In reference to your question, I would first point out that, while I generally approve all comments, you are not entitled to any answers. I will answer your question however, because it amuses me when self inflated bags of hot wind such as yourself assume way too much, and I get the opportunity to deflate them publicly.

First, for the record and for the 274th time this month, I am not FLDS…I hope you didn’t assume I was.

If you think sick, perverse thoughts, that’s your business, as they either originate from your mind, or from that which has been implanted in your mind, but do not project them unto me.

The youngest woman I ever married was 19 years old. I was 18 at the time. The next woman I married was 23, and I was 19 at the time. Perhaps you begin to see a pattern. Perhaps not, but there is the answer to your question…I hope it satisfies your needs. Incidentally, the legal age for marriage in most states is 16 (with parental consent) so apparently you are operating under a different standard that most States do.

Bible, Bible, Bible? Yes indeed, my standard is Holy Scripture. I don’t know what your standard is, and frankly I don’t really care.

What do I care what the heathens do, or what they think? “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.” Matthew 7:6

What is the youngest woman you’ve married?
Give a number please and, if it’s shockingly low, or even questionably low, don’t bother to defend it. Let the number speak for itself.

Bible, Bible, Bible, as your justification. I think somewhere, at some level, you must know how sick this is, especially if it involves marriage of women 17 or under.

However, within the context of this particular article, which is a brief rebuttal of various anti-polygyny arguments, the idea of sex=marriage is in contrast to the spiritualized notion of “one flesh”, and simply works towards an explanation of that contrast. Hence, I think the oversimplification is justifiable.

Additionally, the sex=marriage equation also serves as an illustration of the difference between biblical marriage and responsibility and that which the State imposes on us today in the form of a marriage license. For a marriage to be legal today, it must be sanctioned by the State. God’s law has no such State licensing requirement, only that of becoming “one flesh”, which is first and foremost a physical act.

In short, the answer to your question would be; not necessarily. If she has been given a certificate of divorce, Scripture indicates that she can marry again without that second marriage being deemed adulterous. Of course, Scripture also indicates that the woman should not be given this certificate of divorce except for some indecency her husband would find in her, and not on the grounds of burnt toast, a loud mouth, or whatever other scheme he may devise to rid himself of his responsibilities. The word translated as indecency strongly suggests that it is of a sexual nature, and yet would not be adultery, since the penalty for adultery was death.

Deu 24:1 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house,
Deu 24:2 and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife,
Deu 24:3 and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife,
Deu 24:4 then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the LORD. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance.

H6172 ‛ervâh er-vaw’
From H6168; nudity, literally (especially the pudenda) or figuratively (disgrace, blemish): – nakedness, shame, unclean (-ness).

According to Jesus’ explanation of this, which upholds and clarifies his own law on the matter (assuming you believe that Jesus was God incarnate, as we do), if the woman is divorced for any reason other than sexual immorality, her husband causes her to commit adultery, the man she thereafter marries commits adultery, and the woman does as well. Of course the woman is in quite the predicament at this point, because if her husband divorces her without proper grounds, she must remain unmarried, or become an adulteress.

Mat 5:32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Let’s see. “It’s a loaded question” that I’m “unwilling to answer.” Just a minor bit of editing needed, that’s all. Also, there are other questions I am unwilling or unable to answer, such as:

1. Those pertaining to sexuality
2. The “Hi, I’m interested. Where do I sign up?” inquiries
3. Those pertaining to “what age is appropriate and lawful?”

These three themes- age, sex, application procedures- or some variant thereof, are rather common, and are routinely ignored on the grounds of prudence, time management, and mental hygiene.

“Coyly referring to the dictates of the State on this is disingenuous, because obviously, your wives two, three, four, five, six, and seven won’t have any legal status vis a vis the State.”

The question was, rephrased:

“if you don’t agree with marriage at age 13, 14, 15, 16, etc., then what age is appropriate and lawful?”

I understood this to be asking me what is the “appropriate and lawful” [Legal] age for marriage, if I do not “agree with [Illegal] marriage at age 13, 14, 15, 16, etc.”.

The answer of course would be with the state, so ask the state; consult the oracle (Google it), throw the bones, do whatever it is you have to do. I don’t happen to know the answer. Incidentally, I won’t happen to know the current legal drinking age either, in case that ever becomes an issue.

“I’m not wholly opposed to the idea of plural marriage, if there is no coercion or abuse, if there is respect between all the adults concerned, and no marrying of underage women.”

Well, I’m not wholly opposed to the idea of [label] either, if there is no coercion or abuse, if there is respect between all the adults concerned, and no marrying of underage women, so that’s great.

“However, it would result in a large surplus of adult males if its practice extended beyond the fringes.”

I do not expect it to ever be practiced beyond the fringes, because ultimately what you’re talking about with polygyny is a taking of responsibility. Call me a cynic if you wish, but I just do not see people stumbling all over themselves to take responsibility for much of anything, but rather are seeking to further avoid it.

“But in a society with a 50/50 male female birthrate, and no events to disproportionately kill off young men, what’s supposed to happen to all those males?”

Nothing, it would be life as usual for the vast majority of man. Serial polygamy (monogamy) seems to be rather common these days, and I would expect that to continue, with people hopping and skipping from one partner to another, fornicating, committing adultery, spreading disease and heartache, breaking vows, and further destroying the very concept of family. Why take responsibility when it’s not required? Anyway, I think the status quo is safe.

Kill off could occur at any time of course, in any number of ways, and suddenly we are “in” that other society, but for now that wouldn’t appear to be the case, and life as we know it continues.

In our view, there are three options: Celibacy, monogamy, and polygyny. The vast majority are monogamous, and will continue to be, while some may be either polygamous or celibate. IMHO, I think celibates would be the rarest of the three. All three options are morally, ethically and spiritually equal.

I’m not wholly opposed to the idea of plural marriage, if there is no coercion or abuse, if there is respect between all the adults concerned, and no marrying of underage women. However, it would result in a large surplus of adult males if its practice extended beyond the fringes. It seems to me that polygyny might have made sense as an honorable solution in cases where the male population had been decimated by war, and there were many widows and orphans to care for. But in a society with a 50/50 male female birthrate, and no events to disproportionately kill off young men, what’s supposed to happen to all those males?

On the question of age, I think that’s a loaded question. Ask the State, whose answer will change with the times and liberalities of man.

No, it’s not a contradiction.

My question would be if you don’t agree with marriage at age 13, 14, 15, 16, etc. then what age is appropriate and lawful?

I do find it interesting that you say “To live a godly life, it is of utmost importance to be removed from today’s society as far as possible (Rev 18:4-5)” and yet you obviously use a computer and the internet regularly. Isn’t this a contradiction?

I am amazed at the tone of your comment. But be that as it may:
Before you judge either our theology or whether or not we are “right with God”, read what the bible has to say, and throw out your own assumptions both about us and about the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Scripture and Scripture alone should shape your world view, not the other way round.

And just in case my husband did not make it clear enough: The articles you find on any of our sites are predominantly written by me, not by my husband.
According to your comment, I am the one doing the brainwashing here – odd, that.

When it comes to Scripture and “equality”, I find no offense in God telling me as a woman to have sex with only one man, my husband. I furthermore see no offense in the role God has appointed to me as wife and mother, and am thankful for the protection God offers me as a woman in His law, thankful too to my husband to be man enough to live up to the role God appointed to him. I do take offense, though, to you hurling insults at my husband and wonder what made you so angry, angry enough to let your assumptions get the better of you, angry enough to not read Scripture but instead rely on the cultural argument (does that apply to the Ten Commandments too ?) and what commentators have to say as opposed to what Scripture has to say.

You are not the first and will probably not be the last woman to be nasty to us. You had nothing new to say, and even your tone was not new, but it always amazes me how sure you people are that you are right, just because the majority thinks just like you do. When you next find a moment to pick up your bible, maybe you want to wise up on the idea of the remnant.

Grace and Peace,
Talitha

PS: Since you don’t seem to understand Deu 15:5-10 and have to assume (wrong) reasons for Levirate marriage, read Gen 38:5-10, so that you do not have to rely on “probably”s, in other words your own understanding, where Scripture provides the explanation.

Because your comment is obviously based on false assumptions, I don’t feel all that inclined to pick it to pieces, and will leave that to my wife, should she be so inclined, since it was she who wrote the piece you commented on. I will, however, point out a few things, in case she is not interested in wasting time on this.

1. Gal. 3:28 is about salvation, not gender specific roles.
2. Assuming you’re referring to levirate marriage, the goal was to provide an heir for the dead brother.

I could go on, but have many other things to do now…thanks for taking the time to comment.

In answer to the examples you gave, there were predominantly cultural expectations behind those eg, taking on brothers widow was probably to stop her from starving, similarly there were cultural expectations in place regarding kings taking on their predecessors wife/wives/concubines – that doesn’t in any way give the practice God’s seal of approval. He gave specifications for divorce too, in case you don’t recall, however, Jesus made it clear that that was only because of people’s sinful desires.

As for the scripture about Jesus and the 10 virgins – talk about taking it out of context!! There is nothing in that scripture to suggest that all 10 virgins were ALL brides – rather it is generally accepted by commentators who have a disinterested theology that most, if not all, were the bridesmaids. And they were shut out of the wedding banquet, not the marriage itself.

And speaking of sin, I noticed that all of the scriptures you referred to pertain to the period after the fall. Funnily enough, when God created Eve, He only made one of her. Had He been insistent that polygamy be practiced, I am sure that He could have taken a rib from each of Adam’s sides, and made Eve and Yvette! He didn’t, therefore, one can deduce that God’s grand plan was for monogamy. Sorry to burst your bubble!

I would take your theology a lot more seriously if it wasn’t so dogmatic, patriarchal, abusive, incestuous, disempowering to women etc. I am sure that this is why Polygamists often choose to withdraw from the world, as having women in a position to resist your brainwashing doesn’t suit your lustful plans.

Yes, I object to your terminology, as there is absolutely nothing Christian about polygamy!!! Do some repenting of your lusts and get yourself right with God!