Polygamy Showdown

It isn't part of my argument. It is an observation. And it is not universally condemned in the Bible either.

The problem I have with polygamy as practiced by the FLDS is the abusive forced marriages of female children, and the casting out of male children.

 

I guess one is free to believe what they want...

I don't believe that God recognizes divorce, so any marriage afterward is adding another spouse. He allows divorce (that doesn't mean giving permission.... but implies his patience and his grace ) because of the weakness in humankind..... but, as Jesus said, from the beginning it was not so.

So, I consider repeated patterns of divorce and remarriage is essentially a serial polygamy: It is legitimizing multiple partners, in a series of monogomous relationships. By saying that people who have been married but can't get along, can divorce and remarry, it is like saying adultery is okay..... and we wont call it what it is because too many Christians would be offended at the naming of our sins. If we were true to the word, we would neither take marriage lightly, nor take divorce lightly..... Recognizing, that once married, any divorce would mean no remarriage .......... ever so long as our spouse lived. And if remarried, we'd recognize the weight of our acts of disobediance as a strain to our testimony, which should be to live is Christ to die is gain; but we keep 'the old man' with us and make provisions and exceptions instead of putting him away, and putting on the life of Christ to which we are called to his glory.

 

Polygamy was allowed by God for His own reasons in the Bible but never condoned or set as the pattern for marriage at all. Especially in the NT we see that it is not practiced or taught.

 

Where does it say this? What were those reasons? Sounds like interpretation to me.

 

I don't know to the extent in which it was or was not practised in the times of the NT........... BUT I do agree with you that it was not taught in the NT nor was it given any recognition or mention. If it was allowed and practiced then, it certainly was not endorsed. Rather the opposite is stated ......regarding the qualifications of a deacon, the husband of one wife.

It would appear, that polygamy as practiced in the OT times, kind of served the purposes similarly to slavery which was also practiced in the OT and which had laws pertaining to the treatment and provision of and the release to freedom. It served to populate the earth, mix the gene pool (which is a scientific fact not recognized or understood in that day....as far as we know), and functioned to secure relationships for provision, protection, economy of industry and the building of strenght from family to tribe to nation. Additional wives might be added also as a practical move of alliance and bonding one nation or tribe to another by the accepting of that responsibility and producing children with kinship ties between 2 potential rivals or friends.

 

As far as I know, you are correct. Polygamy was never endorsed nor am I aware of any commandment given to the practice thereof. If anything, it would seem that the definition of adultery, coupled with the seventh commandment, should have negated the practice of polygamy..... but we know the Bible doesn't indicate an end to the practice after the commandments were given to Moses and the people.

So, yes, whatever reasons I suggest in the previous post is interpretation and not scripturally discerned.

 

I don't know His reasons.

However, the pattern is clearly for one wife and one husband. This gives a good overview of the issue:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/polygame.html

 

That link misuses polygamy, a general term, as opposed to polygyny, yet talks about it being different from polyandry, which is itself a form of polygamy. It also deals with Bible verses talking about divorce and remarriage while a spouse is alive...not marrying a second spouse while staying married to the first. Again, I think it is a matter of interpretation.

 

Thanks for reading the article.

I do think the article shows the biblical pattern is one spouse at a time. There is no example in the NT of having more than one wife (or husband) as a normal or good thing.

I was in an online debate/discussion with a Christian advocating having more than one wife several years ago. My pastor helped me on it and I used biblical arguments against it (to counter his arguments for it).

 

If a subject interests me, I do try to read various viewpoints and keep an open mind. Remember, I am not advocating for polygamy...but just don't think there is a strong set of reasons to outlaw the practice in and of itself. Like I said, the FDLS abuse is what should be cracked down on.

 

I find myself agreeing with MP on polygamy and Windcatcher on divorce/remarriage.

That said, neither is for me!!! There's only one queen in this hive!

 

Now Spinach, wouldn't you like two husbands? One cooking and one cleaning? :wavey:

 

Not every nuance or event in history is covered in the Bible. In my mind, since Paul addresses that pastors are intended to be the husbands of one wife as are deacons, there might have been an issue with polygamy along the way. It just isn't addressed as such.

On the other hand, whilst we recognize marriage under God, it is the state, country that establishes laws for marriage and even divorcement.

In Canada, polygamy is illegal, and in Canada, this is the basis for the legal charges in BC. That court will not answer to the Bible, but to the law.

I certainly do not believe in polygamy, but chapter and verse I do not have. It is, however, good for the pastor and deacon, it must also be good for the common member of the churches and for society at large. That is my opinion. If a polygamous man walked down the street with his wives in tow, I would still greet them with human and societal respect and consideration. We must not draw lines in the sand and avoid people for what they are. If Jesus could offer help to a woman facing stoning for being a woman of the night, can I do less?

I do remember a preacher in London who almost had his career cut short because he visited a "career" woman in Soho at the request of her mother. He dared to visit her at her place of employment. He was doing nothing wrong, but members of his church saw him and started the stories spreading. If that man had been maliciously dismissed from ministry, we would have lost G. Campbell Morgan!

Cheers,

Jim

 

Husbands cook and clean? Now this really does belong in the news forum. :laugh:

 

:laugh:

Sure am glad you decided to stick around, Mrs. Spinach......