Dynasitc Marriages-Doctrinal Question

[_charity]

Harmony and others say that Jesus specifically condemned plural marriage and yet there is not statement anywhere in the New Testament where He said any such thing. And although it is not official doctrine I believe that Jesus lived in a plural marriage. People who know the cultural practices of the day say that His relationship with Mary and Martha could not be explained except as that of husband and wives.

Ummm... Charity, there may be a handful of LDS folks who believe this but my observation is the VAST majority of Christian leaders, experts, historians, completely disagree with you. Jesus clearly taught that a marriage was between one man and one woman, they were to cleave unto each other and none other. In spite of your beliefs I do not think this is argued by anyone but a handful of LDS true believers.

Many of the leading Christians are wrong about a lot of things.

You say Jesus clearly taught marriage was between one man and one woman. I have asked repeated: Show me those plain and clear teachings. I will accept any New Testament scripture that says this. Oh, not your interpretation of a scripture, but Jesus' actual words, as you say there are such.

What it all boils down to is that any of God's commandments will bring blessings to those who live them. But if God has not commanded them, and yet people try to live that way anyway, they are not blessed, and God condemns them for it. This is the case with plural marriage.

This is exactly what Harmony is saying. If God didn't command men taking wives and concubines and Joseph Smith & Co did, then they were not blessed.

And where Harmony and I differ is that I say it is very plainly in the Doctrine and Covenants that God did command. And they were blessed. Persecuted, but blessed. Blessings aren't just in having quiet, peaceful lives. Blessings are in spiritual growth, which very often does not come with an easy life.

I have examined the claims, and do not think there is any case to be made at all, that Section 132 was "made up" by Joseph Smith. It is a case in the minds of critics, that since plural marriage could not be approved by God, then there has to be another reason for the revelation. It is a Vogelian argument. Refuse to accept the real reason, and then grasp at straws to try to bolster your faulty reasoning.

[
In my opinion, there is a wonderful, clear teaching/commandment given by Jesus Christ himself, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

TD, you are saying that Jesus taught one husband/one wife in the Golden Rule? So then if someone says they would like to live a plural marriage and would happy to accept either polgyny or polyandry that means automatically that this is God's command? I want you to show me one PLAIN one husband/one wife teaching.

And your idea of what the Golden Rule allows puts you on shaky ground. So if it is okay with you if your husband cheats on your because you can cheat on him, there is no such thing as adultery? Or if someone steals your car, but says he is fine with anyone else stealing his car, then that was God's command?

Based on this commandment, I find it impossible to rationalize the behavior of these men who took many wives and concubines during the early days of the church. Unless these guys would be happy to have their wives sleep with the high council while they were unable to have a real relationship with a woman, or to have their hearts completely broken as their wives were unavailable to them but having affairs with their buddies, these men clearly did not act in accordance to this commandment.

No one is defending any abuses of plural marriage. If there were men and women who did not treat their spouses well, that is a sin on their head. Just as no one today defends any abuses of mongamy. Today it is one man/one wife, and do we see many husbands and wives abusing that relationship? Of course. That does not condemn the institution, only the misbehaving individual.

Entrance into a plural marriage was a matter of agency. You may talk about pressure to live what they thought was commanded by God. But that kind of "pressure" is on any person who accepts any belief system. If any husband was iving up to his responsbilities and treating his plural wives well, if their hearts were broken, it was because of their own personal issues, and they would have done just the same in monogamy.

[_Yoda]

Entrance into a plural marriage was a matter of agency. You may talk about pressure to live what they thought was commanded by God. But that kind of "pressure" is on any person who accepts any belief system. If any husband was living up to his responsbilities and treating his plural wives well, if their hearts were broken, it was because of their own personal issues, and they would have done just the same in monogamy.

Do you think that Brigham Young was an example of someone who "treated their wives well"? Why or why not?

I believe it was Heber C. Kimball who referred to wives as trade-able as cows.

Do you think this little "guff" by a Church leader is appropriate?

[_truth dancer]

Charity,

To clarify...

Regarding the Golden Rule, I'm saying that those who do not treat others as they wish to be treated are not following the Golden Rule as I understand Jesus taught it.

I do not believe the early leaders of the LDS church who had many wives and concubines treated others as they would like to be treated.

Simple as that.

I recall other discussions where you justify the teachings in the New Testament... one man and one woman, cleaving to each other and none other. If I recall correctly you have some way of interpreting these teachings to mean one man and lots of women because the women are not sealed to each other, or the man and all the women are not all sealed together, (or something along these lines). To be honest I find your interpretation completely contrary to scripture and actually rather nonsensical. I'm not trying to be rude it just seriously does not make any sense to me. I do not understand how a man and woman can cleave unto each other, and none other when a man is cleaving to lots of women and there are clearly others.

But I do not think we need to rehash this. We can agree to disagree on this.

One last point... speaking of Christian experts who do not believe Jesus Christ was married to multiple women. I am not arguing whether he did or did not. My personal opinion is not important here. I'm suggesting that contrary to your assertion many experts do not agree with your statement.

~dancer~

[_charity]

Entrance into a plural marriage was a matter of agency. You may talk about pressure to live what they thought was commanded by God. But that kind of "pressure" is on any person who accepts any belief system. If any husband was living up to his responsbilities and treating his plural wives well, if their hearts were broken, it was because of their own personal issues, and they would have done just the same in monogamy.

Do you think that Brigham Young was an example of someone who "treated their wives well"? Why or why not?

I believe it was Heber C. Kimball who referred to wives as trade-able as cows.

Do you think this little "guff" by a Church leader is appropriate?

I don't care to get into the private lives of individuals. I think it is very unseemly. What was between Brigham Young and any of his wives is between them. God will judge how how righteously he treated them, and how righteously each of his wives treated him and their sister-wives.

All I am saying is that when people are righteous and obey God's commandments, whatever those commandments are, they are blessed.

[_the road to hana]

You say Jesus clearly taught marriage was between one man and one woman. I have asked repeated: Show me those plain and clear teachings. I will accept any New Testament scripture that says this. Oh, not your interpretation of a scripture, but Jesus' actual words, as you say there are such.

You'll find them in the 19th Chapter of Matthew.

[_Jason Bourne]

Hi Liz,

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

I know you are asking Brackite (who has done AMAZING work on this), but here is how I read it.

If I, Jesus Christ want to bring people unto me I will command them, (give them direction and help). Otherwise (if I do not) these men will have many wives and concubines and break the hearts of his daughters.

Or put another way, if Christ doesn't help, men will break the hearts of his daughters by taking many wives and concubines which thing is an ABOMINATION.

I really think the apologetic interpretation is a big stretch (excuse). ;-)

~dancer~

Gotta tell you that I think Jacob 30 is real hard to read other than a qualifier for polygamy. TD, I think your interpretation if much more of a stretch.

sorry

[_Jason Bourne]

My take is that when people sin and fail to keep the commandments of God is when they get into trouble. For instance, David and Solomon lived plural marriage and God says that they were not condemned for that, but for where they disobeyed his commandmants. David committed adultery with Bathsheba because she was not his wife. Solomon took wives from among the fobidden groups.

Woe there Charity. THe Book of Mormon does condemns David and Solomon. You are simply wrong to say it does not.

Harmony and others say that Jesus specifically condemned plural marriage and yet there is not statement anywhere in the New Testament where He said any such thing. And although it is not official doctrine I believe that Jesus lived in a plural marriage. People who know the cultural practices of the day say that His relationship with Mary and Martha could not be explained except as that of husband and wives.

Who? Come on now... who says this? Give me two current LDS persons and one non LDS person who really knows about these things.

[_truth dancer]

Hey Jason...

Earlier I wrote,

" Christ (if one believes in the Book of Mormon... smile), clearly states having multiple wives is an "abomination" and breaks the hearts of His daughters.

So unless God is a REALLY cruel father, why would He need to break the hearts of His daughters with such an abomination in order to "raise up seed."

It makes no sense to me whatsoever.

The interpretation that God allows polygamy to raise up seed seems to somehow assume some magical idea that women will all of a sudden not have their hearts broken if their husbands sleep with other women and they no longer have a beautiful exclusive partnership with their husbands as Christ taught. Of course this is nonsense.

While I always allow for some adults to enjoy alternative relationships, it seems clear to me that during the early days of the church the hearts of many, many women were broken."

So, Christ is clear that taking wives and concubines breaks the hearts of his daughters, and he clearly states it is an abomination.

Tell me, what sort of God requires an abomination and the breaking hearts of his daughters to raise up seed?

This makes no sense to me unless God is a sick, cruel, weak, misogynist. (Which of course certainly may be if one is to believe the Old Testament).

~dancer~

[_charity]

You say Jesus clearly taught marriage was between one man and one woman. I have asked repeated: Show me those plain and clear teachings. I will accept any New Testament scripture that says this. Oh, not your interpretation of a scripture, but Jesus' actual words, as you say there are such.

You'll find them in the 19th Chapter of Matthew.

You mean this: Matt 19: 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? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

This does not limit a man to one marriage. That is your interpretation.

[_charity]

My take is that when people sin and fail to keep the commandments of God is when they get into trouble. For instance, David and Solomon lived plural marriage and God says that they were not condemned for that, but for where they disobeyed his commandmants. David committed adultery with Bathsheba because she was not his wife. Solomon took wives from among the fobidden groups.

Woe there Charity. THe Book of Mormon does condemns David and Solomon. You are simply wrong to say it does not. [/1uote]

You are rigth. It is in the Doctrine and Covenants that it is clarified. Notice the bolded part.

Doctrine and Covenants 132: 38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

Harmony and others say that Jesus specifically condemned plural marriage and yet there is not statement anywhere in the New Testament where He said any such thing. And although it is not official doctrine I believe that Jesus lived in a plural marriage. People who know the cultural practices of the day say that His relationship with Mary and Martha could not be explained except as that of husband and wives.

Who? Come on now... who says this? Give me two current LDS persons and one non LDS person who really knows about these things.

The link below is to a modern Christian polygamy movement. They are not LDS Check it out.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/polygame.html