Yet another polygamy thread....

[_rcrocket]

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.

I must presume that if the prophet Nathan gave Saul's wives to David, and it is mentioned in the scriptures, it has the Lord's imprimatur. The entire reason for the scriptures is to chronicle the lives of the prophets and the Lord's dealings with them. That presumption exists throughout the scriptures unless there is evidence that it was not approved. None exists here, so you are attempting an implication which would ordinarily run against the way the scriptures are written.

In other words, your implication is one that can be reached, but it is not reasonable.

Nonetheless, you have read the passage incorrectly. This is a very difficult passage (II Sam 12:7-8) for Christian scholars familiar with Mormon claims. But Matthew Henry acknowledges in his commentary that "he", meaning God, "sends him", meaning David, this message of wrath. (Matthew Henry Commentary, p. 341.) Section 7 begins with "Thus saith the Lord," and the provision which says "I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives" are in the same sentence as "thus saith the Lord."

[I also note that Henry attempts to anticipate Mormon claims by noting gratuitously that the Lord condemned polygamy in this chapter (Henry, p. 241), but nowhere can you see that in chapter 12. Henry is just spouting off. But what Henry concedes from the exact text is significant.]

John MacArthur in his commentary The MacArthur Study Bible also concedes that this speech is from the Lord delivered through Nathan. The MacArthur Study Guide: New King James Version, p. 442, n.12:1. MacArthur attempts to anticipate Mormon claims by stating that there "is no evidence that David, as king, ever married Saul's wives." The MacArthur Study Guide: New King James Version, p. 443. But he then concedes that the successor king's marriage of a predecessor's wives was a common oriental king practice. Id.

The most reasonable reading of this passage is that David had new wives. "And if that had been too little, I also would have given you much more." NKJV II Sam 12:8.


Plutarch

[_Ray A]

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.)

That's fair enough from the Mormon perspective, but if this commandment was given to Abraham, as recorded in section 132, why is there no record of it, even in non-canonical writings? Nowhere in Jewish history. It was Sarah who suggested that Abraham take another wife.

Genesis 16:

1 Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.
2 And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.
3 And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.

I understand that Joseph called this the "law of Sarah", but no where in Genesis does God command Abraham to take additional wives. And in this account we have in Genesis 16 God says nothing about this being necessary, ie, a commandment. It was Sarah's suggestion.

[_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.

I must presume that if the prophet Nathan gave Saul's wives to David, and it is mentioned in the scriptures, it has the Lord's imprimatur. The entire reason for the scriptures is to chronicle the lives of the prophets and the Lord's dealings with them. That presumption exists throughout the scriptures unless there is evidence that it was not approved. None exists here, so you are attempting an implication which would ordinarily run against the way the scriptures are written.

I make no such presumption, and we are counseled by modern prophets to not presume anything the prophet says is valid, without confirmation from God. Your presumption is misplaced. Prophets are not infallible. (I think I'll write a song that includes "Moses killed a man", "Noah got drunk", and "Jonah ran away"). I have no doubt that Nathan gave David Saul's wives (assuming Nathan, David, Saul, and all the wives actually existed and the tale proceeded as supposedly documented). What I doubt is that God had anything whatsoever to do with it. I always remember Brigham and the Blacks, and know how the surrounding culture influences men we call prophets.

In other words, your implication is one that can be reached, but it is not reasonable.

Actually, it is the only conclusion that is reasonable. Everything else is presumption.

Nonetheless, you have read the passage incorrectly. This is a very difficult passage (II Sam 12:7-8) for Christian scholars familiar with Mormon claims. But Matthew Henry acknowledges in his commentary that "he", meaning God, "sends him", meaning David, this message of wrath. (Matthew Henry Commentary, p. 341.) Section 7 begins with "Thus saith the Lord," and the provision which says "I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives" are in the same sentence as "thus saith the Lord."

[I also note that Henry attempts to anticipate Mormon claims by noting gratuitously that the Lord condemned polygamy in this chapter (Henry, p. 241), but nowhere can you see that in chapter 12. Henry is just spouting off. But what Henry concedes from the exact text is significant.

Insufficient, Plu. Henry, etc are all just men. The same applies to them as to any prophet. Don't you get it? MEN ARE OFTEN WRONG. There is nothing in the Bible that leads me to believe that God would give his daughters to his sons, as if they were cattle. I'm not saying that men didn't try, but God is not responsible for plural marriage, concubinage, etc: men are.

[_truth dancer]

Hi P...

As I have said, the question is far from settled,

Absolutely incorrect. There is consistent agreement and your interpretation is far off.

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.

Exactly... but VERY FEW could afford it. In the general population of humankind polygamy is RARE in its practice.

To suggest polygamy is/was the norm is completely incorrect and misleading. I repeat it was/is RARE.

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.

Remember, marriage, concubinage, and slavery were all about ownership. WOMEN WERE OWNED BY MEN. The powerful men made and enforced the rules and did as they pleased which was often to harm, hurt, and sexually use women, and indulge their animalistic tendencies.

Biological reasons suggest this result; the man seeks to spread his seed as far and wide as possible; the woman cannot obviously do that.

EXACTLY! We evolved from animals and there are some men who still engage their primitive tendencies and animalistic instincts to spread their seed. Please tell me how this is Godly. It is nothing but reverting to animalistic ways.

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.

This again is incorrect and misleading. The reason for the LAW of monogamy was because MEN WERE SUFFERING. Society does not do well when men are unable to find a mating partner. Please understand this. Monogamy had NOTHING whatsoever to do with women's rights or caring for women. It had to do with the needs for society and men. Society SUFFERS and our species wilts when few men hold all the power and privilege (ie... own all the women).

The reason humankind has moved toward monogamy over the last few million years is because it is in the best interest of offspring. You do not seem to understand this. Children do better with male parental investment. There is no question about this. The model of men donating sperm and women raising children is NOT THE BEST FOR CHILDREN.

Research is clear and consistent that children do better with male parental care. Society flourishes when men have a female partner. In the polygamy model this is impossible.

Can you not see how the advanced form of mating is monogamy? It is monogamy that has allowed our species to flourish, societies to become more stable, and equality to exist.

Females have moved toward monogamy because they (instinctively) knew their children would survive better with male care. Males have moved toward monogamy as they have realized (instinctively) that their offspring had a better chance of surviving if they stuck around and cared for them rather than head off to impregnate more females.

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

You can argue it all you want and you are completely wrong. There is NO GOOD REASON for polygamy in any sense of the word. There are clear and specific reasons why polygamy has been replaced by monogamy. Evolution has brought forth something much more amazing than men donating sperm.... relationship, compassion, care, love are all a result of monogamy.

Again, to revert to an animalistic form of partnering, while there may be men who desire this, is NOT in the best interest of children, women, men or society.

~dancer~

I wonder if it is comforting for some men to hold to this very incorrect idea to help them not feel so badly about embracing (or wanting to embrace) their animal instincts? (I'm not suggesting you personally but some guys in general).

[_Sam Harris]

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.

I must presume that if the prophet Nathan gave Saul's wives to David, and it is mentioned in the scriptures, it has the Lord's imprimatur.

Wrong, there are cases of the prophets not doing what God told them to do. What about the unnamed prophet in 1 Kings 13?

The entire reason for the scriptures is to chronicle the lives of the prophets and the Lord's dealings with them. That presumption exists throughout the scriptures unless there is evidence that it was not approved. None exists here, so you are attempting an implication which would ordinarily run against the way the scriptures are written.

Wrong again. The Bible is God's self-revelation to the world, about his dealings with his people. The prophets play a minor role. But I can understand how you would have learned this, given your church is prophet-driven, and they seek to keep your eyes on them at all times.


As far as polygamy is concerned, I think the Song of Songs speaks a great deal about monogamous love. But if having more than one spouse is what tickles one's fancy, you can find many scriptures to twist in order to back one's claim.

[_rcrocket]

I wonder if it is comforting for some men to hold to this very incorrect idea to help them not feel so badly about embracing (or wanting to embrace) their animal instincts? (I'm not suggesting you personally but some guys in general).

I am not defending this notion of evolutionary biology. I am just reporting it. I have cited a recognized authority. Polygamy, or monogamy plus infidelity, would be the norm if it were not for the law because that is the way it has been.

P

[_Brackite]

Here are the Questions that Plutarch asked with my answering to most of them:

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?

The Bible in the New Testament does Prohibit Polygamy among men who are in any Church Leadership Positions. The following is from the Apostle Paul, from 1 Timothy Chapter Three, within the New Testament:

1 Timothy 3 (New International Version)

1 Timothy 3:1-2 & 12:

Overseers and Deacons

1 Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer,[a] he desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

12 A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.

2. Does the Bible condone it?

The closest that the Bible comes to condoning Plural Marriage is in the Old Testament is concerning Levirate Marriages. the following is from Deuteronomy Chapter 25, within the Old Testament:

Deuteronomy 25 (New International Version)

Deuteronomy 25:5-10:

5 If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. 6 The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

7 However, if a man does not want to marry his brother's wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, "My husband's brother refuses to carry on his brother's name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me." 8 Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, "I do not want to marry her," 9 his brother's widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, "This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother's family line." 10 That man's line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled.

The Lord God of the Old Testament, allowed the Patriarchs and Prophets Abraham and Jacob to have more than one wife, but I don't know if the Lord God of the Old Testament condoned the Patriarchs Abraham and Jacob to have more than one wife. The Lord God of the Old Testament gave a Prohitibition against any of the men who would be serving as Israelite Kings from having many wives. The following is from Deuteronomy Chapter 17, within the Old Testament:

Deuteronomy 17 (New International Version)

Deuteronomy 17:14-17:

The King

14 When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, "Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us," 15 be sure to appoint over you the king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Israelite. 16 The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, "You are not to go back that way again." 17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.

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

How about the Book of Mormon. The following is from Jacob Chapter Two, within the Book of Mormon:

Jacob 2:23-24:

[23] But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

[24] Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

The following is from Mosiah Chapter 11, within the Book of Mormon:

Mosiah 11:1-4 & 14:

[1] And now it came to pass that Zeniff conferred the kingdom upon Noah, one of his sons; therefore Noah began to reign in his stead; and he did not walk in the ways of his father.

[2] For behold, he did not keep the commandments of God, but he did walk after the desires of his own heart. And he had many wives and concubines. And he did cause his people to commit sin, and do that which was abominable in the sight of the Lord. Yea, and they did commit whoredoms and all manner of wickedness.

[3] And he laid a tax of one fifth part of all they possessed, a fifth part of their gold and of their silver, and a fifth part of their ziff, and of their copper, and of their brass and their iron; and a fifth part of their fatlings; and also a fifth part of all their grain.

[4] And all this did he take to support himself, and his wives and his concubines; and also his priests, and their wives and their concubines; thus he had changed the affairs of the kingdom.

[14] And it came to pass that he placed his heart upon his riches, and he spent his time in riotous living with his wives and his concubines; and so did also his priests spend their time with harlots.

The following is from Ether Chapter Ten, within the Book of Mormon:

Ether 10:5-7:

[5] And it came to pass that Riplakish did not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord, for he did have many wives and concubines, and did lay that upon men's shoulders which was grievous to be borne; yea, he did tax them with heavy taxes; and with the taxes he did build many spacious buildings.

[6] And he did erect him an exceedingly beautiful throne; and he did build many prisons, and whoso would not be subject unto taxes he did cast into prison; and whoso was not able to pay taxes he did cast into prison; and he did cause that they should labor continually for their support; and whoso refused to labor he did cause to be put to death.

[7] Wherefore he did obtain all his fine work, yea, even his fine gold he did cause to be refined in prison, and all manner of fine workmanship he did cause to be wrought in prison. And it came to pass that he did afflict the people with his whoredoms and abominations.

Please Notice that all of those Passages I provided and quoted here within the Book of Mormon, all refer to having many wives as abominable or as an abomination. Remember also that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball all had many wives. Joseph Smith had at least 28 wives. Brigham Young had at least 27 wives. And Heber C. Kimball had at least 28 wives. They all truly had many wives. And having many wives is considered an abomination before the Lord God, according to the Book of Mormon. The Polygamy practiced by Joseph Smith, BY, And HBC was indeed an abomination before the Lord God according to the Book of Mormon.

[_rcrocket]

Insufficient, Plu. Henry, etc are all just men. The same applies to them as to any prophet. Don't you get it? MEN ARE OFTEN WRONG. There is nothing in the Bible that leads me to believe that God would give his daughters to his sons, as if they were cattle. I'm not saying that men didn't try, but God is not responsible for plural marriage, concubinage, etc: men are.

Yer just basically throwing out the scriptures as a common ground between us. A by the book religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) relies on the book for precedent as God's word to man. If you discount all scriptural references (and commentary thereon) as the words of suspect men, then there is just your gut and your feel for what you think is right.

But, you must convict yourself of your guilt, confess Jesus, and recognize him as the mediator between your imperfection and God's perfection. The scriptures and the prophets tell you how to do that. No oral tradition or gut feel tells you that. You are not the captain of your destiny (citing Invictus).

Plutarch

[_truth dancer]

Hi P... :-)

I am not defending this notion of evolutionary biology. I am just reporting it.

You are reporting it incorrectly. I'm not sure if this is intentional or not but first you suggest polygamy is the norm then you admit the author states it is only the norm for the few rich and powerful which I have told you were the VERY RARE men. Few men had ALL the power. The VAST majority of men had NO women when the ruling men took all the women.

I have cited a recognized authority.

Who you are misinterpreting.

Polygamy, or monogamy plus infidelity, would be the norm if it were not for the law because that is the way it has been.

ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT! The norm for humankind has been serial monogamy. There is absolutly no question about this. You need to read up on evolution.

LONG before there were laws this was the case. I'll repeat. Monogamy has nothing whatsoever to do with laws (until very recently). Monogamy evolved because it was in the best interest of humankind. Men realized society was harmed when men were unable to partner. It was/is evolutionary advantagous to have one man with one woman. No question whatsoever about this. The literature is repleat with this knowledge.

I really am getting the impression this "polygamy is the norm" idea has to do with justifying behavior in men. Weird. I think you have completely misunderstood the history of human evolution and mating.

~dancer~

[_truth dancer]

I find it interesting that the only people I have ever heard suggest that polygamy is the norm, are LDS men.

I seriously have never heard this from anyone else. The literature is clear that this is not the case. Anthropologists are consistent and in agreement that this is not the case yet some LDS men still hold onto this idea.

~dancer~