Isaiah Foretells The Practice Of Polygamy Being Restored

[juliann]

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...entry1208347371

and counting....

[SquarePeg48]

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...entry1208347371

and counting....

In other words...no, there is no prophet who has ever said it absolutely will not be practiced again.

[juliann]

So if Pres. Hinckley didn't say the word "absolutely" nothing else he said matters? He did say some things, do they not deserve a hearing? He certainly has said enough that CFR is required for those who oppose him.

[kamenraider]

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).

The manual says:

The conditions under which these women would accept this marriage (â??eat our own bread, and wear our own apparelâ?) are contrary to the Lordâ??s order of marriage (see Exodus 21:10; D&C 132:58â??61).

Exodus 21:10 that they say to see reads:

10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

If the CES folks are going to quote from the lesser laws given to Israel because they couldn't handle the higher ones, and try to apply them to the higher New and Everlasing Covenant of marriage, they might as well quote the one about not marrying both a mother and daughter or two sisters (Lev. 18: 17-18). If they were to follow the same line of reasoning with that one, they'd be forced to admit that many latter-day practitioners of plural marriage (including ol' Joe Smith himself) did so "contrary to the Lord's order of marriage".

Also, maybe I'm just getting tired or something, but I can't see how the D&C 132:58-61 passage that they cite there relates to Isaiah 4:1. Maybe someone can help me out -- here it is:

58 Now, as touching the law of the priesthood, there are many things pertaining thereunto.

59 Verily, if a man be called of my Father, as was Aaron, by mine own voice, and by the voice of him that sent me, and I have endowed him with the keys of the power of this priesthood, if he do anything in my name, and according to my law and by my word, he will not commit sin, and I will justify him.

60 Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph; for I will justify him; for he shall do the sacrifice which I require at his hands for his transgressions, saith the Lord your God.

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthoodâ??if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

I really can't figure out what they see in those verses that's applicable.

Who do those committees ultimately answer to anyway? Apostles? Like Elder McConkie was?

I do wonder, though, why they chose a different interpretation, if you don't.

[Calm]

I do wonder, though, why they chose a different interpretation, if you don't.

Well, to me it seems pretty simple and straightforward if one keeps in mind the chapter break is an artificial imposition not present in the original BoM version.

To me the reading is completely natural, iow it 'flows' if the verse is attached to the previous chapter. It is awkward and contradictory if attached to what follows.

I just don't see a millennial world that condemns women because they aren't married or don't have children when it's not their choice which is what is being described in the first verse. Would God "reproach" women simply because they aren't married or don't have children especially if it's due to the lack of men to be married to?

Who do those committees ultimately answer to anyway? Apostles? Like Elder McConkie was?

I believe there are ultimately apostles over most of the correlation process committees from what I've heard by various people involved in the process of producing manuals, but how much direct involvement I don't know. I just don't see anything considered off kiltered being allowed through so at best I would say that "officially" both interpretations are acceptable, but the CES one is likely the more common view.

I think it's iffy enough that it should be avoided in use with God commanded future polygamy because it appears to push the idea of marriage in name only as being acceptable. This may be an artifact of translation or presentism (contemporary views of marriages for a name being negative), but I think it's problematic enough if you are trying to convince LDS that it's going to happen, let alone nonLDS so I'd go looking for something else before using this.

[SquarePeg48]

So if Pres. Hinckley didn't say the word "absolutely" nothing else he said matters? He did say some things, do they not deserve a hearing? He certainly has said enough that CFR is required for those who oppose him.

I don't oppose President Hinkley on anything. I listen and believe what he teaches. I love the church and the prophets. I simply do not EVER recall ANY prophet in my adolescent to adult lifetime (McKay to now) ever saying polygamy WILL NOT be required of the Saints at any time in the future. Nor do I ever recall one saying that polygamy WILL be required of the Saints in the future. In other words, it's not been defined or discussed. It might, then again, it mightn't...

[kamenraider]

...

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

This thread is about "Isaiah 4:1 -- Is this right around the corner?"

I'm not telling you, I'm asking you.

As far as my take on it goes, Isaiah 4:1 is itself a reference. The Bruce R. McConkie quote I posted is another.

Do you care to post a few? What has Pres. Monson said about polygamy not being doctrine or not being restored?

[kamenraider]

...

I just don't see a millennial world that condemns women because they aren't married or don't have children when it's not their choice which is what is being described in the first verse. Would God "reproach" women simply because they aren't married or don't have children especially if it's due to the lack of men to be married to?

...

Do you think it's better for women to be married and have children than to be single?

[Calm]

Do you think it's better for women to be married and have children than to be single?

Depends on the situation, on the woman, and on the man.

I do not think they should just get married and have children simply because their society thinks less of women who aren't married or don't have children. Nor do I think they should marry a man who would care so little for them that he would only provide them with a name and enough sex to produce children or that they care so little for that is all they want from him.

[BCSpace]

I don't oppose President Hinkley on anything. I listen and believe what he teaches. I love the church and the prophets. I simply do not EVER recall ANY prophet in my adolescent to adult lifetime (McKay to now) ever saying polygamy WILL NOT be required of the Saints at any time in the future. Nor do I ever recall one saying that polygamy WILL be required of the Saints in the future. In other words, it's not been defined or discussed. It might, then again, it mightn't...

Nor have I heard of any such thing, including from the aforementioned GBH talk and interview. All he did as condemn the current practice of it.

Jacob 2:30 forces us to contemplate the future practice in mortality. The fact that there is no mechanism for the automatic unsealing of those plurally married in the past forces us to contemplate the practice in the eternities.

It has always seemed to me that our leaders have been extremely careful not to cast our past practice of plural marriage or the future possibility of it into any sort of negative light or condemnation.

I'm certainly not chomping at the bit for the return of plural marriage in my lifetime, but on the other hand, LDS doctrine is what it is.

This thread is about "Isaiah 4:1 -- Is this right around the corner?"

I'm not telling you, I'm asking you.

As far as my take on it goes, Isaiah 4:1 is itself a reference.

I have a notation in my scriptures that this has already been fulfilled, but for the life of me, I can't remember where I got that info.

[Calm]

One more thing...notice in Isaiah 4:1, the women are seeking out (and desperately begging) the man, not the man the women or family arranging it, etc.

Take that for what you will, but at least Isaiah would probably have seen this as inappropriate as he would have seen the support of women of themselves instead of the husband as commanded in Exodus 21:10 totally wrong.

[kamenraider]

...

I have a notation in my scriptures that this has already been fulfilled, but for the life of me, I can't remember where I got that info.

From an Institute class, maybe?

[kamenraider]

Depends on the situation, on the woman, and on the man.

I do not think they should just get married and have children simply because their society thinks less of women who aren't married or don't have children. Nor do I think they should marry a man who would care so little for them that he would only provide them with a name and enough sex to produce children or that they care so little for that is all they want from him.

So you don't necessarily subscribe to the "neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord" line of thought, then?

[Calm]

I have a notation in my scriptures that this has already been fulfilled, but for the life of me, I can't remember where I got that info.

Some commentaries talk about this happening when Babylon came in and took out the more elite, influential men and replaced them with nonbelievers/nonJews. That and the deaths from the invasion would leave the unmarried women left behind with few potential believing spouses.

[kamenraider]

One more thing...notice in Isaiah 4:1, the women are seeking out (and desperately begging) the man, not the man the women or family arranging it, etc.

There's nothing wrong with women doing the asking, IMO. At least they get all the righteous men to choose from, and not just the ones who are single and ask them out.

Take that for what you will, but at least Isaiah would probably have seen this as inappropriate as he would have seen the support of women of themselves instead of the husband as commanded in Exodus 21:10 totally wrong.

Unless he understood the New and Everlasting Covenant of marriage, which, if he understood the coming and mission of Jesus Christ, etc., he may very well have.

[Calm]

So you don't necessarily subscribe to the "neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord" line of thought, then?

In the sense that all will desire it or that it's best for all women or all men...no. I think God restricts eternal marriage and increase to exalted beings for a good reason. If it were "best" for all, then the loving God would provide it for all....yet he doesn't.

That it is the ultimate form of relationship and to be truly, fully one with God it will be as a man and woman who are one with each other as well as one with the Lord...that I believe.

I also don't have any inherent problem with either polygyny or polyandry in the sense that I believe infinite and perfect beings wouldn't be facing all the challenges that these types of relationships face in mortality. Worrying about whether or not one has enough time each of one's husbands kind of loses meaning when we are talking about eternal time...whatever that is. The only difficulty I can see is if even as perfect beings, we will have the ability to be truly one with more than one person at a time...but at least in one sense it is possible as there appears to be no limit on how many can become "one with God".

But since the Celestial Kingdom isn't the most desirable place for all humanity, then it is obvious to me that marriage isn't necessarily desirable for all women or men or it would be available anywhere in heaven.

Nor do I think to be truly fulfilled in this life that a woman needs a man or a man needs a woman, again this depends on the individual, I believe there are individuals that will reach their highest potential solely as individuals, not as a couple....but it will not be The Highest Potential so to speak, just what they can achieve themselves. But we all have our mortal limits so an individual just may be able to achieve more in this life spiritually speaking than some other person that is one half of a couple, on a case by case basis I don't know how one would judge....

IOW, we are not a one size fits all type of being and the Lord has seen fit to accommodate the variety of life quite well, imo.

[juliann]

This thread is about "Isaiah 4:1 -- Is this right around the corner?"

I'm not telling you, I'm asking you.

As far as my take on it goes, Isaiah 4:1 is itself a reference. The Bruce R. McConkie quote I posted is another.

Do you care to post a few? What has Pres. Monson said about polygamy not being doctrine or not being restored?

I've already said that is not talking about LDS women....how could it be? You have not explained why women would suddenly be concerned about a marriage in name only...or why the church would put up with such a violation of the Proclaimation on the Family.

You know very well what Pres. Hinckley has said, you know what the First Presidency said about celestial marriages, you just start all over again in the next thread as if you never saw it. I'm not going to respost everything in the thread I linked to.

CFR

[kamenraider]

I've already said that is not talking about LDS women....how could it be? You have not explained why women would suddenly be concerned about a marriage in name only...or why the church would put up with such a violation of the Proclaimation on the Family.

If the world were in extreme economic and social upheaval, as is described in Isaiah 4:1, I doubt that the Church would insist that women not agree to provide their own food and clothing in a marriage. In the early days of the Church women did that when their husbands were called on missions and it was no problem. I have a feeling that righteous men may be very busy setting up a new government when Christ comes, and may have less time to earn money (if money is even worth anything then).

You know very well what Pres. Hinckley has said, you know what the First Presidency said about celestial marriages, you just start all over again in the next thread as if you never saw it. I'm not going to respost everything in the thread I linked to.

Yes, I know what Pres. Hinckley said -- he was talking to Larry King and they were on the subject of polygamy cults practicing polygamy in Utah. He said "I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it [the practice of it in this manner] is not doctrinal". In other words, what people like Tom Green, or the FLDS, or the Kingstons are doing is not supported by our doctrine. When you understand the remark in context, as I do, it makes perfect sense. When you take it to mean that polygamy is no longer a true doctrine, as you seem to, it creates all kinds of contradictions and problems and the antis and fundamentalists have a ball with that.

CFR

The first quote here was already posted on an earlier page of this thread, of course:

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.

â?¦'seven women' (meaning simply a lot of women) will request a man's hand in marriage. Economic problems will be such that these women will be willing to provide their own food and clothing, contrary to the usual marriage customs. According to the Hebrew scriptures (Exodus 21:10), a man was required to provide a wife with food and clothing; but in this case Isaiah observes that the women are willing to waive that right. Having a good knowledge of the importance of marriage, they request a man to take away their reproach. In Isaiah's day and, indeed, in many parts of the Near East today, it was and is a disgrace to remain unmarried.

--Sidney Sperry, Book of Mormon Compendium, Chapter 11, 2 Nephi 14.

I had been reading the revelationsâ?¦[when] a strange stupor came over me and I recognized that I was in the Tabernacle at Ogden. I arose to speak and saidâ?¦I will answer you right here what is coming to pass shortlyâ?¦.I then looked in all directionsâ?¦and I found the same mourning in every place throughout the Land. It seemed as though I was above the earth, looking down to it as I passed along on my way east and I saw the roads full of people principally women with just what they could carry in bundles on their backsâ?¦It was remarkable to me that there were so few men among themâ?¦Wherever I went I sawâ?¦scenes of horror and desolation rapine and deathâ?¦death and destruction everywhere. I cannot paint in words the horror that seemed to encompass me around. It was beyond description or thought of man to conceive. I supposed that this was the End but I was here given to understand, that the same horrors were being enacted all over the countryâ?¦Then a voice said 'Now shall come to pass that which was spoken by Isaiah the Prophet That seven women shall take hold of one manâ?¦'

--Journal of Wilford Woodruff, June 15, 1878, as quoted in Isaiah: Prophet, Seer, and Poet, by Victor L. Ludlow, pg. 109.

These passages tell in so many plain words why it was that seven women wished to be called by the name of one manâ??it was that they might have the privilege of bearing children.

Now, if God brings to pass this prophecy in the glorious day which our text speaks of, when holiness and righteousness are to rule, and when truth is to have dominion, and peace dwell in the earth, although all the world may have been opposed to it, we can not be responsible.

--George A. Smith, JD 15:28.

Why don't you post a few references now, Juliann? I'm sure you can find something that says that Isaiah 4:1 is speaking of women taking hold of Christ in order for him to take away their sins, or some such nonsense that's more politically correct sounding than the obvious meaning involving polygamy.

Provide the documentation that was asked for or admit you don't have it and go to something else. We are tired of the back and forth in polygamy threads. Do the CFR or stop. ~ Mods

[kamenraider]

Orpheus, are you wanting me to provide references regarding polygamy being essential to exaltation? (I'm not sure which topic you want references from me regarding.) With all due respect, this is a thread about Isaiah 4:1 and its meaning, and not about whether polygamy is a doctrine of the Church, or essential to exaltation. I'm going out to eat now, so I won't be able to get back to this till later tonight, but let me know what you want.

You have been asked repeatedly to give evidence from a modern prophet, I don't think that needs to be explained again. That doesn't mean Elder McConkie and you need to do it so we don't have to watch polygamy threads. ~ Mods

[kamenraider]

No problem. One question though -- are you wanting references supporting my understanding of Isaiah 4:1, or supporting the idea of polygamy being doctrinal and essential to exaltation? I'm still not clear about that part.

[Ardith]

Wow...third times the charm. I haven't been on the board for awhile and this is the third thread about Polygamy. I posted the same links on the others but I feel it important to know what's going on out there. Awhile back I was Googling and ran across a number of Christian Polygamy websites. I was blown away. I guess it has been a movement for about 10 years now and one of the guys has been on the 700 Club. Some also make it a point to say that this is not Mormon Polygamy. Pretty interesting in light of the topic. Are the Christians leading the way for it to come back to the LDS Church? Don't know but see for yourself what some of those Christians are up to:

Christian Polygamy

Websites:

TruthBearer.org Continuing the Reformation….

http://www.truthbearer.org/

Organization for Christian Polygamy

Polygamy is in the Bible. Polygamy is found throughout history. These facts prove that marriage's definition includes plural marriage.

Polygyny is a far older traditional marriage than anti-polygamy.

TruthBearer.org

http://www.truthbearer.com/products/tapes/t-3/

700 Club / CBN Interviews Founder for first report with Christian Polygamy (06/28/05)

…the quotes on this tape provide a powerful way to help evangelical conservative Christians undertand the mistake of anti-polygamy…

Polygamy has a range of defenders, including evangelical Christians. Mark Henkel is founder of the Christian polygamy organization, TruthBearer.org. He says Christian polygamists believe husbands are called to love their wives, as Christ loved the churches, according to Scripture.

Christian Polygamy INFO

http://www.christianpolygamy.info/movement/

The Christian Polygamy "Movement"

The coming together of conservative, evanglical, Scripture-based Christians, from so many different denominational backgrounds, has formed into a real social "movement", unto now directly seeking to bring the Scriptural truth of Christian Polygamy to the Churches.

It is profoundly significant that this is mostly all with and by conservative Christians. (Christian Polygamy is not Mormon Polygamy.) That is, because of this significant fact that this is with and by conservative Christians, Christian Polygamy can not be dismissed as if merely libertine or as if only a matter of "tolerance" dogma of liberal denominations of Christianity. Indeed, that significant fact demonstrates the genuine reality that Christian Polygamy is clearly only a matter of believing the Scriptures, believing what the Scriptures actually say and have always actually said...

And that's why and how Christian Polygamy has become a growing and unstoppable social "movement" indeed

ChristianPolygamy.com

http://www.christianpolygamy.com/

CHRISTIAN POLYGAMY IS LEGAL! You heard it right! Christian Polygamy is legal! You can have many wives in Christian Polygamy simply by marrying one at a time in the traditional manner. You get a marriage license, and then civilly marry her. You then civilly divorce her. You then get another marriage license for the next wife, and then civilly marry her. You then civilly divorce her. You then continue to do this with each additional wife. If you do not provide any of these civilly divorced wives with a Bill of Divorcement, which is required by the Bible to be divorced, then the "civil" divorce will have no affect on your marital status. You will still be married according to the Bible to each of these wives. You will have had a public ceremony and celebration. And although the civil authorities will not consider you married, you will be married to each of them according to the Bible and therefore according to God. This is the way of Christian Polygamy. It should be the way of all marriages.

LoveNotForce.com

http://www.lovenotforce.com/

The Standard of Christian Polygamy

Polygamypage.info

http://www.samchapman.talktalk.net/polygamy.htm

Here you can find the net's most comprehensive resource for the study of polygamy, including

Legal study

Academic research

& Christian debate on polygamy, bigamy and related matters.

Facebook social network for "Christians Open to Polygamy".

"Big Love" - HBO's series about a modern polygamous family

Pro-Polygamy.com

http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0020

Helping the Media & Information-gatherers by providing

news, reports, and insights from the pro-polygamy view.

July 4, 2004 - Christian Polygamy 'Movement' is 10 Years Old

Polygamy.com

http://www.polygamy.com/articles/templates/?a=354&z=2

The Hypocrisy of Monogamy: Divorce & Adultery Versus Polygamy

BiblicalPolygamy.com

http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/

A resource for proving that Polygamy really IS Biblical.

The purpose and outline of this web-site are simple:

As based only on the Bible, to provide

* the Exegesis / Argumentation Proofs in the Bible,

* the list of all the Polygamists in the Bible,

* and the examples where The Lord Himself is self-described in polygamous terms in the Bible

Bible Polygamy

http://www.biblepolygamy.com/index.htm

The Bible contains many accounts of Christian polygyny marriages. The Lord blessed and used Bible polygyny for His own purposes and glory. God does not condemn polygyny, never calls it adultery, wickedness or a fleshly perversion and Christians must accept God's Word on this subject not man's opinions based on a few distorted, out of context Scriptures.

A few more links:

http://www.quransearch.com/ntpoly.htm

http://www.btinternet.com/~familyman/biblpoly.html

[Ardith]

I think some of the Anti-Mormons have some explainin' to do and a whole lot of websites to update on Christianity verses Mormonism.

I just did a search for New Testament Polygamy and here is one of the sites:

http://modernpolygamy.com/index.php

(excerpt)

Polygamy! What do you think of it? If you're like most people you think it's something bad, or weird. That's just a gut reaction, this site exists to educate people about what polygamy actually is, and isn't.

First of all, this site has nothing to do with mormon polygamy, the kind practiced by mormon fundamentalists that was actually banned by the mormon church in 1890. That is the kind of polygamy you probably hear about in the news or on talk shows, and is why you have a bad gut reaction to it in the first place! Here we will talk about polygamy from a christian viewpoint.

http://modernpolygamy.com/index.php?page=bible

What does the bible say about it?

You probably assume polygamy is some sort of sin, like I once thought before studying it. They avoid the subject in churches, other than those bible stories about men and their multiple wives. What about those guys? Here's some biblical polygamists for you:

Abdon, Abijah, Abraham, Ahab, Ahasuerus, Ashur, Belshazzar, Benhadad, Caleb, David, Eliphaz, Elkanah, Esau, Ezra, Gideon, Heman, Hosea, Ibzan, Issachar's tribe, Jacob, Jair, Jehoiachin, Jehoram, Jerahmeel, Joash, Lamech, Machir, Manasseh, Mered, Moses, Nahor, Rehoboam, Saul, Shaharaim, Shimei, Simeon, Solomon, Terah, Zedekiah, Ziba

You may recognize some of those. What do we tell our kids about these men in the bible? Well we can't just say they were bad men. Abraham, Jacob, and Moses were certainly righteous men in God's eyes. David was king of Isreal and a man "After God's own heart". Maybe you're thinking they just made some mistakes by taking other wives? A lapse in their judgement? Low point in their faith? Well that reasoning doesn't work either because God actually gave wives as a gift:

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. 2 Samuel 12:8

This is God speaking to David through a prophet (Nathan). So not only is Polygamy not a sin, God approves and says he is the one who gives wives! It even says in that verse he would have given him more wives if David wanted them. This proves that polygamy is not a sin, but what about centuries later when Jesus was born and the Romans were in control?

Does the new testament change anything?

Jesus came into the world to make a new covenant. He came and simplified the law of Moses, and was the final sacrifice to atone for the sins of those who would believe in him. Did he change the rules on polygamy? Not at all. Polygamy isn't talked about much in the new testament, which isn't a big surprise since the Romans decided to make it illegal. The medieval laws were based on Roman laws later, and now you can see how it never became part of European or Western culture afterwards. Here are some specific new testament verses that may come up in a discussion on polygamy in the new testament:

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery. Matthew 19:9

Some people think this proves polygamy is forbidden, when the verse is simply talking about divorce. Divorce is what is forbidden (except in cases of unfaithfulness). If someone takes another wife without divorcing their first wife then that is fine. Otherwise they are causing their first wife to commit adultery, which is how adultery is actually translated: "WOMAN that breaketh wedlock".

To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. 1 Corinthians 7:10

Here divorce is forbidden again, but what is interesting to note is that Paul says a wife who leaves her husband must remain unmarried. There is no such command to husbands to remain unmarried if they seperate from a wife, only that they must not divorce. This is another clear example that polygamy is allowed even in the new testament.

Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 1 Corinthians 7:2

This is another great example. If you look up the original greek version of this verse you'll notice that the words for 'his own' and 'her own' are completely different. In the wife's case 'her own' means just that: her own husband. But in the husbands case 'his own' actually translates to mean 'he himself' as in 'every man have himself a wife'. Paul knows God's law intimately and makes sure to allow for plurality here.

Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 1 Timothy 3:12

Here it is talking to church leaders only. The greek word for 'one' here also means 'first', which makes more sense that it would say let deacons be the husbands of their first wife. Meaning they should not be divorced from their original wife.

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh Genesis 2:24

This is an old testament verse referenced in the new testament in various places. Becoming 'one flesh' happens when a man and woman have intercourse. This can happen between man and wife, or man and prostitute. So it's not something that can only happen once, which means it can't be talking about monogamy in this verse.

[kamenraider]

Interesting links, Ardith. Hey, I'm kind of curious -- what do you think about Isaiah 4:1? Do you think that it's describing an "end times" restoration of polygamy?

edit:(I kind of want this thread to stay on topic.)

[juliann]

Interesting links, Ardith. Hey, I'm kind of curious -- what do you think about Isaiah 4:1? Do you think that it's describing an "end times" restoration of polygamy?

edit:(I kind of want this thread to stay on topic.)

So do I. I have lost count of how many times I have asked you for documentation from a modern prophet that polygamy is going to return. That means, has anything changed since it was discontinued? Is there a quote from a modern prophet saying the Manifesto was a mere convenience and we are just waiting for the right time to reinstitute polygamy?

Is there any statement of any kind anywhere? I have asked you directly for months if not years in every thread you start and you start many, this just being the latest creative twist. You couldn't possibly not know what is being asked. Others have asked you. Yet you continue to put up quotes from the 19th century or commentary that is not coming from modern prophets.

CFR. From a living prophet in your lifetime. You are obsessed with this and it is time to support what you are wishing for or at the least....stop playing cat and mouse with requests for documentation. I'd really appreciate the courtesy of that documentation from a modern prophet giving any indication, even a hint, that a policy that is so strong on polygamy that offenders are exed is just temporary.... or an acknowlegement that there is none.

This is usually the time that someone jumps in with the idea that only men are sealed to multiple women for eternity. This is not true, women are also sealed to all of their husbands when their temple work is done posthumously so it all comes out the same...everyone is ultimately sealed to every spouse they ever married so that is not an option to avoid documentation from a modern prophet.

[kamenraider]

Question: Is polygamy gone forever from the Church?

We only know what the Lord has revealed through His prophets, that plural marriage has been stopped in the Church. Anything else is speculative and unwarranted.

--from interviews and correspondence between the Los Angeles Times and the Public Affairs Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that took place as the newspaper prepared a two-part series on polygamy that was published in May 2006

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/co...s-angeles-times

What do I gather from this quote? That opinions on both sides of the question regarding the future return of polygamy are not endorsed by the Church. Maybe that's why Pres. Monson hasn't come out and said "Hey -- just in case you're all wondering, polygamy is [an incident and gone for good/an essential and coming back soon]."

A call for references is appropriately used when someone makes a dubious statement as if it were a fact. It's so obvious to me that Isaiah 4:1 describes: A. A future time period and B. polygamy, that I don't think that references are necessary. Nevertheless, I did provide a number of references from LDS scholars and leaders that support that idea. I did not advance the idea as fact that the polygamists described in Isaiah 4:1 will be LDS members, or that the LDS Church will require polygamy again. Since the polygamists described by Isaiah are holy people, it seems obvious to me that they will be LDS members, however that is just my opinion.

I created this thread to find out how other people who post here interpret Isaiah 4:1. Now I know that juliann does not believe that this scripture refers to a return of LDS polygamy. I won't bug the mods to require that she post references in this thread to support that though.

I'd like to hear from some other posters who haven't given their take on Isaiah 4:1 yet.