Blessings of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob - polygamy.

[The Mean Farmer]

I listened to Ed J. Pinegars lecture at the 2015 FAIR conference and I had a question that I wanted to bring to this board for your opinions.

 

At the end of his talk someone asked a question of Bro. Pinegar about Polygamy, here is the transcript:

 

Quote

Question 2: In your opinion, why was polygamy instituted in the restored Church?
Answer 2: In my mind, because the Lord said so. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (and the blessings of the temple you receive like unto them) all practiced polygamy. Now, you ask me, do I understand it? I don’t understand at all. Do I accept it? I accept it. Do I feel sad over the ramifications of it? My heart aches every day, but I love my Heavenly Father so much. What He says is what’s good.

I hadn't linked a doctrine of polygamous relationships with the blessings of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob before.
 

In research I took the path of least resistance and went to one of the worst places to go search for doctrinal information - Google.   Where I searched "Abraham Issac Jacob polygamy" and found that many of the results were angry diatribes explaining how these three great prophets of old were either

1.   NOT involved in polygamous relationships at all.  ie  Hagar was brought to Abraham by Sarah to ... impregnate.!?

2.  Their polygamous relationships weren't ordained of God but allowed, accepted, overlooked by God.

3.  They were sinful and needed to be repented of.  - David.     Not sure how Solomon got away with it then.

 

I have read the Old Testament and considered the issue settled but apparently I am very wrong.  Any thought from the educated masses here on the possibility that these prophets of old WEREN'T in plural relationships??

 

 

 

 

BTW - Bro. Pinegar was the president of the MTC when I was there for 19 days back in 1989.  His personality and lover were apparent to me enough then that I remembered his name, face, and voice.  Special type of man.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tacenda]

http://giveshare.org/family/polygamy.html

According to this link they weren't even polygamist and God didn't command these three to live it. 

[USU78]

It's naive to think that polygyny among the well-off hasn't been the norm rather than the exception during most of human history, and that the well-off patriarchs shouldn't be expected to have been practitioners  ...  and owners of slaves  ...  and whatever else annoys maleducated presentistists this week.

By the lights of their place and time, they were, in my view, considerably above their miserable contemporaries in morality and ethics.

Consider, for example, the pains Abraham had to go to to preserve his marriage and his neck when confronted with gentile polygynists/slave-owners/human-sacrificers.  Nowhere in the depictions of those events is there any hint of societal disapproval, only the One G-d's disapproval.  And His disapproval is limited to abductions into seraglios, bumping off of inconveniently alive legal husbands, burning alive of virgins, and the near-miss sacrifice of the eldest son of an idolmaker [alleged].

Edited August 22, 2017 by USU78

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, The Mean Farmer said:

I have read the Old Testament and considered the issue settled but apparently I am very wrong.  Any thought from the educated masses here on the possibility that these prophets of old WEREN'T in plural relationships?

The Bible would seem to indicate that they were.  There is no evidence to the contrary as there is no evidence outside of the scriptures and tradition that they actually lived. 

Edited August 22, 2017 by ksfisher

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, The Mean Farmer said:

I have read the Old Testament and considered the issue settled but apparently I am very wrong.  Any thought from the educated masses here on the possibility that these prophets of old WEREN'T in plural relationships??

I believe they were in "plural relationships" but that there was no commandment from God that they live polygamy.

[USU78]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I believe they were in "plural relationships" but that there was no commandment from God that they live polygamy.

Section 132 and Jacob 2 would disagree with you, as well as the Mormon position on the subject.  As stated above, Jacob 2 enjoins monogamy unless G-d otherwise commands.  It is not a long leap to impute commandment to Jacob and Isaac and Abraham, given that He forbids it in the absence of His commandment.

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Section 132 and Jacob 2 would disagree with you, as well as the Mormon position on the subject.  

Oh, I know.  I was stating what I believed (notice that I started my sentence with "I believe" ).  There is no record in the Bible that polygamy was specifically commanded by God (we've had numerous discussions on that here).

 

Edited August 22, 2017 by ALarson

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Oh, I know.  I was stating what I believed (notice that I started my sentence with "I believe" ).  There is no record in the Bible that polygamy was specifically commanded by God (we've had numerous discussions on that here).

Yet 3rd party lurkers wouldn't necessarily know that.  That that's your personal position, and not the LDS position.  Hence my clarification.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, The Mean Farmer said:

2.  Their polygamous relationships weren't ordained of God but allowed, accepted, overlooked by God.

 

That sounds eerily similar to some peoples' explanation for the origin and continuation of the Priesthood ban. 

Apparently not only do "great minds" think alike, but "minds that are looking for a way to reconcile Prophets saying and doing stuff they don't agree with" think alike as well.

[ALarson]

Just now, USU78 said:

Yet 3rd party lurkers wouldn't necessarily know that.  That that's your personal position, and not the LDS position.  Hence my clarification.

If they read my straight forward statement (once again beginning with the words "I believe"), I'd imagine they'd know I was giving my belief or opinion.  No need for you to clarify my very clear, precise statement.

I never inferred that this is what is taught by the church.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, The Mean Farmer said:

I listened to Ed J. Pinegars lecture at the 2015 FAIR conference and I had a question that I wanted to bring to this board for your opinions.

 

At the end of his talk someone asked a question of Bro. Pinegar about Polygamy, here is the transcript:

 

I hadn't linked a doctrine of polygamous relationships with the blessings of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob before.
 

In research I took the path of least resistance and went to one of the worst places to go search for doctrinal information - Google.   Where I searched "Abraham Issac Jacob polygamy" and found that many of the results were angry diatribes explaining how these three great prophets of old were either

1.   NOT involved in polygamous relationships at all.  ie  Hagar was brought to Abraham by Sarah to ... impregnate.!?

2.  Their polygamous relationships weren't ordained of God but allowed, accepted, overlooked by God.

3.  They were sinful and needed to be repented of.  - David.     Not sure how Solomon got away with it then.

 

I have read the Old Testament and considered the issue settled but apparently I am very wrong.  Any thought from the educated masses here on the possibility that these prophets of old WEREN'T in plural relationships??

 

 

 

 

BTW - Bro. Pinegar was the president of the MTC when I was there for 19 days back in 1989.  His personality and lover were apparent to me enough then that I remembered his name, face, and voice.  Special type of man.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think there's anything conclusive.  It was decided by Joseph Smith, either by revelation or he was tricked or lying, that polygamy had to be restored, based on his readings of the Bible, we are told.  Sadly, we've learned that the Bible is largely metaphor and not necessarily based on actual history.  Abraham himself, likely, did not write any surviving records we have today, even if they are presented to us as if in his voice.  All stories told of him were written by anonymous people, likely, hundreds or thousands (in the case of the BoA if authentic) of years after him, speaking as if they were him.  We dont' know if those stories are based on myths passed down, or if those oral traditions represented true history.  to Add:  with that said, we also learn through Joseph that revelation can present us with some pretty squirrely ideas--meaning what we gain by revelation might have more personal influence than God influence.  That's kind of the route of thinking I travel down when it comes to polygamy.  It entered the Church in secret, with secret societies formed fooling even Joseph's own spouse for a time.  There doesn't seem to be anything useful to it, in any sense. 

Edited to Add:  I don't know that there is anything I respect more in our history than Emma for her refusal to accept polygamy, particularly after Joseph died.  Sometimes the most moral thing to do is lie, I guess. 

Edited August 22, 2017 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Yet 3rd party lurkers wouldn't necessarily know that.  That that's your personal position, and not the LDS position.  Hence my clarification.

What more could you ask of him.  He indicated it was what he believed personally.  Ah well. 

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, cinepro said:

That sounds eerily similar to some peoples' explanation for the origin and continuation of the Priesthood ban. 

Apparently not only do "great minds" think alike, but "minds that are looking for a way to reconcile Prophets saying and doing stuff they don't agree with" think alike as well.

yeah...what more do we got?  We lose all hope if we can't accept that prophets can be wrong even if they think they are doing and speaking God's voice. 

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, The Mean Farmer said:

3.  They were sinful and needed to be repented of.  - David.     Not sure how Solomon got away with it then.

It's not clear that David would have needed to repent for all of his wives.

According to the prophet Nathan the Lord gave David Solomon's his wives, and the scriptures seem to imply the Lord would have given David even more wives if he had simply asked for them.

Quote

2 Samuel 12:7-8 [emphasis added]

7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

 

Edited August 22, 2017 by Amulek
Strike out for incorrect text. Thanks Calm!

[Calm]

Typo....David inherited Saul's wives, not Solomon's.  

Edited August 22, 2017 by Calm

[Amulek]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Typo....David inherited Saul's wives, not Solomon's.  

You're right of course. Sorry about the mix-up. Edited to strike out the incorrect name reference. 

[USU78]

49 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What more could you ask of him.  He indicated it was what he believed personally.  Ah well. 

So  ...  our job is to be silent concerning the allegiances and positions of the non-apologetic characters in our little drama?  That seems a strange demand by ALarson and yourself.  And, no, I don't think so.

[blueglass]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

It's not clear that David would have needed to repent for all of his wives.

According to the prophet Nathan the Lord gave David Solomon's his wives, and the scriptures seem to imply the Lord would have given David even more wives if he had simply asked for them.

 

So here's my theory - that is if the "angel" joseph saw with the drawn sword was indeed a good angel, as Hyrum initially thought it was from the devil, as did William Law .  The angel could be the prophet Nathan.  

Edited August 22, 2017 by blueglass

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

So  ...  our job is to be silent concerning the allegiances and positions of the non-apologetic characters in our little drama?  That seems a strange demand by ALarson and yourself.  And, no, I don't think so.

Nobody suggested anyone be silent.  Speak up...post and complain.  But it remains, he was already clear, it seems to me. 

[The Mean Farmer]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

You're right of course. Sorry about the mix-up. Edited to strike out the incorrect name reference. 

Inheriting your sons wives.   Now THAT would be a story I would expect in the Bible!!! 

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, The Mean Farmer said:

Inheriting your sons wives.   Now THAT would be a story I would expect in the Bible!!! 

Tamar and Judah....sort of.

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, The Mean Farmer said:

I listened to Ed J. Pinegars lecture at the 2015 FAIR conference and I had a question that I wanted to bring to this board for your opinions.

At the end of his talk someone asked a question of Bro. Pinegar about Polygamy, here is the transcript:

I hadn't linked a doctrine of polygamous relationships with the blessings of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob before.
 

In research I took the path of least resistance and went to one of the worst places to go search for doctrinal information - Google.   Where I searched "Abraham Issac Jacob polygamy" and found that many of the results were angry diatribes explaining how these three great prophets of old were either

1.   NOT involved in polygamous relationships at all.  ie  Hagar was brought to Abraham by Sarah to ... impregnate.!?

2.  Their polygamous relationships weren't ordained of God but allowed, accepted, overlooked by God.

3.  They were sinful and needed to be repented of.  - David.     Not sure how Solomon got away with it then.

 

I have read the Old Testament and considered the issue settled but apparently I am very wrong.  Any thought from the educated masses here on the possibility that these prophets of old WEREN'T in plural relationships??

They definitely were polygamous. However, as with the Cushite priestly tradition, it was usually a relationship with just two wives - occasionally three. Abraham's relation with Hagar was called a concubine because as a servant of Sarai, Sarai was entitled to her children. This is why Sarai made this suggestion. It was the law that she inherited all her servants possessed including their children. It was not like a sex-slave relationship. It was voluntary. I disagree with the scriptures which call Keturah his concubine. In all likelihood Keturah was probably related to Sarai as a cousin. Calling her a concubine was probably just an attempt to further legitimize the line of Isaac as the "true" priestly line. Yet, we find later that Jethro in the land of Midian is called the priest of Midian. Midian was of course Keturah's son.

There were others like Samuel's father, Elkenah, whom the Bible says had two wives. Further, there is at least one example when the Lord did command polygamy or specifically expect it. If a married man's brother died, he was to offer to marry his brother's wife and raise her children in his brother's name. His brother's wife could refuse, but this was a fairly strict law and expectation as is demonstrated by the story of Onan in Gen 38. 

"Their polygamous relationships weren't ordained of God but allowed, accepted, overlooked by God." This is the usual argument I encounter when I have broached the subject. However, this conflicts with the Mosaic law of inheritance "if a man have two wives." The Lord giving them a law like this indicates that the practice was specifically sanctioned rather than an overlooked sin. God is not one to overlook sin.

The story of Nathan about the greedy man with many sheep, does not correct the man for having many sheep, but for wanting the one sheep of the poor man who he tells David was Uriah, and the sheep David sinfully took from him, Bathsheba. If his wives were merely the spoils of war as some Christians have suggested to me, then why does the Lord tell David that He will give his wives to another under the sun? Who ended up being his son Solomon? What war did Solomon engage in to gain these "spoils?" 

There really is no way to get around the fact that within limits God sanctioned polygamy in the OT. He said kings should not have many wives, and scolded both David and Solomon, but others plainly had two or more wives, and God even helps them - like Jacob/Israel. 

[The Nehor]

As far as we know Isaac was not a polygamist.

Abraham and Jacob were.

Then again I do not get the big hullabaloo about the whole thing. I would probably be annoyed if instructed to live it but I would also be annoyed if I was told to do all kinds of practices that are not current. I would probably be squeamish if I performed a temple animal sacrifice, be put off if I was expected to stone someone (unless they are a Nazi), and if I was expected to marry my dead brother's wife I would probably run away screaming.

The commandments I have to live are hard enough without having to be psychologically resolute in obeying commandments I am not commanded to obey. If things change and commandments change...well....I'll burn that bridge when I get to it.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

I believe they were in "plural relationships" but that there was no commandment from God that they live polygamy.

Plural marriage was the norm in ancient times, hence no command was necessary (http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/polygamists/ ).  Martin Luther wrote: "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter."  Luther, Martin. De Wette II, 459.  One could presumably choose to have multiple wives, if one so chose in biblical times.  The basic question would likely be, would the women consent, and could the man afford it? One might have to come up with a bride-price.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

........................................................................................  There is no record in the Bible that polygamy was specifically commanded by God (we've had numerous discussions on that here).

The Mosaic Law of Levirate frequently required polygyny in cases where the Levir was already married (Deut 25:5-10), referring to the need to marry a dead brother's wife if he died childless.  See Dvora E. Weisberg, Levirate Marriage and the Family in Ancient Judaism.

Aside from that, Mosaic Law does also regulate plural marriage generally:

Deut 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:   Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:"
 
Exodus 21:10 "If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish."

In a world in which plural marriage was normal, God does not need to command men to take plural wives, although he can do so, as in the case of 2 Samuel 12:7.