For Gaz..Struggling Believers' Polygamy Discussion cont.

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_guy sajer
_Emeritus
Posts: 1372
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:16 am

Post by _guy sajer »

Gazelam wrote:Dancer,

Do you realize God, in the Book of Mormon, said polygamy was an abomination?


I answered this question a month ago in some other thread.

Although the law of Moses permitted wives and concubines, the Lord forbade the practice for the house of Joseph in the Promised Land, in the Americas. This was probably in part because of its historic abuses, but also because the basis for such marriages did not exist in Lehi's colony.

The Nephites did not practice slavery, nor did they take female captives and make wives of some of them as had their Israelitish ancestors even in the day of Moses (Num. 31:9, Deut 21:11). This is as opposed to the Lamanites who took women and children as prisoners of war, and on several occasions placed their Nephite captives in virtual servitude (see Mosiah 7:15; 9:12; Alma 58:30). As for the many war-produced widows found at times among the Nephites, the policy was to care for their temporal needs rather than to marry them (see Mosiah 21:10, 17; Moroni 9:16).

Following the death of Nephi (about 540 BC), pride and the "grosser crime" of whoredoms appeared for the first time among the Nephites. Certain men "began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon his son" (Jacob 1:15).

Jacob, Nephi's younger brother, was instructed by the Lord to denounce this evil in its incipiency. Only some Nephites were actually engaged in polygyny; others probably contemplated doing so, while still others remained "pure in heart." So it was a mixed audience - as such groups usually are - that Jacob addressed. The Heart of his message on the subject was as follows:

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
(Jacob 2:23-28)


Jacob did not proclaim a new doctrine. He told the Nephites: "Ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before" (Jacob 2:34; see also 3:5).

The effort to introduce forbidden practices and to justify them by appealing to scriptural precedents was clearly out of order. It was so then, and it is now. If ancient scripture does not justify disobedience to the counsel of the Lord's living prophet, how can modern historical examples do so? The Lord's people are bound by the commandments given them through the prophet of their day, not those of an earlier time. They are accountable to the prophets they raise their hands to sustain. President Benson has said, "The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet ..... Beware of those who would pit the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence" ("Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet").

Thus Jacob cut to the heart of the matter. What prominent men did and what the Lord approved could be two very different things. Further, no man was justified in deviating from the commandments of the Lord for his time because of the commandments of the Lord to others in another time.

In saying that "whoredoms are an abomination before me" (see Jacob 2:28), the Lord was not equating the principle of plural marriage with whoredoms or declaring that all such marriages - including those of Abraham, Isacc, and Jacob - are abominable in his sight. He was denouncing the abuse of a sacred principle, not the principle itself.

But what is abominable to him is any form of marriage is when the relationship is motivated by lust, or when it robs one's wife of her personhood and reduces her to the level of a thing to be used, mistreated, manipulated, or whimsically abandoned. In that regard, some monogamous marriages among us are abominations.

When wives are neglected, subjected to physical or verbal abuse, to emotional trauma, or to humiliating and degrading conduct by their husbands, the spirit of chastity in them is violated. For chastity is more than a sexual matter, it is also a state of mind, heart, and spirit toward ones whole being. The very soul is at issue.

On the part of husbands, the spirit of chastity implies a conscious commitment to the physical, spiritual, and emotional well-being of their wives and of all women. When a woman is rendered a mere object, a piece of chattel, the spirit of chastity leaves her. She does not feel toward herself as she has the right to feel.

Those who sought to "indilge themselves," as Jacob expressed it, in plural wives were not motivated by a caring love and concern for these women, but rather by pride and lust in their hardened hearts (see Jacob 1:15-16). For was there not a connection between the sin of pride inconsequence of their material wealth and their "grosser crime" (see Jacob 2:22) of whoredoms? Not only could they afford wives and concubines they reasoned, but their very status in society warrented them. Citing the conduct of David and Solomon, who were also wealthy and prominent, was designed to cloak their actions with moral approval.

But the consequences of all such infidelity were vividly described by Jacob: "Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds." (Jacob 2:35). How many hearts die today because of marital infidelity and insensitivity?

Jacobs message seems to have had the desired effect. other than the aberrant case of king Noah, polygyny was apparently stamped out for all time among the Nephites. he tells us "And now I, Jacob, spake many more things unto the people of Nephi, warning them against fornication and lasciviousness, and every kind of sin, telling them the awful consequences of them." (Jacob 3:12).

(excerpts from: Morality and Marriage in the Book of Mormon, Rodney Turner)


Gaz is ok with polygamy, because he assumes he will be the property owner instead of the property. Just as men all over the world in similar patriarchal cultures. are down with treating women like crap, because they know they are the shitters and not the shitees. If they saw themselves as the shitees, I suspect that they would not be so wild about the whole arrangement.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
_Inconceivable
_Emeritus
Posts: 3405
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:44 am

VIsualize this..

Post by _Inconceivable »

Inviting your 23 year old daughter and infants, her 70 year old husband and his 13 other wives and their children to thanksgiving dinner.

Take a good look at her husband.

What do you see?

Look again.

Now, fast forward 5 years, to another thanksgiving with the whole family. He's died of old age 2 years previous.

Now, what do you see?

Who is taking care of these women and children? Think about it, who is it?

Where does the burden lie?

Where was the foresight?

Didn't anyone see it coming?
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Post by _Roger Morrison »

GAZ, as i've followed your posts, there seems to be little of your own thought presented. OTOH, it appears as it you are well skilled in scanning, copying and pasting from the writings of others whom you seem to hold in high esteem??

I am very surprised that you hold to this polygamous abomination as justified, while you think homosexuality--which science states as a natural sexual orientation--is most unholy and abominable, in spite of unlimited evidence to the contrary??

I respectfully suggest, you have hauled yourself aboard the wrong life-raft. I second TD's request that YOU seriously think, (and, I'll add fast & pray since You are You :-) about this polygamous issue.

Really GAZ, you cannot weave that old-cultural-cloth into our modern culture, anymore than you can expect acceptance of reintroducing slavery or mutilation as punishment for shop-lifting... Seriously Bro, are you just goading for your own delight?? Warm regards, Roger
_Gazelam
_Emeritus
Posts: 5659
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:06 am

Post by _Gazelam »

Roger,

GAZ, as I've followed your posts, there seems to be little of your own thought presented. OTOH, it appears as it you are well skilled in scanning, copying and pasting from the writings of others whom you seem to hold in high esteem??


If memory serves, I spent most of the beginning of this thread posting my own observations. I have spent the later half posting (and giving myself carpal tunel by typeing out three pages of a book) from my sources that I am drawing my conclusions from.

I am very surprised that you hold to this polygamous abomination as justified, while you think homosexuality--which science states as a natural sexual orientation--is most unholy and abominable, in spite of unlimited evidence to the contrary??


For a short simple answer that cuts to the quick, Gods name is Father. Fatherhood applies in the polygamous role, it does not apply in the homosexual realm.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Gaz,

You've referred to Nathan's statement regarding David's wives. I want you to tell me the story of David and his wives, and the outcome of those relationships.

Please.

Jersey Girl
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_Gazelam
_Emeritus
Posts: 5659
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:06 am

Post by _Gazelam »

Jersey Girl wrote:Gaz,

You've referred to Nathan's statement regarding David's wives. I want you to tell me the story of David and his wives, and the outcome of those relationships.

Please.

Jersey Girl


I believe two of his sons turned on him. Absalom and Adonijah. Despite the grave sin of the murder of Uriah, the union of David and Bathsheba was blessed with the birth of Solomon, who was the ancestor fo Mary, who birthed Christ.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
_Inconceivable
_Emeritus
Posts: 3405
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:44 am

Post by _Inconceivable »

Gazelam wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:Gaz,

You've referred to Nathan's statement regarding David's wives. I want you to tell me the story of David and his wives, and the outcome of those relationships.

Please.

Jersey Girl


I believe two of his sons turned on him. Absalom and Adonijah. Despite the grave sin of the murder of Uriah, the union of David and Bathsheba was blessed with the birth of Solomon, who was the ancestor fo Mary, who birthed Christ.


Should not David have been put to death for this abomination, according to Mosaic law? Bathsheba as well?

And the double standard was justified because?

The elite get a pass and the bastard son of murderous adulterers lead God's only chosen people to ultimately begat Jesus.

What is wrong with this picture?
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Gazelam wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:Gaz,

You've referred to Nathan's statement regarding David's wives. I want you to tell me the story of David and his wives, and the outcome of those relationships.

Please.

Jersey Girl


I believe two of his sons turned on him. Absalom and Adonijah. Despite the grave sin of the murder of Uriah, the union of David and Bathsheba was blessed with the birth of Solomon, who was the ancestor fo Mary, who birthed Christ.


Is that the whole story? What about the part you refer to in your posts, Gaz? The part where Nathan says God gave David his wives. How did God give David his wives? What does that mean to you?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Post by _Roger Morrison »

GAZ, you said:
For a short simple answer that cuts to the quick, Gods name is Father. Fatherhood applies in the polygamous role, it does not apply in the homosexual realm.


And that somehow justifies polyg?? I know i'm standing in line behind Incon and Jersey Girl, but when you get their questions answered--IF you can--will you please try mine? Warm regards, Roger
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Post by _truth dancer »

OK, I guess I'm in line behind Inc, Jersey Girl, and Roger... :-)

I'm still waiting for the answer to my question posted a few days ago:

Do you think Joseph Smith's practice of taking girls and women was an example of how polygamy is "supposed" to work? You know, sneaking around behind Emma's back, screwing young girls, promising them (and their families) eternal life if they become his, sending men on missions so he can take their wives?


Gaz, you asserted that what Christ referred to as an "abomination" in the Book of Mormon, was the way polygamy was practiced... I'm really curious if you think Joseph Smith and friends, practiced polygamy in a way that was Godly?

:-)

~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
Post Reply