Polygamy: The New Black
where are we going? why are we in this handbasket?
By streiff Posted in Culture — Comments (299) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
On Monday and Tuesday of this week the Washington Post ran sympathetic stories on how defenders of the practices of concubinage and polygamy are bootstrapping their own cause into the issue of same sex marriage.
For those who have ridiculed us traditionalists whenever we raise the usually disreputable “slippery slope” argument in the defense of marriage as understood by most cultures over several millennia these articles should serve as evidence that we are not exaggerating. When viewed through the mawkishly distorted prism of the arguments proffered by proponents of homosexual marriage their particular cases are compelling and if we accept the idea of marriage as some amorphous “human right” they are irrefutable.
Read on.
In the first case, advocates of gay marriage were able to defeat an Arizona initiative defending marriage by highlighting how that initiative would affect heterosexuals who are shacking up. The literal poster children were a 79 year-old retired mechanic and 75-year old retired bank teller who, presumably, would be deprived of some way of caring for themselves or their thirty grand children and great-grandchildren if the initiative passed. We don’t really know why these septuagenarians have a sudden need to have society recognize a relationship that is usually referred to a “shacking up” when they could remedy their problem with a quick cab ride to a justice of the peace. But supposedly their story was compelling enough that sufficient voters lacking second order reasoning skills were influenced to vote against marriage and presumably the onset of a vicious theocracy based on their sad story.
In the second case, practitioners of polygamy are raising gay marriage as an example of why their own living arrangement should also be legally recognized.
In her battle to legalize polygamy, the only thing Valerie hasn't revealed is her last name. The mother of eight has been on national TV; her photo along with that of her two "sister-wives" has graced the front cover of a glossy magazine dedicated to "today's plural marriages."
…
Valerie and others among the estimated 40,000 men, women and children in polygamous communities are part of a new movement to decriminalize bigamy. Consciously taking tactics from the gay-rights movement, polygamists have reframed their struggle, choosing in interviews to de-emphasize their religious beliefs and focus on their desire to live "in freedom," according to Anne Wilde, director of community relations for Principle Voices, a pro-polygamy group based in Salt Lake.
Up front I will say that I am much more sympathetic to the cause of polygamy and its flip side, polyandry, than I am to homosexual marriage or to legal recognition of shack jobs. While I must confess to remaining mystified at the attraction of polyandry for those outside the adult movie business, polygamy has deep historical roots and presents some cheap solutions to problems near and dear to liberals, like, for instance, making affordable childcare available to all. In fact, other than it being illegal by fiat I really, truly have no objection to the practice whatsoever.
If as a society we decide marriage is a right, as some claim, and not subject to regulation by the state then polygamy needs to be recognized at least concurrently with homosexual marriage.
« Hating James Dobson: To Heck With His Qualifications, He's a Meanie — Comments (14) | Taking Down Olbermann — Comments (57) »
Polygamy: The New Black 299 Comments (0 topical, 299 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
noncontroversial subject then I don't see why anyone would view him as a real candidate.
But you are right, we're going to see a lot of stories chronicling Romney's family's polygamist associations (I say that not meaning that there are any only that we will be reading the investigations for the next two years.)
Mitt's great-grandparents were polygamists. Mitt's dad, George Romney, was born in Colonia Juarez, Mexico. Colonia Juarez was settled by polygamists in the late 1800's.
Mitt should not be judged by what his great-grandparents did. If my ancestors owned slaves, that doesn't make me a bad person.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
They will look like the bigots they are. Romney will say no, he doesn't believe in polygamy, it's not the churches official position, and "how dare YOU" to top it off, I suspect. He's a smart enough man to have thought about this ahead of time.
Formerly ConservativeD. Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey
Because I consider his Mormon background to be his single biggest liability even though the incidence of polygamy is very low. He's going to have to answer that question directly and the WaPo is firing the warning shot.
In anticipation of a Romney candidacy, I did a little research on Mormonism. Also happened to drop by the birthplace of Joseph Smith in Vermont while we were driving by, as well the Mormon college located where Southern Seminary Junior College in Buena Vista, VA used to be.
Suffice to say that, polygamy or not, I was very surprised by what I discovered. Mormonism is not simply another demonimation of Christianity, like Methodist or Baptist - to say the very least. It is going to be a very, very tough sell for Romney.
I will leave it at that.
he's running for President and not Head of the Church of America.
Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey
Romney has also been married to his current wife since 1969, and there are a lot of other prospective Republican POTUS candidates who can't claim anything of the kind. So let's say that I think it's an important question for him to answer, but not necessarily an insurmountable one.
Will have to lead potential voters, particularly Christians, through his essential beliefs. Maybe saying "I am a Christian" will work, until the WaPo or someone asks "Do you wear sacred undergarments? Why no one but Mormons allowed in the temples, even the non-Mormon relatives of the bride or groom during a wedding ceremony? Do you really believe that Joseph Smith spoke with God and the apostles? That current Christianity is the false Church, and that Joseph Smith was sent to bring the true Church back to earth?"
His candidacy will lead a lot of people to examine the beliefs of Mormonism, and he may be forced to either accept or reject some aspects that could be described as more "fundamentalist". Is he an honest, moral, capable individual who would make a fine President? YES. Will the MSM treat him fairly if it looks like he could win? NO. This will be one of that ways the MSM, or even Republican opponents will try to nail him, and it will affect the way other Christians view him.
This may prevent him from getting out of the primaries, in my view. And it will be unfortunate.
will cost him several bazillion votes. I would consider him based on his political philosophy. The instant he appeals to me based on his "christianity" he's off the radar.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
He will not try to make it an issue - others will. A man's beliefs inform his opinions. This is important to evangelicals, and they will want to know.
Just saying...
I higly doubt Romney will sit here and answer all the questions that you have brought up about the LDS faith. Are they valid questions? Sure. But questions of this nature can be asked of every faith. To imply that Romney can't be elected because he believes in a faith that requires faith is pretty silly.
Not a good rebuttal. All religions require faith, and I can't imagine any honest believer saying other wise.
Mormonism is a variation of Christianity that many Christians may find extremely difficult to understand at best. At worst it may be viewed as a weird cult. Neither view is likely to help Romney, and it will be brought up by his detractors. That is the only point I am trying to make. I can see by your links that you may have a different view. I hope you are correct.
Thats Fair.
In the name-calling game, Mormons are forced to confront the "cult" label regularly.
All religions start off either as sects or cults. Once they reach a certain "escape velocity" (or "critical mass") they become full-fledged religions. I don't know exactly where that line is between "cult" and "religion". Generally, when a church gets to be so large that its existence as a "going entity" for generations to come is no longer in question, it is considered a full-fledged religion.
This whole discussion gets ignored, though, when people fight in sound-bytes. And that is the sad reality of today's propaganda wars. They are won and lost in 2-second sound-bytes.
requires faith - faith that no God exists.
On topic - If he get's up and says he's a Christian, he's screwed. Romney will do his best by saying, "I'm a Mormon, I believe thus and thus (simplified) and this is how it affects my decision making in my personal life. In my public decision making, I follow the laws as established by the Constitution and Congress, not the Church of LDS.
Basically the same tack taken by JFK.
I should have posted my comment in response to his comment entitled "Romney." I know he is not bashing on the mormons, he is just stating some of romney's futures obstacles which are real.
My point was that the LDS faith is not the only faith with hard to believe stories. Those reasons he stated seem like weak reasons to me not to vote for a candidate.
There are two kinds of atheism, and your comment I think applies to the oddball kind.
Militant atheism: The worldview of the kind of person who goes around putting a fish-with-legs sticker on his car, and obsesses over the name Darwin, may very well have a kind of faith. Or at least a religion centered on the reverse image of a major faith.
Weak atheism: This worldview is just any other worldview that happens not to include the supernatural. Unlike the above people, there isn't an express, vehement reaction to faith, nor is there any celebration of that fact. There just isn't any acknowledgement at all. I count myself in this category and I don't think your statement applies to me.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
Is mostly agnostics, not atheists. I think "unknown/unknowable if God exists" is a much more common viewpoint than "certain that God does not exist." Most of the guys in the latter category have the oh so classy fish with legs stuff on their car.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
on this. I know that the atheists are trying to get agnostics to start referring to themselves as "weak atheists".
Because atheists themselves are smart enough to realize that saying "I know that there is no God" is a very hard statement to defend.
Even if they win the logical game (in their own minds) they've long since lost the hearts and minds of all but the most bitter people. And no one, not even atheists, wants to look around and see nothing but bitter people on their side.
So you can adopt their new phrasing if you like. I will continue to use terms like "agnostic" (for open-minded non-believers) and "atheist" (for hardened, closed-minded non-believers). "Agnostic" is widely understood. "Weak atheist" is not widely understood.
I know of no atheist that has graduated from high school who would claim "I know that there is no God." It's possible to get someone to state "I know that there is no omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God" because that God, the god of many religions, is illogical as to have those qualities introduces paradoxes that cannot be resolved.
Agnosticism is epistemological stance that knowledge of the supernatural (and therefore God) is unknowable. Atheism is marked by the lack of the belief in the supernatural. An Agnostic Atheist (under which most atheists fall), would state that "knowledge of God is impossible, therefore I do not believe in it."
Atheism requires no faith, as only in the opposition of reason is faith required. If an atheist is faced with insurmountable evidence of the existence of a supernatural entity and still rejects it, then the atheist has rejected reason and replaced it with faith.
From the Dictionary, Faith is "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
Knowledge on the other hand is belief that is justified and true, with its truth value stemming from the justification.
Basically, it requires no faith for you to not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I surmise that you would reject the FSM from the lack of evidence (or at least I do).
The universe is exquisitely balanced to allow not only life but our kind of life. Slight variations in any of the parameters would not only rule out intelligent life but any kind of life. The odds of the universe coming out just right so we can have this debate is significant evidence. It takes a great deal of faith to deny the evidence and assert the non provable.
BTW the FSM is in at best poor taste and undermines the argument against intelligent design. The Darwin fish is far superior but both miss the point. Just because evolution happens does not rule out other means speciation. There is overwhelming evidence that LaMarckian evolution is occuring, and if you look at certain plant species there is irrefutable evidence of intelligent design.
But then again I am just ignorant of the sciences, philosophy and rather poorly educated, redneck, bible belt kind of guy.
will not engage in the debate over whether Mormons are Christians. rather, I have heard him state something more personal and quite disarming, when he says:
Jesus Christ is my Savior.
I think that will fly.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
The statement is debatable in my living room, one-on-one, but not in the media.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Never ask a Mormon what he believes in. You get a 1-hour lecture, a bunch of pamphlets, and you know less at the end of the lecture than you knew at the beginning.
Because Mormons are not Christians?
Despite the fact that Mormons have considered themselves to be Christians since the foundation of the Church?
Are Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Quakers, Shakers, Mennonites, Hutterites, and Amish also "non-Christian"?
Better yet: what does one have to believe in order to be a Christian in your definiion?
and would tell you that themselves if asked. They worship Jehovah, not Christ, and it is a central tenet of their faith. Christ is his son, and he is the sacrament of our salvation, but it is Jehovah who is to be worshipped. Otherwise they generally conform to the same moral principles of the Christian faiths.
As for a definition of Christian, take the essential elements of a Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, or Catholic creed, and you have the definition of Christian. One of the central elements of these faiths is that no new divine revelation may contradict established revelation or it is heretical. At least some of Joseph Smith's revelations do contradict what are generally regarded as the core works of Christianity, hence most Christians regard it as a cult, and not simply another sect. Since Utah has been admitted to the Union, Mormons have publicly been working to align themselves more with these central tenets.
Quakers, Mennonite, and Amish are definitely Christian. I don't recall enough about the other three sects/cults to be able to place them within the normative Christian continuum.
In 2000, I kept waiting for some reporter to ask Joe Lieberman what his views on Christ were. Never happened.
Now, all of a sudden, the media agrees with "the Right" that religion is very important and is fair game for presidential candidates.
The media did ask him about his practice of Orthodox Judaism. I recall many stories about Sen. Lieberman refusing to drive on the Sabath even when he needed to make it to the Senate to vote. The press also made a big deal in 1976 about Jimmy Carter being a Baptist minister and about Bill Clinton's faith as well as President Bush's faith.
No, the issue here is that a non-Christian (Romney) will be running for the highest office in the land. Is America ready? I don't think so and the polling, so far, proves I am right.
I agree that the polling confirms that Mitt's biggest obstacle is his religious beliefs.
But I disagee with your labeling of Mitt as "a non-Christian". He believes in Jesus Christ. He believes that Jesus is the Son of God, God in His own right, and the Savior of Mankind.
I don't see how one could describe such a man as "a non-Christian".
Can you offer any support for your position that Mitt is "a non-Christian"?
Here are a couple of websites that will help you understand LDS theology. Once you understand it, you will realize that Mormonism is decidedly not Christian. That doesn't make the religion bad and indeed the LDS church teaches and demonstrates great charity and character. However, other religions also teach character and charity and still are not Christian.
http://www.mrm.org/
http://www.irr.org/mit/Default.html
http://www.utlm.org/faqs/faqgeneral.htm
Every site you name is a decidedly anti mormon site. What if I said to learn more about the GOP visit the Democratic party site? I would reccomend people to visit the site www.lds.org to get a fair and true version of the LDS faith.
It appears your agenda is to bash the religion and you have found Romney to be a good avenue for this.
You wouldn't send someone to the DNC site to get the real picture of the Dems, would you? That site does everything it can to make the Dem party attractive and mainstream. The LDS website does the same. The websites I posted are certainly biased against the LDS church's claim of Christianity. However, they are also extensively sourced and allow you to make up your own mind about their claims based on historical fact and an analysis of scripture.
lets all go to the wikipedia site for "Christianity" and see if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) is listed there or somewhere else. I'll be back in 5 minutes...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations
If you've got a better objective source let me know. I'd suggest the Encyclopedia Brittanica or Grolier's Multimedia Encyclopedia.
But I think that you'll reach the same result.
I think that your definition of "Christian" is narrower than what an unbiased, non-vested party would call "Christian". Under your definition, a "Christian" is someone who agrees with your beliefs about "Christian doctrine". This label is broad enough to encompass both Catholics and Protestants (both of which have been accused of being "non-Christian" at various times) but not broad enough to include members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Your view represents a minority viewpoint, but you're entitled to it. Just be aware of the fact that most theologians consider Mormons to be a branch of Christianity.
It doesn't matter what Wikipedia says. Here are some links.
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2239
http://www.pcusa.org/pcusa/wmd/eir/mormon.htm
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_...
http://www.namb.net/atf/cf/{CDA250E8-8866-4236-9A0C-C646DE153446}/BB_Mormons.pdf
http://www.gc2000.org/pets/cal/TEXT/c0806.asp
Why does it matter to you to be called a Christian? Just be proud to be a Latter Day Saint. You don't see Hindus insisting on being called Christians.
http://www.namb.net/atf/cf/{CDA250E8-8866-4236-9A0C-C646DE153446}/BB_Mormons.pdf
However much you think that Mormons are not Christians and expect that to cause a problem for him... Jews are even further from Christianity and one came within a few hundred votes of being elected VP with a malfunctioning robot that lost every debate on the top of the ticket. Between that and the fact that JFK was elected (sort-of) over 40 years ago now, I think the problem is vastly overstated. Serious bias against Catholics was rampant at the time and is still firmly entrenched in a lot of places, even in 2006. There are certainly people out there who would call Catholicism a cult as well.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
We didn't see a rich debate on "whether or not a Quaker could be president" when Nixon ran for president in 1960, 1968, and 1972.
But Quakers believe in pacifism as a religious doctrine! When did Nixon ever get a debate question that forced him to justify the teachings of his religion?
What kind of fool puts theology over morality when deciding who to vote for.
Assume for a moment the HRC is his opponent. Is she a Christian? Do you think she really believes a word of any of it? Was Bill a Christian? Do you think he believes a word of any of it? Do we just require that politicians join an acceptable church and go through the motions, while, at the same time, supporting policies and leading a life that is most definitely incongruous with their church's teachings?
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
I absolutely despise what the former President Clinton did to the office. He lied and he was rightly impeached for it.
But, I certainly believe that he is a Christian. And I think he's been trying to redeem himself ever since he left the office, whether its so that he wants to stay in the public eye or because he's really contrite.
It's a very dangerous path to go down when we start to question another man's faith. It may not be recognizable to you, but can you really judge what is in another man's heart and mind?
about is getting caught in his lies and philandering and messing up his legacy. And yes, you can judge what is in a man's heart; you judge his faith by his works. The only thing that man has any faith in is himself. Now I think that faith may have faltered a bit, but I don't think he's the kind of man who would turn to any other sort of faith as a result.
In Vino Veritas
was "repentant" about that. To me, a penitant person must turn from his sin. Bill has never turned from lying. He has embraced it.
He was also THE most "Muslim-friendly" president we've ever had. I'm not at all surprised that Orthodox Jews have been fleeing from Dems and running to the GOP since Clinton first took office. They gave him their votes and he gave them nothing. (Nothing but a tax hike and national defense cuts.)
I certainly agree with you that one cannot say whether Bill is a Christian or not, defined as one that has accepted Christ as savior, is born again, within whom the Holy Spirit dwells, ie is saved. As my Baptist Preacher, Theology professor brother says, we don't have a "heart meter." And, my brother and another strong Christian female minster friend thinks that one reason he is obviously such an unhappy and tortured soul is that he is a Christian that refuses to repent and that God will not let him have peace until he does.
I am not so sure. He hangs out with people that are hostile to faith, and he yet he never challenges them. And he is a man that seems to be devoid of character.
But we are all a work in progress and one can point to Bill's childhood and see that he went to church ON HIS OWN despite the roguish behavior in his home. And I admire that he has remained married (Hillary deserves most of the credit) and seems to have done a good job with Hillary.
But please See a recent essay i wrote to look into this further. I was Dem for 20 years and was a huge Clinton fan.
http://gamecock.townhall.com/g/8d56302d-8992-4136-b40a-c92d6f52e6bd
http://gamecock.townhall.com/g/8d56302d-8992-4136-b40a-c92d6f52e6bd
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
Re; I certainly agree with you that one cannot say whether Bill is a Christian or not, defined as one that has accepted Christ as savior, is born again, within whom the Holy Spirit dwells, ie is saved.
I have to say I am not very comfortable with your definition of Christian as it seems to exclude people like me, in traditional, sacramental churches with its emphasis of subjective experience rather than objective participation. Might I suggest a simpler rule of faith: anyone who adheres to the ancient "fish" formula* "Jesus Christ Son of God, Savior" is a Christian. To be sure there are many sinful Christians(all of us really!) and yes there are heretical Christians who hold to aberrant doctrines. But since we can make no windows into others' souls we really ought accept anyone as a Christian who professes Christ and leave it to the Lord to judge deeper matters.
* In Greek this is Iesys Christos Theou Yios Soter, the acronym of which is ICHTHYS, the Greek word for fish, hence the prevalence of that symbol among the early Christians.
you say "profess". I assume you mean "profess as savior"
"profess Christ" is a meaningless phrase
see my point
and of course Satan believes in Christ, ie knows he is real
so I don't think we disagree do we
If you are uncomfortable with quotations from scripture concerning on the matter, you will have to take that up with Jesus and Paul, not Mike DeVine.
Christ was crucified by those that were uncomfortable with his demands, as were all of the Apostles, and Paul said the World despises the Gospel.
I quote the Gospel, and if I am despised for same, then I take that as the Cost of Discipleship.
But I think we agree. I have at times toned down the Gospel
when I was too close to this world too
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
is the "born again" phrase, with the implication that one must have some emotionally wrought-up experience. But the Lord also comes like a thief in the night, quietly seducing us, and not always with drums and trimpets and blinding visions. And yes, Scripture instructs us to be born again, but some churches like mine interpret this as a call to baptism, and that we are indeed born again, washed of Original Sin, when we emerge from that sacrament.
I do think we agree more than disagree (though I am profoundly uncomfortably passing judgment on whether anyone is or is not a true Christian-- that's not my call to make). I only ask you to remember that Mary and Martha both followed our Lord and there is no "one size fits all" mode of worship or discpleship.
has stated in this blog entry and others the past 2 days that we cannot say that anyone that professes to be a Christian is not. So the parenthetical though means that you are back to IMPLYING where no one INFERS, as in when I quote scripture verbatim re "born again" and you assume I refer to an "emotional wrought up" experience.
So which of us more deserves the "though" in any context. hmmmm
Did a Southern Baptist pick on you as a child?
Alecs, my first wife was Roman Catholic, and while I never "converted" we occasionally attended her home church and I was better catholic than she was. I also didn't ask her to be "re-baptized". I have defended Romney's profession of faith of Jesus as his savior here for 36 hours. My picture is depicted as an example of the word "tolerant" in many dictionaries. I am aware there is no soul meter.
But I can read the Bible. But as I have said, while doctrine is very important, it is not paramount. Why, I even suspect Jesus can save an Episcopalian if he tries real hard!!!
But like I say, if we are discussing what the Bible says and clearly means in the places where it is clear, I have no problem in saying so. Much like when Martin Luther tacked up some theses when he saw the Bible called white what the Church called Black.
But that is concerning doctrine, not a person's profession of faith.
And yet, despite major doctrinal differences with the catholic Church, esp as regards their doctrine of the Pope, I dearly love, admire and respect actual Popes!
But if one wants the best evidence of what "Christianity" is, one has the Bible. And for the best approximation of the implementation of same, all are invited to their local Southern Baptist Church for worship services at 11 am and 6 pm every Lord's Day and 6 pm for Wednesday Prayer Service
Just like Paul demanded!! forgot the verses
hahaha
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
But since we can make no windows into others' souls we really ought accept anyone as a Christian who professes Christ and leave it to the Lord to judge deeper matters.
I don't have to take proven liars at their word just because I can't read their minds. There's nothing wrong with using a persons actions along with your own judgment to develop an opinion about when somebody is lying, whether it is about their faith or anything else.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
is that we must be free of sin and error, then we are all doomed, and Our Lord was foolish for even attempting our redemption.
If I see either Clinton in heaven, I'll know then that there's a whole lotta stuff that I could've done on earth that I didn't do and still coulda got to heaven.
St Paul in Heaven will you then assume you could have gone around persecuting Christians as he did? You seem to be as keen on your own righteousness as a certain Pharisee whom went to the Tenple thanking God that he was not a sinner like other men he saw there. I do not recall our Lord having a very high opinion of that man though.
I just think its ridiculous to say that we have to take anybody, no matter what they've done and how much credibility they have, at their word about their "sincere" faith or anything else. Nearly all politicians at least pretend to be religious folk, and it's purely an image thing for a heck of a lot of them. Just like many of them pretend to be avid hunters come election time. I don't have to believe that either.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
To accept this as a litmus for being Christian would be to ignore large swaths of the word of God.
Simple Example: "1Jo 2:9 The person who says that he is in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness."
Meaning, if you claim to be a Christian and have faith in Lord Jesus Christ, and live like the devil, you don't have faith. Faith is more than just saying you believe. It's a trust that you place in the Lord that his is the way. To not follow in Christ is to disbelieve. It's not so simple.
And for those who say it is not our place to "judge" other whether they have faith are skirting the issue. We need to know who is with Christ, because we are commanded to worship with those who are of Christ.
you are assuming that no one can sin or err and be a Christian. and again, if that is the standard then we are all lost, and Christ died in vain.
We are saved not by our virtues and wisdom but in spite of our sins and follies.
We cannot know who is saved and should never declare that someone is not. C S Lewis has a great section in Mere Christianity about how people become Christians at different stages of decadence and are works in progress.
However, the flip side is also true, that if we care about one's soul, and that is our mission to so care and to GO YE, that if we fail to see the fruits of the Spirit, we should take that as evidence that the person is not saved, and so pray for them at the least and confront them as concerned Christian brother at the most.
Our mission is to win souls for Christ, not NOT OFFEND. We should not definitively state that someone is not saved but we certainly should say if a person is acting in a way to bring disrepute upon the Church.
Now, back to your more flawed than mine denominations!! that's a joke, sort of........
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
http://www.redstate.com/stories/archived/polygamy_the_new_black#comment-...
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
on the faces of the evening news anchors if Mitt had been a mainstream Christian instead of the Mormon variety.
Mitt the Catholic, Mitt the Protestant, or Mitt the Evangelical would currently have a bandwagon so big that he would be the conservative's choice and the front-runner for the nomination.
If Mitt had been Jewish, he would not only be the front-runner, he'd have a cult-like following from conservative Republicans who are tired of being accused of anti-semitism.
Now look at Mitt this way: he is a member of a church called "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". The church was formed in the heyday of an American religious revival when guys like James Buchanon were getting baptized in Methodist religious camps and preachers were proclaiming the Bible with a fervor not seen since the late 1600's.
Mitt's church teaches that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God in His own right, and the Savior of the world. Mitt's church teaches that salvation comes through the grace of Christ (2 Nephi 10:24), but that we should not use this as an excuse to "wallow in sin". Mitt's church teaches about the Second Coming of Christ, the importance of baptism, the Holy Communion (or "sacrament"), missionary work, etc.
I have a hard time understanding why there is so much consternation among the religious right and fiscal conservatives about Mitt's religion. Every church has some weird baggage if you dig deep enough.
If the Reverend Falwell is willing to say that Mitt's religion is acceptable, then who are any of us to find fault with it?
Disclaimer: I'm a praticing Mormon and I have been since my parents joined the church when I was 4.
"If the Reverend Falwell is willing to say that Mitt's religion is acceptable, then who are any of us to find fault with it?"
Ahhh Yes, the inerrancy of Jerry argument. Who can refute that?
if you won't vote for Mormons because of their religious beliefs, just say, "I won't vote for Mormons because I'm not from their church." Don't say, "Well, they're not Christian" or "They don't believe in God".
I have a hard time believing that Reverend Falwell would give Mitt a pass on his religion if Falwell really believed that Mitt's church was not a Christian church.
Whether you love him or hate him, he takes religion very seriously. He is as concerned about the future of America and religious freedom as any of us are.
Has gone so far as to edit out references to polygamy from its religious texts and pretend that for all intents and purposes there never was such an aim as maintaining that institution. Any assertions about this are as apt as grilling a Christian on whether or not witches should be burned.
Now having said that... What's the problem with polygamy exactly? It seems like it would be its own punishment for those who can't hack it. I can see the concern over the kids getting short shrift but fail to see why polygamy should be singled out when no one has a problem with people having kids out of wedlock entirely.
Only the slippery slope arguement. If "polygamy" is valid, what's to stop my entire small town from declaring that all of its adult citizens are in one big happy marriage?
Where do you draw the line????
When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail. -- Abraham Maslow
and I think opponents of traditional marriage really have no logically defensible line to draw short of no line at all.
Polygamy is imminently more defensible, historically, socially, culturally, biologically, than homosexual marriage.
There is no guiding principle there at all. Everything is based on gut reaction: "Yuck! I don't like polygamy or
I can respect the libertarian position on marriage (removing the state from the equation) because at least it is intelligible, unlike the liberal position. I'm not sure whether I agree with it, but I can respect it.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
The LDS Church stopped the practice of polygamy over a hundred years ago. Even in it's heyday very few LDS families were polygamous. At this time any member of the LDS church that is found to be practicing or promoting polygamy is excommunicated. Children from polygamous families that desire to join the LDS Church must first completely disavow polygamy. If polygamy is the only ammunition that detractors can find to throw at Mitt Romney then they should consider another day job.
Let me qualify your statement in order to make it true: the LDS Church has recently put out collections of the teachings of famous early Mormons such as Brigham Young and Wilford Woodruff. These collections do not deny the fact that they were polygamous but simply omit a listing of exactly how many wives they had and what the dates of marriage were.
However, the Church continues to acknowledge the reality that polygamy was once allowed by the Church. The Doctrine and Covenants is part of the Mormon "canon" of scripture and contains several references to the acceptability of polygamy. These references have not been "scrubbed", "airbrushed", or altered. They are right there for anyone to see.
Anyone who wants to know how many wives the Church's founding fathers had can look it up on Wikipedia. Just as the Catholic Church does not trumpet the fact that some of its earlier popes had wives and children, the LDS Church does not make polygamy a central tenant. The official doctrine of the church is that polygamy is no longer allowed.
(1) They were later, not earlier, Popes.
(2) They had children and mistresses (indeed, basically common law wives, but for the common law), but not wives.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
you are aware that St Peter himself had a wife (although nothing is said about children). While I am not well-enough informed as to his immediate successors, I do know that the the episcopal celibacy rule (bishops must be single or widowed when they are consecrated, and remain so) did not become universal until the 5th century.
At least I remember something about African priests being allowed to marry.
I'm not a Catholic though, so I don't know for sure.
And the episcopal celibacy rule was only enshrined by an ecumenical council at that point.
Your sophistry is slipping, Aleks.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
I was thinking of Peter and a few others. "Later" and "earlier" are subjective terms. You say "later", I say "earlier". I guess the key question is "later than what?"
The Boston Globe pulled this crap against Romney each time he campaigned(for Senate in '94, and for governor in '02).
Now that he's a national figure, expect the "hmm...he's a Mormon....hmmmm" reporting to increase.
Where was the Boston Globe in 2000 when an Orthodox Jew was the Democratic nominee for Vice President? Where were they then? On the Joe-boat?
Anyone who had been reading Camille Paglia back in 199x knew that with gay marriage comes polygamy. I agreed with her then and I agree with her now. What's fascinating is the usual liberal doublespeak in one of the articles you mention (and I'm paraphrasing): "I don't support it, I think it's wrong, but we should allow it between consenting adults."
I believe the author's actual statement was that "it shouldn't be a felony."
WHY NOT? Why shouldn't it be a felony to marry two people simultaneously? I think it should -- ESPECIALLY if the "adults" are "consenting".
Want to make it a "lifestyle choice" and then why not? If it's just a "lifestyle choice" it's like choosing between Burger King and McDonalds (why not have both!) and that's exactly what the polygamist activists want it to be seen as.
I personally await Romney's answer on this. Clearly the WaPo is goading him to make the statement.
you haven't been paying attention. He went to the Mass Supreme Court recently to force the question to be put on the next ballot. He is for marriage as it is traditionally understood, not for homosexual marriage, and not for legalized polygamy/polyandry.
Personally, I think all the rukus amongst the anti-Christian bigots. Whether or not Evangelicals will vote for Mitt depends first on the morality he has displayed in his public actions, and secondly on whether there is a more moral choice on the ballot. So far as I know, there are no standing issues that put him outside the acceptability limits for Evangelicals. While he has made statements in the past that supported abortion, he has since renounced them and is pro-life. There might be an issue with embryonic stem cell research, but there you have some differences amongst Christian sects.
I think the happiness would grow on a curve inversely exponential in the number of wives.
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.
but having dated two women simultaneously while I was in college I tend to agree with you
Freedom - now, more than ever.
only in an environment where the wife is Equal to the man.
Each of the men in this discussion (including me) imagine the practice from inside relationships where the woman can tell us to pack sand if we pissed her off enough (which we all do on a regular basis, c'mon admit it). In our eyes, we multiply that occasional disharmony x2, x3, x4 and then mentally ship all sharp objects to goodwill and lock our door while we sleep.
However you slice it (or try to pretty it up), poligamy is a male-centric practice in the sense that it's the man's house and the wives are chattel.
When the man is in charge and holds all the aces, poligamy probably stacks up pretty nicely for him - especially if he's got them all out working to bring home the bacon.
To buy into that philosophy and become wife #2, #3, etc, you would also have to buy into all the rest: It's definitely his house and he's Numero Uno.
completely. I also know that I am unfit to carry out the duties in such a household, since it would require me to enter one of the roles of domineer, referee, or herdsman, none of which has the least appeal.
I prefer to remain the paltry speck of poultry feed that I am.
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.
is pretty much a defunct job class these days. In my experience, trying to have two women in your bed was about the surest way to make sure you had no women in your bed.
In Vino Veritas
This is actually part of the problem with attempts to prosecute polygamy. Activists against polygamy tend to assume that it is entirely a sexual gratification thing for the men, and that the men are in complete control. Under such an assumption you would think that arresting all of the men practicing polygamy would liberate the women and end polygamy.
In reality things are more complicated. For one thing the hostility of the surronding culture has a great impact on the nature of polygamy. Other aspects include whether or not polygamy is optional or required.
Consider the Mormons back in Brigham Young's day. Brigham Young had a policy of granting a divorce to any woman in a polygamous marriage who requested one, but would only grant divorce to a man for cause. (Brigham Young spoke on the matter and said that he had little sympathy for a man "who straddles a white hot poker, and complains when he gets blistered." Brigham Young could turn the most interesting phrases at times.) Further more, (if I remember my numbers right) only 1/3 of men were head of a polygamous family. Polygamy was strongly encouraged for the leadership. but most rank and file members did not participate.
Such a situation results in slightly empowering women. Why? Because lets face it, women are more rightous then men (just check out a church any sunday and count the number of women vs the number of men) and in a purely monogamous society women are faced with a choice of either marrying below them or not marrying at all. Today, not marrying isn't as big a deal, but it used to be that becoming a spinster was a terrible fate for a woman. In a society where polygamy is an option (and not required) polygamy gives women bargining power- they can tell single men to shape up or ship out because if they don't she could marry another man who has already demonstrated he's a good husband. In keeping with this theory, in the old days the loudest defenders of Mormon polygamy were women. Men usually just said "We don't want to, but God says we have too." Mormon women on the other hand tended to actually argue that polygamy was good for women. This is also why the anti-polygamy forces deprived Utah women of the right to vote. (Brigham Young was a proponent of sufferage, and Utah women were the second territory to grant women the right to vote, only a few weeks behing wyoming.) In fact portions of the national women's sufferage movement supported the withdrawl of voting rights for Utah women, because "they vote like Mormons, not like women."
(Please note that I have no desire to live polygamy. I shudder at the thought. However, I enjoy game theory quite alot and when applied to the old fashioned polygamy of Mormons, women do seem to get a small plus out of it. That is certainly not the case in the modern form of polygamy.)
This is why anti-polygamy was focused on destroying the ability of husbands to support their wives. Policies such as disinheriting children from polygamous marriages and so forth were adopted. Defining cohabitation as any visit to a polygamous family. Preventing fathers from seeing their children- that sort of thing was common place in the late 1800's. There was a deliberate effort to destroy polygamous relationships as families, and reduce them to a solely pro-creation/sexual relationship. This has had an effect even down to today.
A good introduction to the old style Mormon polygamy is "A Mormon Mother" by Annie Tanner- This is the memoir of a polygamous wife during the height of anti-polygamy power, whose marriage failed and who became disenchanted with polygamy. However, when reading her book, you will notice that several of her ecclesiastical leaders counseled her against polygamous marriage, including her father. In addition, her father was a succesful polygamist, and in her father's household you can see both the negatives and positives of polygamy- (one of the negatives being that her father was not particularly excited about polygamy and that he tended to favor his first wife). Finally, it gives alot of great detail about exactly how polygamy was stomped out by the Federal Government, which I think is a good lesson for any libertarian. Since the Federal government repeatedly denied the right to trial by jury, denied Mormons the right to vote, and many other things that most people think can't happen here in America.
You also find the core of why the Mormons were so offended. You see, anti-polygamy statutes didn't ban polygamy. The Mormons were willing to accept that the federal government could define marriage as limited to one wife. Rather the anti-polygamy statutes forbad adultry and/or cohabitation. This was particularly galling as several of the judges who were sent out to enforce these laws would bring their wife and mistress along with them on the same train- but it was only Mormons who would ever be charged under the law. This led most Mormons to decide that the anti-polygamy campaign was really a cover for anti-Mormon activities. As I pointed out once before, it was sort of the equivilent of forbiding the consumption of alcohol on Sundays, and then only arresting Catholic priests who celebrate Mass. While the anti-polygamy statutes many not have been unconstitutional, the way they were enforced must be considered as such.
Many of the problems listed above continue to be a problem with prosecuting polygamy today. After, how can you arrest and charge a man who supports several children that he has had with multiple women, but not arrest a man who has children with several women and won't support any of them? This has led most prosecuters out west to decide to only prosecute when other things are going on- such as rape, underage "brides", and welfare fraud (the Green case).
Consider how different current polygamists are from the old-day Mormons. Current polygamists have adapted to a hostile enviroment. Everyone is required to live as a polygamist- why? Because it decreases the probibility that someone will betray the community. Girls are not educated in modern polygamous families, compare that to Brigham Young who sent women off to become doctors are church expense. In modern polygamous families, fathers decide when their daughters marry, and they are married very young- why? Because it keeps young women from leaving the community. In a secretive polygamous society men become much more powerful, and the women lose power because they can be disowned if they cause any trouble. Furthermore, in modern polygamous communities property tends to be held communally- why? Because it increases the difficulty of the government to seize their property and so starve them out.
It really souldn't be any surprise that girls are married young, and that young boys are run off. In order for everyone to be polygamous thats what has to happen.
But even so, things are more complicated than they appear. One of the women who appeared on Larry King Live (not the witness who just gave testimony), was discussing how she was married off at age 16. Now she tried to imply that it was because the policeman of the community thought she was attractive and so took her from his bride- I sure that was part of it, but as the story progressed other things started to come out. For example, her policeman husband was married to her older sister. She was arrested for underage drinking just before she got married. (Notice that in a community like this drinking is a major no-no).
Reading between the lines it is almost certain that her marriage was arranged by her mother. Her daughter is turning into a hellraiser, who better than a policeman to straighten her out. Her older sister would be there to watch over her, and of course help persuade her husband to the agreement. Now no doubt the fact that this girl was a beautiful nubile 16 year old probably helped sell this guy on the idea, but pressure from his wife and mother-in-law probably also had something to do with it.
Now I am not trying to imply that underage drinking justifies a girl being assigned a marriage like she's a piece of meat- this was certainly an egregious violation of this young woman's liberty and should be punished if possible. I am only making the point that more is going on than just sexual gratification for men- and thus solving the problem is lot more difficult than just arresting the men.
If you want to stamp this problem out you'll have to arrest all the men (over a thousand) and all the mothers (several thousand) and place all the children in foster care (probably over ten thousand). (These estimates are just for Warren Jeff's group.) It will not be a pretty sight. Utah and Arizona tried once already. You had mothers literally grabbing up their children and running out into the desert to escape from the state officals. Bones are still occasionally found out there in the canyons were several of them died. There was a huge national outcry agianst such "heavy handed" actions, and eventually the children were returned to the surviving families.
These are the philisophical and practical problems that prosecuters out west have in dealing with polygamy. When viewing those problems you can understand why prosecuters have limited their scope to punishing the bad polygamists, and leaving the "good" polygamists alone.
Also, you cannot make an accurate assement of Mormon polygamy by looking at it's current practitioners. It's be like trying to understand a falcon by looking at a vulture. True they are both flying, meat-eating birds, but their habits are quite different.
I hope that others on this site will take the time to read your whole post. You summed up very eloquently what I am unable to explain.
We can't oversimplify the issue. It is a complex issue and it deserves some attention.
Thank you very, very much.
money and/or street cred that you can get good-looking women with great personalities to tie the knot.
I think that polygamy will continue to gain acceptance. The idea that men should only be allowed to have one wife is simply not a Biblical idea.
While acknowledging everything you've said here, I also want to point out that this is the opening salvo by the WaPo against Mitt Romney, who is a Mormon. The Washington Post is going to force Romney to state his views on polygamy; they're driving the bus against him.