Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Isaiah Foretells The Practice Of Polygamy Being Restored


kamenraider

Recommended Posts

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]."

How can you see the word STOPPED and deduce that there are opinions on "both sides"? We have the Manifesto, we have a First Prez statement declaring celestial marriage and plural marriage are not the same thing (as the D&C 132 misinterpreters would have us believe), we have Pres. Hinckley stating unequivocally that polygamy is not doctrine. That is just some of what we have. Now you have provided a quote saying plural marriage has been stopped. Not suspended, not put aside for a time....STOPPED. Yet, as with the other statements you simply reword it or add whatever it takes to the prophet's words.

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.

If you make a claim for a scripture it is your burden to document that it says what you think it says. If authoritative and modern statements that plural marriage has been stopped and is not doctrinal are provided and you dispute that, it is up to you to provide documentation to the contrary.

Your insistence that plural marriage will return by hook or by crook by using this verse defies yet another authoritative modern document that does not allow for women being turned out on their own with their children as having anything to do with Mormon doctrine. No matter which way you turn, you are always defying Mormon doctrine to get to plural marriage.

Link to comment
Anything else is speculative and unwarranted.
From dictionary.com:
unwarranted

adjective

1. incapable of being justified or explained [syn: indefensible]

2. without a basis in reason or fact; "baseless gossip"; "the allegations proved groundless"; "idle fears"; "unfounded suspicions"; "unwarranted jealousy" [syn: baseless]

3. lacking justification or authorization; "desire for undue private profit"; "unwarranted limitations of personal freedom" [syn: undue]

Seems to me the use of any of these definition of the adjective "unwarranted" by the Church on this issue is condemning any speculation about starting up polygamy again.

If you can't provide documentation by living prophets, I'd say that it's time to stop promoting the idea that it's coming back.

If it does come back in the future, not talking about that future state now isn't going to do any harm. If it doesn't come back, talking about it now just may cause problems. We've seen the evidence of what happens in the past when people are too fond of a particular practice after all...

Link to comment

From the CES manual: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.

BTW, the Institute manuals are being rewritten.

Link to comment

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.

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

Read the passage carefully and in context. I don't see that he's talking about marriages--polygamous or monogamous. He's talking about women having children by men (to take away their reproach--this meant barreness) and without requiring any support of the men--as would be expected from a husband or a contractual agreement like a marriage. This does not describe polygamy--where a husband is still expected to support his families.

Also, The two verses in 1 Ne 14: 1 & 2 go together. The first is talking about worldly conditions in the last days and the next verse juxtaposes it--describing conditions within the church, or Zion.

Link to comment
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.

This scripture never reveals the man's response, only that seven women want the same man. I think it speaks more to conditions than directions.

Link to comment

Read the passage carefully and in context. I don't see that he's talking about marriages--polygamous or monogamous. He's talking about women having children by men (to take away their reproach--this meant barreness) and without requiring any support of the men--as would be expected from a husband or a contractual agreement like a marriage. This does not describe polygamy--where a husband is still expected to support his families.

:P You think this is talking about sex outside of marriage? Seriously? The Hebrew word translated as "reproach", kherpah, basically means shame, scorn or disgrace. Illegitimate offspring don't exactly take away reproach -- especially as understood by Bible prophets.

Also, The two verses in 1 Ne 14: 1 & 2 go together. The first is talking about worldly conditions in the last days and the next verse juxtaposes it--describing conditions within the church, or Zion.

You mean in 2 Ne. 14:1-2? I agree that they go together, but not the way you see it. What leads you to believe that there is a juxtaposition going on there?

Link to comment

...

If you can't provide documentation by living prophets, I'd say that it's time to stop promoting the idea that it's coming back.

...

Like I said in an earlier post, I'm not telling you, I'm asking you. Thanks for condescending to define "unwarranted" for me, but I think that the LDS Public Affairs Dept. meant that it would be unwarranted for them to speculate.

I'll bet that if I started a thread on whether the pearly gates swing or slide, or if more than one angel can dance on the head of a pin, it wouldn't draw a bunch of CFR requests from UMW members.

Link to comment

:P You think this is talking about sex outside of marriage? Seriously? The Hebrew word translated as "reproach", kherpah, basically means shame, scorn or disgrace. Illegitimate offspring don't exactly take away reproach -- especially as understood by Bible prophets.

You mean in 2 Ne. 14:1-2? I agree that they go together, but not the way you see it. What leads you to believe that there is a juxtaposition going on there?

No, I did not say it was "talking about sex outside of marriage". Isaiah is describing what he sees as a condition in the last days. There is symbolism in the number seven--it's not literal. Isaiah is seeing women taking hold of a man(who in turn has other women who do the same) and having children with him (Isaiah sees this in a motivation he would understand-- that they "take away the reproach of barreness") however, they do not require marriage or support from the man--that's a bit more than just sex outside marriage, which I suspect he would have called fornication. Women who set up households without a husband or father are fairly common and even accepted in parts of our society today--but I doubt he'd ever seen such a thing among his culture.

I do not see any description of LDS polygamy in what Isaiah sees. And as I said, I believe he is describing the condition of the world--then he counters it by describing conditions in Zion. There are a number of times that Isaiah speaks of the world in one verse or a couple of verses and then compares (juxtaposes) them with Zion in the next.

IMO, Polygamy is not coming back--at least among the Lord's people. The Lord delights in the chastity of his daughters and the Proclamation of the Family provides the standard for marriage in our day and the unique time we live in.

Link to comment

How can you see the word STOPPED and deduce that there are opinions on "both sides"? We have the Manifesto, we have a First Prez statement declaring celestial marriage and plural marriage are not the same thing (as the D&C 132 misinterpreters would have us believe), we have Pres. Hinckley stating unequivocally that polygamy is not doctrine. That is just some of what we have. Now you have provided a quote saying plural marriage has been stopped. Not suspended, not put aside for a time....STOPPED. Yet, as with the other statements you simply reword it or add whatever it takes to the prophet's words.

:P You propose that "stopped" really means "permanently stopped" and then accuse me of adding to quotes in the very next sentence?

If you make a claim for a scripture it is your burden to document that it says what you think it says. If authoritative and modern statements that plural marriage has been stopped and is not doctrinal are provided and you dispute that, it is up to you to provide documentation to the contrary.

Your insistence that plural marriage will return by hook or by crook by using this verse defies yet another authoritative modern document that does not allow for women being turned out on their own with their children as having anything to do with Mormon doctrine. No matter which way you turn, you are always defying Mormon doctrine to get to plural marriage.

Since we both understand clearly that we have very different and firmly held convictions regarding the polygamy issue, I don't see the point in flat out contention over it. I'm not into that and don't see how it can be productive of anything. I can see that it's important to you once you take a position on something to be seen as being right about it, but I have little enthusiasm for trying to reason with someone who dismissively insists that the evidence I present must fit into narrow categories of her defining, or not be valid.

Link to comment

No, I did not say it was "talking about sex outside of marriage". Isaiah is describing what he sees as a condition in the last days. There is symbolism in the number seven--it's not literal. Isaiah is seeing women taking hold of a man(who in turn has other women who do the same) and having children with him (Isaiah sees this in a motivation he would understand-- that they "take away the reproach of barreness") however, they do not require marriage or support from the man--that's a bit more than just sex outside marriage, which I suspect he would have called fornication. Women who set up households without a husband or father are fairly common and even accepted in parts of our society today--but I doubt he'd ever seen such a thing among his culture.

I do not see any description of LDS polygamy in what Isaiah sees. And as I said, I believe he is describing the condition of the world--then he counters it by describing conditions in Zion. There are a number of times that Isaiah speaks of the world in one verse or a couple of verses and then compares (juxtaposes) them with Zion in the next.

IMO, Polygamy is not coming back--at least among the Lord's people. The Lord delights in the chastity of his daughters and the Proclamation of the Family provides the standard for marriage in our day and the unique time we live in.

I'm not sure I understand what you think this scripture means -- serial concubinage or something?

Can the women be called by the guy's name without marrying him somehow?

I don't specifially see the people in this scripture being designated as LDS either, but I don't know what else it could mean and when I read interpretations of it from Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, Wilford Woodruff, Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, etc., I feel compelled to agree with them that it's talking about LDS people.

Oh yeah -- I forgot -- juliann wanted an example of a modern Prophet in my lifetime that said that this refers to LDS people, and Joseph fielding Smith fits that description. He said that this passage describes conditions "among the 'daughters of Zion' in these latter days." How's that juliann?

Link to comment

I can see that it's important to you once you take a position on something to be seen as being right about it, but I have little enthusiasm for trying to reason with someone who dismissively insists that the evidence I present must fit into narrow categories of her defining, or not be valid.

That might work if I was the only one who is requesting a CFR. I am not. My "narrow categories" are a statement from a modern prophet saying polygamy will be resumed. At present, per your own quote, it is stopped. The burden is on you to show otherwise and you have not.

Link to comment

Oh yeah -- I forgot -- juliann wanted an example of a modern Prophet in my lifetime that said that this refers to LDS people, and Joseph fielding Smith fits that description. He said that this passage describes conditions "among the 'daughters of Zion' in these latter days." How's that juliann?

I didn't ask you for commentary on a verse in Isaiah. I asked you for a statement from a modern prophet overturning all of the other proclamations that polygamy is no longer lawful, doctrinal or necessary for a celestial marriage.

What is the Hebrew meaning for "name", BTW? If you are going to place the future of LDS on one verse don't you think you should at least be using Hebrew meanings?

Link to comment

No, I did not say it was "talking about sex outside of marriage". Isaiah is describing what he sees as a condition in the last days. There is symbolism in the number seven--it's not literal. Isaiah is seeing women taking hold of a man(who in turn has other women who do the same) and having children with him (Isaiah sees this in a motivation he would understand-- that they "take away the reproach of barreness") however, they do not require marriage or support from the man--that's a bit more than just sex outside marriage, which I suspect he would have called fornication. Women who set up households without a husband or father are fairly common and even accepted in parts of our society today--but I doubt he'd ever seen such a thing among his culture.

I do not see any description of LDS polygamy in what Isaiah sees. And as I said, I believe he is describing the condition of the world--then he counters it by describing conditions in Zion. There are a number of times that Isaiah speaks of the world in one verse or a couple of verses and then compares (juxtaposes) them with Zion in the next.

IMO, Polygamy is not coming back--at least among the Lord's people. The Lord delights in the chastity of his daughters and the Proclamation of the Family provides the standard for marriage in our day and the unique time we live in.

Part of your response brought to my mind how there are women today who decide to be artificially inseminated at sperm banks to have children but don't want to be bothered with a man for a number of reasons...careers, alternate lifestyles. Men donate sperm and a number of women (7?) could be the recipients of these unknown men's sperm. So could this verse be describing liberated women who still want to have children but don't want to be married?

I also thought it interesting the number 7 was used, here is some information about the number seven and maybe there is symbolice meaning about what I thought above and the number 7. Just musing here...don't know.

Seven was known as the virgin number anciently. It is one of the most important numbers in the Bible, that being the day the Lord rested from his labors. In the number line the 7 bridges a chasm between the other numbers. 1x2x3x4x5x6 is equal to the same number as 7x8x9x10 which is the number 5040. With the number 7 out of the equation altogether, 1x2x3x4x5x6 equals the same number as 8x9x10 which is 720. No number less than 7 divides into it, as two divides the number four, or three divides 6, or five divides ten, etc. Seven also produces no number by multiplication within the ten as two produces four, three produces six, four to eight and five to ten. Hence seven was the virgin number. (hummm...artificial insemination...virgin?)

Heavenly Father is a God of order and especially when it comes to Eternal Families. So I don't see it talking about polygamy and if it were the Prophet would be the one to clarify for the Church anything concerning this matter of any new revelation on polygamy.

Link to comment

Like I said in an earlier post, I'm not telling you, I'm asking you. Thanks for condescending to define "unwarranted" for me, but I think that the LDS Public Affairs Dept. meant that it would be unwarranted for them to speculate.

I defined "unwarranted" for myself to see if it was as 'strict' as I believed it to be....which it was.

Reread the announcement please. It talks of "the Church" in a general sense and uses "we" not in the sense of a "royal we" or the PR dept or even church leadership, but as in all members (see "Does this mean we do nothing to help victims of polygamy? No. We are always interested in the individual" for example).

Link to comment

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).

The church's position would have to do a 180 degree turn for this to happen. The Proclamation on the Family states:

"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. "

It may have been acceptable for men to go on missions and leave their families to fend for themselves 150 years ago, but The Proclamation to the family makes it clear that in our day, things are different and this is no longer acceptable. I cannot see the church in this day and age, when we know the important role a father plays in his children's upbringing, encouraging righteous priesthood holders to take on a bunch of wives, have children with them and yet, leave them to their own devices. And in a time of "extreme economic and social upheaval", Encouraging LDS women to raise children in an absent-father home, where they are the sole provider, would only exacerbate the situation. We already see what this has done to our society--which is why our leaders encourage couples to stay married and counsel mothers to stay home and raise their own children:shok:

Link to comment

I'm not sure I understand what you think this scripture means -- serial concubinage or something?

Can the women be called by the guy's name without marrying him somehow?

Kamenraider, take a look at our society. Many women today do not see marriage and all it's trappings--commitment, protection, financial support etc. as necessary to have children--as Ardith mentioned, some even buy their children from a sperm bank--and as I see it, Isaiah saw our day and he tried to make sense of it. I assume he came to the only logical conclusion from his own culture, that a woman who would have children outside the protection of a loving, commitment would do so only to take away the reproach of being barren--The women he saw aren't discriminating either, they'll have children with a man who makes children with many other women under the same circumstances.

Really, I think I've explained what I thought the scripture meant pretty well--You just don't like my interpretation and I think you want to make me sound foolish..I'm not sure where you got "serial concubinage" from what I've said. :P

I don't specifially see the people in this scripture being designated as LDS either, but I don't know what else it could mean and when I read interpretations of it from Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, Wilford Woodruff, Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, etc., I feel compelled to agree with them that it's talking about LDS people.

Oh yeah -- I forgot -- juliann wanted an example of a modern Prophet in my lifetime that said that this refers to LDS people, and Joseph fielding Smith fits that description. He said that this passage describes conditions "among the 'daughters of Zion' in these latter days." How's that juliann?

You are free to agree with the interpretations of these men you have cited but I disagree with their interpretations-I've read and pondered the passage myself and have come to a different conclusion. And please don't tell me I can't do that. Scriptural commentaries are not written in stone--even if written by a general authority and viewpoints can change and expand when more information is received.

Link to comment

The church's position would have to do a 180 degree turn for this to happen. The Proclamation on the Family states:

"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. "

It may have been acceptable for men to go on missions and leave their families to fend for themselves 150 years ago, but The Proclamation to the family makes it clear that in our day, things are different and this is no longer acceptable. I cannot see the church in this day and age, when we know the important role a father plays in his children's upbringing, encouraging righteous priesthood holders to take on a bunch of wives, have children with them and yet, leave them to their own devices. And in a time of "extreme economic and social upheaval", Encouraging LDS women to raise children in an absent-father home, where they are the sole provider, would only exacerbate the situation. We already see what this has done to our society--which is why our leaders encourage couples to stay married and counsel mothers to stay home and raise their own children:shok:

Even when fathers were absent, there was no indication that the fathers were not to provide as much support as they could when they were at home and available and not at the Lord's Work. Letters written by these fathers that I've read are full of personal concern, instructions, heartbreak at being absent unable to help and at times refer to little amounts sent home to the family acquired through great effort in what little spare time they have or that were given as gifts from friends.

As well as this, the Church made great effort to help and support these families (and does now for single parents), there is no sense in my mind that these women were expected to be completely independent providing for all of their own needs and their children at all times.

Link to comment

What I see here is a bunch of people who think that polygamy is bad and that you couldn't convince them otherwise. This belief that polygamy is bad stems from a misunderstanding of marriage between one man and one woman and the prevalent Protestant/Catholic notion that sex is pretty much bad no matter what. It is hard for people, even members of the Church, to see that any good can come from polygamy, but God instituted it for a purpose and when it is lived right it makes all involved more like God.

"Before I sit down let me say, my friends, that those in this community who have married more wives than one have done so from pure motives. But some people cannot comprehend that. This generation is so corrupt and so licentious that some cannot understand how a man can marry one wife from pure motives."

- Charles W. Penrose, JD 22:96

I don't think polygamy should be practiced now and I don't pretend to know exactly how it may or may not be implemented in the future but many of the dilemmas in this message board would be resolved if we understood it in the way that God understands it.

Link to comment

Please tell us who among those who posted on this thread have stated that polygamy is bad or said something else that indicated they think polygamy is bd.

Just the vibe I'm getting. That'd be funny if I was the only one who detected a strong anti-polygamy vibe in this thread.

Link to comment

Just the vibe I'm getting. That'd be funny if I was the only one who detected a strong anti-polygamy vibe in this thread.

I for one am not anti-polygamy...would be happy to practice it if called upon to do so and have been all my life btw, I don't see Juliann as anti-polygamy as she's spoken very positively about the women and families who engaged in it in the early church, I don't remember alter idem being anti-polygamy either.

Can't remember who else has posted in the thread.

Perhaps I should describe myself as "anti-certain claims made about polygamy". :P

I am anti a marriage in form only without any connection besides some legal fiction as well which is what I see Isaiah 4:1 as describing (and apparently the CES manual does as well). I think the use of this verse as a descriptor of God sanctioned polygamy is offensive to the idea of the covenant that is eternal marriage.

Link to comment

I for one am not anti-polygamy...would be happy to practice it if called upon to do so and have been all my life btw, I don't see Juliann as anti-polygamy as she's spoken very positively about the women and families who engaged in it in the early church, I don't remember alter idem being anti-polygamy either.

Can't remember who else has posted in the thread.

Perhaps I should describe myself as "anti-certain claims made about polygamy". :P

I am anti a marriage in form only without any connection besides some legal fiction as well which is what I see Isaiah 4:1 as describing (and apparently the CES manual does as well). I think the use of this verse as a descriptor of God sanctioned polygamy is offensive to the idea of the covenant that is eternal marriage.

I also am not "anti-polygamy". I'm a product of polygamous ancestors and it definitely had an influence on creating strong extended family ties and a powerful loyalty to the church within my family.

But I would never expect polygamy to be practiced by members of the church today. I think if it comes back it would be during the millenium. I think the members of the church tried to practice it as best they could, but like the Law of Consecration, for various reasons, they weren't able to do so in a manner pleasing to God.

A careful reading of Isaiah 4:1 shows this does not describe a practice that would be acceptable to LDS principles of family--our leaders would never encourage women to set up their own households and have children with an absent father who has no obligations or responsibilities to his offspring. That is what I and others are saying--we aren't condemning polygamy--but we are disagreeing with the suggestion that this verse is describing a return of polygamy among church members in the last days.

Calmoriah; I agree that when men went on missions they most likely were expected to see to the needs of their families and they did their best to offer what support they could. What I was thinking of were some of the extreme examples--such as the story about the missionary who left his sick wife lying next to a log--homeless and destitute. I assume she was in the care of friends, but I think today, our leaders would discourage what at one time was hailed as a noble act of sacrifice and loyalty to the gospel.

Link to comment
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?

WOW! Where are all our scriptorians? Has anyone mentioned that this verse, at least from what I've learned, is interpreted by scholars as having NOTHING to do with marriage, polygamous or otherwise but is actually symbolic of idolatry among the Hebrews. As I was taught in my Isaiah class this verse was actually meant to be together with the last verses of the preceding chapter which talks about the daughters of Zion who are portrayed as prostitutes which is actually symbolic of Zion engaging in idolatry with other gods which leads to their destruction. The verse you referenced is again refering to the daughters of Zion, post-destruction-but now they are so desperately clinging to idolatry that they continue to worship idolatrous gods despite their recognition that such gods can do little to nothing for them ('We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach' indicates that they have to do everything on their own without the gods help but still willing to take on the gods name).

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...