posted
I'm kind of curious about this. I get all the social arguments against polygamy. What I don't get is the religious objections. In Judaism, Ashkenazi Jews put a temporary ban on polygamy into effect back in the year 976 CE, but it was mostly because the Christians we were living among saw it as something so negative. There were other reasons as well, but they probably wouldn't have been enough.
posted
In the New Testement(KJV 1st Timothy), Paul sets as a qualification for a Bishop, that he be "husband of one wife". Although it is just as likely that the phrase meant something something like "successfully married" this has been used by western "Christian" sects to object to Polygyny.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How funny is serial polygamy (many spouses, one at a time) like our modern society (and most Christian sects) practices.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And now bishops can't even marry. How funny is that.
Not Catholic bishops.
I believe (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that they can in the Church of England. And in our church (LDS) the office of Bishop is the term for the lay leader of a local congregation (rather like a pastor or minister), and they must be married (or maybe widowers are allowed too, not sure), AFAIK.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only religious argument I have heard against it is the Adam and Eve one used against Gay relationships. Other than that, it is a purely moral or cultural argument disguised as a religous one.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if the stories about Adam's wife Lilith are related to any religious arguments against polygamy.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny enough, I never heard King David condemned at church for having multiple wives. Even Solomon with his hundreds of wives was only criticized for marrying non-Jewish women, although I think some people might have suggested that having a harem of 1,000 women might have been in poor taste.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Funny enough, I never heard King David condemned at church for having multiple wives.
They are condemned for it in the Book of Mormon:
quote:For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. 24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
quote:And in our church (LDS) the office of Bishop is the term for the lay leader of a local congregation (rather like a pastor or minister), and they must be married (or maybe widowers are allowed too, not sure), AFAIK.
Usually are married, but it's not required. There have been single bishops/branch presidents. It's just not as common. Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I believe (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that they can in the Church of England.
They can yes, and have been able to since the reign of Edward VI (they actualy began marrying in secret after the break with Rome).
In practice, Anglican priests and bishops may have as many wives as local custom premits. That has always been one in Europe and North America, but there are polygamous Anglicans in Africa who are not condemed (they arn't exactly encouraged either.) In the U.S., Priests and Bishops may, like all Church members, divorce and re-marry, although I believe only once. In the Church of England, they may not.
Eastern Orthodox Priests may marry before ordination but may neither divorce nor marry after ordination. Bishops are always drawn from monastics and are thus celibate (they may be widowers, however.)
Some Roman Catholic priests are actualy premited to have wives. Episcopal and Orthodox priests may convert to the Church of Rome and keep their wives. Eastern Rite Catholic clerics also marry in accordance with Eastern tradition.
In North America, Anglican priests may have also have homosexual partners and may marry where legal, i.e. in Canada. This is decidedly not the case in Africa. Scotland leans toward the North American posistion and England toward the conservative posistion. The Rt. Rev. and Most Hon. Dr. Rowan Williams, Primate of the Communion is both deeply divided on the issue (to the point where he contradicts himself routinaly) and totaly powerless to do anything even if he could make up his mind.
Posts: 211 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quidscribis -- are you positive that there are single biships in the LDS church? My understanding was that branch presidents can be single (in fact, they can be missionaries), but bishops must be married.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anglican Priests, I might add, are also often under social pressure to marry, although there is no theological reason why they must.
Posts: 211 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Quidscribis -- are you positive that there are single biships in the LDS church? My understanding was that branch presidents can be single (in fact, they can be missionaries), but bishops must be married.
That was my understanding as well.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's interesting that it's okay for a guy to shack up with many different women and have kids with each of them, but it's considered wrong and it's illegal to marry (and promise to love and support) more than woman at a time.
Posts: 65 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Edit: this was in response to the serial monogamy posts.
Sometimes you aren't really given a choice. Easily my main beef with my church at the moment is that I refuse to be rendered celibate by the actions (or lack thereof) of another person. While it's true that the case is far from that simple, when you get down to the nub of it, it is.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by quidscribis: I've come across one or two unmarried bishops in the last ten years.
But then, it's also possible that the stake president ignored that rule, if there is one.
Or they got an exception from church leaders, as my ward did when calling its first bishop, who was at the time the stake Patriarch, who is not supposed to be called as bishop.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Funny enough, I never heard King David condemned at church for having multiple wives.
They are condemned for it in the Book of Mormon:
quote:For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. 24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
So, if the Book of Mormon itself condemns David and Solomon for having been polygamists, why did the LDS Church explicitly permit polygamy at first?
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Other LDS scriptures explain that King David didn't sin because he was a polygamist, but he sinned by taking wives against the will of God.
LDS doctrine is that polygamy is acceptable when God says that it is, and only then. If God, through his prophets, hasn't said that polygamy is OK right now, then it's not.
So really, what I said earlier about David and Soloman being condemned for having multiple wives was pretty unclear, bordering on inaccurate. Sorry.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*starts a religion that allows femmes to have male concubines*
*orders a dring and eyes the crowd*
Seriously, though, I have no religious objections to poly practices. It would make for some complicated legalities, but it isn't difficult to prove things like whose child is whose and so forth. Just considering the complexities of poly divorces makes my head hurt.
To each his/her own, as long as no abuse is involved. Not my thing, though. I am outrageously possessive, and was so picky about men that it is miraculous I ever married. Finding another one to add on seems extremely unlikely.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
One part of the official Catholic view on polygamy. I'm not sure that clears anything up. There's another part, http://www.catholicdoors.com/catechis/cat1601.htm#1610 , that mentions that it was not (as we know) banned in BC Israel.
My view is that social arguments against polygamy work as religious arguments. That is, if it's destructive, that's a good enough reason not to do it.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
OP: If I had to guess, the lack of religious objections would be a combination of well, throwing stones in glass houses plus lack of benefit.
To explain, the religious arguments against polygamy would be at best unclear and at worse contradictory/hypocritical to the extent that it would discredit the argument against same-sex marriage. Given such a range, and no real drive to legalise polygamy, then why stick your head out objecting to a remote possibility when you can object to a more real and more dire (from their perspective) possibility.
That would be my guess.
Edit to add: Ignore me, I just read the OP all wrong. Read "get" as in receiving rather than understanding
LDS doctrine is that polygamy is acceptable when God says that it is, and only then. If God, through his prophets, hasn't said that polygamy is OK right now, then it's not.
If God said polygamy was OK right now, would he also have to inform members he wanted to engage in polygamy individually?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fun book I'm reading right now = "Without Sin: The Life and Death of the Oneida Community," by Spencer Klaw. Fascinating account of Oneida (1848-79, community in New York state) -- folks there combined Christianity, communism, polygamy/anti-monogamy, plus, oh, Christian Science, feminism (in a 19th-century way), communal child rearing, industrialism, millenialism, eugenics...
So Oneida's founder/guru/cult-ish leader -- John Humphrey Noyes -- took Jesus's statement that "in the resurrection [the saved] neither marry nor are given in marriage," and instead of going with the conventional interpretation that there wasn't going to be any sex in heaven, Noyes said that, no, there'll be sex in heaven -- there just won't be any marriage. Or regular marriage that is -- he believed in "complex marriage," where people could (as long as they're holy enough) have sex with many different partners, as long as they didn't get too attached/fall deeply in love with any one person. (Couples who fell in love and refused to break up would have to leave the community.) Amazing how different folks can read the Bible and take such different things from it...
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If God said polygamy was OK right now, would he also have to inform members he wanted to engage in polygamy individually?
I imagine it would involve the prophet telling the members the new revelation and any applicable new policies.
And yes, I think that it probably would be important for people to receive inidividual confirmation that not only is it a true revelation, but that they themselves should (or should not) practice it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For anyone interested in Mormon polygamy as it was practiced in the 1800s, I highly recommend More Wives Than One, an in-depth case study of polygamy in Manti during the last half of the nineteenth century.
It's fascinating, and it does a very good job of explaining how it was seen as a religious obligation.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by plaid: instead of going with the conventional interpretation that there wasn't going to be any sex in heaven, Noyes said that, no, there'll be sex in heaven -- there just won't be any marriage.
Well, that sort of makes sense, no? How is it heaven if there's no sex?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't imagine polygamy, but then I've only been married 2 years...
Mind you I suppose it would share the horror of having a husband, and the wives could form a a sort of support group between them.
What mainstream religions currently endorse polygamy?
I believe that Islam allows up to four wives, if the husband is capable of treating them equally.
Where do the Mormons stand on this. I get the impression from this thread that it is no longer accepted? Is that the case?
Posts: 892 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by plaid: instead of going with the conventional interpretation that there wasn't going to be any sex in heaven, Noyes said that, no, there'll be sex in heaven -- there just won't be any marriage.
Well, that sort of makes sense, no? How is it heaven if there's no sex?
I always figured that heaven was what ever you wnated it to be and thus slightly different for everyone. There are probably those for whom the absence of sex would be paradise.
Posts: 892 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Where do the Mormons stand on this. I get the impression from this thread that it is no longer accepted? Is that the case?
Polygamy was officially discontinued by President Wilford Woodruff in the 1880s. It was cracked down on in between 1900 and 1910.
Now, if any members do practice polygamy, they are excommunicated.
Thanks Katharina, I was under the impression that Polygamy was common. Just goes to show you shouldn't believe everything you read in the papers...
Posts: 892 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anti_maven: I believe that Islam allows up to four wives, if the husband is capable of treating them equally.
Yes. Fahim actually has two uncles (maybe one is a great-uncle - the details are a little cloudy in my brain) who both have two wives. They are, by all accounts, perfectly happy and well-adjusted with no complaints.
Polygamy is legal in Sri Lanka for Muslims. The marriage laws (including how many and who one can marry, divorce laws, and property distribution upon divorce or death) here are actually determined by the religion of the husband, with the exception of Kandyan women.
If you're a Kandyan woman, you can take as many husbands as you like as long as they're brothers. Historically had something to do with making sure that the offspring weren't offed by a jealous uncle or no one knew or cared who was the child of who, keeping the property in the family, that sort of thing.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Where do the Mormons stand on this. I get the impression from this thread that it is no longer accepted? Is that the case?
Polygamy was officially discontinued by President Wilford Woodruff in the 1880s. It was cracked down on in between 1900 and 1910.
Now, if any members do practice polygamy, they are excommunicated.
Who cracked down? The government or the religion? Also, what is the theological basis for the excommunication? (i.e. Why excommunicate now, and would it (either the practise or polygamy) be done if the government did not discontinue it?)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Who cracked down? The government or the religion?
The government cracked down in the 1880s, much to the distress of the plural wives and their families who now found themselves either abandoned by their husbands or else their husbands were jailed for continuing to provide financial support. Even if a husband never visited, if he provided financial support he was considered to be practicing polygamy and jailed.
The church started excommunicating those who continued to practice it around 1905, I believe. That was almost twenty years after the official end, so all children would have been grown who were born when polygamy was still sanctioned. In other words, those still practicing polygamy were not the vestiges of an earlier era but practitioners who started after it was no longer sanctioned.
quote:Also, what is the theological basis for the excommunication?
I am not sure of the exact basis (Matt would know), but basically, blatant rebellion and rejection of the direction from the Lord.
quote:(i.e. Why excommunicate now, and would it (either the practice or polygamy) be done if the government did not discontinue it?)
I think the crackdown WAS because it was not on those who started when it was okay. I am not prepared to answer hypotheticals, though, as to what would have happened if conditions were different.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Where do the Mormons stand on this. I get the impression from this thread that it is no longer accepted? Is that the case?
Polygamy was officially discontinued by President Wilford Woodruff in the 1880s. It was cracked down on in between 1900 and 1910.
Now, if any members do practice polygamy, they are excommunicated.
Thanks Katharina, I was under the impression that Polygamy was common. Just goes to show you shouldn't believe everything you read in the papers...
I sometimes feel very sheltered by having done so much reading at this site. I forget what it may be like to not personally know many members of the LDS faith, and so I think I underestimate what my LDS friends face in the mainstream media.
Not to make light of or mock you for asking the question, anti_maven, not at all. I think it's great that you asked. I'm just astonished at how readily I forget that it may need to be asked by those who aren't in regular communication with LDS Church members.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"what is the theological basis for the excommunication?"
Because if the multiple marriages are not sanctioned by God, they are practicing adultry. In the LDS Church, especially for those who have made Covenants, adultry is an excommunicatable offense.
"Who cracked down? The government or the religion?"
As to post 1890, it was the government of the United States as Kat explained. The LDS Church almost lost everything as the government jailed men and seized Church property. All rights to person and property were slowly taken away. The Church president, Wilford Woodruff, declared he had a vision that if polygamy wasn't discontinued than the church would fail in its ultimate mission. His public announcement of its discontinuation was much more political than religious.
Around the early 1900s it was the government who, through Congress, was once again cracking down on the Church for its "relaxed" treatment of those who still practiced polygamy. In return, the Church had no choice other than taking a very strong stand against anyone who practiced polygamy. If they didn't there would be a gradual return to the kind of treatment it endured during the 1870s and 1880s. The more serious stand has continued ever since.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Plaid, the Oneida community was a fascinating thing, wasn't it? Noyes did an amazing job in engineering that society. I really wish that the descendents of its members hadn't burned all of their ancestor's journals; I'd like to have read first hand accounts of what day to day life in that community was like.
posted
I first read about them in an Alternate 19th Century Religious Movements of the United States textbook I couldn't resist buying when I was getting textbooks for classes I was actually taking (anyone else do that? I used to come home from the campus bookstore with textbooks from far more classes than I was actually taking). I read the chapter on the Oneida, and was interested enough in it to dig up a couple of articles about them from religious studies journals. I'm definitely going to get the book plaid referenced.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
katharina, Occasional: Hmmmmm. Sorry for the questions, but this just sounds interesting, especially Occ and the explanation of motives.
What forces triggered the government crackdown? And were there any arguments (by people of the time) against the government ban and excommunication?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:What forces triggered the government crackdown?
Back in the 1800s, a new part arose to power called the Republicans, which was strongly against two of the great social evils of its day -- slavery and polygamy.
After the civil war, they turned their attention to rooting out polygamy.
That's an extremely simplified explination, but I believe it's pretty much correct.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
