What Is The Best Reading?

[bluebell]

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?

 

I do think there are a couple other ways to interpret the bolded part.  

 

1-it could be saying that if a woman is with another man (has sex) after her sealing then she has committed adultery.  

 

It doesn't say anything about her previously being married so i think we have to acknowledge that that interpretation adds in information the verse doesn't provide.

 

2-it could also be saying that if a woman (already married)  is with another man (has sex) after her sealing then she has committed adultery.

 

This interpretation takes the meaning provided in the bolded part and applies it in the same way that #1 uses (if that makes sense).  It provides for the legit use of polyandry as long as the woman is sexually active only with her sealed husband.

[juliann]

It did.  And how is a woman consecrated with oil appointed (set apart) to be with a husband?  See below.

 

 

if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery

 

 

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.  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.

 

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.

 

I appreciate your viewpoint. But you have not given any support to substantiate linking a later statement about anointing to this particular verse.  The verse specifically says appointed unto her by the holy anointing. I am pretty sure Brian Hales has said that no one is sure what the anointing meant. Which leaves us with the verse. If we substituted appointed unto her by the holy anointing of consecrated oil on her forehead would the rest of the verse change?

 

Let's deal with what the verse says. We won't know what to bring in for support unless we read it as it is written first. Can you please take the verses apart and explain why you think it says a woman is commiting adultery even though appointed by the holy anointing and done within the new and everlasting covenant?

[juliann]

 

This interpretation takes the meaning provided in the bolded part and applies it in the same way that #1 uses (if that makes sense).  It provides for the legit use of polyandry as long as the woman is sexually active only with her sealed husband.

Ah, good call. But what do you do with the appointed unto the holy anointing escape clause?    

 

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.     

 

  Does it make sense to say that not being appointed/anointed is what creates adultery? The act of being with another man is the same with or without that. So this seems to be a very carefully worded explanation of how being with another man is or is not adultery?  

[Calm]

It did.  And how is a woman consecrated with oil appointed (set apart) to be with a husband?  See below.

Semicolons indicate the definitions are separate, not all one. Setting apart does not include oil in its phase, thus someone can be anointed in some fashion without oil involved.

[juliann]

BB, what makes any other reading than polyandry seem highly unlikely is that instructions for the husband of this woman follow....

 

 43 And if her husband be with another woman, and he was under a vow, he hath broken his vow and hath committed adultery.

 

Looking at what actually happened in the polyandrous (sex or not) unions, the new husband was with other women.  For example, JS married Zina who was married to Henry. So this instruction wouldn't have been for JS who was taking multiple wives, it could only be for the Henry.  I don't think there were instances of the first husbands of polyandrous wives going into polygynous relationships, some of them still lived with their wives.

 

So that would be why I am assuming that "being with another man" means they are already married.

 

If these verses aren't about polyandry, v. 43 is saying that all men who have multiple wives are adulterers, as you said above.

[Calm]

Henry married other wives later though the marriages didnt work out that i remember, but that was after Zina was no longer living with him....quite awhile iirc.

[JLHPROF]

Can you please take the verses apart and explain why you think it says a woman is commiting adultery even though appointed by the holy anointing and done within the new and everlasting covenant?

 

That's the exact opposite of what I said.  Or at least I think it is? 

 

Let's make this as simple/literal as possible and ascertain where the confusion is coming from.

 

 

 

Vs 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.

 

- If a man receiveth a wife - man and woman are married/sealed

- in the new and everlasting covenant - and both are under the marriage covenant

- and if she be with another man - and she sleeps with someone else

- and I have not appointed unto her - that I didn't approve the new man/allow the sealing (ie 1st husband is divorced or dead)

- by the holy anointing - I argue this refers to the method of approval, Cal thinks "set apart"/I think literal anointing as in the 2nd

- she hath committed adultery - she has committed adultery

- and shall be destroyed - broken covenant = damnation

 

42 If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has committed adultery.

 

- if she be not in the new and everlasting covenant - she is NOT under the temple covenant

- and she be with another man - she sleeps with someone other than her husband

- she has committed adultery - she has committed adulter (but no mention of destruction/damnation because no covenant)

 

 43 And if her husband be with another woman, and he was under a vow, he hath broken his vow and hath committed adultery.

 

- if her husband - no mention as to whether this is under the new and everlasting covenant like 41, or not like 42

- be with another woman - sleeps with a woman other than his wife (or does this preclude polygamy)

- and he was under a vow - a vow as opposed to the new and everlasting covenant - presumably a personal promise

- he hath broken this vow and hath committed adultery - no mention of destruction/damnation so I would argue this is a match for verse 42 where neither are married under the new and everlasting covenant.

 

To my way of thinking vs 41 refers to a woman under the temple marriage covenant, but verses 42 & 43 refer to people not under the temple covenant, equally for men and women. 

That's why verse 41 brings destruction with adultery, but verses 42 & 43 allow for repentance.

I cannot explain why there is no verse wherein a man under the temple covenant commits adultery and is destroyed although verses 38 & 39 seem to cover it.

Edited March 20, 2015 by JLHPROF

[juliann]

Thanks for this...I'll add my comments in red...

 

 

 

 

Vs 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.

 

- If a man receiveth a wife - man and woman are married/sealed  yes

- in the new and everlasting covenant - and both are under the marriage covenant  yes, with the eternal element

- and if she be with another man - and she sleeps with someone else  yes

- and I have not appointed unto her - that I didn't approve the new man/allow the sealing  yes (ie 1st husband is divorced or dead) it doesn't say this, nor was that a requirement as they practiced it.

- by the holy anointing - I argue this refers to the method of approval, Cal thinks "set apart"/I think literal anointing as in the 2nd perhaps the Holy Spirit of Promise mentioned earlier and done by appointment? But irrelevant for our purposes.

- she hath committed adultery - she has committed adultery yes

- and shall be destroyed - broken covenant = damnation  yes, whatever that means.

 

42 If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has committed adultery.

 

- if she be not in the new and everlasting covenant - she is NOT under the temple covenant yes

- and she be with another man - she sleeps with someone other than her husband yes

- she has committed adultery - she has committed adulter (but no mention of destruction/damnation because no covenant) destruction in the flesh? (v 26)

 

 43 And if her husband be with another woman, and he was under a vow, he hath broken his vow and hath committed adultery.

 

- if her husband - no mention as to whether this is under the new and everlasting covenant like 41, or not like 42

 

- be with another woman - sleeps with a woman other than his wife  yes (or does this preclude polygamy)  obviously

- and he was under a vow - a vow as opposed to the new and everlasting covenant - presumably a personal promise  unclear, maybe civil marriage vow?

- he hath broken this vow and hath committed adultery - no mention of destruction/damnation so I would argue this is a match for verse 42 where neither are married under the new and everlasting covenant. possible 

 

To my way of thinking vs 41 refers to a woman under the temple marriage covenant, but verses 42 & 43 refer to people not under the temple covenant, equally for men and women. I like this. Could that be directed toward the spiritual wifery problem? But Emma wasn't sealed to JS before other wives so that interpretation could make JS an adulterer.

 

That's why verse 41 brings destruction with adultery, does it? See v 26. but verses 42 & 43 allow for repentance.

 

I cannot explain why there is no verse wherein a man under the temple covenant commits adultery and is destroyed although verses 38 & 39 seem to cover it. The destruction seems to be directed at women, Emma was threatened with it.

 

Without including the meaning behind the clauses, polygamy becomes adultery. Including the meaning behind the clauses, poyandry (thus polygamy) is allowed.

 

26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God..

[JLHPROF]

I will pick a couple of your points to address:

 

 

- she has committed adultery - she has committed adultery (but no mention of destruction/damnation because no covenant) destruction in the flesh? (v 26)

 

Vs 26 doesn't apply to vs 42/43 - vs 26 applies only to those under a covenant.  Vs 42 specifies no covenant and vs 43 implies it.

 

Applying it to vs 41, perhaps I shouldn't have argued that destruction = damnation, but buffetings of Satan can't be pleasant.

And vs 26 also clearly refers to those who have received their 2nd anointings.

 

- and I have not appointed unto her - that I didn't approve the new man/allow the sealing  yes (ie 1st husband is divorced or dead) it doesn't say this, nor was that a requirement as they practiced it.
Without including the meaning behind the clauses, polygamy becomes adultery. Including the meaning behind the clauses, poyandry (thus polygamy) is allowed.

 

I see that arguing for polyandry is one of your main purposes.  I don't feel like debating that one at this point.

It is true that the appointed clause doesn't specify the removal of the first husband.  I will give you that one.

But vs 51 & 54 argues against polyandry.

However, how does God appoint a husband to a wife?  That is definitely one key to understanding this.

(But as you know, I do not accept eternal polyandry in any way).

 

 

I cannot explain why there is no verse wherein a man under the temple covenant commits adultery and is destroyed although verses 38 & 39 seem to cover it. The destruction seems to be directed at women, Emma was threatened with it.

 

I think vs 38 & 39 "he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion" apply the same principle to a man under a covenant as the "destruction" does to the woman.  Based on vs 26 they will be applied equally I would think.

Edited March 20, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Would Brian Hales agree with your interpretation?

[Ahab]

Far enough along yet to tell me what you think the Lord would think of this situation:

A man and woman are sealed with the holy annointing as husband and wife, the man later dies, the woman then marries another man but for time only (at least for a while instead of immediately being sealed through their own holy annointing) and they live together as husband and wife while the former sealing is still binding.

???

Think carefully before you call that adultery.

[JLHPROF]

Think carefully before you call that adultery.

 

I don't think anyone did...

[bluebell]

Would Brian Hales agree with your interpretation?

I have no idea.

[juliann]

 

 

 

I see that arguing for polyandry is one of your main purposes.  I don't feel like debating that one at this point.

 

 

I will have to get back to the thread later, but I don't want to let this go. This is always used to stop the conversation. (Not that you are doing that, just sayin')  For instance, would it add anything for me to tell you that you just want to argue for polygyny?

 

I am trying to get other opinions, I don't have to argue for polyandry, it happened. The arguing only starts over how "real" it was which I actually don't much care about because it is pretty much based on guesswork, some of which I find absurd. We are now getting accusations that JS was really a lech because not only was he getting all the young virgins, he was going after married women without any scriptural mandate (yeah, like they care about scripture..) Anyway, I look at this and think....married women were marrying another man. That is not disputed. So why the heck wouldn't we need the go ahead in 132? And this looks like it is it to me.

 

 

Would Brian Hales agree with your interpretation?

Personally, I have never seen him directly address the content of those verses other than to dispute a polyandrous meaning by citing other verses about adultery that don't relate directly to these verses. I asked a direct question in a conference and I believe he cited three other verses.  If he has gone through these verses elsewhere and explained his interpretation like JHL has, I haven' t seen it. That is why I am trying to understand how others come to a conclusion that this can't possibly be talking about polyandry because I just don't understand how they arrive at that conclusion....or at least not allow that there is another possible reading.

[The Nehor]

So we can start an LDS free love colony? Woohoo! Best thread ever!

[JLHPROF]

Anyway, I look at this and think....married women were marrying another man. That is not disputed. So why the heck wouldn't we need the go ahead in 132? And this looks like it is it to me.

 

The "go ahead" wasn't needed because only one of the polyandrous marriages was sealed by priesthood authority.  The other was seen as just a civil marriage.  D&C 132 doesn't authorize polyandry, in fact, it warns Emma against it.

Until we understand that at the time this was implemented Joseph had begun teaching that civil marriages were meaningless and only marriages sealed by his authority mattered, we will never get past the polyandry history.

 

 

That is why I am trying to understand how others come to a conclusion that this can't possibly be talking about polyandry because I just don't understand how they arrive at that conclusion....or at least not allow that there is another possible reading.

 

There is always another possible reading, but in context, eternal polyandry is not allowed for in D&C 132 (vs 51/54).  (At least in my opinion.)  Temporal polyandry is an entirely different historical curiosity.

 

So we can start an LDS free love colony? Woohoo! Best thread ever!

 

And this ^ ^  is why. :tribal:

Edited March 20, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

"Until we understand that at the time this was implemented Joseph had begun teaching that civil marriages were meaningless and only marriages sealed by his authority mattered, we will never get past the polyandry history."

I can see higher value, don't get meaningless given how long it took him to be sealed to Emma. Do you think he would have accepted having an adulterous relationship with her?

Nor was there any commandment that nonsealed marriages were to be celibate though by your standard that would mean they were all fornicating.

Edited March 20, 2015 by calmoriah

[JLHPROF]

"Until we understand that at the time this was implemented Joseph had begun teaching that civil marriages were meaningless and only marriages sealed by his authority mattered, we will never get past the polyandry history."

I can see higher value, don't get meaningless given how long it took him to be sealed to Emma. Do you think he would have accepted having an adulterous relationship with her?

Nor was there any commandment that nonsealed marriages were to be celibate though by your standard that would mean they were all fornicating.

 

I have put no interpretation on it - just what Joseph is recorded as teaching.

People are all judged according to the amount of light they received.  Many didn't even know about eternal marriage at the time.

Edited March 20, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Ahab]

I don't think anyone did...

Good. I hope nobody would read it that way in light of those scriptures.

[Calm]

I have put no interpretation on it - just what Joseph is recorded as teaching.

People are all judged according to the amount of light they received.  Many didn't even know about eternal marriage at the time.

So Joseph was in an adulterous relationship with Emma and knew it for at least 5 years given he wasn't sealed to her until 1843 and was at least aware of celestial marriage since 1838 (his marriage with Louisa Beamen).

[JLHPROF]

So Joseph was in an adulterous relationship with Emma and knew it for at least 5 years given he wasn't sealed to her until 1843 and was at least aware of celestial marriage since 1838 (his marriage with Louisa Beamen).

 

I have no idea, you'd have to ask him.  But did Emma know?  Was Joseph accountable to tell her?  Was Joseph even allowed to tell her that they needed to be sealed?  All speculation.

But I know two things:

1. Joseph was NEVER an adulterer.

2. Joseph taught that only eternal marriage was valid.

 

How we make those two things mesh I cannot say.

[Ahab]

I have no idea, you'd have to ask him. But did Emma know? Was Joseph accountable to tell her? Was Joseph even allowed to tell her that they needed to be sealed? All speculation.

But I know two things:

1. Joseph was NEVER an adulterer.

2. Joseph taught that only eternal marriage was valid.

How we make those two things mesh I cannot say.

To avoid being an adulterer a person simply needs to be married to a person they have sexual relations with, and it doesn't have to be an eternal marriage.

Amend #2 to say valid "for eternity" and the problem is fixed.

[juliann]

Thanks for the input, everyone.

[BCSpace]

 

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.

 

 

 

Hopefully by 'commentary' you are not refering to the official doctrine which is my opinion.

 

"Plural marriage, the Revelation says, in substance, is not adultery, but to violate the marriage covenant is to commit that sin, the penalty being destruction (vv. 41, 52); but God Himself will execute that judgment (v. 54).”