Posted on 07/12/2013 3:47:27 PM PDT by Colofornian
Due to political pressure brought upon the LDS Church by the federal government over the issue of plural marriage, President Wilford Woodruff signed what has come to be known as The Manifesto, or Declaration 1. The Manifesto can be found following section 138 in the Doctrine and Covenants. This document was basically a promise to the United States stating that the LDS Church would submit to the laws of the land and desist from solemnizing plural marriages. The document, signed in 1890, also denied any accusations that the church was encouraging or performing any such marriages. However, despite this promise, the polygamy issue would not be laid to rest.
LDS historians and apologists have given numerous reasons as to why Joseph Smith felt it necessary to establish the covenant of plural marriage. One of the main arguments used by Mormon spokesmen was the fact that men mentioned in the Old Testament practiced polygamy. This is a historical fact, as both unbelievers (i.e. Lemech, the son of Cain, and Belshazzar, the king of Babylon) and believers (i.e. Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon) were known polygamists.
It must be noted that, biblically, polygamy was merely tolerated by God and never commanded by Him. The mere fact that in the beginning God created just Eve for the companionship of Adam points to the monogamous relationship between a man and a woman. This is confirmed by such passages as I Corinthians 7:2 where the apostle Paul states that "every man have his own wife," not wives. In I Timothy 3:2, monogamy was a qualification for church office, and in Matthew 19:5, even our Lord condoned monogamy when He stated "they twain (two) shall be one flesh."
A common belief in Mormonism is that all humans are the literal offspring of God. Mormons are told that we all existed as spirit children of Heavenly Father prior to our "mortal probation" here on earth. Believing that the gestation period of a spirit child in the preexistence could possibly be comparable to that here on earth, Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt supported the notion that God had multiple wives in order to enhance his ability to populate this world in a much shorter period of time. He said:
"If we admit that one personage was the Father of all this great family, and that they were all born of the same Mother, the period of time intervening between the birth of the oldest and the youngest spirit must have been immense. If we suppose, as an average, that only one year intervened between each birth, then it would have required, over one hundred thousand million of years for the same Mother to have given birth to this vast family. The law, regulating the formation of the embryo spirit, may, as it regards time, differ considerably from the period required for the formation of the infant tabernacle of flesh. Should the period between each birth, be one hundred times shorter than what is required in this world, (which is very improbable,) it would still require over one thousand million of years to raise up such a numerous progeny. But as heavenly things are, in many respects, typical of earthly, it is altogether probable that the period required for the formation of the infant spirit, is of the same length as that required in this world for the organization of the infant tabernacle. If the Father of these spirits, prior to his redemption, had secured to himself, through the everlasting covenant of marriage, many wives, as the prophet David did in our world, the period required to people a world would be shorter, within certain limits, in proportion to the number of wives. For instance, if it required one hundred thousand million of years to people a world like this, as above stated, it is evident that, with a hundred wives, this period would be reduced to only one thousand million of years. Therefore, a Father, with these facilities, could increase his kingdoms with his own children, in a hundred fold ratio above that of another who had only secured to himself one wife" (The Seer, pp.38-39).
While a Mormon would be excommunicated for practicing polygamy today, the command to engage in plural marriage is still included in modern editions of the Doctrine and Covenants. Section 132:4 declares: "For behold, I reveal unto you a new and everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory."
According to the introduction to volume 5 of the Documentary History of the Church (DHC), the revelation was written down in order to convince Smith's wife, Emma, of its authenticity. When exactly this "revelation" came to Joseph Smith is somewhat confusing. According to the same volume (5:501), Joseph Smith was given this revelation on July 12, 1843. However, the heading of section 132 states it was only recorded on that date only, for "this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831." It would seem that the latter would be more correct since D&C 132:52 records a warning to Smith's wife, Emma, to "receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph." Emma never liked the idea of polygamy, and despite a warning in verse 54 saying she would be destroyed if she did "not abide this commandment," she lived a full life. Her husband, on the other hand, would be dead within a year.
When the revelation was given or recorded is relatively unimportant and does not in any way solve the polygamy dilemma. There is plenty of evidence to show how Smith held to this view long before 1843 and even practiced it secretly. The real question is why was polygamy considered essential for exaltation in the early LDS Church while its practice today is grounds for excommunication?
Despite the importance placed on this practice during the 1800s, the Book of Mormon has relatively little to say about polygamy. We find no reference within its pages that plural marriage was observed with God's permission. In fact, Jacob 2:27 reads, "Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none."
Some Mormons have countered with Jacob 2:30. This passage reads, "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." The usual argument insists that polygamy was allowed in the early years of Mormonism in order to "raise up seed." Proponents of this rebuttal say God allowed polygamy because there was an overabundance of women in the LDS Church, making it necessary for men to take on more than one wife. This argument is not supported by the facts and is actually refuted by LDS Apostle John Widtsoe. He wrote,
"The United States census records from 1850 to 1940, and all available Church records, uniformly show a preponderance of males in Utah, and in the Church. Indeed, the excess in Utah has usually been larger than for the whole United States, as would be expected in a pioneer state. The births within the Church obey the usual population law -- a slight excess of males. Orson Pratt, writing in 1853 from direct knowledge of Utah conditions, when the excess of females was supposedly the highest, declares against the opinion that females outnumbered the males in Utah. (The Seer, p. 110) The theory that plural marriage was a consequence of a surplus of female Church members fails from lack of evidence" (Evidences and Reconciliations, p.391).
Ironically, one of the best arguments against the Jacob 2:30 rebuttal is Joseph Smith himself. It is no secret that at least ten, possibly eleven, of his plural wives were already married to other men. Mormon historian Richard L. Bushman notes:
“The marital status of the plural wives further complicated the issue. Within fifteen months of marrying Louisa Beaman, Joseph had married eleven other women. Eight of the eleven were married to other men. All told, ten of Joseph’s wives were married to other men. All of them went on living with their first husbands after marrying the Prophet. The reason for choosing married women can only be surmised. Not all were married to non-Mormon men: six of the ten husbands were active Latter-day Saints In most cases the husband knew of the plural marriage and approved” (Joseph Smith—Rough Stone Rolling, p.439).
According to LDS historian Todd Compton,
"Eighteen of Joseph's wives (55 percent) were single when he married them and had never been married previously. Another four (12 percent) were widows…However, the remaining eleven women (33 percent) were married to other husbands and cohabitating with them when Smith married them…If one superimposes a chronological perspective, one sees that of Smith's first twelve wives, nine were polyandrous" (In Sacred Loneliness, p.15).
Unless it can be proven that these women were all married to men who were either impotent or sterile, we have to assume that they were quite capable of "raising up seed" without Smith's help. Apparently Joseph didn't see the need for employing Jacob 2:30 as a proof text for plural marriage.
According to The Encyclopedia of Mormonism (2:617):
"Although polygamy had been practiced privately prior to the exodus, Church leaders delayed public acknowledgment of its practice until 1852. In August of that year, at a special conference of the Church at Salt Lake City, Elder Orson Pratt, an apostle, officially announced plural marriage as a doctrine and practice of the Church. A lengthy revelation on marriage for eternity and on the plurality of wives, dictated by Joseph Smith on July 12, 1843, was published following this announcement (D&C 132)."
No doubt this practice came as quite a surprise to many of the converts who came to Utah from Europe. As far as they knew, polygamy was merely a vicious rumor propounded by enemies of the church. Why should they think otherwise? After all, the idea that Mormons were practicing polygamy was denied outright in the European edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. For example, D&C section CIX:4, which had been printed in Liverpool, England in 1866, read: "Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy; we declare that one man should have one wife; and one woman but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again." Bear in mind that this denial was a part of the Doctrine and Covenants until 1876 -- 24 years after polygamy became an official LDS doctrine!
In Utah the message was quite different. It would be only a short matter of time before plural marriage became a major theme in LDS theology. The same year that the above-mentioned Liverpool edition came out in 1866, Brigham Young preached, "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy" (Journal of Discourses (JOD) 11:269).
When this practice came under severe criticism, it was evident that LDS leaders would not go down without a fight. That Mormon leaders were determined to defend this doctrine can be easily documented.
On October 12, 1856, Heber C. Kimball (first counselor to Brigham Young) declared, "You might as well deny 'Mormonism,' and turn away from it, as to oppose the plurality of wives." (JOD 5:203).
In 1866, Brigham Young forcefully stated, "We are told that if we would give up polygamy--which we know to be a doctrine revealed from heaven and it is God and the world for it--but suppose this Church should give up this holy order of marriage, then would the devil, and all who are in league with him against the cause of God, rejoice that they had prevailed upon the Saints to refuse to obey one of the revelations and commandments of God to them." Later in the sermon President Young asked, "Will the Latter-day Saints do this? No" (JOD 11:239).
That same year, John Taylor, Mormonism's future third president, accused those who opposed polygamy within the LDS Church as "apostates." He said:
"Where did this commandment come from in relation to polygamy? It also came from God...When this commandment was given, it was so far religious, and so far binding upon the Elders of this Church that it was told them if they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom would be taken from them. When I see any of our people, men or women, opposing a principle of this kind, I have years ago set them down as on the high road to apostacy, and I do to-day; I consider them apostates, and not interested in this Church and kingdom" (JOD 11:221).
In 1869 Wilford Woodruff, Mormonism's future fourth president, taught,
"If we were to do away with polygamy, it would only be one feather in the bird, one ordinance in the Church and kingdom. Do away with that, then we must do away with prophets and Apostles, with revelation and the gifts and graces of the Gospel, and finally give up our religion altogether and turn sectarians and do as the world does, then all would be right. We just can't do that, for God has commanded us to build up His kingdom and to bear our testimony to the nations of the earth, and we are going to do it, come life or come death. He has told us to do thus, and we shall obey Him in days to come as we have in days past" (JOD 13:165 - p.166).
Even as late as 1879, Joseph F. Smith was insisting that plural marriage was essential for LDS exaltation. Speaking at the funeral of William Clayton, Mormonism's future sixth president, stated,
"This doctrine of eternal union of husband and wife, and of plural marriage, is one of the most important doctrines ever revealed to man in any age of the world. Without it man would come to a full stop; without it we never could be exalted to associate with and become god..." (JOD 21:9).
During a message given in 1880, Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt said,
"...if plurality of marriage is not true or in other words, if a man has no divine right to marry two wives or more in this world, then marriage for eternity is not true, and your faith is all vain, and all the sealing ordinances, and powers, pertaining to marriages for eternity are vain, worthless, good for nothing; for as sure as one is true the other also must be true." (JOD 21:296).
Despite the rhetoric, the federal government began its efforts to force the abandonment of polygamy on July 1, 1862. The Anti-bigamy Act defined the illegality of polygamy, but it was not really enforced for another 20 years. In 1882 the government enacted what was known as the Edmunds law. This provision
"made the 'cohabiting' with more than one woman a crime, punishable by a fine not to exceed three hundred dollars, and by imprisonment not to exceed six months. This law also rendered persons who were living in polygamy, or who believed in its rightfulness, incompetent to act as grand or petit jurors; and also disqualified all polygamists for voting or holding office" (B. H. Roberts, Outlines of Ecclesiastical History, p.437).
Five years later the Edmunds-Tucker Act became law. Its effects on the LDS Church proved to be the most devastating and are described in volume 5, page 320 of Messages of the First Presidency:
"During the entire period of the presidency of John Taylor, 1880 to 1887, relentless prosecution of men who had entered into the relationship of plural marriage was intensified.
"Under the provisions of the Edmunds-Tucker law the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was disincorporated, the Perpetual Emigration Fund Company was dissolved, and all property belonging to the Church, with the exception of buildings used exclusively for religious worship, was escheated to the government.
"Hundreds of men who had contracted plural marriages were heavily fined, and imprisoned. All persons who could not subscribe to a test oath which was provided especially for those who practiced or believed in the practice of plural marriage, were disfranchised.
"It became obvious that no human power could prevent the disintegration of the Church, except upon a pledge by its members to obey the laws which had been enacted prohibiting the practice of polygamy.
"It was under these circumstances that Wilford Woodruff was sustained as President of the Church, in April, 1889.
"September 24th, 1890, President Woodruff promulgated his Official Declaration to the Church and to the people of the United States, commonly referred to as The Manifesto." The signing of the Manifesto was certainly a major blow to the "prophetic insight" of Mormonism's leaders. Perhaps Woodruff forgot that it was he himself who said his church would continue to practice polygamy"come life or come death." In light of the numerous statements made by several LDS leaders, it is difficult to take seriously Woodruff's claim that he acted according to the will of God. To do so would be to admit God has a very short memory, or that the previous comments from LDS leaders were outside of his will.
It would appear that the signing of the Manifesto was merely a ploy to get the federal government to relax its sanctions against the LDS Church. Evidence shows that polygamy continued despite the promise to abandon it. In 1899, then Apostle Heber J. Grant (he would become President in 1918) would plead guilty to unlawful cohabitation and be fined $100. In 1906, sixth LDS President Joseph F. Smith "pleaded guilty before Judge M. L. Rictchie in the District Court Friday to the charge of cohabitating with four women in addition to his lawful wife." He was fined $300, the maximum allowed by law. (Salt Lake Tribune, 11/24/1906).
Many Latter-day Saints viewed the abandonment of polygamy as religious treason. Almost immediately splinter groups were formed to carry on the "everlasting covenant" of celestial marriage. According to the December 11, 1997 issue of the New York Times, it is estimated that between 30,000 and 35,000 people practice polygamy today. Many modern polygamists skirt the letter of the law by legally marrying one wife, and then perform private services in what they feel is in accord with "God's law."
Fundamentalist Mormons who practice plural marriage have little to fear from the government. According to the June 28, 1998 edition of the Salt Lake Tribune, "even though polygamy is explicitly illegal under the Utah criminal code and prohibited in the state constitution, Utah law-enforcement agencies do not prosecute its practice."
Not only does the government ignore this practice, in many cases it actually subsidizes it. In the polygamous communities of Hildale (UT) and Colorado City (AZ), "fully 33 percent of the residents...are using U.S. Department of Agriculture food stamps to feed their families." Both cities "rank in the top 10 in the intermountain West in relying on Medicaid, which provides health care for the poor" (Salt Lake Tribune 6/28/98).
In today's world of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, John Taylor, and many other well-known heroes of the Mormon faith would be promptly excommunicated from the LDS Church for their participation in practicing their view of celestial marriage. LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie declared, "All who pretend or assume to engage in plural marriage in this day, when the one holding the keys has withdrawn the power by which they are performed, are guilty of gross wickedness" (Mormon Doctrine, pp.579). No doubt, if Brigham Young were alive, he would rebut this by stating, "Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be dammed..." (Journal of Discourses 3:266).
It would be incorrect to think polygamy is a dead issue within the LDS Church. While McConkie denounced the practice of polygamy in this life, he did say, "Obviously the holy practice will commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millenium." (Mormon Doctrine, p. 578). The most common answer as to why it is no longer a practice in the LDS Church is that it violates the law. Such an argument compels us to ask, "Does God really care what American law says?" A Mormon may argue that present circumstances reflect God's will regarding this subject, but a Mormon who chooses such a defense will find no support for this from leaders prior to 1890. Almost without exception, pressure from the United States to eliminate polygamy was looked upon as a direct refusal of recognizing God's will. Also, what about other countries where polygamy is legal? Is the LDS Church going to be so arrogant as to inflict American precedent upon its members in countries where polygamy is not outlawed?
When Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor addressed a conference at the University of Utah back in 1993, she said she would probably vote in favor of overturning existing anti-polygamy laws should a case ever come before the Court. O'Connor retired in early 2006 but her statement did show how her thinking differed from the Supreme Court of the late nineteenth century. In January of 1879 the U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, found George Reynolds guilty in a case known as Reynolds vs. United States. The court ruled that
"Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void, and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an ofence against society.... From that day to this we think it may safely be said there never has been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society, cognizable by the civil courts and punishable with more or less severity. In the face of all this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life."
The Court ruled that George Reynolds, a faithful Mormon and practicing polygamist, "be imprisoned at hard labor for a term of two years, and pay a fine of $500."
In recent years much has been said about same-sex marriages. Should any state succeed in allowing homosexual, same-sex marriages to become law, it is almost certain that polygamy will rush in on its heels. Should same-sex marriages become legal, there will be no moral high ground for the court to take. The irony is that the driving force towards polygamy will probably not be a vocal minority of "Fundamentalist" Mormons, but rather the ever growing influence of Muslims.
This "slippery slope" is not at all a new revelation. The late Mike Royko, columnist for the Chicago Tribune, expressed similar concerns in an article printed in the Salt Lake Tribune (12/15/96, pg.A5). Royko described a hypothetical situation in which he stated that all that would be necessary to get the polygamy campaign going is to have the media get behind it and start calling all those who disagree with the concept of multiple wives (husbands?) a bunch of mean-spirited "polyphobes." I have to agree since this type of tactic has worked so well in the past. With such a strategy, it may be only a matter of time before your 1040 form has multiple lines for "spouses" as it does for dependents.
How will the LDS Church react should polygamy become legal? It is hard to tell. It will certainly have a difficult time denouncing it since Doctrine and Covenants section 132 still encourages polygamous relationships. This could very well become a nightmare for the LDS public relations department. Should the LDS Church decide to go back to its teachings of the nineteenth century, I am sure that many of those Mormon fundamentalists will feel they have been vindicated.
"God has told us Latter-day Saints that we shall be condemned if we do not enter into that principle; and yet I have heard now and then (I am very glad to say that only a few such instances have come under my notice), a brother or a sister say, 'I am a Latter-day Saint, but I do not believe in polygamy.' Oh, what an absurd expression! What an absurd idea! A person might as well say, 'I am a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, but I do not believe in him.' One is just as consistent as the other. Or a person might as well say, “I believe in Mormonism, and in the revelations given through Joseph Smith, but I am not a polygamist, and do not believe in polygamy,” What an absurdity! If one portion of the doctrines of the Church is true, the whole of them are true. If the doctrine of polygamy, as revealed to the Latter-day Saints, is not true, I would not give a fig for all your other revelations that came through Joseph Smith the Prophet; I would renounce the whole of them, because it is utterly impossible, according to the revelations that are contained in these books, to believe a part of them to be divine—from God—and part of them to be from the devil; that is foolishness in the extreme; it is an absurdity that exists because of the ignorance of some people. I have been astonished at it. I did hope there was more intelligence among the Latter-day Saints, and a greater understanding of principle than to suppose that anyone can be a member of this Church in good standing, and yet reject polygamy. The Lord has said, that those who reject this principle reject their salvation, they shall be damned, saith the Lord; those to whom I reveal this law and they do not receive it, shall be damned. Now here comes in our consciences. We have either to renounce Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Book of Mormon, Book of Covenants, and the whole system of things as taught by the Latter-day Saints, and say that God has not raised up a Church, has not raised up a prophet, has not begun to restore all things as he promised, we are obliged to do this, or else to say, with all our hearts, 'Yes, we are polygamists, we believe in the principle, and we are willing to practice it, because God has spoken from the heavens.'
"Now I want to prophesy a little. It is not very often that I prophesy, though I was commanded to do so, when I was a boy. I want to prophesy that all men and women who oppose the revelation which God has given in relation to polygamy will find themselves in darkness; the Spirit of God will withdraw from them from the very moment of their opposition to that principle, until they will finally go down to hell and be damned, if they do not repent." - Orson Pratt, "God's Ancient People Polygamists, Etc.", Journal of Discourses, vol. 17, pp. 223-225, October 7, 1874.
'LAW' gets trumped when the Living Prophet® speaks...
In conclusion let us summarize this grand key, these “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet”, for our salvation depends on them.
1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.
5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.
7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.
11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.
I testify that these fourteen fundamentals in following the living prophet are true. If we want to know how well we stand with the Lord then let us ask ourselves how well we stand with His mortal captain—how close do our lives harmonize with the Lord’s anointed—the living Prophet—President of the Church, and with the Quorum of the First Presidency.
Ezra Taft Benson
(Address given Tuesday, February 26, 1980 at Brigham Young University) http://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng
And which one would that be?
Then by all normal thinking; the PROPHET should have been all OVER them other NON-prophets for having multiple wives; right?
Besides - 'tain't what MORMON scripture says:
The Doctrine and Covenants
Section 132
Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded 12 July 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, and also the plurality of wives (see History of the Church, 5:501–7). Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831....58–66, Laws governing the plurality of wives are set forth.
58 Now, as touching the law of the apriesthood, there are many things pertaining thereunto.
59 Verily, if a man be called of my Father, as was aAaron, by mine own voice, and by the voice of him that bsent me, and I have endowed him with the ckeys of the power of this priesthood, if he do anything in my name, and according to my law and by my word, he will not commit dsin, and I will justify him.
60 Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph; for I will justify him; for he shall do the sacrifice which I require at his hands for his transgressions, saith the Lord your God.
61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse aanother, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
62 And if he have aten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to amultiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be bglorified.
64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.
65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take aHagar to wife.
66 And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice for the present. Behold, I am Alpha and Omega. Amen.
I believe that polygamy is no longer practiced in the United States , as it is against the law.
Many LDS families chose to relocate to Canada and Mexico , where they could freely exercise their religion
I believe that there are many LDS families that continue in their religious practices in several foreign lands , without being encumbered by government CONTROL !!
So , I guess it continues ...
Old Testament: Deut. 17:17: 17 He must not take many wives...
But do you think that any one was only allowed one horse?
We could argue all day about what the exact meaning of 17:17 is.
I don,t know of any scripture that expressly forbids polygamy, as it does homosexuality.
Although there are no books written by Abraham or Jacob there would be no way of even knowing where the tribes of Israel came from with out some one writing about them
Abraham,s name is given as an example of what faith means in the NT.
There are most likely many other names that the Apostles could have used but they Chose to use his name because he was highly honored.
Jesus was a Jew or called a Jew, he was the founder of the Christian faith, not religion. he was a descendent of Abraham.
Isaiah 41
8
But you, Israel, are my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.
9
You whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called you from the chief men thereof, and said to you, You are my servant; I have chosen you, and not cast you away.
Abraham was called the friend of God and Jacob was the father of the nation of Israel Abram had a concubine plus his wife.
Jacob had two wive,s and two concubines and while i do not use them nor Solomon or any one else as any proof that any one should have more than one wife or even has a right to more than one it is not an Abomination as some would have us believe.
Because if it were, Abraham and Jacob would not have been upheld by the very God that we believe in.
***You mean by ‘traditional’ those that actually BELIEVE what their SCRIPTURES require them to do?***
‘xactly!
You are reaching, time-wise, when you superimpose much later Solomonic & Davidic practices into the time span when Deuteronomy 25 was written.
If you look @ Dt. 26:1, it reads: "When you have entered the land the Lord your God is giving you..."...IOW, the Israelites were not even YET settled into their land God was giving them!
What we're talking about in Deut 25 was STILL part of the trek out of Egypt...wandering in the wilderness...
So, of course, God would set up special "tent-like" arrangements for such people on the move...often (by force) living in close proximity.
...we KNOW that Jews practiced polygamy.
So, tell us, up until Deut. 25...who practiced polygamy -- and in what circumstances?
(1) Jacob...hoodwinked into polygamy by his deceptive father-in-law...what? Do you think God uses deception to institutionalize polygamy?
(2) Was Isaac? (No) Moses? (No) Others?
(3) What about Abraham?
Was Abraham sleeping with Hagar God-sanctioned?
Where do you find that?
(a) God never told Abraham to sleep with Hagar for a night. The Angel of the Lord--whom most commentators think is the pre-incarnated Son of God, told Hagar post sleepover to return to her mistress (master Sarai) and to submit to mistress Sarai. (He never said to return to "your husband, Abram"...see Genesis 16) Two more things re:
(b) Hagar, even after sleeping with Abram once (that's all it's mentioned) continues to be labeled as a servant/slave by none other than…
…Abram,
…Sarai,
…the Angel of the Lord (who some say is the pre-incarnated Son of God),
…Moses (Gen. 25),
…even the apostle Paul (Gal. 4:21-31),
…and Hagar herself.
Sarai labels Hagar as a gift as a "wife" to Abram, but I question if a woman has the authority to "consent" on behalf of a slave.
Hagar was considered a slave both "before" and "after" sleeping with Abram. Why does the "before" matter? Just as a minor cannot "consent" to sex, a slave is in no better situation to "consent" to--or deny--her master's commands for sex. And in this case, the command didn't come from her husband, Abram; it came from her mistress (female word for "master"), Sarai (Sarai is twice referenced as "mistress"--Gen. 16:4,8).
Why does the "after" matter?
Because it shows she didn't become a "transformed" person--from slave to wifely status! Gen. 16:6,8,9; 21:11; 25:12; and Gal. 4:21-31 all are still referencing her as either a "slave" (twice in 21:11), "servant," or one who was told by the Angel to submit to her mistress (female word for "master"). By Gen. 25, Abraham is married to Keturah with no mention of Hagar (25:1) and is then buried with Sarah (25:10).
So, if we were to call all the key witnesses to the stand, and hear what they have to say:
Q Hagar, after Sarai gave you to Abram and Ishmael was conceived, did you still acknowledge Sarai as your "mistress" in your conversation with the Angel of the Lord? [female master]
A Yes. (Gen. 16:8)
Q Sarai, when you were in your early nineties when Isaac was a toddler, how did you characterize Hagar?
A I told Abraham, Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with my son, Isaac. (Gen. 21:10)
Q Abraham, after Sarah gave you Hagar and you slept with her, how did you characterize Hagar?
A I told Sarah, as mistress (master) of her servant, Your servant is in your hands. Do with her whatever you think best. (Gen. 16:6)
Q When Sarah began to mistreat her servant, Hagar, did you intervene like what we might expect a husband to do?
A No. Hagar was Sarah's servant.
Q Angel of the Lord, when you called to Hagar after she conceived Ishmael, how did you reference her?
A Servant of Sarai (Gen. 16:8)
Q And when you conversed with Hagar, did you, Angel of the Lord, acknowledge that she was released from her servant role to Sarai?
A No. In fact, I told her Go back to your mistress and submit to her. (Gen. 16:9)
Q Moses, since you wrote Genesis, how did you identify Hagar in her last reference of that book? Did you link her to Abraham?
A No. I identified her as "Sarah's maidservant" (Gen. 25:12).
Q So in that same passage, you link Ishmael to Abraham, but you link Hagar only to Sarah?
A Yes.
Q Apostle, Paul How did the Holy Spirit lead you to interpret the Old Covenant as expressed through Abraham?
A For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise. These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother...Now you brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. But what does the Scripture say? 'Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son.' Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman. (Gal. 4:21-31)
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.
Taxcontrol...tis obvious that much greater allowance on the number of horses is there...notice "great numbers of horses..." ...Deut 17:17 doesn't say "great numbers of wives," now does it?
And notice the REASON..."or his heart will be led astray." (Which is EXACTLY how 1 Kings 11:3 describes Solomon's polygamy)
Your conversion of not allowing GREAT NUMBERS of horses into "single-horse" status is reductionism.
Yes, I know...not having "Many wives" can still be interpreted into a two-wife man...but that would be implied...not overtly sanctioned...by God.
Deut 17: 15-18
15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:
“Because if it were, Abraham and Jacob would not have been upheld by the very God that we believe in.”
The amazing veracity of the Bible is reflected in the recording of human behavior - good, bad and evil.
That something is recorded does not mean it is a reflection of God’s desires, His standard or as a model for us.
That God uses sinful men and women - upholding them, as you phrased it - is not unusual. He has no other kind of human to work with!
Yet He works His will through fallen humans.
Abraham - concubines ... see Genesis 25:5 – 7
When Miriam spoke against Moses' SECOND marriage to the Ethiopian (Kushite - descendant of Kush) woman? How did God respond to her actions? Did God bless her or curse her? ....see Numbers 12:1-15
Exodus 21:10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
Gen 4:19-24 Lamech and his two wives
Nahor (brother of Abram) - wife: Milcah concubine: Reumah (Gen 22:24)
Moses father Amram had two wives, Ishar and Jochebed
There was a whole lot of polygamy going on with the Jews before Moses. Enough that I would venture to say that it was common enough to not cause a scandal.
So reducing verse 16 to “one” is reductionism but reducing verse 17 to “one” is not??? I don’t understand how it applies differently.
Why do you assume Moses' FIRST wife was still alive? (Got something vs. serial monogamy?)
Gen 4:19-24 Lamech and his two wives
Lamech was a descendent of murderer Cain. Pre-covenant. [Next thing you know, you'll start citing Ghengis Khan, Tamerlane, and King Mongut of Siam (the latter with his 9,000 wives) as some "evidence" that their pagan polygamy was somehow "righteous", too!!!]
Nahor (brother of Abram) - wife: Milcah concubine: Reumah (Gen 22:24)
OK, Abraham was THE patriarch for a reason...THE start of THIS nation of Israel. [It wasn't Abram & Nahor as THE founding patriarchs]
Moses father Amram had two wives, Ishar and Jochebed
Jochebed, yes...1 Chronicles 23:12 and Exodus 6:18 says: The sons of Kohath; Amram, Ishar,[also spelled Izhar] Hebron, and Uzziel, four.
Ishar was Moses' uncle...or are you saying he was some early cross-dressing concubine, too??? Abraham - concubines ... see Genesis 25:5 – 7
Biblical commentators say these "concubines" were none other than Hagar + Keturah, the latter who "moved up" into wife status (see Gen. 25:1: 25 Abraham had taken another wife, whose name was Keturah
No other women are mentioned tied to Abraham ... except for first wife Sarai/Sarah...And we know that by the time Keturah became a "wife"...Sarah had died: Sarah lived to be a hundred and twenty-seven years old. 2 She died at Kiriath Arba (that is, Hebron) in the land of Canaan, and Abraham went to mourn for Sarah and to weep over her. (Genesis 23)
If "concubines" were considered official "wives" -- then Keturah moving from "concubine" to "wife" status as of Gen. 25:1 would have been redundant/unnecessary.
So I'll recap this all for you next post...
Sorry, but both your examples of Lamech & Nahor weren't deemed as part of that new nation of Israel. (You flunk Old Testament history)
There's absolutely NO proof offered up by you that as of Deut. 25, that Moses had 2 wives...As a matter of fact, he was as of Deut. 25 married ONLY to Zipporah...and there's absolutely no proof offered up by your presumption that Zipporah was still alive when Moses LATER married a Cushite woman.
Your Amram-Jochebed-uncle triangle was a "joke-in-bed" right?
And we KNOW that NO other woman was accorded WIFE status to Abraham other than Sarah...and Ketureh AFTER Sarah died.
In Gen. 16, Abram, the Angel of the Lord and Hagar herself reference her as ONLY a servant of Sarai. Moses does the same in Gen. 21; and so does Paul in Galatians 4.
Likewise, so does Sarah AFTER Hagar slept with Abram.
All of that, btw, was evidence of DISTRUST in God...they didn't believe that God could ensure that an aging Sarai would become pregnant.
You have floundered greatly. NO proof ... at all...that polygamy was in practice by covenant Jews by Deut. 25 other than by deception & then wifely rivalries (Gen. 30)... and the temporary sleeping arrangements of Gen. 16 was by distrust in God's promises....in which neither Abram, the Angel of the Lord, or even Hagar herself reference Hagar as the "wife" of Abram!
There you have it
58 Now, as touching the law of the apriesthood, there are many things pertaining thereunto.
Again
61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse aanother, and the first give her consent
59
Verily, if a man be called of my Father, as was aAaron, by mine own voice, and by the voice of him that bsent me, and I have endowed him with the ckeys of the power of this priesthood, if he do anything in my name, and according to my law and by my word, he will not commit dsin, and I will justify him.
Appears to me that Any man who is a priest is what it means. at any rate the scriptures were to protect Joesepth Smith, he was the one called, he was the one endowed with the power of the priesthood he was the one who was wanting many women.
In a lot of this country back in the 1800s wild horse,s were plentiful so many of the ranchers went out and captured more that what they needed but when the fences came and the free range dwindled the horses were eating up the grass that the cows needed so many were ready to get rid of a bunch of horses they could not afford.
Jews operating in Deut 17 times would reference themselves back to Noah's ark. In the ark, there would have been at least TWO horses...one male; one female. [see Gen. 7:2,15] No king would have had fewer than two such horses to see to the continuation of that breed.
Your attempt, therefore, to reduce a King's horse stall to just one as some sort of parallel therefore ignores Biblical history and Jewish culture...both a cardinal sin of basic Biblical hermeneutics as well as reductionism.
...reducing verse 17 to “one” is not???
(a) Because a man wouldn't in the same way necessarily need more than one wife to ensure his seed is passed on. Right?
(b) Because culturally -- and historically -- the Jews of Deut 17 were rooted in Genesis 2:24, were they not?
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his WIFE [not "wives" right?], and they become one flesh.
Are you somehow claiming that "sister wives" plural are "one flesh" with each other? Really? (If so, what kind of apologist are you then for lesbian "marriage"???? I expect an answer here)
And why do you either outright IGNORE -- or gloss over -- Gen. 2:24 in this whole discussion???? As if the EARLY Jews -- and that's what we are discussing here -- would have somehow "written off" Gen. 2:24 as irrelevant to them.
(c) Lastly in pre-modern med times, women died early...often while giving birth. A man being told to refrain from "many wives" may have indeed had more than one wife...but it's up to YOU to offer evidence that this was bigamy/polygamy -- and not serial monogamy arising AFTER the death of a previous wife.
Since YOU are the one arguing from silence, YOU need to produce the evidential timetable case that "many wives" = polygamy. There's 2 or 3 Lds "apostles" RIGHT now who are serial monogamists. (To hear you tell it, just because they have been sealed to more than one wife in the Lds temple, they are somehow automatically presumed to be CURRENT polygamists...]
AND...finally even where you could find 1 or 2 instances where polygamy indeed occurred in Genesis times, your insinuation that God somehow smiled upon it...or it wasn't rooted in sin...or that it was in any way, shape or form common is also "MIA" of any real Biblical substance.
What? Do you think you can just cite Jacob's family as some sort of prototype of marriage? Really?
What would you do next? Cite Gomer's "cottage industry" of post-marital prostitution -- as she was married to Hosea -- and claim that since God allowed that to occur, it would be "a-ok" for the Mormon "prophet" to dictate marital "cottage industry" prostitution? [After all, wasn't Hosea a "righteous man???"]
You'd be one sick puppy if you tried to claim this...and yet that is about tantamount to what you're doing!
You've offered absolutely NO proof that this was COMMON by the WILDERNESS time that the latter part of Deut. was enunciated in Hebrew culture.
And we KNOW that NO other woman was accorded WIFE status to Abraham other than Sarah...and Ketureh AFTER Sarah died.
To be his wife.
That God uses sinful men and women - upholding them, as you phrased it - is not unusual. He has no other kind of human to work with!
Abraham and Jacob were real men of God who never tried to be anything but what they were.
If your wife had an illegal alien as a "housekeeper"/slave...and she told the alien woman that as long as she did what she was told, she could remain in this country....If your wife "gave" you this alien for a night, or a week, or a month...for sexual purposes...and said beforehand this alien was your "second wife..."
(a) Your wife would have no such LEGAL authority to make the woman your "wife";
(b) A slave has no rights...by definition...and could not even say "no" to such an arrangement
A woman in that time & culture would have had ZILCHO authority to make another woman a "wife..."
Do you think Sarah referenced Hagar as a "wife" post-pregnancy? Nope: “Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.” (Genesis 21:10)
And, why, when we read the REST of Genesis 16...doesn't the Angel of the Lord reference Hagar in her relationship to Abram? Why does He define her according to her servant/slave relationship to Sarai?
Why does the Angel of the Lord say: “Go back to your mistress and submit to her.” IF, indeed, Hagar was a recognized "wife" of Abram, why didn't this Angel say: "Go back to your husband and submit to him"???
And why does Abram do that EXACT same thing? (He STILL...in 16:6 references her as "YOUR SLAVE")
And why does Hagar herself do that? She ran away NOT from her "husband" Abram...but her "mistress" Sarah...["mistress" being the counterpart of the word "master"]
And why does the apostle Paul do that re: Hagar in Galatians 4?
Tell us Ravenwolf...why does Paul CONSTANTLY reference Hagar as a "slave woman"...Gal. 4:22...again in Gal. 4:23...again in Gal. 4:24...again in Gal. 4:25...again in Gal. 4:30...
Didn't Hagar ever "graduate" from such a lowly status?
Nope...not in the Angel of the Lord's eyes; not in Abraham's eyes; not in Moses' eyes (Gen. 25); not in Paul's eyes; not in Hagar herself's eyes; and NOT, post-pregnancy, in Sarah's eyes, either.
“I think exactly the same way, so as long as God in no place that i have found said any thing about plural marriage being an abomination such as homosexuality, why all of the rage against Mormons and polygamy, when all God had was favorable words concerning Abraham and Jacob.”
Not hard to answer. God told all of us HIS IDEAL. Do it. Christ reaffirmed the Genesis definition.
Mormons try to normalize what God never called normal.
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.