Faith

No Charges to Be Filed Against Polygamous ‘Sister Wives’ Family — But Why?

Kody Brown & His Four Wives Wont Have Charges Filed Against Them | Sister Wives

In this undated file photo provided by TLC, Kody Brown, center, poses with his wives, from left, Janelle, Christine, Meri, and Robyn in a promotional photo for TLC's reality TV show, "Sister Wives." (AP Photo/TLC, Bryant Livingston, File)

SALT LAKE CITY (The Blaze/AP) — Criminal charges will not be pursued against a polygamous family made famous by the reality TV show “Sister Wives,” a Utah prosecutor wrote Thursday in federal court filings.

The case against Kody Brown and his four wives — Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robyn — stars of the TLC show, has been closed, Utah County Attorney Jeff Buhman wrote in a motion seeking to have a lawsuit against his county dismissed.

(Related: ‘Sister Wives’ Polygamous Family Plans to Challenge Utah’s Bigamy Law)

Brown moved his wives and 16 children from Lehi, about 30 miles south of Salt Lake City, to the Las Vegas area in January 2011 after Utah authorities launched a bigamy investigation (bigamy is defined as “the act of entering into a marriage with one person while still legally married to another”)

Kody Brown & His Four Wives Wont Have Charges Filed Against Them | Sister Wives

The Browns then sued Utah County along with Utah’s governor and attorney general, claiming the state’s bigamy statute violates their constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, free exercise of religion, free speech and freedom of association.

A federal judge later dropped the state from the case but allowed it to continue against the county.

U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups said he dismissed Gov. Gary Herbert and Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff because Shurtleff had assured the Browns they wouldn‘t be prosecuted under his policy that consenting adult polygamists won’t be charged as long as they’re not committing other crimes.

However, Waddoups noted that the Browns had reason to believe they could still face prosecution in Utah County, and agreed it could have a chilling effect on their ability to practice their constitutional rights in the state.

Kody Brown & His Four Wives Wont Have Charges Filed Against Them | Sister Wives

Image Credit: Joe Pugliese for TLC

Buhman wrote in his Thursday motion that his county, too, had adopted the same state policy and would not pursue bigamy cases unless there was evidence of a victim or fraud.

“The criminal case against the Browns is closed and no charges will be filed against them for bigamy unless new evidence is discovered which would comport with the office’s new policy,” Buhman wrote.

The Browns‘ attorney Jonathan Turley said he was pleased that charges wouldn’t be filed but noted the family didn’t plan to drop the lawsuit, claiming state law remained “blatantly unconstitutional.” The Blaze first reported about the family’s plans to challenge the law in July 2011.

“I want to express our great relief for the Brown family that this long-standing threat has been finally lifted,” Turley said in a statement. “The family has spent years being publicly denounced as felons by prosecutors and had to move to Nevada to protect their family and children.”

Comments (275)

1 2 3 ... 5
  • Steve28
    Posted on June 1, 2012 at 9:27am

    It is wrong and should not be allowed. This country is going down fast when the family structure, already beaten up, is allowed to disolve into anything goes.

    Report Post »  
    • inthealpine
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 9:29am

      You are to say what is valid for adults and what is not? Do you wonder why no one trusts that conservatives want limited government, you comments are why. As soon as something you don’t like happens you want to use government to regulate it.

      Report Post »  
    • booger71
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 9:59am

      How many wives did Solomon or King David have?

      Report Post » booger71  
    • Captain77
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 10:08am

      From what are you basing your decision that it is wrong? Not the bible. Most of the prophets of the bible were polygamists, including Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, along with other notable figures such as David and Solomon. Also, who are you to say what relationship consenting adults can have with one another? I support your right to speak against it, but to say their should be laws against it is offensive to liberty. People who want to legislate other peoples lives who have no direct affect on their own have a pale understanding of liberty and should really avoid the voting booth.

      Report Post »  
    • mtcountrygrl
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 10:37am

      @ Captain
      How many wives did God give Adam? The rest was man’s decision and sin. David also commited murder, should we advocate for that too? There is scripture after scripture where God says to have one wife. But I see no difference between this and the man with 30 children from lots of different women. Morally the same, he just didn’t call them his wives. Or men and women who get married and divorced a bunch of times. Morally equivalent. My biggest problem with these folks is that most of the time they are on government assistance because no one can finacially support that many wives and that many children. Same goes for the single parent families created by sex outside of marriage. I am just tired of paying for peoples choices.

      Report Post »  
    • Pendragon
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 10:53am

      While I cannot understand why anyone would want more then 1 wife, It bewilders me to read biblically where it says that a Man is limited to 1 wife.. If anyone has Biblical proof to where it states 1 wife please let me know or is this like Dancing and part of a 4 point calvinist point of view??? I would offer as others have that David and Solomon had multiple wives…I would offer also that even Christ said in Matt 5 not one jot nor tittle of the law should be voided and any man teaching otherwise will lose the blessing…I personally do not agree with all the Morman teaching but I would also offer I do not agree with the baptist teaching or AOG as they say it is a sin to dance, drink anything, or play go fish with cards in the extreme cases. They complain about homosexuals and sin and ignore Hetrosexual sin within their own ranks which is just as sinful but yet they can have children out of wedlock and this Paligimist has 4 wives and children within that wedlock like David…Who is the sinner in that case the Baptist fornicating single mother and father or the Married mormon of 4 wives who is responsible in raising and being involved in the lives of his children??

      Report Post » Pendragon  
    • encinom
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 10:54am

      Its a part of thier faith and their version of Christianity, why is your version any more valid than their’s?

      Why does it matter what consenting adults do or who they define a family?

      Report Post »  
    • Macman1138
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 10:56am

      Ah…I don’t care. My one wife gives me enough to keep with and God pity that poor man with four.
      At least he didn’t marry four guys, goats, lawn mowers or such.
      I have a lot of respect of the Mormons. If they want to be wed to four women, well they are more of a man than I can ever be!

      Report Post » Macman1138  
    • FreedomPurveyor
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 11:09am

      A man with one wife and 3 mistresses would never, ever have to answer to the law.

      A man who is dedicated to 4 women, all consenting, and supports them and their children financially and emotionally, finds himself hounded by prosecutors.

      Report Post » FreedomPurveyor  
    • TIME_2_END_THE_GOP_IN_12
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 11:19am

      Another reason the GOP can not win elections. It’s full of people that want to legislate morality in one breath and talk about small government with the next. Please help me rid the Republican Party of these Hypocrites.

      Report Post » TIME_2_END_THE_GOP_IN_12  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 11:27am

      booger71
      How many wives did Solomon or King David have?

      They had many wives didn’t they? Your point is? As people far more learned in such matter on this site pointed out that God ‘allowed’ (allow the right word) it but did not approve of it.

      Second, we go by the New Testament & not the Old Testament.

      This is just like a chess game. You make one tired opening gambit & it is countered.

      Report Post »  
    • P8riot
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 11:28am

      Just a quick correction – its been about 122 years since “Mormons” have practiced plural marriage.

      However, the doctrine of plural marriage has at times been authorized by God and at others revoked. This is irrefutable.

      In 2 Samuel 12:7-9 – Speaking through the Prophet Nathan, the Lord Himself states that He GAVE David his plural wives. Further, the Lord even tells David that He would have given David even more wives if David would have desired it and had not murdered Uriah and committed adultery with Bathsheba. Then in chapter 11, since David sinned against God, the Lord took away Davids WIVES and gave them to another man. Thus, the Lord Himself gave David plural wives.

      Additionally in Exodus 21:10, the Lord reveals His law pertaining to how to treat plural wives. He does so again in Deuteronomy 21:15.

      Thus, the Lord sometimes authorized plural marriage and sometimes revokes plural marriage.

      So one cannot be biblically opposed to the doctrine of plural marriage, but rather opposed to plural marriage at this time, unless the Lord once again authorizes it.

      Report Post » P8riot  
    • LowIncome
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 11:30am

      To those saying this man is a mormon, if you have ever watched an episode. I have watched one and that was more than enough for me. Anyway, this man said in that one episode that he is not mormon. Yes it is something that the mormons did over 100 years ago, but stopped in the late 1800 in order for Utah to become a state.
      Now the Brown’s do have a valid point in that if charged it violates their consitutional rights in freedom of religion and the practice thereof. So if we have all the conservatives asking the govt to stay out of their lives then the Brown family should not have any issue as it is part of his religion. That being said he is not forcing anyone to marry him, certainly not anyone that is a minor. So what then is he doing wrong? He also is a fairly well of man as he is a business owner and can certainly take care of these women and their kids without the assistance of state or federal money.
      It almost seems like a swinger lifestyle except with women who are happy in the lifestyle of sharing a man among them, so if they are all consenting to any extra curricular activities why does it matter.
      To touch briefly on gay marriage, if those wanting the govt to stay out of marriage, then there is nothing to worry about. On the flip side, if gay marriage is legalized, then why not polygamy? Some will say it has the same potential damaging effects to the children involved.
      Food for thought……

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 11:39am

      inthealpine
      booger71
      Captain77

      “Such problems are not merely theoretical. In northern Arizona, a polygamous Mormon sect has managed its surplus males by dumping them on the street –”

      “In 19th-century China, where as many as 25 percent of men were unable to marry, “these young men became natural recruits for bandit gangs and local militia,” which nearly toppled the government.”

      http://reason.com/archives/2006/04/03/one-man-many-wives-big-problem

      Really guys, you had serious arguments?

      No doubts some activists are trying to take the Bible out of context to try to discredit religion & then institute an anything goes morality.

      Report Post »  
    • booger71
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 11:40am

      While I agree that having more than one wife would be a burden too most, The Bible doesn’t specify the number a man can have. God continually blessed the Prophets and Kings who had many wives and concubines Was God blessing in spite of their many wives. God told Abraham he would “father” many nations. Could this be accomplished with only one wife? I don’t think so. Paul said it is better to marry than to burn, but he did not specify the number of wives a man can have.

      Report Post » booger71  
    • ChiefGeorge
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 11:42am

      If gay marriage is alright, then this surely should be. I don’t have a problem with this arrangement personally. I draw the line at marriage within the family though.

      Report Post » ChiefGeorge  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 11:55am

      P8riot

      I read that an Indian tribe’s elders “authorized” polygamy (I forget which plains tribe). They had grave reservations about doing so. There was much warfare between them & other tribes. For one it was a way of taking care of widowed women.

      I is one of the few reasons why I would see polygamy as good. I for one do not wish for war.

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 12:02pm

      LowIncome

      “It almost seems like a swinger lifestyle except with women who are happy in the lifestyle of sharing a man among them, so if they are all consenting to any extra curricular activities why does it matter.
      To touch briefly on gay marriage, if those wanting the govt to stay out of marriage, then there is nothing to worry about. On the flip side, if gay marriage is legalized, then why not polygamy? Some will say it has the same potential damaging effects to the children involved.
      Food for thought……”

      With such thinking I can see why Glenn Beck is talking about refounding. Any assumptions unstated by the Founders or any contingencies not covered by the Founders are an excuse for lawyers & would be lawyers to tear society apart. Be careful what you wish for. We might not fight. We may just leave you holding the bag & what a bag it will be. :)

      To paraphrase a Founder “ the constitution was wholly unsuited to govern an immoral people”. How right he was! Sigh!

      Report Post »  
    • BigPawz
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 12:02pm

      Let us put it this way… Polygamy is not exactly my style but if it works for them, I say “let them have at it.” I am married to one woman and between her, our daughter, the dogs, and the cats, the guys are outnumbered in this house. I do well to deal with all the females that I am surrounded with. If this guy can put up with the likes of four women plus God only knows how many females amongst that 16 children…not to mention female pets… I say more power to him.

      oh, and being one of the “Christian right,” polygamy does not exactly following the Christian tenants that I grew up with but, this version of Christianity works for these people, then who am I to say which version of Christianity works for everybody?

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 12:06pm

      booger71
      God told Abraham he would “father” many nations. Could this be accomplished with only one wife? I don’t think so.

      You don‘t think that several generations where people practice monogamy can’t add up to many people if they have more than 2 kids each generation?

      Report Post »  
    • P8riot
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 12:26pm

      @WALKABOUT –

      So you agree that God has at times “authorized” plural marriage?

      btw – this is not an “anything goes” argument. Homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, etc. have never been authorized by God and are thus always immoral. Further, plural marriage is also immoral while revoked by God, but is perfectly moral when authorized by God.

      You do have a valid point that there are probably practical reasons why it is sometimes authorized by God and other times not – but those reasons would probably be a question best answered through prayer. Your point further exemplifies a good analogy to how sometimes certain acts are authorized at times – killing. “Thou shalt not kill” (the sixth of the ten commandments). This law is at times implemented and at times revoked – e.g. self defense of ourselves, our families and our country (war).

      btw – I too despise war (I am a veteran and also have friends that have been messed up by it) – but I fully understand that at times it is absolutely necessary to fight to defend the innocent.

      Report Post » P8riot  
    • booger71
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 12:28pm

      Walkabout
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 12:06pm

      booger71
      God told Abraham he would “father” many nations. Could this be accomplished with only one wife? I don’t think so.

      You don‘t think that several generations where people practice monogamy can’t add up to many people if they have more than 2 kids each generation
      ——————————-
      That is not the point, God told Abraham he himself would father many nations, and Abraham was a polygamist.

      Report Post » booger71  
    • OutOfTheAether
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 12:32pm

      Point for consideration: More than one wife may mean more than one set of In-Laws!

      Might I also point out that the guy is NOT a Mormon. Any member of the LDS church who insists on practicing Plural marriage loses his/her membership. It is not condoned, and hasn‘t been since the 1890’s

      Report Post » OutOfTheAether  
    • UnitedwithIsrael
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 1:07pm

      I watched their show last week and it seems they also support homosexuality. That tells me a lot!!!

      Report Post »  
    • black9897
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 1:17pm

      True, but government cannot tell people who and how many one should marry.

      Report Post » black9897  
    • P8riot
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 1:24pm

      For anyone curious on how The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints views “the family structure” – please read the following entitled The Family: A Proclamation to the World.

      http://www.lds.org/family/proclamation?lang=eng

      This is our official view of the family given by our former Prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley.

      Thanks!

      p.s. – as stated many times, the Browns featured in this article are NOT Mormons (i.e. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).

      Report Post » P8riot  
    • Locked
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 1:25pm

      *Shrugs*

      I’ve always felt that divorce is worse than any kind of “non-traditional” marriage. I would argue that a polygamist who can keep 4 wives is more solid in the Bible than a husband and wife who divorce for any reason other than adultery. Whenever someone makes the argument “XYZ is going to destroy the sanctity of marriage!” I tend to think, “Right, because a 50% divorce rate is a sign that it’s going so well right now.”

      Report Post »  
    • JRook
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 1:31pm

      It’s called true liberty. The country would be far better off if people spent half as much time cleaning up their own act as they do worry about what other people are doing. Perhaps you missed the point that it is 5 consenting adults. And yes liberty, like the first amendment, provide people with the right to do things that you may not like. And the fact that so many of these types of things are illegal is at the cornerstone of big government intrusion.

      Report Post »  
    • mcsledge
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 1:45pm

      mtcountrygrl – God walked with Abraham. This would not have been so had the plurality of wives offended God at that time. Your reference to one wife was mentioned by Christ in the New Testament. Certain laws are eternal. Certain laws are based on the ability for man to properly follow them. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (who had plural wives) will live in the presence of the Father for eternity. David (who had plural wives) will not because he shed innocent blood.

      Unless you are a prophet, leave the scriptural interpretations to those holding the same authority as those who first spoke them.

      Report Post » mcsledge  
    • jzs
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 1:55pm

      Sadly, the barn door is already open. Once you allow a man to marry one woman, it was only a matter of time before people would be given permission to marry two or more wives either at the same time or consecutively like Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich. Next thing you know, men will want to marry farm animals or even plant life. Once a man is allowed to marry a woman, the rest happens like clockwork.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 2:16pm

      P8riot

      So you agree that God has at times “authorized” plural marriage?
      ***
      short answer. No. I will look up those passages and/or consult with a pastor, who has been to a seminary.

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 2:18pm

      “The real-world practice of polygamy seems to flow from men’s desire to marry all the women they can have children with.” -Reason.com

      Judging from the posts there are a lot of trolls or men ruled by ****** out there. You know who you are.

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 2:38pm

      jzs

      Sadly, the barn door is already open. Once you allow a man to marry 1 woman, it was only a matter of time before people would be given permission to marry 2 or more wives either at the same time or consecutively like Rush Limbaugh …

      Feeling rather trollish today? Or are you feeling your oats have a few people stuck up for you some?
      I “ain’t” going to apologize for Newt. He made his bed. He can lay in it. Rush Limbaugh & Newt are nowhere similar. From reading an unauthorized biography by a liberal hack, I believe that in the 1st marriages, his wives left. What is he going to do to prevent that? In the 1st case it was due to economic hardship. Shortly thereafter he had his house foreclosed. I believed he lost his job at a radio station. In the 2nd case I believe he was successful in wooing his wife but not keeping her due to “appearance”. I am not sure if his 3rd wife was a gold digger or there was some other problem of whatever party. I do know from listening to him over the years & reading the biography that he has always wanted to be married. He says he doesn’t want kids, crumb crunchers. I don’t know if that is straight up or the sour grapes ploy people use on themselves. At any rate yours was a low blow. But if you wan to continue, we can trot out your pics.

      BTW, not even the National Review defended Newt’s adultery. It made print back in the mid or late 90s. The person Ii learned it from was absolutely livid. Newt has baggage.

      Report Post »  
    • lukerw
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 2:42pm

      The New Covenant… was/is a One (Christ) to One (Individual) Holy Contract… and forms the Basis to Christianity… where the Family Unit is based upon a One to One Marriage Holy Contract… where the Children are raised as a Product of Love… and where the relationship is protected from Sexual Disease.

      If you do something Stupid… you put yourself at Risk!

      Report Post » lukerw  
    • Taquoshi
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 2:47pm

      Hey, JZS -

      Rush had been married 4 times, and Wikipedia only list 3 for Newt.

      You forgot Elizabeth Taylor [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Taylor ]
      Conrad Hilton, Jr. (1950–51; divorced)
      Michael Wilding (1952–57; divorced)
      Mike Todd (1957–58; widow)
      Eddie Fisher (1959–64; divorced)
      Richard Burton (1964–74, 1975–76; married and divorced twice)
      John Warner (1976–82; divorced)
      Larry Fortensky (1991–96; divorced)

      Mickey Rooney [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Rooney

      Spouse Ava Gardner (m.1942-1943; divorced)
      B.J. Baker (m.1944-1948; divorced)
      Martha Vickers (m.1949-1951; divorced)
      Elaine Devry (m.1952-1958; divorced)
      Carolyn Mitchell (m.1958-1966; her death)
      Marge Lane (m.1966-1967; divorced)
      Carolyn Hockett (m.1969-1975; divorced)
      Jan Chamberlin (m.1978–present)

      There’s more I could list, but I have to leave for a meeting.

      Report Post » Taquoshi  
    • jzs
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 2:59pm

      Walkabout, actually I was joking. I hear similiar comments to the one I posted, suggested that gay marriage will lead to things like I mentioned. So I thought I’d turn it around and make a little joke as well as ridicule that line of logic against gay marriage. Just trying to lighten things up around here, add a little humor. You know me, always trying to brighten everyone’s day…

      Report Post » jzs  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 3:38pm

      “Hudson and den Boer suggest that societies become inherently unstable when sex ratios reach something like 120 males to 100 females: in other words, when one-sixth of men are surplus goods on the marriage market” – http://reason.com/archives/2006/04/03/one-man-many-wives-big-problem

      Nothing to see here … Move along

      Report Post »  
    • Roberto G. Vasquez
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 3:41pm

      @STEVE28

      A man marrying four women sure seems a lot better than a man marrying a man!!!

      Report Post »  
    • P8riot
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 3:43pm

      @WALKABOUT – I commend you for at least being willing to “look up those passages and/or consult with a pastor, who has been to a seminary.” Most people simply reject new information given to them when it doesn‘t mesh with what they’ve been told in the past. So – good job.

      However, I would recommend doing your own research prior to talking to someone who’s livelihood is based on people believing what he says to believe – i.e. he would have a conflict of interest. I would suggest following the advise of James on this matter found in James 1:5-6:

      “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering…”

      Notice how he will give to ALL men this knowledge and upbraideth not, thus you don’t need to go to a seminary or be a prominent figure for God to answer you. The twelve apostles chosen by Christ were not graduates of seminaries, in fact they were very common.

      Anyhow, thank for at least considering my point of view, but don’t take my word for it – read it for yourself and then ask God for yourself. That’s the only way to know if the message given you is true. :)

      Report Post » P8riot  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 3:44pm

      JZS

      Try this, “One Man, Many Wives, Big Problems”. It is a good article. It is an older article but history does not change one it is made.

      http://reason.com/archives/2006/04/03/one-man-many-wives-big-problem

      Report Post »  
    • OneTermPresident
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 3:50pm

      @INTHEALPINE… And a Demitasse would fit your liberal head like a sombrero… OBVIOUSLY

      Report Post » OneTermPresident  
    • Macman1138
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 3:51pm

      Oh, have a heart.
      That guy has to deal with four gals on the rag each month, then later on…he’ll have to deal with the four of them going through menopause.
      don‘t tell me he’s not paying for it now.

      Report Post » Macman1138  
    • Pendragon
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 4:24pm

      I am still asking the question which no one has addressed…..What verses in the bible say a man by law or command must have 1 wife??? Mind you also if you are a christian then you cannot be under the law….So where is the verse/s I have asked more then once and no one knows so they do not exist or you have no clue

      Report Post » Pendragon  
    • lordaction
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 5:13pm

      That is insane. I don’t agree with it either but people should be free to follow what religion they want. That is what this country is founded on. You have absolutely no right to tell someone how to live their life unless they are committing force or fraud against others and it is attitudes like yours that drive people away from the Republican party in droves.

      Report Post »  
    • psychokittis
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 5:39pm

      What I find somewhat hypocritical is this: A man is perfectly within his rights to sleep around with as many women as are willing. He have 4 or 5 female roommates and sleep with all of them and it’s perfectly legal. If hes marries them all, then he’s broken the law. Wht’s changed here? Perception.
      I propose that whaat cody and his wives are doing is morally better than just sleeping around. They aren’t asking public assistance, from what I’m aware of and the ladies actually live in separate houses for personal privacy.
      What ever happened to the concept of consen ting adults?
      I wouldn’t personally engage in polygamy, but I find it difficult to criticise. Especially in light of the fact that some of the greatest heroes from the Bible had sveral wives. 9Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines)

      Report Post » psychokittis  
    • psychokittis
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 5:44pm

      @ Encinom- I agree with most of what you said here. I, as a Christian, don’t see any sin iin their rerlationship.

      Report Post » psychokittis  
    • black9897
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 6:41pm

      Having many wives is not Biblical, anymore than gay marriage is Biblical. God intended from the beginning for marriage to be between one man and one women. Period. Is it a sin? I would say so. At the very least it is wrong and not what God intended.

      In Gen. God made it perfectly clear what marriage was to be: …a man (singular) will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife (singular) and the two will become one flesh. I don‘t’ see anywhere where it states “a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, or a man and women” etc.

      Should there be laws to enforce this? No. This is the churches job, NOT the governments. No one should force anyone to behave a certain way. Christ wants us to choose him freely and freely follow him.

      Report Post » black9897  
    • black9897
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 6:47pm

      @PSYCHOKITTIS

      You have to remember that those men who were heroes and good people weren’t praised or considered good because they had many wives (which is not what God desires) but because of their faith and service to God. They weren’t perfect either.

      Remember rehab and the spies? Rehab was a whore, yet she’s in the hall of faith, not because of being a whore (which is a sin) but because she showed faith in God and hid the spies.

      Report Post » black9897  
    • TheSitRep
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 9:09pm

      The state should have no policy about marriage which is a religious institution.
      in fact the 1st amendment is clear on it.

      Marriage is a contract between parties and the government role is only as arbitrator of contract law.

      Report Post » TheSitRep  
    • jzs
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 10:07pm

      Walkabout that’s an interesting article. And you and the article raise and interesting subject. What is the legal or ethical or scientific or religious basis for denying males or females the right to marry more than one person? That‘s something honestly that I’ve never thought about.

      My gut feeling is that a monogamous relationship is the only way a person can be deeply and truly happy. And that even if you were to have 60 virgin significant others, despite if everything working out for everyone, in your heart you’d only have one that you love and that your life revolves around. I think people are wired that way as a rule.

      But that‘s my opinion about what’s best, and I don’t have the idea what I think is best is what others do. Nor do I want to impose my beliefs on others.

      So anyway, if I‘ve understood your point it’s a good one. That’s an interesting topic and a good one for debate, I agree.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • P8riot
      Posted on June 2, 2012 at 12:10am

      @black9897 – Maybe you missed my first post? Did I not quote from the Bible?

      Report Post » P8riot  
    • kryptonite
      Posted on June 2, 2012 at 7:14am

      @P8riot
      God ordains marriage to be between one man and one woman in Genesis, and ends the Old Covenant reaffirming the one man, one woman relationship:

      “Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and THE WIFE OF THY COVENANT” (Malachi 2:14) The wife of thy youth is also mentioned in Proverbs 5:18. Thus men are legally bound by the marriage covenant to one woman.

      The above verse carries deep spiritual meaning for a Christ-like man, because unless you understand the one man + one woman paradigm God ordained from the beginning, you will never fully comprehend the mystery of Christ’s union with his Bride. We become one spirit with him (1 Cor. 6:17), like a man becomes one flesh with his wife. NOR will you understand the husband-wife relationship between God and Israel. Throughout the ENTIRE OT, He is heartbroken by her spiritual adultery, but she is and will remain his one and only nation. He chose her to be his. That is why God will never abandon Israel, just like Christ will never leave or forsake us, his Church. (CONT.)

      Report Post »  
    • kryptonite
      Posted on June 2, 2012 at 8:33am

      @P8riot (CONT.)
      The cultural context of what Nathan tells David in the 2 Samuel 12 passage has to do with God giving David the KINGDOM. David took unto himself multiple wives, but although God allowed it, He had ordained against this practice/tendency among the kings of “multiplying wives unto yourselves” (Deut. 17:17). It was a negative: “He shall not…” If David had remained monogamous as God intended, he would have spared himself and his family all the suffering they went through. As for Salomon, he did not heed God’s warning and he was led astray.

      God forbore many sins and sinful practices before Jesus, because man has a callous heart. Contrary to what you suggest, the reason God regulated polygamy (notice it was always an “if” not a “when”) AND divorce was to protect women, since he knows women will be victimized if men are left to their basic instincts (just look at Islam). However, God hated both practices, and Jesus came to restore God’s order in the individual, the family, society and any people/nation who would heed the call to make him their God (that was America). (CONT.)

      Report Post »  
    • kryptonite
      Posted on June 2, 2012 at 8:37am

      @P8riot (CONT.)
      The OT is most notably a narrative of man’s failings after the fall, but regardless of how you interpret these passages, God no longer tolerates those customs and sins that were never in line with his will: “In the past, God overlooked such ignorance; but now he is commanding all people everywhere to turn to him from their sins” (Acts 17:30). If you take the WHOLE counsel of God (Acts 20:27) you will see God’s heart and God’s will are IMMUTABLE, but humans have traveled a long and painful road since Adam. So there is no excuse for the practice of polygamy under the NT. Jesus pointedly sanctions only the Genesis paradigm, and his followers heard it loud and clear, because marriage is always treated as a single man and a single woman in all the epistles. Plurality of wives disappears altogether. More: http://www.bibletruths.net/archives/BTAR324.htm

      Report Post »  
    • huufarted
      Posted on June 2, 2012 at 11:17am

      Only Islam and Mormons condone poligamy…

      ‘Nuff Said, huufarted

      Report Post »  
    • black9897
      Posted on June 2, 2012 at 11:32am

      @P8RIOT

      Yes, I did miss your first post.

      Exodus and 2 Samuel is OT law. So to Christians this is 100% not applicable.

      Jesus reaffirms what marriage is in Matt. 19:5 when discussing divorce he quotes Gen. 2:24.

      Not only that but in the NT God shows us that marriage is a reflection of Christ and the church—Ephesians 5:22-33. The church being the “bride” i.e. the people who are saved and Christ being the “husband.” If you think about how you are only supposed to serve God and marriage is a reflection of that then logic would follow you are only supposed to have ONE partner in marriage; and that partner be of the opposite sex.

      Report Post » black9897  
    • Pendragon
      Posted on June 2, 2012 at 12:55pm

      @black9897 If Christ is the Husband and the Church is the Bride that in fact only verifies multiple wives as the church is not a building but 2 or more… that said Multiple wives

      Report Post » Pendragon  
    • black9897
      Posted on June 2, 2012 at 1:47pm

      @PENDRAGON

      True, the church is not the building, it is the people. However, “the people” (the church) is ONE, not multiple. The body of the church is seen as one whole body. So the Church as Christ’s bride (notice it’s not brides) is still seen as one.

      Report Post » black9897  
    • kryptonite
      Posted on June 2, 2012 at 7:17pm

      @Pendragon
      Oneness in the spirit realm exists differently than in the natural realm, but that truth is impossible to grasp without being reborn of the Spirit of God, and even then, God had to establish a paradigm that would reflect his truth, so we would emulate him.

      To add to what BLACK said, we are MEMBERS of ONE body (1 Cor. 12: 27; Rom. 12:5). So we are the eyes, the ears, the hands, not separate individuals. The oneness of the Church reflects the Oneness of God, i.e., three persons but ONLY one God. Thus, God is Elohim (plural) “Let US make man in OUR image, in the likeness of OURSELVES (Gen. 1:26) yet “the Lord our God, the Lord is ONE” (Mk. 12:29).

      Since humans are made in God’s image, they are also tripartite: spirit, soul and body. As humans, we retain that nature unto eternity. That is why the resurrection of Jesus, followed by that of every human being, has or will invariably take place. Every one of us will have a body, whether in heaven or hell. The difference is that those in hell will not get a body in the likeness of Jesus’. They will have to live throughout eternity with a corrupt, unredeemed body (Matt. 10:28) (CONT.)

      Report Post »  
    • kryptonite
      Posted on June 2, 2012 at 7:46pm

      @Pendragon (CONT.)
      Back to the OT, time and time again Israel committed idolatry by going after other gods (plural), and God likened it to fornication/adultery. Jesus did too, when he described unbelievers as “an adulterous generation” (Mk. 8: 38). The concept of fornication/adultery is very plain for any man (or woman) who follows Jesus: “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” That admonition is usually harder for men to follow because they are the “sexual predators” of the species, so to speak, but there is no getting around it if you want to be counted in the company of the righteous. Besides, if Jesus is your Lord, he will bless your relationship with an intimacy that mirrors his oneness with you, an experience that is uniquely enjoyed by Christian couples.

      Ask God to give you spiritual insight. Our natural man cannot follow God’s spiritual laws, but like I said before, they are immutable.

      Report Post »  
    • DavidBruce
      Posted on June 2, 2012 at 10:30pm

      Although I have no interest in multiple wives, this is a Bible-based principle.
      It would be nice, for a change, for our government and MSM to have a laissez faire approach to those who can point to the Bible as their source of rationale – versus fostering male homosexuals.
      This is more than a matter of ‘consenting adults’ for these people – they are attempting to live a religious principle – in contrast to gays and pedophiles.
      Leave the family alone to work out their response to their faith.

      Report Post »  
    • TulsaYeeHaw
      Posted on June 3, 2012 at 2:20am

      @Encinom:

      Good call

      Report Post »  
    • Granny58
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 5:47pm

      “For this reason a man shall leave his mother and father and become one with his wife.”

      the 2 shall become 1, not the 2, 3, 4 or whatever.

      God.

      Report Post »  
  • inthealpine
    Posted on June 1, 2012 at 9:21am

    Very interesting listening to all the limited government people here demand the government regulate what adults do with their lives. My friends, get government out of marriage and stay true to the constitution.

    Report Post »  
    • Captain77
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 10:10am

      Exactly! Why in the world do people want the state in their marriage in the first place!?

      Report Post »  
    • rbyerly
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 10:59am

      You pinhead! Allowing “anything goes” marriage does not “get the government out of our lives”! It invites the government in! Once married, a couple enjoys the full protection of liberties as guaranteed by the Constitution. So, taxes, inheritance, property rights just to name a few, all involve the government. Limiting marriage to one man and one woman PROTECTS us from government supporting or infringing in ways not intended when empty headed fools propose that marriage be opened up to just any ‘ole combo. Once the government recognizes any thing but, one man and one woman then the rest of us will be asked to support those “alternative” marriages just as we support traditional marriage now. “But what anyone does in the privacy of their own home…”, Aghhhh! What stupid dribble! Privacy of one’s home does not include going down to the courthouse and making personal philandering, deviance, or infidelity a matter of public record through a government issued marriage license! You people, and I do mean “you people” need to grow up and quit acting like a 4yr old constantly asking, “why, Daddy?”.

      Report Post »  
    • Chuck Stein
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 12:15pm

      Note that these folks are not demanding that the State allow them to enter into a polygamous marriage that the State would accord the same rights as a “one each” marriage. They only want to be left alone — not subject to prosecution for their life choice.

      Report Post »  
    • guitarspook
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 12:21pm

      @rbyerly…
      Pretty sure when i signed on the dotted line of my marriage license I contracted my life not only to my wife, but to the state. What about marriage “frees” us from government trespass? Finances, property rights, raising of children -EVERYTHING ABOUT YOUR LIFE becomes dictated by the STATE upon marriage or divorce. Sell the house? who gets the kids? What, she gets the house and the kids and despite no longer being legally bound her actions still bear tremendous weight on my credit outlook? These are questions answered by the STATE!!!!! You will find the big government pinhead in the mirror. Ignorance at its finest on display…

      Report Post »  
    • SayNoToTeaBaggers
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 6:37pm

      they don’t care

      Report Post »  
  • LameLiberals
    Posted on June 1, 2012 at 9:08am

    Prosecuting this Mormon polygamist when Romney as a Mormon (and his family are practicing polygamists in Mexico) is running for office is political suicide.

    Not prosecuting this self-ADMITTED polygamist and his wives for political reasons is as bad as Obama sitting around a table deciding by himself which men to kill for the best political advantage to him.

    Report Post »  
    • SecularConservative
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 9:17am

      Maybe Romney should “declare his stance” on the issue of polygamy… Followed by Newsweek saying he is the First Polygamous Presidential Nominee haha

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 9:25am

      @Lameliberals

      “ this Mormon polygamist”

      As far as I know, the polygamist in question is not a member of LDS. Mormons excommunicate polygamists these days – at most he’s a member of a splinter group.

      Report Post »  
    • Me For Prez
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 9:27am

      They are not Mormom and Romneys is not still practicing polygamy. Some of his ancestors did, as well as some of mine but anyone who practices it today are on there own. That’s like saying Obummer is a polygamist because his dad had multiple wives.

      Report Post »  
    • Smart
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 9:30am

      All,

      Please understand that the Browns are NOT Mormons. Polygamy is strictly contrary to the beliefs and policy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons). Any member who engages in this practice wil be excommunicated (membership revoked).

      You can read for yourself on lds.org.

      One other quick comment. Similar to how we conservatives conduct ourselves, Mormons generally are unwilling to attempt impose their beliefs on others. Mitt Romney, in a position of power and leadership, is highly unlikely to openly discuss let alone promote the tenets of his faith. That said, in him you can find a pro-family, honest man who believes that America is destined for greatness. Hopefully other policies will come from a free-market business background.

      Report Post » Smart  
    • Sine labore nihil
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 9:48am

      I do believe that Obama’s Father was a polygamist. I would much rather have a Mormon than an what ever racist anti-American religion that Obama belongs to (and no it is not Christian).

      Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 10:56am

      If Utah changes the law, I wonder if Romney’s Polygamous relatvies in Mexico would return to America?

      Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 11:18am

      Smart
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 9:30am
      All,

      Please understand that the Browns are NOT Mormons. Polygamy is strictly contrary to the beliefs and policy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons). Any member who engages in this practice wil be excommunicated (membership revoked).
      __________________
      Funny the Browns are only mimicing the example set by John Smith and Bringham Young, yet they aren’t Mormons because the Mormons wanted statehood.

      Report Post »  
    • hazeltwo
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 11:55am

      Romney does not have any practicing polygamists in Mexico! There have been lots of news stories on the Mormon Colonies in Mexico that have some of his relatives. Look it up and you can see for yourself. No polygamy.

      Report Post »  
    • Git-R-Done
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 1:10pm

      Encinom – You hypocritically call everybody else on here a bigot yet here you are bigoted against polygamists.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 1:22pm

      @Encinom

      “Funny the Browns are only mimicing the example set by John Smith and Bringham Young”

      … you wouldn’t happen to mean Joseph Smith instead of John Smith, would you? You‘re a few hundred years and a Disney movie off target if you’re going with John Smith.

      Report Post »  
    • idarusskie
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 1:26pm

      The Romneys are not practicing polygamy in Mexico. His great grandfather was. Its a colony not a commune. The name of the town Colonia Juárez. Jeffs was a fundamentalist-Mormon not a Mormon. Big difference.

      Report Post »  
    • Chuck Stein
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 1:30pm

      Always in fantasyland, Encinom refers to “Romney’s Polygamous relatvies in Mexico” — while none of Romney’s relatives in Mexico has ever practiced polygamy. Liberals are NEVER bothered with facts, though.

      Report Post »  
    • mcsledge
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 2:58pm

      This polygamist is no Mormon. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints excommunicates any ‘so-called member’ practicing polygamy.

      Report Post » mcsledge  
  • LameLiberals
    Posted on June 1, 2012 at 9:06am

    Bill O’Reilly interviewed several polygamists. They want FOR NOW only that polygamy NOT be a federal offense. They want to chip away SLOWLY and get the right to marriage – taking a cue from gays.

    The difference for polygamists is that liberals control the public schools and therefore manipulated the minds of 2 generations of children to accept gay marriage. This would not have happened with school vouchers in place. However since liberals are mostly amoral and accept any lifestyle – it could be after they get their gay agenda marriage passed in all 50 states – they may start on getting polygamous marriages accepted. By not prosecuting these polygamists – it looks like the first step has been done for them.

    Report Post »  
    • Duey2000
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 10:33am

      Well, that‘s what I’ve been saying all along. When people ask me why I am against gay marriage I ask them if they are for polygamy, bestiality, or pedophilia. When they say that those things are wrong I tell them that they had better be willing to defend those things if they are willing to defend gay marriage, because once gay marriage is accepted, it won’t be long before people will want to marry their dogs, their 14 year old students, etc. Some people may balk at that, but trust me, there are some folks out there wringing their hands and biding their time.

      Report Post »  
  • inthealpine
    Posted on June 1, 2012 at 9:03am

    If all levels of government refrained from deciding what religious and cultural ceremonies it is going to ‘bless’, these social problems would go away overnight. Gay marriage, polygamy and other forms of cultural unionship would be left up to the individuals and no one would be forced to recognize anyone else’s lifestyle via the government.

    Problem solved, dollar saved.

    Report Post »  
  • LameLiberals
    Posted on June 1, 2012 at 9:01am

    Polygamist women are the FIRST In line for STATE GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE.

    Their children all get state aid Welfare, food stamps, etc etc. etc. One man cannot support muliple wives and massive numbers of children AND THEY DO NOT. TAXPAYERS DO. The poloygomists laugh all the way to the bank.

    Remember the Texas Mormon compound a few years ago about female child brides? That story suddenly “died”. There were so many Mormons in some of those sparely populated towns that the city clerk were polygamists and they “doctored” the girl birth certificates” to make the marrying age and the police were practicing Mormon polygamists so they kept it legal and punished anyone trying to get away from it. Even Canada has a huge Mormon compound which refuses to charge the polygomists living there.

    This is what happens when you walk about from the Christian values that made this country. You can bet it is Mormons doing this now in small Texas, Colorado and Utah towns but as the Muslim populations grow, you can bet the practice of poygomney will grown where they squat also.

    Report Post »  
    • honestynow
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 9:07am

      This has happened in Europe with Muslim immigrants coming in with multiple wives who are now on public assistance. We need to stop it now.

      Report Post »  
    • HisNameWasRobertPaulson
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 10:48am

      Easy. Stop government assistance. Done.

      Report Post »  
    • P8riot
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 11:10am

      P.S. – its been about 122 years since “Mormons” have practiced polygamy.

      Report Post » P8riot  
    • Bruce P.
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 11:18am

      Funny how many traditional couples also seek out public assistance as well…

      Report Post » Bruce P.  
    • mcsledge
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 3:07pm

      The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka Mormons) do not practice polygamy today. Those that did at the outset of the Church based on revelation supported their entire families and sought NO government assistance (i.e., they were self-reliant), which is better than many single and married parents can say today.

      Progressives create better fairy tales with history than Disney did with the make believe.

      Report Post » mcsledge  
  • Caniac Steve
    Posted on June 1, 2012 at 9:00am

    gee no one is speakung out or arresting any musloms in plural marriages ..hmmm fdind that a wee bit odd …don’t you ?

    Report Post » Caniac Steve  
  • Listen_then_think
    Posted on June 1, 2012 at 8:55am

    Looking at these pictures and the guy reminds me of Obama…. he really thinks he is cool and was beat up alot as a child.

    Report Post »  
  • Listen_then_think
    Posted on June 1, 2012 at 8:53am

    @ Locked
    No.
    That is like saying the U.S. had slavery over 100 years ago and that argument lead to Hussein obama being president.
    Your logic is NOT logic

    Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 9:23am

      Except… not at all? @psychosis says that gay marriage is leading to the acceptance of polygamy. But polygamy used to be legal in Utah. Wouldn’t it then be appropriate to say that polygamy started the “alternative” marriage train in the first place?

      Report Post »  
  • bertr
    Posted on June 1, 2012 at 8:52am

    Yet another example of why the government being involved in “marriage beyond” a legal civil union is more problematic then practical

    Report Post » bertr  
  • mom4times
    Posted on June 1, 2012 at 8:51am

    I honestly would rather see this….than gays and lesbians.

    Report Post » mom4times  
  • LameLiberals
    Posted on June 1, 2012 at 8:50am

    You can bet neither Obama nor Romney presidency will do anything to stop polygamy as both their families are heavily into polygamy and Obama and Romney’s father were born in FOREIGN COUNTRIES Kenya/Mexico and both have CURRENT family members practicing polygamy Romney’s relatives still live in a Mexico polygamy compound where his great grandfather fled to avoid polygamy charges (remember those Texas Mormon compounds?) and Obama still has relatives practicing polygamy in Kenya.

    Sadly, I have to vote for Romney only because Obama is worse. The USA is in a decline – in part because we got away from our Christian roots. Neither Muslims nor Mormons had anything to do with the creation of our once country. While a Santorum is bit extreme – at least get a Christian in White House. Looks like for 8 years at least (4 more of Obama) or 4 or 8 years of Romney, we won’t have a Christian.

    Romney
    “His mother, Lenore, was born in Utah and his father, former Michigan governor and one-time Republican presidential candidate George Romney, was born in Mexico.” Specifically Romney’s father was born to American citizens living in a Mormon church colony in Chihuahua, Mexico because his great grandfather fled the USA to avoid prison. Question? If an American VOLUNTARILY (NON-SOLIDER) leaves the USA and has children in a foreign country and his children have children – at what generation does the family LOSE that American citizenship right?

    Report Post »  
    • LameLiberals
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 8:52am

      Both are disqualified to be president because their fathers were citizens of a foreign country.

      “The US Supreme Court definition of an Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen as stated in Minor v Happersett is strictly limited to those persons born in the United States to parents who were citizens.” See item 10 to see media black out bought and paid for

      http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/39748

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 9:33am

      @Lameliberals

      “Neither Muslims nor Mormons had anything to do with the creation of our once country.”

      As Mormonism didn’t come around until the 1820s, saying “Mormons didn’t have anything to do with the creation of country” is a bit of an idiotic statement. No kidding? However, Mormons consider themselves Christians, even if you don’t; so they could easily argue that they had something to do with the creation of our country.

      The more you write in this article, the more it becomes clear you just really, REALLY don’t like Mormons (nor do you understand what they actually follow). For example: did you know that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints excommunicates those who practice polygamy today? I’m just wondering, because you continuously refer to them as “Mormon polygamists,” which is a pretty blatant lie.

      I’m not a Mormon, but I am a Christian. Part of being a Christian is revealing the truth – and you’re just lying.

      Report Post »  
    • Bruce P.
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 11:23am

      LOCKED — it is funny how many of the Christians here who declare other denominations to be “not real Christians” had their own denominations at one time declared “not real Christianity.”

      Human ignorance and hatred never changes.

      Report Post » Bruce P.  
    • LameLiberals
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 11:47am

      Locked
      I don’t like LYING. Mormons saying they are Christians is like saying Buddhists are Christians. Mormons do NOT believe the bible is the ONE UNCHANGING book of God and follow mostly the Doctrine and Covenants and Book of Mormon which Christians would consider blasphemous – Christians like Catholics/Lutherans/Baptists/Prespeterians etc. do NOT read any book other than the bible. Mormons also believe they continue to have “spirit babies” AFTER they are dead which Christians do NOT believe. Mormons believe in 3 heaven levels and no hell which NO Christian believes. Mormons received their scriptures from a magical hat wear “special” underwear and believe Christ walked with Indians in North America – NONE of which Christians believe. The list is ENDLESS as to why Mormons are not Christan and saying they are is ONLY to gain acceptance and votes!! I will vote for Romney because a PROGRESSIVE Mormon is worse than a Muslim/Marxist although neither man is Christian.

      Mormonism Christian?: A Comparison of Mormonism and Historic Christianity
      http://www.irr.org/mit/is-mormonism-christian.html
      Ten Amazing Mormons Beliefs
      http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/print.php?&ArticleID=1588

      Buy book
      Is the Mormon My Brother? Discerning the Differences Between Mormonism and Christianity by James R. White
      http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0764220470/ref=cm_cr_mts_prod_img

      Google “Redefining the Virgin Birth: Mormonism on the Natural Conception of Jesus”

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 12:12pm

      @Lame

      “I don’t like LYING.”

      Then why do you keep doing so? Are you now admitting you lied about their polygamy in the modern day? I didn’t see you take it back… as for your other calls, I too can make a Christian sect’s ideas sound crazy using demeaning terms. Do I understand all of the Mormon traditions? No – but I don’t understand many of the Catholic ones either (transubstantiation, anyone?). I don‘t understand the Baptists’ requirement that being “Born Again” is the only way into Heaven (nor their ceremonies that go with it). Heck, for that matter I don’t understand why anyone would use the King James Version of the Bible – a terrible translation that, among other things, completely changes the concept of Hell.

      But you know what? I find Catholics and Baptists to be Christians because they accept Jesus as their Savior. So do Mormons. Are they an off-shoot? Sure. But the core is still the same. The core is Christ – that makes Christians. The details around that core are what differentiates them into their denominations.

      @Bruce P.

      “it is funny how many of the Christians here who declare other denominations to be “not real Christians” had their own denominations at one time declared “not real Christianity.””

      Very true. “No True Scotsman” gets old real quick when it comes to Christianity. It‘s all based on faith and Mormons are as faithful as any Christians I’ve seen. I just happen to think they’re wrong – but still Christians.

      Report Post »  
    • LowIncome
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 12:34pm

      “Mormons do NOT believe the bible is the ONE UNCHANGING book of God and follow mostly the Doctrine and Covenants and Book of Mormon which Christians would consider blasphemous”
      I generally don’t get involved in any sort of “religious” debates because they go nowhere. But from my understanding to the reason that “Christians” don’t accept Mormons as Christians is because of the added books, which to paraphrase the book of Revelation, “do not add to or take away from the writings of this book”. It actually does say “this book” so depending on how you want to interpret that, it can be done 3 different ways. 1. strictly the book of Revelation. 2. The New Testament. And finally 3. The Bible as a whole. I am going to discredit the third right now because in the book of Deuteronomy and in Proverbs (Deut 4:2 and Prov 30:6) it basically says the same thing. So that would leave only two forms of interpretation as mentioned earlier. I will discredit the New testament as well because in Rev 22:18-19, it strictly says, “18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall aadd unto these things, God shall add unto him the bplagues that are written in this book:
      19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy…” Clearly it is pertaining to the book of prophecy (Revelation). So my understanding is that Mormons use the Bible as well as The Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants, which do nei

      Report Post »  
  • stmoad
    Posted on June 1, 2012 at 8:49am

    So anyone want to address why this is wrong? I think the idea of trying to keep 4 wives happy, while supporting them would be completely exhausting, but to each his own.

    If gay marriage is wrong, because the bible says so, then isn’t polygamy right for the same reason?

    For the record: I am of the belief that the government should not have any licence on any marriages, that everyone should have a civil union for tax/power of attorney purposes, and marriages should be left to the churches. Some churches think gay marriage is fine (I know the Episcopal is one), others don’t, and that is fine. What two consenting adults do in their own home is not my, your, or the governments business.

    Report Post »  
    • LetUsReason
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 3:00pm

      “If gay marriage is wrong, because the bible says so, then isn’t polygamy right for the same reason?”

      Interesting approach. I think many people try to find doctrinal or Biblical reasons to argue against things that they themselves simply find backward or unsavory for their culture/paradigm. Personally, I would not want to practice polygamy, but that doesn’t mean that it is always wrong. The Bible never speaks against it, like it does for a myriad of other actions. I would also not rejoice in killing another human, but at times (ex: serving in the military), that may be what is required.

      While truth is eternal and unchanging, policy is not. What may be good for one group or person or time period, may be damning for another. Is killing wrong? Yes. But at times….well, you get my point. As has been spoken of here ad nauseum is the fact that in God’s wisdom, certain things are implemented at certain times, while at other times they are not. Christ instructed his apostles not to preach to the Gentiles until the appointed time. The law of Moses was implemented, then it was revoked. The command to kill has been given, then it was denied. The list goes on, but I suppose this argument probably will too….

      Report Post »  
  • Myresponse2010
    Posted on June 1, 2012 at 8:43am

    There is no place in the Bible that says a man may not have more than one wife. But there is plenty of evidence in the Bible that suggests that it may not be a good idea. Too much in-fighting, jealousy, and favoritism. Look at Abraham, and Jacob to name a few. Solomon had hundreds of wives and it cost him dearly. But is it a crime ? No.

    Report Post »  
    • Bruce P.
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 11:22am

      Hell, you don’t need the Bible to tell you multiple wives is not a good idea. One spouse is bad enough.

      There are three rings to marriage…

      First comes the engagement ring,
      then comes the wedding ring.
      then comes the suffering.

      Report Post » Bruce P.  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 2:40pm

      Bruce P.

      Suffering? Perhaps. My spouse wants the same things I do. the only difference is that their thresholds/parameters for acting are different. Causes problems, but they are workable.

      Report Post »  
  • dannyo
    Posted on June 1, 2012 at 8:42am

    coming to a neighborhood near you: dad, four wives, son marries the dog, dad marries another man’s wife and they move in, wife marries the new second dad, daughter shacks up with boyfriend and husband, neighbors all move off the street, family has huge fight, all leave, only living creature left in the house is the dog, and it qualifies for obamacare..(thanks libs)..

    Report Post »  
    • inthealpine
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 9:08am

      So if you feel icky about someone elses choices, you think you have a say over their lives?

      Report Post »  
    • booger71
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 10:04am

      inthealpine
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 9:08am

      So if you feel icky about someone elses choices, you think you have a say over their lives?
      —————-
      If they are on public assistance, then yes

      Report Post » booger71  
    • AmazingGrace8
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 11:31am

      Might I add, this man lives in New York and will not be able to have trans-fat or worse yet, buy “Big-Gulps” for his wives. Oh, the humanity!!!

      Report Post »  
  • beverlee
    Posted on June 1, 2012 at 8:39am

    Down hill fast ladies and gents.

    Report Post » beverlee  
  • S2art999
    Posted on June 1, 2012 at 8:36am

    They are adults. They all consented. They are happy. Leave them alone!
    Brown’s first name is Kody, not Warren.

    Bunch of busy-bodies in this country…sheesh

    Report Post »  
    • johnjamison
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 8:44am

      Exactly, more over it’s an established historical fact that orginal mormonism allows it follwer multiple wives. The first amendment guarantees constitution protect to practice established religion freely.
      And if that guy can handle 4 wives more power to him. One is enough for me.

      Report Post »  
  • NHwinter
    Posted on June 1, 2012 at 8:34am

    I want to see a woman with 5 husbands. How stupid are these women? I sure wouldn’t want to share a husband with other women. Is he supporting all these women and the children? I imagine that is why he did the TV show, for the money. Are we ever going to adhere to our laws and prosecute? Next we will see a man marry a flock of sheep.

    Report Post » NHwinter  
    • RRFlyer
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 8:54am

      You seem to take “reading between the lines” to a new level. WHy are you giving an opinion on something you no nothing about?

      Report Post »  
    • inthealpine
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 9:13am

      This is why no one thinks conservatives really want government out of ‘our’ lives, but rather just want their turn at the reins.

      Report Post »  
    • NHwinter
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 11:09am

      I think we need some laws to keep society civil. Otherwise we would have turmoil with everyone doing whatever they want. Are you against all laws? Yes, conservatives want government to be much less in our lives. There is a difference between no laws and laws for the good of society.

      Report Post » NHwinter  
    • LetUsReason
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 3:24pm

      I actually agree with NHWINTER. I consider myself conservative with libertarian leanings; however, I have found that if you lean too far you fall over. On one side of the spectrum is too much law and regulation. That leads to tyranny. One the other side, though, too little government will lead to anarchy. We need a balance. That said, I’m personally more willing to live in a world that finds itself closer to anarchy than tyranny.

      Report Post »  
  • mtonepa
    Posted on June 1, 2012 at 8:33am

    Let them do what they want, just dont ask me for money to do it or infringe on my rights. Marraige is a religious institution, the government should have nothing to say about it. Allow us real religous freedom and get the government out of the marraige business. We give them too much power over our lives.

    Report Post »  
    • rahlquist
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 8:56am

      Actually marriage predates religions involvement. It was about power, money and alliances and then religion came along and became involved.

      Report Post »  
    • P8riot
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 11:38am

      @RAHLQUIST

      Religion (i.e. the Gospel) predates man. Further, the first marriage was given to Adam and Eve by God, thus marriage is rooted in religion. However, we can definitely agree that marriage predates government.

      Report Post » P8riot  
  • BOstinks
    Posted on June 1, 2012 at 8:31am

    “Camel’s nose under the tent” – is anyone really surprised about this news? Next thing you know folks will be allowed to pick the sex of their children using abortion to “correct” any mistakes. Wait – never mind.

    Report Post »  
  • AlansTigg
    Posted on June 1, 2012 at 8:30am

    Wouldn’t only one marriage be legally recognized?

    Report Post » AlansTigg  
  • 3hounddogs
    Posted on June 1, 2012 at 8:28am

    The brunette chick is kinda hot.

    Report Post »  
  • mccracken
    Posted on June 1, 2012 at 8:23am

    Next thing you know, gays will want to marry.

    Report Post »  
  • Gonzo
    Posted on June 1, 2012 at 8:21am

    Since gay marriage is legal in certain states and the Feds refuse to enforce DOMA, it’s hard to argue against polygamy. It’s more natural than the other.

    Report Post » Gonzo  
    • hidden_lion
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 8:36am

      There will be no legal argument that will hold up. If one man, one woman definition isn’t the law, than anything goes.

      Report Post » hidden_lion  
    • EqualJustice
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 10:30am

      Funny how the left wants to immediately say they are MORMONS? Not true and Romney nor his father practiced polygamy, but Obama’s father DID! Why do they neglect to mention THAT? Mormons will excommunicate them. As long as marriage is NOT defined as between one man and one woman, then ANYTHING GOES. I just do NOT want anyone shoving their lifestyle down my throat or teaching what THEY believe to my kids. If I want to believe that all this DEVIANT behavior is JUST THAT, then I WILL! I have the same right you have, but when I VOICE my opinion, I get accused of a HATE crime or called names. YOUR way does NOT automatically make you a “minority” group with special privilege. These groups always say they want EQUAL treatment, but that’s not really what they want. They want SPECIAL treatment and they seem to get it.

      Report Post » EqualJustice  
  • Psychosis
    Posted on June 1, 2012 at 8:20am

    i thought people said that this wouldnt happen???

    first gay

    then bigamy

    then toto the mutt

    Report Post » Psychosis  
    • Locked
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 8:39am

      Utah had polygamy over a century ago before it was banned. If any argument is to be made, it‘s that Utah’s history opened the doors for gay marriage, no?

      Report Post »  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 9:18am

      Surely you won’t make the argument that Mormons are responsible for gay marriage Locked.

      Report Post » Gonzo  
    • Locked
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 9:35am

      @Gonzo

      No, it’s an idiotic idea. Coincidentally, that’s the logic that Psychosis is putting forward. Hence why I‘m pointing out that it’s idiotic to believe such a thing :-)

      Report Post »  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 10:11am

      OK, good. Sometimes sarcasm and irony are hard to detect when written instead of spoken.

      Report Post » Gonzo  
    • Bruce P.
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 11:29am

      Gay marriage does not create bigamy. Bigamy has existed since the dawn of mankind. Read the Bible.

      Nor does gay marriage lead to bestiality (despite the hopes and wishes of conservative perverts). Homosexual marriage is between two consenting ADULTS. Animals cannot properly consent and (despite the homophobic claims about gays) actually is very harmful to both human and animal.

      Report Post » Bruce P.  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 2:20pm

      Locked
      Utah opened the door? Maybe, but many men of whatever persuasion want to go thru.

      I hate the book of Revelations. I stopped reading the Bible after I got to that part. Maybe it is not such a a bad book.

      Report Post »  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 6:06pm

      Sorry, Psychosis. Even if they get away with this, you and Toto are still going to have to keep it on the down low.

      Report Post »  
1 2 3 ... 5

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love