We dont expect you to understand the reasons for us choosing our way of life, however we do expect you to defend our right to make that choice.
I find it strange that in today’s culture it is perfectly acceptable for a man to go out courting as many woman as he wants and having any kind of sexual relationship he wishes with as many woman as will allow him to do so.
But as soon as that man decides that he wants to marry those women and care and love for them he becomes a felon.
Is it just me or is there something wrong with this picture?
Do you hate the idea of polygamy because you don’t want to share your husband/wife with someone else?
If so, ask yourself this.
How many people did or will you have sex with before your married?
And how many people did or will your partner have sex with before their married?
I’m sorry to say it but you already shared your spouse with many other people, whether you like it or not.
True we choose to marry and live with several wives, but we do it honorably. And that is a choice that you as Americans should be willing to fight to defend. I know I am.
I would like to understand more about the felony aspect. I live in California with two women who I call my wives although I am only legally married to one of them. As far as I can tell as long as I don’t attempt to file another marriage certificate with the other, I can call her whatever I like – wife, girlfriend, mistress. As long as I care for my kids, and don’t commit welfare fraud, the laws have nothing to do with our relationship here. The exception might be that Social Services might determine us to be immoral or something and make us defend our ability to raise children.
I understand that Utah became a Special Case by having a state anti-polygamy stance. But they don’t seem to prosecute anyone for polygamy there, merely Persecute them and pick on them until they find some legal basis to actually prosecute them on. Like getting Warren Jeffs on a charge that has nothing to do with polygamy, even though he’s openly polygamous.
So, if you know or have any resources, I’m really curious what the actual legal issue is with polygamy in Utah.
That’s kind of personal question, which I won’t divulge, but I will say that I agree that government should keep its nose out of people’s love lives. Marriage should be a religious thing. As for polygamy, I’m all for it. I think all of it should be legal: monogamy, polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, polyamory, group marriage. None of these things take away my rights or any one else’s rights, so why the prohibition? Oh, yeah, and “gay marriage,” which I totally don’t agree with, should also be legal. But then I’m an anarchist, so freedom is my passion. Statists often don’t see it like this.
To Rant93: You raise a very good question Rant93. Hopefully this will answer your question.
http://meandpolygamy.wordpress.com/legal-polygamy/
If you have any other questions feel free to ask away and I’ll answer to the best of my ability.
To LDS Anarchist: Your right that is a very personal question and I asked it only in order to get people thinking about whether polygamy is actually immoral rather than just going with their gut instinct. I don’t actually expect anyone to divulge that information.
I agree with you whole heartedly none of these (polygamy, polyandry, so on) take away the rights of other people. And they by no means should be illegal. And even though I can’t think of many things that repulse me more than homosexuality it really doesn’t effect me personally and I believe that people have every right to be gay.
Wow. I had never seen your homepage before, just the individual articles linked by your rss feed. Very informative. Here’s the California equivalent of that statute: http://www.bigeye.com/sexeducation/CAbigamy.html. I find it fascinating that in Utah, you merely need to “purport” or claim to be married to two women to be a bigamist.
But it doesn’t really answer my question. If Jeffs was obviously guilty of violating that statute, by claiming to have multiple wives, then why was he charged with accomplice to rape but not polygamy?
I’m not exactly sure why Utah has chosen not to prosecute for polygamy. I think that it probably has something to do with the fact that if they were to actually prosecute someone for living plural marriage it would spark to great of a controversy.
They can get away with prosecuting Tom Green for bigamy because he actually legally married more than one woman.
But if they were to prosecute anybody just for polygamy it would hit way too big in the media. And suddenly the entire nation would be involved in the fight to legalize polygamy.
Essentially I think that prosecuting even one polygamist for polygamy would ignite a social rights movement that they wouldn’t be able to handle. So they choose to like you said to “persecute” polygamists rather than actually prosecuting us.
Polygamy is sick. If you honestly think that all Non-polygamist individuals have sex with multiple partners before marriage, you are seriously disturbed. My parents were both virgins when the got married. They are still married after 40 years and will be forever. I have never feared divorce in my family. I am engaged to be married this year and myself and my future spouse are both virgins. So here you go…..here is the family that has never shared their wives or husbands, here is a family that has not experienced divorce, here is a family whos’ children don’t worry about their family being torn apart. This is totally pathetic that life is entirely ran by sex. Yes, I honestly believe that a large percentage of the males involved in polygamy simply are horney, have no respect for women, and get bored with the first woman they initially fell in love with. How can this make you happy. Okay honey yeah, I am getting older and uglier so you can marry someone new and have sex with her whenever you please. While I move to my own room. Sick. What a disgusting lifestyle and a disrespectful thing to women. HELLO? Maybe the reason that so many men don’t get married is because men are getting more and more perverted or perhaps girls aren’t interested in them because they have distorted views of the purpose of women in the world. It is a moral issue. Granted lots of people have sex with multiple people, that does not make it okay in any situation. Technically sex is supposed to be sacred therefore, share it with only one person through your entire life and eternity.
For most of the time that mankind lived on the earth, polygamy was the norm of the day. You can find the evidence of this practice in many cultures. May be Adam had more then one wife? To be fruitful and replenish the earth is a very very slow process if you start out with one wife even when you do have almost a 1000 years to live. I am not saying that happened, I just raise a question. May be polygamy has always been the eternal marriage relationship that God intended for his children. I do not think that sex is the only driving force in polygamy just as it is not in monogamy. Stl states that technically sex is sacred, yes I agree with that too. I agree that you don’t just jump in the “sack” with any woman that comes your way. But what about being married for time and eternity as Stl puts it with 2 women? And live out your lives with them? Be faithful to each other. Does that now become not sacred anymore? What about Moses, Abraham, Joseph and who know else that where God fearing men as mentioned in the old testament, who God honored. Where they perverted, sick, old men, living a pathetic life? HELLO? Where they disrespectful to their wives? If they truly were, do you think God would have been pleased with them? Since God was very pleased with these great men, and no doubt countless many more, they must have treated their wives with respect, honor and faithfulness. Please separate child abuse cases which should be prosecuted from polygamy. They are not the same. We have way too many child abuse cases and incest in monogamous relations. That does not mean that we bury marriage. If a woman having reached the age of maturity desires to be married to a man that already has a wife, that should be her choice. Not the state. This country stands for Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, freedom, an inspired democracy, let’s live up to those words.
Perfectly understandable if a man and woman choose to carry on a polygamy relationship. But, no girl should be forced into a marriage. A female should have the right to choose who she wants to mate with. Females tend to chose the most desireable mate, that gives the best qualities to her children. It exists throughout nature, should why should it be any other way?
Numbers aren’t really the point. The point is entering and exiting relationships freely. The point it allowing young people the opportunity to develop into themselves rather than into impregnable versions of their mothers, the better to offer them up to geezers who want their nubile young bodies and impressionable minds.
What bothers me most about polygamy is the idea that Father Knows Best. Women aren’t partners in these unions; they’re chattel.
Healthy relationships offer balance to both partners. If my wife didn’t give me her honest viewpoint without the fear of retaliation, I would not have grown and developed into a wiser person. Our lifelong dialogue seasons us both.
Men who have to have the upper hand all the time are losers who can’t handle equality in a relationship.
i am curious as to the emotional states of satisfied plural wives.
i have heard that they don’t experience jelousy, but it is hard for me to understand.
in a monogomous relationship, a won=man can get jealous if her man looks or talks with interest to another woman.
knowing her man is having sex with another woman, touchong her body, having intercourse with her, whispering that he LOVES her, would be devastating!!
YET, these plural wives feel no jealousy while their husband is in the other room of their house , while they are there , possiblay with the other woman’s children, they feel ok while their husban caresses and fondles and has sex with his other wife.
and then they come out of the bedroom and sit on the couch together and the ledt out plural wife cooks dinner and feels nothing about this?
or what DO they feel?
i am very curious about this.
Why are women allowed to have multiple husbands? All the talk is about men having multiple wives….and it’s perfectly acceptible to the FLDS for men to basically to have multiple wives and ofcourse have sex with all of them, but god forbid the wife have sex with another man, or obtain another husband, etc. In todays day and age, I believe polygamy, in regards to the FLDS, is just a way for perverted men to have multiple sex partners – WHY else would a man want a bunch of wives to take care of and give his attention to, seriously??? What a sick belief… I would be more supportive if it was a least fair and allowed women to marry multiple partners as well. Bottom line, FLDS and polygamy is simply a form of sexual based control over women and children.
Absolutely…no one should be able to have more than one spouse period.
Its personal choice and should be legal. No 3rd person and state can decide it. If you have a preference, you can impose it within your family boundaries.
Today its looked down upon in society to stay with parents after 18, live in joint families but perfectly ok to have NSA FnF relationships, change partners like you change footwear. The other side of the world looks distorted from both sides.
The Bible states Abraham married Sarah. Then he took a concubine, “Hagar” and put her away. That was perfectly legal and practised in biblical times. After Sarah’s death he married Keturah. How is this polygamy. Jacob married 2 sisters, then took their slaves at the request of the rivalry of the sisters. Then along came the Mosaic laws that a man cannot marry sisters “to vex them”. David’s polygamy, very sanctioned by God, was also used by God to show what can come of the lust you are given to. His murdered a man for his wife, committed adultery and then God took his newborn son. Then God allowed one of his sons to publicly rape 10 of David’s wives. God did openly what David did secretly. What of the rivalry between Hannah and Peninah? When Jesus was asked about divorce He said, In the beginning it was not so. God created one man and one woman. There will always be polygamy, because it will come in the form of legal and illegal, moral and immoral. We cannot change God’s laws, the Levitical laws of marrying a brother’s wife to raise up seed, and others. But if God really wanted polygamy, then he would have created way more women. Besides, divorce can come from a polygamous man just as easily – because he can still “put away” his wife with the simple act of getting another wife and therefore freeing him from his own needs to be fulfilled in one wife to be fulfilled in the other. Leah had to ask Jacob to come in unto her for her son’s mandrakes she gave to Rachel. David put Michal away. One was hated the other loved.
I don’t mean to offend anyone. I believe the Bible. I am a born-again Christian. I am a wife of almost 20 years. My husband has had some interest in the subject of polygamy, so it put me on a quest. Thanks for your time.
Christian Wedlock.
QUESTION:
Can a woman have more than two husbands?
ANSWER:
No, a woman cannot have more than two living husbands. A man has no choice, as he must be in wedlock with one living wife. But a woman has three choices. Firstly, no wedlock with a husband. Secondly, wedlock with one husband. Or thirdly, wedlock with two husbands. That’s it, there are no further choices for a woman, and there is no choice at all for a man.
1 Corinthians 7:2 King James 1611.
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
Yr. 1783. 10th George Prince of Wales Own Hussars. (King George III).
Yr. 1898. 19th Alexandra Princess of Wales Own Hussars. (Queen Victoria).
Therefore two women can own a regiment of cavalry, and two men can own a regiment of cavalry.
1 Corinthians 6:16 King James 1611.
What! know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
Therefore in the New Testament a man and woman lying together are one flesh, as follows:
A husband and wife who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
A fornicator and fornicatress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
A man and common courtesan or common prostitute who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
(A common prostitute is a woman who commonly offers her body for acts of lewdness for payment. An act of lewdness can never be an act of carnal copulation, as it is blasphemy to state that the Angel Gabriel and Mary committed a lewd act. The common law of england states that it is impossible for any woman to be a prostitute under any circumstances, but that a woman may continue on to be a common prostitute.).
A fornicator/fornicatress and adulterer/adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
An adulterer and adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
Clearly the New Testament lays down that a man must be in wedlock with his own wife, and a woman must be in wedlock with her own husband. Furthermore the New Testament specifically limits the number of wives that a man can have to only one, but sets no limit to the number of husbands a woman can have. But there must be some limit for a woman, or one woman could be in wedlock with thousands of men. Rationally, if one woman can satisfy the bodily lust of one man every day, and forty men can satisfy the bodily lust of one woman every day, then is one wife for every man and forty husbands for every woman what the New Testament requires? No, because the New Testament is a document of truth, not a document of reason.
Luke 1:28 King James 1611.
Luke 1:31 King James 1611.
Luke 1:28-35 King James 1611.
In the New Testament, the angel Gabriel came in unto Mary, a virgin woman, and Mary conceived and delivered her firstborn son, Jesus, the son being God the Son. And when Mary’s womb delivered her firstborn son Jesus unto the world, then Mary was like all women delivered of a firstborn son unto the world, as a woman’s firstborn son can never belong to the mother but must belong to the Lord God.
Luke 2:23 King James 1611.
Exodus 13:2&12 King James 1611.
And so like all women delivered of a firstborn son, Mary was no longer a virgin woman, but like all said women, Mary was a holy woman.
Matthew 13:53-56 King James 1611.
Mark 6:1-4 King James 1611.
And husband Joseph Jacob came in unto Mary and husband Joseph Heli came in unto Mary, and Mary conceived and delivered Jesus’ brothers, James, Joses, Simon, Judas, and also Jesus’ sisters.
Matthew 1:6&16 King James 1611.
Luke 3:23&31 King James 1611.
Joseph Jacob was the descendent of King David’s son Solomon, and Joseph Heli was the descendent of King David’s son Nathan.
Genesis 38:16-18 King James 1611.
“Came in unto her” means congress or carnal copulation. In the Old Testament, Judah came in unto Tamar, his daughter-in-law, and Tamar conceived and delivered twin sons. Tamar had lain in wait for Judah on the side of a far away road, and Judah had been unable to recognize Tamar because she was wearing a veil, and only common harlots wore veils. Upon first seeing this strange woman wearing a veil, Judah bargained a future payment of a kid from his flock, and therefore gave as his pledge, his personal signet ring, his personal wrist bangles, and his personal walking staff, for coming in unto her. Tamar had been in wedlock with Judah’s first son, who God had killed for being wicked. Tamar had then been in wedlock with Judah’s second son, who God had then killed when he saw the second son deliberately spill his seed on the ground during carnal copulation with Tamar.
That was because if Tamar was made with child by the second son, and if such child was a baby son born of Tamar, then under the law of the Hebrews that baby son born of Tamar was the first born baby son of the dead first son, and not any baby son of the second son, despite Tamar having conceived that baby son with the second son. This meant that if a dead man had no son, but still had a widow and a brother, then the widow and the brother should ignore consanguinity, and if the brother was already in wedlock, bigamy, in order to give the dead man a first born son.
(The ancient Hebrews were a people of eastern civilization who accordingly rejected the concept of demos, and therefore practiced bigamy by the males. The ancient Greeks were a people of western civilization who accordingly accepted the concept of demos, and therefore practiced either monandry or diandry by the females.).
Upon the death of his second son, Judah had ordered his daughter-in-law Tamar not to marry again, because Judah promised Tamar that she would marry his third son when he became old enough for wedlock. But when his third son became old enough to marry, Judah broke his promise and forbade his third son to marry Tamar. When Tamar was seen in her third month to be heavy with child, Judah was told that Tamar was with child through harlotry. Judah then summoned Tamar to him in order to be burnt to death for harlotry, although it was against the law to put a woman to death for harlotry. Tamar came and produced the signet ring, the wrist bangles, and the walking staff, and said the man who gave me these is the man by whom I am with child. Then Judah confessed to all that he had broken his promise and sinned by going back on his word that Tamar would have wedlock with his third son when his third son became of age, and then denying such wedlock to her.
Six months later Tamar safely gave birth to the twin sons conceived with Judah and the midwife tied a red thread around the son’s hand which first appeared out of the womb. But then the hand was withdrawn into the womb and the second son, Pharez, without the red thread was born first, and the first son, Zarah, with the red thread was born second.
Ruth 4:18-22 King James 1611.
King David of Israel and Judah was descended from Pharez, and the red hand flag of the Ulstans and Scots shows the Red Hand of Zarah. The red hand is often shown on a white six pointed star, but it is not clear whether this star is a Star of Pharez (Star of David) or just a Star of Ulster.
Genesis 1:27-28 King James 1611.
Genesis 2:7&18-19 King James 1611.
Genesis 3:20 King James 1611.
The first man and first woman in this world were Adam and Eve. Adam means “man” in the hebrew tongue, and Eve means “life” in the hebrew tongue. Therefore a man is man, but a woman is life.
Romans 7:4-6 King James 1611.
Old Testament law dead and gives as an example that a woman can have more than one husband.
1 Timothy 3:2 King James 1611.
A bishop can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife.
1 Timothy 3:12 King James 1611.
A deacon can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife.
Titus 1:6 King James 1611.
An elder can have only one wife.
1 Timothy 5:4&9 King James 1611.
Elders are not to provide for widows under three score years of age who have daughters or sons, as the children must provide for their mother.
The Estate of Marriage. Martin Luther 1522.
Although Martin Luther confirmed that a woman could have two husbands, he nevertheless immediately restricted it to women who were in a marriage which had produced no children and who had then obtained permission from their first husband to take their second husband. Confusingly, Martin Luther did not make it clear as to how long a woman had to wait before taking her second husband.
To sum up, the New Testament upholds the example of deacons, elders, and bishops, for men to follow. That example is one wife. The New Testament also lays down that the Old Testament no longer applies to men or women, except for the 10 Commandments, and gives as an example of this that a woman is no longer bound to have only one husband. If men must follow the example of the male Christian leader in marriage, whether bishop, deacon, or elder, then surely women must follow the example of the female Christian leader in marriage. What leader is that? The primary one in the New Testament is Mary, the Mother of Jesus, God the Son.
Luke 1:15&35&41 King James 1611.
Mary had carnal copulation with three men. The Angel Gabriel, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli. However, Mary was only in wedlock with two men, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli. Furthermore, the Angel Gabriel was not a man of this world, and he seems not to have taken a fully visible male form when he had carnal copulation with Mary as ordered by God the Father, for it appears that at some stage God the Holy Ghost came upon or entered Mary. Either this was at the moment Mary conceived or immediately afterwards. After Mary conceived, she immediately went to visit her cousin Elisabeth, who was six months with child, a son, who also had been conceived when Elisabeth had been filled by God the Holy Ghost.
Accordingly it would be fully in accordance with the New Testament for a man to have one wife, and a woman to have two husbands. That the Angel Gabriel had carnal copulation with Mary is both interesting and theologically necessary, but it is not enough of an example for a woman to attempt to take a third husband in wedlock, whilst her first and second husbands still liveth.
Matthew 19:11-12 King James 1611.
1 Corinthians 9:5 King James 1611.
The New Testament does not give man any choice; he must have wedlock with one woman. But do bear in mind that Jesus, God the Son, was never in wedlock with any woman, despite all Jesus’ Twelve Disciples being or having been in wedlock with a woman.
But the New Testament gives a woman three choices.
1st Choice:
Virgin woman without wedlock.
2nd Choice:
Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock without child.
Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock with female child or female children.
Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with firstborn male child.
Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with male child or children together with female child or children.
3rd Choice:
Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with firstborn male child.
Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with male child or children together with female child or children.
A number of denominations have a service for wedlock, but so far every one of them has inserted words that clearly say a woman may be in wedlock with only one man at a time. Even the State Lutheran Evangelical Church of Sweden states this, despite Martin Luther himself saying that a wife can be in wedlock with two living husbands.
But what do you expect. After all, Martin Luther stated in writing that under no circumstances was anyone to call himself a “Lutheran” and under no circumstances was any church to call itself a “Lutheran Church”. So what do all northern europeans called themselves? Lutherans! Ask them what church they belong to? The Lutheran Church!
A number of denominations do not have any service for wedlock, on the grounds that wedlock is not a church matter, as it is a state matter. But every such denomination has nevertheless inserted words in that denomination’s discussion of wedlock, that firmly says that a woman can only have one husband in wedlock at a time.
Nowhere do any of the denominations give any explanation for their defiance of the New Testament. Of course that just might be because there is neither any justifiable explanation or excusable explanation for such defiance.
Still, just looking at using only the principle of choice as a guide, all the above denominations are pointing in the right direction, even if they are not pointing down the correct path.
That is, a man has no choice, he must make efforts to be in wedlock with one wife at some stage of his life here in this world.
And a woman still has a choice, in that she may choose not to be in wedlock with a man in this world, or she may choose to be in wedlock with one husband at some stage of her life here in this world. This means that the principle of a woman having a choice remains intact.
The defiance of both the Lord God and the New Testament by the various denominations by the removal of a woman’s option to make efforts to be in wedlock with two husbands at the same time at some stage of her life in this world, still leaves intact the principle of choice for the woman and no choice for the man.
Constitution of The Spartans (Xenophon). 388 B.C.
League of The Iroquois (Lewis Henry Morgan). 1851 A.D.
Only two non-christian groups in the world have been known to practice New Testament wedlock. The Spartans and the Mohawk.
Only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Spartans, citizens of the greatest of the greek city-states, Sparta, and history’s final saviours of Western Civilization at Thermopylae (The Hot Gates) in 480 B.C.
And only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Mohawk, citizens of the greatest of the eastern woodland North American tribes, which forever blocked France’s attempt to seize New York so as to split England’s colonies in twain.
Not only did spartan women routinely have two husbands at the same time, but Sparta herself always had two kings at the same time, as Sparta had two separate royal families. This dual monarchy (there are no other words to describe it) came from the Agiad Royal Family and the Eurypontid Royal Family.
Although some greek city-states had matrilineal descent, Sparta had patrilineal descent like most greek city-states. Accordingly a Spartan woman practicing monandry would give patrilineal descent at birth to her daughters and to her sons from her living sole husband at nine months previously. A Spartan woman practicing diandry would give patrilineal descent at birth to her old daughters from her living old husband at nine months perviously, give patrilineal descent at birth to her old sons from her living old husband at nine months previously, and give patrilineal descent at birth to her new daughters from her old husband at nine months previously. But a Spartan woman practicing diandry would give patrilineal descent at birth to her new sons from her living new husband at nine months previously.
Much criticism of both the Spartans and the Mohawk, has been leveled by outsiders who complain of the extreme freedom of the females and the extreme militarism of the males. It must be noted that there is no record of any Spartan male, Spartan female, Mohawk male, or Mohawk female, complaining of female freedom or male militarism.
Whatever your point of view on Spartan life or Mohawk life, the New Testament lays down cast-iron guidelines for wedlock. The fact that the New Testament complies with Spartan law and Mohawk law is irrelevant.
Of absolutely no relevance to this discussion, the symbol of the United States of America is the bald headed eagle, which is a species that uses both monandry and diandry for conception, and where the one male or two males reside in the exactly the same nest as the one female. The one female and either the one male or two males, stay in the nest together and raise the chick together.
Mark 10:7 King James 1611.
Ephesians 5:31 King James 1611.
Both husbands must leave their families to go and become a member of the wife’s family, or the one husband must leave his family to go and become a member of the wife’s family.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS POLYGAMY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS TRIGAMY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS BIGAMY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MAHOMETRY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CLITORECTAS.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MUTILATAS.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS INFIBULATAS.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CASTRATOS.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS EVIRATOS.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MUSICOS
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS POPERY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS PRIESTCRAFTRY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MONKERY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MARIOLATRY
CAPITAL LAWES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE MOHAWK.
1st. If any person within this Government of The Mohawk shall by direct, exprest, impious, or presumptuous ways, deny the true God and his Attributes; he shall be put to death.
2nd. If any person within this Government of The Mohawk shall maliciously and on purpose deny that any Mohawk person may have arms for his defence suitable to his condition and as allowed by law; he shall be put to death.
3rd. If any man shall traitorously deny his Clanmother’s right and titles to her Eagle Feathers and Dominions, or shall raise arms to resist her Authority; he shall be put to death.
4th. If any man shall treacherously conspire or publiquely attempt, to invade or surprise any town or towns, fort or forts, within this Government of the Mohawk; he shall be put to death.
5th. If any man lyeth with a man or mankind as he lyeth with a woman; they shall be put to death, unless the one party were forced or under fourteen years of age, in which case he shall not be punished.
6th. If any man or woman shall lye with any beast or brute creature by carnal copulation; they shall be put to death, and the beast shall be burned.
7th. If any person shall bear false witness maliciously and on purpose to take away any person’s life; he shall be put to death.
8th. If any person shall slay, or cause another to be slain by guile or by poisoning or any such wicked conspiracy; he shall be put to death.
9th. If any person shall commit any willful murder, which is manslaughter, committed upon malice, hatred, or cruelty, not in a person’s necessary or just defence, nor by mere casualty against his will; he shall be put to death.
10th. If any person shall geld any man or mankind to take away generative power or virility; he shall be put to death.
11th. If any person shall geld any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.
12th. If any man forcibly stealth or carrieth away any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.
13th. If any marryed man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation, other than his one wife; he shall be put to death.
14th. If any marryed woman shall lye with a man by carnal copulation, other than her two husbands or one husband; she shall be put to death.
15th. If any unmarryed man above twentyeight years of age and under fortytwo years of age shall maliciously and on purpose refuse wedlock for over fourteen days with any marryed woman under sixtythree years of age, said marryed woman having borne a son, or unmarryed woman under sixtythree years of age; he shall be put to death.
16th. If any person shall maliciously and on purpose deny any marryed woman wedlock with two husbands, said marryed woman having borne a son, or any unmarryed woman wedlock with one husband; he shall be put to death.
17th. If any child, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall smite his Natural Mother or Lodgemother, unless thereunto provoked and foret for the self preservation from death or mayming, then at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that child so offending shall be put to death.
18th. If any stubborn and rebellious son, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall not obey the voice of his Natural Mother or Lodgemother, and that when the said Mother or Lodgemother have chastened such son will not hearken unto them, then at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that son so offending shall be put to death.
19th. If any unmarryed man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation; he shall be whipt thirteen strokes, unless he hath his Natural Mother or Lodgemother authority, in which case he shall not be punished.
20th. If any unmarryed woman shall lye with a man by carnal copulation; she shall be whipt three strokes, unless she hath her Natural Mother or Lodgemother authority, in which case she shall not be punished.
Very good point you have made about how many people has one had sex with before marriage.The only difference is in polygamy the husband has sex with as many wives as he wants at the same time.Sharing a mate is only for the female.I personally can’t even imagin putting myself into a position like that.I am a Christian woman who believes the whole word of God.The old & new testament(not the added book of Mormon by Joseph Smith).I have done research on polygamy & i believe that if it is a choice by BOTH the husband & the wife then who am i to say that it is wrong?The thing that i see with Mormon polygamy is that the men HAVE to be married to more than one wife or they do not get higher levels in the next life.And the women have no choice in the matter.That my friend is a cult.I was also told that when the wife dies that it will not be God who wakes her up on the other side but it will be her husband!(because he will be “a god”in the next life)All written by Joseph Smith not by the Bible.If the FLDS says that they believe in the new testament which they say they do….then what they practice in polygamy is in direct opposent of what the new testament teaches as far as being an elder, bishop or any kind of leadership position in the church.In 3 different places it states that if you want any kind of leadership position in the church that you must be married to only one wife.It does not say that you can’t be polygamists….but it down plays that choice because the leaders are NOT to be polygamists.There is a reason for that.Leaders are to be the best examples for the rest of the church.That’s why.
Another subject & a question.Did you know that Joseph Smith was a Mason?Did you know that in the secret cerimony in the Mormon Temple that is performed that it is word for word & signal for signal the exact cerimony done by the Masons?And he is suppose to be from God?Joseph Smith’s whole prophecies are hanging on polygamy & that is the total opposent of what leadership in the new testament church structure was to be.They cannot say they belief the new testament & do the opposent.But that is exactly what they do.
News You Need…
[...]How Many people have you had sex with? « Me and Polygamy[...]…