Jacob Chapter 2

[Anddenex]

When King Noah was put into power he replaced all the true priests with false ones. Alma was one of the false priests. Noah and his false priests had many wives and concubines. After Alma converted there is no record of him having to divorce his wives or concubines.

If the Church is to accept polygamy again in the future it must become more normalized in the minds of the people or else it will be that much harder for people to accept. I am not condoning active members of the Church going out and practicing it. But people should be more educated about it.

Well spoken uniderth. People need to make sure they are 100% sure before calling a statement blatantly false.

I have understood it the same way. Alma was one of the false priests, and we know in record the false priests had many wives and concubines. Alma being one of them, it is safe to assume, he had many wives. And there is no record that he had to divorce them or get rid of them.

There is so much history within the Book of Mormon, we know so little about. It would have been nice to have everything, however could you imagine carrying the whole record while on a mission ;D

[volgadon]

I have understood it the same way. Alma was one of the false priests, and we know in record the false priests had many wives and concubines. Alma being one of them, it is safe to assume, he had many wives. And there is no record that he had to divorce them or get rid of them.

We don't know that all of them did have many wives and concubines. That Alma did can be a possibility, not the default position.

[volgadon]

And it wasn't condemned in Jewish law until about 1000AD.

In Ashkenazic Jewry.

[annewandering]

In response to an earlier comment about Joseph Smith having no children through polygamy: Brigham Young married some of Joseph Smith's wives. The family group sheets I have seen show the children of those marriages to be Josephs not Brighams. I am assuming this was similar to the biblical law of brothers marrying their widowed brother's wives to raise up seed for their brother. :)

[Anddenex]

We don't know that all of them did have many wives and concubines. That Alma did can be a possibility, not the default position.

No, we don't know if all of them had many wives and concubines, which is why I said it is safe to assume he did as we read the words of the Book of Mormon.

Mosiah 11: 4, "And all this did he take to support himself...and also his priests, and their wives and their concubines..."

From this verse alone, I would take the stance, myself, the default position is that Alma had many wives and concubines, since he was one of Noah's priests.

I would also take the nature, carnal nature of men, who are wicked and idolatrous. In this situation, it is more likely that Alma had many wives and concubines, then he having only one wife or none. I would also specify it is more a "default position" seeing that not only did they have many wives and concubines, but that these wives and concubines were being supported by other people.

The carnal nature of men, tells me, if a wicked man could have more than one wife, and many concubines, and that he would not have to support them himself, but that they would be supported by other people. Yes, the carnal men would easily say, "I'm in." Especially, if it also included a position of power. Just look at our American politicians as an example ;D

I realize, this is my thoughts, and you disagree. No problem. I appreciate your thoughts.

Best Volgadon!

[Vort]

When King Noah was put into power he replaced all the true priests with false ones. Alma was one of the false priests. Noah and his false priests had many wives and concubines. After Alma converted there is no record of him having to divorce his wives or concubines.

Cretans are liars. Joe is a Cretan. Ergo, Joe is a liar.

Polygamy does not need justification because it is a good principle when not condemned. And as I have pointed out, through out human history, acceptance of polygamy has been the rule and condemnation is the exception.

Polygamy is not an ugly thing that is only needed on rare occasions to care for widows or repopulate the earth or whatever. As the verse states in Jacob chapter 2 when the Lord desires that children be raised up unto him he will command polygamy.

How about that? The supposedly "default" condition of polygamy is allowable only when the Lord commands it. Otherwise, it is an abomination.

If the Church is to accept polygamy again in the future it must become more normalized in the minds of the people or else it will be that much harder for people to accept.

Why are you worried about the Church "accepting polygamy again in the future"? I see no convincing reason to believe it will need to. And even if it does, I look to the Lord's anointed leaders (instead of random internet people -- imagine that) to tell me when to prepare for such things.

Amazingly, I don't hear ANY of the Lord's anointed saying ANYTHING that suggests we need to be preparing the Church to receive polygamy. Huh.

What do you make of that? Because I make of it THAT IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE WORRYING ABOUT.

[volgadon]

No, we don't know if all of them had many wives and concubines, which is why I said it is safe to assume he did as we read the words of the Book of Mormon.

How is it safe to assume if we don't know?

Mosiah 11: 4, "And all this did he take to support himself...and also his priests, and their wives and their concubines..."

From this verse alone, I would take the stance, myself, the default position is that Alma had many wives and concubines, since he was one of Noah's priests.

In order to reach that conclusion you have to assume that "their wives and their concubines" means that all the priests had wives.

I would also take the nature, carnal nature of men, who are wicked and idolatrous. In this situation, it is more likely that Alma had many wives and concubines, then he having only one wife or none. I would also specify it is more a "default position" seeing that not only did they have many wives and concubines, but that these wives and concubines were being supported by other people.

The carnal nature of men, tells me, if a wicked man could have more than one wife, and many concubines, and that he would not have to support them himself, but that they would be supported by other people. Yes, the carnal men would easily say, "I'm in." Especially, if it also included a position of power. Just look at our American politicians as an example ;D

It is easy to generalise.

[Anddenex]

How is it safe to assume if we don't know?

In order to reach that conclusion you have to assume that "their wives and their concubines" means that all the priests had wives.

It is easy to generalise.

Yes, in order to reach the conclusion I shared, I have to assume, which was stated in my post. Not sure the debate there, seeing I publicly stated "I assume". It is safe to assume because of the language within the scripture already shared.

Mosiah 11: 4, "And all this did he take to support himself...and also his priests, and their wives and their concubines..."

If we knew, then there would be no reason to assume anything. The idea that we don't know is where people, like both of us, draw conclusions, or assumptions according to the information shared.

It is safe to assume due to the language of the verse. The language doesn't specify "some" of the priests, it mentions their wives, their concubines.

Yes, it definitely is easy to generalize as it is definitely easy to accept human nature and the natural men and the desire of the natural men when money, power, women, and politics (the King and his priests) are involved.

As pertaining to the idea that I would have to know that "all priests" had wives and concubines, is not the case, I only need to accept that a majority of the priests had wives and concubines. If more than not had wives and concubines, then is it more likely than not that Alma also had the same. I do not need to know that all had wives to draw a conclusion from the provided language within scripture.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Anddenex