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

[carbon dioxide]

How about this : ?

1 Timothy 3:2

Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, 

 

amo

I don't see polygamy even been an issue in the text so why translate the verse that way.  Is there any indication that Timothy was confused on how many wives a person should have?

 

Looking at how that Greek word is translated "one (62x), first (8x), a certain (4x), a (3x), the other (1x), agree (with G4160) (with G1106) (1x) (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3391&t=KJV) I see no reason why it can not be translated as

 

"Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of a wife."

Edited April 22, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Robert F. Smith]

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

..........................I was only stating that I think polygamy is nonsense.

Of course you think it nonsense, as do many other people.  The mistake I am suggesting many also make is to objectify that opinion as absolute.  Monogamy alone is difficult enough to practice, without throwing in even more of a burden.

 

That tells us nothing about the ancient world generally, where polygyny was quite common and legal.

[Robert F. Smith]

I think one could also say that plural marriage wasn't authorized in NT times.

False. Even though Greco-Roman culture demanded monogamy (while allowing frequent concubinage of slave girls and formal adopton of offspring), polygyny was legal and often practiced by Jews in the NT world.  Indeed, the Code Justinian even specified that the Jews were required to practice monogamy (demonstrating that they were not complying).

[Tacenda]

Of course you think it nonsense, as do many other people. The mistake I am suggesting many also make is to objectify that opinion as absolute. Monogamy alone is difficult enough to practice, without throwing in even more of a burden.

O

That tells us nothing about the ancient world generally, where polygyny was quite common and legal.

You think living monogamy is difficult?

[SmileyMcGee]

Of course you think it nonsense, as do many other people. The mistake I am suggesting many also make is to objectify that opinion as absolute. Monogamy alone is difficult enough to practice, without throwing in even more of a burden.

That tells us nothing about the ancient world generally, where polygyny was quite common and legal.

You inferred that from my comment?

Edited April 22, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[SmileyMcGee]

Polygamy is natural. Monogamy in the animal kingdom is rare. Look at a lion pride. You see one male lion with several female lions.

Good one. Male lions also kill the cubs of a pride they take over. Perhaps God really does endorse infanticide...you really want to go down the "comparison to the natural world" line of reasoning?

[amo]

I don't see polygamy even been an issue in the text so why translate the verse that way.  Is there any indication that Timothy was confused on how many wives a person should have?

 

Looking at how that Greek word is translated "one (62x), first (8x), a certain (4x), a (3x), the other (1x), agree (with G4160) (with G1106) (1x) (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3391&t=KJV) I see no reason why it can not be translated as

 

"Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of a wife."

So you go with "a", which was only used 3 times, instead of going with "one" which was used 62 times ?  Weird... Why ? Most translators have opted for "one".

 

amo

[danielwoods]

How about this : ?

1 Timothy 3:2

Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, 

 

amo

Further:

Ephesians 5:31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."

Titus 1:6 "An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife…"

 

I'm not seeing any room here for multiple wives? 

[cinepro]

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?

 

 

Exactly.  Or to look at it a different different way, of all the things God condoned in the Old Testament (slavery, stuff like this), take a look and see if there's anything you would have rather had "restored".  Church history might be a little less fun to study if God had brought back the "cleanse the land of your enemies" strategy of public relations.

 

Ultimately, of all the weird stuff God commanded his Prophets and followers to do in the Old Testament, I'm glad  it was polygamy that He felt he needed to "restore" for a few decades in the 1800s.  It could have been a lot worse.

Edited April 22, 2015 by cinepro

[ERayR]

Further:

Ephesians 5:31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."

Titus 1:6 "An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife…"

 

I'm not seeing any room here for multiple wives? 

 

What version are you quoting?

[danielwoods]

What version are you quoting?

 

NIV

[Jeanne]

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.

Gees...I don't approve of it because Emma didn't get the chance to approve it . !

[JLHPROF]

Gees...I don't approve of it because Emma didn't get the chance to approve it . !

 

Now that's not entirely true.  Emma had multiple chances.  She gave Joseph 4 wives.  She read the revelation.  She lived the law of Sarah.  But she wanted limits on the practice that the revelation in D&C 132 denied her.

[Sevenbak]

Exactly.  Or to look at it a different different way, of all the things God condoned in the Old Testament (slavery, stuff like this), take a look and see if there's anything you would have rather had "restored".  Church history might be a little less fun to study if God had brought back the "cleanse the land of your enemies" strategy of public relations.

 

Ultimately, of all the weird stuff God commanded his Prophets and followers to do in the Old Testament, I'm glad  it was polygamy that He felt he needed to "restore" for a few decades in the 1800s.  It could have been a lot worse.

Well, that's true.  I guess the Danites came as close to some of that weird stuff as we can get.

[carbon dioxide]

So you go with "a", which was only used 3 times, instead of going with "one" which was used 62 times ?  Weird... Why ? Most translators have opted for "one".

 

amo

It is not weird.  First, it can be translated as "a".  Second, what in the immediate text requires it to be translated as "one".   Did Timothy have a question of how many wives a person could have?  What verse is it?   Yes the greek word usually is translated as one but that does not mean it has to always be the case.  By using the word "a" instead of "one, it does not change anything to the issue being addressed since there was no question postulated on how many wives an "overseer" could have.

[carbon dioxide]

Further:

Ephesians 5:31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."

Titus 1:6 "An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife…"

 

I'm not seeing any room here for multiple wives? 

I don't see any prohibition to polygamy here.  Where one has one wife, two, or ten, what really changes.  A polygamist man should be faithful to his wives as a monogamist man is faithful to his one wife.  Eph 5:31 is just a rehash of what is said in Genesis.  It is clear that none of the prophets in the Old Testament saw Genesis 2:24 to limit a man to just one wife.  Who do I trust more to understanding the intending meaning of Genesis 2:24.  Those living in 2015 or the Old Testament prophets.  I really don't even have to think about that one.

[Robert F. Smith]

Good one. Male lions also kill the cubs of a pride they take over. Perhaps God really does endorse infanticide...you really want to go down the "comparison to the natural world" line of reasoning?

Well, maybe, since humans are animals, and have many traits in common with other mammals.  For example, a wide variety (not all) of mammals have one male with several females -- as with the great apes -- and it turns out that such circumstances result in higher production of testosterone for both humans and simians.

 

Moreover, historically, polygyny has been more common than monogamy among human societies.  Human monogamy is a fairly recent phenomenon.

[carbon dioxide]

 

 

Moreover, historically, polygyny has been more common than monogamy among human societies.  Human monogamy is a fairly recent phenomenon.

Even modern day human monogamy is sort of a joke.  Ask a NBA player about monogamy and you will get a laugh.

[SmileyMcGee]

Well, maybe, since humans are animals, and have many traits in common with other mammals. For example, a wide variety (not all) of mammals have one male with several females -- as with the great apes -- and it turns out that such circumstances result in higher production of testosterone for both humans and simians.

Moreover, historically, polygyny has been more common than monogamy among human societies. Human monogamy is a fairly recent phenomenon.

Robert, I find that your replies to my comments don't always address the context of my comments. For example, earlier you commented that my opinion of polygamy is not absolute nor does it inform anyone regarding ancient attitudes towards polygamy. That missed the mark as I didn't imply that. My indication that I was asserting opinion should have made that clear. Now we have this recent reply from you that discusses the similarities between humans and other animals. That's fine. I believe we are animals and share a common ancestor with all other species. I favor a natural origin for our species over a creation narrative. However, my comment in context was criticizing the idea that morals can be determined by what occurs in nature. If such an approach is valid then many of the ideals of mormonism would be invalidated (ie, prohibitions on homosexuality, murder, infanticide, etc). Though we are animals we are also unique, just as other species have unique characteristics. We have our own complex social systems that may find certain behaviors common in other species to be inappropriate for our own. For example, are you in favor people having sex in public?...most animals have sex in full view of others. humans generally find that to be distasteful. Now, I'm fully aware of the prevalence of polygyny in the animal kingdom. So what? Many humans, including myself, see it as a distasteful practice for our own species, at least in the institutionalized form that is found in early mormonism. Edited April 23, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[danielwoods]

I don't see any prohibition to polygamy here.  Where one has one wife, two, or ten, what really changes.  A polygamist man should be faithful to his wives as a monogamist man is faithful to his one wife.  Eph 5:31 is just a rehash of what is said in Genesis.  It is clear that none of the prophets in the Old Testament saw Genesis 2:24 to limit a man to just one wife.  Who do I trust more to understanding the intending meaning of Genesis 2:24.  Those living in 2015 or the Old Testament prophets.  I really don't even have to think about that one.

 

Which is to be expected since it wasn't really an issue during the NT times. So the observation that there is no prohibition here, is not exactly ringing endorsement of it. It also isn't ever taught. What is taught is monogamy. 

 

The question is actually quite deeper. How does one become one flesh with more than one person at the same time? How does one remain faithful if he has more than one? If the intention was for man to have many wives, why didn't he teach us that? Why did he only make Adam and Eve in the beginning. The analogy of Christ and the Church and marriage is never used with many wives, it's always monogamy. 

[Tacenda]

I don't see any prohibition to polygamy here. Where one has one wife, two, or ten, what really changes. A polygamist man should be faithful to his wives as a monogamist man is faithful to his one wife. Eph 5:31 is just a rehash of what is said in Genesis. It is clear that none of the prophets in the Old Testament saw Genesis 2:24 to limit a man to just one wife. Who do I trust more to understanding the intending meaning of Genesis 2:24. Those living in 2015 or the Old Testament prophets. I really don't even have to think about that one.

Please CFR, did you know these prophets?

[ERayR]

NIV

 

I was never very fond of it.  To me the KJV brings the spirit to me much better.

[Tacenda]

Even modern day human monogamy is sort of a joke. Ask a NBA player about monogamy and you will get a laugh.

I guess that's where the phrase double standard comes in. I wonder if your wives heard you talk like this what they'd think or say. And I wonder what the men here would say/think if the wives laugh at the suggestion of monogamy working.

In JS's time maybe there were some men (men that think they are God's gift to women) that couldn't fathom having only wife, and wanted to avoid going to the ladies of the night thereby living polygamy. I think there are quotes, most likely by Heber Kimball that allude to this. Funny how it's no problem to the majority of LDS men now, the thought of and actual living of monogamy. I don't think God wanted us to be at the level apes and other animals are in regard to living monogamy. Very surprised that some here made the comparison!

[carbon dioxide]

Which is to be expected since it wasn't really an issue during the NT times. So the observation that there is no prohibition here, is not exactly ringing endorsement of it. It also isn't ever taught. What is taught is monogamy. 

 

The question is actually quite deeper. How does one become one flesh with more than one person at the same time? How does one remain faithful if he has more than one? If the intention was for man to have many wives, why didn't he teach us that? Why did he only make Adam and Eve in the beginning. The analogy of Christ and the Church and marriage is never used with many wives, it's always monogamy. 

Even in LDS doctrine generally monogamy is the rule except in periods where God commands polygamy to a certain people (Jacob 2:30).  Since it was not an issue in NT generally and clearly not in the text, there is no reason for Paul to out of left field to suggest a restriction of "one wife" in these passages.  Which is why I believe even though translators put "one" with wife, that really was not the intention of Paul. 

 

How does one remain faithful to more than one?  How do I remain faithful to my kids?  One can be faithful to a lot of people if one gives promises to them and keeps them. 

 

All polygamy has to start with one wife.  I don't see Genesis 2:24 to be an instruction of only monogamy.  How do we even know that Adam did not have more than one wife?  It is said he lived for 900 years.  One can hardly consider Genesis to be a comprehensive history of his life.  99.9% of his life we don't even know about.  What is absolutely clear to me is that Abraham, Jacob, David, ect did not interpret Genesis 2:24 to be a prohibition against polygamy.  Even more important if Moses had two wives and wrote the following two passages

 

Exodus. 21:10: "If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

 

Deuteronomy 21:15: "If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:"

 

that really is the nail in the coffin for those who think Genesis 2:24 only teach monogamy. If the author of Genesis himself did not arrive to that conclusion, why should I?  That would be like me telling JK Rowlings about Harry Potter and telling her she was wrong.  No.  I think Rowlings is the leading expert on Harry Potter.  I defer to her.

Edited April 23, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[ERayR]

In JS's time maybe there were some men (men that think they are God's gift to women) that couldn't fathom having only wife, and wanted to avoid going to the ladies of the night thereby living polygamy. I think there are quotes, most likely by Heber Kimball that allude to this. Funny how it's no problem to the majority of LDS men now, the thought of and actual living of monogamy. I don't think God wanted us to be at the level apes and other animals are in regard to living monogamy. Very surprised that some here made the comparison!

 

Please cite your references for this.