Polygamy and Polyamory on the rise

[NauvooSaint]

Polygamy was not commanded by God...even in the Old Testament. Even if David received the care of those from another's household he conquered....doesn't mean they literally became his wives. Who was the very first polygamist mentioned in the Old Testament? ....Still God doesn't justify concubines which usually go hand in hand with polygamy.

There were some pamphlets done by the surviving sons of the prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. (Joseph Smith, III, Alexander Hale Smith, David Hyrum Smith) on the polygamy issue. David's study was on the Old Testament entitled, 'The Bible versus Polygamy'. I would be happy to photo-copy these rare pamphlets for those who would like to read them.

Bradley E. Barnhart, priest (RLDS Restorationist)

Springfield, OR.

[katherine the great]

Who was the very first polygamist mentioned in the Old Testament? ....

Cain?

[1dc]

My trust is in God....

Perhaps then one might trust in Christ and what he taught regarding OT prophets and their righteousness rather than our own human judgement.

http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/22/32-45#32

http://scriptures.lds.org/luke/13/28-29#28

[1dc]

There were some pamphlets done by the surviving sons of the prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. (Joseph Smith, III, Alexander Hale Smith, David Hyrum Smith) on the polygamy issue.

Perhaps your own scripture study would be more helpful . . you said you would not trust in tracts written by men.

Might I suggest, from the BoM:

"For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people;"

This plainly says the Lord can command His people on the subject. Whether you have faith in a particular prophet is your private judgement.

[NauvooSaint]

1dc,

Are you really sure you want to debate this topic? There are many more scriptures that support the established commandment of God with monogamy...in the Book of Mormon as well as in Latter Day revelation in the D&C.

Bradley E. Barnhart, priest (RLDS Restorationist)

Springfield, OR.

[GDTeacher]

charity

even if governments are to make such marriages legal, they would not have God's sanction and thus be sinful.

So if the government were to allow polygamous marriages, we would be sinning if we entered into them?

*edited spelling

As I understand it, the law of chastity is broken by having sexual relations with someone to whom you are not legally and lawfully wedded.

If there is a legal and lawful polygamous marriage, would not that qualify for not breaking the law of chastity?

[sunstoned]

The

[mocnarf]

charity

even if governments are to make such marriages legal, they would not have God's sanction and thus be sinful.

So if the government were to allow polygamous marriages, we would be sinning if we entered into them?

According to the Law Of Chastity. Sexual relationships are only allowed between people Legally Married. It is a sin if you have sexual relationships with someone to whom you are not married. So, if polygamist Marriages are legal legalized then those involved in the polygamist marriage would NOT be breaking the Law Of Chastity. And those not committing any sin.

.

It may be the be that the Law Of Chastity will need to be clarified as being "sexual relations between only one man and one woman who are legally married".

.

If polygamist marriage is legalized, I suspect the church may do just that.

.

[charity]

I stated my opinion, that plural marriage is a principle only to lived under instruction from the Lord. There were no merely civil plural marriages in Utah during the time plural marriages were performed for eternity. I think that would probably be the circumstance if earthly governments were to legalize polygamy.

[1dc]

Are you really sure you want to debate this topic? There are many more scriptures that support the established commandment of God with monogamy...in the Book of Mormon as well as in Latter Day revelation in the D&C.

Nope. You can contend all you want . . you can stand wherever you want . . by your own statement it would be a waste of my time to do so.

But if when one says they trust God, then they should trust all of His words rather than debate which of them they prefer to mean whatever their position is.

[charity]

1dc, you wrote: "But if when one says they trust God, then they should trust all of His words rather than debate which of them they prefer to mean whatever their position is."

Absolutely. Taking all the scriptures together, seeing who was approved of the Lord, that the great Abrahamic covenant came through a man with plural wives, that the Tribes of Israel, established through a man with many plural wives, became the covenant people, I would say, all taken together, we can trust God that at times, at His command, men have been instructed to live the principle of polygamy.

[Rtifs]

If we approve then, do we once again take up the practice and bring back into the fold the fundamentalists?

The FLDS will not be reconciled to the LDS by reinstating polygamy. They are led by their own prophets will not simply lay down their prophetic keys if polygamy were reinstated.

I seriously doubt that the LDS church will ever consider reinstating polygamy. They are concerned with being mainstream, which precludes polygamy even if it were legal. Now if polygamy were to become mainstream...

[Moksha]

Are these other polygamous relationships mainly the formalizations of multiple lovers, or a life style predicated upon rounding up the fourteen year old girls and parceling them off to worthy geezers, while at the same time booting the lost boys out the back door?

[Rtifs]

I don't want to enter the "was polygamy justified" debate. But I will remind people that Abraham's polygamy was not God's suggestion, rather it was his wife's. And it resulted in such jealousy and disharmony in the household that he kicked out his second wife, and his own child to live on the streets. The offspring of that child became arch-enemies of Israel. I have a hard time believing that God was pleased.

[Dill Pickles]

"For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people;"

This plainly says the Lord can command His people on the subject. Whether you have faith in a particular prophet is your private judgement.

from the Pickle jar: a literal reading of this scripture results in the concept that if God wants to raise up seed, he will command his people to raise up seed.

Raising up seed doesn't automatically mean polygamy. There is no justification in that sentence for making the leap from "raising up seed" to "polygamy". "Raising up seed" does not equal "polygamy". There may be justification in other passages of scripture, but not in that one.

[thesometimesaint]

Rtifs:

In but ONE example of many. Did not God give Sauls wives to David?

[Confidential Informant]

I don't want to enter the "was polygamy justified" debate. But I will remind people that Abraham's polygamy was not God's suggestion, rather it was his wife's. And it resulted in such jealousy and disharmony in the household that he kicked out his second wife, and his own child to live on the streets. The offspring of that child became arch-enemies of Israel. I have a hard time believing that God was pleased.

C'mon now, the story isn't nearly that simple now is it.

First, you have the fact that though Abraham's wife suggested it, there is no evidence that Abraham found the suggestion untoward. Moreover, (and more importantly) there is absolutley no suggestion that the Lord ever expressed his disapproval. Surely, the Lord had the power necessary to show disapproval had He felt such. But, when Hagar escapes and runs away, what does the Lord do? He send an angel to stop her and send her back.

Thus, your assertion that God was displeased is hard to square.

You also forget the words of Nathan to David. Here you have evidence that when one of God's servants screws up, the Lord is more than willing to call him to account for it, but for what "sin" did Nathan call David on? The Bathsheeba/Uriah incident. In fact, Nathan expressly notes that Davids "wives" (note the plural) were given to him by the Lord.

This is all followed by the fact that the law of Moses specifically provided for plural marriage and gave instruction for its proper practice and, in some cases, actually required it.

Like it or not, Polygamy is not a "mormon" issue, it's a Christian issue and anyone who accepts the Bible as the word of God must deal with it. No one is getting a free pass on this one.

C.I.

[Jaybear]

CI:

Like it or not, Polygamy is not a "mormon" issue, it's a Christian issue and anyone who accepts the Bible as the word of God must deal with it. No one is getting a free pass on this one.

Like it or not polygamy is PERCEIVED as a mormon issue and not a Christian issues, notwithstanding your apologetic efforts to the contrary. So yes, Christians can accept the Bible, and still get a FREE RIDE on this one. Can't blame you for trying though.

[Confidential Informant]

CI:

Like it or not, Polygamy is not a "mormon" issue, it's a Christian issue and anyone who accepts the Bible as the word of God must deal with it. No one is getting a free pass on this one.

Like it or not polygamy is PERCEIVED as a mormon issue and not a Christian issues, notwithstanding your apologetic efforts to the contrary. So yes, Christians can accept the Bible, and still get a FREE RIDE on this one. Can't blame you for trying though.

That's complete crap and you know it. The only mainstream Christians get around it is by ignoring it. They simply don't want to deal with it and when their nose gets rubbed in it the typical response is one such as that I responded to above.

Yes, polygamy is perceived as a "Mormon" issue but that speaks only to the fact of the more recent vintage of LDS polygamy and many Christians complete ignorance of their own foundational texts.

C.I.

[Nighthawke]

I don't want to enter the "was polygamy justified" debate. But I will remind people that Abraham's polygamy was not God's suggestion, rather it was his wife's. And it resulted in such jealousy and disharmony in the household that he kicked out his second wife, and his own child to live on the streets. The offspring of that child became arch-enemies of Israel. I have a hard time believing that God was pleased.

What, no explanation for Abraham's third wife Keturah (Gen 25:1) or of Abraham's concubines (Gen 25:6)? Let's hear it.

[NauvooSaint]

Let's consider David's case a bit more closely.....

Those who defend polygamy like to use 2 Samuel 12:7-8:

"And Nathan said to David, thou are the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel. I anointed thee King over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; and I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom...."

Their reasoning follows that since God gave them to David, then certainly it was right. Not so fast. God gives the lives of the innocent into the hands of the wicked, that is, He permits the wicked to slay the innocent and when men desire evil he frequently allows them to accomplish it; but does He justify it? God could prevent it if he would, but not always.

To give an example of this type of giving, let's consider 2 Samuel 12:11:

"Thus saith the Lord, behold I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbor, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun."

Now, if it were for evil that God gave David's many wives to another, was it not for evil that another's wives had been given to him? Why did God permit this to happen? Because these men were sensual and willingly evil, and would have it so.

The scriptures are pretty clear about marriage, divorce, fornication and adultery. Even LDS D&C 132 (although I believe it's a fabrication since it contradicts God in calling the actions of David/Solomon as abomination in the Book of Mormon) only permits virgins to enter into plural marriage, however again it justifies concubines.

More could be said, however after all is said and done......is it the desire to obey the established commandments of God with monogamy or try to justify the actions of David/Solomon and others with flimsy claims of God's approval and in so doing justify doing the same in our day? Kinda funny...that Jacob in the Book or Mormon said the same type of thing....that some of the Nephites were attempting to find justification in their polygamy with what David and Solomon did.

Bradley E. Barnhart, priest (RLDS Restorationist)

Springfield, OR.

[NauvooSaint]

Concubinage is not ordained of God. Is that acceptable too now?

Bradley E. Barnhart, priest (RLDS Restorationist)

Springfield, OR.

[Confidential Informant]

NauvooSaint,

If that's the best you've got then you are behind the curve. You need to run a search on the discussion that have been held on the Jacob verses.

Second, you are conducting your analysis in a vacuum w/o consideration to the other factors which I previouisly mentioned (i.e. the law of Moses, God's intervention in Abraham's affaris, God's failure to rebuke any of his prophets who engaged in plural marriage).

In short, your analysis is unpersuasive and fails to account for all the data.

C.I.

P.S. Do you even know what a concubine is?

[NauvooSaint]

Informant,

As I stated in an earlier post........

"More could be said, however after all is said and done."

It really doesn't matter to me if you want to accept my arguments or not against polygamy or whether you think I have the time to answer/cover every detail in these discussions. I will not ignore the clear commandments of God regarding monogamy or the one wife system throughout the scriptures and in Latter Day revelation.

If you want to discuss Jacob chapter 2....that would be fine. The whole chapter condemns polygamy and the practice of David/Solomon. In regard to the small statement that was quoted earlier if God were to command it. In times where it would be most reasonable to raise up seed unto God......God used the one wife system. Adam/Eve, Noah, Jaredites, Nephites, etc... Even when we consider the 200 years of righteousness/peace directly after the visitation of Christ to the New World.....where was polygamy? The scriptures in the Book of Mormon say in 4 Nephi 1:11:

"And now behold it came to pass that the people of Nephi did wax strong, and did multiply exceeding fast, and became an exceeding fair and delightsome people. And they were married, and given in marriage, and were blessed according to the multitude of the promises which the Lord had made unto them. And they did not walk any more after the performances and ordinances of the law of Moses, but they did walk after the commandments which they had received from their Lord and their God....."

Later is says verse 18-20:

"And there were no envyings, nor strifes, nor tumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness; And surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God: There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God..."

Compare that to polygamy and life among the early Utah Mormons.

Bradley E. Barnhart, priest (RLDS Restorationist)

Springfield, OR.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I have a book at home, a very excellent book. So excellent in fact that I highly recommend every member of the Church to have a copy of it in their home if they are at all interested in understanding the Jewish Faith adn the Old Testament (which, really, we all should since the LDS especially are nothing without it). It is called Hebrew Law in Biblical Times, ed. by W. Falk and John W. Welch. You can find it online actually here:

Hebrew Law in Biblical Times

From the summary online:

***

This book presents the scholar, historian, lawyer, and general student of the Bible with a highly readable and very useful handbook. First published in Jerusalem in 1964, this concise yet knowledgeable treatise remains highly illuminating. Its skillful organization makes it the most accessible of all introductions to Biblical Law.

Falk's research is grounded in historical, sociological, linguistic, and comparative data. His work yields interesting insights about technical legal terminology, vital social information behind the Israelite legal system, as well as broad perspectives on law among Israel's neighbors, the Babylonians, Assyrians, and Egyptians.

****

Now my schpiel about why this is an excellent book. First off, Falk is NOT LDS. In fact, he's not even Christian. He was an orthodox Jews. Falk I believe was one of the original people called in to help with Israel when it was formed. He taught in the universities there, served in the cabinet, etc. Very well spoken individual, very humble. Anyway, nowhere does he ever once mention the LDS Church. I cannot seem to recall him ever mentioning he New Testament either. The "Bible" mentioned here is the Old Testament.

So what does this very orthodox Jew have to do with this conversation? Simply put, he addresses directly the issues of polygamy, concubines, divorce, etc. And what is his opinion? He claims that at times the Lord himself authorized polygamy. In fact, there are scriptures Falk refers to where the Lord actually refers to Israel and Judah as a polygamous marriage pleasing to the Lord. Falk then goes on to say that as the age of the Kings began, the Lord then slowly faded it out. He cites Jewish laws regarding polygamy, showing that their were standards. He shows that the people understood it to be acceptable unto God.

But that's just a completely neutral viewpoint to LDS perspective voicing his years of study and research. The book, bytheway, is nowhere near an exciting read. But it's not too big and you get a lot of understanding from it.

Edited to correct religious affiliation of the editor of this edition.