Why Is Polygamy So Vilified In The Us?

[truth dancer]

Hi Docrick..

Cute but that isn't scriptural is it?

Hmmm, you are not familiar with Matt 7:12? (So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this is the Law and the Prophets).

Or Luke 6:31? (Do unto others as you would have them do to you).

Sounds scriptural to me!

~dancer~

[blueadept]

I don't see Very Early Christianity as all that separate for Judaism. I believe that Jesus was trying to Restore Judaism to its rightful beliefs.

James, the apostle, was the head of the church in Jerusalem and Christianity was definitely struggling there as compared to other places where it was exploding. IMO, the Jews were stubborn about Jesus's message and not many bought the gospel.

IMO, not many Jews I would consider as early Christians, but they did exist.

[thesometimesaint]

blueadept:

I don't know when the actual break occured. But it does appear to me to be sometime in the Second Century CE. I'm guessing it was sometime around the death of the last of original Apostles that Christianity pretty much gave up on the Jews.

[docrick]

Hi Docrick..

Hmmm, you are not familiar with Matt 7:12? (So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this is the Law and the Prophets).

Or Luke 6:31? (Do unto others as you would have them do to you).

Sounds scriptural to me!

~dancer~

Not really, I don't think that has any application at all to a commandment of God do you?

[liz3564]

Not really, I don't think that has any application at all to a commandment of God do you?

OK...I'm confused...if the Sermon on the Mount doesn't count as commandments of God, what does?

[Deborah]

The original question was "Why is Polygamy so vilified in the US?

My answer is because of Tradition. When my TBM wife and I talked about this subject, I started from the point that it's immoral as taught by tradition. She started from the viewpoint of "well its in the Bible."

I disagree with this. I think the reason it is so villified back in the 19th century is because you had a bunch of women who had this image of women locked in harems and therefore attributed that to the LDS practice. Today it is villified because our attitudes toward sex and the lust that prevails in our current society is attributed to the LDS practice as well. Both those scenarios are false and based on prejudices rather than knowledge.

[blueadept]

I disagree with this. I think the reason it is so villified back in the 19th century is because you had a bunch of women who had this image of women locked in harems and therefore attributed that to the LDS practice. Today it is villified because our attitudes toward sex and the lust that prevails in our current society is attributed to the LDS practice as well. Both those scenarios are false and based on prejudices rather than knowledge.

I agree that prejudices exist in regards to the issue of polygamy rather than knowledge, but I believe that in today's rather liberal and open society the issue will not be debated from the attitude of sex or lust. In the long run people will allow others to practice their beliefs as they wish especially in the US. It would be argued from the viewpoint of what people consider a marriage to be and that would be one man and one woman and this is the battle homosexuals are dealing with.

Right or wrong in today's society, the morality of polygamy will be fought from this perspective whenever it's brought up.

[docrick]

OK...I'm confused...if the Sermon on the Mount doesn't count as commandments of God, what does?

The point is that the statement "do unto others" does not usurp a commandment of god to practice plural marriage.

People seem to trivialize the fact that plural marriage was commanded. Why take a commandment and make it trite or trifle with it by saying in essence well "what's good for the goose is good for the gander?"

That's my point

I disagree with this. I think the reason it is so villified back in the 19th century is because you had a bunch of women who had this image of women locked in harems and therefore attributed that to the LDS practice. Today it is villified because our attitudes toward sex and the lust that prevails in our current society is attributed to the LDS practice as well. Both those scenarios are false and based on prejudices rather than knowledge.

Deborah, I couldn't agree more. This is exactly my thought on the matter.

[truth dancer]

Hi docrick...

Not really, I don't think that has any application at all to a commandment of God do you?

Hmmm.... Jesus has a very clear teaching/commandment, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and you don't think this is scriptural or has "any application at all to a commandment of God"?

Really?

Sounds to me like it is pretty clear, definitive, and authoritative.

I think you are the only person I have come across who claims this teaching of Jesus is not scriptural and has no "application at all to a commandment of God."

Hmmm I don't quite know what to say. I suppose if you can just ignore scripture and claim that Jesus never taught this or that this commandment was not suppose to be in the scriptures, or that it has nothing to do with Jesus, or Jesus only meant this when he wasn't discussing polygamy, or whatever, then, well, I guess you should be the prophet.

~dancer~

[AKS]

People seem to trivialize the fact that plural marriage was commanded.

No, I think people tend to disbelieve that polygamy was ever a commandment. It certainly never was in the Bible. So I think a valid question is why no commandmant in OT times when it was supposedly CONDONED but "commanded" in modern (western) times when society was clearly not compatable with the practice?

[truth dancer]

Hi Deborah...

Today it is villified because our attitudes toward sex and the lust that prevails in our current society is attributed to the LDS practice as well. Both those scenarios are false and based on prejudices rather than knowledge.

I think many people "villify" polygyny today because they believe in equality and respect. Many people understand the harm polygyny does to society, (which is why humankind has evolved to embrace monogamy), and many people love their spouses and hold to an ideal of the beauty and intimacy that is found within an exclusive partnership.

~dancer~

[blueadept]

No, I think people tend to disbelieve that polygamy was ever a commandment. It certainly never was in the Bible. So I think a valid question is why no commandmant in OT times when it was supposedly CONDONED but "commanded" in modern (western) times when society was clearly not compatable with the practice?

I totally agree. LDS and most other Christians can't even agree if polygamy was meant to be part of God's plan. It's obviously in the OT but whether it was commanded is debateable. My thought is that Jesus was here to straighten all these misconceptions the Jews developed since Moses's time.

My thought is Jesus wanted the practice re-instituted, it would be in the scriptures.

(I know, I know) LDS will argue that it's also not in scriptures against it either.

I just find it amusing that horrible things seem to happen to people in the OT when the issue of polygamy seems to come up.

[Brackite]

Hi There,

Here is a Great Scriptural Passage that condemns the practice of a man having many wives:

Jacob 2:23-24:

[23] But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

[24] Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

[blueadept]

Hi There,

Here is a Great Scriptural Passage that condemns the practice of a man having many wives:

It also says the following

Jacob 2:30

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

I suggest not picking and choosing which parts of the BoM you use. If you are going to use it as a reference, you might as well use the part that condones polygamy and not just the part that seems to condemn it. And this is coming from a Catholic.

[docrick]

Hi There,

Here is a Great Scriptural Passage that condemns the practice of a man having many wives:

But specifically David and Solomon were commanded to stay away from "certain" women. In Solomon's case he went after women NOT part of Israel, of which he was commanded to stay away from.

[Deborah]

Hi docrick...

Hmmm.... Jesus has a very clear teaching/commandment, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and you don't think this is scriptural or has "any application at all to a commandment of God".

I think you are the only person I have come across who claims this teaching of Jesus is not scriptural and has no "application at all to a commandment of God."

~dancer~

The point is this does NOT apply to the commandment on plural marriage but to how we treat other people. If plurality of wives is a commandment of God then it does not in turn follow that there is a plurality of husbands unless that is the commandment.

Hi Deborah...

I think many people "villify" polygyny today because they believe in equality and respect. Many people understand the harm polygyny does to society, (which is why humankind has evolved to embrace monogamy), and many people love their spouses and hold to an ideal of the beauty and intimacy that is found within an exclusive partnership.

~dancer~

Again you are basing this on misguided prejudices. Why do you assume that if a man has more than one wife he won't treat them all with equality and respect. If he doesn't then he is under condemnation. You seem to have a very romantic idealized vision of marriage, and I certainly hope you don't get disillusioned, but marriages throughout history have been based on more practical matters and romantic notions such as this are really visualized in romantic novels and not real life.

[johnny]

docrick,

I have read the new testament many times and there is nothing in there where Christ or any of the apostles outright and specifically condemns the practice of plural marriage.

It appears you have missed the passages in the New Testament that speak of "one wife" and "the two" become one flesh ... the New Testament does not say "plural wives" and does not say "the plural wives with one man" become one flesh.

Why therefore is the idea of plural marriage so repugnant to Americans?

The idea of a plural marriage is repugnant to Catholics because:

- Polygamy is contrary to conjugal love which is undivided and exclusive. The unity of marriage is recognized by our Lord. Conjugal love aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that leads to forming one heart and soul.

- Polygamy is not in accord with the moral law. Polygamy directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning which is "the two" become one.

[Deborah]

No, I think people tend to disbelieve that polygamy was ever a commandment. It certainly never was in the Bible. So I think a valid question is why no commandmant in OT times when it was supposedly CONDONED but "commanded" in modern (western) times when society was clearly not compatable with the practice?

You need to read Genesis 16 in regards to Sarah and Hagar. So your assumption is that a prophet of God, who is the father of all nations of the earth, committed sin because you belive he was not commanded by God.

[truth dancer]

Hi Deborah...

Again you are basing this on misguided prejudices.

No... I'm basing my thoughts on history and evolution.

Why do you assume that if a man has more than one wife he won't treat them all with equality and respect.

I make no such assumption. We are discussing an institution where one person has rights not afforded to the other. This speaks to a very clear state of inequality. Regardless of how a slave master treats his slave the institution is disrespectful and speaks to inequality. (Note: I'm only using this comparison to demonstrate inequality and disrespect in an institution).

You seem to have a very romantic idealized vision of marriage, and I certainly hope you don't get disillusioned,

No... much to the contrary. I am continually amazed and filled with awe at the beauty that can exist in an exclusive partnership such as that described by Holland in my earlier quote. This type of intimacy and union and communion does not occur when one partner is not exclusive.

but marriages throughout history have been based on more practical matters and romantic notions such as this are really visualized in romantic novels and not real life.

Humans have evolved to a point where an intimate partnership can be something way beyond the mating of animals or our early ancestors. Absolutely historically marriage has not even remotely been about love... we see that in early writings (including the OT). Marriage, concubinage, slavery were about ownership and tribal unions etc. But we have come a long way. Which is exactly my point.

I would again refer you to Holland's talk ... within an exclusive partnership, new facets of existence, or new depths of emotion, understanding, love, compassion, etc. etc. have emerged within the human.

I for one think it is completely amazing and something to celebrate. The idea of retreating to an earlier more primitive form of mating is uncomfortable to say the least.

~dancer~

[Brackite]

Hi blueadept,

Please check out the link to this Web Site page: http://restorationbookstore.org/articles/n...-vol1/chp18.htm

Please also check out the link to this FAIR Discussion Thread:

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=10053

[truth dancer]

The point is this does NOT apply to the commandment on plural marriage but to how we treat other people.

Ohhh so Jesus didn't really mean it? He was sort of saying, "Well, when you want to, treat others as you would have them treat you"?

Jesus was clear about uniting one man and one woman in marriage. He was clear in his commandment to treat others as you would want to be treated.

I think your only argument could be that JS's "revelation" superseded the commandment of Jesus.

~dancer~

[blueadept]

Hi blueadept,

Please check out the link to this Web Site page: http://restorationbookstore.org/articles/n...-vol1/chp18.htm

Please also check out the link to this FAIR Discussion Thread:

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=10053

Interesting links and discussions....I'll get back to my side of the fence now....

[Brackite]

Hi docrick,

Please check out this link to my Post about Jacob 2:23-24 on this FAIR Discussion Thread: http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showto...15496&st=60

[docrick]

Hi docrick,

Please check out this link to my Post about Jacob 2:23-24 on this FAIR Discussion Thread: http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showto...15496&st=60

And the point is? Just because you interpret the scripture as a condemnation of plural marriage does not make the practice of plural marriage an "abomination before the Lord"

Again David and Solomon were chastized for the manner in which they "went after" wives and concubines to satisfy their own desires. The scriptures are pretty clear David and Solomon did that which was contrary to the Lord.

What about Abraham and his plural wives?

Ohhh so Jesus didn't really mean it? He was sort of saying, "Well, when you want to, treat others as you would have them treat you"?

Jesus was clear about uniting one man and one woman in marriage. He was clear in his commandment to treat others as you would want to be treated.

I think your only argument could be that JS's "revelation" superseded the commandment of Jesus.

~dancer~

Oh you are soooooooo wrong in your interpretation. Please provide the evidence you claim that Jesus was clear about uniting ONE man and ONE woman in marriage.

[KevinG]

I've had many long discussions about my feelings and in particular my studies of the doctrines concerning what the Saints called the Principle. In each case I've asked others to be polite and discuss these things without the errors of presentism, without trashing Joseph and the early Saints, and without speaking of polygamy as though it were only about sexual arrangements. I would expect the same respect in a discussion about monogamy.

That isn't how this thread is going.

Instead I'm asked how I'd like to share my wife with other men (asked and answered in a post last may in a more polite polygamy thread BTW)...

Instead I'm asked how I can write such "sickening rhetoric"...

Instead people do a tap dance by asking if polygamy squares with scriptures on treating others kindly, and when told that those passages were never used to condemn polygamy - they were accused of rejecting those commandments...

Instead people take some Latter-day revelations and reject others... Some saying they don't accept anything but the Bible so the Mormons are acussed of perversions. Some saying they do accept Latter-day revelations but not others, so the Mormons who believe in Josephs revelations are guilty of perversions.

Then the opinions without reference to the Gospel- and in particular the restored gospel, keep rolling in despite the mods request that comments be grounded in references and evidence.

In short I'm not likely to go through another bearing of my soul, my feelings and my research into this very sensitive topic just to throw pearls under pigs feet.

It is ironic in a thread where it was asked why such a strong reaction to polygamy (and asked again in comparison to things that are explicitly listed as sins in the Bible) that such strong positions are being taken in opposition despite their questionable nature. Ask yourself, how many of you crusaders for good have spent this much time anywhere else condemning the adulterous popular culture or the sad state of marriage in general? Perhaps a few, but I'm guessing its not nearly as fun or entertaining as slamming the early Saints, or those who believe they were inspired in their callings.

Congratulations folks! I'm now swearing off Polygamy threads. You won't have my sickening rhetoric to worry about any more.

God help you if you ever lose a spouse, or are in danger of losing one and you have to reconcile these things with your own feelings. It nearly tore me apart and I had somewhat of a testimony of it to begin with.

God help you if ever called to the bar, and Joseph is standing there with other Prophets at the right hand of God, and asks you what testimony you bore of the restored gospel and its Prophets.

You may not even think those things are an issue because you don't believe in Latter-day revelation, or parts of it... but at the very least, do unto others should apply to how you speak of those who believe differently than you, and how you speak to them.