Why Is Polygamy So Vilified In The Us?

[freakin a man]

Deborah,

Is this love for everyone include becoming "one flesh" or procreating with everyone?

Is becoming "one flesh" between a man and a wife exclusive?

Eph.5

[31] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

Is "sealing power" connected with multiply wives ... can a man with one wife be sealed?

It is clear that the "one flesh" is symbolic for how the man and wife are to considered as coming together to be one. Similar to how the the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are 3 beings but called "one". However I see no indication from the usage of this term that it always was intended to be understood as just one wife. It is clear that many in the Bible like Moses and Jacob never read monogamy into the term and since they did not, I see no reason to either.

If its a choice of who understood the scriptures better, people like Moses, Abraham, Jacob, and others or modern day readers who read monogamy into the "one flesh" term, for me the choice is clear of who had a better grasp on who understood the scriptures better.

[johnny]

freakin a man,

Oh the way I read it it is based on a bridegroom coming to meet and marry 10 virgins.

The parable is about entrance into the kingdom of God and being ready, it is not about polygamy (see below).

In the parable of the ten virgins, we are taught the folly of procrastinating and delaying our preparation for the day when the Savior will come again.

Victor L. Brown, â??Agency and Accountability,â? Ensign, May 1985, 14

Take note that the Lord was not talking about five thieves and sinners and five good people; he was talking about ten virgins, ten pure people who believed in God and had a desire to enter into the kingdom of heaven. The five foolish virgins had failed to prepare. Their lights were out; they were in darkness. Their urgent pleas and hasty preparation were not sufficient, and they heard these words from the lips of their God: â??I know you not.â?

Bernard P. Brockbank, â??Entrance into the Kingdom of God,â? Ensign, Jan. 1973, 44

[freakin a man]

freakin a man,

The parable is about entrance into the kingdom of God and being ready, it is not about polygamy (see below).

In the parable of the ten virgins, we are taught the folly of procrastinating and delaying our preparation for the day when the Savior will come again.

Victor L. Brown, â??Agency and Accountability,â? Ensign, May 1985, 14

Take note that the Lord was not talking about five thieves and sinners and five good people; he was talking about ten virgins, ten pure people who believed in God and had a desire to enter into the kingdom of heaven. The five foolish virgins had failed to prepare. Their lights were out; they were in darkness. Their urgent pleas and hasty preparation were not sufficient, and they heard these words from the lips of their God: â??I know you not.â?

Bernard P. Brockbank, â??Entrance into the Kingdom of God,â? Ensign, Jan. 1973, 44

I know what the parable and I agree is not speaking about a literal marriage between Jesus and 5 specific women that will happen in the future but the point is the parable is based on a polygamist setting. Would we expect Jesus to associate himself in a parable with the storyline based on a premise or background that he found wrong? For example, suppose Jesus instead of giving this parable as one of a bridegroom coming for 10 virgins, but a John coming to meet 10 prostitutes and only 5 prostitutes where ready for the "John". Would Jesus associate himself in such a parable built on such an immoral foundation? So my usage of the parable is not based on what the parable is about but what the underlying foundation of how the story is told. A bridegroom coming for multiple wives.

Jesus could have easily avoided the issue by giving a parable based on a Shephard coming for 10 sheep but only 5 sheep where ready. Using that storyline, he could have taught the same concept without drawing any connection to his views on polygamy. I believe its fairly reasonable to conclude he had no real negative views on polygamy and thus he did not mind placing himself in a story where polygamy is central part of the storyline.

[johnny]

freakin a man,

However I see no indication from the usage of this term that it always was intended to be understood as just one wife.

Could you explain how "two" can be more than one wife?

Eph.5

[31] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

[freakin a man]

freakin a man,

Could you explain how "two" can be more than one wife?

Eph.5

[31] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

The number "two" does not mean more than two. What I have a problem with is taking that number to mean that one could not have more than two. It does not say "only two". What I object to is taking that passage and extending the meaning to mean that God was instructing mankind that one could only have one wife. I don't believe polygamy is addressed in the context. The issue of polygamy is not being discussed. What is clear the Old Testament prophets did not add that meaning to it. So who should we believe more. Moses or Jacob and their understanding of "one flesh" or say you? For me, I would rather chose Moses and Jacob. Remember Paul's usage is based on the usage in Genesis its very instructive to find out how the Old Testament people understood that meaning. I don't think they were all stupid. In fact, I think they where inspired.

[johnny]

freakin a man,

I would rather chose Moses and Jacob.

I would rather chose Jesus ... he says "his wife" ... he does not say "his wives" ...

Matt.19

[5] And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

[freakin a man]

freakin a man,

I would rather chose Jesus ... he says "his wife" ... he does not say "his wives" ...

Matt.19

[5] And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Yeah but polygamy is not at issue. He does not say "and shall cleave to only one wife". So yes he does not say "wives" but I cancel your assertion out by noting he does not say "only one wife". The issue was about divorce. Not all men where married to more than one wife so there really is no reason to so "wives". Find me a passage where Jesus or anyone else is talking specficially about polygamy and this quotation from Genesis is used against polygamy. If you can do that where polygamy IS THE SUBJECT, I will conceed and you win. Divorce is not good enough.

[johnny]

freakin a man,

Find me a passage where Jesus or anyone else is talking specficially about polygamy

Find me a passage where Jesus or any his followers in the New Testament are practicing polygamy. The Church of Christ is part of new dispensation and a new covenant.

[Dale]

I see no indication Jesus, or his followers in the New Testament ever made any statement favoring polygamy. This might not mean some of the Apostles could not have have speculated in private. But they seem to have favored monogamy in public as the Christian practice of marriage.

[katherine the great]

Oh the way I read it it is based on a bridegroom coming to meet and marry 10 virgins. Only 5 of the 10 where prepared to meet him but whether the bridegroom married 5 virgins or 10, the end result is still the same, a polygamist setting.

Uh, Freaking a Man (I always wanted to call someone that...)

This parable is NOT in a polygamist setting. Do you really think that the ten virgins were the brides? They were guests at the wedding. The bridegroom was escorted by family and friends to the bride. I mean really, do you think that ancient polygamists had mass polygamist weddings and then consummated the weddings all together? No. When there was plural marriage, they had the dignity to afford each bride her own ceremony and week alone with her husband.

[freakin a man]

freakin a man,

Find me a passage where Jesus or any his followers in the New Testament are practicing polygamy. The Church of Christ is part of new dispensation and a new covenant.

I don't need to find you a passage as since

A. LDS don't believe that the New Testament writings are a comprehensive history of the 1st century Church nor a comprehensive collection of the doctrines and practices of the first century church.

B. LDS believe that polygamy is a regulated practice where God may command it at some times and not others. So even if God did not command it in the first century has relevence to whether God commanded in the Old Testament or whether God commanded it in the 19th century. So me a passage in the New Testament that God would or could not command it in the 19th century.

C. Whether it is a new dispensation or covenant is completely irrelevant to the issue of polygamy. However I will take that claim as as admission from you that polygamy was commanded at least under the old dispensation and covenant.

Uh, Freaking a Man (I always wanted to call someone that...)

This parable is NOT in a polygamist setting. Do you really think that the ten virgins were the brides? They were guests at the wedding. The bridegroom was escorted by family and friends to the bride. I mean really, do you think that ancient polygamists had mass polygamist weddings and then consummated the weddings all together? No. When there was plural marriage, they had the dignity to afford each bride her own ceremony and week alone with her husband.

I don't know if it was a common thing or not but one would have to wonder if that is the case that only virgins could be guests at a wedding. I am not aware that only virgins could attend a wedding. Maybe I am wrong.

[juliann]

freakin a man,

Find me a passage where Jesus or any his followers in the New Testament are practicing polygamy. The Church of Christ is part of new dispensation and a new covenant.

You have been around on this enough times to know that the admonition to bishops to have only one wife was only necessary if men had more than one wife. How often does your church lecture you on having only one wife? Now you can deny it all you want, you can insist it means something else but it is still there. So stop asking "where". You can't dispute that polygamy was in the culture because of the Cave of Letters in which documents from a Jewish second plural wife were found. Now since the first Christians were Jews...do you suppose their marriages were being dissolved or do you suppose there were instructions given out that they should not hold certain offices?

The parable of the Ten Virgins can be interpreted as ten brides just as easily as not, BTW. I don't much care one way or another. That isn't the point of the parable of course....which makes the off-hand use of it even more striking.

â??In the Jewish communities of that time polygamy was still practiced /citing George H. Joyce, Christian Marriage (1948): 570-1; Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (1967): 90-94, 369; L.W. Barnard, Justin Martyr (1967): 46; Salo Wittmayer Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 14 volumes (1937ff): II: 223-229/. Josephus, the Jewish historical writer of the first century, mentions in two places that this custom still existed among his people. Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho (ca 165 AD), also gives witness to the existence of simultaneous polygamy among the Jews of that time. In 212 AD the lex Antoniana de civitate, while reaffirming the law of monogamy for Roman marriage, tolerated polygamy among the citizens who were Jews. This toleration was rescinded in 285 by Diocletian and Maximian, but the continuation of polygamy among the Jews later gave rise to a special law, issued in 393 by Theodosius, against the custom. Still, the practice survived until the eleventh century among the Jews of northern Europeâ? (20-21).

[liz3564]

I agree. I think it is more appropriate to compare it to having multiple friends that fulfill various needs than to use children. Friendship can often lead to romantic love and is indeed a part of it in healthy relationships, healthy parental love doesn't work that way with romantic love. Having a very deep and fulfilling relationship with one friend is a good indicator of one's ability to have a deep and fulfilling relationship with another friend given the right circumstances. And I wouldn't be surprised to find that it is also a good indicator of the ability to have a deep and fulfilling romantic relationship as well as the ability to be intimate on many levels (which friendship involves) would likely indicate an ability to be intimate on the additional levels of romantic love.

But I think the best comparison is to compare the ability to love multiple partners serially to the ability to love them in parallel. We know that an individual can be madly, passionately and fully committed on all levels to a partner, and if that partner dies, that same individual can develop another fully committed on all the same levels relationship with a different partner. The ability to have a fully committed love for one person or multiple persons is there obviously. What may be lacking is the ability to express or develop that ability for each potential relationship due to time and other material/physical constrictions or a sense of privacy or exclusion.

I don't see any reason to attempt to measure 'how much one loves' when in reality, a healthy love in a healthy relationship with healthy individuals (I speaking mentally and emotionally and socially here) would have no limits and therefore would be impossible to put a value on. One loves different aspects of different individuals and experiences and expresses that love in different ways; how can one measure something that varies so widely between each individual relationshp. What matters is the level of commitment in the relationship. That commitment is a better measure, imo, but it will still be a totally subjective measure due to the variation of expression required in various healthy relationships.

The potential limitations make it easy to understand why polygamy would never work for some people in mortality. Those who can work around these limitations or don't have them for whatever reason could, imo, make polygamy work for them with the right combination of individuals.

Since these types of limitations are unlikely to exist in the next life, it also makes sense to me that multiple partners may be desirable for some to develop their full potential of expressing and experience love.

Those who are not emotionally suited for polygamy aren't, imo, inherently more selfish any more than an extrovert would be inherently more or less selfish than an introvert. It is simply that these individuals experience love and express it in different ways.

THANK YOU, CAL!!!

I knew there was a good reason for me to wait in posting my response. You worded my feelings on this perfectly! I grow tired of seeing the comparison brought between a decision to bring more children into a home and a husband bringing more wives into a home because it does two things:

1. It equates a marital relationship to a parent/child relationship.

2. It also doesn't address the fact that when more children are brought into a family, it is a joint decision between husband and wife as a partnership.

The adult friendship comparison made A LOT more sense, and I couldn't help continuously nodding my head during your entire post.

Thanks for reading my mind, and wording things so eloquently.

[dude]

OK here's my 2-cents.

Scripturally polygamy is condemned in more places than it is praised.

It seems to me that it is "accepted" by the Lord in a few instances, namely raising a seed unto Him.

Then he "allows" or permits it. Not that it's a noble thing, mind you, just something He tolerates if He wants to. My point (and I know people won't agree with this, but it works for me) is that it's the same as other things the Lord will "permit" under certain circumstances,,,,,other repugnant things,,,,,like KILLING for instance. (Better that one man die, instead of a nation dwindle in unbelief.) I think you get my point. To defend the practice of polygamy as some holy practice is like defending killing as some righteous thing just because the Lord allows it once in awhile.

Now, the only red-herring to this whole argument is DC 132. But the more I read it, the more I can lump it into the justification category as I've described above. I think Brigham went way overboard with the practice and Joseph could have even been completely wrong with it in the latter-days, I don't know. It doesn't ruin my testimony either way. For all we know the Manifesto was LONG overdue and the Lord was allowing it just because He does sometimes. Somehow he worked with Solomon and David thru their nonsense. I think the same thing with the declaration on blacks and the priesthood. God was ready to chuck that LONG before SWK finally had the nerve to ask.

[Calm]

Glad I could help. I was debating whether to post again in the thread and only did becuase I had nothing else ot do at the time.

it is a joint decision between husband and wife as a partnership.

Not always unfortunately. A woman can get pregnant without the husband/male wanting her to. And the law legally can force him into caring for the child. And in the past, a man could force a woman to conceive whether she wanted to or not due to the lack of effective birth control as well as the law that determined there was no rape in a marriage.

I do agree that in most cases it is a joint decision these days and in healthy relationships always.

In reading LDS journals, it was a joint decision for many marriages to bring more wives into it, in some cases it was even left up to the wife to choose the new partner.

Better to stick to #1 for support.

[katherine the great]

I don't know if it was a common thing or not but one would have to wonder if that is the case that only virgins could be guests at a wedding. I am not aware that only virgins could attend a wedding. Maybe I am wrong.

It was unheard of. Even when Jacob married Leah and Rachel, they each had their own wedding and celebration. A wedding with one groom and ten brides would not have taken place in Jewish society (or any other that I can think of.) There is also nowhere in the story that says that the ten virgins were the only guests. They are the only guests that are referred to because the story is about them.

[Orpheus]

This thread has moved away from the original topic and become another generic thread on polygamy. Please start a fresh topic if you want to explore other aspects of polygamy.