The Offense And Defense Of Apoligetics

[DBMormon]

I posted part of this in another thread plus some other thoughts.

I was listening to Van Hale's interview today that he had some time ago with Shawn McCraney. I spoke in a thread at one time about how the church seems weak at times because it is always on the defense when it comes to criticism and apoligetics. If you listen to this interview. You will see Van Hale understands it, and by putting McCraney on his heels and turning the tables and making him defend his position, he takes him to the woodshed. Which does not do anything other then show that defending a position, even a true and strong position is very difficult and appears very weak at times to a listener.

I think at the recent panel discussion that Scott Gordon appeared weaker in strength of argument then John Dehlin. I think Many apoligetics appear weak in some of their positions simply because they are on defense. Once we learn that our position is stronger when we are on offense we appear in much better position. Listen to 20 minutes of the Van Hale interview beggining at 6 minutes:00 seconds.

http://mormonmisc.po...rmon-vs-mormon/

If every evangelical and any other critic were put on defense we would find listeners to any debate finding more strength in the LDS position without even really discussing the LDS position.

An analogy is US defense of terrorism. The terrorist while weaker in technology and numbers only has to succed once to display mjor weaknesses in the US defense. While stronger the US has to be win and and be perfect in it's defense each and every time. It has to be perfect to win.

In regards to putting others on defense: Anti's play on this framework constantly and very effectively. I wish more of Latter-Day Saints who have faith crisis would recognize this. Debates and discussions take on very different tones and give very different impressions based on whether one is defending a position or criticizing a position and many times has much less to do with the strength of a position and much more to do with whether one is on offense or defense.

McCraney, like others, builds Strawmen and Hale erased them before McCraney could even begin to have his way with them.

What do you think about the nature of apoligetics and perhaps trying to gear it more towards an offensive approach?

Edited August 6, 2012 by DBMormon

[wenglund]

I posted part of this in another thread plus some other thoughts.

I was listening to Van Hale's interview today that he had some time ago with Shawn McCraney. I spoke in a thread at one time about how the church seems weak at times because it is always on the defense when it comes to criticism and apoligetics. If you listen to this interview. You will see Van Hale understands it, and by putting McCraney on his heels and turning the tables and making him defend his position, he takes him to the woodshed. Which does not do anything other then show that defending a position, even a true and strong position is very difficult and appears very weak at times to a listener.

I think at the recent panel discussion that Scott Gordon appeared weaker in strength of argument then John Dehlin. I think Many apoligetics appear weak in some of their positions simply because they are on defense. Once we learn that our position is stronger when we are on offense we appear in much better position. Listen to 20 minutes of the Van Hale interview beggining at 6 minutes:00 seconds.

http://mormonmisc.po...rmon-vs-mormon/

If every evangelical and any other critic were put on defense we would find listeners to any debate finding more strength in the LDS position without even really discussing the LDS position.

An analogy is US defense of terrorism. The terrorist while weaker in technology and numbers only has to succed once to display mjor weaknesses in the US defense. While stronger the US has to be win and and be perfect in it's defense each and every time. It has to be perfect to win.

In regards to putting others on defense: Anti's play on this framework constantly and very effectively. I wish more of Latter-Day Saints who have faith crisis would recognize this. Debates and discussions take on very different tones and give very different impressions based on whether one is defending a position or criticizing a position and many times has much less to do with the strength of a position and much more to do with whether one is on offense or defense.

McCraney, like others, builds Strawmen and Hale erased them before McCraney could even begin to have his way with them.

What do you think about the nature of apoligetics and perhaps trying to gear it more towards an offensive approach?

You evidently have a different view than I do as to what is weak or strong--likely a function of our different perspectives. I think you have it exactly backwards.

When people go on the attack against other people's faith, particularly when their attacks become the prevailing aspect of their ministries, this suggest to me that they lack the strength of conviction in the positive persuasive power of their own beliefs, and need to cut others down to their size in order to compete. That we LDS tend to confine ourselves to preaching the positive message of the restored gospel and defending the faith, is a testament to the strength of our position.

Besides, for we believing LDS it isn't about us humans winning debates with our fellow humans, but about spreading the good news and providing room for faith and letting the Spirit work its way. In short, the LDS strength is in the Spirit, and not in our debate skills. This is why we have such great confidence in sending out our young, naive men and women to declare our message.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

What do you think about the nature of apoligetics and perhaps trying to gear it more towards an offensive approach?

I think the more one can go purely on the offensive as Christ did (which is to use no defense at all), the better. But to play fair and abide by standards of academics and debate, going on the defense is inevitably an acommodation the apologists must make, and skillfully.

[DBMormon]

Take a listen to Hale's MP3 I included the link for. Then if you don't mind, tell me what your feelings are of his approach and how it reflects on him and the church. To me it is a better way to discredit the non-sense of 99% of anti-Mormonism rather then debate them in a way that plays right into their hands.

For example mormonstories.org's framework - Not at all saying Dehlin does anything wrong. In fact many of his episodes are on my MP3 player and listened to more then once. It is just that his approach is to put Mormonism on the defense and that approach is what draws away many who are susceptible simply because of the approach itself seems more convincing.

Would it be a different story if John did a podcast where he defended his beliefs or a stance of complete dis-belief against the evidences of the church? rather then the interviewee defending the church against criticism?

Edited August 7, 2012 by DBMormon

[wenglund]

Take a listen to Hale's MP3 I included the link for. Then if you don't mind, tell me what your feelings are of his approach and how it reflects on him and the church. To me it is a better way to discredit the non-sense of 99% of anti-Mormonism rather then debate them in a way that plays right into their hands.

For example mormonstories.org's framework - Not at all saying Dehlin does anything wrong. In fact many of his episodes are on my MP3 player and listened to more then once. It is just that his approach is to put Mormonism on the defense and that approach is what draws away many who are susceptible simply because of the approach itself seems more convincing.

Would it be a different story if John did a podcast where he defended his beliefs or a stance of complete dis-belief against the evidences of the church? rather then the interviewee defending the church against criticism?

I have been well acquainted with Van's work for more than a decade, and I have even called into his show on occasion. I have found him to be very articulate and persuasive at times. And, while I am fine with what he does, including the specific instance you mentioned, I was speaking to an over-all approach. Evidently, what I said didn't register with you, and so I don't see any point in belaboring my perspective. If you think things will go better for the Church by you attacking the faith of others, then by all means have at it. For me, I have learned over multiple decades doing apologetics that faith in the gospel Church comes by pointing people to Christ and letting the Spirit do its work, and not by tearing the faith of other down. So, that is the approach I will take. But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DBMormon]

wenglund,

you obviously miss what I am saying as well, my friend. I am not suggesting one spend anytime tearing down the faith of others. But rather showing the observers that the methods critics use have holes in them, that it is also difficult to defend against the evidences of the church as well as to defend against it's challenges.

on a personal note - you still seem cautious of me. you speak of

If you think things will go better for the Church by you attacking the faith of others, then by all means have at it. For me, I have learned over multiple decades doing apologetics that faith in the gospel Church comes by pointing people to Christ and letting the Spirit do its work, and not by tearing the faith of other down. So, that is the approach I will take.

and while I perhaps am taking tone from comments of which there isn't any, I wish you would do more entreating with brotherly kindness and gentle persuasion as you seem very abrupt in your comments to me.

We are brothers from another mother, don't you forget it.

XXOXOOXOX

[supersnail]

I view apologetics as poking holes in reasons for disbelief. Faith isn't based mainly on apologetics.

To the extent that apologetics is done, maybe there could be more emphasis on some areas and less on other areas. Scientific apologetics has validity, but has the potential to mislead people about the relationship between science and religion and cause problems.

[William Schryver]

I posted part of this in another thread plus some other thoughts.

I was listening to Van Hale's interview today that he had some time ago with Shawn McCraney. I spoke in a thread at one time about how the church seems weiak at times because it is always on the defense when it comes to criticism and apoligetics. If you listen to this interview. You will see Van Hale understands it, and by putting McCraney on his heels and turning the tables and making him defend his position, he takes him to the woodshed. Which does not do anytohing other then show that defending a position, even a true and strong position is very difficult and appears very weak at times to a listener.

I think at the recent panel discussion that Scott Gordon appeared weaker in strength of argument then John Dehlin. I think Many apoligetics appear weak in some of their positions simply because they are on defense. Once we learn that our position is stronger when we are on offense we appear in much better position. Listen to 20 minutes of the Van Hale interview beggining at 6 minutes:00 seconds.

http://mormonmisc.po...rmon-vs-mormon/

If every evangelical and any other critic were put on defense we would find listeners to any debate finding more strength in the LDS position without even really discussing the LDS position.

An analogy is US defense of terrorism. The terrorist while weaker in technology and numbers only has to succed once to display mjor weaknesses in the US defense. While stronger the US has to be win and and be perfect in it's defense each and every time. It has to be perfect to win.

In regards to putting others on defense: Anti's play on this framework constantly and very effectively. I wish more of Latter-Day Saints who have faith crisis would recognize this. Debates and discussions take on very different tones and give very different impressions based on whether one is defending a position or criticizing a position and many times has much less to do with the strength of a position and much more to do with whether one is on offense or defense.

McCraney, like others, builds Strawmen and Hale erased them before McCraney could even begin to have his way with them.

What do you think about the nature of apoligetics and perhaps trying to gear it more towards an offensive approach?

Apologetics is, by its very nature, a response to a pre-existing criticism. Therefore it is fundamentally a defensive posture. That said, it can be executed in such a way that critics are placed in the position of having to defend their weak arguments.

Edited August 7, 2012 by William Schryver

[supersnail]

I posted part of this in another thread plus some other thoughts.

I was listening to Van Hale's interview today that he had some time ago with Shawn McCraney. I spoke in a thread at one time about how the church seems weak at times because it is always on the defense when it comes to criticism and apoligetics. If you listen to this interview. You will see Van Hale understands it, and by putting McCraney on his heels and turning the tables and making him defend his position, he takes him to the woodshed. Which does not do anything other then show that defending a position, even a true and strong position is very difficult and appears very weak at times to a listener.

I think at the recent panel discussion that Scott Gordon appeared weaker in strength of argument then John Dehlin. I think Many apoligetics appear weak in some of their positions simply because they are on defense. Once we learn that our position is stronger when we are on offense we appear in much better position. Listen to 20 minutes of the Van Hale interview beggining at 6 minutes:00 seconds.

http://mormonmisc.po...rmon-vs-mormon/

If every evangelical and any other critic were put on defense we would find listeners to any debate finding more strength in the LDS position without even really discussing the LDS position.

An analogy is US defense of terrorism. The terrorist while weaker in technology and numbers only has to succed once to display mjor weaknesses in the US defense. While stronger the US has to be win and and be perfect in it's defense each and every time. It has to be perfect to win.

In regards to putting others on defense: Anti's play on this framework constantly and very effectively. I wish more of Latter-Day Saints who have faith crisis would recognize this. Debates and discussions take on very different tones and give very different impressions based on whether one is defending a position or criticizing a position and many times has much less to do with the strength of a position and much more to do with whether one is on offense or defense.

McCraney, like others, builds Strawmen and Hale erased them before McCraney could even begin to have his way with them.

What do you think about the nature of apoligetics and perhaps trying to gear it more towards an offensive approach?

Some criticisms of Mormonism are philosophically naive, logically fallacious, methodologically flawed and even scientifically illiterate, and this has been revealed in the course of what you are calling "defensive" apologetics. So I'm not sure what an "offensive" apologetics would specifically entail. I don't think you are suggesting focusing on individual critics of Mormonism or publicly tarring the doctrines of other denominations, but then I don't get what offensive apologetics would look like. Having critics of Mormonism call into a show would not get rid of the need for basically defensive argument.

Edited August 7, 2012 by supersnail

[DBMormon]

it is to take apart the reasoning and methods they use to show others that if their methods are aopplied to other facets, it tears down any other faith under the same premise. It is to make them show their true colors. McCraney looked silly talking to Hale and anyone listening who had half a mind whould have seen right through every argument McCraney made

Edited August 7, 2012 by DBMormon

[zerinus]

I intensely dislike the use of the word apologetics because it is one of the most misused, abused, misunderstood, and misapplied word in contemporary religion. Almost anything nowadays seems to pass off as "apologetics". The word originally had a narrow and clear definition. It meant defending the Christian religion (intellectually) against intellectual criticism by unbelievers. That was the limit of its meaning. Nowadays almost any kind expository writing on religion is called apologetics. A lot of the stuff that is published by LDS and non-LDS under the guise of apologetics is not genuine apologetics in the classic meaning of the term. Anti-Mormons publish unprovoked hateful literature against Mormonism and call it apologetics, while Mormons publish expository material on Mormonism with no apologetic intent or value and call it apologetics.

There is still another side to this story. A lot of the criticisms and attacks that is launched against the Church are not strictly intellectual in nature, and therefore do not require an "apologetics" approach. A proper "apologetics" response in those situations would be inappropriate and ineffective. In those situations often either incorrectly an "apologetics" response is given when it shouldn't have been; or else the right response is given and wrongly called "apologetics," when in fact it wasn't and shouldn't have been called such. The repeated accusation that Mormons are not Christians for example, or that Jesus is not the brother of Satan etc.--in spite of all the explanations that have been given (which they are fully aware of) is no longer an "intellectual" attack, and therefore does not require an "apologetics" response. Such a response would be ineffective and might even be counterproductive. It requires a different kind of response which cannot and should not logically be called apologetics.

Edited August 7, 2012 by zerinus

[Tacenda]

I haven't watched his show much lately but happened to be home and turned on McCraney's show, a repeat of last Tuesday night's show and I might be derailing a bit, so I apologise if I am. But he brought up so many scriptures in the BOM that are so true to what the bible teaches about the nature of Christ and even showed several scriptures that we are to worship Jesus, unlike what we are taught now to worship only the Father and go through Jesus to get to the Father.

Another issue that was brought up is "hell". And how we don't believe in a place like it. He brought up several scriptures to counteract that in the BOM.

As I've mentioned at another time before, I bought a copy of the BOM 1830 version and in it is clearly a Christian aspect that Jesus is God incarnate. I don't have the time but will in the future provide references for all of this.

Just curious what your thoughts are. By the way, he brought up the fact that LDS missionaries use the BOM to hook people, since it is so like the bible, and then once they get hooked they then get the doctrines of the church found in the BOA and D&C, etc.

One more thing, it seems very clear to me that Joseph Smith evolved so much over time. Now if the BOM is from God. Why would He change it so much?

Edited August 7, 2012 by Tacenda

[Calm]

One more thing, it seems very clear to me that Joseph Smith evolved so much over time. Now if the BOM is from God. Why would He change it so much?

http://www.fairlds.o...-book-of-mormon

What do you mean by "so much"?

add-on: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes

http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2003-fair-conference/2003-monotheism-messiah-and-mormons-book

Edited August 7, 2012 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

http://www.fairlds.o...-book-of-mormon

What do you mean by "so much"?

add-on: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes

http://www.fairlds.o...nd-mormons-book

So much, is the change of the belief to worship the Father and not Jesus. Change the existence of "hell". Change the BOM to reflect that Jesus is not God incarnate. Some things I didn't mention, polygamy being abominable in the eyes of God to having the D&C 132 commandment.

I'm not picking any fight. I guess I've stepped back again to try and see why we don't do as the BOM says to do, if we hold it up to be the most correct book on earth. That's all.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

And to add to what I said above, Joseph Smith had questions and sought after answers, what's wrong with LDS continuing that tradition? I feel by my bringing up these issues I'm going to get knocked down. I really tried to keep an even keel. But I'm bringing this to the experts, because it helps, and if you are what you say you are doing, defending, then I'm giving you practice.

[supersnail]

Tacenda: I'm not sure where to start. It's not clear even in the KJV that Jesus is to be worshiped in the full sense of the word or that Jesus Christ is consubstantial with the Father. I'm not sure what you meant exactly by "what the bible teaches about the nature of Christ," but your argument seems to rest on a false premise. I don't think you would call it an argument yourself. Much of what you're saying is undeveloped and does not call for an extended apologetic response. Also, the issues you're raising have already been addressed, including the general issue of changes between editions.

I am an investigator with no better access to Google than you have. Nobody is keeping anything hidden from me.

Incidentally, I "got hooked" by reading certain D&C sections first, before the BoM, and that was without any LDS person suggesting that I do so. I didn't find the D&C to be alienating. I guess the reason for the emphasis on the BoM has to do with the seemingly more mundane D&C sections that may not engage the attention of newcomers.

[Calm]

Incidentally, I "got hooked" by reading certain D&C sections first, before the BoM, and that was without any LDS person suggesting that I do so. I didn't find the D&C to be alienating. I guess the reason for the emphasis on the BoM has to do with the seemingly more mundane D&C sections that may not engage the attention of newcomers.

I find your tale fascinating...how long have you been studying LDS beliefs? If I didn't know better, I would have thought you at least a long time convert you are so spot on. I haven't read all your posts, but don't remember seeing one I disagreed in the description of a belief. Edited August 8, 2012 by calmoriah

[supersnail]

I find your tale fascinating...how long have you been studying LDS beliefs? If I didn't know better, I would have thought you at least a long time convert you are so spot on. I haven't read all your posts, but don't remember seeing one I disagreed in the description of a belief.

I have been studying LDS beliefs for more than two years now and have not been baptized. Am in a bit of a unusual situation at the moment that does not make meeting with missionaries impossible, but I would have to be very proactive about it. I seem to learn best by studying independently, but that is only to a point, so I enjoy posting here and find it useful for clarifying my own thoughts. I mentioned recently that I used to be an atheist, and feel it's important to dispose of all that, and deal with critiques of Mormonism, now instead of at some future point. I have what might be considered a strong intellectual witness and realize there's more to belief than that, but it's good to know I'm not too far off the track as far as these things go!

I once defended the degrees of glory doctrine when I was at the canteen and someone had brought it up as if to ridicule Mormonism without knowing that I knew about it. I have to admit I got a kick out of their reaction after I clarified I wasn't LDS.

Edited August 8, 2012 by supersnail

[Calm]

I have to admit I got a kick out of their reaction after I clarified I wasn't LDS.

I bet.

[Tacenda]

I have been studying LDS beliefs for more than two years now and have not been baptized. Am in a bit of a unusual situation at the moment that does not make meeting with missionaries impossible, but I would have to be very proactive about it. I seem to learn best by studying independently, but that is only to a point, so I enjoy posting here and find it useful for clarifying my own thoughts. I mentioned recently that I used to be an atheist, and feel it's important to dispose of all that, and deal with critiques of Mormonism, now instead of at some future point. I have what might be considered a strong intellectual witness and realize there's more to belief than that, but it's good to know I'm not too far off the track as far as these things go!

I once defended the degrees of heaven doctrine when I was at the canteen and someone had brought it up as if to ridicule Mormonism without knowing that I knew about it. I have to admit I got a kick out of their reaction after I clarified I wasn't LDS.

I'm glad I could help you defend mormonism intellectually. I look forward to more posts and may even try to read some past posts on other threads.

But I still have the question of why we don't go by the original BoM, as in worship Jesus, because he was God in the original BoM, why wouldn't polygamy still be abominable as in the original BoM and why is there no longer a "hell" as in the original BoM.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Tacenda

[Calm]

why wouldn't polygamy still be abominable

http://en.fairmormon...ns_the_practice

I am assuming you aren't claiming that Jacob 2:30 was added later on....

Edited August 8, 2012 by calmoriah

[zerinus]

I have been studying LDS beliefs for more than two years now and have not been baptized. Am in a bit of a unusual situation at the moment that does not make meeting with missionaries impossible, but I would have to be very proactive about it. I seem to learn best by studying independently, but that is only to a point, so I enjoy posting here and find it useful for clarifying my own thoughts. I mentioned recently that I used to be an atheist, and feel it's important to dispose of all that, and deal with critiques of Mormonism, now instead of at some future point. I have what might be considered a strong intellectual witness and realize there's more to belief than that, but it's good to know I'm not too far off the track as far as these things go!

I once defended the degrees of glory doctrine when I was at the canteen and someone had brought it up as if to ridicule Mormonism without knowing that I knew about it. I have to admit I got a kick out of their reaction after I clarified I wasn't LDS.

That is similar to my conversion story into Mormonism. I was not taught by the missionaries. I was self-taught for the most part, mainly through reading the standard works. It took me four years from my first encounter with Mormonism to joining the Chirch.

[Tacenda]

http://en.fairmormon...ns_the_practice

I am assuming you aren't claiming that Jacob 2:30 was added later on....

True, very true, it wasn't added in and apparently has always been in there. Probably why McCraney didn't touch on that one. Just me and not understanding why it was practiced by JS but not really to raise seed unless he needed to just start it out and be the example.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Tacenda,

Let me try and answer your question about Jacob 2. But let me start in a different place at a very different time. A millennia ago, a Jewish Rabbi named Gershom ben Judah was incredibly influential (you can google him). Around 1000 A.D. he called a synod that, among other things, got into the issue of polygamy, and resulted in what is often termed as Gershom’s ban, which was a prohibition of polygamy seen as binding for most of Ashkenazic Judaism (northern Europe as opposed to the Sephardic Jews in Southern Europe, where polygamy continued – probably in part because of the Muslim control of the area). The ban was highly debated – and part of its success was due to the influence of the rabbinic schools at Speyer, Thams, and Worms (IIRC, and its been a while, it may have been opposed by the rabbinical school at Mainz). At any rate, it was opposed on two major issues. The first was the command to multiply (from Genesis), and how to deal with the issue of reproductive trouble for women that didn’t require divorce (prior to this, you could find on occasion reference to a second wife taken when the first one was apparently barren – it was an issue addressed from time to time in marriage contracts – the Ketubah – you might find this interesting: http://www.jofa.org/pdf/uploaded/1037-MKFW0433.pdf ), and the second was the issue of Levirate marriage (in Deuteronomy 25) which would require polygamy under certain circumstances (that this occurred, even if rarely, is seen in the dozens of legal clarifications on the issue found in the Talmud). Later legal rulings (takkanot) in the Jewish community would raise the authority of Gershom’s ban to something on par with Mosaic Law. So within a historical context we have a restriction on polygamy along with certain responses to that restriction.

The second issue is that polygamy had already been (to some extent) reined in. The primary Old Testament text dealing with limits on polygamy has for a very long time (at least a couple of thousand years) been a bit of Deuteronomy called the Kingship Code in Chapter 17. In particular, there is a bit there about kings and polygamy. It reads (in the KJV – vss. 17-19):

Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests and the Levites: and it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them.

A lot was written about this. Eventually, rabbinic texts settle on a definition that protected the patriarchs. It was never views too many as less than four (and eventually four was generally considered the maximum appropriate number under most circumstances – if you remember, Jacob/Israel had four wives). This was expanded not just to apply to kings, but to all the men in the Jewish community in general. No matter how you look at it, there were problems with David and Solomon though. They “multiplied wives” without any question. And, actually, we have very early Jewish apologetic literature that deals with this issue. One of the oldest I know of dates to the time of Christ, and was found first in the Cairo Genizah, and later in the Dead Sea Scrolls in a text called the Cairo Damascus document. There is a passage in it which has a scriptural commentary on Noah's Ark. With the animals going in two by two, it includes a note on David's polygamy. Here is the text:

"As to the prince, it is written, "He shall not multiple wives unto himself" But David read not in the Book of the Law that was sealed, which was in the Ark. For it was not opened in Israel from the day of the death of Eleazar and Joshua and the Elders who worshiped Ashtareth. And it was hidden and was not discovered until Zadok arose. But they concealed the deeds of David save only the blood of Uriah."

Since Deuteronomy (the Book of the Law) wasn’t available to David (you can read of its rediscovery in 2 Kings 22), his polygamy was excused (except of course in the case of Bathsheba). I have always found that bit of text to be a little reminiscent of D&C 132:9, by the way:

"David's wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; ..."

Two apologetic responses to the same underlying problem. Actually, the KJV translation of the kingship code is rather clunky for us. The NIV, for example, brings the language a bit up to date. The “Neither shall he multiply wives to himself” becomes “He must not take many wives,”, and I introduce that statement because it is much closer to the language Jacob uses when he is being critical of David and Solomon. (There is more going on in the Book of Mormon with respect to its negative views on David and Solomon too – part of the reason why some LDS believe that the Brass Plates were a northern text type – you might consider my paper here: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=18&num=1&id=551 ).

So we get back to Jacob. The initial ban on polygamy among the Nephites is discussed in Jacob 3:5.

"... they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father - that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them."

"our father" seems to refer to Lehi. As Lehi introduces a ban on polygamy, if the Nephites followed in any way the same sort of response that later Jews in Europe would follow, we might assume that they would challenge Lehi’s authority to make changes to Mosaic Law, particularly with regard to Levirate marriage. Levirate marriage is referred to in the Bible to “raise up seed” (Gen. 38:8, and the account in the synoptic Matt 22:24, Mark 12:19, Luke 20:28).

So, my reading of Jacob goes something like this:

In Jacob 2:23, we are told that the Nephites were excusing their breaking of the commandment given by Lehi (that's the verse in chapter 3) to only be monogamous - and they were excusing their behavior by using David and Solomon. They were justifying their behavior, it says, by using what had been written about David and Solomon in their Old Testament (the Brass Plates). In verse 24, Jacob is quoting Deuteronomy 17:17 (something also written in their Old Testament). He says, "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me". It wasn’t just that David and Solomon were polygamous, they were clearly in violation of the Kingship code. (Jacob doesn’t have the books of Kings in his text, the justification used by later Jews to protect David wouldn’t have come up). So their first argument using David and Solomon as appropriate examples is shot down. In this case it really is all about the example, of course, since Moses was potentially polygamous, as was Jacob and Abraham. Polygamy itself may not be being condemned here. And if the justification for calling polygamy in general a bad thing comes from Lehi, it is hard to imagine this being retroactively placed onto David and Solomon – thus the need to explain why using David and Solomon as examples is inappropriate.

Now, this might not have been the only argument raised by the Nephites. If they followed the same kind of pattern as European Judaism, then we have a situation where we have the prophet Lehi being pitted against the prophet Moses. Lehi has given a commandment that has in fact overturned a part of the Law of Moses - and that part that was overturned was the commandment of Levirate marriage (at least in certain circumstances) to raise up seed. So when we get to verse 30, we have this comment: "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." That argument too is removed, and it happens within the context of Lehi being an equal authority to Moses.

I think that using Jacob 2:30 to define the purpose (or to defend the purpose) of the polygamy of Joseph Smith and other LDS to "raise up seed" is misdirected. It first crops up only when polygamy becomes more openly challenged, and Jacob 2 was used to attack the practice (2:30 then becomes part of the apologetic). Levirate marriage itself wasn’t generally used to defend the practice (I only know of one account that does use it, and it is trying to justify an instance of post-manifesto polygamy). At the same time, part of Jacob's defense seems to be that Lehi as a prophet has the same authority as Moses did. And by the same token, LDS believe the same about Joseph Smith - that God can, through a prophet change the rules from time to time. And I think this is a more legitimate (but certainly not as easy to read) use of Jacob 2 to defend early LDS polygamy.

Ben M.

[Tacenda]

Tacenda,

Let me try and answer your question about Jacob 2. But let me start in a different place at a very different time. A millennia ago, a Jewish Rabbi named Gershom ben Judah was incredibly influential (you can google him). Around 1000 A.D. he called a synod that, among other things, got into the issue of polygamy, and resulted in what is often termed as Gershom’s ban, which was a prohibition of polygamy seen as binding for most of Ashkenazic Judaism (northern Europe as opposed to the Sephardic Jews in Southern Europe, where polygamy continued – probably in part because of the Muslim control of the area). The ban was highly debated – and part of its success was due to the influence of the rabbinic schools at Speyer, Thams, and Worms (IIRC, and its been a while, it may have been opposed by the rabbinical school at Mainz). At any rate, it was opposed on two major issues. The first was the command to multiply (from Genesis), and how to deal with the issue of reproductive trouble for women that didn’t require divorce (prior to this, you could find on occasion reference to a second wife taken when the first one was apparently barren – it was an issue addressed from time to time in marriage contracts – the Ketubah – you might find this interesting: http://www.jofa.org/...37-MKFW0433.pdf ), and the second was the issue of Levirate marriage (in Deuteronomy 25) which would require polygamy under certain circumstances (that this occurred, even if rarely, is seen in the dozens of legal clarifications on the issue found in the Talmud). Later legal rulings (takkanot) in the Jewish community would raise the authority of Gershom’s ban to something on par with Mosaic Law. So within a historical context we have a restriction on polygamy along with certain responses to that restriction.

The second issue is that polygamy had already been (to some extent) reined in. The primary Old Testament text dealing with limits on polygamy has for a very long time (at least a couple of thousand years) been a bit of Deuteronomy called the Kingship Code in Chapter 17. In particular, there is a bit there about kings and polygamy. It reads (in the KJV – vss. 17-19):

Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests and the Levites: and it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them.

A lot was written about this. Eventually, rabbinic texts settle on a definition that protected the patriarchs. It was never views too many as less than four (and eventually four was generally considered the maximum appropriate number under most circumstances – if you remember, Jacob/Israel had four wives). This was expanded not just to apply to kings, but to all the men in the Jewish community in general. No matter how you look at it, there were problems with David and Solomon though. They “multiplied wives” without any question. And, actually, we have very early Jewish apologetic literature that deals with this issue. One of the oldest I know of dates to the time of Christ, and was found first in the Cairo Genizah, and later in the Dead Sea Scrolls in a text called the Cairo Damascus document. There is a passage in it which has a scriptural commentary on Noah's Ark. With the animals going in two by two, it includes a note on David's polygamy. Here is the text:

"As to the prince, it is written, "He shall not multiple wives unto himself" But David read not in the Book of the Law that was sealed, which was in the Ark. For it was not opened in Israel from the day of the death of Eleazar and Joshua and the Elders who worshiped Ashtareth. And it was hidden and was not discovered until Zadok arose. But they concealed the deeds of David save only the blood of Uriah."

Since Deuteronomy (the Book of the Law) wasn’t available to David (you can read of its rediscovery in 2 Kings 22), his polygamy was excused (except of course in the case of Bathsheba). I have always found that bit of text to be a little reminiscent of D&C 132:9, by the way:

"David's wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; ..."

Two apologetic responses to the same underlying problem. Actually, the KJV translation of the kingship code is rather clunky for us. The NIV, for example, brings the language a bit up to date. The “Neither shall he multiply wives to himself” becomes “He must not take many wives,”, and I introduce that statement because it is much closer to the language Jacob uses when he is being critical of David and Solomon. (There is more going on in the Book of Mormon with respect to its negative views on David and Solomon too – part of the reason why some LDS believe that the Brass Plates were a northern text type – you might consider my paper here: http://maxwellinstit...18&num=1&id=551 ).

So we get back to Jacob. The initial ban on polygamy among the Nephites is discussed in Jacob 3:5.

"... they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father - that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them."

"our father" seems to refer to Lehi. As Lehi introduces a ban on polygamy, if the Nephites followed in any way the same sort of response that later Jews in Europe would follow, we might assume that they would challenge Lehi’s authority to make changes to Mosaic Law, particularly with regard to Levirate marriage. Levirate marriage is referred to in the Bible to “raise up seed” (Gen. 38:8, and the account in the synoptic Matt 22:24, Mark 12:19, Luke 20:28).

So, my reading of Jacob goes something like this:

In Jacob 2:23, we are told that the Nephites were excusing their breaking of the commandment given by Lehi (that's the verse in chapter 3) to only be monogamous - and they were excusing their behavior by using David and Solomon. They were justifying their behavior, it says, by using what had been written about David and Solomon in their Old Testament (the Brass Plates). In verse 24, Jacob is quoting Deuteronomy 17:17 (something also written in their Old Testament). He says, "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me". It wasn’t just that David and Solomon were polygamous, they were clearly in violation of the Kingship code. (Jacob doesn’t have the books of Kings in his text, the justification used by later Jews to protect David wouldn’t have come up). So their first argument using David and Solomon as appropriate examples is shot down. In this case it really is all about the example, of course, since Moses was potentially polygamous, as was Jacob and Abraham. Polygamy itself may not be being condemned here. And if the justification for calling polygamy in general a bad thing comes from Lehi, it is hard to imagine this being retroactively placed onto David and Solomon – thus the need to explain why using David and Solomon as examples is inappropriate.

Now, this might not have been the only argument raised by the Nephites. If they followed the same kind of pattern as European Judaism, then we have a situation where we have the prophet Lehi being pitted against the prophet Moses. Lehi has given a commandment that has in fact overturned a part of the Law of Moses - and that part that was overturned was the commandment of Levirate marriage (at least in certain circumstances) to raise up seed. So when we get to verse 30, we have this comment: "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." That argument too is removed, and it happens within the context of Lehi being an equal authority to Moses.

I think that using Jacob 2:30 to define the purpose (or to defend the purpose) of the polygamy of Joseph Smith and other LDS to "raise up seed" is misdirected. It first crops up only when polygamy becomes more openly challenged, and Jacob 2 was used to attack the practice (2:30 then becomes part of the apologetic). Levirate marriage itself wasn’t generally used to defend the practice (I only know of one account that does use it, and it is trying to justify an instance of post-manifesto polygamy). At the same time, part of Jacob's defense seems to be that Lehi as a prophet has the same authority as Moses did. And by the same token, LDS believe the same about Joseph Smith - that God can, through a prophet change the rules from time to time. And I think this is a more legitimate (but certainly not as easy to read) use of Jacob 2 to defend early LDS polygamy.

Ben M.

Thanks Ben, really appreciate the time and effort put forth! Now if I could get answers for the other problems I'm having.