polygamy – La Vista Church of Christ

Where did the concept of one man and one woman come from?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Tue, 11 Aug 2026 01:22:43 +0000

Question:

Where was this concept of one man and one woman first introduced, and why did early people marry many women and have many concubines? Were there no marriage laws among early mankind? Did God ignore or permit early people to marry and have relations with as many women as they wished?

Answer:

The concept of one man marrying dates back to the very beginning. "And He answered and said, 'Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh"? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate'" (Matthew 19:4-6). Take note of the terms:

"male and female"
"a man ... be joined to his wife"
"the two"

The first violation of this command is attributed to Lamech. "Lamech took to himself two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other, Zillah" (Genesis 4:19). The fact that it was done doesn't imply that God approved of it.

While God tolerated multiple wives under the Old Law and prior to it, He did regulate excessive abuse of His tolerance. For instance, in the case of a slave marrying her master (a concubine), the master was not allowed to treat her as a lesser wife. "If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money" (Exodus 21:10-11).

The Law of Moses specifically forbade kings from having multiple wives (Deuteronomy 17:17)—a command that several of Israel's kings violated.

Response:

Thank you.

Does a polygamist need to divorce his extra wives?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Thu, 18 Jun 2026 20:17:37 +0000

Question:

If you're married to more than one wife before you became a Christian, can you divorce your second and third wives and be only married to your first wife when you become a Christian?

Answer:

In God's teaching, one man is to marry one woman. "And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate" (Matthew 19:4-6). To marry another while you are still married to your first spouse is adultery. "For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man" (Romans 7:2-3). Therefore, a second marriage while you are married to your wife is not a valid marriage in God's sight. The only solution is to end the illegal marriage. You cannot become a Christian while you are living in adultery.

Question:

The Pastor said, God never told us to end our adulterous marriage. What should I respond when a pastor makes such a claim?

Answer:

His statement means he agrees that the marriage is sinful. God's view on adultery is clear:

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God" (I Corinthians 6:9-10).

"Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God" (Galatians 5:19-21).

If he refuses to end his adultery or teach others to end their adultery, then they will not reach heaven.

When the Israelites had entered into invalid marriages, they were told to divorce their spouses.

"Shecaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, said to Ezra, "We have been unfaithful to our God and have married foreign women from the peoples of the land; yet now there is hope for Israel in spite of this. So now let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law" (Ezra 10:2-3).

"Then Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, 'You have been unfaithful and have married foreign wives adding to the guilt of Israel. Now therefore, make confession to the LORD God of your fathers and do His will; and separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives'" (Ezra 10:10-11).

While the reason the Israelites' marriages were invalid was not due to adultery, it does show there is precedent for ending sinful marriages.

This man is clearly a false teacher. I would strongly recommend that you find a congregation that follows God's teachings.

Question:

He said the Bible says remain as you received Christ. Paul said that if you are a believer with wives, don't send any away. Only if they want to leave of their own accord may they leave. He also says that idolatry and a marriage relationship are different. Jesus was addressing a different topic.

Answer:

"Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches. Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called. Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called" (I Corinthians 7:17-24).

If a man was a thief before becoming a Christian, does that mean he is to remain a thief? Notice the condition: "as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each." Each of Paul's examples is a righteous state. You are not in sin, whether you were circumcised or not. Being a slave or a free man is equally right. And in the greater context of I Corinthians 7, whether a person chooses to remain single or to get married is also a just condition. However, a single person cannot remain in fornication (I Corinthians 6:9-11), nor can an adulterer remain in adultery.

"But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?" (I Corinthians 7:12-16).

Every mention of a husband and wife refers to one man married to one woman. This false teacher is altering the text to insert his own false belief. "And regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness" (II Peter 3:15-17).

Response:

Thank you very much, sir.

The Mormon View on Polygamy

Jeffrey Hamilton — Fri, 28 Feb 2025 18:41:14 +0000

by Dudley Ross Spears
via Sentry Magazine, Vol. 15, No. 2, June 30, 1989

The word polygamy and the thought of religious orders summons up the name "Mormon." The Mormons are one of the few religions professing some relation to Jesus Christ that have openly sanctioned and sometimes required polygamy. Their founder, Joseph Smith, Jr., openly practiced it. Brigham Young, one of the successors to Smith’s heritage, was a polygamist. There are still traces of some brands of Mormonism that engage in polygamy. Their history has a black mark on it due to their blind following of Smith's imaginary revelation regarding the taking of multiple wives.

Mormon pioneers brought polygamy to Utah in the 1840s after it was introduced by the Mormon leader and founder, Joseph Smith, Jr. He claimed it was a divinely inspired plan from God. In one of their "sacred writings," called Doctrine and Covenants, Smith gave his church the revelation. Please read it, but remember, it is only human "sacred scripture," not divinely inspired by the Almighty.

Doctrine and Covenants 131:51-55 reads:

51. Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.

52. And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.

53. For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been; faithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him.

54. And I command mine handmaid Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

55. But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her even as he had said; and I will bless and multiply him and give unto him an hundredfold in this world of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.

The "wives" promised to Smith is the first indication of polygamous doctrines in the history of Mormonism. To both Mormons and non-Mormons alike, it might seem to be adultery. Smith certainly wanted to avoid this allegation. Thus, to remove any such charges against the High Priest of Mormonism, verses 60-66 were added by this accommodative type of "revelation."

60. Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph; for I will justify him; for he shall do the sacrifice which I require at his hands for his transgressions, saith the Lord your God.

61. And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

62. And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him and they are given unto him; therefore, he is justified.

Other Mormon Leaders and Polygamy:

Joseph F. Smith, Journal of Discourses, Volume 20, page 28 said,

"The principle (of plural marriage) is correct, great, enobling (sic.) and calculated to bring joy, satisfaction, and peace if we would but observe and practice it as we should. But in order to do this we must get wisdom and understanding..."

"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want to here enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. There is no blessing promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be obtained by mankind except by faithful compliance with the condition, or law, upon which the same is promised. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the law of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part—and is good so far as it goes—and so far as a man abides these conditions of law, he will receive his reward therefor, and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined he could obtain the fulness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it. When that principle was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith, he very naturally shrank, in his feelings, from the responsibilities thereby imposed upon him; fore-• seeing, as he did in part, the apparently insurmountable difficulties in the way of establishing it, in the face of popular opinion, the traditions and customs of many generations, the frown, ridicule, slander, opposition and persecution of the world. Yes, this man of God. who dared to meet the opposition of the whole world with bold and fearless front, who dared to dis-nute the religious authority and accumulated learning anl wisdom of the age--who dared everything for the truth and shrank not even from the sacrifice of his own life in testimony of his divine mission, shrank, in his feelings from the weight of the responsibility of inaugurating and establishing this new innovation upon the established customs of the world. But he did not falter, although it was not until an angel of God with a drawn sword, stood before him and commanded that he should enter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterly destroyed, or rejected, that he moved forward to reveal and establish that doctrine.

"To put this matter more correctly before you, I here declare that the principle of plural marriage was not first revealed on the 12th day of July, 1843. It was written for the first time on that date, but it had been revealed to the Prophet many years before that, perhaps as early as 1832. About this time, or subsequently, Joseph, the Prophet, intrusted (sic.) this fact to Oliver Cowdery; he abused the confidence imposed in him, and brought reproach upon himself, and thereby upon the church by 'running before he was sent,' and 'taking liberties without license,' so to speak, hence the publication by O. Cowdery, about this time, of an article on; marriage, which was carefully worded, and afterwards found its way into the Doctrine and Covenants without authority. This article explains itself to those who understand the facts, and it an indisputable evidence of the early existence of the knowledge of the principle of patriarchal marriage by the Prophet Joseph, and also by Oliver Cowdery." [From a speech entitled, "Plural Marriage," delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Utah, Sunday morning July 7, 1878].

In response to the Mormon leader, polygamy cannot please God for it has never been pleasing to Him for more than two beings to enter any marriage. Jesus objected to deviations from God's original plan for marriage. To the Pharisees, experts at loophole invention, He asked, "Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh?" (Matthew 19:4-5). Of two, not one or three, God makes a marriage. Any marriage made in heaven and approved by God has only two parties. What comes with more than that comes from man and evil.

The apostle Paul dealt with some family problems in his letter to the church at Ephesus. To correct their problems, he cited the example of the marriage of Christ to the church. Notice, "For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it..." (Ephesians 5:23-25). The language is precise enough. It eliminates any polygamous relationship. It does not say, "husband (singular) love your wives," but puts husband in the plural. It does not say "wives (plural) be in subjection to your husband." Gleason Archer's comment is very appropriate and has already been cited above.

More Accommodative Revelation to the Rescue

A Mormon document called the "Official Declaration" or "Manifesto" contains the following response to their difficulties with polygamy: First, we must realize how polygamy evolved among Mormons and how reactionaries to the practice felt about it. These factors made a balancing "revelation" from the Mormon "Seer" necessary.

Joseph Smith first received "revelation" concerning the principle of plural marriage during the 1830s, but Mormons claim he was not permitted to teach it at that time. It was not until 1841, after the Mormons had settled in Nauvoo, that this principle was taught and practiced secretly. In 1852, the doctrine was announced publicly for the first time.

One Mormon scholar says it is impossible to state exactly how many were involved in the practice of plural marriage. "Reliable estimates vary from 2 to 3 percent if only married men are counted, or about 10 to 15 percent if men, women, and children are included. Church leaders enforced strict standards in connection with authorizing plural marriages. Even though there were some abuses which attracted publicity, most plural families enjoyed rich spiritual blessings and a variety of other advantages if they were willing to put forth the requisite effort to live in this system of marriage." [Richard O. Cowan, Doctrine & Covenants, Our Modern Scripture, Young House, Brigham Young University Press, Revised Edition, 1979, pages 207-208].

The U.S. Congress passed the first anti-bigamy law in 1862, but the Civil War and Reconstruction delayed its enforcement. In 1882, the Edmunds Law made it a crime to marry a plural wife (new plural marriage) or to live with one (polygamist cohabitation). The decade of the 1880s was a period of very bitter anti-Mormon agitation, resulting in the passage of the Edmunds-Tucker Law in 1887, under which church property was confiscated, and many Latter-day Saints were prevented from voting and holding office. By May 1889, the Supreme Court had upheld the Constitutionality of this law, and members of Congress were considering even stricter measures.

Cowan adds, "In this setting, the President of the Church, Wilford Woodruff, had a most difficult decision. His choice was not between obeying a law of God or a law of man, but rather between two divine precepts, because the Lord had commanded obedience to the Constitutional law of the land. (See D&C 98:5; 58:21.) President Woodruff received a revelation showing him that under existing conditions it would be best to suspend the practice of plural marriage." [Ibid.]

Next, the Endowment House, an adobe structure on Temple Square that had been built as a place where Mormonism's "sacred ordinances" could be performed until the Salt Lake Temple was finished, was torn down during the spring of 1889 when Woodruff learned that unauthorized marriages were being performed there. For a year and a half, charges persisted that the Mormons were still sanctioning polygamous marriages. President Woodruff issued the "Official Declaration" or "Manifesto" before the October Conference in 1890 to answer these attacks. He subsequently explained :

The Latter-day Saints should not get the idea that the Lord has forsaken His people, or that He does not reveal His mind and will; because such an idea is not true. The Lord is with us, and has been with us from the beginning. This Church has never been led a day except by revelation.
Read the life of Brigham Young and you can hardly find a revelation that he had wherein he said, "Thus saith the Lord;" but the Holy Ghost was with him; He taught by Inspiration and by revelation ... Joseph said "Thus saith the Lord" almost every day of his life in laying the foundation of this work. But those who followed him have not deemed it always necessary to say "Thus saith the Lord;" yet they have led the people by the power of the Holy Ghost.

I have had some revelations of late, and very important ones to me, and I will tell you what the Lord has said to me.

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice (polygamy).

I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do ... I went before the Lord and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. [Deseret News, November 7, 1891.]

It was agreed by Church leaders and non-Mormon officials that new polygamous marriages would not be allowed, but that those who had entered plural marriage before the Manifesto was issued could continue to live with these families without fear of prosecution. Under these terms, Utah was admitted as one of the United States in 1896. In 1904, President Joseph F. Smith again upheld the principles outlined in the Official Declaration and stressed that the Church would not sanction plural marriages anywhere in the world. Since that time, a few small groups have gained notoriety by their practice of polygamy, but such persons are subject to excommunication from the Church.

There is more than the endorsement of polygamy in all this. The foolishness of conjured and created revelations is blatantly false. This, however, offers us a little background into the past teachings and practices of Mormonism. There are still some who claim that "Joseph Smith is the prophet of God" and vow and declare that he alone makes monogamy a less than desirable marriage relationship. That is why, from time to time, one reads of some "wildcat" Mormon group that must be legally forced to cease and desist this immoral practice.

Much more could be said about this practice, but hopefully, enough has been said to provoke thought further into this topic, the other marital difficulties that are engendered when God's sacred laws are not revered and practiced with the strictness they naturally demand.

A Study of Polygamy

Jeffrey Hamilton — Mon, 24 Feb 2025 01:00:51 +0000

by Dudley Ross Spears
via Sentry Magazine, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 31, 1989

Polygamy is probably the least important issue Christians face today. Yet, issues associated with it are becoming more and more prominent as they relate to the general issue of marriage. Few, if any, would dare to justify a spouse with multiple mates. Even the officials of Mormonism now oppose a husband being married to several mates simultaneously. But, in a few Muslim countries in the world, a man is allowed to have up to four wives legally, and certain portions of India allow similar marital conditions.

Questions will invariably arise, not over the issue of polygamy, but over what to do in the case a polygamist is converted. Can a polygamist remain with multiple wives after conversion? If he has four wives, which will he remain with after baptism? In some Muslim countries, a man may simultaneously marry four daughters of the same parents. At conversion, which of the four does he remain with, if any? Those who have wrestled with the knotty situations in divorces and remarriages have worked on similar problems. How is repentance applied to these kinds of circumstances? Some of these questions will hopefully, at least partially, be answered as we delve into the basic principles regarding polygamy.

What Is Polygamy?

Polygamy, or polygyny, is the practice of having more than one wife at one time. It usually occurs in cultures where women occupy a low station in human society. In the extremely rare instances of a woman having multiple husbands, the term is polyandry. Not only are there scattered examples of it today, but there are numerous references to the practice in the Old Testament. Jacob, Abraham, David, and Solomon had more than one wife.

Even in the Old Testament, an apparent distinction was made between adultery, punishable by death, and numerous wives. (1) The practice seems more in the class of multiple divorces, which God tolerated but never really approved (Deuteronomy 24:1-13). Jesus responded to the controversy among the Jews over this very issue by saying, "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so" (Matthew 19:7). You might also notice that in each instance in the Old Testament where having multiple wives is regulated, it is always put on a conditional basis. (2)

Why Polygamy Is Wrong

God’s Revelation describes a lawful marriage as consisting of one male and one female who become "one flesh" (Genesis 2:18, 24). This excludes two men, two women, one man and several women, and one woman and several men. It obviously excludes infants and children. It would be as impossible to set the age for acceptable marriage as it is to set the precise age for personal accountability. Still, one thing is very certain: the Lord excludes polygamy. Christ flatly affirmed that monogamy is the only right form of marriage (Matthew 19:4-6). According to the Lord, it always has been that way and always will be that way. If a thing is right from the beginning and Jesus said so, no one can justifiably question it.

There is no direct condemnation of polygamy in the Old Testament. However, the Scriptures describe the bad consequences of polygyny. Consider the case of Jacob (Genesis 35:22; 37:18-28), of David (II Samuel 13:1-29; 15:1ff.), and especially of Solomon (I Kings 11:1-12). Then there was Abraham's marriage with Sarah's maid Hagar, which Sarah herself arranged (Genesis 16:1-3). This could be regarded as plain sexual misconduct, even though it was instigated by the desire to obtain the promise God made of an heir through whom the blessings to mankind would be channeled. Also, Sarah acted in keeping with the customs of the time. (3)

The scriptural record forces all honest students of the Word to realize that every case of polygamy or even concubinage is really a failure to follow God's original model and plan. The first reference to polygamy in Genesis is found in the case of Lamech, son of Methushael. In addition to his cruelty and murder, he boasted of his expertise (?) to his two wives, Adah and Zillah (Genesis 4:23-24). The next mention of plural marriage comes in the time of Abraham, if indeed such is polygamy.

Polygamy could not have been pleasing to God. Gleason Archer writes, "From the time of the return from Babylonian exile (ca. 537 B.C.) onward, there is no reference to polygamy among God's people to be found in any of the post-Exilic books of the Old Testament. By Christ's time, monogamy was the rule among the Greeks and the Romans as well as among the Jews, and Christ's affirmation of the 'one flesh' principle of marriage (which makes sense only in a context of monogamy) found ready acceptance among His countrymen (Matthew 19:5-6)." (4)

From the evidence, neither the Old nor the New Testaments approve multiple mates in a God-ordained marriage relationship. If God made one flesh from only two, a male and a female, and Jesus pronounced this as the one right marriage, then anything deviating from that is wrong. Since Jesus is married to but one bride, His church (Ephesians 5:23-25), and since He is our example (I Peter 2:21), those who follow Christ condemn polygamy.

However, the questions posed at the article's outset have not been answered. Is there a definitive and specific answer to what one must do who has more than one wife and comes to be converted to Christ? To that question, the answer must be "no." However, this does not justify one remaining in any relationship that can and must be changed prior to acceptance before God Almighty. It matters not if the problem is polygamy, second or third, etc., unacceptable marriages, or membership in an illegitimate spiritual relationship (denominationalism, etc.). The individual who leaves must do so forthrightly in repentance from the heart.

Repentance, that change of heart and mind that leads to a changed life, is never described as an easy command to obey. But neither is it an impossible command to obey. It seems quite clear that if the polygamist cannot be converted and remain in a sinful relationship with several wives at the same time, neither can one who lives in an adulterous or illegitimate marriage.

The answer to problems relative to these complex situations is reached by deduction. Given the facts, as they are revealed in the inspired document, holding a respectful and fearful attitude toward the Scriptures, one must then deduce that those who would come to Christ on His terms and be truly converted must certainly sever any unholy alliance, regardless of its nature. Evidently, one of the very reasons we have the blessed privilege of praying for strength is to stand up to our obligations when called on to do so.

References

Polygamy was not adultery. Adultery was punished by death. It violated the seventh commandment (Exodus 20:14; Leviticus 20:10).
Exodus 21:10 (See the information from Norman Geisler.)
His wrong consisted of his lack of enduring trust in the divine promise. Scripture, therefore, depicts the evils that resulted also from this union (Genesis 16:4-16), while Paul rebukes it even as he censures workrighteousness (Galatians 4:21-31). [J. Theodore Mueller, Baker's Dictionary of Theology]
Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan, pages 121-122.

Additional Notes:

The New Testament teaching on marriage presupposed monogamy, and Christ conceded that Moses had allowed divorce "because of the hardness of your hearts" (Matthew 19:8). He emphasized that such was not the original intent of marriage. Divorce would have been rare in Christ's time because the cost to the husband of returning his wife's dowry and arranging for financial support for her and the children of the marriage would have been prohibitive under normal conditions. While polygamy was tolerated among the rich and powerful, it was recognized as a violation of that covenantal fidelity that God demanded of Israel, His bride at the highest level (cf. Hosea 2:2), and that Christ also demanded of the Church (cf. II Corinthians 11:2). This latter consideration is of fundamental importance since God has spoken His final word in His Son, and now demands repentance, obedience, and unswerving fidelity from His people. [R.K. Harrison, The New International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Fully Revised, Volume three, pages 901-902].

"Genesis 2:23-24, as Christ pointed out, teaches monogamy as God's will for man. After Adam was presented with his wife, Eve, the Bible records, "The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.' ... For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh" (NASB). Now, there is no possibility of a husband constituting unity with one wife if he also has another wife or several others. This is made very clear by the analogy in Ephesians 5:23: "For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body" (NASB). The implication here is that there is but one true church and that it stands in a relationship to the heavenly Bridegroom like that of the wife toward her husband. Christ is not the Head of many different churches; He has but a single mystical body—not several different bodies—and therefore, His one and only church is viewed as the antitype of monogamous marriage. Polygamy is absolutely excluded." [Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan, page 122].

Here is Norman Geisler's excellent summary:

"There is ample evidence, even within the Old Testament, that polygamy was not God's ideal for man. That monogamy was His ideal for man is obvious from several perspectives.

God made only one wife for Adam, thus setting the ideal precedent for the race.

Polygamy is first mentioned as part of the wicked Cainite civilization (Genesis 4:23).

God clearly forbade the kings of Israel (leaders were the persons who became polygamists) saying, "And he shall not multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away again" (Deuteronomy 17:17).

The saints who became polygamists paid for their sins. I Kings 11:1,3 says, "Now King Solomon loved many foreign women ... and his wives turned away his heart."

...

Polygamy is usually situated in the context of sin in the Old Testament. Abraham's marriage of Hagar was clearly a carnal act of unbelief (Genesis 16:1f). David was not at a spiritual peak when he added Abigail and Ahinoam as his wives (I Samuel 25:42-43), nor was Jacob when he married Leah and Rachael (Genesis 29:23,28).

The polygamous relationship was less than ideal. It was one of jealousy among the wives. Jacob loved Rachael more than Leah (Genesis 29:31). Elkanah's one wife was considered a "rival" or adversary by the other, who "used to provoke her sorely, to irritate her..." (I Samuel 1:6).

When polygamy is referred to, the conditional, not the imperative, is used. "If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights" (Exodus 21:10). Polygamy is not the moral ideal, but the polygamist must be moral." [Norman Geisler, Ethics: Alternatives and Issues, Zondervan, pages 204-205].

Don’t you realize that the Torah is the way, the truth, and the life?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Fri, 27 Sep 2024 22:24:22 +0000

Question:

Hello,

I noticed your article on polygyny using I Corinthians 7:2. Do you understand that the Torah is the way, the truth, and life? Just like Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. He is the Word of God. The Word made flesh. It's written to add or take away from the Torah as sin. Jesus said in his first public address - it's easier for heaven and earth to pass than the smallest iota to drop from the Torah. He also said until all has been fulfilled. Heaven and earth are still here, and not everything has been fulfilled. Are you calling the Messiah a liar? Because he said he wasn't going to add or take away from it. And the Torah obviously allows polygyny. You can read in II Samuel 12:8 - the Creator himself accredited himself for giving King David multiple wives. So, are you saying the Creator is a sinner? Remember how harshly the Pharisees were rebuked for adding and taking away from the Torah?

Study yourself approved. Line by line. Precept by precept.

Shalom,

Answer:

"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me'" (John 14:6).

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. Jesus is also the Word: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). The Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament, was given by God. However, you failed to prove that those five books are the way, the truth, and the life that leads to God. Paul, inspired of God, stated, "Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, 'The righteous man shall live by faith.' However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, 'He who practices them shall live by them'" (Galatians 3:11-12). By this, Paul is saying that the Law required perfect keeping of the law, and no one has been able to do that (barring the Son of God). "Because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin" (Romans 3:20). Therein is the problem. The Law taught mankind what was sinful, but that same knowledge became a path to be used as a temptation to sin. The weakness was not in the Law but in the inability of men to keep it perfectly (Romans 7:7-11). As the writer of Hebrews noted, "For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God" (Hebrews 7:18-19). Therefore, the Torah cannot be the way, the truth, and the life. It was because it was inadequate that God needed to send His Son.

Jesus said, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:17-18). You made a false claim because you only referred to a portion of what Jesus said. Jesus stated that he came to fulfill the Law, and the Law would not end until everything in his mission was accomplished.

The word "fulfill" in Matthew 5:17 comes from the Greek word pleroo, which means "fill, make full, supply fully, complete." Its meaning can be seen in how it is used in other passages. For example, numerous passages speak of something being done to fulfill a prophecy, such as in Matthew 1:22, 2:15, 17, etc. The word means that the prophecy was answered in full and brought to completion. When something is made completely full by a task, the task is finished. We say this in English when we say we went to the gas station and filled up the car. In other words, we stopped pumping gas into the car once it reached the full mark because no more gas could be added. This sense of a completed purpose is seen in Luke 7:1, "Now when He concluded all His sayings in the hearing of the people, He entered Capernaum." The word "concluded" is the Greek word pleroo. Jesus fulfilled his purpose in that particular lesson. Nothing more needed to be said at that moment, so he stopped. It is also seen in Acts 19:21, "When these things were accomplished, Paul purposed in the Spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, 'After I have been there, I must also see Rome.'" Paul had completed what he set out to do in Ephesus, so he looked to move on to another region. The same Greek word pleroo is being used, though it is translated as "accomplished."

By stating that the law would continue until all was fulfilled or made complete, Jesus implies that the Law was not complete in its current state. We know from the apostle’s writings that the Mosaical Law was missing some essential parts. It could not give its followers life (Galatians 3:21) or make them perfect (Hebrews 7:18-19). Thus, it had a fault, not in itself, but in the inadequacy of those who tried to live by it (Hebrews 8:7). It could explain and hold a person accountable for sin, but in itself, it could not cleanse sin (Hebrews 10:1-4, 8-10, 14). It took Jesus's sacrifice to bring the missing elements into existence (Hebrews 9:15).

The difference between destroying and fulfilling the law is the same as the difference between declaring a mortgage note null and void, tearing it up and throwing it into the fire, and paying the note off in full. Both bring the mortgage to an end, but they are done in vastly different ways. Jesus did not cancel the law but brought it to a natural conclusion.

Jesus explained what he meant by "fulfilled" when he emphasized that the Law would not end until all was fulfilled. “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled” (Matthew 5:18). This "fulfilled" comes from a different Greek word, ginotai. It means "to be, to come into being, to be made, be done, become, or to be celebrated." Jesus stated that the permanence of the law was conditional. He gave two possible ending conditions: heaven and earth would end, or all would be accomplished. His phrasing is similar to the parent who tells his child, “You’ll sit here all night until you eat your peas.” The implication is that the child would not be at the table all night; the peas would be eaten before then. In the same way, Jesus is saying that the world would have a better chance of ending before God accomplished His purpose for the Law. Some people focus so hard on the first condition that they miss that the second condition would occur before the first. The same type of phrasing can be found in Matthew 24:34 and Luke 21:31-33.

Another verse that speaks to this same topic is Romans 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." The word translated as "end" is from the Greek word telos, which means "end, termination, conclusion, aim, result, goal, outcome." In other words, the purpose of the Law culminated in Christ Jesus. Jesus was its goal. With His death, he brought the law to its conclusion. "Having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross" (Colossians 2:14). Or as we already noted, "Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor" (Galatians 3:24-25).

Therefore, trying to justify a practice by an outdated covenant doesn't prove your point.

By the way, your allusion to Isaiah is pulled out of context.

"'To whom would He teach knowledge, and to whom would He interpret the message? Those just weaned from milk? Those just taken from the breast? For He says, "Order on order, order on order, line on line, line on line, a little here, a little there."' Indeed, He will speak to this people through stammering lips and a foreign tongue, He who said to them, 'Here is rest, give rest to the weary,' and, 'Here is repose,' but they would not listen. So the word of the LORD to them will be, 'Order on order, order on order, line on line, line on line, a little here, a little there,' that they may go and stumble backward, be broken, snared and taken captive" (Isaiah 28:9-13).

Scoffers in Judah rejected Isaiah's warning. They claimed the message was too simplistic (suitable for babies). It builds minor points from simple ideas, like a schoolmaster instructing elementary students.

"They sneer at the prophet, that intolerable moralist. They are of age, and free; and he does not need to bring knowledge to them (da‛ath as in Isaiah 11:9), or make them understand the proclamation. They know of old to what he would lead. Are they little children that have just been weaned (on the constructives, see Isaiah 9:2; Isaiah 5:11; Isaiah 30:18; Ges. 114, 1), and who must let themselves be tutored? For the things he preaches are nothing but endless petty teazings. The short words (tsâv, as in Hosea 5:11), together with the diminutive זעיר (equivalent to the Arabic sugayyir, mean, from sagı̄r, small), are intended to throw ridicule upon the smallness and vexatious character of the prophet's interminable and uninterrupted chidings, as ל ( equals על, אל; comp. יסף ל, Isaiah 26:15) implies that they are; just as the philosophers in Acts 17:18 call Paul a σπερμολόγος, a collector of seeds, i.e., a dealer in trifles." [Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament].

But the use of short Hebrew words also emphasizes drunken people who are unable to use sophisticated words because of their condition.

God replies that He will indeed speak to these people, even though they can't understand. He is going to use foreigners (the Babylonians) to teach them. He taught them the way to rest and happiness, but they refused to listen to their God. Thus, He will treat them as schoolchildren who must learn simple lessons as they stumble off into captivity.

Mormonism and Polygamy

Jeffrey Hamilton — Fri, 30 Sep 2022 22:13:18 +0000

by Jefferson David Tant

It is well known that in the 1800s the Mormon Church taught and practiced polygamy. Its founder, Joseph Smith, had many wives. Andrew Jensen, who was an assistant Mormon church historian, listed 27 women who were married to Joseph Smith (see the Historical Record, pp. 233, 234). The Mormon author John J. Stewart, however, credits Joseph Smith with even more wives: "... he married many other women, perhaps three or four dozen or more ..." (Brigham Young and His Wives, p.31).

Although the church outlawed polygamy in the late 1800s, there are many Mormons who still practice polygamy today. Whole communities of splinter groups in Utah and other states practice this. In 2008, headlines were made with respect to a raid on an enclave near Eldorado, Texas where a walled community practiced polygamy, and they were charged with fostering the marrying of young girls (under legal age) to older men. The cult leader, Warren Jeffs, was arrested and charged with various violations of the law.

Those representing the Utah branch of Mormonism state that they are the true church, and the other groups are apostates.

In this article, we want to examine the teaching of Joseph Smith on polygamy, which is claimed to be inspired by God and therefore not subject to change. One of the official books of doctrine for the church is Doctrine and Covenants (hereafter referred to as D&C.) The title page says, “The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints – Containing Revelations Given to Joseph Smith, the Prophet.”

In Section D&C 132 we have this preamble:

“Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives. HC 5: 501–507. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.”

Note verses 3-6:

“3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same. 4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory. 5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world. 6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fullness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.”

Note verses 34-35:

“God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises. 35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.”
Before proceeding, the question arises as to where in the Old Testament does God command Abraham to take Hagar as a wife? There is no such command, and thus D&C is in error, and contradicts God’s revelation. In truth, Abraham’s taking Hagar was contrary to God’s plan. Abraham and Sarah simply did not have enough faith in God’s promise of an heir at that moment, and made a substitution for what God had in mind."

Continue in verses 37-39:

“Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods. 38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me. 39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.”

Again, I ask what Scripture indicates that God commanded these men to take many wives, or that Abraham, David, Solomon, Moses, etc., were “accounted … righteous” for doing so? There is none! The truth is, God did not command the kings to take many wives. Note Deuteronomy 17:14-17:

“When thou art come unto the land which Jehovah thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are round about me; thou shalt surely set him king over thee, whom Jehovah thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayest not put a foreigner over thee, who is not thy brother. Only he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he may multiply horses; forasmuch as Jehovah hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.”

We further note that Solomon’s many wives were not a blessing, but a curse. “For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not perfect with Jehovah his God, as was the heart of David his father” (I Kings 11:4). This was exactly what God said would happen, so how is it that what God commanded actually became a curse? Was God’s command really a curse? Of course not! It is clear that Doctrine & Covenants contradicts the Bible.

(We take a side excursion here to the Book of Mormon. Jacob 2:24 states: “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.” Then in v. 27: “… For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none.” We have a glaring contradiction between the Book of Mormon and Doctrines & Covenants. Truth does not contradict itself, yet the Mormon church holds both of these documents to be inspired by God. Therefore, either one or both of these documents are false. There is no other conclusion.)

Conveniently, D&C then commands Joseph Smith’s wife, Emma, to accept all the other women he wanted or face destruction. Vv 52-54:

“And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God. 53 For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been faithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him. 54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.”

Remember D&C 132 verse 4:

“For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.” It is claimed this is an everlasting covenant, and those who reject it cannot enter into glory. What covenant? The plurality of wives!

Christ Was Married?

Mormons teach that Christ was married to a plurality of wives.

“We say it was Jesus Christ who was married (at Cana) to the Marys and Martha” (Journal of Discourse, Vol. 11, p. 80, Orson Hyde)

Then we go to a quote from Orson Pratt:

“there were several holy women that greatly loved Jesus, such as Mary and Martha, her sister, and Mary Magdalene; and Jesus greatly loved them, and associated with them much…if all the acts of Jesus were written, we, no doubt, should learn that these beloved women were his wives” (The Seer, vol. 1, pp. 158,159)

But we have a serious problem when we read in the Book of Mormon from Jacob 2:27-28:

“Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken unto the word of the Lord: for there shall not be any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; for I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.”

What a dilemma! They claim Christ was married to plural wives, and then in another place claim that this would be an abomination.

This brings us to the time around 1890, as Utah territory is petitioning the U.S. government for statehood. My understanding is that Congress agreed to grant statehood if the practice of polygamy was no longer practiced by the church.

The following document is taken from the archives of the church and is available online.

OFFICIAL DECLARATION

“To Whom It May Concern: Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or more such marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy—

“I, therefore, as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory.

“One case has been reported, in which the parties allege that the marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the Spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay.

“Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.

“There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.”

Wilford Woodruff President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

President Lorenzo Snow offered the following:

“I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24th, 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding.”

“The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous.” Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890.

Excerpts from Three Address by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto

“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)

“It matters not who lives or who dies, or who is called to lead this Church, they have got to lead it by the inspiration of Almighty God. If they do not do it that way, they cannot do it at all. ...

“I have had some revelations of late, and very important ones to me, and I will tell you what the Lord has said to me. Let me bring your minds to what is termed the manifesto...

“The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.

“The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

“The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for ... any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.

“... I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. ...

“I leave this with you, for you to contemplate and consider. The Lord is at work with us. (Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.)

“Now I will tell you what was manifested to me and what the Son of God performed in this thing. . . . All these things would have come to pass, as God Almighty lives, had not that Manifesto been given. Therefore, the Son of God felt disposed to have that thing presented to the Church and to the world for purposes in his own mind. The Lord had decreed the establishment of Zion. He had decreed the finishing of this temple. He had decreed that the salvation of the living and the dead should be given in these valleys of the mountains. And Almighty God decreed that the Devil should not thwart it. If you can understand that, that is a key to it. (From a discourse at the sixth session of the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple, April 1893. Typescript of Dedicatory Services, Archives, Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah.) (The Official Scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)”

It is obvious that the outlawing of polygamy was strictly for political and personal gain. Mormon President Wilford Woodruff stated his concern about the “confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people.”

This is quite different from the attitudes of the early Christians. When Peter and others were charged by the authorities not to preach anymore in Jesus’ name, what was the response? “But Peter and the apostles answered and said, We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:39). This is in contrast to the Mormon president’s statement: “Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws…”

God’s servants through the ages have been willing, not only to give up their possessions but their very lives in order to remain faithful to God. When Babylon’s king commanded that all should bow and worship before the image he created, there were some who refused. Enraged, he commanded them to be thrown into a fiery furnace if they continued to refuse, but “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace; and he will deliver us out of thy hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up” (Daniel 3:16-18).

There are valid conclusions that can be drawn from the foregoing.

It is claimed that the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants are revelations from God that were made to Joseph Smith.
These two documents clearly contradict one another, thus making one or both false.
The doctrine of plural marriage was claimed to be given as an “everlasting covenant.”
Those who would not abide by this covenant “shall be damned…for no one can reject
this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory” (D&C 132:4).
Changing of the practice of polygamy was purely for secular and political purposes.
Therefore the whole system is false!

What if the man I want to marry turns out to be a polygamist?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Tue, 31 May 2022 21:08:33 +0000

Question:

Good afternoon sir,

I'm in a relationship with a guy who comes from a polygamous family I love him and want to marry him but I'm scared of the future. His mother is harsh, and although I've been praying about it, I am worried about the future. What if he turns out to be a polygamist and his family turns against me? I really long for a peaceful home with my family and in-laws.

Thanks, sir.

Answer:

You don't make decisions based on what might happen. You decide who you will marry based on who the man you are dating is. Look at today's problems and not borrow possible problems from the future. "So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own" (Matthew 6:34).

You make no mention of what the man you are dating thinks about polygamy. Is he for it? Is he against it? Does he live by the principles of God or the traditions of his elders? If you have discussed these questions with him, then why don't you trust his answers? After all, trust is a foundation of love (I Corinthians 13:4-8).

Similarly, you are marrying the man and not his relatives. If you expect his relatives to change once you are married, you are sadly mistaken. People tend to be consistent unless they have a reason to change their lives. If you want to have a great relationship with your mother-in-law, then you are marrying the wrong man because his mother will always treat you poorly. But if the two of you are planning to live independently of your respective families, then your in-laws' attitudes will not matter.

Response:

Wow, thanks so much, sir. I'm indeed blessed.

More grace to you, sir. God bless you.

Does I Corinthians 7:2 imply polygyny?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Mon, 17 Jun 2019 18:35:40 +0000

Question:

Hello

I stumbled on a website about polygyny being biblical still, which stunned me. It’s not the only one out there promoting this. The author claimed his insight came from I Corinthians 7:2 when two different words are used to show possession of respective spouses. The words are:

heautou (Strongs #1438)
idios (Strongs #2398)

In Can you explain the difference between heautou and idios? you define these words and seem to support the idea that ‘idios’ does not exclude the fact that, while a woman may have her own husband, he may not be exclusively hers alone.

I’ve looked on BibleHub's interlinear and got the feeling of more exclusivity for the woman’s owning of her husband, but I’m no scholar!

The author that I found obviously draws support from the Old Testament culture of polygyny and makes the parallel of God marrying two sisters Samaria and Jerusalem (Ezekiel 23:1-4). I rather think He married one and they split. I also don’t see Jesus speaking of the church as a plurality of brides.

He also says ‘but’ has been added to ‘but one wife’ in the qualities required of an elder, so it could just mean ‘married’. And he points to Isaiah 4:1, somewhat out of context I think. He thinks the virgins with their oil lamps were all waiting to become brides.

But in Matthew 19, Jesus says in the beginning two (not more) become one flesh, so I’m assuming that God just chose not to mess either with the Hebrews’ culture nor later with the Greco-Roman monogamy we still try to follow.

It is very worrying to see how hard it is to rightly divide the Word. That is what the author of the website I found believes he has done.

What do you think, please?

Answer:

As I stated before, Can you explain the difference between heautou and videos? is that idios refers to something that privately belongs to a person. It does not refer to things that are shared. The word heautou is typically used when an action is applied to a person or to something that is strongly identified with that person. It can also be used to indicate possession of something that is strongly identified to the person.

"Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. But this I say by way of concession, not of command. Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that" (I Corinthians 7:1-7).

All usages of heautou and idios in this passage refer to personal possession, exclusive of anyone else. However, by using heautou when saying that "each man is to have his own wife," Paul subtly emphasizes that a man should view his wife as an extension of himself. "So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body" (Ephesians 5:28-30). Throughout this passage in Ephesians 5:28-30, Paul uses heautou to emphasize that men are to see their wives as an extension of themselves. But it is also used because "love" or "hate" is being applied to the person.

Returning to I Corinthians 7:4, notice that idios is used when you would expect heautou to be used. After all, your body is definitely something that is strongly associated with yourself. But here Paul uses idios to emphasize that in marriage each partner's body is under the authority of the other partner. Each person's body is still his or her own and, as a unit, a married couple belong exclusively to each other.

If you look at the use if idios in the Bible, you do not find it being used to imply a sharing.

I Corinthians 6:18 - The fornicator sins against his own body
Romans 14:5 - A person is to be convinced in his own mind
I Corinthians 7:37 - A person has power over his own will
Galatians 6:5 - Each person is to bear his own burden

Going back to I Corinthians 7:2, notice that each man (singular) is to have his own wife (singular). Each woman (singular) is to have her own husband (singular). Even you mistakenly try to say there is a difference in the degree of possession, the syntax of the sentence still states that marriage is a one-to-one relationship.

You are correct that the illustration in Ezekiel doesn't apply to Christians today, nor is it an illustration of God's intention for marriage. Jesus stated that a man marries a woman (both singular) and that was God's intention from the beginning of creation (Matthew 19:4-6). Without that understanding, God's laws regarding divorce and remarriage would not make sense.

In I Timothy 3:2, an elder is to be the husband of one wife. There is no conjunction in the phrase and I don't know of a translation that put a "but" into this phrase. The literal Greek translation is that an elder is to be a "one woman man."

Isaiah 4:1 is talking about how few men would be left after an upcoming war by describing the desperation of women to find a husband. This is not an approval, only a prediction of what would happen.

Matthew 25 uses an illustration of ten virgins waiting to attend a wedding feast. They are not called brides and the focus is on their attendance at the wedding feast. A wedding feast is held after the marriage takes place for the guests at the wedding. Just because an unmarried woman attends a wedding, it does not imply that she is getting married.

"If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain" (I Timothy 6:3-5).

All this person has done is prove that he doesn't follow God's teachings. He certainly has not proven that polygamy is allowed under the Law of Christ.

Did God change His mind about sexual sins?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sat, 02 Mar 2019 21:26:39 +0000

Question:

Did God change? How is it that God that was so quiet about fornication, adultery, and polygamy in the Old Testament and then suddenly changed in the New Testament?

Answer:

It is in the Old Testament that we learn that a man is to leave his family, get married, and become one flesh with his wife (Genesis 2:24). In illustrating the decay of mankind, we learn about Lamech, the first recorded polygamist who boasted about killing a young man (Genesis 2:19-24). It is Abram who is taken to task by Pharaoh for almost causing him to commit adultery (Genesis 12:17-20). It happened again with Abimelech (Genesis 20:1-9). Abimelech told Abraham, "You have done to me things that ought not to be done." It is also in Genesis that we learn that homosexuality was a grave enough sin to cause God to destroy four cities which were involved in it (Genesis 19).

Shechem, the prince of the city of Shechem, commits fornication with Dinah, the daughter of Jacob (Genesis 34:2). Her brothers declare "such a thing ought not to be done" (Genesis 34:7), and they ended up murdering all the males in the town of Shechem. Judah has sex with a prostitute after his wife dies and tries to hide the fact (Genesis 38). It turns out the prostitute was actually his widowed daughter-in-law, and his sin became publicly known. While he technically married Tamar, he refused to have sex with her again.

Joseph was solicited by Potiphar's wife to commit adultery with her. He refused because it would be a sin against God and his master (Genesis 39:9). In Genesis 35:22, we read about Reuben committing incest by lying with his father's concubine, which eventually led to his rejection in receiving the blessing (Genesis 49:3-4).

These are just stories from one book, but it should be clear that God never accepts sexual sins.

When Moses brought Israel the law, it included a commandment against adultery (Exodus 20:14). Like the other Ten Commandments, it carried a death penalty in certain situations. Adultery was punishable by death of both the man and the woman (Deuteronomy 22:22). Fornication with an engaged woman was punishable by the death of both the man and woman if it was consensual or by only the death of the man if it was rape (Deuteronomy 22:23-27). Fornication by unmarried couples was punished by a fine of 50 shekels of silver (over three years of wages) and a possibility of forced marriage (if the woman's father consents) with no allowance for a divorce.

God chose to regulate polygamy by demanding that each wife must be treated equally. "If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money" (Exodus 21:10-11). If you consider the law, you would realize that in most cases it would be impossible for a man to do as God demanded, especially if he was already in a healthy marriage. As a result, the first wife had a ready reason to leave the marriage if she so chose, leaving the man with only one wife. A polygamous marriage could only exist if the first wife agreed to it. God specifically forbade polygamy for kings. "Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself" (Deuteronomy 17:17).

The Old Testament documented mankind's sins, demonstrating repeatedly that man is unable to save himself. These violations do not mean God accepted the sins. As with many sins, God clearly states why various sexual sins are wrong and warns that He demands that mankind give up its sinful ways (Acts 17:30). This was not a change of His mind clarification of what He always expected of people.

Can deacons have multiple wives and homes?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Thu, 17 Nov 2016 21:58:00 +0000

Question:

I was wondering if polygamy is wrong because a Christan polygamy site states this:

"mia doesn't mean one, it means first in I Timothy 3:2,12; Titus 1:6"

Regarding idios they are saying

"The word "idios" signifies actual or potential corporate possession, or "ownership" (although sometimes the two words may be synonymous, the change up in this verse is very significant). Many times it is used as a corporate simple possessive, like in John 1:11 where John says "He came unto his "own" ("idios), and his "own" ("idios") received him not," or John 16:32, "Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his "own" ("idios"), and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me," or John 19:27, "Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his "own" ("idios") home". The idea is that there were others who were involved with the "ownership". They are "sharing" him!"

Are they wrong with this meaning? Why do so many try to defend polygamy?

Answer:

The number of people pushing for an idea does not tell whether an idea is right or wrong. It only gives a rough idea of popularity. Frankly, popular ideas are often not good ideas. "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Matthew 7:13-14). What is interesting is that right after the warning on not following the majority simply because they are the majority, there is a section on being careful about false teachers (Matthew 7:15-20). This is because false teachers generally use popularity to push their agendas and because the idea sounds appealing, people forget to ask whether the idea is really true or not.

Regarding the definition of mia, here is what a real dictionary says: "one, alone, one and the same, only one, someone, anyone" [The Complete Biblical Library]. It is used in "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all" (Ephesian 4:4-6). Each "one" means numerically one and not the first of a set. I looked at all the verses where mia is used and it is never translated as first. Therefore, "Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well" (I Timothy 3:12) means a single wife.

The word "own" translates the Greek word idion. It is in the plural form because the subject of the sentence, "deacons," is in the plural. It is not saying that each deacon has multiple homes but the deacons all have homes.

In John 1:11, the Greek word is idia, which is in the nominative/accusative, plural, and neuter form. It means, that while there is a single owner, what is being owned is many. "He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him" (John 1:11). It can't be compared to I Timothy 3:12 because it is in a different form. John 16:32 and John 19:27 are the same form. Basically, the argument is the same as saying that since "birds" means more than one creature, then "bird" also means more than one.

Basically, the people you are referencing don't know grammar and because of that make foolish arguments.

polygamy – La Vista Church of Christ

Where did the concept of one man and one woman come from?

Question:

Answer:

See Also:

Response:

Does a polygamist need to divorce his extra wives?

Question:

Answer:

Question:

Answer:

Question:

Answer:

Response:

The Mormon View on Polygamy

Other Mormon Leaders and Polygamy:

More Accommodative Revelation to the Rescue

A Study of Polygamy

What Is Polygamy?

Why Polygamy Is Wrong

References

Additional Notes:

Don’t you realize that the Torah is the way, the truth, and the life?

Question:

Answer:

Mormonism and Polygamy

Christ Was Married?

Excerpts from Three Address by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto

What if the man I want to marry turns out to be a polygamist?

Question:

Answer:

Response:

Does I Corinthians 7:2 imply polygyny?

Question:

Answer:

Did God change His mind about sexual sins?

Question:

Answer:

Can deacons have multiple wives and homes?

Question:

Answer: