I think Mitt Romney is Mormon and he has two wives.

If the human body is designed to reproduce modularly, then polygamy is fine. Polyamory, on the other hand, can lead one to terrible emotional and romantic problems. There is no good or bad, wrong or right, only action and consequence.

Mormon is a common name for a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Church discontinued polygamy more than a century ago. No members of the Church today can enter into polygamy without being excommunicated. Polygamist groups in Utah, other parts of the American West and elsewhere have nothing whatsoever to do with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I don't know if the mormon church denounced it or not, any law has never stopped people from breaking it. Wrong? who's to say? Not me. It's wrong for me that's all I need to know!

Polygamy... fundamentally wrong? I'm not sure. I'll follow the lead of stillme and agree that it's wrong for me, which is the most important thing for me to know. If I were a church leader, there would be a minute chance of also needing to know that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has officially discontinued the practice and that practicing polygamy is an excommunicable offense.

No, not wrong just illegal. My attitude is if you can afford them and they are willing.. why not?

No. Because there is nothing wrong with having more than one partner, as long as each is treated either equally or within consented parameters. Yes, I think so, but they also commanded it for quite a while. Either way, their prophet was one so go figure.

Firstly, whatever you say about polygamy (many wives) should apply to polyandry (many husbands). The Mormon thing is irrelevant. The mainstream Mormons gave up polygamy along, long ago; some of the early Christian communities would not bear looking at under a strong light either. I do not think that polygamy/polyandry are in theory wrong; if consenting adults want to set up a many-way relationship, they should be allowed to. But I do think that, in practice, polygamy is used to allow forceful men to impose their dominance over women. Therefore I feel that, on balance, the law should not permit it: the number of times when it will be right and fair will be much smaller than the number of times when it will be sued as a means of control. If people want to take the risks, expressed elsewhere, of polyamory, let them; but do not encourage something intrinsically dangerous, albeit within the bounds of personal freedom.

Polygamy is not wrong. Polygamy merely refers to the practice of having multiple spouses. So long as everyone is fully consenting, able to say no, and the standards are applied equally to both sexes, I have no problem with polygamy. I personally would not practice it. The Mormons never did allow full polygamy. They always restricted it to polygyny (having multiple wives). I have a problem with this. The official Mormon church renounced polygyny over a century ago, as it was a condition for Utah to be admitted into the union as a state. This was because of the requirement for states to recognize marriages performed in other states.

I think that if the people involved are okay with it, they should be allowed to be in that type of relationship. Personally, I would never want to have more than one partner. As for the third question, I don't know enough about Mormonism to answer that.

Regarding Latter-day Saints and polygamy, the Book of Mormon contains the following scripture: “[H]earken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; … For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things” (Jacob 2:27-30).   Latter-day Saints believe in living prophets and Apostles, and it was through the first of these Latter-day prophets—Joseph Smith Jr.—that the revelations regarding plural marriage were given. It was practiced on a very limited basis—mostly by assignment, and generally with the previous wife’s/wives’ full consent—until the US Supreme Court voted to uphold a series of new, anti-polygamy laws. The fallout from these laws was great—most of the Church’s property was confiscated and its leaders imprisoned—so then–President of the Church Wilford Woodruff took the issue to the Lord and asked for His guidance in the matter. This resulted in the Church’s “Manifesto” regarding the practice of plural marriage, which can be found in the Church’s Doctrine and Covenants as part of “Official Declaration—1.”   The 1890 Manifesto does not denounce plural marriage per se; It simply states that while the Lord had commanded certain individuals to engage in polygynous marriages, the prophet had recently received a revelation reiterating the Lord’s instructions (found in the Church’s Articles of Faith) to “obey, honor, and sustain the law” of the land—in this case, the newly legitimized anti-polygamy laws. Consequently, the Church instructed its members to “refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land” (Official Declaration—1). Since the Lord gave these instructions through his (then living) prophet, it is considered doctrine. As such, the Church denounces the practice of polygamy in our day as unauthorized, per the Lord’s own instructions.   All that having been said, no, polygamy is not inherently wrong, since the Lord Himself declared that, in certain cases, He would command people to practice this exception to His more standard rule of monogamy (see first paragraph).

well i would say no to the ones that are new to it but the childern that are brought up in this lifestyle should be given a chance to see how it is to be in a one man one woman relationship and not be forced into the lifestyle so in that aspect yes i do believe that polygamy is wrong for the childern who do not know better

Polygamy is not "wrong", if you want to marry more than one person go for it. It's your life, but be prepared for multiple divorces perhaps at the same time. Instead of losing 1/2 your stuff, you could be losing 3/4.

From a Catholic Christian viewpoint: It is true that in the Bible a few kings and patriarchs had more than one wife but these few instances were exceptions and rarely turned out well. The general rule from Genesis chapter two and throughout clearly is that marriage was created by God for one man and one woman. This monogomist view is the only New Testament view of marriage and the kind of marriage that Jesus Christ raised to the level of a sacrament. For more information, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, section 1601 and following: http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2chpt3art7.htm With love in Christ.

Considering it creates an imbalance of power in the relationships I think it is. Marriage was meant to be an equal partnership between two people. In polygamy that power shifts to the husband holding the majourity with the wives fighting over the power role that should belong to one woman. In the end they have to defere to him in all things. These women litterly have to shove down their feelings to get by. They also come to rely on each other more then their husband for support. I also noticed that even though they rely on each other the older wives will take out feelings of being replaced on the younger wife. She gets stuck with the chores and most of the child care. That's not the way it should be. There should never be any thing in the house that creates jealousy and animousity towards any one family member. As for the Mormon Chuch publicly they denounce what they once believed so fervently. Behind closed doors is another thing. They have a "Don't ask, don't tell" kind of policy like the military does for being gay. So long as nobody finds out it's all good.

Polygamy (more precisely, polygyny; or as we LDS folks prefer to call it, plural marriage) was NOT practiced by Mormons over a century ago for the reasons that the reprobates of our society have fantasized. It was NOT meant as a way to increase a man's ability to gratify himself sexually and simultaneously repress females to keep them under his control. Quite the contrary, in fact. The institution of plural marriage by Joseph Smith was really just a restoration of the same doctrines governing marriage that existed in the days of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Joseph Smith's mission was to restore all things...ALL things...which included the biblical practice of plural marriage lived by the noble patriarchs. In those ancient times, the world at large gave no status or property to widowed or single women. That was a contributor to the "world's oldest profession" of prostitution. The math didn't work out for every righteous man to have just one wife, so the Lord allowed for plural marriage under strict conditions. As with many things in our spiritual and temporal lives, not everyone who lived the doctrine of plural marriage did so perfectly, and those mistakes were recorded in the Old Testament for posterity's sake. Hence the modern-day confusion about seeming contradictions about the practice and what it means. In addition to the need to restore all things, the same conditions of an imbalance of status for men and women existed in early America. When the Church was restored, the Lord allowed plural marriage to be instituted. The Book of Mormon clarifies the on-again-off-again nature of this doctrine and what is and is not allowed by the Lord. Jacob 2 ( http://scriptures.lds.org/en/jacob/2 ) Jacob denounces the love of riches, pride, and unchastity—Men should seek riches to help their fellow men—Jacob condemns the unauthorized practice of plural marriage—The Lord delights in the chastity of women. Between 544 and 421 B.C. Jacob 3 ( http://scriptures.lds.org/en/jacob/3 ) The pure in heart receive the pleasing word of God—Lamanite righteousness exceeds that of Nephites—Jacob warns against fornication, lasciviousness, and every sin. Between 544 and 421 B.C. As you read those chapters, notice how the focus is always on the welfare and purity of women, not on the sexual desires of the men. On the contrary, the men are taken to task repeatedly for going outside of the marriage covenant to take "concubines". There is a world of difference between the doctrine of plural marriage and concubinism. The former involves a sacred covenant to protect and care for one another and to stay within the covenant of marriage. The other is self-centered, has no covenantal obligations, and causes women to be treated with disrespect and contempt. To cut through the hype and misinformation that always circulates around this topic, here are two concrete, well-documented, first-hand accounts from my own family history... === Jeremiah Bingham and Minerva Dixon Keele === A settlement had been made on the Peteetneet Creek in Utah Valley in 1850 and was first called Peteetneet. Later it was called Payson. It was here that the Keele family made their home. The settlers had experienced trouble with the Indians. At the outbreak of the Walker War in 1853, a guard was maintained at all times. On July 18, 1853, Alexander Keele was standing guard at dusk when an Indian, pretending friendship, approached. The sharp report of a rifle was heard in the direction of the southern outpost. Alexander Keele was found dead, shot by one of Arapeen’s warriors. The Indians fled to the canyons and the next morning fired on some men who were working at the sawmill where settlers were getting out wood. They were warned of the danger by Joseph and George Curtis and returned to Payson. The story was told that early on the evening of July 18, an Indian had called at the home of James McClellan, located outside the fort. He asked for food. Sarah, a young girl, let him in. Her mother prepared something for him to eat. He seemed friendly, but upon leaving he went around the corner and shot Alexander Keele. His young widow, Minerva was left with four little sons. She was not yet 30 and was expecting her fifth child. Alexander Keele, Jr. was born in Payson on December 14, 1853, about six months after his father was killed. Two of Alexander Keele’s sisters lived in Payson. They were the plural wives of Jeremiah Bingham, a blacksmith. He had married the sisters before the family came to Utah in 1853. Susan, Sarah, and Alexander Keele were children of Eleanor McColough and Richard John Keele. Sarah Keele and Jeremiah Bingham had two children born in Council Bluffs, Iowa: Jeremiah in June of 1847 and Abiga[i]l in August of 1848. After they settled in Payson, they had a daughter, Sarah Eleanor, in September of 1857. Susan Keele and Jeremiah Bingham had one son, Alpheus Bingham, born in Payson on February 19, 1959. His mother died shortly after his birth. Minerva Dixon Keele was married to Jeremiah Bingham, following the church teaching that the kinsman should care for the widow and her family. They were married on the 5th of March, 1855. Minerva was a wonderful helpmate to her husband and assisted in rearing the children of his other wives. Minerva was Jeremiah’s fifth wife. His first wife, Abigail Harrington, had died before the migration to Utah. Abigail had seven children. The Keele sisters were Jeremiah’s second and third wives. In Utah he was married to Mary Reece who had four children, only one of whom lived to adulthood. === Thomas Henry Wilson and Caroline Annie Merchant === Caroline was a very tall woman and Mr. Wilson was a rather short man so she was the taller of the two. Although she was taller than her husband, Mr. Wilson was the dominant one in the relationship. He was of the old school that believed a woman's place was in the home. Emma came from a home where the father catered to his wife and daughters so it was difficult to accept some of the practices the Wilsons took for granted. The wife was expected to get up first and build the fires, do chores, and prepare breakfast before the husband got out of bed. Choice food was often reserved for the husband only. Sons were valued more than daughters. Emma came from a family of girls, which tended to be matriarchal, but the Wilson home was patriarchal with the husband clearly in charge. Mr. Wilson considered taking another wife at one time in keeping with the then approved LDS teachings about polygamy. Since permission of the first wife was required, he told Caroline he had a lady in mind. Caroline invited the woman to dinner at the Wilson home. She prepared a fine meal, which she served to the family and guest without sitting down with them. When she served dessert, she got the milk pail and egg basket and addressed the lady under consideration. She is supposed to have said, “It will be nice when you marry Mr. Wilson. Then I can sit down at the table and be waited on as you serve the meals you have prepared. And you can milk the cow and gather the eggs, and do the other chores.” Needless to say, Mr. Wilson never took a second wife. Whatever the nature of the family relations the marriage lasted more than sixty years. The couple celebrated their 60th anniversary in July of 1919, a few months before Caroline's death. === There. Some more actual facts for people to chew on. :) http://americantestament.blogspot.com/

I don't see how any love/sex arrangement between 2 or more consenting adults is anyone's business but their own. That includes marriage, prostitution, open relationships...

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. If this definition is changed, then it opens a door to gay marriages, bestial marriages, maybe a man wants to marry his car... foolishness. A man and a woman! Refer to the New Testament of the Bible.

They denounce polygamy in public places, not in their homes. My 2 cents.

If there is no freedom to choose who you love then there is no love. If there is no freedom to choose who you love, then the manner in which you "love" is mechanical. It used to be such that some cultures cultures would not be allowed to marry someone that was not chosen by a third party authority. Matchmakers are not some kind of fictitious characters conjured up for the sake of Jewish cultural musicals. It took a very long time for somebody to wake up and say "Hey, I've got an idea! I'll make up my own mind as to who I'm going to marry." In today's world it is against the law for three or more consenting adults to be legally married. There is no legitimate reason. People will site child marriage or child abuse, which are separate circumstances and have nothing to do with three or more consenting adults being legally married. The religious will attempt to site the possible bad outcome this will have, when there are just as many bad outcomes for monogamy. They will also say that God doesn't approve and site their holy books as evidence, when there is no evidence in any holy book that God doesn't approve. The only legitimate argument against polygamy is the possibility of a financially dangerous divorce, which relies on the untrustworthy nature of human beings. If you're afraid of divorce, don't get married! It boils down to this: It is possible for three consenting adults to be in love with each other and to still hold all of the responsibilities to spouses and children (probably more so) of which a monogamous marriage is capable.

It may be wrong for you but that doesn't make it wrong for me (or vice-versa). It's more than high time that people butt out of and stopped trying to legislate other people's private lives. Now that homosexual marriage is being legalized, polygamy will be next.