Was Joseph Smith A Polygamist?

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Bowman:

Regardless of what JS did according to the Bible God did give David the WIVES of Saul, and promised MORE.

[blackstrap]

I find it fascinating to see polygamy,whether commanded by God or simply tolerated as a custom at the time,to be such an abomination,whereas the direct COMMANDMENT by God for Israel to utterly destroy men,women,children and cats is to be honored and accepted fully .My,what compartmentalization.

As for the poll. With all due respect to blueadept,"is the Pope Catholic"

Edited April 6, 2012 by blackstrap

[blueadept]

I love the way this topic divides LDS and non-LDS.

LDS would like for the world to accept that Joseph Smith was a prophet and he was simply following a commandment of the Lord but admit that polygamy isn't necessarily a subject that brings people closer to Christ.

Amazing.

[Buzzard]

Buzzard,

You wrote:

Do you? If you don't, is your argument merely ad hominem, or do you actually accept what 2 Samuel 12 says?

I agree completely with the 8th Article of Faith. Except for the introduced errors of men, the Bible is the word of God.

You wrote:

In David's culture polygamy was the norm, one that God tolerated (and in the Torah, regulated) but did not approve. The Torah warned that Israel's kings should not take multiple wives (Deut. 17:17), but Saul, David, and Solomon ignored this warning. When Saul died and was succeeded by David, David came into possession of Saul's estate including his harem, as was customary in that culture. It was in this context that God "gave" Saul's wives to David -- meaning that in the sovereignty of God this is what happened, not that God approved of David practicing polygamy. David's family troubles with Amnon, Tamar, and Absalom would seem to illustrate the predictable kinds of trouble that can come from polygamy.

So you agree with the Book of Mormon then? God can command plural marriage, and God can command no plural marriage. Nice to have you aboard...

Though I agree that plural marriage is a hard commandment to live, human nature being what it is and all.

[Buzzard]

I love the way this topic divides LDS and non-LDS.

LDS would like for the world to accept that Joseph Smith was a prophet and he was simply following a commandment of the Lord but admit that polygamy isn't necessarily a subject that brings people closer to Christ.

Amazing.

Well, a faithful LDS would say that Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, and other church leaders who followed the commandment were much closer to Christ than any of us. I am grateful that the good Lord hasn't asked me to live this commandment right now, one lovely spouse is both enough blessings and enough.... well, she's enough for me.

[blueadept]

Well, a faithful LDS would say that Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, and other church leaders who followed the commandment were much closer to Christ than any of us. I am grateful that the good Lord hasn't asked me to live this commandment right now, one lovely spouse is both enough blessings and enough.... well, she's enough for me.

The more I study the lives of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, the quicker I run from Mormonism and it really has nothing to do with the BoM which the jury is still out as far as a verdict.  That's just where I'm at.  I believe the Catholic Saints have been the closest humans to be near Christ.  Especially the 'Incorruptible Saints'.  In studying them, I feel closer to Christ.  When LDS gets an incorruptible saint, I'll reconsider. Edited April 6, 2012 by blueadept

[thesometimesaint]

blueadpt:

Ain't gonna happen. There was only one perfect man on this planet, and none of us is him.

[blueadept]

Do you know what an 'incorruptible saint' is?  Obviously not. There's no reason the LDS faithful could have one since you all try to live a virtuous life IMO.

Edited April 6, 2012 by blueadept

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.lifeinitaly.com/religion/incorruptibles.asp

While there undoubtably other people who have been Resurrected. Jesus is the only one we have any knowledge of.

[Rob Bowman]

Buzzard,

You wrote:

So you agree with the Book of Mormon then? God can command plural marriage, and God can command no plural marriage. Nice to have you aboard...

Huh? No. At no time in the Bible does God ever command plural marriage.

[Alan]

It has been suggested that I was shifting the "blame" for polygamy to Brigham, but I have not mentioned Bro. Brigham at all. I am not doubting that D&C 132 is revelation etc, all I am saying is that Joseph did not fully comply. He was sealed to women but not married to them. There is not one reliable bit of evidence that Joseph lived with or had marital relations with anyone other than Emma. All of the woman (faithful saints all) who have said that they had his chilfren have been proved wrong through DNA examination..... every one of them! This is extraordinary. Whether we are talking about 30 wives or 50, the law of averages tells us that Joseph would have fathered children. These women were fertile given that they had children, Joseph certainly had no difficulty fathering children as evidenced by Emma's regular pregnancies, so in my view the claim that he practiced polygamy has no creedance whatever.

Someone stated that JSIII learned the truth when he came to Utah. This is incorrect as he remained of the opinion that his father was not a polygamist all his life. David Smith was convinced by his Utah experience for a time, but seems to have changed his mind later, probably because in the final analysis he believed his mother.

We must understand that the pro and anti polygamy lobbies were very polarised at the time. The Utah church had to produce evidence polygamy was of Joseph, the RLDS were almost as zealous in the other direction. However, it seems pretty obvious to me that the pro lobby were, perhaps, a little too zealous and that a number of the testimonies are profoundly suspect at best.

In these circumstances we must therefore go to Joseph's testimony. He said he wasn't involved and, for me, that is the last word on the subject.

What occured in Utah is a different story.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Bowman:

Irelevent.

[Buzzard]

Buzzard,

You wrote:

Huh? No. At no time in the Bible does God ever command plural marriage.

So, all those OT prophets decided to have multiple wives and God just went along with their preferences? The scriptural reference is very clear that many of Gods annointed prophets had multiple wives and they were blessed by and for it. I, for one, would love to have the relationship with God that Abraham had.

[why me]

why me,

You wrote:

The question calls for speculation. I don't give the story of the angel threatening Joseph with a sword any credence (sorry, some angel stories are simply less credible than others). There were at least two women (Lucinda Harris and Louisa Beaman) taken in plural marriage between Alger and the steady stream of women taken from Dec. 1841 to Nov. 1843. Whether Joseph was in a hurry or out of control during those two years is an interesting question, but neither explanation justifies the practice.

Louisa Beaman was married to Joseph in 1841. And lucinda's date of marriage is uncertain. The sword is used in the bible quite often whether figuratively or literally. The practice of polygamy would be justified if it came from god. And the hurry in marrying most of the women does show signs of a man in a hurry to accomplish a task that he felt he had to do. I don't think that it was his libido speaking. Also, if joseph was sex crazed, it would have shown in his daily life and not with a several year interval between fanny and the host of other women he married in the two year period. A roving eye would be doing a lot of roving during the years after fanny.

Edited April 7, 2012 by why me

[why me]

It has been suggested that I was shifting the "blame" for polygamy to Brigham, but I have not mentioned Bro. Brigham at all. I am not doubting that D&C 132 is revelation etc, all I am saying is that Joseph did not fully comply. He was sealed to women but not married to them.

I think that you are mistaken. He was sealed and married to women. He was a polygamist. But the marriages took place during a two year period from 1841 to 1843. There is an interesting discussion at the moment about Joseph polygamy. A woman is researching his wives and his writing a blog on the feministmormonhousewives site. You should read it.

http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/?p=8891#more-8891

Edited April 6, 2012 by why me

[blackstrap]

To blueadept, you see a divide amoung the people on this thread. Notice that the vote is 44 to 2 in favor of Joseph being a polygamist. If one were to concede that he was sealed spiritually to women and that such might be a "marriage " but not in the full sense of the word,then the divide is even more one sided.

[Calm]

In these circumstances we must therefore go to Joseph's testimony. He said he wasn't involved and, for me, that is the last word on the subject.

What occured in Utah is a different story.

Thank you for responding.

[Stargazer]

I would be interested in sources that lead you to this conclusion. I did however think there was supposed to be peace during the millennium.

Ha ha. What leads me to this conclusion? Nothing at all. I'm just blue-skying.

[Stargazer]

In David's culture polygamy was the norm, one that God tolerated (and in the Torah, regulated) but did not approve. The Torah warned that Israel's kings should not take multiple wives (Deut. 17:17), but Saul, David, and Solomon ignored this warning. When Saul died and was succeeded by David, David came into possession of Saul's estate including his harem, as was customary in that culture. It was in this context that God "gave" Saul's wives to David -- meaning that in the sovereignty of God this is what happened, not that God approved of David practicing polygamy. David's family troubles with Amnon, Tamar, and Absalom would seem to illustrate the predictable kinds of trouble that can come from polygamy.

Hi Rob,

You were responding to Buzzard, but I must address what you've written here.

I'm not trying to be personally unpleasant in saying this, but it really looks like you've appointed yourself "Reader of God's Mind". When you say that polygamy was a normative cultural practice, I believe you are correct, but when you add that this practice was "...one that God tolerated but did not approve", I guess I have to ask you to prove it.

I haven't memorized the OT, but in all my reading and study I do not recall ever reading one negative utterance that can be attributed to God in respect of polygamy, as a principle. The only way you can back up your assertion that God was merely "tolerating" polygamy is to somehow be able to read God's mind. Can you do this? I don't happen to remember if you are a fan of sola scriptura, and of course I myself am not, but in sola scriptura I don't think you're allowed to read God's mind, because God's mind is expressed in the scriptures, and that's the only place you're allowed to read it. I suppose that it wouldn't be too much out of line if one were to lightly interpret what the scriptures do say, but if they don't say anything about a particular thing, well...

You said in another post that God did not command polygamy in the Law, and as far as I can tell that is true. But the fact that God gave regulations for its practice does not indicate disapproval, because He gave regulations for a whole lot of things, including when a man was allowed to have sexual relations with his wife, and I would have to say that he did more than tolerate that, he commanded it. You know, be fruitful and multiply?

As I say, God was not shy in regulating sexual conduct. He laid out very strictly with whom you could and couldn't have sex with; he laid out when you could and couldn't do it, too. Are you going to claim that God was shy only in respect of whether or not you could take a second wife while still married to your first one, because it was so important culturally that He just couldn't bring himself to forbid it, but was merely tolerating it? Why couldn't God then also tolerate a man marrying a woman and her mother, too -- clearly, if he had to forbid that, then it couldn't have been an unknown practice, could it? Are you saying that that wasn't a culturally significant thing, so God was safe in forbidding it? But not safe in forbidding polygamy? And what is it about cooking a calf in its own mother's milk? God could safely forbid that, because that wasn't culturally significant? The Israelites didn't have that particular culinary practice, or they weren't very big on it, so it could be safely forbidden?

Is the entire Law of Moses made up of commanding the Israelites to do and not do everything that they already did or didn't do, culturally? What was so special about polygamy that it got a free pass? The only abhorrent practice in the Bible that God couldn't bring Himself to forbid, but gritted His teeth and, tolerated.

As I say, to say what you said, you have to be able to read God's mind. And I doubt very much that you can.

And please don't try to argue with us that the troubles David had with his wives proves that polygamy is not advisable. I don't think there's a one of us male posters (LDS or not) who would argue much with you over that. It's irrelevant, though.

[blueadept]

To blueadept, you see a divide amoung the people on this thread. Notice that the vote is 44 to 2 in favor of Joseph being a polygamist. If one were to concede that he was sealed spiritually to women and that such might be a "marriage " but not in the full sense of the word,then the divide is even more one sided.

JS being a polygamist has nothing to do with the divide between Members and non-members. We obviously agree but this subject makes me run from your faith since it doesn't bring me closer to Christ thus the divide.

[why me]

JS being a polygamist has nothing to do with the divide between Members and non-members. We obviously agree but this subject makes me run from your faith since it doesn't bring me closer to Christ thus the divide.

Actually, it has much to do with the internet and the amount of interpretations of it out there. I remember in US history class studying about the mormons, and how they practiced polygamy, in the 1970's in high school. No one really cared about the issue at all. It wasn't that controversial---just something unique to mormonism for us in the 1970's studying US history. But with the internet and the sex angle with so-called over-sexed men marrying women for sex and for no other reasons is one possible factor for your feelings.

[Stargazer]

JS being a polygamist has nothing to do with the divide between Members and non-members. We obviously agree but this subject makes me run from your faith since it doesn't bring me closer to Christ thus the divide.

The problem with the idea of polygamy making you run from our faith, is puzzling. Do you suspect that shortly after your baptism you will be asked to marry a second wife? I know you don't even have one wife at the moment, but just bear with me. I assure you that the chances are excellent that polygamy isn't coming back. Does this make it better?

Are you concerned that merely being a member of a church that once practiced polygamy is going to drive you further away from Christ? I assure you that there are lots of people who have joined the LDS church and who claim that they feel they are now closer to Christ than they have ever been before. Your mileage of course may differ, but somehow I doubt it.

In my ward several years ago there was an elderly sister who was a member of the Church. She was completelly inactive, having had some bad experiences with a previous bishop (in another ward somewhere else). Her husband was likewise inactive.. Having been previously Catholic, she finally came to the conclusion that the reason she was not happy in the LDS church was because her parents had been Catholics all their lives until they died, and she felt that she had their posthumous disapproval of her LDS membership -- I don't remember if they had been alive when she joined the church or not. This conclusion led to her sending a letter to our ward bishop, requesting her name be removed from the church records. I was the ward clerk at the time, and although the bishop kept such matters confidential, I was aware what was happening, though not all the details (that came later). In short order, she was no longer a member, and she returned to activity in the local Catholic congregation. Oddly enough, her reactivating as a Catholic caused her husband to reactivate as a Mormon, and he started attending church again. A very nice old gentleman with Parkinson's, who was a joy to be around. So there we were.

A year or so after this she suddenly turned up with her husband in our ward LDS Church again. Her return to Catholicism had not proven fruitful, after all, it turned out. Apparently she had not experienced the feelings that she was expecting -- she specifically reported in testimony meeting that as try as she might, she simply did not find a feeling of closeness to God or to Christ in her RCC congregation, and while she had tried her best, she finally realized that it wasn't going to work. In testimony meeting she told us that as a name-removed member she had to wait at least a year before being rebaptized, but she was going to do it. She said she had prayed long and hard about returning, and believed that the Lord was leading her back.

To cut to the chase, she remained active for the required year, was rebaptized, and a year later was sealed to her husband in the Seattle Temple. She bore strong testimony almost monthly in testimony meeting about the great closeness to Christ that she continued to feel in the LDS church. Both she and her husband became active member-missionaries, and were responsible for leading several others into the Church. They moved out of the ward a few years ago, but the last I heard they were still TBMs, going strong.

Here's the thing: whether you like or dislike polygamy is not important, unless you use it as a prop to keep God from leading you into doing His will. The only important thing is in fact whether you're doing God's will. There is nothing in the Bible (Rob Bowman's mind-reading notwithstanding) that puts anything other than a stamp of approval on polygamy. Are you going to argue with God on the subject? If you are going to argue with God on any subject, then I don't think you will ever achieve the fullness of Christ. I'm not saying that you won't feel close to Christ, but I am saying that you will be denied a fullness, because you reject God's will. There are lots of LDS who can't bear polygamy, either, and the same applies to them. Again, in my humble opinion.

The ultimate thing is, if God wants you to stay a Catholic, then you need to stay. There's a lot of good you can do in the Catholic Church -- I know you don't need ME to tell you that, but I'm telling you that I am aware of this, too. But there's a lot more good you can do in the LDS Church, in my humble opinion. I know that you don't believe this, now. But if God wants you join the LDS Church, then you better find that out -- and putting up a condition that you don't like polygamy is not being humble enough. Because God's stamp of approval of it is in the scriptures. Notice that I am not hauling out Joseph Smith to beat you over the head with on this. I am hauling out God's law as expressed in the Old Testament -- and neither Jesus, Peter, Paul, John, James nor any of those other early Church leaders whom we all regard as authoritative ever contradicted that approval of polygamy.

[Teancum]

With respect to Joseph, however, I am satisfied he did as he was told by God. Did you read my article?

Hi Log

I have now read your article. Thank you for referring me to it. It has lots of detail and historical info. So, are you proposing that God introduced polygamy to defelcet persecution from the Church claiming direct and new revelation from God to the practice of polygamy? I will mull this over some before I determine what I think about it but initially this seems a stretch. I did read the paper very rapidly and on the PC screen. I need to print it out so I can highlight parts. That helps me retain and understand better.

[Rob Bowman]

Stargazer,

You wrote

I'm not trying to be personally unpleasant in saying this, but it really looks like you've appointed yourself "Reader of God's Mind". When you say that polygamy was a normative cultural practice, I believe you are correct, but when you add that this practice was "...one that God tolerated but did not approve", I guess I have to ask you to prove it.

An interesting beginning. You accuse me of appointing myself Reader of God's Mind, but what is your basis for this accusation? Did I claim to have special access to God's mind apart from the Bible? No. One could say that you seem to have appointed yourself Reader of Rob's Mind -- admittedly a far humbler claim than the one you falsely accuse me of making.

You wrote:

I haven't memorized the OT, but in all my reading and study I do not recall ever reading one negative utterance that can be attributed to God in respect of polygamy, as a principle. The only way you can back up your assertion that God was merely "tolerating" polygamy is to somehow be able to read God's mind. Can you do this?

Why are you limiting me to the OT? Your argument seems to be that if I claim that God doesn't approve of polygamy but I don't prove this from the OT then the only possibility left is that I am claiming to read God's mind. Did you forget that I am a Christian and accept both the OT and the NT as the word of God?

Besides, I have already cited one OT text that expresses disapproval of polygamy: Deuteronomy 17:17, which warns future kings of Israel not to take multiple wives. Why would God warn them against doing something of which he approved?

You seem to be rather double-minded on this question. Hence, at the end of your post you wrote:

And please don't try to argue with us that the troubles David had with his wives proves that polygamy is not advisable. I don't think there's a one of us male posters (LDS or not) who would argue much with you over that. It's irrelevant, though.

I fail to see how it is irrelevant that the OT narratives about men who practiced polygamy had troubles because of it. Abraham, David, and Solomon all were men who believed in the Lord but whose multiple wives caused no end of grief for them and their posterity. If the biblical narrative teaches by example that polygamy is "not advisable," how is that compatible with claiming that it is also something God approves? In the biblical value system divine commands and divine wisdom are harmonious and complementary ways of knowing right from wrong.

You wrote:

You said in another post that God did not command polygamy in the Law, and as far as I can tell that is true. But the fact that God gave regulations for its practice does not indicate disapproval, because He gave regulations for a whole lot of things, including when a man was allowed to have sexual relations with his wife, and I would have to say that he did more than tolerate that, he commanded it. You know, be fruitful and multiply?

That's ironic, because he gave that command to a monogamous couple, Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:26-28). Adam and Eve are the paradigm, the original model, of marriage, as Jesus himself argued (Matt. 19:4-6). That paradigm of marriage is monogamous: "For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh" (Gen. 2:24, quoted by Jesus in Matt. 19:5). In context Jesus is criticizing divorce, another practice that, according to Jesus, God tolerated in the Mosaic Law (Deut. 24:1-4) but did not approve (Matt. 19:7-9). It's interesting that the Pharisees whom Matthew says were trying to test Jesus (v. 3) were using the very same type of reasoning you are: if the Mosaic Law regulated a practice then God must approve of it (v. 7). Jesus refuted their assumption by explaining that the Mosaic Law included statutes to regulate the behavior of people with hard hearts (v. 8a). He then pointed to the paradigm of marriage "from the beginning" to correct their faulty view of marriage (v. 8b).

This is the approach I take to the subject of polygamy. I base my view on the whole Bible, not just the Mosaic Law or the narrative examples in the OT. I read those parts of the Bible in the light of the model of marriage given in the creation narrative, just as Jesus did. I also note that the NT teaches that monogamy is a Christian value right alongside such values as temperance, prudence, gentleness, and the like (1 Tim. 3:2). My view on polygamy, then, is not based on a claim to have some private access to God's mind, but to know what God has shared from his mind in his written word.

[Stargazer]

An interesting beginning. You accuse me of appointing myself Reader of God's Mind, but what is your basis for this accusation? Did I claim to have special access to God's mind apart from the Bible? No. One could say that you seem to have appointed yourself Reader of Rob's Mind -- admittedly a far humbler claim than the one you falsely accuse me of making.

I'd rather not read your mind, if you don't mind.

What I see is that you seem to be reading things into scripture that aren't there. This is, I posit, attempting to read God's mind. You may claim that you are not trying to read God's mind, and I certainly don't think that you think you can, literally, but when you assert that a scripture means something that the language of the scripture does not support, then the only way you could be correct is if you are either reading God's mind respecting the scripture, or you are a prophet, a la 2 Peter 1:20.

Why are you limiting me to the OT?

I'm not. Feel free to cite the NT any time you want.

Your argument seems to be that if I claim that God doesn't approve of polygamy but I don't prove this from the OT then the only possibility left is that I am claiming to read God's mind. Did you forget that I am a Christian and accept both the OT and the NT as the word of God?

Besides, I have already cited one OT text that expresses disapproval of polygamy: Deuteronomy 17:17, which warns future kings of Israel not to take multiple wives. Why would God warn them against doing something of which he approved?

I haven't forgotten that you're a Christian. Far from it. I am saying that God had sufficient opportunity to explicitly forbid polygamy, like he explicitly forbade other marriage types, but he did not do so. You say this was due to reluctant tolerance. I say that God forbade other things without a hint of concern, why not then polygamy?

You cite Deut. 17:17. Let's quote it:

"Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold."

Who's "he"? Oh, yes, this part of Deuteronomy is talking about the possible establishment of a king over Israel, and verses 14-20 gives the conditions under which a king should be set over the people. And it states that the king should be of Israel and not a foreigner, and shouldn't have lots of horses, nor lots of silver and gold, and he should read the scriptures and keep the commandments, and be humble. Go ahead, tell me again how this disapproves of polygamy? Oh, that's right, he shouldn't "multiply wives to himself". What if he already has more than one? Is he supposed to divorce all but one? And which one should he keep? Tough choice, I suppose.

No, Rob, this scripture only says that the King of Israel should not acquire excessive wives, nor should he acquire excessive horses, excessive gold or silver, and should be a humble man who reads and follows the scriptures. Nothing about one-man-one-woman. If you want to interpret the word "multiply" to mean that he should only have one wife, then this must mean that he should likewise have only one horse, one gold and one silver coin (or maybe one chest of gold and silver).

If we look at the NIV version of this verse is goes like this:

"He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold."

OK, how many is "many"? One is clearly not many, but is two "many"? Or "too many"? It doesn't say. The NIV has this to say about the horses: "...must not acquire great numbers of horses..." which still doesn't define what is a great number of horses. I realize that we're not really concerned about horses here, but the language of this entire part of Deuteronomy is dealing with excessiveness, not true multiplicity. I do believe that the concern for multiplying wives had more to do with entangling foreign alliances by way of the king acquiring foreign wives. Or at least some scholars have interpreted this as such.

In Clarke's Commentary on the Bible it is written:

"Neither shall he multiply wives - For this would necessarily lead to foreign alliances, and be the means of introducing the manners and customs of other nations, and their idolatry also. Solomon sinned against this precept, and brought ruin on himself and on the land by it;"

What I am saying is that the verse you cite does not support your contention. Its applicability is in any case to any eventual king that is put over Israel, and not for the general case of all male Israelites. To insist that it does is to make a private interpretation and wrests the scripture.

You seem to be rather double-minded on this question. Hence, at the end of your post you wrote:

And please don't try to argue with us that the troubles David had with his wives proves that polygamy is not advisable. I don't think there's a one of us male posters (LDS or not) who would argue much with you over that. It's irrelevant, though.

I fail to see how it is irrelevant that the OT narratives about men who practiced polygamy had troubles because of it. Abraham, David, and Solomon all were men who believed in the Lord but whose multiple wives caused no end of grief for them and their posterity. If the biblical narrative teaches by example that polygamy is "not advisable," how is that compatible with claiming that it is also something God approves? In the biblical value system divine commands and divine wisdom are harmonious and complementary ways of knowing right from wrong.

Were there men whose polygamous wives caused them difficulty? Of course. Was it the "polygamosity" of the marriages themselves the proximate source of the difficulty? Perhaps. But so what? There have been monogamous wives of many men who have caused them difficulty. This does not cast any negative pall upon monogamy, does it?

Again, you may be correct that it is a difficult thing to keep a polygamous household peaceful; I won't argue with that. It's hard enough to keep peace in a monogamous household. But to extend this difficulty to a disapproval by God of polygamy is a completely unwarranted extension. I keep saying that if God did not forbid polygamy, and He did not, then it is permitted. I don't know why you feel compelled to argue around this point, but for some reason you do. Oh, well.

You wrote:

You said in another post that God did not command polygamy in the Law, and as far as I can tell that is true. But the fact that God gave regulations for its practice does not indicate disapproval, because He gave regulations for a whole lot of things, including when a man was allowed to have sexual relations with his wife, and I would have to say that he did more than tolerate that, he commanded it. You know, be fruitful and multiply?

That's ironic, because he gave that command to a monogamous couple, Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:26-28). Adam and Eve are the paradigm, the original model, of marriage, as Jesus himself argued (Matt. 19:4-6). That paradigm of marriage is monogamous: "For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh" (Gen. 2:24, quoted by Jesus in Matt. 19:5). In context Jesus is criticizing divorce, another practice that, according to Jesus, God tolerated in the Mosaic Law (Deut. 24:1-4) but did not approve (Matt. 19:7-9). It's interesting that the Pharisees whom Matthew says were trying to test Jesus (v. 3) were using the very same type of reasoning you are: if the Mosaic Law regulated a practice then God must approve of it (v. 7). Jesus refuted their assumption by explaining that the Mosaic Law included statutes to regulate the behavior of people with hard hearts (v. 8a). He then pointed to the paradigm of marriage "from the beginning" to correct their faulty view of marriage (v. 8b).

Genesis 1 does not contain one word that backs up your argument. To say that God's giving of only one woman to Adam is the paradigm for marriage is an opinion. It is not doctrine. And what's more, it is a private interpretation. Feel free to use it in your personal life; it's not for you to pronounce your opinion as doctrine.

Gen. 2:24 does not preclude a man married to a second woman, to become one flesh with her. Yes, God tolerated divorce under the Mosaic Law, and did not approve of it. But this says absolutely nothing about polygamy. Can a man with two wives divorce one and keep the other? Yes. Should he? No. This is irrelevant to the point you are trying to prove.

Not a single one of the scriptures you have been citing in either Old or New Testament can be used successfully to back up your arguments against polygamy. I myself have facetiously used the argument of Christ's pronouncement "No man can serve two masters" to argue against polygamy. Your arguments so far hold no more water than that.

This is the approach I take to the subject of polygamy. I base my view on the whole Bible, not just the Mosaic Law or the narrative examples in the OT. I read those parts of the Bible in the light of the model of marriage given in the creation narrative, just as Jesus did. I also note that the NT teaches that monogamy is a Christian value right alongside such values as temperance, prudence, gentleness, and the like (1 Tim. 3:2). My view on polygamy, then, is not based on a claim to have some private access to God's mind, but to know what God has shared from his mind in his written word.

OK, let's quote 1 Tim. 3:2:

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

This is what I mean about reading into scripture what is not there. At most, this verse establishes that a bishop must be married; you can argue that the marriage must not be a plural marriage, if you wish. I won't fight with you over it, although I will say that a man who has two wives also has one. The word "only" does not occur in this verse. But establishing the qualifications of a bishop is not establishing the rule of marriage for the church.

I think it is admirable that you want to base your views on the whole Bible; that is the correct approach in all things pertaining to the Gospel. But all you have done here is to take verses out of context and make unwarranted and illogical extensions of the plain word of scripture into something that agrees with your private interpretation. This is your privilege, but you should not come here and try to promulgate your private interpretation as the Gospel.

All of practically everything you come here to say can be summed up in one statement: "Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God, but was an imposter, and at best, he was self-deluded to believe he was a prophet." I am sure you will agree with this. But even if you are correct in your assessment, this still does not establish that polygamy is against the commands of God. You certainly haven't establish your claims to this effect to MY satisfaction at least.