Comments on: Is there Biblical Precedence for Polygamy? http://mormonconversations.com/is-there-biblical-precedence-for-polygamy/ Discussions on faith, religion, Mormonism, and other important topics Sat, 19 May 2012 08:25:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Michelle J http://mormonconversations.com/is-there-biblical-precedence-for-polygamy/#comment-17018 Michelle J Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:06:00 +0000 http://mormonconversations.com/?p=1227#comment-17018 Matt, As I do agree with you that TODAY polygamy is not the law of God. As I read through my scriptures I see many instances that is was allowed in those days. There are many laws that have changed through the years in the scriptures. The way you seem to believe is that because the early LDS church allowed polygamy they are not worthy to be looked at as holy. I feel you are wrong to pass judgment on this religion as a whole. I am not mormon I am just a regular girl looking for logical answers. Who are you or I to question the prophecy of Joseph Smith? Many questioned Our Lord and even killed him for his beliefs. and What of Moses, the egyptians thought him to be "mad" until God worked through him. Logically and un-bias how can we question the blessings and incite that were given to Joesph Smith? That narrow minded kind of thinking scares me..what will happen When the second coming of The Lord and Savior Jesus Christ comes? How will you know that it is him? Will you call him a fake prophet as well? We are not here to judge Matt we are put on this earth to do God's will. Many miracles have been worked through the years through many different religions, the truth of it all is this...if we believe and have sincere faith and serve Our God to the best of our ability through good works and a faithful heart, we will inherit God's Kingdom. Sincerely, Michelle J Wyoming Matt,
As I do agree with you that TODAY polygamy is not the law of God. As I read through my scriptures I see many instances that is was allowed in those days. There are many laws that have changed through the years in the scriptures. The way you seem to believe is that because the early LDS church allowed polygamy they are not worthy to be looked at as holy. I feel you are wrong to pass judgment on this religion as a whole. I am not mormon I am just a regular girl looking for logical answers. Who are you or I to question the prophecy of Joseph Smith? Many questioned Our Lord and even killed him for his beliefs. and What of Moses, the egyptians thought him to be “mad” until God worked through him. Logically and un-bias how can we question the blessings and incite that were given to Joesph Smith? That narrow minded kind of thinking scares me..what will happen When the second coming of The Lord and Savior Jesus Christ comes? How will you know that it is him? Will you call him a fake prophet as well? We are not here to judge Matt we are put on this earth to do God’s will. Many miracles have been worked through the years through many different religions, the truth of it all is this…if we believe and have sincere faith and serve Our God to the best of our ability through good works and a faithful heart, we will inherit God’s Kingdom.
Sincerely,
Michelle J Wyoming

]]> By: A woman of No Significance http://mormonconversations.com/is-there-biblical-precedence-for-polygamy/#comment-9879 A woman of No Significance Thu, 14 Jan 2010 06:53:42 +0000 http://mormonconversations.com/?p=1227#comment-9879 Hi Matt, I afraid his right Mathew - trust me as a woman of strong convictions I've done my pains of due diligence with a non Mormon King James Bible. I never finch at truth to the point of blinding but polygamy is ban by God TODAY boys so what is the point of arguing with GOD though To be RIGHT Rusty doesn't make you champion of the human spirit if he has point of view different to your own doesn't Naturally make his tone disrespectful actually I thought his arguments was highly compelling and is pushing towards kinder spirtual ideal suited to untainted world anyways everyone needs to search their own Nevada truth isn't just blinding it can be unbareably hot Matt - Would you mind continuing this communication on less a theological and pershaps a more person one but hi Elder Lindquist great contribution Rusty still saving souls are we? +614135179 Hi Matt,
I afraid his right Mathew – trust me as a woman of strong convictions I’ve done my pains of due diligence with a non Mormon King James Bible. I never finch at truth to the point of blinding but polygamy is ban by God TODAY boys so what is the point of arguing with GOD though To be RIGHT Rusty doesn’t make you champion of the human spirit if he has point of view different to your own doesn’t Naturally make his tone disrespectful actually I thought his arguments was highly compelling and is pushing towards kinder spirtual ideal suited to untainted world anyways everyone needs to search their own Nevada truth isn’t just blinding it can be unbareably hot

Matt – Would you mind continuing this communication on less a theological and pershaps a more person one but hi Elder Lindquist great contribution Rusty still saving souls are we?

+614135179

]]> By: Matt G http://mormonconversations.com/is-there-biblical-precedence-for-polygamy/#comment-9051 Matt G Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:12:26 +0000 http://mormonconversations.com/?p=1227#comment-9051 Rusty, nothing I wrote was disrespectful and untruthful. Rather you felt it necessary to censor the material because it questioned the authenticity of Joseph Smith. Yes, we will forever disagree that the Mormon practice of polygamy and polyandry was taught as religious doctrine in the Bible by the prophets. Rusty, nothing I wrote was disrespectful and untruthful. Rather you felt it necessary to censor the material because it questioned the authenticity of Joseph Smith.

Yes, we will forever disagree that the Mormon practice of polygamy and polyandry was taught as religious doctrine in the Bible by the prophets.

]]> By: Rusty Lindquist http://mormonconversations.com/is-there-biblical-precedence-for-polygamy/#comment-9045 Rusty Lindquist Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:58:02 +0000 http://mormonconversations.com/?p=1227#comment-9045 Matt, your final comment has been moderated. It doesn't add to the substance of the discussion, and was far from respectful, which is my only rule. If you wish to politely discuss doctrine, I'd be happy to do so. But your final post demonstrated that this is no longer a constructive conversation, which means we should move on. We disagree, which is fine. But I won't waste more time on this particular topic with you. Rusty Matt, your final comment has been moderated. It doesn’t add to the substance of the discussion, and was far from respectful, which is my only rule. If you wish to politely discuss doctrine, I’d be happy to do so. But your final post demonstrated that this is no longer a constructive conversation, which means we should move on.

We disagree, which is fine. But I won’t waste more time on this particular topic with you.

Rusty

]]> By: Rusty Lindquist http://mormonconversations.com/is-there-biblical-precedence-for-polygamy/#comment-9035 Rusty Lindquist Wed, 04 Nov 2009 03:10:47 +0000 http://mormonconversations.com/?p=1227#comment-9035 Matt G: There is no doubt that there are prominent, clear instances in the bible teaching monogamy, nor that monogamy is the practice accepted and expected by the Lord among his people today. But here we’re not trying to justify monogamy, that is not in question. What was in question was whether or not there was scriptural precedence where the Lord and His servants indeed condoned polygamy, which I’ve referenced adequately above. You’ve attempted to address but one of the scriptures, and inadequately in my opinion, but which I won’t debate since the language in scriptures is clear enough for the discerning reader, but there are still all the others. In short, monogamy is what the Lord current chosen command. As a latter-day prophet has declared in “<a href="http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html" rel="nofollow">the Family, a proclamation to the world</a>”, “Marriage between <strong>a</strong> man and <strong>a</strong> woman is ordained of God”. Yet you cannot discount Mormonism because of polygamy in the early days of the LDS church, without simultaneously discounting all of christendom because of polygamy as referenced in the Bible. Matt G: There is no doubt that there are prominent, clear instances in the bible teaching monogamy, nor that monogamy is the practice accepted and expected by the Lord among his people today. But here we’re not trying to justify monogamy, that is not in question. What was in question was whether or not there was scriptural precedence where the Lord and His servants indeed condoned polygamy, which I’ve referenced adequately above. You’ve attempted to address but one of the scriptures, and inadequately in my opinion, but which I won’t debate since the language in scriptures is clear enough for the discerning reader, but there are still all the others.

In short, monogamy is what the Lord current chosen command. As a latter-day prophet has declared in “the Family, a proclamation to the world”, “Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God”. Yet you cannot discount Mormonism because of polygamy in the early days of the LDS church, without simultaneously discounting all of christendom because of polygamy as referenced in the Bible.

]]> By: Matt G http://mormonconversations.com/is-there-biblical-precedence-for-polygamy/#comment-9031 Matt G Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:59:40 +0000 http://mormonconversations.com/?p=1227#comment-9031 In Ephesians 5:22-33, Paul directly quotes from Genesis 2:24. He emphasizes the permanence as well as the unity of marriage: "For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh" (v. 31). So I'm not sure about the underlying Hebrew, but Paul certainly understood the meaning and taught marital monogamy. In Ephesians 5:22-33, Paul directly quotes from Genesis 2:24. He emphasizes the permanence as well as the unity of marriage: “For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh” (v. 31). So I’m not sure about the underlying Hebrew, but Paul certainly understood the meaning and taught marital monogamy.

]]> By: Persimmon http://mormonconversations.com/is-there-biblical-precedence-for-polygamy/#comment-9022 Persimmon Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:19:12 +0000 http://mormonconversations.com/?p=1227#comment-9022 Matt - any idea what the original Hebrew might be for wife/wives in the verses you are speaking of? I'd be curious if knowledge of that might change the meaning of those verses. Very often it does, more particularly in the New Testament - but it always does well to look into that. Our "modern" English translations sometimes do us a disservice when investigating things more deeply. Note that I'm not saying it is so in this case - only that it would be wise to be certain. Matt – any idea what the original Hebrew might be for wife/wives in the verses you are speaking of? I’d be curious if knowledge of that might change the meaning of those verses. Very often it does, more particularly in the New Testament – but it always does well to look into that. Our “modern” English translations sometimes do us a disservice when investigating things more deeply.

Note that I’m not saying it is so in this case – only that it would be wise to be certain.

]]> By: Matt G. http://mormonconversations.com/is-there-biblical-precedence-for-polygamy/#comment-8885 Matt G. Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:35:54 +0000 http://mormonconversations.com/?p=1227#comment-8885 The marriage pattern set forth in the Genesis creation story seems to indicate that the biblical ideal for marriage is monogamy. In Genesis we read that after God decided the first man (Adam) should not be alone, Eve (one woman) was created for him. This is our first indication that one woman for one man is God's desire. Singular pairing is reinforced by God declaring: "I will make a helper for him" (Gen. 2:18). In other words, God made one helper for Adam. Again, the ideal relational union seems to be one for one, rather than several for one. The oft-quoted instructive passage that follows underscores yet a third time the one to one coupling: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife [singular] and they shall be one flesh" (Gen. 2:24). For David to have been given the "wives" of Saul would have been extremely difficult since we know: a) Saul had only one wife and one concubine (1 Sam. 14:50); and b) Abner appropriated Saul's concubine for himself (2 Sam. 3:7). Second, in the East it was the general custom for a king's successor to take everything possessed by that king. His country, his throne, his harem, his treasures, his everything! Enumerating such things indicated a complete turnover of power and authority. What we have here is God saying to David, basically, "What is your problem? I gave you everything there was to give. I gave you Saul's total kingdom. Nothing was held back from you, yet you still behave like this." There is no documentation that indicates that David actually took any wives from Saul. Even if for the sake of discussion we say that God did give David some as yet unknown wives of Saul, they would constitute an aspect of Saul's kingdom that would naturally go to David. This statement, then, would still be less of a promotion of polygamy and more of an expression of God communicating a well-known Eastern tradition involving the transfer of kingly authority. The remark by God falls terribly short of any stamp of approval of polygamy. Again, there are the parallels to divorce and slavery. God allowed these activities, tolerated them, even made provisions to protect women and children involved, but there are no endorsements of them by the prophets. As for marriage, the biblical ideal and pattern is monogamy. The marriage pattern set forth in the Genesis creation story seems to indicate that the biblical ideal for marriage is monogamy. In Genesis we read that after God decided the first man (Adam) should not be alone, Eve (one woman) was created for him. This is our first indication that one woman for one man is God’s desire. Singular pairing is reinforced by God declaring: “I will make a helper for him” (Gen. 2:18). In other words, God made one helper for Adam. Again, the ideal relational union seems to be one for one, rather than several for one. The oft-quoted instructive passage that follows underscores yet a third time the one to one coupling: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife [singular] and they shall be one flesh” (Gen. 2:24).

For David to have been given the “wives” of Saul would have been extremely difficult since we know: a) Saul had only one wife and one concubine (1 Sam. 14:50); and b) Abner appropriated Saul’s concubine for himself (2 Sam. 3:7).

Second, in the East it was the general custom for a king’s successor to take everything possessed by that king. His country, his throne, his harem, his treasures, his everything! Enumerating such things indicated a complete turnover of power and authority. What we have here is God saying to David, basically, “What is your problem? I gave you everything there was to give. I gave you Saul’s total kingdom. Nothing was held back from you, yet you still behave like this.” There is no documentation that indicates that David actually took any wives from Saul.

Even if for the sake of discussion we say that God did give David some as yet unknown wives of Saul, they would constitute an aspect of Saul’s kingdom that would naturally go to David. This statement, then, would still be less of a promotion of polygamy and more of an expression of God communicating a well-known Eastern tradition involving the transfer of kingly authority. The remark by God falls terribly short of any stamp of approval of polygamy. Again, there are the parallels to divorce and slavery. God allowed these activities, tolerated them, even made provisions to protect women and children involved, but there are no endorsements of them by the prophets. As for marriage, the biblical ideal and pattern is monogamy.

]]> By: Rusty Lindquist http://mormonconversations.com/is-there-biblical-precedence-for-polygamy/#comment-8866 Rusty Lindquist Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:44:17 +0000 http://mormonconversations.com/?p=1227#comment-8866 Good point. It's imperative to note that not only is this not now practiced, but forbidden for church membership - just like it was allowed at one time in the bible, but not another. It's important to cover only because it is a stumbling block for many who learn about the early church, and who don't realize that there is scriptural precedence for it. I'm no more ashamed of that part of early church history than any Christian should be about the practice even earlier in the church. Good point. It’s imperative to note that not only is this not now practiced, but forbidden for church membership – just like it was allowed at one time in the bible, but not another. It’s important to cover only because it is a stumbling block for many who learn about the early church, and who don’t realize that there is scriptural precedence for it. I’m no more ashamed of that part of early church history than any Christian should be about the practice even earlier in the church.

]]> By: ryan http://mormonconversations.com/is-there-biblical-precedence-for-polygamy/#comment-8865 ryan Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:21:49 +0000 http://mormonconversations.com/?p=1227#comment-8865 Well covered, Rusty. I only want to add that now that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints is world-wide, it has the opposite problem. Certain villages throughout Africa still practice polygamy. And in order to join the church, a convert must quit this practice before baptism is offered. Ryan Well covered, Rusty.

I only want to add that now that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints is world-wide, it has the opposite problem. Certain villages throughout Africa still practice polygamy. And in order to join the church, a convert must quit this practice before baptism is offered.

Ryan

]]>