Poligomy

  • Thread starter Thread starter PbloPicasso
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PbloPicasso

Guest
I’ve been thinking about a subject I’m still upset over. Same Sex Marriage (SSM) has become the focus over the past decade. It was something that we, Christians, kept saying would break the mold that God set before man. People, such as myself, say that now that SSM is becoming “accepted” the rest is sure to follow. Truth is, if SSM is okay, then why not not just polygamy, man and several women, as in LDS? Does anyone else see the same thing I’m seeing here? Also, how do you, LDS, feel about polygamy being legalized?
 
I’ve been thinking about a subject I’m still upset over. Same Sex Marriage (SSM) has become the focus over the past decade. It was something that we, Christians, kept saying would break the mold that God set before man. People, such as myself, say that now that SSM is becoming “accepted” the rest is sure to follow. Truth is, if SSM is okay, then why not not just polygamy, man and several women, as in LDS? Does anyone else see the same thing I’m seeing here? Also, how do you, LDS, feel about polygamy being legalized?
It scares us. If you legalize polygamy, we will use it, outbreed you, outvote you, and then use our superior numbers to make it illegal again. Polygamy was a horrible experience for our community, and we don’t want to go back there. Ever.
 
I’ve been thinking about a subject I’m still upset over. Same Sex Marriage (SSM) has become the focus over the past decade. It was something that we, Christians, kept saying would break the mold that God set before man. People, such as myself, say that now that SSM is becoming “accepted” the rest is sure to follow. Truth is, if SSM is okay, then why not not just polygamy, man and several women, as in LDS? Does anyone else see the same thing I’m seeing here? Also, how do you, LDS, feel about polygamy being legalized?
Same Sex marriage is a misnomer. Same Sex union wanting to be recognized as marriage would be more appropriate. Accepted by whom?😃

Polygamy is a separate issue. Divorce is serial polygamy.👍
 
Same Sex marriage is a misnomer. Same Sex union wanting to be recognized as marriage would be more appropriate. Accepted by whom?😃

Polygamy is a separate issue. Divorce is serial polygamy.👍
You do realize that same sex marriage is the same term used by dissenting, confused or non-Christians that practicing Catholics mean when we use the term same sex unions? I hope you also realize that polygamy goes against the teachings of the Church. So why do you support it? You should speak with your pastor on the subject for clarification. If you need help with understanding as to the meaning of a decaying society that goes from divorce, remarriage, to same sex marriages with benefits with others and to polygamy, I’ll try to break it down for you the best I can. But it appears that you may need training from the ground up.😃
👍
 
I don’t think the original poster intended to endorse polygamy. I think they were simply trying to make the connection between redefining marriage to include same sex unions would be a gateway to allowing polygamy.

I think he’s right. The whole argument behind gay marriage is that they want to marry the one they love. We’ll that’s all polygamists want, too. Remember, polygamy is marriage between one man and one woman, but multiple times. Only a man marries multiple women. The women aren’t married to each other (they often refer to each other as sisters).

I do think that same sex marriage will lead to polygamy. It can only do so. If gay marriage passes, then the U.S. needs to apologize to the Mormons.
 
I’ve been thinking about a subject I’m still upset over. Same Sex Marriage (SSM) has become the focus over the past decade. It was something that we, Christians, kept saying would break the mold that God set before man. People, such as myself, say that now that SSM is becoming “accepted” the rest is sure to follow. Truth is, if SSM is okay, then why not not just polygamy, man and several women, as in LDS? Does anyone else see the same thing I’m seeing here?
Hey PbloPicasso ,

Here are a couple of reasons I don’t think polygamy will become legalized.
  1. The main benefit of having multiple wives is having multiple to workers to tend to your property.Most polygamous societies have been horticultural societies (not industrial capitalist ones like the US). Most Americans aren’t “tied to the land” anymore so I don’t see this as an incentive to have multiple wives.
  2. Polygyny may be used as an adaptive strategy to cope with a low population (this isn’t a problem nowadays :D)
Keep in mind that even if Polygymy were legalized it’s unlikely it would become popular or accepted. Even in societies where it is allowed and encouraged most people are still monogamous.

Alder
 
Jesus said that polygamy was a sin. He also said that marriage did not exist in heaven.

Sorry to anyone who believes in polygamy on earth or in the ‘celestial’ world.
 
Where did he say that? Not arguing; just interested; I’ve never heard this.
That’s because it doesn’t say it. As Christians, we follow the teachings of the Church handed down by Christ. We accept that our God has not initiated a blind faith rooted in ignorance, but one of divine providence. The passages that say what others perceive are, for example, like Matt 19:9. This is a strong argument for the need for Church authority and not for solo scriptura.
 
There is no record of Jesus (pbuh) opposing polygamy. If he did so, it would have meant that the condemned the practice of the prophets before him. There are a number of examples of polygamous marriages among the prophets recorded in the Torah. Prophet Abraham (pbuh) had two wives, according to Genesis 16:13:** “So after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her maid, and gave her to Abram her husband as a wife.”** So did Prophet David (pbuh), according to the first book of Samuel 27:3, “And David dwelt with Achish at Gat, he and his men, every man with his household, and David with his two wives, Ahin’o-am of Jezreel, and Abigail of Carmel, Nabal’s widow.”

In 1st Kings 11:3, Solomon (pbuh) is said to have “…had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines.” Solomon’s son, Rehobo’am, also had a number of wives, according to 2nd Chronicles 11:21,** “Rehobo’am loved Ma’acah the daughter of Absalom above all his wives and concubines (he took eighteen wives and sixty concubines, and had twenty-eight sons and sixty daughters).”**

In fact, the Torah even specified laws regarding the division of inheritance in polygamous circumstances. In Deuteronomy 21:15-16, the law states: “ If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other disliked, and they have borne him children, both the loved and the disliked, and if the first-born son is hers that is disliked, then on the day when he assigns his possessions as an inheritance to his sons, he may not treat the son of the loved as the first-born in preference to the son of the disliked, who is the first-born.”

The only restriction on polygamy was the ban on taking a wife’s sister as a rival wife in Leviticus 18:18, “And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is yet alive.” The Talmud advises a maximum of four wives as was the practice of Prophet Jacob.

According to Father Eugene Hillman, “Nowhere in the New Testament is there any explicit commandment that marriage should be monogamous or any explicit commandment forbidding polygamy.” He further stressed the fact that the Church in Rome banned polygamy in order to conform to Graeco-Roman culture which prescribed only one legal wife while tolerating concubinage and prostitution.

Those who are claiming that Jesus (pbuh) denounced polygamy rely on either Matthew 19:9 or the parallel passages of Mark 10:11 or Luke 16:18 as support:

And I [Jesus] say to you, "Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery"

This verse says nothing about polygamy. It’s talking about divorce. Jesus (pbuh) according to the Bible is denouncing the practice of men divorcing their wives for lame reasons so they could trade her in for a newer model. If Jesus were referring to polygamy, that would mean that every man who is divorced and remarried is a polygamist. Absurd! It’s mind-boggling the lengths to which polygamy’s opponents will go to support their biased position. Taken in context, Jesus was responding to a question posed in Matthew 10:3:

The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?"

Jesus (pbuh) was not saying, “Whoever marries a second wife commits adultery,” as some claim. He said, “Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery”. The issue was divorce and remarriage, not polygamy. Jesus (pbuh) was not overturning the Law of Moses, which allowed for polygamy.
 
Also, how do you, LDS, feel about polygamy being legalized?
I’ve talked with a lot of LDS about this particular practice since it could be re-implemented by the prophet if he receives the revelation about it. I found it amusing that their thoughts didn’t really change with the thought that it might become legal.
  1. They don’t believe the practice will be re-instituted in this lifetime even if it becomes legal to do so since it won’t be approved by the prophet in their opinion.
  2. While there are a few that KNOW that they’ll be able to follow the prophet if he gives such a revelation through Heavenly Father, many LDS haven’t really dealt with what they would do with the joke being ‘why would I WANT multiple mother-in-laws?’
Bottom-line is that it’s predicted that it won’t be a practice in the LDS church even if it became legal to do so.
 
I’ve talked with a lot of LDS about this particular practice since it could be re-implemented by the prophet if he receives the revelation about it. I found it amusing that their thoughts didn’t really change with the thought that it might become legal.
  1. They don’t believe the practice will be re-instituted in this lifetime even if it becomes legal to do so since it won’t be approved by the prophet in their opinion.
  2. While there are a few that KNOW that they’ll be able to follow the prophet if he gives such a revelation through Heavenly Father, many LDS haven’t really dealt with what they would do with the joke being ‘why would I WANT multiple mother-in-laws?’
Bottom-line is that it’s predicted that it won’t be a practice in the LDS church even if it became legal to do so.
What you say is true. Jokes aside, we don’t plan to Plig even if it’s legal.
 
That’s because it doesn’t say it. As Christians, we follow the teachings of the Church handed down by Christ. We accept that our God has not initiated a blind faith rooted in ignorance, but one of divine providence. The passages that say what others perceive are, for example, like Matt 19:9. This is a strong argument for the need for Church authority and not for solo scriptura.
Hello, yes, Jesus does teach that marrying more than one wife is adultery, in Matthew 19. Mormons read this as only speaking about divorce, but it isn’t, it is about marrying again after a divorce. Divorce not being valid, means a person who thinks they have divorced, and marries again, is still actually married to his wife. So, Jesus is teaching here against divorce, by teaching that having more than one wife is adultery.

Mormons will then point to OT polygamy, saying God commanded polygamy, but God has never commanded polygamy. He allowed it because of the hardness of their hearts, but it was never commanded.

Jesus sets this straight, by teaching, marriage was instituted by God at the beginning, as one man and one woman, Adam and Eve. Mormons ignore this teaching, entirely, believing that God has a pragmatic morality to teach us, one that changes with the facts and knowledge of circumstances. Catholic morality is, something that is immoral is always immoral. Circumstance cannot make an immoral act, moral.
 
Hello, yes, Jesus does teach that marrying more than one wife is adultery, in Matthew 19. Mormons read this as only speaking about divorce, but it isn’t, it is about marrying again after a divorce. Divorce not being valid, means a person who thinks they have divorced, and marries again, is still actually married to his wife. So, Jesus is teaching here against divorce, by teaching that having more than one wife is adultery.

Mormons will then point to OT polygamy, saying God commanded polygamy, but God has never commanded polygamy. He allowed it because of the hardness of their hearts, but it was never commanded.

Jesus sets this straight, by teaching, marriage was instituted by God at the beginning, as one man and one woman, Adam and Eve. Mormons ignore this teaching, entirely, believing that God has a pragmatic morality to teach us, one that changes with the facts and knowledge of circumstances. Catholic morality is, something that is immoral is always immoral. Circumstance cannot make an immoral act, moral.
I wouldn’t use the “once immoral always immoral” as an argument. Especially with the OT because a lot of the “food” laws are not followed by Catholics. Jesus specifically says that marriage is when a man leaves his parents to get together with a woman. That’s His definition and period. We don’t want to add anything else… divorce, polygamy or SSA.
His definition was good enough then and it is good enough now.

😉
 
Hello, yes, Jesus does teach that marrying more than one wife is adultery, in Matthew 19. Mormons read this as only speaking about divorce, but it isn’t, it is about marrying again after a divorce. Divorce not being valid, means a person who thinks they have divorced, and marries again, is still actually married to his wife. So, Jesus is teaching here against divorce, by teaching that having more than one wife is adultery.
That’s an interesting interpretation, but if that was Jesus’ point, don’t you think he would have been more clear? It seems to me that what you’re doing isn’t interpretation so much as what Ezra called building a hedge about the law, except with Jesus’ words. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, mind you. And I do agree that Polygamy is generally a very bad idea.

Polygamy can’t be sinful unless we know it’s against God’s law. Don’t Catholics share our view of sin, where Sin means to knowingly violate God’s law? Can one accidentally sin?

I’d also say that the Book of Mormon establishes that Polygamy is a very serious sin unless God actually commands its use. I doubt that many Catholics would take the position that “even if God commanded polygamy, it would still be a sin.” 😃 So at the end of the day, don’t we essentially have the same position on Polygamy? At least while in mortality…
 
I’d also say that the Book of Mormon establishes that Polygamy is a very serious sin unless God actually commands its use.** I doubt that many Catholics would take the position that “even if God commanded polygamy, it would still be a sin.”** 😃 So at the end of the day, don’t we essentially have the same position on Polygamy? At least while in mortality…
…and here I thought you had a better understanding of the Catholic position…:rolleyes:

The LDS prophet can change the policy today and LDS folks shouldn’t have an issue about it. That’s dramatically different from the Catholic position.

TRADITION that has been handed down to us is that it IS a sin and never the original intent of God which Jesus explained in the NT. Our Catechism states it is a sin and that WILL NEVER change.

IMO, the difference is that for LDS polygamy is a practice that simply is not being used in today’s time. That is similiar to Catholics in the Roman (Latin) Rite in not having their priests be married. That could change tomorrow and Catholics should not have an issue about it.
 
The LDS prophet can change the policy today and LDS folks shouldn’t have an issue about it.
😃

Oh, if the prophet reinstituted polygamy today, LDS folks would have an issue. They had an issue when it was first instituted. They had an issue when it was taken away.

Seems to me that if you understand that homicide may be justified in certain conditions (self-defense, etc.) then it’s not that great a leap to envision conditions when polygamy might be justified. Like if someone went around murdering your men. My great-great grandmothers were widows with orphans. My great-grandfathers, their children, had stepfathers to raise them because of polygamy. Utah was the wild west. It worked. And thank God it’s not necessary or required any more.
 
😃

Oh, if the prophet reinstituted polygamy today, LDS folks would have an issue. They had an issue when it was first instituted. They had an issue when it was taken away.
A problem I’m glad I will never need to face as a Catholic that is a reality for members of the LDS church…😃
Seems to me that if you understand that homicide may be justified in certain conditions (self-defense, etc.) then** it’s not that great a leap to envision conditions when polygamy might be justified.** Like if someone went around murdering your men. My great-great grandmothers were widows with orphans. My great-grandfathers, their children, had stepfathers to raise them because of polygamy. Utah was the wild west. It worked. And thank God it’s not necessary or required any more.
I agree that I can come up with scenarios within the LDS church where polygamy (even though unlikely) could be reinstituted in the LDS church. For Catholics, there isn’t a scenario or will there ever be. Thus a major difference between the two churches in regards to polygamy.

Similarly, I can come up with reasons why the Pope could allow priests to be married in today’s time even though I believe it is HIGHLY unlikely.

The interesting note is that Catholics view polygamy as a VERY moral issue where my experience with LDS is that they do not see polygamy as a moral issue. Thus another major difference between the two churches on this.
 
As for polygamy, I hope that your church is never in a position where it has to make such a touch choice, BlueAdept.

As for priests marrying, I hope you do go that way. The Catholic priests that I know are wonderful people, and would make marvelous husbands and fathers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top