Why Not Adam And Eves?

[Calm]

"I believe this puts to rest the idea that Adam didn't practice some form of polygamy."

No, I really don't think that it does anything such thing.

[Coop]

Here is how I parse this scripture.

 

"And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living; for thus have I, the Lord God, called the first of all women, which are many." Moses 4:26

 

1.  Adam gave his wife the name of Eve.

 

2.  Adam called her Eve because she was the mother of all living.

 

3. God also called her Eve because she was the first of all women.

 

Now ask yourself these two questions.  First, who or what is the subject of these sentences?  Second, who or what does the prepositional phrase "which are many" modify?

 

If you think that the phrase, "which are many", modifies the word "women" then you are committing a common parsing error.  A lot of people do this because of the proximity of the word "women" to the phrase in question.  (Note in the preceding sentence the word "which" follows the word "women".  In this case does modify the word "women". This is both logically and linguistically correct.  If there was a comma between the word "women" and the word "which" then this would change the meaning of the sentence.)  What some readers do is that they fail to recognize that there is a comma between the word "women" and the phrase" which are many" in the scripture I quoted.  The comma indicates that the phrase applies to the subject of the sentence and not to the word in front of the phrase.

 

Additionally it doesn't make sense for the phrase to apply to the word "women" because "women" is already plural.  Why would you need to add the phrase "which are many" to something that is already many?

 

So if the phrase is modifying the word "Eve" then what does that mean?  Some early Church leaders suggested that "Eve" was the name God used for the first woman in the other worlds God created.  I'm suggesting that there were many "Eves" on this earth and I draw support for this interpretation from the other scripture I quoted from the D&C.

 

"David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many other of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time" D&C 132:38

 

It says that "other of my servants", and Adam was one of His servants, had many wives and concubines "from the beginning of creation" which is the time when Adam was on this earth.  The conclusion is that Adam had many wives and concubines and one of them was named Eve and that the rest of them might also have the same name.

 

My wife argues that this would be confusing if they all had the same name.  I suggested to her that the word Eve isn't a name so much as it is either a title which means "the mother of all living" or it is a word like other words we use to designate the sex of a species.  For example take the word ewe which is a female sheep or the word ram which is a male sheep.  So when we put both together we have Adams and rams and Eves and ewes.  Do you see a pattern here?

 

Of course I might be way off course but then I have been know to be more than a little coarse so if you disagree, stay your course.

 

All the best,

 

Bob

[Ginger Snaps]

Here is how I parse this scripture.

 

 

"And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living; for thus have I, the Lord God, called the first of all women, which are many." Moses 4:26

 

1.  Adam gave his wife the name of Eve.

 

2.  Adam called her Eve because she was the mother of all living.

 

3. God also called her Eve because she was the first of all women.

 

Now ask yourself these two questions.  First, who or what is the subject of these sentences?   Second, who or what does the prepositional phrase "which are many" modify?

 

 

If you think that the phrase, "which are many", modifies the word "women" then you are committing a common parsing error.  A lot of people do this because of the proximity of the word "women" to the phrase in question.  (Note in the preceding sentence the word "which" follows the word "women".  In this case does modify the word "women". This is both logically and linguistically correct.  If there was a comma between the word "women" and the word "which" then this would change the meaning of the sentence.)  What some readers do is that they fail to recognize that there is a comma between the word "women" and the phrase" which are many" in the scripture I quoted.  The comma indicates that the phrase applies to the subject of the sentence and not to the word in front of the phrase.

 

 This makes no sense.  You're completely ignoring the semicolon, which, in effect, splits this into two separate sentences.  And the subject of neither half is woman/women.  In the first half, Adam is the subject (the one doing the calling); in the second half, God is doing the calling.   And "which are many" is not a prepositional phrase.  "Which" is a pronoun for the word "women", and "are" is a linking verb, linking the pronoun "which"  to "many". 

 

Additionally it doesn't make sense for the phrase to apply to the word "women" because "women" is already plural.  Why would you need to add the phrase "which are many" to something that is already many?

No, "which are" clearly applies to the word "women" because both are plural. The Lord is saying she is "the first of ALL women" and He is clarifying the word "all"--He is saying she is the first of many women, not "a couple" or "a few".  Considering that the Lord has a view from both sides of the veil, he could be referring to Eve's progeny *or* he could be referring to all the female spirits waiting to come to earth, and saying Eve was the first one to journey into mortality.  Or maybe both.

 

Furthermore, Genesis 3:20 clearly uses the singular:

 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

 

Just for kicks and giggles, type the words "Adam Eve wife" into the search engine at the online scriptures.  You'll come up with a whole list of scriptures talking about "Adam and Eve, his wife." 

 

So if the phrase is modifying the word "Eve" then what does that mean?  Some early Church leaders suggested that "Eve" was the name God used for the first woman in the other worlds God created.  I'm suggesting that there were many "Eves" on this earth and I draw support for this interpretation from the other scripture I quoted from the D&C.

 

So if the phrase is modifying the word "Eve" then what does that mean?  Some early Church leaders suggested that "Eve" was the name God used for the first woman in the other worlds God created.  I'm suggesting that there were many "Eves" on this earth and I draw support for this interpretation from the other scripture I quoted from the D&C.

 

I notice you also completely ignored that I pointed out Moses 1:34:

"And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many."

By your logic, this would mean that Eve also had multiple husbands.

 

Additionally, how do you reconcile section 138 where "Glorious Mother Eve" is seen as a single individual, with her husband Adam,  among the noble and great ones? 

 

 

"David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many other of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time" D&C 132:38

 

It says that "other of my servants", and Adam was one of His servants, had many wives and concubines "from the beginning of creation" which is the time when Adam was on this earth.  The conclusion is that Adam had many wives and concubines and one of them was named Eve and that the rest of them might also have the same name.

No.  The actual phrasing says "many other of my servants", not "ALL my servants".  Abraham tops the list given in verse 1, and there is an in-depth discussion of Abraham's practice of plural marriage in the section.  Considering that Abraham is the first in the OT to practice polygamy *with God's approval*, and Adam is not listed in the rather extensive lists in verse 132:1, I think your conclusion is a stretch at best. 

 

Furthermore, as Adam and Eve are clearly set forth as an archetype for Latter-day Saints in all dispensations, I think it's notable that they aren't explicitly stated or known to be practitioners of plural marriage, especially when the clear scriptural standard is monogamy unless the Lord commands an exception.  Yes, some early church leaders speculated about it (the most notable being Brigham Young's statements during his teachings of the now-debunked Adam-God theory), but there is no real scriptural evidence to say either way.  Modern church leaders make no such speculations or statements, and in fact have spoken of Eve as a single individual for many, many decades.

Edited October 2, 2015 by Ginger Snaps

[HappyJackWagon]

Here is how I parse this scripture.

 

"And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living; for thus have I, the Lord God, called the first of all women, which are many." Moses 4:26

 

1.  Adam gave his wife the name of Eve.

 

2.  Adam called her Eve because she was the mother of all living.

 

3. God also called her Eve because she was the first of all women.

 

Now ask yourself these two questions.  First, who or what is the subject of these sentences?  Second, who or what does the prepositional phrase "which are many" modify?

 

If you think that the phrase, "which are many", modifies the word "women" then you are committing a common parsing error.  A lot of people do this because of the proximity of the word "women" to the phrase in question.  (Note in the preceding sentence the word "which" follows the word "women".  In this case does modify the word "women". This is both logically and linguistically correct.  If there was a comma between the word "women" and the word "which" then this would change the meaning of the sentence.)  What some readers do is that they fail to recognize that there is a comma between the word "women" and the phrase" which are many" in the scripture I quoted.  The comma indicates that the phrase applies to the subject of the sentence and not to the word in front of the phrase.

 

Additionally it doesn't make sense for the phrase to apply to the word "women" because "women" is already plural.  Why would you need to add the phrase "which are many" to something that is already many?

 

So if the phrase is modifying the word "Eve" then what does that mean?  Some early Church leaders suggested that "Eve" was the name God used for the first woman in the other worlds God created.  I'm suggesting that there were many "Eves" on this earth and I draw support for this interpretation from the other scripture I quoted from the D&C.

 

"David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many other of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time" D&C 132:38

 

It says that "other of my servants", and Adam was one of His servants, had many wives and concubines "from the beginning of creation" which is the time when Adam was on this earth.  The conclusion is that Adam had many wives and concubines and one of them was named Eve and that the rest of them might also have the same name.

 

My wife argues that this would be confusing if they all had the same name.  I suggested to her that the word Eve isn't a name so much as it is either a title which means "the mother of all living" or it is a word like other words we use to designate the sex of a species.  For example take the word ewe which is a female sheep or the word ram which is a male sheep.  So when we put both together we have Adams and rams and Eves and ewes.  Do you see a pattern here?

 

Of course I might be way off course but then I have been know to be more than a little coarse so if you disagree, stay your course.

 

All the best,

 

Bob

Joseph was not an English professor.

 

"And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living; for thus have I, the Lord God, called the first of all women, which are many." Moses 4:26

 

The semicolon connects two independent clauses. Why should I think that "which are many" is modifying the first part of the first independent clause? That doesn't make sense. It's modifying "women" within its own clause.

 

Each independent clause stands alone as if it's a stand alone sentence.

Edited October 2, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[Coop]

Did I say prepositional phrase?  Mark that up as a mistake.

 

Good points from Newbie.  I don't disagree with what he said.  My point isn't that I'm absolutely right but that there is a possible alternative interpretation for this scripture.   I would argue that the scripture in D&C lends strong support for my position.  Some like HappyJackWagon disagree but I think I could make a credible case in front of an unbiased jury.

 

As someone said earlier in this thread my point of view is "strange" to some people.  I get that.  My position on the scriptures is that they aren't tools to beat each up other up with but rather tools to be used to teach us who we are.  Each of us comes to them with our personal biases.  It is discussions like this that point this out.  We may disagree but if we are learning something about ourselves then this is a good thing.

 

By the way the current teaching of the Church regarding marriage is monogamy (see the proclamation on the family) and I accept that as God's will for this time.

 

All the best,

Bob

[Teancum]

In LDS doctrine today, monogamy is the rule except when the Lord commands otherwise for specific reasons.

 

 

That is not what the LDS leaders of the 19th century taught. They taught Monogamy was evil and at the root of whoredoms and prostitution.  They taught the Gods are polygamists. that Adam was and that Jesus was.

Tough to reconcile what we want to believe today to what the early LDS Church really was.

Edited October 3, 2015 by Teancum

[TheSkepticChristian]

Tough to reconcile what we want to believe today to what the early LDS Church really was.

 

I want polygamy to return to the church. 

 

Polygamy is probably cool  

Edited October 3, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[ttribe]

I want polygamy to return to the church. 

 

Polygamy is probably cool  

 

Yeah, just ask Warren Jeffs.  He'll agree with you! [/sarcasm]

[TheSkepticChristian]

Yeah, just ask Warren Jeffs.  He'll agree with you! [/sarcasm]

 

Jeffs married children, that is not cool. He was also abusive. 

 

Polygamy practiced by consenting adults is probably cool. 

Edited October 3, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[ttribe]

Jeffs married children, that is not cool. He was also abusive. 

 

Polygamy practiced by consenting adults is probably cool. 

 

Two questions -

 

1) Are you now, or have you ever been, married?

 

2) Do you have any daughters?

Edited October 3, 2015 by ttribe

[TheSkepticChristian]

Two questions -

 

1) Are you now, or have you ever been, married?

 

2) Do you have any daughters?

 

if women are happy in a polygamous marriage, what is the problem? 

[ttribe]

if women are happy in a polygamous marriage, what is the problem? 

 

You didn't answer my questions.

[TheSkepticChristian]

You didn't answer my questions.

 

and how are your questions relevant to the topic? 

[JLHPROF]

Two questions -

 

1) Are you now, or have you ever been, married?

 

2) Do you have any daughters?

 

1. God is.

 

2. God has.

 

He seems to have no issue with polygamy.

[jpv]

According to JD 26:116, Joseph Smith taught that Adam had two wives..refers to Hebrew tradition of Eve and Lilith. 

[strappinglad]

I like to read alternate interpretations and see the give and take. As was said, we can learn much about each other through such debate. Where I get uncomfortable is with the idea that Adam would have had to marry his daughters in order to be polygamous. Then again that type of relationship would have been the norm for centuries among the children of Adam.

   As a side note, I believe the Guiness record for children is 69 held by a Russian woman that had over 20 pregnancies.

 

 

 

   http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/most-prolific-mother-ever

 

 

Please note that the husband was married a second time and had lots more kids.

Edited October 4, 2015 by strappinglad

[Ginger Snaps]

1. God is.

 

2. God has.

 

He seems to have no issue with polygamy.

Hmmmm.  See D & C 132 where He compares polygamy to an Abrahamic sacrifice.  I don't know that it's fair to say that He has no "issue" with it; rather, He seems to acknowledge that it's a heavy thing to ask of His children.

[stephenpurdy]

The list of justifications for plural marriage is long and rooted in scripture, tradition, pseudo doctrine, etc.

 

So...

 

If the practice of plural marriage was so important (as the 19th century LDS Church believed), why didn't God give Adam multiple wives instead of just one?

 

Jacob 2 makes it clear that the standard is one man, one woman unless God commands an exception.

I think Adam and Eve were set forth as the standard. Abraham/Sarah/Hagar et. al. demonstrated the exception.

 

 

I agree with Ginger Snaps on this.

 

I also agree with Blue, that there were times in LDS church history where members believed otherwise, but the scriptures overall support monogamy rather than polygamy.

 

-Stephen

[MDalby]

if women are happy in a polygamous marriage, what is the problem? 

 

I think that is a big If.  I think polygamy is a correct principle when implemented under the direction of the Priesthood.  But, I think it could be really difficult from a day to day basis to manage emotions and keep  everyone happy.

 

The maternal instinct leads a woman to prefer a tenth share in a first rate man to the exclusive possession of a third rate one. 

(George Bernard Shaw)

[JLHPROF]

Hmmmm.  See D & C 132 where He compares polygamy to an Abrahamic sacrifice.  I don't know that it's fair to say that He has no "issue" with it; rather, He seems to acknowledge that it's a heavy thing to ask of His children.

 

That is not what D&C 132 says at all.

There is a parallel of obedience drawn between polygamy and the Abrahamic sacrifice, but the parallel is clearly obedience not sacrifice.

 

God clearly takes polygamy seriously, but the only times in all of scripture that he has called it a bad thing is when men were practicing it in wickedness.

[stephenpurdy]

That is not what the LDS leaders of the 19th century taught. They taught Monogamy was evil and at the root of whoredoms and prostitution.  They taught the Gods are polygamists. that Adam was and that Jesus was.

Tough to reconcile what we want to believe today to what the early LDS Church really was.

 

They did not have scriptural justification for this belief.  Many prominent Mormons wanted to believe it because that is what they were living.

 

The interesting thing is this:  MOST Mormons were sealed to a single wife in the temple.  Did these monogamous Mormons believe that they were participating in "celestial marriage" when they were sealed in the temple?

 

I believe they did, especially when you read their journals.

 

-Stephen

[ttribe]

and how are your questions relevant to the topic? 

 

They are relevant to your proclaimed assessment that polygamy is "cool."  How about you answer them truthfully and I'll explain more?

 

1. God is.

 

2. God has.

 

He seems to have no issue with polygamy.

 

I asked the guy who said he thought it would be "cool" to live polygamy.  Do you share his sentiment?  Do you think God sits around and says - "Man, polygamy is one cool doctrine!" - while ignoring the tears of his daughters who don't want to live the principle?  Who don't want to be one of several/many wives? 

 

I'm not interested in debating with the two of you whether polygamy was ever commanded by God.  I'm taking exception with the notion of a male celebrating polygamy as "cool" all the while knowing that re-instituting polygamy would break the hearts of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of God's daughters.

[TheSkepticChristian]

to manage emotions and keep  everyone happy.

 

Are you saying that all couples in a monogamous marriage are happy?

What about the high infidelity statistics? Most married men commit adultery.  Adultery is far worst than polygamy. 

Divorce and remarriage are other problems too. 

 

 How about you answer them truthfully and I'll explain more?

 

You explain 

 

while ignoring the tears of his daughters who don't want to live the principle?  

 

I said "consenting adults" Give me a break, nobody and no church is going to force women to share their husband.  Just live and let live. 

 

would break the hearts of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of God's daughters.

 

and adultery and divorce don't? Again, I said consenting adults. 

What about the women that do support polygamy? 

Edited October 4, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

I will try one more time, if the first wife gives permission, then what is wrong with polygamy?

[Thinking]

I will try one more time, if the first wife gives permission, then what is wrong with polygamy?

 

Perhaps she is giving permission out of fear or manipulation?