Amulek’s Women

For those who believe monogamy is YHWH plan for men and women and that polygamy is an abomination unto YHWH, at first glance Alma (LDS 10:11) (RLDS 8:16-17) could be a bit of a stumbling block, but with a little investigation and thought we will learn it’s not.

Alma (LDS 10:11) (RLDS 8:16-17)
A For behold, HE HATH BLESSED mine HOUSE,
–C and my WOMEN,
—D and my CHILDREN,
—-E and my FATHER
—D and my KINSFOLK;
–C yea, even ALL my KINDRED
A and the BLESSING of the Lord HATH rested upon US, according to the words which HE spake.

1 Corinthians 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every MAN have his OWN WIFE, and let every WOMAN have her OWN HUSBAND.

Jacob (LDS 2:27) (RLDS 2:36) Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord [YHWH]: For there shall not any man among you have save it be ONE WIFE; and CONCUBINES he shall have NONE;

If you are inclined to think that WOMEN in Alma (LDS 10:11) (RLDS 8:16-17) means multiple wives, which I don’t and I’ll get explain why later, that is fine. What needs to be remembered is that in Alma (LDS 10:5-6) (RLDS 8:6-9) Amulek himself tells us he was “rebell[ious] against God [Elohim]”. When Amulek admits his past fruits were not in accordance to YHWH’s ways, as much as you may want to, you really can’t use his past relationships to try convince people that whoredoms and abominations are of YHWH.

Alma (LDS 10:5-7) (RLDS 8:6-11)
5 Nevertheless, after all this, I [AMULEK] NEVER HAVE KNOWN MUCH OF THE WAYS OF THE LORD [YHWH], and his mysteries and marvelous power. I said I never had known much of these things; but behold, I mistake, for I have seen much of his mysteries and his marvelous power; yea, even in the preservation of the lives of this people. 6 Nevertheless, I [AMULEK] DID HARDEN MY HEART, for I was called many times and I [AMULEK] WOULD NOT HEAR; therefore I knew concerning these things, yet I [AMULEK] WOULD NOT KNOW; therefore I [AMULEK] WENT ON REBELLING AGAINST GOD [ELOHIM], IN THE WICKEDNESS OF MY HEART, even until the FOURTH DAY of this SEVENTH MONTH [MOON], which is in the tenth year of the reign of the judges. 7 As I was journeying to see a very near kindred, behold an angel of the Lord [YHWH] appeared unto me and said: Amulek, return to thine own house, for thou shalt feed a prophet of the Lord; yea, a holy man, who is a chosen man of God [Elohim]; for he has FASTED many days because of the sins of this people, and he is an hungered, and thou shalt receive him into thy house and feed him, and HE SHALL BLESS THEE and THY HOUSE; and the BLESSING OF THE LORD [YHWH] shall REST upon thee and thy house.

I included the last half of Alma (LDS 10:6) (RLDS 8:8-9) through Alma (LDS 10:7) (RLDS 8:10-11) because I find the timing of when Amulek turning to YHWH happened interesting and insightful. Rosh Hashanah aka Feast of Trumpets is the first day of the seventh moon of the year and trumpets of warnings are blown, the evening of the ninth day of seventh moon through the tenth day is Yom Kippur aka Day of Atonement, it represents the great and dreadful day of YHWH because of the judgement that happens just before Sukkot aka Tabernacles which prophetic of when Yeshua/Jesus will reign among us. Please spend some time looking through YHWH’s High Holidays as these fall feasts teach us about the gospel and the End Times. Starting with Rosh Hashanah / Feast of Trumpets through Yom Kippur / Day of Atonement is the Ten Days of Awe which are ten days about fasting and returning to YHWH and His ways aka repenting. Did you notice how Alma was FASTING during these ten days? Teshuvah & the 10 Days of Awe is a good introduction on this, my High Holidays resource page has more on this. Considering the Fall Feasts teach us about the end times and the Second Coming, it is no surprise to me that there are parallels and insights on these events through out Alma (LDS 8:1-11:46) (RLDS 6:1-8:109) including the two servants.

It is interesting to note that both of the first and second A stanzas of the Alma (LDS 10:11) (RLDS 8:16-17) chiasmus are found in the last part of what the angel of YHWH said to Amulek as a promise in Alma (LDS 10:7) (RLDS 8:10-11), perhaps he was unfolding aka expounding the promise some because it meant so much to him.

Even if you believe Amulek used the word WOMEN in Alma (LDS 10:11) (RLDS 8:16-17) to represent multiple, I hope you can see how taking into account Alma (LDS 10:5-7) (RLDS 8:6-11) shows it’s not a valid argument for promoting polygamy.

There are many types of relationships with WOMEN that Amulek could be including in the word WOMEN. One that I think no one will argue with, is his wife. Another very important one is mother. Yeshua/Jesus Himself called His mother WOMAN at times.

John 2:3-5
3 And when they wanted wine, the MOTHER of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. 4 Jesus saith unto her, WOMAN, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. 5 His MOTHER saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his MOTHER, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his MOTHER, WOMAN, behold thy son!

In todays culture calling your mother woman would be considered disrespectful, but we need to remember that Yeshua’s/Jesus’ culture is very different than the Hellenistic culture we live in today.

Regarding the term “woman,” Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words notes: “Used in addressing a woman, it is a term not of reproof or severity, but of endearment or respect.” Other sources agree with this. For example, The Anchor Bible says: “This is not a rebuke, nor an impolite term, nor an indication of a lack of affection . . . It was Jesus’ normal, polite way of addressing women.” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology explains that the word “is used as an address with no irreverent secondary meaning.” And Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says that such usage “is in no way disrespectful or derogatory.” Thus, we should not conclude that Jesus was being rude or unkind to his mother in addressing her by the term “woman.” —Matthew 15:28; Luke 13:12; John 4:21; 19:26; 20:13, 15.
Questions From Readers

What Jesus says to His mother in John 2:4 sounds almost rude in English. However, in the original language, and in that culture, Mary would not have interpreted Jesus’ words that way. The term woman was used like we use the term ma’am. By addressing Mary this way, Jesus does distance Himself from His mother somewhat—He was exerting His independence from her wishes—but in no way was it a rude manner of speaking. Jesus lovingly uses the same word from the cross when He tells Mary that He is entrusting her to John’s care (John 19:26).
Was Jesus being rude to Mary when He referred to her as “woman” in John 2:4?

Another relationship that Amulek could be including in the word WOMEN is sister. I don’t believe Amulek is including daughters here as he states children later in the verse, and if the used of children did not include daughters he more appropriately should have used sons instead of children. Amulek could have been including cousin or niece but I don’t believe they are very likely because the chances of those relationships being included in his HOUSE are slim.

I find the placement of the words KINSFOLK and KINDRED in the chiasmus telling also. KINSFOLK in the second D stanza is tied to CHILDREN which in fact does deal with “[people] of the same family” see 1828 Webster’s Dictionary, KINSFOLK. And KINDRED in the second C stanza is tied to WOMEN which deals with both marriage aka wife and blood which would include mother and possibly sister. If WOMEN in the first stanza C only dealt with wife it would have been advantageous to use more accurate word than KINDRED is the second stanza C which is directly tied to WOMEN in the first stanza C, such as helpmeet which would not include other possibilities as KINDRED does. When searching for KINFOLK and KINDRED on Biblehub I loosely see this pattern also, but it’s a bit trickier because inconsistent translation problems.

1828 Webster’s Dictionary, KINSFOLK: persons of the same family

1828 Webster’s Dictionary, KINDRED:
1) Relation by birth
2) Relation by marriage
3) Relatives by blood or marriage

One thought on “Amulek’s Women

  1. WOMEN is not Wives, and parallel with KINDRED makes that fact obvious, as well as the absence of both mother and wife.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s