ALarson Posted August 23, 2017 Posted August 23, 2017 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: 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. Of course some Levirate marriages involved the living of polygamy (a man having 2 wives). But the specific commandment was for the brother to care for his dead brother's wife (and family), he was not specifically commanded to live polygamy. That's why I qualified my statement (with the word "specifically"). And this type of marriage is not what Joseph stated he was commanded to enter into (although his marriage to Don Carlos's widow could be considered Levirate).
RevTestament Posted August 23, 2017 Posted August 23, 2017 4 minutes ago, ALarson said: Of course some Levirate marriages involved the living of polygamy (a man having 2 wives). But the specific commandment was for the brother to care for his dead brother's wife (and family), he was not specifically commanded to live polygamy. That's why I qualified my statement (with the word "specifically"). And this type of marriage is not what Joseph stated he was commanded to enter into (although his marriage to Don Carlos's widow could be considered Levirate). I have to disagree with this. The surviving brother was to take his sister-in-law to wife, and raise children to his name. This was usually in the case that the deceased brother was without child, and therefore there would be no "family" to raise or support. There are several instances of this in the scriptures. Again in the case of Onan he didn't want the responsibility so pulled out and spilled his seed on the ground, which displeased the Lord who therefore smote Onan. To even suggest that this relationship was not husband and wife, would be totally outside the bounds of Hebraic law - it would be adultery or at least fornication. Now if the surviving brother was not married no polygamy is implied, but the law made no exception for this. 2
ALarson Posted August 23, 2017 Posted August 23, 2017 (edited) 32 minutes ago, RevTestament said: I have to disagree with this. The surviving brother was to take his sister-in-law to wife, and raise children to his name. This was usually in the case that the deceased brother was without child, and therefore there would be no "family" to raise or support. There are several instances of this in the scriptures. Again in the case of Onan he didn't want the responsibility so pulled out and spilled his seed on the ground, which displeased the Lord who therefore smote Onan. To even suggest that this relationship was not husband and wife, would be totally outside the bounds of Hebraic law - it would be adultery or at least fornication. Now if the surviving brother was not married no polygamy is implied, but the law made no exception for this. That's why I stated that "some" Levirate marriages involved polygamy. In those where the living brother was already married prior to him marrying his dead brother's wife, it of course ended up being polygamous. But the specific commandment was to marry the widow (and raise up a son for his brother), but it was not a specific commandment to live polygamy. That was the point I was making. That's why I've repeatedly stated that God did seem to allow polygamy to be lived at times. The brother could refuse too: Deuteronomy 25:5-10King James Version (KJV) 5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. 6 And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel. 7 And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother. 8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her; 9 Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house. Edited August 23, 2017 by ALarson 1
ALarson Posted August 23, 2017 Posted August 23, 2017 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Plural marriage was the norm in ancient times, hence no command was necessary (http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/polygamists/ ). Well that's your opinion, but it does not support the narrative that came from Joseph. Either you believe him when he stated that Abraham and others were commanded to live polygamy or you believe they were not commanded because it wasn't necessary. Which is it? 2
RevTestament Posted August 23, 2017 Posted August 23, 2017 8 minutes ago, ALarson said: Well that's your opinion, but it does not support the narrative that came from Joseph. Either you believe him when he stated that Abraham and others were commanded to live polygamy or you believe they were not commanded because it wasn't necessary. Which is it? Speaking for myself, I don't believe polygamy was usually commanded. It seemed to usually be a priestly practice. When Moses married the Cushite woman, he didn't tell his objectors that he was commanded to do it. I do believe Joseph was commanded to teach it, but tbh about it, he was pretty quiet about it, and didn't even publish sec 132. Doesn't sound much like he thought the Lord was commanding it of the Church does it? My guess is that was a BY embellishment.
ALarson Posted August 23, 2017 Posted August 23, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Speaking for myself, I don't believe polygamy was usually commanded. It seemed to usually be a priestly practice. When Moses married the Cushite woman, he didn't tell his objectors that he was commanded to do it. I do believe Joseph was commanded to teach it, but tbh about it, he was pretty quiet about it, and didn't even publish sec 132. Doesn't sound much like he thought the Lord was commanding it of the Church does it? My guess is that was a BY embellishment. I don't know for sure (if BY embellished it), but that may very well have happened. I do not believe that Joseph was commanded to live it and believe this came from man, not from God. I think many members were obedient and tried to live it righteously and diligently. They believed Joseph when he stated he was commanded by God (and by an angel with a drawn sword). I think the saints tried valiantly to live the principle for the most part. Edited August 23, 2017 by ALarson
The Nehor Posted August 23, 2017 Posted August 23, 2017 I think it was commanded. It makes sense. If this is the dispensation of the Fulness of Times and all things must be restored it seems to mean that all ordinances and practices have to come back, at least for a time. Note that this excludes lesser law practices like the Mosaic Law given in Israel's weakness. That could mean plural marriage is over and done or we will do it again. We need to do an animal sacrifice or two. There may be other practices and ordinances still unrevealed to come. Who knows what Adam and Enoch and Noah and the like were up to.
carbon dioxide Posted August 23, 2017 Posted August 23, 2017 7 hours 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). I would agree. Looking into what is written in the OT, there is no command given. That fact really does not prove anything however especially how LDS see the scriptures. The scriptures are not seen as some comprehensive record of everything God had done or commanded. So the fact that it does not say that God did not command it in those writings does not mean God did not command it.
carbon dioxide Posted August 23, 2017 Posted August 23, 2017 7 hours ago, stemelbow said: Sadly, we've learned that the Bible is largely metaphor and not necessarily based on actual history. Who learned that. There may be metaphor in the Bible but that does not mean is largely or mostly metaphor.
Robert F. Smith Posted August 23, 2017 Posted August 23, 2017 2 hours ago, ALarson said: Well that's your opinion, but it does not support the narrative that came from Joseph. Either you believe him when he stated that Abraham and others were commanded to live polygamy or you believe they were not commanded because it wasn't necessary. Which is it? I am speaking as a trained anthropologist/archeologist when I speak of the marriage norms of the period. Any command would be otiose. I have no insight into what the Patriarchs might have been commanded to do. After all, we have no direct evidence that they even existed. So, perhaps they were commanded to marry some specific female kinfolk, which would fit the tribal pattern of endogamy. You are concerned with moot points. The mise en scene is the relevant part of the discussion, and it fits.
sunstoned Posted August 23, 2017 Posted August 23, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: I think it was commanded. It makes sense. If this is the dispensation of the Fulness of Times and all things must be restored it seems to mean that all ordinances and practices have to come back, at least for a time. Note that this excludes lesser law practices like the Mosaic Law given in Israel's weakness. That could mean plural marriage is over and done or we will do it again. We need to do an animal sacrifice or two. There may be other practices and ordinances still unrevealed to come. Who knows what Adam and Enoch and Noah and the like were up to. I respect your opinion, but I have a real problem with the sneaky and deceptive way polygamy and Polyandry was introduced by JS. This leads me to believe it was instituted by him and not by god. Even if you believe section 132 was the word of god, apparently JS didn't. Because he did not follow it. And the whole flaming sword story is often spun as the angel telling JS to practice polygamy. The truth is by the time this event supposedly took place he had been practicing polygamy for a number of years and already had several wives. This story was made to convince a young lady named Zina, who was the wife of Henry Jacobs to "marry" JS. Does that sound like an above board thing that god would command? Secretly take another man's wife and lie to your own wife about it? Not in my book. Edited August 23, 2017 by sunstoned 1
Calm Posted August 23, 2017 Posted August 23, 2017 (edited) "otiose" vocabulary word of the day... I think you, Robert, are the poster who requires me to look up the most words, which is pretty rare elsewhere. Edited August 23, 2017 by Calm 2
Robert F. Smith Posted August 23, 2017 Posted August 23, 2017 2 hours ago, ALarson said: Of course some Levirate marriages involved the living of polygamy (a man having 2 wives). But the specific commandment was for the brother to care for his dead brother's wife (and family), he was not specifically commanded to live polygamy. That's why I qualified my statement (with the word "specifically"). And this type of marriage is not what Joseph stated he was commanded to enter into (although his marriage to Don Carlos's widow could be considered Levirate). Correct, and one can see the Levirate pattern taking place in the book of Ruth, in which the near kinsman refuses, followed by the next kinsman (Boaz) going through with it. Of course we do not know whether Boaz already had a wife -- which is not the point of the story anyhow. What we need to understand is that Joseph's claim about him and the Patriarchs being commanded is not the main issue. How would we be able to confirm or deny the claim anyhow? What we need to understand is that polygyny was entirely normal in ancient times. Selling it in 19th century America was a whole different matter.
stemelbow Posted August 23, 2017 Posted August 23, 2017 11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: Who learned that. There may be metaphor in the Bible but that does not mean is largely or mostly metaphor. The western world, for the most part. It is certainly possible that most of the stories shared with us happened to some extent or another, but all signs point to co-opting of ancient myths, perhaps largely from Mesopotamia. But to say they really happened is a position of faith since all we have is evidence that the stories were largely made up or co-opted. 1
ALarson Posted August 23, 2017 Posted August 23, 2017 10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Correct, and one can see the Levirate pattern taking place in the book of Ruth, in which the near kinsman refuses, followed by the next kinsman (Boaz) going through with it. Of course we do not know whether Boaz already had a wife -- which is not the point of the story anyhow. What we need to understand is that Joseph's claim about him and the Patriarchs being commanded is not the main issue. How would we be able to confirm or deny the claim anyhow? What we need to understand is that polygyny was entirely normal in ancient times. Selling it in 19th century America was a whole different matter. Oh, I agree (and it's still a difficult "sell" today for many members, especially when they learn the details regarding how Joseph and others lived it). If you believe it was not necessary to command polygamy back then (even though Joseph stated Abraham and others were specifically commanded to live it), where do you find evidence that living polygamy was an essential principle of Christ's church that was required for Joseph to restore? If everyone was doing it....so to speak....
stemelbow Posted August 23, 2017 Posted August 23, 2017 12 hours ago, The Nehor said: I think it was commanded. It makes sense. If this is the dispensation of the Fulness of Times and all things must be restored it seems to mean that all ordinances and practices have to come back, at least for a time. Note that this excludes lesser law practices like the Mosaic Law given in Israel's weakness. That could mean plural marriage is over and done or we will do it again. We need to do an animal sacrifice or two. There may be other practices and ordinances still unrevealed to come. Who knows what Adam and Enoch and Noah and the like were up to. it makes ya wonder what other ancient practices some folks saw as ordinances. "We have no choice but to stone him now. it's an ordinance for crying aloud. Stone anyone who steals something, or tells a lie".
Tacenda Posted August 23, 2017 Posted August 23, 2017 13 hours ago, RevTestament said: Speaking for myself, I don't believe polygamy was usually commanded. It seemed to usually be a priestly practice. When Moses married the Cushite woman, he didn't tell his objectors that he was commanded to do it. I do believe Joseph was commanded to teach it, but tbh about it, he was pretty quiet about it, and didn't even publish sec 132. Doesn't sound much like he thought the Lord was commanding it of the Church does it? My guess is that was a BY embellishment. Something that has always led me to believe that it wasn't commanded, besides it not being commanded in the Bible, but condemned, is that Joseph thought of it needing to be restored first and God didn't come to him first. But that may not bother others. IOW, Joseph got the idea first, thinking he needed to restore it. Why is that. Why would he need to restore it? Did everything in the Bible need to be restored? I don't think so.
The Nehor Posted August 23, 2017 Posted August 23, 2017 11 hours ago, sunstoned said: I respect your opinion, but I have a real problem with the sneaky and deceptive way polygamy and Polyandry was introduced by JS. This leads me to believe it was instituted by him and not by god. Even if you believe section 132 was the word of god, apparently JS didn't. Because he did not follow it. And the whole flaming sword story is often spun as the angel telling JS to practice polygamy. The truth is by the time this event supposedly took place he had been practicing polygamy for a number of years and already had several wives. This story was made to convince a young lady named Zina, who was the wife of Henry Jacobs to "marry" JS. Does that sound like an above board thing that god would command? Secretly take another man's wife and lie to your own wife about it? Not in my book. I would dispute your characterization of those events.
Robert F. Smith Posted August 23, 2017 Posted August 23, 2017 2 hours ago, ALarson said: Oh, I agree (and it's still a difficult "sell" today for many members, especially when they learn the details regarding how Joseph and others lived it). If you believe it was not necessary to command polygamy back then (even though Joseph stated Abraham and others were specifically commanded to live it), where do you find evidence that living polygamy was an essential principle of Christ's church that was required for Joseph to restore? If everyone was doing it....so to speak.... Well, of course, no one in America was doing it in the early 19th century. Even the Mormons did not all practice it in its heyday. I have no problem at all with Joseph's assertion that polygyny had been reinstated by God in modern times, and don't see why you find it to be a theological problem. Of course it presented huge cultural difficulties and nearly destroyed the LDS Church -- which is why the Church accommodated itself to gov't and societal demands. Had the LDS faith been restored in a Muslim country, as a sect of Islam, there would have been no controversy over polygyny.
ALarson Posted August 23, 2017 Posted August 23, 2017 19 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Well, of course, no one in America was doing it in the early 19th century. Even the Mormons did not all practice it in its heyday. I have no problem at all with Joseph's assertion that polygyny had been reinstated by God in modern times, and don't see why you find it to be a theological problem. Well, Joseph believed that polygamy was an essential part of restoring Christ's church in the latter days. Do you believe Christ lived polygamy?
Calm Posted August 23, 2017 Posted August 23, 2017 5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Well, of course, no one in America was doing it in the early 19th century. Even the Mormons did not all practice it in its heyday. I have no problem at all with Joseph's assertion that polygyny had been reinstated by God in modern times, and don't see why you find it to be a theological problem. Of course it presented huge cultural difficulties and nearly destroyed the LDS Church -- which is why the Church accommodated itself to gov't and societal demands. Had the LDS faith been restored in a Muslim country, as a sect of Islam, there would have been no controversy over polygyny. On the other hand, think of the controversy over God as an exalted man as well as Heavenly Mother. 1
strappinglad Posted August 24, 2017 Posted August 24, 2017 What were the " commandments" in Abraham's time? The 10 commandments were given to Moses who lived (assuming ) centuries after Abraham , so was there a specific list that Abraham followed? Not to commit murder was a given , even with Adam. Not to worship idols for sure . What else? Straining at a gnat , might I suggest that the commandment not to commit adultery implies a need for polygamy ?
changed Posted August 24, 2017 Posted August 24, 2017 the "law of Sarah" is symbolic of the sacrifices surrounding Jesus being the son of a handmaid...
hagoth7 Posted August 24, 2017 Posted August 24, 2017 (edited) On 8/22/2017 at 8:01 PM, The Nehor said: ...We need to do an animal sacrifice or two... ? You do that when you bite into a cheeseburger. Edited August 24, 2017 by hagoth7
The Nehor Posted August 24, 2017 Posted August 24, 2017 24 minutes ago, hagoth7 said: ? You do that when you bite into a cheeseburger. I am pretty sure I have to butcher it correctly for it to count as a burnt offering. Let's just say if asked to do it I would end up with a rather blood-spattered copy of Leviticus by the end.
Recommended Posts