Plural Marriage

[Prend1]

I'm gonna jump in late in the game here and say that if my man said that he was told to take another wife I would probably walk out too. We are told and proded and preached to that the family is the most important unit and that husband and wife need to be a team, and wait until you are married to share those sacred parts of yourself and on and on.

This tells me that marriage to God is a BIG deal and not to be taken lightly. That we are cleaved together forever. Thus, we give EVERYTHING we have to this person and for another person to come along and share that is sacreligious in my eyes. JMO though.

If it was God's plan for us to share our men then why make us give ourselves and wait to share our life? Why make sex such a sin? Why make the realtionship so crucial? If everyone had it then where is it special?

Maybe I'm also a little jealous at heart but I can never imagine my husband, who waited to give himself to his wife, giving that to someone else. I would rather die than live like that.

[Setheus]

I think that plural marriage was allowed by God because of the lack of worthy men at the time. *speaking OT time and early JS time* And the reason the women couldnt have more than one husband is for sevral reasons. One, the male is the head of the household *as per God's design* so how could more than one man be head of a house when both are married to the same woman? Also as far as procreation goes a man could have children with all the women at the same time. Where as the men would either be out of luck or have to wait a long time for their chance to impregnate the woman. Also, as is very evident with Jacob son of Issac, the men will have a favorite wife and this will cause hurt among the other wives, and their children. * I know I would be bitter if my mother was not loved above all in the eyes of my father*

So I see plural marriage as a way of survival and prosperity during extream circumstances....and very much like a business agreement.

But for myself, I'm going to just find a super hot babe and be content

[eleigh1977]

I can only speculate based on things I have read in the past...but from what I understand and what I have read...Emma denied JS ever was 'married' to anyone else. Our RLDS counter parts should be able to help me out w/ that one...as they maintain, last I checked, in their history Emma saying JS never was sealed or married to anyone else.

JS however was married to quite a few other women. The church used to have his lineage up on one of the ancestry sites, but took it down years ago. Some of those women were still married to other men, when he married them. Some were only 14 at the time of the marriage.

We know BY hated Emma...she did not like him....I believe it was sincerely over the issue of plural wives. She did not like it. I believe Oliver Cowdery left the church over it. I do....it is the only thing that logically makes sense after everything he and Joseph had been through.

I don't know much about spiritual wivery, except that I have heard a lot of people w/ in the church use it to explain why JS (along w/ other higher up LDS men), was sealed to something like 14 women...after his death most of those women were sealed to someone else in the quorum.....why would there be a need if they were all ready sealed to JS? If it was just a spiritual wivery thing, why weren't the women he was sealed to who were all ready married allowed to stay w/ their husbands? So many questions....

Most of this could have been found online a few years back at PRO LDS sites...but the church has obviously taken control of that.

In fact the only reason I even know JS had 14 wives is that I found his family pedigree on a genealogy site...which has since been taken down. It was then I started doing a bit of research and talking to other people who had done far more than me.

I dont' know if Emma just made herself believe JS was never married to anyone else....because on paper, her was. She however always denied it. JS always said he would go to hell and back for her....and I believe it is because polygamy is something she never agreed with. It's the only thing, that I can find, that between the lines of study...she had a problem with.

Of course I maintain these are my thoughts and developing opinions....they are always subject to change....and I am willing to admit I could be wrong.

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by Fiannan@Dec 19 2005, 11:37 AM

If a man didn't want just ME, then he wouldn't be worth wasting my time on.

You seem to confirm Freud's view that our marriage relationship is merely a projection of needs created when we were 4-6 years of age. Your husband therefore represents your father (and one would assume at the age of 4 you want everything for yourself).

Perhaps the people who CAN and WISH to practice plural marriage are not as attached to that particular stage of life and can progress. To be able to live in such an environment requires a spirit not focused on the self and focused more on the community you have created.

Also, bizabra, you list your religion as humanist. I would then assume that you must leave all issues of "morality" and what is "right and wrong" up to the individual. So you must have no problems with polygamy being allowed as an option for those wishing to participate in it.

←

BIZ: I can't really comment on Freud's POV, since I have not read any of his studies, and am not familiar with the specifics of his ideas. But I don't agree with your supposition of what marriage means to me, sorry. My husband does NOT represent my Father to me, and we have an adult relationship.

As for your assumptions of my ideas of morality, you are also off the mark on those. I can agree with PART of what you surmise, but would characterize my philosophy to be more wiccan; "Do as ye will, an harm none" seems to sum it up for me. Interpret that as you will, but understand that I include myself in the "harm none" category.

However, I am libertarian enough to agree that I would have no problem with polygamy for those who wish to practice that arrangement.

I think the STATE can, and possibly should, limit a "civil union" to any two individuals (male or female) who wish to take out a license to "marry". Doing so confers certain rights and responsibilities, as any legally married couple can confirm. Basically, a marriage license is a LEGAL CONTRACT between two people and the STATE, not between people and their GOD.

I further believe that anyone is free to marry in a religious or personal way in any configuration that they care to devise, or that their religion allows, and NOT have to have it be sanctioned by the STATE.

These unions would not be recognized as legal, thus, no rights or responsibilities would be expected or enforced. That is, the STATE would not be able to enforce any contractual obligations or property distribution or alimony, etc. in case the parties split. They also could not get tax breaks and such.

Thus, folks who wish to have more than one spouse would be free to do so, but any obligations to these dependents in the case of divorce would have to be because the participants felt a MORAL obligation to provide for them. Paternity can be established the same it is right now for folks who have children without the benefit of marriage. Dad is Dad no matter if he married mom.

You just couldn't claim anyone but the legal partner for civic purposes. But you could have more than one in the philosphical sense.

capiche?

[eleigh1977]

Happy Christmas Eve to All!

Biz....

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by eleigh1977@Dec 23 2005, 09:42 PM

JS however was married to quite a few other women. The church used to have his lineage up on one of the ancestry sites, but took it down years ago. Some of those women were still married to other men, when he married them. Some were only 14 at the time of the marriage.

Actually, this is still on the church's geneaology site. Click here to see it.

[Fiannan]

BIZ: I can't really comment on Freud's POV, since I have not read any of his studies, and am not familiar with the specifics of his ideas. But I don't agree with your supposition of what marriage means to me, sorry. My husband does NOT represent my Father to me, and we have an adult relationship.

Bizabra, it's actually one idea Freud through out that I am totally in agreement with. When we are younger there is a connection we find with our opposite sex parent. We idealize them, we want all their attention, and if asked who we want to marry at that age (4 - 6) we generally say "mommy" or "daddy". We eventually realize we cannot have them as a mate so we take that internalized view of our opposite-sexed parent with us as we seek a "substitute". This explains why women from terrible family backgrounds will wind up marrying men just like their abusive fathers. Then if the guy "finds Jesus" and cleans up his act in a year many of these women have left their now-reformed husbands and are living with an abusive partner.

I believe that if a woman is to live in a polygamist relationship she has to be highly secure, over the rivalry she experienced with her mother (the electra complex which Freud also said women never mature from, thus the explaination why many women have love-hate relationships with their mothers) and be able to see herself as an individual who has a loving husband even though her husband might have other wives -- in the same way young girls have to realize that their father loves them just as much as their siblings.

[Prend1]

I do not agree with that theory...my dad was an abusive alcoholic and I marrid a wonderful sweet man who was able to take me to the Temple....so that theory is just that.....a theory!!!

[Fiannan]

Perhaps, but in psychology a theory deals with generalities. Just like the generality that gets thrown around here that "women would not want to live in a plural marriage situation". Maybe most women would not, but if even 5% did then that would be justification to allow it and it would not interfere with the other 95% of women in the least except maybe to reduce competition for available men.

Also, Prend1, I'll bet there are personality traits your husband and your father share.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Fiannan@Dec 26 2005, 04:47 AM

Perhaps, but in psychology a theory deals with generalities.  Just like the generality that gets thrown around here that "women would not want to live in a plural marriage situation".  Maybe most women would not, but if even 5% did then that would be justification to allow it and it would not interfere with the other 95% of women in the least except maybe to reduce competition for available men.

←

I'm not following the conversatioin anymore so forgive me if I don't know what you are talking about but I don't know what you are talking about. How is it that if 5% of the women want polygamy that such makes it justified?

[Fiannan]

What part are you not following?

Many people choose to speak for women the same way some Protestant ministers claim to speak for all Christianity. These people say polygamy is exploitive, by its nature abusive (even if there is no abuse taking place in the home) and something no woman would choose.

However, the fact that many women did choose it in the 19th. Century (a time when many churches baned parts of the Bible being read aloud due to mentioning of sex) speaks volumes. Now we live in an era that should be even more open to the idea of polygamy for these reasons:

1) People are moe open to unconventional examination of the Bible -- if 50 years ago you would have said Jesus was probably married you would have been depicted as a psychotic heritic (now the idea is catching on).

2) We are no longer shocked by seeing people on our TV sets living all sorts of lifestyles.

3) The justifications for gay marriage can be easily turned around to justify any sort of marriage relationship.

4) Islam is now mainstream -- at least it's not seen as some faceless cultish force (well, by some people but not by most).

I used the figure of 5% because that's generally the percentage of families in traditional Islamic areas of the Middle East and India who practice polygamy. Simple demographics would keep the number relatively low. However, I would imagine talking with women I associate with (all highly educated and many with a stuborn feminist streak) many more than 5% of the female population would consider a polygamist household. Now some of these women (some LDS included) might like the idea of not only having a male partner but female partners as well -- it seems to be the trend with young women nowadays -- but nevertheless whatever would motivate women to accept such a lifestyle is not important. The important thing is that there are those who would.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Fiannan@Dec 17 2005, 09:57 AM

What about the New Testament? According to Father Eugene Hillman in his insightful book 'Polygamy reconsidered'," No where in the New Testament is there any explicit commandment that marriage should be monogamous or any explicit commandment forbidding polygamy" [14]

Fiannan's defense of polygamy, mostly on cultural grounds, and somewhat from arguments of silence (it's not explicitly prohibited), is a persuasive grounds to suggest what might be allowable--especially in secular law.

However, Christians have argued against polygamy, at least within the church, more on the grounds of what God's best will for us is. The seminal Scripture reference here comes from Mark 10:

6But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

7For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

8And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

9What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. KJV

The notion of the man and woman becoming one-flesh--that this is God's ideal--that this is the created order, would suggest that polygamy was something that became permitted "because of the hardness of men's hearts"--much like divorce.

Consider also the original created order, in Genesis 2:24:

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.. Once again, polygamy, while perhaps acceptable, is not the original created order. It would take a miracle indeed for a man and multiple wives to cleave together and become one flesh.

Then there is Jesus' opposition to lust, in Matthew 5:28:

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. The jealousy women would naturally feel, is not sin, but righteous indignation.

Polygamy may or may not be something God will permit in future generations. However, this cursory look at Jesus words, and the original creation, inform me that God's best will for his followers is faithful monogamy.

[Fiannan]

The notion of the man and woman becoming one-flesh--that this is God's ideal--that this is the created order, would suggest that polygamy was something that became permitted "because of the hardness of men's hearts"--much like divorce.

God would probably recognize that (as I have stated before) demographic realities would be the determining factor as to polygamy taking place. After a war you would need it more than in times of peace -- or perhaps when a nation is highly secular (women being more drawn to religion than men) it would also benefit to have polygamy.

I cannot for a second believe that polygamy was allowed because of the hardness of men's hearts since that means prophets (the ones who should know what is right more than anyone else) were guilty of sinning by taking more than one wife. And the Mosaic laws would actually force men into polygamist unions if:

1) Your brother died before getting his wife pregnant.

2) You messed around, got caught, and then you were commanded to take the woman you cheated with as an additional wife.

The Bible states that God blessed David with several wives.

So silence of condemnation, coupled with instances of showing it in a totally positive light, would (if the issue were taken up using the US court system of investigation and judgement) lead to an easy verdict -- polygamy is indeed part of God's plan.

[jiggypoo]

Frued is kind of on target - but I think there is MUCH more to the human sexual psychi than what Frued or you are considering.

My experience w/ recovery from porn addiction has revealed much about my relationship issues with women in general. My understanding of how to deal with the opposite sex didn't come from my mother - it came from a babysitter who sexually abused me. With her actions, she taught me that this is how I am acceptable to other women, and what is required to gain their acceptance and relate to them (which was a false way).

Additionally, I believe we respond to persons in a conditioned way - a way that people have taught us to reply with. So, it doesn't surprise me that some abused women seek out men just like their abuser. That is the only way they know how to relate to the opposite sex.

Though I didn't marry a woman who was like my abuser, I often find myself very attracted to women who have the abusers physical traits and personality components. It is very complicated and confusing, at least for me.

[Fiannan]

Maybe you should read up on Freud. He had a lot to say about abuse. At what age were you abused -- that makes a huge difference. A female babysitter (quite common actually) , how sad.

Was it from the ages of 6 through 12 (the latency stage)? Here is where sexuality is supposed to go dormant and the partnering with same-sex individuals is generally preferred. Skill acquisition is important and any problems with fixations in the earlier stages of development lay repressed. However, if one abuses someone during this stage (or a child is exposed to porn) it can confuse the individual and (like cracking the egg open for a baby chicken -- which kills it if it is assisted during hatching) can cause a huge amount of trauma.

I obviously think that there is more to life than the Freudian model. I think we inherit things as well. I was adopted, and I never met my biological family members until after I was grown. However, I seem to like women who are strong and vocal about their opinions (very much like my mom) and I often told people after I joined the Church that I would never marry a Mormon since I had not yet found women that fit that mold (later did).

However, for looks I never really liked women who looked like my mother (upon meeting my natural family I noticed the women resembled the kind of women I found attractive -- my wife could have been mistaken for being closely related) . There is a field of psychology called socio-biology that claims our preferences for looks are based a lot on genetics so...

On what could be called spiritual outlook my natural mother (who is nothing like my mom) is very new age/native American religion oriented. Interesting side note: I do not look all that American Indian (been mistaken for Jewish or Russian) but a guy I worked with who was into things like auras and new age stuff asked me if I had Indian ancestory since he claimed to have visions of shamans when we were together. He would have not known my background at all. I do believe our souls take residence in families that there is a connection. Of course, this would lead to traits in certain lines. This is interesting as my exploration of religion found traditional religions lacking in many respects -- which led me to the Church.

So I do believe the characteristics we "imprint" for seeking in our mate will be determined strongly by our opposite sexed parent and upbringing, but there are factors I believe are also determined by our spiritual gifts.

[prisonchaplain]

Fiannan,Dec 26 2005, 03:05 PM: God would probably recognize that (as I have stated before) demographic realities would be the determining factor as to polygamy taking place. After a war you would need it more than in times of peace -- or perhaps when a nation is highly secular (women being more drawn to religion than men) it would also benefit to have polygamy.

If polygamy was clearly God's best will for humanity, I could see this argument. Without that presupposition, whether God would still endorse it in specific circumstances becomes speculation.

I cannot for a second believe that polygamy was allowed because of the hardness of men's hearts since that means prophets (the ones who should know what is right more than anyone else) were guilty of sinning by taking more than one wife.

No, not necessarily. We all agree that Moses was a prophet of God. He permitted divorce, because of the hardness of men's hearts. The provisions and processes he established were primarily meant to protect women. God allowed it, though no one would argue it was God's best will. Furthermore, no one that I know of argues that prophets were/are sinless. Abraham lied about his wife Sarah. Moses struck the rock the water was to come out of, in a manner displeasing to God.

BTW, whether something be God's best will or merely something he permits, if God specifically allows it, then it's not sin.

And the Mosaic laws would actually force men into polygamist unions if:

1) Your brother died before getting his wife pregnant.

2) You messed around, got caught, and then you were commanded to take the woman you cheated with as an additional wife.

And, in these circumstances, the Jews who obeyed these laws did not sin. I've not said that polygamy was prohibited. Simply, that it was not God's original and best plan for us.

The Bible states that God blessed David with several wives.

Yet, if we look at the historical realities of most of the Jewish leaders who engaged in polygamy, it brought them troubles, more than blessings. I'm wondering if people considered him blessed, and so used that terminology--rather than God specifically saying, "David, I'm blessing you with all these wives."

Again, there is no doubt that polygamy existed in the Old Testament, that God permitted it, and then God used the system for his purposes. None of these realities assures us that polygamy is God's best plan for humanity, or that God would favor it versus faithful monogamy--the system He original established in the Garden (prior to the Fall, btw).

So silence of condemnation, coupled with instances of showing it in a totally positive light, would (if the issue were taken up using the US court system of investigation and judgement) lead to an easy verdict -- polygamy is indeed part of God's plan.

Polygamy might be deemed an acceptable practice in human history, which God oversees. However, that same court would not conclude that it was God's perfect design for human families, or that it was God's preference for how godly families should be organized.

Perhaps the Apostle Paul admonition to candidates for bishop represent God's New Testament desire for Christians seeking the Father's best:

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife... 1 Timothy 3:2

[Fiannan]

Yes, a bishop is to be married. That is all that passage refers to.

Also, David's sin was lusting after another man's wife and causing him to die. There is no mention that David sinned by being blessed (by God) with multiple wives.

And where did Abraham lie about his wife Sarah -- about her being his sister? They did have the same biological father after all.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Fiannan@Dec 26 2005, 04:53 PM

Yes, a bishop is to be married.  That is all that passage refers to.

WOW. We sometimes joke about this, because in the Catholic Church, of course, the priests cannot be married. We'd say, "In the Protestant Church you almost have to be married, or they won't consider you. Maybe the pastoral search committees took the 1st Timothy to mean you HAVE to be married? " Now you're telling me you really think that. Somehow, Paul's emphasis on the bishop having only ONE wife leads me to believe otherwise.

In reality, we do not even interpret 1st Timothy to refer to polygamy, since the practice was already dying out by his time. Instead, the most common interpretation is that a bishop cannot remarry if he has a living spouse. For example, if my wife were to leave me due to no fault of my own, I would not be allowed to remarry, so long as she was living, if I wanted to continue to serve in the ministry.

And where did Abraham lie about his wife Sarah -- about her being his sister?  They did have the same biological father after all.

A half truth is still a whole lie. Sarah and Abraham were married, and Abraham told the foreigners she was his sister, so that they would be kind to him. Furthermore, he allowed foreign kings to take his wife as their own, by leading them to believe she was available.

I only pointed out that kings and prophets were not sinless, to say that the fact that some of them practiced polygamy is hardly proof that the marriage arrangement is God's first choice for us.

[Prend1]

I just wanted to say Chaplin that I really like your answers and you seem to have a way to say things that I am thinking in such a better way that I could....I find myself in agreement with you many many times...

Keep up the good work

[Fiannan]

WOW. We sometimes joke about this, because in the Catholic Church, of course, the priests cannot be married. We'd say, "In the Protestant Church you almost have to be married, or they won't consider you. Maybe the pastoral search committees took the 1st Timothy to mean you HAVE to be married?  " Now you're telling me you really think that. Somehow, Paul's emphasis on the bishop having only ONE wife leads me to believe otherwise.

It is ironic that Pope Gregory banned priests from marrying in the 11th. Century as it WAS a requirement for the early Christian church that leaders be married -- that makes more sense than the divorce idea since rabbinical leaders were required to be married and Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism. I will note that it used to be customary (still is from what I understand although it is difficult to get around discrimination laws) to only hire married teachers for public school positions. Makes perfect sense in that you serve as a good role model and you are less likely to mess around with students. We can see the problem the Catholic Church has with choir boys.

Hate to get back to Freud but a couple of other defense mechanisms employed by people to ease guilt and tension is projection and renounciation of needs. In the later, a guy raised to believe sex is wrong, yet not only harbors sexual thoughts but those that might not be so "mainstream" might become a priest so as to make up for his guilt complex. Projection refers to taking subconscious thoughts and throwing them upon others to feel better. One wonders why women always wound up the victims of sadistic tortures for herecy and witchcraft -- ever see the means to get confessions? S & M.

What evolved into Christianity in Europe seems to make sex seem like a sin -- it isn't in marriage and celebasy a higher order (yeah, right). That is a far cry from Judaism and later Islam (which is more Biblical on sexual matters than Christianity) which saw sex as a sacrament and blessing from God. So if you have leaders with their own sexual hangups actually outlawing marriage for church leaders it is no wonder this "marriage if you must" attitude would be so anti-polygamy. One wife is bad enough but several?

Also, polygamy was less common amongst the upper class of Jerusalem in Jesus's day -- most were totally Hellenized and looked down on their Jewish heritage (thus the reason all of Jerusalem is recorded as troubled at the signs proclaiming the birth of Jesus. The more religious Jews (especially in the countryside) still practiced polygamy. Jews did not postpone polygamy until around the 17th. Century in Europe in order to avoid persecution from Christians -- the Jewish stand is not unlike the LDS position if you examine it.

[GRR8]

Originally posted by Fiannan@Dec 27 2005, 03:55 AM

WOW. We sometimes joke about this, because in the Catholic Church, of course, the priests cannot be married. We'd say, "In the Protestant Church you almost have to be married, or they won't consider you. Maybe the pastoral search committees took the 1st Timothy to mean you HAVE to be married?  " Now you're telling me you really think that. Somehow, Paul's emphasis on the bishop having only ONE wife leads me to believe otherwise.

It is ironic that Pope Gregory banned priests from marrying in the 11th. Century as it WAS a requirement for the early Christian church that leaders be married -- that makes more sense than the divorce idea since rabbinical leaders were required to be married and Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism. I will note that it used to be customary (still is from what I understand although it is difficult to get around discrimination laws) to only hire married teachers for public school positions. Makes perfect sense in that you serve as a good role model and you are less likely to mess around with students. We can see the problem the Catholic Church has with choir boys.

Hate to get back to Freud but a couple of other defense mechanisms employed by people to ease guilt and tension is projection and renounciation of needs. In the later, a guy raised to believe sex is wrong, yet not only harbors sexual thoughts but those that might not be so "mainstream" might become a priest so as to make up for his guilt complex. Projection refers to taking subconscious thoughts and throwing them upon others to feel better. One wonders why women always wound up the victims of sadistic tortures for herecy and witchcraft -- ever see the means to get confessions? S & M.

What evolved into Christianity in Europe seems to make sex seem like a sin -- it isn't in marriage and celebasy a higher order (yeah, right). That is a far cry from Judaism and later Islam (which is more Biblical on sexual matters than Christianity) which saw sex as a sacrament and blessing from God. So if you have leaders with their own sexual hangups actually outlawing marriage for church leaders it is no wonder this "marriage if you must" attitude would be so anti-polygamy. One wife is bad enough but several?

Also, polygamy was less common amongst the upper class of Jerusalem in Jesus's day -- most were totally Hellenized and looked down on their Jewish heritage (thus the reason all of Jerusalem is recorded as troubled at the signs proclaiming the birth of Jesus. The more religious Jews (especially in the countryside) still practiced polygamy. Jews did not postpone polygamy until around the 17th. Century in Europe in order to avoid persecution from Christians -- the Jewish stand is not unlike the LDS position if you examine it.

←

According to the church doctrine, it is a sin to have sex without the intention of creating babies. First of all, who says you gotta be married. Dont worry about this junk. Affectionate sex with the opposite sex is healthy if the partners are disease free. Also, wouldnt you think that plural marriage with the intent of creating oodles of babies would casue some genetic malfunctioning of the offspring. Possible venereal diseases. Plural marriage is no different in its underlying theme than a person wanting multiple partners for sex. All this stuff is lunacy. Sex without children is acceptable and should not be looked upon as sloth. IF you want to be married, then stay with one. If you want to have sex with multiple partners, then dont bother getting married. Just make sure you and they are up to date on testing. thats all.

[Fiannan]

GRR8,

According to the church doctrine, it is a sin to have sex without the intention of creating babies.

Whose church? While I am probably the most vocal proponent of large families on this board I find nothing wrong with having sex WITH YOUR SPOUCE as often as you wish. Also, humans are the only species that has sex drives continuously, not just during the fertile cycle.

First of all, who says you gotta be married.

The Bible. Good enough for you?

Affectionate sex with the opposite sex is healthy if the partners are disease free.

You are of course ignoring human psychology.

Also, wouldnt you think that plural marriage with the intent of creating oodles of babies would casue some genetic malfunctioning of the offspring. Possible venereal diseases.

If you have healthy parents in the first place then why would there be any problems with genetics? Also, how would venerial disease creep in unless people were unfaithful?

Plural marriage is no different in its underlying theme than a person wanting multiple partners for sex.

You have already advocated multiple partners for sex, so what is your problem with polygamy? Also, if a person has the right intent (to raise a rightious posterity and have a celestial family) then there is a big difference.

In today's society a man can have sex with as many women (or men, sorry if there are any liberals reading this) as he wants. If he goes to a sex club he can do as many as is physically possible and it's totally legal -- in Canada too according to their high court last week. Yet if you actually want to make a commitment to more than one woman to be faithful and assume responsibility for her and her children then that is considered immoral.

Now if that is not strange and ironic I don't know what is.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Fiannan@Dec 27 2005, 01:55 AM

It is ironic that Pope Gregory banned priests from marrying in the 11th Century.

I always assumed Catholics had this rule because the Apostle Paul had said he wished other leaders were like him (single). However, the Catholic leadership has been very open about saying celibate priesthood is simply a tradition--one they wish to continue.

it WAS a requirement for the early Christian church that leaders be married

You say this with such certainty. Are you sure? Was Timothy married? Can you give us some sources? I'm quite certain Paul was not married, though I'm aware there is a minority opinion that he had to have been, since he was of the Pharisaic tradition.

that makes more sense than the divorce idea since rabbinical leaders were required to be married and Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism.

An offshoot that did away with kosher food laws, greatly liberalized Sabbath regulations, apparently changed the common day of corporate worship, and in many other ways discarded certain Jewish practicers. Paul ranted fervently against those who tried to "Judaize" the Church. John repeated spoke of "so-called Jews," and came up with the phrase "synagogue of Satan." All this to say that Jewish traditions concerning rabbis did not necessarily carry over to the early followers of the Way.

We can see the problem the Catholic Church has with choir boys.

Without solid demographic evidence that Catholic clergy molest children at significantly higher rates than other groups, I'm tempted to consider this particular accusation as an unsavory exploitation of the current liberal media's anti-religious feeding frenzy. My church got its hit in the late 1980s with the televangelist scandals. Today it's the Catholics. Don't think they won't turn their guns on you, in due time.

If there is any area of commonality between LDS and evangelicals (and rigorous practiononers of other faiths) it ought to be in our united demand that people of faith not be broadbrushed like this.

What evolved into Christianity in Europe seems to make sex seem like a sin -- it isn't in marriage and celebasy a higher order (yeah, right).

I'm guessing that the practical purpose of requiring that priests be celibate was so they could fully devote themselves to priestly work, because they would not have the distractions of family life. This was the benefit Paul saw, and the Catholic Church probably thought of this far more seriously than they worried that married men might have sex.

So if you have leaders with their own sexual hangups actually outlawing marriage for church leaders it is no wonder this "marriage if you must" attitude would be so anti-polygamy.  One wife is bad enough but several?

I'm not anything close to Catholic, but your speculations here border on offensive. I've met Catholic priests, and they seem to me to be dedicated servants, who truly have forsaken family life so they could fully dedicate themselves to service to God and his church.

Also, polygamy was less common amongst the upper class of Jerusalem in Jesus's day -- most were totally Hellenized and looked down on their Jewish heritage (thus the reason all of Jerusalem is recorded as troubled at the signs proclaiming the birth of Jesus.  The more religious Jews (especially in the countryside) still practiced polygamy.  Jews did not postpone polygamy until around the 17th. Century in Europe in order to avoid persecution from Christians -- the Jewish stand is not unlike the LDS position if you examine it.

You've gone from arguing that polygamy was acceptable, to suggesting that it was "the more religious" family arrangement? Based on what? An appeal to aggrarian nostalgia (that's how they did it in the countryside--where the simple, pure folk live!).

Polygamy may have been a compromise that God accepted, and may yet accept, in certain circumstances. It was never the more religious choice, the more righteous choice. And, it certainly was not God's original design. The man and woman were to leave their parents, cling to one another, and the TWO were to become ONE flesh.

[Guest sugarbay]

Just had to drop in and see if you guys had beat this dead horse to death again... B)

[Fiannan]

I always assumed Catholics had this rule because the Apostle Paul had said he wished other leaders were like him (single). However, the Catholic leadership has been very open about saying celibate priesthood is simply a tradition--one they wish to continue.

First, from what I understand Paul's statements referred to men going on missions -- which in that day was very dangerous. So if in missionary service maybe it was not a good idea to marry. However, the Bible is strong on marriage and celibasy is totally contrary to scripture. There was a great deal of debate about celibacy in the early Catholic Church with Gregory finally making this rule. However, the scripture you pointed out about the requirements of a bishop shows that today, if Catholic bishops don't have a wife, they are living contrary to that scripture.

Was Timothy married? Can you give us some sources? I'm quite certain Paul was not married, though I'm aware there is a minority opinion that he had to have been, since he was of the Pharisaic tradition.

And if we use that logic then in the Old Testament most men were born from the wombs of men since it seems men did all the begetting.

An offshoot that did away with kosher food laws, greatly liberalized Sabbath regulations, apparently changed the common day of corporate worship, and in many other ways discarded certain Jewish practicers.

Jews were the bulk of converts to Christianity for its first couple of centuries until it evolved into something so contrary to Jewish traditions (Roman and Greek philosophical ideas) that conversions shrank to practically nothing. Just because certan things in "the law" were liberalized through the atonement of Jesus, that did not mean that Paganistic philosophies were all fine and good.

As for the choir boy thing, all I am referring to is that if you tell men who want to have a family they cannot become priests then you are going to get two extremes of men entering the priesthood -- highly dedicated men willing to sacrifice sex and family or men who are repressing urges and trying to sublimate them towards a spiritual ideal. Problem is, whenever you repress something too much it will someday come back and dominate you -- try not thinking about the color blue, nomatter what you do right now, pretend that to think about blue will be a sin...see my point?

As for what I know about history urban upper classes of Jerusalem were quite comfortable with Roman rule and ideas. They exercised nude in the gymnasium (the word after all means "a place to exercise naked"), enjoyed the games, even went so far as to have doctors scar their penis so it would appear uncircumcised -- so they would look like Roman men in the gym or in the baths (or maybe the orgy courts).

So just like today if you look at a map of the 2004 election you notice a sea of red (Bush) except in urban areas where they are blue(Kerry). Urban areas today are more liberal, less religious, more gay, more single and less likely to be into tradition as the outlying areas where people tend to move after marriage or where more conservative people tend to stay rather than go off to the city.

Demographic realities were the same in Jesus's day as well as in the days of Sodom.