Yet another polygamy thread....

[_harmony]

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?

Why should God deal with Joseph's messes? God doesn't deal with men's messes; he leaves that up to men. If God was going to deal with men's messes, he'd have done something about the Arab/Jew thing before this. Joseph's messes are trivial in comparison.

We have leaders who are supposedly in tune with God, yet God can't force them to ask the right questions so he can give them the answers. How many generations did it take before society pressured the church to do the right thing with Blacks? All the leaders before 1978 knew we were operating under a cultural policy, completely unsupported by revelation, based only on Brigham's prejudices, yet they let it go on and on, until one man had the balls to ask the right question and convince the rest of the 12 that it was in their best interest to cave in to society's pressure.

We still have Joseph's mess today because none of our leaders has any balls. We're led by old men with less vision than a myoptic tapeworm, and that's why we have all these trivialities (earrings, tattoos, etc) but no one addresses that which really hurts the church. No matter how you slice it, polygamy hurts the church. It costs us too much to maintain Joseph up on that pedestal, but our leaders are too blind, too greedy, too proud to admit he screwed up and that every president since then has compounded his mistake.

God doesn't lead this church anymore than he leads any church. Men do, men named Hinckley, Monson, Faust, Packer, etc. And what we have is the totally screwed up mess we can expect for that kind of leadership. By not admitting to Joseph's mistakes, and to Brigham's mistakes, and on down the line, we are doomed to repeat them. And doomed is the right word. ETB was correct when he said the church was under condemnation. It has been under that same condemnation since the members refused to stand up to Brigham and allowed him to ride shod over their natural sense of right and wrong. We are paying for our ancestors mistakes; they sustained something they should have rejected. Our pioneers are not the upstanding people we'd like them to have been; they were weak when God needed them to be strong. That doesn't make them special or unique or in any way deserving of our adulation and respect. They failed us. And we fail our children, when we don't demand that our leaders fix it.

[_Yoda]

Plural marriage is a major challenge to any thinking person in the Church and is often the cause for many to leave (or, on the other hand, for many to perpetuate it).

You say that it is contrary to the Gospel and everything in it. As you evaluate the question of plural marriage, the following questions are pertinent. These questions really go to one of my underlying themes I emphasize on this Board. Don't just tell me something is wrong. Tell my why it is wrong, and cite the rule or standard I can read and digest.

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?

2. Does the Bible condone it?

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

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?

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

P

Did I scare off all of the TBM's? Or are you just sick of the subject? LOL

I really would like your view.

I promised Plutarch I would respond to some of his questions, so here goes:

1. Does the Bible prohibit it? It appears that there are times when it is prohibited, and other times where it is accepted as a cultural norm. The New Testament only appears to reference monogamous marriages, while the Old Testament is obviously filled with polygamous accounts.

2. Does the Bible condone it? Piggy-backing off of my answer to question #1, Yes, the Bible condones polygamy in certain situations, mainly cultural.

3. Is your revulsion to plural marriage based upon some extra-Biblical norm? If so, what is it? In an earlier post, I quoted the Book of Mormon scripture in Jacob:

Jacob 2:27:

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

It just seems that there is an inconsistency within the LDS doctrine. After all, the Book of Mormon is suppose to be the most correct translation of the scriptures.

I have also previously listed my personal concerns about plural marriage earlier in the thread.

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? I'm not so sure that the Lord really envisioned plural marriage as an ideal. This is, of course, all my personal speculation because I just have a hard time fathoming the positive aspects of a polygamous relationship. Yes, I think that the Lord permitted plural marriage to exist in a cultural sense, and that it was obviously abused by men. And, of course, that would be the fault of men.

5. Finally, what do evolutionary biologists say? Is plural marriage the norm or the exception for homo sapiens in the history of man? Truth Dancer actually had some good research available on this. To be honest, I haven't done any type of extensive research on this. My opinion is that we have evolved in our sense of relationships. Most Christian modern-day men I have talked with concerning plural marriage don't agree with it.

[_rcrocket]

1. Does the Bible prohibit it? It appears that there are times when it is prohibited, and other times where it is accepted as a cultural norm. The New Testament only appears to reference monogamous marriages, while the Old Testament is obviously filled with polygamous accounts.

I think that careful scriptorians will conclude that God condoned polygamy in the Old Testament, and said nothing one way or the other in the New Testament although certainly supporting the polygamist David with its teachings. If David was wrong and evil to practice polygamy, than I would question why it is David plays a central role in a discussion of Christ's ministry?

2. Does the Bible condone it? Piggy-backing off of my answer to question #1, Yes, the Bible condones polygamy in certain situations, mainly cultural.

Given that the Lord expressly gave Saul's wives to David upon Saul's fall, I can't see how it is a mere cultural norm.

3. Is your revulsion to plural marriage based upon some extra-Biblical norm? If so, what is it? In an earlier post, I quoted the Book of Mormon scripture in Jacob:

Jacob 2:27:

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

It just seems that there is an inconsistency within the LDS doctrine. After all, the Book of Mormon is suppose to be the most correct translation of the scriptures.

I have also previously listed my personal concerns about plural marriage earlier in the thread.

I think this has been discussed to death for many years, and the better reading is that the Book of Mormon condones, rather than prohibits, polygamy but only if the Lord commands. I am not very impressed when readers ignore this; Rollo has his take on it which has been stated expressly but there is no basis for Rollo's take. Just an opinion.

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? I'm not so sure that the Lord really envisioned plural marriage as an ideal. This is, of course, all my personal speculation because I just have a hard time fathoming the positive aspects of a polygamous relationship. Yes, I think that the Lord permitted plural marriage to exist in a cultural sense, and that it was obviously abused by men. And, of course, that would be the fault of men.

So, if you are willing to concede that plural marriage can be abused, I wonder if it is appropriate to simply condemn the practice outright if commanded by the Lord? The Lord commands in the New Testament that there be presiding authorities and that we should defer to them; when authorities err and act improperly, is it appropriate to then argue that we should revert to a leaderless (Quaker) priesthood?

5. Finally, what do evolutionary biologists say? Is plural marriage the norm or the exception for homo sapiens in the history of man? Truth Dancer actually had some good research available on this. To be honest, I haven't done any type of extensive research on this. My opinion is that we have evolved in our sense of relationships. Most Christian modern-day men I have talked with concerning plural marriage don't agree with it.

Since I believe that the Adam and Eve story is largely allegorical, western civilization is but a mere drop in the bucket of human history. Evolutionary biologists teach that polygamy is the normal goal of the powerful, although the question is far from settled. See Ridley, The Red Queen, p. 212 and thereabouts, who concludes that wealth and power commanded more wives and mistresses, but the ordinary male could not afford more than one. I think that monogamy is the consequence of increased feminism in the world as the world becomes more secure and relies less upon physical prowess to control wealth and power.

The upshot with my argument in this thread is that for those of you who express revulsion towards polygamy and hence Joseph Smith, you really have no "book" basis for it, in the sense that most of us believe that ethics and rules are in one of the books of scripture.

P

[_truth dancer]

Hey P...

Evolutionary biologists teach that polygamy is the normal goal of the powerful, although the question is far from settled.

Absolutely incorrect. I've read dozens of books on this topic and this is completely wrong.

There are very clear reasons why monogamy has been the norm as humans have developed. It is because it is in the best interest of our species. There is absolutly NO question about this.

A man having multiple simultaneous partners is very rare in human society. Yes society (since patriarchy) has owned women for the past five thousand years and allowed for a man to own many women (whether wives, concubines or slaves... all for the purpose of sexual pleasure). But the men who were actually able to own multiple women was few and far between.

Society flounders when males are unable to mate. Survival of offspring flourish with male parental investment (a monogamous family unity).

Ownership of women was am (experiment" by some rich and powerful who took advantage of their power by hurting women and society... we have evolved to realize this is not in the best interest of our species in any sense of the word.

My distaste for polygamy has to do with the fact that a man having multiple partners goes against the very clear evolutionary advancement of our species. It turns the beauty of intimacy that has come forth in the human to an animalistic mating. In other words, rather than continue the journey of the human bringing the depths of unity, compassion, understanding, and intimacy, polygamy reverts humans to animals.

Nothing holy about it.

~dancer~

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I think this has been discussed to death for many years, and the better reading is that the Book of Mormon condones, rather than prohibits, polygamy but only if the Lord commands. I am not very impressed when readers ignore this; Rollo has his take on it which has been stated expressly but there is no basis for Rollo's take. Just an opinion.

True enough.

[_rcrocket]

Hey P...

Evolutionary biologists teach that polygamy is the normal goal of the powerful, although the question is far from settled.

Absolutely incorrect. I've read dozens of books on this topic and this is completely wrong.

I've cited my authority in support. As I have said, the question is far from settled, but Ridley documents the leadership of many civilizations where polygamy was the norm with those who could afford it, and not with those who could not. He argues that given man's proclivity to adultery in past civilizations, especially among the rich and powerful, such persons merely gave lip service to monogomy when monogamy was the law. Biological reasons suggest this result; the man seeks to spread his seed as far and wide as possible; the woman cannot obviously do that. Her objective is to nurture what she has; thus, polygamy threatens her objectives. As women gain in political and social power, laws are passed to make monogamy the lawful norm. But, this is a relatively recent innovation.

So, I would argue, polygamy was indeed the "norm" in days past, and for good evolutionary reason.

P

[_Ray A]

Here's why I agree with Rollo's opinion on the contradiction between Jacob 2 and Section 132. From section 132:

29 Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne.
30 Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins—from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph—which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.
31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.

It is possible of course that the Lord gave Lehi a different "rule".

More:

31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.
32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.
33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.

This, plural marriage, was a commandment necessary for exaltation, and this was taught by all the prophets prior to 1890, and after 1890 "in principle". It seems odd that the Nephites didn't receive this "necessary law". No where in the Bible is polygamy considered the norm, and in Judaism it was tolerated, never enforced as law in the sense of section 132. David's wives were given to him not to fulfill any gospel law, and it seems to make some sense in that God would want the Kings of Israel to "raise up seed", which was a practice not unique to the Jewish Kings. The Book of Mormon is more in harmony with the Bible on this one, and it seems that Joseph Smith's revelation on plural marriage stands completely outside the Bible and Jewish tradition.

[_harmony]

Given that the Lord expressly gave Saul's wives to David upon Saul's fall, I can't see how it is a mere cultural norm.

Read it more carefully, Plu. Nathan gave David Saul's wives, not the Lord. Nathan, a man who just happened to be the prophet at the time, not God. Never did God give any man multiple wives. Never. At least, not in the King James version of the Bible. And we both know prophets are not infallible. Nathan at least was operating within the accepted culture of society at the time; Joseph doesn't even have that excuse.

[_rcrocket]

This, plural marriage, was a commandment necessary for exaltation, and this was taught by all the prophets prior to 1890, and after 1890 "in principle". It seems odd that the Nephites didn't receive this "necessary law". No where in the Bible is polygamy considered the norm, and in Judaism it was tolerated, never enforced as law in the sense of section 132. David's wives were given to him not to fulfill any gospel law, and it seems to make some sense in that God would want the Kings of Israel to "raise up seed", which was a practice not unique to the Jewish Kings. The Book of Mormon is more in harmony with the Bible on this one, and it seems that Joseph Smith's revelation on plural marriage stands completely outside the Bible and Jewish tradition.

If commanded, rejection of the doctrine of plural marriage imperils exaltation. Plural marriage was not a church-wide directive. It required the president of the church's authorization (although I am sure there are plenty of cases of delegation and after-the-fact approvals.)

Young men who reject mission calls imperil their exaltation. Not all young men are called.

Women who disavow their sealed marriages imperil their exaltation. Not all women are married.

Plutarch

[_harmony]

Young men who reject mission calls imperil their exaltation.

Balderdash. Serving a mission is not a commandment. Rejecting the opportunity to serve a misison is not rejecting a commandment. Rejecting a mission call is not rejecting a commandment. There is absolutley no precedent for what you propose here.

Women who disavow their sealed marriages imperil their exaltation.

Not necessarily. It depends on the circumstances. And the same applies to men.