All Comments for: Can America Still Bar Polygamy? | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2008 > May (Web-only)

Christianity Today, May (Web-only), 2008 |

SPEAKING OUT

Can America Still Bar Polygamy?

Much has changed since the late 1800s, and many arguments for keeping the ban aren't very compelling.

John Witte Jr. | posted 5/23/2008 08:38AM

A century and a half ago, Mormons made national headlines by claiming a First Amendment right to practice polygamy, despite criminal laws against it. In four cases from 1879 to 1890, the United States ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 comments.

Page: 1

Show All

Arek	Posted: May 29, 2008 1:40 PM

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Amendment I of the Constitution The 1st Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law," that is, the federal government cannot infringe on religious freedom among the States, but it does not address whether the individual states have the power to allow or disallow religious practices, or restrict free speech. I just learned this recently myself, its a shame we Americans are not taught sufficiently about our rights and system of government.

Terry L. Brown

Posted: May 29, 2008 12:35 PM

As some other posters have stated the reasons given to keep polygamy illegal are no longer valid. Every argument mentioned has been countered and overcome by the homosexual agenda. Given recent court rulings and judicial activism, every form of sexual deviancy will - sooner rather than later - become legal. While teaching a Sunday school class I commented that the only thing that would keep bestiality from becoming legal would be the animal rights activists. Within a week of that World magazine (27 March 2004) reported a Dutch man was caught violating a pony. He was set free, however, because there was no law against such activity. This caused an uproar among some in the Dutch government. But their concern wasn't the immorality of the act, but the animal's inability to consent to it. It was considered animal abuse. Such is the twisted thinking of fallen man. The success of the homosexual agenda reveals the desire within the human heart to be as god - just like Satan promised Eve.

Ralph Gallini

Posted: May 29, 2008 12:04 PM

I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Not the Mormon Church. Mr. Witte states that "most Mormons" renounced polygamy after 1890. I can't speak for the "Mormons" but the Latter-Day Saints members did not practice polygamy after the issuance of the Manifesto by President Wilford Woodruff. If they did, they were excommunicated from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and that is the case today. Practicing polygamy is no different than practicing adultry. Both are an offense to God. The FLDS people are not members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They are not a split-off. They have never been a part of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. A person can call a jackass a racehorse. However, it is still a jackass. Please ask Mr. Witte to be a responsible journalist and make sure he has his facts correct.

Barry

Posted: May 28, 2008 11:49 AM

I do not believe polygamy is inherently wrong, anymore than there is anything inherently right with monogamy. The only thing that is inherently flawed (if I understand my Calvin) is human nature. Hence, we find debaucheries in both marital systems. We have done wrong by both. It is possible to do right by both as well. A rarely recognized aspect of 19th century Mormon polygamy is that, doctrinally, it was practiced for the express purpose of driving a stake at the very heart of the vices of human nature that it is said to produce; lust, jealousy...etc. Analogous to the tactic of overcoming one's fears by facing them head-on. Did it bring out the vices? You bet. Did it succeed in overcoming them? That is for the practitioners to say, and for us, as bystanders, to weigh. There is a very lengthy, intriguing subject here. To write it off with sweeping "morally repugnant" judgments is to lick at the gum-ball, at the least.

Ola	Posted: May 27, 2008 3:36 PM


It is very comforting to know that there are people with sound biblical, theological and legal insights to make the seemingly complex problems of polygamy so simple for one to make the wise choice. Monogamy is less complicated. It's truly a blessing.

Larry

Posted: May 27, 2008 12:38 PM

I suggest that the evidence is not against polygamy per se but the abuses of it. Polygamy was common in the Old Testament and the Israelite culture. Four books of the Old Testament written at the birth of that nation purport to quote God extensively as He gives to them (and us) His moral law. There are whole chapters dealing with sexual sins. Yet the only comments God had to say about it was that you shouldn't marry a woman and her sister to provoke her to jealousy and that you can't favor the children of a 'favored' wife in inheritance matters. The examples given of troublesome polygamous relationships in the Bible prove nothing. Adam and Eve had a son who murdered his brother. The polygamists in Texas and other Mormon enclaves today routinely scout school yards for their latest wives and find ways to get rid of excess males in their communities. Yet our society has millions of single mothers and single women with little prospect of ever getting married. Out of space.

Dale	Posted: May 27, 2008 12:19 PM


Tragically this arguement is outdated. While the state does not sanction polygamy, many of our politicians practice serial mogammy. One woman at a time. We have a responsibility to protect our community. Polygamy is harmful to the community. Furthermore stop and think of the honey do list. One wife can exhaust an average man, think of how exhausting five wives would be.

Mark	Posted: May 27, 2008 8:11 AM

Despite the byline, I thought the arguments against polygamy were pretty compelling. You can always find ways to interpret the Constitution that will argue for the practice of all sorts of personal immorality. Although I would implore people to allow God to control their actions, they should have the freedom to do as they choose , as long as their actions don't step on the rights of others. The question becomes the latter, particularly with how it affects the children who will form tomorrow's culture. The traditional family is society's DNA. We've been experimenting with it, particularly for the last 40 years or so. The experiments haven't had good results. That objectively argues for a renewed committment to the traditional family.

June Slonaker

Posted: May 26, 2008 11:44 AM

I did door ro door evangelism as a teenager . I did this out of duty and not from the heart. Pastor Hankins blieve being at every service was esstenial to walk with the Lord. I think the Lord has put it on my heart to do it again. Thanks for the great article. I did not think many church was still doing vistaation. I know the Mormons and Jehovah Witnessess still do hom visitation. Thanks, Cordially June M. Slonaker

Darrie

Posted: May 26, 2008 10:08 AM


I live as a missionary in a country where polygamy is allowed. A man is free to have up to 3 legal wives. But I have seen the harm and destruction that polygamy has brought to this society. If you want American to look like Africa keep adopting the social processes that make Africa fail...

Matt Stephens

Posted: May 26, 2008 7:55 AM

I'm pleased that this topic was aired on CT, and done so fairly evenhandedly. It's an issue many Christians secretly wonder about, and many others naively take for granted. I'm even happier that the issue is presenting itself to the American public, because it forces ALL of us to reexamine our true values, and our reasoning for arriving at those value judgments. What makes me smile is when the 'secular public' is forced to face the fact that "morality is legislated" every single day. Most, if not all, law is legislated morality. It all comes down to what is right and what is wrong--every time. Economics, international diplomacy, speed limits, you name it. The imposition of law and the existence of gov't themselves are irrefutable proof that human society is built on morality. We are by nature corrupt and in need of limitations and punishment when those limits are broken. And every time the public must face this fact, they face another question: from whence is morality derived?

Jan Brown (Registered User)

Posted: May 25, 2008 9:49 PM


Christy - Just because the Bible mentions polygamy does not mean that the Bible condones or sanctions polygamy. When you read the Biblical accounts of polygamy it involves jealousy, anger, and friction within the family.

Eric	Posted: May 25, 2008 6:27 PM

The arguments against polygamy presented in this article will not withstand the seemingly inexorable cultural slide toward individual "freedom." In reality, as Christ-followers, we know that the Bible defines such "liberty" as nothing more than bondage -- slavery to sin (Rom 7:14, 8:12-15; Gal 5:1; Tit 3:3). The best biblical argument against the practice of polygamy is based on the qualifications for elders and deacons in the early church. In both 1 Timothy 3:2 and 3:12 and Titus 1:6-7, Paul writes that a man seeking these offices must be "the husband of one wife" in order to be "above reproach." If monogamy is a prerequisite for church leadership, then it should be the standard for everyone. Unfortunately, now that the courts have gone down the path of creating a constitutional right to same-sex "marriage," there really is no legal basis for rejecting polygamy, incest, bestiality, and any similar act. It is only a matter of how long before society chooses to tolerate these as well.

R Packham

Posted: May 24, 2008 1:46 PM

I am not a proponent of polygamy (although I am descended from 19th century Mormon polygamists). However, to say that polygamy is "not biblical" is incorrect. The polygamy of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (and other Biblical patriarchs) was never condemned in the Bible. Yes, Deuteronomy 17 says that the king should "not multiply wives" but that comes right after the command not to "multiply horses" - surely it does not mean that the king should have only one horse and one wife. And the prophet Nathan told David that his wives were "given" to him by God (2 Samuel 12:7-8). Modern Mormon denials about polygamy are disingenuous, since the "revelation" commanding it is still in their scriptures (Doctrine and Convenants 132), and they still believe that polygamy will be practiced in heaven. Mormon men can still be married ("sealed") to successive wives for the afterlife if they lose their present wife through death or divorce.

Perry

Posted: May 24, 2008 1:27 PM


For a detailed analysis of the many harms associated with polygamy please see the report Polygyny and Canada's Obligations under International Human Rights Law, which was submitted to the Canadian Department of Justice A pdf of that report is available here: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/pub/poly/poly.pdf Perry Bulwer http://religiouschildabuse.blogspot.com/

RCM	Posted: May 24, 2008 11:22 AM

At first I was pleased at such a calm, reasoned assessment of an emergent, serious social question. Then, with "moral repugnance" the calm trolley somehow left the rails. My segregationist Christian grandparents found "race mixing" in either marriage or social gatherings morally repugnant. "Too risky?" One might well argue the risks of monogamy based on romantic attraction: 1) inherently unstable due to waning infatuation; 2) prone to adulterous wandering that might be contained by two or more spouses. "Inherently wrong?" Odd argument for a biblical conservative, to say the least. Where does Scripture condemn the polygamy of the patriarchs? Moral repugnance without an good accompanying rational basis is a step away from lynch mob mentality. Child abuse is not outlawed merely because of "moral repugnance," but for good rational reasons. I am no polygamist (monogamous marriage, 39 years and going strong) nor any advocate of polygamy. But, please, spare us the "moral repugnance" ploy.

Ang	Posted: May 24, 2008 10:55 AM

"People should be able to marry whomever they want." A common argument for same sex marriage and now polygamy. Any argument that points out possible moral harms is shouted down as judgmental and anti-choice. Individual liberty to choose one's own morality and have it honored by our gov't and society is quickly becoming the standard in this pluralistic society. What is ignored, however, is the fact that no one, not even a heterosexual, gets to marry whomever s/he wants. You can't marry a child, you can't marry someone you are related to, you can't marry a different species, you still in most states can't marry someone of the same sex, and you can't marry someone already married or marry someone else if you yourself are married. To take the argument to it's logical conclusion, all these prohibitions should be lifted. I'm afraid that as a society, we are going to have to go down a long and painful road to relearn the wisdom of monogamous, heterosexual marriage.

John G.

Posted: May 24, 2008 7:21 AM

Once marriage is redefined as anything other than one man + one woman, the floodgates are open for all sorts of variations. A man could marry his sister, a woman could marry her dog, and so on. The only solution would seem to be to beat back the homosexual challenge and have marriage amendments on the books in every state. But given the current political climate, that seems unlikely. Christ is our only hope!

daveescaped

Posted: May 23, 2008 6:35 PM

Well done! This is a great article straight out of the legal tradition of objectivity for which American stands. As a modern Mormon (one wife thank you very much) I also find polygamy strange and repugnant. But I find it a very interesting legal issue as it provides an opportunity to challenge Constitutional rigor. I couldn't agree less with the comments that such an article is "not in the public interest" as one writer stated. Freedom and issues of freedom are always in the public interest. The law must be objective and rooted in the constitution. Not subject to the whim of what Americans deem repugnant. Americans don't accept laws prohibiting homosexuality or adultery (such laws may exist but are rarely enforced and certainly not Constitutional) yet these activities could be argued to be against the public interest (depending on whom you ask). I'll pass on any country that sets subjective, changeable legal standards. In such as system, who knows if YOU will be next!

MD	Posted: May 23, 2008 6:32 PM

Why don't we just get the government totally out of the marriage regulation business? I am all for pallowing polygamy. Just as the government has no business intruding on consensual sex between adults (although it is against Biblical principles), they should likewise not have any input into whether I marry one or three spouses. Let's let individual liberty prevail, even if we don't personally like it. Coercion of minors or adults should not be permitted, but this country should stand for freedom and individual rights, and if adults are in agreement, the government should not stand in the way.

Tom	Posted: May 23, 2008 5:58 PM


The poll put the question only in the context of 'religion', but unless you're broadening the definition of 'religion' to mean 'any belief system, whether theistic or not', then I would prefer removing that restriction. In other words, one shouldn't have to prove that their religious affiliation was the sole reason.

JDD	Posted: May 23, 2008 3:28 PM

It is not accurate to state "most Mormons renounced polygamy after 1890." In fact, all Mormons have renounced polygamy. Any Mormon found practicing polygamy is excommunicated from the Church and can only rejoin when he or she has abandoned the practice. The Associated Press Style Guide discourages the use of the word "Mormon" to refer to any church other than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in order to avoid just this type of confusion. I am no advocate of polygamy by any means, but your assertion that polygamy is unbiblical is highly questionable. In fact, Martin Luther, the founder of Protestant Christianity, felt the Bible justified polygamy and even performed a secret polygamous marriage in his day. "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture." (De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329-330.)

Robert

Posted: May 23, 2008 2:58 PM

As a Mormon its rather frustrating to hear this group in Texas referred to as a "Fundamentalist Mormon" group. I'm sure the reference means no harm but that group has had no connection with the Mormon church for over a century. Their belief system is very different and their reclusive way of life includes many things such as polygamy that would have them excommunicated from Mormon church today. I'm sure the Seventh Day Adventists would have felt the same way had David Koresh's group been labeled "Fundamentalist Seventh Day Adventists."

Christy

Posted: May 23, 2008 1:48 PM


One jr. high student in my youth group asked me why the Bible condones polygamy. He mentioned how kings like David and Solomon had many wives and God didn't necessarily punish them for this or say that it was wrong for them to live this way. How would I explain this picture of polygamy in the Bible to him?

Rathje

Posted: May 23, 2008 1:20 PM

A few precise definitions might help here: 1. Polygyny = one man married to more than one woman 2. Polyandry = one woman married to more than one man 3. Polygamy = a spouse of one gender with more than one spouse of opposite gender (includes BOTH polyandry and polygyny) 4. Polyamory = free love relationships generally, not necessarily entailing marriage Of course, most people use the word "polygamy" exclusively to describe what is actually "polygyny," but this useage is not really correct.

Page: 1

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment