You will fine more examples in Genesis. Abraham is documented with three wives. In Solomons case he was renowed for his wisdom. But his sin was not with too many wives (per the Bible) but that the foriegn wives led him to accomodate other Gods.
Why is can we have more that one wife, from a biblical perspective?
- Thread starter joepistole
- Start date
*************Jeffs was FLDS, not LDS. FLDS is one of those former LDS groups that broke away over leadership and polygamy issues. All marriages that occur in a temple are celestial marriages as they are forever and all time...not just until death.
What is the Wicken view on pologamy MW?
Personally I want to marry OLeander because of her views on the subject.
M*W: Yes, you are right. He was leader of the FLDS as you said. Sorry, but I don't know the Wiccan view on polygamy. Perhaps Hapsburg does.
*************
M*W: You've got to be kidding me? All men in those days took multiple wives and sometimes other men as partners. The Egyptians were famous for it, and that trickled down to the Jews. Moses was one of the famous multiporous husbands as was Solomon and David, or at least that's the myth.
Read Moses and Akhenaten, by Ahmed Osman, et al.
*************
M*W: It was common practice, but I know there is mention of Solomon's 600 wives somewhere in the bible.
*************
M*W: What??? This site teems in spiritual guidance for those who are able to understand the truth.
Here is one of the laws God explained to Moses:
Exodus 21:10-11
10 "What if he marries another woman? He must still give the first one her food and clothes and make love to her. 11 If he does not provide her with those three things, she can go free. She does not have to pay anything."
EDIT - This law was in reference to initially marrying a Hebrew servant... I don't know if that matters or not.
Exodus 21:10-11
10 "What if he marries another woman? He must still give the first one her food and clothes and make love to her. 11 If he does not provide her with those three things, she can go free. She does not have to pay anything."
EDIT - This law was in reference to initially marrying a Hebrew servant... I don't know if that matters or not.
Last edited:
This one is off-topic, but it cracks me up:
Exodus 21:20
20 "Suppose a man beats his male or female slave to death with a club. Then he must be punished. 21 But he will not be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two. After all, the slave is his property."
BTW, Both of my last to references are from the New International Reader's Version Online.
Exodus 21:20
20 "Suppose a man beats his male or female slave to death with a club. Then he must be punished. 21 But he will not be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two. After all, the slave is his property."
BTW, Both of my last to references are from the New International Reader's Version Online.
Nice quote. The OT is sure a barrel of laughs.
Yes, I know, a bit surprising, but things have changed now.
We should not divorce, but was it Moses that told people to write divorce letters if they were to? However, Jesus was asked about that and He responded that Moses did that because the people at that time had a "hard heart" (you could phrase it that way, I think).
If you are going to change a entire culture, you can't just expect them to accept a total makeover, or can you? I don't know, I would think that some things had to come with small steps.
Cyperium, would that include evolution too (somethings come in small steps)?
I am trying to find where in the cannonical books did the practice change. It seems at the time of Christ, most folk were not practicing polygamy and maybe that is why it was not explicitly mentioned.
I am trying to find where in the cannonical books did the practice change. It seems at the time of Christ, most folk were not practicing polygamy and maybe that is why it was not explicitly mentioned.
*************
M*W: Even in the times of Charlemagne (@ 800 AD), he had something like 13 wives and concubines with children from all of them. They were all educated in the palace and practically generated the population of the world as we see it today.
I think it was when the church began its indoctrination after the printing press was invented, that the peasant class started to learn to read a bit. Prior to that, it was only the monks who were "educated" and could read. I don't know when monogamy ever came into play until such time as the church established the institution of marriage for the sole purposes of ownership of land and children as property. That way, the church was reassured that it would collect any money the poor peasants had instead of their own descendants inheriting anything. Later on, proper marriages ensured the rights of inheritance to the legal heirs. Bottom line, it was all about money. It always is.
*************
M*W's Friendly Atheist Quote (FAQ) of the Day:
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." ~ Napoleon Bonaparte
battig1370
Registered Senior Member
Interesting questions:
Is it by God's authority, or is it by some man's authortiy that a man only have one wife?
If it's some man's or a group of men's authortiy that a man only have one wife, who gave him or them that right to dictate his or their ideals of what is right or wrong?
Is it by God's authority, or is it by some man's authortiy that a man only have one wife?
If it's some man's or a group of men's authortiy that a man only have one wife, who gave him or them that right to dictate his or their ideals of what is right or wrong?
Yes, it was not the multiple marrriages that got him in trouble with God. It was that he turned away from God. He got too focused on the empire building and not on God.
I just think given the practical issues involved with relationships, multiple marriages are not practical. God knows I had enough trouble with one woman in my life.
yep just multiple sex from now on!
Leo Volont
Registered Senior Member
Well, anybody who believes in any of the current Christian Doctrines, mostly based on the letters of paul, that are considered to support the ideas of Salvation and the Forgiveness of Sins... well, they can sleep with as many sluts as they like.
Remember, their sins are forgiven.
It seems people don't even bother to think of the Benefits of their Religion.
Certainly the Early Protestants who got rich off the Slave Trade, Rum Running, American Revolutions, Capitalitst Usury and Wage Exploitation.. all of them were CERTAIN that their Sins were Forgiven.
If you are Christian, then prove your Faith. Do whatever the phuque you want.
As the bumper sticker says.. "We're not Perfect. We're forgiven"
Remember, their sins are forgiven.
It seems people don't even bother to think of the Benefits of their Religion.
Certainly the Early Protestants who got rich off the Slave Trade, Rum Running, American Revolutions, Capitalitst Usury and Wage Exploitation.. all of them were CERTAIN that their Sins were Forgiven.
If you are Christian, then prove your Faith. Do whatever the phuque you want.
As the bumper sticker says.. "We're not Perfect. We're forgiven"
Leo I want to remind you in the Old Testiment it was ok to have slaves. The Old Testimenet even gives rules for beating slaves.
Leo Volont
Registered Senior Member
Marriage is Property.
Families would marry their daughter into a particular family with the understanding that her offspring would be entailed to certain predetermined rights of possession.
More than one wife would muddy these waters.
In cultures where more than one wife are allowed, the household become battlefields of poison and mayhem as competing wives attempt to remove revals for heredary property.
Indeed, it reminds me somewhat of the Laws for Primogenitor -- that first sons inheret everything and that subsequent sons and all daughters effectively inheret nothing but have to make their way in the world as best they can (and so Societies with Primogenitor have huge Armies to collect up all the impoverished 2nd Sons). Anyway, what amazes me is that I do not know off hand very many stories of 2nd Sons killing off their older brothers for the Property Right to these entire Estates. Push him off a cliff or out of a tree, and it is an accident among boys playing their games. There must have been quite a lot of those.
Families would marry their daughter into a particular family with the understanding that her offspring would be entailed to certain predetermined rights of possession.
More than one wife would muddy these waters.
In cultures where more than one wife are allowed, the household become battlefields of poison and mayhem as competing wives attempt to remove revals for heredary property.
Indeed, it reminds me somewhat of the Laws for Primogenitor -- that first sons inheret everything and that subsequent sons and all daughters effectively inheret nothing but have to make their way in the world as best they can (and so Societies with Primogenitor have huge Armies to collect up all the impoverished 2nd Sons). Anyway, what amazes me is that I do not know off hand very many stories of 2nd Sons killing off their older brothers for the Property Right to these entire Estates. Push him off a cliff or out of a tree, and it is an accident among boys playing their games. There must have been quite a lot of those.