"...raise up seed unto me..."

The only scriptural explanation given from the Lord for approved plural marriage is found in the Book of Mormon:

"For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." (Jacob 2:30).

Here, the Lord gives only one reason for plural marriage, "to raise up seed unto me." In the only recorded revelation on plural marriage received by Joseph Smith, the Lord further stated:

"they [the plural wives] are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified." (D&C 132:63)

These scriptural passages suggest to many that plural marriage served at least two reasons: 1) "to raise up seed" or "multiply and replenish the earth," and 2) "that they may bear the souls of men."

Rev. C. P. Lyford, of the Methodist church, a resident of Utah, says: "It took the Methodist church forty years to get a membership of 38,000. Mormonism in forty-four years counted 250,000. It seems incredible, nevertheless it is a fact."

See: LDS Statistical Reports

The LDS Church is one of the fastest growing denominations in the world.

See excerpts from "The New Mormon Challenge; for World Missions, Apologetics, and Theology" by Carl Mosser Chapter 9; And The Saints Go Marching On

St. Augustine vindicates the practice of polygamy using Jacob in the Old Testament as an example of how he used the women for the procreation of children:

"Again, Jacob the son of Isaac is charged with having committed a great crime because he had four wives. But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom. There are sins against nature, and sins against custom, and sins against the laws. In which, then, of these senses did Jacob sin in having a plurality of wives? As regards nature, he used the women not for sensual gratification, but for the procreation of children. For custom, this was the common practice at that time in those countries. And for the laws, no prohibition existed. The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the [secular] laws forbid it." (Augustine, "Reply to Faustus 22:47," in Philip Schaff (editor), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series 1 (Augustine and Chrysostome) (Vol. 1–14) (New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886–1889), 4:288.)

Even Augustine, a towering figure in Christian theology, held that polygamy was not something that was a crime before God, but rather a matter that depended more upon cultural biases.

Tertullian's perspective is strikingly similar to Jac. 2:30, in which monogamy is the norm, but God may command exceptions to "raise up seed."

"As I think, moreover, each pronouncement and arrangement is (the act) of one and the same God; who did then indeed, in the beginning, send forth a sowing of the race by an indulgent laxity granted to the reins of connubial alliances, until the world should be replenished, until the material of the new discipline should attain to forwardness: now, however, at the extreme boundaries of the times, has checked (the command) which He had sent out, and recalled the indulgence which He had granted; not without a reasonable ground for the extension (of that indulgence) in the beginning, and the limitation of it in the end." (Tertullian, "Exhortation to Chastity," in 6 Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Philip Schaff (Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886)6:53–54.)

Justin Martyr argued that David's sin was only in the matter of Uriah's wife, and echoed a common early Christian idea that marriage was a "mystery," or sacred rite of the type which Latter-day Saints associate with temple worship:

"And this one fall of David, in the matter of Uriah's wife, proves, sirs," I said, "that the patriarchs had many wives, not to commit fornication, but that a certain dispensation and all mysteries might be accomplished by them; since, if it were allowable to take any wife, or as many wives as one chooses, and how he chooses, which the men of your nation do over all the earth, wherever they sojourn, or wherever they have been sent, taking women under the name of marriage, much more would David have been permitted to do this." (Justin Martyr, "Dialogue With Trypho," in 141 Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Philip Schaff (Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886)1:270)

Justin saw the patriarchs' marriages not as corruptions or something which God 'winked at,' but acts with significant ritual and religious power.

"WHATEVER GOD REQUIRES IS RIGHT, NO MATTER WHAT IT IS"

And all Saints anciently and modern understand that “virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God” are all part of being a Saint and being his people.

“God said thou shalt not kill,--at another time he said thou shalt utterly destroy.”

What was a believer to do with conflicting injunctions?

Answer: “that which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and often is, right under another.” This unnerving principle was the foundation of the government of God.

"WHATEVER GOD REQUIRES IS RIGHT, NO MATTER WHAT IT IS....although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.“ Just like Abraham who himself was to be sacrificed on an altar by his father when young later was commanded by God to sacrifice his only son, the son of promise. How repulsed he must have been...could it have been an angel of darkness who had commanded him to do such a thing? I am sure the spiritual struggle within was tremendous as he prayed and fasted to know the true will of God. No it was not an angel of darkness...and Abraham came to know it. He was obedient to God's command to sacrifice Isaac in spite of everything and God intervened at the last moment. This was an Abrahamic test to see if Abraham would do all that the Father had commanded him to do. God now knew that Abraham's heart was pure and that he put God first in all things...above everyone and everything....without regard to his reputation, or the fodder it would give to his enemies, in spite of rejection by friends and loved ones if they could not understand about spiritual things and revelation.

"WHATEVER GOD REQUIRES IS RIGHT, NO MATTER WHAT IT IS."

The idea has actually informed every revealed religion. In the 1800's the Christian evangelist and antislavery advocate Charles Finney was to say with respect to slavery that “no human legislation can make it right or lawful to violate any command of God.” To Finney the higher law—equality—prevailed over human law, and it justified his and others attacks on slavery.
"WHATEVER GOD REQUIRES IS RIGHT, NO MATTER WHAT IT IS."

No other chosen words are better suited to strike terror into the rational mind....that's right...it trumps the rational, thinking mind. What is being said is that any moral rule, any commonsense limitation on any human constraint, could be overthrown by a revelation. The assertion confirmed the fears of rational Christians for centuries about the social chaos inherent in revealed religion...that is why they fear present day revelation, they do not have the strength to live by it so they fight against it. There is safety in living in the past and judging what has gone on before.
Monday morning quarterback Christians!!

Revelations have always functioned like law...and that is what the Bible is all about. The revelations are the same as “commandments,” the name Joseph Smith gave to all the early revelations. They required obedience.

See: Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling; Chapter 25; By Richard Lyman Bushman, Jed Woodworth.

The scriptures are full of contradictions, for example:
“Even so let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father Who is in Heaven:” and contrariwise, “Take heed that ye do not your righteousness before men, to be seen of them.”

The intention of a man’s heart, its direction and its aim, is what is to be regarded. St. Augustine give a great sermon on this contradiction and how to harmonize the scriptures in Sermon IV.

And since God has commanded all Christians not to judge, it is only God who is to judge because man cannot know the heart of another...only God can. They cannot know if God did or did not command someone else to do something that seems contradictory or wrong to us. Only the Holy Spirit can testify to us the truthfulness of all things whether they harmonize or not.

So for those critics who don't have the ability to understand what revelation really is and demand an answer may never come to a full understanding of God and his dealings with man.

"WHATEVER GOD REQUIRES IS RIGHT, NO MATTER WHAT IT IS."

"The Cosmic "Mystery" of the Church"

In his book, Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity by Barry Robert Bickmore, in Chapter 6, The Temple, he talks about "Polygamy and the Mystery of Marriage."

Brickmore discusses how Christian marriage was referred to by Paul as "a great mystery" in itself, which also symbolized the union of Christ and the Church. He quotes early Church Father, Justin Martyr and how he not only defended the polygamy of Old Testament figures, but referred to it as a "mystery" as well:

"And this one fall of David, in the matter of Uriah's wife, proves, sirs," I said, "that the patriarchs had many wives, not to commit fornication, but that a certain dispensation and all "mysteries" might be accomplished by them; since, if it were allowable to take any wife, or as many wives as one chooses, and how he chooses, which the men of your nation do over all the earth, wherever they sojourn, or wherever they have been sent, taking women under the name of marriage, much more would David have been permitted to do this." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho 141, in ANF 1:270.)

Brickmore explains how the evidence is not conclusive, yet a form of plural marriage may have been practiced by some of the Apostles and prophets in the early Church. In an early Christian text called, "The Didache," also known by two other titles, "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" and "The Lord's Teachings to the Gentiles by the Twelve Apostles," it speaks about prophets who "work unto the "mystery of the church," which "mystery" he maintains was "seen as marriage--and possibly even plural marriage."

"And every prophet, proved true, working unto the "mystery of the Church" in the world, yet not teaching others to do what he himself doeth, shall not be judged among you, for with God he hath his judgment; for so did also the ancient prophets." (Didache 11, in ANF 7:380-381.)

In 'Early Christian writings: the Apostolic Fathers' we are told: "This passage is very obscure; it may mean that prophets may perform "symbolic actions" as the prophets of the Old Testament did (an extreme example would be Hosea’s marriage to a cultic prostitute); the "cosmic mystery of the Church" (translated in the text as "the mystery of the Church in the world") which the prophet lives may, however, mean celibacy, or even a "spiritual marriage" between a prophet and his (female) companion."(Early Christian writings: the Apostolic Fathers; Andrew Louth, Maxwell Staniforth; note 9; pg 198.)

The footnote (523) for this verse states: "Literally, "acts with a view to a worldly "mystery" of the Church." The meaning is not certain, but some dramatic action, symbolizing the "mystical marriage" of the Church to Christ, is probably intended. The reference may, indeed, be to the prophet's being accompanied by a "spiritual sister." (cf. I Cor. 7:36ff.)

Also, the first part of that quote, "every prophet, proved true" seems to speak to a type of test perhaps in much the same way Abraham had been tested by God. Yet not only Abraham but also the other "ancient prophets" to see if they would do all that the Lord had commanded them.

Brickmore goes on to explain how Cardinal Jean Daniélou in his book, 'The Theology of Jewish Christianity' linked this "mystery" to the type of "spiritual marriages" that groups like the Marcosians practiced:

The expression "cosmic mystery of the Church" seems to stand in opposition to a "heavenly mystery of the church." This heavenly "mystery" is the "celestial marriage" of Christ to the Church, which also finds its expression in this world. The allusion in this passage would therefore seem to be to those "spiritual unions" which existed in Jewish Christianity between prophet-Apostles and a sister. Hermas also appears to allude to this custom (Sim. IX, 10:6-11:8). A similar reference may underlie I Cor. 7:36ff. The custom endured in the institution of Virgins. The relation of these unions to their heavenly ideal is explicitly stated by the Gnostics: "Some of them prepare a nuptial couch and perform a sort of mystic rite (mystagogia-pronouncing certain expressions) with those who are being initiated, affirming that what is performed by them is a "spiritual marriage" which is celebrated by them, after the likeness of the unions…above" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1:21:3, in ANF 1:346.). (Daniélou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity, p. 351.)

The Gnostic rite is described in the Gospel of Philip as being performed in "the mirrored bridal chamber," and "those who have united in the bridal chamber will no longer be separated." (The Gospel of Philip, in James M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library in English, 139 & 142.)

Stuart George Hall writes that Melito, Bishop of Sardis in the late second century, may have preserved a fragment of the ancient bridal chamber ceremony in his writings, as well (Stuart George Hall, ed., Melito of Sardis On Pascha and Fragments (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), xxxviii.).

Brickmore also explains how Daniélou saw no connection with plural marriage yet he found that it is evident that this "mystery" was something that the "ancient prophets" practiced, but which was forbidden for ordinary Christians. Considering Paul's prohibition against plural marriage for bishops and deacons, it may well have been polygamy."

In Did.11:11 the prophetic performance of a “cosmic mystery of the church” is regarded by a majority of commentators, following A.Harnack, as the enactment of a “spiritual marriage” by the prophets (H. Weinel, Die Wirkungen des Geistes, pp. 131-38.)

A question might also be raised that if the early Christians did not practice polygamy then why would Paul have a prohibition against it just for bishops and deacons and not for others such as prophets? In another post it has been shown that 'one' wife may also mean 'first' wife, in that bishops and deacons needed to be upstanding and ones who were married to their 'first' wife were deemed worthy....as there would be no bill of divorcement. We learn from the Diadache about early Christian prophets and how to know a true prophet from a false prophet. Particular immunity or liberty allowed true prophets are emphasized in Didache 108; 117, 11.

Peter explained the same principle to the apostate Simon Magus in the Clementine Homilies:

There is not much written on the mysteries as the early Christians were under an oath to keep them secret. Peter, in Clementine Recognitions said: "We remember that our Lord and Teacher, commanding us, said, 'Keep the "mysteries" for me and the sons of my house.' Wherefore also He explained to His disciples privately the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. But to you who do battle with us, and examine into nothing else but our statements, whether they be true or false, it would be impious to state the hidden truths." (Clementine Homilies 19:20, in ANF 8:336. "For the most sublime truths are best honored by means of silence." Peter, in Clementine Recognitions 1:23, in ANF 8:83.)

Robert M. Grant notes that, "In Ephesians 5:22-33 the prophecy of Genesis 2:24 {'the two shall become one flesh.'} is described as "a great mystery" and is referred not only to Christ and the church but also to Christian marriage in general." (Robert M. Grant, After the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), 184.)

At The Birth of the Catholic Church, Ch.X 1. The Christian Prophets we are told:

...the Didache forbids the reception of any preacher who teaches a doctrine contrary to the catechesis just developed in the book (xi, 1-2) which, be it remembered, is almost entirely moral and ritual, like the Christianity described in Pliny's letter to Trajan. The Didache knows moreover of travelling apostles and of prophets who remain at home in one place. Travelling apostles who stay more than two days, in order to get more board and lodging, or ask for money, are to be reckoned false (xi, 3-6), and this, not so much on account of their heresies, but on the moral ground that they are exploiting their hosts, though possibly heretical as well as rapacious. As to the sedentary prophets, their inspired outpourings are not to be lightly criticized, but conduct is to be the test for distinguishing the true prophet from the false. He alone is a true prophet who lives according to the Lord....The prophets of old had certain eccentricities, and a few such, analogous to theirs, and "in harmony with the cosmic mystery of the Church," may be tolerated in Christian prophets, provided they do not require others to imitate them (xi, n). A highly enigmatic concession, at least for us, and sufficiently disturbing in itself; it cannot have been maintained for long. (The ancient prophets are brought in only by way of a mitigating comparison.) The reference is to some symbolic proceedings representing "the mystery," which is, one can hardly doubt, the mystic union of the Christ and "the Church." According to Irenaeus the innocent "conjunctions" (syzygies) of Valentinus seem to have been mixed up by his disciple Marcus with certain rites of symbolic magic in which mysticism had degenerated into eroticism. What the Didache had in mind must have been something less abominable, perhaps a symbolic marriage between an inspired couple, which may have been real, or an affair of continency (refraining from sexual intercourse) on both sides. But we can see that the author of the Didache, while not daring to prohibit these eccentricities, is not quite at ease in the matter.

"Spiritual marriage" has sometimes assumed a questionable form, in which a early Christian holy men would take laywoman as a wife, claim to remain celibate, and claim that they slept in the same bed but did not engage in sexual relations as a sign of their own willpower. Most, however, doubted that they were in fact as strong in chastity as they claimed. However, the testing of spirits, once commended by Paul (1 Thess. 5:21), might be a matter of delicacy. So the Didache exempts from human scrutiny a prophet who "acts out a "cosmic mystery of the Church," and then does not teach others to do what he has done." To question their oracles was to sin against the Holy Ghost.

"Celestial Marriage"

In the following discourse, Elder Orson Pratt presents the doctrinal and revelatory background for polygamy, which he refers to as “plurality of wives,” or “celestial marriage,” though the term “celestial marriage” has much broader meaning in Mormonism. The reasons he gives in support of the practice of polygamy can be summarized as follows:

1. God has commanded it through living prophets.
2. Mormon doctrine teaches that mankind lived before this life as spirit children of Heavenly Parents and that God desires his children be born into good families here on earth; hence polygamy allows more spirit children to be born into the Kingdom of God on earth. This idea is similar to that expressed in the Book of Mormon, Jacob 2:30.
3. To obtain the full blessings of Abraham (to have a posterity as numerous as the grains of sand or the stars in the sky), which Mormonism teaches can be extended to all the faithful, a person should obtain posterity both in this life and in the life to come.
4. God intends to build up the Kingdom of God here on earth. To do that, He needs to send his “noble and great” leaders (see Abraham 3:23) to earth within His Kingdom. Polygamy therefore allows more spirits to be sent.

Elder Pratt further notes that because abuses can occur, God gives the authority over this power to only one person on the earth at a time, and that person, according to the Revelation on Polygamy, is the President and Prophet of the Mormon Church. No one else can authorize a polygamous marriage. (Public Announcement of Polygamy)

Celestial Marriage Elder Orson Pratt, August 29, 1852.

Christ has only one bride

"And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, we will eat our own bread and wear our own clothing; only let us be called by your name, to take away our shame..." (Isaiah 4:1)

Men should only have one wife because Christ has only one “bride” claim the monogamy only Christians. Perhaps this conclusion is drawn from this passage;
Eph 5:24-25, "Therefore as the church is subject to Christ....Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it..."

Those who carefully study the Word of God will note that the word "bride" does not occur in Ephesians 5 which book speaks about the one new man but we pass on that for now.

The problem for those presenting this argument is clear, the Lord Christ of the New Testament is Jehovah of the Old. Consider the following.

Christ thought it not robbery to be equal with God (Philip. 2: 6), was with God in the beginning (John 1:1) and is the express image of God, (Heb.1:3). It was a truth when our Lord said “before Abraham came into being, I AM!” (John 8:58), a title of Jehovah. It was Christ who walked in Eden; who appeared to Abraham (Gen.18:1) and who descended upon the Mount (Ex.19). Yes, the Lord Christ is the multifaceted Jehovah of the Old Testament and it was Christ who said;
(Jer 3:20) Surely as a wife treacherously departs from her husband, so you have dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, says Jehovah.

So Christ, as Jehovah, is Israel's husband in a figure and since Isaiah refers not to the “church” then our Lord Christ (Jehovah) has at least two “brides”, Israel and “the church”; according to tradition.

But wait, the house of Israel is the northern Kingdom and the Lord speaks to both Kingdoms as wives committing adultery;
(Jer 3:8) And I saw, when for all the causes for which backsliding Israel committed adultery, I sent her away and gave a bill of divorce to her, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but she went and whored, she also.

Compare this passage from the word of God;
(Ezekiel 23:2) Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother.
(Ezekiel 23:4) And their names were Oholah, the oldest, and Oholibah, her sister. And they were Mine, and they bore sons and daughters. And their names: Samaria is Oholah, and Jerusalem is Oholibah.

Single people do not commit adultery, married people do, so these two kingdoms, both women, committed (spiritual) adultery against the Lord. See Ezekiel 23. Interesting they are sisters which might lead to some discussions on Lev.18:18.

We can not fight truth, the Lord called the two divisions of Israel His, and they bore Him children. This does not make the Lord a wicked fornicator because He has more than one wife. I guess He permitted Himself to do less than His own perfect will though?

Those who rightly divide the Scriptures and are aware of the various callings within it, will know that the Lord is also the Bridegroom, not of Israel, but the elect remnant:
(Luke 5:34) But He said to them, Can you make the sons of the bridechamber fast while the bridegroom is with them? See Romans 9:23-27.

This puts our Lord Christ in three marriage relationships since the over comers or elect remnant are not the two Kingdoms. Israel has an inheritance on the earth, the so called "bride" company have an inheritance in the New Jerusalem;
(Rev 21:2) And I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down from God out of Heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her Husband. And see Rev 22:17.

But wait, five virgins went into the “marriage” with Him as well (Matt.25:10). I hope they were not going to marry the Lord, since that would give him at least 8 wives or brides at this point.

We can ignore this Christ has one bride argument as being another vain attempt to discount polygyny. It is baseless this argument is as ridiculous as the rest. When will pop-Christianity give up fighting against the truth? Polygyny is Scriptural, blessed by God. (Bible Polygamy-Christ Has Only One Bride)

Jewish Perspective on the Ills of Polygamy

An interesting question about polygamy is what the Jews think about it. It is sometimes asserted that God commanded the patriarchs to be polygamists.

From a Jewish perspective, what does the Bible teach about polygamy? Here is a quote from the book Biblical Literacy: The Most Important People, Events, And Ideas Of The Hebrew Bible by Rabbi Joseph Telushkin (pages 410-414).

Quote:
Biblical law permits a man to have more than one wife (Deuteronomy 21:17); indeed many of the Bible's most prominent figures (e.g., Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon) practiced polygamy. Since polygamy was permitted throughout the ancient Near East, this should come as no surprise. What is significant, however, is that biblical narrative, as opposed to biblical law, depicts multiple marriages as almost always leading to multiple miseries.

Abraham takes a concubine-wife because of his wife Sarah's barrenness. Indeed, it is at Sarah's insistence that he takes her servant Hagar as a wife, for, as Sarah tells him: "Perhaps I shall have a son through her" (Genesis 16:2). When Hagar becomes pregnant, she starts treating Sarah with contempt. Sarah blames Abraham for Hagar's arrogance and Abraham, wishing to avoid marital conflict, tells his wife to treat Hagar as she wishes...

Some years later, Sarah finally gives birth to her own son, whereupon she forces Abraham to expel Hagar and Ishamel. Sarah speaks of Hagar in the most contemptuous of tones: "Cast out that slave-woman and her son, for the son of that slave shall not share in the inheritance with my son Isaac."...

...Are there any happy polygamous marriages described in the Bible? No, although sometimes we are given no information about a marriage, so we have no way of knowing whether or not it was happy (for example, see Lamech, the Bible's first polygamist [Genesis 4:19,23).

In those instances, however, where the text does supply details about a polygamous marriage, it either is miserable for at least one partner (Hagar and Leah), creates hatred between the children (Joseph and his brothers, David's sons), or wreaks havoc with the husband's character (Solomon).

There is yet one further indication that the Bible's preference is for "one man, one wife." When God created the world, he populates it with only two people, one of each sex. He could have given Adam a second wife but doesn't. Furthermore, the Bible's very first reference to marriage presupposes a state of monogamy: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, so that they become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24).

Why, then, does the Bible permit polygamy?

The nature of biblical law generally is evolutionary rather than revolutionary (except when it comes to uprooting idolatry, with which the Bible refuses to brook any compromise). To have categorically outlawed multiple marriages in a world where they were widely practiced would most likely have lead to an increase in adulterous affairs, or to affairs with unmarried women to whom the men would have no obligations. Better, therefore, for a man to have several wives, to each of whom he has legal obligations.

However, by depicting in considerable detail the misery generated within these marriages, biblical narrative makes it clear that it is far better for a man to have only one wife. As we shall see in other instances (e.g., the laws favoring the firstborn son versus the narratives favoring the younger sons; see entry 201), biblical narrative ultimately influences Jewish life more than biblical law. The Talmud, compiled during the early centuries of the Common Era, lists well over one thousand rabbis. We know of none who practiced polygamy. During the tenth century, a rabbinic ban was issued outlawing polygamy for all Jews living in Europe. There is little question that the rabbis felt their act was in consonance with the Bibleâ??s ethical spirit. This ban, uniformly accepted in Jewish life today, represents perhaps the most dramatic victory of biblical narrative over biblical law. (Analytics)

Rabinu Gershom's ban of polygamy in the Middle Ages was adopted only by Ashkenazic Jewry - and specifically was not recognized by Sephardic Jewry (that is, it wasn't applied to all of the Jews in Europe, only a certain subset of them). Sephardic Jewry also did not accept the Takkanot which elevated Gershom's ban to a level near the Law of Moses.

The Old Testament required polygamy in certain rare circumstances involving the practice of Levirate marriage. That this occurred is well known from the more than 100 clarifications on the practice of Levirate marriage contained in Talmudic writings. This issue was specifically raised during the middle ages to contest Gershom's ban - and was seen very vocally in the rulings of Rabbis Speyer, Wurms, and Mainz. The argument was quite clear that Gershom was attempting to supersede Moses (and it was these arguments that prompted the Takkanot).

Not all polygamous marriages in the Old Testament are portrayed as causing misery. The article notes this. But the presumption is that they are all miserable - although certainly there are room for alternatives - i.e. that the miserable ones were perhaps more noteworthy.

The other issue on which disagreement was generally raised was the commandment to have posterity. Under Gershom's ban, a man could be forced by the religious community to divorce his barren wife so that he could marry another woman and have children. This doesn't seem to me to be the recipe for a happy domestic environment in some circumstances.

There were rabbis who were polygamous - and in fact there were polygamous rabbis who were critical of other rabbis because they were not polygamous even though it was rare.
It seems to be at times that polygamy was implemented to avoid adultery.

Also See:
Does Jewish law forbid polygamy?
Why does Torah law allow polygamy?
Polygamy

Polygamy and the Reformation

It is of undisputed historical record that both the Christian Church and the Christian State in different centuries and under a number of differing circumstances gave their influence in the practice of polygamy. With the Reformation polygamy entered Protestantism. The FIRST synod of the Reformation was assembled for the purpose of sustaining Polygamy.

Philip, Landgrave of Hesse Cassel, applied to Martin Luther for permission to marry a second wife while his first wife, Catherine von Salms-Laumbach, was still living. His union with Catherine was not a happy one, and having fixed his affections upon Margaret of Savoy (d. 1566), he obtained an opinion from the Protestant theologians that bigamy was not forbidden by Holy Writ. Luther and Melancthon at length consented to the marriage, but stipulated that it should be kept secret, and it was celebrated in March 1540. The marriage, however, became known, and a great outcry arose against Philip, whose friends quickly deserted him. Since this was all done in secret when it came to light Luther told Landgrave to lie. Philip objected to Luther's counsel to deny the existence of a second marriage; abused John Frederick, elector of Saxony, for not coming to support him; and caused bigamy to be publicly defended. Alarmed, however, by the strength of his enemies, and by their evident determination to punish him as a bigamist, Philip in June 1541 made a treaty with Charles V. at Regensburg. In return for a general pardon he undertook to break off relations with France and England and loyally 'to support the emperor.

In deciding the issue of polygamy, Luther had called together a synod of six of the principal reformers—Melancthon and Bucer among them—who in joint consultation decided, "that as the Bible nowhere condemns polygamy, and as it has been invariably practiced by the highest dignitaries of the church," such marriage was legitimate, and the required permission was given.

Martin Luther, himself with both the Old and the New Testaments in hand, said, "I confess for my part that if a man wishes to marry two or more wives, I cannot forbid him, nor is his conduct anti to the Holy Scriptures."

Thus we have the proof that the doctrine of polygamy was brought into Reformation by its earliest promoters under assertion that it was NOT inconsistent with the Bible or the principles of the Gospel.

Was Jesus Married?

A "revelation" received by the Prophet Joseph Smith states that the "stem of Jesse" in Isaiah 11:1 is Christ:

Since Christ was identified as the "Stem", it is interesting to note that the "Stem" was to have posterity; according to Isaiah - "there shall come forth a Rod out of the Stem of Jesse and a Branch shall grow out of his roots."

Orson Hyde, an early leader of the Mormon Church taught that Jesus married Martha and more than one Mary.
He wrested biblical support that Jesus married and had children from the suffering servant passage of Isaiah. In Isaiah 53:10 it is prophesied: "He shall see his offspring." These words were interpreted as a literal description of Jesus, who would be born centuries later.
A "confession" by one of Brigham Young's wives indicates that the founder of the Mormon colony in Utah agreed with Hyde:
Brigham Young, in one of his sermons . . . declared that,

"Jesus Christ was a practical polygamist; Mary and Martha, the sisters of Lazarus, were his plural wives, and Mary Magdalene was another. Also, the bridal feast at Cana of Galilee, where Jesus turned the water into wine, was on the occasion of one of his own marriages."

What appears to be his single greatest contribution to this discussion is the presentation on Psalm 45, as quoted by Orson Pratt:

Indeed, the Psalmist, David, prophesies in particular concerning the wives of the Son of God. We quote from the English version of the Bible, translated about three hundred and fifty years ago: "All thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia; when thou comest out of the ivory palaces, where they have made thee glad, King's daughters were among thine honorable WIVES; upon thy right hand did stand the Queen in a vesture of gold Ophir." (Psalm 45:8-9) That this passage has express reference to the Son of God and His wives, will be seen by reading the sixth and seventh verses which are as follows: "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness; therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." This Being, whom the Psalmist here calls God, is represented in the next verses as having "honorable wives".

It should be recalled that Hebrews 1:8-9 treats Psalm 45 as a Messianic prophecy, as Pratt continues:

Paul applies the words of the Prophet David to the Son of God, to the anointed Messiah, who is called God, and whose "throne is forever and ever." Let it be remembered then, that the Son of God is expressly represented as having "honourable wives". King James' translators were not willing that this passage should have a literal translation, according to the former English rendering, lest it should give countenance to polygamy; therefore, they altered the translation to honorable women instead of wives; but any person acquainted with the original can see that the first translators have given the true rendering of that passage.

Support for Pratt's assertion are found in facsimile copies of Psalm 45(scroll down) from The Geneva Bible (the Bible of Calvin and many of the Reformers) and from an Anglican Bible used before the King James Version. All of them do render v. 9 as "honorable wives," rather than "honorable women."

Notwithstanding the Queen is numbered among the "honorable wives" of the Son of God, yet she is called upon to worship Him as her Lord. If her husband were a mere man, she would not be exhorted to worship him. . .(Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 159-160)

Psalm 45 appears to be the most significant argument of a married Jesus which has been offered thus far; yet it presents, seemingly, not just a married Jesus, but a polygamous Jesus, as well. This idea is troubling to the modern mind. It was troubling to the minds of the later Church Fathers. That was why they interpreted these texts allegorically. They acknowledged that Christ was a polygamist, but only in a symbolic sense. They saw these Old Testament wives as figures of the Church and not as real women who would be married to the Messiah. Pratt failed to provide any hermeneutical rule as to why we should literalize these texts. Paul allegorizes Messianic prophecies (Galatians 4:22-26). Why should they not be so here? The Mormon commentator has failed to explain how we are to know which prophecies are to be taken literally and which ones are allegorical. It is because their tradition does not provide a consistent rule of hermeneutics. Instead, they must rely upon the...spiritual states of their prophetic leaders for guidance.

Christ and Polygamy

Let it be perfectly clear, there is NO direct proof one way or the other specifically from the scriptures and therefore it is NOT LDS doctrine that Christ was either married or that he was a polygamist. The Church has not taken a stand on this issue so all Mormons are free to decide for themselves what theory they choose to believe. It matters not as Christ is still our Savior and Redeemer. See Why Was Jesus Crucified? by John Walsh for the LDS point of view. Many Mormons believe that Christ was probably married to fulfill the law of the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage," or "Celestial marriage" in the same way that he was also baptized although he was sinless and had no need for a remission of sins. Regarding Jesus' support of plural marriage, President Jedediah M. Grant, a member of the First Presidency, is reported to have said:

"Pass on still further in their history, and look at their course and conduct, if you will believe the writers that lived in that age. What does old Celsus [Aurelious Cornelius Celsus; ca. 25 B.C.-A.D. 45] say, who was a physician in the first century, whose medical works are esteemed very highly at the present time. His works on theology were burned with fire by the Catholics, they were so shocked at what they called their impiety. Celsus was a heathen philosopher; and what does he say upon the subject of Christ and his Apostles, and their belief? He says, "The grand reason why the Gentiles and philosophers of his school persecuted Jesus Christ, was, because he had so many wives; there were Elizabeth, and Mary, and a host of others that followed him." After Jesus went from the stage of action, the Apostles followed the example of their master. For instance, John the beloved disciple, writes in his second Epistle, "Unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth." Again, he says, "Having many thing to write unto you (or communicate), I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full." Again--"The children of thy elect sister greet thee." This ancient philosopher says they were both John's wives. Paul says, "Mine answer to them that do examine me is this:--.

Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas." He, according to Celsus, had a numerous train of wives.

The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion, was evidently based upon polygamy, according to the testimony of the philosophers who rose in that age. A belief in the doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might almost think they were "Mormons." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, p.346, August 7, 1853)

The reader will note that President Grant quotes from a non-LDS historical source as the basis for his comments. The scriptures are silent on this issue of marriage or polygamy but as shown there are some ancient scattered writings that give support to the theory that Christ was not only married but he may have also been a polygamist.

This is a startling claim from an allegedly early source. There is a hint of a polygamous Jesus in The Apocalypse of James, a writing from the Nag Hammadi discovery, where James the Just is quoted as saying to Jesus:

“Yet another thing I ask of you: who are the seven gune [wives] who have been your disciples? And behold, all women bless you.”

At the crucifixion the gospels have several lists of the women who were present.

Epiphanius writes about the early Christians saying:

“They force the young people to marry even before they reach maturity ... They allow not just one marriage, but if anyone wants a divorce from his first marriage, and to contract another, they allow it - they do not hesitate to permit anything - up to a second and third and seventh marriage.”(30.18.2-3)

The Ebonite's also had writings about Christ being a polygamist as well as the early Christians.

Terrance Sweeney, in his Forward to Margaret Starbird's book, The Woman with the Alabaster Jar, presents us with this one: if Jesus was never married, why didn't St. Paul use Him as an example of celibacy instead of himself? Would that not have clinched the case for celibacy, the fact that Jesus was celibate? Undoubtedly, if Jesus was not married, Paul would have used that in His argument. The fact that Paul was constrained to use himself as a standard for emulation - even at one point admitting that it was his own doctrine with no authority from Jesus (1 Corinthians 7:6 & 12) - seems to be a compelling contradiction of the traditional view.

The most academically disciplined and useful study on the question of a married Jesus is the book by William E. Phipps, Was Jesus Married? The Distortion of Sexuality in the Christian Tradition, published in 1970. Long out-of-print, it was republished in recent years as The Sexuality of Jesus. In the opinion of scholars, it remains the standard in the field by which all other works must be measured. Any rebuttal to the proposition of a married Jesus which does not address the issues raised by Dr. Phipps is necessarily truncated and useless.
Now, Dr. Phipps is no cult freak. He is a Presbyterian and was for many years the department head of Philosophy and Religion at Davis-Elkins College in West Virginia. When Harper & Row first published his book in 1970, it raised some eyebrows and in a brief moment of fame, he made the pages of some important newspapers across the country. As a scholar, he was not given to sensationalism and speculation. Consequently, his book never circulated like the more flamboyant and iconoclastic books of Baigent and Company: Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Messianic Legacy. Yet, these authors, and others like them since then, have relied upon Phipps' scholarship as the chief cornerstone for their historical revisionism. What is remarkable, more than anything, is that no other academic has dared to follow in his footsteps. He remains alone in this field of inquiry.

Polygamy Has Been Accepted Throughout Christian History

Mainstream Christians against polygamy need to be reminded of the role polygamy has played not only in Biblical history but also Christian history. In Offenders for a Word: Is Mormonism Christian? An Investigation of Definitions, part 3 by Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, the authors, make a convincing argument of accepted polygamy throughout Christian history.

Claim 20. Mormonism is non-Christian because it once advocated polygamy.

Response. Frequently lurking behind such charges is a hostility among traditional Christian thinkers toward embodiment and sexuality—a hostility that reaches its most extreme form in such manifestations as anchorite asceticism and priestly celibacy, but which is certainly not limited to these. The great formulator of such Christian attitudes is Augustine, of whom Daniel Maguire states that, "On matters of sex and marriage . . . Augustine the Christian was never fully free of Mani." "Does Augustine's understanding of sex and marriage," wonders Eugene Hillman, "perhaps owe more to his own pagan background, and particularly to his Manichaean experience, than to his Christian faith?" It would be ironic, would it not, if it turns out that anti-Mormons are using a standard derived from pagans—from Manichaeans and Platonists (or even, most amusingly, from Hindus)—to determine the limits of Christianity on this issue?

In fact, Christian history demonstrates beyond question that polygamy cannot be used as a club with which to drive the Mormons from Christendom. It is too blunt an instrument, and would chase too many obvious Christians from the fold as well. The sixth century Arab Christian kings of Lakhm and Ghassan were polygamists, for instance, as were the contemporary Christians of Ethiopia. Pope Clement VII, faced with the threat of a continent-dividing divorce, considered bigamy as a solution to the problem of Henry VIII. Was he, with such thoughts, flirting with becoming a non-Christian? Did Martin Luther cease to be a Christian when he made the same suggestion, in September 1531, to King Henry's envoy, Robert Barnes? Nearly a decade later, Luther counselled Philip of Hesse to take Margaret von der Sale as a second wife. He justified the idea from the Old Testament, as the Mormons would in a later century. Furthermore, he suggested public denial. (Generally, he had written in an earlier letter, he favored monogamy, remarking that "a Christian is not free to marry several wives unless God commands him to go beyond the liberty which is conditioned by love.") But when Philip actually did marry Margaret in March of 1540, he did so—contrary to Luther's counsel—publicly. Indeed, the marriage was performed by Philip's Lutheran chaplain and in the presence of Luther's chief lieutenants, Philipp Melanchthon and Martin Bucer. Needless to say, a storm of criticism broke out. Writing to John Frederick of Saxony on 10 June 1540, Luther declared, "I am not ashamed of the counsel I gave even if it should become known throughout the world. Because it is unpleasant, however, I should prefer, if possible, to have it kept quiet." Was Luther a pagan? Did his associates, Bucer and Melanchthon, leave Christianity when they joined in Luther's advice? Of course not.

This was "Christian Polygamy in the Sixteenth Century," as Elder Orson Pratt termed it in a well-informed 1853 article. Citing the statement by Luther, Melanchthon, and Bucer, to the effect that "the Gospel hath neither recalled nor forbid what was permitted in the law of Moses with respect to marriage," Elder Pratt quite correctly concluded that the case of Philip of Hesse "proves most conclusively, that those Divines did sincerely believe it to be just as legal and lawful for a Christian to have two wives as to have one only."

Yet many Protestant Christians today are convinced that polygamy disqualifies Latter-day Saints from acceptance within Christendom. Why? "What is surprising," notes Manas Buthelezi, "is that the Christian Church has raised this essentially cultural matter to the level of a soteriological absolute."

Many observers of Christianity in Africa, including the illustrious modern Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner, have raised serious questions about whether Indo-European marital custom really belongs to the essence of being Christian. "Let it be publicly declared," writes H. W. Turner, "that a polygamous African church may still be classed as a Christian church." But if a "polygamous African church" can be called Christian, why cannot a once-polygamous American church?

Anti-Mormons would not, we assume, want to claim that the definition of "Christian" differs between Africa and North America? If so, they will have to pinpoint the precise longitude where the difference kicks in. (For Annotation see Notes 528-542.)

Martin Luther and the Reformers Concerning Polygamy

The thoughts, beliefs and actions of Martin Luther and the Reformers concerning the subject of polygamy are a very interesting subject. In the article, "Will the Real Martin Luther Please Stand Up" by John A. Tvedtnes in the section under Polygamy shows how polygamy was brought into the Reformation:

Polygamy

Based upon his study of the Bible, Martin Luther concluded as early as 1522 that "Abraham did not commit adultery by leading a decent life with his second wife also. Abraham was a true Christian. His example dare not be condemned. It is true, one dare not make any laws out of the behavior of our forefathers, but one may not make sin out of their example." Luther's views were supported by his colleagues, notably Philip Melanchthon and Martin Bucer (whose writings influenced Calvin and who later helped Thomas Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, in the Protestant reform of the Church of England).

Though modern critics of the Book of Mormon and the restored Church find fault with the concept that the Old Testament patriarchs and prophets (including the Book of Mormon prophets) were Christians, it was taught by a number of the early Church Fathers of the second through the fifth centuries A.D. Luther, who studied these early writings as a Catholic priest/monk, undoubtedly was aware of this.
Polygyny was practiced among Irish Christians and by the Merovingian kings of France. As early as A.D. 726, Pope Gregory II decreed that when a man has a sick wife who cannot discharge her marital responsibilities, he could take a second wife on condition that he continue to care for the first. The Catholic Emperor (of the Holy Roman Empire) at the time of the Reformation fathered children all over Europe and had the Pope legitimize them.

In 1522, Henry VIII, king of England, wrote a book denouncing Luther's reforms and defending the seven sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church. For this action, the pope bestowed on him the title "Defender of the Faith." The friendship between England and Rome was not to endure, however. Henry had fallen in love with Anne Boleyn and sought to have the church grant an annulment of his marriage with Catherine of Aragon, on grounds that she had been the wife of his deceased brother Arthur and that all of their children had been stillborn. Pope Clement VIII drafted an order directing the king to reject his "concubine," Anne, or face excommunication or even an interdict against his entire kingdom. In January 1533, Henry secretly married Anne and thus became a polygamist. His actions may have been prompted by a letter that Melanchthon wrote to the king in August 1531:

"But what is to be done, if the public welfare renders a new marriage advisable for the sake of succession, as is the case with the King of England, where the public welfare of the whole kingdom renders a new marriage advisable? Here I reply: if the King wishes to provide for the succession, it is much better to do this without any stigma on the previous marriage. And this can be done, without any danger to the conscience or reputation of anyone, through polygamy . . . So I hold that the safest course for the King is the first one; for it is certain that polygamy is not forbidden by divine law (quia certum est polygamiam non esse prohibitam iure divino), nor is it a thing altogether without precedent. Abraham, David, and other holy men had several wives; hence it is obvious that polygamy is not against divine law (unde apparet polygamiam non esse ius divinum)."

As tensions grew, Henry, backed by Thomas Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, sought more earnestly to distance himself from Catherine and from the Pope. Cranmer had been influenced by the Lutheran reformer Andreas Osiander, whose niece Margarete he married secretly in 1532.(While studying for the priesthood, Cranmer had married a woman named Joan, who died in childbirth.) On 30 March 1533, Cranmer became Archbishop of Canterbury, in which position annulled King Henry's marriage to Catherine, and subsequently presided over Henry's public marriage to Anne Boleyn. In 1534, the British parliament passed the Act of Supremacy, by which the nation was declared free from all allegiance to Rome and naming the British monarch as head of the Church of England. Rather than follow Melanchthon's advice to enter into a polygynous relationship, Henry went through a series of wives and divorces and actually executed two of them.

Another European ruler, Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, also wanted to take other wives. John Calvin argued that the practice was "unchristian." When Philip petitioned Luther to allow him to take another wife, the Reformer counseled him to have "secret relations," comparing this to the concubinage of the Patriarchs in the Old Testament. Though Philip was already an adulterer and pedophile, he persisted in his request for a sanctioned bigamous marriage, though technically illegal in Germany since 1832 and punishable by beheading. Permission was granted in a document (issued on 10 December 1539 and subsequently called the "Wittenberg Deliberation") written by Luther's right-hand man Philip Melanchthon and signed by Luther and six other "reformers," including Martin Bucer. It approved Philip's request on condition that he "abstain from fornication, adultery and boys." A portion of the letter reads, "We declare under an oath that it ought to be done secretly . . . It is nothing unusual for princes to have concubines . . . and this modest way of living would please more than adultery." On 4 March 1540, Denis Melander, one of the signatories, who himself had three living wives, officiated at Philip's second marriage, with Melanchthon present. The marriage made Philip a brother-in-law of Luther himself.

Concubinage was regularly practiced by Catholic European rulers, but it was the insistence of Philip of Hesse that his second marriage be considered legal that made things difficult for Luther. The secret marriage soon became public and caused much consternation among Lutherans, whereupon Melanchthon "sickened almost to death with remorse." Luther pretended that he knew nothing about the affair and counseled the adulterer to "tell a good, strong lie." Criticized by Roman Catholics and Protestants such as Calvin, Luther feared that the Reformation might fail if he insisted on allowing polygyny. In this he was probably correct. Ferdinand, archduke of Austria, was leaning toward Protestantism but changed his mind after hearing of the Hesse affair, thus averting possible political and religious turmoil when he later became Emperor Ferdinand I of the Holy Roman Empire.

Ironically, Lutherans and Catholics had earlier joined forces to defeat a Protestant sect called Anabaptists ("rebaptizers"), who had begun to gain a foothold in parts of northern Europe. By about 1530, they were prominent in Amsterdam. In 1534, a more activist group of Anabaptists, led by John of Leyden, took control in the German city of Munster, where the people had just rebelled against their prince-bishop, and instituted a communist state. As men in the city died during skirmishes with a joint Protestant-Catholic army that laid siege to the city for twelve months, Anabaptist leaders introduced polygyny. Following the defeat of the Anabaptists, polygyny continued to be practiced secretly by a few. Many polygynists were executed by Lutherans and Catholics alike. The most well-known of these was Jan Willemsen of the German province of Westphalia, who had 21 wives.

Though the Reformation ultimately distanced itself from plural marriage, it continued to be advocated by such sects as the Muckers of Germany, the Agapemonites of 19th-century England, and 19th-century American groups such as the Oneida Perfectionists and the Shakers. John Milton, most noted for his 1667 book Paradise Lost, wrote a defense of defense of polygamy in another of his works, entitled Christian Doctrine. (For annotation see Notes 16-27)

Were Jesus and God the Father Polygamists?

The modern Born Again Evangelical Polygamist of our time at BIBLICAL POLYGAMY.com claim that Jesus described Himself in parable as a polygamist:
The Lord Himself Jesus Christ
5 In a parable

"Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five of them were wise, and five were foolish. ...While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; ...And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage:"Matthew 25:1-2,5-6c,10a-c (See verses 1-13)..
It should be noted, however, that this is not a literal, physical marriage to literal, physical women. While it was only a parable, even so, Jesus would never have described Himself this way in a parable if polygamy was a sin.

The Lord Himself God the Father
2 Wives (prophetically speaking, that is)
Aholah/Samaria & Aholibah/Jerusalem (Ezekiel 23),
Israel & Judah (Jeremiah 3).

"And the names of them were Aholah the elder, and Aholibah hersister: and they were mine, and they bare sons and daughters. Thus were their names; Samaria is Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah." Ezekiel 23:4

"The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot. And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks. And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the LORD. And the LORD said unto me, The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah. Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep anger for ever. Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the LORD thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith the LORD. Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion" Jeremiah 3:6-14

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." Jeremiah 31:31-34

Biblical Polygamy.com describes the purpose of their site as:

A resource for proving that Polygamy really IS Biblical.

The purpose and outline of this web-site are simple:
As based only on the Bible, to provide

* the Exegesis / Argumentation Proofs in the Bible,
* the list of all the Polygamists in the Bible,
* and the examples where The Lord Himself is self-described in polygamous terms in the Bible, all in a simple and easy-to-use web-site.

May this web-site serve all who would seek to know the truth of the Bible. For indeed, the Scriptures prove that
Polygamy really is Biblical! sm

Mary Magdalene's Secret

Was Polygamy A Sin In The New Testament?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Exegesis and Polygamy

At the modern Born Again Evangelical Christian Polygamist site, BIBLICAL POLYGAMY.com - Polygamy really is Biblical! they have a series of really good articles about exegesis and the topic of polygamy. The titles and links of the other articles will be listed below. Here is Polygamy Commanded of God in NT?:

There absolutely is an example in the Bible, where God actually does command a situation of polygamy ---in the New Testament, even.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 & 27-28.

In 1 Corinthians 7, the Apostle Paul differentiates when he is making his own "recommendation" (in verses 6, 12, and 25) and when he is expressing the "commandment of the Lord" (verses 10-11). Indeed, in verses 10-11, Paul clarifies that the instruction in those two verses is the "commandment of the Lord". (It should therefore also be noted that the other areas in which he clarifies as being only his "recommendation" can NOT be used to otherwise and incorrectly assert that God Himself is creating some sin or doctrine. After all, Paul's ultimate "recommendation" therein is celibacy!)

With that realized, it is clear for readers of the Bible that Paul makes it emphatically clear that verses 10-11 are different. Namely, verses 10-11, in the exact way in which thay are actually written, are the "commandment of God".

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." 1 Corinthians 7:10-11.

Paul further specifies that that above "commandment of the Lord" was only addressed to believers-married-to-believers. In the next verses (i.e, 12-16), he clarifies that he is subsequently addressing believers-married-to-unbelievers, and that that subsequent instuction is not the Lord's words, but his own again.

Verses 10-11 show that, if a believer WIFE leaves her believer HUSBAND, the

* believer WIFE is commanded of God to either:
remain unmarried, or
be reconciled back to her husband

* believer HUSBAND is commanded of God to:
not put away any wife, and to
let any departed wife return back to him

The key point is that the HUSBAND is NOT given the same commandments of instruction. Only the WIFE is commanded to remain unmarried, but the HUSBAND is not given that commandment. He is commanded of God to let her be married to him, either way!

Accordingly, the HUSBAND is of course, still free to marry another wife. That fact is further proved by the later verses of 27-28d.

"Art thou bound unto a wife?
seek not to be loosed.
Art thou loosed from a wife?
seek not a wife.
But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned;
and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned."
1 Corinthians 7:27-28d.

The Greek text of verse 27 is clearly only addressing married men --whether or not the wife has departed.

As such, the married man whose wife is still with him does not sin when he marries another wife (who is not another's wife). And likewise, the married man, whose wife has departed from him, he also does not sin when he marries another wife (who is not another's wife).

And herein comes the "commandment of the Lord", of polygamy, as in the following situation.

A believer WIFE departs from her believer HUSBAND. She is commanded of God to remain unmarried, per verses 10-11. Her HUSBAND, however, then subsequently marries another wife (who is not another man's wife). The HUSBAND and the new wife have not sinned, per verses 27-28. The departed WIFE then seeks to be reconciled back to her HUSBAND.

In that situation, verses 10-11 show the following instruction as the "commandment of the Lord". The HUSBAND is commanded of God to let the departed wife be reconciled back to him. AND.... he is commanded of God to not put away a wife, including the new wife.

As such, verses 10-11 show that it is an outright "commandment of the Lord" of polygamy for the family in that situation.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 is indeed a Commandment of God --- in the New Testament --- that, when a previously-departed believer wife returns, her believer husband and his new (believer) wife (from verse 27c-28d) MUST let the previous wife be reconciled to her husband.

There truly IS a "commandment of the Lord" for a situation of polygamy to be found in the Bible ---and it's in the New Testament Scriptures, as well!

Other links on Exegesis and Polygamy:
Remember Moses wrote it
Adultery?
One Wife
One Flesh
Not Multiply Wives
Forbidden to Marry
Did God Tolerate Sin?
A NT Polygamist
Wife of thy Youth
If He Take Another Wife
If a Man Have 2 Wives
It's Divorce, not Polygamy
Lamech `scuse ©
Not Marry Sisters
God said He GAVE Wives
Original Plan of God?
7 Women / 1 Man (Isa 4:1)
Law of the Land

...the husband of one wife...

At Truthbearer.org Continuing the Reformation...sm in Chapter 9 of The Truth and the Paradox titled, The Elders, Bishops, and Deacons Trap expounds the view on the scripture, "the husband of one wife."

The most perplexing trap that devils will use to advance the plot of the wicked paradox is in the reference to "one wife" in Titus and 1 Timothy. But as usual, once the LIGHT of the Scripture comes shining through, the wickedness thereof is instantly revealed. Praise the LORD!

In our English language, Titus 1:5c-7: "ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of ONE WIFE, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker..."

In 1 Timothy 3:2: "A bishop must be blameless, the husband of ONE WIFE, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach"...

In 1 Timothy 3:12: "Let the deacons be the husbands of ONE WIFE, ruling their children and their own houses well."

When one consults STRONG'S EXHAUSTIVE CONCORDANCE, an amazing piece of evidence becomes revealed. In most cases, the word for ONE in the Greek is "heis" (hice), meaning the primary numeral "1". Yet, in the references to "ONE WIFE", the Greek word for ONE is not that word for the primary numeral "1". Indeed, in those three cases, ONE is "mia" (mee'-ah), meaning "one" or "first".

While some will try to confuse by the fact that STRONG'S indicates that "mia" (mee'-ah) is a "feminine of" "heis" (hice), let those confusers be reminded that STRONG's is more specific. It says that it is an "IRREGULAR feminine." Quite a different thing indeed! Despite such wicked confusion, however, a deeper investigation sheds still more LIGHT through the darkness. Alleluia!

That word "mia" (mee'-ah), meaning "first", is the exact same word for FIRST in John 20:19, Acts 20:7, and 1 Corinthians 16:2. All three of these verses refer to "the FIRST day of the week". Indeed, we can see this word for "FIRST" as meaning, "The position-number-one of a sequence." For example, the FIRST day of the week is the Day-number-one of the sequence of seven days in a week. Thus, even simpler, "the FIRST day of the week" can be seen as "the day-number-one of the week," which, of course, is Sunday.

Thus, because we can see that Greek word "mia" (mee'-ah) in that way, it also my be applied to those references to "ONE WIFE". That is, instead, it can thus be seen as "FIRST wife", or as "Wife-number-one" of a sequence.

So, it can thus be seen that elders, bishops, and deacons must be "the husband of FIRST wife", of their "wife-number-one" of a sequence. And indeed, that would certainly be absolutely fundamental to the principles in determining adultery!

A TRUE GODLY man is not to deal treacherously with the "wife of his youth", his FIRST wife, the wife-number-one! The "judgment of the LORD" in Exodus 21:10 established that very clearly. Therefore, indeed, an elder, a bishop, a deacon would and should certainly be required to live up to that "judgment of the LORD" in Exodus 21:10. Indeed, because they must be holy, they must certainly be still so loving, so blessing, and so edifying their FIRST wife, the "wife of thy youth", the wife with whom they first learned how to be such a TRUE GODLY (small-L) lord! Yes, indeed, such (small-L) lords absolutely must follow the example of the (capital-L) Lord, thus loving their wives, absolutely including their FIRST wives, "as Christ also loved, as Christ also loved, as Christ also loved" the churches.

(As well, I could delve into the fact that it is that word "FIRST" also in the translation of "ONE" in "ONE FLESH", as in 1 Corinthians 6:16; but, as I have previously explained that unto you, and so as to now avoid confusion, I spare you...) As for those who would refuse to see this revelation of "FIRST wife", then let them consider the following. Why did Paul not just say that elders, bishops, and deacons must not commit adultery? It is because, indeed, the TRUE meaning of adultery establishes the possibility of more than one wife. Further, let such consider what one TRUE GODLY man's wife at one time of allowance (that it may be for your edification herein) and what another TRUE GODLY man at another time have both intimated to me separately. If it is true that Paul only specified ONE single wife for elders, bishops, and deacons, does that not still prove that OTHER Christian men were authorized to marry, and indeed were marrying, more than ONE wife? Indeed, why did Paul not simply forbid adultery instead of saying "ONE WIFE"? It was establishing a holy requirement. That holy requirement was not about having ONE single wife but about being the husband of one's FIRST wife, as according to the "Judgment of the LORD" in Exodus 21:10. Truly, the specification was a requirement to holiness without error!

Thus, either way one looks at it, it is clear as to the TRUTH on this matter of "ONE WIFE" of elders, bishops, and deacons. Even if one rejects the "FIRST wife" understanding of the meaning of "ONE WIFE", even the idea of separating specific "church leaders" from other Christian men still confirms that such others were not prevented from loving, blessing, and edifying more than ONE WIFE. Thus, again, the trap of the wicked, incorrect manmade doctrine of so-called "adultery" (as opposed to TRUE adultery) has been exposed. Yes, the LIGHT has pierced the darkness. And, unto the TRUE Children of the LORD, I say, quoting from 1 Peter 2:9: "ye should shew forth the praises of him ((the LORD)) who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous LIGHT." (Born-Again Evangelical Christian Polygamist)

Also See:
Breaking Past the "One Wife" Barrier
Chapter 1 - Looking Back
Chapter 2 - Looking Forward
Bishops and deacons
The Husband of One Wife

Truman Madsen on Joseph Smith's Polygamy

The Sacrifice of All Things If Necessary

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught:

“For a man to lay down his all, his character and reputation, his honor, and applause, his good name among men, his houses, his lands, his brothers and sisters, his wife and children, and even his own life also—counting all things but filth and dross for the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus Christ—requires more than mere belief or supposition that he is doing the will of God; but actual knowledge, realizing that, when these sufferings are ended, he will enter into eternal rest, and be a partaker of the glory of God....

“... A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation; for, from the first existence of man, the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things. It was through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life; and it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God. When a man has offered in sacrifice all that he has for the truth’s sake, not even withholding his life, and believing before God that he has been called to make this sacrifice because he seeks to do his will, he does know, most assuredly, that God does and will accept his sacrifice and offering, and that he has not, nor will not seek his face in vain. Under these circumstances, then, he can obtain the faith necessary for him to lay hold on eternal life.

“. . . It is in vain for persons to fancy to themselves that they are heirs with those, or can be heirs with them, who have offered their all in sacrifice, and by this means obtained faith in God and favor with him so as to obtain eternal life, unless they, in like manner, offer unto him the same sacrifice, and through that offering obtain the knowledge that they are accepted of him. . . .

“. . . From the days of righteous Abel to the present time, the knowledge that men have that they are accepted in the sight of God is obtained by offering sacrifice. . . .

“. . . Those, then, who make the sacrifice, will have the testimony that their course is pleasing in the sight of God; and those who have this testimony will have faith to lay hold on eternal life, and will be enabled, through faith, to endure unto the end, and receive the crown that is laid up for them that love the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. But those who do not make the sacrifice cannot enjoy this faith, because men are dependent upon this sacrifice in order to obtain this faith: therefore, they cannot lay hold upon eternal life, because the revelations of God do not guarantee unto them the authority so to do, and without this guarantee faith could not exist” (Lectures on Faith, 68–70).

Abrahamic Test

"We will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell; and we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them." (Abr. 3:24-25.)

"For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father." (Mosiah 3:19)

The Power from Abrahamic Tests
(Truman G. Madsen is professor emeritus of philosophy at Brigham Young University, where during his tenure he was named both professor of the year and honors professor of the year. He has B.S. and M.S. degrees from the University of Utah and an A.M. and Ph.D. from Harvard. He has been a guest professor at Northeastern University, the Graduate Theological Union at Berkeley, and at Haifa University in Israel. Dr. Madsen's writings include Eternal Man, Four Essays on Love, Christ and the Inner Life, and Defender of the Faith, a Biography of B. H. Roberts. He has served as a bishop, president of the New England Mission, a counselor in the Israel District presidency, and as a stake president.)

The Abrahamic Test
(Larry E. Dahl, Brigham Young University, [Richard D. Draper, Witness of Jesus Christ: The 1989 Sperry Symposium on the Old Testament, 53-66.)

The Book of Abraham: A Most Remarkable Book
(by Andrew Skinner)

Abraham
(by E. Douglas Clark)