What if Joseph was killed by his Jailhouse friends because of Nephi 4

[Shawn Henry]

Yet I’ve witnessed more happiness in plural marriage than in any other situation.

What you have witnessed doesn't change the statistical data that there is less.

Didn't the prophet Jacob describe this clearly, how it broke hearts and made them lose faith in their husbands and fathers.

The lord can't tell the prophet Jacob it is an abomination and then tell the next prophet it is a higher law. What kind of God can't his mind up?

[Baurak Ale]

Completely different things.

First, I’ve never met a happy homosexual.

Second, there is a difference between fleeting pleasure and the Spirit of God so clearly and genuinely present in polygamous situations.

You haven’t known enough homosexuals then. I know a lot in the theater world. Just like you’d argue that I don’t know enough polygamists.

At least homosexuals get to make a choice. A young girl brought up in a polygamist culture, however, seems to have far less autonomy - it’s all she knows.

And I don’t believe that’s the spirit of God “so clearly present” in polygamy.

Not sure how having the choice to marry an already married man is less autonomy than only being able to risk exaltation with unmarried men.

Perhaps the lack of autonomy you speak of is tied to FLDS practices as opposed generally to polygamy as a marital choice?

I mean that polygamist sects are all, by definition, fundamentalist sects.
And any woman raised in a fundamental system teaching that polygamy is the accepted way of life and necessary for exaltation has had their free will compromised.

I disagree. All fundamentalist sects are not oppressive, as you seem to imply. Is a woman’s free will compromised by being taught that monogamy is necessary for exaltation? If no, then you must apply that to polygamists too. Besides, even in polygamy someone must be the first wife. Which wife has less free will: the first or the second? (Again, I’m not talking about the FLDS who can be quite oppressive and controlling.)

[cab]

You haven’t known enough homosexuals then. I know a lot in the theater world. Just like you’d argue that I don’t know enough polygamists.

At least homosexuals get to make a choice. A young girl brought up in a polygamist culture, however, seems to have far less autonomy - it’s all she knows.

And I don’t believe that’s the spirit of God “so clearly present” in polygamy.

Not sure how having the choice to marry an already married man is less autonomy than only being able to risk exaltation with unmarried men.

Perhaps the lack of autonomy you speak of is tied to FLDS practices as opposed generally to polygamy as a marital choice?

I mean that polygamist sects are all, by definition, fundamentalist sects.
And any woman raised in a fundamental system teaching that polygamy is the accepted way of life and necessary for exaltation has had their free will compromised.

I disagree. All fundamentalist sects are not oppressive, as you seem to imply. Is a woman’s free will compromised by being taught that monogamy is necessary for exaltation? If no, then you must apply that to polygamists too. Besides, even in polygamy someone must be the first wife. Which wife has less free will: the first or the second? (Again, I’m not talking about the FLDS who can be quite oppressive and controlling.)

I disagree. Polygamy is naturally oppressive, inequitable, and unfair to women. Having to share your spouse is a system very very few would choose to do if given all the information.
To compare it to monogamy, which pairs a man and women who love each in fidelity is idiotic IMO as 95+% of woman would agree…

[Luke]

Yet I’ve witnessed more happiness in plural marriage than in any other situation.

What you have witnessed doesn't change the statistical data that there is less.

Didn't the prophet Jacob describe this clearly, how it broke hearts and made them lose faith in their husbands and fathers.

The lord can't tell the prophet Jacob it is an abomination and then tell the next prophet it is a higher law. What kind of God can't his mind up?

The statistical data which doesn’t exist.

It’s not an abomination. If it was, then Abraham and Jacob would not be in Heaven! And don’t start using the “it’s just proof of the miracle of forgiveness” line because they never repented and continue taking more wives until they died!!

The founders of the House of Israel, the Holy Men whom God made His covenants with were polygamists, and yet we hear not one single word of rebuke from Jehovah.

These are facts.

[Luke]

To compare it to monogamy, which pairs a man and women who love each in fidelity is idiotic IMO and I’m done entertaining the idea.

Don’t entertain the idea then.

But you’re wrong.

Although you’re right in one way. Monogamy can’t be compared to the infinitely higher and superior law that is not just polygamy as the world would have it, but Celestial Plural Marriage aka the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, aka the Marriage of the GODS.

[cab]

Yet I’ve witnessed more happiness in plural marriage than in any other situation.

What you have witnessed doesn't change the statistical data that there is less.

Didn't the prophet Jacob describe this clearly, how it broke hearts and made them lose faith in their husbands and fathers.

The lord can't tell the prophet Jacob it is an abomination and then tell the next prophet it is a higher law. What kind of God can't his mind up?

The statistical data which doesn’t exist.

It’s not an abomination. If it was, then Abraham and Jacob would not be in Heaven! And don’t start using the “it’s just proof of the miracle of forgiveness” line because they never repented and continue taking more wives until they died!!

The founders of the House of Israel, the Holy Men whom God made His covenants with were polygamists, and yet we hear not one single word of rebuke from Jehovah.

These are facts.

We also don’t see him command it or condone it. These men also owned slaves. To better emulate them should we own slaves too?

[FrankOne]

If Joseph actually did teach them polygamy, I still contend that it was never from God

The hatred of polygamy on this forum makes me sad.

it's going to be very entertaining when prophecies of the book of Isaiah manifest. Seven women beg a man to be included in his family in a time when men are scarce. If the current church leadership is in place, and all of these here that say "polygamy is evil' , then... They will be shouting "BLASPHEMER!" "Take your children and go to hell where you belong" "Get thee hence Satan!". Quite a scene to imagine. Ancient Jews, go figure.

24And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty.
25Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war.
1And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

[cab]

To compare it to monogamy, which pairs a man and women who love each in fidelity is idiotic IMO and I’m done entertaining the idea.

Don’t entertain the idea then.

But you’re wrong.

Although you’re right in one way. Monogamy can’t be compared to the infinitely higher and superior law that is not just polygamy as the world would have it, but Celestial Plural Marriage aka the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, aka the Marriage of the GODS.

Maybe curb your enthusiasm a bit

[CuriousThinker]

Honest question- Are there any positive examples of plural marriage in scripture? I only recall heartache and jealousy. Names given to children at times even reflected that there was a lack of affection and hierarchy of wives. I don't recall any positive examples.

[Baurak Ale]

Not sure how having the choice to marry an already married man is less autonomy than only being able to risk exaltation with unmarried men.

Perhaps the lack of autonomy you speak of is tied to FLDS practices as opposed generally to polygamy as a marital choice?

I mean that polygamist sects are all, by definition, fundamentalist sects.
And any woman raised in a fundamental system teaching that polygamy is the accepted way of life and necessary for exaltation has had their free will compromised.

I disagree. All fundamentalist sects are not oppressive, as you seem to imply. Is a woman’s free will compromised by being taught that monogamy is necessary for exaltation? If no, then you must apply that to polygamists too. Besides, even in polygamy someone must be the first wife. Which wife has less free will: the first or the second? (Again, I’m not talking about the FLDS who can be quite oppressive and controlling.)

I disagree. Polygamy is naturally oppressive, inequitable, and unfair to women. Having to share your spouse is a system very very few would choose to do if given all the information.
To compare it to monogamy, which pairs a man and women who love each in fidelity is idiotic IMO as 95+% of woman would agree…

‘Very very few would choose to do.’ That’s scriptural, you know—and many have been called too. I’m happy to report my wife is one of the willing.

But, no, polygamy is not naturally oppressive. That’s an opinion, and you’re entitled to it, but it’s not fact and no where remotely biblical.

[Alexander]

If Joseph actually did teach them polygamy, I still contend that it was never from God

The hatred of polygamy on this forum makes me sad.

Cry

[Alexander]

Monogamy can’t be compared to the infinitely higher and superior law that is not just polygamy as the world would have it, but Celestial Plural Marriage aka the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, aka the Marriage of the GODS.

Polygamy can’t comprehend to the way more infinitely higher and superior law — that is not just sodomy as the world would have it but Celestial Uranism aka the New New Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, aka the marriage of the higher GODS.

[cab]

I mean that polygamist sects are all, by definition, fundamentalist sects.
And any woman raised in a fundamental system teaching that polygamy is the accepted way of life and necessary for exaltation has had their free will compromised.

I disagree. All fundamentalist sects are not oppressive, as you seem to imply. Is a woman’s free will compromised by being taught that monogamy is necessary for exaltation? If no, then you must apply that to polygamists too. Besides, even in polygamy someone must be the first wife. Which wife has less free will: the first or the second? (Again, I’m not talking about the FLDS who can be quite oppressive and controlling.)

I disagree. Polygamy is naturally oppressive, inequitable, and unfair to women. Having to share your spouse is a system very very few would choose to do if given all the information.
To compare it to monogamy, which pairs a man and women who love each in fidelity is idiotic IMO as 95+% of woman would agree…

‘Very very few would choose to do.’ That’s scriptural, you know—and many have been called too. I’m happy to report my wife is one of the willing.

But, no, polygamy is not naturally oppressive. That’s an opinion, and you’re entitled to it, but it’s not fact and no where remotely biblical.

Just cause a woman can keep sweet, it doesn’t mean she’s not tragically oppressed. I believe it’s the pure in heart that are most prone to subject themselves to this, thinking it to be right, which makes it even more heartbreaking. The pure in heart are the “little ones” most vulnerable to unrighteous dominion.
I believe polygamy is unsupported biblically and outright condemned Book of Mormonically.
And sorry if I believe it’s a weak argument to label yourself with “many called few chosen” moniker…. That can and is used to justify all sorts of cultish practices - including polygamy.

[Shawn Henry]

not one single word of rebuke from Jehovah.

We don't know that he didn't rebuke them. He didn't speak one way or the other. Matter of fact, the only time we know for sure what the Lord's thoughts are on the subject is in Jacob 2. You say it's not an abomination. Are you saying you think the prophet Jacob got it wrong?

If the brass plates had hinted that Abraham was a polygamist, then the Nephites would have used him as an excuse, but they didn't. They only used David and Soloman. It's quite probable that the brass plates exonerate Abraham.

You don't have to respond, I know we beat this subject to death. Too much passion on both sides.

[Shawn Henry]

And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

The women say that, but there's no indication what the man says in return.

That verse is hard to understand, I admit. If these women can provide food and clothing for themselves already, what is it about having the name of the man that is helpful?

[Mamabear]

And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

The women say that, but there's no indication what the man says in return.

That verse is hard to understand, I admit. If these women can provide food and clothing for themselves already, what is it about having the name of the man that is helpful?

This scripture has reference to the previous chapter where the daughters of Zion are cursed for their worldliness. Their cursings include baldness, loss of family (husbands), burning etc.
at the end of the chapter it says

“Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war.
And her gates shall lament and mourn; and she being desolate shall sit upon the ground.” Isaiah 3:25-26

With their husbands gone, it sounds like they my be desperate to find someone to care for them. It seems that they might beg the righteous men who are left.

“And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take
away our reproach.” 4:1

After the cursings, the daughters of Zion will repent and be purged and cleansed.

“When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning.”
Isaiah 4:4

[cab]

And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

The women say that, but there's no indication what the man says in return.

That verse is hard to understand, I admit. If these women can provide food and clothing for themselves already, what is it about having the name of the man that is helpful?

And since when does Isaiah speak literally anyways?

I'm pretty sure that when Isaiah speaks of seven women in the last days, he's speaking similarly to John the Revelator. After all, Nephi pretty much indicates that they've all had the same vision...

In Isaiah 4 verse 1, the seven women, then, may be a literary metaphor to the seven CHURCHES which find themselves in a desolate condition. Remember how in the previous chapter the haughty daughters of Zion (which aren't just women) find themselves cursed and exposed and have lost all their glory... In short, ALL the churches have become polluted (see 2 Nephi 28, Mormon 8)... Then finding themselves desolate and desperate, the women/daughters of Zion/churches finally begin to call on the BRIDEGROOM to take away their reproach... So desperate are they to TAKE UPON THEMSELVES HIS NAME at they present an offer similar to the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:22-28 (desiring just the scraps of the Master's table) or that of the prodigal son when returning to his Father (offering to just be one of the servants)... Nonetheless, their humble hearts now appear acceptable before the Lord because starting in the very next verse and throughout the chapter, "the filth of the daughters of Zion" begins to be cleansed and the Holy city is FINALLY redeemed.... The barren woman finally produces spiritual fruit…. spiritually begotten sons and daughters of God.

[John Tavner]

And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

The women say that, but there's no indication what the man says in return.

That verse is hard to understand, I admit. If these women can provide food and clothing for themselves already, what is it about having the name of the man that is helpful?

And since when does Isaiah speak literally anyways?

I'm pretty sure that when Isaiah speaks of seven women in the last days, he's speaking similarly to John the Revelator. After all, Nephi pretty much indicates that they've all had the same vision...

In Isaiah 4 verse 1, the seven women, then, may be a literary metaphor to the seven CHURCHES which find themselves in a desolate condition. Remember how in the previous chapter the haughty daughters of Zion (which aren't just women) find themselves cursed and exposed and have lost all their glory... In short, ALL the churches have become polluted (see 2 Nephi 28, Mormon 8)... Then finding themselves desolate and desperate, the women/daughters of Zion/churches finally begin to call on the BRIDEGROOM to take away their reproach... So desperate are they to TAKE UPON THEMSELVES HIS NAME at they present an offer similar to the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:22-28 (desiring just the scraps of the Master's table) or that of the prodigal son when returning to his Father (offering to just be one of the servants)... Nonetheless, their humble hearts now appear acceptable before the Lord because starting in the very next verse and throughout the chapter, "the filth of the daughters of Zion" begins to be cleansed and the Holy city is FINALLY redeemed.... The barren woman finally produces spiritual fruit…. spiritually begotten sons and daughters of God.

That may be the best explanation I've heard of that yet.

[FrankOne]

And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

The women say that, but there's no indication what the man says in return.

That verse is hard to understand, I admit. If these women can provide food and clothing for themselves already, what is it about having the name of the man that is helpful?

My translation is "We will take care of our own needs". Anciently, the women became the burden of the husband (and generally up until the 1950's). They are saying that they won't burden him. As far as what they are seeking, there is a saying , "In the end times the only thing that will stand between bad men and a woman will be a good man"

And, since you chose to entertain this scripture, I would pose the question to you, Shawn Henry, in a time where men are scarce, women and women with children seek protection from you and ask to be called by your name, will you call them blasphemers and turn them into the street? I use that term because I think I recall that you labeled polygamy "blasphemy" in these discussions.

You "wonder' what the men said in return to the women as if good men denied them. Are you implying that you would turn them away for their blasphemy?

[FrankOne]

And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

The women say that, but there's no indication what the man says in return.

That verse is hard to understand, I admit. If these women can provide food and clothing for themselves already, what is it about having the name of the man that is helpful?

And since when does Isaiah speak literally anyways?

I'm pretty sure that when Isaiah speaks of seven women in the last days, he's speaking similarly to John the Revelator. After all, Nephi pretty much indicates that they've all had the same vision...

In Isaiah 4 verse 1, the seven women, then, may be a literary metaphor to the seven CHURCHES which find themselves in a desolate condition. Remember how in the previous chapter the haughty daughters of Zion (which aren't just women) find themselves cursed and exposed and have lost all their glory... In short, ALL the churches have become polluted (see 2 Nephi 28, Mormon 8)... Then finding themselves desolate and desperate, the women/daughters of Zion/churches finally begin to call on the BRIDEGROOM to take away their reproach... So desperate are they to TAKE UPON THEMSELVES HIS NAME at they present an offer similar to the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:22-28 (desiring just the scraps of the Master's table) or that of the prodigal son when returning to his Father (offering to just be one of the servants)... Nonetheless, their humble hearts now appear acceptable before the Lord because starting in the very next verse and throughout the chapter, "the filth of the daughters of Zion" begins to be cleansed and the Holy city is FINALLY redeemed.... The barren woman finally produces spiritual fruit…. spiritually begotten sons and daughters of God.

I agree that Isaiah is typically very symbolic. Yet, reading the following is as specific and literal as any I have found in any scripture and is as prophetic of this day as any that I've read. I personally can't see any room for symbolism. The reasoning before 4:1 in 3:25 specifically gives the reason for the higher population of women to men. In all the history of the world during wartime, this scenario has been repeated.

I would appreciate your comments.

chapters 3-4

5And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable.

12As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

16Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet:

17Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will discover their secret parts.

18In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon, 19The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, 20The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings, 21The rings, and nose jewels, 22The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins, 23The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails.

24And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty.

25Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war.

1And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

2In that day shall the branch of the LORD be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel. 3And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem: 4When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning. 5And the LORD will create upon every dwelling place of mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night: for upon all the glory shall be a defence. 6And there shall be a tabernacle for a shadow in the daytime from the heat, and for a place of refuge, and for a covert from storm and from rain.

[cab]

And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

The women say that, but there's no indication what the man says in return.

That verse is hard to understand, I admit. If these women can provide food and clothing for themselves already, what is it about having the name of the man that is helpful?

And since when does Isaiah speak literally anyways?

I'm pretty sure that when Isaiah speaks of seven women in the last days, he's speaking similarly to John the Revelator. After all, Nephi pretty much indicates that they've all had the same vision...

In Isaiah 4 verse 1, the seven women, then, may be a literary metaphor to the seven CHURCHES which find themselves in a desolate condition. Remember how in the previous chapter the haughty daughters of Zion (which aren't just women) find themselves cursed and exposed and have lost all their glory... In short, ALL the churches have become polluted (see 2 Nephi 28, Mormon 8)... Then finding themselves desolate and desperate, the women/daughters of Zion/churches finally begin to call on the BRIDEGROOM to take away their reproach... So desperate are they to TAKE UPON THEMSELVES HIS NAME at they present an offer similar to the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:22-28 (desiring just the scraps of the Master's table) or that of the prodigal son when returning to his Father (offering to just be one of the servants)... Nonetheless, their humble hearts now appear acceptable before the Lord because starting in the very next verse and throughout the chapter, "the filth of the daughters of Zion" begins to be cleansed and the Holy city is FINALLY redeemed.... The barren woman finally produces spiritual fruit…. spiritually begotten sons and daughters of God.

That may be the best explanation I've heard of that yet.

This came to me pretty clearly while listening to this:
https://youtu.be/g41xs4Q7xhE

[Baurak Ale]

I disagree. All fundamentalist sects are not oppressive, as you seem to imply. Is a woman’s free will compromised by being taught that monogamy is necessary for exaltation? If no, then you must apply that to polygamists too. Besides, even in polygamy someone must be the first wife. Which wife has less free will: the first or the second? (Again, I’m not talking about the FLDS who can be quite oppressive and controlling.)

I disagree. Polygamy is naturally oppressive, inequitable, and unfair to women. Having to share your spouse is a system very very few would choose to do if given all the information.
To compare it to monogamy, which pairs a man and women who love each in fidelity is idiotic IMO as 95+% of woman would agree…

‘Very very few would choose to do.’ That’s scriptural, you know—and many have been called too. I’m happy to report my wife is one of the willing.

But, no, polygamy is not naturally oppressive. That’s an opinion, and you’re entitled to it, but it’s not fact and no where remotely biblical.

Just cause a woman can keep sweet, it doesn’t mean she’s not tragically oppressed. I believe it’s the pure in heart that are most prone to subject themselves to this, thinking it to be right, which makes it even more heartbreaking. The pure in heart are the “little ones” most vulnerable to unrighteous dominion.
I believe polygamy is unsupported biblically and outright condemned Book of Mormonically.
And sorry if I believe it’s a weak argument to label yourself with “many called few chosen” moniker…. That can and is used to justify all sorts of cultish practices - including polygamy.

I get it. We’re all in the same boat as far as scriptural data points are concerned: we have to reconcile what the Bible and D&C 132 says with what the Book of Mormon says. It’s not an easy question.

Pro polygamists don’t have to speculate about what isn't written in the Bible and don’t have to disbelieve Mary Fielding Smith and tens of thousands of other saints (all of whom agree with each other); on the other hand, anti polygamists don’t have to disbelieve Emma Smith and a thousand other apostates (though not all of them agree).

Pro polygamists don’t have to question the provenance of the Doctrine and Covenants; pro monogamists don’t have to question the whether God can add to his word.

Pro polygamists are happy letting the God of Israel be the one who defines right and wrong, virtue and vice; pro monogamists are happy deciding for themselves what is right and wrong, virtue and vice.

Perhaps the divide is so wide now that no argument will ever convince one side or the other anymore, but I would rather be on the side that confronts truth instead of entrenching into self-assumed purity, so called. And what’s more, I see repeatedly that those who turn the heel on the doctrine of plural marriage for good in turn reject the ordinances of the temple. Be prayerful and careful.

[cab]

And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

The women say that, but there's no indication what the man says in return.

That verse is hard to understand, I admit. If these women can provide food and clothing for themselves already, what is it about having the name of the man that is helpful?

And since when does Isaiah speak literally anyways?

I'm pretty sure that when Isaiah speaks of seven women in the last days, he's speaking similarly to John the Revelator. After all, Nephi pretty much indicates that they've all had the same vision...

In Isaiah 4 verse 1, the seven women, then, may be a literary metaphor to the seven CHURCHES which find themselves in a desolate condition. Remember how in the previous chapter the haughty daughters of Zion (which aren't just women) find themselves cursed and exposed and have lost all their glory... In short, ALL the churches have become polluted (see 2 Nephi 28, Mormon 8)... Then finding themselves desolate and desperate, the women/daughters of Zion/churches finally begin to call on the BRIDEGROOM to take away their reproach... So desperate are they to TAKE UPON THEMSELVES HIS NAME at they present an offer similar to the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:22-28 (desiring just the scraps of the Master's table) or that of the prodigal son when returning to his Father (offering to just be one of the servants)... Nonetheless, their humble hearts now appear acceptable before the Lord because starting in the very next verse and throughout the chapter, "the filth of the daughters of Zion" begins to be cleansed and the Holy city is FINALLY redeemed.... The barren woman finally produces spiritual fruit…. spiritually begotten sons and daughters of God.

I agree that Isaiah is typically very symbolic. Yet, reading the following is as specific and literal as any I have found in any scripture and is as prophetic of this day as any that I've read. I personally can't see any room for symbolism. The reasoning before 4:1 in 3:25 specifically gives the reason for the higher population of women to men. In all the history of the world during wartime, this scenario has been repeated.

I would appreciate your comments.

chapters 3-4

5And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable.

12As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

16Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet:

17Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will discover their secret parts.

18In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon, 19The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, 20The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings, 21The rings, and nose jewels, 22The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins, 23The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails.

24And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty.

25Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war.

1And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

2In that day shall the branch of the LORD be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel. 3And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem: 4When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning. 5And the LORD will create upon every dwelling place of mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night: for upon all the glory shall be a defence. 6And there shall be a tabernacle for a shadow in the daytime from the heat, and for a place of refuge, and for a covert from storm and from rain.

I believe it’s layered symbolism. In the end times, while there may be warfare and carnage and famine in the physical world, it will be paralleled by a mutilation of the Word and Path of God and a famine of the Holy Ghost. While the
mighty men might be hewn down in the physical, those called after Gods order will also be an endangered species. The women may have barren wombs, but so will there a barrenness of those being begotten and quickened by the Holy Ghost.

Again, like it always does, it comes down to how the Lord raises a righteous people unto Him in such times. With Adam,
Noah, the Jaredites, the Nephites, and all through time he never needed polygamy. He needed those who would have Jehovah / Yeshuah as their Bridegroom. He needs a people who would come to Him and be sealed His with an everlasting covenant. He needs a church and a Bride who will allow Him to adorn them with the beautiful rainment of his perfect attributes and accept the gifts he stands waiting to shower upon her. The is how He raises seed unto Him…. As soon as a people puts down their weapons of rebellion and stops whoring after other prospective suitors for their attention, then He will take away their reproach and call them by His name.

[cab]

I disagree. Polygamy is naturally oppressive, inequitable, and unfair to women. Having to share your spouse is a system very very few would choose to do if given all the information.
To compare it to monogamy, which pairs a man and women who love each in fidelity is idiotic IMO as 95+% of woman would agree…

‘Very very few would choose to do.’ That’s scriptural, you know—and many have been called too. I’m happy to report my wife is one of the willing.

But, no, polygamy is not naturally oppressive. That’s an opinion, and you’re entitled to it, but it’s not fact and no where remotely biblical.

Just cause a woman can keep sweet, it doesn’t mean she’s not tragically oppressed. I believe it’s the pure in heart that are most prone to subject themselves to this, thinking it to be right, which makes it even more heartbreaking. The pure in heart are the “little ones” most vulnerable to unrighteous dominion.
I believe polygamy is unsupported biblically and outright condemned Book of Mormonically.
And sorry if I believe it’s a weak argument to label yourself with “many called few chosen” moniker…. That can and is used to justify all sorts of cultish practices - including polygamy.

I get it. We’re all in the same boat as far as scriptural data points are concerned: we have to reconcile what the Bible and D&C 132 says with what the Book of Mormon says. It’s not an easy question.

Pro polygamists don’t have to speculate about what isn't written in the Bible and don’t have to disbelieve Mary Fielding Smith and tens of thousands of other saints (all of whom agree with each other); on the other hand, anti polygamists don’t have to disbelieve Emma Smith and a thousand other apostates (though not all of them agree).

Pro polygamists don’t have to question the provenance of the Doctrine and Covenants; pro monogamists don’t have to question the whether God can add to his word.

Pro polygamists are happy letting the God of Israel be the one who defines right and wrong, virtue and vice; pro monogamists are happy deciding for themselves what is right and wrong, virtue and vice.

Perhaps the divide is so wide now that no argument will ever convince one side or the other anymore, but I would rather be on the side that confronts truth instead of entrenching into self-assumed purity, so called. And what’s more, I see repeatedly that those who turn the heel on the doctrine of plural marriage for good in turn reject the ordinances of the temple. Be prayerful and careful.

Well that’s a very belittling view you have towards those who disagree with you on this topic. I’m sure I’ve said some harsh things too. I’m sorry. It’s a charged topic…

But, how about we go this route instead…

We all have a messy history we’ve inherited… We’re all doing our very best to pick up the pieces and follow the dictates of our conscience and what we believe the Lord has taught us. As each of us has sought Him (as we each have) we’ve found ourselves sacrificing personal relationships, comforts of life, and cherished traditions while undergoing one paradigm shift after another. The fact that we’ve each come to such very different hypotheses and conclusions (despite our best efforts to lay down our own preconceptions on the altar of truth) just goes to show that our ways, which are still MAN’S ways, are not His ways… Let us all pray for the day when the Lord will come to us and put down all contention and set us all down together upon the only sure foundation of His glorious rock and gospel…

[Shawn Henry]

I would pose the question to you, Shawn Henry, in a time where men are scarce, women and women with children seek protection from you and ask to be called by your name, will you call them blasphemers and turn them into the street? I use that term because I think I recall that you labeled polygamy "blasphemy" in these discussions.

You "wonder' what the men said in return to the women as if good men denied them. Are you implying that you would turn them away for their blasphemy?

You can just call me by my first name, but I'm still not sure we know the interpretation of this verse.

I'll feed my ten year food supply to all women and children, but I'm not sticking any of them.

What is this reproach they are under?

They can all have my name, as long as they understand I'm a firm believer in Jacob chapter 2.