Polygamy = Adultery

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
Locked
User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Luke »

Sarah wrote: January 30th, 2023, 3:59 pm
Luke wrote: January 30th, 2023, 3:31 pm
Shawn Henry wrote: January 30th, 2023, 1:35 pm Also, one of BY's wives does seem to be a captured war or trade victim,
Which God condoned:

Deuteronomy 21
10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

Martin Luther commenting on this:

“Here you see how the Law permitted soldiers not only to have several wives but even, where love demanded, a Gentile woman captured in war. For when he describes them as soldiers not newly married, it is plain that almost all the husbands who fought in the war were married no less than one year, and that these married soldiers were also allowed to take a Gentile woman to wife. What is more, if she proved unsatisfactory, it was lawful to dismiss her; but she was free to marry another man, and she could not be sold or made a prostitute. For it is a violation of civil uprightness to sell or prostitute one who has been humiliated.” (Luther’s Works 9:210)
The higher law is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Would you like to be captured and forced into a sexual relationship you didn't agree with? This law allows a man to marry a captive, but if he had a conscience, he wouldn't force this woman to remain against her will, or deny her food in her poor condition in exchange for sex or marriage. So reading the law, it allows something in the name of justice, but it also allows mercy if the Israelite chose to extend it. That was their test with the laws they had, as there were provisions for mercy mixed in. I think living the higher law is more ideal and definitely more charitable.
I didn’t make the law. God did. I agree that the law is just but that mercy is of course a higher option. But the application of mercy may be more complex than just leaving a captive alone. What if they would have a better life with you?—and so on. Either way, my point was that God made a clear provision for it.

My main problem with your argument is that men and women just aren’t equal, and there’s no point trying to argue that they are. The Scriptures are unequivocal on this, and so was the Prophet Joseph Smith.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Luke »

Reluctant Watchman wrote: January 30th, 2023, 4:07 pm
Luke wrote: January 30th, 2023, 3:58 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: January 30th, 2023, 3:47 pm Luke... justifying abominations through citing scripture is exactly what Jacob was warning us of.
Says the one citing Scripture as the basis of your argument. Such ridiculous logic.
Haha, ok.
Amazing argument

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15310
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

Luke wrote: January 30th, 2023, 4:13 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: January 30th, 2023, 4:07 pm
Luke wrote: January 30th, 2023, 3:58 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: January 30th, 2023, 3:47 pm Luke... justifying abominations through citing scripture is exactly what Jacob was warning us of.
Says the one citing Scripture as the basis of your argument. Such ridiculous logic.
Haha, ok.
Amazing argument
Your logic is why I laughed.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Luke »

Reluctant Watchman wrote: January 30th, 2023, 4:16 pm
Luke wrote: January 30th, 2023, 4:13 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: January 30th, 2023, 4:07 pm
Luke wrote: January 30th, 2023, 3:58 pm

Says the one citing Scripture as the basis of your argument. Such ridiculous logic.
Haha, ok.
Amazing argument
Your logic is why I laughed.
I don’t understand how you can’t/won’t apply the same logic to yourself. You are saying not using the Scriptures as a pretext to justify polygamy is wrong, but use the Scriptures to condemn polygamy.

Either we use the Scriptures or we don’t. One way or the other.

User avatar
JLHPROF
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1087

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by JLHPROF »

Shawn Henry wrote: January 30th, 2023, 1:40 pm If the Nephites were trying to justify themselves by citing their forefathers, why wouldn't they use the most respected of their forefathers as the example? Of course, they would have if given the option. Their Brass Plates simply did not allow them to cite Abraham and Jacob, which is a far more correct version of the Old Testament than what we have.

Did Abraham sacrifice his firstborn only son or did he offer up his second born son?
Second. But his birthright heir nonetheless.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15310
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

Luke wrote: January 30th, 2023, 4:18 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: January 30th, 2023, 4:16 pm
Luke wrote: January 30th, 2023, 4:13 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: January 30th, 2023, 4:07 pm
Haha, ok.
Amazing argument
Your logic is why I laughed.
I don’t understand how you can’t/won’t apply the same logic to yourself. You are saying not using the Scriptures as a pretext to justify polygamy is wrong, but use the Scriptures to condemn polygamy.

Either we use the Scriptures or we don’t. One way or the other.
You are using OT scripture to justify polygamy today. That is what Jacob was warning against.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Luke »

Reluctant Watchman wrote: January 30th, 2023, 4:20 pm
Luke wrote: January 30th, 2023, 4:18 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: January 30th, 2023, 4:16 pm
Luke wrote: January 30th, 2023, 4:13 pm

Amazing argument
Your logic is why I laughed.
I don’t understand how you can’t/won’t apply the same logic to yourself. You are saying not using the Scriptures as a pretext to justify polygamy is wrong, but use the Scriptures to condemn polygamy.

Either we use the Scriptures or we don’t. One way or the other.
You are using OT scripture to justify polygamy today. That is what Jacob was warning against.
No he wasn’t. He was warning against wresting the Scriptures. Which is ironically what YOU are doing.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15310
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

Luke wrote: January 30th, 2023, 4:21 pm No he wasn’t. He was warning against wresting the Scriptures. Which is ironically what YOU are doing.
ok, whatever.

User avatar
Redpilled Mormon
captain of 100
Posts: 664

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Redpilled Mormon »

Luke wrote: January 30th, 2023, 3:31 pm
Shawn Henry wrote: January 30th, 2023, 1:35 pm Also, one of BY's wives does seem to be a captured war or trade victim,
Which God condoned:

Deuteronomy 21
10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

Martin Luther commenting on this:

“Here you see how the Law permitted soldiers not only to have several wives but even, where love demanded, a Gentile woman captured in war. For when he describes them as soldiers not newly married, it is plain that almost all the husbands who fought in the war were married no less than one year, and that these married soldiers were also allowed to take a Gentile woman to wife. What is more, if she proved unsatisfactory, it was lawful to dismiss her; but she was free to marry another man, and she could not be sold or made a prostitute. For it is a violation of civil uprightness to sell or prostitute one who has been humiliated.” (Luther’s Works 9:210)
See, I would point to that scripture as possible evidence that Yahweh is not God, but some evil entity like Baal or Molech. Maybe a little kinder. "Oh, now let's be civilized, give the poor a girl a bit of time to mourn the family members you murdered before you start raping her into submission."

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Sarah »

Luke wrote: January 30th, 2023, 4:12 pm
Sarah wrote: January 30th, 2023, 3:59 pm
Luke wrote: January 30th, 2023, 3:31 pm
Shawn Henry wrote: January 30th, 2023, 1:35 pm Also, one of BY's wives does seem to be a captured war or trade victim,
Which God condoned:

Deuteronomy 21
10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

Martin Luther commenting on this:

“Here you see how the Law permitted soldiers not only to have several wives but even, where love demanded, a Gentile woman captured in war. For when he describes them as soldiers not newly married, it is plain that almost all the husbands who fought in the war were married no less than one year, and that these married soldiers were also allowed to take a Gentile woman to wife. What is more, if she proved unsatisfactory, it was lawful to dismiss her; but she was free to marry another man, and she could not be sold or made a prostitute. For it is a violation of civil uprightness to sell or prostitute one who has been humiliated.” (Luther’s Works 9:210)
The higher law is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Would you like to be captured and forced into a sexual relationship you didn't agree with? This law allows a man to marry a captive, but if he had a conscience, he wouldn't force this woman to remain against her will, or deny her food in her poor condition in exchange for sex or marriage. So reading the law, it allows something in the name of justice, but it also allows mercy if the Israelite chose to extend it. That was their test with the laws they had, as there were provisions for mercy mixed in. I think living the higher law is more ideal and definitely more charitable.
I didn’t make the law. God did. I agree that the law is just but that mercy is of course a higher option. But the application of mercy may be more complex than just leaving a captive alone. What if they would have a better life with you?—and so on. Either way, my point was that God made a clear provision for it.

My main problem with your argument is that men and women just aren’t equal, and there’s no point trying to argue that they are. The Scriptures are unequivocal on this, and so was the Prophet Joseph Smith.
Says the man who had a revelation on polyandry.

Maybe she would have a better life, but let her make the choice. Would you rather a woman love you by choice or be forced to be with you? That's your choice.

Women and men are not equal in this life in order to test men, to see how charitable they will be to those who are weaker. But in the eternities there is equality, as man and wife share the same parental priesthood authority.

User avatar
JLHPROF
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1087

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by JLHPROF »

Reluctant Watchman wrote: January 30th, 2023, 4:20 pm
Luke wrote: January 30th, 2023, 4:18 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: January 30th, 2023, 4:16 pm
Luke wrote: January 30th, 2023, 4:13 pm

Amazing argument
Your logic is why I laughed.
I don’t understand how you can’t/won’t apply the same logic to yourself. You are saying not using the Scriptures as a pretext to justify polygamy is wrong, but use the Scriptures to condemn polygamy.

Either we use the Scriptures or we don’t. One way or the other.
You are using OT scripture to justify polygamy today. That is what Jacob was warning against.
No, he was warning a bunch of Israelite descendants against following the examples of two Israelite Kings whose mistakes are clearly spelled out in scripture.
He was warning against building their nation using their examples.

I don't know why it's so hard to put Jacob 2 in a little context. The Nephites were seeking the Jerusalem culture their ancestors left behind.
I don't know any scripture that is misapplied as often, except maybe D&C 121.

12 And now behold, my brethren, this is the word which I declare unto you, that many of you have begun to search for gold, and for silver, and for all manner of precious ores, in the which this land, which is a land of promise unto you and to your seed, doth abound most plentifully. 13 And the hand of providence hath smiled upon you most pleasingly, that you have obtained many riches; and because some of you have obtained more abundantly than that of your brethren ye are lifted up in the pride of your hearts, and wear stiff necks and high heads because of the costliness of your apparel, and persecute your brethren because ye suppose that ye are better than they.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15310
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

JLHPROF wrote: January 30th, 2023, 4:31 pm No, he was warning a bunch of Israelite descendants against following the examples of two Israelite Kings whose mistakes are clearly spelled out in scripture.
He was warning against building their nation using their examples.

I don't know why it's so hard to put Jacob 2 in a little context. The Nephites were seeking the Jerusalem culture their ancestors left behind.
I don't know any scripture that is misapplied as often, except maybe D&C 121.

12 And now behold, my brethren, this is the word which I declare unto you, that many of you have begun to search for gold, and for silver, and for all manner of precious ores, in the which this land, which is a land of promise unto you and to your seed, doth abound most plentifully. 13 And the hand of providence hath smiled upon you most pleasingly, that you have obtained many riches; and because some of you have obtained more abundantly than that of your brethren ye are lifted up in the pride of your hearts, and wear stiff necks and high heads because of the costliness of your apparel, and persecute your brethren because ye suppose that ye are better than they.
I'm talking about his overall justification for polygamy. Brigham admits it in 132. He doesn't shy away from it. Jacob 2 condemns David and Solomon. 132 "justifies" them. Somebody had their pants on fire, and I'm gonna bet it's not Jacob.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Luke »

Sarah wrote: January 30th, 2023, 4:29 pm
Luke wrote: January 30th, 2023, 4:12 pm
Sarah wrote: January 30th, 2023, 3:59 pm
Luke wrote: January 30th, 2023, 3:31 pm
Which God condoned:

Deuteronomy 21
10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

Martin Luther commenting on this:

“Here you see how the Law permitted soldiers not only to have several wives but even, where love demanded, a Gentile woman captured in war. For when he describes them as soldiers not newly married, it is plain that almost all the husbands who fought in the war were married no less than one year, and that these married soldiers were also allowed to take a Gentile woman to wife. What is more, if she proved unsatisfactory, it was lawful to dismiss her; but she was free to marry another man, and she could not be sold or made a prostitute. For it is a violation of civil uprightness to sell or prostitute one who has been humiliated.” (Luther’s Works 9:210)
The higher law is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Would you like to be captured and forced into a sexual relationship you didn't agree with? This law allows a man to marry a captive, but if he had a conscience, he wouldn't force this woman to remain against her will, or deny her food in her poor condition in exchange for sex or marriage. So reading the law, it allows something in the name of justice, but it also allows mercy if the Israelite chose to extend it. That was their test with the laws they had, as there were provisions for mercy mixed in. I think living the higher law is more ideal and definitely more charitable.
I didn’t make the law. God did. I agree that the law is just but that mercy is of course a higher option. But the application of mercy may be more complex than just leaving a captive alone. What if they would have a better life with you?—and so on. Either way, my point was that God made a clear provision for it.

My main problem with your argument is that men and women just aren’t equal, and there’s no point trying to argue that they are. The Scriptures are unequivocal on this, and so was the Prophet Joseph Smith.
Says the man who had a revelation on polyandry.

Maybe she would have a better life, but let her make the choice. Would you rather a woman love you by choice or be forced to be with you? That's your choice.

Women and men are not equal in this life in order to test men, to see how charitable they will be to those who are weaker. But in the eternities there is equality, as man and wife share the same parental priesthood authority.
As you correctly pointed out—mercy is what will be chosen by those living a higher law—in whatever form that manifests itself. I have no doubt that good men would give a war captive choice in the matter.

I never said anything about equality (or lack thereof) in eternity, although I don’t think anyone can even begin to comprehend how heavenly workings actually are.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Sarah »

Luke wrote: January 30th, 2023, 5:13 pm
Sarah wrote: January 30th, 2023, 4:29 pm
Luke wrote: January 30th, 2023, 4:12 pm
Sarah wrote: January 30th, 2023, 3:59 pm

The higher law is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Would you like to be captured and forced into a sexual relationship you didn't agree with? This law allows a man to marry a captive, but if he had a conscience, he wouldn't force this woman to remain against her will, or deny her food in her poor condition in exchange for sex or marriage. So reading the law, it allows something in the name of justice, but it also allows mercy if the Israelite chose to extend it. That was their test with the laws they had, as there were provisions for mercy mixed in. I think living the higher law is more ideal and definitely more charitable.
I didn’t make the law. God did. I agree that the law is just but that mercy is of course a higher option. But the application of mercy may be more complex than just leaving a captive alone. What if they would have a better life with you?—and so on. Either way, my point was that God made a clear provision for it.

My main problem with your argument is that men and women just aren’t equal, and there’s no point trying to argue that they are. The Scriptures are unequivocal on this, and so was the Prophet Joseph Smith.
Says the man who had a revelation on polyandry.

Maybe she would have a better life, but let her make the choice. Would you rather a woman love you by choice or be forced to be with you? That's your choice.

Women and men are not equal in this life in order to test men, to see how charitable they will be to those who are weaker. But in the eternities there is equality, as man and wife share the same parental priesthood authority.
As you correctly pointed out—mercy is what will be chosen by those living a higher law—in whatever form that manifests itself. I have no doubt that good men would give a war captive choice in the matter.

I never said anything about equality (or lack thereof) in eternity, although I don’t think anyone can even begin to comprehend how heavenly workings actually are.
One thing holding back equality in this world is man's choices.

The pattern is that when God gives us something, he expects us to give those gifts to others, as long as it is within the "Law." It is lawful we know for a wife to be appointed to another, so a man knowing that, should have no problem wanting to give his wife the same priesthood blessings he has received from God. It is also man's agency that has determined how much of the law is revealed. It seems that some have felt we had enough of it with section 132, and we need seek no more, or they don't think there is any more.

User avatar
TheDuke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5862
Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by TheDuke »

John Tavner wrote: January 29th, 2023, 7:20 pm
TheDuke wrote: January 29th, 2023, 6:49 pm Funny the Lord has told otherwise but feel free to condemn the patriarchs and Ruth and keep on with your teachings of men.it will not matter what you believe if you don’t understand the new and everlasting covenant of marriage as you will not qualify. And get your wish like those that say there is no priesthood, if Thais what you believe that is your reward. Simple solution to your concern.
Are you responding to me?

If you are, Where is the condemnation I am placing upon anyone? if anything I am preaching mercy and grace. I don't believe Ruth committed adultery- though I understand many people take it that way and regardless her faith made her whole in the end - she is considered righteous as the scripture say. The only marriage I consider to be everlasting is my marriage to the Groom and that is the new and everlasting covenant. By His words I am a joint heir with Him to inherit all things in heavenly places. Your judgement of me and what I will receive in the afterife does not trump what Jesus said that I am co-heir with Him- as well as anyone else that believes and comes unto Him. Pretty amazing really.
sorry John, not replying to you!

User avatar
TheDuke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5862
Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by TheDuke »

Sarah wrote: January 30th, 2023, 3:59 pm
Luke wrote: January 30th, 2023, 3:31 pm
Shawn Henry wrote: January 30th, 2023, 1:35 pm Also, one of BY's wives does seem to be a captured war or trade victim,
Which God condoned:

Deuteronomy 21
10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

Martin Luther commenting on this:

“Here you see how the Law permitted soldiers not only to have several wives but even, where love demanded, a Gentile woman captured in war. For when he describes them as soldiers not newly married, it is plain that almost all the husbands who fought in the war were married no less than one year, and that these married soldiers were also allowed to take a Gentile woman to wife. What is more, if she proved unsatisfactory, it was lawful to dismiss her; but she was free to marry another man, and she could not be sold or made a prostitute. For it is a violation of civil uprightness to sell or prostitute one who has been humiliated.” (Luther’s Works 9:210)
The higher law is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Would you like to be captured and forced into a sexual relationship you didn't agree with? This law allows a man to marry a captive, but if he had a conscience, he wouldn't force this woman to remain against her will, or deny her food in her poor condition in exchange for sex or marriage. So reading the law, it allows something in the name of justice, but it also allows mercy if the Israelite chose to extend it. That was their test with the laws they had, as there were provisions for mercy mixed in. I think living the higher law is more ideal and definitely more charitable.
exactly where in the OT was this higher law taught? Seems like a commandment or law from a future dispensation. I seem to remember an eye-for-an-eye in OT, kill all the people, children, sheep & goats. Anyway not saying anything good about slaves in any way, but slaves and servants number 300 to Abraham, and I don't recall any condemnation. BTW if inviting one to be like a peer is a crime, it would surprise me, but forcing yourself on anyone seems wrong and I agree with that. Different time, different laws, different social structures.

User avatar
TheDuke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5862
Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by TheDuke »

I will be honest here. I find it hard to take Jacob directly from the words written. Somewhere along the way something was added. Not saying what. but consider that this was at the time they came to the new world. His nation and armies and family maybe numbered what 50'ish. One generation begun with maybe 20-25 and up to half left for Lamanites.... His statements of many wives or whatever, would be from this small clan. Like the statements of gold and silver and fine linens? Lets see, subsistence living at best at this point. Not that he is wrong, just somewhere along the path from Jacob, through 1000 years and Mormon and Joseph, the words got much more flowery and seemingly monumental. Below are verses from the same chapter about his Nephite nation (of 50, ok possibly if they had no infant mortality, 80).

12 And now behold, my brethren, this is the word which I declare unto you, that many of you have begun to search for gold, and for silver, and for all manner of precious ores, in the which this land, which is a bland of promise unto you and to your seed, doth abound most plentifully.

13 And the hand of providence hath smiled upon you most pleasingly, that you have obtained many riches; and because some of you have obtained more abundantly than that of your brethren ye are lifted up in the pride of your hearts, and wear stiff necks and high heads because of the costliness of your apparel, and persecute your brethren because ye suppose that ye are better than they.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Sarah »

TheDuke wrote: January 30th, 2023, 7:26 pm
Sarah wrote: January 30th, 2023, 3:59 pm
Luke wrote: January 30th, 2023, 3:31 pm
Shawn Henry wrote: January 30th, 2023, 1:35 pm Also, one of BY's wives does seem to be a captured war or trade victim,
Which God condoned:

Deuteronomy 21
10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

Martin Luther commenting on this:

“Here you see how the Law permitted soldiers not only to have several wives but even, where love demanded, a Gentile woman captured in war. For when he describes them as soldiers not newly married, it is plain that almost all the husbands who fought in the war were married no less than one year, and that these married soldiers were also allowed to take a Gentile woman to wife. What is more, if she proved unsatisfactory, it was lawful to dismiss her; but she was free to marry another man, and she could not be sold or made a prostitute. For it is a violation of civil uprightness to sell or prostitute one who has been humiliated.” (Luther’s Works 9:210)
The higher law is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Would you like to be captured and forced into a sexual relationship you didn't agree with? This law allows a man to marry a captive, but if he had a conscience, he wouldn't force this woman to remain against her will, or deny her food in her poor condition in exchange for sex or marriage. So reading the law, it allows something in the name of justice, but it also allows mercy if the Israelite chose to extend it. That was their test with the laws they had, as there were provisions for mercy mixed in. I think living the higher law is more ideal and definitely more charitable.
exactly where in the OT was this higher law taught? Seems like a commandment or law from a future dispensation. I seem to remember an eye-for-an-eye in OT, kill all the people, children, sheep & goats. Anyway not saying anything good about slaves in any way, but slaves and servants number 300 to Abraham, and I don't recall any condemnation. BTW if inviting one to be like a peer is a crime, it would surprise me, but forcing yourself on anyone seems wrong and I agree with that. Different time, different laws, different social structures.
In answer to your question, I'm in search of an article I read a while back that summarized ways in the Law of Moses a person who was a victim could choose to forgive the offender, rather than have justice served. But in the meantime, here's an article I came across that talks about the mercy required for the poor and needy. https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles ... -and-mercy

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Sarah »

TheDuke wrote: January 30th, 2023, 7:26 pm
Sarah wrote: January 30th, 2023, 3:59 pm
Luke wrote: January 30th, 2023, 3:31 pm
Shawn Henry wrote: January 30th, 2023, 1:35 pm Also, one of BY's wives does seem to be a captured war or trade victim,
Which God condoned:

Deuteronomy 21
10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

Martin Luther commenting on this:

“Here you see how the Law permitted soldiers not only to have several wives but even, where love demanded, a Gentile woman captured in war. For when he describes them as soldiers not newly married, it is plain that almost all the husbands who fought in the war were married no less than one year, and that these married soldiers were also allowed to take a Gentile woman to wife. What is more, if she proved unsatisfactory, it was lawful to dismiss her; but she was free to marry another man, and she could not be sold or made a prostitute. For it is a violation of civil uprightness to sell or prostitute one who has been humiliated.” (Luther’s Works 9:210)
The higher law is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Would you like to be captured and forced into a sexual relationship you didn't agree with? This law allows a man to marry a captive, but if he had a conscience, he wouldn't force this woman to remain against her will, or deny her food in her poor condition in exchange for sex or marriage. So reading the law, it allows something in the name of justice, but it also allows mercy if the Israelite chose to extend it. That was their test with the laws they had, as there were provisions for mercy mixed in. I think living the higher law is more ideal and definitely more charitable.
exactly where in the OT was this higher law taught? Seems like a commandment or law from a future dispensation. I seem to remember an eye-for-an-eye in OT, kill all the people, children, sheep & goats. Anyway not saying anything good about slaves in any way, but slaves and servants number 300 to Abraham, and I don't recall any condemnation. BTW if inviting one to be like a peer is a crime, it would surprise me, but forcing yourself on anyone seems wrong and I agree with that. Different time, different laws, different social structures.
Here's an article I just read that is really good, and talks about the laws surrounding slavery. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24739140
I had access from creating a account.

One of the things he points out is that slavery was a standard practice to societies of that time, and the fact that the Law required that you give your slave freedom in the seventh year meant that you should look upon your slave as free-person. The eye for an eye bit actually places limits on how much the offended could seek for repayment or retribution.

Juliet
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3701

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Juliet »

I totally agree with your blog, thank you. I agree that polygamy is adultery, and this doctrine has prevented the gospel from going to all the world. I have spoken to people in other nations.
"Have you ever heard of Mormon?"
"Oh, you mean the polygamists?"

We are a laughing stock.

The concept of polygamy teaches women they are not good enough for a man to be devoted to her, even though God puts it in the heart of a woman to want to have a husband and emotionally bond to him. How much pain after creating that emotional bond with a man but then to see that man devote himself to another woman? It causes the feeling of devaluation. To me, it is simply adultery, the type of construct that Doctrine and Covenants 50 warns us about.

Do any of you brothers have a daughter, and you want to encourage her to grow up to see herself as a potential eternal wife number 2? How can you teach her to value herself with this construct?

I understand the argument, what if men die in war?

Well, war is also a satanic doctrine. So, instead of making up exceptions to the rule; maybe we could just keep the rules. If we all followed the Holy Spirit we would all be lead to be with our eternal partner. Hence the teachings of the new and everlasting covenant. It's because of breaking this covenant, eternal marriage; that the hearts of the children were turned away from the fathers.

I actually once had a vision of a beautiful realm. I know it was a vision; because my mind is not capable of imagining the beauty that I saw. I saw beautiful light blue and white flowers in floral arrangements. It was a wedding feast, and couples were in line, arm in arm, going into the wedding feast. They were all made up of a couple of a man and wife. The women were especially excited and happy. I believe it was a sign that we are close to the wedding supper of the lamb. And it looks like, from that vision; is that those who are invited; are those who are prepared to live the celestial law; one man and one woman, devoted to each other.

User avatar
cab
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2986
Location: ♫ I am a Mormon! ♫ And... dang it... a Mormon just believes! ♫

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by cab »

Juliet wrote: January 30th, 2023, 9:43 pm The concept of polygamy teaches women they are not good enough for a man to be devoted to her, even though God puts it in the heart of a woman to want to have a husband and emotionally bond to him. How much pain after creating that emotional bond with a man but then to see that man devote himself to another woman? It causes the feeling of devaluation. To me, it is simply adultery, the type of construct that Doctrine and Covenants 50 warns us about.

Do any of you brothers have a daughter, and you want to encourage her to grow up to see herself as a potential eternal wife number 2? How can you teach her to value herself with this construct?

A polygamy sympathizer may cite you back to Eve’s original sin and say that women merit such a lot and deserve “pangs in childbearing; In pain shall you bear children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you." (Gen 3:16)

I would say, yes, that is correct. Eve condescended into a telestial world where the “natural man” treats her, even his wife, in such a way.
But Adam too DESERVES to toil by the sweat of his brow and have meager means to eat his bread all the days of his life…
BUT Christ came to save us from this fallen condition which we merit!!! He brings the death of the natural man and the birth of the spiritual man. He brings a new way and a new covenant!! And praise Him for it! FOR the man in Christ, loves his wife AS HE WAS FIRST LOVED by Christ and sees her as “the mother of all living” and loves her with the greatest love possible, even as Christ loved the church.

I too have a daughter. She is 10 years old. I love her with this love in which Christ loves the Church. I see her as Christ sees us. Embryos of the divine. She is royalty and the very epitome of virtue, and worthiness, and goodness. She will be the greatest divine gift bestowed to any man lucky enough to have her in this life. I would die for her and would die defending her honor against anyone who would treat her poorly. For so did Christ to us, while we were yet unworthy.

If any man is to “raise up seed” unto the Lord. It must be through loving women with this pure love, NOT by leaving broken hearts in our wake - as polygamy does - just ask Hagar.
Last edited by cab on January 31st, 2023, 4:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

Juliet
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3701

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Juliet »

cab wrote: November 19th, 2021, 7:41 am
Reluctant Watchman wrote: November 18th, 2021, 7:46 am I was a little astounded when I searched the forum for anything on Polygamy... and came up with nothing. Not even the word has ever been brought up in conversation. I was a little surprised, but I get it. It's not a very polarizing topic. I'm guessing since it was such a small part of church history that most people don't care to study it much these days.

Anyway... here's an essay that I published on the subject. NOT controversial at all, just a few of my opinions. ;)

(Polygamy = Adultery)
https://www.reluctantwatchman.com/polygamy-adultery

I believe there is a mystery in polygamy. Why has it popped up so often among the Lord’s covenant people? What is always the result - hardship? What can we learn?

Perhaps it goes back to Adam and Eve (just as Adam was beguiled to partake of a something forbidden so that “man may be”, so did Abraham and Jacob enter into unsanctioned unions. Perhaps it goes all the way back to the watchers (exalted beings who went into unsanctioned unions). David too acted as a watcher with Bathsheba and went in unto her and “partook. I wonder if God’s people partaking in polygamy over time have made them unwitting participants in a type of sacramental re-enactment of the original fall of the Garden…

Just my thoughts
That is exactly what I think happened. Eve was raped after stupidly putting trust in her brother the serpent. Because he was her brother, she stupidly didn't think he meant her any harm. And after he did harm her;, he told Adam - guess what, your wife isn't faithful to you! And not only that, but nor is God...because why would God create a helpmeet for you that isn't even faithful to you? And Adam ate the fruit of that serpent.... which became the beginning of hating mankind because we were unable to obey God. And so all of humanity keeps repeating this trauma. We were supposed to forgive each other and heal this broken covenant because it is made to be everlasting!..We were supposed to trust God knew what He was doing when He put us in the divine order of eternal marriage such that if something tried to destroy it; it would fail. Believing that his own wife didn't desire in her heart to be faithful to him was a lie from the serpent, a lie that caused Adam to fall. A lie over which humanity has yet to achieve victory.

I am so grateful there are good fathers out there like you that see the truth, that innocent women ought to be protected! Their honor defended!
Last edited by Juliet on January 31st, 2023, 8:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
tmac
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4526
Location: Reality

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by tmac »

Polygamy equals Adultery seems like a straight-forward proposition for those with a very simple, black and white perspective.

But let’s add a little more dimension and reason to the equation and see how it looks. First of all, what is the definition of adultery? Even under current LDS frameworks (which are about as anti plural marriage as it gets), sex between legally and lawfully married spouses is not adultery. So, in those cultures where polygamy is fully accepted and there is no law against it, is it adultery? How? Why?

Many of the Native American tribes practiced polygyny. Were they committing adultery? There is the interesting case of Comanche chief Nacona and Cynthia Parker, a white woman who had been abducted by the Comanches when she was very young and fully assimilated to Comanche life to the point that when she had the opportunity she chose her Comanche upbringing over her White heritage, and ended up dying of heartbreak when her white liberators separated her from her husband, sons, and “people.”

But in accordance with Comanche custom, chief Peta Nacona had eventually taken Cynthia, as a plural wife, and they had children (including Quanah Parker), and she loved her husband and Comanche way of life.

Was it adultery?

And what of the many, many Mormon women in the pioneer era (including one of my great grandmothers, when she was in her 50s, with grown children, but her husband died, so the husband of one of her grown daughters also married her, and took care of her the rest of her life) who were taken as plural wives purely for the purpose of taking care of them, and it is highly unlikely that there were ever any intimate physical relations involved. In the case of my family, my great-grandfather was in his 30s, with two younger wives when he also married one’s widowed mother, who was in her 50s. Was it adultery? Do you really think that he did it just so he could have more sex with a woman almost twice his age, even as they were all just fighting for survival, as they made their way across the plains, and settled in the West?

But your proposition seems to be that in God’s eyes Polygamy always equals Adultery, whereas that doesn’t even hold water through the eyes of well-reasoned mortal perspective, let alone God’s perspective.

But, like I said before, Echo-on.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15310
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

tmac wrote: January 31st, 2023, 8:04 am Polygamy equals Adultery seems like a straight-forward proposition for those with a very simple, black and white perspective.
You obviously haven’t read what I’ve said on the subject. The title of the thread is focused squarely upon what Brigham did. What he did was adultery. I did change the title of my essay to more accurately reflect what Joseph taught. “The Crime of Polygamy.”

I fully believed that the ancient prophets were given very specific dispensational directives. But we failed in our dispensation. Joseph condemned it in the harshest language, so did Hyrum and so did Emma.

User avatar
Gadianton Slayer
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6551
Location: A Sound Mind

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Gadianton Slayer »

tmac wrote: January 31st, 2023, 8:04 am Was it adultery?
Yes.

Your logic is flawed as it relies on the modern, dictionary definition of adultery which is simply sex with someone who isn’t your legal wife. Christ taught something much more profound:

“But I say unto you, That ​​whosoever ​​​looketh​ on a ​​​woman​ to ​​​lust after​ her hath committed ​​​adultery​ with her already in his heart.” (Matt 5:28)

Lust is sexual desire. You can’t tell me that plural marriages are made without some level of lust. Even if adultery isn’t the right term, I’ll just use what Christ said: “abominable”… or maybe what Hyrum said: “damn-fool doctrine.”

Scripture makes the significance of one wife pretty clear. I think anything seemingly pro-multiple wives has been altered from some form of adoption or caring for multiple women, and has nothing to do with sexual relationships.
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1 Timothy 3:2
If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

Titus 1:6
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;

Jacob 2:27
…for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father—that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them.

Jacob 3:5
Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation;

D&C 49:15

Locked