Polygamous Relationships

[johnpaul]

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:

My brother Swordsman, here is where you mistake what I am saying: I do not condemn the patriarchs, only this particular aspect of their behaviour. I feel that as Christians, we shoud be at least seeking to help implement Gods 'ideal' here on earth, as it is in heaven. Gods ideal is not polygamy, but one man and one woman... Only. Not man and man, woman and woman. not a man and some women, nor a woman and some men; but One man and One woman.

This is not socially engineered dogma but an attempt to bring about God's ideal. (No matter how improbable that may be). As Christians, we should be striving for this ideal not accepting that we can't do it because we're too weak. Anything less may be acceptable, but dosen't show the fruits of the Spirit in our lives.

 

[Swordman]

My brother Swordsman, here is where you mistake what I am saying: I do not condemn the patriarchs, only this particular aspect of their behaviour.

Understood.

Now, I have a question for you concerning your statement:

Given that it was the Lord who gave some of them their plural wives, why would you want to condemn a portion of their lives for something the Lord Himself actively GAVE to them? You seem to be avoiding this from my other posts, so I'm asking it directly.

I feel that as Christians, we shoud be at least seeking to help implement Gods 'ideal' here on earth, as it is in heaven. Gods ideal is not polygamy, but one man and one woman... Only.

And where did He state that?

I agree that it's His ideal for most men, but where did He state that it was His ideal for ALL men....given that He actively gave some men plural wives?

This is not socially engineered dogma but an attempt to bring about God's ideal.

Ok. Let me ask you this:

If polygyny were a socially acceptable marital form in both Europe and the West, as it is in most other countries around the world, do you suppose you would still have such strong emotion for what Adam had as an alleged ideal for all men?

As Christians, we should be striving for this ideal not accepting that we can't do it because we're too weak. Anything less may be acceptable, but dosen't show the fruits of the Spirit in our lives.

I don't consider any mortal man qualified to judge the Spirit and its fruits in another man on the basis of how many wives he may have.

How many of the men in your church organization, those who have been divorced for unscriptural reasons and then remarried into an adulterous relationship with another woman, do you go about revealing to them how grievous is their sin? Do you say anything to them.....anything at all? After all, they're guilty of serial polygyny.

Do you talk to them about God's ideal from the very beginning?

Jesus did.

Do you?

Please understand that I'm not saying that this is a direct comparison with polygyny, but I am holding this up as an acid test of just how prejudiced you are in your judgements and in speaking out against what you preceive as being wrong.

Just some questions and food for thought.....

 

[nEw.CrEaTiOn]

Well, here's the thing. I live in utah, so I can honestly say I think that the world has a skewed view of utah and the mormons. From your post earlier, I noticed you said "they call themselves christians". Yes they do, but they are NOT christians. I'm not in any way trying to bash a religion, I am just speaking the truth. The Bible will back me up on this. And living in utah....lol...if anyone has any questions on those beliefs, I know them very well...so u can pm me if you want.

Another point is that the majority of LDS dont agree with polygamy. However, the FLDS (former latter day saints) hold true to their "old" traditions. Many "mormon camps" were evacuated because of underage marriages. and some went to prison. So the federal gov is taking care of that problem, and I dont imagine it would become legal anytime soon. Polygamy isnt the problem, underage polygamy is the problem.

I am in no way condoning polygamy, and I dont like it. However, God did "ok" it in the Bible. So I cannot preach it as a sin, just socially unacceptable now. If you have any questions about polygamy in utah or the mormon church, I'd be glad to answer them. =) I'm just a pm away. lol

 

[johnpaul]

serial polygamy

Another point is that the majority of LDS dont agree with polygamy. However, the FLDS (former latter day saints) hold true to their "old" traditions. Many "mormon camps" were evacuated because of underage marriages. and some went to prison. So the federal gov is taking care of that problem, and I dont imagine it would become legal anytime soon. Polygamy isnt the problem, underage polygamy is the problem.

Hi new creation,

Polygamy is the problem because it gives Satan a foothold. Jesus Christ's ideal for us is one man, one woman. Although this is sometimes difficult for practical reasons, and God being loving wants to help us by sometimes allowing us to do things that are not ideal.
This should not stop us from trying to seek the ideal and to try to keep His will here on earth as it is in heaven.


Underage marriage is the thick end of a wedge beginning with allowing polygamy. Enters Satan, then desires rather than God's will be done.


To answer my friend Swordsman, 'serial polygamy', presumably where a person repeatedly marries and divorces, is a contradiction in terms. Polygamy can never be one man and one woman at any point otherwise, it is monogamy.:wink:

 

[Swordman]

Well, here's the thing. I live in utah, so I can honestly say I think that the world has a skewed view of utah and the mormons. From your post earlier, I noticed you said "they call themselves christians". Yes they do, but they are NOT christians.

Oh, they're christians alright, but not the same type as those of us who follow the Christ Jesus portrayed within the Bible. They follow a Jesus of Joseph Smith's making, which is a nonexistent christ. Mormonism is, therefore, a false religion.

I'm not in any way trying to bash a religion,

There's a difference between bashing a religion and calling a spade a spade.

Another point is that the majority of LDS dont agree with polygamy.

That's a matter of conditioning. They're told that they will disagree with it, and so they do. There are elements of polygamy with which I too strongly disagree. That's why I've focused strictly upon polygyny. Polygamy is a term that also enompasses polyandry, which is sinful because it falls well within the boundaries of God's definition for adultery.

Many "mormon camps" were evacuated because of underage marriages. and some went to prison. So the federal gov is taking care of that problem, and I dont imagine it would become legal anytime soon. Polygamy isnt the problem, underage polygamy is the problem.

Agreed.

....God did "ok" it in the Bible.

He not only allowed polygyny and governed it, He actively gave plural wives to men, AND He identified Himself with polygyny when having the sisters Judah and Israel as His wives (plural).

So I cannot preach it as a sin, just socially unacceptable now.

Very true. Fortunately, social acceptance doesn't govern morality.

Strangely, people seem to always think of the mormons when addressing the issue of polygyny, as if they're the ones who invented it. That's one among many phenomenon we can point at as being a clear indicator of the existence of the sheeple syndrome, which pretty much characterizes the masses.

It's my contention that polygyny was not at all a desparaging trait in the lives of the Patriarchs. The loonies outhtere who point only at the few problems portrayed within some of the polygynous marriages in the Bible, at the expense of ignoring the horriffic abuses and problems within modern monogamy, well, they clearly have an agenda that doesn't line up with the word of God.

 

[Swordman]

Polygamy is the problem because it gives Satan a foothold.

Polygyny isn't any more of a satanic foothold than gluttonous over-eating, which is something that many a professing believer does on a daily basis. Just look at how many fat people walk into insitutional church buildings with piety painted on their faces, and then watch them at the table soon after leaving that place.

Monogamy is also a satanic foothold in some people's lives. Look at how many people who are living together, and who have that certificate from City Hall, and yet whose relationship isn't a legitimate marriage in the eyes of God.

If we're going to point fingers at what Satan can use as avenues into people's lives, let's be honest and give credit to the fact that almost anything involving human interaction is a means through which the enemy can influence lives.

Jesus Christ's ideal for us is one man, one woman.

Yes, for you that's His will. However, you don't speak for all men. You're not God and Lord over other men.

Although this is sometimes difficult for practical reasons, and God being loving wants to help us by sometimes allowing us to do things that are not ideal.

The Lord could just as easily established a plurality of wives as a norm within humanity. After all, He is a TRIUNE Being, right?

This should not stop us from trying to seek the ideal and to try to keep His will here on earth as it is in heaven.

What's ideal is that we live perfect, sinless lives, and we should indeed do that. It's ideal. However, one's disagreement with a marital form doesn't mean that such wasn't God's ideal for that man and his wives. Neither you or I sit upon the Judgement Seat of Christ. That's His Seat.

Underage marriage is the thick end of a wedge beginning with allowing polygamy.

Allowing? There's no law against it. What do you mean allowing?

To answer my friend Swordsman, 'serial polygamy', presumably where a person repeatedly marries and divorces, is a contradiction in terms. Polygamy can never be one man and one woman at any point otherwise, it is monogamy.

Only if you take God's definition of marriage and twist it to your own ends by demanding that any and all social divorce is acceptable in the eyes of the Lord.

 

[Chad]

Swordman, read the article I posted in page 2. The bible is clear that GOD intend marriage to be between one man and one woman regardless of the exceptions made in the OT.

Read...

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.

 

[nEw.CrEaTiOn]

That's so true. Thanks for elaborating on that, Chad.

 

[Swordman]

The bible is clear that GOD intend marriage to be between one man and one woman regardless of the exceptions made in the OT.

I appreciate that polygyny isn't for most men. I also agree that monogamy is God's ideal for most men. I never argued against that.

I also don't consider God's actions, when giving some men plural wives, as being exceptions to to His perfect will for those men. Perhaps His actions are the exception to modern dogmas about marriage The prophet Nathan made that abundantly clear in 2 Kings.

 

[Swordman]

The bible is clear that GOD intend marriage to be between one man and one woman regardless of the exceptions made in the OT.

(Just so everyone knows, bold lettering for emphasis only, not yelling)

Upon further reflection, something else came to mind:

You've appealed to an article written by some secretive author who isn't even a member of these forums so far as I know.

You see, I'm appealing to God's own actions and His written word where He made governing provision for a plurality of wives, as recorded right there in your copy of the Bible.

Granted, there are a couple of verses in Timothy and Titus where a plurality of wives is denied to some men who serve within two different functions of Church leadership, but that certainly isn't a proof that it's God's ideal for ALL men.

If God's intent was that monogamy should be forced upon all men, then He's certainly intelligent enough to have inspired an all-inclusive statement somewhere within the Bible, rather than three obscure statements aimed specifically at only two particular functions within Church leadership. What if those disallowances had to do with those leaders not being allowed to serve if they had divorced their first wife, and thus took a second? After all, divorce is a terrible example to uphold in the eyes of one's followers, right?

In relation to that article and others like it, I never could figure out why anyone today thinks they're qualified to take God-inspired statements, penned by Paul, Peter or anyone else for that matter, statements that are aimed specifically at certain people, and apply them as a blanket instruction for everyone else. I'm left wondering to myself, "Where's the integrity in that?"

Elijah was given the power to call a wild beast out of the woods and tear the children to pieces who were mocking him. Paul raised a young man from the dead who fell out the window. Moses parted the Red Sea. How much integrity would you say I was exhibiting by demanding that we ALL should consider ourselves as having those abilities since God instructed that some men were given such power.

I dare say that you'd think I was just another self-made theologian headed for the looney bin funny farm.

 

[johnpaul]

And Finally (for me)

(Just so everyone knows, bold lettering for emphasis only, not yelling)

Upon further reflection, something else came to mind:

You've appealed to an article written by some secretive author who isn't even a member of these forums so far as I know.

You see, I'm appealing to God's own actions and His written word where He made governing provision for a plurality of wives, as recorded right there in your copy of the Bible.

Granted, there are a couple of verses in Timothy and Titus where a plurality of wives is denied to some men who serve within two different functions of Church leadership, but that certainly isn't a proof that it's God's ideal for ALL men.

If God's intent was that monogamy should be forced upon all men, then He's certainly intelligent enough to have inspired an all-inclusive statement somewhere within the Bible, rather than three obscure statements aimed specifically at only two particular functions within Church leadership. What if those disallowances had to do with those leaders not being allowed to serve if they had divorced their first wife, and thus took a second? After all, divorce is a terrible example to uphold in the eyes of one's followers, right?

In relation to that article and others like it, I never could figure out why anyone today thinks they're qualified to take God-inspired statements, penned by Paul, Peter or anyone else for that matter, statements that are aimed specifically at certain people, and apply them as a blanket instruction for everyone else. I'm left wondering to myself, "Where's the integrity in that?"

Elijah was given the power to call a wild beast out of the woods and tear the children to pieces who were mocking him. Paul raised a young man from the dead who fell out the window. Moses parted the Red Sea. How much integrity would you say I was exhibiting by demanding that we ALL should consider ourselves as having those abilities since God instructed that some men were given such power.

I dare say that you'd think I was just another self-made theologian headed for the looney bin funny farm.

I derive my belief from scripture as the word of God. Anything else is 'Catholic' and is therefore made by man.
In Genesis God clearly offers a marriage pattern... That of Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve, Barbera, Susan et al. Why do you find this so difficult? You seem reasonably intelligent. Or are you arguing for the sake of it?:secret:

 

[johnpaul]

Out of order Sir!

Polygyny isn't any more of a satanic foothold than gluttonous over-eating, which is something that many a professing believer does on a daily basis. Just look at how many fat people walk into insitutional church buildings with piety painted on their faces, and then watch them at the table soon after leaving that place.
.

Brother, think about what you're saying. Most overweight people are not gluttenous, it can be a medical problem; no choice involved. However, polygamy is a life choice. Who are you to judge?

 

[Swordman]

I derive my belief from scripture as the word of God.

I was talking to Chad about that article he posted.

Anything else is 'Catholic' and is therefore made by man.

Agreed.

In Genesis God clearly offers a marriage pattern... That of Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve, Barbera, Susan et al.

What do you suppose was God's chief purpose behind Adam having been given one wife? Monogenism, or monogamy? If you say monogamy for ALL men, where did He ever state that anywhere else throughout scripture? Got a reference?

Why do you find this so difficult? You seem reasonably intelligent. Or are you arguing for the sake of it?:secret:

I stated my purpose for this already, which was to demonstrate the power and strength of socially engineered theologies within modern, religious thought. If monogamy, coupled together with feminism, weren't such powerful paradigms within Western and European cultures, nobody would give a second thought to seeing some men with plural wives today.

I have yet to hear anyone in this thread whine about our wearing choths. After all, was it not God's ideal for all men and women to run about buck naked? That's what they did before the fall.

What you're basically doing is fanning the flames for groups like modern nudist colonies. You're showing them how to surgically remove something from its actual setting and context, put into the pile with what other biblical writers have recorded, and use it all to weave and sew together a theological tapestry comprised of obscure verses knitted together into a colorful mix of sophistic patterns.

God gave Adam one, and He gave David several. Does timing really give anyone the right to judge the merits of the very actions of God as allegedly being a violation of His own ideal for all men?

Anyone who criticizes God's actions as being a violation of His perfect will, especially those He specifically stated as being a BLESSING, I have to ask, "Who are you to judge God, and who are you to define the Lord's ideal for everyone else in direct contradiction to God's own written word and His historic actions?"

I hope that answers your question.:happy:

 

[Swordman]

Brother, think about what you're saying. Most overweight people are not gluttenous, it can be a medical problem; no choice involved. However, polygamy is a life choice. Who are you to judge?

Do you have statistical information to back that? Where did you get the information that most obese people are that way because of medical problems?

Almost everyone I know who's obese is that way because of bad eating habbits. They're basically people who live to eat rather than eating to live.

Our media has been routinely reporting on the obesity epidemic, and they conclude that the problem is linked to not only eating higher levels of fatty foods, but they also couple it together with OVER-EATING, which is a more mild definition of, let's say, partial gluttony.

Six of one, half a dozen of another. What's the difference?

A spade is a spade.

 

[Swordman]

One thing I want to rieterate is that I'm not here to promote men going out and seeking an additional wife. This is about the integrity of the scriptures, and therefore reading them for what they say, and replacing our social and theological sensibilities with the absolutes of God's word.

There's already more than enough intollerance within our respective cultures, so carrying that intollerance over into Christian forums against each other, especially bringing it to bear against a truth from God's word that most people happen to dislike, well, are we, then, any better than the rest of the unbelieving world?

If a man declared to me that he was going to seek an additional wife, I would question his motives and the reasoning behind his decision. Very few men could ever produce a reasonable explanation for such an action.

Most men can't handle even one wife. For proof of that, simply take note of the vast numbers of divorces and remarriages among monogamists who then become serialized polygamists.

(I'm speaking only of those who divorce for unscriptural reasons. Modern statistics from major city courts around the country report that most divorces are perpetrated on the grounds of incompatibility, not abuse or abandonment.)

How man of all those so-called pastors, who are propped up by their pulpit, are divorced for unscriptural reasons, and have remarried to a second wife.

Oh, yes. Ushering in observations about modern reality can be, and is, very ugly indeed. Many think themselves qualified to judge the Patriarchs and their marital form, and yet they do so with their blind eye cast upon what's going on right under their very noses. Some of you may have children who are living serialized polygamy, or perhaps you have a friend or close relative with offspring doing that very thing, and they don't even realize it.

"Many are called, but few are chosen," as it is written.

 

[Repent2BSaved]

(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.

Wow! That is assuming alot.

God knew what would happen before it happened, being as He is omniscient and all. God created everything the way He wanted it to be. I was with you right up until this last section. I cannot agree that God "changed His mind" about something He created. When God was finished creating the world, He rested. He did not go back and fix things later. God lives outside of time and has seen our world from beginning to end already. If he wanted to "solve a problem" He would have created it the way He wanted it. And He did.

We are called to have faith and to witness and do our part in helping others get saved. The rest is up to God. Discussing things like this can be harmless fun, but really pointless. It does nothing to further God's kingdom.

The only law's we need to worry about are the 10 commandments; we need them to show people what God's standard of perfection is and how they have failed to live up to that standard- no matter how "good of a person" they think they are (and that they must REPENT and turn from their sins). And that Jesus fulfilled God's need of blood to atone for sins, because He was perfect according to God's laws.

Other than that we are under Grace; we have a new covenant with God- that of Jesus our saviour. "If the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed". John 8:36

 

[Swordman]

It always amazes me when I hear anyone emphatically state they somehow know God's original marital intent for all other men based upon Adam's having been given one wife from his side. This is the type of tactic Jehovah's Witnesses use when trying to establish that Jesus was originally Michael the archangel simply on the basis of the voice eminating from the Lord in prophecies.

These same people would never allow a JW to get away with such a shabby defense of their position, and yet they assume that such a defense will work in their favor if applied toward something that has social and religious acceptance here in the West? Where's the intellectual honesty in that?

Why do such people conveniently overlook the fact that the Lord NOWHERE stated monogamy as His intent for all men.

Why do such people conveniently overlook the fact that Adam's having been given one wife gives ample evidence for His intent for monogenism.

Why do such people conveniently overlook the fact that the Lord actively gave men plural wives.

Why do such people conveniently overlook the fact that the Lord made governing provision for men to have plural wives in His Law.

Why do such people conveniently overlook the fact that the Lord identified Himself with polygyny with Israel and Judah being His wives (plural).

So, if the Lord has a problem with polygyny, His words, His actions, and His own identity with that marital form clearly speak otherwise.

I didn't address all this before because it appears that the author of that article isn't a member of this board, and therefore able to offer a defense for the number of fallacies in that article. (At least, I'm assuming the secret author isn't a member here.) It appears the author didn't have the nerve to put his name on the article, which I think was a good move. I wouldn't want my name of such a terrible piece of work.:shade:

 

[Chad]

I didn't address all this before because it appears that the author of that article isn't a member of this board, and therefore able to offer a defense for the number of fallacies in that article. (At least, I'm assuming the secret author isn't a member here.) It appears the author didn't have the nerve to put his name on the article, which I think was a good move. I wouldn't want my name of such a terrible piece of work

And which article is this you say?

It always amazes me when I hear anyone emphatically state they somehow know God's original marital intent for all other men based upon Adam's having been given one wife from his side.

And why shouldn't they? If GOD wanted Adam to have two wives, then He would have given him two women. After all, GOD has the power to create both, why not another? So what do you say about that? Let's not forget also, Adam & Eve were the first, the "original" couple in a sinless world before the fall. They lived in a *sinless* world for a time period, as ONE man and ONE woman. Singular.

 

[Guardian]

If one so says, to the best of his knowledge and belief, that he is correct; He also, by doing so, is saying that all others are wrong.

 

[Swordman]

And which article is this you say?

I think it was that article you posted from another site located in this thread.

And why shouldn't they? If GOD wanted Adam to have two wives, then He would have given him two women.

But where did the Lord ever state that monogamy was His intent for all men? By what authority does anyone make such a statement? If someone says that they assume it to be His intent, that's one thing, but for anyone to presume that they speak for the Lord by stating such, they're being very presumptuous indeed, and therefore not speaking for the Lord where He was not only silent, but actually demonstrated otherwise.

This isn't about trying to get men to run out and seek plural wives today, but rather defending the honor and integrity of the Patriarchs of our faith, men who aren't here to defend their honor in the face of ignorance and presumptuousness.

After all, GOD has the power to create both, why not another? So what do you say about that?

Are you saying that a mere question of this sort is ample evidence in your favor? What rule are you relying upon that demands that the Lord HAD to create for Adam plural wives for it to be His will for some other men?

Nobody can prove a negative against a lack of evidence in favor of a baseless claim.

Let's not forget also, Adam & Eve were the first, the "original" couple in a sinless world before the fall. They lived in a *sinless* world for a time period, as ONE man and ONE woman. Singular.

I agree. They also ran around naked in that sinless environment. However, we don't have such a luxury at our disposal in our modern world. Instead, we find ourselves facing an entirely different world where that which was ideal in a sinless environment isn't so ideal in an environment filled with evil and sin.

Again, I ask where the Lord stated that Adam's having one wife was His ideal for all men throughout all time. Apart from such a statement made by God, any finger pointing at Adam is pure presumption based upon utter silence.

Question: Would you allow a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness, without challenge, get away with such a defense of their dogmas....a defense that relies strictly upon personal opinion and/or popular belief? Socially engineered theologies aren't infallible by any stretch of the imagination, so its reasonable to question such anomalies when they're put forth as, "Thus saith the Lord....."