Posted on 11/05/2014 7:40:17 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
This is my response to the Plural Marriage in Kirkland and Nauvoo essay posted last week to LDS.org.
A couple of years ago I was talking to my 16-17 year old Sunday School class about polygamy. They raised it – not me. Our conversation was about the early practice of Mormon polygamy and how it came about. The girls in the class turned up their noses and looked aghast while one boy responded to Joseph Smith’s revelation on polygamy with a snort, and a, ‘Yeah right! That’s convenient!’
To say that polygamy has been a singular nuisance to the church is an understatement. Over the years various discourses have been raised to counter the repugnance that many, inside and outside of the church feel for the practice.
The Wastach Front is filled with the descendants of multiple wife practitioners and it ‘fulfilled a glorious purpose’.
It’s been a great source of strength to the church today.
It gave homes and shelter for single women.
Our great church leaders came from these homes.
Spirit babies are awaiting mortal tabernacles,
Blah, blah, blah…
The thing is I DON’T CARE. I find it a repellent, dehumanizing practice that reduced females to brood mares and turned Utah into a pious stud farm. Furthermore it has historically quashed some of my enthusiasm for a happy afterlife, particularly in contexts when I’ve been told that my husband will be required to pick up further wives as a matter of eternal course.
There hasn’t been once in my 39 years of being a Mormon that I have ever had the slightest modicum of spiritual feeling for the practice – other than abhorrence. So there is absolutely nothing the church can say, whether through essays, declarations or apologetics that will sway me on the matter. I see it as little other than a form of spiritual abuse to maintain a discourse of high transcendent religious motivation around the character of Joseph Smith when he was, at least in this respect, a womanizing, seducing, Lothario who coopted God in order validate his particular feminine tastes. So LDS.org doesn’t get a pass from me for their unpunctual candor. Good on them for finally broaching a tricky topic and publically admitting Joseph’s theological inventiveness that shaped several generations of Mormon discourse, but it doesn’t go far enough. Perhaps its time to drop the ‘righteous polygamy’ story entirely; along with everything else that has adhered to it over the years.
So here’s my take on the historical matter. I like to think of Emma Smith as the other half of Joseph’s prophetic mission. When Emma said ‘no’ to his calls for her polyandrous compliance he should have stopped. Emma’s guidance and criticism on the practice should have brought Joseph’s enthusiasm for multiple wifery to a screaming halt. If Joseph had listened to his wife on the matter the story of Mormonism would have played out quite differently, and ultimately with less controversy and more ease, and less fear, paranoia, secrecy and pain.
And for me, that very reluctance on the part of the masculine church to admit the voice of women – in all matters – has been its bane.
I don’t have a testimony of flaming swords; angels commanding the practice; novel revelations, (Section 132). Nor do I believe in the divinity of these strange dalliances and couplings. This is not to say that I have dismissed Joseph entirely. He was a cad, but he was a mad and bold visionary who was as audacious as he was quixotic. I would have loved Joseph the Prophet. I would have sat at his feet and soaked in his emergent and brilliant theology; I would have been loyal to him; I would have followed him and believed in his vision of the heavens and my eternal potential.
But if Joseph had come a sniffing around my daughter I would have kicked him in the nuts and sent him home to his wife.
Don’t forget that polygamy ultimately means that a few men will have several wives and many men will have no wife and are fit only to be expelled or to serve as cannon fodder.
Send the singletons into battle to die to maintain the social order for the fortunate few: the ancient prescription for polygamous societies.
It’s a current prescription in Islamic societies that follow Shariah. Powerful Muslims send superfluous Muslim males who are poor & womanless to die for Allah with the promise of the ultimate polygamous reward, the fabled 72 virgins.
Marriage in Christianity as noted in the Gospel of Mark is about one man and one woman. In other words, one to a customer.
Joseph Smith saw it differently. He could have given Bill Clinton lessons in horndoggery.
Nice post. Thank you.
No problem, what’s yours?
I should have expanded, I find it really funny, that so many people judge mormonISM by how nice lds people are, when in reality they must be as they have to earn their “salvation”.
only that it is late in the evening for me,
hmmm...
to coincide with hillary stealing the election?
interesting....
I’m not a Mormon. Or were you addressing the authoress?
There is nothing Christian about Polygamy. Polygamy degrades & abuses women,
Genesis 16
1 Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.
2 And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.
3 And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.
The Lord Jesus Christ is the Groom and we are all His brides.
I have never seen a proscription of polygamy in Scripture but I have seen that a Bishop and Deacon must be the husband of one wife. Even that can be confusing because it does not say only one wife, is it possible that it means that you must be married before having those positions?
Adultery is the major issue here, it is the sin that Christ specifically says they are guilty of. Look at its definition, which I posted to someone else in this thread.
It is clear that it is adultery because the marriage, in the first place, is not severed. Because it is not really severed, it is necessarily adultery when someone marries and has sex with someone else. IOW, they are guilty of intercourse with someone else's spouse.
so what? never does that preclude many to one relationships. and why bring up just one example? why not bring up solomon, for example? and i thought the original thrust of your argument was that male and female somehow implied monogamy. you are straining and stretching.
I might have worded it poorly, but my meaning was, "God made Adam and Eve," one man, one husband. This is the same logic that Christ also uses in explaining the indissolubly of marriage (except in cases of fornication). Would you say that Christ's logic is incorrect here?
so what if divorce was not condemned in the OT?
It means that saying that polygamy was not condemned proves nothing, since neither was divorce.
“The 14 year olds had no choice. The 50 year olds faced old age being cast out in the wild if they didn’t submit. I’ve read some of their statements. He really was a cruel, calculating brute.”
There was always a choice. This was America, even back then. Don’t join his religion. They fell for his scam. Where where the parents of those 14 year old?
Even that can be confusing because it does not say only one wife,
The second option would be if a man was divorced and remarried but since Jesus said that would be adultery I doubt they would be a Church member, much less an elder but only a member of the congregation.
The third option would be if a man lost his wife through death and remarried and I don`t see how that would disqualify him.
Your guess is as good as mine.
is it possible that it means that you must be married before having those positions?
The only thing that makes me lean against it is that it says one wife rather than a wife.
i’m going to go thru this quickly one more time. If i make a minor goof, my apologies, i am no pharisee, lol.
the title of the thread contains polygamy. i was addressing polygamy. i did not bring up adultery at all. you are claiming this topic is not about polygamy but actually about adultery seems a lot like changing the topic. I responded to the definition of adultery posted. Adultery and polygamy are two different concepts. That is why there are two different terms for the different concepts. You can discuss adultery all you like but it probably belongs on a thread about adultery, not a thread about polygamy. (Hint hint.)
As for Christ’s logic, ppl sometimes are simply inferring things that are not written. Logically, putting two together does not in any way preclude putting more than two together. What some ppl seem to be reading is an exclusiveness to the operation. But Christ never said exclusive.
Read it. Search for “exclusive.” It is not there. So it is not exclusive. If ppl want to interpret it that way, ppl need to find “two and only two” or “two exclusively.” Ppl can’t simply claim that someone meant two and only two when he did not say two and only two, and in any case was not addressing the union but the original question which was divorce (not polygamy). The answer therefore is addressed to the question of divorce. Jesus did not say Oh by the way, about polygamy, or having multiple wives— that is wrong. If he did, then your argument would make sense. But he did not. You’re not supposed to read into the bible what is not there (not that I imagine that would ever stop you but whatever). Any referral to Adam and Eve is negated by OT tolerance of polygamy— therefore Adam and Eve and references to Adam and Eve are not or at least should not be condemnations of polygamy in the NT. To make things clear, Jesus could have said look at Solomon— that guy married several wives and that is (now) a sin. But nowhere did he say that. Logically, referring to a single 1:1 relationship as valid does not preclude many:1 relationships from being also valid. Logic does not work that way. Do I think Christ’s logic is incorrect? No, but you have not established that your interpretation of Christ’s logic is correct in the first place, and I think I have fairly annihilated your interpretation (ahem). In order for you to succeed with your argument, you must demonstrate that your interpretation of Christ’s teaching on divorce extends to polygamy and you have not done so, so there is no Christ teaching on polygamy for me (or anyone else) to concur or refute.
In logic, you cannot afford to word an argument poorly, because it is like sailing off with a leaking ship. Your argument will sink. A sloppy choice of words often reflects sloppy thinking.
It means that saying that polygamy was not condemned proves nothing, since neither was divorce.
No, it does not, since polygamy is described in many places in the OT, but never condemned in the OT (or the NT for that matter). (See? sloppy thinking.) But taking the OT as a self contained system of morality which it was, most people would find it extremely odd that polygamy is in fact wrong if it was never described as wrong in a self contained system such as the OT. Extend that to the NT, and the lack of condemnation of polygamy is fairly conclusive when compared to condemnation of (say) murder or coveting a neighbor’s house or wife.
No one reads the OT to preclude having two or more houses— just as long as you did not steal any house from someone else (because stealing is a sin). Likewise adultery, stealing someone else’s wife, is not a sin, but having two or more wives is OK as long as no wife is first married to someone else who is not deceased (etc).
Likewise adultery, stealing someone else’s wife, is not a sin ... -> Likewise adultery, stealing someone else’s wife, is a sin ...
Keep in mind there was a provision for divorcing a wife that a man had married when he was a pagan if she left him when he converted. (Actually, that option still exists.) Paul may have intended to exclude such men.
There is also considerable evidence that the ancients were not impressed with a man who was widowed and remarried in mature years. It was viewed as a sign of not being able to control one's appetites.
The "husband of one wife" clause had nothing to do with polygamy, which was equally unknown among Greco-Roman pagans, Jews, and Christians in Paul's day.
Here is my argument:
1)Polygamy is ruled out effectively because Christ calls marriage with another "adultery," since the original marriage is not actually severed. Adultery is the act of having sex with someone elses spouse. IOW, the second marriage is not recognized by God.
2)Polygamy is marriage to two or more people.
3)Therefore, marriage to two or more people is adultery.
You’re not supposed to read into the bible what is not there (not that I imagine that would ever stop you but whatever).
Well, there are lots of things we know are wrong that are not spelled out exactly in the Bible. We know child molestation is wrong, but it is not discussed in scripture. We know that inside trading is wrong, because we know that deception is also wrong. In the same way, we know that polygamy is wrong, because we know that marrying another woman after "putting away" your wife is called "adultery."
You are not quoting Christ— you are at best paraphrasing what you think Christ said which is believed to be written down.
Your statement 3 does not logically follow from statements 1 and 2. Your argument, whatever it is, breaks down and becomes rather tiresome at that point, no matter how many different ways you phrase it and toss in less relevant stuff.
You are conflating adultery with polygamy in an illogical way. Your definition of adultery seems OK but you do not show it necessarily precludes polygamy. Apples and oranges. A guy marries two unmarried adult women. No adultery since both women are unmarried before tying the knot with him. Hence, not condemned by the bible.
These are consensual adult relationships. Nothing I know of the bible precludes consensual adult relationships between individuals, the women of which are previously unmarried.
Your point that insider trading is not condemned by the bible is somewhat invalid. Insider trading is a form of dishonesty leading to theft of someone else’s investment.
Stealing is condemned by the bible. As for child molestation, I do not know the bible well enough to say if that is or is not condemned. But no one I know of is arguing for NAMBLA so it is moot.
Child molestation and insider trading are more irrelevant strawmen arguments— nothing to do with polygamy. (Which reminds me, look! Look at the squirrel!)
Hey I believe that people should be free to believe whatever religiou beliefs that they want. I would just recommend that you do not force your religious beliefs on anyone else. I will do the same for others including you.
Someone can probably go through something the length of the bible and find support for just about any point of view. Jesus could and did provide a summary. I really do not care to argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin with anyone else. IMHO people who do are indulging in the theological equivalent of masturbation. Presuming one is not of the militant zealot variety, there is not much point to it beyond a temporary feeling of moral superiority. Peace.
The “husband of one wife” clause had nothing to do with polygamy, which was equally unknown among Greco-Roman pagans, Jews, and Christians in Paul’s day.
Have the historians even found Christ`s name any place?
I don`t know but seems to me they have a big problem of even getting him in history, or for that matter even the early Church.
On the contrary, polygamy is abusive. It is a way for men to be promiscuous & adulterous without having to divorce. I bet you would sing a different tune if a woman wanted several husbands.
We are not in the Old Testament days, thank goodness. Women don’t have to tolerate the horrible conditions that they lived in back then. Would you be so accepting of polyandry? Women get NOTHING out of polygamy but loneliness. Even the Muslim view of polygamy is better than the “Christian” view. At least the Muslim women have their own houses & aren’t forced to associate with the other wives.
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.