Mormon/Polygamy question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Good_Daughter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rmcmullan said:
Well Allweather, I would test your reply against the many instances of polygamy in the OT and ask you the same question. How could you overlook all those instances?
Click to expand...
I overlook nothing. I am aware of polygamy in the OT, but our differences reside in the interpretations of their meaning. Mormons seem to find God’s approval in OT polygamy. Catholics find reluctant toleration. This is found explained in Jesus’ teaching on divorce, where he said that Moses permitted divorce because of the Jews hardheadedness, whereas that wasn’t God’s plan from the beginning. From the beginning, it was one man, one woman, bone of bone, flesh of flesh. Polygamy is a spit in the face of that creation doctrine. Jesus came to restore that, and gave very specific teachings regarding divorce and adultery. We Catholics, and all Protestants, throughout the world, follow those teachings, while Mormons have come up with a novel interpretation that just so happens to cater to man’s natural inclination to have multiple sex partners. Coincidence? I think not!
 
I’m a little confused at how you are mixing commandments and God’s toleration. For a very long time, the toleration of divorce, since Moses allowed it, appeared for all intents and purposes to be from God. Jesus cleared it up in time but there were centuries between Moses and Jesus.

I am mostly arguing from a secular point of view but I don’t think you need to necessarily take a zero tolerance point of view of polygamy. There are instances where it’s at least making the best of a situation. Imbalances in the male population (due to war?) or infertility. I think the “God ordained monogamy exculsively” or the “God commanded polygamy” argument reduces a number of complicated arrangments to a one-size-fits-all solution. But there’s no question in my mind that polygamy is a lesser form of marriage (because of problems stated above) and the practice of it should have some limits.

If you are intent on critisizing 19th century Mormons for polygamy, I can have some sympathy for claiming they went too far but not much for an argument that God forbade it and the proof is already in the Bible.
 
rmcmullan said:
I’m a little confused at how you are mixing commandments and God’s toleration. For a very long time, the toleration of divorce, since Moses allowed it, appeared for all intents and purposes to be from God. Jesus cleared it up in time but there were centuries between Moses and Jesus.
Click to expand...
Moses was given authority over the Israelites, and he did what had to be done to lead a hardheaded, often rebellious people. That doesn’t mean that divorce or polygamy, or any other thing the people did was something “from God.” The fact that a spell of time elapsed between Moses and Jesus doesn’t really have much to do with anything, as far as I can tell. Jesus didn’t institute anything truly new in terms of the meaning of adultery and divorce, but rather restated the divine plan in terms that magnify the uncompromising nature of the plan.
I am mostly arguing from a secular point of view but I don’t think you need to necessarily take a zero tolerance point of view of polygamy. There are instances where it’s at least making the best of a situation. Imbalances in the male population (due to war?) or infertility. I think the “God ordained monogamy exculsively” or the “God commanded polygamy” argument reduces a number of complicated arrangments to a one-size-fits-all solution. But there’s no question in my mind that polygamy is a lesser form of marriage (because of problems stated above) and the practice of it should have some limits.
Click to expand...
Lots of sinful behaviors come into common practice because people find arguments from the standpoint of practicality. Gambling can be legalized because some of the money gets used for “education.” After a few decades, we wonder why there is an epidemic of gambling addictions, and why the people no longer want to tax themselves to pay for education, but would rather have more slot machines and blackjack tables. Prostitution can be legalized because it serves a necessary purpose. One recent Mormon visitor claimed that 19th century Mormon polygamy kept thousands of Mormon women out of prostitution! There is no doubt that Mormons have a whole raft full of rationalizations for polygamy, and I’ve heard quite a few of them. But none of them is valid, because ONLY the Mormons, for whatever reasons, instituted polygamy as a command of God. Tens of thousands of people were traveling west in the mid-19th century, but so far as we know none of them felt the “need” to solve any of their problems via polygamy, let alone finding God commanding it as a necessary pre-requisite to attaining the highest degree of heaven.
If you are intent on critisizing 19th century Mormons for polygamy, I can have some sympathy for claiming they went too far but not much for an argument that God forbade it and the proof is already in the Bible.
Click to expand...
That “proof” is according to Mormon interpretations, which are not authoritative, because they’re at odds with every other branch of Christianity, not least of which the Catholic Church, which proscribed polygamy in any form whatever for 1800 years before Joseph Smith, Jr took a hankering to little Fanny Alger.

I wish you’d lay out what would have been an acceptable level of polygamy. You say they went “too far.” Earlier you stated that polygamy is harmful to society. What would have been a tolerable level of God-ordained Mormon polygamy that would’ve minimized the damage to society, and not gone “too far?”
 
rmcmullan said:
I said they went too far? I did not! Please reread.
Click to expand...
OK, rmcmullan… let me quote your words to you again:

““If you are intent on critisizing 19th century Mormons for polygamy, I can have some sympathy for claiming they went too far but not much for an argument that God forbade it and the proof is already in the Bible.””

You tell me what you mean by those words, since you seem to be backtracking from their obvious meanings.
 
I can have sympathy for your argument without agreeing with it. If you only think they went too far, then you are making some accomodation for polygamy (moving it from the black & white realm) and the only difference is under what circumstances. Sort of goes back to your previous post.

I have heard different things about the limitations that were in place. I’ve heard 1-3% of the population, your first wife would have veto privilege, that you couldn’t take it upon yourself but had to be “called”. You had to be wealthy enough to provide for them and I’m fairly sure that each family had a separate house. But I am not much of an historian and I haven’t verified any of these claims. Some people claim that there was a surplus of women at the time but I doubt that. Some people claim it was an extension of the welfare program. I dunno. But I am willing to consider it so long as there are restrictions and an explicit acknowledgement that it’s a lesser form of marriage. And I just can’t accept that it was forbidden from my read of the Bible.
 
rmcmullan said:
But there’s no question in my mind that polygamy is a lesser form of marriage…
Click to expand...
If that is your belief then you are att odds with all of Mormondom because D&C Sect 132 presents polygamy as a higher form of marriage, not lower. No where in Mormon writing is polygamy ever presented as a lower form of marriage. You seem to recognize that polygamy is inherently problematic, which it is, but because you are Mormon you can’t bring yourself to condemn the Church for instituting polygamy as a sacred form of marriage.
If you are intent on critisizing 19th century Mormons for polygamy, I can have some sympathy for claiming they went too far but not much for an argument that God forbade it and the proof is already in the Bible.
Click to expand...
Though the old testament does not explicitly condemn polygamy, if you read between the lines you can see that polygamy was a disaster. First of all, polygamy was the standard practice of the pagan cultures surrounding Israel. During periods of disobience, Israel would sometimes adopt the practices of its pagan neighbors. Moses sometimes permitted such things because of the “hardness of their hearts,” which means that Israel had become incapable of living the higher standard. That in no way implies that God intended for this form of marriage to be sacred. In general, polygamy always led to serious trouble for its practitioners. This is certainly the case with Abraham, Sarah, and Haggar. Look at the mess that resulted from this unholy union!

The Mormon adoption of polygamy was a giant step backward for the institution of marriage, and just like in the old testament, it didn’t work out for them either. We all know that it was wrong, but Mormons can’t bring themselves to condemn it because to do so would undermine the claim of Joseph Smith as a true prophet, something most Mormons dare not even consider.
 
Chris-WA said:
If that is your belief then you are att odds with all of Mormondom because D&C Sect 132 presents polygamy as a higher form of marriage, not lower.
Click to expand...
Interesting comment. I’ve read Section 132 several times and haven’t ever seen polygamy even mentioned.
 
rmcmullan said:
Interesting comment. I’ve read Section 132 several times and haven’t ever seen polygamy even mentioned.
Click to expand...
Is that a joke? Please don’t play games with words. Section 132 describes the institution of the doctrines of celestial marriage and the plurality of wives.
 
Interesting comment. I’ve read Section 132 several times and haven’t ever seen polygamy even mentioned. If you’ve read it, you’ve misunderstood.
 
Aren’t you confusing the sealing power and celestial marriage with the plurality of wives? .
 
Allweather said:
Hi, Mapi, and welcome. Your story sounds very similar to my fiance’s. She knew almost nothing about the polygamy of the early Mormons. It was reading about Mormon polygamy that caused the lights to come on for her.

Frankly, I don’t think most men understand how this is for women. If the shoe were on the other foot, ie it was all about several husbands for a single woman, why, I’m willing to betcha that Mormon men wouldn’t think very highly of it. Men tend to like the idea of having many sex partners (I sure do!), or maybe a couple of sex partners combined with a few other women hanging around to do the laundry, and maybe a couple to go out and earn a living, so he can just sit around and be a fat patriarch. No one should be surprised that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young developed their polygamy system. After all, they had almost unlimited power over people, and if they wanted something to happen, all they had to do was get a revelation direct from Jesus or Heavenly Father, and bingo, it was a done deal. They could look into the Old Testament and see some polygamy. The idea of a harem is something any natural man finds attractive. With no one to call them on it, they had their way.
Click to expand...
Hi Allweather,
Thanks you for your honesty. No many men have the decency to say that if it was the other way around they will be ok with it!!! 😛
 
rmcmullan said:
Aren’t you confusing the sealing power and celestial marriage with the plurality of wives? .
Click to expand...
You’ve got to be kidding. From Section 132:61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else. 62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified. 64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.
 
Here’s DC 132 on the Sealing power and enternal marriage, for Chris-WA

18 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God.

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.
 
From D&C 132 for Chris-WA with my apologies, you are right about this section covering “plurality of wives”

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
 
At any rate, I still think you are confusing the two with regard to what you said about polygamy being the higher law. It’s celestial marriage that’s the higher law. And I still maintain that polygamy is a lesser form of marriage, especially in the context of unrestricted polygamy which was not practised.
 
read verse 63 specifically then.

…for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified…

that sure doesn’t sound like lesser law.
 
Majick, isn’t that the same as the sealing and eternal marriage? It is very similar to verse 20. It only says that the blessings of eternal marriage are the same to both unions.
 
I don’t believe it is the same because it is in the context of plural wives that this verse is speaking and it specifically points out THEY (10 virgins) are given to him. it goes on to explain why. The next couple of verses makes it obvious that plural wives is what is being addressed here. (although v.63 is pretty explicit in talking to plural marriage)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top