Why Did Polygamy Need To Be Restored When Not Previously Commanded?

[The Nehor]

I do. But I'll switch it with ignorant.

My argument is that Genesis is the authority on itself and needs no clarification when read in its original language and proper theological context. A rabbi friend of mine has constantly reminded me of this. My word choice of uneducated stems from this important principle.

So everything the Old Testament patriarchs did and all the times they were commanded by God to do something are spelled out comprehensively in Genesis? If that is what you are saying then I am afraid I have to call you uneducated and ignorant.

[rongo]

I'm surprised that the standard proof-text hasn't been brought up yet. Jacob 2:30 states that, while monogamy is the "default setting," the Lord can command otherwise. This establishes that God *can* command polygamy. The question is whether or not He did (and I believe that He did and that He commanded that it be revoked when He did).

 

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.

Edited April 20, 2015 by rongo

[HappyJackWagon]

We're all a bunch of children arguing in a sandbox, acting like we understand God.

[ERayR]

If you don't mind JulieM, may I ask why is a drawn sword not happened with other things such as the leaders right before the MMM or no blacks in the prophecy, etc? And what if JS never thought to ask about restoring polygamy in the first place, might not we have that in our history, what else could there be that JS might not have restored that was needed if that were or is the case?

 

We can not know the "might have beens".  The only things we can know is what is and then only from our personal point of view.

[ERayR]

We're all a bunch of children arguing in a sandbox, acting like we understand God.

 

But we have to keep trying.

[ERayR]

That is a huge assumption that cannot be attested to Abraham, David, or Solomon. Let's stop that uneducated line of thinking before it starts.

 

We all( you, me and everybody else) make huge assumptions that can not be attested by anything other than our own point of view.  It is how we make sense of our part of the world.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

But we have to keep trying.

 

But maybe we should recognize our limitations. This goes for both sides. Instead of thinking we have all the answers we should "Try" to understand a little better and be a little kinder.

[JulieM]

So, the answer to my opening post's question seems to be "because Joseph said it needed to be restored". Does that pretty much sum it up? If that's the case, then this is why many are having issues over learning details of how Joseph implemented and lived polygamy. And, if Joseph was commanded to restore polygamy, why did he feel he needed to also live polyandry? Did Joseph believe that was part of the restoration of polygamy?

[JLHPROF]

And, if Joseph was commanded to restore polygamy, why did he feel he needed to also live polyandry? Did Joseph believe that was part of the restoration of polygamy?

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65260-why-did-polygamy-need-to-be-restored-when-not-previously-commanded/#entry1209487830

 

Polyandry is not doctrine.  Never was restored/commanded.  Polyandry occurred in two ways:

- either one marriage was for time and one was for eternity only.

OR

- only one was considered a marriage in the eyes of God as the secular marriages were seen as invalid

[JulieM]

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65260-why-did-polygamy-need-to-be-restored-when-not-previously-commanded/#entry1209487830

 

Polyandry is not doctrine.  Never was restored/commanded.  Polyandry occurred in two ways:

- either one marriage was for time and one was for eternity only.

OR

- only one was considered a marriage in the eyes of God as the secular marriages were seen as invalid

There were very few "eternity only" sealings but maybe some of Joseph's were (not all though). I do know that some of Brigham Young's were for time only since they were sealed to Joseph for eternity. As far as the last option, who determined which legal marriages were "invalid"? The man who wanted to marry the other, legal husband's wife?

[The Nehor]

But maybe we should recognize our limitations. This goes for both sides. Instead of thinking we have all the answers we should "Try" to understand a little better and be a little kinder.

But then who will burn all the heretics?

[JLHPROF]

 As far as the last option, who determined which legal marriages were "invalid"? The man who wanted to marry the other, legal husband's wife?

 

No, all legal marriages were considered invalid, because they were bound by no authority.  At least that was the teaching.  Parley Pratt's polyandrous wife considered her own legal marriage to be meaningless when she married Parley.

We don't have to agree with the teaching, but we cannot understand polyandrous marriage if we don't understand this principle - that civil marriage was not seen as binding.

[JulieM]

No, all legal marriages were considered invalid, because they were bound by no authority.  At least that was the teaching.  Parley Pratt's polyandrous wife considered her own legal marriage to be meaningless when she married Parley.

We don't have to agree with the teaching, but we cannot understand polyandrous marriage if we don't understand this principle - that civil marriage was not seen as binding.

Do you have a reference for this teaching, JLHPROF? Thanks!

[JLHPROF]

Do you have a reference for this teaching, JLHPROF? Thanks!

 

 

Van Wagoner's Mormon Polygamy pgs 42 & 46 in the chapter on polyandry.

Pg 42 - Smith viewed as invalid those marriages not sealed by his blessing...Claiming sole responsiblity for binding and unbinding marriages on earth and in heaven, he did not consider it necessary to obtain civil marriage licenses or divorce decrees.

 

Pg 46-47 - quoting John D. Lee - "About the same time the doctrine of 'sealing' was introduced...the saints were given to understand that their marriage relations with each other were not valid...If their marriage had not been productive of blessing and peace, and they felt it oppressive to remain together, they were at liberty to make their own choice, much as if they had not been married."

and quoting Increase McGee - "it is now the woman's privilege to choose whom she sees fit; if she likes the one she had been living with, she can keep him; if not, she is at liberty to ship him and take another;"

 

Also :

Eleanor J. McLean married Parley P. Pratt in polygamy while still married to Hector McLean, although she was separated from him. When asked if she had divorced McLean before she married Pratt, she answered: “No, the sectarian priests have no power from God to marry; and a so called marriage ceremony performed by them is no marriage at all; no divorce was needed… . Stephen Pratt, “The Last Days of Parley P. Pratt,” Brigham Young University Studies (1975): 20.

[The Nehor]

We're all a bunch of children arguing in a sandbox, acting like we understand God.

Some of us have actually talked to Him. While we may have unfounded assumptions about him due to our childish understanding we are sure of the things God told us.

[Jeanne]

In my view, it didn't need to be.  It is unfortunate that in comparison with the Bible it puts Polygamists wives on the level of concubines.

[Calm]

That's the thing isn't it. I've heard evangelicals call Abraham an adulterer and whoremonger, but God had no one else to do his work so he worked through him anyway. It boggles the mind, that line of thinking, but to each his own I guess.

Especially given how Abraham is described in the scriptures.

[Tacenda]

In my view, it didn't need to be. It is unfortunate that in comparison with the Bible it puts Polygamists wives on the level of concubines.

Can't believe Joseph wanted to restore that thinking! Oh wait, can believe it. No disrepect to those that believe it, especially JLHPROF. Edited April 21, 2015 by Tacenda

[Teancum]

You are making a HUGE assumption.  We may have no record of it being commanded, but the fact that God restored it by way of commandment to Joseph indicates it was commanded previously, record or not.

Uhhhh you think Julie M is making a huge assumption? And you say this with a straight face?

[JLHPROF]

Uhhhh you think Julie M is making a huge assumption? And you say this with a straight face?

 

Yep.

[JLHPROF]

Can't believe Joseph wanted to restore that thinking! Oh wait, can believe it. No disrepect to those that believe it, especially JLHPROF.

 

When it comes to polygamy those who object to it (as is their right) need to ask themselves if they are objecting to it because THEY don't approve or because GOD doesn't approve.

If God approved of something and I didn't I would be working to change my thinking.

I have seen little to no evidence that God didn't approve.

 

OUR opinions don't matter.  Only what God has revealed matters.

[Robert F. Smith]

....................................................................there is no evidence that God ever commanded anyone else to live polygamy.

 

The Bible is rife with the operating assumption that polygyny is acceptable to God in general.  Certainly this was the case with the Patriarchs to the degree that God interferes with marriage and progeny to assure that the covenant is kept.  However, God also ordered polygyny by direct commandment in some cases:

 

The Prophet Nathan:  "Thus saith the Lord God of Israel: I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee from the hand of Saul, And gave thee thy master's house and thy master's wives into thy bosom" (II Samuel 12:7).

 

The law of Levirate (Deuteronomy 21:15-17, 25:5-10) also frequently required polygyny in cases where the Levir was already married, and in the Middle Ages the Pope even gave occasional permission for Jews to take a second wife when the first wife was childless.  Indeed, among Jews polygyny was legal for most of their history, and was only outlawed by the rabbis relatively recently.  Moreover, Luther and Calvin could not agree on this issue, Martin Luther claiming that polygyny was permissible.  The upshot is that John Calvin believed that the Patriarchs sinned in practicing polygyny.  Talk about ethnocentrism!!

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm surprised that the standard proof-text hasn't been brought up yet. Jacob 2:30 states that, while monogamy is the "default setting," the Lord can command otherwise. This establishes that God *can* command polygamy. The question is whether or not He did (and I believe that He did and that He commanded that it be revoked when He did).

 

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.

This was not the "default setting," but only the command to Father Lehi for that time and place.  Rather limited in scope based on the biblical evidence.

[Robert F. Smith]

We're all a bunch of children arguing in a sandbox, acting like we understand God.

Speak for yourself, good buddy.

[Robert F. Smith]

It is an interesting question. If Abraham and Moses and Isaac and Jacob can be polygamists and not incur the displeasure of God for it, and even still be prophets while doing it, then why does whether or not JS was commanded to practice polygamy matter?

 

If Abraham was wrong about polygamy but still a prophet of God, then can JS be wrong about polygamy and still be a prophet?

The anger of the totalitarian Right in America is incurred whenever their particular brand of religious practice is not enforced by secular law.  At one time this meant the barbaric practice of polygyny, while today it is same sex marriage.  The U. S. Constitution means nothing to them, and they trample it on mere whim.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Robert F. Smith