Why debate polygamy?

[freedomforall]

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

(a) D&C 132:63
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

Therefore, the word seed in verse 30 of Jacob 2 refers to polygamy in verse 63 of D&C 132

Two key words in verse 30, ie, if and otherwise

If I will....raise up seed, I will command

Otherwise, they shall hearken unto these things.

And what are "these things"?

"These things" are referring to not having more than wife, to not do as David and Solomon in having many wives and concubines, to not hurting the feelings of their wives by living a polygamous lifestyle. To be in union (marriage) having one wife and one husband only.

So verse 30 is referring to polygamy, called whoredoms in that day.

God says in essence that unless he commands the practice of polygamy, whoredoms are an abomination unto him.

He tells us that he can command and revoke as seemeth him good.


When one uses the references in scripture, one can get a greater understanding of them. They are placed in scripture for a reason, right ?

For those that imply that I am dull-witted...so be it. It is God I answer to, not forum members with inflated egos. I stand by my view, and why not? After all, those with other thoughts on the matter could be wrong and why would I want to be mislead. They stick to their mindset and I'll do the same and stick to mine until scripture teaches me something different to ponder. Then and only then will I admit to error and will apologize.

[freedomforall]

Why debate polygamy?

Because 60+ threads on the matter isn't sufficient enough. It is a topic that goes on and on and on and on ad nauseam. Why? Who knows, other than to keep raising people's hackles.

Some people want it badly, while others are content to live in monogamy, happily ever after.

Who wants twenty controlling women in their lives anyway? Lifestyles today are immensely different from 170 years ago. Working women looking for a career, endless wardrobes to fight over, a hundred kids fighting each other, and the list goes on.

Me, I'm content with having one wife.

[freedomforall]

To the OP...1) because a lot of men do their thinking below their belt-line.
2) they think God condones polygamy, and ignore the fact that he says polygamy is an abomination........but, he will call for it when and if he wants an increase of children (seed) to be brought into the world more rapidly.
3) men can't take God's word literally; they just have to argue, complain, wish, rant, argue some more and discuss it relentlessly until everyone is totally exhausted.

You are one more who is so sure of themselves, yet it is a useless opinion, until the prophet clears things up by speaking for God.

They can't take God's word literally because it is either unclear, or keeps changing.

The prophet doesn't clear things up, or we're told when things change, that the former prophet didn't say what he said, or he was speaking as a man, or whatever. So follow the prophet, even though he isn't leading.

Thank you very much for the useless analogy of me. I guess some opinions out weigh others. I get it!

[Hidingbehindmyhandle]

Eternity is not possible without polygamy.

There is a need for both an Eve and a Mary.

Polygamy is an Eternal Law.

So I agree, why debate polygamy?

[GrandMasterB]

The Book of Mormon being one of our most important primary documents is very, very explicit on this matter.

David and Solomon took hundreds and hundreds of wives and concubines. There is a point that even something righteous can become excess or even unrighteous dominion and that is what the Book of Mormon is discussing.

David and Solomon desired many wives whereas the saints were commanded to take more than one wife. David and Solomon did it for personal gratification whereas the Saints were to do it for God's purposes. From what I understand the early church men were asked to take another wife by someone with preisthood authority under the direction of the spirit. It was a calling for both husband and wife. Not all men were commanded to do this either. It wasn't like you just join the church and start hunting for wives.

[skmo]

Polygamy would solve that and from my understanding Zion cannot and will not be established unless polygamy exists.

I profoundly disagree.

Polygamy existed to fulfill a need among God's children. His children do not need polygamy in this lifetime to achieve exaltation.

To proclaim one has knowledge of requirements in the eternities is speculation, at best among saints. We are toddlers claiming to know how to get rich in adulthood. This life is a time to prepare to meet God, to prove ourselves in our first mortal, physical experience. Speculation of things we can't prove and can't know for the next life is a waste of effort. We know what we need to do in this life, we should do it to the best of our ability.

[skmo]

Could you please provide when God took polygamy from the Jews?

If it wasn't removed earlier (which I'd bet it was) I'm quite certain it was eliminated along with the Law of Moses. I don't believe the Jews today have the right to claim the Priesthood of Aaron any more that the Pope has the same authority Peter had.

[skmo]

I heard this and had the exact opposite impression about LDS and jobs. I thought that LDS would be the ones with the jobs because they are honest (should be).

I guess we will have to wait and see how it plays out.

In the 80's and 90's, both the FBI and the CIA recruited heavily at BYU because LDS people were often much more reliably patriotic and honest, so it was easier to find trustworthy people. It's like the FBI under Hoover: He wanted a lot of Notre Dame educated Irish-Catholics because they were reliable.

We're seeing a significant change in both society as a whole and the government specifically. The change is NOT a change for the good.

[skmo]

We should not revere any man, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

I greatly revere my father. He is the smartest man I've ever known, and I have tried (in vain) to live up to the fine example he set for me. That doesn't mean I'm aware of his weakness and failings, but I can know about these and still admire the greatness in him, and in my own small way try to emulate the good things I learned from him.

We should only revere God and not esteem one man above another.

We should only worship God. I think it is fine to esteem some individuals more than others, at least to the point that we follow their good examples and avoid their failings.

I don't judge them, only God can judge and it will vary based on circumstances and what they knew, etc. He is the judge. He is the one saying polygamy is an abomination, that's not me, that's God's plain words. Set aside what men have said or done and read his words plainly and carefully.

Jesus didn't tell us to NEVER judge, He told us to judge righteously. We are to exercise the same kind of judgement we hope will be used for us.

[skmo]

Why debate polygamy?

Because 60+ threads on the matter isn't sufficient enough. It is a topic that goes on and on and on and on ad nauseam. Why? Who knows, other than to keep raising people's hackles.

I agree, and I'll restate my previous position:

I've rarely seen any discussion of polygamy that wasn't ultimately rooted in either selfish desires or a wish to harm the church.

I personally dismiss these attempts to sow discord.

[Rensai]

We should not revere any man, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

I greatly revere my father. He is the smartest man I've ever known, and I have tried (in vain) to live up to the fine example he set for me. That doesn't mean I'm aware of his weakness and failings, but I can know about these and still admire the greatness in him, and in my own small way try to emulate the good things I learned from him.

We should only revere God and not esteem one man above another.

We should only worship God. I think it is fine to esteem some individuals more than others, at least to the point that we follow their good examples and avoid their failings.

I don't disagree with what I think you're saying here. Of course we have more respect for those who have set a fine example, etc. In the context of revering a prophet, I was thinking more along the lines of blind obedience, or in this specific conversation, trusting him over the scriptures. Its wrong. I guess I could have been more clear, but its hard to fully express your thoughts in a quick message on a forum.

I don't judge them, only God can judge and it will vary based on circumstances and what they knew, etc. He is the judge. He is the one saying polygamy is an abomination, that's not me, that's God's plain words. Set aside what men have said or done and read his words plainly and carefully.

Jesus didn't tell us to NEVER judge, He told us to judge righteously. We are to exercise the same kind of judgement we hope will be used for us.

Again, I agree. I didn't say you can't judge. Just saying that in this case, specifically on the polygamy in the early church, its complicated and I don't feel like I have enough info to judge anyone. I don't know exactly why they did what they did, I haven't lived in their society, etc.

[skmo]

Eternity is not possible without polygamy.

I believe this to be completely false.

There is a need for both an Eve and a Mary.

Eve had Adam (it actually worked opposite of that order, though.) Mary had Joseph.

Polygamy is an Eternal Law.

Again, I believe this to be incorrect. That is my opinion.

What is NOT opinion, however, is that we have been commanded by the prophet to reject polygamy at this time as not allowed, and that those who practice it are in apostasy from God's church which requires either repentance or excommunication. That is not an opinion, it is a commandment given to us by revelation. People may reject it or find means to justify disobedience to it, but until God reveals a change, His word stands.

So I agree, why debate polygamy?

Again, it's usually either either selfish desires or a wish to harm the church.

[Fiannan]

Polygamy existed to fulfill a need among God's children. His children do not need polygamy in this lifetime to achieve exaltation.

Is marriage in the temple required to progress to exaltation?

[TrueIntent]

Polygamy existed to fulfill a need among God's children. His children do not need polygamy in this lifetime to achieve exaltation.

Is marriage in the temple required to progress to exaltation?

supposedly....Can any exalted beings please chime in to confirm or deny this teaching??

[TrueIntent]

Eternity is not possible without polygamy.

I believe this to be completely false.

There is a need for both an Eve and a Mary.

Eve had Adam (it actually worked opposite of that order, though.) Mary had Joseph.

Polygamy is an Eternal Law.

Again, I believe this to be incorrect. That is my opinion.

What is NOT opinion, however, is that we have been commanded by the prophet to reject polygamy at this time as not allowed, and that those who practice it are in apostasy from God's church which requires either repentance or excommunication. That is not an opinion, it is a commandment given to us by revelation. People may reject it or find means to justify disobedience to it, but until God reveals a change, His word stands.

So I agree, why debate polygamy?

Again, it's usually either either selfish desires or a wish to harm the church.

There was a debate in Sunday School a couple weeks ago...The elderly woman was a second wife and didn't understand polygamy and said it was hard for her to know that her husband was still sealed to his first wife as well, but she said she understands that her husband loved his first wife too, even though it caused her pain. Who is the selfish one....the woman who accepts a teaching she doesn't understand that causes her pain so her husband will be happy?, or the man who has been married to the second wife for most of his life, but won't let go of even the idea of having two wives in the next, so that the wife he shared most of his life with in this life doesn't have to suffer any emotional pain. Who is the selfish one??

Wish to harm the church???? or wish to be loved and cleaved completely too by ones spouse...mentally and emotionally....the greater pain for me would not lie in whether or not I can inflict pain in the church, but rather that I had lived a lifetime serving my companion, while he emotionally was serving two different women in his mind. There's more than one side to this story....people still rail against polygamy because they are still living with the emotional baggage the church places on them from the cultural traditions of the early church.

[Fiannan]

A huge segment of active LDS women will never be able to marry an LDS man who can take them to the temple. So essentially these leftovers are going to do what in regards to their eternal progression?

[TrueIntent]

A huge segment of active LDS women will never be able to marry an LDS man who can take them to the temple. So essentially these leftovers are going to do what in regards to their eternal progression?

fight over the left over men...Every mans dream.

[skmo]

There was a debate in Sunday School a couple weeks ago...The elderly woman was a second wife and didn't understand polygamy and said it was hard for her to know that her husband was still sealed to his first wife as well, but she said she understands that her husband loved his first wife too, even though it caused her pain.

My apologies. Any time I speak of polygamy, I mean a man having two or more living wives at the same time. No, let me be more clear: ANY AND EVERY TIME I speak of polygamy, I mean a man having two or more living wives at the same time. In almost every discussion of polygamy I've seen it's been some guy who wants to justify his selfish and perverted desire to move into the Colorado City community as the successor to Warren Jeffs or one of his cronies.

I do understand that confusion and jealousy can appear in having a new spouse after one has passed on. In that I have always felt peaceful with the explanation that as God knows and understands our hearts and our desires, if we live righteously we will be granted those desires in eternity. It sounds like a platitude, but I also recognize how deep the Truth in this can go. It comes to me from an understanding of how deep the Atonement can be.

One other thing: I have truly learned of God's Love for each of us. Having never had children of my own it has been a somewhat more difficult notion for me to comprehend than others I know, but I do have as fair a sense as my limited mind can envelop. I have pure and complete faith in His Love. I trust in Him that He will help us to have complete fulfillment.

[skmo]

A huge segment of active LDS women will never be able to marry an LDS man who can take them to the temple. So essentially these leftovers are going to do what in regards to their eternal progression?

How many men in history will have their temple work done for them and follow through in their duty to follow God's commandments? Who's to say there won't be more men in the Final Judgement for exaltation?

[skmo]

fight over the left over men...Every mans dream.

While I understand (and have formerly shared) the joke in this, allow me to let a little rain fall on it:

Having been in a situation not all that dissimilar to that, I'll share that it wound up a terribly painful thing when something like that happened.

[Fiannan]

In the near future women who want children will go to the sperm bank and male sperm will be easily filtered out and allow lesbian and polyamorous unions choose daughters. Some will have males but for the most part males are useless in large numbers. On chicken farms chicks hatch and the males and females are divided. Males are put on conveyer belts and wind up ground up alive to make up nutrients for the female chickens. The best males are saved for breeding. As males are less successful in a technological society I think that marriage will dissolve and the ratio of women to men may be 7 to 1 (now where is that ratio found?).
I absolutely believe this was going on before the Flood. So do not assume human sexual ratios have been 50/50, or that they will be in the future.

[FTC]

Why debate polygamy? Because even after hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, the desire to mate with an entire herd of females still hasn't been bred out of males.

[skmo]

Polygamy existed to fulfill a need among God's children. His children do not need polygamy in this lifetime to achieve exaltation.

Is marriage in the temple required to progress to exaltation?

supposedly....Can any exalted beings please chime in to confirm or deny this teaching??

They're dead. Neither AT&T nor Verizon offer Wi-Fi in the Spirit World yet.

That'd be really cool, though. I'd love to get a hello from my mom.

[skmo]

Why debate polygamy? Because even after hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, the desire to mate with an entire herd of females still hasn't been bred out of males.

Besides, even with as contentious as it can be, having debates about polygamy is still not anywhere near as horrifying as having debates between Hillary and Michelle for 2020.

I'd rather vote for Bieber. Yes, I know he's a Canadian.

[Fiannan]

Why debate polygamy? Because even after hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, the desire to mate with an entire herd of females still hasn't been bred out of males.

Nonsense, then we would not be seeing most American men getting castrated, I mean getting fixed, so they can't have kids after the wife has one or two kids. Also, we would not see a shortage of male donors in countries that do not pay sperm donors.