Please consider supporting this podcast:
If polygamy is of God, and is the higher law, necessary for exaltation, then it follows that Jesus, of course, must have been a polygamist. In this episode we’ll discuss the strongest claims of Jesus’s polygamy and see how they hold up to scrutiny.
Links
Jedediah M. Grant quote: Journal of Discourses Volume 1, Pages 355-346
Orson Hyde quote: Journal of Discourses Volume 4, Pages 259-260
Aurulius Cornelius Celsus
2nd Century Celsus
Ogden Kraut: Polygamy in the Bible
Anne Wilde Gospel Tangents interview
Great Bible Psalms 45
“Kynges daughters were among thy honorable wemen: vpon thy ryght hande dyd stande the quene in a vesture of gold.”
Transcript
[00:00:00] Welcome to 132 Problems revisiting Mormon Polygamy, where we explore the scriptural and theological case for plural marriage. I always recommend listening to each of these episodes in order since they each cover very different. And important, um, problems involved in the case of polygamy and starting with just one won’t give you a full idea of what we’re really talking about. But for those who are here, welcome. My name is Michelle Stone, and this is episode 27, where we’ll consider the question, was Jesus a polygamist? I think you’re really going to like this one. Thank you for joining us as we take a deep dive into the murky waters of Mormon polygamy. I admit I was surprised when I first encountered this argument in defense of polygamy because it was so unexpected and foreign to me. It seemed so strange. Even growing up as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I had never encountered the idea that Jesus was a polygamist. But as soon as I started engaging with it, I realized that it is a critical question for the case of plural marriage. If plural marriage, celestial marriage, polygamy is indeed the highest law and this and the central part, the central part of the gospel that is necessary for exaltation as all polygamists and defenders of polygamy universally claim that it is. Then Jesus, who lived a perfect life, obeyed every law, his own laws, and fulfilled every commandment, must necessarily have been a polygamist. So I hope that argument makes sense. I think there’s actually a lot to it. So it has taken a lot of research, a lot of study, a lot of digging to really understand the supports for this claim. And that’s what we’re going to go into in this episode. I think that you will be surprised to, it’s kind of like this, it’s taking uh like dandelion seats and going. That’s about how, how good these defenses are. So we’re gonna have fun with this. So, OK, the best sources that I have found for this claim are two addresses from the Journal of Discourses, one by Jedediah M. Grant called University Uniformity that was given August 7th of 1853, and another talk given by Orson Hyde. It’s undated and unnamed, but based on its position in the Journal of Discourses, I assume it was most likely given in March of 1857. So, um, That talk, reading through that one, wow, I think at, at some point in the not too distant future, we are going to do a full episode on that talk because we need to cover some of the deeply troubling aspects of that talk and some of the traditions that it’s Firmly established based on this idea of polygamy that we continue to follow today. I think it’s important for us to wake up more and more to how these ideas still haunt us today. So, um, anyway, we’ll look at those two talks. And then one more thing, uh, in all of my years of studying polygamy, I have many times kind of consistently asked, who are the very best scholars or writers or researchers on polygamy. I wanted to encounter the very best arguments. And The answer universally seemed to be Ogden Kraut. He wrote over 65 books defending polygamy and is considered, well, I don’t know if they were all on polygamy, but he wrote over 65 books on gospel topics, and he is considered to be the foremost scholar on polygamy the polygamy.
[00:03:39] Theology. So we’re going to look specifically at two of his books that make this claim. One is called Jesus Was Married, and the second is Polygamy in the Bible, which also, that book will at some point be its own expanded episode, at least one episode, because there is a lot to say about that book. So, OK. Let’s, let’s read these talks from the Journal of Discourses and of course, if anyone knows of any sources that I have missed cause I have not read the entire Journal of Discourses. I’ve just done my best to search keywords. If there’s anything I’ve missed, please share it with me, and I will be happy to add it, acknowledge it, do a new episode, or put it in the notes. OK, so this is from the Journal of Discourses volume 1, page 345 and 346. And I will be more timely this time about attaching these um sources in the show notes. I’m sorry it took me a little while last time. Hey, this is what Jedediah M. Grant said. If you will believe the writers that lived in that age, meaning the time of Christ, what does old Celsus say, who was a physician in the first century whose medical works are esteemed very highly at the present time? His works on theology were burned with fire by the Catholics. They were so shocked at what they called their impiety. Celsus Celsus was a heathen. And what does he say upon the subject of Christ and his apostles and their belief? He says, and he’s quoting, The grand reason why the Gentiles and philosophers of his school persecuted Jesus Christ was because he had so many wives. There were Elizabeth and Mary and a host of others that followed him. He, according to Celsus, had a number, a numerous train of wives. The The reason of the burst of public sentiment and anathema upon Christ and His disciples causing his crucifixion was evidently based upon polygamy, according to the testimony of the philosophers who rose in that age. A belief in the doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might almost think they were Mormons. OK, that’s what Jenadiah Grant claims. So this one, I, I confess I shouldn’t have so much fun with it, but I was just like, holy cow! So, OK, Jeddiah Grant claimed there was a first century philosopher named Celsus who he quotes to say that it was it was polygamy that was the reason for the persecution of Jesus. There are so many problems, it’s hard to know where to begin. First, so here’s a bit of a history lesson. Hopefully it’s edifying and useful. I like knowing things. OK, Celsus, who, OK, there are two ancient writers named Celsus. Aurelius Cornelius Celsus, we’re not sure if his first name is Aurelius or Ari. He was a Roman encyclopedia. He wrote an encyclopedia who lived from 25 BC to 50 AD, according to our best estimation. So that was during the life of Christ. And then there was the Greek philosopher and vehement anti-Christian Celsus, who lived during the 2nd century. It’s believed he wrote his work opposing Christianity between 170 and 180 AD, right? So these Two writers were separated by well over 100 years. All right. It seems that Jedediah M. Grant, who lived in Frontier, Utah and had limited access to libraries,
[00:06:59] I don’t, I don’t know how he even got access to this, but he didn’t seem to know that there were two different writers named Celsus. He just lumps them all in together and then makes these wild claims. So he didn’t bother to specify which Celsus he’s quoting because apparently he didn’t know that there were 2. Um, and he didn’t provide any source at all that he says this, but there’s nothing to back it up that you can go look up. So Ogden Kraut, who quotes Grant, he, um, um, Jedediah M. Grant as the authoritative source on Jesus being a polygamist, he doesn’t get such a pass because he did have access to better information, but he apparently didn’t care to do any fact checking. And he wasn’t above fabricating sources. So I’m assuming that since Grant said that Celsus lived during the time of Jesus, that’s why Kraut thought it was safe to attribute the quote to the first Celsus, which he very, like, arrogantly. But fraudulently does in his book Jesus was Married. So here are the problems. The first Celsus, really Cornelius Celsus never wrote anything at all about Jesus. It is extremely unlikely that he even knew anything at all about Jesus. Our best guess, we don’t know for sure, but our best guess is that he lived in Gaul, which is present day France. That’s based on the type of vine included in his write that his writings mentioned that is was native to that area. So, If that’s the case, in any case, France is 3000 miles, almost 3000 miles from Jerusalem, and this particular Celsus died less than 20 years after Jesus died, and before the gospel would have been brought that far, even by the very great efforts of Paul. But in any case, he never wrote anything about Jesus or Christianity. He, we have one of his works that survives it. Called the Medicina or the, the Medical Journal. It is, um, it’s one of the best sources of medical knowledge in the Roman world and is believed to be the only surviving section of a much larger encyclopedia, which likely included volumes on agriculture. Someone else referred to his writing on agriculture. That’s why we think that agriculture law, rhetoric and military arts. So, so I know this might be confus. This first Celsus, who lived during the time of Christ, who wrote the medical journal that still survives that Grant is referring to, he never said anything about Jesus, and we don’t have any of his surviving works. And the Catholic Church didn’t destroy any of his works. So, right? So that’s clear. Then the other Celsus, who was the only one this quote could possibly be attributed to and who lived over 100 years. Later, he wrote a scathing criticism of Christianity called The True Word, which no longer exists. And we only know of it because of a refutation written in 248 AD. So, what, 50 years later, more, more than 50, like 70 years later, written by Origin of Alexandria, O R I G E N. I’m assuming that’s origin of Alex. Andrea. It’s called contra Celsum or against Celsus and it quotes extensively things that were written in the true word by Celsus, right? So that’s how we have access to what Celsus wrote. We don’t have any of his actual words. We just have
[00:10:24] the refutation that quotes it. So I assume that in some way that’s who Grant has to be talking about, although he said that Celsus wrote medical journals and lives lived at the time of Christ. You see the confusion. OK, so, um, I admit I did not read the entire translation of Contramelsum by Contraelsum from start to finish, but I did read multiple summaries of it and I looked it up. And the keyword searches for any words that might possibly prove this quote or anything at all like it. I came up completely dry and I spent a lot of time on it. So unless someone can show me Where this quote is and where I missed it, I feel extremely confident in saying this Celsus did not in any way claim that Jesus was a polygamist. He said nothing, nothing at all of the kind, nothing along those lines. And um what is Even more amusing is that um if this Celsius did make this claim, it would not work in anybody’s favor because Celsus would would not be reviewed, would not be viewed as a reliable or desirable source. He hated Jesus and he hated Christianity. Among many other things, he harshly criticized the virgin birth. Here’s a quote. Let us imagine what a Jew, let alone a a philosopher, might say to Jesus. Is it not true, good sir, that you fabricated the story of your birth from a virgin to quiet rumors about the true and unsavory circumstances of your origins? Um, here is another quote. He said, Christianity is for hysterical women, children, and idiots. So this Celsus, I guess, is the source. I, I, I mean, I just don’t even know what to do with this. The, the, um, the, and like I said, he said nothing about Jesus, Jesus’ wives at all, let alone him being a polygamist. The last possibility I thought of is that the claim was not made by Celsus but maybe said by origin in his refutation. But again, I searched for it. I searched the closest thing I could find to anything about women at all was this, um, origin wrote, for such was the charm of Jesus’ words that not only were men willing to follow him into the wilderness, but women also forgetting the weakness of their sex and a regard for outward propriety and thus following the teacher into desert places. So, um, there is truth to that, that back in those days when there weren’t public bathrooms, there weren’t forgive me, but there weren’t things like Tampons or other useful women’s um toiletries, it was very difficult for women to travel. Um, women did not often travel and so that’s why it was so remarkable that they did out of their love for the word of Jesus, right? And he also makes a case to say that They did it because they love the word of Jesus just like the men did. They didn’t do it because they were Jesus’s wives. So, OK, so that’s, that’s the only thing I could find at all about women following Jesus in any way. So there is nothing anywhere in the writings of
[00:13:30] either of either of the two cells Celsuss or origin that would in any way support Jedediah M. Grant’s made up quote, or Ogden Kraut’s repeating of it. It is truly, utterly and completely. ridiculous. It is erroneous, ignorant, fault, false, made up. It is completely made up. There is nothing to it. So, um, it seems that although Ogden Kraut never retracted this quote or his attribution of it to the first Celsus in his book, Jesus Was Married, I think it seems he did realize his mistake because in his later book, Polygamy and the Bible, He makes the same arguments about Jesus, but omits the grant, the Jedediah M. Grant quote. But he briefly mentions the second Celsus, for no apparent reason other than to show that he knows there’s a problem. So I guess that was kind of his way of going, oh shoot, I messed up. I better put the 2nd Celsius in. And And sadly this time he tells an even bigger lie, so he doesn’t really fix anything. He says, quote, one of the reasons he objected to Christ, speaking of the 2 Celsus, who despised Christianity, he says one of the reasons he objected to Christ was because he had so many wives, and yet, yet again, no reference is given. It is a complete lie. There is nothing like that anywhere, so I can only assume that he is still referencing um Jedediah M. Grant’s quote as the authority for this claim, but now he’s attributing it to the 2 Celsus. So, OK, so if anyone has any questions or thoughts on that, I, I just, I hope that you can see how truly, truly bad that argument is. So, OK, that’s the Jeddiah M. Grant one. Now the second one is Orson Hyde. And he said, it will be borne in mind that once on a time there was a marriage of Cana of Galilee, and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be discovered that no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha and the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the best of it. He at least gets the names of the supposed wives right. Um, Jedediah M. Grant says Elizabeth, I assume he means the father of, I mean, the mother of John the Baptist. I don’t even know what Elizabeth he’s referring to, but so at least Orson Hyde gets the potential wives’ names right. He goes on to say, I will venture to say that if Jesus Christ were now to pass through the most pious countries in Christendom with a train of women such as used to follow him, fondling about him, combing his hair, anointing him with precious ointment, washing his feet with tears and wiping them with the hair of their heads, and unmarried or even married, he would be mobbed, tarred and feathered, and rode, rode out not on an ass but on a rail. Huh, so that’s what Orson H Hyde says about Jesus and his wife. So, unlike Jedediah Grant, he doesn’t attempt to give any support for his
[00:16:30] claims other than his personal reading of these stories. So we will get into each of these claims more in in more detailed in response to Ogden Kraut’s book since he makes and expands on these same claims. But for now, Suffice to say that readers of the Bible since it was first written have seen no need to claim that each woman Jesus interacted with must have been his wife, or that every interaction is accurately described as quote fondling or in any other sensual terms. Other than Orson Hyde, readers of the Bible have seen no need to view these interactions with impropriety or as only acceptable between married couples. Orson he’s description. Honestly, it makes it sound like polygamous men, including Jesus, are just these gods of sex that have women hanging all over them. It reminds me of that super. Upsetting and offensive picture that I shared and let’s see that I shared in episode 8 about Isaiah 41. I hope you can remember the picture I’m talking about. I didn’t want to share it again so you can go look it up, but that’s what he’s making Jesus sound like. It is, it is just so awful. Um, so let’s see, I like, like I just we’ll get into this a little bit more later, but these claims truly are just Quite blasphemous actually and um not to mention just offensive to Jesus and to all women that we just hang on our husbands with all of our sister wives. I mean, uh, so OK. So we’re gonna move on. I spent way too much time. I spent way too many hours reading and refuting Ogden Kraut’s book. Uh, I spent a couple of all-nighters, and this is so long that I’ve had to cut most of it. So and like mean, fortunately, the claims aren’t that great, so not much is lost other than a lot of my time, but um. OK, the general review I would give for this book in whole Polygamy and the Bible, and forgive me, I, I really hate being harsh. That’s not my intention. I just am honestly appalled. I know what it’s like to get a harsh review, so. Forgive me, but this is, this was my kind of summary that I wrote up about this book. If I am determined to prove the truth of polygamy and I approach the Bible with only that intention and no limits on what I will twist or invent and no concern about any, uh, no concern about ignoring. Anything that refutes my desired outcome, and no concern about even making morally repugnant statements. What arguments can I possibly come up with to prove my claim? That’s how I feel he approached the writing of this book. And the last thing you’ll say is, and how many exclamation points can I use in the process? It’s really funny to see the like many, many, many exclamation points. It’s like what he lacks in actual logic or substance he makes up for with exclamation points. So it is an interesting read. I will put, you know, I will put, I YouTube won’t let me. Usually link, but you can just search Polygamy and the biopo by Ogden Kraut, and it’s all available online. All of his books are available online,
[00:19:50] which is really a great, um, a great resource for us. So, OK, but again, he is considered the foremost authoritative scholar on polygamy, and, um, Really quickly, I have heard someone has a few people have said that since we are no longer commanded to live this law, we are no longer no longer able to understand it. That’s one way that people explain it to themselves, but um. I just have to say that doesn’t hold up because as I said, Ogden Kraut relies very heavily on the claims and statements made by early church leaders. If anything, he tries to expand and strengthen their arguments. So he’s making the same arguments they made and making them better and stronger, and this is still what they are. So, so we just can’t excuse this in any way. All right. So we’re gonna go to Ogden Kraut’s Polygamy and the Bible. The New Testament, he starts talking about the New Testament in chapter 16. He, I, I did a big refutation on that first chapter about John the Baptist, but I’ll have to save it for another time. At least I learned a lot because I spent so much time on it. But um chapter 17 is called Jesus the rabbi, and the claim here is that Jesus was often called rabbi, and in Jewish law, a rabbi was required to be married. Therefore, Jesus was married. So here’s a quote from page 171. It was against the traditional and scriptural law for a rabbi to remain single. All right. So, first of all, this claim falls completely flat because even if it were true that Jesus were a rabbi and a rabbi were required to be married, which are pretty hard claims to prove, even that does nothing to prove that he was a polygamist, but he never even gets to that problem. So, um, I have, just speaking. Of wild claims. I have on more than one occasion, heard some argument that no one can clarify for me. It’s just like the shadow of an argument that Jesus was drawn or painted at times with a split beard, and that rabbis only would split their beard when they had multiple wives. And so, therefore, we know that Jesus was a polygamist. Again, Zero evidence. I’m just showing you the like level people will go to to claim this, like the ridiculous things that they will say with no evidence or support anywhere. So that’s kind of along the lines of what Ogden Kraut does. OK. First, he actually lies and cites verses where the apostles called Jesus master as evidence for them calling him rabbi. So I think he probably gets away with doing that because, um, John 1:38 clarifies that this is a term of respect. It says, they said unto him, rabbi, which is to say being interpreted master, where dwellest thou. So therefore, he takes it that he can say any case where they call him master, they’re actually calling him rabbi. So, but there are actually only 3 cases in the Bible, John 1:38, which I just read, John 3:2 and John 6:25, where um they actually called him rabbi or where it’s translated that way. So, um. Now, it’s important to note Jesus never refers to himself as rabbi, and in fact seems somewhat uncomfortable with how that title was used in that society. You remember Matthew
[00:23:01] 23:8-9. But be not ye called rabbi, for one is your master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren, and call no man your father upon the earth, for one is your father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters, for one is your master even Christ, but he that is greatest among you shall be. Servant. So, um, you know, so he never referred to himself that way and seemed to not give a rip roaring support for those titles. But, um, let’s see. And then the biggest problem with this claim that Ogden Kraut leaves out is, is what’s written in 1 Timothy 3:2 chapter 3, verse 2, and then also repeated in, I believe in Titus 1:5. So, Here I’ll just read part of that. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband to one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to honesty, given to hospitality, apt to teach, it goes on for several verses. Describing the requirements of church leaders, what kind of men they should look for to be leaders in the church. You’ll notice it said the husband of one wife. Um, the council repeated in Titus 15 ordained elders in every city as I had appoint to be. If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, again, it goes on from there to list all of the desirable qualities for leadership. Polygamists, it seems, were clearly not admired, and in any case, they were not considered worthy of church office. So interesting claim to make. Um, the rest of this chapter is actually the one I have the least disagreement with. He explains that celibacy is not part of God’s law, but that marriage is, and that celibacy was not referenced amongst the Jews. I personally don’t have a huge problem with the idea that Jesus was married. I, I Find some possibility there. He did obey God’s commandments. We know that the first commandment given was to marry, right? He commanded Adam and Eve to marry and to cleave to one another. And, um, so anyway, I’m, I’m personally fine with that idea. I would love to know your thoughts, but Again, the problem here is that Ogdenrat goes to great lengths to try to claim that Jesus was married, but that does nothing to prove that he was a polygamist, right? So, um, let’s see. OK, we’ll go on to chapter 18, which is called Jesus and the Law of Moses. This chapter is just Awful, awful. So I’ll just go over his main arguments. Um, it starts with the claim that if Jesus had been descended from polygamists, then polygamy obviously was OK,
[00:25:43] we’ll go into that later on when he brings it up in another chapter. I ended up skipping over the part where I was going to address this, so I’ll just share a couple of quick thoughts here. First, all we need to do is look at some of the other things that were in Jesus’s family line, which include adultery, actual murder, prostitution, slavery, genocide, and more, along with polygamy, saying that if it was in Jesus’s family line, it must therefore be approved of God is not a legitimate claim, and we should stop believing it. And secondly, it actually contradicts our very own second article of faith which says we believe that men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam’s transgression. None of us are held accountable for the sins of our ancestors. I don’t know why this argument even comes into play. It’s very strange. His main argument is given encapsulated in a quote from page 180. If it had been a heinous sin, then Christ would surely have spoken against it, speaking of polygamy. So he’s using the fact that Jesus never condemned polygamy directly to prove that. I, I guess to prove that it is the highest law of God and the highest commandment necessary for exaltation, uh, so I think in general, people need to be very careful with this line of reasoning because there are many things that Jesus did not condemn. I’m going to give two examples just because they have played a role in American history. Um, please note that I am not comparing these two things in any way. I’m just pointing out two topics that have been hotly and even violently disputed at different. Times in our nation without any direct guidance from Jesus. So maybe you can guess. So one is slavery, right? Jesus never spoke out against slavery. We fought fought a war about it. Both sides claiming that the Bible supported them. And the second is a current issue we are dealing with, with, which is homosexuality, which there are a variety of views on that, but nobody can look to Jesus as the authoritative source for their views because he didn’t say anything about it. So everybody has always been and is free to believe what they will on these topics, but nobody can point to the teachings of Jesus to support their views because he didn’t speak on them. So you cannot, what you cannot do, however, is say that Jesus not speaking on a topic is an evidence that he approves of it, and even commands it and that it is the order of heaven, right? If you’re going to say that about polygamy, then you would have to say that also about slavery and also about homosexuality, and who knows how many other things. That’s not a good line of reasoning. OK. He makes many other points basically claiming that we should still be living the law of Moses. So, um, we’ll just, we’ll just move on from that chapter cause there’s not much there. The next is the marriage at Cana, which is chapter 19. This is, this story is found in John chapter 2. There’s so much I wish I could go on to and go into on this story, but it isn’t necessarily about polygamy, so we’ll have to leave that. Leave that for another time. But this is Orson H Hyde’s strange claim, right? That, um, that this was Jesus’ marriage. And even, and again, even if it were true, it would do nothing to prove that Jesus was a polygamist, right? It was one
[00:29:01] wedding, one marriage. And so, but I don’t think that they make a very good case here at all. So I’ll read it from John 21 through 5 and the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there, and both Jesus was called and his disciples to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus said unto him, they have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour has not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants. Whatsoever he saith unto ye unto you do it. So the claim is that Jesus’s mother wouldn’t have assumed responsibility and gotten involved if she wasn’t the one responsible for the wedding, which she only would be if it were her son. So there are a lot of issues and problems here. If anyone, I love the way the Chosen handled this story. If, if anyone hasn’t watched that, I really highly recommend the series The Chosen. I think it is just beautiful and I really love the way that they portray these. These characters and these stories. So, but in any case, you really have to want to believe that this is Jesus’s wedding and come to it, like with a lot of motivated reasoning to make this case. And you have to ignore what the scriptures actually say. So first of all, it says that Jesus’s mother was there. It doesn’t say, make it sound at all like she was planning it, and that Jesus was called and his disciples to the marriage. So Jesus is not given any higher status than his. Disciples, they were, it just, they were all invited is what it really sounds like. Um, Mary tells Jesus, they have no wine. If it were Mary and Jesus’s party, if they were the ones preparing it, wouldn’t she say, We have no wine or we are out of wine, right? It’s, it’s all just really strange. The fact that she stepped in to help, I think is just very poor evidence that that means this must have been Jesus’s wedding. First of all, Any good woman who sees a need and has the ability to help, wants to help. I guess that’s not even specific to men women, any good person, right? It’s just that Mary is a woman and So we know that Mary was a good woman. She had the means to help. She knew Jesus could. So her saying, hey, can we help them does not in any way seem implausible to me. It’s, it’s, that’s very possible. So I think that claiming that this was necessarily her party or she wouldn’t have gotten involved is not, is not a good case. Even, even if we do want to claim that, that, um, that since she got involved, it, it must have been her event, which I don’t think the the narrative supports. It still could have been like one of Jesus’s siblings, right?
[00:31:36] There’s no evidence that it was Jesus’s wedding and usually like the governor of the feast from everything I read was a close friend of the groom. Who would be chosen to basically make sure things went well, that no one got drunken and riotous, that, you know, he was in charge of making sure that the feast went well, I assume so that the groom wouldn’t have to be bothered, right? It would be very strange to bother the groom at his wedding feast, take him away and give him a job to do. That is actually more opposed to anything I could read about Jewish tradition than assuming that That another woman could get involved and help with the problem she saw. So, um, OK, so let’s see, we’re going to, there, there is one thing that I do find interesting here, and that is uh the use of the word bridegroom, which will become more important throughout the writings of Ogden Cra. It seems that since Jesus is referred to as the bridegroom, therefore every time bridegroom is said, it must necessarily be. Talking about Jesus. So this is in, um, let’s see, verses 8 through 10. They called the governor of the feast, and, um, when he had tasted the water that was wine and he didn’t know where it was come from, he called to the bridegroom and sayeth unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine. And when men have well drunk, then that which is worse. But thou hast kept the good wine until now. So, um, So I think that that’s really interesting that, that because he says the bridegroom, that’s a big reason that it must have been Jesus. I think that focusing on this at all, really, well, first, OK, I’m gonna make two things. First of all, we have to be careful with the idea that every reference to the word bridegroom must be talking about Jesus because we know that lots of other men got married, right? And they would have been called the bridegroom. And I think it’s very strange to say. That it must necessarily have been Jesus, just because it says, um, that it was the bridegroom. But the other point I was going to make is that focusing on this really misses the point of this story. I think it’s so important, this miracle that Jesus turned water to wine, right? We look at Isaiah, oh, I should have looked at the reference I’m just going by memory here, but he says one of the condemnations that he prophesizes. Like your water, you have mingled with wine, your wine, you have mingled with water. Basically, he’s saying, you’re turning the wine to water, meaning you’re removing the power, right? Jesus comes and he turns the water to wine. He reverses that process in his first, um, miracle, which I think is deeply symbolic and important.
[00:34:10] And for us to just look at the story and ignore that and then even work. Say, oh, it was Jesus’s wedding. That’s the important part. Just so misses the mark that it’s, um, really, really not great. So I’m going to read one more thing that Ogden Kraut said. Um, oh, no, I’m not. Actually, I’m going to read what I find actually the strongest refutation of the claim that this is Jesus’s wedding. It’s verse 12, right after, um, he’s, he’s complimented on the wine or the bridegroom is. of the wine, he says, after this, he went down to Capernaum. He and his mother and his brethren and his disciples, and they continued there not many days. So his mother and his brother and his disciples are mentioned when he leaves, but not his bride, if this is his wedding. So right after the wedding, he left. No wedding night, no, let me see if I can say this right. Shiva, Yay. I, that’s how much research I did. That’s the traditional seven day resting and feasting of the bride and groom, in which they weren’t allowed to work or do anything. They spent time with family feasting at different houses that supposedly dates back to the times of patriarchs in Jewish history. So that would have, you know, if we’re going to look into Jewish wedding traditions, that would have been required. In any case, no honeymoon. I I mean this this is the same thing that King David did when he married Michael, right? So I researched and read a lot of information about Jewish wedding traditions, as I said, and there, while there were several variations, none of them left any room whatsoever for a groom to abandon his new bride after their wedding. So in my opinion, this verse alone disproves the case that this was Jesus’s wedding. This is here’s the quote from Ogden Kraut, one of his final in this chapter, page 201. If Jesus were not the bridegroom on this occasion, then it is strange that they did not mention who the bridegroom was. It is as plain as the scriptures can make it without actually revealing the name of Jesus as being the groom. That’s the kind of overstatement and male centric approach that you continue you encounter continually through his writing. So, Um, first of all, it’s not at all plain, um, and if it’s strange that the groom isn’t mentioned, isn’t it far more strange that the bride isn’t mentioned, right? Like weddings tend to be mainly about the bride, right? Here comes the bride. We don’t have a song about the groom anyway. So, so just I think that that’s the strength of his claim that should clarify that. OK, we’re going on to chapter 20, which I think is one of the more common arguments. It’s called Mary, Martha and Mary Magdalene. So it starts with John 11:5. Now, Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. This is a quote from page 203. If Mary and Martha were wives and Lazarus a brother-in-law,
[00:37:04] then Jesus did love them with a deeper and more intimate love that was so noticeable that John made mention of it. OK, so here he’s talking about John the beloved, who is called that because he is repeatedly referred to as the disciple whom Jesus loved, including in John 13:23. Now there was leaning on Jesus’s bosom, one of his disciples whom Jesus loved. So why are we reading so much into Jesus loving Mary and Martha and ignoring like what it that it says similar things about other people, right? Um, doesn’t, and, and also Lazarus was included. He loved Mary Martha and Lazarus. Doesn’t that kind of defeat the claim? What kind of intimate love do men usually have for their brother-in-law, right? Like. It’s just weird that Jesus isn’t allowed to love anybody, any woman, he’s allowed to love a man, but he’s not allowed to love a woman unless she’s married to him. Um, he goes on to describe the episode in Luke 10:40. Um, Martha was comforted about much serving and came to him and said, Lord, does that not care that my sister hath left me alone to serve? Bidd her therefore to help me. Here’s his commentary on page 204. How much like a wife to offer such a complaint to her husband. For who would suggest such a thing to a casual guest, especially to such a notable person? If Jesus were merely a visitor, what logical reason would cause Martha to ask this guest to impose the household obligations upon Mary? Certainly propriety and manners would have constrained such feelings after until after the guests had departed. No, these were emotions being expressed pertaining to household conduct which Martha felt should be corrected by the husband of the house. OK, um, so much here. So I know that a lot of people do tend to believe this claim that, you know, Martha wouldn’t have talked to Jesus about household things if if Jesus weren’t married to them. I just I, I, I, I won’t be able to address everything with this, but let me make one a couple of points. So apparently every time someone complained to Jesus or asked for his help, they had to be married to him. So in Luke 12:13, and one of the companies said unto him, Master, speak to my brother that he divide the inheritance with me. And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you? So men were free to um complain to Jesus about things that they thought were unfair with a sibling, but Apparently a woman wasn’t allowed to, or she had to be his wife, right? Um, let’s see. And, and, and, and she had to be accused of like that required sexual intimacy for a woman to speak to Jesus in a similar way. He then brings up Mary anointing Jesus’ feet with spikenard and wiping them with her hair. This is from 206 and 207. How much like a wife to weep and rest her head on the bosom of Jesus and anoint his body with costless with costly oil, with such profound devotion. He literally changes things here. It never says that Mary rested her head on the bosom of Jesus. Remember that was John, that was said about John the beloved. He just completely like, I don’t know if he’s just that ignorant or if he’s doing it on purpose
[00:40:29] to try to twist what the scriptures actually say. So, um, he follows, finishes this up with, if Jesus were not married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha manifest a much closer relationship than mere believers. His close associations with these two women were rather unbecoming or improper if they were not his wives. Indeed, the relationship with Mary and Martha had the closeness and the stamp of marriage. OK, so this is just such a troubling perspective to me. I just find myself asking why? Why couldn’t a female disci disciple who also loved her master do what was in her heart to show her love and appreciation? Why do we need to claim more than this? Why do we make these Like claims about women, right? It’s just so unfair to say, no, a man could do this, but a woman couldn’t because it would have been improper. So women weren’t allowed to follow Jesus. I just find this so upsetting. Peter certainly wanted to show his love for Jesus often enough, he was allowed to. Jesus Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss. I’m certain that if Jesus were female, that would prove that they were married and he would be the perfect like. Emma, right, that how they, how they made Emma the most wicked woman in the world. She would be like Judas, right? It’s just because they were female, it’s assumed that they had to be married to him. So this, this. Perspective basically claims that only men could speak to, converse with, dine with, learn from, ask things of, touch, or interact with Jesus. Otherwise it would be unbecoming or proper. This perspective that Jesus wouldn’t have talked to women who weren’t weren’t his wives assumes that Jesus was extremely stifled and sexist. It feels to me like these people, these proponents of polygamy, want to put their own views on Jesus, but the truth is Jesus was anything but stifled or sexist. He compared himself. He, he used the analogy of a mother hen to describe himself, a mother hen gathering her chicks under her wing, right? That’s a very feminine. Analogy, um, he he spoke with and taught women often. He refused to ignore, rebuke, judge, stone, or send women away even when his apostles wanted him to. There is so much more that could be said about this, um, like Jesus was not sexist, and Jesus was not distant from women for fear of impropriety. That does not accurately explain, describe the character of Jesus. So, um, Let’s see, there’s more we can say about this. Many of his disciples were extremely close to him and often dined with him, complained to him, made requests of him, and so much more. In addition to the beloved disciple resting his head on his bosom, please remember another part of the Last Supper talked about in John 13:45. He riseth from supper and laid aside his garments and took a towel and girded himself.
[00:43:36] After that, he poured water into the basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wash them with the towel wherewith he was girded. It is hard to imagine a more intimate scene, right? But women must be excluded from any similar action unless they were married, so Jesus could strip naked and with the towel he was wearing washes. Disciples’ feet. But if Mary anoints to Jesus’s feet and wipes them with her hair out of her pure love and devotion to Him, she’s not allowed to do that unless she was married to him. Like, why? Why is that the claim? And um Let’s see, there was a little bit more I want to say, um. OK, I guess, I guess the only thing I think is that I can see how people in our somewhat stifled culture as, as it has been, you know, might, might think, oh, like imagine a woman in the ward coming and anointing their feet and wiping them with their hair and think, yeah, that’s weird. OK, that’s weird. They must have been married, right? But in, in the same context, can these men who imagine that or these people who imagine that like. Imagine just a guy in the ward coming over, stripping down naked and washing your feet, right? Is that any more comfortable or natural or easy to imagine? I think that we need to stop putting our perspective on Jesus and His disciples and stop claiming that Jesus cannot associate with women. I, uh, so. The entire argument assumes that Jesus would not associate with women, assuming that Jesus came to minister only to men and that he would minister to no woman and allow allow no woman to minister to him without first marrying her is as offensive and false as the claim that a woman can only access God through her husband. So I think anyone who has been sympathetic to that claim should really rethink it, rethink where it comes from and the sort of unspoken biases that are there. I think it is a terrible perspective to have. After that, Ogden Kraut moves on to talking about Mary Magdalene. He’s the quote is, Certainly if anyone were married to Jesus, it would have been Mary Magdalene. I actually agree with him here. So it’s good to find common ground, right? I don’t have a problem, as I said, with the idea that Jesus would have been married. And in my opinion, um, the fact that, like, it’s important to me that the risen Lord first appeared to marry. I think that there is a closeness and an intimacy and a love there and a respect and honoring given to his wife that is beautiful to me. And so, um, I personally kind of like that idea. It’s OK if others, if, if you disagree with me. But, um, so since none of our of Dura’s arguments in this section in favor of Mary Magdalene being the wife of Jesus, do anything to support polygamy, I won’t go into them. Other than to say that he continues to make false claims and overstate things that actually weaken his argument.
[00:46:41] For one example, when Um, Jesus comes to Mary and she turns and says, Ravona, um, which, sorry, that story. I just, I’ve spent so much time reading it that it’s really on my heart. It’s beautiful. But he claims that that means my great master or more commonly, my husband. I, I looked and looked and looked and looked for anyone that could validate or verify or that Ever claimed that Ron I met the husband. I couldn’t find anything. I, I don’t know where Ogden Krop gets that other than just his interpretation, his imagination. So those are the kinds of claims that it’s like, if anyone reads his books authoritatively, just like, don’t, don’t read them as authoritative because they’re not. So, OK. Then chapter 21. This one is interesting. It’s called King’s Daughters as Wives. So I actually wouldn’t spend much time here because I think it’s so strange and weird. Um, but I watched an interview several months ago. It’s quite a long time ago that was on the topic of was Jesus a polygamist? I think it was Gospel tangents. I’ll see if it will let me link it. And it was interviewing Ann Wild. And she was doing Ann Wild, I think was Ogden Kraut’s second wife. She was his secretary and helped him with several of his books and um she mentions um this as the strongest claim that Jesus was was a polygamist. Like this was her best argument. To prove that Jesus was a polygamist was king’s king’s daughters as wives, and she couldn’t remember any of the details, so it wasn’t very helpful, but it was her best go to argument. and Ogden thought it was important enough to warn an entire chapter, so we better just go into it. OK. Get ready. So this comes from the 1560 Geneva Bible translation, right? So, the Geneva Bible was written a couple of decades before the King James Version and um it was written after what’s what’s called the Great Bible, so it was just One of the translations when there were a lot of Bibles happening, I mean being translated, and it translates Psalm 45:9 as saying, King’s daughters were among thine honorable wives. Upon my right hand did stand the queen and a vesture of gold offer. OK, so I don’t want to spend too much time here, but that makes it hard. I don’t even know what to do with it. I’ll just address a few things. First of all, this is literally the only translation that says this, the only one there is, and I looked a lot into how the Geneva Bible was translated, what sources it used, how authoritative it should be considered. There is nothing that makes the Geneva Bible authoritative in any way. In fact, one of the reasons that the King James was done was because um The King James was frustrated by what he considered to be the errors in the Geneva Bible, right? So it, it,
[00:49:33] it shouldn’t be elevated above any other Bibles in any way authoritative. All of the more modern translations which had have had better sources and more accurate translations, especially the more recent ones, they do not translate it this way. Here are some examples. King James version, King’s daughters were among Thy honorable women upon thy right handed stand the queen in gold in gold of offer. The new living edition, King’s daughters are among your noble women. At your right side stands the, the queen wearing jewelry of finest gold from Ofa. I could go on and on and on. But I’ll read the, the two more cause the new American Standard Bible I looked up, say, what is the most authoritative, accurate, literal Bible. And it’s the, the new American Standard Bible, that was the purpose that it was made was to be the very most accurate, and it says, King’s daughters are among your noble women. At your right hand stands the queen in gold from Ofir. And then the, um, NIV Bible says, Daughters of kings are among your honored women. At your right hand is the royal royal bride in gold of of. So queen and that one is translated as bride, but nowhere other than the Geneva Bible are the king’s daughters translated as brides. So, um, there are times, I will say there are times when it is useful to consult alternative translations for clarity and insight of things that might literally be lost in translation. I definitely do that, but This really is not one of those times. The um, I, it took a lot of doing. I hope you guys can appreciate the amount of effort I put in, but I was able to find an online version of the great Bible from that was translated in 1539, the one that was in common use before the Geneva Bible, which then was replaced by the King James version. But um so I found the an edition of the great Bible and looked it up and man, it’s so cool. If anyone is interested, it’s kind of like peeking out like I do. It’s really cool to see all of the different spellings. It’s just funky, but this is, this is how it translated. And also, um, the Geneva Bible just interesting thing I learned is the first one that added verse numbers, right? So the great Bible is just written in big chunks and it’s King’s daughters are among thy honorable women. Upon thy right hand did stand the queen in a vesture of gold. So it wasn’t even like the previous Bibles all did that, and then it was, you know, translated as wives and then the later Bibles changed it. It was like, nope, it was translated as honorable women. The Geneva Bible for some reason, translated as wives and then all of the other Bibles corrected that mistake and continued to translate it as noble, noble women or honorable women. So, Kraut does not acknowledge that the previous translation also didn’t say wives, and he claims that he he does acknowledge that all of the other translations don’t follow this, but he, of course, claims that that is due to conspiracy and hatred of plural marriage. Here’s his quote from page 215, I believe, Bible translation. have attempted to translate the word wives into anything but it,
[00:52:43] but what it actually said so that Jesus could not be considered a polygamist. Um, he goes on to say that it is humorous to read how noted scholars translate the Bible to evade the issue. So, OK, that’s, you know, like talk about um proof texting on and like an elevated scale that’s just, I, I mean, there’s nothing else to say about that part other than even the foundation for his claim is just wrong. But then, um, still for those who want to argue this and think there might be something here, may I just point out that this very exact verse clearly signifies the one queen or the royal bride. According to the NIV, the context is like, so there are all of the maids of honor, right? And then there is the queen or the bride. The entire context is is describing the glory of the royal court, including the beautiful and royal attributes of the bridesmaids, right? That’s the context it’s giving in. So, last thing I want to say is for anyone who thinks that they are equipped to interpret this one verse, especially out of context like this. Let me invite you to take a minute and to read Psalm 45 in its entirety. How well do you honestly understand it? To me, it is as complex and mysterious as any scripture and would take much effort and prayer to even begin to discern its true meaning. And, um, and it would be subject to many different interpretations. So this claim coming from only one erroneous translation of the Bible from 1560 to say that Jesus was a polygamist. I mean this is so much weaker and worse than even the argument that Isaiah 4:1, which is covered in episode eight, that that taking that out of context of that context that that proves polygamy. This is just really, really bad. So, um, and I want to say that, you know, I, I, I do sometimes I have heard like Ogden crowd is just so superior intellectually that we can’t understand his arguments because he’s so brilliant and I, I just I don’t agree. I, I usually am pretty capable of reading and understanding arguments. I have a very logical brain, um, so I’m just gonna give you a couple of examples of some of other of Ogden Kraut’s arguments in this chapter. This is from page 214. It is not stated when Jesus was married to this king’s to this king’s daughter or to any of his other wives, but he’s he’s talking about the king’s daughters, right? So, or to any of his other wives. But from what John the Baptist said, he may have been married to some of them previous to John’s martyrdom. John wrote, he that hath the bride is the bridegroom, but the friend of the bridegroom, which stands. and heareth him rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice. This my joy therefore for is fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease. So I reread this and like really puzzled for a long time to try to understand what in the world he was saying here. I should have just turned the page and read the next sentence and not given him nearly so much credit to assume he actually had a coherent argument because
[00:56:11] this is his, this is how he explains why he brought this up to prove that Jesus married the king’s daughters during John’s life. He said, here John is calling Jesus the bridegroom and mentions that he had a bride. His he further indicates that Jesus would continue to increase. So the word increase had to mean more and more wives, right? That’s the extent of it. That is the level of the arguments and the depth of the claims. OK, um, also, I know I’m spending a long time. I apologize that this one is so long. There’s another argument in this chapter that that we have to go into. I found it just incredible when I first heard it, but the argument is that the 10 virgins in the parable were actually all brides waiting for Jesus, the bridegroom. So, um, here is from page 217 and 218. Again, we have another parable concerning the bridegroom. It is written that 10 virgins went forth to meet the bridegroom. These 10 girls are not guests of a wedding because there is no mention of any other bride. Neither can the 10 girls be interpreted to be the saints of God, because no one would be left to represent the guests. If we understand them to represent women who were to be wives, then all the rest of the saints would be guests. The virgins are the honorable wives mentioned by the psalmist which were taken from among the king’s daughters, so. OK, are you with me? Like, are you getting how, how far we have to go to try to make these claims. So I, I know that this is in many ways not even worth refuting, but I’ll mention just a couple of things. First, this is a parable, right? But this interpretation makes parts of it strangely literal. So if we are going to follow the literal interpretation. So these women, these brides were out on the street on their own wedding among like that does not fit any Jewish practice of weddings anywhere. Then as now, the bride was the center of attention and the festivities, um, that she is attended by maids who are helping her get ready, singing to her every need. These brides are out sleeping in the street with nobody there helping them at all. Um, the feast, which the bride’s parents, I suppose, are responsible for providing, or maybe the groom’s parents. I don’t know how we’re interpreting it. It’s being prepared for them, but they have to wait all night on the street, and they’re even responsible for getting their own oil for their own wedding, right? Wouldn’t a bridesmaid come in pretty handy at that point? Hey, I’m running short on oil. Can you give me some oil, right? Also, Can we point out that half of the king’s, the honorable wives remember the king’s daughters weren’t let into their own wedding, and the bridegroom doesn’t recognize them. So I mean, the only way, the only thing I can think of this is like, I suppose that maybe he didn’t recognize them for the same reason that some polygamist fathers don’t recognize their own children. He just had so many. And, um, you know, maybe the parable was really meant as a warning to women, a warning to unfavoured wives. Um, that is in keeping with polygamist doctrine teaching. Sorry, it just is hitting me hard how this might have been used and how that would.
[00:59:26] Hurt and hit unfavoured wives if they didn’t keep sweet enough and please their husbands sufficiently, Jesus would lock them out of heaven and send them to hell, and that really is what polygamist women are taught, so. OK, there you have it, the 10 virgins argument. It is just really bad. I just want to say in closing this one section that If we are going to claim that every mention of bridegroom must necessarily be Jesus in a literal sense of a marriage to a new bride, we could just as eas, I mean. I could just as easily claim that Jesus must have been the man that was involved with the adult, with the woman taking in adultery, right? Like, like, why else wouldn’t he have condemned her? And she was probably his wife, and the wicked Pharisees just didn’t know that or didn’t approve. Maybe she did have another husband, but that wouldn’t matter to Jesus if she were called to be his wife, just like, according to these claims of these same people, just like Joseph Smith took. Other men’s wives. I mean, we can go on and on with ridiculous claims if we want to. That is all they are. Ridiculous claims at, at all costs. It is just, it is so offensive. It is so bad. It is truly as close to blasphemy as anything I could think of to make these claims about Jesus. I, I just do not approve. I don’t think it is good, and I don’t think we should. Continue to believe it. So, OK, I know this is already long, but we have one more chapter, the royal the royal family kingdom. So, um, his last claim, this is the quote, Joseph Jesus was born to inherit the throne of the polygamist David. Thus, apparently he goes on to claim that Jesus must have a throne like David, I, you know, including a magnificent harem. So, um, There are a lot of things I could say here, but I’m not even going to bother to go into it because we’re, it’s not worth the time. But here are a few other gems from that chapter. Um, page 220, the massacre of so many male children created a great surplus of women. Who were the same age of Jesus. This same situation had occurred in the days of Moses. This abundant supply of women would have been an opportunity for Jesus and his apostles to live the law of plural marriage. So good, isn’t it good that all the little boys were killed? Because that opened the way for plural marriage. And then page 222, 1 of the purposes of Jesus’s life was to understand the feelings, the sufferings, and the trials of all men in capitals. And I think it’s important that he says, men are there cause he really means it. Um, you know, men does not include women for I guess any polygamist, but definitely not Ogden Kraut. He must know the love he is continuing to quote, Jesus must know the love, the family ties,
[01:02:12] and the grief of losing honorable wives and death as the ancient prophets did. How could Jesus know the feelings and emotions of those ancient prophets who had lived plural marriage with all of their trials and joys, the love and the sorrows connected therewith, unless he, in like manner, had obeyed the same laws and commandments from God. OK, um, I hope you guys all get this right. Jesus had to have your exact life to be able to relate to it and um to be able to, you know, Or he or he can’t understand your suffering. So sorry, women, we’re all just out in the cold, like Jesus can’t possibly understand any of us, right? He had to be a polygamist to understand the suffering of polygamous men. Um, the suffering of polygamous women is irrelevant apparently, and, you know, childbirth, any, any other thing that women might experience in this life, you know, apparently Jesus didn’t have to experience that to be able to. To understand it and bear it with and for us, but he did with polygamy. So these are all of the specific points I have been able to find that people use to try to claim that Jesus was a polygamist. I, I have tried so hard to be comprehensive. I apologize for the long episode. Of course, if anyone has any additional claims that I have missed or that they come up with, please go ahead and share them with me. Um, that’s how I learned. So, um, I think that And, uh, an important thing to just spend a little bit of time on is all of the things that are ignored by everyone who tries to make this claim. There are so many things that all of us could say here. So it’s really hard to choose just a couple. But, um, here are just a few of them that I want to say. So first of all, as we have addressed in other episodes throughout scripture, Jesus universally refers to marriage as between one man and one woman. There is no exception. Here is one of many examples, Matthew 19:4. For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh. That’s pretty clear. And there are more uses of the word wife in that chapter. This is a new one that I just thought about that I think is actually really important. This is verse 29. And one that hath forsaken pay attention here to plural or singular. Everyone that hath forsaken houses or brethren or sisters, those are all plural, or father or mother or wife, all singular or children or lands for the for my name’s sake shall receive a hundredfold and shall inherit everlasting life. Here Jesus is making it very clear that you. They have multiple houses or brothers or sisters or children or lands, but you can only have one father, you can only have one mother, and you can only have one wife. I think that that’s really important. Um, then there are the plain teachings like 1 Corinthians 7:2. Let every man have his own wife and let every woman have her own husband. How do we just ignore all of this? Um, then, in regard to Christ as the bridegroom, this is one place that I think the idea of one church is significant. So Ephesians 5:25 says, husbands love your wives even as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it. Christ loved the church singular. It could have easily been expressed as plural, even as Christ loved the churches and gave Himself for them, right? But,
[01:05:41] um, I, I just want to share some of my thoughts here in regard to the one true church, because I do think that that’s interesting that Jesus is the bridegroom and the church is the bride, right? And we claim there’s one true church. How can we therefore, claim that polygamy is true and that Jesus was a polygamist? So I’m just gonna share my thoughts that I think the idea of the one true and living. Church becomes the most significant here. It implies to me that there is not necessarily one central system of belief or one organization that is the only acceptable one before God. I, that, that really doesn’t ring true to me. I think what it means is that each person can choose in every moment of their lives to sincerely follow Christ through charity, humility, submission, love, all of, all of those vis. Choose or not. Each minute of each day, we are all free to choose which way we will look, which direction we’ll be in, right? We are not necessarily in one camp or the other as a whole, just in our individual moment to moment choices. And more importantly, in this context, there is only one church, just as there is only one wife. I think that even this testifies strongly that Jesus is a monogamist and that that is the order. That God established from the beginning, the instinct to want to make the claim that Jesus was a polygamist does make a lot of sense to me. It seems like it is necessary in the doctrine of polygamy. It is hard to claim that polygamy is the central doctrine of exaltation. If Jesus didn’t set the example, but here is another huge problem. If we believe that Jesus is the Son of God, the greatest of all, the exemplar of all who lived the law more fully and more perfectly than any other mortal on earth, and if the gospel of polygamy is true, then Jesus must have lived polygamy greater than any other man. Right? The gospel of polygamy teaches not only that exaltation comes through polygamy, but that a man’s eternal glory is based on the size of his family. Many even specify, I don’t think this is universally agreed, but many even specify that each wife represents a different planet. So why did Jesus only have 3 wives? Or for those who claim he had more, how many more and who were they? The largest claim I have ever seen is that he had up to 8, but of course with absolutely no evidence or support of any kind. So Jesus, the greatest of all. Had will be generous and say 3 to 8 wives. Brigham Young had 56 wives. Hebrew C. Kimball had 43 wives. Ruin Jeffs had 75 wives. Warren Jeffs has 87 wives. Those there are different numbers you can see, but those are the most authoritative numbers I could find. King David had, we don’t know how many dozens of wives, and King Solomon had 1000 wives and concubines. If Jesus was the greatest of all, and if polygamy is the being’s exaltation, why was Jesus such a small scale polygamist? Why did all of these earthly leaders who claim Jesus as their head have exponentially more wives than even they claim that Jesus had? How do they justify this? So should we assume that their glory and their exaltation will therefore be far greater than the glory of Jesus, since that’s what follows from their doctrine. Do you see how just deeply, deeply problematic this is in any way, um.
[01:09:21] So I just find myself asking, if Jesus is the greatest of all, and we are to follow his example and polygamy is the highest and most holy law, why is his example of polygamy completely absent from the biblical record? I think that the answer is because it’s not true. The only way to possibly claim that Jesus was a polygamist is to completely make it up out of thin air, with imaginary sources and false claims, and then to continually lie to try to make your case, which is exactly what every leader and scholar who has ever made this case has done. I think it’s important to recognize who Jesus really is and why it matters that we know and understand and believe that. John 17:3, the night before Jesus died, he prayed, and in his prayer, he said, and this is life eternal, that they might know the, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. We have to know Jesus, and in order to know him, we can’t believe that he was a polygamist. If we believe that we cannot know him. Um, one last thing, I just want to say, I believe it is essential for members of the church to understand and reject the false idea of polygamy. That’s why I’m doing this. We need to stop keeping it on the shelf. It is rotten. It stinks. It’s stinking up the entire house. It is time to throw it in the dumpster. We can not continue to be so badly mistaken about either Jesus Christ or his gospel. The lectures on faith teach that we must have a correct idea of the character, perfections, and attributes of God in order to have true faith that can become perfect and fruitful, abounding in righteousness unto the praise and glory of God, God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. I believe this is true. I think this is what we want. If we want to truly come to know God, we need to stop believing in polygamy. Thank you so much for sticking in for this long episode. I am Michelle Stone, and this is 132 Problems.
