Array

Plural marriage/Early Christians on plural marriage: Difference between revisions

No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 6: Line 6:
|S=
|S=
|L1=Question: How did early Christians view plural marriage?
|L1=Question: How did early Christians view plural marriage?
|L2=Question: If polygamy was commanded of God in order to "raise seed," then why were Adam and Noah not commanded to practice polygamy?
}}
}}
</onlyinclude>
</onlyinclude>
{{:Question: How did early Christians view plural marriage?}}
{{:Question: How did early Christians view plural marriage?}}
{{:Question: If polygamy was commanded of God in order to "raise seed," then why were Adam and Noah not commanded to practice polygamy?}}
{{CriticalSources}}
{{CriticalSources}}
{{endnotes sources}}
{{endnotes sources}}

Revision as of 14:18, 16 June 2017


Early Christians on plural marriage


Jump to details:

  1. REDIRECT Template:Critical sources box:Plural marriage and the law/CriticalSources

Question: If polygamy was commanded of God in order to "raise seed," then why were Adam and Noah not commanded to practice polygamy?

We do not suspect that many marriage choices were available to Adam or Noah

Oddly enough, one critic of the Church actually asks the question: "If God commands polygamy in situations where a high birth rate is necessary, why is there no mention of God commanding Adam or Noah and/or their immediate male children to have many wives?"[1].

We do not suspect that many marriage choices were available to Adam (descendants from two individuals) and Noah (descendants from eight individuals).

With regard to their immediate children, we simply have no information to indicate whether or not they were commanded to practice plural marriage.

In any case, LDS doctrine in no way anticipates that plural marriage will be universal, or even common. It is, in fact, forbidden save when God specifically commands it.

To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, click here

Notes

  1. Jeremy Runnells, "Letter to a CES Director" (Original version). The author removed this claim in a 19 May 2014 update of the Letter.