Polygamy

[Bee Eff]

Nonsense! There is plenty wrong about polygamy. If you don't believe me mention it the next time you're up for a temple recommend.

And why should I give up an argument I believe in?

According to the Church there is nothing wrong with polygamy, we simply do not practice it currently.

I have discussed it before with Stake level leadership.

You should drop it because there is no substantive evidence to support your claims. All the evidence lacks sufficient causal fact. Also, monogamy results in the exact same "pain for people" that you claim is inherent in polygamy.

[Bernard Gui]

On this I would probably agree although both are immoral in the eyes of the church.

With respect I cannot see the logic. Promiscuous sex outside marriage is as dangerous to society as polygamy can be. It would be akin to saying that alcohol is more acceptable than heroin. Where does society promote promiscuity?

I am not addressing the morality of polygamy and promiscuity, but the legality.

If polygamy is immoral and illegal, why is promiscuity immoral but legal?

In essence they are the same behavior, although a polygamist may limit his

partners to the ones he marries and can support. The one who is promiscuous has

no limits and no responsibility unless he is dinged for child support, which is

unlikely.

So, why is polygamy illegal, but promiscuity legal?

Our society promotes promiscuity in movies, literature, public school policies,

music, drama, sports, television, and advertising. Why is Tom Green in prison while Hugh Hefner,

Gene Simmons, and Magic Johnson are celebrated and revered? The latter three

boast of having had thousands of promiscuous partners, and surely some progeny has

resulted from their activity.

If polygamy is so heinous as to be prosecutable by law, why do those who practice it

without the complication of legal documents get off with a Get Out of Jail Free Card AND

$200 as they pass Go?

Where is the legal prosecution and the moral outrage for this behavior? Why is it legal

to have thousands of partners while a husband with two or three women is prosecuted?

“While the late NBA [star] Wilt Chamberlain set the standard with 20,000 booty calls,

a number of up-and-comers are making a run at the record. Check out the living contenders.”

#1 will surprise you.

10. Bill Wyman (Rolling Stones bassist) - 1,000

9. Earvin (Magic) Johnson (basketball star) - 1,000

8. Lemmy Kilmister (Motorhead frontman) - 1,200

7. Jack Nicholson (actor) - 2,000

6. Ilie Nastase (tennis star) - 2,500

5. Engelbert Humperdinck (singer) - 3,000

4. Julio Iglesias (singer) - 3,000

3. Gene Simmons (Kiss frontman) - 4,600

2. Charlie Sheen (actor) - 5,000

1. Umberto Billo (Venetian hotel porter) - 8,000

http://independentsources.com/2006/06/16/umberto-billo/

Bernard

[Calm]

If polygamy is so heinous as to be prosecutable by law, why do those who practice it

without the complication of legal documents get off with a Get Out of Jail Free Card AND

$200 as they pass Go?

Bernard

I agree it does not make sense to me. Even having multiple sexual partners at the same time (as in the same bed) is not illegal as long as everyone is consenting, yet attempting to make a long term marriage relationship with more than one other person is.

Laws doesn't always make sense though.

I don't see how the illegality of polygamy (not involving minors) will last much longer in society's environment though undoubtedly many will continue to see it as immoral (as most probably see promiscuity as immoral even among those who practice it). But thinking something is immoral isn't likely to stop some people if they think they can get away without any consequences (wasn't there a study out there about a significant percentage of men would rape someone if they could get away with it?)

However, I rather doubt that men for whom polygamy is appealing solely for sexual reasons will take up the practice as it's easy enough to satisfy that need in this day and age without accepting the responsibility of it so I think ultimately polygamy (for nonreligious or status reasons between consenting adults) may turn out to be practiced by mostly highly moral people who believe that sexuality, emotional commitment and the rearing of children should take place in stable, long term relationships.

[Bernard Gui]

I agree it does not make sense to me. Even having multiple sexual partners at the same time (as in the same bed) is not illegal as long as everyone is consenting, yet attempting to make a long term marriage relationship with more than one other person is.

Laws doesn't always make sense though.

I don't see how the illegality of polygamy (not involving minors) will last much longer in society's environment though undoubtedly many will continue to see it as immoral (as most probably see promiscuity as immoral even among those who practice it). But thinking something is immoral isn't likely to stop some people if they think they can get away without any consequences (wasn't there a study out there about a significant percentage of men would rape someone if they could get away with it?)

However, I rather doubt that men for whom polygamy is appealing solely for sexual reasons will take up the practice as it's easy enough to satisfy that need in this day and age without accepting the responsibility of it so I think ultimately polygamy (for nonreligious or status reasons between consenting adults) may turn out to be practiced by mostly highly moral people who believe that sexuality, emotional commitment and the rearing of children should take place in stable, long term relationships.

Thank you!!! Someone sees the point I am trying to make. It seems to me that there are many rational

reasons to oppose promiscuity and serial divorce yet both remain respected and legal. As BF is trying

to show, there appears to be no rational reason to oppose polygamy (religious arguments aside). Yet

its practice (which, to me, appears to be more moral than promiscuity) is prosecutable and offensive.

I really don't get it.

Bernard

[johnny]

Bee Eff,

According to the Church there is nothing wrong with polygamy, we simply do not practice it currently.

According to the Bible there is a better plan for man's marriage and home than polygamy. Polygamy in the Old Testament strongly shows us the wisdom of God's plan for one wife and the foolishness of man's way of additional wives.

You should drop it because there is no substantive evidence to support your claims. All the evidence lacks sufficient causal fact. Also, monogamy results in the exact same "pain for people" that you claim is inherent in polygamy.

There is evidence that polygamy is not the best plan for man's marriage and home. This evidence can be found in the Bible. Polygamy was never good for Abraham or any other Old Testament polygamist. Hagar caused jealousy, strife, and trouble until she was expelled from Abraham's house (Genesis 16:4; 21:9-11). Likewise, the wives of Solomon caused great difficulties and turned his heart away from the Lord (1 Kings 11:3,4).

According to the New Covenant polygamy is fornication, fornication being the sin of unlawful intercourse by an unmarried person. For more discussion see the link below:

The Problem Of Polygamy

http://www.scripturessay.com/printpage.php?id=605

[Bee Eff]

Bee Eff,

According to the Bible there is a better plan for man's marriage and home than polygamy. Polygamy in the Old Testament strongly shows us the wisdom of God's plan for one wife and the foolishness of man's way of additional wives.

There is evidence that polygamy is not the best plan for man's marriage and home. This evidence can be found in the Bible. Polygamy was never good for Abraham or any other Old Testament polygamist. Hagar caused jealousy, strife, and trouble until she was expelled from Abraham's house (Genesis 16:4; 21:9-11). Likewise, the wives of Solomon caused great difficulties and turned his heart away from the Lord (1 Kings 11:3,4).

According to the New Covenant polygamy is fornication, fornication being the sin of unlawful intercourse by an unmarried person. For more discussion see the link below:

The Problem Of Polygamy

http://www.scripturessay.com/printpage.php?id=605

This is a religious argument, not a rational argument. How does such apply to non-Biblical polygamists?

[johnny]

Bee Eff,

This is a religious argument, not a rational argument. How does such apply to non-Biblical polygamists?

It is a non-Biblical argument â?¦ additional wives can cause jealousy, strife, difficulties, and turning a personâ??s heart away from the Lord.

It is not a religious argument; I am simply using the lives of Old Testament polygamist to simply demonstrate the problems with polygamy.

[Luigi]

According to the Church there is nothing wrong with polygamy, we simply do not practice it currently.

I have discussed it before with Stake level leadership.

You should drop it because there is no substantive evidence to support your claims. All the evidence lacks sufficient causal fact. Also, monogamy results in the exact same "pain for people" that you claim is inherent in polygamy.

Polygamy is simply a problem of demographics. While many societies of the past had more women than men (frequent war and more dangerous working conditions) making polygamy relatively practical our current society with relatively little of those types of problems has a fairly equal ratio of men to women (and in fact census statistics in the United States show more men for almost all age groups). Polygamous groups deal with this problem by outcasting some of their boys and men. Obviously such a practice would have severe consequences if polygamy was practiced on a larger scale. Polygamous societies, in short, have to either have a natural or enforced way that men are removed from that society or a method for convincing men to not be upset over the inability to marry or mate and to my knowledge no society has succesfully done the latter method on a large scale and most of us consider the former method rather abhorrent.

Also humans are naturally jealous and polygamy and polyandry can cause considerable personal emotional strife because of such feelings. Also monogamy allows the resources of each man and woman to more easily be put toward their own offspring, thus giving each child the added security that comes from a father and mother who are not devoting their resources to other children from other parents (though granted polygamy can have some effective community pooling of resources).

[LeSellers]

additional wives can cause jealousy, strife, difficulties, and turning a personâ??s heart away from the Lord.

Sorry, that doesn't make a good argument, from a non-biblical standpoint. Paul says even one wife can do that.

I am simply using the lives of Old Testament polygamist to simply demonstrate the problems with polygamy.

Actually, given the widespread practice of plural marriage in the Bible, it is wonderful to me that there are so few stories of the type you noted. There is, for instance, no record of discord among David's wives. Michal's problems did not arise because she was a plural wife, nor did Bathsheba's. We do not read of any conflicts among Solomon's wives, either. It seems you are cherry picking your examples.

However, if we were to take your position at face value, i.e., that all plural families were wracked with strife and turmoil, up to and including murder, and, therefore, we must condemn (as the Bible never does) all plural marriages, then, for consistency, we must condemn twin births. The cases of Isaac's sons, Esau and Jacob spring to mind. There is the case of Pharez and Zarah. Interestingly, both younger boys "supplanted their older brothers.

Again, to be consistent, we should condemn all monogynist marriages, because it was, after all, Eve, who tempted Adam into transgression. If Adam had been alone, there never would have been either death or sin in the world, right? Lot, it seems had but one wife, yet his marriage resulted in daughters who got their father drunk and seduced him. Even Noah single marriage didn't protect his family from problems; after all, Ham laughed at him, and he, Noah, cursed his own grandson.

So, the whole question seems to be resolved only by celibacy. No marriages at all. The little issue of disobedience to the very first of all commandments, to multiply, is so trivial as to be beneath notice.

Lehi

[johnny]

LeSellers,

Sorry, that doesn't make a good argument, from a non-biblical standpoint. Paul says even one wife can do that.

Please provide the verses to back up your above statment ... the Bible says marriage is honourable.

So, the whole question seems to be resolved only by celibacy. No marriages at all. The little issue of disobedience to the very first of all commandments, to multiply, is so trivial as to be beneath notice.

God would disagree with you that the only resolution is celibacy. God's plan since creation has been one male and one female, two become one flesh.

From the beginning, God never intended for men to marry additional wives. Men began these practices because they rejected God's plan out of the hardness of their hearts.

Polygamy is man's plan, it is not God's plan.

[Calm]

Polygamy is simply a problem of demographics.

Good points.

Also monogamy allows the resources of each man and woman to more easily be put toward their own offspring, thus giving each child the added security that comes from a father and mother who are not devoting their resources to other children from other parents (though granted polygamy can have some effective community pooling of resources).

What is interesting to me here is that our society has created a problem with resources with allowing so much serial polygamy (divorce and remarriage). I have a relative who was expected to provide for the first marriage's children over and above their own. This wouldn't have been quite so much of a problem if they had been given some sort of say in the matter, but they were expected to 'butt out' even when providing financial help.

If you are going to allow serial polygamy when children are involved, then for practically speaking there seems to be no reason to not allow concurrent polygamy.

[LeSellers]

additional wives can cause jealousy, strife, difficulties, and turning a person’s heart away from the Lord.

Sorry, that doesn't make a good argument, from a non-biblical standpoint. Paul says even one wife can do that.

Please provide the verses to back up your above statment ... the Bible says marriage is honourable.

32But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.

Enjoy.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

God would disagree with you that the only resolution is celibacy. God's plan since creation has been one male and one female, two become one flesh.

Paul is brazen when he tells us what it means to "become one flesh": he says that a man becomes one flesh with a prostitute.

What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

Note the parallel between "one body" and "one flesh". "σάρξ" (sarx) is the Greek for "flesh", but has connotations of "human being" or "body". "σῶμα" (soma) is "body".

The old "they twain shall become one flesh" argument does not stack up when you apply it as a refutation of plural marriage. Paul is clear. The sentence means "they shall engage in sexual intercourse", nothing more. We might also expand it a bit by saying that they shall have children, who are, as well all know, the literal merging of the man's and the woman's flesh.

A man can have more sexual partners than one, as Paul alludes. Further, as he explicitly states, he becomes "one flesh" with each of them. He would with a prostitute, and he would with his wife, were she the first or fiftieth.

To claim that it mean the man cannot have another wife is anti-biblical, it says that Paul did not know what he was talking about. If true, it would refute the Bible itself.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

From the beginning, God never intended for men to marry additional wives. Men began these practices because they rejected God's plan out of the hardness of their hearts.

CFR. The Bible never says this, although there are many who make the claim.

However, the Bible does command some men to take additional wives.

It's called the Law of the Levirate. There is no exception for an already married man. It was the Lord's way of providing an eternal heritage for a dead man, and His way to protect widows. He's even kill a man who refused to obey this law. BTW it was not introduced as part of the Law of Moses. It was in force long before Moses led Israel out of Egypt; before Joseph led them into Egypt.

The Bible, furthermore, tells us explicitly that God gives men plural wives, and even, when a man already has several wives, that God would give him still more if he would but ask, rather than take.

The Bible praises men as "just", His friends, righteous, men who had two, four, and hundreds of wives.

The Bible never condemns plural marriage, and only restricts it for two classes of men.

Your bald statement that "God never intended for men to marry additional wives" is refuted by the scriptures themselves.

The claim that men "rejected God's plan" (for whatever reason) in "these practices" simply has no scriptural support. Rather this statement, and its predecessor blatantly ignore very large parts of scripture.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

God would disagree with you that the only resolution is celibacy. God's plan since creation has been one male and one female, two become one flesh.

Except, apparently, for some.

It is odd that for Priests of the Old Testament, the requirement was marriage, but, today, there are some who "forbid to marry".

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, ... 3 Forbidding to marry ... .

Lehi

[SquarePeg48]

Except, apparently, for some.

It is odd that for Priests of the Old Testament, the requirement was marriage, but, today, there are some who "forbid to marry".

Lehi

Possibly not just those who propose and promote sexual abstinence of all kinds (i.e., Catholic priesthood, etc.) but also those who suggest that marriage is unnecessary and just a "piece of paper" or those who are so traumatized by events of divorce or bad marriage in childhood that they forgo marriage altogether...an interesting article suggesting some of that found in Newsweek this week.

[Ron Beron]

According to the Church there is nothing wrong with polygamy, we simply do not practice it currently.

I have discussed it before with Stake level leadership.

You should drop it because there is no substantive evidence to support your claims. All the evidence lacks sufficient causal fact. Also, monogamy results in the exact same "pain for people" that you claim is inherent in polygamy.

Simply stating that you have discussed it with stake leadership is not sufficient to show that there is nothing wrong with its simple practice.

Pres. Hinckley has stated that plural marriage is â??against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows [the practice of a man having more than one wife], the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriageâ? (â??What Are People Asking about Us?â? Ensign, Nov. 1998, 72). If there is nothing wrong with it why all the prohibitions against it?

Again, let me reiterate...(this time keeping the sentences together)

1. The Church does not countenance, aid, abet, tolerate or sanction the contracting of so-called "plural marriages" in the Church
   
2. Contrary to the belief that the Church does so, the Church absolutely forbids the members of the Church from entering into any such unlawful relations or teaching or encouraging such in the Church
   

Again, one cannot logically deduce that there is "nothing wrong with polygamy.

To compare any hardship with monogamous relationships with that of polygamous is simply wrong. Just ask the parents in Texas

[Ron Beron]

I am not addressing the morality of polygamy and promiscuity, but the legality.

If polygamy is immoral and illegal, why is promiscuity immoral but legal?

In essence they are the same behavior, although a polygamist may limit his

partners to the ones he marries and can support. The one who is promiscuous has

no limits and no responsibility unless he is dinged for child support, which is

unlikely.

So, why is polygamy illegal, but promiscuity legal?

Our society promotes promiscuity in movies, literature, public school policies,

music, drama, sports, television, and advertising. Why is Tom Green in prison while Hugh Hefner,

Gene Simmons, and Magic Johnson are celebrated and revered? The latter three

boast of having had thousands of promiscuous partners, and surely some progeny has

resulted from their activity.

If polygamy is so heinous as to be prosecutable by law, why do those who practice it

without the complication of legal documents get off with a Get Out of Jail Free Card AND

$200 as they pass Go?

Where is the legal prosecution and the moral outrage for this behavior? Why is it legal

to have thousands of partners while a husband with two or three women is prosecuted?

Bernard

The simple reason Green is sitting in prison is because he was found guilty of bigamy not polygamy. There aren't any statues against polygamy only bigamy. While I completely agree that the moral failings of celebrities should be placed up there with that of other crimes they simply have not broken any legal laws only moral ones.

[johnny]

Lehi,

32But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction

The verses you provide above DO NOT support your words "Paul says even one wife can do that.". The verses you provide DO NOT reveal anything about "jealousy, strife, difficulties, and turning a personâ??s heart away from the Lord".

A man can have more sexual partners than one, as Paul alludes. Further, as he explicitly states, he becomes "one flesh" with each of them. He would with a prostitute, and he would with his wife, were she the first or fiftieth.

You seem to differ with the apostle Paul ... you say Paul alludes to that "A man can have more sexual partners than one" and Paul says:

1Cor.7

[2] Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

However, the Bible does command some men to take additional wives.

The Bible also reveals that the prophet Jeremiah was forbidden from taking a wife.

It's called the Law of the Levirate. There is no exception for an already married man. It was the Lord's way of providing an eternal heritage for a dead man, and His way to protect widows. He's even kill a man who refused to obey this law. BTW it was not introduced as part of the Law of Moses. It was in force long before Moses led Israel out of Egypt; before Joseph led them into Egypt.

The purpose of law of the levirate was to continue the family line of a deceased person.

The Bible, furthermore, tells us explicitly that God gives men plural wives, and even, when a man already has several wives, that God would give him still more if he would but ask, rather than take.

God gives us many things, God gave David his house and his wives.

The Bible praises men as "just", His friends, righteous, men who had two, four, and hundreds of wives.

For these men in the Old Testament "hundreds of wives" was not fornication. The New Testament reveals a better lifestyle. 1 Corinthians 7:2 says, "avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." Polygamy is sinful for male or female. Women married to the same husband do not each have their own husbands.

The Bible never condemns plural marriage, and only restricts it for two classes of men.

The information below is from the following link:

Where in the Bible does it say that polygamy is wrong?

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0110qq.asp

Scripture indicates that for a time God did tolerate polygamy during the Old Testament. However, it was portrayed even then as a negative thing. When Scripture describes the domestic life of polygamists, it brings out consistently the negative effects of polygamyâ??jealousy, taunting, conflict, favoritismâ??as different wives and children struggle for position within the family. (Take for example the strife between the wives of Abraham, Jacob, or Elkana; see Gen. 21, 29â??30, 1 Sam. 1).

The problems were so clearly recognized that, even if there was not then a flat-out prohibition on the practice, there had to be special legislation concerning polygamy. Thus a husband playing favorites among his wives was not allowed to deprive the children of his first wife their inheritance rights in favor of the children of a more recent wife (Deut. 21:15â??16). Kings in particular were forbidden to multiply wives to themselves (Deut. 17:17). Unfortunately, this prohibition was often not followed.

As time progressed, the problems with polygamy became more and more obvious, and it stopped being practiced. The clincher came in the time of Christ, when Jesus indicated that marriage was to be restored to the state God had intended in Genesis 2. Thus Jesus prohibits divorce (Mark 10:2â??9) on the grounds that it was not provided for in Godâ??s original plan. God made one man and one woman to be together. Polygamy is ruled out by the same logic.

Your bald statement that "God never intended for men to marry additional wives" is refuted by the scriptures themselves.

Godâ??s plan was for Adam and Eve to be together, not for Adam to be married first to Eve and then later to Barbara, and certainly not for Adam to be married to Eve and Barbara at the same time.

It is odd that for Priests of the Old Testament, the requirement was marriage, but, today, there are some who "forbid to marry".

The Catholic Church forbids no one to marry. No one is required to take a vow of celibacy; those who do, do so voluntarily. They "renounce marriage" (Matt. 19:12); no one forbids it to them. Any Catholic who doesnâ??t wish to take such a vow doesnâ??t have to, and is almost always free to marry with the Churchâ??s blessing. The Church simply elects candidates for the priesthood (or, in the Eastern rites, for the episcopacy) from among those who voluntarily renounce marriage. See the link below for more discussion.

Celibacy and the Priesthood

http://www.catholic.com/library/Celibacy_a..._Priesthood.asp

[Neighbor]

out of bounds and deleted by author

[LeSellers]

additional wives can cause jealousy, strife, difficulties, and turning a personâ??s heart away from the Lord.

Sorry, that doesn't make a good argument, from a non-biblical standpoint. Paul says even one wife can do that.

Please provide the verses to back up your above statment ... the Bible says marriage is honourable.

32But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.

The verses you provide above DO NOT support your words "Paul says even one wife can do that.". The verses you provide DO NOT reveal anything about "jealousy, strife, difficulties, and turning a personâ??s heart away from the Lord".

Perhaps not the jealousy and strife, but "turning a person's heart away from the Lord", yes!

What do the words "he that is unmarried careth for the things of God, but he that is married careth for the things that of the world" mean? Is that not "turning a [husband's] heart away from the Lord"?

You seem to differ with the apostle Paul ... you say Paul alludes to that "A man can have more sexual partners than one"

Do you not know what the word "can" means? It is a defective verb (it has no infinitive) meaning "to be able". So, are you saying that no man is able to have multiple sexual partners? If that is the case, you are woefully ignorant of the ways of the world. Paul's words, vis-

[LeSellers]

God would disagree with you that the only resolution is celibacy. God's plan since creation has been one male and one female, two become one flesh.

Except, apparently, for some.

It is odd that for Priests of the Old Testament, the requirement was marriage, but, today, there are some who "forbid to marry".

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, ... 3 Forbidding to marry ... .

The Catholic Church forbids no one to marry. No one is required to take a vow of celibacy; those who do, do so voluntarily. They "renounce marriage" (Matt. 19:12); no one forbids it to them. Any Catholic who doesn’t wish to take such a vow doesn’t have to, and is almost always free to marry with the Church’s blessing. The Church simply elects candidates for the priesthood (or, in the Eastern rites, for the episcopacy) from among those who voluntarily renounce marriage.

Can a priest take a wife? Can a husband take the vows of your priesthood?

This, however, was not my main point. See my statement above: "It is odd that for Priests of the Old Testament, the requirement was marriage, but, today, there are some who 'forbid to marry'." Priests in your church are "forbidden to marry".

Yes, they volunteer for celibacy (which only makes sense because the church's responsibility to the widows and orphans of priests is eliminated). But that denial of one of the most fundamental needs of mankind, to engender legitimate offspring, runs counter to scripture.

Does not Paul command that bishops have a wife?

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one* wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

* the Greek word here is "μιας" (mias], the genative, singular, feminine form of "εἷς" (heis), "one". Greek does not commonly use indefinite articles. However,

in scripture

, there are many cases where this rule is broken

due to the influence of Hebrew

on the writers. In these cases, as in many Indo-European languages, the indefinite article is the same as the cardinal number "one". We see this in English, where, anciently, the number "one" was "ane", and our indefinite article is the reduced form, "a" or "an". Given this subtle distinction, there is no conclusive proof that Paul specified "one wife" or simply "a wife". Because there is no general condemnation of plural marriage anywhere in the Bible, I lean strongly to the "a wife" interpretation.

Whatever Paul meant, one wife or a wife, Catholic bishops (all of whom were priests at one time) are in direct violation of the commandment of God that they be married.

Lehi

[Bee Eff]

Simply stating that you have discussed it with stake leadership is not sufficient to show that there is nothing wrong with its simple practice.

Pres. Hinckley has stated that plural marriage is â??against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows [the practice of a man having more than one wife], the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriageâ? (â??What Are People Asking about Us?â? Ensign, Nov. 1998, 72). If there is nothing wrong with it why all the prohibitions against it?

Again, let me reiterate...(this time keeping the sentences together)

1. The Church does not countenance, aid, abet, tolerate or sanction the contracting of so-called "plural marriages" in the Church
   
2. Contrary to the belief that the Church does so, the Church absolutely forbids the members of the Church from entering into any such unlawful relations or teaching or encouraging such in the Church
   

Again, one cannot logically deduce that there is "nothing wrong with polygamy.

To compare any hardship with monogamous relationships with that of polygamous is simply wrong. Just ask the parents in Texas

You seem to be failing to grasp our belief on this.

The practice of polygamy by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members was discontinued only because the United States had placed, and would continue to place more and more, undue hardships on the Church and families that practiced polygamy and for no other reason.

Official Declaration 1

...

EXCERPTS FROM THREE ADDRESSES BY

PRESIDENT WILFORD WOODRUFF

REGARDING THE MANIFESTO

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)

It matters not who lives or who dies, or who is called to lead this Church, they have got to lead it by the inspiration of Almighty God. If they do not do it that way, they cannot do it at all. . . .

I have had some revelations of late, and very important ones to me, and I will tell you what the Lord has said to me. Let me bring your minds to what is termed the manifesto. . . .

The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.

The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursueâ??to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for . . . any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.

. . . I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. . . .

I leave this with you, for you to contemplate and consider. The Lord is at work with us. (Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.)

Now I will tell you what was manifested to me and what the Son of God performed in this thing. . . . All these things would have come to pass, as God Almighty lives, had not that Manifesto been given. Therefore, the Son of God felt disposed to have that thing presented to the Church and to the world for purposes in his own mind. The Lord had decreed the establishment of Zion. He had decreed the finishing of this temple. He had decreed that the salvation of the living and the dead should be given in these valleys of the mountains. And Almighty God decreed that the Devil should not thwart it. If you can understand that, that is a key to it. (From a discourse at the sixth session of the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple, April 1893. Typescript of Dedicatory Services, Archives, Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah.)

[johnny]

Lehi,

Perhaps not the jealousy and strife, but "turning a person's heart away from the Lord", yes!

What do the words "he that is unmarried careth for the things of God, but he that is married careth for the things that of the world" mean? Is that not "turning a [husband's] heart away from the Lord"?

I would not consider it "turning ... away", I would simply would characterize the married having a divided interest. Whereas the unmarried have single-minded devotion to the Lord.

Yet you claim that God opposed polygyny. If He gave David his wives, then He must not be against it nearly as much as you are.

Read my earlier posts again, I said in the Old Testament God tolerated polygamy. Under the New Covent polygamy is called fornication.

You are completely reversing the context of this passage. Paul is not condemning plurality of wives, he's condemning having about no wife at all.

Paul is contrasting celibacy with marriage. This verse is telling people that, to avoid sexual sin (which means having sexual relations with any one not your spouse), they should marry. You cannot apply this to polygyny, as you have, without ignoring the thrust of Paul's words.

1Cor 7:2 is NOT "condemning having about no wife at all" because in 1Cor 7:8 Paul is endorsing not having a wife for those have this "gift of God" (1Cor 7:7).

1Cor 7:2 can be applied to polygamy. In polygamy women are married to the same husband, in polygamy each wife DOES NOT have their own husbands. In 1Cor 7:2 Paul says "let every woman have her own husband."

1Cor.7

[2] Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

[7] For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

[8] I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

[32] But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:

Actually, they do. I have seven children, and each one of them has his own father. There is no logical or linguistic difference between the two examples.

It is not logically to say each of your children "has his own father", each of your seven children share one father. If each child has "his own father" then there would be seven unique pairs.

Even your site recognizes that this discussion is not about plural marriage, but about divorce.

Read it again, it says "Jesus indicated that marriage was to be restored to the state God had intended in Genesis 2". It Genesis it was a man and a wife ... in Genesis it was not a man and many wives.

Yet Jesus did not condemn the practice, nor did any of His Apostles, when they had dozens of obvious opportunities.

In 1Cor 7:2 the apostle Paul calls polygamy fornication.

[Ron Beron]

You seem to be failing to grasp our belief on this.

The practice of polygamy by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members was discontinued only because the United States had placed, and would continue to place more and more, undue hardships on the Church and families that practiced polygamy and for no other reason.

Maybe what you fail to grasp is that even if the church had the green light to continue this practice they would continue to ban it. It was a bad policy then and an even worse one now. If you follow the gist of what the presidents of the church have said is that the time and place for polygamy is over. It is gone and not well remembered.

Again, Pres. Hinckley, "If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church."

As much as the law of polygamy was enjoined by some to obey earlier it is enjoined by all today to abandon it.

President Hinckley continues, "More than a century ago God clearly revealed unto His prophet Wilford Woodruff that the practice of plural marriage should be discontinued, which means that it is now against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows polygamy, the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage."