Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Why Is Polygamy So Vilified In The Us?


docrick

Recommended Posts

freakin a man wrote:

Nope, it is you who has the wrong Celsus. Aulus Cornelius Celsus, who lived from about 25 B.C to about 50 A.D., Never noted that Jesus was a polygamist. (1) It was the Celsus who lived during the second Century A.D. who noted that Jesus was a Polygamist. (2) However, I do Not believe that Jesus was a Polygamist. There is a lot of evidence that shows that Jesus was Not even married. (3)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aulus_Cornelius_Celsus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Celsus

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roma...elsus/home.html

http://www.answers.com/topic/celsus-aulus-cornelius

http://www.general-anaesthesia.com/images/...ius-celsus.html

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsus

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/celsus.html

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflectio...ah/sources.html

3. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=35459

http://www.leaderu.com/theology/wasjesusmarried.html

http://www.jesusanddavinci.com/theology/cr...tml#Question_12

I don't know whether the 2nd Century Celsius advocated it or not. He however was not what I was referencing. Do I personally believe Jesus was a polygamist? No I don't. I have seen no evidence for it. If he was it would not bother me. I personally believe he was married. However there is no clear cut evidence either way on the issue. So I don't have a problem with those like you who believe he was not married. But this issue is really off topic of what the thread is really about.

Link to comment

And you know this polygamy commandment that came to Joseph Smith was from God.......how? Because I think it came from Joseph Smith....based on his practice of it. He broke any number of other commandments in order to practice polygamy. I really dislike inconsistencies and illogical edicts from Gods. I do not believe a divine being would expect, require, or command such behavior.

But then again, I have high expectations for a divine being.

I hate to break this to you but what you THINK means nothing.

We know "this polygamy commandment" was from God because Joseph Smith said so; and the women who were sealed to him said so; and other men and women who entered into celestial marriage said so. They said they went to God in prayer and that they received a witness from God that it was a commandment. They left behind many handwritten accounts. This historical data outweighs what you THINK.

The scriptures are full of "inconsistencies and illogical edicts" from God and of prophets breaking "any number of other commandments" in order to obey God. Perhaps your beliefs lie outside the standard works of the Church. Which holy scriptures are in line with your "high expectations for a divine being"?

Link to comment

Deborah,

I accept polygamy as coming from God because I accept that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and did his will.

Do you accept Christ and his apostles? Christ speaks of a man and a wife, Christ does not speak of a man and multiple wives. The apostles speak of "one wife", the apostles do not speak of "many wives". The apostles of Christ did not practice polygamy. The followers of Christ did not practice polygamy in the New Testament.

And because I accept that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were also prophets of God who did his will.

Do you accept that Abraham was part of a different dispensation and a different convent than today's Church of Christ is?

Link to comment

The only polygamy that can be found in the scriptures is in the Old Testament. And some take it to mean God tolerated, but did not condone polygamy. I am not sure any scripture is clear God condoned & approved of polygamy. If God only tolerated, but did not condone it then I think it a sin myself.

I think if D.&C. 132 was recieved by Joseph Smith via a revelation he was decieved. I decided after years of reading it that it was not a true revelation. LDS stick out in this area so them make themselves an unpopular target. I decided if the document was Joseph's mistake not a genuine revelation that LDS have suffered the stigma of being different over a false revelation. Us Community of Christ/RLDS rejected the content of the pro-polygamy document.

Link to comment

The best I found about some anti-polygamy arguments was on a site I saw not long ago. At least I understood much better/ It made sense to me--how one could understand that from the Bible.

Many people understand the harm polygyny does to society, (which is why humankind has evolved to embrace monogamy),

Any references?

johnny,

Why would plural marriage be repugnant to Catholics?

Godâ??s plan was for Adam and Eve to be together, not for Adam to be married first to Eve and then later to Barbara, and certainly not for Adam to be married to Eve and Barbara at the same time.

Your quoting about one man and one woman becoming one, etc. is a little mysterious to me in light of Catholic celibacy.

Let's get this open: Men and women are NOT the same. They are DIFFERENT.

Obviously "do unto others" fails miserably with monogamy, too. Men don't want what women want, and women don't want what men want.

Guys like sex. They like women. Actually, they like beauty, and they like to be surrounded by it, especially in the form of women. Some men don't like it attached, some like it only attached. I know some guys that would be with about every woman they looked at, if they could. Now, throw ADD/ COD/ etc. into that, and Wow! Some guys get bored and dull, and plural marriage would be a very welcome thing for their spirits. Men get married, get respectable, then put up a front (sometimes) about being faithful. Incidents are called "mistakes", "temporary lapses in judgment", etc. It's more like "genes", "hormones", etc.

(In fact, I read a booklet (I didn't agree with much of it, BTW) by a famous doctor that talks about the need for sexual freedom for men, and I seriously had a hard time believing it. A woman would have to read the whole thing a few times to understand it. Actually, no--I don't think a woman ever COULD understand it.)

Gals, don't. They like A man.

Men can understand women, but don't really like to. Women can never understand men, though they often try.

Frankly, it's my opinion that men and women will possibly not even be judged the same.

There's more, but I'll leave it at that.

Lognormal wrote:

has been my experience, upon in-depth examination, that the number of worthy females is much higher than the number of worthy males.

Interestingly, I have heard this often in class, etc., and never once has it been questioned, much less protested against (at least out loud). In fact, many recent GC talks would seem to back it up. Don't know if/ how much I believe it, though.

Calmoriah wrote:

What you are implying is that women are genetically or socially programmed to be more spiritual than men. They don't choose to do good by actual choice, but because they are programmed to do so. They can't help but be good. It is rather Calvinistic actually. It is also against the idea of agency.

It doesn't necessarily, and is a possible approach.

Calmoriah wrote:

And even if one accepts your claim, then since men are up against a harder road to travel, the Lord will take that into account in his judgment as he would any other disabled individual. Men may achieve more spirituality if one compares where they started to where they ended than women, especially if one takes into account that women are 'gifted' in spiritual things so it's no big deal for them.

Possibly, also.

Calmoriah wrote:

This would seem to imply taken at face value that men are more self-sacrificing than women.

It would. Take the call off the men, make it purely voluntary--that would be fun to watch.

Calmoriah and Lognormal,

Seriously, thanks for that discussion. I don't find anything wrong with one gender, race, etc. being superior to another in some way, even overall, and even if I'm in the inferior group.

Del March wrote:

faith is NOT easier for either gender.

Reference(s)?

Liz3564 wrote:

But don't condemn me, and others like me, who don't WANT that type of life.

I won't. And I wouldn't worry about worrying:

If:

you believe in a Heavenly Father that loves you and wants what is best for you, and wants you to be happy;

and you know you can choose to leave the CK (after getting there) if you want, anytime you want;

and you remember that your exaltation is not yours--it's a gift from Jesus;

and you remember that when the plan was presented, we were all pretty happy;

even if you can agree that you would much rather be in a less-wanted circumstance in heaven than with the devil and his angels in hell--choose heaven.

At least by when you get there (probably much earlier), you'll see its conditions and know what it's like, and can choose whether to stay or not.

It's extremely hard for me to imagine that HF requires us to live something that we truly won't like (not necessarily "don't" like) and won't be (not "isn't") for our good and glory, and his--could you?

Brackite wrote:

There is nowhere in the Scriptures (Bible, BofM, and PofGP) that mentioned that Adam had more than one wife, even including Doc. And Cov. Section 132. Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 mentions that Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon had more than one wife, however there is nowhere in Doc. And Cov. Section 132 that mentioned that Adam had more than one wife. There is nowhere in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doc. And Cov. and Pearl of Great of Price that mentioned that Adam had more than one wife. The Scriptures (Bible, BofM, and PofGP) clearly state that Adam had just one wife.

I think I agree. But there's quite a bit that's not written in the scriptures. And nowhere in the standard works does it mention that Adam had only one wife. If you see where, please cite.

(P.S. Wiki =/= encyclopedia)

Why would Jesus, Adam or anyone else HAVE TO have plural wives, esp. in mortality?

Mekale wrote:

31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.

33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms (not "have plural wives"),like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.

I highlighted the OTHER important parts.

Deborah wrote:

When we can love everyone with that compassion and protective encircling love then we can understand something of what God feels for all of us. And we will also understand that love like that is not confined to one person and one person only. Surely we love all our children equally and treat them all with respect and fairness (not necessarily equally because they all have different needs). I do not understand how it can then be assumed that if you love other adults you won't do the same.

I've posted this before, but here goes again:

Brigham Young figured out that most women were unsupportive complainers and naggers, and that frankly, many of the brothers would much rather have had 0 wives, than multiple ones. (As a woman once said, "It's a good thing men need sex, or they might never get married.") This made neither a happy Zion for the women or the men. His greatest sermon (IMO) is his "all you poor wives, come here in 2 weeks, and if any of you want a divorce, and feel you'll be better off with one so you don't have to be married to that lazy idiot jerk you say you're all married to, you'll get it on the spot! Otherwise, you must covenant to shut up and be nice ever after." (Ok, I paraphrased a little. Sorry, I read this, but it's disappeared from my computer and i can't find it in the JoD again--anyone know it?)

Especially for those who oppose polygamy because "it wasn't nice to the women"-type of thing:

what about an only child, whose parents now say that he/ she will have a sibling? Isn't that hard to bear? (And not just one, but maybe 9! ( What horrible parents, huh, thinking to have more children?)

Mothers, when you decided to have more children, did you still love your firstborn? If you did, then how could you think of having more? Didn't you realize that? Didn't you know that by having multiple children, your love and time for each would decrease, increasing their burdens and proving you didn't love them? Did you consult with your only child, and get his/ her permission, before being able to have another child?

Did you want more children because your first one didn't live up to your expectations, or because the first one was so wonderful, or because "they're cute", or what?

As many women want lots of children, some men have thought of having more than one wife. Just like a woman might want more children for different reasons, a man might be polygamous/ want polygamy for many reasons (yes, this is off of the commandment part, and into other stuff). Brothers who have made a statement about wishing for polygamy have often very quickly reconsidered when asked what they would do if the next woman were just like the one they had now, or even worse. (Whoops!) Not to mention a whole other set of relatives, including mothers-in-law... Their thinking was probably based more on "my wife has no clue how to make me/ help me be happy, and is making my life hell, maybe another would surely do a little better?" Other men love their wife so much, they might think, "who wouldn't want more of the same wonderful relationship, or another one just like this?" Some men might think, it would be nice to have more "fulfillment" with other women, but not break the law of chastity (note a distinction between this and lust. While some men might have a hard time making this distinction (most do at least once in a while), and most (ALL?) women find this impossible to comprehend), there is one. While marriage, like polygamy, deals with sex, it's not necessarily about lust.

My favorite story is about when the Idaho govt. was debating polygamy. Something like, a young Mormon said, I will agree to outlaw polygamy... (a cheer went up)--when you agree to have no prostitutes and mistresses (extreme laughter).

So, why in the USA? Because it's "politically incorrect"?

Because Muslims do it, and we all know how evil/ lustful they are?

Because of the Victorian Period carry-over?

Because of vilification when it was practiced by the Mormons?

Link to comment

I grow very tired of the argument of having multiple children being compared to multiple wives. It's NOT the same. It is like comparing apples to oranges.

My daughter has the lead in her school play today, so I don't really have a chance to respond fully right now, but stay tuned for Monday...possibly later tonight. cool.gif

Link to comment

I grow very tired of the argument of having multiple children being compared to multiple wives. It's NOT the same. It is like comparing apples to oranges.

My daughter has the lead in her school play today, so I don't really have a chance to respond fully right now, but stay tuned for Monday...possibly later tonight. cool.gif

We will be waiting for your comment. :P

I find this whole debate to be strange and basically 21st century centered. That being the case, I will read 21st century bias against polygamy. As humans we cannot escape the social confines of our age. We judge the past as if it is located in the present. And of course, the past is located in the past and not in this present moment. To have a great debate and a great post, we would need to take the time machine back to that time to get the feel of the people and the prophet joseph. Also, we will need to put ourselves in the place of Joseph, the women and men involved and Joseph's wife Emma. To look on this issue with our current eyes would do the issue of polygamy a disjustice.

Link to comment

grego,

Why would plural marriage be repugnant to Catholics?

It is repugnant to a Catholic because it not in accord with the moral law (see Catholic teaching #2387 below).

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm#IV

Polygamy is not in accord with the moral law. [Conjugal] communion is radically contradicted by polygamy; this, in fact, directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive

Because Muslims do it, and we all know how evil/ lustful they are?

A Muslim marriage is not "in the Lord". The gift of the Spirit ushers in a new era in the "dispensation of the mystery" the age of the Church. In this age of the Church Christ now lives and acts in and with his Church, in a new way appropriate to this new age. Scripture speaks the renewal of marriage "in the Lord" in the New Covenant of Christ and the Church. Christ restores the original order of creation, Jesus gives the strength and grace to live marriage in the new dimension of the Reign of God.

Link to comment

I can see polygamy as a way of obeying a commandment of God. I don't know why God would give such a revelation but then again there is much about god that I do not understand and certainly when I read the old testament, there is much I DO NOT understand. But then again, I am just a human being without the mind or vision of God.

I can see polygamy as a test from god. 'Obey this law I give unto you' type of commandment. Why would he do such a thing? I don't know...but it does seem that JS had no choice in the matter and he took his lumps for it. He proved his faithfulness to god and to the lord. I am sure that he sweated it out quite often.

But what choice would he have? I do believe that JS's heart was in the right place on the issue of polygamy. And with our 21st century eyes, we should not be his judge and jury.

Link to comment

Most of us think polygamy was nothing to do with obeying a genuine commandment of God. That D.&C. 132 was invented as an excuse for men to heap wives to themselves is possible. That an sincerely believed revelation was involved is possible but does not make the revelation true. Revelations can be from God, man, or the Devil. And if I asked The Devil, or man might tell me that it was true, and not God. Beliefs in such things can be based on subjective answers that have nothing to do with a true answer from God.

If I feel a practice is evil is it me, the Devil, or God that agrees with my feelings?

Link to comment

Grego:

Obviously "do unto others" fails miserably with monogamy, too.

How so? If two people are commited to each other and following the commandments the best they can, how does this command fail with monogamy?

Men don't want what women want, and women don't want what men want.

Guys like sex. They like women. Actually, they like beauty, and they like to be surrounded by it, especially in the form of women. Some men don't like it attached, some like it only attached. I know some guys that would be with about every woman they looked at, if they could. Now, throw ADD/ COD/ etc. into that, and Wow! Some guys get bored and dull, and plural marriage would be a very welcome thing for their spirits.

(In fact, I read a booklet (I didn't agree with much of it, BTW) by a famous doctor that talks about the need for sexual freedom for men, and I seriously had a hard time believing it. A woman would have to read the whole thing a few times to understand it. Actually, no--I don't think a woman ever COULD understand it.)

If I were a man I would find this post very offensive.

Gals, don't. They like A man.

What?????? Who do you think heterosexual men are having affairs with? Women cheat too. We may not be as visually stimulated as men, but women like sex as much as men do. We are moved more by romance and emotional stimulation while men are moved by visual stimulation. They are different but the end result is the same. We both have needs that multiple spouses could provide.

Loyalty to a spouse for myself comes from my desire to follow the command to "do unto others" and follow the commandment of chastity. Loyalty and trust in a marriage is more important than selfish desires.

What you describe as a biological need in men to spread seed with many women sound more like "natural man" than a man of God.

I would not have a close bond or deep love with a spouse that was having sexual relations with other women, but that's just me. I know there are women who will disagree with me here.

Men get married, get respectable, then put up a front (sometimes) about being faithful. Incidents are called "mistakes", "temporary lapses in judgment", etc. It's more like "genes", "hormones", etc.

Do women get the same free pass when they have multiple sex partners? It takes two to commit adultery.

I was listening to women calling in a radio station about having affairs and getting pregnant with their lover's baby. Many of the women told stories of not telling their spouse and letting him raise the baby as his own. I was alarmed at how many women had kept such dark secrets from their spouse. I know an LDS member who on her death bed let her son know that the father that raised him was not his. She had an affair at one point in their marriage and nobody knew. Yes, women have needs too, and cheat just like men.

Did you want more children because your first one didn't live up to your expectations, or because the first one was so wonderful, or because "they're cute", or what?
As many women want lots of children, some men have thought of having more than one wife.

I also tire of hearing the comparison of multiple children to multiple wives. :P I love each of my children equally and uniquely but our relationship is parent to child. Are you saying that your wives would be like your children? A relationship built on the values of equality, chastity, and devotion between husband and wife would not survive in polygamy.

Link to comment

Why Me:

But what choice would he have? I do believe that JS's heart was in the right place on the issue of polygamy. And with our 21st century eyes, we should not be his judge and jury.

I don't judge Joseph's intentions, and nobody can know for sure except God and Joseph.

If anything our culture today in America is more tolerant of alternative marriages and polygamy. I only see outrage over the young girls being coerced into abusive realtionships, and we should condemn that.

What do our 21st century eyes have to do with it? Polygamy was after all one of the "Twin relics of Barbarism" in the 19th century. The people of that era were repulsed by it. The government seeked to destroy polygamy back then. It seems they judged the actions of polygamists more harshly than 21st century Americans ever have or will. Even the most anti polygamists I have seen on this board are tolerant of consenting adults entering polygamy with no religious coercion. The media has finally taken an interest in polygamy, but for a long time the government and authorities have left them alone.

Link to comment

I'm curious how a married man goes about courting a new wife. The entire polygamy institution seems to go against what we hold dear in western marriage, even in the 19th century.

Cheating on ones wife with another woman (or man) these days goes against what we hold dear in western marriage but it does not change the fact that it happens a lot. I have less of a problem with a man being married to a few women who have chosen to be with each other by consent than a man who is married to one woman but has 3 or 4 girlfriends on the side. Such activity in society today is fairly well accepted now. Or look at Hugh Hefner. He has three or four girlfriends and society does not seem to condemn him.

What I find funny is people claim that God merely tolerated polygamy in the Old Testament but they can find no evidence that makes such a claim let alone any condemnation towards it yet one can find evidence that God did not like people eating pork. Seems to me if God was against polygamy as much as the digestive habits of people, God at some point would have told his people to knock off the nonsense of taking more than one wife.

Link to comment
I grow very tired of the argument of having multiple children being compared to multiple wives. It's NOT the same. It is like comparing apples to oranges.
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.

Link to comment

johnny,

You still haven't replied to celibacy. You feel that polygamy is "repugnant" because it doesn't follow the order God set in the beginning; well, neither does celibacy. I don't remember one man and God; one man and himself; one man and the love of God; etc. One man, one woman--so who's the celibate's spouse? Haven't they also broken the order of God?

(And the Muslim part was "answering" why polygamy is so vilified in the US today, and had nothing to do about correctness/ approved of God/ etc.)

Mekale,

But you aren't a man. If the truth offends, sorry. Few men will even talk to women about this stuff, much less let them know; feel appreciative I shared it, not offended. :P This is the natural man; this is what "Christian men" are fighting against every day. And, some men truly aren't that bad, and some are pretty good. But it's probably either the result of long and strenuous work, special knowledge, or lack of testosterone. If other men have different POV, that's fine, they can share it, too.

Calmoriah,

Good post--more to think about. Again, thanks.

Still, I am waiting, if anyone would like to share, to see how wives/ children is so very different.

Link to comment

freakin a man,

Jesus taught more than one wife. He used polygamy as the foundational setting in the parable of the 10 virgins.

Could you explain how Jesus is teaching more than one wife in the parable of the 10 virgins ... thanks. To the best of my knowledge neither Jesus nor his apostles taught more than one wife. In the New Testament the followers of Jesus did not have more than one wife.

Matt.25

[1] Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.

[2] And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.

[3] They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them:

[4] But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.

[5] While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.

[6] And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.

[7] Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps.

[8] And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out.

[9] But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.

[10] And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.

[11] Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.

[12] But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.

[13] Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.

Link to comment

grego,

Well, johnny, I'll just let that stand, and let others judge as to the "soundness" of your "repugnancy" explanation

It is not my explanation it is the teaching of the Catholic Church. These teachings say:

2400 - Adultery, divorce, polygamy, and free union are grave offenses against the dignity of marriage.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm#IV

1645 - The unity of marriage, distinctly recognized by our Lord, is made clear in the equal personal dignity which must be accorded to man and wife in mutual and unreserved affection. Polygamy is contrary to conjugal love which is undivided and exclusive

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm#V

2387 - Polygamy is not in accord with the moral law. [Conjugal] communion is radically contradicted by polygamy; this, in fact, directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm#IV

Again, in the very beginning of the Christian Church were repulsed and defeated, with the like unremitting determination, the efforts of many who aimed at the destruction of Christian marriage, such as the Gnostics, Manichaeans, and Montanists; and in our own time Mormons, St. Simonians, phalansterians, and communists.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii...arcanum_en.html

Link to comment

Several points.

First of all prior to coming here to mortality we were all children of God, hence brothers and sisters. Our children are therefore in the spiritual realm our brothers and sisters; likewise our spouses. So comparing love of children to love of adults is not so far-fetched when given eternal perspective.

Secondly I do believe when we have learned to love everyone with the unconditional love we give our children we will then know what God-like love is. I think very few if any will acheive that in this life.

Thirdly, those who are members of the church need to re-read very carefully section 132. I do not understand how a member of the church can read that and somehow think it is from a fallen or deceived prophet. The message is on eternal sealings and a continuation of the lives or exaltation. The fact that polygamy is mentioned is that Joseph asked the question about the wives of the ancient prophets. God had to explain the sealing powers of heaven and earth to explain why in certain situations that is not sin and in fact is part of the eternal nature of progression. Joseph was commanded to live this law as part of the restoration of "all" things. It is not necessary to live this law at this time but I do believe in eternity it will be necessary for some. The key to this whole section is the sealing power and the giving of wives with righteous authority; anything less than this is sin. This was answer to Joseph's question and revealed a very important principle of eternity regarding sealing power.

To those who don't believe Joseph was a prophet at all any disucssion on this issue is moot.

Link to comment

freakin a man,

Could you explain how Jesus is teaching more than one wife in the parable of the 10 virgins ... thanks. To the best of my knowledge neither Jesus nor his apostles taught more than one wife. In the New Testament the followers of Jesus did not have more than one wife.

Matt.25

[1] Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.

[2] And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.

[3] They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them:

[4] But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.

[5] While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.

[6] And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.

[7] Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps.

[8] And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out.

[9] But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.

[10] And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.

[11] Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.

[12] But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.

[13] Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.

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.

Link to comment

Deborah,

I do believe when we have learned to love everyone with the unconditional love we give our children we will then know what God-like love is.

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.

The key to this whole section is the sealing power and the giving of wives with righteous authority; anything less than this is sin.

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

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...