Amulek had multiple wives...most likely?

[Hemidakota]

Originally Posted by Over43

In Alma, chapter 11 Amulek speaks to the people of Ammonihah and introduces
Alma to the people of that city. In the course of his opening remarks he states that the people of the city know him (as well), his wealth, standing, his father, women and children.

I have been reading the Book of Mormon for 25+ years and that is the first time that that item has come to my attention.

Now I just hope it was chapter 11 v. 10, and not Chapter 10 v. 11.

By the way, where did Fall go? It went summer to winter in about...a day.

O.

Chapter 11 deals with coinage of the Nephites.

[Hemidakota]

According to Ancient Scripture Professor Janne M. Sjodahl and George Reynolds, in the book Commentary on the Book of Mormon, volume 3 -

Amulek's mention of "my women" in verse 11, indicates to us that the Nephites of that age were polygamists.

[Vort]

Originally Posted by Hemidakota

Chapter 11 deals with coinage of the Nephites.

There is no credible evidence the Nephites had coinage. Coins are never mentioned anywhere in the Book of Mormon. Coinage as we know it appears not even to have been developed until around the time Lehi left Jerusalem or shortly thereafter. Alma 11 reads better if the various terms are assumed to apply to weights or other measures of gold and silver, rather than as some sort of coinage.

Originally Posted by Hemidakota

According to Ancient Scripture Professor Janne M. Sjodahl and George Reynolds, in the book Commentary on the Book of Mormon, volume 3 -

Amulek's mention of "my women" in verse 11, indicates to us that the Nephites of that age were polygamists.

While I have a soft spot in my heart for Sjodahl and Reynolds' Commentary, it is hardly authoritative. You may read polygamy into the text based on Amulek's wording if you wish, but that's all it is -- a reading-in of a hoped-for idea.

[pam]

I think earlier in the thread we came to realize that he was referring to Chapter 10 not chapter 11.

[Hemidakota]

Originally Posted by Vort

There is no credible evidence the Nephites had coinage. Coins are never mentioned anywhere in the Book of Mormon. Coinage as we know it appears not even to have been developed until around the time Lehi left Jerusalem or shortly thereafter. Alma 11 reads better if the various terms are assumed to apply to weights or other measures of gold and silver, rather than as some sort of coinage.

Whether or not we apply the term coinage to a stamped metal piece to equal something precious of value or just precious metal itself. It was declaring wages and earnings of what is being paid to the judges for labour.

GOLD SILVER
Senine is the unit. Senum is the unit.
Senines equal 1 Seon 2 Senums equal 1 Amnor
Senines equal 1 Shum 4 Senums equal 1 Ezrom
Senines equal 1 Limnah 7 Senums equal 1 Onti
A gold Senine was equal in value to a silver Senum, and a certain measure of barley or any other grain was equal in value to either.

The value of the smaller pieces were:
1 Shiblon was equal to half a Senum or a Senine.
1 Shiblum was equal to a quarter of a Senum or a Senine.
1 Leah was equal to one-eight of a Senum or a Senine

While I have a soft spot in my heart for Sjodahl and Reynolds' Commentary, it is hardly authoritative. You may read polygamy into the text based on Amulek's wording if you wish, but that's all it is -- a reading-in of a hoped-for idea.

So do I but I did not equate his statement as authoritative either but pointed out another view point: ["According to Ancient Scripture Professor Janne M. Sjodahl and George Reynolds"]

In reading or hearing another viewpoint expressed by those who study this as a field of employment, can only aid the reader to study and seek for an answer by the Spirit. It was Mormon who wrote the compressed narrative and he would know more than all of us.

[Over43]

First off, may I state that "a reading-in a hoped for idea" is certainly not accurate, nor correct. I made an observation. Although you are more than welcome to make accusations all you'd like, it makes no difference to me.

It was never a question that Amulek DID have multiple wives, but did he have multiple wives. This should naturally induce connversation and the exchange of ideas. Since the Nephite culture was obliterated by the Lamanite culture, and their allies, we truly do only have a brief glimpse of what Nephite life might have been like. But, from what v. 10 states, it appears that Amulek does allude to his family, children, women and father. There is no hint at servants.

And, on a side note, Sjodahl and Reynolds, I find, are quite excelllent, and no less authoritative than anyone else who presumes to be on thiis forum.

O.

[Vort]

Originally Posted by Over43

First off, may I state that "a reading-in a hoped for idea" is certainly not accurate, nor correct. I made an observation. Although you are more than welcome to make accusations all you'd like, it makes no difference to me.

But apparently it does, since you are responding in this manner.

I apologize. I was not trying to make any accusations. I suspect every honest person who has ever made a real study of the Book of Mormon has come across this very passage about Amulek and thought, "Oh, hey! Does that mean Amulek lived polygamy?" So it's a natural and very reasonable question to ask.

It is also my observation that many men in the Church (not a majority, but still a not-insignificant number) lust after the idea of polygamy. My comment was not directed at you personally, but at the general mass of those who privately, and sometimes publicly, pine for the "return of polygamy" and hopefully read the practice into everything they can.

Originally Posted by Over43

It was never a question that Amulek DID have multiple wives, but did he have multiple wives. This should naturally induce connversation and the exchange of ideas. Since the Nephite culture was obliterated by the Lamanite culture, and their allies, we truly do only have a brief glimpse of what Nephite life might have been like. But, from what v. 10 states, it appears that Amulek does allude to his family, children, women and father. There is no hint at servants.

That is because servants would not have been considered part of his household in the same way as "the women", which is to say, all dependent adult females. This is a common feature of Semitic cultures, and actually pretty common across many or most cultures (the Europeans were much the same).

Originally Posted by Over43

And, on a side note, Sjodahl and Reynolds, I find, are quite excelllent, and no less authoritative than anyone else who presumes to be on thiis forum.

Exactly. Which is to say, not authoritative.

S&R are much more erudite than most, but much of their commentary is outdated. I still find it interesting to read and often insightful, but I certainly would not base my belief on their say-so.

[Over43]

If anyone is "pining" to have polygamy restored, they need to have their head examined. No offense ladies, life is complicated enough navigating with two addults in the house. I couldn't imagine adding more drama to the mix.

[sixpacktr]

Originally Posted by Over43

If anyone is "pining" to have polygamy restored, they need to have their head examined. No offense ladies, life is complicated enough navigating with two addults in the house. I couldn't imagine adding more drama to the mix.

All I could see, if it was restored and I was allowed to take another wife, is another woman in the house. I had 3 daughters, a female dog, and a cat that wasn't male anymore. I was all alone as it was, and adding more estrogen in the house would NOT go well for me. All it would create is another ally for my wife!

[Dove]

I think in getting lost over the polygamy idea, we're losing sight of the beauty of Amulek's story. Whether or not he wrongfully practiced polygamy, he still gave up everything to do God's will in his life at that point...which was to join Alma in preaching the gospel to those people.....

I still believe he saw his own women and children burning in those flames, and then to have his "father, friends, and kindred" reject him because of his message, is quite grave. When Alma accepted the gospel in his heart after "sore repentance" for being wicked, he was welcomed into the loving arms of his father and family~not so for Amulek...

In the end, I don't really care whether he practiced polygamy or not, because he repented and was willing to forsake everything for his testimony of the Saviour/God...