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

[omni]

 

Once again - the scriptures validate my point.  When men and society are righteous God either allows or directly commands polygamy.  When men and society are corrupt, pagan, worldly, or the like, God revokes polygamy.  Since the scriptures are the records of people of God (mostly) we have polygamists all throughout them.  Polygamy is part of righteousness, not an incident or a temporary test.  Monogamy is the fallback position when the people can't handle polygamy.

 

Do have examples of polygamy being practiced in the BoM?

[JLHPROF]

Do have examples of polygamy being practiced in the BoM?

 

Sure, but not many...just a few hints.

 

 

Ether 1

40 And it came to pass that the Lord did hear the brother of Jared, and had compassion upon him, and said unto him:

41 Go to and gather together thy flocks, both male and female, of every kind; and also of the seed of the earth of every kind; and thy families; and also Jared thy brother and his family; and also thy friends and their families, and the friends of Jared and their families.

 

The Brother of Jared had "families" but Jared had one "family".

And just to add probablity to admittedly indirect evidence.

 

Ether 6

20 And accordingly the people were gathered together. Now the number of the sons and the daughters of the brother of Jared were twenty and two souls; and the number of sons and daughters of Jared were twelve, he having four sons.

 

Some have also questioned whether Sariah was the mother of Jacob and Joseph and Nephi's sisters (2nd Nephi 5:6).  The scripture lists them as Lehi's son, but unlike Laman, Lemuel, Sam and Nephi it does not link them to Sariah.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Teancum]

JLHPROF

Read Jacob 2. The Book of Mormon says monagamy is the standard unless God commands. Oh and read the recent essays on polygamy which also state that monogamy is Gods overall rule.

In addition the bible starts with one man and one woman. Timothy says a bishop should be the husband of one wife.

There is your CFR. Your idea the polygamy is Gods norm is pure horsepucky.

[Teancum]

Yes.  Whatever God requires is right, just as Joseph Smith taught.

 

 

   That's because the New and Everlasting Covenant didn't exist.  But polygamy has been practiced under both the new and old covenant.

 

 

The idea that what ever God says is right is a very dangerous concept. Lots of bad things happen by people that think God is telling them something that is outside moral norms. People fly airplanes into buildings because they think God wants them to do. The person who claims God is telling them this or that especially when it goes agianst moral principles and norms had better really be talking to God. More likely is they are not and they use this to manipulate people just like Joseph was trying to manipulate Nancy Rigdon when he said this and Nancy essentially said not so fast bubba. good for Nancy.

[Tacenda]

God identifies himself with three men in all of scripture, both in the OT and the NT, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob...all polygamists. God could not approve or condone more. Again, you are showing how drawn you are to anything that shows and reflects your discontentment with the Church. Facts don't seem to matter just your opinion.

Pa Pa, you can edit this in reply to save posts. But would you please tell me what your disagreement is exactly.

So you're saying JS didn't consumate any plural marriages right? But it's okay that Isaac, Jacob or Abraham did and God condoned that.

Why do you keep saying I'm drawn in or have discontentment. When I'm stating fact nearly. But you seem to not face facts as if you would also have problems with JS having marital relations with someone other than Emma. In fact you get into my head just as much as you say I get into yours.

[JLHPROF]

moral principles and norms

 

don't exist, imaginary, transient, opinion...

 

True moral principles can only exist from God.  So if God tells us to do something (and we are SURE it is God) then it is automatically moral.

Moral without God means absolutely nothing.  God is right, the adversary is wrong.  Moral just determines how close to God's will we get.

[Teancum]

don't exist, imaginary, transient, opinion...

 

True moral principles can only exist from God.  So if God tells us to do something (and we are SURE it is God) then it is automatically moral.

Moral without God means absolutely nothing.  God is right, the adversary is wrong.  Moral just determines how close to God's will we get.

Morals can and do exist without God. Human societies Have developed all sorts of rules and morals without God. The U.S. constitution is not a God driven document. And the rub really is knowing if God says do it because as I noted humans have done alll sorts of atrocities thinking God said it. The Bible is full of such ugliness. And the God of the OT often was not moral. A God who says do it just cause I say so and what this God allegedly says can change or flip flop....well I will take the humanistic approach over that any day.

Like I said, i would guess that the people who flew the planes into the World Trade Center were sure it was gods will. Likely as sure as you think you are about God commanding JS to do polygamy. But I would hope you think the ones who flew into the buildings were off their rockers quite a bit.

[Robert F. Smith]

Morals can and do exist without God. Human societies Have developed all sorts of rules and morals without God. The U.S. constitution is not a God driven document. And the rub really is knowing if God says do it because as I noted humans have done alll sorts of atrocities thinking God said it. The Bible is full of such ugliness. And the God of the OT often was not moral. A God who says do it just cause I say so and what this God allegedly says can change or flip flop....well I will take the humanistic approach over that any day.

Like I said, i would guess that the people who flew the planes into the World Trade Center were sure it was gods will. Likely as sure as you think you are about God commanding JS to do polygamy. But I would hope you think the ones who flew into the buildings were off their rockers quite a bit.

It all depends on a priori considerations, Teancum.  Humans make up rules as they go, as you well know.  They tend to create the world in their own image. So, for you, the Constitution cannot be divinely inspired, but must be a solely human document. The Bible and the Iliad & Odyssey are pretty much the same human generated epic fantasies.  The supernatural does not exist and there is no evidence for it -- and it is not logical anyhow.  Humanism is all we are left with, although  it is not clear what that means:  Does it mean that we live in a dog eat dog world in which we simply try to get over on each other, or are there agreed upon moral and ethical rules in humanism which bring peace and harmony to all earthlings?  Anyone not agreeing must be off his rocker.  Right?

[Robert F. Smith]

...........................................................  

I feel for the anguish Emma Smith had to face because of Joseph´s polygamy and polyandry. Nothing can convince me that Joseph´s actions were "approved".

You sound very obdurate, regardless of any facts -- you say "nothing can convince" you.  Maybe a couple of years of anthropology might soften up your resolve not to be confused by the facts.  Some people simply do not live according to our preferences, and those people might also be very sincere.

[Robert F. Smith]

You couldn´t be more wrong. Show me one single society that has found polygamy the norm. Or better yet, gather yourself a bunch of wives and show me how well it functions. I´d love to hear a truthful response from youur many wives how much they enjoy living in a polygamous world. Show by example.

As Jonathan Rauch pointed out in the National Journal, Friday, March 31, 2006,

 

"polygamy has been a common form of marriage since at least biblical times, and probably long before. In his 1994 book The Moral Animal: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology, Robert Wright notes that a 'huge majority' of the human societies for which anthropologists have data have been polygamous. Virtually all of those have been polygynous: that is, one husband, multiple wives."

 

That may not make you happy, but it is even true physiologically and psychologically that human males are designed for polygyny, as are a number of other simians.  See, for example, the following:

 

Jeanna Bryner, “ Are Humans Meant to Be Monogamous?” LiveScience, September 06, 2012, online at http://www.livescience.com/32146-are-humans-meant-to-be-monogamous.html .

 

Michael E. Price, “Are People ‘Naturally’ Polygamous? The human mind evolved in a polygynous world,” Psychology Today, August 18, 2011, online at http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/darwin-eternity/201108/are-people-naturally-polygamous-0 .

 

Ewen Callaway, “Polygamy left its mark on the human genome,” New Scientist, September 26, 2008, online at  http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14817-polygamy-left-its-mark-on-the-human-genome.html#.VIvgoSvF98E . 

 

David P. Barash and Judth Eve Lipton, The Myth of Monogamy (Holt, 2002).

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_evolution/2012/10/are_humans_monogamous_or_polygamous_the_evolution_of_human_mating_strategies_.html 

[Robert F. Smith]

It's probably the reason Joseph Smith was murdered.  .....................................................................................  

Actually, Joseph (who was running for President at the time) was assassinated for political reasons, as you can read  in Robert S. Wicks and Fred R. Foister, Junius & Joseph: Presidential Politics and the Assassination of the First Mormon Prophet (Logan: Utah State University Press, 2005).

[Tacenda]

As Jonathan Rauch pointed out in the National Journal, Friday, March 31, 2006,

"polygamy has been a common form of marriage since at least biblical times, and probably long before. In his 1994 book The Moral Animal: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology, Robert Wright notes that a 'huge majority' of the human societies for which anthropologists have data have been polygamous. Virtually all of those have been polygynous: that is, one husband, multiple wives."

That may not make you happy, but it is even true physiologically and psychologically that human males are designed for polygyny, as are a number of other simians. See, for example, the following:

Jeanna Bryner, “ Are Humans Meant to Be Monogamous?” LiveScience, September 06, 2012, online at http://www.livescience.com/32146-are-humans-meant-to-be-monogamous.html .

Michael E. Price, “Are People ‘Naturally’ Polygamous? The human mind evolved in a polygynous world,” Psychology Today, August 18, 2011, online at http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/darwin-eternity/201108/are-people-naturally-polygamous-0 .

Ewen Callaway, “Polygamy left its mark on the human genome,” New Scientist, September 26, 2008, online at http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14817-polygamy-left-its-mark-on-the-human-genome.html#.VIvgoSvF98E .

David P. Barash and Judth Eve Lipton, The Myth of Monogamy (Holt, 2002).

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_evolution/2012/10/are_humans_monogamous_or_polygamous_the_evolution_of_human_mating_strategies_.html

I don't believe that most men cannot be monogamous, or the philosohies written by these people. And will steal Teancum's word...horsepucky! The minute someone puts forth that hogwash, the men will follow suit, IMO. It happened in early Mormon history, IMO, because everyone was living monogamously just fine, and then you have Heber or Brigham touting that men need polygamy to avoid going to prostitutes, or something along those lines, or other explanations. It's an excuse to commit adultery, IMO. I can't believe you're falling for it being part of man's make up Robert. Just because some think it's normal, doesn't make it right. Edited December 13, 2014 by Tacenda

[Teancum]

It all depends on a priori considerations, Teancum.  Humans make up rules as they go, as you well know.  They tend to create the world in their own image. So, for you, the Constitution cannot be divinely inspired, but must be a solely human document. The Bible and the Iliad & Odyssey are pretty much the same human generated epic fantasies.  The supernatural does not exist and there is no evidence for it -- and it is not logical anyhow.  Humanism is all we are left with, although  it is not clear what that means:  Does it mean that we live in a dog eat dog world in which we simply try to get over on each other, or are there agreed upon moral and ethical rules in humanism which bring peace and harmony to all earthlings?  Anyone not agreeing must be off his rocker.  Right?

I did not say the constitution may NOT have been inspired but that it did not claim to base its content as "God says so." It just doesn't. Scripture and self proclaimed prophets do.

No I think humans are able Tories above dog eat dog and no anyone who does not agree is nOT off their rocker thoguh there are strident theists here who act like that.

[Stroopwafel]

 

As Jonathan Rauch pointed out in the National Journal, Friday, March 31, 2006,

 

"polygamy has been a common form of marriage since at least biblical times, and probably long before. In his 1994 book The Moral Animal: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology, Robert Wright notes that a 'huge majority' of the human societies for which anthropologists have data have been polygamous. Virtually all of those have been polygynous: that is, one husband, multiple wives."

 

That may not make you happy, but it is even true physiologically and psychologically that human males are designed for polygyny, as are a number of other simians.  See, for example, the following:

 

Jeanna Bryner, “ Are Humans Meant to Be Monogamous?” LiveScience, September 06, 2012, online at http://www.livescience.com/32146-are-humans-meant-to-be-monogamous.html .

 

Michael E. Price, “Are People ‘Naturally’ Polygamous? The human mind evolved in a polygynous world,” Psychology Today, August 18, 2011, online at http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/darwin-eternity/201108/are-people-naturally-polygamous-0 .

 

Ewen Callaway, “Polygamy left its mark on the human genome,” New Scientist, September 26, 2008, online at  http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14817-polygamy-left-its-mark-on-the-human-genome.html#.VIvgoSvF98E . 

 

David P. Barash and Judth Eve Lipton, The Myth of Monogamy (Holt, 2002).

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_evolution/2012/10/are_humans_monogamous_or_polygamous_the_evolution_of_human_mating_strategies_.html 

 

 

The contentious issue, in it's essence, isn't really whether polygamy is a form of marriage that may or may not work in society or not. It's not even about whether it should be considered natural or not. As you point out, there is extensive litterature to support the view that polygamy may actually be "the way to go".

 

However--and that is the whole point of the OP, which is made explicit in the very title of this thread--the problem with polygamy as it was practiced in mormonism, more specifically by Joseph Smith, is the way it was implemented. See first post for details.

 

So, for anyone, the issue shouldn't be to convince yourself that polygamy as a practice is OK, but rather asking if you agree with how Joseph Smith went about it.

[bcuzbcuz]

I'm afraid that the facts are on my side (even if the feelings might be on yours).

A quick google tells me that:

 

1. 85% of societies have allowed for polygamy

 

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1589/657.long

"The anthropological record indicates that approximately 85 per cent of human societies have permitted men to have more than one wife (polygynous marriage), and both empirical and evolutionary considerations suggest that large absolute differences in wealth should favour more polygynous marriages."

 

and as for my wife...well, her grandfather was a polygamist and we have studied the doctrine and the history and have both decided that while it would be hard, if it were ever to be restored we would not object to practicing the law of God.

I can´t say I find the articles referenced particularily well grounded. The second reference makes a statement that: "Taking wives is always positively associated with status, wealth or nobility [2], ". And the same can be said of Mormon polygamy, it represented status,, wealth, and "nobility", if nobility is interpreted as a small, inner circle of "approved" brethern.

But the biggest flaw comes with the "85% of human societies. That´s like picking a number out of the air.. There simply isn´t the evidence in any archaeological research to make any such statement. The best one could do is state the 85% of a very small percentage of the total population, mostly those with great wealth and power enjoyed showing their status by taking multiple wives, or concubines (maids in waiting....for serving to the pleasures of the power holder).

The recorded histories of societies, Babylonian, Egyptian, Persian, Greek, etc. etc., etc., never bothered to record the marriage traditions of the lower class 95% of the population. The normal, man on the street, could have been unmarried, monogamous, polygamous or any of a multitude of possibilities without us being able to establish ANY information.

We have, for example, tomb and cofffin statements from ancient Egypt where the tomb owner proclaims his faithfulness to his wife. That would imply monogamy. There are many such tombs. But that still says nothing about the population in general.

At the same time, the king, that ruled the country, could marry his own sister or his own daughter. The king could take, but didn´t always have, mulltiple wives or he could take a wife from a former enemy in order to confirm peaceful intent, even though he already had a wife. But the habits of the royalty do not reflect the habits of the rest of the population.

Many large populations from around the world left no written records, at all. How can anyone attach a percentage to their polygamous participation? We don´t even know how many people were in the populations.

My youngest daughter, with an advance degree in statistics, had a job in her early career to read doctoral thesis papers, simply to check if the research statistics actually proved what the paper stated. Many advanced papers failed to actually prove their claims. She would have given a failing grade to http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1589/657.long

That you and your wife have discussed the possibility of polygamy returning to the church and have already a stated position of acceptance is beyond me. I have neither the wealth nor the lust to belong to such a group.

[bcuzbcuz]

As Jonathan Rauch pointed out in the National Journal, Friday, March 31, 2006,

 

"polygamy has been a common form of marriage since at least biblical times, and probably long before. In his 1994 book The Moral Animal: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology, Robert Wright notes that a 'huge majority' of the human societies for which anthropologists have data have been polygamous. Virtually all of those have been polygynous: that is, one husband, multiple wives."

 

That may not make you happy, but it is even true physiologically and psychologically that human males are designed for polygyny, as are a number of other simians.  See, for example, the following:

 

Jeanna Bryner, “ Are Humans Meant to Be Monogamous?” LiveScience, September 06, 2012, online at http://www.livescience.com/32146-are-humans-meant-to-be-monogamous.html .

 

Michael E. Price, “Are People ‘Naturally’ Polygamous? The human mind evolved in a polygynous world,” Psychology Today, August 18, 2011, online at http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/darwin-eternity/201108/are-people-naturally-polygamous-0 .

 

Ewen Callaway, “Polygamy left its mark on the human genome,” New Scientist, September 26, 2008, online at  http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14817-polygamy-left-its-mark-on-the-human-genome.html#.VIvgoSvF98E . 

 

David P. Barash and Judth Eve Lipton, The Myth of Monogamy (Holt, 2002).

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_evolution/2012/10/are_humans_monogamous_or_polygamous_the_evolution_of_human_mating_strategies_.html 

"Robert Wright notes that a 'huge majority' of the human societies for which anthropologists have data "

Well, that says it all. "For which anthrologists have data".......and the rest is off the top of their heads?????

"Robert Wright notes that a 'huge majority' of the human societies for which anthropologists have data"........ When they don´t have the appropriate data, they guess the rest?

"Robert Wright notes that a 'huge majority' of the human societies for which anthropologists have data" is the only data they´ll use??? For those societies that didn´t leave data are therfore left out of the research??????

[rodheadlee]

Thank you for your answer. I appreciate your comments, although my wife would find it impossible to accept my having a multitude of other women sharing my bed....especially without her prior acceptance, which in itself would be impossible.

I don´t have a problem with being judged according to the same judgment I give to others. A fear of a harsh judgemment has never stopped me from viewing the transgressions of others. I was a teacher and school administrator for almost 40 years. I was extremely happy to bring an abuser´s carrier to end by exposing his deeds to the law. Being afraid to say it like it is because one´s own shortcomings will come to light is only cowardice..

I feel for the anguish Emma Smith had to face because of Joseph´s polygamy and polyandry. Nothing can convince me that Joseph´s actions were "approved".

Ok but if you were ordered by Jesus Christ to institute polygamy, how would you do it?  Also I guess by your answer about Joesph's actions you must not believe that D&C 132 is a valid scripture? You don't believe in the Abrahamic Covenant? Do you believe sealings are valid? And so by your statements on JS you must believe Abraham, Issac, and Jacob (who became Israel) actions were not approved? and last but not least what about this scripture?

 

 But I say unto you, That whosoever is ^aangry with his brother ^bwithout a cause shall be ^cin danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, ^dRaca, shall be ^ein danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

 

 it's just something I remember when I want to criticize  a friend of Jesus Christ. You did know they were friends, that Jesus Christ called Joseph Smith His friend, right? I just can't figure out why Jesus would let His friend go astray on something that would come to define His Church. If things were as you say, unapproved.

 

63 And as I said unto mine apostles, even so I say unto you, for you are mine ^aapostles, even God’s high priests; ye are they whom my Father hath^bgiven me; ye are my ^cfriends;

      •  •  •

  77 And again I say unto you, my friends, for from henceforth I shall call you ^afriends, it is expedient that I give unto you this commandment, that ye become even as my friends in days when I was with them, traveling to preach the gospel in my power;

[Tacenda]

I can´t say I find the articles referenced particularily well grounded. The second reference makes a statement that: "Taking wives is always positively associated with status, wealth or nobility [2], ". And the same can be said of Mormon polygamy, it represented status,, wealth, and "nobility", if nobility is interpreted as a small, inner circle of "approved" brethern.

But the biggest flaw comes with the "85% of human societies. That´s like picking a number out of the air.. There simply isn´t the evidence in any archaeological research to make any such statement. The best one could do is state the 85% of a very small percentage of the total population, mostly those with great wealth and power enjoyed showing their status by taking multiple wives, or concubines (maids in waiting....for serving to the pleasures of the power holder).

The recorded histories of societies, Babylonian, Egyptian, Persian, Greek, etc. etc., etc., never bothered to record the marriage traditions of the lower class 95% of the population. The normal, man on the street, could have been unmarried, monogamous, polygamous or any of a multitude of possibilities without us being able to establish ANY information.

We have, for example, tomb and cofffin statements from ancient Egypt where the tomb owner proclaims his faithfulness to his wife. That would imply monogamy. There are many such tombs. But that still says nothing about the population in general.

At the same time, the king, that ruled the country, could marry his own sister or his own daughter. The king could take, but didn´t always have, mulltiple wives or he could take a wife from a former enemy in order to confirm peaceful intent, even though he already had a wife. But the habits of the royalty do not reflect the habits of the rest of the population.

Many large populations from around the world left no written records, at all. How can anyone attach a percentage to their polygamous participation? We don´t even know how many people were in the populations.

My youngest daughter, with an advance degree in statistics, had a job in her early career to read doctoral thesis papers, simply to check if the research statistics actually proved what the paper stated. Many advanced papers failed to actually prove their claims. She would have given a failing grade to http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1589/657.long

That you and your wife have discussed the possibility of polygamy returning to the church and have already a stated position of acceptance is beyond me. I have neither the wealth nor the lust to belong to such a group.

 

[thesometimesaint]

"Robert Wright notes that a 'huge majority' of the human societies for which anthropologists have data "

Well, that says it all. "For which anthrologists have data".......and the rest is off the top of their heads?????

"Robert Wright notes that a 'huge majority' of the human societies for which anthropologists have data"........ When they don´t have the appropriate data, they guess the rest?

"Robert Wright notes that a 'huge majority' of the human societies for which anthropologists have data" is the only data they´ll use??? For those societies that didn´t leave data are therfore left out of the research??????

 

Yours is an argument from ignorance. IE; I don't know "X" so it must be "Y".

[Tacenda]

"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.

 

 

(bold mine)

 

Try 1 Corinthians 7:2, it's very clear.

 

"But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband."

 

Also God instituted monogamy with Adam and Eve, and Jesus confirmed that God did that, even quoting the TWO shall become ONE.

 

Or these...

 

Titus 1:6  "If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly."

 

1 Timothy 3:12  "Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well."

 

1 Timothy 3:2  "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach"

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2014 by Tacenda

[JLHPROF]

(bold mine)

 

Try 1 Corinthians 7:2, it's very clear.

 

"But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband."

 

This mentions nothing about polygamy or monogamy.  A polygamous husband still only has relations with his wife in each marriage.  This is not a prohibition on multiple spouses, just on adultery.

 

Also God instituted monogamy with Adam and Eve, and Jesus confirmed that God did that, even quoting the TWO shall become ONE.

 

Two shall become one refers specifically to the sexual act, not the number of spouses.

Also both ancient Jewish tradition and modern day prophets have taught that Adam had more than one wife.  God did not institute monogamy with Adam and Eve any more than he literally made Eve out of one of Adam's ribs.

 

 

Or these...

 

Titus 1:6  "If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly."

 

1 Timothy 3:12  "Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well."

 

1 Timothy 3:2  "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach"

 

Once again, a requirement that these priesthood holders have at least one wife, not a restriction against having more.

 

These are old arguments and don't hold water.  There is nothing ANYWHERE in the scriptures prohibiting polygamy (except for Jacob 2, and even that doesn't apply if you understand the difference between polygamy in Deut 17 and Exodus 21).

 

God has never called polygamy sin, only when it is lived unrighteously.

 

[VideoGameJunkie]

I don't think I could handle polygamy in this life, but if it is a part of exaltation then I hope people can handle it better in the eternities. It seems really hard to successfully pull off.

[Teancum]

I don't think I could handle polygamy in this life, but if it is a part of exaltation then I hope people can handle it better in the eternities. It seems really hard to successfully pull off.

IF I were a betting man I would put my money on the idea that you don't have to worry about it.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Well we'll all see if it's a part of the eternities.

[VideoGameJunkie]

How many wives should faithful members expect to have in the Celestial Kingdom?