Posted on 09/02/2007 8:35:58 PM PDT by monomaniac
And the ‘it’ he did in secret was to sleep with another man’s wife and have her husband killed. He openly and publicly married several wives before that time and was not rebuked for it in any way.
Polygamy made a little bit of sense in older times. Only rich men could afford to have multiple wives. Their children were born into households that could financially support them. Polygamy gave a larger number of women and children a decent life (in terms of living standards) than otherwise would have occurred.
Of course, this left a number of poor men unable to find wives. But in those days, slave labor was commonplace, and those men were put to work building pyramids, or manning ships, or other such labor.
I’m not endorsing this, just noting that it fit into the social structures of the time. It doesn’t fit into a modern, technological society.
Homosexuality, of course, is just a sick perversion that is unfit anywhere.
As I said there isn’t one case in the Bible where the taking of more than one wife turns out well and there are plenty of example where it doesn’t; Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and Peninnah are good examples.
However seeing that you are a mormon I would think that Paul’s requirement for elders to be the husband of only one wife should be all the reason you would need.
Once marriage simply becomes a public expression of sexual desire between two people, regardless of gender, then there’s no reason why two brothers can’t marry one another, or a son can’t marry his post-menopausal mother. After all, there’s no need to worry about inbred offspring being produced.
Of course, marriage is more than what “liberals” wish it to be. That’s why it’s very wrong to sanction same-sex “marriage”.
I’m not advocating for the legalization of polygamy, I think the men and women most attracted to it are the ones least fit to make even a monogamous marriage work.
I’m just saying that building a case against it on the grounds of it being immoral or sinful is the wrong way to go about it.
“You completely misquoted a Bible verse.”
Really? which one? The verses I quoted were cut and paste from the KJV.
“David’s many wives caused him nothing more than trouble.”
David was told “Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. (2 Sam. 12: 10) so if you are going to blame anything, blame David’s sleeping with another man’s wife and having him killed.
David already had several wives when that was said to him, but God specifically attributes the chaos that came to his family to his dealings with Uriah and his wife.
As I already pointed out, Solomon’s disobedience was in the nationality, not the number, of his wives. There are plenty of sibling rivalries among monogamous families too and everyone has individual character flaws. If you are going to say that polygamous families must be mainly free of conflict to be a valid institution then you are setting a standard that even monogamy can’t meet.
My bad! Sorry, distracted by my only wife, I punched the wrong button.
Hell with it .... let them do as they will.
God didn’t promise David more wives.
I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.
You still have not disproved my point that every case of multiple wives in the Bible ends up causing problems.
Furthermore you haven’t tried to refute Paul’s crystal clear teaching on the subject.
“God didn’t promise David more wives.”
2Sam 12
9 Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
8 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.
It clearly states that God gave David several wives, a thing God would not do if it was sinful of David to have them. God also says that if what David has received was not enough, God would have given him more of such things as he had already recieved.
“You still have not disproved my point that every case of multiple wives in the Bible ends up causing problems.”
I reject the premise. Simply pointing out that a polygamist had problems in no way justifies attributing those problems to being caused by polygamy. Everybody has problems, every marriage has it’s challenges, every person in the Bible no matter what marital status had problems.
The problems you would cite were the result of normal human imperfection and examples of the same problems can be found in monogamous marriages where people have those same flaws. Being in a polygamous family doesn’t force anyone to act better or worse than they otherwise would.
“Furthermore you haven’t tried to refute Paul’s crystal clear teaching on the subject.”
I don’t need to refute Paul, all he said was that bishops and deacons should only have one wife. I agree, they need to be able to devote time to their calling and plural wives would take away from that.
The fact that Paul makes that a qualification implies that regular members WERE allowed more than one wife. If polygamy was forbidden, it would be redundant and foolish to specifically mention that requirement. Also, the early church was largely Jewish, and polygamy was not forbidden to them. It is very reasonable that they would have polygamous converts so if it was forbidden of all members, why is there no instruction stating the change, no advise on how to handle cases of polygamists who want to convert, etc.
I don’t care if you reject my premise or not, it is still true. We are still living with the effects of Abraham and Hagar. There are plenty of examples of good monogamous marriages.
In regards to Samuel 12. Saul foolishly took many wives against God’s command.
Duet 17:16,17
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.
David was given Saul’s wives though it is clear he never slept with any of them as there were no children of David’s from Saul’s former wives. The taking of another Kings wives was a symbol of conquest. That is why Soloman had Adonijah killed when Adonijah asked for Shunammite.
Therefore Samuel 12 is not a promise of more wives it is a list of all that had been given David and the wives of Saul simple implies total conquest over Saul. If Saul’s wives had been given to someone else they would have some claim to the throne (ie Adonijah and Shunammite; Absalom and David’s concubines).
“The fact that Paul makes that a qualification implies that regular members WERE allowed more than one wife.”
You can’t possibly be stupid enough to make that argument. I’ll give a chance to think that through after you reread the verses.
Titus 1
6An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.
1Tim 3
8Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.
11In the same way, their wives[b] are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.
12A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well. 13Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.
Do you really want to go with your line of reasoning?
Now let me ask you this. Are you willing to allow your wife to have multiple husband at the same time?
“We are still living with the effects of Abraham and Hagar.”
We are still living with the effects of Adam and Eve too.
“In regards to Samuel 12. Saul foolishly took many wives against God’s command.
Duet 17:16,17”
Are you going to say it’s a sin to have more than one horse too then? That would be silly.
One of the ideas behind polygamy was to increase the population growth, if you have so many wives that you can not be husband to them all, you are defeating the purpose by preventing some women from having the chance to be a mother. Hoarding up horses you will never need or wives you will never be husband to, all just for the sake of boasting and oneupmanship is not pleasing to God, but that doesn’t rule out having more than one horse or wife.
“David was given Saul’s wives though it is clear he never slept with any of them as there were no children of David’s from Saul’s former wives.”
That supposition is very debatable, there are several of David’s children for whom we do not know who the mother was. Nor can we assume that all David’s children are named, or even all his wives or all of Saul’s wives. Many times children go unnamed (especially daughters), do you really think that in nearly 1000 years of living that Adam and Eve only had 3 sons? Can you name any of their daughters?
The fact is that David had many wives, and had children from several different wives, and God had no problem with it. Since those wives of Saul were not his wives, there would be nothing wrong with him sleeping with them. You also overlook that David had several wives who were not former wives of Saul, and he had children by them.
“Do you really want to go with your line of reasoning?”
Yup. If polygamy was forbidden to all members there would be no need to include it in the list. Including that in the list implies it is not forbidden to the membership, but those to be called as deacons or bishops should be selected from the monogamous members.
“Now let me ask you this. Are you willing to allow your wife to have multiple husband at the same time?”
I think you misunderstand the point I’m trying to make here. I don’t want polygamy legalized, I’m just saying that anyone who attempts to build support for keeping it illegal needs to do so without misrepresenting it’s history. Denying that the Bible shows God was OK with it in at least some cases is incorrect and hands those advocating for it a stick to beat you with.
1Tim 3
8Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.
11In the same way, their wives[b] are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.
12A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well. 13Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.
So then, if we use your logic, the regular membership should be poorly respected in their communities. They should be insincere, drunkards, making their living by dishonest means and totally mismanaging their households.
Their children should be wild hellions. Their wives should also be disrespected and malicious gossips, intemperate and completely untrustworthy.
Lastly the regular membership (if there was such a thing) should have served Christ poorly and have no assurance in their faith.
Needless to say your logic is a little bit flawed, but good luck with it just the same. I'll stick with the Word of God.
“Needless to say your logic is a little bit flawed”
I wouldn’t say so. You are using the logical falacy of the excluded middle to make your case.
A Christian congregation could very well include people who drink too much or have questionable business dealings or family problems with their kids or wife. Heck, most congregations today have all of those present. They aren’t good choices to be deacons or bishops, they need to focus on setting their own lives right so they are disqualifiers.
Having one wife is listed as a qualification though, so it isnt justified to jump to the conclusion that the opposite condition is wrongful. If you are going to use that to say polygamy is a sin, you would also have to conclude that it is a sin to be single too.
Either way however it implies the presence of polygamous Christians and the Bible never comes out telling these Christian Jews to stop practicing polygamy, or to tell them how to make the transition from being a polygamous Jew to a monogamous Christian or anything like that.
First of all, a Christian is a new creation and the old man is put away.
Romans 6
6For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.
Second the Church has a reponsibility to rebuke that person and help them overcome their sins. If they refuse to then they are to be put out.
1 Corinthians 5
11But now I write to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of [Christian] brother if he is known to be guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater [whose soul is devoted to any object that usurps the place of God], or is a person with a foul tongue [railing, abusing, reviling, slandering], or is a drunkard or a swindler or a robber. [No] you must not so much as eat with such a person.
Since when does saying “they need to focus on setting their own lives right” equal saying being a drunkard etc. is OK? If your only recourse is to ignore the valid points I make and twist my words like that I see little point continuing the discussion.
>>Those wives look like they’re about to beat up the hubby just as soon as the photographer leaves the house.<<
Actually the way they depict a 3 wife household seems like about the only way it could work - with a senior wife in charge of the other two but each wife has her own house. The wives are not just each married to the man but symbolically married all together but have no sexual interaction.
That doesn;t stop it from being chaotic even before yo throw in the evil cult leader father in law.
I read your post a couple of days ago and have been thinking about it.
I think you have a point about the “legal agreement.”
I think the only long term solution to the split is society is not for one side to win but to separate the kind of marriage that the government recognizes and gives incentives for (i.e. Marriage - one man, one woman) from the kinds of households that people have a right to form by legal agreement, contract families, for lack of a better name.
Contract families could be semi-traditional - a heterosexual couple that is not married, a Grandmother and grand kids or two widows living together. But it could also be two women, two men , or three consenting adults anything we don’t have a constitutional reason to ban.
Contract families would not be anything we have to encourage - not anything the church needs to bless and not anything the government has to call marriage. They are the consensual relationships the people wish to formalize that the government has no right to interfere with. This could work just like any other contract - we don’t limit contracts by gender or how many people can sign a contract.
So that would exclude polygamous cults that force young girls to marry, and would exclude any arrangement with a child below the age of consent, incest, nonconsent, coercion ,and anything else there is a valid law against.
I don’t think we are ready but I see this as the logical, most workable solution to an otherwise intractable dispute.
So you are saying that the polygamist needs to set his life right, because he is living in sin. OK then, I guess we agree.
I was right. You have nothing left but to twist my words. How sad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.