Why is polygamy wrong?

[AgnosticBoy]

Hey you could be right. I’m not arguing it’s immoral. Just trying to make sense of the “two becoming one flesh” bit when there are multiple husbands. And trying to figure out how multiple wives could arise given the words of Jesus.

I already explained how polygamy is not incompatible to the NT including the part about “two becoming one flesh”. Please refer here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13907002&postcount=194

 

[clem456]

Thus far, some of the recent objections to polygamy has been about dodging all the information that clearly supports polygamy and skipping to passages that seem to not support polygamy. Even if we go down this road it would only lead to a biblical contradiction in which case we can not draw any reasonable conclusions from. So while I’m waiting for my scriptural references to be answered for I’ll go ahead and address some of the recent biblical points that some say supports the monogamy-only view of marriage.

1. One or two members cited Matthew 19:4-6 or Genesis 2:24, the part about two becoming one flesh, etc, as being proof that God only wants marriage to be between two people.
2. Then another forum member mentioned that what God did Old Testament should not be taken literally nor applied to today’s time.

Re: point #1
I agree in part with point #1 that marriage involves two people and that these two people become one flesh. In polygamy, a marriage can also involve two people if the polygamist has two separate marriages with one wife in each. As far as the becoming one flesh part goes this is more of a physical union, sex included, than it is a spiritual union. Becoming one also occurs in other cases which shows that it can occur more than one time and towards more than one person like when a widow remarries and becomes one with his or her new spouse, or when you become one with God, becoming one with prostitutes, etc.

Regarding point #2…
I disagree in part because part of the OT is still relevant, like for instance the moral laws of the OT, to not steal, no bestiality, no same-sex acts, etc, Much of the OT is a display of God’s moral laws in action and you can see this by reading about how God acts on the laws in His judgements, acts, and punishments. And following His example and judgements, I can see that polygamy is moral. The moral law even applies to Christ’s message which is why Christ says do not sin (sin assumes a moral law).

Observation #1
I’m not sure how an agnostic has a line on what Christ might have meant in scripture. It’s not that scripture cannot speak to you, and not that we shouldn’t discuss it thoroughly. We should do that. It’s the fact that *you presume to know something intimately that you do not even believe in.
*
Does that strike you as lending validity to your opinion on things Christian?

Since we are talking about Christ and Christian scriptures and their interpretation, maybe you should defer to some expert in this area, oh say, the Catholic Church.

Or if not, tell us that you do your own heart operations instead of going down to see the surgeon.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Observation #1
I’m not sure how an agnostic has a line on what Christ might have meant in scripture. It’s not that scripture cannot speak to you, and not that we shouldn’t discuss it thoroughly. We should do that. It’s the fact that *you presume to know something intimately that you do not even believe in.
*
Does that strike you as lending validity to your opinion on things Christian?

Since we are talking about Christ and Christian scriptures and their interpretation, maybe you should defer to some expert in this area, oh say, the Catholic Church.

Or if not, tell us that you do your own heart operations instead of going down to see the surgeon.

Actually, there are Christians, including Catholics, and Jews who agree with my basic conclusion that polygamy is not a sin. In a sense, my views on biblical polygamy have been peer-reviewed by them so clearly I’m not that far off the mark.

Lets not focus so much on who says what but rather lets focus on reason.

 

[clem456]

Actually, there are Christians, including Catholics, and Jews who agree with my basic conclusion that polygamy is not a sin. In a sense, my views on biblical polygamy have been peer-reviewed by them so clearly I’m not that far off the mark.

Lets not focus so much on who says what but rather lets focus on reason.

Well, you’re not. That’s the problem.
You can spuriously claim endorsement from a nominal Catholic or two on just about any issue. And that proves absolutely nothing.
So on that claim reason gets a big fat zero.
Unless you can provide a substantial reference for a Catholic who supports polygamy.
Go ahead and give that a shot, I’ll go live the rest of my life while you’re looking.

Or scripture.
Zero grounds, other than your opinion, which goes contrary to some pretty plain words from Christ in scripture.
If you’re interested in reason, take the words, read them, and let the plain meaning from Christ soak in. That would be reasonable. (you’ll revert to a fundamentalist interp of the OT now as the standard of Christian living).

So yes, let’s have some reason.

 

[Trident_H]

The decision of the U.S. government to ban polygamy as a whole was not based on any objective studies or findings of there being abuse. Secondly, the fact that polygamy, as a whole, was banned in the 19th century does not prove that the decision was right and the judgement of all of the society back then should be suspect since there was a lot of bigoted views and laws back then towards women and racial minorities.

Prejudice existed eventhough slavery was abolished. It’s possible to be prejudiced or culturally biased on some things and not be prejudiced on other things. The era that we’re referring to had some major prejudices, so much so that I would’ve called it hypocrisy to ban polygamy and not racial and gender inequality.

Polygamy was outlawed in the 1860s. In 1890, the Mormon Church banned polygamy as a Church practice and many consider this as being Utah caving in to pressure so they can become a state.

I think we’ve both said what needs to be said. I point out that polygamy and slavery are close cousins and lose favor at the same time.

You point out they were both around during a time of prejudice. And banned during a time of prejudice.

That they both were practiced during this same time seems important to me. But not to you. So either the world went from enlightened to unenlightened to semi-lightened. Or the idea of polygamy was as backward as the idea of slavery.

We obviously will not convince each other of this point.

I’d rather deal with an issue one topic at a time so that my points are not skipped over or “dodged” I should say, then we can continue on to other points.

What issue is being “dodged” that your nice clear chart wouldn’t have answered in triplicate?

Still. It’s odd you won’t do this simple exercise. Since any other argument seems to be fair game. From cherry picking biblical quotes while ignoring all the other ones. To pouring sympathy on for the poor Mormons for having to give up a practice that simple math skills can show doesn’t work.

Polygamy and slavery are not sins despite there not being a perceived need for them.

The need for both of them was the fact there were no social safety nets at the time. So instead of welfare you got slavery. Instead of widows benefits you got polygamy.

Even if we wiped out every single non-human mammal so that there was no availability for someone to commit bestiality but bestiality would still be a sin.

Why? Why would you agree it’s a sin?

You have not addressed my point about 2 Chronicles 24:2-3 as to why an author would paint a picture of a man being righteous “to the LORD” and then IMMEDIATELY (as in the same thought or line or passage) portray him in a blatant sinful act which was initiated by what was supposed to be a priest - the leaders of God’s law and covenant.

I thought I pointed out that he was given a gift of the women as a reward for his righteousness? Clearly it doesn’t show that he married 2 women and for that he was considered righteous? Unless God was really amazed that the guy could do it?

This is yet but another example of a so-called problem of polygamy that people keep failing to realize that it’s NOT inherent to polygamy but rather is ONE bad way that polygamy is practiced. I also know distant fathers in monogamy or better yet fathers who don’t even step up to the plate at all. Some good examples of polygamy that I’ve seen involve there not being 20 wives but instead just 2 or 3 wives, and instead of 80 children, I’ve seen no children or already grown children or at least 3 or 4 kids.

No. I’d say it’s pretty much inherent to mainstream polygamy as would be typically practiced. Only in polygamy can 3 women get pregnant at once. On repeat. Only polygamy gives that possible multiplier. Saying some monogamous relationships aren’t ideal does not then make polygamy better. Some people cheating on their taxes doesn’t mean it’s ok to hold-up the local gas station.

And I accept there are perfect examples of polygamy possible. My point has always been that these perfect examples don’t need legal protection to happen already. Because without children who needs legal sanction for these ‘families’ to function? But the possibility for abuse is opened way wider with legalization than without.

Bringing in an additional partner without consent of all adults has the potential to be just as hurtful as a supposed monogamous wife or husband who cheats or starts dating someone other than their spouse. There should be no voting on this type of issue, but instead there should be a mutual agreement taking into considering the wants and feelings of all involved. All of what the husband or wife wants should be discussed beforehand, and if wife #1 gets mad because she agreed to have wife #2 and KNEW hubby would not be okay with a hubby #2, then the fault is on wife #1.

In this case, wife #1 is being selfish for expecting or wanting at any point for her husband to agree with her when she knew Beforehand what he wanted. I doubt wife #2 would leave if she really cared about wife #2 and husband #1 and the way they can support each other, but as a last resort wife #1 can leave if she doesn’t like it.

So are you saying you’d only enter into polygamy if all of the girls coming in agreed in advance only to ever have one guy, never mind how many women come in?

Are you basically saying that you’re somehow more equal to having a harem than the women would be to having balance? Why is that exactly?

And what would you do if wife #2 decided no to wife #3, but you and wife #1 wanted one? Would you still stick to your principle of 100% agreement? Or would you slide into majority rules?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I think we’ve both said what needs to be said. I point out that polygamy and slavery are close cousins and lose favor at the same time.

If those 2 practices were the only bigoted practices around that time in American history then I’d agree with you but seeing that other bigotry existed that impacted women and race, I disagree with you. It’s entirely possible to ban something for the wrong reasons. And if progression means whatever aligns with your faith, then I wonder what would you say about gay marriage being approve despite opposition (and some would say worse) from the Church?

You point out they were both around during a time of prejudice. And banned during a time of prejudice.

That they both were practiced during this same time seems important to me. But not to you. So either the world went from enlightened to unenlightened to semi-lightened. Or the idea of polygamy was as backward as the idea of slavery.

Your logic doesn’t follow because it ASSUMES that polygamy is inherently abusive. You have not proven that point yet, although I’m in agreement with you that race-based slavery was abusive is INHERENTLY abusive. This is the flaw in your argument.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

What issue is being “dodged” that your nice clear chart wouldn’t have answered in triplicate?

How about my points about Genesis 29:30-33 where God was concerned about a man not loving TWO women and then God direct intervention to help out that unique polygamous situation?

How about my point about 2 Chronicles 24:2-3?

Still. It’s odd you won’t do this simple exercise. Since any other argument seems to be fair game. From cherry picking biblical quotes while ignoring all the other ones. To pouring sympathy on for the poor Mormons for having to give up a practice that simple math skills can show doesn’t work.

No body is advocating for a all-polygyny or all-polyandry society. Polygamy is not for everyone. Secondly, seeing how many failed or unsatisfactory monogamous marriages are out there, I’d be worried more about the quality of spouses rather than the quantity of one gender over another.

The need for both of them was the fact there were no social safety nets at the time. So instead of welfare you got slavery. Instead of widows benefits you got polygamy.

Polygamy could serve as a safety net but that is not the biblical basis for what’s moral and what’s not. God’s moral law is not progressive nor do the rules bend to necessity. If you want to set that precedent then we can approve all sort of things that doesn’t align to your Church.

I thought I pointed out that he was given a gift of the women as a reward for his righteousness?

Being a gift does not take away from the moral issue. Is it moral to offer someone two wives and for the person to accept that “gift” and have kids with the two wives? The immediate context indicates that the acts were moral on multiple levels.

Clearly it doesn’t show that he married 2 women and for that he was considered righteous? Unless God was really amazed that the guy could do it?

There are no ceremonies for marriages in the Bible. Men took women and just had kids with them and all of the sudden the two were married. If you look at 2 Chronicles 24:2-3 this is exactly how it happens. In the same passage we hear about a Joash being given two wives and then all the sudden the author says Joash had sons and daughters.

My 2 Chronicles passage also mentions that he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord and then it immediately mention that he was given two wives. Does it make sense to you that a guy is doing so good that a priest who is also supposed to be righteous turns around and offers him a sinful gift? I’m baffled that the author of 2 Chronicles would’ve shot himself in the foot by trying to paint of a picture of a righteous man and then in the same thought bring up a blatant act of sin.

No. I’d say it’s pretty much inherent to mainstream polygamy as would be typically practiced. Only in polygamy can 3 women get pregnant at once. On repeat. Only polygamy gives that possible multiplier. Saying some monogamous relationships aren’t ideal does not then make polygamy better. Some people cheating on their taxes doesn’t mean it’s ok to hold-up the local gas station.

Thank you for specifying mainstream polygamy instead of polygamy overall. And we should prosecute mainstream polygamous families when their involved with abuses and we should subsequently help out good polygamous families. To ban them all is unnecessary and I think states are starting to realize this when they leave good polygamous families alone unless there’s abuse. This is progress in the right direction.

And I accept there are perfect examples of polygamy possible. My point has always been that these perfect examples don’t need legal protection to happen already. Because without children who needs legal sanction for these ‘families’ to function? But the possibility for abuse is opened way wider with legalization than without.

Well as long as the threat of criminalization is taken out for just simply having multiple spouses (some spouses being unlicensed), then I’m in agreement with you. If it’s too difficult to figure out tax benefits or too much of a burden to rewrite tax laws to suit polygamists then you can have your tax benefits. Just don’t call polygamy an abuse unless you have a dang good reason other than not being able to figure out taxes.

So are you saying you’d only enter into polygamy if all of the girls coming in agreed in advance only to ever have one guy, never mind how many women come in?

If I wanted polygamy, then there should be an agreement beforehand on the type of polygamy, because as I said it can be practiced not just with any combination of genders but also any combination of sexual orientations. I’m real interested on what you’d say if 3 men wanted to marry or a bisexual.

Are you basically saying that you’re somehow more equal to having a harem than the women would be to having balance? Why is that exactly?

Are you asking if my having multiple women trumps the woman wanting to have a balance (as in multiple husbands)? I would say yes, if it was agreed to beforehand that an extra wife can be added and also agreed beforehand that there’d be no additional husbands. It’s all a matter of WHEN the wife brought up the idea of multiple husbands.

And what would you do if wife #2 decided no to wife #3, but you and wife #1 wanted one? Would you still stick to your principle of 100% agreement? Or would you slide into majority rules?

I would not add a wife #3. Keep in mind, that I would not be adding a wife just for the hek of it. I also have to care about the potential new wife and I also want her to be a benefit and support for wife #1 and all of the family overall.

 

[Rau]

This idea that the moral law “is not progressive” applies once the moral law is established. But the process of establishing it was in fact progressive. That we might not understand why that was so does mean it was not so. It was.

Neither the moral law nor state law will countenance sibling marriage, yet incest is a consequence of Adam and Eve being the sole first parents of all of us. That was God’s creative method. He allowed and required it and enabled it to prosper. And he allowed and/or required other things that we would raise our eyebrow at prior to the bringing to us of his full law. That we might not understand why that was so does not mean it was not so. It was.

The laws of physics are invariant also. But what transpired “prior to” their establishment (post the Big Bang) is not bound by those laws.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

This idea that the moral law “is not progressive” applies once the moral law is established. But the process of establishing it was in fact progressive. That we might not understand why that was so does mean it was not so. It was.

God’s Law covenant was established at the end of Deuteronomy which is where Moses would’ve finished receiving all of the Law from God and where you’ll also find Israel agreeing to follow the covenant. This is not hard to swallow considering that people were already being judged and punished by God for violating acts that the law says to not do.

If anyone commits adultery, then it would still be a sin, whether or not they go unpunished for it. But again, what you will not find is God calling a sin as being righteous nor aiding in that sin yet we find God calling polygamists righteous and even intervening in their relationships.

Neither the moral law nor state law will countenance sibling marriage, yet incest is a consequence of Adam and Eve being the sole first parents of all of us. That was God’s creative method. He allowed and required it and enabled it to prosper. And he allowed and/or required other things that we would raise our eyebrow at prior to the bringing to us of his full law. That we might not understand why that was so does not mean it was not so. It was.

God’s full law was revealed to Moses and it mentions to not commit incest. This is how I know that God only allowed it for some time. Interestingly, we don’t find polygamy being mentioned in those list of sins. Instead we find that polygamy is regulated with some protective laws, like Deuteronomy 21:15-17, and later on we find numerous polygamous relationships with God continuing to bless such families, make heroes out of them, and even declare some of them to be righteous. We don’t find such treatment for incest.

 

[Rau]

Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, long, long after Moses. Divorce was also allowed at the time of Moses. It (meaning a dissolution of of the marriage bond, not mere legal proceedings) is also held to be immoral by Christ. Moses allowed it, for reasons explained by Christ.

I am not arguing that polygamy is immoral, simply that the rationale presented on this thread for its morality is flawed.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, long, long after Moses. Divorce was also allowed at the time of Moses. It (meaning a dissolution of of the marriage bond, not mere legal proceedings) is also held to be immoral by Christ. Moses allowed it, for reasons explained by Christ.

I am not arguing that polygamy is immoral, simply that the rationale presented on this thread for its morality is flawed.

The only problem is the full revelation also does not rule out polygamy like it does divorce. Seems like all of your time and options are done for trying to label polygamy a sin since FULL revelation is done.

My explanations make sense because they account for ALL of the data on the issue and there’s no conflict. Instead of early Church leaders who used the NT to condemn polygamy, I would’ve wanted them to address the passages that I’ve been bringing up here to A) see if they even knew about how these passages put polygamy in a good light B) reconcile the apparent conflict.

Besides, that I don’t quite agree that divorce is a sin because of passages like Matthew 19:9 and 1 Corinthians 7:10-11.

 

[OU812]

Besides, that I don’t quite agree that divorce is a sin because of passages like Matthew 19:9 and 1 Corinthians 7:10-11.

Divorce - if there is no other recourse that can be taken - is not a sin, but even then the criteria to fulfill it isn’t as broad as what is allowed in secular society.

 

[Trident_H]

If those 2 practices were the only bigoted practices around that time in American history then I’d agree with you but seeing that other bigotry existed that impacted women and race, I disagree with you. It’s entirely possible to ban something for the wrong reasons. And if progression means whatever aligns with your faith, then I wonder what would you say about gay marriage being approve despite opposition (and some would say worse) from the Church?

I’m part of a fairly real number of gays who don’t agree with gay marriage. I don’t see this as a real plus for society. And part of the reason is because I knew polygamy would be next. I know we were told that would never happen. But here you are, right?

Plus. I don’t see 2 guys raising little kids as the best possible thing for the kids. But I’m not gonna debate that here.

Your logic doesn’t follow because it ASSUMES that polygamy is inherently abusive. You have not proven that point yet, although I’m in agreement with you that race-based slavery was abusive is INHERENTLY abusive. This is the flaw in your argument.

I’ve tried to point out the obvious problems. Based on what’s actually happened. Based on what’s happening even now. I’ve tried to point out the potential ups don’t outweigh the real problems that can and are often opened up with this.

So just because you don’t believe me doesn’t mean I haven’t done that already. If I haven’t done that well enough? Well I guess I haven’t.

 

[Rau]

The only problem is the full revelation also does not rule out polygamy like it does divorce. Seems like all of your time and options are done for trying to label polygamy a sin since FULL revelation is done.

My explanations make sense because they account for ALL of the data on the issue and there’s no conflict. Instead of early Church leaders who used the NT to condemn polygamy, I would’ve wanted them to address the passages that I’ve been bringing up here to A) see if they even knew about how these passages put polygamy in a good light B) reconcile the apparent conflict.

Besides, that I don’t quite agree that divorce is a sin because of passages like Matthew 19:9 and 1 Corinthians 7:10-11.

I think it established now that

• God’s law, the morality we are to live by, was not established prior to the end of revelation, and thus, in that sense only, it is progressive;
• Thus, your OT stories fail to establish anything about polygamy.

Better then to turn to Christ’s teachings.

 

[Tomdstone]

I think it established now that

• God’s law, the morality we are to live by, was not established prior to the end of revelation, .

No, because the Ten Commandments were established before the end of revelation.

 

[Rau]

…the Ten Commandments were established before the end of revelation.

Thanks. That makes my point. Christ did not merely “reprint” the 10 Commandments, did he? He taught how to live them.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I think it established now that

• God’s law, the morality we are to live by, was not established prior to the end of revelation, and thus, in that sense only, it is progressive;
• Thus, your OT stories fail to establish anything about polygamy.

Better then to turn to Christ’s teachings.

You find ONE example of a civil or moral law and suddenly the OT Law was not established? LoL. Here are the facts that have actually been supported so far:

• 99% (divorce taken out) of the God’s moral Law of the OT was established (ie made known) by the time of the OT.
• Thus divorce, which has NOTHING to do with polygamy does not invalidate my point or rationale of using the OT moral law to make my case

Here’s some things you need to prove:

• That the NT labelled divorce as a sin, especially considering Matthew 19:9 and 1 Corinthians 7:10-1.
• That the NT labelled polygamy as a sin.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Thanks. That makes my point. Christ did not merely “reprint” the 10 Commandments, did he? He taught how to live them.

How to live by them would also involve not violating the 10 commandments. So the end effect is still the same, i.e. do not ‘sin’.

 

[Tomdstone]

Divorce was also allowed at the time of Moses. It (meaning a dissolution of of the marriage bond, not mere legal proceedings) is also held to be immoral by Christ. Moses allowed it, for reasons explained by Christ.

The Catholic Church marriage tribunals require a couple to get a divorce before they will even hear their case for annulment. And Cardinal Kasper says that many annulments are really dishonest divorces. “But take the case of a couple who are ten years married and have children, in the first years they had a happy marriage, but for different reasons the marriage fell apart. This marriage was a reality, and to say it was canonically null and void does not make sense to me. This is an abstract canonical construction. It’s divorce in a Catholic way, in a dishonest way.”
americamagazine.org/content/all-things/cardinal-kasper-some-fear-domino-effect-synod-family

 

[Rau]

The Catholic Church marriage tribunals require a couple to get a divorce before they will even hear their case for annulment. And Cardinal Kasper says that many annulments are really dishonest divorces. “But take the case of a couple who are ten years married and have children, in the first years they had a happy marriage, but for different reasons the marriage fell apart. This marriage was a reality, and to say it was canonically null and void does not make sense to me. This is an abstract canonical construction. It’s divorce in a Catholic way, in a dishonest way.”
americamagazine.org/content/all-things/cardinal-kasper-some-fear-domino-effect-synod-family

That opinion is predicated on the indissolubility of marriage, notwithstanding that Moses allowed divorce (dissolution). Thus, while that viewpoint is only opinion, it is favourable to my assertions about divorce, which in turn demonstrate the error in drawing conclusions about what is moral from what was done or allowed in OT times.

Please note: divorce today is a legal mechanism and does not in any way dissolve the bond that we hold to be indissoluble. In the time of Moses, it was held to be dissolution. A decree of nullity is intended to recognise a flaw in the mutual promises by which the bond arises. It too is not a dissolution, though is prone to be viewed and perceived as such, though that is another subject entirely.