Why Do Many Restorationist Sects Of The Lds Church Disbelieve Js Ever Practiced Polygamy?

[LeSellers]

I believe I stand corrected in the sense that to cover a specific problem of a deceased man (family member) without issue the brother is "commanded" to take the widowed sister-in-law in order to establish an inheritance for the dead brother's name in Israel.

And that correction is right.

Hardly a reason to generalize the practice across the board as a "Higher Law" necessary to salvation and to draw the conclusion that it signifies God's approval. Especially in the light of the scripture (previously noted) prohibiting the practice.

No one was proposing that it was a legitimate basis for such a generalization. What we have said refuted the general claim that God never commanded (or, I believe your word was "encouraged") Plural Marriage. He obviously did, in some circumstances.

However, and please see my second message above, there remains our unrebutted claim that God could have forbidden Plural marriage outright, which He has never done. He failed to do so in the Old Testament (quite the contrary, he commanded it in those situations we have discussed), He failed to do so in the New Testament when it would have been easy to do in light of the Roman prohibition on multiple (concurrent) wives, and He did not do so in the Book of Mormon, either, even when there was a three-hundred-cubit-wide gap almost demanding that He fill it, had it been His desire.

There is nothing in any Christian scripture that rejects Plural Marriage outright. On the contrary, there is much to support it, when God commands it.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

How do you come to the conclussion that the father of an adult son (with a wife who was not said son's mother) had more than one living wife?

It's a reasonable supposition, and I freely admit the man may have been a widower. However, the context of Paul's statement leads one to the conclusion I posited.

Lehi

[inquiringmind]

Greek typically does not have an indefinite article (a/an), but those writing the New Testament were not Hellens, they were Jews, and they were writing to a largely Jewish audience.

Timothy and Titus were Greek.

And in Greek grammar, doesn't an anarthous noun (a noun lacking the definite article) take the place of our indefinite article?

In other words, if Paul had wanted to say "the husband of a wife," wouldn't he have wriiten "husband of wife" (not "husband of one wife")?

[Palerider]

Not so.

First, the Timothy passages are not as explicit as many think in denying men who have multiple wives being able to hold the offices of Bishop (Stake President) and Deacon.

Greek typically does not have an indefinite article (a/an), but those writing the New Testament were not Hellens, they were Jews, and they were writing to a largely Jewish audience. The language of the new Testament is not "Greek", per se, but Hebrew/Aramaic thought written in Greek (Koiné). According to Conybeare and Stock, Hebrew (which did not ordinarily have an indefinite article, either) and Hebrew-in-Greek sometimes used the cardinal number "one" as if it were an indefinite article. It happened in the Old Testament, and it happened elsewhere in the New Testament (i.e., besides 1 Timothy 3:2, 12; 5:9). I have an article I wrote on the subject some while back if you'd like to see it, but it's not easily located, so you'd please allow me time to find it.

If this was the case when Paul wrote Timothy, he was not saying that a man had to be a monogynist to be a Stake President, or a Deacon (the "highest" and "lowest" offices widely available to most men, so, presumably all Priesthood holders would be included in this spectrum, although Paul does not present it in this manner), he was saying only that a man must be married to hold these offices. It is a very different thing to say "he must be the husband of one woman" and "he must be the husband of a woman". /the first specifies the number of wives, the second the matrimonial state.

If Paul had wanted to propound that plural marriage was not in the plan of God in the I, he could easily have said so in either or both of the Timothy passages, but, tellingly, he did not. He could have said, in 1 Cor 5, when he chastised the Corinthians about their letting a man who had committed fornication with his father's wife (not his mother, btw) continue in fellowship, that the father was wrong, too, in having (at least) two wives. but he did not. He could have said it in any number of other places in his writings, but he did not. We have only these ambiguous statements on the matter. Concluding anything with nothing more to go on than what Paul wrote in 1 Timothy and in 1 Corinthians is not justified.

Nothing anywhere in the Bible, New or Old Testaments, condemns Plural Marriage.

There are specific regulations in the Law of Moses about dealing with multiple wives. It would have been far easier for God to have to forbidden them, but He did not. He was not reluctant to castigate those who broke other taboos that were culturally acceptable in the ancient Middle East. Ignoring this one makes it much easier to see that He was not merely winking at a practice He always considered abominable, but that He approved of it, in many, albeit not all, situations.

Lehi

I disagree.

[Wendy]

The official position of the RLDS Church was that Joseph Smith did not practice plural marriage. However, there was a footnote of sorts which said that if he did he was wrong to do it.

It is interesting that most of the splinter groups at the time of the martyrdom practiced polygamy, including Strang, Samuel Smith and others. Where on earth did they get such a notion? It is also true that William Marks (RLDS First Presidency) reprimanded Joseph Smith III over his claim that his father was not a polygamist, as Marks (former Nauvoo Stake President) said he knew for sure that he was.

My position is that Joseph did not practice plural marriage as we think of it, or as it was later practiced in Utah. He was sealed to a number of women but that was it. No physical relations took place in my opinion. DNA research has proved that none of the children attributed to the Prophet through plural wives, and who were told by their mothers that Joseph was their father, were his. I think that evidence is persuasive as he had no trouble at all fathering children with Emma.

Could you give sources for your claim that Joseph Smith didn't have conjugal relationships with anyone other than Emma?

[inquiringmind]

Nothing anywhere in the Bible, New or Old Testaments, condemns Plural Marriage.

Maybe.

But it seems odd to me that Jesus would say that a man who put away his wife, and married another, committed adultery against her.

Why adultery?

If God aproves of polygamy, wouldn't it be more acurate to say the man was guilty of abandonement?

[Palerider]

Not so.

First, the Timothy passages are not as explicit as many think in denying men who have multiple wives being able to hold the offices of Bishop (Stake President) and Deacon.

Greek typically does not have an indefinite article (a/an), but those writing the New Testament were not Hellens, they were Jews, and they were writing to a largely Jewish audience. The language of the new Testament is not "Greek", per se, but Hebrew/Aramaic thought written in Greek (Koiné). According to Conybeare and Stock, Hebrew (which did not ordinarily have an indefinite article, either) and Hebrew-in-Greek sometimes used the cardinal number "one" as if it were an indefinite article. It happened in the Old Testament, and it happened elsewhere in the New Testament (i.e., besides 1 Timothy 3:2, 12; 5:9). I have an article I wrote on the subject some while back if you'd like to see it, but it's not easily located, so you'd please allow me time to find it.

If this was the case when Paul wrote Timothy, he was not saying that a man had to be a monogynist to be a Stake President, or a Deacon (the "highest" and "lowest" offices widely available to most men, so, presumably all Priesthood holders would be included in this spectrum, although Paul does not present it in this manner), he was saying only that a man must be married to hold these offices. It is a very different thing to say "he must be the husband of one woman" and "he must be the husband of a woman". /the first specifies the number of wives, the second the matrimonial state.

If Paul had wanted to propound that plural marriage was not in the plan of God in the I, he could easily have said so in either or both of the Timothy passages, but, tellingly, he did not. He could have said, in 1 Cor 5, when he chastised the Corinthians about their letting a man who had committed fornication with his father's wife (not his mother, btw) continue in fellowship, that the father was wrong, too, in having (at least) two wives. but he did not. He could have said it in any number of other places in his writings, but he did not. We have only these ambiguous statements on the matter. Concluding anything with nothing more to go on than what Paul wrote in 1 Timothy and in 1 Corinthians is not justified.

Nothing anywhere in the Bible, New or Old Testaments, condemns Plural Marriage.

There are specific regulations in the Law of Moses about dealing with multiple wives. It would have been far easier for God to have to forbidden them, but He did not. He was not reluctant to castigate those who broke other taboos that were culturally acceptable in the ancient Middle East. Ignoring this one makes it much easier to see that He was not merely winking at a practice He always considered abominable, but that He approved of it, in many, albeit not all, situations.

Lehi

I disagree. I am already familiar with the view you're promoting regarding the instruction to Timothy, there are other faiths that also see it in a similar light as well as those that don't, I just don't happen to agree with your slant. I don't think you are "rightly dividing" the word and that it can be taken other ways as well.

I disagree also with your statement that "Nothing anywhere in the Bible condemns plural marriage" Deuteronomy 17: 17 does so soundly regarding the kings of Israel.

[USU78]

Many of the early, first century Christians were of Jewish birth.

Those who kept the Law of Moses by marrying the widow of a deceased brother would have been excluded from serving as bishop or deacon (if they already had a wife.)

Bishops and deacons were to be examples to the flock, and rhey were to be the husbands of one wife.

If God aproves of polygamy, why would a Jewish believer be excluded from Church leadership for following the Jewish Law in regard to Levirate marriage?

By your own logic, it would seem the New Testament Apostles went out of their way to discourage polygamy.

Who says Saul/Paul was speaking of policy beyond that applicable to Goyische bishops?

Or that he was in a position to speak to general policy or was speaking nothing more than his personal opinion?

USU "Doubts Saul/Paul was ever an apostle (as LDS understand the term)" 78

[LeSellers]

Timothy and Titus were Greek.

Titus has nothing to do with my premise.

Timothy, while a "Greek" (by his father) was raised a Jew, and was intimately familiar with the Hebrew scriptures, which were written in Greek, and which included the "heis" = "a" anomaly to which I referred in the earlier message. Moreover, Timothy did not write the epistles, Paul, a Benjaminite Jew through-and-through, was the author.

And in Greek grammar, doesn't an anarthous noun (a noun lacking the definite article) take the place of our indefinite article?

In Greek Greek, yes. My premise, that the Koiné of the new Testament was not Greek, per se, differentiates between the two "languages" in that Jew (writing to Jews) would not use standard Greek (Koiné) grammar like a native Greek speaker.

In other words, if Paul had wanted to say "the husband of a wife," wouldn't he have wriiten "husband of wife" (not "husband of one wife")?

Possibly, but the issue I raise is this: the passages are ambiguous. It is not sufficient to claim he wrote "... of one wife" merely because that's what the words say. The context, especially his failure to castigate all Plural Marriage when it would have been natural to do so, had that been his intent or goal, is indicative of a lack of desire to make that statement. Paul, as a misanthrope (as many conclude), would hardly have failed to do so.

Lehi

[inquiringmind]

USU "Doubts Saul/Paul was ever an apostle (as LDS understand the term)" 78

Paul is called a prophet in the book of Acts, and if he wasn't an Apostle, Galatians and 2 Corinthians should be removed from the canon.

In Galatians, he claims to have received his Gospel by direct revelation from the risen Christ, and an authority equal to Peter James, and John.

And in 2nd Corinthians, he claims an authority equal to "the chiefest Apostles."

[USU78]

Paul is called a prophet in the book of Acts, and if he wasn't an Apostle, Galatians and 2 Corinthians should be removed from the canon.

In Galatians, he claims to have received his Gospel by direct revelation from the risen Christ, and an authority equal to Peter James, and John.

And in 2nd Corinthians, he claims an authority equal to "the chiefest Apostles."

I quite agree he controlled the message about his situation: morally superior to the "pillars" like Simon/Peter and James bar Joseph and the rest. Acts is definitely a pro-Saul/Paul tractate. And if even so philo-Pauline a work as Acts can admit to his having been fined and forced to endure the humiliation of a head-shave, then it's pretty dang clear that his position was not that of an insider of the hated "pillars."

That said, Saul/Paul's letters are definitely self-promoting.

[LeSellers]

it seems odd to me that Jesus would say that a man who put away his wife, and married another, committed adultery against her.

Why adultery?

We should be careful to quote Him correctly, at least as far as we have the record, and in cultural context.

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. (See also Mark 11:11~12; Luke 16:18; 18:20.)

The context of 19:9 is divorce, so I conclude that he who shall marry another is marrying a divorcée, and is committing adultery because she is married to someone else. Here, Jesus is not saying that marrying again is wrong, only that marrying someone who has been married is adultery.

I'm not an Aramaic scholar (nor even a Greek and especially not a Hebrew student), but I'd guess, based on common, shared culture, that the concept of adultery was just as limited in i~I Judea and its Aramaic language as if was in v and Hebrew. There is certainly nothing in either Greek or Roman culture that looked at adultery as wicked, so we can't look to either of those as sources for the genesis of Jesus' pronouncement against remarriage. And it is not reasonable to have the Master telling people something that they couldn't understand because they had no language that included the concept.

Adultery by men (with unmarried women) was simply beyond their ken.

If God aproves of polygamy, wouldn't it be more acurate to say the man was guilty of abandonement?

The Hebrew word for adultery (נאף, nâ'aph: she who breaks wedlock) refers solely to the woman's marital status. In the Law of Moses, a man could not commit adultery except with a married woman. If he took an unmarried woman, even by rape, it was not adultery no matter what his marital status. He had to marry her (another instance of coerced plural marriage if he was married prior to the event).

Lehi

[inquiringmind]

We should be careful to quote Him correctly

Yes we should.

This is how His words are recorded by Mark.

Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. (Mark 10:9, Joseph Smith Translation.)

And yes, he was talking about divorce.

But he didn't say that the man who put away his wife and married another was guilty of abandoning his first wife, He said he was guilty of committing adultery against her.

The Hebrew word for adultery (נאף, nâ'aph: she who breaks wedlock) refers solely to the woman's marital status. In the Law of Moses, a man could not commit adultery except with a married woman. If he took an unmarried woman, even by rape, it was not adultery no matter what his marital status. He had to marry her (another instance of coerced plural marriage if he was married prior to the event).

The Law of Moses is irrelevant here, as Jesus clearly says it's teaching (at least on divorce) is an accomodation to human shortcomings.

The interesting thing is that He just as clearly says (in Mark 10:9, JST--which you neglected to quote) that A MAN CAN COMMIT ADULTERY AGAINST A WOMAN--HIS WIFE.

As to cultural context, I found this article from the Jewish Encyclopedia interesting.

...That the ideal state of human society, in the mind of the primitive Israelite, was a monogamous one is clearly evinced by the fact that the first man (Adam) was given only one wife, and that the first instance of bigamy occurred in the family of the cursed Cain (Gen. iv. 19). Noah and his sons also are recorded as having only one wife each (ib. vi. 7, 13). Abraham had only one wife; and he was persuaded to marry his slave Hagar (ib. xvi. 2, 3; see Pilegesh) only at the urgent request of his wife, who deemed herself barren. Isaac had only one wife. Jacob married two sisters, because he was deceived by his father-in-law, Laban (ib. xxix. 23-30). He, too, married his wives' slaves at the request of his wives, who wished to have children (ib. xxx. 4, 9). The sons of Jacob as well as Moses and Aaron seem to have lived in monogamy. Among the Judges, however, polygamy was practised, as it was also among the rich and the nobility (Judges viii. 30; comp. ib. xii. 9, 14; I Chron. ii. 26, iv. 5, viii. 8.) Elkanah, the father of Samuel, had two wives, probably because the first (Hannah) was childless (I Sam. i. 2)...The same feeling against polygamy existed in later Talmudic times. Of all the rabbis named in the Talmud there is not one who is mentioned as having lived in polygamy. The general sentiment against polygamy is illustrated in a story related of the son of R. Judah ha-Nasi (Ket. 62a). A peculiar passage in the Targum (Aramaic paraphrase) to Ruth iv. 6 points to the same state of popular feeling. The kinsman of Elimelech, being requested by Boaz to marry Ruth, said, "I can not redeem; for I have a wife and have no right to take another in addition to her, lest she be a disturbance in my house and destroy my peace. Redeem thou; for thou hast no wife." This is corroborated by R. Isaac, who says that the wife of Boaz died on the day when Ruth entered Palestine (B. B. 91a).

http://www.jewishenc...id=425&letter=P

Compare the opening statement (from this Jewish source) with the words of Christ.

That the ideal state of human society, in the mind of the primitive Israelite, was a monogamous one is clearly evinced by the fact that the first man (Adam) was given only one wife...

Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this precept; But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father, and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh...(Mark 10:5-7, JST.)

[HiJolly]

I know that the RLDS and Community of Christ, and maybe other groups as well, deny that JS ever practiced polygamy. I'm curious to understand why?

Thanks.

Because after Joseph's death, Emma lied and said both privately and publicly that Joseph had not ever practiced polygamy. To her very deathbed, she lied to everyone about it, including her own sons.

HiJolly

[LeSellers]

Because after Joseph's death, Emma lied and said both privately and publicly that Joseph had not ever practiced polygamy. To her very deathbed, she lied to everyone about it, including her own sons.

That's overly harsh.

She did not "lie", she deflected and continued to hide the facts, since she was used to doing so to protect herself, her husband and even (although she barely cared any more) the Church. This was just what she'd done while Joseph was still alive.

It is true she disliked Plural Marriage, even though she'd accepted the inevitability of the Principle while Joseph was practicing it, and sometimes advanced the cause herself, but she knew a lot more than most of us today give her credit for, and she was convinced that Joseph was the prophet of God he claimed to be.

The words she used, especially in the article in The Saints' Herald, were the kinds of vague obfustication she had used for decades when discussing the matter, and they were the same words Joseph had used to shield his families from ridicule and harm.

Lehi

[inquiringmind]

Because after Joseph's death, Emma lied and said both privately and publicly that Joseph had not ever practiced polygamy. To her very deathbed, she lied to everyone about it, including her own sons.

HiJolly

If that's true, why did she live so long?

I believe D&C 132 said she would be destroyed if she didn't accept that revelation, and I think she lived into her 70's (beyond the normal life expectancy at the time.)

If she was so unfaithful as to lie about this all her life, why did she live so long?

[LeSellers]

I believe D&C 132 said she would be destroyed if she didn't accept that revelation, and I think she lived into her 70's (beyond the normal life expectancy at the time.)

If she was so unfaithful as to lie about this all her life, why did she live so long?

Not all destruction is temporal.

The fact that she chose several of Joseph's other wives leads me to think that she may have accepted it, however unwillingly, and thus would be spared the destruction spoken of if she did not accept it.

Lehi

[inquiringmind]

Not all destruction is temporal.

Lehi

So was Emma a "son of perdition"?

[LeSellers]

So was Emma a "son of perdition"?

No: wrong sex.

She was, I believe, not nearly well enough versed in sacred things to merit that damnation, nor did her rebellion (if it was such) so deep as to meet the required "crucify Him unto [herself]" standard.

Lehi

[inquiringmind]

No: wrong sex.

So is it true that females can't commit this sin?

She was, I believe, not nearly well enough versed in sacred things to merit that damnation, nor did her rebellion (if it was such) so deep as to meet the required "crucify Him unto [herself]" standard.

Not even if she knew Joseph was a prophet, that this was a revelation from God, and that her rebellion was a sin?

[LeSellers]

So is it true that females can't commit this sin?

No, it's not true: you*'re good, but you're not that good (UMW members excepted, of course).

* "You" plural, as in "all women".

I don't like smilies, but I guess I should have used one there.

Not even if she knew Joseph was a prophet, that this was a revelation from God, and that her rebellion was a sin?

Didn't say it was not a sin, I said it doesn't rise to the level required for her becoming a son [sic] of perdition.

Lehi

[inquiringmind]

Didn't say it was not a sin, I said it doesn't rise to the level required for her becoming a son [sic] of perdition.

Lehi

But if she knew it was a sin, and did it anyway (knowing Jesus died for her sins, knowing her husband was a prophet, and after receiving the new and everlasting covenant), wouldn't that constitute crucifying Christ afresh (by "assenting to His death")?

I would hope it would not be, but why would it not be?

Couldn't anything (even violating the WOW) rise to that level?

[LeSellers]

But if she knew it was a sin, and did it anyway (knowing Jesus died for her sins, knowing her husband was a prophet, and after receiving the new and everlasting covenant), wouldn't that constitute crucifying Christ afresh (by "assenting to His death")?

I don't have my resources at hand now, but no, there is a threshold someone must cross before becoming a son of perdition, and it includes openly denying Christ after having a pure and undeniable witness of the Holy Ghost that He, Jesus, is the Christ. Very few people get such a witness, and ordinary sinning, even in the face of that witness, is not suficient to merit being cast into Outer Darkness.

Lehi

[inquiringmind]

I don't have my resources at hand now, but no, there is a threshold someone must cross before becomming a son of perdition, and it includes openly denying Christ after having a pure and undeniable witness of the Holy Ghost that He, Jesus, is the Christ. Very few people get such a witness, and ordinary sinning, even in the face of that witness, is not suficient to merit being cast into Outer Darkness.

Lehi

Thank you.

(When you have your resources handy, could you post something on that?)

[SilverKnight]

For the reasons spelled out in "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy" by Richard and Pamela Price. If you really want to know why, that is the first place to start. And look! I will will it easy for you...

http://restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm

*Now you need never ask the question again

The evidence that Joseph Smith taught, preached and practiced polygamy is irrefutable.

Polygamy-denial apologetics that attempt to demonstrate otherwise is some of the worst scholarship you will ever read - utter nonsense that other resembles other evidence-denying literature like holocaust denial and young earth theories.

The best course is for all Restorationist churches is to admit it happened, accept the mountain of evidence, and put the best spin on it possible.