Polygamy in the Book of Mormon

[dacook]

I realize that what we probably don't need around here is another polygamy thread.

But in recent threads on the topic some have tried to make the point that the BofM condemns polygamy (citing Jacob 2) and nowhere supports it (dismissing v30 of said Jacob 2) and therefor JS was a fallen prophet who contradicted his own book, or some such.

I have not seen the following argument used against this claim (if I missed it I apologize).

Many years after the time of Jacob, we find an account of Amulek, a righteous man who becomes Alma's missionary companion.

It appears that this Amulek was a polygamist. I offer for evidence the following;

Alma10:11

For behold, he hath blessed mine house, he hath blessed me, and my women, and my children, and my father and my kinsfolk; yea, even all my kindred hath he blessed, and the blessing of the Lord hath rested upon us according to the words which he spake.

George Reynolds and Janne M. Sjodahl, Commentary on the Book of Mormon, edited and arranged by Philip C. Reynolds, 7 vols., 3:, p.169

[cdowis]

Congratulations, you have discovered one of the "secrets" of the BOM.

Amulek was indeed a polygamist. I have alot of fun asking the missionaries abt that one -- "which prophet in the BOM was a polygamist."

Anyway, the BOM has a few other buried treasures like this one.

[Brackite]

Hello dacook and cdowis,

I have heard about this before, and I have even read about this before how a few LDS Apologists like pointing to Alma 10:11 as support that Amulek was a Polygamist. I do Not believe that Alma 10:11 supports the idea that Amulek was a polygamist. This issue has also been brought up on the Zion Lighthouse Message Board before. Here is what I wrote about concerning Alma 10:11:

I interpret that Passage of Scripture to mean Amulek's 'wife and daughters or maid servents.' If it meant wives then that Passage would read as 'wives' instead of 'women.' Plus do Not forget that Polygamy is Condemned throughout the Book of Mormon.

[MorningStar]

Do we know if Amulek's mother was alive or not? In that scripture, he mentions "my children", which would include both sons and daughters. If his mother was deceased, then it would appear that he was indeed a polygamist as he mentions "my women".

[charity]

If his mother was alive, why would he mention his father separately?

[MorningStar]

If his mother was alive, why would he mention his father separately?

Yes, I was wondering why he would mention his father, but not "parents", or father and mother. I don't think he would include his mother when he says "my women". Do we have any scriptural examples of sons referring to their mothers as "my woman"?

[Katran]

I don't think he would include his mother when he says "my women".

I agree, because if his mother were alive she would be his father's woman, wouldn't she?

[MorningStar]

I don't think he would include his mother when he says "my women".

I agree, because if his mother were alive she would be his father's woman, wouldn't she?

Exactly.

[BCSpace]

So we have five Book of Mormon scholars, of no small repute, giving evidence that Amulek was a polygamist.

Noted scholars, no matter how many, do not LDS doctrine make. However, I agree that this verse could be a pretty good indication that Amulek was plurally married.

[Alan]

I have recently been reading the Book of Mormon again. I am using the Restored Covenant Edition. It has made the book come alive to me in a way it never has before.

However, one of the distinct impressions I have received as I have read is that polygamy was practiced. A comment here, a word there; nothing absolutely concrete but hints, so to speak.

In fact, the thought occured to me the other day as I read the early chapters of Alma and the account of the Amlicites and there battles with the rest of Nephites, followed by an even larger battle between the Nephites and a joint Amlicite/Lamanite army, what happened to all the widows? I know there is a mention that they were loked after by the survivors imparting of their substance for their support, but I mean in the long term?

With no welfare state (we assume) is it unreasonable to suggest that these women were absorbed into existing famlies as plural wives?

Alan

[BCSpace]

With no welfare state (we assume) is it unreasonable to suggest that these women were absorbed into existing famlies as plural wives?

I don't think it unreasonable at all especially considering Isaiah 4:1 in which the context is similar (war). See Isaiah 3 and notice that these women are daughters of Zion (albeit they've been 'worldly').

Isaiah 3:16 Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet:

17 Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will discover their secret parts.

18 In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon,

19 The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers,

20 The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings,

21 The rings, and nose jewels,

22 The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins,

23 The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails.

24 And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty.

25 Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war.

26 And her gates shall lament and mourn; and she being desolate shall sit upon the ground.

Isaiah 4:1 AND in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

[cdowis]

>If it meant wives then that Passage would read as 'wives' instead of 'women.'

1. The same word is used for woman and wife, as shown by the scholars. In fact this is sometimes used in English - "She is my woman". While we can search around for other women in his life, the actual meaning is IMO pretty obvious.

2. The reason for translating as "women" is pretty obvious. What would the reaction be if JS had translated it as "my wives" in 1830? The indirect meaning was used to protect him and the future church.

[MorningStar]

Isaiah 3:16 Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet:

The first time I read this verse, it made me think of supermodels walking on the runway.

[dacook]

If it meant wives then that Passage would read as 'wives' instead of 'women.'

Not according to Sorenson and Thorne;

"the Hebrew word used for wife really means woman. In three Book of Mormon passages, the word women appears to mean wives:" (John L. Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne, eds., Rediscovering the Book of Mormon, p.91)

Plus do Not forget that Polygamy is Condemned throughout the Book of Mormon.

Where besides Jacob 2?

QUOTE (BCSpace @ Aug 6 2005, 03:42 AM)

Isaiah 3:16 Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet:

MorningStar;

The first time I read this verse, it made me think of supermodels walking on the runway.

It reminds me of teenage girls cruising the mall.

[MorningStar]

That too!

I wonder what the tinkling is referring to? Would it be from ankle bracelets or maybe a way of describing the noise high heels make?

[Brackite]

Hello dacook,

Plus do Not forget that Polygamy is Condemned throughout the Book of Mormon.

Where besides Jacob 2?

Mosiah Chapter 11 and Ether Chapter 10. Here is Mosiah 11:2-4, & 14:

2 For behold, he did not keep the commandments of God, but he did walk after the desires of his own heart. And he had many wives and concubines. And he did cause his people to commit sin, and do that which was abominable in the sight of the Lord. Yea, and they did commit whoredoms and all manner of wickedness.

[dacook]

I agree the context does seem to indicate "wives and concubines" were part of the wickedness. Still...one MIGHT argue they weren't condemned specifically as such.

e.g. from Mosiah; "For behold, he did not keep the commandments of God, but he did walk after the desires of his own heart. And he had many wives and concubines..."

And, it may have been Riplakish's unfair taxes made to support his families, not the families themselves....

I'm not really arguing for that interpretation, just pointing out that one could, if one were a hard-liner advocate for polygamy. (Wonder what the FLDS take on these passages is?)

I still think Amulek, at least, was probably a "legitimate" polygamist, even if these others weren't. Same goes for Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Heber Kimball, et. al..

MorningStar:

I wonder what the tinkling is referring to? Would it be from ankle bracelets or maybe a way of describing the noise high heels make?

Seems like I read somewhere somewhen that certain "ladies of negotiable affection" would wear bells on their ankles.

?Advertising maybe? Or like belling the cat so us mice could run away?

[charity]

Plural marriage is allowed when the Lord chooses to command it. It is hard to see how two wicked kings would have been commanded to practice it. Unless they were, it would have been an abomination. And the use of the term concubine should also be a clue that this practice was not what the Lord commanded at that time. Concubines have never a part of the principle of eternal marriage.

[Brackite]

Hello,

I don't think he would include his mother when he says "my women".

I agree, because if his mother were alive she would be his father's woman, wouldn't she?

Exactly.

If Amulek

[charity]

You are making an assumption that women generally out live men in all cultures and at all times. That may be an unwarranted assumption. We don't know what relative longevity was in Book of Mormon times. Women died in childbirth at a much greater rate in times past than today, for instance. So I think saying that because a father is alive, that means the mother probably was, too, even though he doesn't specifically mention her, is taking a big leap.

Also, saying she was categorized with the women, while the father was listed separately is counterintuitive. Nephi always lists his father and mother as a pair when speaking of the members of the group.

[Katran]

If Amulek

[Brackite]

Hello Katran,

Also, I seriously doubt that in such a patriarchal society Amulek's father's wife would be considered Amulek's "woman", even if she was his mother.

I don't know about that. Amulek's mother is still Amulek's mother, and she can IMO Still be considered among Ameluk's women along with his wife (singular).

[Benjamin McGuire]

Brackite writes:

Mosiah Chapter 11 and Ether Chapter 10.

It is worth noting, however, that these are both indictments of the quintessential wicked king. The text show a high degree of similarity, and address points raised in the Old Testament which are used determine how a righteous/wicked king would act.

The Mosiah text almost certainly references polygamy for the King (Noah) as a critique based on Deuteronomy 17:17. The text in Mosiah reads in part:

"... but he [Noah] did walk after the desires of his own heart. And he had many wives and concubines."

Compared to (Dt. 17:17):

"He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold."

The Ether text seems to be, essentially, Moroni's description of the foremost example of the wicked king in the same terms. This, of course, isn't to say that these texts aren't condeming polygamy for the entire populations, only that it starts with this particular text. Perhaps this shows a situation in which the commandments of Lehi (to avoid polygamy) were often considered secondary to the Law of Moses (which is highlighted in the Mosiah narratives about Abinadi and Noah). It is also necessary to remember that both the Mosiah and the Ether text were written by the Father/Son duo of Mormon and Moroni. There is no surprise in the closeness of the language.

Ben

[Brackite]

Hello Ben,

The Mosiah text almost certainly references polygamy for the King (Noah) as a critique based on Deuteronomy 17:17. The text in Mosiah reads in part:

"... but he [Noah] did walk after the desires of his own heart. And he had many wives and concubines."

Compared to (Dt. 17:17):

"He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold."

The Ether text seems to be, essentially, Moroni's description of the foremost example of the wicked king in the same terms. This, of course, isn't to say that these texts aren't condeming polygamy for the entire populations, only that it starts with this particular text. Perhaps this shows a situation in which the commandments of Lehi (to avoid polygamy) were often considered secondary to the Law of Moses (which is highlighted in the Mosiah narratives about Abinadi and Noah). It is also necessary to remember that both the Mosiah and the Ether text were written by the Father/Son duo of Mormon and Moroni. There is no surprise in the closeness of the language.

It is True that the Book of Mosiah was virtually written by Mormon, and that the Book of Ether was written by Mormon

[Benjamin McGuire]

Brackit writes:

It is True that the Book of Mosiah was virtually written by Mormon, and that the Book of Ether was written by Mormon