Was Joseph Smith A Polygamist?

[Rob Bowman]

Log,

You wrote:

There is no need to go beyond the scripture: statements solely concerning bishops solely concern bishops. Full stop. Sola scriptura does not permit you to add to the scripture to arrive at the desired result.

Are presidents of the church exempt from the qualifications expected of bishops?

Do you feel free to manage your household poorly, get drunk, love money, and so on, as long as you're not a bishop?

By the way, you should let those of us who affirm sola scriptura define for ourselves what sola scriptura means.

You wrote:

The Bible contains not any more words today than it did yesterday. Hence, Martin Luther could write: "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture."

I have addressed Luther's view in an earlier post, not that it would matter to you.

[thesometimesaint]

At least in theory Yes. President don't have to be a Bishop before becoming Presidents. Were the original Apostle Bishops before becoming eligable to become Presidents of the church?

Non Sequitor. While there is a great deal of overlap Bishops don't follow the same rules that apply to the general membership. General members don't have to attend all those meetings.

That is a quibble. While the Saints don't believe sola scriptura is a true principle we do know what it means.

Sophistry.

[Rob Bowman]

thesometimesaint,

You wrote:

At least in theory Yes. President don't have to be a Bishop before becoming Presidents. Were the original Apostle Bishops before becoming eligable to become Presidents of the church?

This doesn't answer my question, which was not whether church presidents are or were bishops but whether the qualifications applicable to bishops in 1 Timothy 3 are not applicable to church presidents.

You wrote:

Non Sequitor. While there is a great deal of overlap Bishops don't follow the same rules that apply to the general membership. General members don't have to attend all those meetings.

Attendance at meetings is not relevant; 1 Timothy 3 is not a job description but a list of qualifications for the ideal bishop.

You wrote:

That is a quibble. While the Saints don't believe sola scriptura is a true principle we do know what it means.

Judging by the comments made by Mormons about sola scriptura, including Log's, many of them quite evidently do not know what it means. And aren't you folks always insisting that Mormons should be allowed to define Mormon doctrine? If so, shouldn't you accord evangelicals the same courtesy (Matt. 7:12)?

You wrote:

Sophistry.

Not exactly a constructive or illuminating remark.

[Log]

Rob,

You wrote:

Are presidents of the church exempt from the qualifications expected of bishops?

You cannot shoehorn 1 Tim 3:2 to apply to more than to whom it applies, and that would solely be bishops.

By the way, you should let those of us who affirm sola scriptura define for ourselves what sola scriptura means.

You may do as you wish. I will simply point out, whenever you should choose to add to the scripture to make your case, that you are adding to the scripture to make your case.

I have addressed Luther's view in an earlier post, not that it would matter to you.

You are correct. It doesn't matter to me. Was Luther more or less conversant with the Bible than you? How is it Luther failed to read 1 Tim 3:2's prohibition on divorcees from being bishops as a prohibition of polygamy?

[Rob Bowman]

For those of you who wish to argue that the qualification of being monogamous only applies to bishops, please note that it also applies to deacons (1 Tim. 3:12) and elders (Titus 1:6).

Here is the complete list of qualifications desired of bishops in 1 Timothy 3:2-7:

• Above reproach
  
• Husband of one wife
  
• Temperate
  
• Prudent
  
• Respectable
  
• Hospitable
  
• Able to teach
  
• Not addicted to wine
  
• Not pugnacious
  
• Gentle
  
• Peaceable
  
• Free from the love of money
  
• Manages his household well
  
• Keeps children under control
  
• Not a new convert
  
• Good reputation
  

Reading through this list, it is obvious that Paul is giving a list of desirable qualities in any mature believer. The list does not apply literally to every individual only in the sense that Paul obviously assumes that bishops will be adult men, not women or children. The only qualification he gives that is not specifically about character is that the candidate should not be a new convert, meaning that he should be a believer long enough to demonstrate Christian character and responsibility. Thus, all of the descriptions are intended to describe in some detail what a man of proven, good character would look like -- a person who can be confidently entrusted with the position of bishop. The same is true of the other passages in which Paul describes the ideal candidate for the positions of deacon and elder. There simply is no basis for thinking that "husband of one wife" is an exception to this intent.

[Rob Bowman]

Log,

You wrote:

You may do as you wish. I will simply point out, whenever you should choose to add to the scripture to make your case, that you are adding to the scripture to make your case.

We would need to be clear about what it means to add to Scripture. I don't believe I am doing so.

You wrote:

You are correct. It doesn't matter to me. Was Luther more or less conversant with the Bible than you? How is it Luther failed to read 1 Tim 3:2's prohibition on divorcees from being bishops as a prohibition of polygamy?

Since what I have said about Luther and polygamy does not matter to you, I see no point in answering your questions on that subject.

[Log]

Rob,

You wrote:

We would need to be clear about what it means to add to Scripture. I don't believe I am doing so.

I believe an unbiased outsider could very well believe you are doing so.

I also reject your extension of the requirements for bishops to deacons and elders. That would, again, seem to an outsider to be adding to the scripture.

You wrote:

Since what I have said about Luther and polygamy does not matter to you, I see no point in answering your questions on that subject.

To which post do you refer? I see Stargazer referred to Luther on page 1. Blueadept referred to Luther on page 2. Mansquatch and WhyMe on page 3. Whyme on page 4. And that's it until page 7.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Log

[Rob Bowman]

Log,

You wrote:

I believe an unbiased outsider could very well believe you are doing so.

The fact -- and I do mean fact -- is that you are subtracting from Scripture. For example, you wrote:

I also reject your extension of the requirements for bishops to deacons and elders. That would, again, seem to an outsider to be adding to the scripture.

Perhaps your Bible is missing some plain and precious parts, like the two verses I cited. Here, I will quote them for you:

"Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well" (1Tim. 3:12 KJV).

"For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and 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" (Titus 1:5-6 KJV).

Regarding my post on Luther and polygamy, you wrote:

To which post do you refer?

Sorry, I should have said in an earlier thread. Actually, I posted my comment in a couple of different threads. Here is what I said:

Luther did not teach that polygamy was morally acceptable. He gave what he later admitted was bad counsel on one occasion to a prince that in effect condoned an act of bigamy, and Luther himself came to view his involvement with regret. Furthermore, Luther explicitly denounced polygamy as of the devil. Here's a source on this subject: Martin Brecht and James L. Schaaf, Martin Luther: The Preservation of the Church, Vol. 3, 1532-1546 (Fortress, 1993), 205-15.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Log]

Rob,

You wrote:

The fact -- and I do mean fact -- is that you are subtracting from Scripture. For example, you wrote:

"Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well" (1Tim. 3:12 KJV).

I concede that I referred to the wrong verse in my research. Deacons also cannot be divorcees. Got it.

You wrote:

"For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and 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" (Titus 1:1 KJV).

Titus 1:7 states quite clearly Paul's talking, once again, about bishops.

You wrote:

Luther explicitly denounced polygamy as of the devil. Here's a source on this subject: Martin Brecht and James L. Schaaf, Martin Luther: The Preservation of the Church, Vol. 3, 1532-1546 (Fortress, 1993), 205-15.

So, Luther contradicts himself. What Biblical justification did Luther give for this? Did he, too, decide that when the Bible says "bishops" it really means "not just bishops" (note how I'm adding to the scripture)?

Edited April 10, 2012 by Log

[Rob Bowman]

Log,

You wrote:

I concede that I referred to the wrong verse in my research. Deacons also cannot be divorcees. Got it.

So now "husband of one wife" excludes divorce but not polygamy? How did you come up with this conclusion?

You wrote:

Titus 1:7 states quite clearly Paul's talking, once again, about bishops.

Yes. The words bishops and elders are two different terms for the same position in Paul's usage here. They are not technical terms for two different offices.

You wrote:

So, Luther contradicts himself.

If you mean he changed his position, yes. Did I not already say so?

You wrote:

What Biblical justification did Luther give for this? Did he, too, decide that when the Bible says "bishops" it really means "not just bishops" (note how I'm adding to the scripture)?

Why don't you look up the reference I provided for yourself? I was able to read it online for free (several months ago).

[Log]

Rob,

You wrote:

So now "husband of one wife" excludes divorce but not polygamy? How did you come up with this conclusion?

Others have come up with this conclusion. The onus is on you to establish all of them are necessarily incorrect, while you alone possess the truth. Unfortunately, the Greek doesn't support your position unambiguously. It apparently can be read three ways, one of which permits polygamy.

You wrote:

Yes. The words bishops and elders are two different terms for the same position in Paul's usage here. They are not technical terms for two different offices.

Excellent. We're making progress. So, whatever Paul is saying in the disputed verses, he is apparently describing, at most, two groups of people, deacons and bishops/elders. (I'll accept, arguendo, that elders = bishops.)

You wrote:

Why don't you look up the reference I provided for yourself? I was able to read it online for free (several months ago).

Alas, I cannot find a link to read the book for free.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Log

[thesometimesaint]

Bob Bowman:

As Bishops are called from the general membership of the individual Ward. It makes little sense to claim that Bishops aren't required to follow the same rules a general member. However Bishops have more responsibility, include authority to preside, that don't apply to the general membership.

I know of no living LDS Bishop that is the husband of more than one wife.

False equivalency. We reserve the right to define what it is that we believe, not the ability to redefine words.

[Log]

Bob Bowman:

As Bishops are called from the general membership of the individual Ward.

He's not talking about LDS bishops.

[Stargazer]

Pope Clement VII, faced with the threat of a continent-dividing divorce, considered bigamy as a solution to the problem of Henry VIII.

Martin Luther recommended polygamy.

African Christian churches practiced polygamy.

If these can be polygamous and still be considered Christian why can't the Mormons?

Home for lunch and time for a brief comment.

The Mormons don't give a fig about what the councils of Nicea said on the topic of the nature of God, so clearly we can't qualify. At least that is the answer I fancy those who care about this would give.

[Rob Bowman]

Log,

You wrote:

Alas, I cannot find a link to read the book for free.

I just tried and found it immediately:

http://books.google.com/books?id=REdhA-zjbcsC&q

Search for the word "polygamy" and you're ready to read.

[Rob Bowman]

thesometimesaint,

You wrote:

Bob Bowman:

We've been exchanging posts for months, and my name is right there under my picture; it's Rob, not Bob.

You wrote:

As Bishops are called from the general membership of the individual Ward. It makes little sense to claim that Bishops aren't required to follow the same rules a general member. However Bishops have more responsibility, include authority to preside, that don't apply to the general membership.

Not sure what your point is with regard to polygamy.

You wrote:

I know of no living LDS Bishop that is the husband of more than one wife.

Know any dead ones?

You wrote:

False equivalency. We reserve the right to define what it is that we believe, not the ability to redefine words.

Mormons redefine words all the time, but the real issue here is not defining words but defining a doctrine for which a short expression like sola scriptura is a slogan (although a good one!), not a complete explanation of the evangelical view of Scripture.

[Rob Bowman]

Log,

You wrote:

Others have come up with this conclusion.

A fallacious appeal to authority or to fallible precedent. The fact that others have come up with a conclusion does not make that conclusion credible. Some people have come up with the conclusion that Mormons worship Satan in the temple (a claim I reject). Does that make the conclusion credible?

You wrote:

The onus is on you to establish all of them are necessarily incorrect, while you alone possess the truth. Unfortunately, the Greek doesn't support your position unambiguously. It apparently can be read three ways, one of which permits polygamy.

According to the Wikipedia article you cited, one of those would be an exclusion with regard to divorce, another with regard to polygamy, and the third would be a requirement to be married. I have already explained why the third explanation is untenable. The emphatic position of the word "one" (mias) requires us to understand Paul to mean one as opposed to more than one, not one as opposed to none.

As for the other two positions, I accept both of them. That is, I understand the text to mean that a man who is being considered to serve as bishop/elder or deacon is to be a man whose marital life marks him as an honorable individual who sets a good example in the church, because he is a "one-woman man." Divorce (except where the man is demonstrably blameless), polygamy, and for that matter adultery all call into question a man's ability to model the Christian standard of marriage.

[Log]

Rob,

You wrote:

A fallacious appeal to authority or to fallible precedent. The fact that others have come up with a conclusion does not make that conclusion credible.

I was unaware you were the sole arbiter of credibility. That aside, however...

You wrote:

According to the Wikipedia article you cited, one of those would be an exclusion with regard to divorce, another with regard to polygamy, and the third would be a requirement to be married. I have already explained why the third explanation is untenable. The emphatic position of the word "one" (mias) requires us to understand Paul to mean one as opposed to more than one, not one as opposed to none.

Apparently, other reasonable people, who are not LDS, disagree.

In any event, even should you prevail in your claim that bishops and deacons should not be polygamously married, you cannot, worlds without end, extend that prohibition to all followers of Christ without adding to the scripture - for such a prohibition is not to be found therein. Taken in its totality, the Bible does not prohibit polygamy, even while it regulates it.

[cdowis]

If you accept his words about the office of the bishop, do you also agree that the church requires prophets and apostles?

Edited April 10, 2012 by cdowis

[Pahoran]

I don't know the source for the numbers you cited. I certainly don't think there were 51. The usual number is around 33.

Frankly, it isn't much of a defense to argue that although Joseph married 33 women he only consummated the marriage with, say, a dozen of them, or even three of them.

Why do you assume that it's a "defense?" What did Joseph do wrong, that it needs to be defended? Offending the zealotry of the censorious neo-puritans is a good thing.

The reason why Buzzard's observation is relevant is that the accusation (based upon envy) is that Joseph introduced Plural Marriage merely as an outlet for his libido. But if Joseph was sealed to more women than he actually had marital relations with, then it ought to be clear, even to a professional critic of the Church, that something other than his libido was involved.

I don't know how many of the marriages were consummated and frankly I don't care. We don't think better of a man who has a harem of thirty women because he only sleeps with a few of them.

BTW Rob, just so you know, there are two groups of people discussing Mormon polygamy: Those who bring intelligence and candour to the discussion, thus making their opinions worth something, and those who introduce sensationalistic tabloid terms like "harem." There is no overlap between these groups.

But the evidence shows that Joseph did have marital relations with at least some of them,

Which nobody disputes.

including some of the "polyandrous" plural wives.

The evidence there is ambiguous at best.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

What confuses me is that someone cannot see that it is inherintly evil because of the potential abuse that can come from it,

I'm sorry Teancum, but your argument is incoherent. "Potential abuse" can happen in all situations; many good things can potentially be abused. That doesn't make them "inherintly" (or even inherently) evil.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The evidence there is ambiguous at best.

Regards,

Pahoran

I will 2nd this.

[Rob Bowman]

Pahoran,

You wrote:

Why do you assume that it's a "defense?" What did Joseph do wrong, that it needs to be defended? Offending the zealotry of the censorious neo-puritans is a good thing.

I'm sure this is exactly how pro-homosexual liberals feel about offending Mormons who oppose their agenda.

You wrote:

The reason why Buzzard's observation is relevant is that the accusation (based upon envy) is that Joseph introduced Plural Marriage merely as an outlet for his libido. But if Joseph was sealed to more women than he actually had marital relations with, then it ought to be clear, even to a professional critic of the Church, that something other than his libido was involved.

If a man has, say, thirty wives, and manages to find time to have sexual relations with, say, only ten of them, how does this prove that his libido was not involved? I would totally agree with you that something in addition to his libido was involved, but I doubt libido can be completely excluded -- and certainly not on the basis of your argument.

You wrote:

BTW Rob, just so you know, there are two groups of people discussing Mormon polygamy: Those who bring intelligence and candour to the discussion, thus making their opinions worth something, and those who introduce sensationalistic tabloid terms like "harem." There is no overlap between these groups.

Your comment here is dictatorial rather than rationally persuasive. By what reasoning is the use of the term harem inappropriate, particularly in a general statement presented as an analogy, not as a literal description of Joseph's practice? How is censoring the use of a term like harem contributing to candor?

[Pahoran]

I'm sure this is exactly how pro-homosexual liberals feel about offending Mormons who oppose their agenda.

And I'm sure that you keep your skill at demagogical techniques such as "Guilt by association" honed to a fine edge.

If a man has, say, thirty wives, and manages to find time to have sexual relations with, say, only ten of them, how does this prove that his libido was not involved? I would totally agree with you that something in addition to his libido was involved, but I doubt libido can be completely excluded -- and certainly not on the basis of your argument.

But it does mean that libido loses its explanatory power, much to your disappointment. As soon as we accept that there was even one wife for whom he did not "find time to have sexual relations with" -- and yet he did "find time" to marry others subsequently -- then we are confronted with the unpalatable (to anti-Mormons) fact that there was more to it than just a matter of Joseph getting more "action."

Your comment here is dictatorial rather than rationally persuasive. By what reasoning is the use of the term harem inappropriate, particularly in a general statement presented as an analogy, not as a literal description of Joseph's practice? How is censoring the use of a term like harem contributing to candor?

I'm not censoring anything. "Harem" is a tabloid term, exploited for its salacious appeal, and you know it. If it were otherwise, you would have used a different term. "Seraglio" perhaps.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Rob Bowman]

Pahoran,

You wrote:

And I'm sure that you keep your skill at demagogical techniques such as "Guilt by association" honed to a fine edge.

I don't have the inclination to provide you with a lengthy explanation of the difference between guilt by association and an analogy. Hopefully simply stating that what I said was the latter and not the former will be sufficient.

You wrote:

But it does mean that libido loses its explanatory power, much to your disappointment.

More mind-reading. When have I ever said that Joseph Smith's polygamy is to be explained as merely an expression of his libido?

You wrote:

As soon as we accept that there was even one wife for whom he did not "find time to have sexual relations with" -- and yet he did "find time" to marry others subsequently -- then we are confronted with the unpalatable (to anti-Mormons) fact that there was more to it than just a matter of Joseph getting more "action."

Your reasoning here is flawed, but it doesn't matter, because as I have already said, I'm more than willing to agree that there was more to Joseph's polygamy than satisfying his libido. Are you willing to agree that satisfying his libido was at least part of it?

You wrote:

I'm not censoring anything. "Harem" is a tabloid term, exploited for its salacious appeal, and you know it. If it were otherwise, you would have used a different term. "Seraglio" perhaps.

I know no such thing. In our culture harem is a far more familiar term than seraglio. The latter term would also be inaccurate in a way the former is not, because seraglio refers only to the living quarters whereas harem has come to refer to the women as well as the living quarters. The term harem is appropriate because as far as I know it is the only serviceable, recognizable, single-word term in English that clearly refers in common usage to a large collection of wives belonging to one powerful man. If you can suggest a better term that you find less offensive feel free to suggest it.

I would suggest the term multiple or plural wives. These women are likely the ancestors of some posters. Do not be disrespectful.