at 8:59 am #

I read the Egan article but I sure didn’t see what the big deal is.
Today’s Mormons and the FLDS have a direct line to Joseph Smith. They are religious first cousins.

That is how the majority of Americans see it. Nothing will change that. I was talking to my niece and she said there is one Mormon boy in her school. He gets teased all the time about how many mothers he has. His parents have complained numerous times to the school but it doesn’t do any good. People have their perceptions about Mormons. To this day the polygamy revelation is still Mormon Scripture. (I told my niece she is not to tease him. She says she never did.)

I think Mormons fail to see how polygamy is viewed by most people. It is not something that was ever taught in our faith, to be ordained by God. For me, a Protestant, polygamy is about as appealing as incest. I can not relate to a religion who believes that it was ever O.K. to have more than one wife. Sorry, there is just no common connection there. Once you defend it, you lose me.

This will continue to be a problem for Romney, should he endevor to run again. Its not fair but its just a fact. People just cannot relate to such a view. No matter how good all Mormons are today, many of them still defend the past practice of polygamy to some extent.

I was shocked at how many Mormons have defended the FLDS to some extent. Especially on the DeseretNews website.
Sherry is even doing it in the comments here! My opinion on the whole Texas thing is lets sort out the facts first. I am giving Texas the benefit of the doubt. Men preying on young girls is disgusting and needs to be stopped. I really don’t care how. The women look and sound like programmed robots. I cannot feel sympathy for any woman who would let her teenage girl be married to an older man or let her teenage boy be thrown out on the street.
I pray for those children.
TVHall on 25 Apr 2008 at 1:20 pm #

pj, some of your assertions are based on faulty assumptions. The direct line to Joseph Smith would actually make them brothers, rather than cousins. To complete the analogy, it should be stated that the FLDS brother has been thoroughly disowned by the LDS brother.

Conceding, for the purposes of this discussion only, that the majority of “Americans” sees this relationship as you do, and that “nothing will change that;” you’ve provided an excellent example of a bigot, as defined by Merriam-Webster (i.e. a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices).

I really have to wonder about the assertion that you “can not relate to a religion who believes that it was ever O.K. to have more than one wife.” This would seem to alienate you from any religion which views the Bible as the inerrant word of God. However, since you also state that polygamy “is not something that was ever taught in our faith, to be the word of God,” perhaps your teachers just didn’t spend much time in the Old Testament.

Having said all of the above, I do agree that this issue will continue to be a problem for Romney, or any other LDS candidate, and that fairness is mostly irrelevant. However, that will not deter the rest of us from doing what we can to combat the ignorance that breeds that intolerance.
kgbudge on 25 Apr 2008 at 5:09 pm #

I read the Egan article but I sure didn’t see what the big deal is.

I think I explained it in my earlier post. Egan mischaracterizes the 19th century practice of polygamy by mainstream LDS by false analogy with current FLDS practice.

I have no interest in practicing polygamy. I’m glad God hasn’t required it of me. But, no, I’m not going to repudiate my ancestors who did what I believe God required of them. And I’m not going to sit back and let someone mischaracterize it.
Doug King on 25 Apr 2008 at 10:42 pm #

I’m Mormon, and I’d wager that 99% of active Mormons are glad the LDS church discontinued polygamy in 1890 and are committed to defending marriage as between one man and one woman. I have no sympathy with illegal FLDS practices, and I’m all for prosecuting sex abusers to the fullest extent of the law no matter what their religious beliefs.

But I am also disturbed by the forced separation of children from parents of an entire community based on unproven allegations. A lot of people (not just Mormons) are aghast at how little value Texas seems to accord civil rights as long as the suspects belong to a cult perceived to be weird or evil. The attitude seems to be: never-mind the facts or the rules, let’s hit these freaks hard. This hits home for me because, after all, my Mormon ancestors had to live with similar attitudes from their “Christian” neighbors as they were driven from state to state.

It seems the old animosities that Mormons had thought had faded away with the rough-and-tumble life of the frontier are alive and well. Hence, the sentiment that Mitt is unfit to be President, and the FLDS deserve to be persecuted. I don’t think there is any organized conspiracy; it’s just plain old-fashioned prejudice.
jmh on 26 Apr 2008 at 9:09 am #

Mainstream Mormons, as well as the Church leadership have said over and over again that polygamy is not a practice or tenet of the Church, not endorsed by the Church, and not approved of by the Church ad nauseum. I’m sorry, but at this point I can’t accept that the majority of people don’t know this.

As a Church that sends missionaries out into the world seeking converts, all the information that anyone wants or needs about the Church is easily accessible, right from the source. There is no need for anyone to be misinformed, unless they want to be.
Polygamy is the gift that keeps on giving for those that just don’t like the Church.

As a Mormon I too am opposed to the practice of polygamy, and know very well how destructive a practice it is. I am the granchild of an illegal polygamous union. A small number of our family split and continued the practice long after it was discontinued, and although I was not raised in that environment (my family is, and has always been mainstream LDS) it left its mark forever on the emotional life of my mother and her half siblings.

This is one of the reasons the standard of marriage as being between one man and one women is so important. Once the legal standard is something other than that, I am not sure how we ( or logic!) can say that other types of relationships/ unions, such as polygamy, are not protected.

As to the particular case in Texas - as much as I am opposed to polygamy, I too am concerned that absent any more evidence that what is currently out there, that this trial has the look of a witch hunt. And, the FLDS make an easy target. Saving underage girls from being forced into “marriage” and bearing children is a worthy goal…and I understand how difficult it must be to get the evidence of such a crime in this kind of a closed community. But I think that the the state needs to tread carefully and not, without a lot more evidence, treat the whole community as wholesale abusers.

The state of Texas would have a lot more credibility if it treated all underage pregnant teenage girls and partners with the same zeal.

I would also expect that Muslims practicing polygamy in this country will also be prosecuted, and the Muslim women and children who are trapped in this lifestyle will also be liberated…..

In short, this is not a “Mormon” problem, and although it was something that stained our history, it is long past time for every incident of polygamy to be tied to a discussion of Mormons in general.
pj on 26 Apr 2008 at 5:20 pm #

TVhall, if being repulsed by polygamy makes me a bigot then I accept that label and wear it proudly. I am also bigoted against slavery. Polygamy is just another form of slavery. Only its sexual slavery.

I am well aware that the current stance on polygamy by the Mormon church is that they are against it. Why is that? Is it because it is a sin or just against the law? I have read the book “The 19th Wife” by Ann Young. If you want to know what horrors and suffering were involved in early Mormon polygamy, just read that book. I have no doubt that the current women in Texas are suffering in the same way. They may not see it yet but hopefully their eyes will be opened and they will see that sharing your husband isn’t the way to get to heaven.

As for the people in Texas, I am willing to give the state all the benefit of the doubt. I can think of few religious beliefs that are worse than convincing a woman that her eternal soul and destiny depends on her accepting her husband having more than one wife. I know it also happens in muslim societies.

In the world of foster care and removing children from potentialy dangereous homes, the policy is take the kids and straighten it out later. That happens every day in this country. Its a judgement call. It has nothing to do with religious or civil rights. Those people’s first job is to protect the children. Too often the wrong call is made and kids end up dead or abused because the state made the wrong call.

Does anyone doubt that if they state had left those girls there that they wouldn’t have been squired away ASAP?
jv on 26 Apr 2008 at 11:17 pm #

I hate to break it to you, but most people out there don’t even watch enough news to know who is running for president more than a week before the primary hits their state, much less to know what a church with a tiny percentage of the population has been doing for the last 5 years. As a Mormon outside of Utah, I rarely hear about things that the church is doing unless I search that information out myself. People outside of Utah really don’t know much about the beliefs of the church past what they learn in their history class in high school or what they are told at the pulpits of their own church. When I moved outside of Utah, I was shocked the first time I was asked the question, “Oh, you’re part of that religion that believes you can have more than one wife, right?” But you learn to brush it off. Sure, others might know a Mormon or have a nice Mormon neighbor, but even if you say that there are 5 million Mormons in the US outside of Utah, all of whom have, oh, 3-4 good friends or neighbors who know them well, that’s still only 15-20 million people who know a Mormon well. And that’s being generous. Whether we like it or not, there were probably a whole lot of people over the last month that learned for the first time that the mainstream Mormons really don’t practice polygamy anymore. And this wasn’t exactly a great time to educate the world, through another story in the news that makes the practice look even worse than it did when it was introduced in the 1800s.

One big difference that these reporters never seem to grasp is the belief in Agency. We hold agency to be such an important part of our lives, whereas it seems that in the FLDS church, their leader decided everything for them. They are born and raised to be accepting of the will of someone with more knowledge and authority than they supposedly have. And for us to be lumped together with a group that has completely thrown that core tenet out the window, well, it’s just sad. But it was only a matter of time, the connection between Mormon and polygamy in many people’s minds is much, much stronger than any of us would like to believe.
K.G. on 28 Apr 2008 at 9:40 am #

The problem will forever exist because two groups have a vested interest in keeping derogative messages going re: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. MSM enjoys dissing religion in general and especially the Church. The polygamy issue is salacious and sells.

Other “Christian” churches have an interest in keeping their sheep and uniting members against a common enemy.

In addition, politics is rough business. Any competitor of Mitt will use religion against him, however, untrue and unfair their allegations may be.
pj on 29 Apr 2008 at 3:10 pm #

The polygamy issue remains because the Mormon Church has not declared polygamy as a sin and not what Jesus taught.
There are many who defend the polygamy practices of the founders of the LDS church.
If baptists still defended slavery in the South as biblical or an acceptable practice back then, trust me, I would view them the same way I view the Mormon faith.
sloagm on 29 Apr 2008 at 9:04 pm #

The Bible does not teach that polygamy is a sin. However, the Book of Mormon teaches that any unsanctioned extra-marital relationships, including polygamy, are highly sinful. It is very clear on this, and early church members that practiced polygamy would have been very familiar with the scripture I will show you. And I will also explain why they practiced it, despite knowing this explicit sanction against it.

I would declare that the practice that is going on in Eldorado to be sinful and contrary to the laws of God. At the same time, I would not condemn those few in the early LDS church that were called to practice polygamy.

It is not true that those that practiced polygamy in the early LDS church sought it out. It was not something that was desirable to do, based on my study of it. Rather, it was a sacrifice to do it, and very often painful for some, although they chose to do it. The FLDS experience seems completey different, as though they are farming these girls to raise them up in complete isolation…THAT is grievously sinful…

One last note, I do not believe that 1 Timothy 3:2 preaches against polygamy. But this scripture from Jacob 2 in the Book of Mormon does, and I believe that those practicing polygamy today are under the condemnation described therein.

…anyway here is the scripture:

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 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;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 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.

(in other words, the Lord is saying: if I have a specific purpose in it, I will tell you directly and clearly, otherwise don’t even THINK about doing this!)

31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.
33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.
34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; FOR YE HAVE DONE THESE THINGS WHICH YE OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DONE.
pj on 30 Apr 2008 at 3:02 pm #

Sloagam wrote: At the same time, I would not condemn those few in the early LDS church that were called to practice polygamy.

Maybe you can show or tell my why God would suspend the Ten Commandments, as in “Thou shalt not commit adultery” for a few men in the middle of the 19′th century.

You can’t. It is a lie. Men are born with the desire for multiple partners. It is NATURE! Don’t tell me those men sacrificed by praticing polygamy! That is too funny. Really.
K.G. on 30 Apr 2008 at 10:02 pm #

pj, pj, pj….Having multiple wives is not considered adultery in the Bible. Why? Because they are “wives.” Of all the sexual liasons forbidden in the OT, multiple wives is not one of them.

And while it might be human nature for both men AND women to desire multiple partners, this is quite different than desiring multiple spouses, with all the obligations attending marriage and children. Most married men I know find one wife and her children to be quite enough, thank you. Whatever inclinations they have toward multiple partners, I don’t think very many would see taking on additional wives as a desirable solution.
TVHall on 30 Apr 2008 at 11:23 pm #

pj, you’re going to have to go straight to the source for the answer to your question. Not knowing why God does something does not imply that He didn’t do it. The fact that He has done it before makes it at least possible that He might have done it again.

Also, being “repulsed by polygamy” is not unreasonable, so it would not necessarily be bigoted. However, refusing to acknowledge a reasonable argument could be. I leave it to you to determine if that applies in this case. However, your eagerness to embrace that title, along with the mantle of martyr, tends to limit your credibility.
Lowell Brown on 01 May 2008 at 8:36 am #

Editor”s Note: Comments on this post have been closed. Thanks, everyone, for your thoughtful contributions, which we hope have added to understanding (though not necessarily agreement).