Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Redefining Marriage to it's Biblical Definition


Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

Therefore, re-instituting or not re-instituting polygamy?

I don't believe the will re-institute it in my lifetime. They may not do it ever.

Polygamy is a special issue with a unique set of circumstances. When the practice ended, it was ended via revelation. It would require a specific revelation for it to start again (merely making it legal in the United States would not be enough). When it did end, because it was begun by revelation, there was a fair amount of resistance to the ending of the practice. So much so, that even today, polygamy remains one of the litmus tests within the LDS Church for heresy.  Additionally, while the Old Testament was tolerant of polygamy (and even required it under very specific circumstances), the Book of Mormon is completely intolerant of it - including under those specific circumstances. So while we can discuss the idea of returning marriage to its biblical definition (whatever that really means to you), we can also discuss keeping marriage in its Book of Mormon definition - this just provides additional weight to the necessity of revelation as the key factor.

On top of this, we are still somewhat close to the practice. This may seem like an odd statement given that its been over a century since it was formally ended - and yet, the youngest daughter of Lorenzo Snow (by his 9th wife) only passed away in 1976. That is, within my lifetime and within the lifetimes of all of the senior leadership of the LDS Church.

Given all of these factors, merely legalizing polygamy will do very, very little to move the LDS Church's position on this topic - and these factors show how different polygamy is from other issues (like marijuana) that the Church only recently has really been working to address in a formal way.

Link to comment
On 2/24/2023 at 4:49 PM, Amulek said:

My wife and I go to the same doctor. If she were to recommend polygamy, even in moderation, I strongly suspect my wife would want a second opinion. ;)

 

Practicing polygamy “in moderation” sounds intriguing. Exactly how do you go about doing the moderation part? :)

Link to comment
5 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Never give up on your dreams, Nehor. 

I'm curious though - you wouldn't support such a policy change by the Church?

I wouldn’t oppose it but I know my vocal support would be counterproductive to making that change. In many respects I am the enemy.

Link to comment
On 2/28/2023 at 2:46 PM, nuclearfuels said:

THank you for sharing, Jaydes. 

Would you mind elaborating as to the why you'd exit? I am genuinely curious

Polygamy is an evil, blasphemous, satanic practice and for it to be instituted once more in the church will show that God no longer dwells here, and I will not like to stick around to share in the divine condemnation and judgement against those who do stick around to continue upholding such a system. 

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Jaydes said:

Polygamy is an evil, blasphemous, satanic practice and for it to be instituted once more in the church will show that God no longer dwells here, and I will not like to stick around to share in the divine condemnation and judgement against those who do stick around to continue upholding such a system. 

How do you see it as possible that it once was viewed as revelation?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

How do you see it as possible that it once was viewed as revelation?

You didn’t ask me, but I’ll speak to this . I personally don’t think it was revelation from God, but I know that’s pretty out there for me to say. It’s a good thing to temple Recommend interview doesn’t require me to state that I believe polygamy was legit ordered by God 100 years ago. I’d be banned! 😅😇
 

 

Edited by MustardSeed
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Jaydes said:

Polygamy is an evil, blasphemous, satanic practice and for it to be instituted once more in the church will show that God no longer dwells here, and I will not like to stick around to share in the divine condemnation and judgement against those who do stick around to continue upholding such a system. 

What are your views on the Bible?  Do you hold the same opinion about polygamy as practiced in the Bible?  And, on what basis do you define polygamy as "evil, blasphemous", or a "satanic practice"?  (These are honest questions, I'm just wanting to understand how you understand these things).

Link to comment
14 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

You didn’t ask me, but I’ll speak to this . I personally don’t think it was revelation from God, but I know that’s pretty out there for me to say. It’s a good thing to temple Recommend interview doesn’t require me to state that I believe polygamy was legit ordered by God 100 years ago. I’d be banned! 😅😇
 

 

I can see it as possible to believe the Church is still the Church of Jesus Christ while believing polygamy is man made and a big mistake. 
 

I am having a hard time reconciling the view polygamy is satanic and blasphemous and the Church which was so invested in it earlier was still Christ’s Church.  Why would polygamy now be a sign God no longer dwells with us where it wasn’t before?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Calm said:

I can see it as possible to believe the Church is still the Church of Jesus Christ while believing polygamy is man made and a big mistake. 
 

I am having a hard time reconciling the view polygamy is satanic and blasphemous and the Church which was so invested in it earlier was still Christ’s Church.  Why would polygamy now be a sign God no longer dwells with us where it wasn’t before?

I’m not sure if this comparison flies, but if I were to dress up in blackface today, I’d be skewered.  I would never do it, nor would I want to do it- I know better .  However in the 90s I dressed my husband as Michael Jordan for a costume party.  I’m even embarrassed now.  But I wasn’t then- we loved MJ and owned a bald cap and needed an idea.  
 

We know better now.  If we went ahead and created what we *now *associate with a Warren Jeffs / or a Hugh Hefner compound or a circus like Sister Wives Cody clown , I’d likely walk away too.  it would feel really, well for lack of a better word, dark to introduce polygamy knowing what we know now. 
 

I give the church a pass for the past only because marching to the beat of a different drummer was par for the course for them in that day and age.  Being odd, seen as even extreme was their very existence so they felt they could (should?) do things that unfortunately were not all acceptable or even useful.  IMO polygamy was one of those things. I recognize my view is extreme and out there, but it’s how I reconcile my desire to remain in a beautiful gospel setting. I hold both in my hand- the good and the problematic. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Calm said:

I am having a hard time reconciling the view polygamy is satanic and blasphemous and the Church which was so invested in it earlier was still Christ’s Church.  Why would polygamy now be a sign God no longer dwells with us where it wasn’t before?

It is all about changing perspectives.

Polygamy in early Mormonism begins with the views of the restoration movement (which Mormonism participated in). Part of the idea behind the restoration movement was that there were X number of prophecies and conditions that had to be fulfilled before the second coming could occur. This was coupled with the belief that by actively fulfilling those conditions and prophecies, you could make the second coming come sooner rather than later. Some groups who were a part of this movement included polygamy. One of the most famous was a group started by James Cochran (called Cochranites or, officially, The Society of Free Brethren and Sisters). Cochran, focused in particular on the passage in Isaiah 4:1 - "And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man ..." as a prophetic statement. While there were other groups who engaged in polygamy (it wasn't common - but it wasn't completely isolated either), the Cochranites were important in that Jacob Cochran was arrested for gross lewdness and was incarcerated for four years. His group fell apart without his leadership, but when they encountered Mormon missionaries, they converted in large numbers.

One of the most successful restoration movement groups was the Stone-Campbell group - formed when Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell joined their groups together. One of the Stone-Campbellite congregations had a minister named Sidney Rigdon. He split from the rest of the Stone-Campbell movement over the issue of communal living that Rigdon believed was an essential part of the restored gospel (Acts 2:44). He also converted to Mormonism and brought most of his congregation with him. It is hard to overstate the influence that the restoration movement had on early Mormonism. And, Rigdon played a major role in the experiments that the early LDS Church had with communal living. In particular, the United Order ended up being a failure, but many of the ideas behind it persisted in early Mormonism. This is over-simplified. One of Sidney Rigdon's largest communal groups was the Morley Farm. Isaac Morley brought together about 50 people who lived communally on a farm in Kirtland. Joseph and Emma Smith lived for some time on the Morley Farm. Brigham Young contemplated trying to restart the United Order between 1855 and 1858, but it didn't happen.

The point of all of this is that while we sometimes speak of Mormonism as a convert church, this was the most true in the first few decades, when every member of the LDS faith began their religious experience as something other than a Mormon. There was a lot of stuff that was brought to the LDS Church by its early members. As time went by, much of it vanished. Polygamy was an exception. Polygamy lasted a long time for a number of reasons - but one of those reasons was the way that both the temple theology developed and the way that early members of the LDS Church envisioned the structure and ordering of the Celestial Kingdom. Our current understanding of both of these issues is very different than it was - and while polygamy fit into that early theology, it no longer does. Mormonism today hasn't simply abandoned some of these ideas of the restoration movement, it has developed understandings that really contradict some of these ideas. For example, Mormonism developed the idea that there is a finite number of spirit beings waiting to be born into mortality, and that the second coming isn't dependent on our actions but is something that will occur when God wants it to. We still have remnants of this theology. One of the more interesting bits that has survived is the idea that one day we may (for a brief period - and just to fulfill prophecy) perform animal sacrifice in modern LDS temples:

Quote

President Joseph Fielding Smith explained: "The sacrifice of animals will be done to complete the restoration when the temple spoken of is built; at the beginning of the millennium, or in the restoration, blood sacrifices will be performed long enough to complete the fulness of the restoration in this dispensation. Afterwards, sacrifice will be of some other character." (Doctrines of Salvation, 3:94.)

We can see in this comment how these ideas have persisted - even in the absence of any unifying understanding. At any rate, this is how I understand the beginning of polygamy, its persistence for a period, and its eventual demise. And put into a historical context we can understand how something went from being essential to irrelevant (at least theologically).

Edited by Benjamin McGuire
Link to comment
4 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I’m not sure if this comparison flies, but if I were to dress up in blackface today, I’d be skewered.  I would never do it, nor would I want to do it- I know better .  However in the 90s I dressed my husband as Michael Jordan for a costume party.  I’m even embarrassed now.  But I wasn’t then- we loved MJ and owned a bald cap and needed an idea.  
 

We know better now.  If we went ahead and created what we *now *associate with a Warren Jeffs / or a Hugh Hefner compound or a circus like Sister Wives Cody clown , I’d likely walk away too.  it would feel really, well for lack of a better word, dark to introduce polygamy knowing what we know now. 
 

I give the church a pass for the past only because marching to the beat of a different drummer was par for the course for them in that day and age.  Being odd, seen as even extreme was their very existence so they felt they could (should?) do things that unfortunately were not all acceptable or even useful.  IMO polygamy was one of those things. I recognize my view is extreme and out there, but it’s how I reconcile my desire to remain in a beautiful gospel setting. I hold both in my hand- the good and the problematic. 

To me this is a reasonable position. Perhaps I just associate a more active evil with the words Satanic and blasphemous that is closer to something like child sacrifice that would never be seen as acceptable in Christ’s Church or among his Chosen People (I am using this to refer to the biblical community because I don’t think “church” works for them).

Link to comment
On 2/25/2023 at 12:26 AM, Calm said:

Yes, but how is that different than needing to be married to access Catholic services, which discrimination was found to be illegal? In order to adopt through LDSSS, one had to be an active, current temple recommend holding sealed couple, same as now for just the consultation service (they don’t handle adoptions themselves, impossible for singles, unmarried couples, nonmembers, or same sex couples.


https://providentliving.churchofjesuschrist.org/lds-family-services/adoption-resources/getting-started?lang=eng

The actual adoption service shut down anyway in 2014 due to a stated lack of babies…several other agencies did so as well as several countries started to limit foreign adoptions.

Which is unfortunate.   We adopted our son through LDSSS and the total cost after tax credit and insurance benefit was around 900 bucks.  I tell people I adopted my son for the price of a good iPhone. 

Link to comment
On 2/28/2023 at 3:00 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Additionally, while the Old Testament was tolerant of polygamy (and even required it under very specific circumstances), the Book of Mormon is completely intolerant of it - including under those specific circumstances.

I would not say the BOM is intolerant of it.  Just does not tolerate the unauthorized practice of it.  

Link to comment
On 3/2/2023 at 3:03 PM, Jaydes said:

Polygamy is an evil, blasphemous, satanic practice and for it to be instituted once more in the church will show that God no longer dwells here, and I will not like to stick around to share in the divine condemnation and judgement against those who do stick around to continue upholding such a system. 

Nathan told David that God have him his wives.  I guess God has a different view of it than you.  Polygamy is a hard practice not doubt.   But if God allows it and the people involved chose to live it by their own free will and choice, I don't see why that is a problem.  At least the practice is scriptural in some situations.  We live in a time where SSM is acceptable to many yet there is nothing in the scriptures that supports it.  So maybe in 30 years, polygamy will become acceptable as society continues to change.   I am sort of in the same camp with you however instead of polygamy it would be SSM.   I would not leave the church if it accepted it I still believe the core of the gospel but I would stop going and wait for it to repent.  We all have our limits I guess.

Edited by carbon dioxide
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I would not say the BOM is intolerant of it.  Just does not tolerate the unauthorized practice of it.  

*shrug*

Can you show me a single place in the Book of Mormon where the Book of Mormon suggests that polygamy was good (or even neutral)? In every instance where the Book of Mormon refers to the practice in the Old Testament (where we assume it was 'authorized,' the Book of Mormon calls it abominable. I would say that the Book of Mormon is intolerant of it.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

*shrug*

Can you show me a single place in the Book of Mormon where the Book of Mormon suggests that polygamy was good (or even neutral)? In every instance where the Book of Mormon refers to the practice in the Old Testament (where we assume it was 'authorized,' the Book of Mormon calls it abominable. I would say that the Book of Mormon is intolerant of it.

Jacob 2:30 and I do believe it was practiced among the Jaredites.  The brother of Jared has 22 kids and Orihah had 31 kids.   Now I am going to play the odds here that both of them had multiple wives to have that many kids and the text says both of those men were righteous. 

Link to comment

Jacob 2:30 simply blunts the potential argument that Deuteronomy 25 requires polygamy (the text in Jacob alludes to the passage in Deuteronomy 25). But this is not an endorsement. And it is not a statement that polygamy was good (or even neutral). It is simply a part of Jacob's argument that the Old Testament couldn't be used as justification for the practice among the Nephites. So I don't think it meets the criteria of what I asked for.

As for the Jaredites, we don't have to speculate. We can just go straight to Ether 10:5 -

"And it came to pass that Riplakish did not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord, for he did have many wives and concubines ..."

This is not a tolerant view of polygamy among the Jaredites.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Jacob 2:30 simply blunts the potential argument that Deuteronomy 25 requires polygamy (the text in Jacob alludes to the passage in Deuteronomy 25). But this is not an endorsement. And it is not a statement that polygamy was good (or even neutral). It is simply a part of Jacob's argument that the Old Testament couldn't be used as justification for the practice among the Nephites. So I don't think it meets the criteria of what I asked for.

As for the Jaredites, we don't have to speculate. We can just go straight to Ether 10:5 -

"And it came to pass that Riplakish did not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord, for he did have many wives and concubines ..."

This is not a tolerant view of polygamy among the Jaredites.

Polygamy is regulated.  It can be practiced incorrectly.   I am still sticking with the view that both the brother of Jared and Orihah had so many kids because they had multiple wives.  Yes it is possible that they married just one woman who had that many kids or they had some mistresses on the side but the most likely option for me is they had at least 2 or 3 wives to yield that many kids.   And has for Riplakish perhaps there is a difference between some and many.   Having 2, 3, or 4 wives might be different than 40 or 100.   Not sure what the Lord defines as many.  I do know that I have currently two dogs living in my house.  It would be absurd to classify my household as a house of many dogs. 

Edited by carbon dioxide
Link to comment
2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Yes it is possible that they married just one woman who had that many kids or they had some mistresses on the side but the most likely option for me is they had at least 2 or 3 wives to yield that many kids.

A man can have serial wives each with a number of children without polygamy. Death in childbirth was common and if he married women of childbearing years rather than his own age, he could easily have over twenty kids during his lifetime.  There is also the possibility of adoption and fostering increasing the number of children a patriarch/leader might have. 
 

The terms for sons and daughters may be more generic and mean descendants as well.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...