Polygamy Is Not The Issue. The Devil Is In The Details

[The Nehor]

I am not aware of any person who ever followed a false prophet to the death and then gained eternal

life.

 

Regards,

Jim

 

I will be the first false prophet to pull this off. Anyone want to be a follower?

[JLHPROF]

I am not aware of any person who ever followed a false prophet to the death and then gained eternal

life.

 

Regards,

Jim

 

Everyone gains eternal life, except the sons of perdition.  At least according to Christ.  We will ALL have eternal life, the only question is what it will look like and how like God we will be when we get there.

[Robert F. Smith]

We are. Somehow I just got accused of making an extreme claim by saying it was odd and uncomfortable to people in 1840 for a 35 year old man to marry many wives, which included a 14 year old, among other teenagers.

if it wasn't so odd, and if it wasn't so uncomfortable, why the secrecy about it? Where are all the other examples of it happening, well outside of the Mormon folks?

You are quite opinionated on this matter, but have yet to present us with actual evidence.  You many indeed be uncomfortable and may find all manner of things odd, but you need present some evidence of your claims.  You are making presentist value judgments without historical support.  You seem to be quite unacquainted with actual historical marriage patterns.

[Robert F. Smith]

Is legal and extremely common today to fornicate. Does that make it okay?

I thought that we were discussing early age marriage.

 

Fornication may be legal in many places, as long as it is not a matter of statutory rape.  Whether it is O.K. or not may vary with one's moral judgments.

[The Nehor]

I like what this article has to say about it.

 

http://rcg.org/articles/ttap.html

 

The Truth About Polygamy

by David C. Pack The Bible does not condone polygamy. It was not permitted in the Old Testament, and was, in fact, prohibited from the beginning. God’s Old Testament servants did not follow this practice. You will be surprised at the plain facts from God’s Word!

 

ETA:  I'm not joining this guy's ministry by all means, too hard to leave my heritage, if you want to call it that.  

The Bible is absolutely God's word unless it tells this guy something he does not like and then he gets selective. He decides that all polygamous offspring are the product of affairs and are illegitimate bastards. He bases this on........nothing.

[Calm]

I like what.......]

That wasn't the Bible. How about pointing to a couple of scriptures that condemn it.

[Tacenda]

That wasn't the Bible. How about pointing to a couple of scriptures that condemn it.

This scripture was in the article. 

 

Deuteronomy 17:14-17King James Version (KJV)

 

¹⁴ When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;

¹⁵ Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

¹⁶ But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.

¹⁷ Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold

 

 

Also there is the scripture about only having one spouse here:

 

1 Corinthians 7:2-4

 

2Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.3Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

 

And several more that only mention one wife. 

 

Edited December 11, 2014 by Tacenda

[stemelbow]

You are quite opinionated on this matter, but have yet to present us with actual evidence.  You many indeed be uncomfortable and may find all manner of things odd, but you need present some evidence of your claims.  You are making presentist value judgments without historical support.  You seem to be quite unacquainted with actual historical marriage patterns.

I thought I was stating the obvious. If you think it was normal and comfortable for a 35 year old to marry many women including teenagers, one as young as 14, then I'll simply drop the point. It doesn't matter to me even if people saw it as normal and were quite comfortable with it.

[JLHPROF]

I thought I was stating the obvious. If you think it was normal and comfortable for a 35 year old to marry many women including teenagers, one as young as 14, then I'll simply drop the point. It doesn't matter to me even if people saw it as normal and were quite comfortable with it.

 

The issue isn't whether people saw it as normal or not.  The issue is what it always is - where is the sin?

There is no sin, no commandment, nothing in the scriptures or word of God about age of marriage.  God's own son was born to a 14 year old.  Her husband was much older as well, and probably a polygamist according to some scholars.

God's chosen people have descended from polygamists, many of whom had much younger wives as was the custom.

 

Anyone who thinks it is sinful for a 38 year old man to marry a 14 year old girl, well, CFR.

[bluebell]

The Bible is absolutely God's word unless it tells this guy something he does not like and then he gets selective. He decides that all polygamous offspring are the product of affairs and are illegitimate bastards. He bases this on........nothing.

 

It must not have bothered God that all polygamous offspring were illegitimate bastards since He used polygamy to create His covenant people, the 12 tribes of Israel.  

[stemelbow]

The issue isn't whether people saw it as normal or not.  The issue is what it always is - where is the sin?

There is no sin, no commandment, nothing in the scriptures or word of God about age of marriage.  God's own son was born to a 14 year old.  Her husband was much older as well, and probably a polygamist according to some scholars.

God's chosen people have descended from polygamists, many of whom had much younger wives as was the custom.

 

Anyone who thinks it is sinful for a 38 year old man to marry a 14 year old girl, well, CFR.

I understand that's the issue you have pursued. It doesn't really matter to me. I leave it to God to judge.

The only thing I did was claim it's not presentism to state that Joseph who had married many women also married a 14 year old. That's just stating the facts. Then I decided to go so far as to say it was odd and probably uncomfortable for people even in the 1840s to see a 30 plus year old marrying many women and some teenagers, one of which was 14. Somehow stating that means I haven't looked at the data. Seems obvious to me, but someone's out there denying it. eh...what do I care?

I realize that doesn't mean it was a sin.

[Tacenda]

I understand that's the issue you have pursued. It doesn't really matter to me. I leave it to God to judge.

The only thing I did was claim it's not presentism to state that Joseph who had married many women also married a 14 year old. That's just stating the facts. Then I decided to go so far as to say it was odd and probably uncomfortable for people even in the 1840s to see a 30 plus year old marrying many women and some teenagers, one of which was 14. Somehow stating that means I haven't looked at the data. Seems obvious to me, but someone's out there denying it. eh...what do I care?

I realize that doesn't mean it was a sin.

It's probably the reason Joseph Smith was murdered.  Don't let anyone make you feel you don't have a very valid point on this stemelbow!

[stemelbow]

It's probably the reason Joseph Smith was murdered.  Don't let anyone make you feel you don't have a very valid point on this stemelbow!

Well thanks. I meant no offense to anyone. I just think this throwing around the term presentism to put a halt to discussion is getting tiring. Somehow in some posters' minds its presentism to state the facts. It's presentism to state the obvious. In what other context shall we use that word?

[thesometimesaint]

Well thanks. I meant no offense to anyone. I just think this throwing around the term presentism to put a halt to discussion is getting tiring. Somehow in some posters' minds its presentism to state the facts. It's presentism to state the obvious. In what other context shall we use that word?

 

Context is everything. When my wife was 19 and I was 20 we got married. That is just the fact. The context was it was legal for for us to do so. Would I recommend that people should get married at sch an early age? No I do not.

[Tacenda]

https://gregstocks.wordpress.com/2014/09/07/polygamy-vs-the-book-of-mormon/

 

I c/p this comment to the above article.  I hadn't really known about the punctuation predicament.  Very interesting article that I just saw on another board. 

 

"I did a little research after reading your comment and it does appear the BOM was originally translated without punctuation, which was added before and during printing. We all know punctuation can completely change the meaning of a sentence. So I looked at the original printing for verse 30 and then compared it to the way it is now punctuated and it was changed. I added to my post regarding this. I agree with your use of punctuation as it would make this verse fit perfectly within the context it is found in. God doesn’t give us scripture to trick or confuse us. But men frequently use His words that way in order to justify their own evil designs and sin. Polygamy is not a principle of the gospel of Jesus Christ."

 

ETA:  c/p from the article again:  "Here is this verse straight from the original printing of the Book of Mormon in the 1830 edition which continued unchanged in the 1837, 1840 and 1841 editions all published while Joseph Smith was alive until it was changed in the 1849 edition published by the polygamist, Orson Pratt, probably under the direction of Brigham Young  : “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.”

Notice the different punctuation? See how it originally had a colon instead of a semicolon and a comma after the word otherwise? Why was this changed? By whose authority?  For what purpose? Maybe a little grammar lesson is in order here-  A colon is used to connect two sentences when the second sentence summarizes, sharpens, or explains the first. Both sentences should be complete, and their content should be very closely related.  NOT contradictory! A colon means “that is to say” or “here’s what I mean.” Colons and semicolons should never be used interchangeably. A colon instead of a semicolon may be used between independent clauses when the second sentence explains, illustrates, paraphrases, or expands on the first sentence.

This original punctuation more clearly shows God does not condone the way of David and Solomon, and commands His people to act in a different manner.  Again, what things are Jacob condemning here? The abominations and whoredoms of David and Solomon, by having many wives and concubines. He is telling all His people, if they are going to continue to be His people, they will have to act in another manner than David and Solomon did.
It is ridiculous to think God condemns something and then while in the middle of condemning it says “But if I feel like it I still might tell you to do this when I want you to.” God isn’t wishy-washy. He isn’t a flake. He is the “same God yesterday, today, and forever”(D&C 20:12)."

 

Scott Lloyd, is this little lesson on punctuation significant? 

Edited December 11, 2014 by Tacenda

[3DOP]

Hi tacenda,

 

Thanks for your reply to my post wherein I mention the multiple wives of the patriarchs and especially of Kings David and Solomon. I apologize for not quoting the posts in question. I am using someone else's computer for another day or two, and do not seem capable of doing that function. I hope I can answer you in such a way as to not necessarily persuade you I am correct, but so you can at least see why I must disagree with your position as I understand it.

 

You are correct of course in observing that Christians must always consider if a passage of Scripture is mistranslated. This is even more the case for Mormons, who believe that some portions of Scripture have been mistranslated. If belief in Old Testament polygamy was only founded on a handful of verses, it might seem more plausible that monogamy was the rule even then. But entire stories of the Old Testament seem to revolve around plural marriages. It wouldn't be just mistranslations, but it would take a wholesale corruption of any semblance of truth in the events recorded if Jacob, David, and Solomon only married once.

 

On the other hand the same mistranslations demonstrate serious problems which plural marriages brought about. Those who practiced it in the mistranslations seem not to have the peace and harmony which one would hope for if polygamous marriages are to be considered so particularly blessed by God. If the Scriptures were corrupted by some pro-polygamist so as to make polygamy appear to be acceptable, why on the other hand were evidences left that in most of the cases, polygamy led at the least to familial disharmony, or in Solomon's case, outright apostasy?

 

I cannot say why God allowed polygamy in the Old Testament, but I believe He did, at least in certain cases. Since I do not know why it was allowed then, to at least a few men of privilege, how can I be sure that circumstances would never permit it again? As a Catholic, I know it won't because the deposit of faith once given clearly and adequately assures us that a "revised law" for monogamy will not be forthcoming after Christ. But if I believed in a Restoration, I would have to be open to a time when for reasons I could not understand, polygamy was once again at least tolerated by God.  

 

Thank you for your consideration, Tacenda.

 

Rory 

[thesometimesaint]

Hi tacenda,

 

Thanks for your reply to my post wherein I mention the multiple wives of the patriarchs and especially of Kings David and Solomon. I apologize for not quoting the posts in question. I am using someone else's computer for another day or two, and do not seem capable of doing that function. I hope I can answer you in such a way as to not necessarily persuade you I am correct, but so you can at least see why I must disagree with your position as I understand it.

 

You are correct of course in observing that Christians must always consider if a passage of Scripture is mistranslated. This is even more the case for Mormons, who believe that some portions of Scripture have been mistranslated. If belief in Old Testament polygamy was only founded on a handful of verses, it might seem more plausible that monogamy was the rule even then. But entire stories of the Old Testament seem to revolve around plural marriages. It wouldn't be just mistranslations, but it would take a wholesale corruption of any semblance of truth in the events recorded if Jacob, David, and Solomon only married once.

 

On the other hand the same mistranslations demonstrate serious problems which plural marriages brought about. Those who practiced it in the mistranslations seem not to have the peace and harmony which one would hope for if polygamous marriages are to be considered so particularly blessed by God. If the Scriptures were corrupted by some pro-polygamist so as to make polygamy appear to be acceptable, why on the other hand were evidences left that in most of the cases, polygamy led at the least to familial disharmony, or in Solomon's case, outright apostasy?

 

I cannot say why God allowed polygamy in the Old Testament, but I believe He did, at least in certain cases. Since I do not know why it was allowed then, to at least a few men of privilege, how can I be sure that circumstances would never permit it again? As a Catholic, I know it won't because the deposit of faith once given clearly and adequately assures us that a "revised law" for monogamy will not be forthcoming after Christ. But if I believed in a Restoration, I would have to be open to a time when for reasons I could not understand, polygamy was once again at least tolerated by God.  

 

Thank you for your consideration, Tacenda.

 

Rory 

 

It really wasn't just the Old Testament. For a better understanding on the LDS position on polygamy.

SEE http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/polygamy.html

 

At the risk of repeating myself. Polygamy has been practiced by nearly every culture sense the beginning. The Scriptures are replete with examples. OTOH I have no personal desire for its return to the Church, or having me practice it in this life.

As for what God asks me to do in the next. I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.

[JLHPROF]

At the risk of repeating myself. Polygamy has been practiced by nearly every culture sense the beginning. The Scriptures are replete with examples.

 

The simple truth is that polygamy has been the norm on this earth for millennia.  It really only ceased twice - the Roman Empire and today's western societies.

If there were any sin or error in it I think God would have been much more outspoken as he was against other prevalent sins.  There is no more sin in polygamy in a  society than there is in monogamy.  Now if you are talking the Mormon heaven authorized version of polygamy, that God has restricted to whenever HE commands.

[thesometimesaint]

The simple truth is that polygamy has been the norm on this earth for millennia.  It really only ceased twice - the Roman Empire and today's western societies.

If there were any sin or error in it I think God would have been much more outspoken as he was against other prevalent sins.  There is no more sin in polygamy in a  society than there is in monogamy.  Now if you are talking the Mormon heaven authorized version of polygamy, that God has restricted to whenever HE commands.

 

True.

[cinepro]

The simple truth is that polygamy has been the norm on this earth for millennia.  It really only ceased twice - the Roman Empire and today's western societies.

If there were any sin or error in it I think God would have been much more outspoken as he was against other prevalent sins.  There is no more sin in polygamy in a  society than there is in monogamy.  Now if you are talking the Mormon heaven authorized version of polygamy, that God has restricted to whenever HE commands.

Exactly. It's like how God was extremely outspoken against slavery since the beginning.

[Calm]

This scripture was in the article.

Deuteronomy 17:14-17King James Version (KJV)

¹⁴ When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;

¹⁵ Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

¹⁶ But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.

¹⁷ Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold

are you suggesting the Lord is commanding the king to also only have one horse or one piece of silver or gold?

Or is it about excess?

Edited December 11, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

The simple truth is that polygamy has been the norm on this earth for millennia.  It really only ceased twice - the Roman Empire and today's western societies.

And in both cases iirc divorce and having mistresses allowed for the same overall effect minus the responsibility of caring for the woman and possibly her offspring once the man was tired of them.

[Calm]

"2Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.3Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife."

This does not specify "one wife". Fornication occurring outside of marriage, there are many who interpret this as encouraging people to be married. I do not think it has to be interpreted either way, at least in English it is ambiguous.

Note also Paul states this is his opinion, not the Lord's commandment, only in the matter of divorce does he state this is what the Lord commands.

I feel no greater need to follow Paul's opinion than I do Joseph Smith's.

So scriptures that actually have the Lord commanding one wife and one wife only....still waiting.

Edited December 11, 2014 by calmoriah

[JLHPROF]

Exactly. It's like how God was extremely outspoken against slavery since the beginning.

 

Maybe that should tell you something...

[JLHPROF]

And in both cases iirc divorce and having mistresses allowed for the same overall effect minus the responsibility of caring for the woman and possibly her offspring once the man was tired of them.

 

So scriptures that actually have the Lord commanding one wife and one wife only....still waiting.

 

Exactly.  Mankind were not designed to be monogamist.  God has never declared it to be so.  Scripture never declares it to be so. And society has never really tried very hard to be so.