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

[_Gazelam]

Hi Jersey Girl...

The restoration thing is a little confusing.

LDS belief is that the fullness of the gospel has been on the earth a number of times... first with Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, etc. Christ "restored" the true gospel and it once again vanished from the Earth. Joseph Smith was the last and final restorer if you will.

In other words, Joseph Smith restored the true Church Christ set up, which was the same as the church set up by Adam and Eve and other prophets throughout history.

Does that make sense?

~dancer~

Wow, Im gonna have to put this in my Journal, I actually don't have anything to disagree with in a post made by dancer!

[_Yoda]

Gaz posted the following:

I know my posts are lengthy, but you may have noticed this scripture:

"And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things." 2 Samuel 12:7-8

Note that God himself gave David the wives he had. I'd say that qualifies as sponsorship of the practice.

I moved this post from the Chastity thread so we could continue the conversation here. Hope you're ok with this, Gaz.

;)

This scripture still sounds like it is explaining customs indicative of the culture, Gaz. David defeated Saul. Therefore the house, the wives, belonged to David.

Still, you're right. This scripture does seem to indicate that at the very least, God is not opposed to the idea of polygamy.

There is still a huge leap between this scripture, though, and the assumption that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young came to regarding polygamy being required for exaltation. This is what I have a problem with.

As I stated earlier in the thread, based on the experience regarding my friend who died...I am OK with the idea of polygamy existing as long as everyone involved is equally accepting of it. I'm not OK with polygamy being a requirement.

[_Ray A]

There is still a huge leap between this scripture, though, and the assumption that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young came to regarding polygamy being required for exaltation. This is what I have a problem with.

This is the crux of the problem, as far as I can see. If the Book of Mormon commanded polygamy it would be a different matter. It is true there are later revelations, such as D&C 76, which expand on the Book of Mormon, and D&C 19 which clarifies what "eternal punishment" really means. The fundamental problem, as I see it, is if the commandment of plural marriage was given to Abraham, why is there not even a slight indication of this in the Old Testament, and why was this "eternal law" not passed on to the Nephites? If it was, there is no indication of this, anywhere.

Maybe Bob would like to join in?

[_Yoda]

There is still a huge leap between this scripture, though, and the assumption that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young came to regarding polygamy being required for exaltation. This is what I have a problem with.

This is the crux of the problem, as far as I can see. If the Book of Mormon commanded polygamy it would be a different matter. It is true there are later revelations, such as D&C 76, which expand on the Book of Mormon, and D&C 19 which clarifies what "eternal punishment" really means. The fundamental problem, as I see it, is if the commandment of plural marriage was given to Abraham, why is there not even a slight indication of this in the Old Testament, and why was this "eternal law" not passed on to the Nephites? If it was, there is no indication of this, anywhere.

Maybe Bob would like to join in?

I would welcome Bob's comments. I have invited him twice, and he has refused to even respond with a yay or nay to my invitation. I don't think he likes me very much. Maybe you can persuade him where I have failed. ;)

[_Gazelam]

It is my understanding that in order to be a God, one has to show that they are willing to make and keep promises. Call them Covenants, or Ordinances, whatever. It is impossible to worship a God who is incapable of keeping a promise.

A basic covenant in the Church is in Baptism and the taking on of the Name of Christ. When we live up to that name, we receive the blessings associated with it.

A further covenant we make, the highest we can make in fact, is the marriage covenant. A righteous priesthood holder, who honors his priesthood and emulates his Savior, takes a woman who is to be his eternal companion and places his name upon her, as he himself has taken upon the name of the Savior. Together this couple emulates God in creating life and places their name upon their children and strives to also emulate their God in teaching and loving and striving to perfect their offspring to be all that they can be and to fulfill the measure of their creation.

This relationship is a relationship bound together in a consecrated purpose. They are dedicating their lives to their God, and in the process going through the school of higher learning, not only in dedicating their individual lives, but their family as well. Working together as a unit they seek to make heaven on earth.

As in all other parts of the gospel, the blessings associated with this principle are added upon the heads of those that are faithful. Polygamy is an expansion of that relationship of consecrated purpose. Children born to such parents are ensured an opportunity to be born into this world brought up in the teachings of Christ, into a loving family that honors its promises and covenants.

[_Yoda]

As in all other parts of the gospel, the blessings associated with this principle are added upon the heads of those that are faithful. Polygamy is an expansion of that relationship of consecrated purpose. Children born to such parents are ensured an opportunity to be born into this world brought up in the teachings of Christ, into a loving family that honors its promises and covenants.

How is this a blessing for the woman? It seems to me that this is a "reward" or extended blessing for the man, and the woman is being used as a "gift" or "blessing" to the man in this scenario. If man and woman are created "equal but different", this just doesn't sit right with me, Gaz. Now, if women were also allowed the opportunity to be "blessed" with more than one husband based upon her faithfulness, then I'm OK with it, but that's not what you described.

As TD pointed out earlier in the thread, in this scenario, women are being associated as objects. I know you don't see it that way, but think about the situation if it existed in reverse. Really think about it. Don't just say, "Well, that's not the way things are, so I don't have to worry about it."

How would you feel if God came to you and said, "Based upon your wife's faithfulness, she will be blessed with multiple husbands. You will work together with these men to provide for her, nurture her, and help her populate the kingdom. You will have to share your time with her. She will have an intimate relationship with other husbands, but you must not be jealous. You must work with these men in harmony for the glory of the greater good."

I'm not trying to mock what you're saying here, Gaz. I'm being sincere. These are issues that have kept me up at night. I honestly don't understand how a just and compassionate God could think that this is a righteous system.

[_Gazelam]

Liz,

I think of this in the sense of thinking how we will communicate with one another there. I imagine it will be in the same way the Holy Ghost communicates with us now. Impressing emotions and ideas onto one another, full understanding of not just the thought and idea, but the emotions behind it as well, with distance not being a factor.

How do you imagine this effecting relationships? How would this effect a relationship with a couple, when you can be that intimate with someone that quickly?

In this same train of thought, its like asking, who does the Savior love the most?

[_ludwigm]

If I had enough power! (="money", or ="scripture in my background, written by me or one of my slaves")
As an individual, I prefer to have 365 wives.(366 for the next year)

Moral?
- - Who cares. I have power so I'm dictating the moral.

No wife for the other 364 men? (365 for the next year).
- - Who cares. Do they count? Have they any power? (="money", or ="scripture ...)

Don't support me God?
- - Go on, slaves! Rewrite the scriptures! (I'm sorry, the many wives are too important. I DO MYSELF the rewriting. Haven't I the revelations? You f___ b____!)

Don't support me the CHURCH? Aren't loyal enough the priests?
- - I will buy them. Or should I be the highest priest? This is more cheap. Or should I create a new church? This is much more cheap.

This is the way things are. And Joseph Smith was not an exception. Neither was Mohamed. And many prophet You know.

[_ludwigm]

And please do not say this to my only one wife!
Tell her this is a joke only!

[_truth dancer]

Hey Gaz...

You completely missed Liz's point.

The problem as I see it for her, (correct me if I'm wrong here Liz), is that while a MAN can have multiple wives and love many women.... a WOMAN is left with one man.

This is the problem.

She is asking YOU to imagine what it would be like if YOU were told you had to share your wife with a dozen or so men.. say the stk high council guys.

You get to see her, say a couple of times a month, sleep with her when it is your turn, rotating between the various leaders, and have virtually NO emotional, spiritual, physical or intimate connection with her. Yes, an occassional hug here or there... a kiss now and then, once in a while she may chose to hold your hand or sit with you at church, but gone is the tenderness, the love, the passion, the togetherness, the balance, and the communion.

The argument that we can love more than one person is completely irrelevant.

You speak of promises.... how about the commandment to do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

To me this FAR and AWAY takes priority over everything else various men think God commands.

The day a man honestly tells me he is happy and thrilled with his wife sleeping with the stk High Council men, believes it is truly what he wants, is the day I will acknowledge that that particular man believes in the teaachings of Christ.

It is not enough to say, I would obey God... this is NOT what the golden rule states. It says to treat others as you would like to be treated. VERY CLEAR.

If YOU would like YOUR wife to sleep with a bunch of other men, then go for it.

But for any man to say having a harem/having multiple women is GOD's will when it clearly, utterly, absolutely goes against one of the most holy of all teachings just tells me he is not a follower of Jesus, not a disciple of Christ, and has put his fantasies above the teachings of God.

Men can dance around this all day long... Christ was clear.

~dancer~