Jump to content

Isaiah Foretells The Practice Of Polygamy Being Restored


kamenraider

Recommended Posts

Isaiah 4:1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

What day? The "great and dreadful day of the Lord".

D&C 110:16 says it's "near, even at the doors".

Uh oh.

Comments?

Link to comment

My take is this was a poetic way of prophecying the decimation of the male population pursuant to the Babylonian captivity.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

So you don't view this as describing future polygamy then?

edit: Do you think that the reference to "the branch" in the next verse is prophetic?

Link to comment

Dude, when Christ comes back again to rule the earth, ALL of the old saints will come with him, including Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and Moses. Those men had a few wives. Therefore the Lord looks upon whole matter differently than Mortals.

On another matter, I don't believe Plural Marriage will be re-instituted before the Millenium, and I think it may completely unnecessary during it. But I could be wrong, and will just have to wait and see.

Link to comment

Whether or not it describes a future state of polygamy, it is not describing plural marriage commanded by God, but was in essence a marriage in name only as far as any support given by the man.

Isa. 4: 1

1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

Link to comment

Dude, when Christ comes back again to rule the earth, ALL of the old saints will come with him, including Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and Moses. Those men had a few wives. Therefore the Lord looks upon whole matter differently than Mortals.

I was just kidding with the "yikes" and "uh oh" stuff. This passage is talking about people entering polygamous marriages though, not just resurrected "polyggies" showing up on earth to hang out.

On another matter, I don't believe Plural Marriage will be re-instituted before the Millenium, and I think it may completely unnecessary during it. But I could be wrong, and will just have to wait and see.

But if this passage refers to the dawning of the millennial day, and it's "at the doors" ...uh oh! :P

Link to comment
Dude, when Christ comes back again to rule the Earth, ALL of the old saints will come with him, including Abraham,

Isaac and Jacob and Moses. Those men had a few wives.

Yes, and when the saints...come marchin' in...oh, when the saints come marchin' in! You'll be able to tell which ones are Abraham, Issac and Jacob. They'll be the ones who look submissive and broken. Their nails will be bitten down to the quick and they'll be followed by women who will be telling them where to sit, stand, what to wear, how to act [shudder!]. Notice in the Isaiah prophesy who instigates these unions.

The women!

They grab hold of the unsuspecting males, talk them into marrying them, then tell them the rest of their lives how they could have done better! [shudder!]

It was Leonard Nimoy who sang, and I'm being kind:

Girl meets boy, they fall in love;

She says he's everything she's dreamed of....

But when they get married, before he's aware,

She changes his habits, the way he combs his hair!

She changes him to someone, he's never been,

Then complains...he's not like other men!

Really, I find that...highly illogical.

SpockLightsUp_DontMakeSense.jpg

.

Link to comment

Whether or not it describes a future state of polygamy, it is not describing plural marriage commanded by God, but was in essence a marriage in name only as far as any support given by the man.

If you don't think this is describing plural marriage commanded by God, then you must not have noticed that those that are left after the war and destruction are described as righteous and holy. It seems to me to fit with the polygamy reference just fine.

Link to comment

If you don't think this is describing plural marriage commanded by God, then you must not have noticed that those that are left after the war and destruction are described as righteous and holy. It seems to me to fit with the polygamy reference just fine.

Not all. At least not immediately. Don't forget those that are mourning and are left desolate in Chapter 3.

From the CES manual:

(13-23) Isaiah 4:1. “Take Away Our Reproach”

Verse 1 of chapter four seems to continue the thought of chapter three rather than to begin a new thought. This phrase suggests that the condition mentioned in verse 1 is caused by the scarcity of men, a result of the devastation of war mentioned in Isaiah 3:25–26. The conditions under which these women would accept this marriage (“eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel”) are contrary to the Lord’s order of marriage (see Exodus 21:10; D&C 132:58–61). To be unmarried and childless in ancient Israel was a disgrace (see Genesis 30:23; Luke 1:25). So terrible would conditions in those times be that women would offer to share a husband with others and expect no material support from him, if they could claim they were married to him.

http://ldsces.org/inst_manuals/ot-in-2/ot-...-isa1.htm#13-57

If verse 1 is a continuation of chapter three (notice in Chap. 3 the men have fallen by the sword thus explaining the shortage), the women being referred to are more likely the "daughters of Zion" who have succumbed to worldliness and this form of marriage is one of the consequences of their forsaking the Lord and why they lament and mourn and are desolate (3:26).

After this...after the Lord washes away their filth, "it comes to pass" that they are called holy. There is no need to see verse 1 as taking place after the purification, makes much more sense given the description of the relationships as well as the overall structure save for the chapter break to read it as before.

Link to comment
In that day family units will be perfected according to the plans made in the heavens before the peopling of the earth. Celestial marriage in its highest and most glorious form will bind men and women together in eternal unions, and the resultant families will truly continue forever. One of the most provocative millennial passages forecasts the order of matrimony that will then prevail, saying: "And in that day" -- the millennial day -- "seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach," the reproach of being without a husband, without children, without a family of their own. This shall come to pass after the destruction of the wicked, and it is one of many scriptural intimations that the generality of women are more spiritual than are most men. The inference is that far more women will abide the day of his coming than will be the case with men. And they, being clean and upright, and desiring family units and children and the exaltation that grows out of all these things, will turn to the marriage discipline of Abraham their father so they may be blessed like Sarah of old.

--Bruce R. McConkie, The Millennial Messiah, pg. 655.

Link to comment
In that day family units will be perfected according to the plans made in the heavens before the peopling of the earth. Celestial marriage in its highest and most glorious form will bind men and women together in eternal unions, and the resultant families will truly continue forever. One of the most provocative millennial passages forecasts the order of matrimony that will then prevail, saying: "And in that day" -- the millennial day -- "seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach," the reproach of being without a husband, without children, without a family of their own. This shall come to pass after the destruction of the wicked, and it is one of many scriptural intimations that the generality of women are more spiritual than are most men. The inference is that far more women will abide the day of his coming than will be the case with men. And they, being clean and upright, and desiring family units and children and the exaltation that grows out of all these things, will turn to the marriage discipline of Abraham their father so they may be blessed like Sarah of old.

--Bruce R. McConkie, The Millennial Messiah, pg. 655.

Well, apparently McConkie wasn't spot on here. I had an LDS professor of history point out that if we believe that all children who die before the age of 8 are automatically in the celestial kingdom, then simple numbers of males vs. females who died young mean that males will outnumber females in the Kingdom of God. That is true, even if most of the LDS men don't get to the Celestial Kingdom and most of the LDS women DO. With those numbers, it's going to be 7 husbands to one woman! Edited for error in syntax

Link to comment

There are no authoritative statements from modern leaders advocating polygamy now or in the future. Quite the opposite. That is why one has to reach into Isaiah and a McConkie commentary to get there. Is this how modern leaders speak of LDS women? Is this what you think of LDS women?

3:24 And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty.

Call for references. Again.

Link to comment

With those numbers, it's going to be polygyny...not polyandry!

I think you mean it will be polyandry not polygyny. We do not have a theology that supports salvation based on gender. These polygamy threads will probably never end because there is simply no support for the idea of future polygamy and there are some who seem to yearn for it. Using this verse to describe modern women is disturbing...but it is also one of the more obvious proofs that this attitude seems to attach itself to polygamy. I have never seen a "gosh, I hope there is polygamy" thread that assumes women are equal socially or intellectually.

Link to comment

CES is not hesitant to use McConkie when they think it's appropriate as evidenced by the several other references to his comments on the page I linked to above.

Yet the committee that produced this manual chose another interpretation in spite of his position.....

I wonder why?

(Actually I don't, I think they just didn't agree with him in this case).

Link to comment

There are no authoritative statements from modern leaders advocating polygamy now or in the future. Quite the opposite. That is why one has to reach into Isaiah and a McConkie commentary to get there. Is this how modern leaders speak of LDS women? Is this what you think of LDS women?

3:24 And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty.

Call for references. Again.

What do you think about the Isaiah passage in question, juliann -- do you think it refers to the future?

Link to comment

Dude made his wife commit to live polygamy before they got married. A little over-eager methinks.

Hmmm, that's not exactly on-topic or enlightening, but let me explain.

I didn't make my wife commit to anything. She chose to. No imaginary misogynistic patriarchal control was needed.

If I were as eager to live polygamy as you think I am, don't you think I'd be somewhere like Colorado City with three wives or so?

Link to comment

What do you think about the Isaiah passage in question, juliann -- do you think it refers to the future?

:P Secularism is spreading at a rapid rate. The church is trying to save the family by advocating for marriage. That means marriage is no longer important. I think that is rather obvious. What is going to change women who can support themselves and their children into sniveling creatures whose only goal in life is to get their name on a marriage license?

You really do have to respond to a CFR or stop creating unsupportable polygamy threads.

Link to comment

:P Secularism is spreading at a rapid rate. The church is trying to save the family by advocating for marriage. That means marriage is no longer important. I think that is rather obvious. What is going to change women who can support themselves and their children into sniveling creatures whose only goal in life is to get their name on a marriage license?

You really do have to respond to a CFR or stop creating unsupportable polygamy threads.

Am I the only LDS woman left who thinks polygamy (and polygyny) is really a pretty good idea and practice when done from right motives? You seem so hostile to the whole thing.

Link to comment

Hmmm, that's not exactly on-topic or enlightening, but let me explain.

I didn't make my wife commit to anything. She chose to. No imaginary misogynistic patriarchal control was needed.

If I were as eager to live polygamy as you think I am, don't you think I'd be somewhere like Colorado City with three wives or so?

Yeah, I apologize for being slightly rude.

Still, I see it as the exception, not the rule.

Link to comment

What is interesting to me is that in the 1830 Book of Mormon, there is no chapter break between the same verses that are Isaiah 3:26 and Isaiah 4:1.

Literary analysis: The two verses that lead off chapter 14 are contained in a single paragraph in the 1830 version of the Book of Mormon. As noted previously, there is no chapter break in that book between our current 2 Nephi 13:26 and 2 Nephi 14:1. In fact, this paragraph serves as a transition between themes, with verse 1 looking backward to the preceding text and acting as a summary, and verse 2 announcing a new theme. Thus although contained in the same paragraph, the hopeful tone of verse 2 is not dependent upon verse 1, which rather places a grim closing on the destruction of Israel. Verse 2 begins to look at the glory that will come from the Lordâ??s judgement, rather than dwelling on the sadness occasioned by the execution of that judgement.
http://frontpage2000.nmia.com/~nahualli/LD...hi/2Nephi14.htm

It reads completely differently if verse 1 is attached to the previous chapter, so to me the reading of this particular form of polygamous marriage as somehow something that the holy ones of Israel would do after the Lord saves them is a byproduct of an arbitrary section break.

Link to comment

Am I the only LDS woman left who thinks polygamy (and polygyny) is really a pretty good idea and practice when done from right motives? You seem so hostile to the whole thing.

There is a growing body of documentation from modern leaders saying polygamy will not return and none whatsoever saying it will. It is time to acknowledge what our living prophets say instead of starting thread after thread after thread about the return of polygamy. People are free to believe "blood atonement" or "Adam-God" or any number of things...but when they continue to insist that these things are in a Mormon future it is necessary to respond to a CFR. It is a board rule.

Link to comment

There is a growing body of documentation from modern leaders saying polygamy will not return and none whatsoever saying it will. It is time to acknowledge what our living prophets say instead of starting thread after thread after thread about the return of polygamy. People are free to believe "blood atonement" or "Adam-God" or any number of things...but when they continue to insist that these things are in a Mormon future it is necessary to respond to a CFR. It is a board rule.

Wow...very hostile! I don't know that any leader has had much to say on the topic...in either direction. It's simply speculation as far as I can see. From what I know of polygamy, it's based on if the Lord sees the need for it at any given time or commands it at any given time. That said, I see no reason He could not command it again. That doesn't necessarily imply that he WILL command it again. We just don't know.

Link to comment

I don't know that any leader has had much to say on the topic...in either direction. It's simply speculation as far as I can see.

Are you aware of what has been said? Pres. Hinckley alone has said enough that I don't feel entitled to contradict him. Hostility has little to do with it....it has more to do with our being a church of living prophets. I think they deserve to at least be heard even if you think it is "hostile" to expect it.

Link to comment

Are you aware of what has been said? Pres. Hinckley alone has said enough that I don't feel entitled to contradict him. Hostility has little to do with it....it has more to do with our being a church of living prophets. I think they deserve to at least be heard even if you think it is "hostile" to expect it.

Can you give me an exact quote that says the Lord WILL NOT command polygamy to be practiced again, either now or in the millennial period? Not that we aren't living it now, not that the church did away with the practice over 100 years ago, but that IT WILL NEVER BE COMMANDED AGAIN.

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...