Isaiah Foretells The Practice Of Polygamy Being Restored

[CMZ]

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.

I've seen that verse a million times and never read into it that the fathers involved were to not have responsibility to the ensuing offspring. A careful reading of the verse only shows how it important it will be to some women to be married, not that the ensuing marriages would not then be held to the principles outlined in the proclamation on the family. The verse is a very broad generalization. It is talking about how some marriages will be initiated, not how they will be lived afterwards, even if some of the women involved do whatever it takes to talk a guy into it. If the man in question was a righteous man he wouldn't think for a moment of involving himself in a responsibility-free marriage.

I know, and I think we all know, couples who got married where one or both parties had less than perfectly virtuous, saintly reasons to get married but they still together created and carried on a wonderful marriage that became more Godlike and pure as time went on.

[Calm]

I know, and I think we all know, couples who got married where one or both parties had less than perfectly virtuous, saintly reasons to get married but they still together created and carried on a wonderful marriage that became more Godlike and pure as time went on.

While you may not have read it the way we've described it, I and the others here are not the only ones who have read it our way. The Institute manual stating it in much the same way makes me feel pretty secure that I am not wandering too far afield.

And while I agree this verse says nothing about the future of these marriages, would God sanction a marriage being entered into based on this uneven commitment simply because it 'might' grow into a more balanced one in the future even though there is no hint that either partner is interested in doing so (while you are correct it says nothing about the future state of the marriage, it does say something about the initial state of commitment)? God may eventually bless them if they repent of their selfishness and become truly committed to the relationship whether or not it's polygamous, however that doesn't mean he's going to tell them to get married in such a way any more than he will tell someone to go out and get pregnant out of wedlock even if he chooses later to bless them if the couple repents and chooses to commit to each other and their child and get married after the fact.

If I have misread you and you mean that in the verse the commitment is being made at the time of marriage, it seems clear to me that the "only let us be called by your name" places a limit on what is being asked of the man. Now he may offer or give more, but the women are not asking him to participate in an eternal marriage as described in LDS beliefs. And what is being described here is the state of mind of these women, their sense of desolation and shame. It is not saying if it actually happens, the man might reject them after all.

Just so you know, if someone wants to interpret this personally as justification for a belief in God directed plural marriage in the future, I don't have a problem with that.

It is, however, problematic enough (as indicated by a variety of interpretations, some completely contradictory) that I don't think this should be used for public debate. When something rests on an idiosyncratic interpretation, there is a great chance of leading others astray.

This is an especially important issue not to do so, imo, as this type of speculation by some have led to their excommunication in the past as well as troubled those who were confused and couldn't get answers that gave them peace precisely because it is an area of speculation.

[CMZ]

This is an especially important issue not to do so, imo, as this type of speculation by some have led to their excommunication in the past as well as troubled those who were confused and couldn't get answers that gave them peace precisely because it is an area of speculation.

This might be a concern if anyone here was advocating the present practice of polygamy, but I don't see anyone doing that. And I don't see how it could be that bad to believe what was written in The Millennial Messiah.

Agreed, but would God sanction a marriage being entered into based on this uneven commitment simply because it 'might' grow into a more balanced one in the future even though there is no hint that either partner is interested in doing so (while you are correct it says nothing about the future state of the marriage, it does say something about the initial state of commitment)?

I'm not saying it's great but just such a thing happens in our day. I've seen many marriages where one or both parties involved seemed rather immature and maybe flat-out hedonistic. Some of the marriages have ended in divorce but most have progressed, just as we can do as individuals.

[Calm]

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 are willing to worship 7 idolatrous gods hoping in vain that they will somehow be able to save them.

CFR.

It's an interesting idea. I wasn't taught it in my Isaiah class though. I think I even have the text still and will go look at it to see.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Where do you take your Isaiah class at, Luigi?

You thought Luigi was interested in more than making caustic remarks in order to mock the Church? ha

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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.

Hope you are right

[kamenraider]

Yeah, I haven't been here frequently enough to read many of Luigi's posts, but I had a hunch that he didn't learn that at BYU or an Institute class.

Edit: This was in reply to LifeonAPlate. I should've clicked on "Reply" instead of "AddReply".

[Luigi]

Yeah, I haven't been here frequently enough to read many of Luigi's posts, but I had a hunch that he didn't learn that at BYU or an Institute class.

Edit: This was in reply to LifeonAPlate. I should've clicked on "Reply" instead of "AddReply".

Wrong. BYU from Terry Ball. (edit-He's the currently the director of religious studies FYI)

[Luigi]

You thought Luigi was interested in more than making caustic remarks in order to mock the Church? ha

I fail to see how my comments on the verse in question come under the classification of 'caustic remarks in order to mock the Church'. And in fact while many of my posts are critical of the Church I generally try to avoid mocking but feel free to point out to me if I do.

[selek]

I fail to see how my comments on the verse in question come under the classification of 'caustic remarks in order to mock the Church'. And in fact while many of my posts are critical of the Church I generally try to avoid mocking but feel free to point out to me if I do.

Technically, Weegie, he just did .

[Luigi]

Technically, Weegie, he just did .

Ha ha. I meant pointing out specific instances, instead of a general accusation.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I fail to see how my comments on the verse in question come under the classification of 'caustic remarks in order to mock the Church'. And in fact while many of my posts are critical of the Church I generally try to avoid mocking but feel free to point out to me if I do.

Why did you make that particular comment, Luigi? What did it add to the conversation?

[alter idem]

Wrong. BYU from Terry Ball. (edit-He's the currently the director of religious studies FYI)

For what it's worth, Luigi, I thought your suggestions on the Isaiah passage were interesting and worth considering. I'm not at all surprised they came from a BYU Professor.

My own feeling is that many of Isaiah prophesies were dual prophesies; written to describe conditions in Ancient Israel and the last days as well--so I can consider your Professor's interpretation and my own and believe they both are credible explanations.

I've seen that verse a million times and never read into it that the fathers involved were to not have responsibility to the ensuing offspring. A careful reading of the verse only shows how it important it will be to some women to be married, not that the ensuing marriages would not then be held to the principles outlined in the proclamation on the family. The verse is a very broad generalization. It is talking about how some marriages will be initiated, not how they will be lived afterwards, even if some of the women involved do whatever it takes to talk a guy into it. If the man in question was a righteous man he wouldn't think for a moment of involving himself in a responsibility-free marriage.

This is what the verse says;

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.

I'm wondering where you are reading any sort of responsibility on the part of the man in this verse, that might be offered or expected at a later date? The verse makes it clear that all he's being required to do is father children--not support them.

I think some want this verse to mean Polygamy will be restored in the church, but this verse is so off from the modern concept of marriage within LDS standards, it just can't be bent or twisted or expanded upon to mean that.

Even if the church leaders wanted to restore polygamy, they can't and they won't. It's been hijacked by break-off LDS groups. Polygamists from other countries who wish to join the church are not able to be baptized--unless they only have one wife. The church has disavowed itself of the practice and has embraced monogamy and the concept of a strong marital unit of one father and one mother--who are obligated in every way to the children they produce. This was made absolutely clear by The Proclamation to the World on the Family.

Very likely polygamy will be legalized in the US--probably in certain states--as is the case with same-sex marriages--maybe in the next five to ten years. It won't change the church's position and if members go out and contract polygamous marriages--even if it's legal; they will be excommunicated. I agree with Calmoriah's caution. There are too many who were once believing, good members of the church who are now in some fringe break-off group or excommunicated because for some reason, they thought they should practice polygamy. I'm not sure what the draw is..but it's a real concern. It seems to be one particular way that Satan is able to deceive some who otherwise would not fall for his deceptions.

[Luigi]

Why did you make that particular comment, Luigi? What did it add to the conversation?

While admitedly I make snide remarks on occasion I generally try to present my position and arguments withholding insults and mocking. I don't appreciate characterizations of my threads as 'caustic mocking' simply because I happen to not believe as you do and express my reasons for doing so.

[Luigi]

For what it's worth, Luigi, I thought your suggestions on the Isaiah passage were interesting and worth considering. I'm not at all surprised they came from a BYU Professor.

My own feeling is that many of Isaiah prophesies were dual prophesies; written to describe conditions in Ancient Israel and the last days as well--so I can consider your Professor's interpretation and my own and believe they both are credible explanations.

To be fair my professor, Terry Ball, generally felt verses were, as you pointed out, dualistic in nature. In this verse I'm not sure if he felt it was dualistic or not. I just remember the interpretation he offered which, if I recall correctly, was the one scholars believed the verse refered to. Personally I think the dualistic nature has been created by modern theologians so as to give Isaiah application to our modern times, yet I think that most (if not all) of his writings make sense solely interpreted for that general period of Israel's history that Isaiah lived in (or the periods shortly thereafter).

[LifeOnaPlate]

While admitedly I make snide remarks on occasion I generally try to present my position and arguments withholding insults and mocking. I don't appreciate characterizations of my threads as 'caustic mocking' simply because I happen to not believe as you do and express my reasons for doing so.

That doesn't answer my question. Maybe you can explain what you meant by your former post.

[Luigi]

That doesn't answer my question. Maybe you can explain what you meant by your former post.

You wrote:

You thought Luigi was interested in more than making caustic remarks in order to mock the Church? ha

Which I took as a jab insinuating that my posts are essentially a constant stream of caustic mocking of the Church. I feel that it was a mischaracterization of my posts on this thread and on the board generally as I generally try to avoid insults and mocking and stick to the reasons I maintain my beliefs. Certainly I make the occasional jab but I felt it was unfair, even if it was a joke, to characterize most of my posts as caustic mocking and so I responded:

I fail to see how my comments on the verse in question come under the classification of 'caustic remarks in order to mock the Church'. And in fact while many of my posts are critical of the Church I generally try to avoid mocking but feel free to point out to me if I do.

If I misinterpreted your meaning from the post I was responding to I apologize and certainly I'm sorry for being off-topic. I simply wanted to address what I felt was a misrepresentation about the approach I have generally used to make my point.

[ohyeah]

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?

i think i have a plan for this.

i'm going to recruit hard for high paid working women, and i will spend my days driving my ferrari from place to place being very sweet to them as necessary.

[Calm]

i think i have a plan for this.

i'm going to recruit hard for high paid working women, and i will spend my days driving my ferrari from place to place being very sweet to them as necessary.

You better consider setting aside sufficient time for the gym so that they get what they are paying for.....

[juliann]

i think i have a plan for this.

Doesn't matter. Welcome to the 21st century. We will tell you where to mail your paycheck.

[CMZ]

I'm wondering where you are reading any sort of responsibility on the part of the man in this verse, that might be offered or expected at a later date? The verse makes it clear that all he's being required to do is father children--not support them.

You didn't read what I wrote. The verse only outlines what the women would say at the beginning of such a marriage, not how the marriage would be lived from that point on (the wife saying at the outset "Husband, you won't have any responsibility in this," does not mean God is saying the same thing). I kind of feel like writing more but your concerns would be resolved if you read how I explained it before.

Even if the church leaders wanted to restore polygamy, they can't and they won't. It's been hijacked by break-off LDS groups.

Just because some people go about it the wrong way doesn't mean anybody who practices it has to go about it the wrong way. The position of the Church used to be, "It's unconstitutional for polygamy to be outlawed." It shouldn't now be, "Polygamy is evil and should never be lived and the fact that we did it even for a brief time is embarrassing so let's just try to forget it ever happened." It might also help to read what the Church History in the Fulness of Times student manual has to say on the subject.

[kamenraider]

To be fair my professor, Terry Ball, generally felt verses were, as you pointed out, dualistic in nature. In this verse I'm not sure if he felt it was dualistic or not. I just remember the interpretation he offered which, if I recall correctly, was the one scholars believed the verse refered to. Personally I think the dualistic nature has been created by modern theologians so as to give Isaiah application to our modern times, yet I think that most (if not all) of his writings make sense solely interpreted for that general period of Israel's history that Isaiah lived in (or the periods shortly thereafter).

Do you believe that Isaiah 53 refers to Jesus Christ?

[ohyeah]

Doesn't matter. Welcome to the 21st century. We will tell you where to mail your paycheck.

should have known. the one wife i do have has a sixth sense that tells her exactly how much money i have in my pocket and amazingly enough that's exactly how much money she needs.

[kamenraider]

You could do like the FLDS do and marry non-working women, then have them pose as single moms to commit welfare fraud in order to "bleed the beast" as they call it.

[ohyeah]

You could do like the FLDS do and marry non-working women, then have them pose as single moms to commit welfare fraud in order to "bleed the beast" as they call it.

setting their light on a hill are they?

my solice in this is that i view mostly all other churches as break offs of the lds church or, that is, the great overall true church that the lds church purports to be a dispensational version of.