It occurred to me this evening, as I was having a discussion with some Mormons, that one of the qualifications for elders and deacons in the church is that a man must be “a husband of one wife” (1 Tim 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6). This disqualifies Smith and most of the early Mormon leaders from being considered apostles, since they were polygamists and could not have even been a deacon or elder. How can one who is unable to be a deacon be considered an apostle? He can’t. End of story.
One More Reason Joseph Smith is a False Prophet
October 13, 2009 by Andrew
30 Responses
Leave a Reply
Message to Readers
-
Recent Posts
-
Recent Comments
-
-
Archives
Apparently with this approach you have already convinced them that their other “scriptures” are not inspired (as is the Bible). Otherwise they will invoke continuing revelation just as they did when they changed their revelation about blacks and the priesthood.
Rick
It all depends on how much they really believe the Bible. The problem that they don’t want to admit is that new revelations in the past never contradicted old revelation. There is no biblical precedent. They could argue that this is part of the Bible that has been tampered with, but history shows that this would have happened in the other direction -barring married men from the ministry.
Just a thought
Sircumstances change. Now, we do not know when Moses’ first wife, Zipporah, died, but in Numbers 12: 1we read that he married an Ethiopian woman. He was a prophet. Jacob had four wives and was a prohet.
Reading about the deacons having one wife we must remember the times and conditions under which Paul was writing, especially earthly governments that had power in the area.
First, it was under the rule of Rome, and Rome had basically outlawed Polygamy. It was also among the Jews in other nations, which had the law and tradition that a man must be married to enter the ministry.
Thus, to comply with Earthly Laws (render unto Ceaser) they are counseled to have only one wife, and to make it easier for the jews to accept the gospel, to be married.
However, in the last days (1800’s and on) such laws were not in place among the Earthly governments, and there was no tradition of marriage among ministers. Circumstances have changed, meritting a change in minor areas.
Both of your arguments are poor.
Moses lived before Paul and was not subject to what Paul wrote, since it had not yet been written. Moses was also an Israelite with a proven lineage. There are two other problems: the text does not tell us whether Zipporah was still alive, and Zipporah may have been the Cushite, since Habakkuk 3:7 connects Cushan with Midian.
The reason the LDS did away with polygamy was because the US government told them they would or they would be wiped out. Your government argument doesn’t work. If anything, polygamy was MORE and not LESS acceptable in Roman times. The US government has always forbidden polygamy.
JS lived after Paul and was subject to the Scripture written by him. He was not qualified to be a deacon or elder, much less an apostle or prophet.
Andrew
Read your history. Polygamy was not outlawed in the United States until the 1860’s. In fact, the republican party ran on the platform of abolishing the two forms of barbarism “Slavery and Polygamy.” You can read this in their platform for 1860.
Thus, the laws did not forbid the practice, and in general people had never considered the idea.
As to Moses, what you said is to simply agree with me. Moses was not bound by what Paul said. Now, your reason is because he lived before Paul, which is a poor reason if God is the same “yesterday, today and forever.” What I said, concerning the circumstances of the times is much more likely, which would allow for a change in our day as circumstances have again changed.
As to Zipporah, I will not argue that she could have been a Cushite, but then I never said she couldn’t. However, I will say she was not a Ethiopian, for Ethiopia is in Africa, not the Middle East. And it was an Ethiopian woman that Moses Married.
Sorry, I have looked into things a little more and I see what you are saying. However, I would then ask why Aaron and Miriam felt justified in challenging Moses because he married Zipporah, as it was the marriage to this woman that sparked the controversy.
Also, the Habakkuk reference does not use the name of Cushan to refer to Midian. In verse six he speaks of the effect on all nations, and so in verse seven he is giving two examples. He saw “the tents of Cushan in affliction: and the curtains of the land of Midian did tremble.” One nation in affliction, another trembling.
Thus, again, Zipporah could not have been this second wife, for one was from Midian and the other from Cush (Ethiopia). One from the east side of the Red Sea, and one from the west side.
Hab 3 is Hebrew poetry, which often uses restatement. Line 2 is simply a rephrasing of line 1. Habakkuk is looking back to the exodus and conquest of the Promised Land. Cush is traditionally thought of as Ethiopia, but there is still the option that Cush and Midian are the same place. Neither idea necessitates that this is Moses’ second wife, that he was a polygamist, or that he is held to Paul’s words to the Church.
Miriam and Aaron’s challenge of Moses is probably more likely connected to the peoples’ complaints in the previous chapter. They were just looking for a fault that they could use to justify their protests. It’s like the ACLU waiting for someone to complain about someone praying in school, since they know they can’t sue if they don’t have a client.
The law for Moses was different than for Paul. If this is not clear, then you should spend more time reading the Bible (esp. Galatians). Paul says he is not under the Law, and discourages circumcision. Keep in mind that much of the Law given to Moses was for a theocratic state.
Andrew
Cush and Midian are not the same nation. Cush was a son of Ham, and the Cushites are those descended from him. Midian was a son of Abraham, and is thus descended from Shem. They are two separate nations.
However, even with the idea that they could be the same, the idea is only supported by that one verse in Habakkuk, and nothing else. Historically Cush refers to Ethiopia. Thus, to use this as an example of a man who lived polygamy, but we know as a prophet is not wrong, nor is it unlikely.
Now, even if it was I still have to question how Aaron and Miriam that that his marriage to Zipporah would justify such opposition. He had married Zipporah long before this time, and before he had been called as prophet to Israel. He was married to her when Aaron joined him as his spokesman. He was married to her during the plagues of Egypt. Her father, Jethro, was a High Priest of God. So, why after all these years did they object tot he marriage, and use it against Moses? This seems to show a great stupidity in both of them, and the people would not have excepted this.
It is far more likely that this was a marriage to a second wife, recently entered into, and thus something that could be easily used.
Then, your assertion that Moses was not under the same Law as Paul does nothing to help the argument against Joseph Smtih. If Moses and Paul were under different Laws, why couldn’t Joseph Smith be under a different Law than Paul? You give no reason for this.
Moses is prior to Paul, and not a leader of the Church. We don’t know if his wife was alive at this time or not. All we are left with is assumptions.
Joseph Smith is after Paul and according to LDSs was a leader of the “church.” There is no reason to believe that Paul’s commands for church leaders do not apply to him.
Andrew
You are just being silly. Moses wasn’t a leader of the Church? He was the leader, in all things temporal and spiritual, until he died. He was the prophet, a man called to deliver God’s law to Israel. Of course he was a leader of the church.
The only way your assertion that he wasn’t could possiblly be true is if the church didn’t exist prior to Christ, which would suggest that God has changed, which we know cannot be true. The Church and God has existed since the days of Adam, and will exist through-out eternity. Any man called to lead the faithful, no matter in what age of the world, is a leader of God’s Church.
(and if you don’t like the Moses example, since it is true that his first wife may have been dead, take the example of Abraham and Jacob)
As to what you say about what Paul taught applying to Joseph, there is the very simple reason that I gave. God has commanded to “render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser’s.” In the days of Paul the Romans did not like Plural Marriage, and in many places had outlawed it. In every place else it discouraged. Thus, for the People to “Render unto Ceaser” they had to follow the law. Since it was law in only some places Paul gave the counsel that all saints live by it to ensure unity.
Just as it was in America. It was not illegal when it began. However, when it became illegal God discontinued it in the United States so that Utah could join the Union. However, it was several years later that it discontinued in the rest of the world in order to keep unity. Even today there are nations that allow such marriage, but we do not practice it because not all are able.
The reasoning is perfectly sound.
If it is about unity, then you are absolutely wrong. There has been no Christian Church that has ever practiced polygamy. It’s not about unity, but about God’s design for marriage; two become one flesh.
Multiple wives were never encouraged in the Old Testament. It was never made into a commandment, but it always had adverse effects. Notice the thorn in the patriarchs’ sides their many wives were. Notice God’s command to future kings in Deuteronomy 17 not to take too many wives. Note Solomon’s disobedience leading to idolatry. Polygamy was never commanded by God, goes against His design for marriage, and is always a hindrance to His people.
BTW, Moses was 80 years old when Israel left Egypt. It is highly likely his first wife was dead.
ANDREW
Not when they left Egypt, because it was after they left that Jethro brought his first wife to Isreal, along with his children.
(see Exodus 18)
As to plural marriage, let us examine a few things.
First: All the strife that we read about concerning plural marriage in the Old Testiment comes because one wife couldn’t have children, not because there were more than one wife. The exception being Leah, Jacob’s first wife, who used trickery to get married to him, so their marriage started on a bad note.
As to encouraging it, or commanding it, let us examine the Old Testiment.
First, Exodus 21: 7-11 we read regulations protecting women who are part ofplural marriages.
Exodus 22: 16-17 tells us that a man who sleeps with a woman who is not claimed by another is to marry her. It does not exempt a married man from this. The father does have the right to deny such, but it says nothing against the woman becoming a plural wife of the man.
Deuteronomy 25: 5-10 teachings the law of the Near Kinsman (which is shown again in the story of Ruth). It this law the brother marries the widow of his childless brother. Again, it does not exempt a married man from performing the duty of “a husband’s brother” to her. Now, the man can refuse, but in such a case it was considered a disgrace, and was given a very public humiliation at the hands of the scorned woman.
2 Samuel 12: 8 we read that God gave David many wives. Why would God give him many wives if Plural Marriage was against his law.
While there are no direct commandments to take plural wives it seems obvious from these references that such was accepted and approved by God, and was a prefered way in many instances.
The only places in which we read a condemnation of plural marriage is in the taking of “strange wives” or those not of the Covenant line, and in the taking of too many wives. This is seen in the phrase of “multiply wives unto them” which indicates whoredoms, or the desire to have wives in order to satify fleshly lusts, which is condemned.
I really don’t care what you believe, but I see great support for plural marriage in the Old Testiment, and considering the circumstances of the New Testiment I have no problem with the change.
I didn’t mean Moses’ first wife was dead when they left Egypt, but may have been afterward when the event in question took place. Evidence that something existed is not evidence that it is approved by God. God also made laws that rapists married their victims. That doesn’t mean rape was approved by God, but by your logic that’s where you wind up. If you read the OT that way, you miss the point.
The commands for levirate marriage aren’t really about marriage as much as producing an heir and taking care of the widow. God’s concern for the seed of men is pervasive in the OT, and this should be understood in this light. God’s concern for widows and women is also evident. Levirate marriage ensures that a widow has an heir to take care of her in her old age. The law commanding a rapist to marry his victim is evidence of the same concern. A woman who had been publicly shamed by rape would likely never marry in ancient society, and God provides a path to redeem and provide in the midst of sin. This is the same thing He does at the cross. He turns the ugliness of sin into redemption and provision.
Andrew
You don’t really see the logic of what I say if you can claim what you do.
Does God approve of Rape or fornication? Of course not. But why would he inact a law that would likey result in plural marriage if he wanted such practices forbidden.
My logic states that in the Old Testiment the practice of Plural Marriage was seen a social remedy for the evils that could be committed. Yes, such acts are wrong, but if Plural Marriage is also wrong than you would have God ordering a second evil because the first was committed. It is illogical. The only really logical conclusion, based on the texts of the Bible, is that God saw plural marriage as at least accepted under certain circumstances. He never once condemns a man for taking plural wives, and makes laws that can easily force them do it. He must have a positive outlook on the idea or it would have been banned.
Also, you never addressed the statement that God gave David many wives. This had nothing to do with Rape, or an heirless sister. He was given many wives by God as a blessing to him.
Thus, with both things put together, plural marriage was not a bad practice in the eyes of God.
God allowing plural marriage was a result of the interaction of the law with real life situations. His first priority is the two greatest commandments. The rest of the law is summed up in these. It was more loving in the ancient context to raise up an heir for your brother and take care of his widow, than to shun her because you are already married.
The NT sets the bar higher. Lust is called adultery. Hatred is called murder. God calls His people to this higher standard, and one wife for church leaders is part of this standard. JS fails this standard, among others.
Where are you referring to that it says God gave David more wives? 2 Sam 5 and 1 Chron 14 do not give us God’s judgment on David’s wives in Jerusalem. Prior to this, he had two wives. His second wife was a widow.
Andrew
2 Samuel 12: 8
And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
God is listing the blessings he has given to David, among which are many wives, woman who were the wives of other men. God gave them into his bosom, or to be his wives.
Yes, this chapter continues with the evil David committed, but this verse is very clear that all these wives were approved and given to David by God.
As to plural marriage being allowed, your logic seems very odd. It really sounds like God set up the Law without realizing that it would result in plural marriage, and after he had made the mistake he just left it until Christ came.
Now, I doubt you actually meant this, but it does sound like this.
So, what you are saying is that under the Law of Moses this was all allowed, but was changed at the time of Christ.
I do see one flaw with this. Jacob and Abraham did not live under the Law of Moses, and yet they had plural wives.
Now, I understand that you most likely believe that all people who lived before Christ were all under the same law. However, I have to disagree.
In Hebrews 4: 2 “For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.”
We know from chapter 3 that he is speaking of Israel when Moses brought them out of Egypt. Thus from this we know that the same gospel taught by Christ was taught to ancient Israel first, but because of unbelief it was taken and replaced with the Law of Moses.
Now, as far as I can tell the original Law was given before the rebelion at mount Sinai. After this the law was altered to the lower spiritual capacity of Israel.
Now, I do understand that you may not agree with this, but all I am really doing is showing you why the argument of haing only one wife really means nothing to a person who understands LDS doctrine and believes it. You already don’t believe he is a prophet, so this is fine support or you, but it will not convince anyone who does believe he is a prophet, so there just seems to be little point in it.
You still have the problem with time line. Moses and David are before Paul, and not bound to his regulation. All those after Paul who consider themselves a part of the Church are bound by his ruling.
I have no problem of timeline because timeline doesn’t matter, and that is my point.
The same Gospel taught by Paul was had by Adam down to Joseph. It was then given to Moses to go to Israel, but because of a lack of faith it was taken, and a lesser gospel was given. The original was restored at the time of Christ, and again with Joseph Smith.
Thus, the same spiritual laws that Paul was bound by were also binding on Abraham and Jacob, both of whom had plural wives. The only difference was that in the time of Abraham and Jacob such practice was not only done, but accepted, but at the time of Paul and the Roman occupassion of Palestine it was not.
It does not matter in what order things happened, only the circumstances present when they happened.
You have a SERIOUS problem of time line. Hebrews 4 does not say the gospel was taken, but that it did not benefit Israel because they did not believe. What was to be the object of their faith? The same that it has been since the Fall. In Genesis 3:15, God promised that there would be a seed of the woman who would rise to crush the head of the seed of the serpent, thereby rolling back the curses. There are echoes of this hope throughout the OT (i.e. Gen 5:29), but ultimately it points toward Christ.
The gospel in every era is salvation by grace through faith in God’s promised sacrifice for sin. Under the old covenant, this sacrifice was the blood of sheep and goats, looking forward to the day when the perfect Lamb of God would be slain on our behalf. Once Christ died for our sins, there was no longer a sacrifice for those living under the Law. This is why it was written “Abraham believed (believe/had faith are the same Greek word) God and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Unless you remove the object of that faith, namely Jesus Christ, the gospel cannot be removed.
Paul warns of another gospel in Galatians 1, which is precisely what Joseph Smith proclaimed. And what did Paul say about the one who preaches this gospel? “Let him be damned!”
I just noticed that while polygamy may not have been outlawed by the US government, it WAS illegal in Illinois when JS practiced it. So your argument fails on that account again. If you argue that Paul said one wife because polygamy was illegal in Rome, then it is inconsistent to even do it as “civil disobedience” (i.e., FAIR’s argument).
Here’s an interesting link: http://www.i4m.com/think/polygamy/polygamy_illegal.htm
Andrew
What Hebrews 4 states is that the same Gospel taught by Paul was originally taught to ancient Israel. This is important because the Law of Moses is not the same as the Gospel taught by Paul that was restored by Christ.
In Matthew 19: 7-9 we read “They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”
There are other examples given by Christ that show quite deffinitely that the Gospel he taught, and the Law of Moses were two very different things. Moses gave a lesser law because the people had not the faith necessary to obey the higher laws which Christ taught. But, according to Paul, these higher laws were originally taught to the People by Moses. It would than follow that the change occured during Moses’ lifetime, and thus to say that the same Gospel as taught by Paul was had by Abraham and Jacob is logical, and thus the argument I give is perfectly sound.
For this same reason I do not think that the animal sacrifices have ended, but the time will come when that ordinance will again be performed by the Levites, an acceptable offering. However, as with other ordinances, do to circumstances this has been temporarily discontinued.
(please give a reference for the Il law you speak of)
US Supreme Court outlawed bigamy/polygamy in 1878. It was years before the “revelation” to stop practicing. Illinois law said:
“Sec 121. Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. If any person or persons within this State, being married, or who shall hereafter marry, do at any time marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive, the person so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine, not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in the penitentiary, not exceeding two years. It shall not be necessary to prove either of the said marriages by the register or certificate thereof, or other record evidence; but the same may be proved by such evidence as is admissible to prove a marriage in other cases, and when such second marriage shall have taken place without this state, cohabitation in this state after such second marriage shall be deemed the commission of the crime of bigamy, and the trial in such case may take place in the county where such cohabitation shall have occurred.”
Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, p.198-99
Your Moses and the Law argument is a complete non sequitur (conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise). You are completely missing what the gospel is, and the meaning of sacrifice in biblical theology. Jesus said he was the fulfillment of the Law & Prophets, which is a shorthand way of saying the OT Scriptures (Matthew 5:17, Luke 24:44-47). The OT law was a foreshadowing of Christ, and the sacrifice was only a shadow of his death on the cross.
The gospel is that men are saved by faith in the promises of God. This is why the Scripture says, “Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness (Gen 15:6; Rom 4:3; etc.).” The LORD said that the Jews could be saved by doing the Law (Lev 18:5). It was not that their works saved them, but that their faith in God’s promises caused them to do the Law. Part of doing the Law, was the provision of sacrifice to atone for sin. This was a temporary institution until the promised sacrifice should come, and the sacrifice could be fulfilled in Christ. The full gospel was preached to the Jews: you are saved by faith in the promises of God, in anticipation of the future provision of one who will roll back the curses (cf. Gen 5:29 where Lamech hopes that Noah will be the one).
The whole aim was to reverse the curses of Genesis 3: seed, land, and the enmity with the serpent. In Genesis 12:1-3 God initiates this through the seed of Abraham, promising Abraham seed, land, and blessings for those who bless him (seed of the woman)/curses for those who curse him (seed of the serpent). Paul says that Christ is the seed (singular) of Abraham in whom these blessings are fulfilled. The curses are finally rolled back in Jesus, and a new Eden is being prepared.
The entire Bible portrays the people of God as seed of the woman and the rest as seed of the serpent. This is the reason behind the stark contrasts between the righteous and the wicked in such passages as Psalm 1-2. In Genesis, God places a Garden in Eden. Eden is the wider land, and the Garden is located within this land. The Garden is the place where God dwells with man. Man is charged with guarding and caring for the Garden. The same two verbs are later used to describe the role of priests in the Tabernacle. I believe these are the only instances these verbs appear in the OT. The picture is that the Temple/Tabernacle is the Garden and the Promised Land is Eden. The Garden/Temple/Tabernacle is the place where God dwells with man.
In John 2, Jesus says that he is the Temple, and the NT says that the Body of Christ (the Church) is the Temple. It is the place where God, through His Holy Spirit dwells with man. There are numerous other points of contact between the Garden, Temple, and Church. The Temple contained the ark of the covenant, which held the Law. In Jeremiah 31:31-34, the new covenant says that the Law will be written on the innermost parts of believers. Jesus, at the Last Supper says that he is initiating the new covenant “in [his] blood.”
There is no need for a new sacrifice to remove sin. Jesus has done so once and for all. Remember his words on the cross, “It is finished.” Hebrews says that he is our High Priest, but no longer is it necessary for him to go in to make sacrifices. The sacrifice is finished, and Jesus sits at the right hand of God as one who has finished his work. We are looking forward to the day about which John wrote, “And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb (Rev 21:22).”
Andrew
You say nothing new, and you fail to address the obvious differences between the Law of Moses and the Gospel taught by Christ. Like most Christians you are hung up the overly simplified concept of faith for salvation and thus you miss what is obviously written in the Bible.
First, Christ never did away with the law of the Old Testiment, but fulfilled that part of the law that was added in the Time of Moses, or the Law of Moses. In doing so he brought the fulness of the Gospel, as he quite obvious taught things that were not had by the ancient Israelites (such as the divorce quote I gave).
Now, I am not trying to convince you of anything, except that your narrow interpretation of the Bible is not the only interpretation possible. You claim that what I say is impossible and your only evidence is that you interpret the words differently. I really don’t care. As I said, you can have your interpretation, but it is only going to serve in strengthening your own ideas, not in persuading others.
There are other ways to see and interpret the words of the Bible, and in the way that I have shown, which is very logical and not unique to the LDS church, the accusation against Joseph Smith for having many wives is meaningless.
And when I asked for a reference to the Illinois Law I was hoping for a link to an official page that I could find it on, not just a quote.
You know the Illinois bigamy law is out there. You can do your own research. If you were interested in the truth, you would do so.
The Tablets of the Law are given in Ex 20. The golden calf incident doesn’t appear until Ex 32. There was not a first and second Law. They were both the same. Your argument cannot fit the presentation of Exodus.
You misunderstand Jesus’ discussion of divorce. If you read Deut 24, verse 1 is case law: “when” such and such happens. The actual law is found in verse 4: “then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance.”
This is what Jesus is getting at. God was not making a law about/encouraging divorce, but a law to govern remarriage to a former wife who has married another man. Jesus was clarifying the 1st century misinterpretation by demonstrating the purpose of marriage.
First, I never said it wasn’t law, nor did I say I didn’t believe you. However, I was hoping you could give me an easy access to that law.
However, from what you quote the law was unconstitutional anyway. It states that even if a man received plural wives legally in another state they would not be recognized by Il, which is in direct conflict with the “Full Faith and Credit” clause in the United States constitution, which states that all legal contracts and documents of one state are to be accepted by every other state.
Second, I really don’t care, though I will agree that it does make my previous argument a little less forceful.
As to the separate laws, if you will read a little farther you will see some very odd contrasts between the first law given in Exodus 20 and that given after the first was destroyed. Primarily the addition of the many rituals and sacrifices that were not part of the law before the destruction of the first tables. This is shown in the additional ceremonial aspects of the feast of Unleavened bread (compare Ex 12: 15 with Lev. 23: 10-14). Also, special sacrifices were added during New Moons.
However, the divorce example is still good, as your explanation fails at truly addressing anything that Christ said on the subject.
In Deuteronomy Moses gives a law governing Divorce, which permits a divorce if the husband is unhappy with his wife, but forbids him from remarrying her if she first marries another.
However, what Christ is saying is that in divorcing her in the first place was not part of the original law. He is addressing verse 1 of Deut. 24, not verse three, for he is no longer permitting a divorce except in the case of fornicaiton. If divorce is not permitted there is no need to address the remarrying aspect, as that would not come up.
The difference is there, and can be read by anyone who really wants to read it.
Personally, if you choose not to believe it that is fine, you have that right. But don’t tell me it cannot be found in the Bible, because it can, and quite easily too.
You can argue all your life that I have the wrong interpretation of the words, but you cannot prove it. Now, I cannot prove you are wrong either, so both sides are at a loss.
Again, I will say that if you want to use these arguments against Joseph Smith they are only going to work with those who already have not faith in the man, but they will not work with those who do believe in him, because we see the scriptures in a very different way than you do.
You didn’t address a single one of the arguments I made. You danced around every one of them. Your final position exposes the problem: if you have accepted Joseph Smith as your prophet, you will only see the Bible through his eyes. It will be impossible for anyone to prove you wrong, not because you’re not wrong, but because you are bound to Smith’s interpretation. That is precisely the problem. You are bound by traditions of a man, not by the Bible.
That verse, taken literally, would disqualify singles as well from being elders…
Marc,
The NT seems to say that there were single men who were elders. I think Paul is saying not having more than one wife, but not going on the other side to less than one wife.
This has been fun, but it is getting little to long and tedious, so I am going to end now.