Was polygamy commanded by God in the Bible?

[Reuben_J]

The most common number thrown about is 33. Only 24 are on church records.

Meaning you are not sure. Meaning there were probably illegal marriages as well. How would you accept that from a prophet?

There is no scriptural record to say Yes or No. For a marriage to be a “sealed” marriage, it had to have been sealed by a person with the proper authority. We don’t know if this is the case with Mohammad.

I take it as a no. Too bad for Mohammad then. And for his followers who believe in the authenticity of his polygamous marriage. The man must be smarter than I thought; being an illiterate he could dupe so many people into believing his action and what he said.

You are absolutely correct. My mention of Genesis 29 is to show that in certain cases, God does see it appropriate to have more than one wife.

I did not say that bro. God certainly did not see it appropriate to have more than one wife. He merely was a just God who provided justice for the victims of such marriages especially since the victims are innocents bystanders who were sucked into the situation through no fault of their own.

We, as Catholics do not believe in abortion, but it does not mean that we do not want to provide care or justice to babies born out of wedlock or being raped. That does not mean that we approve of fornication or rape.

The main idea is that it is only acceptable with authority from God. There’s a previous post on this thread that “allowing” multiple wives and “commanding” them are two completely different things. I agree with that too. But, when we accept that God “allowed” multiple wives, we will have to accept that having multiple wives does not run contradictory to the orgnization of His Kingdom as long as it is His will. Because, we all agree that God does not change doctrine - His Word is the same from alpha to omega.

There were no polygamous marriages that were accorded God’s authority. I still think that you mistake authority with the fact such marriage just happened due to the sins and weaknesses of the men concerned. Some of the marriages were no doubt arised from cultural practices and being accepted culturally…

If we bring this back to Joseph Smith’s history, he bears record that God elected some faithful LDS men to accept plural marriage. It was not given to ALL men in the church. For example, John Bennet who was a First Counselor to the Prophet, was publicly denounced by Joseph Smith for his infidelities and was immediately released from church leadership position. If the practice of polygamy would have been given to all faithful members of the church, John Bennet would have been allowed to marry his “other women” to avoid adulterous transgressions. Instead, the conflict caused John Bennet to fall away from the church and become it’s main opposition - which was really bad because he was a military leader and the mayor of Nauvoo. He would have been a great ally for Joseph Smith - even for the acceptance of plural marriage.

I am still learning about LDS. Thanks for this disclosure.

 

[hamba2han]

"Why can’t women marry multiple partners in Islam?"

It would be difficult to determine paternity which is very important in Islam.

Also, women by nature are either not capable or at the very least, they would find it very difficult to really love and care for two or more husbands simultaneously.

On the other hand, men in general would not find it too difficult to love every one of his wives… or even loving other women if he feels he is being restricted by having only one wife as a life-partner.

 

[Jay53]

Yes, to get to heaven - you need the Atonement of Jesus Christ. It is ONLY through Him that we get there. But, LDS have more teachings not found in the Catholic churches that further describe heaven - that’s why the LDS claim that they have the complete gospel.

So, when I say you need an eternal companion to get to the highest level of glory - that doesn’t mean that those who do not have one doesn’t get to heaven. It only means they are on a different level of glory - which may still be on the Celestial Kingdom where our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ reside.

But this also implies that a family could be “separated” on different levels of glory. (If each person is on a different level of glory, that also implies that there is no mingling with the other levels.)

So, from your explanation, you don’t just need the atonement of Jesus, you also need a spouse. It would also seem from your explanation that no one person can be righteous or good enough in the eyes of God - they still need a spouse to get to the highest “level” of Heaven.

Which leads me back to my question: Doesn’t this somehow make a spousal relationship more, or at least equal, in importance to our relationship with God (i.e. we cannot be with God unless we have a spouse with us)?

This is the same slippery slope we end up with when we discuss “salvation by faith versus works” with the Protestants. Because that too needs the basis of the levels of glory that is not found in the Protestant doctrine.

Okay, biblical scripture supporting eternal families… Adam and Eve before the fall is the obvious one. Gen 2:24 is probably the most relevant. But in my search for truth, without flipping scriptures, Jesus addresses His Father as Father. He is “one” with Him. And so are husband and wife “one” with each other. I didn’t even think to question the eternal nature of families.

But, most of the information on this is found on the Pearl of Great Price which is LDS.

I was looking for Biblical support for the LDS idea that one must be married in order to get to Heaven. The examples you cited do not do that. As I mentioned before, Catholics believe that we will all be together in Heaven - one family. There is no need for “sealings” or having a spouse. Your examples simply support the Catholic belief.

The fact that there is no support for this belief outside of LDS doctrine reinforces my opinion that this is a “different” gospel that St. Paul warned us about:

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! Galatians 1:8

I’ve mentioned to others before that I believe that the “we” that St. Paul refers to in this warning is a warning against the twisting of the apostles words to fit a doctrine other than what they intended. (I don’t think St. Paul thought that he and the other apostles would suddenly lose their minds and start preaching a contrary gospel. ) Unless you have other evidence from the early Church that they (the apostles and the early Church) also believed that one must be married in order to get to Heaven.

 

[hamba2han]

If a child comes to a parent with a bottle of poison in his hand which he had found somewhere in the house and asks whether it would be alright for him to drink it, what would a normal parent say to the child?

Yes dear, you can drink it… but it doesn’t taste as lovely as the dessert we are having after dinner???

Heaven forbid for any parent to say this to their child but yet if indeed polygamy is considered “poisonous”, then this in essence is what Christians believe Jesus (pbuh) told the Jews who asked him a question concerning polygamy according to the verses of Matthew 22:23-33 which I have quoted previously.

Face it folks, Jesus (pbuh) lived in a society where polygamy was indeed prevalent among his people and he said NOTHING to prohibit the practice throughout the entire period of his ministry.

 

[dolphinlove]

"Why can’t women marry multiple partners in Islam?"

It would be difficult to determine paternity which is very important in Islam.

Also, women by nature are either not capable or at the very least, they would find it very difficult to really love and care for two or more husbands simultaneously.

On the other hand, men in general would not find it too difficult to love every one of his wives… or even loving other women if he feels he is being restricted by having only one wife as a life-partner.

oh you have got to be joking!
You think women are not capable of loving more than one man and mem can love more than one woman, what double standards you have!
muslim men just dont have control over there hormones, that is why they ‘think’ they can love more than one woman!

 

[dolphinlove]

If a child comes to a parent with a bottle of poison in his hand which he had found somewhere in the house and asks whether it would be alright for him to drink it, what would a normal parent say to the child?

Yes dear, you can drink it… but it doesn’t taste as lovely as the dessert we are having after dinner???

Heaven forbid for any parent to say this to their child but yet if indeed polygamy is considered “poisonous”, then this in essence is what Christians believe Jesus (pbuh) told the Jews who asked him a question concerning polygamy according to the verses of Matthew 22:23-33 which I have quoted previously.

Face it folks, Jesus (pbuh) lived in a society where polygamy was indeed prevalent among his people and he said NOTHING to prohibit the practice throughout the entire period of his ministry.

oh for goodness sake, no matter what we quote, what we say you have made up your mind and you see what you want to see in the bible and not the truth!
God, from the beginning, and later Jesus confirmed its only ever to be one man and one woman! If that is too hard for you to understand, there is no hope for you!

 

[RebeccaJ]

But this also implies that a family could be “separated” on different levels of glory. (If each person is on a different level of glory, that also implies that there is no mingling with the other levels.)

It is a caste system, which, is contrary to anything Jesus taught. He removed these artificial boundaries.

One heaven. One hell. All His teachings show this. Sheep and goats. With Him or against Him. Saved or not saved. He never taught a sorta kinda lukewarm heaven for the almost made it.

 

[Jay53]

It is a caste system, which, is contrary to anything Jesus taught. He removed these artificial boundaries.

One heaven. One hell. All His teachings show this. Sheep and goats. With Him or against Him. Saved or not saved. He never taught a sorta kinda lukewarm heaven for the almost made it.

I don’t understand these separations. Using the previous analogy, let’s say John turns out to be a sociopath and is not going to Heaven; his wife, however, is a righteous person who will go to Heaven; let’s say John had 1 child who is eternally sealed to his spouse. From my understanding, John’s child/child-in-law will go to the Celestial Kingdom, highest level. Unless John’s wife gets sealed to someone else, she can’t get there to be with her children - and thus will be eternally separated from them on a different “level”. ???

But, what if the child/in-law seal mom to themselves by proxy after death. Can she then get to the highest level or does she still need a spouse?

If John’s wife never gets sealed to anyone, will she then never be able to reach the “highest level” in the Celestial Kingdom - even if that is how she lived her life and obeyed her covenants? (She just seemed to have the misfortune of sealing herself on Earth to John who turned out to be not so good.)

That’s what I don’t understand. It’s as if the LDS are saying that God does not judge/accept each individual on their own; they are only judged based on someone else’s relationship to the individual.

BTW, I still think this hints at this “other gospel” that St. Paul warned us about. I agree with you that Jesus certainly never taught such things.

And I don’t understand how LDS can think that saints such as St. Padre Pio or St. Therese would never achieve the “Celestial Kingdom” because they weren’t married. (I always use those saints as examples, because they are 2 of my favorites and they are fairly modern saints. )

 

[DV56]

oh for goodness sake, no matter what we quote, what we say you have made up your mind and you see what you want to see in the bible and not the truth!
God, from the beginning, and later Jesus confirmed its only ever to be one man and one woman! If that is too hard for you to understand, there is no hope for you!

Have you thought of just ignoring him? I don’t mean to put him on your ignore list, but just ignore Hamba. He knows more about islam, Christianity, and Judaism than all of us. He can explain everything that’s wrong with Christianity and Judaism by using the bible. Well, I should say, the part of the bible that he doesn’t consider corrupted. He’s a pick and choose type of person.

 

[Reuben_J]

"Why can’t women marry multiple partners in Islam?"

It would be difficult to determine paternity which is very important in Islam.

Also, women by nature are either not capable or at the very least, they would find it very difficult to really love and care for two or more husbands simultaneously.

On the other hand, men in general would not find it too difficult to love every one of his wives… or even loving other women if he feels he is being restricted by having only one wife as a life-partner.

St. Paul, whom you despise so much, should be able to tell your prophet Mohammad a thing or two. Mohammad’s teaching was what Paul would call ‘to follow human’s nature or the nature of the flesh’.

One doesn’t have to start a religion if we are to follow our human nature because that’s our nature. That is what Jesus would say, ‘to walk the wide road (to eternal damnation)’. We need religion and the teaching of the prophets in order to follow the way of God which is the opposite to our human nature – and it is one road that’s narrow and difficult to walk through.

Why do you think that millions follow Islam? Because it is attractive and appeals to the human nature. If you are not satisfied with one wife, because she has grown old, expands at the middle, wrinkled, sagging flesh, wear and tear after bearing your ten children (you know, you all seem to breeeed like rabbits), not what she used to be when you fell head over heel in love with her, …, well, you just take another woman and satisfy your lust.

Men just love this when you say, ‘Mulsim men do not have to be chaste’. But this is not God’s way; definitely not Jesus’.

 

[seraphime2008]

St. Paul, whom you despise so much, should be able to tell your prophet Mohammad a thing or two. Mohammad’s teaching was what Paul would call ‘to follow human’s nature or the nature of the flesh’.

One doesn’t have to start a religion if we are to follow our human nature because that’s our nature. That is what Jesus would say, ‘to walk the wide road (to eternal damnation)’. We need religion and the teaching of the prophets in order to follow the way of God which is the opposite to our human nature – and it is one road that’s narrow and difficult to walk through.

Why do you think that millions follow Islam? Because it is attractive and appeals to the human nature. If you are not satisfied with one wife, because she has grown old, expands at the middle, wrinkled, sagging flesh, wear and tear after bearing your ten children (you know, you all seem to breeeed like rabbits), not what she used to be when you fell head over heel in love with her, …, well, you just take another woman and satisfy your lust.

Men just love this when you say, ‘Mulsim men do not have to be chaste’. But this is not God’s way; definitely not Jesus’.

…
Well anyway, Muslims always think that they and Muhammad are the grace and blessing from Allah for the universe. That would be interpreted as breeding yourself as much as you can to fill the whole earth by any means possible, that includes acting like animal : one male for several female. Hey…but Planten said that we’re the Christians who act like animal…!! If only Planten is still here, that would be a point to ponder for him (but definitely won’t accept!)!!

 

[KathleenGee]

Yes, the bottom line is that Islam, in spite of the flowery language, is the most appealing religion to the carnal man.

Eat, sleep and be merry and make the Muslim women carry the burden of your sins. Make them wear black clothes in the hot desert sun to retain the heat – and make them suffer even more-- while the holy Muslim men wear chaste, pure white clothes to deflect the sun’s rays. Allah is so easy on the big, strong, viral Muslim men…make the weak suffer on their behalf!!

I can’t help but believe that there are many Muslim women in the Christian heaven because they are chaste and Muslim men are not. What the Muslim men can’t love in their women, Muslim women will finally find true love and peace in Jesus’ arms. I pray that for them.

Jesus said that those who fornicate or commit adultery outside their one married partner, cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. And he said if a man looks at another women with lust, he has committed adultery. So no kingdom of heaven for adulterers. Marriage is to one person until death.

I don’t see how Muslims guys can even love one Muslim woman. Or how Muslim sons have much love for their mothers…

So that makes me want to say…Muslim men, – stay away from my daughters all the women in the world!!! Stay away!! No wonder there are Muslim mothers who willingly and proudly offer their sons as terrorists…Eureka!!

Something is rotten in Denmark-istan!!!

 

[Reuben_J]

My heart goes for all those dear Muslim women who cry themselves to sleep when their husbands take new wives beside them. Even though theoretically the husbands must get prior permission from their wives to practice polygamy, in reality this is not always followed. Cultural leaning, men’s mentality of looking down on women and the discriminative Islamic Law that does not favor women would practically allow the men to do as they like (to take up polygamous marriage).

Even though they may be Muslims but they are like women everywhere. I think they can tolerate and bear the hardship of covering themselves with potato sack all over their bodies (though it’s really unfair and fallacious especially for men to wear the white clothing that denotes purity and holiness) but one thing that really hurt them would be to share their husbands with other women. It’s not just a betrayal of their love for their husbands but the implication of their children who grow up having different mothers and the value that they are infused with – that they would carry on the practice of their fathers and probably cannot truly understand the concept of marital fidelity and honor in marriage.

It is still better in LDS, at least from what I understand that not all men are eligible for polygamy.

 

[KathleenGee]

Something is Indeed rotten in Denmark-istan.

This has something to do with the lack of chastity of Muslim men throughout the Arab world. Muslim men who do not value chastity cannot understand that they are dangerous to women.

In December of 2009, women met from 17 Arab countries to speak about the sexual harassment many are experiencing from Allah’s command, “It is not permissible for a woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day”…to allow someone into her house…or go out without her husband’s permission…

Irregardless of what women wear in the Arab world, many are facing groping and verbal abuse in public and fear for their daughters. Ninety percent of Yemeni women face sexual harassment by Muslim men, 83% in Egypt deal with verbal and physical abuse by Muslim men, and 30% are experiencing sexual harassment in Lebanon, once a dominant and prosperous Christian country.

 

[KathleenGee]

Yes, indeed. May be all of us should really start offering our Masses for them and include them more on our rosaries and other prayers.

The link to the article is: newsday.com/news/world/harassment-across-the-Arab-world-drives-women-inside.

Many others sites carried the article as well.

Now I don’t even think polygamy is the issue…it is something far worse than I imagined.

So we heard it from the horse’s mouth that Muslim men do not need to be chaste. Talk about original sin…this is a horrendous bondage of sin against woman.

May the Blessed Mother come to protect all Arab women in their world.

May Holy Jesus become the true Savior and Redeemer of these women.

 

[RebeccaJ]

A new report released by Egyptian women right’s activist Nadia Ghaly and anti-trafficking specialist (and guest blogger here) Michele Clark has uncovered an insidious system of the kidnapping of Christian (known as Coptic in Egypt) women. These women are forced to marry Muslim men and in many cases convert to Islam. It’s a practice which meets the international definition of human trafficking, but is also a serious issue of violence against women. Exemplary of this phenomenon is the story of a woman identified as “R.” At 17, she received a phone call from a polite young man who said his name was Amir and that he admired her. He asked her to meet him at a local church. When she arrived, however, she was drugged and kidnapped. When she woke up “Amir” told her she would have to marry a stranger, a Muslim man named Mahmoud. When she refused to have sex with Mahmoud, his family held her down while he raped her. As a result of the rape, she is now unable to have children.

 

[Reuben_J]

Yes, indeed. May be all of us should really start offering our Masses for them and include them more on our rosaries and other prayers.

The link to the article is: newsday.com/news/world/harassment-across-the-Arab-world-drives-women-inside.

Many others sites carried the article as well.

Now I don’t even think polygamy is the issue…it is something far worse than I imagined.

So we heard it from the horse’s mouth that Muslim men do not need to be chaste. Talk about original sin…this is a horrendous bondage of sin against woman.

May the Blessed Mother come to protect all Arab women in their world.

May Holy Jesus become the true Savior and Redeemer of these women.

We are one in that (the highlighted part) except that it may not be said explicitly here as it may against the Forum’s rule.

I was reading your post about cautioning your daughters to marry Muslims or saying to them, hands off. It’s normal for any mothers to worry about their daughters’ future and safety, but that include us fathers too. I am certain that include Muslim mothers too.

However, I can’t say that for Muslim fathers, though not all of them. But in the place where (prophet) Mohammad came from, daughters are literally like cows. Rebecca J mentioned this earlier about the LDS. Being not very knowledgeable in LDS, I think this applies more to the Muslims.

Their daughters are to be traded like any other properties or goods. Mohammad got his child bride, Aisha, through a deal with her father. Very often we hear here about how Muslim fathers gave away their under-aged daughters into marriage even to unknown men. One such story made a thread here some while back.

We can make a conclusion ourselves but this is no less attributed to a society where polygamy is vigorously defended and deemed to be commanded, by a god.

 

[KathleenGee]

Reuben…

Didn’t realize that…But what I am perceiving is a definite separateness inspite of the relationship being called marriage, whether monogamous or polygamous…a different understanding of love and how we understand it.

Rebecca,

Yes I am quite aware of human trafficking, heard some sisters speak of the traffic coming up from South of the border that it is now politically incorrect to protect, let alone the women and girls.

After 9/11, I came across sites that covered the European white women slave done by the Arab Muslim market, how the women were denuded, shaved, in chains, and on platforms ready for exploitation…Christian girls…the Muslims said they liked them because they were faithful…

And this evening, I saw a number of sites of Islamic women either trying to escape or mutilating themselves so the men wouldn’t want them.

Back to the Forum, I am also concerned about dealing with people who come on here as experts about Christianity and the Bible, and then say such things against the sensibilities of our faith, and go on inspite of whatever people instruct them on. I read the comments by this fellow Muslim and I mean, how far do we have to go … where is the balance…or is that not a concern.

 

[hamba2han]

I think that is appropriate that I reproduce my earlier post in this thread:

" Do any Muslim men practice self-control? Do any see any value in being chaste as I see the burden is all on the women…"

It is best that the Qur’an itself answer your contention that unlike Muslim women, Muslim men are not required to be chaste.

Al-Qur’an, 024.030&31
Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do.
And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss.

And so, I need to ask → WHEN did I ever say that Muslim men are not required to be chaste??

Throwing false accusations against a forum participant is really not a good way to deflect attention away from the topic in question i.e. whether or not polygamy is permitted by God in the Bible.

 

[Reuben_J]

I think that is appropriate that I reproduce my earlier post in this thread:

" Do any Muslim men practice self-control? Do any see any value in being chaste as I see the burden is all on the women…"

It is best that the Qur’an itself answer your contention that unlike Muslim women, Muslim men are not required to be chaste.
Al-Qur’an, 024.030&31

Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do.

And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss.

And so, I need to ask → WHEN did I ever say that Muslim men are not required to be chaste??

Throwing false accusations against a forum participant is really not a good way to deflect attention away from the topic in question i.e. whether or not polygamy is permitted by God in the Bible.

My apology then if you do not say it. I don’t know who but it not me is either.

My argument that polygamy satisfies the lust of men and that it is unbiblical is not based on that saying. In fact it surprised me that it should come from a Muslim to admit it openly.

What I said stands, independent of what you said as that assertion is not from me.

Polygamy is evil and wrong:

• It can only satisfy man’s human nature. It is like walking the easy and wide road (that leads to damnation).
• It produces a culture and a mentality where women are considered less than equal from men, which essentially you admitted – women are not capable of love in the same capacity as men.
• It has never been explicitly commanded by God. There are many God’s commandments but polygamy is not one of them. That commandment can only be found in the Quran which I never believe anyway. Even when it is commanded there it seems only to serve Mohammad’s own intention and self interest.