Why Is Polygamy So Vilified In The Us?

[BlueDreams]

From my big book of anthropology....

The reason that polygamy is villified is culture and ethnocentrism.

Culturally the majority don't practice it or would want to.

And from my lovely glossary- ehtnocentrism: the practice of viewing the customs of other societies in terms of one's own.

It's basically the same reason that would make people cringe at the thought of eating horse or sticking a live monkey in a hole of a table, cutting off the top of the head, and then scooping out its brains with a spoon, or marrying your cousin, or marrying when you are 16. There's not even technically a rule against any of these practices if you're simply going with christian religion here. But these ideas, at best, seem weird, and worse are horrifying and in some states illegal (the monkey thing is probably something against most laws under animal abuse). But they are vilified because we grew up in a norm that did not include any of the above practices. And thus it's sickening to contemplate. They become social rules that you just don't break (easily at least). And if the social rule is strong enough, then many a time it becomes law.

With luv,

BD

[Christian]

Polygamy is looked down on in U.S./European culture for the exact same reason that the mormon community looks down on drinking beer, having sex before marriage and homosexuality: It is viewed as bad and moraly repugnant and agaisnt the morals of the community as dictated by traditional notions of right and wrong (arguably dictated by God).

Drinking alcohol per se is not harmful, but drinking it in excess is dangereous. Many mormons see the dangerous consequences of unmoderated drinking as a justification for the wisdom of the recomendation. Likewise, with polygamy, having more than one wife in many circumstances can be wonderful and respectable. However, there are clearly cases of excess--and people tend to judge the entire system by the excess. Such judgement sits well with their traditional notions of right and wrong, and thus the practice is abhored.

Same can be said of sex before marriage. If you focus on teen pregnancy, then sex before marriage is clearly repugnant. But what of cases where people really care about each other and are responsible?

Same can be said of any number of sins that don't affect the persuit of happenes of others: Someone has decided that it is wrong, it became a tradition, and the traditional view tends to view the practice in its excessive state, and it becomes a taboo. Abhorance of polygamy is simply a choice that our culture has decided against no less than the way that many have decided that homosexuality is wrong. I see no difference between the two.

[KevinG]

The condemnation of plural marriage is nothing more than the "philosophy of men mingled with scripture."

I don't know or really care if the the Lord will require plural marriage again but I sure won't be up in arms if he does.

It's probably painfully obvious by now that I agree with this statement... but as a group the Lord does not require it of us, and in fact we are under the default mode of one husband, one wife referred to in the Book of Mormon.

However, beyond the laws of this world, there are clearly many who have been called to the Principle by the Lord even in our day.

[KevinG]

Polygamy is looked down on in U.S./European culture for the exact same reason that the mormon community looks down on drinking beer, having sex before marriage and homosexuality: It is viewed as bad and moraly repugnant and agaisnt the morals of the community as dictated by traditional notions of right and wrong (arguably dictated by God).

Drinking alcohol per se is not harmful, but drinking it in excess is dangereous. Many mormons see the dangerous consequences of unmoderated drinking as a justification for the wisdom of the recomendation. Likewise, with polygamy, having more than one wife in many circumstances can be wonderful and respectable. However, there are clearly cases of excess--and people tend to judge the entire system by the excess. Such judgement sits well with their traditional notions of right and wrong, and thus the practice is abhored.

Same can be said of sex before marriage. If you focus on teen pregnancy, then sex before marriage is clearly repugnant. But what of cases where people really care about each other and are responsible?

Same can be said of any number of sins that don't affect the persuit of happenes of others: Someone has decided that it is wrong, it became a tradition, and the traditional view tends to view the practice in its excessive state, and it becomes a taboo. Abhorance of polygamy is simply a choice that our culture has decided against no less than the way that many have decided that homosexuality is wrong. I see no difference between the two.

Biblical injunctions against fornication are not simply traditional interpretations but explicitly forbidden in the law. Even Homosexuality has a stronger leg to stand on than fornication, but even then neither enjoys the status of polygamy in the Bible as an arguably normative behavior when commanded by God.

- - -

But to your broader point, yes our traditions have a lot to do with what we accept and don't accept. Blue Adept made the point too, and I think it is the best answer to the question asked in this thread.

[Tsuzuki]

...but I couldn't be forgiven if I was living with someone who wasn't my spouse. (civil divorce or not)

"Living with" or "having sexual relations with"? There is a difference for those of us who have to share rent responsibilities with those whose company we hopefully enjoy.

[liz3564]

That still doesn't explain why polygamy is seen as more vile than serial adulterers or serial monogamists?

I think you're creating a straw man arguement here, Dad. I don't really think it is villified in that sense. I think that the reason polygamy is frowned upon and misunderstood in this forum is because the participants here are, primarily, religious....or, at the very least...have religious principles. The religions may vary, but culturally, the norm is "one man....one woman".

It comes down to this. It is impossible for the majority of the women here, and some of the men as well, to grasp the emotional complexities involved in what we would consider to be an equitable plural marriage.

You and I have had this discussion before....32 pages worth.... ...My position still hasn't changed.

Now, Charity obviously disagrees with me. This is her quote:

As a culture, we are becoming more selfish, more self-centered. The righteous living of plural marriage requires the highest of character traits, which include being very unselfish. When people who have hardened themselves to the finer qualities of charcter, they can only look at the reasons why they would engage in any behaviorl For themselves it is all lust and greed and power trips. So they put that on others.

It seems to me that Charity feels that anyone who is against polygamy must be against it for selfish reasons, and are, therefore, self-centered.

Although I think this may hold true in some cases, I honestly don't believe that this is the norm, especially among faithful LDS women who struggle with this principle. Most of us are normal wives and mothers who have been married in the temple, and are doing our best to raise our families, and obey the commandments of God. We love our husbands, and have worked hard to develop a bond, a partnership with him that is unique, and not like any other relationship we are involved in. We see this partnership as a union between the two of us, guided by God.

I fail to see how this is selfish.

This, for me, is the crux of what I struggle with when it comes to the concept of plural marriage.

[KevinG]

As I pointed out before: In the general culture it is demonstrably more frowned upon than other things that are explicitly deemed sins by our own Judeo-Christian laws.

It was also the same in the 1800s.

My observations were not limited to those who post on religious bulletin boards but the culture in general.

The most satisfying response I have received so far is that it is our traditions irrespetive of our actual religious laws that cause the disparity. That I can see, even if I think it is somewhat hypocritical from a strict Judeo-Christian doctrinal standpoint.

[KevinG]

Certainly adding a wife to your family would make your relationship with your husband more unique, not less...

(Just kidding I really understood what you were saying- but the opportunity for word play was too tempting...)

[liz3564]

If you need another person to feel validated I guess you would have a problem with sharing a spouse. I don't see it that way. I think you have to have enough confidence in yourself that jealousy isn't an issue. If we are capable of loving more than one child, why is it we assume a man is not capable of loving more than one wife?

But if you're using that argument, are you saying that women don't have the same capacity to love? Why don't they have the opportunity to love more than one husband?

This is where the equitable part of all of this comes into play.

[liz3564]

Certainly adding a wife to your family would make your relationship with your husband more unique, not less...

(Just kidding I really understood what you were saying- but the opportunity for word play was too tempting...)

It's ok....I know you were getting me back for a Viagra comment I made to you earlier.

[blueadept]

...but I couldn't be forgiven if I was living with someone who wasn't my spouse.  (civil divorce or not)

"Living with" or "having sexual relations with"? There is a difference for those of us who have to share rent responsibilities with those whose company we hopefully enjoy.

Absolutely. The problem I had is that I remarried and the RCC didn't (and shouldn't) recognize my 2nd marriage. As far as it was concerned, I should be living w/ my 1st wife (thank God that's over).

Living in a circumstance that scriptures can interpret as immoral, was not a good place for me. I agree there's a difference between "living with" and having "relations with." I knew where I stood and I didn't like the view.

[Kemara]

I have always found western views of polygamy rather amusing, the bias exhibited is shallow and petty and seems to be based on the very confusing western view of cultural superiority - the

[charity]

liz, I do think that opposition to polygamy in reality, maybe not in theory as we are all here, is because of selfishness.

I think plural marriage really does happen because there are women who would not have worthy husbands otherwise. It is not my intention to open up the "not enough men" discussion with census numbers, etc. Since that is my belief about the reason for plural marriage then those who oppose it are opposing it for reasons of what is more comfortable for the individual.

Certainly, plural marriage has to be a sacrifice for a man. More people to support, more complicated relationships to manage, more children to actually be a father to, and I am not talking about the biological aspect. This demands an enormous denial of self-interest.

A woman, obviously, must sacrifice having her husband's exclusive attention, of working to have a pleasant relationship without jealousy with another woman or women, putting aside a natural tendency to treat her own children preferentially,and loving all her husband's children.

To me this personifies the epitome of selflessness. What would you say about a woman who, if she knew for a fact that another woman would live her life alone without a husband or have a husband who would not treat her well or be able to be her eternal companion, would deny that woman a husband because she wanted to keep her husband for herself? I would say that was selfish.

[Who Knows]

To me this personifies the epitome of selflessness. What would you say about a woman who, if she knew for a fact that another woman would live her life alone without a husband or have a husband who would not treat her well or be able to be her eternal companion, would deny that woman a husband because she wanted to keep her husband for herself? I would say that was selfish.

The woman wanting the other woman's husband would be more selfish in my eyes - but hey, that's just me.

[fox_goku]

To those who wonder what is wrong with polygamy, I say study Mormon polygamous history. If you do so, then you will know what is wrong with it.

19th Century Mormon polygamy had few if any rules. There was nothing to keep a man from bring another wife into the family without the permission of other wives. Joseph did this to Emma (see Newell & Avery). Other men were known to get wives without the permission of current wives (see Embry, Mormon Polygamous Families).

Wives were often treated unequally. "2nd wives" had little or no legal recourse. Guess what happened to older wives who could no longer bear children. Polygamy is ONLY a male ideal. So much for abandoning the natural man.

If polygamy is heaven, who needs hell?

[BlueDreams]

To those who wonder what is wrong with polygamy, I say study Mormon polygamous history. If you do so, then you will know what is wrong with it.

19th Century Mormon polygamy had few if any rules. There was nothing to keep a man from bring another wife into the family without the permission of other wives. Joseph did this to Emma (see Newell & Avery). Other men were known to get wives without the permission of current wives (see Embry, Mormon Polygamous Families).

Wives were often treated unequally. "2nd wives" had little or no legal recourse. Guess what happened to older wives who could no longer bear children. Polygamy is ONLY a male ideal. So much for abandoning the natural man.

If polygamy is heaven, who needs hell?

Yet the same could be said about marriage today. I agree with Kemara. It's stupid the defenses we put up against polygamy, pulling out the worst case scenerios, or the rougher moments period, building that up as a standard for polygamy in general and then showing how "wrong" such an institution is. What about monogamy then, especially american style? How horrifying it is to have a 50% divorce rate. People marry on whims and their libidos more than with any common sense found within their brains. And then when those flames pitter and patter or they fall on hard times they call it quits and simply leave each other leaving a strewn of children and, if they marry again, step/half children that live in this confusing mess their parents left for them. People are torn emotionally, physical, and even spiritually by this cunundrum of a practice.

If monogamy is heaven, then give me hell. Except wait...we're human...nothing we do on here is perfect, including our marriages. So how can we raise the woes of any marital circumstance as a banner for its general standard?

With luv,

BD

[Mekale]

 

I think plural marriage really does happen because there are women who would not have worthy husbands otherwise.  It is not my intention to open up the "not enough men" discussion with census numbers, etc.  Since that is my belief about the reason for plural marriage then those who oppose it are opposing it for reasons of what is more comfortable for the individual.

Certainly, plural marriage has to be a sacrifice for a man.  More people to support, more complicated relationships to manage, more children to actually be a father to, and I am not talking about the biological aspect.  This demands an enormous denial of self-interest. 

A woman, obviously,  must sacrifice having her husband's exclusive attention,  of working to have a pleasant relationship without jealousy with another woman or women, putting aside a natural tendency to treat her own children preferentially,and loving all her husband's children.

Hi Charity,

I have to agree with you on most of what you have written. I think plural marriage creates a sisterhood that becomes like blood. It would be a refiners fire for women. For men, it would challenge their ability to provide and lead all these children, which can teach about the challenges of becoming a God.

Where I disagree is at the end of your post.

What would you say about a woman who, if she knew for a fact that another woman would live her life alone without a husband or have a husband who would not treat her well or be able to be her eternal companion,  would deny that woman a husband because she wanted to keep her husband for herself?  I would say that was selfish.

When I think of the most admirable qualities in a husband, a man who is faithful to his marital vows of chastity with one wife are at the top of my list. I would rather have no husband than one who would do that to his first wife. A righteous husband is more to me than a Priesthood holder to get me in the Celestial Kingdom. More importantly, I would never want to break the beautiful union between this husband and wife that I admire by entering in a plural marriage with them. (even if the first wife consented) If I were single I would remain a ministering angel if my only option was polygamy for a husband.

A first wife who gives her husband to another is very charitable but it is impossible for her to give a plural wife the relationship she had and desires for this sister wife. It will be altered in a way that is unrecognizable from the monogamist marriage. Even if I had this charitable desire to share my husband, it's not possible to share the qualities I loved about him if chastity is at the top of my list.

My mother is divorced and willing to be a polygamist in the Celestial Kingdom. I asked her why she has to believe that is her only option? How do we know there won't be enough righteous men for all single women in heaven? How do we know there won't be progression between kingdoms, if we are going to be there for eternity?

[Nighthawke]

If Jennifer Aniston, Brad Pitt, Angelie Jolie or any number of A-list Hollywood celebrities embraced Polygamy, it would quickly become the rage and "hip".

Au contraire.

Substitute 'polygamy' for 'open marriage' (or the PC term 'sexually open relationship'). For example A-list celebrities Will Smith and Jada Pinkett (and others) have had an open marriage for years and it has yet to become all the rage, but more as a it's their choice and everybody mind your own business.

[fox_goku]

Here is what some modern Prophets have said about polygamy in General Conference:

Gordon B. Hinckley, â??What Are People Asking about Us?â? Ensign,

Nov. 1998, 70

What is the Churchâ??s position on polygamy?

We are faced these days with many newspaper articles on this subject. This has arisen out of a case of alleged child abuse on the part of some of those practicing plural marriage.

I wish to state categorically that this Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. Most of them have never been members. They are in violation of the civil law. They know they are in violation of the law. They are subject to its penalties. The Church, of course, has no jurisdiction whatever in this matter.

If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church. An article of our faith is binding upon us. It states, â??We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the lawâ? (A of F 1:12). One cannot obey the law and disobey the law at the same time.

There is no such thing as a â??Mormon Fundamentalist.â? It is a contradiction to use the two words together.

More than a century ago God clearly revealed unto His prophet Wilford Woodruff that the practice of plural marriage should be discontinued, which means that it is now against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows polygamy, the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage.

Did you catch that? President Hinckley said polygamy is â??now against the law of God.â? Now, read the following:

James E. Faust, â??Keeping Covenants and Honoring the Priesthood,â? Ensign, Nov. 1993, 36

[W]e urge you presiding brethren to seek the Spirit of God, to study and be guided by the scriptures and the General Handbook of Instructions. Church discipline is not limited to sexual sins but includes other acts such as murder, abortions, burglary, theft, fraud, and other dishonesty, deliberate disobedience to the rules and regulations of the Church, advocating or practicing polygamy, apostasy, or any other unchristianlike conduct, including defiance or ridicule of the Lordâ??s anointed, contrary to the law of the Lord and the order of the Church.

Did you catch that? President Faust associated polygamy with â??unchristianlikeâ? conduct. Letâ??s read further. President Hinckley taught that the discontinuance of polygamy was NOT an accident. Instead, the Lord REALLY wanted it discontinued.

Gordon B. Hinckley, â??This Thing Was Not Done in a Corner,â? Ensign, Nov. 1996, 48

[Mike Wallace] Question: â??As you know, some skeptics say that major changes in Church policy have come from political pressures, not necessarily as revelations from God. For example, the business of ending polygamy, say the skeptics, wasnâ??t because it was revelation but because Utah wanted to become a state.â?

[President Hinckley] Response: â??One of the purposes of a prophet is to seek the wisdom and the will of the Lord and to teach his people accordingly. It was the case with Moses when he led the children of Israel out of Egypt. It was the case for the Old Testament prophets when people were faced with oppression and trouble and difficulty. That is the purpose of a prophet, to give answers to people for the dilemmas in which they find themselves. That is what happens. That is what we see happen. Is it a matter of expediency, political expediency? No! Inspired guidance? Yes!â?

I think we can only conclude that polygamy is wrong and sinful -- even if we respect the early attempts of Mormon pioneers to make the practice succeed.

[Deborah]

I think we can only conclude that polygamy is wrong and sinful -- even if we respect the early attempts of Mormon pioneers to make the practice succeed.

No, you can conclude that except as God has said: "Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods. David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me." (D&C 132: 37-38)

The only reason it is considered sin now is because God is no longer commanding it.

[liz3564]

Here is what some modern Prophets have said about polygamy in General Conference:

Gordon B. Hinckley, â??What Are People Asking about Us?â? Ensign,

Nov. 1998, 70

What is the Churchâ??s position on polygamy?

We are faced these days with many newspaper articles on this subject. This has arisen out of a case of alleged child abuse on the part of some of those practicing plural marriage.

I wish to state categorically that this Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. Most of them have never been members. They are in violation of the civil law. They know they are in violation of the law. They are subject to its penalties. The Church, of course, has no jurisdiction whatever in this matter.

If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church. An article of our faith is binding upon us. It states, â??We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the lawâ? (A of F 1:12). One cannot obey the law and disobey the law at the same time.

There is no such thing as a â??Mormon Fundamentalist.â? It is a contradiction to use the two words together.

More than a century ago God clearly revealed unto His prophet Wilford Woodruff that the practice of plural marriage should be discontinued, which means that it is now against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows polygamy, the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage.

Did you catch that? President Hinckley said polygamy is â??now against the law of God.â? Now, read the following:

James E. Faust, â??Keeping Covenants and Honoring the Priesthood,â? Ensign, Nov. 1993, 36

[W]e urge you presiding brethren to seek the Spirit of God, to study and be guided by the scriptures and the General Handbook of Instructions. Church discipline is not limited to sexual sins but includes other acts such as murder, abortions, burglary, theft, fraud, and other dishonesty, deliberate disobedience to the rules and regulations of the Church, advocating or practicing polygamy, apostasy, or any other unchristianlike conduct, including defiance or ridicule of the Lordâ??s anointed, contrary to the law of the Lord and the order of the Church.

Did you catch that? President Faust associated polygamy with â??unchristianlikeâ? conduct. Letâ??s read further. President Hinckley taught that the discontinuance of polygamy was NOT an accident. Instead, the Lord REALLY wanted it discontinued.

Gordon B. Hinckley, â??This Thing Was Not Done in a Corner,â? Ensign, Nov. 1996, 48

[Mike Wallace] Question: â??As you know, some skeptics say that major changes in Church policy have come from political pressures, not necessarily as revelations from God. For example, the business of ending polygamy, say the skeptics, wasnâ??t because it was revelation but because Utah wanted to become a state.â?

[President Hinckley] Response: â??One of the purposes of a prophet is to seek the wisdom and the will of the Lord and to teach his people accordingly. It was the case with Moses when he led the children of Israel out of Egypt. It was the case for the Old Testament prophets when people were faced with oppression and trouble and difficulty. That is the purpose of a prophet, to give answers to people for the dilemmas in which they find themselves. That is what happens. That is what we see happen. Is it a matter of expediency, political expediency? No! Inspired guidance? Yes!â?

I think we can only conclude that polygamy is wrong and sinful -- even if we respect the early attempts of Mormon pioneers to make the practice succeed.

All I can say to this is....AWESOME POST and AMEN!!!!!!

[Jerubaal]

How would YOU feel if your wife wanted to sleep with a bunch of other men and you got to see her say, once or twice a month?

If she was married to them as well as to me, I would deal with it. I would not view it as infidelity.

[KevinG]

I agree with everything in fox gokus post, except the conclusion. I'd ask you all to note the extensive use of the phrase "practice of polygamy". The prophet is not ripping the 132 section of the D&C out of the canon, and he isn't condemning those who remarry in the Temple after becoming a widower.

He also isn't condemning the practice by those who were commanded to practice it, or contradicting earlier prophets.

He is specifically addressing the practice of it. Something I agree with. We do not practice this thing and anyone who does is in violation of God's law in our day and time.

So we can conclude marriage is ordained of God, and it is monogamous as a default, and polygamous when God orders it to be so. So far not one person has come up with a clear authoratative or canonical statement against the Principle of polygamy as the Saints practiced it under the direction of God. ...and I'm not holding my breath expecting one will be found.

[Jerubaal]

Here is what some modern Prophets have said about polygamy in General Conference:

Gordon B. Hinckley, â??What Are People Asking about Us?â? Ensign,

Nov. 1998, 70

What is the Churchâ??s position on polygamy?

We are faced these days with many newspaper articles on this subject. This has arisen out of a case of alleged child abuse on the part of some of those practicing plural marriage.

I wish to state categorically that this Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. Most of them have never been members. They are in violation of the civil law. They know they are in violation of the law. They are subject to its penalties. The Church, of course, has no jurisdiction whatever in this matter.

If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church. An article of our faith is binding upon us. It states, â??We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the lawâ? (A of F 1:12). One cannot obey the law and disobey the law at the same time.

There is no such thing as a â??Mormon Fundamentalist.â? It is a contradiction to use the two words together.

More than a century ago God clearly revealed unto His prophet Wilford Woodruff that the practice of plural marriage should be discontinued, which means that it is now against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows polygamy, the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage.

Did you catch that? President Hinckley said polygamy is â??now against the law of God.â? Now, read the following:

James E. Faust, â??Keeping Covenants and Honoring the Priesthood,â? Ensign, Nov. 1993, 36

[W]e urge you presiding brethren to seek the Spirit of God, to study and be guided by the scriptures and the General Handbook of Instructions. Church discipline is not limited to sexual sins but includes other acts such as murder, abortions, burglary, theft, fraud, and other dishonesty, deliberate disobedience to the rules and regulations of the Church, advocating or practicing polygamy, apostasy, or any other unchristianlike conduct, including defiance or ridicule of the Lordâ??s anointed, contrary to the law of the Lord and the order of the Church.

Did you catch that? President Faust associated polygamy with â??unchristianlikeâ? conduct. Letâ??s read further. President Hinckley taught that the discontinuance of polygamy was NOT an accident. Instead, the Lord REALLY wanted it discontinued.

Gordon B. Hinckley, â??This Thing Was Not Done in a Corner,â? Ensign, Nov. 1996, 48

[Mike Wallace] Question: â??As you know, some skeptics say that major changes in Church policy have come from political pressures, not necessarily as revelations from God. For example, the business of ending polygamy, say the skeptics, wasnâ??t because it was revelation but because Utah wanted to become a state.â?

[President Hinckley] Response: â??One of the purposes of a prophet is to seek the wisdom and the will of the Lord and to teach his people accordingly. It was the case with Moses when he led the children of Israel out of Egypt. It was the case for the Old Testament prophets when people were faced with oppression and trouble and difficulty. That is the purpose of a prophet, to give answers to people for the dilemmas in which they find themselves. That is what happens. That is what we see happen. Is it a matter of expediency, political expediency? No! Inspired guidance? Yes!â?

I think we can only conclude that polygamy is wrong and sinful -- even if we respect the early attempts of Mormon pioneers to make the practice succeed.

"I think we can only conclude"?

Not even Theophilus would try to pull off a comparable "exegesis" of the statements you quoted.

EDIT: perhaps I should clarify. How do you somehow draw out a condemnation of the prior practice of polygamy from a condemnation of only the modern practice of it?

[Deborah]

All I can say to this is....AWESOME POST and AMEN!!!!!!

Awesomely skewed by taking quotes for today and attributing them to the practice of polygamy in the early church, at which time these quotes would not apply and would not have been said. Context of time and place is everything.