Jacob 2:26-30

[zerinus]

The Amulek passage doesn't give us much context, but the common usage of "woman" to mean "wife" tends to overweigh any presumption that "my women" means "all those female humans in my household", especially since he includes a reference to "[his] children" immediately following "[his] women". It certainly did not include "[his] daughters" among "[his] women".

Lehi

See my previous posts.

[Glenn101]

As to the reason for instituting polygamy, it was and is part of the "new and everlasting covenant" spoken of in Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants. As such, it (as well as the law of Consecration) was part of the restitution of all things. The Lord knew when He revealed the United Order and the new and everlasting covenant, which included polygamy to the Saints that they would not be practiced continually, but apparently the actual practice of both seemed to be necessary to be part of that restitution of all things.

President Monson still holds the keys and could still, upon a directive from the Lord, revive the practice of both. Being a little wiser than us, I doubt that the Lord will take those steps until the world is right for them.

Glenn

[bluebell]

I think that some of them do very specifically. Take Mosiah 19 for example:

13 And it came to pass that those who tarried with their wives and their children caused that their fair daughters should stand forth and plead with the Lamanites that they would not slay them.

14 And it came to pass that the Lamanites had compassion on them, for they were charmed with the beauty of their women.

This clearly distinguishes between "wives" and "daughters," and then identified their "daughters" as their "women". Didn't Amulek have any daughters? If he did, wouldn't they qualify as his "women"? How about sisters, or sisters-in-law; mothers, or other female relatives? They would all have been classified as his "women". Or take this one:

Helaman 6:

13 Behold their women did toil and spin, and did make all manner of cloth, of fine-twined linen and cloth of every kind, to clothe their nakedness. And thus the sixty and fourth year did pass away in peace.

In those days spinning yarn and making cloth was a female occupation. It was the job of "women". That does not mean that they had to be married. So Amulek might have had "women" in his household who would have been engaged in that activity. That doesn't mean that they would have all been his wives.

Or take the example of "arming their women and children". That doesn't mean that they would have all been "wives". It means adult females of the population.

Again though, the examples that you have provided are spoken from a plural point of view (their) while amulek speaks from a singular point of view (my). You can't really compare the two.

In the example of arming 'my women and children'-Moroni, as the leader of the Nephites, is talking about the nephite women, not the women in his own family, so the two statements aren't comparable.

Edited January 4, 2012 by bluebell

[LeSellers]

See my previous posts.

Having responded to them, I can assure you that I have seen them, and I reject your premises on the grounds I have explained in my previous posts.

Lehi

[The Nehor]

I doubt that this is a reference to plural marriage. While the words for "wives" and "women" are the same in some languages both words are used in the translation. The word "wives" is not absent from the rest of the text. This shows that in the translation process they were differentiated. Why the mistake here? The translation was not done by a process where Joseph would see the word and have to guess by context which meaning was right.

[zerinus]

Again though, the examples that you have provided are spoken from a plural point of view (their) while amulek speaks from a singular point of view (my). You can't really compare the two.

In the example of arming 'my women and children'-Moroni, as the leader of the Nephites, is talking about the nephite women, not the women in his own family, so the two statements aren't comparable.

I think that in the case of Mosiah 19:13-14 (at least) it can be understood in the singular sense, even though the text is plural.

[LeSellers]

The translation was not done by a process where Joseph would see the word and have to guess by context which meaning was right.

Yes, as a matter of fact, it was. You recall Doc&Cov 9, I'm sure. Oliver, no more than Joseph, was required to study it ou tin his mind, and then approach the Lord for confirmation of the translation.

In addition, we know that "woman", even in English, also means "wife". We have Adam speaking in the Bible as one example, but a more earthy one is the phrase, "the old lady/woman" (one I have never used in reference to my, or anyone else's, wife). Further, there is nothing wrong with translating "woman" from Hebrew as "woman", even if the meaning is "wife", precisely because the Hebrew is "woman" and not "wife" (if there even is a separate Hebrew word for "married woman"—I just read Isaiah yesterday, and he says something about , in that day, the woman with no children will have more posterity than "the married wife", a redundancy that weighs directly on this matter).

I am unsure as to why anyone would be worried about Amulek's having multiple wives. There is nothing inherently wrong with Plural Marriage. Were there, God would not have commanded His servants to engage in the Principle, as He did from, at least Abraham on through Wilford Woodruff. There is no scriptural injunction against it except the misunderstanding of Jacob and OD1, both of which enjoin the practice only temporarily. The Bible does not restrict the Plurality of Wives except for deacons and bishops (stake presidents), which shows that any others could have many wives without a problem, and that, this, too, was temporary, and probably Paul's personal preference, since his writings often seem anti-marriage.

The reluctance to accept Plural Marriage is a cultural artifact, not a spiritual one.

Lehi

Edited January 4, 2012 by LeSellers

[The Nehor]

Yes, as a matter of fact, it was. You recall Doc&Cov 9, I'm sure. Oliver, no more than Joseph, was required to study it ou tin his mind, and then approach the Lord for confirmation of the translation.

Yes, and "wives" would be correct and "women" not.

In addition, we know that "woman", even in English, also means "wife". We have Adam speaking in the Bible as one example, but a more earthy one is the phrase, "the old lady/woman" (one I have never used in reference to my, or anyone else's, wife). Further, there is nothing wrong with translating "woman" from Hebrew as "woman", even if the meaning is "wife", precisely because the Hebrew is "woman" and not "wife" (if there even is a separate Hebrew word for "married woman"—I just read Isaiah yesterday, and he says something about , in that day, the woman with no children will have more posterity than "the married wife", a redundancy that weighs directly on this matter).

But why would Joseph switch back and forth? In the Nineteenth Century there was a difference in meaning between wife and woman.

I am unsure as to why anyone would be worried about Amulek's having multiple wives. There is nothing inherently wrong with Plural Marriage. Were there, God would not have commanded His servants to engage in the Principle, as He did from, at least Abraham on through Wilford Woodruff. There is no scriptural injunction against it except the misunderstanding of Jacob and OD1, both of which enjoin the practice only temporarily. The Bible does not restrict the Plurality of Wives except for deacons and bishops (stake presidents), which shows that any others could have many wives without a problem, and that, this, too, was temporary, and probably Paul's personal preference, since his writings often seem anti-marriage.

The reluctance to accept Plural Marriage is a cultural artifact, not a spiritual one.

As someone who seriously considered once joining a pluralistic marriage arrangement (outside the current Law of God obviously) I find your assumption about my motives offensive. My objection is based on the text not squeamishness.

[ebeddoulos]

That is a little bit doubtful interpretation. Expressions such as “my women,” “your women,” and “their women” is often used in scripture to refer to all the females in the household, including mothers, daughters, sisters, grandmothers, female servants etc., as the following examples show:

...

In all of these verses “women” does not refer to “wives” exclusively, but includes all the females in a household, or in the community. It is not inconceivable that Amulek might have had more than one wife; but it cannot be deduced with certainty from the scripture cited.

I submit that it is your interpretation that is doubtful ... at best. Please notice that Amulek claimed personal possession and was very specific of the order in which his relatives are mentioned. Like the expanding ripples of a dropped pebble in a pond, he first mentioned his own family, then a parent and followed by his extended family. This observation has set me on to a course to understand the Hebrew subconscious mindset of the societal role of women.

Basically, the woman’s role was secondary to the male’s. Her primary responsibility was to be the helpmate of her husband and to provide him with children. The man was to be the provider and protector. These cultural values permeated every aspect of the Hebrew society. With that in mind, remember (as has been pointed out by others) that the Hebrew word for both "wife" and "woman" is ’iššāh (אָשּׁה). Though it has been translated many ways, I believe that perhaps the best, most utilitarian and accurate English translation of אָשּׁה is "mate". This Hebrew mindset can be illustrated by the application of אָשּׁה in Genesis 7:2.

"Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female(וְאִשְׁתֹּו): and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female (וְאִשְׁתֹּו)." (Genesis 7:2 - KJV)

"Of every clean animal you shall take seven pairs, males and their mates (וְאִשְׁתֹּו), and of every animal that is not clean, two, a male and his mate (וְאִשְׁתֹּו)" (Genesis 7:2 - Tanakh)

"Of every clean beast you are to take to you seven by seven, the sire and his dam (וְאִשְׁתֹּו), and of the beast which is not clean, of it a pair, the sire and his dam (וְאִשְׁתֹּו)." (Genesis 7:2 - CLV)

"You are to take with you seven pairs of every clean animal, a male and its mate (וְאִשְׁתֹּו), and two of the unclean animals, a male and its mate (וְאִשְׁתֹּו)" (Genesis 7:2 - ISV)

"You must take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, the male and its mate(וְאִשְׁתֹּו), two of every kind of unclean animal, the male and its mate (וְאִשְׁתֹּו)" (Genesis 7:2 - NET)

"Of every clean beast you shall receive and take with you seven pairs, the male and his mate (וְאִשְׁתֹּו), and of beasts that are not clean a pair of each kind, the male and his mate (וְאִשְׁתֹּו)" (Genesis 7:2 - AMP)

"Of every clean animal, take with you seven pairs, a male and its mate (וְאִשְׁתֹּו); and of the unclean animals, one pair, a male and its mate (וְאִשְׁתֹּו)" (Genesis 7:2 - NAB)

"Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate (וְאִשְׁתֹּו); and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate (וְאִשְׁתֹּו)” (Genesis 7:2 - RSV)

"Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate (וְאִשְׁתֹּו), and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate (וְאִשְׁתֹּו)" (Genesis 7:2 - NIV11)

"Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate (וְאִשְׁתֹּו), and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate (וְאִשְׁתֹּו)" (Genesis 7:2 - ESV)

"Of every clean beast you must take to yourself by sevens, the sire and its mate (וְאִשְׁתֹּו); and of every beast that is not clean just two, the sire and its mate (וְאִשְׁתֹּו)" (Genesis 7:2 - NWT)

Even the description of the animals reflected Hebrew cultural values. Once one understands the basic Hebrew mindset concerning ’iššāh (אָשּׁה), and also understands that the Nephites were descendants of Hebrews then you understand that Amulek's women were his mates; his wives.

[inquiringmind]

I think it's about having a larger quantity of quality. For example, one only has to look at the roles today to see that righteous TR holding men are in a relatively small minority and there are many more active and believing women with no such male counterpart to match. The ideal condition for a child is an active and believing father and mother. Only plural marriage can accomplish that ideal under these conditions for most or all children. The large number of children growing up in part-member and inactive families is literally tearing the Church apart from the inside. Still a long way to go before it comes to that point but I say (imho) that........

.......if you don't want plural marriage to come back, stop baptising the unbeliever and uncommitted and start doing your home teaching and reactivation work.

Edit: Perhaps now something could be said about why it is that women are so much better at Visiting Teaching than men are at Home Teaching.

Maybe the women are just better, and that's interesting.

If there were more really good women than there were men among the pioneer saints, maybe that answers the question I raised in the OP.

Thank you.

Edited January 19, 2012 by inquiringmind

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I hate to start another polygamy thread, but I have a question that keeps bothering me.

Jacob 2:26-30 says:

Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. 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.

The last verse seems to put the lie to those who say the book of Mormon condemns polygamy, but it also raises a question (at least for me.)

Not that anyone cares, but:

If you use the verse in proper context and understand man's reasons for "needing" to practice polygamy, the phrase in question (marked in red) does not put to rest the "lie" of those (such as myself) who say the Book of Mormon condemns polygamy.