Was Joseph Smith A Polygamist?

[why me]

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.

if one investigates the polygamous life of Joseph Smith one will come across a man who was basically not comfortable with the practice. I think that this was part of his problem. We also see a man who tried to make some sense of polygamy and wasn't quite sure how to proceed. And then when one throws in the fact that he had a rather uncooperative wife...we can feel a little sorry for him, especially during the Nauvoo period. Does one obey the wife or does one obey god?

If Joseph was a sex-crazed maniac, we would see this behavior when he was NYC and when he was in Washington. And he certainly would have gone outside the confines of marriage. He wouldn't be able to help himself not doing so.

[Thinking]

And then when one throws in the fact that he had a rather uncooperative wife...we can feel a little sorry for him, especially during the Nauvoo period. Does one obey the wife or does one obey god?

Of course. Don't feel sorry for Emma. Her world wasn't turned upside down.

[Log]

I have an idea! Let's feel sorry for everyone! See how my sensitivity surpasses yours! Genuflect!

[why me]

Of course. Don't feel sorry for Emma. Her world wasn't turned upside down.

Of course I feel sorry for her. However, if she believed her husband to be a prophet (and she did) she should have understood. But she was human. When I think of emma, I see a women who had her own protestant upbringing and sensibilities. I am sure that it would have been difficult for any woman of that time. However, the women whom JS was sealed too also had their own protestant sensibilities. But the difference is: many prayed about the principle and received a confirmation that the principle was true. Emma could have done the same and if so, her world would not be turned too upside down.

[Rob Bowman]

Stargazer,

You wrote:

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

I'm guessing (and only guessing, since I can't read your mind and your statement is ambiguous as to its connotation) that your statement is meant as a sly insult. If it isn't, perhaps you could explain the point of this otherwise seemingly pointless statement.

You wrote:

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.

What you are in effect saying is that if I understand Scripture one way and you understand it another way, then you feel justified in concluding that I am claiming to be able to read God's mind. Pardon me if I don't find this a compelling criticism.

Regarding your previous reference to the OT (rather than the Bible as a whole) supposedly not supporting my position, I had asked why you were limiting me to the OT. You wrote:

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

Glad to hear it. Nevertheless, you wrote:

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?

God had sufficient opportunity to explicitly forbid slavery, like he explicitly forbade other things, but he did not do so. Why not?

Regarding Deuteronomy 17:16-17, a question that must be asked is whether having multiple wives is no different than having multiply horses or multiple units of silver and gold. I don't think this is a correct reading of the text. The Lord warns future kings of Israel about these things in somewhat different ways. Multiplying horses for himself is forbidden apparently because this would involve foreign alliances, something particularly to be avoided with Egypt (v. 16). The king is forbidden to "greatly increase silver and gold for himself," apparently because doing so would likely cause his heart to turn away from the Lord, although this is not explicit. It is explicit for multiplying wives for himself (v. 17a). Notice the potential problem is not that having more than one wife will cause family strife (although such is not excluded) but that having many wives will likely cause the king's heart to turn away from the Lord. Why would that be the case, if polygamy was a good thing? Having ten wives isn't really like having ten pounds of gold, is it? I think it is facile to argue that if the text forbids having two wives it forbids having two gold coins, or some such comparison. While I agree that the text is not a clear proof text that polygamy on any level is wrong, it does raise questions about the practice. Furthermore, on any reasonable reading it would appear to apply in the case of a man who takes thirty or more wives for himself, as both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did.

Regarding a man who has more than one wife, you asked:

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.

This question really comes up only in a culture in which polygamy is legal. If it is illegal, then all but the first marriage is a legal or valid marriage. If a man is legally married to more than one woman, and learns that polygamy is not approved by God, he is still responsible for the care of all his wives and must do the best that he can in that situation.

You wrote:

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, I don't think the issue is merely that having more than one wife leads to difficulties in the home, but that the Bible reveals through its narratives of polygamous households that polygamy is itself a problem. Reading the narratives concerning Abraham, David, and Solomon, the fact of multiple wives seems to me to be rather clearly shown to have led not just to household "difficulty" but to disastrous consequences felt for generations to come. I am not aware of any comparable evidence in biblical narratives concerning monogamous men.

You wrote:

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.

By this simplistic reasoning, slavery is permitted. Right?

Regarding my argument from Matthew 19 and Genesis 1-2, you wrote:

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.

The hermeneutical principle Jesus taught in Matthew 19 seems to have been completely lost on you. Please read my explanation again and focus on that hermeneutical issue, rather than looking at the texts in Genesis 1 and 2 for proof texts.

You wrote:

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.

This is a rather flat-footed reading of the text. Paul says that a bishop must be "a husband of one wife," with the emphasis on the word "one" which comes first in this clause (mias gunaikos andra, "of one wife a husband"). The word "one" is redundant if Paul meant only that the bishop must be married, and the position of the word in Greek (which has more flexible syntax than English) makes it emphatic. The point here is thus not that the man must be married rather than single, since to say this Paul would have simply written "a husband of a wife" (gunaikos andra or andra gunaikos), but that he must have one wife rather than more than one. Nearly all men in that culture were married (Paul was an exception, as he acknowledged in 1 Cor. 7).

You wrote:

But establishing the qualifications of a bishop is not establishing the rule of marriage for the church.

This is an exceptionally weak objection, since the "qualifications" are nothing more than expectations of a morally blameless, trustworthy individual. Read the whole description of the ideal candidate in 1 Timothy 3:2-7, and of deacons in 3:12-13 (which also contains this specific item of being the husband of one wife), and you should have no trouble seeing this clearly.

Your closing comments require no response, but I will respond to this one:

You certainly haven't establish your claims to this effect to MY satisfaction at least.

Nor have you established your claims to my satisfaction. That is hardly a viable standard.

[blueadept]

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.

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.

While I've been a Catholic my entire life, I'm also technically a 6th generation LDS on my father's side who isn't aware of any polygamist family history within those family ties dating back to the 1840's. While my present LDS generation ties seem to well represent LDS family values, I promise that my father's and grandfather's generation does not since all of them have been married and divorced multiple times. I have one great-uncle who is the winner with being married at least 18 times. But as I said, I'm not aware of any polygamous family ties.

That said, the issue comes down to how I feel about Joseph Smith's polygamous relationships. The issue doesn't bring me closer to Christ but neither does my LDS family history which I realize does not represent the typical family values IMHO. So hopefully this might explain 'why, The problem with the idea of polygamy making you run from our faith, is puzzling' but I still participate on such a forum. My father marrying my devoted Catholic Filipino mother in early 1960's didn't help my LDS family ties IMHO.

Edited April 9, 2012 by blueadept

[thesometimesaint]

While I have no desire to practice polygamy myself it doesn't keep me from Christ either. It wouldn't bother me IF Jesus was polygamous either. It really has no relevence to his being my Lord and Savior.

[blueadept]

While I have no desire to practice polygamy myself it doesn't keep me from Christ either.

As an LDS member, that's not a surprise. I believe for most non-LDS, it does IMO thus the divide.

[Buzzard]

As an LDS member, that's not a surprise. I believe for most non-LDS, it does IMO thus the divide.

Well, that brings up an interesting hypothetical. I wonder what Christians of all stripes would do if a parchament that could be reliably dated to the first century AD was found that referred to "Jesus of Nazareth and his wives, Mary and Martha".

I know, it's about a likely as a "Welcome to Zarahemla" stela being found in Southern Mexico. But it would, as the Good Book says, cause "no small stir".

Edited April 9, 2012 by Buzzard

[Stargazer]

Stargazer,

I'm guessing (and only guessing, since I can't read your mind and your statement is ambiguous as to its connotation) that your statement is meant as a sly insult. If it isn't, perhaps you could explain the point of this otherwise seemingly pointless statement.

My apologies. I did not set out to insult you. It was intended as a wry ironicism -- since I can't read minds any more than you can, and I would not care to violate your privacy even if I could. I should have put some kind of smiley in there so as to convey this.

The thing is, Rob -- and feel free to call me Mike if you wish -- I do not hold to some other peoples' apparent belief that I would get a better hearing if I start my discussions by insulting them. If we knew each other well enough, perhaps we could trade insults as a kind of hail-fellow-well-met ritual, but I don't think you and I have graduated to this level. Nor are we likely to.

But since I appear to have come off rather more negative than I intended, please forgive me for my excitability. I was quite simply astounded by the creativity of your eisegesis in this matter.

What you are in effect saying is that if I understand Scripture one way and you understand it another way, then you feel justified in concluding that I am claiming to be able to read God's mind. Pardon me if I don't find this a compelling criticism.

OK, you're pardoned.

Let me reassure you that I don't really think that you can read God's mind, nor that I think you think you can. I'd be willing to bet that you didn't really think that is what I meant. This just happens to be my possibly overly clever way of suggesting to you that you are reading out of the scriptures you have cited that which is not actually there in the plain language of them. The only way you could legitimately read out of a scripture what is not actually in it, would be if you happened to know through some means that God meant something by it that He either neglected by oversight to put there or that a subsequent translator or scribe had intentionally or inadvertantly left out (or put in).

As an example of what I mean, let's again consider that verse in Deuteronomy. That section of that chapter of Deuteronomy, verses 14 thru 20, state clearly that it is setting forth a regulation that pertains to an eventual King of Israel. You choose to "interpret" it as applying to everyone, which rather flies in the face of the clear language of the scripture. But OK, let's let it stand for a moment.

The fourth verse of Proverbs, chapter 34, states:

"It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink:"

Now, if this verse is to be taken in the same manner as you have taken Deuteronomy 17:17, where it says

"Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away;"

...then the person who so interprets the one as a general prohibition of "multiplying wives" must in all consistency interpret the other as a general prohibition against consuming alcoholic beverages. Do you drink socially, Rob? If so, then I have the sad duty to inform you that you are in violation of the scriptural admonition contained in Prov 31:4, as interpreted in light of Deut 17:17.

Now, Prov 31:4 does not actually say you can't have a nice glass of Burgundy with your evening meal. The clear language of the verse (and the verses around it), establish this scripture as an admonition, a piece of good advice, for a king. By the same token, and by the plain language of the scripture, Deut 17:17, admonishes that a king should not "multiply wives". This is a least part of the reason why I say that a person who takes Deuteronomy as a general prohibition against polygamy is reading into scripture what is plainly and simply not there.

And if it is nevertheless to be found there, despite it's absence in the plain language, the the finder must have had some esoteric way to establish this. E.g. perhaps he can read God's mind.

Regarding your previous reference to the OT (rather than the Bible as a whole) supposedly not supporting my position, I had asked why you were limiting me to the OT. You wrote:

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

Glad to hear it. Nevertheless, you wrote:

"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?"

God had sufficient opportunity to explicitly forbid slavery, like he explicitly forbade other things, but he did not do so. Why not?

I don't know, Rob. But the fact remains that He did not. And as much as I strongly dislike the practice of slavery, I must concede that God permitted it. I reluctantly concede this because He did not forbid it when He had the opportunity to do so, and even went so far as to regulate its practice. I am not letting my prejudice against it color my understanding of scripture.

Does God still permit slavery in these latter days? Apparently He does. Yet permitted or not, I am not rushing to find someone to enslave, and neither am I checking out the opportunities to take another wife.

Regarding Deuteronomy 17:16-17, a question that must be asked is whether having multiple wives is no different than having multiply horses or multiple units of silver and gold. I don't think this is a correct reading of the text.

You don't think that this is a correct reading? OK, but now we are down to negotiations over quantities. You say 2 is too many? Then I shall counter with 2 being the limit. Which of us is closer to the mind and will of God? I contend that I am, and this because the prophet Nathan gave the word of God to David that He had given all those wives to him, and if David had thought he had too few, God was willing to give him some more. David erred by taking that which God had not given him, namely the wife of Uriah the Hittite. This is the clear word of the scriptures. I'm going by the words I see printed in clear text, not my interpretation of those words colored by my sincere desire not to have any more wives than I already have.

It seems clear to me that God wanted to limit the number of wives, horses and wealth of Israeite kings. The text does not specify quantities in any of these items. That's all that can be read into it. As to quantities, there we have to be guided by clear evidence from other places in the scriptures. I am sure you will agree with me that particularly Solomon (as wise as he was) exceeded the bounds of, as it were, good taste. In all these items. But at which point did he exceed them? The scriptures are silent on this point.

The Lord warns future kings of Israel about these things in somewhat different ways. Multiplying horses for himself is forbidden apparently because this would involve foreign alliances, something particularly to be avoided with Egypt (v. 16).

No, no. Multiplying horses was forbidden because it might cause the people to saddle them up and head back to Egypt. Entangling alliances was Clarke's Commentary's speculation on the reason behind multiplying wives, which is an intriguing but not a compelling extrapolation.

The king is forbidden to "greatly increase silver and gold for himself," apparently because doing so would likely cause his heart to turn away from the Lord, although this is not explicit. It is explicit for multiplying wives for himself (v. 17a). Notice the potential problem is not that having more than one wife will cause family strife (although such is not excluded) but that having many wives will likely cause the king's heart to turn away from the Lord. Why would that be the case, if polygamy was a good thing?

The heart turning away was the problem with the wives, not the money. Apparently being Warren Buffet isn't necessarily a problem. I sure wouldn't object, anyway.

Rob, I appreciate your concern over the strife that having more than one wife might engender, but while persuasive from a practical point of view (and I won't argue with you over it), practicality isn't in question here. It's the will of God. And if we do not allow for a living prophet to tell us God's will, then we must rely upon the scriptures, and the scriptures alone. And all I have been saying is this: if the scriptures do not forbid a thing, and instead give us regulations we are expected to follow when doing that thing, then we MUST conclude that the thing is permitted.

Of course, unless God commands that it be done, there's no reason why we MUST.

Having ten wives isn't really like having ten pounds of gold, is it?

It's more like it's going to cost you ten pounds of gold. <grin>

I think it is facile to argue that if the text forbids having two wives it forbids having two gold coins, or some such comparison.

That's not what I'm arguing. Despite what it sounded like. But the language in Deut 17 is vague, whether it comes to wives, horses, or coins. One must resort to other scriptures to clarify the matter, and of course the other scriptures do not, I am sorry, support your contention that God forbids polygamy. I'm perfectly happy with the notion that God would prefer that the acquisition of wives be kept within reasonable bounds, but unfortunately those bounds are nowhere specified. At least not in the Bible, anyway. The only document I am familiar with that does specify such a bound is the Koran -- which says "four" is the limit. How nice. Since it turns out that I don't believe Mohammed was a prophet, that particular bound has no validity for me.

While I agree that the text is not a clear proof text that polygamy on any level is wrong, it does raise questions about the practice.

I agree.

Furthermore, on any reasonable reading it would appear to apply in the case of a man who takes thirty or more wives for himself, as both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did.

You're not going to like this, but first of all, neither Joseph nor Brigham were kings (despite what some wags would like to claim), and secondly, the specifications found in Deut 17 are part of the Mosaic Code, or Law of Moses, which Jesus fulfilled, and thus has no more currency.

Regarding a man who has more than one wife, you asked:

"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."

This question really comes up only in a culture in which polygamy is legal. If it is illegal, then all but the first marriage is a legal or valid marriage. If a man is legally married to more than one woman, and learns that polygamy is not approved by God, he is still responsible for the care of all his wives and must do the best that he can in that situation.

Agreed. If I am not mistaken, this is how a man who is legally married to more than one woman, in say, southern Africa, is supposed to handle it if he happens to join the LDS church.

You wrote:

"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, I don't think the issue is merely that having more than one wife leads to difficulties in the home, but that the Bible reveals through its narratives of polygamous households that polygamy is itself a problem.

Here we go again. The narratives in the Bible about drinking alcohol, acquiring money, and building warehouses all caution that moderation in these activities is a good thing, yet the same narratives do not forbid them.

Rob, from time to time I have thought that I perhaps had too many wives already (please don't tell my wife I said that), and yet the difficulties in my home that stem from that one wife do not convince me that I have too many. I have enough. Wisdom suggests strongly that I should do my best to get along with her, and cherish her, and love her. But just because we sometimes have difficulties in our interpersonal relationship does not compel me to imagine that getting a divorce is a good idea.

You keep reading things into the scriptures that are not there. I keep trying to tell you that this imputation is not exegesis, but eisegesis, and is a private interpretation. You are just not listening.

Reading the narratives concerning Abraham, David, and Solomon, the fact of multiple wives seems to me to be rather clearly shown to have led not just to household "difficulty" but to disastrous consequences felt for generations to come. I am not aware of any comparable evidence in biblical narratives concerning monogamous men.

Yet, had Jacob not had multiple wives, he would not have had 12 sons who became 12 tribes, Israel would not have become a great nation, and who knows what would have happened? You keep pointing out disasters. You pointedly ignore the successes. I realize that the bridge which collapses is front page news, while the one that bears its traffic without interruption gets no press, but you tell me: could Israel have succeeded at all if every multi-wife household were as chaotic as David's and Solomon's? I suppose it is possible that David's and Solomon's were typical, but I think that if you made a careful study of the OT you might be able to find a few polygamous families that worked out fine. Probably the majority were that way. The experience of the Mormons actually seems to bear this out, in reality. A few spectacular failures, with splashy publicity, and a vast majority of boring successes.

Tell you something: my wife and I produced 12 children altogether. They've all turned out pretty well; and we have 14 grandchildren thus far. I know a few other such large families in our ward (though we are stand-outs in sheer numbers), and all those (mostly now adult) children are by and large successful. Yet we have had some people (not LDS) tell us that it was irresponsible to have so many children, because there was no way we could possibly take adequate care of them all. Why would they say something like this? Perhaps because there have been some people with two or three children who let them run riot and turn into drug- and booze-addled basket-cases? Who gets more press? The abject failures or the quiet successes? You know the answer.

You wrote:

"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."

By this simplistic reasoning, slavery is permitted. Right?

Yes. See above.

Regarding my argument from Matthew 19 and Genesis 1-2, you wrote:

"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."

The hermeneutical principle Jesus taught in Matthew 19 seems to have been completely lost on you. Please read my explanation again and focus on that hermeneutical issue, rather than looking at the texts in Genesis 1 and 2 for proof texts.

It's 1:30 am. I have stayed up way too late tonight and I don't have the time to look up "hermeneutical" in order to figure out what on earth you are saying. I'm supposed to be at work at 8:00 am, and they'd like me to be able to think when I arrive, as opposed to falling asleep at my desk. And I will be quite busy after work tomorrow (attending a political meeting, would you believe?). I probably will not be able to revisit this until Wednesday. Maybe not even then, because I am also supposed to be putting together a real estate deal in my "spare" time. But I will try to address the remainder of your post as soon as I can.

Again, if I've said anything you've found offensive, I apologize. It wasn't my intent.

[J.R Hurley]

Joseph Smith undeniably practiced Polygamy It is futile to believe otherwise .

Accept it and move along ! Everything changes in time and so do our moral standards, this is just another change in those standards , Whas it wrong ? I seriously doubt it.

[Log]

Stargazer is in the right on this issue and Rob is in the wrong. The Bible does not condemn polygamy, neither does it condemn slavery, neither does it condemn alcohol consumption. Any negative positions on these issues are derived outside of the Bible.

Personally, I have thought to myself that Biblical slavery might actually be preferred to my student loan debt, from which there is no hope of freedom.

[Rob Bowman]

Mike,

Thanks for your post. I appreciate your explanation regarding your previous remark and am happy to consider that matter closed.

Regarding Deuteronomy 17:17, I agree that the text does not forbid all polygamy, but as you agreed, it does raise questions about the wisdom of the practice. Although the text is specifically directed at Israel's future kings, there is no reason to suppose that its application is limited to kings (any more than it would be limited, say, to Israelite kings as distinguished from British kings). If many wives are likely to lead a king's heart away from the Lord, I see no reason why many wives would not pose the same danger for other men. And while Brigham Young was not a king per se, he was the closest thing to one in Utah for many years. Biblical applications would come to a grinding halt if one refused to allow any flexibility in adapting what the Bible says to different cultures. In nations or lands that have no king but have other ruling governmental leaders, it makes sense to consider the applicability of texts such as Deuteronomy 17:17 to those rulers. Similarly, while I agree that the Mosaic covenant has been superseded by the new covenant in Christ, this does not mean the Mosaic Law teaches us nothing. I see no reason why multiple wives would be a problem under Moses but not a problem under Christ.

You wrote:

The fourth verse of Proverbs, chapter 34, states:

I see you have an expanded edition of Proverbs with some plain and precious things restored. Just kidding. You mean Proverbs 31:4. This is an interesting passage. King Lemuel's mother also told him not to give his strength to women (v. 3). This isn't a blanket prohibition against contact with any women (which would amount to forbidding him to get married) but rather a warning not to waste his energy cavorting with women. Likewise the warning in verse 4 is not telling the king never to have a glass of wine with his dinner but rather warning him not to get drunk. We know this is the meaning because the reason given is that intoxication might result in the king forgetting the law and perverting people's rights (v. 5). Lemuel's mother then suggests he leave drunkenness to the sick and poor whose lives are hopeless (vv. 6-7). It would be rather flat-footed to read these verses as literally directing Lemuel to make a policy of getting poor and sick people drunk.

And by the way, no, I do not drink alcoholic beverages, socially or otherwise.

I found it fascinating that you concluded that God not only permitted slavery but that it isn't even wrong today:

Does God still permit slavery in these latter days? Apparently He does. Yet permitted or not, I am not rushing to find someone to enslave, and neither am I checking out the opportunities to take another wife.

I read the Bible rather differently. I find in the NT that believers are to view slavery as a condition to be avoided whenever possible and one that they should not impose on others (especially in 1 Corinthians 7 and in Philemon). The NT doesn't simply forbid slavery, but it lays the foundation for societies permeated with gospel values to end the practice. It was the influence of those values that fostered the abolitionist movements in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. We are not limited to explicit "thou shalt not" statements to determine what our values should be. The same principle applies with regard to polygamy.

You wrote:

Yet, had Jacob not had multiple wives, he would not have had 12 sons who became 12 tribes, Israel would not have become a great nation, and who knows what would have happened?

I don't agree with your "what if" reasoning here. If Jacob had kept to one wife indeed "who knows what would have happened?" Perhaps that one wife would have been blessed with a dozen boys from her own womb. Perhaps Israel would have gotten a faster start in its growth as a nation in the Promised Land by being able to skip four centuries of bondage in Egypt. We don't know. This line of reasoning hardly justifies polygamy. God used all sorts of bad decisions by individuals and brought about good things by his sovereign direction of history. As Joseph told his brothers regarding their evil action in selling him into slavery, "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen. 50:20).

I'm happy for you and your family, with all those children and grandchildren. Congratulations! And I understand what you say about those who criticized you for having a large family. But my point with regard to the biblical narratives of polygamous men was never merely that having multiple wives causes family difficulties. I keep telling you that but you seem not to have understood. These narratives portray the men as making disastrous choices in relation to their multiple wives -- yes, choices that God could work out in his sovereignty to bring about his purposes, yet nevertheless choices that in hindsight were quite unwise. The pattern with regard to the famous polygamous men of the OT, including Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon, is indicative of a problem inherent in polygamy.

You wrote:

It's 1:30 am. I have stayed up way too late tonight and I don't have the time to look up "hermeneutical" in order to figure out what on earth you are saying.

I understand. Sorry for using a technical term without explaining. "Hermeneutical" means having to do with the principles of interpreting and applying texts, in this context biblical texts. My point was that Jesus' comments in Matthew 19 about Genesis teach us more than what Jesus thinks about divorce; they also teach us how Jesus thinks we should interpret the Mosaic laws in light of the pre-Fall, Genesis teaching about creation.

[Rob Bowman]

Log,

You wrote:

Stargazer is in the right on this issue and Rob is in the wrong. The Bible does not condemn polygamy, neither does it condemn slavery, neither does it condemn alcohol consumption. Any negative positions on these issues are derived outside of the Bible.

Perhaps you would like to offer a refutation of the exegesis I presented on 1 Timothy 3:2.

[Log]

Rob,

You wrote:

Perhaps you would like to offer a refutation of the exegesis I presented on 1 Timothy 3:2.

Yes. Statements limited to bishops are limited to bishops.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Log

[Rob Bowman]

Log,

You wrote:

Yes. Statements limited to bishops are limited to bishops.

I already answered this argument.

[why me]

neither does it condemn alcohol consumption.

Considering water was rather dodgy back at that time, alcohol was a safe bet. Public rowdiness and drunkenness was never considered a virtue back during bible times.

We can say the same for a bottle of coke. In some parts of the world, where water was dodgy, the people would open a bottle of coke and have a great drink. And even today, the tap water can be dodgy in some places but a good ol' coke is safe to drink and it does contain water.

Edited April 10, 2012 by why me

[Log]

Rob,

You wrote:

I already answered this argument.

You failed.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Log

[why me]

Joseph Smith undeniably practiced Polygamy It is futile to believe otherwise .

Accept it and move along !

Lds should be proud of polygamy. It sets them apart from others and with its practice, it demonstrates obedience to god. Nothing wrong with that.

[why me]

So we can safely answer that JS was a polygamist and the lds should be proud of it. It is a wonderful part of lds history and sets the lds apart from traditional christianity. It is one of those aspects that makes the lds faith a revolutionary christian faith.

Edited April 10, 2012 by why me

[thesometimesaint]

Pope Clement VII, faced with the threat of a continent-dividing divorce, considered bigamy as a solution to the problem of Henry VIII.

Martin Luther recommended polygamy.

African Christian churches practiced polygamy.

If these can be polygamous and still be considered Christian why can't the Mormons?

[Log]

"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter." - Martin Luther

[why me]

Pope Clement VII, faced with the threat of a continent-dividing divorce, considered bigamy as a solution to the problem of Henry VIII.

Martin Luther recommended polygamy.

African Christian churches practiced polygamy.

If these can be polygamous and still be considered Christian why can't the Mormons?

Because the critics are hypocrites and wish to attempt to score points against the lds church through false interpretations and innuendos.

[Rob Bowman]

Log,

Regarding my rebuttal to the objection that 1 Timothy 3:2 means only that bishops should have just one wife, you wrote:

You failed.

Care to show me how my rebuttal failed? Or is a bald assertion all you've got?

[Log]

Rob,

Log,

Regarding my rebuttal to the objection that 1 Timothy 3:2 means only that bishops should have just one wife, you wrote:

Care to show me how my rebuttal failed? Or is a bald assertion all you've got?

There is no need to go beyond the scripture: statements solely concerning bishops solely concern bishops. Full stop. Sola scriptura does not permit you to add to the scripture to arrive at the desired result.

The Bible contains not any more words today than it did yesterday. Hence, Martin Luther could write: "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture."

Edited April 10, 2012 by Log