Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.

[GIThruster]

I think it's important to keep in mind that there are very few societies in all human histrory that demonstrate the religious tolerance we do here in America. What Joseph Smith was doing when he first fled West was already unlawful. Making up your own religion has always been fashionable in the US. We have more than 100 kinds of Baptist alone! The Scientologists would never have gotten started without our shocking level of tolerance. Think of all the cults! The Jehovah's Witnessess, the Way International, the Moonies, the various followers of the latest Bhagwan such as Shree Rashneesh. We have our Waco and our Jim Jones and easily far more of these do-it-yourselfers as the rest of the planet combined. We even tolarate Satanists and protect their religious freedom. Very few societies in the world do that.

So noting that Joseph Smith was indeed pursued across the country doesn't point out religious intolerance so much as the fact that at that time and place in history, we still took things like polygamy as not only immoral, but unlawful. Evil? Now perhaps. Later? Not so much.

[williatw]

You need to clarify your asinine statement.

Sorry. I keep making the erroneous assumption that someone who discusses American Politics and History actually KNOWS something about the subject. In this case, I assumed you were familiar with the Historical conflict between Mormons and the rest of the 1800s American Society.

Obviously there was little tolerance for Mormon's religious beliefs in the Early United States. The behavior of Early governmental officials regarding the Mormon church demonstrates what people who were much closer to the founders understood the constitution to mean regarding "religious freedom"


It was a condition of statehood that Mormons had to renounce Polygamy to be admitted into the Union. So much for officially respecting the religious beliefs of other religions.

I thought there was also another major issue internal to the Mormons. The young male Mormons resented seeing old church fathers like Brigham Young marrying up large numbers of the womenfolk, leaving the young men without any wives. To the extent that they were threatening not only not to fight for polygamy, but to leave the Mormons entirely and settle elsewhere. After all assuming roughly equal numbers of men and women, every man with an extra wife or more is that many men without any at all. Math is unavoidable.

[GIThruster]

There was a split in Mormonism over the polygamy issue. Now it is only the Fundamentalist Mormons who support the idea of polygamy, which is still alive and well in Utah. Friends there tell me it's easy to find polygamist familes because the women all dress in dresses, have long hair and do their grocery shopping together. This makes them stand out. Any police who wanted to catch these polygamists could do so in their sleep.

[Diogenes]

I thought there was also another major issue internal to the Mormons. The young male Mormons resented seeing old church fathers like Brigham Young marrying up large numbers of the womenfolk, leaving the young men without any wives. To the extent that they were threatening not only not to fight for polygamy, but to leave the Mormons entirely and settle elsewhere. After all assuming roughly equal numbers of men and women, every man with an extra wife or more is that many men without any at all. Math is unavoidable.

This is undoubtedly true. But it isn't related to the point I was making. Back in the 19th Century, Mormons came under official sanction from various governments, including the Federal.

If one is to believe that our Constitution was always intended to allow complete and unencumbered religious tolerance, how do you explain the Federals et al, putting doctrinal demands on a specific religion?

http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-i ... he-mormons

[Diogenes]

There was a split in Mormonism over the polygamy issue. Now it is only the Fundamentalist Mormons who support the idea of polygamy, which is still alive and well in Utah. Friends there tell me it's easy to find polygamist familes because the women all dress in dresses, have long hair and do their grocery shopping together. This makes them stand out. Any police who wanted to catch these polygamists could do so in their sleep.

My point was that the Demand from the Federals to stop practicing polygamy demonstrates that there never was this tolerance of different religions when our country was founded. The understanding of the time was that all of the differing religions prevalent in the different states would be tolerated, (a necessary political requirement to forge a union) but I doubt few would have accepted the idea that "freedom of religion" would apply outside these parameters.

The way they treated the Mormons is a good example of what I am talking about.

http://jcs.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/2/273.extract



If this sounds like a Dichotomy, I would point out that the very people who wrote about "Freedom" did not think twice about owning slaves.

[GIThruster]

If one is to believe that our Constitution was always intended to allow complete and unencumbered religious tolerance, how do you explain the Federals et al, putting doctrinal demands on a specific religion?

Can you give an example? I was under the impression that the early Mormons were chased from New York, to Ohio, to Missouri to Illinois specifically because they were practicing polygamy which was illegal in each of these states at that time. They finally fled West to Utah because at that time, it was not a state and did not have a state law against polygamy. Of course just as already noted, one contingency for Utah to be permitted to enter the Union as a state was that they likewise outlawed polygamy.

There is no doubt that the teachings of Mormonism greatly contradict those of every other Christian sect, even invalidating may core Christian beliefs. Early Mormons didn't even claim to be Christians. That was not begun until the 1940's. This was not however the source of the civil persecution. The civil persecution was the result of breaking standing laws, not doctrinal disputes.

Unless you have an example? IIRC, the Mormons used to teach that Jesus was not the Son of God, but this was never an issue that led to more than private shunning so far as I'm aware, and what people do in private is not determined by law. This is why it's important to stipulate what you mean when you say "persecuted". Refusing to invite the new neighbors for tea was private persecution. Imprisoning them for a felony was civil persecution and quite different.

[hanelyp]

If completely unencumbered religion was the standard, then a claim that X was part of your religious practice would be a defence against a law that forbid X. Consider if somebody's god demanded human sacrifice. What we actually have is a standard that you may not forbid a practice for being part of a religion, or otherwise treat practitioners of one religion different under the law.

[Diogenes]

If one is to believe that our Constitution was always intended to allow complete and unencumbered religious tolerance, how do you explain the Federals et al, putting doctrinal demands on a specific religion?

Can you give an example? I was under the impression that the early Mormons were chased from New York, to Ohio, to Missouri to Illinois specifically because they were practicing polygamy which was illegal in each of these states at that time. They finally fled West to Utah because at that time, it was not a state and did not have a state law against polygamy. Of course just as already noted, one contingency for Utah to be permitted to enter the Union as a state was that they likewise outlawed polygamy.

There is no doubt that the teachings of Mormonism greatly contradict those of every other Christian sect, even invalidating may core Christian beliefs. Early Mormons didn't even claim to be Christians. That was not begun until the 1940's. This was not however the source of the civil persecution. The civil persecution was the result of breaking standing laws, not doctrinal disputes.

Unless you have an example? IIRC, the Mormons used to teach that Jesus was not the Son of God, but this was never an issue that led to more than private shunning so far as I'm aware, and what people do in private is not determined by law. This is why it's important to stipulate what you mean when you say "persecuted". Refusing to invite the new neighbors for tea was private persecution. Imprisoning them for a felony was civil persecution and quite different.

For a society which tolerated slavery, the argument that polygamy is immoral lacks sincerity.

You are attempting to make a distinction between a "civil" law, and religion, without contemplating that the civil law itself was based on the dominant religious doctrine.

I have long argued that in the founding era, the relationship between religion and government was so close that it was un-notable. The line between legality and Christian doctrine was effectively blurred. The reason polygamy was illegal was because it was a violation of Christian doctrine. In a completely secular society, there is no reasonable argument for prohibiting it.


Therefore, the persecutions of Mormon polygamists were effectively religious based persecutions.

[Diogenes]

If completely unencumbered religion was the standard, then a claim that X was part of your religious practice would be a defence against a law that forbid X. Consider if somebody's god demanded human sacrifice. What we actually have is a standard that you may not forbid a practice for being part of a religion, or otherwise treat practitioners of one religion different under the law.

I have long argued that preference for Christian doctrine has always been baked into the legal cake. Assumptions based on Christian doctrine is an inherent aspect of the entire Federal edifice.



“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
--John Adams.

[Stubby]

If one is to believe that our Constitution was always intended to allow complete and unencumbered religious tolerance, how do you explain the Federals et al, putting doctrinal demands on a specific religion?

Can you give an example? I was under the impression that the early Mormons were chased from New York, to Ohio, to Missouri to Illinois specifically because they were practicing polygamy which was illegal in each of these states at that time. They finally fled West to Utah because at that time, it was not a state and did not have a state law against polygamy. Of course just as already noted, one contingency for Utah to be permitted to enter the Union as a state was that they likewise outlawed polygamy.

There is no doubt that the teachings of Mormonism greatly contradict those of every other Christian sect, even invalidating may core Christian beliefs. Early Mormons didn't even claim to be Christians. That was not begun until the 1940's. This was not however the source of the civil persecution. The civil persecution was the result of breaking standing laws, not doctrinal disputes.

Unless you have an example? IIRC, the Mormons used to teach that Jesus was not the Son of God, but this was never an issue that led to more than private shunning so far as I'm aware, and what people do in private is not determined by law. This is why it's important to stipulate what you mean when you say "persecuted". Refusing to invite the new neighbors for tea was private persecution. Imprisoning them for a felony was civil persecution and quite different.

For a society which tolerated slavery, the argument that polygamy is immoral lacks sincerity.

You are attempting to make a distinction between a "civil" law, and religion, without contemplating that the civil law itself was based on the dominant religious doctrine.

I have long argued that in the founding era, the relationship between religion and government was so close that it was un-notable. The line between legality and Christian doctrine was effectively blurred. The reason polygamy was illegal was because it was a violation of Christian doctrine. In a completely secular society, there is no reasonable argument for prohibiting it.


Therefore, the persecutions of Mormon polygamists were effectively religious based persecutions.

What BS!

Polygamy is NOT a violation of christian doctrine. Polygamy is accepted in the bible as is slavery. If 'modern christians' feel it is a violation, then they are not christians. They have invented a new religion based on the parts of the bible that make them feel good.

[GIThruster]

What BS!

Polygamy is NOT a violation of christian doctrine. Polygamy is accepted in the bible as is slavery. If 'modern christians' feel it is a violation, then they are not christians. They have invented a new religion based on the parts of the bible that make them feel good.

No offense Stubby, but you are almost the last person on Earth to be reporting what is and is not important to Christians, both now and throughout human history. I am not a Church Historian, but even I know your statement is obviously wrong. You don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Early Judaism developed inside a patriarchal system where polygamy was both an economic and security expediant. By the time Judaism began to create a sedentary society, meaning after the Egyptian captivity; and they started to put down real roots, polygamy was on the way out. Also at that time we see the earliest understandings in all human civilization that slavery is wrong, with the fact that the slaves were required by law to be released after 7 years captivity. No matter the manner a slave became a slave, he or she could always look forward to being set free during his or her 7th year of service as was required by the deuteronomical code and the covenant code. From the very first moments that the Jews had a mosaic law, they had this requirement that they MUST release their slaves during their 7th year of service. This is unique in all human history. Most times, these slaves became servants. Their ears were pierced and a ring put in to signify they were free, but employed. That form of employment is still today often translated as "slavery" and hence the idiotic notions some have about the ancient world. All this stuff is standard textbook stuff anyone taking a class in Ancient Mediteranean World gets in school.

At the advent of Christianity, we see for the first time direct teaching against polygamy. In the Apostle Paul's writings to his student/pastor Timothy, we find the requirment for both elders and deacons in the church is they be the husband of one wife--no more and no less. All deacons and elders are to be married, and so prove their leadership in the home, but they are not permitted more than one wife.

BTW, if memory serves, more than 1,000 years earlier, the same restriction was put on both King David and King Solomon so they would set this example, but they both broke the law and took many wives and concubines. So this authoratative Jewish monogomist teaching predates both its practice and Christianity by hundreds of years.

Yes, slavery and polygamy are in the bible. So are theft, adultry, murder, etc. The fact these historical records clearly record the dark as well as the light side of human history does not somehow require it is promoting these things. The fact Jesus did not teach directly against slavery does not mean he was pro slavery. He said on many occassions that he was not going to get involved in politics and social justice issues because that was not his mission nor goal. He had bigger fish to fry. However, it is most certianly his teachings that are the historic basis for the end of slavery. Pretending slavery had a different origin for its termination is certainly the result of a silly atheist agenda. The roots of the anti-slavery movement in Europe are easy to trace through the writings of those involved, as is the same in America, and only the ignorant or dishonest can claim they are not uniquely Christian. They are uniquely Christain, as is women's sufferage--the results of the command in the New Testamant for men to treat women with respect and as "joint heirs in the grace of life".

As to attitudes toward polygamy, I would just take a single, simple example that clearly demonstrates Stubby is again wrong. Charlemagne gave up all his concubines because the traveling Irish missionaries convinced him this is what his faith required. His teutonic forebearers had the history of keeping many concubines and purely on Christian doctrinal grounds, King Charles the Great broke with that tradition. In the face of these historic events, it is silly and stupid to claim Christanity promotes polygamy.

[GIThruster]

I have long argued that in the founding era, the relationship between religion and government was so close that it was un-notable. The line between legality and Christian doctrine was effectively blurred. The reason polygamy was illegal was because it was a violation of Christian doctrine. In a completely secular society, there is no reasonable argument for prohibiting it.

I see your point, especially when we keep in mind that life is always very different before and apart from the American experiment with separation between church and state. Certainly, many of the laws are based on common sense and faith informs that sense, as does all human tradition, etc. I think though, to say the only reason polygamy was illegal was that this was christian doctrine, is overstating the issue. There are lots of christian doctrines that never became law. You'd be hard pressed to find but a couple puritanical societies that didn't allow their women to speak in public, or to cut their hair, or forced them to wear doilies on their heads and so far as I know, none of these stadards were ever made into civil law. There are a multitude of christsian doctrines and dogmas that never became law. (BTW, none of these dogmas came directly from scripture. They were all inventions of the church.) The few exceptions are really just the big issues of the times--marriage and witchcraft are the only two I can think of, and obviously these are big issues.

The fact people today tend to vilify Christians for their treatment of witches is pretty shocking. Yes obviously this was abused many times in many ways, but when you keep in mind that basically EVERYONE believed in witchcraft, the Devil, Satanic pacts and powers, and people who traded their souls for magical powers and fleshly delights, it would be hard to imagine a society not enforcing against such supposed witches. It is really a lack of imagination on the part of the modern man that vilifies the church for its efforts to stamp out witchcraft. Today we see the reverse. It is only because the majority do not believe in the Devil, that Satanism is a protected religion. If the vast majority today believed as Elizabethan man, that the Devil forms pacts with people, presing them into service to injure society and gives to them magical powers to do so, then you can bet your sweet ass Satanism would not only not be protected as a religion in the US, but it would be forced back underground as it is still in most countries. Today in the US we have very public Satanist churches. You don't see that in most countries and this attests to the fact we do indeed have much more religious freedom than almost anywhere else in the world.

Once monogamy became common there was a whole world of exprience that clearly shouted this is the way to go. Monogamy has a vast number of significant advantages over polygamy, and though polygamy has some advantages over monogamy, many of these were eliminated with the move to a sedentary society that could build walls and otherwise provide security that a tent could not. Fact is, polygamy only makes good sense under certain, specific conditons which the human race outgrew. Now, it appears we're outgrowing the institution of marriage altogether. Odd as it may be, those most capable of rearing children are having fewer all the time, and those least capable of rearing successful children are having as many as they like, most often outside wedlock. Different subject but perhaps a place to admit we're not on a sustainable path.

[Diogenes]

I think this is as good of time and place as any to continue the previous discussion with stubby regarding what the Founders of the United States thought about the role of God in government.


Though my attempt to trick stubby into admitting he was wrong (if I could prove our Governing document explicitly espousing Religion) has failed, still the point remains. Our original governing document (Which preceded the US Constitution by about ten years) does indeed explicitly acknowledge God. Most people are just unaware of this. From the Original founding document of the United States:











In Witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at Philadelphia in the state of Pennsylvania the ninth day of July in the Year of our Lord one Thousand seven Hundred and Seventy-eight, and in the third year of the independence of America.


http://www.archives.gov/publications/pr ... r/big.html


It wasn't an accident or archaic custom stubby, they put "God" in there at least three times.

[Stubby]

Actually, digot, this is exactly the wrong place. You could go to the original thread and continue there.

(Wow a polite rebuttal from GiT maybe there is a god.)

And why would I be almost the last person?
My atheism magically wiped all the hymn singing, Sunday school and bible study and Catholic education from my mind? It is true that I am not a bible scholar.
What about all the former pastors, preachers, reverends and priests who are now atheists? Maybe their knowledge is acceptable to you? More their atheism wipes away their knowledge too?

Leaving aside slavery for now we can look at polygamy in the bible. (But i have to point out that the 7 year rule applies in certain specific circumstances ONLY)

Your memory is not completely correct.
In regards to the o.t. and Solomon
"The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, 'You are not to go back that way again.' He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold. (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 17:16-17)" There is no upper limit mentioned for 'many wives'.

As for the verses in timothy, unless every christian is considered to be a priest or deacon, they are not prohibited from polygamy. The fact that this was even said to priests and deacons leads one to conclude that normal christians were still practicing polygamy.

[GIThruster]

There can be no doubt that many Christians practiced polygamy for centuries. That is not evidence of the charge, that "Polygamy is NOT a violation of christian doctrine." Of course one needs to stipulate about when and where the specific doctrine was held, but as I've already shown, it was already being undermined and changed at the time of David and Solomon. (BTW, for the specific prohibitions against polygamy for the Jewish kings, I believe you need to go to the prophets, but again I am no theologian. You can look it up.)

I'm not aware of any exceptions to the rule in Torah that slaves have to be freed before the 7 year limit is up, so if you can supply these I'd be interested. I do think it's important to note that in this time and place in human history, slavery makes sense. The Jews didn't go out gathering up people, but rather were re-conqoring their land, and slaves were what you got when people surrendered. Using them for common labor for 6 years and releasing them was an extremely humane way of dealing with prisoners of war--far in advance of what we have at Gitmo.

And that was more than 3,000 years ago.

I think one thing you need to keep in mind when looking for the big picture here, is that Christianity is deliberately and specifically as extra-cultural and trans-cultural as possible. The earliest arguments in the church were over ancient teachings that the Christians were no longer going to support because the Law was Finished. That was the whole point of the first church counsel at Antioch as recorded in the bible itself in the book of Acts--the new Christians coming to grips with the fact their new religion had no laws. They finally made a compromise so they could get along with the Jews (since most of the early Christians were Jews) in that they asked people to abstain from strangled food that included the blood, but in fact none of the previous laws were respected by the Apostle Paul who had been a pharisee and teacher of the jewish people. Even circumcision was held as uneccessary and indeed, the sign of a different covenent than the Christains were a party to.

So long story short, it was never a part of the original official Christian doctrine or dogma to support or deny any cultural precept, including polygamy, slavery, racism, the lack of women's rights, etc., but social evolution in all these areas does indeed point back to uniquely Christian foundations. Indeed the "social gospel" of which Jesus never spoke and cannot be found in the bible, is the result of the teachings of Christ at the Sermon on the Mount. Once you actually start to believe "The meek shall inherit the Earth" there are consequences. There are consequences to learning to turn the other cheek. There are profound consequences to learning to love your neighbor as yourself, and to everything Jesus taught. All these advances in social justice can be traced back directly to the influence of Christ on those who pressed these issues. You don't for example ever see them coming from Hinduism, or Buddhism, or Jainism, or Islam, or Taoism, or Shamanism or Mystery Religion. They all come from Christianity with the few exceptions that some started during Judaism.

And as much as it may be in fashion to try to lambast the early Christians for their "narrow" thinking, they do deserve credit for putting an end to things like human sacrifice on every continent. From Patrick throwing down the alters to Moloch, to the Spanish putting an end to the Incan and Aztec empires, there is this common encroachment of civilization. You can complain about Cortez all you like, but he did put an end to human sacrifice in those two empires. The theft of those people's gold was not particularly Christian but getting them to stop playing field hockey with the heads of their enemies was.

The best of the world today, is the direct result of 2 things: the logic of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle and the conscience of Jesus Christ. Without these, Western civilization would not exist and would not have permeated the rest of the world for 20 centuries. There would be no science, very little math, no general expectation that life obeys simple rules that can be discovered. There would be no rule of law. No serious concerns for justice. No mercy. No forgiveness.

Pretending that polygamy is the result of Christian teaching, when it was firmly in place for 4 millenia before the time of Christ, is a dopey reading of history.