Jump to content

Yes Another Polygamy Question


roman

Recommended Posts

Sargon,

>> 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.

I did not ignore it ... I addressed it my earlier post. God gives us things. David has a lot to say in the matter, David can reject things God gives him.

>> 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??

Genesis 38 is not talking about polygamy ... it is talking about his brother's widow. The ancient Israelites regarded as very important their law of levirate, or "brother-in-law" marriage. In the present story, it is primarily Onan's violation of this law, rather than the means he used to circumvent it, that brought on him God's displeasure.

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

I do not accept it and here is why. Why would God give a law of such importance that would ultimately fail? Why bring the Church to the brink of utter destruction and ruin if plural eternal marriage was the highest law to live and the capstone of ordinances of salvation and exaltation? And if God was willing to give it up why make them hold out so long? IMO, a rationally study of this leads me to conclude God did not command it at all in the first place. It was a major colossal mistake. I know this is an unpopular position here and one that I come to with no easy process. Of course I may be wrong, but so far I think I am not.

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.

The answer isn't "seems" it is there. When the majority aren't doing what is allegedly needed for exaltation something else is at play. You really do have to account for that or it can be said that dismissing with a wave of the hand "seems to be the answer whenever we deal with something. . .we do not like". I find it a little hard to swallow that these people were willing to sacrifice their lives and their children's lives to remain Mormon but threw away salvation over polygamy if they really thought that was required. I think it more reasonable to think they were only required to accept that polygamy was in God's plan. Nothing else makes sense given the percentages. As for the decline being because of political pressure..again, they proved over and over that outside pressure only made them more resolute so I find no basis for them suddenly caving. One of the noted exceptions in the demise of New Religions is Mormonism, they didn't fall apart at the stress point that others did. I think a look at stats will show that polygamy itself was imploding when single female immigrants decreased, women became scarcer and economics improved. We go through the same societal changes now...Mormons are almost at the national level for number of children. I'm sure that has to do with economics and demands of life more than anything.

As for D&C 132, it has been said over and over from the highest levels that celestial marriage and polygamy are not the same thing...you can have one without the other. We are a church of modern prophets...there would be no point in having prophets if that wasn't the case. So I don't understand why people throw out the modern prophets to go back to earlier ones on selected items. It seems we are at a stalemate because that is no different than complaining about throwing out the earlier prophets to go to the modern prophets. It always comes back to "false prophet". The issue is irrelevant. Every complaint about the church will be over the question of it being led by a prophet. You either accept that it is or isn't.

Link to comment

I do not accept it and here is why. Why would God give a law of such importance that would ultimately fail? Why bring the Church to the brink of utter destruction and ruin if plural eternal marriage was the highest law to live and the capstone of ordinances of salvation and exaltation? And if God was willing to give it up why make them hold out so long? IMO, a rationally study of this leads me to conclude God did not command it at all in the first place. It was a major colossal mistake. I know this is an unpopular position here and one that I come to with no easy process. Of course I may be wrong, but so far I think I am not.

Was it a mistake? Can that be said without some way to show what the church would have been had polygamy not been in it's creation? If God's purpose is to make everything rosey then it can automically be called a huge mistake. But I don't see God having our comfort as his prime and overall objective in any recorded situation. All I see is that we will be assisted in bearing our trials. I am willing to give those people who literally sacrificed everything the benefit of the doubt and take their word on it that they had a spiritual witness. Thus, I think that polygamy supplied something to the survival of the church that was necessary. Unfortunately, since we can't set up a blind study we can only guess at what that might be. I'm going to stand behind my ancestors on this one.

Link to comment

Genesis 38 is not talking about polygamy ... it is talking about his brother's widow. The ancient Israelites regarded as very important their law of levirate, or "brother-in-law" marriage.

Oh, please. To command that a man take on another man's wife is to command polygamy. Why didn't God just command them to care for the widow as their sister or mother? Or is the point where you declare that none of the brothers of a dead man were ever married? This is just getting stupid.

Link to comment

Was it a mistake? Can that be said without some way to show what the church would have been had polygamy not been in it's creation? If God's purpose is to make everything rosey then it can automically be called a huge mistake. But I don't see God having our comfort as his prime and overall objective in any recorded situation. All I see is that we will be assisted in bearing our trials. I am willing to give those people who literally sacrificed everything the benefit of the doubt and take their word on it that they had a spiritual witness. Thus, I think that polygamy supplied something to the survival of the church that was necessary. Unfortunately, since we can't set up a blind study we can only guess at what that might be. I'm going to stand behind my ancestors on this one.

Not unreasobable rejoinders. Believe it or not, while I have some strong opinions about this, I have noted I may well be wrong and am willing to consider thoughtful alternatives of which yous are. For this reason my current rejection and simay over the ploygamy issue is not nor do I think it will become, a deal killer for me.

Link to comment

Not unreasobable rejoinders. Believe it or not, while I have some strong opinions about this, I have noted I may well be wrong and am willing to consider thoughtful alternatives of which yous are. For this reason my current rejection and simay over the ploygamy issue is not nor do I think it will become, a deal killer for me.

I am also willing to consider that polygamy could be abused and that like any other church program could take on a life of its own.

Link to comment

Sargon,

>> 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.

I did not ignore it ... I addressed it my earlier post. God gives us things. David has a lot to say in the matter, David can reject things God gives him.

>> 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??

Genesis 38 is not talking about polygamy ... it is talking about his brother's widow. The ancient Israelites regarded as very important their law of levirate, or "brother-in-law" marriage. In the present story, it is primarily Onan's violation of this law, rather than the means he used to circumvent it, that brought on him God's displeasure.

David can reject the things that God gives him? Do you have any reference for that? Is this just your opinion? Is there some kind of scriptural precedent that you can show where the Lord gave someone something, and they rejected it, and everything was just peachy?

I can think of an instance in which someone rejected what God gave them. His name was Onan.

Can you not see that the very existence of a "law of levirate" implies polygamy?

For me marriage is a reality of this present age [Mk 12:25].

What is that supposed to me? Were you not the one proclaiming that God commanded Adam to take a wife? Was marriage not a reality for that age also?

Sargon

Link to comment

Sargon,

>> David can reject the things that God gives him? Do you have any reference for that? Is this just your opinion? Is there some kind of scriptural precedent that you can show where the Lord gave someone something, and they rejected it, and everything was just peachy?

Man has free will, David has free will. With free will a person reject what God gives them. The Lord did not command David to have multiple wives. The Lord took away David's wives (2Sam 12:11) and gave them to the neighbors after he sinned.

>> I can think of an instance in which someone rejected what God gave them. His name was Onan. Can you not see that the very existence of a "law of levirate" implies polygamy?

At death a person can re-marry. The existence of a "law of levirate" does not imply polygamy. For me polygamy is having multiply living wives. The "law of levirate" is about preserving the brother's line.

>> What is that supposed to me? Were you not the one proclaiming that God commanded Adam to take a wife? Was marriage not a reality for that age also?

Sorry I was not more descriptive ... I meant this present age which is passing away [1 Cor 7:31].

Link to comment

Yes Johnny, David had free will. And he exercised it often. One day, his will did not coincide with God's, and he was punished for it. We all have the freedom to choose to obey or disobey God. David certainly had a choice, he could have disobeyed. But looking at it from the perspective of David as an all around obedient and righteous man, there was no choice in his mind. He simply obeyed and kept the wives that God gave him. Are you going to admit now that God gave him wives, that God asked him to live a polygamous life?

From what I understand of the law of levirate, the brother-in-law of a widow must take the widow as his wife, even if he already has a wife of his own. This is called polygamy Johnny. Alot of early saints practiced this from much the same reason, to take care of each other.

Sargon

Link to comment

Sargon,

>> Are you going to admit now that God gave him wives

In my earlier post I have said that God gave him wives, God gives us things.

>> that God asked him to live a polygamous life

Clearly God did not ask David to live a polygamous life.

>> From what I understand of the law of levirate, the brother-in-law of a widow must take the widow as his wife, even if he already has a wife of his own. This is called polygamy Johnny.

As I said earlier God tolerated polygamy in the Old Testament.

Link to comment
In my earlier post I have said that God gave him wives, God gives us things.

You also said that God "tolerated" polygamy. Giving is a far cry from simply tolerating. What God tolerated was divorce, he didn't give divorce. God gave polygamy.

Clearly God did not ask David to live a polygamous life.

No Johnny, there is nothing clear about this conclusion. You need to explain why this is so clear.

As I said earlier God tolerated polygamy in the Old Testament.

God simply tolerated the Law of Levirate? God commanded the law of levirate.

Deut 25

5If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.

Johnny, you can't get around the fact that God sanctioned polygamous marriage. He not only tolerated it, He gave it. He recommended it. Must not be such a bad thing after all.

Sargon

Link to comment

Sargon,

>> Johnny, you can't get around the fact that God sanctioned polygamous marriage. He not only tolerated it, He gave it. He recommended it. Must not be such a bad thing after all.

The Old Testament revealed WIVES. The Old Testament does not contain the fullness of Godâ??s revelation. The New Testament reveals one WIFE, it does not reveal WIVES like the Old Testament.

Link to comment

Sargon,

>> Johnny, you can't get around the fact that God sanctioned polygamous marriage. He not only tolerated it, He gave it. He recommended it. Must not be such a bad thing after all.

The Old Testament revealed WIVES. The Old Testament does not contain the fullness of Godâ??s revelation. The New Testament reveals one WIFE, it does not reveal WIVES like the Old Testament.

Too late Johnny, you already used Adam and Eve as an argument. That story is found in the OT. You can't have it both ways.

Sargon

Link to comment

At this point let me add that how one lives their life is a personal decision. If one elects to live in plural marriage with consenting adults, that is between the individuals concerned and God. No matter how many scriptures you quote, it is really none of your business.

Rufus

Link to comment

At this point let me add that how one lives their life is a personal decision. If one elects to live in plural marriage with consenting adults, that is between the individuals concerned and God. No matter how many scriptures you quote, it is really none of your business.

Rufus

If the decision is between individuals and God, we are here to determine if God has ever been involved in such a decision. If he has, which we have shown him to have been, then it is possible he could have been involved in the decisions made by Joseph Smith and other early LDS to participate in plural marriage. The scriptures are clear, and when we successfully prove that to our critics, suddenly the argument shifts from "God has never been ok with polygamy" to "God may have been ok with polygamy in the OT, but not now."

Sargon

Link to comment

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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