Polygamy Doctrine = Not In The Bible

[urroner]

Noggin, it's "exaltation." Exhaltation is the state of breathing out.

It's a pet peeve of mine.

[Not quite me]

Noggin, it's "exaltation." Exhaltation is the state of breathing out.

It's a pet peeve of mine.

Actually, that would be "exhalation." That's a pet peeve of mine.

[urroner]

Actually, that would be "exhalation." That's a pet peeve of mine.

Well, I'm from the South and we just spell it a little different down here. You know you're from the South when you take your dog for a walk and you both use the same tree.

Me on a good hair day:

[Not quite me]

Well, I'm from the South and we just spell it a little different down here. You know you're from the South when you take your dog for a walk and you both use the same tree.

Me on a good hair day:

I never have good hair days.

[ED500]

God did command his people to multiply and replenish the earth (Genesis 1:28) So they are commanded to marry, or how can they fulfill that command?

I did not question marriage. This verse doesn't talk about having more than one wife. Did you missed the following in your reading:

Genesis 1

"............So God created man in his own image,

in the image of God he created him;

male and female he created them.........."

Are you saying that Adam will also marry (in addition to Eve the only other human being at that time) a donkey or a rabbit?

The next chapter says:

Genesis 2

"..........24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. .........."

Exodus 20

"...........You shall not commit adultery..............."

1 Thes 4

"............For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus.

It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality

..............."

This simply states that marriage was a union between A MAN and A WOMAN instituted by God and that pro-creation is a natural result.

1 Timothy 4:3 confirms that it is a doctrine of devils to forbid marriage.

Funny you qoute this:

1 Tim 4:

"..........1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer. ........."

God may not directly command much polygamy in the Bible (except in the case of marrying a dead brother's widow) but neither does He outright condemn it. Clearly it is fulfilling the Genesis 1:28 command if done in the right way.

Not only did God NOT TAUGHT or encourage the Polygamous practice - the Bible clearly shows US readers that it is very problematic. However, both the Old testament and New testament taught marriage between a man a woman.

And you're right! Brother's dead - so, now, the living brother can marry the widow - The God of the Bible fully supports this principle.

Deuteronomy 25:

"........5 If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. 6 The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel............"

See more heartaches and troubles here

Gen. 16:1-6

"...........1 Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian maidservant named Hagar; 2 so she said to Abram, "The LORD has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family through her."

Abram agreed to what Sarai said. 3 So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. 4 He slept with Hagar, and she conceived.

When she knew she was pregnant, she began to despise her mistress. 5 Then Sarai said to Abram, "You are responsible for the wrong I am suffering. I put my servant in your arms, and now that she knows she is pregnant, she despises me. May the LORD judge between you and me."

6 "Your servant is in your hands," Abram said. "Do with her whatever you think best." Then Sarai mistreated Hagar; so she fled from her.............."

1 Sam. 1:2-8

1 Kings 11:1-8

"If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish." Exodus 21:10. Here God regulates it, allowing polygyny to be part of the marriage system of Israel. In Exodus 20 God forbids adultery, so how could this be adultery?

The Book of Ruth shows the righteousness of Boaz for living by this Deut 25 law and marrying Ruth. Boaz was undoubtedly already married.

I believe 1 Timothy 5:17 is speaking of polygamy when it uses the term, "double honor". Do you want to hear my argument for that?

Man, try reading the two links below.......so distorted. You really believe then that the Father and Jesus have many spiritual wives the way it is portrayed on this links? Here is an argument from a non-Mormon believer in polygamy showing the New Testament commands polygamy:

Here are their arguments that Polygamy is Biblical.

[freakin a man]

Nighthawke. Please. The entire section 132 was triggered in response to Smith

Reread the entire section. Take note of careful catch phrases, admonishments, and explanations that Jesus is supposedly saying.

"Do the works of Abraham" right after explaining the how's and why's re: Sarah and Hagar come into play

Also take note of the several locations where Jesus outlines what can and cannot be construed as adultery. If one man was marrying one woman, as you and Calmoriah and many other LDS practitioners claim, why would Jesus Christ need to explain that when a man has ten virgins given to him under this law, he cannot commit adultery?

Noggin

Yes read the entire section. That section does talk about polygamy but its not 100% about polygamy. The new and everlasting covenant can include polygamy but its not defined as polygamy. Muslim men in many places practice polygamy for example but one would be crazy to assume that Joseph Smith or anyone else would say that D&C 132 applies to their situation and that they are under that covenant. They are not.

[Noggin]

Yes read the entire section [132]. That section does talk about polygamy but its not 100% about polygamy. The new and everlasting covenant can include polygamy but its not defined as polygamy. Muslim men in many places practice polygamy for example but one would be crazy to assume that Joseph Smith or anyone else would say that D&C 132 applies to their situation and that they are under that covenant. They are not.

I am interested in how you perceive the Mormon god. In your view, is the Mormon god a polygamous entity? Yes or No.

If yes, then you should see how D&C 132 is the justification for why a polygamous characteristic of the Mormon god's entity was taught from 1830ish to early 20th century. They understood him to be an exalted man with many wives... and they strived vigilently to become like him, with open bold print raised font emphasis on attaining a glorified polygamous existence for themselves.

If no, why? or rather, how? How has that god possibly (magically?) changed from the pre 1890 era? How did he stop being polygamous?

These are a few of the tough questions. They pin down the essence of D&C 132. And skirting the issues concerning polygamy, and in hindsight, dumbing down what was taught pre 1890 among the saints ... as many Mormons may like to do, I maintain that all Mormons striving for perfection and a Mormon salvation are victims to a well thought out, mass-media, Aww Shucks-- "Polygamy Is Behind Us Now" campaign that waters down what that salvation contains... which is in essence, an eternity as an exalted polygamous entity.

Noggin

[Jerubaal]

If yes, then you should see how D&C 132 is the justification for why a polygamous characteristic of the Mormon god's entity was taught from 1830ish to early 20th century. They understood him to be an exalted man with many wives... and they strived vigilently to become like him, with open bold print raised font emphasis on attaining a glorified polygamous existence for themselves.

The only place I can think of that speaks of God having multiple wives is Orson Pratt's The Seer. Now, if you know of any sources on the subject that weren't repudiated by the Quorum of the Twelve, I'd be interested in seeing them.

[Noggin]

The only place I can think of that speaks of God having multiple wives is Orson Pratt's The Seer. Now, if you know of any sources on the subject that weren't repudiated by the Quorum of the Twelve, I'd be interested in seeing them.

Brigham Young taught that polygamy was essential to salvation. Is god not a saved being? Was god once a man? Brigham Young made this statement in 1866:

"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 269).

Another prophet, I believe Lorenzo Snow, said As man is god once was... indicating that god was once a man. As such, this man who became god needed salvation. Polygamy is part and parcel to that salvation (according to the Mormon doctrine).

Also Jedediah Grant, 2nd counselor to Brigham Young taught openly that Jesus was a polygamist.

Besides the fact that in Mormon cannon, we can read the words of Jesus Christ who declares celestial marriage, which of course in the mid 19th cenury included polygamy, was an eternal law.

If polygamy is part of an eternal law, how does god get away with not living such a law? He is permitted to break the law?

Noggin

[freakin a man]

Brigham Young taught that polygamy was essential to salvation. Is god not a saved being? Was god once a man? Brigham Young made this statement in 1866:

"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 269).

I personally get a different view on this issue when I read more of the JOD

"Now, we as Christians desire to be saved in the kingdom of God. We desire to attain to the possession of all the blessings there are for the most faithful man or people that ever lived upon the face of the earth, even him who is said to be the father of the faithful, Abraham of old. We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us. It may be hard for many, and especially for the ladies, yet it is no harder for them than it is for the gentlemen. It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives.

You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"-the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessing offered unto them, and they refused to accept them."

I see Brigham addressing a very specific mindset of select people who believe they can pick and chose the commandments of God. If something is offered to them or commanded by God, they think they can reject it and all will be well with him. Brigham was really addressing a group of men who where rejecting a commandment at that time because this group of men wanted to raise their earthly status and desired for the things of this world. One cannot reject commandments of God, polygamy or anything else for the praise and honor of the world and expect exaltation.

If polygamy is commanded by God, we are to accept it or be willing to accept it. If its not a current standing commandment then that would not be the case. I think LDS critics are not explaining the issue being raised by Brigham and simply are giving one isolated statement that is leads to a rather different conclusion.

[Jerubaal]

I personally get a different view on this issue when I read more of the JOD

"Now, we as Christians desire to be saved in the kingdom of God. We desire to attain to the possession of all the blessings there are for the most faithful man or people that ever lived upon the face of the earth, even him who is said to be the father of the faithful, Abraham of old. We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us. It may be hard for many, and especially for the ladies, yet it is no harder for them than it is for the gentlemen. It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives.

You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"-the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessing offered unto them, and they refused to accept them."

I see Brigham addressing a very specific mindset of select people who believe they can pick and chose the commandments of God. If something is offered to them or commanded by God, they think they can reject it and all will be well with him. Brigham was really addressing a group of men who where rejecting a commandment at that time because this group of men wanted to raise their earthly status and desired for the things of this world. One cannot reject commandments of God, polygamy or anything else for the praise and honor of the world and expect exaltation.

If polygamy is commanded by God, we are to accept it or be willing to accept it. If its not a current standing commandment then that would not be the case. I think LDS critics are not explaining the issue being raised by Brigham and simply are giving one isolated statement that is leads to a rather different conclusion.

Agreed. Oh, and if you're referring to the Grant quote I think you are, I'm afraid you have misquoted him. He is in fact referring to an early Anti-Christian named Celcus who accused Jesus of polygamy.

Now, Orson Hyde once said Christ was married, and hypothesized (though he made no definate statement, which is clear if you read the quote) that perhaps in addition to Mary Magdalene that Christ was married to Mary and Martha.

[Noggin]

sigh. no comment. except, your explanation is, basically, exactly how I used to think about that quote. I understand how it might feel to think like that or to be required to think like that so that polygamy quietly goes back into its corner with the dunce cap.

Noggin

[Jerubaal]

sigh. no comment. except, your explanation is, basically, exactly how I used to think about that quote. I understand how it might feel to think like that or to be required to think like that so that polygamy quietly goes back into its corner with the dunce cap.

Noggin

Perhaps rather than insulting our interpretation, you could actually directly address what you feel is lackig in it?

[urroner]

sigh. no comment. except, your explanation is, basically, exactly how I used to think about that quote. I understand how it might feel to think like that or to be required to think like that so that polygamy quietly goes back into its corner with the dunce cap.

Noggin

I sigh too, but in order for it to get back into its corner with the dunce cap, it will have to wait for various critics of the Church who believe themselves wise to leave the corner and give it the dunce cap they were just wearing.

Hey, am I picking up the insult on the sly routine or am I just being a horse's butt?

[ED500]

It's final. The God in the Bible simply never ordered or commanded his followers to become polygamous.

[Mordecai]

sigh. no comment. except, your explanation is, basically, exactly how I used to think about that quote. I understand how it might feel to think like that or to be required to think like that so that polygamy quietly goes back into its corner with the dunce cap.

Noggin

Adam only had one wife. That was his paradise. His paradise did not involve plural marriage. If we're redeemed from the fall, then by definition we are supposed to get the paradise Adam had (and more perhaps)? Not to say that polygamy is bad per se. However, there is no reason to believe that true happiness and paradise occur only in a polygamous relationship. That's totally unecessary for exaltation, since Adam was made lord over all the earth with ONE wife. The BoMormon says that the default rule of thumb is monogamy. Polygamy is an exception. The BoMormon is what puts polygamy in the corner, and you may wear a dunce cap if you like. I would, if I were contradicting the BoMormon. Do you have a more authoritative source than the BoMormon? If you say that the Lord says in the D&C that polygamy is an Eternal law, keep in mind that TITHING is an Eternal law also. It's Eternal in that it is a law always given to those who are in a position where it will benefit them and the building up of the Kingdom. We won't be paying tithing in Heaven. I also doubt that polygamy will be the only way things are done in Heaven, although I'm sure it will be there to some degree when it is beneficial.

It's final. The God in the Bible simply never ordered or commanded his followers to become polygamous.

I hope you're joking.

[erichard]

It's final. The God in the Bible simply never ordered or commanded his followers to become polygamous.

He ordered Israelite men, even if they were married, to marry their dead brother's widow. Very clearly.

Read the book of Ruth about 10 times. It shows the wisdom of this law. It shows the righteousness of Boaz for his willingness to live by this law. And thus through him came the House of David and eventually Christ.

But I do agree that the Bible does not teach every man to go out and seek more than one wife. It was commanded as an insurance for married Israelite women who lose their husband to death or apostasy. It was clearly an extension of patriarchy, which the Bible DOES openly teach.

Richard

[urroner]

I find it interesting that when certain people ask questions and when that question is answered, the people stick their fingers in their ears and pretend they couldn't hear the answer so they can pretend that it wasn't answered. Then they have the audacity to accuse those who answered the question of wearing dunce caps, but it all reality, that was simple character projection.

[Noggin]

I find it interesting that when certain people ask questions and when that question is answered, the people stick their fingers in their ears and pretend they couldn't hear the answer so they can pretend that it wasn't answered. Then they have the audacity to accuse those who answered the question of wearing dunce caps, but it all reality, that was simple character projection.

Hi urroner

First. How are you. Hope things are well enough after your weekend. Second. The dunce cap imagery was brought up by me but not intended to be directed at any individual here. I was suggesting that polygamy was a black eye for the church, treated it metaphorically as an entity with a persona and suggested it [polygamy] go and stand in the corner with a dunce cap on for misbehaving so terribly. Without polygamy, the Mormon church would be miles ahead-- progression wise-- from where it currently is. There would be no oddball sunday school lesson where some brave woman would invariably pipe up from the audience defending the "virtues" of the practice. No defense. No awkward shuffling from President Hinckley when he gave the talk re: polygamy entitled "This thing was not done in a corner". No deflection on national TV from President Hinckly to Mike Wallace or whomever he deflected when quizzed on polygamy "Oh that... that [icky, bothersome thing of a thorn in our side] is all behind us now..."

I mean, good for the church for distancing themselves from polygamy. Read Compton's book, you'll see polygamy was a severe trial for most women (and men for that matter). Emotionally draining, financially strapping, mentally warping, intimacy stunting. The diary accounts I have read are heart breaking. All you need to do is imagine yourself as a woman sharing your husband with several women. And not just sex either. What if you were starving and your kids hadn't seen their father for 4 days (because he was with his other wives)? And this was standard protocol for you life week in and week out? No person should have to live under those conditions.

Bad Polygamy! Bad dog! No bisquit!!!

Noggin

[urroner]

Actually Noggin, most people in the Church don't believe that polygamy was a bad thing. I have met very few people in the Church who are ashamed that the Church practiced it years ago and to tell you the truth, I personally believe that the Church is better now because of it.

[Noggin]

Actually Noggin, most people in the Church don't believe that polygamy was a bad thing. I have met very few people in the Church who are ashamed that the Church practiced it years ago and to tell you the truth, I personally believe that the Church is better now because of it.

That is the wonderful thing about perspective. To each his own. Because growing up in the church, my experience was that nearly everyone loathed that it was part of their heritage.

But that is just probably because I grew up here, in "The Mission Field" (California), where the members tend to be borderliners... liberals... and not true members like those die hard Utahns. My city is less than 1 hour from Berkley!

Thankfully, I did not have to witness any members participating in bra burnings. I guess we have our limits.

Noggin

[thesometimesaint]

Noggin:

My wife and I were Sealed in the Oakland Temple.

[Jerubaal]

That is the wonderful thing about perspective. To each his own. Because growing up in the church, my experience was that nearly everyone loathed that it was part of their heritage.

But that is just probably because I grew up here, in "The Mission Field" (California), where the members tend to be borderliners... liberals... and not true members like those die hard Utahns. My city is less than 1 hour from Berkley!

Thankfully, I did not have to witness any members participating in bra burnings. I guess we have our limits.

Noggin

My parents, and myself, are natives of the Bay Area. And both my parents are Berkeley Alum. And they, and all those I stay in contact with from back in the Bay Area, do not have this seemingly pervasive anti-Polygamy attitude you would seem to suggest.

[Noggin]

My parents, and myself, are natives of the Bay Area. And both my parents are Berkeley Alum. And they, and all those I stay in contact with from back in the Bay Area, do not have this seemingly pervasive anti-Polygamy attitude you would seem to suggest.

Then it's a christmas miracle!

cheers

Noggin (suggesting the thread is dead and played out about now)

[Noggin]

I Lied. The thread is not dead.

You grew up in the same area I did and yet, you inform me that polygamy is all but a hallowed and welcomed marital model in your very similar neck of the woods.

I just re read a certain part of this thread where a poster offered a lovely quote out of the Journal of Discourses where, way back in the very days of polygamy, President Young was addressing a general, uh, problematic sentiment of polygamy among his saints. Let me just say here before you read what Brigham Young said that I'll try not to crow too loudly. Polygamy was and is still a thorn in the church's side. Back then, and presently.

Brigham Young said:

"Now, we as Christians desire to be saved in the kingdom of God. We desire to attain to the possession of all the blessings there are for the most faithful man or people that ever lived upon the face of the earth, even him who is said to be the father of the faithful, Abraham of old. We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us. It may be hard for many, and especially for the ladies, yet it is no harder for them than it is for the gentlemen. It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives.

You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"-the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessing offered unto them, and they refused to accept them."

**whispering** **** ah doodle doo

Noggin