SmileyMcGee Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 How about asking this a different way? Why is the opposition to the modern dispensation restitution of polygamy so rampant when God approved of it and specifically "gave" wives to Old Testament prophets?How about asking your question a different way: why do we assume that OT prophets, like Abraham, even existed and if they did, why do we assume that God "gave them wives" (a horribly objectifying phrase) and that the prophets didn't just participate in polygamy without divine consent? 1
sunstoned Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) So, did polyandry need to be restored too?Section 132 was not followed by JS. All wives needed to virgins, you needed permission from the first wife, etc. The only "evidence" that God wanted JS to take many wives comes from JS. The way the JS went about this was in the shadows, and it involved lying to Emma, the church, and to the public. His first "wife" was taken several years before he received the sealing power, so I guess no sealing for time and eternity for Fanny. He took men's daughters promising exaltation in the celestial kingdom in return. Something only God can do. This does not add up to a convincing story at all. In my opinion this is not how a prophet acts. This type of behavior seems to suggest some other motivation. It's like my grandpa told me once: if you hear hoof beats, think horses, not zebras. Edited April 21, 2015 by sunstoned
BCSpace Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 I asked this question over on the polyandry thread:"So, why did polygamy need to be restored or lived again if it had never been commanded by God previously here on earth?"Thanks in advance for any answers. A previous example would be God's authorization of it through the prophet Nathan as he reminded David in 2 Samuel 12:7-8
carbon dioxide Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 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.If Abraham was an adulter and a whoremonger than we probably all should be that. It seemed to work out for him pretty well.
Sevenbak Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 How about asking your question a different way: why do we assume that OT prophets, like Abraham, even existed and if they did, why do we assume that God "gave them wives" (a horribly objectifying phrase) and that the prophets didn't just participate in polygamy without divine consent?We don't assume, because there is a record. And that Old Testament tells us that the Lord "gave" multiple wives to His servants. If that wasn't divine consent, I don't know what is.
Sevenbak Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 If Abraham was an adulter and a whoremonger than we probably all should be that. It seemed to work out for him pretty well. And there seems to be one of the biggest arguments for the Saved by Grace / dead works teaching.
Damien the Leper Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 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.So you doubt the patriarchs? Fair enough.
Damien the Leper Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) 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.I understand our projection and our personal beliefs but that may not be the case of the evidence. The evidence will trump "revelation" every time.The awesome thing about revelation is that it does not presume to know better than evidence or history. This fact is one which I'm most grateful for. Edited April 21, 2015 by Valentinus
carbon dioxide Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) I understand our projection and our personal beliefs but that may not be the case of the evidence. The evidence will trump "revelation" every time.The awesome thing about revelation is that it does not presume to know better than evidence or history. This fact is one which I'm most grateful for.Evidence is open to interpretation and evidence changes over time as well. I don't think God care much about evidence that man seeks for as the only evidence man can find is extremely limited. When mankind is at his very best, mankind is still a retard to God on His worst day. Edited April 21, 2015 by carbon dioxide
carbon dioxide Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 And there seems to be one of the biggest arguments for the Saved by Grace / dead works teaching.I am sure Abraham also is very thankful for grace. Abraham was a polygamist. Abraham is in the kingdom of God. And Abraham has received his exaltation. Since God does not look up on sin with the least degree of allowance, God must have been ok with Abraham and polygamy. But perhaps that scripture in D&C 1 will make people uncomfortable. Perhaps D&C 1 should be thrown out with Section 132 and any other section that makes people feel uncomfortable.
Storm Rider Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 I asked this question over on the polyandry thread:"So, why did polygamy need to be restored or lived again if it had never been commanded by God previously here on earth?"Thanks in advance for any answers. I appreciate your question, but I don't have a direct answer for it. I don't know why God wanted the saints to practice plural marriage for such a short time. I am glad we don't practice it now; I don't think I would be a good participant in such a calling. During my life as I have come through the loss of our first born son, the death of my older brother, a chronic illness that resulted in an organ transplant, the loss of a career, and many other experiences I learned that not every question will have an answer in this life. I am not saying that you will not find an answer, but that none of us should allow an unanswered question to affect our faith in our Father in Heaven and his restored gospel. This position may not be fulfilling or enough for some to move on, but for me it has helped me understand the need to move forward. 2
SmileyMcGee Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 We don't assume, because there is a record. And that Old Testament tells us that the Lord "gave" multiple wives to His servants. If that wasn't divine consent, I don't know what is.If it's written down it must be accurate... 1
Sevenbak Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 I suppose one could use that excuse for everything they don't agree with in the scriptures. The facts remain that the Lord "gave" multiple wives to OT prophets. 1
The Nehor Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 So you doubt the patriarchs? Fair enough.That would be a radical interpretation of the text.
ALarson Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) The Bible is rife with the operating assumption that polygyny is acceptable to God in general. It seems to come down to whether one believes that God allowing polygamy in the past is the same as commanding someone to live polygamy. An "operating assumption" that polygamy (or polygyny) was acceptable to God is not quite the same thing as believing it was a principle that needed to be restored to the point that an angel came with a drawn sword and threatened Joseph's life if he didn't start living polygamy. I think that's the leap that many just cannot make. Then one sees how Joseph lived polygamy and that he didn't even follow what was written in D&C 132, and it becomes even more difficult to believe this came from God. I know many can still believe it did and I respect their right to do so. But they should also see that many just simply cannot believe the type of polygamy lived by many in the early days of the church that caused so much pain and betrayal came from God. Edited April 21, 2015 by ALarson 1
SmileyMcGee Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) I suppose one could use that excuse for everything they don't agree with in the scriptures. The facts remain that the Lord "gave" multiple wives to OT prophets.Not an excuse, just an identification of the large assumptions that you are making. Frankly I don't care what God did or did not do. to me polygamy is still nonsense even if God approves of it. Edited April 21, 2015 by SmileyMcGee
Robert F. Smith Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 ........................................................................ .............................difficult to believe this came from God. I know many can still believe it did and I respect their right to do so. But they should also see that many just simply cannot believe the type of polygamy lived by many in the early days of the church that caused so much pain and betrayal came from God.Not an excuse, just an identification of the large assumptions that you are making. Frankly I don't care what God did or did not do. to me polygamy is still nonsense even if God approves of it.It was very difficult for the early Mormons to believe in and practice it as well. They were part of a very monogamous culture. The same applies to people nowadays finding it difficult to accept same sex marriage. People tend to be shocked and troubled by any sort of non-traditional marriage pattern, and your comments and feelings are by no means unusual. It has to do with ethnocentrism for all of us. Since most of us picture God in our own image, we find it difficult at best to associate any of that with Him. Indeed, we very bravely reject it "even if God approves of it." That actually tells a lot about us, not about God. 3
Sevenbak Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 Not an excuse, just an identification of the large assumptions that you are making. Frankly I don't care what God did or did not do. to me polygamy is still nonsense even if God approves of it.It's not an assumption, it's in the record. There are also many provisions for it within the law of Moses. Don't get me wrong I'm not advocating it, I'm saying it was practiced, it was condoned, but more importantly, it was given by God Himself.
amo Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 How about this : ?1 Timothy 3:2Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, amo
JLHPROF Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 How about this : ?1 Timothy 3:2Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, amo Minimum requirement, not limit. In my opinion based on how it is phrased. 1
SmileyMcGee Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 It's not an assumption, it's in the record. There are also many provisions for it within the law of Moses. Don't get me wrong I'm not advocating it, I'm saying it was practiced, it was condoned, but more importantly, it was given by God Himself.you really don't see the assumption you are making? By saying that God did it because it's in the record you are assuming that the record is accurate; ie, that the things in the record happened and were approved of God. That assumption is how you get from point A ("it is in the record") to point B ("therefore God did it"). It is a HUGE assumption.
SmileyMcGee Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) It was very difficult for the early Mormons to believe in and practice it as well. They were part of a very monogamous culture. The same applies to people nowadays finding it difficult to accept same sex marriage. People tend to be shocked and troubled by any sort of non-traditional marriage pattern, and your comments and feelings are by no means unusual. It has to do with ethnocentrism for all of us.Since most of us picture God in our own image, we find it difficult at best to associate any of that with Him. Indeed, we very bravely reject it "even if God approves of it." That actually tells a lot about us, not about God.clearly. If you need context refer to the comment I was replying to. I didn't imply that my beliefs were unusual or that they explain anything about the nature of God. I was only stating that I think polygamy is nonsense. Edited April 22, 2015 by SmileyMcGee
amo Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 Minimum requirement, not limit. In my opinion based on how it is phrased.Sure, and it doesn't say 2 or more...
carbon dioxide Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 Not an excuse, just an identification of the large assumptions that you are making. Frankly I don't care what God did or did not do. to me polygamy is still nonsense even if God approves of it.Polygamy is natural. Monogamy in the animal kingdom is rare. Look at a lion pride. You see one male lion with several female lions.
BCSpace Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 Minimum requirement, not limit. In my opinion based on how it is phrased. I think one could also say that plural marriage wasn't authorized in NT times.
Recommended Posts