Wrestling With Polyandry

[Calm]

Can you post the list of children you think are more likely that he didn’t test?

 

Just checking...you do know he tested those he could test that were possibilities?  The other possibilities couldn't be demonstrated using DNA tests due to limitations in the technology.

 

last I heard was that in 2008 they were close (predicting within a year) to getting the results relating to Josephine but then nothing else was ever said

 

Maybe I am out of date, but I thought Josephine was one of the options that couldn't be tested.

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[cjp]

Thanks for the helpful comments. 

 

Just checking...you do know he tested those he could test that were possibilities?  The other possibilities couldn't be demonstrated using DNA tests due to limitations in the technology.

 

Just checking...you do know he tested those he could test that were possibilities?  The other possibilities couldn't be demonstrated using DNA tests due to limitations in the technology.

 

From Don Bradley's earlier comment on this board, I thought he was saying that Ugo tested the ones Don thought weren't very likely to be Joseph's anyway, and that there were at least 5 others, some of which could have been tested, that he thought Ugo didn't include. Or maybe I misunderstood?

 

In regards to possible children, the quote by Mary Lightner seems to suggest that they claimed Joseph had other children and that they knew they were his:

"I know he had six wives and I have known some of them from childhood up. I knew he had three children. They told me. I think two are living today but they are not known as his children as they go by other names." (Mary Lightner 1905 Address, typescript, BYU, p.2 - p.3)

So if anyone is using this statement as evidence that Joseph had children by his polygamous wives, I would like to know why they wouldn't acknowledged have these children as his publicly. Also, in the case of Josephine, if Brigham really thought she could be Joseph's daughters, it seems surprising that he wouldn't investigate or try to  meet her considering how devoted/obsessed he was with Joseph. They took the time to get hundreds of affidavits for the court case to prove that Joseph had wives and that he had sex with them, so it seems weird they couldn't make the effort to try to figure out if she was Joseph's child. I'm assuming that Sylvia gave an affidavit about her marriage to Joseph so wondering why she wouldn't mention she had given him a child.  

I have ordered "The Persistence of Polygamy" and look forward to reading the articles as there seems to be lots of good scholarship.  

[ERayR]

Hi All,

Most of you are aware of Brian Hales's new books on Joseph Smith and polygamy.

Brian documents Joseph Smith's polygamy in some detail, including Joseph's several sealings to women legally married to other men. Brian marshals evidence that these marriages, while "ceremonially polyandrous," were not sexually polyandrous: a wife was not having sexual relations with more than one husband during the same time period. In other words, she effectively went from being one man's wife to being another man's wife, rather than having two true husbands at the same time.

Brian finds none of the evidence for sexual polyandry incontrovertible or persuasive, and presents evidence against it (e.g., D&C 132's apparent condemnation of multiple husbands).

Not everyone is convinced by his arguments, and this is perhaps the primary basis on which some have dismissed him as an apologist.

As Brian's primary researcher and good friend, I helped craft some of the arguments he presents on this subject, and I think the case he can present on this is quite substantive.

But given that not everyone is persuaded by these arguments, and given that we never know what could pop up in further sources, I wonder how other believing Latter-day Saints might react if they became convinced some of Joseph's marriages were sexually polyandrous.

Suppose hypothetically that a source were to turn up which established Joseph's participation in sexual polyandry beyond doubt (and, by the way, while I have materials not in Brian's books, I am aware of no such source). What would you make of it?

One could lose faith over it.

Or one could believe it justified because, as Joseph once wrote, "whatever the Lord requires is right"?

Or one could theologize it--e.g., understanding polyandry as not necessarily evil, just as polygyny isn't, and might perhaps exist in the celestial kingdom.

Or one could explain it based on the needs of the time--that it served some temporary function in the 1840s that was no longer needed later and won't be needed after this life either.

Or...what? I'm sure this doesn't exhaust the options

I guess what I'm asking is, what would you see as the live options for dealing with sexual polyandry?

Thoughts?

Don

 

Or one could say that it was something Joseph Smith has to work out with God and those involved. 

[changed]

 When I contemplate the situation around Jesus' family, that he was born to a handmaid - and was raised by an earthly step-father, this to me explains what both polygammy and polyandrywere all about.

[juliann]

Hi All,

Most of you are aware of Brian Hales's new books on Joseph Smith and polygamy.

Brian documents Joseph Smith's polygamy in some detail, including Joseph's several sealings to women legally married to other men. Brian marshals evidence that these marriages, while "ceremonially polyandrous," were not sexually polyandrous: a wife was not having sexual relations with more than one husband during the same time period. In other words, she effectively went from being one man's wife to being another man's wife, rather than having two true husbands at the same time.

Brian finds none of the evidence for sexual polyandry incontrovertible or persuasive, and presents evidence against it (e.g., D&C 132's apparent condemnation of multiple husbands).

Not everyone is convinced by his arguments, and this is perhaps the primary basis on which some have dismissed him as an apologist.

As Brian's primary researcher and good friend, I helped craft some of the arguments he presents on this subject, and I think the case he can present on this is quite substantive.

But given that not everyone is persuaded by these arguments, and given that we never know what could pop up in further sources, I wonder how other believing Latter-day Saints might react if they became convinced some of Joseph's marriages were sexually polyandrous.

Suppose hypothetically that a source were to turn up which established Joseph's participation in sexual polyandry beyond doubt (and, by the way, while I have materials not in Brian's books, I am aware of no such source). What would you make of it?

One could lose faith over it.

Or one could believe it justified because, as Joseph once wrote, "whatever the Lord requires is right"?

Or one could theologize it--e.g., understanding polyandry as not necessarily evil, just as polygyny isn't, and might perhaps exist in the celestial kingdom.

Or one could explain it based on the needs of the time--that it served some temporary function in the 1840s that was no longer needed later and won't be needed after this life either.

Or...what? I'm sure this doesn't exhaust the options

I guess what I'm asking is, what would you see as the live options for dealing with sexual polyandry?

Thoughts?

Don

Wow, I must not have been around for this thread.  I'm really glad to see this, Don.  I hope you are still around.  As I have said before, I have significant problems with Hales' conclusions, particularly his declaration at the FAIR conference that polygyny was necessary because there would be more women in heaven.  I am very, very concerned by anyone who digs in their heels and makes the absence of "real" polyandry a measure of JS's validity.   When we have upstanding women who think that he may have fathered their child, the debate is over and shame on those who question them.

 

I think our reactions to polyandry are a window into how we view women.   I don't think we can ever come to peace about polyandry until women are truly seen as standing side by side with men.   And this is not just a church problem.  If it were, outsiders would not be shocked by women having male privileges.   So I wouldn't make this an issue about women doing what the men were doing, I would make it an issue of why anyone thinks they shouldn't.  And it will likely be that we force women into our standard bearers of virtue so that men can be given a pass for the same behavior.  That polygamy only falls apart if women are given equal access to it is the problem, not polyandry.

 

The first thing that needs to be done is to stop playing into the stereotype by only looking at this through male perspective.  We take JS's revelation for granted while routinely questioning any woman's.  We use language like women being "given" to men, as in a woman "belonging" to JS rather than her husband. Women become nameless interchangeable props rather than human beings.   It is so ironic that even when talking about polyandry,  it is always from the perspective of what JS did rather than the woman who has the other husband.   Just changing that will change the conversation.  It isn't about JS marrying other men's wives,  it is about women taking on another husband...or in this case, taking on another woman's husband.  Never framing the discussion in those terms is why it is so easy for people to declare women are dupes or ignorant.   It also prevents us from ever approaching benefits of polyandry for women (which would be the most obvious way to explain it).

 

And notice how the excuse that a woman was only living with one man so it couldn't be "real" polyandry....while never claiming JS wasn't doing "real" polygny because he only lived with Emma (and workers who happened to live in the Mansion as secret wives don't count).  I would consider marital relations to wives to be the default position.  Has there ever been a time where that was not considered necessary for a valid marriage?  That we start from the other side and make everyone prove that is kind of bizarre.

 

Starting from a position that polygamy was necessary, putting what I think is very obvious polyandry that even has a scriptural basis in D&C 132,  acknowledging polyandry puts women back on the stage.  Given the downright mockery that erupts every time feminist issues come up here,  I have to wonder if putting polyandry back on the table will force a less entitled reaction from some men. 

 

Most significant, perhaps, is how polygamy changed.  I don't know how to reconcile that other than to face it head on...either JS's version was right or BY's was.  Somebody was off. 

[Calm]

...either JS's version was right or BY's was.  Somebody was off. 

Or in my opinion, ultimately both were wrong because nothing a human puts his or her hand to is perfect...so I would put the last as either JS's version was more right or BY's...though I suppose that they could have been equally wrong in different ways.  Yes, I realize sometimes I take the nuanced (or as my relatives call it "nitpicking") approach too far.

[cjp]

As a fellow feminist, I appreciate you changing the discourse and giving the women an equal voice and agency.  I personally am not bothered by polyandry because a woman is having relationships with multiple men. I have a problem with polygamy in general, and, as I’ve frequently told my husband, polygamy would be a lot more palpable to me if women as well as men were able to be sealed to multiple people. 

What bothers me about polyandry is that it seems to undermine some of the main justifications for polygamy: raising up a righteous seed, having more women than men, needing to take care of widows, etc.  So how would you justify them engaging in polyandry or even polygamy?

Also, there was still an unequal dynamic as women couldn’t be sealed to more than one man, which makes the whole notion of them having sex with more than one man at the same time confusing and problematic as people seem to act like they equated marriage and sealings (if anyone can clarify that, I would appreciate it). My husband’s ancestor was a polygamous wife and recounted in her journal how sad she was that since she was sealed to Joseph posthumously, she couldn’t be sealed to her husband who she loved and had children with.

 

Also, just because I’m a feminist doesn’t mean I have to believe everything a woman says, no matter how upstanding she is. I personally find it very suspicious that multiple women supposedly had Joseph’s children but never made it public as I can’t really see any reason for keeping it a secret after they got to Utah, and instead see many reasons why they would have wanted to make it public.  And, just to show it isn’t a gender bias, I am equally suspicious of things that many of the men said, including Brigham Young and William Clayton.

 

 

Out of curiosity, what do you see as the major differences between Joseph’s form of polygamy and Brigham’s, as from the way most people view it, the main difference to me seems to be transparency?  Personally, I wonder if Joseph’s sealings weren’t meant to be seen in any way like a marriage, but were rather like the sealings of men to men that connected people for the eternities. But that`s a whole different topic. 

[why me]

My question is why this would even be an effective line of argument. If one accepts polygamy in principle, what is the big deal about polyandry?

I don't think that it is. However there are members who are influenced by antimormon rhetoric from exmormons. Such mormons discover the facts on the internet, hear the antimormon interpretations and become confused. Next step is that they search more and find other information that they did not know, and become shocked and disillusioned.

 

However, when one looks at the polyandrous wives quite a few had a spiritual experience before they said yes. Here is zina:

 

“When I heard that God had revealed the law of celestial marriag...I obtained a testimony for myself that God had required that order to be established in this church...I made a greater sacrifise than to give my life for I never anticipated again to be looked upon as an honerable woman by those I dearly loved...”.  Zina continued, “It was something too sacred to be talked about; it was more to me than life or death. I never breathed it for years”.

 

It seems that zina received a testimony about it. However, members who become influenced about polyandry tend to ignore such witnesses or experiences.

[juliann]

   

What bothers me about polyandry is that it seems to undermine some of the main justifications for polygamy: raising up a righteous seed, having more women than men, needing to take care of widows, etc.  So how would you justify them engaging in polyandry or even polygamy?

Also, there was still an unequal dynamic as women couldn’t be sealed to more than one man, which makes the whole notion of them having sex with more than one man at the same time confusing and problematic as people seem to act like they equated marriage and sealings (if anyone can clarify that, I would appreciate it). My husband’s ancestor was a polygamous wife and recounted in her journal how sad she was that since she was sealed to Joseph posthumously, she couldn’t be sealed to her husband who she loved and had children with.

   

 

 

See, that is the problem with putting women back into the polygamy...it would pretty much have to come from journals that are held in families.  Does this ancestor say why she was sealed to JS?  They don't get published like the men did.  As for the justifications, that is all they are and they do not hold up under examination.  It didn't raise up more "seed" although it might have raised up more righteous seed.  I do think polygamy was a binding agent for the church in that tumultuous time.  Family ties are stronger than church ties.  Back to the seed....polygyny produces fewer children since it is the individual woman who has to produce, not the man.  So if church population is the issue the point is number of pregnancies.  Polyandrous women would have more of those.  Regardless of polyandry or polygyny, the pool of females is the same.   The only variable is how many children can be obtained from each woman.  So this wasn't about numbers of children for building up the kingdom, it was about giving individual men more children.

 

Out of curiosity, what do you see as the major differences between Joseph’s form of polygamy and Brigham’s, as from the way most people view it, the main difference to me seems to be transparency?  Personally, I wonder if Joseph’s sealings weren’t meant to be seen in any way like a marriage, but were rather like the sealings of men to men that connected people for the eternities. But that`s a whole different topic.

 

 

There never was a thing called polygamy.  It really has to be almost talked about by decade.  To me, it is significant that the polyandry died off. 

 

Also, there was still an unequal dynamic as women couldn’t be sealed to more than one man, which makes the whole notion of them having sex with more than one man at the same time confusing and problematic as people seem to act like they equated marriage and sealings (if anyone can clarify that, I would appreciate it). My husband’s ancestor was a polygamous wife and recounted in her journal how sad she was that since she was sealed to Joseph posthumously, she couldn’t be sealed to her husband who she loved and had children with.

 

There are sealings for time and/or eternity.  Hales tries to make a distinction on that basis that I don't think holds up at all.  A sealing for time or eternity can mean a marriage in the full sense.  So even though a woman only got one eternal sealing, I don't see how that is relevant to their everyday life if they were in a polyandrous situation.

 

Also, just because I’m a feminist doesn’t mean I have to believe everything a woman says, no matter how upstanding she is. I personally find it very suspicious that multiple women supposedly had Joseph’s children but never made it public as I can’t really see any reason for keeping it a secret after they got to Utah, and instead see many reasons why they would have wanted to make it public.  And, just to show it isn’t a gender bias, I am equally suspicious of things that many of the men said, including Brigham Young and William Clayton.

 

Feminism is aside to how one uses sources, there are accepted procedures.  One of which is that when there is preponderance of witnesses to something, it does have to be taken seriously.  So many women recite a spiritual witness of "the principle"...plus defend it throughout their long lives.... that I don't think it can be credibly ignored.  I would probably inclined to see the polygamy thing in the same light as the priesthood ban...something self-destructive that took on a life of its own....but for those women...

 

As for keeping things secret, I think it more likely that they would than not.  First, it was the Victorian age.  Second, everything was done under secrecy and I can see where it would seem a betrayal of Joseph to speak where he didn't.   Not to mention Joseph still had family to consider.  I also wonder if Joseph's children starting a new church would have been worrisome.  And last but not least...as Nevo said, it was a girl.

 

[rpn]

Wilford Woodruff had the revelation that people were supposed to be sealed to their own families and not to the most righteous person they knew ---- which was the practice earlier, and probably the source of the polyandry.   (See the Teachings manual, introduction and the lesson on temples.)

[Hannah Rebekah]

Has anyone ever explored the "Spiritual Brides of early Christianity," the Agapetaes or the "cosmic mystery of the church" and "Spiritual Marriages" in early Christianity and what could be similarities with Joseph Smith the polyandry?

 

    1 Corinthians 7:36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.  37 Nevertheless he that standeth steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.

 

    1 Corinthians 9:1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?  :2 If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.  3 Mine answer to them that do examine me is this, 4 Have we not power to eat and to drink?  :5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and [as] the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?  6 Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?

 

http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924029296163/cu31924029296163_djvu.txt

 

The manuscript of ‘The Didache’ gives two titles thus:‘The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. The Lord’s Teaching to the Gentiles by the Twelve Apostles.’

An enigmatic passage in the Didache, a first-century Jewish Christian document speaks of prophets: And every prophet, proved true, working unto the mystery of the Church in the world, yet not teaching others to do what he himself doeth, shall not be judged among you, for with God he hath his judgment; for so did also the ancient prophets. These prophets are mentioned as performing something called "the cosmic mystery of the Church".(Didache 11, in ANF 7:380-381.)

Cardinal Jean Daniélou links this mystery to the type of "spiritual marriages" some Christian groups practiced: The expression "cosmic mystery of the Church" seems to stand in opposition to a "heavenly mystery of the church". This heavenly mystery is the celestial marriage of Christ to the Church, which also finds its expression in this world. The allusion in this passage would therefore seem to be to those spiritual unions which existed in Jewish Christianity between prophet-apostles and a sister. Hermas also appears to allude to this custom (Sim. IX, 10:6-11:. A similar reference may underlie I Cor. 7:36ff. The custom endured in the institution of Virgins. The relation of these unions to their heavenly ideal is explicitly stated: "Some of them prepare a nuptial couch and perform a sort of mystic rite (mystagogia-pronouncing certain expressions) with those who are being initiated, affirming that what is performed by them is a spiritual marriage which is celebrated by them, after the likeness of the unions…above" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1:21:3, in ANF 1:346.).

[Senator]

Wilford Woodruff had the revelation that people were supposed to be sealed to their own families and not to the most righteous person they knew ---- which was the practice earlier, and probably the source of the polyandry.   (See the Teachings manual, introduction and the lesson on temples.)

 

Are you saying then the earlier practice was deemed wrong?

[rick7475]

Has anyone ever explored the "Spiritual Brides of early Christianity," the Agapetaes or the "cosmic mystery of the church" and "Spiritual Marriages" in early Christianity and what could be similarities with Joseph Smith the polyandry?

 

    1 Corinthians 7:36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.  37 Nevertheless he that standeth steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.

 

    1 Corinthians 9:1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?  :2 If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.  3 Mine answer to them that do examine me is this, 4 Have we not power to eat and to drink?  :5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and [as] the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?  6 Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?

 

http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924029296163/cu31924029296163_djvu.txt

 

The manuscript of ‘The Didache’ gives two titles thus:‘The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. The Lord’s Teaching to the Gentiles by the Twelve Apostles.’

An enigmatic passage in the Didache, a first-century Jewish Christian document speaks of prophets: And every prophet, proved true, working unto the mystery of the Church in the world, yet not teaching others to do what he himself doeth, shall not be judged among you, for with God he hath his judgment; for so did also the ancient prophets. These prophets are mentioned as performing something called "the cosmic mystery of the Church".(Didache 11, in ANF 7:380-381.)

Cardinal Jean Daniélou links this mystery to the type of "spiritual marriages" some Christian groups practiced: The expression "cosmic mystery of the Church" seems to stand in opposition to a "heavenly mystery of the church". This heavenly mystery is the celestial marriage of Christ to the Church, which also finds its expression in this world. The allusion in this passage would therefore seem to be to those spiritual unions which existed in Jewish Christianity between prophet-apostles and a sister. Hermas also appears to allude to this custom (Sim. IX, 10:6-11: . A similar reference may underlie I Cor. 7:36ff. The custom endured in the institution of Virgins. The relation of these unions to their heavenly ideal is explicitly stated: "Some of them prepare a nuptial couch and perform a sort of mystic rite (mystagogia-pronouncing certain expressions) with those who are being initiated, affirming that what is performed by them is a spiritual marriage which is celebrated by them, after the likeness of the unions…above" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1:21:3, in ANF 1:346.).

 

Thanks for bringing this up. I believe it requires further research.

[Abulafia]

Rick7475, Aaron Milavec has done some good research into the meaning of "the cosmic or worldly mystery of the church" and very much refutes the assertion that it had anything to do with polygamy (or polyandry..) This is all just wild speculation in my opinion.

I'll dig out the notes I took. But baseline is that any connection with Ephesians is unwarranted, and is more likely to refer to the actions of Prophets within the early Eucharist. (At least for the community of the Didache).

Still, it's a fascinating little snippet that was most likely very much understood by the community to whom the Didache was addressed.

[Abulafia]

Milavec's book is online.. p466 onwards.

Hope the link works.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=17v6sT1l-aYC&pg=PA466&lpg=PA468&ots=9rn9B9t8wU&focus=viewport&dq=Aaron+Milavec+the+worldly+mystery+of+the+church&output=html_text

[juliann]

Milavec's book is online.. p466 onwards.

Hope the link works.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=17v6sT1l-aYC&pg=PA466&lpg=PA468&ots=9rn9B9t8wU&focus=viewport&dq=Aaron+Milavec+the+worldly+mystery+of+the+church&output=html_text

Won't let me in. 

[Calm]

You need to do a new search yourself...though it may be too late if your ip is linked with Abul's. They only allow so many views to tempt people before cutting off. Maybe someone who gets in can take a screenshot if it is short enough.

[Abulafia]

I don't know how to take a picture.  Well I tried but it wouldn't let me!

I transcribed the relevant pages.

Here goes.

(If there are mistakes - apologies)

 

P466-469

The third special case is difficult to unwrap owing to our ignorance of what the Didache had in mind when it came to prophets “acting in the worldly mystery of the church” . This obscure phrase finds no explanation within the Didache and no exact parallel in either the secular or religious literature;  hence it is impossible to know precisely what the phrase meant for the community of the Didache. One can surmise however that an entire range of evocative and/or disturbing prophetic gestures were anticipated that were not to be judged or imitated “for with God he has his judgement; for just so acted also the ancient prophets” (11:11)  Note that the emphasis is expressly upon a prophet having been tested and found “true”  Such tested prophets were effectively granted great liberty in “acting for the worldly mystery of the church” as long as they did not presume to train others that God required them to act likewise. 

What might this include?  Maybe a prophet undertook degrading tasks normally reserved for women or slaves – like cleaning toilets or washing the feet of visitors or dressing the wounds of a leper – with the idea of demonstrating that, when the Lord arrives, even the most demeaning acts of service will be understood rightly as cloaked with dignity and love.  Then again maybe another prophet said that the Lord had trained him to despise money and thus he took up the practice of referring to money as “s**t” and made a vow never to touch it again.  Another prophet may have refused to eat anything one or two days prior to any Eucharist in the expectation that, perhaps at this Eucharist, the Lord might come.  At still other times, a prophet might even hold up his own prophetic calling to leave all in order  to undertake an itinerant lifestyle in service of the kingdom as an imitation of Jesus’ way of “acting for the worldly mystery of the church”  In any case, it is misleading to imagine that “the worldly mystery of the church” can be reduced merely to a “spiritual marriage” since, if this is what the framers of the Didache had in mind, they would have come out and said so... (see 6k)

6k The Meaning of “the Wordly mystery of the church (Did 11:11)

While Did 11:11 has occasioned, from the very beginning, a wide variety of interpretations (Jacquier:238-40) most living scholars have contented themselves with interpreting the “worldly (or cosmic) mystery” against the backdrop of Eph 5:32, in which Paul speaks of “the great mystery (to mysterion mega) whereby a husband’s self-sacrificing love for his wife images Christ’s love for his church.  Against this backdrop most scholars speculate that the “worldly mystery of the church” represents an allusion to women who accompanied the wandering prophets and whose relations to them were not unequivocal” (Theissen 1992:41). Niederwimmer sees it as “a spiritual marriage” between a prophet and a sister, which, being a celibate union, “corresponds to its heavenly model, namely, the union of the Kyrios (“Lord”) with his bride, the church” (1998: 182; 1996:329, 331 n. 34; Campenhausen: 73n. 119; Harnack 1884: 121f.; Rordorf 1978 a: 187).  Draper remarks that such a “spiritual marriage” caused offense to the local congregation, and the redactor (of the Didache) is concerned to justify it within limits (that others are not encouraged to do the same!)”  (Draper 1983: 247; Niederwimmer 1996: 331 n. 31). 

Alternatively, Crossan speculates that Did. 11:11 was wrestling with “spiritual marriage” more as a practical mode whereby female prophets could safely travel in the Mediterranean world:

 

“The only way a woman could have been involved in the earliest Jesus movement as an itinerant prophet, given the cultural situation of the day, was if she travelled witha  male as his “wife” (or in some other acceptable female role).  As long as she was with a male, nobody would have really cared about the relationship or bothered to ask about it.  Such companionship did not threaten patriarchal domination in any way; a woman accompanying a man could be serant or slave, sister, mistress, or wife without male chauvinism caring enough even to ask for definition.  This is how we should also understand Paul’s mention of a “sister wife” in 1 Corinthians 9:5  ...(1998:379)

 

When one explores these meanings within the context of the Didache,  Audet rightly concludes that one is left with only “ a crash of thunder coming from a cloudless sky”  (Audet 1958: 452).  Nothing in the Didache points to any influence from Ephesians; hence, it would be hazardous to project meanings found in a foreign context upon the obscure clues of the Didache.  Furthermore, if the “worldly mystery” referred to “spiritual marriage” or “celibacy,” it remains to be seen why the writer of the Didache, with his penchant for precision, did not just come out and say so.  It must be surmised, therefore, that the text anticipated an extended set of prophetic gestures that defied easy enumeration.  This might include “spiritual marriage” but it cannot be limited to this.  For example, the practice of “the ancient prophet” Hosea remaining faithful to his wife despite her repeated adulterous liaisons (Hos 1: 2-9) must be allowed as a possible application of how a prophet might act “for the worldly mystery of the church” (Did. 11:11).  The ancient prophets provide a variety of symbolic acts (3.g., 1 Sm 15:27f.; 1 Kgs 11:30-39; 2 Kgs 13:15019; Jer 19:10f.;  Ez 4: 1-4:6).  In sum, the imagination of most scholars has been entirely too restrictive on this point and overly wedded to Eph 5:23

 

The Coptic fragment drops out “worldly mystery of the church” and, in its place, has the prophet enacting the “mystery of a tradition according to good order in the church”  (Horner 1924: 225-31.)  G Horner’s translation at this point is cumbersome.  Richard Arthur suggests that the Coptic text should be read as follows:

 

Obviously, the passage marks a concession to visiting prophets.  Don’t judge them! God will judge.  They are like the prophets of olden times and presumably should be respected.  It is required that their teachings be inspected, but having passed inspection they are hereby licensed to “do mysteries,” with the proviso that they are done “traditionally” and “in decorous order” (Kocmikon).  The Coptic rendering of “kocmikon” is flawed, as is so often the case iwth Greek words transcribed into Coptic where we presume some scribes could only trust their ear for the sound of the word, not knowing Greek vocabulary or phonetics. (letter of 16 Aug 93)

 

The  upshot of this is that the Coptic fragment provides no help.  According to Arthur, the corrupt kocmikon that was read by Horner and others as Kocmion (“decorous” or “in an orderly manner”) is merely a transliteration of Kosmikon (“cosmic” or “worldly”) found in the Greek.  Thus, it would appear that the Coptic translator was confused by the Greek phrase  eis mysterion kosmikon ekklesias (lit., “for the mystery cosmic of the church”)  and settled for having the prophet acting out “a mystery traditionally cosmic in the church”  (following the Coptic word order).  Since mysterion in Greek commonly meant a “secret rite, secret teaching” (Bauer:530b) and was especially applied to initiation rites performed in places where not outsiders were present, the Coptic translator may have understood the prophet as performing a baptism in the church.  If so, this would make understandable why the translator added “traditionally” (“in a traditional manner”) to emphasize the fact that the prophet had to perform the rite of the church.  The translator was undoubtedly puzzled that a prophet was performing the rite in the first place.  Not knowing what to make of the word kosmikon (“cosmic”) modifying mysterion, the translator settled with leaving the word in its place and simply transliterating it into Coptic.  Instead of settling the mystery, the translator thus only passed along his confusion.

 

 

[Abulafia]

Women, not marrying in the early church is also an interesting area.  I look on it as an effect of the apocalyptic worldview.  What's the point in marrying if the end is coming soon.   These 'virgins'  (or widows) had a special place in many of the early communities and the 'position' was so popular  that a minimum age had to be introduced.  In a way, it seems that the early christian movement freed women from a life committed to husband and family, if that is what they wanted.   

Edited November 30, 2013 by Abulafia

[Calm]

Thank you for doing the extra work of transcribing, that was nice of you.

[Hannah Rebekah]

Rick7475, Aaron Milavec has done some good research into the meaning of "the cosmic or worldly mystery of the church" and very much refutes the assertion that it had anything to do with polygamy (or polyandry..) This is all just wild speculation in my opinion.

I'll dig out the notes I took. But baseline is that any connection with Ephesians is unwarranted, and is more likely to refer to the actions of Prophets within the early Eucharist. (At least for the community of the Didache).

Still, it's a fascinating little snippet that was most likely very much understood by the community to whom the Didache was addressed.

 

Hi Abulafia,

When you say, "This is all just wild speculation in my opinion." Does this mean that you agree with Milavec or what he is saying is just wild speculation?

What you quoted from Milavec when he said, "hence it is impossible to know precisely what the phrase meant for the community of the Didache. He goes on to say, "One can surmise..." which he does all the way through even though he quotes others who differ. Yet to me it appears one could even surmise that the "Cosmic mystery of the Church" and the "Spiritual marriage" could very much be related to polygamy or even polyandry because we all know that what Joseph Smith was doing seemed to be connected to an Abrahamic test which seems to fit nicely IMO with what little we do know from the Didache. There are others who have written about the "cosmic mystery of the church." I'll see if I can find my notes on this subject.

No where that I'm aware of does it say that Joseph's polyandrous marriages were sexual in nature and they very much could have been "spiritual marriages." The polygamous marriages some could have been in the same category, I think there is not much proof to go on if any of them were sexual in nature as well. I would think some of them might have been since the other leaders of the church advanced polygamous teachings at the time of Joseph and especially after.

My point is that Milavec IMO seems to surmise all the way through what he wrote and he really does not know what is being said in the Didache. And my opinion is probably just supposition as well.

[volgadon]

When you say, "This is all just wild speculation in my opinion." Does this mean that you agree with Milavec or what he is saying is just wild speculation?

 

 

I think Abulafia agrees with Milavec that the theory which he disproved is all wild speculation.

[Hannah Rebekah]

I think Abulafia agrees with Milavec that the theory which he disproved is all wild speculation.

 

I'm sorry...but I'm all confused. Abulafia said, "Aaron Milavec has done some good research into the meaning of "the cosmic or worldly mystery of the church" and very much refutes the assertion that it had anything to do with polygamy (or polyandry..)

 

I don't think Milavec mentioned anything about polygamy or polyandry so how is it that it's "very much" refuted? I guess I'm not following along very well, maybe it's the way he structured his sentences that I'm not grasping what is being said. He claims it refuted and agrees with Milavec but that it's all wild speculation. So what did Milavec disprove exactly or what is the wild speculation? Sorry...just trying to follow along.

[juliann]

This would appear to the be the key phrase, emphasis mine.

 

Nothing in the Didache points to any influence from Ephesians; hence, it would be hazardous to project meanings found in a foreign context upon the obscure clues of the Didache.

 

I have Jonathon Reed, "The Hebrew Epic and the Didache," in Clayton N. Jefford.. ed., The Didache in Context: Essays on Its Text, History, & Transmission,   (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995),  p.22.

 

In this regard Didache 11-15 as a whole reveals something of the the spatial imagination of the community of the Didache. Rather than operate under the view that divinity is centered in Jerusalem or the temple, the Didachist imagines that the spiritual center of the universe lies within the community of the Didache, with a progression of Christians and Christmongers,  prophets and false prophets, through the midst of that community..  The only source of stability is the adherence of the community to its ethical code and self-understanding.

 

And "spiritual marriages" have been interpreted in more than one way depending on text.  In the Gospel of Phillip which everyone loves to text proof, scholars commonly saw it as a marriage with one's spiritual (heavenly) double. 

 

Without proof of contact of one source to another, the wild speculation comes in when something is pulled from an unrelated text to augment a theory without any source trail.  It becomes particularly complicated with the Didache because the copy that has been most often used is the Coptic 11th c. text.