Polygamous Relationships

[johnpaul]

The Mormons in Utah are trying to get the law changed to allow polygomous marriages. As an Englishmen, I find this extroadinary and believe in one man and one woman relationships.
They call themselves Christians, where do they read that Polygamous relationshops are OK. Or am I just being a stupid Englishman?

 

[Swordman]

First of all, the mormons didn't invent polygyny. They perverted it by their founder taking little girls for wives.

Also, there are many men in Europe with plrual wives, so that's not something indigenous only to the West.

As to your question about where it's stated that polygyny is ok, well, where does the Bible disallow it, except in the lives of deacons and bishops? It certainly is unacceptable in the social scene of most Westernized cultures, and it obviously rubs against the grain of your own social programming, but the Bible isn't subject to social/cultural/personal bias.

The Lord actively gave men plural wives, so I would say that His actions speak loud volumes. Also, His Law made governing provision for men to have plural wives. That's not to say that we're under the Law today, but all of scripture gives ample evidence to the fact that the Lord wasn't against men having plural wives.

Oh, and in case anyone is wondering, I'm not a member of the mormon cult. I'm just trying to answer this OP in light of scripture rather than from the shifting sands of socially engineered theologies that govern the thinking of most professing believers today.

 

[johnpaul]

I appreciate your candidness and stand corrected. Thank you brother.

 

[Swordman]

No problem. I wasn't trying to "set you straight," per se, but rather sought to give you another perspective to which few ever give thought. I would never suggest modern men go out and seek plural wives. Most men can't handle having one wife, much less two or three.

What I find striking is that so few ever give much thought to their reckless, judgemental condemnation of polygyny without one thought to the fact that such condemnation is essentially a matter of their having attempted to usurp the Throne of Christ, and cast the Patriarchs of our faith into the pits of Hell.

One foaming-at-the-mouth feminist recently told me, on another forum board, that polygyny is the sin of adultery and fornication. When I asked her about the Patriarchs, she attempted to defend the idea that the Lord winked at their sins, but that He no longer does that today.

I must say that I find that kind of thinking very unsettling. She appears to believe in a god of her own making rather than the one who gave at least some of those men their plural wives. When asked where the scriptures ever hint at the idea that the Lord ever winked at sin, she tried to fall back upon the inferior defense of dispensationalism, even thought she wasn't a dispensationalist herself.

Winning at all costs, even at the expense to one's own credibility, seems to be the order of the day in many forums.

I hope that helps to greatly soften the blow to what you seem to have thought was a strike against you personally. It's strictly about perspective, not aggression.:wink:

 

[chris meads]

Jesus clearly points out that in the beginning there was but one man and one woman.
However god did allow more than one wife probably due to the circumstances of the day as well as his mysterious will but in every one,whether Abraham,Jacob,David there was but one they loved for there is but one and i sight the book of Tobit as historical evidence.

 

[stephen]

The Mormons in Utah are trying to get the law changed to allow polygomous marriages. As an Englishmen, I find this extroadinary and believe in one man and one woman relationships.
They call themselves Christians, where do they read that Polygamous relationshops are OK. Or am I just being a stupid Englishman?

If this is the case......they are reverting to type

The sect taught polygomy as a basic to its idea. Its founders had many wives..... As they sought to spread the sect worldwide their polygamy was tempered....of not stopped altogether.....in order to embrace the Western way of life which was based upon the Christian ethic of one husband and one wife.

The bible gives a comprehensive list of moral requirements set for those who would serve the Church of Jesus.

To mention the one relating to the O.P.

An Elder must be the husband of one wife..1 Timothy 3: 2. Titus 1: 6

God has never condoned polygamy. If an Elder in the Church divide his natural affections he will be also prone to divide his spiritual affections and commit adultery

 

[chris meads]

Have you read the old testament?

 

[ephesians4_23]

I live in mormon country in Idaho, US, and I must say that the differences between a believer in Christ and one in Joseph Smith are endless. Many people call themselves Christians but are not, and this is the case with mormonism.
As far as polygamy goes, I also believe that God created one man and one woman from the beginning, and this got perverted as humans attempted to 'be fruitful and multiply.'
What bothers me about polygamy is not the fact that men have multiple wives; but that young girls are raised in this environment and can be forced to accept a man for a husband that they do not want.
And mormonism is not the only religion that does this. Mohammad had many wives, and one of them was only six years old when he married her, and he consummated the marriage when she was nine, according to a website . I don't know if it's okay to post this website or not, so it may be deleted.
So what were the motives behind polygamy in Genesis? I basically believe, the 'be fruitful and multiply' was. We have multiplied on the earth, so what would be the motive for polygamy now?
However, in the mormon religion, it is more than just for physical reasons. According to people around Joseph Smith (he never publically announced this, it came out after he was killed), Joseph told his wife that God gave him a revelation that men were supposed to have more than one wife. And that in order to achieve godhood and gain their own planet, they had to have multiple wives. As the mormon's prophet, anything he said they had to accept as scripture. But don't forget the fact that this revelation came about after his wife caught him with another woman. He also "married" women who were already married to other mormon men, so it doesn't make sense (to me) to marry someone who would already be in their 'heaven'. This is easily proven by his tombstone, which lists his 'wives.'
But we should not believe prophets who had prophecies that don't come true, which Joseph had many. He said that Christ would return in his lifetime, that the mormon's temple in Missouri would be built in his lifetime (it's still not built), etc.

I hope this helps!

 

[Swordman]

Jesus clearly points out that in the beginning there was but one man and one woman.

Correction: Jesus pointed to the beginnings within the context of divorce. He never at any time made reference to the number of wives to which a man is limited. Not once. What you've done in your statement is perpetrate eisegetical interpretation rather than exegetical analysis.

However god did allow more than one wife probably due to the circumstances of the day as well as his mysterious will

God did more than merely allow it, He actively gave men plural wives as a blessing, as the prophet Nathan made abundantly clear in 2 Kings.

but in every one,whether Abraham,Jacob,David there was but one they loved for there is but one and i sight the book of Tobit as historical evidence.

Every one? Are you sure about that? What about Gideon? To which wife was he partial? What about Lamech and all the others who are never shown to have had one in particular wife that they allegedly loved more than all the rest?

These kinds of biblical over-generalizations seem to be overlooked by most when they touch upon a social/cultural sacred cow. Divorce among monogamists is rampant all around us today, and I have yet to hear anyone demand that monogamy is an utter failure. The carnage in the lives of so many children among all our divorcees goes unabated. Preachers will preach against plural wives, but nothing is ever said about all those divorced and remarried couples sitting in the congregation who are living in adultery with one another after having been divorced for unscriptural reasons.

Generally speaking, it's always easy to attack something that doesn't touch so close to home in our personal lives and the lives of those around us, and in the same breath condemn to Hell those who are already dead, and whom we have never known personally.

Abraham had several wives, and not one verse to my knowledge explicitly offers us a measure of his love for Sarah being above what he had for all the rest. She was originally his half sister, so there exists a distinctive dynamic in her case.

Jacob? Well, that's a different case given that he didn't initially get the wife he was after, so that one is a no-brainer.

David? Where are we told that David had one in particular that he loved above all the rest? I don't recall that one. Please enlighten us.

The bottom line is this: If God were opposed to men having plural wives, then He certainly wouldn't have given David two more wives in addition to the four he already had.

I hope that drives you back to the scriptures to see it all for yourself, and thus read the scriptures for what they actually say.

 

[Swordman]

I live in mormon country in Idaho, US, and I must say that the differences between a believer in Christ and one in Joseph Smith are endless. Many people call themselves Christians but are not, and this is the case with mormonism.

You are so right. I like how you worded that.:shade:

As far as polygamy goes, I also believe that God created one man and one woman from the beginning, and this got perverted as humans attempted to 'be fruitful and multiply.'

So are you saying that God Himself is guilty of having allegedly perverted His ideal when giving men plural wives? I dare say that His actions speak loud volumes to the fact that Adam's having been given one wife more closely addresses the issue of MONOGENISM than it does MONOGAMY-ONLY. That's purely a human construct, because nowhere does the word of God lay down such a blanket condemnation of polygyny. The disallowance appears only in the lives of those who are elders and deacons. Even God's Law made governing provision for men to have plural wives.

What bothers me about polygamy is not the fact that men have multiple wives; but that young girls are raised in this environment and can be forced to accept a man for a husband that they do not want.

This has happened many times within monogamy as well, but we don't condemn monogamy for that reason.

And mormonism is not the only religion that does this. Mohammad had many wives, and one of them was only six years old when he married her, and he consummated the marriage when she was nine, according to a website . I don't know if it's okay to post this website or not, so it may be deleted.

Islam is clearly a perversion of all that is holy and good.

So what were the motives behind polygamy in Genesis? I basically believe, the 'be fruitful and multiply' was. We have multiplied on the earth, so what would be the motive for polygamy now?

Has the Lord withdrawn His command to be fruitful and multiply in childbearing? If so, where?

But we should not believe prophets who had prophecies that don't come true, which Joseph had many.

Absolutely.:shock:

 

[johnpaul]

I'm in total agreement with ephesians4_23. Polygamy feels wrong in my heart. This is where the Holy Spirit speaks to me, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

 

[Swordman]

God has never condoned polygamy. If an Elder in the Church divide his natural affections he will be also prone to divide his spiritual affections and commit adultery

Hmm. I had never thought of it that way. What I had always heard is that an elder having plural wives would divert his attention from his function as an elder, and thus not be as effective as an elder. I had never heard that it might drive him to commit adultery. Could you explain this in more detail so that we may better understand the continuity in your reasoning?

 

[Chad]

Why did God allow polygamy / bigamy in the Bi

"Why did God allow polygamy / bigamy in the Bible?"
gotquestions.org

Answer: The question of polygamy in the Bible is an interesting one in that most people today view polygamy as immoral while the Bible nowhere explicitly condemns it. The first instance of polygamy / bigamy in the Bible was Lamech in Genesis 4:19: “Lamech married two women.” Several prominent men in the Old Testament were polygamists. Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and others all had multiple wives. In 2 Samuel 12:8, God, speaking through the prophet Nathan, said that if David’s wives and concubines were not enough, He would have given David even more. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (essentially wives of a lower status), according to 1 Kings 11:3. What are we to do with these instances of polygamy in the Old Testament? There are three questions that need to be answered: (1) Why did God allow polygamy in the Old Testament? (2) How does God view polygamy today? (3) Why did it change?

(1) Why did God allow polygamy in the Old Testament? The Bible does not specifically say why God allowed polygamy. The best anyone can give is “informed” speculation. There are a few key factors to consider. First, there have always been more women in the world than men. Current statistics show that approximately 50.5% of the world population are women, with men being 49.5%. Assuming the same percentages in ancient times, and multiplied by millions of people, there would be tens of thousands more women than men. Second, warfare in ancient times was especially brutal, with an incredibly high rate of fatality. This would have resulted in an even greater percentage of women to men. Third, due to patriarchal societies, it was nearly impossible for an unmarried woman to provide for herself. Women were often uneducated and untrained. Women relied on their fathers, brothers, and husbands for provision and protection. Unmarried women were often subjected to prostitution and slavery. Fourth, the significant difference between the number of women and men would have left many, many women in an undesirable situation.

So, it seems that God allowed polygamy to protect and provide for the women who could not find a husband otherwise. A man would take multiple wives and serve as the provider and protector of all of them. While definitely not ideal, living in a polygamist household was far better than the alternatives: prostitution, slavery, starvation, etc. In addition to the protection / provision factor, polygamy enabled a much faster expansion of humanity, fulfilling God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth” (Genesis 9:7). Men are capable of impregnating multiple women in the same time period, causing humanity to grow much faster than if each man was only able to produce one child each year.

(2) How does God view polygamy today? Even while allowing polygamy, the Bible presents monogamy as the plan which conforms most closely to God’s ideal for marriage. The Bible says that God’s original intention was for one man to be married to only one woman: “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife [not wives]; and they shall become one flesh [not multiple fleshes]” (Genesis 2:24). While Genesis 2:24 is describing what marriage is, rather than how many people are involved, the consistent use of the singular should be noted. In Deuteronomy 17:14-20, God says that the kings were not supposed to multiply wives (or horses or gold). While this cannot be interpreted as a command that the kings must be monogamous, it can be understood as declaring that having multiple wives causes problems. This can be clearly seen in the life of Solomon (1 Kings 11:3-4).

In the New Testament, 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6 give “the husband of one wife” in a list of qualifications for spiritual leadership. There is some debate as to what specifically this qualification means. Please read - What does the "husband of one wife" phrase in 1 Timothy 3:2 mean? Can a divorced man serve as a pastor, elder, or deacon?. The phrase could literally be translated “a one-woman man.” Whether or not this phrase is referring exclusively to polygamy, in no sense can a polygamist be considered a “one-woman man.” While these qualifications are specifically for positions of spiritual leadership, they should apply equally to all Christians. Should not all Christians be “above reproach ... temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money” (1 Timothy 3:2-4)? If we are called to be holy (1 Peter 1:16), and if these standards are holy for elders and deacons, then they are holy for all.

Ephesians 5:22-33 speaks of the relationship between husbands and wives. When referring to a husband (singular), it always also refers to a wife (singular). “For the husband is the head of the wife [singular] … He who loves his wife [singular] loves himself. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife [singular], and the two will become one flesh. . . . Each one of you also must love his wife [singular] as he loves himself, and the wife [singular] must respect her husband [singular].” While a somewhat parallel passage, Colossians 3:18-19, refers to husbands and wives in the plural, it is clear that Paul is addressing all the husbands and wives among the Colossian believers, not stating that a husband might have multiple wives. In contrast, Ephesians 5:22-33 is specifically describing the marital relationship. If polygamy were allowable, the entire illustration of Christ’s relationship with His body (the church) and the husband-wife relationship falls apart.

(3) Why did it change? It is not as much God disallowing something He previously allowed as it is God restoring marriage to His original intent. Even going back to Adam and Eve (not Eves), polygamy was not God’s original intent. God seems to have allowed polygamy to solve a problem, but it was God’s desire for the problem never to have occurred. In most modern societies, there is absolutely no need for polygamy. In most cultures today, women are able to provide for and protect themselves – removing the only “positive” aspect of polygamy. Further, most modern nations outlaw polygamy. According to Romans 13:1-7, we are to obey the laws that the government establishes. The only instance in which disobeying the law is permitted by Scripture is if the law contradicts God’s commands (Acts 5:29). Since God only allows for polygamy, and does not command it, a law prohibiting polygamy should be upheld.

Are there some instances in which the allowance for polygamy would still apply today? Perhaps…but it is unfathomable that there would be no other possible solution. Due to the “one flesh” aspect of marriage, the need for oneness and harmony in marriage, and the lack of any real need for polygamy, it is our firm belief that polygamy does not honor God and is not His design for marriage.

 

[Swordman]

Polygamy feels wrong in my heart.

That's a good reason to avoid it in your own life. I wish more people felt that way.

Perhaps we'd then have fewer people living serialized polygamy ..... given the vast number of divorcees who have remarried.

Generally speaking, if the Holy Spirit is allegedly informing people that polygyny is imperically wrong for all people, as I have been told before by others, then why isn't that same Spirit convicting all these remarried couples, who divorced for unscriptural reasons, of their sinful relationship? A second marriage license from City Hall doesn't make a marriage legitimate in the eyes of God, especially when such a union is antithetical to God's definition of marriage in Genesis 2.

 

[Swordman]

"Why did God allow polygamy / bigamy in the Bible?"
gotquestions.org

Answer: .....

I'd love to offer a rebuttal to a number of points in that article, but since the author isn't in these forums, I'll leave it alone.....

 

[Swordman]

There are a number of differing opinions about polygyny. The most militant of them is the belief that it's the sin of adultery and/or fornication. Those who hold to this extreme don't seem to have any desire to apply a little gray matter to such a belief, and its logical conclusion.

Such an extreme basically condemns the Patriarchs of the Christian faith to the pits of Hell. After all, the coming of Christ made no changes to His foundation of moral absolutes, therefore what's sin today was sin then, and vice versa.

I've used this topic to drive people back to the scriptures as an exercise for them to (some for the first time in their lives) take personal responsibility for what they choose to believe.

The plethora of socially engineered theologies, many of which are false theologies, that enjoy the manic defense of people who should know better, well, you sometimes have to violate their sensibilities to the extent that they will finally take action by removing the religious blinders off their eyes and see reality for what it is.

 

[johnpaul]

Patriarchs

.

Such an extreme basically condemns the Patriarchs of the Christian faith to the pits of Hell. After all, the coming of Christ made no changes to His foundation of moral absolutes, therefore what's sin today was sin then, and vice versa.

Yes, and some patriarchs comitted murder too. Shal God condone that or do we use some common sense about scripture?

 

[Swordman]

Yes, and some patriarchs comitted murder too. Shal God condone that or do we use some common sense about scripture?

Are you saying that the Lord sent the Patriarchs to go and commit murder?

After all, the Lord actively gave some of them plural wives.

I'm not saying that we all should run out and find an additional wife, but I'm somewhat weary of people bashing the Patriarchs when they're not here to defend themselves.

So, what exactly do you mean by comparing polygyny with murder? Are you now a legitimate accuser of God Himself?

 

[johnpaul]

More milk please

Are you saying that the Lord sent the Patriarchs to go and commit murder?

After all, the Lord actively gave some of them plural wives.

No brother, I'm not. What I'm saying is they did these things too (David and Moses) without Gods consent and were clearly forgiven. However this dosen't mean that God condones these actions; to be set up as an example of righteousness purely on their putative good conduct, as instruments of the Lords will in later times.

I would be more inclined to follow the examples of the Early Church Fathers (namely Peter, Paul et al...), on the basis that their example, in the New testament, abrogates the behaviour of the Patriarchs, in the Old testament. (Chad Please Help!)

However, I am a new Christian, on milk and way out of my depth. Please brother, don't be too hard on me, I still have much to learn!

 

[Swordman]

What I'm saying is they did these things too (David and Moses) without Gods consent and were clearly forgiven. However this dosen't mean that God condones these actions; to be set up as an example of righteousness purely on their putative good conduct, as instruments of the Lords will in later times.

This still doesn't prove the Lord was displeased with their having plural wives, given that He gave at least some of them the plural wives they had. Clearly, therefore, the Lord's actions speak otherwise to the idea that He was ever against polygyny. Clinging desparately to an assumed ideal is futile. Nowhere did the Lord at any time declare monogamy His ideal for all men. Men assume that from what Adam was given, which is inferior reasoning. Adam's having been given one wife from his side speaks more clearly of the Lord's desire for monogenism for all mankind. This seems to be completely overlooked by the masses since most sheeple rarely ever crack open their Bibles on their own.

The claim, therefore, that the Lord was displeased with the presence of polygyny is indefensible from the scriptures. Every defense I've ever seen or heard for the monogamy-only argument has been nothing more than eisegetical injections into the scripturs what the text nowhere supports. The anti-Patriarch gang seem to be very lacking in their desire to remain intellectually honest in their dealings with the word of God. They seem to pride themselves as being authorized to interpret key passages any way they desire, irregardless of what all the rest of scripture has to say on the matter.

I would be more inclined to follow the examples of the Early Church Fathers (namely Peter, Paul et al...), on the basis that their example, in the New testament, abrogates the behaviour of the Patriarchs, in the Old testament. (Chad Please Help!)

You seem very certain that each of them had only one wife. Once again, this is assumption spoon-fed to the masses from manic pulpits about something of which we're told nothing within the scriptures. I'm sure any one of us can rationalize our way through a number of points to our own satisfaction about those men, but then one is left with nothing but assumption on his side once he departs from what's actually written within the record.

Even Augustine, for a short time, until public pressure was brought to bear against him, wrote that that a plurality of wives is nowhere condemned within scripture, that polygyny was a valid marital form for some men.

You see, feminism isn't at all a new phenomenon. It was present in the garden before the fall, and it was feminism that incited many people to protest against what Augustine wrote, and so he recanted, but only slightly. What he wrote satisfied the masses, but his withdrawal from his position was only partial. He seems to have understood the full implications of condemning that marital form completely, and what that would mean in relation to the Patriarchs. Even God's Law made governing provision for men to have plural wives.....not that we're under the Law.

However, I am a new Christian, on milk and way out of my depth. Please brother, don't be too hard on me, I still have much to learn!

None of this should be hard for anyone. The difficulty you seem to be experiencing is the potential death of your socially engineereed sensibilities about this topic.

I fully agree with you that monogamy is the only marital form for you and most other men. I'm simply making the case that the polygynous marital form was never, at any time, condemned by the Lord for all men, and that for anyone to say otherwise is the error of injecting into scripture what clearly isn't there.

Condemnation of polygyny is the condemnation of the Patriarchs, which is something I would hope any true believer would avoid.

You needn't worry. You're on solid footing, with only a slight smear of sand under your feet originating from social/cultural whim and dogma.:wink: