Dynasitc Marriages-Doctrinal Question

[_Yoda]

Matthew 25. There is a marriage and there are 10 virgins waiting for the bridgegroom? So is it your interpretation that there is a marriage with one bridegroom and one bride, and 10 other marriageable young women waiting to hang on his robe? A little unseemly if you ask me.

This is a parable. It is not an actual event. The parable of the 10 virgins was a story Jesus told to illustrate the importance of being prepared, since no man knows when He will come again. It is actually cross-referenced with D&C 63:53-54:

53 These things are the things that ye must look for; and, speaking after the manner of the Lord, they are now nigh at hand, and in a time to come, even in the day of the coming of the Son of Man.
54 And until that hour there will be foolish virgins among the wise; and at that hour cometh an entire separation of the righteous and the wicked; and in that day will I send mine angels to pluck out the wicked and cast them into unquenchable fire.

Let's take a look at the actual scripture:

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO
ST MATTHEW
CHAPTER 25
Jesus gives the parables of the ten virgins, the talents, and the sheep and the goats.
1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their clamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.
2 And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.
3 They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them:
4 But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.
5 While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.
6 And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.
7 Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps.
8 And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out.
9 But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.
10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.
11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.
12 But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.
13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.

Where, in here, does it indicate that the virgins are the ones being married? It appears to me that the virgins were invited to attend the wedding. They were attendees, not brides.

And, because of their foolishness, five were not allowed to attend the wedding. They were excluded.

Also those who know the culture of the time say that Jesus' relationship with Mary and Martha would be very problematic for a rabbi, if they were not His wives. Mary's address to Him at the tomb indicates "husband."

This is a little off-topic, but I personally think that it is very likely that Mary and Jesus were married. And, considering that those who are referred to as "rabbi" were married men, I also think it likely that Jesus was married to someone. However, I don't see it as a foregone conclusion that he was married to both Mary and Martha. All of this is complete speculation.

Paul wrote to Timorthy: (1 Tim. 3: 2) A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Why did he specify ONE wife? If you were to try to stretch it to say, what Paul really meant was that a man should be married and not single, that seems strange for Paul, since he recommended chastity, according to mainstream Christianity.

I'm confused as to how you are utilizing this scripture as a reference to a commandment of plural marriage. Paul specifically refers to one wife in this scripture.

In answer to your question about Jesus' reference to marriage, let's look at Matthew 19:5-6:

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

The bold emphasis is mine. Jesus specifically says "wife", as in a singular reference.

The is the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. All things will be restored.

Throughout the history of Christ's church, lower laws have been fulfilled by higher laws. The Law of Moses was given during a time when people were ill-equipped to accept the fullness and the broader base of Christ's message. The law of animal sacrifice was symbolic of the sacrifice of God's son. These were lower laws that were fulfilled by higher laws presented during later dispensations. Even in modern LDS Church history, it is believed that the Law of Tithing is a lower form of the Law of Consecration, which will be restored at a later time.

And yet even you accept during this period of plural marraige, Abraham remained a prophet. The Lord continued to reveal His word through Abraham.

And Jacob was given the privilege of being the progentior of the 12 Tribes, and his offspring from 4 different wives were the heads of those 12 tribes. The Lord did not condemn him, either.

My stance here has been that plural marriage was a social norm during this time period. But, as Harmony pointed out, you have yet to show me where God specifically commanded it.

It has been the argument here that Joseph Smith did not act "properly" and either was not ever a prophet, or became a fallen prophet because he instituted plural marriage. That plural marriage is only a product of male lust, it victimizes women, is immoral, breaks God's law against adultery, and is not one of God's laws.

I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet, but that he was fallible. Most prophets were. Many prophets made mistakes. Moses screwed up, and was forced to wander around the wilderness and never reached the promised land. Was he still a prophet? Of course he was. The argument, or rather, not an argument, but point of discussion which I posed in my OP for this thread, was that Joseph Smith did not understand the sealing process. It was misinterpreted, and as such, spiraled into a practice which should have never existed during our dispensation.

I don't think these ideas can be upheld with either the Old Testament or the New Testament.

If it is not of God, is immoral, is merely lustful, then God's prophets (Abraham and Jacob and Moses) are immoral and lustful, but evidently can still be prophets with God's approval. But remember, God cannot look upon the least degree of sin. And wouldn't you say men who consort with concubines, take 4 plural wives, or even 2 are committing a little bit more than the "least degree of sin?" So you have to admit, that they were not committing grievous sins.

2. Or, if God has, at various times instituted plural marriage, or has at the least, approved of it, why can't it be instituted now?

Again, my stance is that polygamy was a social norm of an ancient time, and it was not God's intent for this to be re-instituted during our day. Even Gordon B. Hinckley is quoted as saying that the practice is not doctrinal.

Again, I don't know how one moderates for this exactly---but, if this forum is supposed to be "heavily moderated" for "discussion," then I think its worth thinking about.

If one side of the discussion is prevented from presenting that side's viewpoint, then it isn't really a discussion, is it?

I don't think that Blixa was saying that either side should be prevented from presenting his/her viewpoints. Only that personal swipes should be kept out of the equation.

I understand that this is an emotional topic. As both a Moderator and the originator of this thread, I would simply ask that we at least attempt to remain civil to one another as the discussion moves forward.

I really appreciate everyone's contributions so far.

[_harmony]

Please do as Liz has asked: find any instance in the Old Testament where GOD commands plural marriage (good luck. There aren't any, but by all means, try).

It has been the argument here that Joseph Smith did not act "properly" and either was not ever a prophet, or became a fallen prophet because he instituted plural marriage. That plural marriage is only a product of male lust, it victimizes women, is immoral, breaks God's law agaisnt adultery, and is not one of God's laws.

I don't think these ideas can be upheld with either the Old Testament or the New Testament.

If it is not of God, is immoral, is merely lustful, then God's prophets (Abraham and Jacob and Moses) are immoral and lustful, but evidently can still be prophets with God's approval. But remember, God cannot look upon the least degree of sin. And wouldn't you say men who consort with concubines, take 4 plural wives, or even 2 are committing a little bit more than the "least degree of sin?" So you have to admit, that they were not committing grievous sins.

2. Or, if God has, at various times instituted plural marriage, or has at the least, approved of it, why can't it be instituted now?

In other words, you don't have any illustrations where God commanded plural marriage in the Old Testament. And since God didn't command it during Old Testament times, there is absolutely no basis for assuming that he would command it in the 1800's.

Joseph put words in God's mouth. He was a man, and he found a way to have his cake and eat it too. God fulfilled his bargain, when he allowed the mob to cut short Joseph's turn on earth. God has a history of keeping his prophets in line when their egos get too big for their britches. A prophet can commit all manner of sin, even taking an innocent life, but directly disobeying God? God doesn't take that lightly. Jonah spent 3 days in the belly of a whale (not a pleasant situation) for running away. Moses didn't get to enter the Promised Land. And Joseph Smith got killed by a mob. It wasn't the adultery that got Joseph killed. It was codifying it by writing a bogus revelation and putting words in God's mouth that he didn't say.

And the prophets today continue to highlight Joseph's sin, by running the church on tradition instead of revelation. Had Pres Hinckley the strength of his convictions ("It's not doctrinal"), the D&C would have been revised and Sex 132 would have been deleted or revised. But he didn't, so we have to wait, again. And the women's voices continue to cry to God for relief just as they did in Jacob in the Book of Mormon. God hears us, but his prophets ignore him.

[_Yoda]

Here is another question to chew on. How does polyandry fit into all of this? I have yet to find any biblical references to a prophet, or any other devoted member of Christ's church being married to another woman who is currently married and dwelling with another husband.

This brings me back to the original question of the OP. Did Joseph Smith simply misinterpret this? And, if he did, why was he still teaching the sealing principles which exist in the Church today involving sealing married spouses to each other?

[_Runtu]

We do have this in Romans 7, where Paul decries polyandry as adultery:

2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Do you suppose it's coincidence that there are no footnotes to verse 3? Here we have scripture that directly and unequivocally contradicts what Joseph Smith did.

[_Yoda]

We do have this in Romans 7, where Paul decries polyandry as adultery:

2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Do you suppose it's coincidence that there are no footnotes to verse 3? Here we have scripture that directly and unequivocally contradicts what Joseph Smith did.

So, you're taking this scripture from the LDS King James Version, then? Interesting.

Thanks, Runtu.

I also find it interesting that there is no documentation in the D&C regarding Joseph's sealings to other married women. I have found this strange. He was certainly vocal about the practice of plural marriage in section 132. Why not this issue, which is even more controversial?

[_Runtu]

So, you're taking this scripture from the LDS King James Version, then? Interesting.

Thanks, Runtu.

I also find it interesting that there is no documentation in the D&C regarding Joseph's sealings to other married women. I have found this strange. He was certainly vocal about the practice of plural marriage in section 132. Why not this issue, which is even more controversial?

Oh, it's in there, all right. It's in 132:41-42:

41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.
42 If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has committed adultery.

So, whom do we believe? Paul or Joseph Smith?

[_Yoda]

Oh, it's in there, all right. It's in 132:41-42:

Quote:
41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.
42 If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has committed adultery.

So, whom do we believe? Paul or Joseph Smith?

OK, now I'm confused. I was always taught, and I admit, my own interpretation of this scripture was that if you had sex with another man/woman outside of the bonds of eternal marriage, you were committing adultery. If, as you suggest, this scripture was specifically referring to Joseph's polyandry, then is this scripture stating that the women who have sex with their wedded husbands are damned? That since they are sealed to Joseph, that they can now only have sex with Joseph, even though they are still living with their lawfully wedded husbands?

Boy, wouldn't this be a doozy of a seminary topic? ;)

[_Runtu]

OK, now I'm confused. I was always taught, and I admit, my own interpretation of this scripture was that if you had sex with another man/woman outside of the bonds of eternal marriage, you were committing adultery. If, as you suggest, this scripture was specifically referring to Joseph's polyandry, then is this scripture stating that the women who have sex with their wedded husbands are damned? That since they are sealed to Joseph, that they can now only have sex with Joseph, even though they are still living with their lawfully wedded husbands?

As I read it, it's saying that a woman who is married in the new and everlasting covenant can be with other men, as long as it is appointed unto her. In other words, she can be with any man, including her husband, as long as God appoints it unto her. That's why the idea that Joseph Smith never consummated his polyandrous marriages is groundless.

Boy, wouldn't this be a doozy of a seminary topic? ;)

Any seminary teacher caught teaching that would probably be at least disfellowshipped.

[_Yoda]

Any seminary teacher caught teaching that would probably be at least disfellowshipped.

Exactly! Hence, my smiley. ;)

[_charity]

I also find it interesting that there is no documentation in the D&C regarding Joseph's sealings to other married women. I have found this strange. He was certainly vocal about the practice of plural marriage in section 132. Why not this issue, which is even more controversial?

Maybe because the sealings were not marriages? Sealings not meant as husband and wife? Sealings of unrelated people to each other occurred until almost 1890, when the practice was halted.

For instance, one man, David Candland, with no blood or legal relationship of any kind, adoption, etc. was sealed to Heber C. Kimball and used the Kimball name during a mission.

Since there is absolutely no evidence at all that any of the so-called polyandrous sealings were in any degree "marriages" I think that is the more sensible interpretation.