• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Lehi police investigate 'Sister Wives' stars for bigamy

Re: Information About Avoiding Prosecution

Chris Torres said:
I have a simple question.

If it's an illegal practice, why as Christians do we share little pointers in order to keep from being prosecuted?
Click to expand...

Dr. K R Allen last post addresses your questions well, but I'll put my 2 cents in as well.

My only pointers are to challenge the laws, I would not recommending breaking them. If you do though, you can still defend yourself in court and having the laws overturned in some cases. I think that has potential when a simple "relationship" is in question here by Utah authorities.



Chris Torres said:
Isn't that the same thing that illegal groups do, pressing the edges of 'legality' all the while continuing their illegal activities?
Click to expand...

It depends on the cause. When what is being advocated for is in line with Biblical moral standards, then I don't see this as being the same as advocating for prostitution lets say.


Chris Torres said:
Aren't we to abide by the laws of the land, except in those cases that the Lord's Commands are otherwise?
Click to expand...

That's why I propose legalizing polygamy, although some will say that the laws prohibiting polygamy are Unconstitutional so in effect the government is violating its own laws by not providing equal proection and due process to all adults, especially the ones in 'consenting relationships' and their right to pursue happiness when it's not causing harm. Also, in effect, Utah has 'decriminalized' ADULT CONSENSUAL polygamy when the put out policies that involve NOT prosecuting/enforcing bigamy laws when there's no abuse involved. Ironically, I don't see a widespread breaking of bigamy laws by Christians, I only see that in the areas of the US where adult consensual polygamy is in effect decriminalized.

Here's what the Supreme Court said during the 1960s in the Lovings vs Virginia case (The Lovings were an interrical couple trying to fight for their right to marry each other)

"These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. "

Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 88&invol=1


Chris Torres said:
But really, should we as Christians be discussing and sharing information that condones illegal activities?
Click to expand...

Perhaps we can both agree that we can at least talk about how the family can CHALLENGE the constitutionality of bigamy laws to avoid prosecution. That's okay to do. I know what you mean by actually breaking the law, but in effect, in Utah, adult consensual polygamy is decriminalized. This is not a Black and White issue when you have the government contradicting itself by not applying the Constitutional, contradicting it, and then saying they're not going to enforce bigamy laws in Utah unless abuse is involved.
 
In discussions that I have had regarding both the case in Texas, and the potential case in Utah what will likely be the crux of the argument is that of the Natural Law Right of an individual to enter a contractual arrangement with another consenting adult. This type of argument has successfully been argued a number of times and in a number of states. The ruling by a Federal Judge overturning Proposition 8 in California stated this very clearly, and this very ruling is likely to be center stage in the bigamy case that will be heard this spring in Texas. I think Utah will delay to see the outcome of the Texas case and use that ruling as an excuse to not prosecute Kody and family. At that point in time the bigamy laws will be obsolete and have an extremely difficult time standing in the face of any legal challenge. Then it will be a matter of challenging any state constitutional amendments defining marriage as one man and one woman, which will also fall when challenged. It's just a matter of time and effort folks...
 
onsenting relationships

PolyPride said:
Chris Torres said:
That's why I propose legalizing polygamy, although some will say that the laws prohibiting polygamy are Unconstitutional so in effect the government is violating its own laws by not providing equal proection and due process to all adults, especially the ones in 'consenting relationships' and their right to pursue happiness when it's not causing harm.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

As the Constitution is currently employed against Americans (right of privacy and right to have the govt. keep their laws off my body) . . . can I not use your same argument and say that I am not provided equal protection to enter into a consenting relationship and to pursue happiness (albeit temp happiness) with a prostitute?

I would not be causing harm as we freely entered into the consenting and contractual relationship.
 
"can I not use your same argument and say that I am not provided equal protection to enter into a consenting relationship and to pursue happiness (albeit temp happiness) with a prostitute? "

Yes, and that will likely be decriminalized soon as well. Hopefully it will then be regulated more strictly and the amount of STDs transmitted through this now illegal activity will be diminished (the one beneficial aspect I can think of). What happens between consenting adults is between them (and God who will judge each of us for our sin). What the pagan/heathen community does is not for us to judge, but if we become aware of a brother/sister in Christ participating, even though it may be "legal", it is our responsibility to confront them.

"What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."
The Apostle Paul 1 Corinthians 5
 
Evangelicals.... They were following the clear teaching of the Scriptures to spread the Gospel, and the Anabaptists as I remember following the command of Scripture about baptism.

Bigamy, polygamy, etc is not a clear teachng of Scripture where the people are in Biblical fear of eternity in Hell or eternal life hangs is in the balance for the hearers of the teaching.

Daniel. Absolutely, I agree. The law clearly condemned his religious requirements. Bigamy/polygamy is not a requirement. I don't see where God instituted multiple wives. That seemed to come from the alien nations.

Third... Not the issue. The current state law applies.

Forth... I believe you're saying that because the government doesn't enforce the laws in some examples, because some disagree with the law, that makes it possible to violate it. If an officer pulls you over and says you were speeding in a marked school speed zone, and gives you a ticket, are you guilty even though you didn't notice the school zone? What are we to do, comply with the law when we feel like it, or as much as it is possible, and plead for mercy when we are unknowingly guilty?

As much as I may think it's a cool idea, the multiple wives part, I just cannot come to grasp with the illegality of it, and the lack of a biblical command/teaching that would make it anywhere near on par with the examples you gave of the evangelicals/anabaptists or Daniel. Certainly many in the Old Testament had multiple wives, but do not see any of that in the New Testament, unless you refer to converts who already had multiple wives, as alluded to in the requirements for a pastor, as I remember it.

And since it is illegal, currently against the law of whatever state of the union, back to my main question, is it 'acceptable' to talk about skirting the law, whether this one or any other?

Is that the way Christians should be when interacting with their neighbors or authorties, basically deceptive and teaching/sharing practices so that others can do likewise, living secretive lives because they're violating the law?

I understand your comparisons, but they really seem apples and oranges, biblically. Maybe my views on that will change as I continue to read more, but there doesn't seem to be life and death consequences, because of polygamy.

And to give my opinion on the last statements, no, I don't think it honors the authority of the government by violating it's laws. And if the laws are bad, get them changed through your representatives.

I agree that God's law is always above man's law. When the you are in violation of the law because you do what God commands in the Bible, so be it. Deal with it as a good servant of the most High God.

But under current law, a Christian would not be submitting to the authorities over us, to have multiple wives, as I see it.

I'm open to more information and biblical teachings that'll clear it all up. I've been reading, but not commenting, on a lot of threads searching for the rosetta stone that would make it all make sense, biblically and legally.

To each his own, I guess, but there is the law that we should follow.



Dr. K.R. Allen said:
Hey Chris,

Good question. I can't respond to all of it here but here are just a few pointers to think about.

First, what do you think of the Evangelicals (William Tyndale, John Wycliffe, and numerous Anabaptists) in history who were burned and beaten and thrown in jail for translating the Bible into the common man's English when the King and Pope (the government of the land at that time) forbid them from doing so? Do you agree that they were doing what God desired of them or not?

Second, do you agree that Daniel in the OT was justified and right before the Lord to pray to God and not to the King even when the law of his land mandated that he only pray to the King?

Third, what if the three branches of government do not agree on what is or is not illegal in this area? For example, what if there are still some laws on the legislative books that neither the executive branch of government enforces nor that the courts will apply? If two branches of government refuses to enforce the written law is that law still a valid law for the time? Or is it an archaic law like many others that are on many state law books that are no longer enforced or used?

Fourth, what if the issue is one of terms and not one of practice? In other words, what if the government does not prosecute people for consensual sexual relations by consenting adults so long as they do not use a specific set of terms (like husband and wife)? Does that make a difference? As it appears the government rarely, maybe nowhere now, prosecutes consenting adults from sexual relations so long as they are responsible and free from coercion or criminal violations such as drugs or other circumstances causing the act to take place. But the conflict arises when certain terms are used. What if a man and women come together in consensual unions before God and each other and use only terms that do not violate the statutes of the land (an article is forthcoming on this soon by myself and Dr. Raegean on this very subject)? If you read the story of Isaac and Rebekah of Genesis 24 you can see that they came together in an honorable union without any ceremony. And if you remove the idea that one MUST have a marriage license then what law is there that keeps a man and woman or a man and women from uniting in a biblical union?

Just some preliminary questions for some thought there. I'd love to get your ideas on these questions as these play into this subject. I agree with you 100% that we are to be subject to the ruling authorities and that we must honor them. Granted, you'll probably run into some who are disrespectful to the government and who will rant and rave about how corrupt they are etc etc. but no matter how corrupt they are they are still in place because God has placed them there (see Rom. 13). Thus honor and respect is due to them no matter what.

But the real question is: can this lifestyle be practiced while at the same time showing honor and respect to the government and if not is there room for a higher law in the Bible to take precedence over a lower law of government (like in Daniel's case or in the case of Acts 4 where Peter and the apostles disobeyed gov. in order to obey God)? That is the real question at hand.

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...
 
It goes back to man making it illegal rather than it being prohibited scripturally (which it is not).

This being the case, many feel justified in practicing something that is not prohibited by their religion which others have told them they cannot practice (oppression).

There was a ruling by the Supreme Court in 1993 that allowed Animal Sacrifices to be performed by a "church" in Florida even though a town had passed a law prohibiting it AFTER they found out that it was being performed. In the case of polygamy, it was made illegal in the USA in the mid 1860s to persecute the LDS church and prevent Utah from becoming a state UNLESS they included strong anti-polygamy and bigamy restrictions in their constitution (something the almost 60 year old 1st amendment was supposed to protect them from - also the Federal Government mandated to the states how to define marriage - yet another constitutional Faux Pas).

So...in a way it is rebellion, yes...but for the right reasons. What has been practiced from the beginning of recorded history and is obviously a religious practice of Jews, Christians, and Muslims can not be denied. It is most certainly a practice that should be a protected practice for those that believe it is allowed by their religion. Based on recent court rulings it is a practice that should also be allowed based on an individual's natural right to choose whomever they please to be their mate(s).

Perhaps if men did not use a governmental structure to force their theological doctrine upon other men they might find that more men might "obey" the law. The Romans actually appreciated this principal in the outer districts.

I can find no reason to theologically obey the anti-polygamy and bigamy laws anymore than I would obey a law that dictates to me which scriptures I could read in public. Indeed they are not laws at all, but rather outward expressions of an inward false doctrine imposed upon unsuspecting an ignorant men by insecure individuals with a need to control other men.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/co ... rley_x.htm

This article was written in 2004 by the attorney that was just hired by Kody and family. What may be most pertinent from this article to this particular discussion is this statement:

"The difference between a polygamist and the follower of an "alternative lifestyle" is often religion. In addition to protecting privacy, the Constitution is supposed to protect the free exercise of religion unless the religious practice injures a third party or causes some public danger.

However, in its 1878 opinion in Reynolds vs. United States, the court refused to recognize polygamy as a legitimate religious practice, dismissing it in racist and anti-Mormon terms as "almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and African people." In later decisions, the court declared polygamy to be "a blot on our civilization" and compared it to human sacrifice and "a return to barbarism." Most tellingly, the court found that the practice is "contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western World."

Contrary to the court's statements, the practice of polygamy is actually one of the common threads between Christians, Jews and Muslims.

Deuteronomy contains a rule for the division of property in polygamist marriages. Old Testament figures such as Abraham, David, Jacob and Solomon were all favored by God and were all polygamists. Solomon truly put the "poly" to polygamy with 700 wives and 300 concubines. Mohammed had 10 wives, though the Koran limits multiple wives to four. Martin Luther at one time accepted polygamy as a practical necessity. Polygamy is still present among Jews in Israel, Yemen and the Mediterranean.

Indeed, studies have found polygamy present in 78% of the world's cultures, including some Native American tribes. (While most are polygynists — with one man and multiple women — there are polyandrists in Nepal and Tibet in which one woman has multiple male spouses.) As many as 50,000 polygamists live in the United States.

Given this history and the long religious traditions, it cannot be seriously denied that polygamy is a legitimate religious belief. Since polygamy is a criminal offense, polygamists do not seek marriage licenses. However, even living as married can send you to prison. Prosecutors have asked courts to declare a person as married under common law and then convicted them of polygamy."

So...my attitude is this...you think that you have the right and authority to tell me who I can marry and how I should raise my family? Just where did you get that right and authority from?
 
Chris Torres,

Your original points involved why are some people on this forum discussing how to keep the Brown's family from being prosecuted. You further implied we should not be doing that since what the Brown's family are doing by living in polygamy is illegal and the Bible mentions we should follow the laws of the land.

I agree with you that the New Testament does mention that we are to follow the laws of the land, but 'challenging' the laws is also part of the system of the United States. It's part of the democratic process. I'm not advising breaking the law is the way to challenge it, however, if there is an allowable way in the US court system to get away with being prosecuted, then why not take advantage of it? Either way, what I've talked about here is mostly legalizing polygamy and how the Brown family can avoid prosecution by challenging the anti-bigamy laws. The Utah prosecutors even know that can happen and that's one reason they are reluctant to go after polygamists on ONLY bigamy charges. They want a case that they believe they can WIN for sure.
 
PolyPride said:
Chris Torres,

Your original points involved why are some people on this forum discussing how to keep the Brown's family from being prosecuted. You further implied we should not be doing that since what the Brown's family are doing by living in polygamy is illegal and the Bible mentions we should follow the laws of the land.
Actually it wasn't. I just started reading the thread and came across the post by elkanahtyler on page 1, and asked a few questions. That new show's name caught my attention, and I started to read, and wondered why we, as Christians, would go there?

I agree with you that the New Testament does mention that we are to follow the laws of the land, but 'challenging' the laws is also part of the system of the United States. It's part of the democratic process. I'm not advising breaking the law is the way to challenge it, however, if there is an allowable way in the US court system to get away with being prosecuted, then why not take advantage of it? As I understand what you say, to paraphrase, if it's illegal and you do these things, you won't be prosecuted?
I don't think that is how a Christian should be. Deceptive with their neighbors and with the government, making sure to not leave a paper trail, so they won't get prosecuted?????
Either way, what I've talked about here is mostly legalizing polygamy and how the Brown family can avoid prosecution by challenging the anti-bigamy laws.


The Utah prosecutors even know that can happen and that's one reason they are reluctant to go after polygamists on ONLY bigamy charges. They want a case that they believe they can WIN for sure.Agreed.
Click to expand...
 
chris:
elkanahtyler does not speak for all of us and certainly not for me.
i have been thinking that it is possible that his motivation is avoiding prosecution for the only thing that i know of that is getting prosecuted (other than child wives), and that would be welfare fraud.
i can see no other reason for being so secretive.
in most states, in my understanding, the only thing that is illegal is to have more than one government issued marriage liscense. to have a "covenant" with more than one is not illegal.
of course, this is just my understanding
 
@ Steve...

If you are referring to a marriage covenant then yes, most states will consider that bigamy. In some states it is illegal to even make the statement that anyone other than your "legal" wife is also your wife. To state that bigamy doesn't exist because you don't have two legal marriage licenses is incorrect in almost all 50 states.
 
Scarecrow said:
@ Steve...

If you are referring to a marriage covenant then yes, most states will consider that bigamy. In some states it is illegal to even make the statement that anyone other than your "legal" wife is also your wife. To state that bigamy doesn't exist because you don't have two legal marriage licenses is incorrect in almost all 50 states.
Click to expand...
hmm
that was not my understanding, but i am sure that you would not have posted w/out knowing the law
 
In some states bigmay is defined as one spouse not knowing about the other. The "NOT KNOWING" is the key to this law in some places. But it does differ from one place to another.
 
Sorry, I have to chime in again.

The laws..... lol. hmmm

OK. First and foremost, the proper practice of polygamy does NOT harm anyone. Your not stealing from anyone. Etc etc etc. Its just a matter of people living together. Now, the big question isnt how to avoid the laws. But instead should be why not ban together and change them. NOBODY wants to change the laws. Instead they just want to stay hidden and keep their secret. Sorry, not me. IF I decide to take on another wife, I want it to be legal. Im not into taking on a cuncubine and hidding her. Sorry for those who might be offended by that but its just me.

As for the part about breaking the law now.. I have to say its probably time. Through out our history changes have been made mostly because of people breaking laws which FORCES them to be challenged. Thats the only way to get the government to recognize it. Civil rights. 1 woman did not sit in the back of the bus. She broke the law. Instead of being a criminal, she is now recognized as major public figure for people to look up to. Rosa Parks help start the change in civil rights. Now it appears its time to do it again.

These laws have been challenged time after time but it never gets anywhere. If enough people step out about it then maybe a change can be made.
 
steve said:
chris:
elkanahtyler does not speak for all of us and certainly not for me.
i have been thinking that it is possible that his motivation is avoiding prosecution for the only thing that i know of that is getting prosecuted (other than child wives), and that would be welfare fraud.
i can see no other reason for being so secretive.
in most states, in my understanding, the only thing that is illegal is to have more than one government issued marriage liscense. to have a "covenant" with more than one is not illegal.
of course, this is just my understanding
Click to expand...
Understood. It sounds that way to me, as well.
But if we're condoning illegal activities, and condoning and not correcting the deception in our midst, are we not guilty as well?
I appreciate your response.
 
Isn't that how a lot of laws get changed? From resistance to willful breaking of laws until TPTB realise that if people are acting on principal they won't be able to control them? There have been many, many people of faith who have acted on that faith and broken laws which put them on the wrong side of the law or put them on the wrong side of the gallows for resisting something which was 'lawful'.

Just because something is lawful, it doesn't mean it is right and you should live by it.
 
Chris Torres said:
But if we're condoning illegal activities, and condoning and not correcting the deception in our midst, are we not guilty as well?
I appreciate your response.
Click to expand...

I am not in a PM, nor am I looking for one. I will attack this from a two prong look.

The problem comes down to equal protection and freedom to assemble and the two basic rules. There are two basic rules from Common Law: "Do not hurt another person or their property" and "Do all that you have said you are going to do." I teach these two to my students every week, to the point of sounding preachy; I teach students who do not understand and are with me for breaking at least one of those many times. Yet somehow or another I get the gospel in there on a regular basis. Does PM hurt another or their property or do you lie and not fulfill your obligations? No.

The Constitution says that we can be with who we want. At one time interracial dating was illegal. People were jailed, or worse, for having relations with another race. At one time being gay was illegal. Today more people are choosing to live together then get married. We have serial mono-marriages as held up as good and right. At one time it was illegal to have an affair. The funny part is 4 of those 5 are highly immoral activities, interracial dating is not.

The only way to change a legalized wrong in this country is to challenge the law. At times the legislature will change a wrong, Civil Rights Act 1964 and a few others. But the way we are set today, most social change has to go through the courts. I realize this process has been abused, but it still the current system. If I were ever to take a 2nd wife, I would wish I would live in Iowa. There I would go and apply, then denied, then challenge and unjust law.

The bottom line question is: why can those who break marriages, break relationships, and hurt others be held up as good? While those who desire to live in a covenantal relationship (which is what all marriages are) are shunned. BTW: I do not see churches changing their positions on PM if made legal.
 
@ Steve...here is Utah's law:

According to Utah’s bigamy statute, “A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.”

All you have to do is say you have another wife or cohabitate with a woman other than your wife...so much for having a mistress... : )

Most others are like this...
 
All you have to do is say you have another wife or cohabitate with a woman other than your wife...so much for having a mistress... : )

Most others are like this...
Click to expand...

Which is why it is important to understand -- even in a nation of men, and not of Law, and perhaps ESPECIALLY -- that there is a real difference between "Lawful" and merely "legal".

All the more reason to "Come out of her, My people...that you participate not in her sins," or take part in the coming, and increasingly obvious, "plagues."
 
I had an interesting thought this morning...

If cohabiting makes you "legally" married (guilty of bigamy), wouldn't living apart (separated) then make you "legally" divorced?

How can they have it one way and not the other?

To me this looks like just one more form of persecution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top