Learning About Polygamy - "it's Like Leaning About Polygamy."

[Thinking]

I don't remember the exact year but I do remember that I was in a primary class is Southern California in the early 1970's. Somehow the subject of polygamy came up. The teacher said that the early saints had to practice polygamy because so many men were killed by enemies of the Church that there weren't enough men for each woman to have her own husband. She also explained that Joseph Smith didn't want to practice polygamy but complied and only had 2 or three wives. For years I heard similar explanations from different people in the Church, but never any mention of polyandry. One thing I never heard was a correction to this erroneous explanation. I don't know how widespread this explanation was, but I found myself passing it along as a justification for polygamy through the 1980's until Al Gore invented the internet.

 

In the early 1990's while trying to find the answer to an unrelated question, I stumbled onto some information about Joseph Smith and his 33 wives. What? Some of the wives were already married to other men. What? Not wanting to believe it, I checked as much as I could (in the early 1990's) with LDS sources. I seemed to be learning the truth, which did not fit into the bubble that I thought was the LDS Church. "Meat" is a frequent description for polygamy and other difficult doctrines that are "hard to swallow." A baby feeds on milk early in life and the meat comes later.

 

Polygamy is not meat, polygamy is polygamy. Either it's a true principle or it isn't. Either you believe in it or you don't. The way that polygamy was introduced and practiced is evidence to me that the LDS version was created by a man, not God.

[cinepro]

Polygamy is not meat, polygamy is polygamy. Either it's a true principle or it isn't. Either you believe in it or you don't. The way that polygamy was introduced and practiced is evidence to me that the LDS version was created by a man, not God.

 

Well, as you pointed out, until recently it was "either you believe in it, or you don't, or you don't even really know about it." 

 

That worked great, until it didn't.

[stemelbow]

I don't remember the exact year but I do remember that I was in a primary class is Southern California in the early 1970's. Somehow the subject of polygamy came up. The teacher said that the early saints had to practice polygamy because so many men were killed by enemies of the Church that there weren't enough men for each woman to have her own husband. She also explained that Joseph Smith didn't want to practice polygamy but complied and only had 2 or three wives. For years I heard similar explanations from different people in the Church, but never any mention of polyandry. One thing I never heard was a correction to this erroneous explanation. I don't know how widespread this explanation was, but I found myself passing it along as a justification for polygamy through the 1980's until Al Gore invented the internet.

 

In the early 1990's while trying to find the answer to an unrelated question, I stumbled onto some information about Joseph Smith and his 33 wives. What? Some of the wives were already married to other men. What? Not wanting to believe it, I checked as much as I could (in the early 1990's) with LDS sources. I seemed to be learning the truth, which did not fit into the bubble that I thought was the LDS Church. "Meat" is a frequent description for polygamy and other difficult doctrines that are "hard to swallow." A baby feeds on milk early in life and the meat comes later.

 

Polygamy is not meat, polygamy is polygamy. Either it's a true principle or it isn't. Either you believe in it or you don't. The way that polygamy was introduced and practiced is evidence to me that the LDS version was created by a man, not God.

I get that. I get the sense, often myself. I suppose it is possible that Joseph was a prophet, that the Church was ordained of God and polygamy was a mistake. Why not? I don't think anything is absolute or means of learning is foolproof.

But if I think that, I also have to accept that it was something ordained of God. If so, I can see it two ways:

-God commanded polygamy and let Joseph and others practice it as they felt it was needed.

-God commanded it and sanctioned each decision and action regarding it.

[JLHPROF]

Polygamy is not meat, polygamy is polygamy. Either it's a true principle or it isn't. Either you believe in it or you don't. The way that polygamy was introduced and practiced is evidence to me that the LDS version was created by a man, not God.

 

And I believe it is an eternal principle restored to man by a polygamous God.  The way it was practiced is the result of human imperfections.

People have the right to believe as they choose.

[carbon dioxide]

I get that. I get the sense, often myself. I suppose it is possible that Joseph was a prophet, that the Church was ordained of God and polygamy was a mistake. Why not? I don't think anything is absolute or means of learning is foolproof.

But if I think that, I also have to accept that it was something ordained of God. If so, I can see it two ways:

-God commanded polygamy and let Joseph and others practice it as they felt it was needed.

-God commanded it and sanctioned each decision and action regarding it.

The problem with admitting polygamy was a mistake is that one would have to declare that polygamy in the Old Testament was a mistake.  Further that God himself made a mistake for commanding it or allowing it without any hint of condemnation.  When one does that, they are basically suggesting that God made a mistake and on at least one issue they are greater than God for pointing His mistake out.

[Calm]

One thing I never heard was a correction to this erroneous explanation.

I first learned it was wrong on reading Widtsoe's Evidences and Reconciliations, which was sitting on both my parents' and grandparents' shelves and was originally published in 1943 and which I eventually hit as a teen as I went through my parents' bookshelves looking for reading material when I didn't have time to hit the library.  It was from what I saw on the shelves of a lot of LDS families I visited over the years.  Too bad that apparently not as many actually read it (I do agree with you the most common explanation I encountered early on was the too few men).

 

Plural marriage has been a subject of wide and frequent comment. Members

of the Church unfamiliar with its history, and many non-members, have set up

fallacious reasons for the origin of this system of marriage among the

Latter-day Saints.

    The most common of these conjectures is that the Church, through plural

marriage, sought to provide husbands for its large surplus of female members.

The implied assumption in this theory, that there have been more female than

male members in the Church, is not supported by existing evidence. On the

contrary, there seem always to have been more males than females in the

Church. Families -- father, mother, and children -- have most commonly joined

the Church. Of course, many single women have become converts, but also many

single men.

    The United States census records from 1850 to 1940, and all available

Church records, uniformly show a preponderance of males in Utah, and in the

Church. Indeed, the excess in Utah has usually been larger than for the whole

United States, as would be expected in a pioneer state. The births within the

Church obey the usual population law -- a slight excess of males. Orson Pratt,

writing in 1853 from direct knowledge of Utah conditions, when the excess of

females was supposedly the highest, declares against the opinion that females

outnumbered the males in Utah. (The Seer, p. 110) The theory that plural

marriage was a consequence of a surplus of female Church members fails from

lack of evidence.

    Another theory holds that plural marriage resulted from licentiousness of

the Church leaders. This is refuted by the evidence at hand. The founders and

early leaders of the Church were reared under the strictly monogamic system of

New England. Plural marriage seemed to them an unholy and repellent practice.

Joseph Smith has told that he hesitated to enter the system until he was

warned of his destruction if he did not obey. (Jenson, Historical Record

5:222) Brigham Young said that he felt, when the doctrine was revealed to him,

that he would rather die than take plural wives. (Life Story of Brigham Young,

Gates and Widtsoe, p. 242) Others of the early Church leaders to whom the

principle was first taught have related their feeling of resistance to the

practice. Undoubtedly the women felt much the same about the practice.

However, numerous plural wives have testified to the high moral tone of their

relationship with their husbands. Not only was every wife equal in property

rights, but also treated with equal deference, and all children were educated

and recognized equally. Mormon plural marriage bore no resemblance to the lewd

life of the man to whom woman is but a subject for his lusts. Women were not

forced into plural marriage. They entered it voluntarily, with open eyes. The

men and women, with very few exceptions, who lived in plural marriage, were

clean and high-minded. Their descendants, tens of thousands of whom are

living, worthy citizens of the land, are proud of their heritage. The story of

the Latter-day Saints, fully available, when read by honest men and women,

decries the theory that plural marriage was a product of licentiousness or

sensuality.

    There is a friendlier, but equally untenable view relative to the origin

of plural marriage. It is contended that on the frontier, where the Church

spent its earlier years, men were often unlettered, rough in talk and walk,

unattractive to refined women. Female converts to the Church, coming into the

pioneer wilderness, dreaded the possible life-long association with such men

and the rearing of their children under the example and influence of an

uncouth father. They would much prefer to share a finer type of man with

another woman. To permit this, it is suggested that plural marriage was

instituted. The ready answer is that the great majority of men who joined the

Church were superior, spiritually inclined seekers after truth and all the

better things of life. Only such men would be led to investigate the restored

gospel and to face the sacrifices that membership in the Church would require.

Under such conditions, since, as has been stated, there was no surplus of

women in Mormon pioneer communities, there was no need of mating with the

rough element, which admittedly existed outside of the Church.

    Another conjecture is that the people were few in number and that the

Church, desiring greater numbers, permitted the practice so that a phenomenal

increase in population could be attained. This is not defensible, since there

was no surplus of women.

    The simple truth and the only acceptable explanation, is that the

principle of plural marriage came as a revelation from the Lord to the Prophet

Joseph Smith for the Church. It was one of many principles so communicated to

the Prophet. It was not man-made. It was early submitted to several of his

associates, and later, when safety permitted, to the Church as a whole.

    The members of the Church had personal testimonies of the divine calling

of the Prophet Joseph Smith. They had individually accepted the gospel as

restored through the Prophet. When he announced a doctrine as revelation

coming from above, the people, being already convinced of the reality of

Joseph's prophetic calling and power, accepted the new doctrine and attempted

to put it into practice. Members of the Church who were permitted to take

plural wives, did so because they believed that they were obeying a

commandment of God. That faith gave them strength to meet the many problems

arising from plurality, and to resist the encroachments of enemies upon their

sacred right of freedom of religious belief and practice.

    We do not understand why the Lord commanded the practice of plural

marriage. Some have suggested that it was a means of trying and refining the

people through the persecution that followed. Certainly, one must have had

faith in the divine origin of the Church to enter it. Another suggested

explanation is based upon the doctrine of pre-existence. In the spirit world

are countless numbers of spirits waiting for their descent into mortality, to

secure earth bodies as a means of further progress. These unborn spirits

desired the best possible parentage. Those assuming plural marriage almost

invariably were the finest types in the community Only men who were most

worthy in their lives were permitted to take plural wives; and usually only

women of great faith and pure lives were willing to become members of a plural

household. (It should be remembered that permission to enter the system was

granted only by the President of the Church, and after careful examination of

the candidate.) However, this is but another attempted explanation by man of a

divine action.

    It may be mentioned that eugenic studies have shown the children of

polygamous parents to be above the average, physically and mentally. And the

percentage of happy plural households was higher than that of monogamous

families.

    The principle of plural marriage came by revelation from the Lord. That

is the reason why the Church practiced it. It ceased when the Lord so directed

through the then living Prophet. The Church lives, moves, and has its being in

revelation.

 

 

Also had material on Joseph's own practice; while not giving a specific number, it certainly gave me the impression it was more than just a few:

 

2. A number of men, who in their lives showed themselves honest, have

testified that they actually performed the ceremonies that united Joseph Smith

to plural wives. Among these were Joseph B. Noble, Hyrum Smith, James Adams,

Newell K. Whitney, Willard Richards, and others. Several of these men lived

long after the Prophet's death and always declared that they officiated in

marrying the Prophet to a plural wife, giving place, date, and the witnesses

present.

    3. Many of the women who were thus sealed to Joseph Smith lived long

after his death. They declared that they lived with the Prophet as husband and

wives. These women were of unblemished character, gentle and lovely in their

lives who spoke with loving respect of their martyr husband. They

substantiated in detail the statements of those who performed the ceremonies.

    4. Many of the elders in Nauvoo entered into plural marriage, under the

authority of Joseph Smith who was yet living, as certified to by the men and

their wives. Among these were William Clayton, Orson Hyde, Hyrum Smith John

Smith, Erastus Snow, Lyman Wight, James J. Strang, Gladden Bishop, William

Smith, Heber C. Kimball, and Brigham Young. These men and their wives who

survived the Prophet, made affidavits of their marriages in Joseph's day in

answer to the charge by enemies of the Church that plural marriage was not

instituted nor practiced, neither authorized by the Prophet. These men and

women were good citizens, so well-known over such long periods of time that

their concordant declarations cannot be gainsaid.

    5. The Nauvoo Temple records, which are in the possession of the Church

likewise furnish evidence that Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage. Before

the completion of the temple, marriage sealings were usually performed in

rooms in the home of the Prophet. When the temple was dedicated in 1846 for

such ceremonies, the plural marriages of Joseph were given temple sanction,

and where the marriages were for time only, they were often made to continue

through eternity.

    This was done within a year and a half of the assassination of the

Prophet. Many received plural wives in the Nauvoo Temple. It is utterly

improbable, if not impossible, that such a new doctrine could have been

conceived and carried out by the men who succeeded the Prophet. There would

have been a serious resentment among those who entered the temple, if the

teachings of the Prophet had been violated. Such criticism would have

overflowed to the outside.

    6. After the death of the Prophet, women applied for the privilege of

being sealed to him for eternity. They felt no doubt that in the eternal ages

they would then share the companionship of the Prophet. They wanted to enjoy

eternity with the man whom they revered as one chosen of God to open the last

dispensation of the gospel on earth. To these requests, assent was often

given. Such action by women who lived in the days of the Prophet implies a

belief in plural marriage. These women, who were not in any sense earthly

wives of the Prophet, have been counted by uninformed or antagonistic writers

as wives of the Prophet.

    Women no longer living, whether in Joseph's day or later have also been

sealed to the Prophet for eternity. The request for such unions has usually

come from relatives or friends who would have their loved one share eternity

with the Prophet, rather than with anyone else. Unscrupulous and unreliable

writers have even added such marriages to the list of Joseph's wives.

    7. Another kind of celestial marriage seems to have been practiced in the

early days of plural marriage. It has not been practiced since Nauvoo days,

for it is under Church prohibition. Zealous women, married or unmarried,

loving the cause of the restored gospel, considered their condition in the

hereafter. Some of them asked that they might be sealed to the Prophet for

eternity. They were not to be his wives on earth, in mortality, but only after

death in the eternities. This came often to be spoken of as celestial

marriage. Such marriages led to misunderstandings by those not of the Church,

and unfamiliar with its doctrines. To them marriage meant only association on

earth. Therefore any ceremony uniting a married woman, for example, to Joseph

Smith for eternity seemed adulterous to such people. Yet in any day, in our

day, there may be women who prefer to spend eternity with another than their

husband on earth.

    Such cases, if any, and they must have been few in number, gave enemies

of the Church occasion to fan the flaming hatred against the Latter-day

Saints. The full truth was not told. Enemies made the most of the truth. They

found it difficult to believe that the Church rests on truth and virtue.

    The literature and existing documents dealing with plural marriage in

Nauvoo in the day of Joseph Smith are very numerous. Hundreds of affidavits on

the subject are in the Church Historian's office in Salt Lake City. Most of

the books and newspaper and magazine articles on the subject are found there

also. (For a fairly condensed but complete discussion consult Andrew Jenson,

Historical Record, Vol. VI, pp. 219-236; Joseph Fielding Smith, Blood

Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage, pp. 67-94; Woman's Exponent, Vol.

III and IV; The Deseret News, especially in 1886)

    The careful study of all available information leads to but one

conclusion. Joseph Smith received the revelation in question, and practiced

plural marriage. The issue is not one of doctrine hut of history. No honest

student can declare the host of witnesses, hundreds of them, from Nauvoo days,

Mormon and non-Mormon of various residence, pursuits and temperaments to have

united in lying about the matter. The evidence is confirmed by those who place

the introduction of plural marriage on others, for they seek feeble, unworthy

shelter in the statement that Joseph Smith did practice plural marriage, but

later repented of it. (The Saints Herald, Vol. 1, pp. 9, 26, 27) That is

throwing dust in the eyes of seekers after truth. The case is clear. Authentic

history says that plural marriage originated with Joseph Smith the Prophet.

And so it did. The apparent denials by Church leaders in Nauvoo days that the

Church practiced plural marriage were correct. At that time the Church members

as a whole had not heard the revelation, nor had they been given an

opportunity to accept it. But many of the leaders knew of it and were

polygamists.

    The chaotic conditions of the years immediately following the Prophet's

death, delayed the formal presentation of the revelation. Soon after the

Church was established in the Great Salt Lake region, at the conference in

1852, the doctrine of celestial and plural marriage was accepted by the Church

as a whole. During the intervening years, however, it was taught and

practiced.

 

http://www.cumorah.com/etexts/evidencesreconciliations.txt

Edited January 30, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

PS:  since Widtsoe's work was in the Improvement Era, which was the Ensign of its day (and imo at the time more enjoyable because it even had paper dolls on occasion and flannel board stories figures), it is really sad that the common folklore reasons were not put to rest at that time.

Edited January 30, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

-God commanded polygamy and let Joseph and others practice it as they felt it was needed.

This is the position I hold.

 

IMO, WW's talk when the Law of Adoption was discontinued and the current practice of sealing men and women to their actual parents was begun (in the 1880s?) demonstrates to me that God does reveal general principles at times and then let's men and women attempt to figure out how to put them into practice.  

 

After all, how else does the teaching "line upon line" really make sense?  If revelations were revealed complete in and of themselves with no additional material needed on that subject, it would at least be "paragraph upon paragraph".

 

While the below specifies the law of adoption sealings, I think it can equally apply to marriage sealings.  I don't see as how any mortal practice can ever be equal to its celestial form but that it can become closer and closer as we grow in spiritual knowledge and hopefully as we eventually grow into a Zion society.  And notice as well the law of adoption wasn't practiced correctly under even Joseph Smith, so expecting him to have full knowledge of a revelation where other prophets did not and that is why something isn't being practiced like it was in JS's time is not always a valid assumption according to this Prophet:

 

You have acted up to all the light and knowledge that you have had; but you have now something more to do than what you have done. We have not fully carried out those principles in fulfillment of the revelations of God to us, in sealing the hearts of the fathers to the children and the children to the fathers. I have not felt satisfied, neither did President Taylor, neither has any man since the Prophet Joseph who has attended to the ordinance of adoption in the temples of our God. We have felt that there was more to be revealed upon this subject than we had received. Revelations were given to us in the St. George Temple, which President Young presented to the Church of God. Changes were made there, and we still have more changes to make, in order to satisfy our Heavenly Father, satisfy our dead and ourselves. I will tell you what some of them are. I have prayed over this matter, and my brethren have. We have felt, as President Taylor said, that we have got to have more revelation concerning sealing under the law of adoption.

 

There is yet very much for us to learn concerning the temple ordinances, and God will make it known as we prove ourselves ready to receive it.

 

http://scottwoodward.org/Talks/html/Woodruff,%20Wilford/WoodruffW_LawOfAdoption.html

 

There has been a disposition since the days of Nauvoo for men to seek to add to their future kingdoms by having dead persons sealed and adopted to them

 

 

Why would this not be as potential a problem in regards to plural marriage and the idea of having tons of wives?

Edited January 30, 2015 by calmoriah

[Uncle Dale]

The problem with admitting polygamy was a mistake is that one would have to declare that polygamy in the Old Testament was a mistake....

 

 

Actually, according to all the historical sources I've been able

to consult, polygamy was NOT a widespread practice among

the Jews -- with only a very few kingly elites taking more than

one wife. Maybe a lesser "Herod," here and there -- but certainly

not the priests of the Jerusalem temple, nor the earliest bishops

of the Christian sect that arose out of Judaism.

 

If we look back, beyond the Jews, to their Israelite ancestors,

more instances can be discovered -- but still, it was the practice

of the rich and powerful elites. If there ever was a Solomon or a

David (and I believe that they actually existed) their multiple wives

would have been taken to seal political alliances, tamp down

internecine family rivalries, etc. -- not in order to satisfy any

religious commandments in the Torah.

 

Some of us have been told that the Great and Abominable Church

has tampered with the Torah and subsequent Israelite scriptures,

removing many "plain and precious parts" commanding polygamy, etc.

But I cannot accept those arguments. The texts of the Israelite holy

writings of ages past were probably very much the same as we see

preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

But, going back even deeper into the past, before there were any

identifiable "Israelites" residing in Palestine, did polygamy exist

among the animal-herders and nomads who passed back and forth

between the Nile and the Euphrates? No doubt it did -- perhaps

practically every patriarch, heading up every sizeable band of

wandering shepherds had more than one wife -- just like his herds

had only a few bulls, in proportion to the number of his cows.

 

But -- commanded by YHWH -- originally a keystone of the Torah --

an everlasting covenant -- the means by which a righteous generation

would be raised up to bring forth and establish a 1000-year sacred

millenium, centered in Jackson County, Missouri?

 

No.

 

I'll repeat that.

 

No.

 

UD

[Calm]

polygamy was NOT a widespread practice among

the Jews

 

Polygamy can never be a practical widespread practice unless there are really unequal numbers between adult men and women…which may happen due to war, but otherwise probably not (males are more likely to die at younger ages, but once women hit childbirth they have that opportunity to die and then there is once you get into older health issues like heart disease and such, but polygamy was practiced usually with women of childbearing age and not with older women who were widows, I believe, save when the women had some sort of significance such as widows of a king).

 

By practical I mean not having a bunch of single men around with nothing to do but look at richer and more powerful men's multiple wives.

Edited January 30, 2015 by calmoriah

[stemelbow]

The problem with admitting polygamy was a mistake is that one would have to declare that polygamy in the Old Testament was a mistake.  Further that God himself made a mistake for commanding it or allowing it without any hint of condemnation.  When one does that, they are basically suggesting that God made a mistake and on at least one issue they are greater than God for pointing His mistake out.

I don't get what you mean. It seems to me if it was a mistake in Joseph's day and Joseph misunderstood thinking it was from God, then it could also be a mistake in OT times and those particular people misunderstood, thinking it was from God. And the TO doesn't say it was a command from God.

[Uncle Dale]

Polygamy can never be a widespread practice unless there are really unequal numbers between adult men and women…which may happen due to war, but otherwise probably not (males are more likely to die at younger ages, but once women hit childbirth they have that opportunity to die and then there is once you get into older health issues like heart disease and such, but polygamy was practiced usually with women of childbearing age and not with older women who were widows, I believe, save when the women had some sort of significance such as widows of a king).

 

There was one kind of polygamy recognized and occasionally

practiced among the Jews -- perhaps even as late as Jesus' day.

And that was the obligation of a brother to take into his family

the widow of a dead brother.

 

For an unmarried Jewish guy, who had no intentions of immediately

taking a wife, the obligation may have come as an unexpected

burden, but it would have generally precluded his marrying another.

 

For an already married fellow, the obligation of the family to care

for the widow and her children may have led to bringing her

directly into his household. Without an accompanying marriage,

such a situation of would have been deemed to be immoral. So,

yes, the widow would thus become a plural wife (with or without

the intimate relationship which typically results in offspring).

 

Thus, in times of war, when many Jewish men were slain, there

may have been plural wives made of necessity. Under the

Maccabee priest-kings there were wars in which this sort of

thing may have occurred. As late as the Second Jewish Revolt,

a similar situation may have arisen.

 

Thus, we cannot precisely say that there was no Jewish polygamy.

That it was commanded by God, in any other situation, is a matter

of controversy that only Mormons ever seem to support (and not

the learned scholars of Judaism itself).

 

UD

Edited January 30, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[JLHPROF]

But if I think that, I also have to accept that it was something ordained of God. If so, I can see it two ways:

-God commanded polygamy and let Joseph and others practice it as they felt it was needed.

-God commanded it and sanctioned each decision and action regarding it.

 

I believe the first option is the correct one - after all, Joseph said the principle of plural marriage would damn more than it would save.

[Calm]

Joseph said the principle of plural marriage would damn more than it would save

 

CFR please, that quote is not springing to mind...

[JLHPROF]

CFR please, that quote is not springing to mind...

 

 

The Prophet said...that it [plural marriage] would damn more than it would have because \so many/ unprincipled men would take advantage of it, but that did not prove that it was not a pure principle. If Joseph had had any impure desires he could have gratified them in the style of the world with less danger of his life or his character, than to do as he did. The Lord commanded him to teach & to practice that principle.

—Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, Letter to Mary Bond, n.d., 3-9 quoted in Brian Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy: History, Vol. 1, 26-27

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Lustful_motives

[The Nehor]

I never got the "God would not do that" argument.

We are talking about a God who commanded a father to kill his son and who told us that if we are not willing to forsake even our families for the kingdom's sake then we are not worthy of him.

After swallowing the camel we strain at baby camels.

Maybe it is because our culture has almost deified romantic love that we balk at polygamy as a form of sacrilege?

[carbon dioxide]

I don't get what you mean. It seems to me if it was a mistake in Joseph's day and Joseph misunderstood thinking it was from God, then it could also be a mistake in OT times and those particular people misunderstood, thinking it was from God. And the TO doesn't say it was a command from God.

So one would have to disown D&C 132 and other things from Joseph Smith and the Old Testament prophets like Nathan who told David that it was the Lord that gave him his wives.  And if polygamy was wrong, perhaps other practices are wrong.  Perhaps the whole United Order thing was wrong.  What else in the scriptures is wrong. 

[Mystery Meat]

I never got the "God would not do that" argument.

We are talking about a God who commanded a father to kill his son and who told us that if we are not willing to forsake even our families for the kingdom's sake then we are not worthy of him.

After swallowing the camel we strain at baby camels.

Maybe it is because our culture has almost deified romantic love that we balk at polygamy as a form of sacrilege?

 

Good point.

 

This reminds me of the story of Samuel in the Old Testament. He told Saul that God wanted every living creature dead. Saul spared the king. So when Samuel find out, he, a prophet of God no less, killed the king himself. 

 

And yet we struggle with polygamy.

 

Unreal.

[Nevo]

Good point.

 

This reminds me of the story of Samuel in the Old Testament. He told Saul that God wanted every living creature dead. Saul spared the king. So when Samuel find out, he, a prophet of God no less, killed the king himself. 

 

And yet we struggle with polygamy.

 

Unreal.

 

There may be a double standard for some, but not for me. I find all of it difficult to reconcile: polygamy, Samuel hewing Agag to pieces before the Lord, God commanding the murder of innocents. None of it strikes me as "virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy."

[Calm]

 it [plural marriage] would damn more than it would have

So not exactly damned more than saved, but damned more than it needed to have….

 

If you are still reading it as damned more than saved, could you point out where you think I am missing the "more than saved part" please.

[JLHPROF]

So not exactly damned more than saved, but damned more than it needed to have….

 

If you are still reading it as damned more than saved, could you point out where you think I am missing the "more than saved part" please.

 

I've heard it quoted both ways, and perhaps was less than accurate.  But I think the principle behind the quote is basically the same.  If lived poorly it will damn you, and more seem to live it poorly than well.

[Calm]

Would tend to agree.

[Calm]

And that was the obligation of a brother to take into his family

the widow of a dead brother.

 

Wasn't this limited to if the widow had no children/heirs to look after her or was it in all cases?

[Uncle Dale]

Wasn't this limited to if the widow had no children/heirs to look after her or was it in all cases?

 

I suppose things generally worked out that way. A widow with a living

father could return to him. A widow with adult sons could stay with

them. If no man would marry her, and the widow had means of her

own, then perhaps she could live out the remainder of her years alone.

 

So, I doubt that very many married brothers ever found themselves in

the situation in which they absolutely HAD to take in the widow and kids.

And, even if he did, she might be maintained separately, in her own

furnished home, without having to live with the surviving brother.

 

So, as I've said -- and so far not been contradicted -- polygamy was

NOT a Jewish lifestyle and was rarely one among their precursors, the

Israelites of ancient Palestine.

 

Apostle Orson Hyde, of course, would say that I'm misleading you...

 

UD

[Calm]

Where is volgadon? He has been gone too long.