A Scenario for our Male Apologists to Consider...

[Guest]

The Bible also teaches where there is no law given there is no sin. Rom 4:15 and 5:13. So is there an express commandment against polygamy?

Matthew 19:3-9

3 Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?”
4 He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”
7 They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss [her]?”
8 He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
9 I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”



Mormons and Protestants interpret this as an injunction against divorce, alone. However, Catholics ask the question, "why is it that whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery?" Does anyone under the sun view divorce, alone, as adultery? The "committing adultery" is in the "and marries another". Why would this be a case of committing adultery? The answer the Catholic Church gives is that Jesus indicates, very clearly here, that divorce does not separate what God has joined. The person is still married. Jesus then says, if a person who has divorced, marries another, they are committing adultery.

This is a clear indication, that a) marriage is between one man and one woman...the two become one, and b) marrying another while still married is committing adultery.

This is why, in the Catholic Church, if a divorced person wishes to remarry, they have to go through the process with the Church of showing that their previous marriages(s) were not "legal marriages", the legality/validity in question not secular, but under Canon Law. If a previous marriage is legally valid, the person is not allowed to remarry, as it would be a case of the Church sanctioning adultery. Of course, many Catholics do divorce and remarry (secular), but in cases where a previous marriage is still in effect (under Canon Law), they are considered to committing a mortal sin (adultery).

Hope that helps.

[_LDSToronto]

The Bible also teaches where there is no law given there is no sin. Rom 4:15 and 5:13. So is there an express commandment against polygamy?

Matthew 19:3-9

3 Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him,* saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?”
4 He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”
7 They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss [her]?”
8 He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
9 I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”



Mormons and Protestants interpret this as an injunction against divorce, alone. However, Catholics ask the question, "why is it that whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery?" Does anyone under the sun view divorce, alone, as adultery? The "committing adultery" is in the "and marries another". Why would this be a case of committing adultery? The answer the Catholic Church gives is that divorce does not separate what God has joined. The person is still married. If/when a person who is still married, marries another, they are committing adultery.

This is a clear indication, that a) marriage is between one man and one woman...the two become one, and b) marrying another while still married is committing adultery.

This is why, in the Catholic Church, if a divorced person wishes to remarry, they have to go through the process with the Church of showing that their previous marriages(s) were not "legal marriages", the legality/validity in question not secular, but under Canon Law. If a previous marriage is legally valid, the person is not allowed to remarry, as it would be a case of the Church sanctioning adultery. Of course, many Catholics do divorce and remarry, but in cases where there previous marriage is still in effect (under Canon Law), they are considered to committing a mortal sin (adultery).

Hope that helps.

Then don't divorce. Just keep marrying, like the polygamists do. Problem solved.

H.

[_madeleine]

Then don't divorce. Just keep marrying, like the polygamists do. Problem solved.

H.

It isn't the divorce that is the cause of the sin of adultery. It is the marrying another while still married. The relationship with another, outside of the two who are one.

[_LDSToronto]

Then don't divorce. Just keep marrying, like the polygamists do. Problem solved.

H.

It isn't the divorce that is the cause of the sin of adultery. It is the marrying another while still married. The relationship with another, outside of the two who are one.

Can't three be one?

H.

[_beastie]

Kevinsim,

I have responded to you here so as not to derail liz's thread.

viewtopic.php?p=611722#p611722

[_KevinSim]

Notice what I bolded in your post, Kevin. I absolutely agree with everything you stated. However, I don't see how any of those things can be optimally practiced in a polygamous relationship. Sure, the man always gets to wake up next to someone, but what about the women? For all intents and purposes, basically, the women in even the BEST polygamous situations, are functioning as a single parent quite a bit of the time. Neither wife has the benefit of a husband/lover/life partner who is completely committed to her, even though she is completely committed to him. I'm sorry, but that sounds a lot more like hell than heaven to me.

Who was the famous statesman that said that he would never be free, as long as one was imprisoned, or something to that effect? So we're satisfied when all prisoners are freed, but when it comes to who has companionship in the eternities it's everyone for herself/himself?

I heard a story about a woman who thought she was in a great marriage, whose husband spent some time on business in Japan. He ended up leaving her for a Japanese woman he met there. That was pretty devastating. Her ex had two children by the Japanese woman. Then he got sick and died. Economic conditions in Japan at the time were such that the American woman, aware that the two children were her ex-husband's children, ended up bringing them to the United States so that she could raise them. But after she'd done that she realized that the two children really needed their mother, so she ended up bringing their mother to the US, and they became a family, her, her ex's former wife, and the two children.

That doesn't sound to me like Hell; rather it sounds to me like the American woman realized what her ex's children needed and made adjustments accordingly.

You said you don't see how any "of those things can be optimally practiced in a polygamous relationship." I agree entirely! I have said from the outset that I'm no big fan of polygamy. We aren't talking an optimal relationship here. The optimal situation would be if there are precisely as many men qualifying for an eternal marriage as there are women, and then each woman can have a spouse she doesn't have to share with anyone! All I'm saying is that that optimal match-up is very likely unrealistic. The question is, if there are more women than there are men, ready for eternal marriage, what do we do with the surplus? Those are real women there, with feelings just like you and me. Do we condemn them to an eternity of solitude simply due to their bad luck?

[_KevinSim]

Not everyone wants sex. So what's your point?

Pretty sure that my point was there is no need for polygamy. What was yours?

A poster thought when I was talking about marriage I was talking about sex. Sex is an important part of marriage (for most happily married couples), but it's not the only part of marriage; there's a lot more to two people eternally committed to each other's welfare than just sex.

[_KevinSim]

This list is not meant to be exhaustive; it's just what I could think of on short notice; I reserve the right to come back and add more in the future.

1. Sleeping together. Sex is fine, but I kind of like just sleeping with my wife, waking up next to her in the morning.

2. Raising kids.

3. Serving retirement missions.

4. Any of a number of things that could only be accomplished by two people who have committed to staying with each other for the rest of eternity. (Friends are good, but it's always understood that a friend could opt to cross the country if s/he needed to, regardless of what her/his friend thinks this friend should do.)

Those things could be accomplished by two gayz.

That's absolutely true, although (3) might be tough for gay men and inconvenient for lesbians.

[_KevinSim]

God is not the author of sin, and does not command sin. Very clearly explained in the Bible.

If God can kill people and not have it be sin, then why in the world can't God command someone to take a plural wife, and not have that be sin? Why is one not a sin and the other is a sin?

[_Yoda]

My question, though, is would you feel the same way were the situation reversed? You still haven't answered it. Would you feel as charitable about the "poor men" who we're left out as you do the women?

Would you be just as willing to give your wife to another, or share her with another? It seems to me that you are afraid to answer or really consider my hypothetical.

Notice what I bolded in your post, Kevin. I absolutely agree with everything you stated. However, I don't see how any of those things can be optimally practiced in a polygamous relationship. Sure, the man always gets to wake up next to someone, but what about the women? For all intents and purposes, basically, the women in even the BEST polygamous situations, are functioning as a single parent quite a bit of the time. Neither wife has the benefit of a husband/lover/life partner who is completely committed to her, even though she is completely committed to him. I'm sorry, but that sounds a lot more like hell than heaven to me.

Who was the famous statesman that said that he would never be free, as long as one was imprisoned, or something to that effect? So we're satisfied when all prisoners are freed, but when it comes to who has companionship in the eternities it's everyone for herself/himself?

I heard a story about a woman who thought she was in a great marriage, whose husband spent some time on business in Japan. He ended up leaving her for a Japanese woman he met there. That was pretty devastating. Her ex had two children by the Japanese woman. Then he got sick and died. Economic conditions in Japan at the time were such that the American woman, aware that the two children were her ex-husband's children, ended up bringing them to the United States so that she could raise them. But after she'd done that she realized that the two children really needed their mother, so she ended up bringing their mother to the US, and they became a family, her, her ex's former wife, and the two children.

That doesn't sound to me like Hell; rather it sounds to me like the American woman realized what her ex's children needed and made adjustments accordingly.

You said you don't see how any "of those things can be optimally practiced in a polygamous relationship." I agree entirely! I have said from the outset that I'm no big fan of polygamy. We aren't talking an optimal relationship here. The optimal situation would be if there are precisely as many men qualifying for an eternal marriage as there are women, and then each woman can have a spouse she doesn't have to share with anyone! All I'm saying is that that optimal match-up is very likely unrealistic. The question is, if there are more women than there are men, ready for eternal marriage, what do we do with the surplus? Those are real women there, with feelings just like you and me. Do we condemn them to an eternity of solitude simply due to their bad luck?