As part of my series of finding unusual scriptures in the Topical Guide, I came across another interesting one. Titus 1:6
6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
Ok, here are two things I’m curious about: “children not accused of riot”? Was that a problem back then–rioting children? I mean I’ve heard that Nazareth was kind of the ghetto in Jesus day, and a source of violent protests. Is this what it’s referring to?
Secondly, the bishop should be “the husband of one wife.” How did early Mormons who believed that polygamy was essential handle this scripture?
Wheat & Tares 
Not sure on the first question, but on the second “As far as it is translated correctly” – there. Done.
Guy, the original meaning is even more striking.
The word translated as “riot” means dissolute or given to luxury.
Think of Eli’s sons or Samuel’s sons.
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/titus/1-6.htm
For some notes.
To quote:
having faithful, or believing children — As τεκνα πιστα may be properly rendered; that is, not infidels, but such as embrace the Christian faith; not accused of riot — Ασωτιαστυ of luxury, or intemperance; or unruly — Ανυποτακτα, refractory or disobedient
As to the other:
he husband of one wife (comp. Titus 1:6). Three senses are possible. The passage may be understood
(1) as requiring a bishop, (or presbyter) to have a wife, and so some took it even in Chrysostom’s time (though he does not so understand it), and so the Russian Church understands it;
(2) as prohibiting his having more than one with at a time;
(3) as prohibiting second marriages for priests and bishops. Bishop Wordsworth, Bishop Ellicott, and Dean Alford, among English commentators, all agree in thinking that (3) is the apostle’s meaning. In spite of such consensus, it appears in the highest degree improbable that St. Paul should have laid down such a condition for the priesthood. There is nothing in his writings when treating expressly of second marriages (Romans 7:2, 3; 1 Corinthians 7:8, 39) to suggest the notion of there being anything disreputable in a second marriage, and it would obviously cast a great slur upon second marriages if it were laid down as a principle that no one who had married twice was fit to be an ἐπίσκοπος. But if we consider the general laxity in regard to marriage, and the facility of divorce, which prevailed among Jews and Romans at this time, it must have been a common thing for a man to have more than one woman living who had been his wife. And this, as a distinct breach of the primeval law (Genesis 2:24), would properly be a bar to any one being called to the “office of a bishop.” The same case is supposed in 1 Corinthians 7:10-13. But it is utterly unsupported by any single passage in Scripture that a second marriage should disqualify a man for the sacred ministry. As regards the opinion of the early Church, it was not at all uniform, and amongst those who held that this passage absolutely prohibits second marriages in the case of an episcopus, it was merely a part of the asceticism of the day. As a matter of course, such writers as Origen and Tertullian held it. The very early opinion that Joseph, the husband of Mary, had children by a former wife, which finds place in the Protevangelium of James (9.), is hardly consistent with the theory of the disreputableness of second marriages. In like manner, the phrase in 1 Timothy 5:9, ἐνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή, is best explained in accordance with the apostle’s doctrine about the lawfulness of a woman’s second marriage, as meaning that she was the husband of one man only, as long as her husband lived. (For the chief patristic opinions on the subject, see Bishop Wordsworth’s note, and Bingham’s ‘Christian Antiquities,’ bk. 4. 1 Timothy 5.) Temperate (νηφάλιον); peculiar to the pastoral Epistles (see ver. 11 and Titus 2:2), but found in classical Greek. The verb νήφειν means “to be sober” (1 Thessalonians 5:6; 2 Timothy 4:5; 1 Peter 1:13; 1 Peter 4:7; 1 Peter 5:8). It denotes that temperate use of meat and drink which keeps the mind watchful and on the alert, and then the state of mind itself so produced. The opposite state of mind is described in Luke 21:34. Sober-minded (σώφρονα); in the New Testament only here and in Titus 1:8; Titus 2:2, 5. But σωφρονέω is found in the Gospels and Epistles; σωφρονίζω σωφρονισμός σωφρόνως, in the pastoral Epistles; and σωφροσύνη in 1 Timothy 2:15 (where see note). Orderly (κόσμιον; see 1 Timothy 2:9, note). Given to hospitality (φιλόξενον; as Titus 1:8 and 1 Peter 4:9). The substantive φιλοξενία is found in Romans 12:13; Hebrews 13:2. Apt to teach (διδακτικόν); only here and 2 Timothy 2:24, and Philo, ‘De Proem. et Virt.,’ 4 (Huther). The classical word is διδασκαλικός, though chiefly applied to things. In the above-quoted passage in 1 Peter 4. the gifts of speaking and ministering are, as here, placed alongside that of hospitality.
I’m quoting mainstream scholars here so I’m not sure what Heber Kimball would have said.
The word “one” can also be translated from the original word as “an” not signifying a maximum number but a minimum.
When I was called as Bishop, the SP quoted this verse and said that is why he asked if I had been divorced. I called him on it, and asked why my GGGrandfather was able to be a bishop and still have 4 wives. He didn’t have an answer.
That’s a weird stake president!
Paul was sending Timothy and Titus to choose local leaders for infant congregations, of a weird new religion struggling to gain acceptance in the broader culture.
In that setting, there was a large element of political vetting. To avoid giving anyone something to talk about,the leaders had to be “blameless” (1 Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:6,7), of “good report” with outsiders in the community (1 Tim. 3:7), with “sound speech that cannot be condemned” so that enemies could have “no evil thing to say of you” (Tit. 2:8).
Put simply, it wasn’t about absolute, moral qualifications. It was about the necessity of avoiding controversy. If a leader had been divorced, people might have whispered, “who is he to talk?”
There was a gentleman in one of my mission cities who went inactive at one point, because his branch president was single. He wrote a letter to the mission president (this was in an area where there were no stakes, so the MP was the presiding authority and called district and branch presidencies) explaining that, since the Scriptures said a bishop must be the “husband of only one wife” (marito di una sola moglie), he would not be returning to church until Brother So-and-so was released as branch president.
Ironically, I found his letter explaining this in the mission archives while I was mission secretary. At the time, this good brother was himself serving as branch president, and the former (still single) BP was active.
The Italian Church was pretty interesting in those days. 😉