Yet another polygamy thread....

[_truth dancer]

1. Does the Bible prohibit it? If you think that it does, just how explicitly does it do so? Does it call it an abomination like homosexuality (or male prostitution, if you want to split hairs) or the sacrifice of infants?

Lots of myths accept all sorts of weird/unhealthy/cruel behaviors and ideas... The Bible has stories of slavery, concubinage, abuse, slaughter, destruction of innocent children, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

2. Does the Bible condone it?

See above... It may suggest something about the Bible.

3. Is your revulsion to plural marriage based upon some extra-Biblical norm? If so, what is it?

My qualm with a married man sleeping with multiple women has to do with the beauty that has come forth through monogamous relationships. The depth, intimacy, care, love, sharing, etc. etc. etc. that is exclusive to the human is impossible when a man is sleeping with many woman. This form of mating is primitive and animalistic and not representative of the continuing unfolding of humankind.

4. If you are willing to accept the notion that the Lord can and has permitted plural marriage, can it be abused by men? If so, whose fault is that?

There is nothing Godly about procreating like animals rather than sharing intimacy like evolved enlightened human beings.

5. Finally, what do evolutionary biologists say? Is plural marriage the norm or the exception for homo sapiens in the history of man?

While polygamy has been allowed since the time of ownership of women, evolutionary biologists are consistent in the fact that it is rare in its practice. Monogamay has evolved for very clear reasons... it is healthier for our species in every way. Children, women, men and society are damaged when human beings revert to a primitive style common in the animal world. (See Jared Diamond, Why Sex is Fun, Guns, Germs, & Steel, Robert Wright, The Moral Animal, David Buss, The Evolution of Desire... for starters).

A man impregnating women to spread his seed is nothing more than an animal.... the universe has brought forth, in the human something amazing and utterly incredible in the form of intimacy and the beauty that can exist in a healthy monogamous relationship.

~dancer~

[_Gazelam]

To those who had covenanted to a polygamous relationship it was necessary for salvation. To others it was not necessary to practice, but to accept it as doctrine yes.

Polygamy may be the highest form of consecration. I know what I mean by that, but fleshing it out in a sentance might be hard for me. What is consecration? The giving of ones time and energies to the service of God and your fellow men? Puting aside your own interests in the interest of a higher purpose? How does the Father devote his time?

[_truth dancer]

Hi Gaz...

Polygamy may be the highest form of consecration. I know what I mean by that, but fleshing it out in a sentance might be hard for me.

I'm really struggling to see how obtaining/sleeping with/owning/having multiple women is consecrating something. If anything it seems entirely selfish and cruel.

What is consecration? The giving of ones time and energies to the service of God and your fellow men? Puting aside your own interests in the interest of a higher purpose? How does the Father devote his time?

I hope I'm reading you wrong here but it sounds like you are saying that God needs multiple women to procreate worlds or something along this line? Is that how you think God spends his time?

:-) Hmmm.....

~dancer~

[_harmony]

To those who had covenanted to a polygamous relationship it was necessary for salvation.

Those who were sold this line of nonsense were hoodwinked indeed. Christ put forth that which is necessary for salvation; polygamy wasn't on the list.

To others it was not necessary to practice, but to accept it as doctrine yes.

Doctrine? We have doctrine? What we have is policy, and policy is fluid. Doctrine cannot be changed; it is the same today, yesterday, and forever. Policy, on the other hand, changes from day to day.

Polygamy may be the highest form of consecration.

Polygamy is and always has been a manmade institution occasionally attributed to some higher power. It has never been God-breathed, no matter what culture man placed it in. It is about power and control. Nothing more, nothing less. He who controls women controls the ability to give life. Controlling the ability to give life gives a man power. Anyone who believes otherwise is just looking for an excuse to increase his own power and control.

[_Yoda]

I added this on the polyandry thread, and I really meant to add it here:

Another question I would like to add to the mix...and maybe some of the more learned TBM's can answer this question for me.....Why is it so important for us to "raise up seed" to God?

That is always given as the excuse for God intermittently sanctioning polygamy to begin with. Can't "righteous seed" be raised in monogamous relationships? I'm sorry...I just don't understand this.

And I'm not being fecicious here. I'm serious.

How can a God who is loving and wants the best for His children even intermittently submit his daughters to this type of abuse?

[_truth dancer]

Hi Liz...

To understand the whole, "raise up seed" idea one must go back Old Testament the Old Testament.

In those days, people did not realize a woman had anything to do with bringing forth a child other than keeping the seed inside her. They literally thought a man planted the seed into the woman, and that the seed from Abraham was of a very special sort.

Once humans began to settle down, ownership came to equate with power. Those who owned the best land held the resources for life. Those who owned the most women had more offspring. Those who were richest and most powerful were obviously the most favored of God. So it was a great thing to have plenty of "seed."

If you notice in the Old Testament, blessings from God seems to always equate with owning things... women, animals, land, servants, etc. etc. etc.

So... back to your question...going with the whole lineage thing... they thought there was something about one's blood that was chosen and special. Joseph Smith took this idea and ran with it. There were folks in the early days of the church who believed Joseph Smith was a descendant of Jesus Christ (there are still some today). They believed his was a special bloodline that was blessed and chosen. Hence we see the adoption into Abraham's bloodline (along with comments that our blood is actually changed when we are baptized).

While there are still some believers today who hold to this idea, I think most have let it go.

~dancer~

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Another question I would like to add to the mix...and maybe some of the more learned TBM's can answer this question for me.....Why is it so important for us to "raise up seed" to God?

That is always given as the excuse for God intermittently sanctioning polygamy to begin with. Can't "righteous seed" be raised in monogamous relationships? I'm sorry...I just don't understand this.

This is why I always had a problem with polyandry -- why would several women already married to faithful LDS men be commanded to also marry Joseph Smith? Couldn't each "raise up seed to God" with her current LDS husband?

[_Yoda]

Hi Liz...

To understand the whole, "raise up seed" idea one must go back Old Testament the Old Testament.

In those days, people did not realize a woman had anything to do with bringing forth a child other than keeping the seed inside her. They literally thought a man planted the seed into the woman, and that the seed from Abraham was of a very special sort.

Once humans began to settle down, ownership came to equate with power. Those who owned the best land held the resources for life. Those who owned the most women had more offspring. Those who were richest and most powerful were obviously the most favored of God. So it was a great thing to have plenty of "seed."

If you notice in the Old Testament, blessings from God seems to always equate with owning things... women, animals, land, servants, etc. etc. etc.

So... back to your question...going with the whole lineage thing... they thought there was something about one's blood that was chosen and special. Joseph Smith took this idea and ran with it. There were folks in the early days of the church who believed Joseph Smith was a descendant of Jesus Christ (there are still some today). They believed his was a special bloodline that was blessed and chosen. Hence we see the adoption into Abraham's bloodline (along with comments that our blood is actually changed when we are baptized).

While there are still some believers today who hold to this idea, I think most have let it go.

~dancer~

This has always been my argument as well...that the whole polygamy idea was cultural rather than God-sanctioned.

But I would love to hear from Gaz, Plutarch, Paul(who I haven't seen for a while), Coggins, and the TBM like.....

How is this practice congruent to a benevolent God? It paints God as a power-hungry monster.

Why can't righteous seed be raised unto God in monogamous relationships? Why the intermittent flip-flop? Why would this be an eternal law?

[_harmony]

Why can't righteous seed be raised unto God in monogamous relationships? Why the intermittent flip-flop? Why would this be an eternal law?

Because God had nothing to do with it. This has Joseph Smith written all over it.

I look at it this way:

We make a big deal of Joseph restoring that which was lost through the great apostacy. If Joseph was to restore the ancient church that Jesus started, he wouldn't have restored plural marriage, concubinage, slavery, food prohibitions, an eye for an eye, or anything to do with the Old Testament. Jesus fulfilled the laws of the Old Testament; those things were unnecessary.

Joseph was flamboyant, charismatic... people flocked to him. People wanted to believe in him. He was new, exciting, he promised great things to humble people who had never had anyone promise them anything but hard work and short meaningless lives previous to that. He gave them hope of something better. He gave them something to be part of, something that made them special. A certain type of person would never be able to resist him.

The vast majority of the revelations came from Joseph. That's because he understood the expectations of the people; he knew his audience well and played to it. Brigham, on the other hand, was a completely different type of leader, with an agenda that didn't include revelations. He was too practical, too gruff to be able to conjure up the necessary theatrics that would convince anyone he was getting visitations from God. The only time we have revelations after Joseph died is when the ruling president was pushed into it.

Polygamy was Joseph's concoction from the beginning. He was caught redhanded in an affair and he had to cover his butt quickly. "God told me to" was his response, much like we blame the devil today with "the devil made me do it". But because Joseph had always been able to get away with "God said this", or "God wants that", his immediate response of "God told me to" was knee jerk and predictable. What a mess he made simply because he got caught with his pants down.

The same has happened with others in his situation; he is not unique. What is unique is his way of getting out of it. Real men, with at least some integrity and honor (or else a healthy dose of public shame), confess and ask forgiveness. Not Joseph. Joseph blamed the whole thing on God, and the rest of us are still paying for his lie, thanks to Brigham taking it to a whole new level. Had Brigham left polygamy the way Joseph set it up, we'd still have plausible deniability. Brigham made it public and mandatory though; his personality would not allow him to keep lying about it.

[_Yoda]

We make a big deal of Joseph restoring that which was lost through the great apostacy. If Joseph was to restore the ancient church that Jesus started, he wouldn't have restored plural marriage, concubinage, slavery, food prohibitions, an eye for an eye, or anything to do with the Old Testament. Jesus fulfilled the laws of the Old Testament; those things were unnecessary

This makes sense to me as well.

A question for you, Harmony. Do you think that Joseph lied about everything, or just the polygamy piece to cover the affair?

And if he did only lie about the polygamy piece, why did God allow members of his restored Church to suffer with Joseph's mistake? Even when the Manifesto rectified it, we are still left with unresolved temple processes. Why do you think these were never addressed? Is it simply a trial of faith?