I asked a Mormon, and they said the government was after them for polygamy, so they “asked God” and “God” said to change it, even though I believe it was spoken into doctrine by a person who was considered to be speaking for God, unerringly.
Guess God caves to politcal pressurre.
Yep, lots of sex after death, must be a good drawing card there.
Ah, yes, another lovely example of having a superior attitude about someone else’s religious beliefs.
One could easily assert that the basic principle of ‘fundamentalist’ Christianity is to completely ‘brainwash’ the members into living a certain way, if by ‘brainwash’ one means limiting access to opposing viewpoints, either by demonizing those who propound them, or by trying to ensure they never reach the members. Indeed, few religions really encourage you to go out, study what others say, then come back and engage in open discourse about questions you may have, and all churches do their best to ingrain certain patterned behaviours in the children of members, in an attempt to pre-dispose those children to adopt that religion for life.
Further, morality is not an absolute. We, in general view incest as ‘wrong’, but that is not an inherently correct viewpoint, and one would be hard pressed to establish that there is NO valid reason to have it as part of a religious tenet. Nor is there any reason to believe that women subjecting themselves to the will of their husband is morally wrong per se; indeed the Southern Baptist Convention preaches as its official position a watered down version of the concept that the man is the leader, the woman his follower.
You also have some quarrel, apparently, with the fact that these sects insulate themselves from society. How is this objectionable? One could very validly assert that any sect with strong beliefs that run counter to the mainstream of a society needs to insulate itself to maintain itself. I wouldn’t want to be part of such a sect, but given the hatred, invective and persecution that would surely follow the continued attempt of such a group to maintain a life within our society as a whole, it isn’t too surprising that they hole themselves up in backwater areas of Arizona and Utah and try to stay out of everyone else’s way.
Finally, the fact that the followers of certain offshoots of Mormonism don’t accept the current tenets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints doesn’t make these offshoots any less ‘valid’ as a religion, nor does it make their religious beliefs any less valid. Or do you view Protestant churches as somehow less valid because they broke their relationship with the Roman Catholic church?
Please note that this is not intended to indicate that I like what they believe, or that I agree with their practices; I just refuse to view it with narrow-minded bigotry towards anything that falls too far outside that in which I do believe.
Hey, I have only one wife, and we’re going to plenty of sex in the next world! I can only imagine that in whatever afterlife awaits we won’t have the physical limitations of this mortal frame, and then, well–ever read “To His Coy Mistress”? We’ll have a few centuries to catch up on…
Not to throw a wrench at the monkey here, but it isn’t just Mormonism that has a rich tradition of polygamy. Christianity has also approved of polygamy at times, and even commanded it under some circumstances. The tradition has an auspicious spokesman, as God Himself describes His marriage to two sisters:
Opponents might object that Aholah and Aholibal were not real women, but were allegorical references to Samaria and Jerusalem; but then again, do you think God would marry real women? The idea that he would even describe this relationship as a dual marriage at least implies that the human equivalent should be O.K.
Biblical figures blessed by God also usually had plural wives, including Moses, David, and Solomon. In 2 Sam. 12:8, the Lord even states that he has blessed David’s wives to his bosom, stamping the heavenly seal of approval on the relationship(s).
Levitical law dealt frequently with situations occasioned by multiple wives, such as when the husband loves one and not the other (Deut. 21:15), and in one case can be construed to command polygamy, as a deceased man’s brother is instructed to take the widow as his own wife, presumably resulting in a polygamous relationship if the brother was already married (Deut. 25:5).
Curiously, while polygyny seems ok with god, polyandry is explicitly forbidden, and women who remarry even after divorce are seen as adulterous. This may have something to do with the doctrine that the husband is head of the household, and therefore a woman cannot serve two masters.
The only time it seems that a man is restricted to one wife in Christianity is when he is a church official (1 Tim. 3:2, Titus 1:6); presumably so he can devote a significant portion of his time to the church, rather than shuttling wives to and from the mall in search of the perfect pairs of shoes.
Not to be a pain, AxeElf, but quoting from the Old Testament about the religion of the Jewish people to assert that something is ok for Christians makes the often incorrect assumption that the rule in question hasn’t been changed after the first coming of Christ.
Quote examples of polygamy being sanctioned by Christianity (not by reference to old Judaism) and we might accept that concept as true.
Perhaps I should have used the “Judeo-Christian” label, however, given that:
- Fundamental Christians include the OT in the Holy Bible; and
- Fundamental Christians assert that the ENTIRE Bible is inspired and true;
I feel justified in describing even OT beliefs as “Christian.”
Debating what does and does not constitute current “Christian” doctrine is obviously beyond the scope of this thread, but including polygamy in the milieu of Christian “tradition” is reasonable. And if you don’t agree, you are hereby damned unto hell for eternity. Hmph.
Two minor points. First, Mormonism and Christianity are not distinct. Mormons are a Christian denomination, albeit with somewhat wilder beliefs than many other denominations. Take a look in the beginning of the Book of Mormon; it declares that the primary Mormon holy text is the Bible, and if anything in the Book of Mormon appears to be at odds with the Bible, the contradiction should be reconciled in favor of the Bible. A religion whose primary holy text is the Nicene Bible is Christian by definition, IMO.
Second, as DSYoung pointed out, the quotations from Ezekiel are pre-Christian. Those polygamists are Jews, not Christians. It would be perfectly accurate to say that there is nothing in the New Testament that forbids polygamy (except for bishops, whom Paul says should have only one wife), but neither is there anything that approves of it. I know of no Christian culture other than the Mormons that has ever practiced or condoned polygamy.*
I believe the main reason that Christianity has been almost exclusively monogamous throughout history is that the Roman and Greek cultures into which it first made inroads were monogamous. The Christian holy fathers, with their usual talent for co-opting pagan ideas, declared that the existing marriage custom was indeed the sacred one ordained by God.
Also, Christianity’s early penchant for sexual asceticism was so extreme that many questioned whether any marriage was permissible; for obvious reasons, those sects that permitted no sex or marriage at all died out, and one spouse became accepted as a reasonable compromise between survival and self-denial.
*With my luck, Collounsbury will now tell me that an obscure Bostrowegian Christian denomination has been polygamous for two millennia, as all well-informed people know . . .
Sects, sects, sects, that’s all you think about…
Minor hijack.
http://www.exmormon.org. It helped me.