Plural Marriage, Good or Bad?
Q.
The following isn't exactly a question. Rather a collection of baseless accusations and claims made by (what I'd assume is) a member of the re-organised church (Community of Christ). Yet in all fairness to the writer I am publishing the statement and have answered its concerns.
His statement _
If the Millennium is delayed much longer, I believe the Church will probably bring back polygamy, because it seems most men & leaders in the church believe in it, secretly desire it, or are at least are 'ok' with it & given how many single & divorced women there are now in the Church, who also usually are 'ok' with polygamy, I thus believe it will return soon, as soon as the civil laws are changed to 'allow' it, which I believe they will be, for so many are pushing for polygamy to be legal & most people outside the Church seem ok with it today, just like most are coming to accept SSM [same sex marriages], which I believe the Church will also come to accept & support, especially when most of the members start pushing for it.
BUT, that does not mean that 'polygamy' is right, just because the Church brings it back or lived back then. It is not a righteous principle, nor ever has been.
The real truth is that Joseph Smith spent his whole life trying to fight & teach & warn against polygamy. He constantly warned the saints to not fall for it & to not ever believe all the false rumors going around that he preached or practiced it secretly.
Joseph Smith (& Christ) warned the saints then & now, that polygamy is and always has been one of the vilest of whoredoms, just as the Book of Mormon & (original D&C) teaches it is, in every case in history.
But, yes, I do believe the Church is in such a state of apostasy since Joseph's death, that it will bring back the whoredom of polygamy, just like it lived it before. For it is the carnal desire of most all men to have more than one woman or wife. And even now the Church allows, supports & encourages 'serial polygamy' by divorce & remarriage, & lets a man divorce & remarry & be sealed to as many women as he can get, which is all just another adulterous whoredom according to Christ.
A.
First accusation - The church starting up polygamy because the leaders desire it. I have difficulty imagining 84 year old Thomas S. Monson (as church president) chasing a young personal secretary around the desk asking her to marry him. Or 87 year old Boyd K. Packer (as president of the twelve apostles) attempting the same. A bit of fairy-land thinking there. Most general authorities are far too old for such things.
Then you've really scraped the bottom of the barrel suggesting that homosexuality would be accepted by the church, when it never was. You say that the church is partly eager to re-introduce polygamy. That makes sense considering it already has, and it has never been retracted as a good concept. But this is desperate stuff picking something the church has always opposed (ssm). So we'll try and restore your credibility by ignoring that part, and putting it down to overenthusiasm.
You go on to tell me that Christ has preached polygamy to be one of the "vilest of whoredoms." Yet this same Christ commanded Israelites to practise it if your brother died without leaving children (and were living in the same land) (Deuteronomy 25:5-6). Christ didn't say that if you already had a wife you were excused. It was a plain and straight forward law.
Christ told King David that he had given David wives ["one of the vilest of whoredoms"?] (2 Sam 12:8).
Christ gave specific commands, in the Law given to Moses, that people practising polygamy ["one of the vilest of whoredoms"?] were to observe. Amidst those instructions was one banning having a woman being undressed in front of a sister wife (no threesomes). This would lead to the abomination of Lesbianism.
In the Book of Mormon Christ complained BECAUSE they had not taken notice of these instructions and so it had led to the abominations he knew would come. And so he banned plural marriage being practised among them because of these abominations. But note that he did not give this same commandment to the Jews in Palestine at this time. Why not? "One of the vilest of whoredoms"? If it really were "one of the vilest of whoredoms" why isn't it at least the 11th commandment if not the 1st? And why hasn't Christ taught to refrain from this "vilest of whoredoms" in his law to Moses? Are you telling me that Christ just turned a blind eye while millions of people practised a vile whoredom and made no complaint against it?
That doesn't sound like the Christ I know.
When Christ was upon the earth and teaching the gospel he said nothing of this supposedly vile whoredom. The only thing he taught in regard marriage was that divorce isn't good. What an amazing oversight. Or are we just to believe that the apostles failed to remember Christ teaching it?
Paul is reputed to have taught monogamy. Yet this is a poor interpretation of the Greek word "mia" in this situation. Mia has three possible interpretations and the translators chose by far the least likely. The word mia refers to the first number. Its interpretation in the Bible is sometimes "a", sometimes "one" and sometimes "first." Which you choose depends upon the sentence. For example we have the women coming to the tomb on the "mia" day of the week, after the sabbath. The obvious interpretation is "first." Yet other times one of the other 2 are more appropriate. We have to ask ourselves why would Paul have taught that only bishops and deacons are to practise an otherwise untaught doctrine of monogamy? The statement came from the Law of Moses command that leaders of the people are to be married and not divorced. In other words "a" wife and "first" wife would be the obvious choices to choose from in this case. Monogamy was not taught by Paul.
You say that "the Church allows, supports & encourages 'serial polygamy' by divorce & remarriage." While I can agree with the word "allows," the word "supports" is suspect and the word "encourages" is absolute nonsense. The church doesn't encourage male members to divorce their wives and remarry in order to practise polygamy, as your statement implies. Your statement comes over as nothing but bigotry. And this completely disagrees with your statement that polygamy is practised because of carnal desires. After all, the man is still only married to one woman that he is having sex with. And monogamists practise this same thing of divorce and remarriage.
You have mistakenly implied that polygamy has shown itself to be a vile whoredom "in every case in history." What of Keturah and the rest of Abraham's wives and concubines that he married sometime after Sarah's death? While we know that there are always difficulties that arise in life and marriage, what is your evidence for the vile whoredoms in the case of Keturah etc.? You have absolutely none.
It is nonsense to quote Leah and Rachel, as Jacob never did have any feelings toward Leah in marrying her. He would have run into trouble regardless of whether he had married Rachel or not. In fact his life would have only been improved by taking Rachel as a wife he loved. One of his concubines having sex with someone else is not unique to the situation either. Adultery is rife in monogamies; just open your eyes and look around you.
Judah had "carnal desire" that lead him to have sex with Tamar. This had nothing to do with plural marriage (though it is often used to claim such). It was just another case of fornication on his part, by a monogamist, with a female who wanted a child and was husbandless.
And while Hannah had to take a bit of lip from Peninnah, for a time, there were no vile whoredoms mentioned or "carnal desire" being practised. In fact her husband Elkanah sounds very sympathetic toward her.
You tell me that the only reason I would be inclined to practise plural marriage, as a church member, is because of "carnal desire." Yet my wife died many years ago (she died young) and I haven't had sex since. I don't masturbate nor have any sexual fantasies. Many young females have offered me sex in that time (many of whom are teenagers or in their early 20's). And enough young church females have offered me marriage. Marriage is a spiritual concept, not a sex license to be alright with God.
Any thoughts any should have of practising plural marriage should come from a desire to assist intelligences with their personal progression in receiving spirit bodies. Additionally it should come from a realisation that women are far more spiritually inclined than men on average - more women in the highest degree. This means a male should realise that if he has a love for his sisters he will assist them in their desire to have offspring also by taking on the additional responsibility of more wives than one. If he were selfish he would say that one was enough and too bad to the other women who don't have eternal partners. Some few church men and women support this concept properly and see the point in it. You really have to have the right women and men for this.
You have missed the whole thing by being worldly focused, and thinking everyone else is the same.
I would like to qualify that I am not teaching that plural marriage should be practised at this time, as it is against the law.
The following isn't exactly a question. Rather a collection of baseless accusations and claims made by (what I'd assume is) a member of the re-organised church (Community of Christ). Yet in all fairness to the writer I am publishing the statement and have answered its concerns.
His statement _
If the Millennium is delayed much longer, I believe the Church will probably bring back polygamy, because it seems most men & leaders in the church believe in it, secretly desire it, or are at least are 'ok' with it & given how many single & divorced women there are now in the Church, who also usually are 'ok' with polygamy, I thus believe it will return soon, as soon as the civil laws are changed to 'allow' it, which I believe they will be, for so many are pushing for polygamy to be legal & most people outside the Church seem ok with it today, just like most are coming to accept SSM [same sex marriages], which I believe the Church will also come to accept & support, especially when most of the members start pushing for it.
BUT, that does not mean that 'polygamy' is right, just because the Church brings it back or lived back then. It is not a righteous principle, nor ever has been.
The real truth is that Joseph Smith spent his whole life trying to fight & teach & warn against polygamy. He constantly warned the saints to not fall for it & to not ever believe all the false rumors going around that he preached or practiced it secretly.
Joseph Smith (& Christ) warned the saints then & now, that polygamy is and always has been one of the vilest of whoredoms, just as the Book of Mormon & (original D&C) teaches it is, in every case in history.
But, yes, I do believe the Church is in such a state of apostasy since Joseph's death, that it will bring back the whoredom of polygamy, just like it lived it before. For it is the carnal desire of most all men to have more than one woman or wife. And even now the Church allows, supports & encourages 'serial polygamy' by divorce & remarriage, & lets a man divorce & remarry & be sealed to as many women as he can get, which is all just another adulterous whoredom according to Christ.
A.
First accusation - The church starting up polygamy because the leaders desire it. I have difficulty imagining 84 year old Thomas S. Monson (as church president) chasing a young personal secretary around the desk asking her to marry him. Or 87 year old Boyd K. Packer (as president of the twelve apostles) attempting the same. A bit of fairy-land thinking there. Most general authorities are far too old for such things.
Then you've really scraped the bottom of the barrel suggesting that homosexuality would be accepted by the church, when it never was. You say that the church is partly eager to re-introduce polygamy. That makes sense considering it already has, and it has never been retracted as a good concept. But this is desperate stuff picking something the church has always opposed (ssm). So we'll try and restore your credibility by ignoring that part, and putting it down to overenthusiasm.
You go on to tell me that Christ has preached polygamy to be one of the "vilest of whoredoms." Yet this same Christ commanded Israelites to practise it if your brother died without leaving children (and were living in the same land) (Deuteronomy 25:5-6). Christ didn't say that if you already had a wife you were excused. It was a plain and straight forward law.
Christ told King David that he had given David wives ["one of the vilest of whoredoms"?] (2 Sam 12:8).
Christ gave specific commands, in the Law given to Moses, that people practising polygamy ["one of the vilest of whoredoms"?] were to observe. Amidst those instructions was one banning having a woman being undressed in front of a sister wife (no threesomes). This would lead to the abomination of Lesbianism.
In the Book of Mormon Christ complained BECAUSE they had not taken notice of these instructions and so it had led to the abominations he knew would come. And so he banned plural marriage being practised among them because of these abominations. But note that he did not give this same commandment to the Jews in Palestine at this time. Why not? "One of the vilest of whoredoms"? If it really were "one of the vilest of whoredoms" why isn't it at least the 11th commandment if not the 1st? And why hasn't Christ taught to refrain from this "vilest of whoredoms" in his law to Moses? Are you telling me that Christ just turned a blind eye while millions of people practised a vile whoredom and made no complaint against it?
That doesn't sound like the Christ I know.
When Christ was upon the earth and teaching the gospel he said nothing of this supposedly vile whoredom. The only thing he taught in regard marriage was that divorce isn't good. What an amazing oversight. Or are we just to believe that the apostles failed to remember Christ teaching it?
Paul is reputed to have taught monogamy. Yet this is a poor interpretation of the Greek word "mia" in this situation. Mia has three possible interpretations and the translators chose by far the least likely. The word mia refers to the first number. Its interpretation in the Bible is sometimes "a", sometimes "one" and sometimes "first." Which you choose depends upon the sentence. For example we have the women coming to the tomb on the "mia" day of the week, after the sabbath. The obvious interpretation is "first." Yet other times one of the other 2 are more appropriate. We have to ask ourselves why would Paul have taught that only bishops and deacons are to practise an otherwise untaught doctrine of monogamy? The statement came from the Law of Moses command that leaders of the people are to be married and not divorced. In other words "a" wife and "first" wife would be the obvious choices to choose from in this case. Monogamy was not taught by Paul.
You say that "the Church allows, supports & encourages 'serial polygamy' by divorce & remarriage." While I can agree with the word "allows," the word "supports" is suspect and the word "encourages" is absolute nonsense. The church doesn't encourage male members to divorce their wives and remarry in order to practise polygamy, as your statement implies. Your statement comes over as nothing but bigotry. And this completely disagrees with your statement that polygamy is practised because of carnal desires. After all, the man is still only married to one woman that he is having sex with. And monogamists practise this same thing of divorce and remarriage.
You have mistakenly implied that polygamy has shown itself to be a vile whoredom "in every case in history." What of Keturah and the rest of Abraham's wives and concubines that he married sometime after Sarah's death? While we know that there are always difficulties that arise in life and marriage, what is your evidence for the vile whoredoms in the case of Keturah etc.? You have absolutely none.
It is nonsense to quote Leah and Rachel, as Jacob never did have any feelings toward Leah in marrying her. He would have run into trouble regardless of whether he had married Rachel or not. In fact his life would have only been improved by taking Rachel as a wife he loved. One of his concubines having sex with someone else is not unique to the situation either. Adultery is rife in monogamies; just open your eyes and look around you.
Judah had "carnal desire" that lead him to have sex with Tamar. This had nothing to do with plural marriage (though it is often used to claim such). It was just another case of fornication on his part, by a monogamist, with a female who wanted a child and was husbandless.
And while Hannah had to take a bit of lip from Peninnah, for a time, there were no vile whoredoms mentioned or "carnal desire" being practised. In fact her husband Elkanah sounds very sympathetic toward her.
You tell me that the only reason I would be inclined to practise plural marriage, as a church member, is because of "carnal desire." Yet my wife died many years ago (she died young) and I haven't had sex since. I don't masturbate nor have any sexual fantasies. Many young females have offered me sex in that time (many of whom are teenagers or in their early 20's). And enough young church females have offered me marriage. Marriage is a spiritual concept, not a sex license to be alright with God.
Any thoughts any should have of practising plural marriage should come from a desire to assist intelligences with their personal progression in receiving spirit bodies. Additionally it should come from a realisation that women are far more spiritually inclined than men on average - more women in the highest degree. This means a male should realise that if he has a love for his sisters he will assist them in their desire to have offspring also by taking on the additional responsibility of more wives than one. If he were selfish he would say that one was enough and too bad to the other women who don't have eternal partners. Some few church men and women support this concept properly and see the point in it. You really have to have the right women and men for this.
You have missed the whole thing by being worldly focused, and thinking everyone else is the same.
I would like to qualify that I am not teaching that plural marriage should be practised at this time, as it is against the law.
posted by Doug Towers at 11:30 PM
0 comments
