Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Yes Another Polygamy Question


roman

Recommended Posts

-A-

roman,

I have already cover this passage--but for you----------------

I see no where in this scripture where it says that these women were to be Davids wifes--------Yes they were given to David by God-----but your reading into it that they would function as wifes-------they could have functioned as slaves --housekeepers or many other things----but to take it meaning specifically wifes is a streach , at least for me

Slaves?? God called them wives when they were really just housekeepers?? Was David sleeping with these women that were not his wives?? If so, would God say something like this?

1Ki 11:4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, [that] his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as [was] the heart of David his father.

1Ki 15:5 Because David did [that which was] right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any [thing] that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.

David's heart was perfect with the Lord. His only sin was a major one, to commit murder, and take a wife which the Lord had not given him. This was an isolated incident, one from which David immediately repented. Don't argue with us, argue with the bible. I don't think God would describe David as having a perfect heart were he sleeping with slaves and housekeepers, women to whom he was not married to.

Your conclusion that "to take it meaning specifically wi[v]es is a stre[t]ch", is quite a stretch in my opinion based on the biblical record of David.

Allow me to quote you, altering some of your words for my purposes:

no offence meant----but for [roman] to bring legitimacy to this issue I see [him] doing Olympic style gymnastics, bending over back-wards, turning scripture inside out and upside down---just in a effort to [justify his rejection of polygamy, a thing which has clearly been approved by the Lord]

Men of the OT did it in ignorance and people under the NT times did it in violation of Gods covanant and plan for marriage upon the earth.

It is entirely possible, and probable, that many who practices polygamy did so against the will of God. We see occurring now amongst many fundamentalist apostate LDS offshoots. But it is also very clear that God has approved it's practice various times throughout the history of mankind. David and Solomon are only two cases. The Lord gave the covenant of all covenants to Abraham, a man who had multiple wives. He blessed Jacob with that same covenant, a man with multiple wives. Were this the grave sin that you make it out to be it is highly doubtful the Lord would have considered these men appropriate vassals for his work.

Apply your style of thinking to Moses as he killed the Egytian- or when abraham Lied---------------your trying to say that these Holy men were PERFECT and did everything according to Gods Law, when in fact they were men of inperfection who sometimes missed God by a million miles.

We could start a new thread on this topic, but what it boils down to is that Moses had not yet received the command "thou shalt not murder", and furthermore he did not murder, he defended. Abraham did not lie, because Sarah was indeed his half sister. But as you suggest, they were not perfect. They sometimes screwed up, as David did. But it is quite telling that David is not notorious for having multiple wives, instead he is notorious for killing Uriah in his lust for Bath-sheba. Had the Lord commanded David to take Bath-sheba to wife it would not have been a sin, but the Lord did not command him to do it.

Also if my statment had been "PROVEN" false then I would now believe different, but since I don't the statment has NOT been proven at all-per lds view

Many assaults by our critics have been proven false, but they really aren't all that interested in that.

-B-

Johnny,

God did not command polygamy, in the Old Testament God tolerated polygamy.

Johnny are you completely oblivious to what has been said so far on this topic? Can you please stop spouting off mindless one liners and actually present a coherent argument for once?

From the beginning God's way was one wife, Adam had one wife.

The Book of Genesis DOES NOT say a man shall cleave unto his WIVES, it says WIFE.

Then why do your priests not cling unto a wife?

Sargon

Link to comment

Sargon,

>> Johnny are you completely oblivious to what has been said so far on this topic? Can you please stop spouting off mindless one liners and actually present a coherent argument for once?

Where in the Bible does God command polygamy?

>> Then why do your priests not cling unto a wife?

Because priest choose not to cling unto a wife.

From the beginning it has been one wife and one man.

Link to comment

Where in the Bible does God command polygamy?

Johnny read through the thread. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that God has given multiple wives to certain of his servants.

Because priest choose not to cling unto a wife.

From the beginning it has been one wife and one man.

Yes, it has. One man and one woman is the preferable choice, unless God finds it necessary to command otherwise. Unfortunately Catholic priests do not understand the importance of marriage. I don't want to derail the thread, but I think this is appropriate:

1Ti 4:1
Link to comment

Sargon,

>> Johnny read through the thread. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that God has given multiple wives to certain of his servants.

Giving is NOT commanding polygamy. Like I said earlier, in the Old Testament God tolerated polygamy.

>> Yes, it has. One man and one woman is the preferable choice, unless God finds it necessary to command otherwise.

Please provide a Bible verses that God commands polygamy.

>> I don't want to derail the thread, but I think this is appropriate

I believe that discussion would derail the thread ...

Link to comment
Giving is NOT commanding polygamy. Like I said earlier, in the Old Testament God tolerated polygamy.

If you say it enough times it will become true.

Sargon

Link to comment
2 Samuel 12:7 ... Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8 And I gave thee thy masterâ??s house, and thy masterâ??s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

I guess you spoke too soon. God gave David his many wives. You can interpret that either as a commandment, or as a reward. I don't think you want to interpret it as a reward.

The worst part, is that we have been over this many times in this very thread.

Sargon

Link to comment

Sargon,

>> I guess you spoke too soon. God gave David his many wives. You can interpret that either as a commandment, or as a reward. I don't think you want to interpret it as a reward.

Or you can interpret it that God gives things to men ... God also gave "thy master's house" (2Sam 12:8 ) .

2Sam.12

[8] And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

>> The worst part, is that we have been over this many times in this very thread.

The best part is that the Bible DOES NOT support that polygamy was commanded by God.

Link to comment

no offence meant----but for lds to bring legitimacy to this issue I see them doing Olympic style gymnastics, bending over back-wards, turning scripture inside out and upside down---just in a effort to give it a spritual complexion. Ii have said it before and now say it again------ the end of plural marriage has alwys ended on a bad note for those involved

Like the development of nations? There are two things that are fascinating to watch when countermos hide behind double standards. One is that corner they back themselves into when they try to explain why the bloopers committed by their leaders don't matter as they demean our leaders...ultimately leading them to declare their leaders aren't inspired. Next is watching this show....the demeaning of the biblical Patriarchs to score a few cheap shots at polygamy and Mormons.

Link to comment

Sargon,

>> If you say it enough times it will become true.

It is true ... the Bible DOES NOT reveal that God commanded polygamy.

Even though I rarely agree with Johny I agree with him here.

Please show in the Bible where God commands plural marriage. Also please show where he commands it as a requirement for exaltation, salvation, entering into heaven or so forth.

Many thanks.

Link to comment

Even though I rarely agree with Johny I agree with him here.

Please show in the Bible where God commands plural marriage.

Where it is ordered that men marry their brother's widow for one. There are several instances and scholars will support it. You have to turn to theological constructions to take polygamy out of the Bible no matter how distasteful it is. As for exaltation, not even Mormon theology requires polygamy and that is supported by a First Presidency statement. So unless one wants to become a Mormon fundamentalist and hang their hat on statements made in a specific time and place, I don't know where there is to go with that one.

Link to comment

Where it is ordered that men marry their brother's widow for one. There are several instances and scholars will support it. You have to turn to theological constructions to take polygamy out of the Bible no matter how distasteful it is. As for exaltation, not even Mormon theology requires polygamy and that is supported by a First Presidency statement. So unless one wants to become a Mormon fundamentalist and hang their hat on statements made in a specific time and place, I don't know where there is to go with that one.

]

Good point on the widow issues. Still this seems like an exception rather then a rule as LDS polygamy was. And yes, according to Brigham, Joseph and D&C 132 plural marriage was required for exaltation. I know this has since changed but 19th century LDS were under a different command.

Link to comment

]

Good point on the widow issues. Still this seems like an exception rather then a rule as LDS polygamy was. And yes, according to Brigham, Joseph and D&C 132 plural marriage was required for exaltation. I know this has since changed but 19th century LDS were under a different command.

I do think polygamy is an exception. I think it is a very uncomfortable thing to have in our history. But I think it is unrealistic to project mortality into the eternities. When Israel was founded on polygamy it requires too much contorting to deny that God was right there. To me, it becomes a question of rejecting God altogether if bibilcal polygamy has to go. It kinda goes along with the other unpleasant things we don't like to attribute to God but the record ties him/her to. Perhaps a case can be made for the family tie thing being part of the starter package, I don't know. I remain fascinated by the studies showing that family/friends determine your theology not the other way around. Polygamy does seem a way to build a solid core that can survive outside hostile forces. All I know is it did not weaken Mormonism where it should have given the distaste for the practice. (If only we would see the day when that distaste expanded to multiple partners who are not married.)

I think...like everything else this comes down to the same old thing...true vs false prophet.

Link to comment

According to Brigham, Joseph and D&C 132 plural marriage was required for exaltation. I know this has since changed but 19th century LDS were under a different command.

We are required to live the law we are given. Since that was law then, yes, they were required. That isn't the law today, so we are not required.

Link to comment

We are required to live the law we are given. Since that was law then, yes, they were required. That isn't the law today, so we are not required.

Yes that is what I said. However, this certainly ignores the fact that those who practiced is viewed it as a new and EVERLASTING covenant. They believes it would never be given up, that if it was given up God would reject the Church and they did not give it up till it was clear the US government would destroy the Church if it was not abandoned. Even then it was given up but continued under a more clandestine way. I understand what motivated the saints and why they did what they did in the last 25 years of the 19th century. I am not as easily comforted by the simplicity of the idea that God said do it then but do not do it now when it is pretty apparent that they leaders gave it up only when forced to not by God but by the US government.

So I am happy indeed it is not practiced today. But it is not, to me at least, quite as simple as it seems it is for you.

Link to comment
Lachoneus,

>> No offence, but your "understanding" of the scripture is both incomplete and incorrect. Abraham, Jacob, Moses, etc were NOT ignorant of God or His ways. They were holy men who followed the laws of God and were approved of God.

God did not command polygamy, in the Old Testament God tolerated polygamy.

>> Those who claim otherwise while pretending to understand the scriptures themselves are the ones who are ignorant of God and His ways, not the Lord's chosen servants.

From the beginning God's way was one wife, Adam had one wife.

The Book of Genesis DOES NOT say a man shall cleave unto his WIVES, it says WIFE.

[br]Who's to say Adam had only one wife. He could have take one or more of his daughters as wives. Certainly, his son's took their sisters as wives so incest would have been quite common fir the first several hunderd years or so.
Link to comment

Teancum:

Polygamy has never been a requirement for all members of the Church for entry into the Celestial Kingdom. It has only been a requirement for those that God has made it for. Following your logic, all those members of the Church that were never asked to participate in polygamy would be condemned for not obeying a law they never had.

Link to comment

We are required to live the law we are given. Since that was law then, yes, they were required. That isn't the law today, so we are not required.

It is conforting to know that God is so consistant with the laws he gives. He seems to change his mind as often as politicians of today. Waffle here... waffle there. :P
Link to comment

Yes that is what I said. However, this certainly ignores the fact that those who practiced is viewed it as a new and EVERLASTING covenant. They believes it would never be given up, that if it was given up God would reject the Church and they did not give it up till it was clear the US government would destroy the Church if it was not abandoned. Even then it was given up but continued under a more clandestine way. I understand what motivated the saints and why they did what they did in the last 25 years of the 19th century.

But "the Saints" didn't do it. A small percentage of them did. That is why I don't think it is correct to take BY's rhetoric at face value...they certainly weren't which tells me that they were either hearing something in addition to this or not taking the same thing from it than we do now.

I am not as easily comforted by the simplicity of the idea that God said do it then but do not do it now when it is pretty apparent that they leaders gave it up only when forced to not by God but by the US government.

Actually, it was on the decline even before the Manifesto. Although polygamy is always seen as a monolithic lump it really can only be meaningfully be discussed by decade. You could sit down and make a long list of practices from the Bible on that were dropped. Why does this practice stand out as being different in that regard?

Link to comment

It is conforting to know that God is so consistant with the laws he gives. He seems to change his mind as often as politicians of today. Waffle here... waffle there. :P

It is not comforting to know that people still exist who find change so disconcerting they have to ridicule what most would think of as advancement.

Link to comment

Teancum:

Polygamy has never been a requirement for all members of the Church for entry into the Celestial Kingdom. It has only been a requirement for those that God has made it for. Following your logic, all those members of the Church that were never asked to participate in polygamy would be condemned for not obeying a law they never had.

Brigham Young, Joseph Smith and D&C 132 disagree with you.

Link to comment

Sargon,

>> I guess you spoke too soon. God gave David his many wives. You can interpret that either as a commandment, or as a reward. I don't think you want to interpret it as a reward.

Or you can interpret it that God gives things to men ... God also gave "thy master's house" (2Sam 12:8 ) .

2Sam.12

[8] And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

>> The worst part, is that we have been over this many times in this very thread.

The best part is that the Bible DOES NOT support that polygamy was commanded by God.

Johnny, you can ignore it, or deny it if you want. What the verse clearly says is that God gave David wives. What do you think would have happened if David had rejected what God gave him? I don't think David had much say in the matter.

Polygamy was not commanded by God? Juliann brought up a very good point.

Gen 38:8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.

Gen 38:9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled [it] on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.

Gen 38:10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

The Lord was displeased that Onan did not raise up seed with his dead brother's widow, and you say that the Lord never commanded polygamy??

But I wont be surprised if you find a way to deny it. The Catholic Church has been doing things like that for a while now.

Sargon

Link to comment

But "the Saints" didn't do it. A small percentage of them did.

T:

About 25%.

That is why I don't think it is correct to take BY's rhetoric at face value...

T: This seems to be the answer whenever we deal with something Brigham said that we do not like.

they certainly weren't which tells me that they were either hearing something in addition to this or not taking the same thing from it than we do now.

T: What do you mean they certianly weren't?

Actually, it was on the decline even before the Manifesto. Although polygamy is always seen as a monolithic lump it really can only be meaningfully be discussed by decade. You could sit down and make a long list of practices from the Bible on that were dropped. Why does this practice stand out as being different in that regard?

T: Well I think that God seems to change a lot about a lot of things. I am not comforted by that either. But polygamy was such a LARGE issue and so very important to the 19th century saints and it seems they gave it up more becasue of pressure then duye to God telling them not to, so this is why I have more of an issue with it.

Link to comment

Actually, it was on the decline even before the Manifesto. Although polygamy is always seen as a monolithic lump it really can only be meaningfully be discussed by decade. You could sit down and make a long list of practices from the Bible on that were dropped. Why does this practice stand out as being different in that regard?

One reason it may have been on the decline is die to the pressure of the Government from 1870 forward.

Link to comment

I believe that God commanded the Saints to cease the practice of polygamy because of political pressure. The Saints had sacrificed so much to keep this law, in the face of terrible persecution. They moved their families to neighboring countries so they could continue following God's commandment. They didn't simply crack under the pressure. Prophets went into hiding, so they could continue the practice. It wasn't like they simply gave up. They had demonstrated their love for the Lord in the face of opposition, and the Lord finally told them enough was enough. You don't have to accept it if you don't want to.

Sargon

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...