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

[JLHPROF]

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!

 

Sometimes the extremes in objecting to plural marriage bring about the extremes in defending it.  That's what led to some of Heber and Brigham's silliness in defending a principle they held sacred.  It's the old "ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer" standard.  People get so tired of defending against irrational attacks that they start creating irrational responses.

 

A little more tempered discussion on plural marriage would be nice, but that's not going to happen.  It's a polarizing topic - love it or hate it.  Very few care enough to actually figure out what God really thinks based on canonical scripture.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

True enough, but that is a feature of our modern secular society which applies to all ethnic groups.  Fawn Brodie had a theory that power and money tended to be accompanied by wider sexual predation (even favored by the females), and that this certainly explained the behavior of Thomas Jefferson and Joseph Smith Jr.

 

Thus, even though Greco-Roman culture introduced legal monogamy, it was still acceptable and legal for men to treat all their female slaves as concubines and to frequent houses of prostitution.  The Jews and Christians eschewed those peccadillos, the Jews continuing with legal polygyny where they could.

[Tacenda]

Please cite your references for this.

Not sure which part you need a reference for in my post but have the following dialogue for you to read that mentions plenty, to answer the CFR.  I was going to c/p the portion that answers it, but thought you might want to read the whole thing.  

 

Nauvoo Roots of Mormon Polygamy, 1841-46 : A Preliminary Demographic Report*

 

George D. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Description is not prescription.  We simply live in a time of sexual libertinism by both genders.  It is not actually a double-standard, and movies and comedy sketches take full advantage of this phenomenon.

 

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!

Description is simply not prescription.  We need to face facts and reality.  When we study human behavior, it becomes apparent that we behave very much like the apes, as I point out in my “A Comparison of Human & Chimpanzee Behavior,” 2013, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/154253285/Chimpanzee-Human-Behavior .  That was originally a paper for an anthropology class I took at UCLA.

[rongo]

 

 

Nauvoo Roots of Mormon Polygamy, 1841-46 : A Preliminary Demographic Report*

 

George D. Smith

 

Tacenda, you really need to use more critical thinking instead of automatically, latching on to everything that paints Joseph Smith and the Church in a bad light as your default setting. This is a terrible book, with a lot of problems. Take this excerpt, quoted by "secularhumanism.org"  (  http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/articles/2957  )

 

I used this in a stake/community fireside I did about polygamy:

 

Anti‐Mormon manipulation

 

"It was the summer of 1842 when thirty‐six‐year‐old Joseph Smith, hiding from the law down by the Mississippi River in Illinois, confessed: “My feelings are so strong for you . . . come and see me in this my lonely retreat . . . now is the time to afford me succour . . . I have a room intirely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect saf[e]ty, I know it is the will of God that you should comfort me.” Three weeks earlier, seventeen‐year‐old Sarah Ann Whitney had secretly become the fourteenth plural wife of Joseph Smith, founder and leader of the millennialist Latter‐day Saints (LDS).

 

Here is what the actual letter said (with George D. Smith's excerpt above in bold and underlined):

 

Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c.‐‐

 

I take this oppertunity to communi[c]ate, some of my feelings, privetely at this time, which I want you three Eternaly to keep in your own bosams; for my feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us, that the time of my abscence from you seems so long, and dreary, that it seems, as if I could not live long in this way: and if you three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am alied, do love me, now is the time to afford me succour, in the days of exile, for you know I foretold you of these things. I am now at Carlos Graingers, Just back of Brother Hyrams farm, it is only one mile from town, the nights are very pleasant indeed, all three of you can come and See me in the fore part of the night, let Brother Whitney come a little a head, and nock at the south East corner of the house at the window; it is next to the cornfield, I have a room intirely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safty, I know it is the will of God that you should comfort me now in this time of afiliction, or not at [al]l[] now is the time or never, but I hav[e] no kneed of saying any such thing, to you, for I know the goodness of your hearts, and that you will do the will of the Lord, when it is made known to you; the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma [smith] comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater frendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I will tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. one thing I want to see you for it is to git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c. you will pardon me for my earnestness on this subject when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good feelings know how to make every allowance for me, I close my letter, I think Emma [smith, his first wife] wont come tonight[,] if she dont fail to come to night. I subscribe myself your most obedient, and affectionate, companion, and friend.

[SmileyMcGee]

Description is not prescription. We simply live in a time of sexual libertinism by both genders. It is not actually a double-standard, and movies and comedy sketches take full advantage of this phenomenon.

Description is simply not prescription. We need to face facts and reality. When we study human behavior, it becomes apparent that we behave very much like the apes, as I point out in my “A Comparison of Human & Chimpanzee Behavior,” 2013, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/154253285/Chimpanzee-Human-Behavior . That was originally a paper for an anthropology class I took at UCLA.

Interesting paper, Robert. Thanks for posting the link.

[danielwoods]

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.

 

You really didn't address any of my arguments, but that's ok. 

[carbon dioxide]

 

The question is actually quite deeper. How does one become one flesh with more than one person at the same time?

 

Same why that Christ told his disciples to become one just as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one.  It is not like the husband or wife eat each other so they are literally the same flesh.

 

How does one remain faithful if he has more than one?

 

One can be faithful to more than one person.  Just keep your commitments.

 

If the intention was for man to have many wives, why didn't he teach us that?

 

If the intention was for a man to always have one wife and never more than one, why did the Bible writers miss that.  Why did the prophets miss that.

 

 

Why did he only make Adam and Eve in the beginning.

 

Got to start somewhere

 

 

The analogy of Christ and the Church and marriage is never used with many wives, it's always monogamy. 

 

Parable of the 10 virgins going to meet their groom.  The entire setting is polygamy.

 

Also the church consists of many people.  Male, females, young and old.  I would be real careful with this argument.  If Christ is literally marrying the Church, not only is he engaging in the biggest form of polygamy ever conceived but polygamy with both men and women, old and young.

Edited April 23, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[ERayR]

 

Not sure which part you need a reference for in my post but have the following dialogue for you to read that mentions plenty, to answer the CFR.  I was going to c/p the portion that answers it, but thought you might want to read the whole thing.  

 

Nauvoo Roots of Mormon Polygamy, 1841-46 : A Preliminary Demographic Report*

 

George D. Smith

 

 

See Rongo's post # 105.  You really should consider letting go of your unreasonable hatred of all things about polygamy. 

[Tacenda]

See Rongo's post # 105. You really should consider letting go of your unreasonable hatred of all things about polygamy.

If you found anything incorrect in the dialogue, feel free to correct me, even harshly. This really happened, imo, and might you and others be in denial? JS, BY and others set the precedent for women to be judged according to Eve's disobeying the Father. They used Eve to subjugate, imo.They put the male in between her and God. If you read this particular dialogue and read some of their language, you will see it was woven in the temple language. They spoke as man and used it in the temple. But that was then and this is now. Nothing to worry my not so pretty head over. I'll move along, I know the church is a rosy picture. And believe it is, everywhere else, thus the tight grasp it has on me.

[ALarson]

 

Parable of the 10 virgins going to meet their groom.  The entire setting is polygamy.

I have read that the 10 virgins were the bridesmaids.  There is absolutely no evidence that they were to be polygamous brides.  One can infer what they want though, of course.

[ALarson]

Tacenda, you really need to use more critical thinking instead of automatically, latching on to everything that paints Joseph Smith and the Church in a bad light as your default setting. This is a terrible book, with a lot of problems. Take this excerpt, quoted by "secularhumanism.org"  (  http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/articles/2957  )

 

I used this in a stake/community fireside I did about polygamy:

 

 

 

 

Here is what the actual letter said (with George D. Smith's excerpt above in bold and underlined):

The letter is still odd.  Why warn them about Emma?  Why state this:

 

 I have a room intirely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safty, I know it is the will of God that you should comfort me now in this time of afiliction, or not at [al]l[] now is the time or never, but I hav[e] no kneed of saying any such thing, to you, for I know the goodness of your hearts, and that you will do the will of the Lord, when it is made known to you; the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma [smith] comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible,

 

 

[danielwoods]

The question is actually quite deeper. How does one become one flesh with more than one person at the same time?

 

Same why that Christ told his disciples to become one just as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one.  It is not like the husband or wife eat each other so they are literally the same flesh.

 

It says these two shall be one flesh. Your answer fails to explain how one man can be one flesh with more than one? 

The concept of oneness or "one flesh" is representative of the deepest of all human relationships that we have in our lives. Marriage, the joining of two individuals of the opposite sex. The depth of that relationship is obviously hindered if more are added. Why is that? The answer is easy, our time and attention are then divided between how many more people?  

 

How does one remain faithful if he has more than one?

 

One can be faithful to more than one person.  Just keep your commitments.

 

Faithfulness in marriage is more than just keeping one's commitments. "Marital faithfulness" is connected to the concept of one flesh. With more than one wife involved, the idea of faithfulness to one is lost. This is a huge problem and why one the biggest topics when talking to polygamists is dealing with jealousy. 

 

If the intention was for man to have many wives, why didn't he teach us that?

 

If the intention was for a man to always have one wife and never more than one, why did the Bible writers miss that.  Why did the prophets miss that.

 

Husband of one wife is taught. No one missed it. The OT prophets lived in a different culture and time, just as slavery was common so also was polygamy. What isn't taught is polygamy. 

 

Why did he only make Adam and Eve in the beginning.

 

Got to start somewhere

 

And God could have made Adam and Eve and how ever many more wives, but he didn't. That sets a precedent. 

 

The analogy of Christ and the Church and marriage is never used with many wives, it's always monogamy. 

 

Parable of the 10 virgins going to meet their groom.  The entire setting is polygamy.

 

Also the church consists of many people.  Male, females, young and old.  I would be real careful with this argument.  If Christ is literally marrying the Church, not only is he engaging in the biggest form of polygamy ever conceived but polygamy with both men and women, old and young.

The analogy, if you want to argue for polygamy, would be that Christ has many Churches… which isn't ever stated or taught. Rather, Christ has one Church, whom he cares for. Even the LDS church states that there is only one true church. 

[JLHPROF]

If you found anything incorrect in the dialogue, feel free to correct me, even harshly. This really happened, imo, and might you and others be in denial? JS, BY and others set the precedent for women to be judged according to Eve's disobeying the Father. They used Eve to subjugate, imo.They put the male in between her and God. If you read this particular dialogue and read some of their language, you will see it was woven in the temple language. They spoke as man and used it in the temple. But that was then and this is now. Nothing to worry my not so pretty head over. I'll move along, I know the church is a rosy picture. And believe it is, everywhere else, thus the tight grasp it has on me.

 

Or maybe, just maybe, the doctrine you despise is correct and scriptural, not just a cultural relic.

[SmileyMcGee]

Delete

Edited April 23, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Calm]

The letter is still odd.  Why warn them about Emma?  Why state this:

 

 

I have aways read it as concern that his (and their) enemies are keeping an eye on Emma as the one most likely to bring their spies to where Josepn is. Just watched a police procedural where they didi just that, tailed the wife to lead them to the husband.

 

If there is no observation of themselves and no Emma who was known to be under observation it would seem to me, the conclusion can be it would be safe to meet.

Edited April 23, 2015 by calmoriah

[carbon dioxide]

 

It says these two shall be one flesh. Your answer fails to explain how one man can be one flesh with more than one? 

The concept of oneness or "one flesh" is representative of the deepest of all human relationships that we have in our lives. Marriage, the joining of two individuals of the opposite sex. The depth of that relationship is obviously hindered if more are added. Why is that? The answer is easy, our time and attention are then divided between how many more people?  

 

Why would the relationship be hindered if there is more than one?    You fail to explain how one flesh can only be with two people. 

 

 

Faithfulness in marriage is more than just keeping one's commitments. "Marital faithfulness" is connected to the concept of one flesh. With more than one wife involved, the idea of faithfulness to one is lost. This is a huge problem and why one the biggest topics when talking to polygamists is dealing with jealousy. 

 

Those problems exist in monogamy.  I could argue there would be far less cheating if one was in polygamy.

 

 

Husband of one wife is taught. No one missed it. The OT prophets lived in a different culture and time, just as slavery was common so also was polygamy. What isn't taught is polygamy. 

 

It may have been in the culture but clearly God approved of it in Old Testament times and in the Book of Mormon when situations when God commanded it (Jacob 2:30) and in latter day times.   Keep in mind that the revelation to end polygamy says it was ended because of the government imposing itself on the Church.  The Lord did not tell Wilford "You idiots.  I did not tell you to practice that."  Had the government not violated the First Amendment, polygamy would not have ended at the end of the 19th century.

 

 

And God could have made Adam and Eve and how ever many more wives, but he didn't. That sets a precedent. 

 

I think you are reading something into the text that is no there.  Clearly the prophets did not come away with that meaning.

 

The analogy, if you want to argue for polygamy, would be that Christ has many Churches… which isn't ever stated or taught. Rather, Christ has one Church, whom he cares for. Even the LDS church states that there is only one true church. 

 

Christ uses different analogies to explain his metaphorical relationship with his people.  He is the shepherd.  We are his sheep. That does mean we are literally sheep.  The analogy that the Church is the bride is also another metaphor.  Jesus is the bridegroom.  The 10 virgins are his brides.  Another illusion to the Church but in this case it is a polygamy setting.   I really do not see how this point proves your case at all.  You are really reaching to search for excuses to claim that polygamy is against God.

 

YES or NO.  The Parable of the 10 virgins is a parable based on a polygamist setting.   Christ is the bridegroom coming for 10 virgin brides but only 5 are prepared for the wedding.

Edited April 23, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[rongo]

The letter is still odd.  Why warn them about Emma?  Why state this:

 

 

Because Emma vaccilated back and forth, approving plural wives, and then weeks later vehemently demanding that he turn them out. This happened multiple times. He was asking for the Whitneys to come so he could seal them, but it was better for everyone involved if Emma didn't know (no one needed her to go on a rampage). He was already sealed to the daughter.

 

You do admit that George D. Smith's use of the letter is a dishonest atrocity, though, right? He was using it to claim a clandestine sexual hook-up.

Edited April 24, 2015 by rongo

[JLHPROF]

 

You do admit that George D. Smith's use of the letter is a dishonest atrocity, though, right? He was using it to insinuate a sexual tryst.

 

Oh that book was very biased.  It didn't read like objective history at all.

[Teancum]

Or maybe, just maybe, the doctrine you despise is correct and scriptural, not just a cultural relic.

Do you accept polygamy when practiced by other religious sects or leaders?

[JulieM]

I don't remember there being any statement that the 10 virgins were 10 brides for the bridegroom in the parable. What is stated about the bride at all?

[JLHPROF]

Do you accept polygamy when practiced by other religious sects or leaders?

 

That's a loaded question.

I firmly believe that correct priesthood authority is necessary to make it acceptable to God.

I also find nothing objectionable in the practice itself.

 

Meshing those two viewpoint has always been a tricky thing for me.  I'm not sure how I view unauthorized polygamy.  The priesthood is needed, but without the priesthood the practice isn't objectionable - why would God authorize an objectionable practice, it's just not right.  Tough conflict to resolve, even for me.

[Calm]

I don't remember there being any statement that the 10 virgins were 10 brides for the bridegroom in the parable. What is stated about the bride at all?

I believe the reasoning is they were brides because that would be the only reason for them to be waiting for the groom in such a matter.

Don't have a clue if this is historically accurate or not.

The parable would need to make sense in the culture of that time period. Anyone know why virgins would be waiting for a bridegroom (as opposed to being attendants of the bride or just going to the party with everyone else)? Why were they virgins and not just other partygoers as related in other parables?

Edited April 24, 2015 by calmoriah

[JLHPROF]

I don't remember there being any statement that the 10 virgins were 10 brides for the bridegroom in the parable. What is stated about the bride at all?

 

It does if you know the Jewish tradition:

 

http://www.wildolive.co.uk/weddings.htm

The wedding chamber and the Chuppah

Before leaving the young man would announce, " I am going to prepare a place for you ", and  "I will return for you when it is ready".   The usual practice was for the young man to return to his father's house and build a honeymoon room there.   This is what is symbolized by the chuppah or canopy which is characteristic of Jewish weddings.   He was not allowed to skimp on the work and had to get  his father's approval before he could consider it ready for his bride.   If asked the date of his wedding he would have to reply, "Only my father knows."

Meanwhile the bride would be making herself ready so that she would be pure and beautiful for her bridegroom.   During this time she would wear a veil when she went, out to show she was spoken for (she has been bought with a price)

The Wedding

When the wedding chamber was ready the bridegroom could collect his bride.   He could do this at any time so the bride would make special arrangements.   It was the custom for a bride to keep a lamp, her veil and her other things beside her bed.   Her bridesmaids were also waiting and had to have oil ready for their lamps.

When the groom and his friends got close to the bride's house they would give a shout and blow a shofar to let her know to be ready.

 

 

Yeah, the 10 virgins  were Brides and Bridesmaids waiting for the Bridegroom.   Except in the parable no difference is indicated between the virgins, perhaps alluding to them all being Brides of the one Bridegroom.

Edited April 24, 2015 by JLHPROF

[danielwoods]

It says these two shall be one flesh. Your answer fails to explain how one man can be one flesh with more than one? 

The concept of oneness or "one flesh" is representative of the deepest of all human relationships that we have in our lives. Marriage, the joining of two individuals of the opposite sex. The depth of that relationship is obviously hindered if more are added. Why is that? The answer is easy, our time and attention are then divided between how many more people?  

 

Why would the relationship be hindered if there is more than one?    You fail to explain how one flesh can only be with two people. 

 

Your first question is hardly worth responding to. You don't really mean to say you don't understand how adding wives to a relationship would hinder all other relationships? 

 

Let's look at the scripture first.  

 

Mark 10:6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

 

Notice, that Jesus is teaching that a man will have one wife, that is the ideal, that is what is taught. God calls man and wife one flesh. He doesn't call man and many women one flesh. The very definition given by God is that it is one man and one woman equals one flesh. So, it's not me that is claiming that it's limited to only a man and a woman, but God himself. 

 

Further Paul makes a point using the negative form of this. 

 

1 Cor. 6:15 "Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”"

 

So, you can see that the very act itself unifies a man and a woman. Now, how can one man be "one flesh" with more than one woman? That is the question you haven't answered or even addressed. 

 

Faithfulness in marriage is more than just keeping one's commitments. "Marital faithfulness" is connected to the concept of one flesh. With more than one wife involved, the idea of faithfulness to one is lost. This is a huge problem and why one the biggest topics when talking to polygamists is dealing with jealousy. 

 

Those problems exist in monogamy.  I could argue there would be far less cheating if one was in polygamy.

 

And I would point out that those in polygamy are always talking about "fairness" which is simply another term for managing the jealously naturally resulting from such a situation, which is absent in monogamous relationships. In other words, polygamy sanctifies cheating. 

 

Husband of one wife is taught. No one missed it. The OT prophets lived in a different culture and time, just as slavery was common so also was polygamy. What isn't taught is polygamy. 

 

It may have been in the culture but clearly God approved of it in Old Testament times and in the Book of Mormon when situations when God commanded it (Jacob 2:30) and in latter day times.   Keep in mind that the revelation to end polygamy says it was ended because of the government imposing itself on the Church.  The Lord did not tell Wilford "You idiots.  I did not tell you to practice that."  Had the government not violated the First Amendment, polygamy would not have ended at the end of the 19th century.

 

Right. The NT only teaches monogamy. 

 

And God could have made Adam and Eve and how ever many more wives, but he didn't. That sets a precedent. 

 

I think you are reading something into the text that is no there.  Clearly the prophets did not come away with that meaning.

 

Clearly? The fact remains that the NT teaches monogamy. 

 

The analogy, if you want to argue for polygamy, would be that Christ has many Churches… which isn't ever stated or taught. Rather, Christ has one Church, whom he cares for. Even the LDS church states that there is only one true church. 

 

Christ uses different analogies to explain his metaphorical relationship with his people.  He is the shepherd.  We are his sheep. That does mean we are literally sheep.  The analogy that the Church is the bride is also another metaphor.  Jesus is the bridegroom.  The 10 virgins are his brides.  Another illusion to the Church but in this case it is a polygamy setting.   I really do not see how this point proves your case at all.  You are really reaching to search for excuses to claim that polygamy is against God.

 

YES or NO.  The Parable of the 10 virgins is a parable based on a polygamist setting.   Christ is the bridegroom coming for 10 virgin brides but only 5 are prepared for the wedding.

Christ uses different analogies to describe his relationship to his church, and it is a monogamous marriage that is used, not a polygamist marriage. Christ and his church. Not Christ and his churches. Rev. 19:7 "Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready."

 

With reference to Mt. 25

Jesus gives four parables to explain to his disciples how and why they should be prepared for his coming: the homeowner and the thief (Mt 24:42-44), the good and wicked servants (Mt 24:45-51), the 10 virgins (Mt 25:1-13), and the talents (Mt 25:14-30). In the parable Mt. 25 Christ isn't the bridegroom, rather it's a Jewish wedding and if one wanted to participate, like the 10 virgins, and the whole community as was the custom then and today, they had better be prepared.