LDS LDS---YIKES!

The article is unavailable in the EU region.

David Wright said:

You're suggesting that you know why God allowed polygamy? Must be nice to know the mind of God.

Click to expand...

What does the Bible say?:

(Old Testament | Deuteronomy 21:15 - 17)

15 ¶ If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:
17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.

(Old Testament | 2 Samuel 12:8)

8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

He is the way said:

What does the Bible say?:

(Old Testament | Deuteronomy 21:15 - 17)

15 ¶ If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:
17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.

(Old Testament | 2 Samuel 12:8)

8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

Click to expand...

He also made provisions for the treatment of slaves---He does not endorse slavery.

mmksparbud said:

He also made provisions for the treatment of slaves---He does not endorse slavery.

Click to expand...

Why do you say He does not endorse slavery? God has allowed people to become slaves because of their disobedience.

He is the way said:

Why do you say He does not endorse slavery? God has allowed people to become slaves because of their disobedience.

Click to expand...

What??? He allowed because of the hardness of peoples hearts--as He allowed divorce. He does not want slavery any more than He wanted polygamy. Disobedience my foot. Some were born into it, others were captured in wars, some had to because of debt--many reasons---disobedience is not one them.

mmksparbud said:

He also made provisions for the treatment of slaves---He does not endorse slavery.

Click to expand...

So you think if God had told the Israelites that there should be no slavery, it would have stopped?
Yes, so why did he allow it? Because a slave in Israel was a hundred time better off than a slave in Babylon or etc. So when Israel conquered another city state and they took back women and children, why did the Lord allow for slavery of these people, or to be part of a plural marriage? Because it was 100% better situation from where they came from and would keep them out of prostitution and degradation and finally death.

Slavery and marriage are 2 way different institutions. He endorsed marriage, monogamous or plural, as seen by the statues in the law and other scriptures about marriage. Monogamy was the preferred marriage covenant, but on occasion he allowed plural marriage. From Abraham to Jesus, he allowed it by the Law of Moses.

Just because you have a particular bias against plural marriage, because JS participated in it, you cannot say what the Lord thought about plural marriage, since he participated in it by giving some men their wives, and would have given them more if they desired it.

There were some who abused the marriage covenant and he rebuked them for their sins and their marriage. Do not confuse a rebuke for he did not like or want plural marriage. He allowed it and expected all to be rational, moral, and upright people, working toward the KOG.

David Wright said:

You're suggesting that you know why God allowed polygamy? Must be nice to know the mind of God.

Click to expand...

Read the OT and that God allowed plural marriage and you have the mind of God written down in the statutes of the Law of Moses pertaining to plural marriage situations.

Peter1000 said:

So you think if God had told the Israelites that there should be no slavery, it would have stopped?
Yes, so why did he allow it? Because a slave in Israel was a hundred time better off than a slave in Babylon or etc. So when Israel conquered another city state and they took back women and children, why did the Lord allow for slavery of these people, or to be part of a plural marriage? Because it was 100% better situation from where they came from and would keep them out of prostitution and degradation and finally death.

Slavery and marriage are 2 way different institutions. He endorsed marriage, monogamous or plural, as seen by the statues in the law and other scriptures about marriage. Monogamy was the preferred marriage covenant, but on occasion he allowed plural marriage. From Abraham to Jesus, he allowed it by the Law of Moses.

Just because you have a particular bias against plural marriage, because JS participated in it, you cannot say what the Lord thought about plural marriage, since he participated in it by giving some men their wives, and would have given them more if they desired it.

There were some who abused the marriage covenant and he rebuked them for their sins and their marriage. Do not confuse a rebuke for he did not like or want plural marriage. He allowed it and expected all to be rational, moral, and upright people, working toward the KOG.

Click to expand...

God never, ever asked anyone to have more than one wife. I've said it over and over---brothers and sister were allowed to marry for who else was there? Abraham was married to his 1/2 sister. There came a time when that was no longer to be done and He said no more. There were now genetic defects that would occur. There was a time He allowed plural marriages--the NT says one wife. That's it. God just plain doesn't flip back and forth, wily nily----yes, no, yes, no. He certainly never threatened anyone with destruction for not having more than one wife, and never threatened a wife with destruction if she didn't let her husband have more than 1 wife.
Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

It does not say that God gave David his wives.

2Sa 12:8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

When a King conquered another King the conquered took his enemies wives---that was the custom.
You want this to say that God gave him those many wives---allowing and giving are not the same thing. This meant that whatever David had was granted by God and if David had wanted more things He would have given them to him. It doesn't say that He'd have given to David more wives. He did not ask any of those men with plural wives to take on those extra wives. He never asked Abraham to take another wife, in fact He told him to send her away.

Gen 4:19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

This doesn't say God demanded Lamech to take 2 wives--he took them.
You've never posted a verse that states God demanded, nor even asked, anyone to take on another wife. There isn't one. You can't become one flesh with more than 1 spouse.

mmksparbud said:

God never, ever asked anyone to have more than one wife. I've said it over and over---brothers and sister were allowed to marry for who else was there? Abraham was married to his 1/2 sister. There came a time when that was no longer to be done and He said no more. There were now genetic defects that would occur. There was a time He allowed plural marriages--the NT says one wife. That's it. God just plain doesn't flip back and forth, wily nily----yes, no, yes, no. He certainly never threatened anyone with destruction for not having more than one wife, and never threatened a wife with destruction if she didn't let her husband have more than 1 wife.
Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

It does not say that God gave David his wives.

2Sa 12:8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

Click to expand...

When a King conquered another King the conquered took his enemies wives---that was the custom.
You want this to say that God gave him those many wives---allowing and giving are not the same thing. This meant that whatever David had was granted by God and if David had wanted more things He would have given them to him. It doesn't say that He'd have given to David more wives. He did not ask any of those men with plural wives to take on those extra wives. He never asked Abraham to take another wife, in fact He told him to send her away.

Gen 4:19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

This doesn't say God demanded Lamech to take 2 wives--he took them.
You've never posted a verse that states God demanded, nor even asked, anyone to take on another wife. There isn't one. You can't become one flesh with more than 1 spouse.

Click to expand...

It does not say that God gave David his wives.

2Sa 12:8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

Click to expand...

You look straight at a scripture that says I gave.... IOW I, God, gave David his wives.
And then you say this does not say that God gave David his wives?

How do you do that?

mmksparbud said:

God never, ever asked anyone to have more than one wife. I've said it over and over---brothers and sister were allowed to marry for who else was there? Abraham was married to his 1/2 sister. There came a time when that was no longer to be done and He said no more. There were now genetic defects that would occur. There was a time He allowed plural marriages--the NT says one wife. That's it. God just plain doesn't flip back and forth, wily nily----yes, no, yes, no. He certainly never threatened anyone with destruction for not having more than one wife, and never threatened a wife with destruction if she didn't let her husband have more than 1 wife.
Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

It does not say that God gave David his wives.

2Sa 12:8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

When a King conquered another King the conquered took his enemies wives---that was the custom.
You want this to say that God gave him those many wives---allowing and giving are not the same thing. This meant that whatever David had was granted by God and if David had wanted more things He would have given them to him. It doesn't say that He'd have given to David more wives. He did not ask any of those men with plural wives to take on those extra wives. He never asked Abraham to take another wife, in fact He told him to send her away.

Gen 4:19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

This doesn't say God demanded Lamech to take 2 wives--he took them.
You've never posted a verse that states God demanded, nor even asked, anyone to take on another wife. There isn't one. You can't become one flesh with more than 1 spouse.

Click to expand...

You are going to give us Lamech as your shining example of plural marriage. No wonder you are biased against plural marriage. Read your OT all the way through and find all the good people that participated in plural marriage, and then talk to me seriously.

Peter1000 said:

You look straight at a scripture that says I gave.... IOW I, God, gave David his wives.
And then you say this does not say that God gave David his wives?

How do you do that?

Click to expand...

Peter1000 said:

You are going to give us Lamech as your shining example of plural marriage. No wonder you are biased against plural marriage. Read your OT all the way through and find all the good people that participated in plural marriage, and then talk to me seriously.

Click to expand...

You say that as though I am the only one that says that.

"God said to David that He gave David everything he currently had, his wealth, power, and authority and these had been too little He could have given David more. You assumed that God meant more wives, but that isn't what is stated. God could have made David emperor of many nations. God's point is that David had it all, so his taking another man's wife was all that more despicable. lThere is nothing in this passage that indicates God sanctioned polygamy."
http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2011/02-14.htm

Not an SDA.
"At face value, this seems to suggest that God gave David multiple wives, and then stood ready to add to his harem with divine sanction. Of course, that’s precisely the problem with pressing Scripture into a wooden literal labyrinth, because—in truth—if Nathan’s words are anything at all, they are ironic. David had just murdered a man in order to have another woman appended to his harem. Despite the generosity of the very God who had made him sovereign ruler of the land, the king had stolen the wife of a servant and that to satisfy his carnal lust. Thus, in language that dripped with irony, Nathan the prophet pronounces judgment against Israel’s king. As such, 2 Samuel 12 hardly constitutes divine approval for the practice of polygamy."
https://www.equip.org/hank_speaks_out/does-2-samuel-12-approve-of-polygamy/

Also not SDA

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
8. I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives—The phraseology means nothing more than that God in His providence had given David, as king of Israel, everything that was Saul's. The history furnishes conclusive evidence that he never actually married any of the wives of Saul. But the harem of the preceding king belongs, according to Oriental notions, as a part of the regalia to his successor.
lust, David had to endure many days and years of extreme distress.Barnes' Notes on the Bible
And thy master's wives ... - According to Eastern custom, the royal harem was a part of the royal inheritance. The prophets spoke in such matters according to the received opinions of their day, and not always according to the abstract rule of right. (Compare Matthew 19:4-9.)
Benson Commentary
2 Samuel 12:8. I gave thee thy master’s house — All that pertained to him as a king, which came, of course, to David, as his successor. Thy master’s wives into thy bosom — For the wives of a king went along with his lands and goods unto his successor, it being unlawful for the widow of a king to be wife to any but a king, as appears by the story of Adonijah. The expression in the text, however, does not necessarily signify that David married any of them; nor have we any proof that he did. Indeed, it is doubtful whether he could consistently with the law of God. See Leviticus 18:8; Leviticus 18:15. The meaning seems only to be, that God put them into David’s power, together with Saul’s house and other property. And gave thee the house of Israel — Dominion over the twelve tribes. And if that had been too little, &c. — He needed but have asked, and God would have given him all he could have reasonably desired.
Matthew Poole's Commentary
Thy master’s wives, or, women, as that word is elsewhere used; as Numbers 31:18. And though we read not a word of God’s giving, or of David’s taking, any of Saul’s wives into his bosom; or, which is all one, into his bed; yet (which I think to be aimed at here) it might be according to the manner of that time, that the wives and concubines of the precedent king belonged to the successor, to be at least at his dispose. And to pretend to them, was interpreted little less than pretending to the crown; which made it fatal to Adonijah to ask Abishag, 1 Kings 2:23; and to Abner to be suspected for Rizpah, 2 Samuel 3:8. And Absalom, usurping the crown, usurped the concubines also; which is looked on as a crime unpardonable, 2 Samuel 16:21. Nor would this have been reckoned amongst the mercies and blessings which God here is said to give him, and which are opposed to that which he sinfully took. But we do read, that Merab, Saul’s daughter, was given to him for his wife by Saul’s promise, and consequently by God’s grant; though afterwards Saul perfidiously gave her to another man; and that Michal, the other daughter, was actually given to him, 1Sa 18. And it is very possible that some other of David’s wives were nearly related to the house of Saul; whereby David might design to enlarge and strengthen his interest in the kingdom; although there is no absolute necessity of restraining this to Saul, seeing the word is plural, masters, and may belong to others also, who sometimes were owned by David as his masters, lords, or superiors, such as Nabal was, and some others not elsewhere named might be, whose houses and wives, or, at least, women, God might give to David. Such and such things; such other things as thou hadst wanted, or in reason desired.


Lamech was just the first one that took pleural wives and you very well know that. I am still waiting for the verse where God told anyone to take more than one wife.
If God was so pleased with Abraham's 2nd wife why did He send her away? It had not been God's wish and we are still paying the price in the middle east for that decision. It brought pain to the 1st wife and disharmony in the marriages. Hanna's husband should have waited for God to answer according to His will. A 2nd wife was certainly never needed for children, Hannah got more than she did.
Just because something is mentioned in the bible does not mean God approved---after all---so is murder and rape and stealing and everything else that Godly men have at times done.

mmksparbud said:

What??? He allowed because of the hardness of peoples hearts--as He allowed divorce. He does not want slavery any more than He wanted polygamy. Disobedience my foot. Some were born into it, others were captured in wars, some had to because of debt--many reasons---disobedience is not one them.

Click to expand...

(Old Testament | Jeremiah 17:4)

4 And thou, even thyself, shalt discontinue from thine heritage that I gave thee; and I will cause thee to serve thine enemies in the land which thou knowest not: for ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever.

(Old Testament | Jeremiah 49:37 - 39)

37 For I will cause Elam to be dismayed before their enemies, and before them that seek their life: and I will bring evil upon them, even my fierce anger, saith the LORD; and I will send the sword after them, till I have consumed them:
38 And I will set my throne in Elam, and will destroy from thence the king and the princes, saith the LORD.
39 ¶ But it shall come to pass in the latter days, that I will bring again the captivity of Elam, saith the LORD.

(Old Testament | Ezekiel 36:12)

12 Yea, I will cause men to walk upon you, even my people Israel; and they shall possess thee, and thou shalt be their inheritance, and thou shalt no more henceforth bereave them of men.

He is the way said:

(Old Testament | Jeremiah 17:4)

4 And thou, even thyself, shalt discontinue from thine heritage that I gave thee; and I will cause thee to serve thine enemies in the land which thou knowest not: for ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever.

(Old Testament | Jeremiah 49:37 - 39)

37 For I will cause Elam to be dismayed before their enemies, and before them that seek their life: and I will bring evil upon them, even my fierce anger, saith the LORD; and I will send the sword after them, till I have consumed them:
38 And I will set my throne in Elam, and will destroy from thence the king and the princes, saith the LORD.
39 ¶ But it shall come to pass in the latter days, that I will bring again the captivity of Elam, saith the LORD.

(Old Testament | Ezekiel 36:12)

12 Yea, I will cause men to walk upon you, even my people Israel; and they shall possess thee, and thou shalt be their inheritance, and thou shalt no more henceforth bereave them of men.

Click to expand...

I'm talking about slavery in general!!

He is the way said:

What does the Bible say?:

(Old Testament | Deuteronomy 21:15 - 17)

15 ¶ If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:
17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.

(Old Testament | 2 Samuel 12:8)

8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

Click to expand...

The key word in my question was "why." I think it's ok to ignore questions from others to which one has no answer. I've even witnessed folks come right out and say "I don't know." There's no shame in it.

Not Mormon but.. how in the world does this help. I pray we looked into this and searched on WHO as doing the talking and then other sources to back it up yes?

I know the thread has been moved to a more loosely moderated forum, but let's exercise a little intellectual integrity, here, shall we? Are we really going to hold that tolerance and organization of rampant sinful situations in the the potentially chaotic setting of the Exodus equals endorsement? And that regarding in high esteem the commandment against adultery equals bias against plural marriage? That allowing His people to come under judgment by way of heathen oppression establishes the wholesale propriety of disregard for human liberty? Wouldn't this reduce Isaiah 58 into merely some sort of lofty, symbolic, flowery, perhaps futuristic, or worse yet, spiritualistic curiosity?

mmksparbud said:

I'm talking about slavery in general!!

Click to expand...

Most people are slaves to money. Many people serve God.

David Wright said:

The key word in my question was "why." I think it's ok to ignore questions from others to which one has no answer. I've even witnessed folks come right out and say "I don't know." There's no shame in it.

Click to expand...

I believe God tests people in different ways. It would not be easy to have more than one wife.

He is the way said:

Most people are slaves to money. Many people serve God.

Click to expand...

.

Amazing how easily you get sidetracked!!!