Jump to content

News on Plural Marriage


nuclearfuels

Recommended Posts

  • 1 year later...
On 2/20/2019 at 11:03 AM, bluebell said:

Could this be a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah about the last days that says "And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach."?

I am sure some will see this as a solution but Isaiah never spoke of polygamy. I am sorry sister but you may be reading that passage wrong. 

Link to post
10 minutes ago, Islander said:

I am sure some will see this as a solution but Isaiah never spoke of polygamy. I am sorry sister but you may be reading that passage wrong. 

And your interpretation?

Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

And your interpretation?

Which passage/chapter? I am not aware of any place in the Book of Isaiah where he addressed the subject of polygamy. 

Link to post

How do you interpret the verse bluebell quoted?  Iirc it is Isaiah 4:1.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post
12 hours ago, Islander said:

Which passage/chapter? I am not aware of any place in the Book of Isaiah where he addressed the subject of polygamy. 

Isaiah 4 and

 

2 Nephi 14

And in that day, seven women shall take hold of one man, saying: We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel; only let us be called by thy name to take away our breproach.

  • Like 1
Link to post
20 minutes ago, provoman said:

Isaiah 4 and

 

2 Nephi 14

And in that day, seven women shall take hold of one man, saying: We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel; only let us be called by thy name to take away our breproach.

Brother, that is a misinterpretation of the passage. You can not grab one sentence in a chapter and build a doctrine based on that. Read chapter 3 to gain context and understand what the prophet is talking about. Isaiah was also a poet and the whole book is full of poetic and literary imagery. Terry Ball in "Understanding the words of Isaiah" and "Understanding Isaiah" by D. W. Parry et. al for a complete treatment of the Book of Isaiah.  

Here is the heading for Isaiah 3 in our scripture set: "Judah and Jerusalem will be punished for their disobedience—The Lord pleads for and judges His people—The daughters of Zion are cursed and tormented for their worldliness—Compare 2 Nephi 13"

 

The prophet is pronouncing woe on Israel and in Chapters 1-5 some 45 years before the Babylonian siege. He is exposing the corruption of Israel. His prognosis is that because of iniquity and sin, Israel will be destroyed by their enemies; that the Lord will bring punishment and judgement upon the nation (3:13) because of disobedience. In 3:16-18 the Lords llikens Israel to the daughter of Zion and begins to describe how Israel had been playing the harlot, imitating foreign customs and attire and being self-absorbed in the lust of the things of the world rather than in caring for the things that are really important.

And because of that He (the Lord) will desolate the nation and bring her down with death by the sword, poverty and overall destruction (v. 17-23).

Now, here is what he will do to the daughters of Zion (v.23-26): 24 “And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle aa rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of ca stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty.

25 Thy amen shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war.

26 And heragates shall lament and mourn; and she being desolate shall sit upon the ground.”

That is a very graphic picture of desolation, destruction, humiliation and poverty that the Lord would come to pass over Israel. Now, this is a literary figure used in the prophesy, an allegory, rather than plain speech. Who would want to 7 stinky, torn, dirty, bald, burned up women to marry? This imagery has nothing to do with polygamy. Is bringing to our mind imagery of desolation, destruction and humiliation.

In Ch.4:1 Isaiah continues to describe the shame of the daughters of Zion. Men will be killed by the sword and there will be no protection for them anywhere. Equally, women will mourn and be willing to do anything (even work for themselves) as long as they can have the possibility of having a child (being childless carried a great stigma in Israel) the absence of children being added insult to injury, after being ravished by war and destitution.

The scriptures were written for us but not to us. So, we must understand them in the context of how, when, where and why the revelation was given. To bring the restoration of polygamy to a modern (even a future) context is a theological mistake. That which the prophet describes is exactly what happened to Israel in 785 BC when the Babylonians came. To read anything else into the scripture is not sound practice. Again, there are commentaries on Isaiah by Latter-day Saints scholars that treat these chapters in detail that are a must for the Saints.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post

If you are saying it is a negative commentary on polygamy and not justification for it, I would agree with that as likely. If you are saying it just shows desperation of many women with the number seven and is not saying all seven are willing to marry him for his name at the same time, they are just offering at the same time but want to be the only one...I would say a possibility. 
Could you clarify which you mean, if one of them is what you mean?  And if not, please clarify what you think the relevance of seven women is. 

Link to post
22 hours ago, Islander said:

I am sure some will see this as a solution but Isaiah never spoke of polygamy. I am sorry sister but you may be reading that passage wrong. 

Having no authority to say so with firmness, I wouldn't presume to interpret the verse in the way it has been taken by some, but I'm not going to say that it's completely outside of possibility that the Lord was warning us about conditions that would occur at other times.   For a start, as has been pointed out, the chapter in Isaiah where this verse occurs is found in the Book of Mormon, too. Inasmuch as the Nephites had nothing to do with conditions in Jerusalem, perhaps it was mere coincidence that these chapters were included. But perhaps, because the Book of Mormon was written for us, it isn't coincidence.

I, for one, am perfectly satisfied with annoying and perplexing one wife at a time. I am sufficed, and more than sufficed. But if the Lord were to call upon me to make more than one similarly annoyed and perplexed at the same time, I would obey.

Edited by Stargazer
Link to post
29 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Having no authority to say so with firmness, I wouldn't presume to interpret the verse in the way it has been taken by some, but I'm not going to say that it's completely outside of possibility that the Lord was warning us about conditions that would occur at other times.   For a start, as has been pointed out, the chapter in Isaiah where this verse occurs is found in the Book of Mormon, too. Inasmuch as the Nephites had nothing to do with conditions in Jerusalem, perhaps it was mere coincidence that these chapters were included. But perhaps, because the Book of Mormon was written for us, it isn't coincidence.

I, for one, am perfectly satisfied with annoying and perplexing one wife at a time. I am sufficed, and more than sufficed. But if the Lord were to call upon me to make more than one similarly annoyed and perplexed at the same time, I would obey.

However, the description is not of a plural marriage as we think of it as it is simply taking his name only and the women caring for themselves as described.  A shortage of men might lead the Church to reinstating, but I would be cautious in making that jump.

Link to post
5 minutes ago, Calm said:

However, the description is not of a plural marriage as we think of it as it is simply taking his name only and the women caring for themselves as described.  A shortage of men might lead the Church to reinstating, but I would be cautious in making that jump.

So would I. 

I still think that it is not outside the bounds of possibility for the Lord to reinstate plural marriage at some point, regardless of what it says or doesn't say in Isaiah.

Link to post
15 hours ago, Stargazer said:

So would I. 

I still think that it is not outside the bounds of possibility for the Lord to reinstate plural marriage at some point, regardless of what it says or doesn't say in Isaiah.

Now, that would be a totally different story. We worship a sovereign God that will bring to pass whatever He decided an ion ago in the holy council of His will. But, just to reiterate and as far as the Isaiah text is concerned, it has nothing to do with polygamy.

Link to post
23 hours ago, Islander said:

The prophet is pronouncing woe on Israel and in Chapters 1-5 some 45 years before the Babylonian siege. He is exposing the corruption of Israel. His prognosis is that because of iniquity and sin, Israel will be destroyed by their enemies; that the Lord will bring punishment and judgement upon the nation (3:13) because of disobedience. In 3:16-18 the Lords llikens Israel to the daughter of Zion and begins to describe how Israel had been playing the harlot, imitating foreign customs and attire and being self-absorbed in the lust of the things of the world rather than in caring for the things that are really important.

And because of that He (the Lord) will desolate the nation and bring her down with death by the sword, poverty and overall destruction (v. 17-23).

Now, here is what he will do to the daughters of Zion (v.23-26): 24 “And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle aa rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of ca stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty.

25 Thy amen shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war.

26 And heragates shall lament and mourn; and she being desolate shall sit upon the ground.”

That is a very graphic picture of desolation, destruction, humiliation and poverty that the Lord would come to pass over Israel. Now, this is a literary figure used in the prophesy, an allegory, rather than plain speech. Who would want to 7 stinky, torn, dirty, bald, burned up women to marry? This imagery has nothing to do with polygamy. Is bringing to our mind imagery of desolation, destruction and humiliation.

In Ch.4:1 Isaiah continues to describe the shame of the daughters of Zion. Men will be killed by the sword and there will be no protection for them anywhere. Equally, women will mourn and be willing to do anything (even work for themselves) as long as they can have the possibility of having a child (being childless carried a great stigma in Israel) the absence of children being added insult to injury, after being ravished by war and destitution.

 We also see how the "daughters of Zion'  will be redeemed...  (4:4-5) when the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion... and the Lord will create upon every dwelling place of mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night: for upon all the glory shall be a defence.  And there shall be a tabernacle for a shadow in the daytime from the heat, and for a place of refuge, and for a covert from storm and from rain.

GG

Edited by Garden Girl
  • Like 1
Link to post
  • 3 months later...
On 3/12/2020 at 5:09 PM, Calm said:

However, the description is not of a plural marriage as we think of it as it is simply taking his name only and the women caring for themselves as described.  A shortage of men might lead the Church to reinstating, but I would be cautious in making that jump.

What do you think the importance of taking the name of the man would be without marrying them?  If they can provide for themselves, and are not in a sexual relationship, why wouldn't they just stay single?

Link to post
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, california boy said:

What do you think the importance of taking the name of the man would be without marrying them?  If they can provide for themselves, and are not in a sexual relationship, why wouldn't they just stay single?

I am not saying there wasn’t a marriage, but it appears to be a marriage in name only as far as support from the man. There may be a sexual relationship, at least to provide children for the woman.  They are not partners as described, working together, the husband providing as he is able for his wives and their children. At most it appears he provides a name and sperm. 

Why not be single?  Because that would make any children they had illegitimate.  The same reason why in the past in America single moms would sometimes call themselves “ Mrs. ______” and pretend they were widows.

And in biblical culture, a single older childless woman was a third class citizen (women already being second class), especially if she lacked a father or brother to protect her and maybe even then given the setup of who had power in the female sphere in the family (not single aunts or daughters).

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)

Some commentary can be found at https://biblehub.com/commentaries/isaiah/4-1.htm

The issue was to take away the shame in that culture of a woman who has not a man or children.  The problem is that not enough men exist to take all the women as wives, which sounds suspiciously like some of the discarded (now) theories for LDS plural marriage in the 1840s.The prophet Jacob in the Book of Mormon strictly stated the Lord's word to the Nephites concerning His Will about plural marriage.  The decision will be His to make not ours.

Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph. Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.  Jacpb 2: 24-30

Edited by JamesBYoung
Link to post

It is more likely it is a summary of the state in Isaiah 3 where everything is stupid and bad and ends with the daughters of Zion are held as failing because of the things they have done. Men get blasted for their wickedness as well.

Seeing in it divine praise for irresponsible plural marriage is imagining God approves of men who have neglected wives who they do not support and that desperation and a desire for social standing is a good motivator for marriage. Not seeing it. Jacob 2's reasons for why plural marriage was not permitted amongst the Nephites likely applies here. It is likely even the daughters of Zion thing refers to the whole of mankind in the common prophetic metaphor where Israel is portrayed as the wantonly adulterous wife to her true husband. That also offers a new interpretation. The Gentiles (other wives) clinging to God for salvation on any terms along with debased Israel in desperation.

Isaiah 5 restarts another allegory so acting like that verse should be literal is a bit of a stretch unless it is a condemnation of it literally happening.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

It is more likely it is a summary of the state in Isaiah 3 where everything is stupid and bad and ends with the daughters of Zion are held as failing because of the things they have done. Men get blasted for their wickedness as well.

Seeing in it divine praise for irresponsible plural marriage is imagining God approves of men who have neglected wives who they do not support and that desperation and a desire for social standing is a good motivator for marriage. Not seeing it. Jacob 2's reasons for why plural marriage was not permitted amongst the Nephites likely applies here. It is likely even the daughters of Zion thing refers to the whole of mankind in the common prophetic metaphor where Israel is portrayed as the wantonly adulterous wife to her true husband. That also offers a new interpretation. The Gentiles (other wives) clinging to God for salvation on any terms along with debased Israel in desperation.

Isaiah 5 restarts another allegory so acting like that verse should be literal is a bit of a stretch unless it is a condemnation of it literally happening.

 

Some of us often forget that the placements of chapters and verses in our edition of Isiah was not done by the original author, but by later people. 

There is no reason to believe Isaiah wanted a chapter break where it currently is.

I have always though that Isaiah 4:1 really belongs with Isiah chapter 3.

  • Like 1
Link to post
9 hours ago, Danzo said:

Some of us often forget that the placements of chapters and verses in our edition of Isiah was not done by the original author, but by later people. 

There is no reason to believe Isaiah wanted a chapter break where it currently is.

I have always though that Isaiah 4:1 really belongs with Isiah chapter 3.

You're not the only one who has always thought that.  The church scripture footnotes agree with you.   See footnote a:  Isaiah 4:, where it says "And in that day seven women...." the footnote says:  "IE because of scarcity of men due to wars. See Isa. 3:25."  

And so does the Joseph Smith translation.  It puts Isaiah 4:1 at the end of chapter 3.

  • Like 2
Link to post
On 7/7/2020 at 7:36 AM, InCognitus said:

You're not the only one who has always thought that.  The church scripture footnotes agree with you.   See footnote a:  Isaiah 4:, where it says "And in that day seven women...." the footnote says:  "IE because of scarcity of men due to wars. See Isa. 3:25."  

And so does the Joseph Smith translation.  It puts Isaiah 4:1 at the end of chapter 3.

In line with the Adam Clarke commentary as well.

Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...