• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Polygamy in the Courts

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
The Polygamist Reality Show family, of one man with four wifes, is fighting the rule against Polygamy in court to have it ruled UN-Constitutional.

Remember it was a religious belief of the Morman Church.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Tam said:
The Polygamist Reality Show family, of one man with four wifes, is fighting the rule against Polygamy in court to have it ruled UN-Constitutional.

Remember it was a religious belief of the Morman Church.

of the Mormon church or of a group of people who happen to be Mormons...

first don't mistake this defense as me condoning or even accepting the practice..

there are some passages that might be taken as our lord commanding US to take our 'brothers" wife in and care for her and her offspring... even to the point of providing the offspring..

(Gen 38, )

some look at it in a limited view and only in reference to birth control..

and since I am not a Mormon.. I am no expert on the issue but it like many others is best dealt with by those who practice it.. and plural marriages have been practiced since early biblical times..


Male LDS members are currently allowed to be sealed and married to multilple women (in the event the current wife dies or is divorced). This leads many male LDS members to state that they will have multiple wives in heaven, thus implying that Mormons believe polygamy will exist in heaven.

if you love your wife, and she dies.. you can remarry, ..if marriage is not to death do you part.. so in heaven both would be your wife..

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded 12 July 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant

Joseph Smith is given the power to bind and seal on earth and in heaven; 48–50, The Lord seals upon him his exaltation; 51–57, Emma Smith is counseled to be faithful and true;

Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many awives and concubines—

42 If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has committed adultery.

43 And if her husband be with another woman, and he was under a avow, he hath broken his vow and hath committed adultery.

5 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

a principle many still believe.. if you live your life by laws.. then at death by law your dead... :shock:


for more on the issue.. http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng


it boils down to this.. if plural marriage is an accepted religious belief.. then, " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

the liberals pushed this issue down a slippery slope and now, the courts must decide..

like I said.. sometimes the answer is not one we want to hear or accept..

it is a pandoras' box that the liberals pried open...
 

Martin Jr.

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
5,654
Reaction score
12
Location
north central Nebraska
There is one big difference in alowing plural marriages and mandating that contraceptives be offered: Plural marriages were allowed and not required. So taking away an option of having more wives did not go against Morman religious beliefs.
It would be more like if the government would declare that no one would be allowed to eat pork because some religions did not allow it. It would not interfere with Catholic teaching, because Catholics are not required to eat pork.
Offering contraceptives on the other hand is an infringment on religious beliefs because Catholic teaching prohibits that. It would be more like Jews and Muslims were required to serve pork if others were being fed.

I should add, that I wouldn't expect the 9th circuit court to understand this. I think it is above their intelligence level.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Polygamy had nothing to do with the Bible. It was created by man to make women his property. Ever here of a woman having several husbands.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
hurleyjd said:
Polygamy had nothing to do with the Bible. It was created by man to make women his property. Ever here of a woman having several husbands.


Polyandry in human relationships occurs or has occurred in Tibet; the Canadian Arctic; northern parts of Nepal; Nigeria;[2] Bhutan; parts of India (Kerala; Ladakh; Zanskar); the Nymba; Sri Lanka[2]; and some pre-contact Polynesian societies,[3] though probably only among higher caste women in this last.[4] It is also encountered in some regions of Yunnan and Sichuan regions of China, among the Mosuo people in China, and in some Sub-Saharan African such as the Maasai people in Kenya and northern Tanzania[5] and American indigenous communities. Polyandry has been practised in several cultures — in the Jaunsar-Bawar region in Uttarakhand, among the Toda of South India,[2] and the Nishi of Arunachal Pradesh.[citation needed] The Guanches, the first known inhabitants of the Canary Islands, practiced polyandry until their disappearance.[6] In other societies, there are people who live in de facto polyandrous arrangements that are not recognized by the law. Saskatchewan Canada is the only jurisdiction in North America to have "judicially sanctioned" polyandrous unions at a family law court level.[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
hurleyjd said:
Polygamy had nothing to do with the Bible. It was created by man to make women his property. Ever here of a woman having several husbands.

This Understanding Polygamy in Mormon History
By Jana Riess and Christopher Kimball Bigelow
Outsiders sometimes ask Mormons — often in jest, occasionally in concern — whether they practice polygamy. (The Mormon response is usually to roll the eyes and recite for the thousandth time that the Latter-day Saints haven't practiced polygamy for over a century and that anyone who practices it today is excommunicated, yada yada yada.)

Who practiced polygamy, and why?
Modern folks aren't the only ones who feel uncomfortable about the idea of polygamy. When Joseph Smith first explained the doctrine of plural marriage to Brigham Young in the early 1840s, Brigham felt repulsed by it. Like Brigham, most of the early Latter-day Saints didn't instantly warm to the idea, but they gradually came to understand it as God's will.

Finding out who was involved
Although in recent years the Church has downplayed the importance of plural marriage to nineteenth century Saints in order to keep the current stance clear, history shows that polygamy was an extremely important aspect of Mormonism in the nineteenth century.

Rates of polygamous marriages varied at different points throughout the second half of the nineteenth century in Mormon settlements. The 1850s saw many plural marriages, but the rate seems to have declined afterward due to government persecution and changing social standards. The numbers also varied based on geography; some towns embraced polygamy more than others.

Hearing the defense
Why did the Latter-day Saints practice polygamy, especially when this deviation from what was considered "normal" or moral behavior so angered America's citizens and government? Here are some possible reasons, both theological and social:

•God told us to do it. Period. Most Mormons believe that although they may not understand why, the Lord chose to institute plural marriage for a brief period in the nineteenth century as the Church was becoming established. The nineteenth century Latter-day Saints felt that they were practicing plural marriage in strict obedience to God's will and that the practice was divinely inspired. In fact, Mormonism still acknowledges polygamy as a divine principle that may apply in heaven, though it's no longer in practice on the earth.
•It was part of the "restitution of all things." Mormons saw their practice of polygamy as similar to that of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They believe that their latter-day church includes, as predicted in the Bible, the "restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began" (Acts 3:21). That includes Old Testament polygamy.
•It brought the Latter-day Saints together. Polygamy made the Mormons more cohesive as a people and gave them a distinct identity. Some plural wives were family members even before marriage (two sisters marrying the same man, for example), and the bonds of marriage expanded family networks. Also, the increased persecution caused by polygamy helped the Mormons bond together even more closely as a people.
•It raised up a mighty generation. Many Mormons believe that one of the reasons the Lord may have sanctioned polygamy for a time was that it allowed the struggling Latter-day Saints to raise up a "righteous seed" of second- and third-generation Mormons to build the kingdom. Because of polygamy, Mormon families in the nineteenth century were able to obey the Lord's commandment to "be fruitful and multiply," sometimes having two or three times as many children as they may have had with only one child bearer. What's more, polygamy attached women and children to men who had made a strong commitment to the Church, because those men were the most likely to enter into plural marriage.
Busting a few myths about nineteenth century polygamy
Several enduring myths are still bandied about as people try to explain polygamy (or explain it away):

•"Mormons practiced polygamy because women on the frontier far outnumbered men, and plural marriage gave every woman a chance to have a husband." In actuality, men sometimes outnumbered women, especially in the early years of Mormon settlement. Some towns had three times as many unmarried men as women. In this marriage market of swinging Mormon singles, women had the pick of the litter.
•"Polygamy took care of older women and spinsters so they had a chance to get married." The truth is that most plural wives were younger than the first wife, so they weren't exactly spinsters rescued by polygamy. This idea was especially true in the 1850s, though as the decades passed, convincing young women to enter into plural marriage got tougher.
•"Polygamous men lived in harems and had about 20 wives each." Although a few prominent Church leaders like Brigham Young did have wives numbering into the double digits, this situation was far from the norm. Most men who entered into polygamy took only one or two additional wives. If the family could afford it, each wife had her own home or apartment.
•"Polygamy was all about sex." Not really. In fact, some of the plural marriages contracted in Utah were for eternity only, meaning that the wife would be on the man's rolls in heaven, but they would have no earthly rolls in the hay. In eternity-only marriages, conjugal relations weren't permitted, and the wife usually supported herself. In marriages for both time and eternity, the couple enjoyed conjugal relations, but the husband was bound to support his wives and any children they had.
•"Only the poorest of the poor practiced polygamy." Statistics show that most of the men who practiced polygamy in Utah were among the wealthier members of Mormon society. Supporting multiple households required a certain amount of cold, hard cash, so Church leaders were more likely to approve the marriages of men who could support additional wives. (Plural wives, though, often came from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, and plural marriage to a well-established man helped them move up the social ladder.)
Government pressure to end polygamy
After the Mormons' announcement of plural marriage in 1852 kindled the nation's anger, the U.S. government engaged in a vigorous tug of war with the Mormons in Salt Lake City. For nearly 40 years, the government applied as much political and social pressure as possible to get the Mormons to abandon the hated practice. Congress created antipolygamy legislation that gradually tightened the noose around the Church. Here's a thumbnail sketch:

•In 1862, Congress passed the Morrill Antibigamy Act, which made practicing polygamy a felony. However, this law was full of loopholes (not the least of which was that bigamy means only two wives!) and didn't hold any weight in the Mormon-dominated Utah courts.
•In 1874, the government resolved that judicial loophole with the Poland Act. This law stated that all polygamy cases would be tried in federal courts with federally appointed judges. This way, Mormon judges or juries couldn't just dismiss the cases.
•In 1882, the Edmunds Act made unlawful cohabitation a crime, and anyone who broke the law could be imprisoned for six months. Unlawful cohabitation was a much easier judicial standard to prove than bigamy or polygamy, because prosecutors didn't have to provide evidence of a marriage.
•In 1887, Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act in a final attempt to drive the nail in the coffin of polygamy. This act accomplished three things:
• It disfranchised (took the vote away from) all the women of Utah and polygamous men.

• It froze all the Church's assets in excess of $50,000, basically bankrupting the Church and crippling its missionary efforts.

• It declared all children of plural marriages to be illegitimate in the eyes of the government.

When the Supreme Court declared that this law was constitutional, the Mormons knew that continuing plural marriage could result in the government closing down their temples and threatening the very survival of the Church. Faced with this terrible situation, President Wilford Woodruff issued a document (now known as the Woodruff Manifesto) in 1890 ending the practice of plural marriage. Although the manifesto is included in every Mormon's collection of scriptures as part of the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C), they refer to it as an official declaration rather than a revelation, and God isn't mentioned in it at all.

Now according to the Mormans they read in THEIR BIBLE they had the divine right to take more than one wife because GOD TOLD THEM TO DO IT. IE they were obeying their gods will. If that is not a RELIGIOUS BELIEF WHAT IS????? :roll:

They stopped the practice because the government was going to destroy them by taking their voting rights away and bankrupting their church.

Makes you wonder just how far the Federal government will go to make the Catholic Church abide by their rules on abortion drugs doesn't it? OR AT LEAST IT SHOULD
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Makes you wonder just how far the Federal government will go to make the Catholic Church abide by their rules on abortion drugs doesn't it? OR AT LEAST IT SHOULD

....

history shows little tolerance of religion by governments.. so I do not doubt one bit that our government will push as far as it can until stopped..
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Lonecowboy said:
hurleyjd said:
Polygamy had nothing to do with the Bible. It was created by man to make women his property. Ever here of a woman having several husbands.

only in the Bible! :D

I guess the fact Polygamy in the Morman belief was God's way to built on their membership as in One man with many wives produce more future church members than One woman with many husbands, skips right over some people heads . :roll:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Tam said:
Lonecowboy said:
hurleyjd said:
Polygamy had nothing to do with the Bible. It was created by man to make women his property. Ever here of a woman having several husbands.

only in the Bible! :D

I guess the fact Polygamy in the Morman belief was God's way to built on their membership as in One man with many wives produce more future church members than One woman with many husbands, skips right over some people heads . :roll:

I would assume one woman with many husbands skips church as well,,,, :D
 

tumbleweed_texn

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
255
Reaction score
0
Location
Among the sagebrush and greasewood.
Personally I dont see a problem with plural marriages. If that is what some choose for themselves, then so be it.

I was always told that a condition of statehood for Utah was the dissolution of the plural marriage practice. It was something that made people in the east a little uncomfortable so they made the Mormons do away with it in order to join the Union.

It seems a little hypocritical to me that certain people will be in favor of gay marriage and support the rights of some to practice sharia law, but yet be against plural marriage. How is this any different than allowing gay/lesbian marriage? Does'nt sharia law promote plural marriage?

The Mormon for the most part are law-abiding productive citizens who believe in family and their religion. I think those who are against them for the most part have a problem with the fact that they are predominantly white and they have BIG families. This doesnt go along with their plans of multiculturalism too well.

If the powers that be insist upon shoving gay marriage down America's throat, then they need to also allow other groups to marry as they wish.

Tex
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
If the 9th court is to rule, the ruling would have to be that denying plural marriages would be an infringement of their rights. When you have erased the line in the sand, you must keep it erased.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
tumbleweed_texn said:
Personally I dont see a problem with plural marriages. If that is what some choose for themselves, then so be it.

The Mormon for the most part are law-abiding productive citizens who believe in family and their religion. I think those who are against them for the most part have a problem with the fact that they are predominantly white and they have BIG families. This doesnt go along with their plans of multiculturalism too well.

If the powers that be insist upon shoving gay marriage down America's throat, then they need to also allow other groups to marry as they wish.

Tex

there are several problems with the practice as it is.. first is the age of the children coerced/forced in marriages..

as with any arranged marriage there is little concern for the child's views.. she is chattel in this relationship, and not much more..

then their is the welfare abuse.. fraud..



Most polygamists are careful not to "officially" marry more than one wife at a time, so a bigamy conviction is virtually impossible. Laws against cohabitation are vague, hard to enforce, and probably unconstitutional in any case. Any direct prosecution on grounds of polygamy would require one of the wives to act as a witness against the husband.

It's almost impossible to find hard statistics about polygamy, because plural marriages are rarely documented. Many Mormon fundamentalist sects are closed communities that shun contact with non-members. So it's difficult to determine the frequency of abuses such as marrying minors, marriages between close relatives or physical and sexual abuse. However, a wealth of anecdotal evidence suggests that these abuses often occur.

In addition to such traumatic abuses, people who have left (or, in their words, "escaped") polygamist families point out that the structure of such families crushes female independence. Husbands are absolute authorities, and wives and children are completely subservient to them. Because wives are so dependent on their husband and the other wives, they often lack the life skills to live on their own. This makes it especially difficult to leave. In addition, many polygamist wives were born and raised in polygamist families. They have been in the polygamist lifestyle from birth, so they have a hard time seeing a way out.

In Utah, a state which has large numbers of Mormons who believe in polygamy, some towns report that more than 50% of families are receiving public assistance. Since polygamy is illegal, many women collect welfare benefits for their children by claiming they are unmarried and do not know the whereabouts of the child's father.

Tracking down all cases of welfare fraud relating to polygamy is a difficult task, but the results can be astonishing. In 2001, for example, Utah polygamist Tom Green was sentenced to five years in prison as part of a crackdown on plural marriages. It was reported that Green had 30 children who were receiving welfare fraudulently at a cost of more than $150,000.

To further complicate the situation, Green was also part of a large group of polygamous Mormons who refuse to file income tax returns as a form of protest. During his trial, it was reported he had not submitted a return in 10 years.

so no the problem isn't to do with large families..
 

tumbleweed_texn

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
255
Reaction score
0
Location
Among the sagebrush and greasewood.
I'm not talking about abuse or coercion into marriage. That is wrong in any form.

Welfare is going to happen regardless. And yes, I have heard it said that certain groups have a hate on for Mormons as well as Lutherans and other different beliefs because they promote big families. It is more of a race issue with some as they would like to see the white race fade into obscurity.

My point was though, if the government is going to go against a larger group of people who oppose gay marriage and pass it anyhow. Why not go ahead and ok plural marriage too. Until you have done away with government programs, you will always habe those that abuse them. And again, child abuse is wrong in any form. What I am talking about though are people like the ones on the tv show. What difference is it from gay marriage. Both go against the mainstream. Both leave a moral question. Why is one now ok and supposed to be accepted and the other isnt?

Tex
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
What difference is it from gay marriage. Both go against the mainstream. Both leave a moral question. Why is one now ok and supposed to be accepted and the other isnt?

legally the gay marriage is based on equal rights..

the argument is that a gay couple should have the same right to enter into a marriage contract and the federal government should accept that contract as legal and binding..

Polygamy on the other hand not only has the equal right legal argument but the religious freedom legal issue as well..

while on the other side is democracy... where laws can be changed on a whim and by the largest group voting..


in democracy individual rights are considered inferior to the groups rights..

we don't have a democracy despite California's efforts to make one.. .. so even if 99.9% of the folk are against gay rights, and plural marriages, the court will ignore their cries and listen to the law and how it applies to the constitution..

I expect once both cases get to the courts the liberals will wish they hadn't pushed this down the slippery slope..
 

tumbleweed_texn

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
255
Reaction score
0
Location
Among the sagebrush and greasewood.
I dont aupport either one because of my own moral and religious beliefs. Should the liberals decide to shove one down our throats though, I dont see how they cannot support the other. That would be hypocritical and surely the libs would'nt be that way.

Tex
 

Latest posts

Top