Was polygamy commanded by God in the Bible?

[chris2009]

First I am not Rebecaa and your post was directed to my post.

I am not sure what she meant but it must be in the context of polygamy. And that’s the problem of polygamy especially if you based it on the culture of the OT - that the women were treated as properties. Those days cattle were properties and when they talk about properties invariable it would be in term of cattle or cows.

Why do you have to practice polygamy anyway (just curious)? Nothing is good out of it and women especially, are the victims. How would you feel if any female members of your family are taken in a polygamous marriage?

First of all, I hope I’m perfectly clear when I say, we don’t practice polygamy. It seems like you misunderstood that.
Secondly, trust me, I have no desire whatsoever to practice polygamy. No LDS member in our church does.
Thirdly, I honestly believe that Joseph Smith and the original members of the church did NOT want to practice polygamy either. Many left the church because of it. Most people like to mock and riddicule these things – but they don’t understand. They think it was all about sex. If Joseph Smith wanted to have relations with other women, it would have been much easier to just cheat on his wife. Instead he marries and supports them.

In our world today you are often looked upon as a stud if you cheat on your wife with many women. But if you were to marry them and support them you would be considered the lowest scum of the earth. I don’t support modern day polygamy. But I can see where God had commanded it from time to time throughout history.

 

[chris2009]

Please check out the Forum’s rule.

This is a respected forum; perhaps you permits insult and lies in a LDS forum but surely not here. And if a poster persists in contravening the rule, then it is good riddance. If you want to discuss and want to stay here then observe Forum’s rule and debating decorum.

Perhaps we permit insult and lies in a LDS forum? I thought we were trying to be respectful here.

 

[dolphinlove]

gtg for now.

God bless.

God bless dear friend
In Christ

 

[chris2009]

your right in the fact that you do not know this person, and the continual insults and lies he used to post. I do like and open discussion, but i dont like it when people lie and insult to try and escape from answering the questions that are given to them.

Yes, lies and insults are not wanted. I can see how people can get heated when it comes to religion though. It is a very passionate subject.

I was still hoping a Catholic would answer my question I’ve been posting time and time again. But it keeps getting ignored.

Will you or someone that doesn’t believe the Lord allowed polygamy in the Bible please explain how you read the following versus. Isn’t it clearly saying the LORD gave David his wives? The prophet Nathan was sent by the Lord to say this.

"1And the LORD sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor.

2The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds:

3But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter.

4And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man’s lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him.

5And David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the LORD liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die:

6And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.

7And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. "

 

[zaffiroborant]

Yes, lies and insults are not wanted. I can see how people can get heated when it comes to religion though. It is a very passionate subject.

I was still hoping a Catholic would answer my question I’ve been posting time and time again. But it keeps getting ignored.

Will you or someone that doesn’t believe the Lord allowed polygamy in the Bible please explain how you read the following versus. Isn’t it clearly saying the LORD gave David his wives? The prophet Nathan was sent by the Lord to say this.

"1And the LORD sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor.

2The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds:

3But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter.

4And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man’s lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him.

5And David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the LORD liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die:

6And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.

7And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. "

I did.

 

[hamba2han]

Those claiming 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.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca said LDS treat their women like cows. How is that different?

I didn’t say it, one of your so-called apostles did.

 

[RebeccaJ]

There was a law in Missouri (or was it Illinois) that made it legal to kill Mormons. This law was not repealed until the late 1960’s.

There was also a law that banned the practice of bigamy, that was in place long before mormons started breaking it.

The practice of polygyny allowed Mormon women to live under the direction of priesthood authority to receive the fullness of blessings. Otherwise, they would have had to marry outside of the church.

Too bad this same concern wasn’t held for women married to African American men.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Honestly after being a member for 40 years I have never heard any of those things taught in Sunday School. Why does that offend you to be compared to Greek Philosophy? Don’t you admire Aristotle?

That is not what your comparison meant to do, and you know it. Don’t mistake me for someone who does not know LDS thought or teaching.

 

[pinay]

Welcome to the Forum, Pinay.

While I note the information given (with thanks) any Christian would tell you God would not command polygamy, even today. God is an unchanging God and He is not about to change His mind, no matter how demanding is the circumstance.

Hello Reuben! Nice to meet you.

You are absolutely correct. God is an unchanging God and He does not change doctrine. The God of David is the same God of today. Unchanging.

I’m not yet familiar with the site enough to check what religious affiliation you belong in, so if I mistakenly presume you are Catholic, I apologize profusely.

Both Catholic and LDS believe that marriage requires the proper authority to be performed. There are tons of other people who marry outside of this authority. But, Catholics, for example, will not acknowledge these marriages as following the doctrine of God. In LDS, marriage is not an earthly ordinance - that is, “Not 'til death do us part, but for life after death.” Anybody getting married without the sealing ordinance has an earthly marriage, not eternal marriage.

A marriage, for example, performed by a Bishop of the LDS church that is not sealed, is not an eternal marriage, but an earthly one. Polygyny in the LDS understanding of God’s doctrine ONLY applies to eternal marriages - that has been the same from the time of the ancient prophets all the way to today.

Therefore, in the time of of the OT - the time of David, for example, we see most of our prophets having more than one wife. These are women sealed to the same prophet. This did not change from the beginning of time until today.

Now, earthly marriage is a different matter. This is a “practice” not “doctrine”. This is the “practice” that God commanded to limit to one wife according to the time.

I hope this clarifies the LDS viewpoint a little bit.

 

[Jay53]

Really? Tell me all the similarities between Islam and Mormonism!

If you are truly interested, start another thread. That doesn’t seem to be the topic of this thread. I simply made the observation that there are similarities.

If you would like one such similarity to start your thread, I observed that someone defended Joseph Smith as a true prophet because he was only a 20 year old farm boy, yet he produced the BoM. Muslims defend Muhammad and the Quran in the same way. Muhammad was an (allegedly) illiterate Arab, yet he wrote the Quran which Muslims claim to be his miracle because of the literary masterpiece they believe it to be.

I love the Islamic people as I do the Catholics and Protestants, but I don’t think we have much in common doctrinally with Islam. I think it’s pretty funny that you think this.

I did not say that they are doctrinally similar. Please read more carefully.

I also am amazed at your claim of Mormon’s twisting the scriptures when you can’t even admit polygamy was practiced in the OT under the Lord approval. Wow… Please reread the OT more carefully.

I didn’t mention anything about the OT in my post, nor whether I believe it was approved of or not. Again, please read people’s posts more carefully before you make sarcastic replies. I have no doubt that God tolerated polygamy in the OT - in the same way He tolerated divorce, but I certainly don’t believe that God ever commanded that polygamy be practiced, which I believe was the original question in the thread title and the topic.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Catholics do not teach Jesus requires marriage in order to be a joint heir with Him. Jesus never taught this. It is a mormon invention.

 

[pinay]

Hello Rebecca. Hope your weekend is as great as mine is looking to be.

There was also a law that banned the practice of bigamy, that was in place long before mormons started breaking it.

You are correct. It was the law within the organized States that bigamy/polygamy is unlawful. When Brigham Young moved the mormons to Utah, Utah was an independent State that had different laws than the United States.

Too bad this same concern wasn’t held for women married to African American men.

The priesthood authority having been withheld from black men (not just African American men) is a completely different subject altogether. But even this had a purpose if you look through the lens of history and not apply the same standard that exists today. Priesthood authority has always been selective - for example, in the time of Israel, the Levites were the only ones given the priesthood authority, etc. This is another of those doctrines that are unchanging.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You are correct. It was the law within the organized States that bigamy/polygamy is unlawful. When Brigham Young moved the mormons to Utah, Utah was an independent State that had different laws than the United States.

Young moved his followers to Mexico, with the intention of building his own theocratic state, with himself as the head. When large portions of the west became US territory, under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Utah was not then an independent state. It was a territory of the US, subject to federal laws, which included laws against bigamy.

Because of UT polygamy, the US legislature strengthened existing bigamy laws. Which Young and his followers defied. It was only when the US govt. began to seize assets of the LDS church that Young changed his mind, and decided that mormons should follow the laws of the land. Up to that point, it is obvious it was never a concern.

To the original subject, which was polygamy in Nauvoo. Practicing polygamy in Nauvoo meant breaking the laws of the land.

The priesthood authority having been withheld from black men (not just African American men) is a completely different subject altogether. But even this had a purpose if you look through the lens of history and not apply the same standard that exists today. Priesthood authority has always been selective - for example, in the time of Israel, the Levites were the only ones given the priesthood authority, etc. This is another of those doctrines that are unchanging.

So? You said polygamy was required for a woman, because there was a shortage of male mormons who held a priesthood. Now you are saying that it was selectively withheld. Make up your mind. Was there a need to be married to a male priesthood holder, or not?

 

[pinay]

Hello Rebecca, I am not American. I am sorry. I am Pinay! (from the Philippines). Although, I am now living in Florida, I did not grow up here so I will always defer to an American in matters of American history. Thank you for the information.

To the original subject, which was polygamy in Nauvoo. Practicing polygamy in Nauvoo meant breaking the laws of the land.

So? You said polygamy was required for a woman, because there was a shortage of male mormons who held a priesthood. Now you are saying that it was selectively withheld. Make up your mind. Was there a need to be married to a male priesthood holder, or not?

No, polygamy was not required for any woman at any time of LDS church history.

Yes, priesthood authority is selectively withheld. A male member of the LDS church do not receive the priesthood unless he meets requirements and is worthy. This is the same practice as the Catholic church which is also the same as the ancient church and the church established in Jesus’ ministry. The only difference being the specific requirements (e.g., Catholics require priests to be celibate, LDS do not have the same requirement, Israel required priests to be Levites, that is not the requirement in Jesus’ time, etc.)

 

[RebeccaJ]

The practice of polygyny allowed Mormon women to live under the direction of priesthood authority to receive the fullness of blessings. Otherwise, they would have had to marry outside of the church.

Too bad this same concern wasn’t held for women married to African American men.

The priesthood authority having been withheld from black men (not just African American men) is a completely different subject altogether. But even this had a purpose if you look through the lens of history and not apply the same standard that exists today. Priesthood authority has always been selective - for example, in the time of Israel, the Levites were the only ones given the priesthood authority, etc. This is another of those doctrines that are unchanging.

So? You said polygamy was required for a woman, because there was a shortage of male mormons who held a priesthood. Now you are saying that it was selectively withheld. Make up your mind. Was there a need to be married to a male priesthood holder, or not?

No, polygamy was not required for any woman at any time of LDS church history.

OK, not required, but it “allowed” a woman to be married to a priesthood holder. The fact remains, this was not a concern for all women. You said polygamy is a sin. So, you think God commanded people sin in order that white women could marry a mormon priesthood holder? But, this being married to a mormon priesthood holder is not a universal need, that is, something that all mormon women should have been allowed?

 

[RebeccaJ]

I think you may be extremely confused as to the Mormon faith. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not practiced polygamy since 1890. This is the main church of 14 million members world-wide.

Yet you are defending it? Why? Do you think you might be commanded to practice it?

Any other breakoff sect that practices polygamy today comprise a few hundred here and there and are in no way affiliated with our church. It would be like me saying the Lutherans are the same as the Catholics. Lutherans broke away from your church many hundreds of years ago.

There are tens of thousands of mormon people in sects that practice polygamy. Of course they are not Brigham Young Mormons, but they are Mormons, practicing what your prophets have taught. They have a testimony of your Book of Mormon.

Your polygamous sects practice polygamy because they believe the teachings of your prophets, until Young, when they see his revocation of a commandment as coming from a false prophet.

The comparison for Lutherans is, do we consider that they are our brothers in Christ? Yes, we do.

You on the other hand, would like to pretend that your mormon break-offs are not mormon.

 

[twopekinguys]

Greetings to one and all.

There was a law in Missouri (or was it Illinois) that made it legal to kill Mormons. This law was not repealed until the late 1960’s.
Thank you for reading my post.

You’re right, Gov. Boggs did sign an extermination order regarding Mormons, but did you know that the Mormons issued their own.

In Sidney Rigdon’s 4th of July speech of that same year (3 months before Boggs order), he stated. (Bolding Mine)

"We take God and all the holy angels to witness this day, that we warn all men in the name of Jesus Christ, to come on us no more forever, for from this hour, we will bear it no more, our rights shall no more be trampled on with impunity. The man or the set of men, who attempts it, does it at the expense of their lives. And that mob that comes on us to disturb us; it shall be between us and them a war of extermination, for we will follow them, till the last drop of their blood is spilled, or else they will have to exterminate us: for we will carry the seat of war to their own houses, and their own families, and one party or the other shall be utterly destroyed. – Remember it then all MEN. "

sidneyrigdon.com/rigd1838.htm

As you can see, the Mormon’s issued their own extermination order long before the Governor did.

Now, that should clear up a misconception for you.

 

[Jay53]

7And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. "

For clarification purposes, would you explain who you believe is being referred to in this passage (particularly what you have in red)? And, would you explain what you believe to be the overall meaning of this Scripture, i.e. what message we are to take away from reading 2 Samuel 12?

Thank you.

 

[pinay]

OK, not required, but it “allowed” a woman to be married to a priesthood holder. The fact remains, this was not a concern for all women. You said polygamy is a sin. So, you think God commanded people sin in order that white women could marry a mormon priesthood holder? But, this being married to a mormon priesthood holder is not a universal need, that is, something that all mormon women should have been allowed?

Hello Rebecca, hope your weekend is doing well. The weather is great here in Florida and I’m going to head out very soon, so I’m rushing this post a bit.

You misunderstood my post, I think. God doesn’t command people to do anything contrary to His doctrine. There is a difference between doctrine and practice. The doctrine does not change. The practice can.

Let’s see if I can find an example that we can both relate to (I’m assuming you are Catholic). The Crusades, for example, was sanctioned by the Pope and was said to have been commanded by God. We both agree, I think, that killing is a sin. Yet, God commanded His faithful children to kill when it was necessary. Was He then, commanding his people to sin? My faith in the Almighty God cannot bring me to believe that God, at any time, has ever commanded any of His children to go against His will. Therefore, my only recourse is to try to understand how killing is not contrary to His doctrine at specific times in church history.

Do you understand what I’m trying to say?