1 Corinthians 7:2

[Trapper]

Well, since polygamy was not practiced in that day (Roman times), then we can say with a great deal of certainty that this scripture does not reference polygamy in any way, shape or form. We must take it at face value.

Even so, we have to remember what context polygamy enters into the discussion. If only on this verse, we can end it here. There is nothing in the New Testament writings that addresses polygamy at all one way or the other. Jacob 2 simply reminds us that the normal state of affairs within the Kingdom is that wives are to be taken only by divine command when it is necessary to raising up seed. In Utah, we can look back and see how the Lord opened up a steady stream of strong, valiant and righteous souls through that institution; however, we can't forget that it is only a temporary measure. Perhaps, as the Lord begins sweeping the nation and thinning out the ranks, the practice may need to be resumed to replenish the Earth.

But you won't find any of this addressed in the New Testament. And even if plural marriage had been addressed in ancient writ, it wouldn't have meant anything today. As long as new revelation can supplant earlier revelation and new guidance can replace old, it really doesn't matter.

It would appear to me that Jacob 2:23-28 is a greater prohibition of polygamy. How do LDS reconcile those teachings?

[nathansoz]

It seems to me like this topic has gotten way off track. This topic was not to establish the ligitamacy or illigitamacy of polygamy, but rather to discuss whether 1 Corinthians 7:2 is a rebuke of polygamy and can be applied as such. Lets not accuse others of being supportive or unsupportive of polygamy by their opinions on this topic. For example. I recognize that polygamy was practiced in the bible. I do not believe that God is calling Christians or LDS to practice it now. However, I do not believe this verse should be used as one agains polygamy, because it is a stretch. How can we know Paul even had that in mind when he was writing it, because it was not a common issue. So I disagree with polygamy, but also disagree with how this verse is used. Lets stay on topic

[Flyonthewall]

It would appear to me that Jacob 2:23-28 is a greater prohibition of polygamy. How do LDS reconcile those teachings?

Verse 30.

Missed it by THAT much!

[Notquitewetyet]

Polygamy is a bit off topic here. I am amazed at the backing it is getting here. Do you still believe in it? You have to know by common sense that it is wrong. Marriage is a Sacrament between a man and women. You can look into your heart and soul and be ok with it? Is it just because it is illegal in America that your church still does not practice it?

Bull. Plural Marriage is a sacred principle, and it is one of the greatest principles ever introduced by God to the earth. There are few practices which require a man to be more conscious of his walk toward God and men than living the principle of a plurality of wives. By common sense? I know by common sense that covering up crimes such as child molestation is wrong, and then giving such a man who transfers offenders a position as cardinal in Rome to get him out of America. I bet you don't want to go there. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints still practices plural marriage, I think one of the Apostles currently has plural wives. Of course, not in mortality.

Marriage is a Sacrament between a man and women.

I'm willing to bet this was a typo. I'd laugh if it were a Freudian slip.

[johnny]

Notquitewetyet

Bull. Plural Marriage is a sacred principle, and it is one of the greatest principles ever introduced by God to the earth.

Why didn't Jesus and his apostles describe the laws of plural marriage like Mormon scripture, if Plural Marriage is one of the greatest principles ever introduced by God to the earth?

[Notquitewetyet]

Notquitewetyet

Why didn't Jesus and his apostles describe the laws of plural marriage like Mormon scripture, if Plural Marriage is one of the greatest principles ever introduced by God to the earth?

How do you know He didn't? I believe Jesus Christ himself was a "polygamist." The scriptures don't deny it, and any man can't say that the Lord didn't.

[johnny]

Notquitewetyet

How do you know He didn't? I believe Jesus Christ himself was a "polygamist." The scriptures don't deny it, and any man can't say that the Lord didn't.

I believe if Jesus Christ was a "polygamist" then there would of been some evidence or continued practice of it in the writings of the early Christians especially if "Plural Marriage is one of the greatest principles ever introduced by God to the earth" like you have said.

[Notquitewetyet]

Notquitewetyet

I believe if Jesus Christ was a "polygamist" then there would of been some evidence or continued practice of it in the writings of the early Christians especially if "Plural Marriage is one of the greatest principles ever introduced by God to the earth" like you have said.

Perhaps only Christ was required to practice plural marriage in His dispensation? After all, if Irenaeus, so soon after Jesus, believed that the Lord was a heavy set 60 year old man who owned a house in Jerusalem, while others disagreed, how much can you really say about what the proto-orthodox camp knew concerning the Savior, the same people that became the Orthodox Church from which the Catholic Church broke away?

[johnny]

Notquitewetyet

Perhaps only Christ was required to practice plural marriage in His dispensation?

Would the apostles of Jesus have known about all these wives Christ had?

If is such a great principle why would only Christ be required to practice plural marriage?

[Notquitewetyet]

Notquitewetyet

Would the apostles of Jesus have known about all these wives Christ had?

If is such a great principle why would only Christ be required to practice plural marriage?

Look, we know Christ had married disciples. We also know Christ was a Jew. We know Jews, in the first century, did practice polygamy. We also know that some of the early witnesses knew little about Christ's actual life (witness Irenaeus, I guess that part just didn't happen to show up on your screen). We know that Christ had an odd relationship with Mary, Martha, (them going to him to intervene in a domestic squabble and the fact that they lived with their brother, whom Christ loved and wept over) and Mary Magdalen (touch me not, she was their in the garden weeping over his body). So, I defy all hell to show that Christ wasn't involved in plural marriage.

[johnny]

Notquitewetyet

So, I defy all hell to show that Christ wasn't involved in plural marriage.

It seems odd to me that this great principle wasn't more known ...

[Notquitewetyet]

Notquitewetyet

It seems odd to me that this great principle wasn't more known ...

Johnny--- I've put a lot more substance than the one phrases you keep quoting, and I've brought up points of consideration, and yet you still take out the one point, and ask the same question again and again. You're not showing a real interest in discussing this point. From other posts you've made you seem like you know a lot. It's time for me to pick up my pearls, put the pigs into the pin for the night, and turn in. Good night. I will ask you this though: Christ, if I recall correctly, is said to have established all of the Seven Sacraments which Catholics and Orthodox adhere to. How could Christ establish a sacrament of which He did not partake?

[MormonMason]

...

The above is very clear on this. Justin Martyr (c.160) rebukes the Jews for allowing polygamy: is this not pre-Apostacy according to the LDS faith?

...

No. The apostasy was already well underway while the apostles were alive. When they died and John disappeared without a trace, causing people to assume that he also had died, there was no longer direction from the apostles and the Church no longer had direction from any but her local leaders, who directed the people in their areas however they chose for quite some time.

The sacred writings were corrupted and rewritten in part, and even the writings of the earliest fathers of the Church were corrupted and rewritten in several rescensions and translations that masked their actual teachings in places.

If you don't believe that the writings of the earliest Fathers were corrupted, see Ignatius and the writings in the three differing formats, see the writings of Irenaeus where he accuses others of attempting to corrupt his own writings, and the Letter of Jerome to Avitus regarding substantial modifications of the writings of Origen by Rufinus in Latin translation.

Then, take 45 of the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament and compare them line by line. You eyes will be opened. I guarantee it.

[johnny]

Notquitewetyet

Johnny--- I've put a lot more substance than the one phrases you keep quoting, and I've brought up points of consideration, and yet you still take out the one point, and ask the same question again and again. You're not showing a real interest in discussing this point.

I am trying stay close to the topic of this thread, the other points you have brought up I believe would take us off-topic. I am asking the same question because I am interested in understanding how a Mormon views that Jesus was a "polygamist".

I will ask you this though: Christ, if I recall correctly, is said to have established all of the Seven Sacraments which Catholics and Orthodox adhere to.

Has the great principle of polygamy been from the beginning?

Was Adam a "polygamist?

In the beginning was it a man shall be joined unto wives or was it a man shall be joined unto his wife (Eph 5:31)

How could Christ establish a sacrament of which He did not partake?

It is not necessary to partake of all seven sacraments.

[johnny]

MormonMason

The sacred writings were corrupted and rewritten in part, and even the writings of the earliest fathers of the Church were corrupted and rewritten in several rescensions and translations that masked their actual teachings in places.

Is the following quote from Irenaeus corrupt?

If it is please provide some evidence that supports that ... thanks.

• Irenaeus "Others, again, following upon Basilides and Carpocrates, have introduced promiscuous intercourse and a plurality of wives, and are indifferent about eating meats sacrificed to idols, maintaining that God does not greatly regard such matters. But why continue? For it is an impracticable attempt to mention all those who, in one way or another, have fallen away from the truth." Against Heresies (Book I, Chapter 28)
  

[Zakuska]

Was Adam a "polygamist?

Yes... Adams first wifes name was Liluth.

[Richard]

No. The apostasy was already well underway while the apostles were alive. When they died and John disappeared without a trace, causing people to assume that he also had died, there was no longer direction from the apostles and the Church no longer had direction from any but her local leaders, who directed the people in their areas however they chose for quite some time.

The sacred writings were corrupted and rewritten in part, and even the writings of the earliest fathers of the Church were corrupted and rewritten in several rescensions and translations that masked their actual teachings in places.

If you don't believe that the writings of the earliest Fathers were corrupted, see Ignatius and the writings in the three differing formats, see the writings of Irenaeus where he accuses others of attempting to corrupt his own writings, and the Letter of Jerome to Avitus regarding substantial modifications of the writings of Origen by Rufinus in Latin translation.

Then, take 45 of the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament and compare them line by line. You eyes will be opened. I guarantee it.

Letâ??s go straight to the source: Letâ??s stick with Jesus and His own words in the Scriptures handed down by the Apostolic Church. We have had corrupted souls in our Church. But the Holy Spirit is much larger than any of them, it is the Holy Spirit that has protected Sacred Doctrine, the deposit of faith once delivered. It was the Great Promise from Jesus Himself. It is a Miracle of our Faith.

Point me to a Parable you find corrupted. We can move out from there.

http://utahmission.com/pages/Parables.html

Or if you like point me to one mistake you have found in the ten commandments or the The Eight Beatitudes. I will give you the Catholic translation, not my own.

In Christ

Rich

[johnny]

Zakuska

Yes... Adams first wifes name was Liluth.

In the beginning it was two a man and a wife, it was not wives (Eph 5:31). The New Testament tells us to avoid fornication by having a wife, the New Testament does not say wives (1Cor 7:2). Wives is not a great principal because it can lead to fornication and other sins, it can lead to to an orgy of three or more in bed together. Fornication is a work of the flesh.

[LDSMusic483]

Zakuska

In the beginning it was two a man and a wife, it was not wives (Eph 5:31). The New Testament tells us to avoid fornication by having a wife, the New Testament does not say wives (1Cor 7:2). Wives is not a great principal because it can lead to fornication and other sins, it can lead to to an orgy of three or more in bed together. Fornication is a work of the flesh.

Johnny,you're answering the question without knowing it. Knowing that fornication and adultery are used as separate terms the majority of the time, and I would consider this one of them, what Paul is saying is so you don't commit fornication, be married. You can't commit fornication with someone to whom you are married. It could also be pointed out that earlier in his letter to the Corinthians, he mentions the type of fornication he is talking about, namely, incest (see 1 Cor 5:1). Like I said before, I'm not saying that polygamy was practised or condoned at that time, but this scripture does not point to it.

[Zakuska]

Zakuska

In the beginning it was two a man and a wife, it was not wives (Eph 5:31). The New Testament tells us to avoid fornication by having a wife, the New Testament does not say wives (1Cor 7:2). Wives is not a great principal because it can lead to fornication and other sins, it can lead to to an orgy of three or more in bed together. Fornication is a work of the flesh.

What if you bible wasn't "In the beginning"?

[johnny]

LDSMusic483

Johnny,you're answering the question without knowing it. Knowing that fornication and adultery are used as separate terms the majority of the time, and I would consider this one of them, what Paul is saying is so you don't commit fornication, be married.

What Paul is saying is "wife", he is not saying "wives" like Mormon scriptures.

Like I said before, I'm not saying that polygamy was practised or condoned at that time, but this scripture does not point to it.

Like I said earlier it was "two" in the beginning, it was not an orgy of "wives".

[Notquitewetyet]

Like I said earlier it was "two" in the beginning, it was not an orgy of "wives".

Johnny, this is a slur. An outright slur. CFR that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, or for that matter any Mormon fundamentalists, Lorin C. Woolley, Joseph Musser, or John Y. Barlow, Rulon Allred, or heck, even Warren Jeffs taught or practiced an "orgy" of wives. Take it back Johnny. People could call your church a pedophile cult that protects abusers, but it was just bishops who made bad calls, and no one here is going to slur your faith in such a way. Don't slur ours if you expect decent treatment.

[johnny]

Notquitewetyet

Johnny, this is a slur. An outright slur. CFR that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, or for that matter any Mormon fundamentalists, Lorin C. Woolley, Joseph Musser, or John Y. Barlow, Rulon Allred, or heck, even Warren Jeffs taught or practiced an "orgy" of wives.

When did I say those folks taught or practiced an "orgy" of wives?

[Notquitewetyet]

Notquitewetyet

When did I say those folks taught or practiced an "orgy" of wives?

You implied it rather strongly. See your post above mine. If I said, the Bible doesn't teach pedophilia and protecting pedophiles, Jesus said it'd be better to have a millstone around their necks, you would have come out against me because it would have been an implied slur against the catholic church. And you would have done rightly so. You implied that people who teach a plurality of wives teach an "orgy of wives." I know no group within Mormonism that has ever taught an "orgy of wives." Not even the ones I disagree with.

[johnny]

Notquitewetyet

You implied it rather strongly.

Clearly I did not mention names ... Webster says an orgy is "an excessive sexual indulgence"