Polygamy---Commanded by God in the Old Testament or Tolerated?

[_Yoda]

Bumping this for reference in another thread.

[_Fiannan]

The hypocrisy of the monogamist majority reached its height in the denial (often heard in Congress) that there could be a serious religious argument for polygamy: hypocrisy, because the monogamists were denying their own heritage. Joseph Smith did not pull polygamy out of the air. He found it in the Old Testament, where many patriarchs are represented as polygamous. The very wording of the Ten Commandments, a chief pillar of American public morality then as now, presupposes polygamy. In Deuteronomy, the commandment not to “covet” is divided into two parts. The command not to covet the neighbor’s spouse is addressed only to men, and the command not to covet the neighbor’s house, field, etc., is addressed to all of the people of Israel. A standard Torah commentary used in my temple puts it this way: “Because men could have more than one wife, an unmarried woman could covet another’s husband and even end up married to him.”

http://blog.econtech.selfip.org/2008/05 ... -polygamy/

http://www.icsahome.com/logon/elibdocvi ... y+biblical

[_MsJack]

Liz ~ I haven't read the entirety of this thread, so forgive me if anything I'm about to say has been covered.

Introduction

In order to examine LDS attempts to use the Bible to justify polygamy as it was practiced in the 19th century, I believe that it's important to understand the reasons why polygamy was practiced in the Old Testament in the first place. Two things that need to be understood first:

(1) The sonship imperative in ancient cultures. It was considered of utmost importance for a family to produce a male heir who could continue the family line and inherit his father's possessions. Marriage contracts were drawn up with the onus being placed strictly on the wife to produce a male heir within a set amount of time, usually 2, 5 or 7 years. If a woman failed to produce the male heir within the specified time, she could be dismissed (divorced). We have extra-biblical examples of such marriage contracts, but Genesis 15:3 is also a reflection of the principle. This explains why women like Sarah and Rachel were so distraught at their apparent inability to produce a male heir.

(2) Male provision. Women had little means for supporting themselves outside of marriage; see the story of Ruth and Naomi in the book of Ruth as a poignant example of the straits of women stripped of male support in those times. Such was the patriarchal culture of the time.

Polygamy in the Old Testament

With that in mind, broadly I can find four reasons why polygamy was practiced in the Old Testament:

(1) To produce the male heir and allow an apparently barren woman to fulfill her contract. It was basically low-tech surrogate motherhood. We see this when Sarah gives Hagar to Abraham and Rachel gives Bilhah to Jacob. Leah also gives Zilpah to Jacob even though she has already had children in her ongoing efforts to one-up her sister. However, Hagar, Bilhah, and Zilpah never have the status of full wives. Sarah was easily able to send Hagar and Ishmael away once she no longer needed the proxy male heir, and Bilhah and Zilpah are always referred to and treated as servants.

(2) To support the wife of a deceased brother or other close male relative and produce a male heir for the deceased. Tamar, the daughter-in-law of Judah who married Er and then Onan, is an example of this.

(3) Special exceptions due to unusual circumstances. Jacob's marriage to both Leah and Rachel is an example of this. He was swindled into marrying the wrong woman, so he decided to just marry them both.

(4) Taking multiple wives willy-nilly. This practice was discouraged behavior for kings (Deuteronomy 17:17) and led to trouble for David and Solomon. The first biblical figure to be seen practicing it was Lamech, the great-great-great-grandson of Cain who admits to being a murderer himself (Genesis 4:23). Not a very inspiring person to inaugurate the practice.

However, the Old Testament never prohibits polygamy. Discourages it, yes. Allows it to accommodate circumstances which no longer apply to our current culture or 19th century America for that matter, yes. And one can make the argument that #3 and #4 always occurred due to problematic motives or circumstances. But nowhere does the Old Testament actually prohibit polygamy.

Some would argue that the New Testament prohibits polygamy, but I disagree there. At least, a surface reading of the text does not produce a solid, universal prohibition against polygamy. Some creative license with the Redemptive-Movement hermeneutic might, but that's another story.

Polygamy in Mormonism

The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, does prohibit polygamy except under a very strict exception. We all know the passage.

How does all that compare to polygamy as practiced by Joseph Smith?

(1) Joseph Smith married other men's wives, thus implementing a type of polyandry. This was NEVER practiced or considered normal in the Old Testament. The only possible case of polyandry was David-Michal-Palti triangle in 1 & 2 Samuel, and that was a one-time confusing and questionable snafu.

(2) Joseph Smith married other women without notifying his first wife. No evidence that this was ever done in the Old Testament; expressly forbidden by D&C 132.

(3) Joseph Smith married women who were sisters, which was forbidden by Leviticus 18:18. If the Old Testament is being appealed to for justification of polygamy, I don't see why the laws governing it should be ignored. (Please remember that Jacob's marriage to Rachel and Leah pre-dated the Mosaic law.)

Polygamy as practiced by later Mormons was somewhat more justifiable and comparable to some of the conditions we see in the Old Testament, but not all of the time. Polygamy as practiced by Joseph Smith is hopelessly unsalvageable. No matter how you slice it, he screwed up, big time.

In our day and age though? I see little need or initiative to practice polygamy. Conditions #1 and #2 sure as hell don't apply. It would never be legally allowed in our relatively egalitarian society unless both polygyny and polyandry were allowed, and I don't see the LDS church warming up to that anytime soon. Might as well kiss polygamy good-bye, boys, because it's not coming back.

The LDS church can continue to hold onto spiritual polygyny if it wants, but I'm personally disturbed by what that says about the eternal status of women. I suspect the number of women bothered by and affected by the practice is only going to grow over time, and it will eventually be quietly dropped or eternal polyandry will be offered to women.

[_zzyzx]

"Polygamys not doctrinal". Gordon B. Hinckley live on national TV.

[_Yoda]

The LDS church can continue to hold onto spiritual polygyny if it wants, but I'm personally disturbed by what that says about the eternal status of women.

As am I.

This is precisely why I have a hard time believing that polygamy was commanded. There is a big difference between the culture being tolerated and it being deemed a required way of life in the hereafter, which is what Brigham Young taught.

We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us...It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.

(Bold emphasis mine)