Avatar4321 Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 Legally I see absolutely no justification for polygamy not to be legalized. It doesn't make sense to change the definition as a union between a man and a woman. Especially when plural narrowband still between a man and a woman.I doubt the Lord will command it again any time soon. So as long as it's against the laws of God, we should oppose it because it will prevent people from becoming citizens in the kingdom.
Coreyb Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 Ether 1:41 Go to and gather together thy flocks, both male and female, of every kind; and also of the seed of the earth of every kind; and thy families; and also Jared thy brother and his family; and also thy friends and their families, and the friends of Jared and their families.(Brother of Jared has families, Jared has a family) Ether 6:20 And accordingly the people were gathered together. Now the number of the sons and the daughters of the brother of Jared were twenty and two souls; and the number of sons and daughters of Jared were twelve, he having four sons. Ok, so it's a bit of assumption, but given the distinction of families vs family and the 22 kids it's a pretty safe one.Interesting. I suppose it could be referring to families from successive marriages as well, but who knows
JLHPROF Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 Interesting. I suppose it could be referring to families from successive marriages as well, but who knows It could I suppose. But usually successive kids (kids of wife one and kids of wife two) who reside with the father are not considered separate families.But in polygamy the children of two different wives sometimes are.Still, as I said, it's just an assumption.
carbon dioxide Posted July 7, 2015 Author Posted July 7, 2015 (edited) Ether 1:41 Go to and gather together thy flocks, both male and female, of every kind; and also of the seed of the earth of every kind; and thy families; and also Jared thy brother and his family; and also thy friends and their families, and the friends of Jared and their families.(Brother of Jared has families, Jared has a family) Ether 6:20 And accordingly the people were gathered together. Now the number of the sons and the daughters of the brother of Jared were twenty and two souls; and the number of sons and daughters of Jared were twelve, he having four sons. Ok, so it's a bit of assumption, but given the distinction of families vs family and the 22 kids it's a pretty safe one.It is 50?50 for me that the brother of Jared had more than one wife at the same time but If i was a betting man, i would put my chips on Orihah and his 31 kids. Ether 7:1-2: And it came to pass that Orihah did execute judgment upon the land in righteousness all his days, whose days were exceedingly many. And he begat sons and daughters; yea, he begat thirty and one, among whom were twenty and three sons. Edited July 7, 2015 by carbon dioxide 1
filovirus Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 (edited) If polygamy is eventually made legal, I can see some very unusual family constructs happening. For example, two men and two women all intermarried with each other. The government will open a messy can of worms, if they haven't already. Government sanctioned moral anarchy. Edited July 7, 2015 by filovirus
JLHPROF Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 If polygamy is eventually made legal, I can see some very unusual family constructs happening. For example, two men and two women all intermarried with each other. The government will open a messy can of worms, if they haven't already. Government sanctioned moral anarchy. Satan's counterfeit of a sacred practice. Pretty much par for the course at this point. 1
bcuzbcuz Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 and polygamists say that most people (in a normal marriage) commit adultery. So if consenting adults want to practice polygamy, what is wrong with it? Do you have secular reasons?Both scriptural and secular. Secular? Do the math. Statistics of birth rates show more males than females are born. Even church stats show about equal numbers of males to females. If polygamy returned, who gets to have many wives and who gets no wife at all? 1
Gray Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 I can't think of any faster way to decimate church activity levels than to bring polygamy back. I don't think it's going to happen.
KevinG Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 Plural marriage (where a man can marry more than one woman) naturally leads to older men marrying teenagers. Having a Monogamous ancestor who married three times (due to the death of two wives) and had 5 children with each wife, I would argue the opposite. Had he been a polygamist Mormon and not a monogamous protestant, he could have married three women his own age and raised 15 children simultaneously, rather than having to marry younger and younger women in order to continue his family. (As silly as that sounds it is no sillier than your premise). Many of Brigham's wives were much older widows, beyond childbearing years, who he provided for. The youngest wife he took was due to the insistence of her family.
KevinG Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 Both scriptural and secular. Secular? Do the math. Statistics of birth rates show more males than females are born. Even church stats show about equal numbers of males to females. If polygamy returned, who gets to have many wives and who gets no wife at all? This is where raw statistics break down. I'm pretty sure I'd have more than one wife if commanded. My wife has already identified friends who were abandoned by faithless husbands, and she insists on me taking one of them into the family if she dies. Others would choose not to do so because they have their agency. Just as it always was. 1
JAHS Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 (edited) Ether 1:41 Go to and gather together thy flocks, both male and female, of every kind; and also of the seed of the earth of every kind; and thy families; and also Jared thy brother and his family; and also thy friends and their families, and the friends of Jared and their families.(Brother of Jared has families, Jared has a family) Ether 6:20 And accordingly the people were gathered together. Now the number of the sons and the daughters of the brother of Jared were twenty and two souls; and the number of sons and daughters of Jared were twelve, he having four sons. Ok, so it's a bit of assumption, but given the distinction of families vs family and the 22 kids it's a pretty safe one.I think it's possible the Jaredites practiced polygamy. However to me the phrase "and thy families" could just mean his kids and his kid's families. If he were practicing polygamy he would still just have one family, but with multiple wives.In the same vein couldn't all those children include his grandchildren as well? Didn't Patriarchs of families back then claim all their descendants as their sons and daughters? We are all sons and daughters of God. Edited July 7, 2015 by JAHS
thesometimesaint Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 Something is sinful only when God says it is sinful. Past history is irrelevant no matter how long something has been a sin or notFor example, drinking alcohol was not a sin for thousands of years. Christ himself drank it. Yet very recent in time it became a sin simply because God willed it not because it had been a sin since the beginning of time. Scripture support is also irrelevant There was no scriptural support that suggested drinking alcohol is a sin. In fact there is scripture supporting alcohol consumptionLook. I am not advocating for gay marriage in the church. Is all I sm saying is that time is irrelevant when it comes to the will of God. These scripture/time/tradition arguments are completely irrelevant. Irrelevant. The LDS do not claim that drinking alcohol is sinful. They do claim that if you make covenants with God not to drink alcohol then it is sinful to do so. . John the Baptist did not drink alcohol, and Bishops are not to be give to drink. Both in the Bible.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 Irrelevant. The LDS do not claim that drinking alcohol is sinful. They do claim that if you make covenants with God not to drink alcohol then it is sinful to do so. . John the Baptist did not drink alcohol, and Bishops are not to be give to drink. Both in the Bible. That is private interpretation that doesn't take into account the totality of scripture. The scriptures speak against drunkeness, not drinking in general. The only possible general prohibition against drinking is when the Priests were specifically ministering at the Temple- to not imbibe while in the act of performing their duties.I don't recall anywhere where we covenant to not touch alcohol at all.
Bernard Gui Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 (edited) I agree with Justice Roberts. There can no longer be a logical defense of the number 2.I will go him one step furher....given the new definition of marriage as a legal unionbetween consenting adults, there are no logical defenses against incest. Edited July 7, 2015 by Bernard Gui
thesometimesaint Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 (edited) That is private interpretation that doesn't take into account the totality of scripture. The scriptures speak against drunkeness, not drinking in general. The only possible general prohibition against drinking is when the Priests were specifically ministering at the Temple- to not imbibe while in the act of performing their duties.I don't recall anywhere where we covenant to not touch alcohol at all. The LDS have had the WoW for a while now. Do you not think we believe what we say we believe? The LDS are not bound to just the Bible. We freely declare that what God commands is not sinful. So to us eating a bacon cheese burgher is not a sin. Even if the OT declares it such. As I said John the Baptist covenanted with God not to drink alcohol. The Pharisees condemned him for it. Bishops are not OT positions of authority. They are strictly NT. We don't covenant to not touch alcohol at all. It is a useful product when used with skill and training. Use as a beverage, not so much. Edited July 7, 2015 by thesometimesaint
Stone holm Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 Irrelevant. The LDS do not claim that drinking alcohol is sinful. They do claim that if you make covenants with God not to drink alcohol then it is sinful to do so. . John the Baptist did not drink alcohol, and Bishops are not to be give to drink. Both in the Bible. Yeah, maybe -- question becomes a chicken and egg issue if you approach it in that manner. I don't know what the rule is now, but the rule used to be you couldn't be baptized if you had violated that portion of the WoW within the last couple weeks, and you cannot get into the Temple if you have been drinking alcohol recently. John the Baptist is a special case because he lived dietary laws to which the Nazarite for Life were subject to in those days, not the general public.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 The LDS have had the WoW for a while now. Do you not think we believe what we say we believe? The LDS are not bound to just the Bible. We freely declare that what God commands is not sinful. So to us eating a bacon cheese burgher is not a sin. Even if the OT declares it such. As I said John the Baptist covenanted with God not to drink alcohol. The Pharisees condemned him for it. Bishops are not OT positions of authority. They are strictly NT. We don't covenant to not touch alcohol at all. It is useful product when used with skill and training. Use as a beverage, not so much.So the scriptures are essentially irrelevant. BTW, the LORD never changed His mind on the Dietary Laws. (But that's a different discussion for a different day)
Zakuska Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 BTW, the LORD never changed His mind on the Dietary Laws. (But that's a different discussion for a different day) Yes he did change dietary laws. Peters Table cloth dream shows the Lords sacrifice cleasned the unclean animals and Peter was astonished that the Lord would command him to eat unclean things to which the Lord said... "Call not unclean that which I have cleansed,"
Stone holm Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 So the scriptures are essentially irrelevant. BTW, the LORD never changed His mind on the Dietary Laws. (But that's a different discussion for a different day) Yeah, I don't think that is what he is saying.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 Yes he did change dietary laws. Peters Table cloth dream shows the Lords sacrifice cleasned the unclean animals and Peter was astonished that the Lord would command him to eat unclean things to which the Lord said... "Call not unclean that which I have cleansed,"You might want to read further and expose yourself to the interpretation of the dream that the LORD gave Peter. Hint: It wasn't about food.
thesometimesaint Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 Yeah, maybe -- question becomes a chicken and egg issue if you approach it in that manner. I don't know what the rule is now, but the rule used to be you couldn't be baptized if you had violated that portion of the WoW within the last couple weeks, and you cannot get into the Temple if you have been drinking alcohol recently. John the Baptist is a special case because he lived dietary laws to which the Nazarite for Life were subject to in those days, not the general public. I don't know the current time frames either, but I would imagine it somewhat in that area. I think John the Baptist was special. Living off of locust and wild honey isn't my idea of a satisfactory diet.
Zakuska Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 (edited) You might want to read further and expose yourself to the interpretation of the dream that the LORD gave Peter. Hint: It wasn't about food. Most people (such as yourself) miss the the duality in the Lords meaning. Thus later on when Paul comes to talk to the Jerusalem council the only mention of the food requirements from the Law of Moses, in what Paul is to teach the Gentiles was to "refrain from things strangled." Jewish dietary laws were not for the Gentiles. Other wise the Jerusalem council would have made sure Paul was teaching them to the Gentiles. Hint: They did not, and neither did Paul. Edited July 7, 2015 by Zakuska
Stone holm Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 You might want to read further and expose yourself to the interpretation of the dream that the LORD gave Peter. Hint: It wasn't about food. Yes and no, the hint should read: "It wasn't solely about food." But it was about food.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 In order to no longer derail this thread I will open a new topic with video links addressing the Dietary Laws.
filovirus Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 (edited) I agree with Justice Roberts. There can no longer be a logical defense of the number 2.I will go him one step furher....given the new definition of marriage as a legal unionbetween consenting adults, there are no logical defenses against incest.Incest can bring about deformities in children. No logical defense against incest if one or both partners make themselves sterile through surgical means. Edited July 7, 2015 by filovirus
Recommended Posts