Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, also known as the Mormons. Mormons stopped practicing polygamy over 150 years ago and will excommunicate any member who chooses to engage in that practice.

A recent post in another thread gives me the impression that many view polygamy as being a horrible thing. For example:



Why is this? I'd appreciate your thoughts.

_________________

I personally see no problems with polygamy, just as I see no problems with monogamy.

Yes, polygamy will have more complex problems that are unique from monogamy, but if people are really and truly in love with more than one person and want to commit to a polygamous relationship, then I say they should be willing to take those challenges head-on and deal with them as they arise...or else just stick to monogamy.

As I stated in another thread, I think that love is far too complex a thing for anyone to say that every last person can only be in love with one other person. I mean, if that were the case, how do you explain divorces? And I don't mean just couples that marry for the wrong reasons (like confusing lust with love)--I mean couples that were truly and deeply in love with each other, yet get tired of each other years down the road and divorce, find someone else that they again fall deeply in love with, and marry again. It seems to me that being truly in love is not always something exclusive to just one other human being in the entire planet during your entire lifetime. Sure, that may be the case for many people, but it doesn't seem to me to be one of the fundamental characteristics that every last human being has in common with one another.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Sorry. I couldn't resist.

_________________

Couldn't resist being a religious bigot?

No worries, it's cool.

_________________

I don't believe you can truly be in love (as in ερος, eros) with more than one person. God chooses 2 people to fall in love; if anyone else gets into the mix, it's one's own desires rather than true love.

_________________

It's a reference to an incident in Random Thoughts or Ideas. Jello B. mentioned that he just married a girl in neopets, when he was already married to Mandy, and then alberto said, "lol, polygamy!". No hard feelings.

EDIT: I also know a few things about Mormonism, considering I had to do a state report on Utah. If I remeber right, we had to make or find a picture of our governor of the state for our project. So, I drew the governor with a car that had a bumper sticker saying "I break for Mormons". (This is in 4th grade, BTW) Roffle x 1,000,000

_________________

In Genesis Chapter 2, God says, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." God's intended purpose for marriage was that it be one man, one woman, for life.

Now the Patriarchs practiced polygamy, but not with God's approval. God may have TOLERATED it, but he never actually ENDORSED it. Just look at the mess polygamy caused in the life of Abraham and Jacob! Abraham had a child by a woman, and was forced by his first wife to abandon her and her child to die in the desert. And Jacob? Don't even get me started on all the problems he had with his multiple wives. And let's not even mention David and Solomon.

Fast forward to New Testament times. St. Paul says specifically that men in the Church are to be "husband to only one wife." In other words, monogamy is now a New Testament imperative. Polygamy is verboten.

So there you have it:
1. Genesis - One man and one woman to become one flesh.
2. The Patriarchs - they did it, but without God's approval, and it messed their lives up in various ways.
3. New Testament - polygamy forbidden in the church.

_________________

I agree with PianoMan on this one. I mean, you can't expect every single person in the world to have exactly only 1 "true" love. Say that two are madly in love, and marry, yet the wife dies of diesese. The man mourns her death for a decade but eventually heals, and finds another love. Can you honestly say that their feelings and emotions for each other are fake?

K. let me preface this by saying I don't have scriptures handy... but from what you quoted above I don't see anything that talks about one man or one woman. The only instance of the word one is that a man and his spouse will be one flesh.

I tend to think that this is not a literal statement (we are we supposed to be one body? flesh and bones?). I think the word "purpose" would substitute nicely for flesh.

Why then would polygamy be so bad? I know that it is possible for a group of people (married or not) to all serve the same purpose.

_________________

I thought ερος = the selfish kind, though? Like, not the kind married couples have. Otherwise I agree with you.

_________________

No, eros is romantic love.

_________________

Except that the theme of the passage is to establish, once and for all, God's intended purpose for men and women, that one man and one woman be joined together as one flesh. Not three, not four, and Five...is right out!

And literal or not, you still haven't offered any biblical support for polygamy.


Did you completely miss the New Testament citation? The standard for God's church, at least since the time of St. Paul, is one man - one woman. Period.

I can think of only one possible justification for polygamy in this age: if someone is already in a polygamistic relationship before coming to know the Lord Jesus Christ and his will for marriage. Then, if such a person is presented with a choice that would cause hardships for their families, then I could understand an allowance for it, for the sake of caring for the families. Otherwise, Christians really should follow St. Paul's admonition that a man should have only one wife.

And Ian is correct. Eros is romantic love, and is intended to describe the relationship between a man and a woman. It encompasses both the emotional bond (romance) and the physical (sex). It is not entirely selfish, because in the process, one in essence gives oneself to the partner. Such a relationship can be abused; however, it is then not eros in the strictest sense anymore.

_________________

Hmmm. I was always taught eros was like the way you would love ice cream or basketball or something... maybe 'eros' was the wrong word.

_________________

No. Just think for a moment: where do you tend to see the word "eros" used in English? Although, I would admit that, in modern usage in our language, the term does have more of a self-gratification connotation, rather than the self-giving aspect of the ancient usage.

_________________

let me preface this by saying I still don't have scriptures handy. But even without, it still seems that there is interpretation that is occuring here. I don't claim to have the answers.



Actually, yes I did miss it. On a different note though, I feel that we live in a world that is constantly receiving revelation (why would it stop 1500 years ago... but that is a different discussion).



What about other "sins" then (homosexuality, incest, murder, etc...) Please don't misread that, from a biblical standpoint homosexuality is a sin. Also, I am in no way stating that homosexuality is on the same level as something like murder.

Should a person be allowed to live their life as they were before they came to know Christ? Isn't that the point of forsaking your sins and coming to Him?

I am playing devil's advocate here a little. But I do have some questions that I am curious about as well as some opinions that I am trying to express.

_________________

I wasn't advocating that we should simply overlook or allow for sinful behavior. I was mainly addressing those cultures, particularly some Carribbean cultures in which polygamy is still practiced, in which a husband is expected to continue to care for his wives and children. A husband should continue to care for his family members, even when those family members came from a polygamous relationship. In the same way, I would expect fathers in this country to care for children they have from divorce situations. But in such a case, a man might still be encouraged to live a chaste life, yet still provide care for his wives and children, so as not to present a hardship for them.


But if such a "revelation" directly contradicted something already revealed in Scripture, then I would consider it suspect.

_________________

I can't stay much longer (work work work), but times change. I believe that at different times people are prepared for different commandments. You elude to this when you talk about the groups that still practice polygamy. This is also the case between the new and old testaments. In the old testament it was an eye for an eye (and what what), in the new it was turn the other cheek and love thy neighbor.

The world is constantly changing, and different groups are prepared to handle different responsibilities (and blessings) differently. Or at least that's how I feel

_________________

"Eye for an eye" was addressing an issue of civil justice among the people of Israel, and was intended to limit personal retaliation, or more precisely, to direct personal retribution through a civil justice system. The maximum punishment was not always required, and the courts were allowed to show mercy. In fact, from what my Hebrew professor told us, in those days, such court cases usually resulted in restitution rather than retribution.

"Turn the other cheek," however, is a directive for individuals to direct their own actions in circumstances in which they might be tempted to act out in retaliation. Rather than contradicting "eye for an eye," it is actually taking the same idea (curbing retaliation) and taking it a little higher. Keep in mind, it is the same God who issued the command who was now explaining this to them.

But I never said those groups were right for practicing polygamy; on the contrary, I view polygamy as against God's intention for human relationships. I only said that those who practice it should not be discouraged from continuing to care for their families. But that does not mean that the teachings of Christ should not be applied to change the society itself. Even in those cultures, eventually monogamy should be taught as the standard.

A rather extreme example I once heard was of an Indian chief who killed two of his wives because a missionary had insisted he could only have one.

_________________

Oh! I have a question!

This has been bothering me for a bit of time. My question is this: If your already married to someone, and the spouse your married to passes away, is it all right to have marriage again?

Didn't St. Paul say that it was all right? I can't remember.

If I was married, and my wife died, I don't think I would marry again. It wouldn't feel right with me.

That's a REALLY good question. Your vows (at least the vows I've always heard) which, in a Christian wedding, are as much sworn to God as they are to your spouse and everyone in attendance, say something like "until death do us part". Seems like, if your spouse dies, your obligation to them is fulfilled. Of course, I don't know that I could ever love again, either.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Actually, I remember Scripture does say that, if your spouse dies, you are free to remarry. Men and women both. I can't recall right off the top of my head, but when I get a chance, I'll do some more research. (1 Cor 7:8 says that widows can remarry, but that's not the passage I was looking for).

Jesus also said that, if you divorce your spouse on account of their adultery, you are also free to remarry.

EDIT: Romans 7:1-4.

_________________

But then, the idea of marrying a new spouse after the death of the first spouse, when Biblical dogma is in practice, implies that the widow/widower has the ability and "right" to fall truly in love with someone again. This goes against the idea that there is only ever "one true love for any given human being, period end of story." Though I can already guess your response would be something along the lines of, "Well, God intended for your life to lead this direction, and since the first spouse died, that makes your playing field even again so you can go fall in love with someone new, as long as you make sure that you only have one living spouse at a time. You can't be in love with a dead person."

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Is Polygamy illegal?

_________________

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. Ya think?

_________________

Yep!

_________________

Oh, yeah. There is a polygamist on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List.

_________________

I understand all of this, but there's still something that puzzles me.

If the "Untill death do you part" is true. Then when a couple meets in heaven, does that mean they're no longer married?

Is he on the list for being polygamist?

_________________

No, he is on there for arranging marrigae between older men and underage girls.

_________________

Bingo.

So what is so inherently wrong with polygamy? Why is it against the law? What's the difference between sleeping with 9 women at the same time and marrying them all?

_________________