Handbook Update, Gay Marriage, Apostasy, Resignations... (Merged Thread)

[Robert F. Smith]

Thanks for the link, Scott. This piece of folklore has never rung true to me, apparently for good reason.

Yes, but non-Mormon Scott Woodward did not debunk that folklore. Instead, he gave it legs.

 

ETA: correct LDS status of Scott Woodward.

Edited November 28, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Bobbieaware]

Yes, but non-Mormon Scott Woodward did not debunk that folklore. Instead, he gave it legs.

Are you sure? The sources I'm reading say Woodward is LDS.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

And since, according to the parable of the olive tree, beyond Lehi's group there were several other branches of the house of Israel who were, by God's command, led out of the Holy Land at the same time to set up righteous outposts of Israel in various locations throughout the world, I have every reason to expect they too were commanded to practice strict monogamy in marriage for the same reason the Nephites were: because the wicked inhabitants of the Holy Land had made an unholy mess of virtually everything, including the impure and unholy way they practiced plural marriage, a holy commandment that degenerated into little more than whoredoms (examples of which were pointed to by the Book of Mormon prophet Jacob when he singled out David's and Solomon's abuses of polygamy as whoredoms) and the Lord very likely didn't want to risk that the newly scattered branches of Israel would end up in the same sorry apostate situation as the pre-exile Jews.

Actually, Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews (the bulk of Jewry) were permitted the practice of polygyny up until 1947, when the new State of Israel followed Ashkenazi practice in discontinuing new polygynous marriages.  Those already possessing multiple wives were allowed to continue being married to them in the new State (most havlng passed on by now, of course).  Most of those Eastern Jews lived in Muslim countries, so it didn't constitute a legal problem, and it also permitted the unhindered practice of Levirate marriage (which the Pope would allow for Ashkenazi Jews in cases of childlessness, before such marriages were entirely forbidden by Rabbi Gershom in late medieval times).

 

Thus, the notion that the Lord has prohibited polygyny for all scattered groups of Israelites (including Clan Lehi of Manessah) may be very difficult to prove.  Indeed, the Mormons only ceased the practice due to American legal prohibitions which threatened the very existence of the Church.  Those American legal prohibitions are very likely to be dissolved in the near term.  What then?

[Teancum]

Actually, Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews (the bulk of Jewry) were permitted the practice of polygyny up until 1947, when the new State of Israel followed Ashkenazi practice in discontinuing new polygynous marriages. Those already possessing multiple wives were allowed to continue being married to them in the new State (most havlng passed on by now, of course). Most of those Eastern Jews lived in Muslim countries, so it didn't constitute a legal problem, and it also permitted the unhindered practice of Levirate marriage (which the Pope would allow for Ashkenazi Jews in cases of childlessness, before such marriages were entirely forbidden by Rabbi Gershom in late medieval times).

Thus, the notion that the Lord has prohibited polygyny for all scattered groups of Israelites (including Clan Lehi of Manessah) may be very difficult to prove. Indeed, the Mormons only ceased the practice due to American legal prohibitions which threatened the very existence of the Church. Those American legal prohibitions are very likely to be dissolved in the near term. What then?

Interesting.

My thoughts on your last question is the church will not reinstitute polygamy even if legalized. And it will continue to treat members who enter into polygamy as apostates subject to mandatory DCs just like it does now for polygamists and now for homosexual unions. They will argue as they do now that monogamy is the norm and that God is not commanding polygamy now.

Edited November 28, 2015 by Teancum

[Robert F. Smith]

Who would kill themselves and settle for the Telestial Kingdom when there's the Terrestrial and 3 levels of the Celestial Kingdom to achieve.

Not everyone is achievement-oriented, and a good many would be quite happy to gain any glory at all -- given their craven life-styles and addictions.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

My thoughts on your last question is the church will not reinstitute polygamy even if legalized. And it will continue to treat members who enter into polygamy as apostates subject to mandatory DCs just like it does now for polygamists and now for homosexual unions. They will argue as they do now monogamy is the norm and that God is not commanding polygamy now.

I suspect that you are correct on that score, even though it will be very ironic with the Mormons and a few others adhering tightly to monogamy, while the rest of the nation adopts a range of non-traditional marriage styles.

[Teancum]

I suspect that you are correct on that score, even though it will be very ironic with the Mormons and a few others adhering tightly to monogamy, while the rest of the nation adopts a range of non-traditional marriage styles.

Ironic is an understatement really. More like astounding.

[Robert F. Smith]

Are you sure? The sources I'm reading say Woodward is LDS.

Sorry.  You are right.  I was thinking of reporter Bob Woodward.

Thanks.

[Teancum]

Where?  (CFR)

There is no rejection of polygamy in the NT.

Timothy says a bishop must be married to one wife. Monogamy seems the standard in the New Testament. It is not commanded nor is it really addressed. Paul's epistles that address marriage also focus on monogamous relations.

Can you point me to NT passages that bolster your polygamy argument? Is there something there that shows it was required to be exalted in the celestial kingdom?

[Robert F. Smith]

It was rejected in the New Testament.

Other awful things were common on the Old Testament as well...like stoning people for all sorts of minor violations.

Thank goodness much of humanity has moved on from such antiquated tribal practices. Polygamy is among those as well.

Yeh, but the fastest growing religion on the planet allows polygamy -- Islam now at 1.6 billion adherents (22% of world pop), and America is likely to permit it as well.  Western Europe not far behind, since it will eventually be majority Muslim at current rates of birth.

 

Not sure that the practice of plural marriage by Father Abraham and Joseph Smith is equivalent to stoning.

[Robert F. Smith]

Timothy says a bishop must be married to one wife. Monogamy seems the standard in the New Testament. It is not commanded nor is it really addressed. Paul's epistles that address marriage also focus on monogamous relations.

Can you point me to NT passages that bolster your polygamy argument? Is there something there that shows it was required to be exalted in the celestial kingdom?

Could be that the admonition in Timothy is that one must have at least one wife (be married) in order to be a bishop.

[Tacenda]

http://internationalconference.affirmation.org/speakers/

 

 

 

http://fox13now.com/2013/09/15/steve-young-speaks-to-lgbt-mormons-and-their-allies/

 

I wonder what the Given's and the Young's think of the new policy.  This conference was in September 2015.  

Edited November 28, 2015 by Tacenda

[Teancum]

Could be that the admonition in Timothy is that one must have at least one wife (be married) in order to be a bishop.

1 Timothy 3:1-2

1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Sound like just ONE wife to me.

[JLHPROF]

Timothy says a bishop must be married to one wife. Monogamy seems the standard in the New Testament. It is not commanded nor is it really addressed. Paul's epistles that address marriage also focus on monogamous relations.

Can you point me to NT passages that bolster your polygamy argument? Is there something there that shows it was required to be exalted in the celestial kingdom?

 

1 Timothy 3:1-2

1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Sound like just ONE wife to me.

 

Or a minimum requirement for a Bishop.  I don't see it as a restriction on numbers, but a minimum requirment.

However, since it doesn't say "just one wife or only one wife" nor does it say "at least one wife" this scripture is equally applicable to both sides of the discussion.

 

As for New Testament scripture - this was interesting:

 

1_Corinthians 7:10-11 & 27-28.

In 1 Corinthians 7, the Apostle Paul differentiates when he is making his own "recommendation" (in verses 6, 12, and 25) and when he is expressing the "commandment of the Lord" (verses 10-11). Indeed, in verses 10-11, Paul clarifies that the instruction in those two verses is the "commandment of the Lord". (It should therefore also be noted that the other areas in which he clarifies as being only his "recommendation" can NOT be used to otherwise and incorrectly assert that God Himself is creating some sin or doctrine. After all, Paul's ultimate "recommendation" therein is celibacy!)

With that realized, it is clear for readers of the Bible that Paul makes it emphatically clear that verses 10-11 are different. Namely, verses 10-11, in the exact way in which thay are actually written, are the "commandment of God".

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." 1 Corinthians 7:10-11.

Paul further specifies that that above "commandment of the Lord" was only addressed to believers-married-to-believers. In the next verses (i.e, 12-16), he clarifies that he is subsequently addressing believers-married-to-unbelievers, and that that subsequent instuction is not the Lord's words, but his own again.

Verses 10-11 show that, if a believer WIFE leaves her believer HUSBAND, the

 

• believer WIFE is commanded of God to either:   remain unmarried, or be reconciled back to her husband

   

• believer HUSBAND is commanded of God to:   not put away any wife, and to let any departed wife return back to him

The key point is that the HUSBAND is NOT given the same commandments of instruction. Only the WIFE is commanded to remain unmarried, but the HUSBAND is not given that commandment. He is commanded of God to let her be married to him, either way!

Accordingly, the HUSBAND is of course, still free to marry another wife. That fact is further proved by the later verses of 27-28d.

"Art thou bound unto a wife?

  seek not to be loosed.

Art thou loosed from a wife?

  seek not a wife.

But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned;

and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned."

1 Corinthians 7:27-28d.

The Greek text of verse 27 is clearly only addressing married men --whether or not the wife has departed.

As such, the married man whose wife is still with him does not sin when he marries another wife (who is not another's wife). And likewise, the married man, whose wife has departed from him, he also does not sin when he marries another wife (who is not another's wife).

And herein comes the "commandment of the Lord", of polygamy, as in the following situation.

A believer WIFE departs from her believer HUSBAND. She is commanded of God to remain unmarried, per verses 10-11. Her HUSBAND, however, then subsequently marries another wife (who is not another man's wife). The HUSBAND and the new wife have not sinned, per verses 27-28. The departed WIFE then seeks to be reconciled back to her HUSBAND.

In that situation, verses 10-11 show the following instruction as the "commandment of the Lord". The HUSBAND is commanded of God to let the departed wife be reconciled back to him. AND.... he is commanded of God to not put away a wife, including the new wife.

As such, verses 10-11 show that it is an outright "commandment of the Lord" of polygamy for the family in that situation.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 is indeed a Commandment of God --- in the New Testament --- that, when a previously-departed believer wife returns, her believer husband and his new (believer) wife (from verse 27c-28d) MUST let the previous wife be reconciled to her husband.

[Bobbieaware]

Actually, Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews (the bulk of Jewry) were permitted the practice of polygyny up until 1947, when the new State of Israel followed Ashkenazi practice in discontinuing new polygynous marriages. Those already possessing multiple wives were allowed to continue being married to them in the new State (most havlng passed on by now, of course). Most of those Eastern Jews lived in Muslim countries, so it didn't constitute a legal problem, and it also permitted the unhindered practice of Levirate marriage (which the Pope would allow for Ashkenazi Jews in cases of childlessness, before such marriages were entirely forbidden by Rabbi Gershom in late medieval times).

Thus, the notion that the Lord has prohibited polygyny for all scattered groups of Israelites (including Clan Lehi of Manessah) may be very difficult to prove. Indeed, the Mormons only ceased the practice due to American legal prohibitions which threatened the very existence of the Church. Those American legal prohibitions are very likely to be dissolved in the near term. What then?

In subsequent posts I pointed out that according to the Lord himself, as recorded in Jacob, one of the main reasons why he led the Lehites out of the land of Jerusalem was to break off and replant a righteous branch of Israel that would turn away from the pattern of indulging in the widespread practice of whoredoms that had become so commonplace in a Kingdom of Judah that had ripened in iniquity. So while it can"t be proven the other branches who were led out of the Holy Land (as per the parable of the olive tree) were also commanded to practice strict monogamy, it seems likely they were because the sin of adultery had become so prevalent and deeply ingrained in Judean society that a strict commandment to practice monogamy was needed in order to break the firm grip that sexual wickedness had on hearts and minds of the Lord's people.

Edited November 28, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[JAHS]

1 Timothy 3:1-2

1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Sound like just ONE wife to me.

 

Even if it does mean "only" one wife it reflects what the the rule was at the time it was said. It fits in our day as well.

[carbon dioxide]

1 Timothy 3:1-2

1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Sound like just ONE wife to me.

I don't think so.  Polygamy is not at issue and it makes no sense for Paul to bring up the issue out of left field.  The word "one" comes from "mia"  and is translated various ways " one (62x), first (8x), a certain (4x), a (3x), the other (1x), agree (with G4160) (with G1106) (1x)."https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3391&t=KJV

 

So though the word "one" is used the majority of the time, it does not have to be translated as one.  Since polygamy is not at issue and there is no reason to make it an issue, perhaps another word might be better.  We see mia is translated as "a" 3 times.  How about this rendering.  I think it is better

 

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of a wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

[Bob Crockett]

I think the proper rendition of "one wife" is something more than merely "a wife" as Paul could have used something weaker than he did.  After years of looking at the Greek on this I have come to the conclusion that Paul meant to say "a wife but not more than one."

 

I think that that speaks volumes about the fact that the Jews, indeed, practiced plural marriage.  But, for the Hellenized Christians it looks like Paul meant to put an end to that for bishops.

Edited November 28, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Teancum]

Even if it does mean "only" one wife it reflects what the the rule was at the time it was said. It fits in our day as well.

My point was that th NT does not support polygamy and the polygamy for exaltation is absent from the OT and especially the NT.

[JAHS]

My point was that th NT does not support polygamy and the polygamy for exaltation is absent from the OT and especially the NT.

Correct within that context.

[jwhitlock]

My point was that th NT does not support polygamy and the polygamy for exaltation is absent from the OT and especially the NT.

 

Actually, 1 Corinthians 7:27-29 could be interpreted from one angle as instruction governing the marriage of a subsequent wife (virgin) to a man who is already married. Not authoritatively supportive of polygamy, but curious in its wording.

[carbon dioxide]

I think the proper rendition of "one wife" is something more than merely "a wife" as Paul could have used something weaker than he did.  After years of looking at the Greek on this I have come to the conclusion that Paul meant to say "a wife but not more than one."

 

I think that that speaks volumes about the fact that the Jews, indeed, practiced plural marriage.  But, for the Hellenized Christians it looks like Paul meant to put an end to that for bishops.

But why? Where is the issue that the people  or Timothy were having of whether a bishop could have more than one wife that Paul needed to clarify the view on it?

Edited November 28, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Robert F. Smith]

My point was that th NT does not support polygamy and the polygamy for exaltation is absent from the OT and especially the NT.

The biblical text supports no such claim.

[Bob Crockett]

The biblical text supports no such claim.

 The fact that Paul used "one wife" instead of "a Bishop must be married," (and I've looked at the Greek, and he could have merely said "married" instead of using the verbiage he did -- twice), suggests that Paul might have intended a monogamous marriage.   It is far from clear, and certainly one cannot say that the "biblical text supports no such claim."  I'd say, instead, that given the prevalence of polygamy amongst the Jews at the time, Paul could have been more clear if he intended to denounce the practice but he didn't.

[Bob Crockett]

But why? Where is the issue that the people  or Timothy were having of whether a bishop could have more than one wife that Paul needed to clarify the view on it?

I don't understand your question. 

 

When Paul said, a bishop must be the husband of one wife, he did not intend to provide any explanation for it.  It is what it is.  Today's CHI has a lot of statements of policy without explanation.  

 

Using Greek prevalent at the time, he could have written that a "bishop should be married," or that a "bishop should not have more than one wife," or that "a bishop should have a least one one wife," but he didn't.  I think he was intending to say that it would be preferable if a bishop were monogamous.  I do believe that that is an implicit acknowledgement of plural marriage.

 

Just as he said it would be preferable that the saints not marry, he gave his opinion on this particular issue in his peculiar way.  I believe that one shouldn't engage in Biblioidolatry or whatever it is called and hang on Paul's every words unless Paul goes out of his way to make a strong point to the Saints.

 

But I do tend to believe Paul when he denounces homosexuality as a very grave sin.  There just ain't no getting around it, and I can't read him to say -- oh wait, it's OK if you get married -- after all, didn't Caligula marry his horse?   I don't think Rome necessarily approved of that.  Legislated bestiality didn't remove its sinful connotation, any more than legislated abortion makes it a sacred rite.

Edited November 28, 2015 by Bob Crockett