Polygamy

[Sleeper Cell]

"Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none." Jacob 2:27

Jacob 2:24 says, â??Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.â?

Jacob 2:30 (on the same page) says:

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise, they shall harken unto these things.

The commandment in Jacob 2 is not a categorical prohibition against having more than one wife. Jacob 2 states that having more than one wife is forbidden except in those specific instances when the Lord -- for his own purposes -- directly commands otherwise. Jacob 2 makes it clear that the abomination was not the practice of polygamy, but its unauthorized practice. In particular, those concerned were attempting to justify themselves by substituting Biblical precedent for direct revelation through a living prophet.

[johnny]

Sleeper Cell,

The commandment in Jacob 2 is not a categorical prohibition against having more than one wife. Jacob 2 states that having more than one wife is forbidden except in those specific instances when the Lord -- for his own purposes -- directly commands otherwise. Jacob 2 makes it clear that the abomination was not the practice of polygamy, but its unauthorized practice. In particular, those concerned were attempting to justify themselves by substituting Biblical precedent for direct revelation through a living prophet.

For me, the precedent is that in the New Covenant polygamy is adultery. Adultery is when a husband marries another woman while he is still joined to his first wife (Rom 7:3).

Paul says to avoid fornication let every man have "his own wife" (1Cor 7:2). In polygamous relationship a husband does not have "his own wife" but has other wives.

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

Sleeper Cell,

For me, the precedent is that in the New Covenant polygamy is adultery. Adultery is when a husband marries another woman while he is still joined to his first wife (Rom 7:3).

Really? That's what Rom. 7:3 says?

Hmm..

So then if, while her husband liveth, she [a wife]be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress...(Rom. 7:3)

Do you have some gender confusion?

[johnny]

DispensatorMysteriorum,

Really? That's what Rom. 7:3 says?

Do you believe it only applies to a "she" ... in marriage both "he" and "she" are joined.

Do you have some gender confusion?

In 1Cor 7:2 the apostle Paul refers to he and she or "man" and "woman". In polygamous relationship a husband does not have "his own wife" but has other wives.

1Cor.7

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

[MormonPeasant]

...

1Cor.7

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

You've cited this before. I don't think you know what it means to be truthful. I think Paul's admonition is it is better to be married where sex is allowed than not be married where sex is not allowed since fornication really applies to sexual encounters between individuals who are not married at all while adultery applies to a married individual having sex with someone not their spouse.

That's how I interpret it.

[johnny]

MormonPeasant,

You've cited this before. I don't think you know what it means to be truthful. I think Paul's admonition is it is better to be married where sex is allowed than not be married where sex is not allowed since fornication really applies to sexual encounters between individuals who are not married at all while adultery applies to a married individual having sex with someone not their spouse.

Christian matrimony is only with the first marriage. In a polygamous relationship where a husband has many wives.

- The husband is committing adultery because " married individual having sex with someone not their spouse"

- The wives, who are not the first wife, are committing fornication because they are "not married" but yet are having "sexual encounters"

[MormonPeasant]

MormonPeasant,

Christian matrimony is only with the first marriage. In a polygamous relationship where a husband has many wives.

- The husband is committing adultery because " married individual having sex with someone not their spouse"

- The wives, who are not the first wife, are committing fornication because they are "not married" but yet are having "sexual encounters"

Then he would have said so explicitly. Women, do not marry a married man or you will be a fornicator. It was a gender neutral admonition; therefore, it really applied to both sexes that they should abstain from sex until married, without regard to polygamy. Some things just aren't very clear.

[johnny]

MormonPeasant,

Then he would have said so explicitly. Women, do not marry a married man or you will be a fornicator. It was a gender neutral admonition; therefore, it really applied to both sexes that they should abstain from sex until married, without regard to polygamy. Some things just aren't very clear.

Jesus and the apostle Paul are clear ... Jesus said a man should cleave to "his wife" he did not say his wives. The apostle Paul says "let every man have his own wife" to avoid fornication, Paul did not say let every man have wives.

God joins two, a man and "his wife", it does not say "wives".

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

blah, blah, blah

johnny,

the scripture says a woman can't have more than one husband. It doesn't say a man can't have more than one wife. You, as I pointed out, practices eiegesis on that one.

[johnny]

DispensatorMysteriorum,

the scripture says a woman can't have more than one husband. It doesn't say a man can't have more than one wife. You, as I pointed out, practices eiegesis on that one.

Scriptures says "two" ... it does not say two or more. Paul is clear "let every man have his own wife" to avoid fornication

[MormonPeasant]

MormonPeasant,

Jesus and the apostle Paul are clear ... Jesus said a man should cleave to "his wife" he did not say his wives. The apostle Paul says "let every man have his own wife" to avoid fornication, Paul did not say let every man have wives.

God joins two, a man and "his wife", it does not say "wives".

Round and round the biblical interpretation wheel goes, where she stops, nobody knows.

We've covered this ground already.

Back to the OP, is there a rational reason, not a religious reason, for polygamy? Yes, there is, which is letting adults decide with whom they will marry, regardless of how many are in the marriage.

[LeSellers]

Paul is clear "let every man have his own wife" to avoid fornication

That is true, but it does not necessarily mean what you keep claiming it means.

You also claim that none of my children has his own father because I have seven of them. That claim is ridiculous but you are entitled to an opinion.

But you have not even addressed Paul's other statement that, when a man has sexual relations with a woman, they become one flesh, exactly the same as if he had those relations with a wife. He used this example as a reason that men should not engage with prostitutes. But, by it, he defines what the scriptures mean when they say "they shall become one flesh".

If a man can become one flesh with a prostitute, he can just as easily, and without the taint of sexual sin, become one flesh with a second or fiftieth wife. Because as God said, "he cannot commit adultery [with them] for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else."

There is no biblical passage that condemns plural marriage.

To the contrary, we have many passages in the Bible that explicitly command men to take additional wives, or where God has explicitly given a man additional wives. It takes a major brain contortion to claim that God only "condoned" or "tolerated" plural marriage in the face of these biblical facts.

There is a related charge, i.e., that He only allowed plurality of wives in the Law of Moses. But this, too, is refuted by the Bible. God gave the Law of Moses at least four hundred years after Abraham had a second wife (and probably two others), and nearly as long after Israel had taken four. Moses himself had two wives. Each of these men was labeled righteous, one the "friend of God". If plural marriage is a heinous as some people claim, God is a trickster, unstable, and definitely a "respecter of persons".

So, I await your explanation of Paul's condemnation of hiring harlots, of sleeping with one's father's wife (most likely a plural wife, btw), and a host of other sexual sins, all in gory detail, but he never specifies that plural marriages were ungodly.

I await, most of all, your eisegesis (word chosen especially for you) on Paul's definition of becoming "one flesh".

Lehi

[johnny]

Lehi,

That is true, but it does not necessarily mean what you keep claiming it means.

What does it mean then ... I am saying that Paul is clear "let every man have his own wife" to avoid fornication.

You also claim that none of my children has his own father because I have seven of them. That claim is ridiculous but you are entitled to an opinion.

What I am claiming is that in a polygamous relationship a husband has "other wives", that husband does not have "his own wife". In a earlier post you have said "that husband has other wives" .

But you have not even addressed Paul's other statement that, when a man has sexual relations with a woman, they become one flesh, exactly the same as if he had those relations with a wife. He used this example as a reason that men should not engage with prostitutes. But, by it, he defines what the scriptures mean when they say "they shall become one flesh".

A man and a prostitute become "one flesh" but they are not "joined" as man and wife.

If a man can become one flesh with a prostitute, he can just as easily, and without the taint of sexual sin, become one flesh with a second or fiftieth wife. Because as God said, "he cannot commit adultery [with them] for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else."

A husband who becomes "one flesh" with a prostitute is committing adultery. The husband is committing adultery because a married individual is having sex with someone not their spouse. Adultery is a sin.

There is no biblical passage that condemn plural marriage.

There is also no biblical passages in the New Testament that commands plural marriage. Under the New Covenant a Christian marriage is TWO, a man is joined to his wife.

To the contrary, we have many passages in the Bible that explicitly command men to take additional wives, or where God has explicitly given a man additional wives. It takes a major brain contortion to claim that God only "condoned" or "tolerated" plural marriage in the face of these biblical facts.

There are passages in the Old Testament that speak of "wives" but under the New Covenant there are ZERO New Testament Bible passages the "explicitly command men to take additional wives". Christians are under the New and Everlasting Covenant.

There is a related charge, i.e., that He only allowed plurality of wives in the Law of Moses. But this, too, is refuted by the Bible. God gave the Law of Moses at least four hundred years after Abraham had a second wife (and probably two others), and nearly as long after Israel had taken four. Moses himself had two wives. Each of these men was labeled righteous, one the "friend of God". If plural marriage is a heinous as some people claim, God is a trickster, unstable, and definitely a "respecter of persons".

Neither Moses or Abraham were under the New and Everlasting Covenant.

So, I await your explanation of Paul's condemnation of hiring harlots, of sleeping with one's father's wife (most likely a plural wife, btw), and a host of other sexual sins, all in gory detail, but he never specifies that plural marriages were ungodly.

Paul does tells us to "let every man have his own wife" to avoid fornication. The wives in polygamous relationship, who are not the first wife, are committing fornication because they are "not married" but yet are having "sexual encounters". Christian matrimony is only with the first marriage.

I await, most of all, your eisegesis (word chosen especially for you) on Paul's definition of becoming "one flesh".

Marriage is not singularily becoming "one flesh", marriage is God joining a man and a wife. A man shall cleave to his WIFE -- not wives. And they TWO -- not he and several wives -- shall be one flesh.

Eph.5

[31] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

[LeSellers]

What does it mean then ... I am saying that Paul is clear "let every man have his own wife" to avoid fornication.

Paul's meaning is not that clear if you see this in his words. What it means is that every man should be married, and every woman should be married. This second one cannot happen without polygyny. Paul is warning of the dangers in being unmarried. That's the thrust of this section. It does not say that plural marriage is fornication. Your interpretation ignores the context of the passage.

You have claimed that my seven children do not have their own father.

What I am claiming is that in a polygamous relationship a husband has "other wives", that husband does not have "his own wife". In a earlier post you have said "that husband has other wives" .

Of course I have, because they do. Because each woman has her husband, and this is true even if several share a husband in common. The words do not mean that each woman should have a husband unique to her any more than my saying that each of my children has his own father means I have only one child. Your counter claim is ridiculous ab initio

A man and a prostitute become "one flesh" but they are not "joined" as man and wife. A husband who becomes "one flesh" with a prostitute is committing adultery. The husband is committing adultery because a married individual is having sex with someone not their spouse. Adultery is a sin.

I didn't claim anything else. But you claim a man's having sexual relations with two women who are married to him commits "fornication". This is simply eisegesis, because that's not what the scripture says.

There is no biblcal passage that condemns plural marriage

There is also no biblical passages in the New Testament that commands plural marriage. Under the New Covenant a Christian marriage is TWO, a man is joined to his wife.

Please show me where I have said there was such a New Testament commandment. You here make a positive claim, that "Christian marriage" is solely between two persons. Having made such a claim, you will doubtless show us where to find this amazing, and heretofore unnoticed, pronouncement.

There are passages in the Old Testament that speak of "wives" but under the New Covenant there are ZERO New Testament Bible passages the "explicitly command men to take additional wives".

I have never made such a claim, so drop it; it's a straw man, it's a non-sequitor.

Christians are under the New and Everlasting Covenant.

Odd, this phrase does not appear in the Bible. It's in the Doctrine and Covenants, though. Are you telling us that all Christians, in addition to LDS Christians, follow the Gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed to Joseph Smith?

Neither Moses or Abraham were under the New and Everlasting Covenant.

Yes, they were. Since this is a LDS concept, it is we LDSs who get to define what it means, and to whom it applies.

Paul does tells us to "let every man have his own wife" to avoid fornication. The wives in polygamous relationship, who are not the first wife, are committing fornication because they are "not married" but yet are having "sexual encounters".

Again, you must show us where the Bible says this. If they are "wives", they, by definition, are married. Moreover, the Lord Himself contradicts you when He said that if they are his, he cannot commit adultery with them.

Christian matrimony is only with the first marriage.

CFbiblicalR.

Marriage is not singularily becoming "one flesh", marriage is God joining a man and a wife. A man shall cleave to his WIFE -- not wives. And they TWO -- not he and several wives -- shall be one flesh.

Where does this phrase, "one flesh", show up in the Bible?

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

That's one place. Notice it applies only to a first marriage, the one that initiates a man's "leaving his father and his mother". Any subsequent marriages would not require that â?? he's already left. It means, as the others, that every man should marry, and it does not limit the number of wives he may have.

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

This verse is followed by all of those that either allow or command multiple wives (e.g., the law of the Levirate), and those where God tells us that He gave men multiple wives. Any subsequent usage of this passage must take this into account. And, since precedence must be explicitly overturned, we must find a passage that does that, if the precedent is actually reversed. There is none.

Jesus quotes this passage:

And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

or here:

7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

It seems the Lord disagrees with you: the reason a man will leave his father and his mother, to cleave unto his wife, is precisely so they will "become one flesh", i.e., have sexual relations with each other. Eloheim said so, Jesus quoted Him. That's good enough for me. Paul echoes the same idea: Slam dunk â?? marriage exists to have sexual relations, and, by extension, to have children (see Gen 1:28).

Your arbitrary interpretation, that these passages dictate monogyny, misses the point. There is simply no exegesis that allows that, and only the most blatant eisegesis, such as yours, can even begin to make this case.

Lehi

[johnny]

Lehi,

Paul's meaning is not that clear if you see this in his words. What it means is that every man should be married, and every woman should be married. This second one cannot happen without polygyny. Paul is warning of the dangers in being unmarried. That's the thrust of this section. It does not say that plural marriage is fornication. Your interpretation ignores the context of the passage.

I have addressed this earlier in post #249.

I didn't claim anything else. But you claim a man's having sexual relations with two women who are married to him commits "fornication". This is simply eisegesis, because that's not what the scripture says.

They may be "married", but it is not a Christian marriage were a man and his wife are joined by God.

Odd, this phrase does not appear in the Bible. It's in the Doctrine and Covenants, though. Are you telling us that all Christians, in addition to LDS Christians, follow the Gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed to Joseph Smith?

Both "new" and "everlasting" appear in the Bible (Heb 12:24;13:20). The Catholic Church teaches about the new and everlasting covenant:

1116 - Sacraments are "powers that comes forth" from the Body of Christ, [Lk 5:17; 6:19; 8:46] which is ever-living and life-giving. They are actions of the Holy Spirit at work in his Body, the Church. They are "the masterworks of God" in the new and everlasting covenant.

796 - He has joined her with himself in an everlasting covenant and never stops caring for her as for his own body [Eph 5:29]: "The two will become one flesh.

1602 - Scripture speaks throughout of marriage and its "mystery," its institution and the meaning God has given it, its origin and its end, its various realizations throughout the history of salvation, the difficulties arising from sin and its renewal "in the Lord" in the New Covenant of Christ and the Church [1 Cor 7:39; Eph 5:31-32]

1617 - Christian marriage in its turn becomes an efficacious sign, the sacrament of the covenant of Christ and the Church. Since it signifies and communicates grace, marriage between baptized persons is a true sacrament of the New Covenant

Yes, they were. Since this is a LDS concept, it is we LDSs who get to define what it means, and to whom it applies.

Moses and Abraham were not under the new and everlasting Covenant. The new and everlasting covenant began with Christ (Heb 12:24;13:20).

Again, you must show us where the Bible says this. If they are "wives", they, by definition, are married. Moreover, the Lord Himself contradicts you when He said that if they are his, he cannot commit adultery with them.

"wives" does not define a Christian marriage. A Christian marriage is defined by being joined by God.

CFbiblicalR.

Where does this phrase, "one flesh", show up in the Bible?

See Ephesians 5:31 ... it reveals "one flesh". Also Eph 5:31 reveals two are joined, it does not reveal two or more wives are joined.

That's one place. Notice it applies only to a first marriage, the one that initiates a man's "leaving his father and his mother". Any subsequent marriages would not require that â?? he's already left. It means, as the others, that every man should marry, and it does not limit the number of wives he may have.

Scripture does reveal two or more are joined, scripture reveals two - a man and his wife (Matt 19:6).

This verse is followed by all of those that either allow or command multiple wives (e.g., the law of the Levirate), and those where God tells us that He gave men multiple wives. Any subsequent usage of this passage must take this into account. And, since precedence must be explicitly overturned, we must find a passage that does that, if the precedent is actually reversed. There is none.

I am not following your logic ... Neither Gen 2:24 nor Matt 19:5 are speak of "wives", they clearly say "his wife".

It seems the Lord disagrees with you: the reason a man will leave his father and his mother, to cleave unto his wife, is precisely so they will "become one flesh", i.e., have sexual relations with each other. Eloheim said so, Jesus quoted Him. That's good enough for me. Paul echoes the same idea: Slam dunk â?? marriage exists to have sexual relations, and, by extension, to have children (see Gen 1:28).

My point exactly ... you say "to cleave unto his wife", it does not say WIVES. The reason a Christian man leaves his father and his mother is to be JOINED unto HIS WIFE by God (Matt 19:5; Eph 5:31).

Matt.19

[6] Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Eph.5

[31] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

[rufus]

I've only skimmed this thread.

Has anyone brought up the point that since there is roughly a 50/50 ratio of men/women that when 1 man takes an additional wife, there is one man who will be left without a wife?

That is the gay guy maybe.

Rufus

[SquarePeg48]

I've only skimmed this thread.

Has anyone brought up the point that since there is roughly a 50/50 ratio of men/women that when 1 man takes an additional wife, there is one man who will be left without a wife?

That is the gay guy maybe.

Rufus

I brought up that the ratio is actually 49/51. Meaning if 2% of women are in polygamous marriages, everyone is married! (wow...just what the numbers were for the LDS church in the late 19th century--about 2% practicing polygamy,and about 98% monogamous).

[fox_goku]

Polygamy does not equate to underage marriage.

Polygamy does not equate to a sexual deviation.

Polygamy does not equate to forced marriage.

Now, the practices of the FLDS appear equate to all of the above, but the practice of polygamy is merely incidental.

Is there a rational position against the practice of polygamy?

or rather, since it seems many missed the point of the question:

Is there a rational position for being against the practice of polygamy?

First of all, I am a big Skinner fan. That aside, I disagree with your evolutionary psychology.

Polygamy (polygyny) provides an external contingency for underage marriage. Women are placed at a premium. Some men do not get mates. Competition is high. In order to find a mate, the age of marriage for females starts to lower, and the age of marriage for males starts to increase. It is pure economics.

Polygamy does not necessarily promote deviation, except that it promotes fraternal interest groups. There are two kinds. Group #1 consists of the male hierarchy that controls all marrages. Group #2 are the single males trying to find mates and who might resort to extremes.

Is there a rational criticism against polygamy. I think YES. Its promotion in society creates economic burdens. Children are neglected by fathers. Women produce few children because they see their husbands less than in monogamy. Older wives tend to be ignored. Because the sex ratio is 50:50, some men will never find mates unless they marry younger and younger women. For every extra wife a man takes, some reproductive-aged man is left out. (Please note that the FLDS release boys from their society into ours).

I probably could generate a much longer list.

[No Touch]

Do you believe it only applies to a "she" ... in marriage both "he" and "she" are joined.

Paul could certainly have written this in a more gender neutral way if he did not intend for it to be gender specific.

And as to the whole 50/50 argument against polygamy I think it is somewhat shortsighted:

#1 - It assumes all men are worthy to become husbands, when such is clearly untrue.

#2 - I would argue (and you may dispute it) that the position of priviledge afforded men in our society provides them with greater opportunities and temptations to abuse and become unworthy.

#3 - Just look in your wards. How many of you can honestly say that you have more active and devout single men than women? How often do you go to sessions at the Temple where women DON'T outnumber men?

#4 - all faithful worthy sisters deserve to be able to find a worthy priesthood bearer as husband. And in this, there is not a 1-1 ratio.

[JarMan]

Polygamy (polygyny) provides an external contingency for underage marriage. Women are placed at a premium. Some men do not get mates. Competition is high. In order to find a mate, the age of marriage for females starts to lower, and the age of marriage for males starts to increase. It is pure economics.

I agree with this. I used to be of the same opinion as the OP, but this one issue changed my mind a little bit. However, in societies where there is a shortage of men, I don't think we would necessarily see this problem.

Polygamy does not necessarily promote deviation, except that it promotes fraternal interest groups. There are two kinds. Group #1 consists of the male hierarchy that controls all marrages. Group #2 are the single males trying to find mates and who might resort to extremes.

Is there a rational criticism against polygamy. I think YES. Its promotion in society creates economic burdens.

Single parent families are MUCH more likely to suffer economically than large families.

Children are neglected by fathers.

In my experience, very large families see much less neglect.

Women produce few children because they see their husbands less than in monogamy.

I'm not sure how you reach this conclusion. Polygamous wives seem to produce more children.

Older wives tend to be ignored.

Sadly this seems to happen in many marriages, anyways.

Because the sex ratio is 50:50, some men will never find mates unless they marry younger and younger women. For every extra wife a man takes, some reproductive-aged man is left out. (Please note that the FLDS release boys from their society into ours).

Yes, as you pointed out before, it IS pure economics.

[Calm]

Single parent families are MUCH more likely to suffer economically than large families.

One way to demonstrate this is to check bankruptcy rates. Several years ago I was examining Utah's and it was obvious that single parent families were much more highly represented in the bankruptcy group than large families (IIRC, in fact the average family size was a little under 3 members with the range going from 0 to 11 children). Divorce was listed as one of the major contributors to bankruptcy as well, IIRC.