Gay Marriage & Polygamy

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Let’s NOT make that the focus of this thread. Let’s stick to the post topic.

Ray, I’m have no desire to hijack, and I understand the dilemma. But, it is an interesting paradox with the general feel I’ve gotten from reading this thread and on this site…

On one side, many seem to approve Gay marriage , but the church teaches God disapproves…for now and forever.

On the other side, many disapprove of Polygamy, but the church teaches God approves…but not for the time being.

Now,…I ain’t saying nothing here….I’m just making an observation…so don’t blast me! :wtf:

[Anonymous]

Rob4Hope wrote:

On the other side, many disapprove of Polygamy, but the church teaches God approves…but not for the time being.

Unless you’re dead!

I think that’s what the current sticky point would be for the church, if it came out publicly against polygamy. It would have to explain why it opposes polygamy for the living, but allows it for the dead. That would be especially tricky if the next president of the church is one of the apostles who are currently sealed to two women. :think:

[Anonymous]

Rob4Hope, this is a fascinating topic. (gay marriage and polygamy) It absolutely is a good discussion for this forum.

What I said is that we don’t need to make this discussion about whether or not God commanded and/or approves of polygamy and D&C 132. That has been discussed in plenty of other threads and doesn’t need to become the central focus of this one.

Also, I rarely blast anyone, and I am nowhere close to doing so now.

[Anonymous]

I don’t want to get into whether God authorized or sanctioned polygamy, but I do want to address the verse you quoted, which has often been used to back polygamy.

Rob4Hope wrote:

Isaiah 4:

Quote:

And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

I don’t know if this “scripture” has been fulfilled yet,….but I am willing to bet this scripture has been taken into account with the decision to leave 132 in the current D&C.

Indeed, this particular passage has been used to show evidence that polygamy is part of Gods plan. I myself have heard that explanation in the past. But it’s a great example of out-of-context selective reading. Like the “Ensign to the nations” scripture, it seems to fit the modern day church when taken so far out of context as to give it the opposite meaning. Seven women taking one man is because of punishment in this passage, and cannot faithfully be used in support of God-sanctioned polygamy among the righteous.

These particular verses belong to the string of thought that immediately preceded it in chapter 3, rather than the verses that immediately follow it in chapter 4. Here’s the setup. The writer uses the wealthy, pretentious, and sexualized women of Israel as an illustration of how far removed from God Israel has become and then promises judgment against them:

Quote:

Instead of fragrance there will be a stench;

instead of a sash, a rope;

instead of well-dressed hair, baldness;

instead of fine clothing, sackcloth;

instead of beauty, branding.

Your men will fall by the sword,

your warriors in battle.

The gates of Zion will lament and mourn;

destitute, she will sit on the ground.

In that day seven women

will take hold of one man

and say, “We will eat our own food

and provide our own clothes;

only let us be called by your name.

Take away our disgrace!”

Isaiah 3:24-4:1 (NIV)

[Anonymous]

When is polygamy taught as a good lifestyle for developing more loving and meaningful healthy relationships? I always hear it taught as a way to live biblical ways or attach spousal ties to a man of god. Whether it is Islam in Africa or Fundamental Mormonism…it seems to be religious and often found in cults. Right?

To flip the argument to my point…if any religion taught that homosexual marriage was required to get into heaven, I would not sign up for that. I’m OK if others would believe that, but I don’t. But if outside of religion, a gay couple wants to get married, I’m for the government letting that happen because it is consensual.

Marriage has always been tied to religions throughout history. The government should get involved to protect its citizens from a religious teaching that infringes on rights of the innocent. And the government should stay out of religious teachings that have no infringement on rights or legal consequences.

The difference between SSM and polygamy is that groups that want SSM want marriage regardless of religion, they may be religious, but are not seeking marriage for religious purpose, but for personal rights.

Those that are wanting polygamy want it for religious purposes, and the opposition comes from people who see it is tied to religion not to rights of people, with an adverse impact on taxes and benefits and laws and legal rights.

[Author]

Posts