Polygamy Redux

[Confidential Informant]

So, the other thread got shut down just as Elect Lady was showing some signs of actually answering some questions.

This thread is intended be very narrow (in fact, I'd limit it to EL and myself if that were possible) thus I ask that off-topic posts be avoided.

You need to tell me why 1) God never complained about it even once. 2) God told David that it was God who had given David all those wives. 3) Why God included provisions for proper its proper practice in the Law when that would have been a perfect time to proscribe it by law.

1. People do worse things than practice polygamy all the time without God raising so much as a finger against them.

For example?

Moreover, aren't you simply saying that polygamy simply wasn't that big of a deal to God? I mean, if you are correct, then it was practiced for several hundred (thousand) years and God simply never bothered to correct anyone. Also, God kept calling prophets and those prophets kept taking multiple wives! One would think that, at some point, he'd get fed up with it and either tell them it was wrong or start calling prophets who wouldn't take multiple wives.

The problem with your argument is that God appears to have so easily corrected other practices and acts that he found issue with. Moses gets dinged for usurping credit for God's acts (a sin which I find rather minor compared w/ adultery). Jonah was harshly reprimanded for his disobedience. I'll talk more about this below, but it appears that your assertion is weak, very weak, at best.

2. Show me the scripture. I am not questioning that it exists, I just want to be sure which scripture to want me to address.

No problem. I am, of course, referring to 2 Sam. 12: 7-9 which states in regard to King David:

7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art 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;

8 And I gave thee thy master

[falanius]

*pulls up a chair and grabs some popcorn*

*enjoys the show*

[alter idem]

*pulls up a chair and grabs some popcorn*

*enjoys the show*

*offers falanius a bag of Mr. Crispy's cheese curls*

*waits expectantly for EL to show*

[elect_lady]

Off-topic post deleted.

[USU78]

I think her point was that we shouldn't follow everything that is taught in the old testament and therefore defending polygamy using the old testament is bogus. Unfortunately for me its not a convincing argument.

Indeed. If there were anything about polygyny OT style in the NT we might have been on to something. As it is . . .

[Uncle Dale]

I think her point was that we shouldn't follow everything that is taught in the old testament and therefore defending polygamy using the old testament is bogus. Unfortunately for me its not a convincing argument.

Indeed. If there were anything about polygyny OT style in the NT we might have been on to something. As it is . . .

In an all too generalized summary of early human society, we might conclude that

animal husbandry provided the model for polygamy. Primitive herdsmen kept their

best male animals for breeding stock and ate the other males over the course of time.

So long as female animals could breed (and provide dairy products as a side-benefit),

they were also kept alive. The mundane consequences of these realities must have

imposed their images upon the eyes and minds of the herdsmen almost daily.

Primitive agricultural societies -- in which stock raising was lacking or minimalized --

generally seem to have been less patriarchal. Were I looking for biblical era polygyny,

I'd go searching the society of early Crete, perhaps.

Can you imagine what stories the Bible would contain, had it originated there?

Uncle "Yeah, I know, polygynous Sherpas are animal herders, as are matralineal Navajos" Dale

[Gordon]

I think her point was that we shouldn't follow everything that is taught in the old testament and therefore defending polygamy using the old testament is bogus. Unfortunately for me its not a convincing argument.

I agree, but she fails to see, or mention, that we do not live by the laws of Moses anymore. However, this does nothing to negate the fact that polygamy was OK with the Lord at that point, and therefore, can be again.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think her point was that we shouldn't follow everything that is taught in the old testament and therefore defending polygamy using the old testament is bogus. Unfortunately for me its not a convincing argument.

Indeed. If there were anything about polygyny OT style in the NT we might have been on to something. As it is . . .

As I recall, Elect Lady, is a doctrinal cherry picker, so I'm fairly certain even a New Testament reference would not be persuasive to her.

[Confidential Informant]

This is personal is it??

Nope. It's itellectual and factual.

Well, I don't like you either.

<Yawn> So get in line. Haven't you heard I have a reputation on this board?

I will not engage in a discussion about polygamy or anything else with you, because you can't do it in a mature manner as can be seen in the other thread.

My this is an interesting comment. Please do tell how I have been anything less than "mature" (and I'd like your definition of that term) in our engagement? Have I called you names? Not to my knowledge. Have I questioned your intelligence? Again, no. In fact, I don't think you point to a single comment from me that can realistically be construed as immature or a personal attack.

The only thing I've done is question the logical foundations of your assertion. I asked specific, pointed questions about Biblical sayings and events that clearly seem to contradict your preferred position. I have engaged in no "neener neener" type posts at all.

Thus, I am lead to believe (and your posting of the Dr. Laura letter confirms this to me) that you are the one is is incapable of engaging in a discussion about this topic, not due to immaturity but for a lack of a cogent response.

I will answer the questions in your first post and then nothing more.

That's your right. In fact, just getting that far would be progress.

After which you and everyone else that ganged up on me in the first thread may continue with your personal attacks without me. 

Again with the claim of "personal attacks." Please show me where I have done so. Can you provide a link to even a single post of mine that mocked/ridiculed/made fun of or commented on your person at all? I do not think you can. All of my posts have been centered on your intellectual approach to this topic (such as it is) and how I do not see it as having a basis beyond a personal animosity toward plural marriage and Joseph Smith.

As to the others who "ganged up on you" , I cannot control what they post but I do know that rules of the board prohibit personal attacks and each post has a link at the top entitled "report" that allows you to send a complaint directly to the mods who, despite claims to the contrary, are really very good at controlling such behavior.

I will not continue with  the discussion, nor will I return to read what you are going to say about me.

Continuing the discussion implies that you have already engaged in the discussion. As yet, that has not happened. After it does, then I will worry about your continued particiation. As to what I will say about you, I haven't said anything about you in the past, therefore I don't know what you fear I will say about you in the future.

After all, you all seem to amuse each other, I hate to exclude others from the discussion.

I know you are feeling a bit persecuted, but that feeling will quickly subside if you actually engage rather than avoid and dissemble.

I will anwer your questions later, as  my daughter has an appointment she has to get to. In the mean time, I thought you might find this amusing:

Fair enough. If it happens after 5:00 p.m. here I probably won't see it until tomorrow.

As to the letter to Dr. Laura, don't you think that it raises more questions for you than it does for me? My position all along has been that God has some character traits that when viewed by we mortals can be quite disturbing. You are the one who has insisted on reforming God in your image to suit your own views of what God should be and how He should act.

Moreover, as Uncle Dale has already pointed out, this letter represent a rather shallow, inexperienced view of the OT, or more specifically, the Mosaic law. It most certainly does not address the major question we face here, which is that at time both before and after the promulgation of the Mosaic code God allowed for polygamy to be practiced.

It is now incumbent on you to rebut this view, or, as has been suggested, default the argument.

C.I.

[Confidential Informant]

Okay Dale and USU,

Enough with the graphics already. Give the Google Image search engine a rest now.

C.I.

[alter idem]

EL is feeling picked on? She brought it on herself with statements like this: " I don't have a "beef" with the church, just the immoral practice of adultery disguised as a commandment from God."

She's calling my ancestors adulterers. Those of you who think we are ganging up on her because she doesn't like polygamy, what would you do if someone cast aspersions on the moral character of your ancestors?

All are free to believe whatever they want about Polygamy, but if anyone thinks I am going to leave a denunciation of my family unchallenged, think again.

The saints who practiced polygamy in the 19th century did not violate any moral laws by what they believed. They knew that the Old Testament allowed polygamy. They believed the Book of Mormon and its teachings. A careful reading of it clearly authorizes polygamy under certain situations(yes, I know COC members don't agree, no matter for this discussion). They believed their prophets and followed their counsel, exercizing faith that they were doing what God wanted. To suggest that they practiced it for immoral reasons is ignoring all these facts.

[Al Hoffman]

EL is feeling picked on?  She brought it on herself with statements like this:  " I don't have a "beef" with the church, just the immoral practice of adultery disguised as a commandment from God."

She's calling my ancestors adulterers.  Those of you who think we are ganging up on her because she doesn't like polygamy, what would you do if someone cast aspersions on the moral character of your ancestors?

All are free to believe whatever they want about Polygamy,  but if anyone thinks I am going to leave a denunciation of my family unchallenged, think again.

The saints who practiced polygamy in the 19th century did not violate any moral laws by what they believed.  They knew that the Old Testament allowed polygamy.  They believed the Book of Mormon and its teachings.  A careful reading of it clearly authorizes polygamy under certain situations(yes, I know COC members don't agree, no matter for this discussion).  They believed their prophets and followed their counsel, exercizing faith that they were doing what God wanted.  To suggest that they practiced it for immoral reasons is ignoring all these facts.

How do you feel about the following quotes:

"Since the founding of the Roman empire monogamy has prevailed more extensively than in times previous to that. The founders of that ancient empire were robbers and women stealers, and made laws favoring monogamy in consequence of the scarcity of women among them, and hence this monogamic system which now prevails throughout Christendom, and which had been so fruitful a source of prostitution and whoredom throughout all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New World, until rottenness and decay are at the root of their institutions both national and religious."

- Prophet Brigham Young Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p. 128

"... the one-wife system not only degenerates the human family, both physically and intellectually, but it is entirely incompatible with philosophical notions of immortality; it is a lure to temptation, and has always proved a curse to a people."

- Prophet John Taylor, Millennial Star, Vol. 15, p. 227

"Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman empire....Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers.... Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord's servants have always practised it. 'And is that religion popular in heaven?' it is the only popular religion there,..."

- Prophet Brigham Young, The Deseret News, August 6, 1862

Should I feel as though my ancestors who were not LDS at the time, and practiced monogamy, have been maligned? Would you agree that John Taylor and Brigham Young have opened themselves up to the wrath of all those whose ancestors practiced monogamy?`Do you believe that your relatives of today ( and the past 100 years) are part of an institution that, "had been so fruitful a source of prostitution and whoredom throughout all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New World, until rottenness and decay are at the root of their institutions both national and religious."

How easy for us to seek ways in which to be offended and to use that as an excuse to fight one another or treat others poorly. The ease of our ability to become offended and fight, helps me to realize that the teaching of turning the other cheeck, and blessing those that offend us, is in fact a higher law.

[Dunamis]

I have cleaned out the thread. Do not discuss other posters. If Elect Lady does not wish to participate on this thread she is not required to. Stop the harrassment. Elect Lady, if you participate on this thread do not make accusations of adultery or use other pejoratives. That is inflammatory and unnecessary.

[grego]

alter idem wrote:

"They believed their prophets and followed their counsel, exercizing faith that they were doing what God wanted."

i don't agree with that. it wasn't just faith for all:

"The room shone bright. All of a sudden I saw evil spirits. I was scared and was just going to call my husband when a voice spoke, "I am your ministering spirit." ... I asked if Joseph Smith died a true prophet. He spoke, "He died a true prophet, Brigham Young is now the man to lead the Church. If you will covenant with me not to reveal it to the world there shall be things revealed to you that shall be greatly to your benefit." I then saw in a vision the beauty and glory of plurality of wives. It said, "Your mother and your sister, Sarah, do not believe in plurality. Almira knows it is right. Tell them what you know and they will all believe you." I got up well. I had been three weeks confined to my bed with chills and fever. We received our endowments in the Nauvoo temple. There was the spirit of the Lord present..."

(from Mariah Pulsipher at--http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/MPulsipher.html)

al hoffman wrote:

"Should I feel as though my ancestors who were not LDS at the time, and practiced monogamy, have been maligned?"

yes, as were mine, by their culture and social customs, and as we are right now, too. learn to live with it. of course, others should also.

"...but if anyone thinks I am going to leave a denunciation of my family unchallenged, think again."

i can't believe i just read "but she said my mommy wears army boots!" on this board! come on, folks!

[Theophilus]

1. People do worse things than practice polygamy all the time without God raising so much as a finger against them.

For example?

Well, first of all, how about Moses murdering the Egyptian?

Of course, the main problem with pointing out things that God didn't condemn in the Bible is that it is all to easy for LDS to reject the examples out of hand, for the very reason that God didn't specifically condemn a particular action.

But the thing is that the crux of the LDS argument here is nothing more than an argument from silence, namely, "God never condemned it". Well, if arguments from silence are valid, then it is equally true that (in the Bible, anyway), "God never commanded it". So why is it that the LDS argument from silence allegedly "trumps" the non-LDS argument from silence?

Moreover,  aren't you simply saying that polygamy simply wasn't that big of a deal to God?

Well, either that or, Abraham wasn't that big of a deal to God".

And what I mean about that is that the purpose of the Bible isn't to tell us how much of a sinner Abraham was, or how much of a sinner Cain was, or how much of a sinner Judas was, it's to convince us of our own sins, and lead us to the Saviour.

I'll talk more about this below, but it appears that your assertion is weak, very weak, at best.

Well, as long as we're allowed to share out own personal evaluations, it seems to me that the argument of silence, and the rejection of NT passages against polygamy, is "weak, very weak, at best".

No problem.  I am, of course, referring to 2 Sam. 12: 7-9 which states in regard to King David:

I personally am well aware of the passage, and am not the least bit impressed with attempts to use it to try to justify polygamy.

Do you really think the purpose of that passage was to "teach" that polygamy was a "true principle"?! God was berating David for his sin in taking Bathsheba to be his wife and having Uriah killed. He was pointing out to David that God was sovereign, and David was nothing more than his servant, that David wasn't in charge, God was. David was nothing without God, David owed everything to God, even his house, and even his wives. He was deserving of none of it, all was given to him only through the mercy and grace of God.

THAT is the message here.

God was not trying to "validate" or "justify" polygamy, that is a distinct issue.

Lord and specifically saying that the Lord himself gave David those wives.

What, do you think God walked down the aisle with the wives and gave them to David with His "blessing"? That's not what the passage is about, in context.

Finally, No I most certainly am not referring to the D&C. I"m referring, actually, to Law of Moses as found in the Book of Exodus.  Here, you have Moses giving the people the Law.  Now, that Law provides all kinds of proscriptions against certain types of sexual behaviors (adultery, homosexuality, etc) thus one would right assume that if God truely did not care for plural marriages this would have been his prime chance to proscribe it once and for all. 

Did he?

Yes, He did... In the teachings about divorce, something that would be unnecessary if "plural marriage" was condoned by God.

In fact, the Law actually provided rules for it's proper practice:

Ex. 21: 10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

If you look closely, you will see that the word "wife" in that verse is in italics, indicating that it is not part of the Hebrew text, but an interpretive addition by the translators. Perhaps you're unaware of how bad an idea it is to try to create or support a doctrine by something that isn't even in the Biblical text.

The passage of Ex. 21 is about maidservants, not "wives".

Did you even read the entire chapter, in context?

Besides, even if you insist on keeping the term "wife" in there, the context is "another wife" [iNSTEAD OF THE MAIDSERVANT THE SON REJECTED].

And that is most definitely not a description of "plural marriage".

Moreover, the Law actually provided for instances where plural marriage was not simply an option, but actually required! Thus, in Deut 25:5-10 we find:

5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband

[Uncle Dale]

I have cleaned out the thread. Do not discuss other posters. If Elect Lady does not wish to participate on this thread she is not required to. Stop the harrassment. Elect Lady, if you participate on this thread do not make accusations of adultery or use other pejoratives. That is inflammatory and unnecessary.

Well, I'll cheerfully abide by all your other constraints -- but, as for not discussing

other posters, I refuse to go along with that.

I'll police myself as best my mood and judgment suggest. But if my refusal on this

particular point is unacceptable to the "powers that be," I do not see how the other

content of my contributions can ever be insured in advance as being "acceptable."

Perhaps you can better explain what you've thus far said in this instance. Referring me

back to the FAIR posting rules will not be enough in this particular case I'm afraid.

Respectfully,

Dale R. Broadhurst

[grego]

theophilus wrote:

"Well, first of all, how about Moses murdering the Egyptian?"

how disingenious. having just had a thread on this topic, and in it having shown quite the opposite, this is quite inappropriate. which makes me not want to read anymore that he wrote, of course...

[Theophilus]

how disingenious.  having just had a thread on this topic, and in it having shown quite the opposite, this is quite inappropriate.

I participated in that thread, and I showed that it was indeed the case that Moses murdered the Egyptian. Even CJCampbell (LDS) acknowledged the reasonableness of my opinion.

So I'm afraid that I reject your implicit assertion that your interpretation is the only way to interpret the passage, and in fact you only demonstrate my point in my original reply that asking for "examples where God didn't condemn an instance of a sinful practice" is what is "disingenuous", since (as you just did) an LDS can simply dismiss and reject any example given, by definition.

Theophilus

[Theophilus]

EL is feeling picked on?  She brought it on herself with statements like this:  " I don't have a "beef" with the church, just the immoral practice of adultery disguised as a commandment from God."

She's calling my ancestors adulterers.

With all due respect to your ancestors, I think the above is a very unfair, and very invalid argument. You seem to be arguing that just because your ancestors did something, therefore it must not have been sinful.

Do you disagree with the teaching that everyone has sinned (Rom. 3:10-12, etc.)?

I don't believe EL even mentioned your ancestors, and I don't believe she was trying to make any kind of personal attack. I have no reason to believe that your ancestors were sincere in all the did, and acted and worshipped as their consciences directed them.

Yet we continue to sin. Every single one of us.

Should we want Charles Manson's family, and Scott Peterson's family, and Mark Hacking's family, all to start arguing "pro-murder", and criticize anyone who argues that murder is wrong, because those who do so are calling their beloved family members "murderers"?

No, your criticism here seems patently unfair. You seem to be asking, nay demanding, that just because your ancestors lived a particular lifestyle, that no one is allowed to hold a contrary position on the moral/ethical/Biblical issues involved.

Theophilus

[grego]

theophilus wrote:

"I showed that it was indeed the case that Moses murdered the Egyptian. Even CJCampbell (LDS) acknowledged the reasonableness of my opinion."

is this supposed to be an appeal to authority?

you might have shown it to yourself, but hardly to others. please respond on that thread to the posts showing to the contrary, if you believe you can.

"But the thing is that the crux of the LDS argument here is nothing more than an argument from silence, namely, "God never condemned it". Well, if arguments from silence are valid, then it is equally true that (in the Bible, anyway), "God never commanded it". So why is it that the LDS argument from silence allegedly "trumps" the non-LDS argument from silence?"

for example?

"In the teachings about divorce, something that would be unnecessary if "plural marriage" was condoned by God."

and how does logic arrive at that conclusion?

"Yes, I'm familiar with the "kinsman-redeemer". Unfortunately, once again the LDS position is dependent on an argument from silence, assuming that the married brother were required to fulfill this "duty". If there were an explicit example or commandment of even married brothers being required, then you would have a case. But it doesn't, and so you don't."

i unfortunately seem to be a little too cold this mornign. perhaps you could reword this so i could understand better?

[Froggie]

ad hominem deleted

I'm going to go back and retrieve Dadof7's wife's thread because I think she has some interesting points to make.

Meanwhile, CI. You have expressed outrage in the past that I should take offense on behalf of the dead and dumb polygamous women. You do not have that right either. Please either allow me to express my feelings on what these women may have been feeling. I think my opinions are easily as valid as yours.

As to this thread. Have any of you read the OT lately?? I'm just curious. It was a different time, different culture, different moral code. It better have been, because by today's standards, the OT - whether its contents were approved, authorized either implicitly or explicitly - by God......would not be acceptable. 2 Kings, for instance, details the lovely story of Elisha who put a curse on 42 youths for teasing/mocking his bald head. Two bears came out of the woods and ripped into all of the youths. God didn't stop this. In fact, some say God was the one who sent the two bears. The OT is resplendent with these types of stories. We needn't go far to find God-justified (either explicitly or implicitly) violence, incest, rapings, murder, genocide.

Which is all well and good. We can take a look at it, perhaps extrapolate an allegorical message, perhaps understand this was a time for God to prepare the world for Christ's more enlightened message.

What isn't well and good is trying to use behaviors, laws or doctrines exhibited in the OT for this day and age. Polygamy did not work in this day and age. It flies in the face of what we are taught about the sacred, intimate nature of marriage...between a man and a woman.

I think this was EL's point in the letter. And it is a good point. Let's use other examples other than polygamy. What if Joseph commanded incest as a way of ensuring bloodline survival (like Lot and his daughters). It happened in the OT, so does that mean God approved/authorized it? Or what if Joseph brought back animal sacrifice.

Joseph justified modern day polygamy from constructs used in the OT. Using this rationale, any OT device could be restored. But that does not happen. Because it is wrong. In Mathew, it speaks of a man leaving his mother and father and shall cleave to his WIFE, and they twain shall be one flesh. That is not plural.

Now, I believe that the primary reason for Joseph's deaths sprung from complications in polygamy. The lying and deceptions and attempts to cover-up, the relationship dynamics that boiled over the top. I COULD, after looking at Joseph's life and death, say that God took Joseph off the face of his earth because he was leading the church astray. When we are talking about something as subjective as God's will, or God's plan, or God's communication, its all fair in love and war. This hypothetical has as much validity as the one where God commanded Joseph to take on polygamy as a dreadful role in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. I won't though, because I don't think that is what happened. I think that God had nothing to do with modern-day polygamy. And noone, of course, can prove me wrong.

Big green hugs,

Froggie

Moderator: This is what really really annoys me, I spent some time removing posts much like this one because Elect Lady was not being treated fairly. You come and restart the brawl.

[Dunamis]

There will be no morality lectures. There will be no impassioned speeches of outrage. You may express how you feel about polygamy once. If you have nothing more to add move on.

[Pahoran]

Of course, the main problem with pointing out things that God didn't condemn in the Bible is that it is all to easy for LDS to reject the examples out of hand, for the very reason that God didn't specifically condemn a particular action.

But the thing is that the crux of the LDS argument here is nothing more than an argument from silence, namely, "God never condemned it".  Well, if arguments from silence are valid, then it is equally true that (in the Bible, anyway), "God never commanded it".  So why is it that the LDS argument from silence allegedly "trumps" the non-LDS argument from silence?

Because it is the self-righteous self-proclaimed "Christians[TM]" who are arrogantly assuming that God must hate whatever they hate. Bottom line: you cannot call a sin what God has not forbidden.

And what I mean about that is that the purpose of the Bible isn't to tell us how much of a sinner Abraham was, or how much of a sinner Cain was, or how much of a sinner Judas was, it's to convince us of our own sins, and lead us to the Saviour.

And the fact that various sins are condemned but polygamy is not leads to what conclusion? That no polygamist would ever read the Bible and thus need to be convicted of his sins, or that whatever sins a polygamist may commit, polygamy does not happen to be one of them?

No problem.  I am, of course, referring to 2 Sam. 12: 7-9 which states in regard to King David:

I personally am well aware of the passage, and am not the least bit impressed with attempts to use it to try to justify polygamy.

Do you really think the purpose of that passage was to "teach" that polygamy was a "true principle"?! God was berating David for his sin in taking Bathsheba to be his wife and having Uriah killed. He was pointing out to David that God was sovereign, and David was nothing more than his servant, that David wasn't in charge, God was. David was nothing without God, David owed everything to God, even his house, and even his wives. He was deserving of none of it, all was given to him only through the mercy and grace of God.

THAT is the message here.

God was not trying to "validate" or "justify" polygamy, that is a distinct issue.

No-one claims that he was. Everyone perfectly well understands that David's polygamy was not the subject of Nathan's rebuke.

But what you keep ducking and dodging is the irrefutable fact that God gave David his wives, "and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things," i.e. more of the same (2 Sam. 12: 8b.) The passage makes no attempt to "justify" polygamy, because polygamy needs no justification.

Lord and specifically saying that the Lord himself gave David those wives.

What, do you think God walked down the aisle with the wives and gave them to David with His "blessing"? That's not what the passage is about, in context.

No, it's not what the passage was "about," but notwithstanding your use of ridicule as a distraction tactic, the passage does rather unambiguously assert that God gave David his wives.

Your argument is a classic example of the bibliolater's two-step. You claim, as a Protestant, to speak where the Bible speaks and to keep silent where it is silent. The Bible is silent on polygamy being a sin. It speaks out and says that God gave David his wives. Yet here you are refusing to acknowledge what the Bible says, and yet speaking where the Bible is silent. It's a shame the Bible doesn't call polygamy a sin, but fortunately we have Theophilus to make up for the Bible's shortcomings.

Finally, No I most certainly am not referring to the D&C. I"m referring, actually, to Law of Moses as found in the Book of Exodus.  Here, you have Moses giving the people the Law.  Now, that Law provides all kinds of proscriptions against certain types of sexual behaviors (adultery, homosexuality, etc) thus one would right assume that if God truely did not care for plural marriages this would have been his prime chance to proscribe it once and for all. 

Did he?

Yes, He did... In the teachings about divorce, something that would be unnecessary if "plural marriage" was condoned by God.

That's an extraordinary leap. How on earth do you justify that argument? You clearly assume that if a married couple are miserable together, the husband's right to take another wife (provided he can support her) would make divorce redundant; but where does God say that? Do you really assume that your conclusion about the text can be nothing less than God's pure intention for it?

If that's the case, why doesn't God say so?

In fact, the Law actually provided rules for it's proper practice:

Ex. 21: 10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

If you look closely, you will see that the word "wife" in that verse is in italics, indicating that it is not part of the Hebrew text, but an interpretive addition by the translators. Perhaps you're unaware of how bad an idea it is to try to create or support a doctrine by something that isn't even in the Biblical text.

The passage of Ex. 21 is about maidservants, not "wives".

Did you even read the entire chapter, in context?

Besides, even if you insist on keeping the term "wife" in there, the context is "another wife" [iNSTEAD OF THE MAIDSERVANT THE SON REJECTED].

Well, it happens that I did read the entire passage, in context.

Your interpretation fails to account for the phrase "and her duty of marriage."

Moreover, the Law actually provided for instances where plural marriage was not simply an option, but actually required! Thus, in Deut 25:5-10 we find:

5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband

[Froggie]

I would like to add one more thing. I am a direct descendant of Benjamin Johnson, and I have literally generations of ancestors who practiced polygamy. My own father was born in a polygamous colony in Mexico. I do not feel like I am a stranger to the topic. Nor do I normally express outrage about it. From a practical standpoint, I could see what would motivate Joseph. Particularly when looking at the dynastic - type marriages. If I were Joseph, and I wanted my church to survive, I'd do exactly what he did. Garner as many followers as possible, create real, tangible intimate ties to help increase loyalty. Have as many wives as possible, create as many children, and do that several generations to further increase church prosperity.

Now that there are enough children in the world, I would be completely open to reversing this. One wife, multiple husbands. It limits family size, and increase income.

I, of course, would do none of this in the name of God.

Big green hugs,

froggie

[alter idem]

Al Hoffman cited a number of quotes by early church leaders defending polygamy by tearing down monogamy and asked what I thought of them;

I thought they were hapless attempts to try and justify their behavior to the critical eyes of the world. I think they were uninspired and unnecessary arguments designed to debate and defend their position when all they needed to state was that they were doing what they'd been commanded to do.

Personally, I don't like Polygamy, I think it's not ideal for family life. But I believe it is part of God's laws. I think it serves a purpose when the Lord requires it. I think those who live it are blessed for their sacrifices. It was so difficult and less desirable that early leaders came up with all kinds of arguments to try and make it seem more appealing to a reluctant people.

I believe some will live in polygamous marriages in the celestial kingdom but not everyone. I believe that if we qualify for a celestial glory, we will get a life which makes us happy beyond our wildest dreams. If polygamy would mar this happiness, then I don't think it will be in our individual future.