3DOP Posted July 24, 2013 Author Posted July 24, 2013 Sorry if I am not current with the view that other Christians have regarding polygamy... Do non-LDS Christians feel that the old testament patriarchs were not compliant with God's law when they practiced plural marriage? It is pretty difficult to support that God was displeased with Abraham. I have never had any qualms about voicing my support for the practice of obeying plural marriage that is sanctioned by God. Were there imperfections that were evident in some of the early saints execution of plural marriage? YES.I don't think you will find any uniformity among "non-LDS". But the Old Testament patriarchs were compliant with God's law...that is...if we may take the Old Testament as a guide.
Traela Posted July 24, 2013 Posted July 24, 2013 One of mine is from George Bernard Shaw (Irish playwright). It goes something like this: "The Mormons might be on to something. Isn't it better to have a quarter share in a first-rate man, than to have a third-rate man all to yourself?" Not that all polygamous men were "first-rate," of course, but I think it's a clever statement.That is more or less my view on polygamy. At a time when women had very few choices, it enlarged the pool of available men. No one had to choose between marrying a bad man or not marrying at all (in the 1800s, could be equally awful). Unfortunately, we have more members with no historical tie to polygamy, and see only the abuses done by the fundamentalists.
thesometimesaint Posted July 24, 2013 Posted July 24, 2013 Hey Mola.I knew there were still a lot of you who wouldn't back off. I just sense a weakening, admittedly from a limited internet perspective.It does seem very inconsistent for an LDS to argue against same sex marriage because it might open the door to polygamy.I think the reasons to oppose SSM are not at all related to polygamy. But agree that for legal purposes it is inconsistent to support one and not the other.
Bikeemikey Posted July 24, 2013 Posted July 24, 2013 It could, but in my opinion (and it's just an opinion, not a prophecy) I don't thinks its likely the Lord will allow the Church to practice plural marriage while the world revels in a wicked perversion of the same. If the Church reinstituted the practice of polygamy during a time such as I describe, it's not difficult to imagine the wicked mockingly saying: "See! Even those oh-so-moral and straitlaced Mormons are practicing polygamy, so God himself just gave us a green light to do the same! Ain't revelation great!"So the world engaging in plural marriage is a wicked perversion? Why?And why is the worlds engagement in monogamous marriage not a perversion?
teddyaware Posted July 25, 2013 Posted July 25, 2013 (edited) So the world engaging in plural marriage is a wicked perversion? Why?And why is the worlds engagement in monogamous marriage not a perversion?Because the servants of the Lord, living and past, endorse traditional heterosexual marriage as good and healthy for all people, even if most of those marriages are not sealed in the temple. Surely you knew this... Edited July 25, 2013 by teddyaware
Hannah Rebekah Posted July 25, 2013 Posted July 25, 2013 Growing up is what helped me see reality. When I read D&C 132 I don't hear God's voice. When I think of Henry Jacobs I don't see God's hand in that situation.Christ did not invent the story of Santa Claus so his non-existence is irrelevant to whether a religious person celebrates Christmas. This a poor comparison to the doctrine of polygamy that was introduced by Joseph Smith in his official capacity as prophet, seer, and revelator. Should not a prophet be judged by the doctrines that he teaches?Sorry for being so insensitive to your feelings, I guess it sounded more harsh than was intended. Maybe this will help with some aspects of what we may never know in this life about Joseph Smith. I do firmly believe he was a prophet of God and that will never change for me.http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/rowdyjoe.htm
Hannah Rebekah Posted July 25, 2013 Posted July 25, 2013 (edited) We must stay the course...unless we seek to discredit all of our early leaders, and declare so many families illegitimate. It also has a Biblical history to it, which provides context. As of the late it is the "polyandry" aspect that seems indefensible.Here are two older posts I had in my notes...sorry...I didn't put who made the posts and I don't think the links still work but the information is interesting:There is, as you say, "not much", but there are three cases of polyandry that I discovered when I read Genesis yesterday.Abraham, ordered to do so by God, Himself, told Pharaoh that Sarah was not his wife (a lie) but that she was his sister (a half-truth). He did the same thing with Abimelech. His son, Isaac, did the same thing with Rebekah and Abimelech.(Interestingly, Sarah was 90 years old and pregnant when Abraham fooled Abimelech, yet she was so beautiful that Abimelech was attracted to her, as were some of the others in his court.)None of the three was "consummated", but it was not because the kings didn't feel the women were "theirs". It was simply a matter of time (or timing). It was much, in this matter, like the issues we're looking at with Joseph. There is no compelling evidence that he consummated his polyandrous sealings, either.Pasted from <http://www.mormonapo...71&st=0&start=0>Didn't God the Father marry Mary while she was betrothed to Joseph? Wouldn't that be a kind of polyandry?Pasted from <http://www.mormonapo...71&st=0&start=0> Edited July 25, 2013 by Hannah Rebekah
why me Posted July 25, 2013 Posted July 25, 2013 That is more or less my view on polygamy. At a time when women had very few choices, it enlarged the pool of available men. No one had to choose between marrying a bad man or not marrying at all (in the 1800s, could be equally awful). Unfortunately, we have more members with no historical tie to polygamy, and see only the abuses done by the fundamentalists.The basic answer to give is really quite simple: it was a commandment and needed to be practiced. No excuses necessary. An angel didn't threatened Joseph with a sword for the reason that you stated. He did it because it was a commandment and should no longer be put off.
thesometimesaint Posted July 25, 2013 Posted July 25, 2013 There is no mention of the method of the conception of Jesus. Through in vetro fertilization it is entirely possible for a non married virgin to give birth. Not suggesting that is how God did it. But it does open the possibility.
jim_mason Posted July 25, 2013 Posted July 25, 2013 (edited) I must say that I have not encountered "anti polygamy" amongst LDS people. Shortly after the passage of Proposition 8, I encountered LDS who supported Prop 8 and polygamy. Edited July 25, 2013 by jim_mason
Bikeemikey Posted July 25, 2013 Posted July 25, 2013 Because the servants of the Lord, living and past, endorse traditional heterosexual marriage as good and healthy for all people, even if most of those marriages are not sealed in the temple. Surely you knew this...So why is polygamous marriage a wicked perversion?
Bikeemikey Posted July 25, 2013 Posted July 25, 2013 I must say that I have not encountered "anti polygamy" amongst LDS people. Shortly after the passage of Proposition 8, I encountered LDS who supported Prop 8 and polygamy.More modern day LDS find polygamy immoral than adultery, abortion and divorce. (PEW Research Poll Data)I think you may want to investigate mormon perspectives to polygamy a little more.
teddyaware Posted July 26, 2013 Posted July 26, 2013 So why is polygamous marriage a wicked perversion?Because the Lord said heterosexual monogamous marriage is the rule; and on rare occasions, when he commands it be so, plural marriages may be practiced under divine sanction..."27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any aman among you have save it be bone wife; and concubines he shall have none;28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." (Jacob 2)
Recommended Posts