juliann Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed. 42 If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has committed adultery. 43 And if her husband be with another woman, and he was under a vow, he hath broken his vow and hath committed adultery. Putting aside all preconceptions or what you think it should say, what do these three verses actually say. Please don't go off on commentary tangents. I only want to see opinions of what the above means.
The Nehor Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 It says adultery is bad and is worse when under the New and Everlasting covenant. If you are not in that covenant it is adultery. If you commit adultery from within the covenant you risk destruction. While the non-celestial marriage specifies both genders for some reason the first bit leaves out the punishment for a male committing adultery. I assume that is why you brought it up? 1
JLHPROF Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 (edited) Ok, my literal reading of these verses (like I ever do anything else ) vs 41 - a woman under the marriage covenant that has sex with another man outside of the man she is given to in the covenant is an adulteress and will be damned. vs 42 - a woman NOT under the marriage covenant that has sex with a man other than her husband is an adulteress but may not necessarily be damned. (See D&C 42 reference below) vs 43 - a man under a vow, which may not be referring to the marriage covenant, who has sex with a woman other than his wife is an adulterer, no mention of damnation. Hopefully this is not a commentary tangent but I think these verses provide the differentiation from D&C 42:24-26 which established adultery as a repentable sin because there was no covenant to break and therefore no destruction. D&C 132 and the marriage covenant supplants this. Edited March 20, 2015 by JLHPROF
JLHPROF Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 It says adultery is bad and is worse when under the New and Everlasting covenant. If you are not in that covenant it is adultery. If you commit adultery from within the covenant you risk destruction. While the non-celestial marriage specifies both genders for some reason the first bit leaves out the punishment for a male committing adultery. I assume that is why you brought it up? Because the verse concerning the male mentions a vow, not the covenant.
carbon dioxide Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 It says adultery is bad and is worse when under the New and Everlasting covenant. If you are not in that covenant it is adultery. If you commit adultery from within the covenant you risk destruction. While the non-celestial marriage specifies both genders for some reason the first bit leaves out the punishment for a male committing adultery. I assume that is why you brought it up?The way I read it is that in all cases one risks destruction. The fact that it does not mention the words "and shall be destroyed" in verses 42 and 43 does not lead me to believe that they don't risk being destroyed or damned.
Senator Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 I would like to know what "and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing", means.
JLHPROF Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 I would like to know what "and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing", means. That's a direct reference to the Second Anointing ceremony.
Calm Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 (edited) Yeah, me too. (Senator's wish to know) Edited March 20, 2015 by calmoriah
Senator Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 That's a direct reference to the Second Anointing ceremony. What could she be appointed to?
Calm Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 That's a direct reference to the Second Anointing ceremony.That doesn't make sense...unless you are saying it is okay for a woman who has the second anointing to be with another man (as it wouldn't be adultery for her and she wouldn't be destroyed).
JLHPROF Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 What could she be appointed to? Queen to her husband - https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp.../sbi/.../Dialogue_V16N01_12.pdf That doesn't make sense...unless you are saying it is okay for a woman who has the second anointing to be with another man (as it wouldn't be adultery for her and she wouldn't be destroyed). Sure it does -vs 41 refers to a woman in the covenant who would be destroyed for adultery.vs 42 refers to a woman NOT in the covenant who would not be destroyed for adultery. Vs 41 also refers to a woman being appointed to her husband by holy anointing - the 2nd anointing.
Senator Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 Vs 41 also refers to a woman being appointed to her husband by holy anointing - the 2nd anointing. Actually 41 does not specify who she is not appointed to, or by inferance, who she could be appointed to.
bluebell Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 I would like to know what "and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing", means. Me too.
stemelbow Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 Me too. Any speculations? I thought it meant that a woman could be married to another man ("holy anointing" being entered into the New and Everlasting Covenant of marriage with another man). But we all know only men are privileged enough to be sealed to more than one spouse, so I must be wrong. 2
bluebell Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 Queen to her husband - https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp.../sbi/.../Dialogue_V16N01_12.pdf Sure it does -vs 41 refers to a woman in the covenant who would be destroyed for adultery.vs 42 refers to a woman NOT in the covenant who would not be destroyed for adultery. Vs 41 also refers to a woman being appointed to her husband by holy anointing - the 2nd anointing. I think you are reading certain beliefs into these verses that the verses don't actually support. I'm not saying the beliefs are wrong, only that the verses don't seem to be saying what you say they are. "...if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed." If a man receives a wife, and if that wife sleeps with another man, and I have not appointed unto her the holy anointing, the wife has committed adultery. Compare that sentence to this one- If someone drives a car, and if they drive it 80 mph, and i have not appointed that as the speed limit, the driver has broken the law and will be fined. Understanding what the driver will or won't be in trouble for completely depends on the underlined part of the sentence. That is a clause that puts everything else into perspective. Take the underlined part out and the sentence means something completely different than with it in there. In that way, the underlined part of the sentence can be validly read to be an 'unless' clause. It serves to basically say "If someone drives a car, and if they drive it 80 mph, unless i have appointed that as the speed limit, the driver has broken the law and will be fined." Both versions of the sentence--the one with the 'and i have not appointed' and 'unless i have appointed'--mean the same thing. Putting the negative in a difference place (in the unless instead of in front of appointed) does not make any difference. Using the sentence about driving as an example, verse 41 can legitimately be read this way- If a man receives a wife, and if that wife sleeps with another man, unless I have appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she has committed adultery. Therefore, this verse can validly be read as providing a way for a woman to sleep with someone other than the man in question and have it not be adultery. That's why knowing what the clause means is vitally important. 1
bluebell Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 Any speculations? I thought it meant that a woman could be married to another man ("holy anointing" being entered into the New and Everlasting Covenant of marriage with another man).But we all know only men are privileged enough to be sealed to more than one spouse, so I must be wrong. I think that's a valid interpretation, especially since we know that polyandry was practiced by the early saints. V. 41 could be saying that a woman can have sexual relations with another even if she is already married, as long as God said it was alright (for lack of a better way to put it). V. 43 would then be saying that the husband of a wife in a polyandrous relationship was not allowed to practice polygamy. That would make sense because a family unit where both the husband and wife were in multiple relationships wouldn't be a family unit at all-it would be a mess. 1
JLHPROF Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 (edited) Using the sentence about driving as an example, verse 41 can legitimately be read this way- If a man receives a wife, and if that wife sleeps with another man, unless I have appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she has committed adultery. Thank you for your thoughts (as always). Your paraphrase doesn't change the meaning at all.if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed. It clearly says that she is married in the NAEC, she must be anointed to any man she sleeps with.This refers to her eternal companion, and should she be sealed to a new husband. And because she has received this higher blessing she would reap destruction for violating that covenant. There is no anointing involved in the marriage covenant. That is the key to understanding this verse. However, in the 2nd anointing a woman is anointed to her husband. It is the only explanation for this verse that fits. Wilford Woodruff's journal continues: "President Young said when a woman was anointed a Queen to a good man and he died & the woman was sealed to another man for time it was not necessary for her to be anointed a Queen again but if she was anointed a Queen to a man who was not worthy of a wife & she is sealed to another man she should be anointed a Queen unto him. If this is not the anointing that vs 41 refers to, then I would like to know what other anointing appoints a woman to be approved to sleep with a man. Edited March 20, 2015 by JLHPROF
bluebell Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 It clearly says that she is married in the NAEC, she must be anointed to any man she sleeps with. Can you quote the part of the scripture that says that? I'm not seeing it. This refers to her eternal companion, and should she be sealed to a new husband. And because she has received this higher blessing she would reap destruction for violating that covenant. I'm fine if you want to believe this is what the verses refer to, but it's not what the verses actually say. There is no anointing involved in the marriage covenant. That is the key to understanding this verse. However, in the 2nd anointing a woman is anointed to her husband. It is the only explanation for this verse that fits. Can you provide the reference that says the underlined part? I think it's pretty essential to the discussion that we look at it. If it is the only explanation for the verse then it's essential that we have the reference. If this is not the anointing that vs 41 refers to, then I would like to know what other anointing appoints a woman to be approved to sleep with a man. The verse doesn't say and i have no idea. What verse of scripture allows a woman to be married to to men at once?
Calm Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 In 1828, anointed meant besides being consecrated with oil, being "set apart". anointed ANOINT'ED, pp. Smeared or rubbed with oil; set apart; consecrated with oil. ANOINT'ED, n. The Messiah, or Son of God, consecrated to the great office of http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,anointed
juliann Posted March 20, 2015 Author Posted March 20, 2015 JLH, you need to stick to the verse itself. The meaning of annointing isn't relevant for that purpose...only that it is is a requirement to release a woman who is with another man from adultery. That is a really good example, BB. The verses have a very convoluted structure and I think we just automatically jump to adultery and read our definition--which does not allow for women to have two partners under any circumstance-- into the verse. I cannot for the life of me see where it says women who are annointed are committing adultery even though they are "with another man." And notice the restrictions place upon the husband of this wife in v. 43.....
JLHPROF Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 (edited) In 1828, anointed meant besides being consecrated with oil, being "set apart". http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,anointed It did. And how is a woman consecrated with oil appointed (set apart) to be with a husband? See below. Can you quote the part of the scripture that says that? I'm not seeing it. if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery Can you provide the reference that says the underlined part? "However, in the 2nd anointing a woman is anointed to her husband. "I think it's pretty essential to the discussion that we look at it. If it is the only explanation for the verse then it's essential that we have the reference. I did provide at least one reference (Wilford Woodruff's journal) and linked to an entire paper on the subject. Men are anointed Kings & Priests unto God. Women are anointed Queens and Priestesses to their husbands. The wording difference between the male and female initiatory is the first proof of this.Buerger's paper covers the subject in detail, including numerous references that confirm this. As far as we know (thank you Tom Phillips ) the ceremony hasn't changed. JLH, you need to stick to the verse itself. The meaning of annointing isn't relevant for that purpose...only that it is is a requirement to release a woman who is with another man from adultery.If I am derailing the purpose of your thread I will bow out, but the verse 41 says what it says. A literal reading is clear. Which I thought was what you asked for. Edited March 20, 2015 by JLHPROF
juliann Posted March 20, 2015 Author Posted March 20, 2015 This appears to be the subject..... a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant -- I.e., they are married. and if she be with another man --i.e., she is already married Automatic adultery under any definition we are familiar with. But wait....there are two escape clauses that cancel "she hath committed adultery" if the other man receives her with the following stipulations.... 1. appointed unto her by the holy anointing 2. the new and everlasting covenant It is hard to put aside our expectations. Can this verse really be read any other way without adding to it?
bluebell Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 JLH, you need to stick to the verse itself. The meaning of annointing isn't relevant for that purpose...only that it is is a requirement to release a woman who is with another man from adultery. That is a really good example, BB. The verses have a very convoluted structure and I think we just automatically jump to adultery and read our definition--which does not allow for women to have two partners under any circumstance-- into the verse. I cannot for the life of me see where it says women who are annointed are committing adultery even though they are "with another man." And notice the restrictions place upon the husband of this wife in v. 43..... I think verse 43 is tricky. Taking JLH's interpretation of verse 1, it could be interpreted to say that any man practicing polygamy is committing adultery. If the woman's name in verse is mary, for example, then verse 43 can be read to say- And if [Mary's] husband be with another woman, and he was under a vow [to Mary], he hath broken his vow and hath committed adultery. 1
Calm Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 Anointing in these verses seem to indicate a setting apart. I don't see any indication it is referring to an actual ordinance that involved anointing with oil: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/1-jn/2.27?lang=eng#26 7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.7?lang=eng#6 What consecration with oil is this scripture dealing with? And here? https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/109.35?lang=eng#34 35 Let the anointing of thy ministers be sealed upon them with power from on high. Here: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/124.57?lang=eng#56 57 For this anointing have I put upon his head, that his blessing shall also be put upon the head of his posterity after him. 2
Gray Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 It sounds like it's saying polyandry is prohibited under some circumstances and permitted under others - essentially if it's authorized it's okay 2
Recommended Posts