Emma's Scibe Work on BoM

[William James]

Some years ago, I was trying to come up with a plausible explanation for why the BoM (in the book of Jacob) so strongly condemns polygamy, and why God commanded it in the D&C. Emma Smith (Joseph's first wife), as we all know, hated polygamy, even though, as I recall, she may have spoken in favor of it out of obedience to what she perceived to be God's commands.

My non-expert impression of Emma is that she was a rather possessive and jealous spouse who felt very threatened by the idea of Joseph being involved with anyone else intimately (not to say that is abnormal in the least, but that dynamic seems more present in the Joseph/Emma relationship than in the average marital relationship). Now, consider the likely fact that Emma was the scribe who was taking down Joseph's "translation" concerning the condemnation of polygamy in the Book of Jacob. (for a timeline of BoM translation, see http://eldenwatson.net/BoM.htm, which is not necessarily authoritative but which strongly suggests to me that Emma was the primary scribe during the Jacob translation).

For me, it seems this was more than coincidental. Joseph was probably giving Emma a "revelation" exactly along the lines of what she wanted to hear. For her, those passages condemning polygamy were probably just the assurance she wanted from her husband that he would not stray. D&C 132 (the revelation commanding polygamy), by contrast, was, I believe, given to Joseph without Emma's knowledge until several years later. I think these facts, along with the naturally-occuring tendancy in most men (and many women) to desire multiple sex partners, combine to make out a very persuasive case for the proposition that the Book of Jacob's passage condemning polygamy was dictated by Joseph, not be revelation, but for Emma's sake to assure her that he was committed to her and to convince her of his prophetic calling.

Naturally, my speculations probably do nothing for the TBMs who consider their testimony of the BoM to constitute irrefutable proof that the BoM is a not only authentic, but doctrinally accurate translation free of Joseph Smith's own personal opinions and musings. Those TBMs would probably not give much consideration to this coincidence, and would write it off as just that- coincidence and nothing more.

But my questions are as follows:

1) Does anyone have any evidence that the condemnation-of-polygamy passage in Jacob was transcribed by someone other than Emma?

2) Does anyone have any evidence that the condemnation-of-polygamy passage in Jacob was transcribed without Emma being present?

3) Other than your own spiritual witness concerning how to reconcile Jacob and D&C 132, do you know of any objective evidence that would weigh in favor of considering the book of Jacob's transcription by Emma a mere coincidence?

[jwhitlock]

Does the fact that the Lord, in the book of Jacob, also indicates that He can command his people to practice polygamy when He wants them to weigh into this at all? Or was that just kind of glossed over?

[William James]

Does the fact that the Lord, in the book of Jacob, also indicates that He can command his people to practice polygamy when He wants them to weigh into this at all? Or was that just kind of glossed over?

Which verse are you referring to?

[Sevenbak]

Which verse are you referring to?

Verse 30.

http://scriptures.lds.org/jacob/2/30#30

[lostindc]

Some years ago, I was trying to come up with a plausible explanation for why the BoM (in the book of Jacob) so strongly condemns polygamy, and why God commanded it in the D&C. Emma Smith (Joseph's first wife), as we all know, hated polygamy, even though, as I recall, she may have spoken in favor of it out of obedience to what she perceived to be God's commands.

My non-expert impression of Emma is that she was a rather possessive and jealous spouse who felt very threatened by the idea of Joseph being involved with anyone else intimately (not to say that is abnormal in the least, but that dynamic seems more present in the Joseph/Emma relationship than in the average marital relationship). Now, consider the likely fact that Emma was the scribe who was taking down Joseph's "translation" concerning the condemnation of polygamy in the Book of Jacob. (for a timeline of BoM translation, see http://eldenwatson.net/BoM.htm, which is not necessarily authoritative but which strongly suggests to me that Emma was the primary scribe during the Jacob translation).

For me, it seems this was more than coincidental. Joseph was probably giving Emma a "revelation" exactly along the lines of what she wanted to hear. For her, those passages condemning polygamy were probably just the assurance she wanted from her husband that he would not stray. D&C 132 (the revelation commanding polygamy), by contrast, was, I believe, given to Joseph without Emma's knowledge until several years later. I think these facts, along with the naturally-occuring tendancy in most men (and many women) to desire multiple sex partners, combine to make out a very persuasive case for the proposition that the Book of Jacob's passage condemning polygamy was dictated by Joseph, not be revelation, but for Emma's sake to assure her that he was committed to her and to convince her of his prophetic calling.

Naturally, my speculations probably do nothing for the TBMs who consider their testimony of the BoM to constitute irrefutable proof that the BoM is a not only authentic, but doctrinally accurate translation free of Joseph Smith's own personal opinions and musings. Those TBMs would probably not give much consideration to this coincidence, and would write it off as just that- coincidence and nothing more.

But my questions are as follows:

1) Does anyone have any evidence that the condemnation-of-polygamy passage in Jacob was transcribed by someone other than Emma?

2) Does anyone have any evidence that the condemnation-of-polygamy passage in Jacob was transcribed without Emma being present?

3) Other than your own spiritual witness concerning how to reconcile Jacob and D&C 132, do you know of any objective evidence that would weigh in favor of considering the book of Jacob's transcription by Emma a mere coincidence?

You are basing this whole entire post on big fat pile of garbage. Meaning, no real source that states she was the scribe. Talk about speculation this is like trying to fill the gaps of evolution, basically useless.

[Mortal Man]

but which strongly suggests to me that Emma was the primary scribe during the Jacob translation

I don't see where it suggests that Emma wrote anything but part of the lost Book of Lehi and the beginning of Mosiah.

[Garden Girl]

WJ...

So you think Joseph just threw this in as he was dictating just to assuage Emma's feelings...

your whole post is nothing, and I mean nothing, but questionable speculation.

Garden Girl

[jwhitlock]

Which verse are you referring to?

As indicated by Sevenbak, Jacob 2:30.

Puts kind of a damper on the Emma-influenced-it theory, I would say.

[Tabitha]

Some years ago, I was trying to come up with a plausible explanation for why the BoM (in the book of Jacob) so strongly condemns polygamy, and why God commanded it in the D&C. Emma Smith (Joseph's first wife), as we all know, hated polygamy, even though, as I recall, she may have spoken in favor of it out of obedience to what she perceived to be God's commands.

My non-expert impression of Emma is that she was a rather possessive and jealous spouse who felt very threatened by the idea of Joseph being involved with anyone else intimately (not to say that is abnormal in the least, but that dynamic seems more present in the Joseph/Emma relationship than in the average marital relationship). Now, consider the likely fact that Emma was the scribe who was taking down Joseph's "translation" concerning the condemnation of polygamy in the Book of Jacob. (for a timeline of BoM translation, see http://eldenwatson.net/BoM.htm, which is not necessarily authoritative but which strongly suggests to me that Emma was the primary scribe during the Jacob translation).

For me, it seems this was more than coincidental. Joseph was probably giving Emma a "revelation" exactly along the lines of what she wanted to hear. For her, those passages condemning polygamy were probably just the assurance she wanted from her husband that he would not stray. D&C 132 (the revelation commanding polygamy), by contrast, was, I believe, given to Joseph without Emma's knowledge until several years later. I think these facts, along with the naturally-occuring tendancy in most men (and many women) to desire multiple sex partners, combine to make out a very persuasive case for the proposition that the Book of Jacob's passage condemning polygamy was dictated by Joseph, not be revelation, but for Emma's sake to assure her that he was committed to her and to convince her of his prophetic calling.

Naturally, my speculations probably do nothing for the TBMs who consider their testimony of the BoM to constitute irrefutable proof that the BoM is a not only authentic, but doctrinally accurate translation free of Joseph Smith's own personal opinions and musings. Those TBMs would probably not give much consideration to this coincidence, and would write it off as just that- coincidence and nothing more.

But my questions are as follows:

1) Does anyone have any evidence that the condemnation-of-polygamy passage in Jacob was transcribed by someone other than Emma?

2) Does anyone have any evidence that the condemnation-of-polygamy passage in Jacob was transcribed without Emma being present?

3) Other than your own spiritual witness concerning how to reconcile Jacob and D&C 132, do you know of any objective evidence that would weigh in favor of considering the book of Jacob's transcription by Emma a mere coincidence?

If what you are suggesting is true, this begs the question: why would Emma need assurance of Joseph's faithfulness this early in their marriage? What reason would she have to be afraid that he might stray? They had only been married one or two years and he had not even been called as a prophet yet (he was not ordained to anything while translating the plates and was not made president of the church until later).

I wouldn't say that Emma is more "possessive" than an average wife. Rather, I think she had a more headstrong personality and was more adamant about expressing her feelings than some others.

[Jason]

Your timeline link by Watson indicates that Oliver was the scribe for the book of Jacob, based on the handwriting.

And Jacob quite clearly says that the Lord can command His people to practice plural marriage.

[William James]

Your timeline link by Watson indicates that Oliver was the scribe for the book of Jacob, based on the handwriting.

And Jacob quite clearly says that the Lord can command His people to practice plural marriage.

I'm not seeing where Jacob says the Lord can (or has) commanded the practice of polygyny. The verse to which the apologists are citing, Jacob 2:30, says,

"For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up a seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things."

As noted by one commentator (caveat: I do not agree with everything, but believe the commentator lends insight on the interpretation issue):

In my experience of understanding the scriptures, I have found that proper interpretation of a verse comes from the meaning of the verses surrounding it. Jacob 2:30 must be interpreted in light of the meaning of the surrounding verses. To do otherwise could render a meaning opposed to the meaning of the surrounding text and thus would make no sense. It is clear from reading Jacob 2:22-35 above that the scriptures before and after Jacob 2:30 plainly state that having many wives as well as having concubines is a whoredom and an abomination before the Lord. And He forbade Jacob's people to have concubines and more than one wife. The Lord was not pleased with David and Solomon for doing these things and He was not pleased with the people in Jacob's time for also doing these things and justifying their actions by what David and Solomon did. In addition, the Lord stated that these actions were breaking the hearts of their wives and daughters and indicated that if they continued to pursue such activities, He would "visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction..." (verse 33). Thus, to take verse 30 out of the middle of this entire passage, which strongly states that polygamy is evil, and render the meaning of verse 30 to be that "Polygamy is ... to be practiced ... only when commanded by God," is ridiculous. Such an interpretation is out of context with the meaning of the surrounding verses. Even more, it makes God changeable, which He is not.

So, if Jacob 2:30 shouldn't be interpreted that polygamy is acceptable when God commands it, then what is the meaning of this verse? Verse 25 says that the Lord led these people out of Jerusalem to give them an opportunity to become righteous. In this context, verse 30 means that if these people are going to become righteous, He must give them commandments to obey Him. If He doesn't, "they shall harken unto these things," or in other words they will commit these whoredoms and not become a righteous people. This interpretation of verse 30 is in context with the meaning of the surrounding verses and can be the only plausible meaning given to it.

Thus, in my opinion, Jacob 2:22-35 supports the position that polygamy is evil. Knowing this, Joseph would have never engaged in this activity. And the Lord, being unchangeable, would have never given him a revelation telling His people to practice polygamy.

The idea that Jacob 2:30 supports polygamy is the product of an afterthought, invented by those who are unwilling to entertain the possibility that either the Jacob passage (altogether condemning polygyny) or D&C 132 (commanding polygyny) could be incorrect and not God-inspired.

As for who was the scribe for the Jacob passage, I'm not seeing where Watson says Oliver was the scribe for Jacob chapter 2 (or for that matter, the scribe for the entire book of Jacob, although there is a notation that Cowdery's handwriting was in one of the chapters). Even if Oliver were the scribe for Jacob chapter 2, Emma was most likely present. In any event, while I'm on the topic, does anyone know whose handwriting is in the transcription manuscript for Jacob chapter 2, or where it is possible to get that information? Are scanned versions of the original manuscripts anywhere on the web?

[ttribe]

The idea that Jacob 2:30 supports polygamy is the product of an afterthought, invented by those who are unwilling to entertain the possibility that either the Jacob passage (altogether condemning polygyny) or D&C 132 (commanding polygyny) could be incorrect and not God-inspired.

Or the idea that Jacob 2:30 doesn't support polygamy could just be the wishful thinking of critics.

[ebeddoulos]

I'm not seeing where Jacob says the Lord can (or has) commanded the practice of polygyny. The verse to which the apologists are citing, Jacob 2:30, says,

"For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up a seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things."

As noted by one commentator (caveat: I do not agree with everything, but believe the commentator lends insight on the interpretation issue):

The idea that Jacob 2:30 supports polygamy is the product of an afterthought, invented by those who are unwilling to entertain the possibility that either the Jacob passage (altogether condemning polygyny) or D&C 132 (commanding polygyny) could be incorrect and not God-inspired.

As for who was the scribe for the Jacob passage, I'm not seeing where Watson says Oliver was the scribe for Jacob chapter 2 (or for that matter, the scribe for the entire book of Jacob, although there is a notation that Cowdery's handwriting was in one of the chapters). Even if Oliver were the scribe for Jacob chapter 2, Emma was most likely present. In any event, while I'm on the topic, does anyone know whose handwriting is in the transcription manuscript for Jacob chapter 2, or where it is possible to get that information? Are scanned versions of the original manuscripts anywhere on the web?

It is customary that when one quotes from a source that a citation is provided. Since you failed to do so let me help you out:

http://defendjoseph.blogspot.com/2008/11/d...t-polygamy.html

Your use of this "commentator" proves only that both you and the commentator lack an appropriaste grounding in the English language. Jacob 2:30 pivots on the word "otherwise". Again, let me help you out. This comes from merriam-webster:

Main Entry: 2otherwise

Function: adverb

Date:13th century

1 : in a different way or manner <glossed over or otherwise handled â?? Playboy>

2 : in different circumstances <might otherwise have left>

3 : in other respects <an otherwise flimsy farce â?? Current Biography>

4 : if not <do what I tell you, otherwise you'll be sorry>

5 : not â??paired with an adjective, adverb, noun, or verb to indicate its contrary or to suggest an indefinite alternative <people whose deeds, admirable or otherwise â?? John Fischer><almost thirty thousand women, Irish and otherwise â?? J. M. Burns><his opinion as to the success or otherwise of it â?? Austral. Dict. of Biography>

Therefore, the only valid interpretation Jacob 2:30 is that polygamy is not to be practiced unless God states "otherwise". Any interpretation "otherwise" is a display of na

[William James]

It is customary that when one quotes from a source that a citation is provided. Since you failed to do so let me help you out:

Your use of this "commentator" proves only that both you and the commentator lack an appropriaste grounding in the English language. Jacob 2:30 pivots on the word "otherwise". Again, let me help you out. This comes from merriam-webster:

Therefore, the only valid interpretation Jacob 2:30 is that polygamy is not to be practiced unless God states "otherwise". Any interpretation "otherwise" is a display of na

[ttribe]

In order for this theory of yours to hold up, Mr. James, you must find evidence that JS was considering polygamy as an institution either before or during the time period he was translating this portion of the BoM (if he was truly trying to ease Emma's concerns). Otherwise, you are thrust into calling D&C 132 "non-inspired" (as you've pointed out) - in which case you can throw out the ENTIRE concept of eternal marriage and the kingdoms, not just the references to polygamy. Or, you're stuck arguing about "poor" English in the translation (i.e. Jacob 2:30).

BTW, your suggested "survey" activity is nothing more than a silly diversionary tactic given the impediments to accurately developing and administering such a survey; which I suspect you had in mind when you issued your "challenge".

How about, as an alternative, you not resort to taking the most nefarious possibility as fact (that the reading of the verse is nothing more than an apologetic trick) and try to come up with some evidence? Otherwise, this is just another example of your "speculation" which you like to present as fact (need I remind you of your "Pres. Hinckley hated all things sexual" statement?).

[Jason]

What about the fact that your own cited source said that Oliver Cowdery was the scribe for the translation of the Book of Jacob, not Ema?

You seem to have glossed over that point in favor of challenging the plain reading of Jacob 2:30.

[ebeddoulos]

Now, here's the challenge:

As a retired U.S Army Officer I recognize a smoke screen thrown up in desperation when I see it. I did not fall for the tactic then; I shant today. Now here is your challenge. Show that you have a modicum of understanding of the English language and diagram Jacob 2:30.

[LifeOnaPlate]

According to the Mosiah-first theory which I currently think most accurate, Emma didn't have a hand in Jacob. And as others have pointed out, Jacob supports God-directed plural marriage.

[semlogo]

Verse 30 very clearly shows that polygamy can be commanded by God if He wishes to raise up seed. The OP is being disingenuous and deliberately dense.

[jwhitlock]

As noted by one commentator (caveat: I do not agree with everything, but believe the commentator lends insight on the interpretation issue):

After reading the commentator, I found his rationalizations stretched, at best. Too many assumptions presented as fact.

[maklelan]

The idea that Jacob 2:30 supports polygamy is the product of an afterthought, invented by those who are unwilling to entertain the possibility that either the Jacob passage (altogether condemning polygyny) or D&C 132 (commanding polygyny) could be incorrect and not God-inspired.

That's not true at all. Verse 30 consists of two clauses contrasted by the conjunctive adverb "otherwise." The second clause references the requirement against polygamy, which means the first clause stands in contrast to it. The commanding of God's people is contrasted with the commandment not to engage in polygamy. The syntax of the sentence is absolutely clear, and no amount of grammatical smoke and mirrors will change that. Polygamy is condemned unless God commands otherwise. The application of raising up seed is otherwise meaningless. Jacob 2:30 is clear, and any attempt to deny that is ignorant of English grammar.

[sethpayne]

Some years ago, I was trying to come up with a plausible explanation for why the BoM (in the book of Jacob) so strongly condemns polygamy, and why God commanded it in the D&C. Emma Smith (Joseph's first wife), as we all know, hated polygamy, even though, as I recall, she may have spoken in favor of it out of obedience to what she perceived to be God's commands.

My non-expert impression of Emma is that she was a rather possessive and jealous spouse who felt very threatened by the idea of Joseph being involved with anyone else intimately (not to say that is abnormal in the least, but that dynamic seems more present in the Joseph/Emma relationship than in the average marital relationship). Now, consider the likely fact that Emma was the scribe who was taking down Joseph's "translation" concerning the condemnation of polygamy in the Book of Jacob. (for a timeline of BoM translation, see http://eldenwatson.net/BoM.htm, which is not necessarily authoritative but which strongly suggests to me that Emma was the primary scribe during the Jacob translation).

For me, it seems this was more than coincidental. Joseph was probably giving Emma a "revelation" exactly along the lines of what she wanted to hear. For her, those passages condemning polygamy were probably just the assurance she wanted from her husband that he would not stray. D&C 132 (the revelation commanding polygamy), by contrast, was, I believe, given to Joseph without Emma's knowledge until several years later. I think these facts, along with the naturally-occuring tendancy in most men (and many women) to desire multiple sex partners, combine to make out a very persuasive case for the proposition that the Book of Jacob's passage condemning polygamy was dictated by Joseph, not be revelation, but for Emma's sake to assure her that he was committed to her and to convince her of his prophetic calling.

Naturally, my speculations probably do nothing for the TBMs who consider their testimony of the BoM to constitute irrefutable proof that the BoM is a not only authentic, but doctrinally accurate translation free of Joseph Smith's own personal opinions and musings. Those TBMs would probably not give much consideration to this coincidence, and would write it off as just that- coincidence and nothing more.

But my questions are as follows:

1) Does anyone have any evidence that the condemnation-of-polygamy passage in Jacob was transcribed by someone other than Emma?

2) Does anyone have any evidence that the condemnation-of-polygamy passage in Jacob was transcribed without Emma being present?

3) Other than your own spiritual witness concerning how to reconcile Jacob and D&C 132, do you know of any objective evidence that would weigh in favor of considering the book of Jacob's transcription by Emma a mere coincidence?

I would really doubt this since Jacob was translated nearly last.

[sethpayne]

Jacob 2:30 is very poorly worded, and is not clear. Now you've forced me to do it. Here's the whole passage now, which I post along with a challenge to you and all your like-minded "English scholars."

Now, here's the challenge: Find one hundred non-LDS, reasonably-educated, native English speakers who are not familiar with your position (that Jacob 2:30 stands for the proposition that the Lord sometimes commands polygyny), and survey them, asking the following question:

Based upon your review of this passage, and assuming it to be authentic revelation from God, do you believe the passage supports, cuts against, or is indifferent to the proposition that God sometimes commands His people to practice polygyny?

If your survey reveals that a majority of people agree with your interpretation, I am willing to reconsider my view that a plain reading of the Jacob 2 passage on its face universally condemns polygyny. If, however, as I suspect, the overwhelming majority of survey takers respond that their impression is that the passage raises no reasonable dispute concerning the acceptability of polygyny, and that the passage universally condemns it, then I believe it would be fair for you to at least acknowledge that your interpretation of Jacob 2:30 is a strained, faith-based-only, interpretation. Does that sound fair to you? Are you willing to take the challenge?

IMO, verse 30 *clearly* indicates an exception to the rule of monogamy. I really don't see any other way to read it.