Mormon/Polygamy question

[Talitha_Nun]

Greetings,

I did not ignore your posts so much as I focused on the original post, and thus was responding only to the initial question, not your ideas. That continues to be the case, and my concern remains only for the original poster. Your offer to dissect is appreciated, but it most probably will not provide any new insights, at least for me.

More to the point, this lady is dealing with someone who represents a group that has a rather good success rate with converting catholics, and this is primarily (IMHO) because many catholics are scripturally weak. They (LDS,JH, etc) rely on this to be the case, and so I hope for and suggest that in dealing with such people one will rely on scripture alone, and not on tradition, or extra-biblical texts of one sort or another, because often times the two simply will not mix. Scripture alone is sufficient.

We must be careful to allow scripture to shape and define our theology, and not permit our theological presuppositions to shape and define scripture.

Grace & Peace

Talitha, you are wrong.

Did you ignore my posts? How about Matt 19:5?

How about ONE wife for believers and leaders?

1 Tim 3,2

Cor 7:2

And, your false allegations about the Catholic Church are wild and without citations or proof, or credibility.

It is not the Roman Catholic Church, that is for STARTERS.

I will discect the rest of your innacuracies later.

 

[Hellisreal]

Your baseless allegations against Catholics need more than your say so.

Scripture is not a weak point for Catholics, or you could prove your point now and blow the ones cited apart.

Good luck with it.

 

[chutton]

Here is an answer I came across recently at the following site:
gotquestions.org/polygamy.html

Question: "Why did God allow polygamy / bigamy in the Bible?"

*Answer: * The first instance of polygamy / bigamy in the Bible was Lamech in Genesis 4:19, “Lamech married two women…” Several prominent men in the Old Testament were polygamists. Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and others all had multiple wives. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (essentially wives of a lower status) according to 1 Kings 11:3. What are we to do with these instances of polygamy in the Old Testament? There are three questions that need to be answered. (1) Why did God allow polygamy in the Old Testament? (2) How does God view polygamy today? (3) Why did it change?

        (1) **Why did God allow polygamy in the Old Testament? **The Bible does not specifically say why God allowed polygamy. The best anyone can do is “informed” speculation. There are a few key items to consider. First, there has always been more women in the world than men. Current statistics show that approximately 50.5% of the world population are women, with men being 49.5%. Assuming the same percentages in ancient times, and multiplied by millions of people, there would be tens of thousands more women than men. Second, warfare in ancient times was especially brutal, with an incredibly high rate of fatality. This would have resulted in an even greater percentage of women to men. Third, due to the patriarchal societies, it was nearly impossible for a woman to provide for herself. Women were often uneducated and untrained. Women relied on their fathers, brothers, and husbands for provision and protection. Unmarried women were often subjected to prostitution and slavery. Fourth, the significant difference between the number of women and men would have left many, many women in an undesirable situation (to say the least).

        So, it seems that God allowed polygamy to protect and provide for the women who could not find a husband otherwise. A man would take multiple wives, and serve as the provider and protector of all of them. While definitely not ideal, living in a polygamist household was far better than the alternatives: prostitution, slavery, starvation, etc. In addition to the protection / provision factor, polygamy enabled a much faster expansion of humanity, fulfilling God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth” (Genesis 9:7). Men are capable of impregnating multiple women in the same time period…causing humanity to grow much faster than if each man was only able to produce one child each year. Again, these are only “informed” speculations.

        (2) **How does God view polygamy today?** The Bible says that God’s original intention was for one man to be married to only one woman, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife (not wives); and they shall become one flesh (not multiple fleshes)” (Genesis 2:24). We see in Deuteronomy 17:14-20, that the kings were not supposed to multiply wives. This most definitely puts Solomon in direct disobedience against the Lord.

In the New Testament, 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6 give “the husband of one wife” in a list of qualifications for spiritual leadership. While these qualifications are only specifically for positions of spiritual leadership, they apply equally to all Christians. Should not all Christians be “above reproach…temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money” (1 Timothy 3:2-4)? If we are called to be holy (1 Peter 1:16), and if these standards are holy for elders and deacons, then they are holy for all. Ephesians 5:22-33, speaking of the relationship between husbands and wives, when referring to a husband (singular) always also refers to a wife (singular). “…for the husband is the head of the wife (singular) … He who loves his wife (singular) loves himself. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife (singular), and the two will become one flesh … each one of you also must love his wife (singular) as he loves himself, and the wife (singular) must respect her husband.” There is absolutely no allowance for polygamy for followers of Jesus Christ.

 

[chutton]

continued…
3) Why did it change? It is not as much God disallowing something He previously allowed as it is God restoring marriage to His original intent. According to Genesis 2:24, polygamy was not God’s original intent. God seems to have allowed polygamy to solve a problem…but it was God’s desire for the problem never to have occurred. In most modern societies, there is absolutely no need for polygamy. In most cultures today, women are able to provide for and protect themselves – removing the only “positive” aspect of polygamy. Are there some instances in which the allowance for polygamy would still apply today? Perhaps…but it is unfathomable that there would be no other possible solution. It is our firm belief that polygamy does not honor the intent and sanctity of marriage – and most importantly – does not honor God.

 

[majick275]

I’m going to disagree on a few points here. Just because the OT mentions polygamists and even though some are prominent cases doesn’t mean that God “approved” of it.

The fact that there are a “few” more women in the world (and one would assume in your example they are spread out over the world) doesn’t really give us a significant “pool” of “spare wives”. I would counter the men dying in battle with the women dying in childbirth which was all to common in past. Furthermore we know that in many OT cultures there were prostitutes and they would not be seen as marriageable in most cases. I think these things come close to evening up the ratios.

As far as populating the planet, We have some (albeit sketchy) empirical data that polygamous families have fewer births per woman than monogamous families in similar cultural/socio-economic/geographic/temporal circumstances. thus with there usually being a pretty even ratio of FERTILE men and women there would seem to be little validity to that as a justification.

I think the scriptural evidence is that God forgave some instances of polygamy as he forgives all of us who seek him of our many imperfections. I would point point out the scriptural lessons of the disasters that befell Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon due to their polygamy. The fact that God still loved them and helped them to make the best of a bad situation should serve to encourage us that, even though we are all sinners, God works with us to turn our lives to good whenever we are seeking his guidance and trying to obey his commandments.

Think of when Jesus was teaching on divorce. He didn’t say “God permitted divorce” because of the hardness of their hearts. He said MOSES permitted it. I think the same principle applies. MEN allowed and engaged in polygamy in the OT but God didn’t direct or sanction it. I think he has been consistent that he wants marriage to be between one man and one woman.

 

[Alma147]

Your comments are insightful. I do, however, have a disagreement with a couple of your comments:

There is not much you can do about this topic, it seems to me, other than asking the Mormon lady whether she does not see it as an inconsistency that the Mormons do not practice polygamy anymore nowadays (at least not the mainstream Mormons) just because they were interested in statehood at one point and sacrificed this practice in favor of political power.

That’s kind of an oversimplification. Mormons didn’t suspend polygamy in order for Utah to become a state, but rather to keep its leaders out of prison, to retain its temples and guarantee its members civil rights as citizens. The Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887 confiscated all property owned by the LDS Church, revoked most civil rights of Mormons and disincorporated the Church. After all appeals had been exhausted in the Supreme Court, the LDS Church committed to obey the law. We do believe in obeying the constitutional law. The revocation of polygamy came in 1890 and Utah was granted statehood 6 years later.

It is no secret that Mormons, as well as Jehova’s Witnesses, find most of their converts among Roman Catholic women, because it is so very easy to show them the inconsistencies in Roman Catholic doctrine.

I don’t think that’s accurate. It may be in South America because most people there are Catholic; but in the southern states most converts come from Baptist backgrounds.

Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses have books that tell them exactly how to shake your (Roman Catholic) faith, so when this Mormon lady comes back, she has not had only a week of preparation for the conversation you are going to have, but years, and she has had plenty of argumentative help to rely on.

I’m sure the LDS lady would be surprised to hear that. Mormons don’t have books designed to shake anyone’s faith and they don’t have any books targeting a particular religion. Mormon missionaries have only a rudimentary amount of instruction and it’s generally limited to teaching the first principles of the gospel, including faith in Christ, repentance, baptism, confirmation, prayer, the restoration of the gospel and the Book of Mormon. Most female missionaries go out at the age of 21 and males go at 19. Most of their preparation consists in understanding their own religion. My first missionary companion had only been a Mormon for a year when he became a missionary. There had been no classes, books or preparation to teach Catholics (the predominant religion of our mission.)

All the best,

Alma

 

[Hellisreal]

Catholics are the predominent mission of your religion Alma?

Can you clarify that?

Over my dead body they will be.

 

[Alma147]

Catholics are the predominent mission of your religion Alma?

Can you clarify that?

Over my dead body they will be.

“My mission” means the mission I served in. I was a missionary in Italy more than 30 years ago. Although I did encounter a few Protestants and Jews, the rest were predominantly Catholic. It was there that I had some very choice experiences with Catholics of all kinds. The Archbishop of Ravenna was a very kind and remarkable man. Catholics were very kind to me even though they knew I was there to convert them. I believe our Church hierarchy has similar feelings of kindness towards Catholics as well. I know that when our Church has raised funds for disaster or famine relief where we didn’t have a distribution network, we turned those funds over to Catholic charities, knowing that they would be appropriate stewards for the relief of suffering.

Alma

 

[majick275]

Your comments are insightful. I do, however, have a disagreement with a couple of your comments:

That’s kind of an oversimplification. Mormons didn’t suspend polygamy in order for Utah to become a state, but rather to keep its leaders out of prison, to retain its temples and guarantee its members civil rights as citizens. The Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887 confiscated all property owned by the LDS Church, revoked most civil rights of Mormons and disincorporated the Church. After all appeals had been exhausted in the Supreme Court, the LDS Church committed to obey the law. We do believe in obeying the constitutional law. The revocation of polygamy came in 1890 and Utah was granted statehood 6 years later.

I don’t disagree with your facts here. I think you oversimplify as well. (probably for the sake of space here as it’s a complex issue) I would point out though that motive is difficult to assign here. it’s complex

I don’t think that’s accurate. It may be in South America because most people there are Catholic; but in the southern states most converts come from Baptist backgrounds.

I doubt any of us have accurate stats on this as they simply aren’t kept. One can make some estimates based on anecdotal evidence. I think that you find most LDS converts are friends and family of active LDS. They also have the highest convert retention rates. The next category are troubled folks desperately searching for something. They have low retention rates. denomination is somewhat irrelevant in both cases.

I’m sure the LDS lady would be surprised to hear that. Mormons don’t have books designed to shake anyone’s faith and they don’t have any books targeting a particular religion.

Alma is right about this.

Mormon missionaries have only a rudimentary amount of instruction and it’s generally limited to teaching the first principles of the gospel, including faith in Christ, repentance, baptism, confirmation, prayer, the restoration of the gospel and the Book of Mormon. Most female missionaries go out at the age of 21 and males go at 19.

Alma is correct here too.

Most of their preparation consists in understanding their own religion. My first missionary companion had only been a Mormon for a year when he became a missionary. There had been no classes, books or preparation to teach Catholics (the predominant religion of our mission.)

All the best,

Alma

I might disagree a bit here (not on facts but on what they mean) Most formal missionary training (at the MTC) looks a lot like corporate sales training. They teach them how to connect with people and get them interested in their message. The message itself is prepared (scripted) and they have it memorized (usually) They are encouraged to be 4 yr. seminary grads. (think 4 yrs of everyday CCD like a catholic high school grad) but they will take any “worthy” individual who has volunteered and been recommended by their local priesthood leaders. They are supposed to read their scriptures every day on their mission and because they are teaching potential converts and new members they don’t go into “deep doctrine”. (milk before meat) they really don’t encourage apologetics but prefer to “bear their testimony” and hope that “the spirit” will motivate folks to get baptized. They will usually start asking them to commit to a baptism date in the second week of instruction but there is no set rule. They will try to baptize them as early as possible.

Overall I thought Alma gave us a good accurate response here.

 

[Hellisreal]

“My mission” means the mission I served in. I was a missionary in Italy more than 30 years ago. Although I did encounter a few Protestants and Jews, the rest were predominantly Catholic. It was there that I had some very choice experiences with Catholics of all kinds. The Archbishop of Ravenna was a very kind and remarkable man. Catholics were very kind to me even though they knew I was there to convert them. I believe our Church hierarchy has similar feelings of kindness towards Catholics as well. I know that when our Church has raised funds for disaster or famine relief where we didn’t have a distribution network, we turned those funds over to Catholic charities, knowing that they would be appropriate stewards for the relief of suffering.

Alma

Thank you for the clarification.

Catholics are well versed in charity relief for quite some time now. I am totally unaware of any efforts the Mormons have made in this.
Thank you for telling me about it, but I am forced to take your word on it.
No challenge, but can you cite something that I can see that confirms your statements?

 

[Good_Daughter]

Thanks again Hellisreal for the scriptures to support an anti-polygamy view. I’ve made a list and will do some careful reading before I talk to my Mormon visitors next week.

Talitha_Nun, thanks for your replies and your kind concern. I understand what you mean about Catholics who lack the ability to use and quote Scripture the way some members of other faiths can. Still, I’ve never been impressed by “Scripture machines”, Catholic or otherwise. Too often they remind me of a “resounding gong or a clashing cymbal”. Love wins me over every time.

My goal therefore, with any non-Catholic missionary, is to love them first and share the truths that I’ve learned second. This is why I’m digging into the morality of polygamy. How do you know that God approves of polygamy? Not just allows but approves? I’m very interested in your reply.

As a cradle Catholic, I’ve always been encouraged to read Scripture and have never found a contradiction between RC doctrine and Scripture. If you are finding such contradictions, I urge you to browse CAF or even start a thread to have your concerns addressed. Ditto for inconsistencies in RC doctrine.

As for using the Bible alone when talking to Mormons, I couldn’t possibly as my interpretation of scripture is fallible. I need help from the Church, which Scripture calls the “pillar and foundation of truth”. Thanks for the advice though.

majick275, you’ve given me so much helpful information. I’m interested in the idea of polygamy appearing to be the result of lack of faith. Ultimately I would like to be able to illustrate the intrinsic evil of polygamy for my Mormon visitors, no easy task given its starring role in the OT. You and chutton have helped me to see that its existence does not necessarily mean it had God’s seal of approval. I’m going to re-read your posts a few times as they are quite weighty. Thanks for the help.

 

[Hellisreal]

Sarah’s lack of faith in God’s promise gave rise to her “helping God” by having Hagar come onto the scene.

The birth that came from that mistrust of God’s promise gave us ISLAM.

Do you really need more meditation on it? "He will come as a wild ***,…

Sarah did not wait for God. She gave her husband a concubine.

Mormons consider this “another wife”

Hagar was not another wife, she was a slave concubine.

Nonetheless, a sign of what happens when we ignore God.

ISLAM.

 

[Alma147]

Sarah did not wait for God. She gave her husband a concubine. Mormons consider this “another wife”

Hagar was not another wife, she was a slave concubine.

Ah, but the Mormons agree with Genesis 16:3 where we’re told that Hagar was Abram’s wife: "And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.

As far as God giving approval of polygamy, there are several indications: 1) God gave Saul’s wives to David. "Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, (2 Samuel 12:7-8)

Secondly, the law of God from Moses required a man to marry his brother’s wife if he died childless. There is no provision that he was exempt from this law if he were already married.

Third, the law of God from Moses said an illegitimate son could not enter into the congregation of the Lord for at least 10 generations. (Deut. 23:2) The prophet Samuel was the son of a plural wife and he certainly entered into the congregation of the Lord as God’s prophet. This indicates that Samuel’s mother’s marriage was approved by God–otherwise he’d have been an illegitimate child.

Alma

 

[majick275]

Ah, but the Mormons agree with Genesis 16:3 where we’re told that Hagar was Abram’s wife: "And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.

As far as God giving approval of polygamy, there are several indications: 1) God gave Saul’s wives to David. "Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, (2 Samuel 12:7-8)

Secondly, the law of God from Moses required a man to marry his brother’s wife if he died childless. There is no provision that he was exempt from this law if he were already married.

Third, the law of God from Moses said an illegitimate son could not enter into the congregation of the Lord for at least 10 generations. (Deut. 23:2) The prophet Samuel was the son of a plural wife and he certainly entered into the congregation of the Lord as God’s prophet. This indicates that Samuel’s mother’s marriage was approved by God–otherwise he’d have been an illegitimate child.

Alma

so you think Sara had the “authority” to “give” hagar to abraham and (assuming you do) that’s really a marriage? i think it concubinage. The fact that man’s law at that time allowed concubinage doesn’t mean it was god’s law either. Samuel may have been legitimate in the eyes of the law but his father was a polygamist. The Lord may have “tolerated” that but it doesn’t automatically follow that he “approved” of it. I think you take the Saul/David scriptures out of context. The Lord is reminding David in terms that David understands that the LORD is who David owes his success to. once again MAN’S law allowed polygamy back then and MAN’S law allowed wives to be taken in battle just like land and cattle. The fact that the lord “tolerated” that once again doesn’t prove he “approved” of it. The Levirate marriage is a bit problematic because it is NOT well defined. We don’t know what the rules were if the brother was already married. We have no examples in scripture. we have only the ones where the next brother was single. We certainly can’t just assume that meant that polygamy was fine in the levirate situation. I certainly fail to see how it reconciles with the BoM scriptures on polygamy since the law of moses applied to the nephites (so we are told) until the appearance of Christ.

 

[Alma147]

so you think Sara had the “authority” to “give” hagar to abraham and (assuming you do) that’s really a marriage?

What “authority” Sarai had or didn’t have is irrelevant. Genesis calls her Abram’s “wife.” You and “Hellisreal” may conclude that she was not his wife, but I think if the author of Genesis wrote “wife” ('ishshâh) there’s good reason to believe she was his wife rather than his concubine (pilegesh).

I think you take the Saul/David scriptures out of context. The Lord is reminding David in terms that David understands that the LORD is who David owes his success to. once again MAN’S law allowed polygamy back then and MAN’S law allowed wives to be taken in battle just like land and cattle. The fact that the lord “tolerated” that once again doesn’t prove he “approved” of it.

Obviously, you haven’t read the context–or the quote very carefully. We’re not talking about “MAN’S” law, we’re talking about what God did. God is the one who gave Saul’s wives to David to be his wives. That’s what “I gave thee” means. You can’t seriously claim that God would do something He didn’t approve of can you? The context is David being called to repentance by God’s prophet for having stolen another man’s wife. God says He gave all these things to David (including his wives) and said, “If that had been too little, I would have given unto thee such and such things” (I would have added to you many more things like these! (NAS))

I certainly fail to see how it reconciles with the BoM scriptures on polygamy since the law of moses applied to the Nephites (so we are told) until the appearance of Christ.

The law of Moses provided for plural wives but Jacob says that God gave a different commandment to Lehi stipulating mongamy (see Jacob 2: 26-27,34).

Alma

 

[Good_Daughter]

So far I’ve seen nothing from the OT to indicate God approved of polygamous marriage. My translation of Gen 16:3 even calls Hagar Abraham’s concubine, not his wife. Alma 147, your indicators don’t stand up to scrutiny as majick 275 demonstared. Further, there are even condemnations of polygamy in the OT like Deut 17:17 regarding the king, “Neither shall he have a great number of wives”.

In the NT Jesus says whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery (Matt 19:9), what if you didn’t even bother to divorce the first prior to marrying the second? Paul tells us that in marriage every man should have his own wife and every woman her own husband (1Cor 7:2). Early Mormons had these scriptures, didn’t they?

I wonder, how could Joseph Smith practice polygamy after translating The Book Of Mormon, specifically Jacob 2:24 “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.” and Jacob 2:27"…there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none". Can anyone explain these passages in light of early Mormon history? This inconsistency affects my ability to read LDS Scripture, like The Book Of Mormon, in a serious manner.

Scripturally it seems that, pre-fall and post-atonement, marriage was to be between one man and one woman, modeled on Adam and Eve (Gen 2), Christ and his Church (Eph 5). Any divine commentary directed specifically at polygamy in the OT seems to condemn rather than condone.

A big “thank you” to all who’ve posted on this topic so far. I’ve been shown some helpful truths that I can share with my Mormon visitors.

 

[Good_Daughter]

What “authority” Sarai had or didn’t have is irrelevant. Genesis calls her Abram’s “wife.” You and “Hellisreal” may conclude that she was not his wife, but I think if the author of Genesis wrote “wife” ('ishshâh) there’s good reason to believe she was his wife rather than his concubine (pilegesh).

Obviously, you haven’t read the context–or the quote very carefully. We’re not talking about “MAN’S” law, we’re talking about what God did. God is the one who gave Saul’s wives to David to be his wives. That’s what “I gave thee” means. You can’t seriously claim that God would do something He didn’t approve of can you? The context is David being called to repentance by God’s prophet for having stolen another man’s wife. God says He gave all these things to David (including his wives) and said, “If that had been too little, I would have given unto thee such and such things” (I would have added to you many more things like these! (NAS))

The law of Moses provided for plural wives but Jacob says that God gave a different commandment to Lehi stipulating mongamy (see Jacob 2: 26-27,34).

Alma

Sorry Alma 147, I hadn’t read your latest post when I posted. I hope it doesn’t cause confusion. Can you comment on 1 Cor 7:2 from a Mormon point of view if you get a chance? Thanks.

 

[majick275]

I want to be careful about the semantics here. It’s not God speaking directly but Nathan the prophet speaking on behalf of god.

From the NET:

2 Samuel 12:7 Nathan said to David, “You are that man! This is what the Lord God of Israel says: ‘I chose you to be king over Israel and I rescued you from the hand of Saul. 12:8 I gave you your master’s house, and put your master’s wives into your arms. I also gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all that somehow seems insignificant, I would have given you so much more as well!

I don’t think this means God intended David to be a polygamist as much as Nathan telling David he had his choice from a large number of women “fit for a king” as well as fame and fortune, power and glory yet he chose to commit adultery.

the translators footnote on verse 8 reads: “and the wives of your lord into your chest [or “lap”].” The words “I put” are supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons and for clarification.

now if i put this with MORMON scripture (Jacob 2:24) It really looks like it is not meant to support polygamy. Think about it. This verse doesn’t just condemn the adultery with bathsheba it specifically condemns “having” many wives. It singles David out as an example of sin. what wives did David have? after bathsheba he was repentant and is not seen taking on lots of new wives. Before Bathsheba he takes Sauls wives. I interpret Nathan as saying David had his choice of them in the eyes of god and sinned in going after another mans wife. I don’t see anywhere the Lord commands him to marry all of them nor do I see the Lord “approving” of him marrying all of them. perhaps it’s just my interpretation but it looks like the BoM scripture supports that view. If you read the whole 2nd chapter of Jacob it spells out a context in which this isn’t new either. it refers to polygamy in jerusalem as a bad thing and appears to point out that polygamy is because of sinful husbands and that God doesn’t approve of it at all.

I would like to see where you think the law of moses allows plural wives? Do you believe it to be God’s law or mans law?

 

[IAMLDS]

1 Kings 15:5 Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.

So far, as I read the Old Testament, you see two persistent behaviors that present day “Christians” find unacceptable. The Isrealites practise polygamy and they are idolatrous. I consistently see God condeming the idolatry. I see either an on again, off again acceptance of polygamy by God, or God has certain rules you have to play by if you are going to practise polygamy.

I see God condeming David’s adultery, I don’t see him condeming his polygamy.

If you’re going to use the Book of Mormon to make a point about polygamy, then you should point out how the LDS understand those scriptures and then offer your counterpoint. You claim Jacob condemns polygamy, which he does, but you ignore the allowances for polygamy given in Jacob 2:30.

 

[Alma147]

Sorry Alma 147, I hadn’t read your latest post when I posted. I hope it doesn’t cause confusion. Can you comment on 1 Cor 7:2 from a Mormon point of view if you get a chance? Thanks.

I’d be happy to comment. The passage reads as follows from the KJV: “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” Mormons believe that marriage is absolutely essential. It’s simply a reiteration of the comment by God in creation that “It is not good that the man should be alone;” (Gen. 2:18) or 1 Cor. 11:11 “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.”

As has been intimated before in this thread, the LDS position is that the standing law of God is monogamy; but that He has authorized exceptions to that standing law–as in the case of the Old Testament patriarchs and in the early days of Mormonism. There was no need to address polygamy among the Corinthians because Greeks belonged to a monogamous society. While divorce was a problem, polygamy wasn’t so you’re not going to get a treatment of it in letters to Gentile converts. I don’t have any problem with the idea that the Church in the time of Paul mandated monogamy just as the LDS Church mandates monogamy today–so, I can read it from the perspective that Paul insisted not only on marriage but also on singular marriage. But Paul’s comments don’t negate the fact that Abraham was a polygamist as well as the friend of God and a prophet of God. Nor do the scriptures ever condemn specifically the fact of polygamous marriage per se. Certainly the law of Moses said the kings weren’t to “multiply wives” but neither did it say they were forbidden from *addition. *

Alma