David's Wives and Concubines

[Senator]

Are you not the one that claimed a contradition? Then you wanted BC Space to enlighted us?

If it doesn't strike out and bitecha in the a$$, then I don't know what else to say.

In unreleated news everytime I see your user name I think of Bob Bennett.

I'm sorry

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If it doesn't strike out and bitecha in the a$$, then I don't know what else to say.

I'm sorry

1)So you see a contradiction and we don't yet you want us to resolve it for you?

2) Don't worry about it.

[Senator]

1)So you see a contradiction and we don't yet you want us to resolve it for you?

2) Don't worry about it.

1) Sorry, I see dead people as well. Don't concern yourself with it. I'll kept my delusions to myself and others that also see dead people.

2)I won't

[Woody]

Anyone else want to take a shot at it?

I guess I do. Not sure.

First, we might be laboring under... not a bad translation, but a bad detail of the transmission.

John Gilbert the typesetter punctuated the Book of Mormon - divided it into sentences, further decided smaller divisions, and added punctuation suggesting types of sentences and relationships between the divisions. Gilbert wasn't baptised, didn't have the Gift of the Holy Ghost, didn't know the doctrines of the kingdom, and wasn't even particularly sympathetic to the book!

While later editors were better endowed, they still didn't do what In My Humble Opinion should have been done: remove Gilbert's contribution and start over. You can get pretty close to how the text came off of Oliver Cowdery's pen with a few commands in a word processor tho:

Jacob 2:23-24 ... for behold thus saith the Lord this people begin to wax in iniquity they understand not the scriptures for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms because of the things which were written concerning David & Solomon his son behold David & Solomon truly had many wives & concubines which thing was abominable before me saith the Lord

The problem in the present discussion is to determine what is referred to by "which thing was abominable". There are several possibilities here.

a. this people begin to wax in iniquity - that's abominable.

b. they understand not the scriptures - that's abominable.

c. they are committing whoredoms - that's abominable.

d. they seek to excuse themselves in doing that - that's abominable.

e. the things which were written concerning David & Solomon - abominable things were written.

f. David & Solomon had many wives & concubines - that was abominable.

g. feeding Pudge the fish a tuna fish sandwich - that would be an abomination (oops, wrong story)

Consider carefully all factors. Verb tenses and number, gender, etc. are not reliable clues in the Book of Mormon. Some people think this is an artifact of Joseph Smith's backwoods lack of book larnin'; others see it as artifacts of the Nephite/Hebrew/Egyptian language it was written in.

Further clues might be found in the surrounding text, consider that. As well as everything else the Lord has revealed to us, including DC 132.

Also note that the Nephites very probably had "things which were written concerning David & Solomon" which we do not have today. Considering this, it might be the case that we simply do not have enough information to solve the riddle. Some things we know are right, and some we know are wrong, and some we simply do not know.

Second, people do not understand what David and Solomon were like. In their early years they were wonderful. In their later years they were as evil as men ever get. A careful inspection of 1 Kings chapter 11 in the LDS Bible will open the eyes. To be blunt, read the JST amendments in the footnotes. If Solomon really sacrificed to Molech, it means he burnt his own children to death, and he was as bad as his father, which means his father was as bad as he was. What exactly David and Solomon did that Jacob and the Lord hated so much, might not be written anywhere today.

The keepers of the records of the royal court of the house of David (and this relates to choice "e" above) depended for their living on the people believing that David and Solomon had a divine mandate to rule. This might be one motive why they altered the records. David was accosted by Nathan the Prophet and Nathan told him he was a murderer... but it was OK, the Lord had "put away his sin"??? David committed adultery and murder, and the Lord had made it clear that all such should be executed; but who was able to make this happen if David didn't volunteer for it? So the murderer continued to rule for many years. Do you think he had any great motive to be especially good after that? It eventually ripped the kingdom apart and destroyed the little pieces.

Jeremiah 24 has the correct description: figs so rotten they cannot be eaten.

Wood

[Senator]

I guess I do.

And a FINE shot it was!! Thanks Woody for you insights.

As a side note..

I've noticed that nearly all the exegetes have directed their attention, and explanations to the BoM text and have rather left the D&C verse alone.

It is almost, indirectly saying, that most feel the D&C position is the default "correct" position; therefore it is the BoM text that needs straightening out somehow.

Interesting.

[cinepro]

Show me the apparent conflict. I still don't see it or understand it.

Suppose you are teaching the Gospel Essentials class. Out of the blue, a recent convert says:

"Brother BCSpace, I've always wondered about David in the Old Testament. I was taught he had many wives and concubines. But I still don't know if this was okay with God. What do LDS scriptures teach on the subject?"

[BCSpace]

Suppose you are teaching the Gospel Essentials class. Out of the blue, a recent convert says:

"Brother BCSpace, I've always wondered about David in the Old Testament. I was taught he had many wives and concubines. But I still don't know if this was okay with God. What do LDS scriptures teach on the subject?"

Jacob 2 implicitly answers this both by use of the footnotes in vs 24 and by differentiating between authorized plural marriage and authorized plural marriage (vs. 30). The footnotes show the unauthorized taking of wives, yet we know by 2 Samuel 12:7-11 and the Abraham example that there is also God authorized taking of plural wives.

But D&C 132 expressly answers this thusly:

38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

39 David

[Mordecai]

I still don't understand where the conflict is.

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

and yet

39 David

[Senator]

Jacob 2 implicitly answers this both by use of the footnotes in vs 24 and by differentiating between authorized plural marriage and authorized plural marriage (vs. 30). The footnotes show the unauthorized taking of wives, yet we know by 2 Samuel 12:7-11 and the Abraham example that there is also God authorized taking of plural wives.

But D&C 132 expressly answers this thusly:

Notice also in vs. 40 that JS is given the same authorization that Nathan referred to in 2 Samuel 12.

What you have presented is scriptural information we already know, and I presume the Nephites knew as well. (without the benefit of footnotes)

Namely that:

a) David had authorized plural wives

b) David had unauthorized plural wives

c) David simply had to many wives

The problem is that Jacob makes no attempt to differentiate. He simply says, "David and Solomon, truly had many wives and concubines". We are left to presume that his audience knew what he was talking about.

I suggest that Jacob's gripe was not with the one unauthorized wife, but with the extravagant number of his wives. His use of the word "truly" accentuates this.

Another is as Woody suggests, that there is misplaced punctuation. A well placed comma would separate wives from concubines. Maybe the Lord was upset with the concubines? In v30 - us Mormons favorite verse for BoM justification of polygamy- it says, "if I will raise up seed unto me, I will command my people". Command them to do what? Obviously not to do whatever it was the nephites were doing and obviously not what David and Solomon did, whatever that was.

ADDED:

If many wives and concubines was not what the Lord found abominable, contrary to the plain wording of the text, and the Lord keeps this option on the table, and it is a proof text for the restoration's polygamy, does that mean that concubines were on the table for Joseph too?

[cinepro]

Maybe we can clarify the issue. Please (anyone), answer the following questions, and please provide a scriptural reference for each answer:

1. Other than Bathsheba, how did God feel about David's multiple wives?

2. How did God feel about David's concubines?

3. How did God feel about Solomon's multiple wives?

4. How did God feel about Solomon's concubines?

[Senator]

Call me crazy, but this looks like a contradiction.

You see dead people too?!!

[Teancum]

No, not impossible to reconcile because the reconciliation occurs in D&C 132 and elsewhere.

Jacob was likely pissed off and that is what the Lord wanted him to say, or he simply didn't know, and because the Lord was telling "no polygamy" now, he simply assumed they were sinning. Who knows what was in his mind. He could have also been mistaken, just like some LDS leaders have been mistaken at times on an issue with certain "assumptions". It happens, even in scripture. There are lot's of contradictions, some are easily reconciled, and some take additional revelation either through another BOM verse or the D&C for example.

Let's all just be clear.... The Lord has brought additional Light and Knowledge, and His Will is known on the issue.

Do we even have the "translation" (Scribes text) on the Jacob verse? Heck, you know even the scribe could have written it down wrong, let alone the type setters etc.

I thought the BoM was the most correct of books?

Jacob allows no wiggle room for David and Solomon. He says the practice was abominable. He does not refer to Uriah or those not given of God. He says that what they did was abominable. D&C 132 allows for a huge truck to be driven through the caveat of those the Lord gave. The verses are blatant contradictions.

[Mordecai]

I thought the BoM was the most correct of books?

Jacob allows no wiggle room for David and Solomon. He says the practice was abominable. He does not refer to Uriah or those not given of God. He says that what they did was abominable. D&C 132 allows for a huge truck to be driven through the caveat of those the Lord gave. The verses are blatant contradictions.

I don't think they necessarily are. If God hates something, that doesn't mean the person committing the abomination is necessarily sinning. Is an abomination necessarily a sin? I would say, not necessarily. Furthermore, the authorization was by Nathan, a prophet, which was "of me." If Nathan made a mistake in authorizing so many wives and concubines, is that sin on David'd or Solomon's heads? Furthermore, what in particular is the abomination? "Which thing" doesn't say the wives and concubines of Solomon and David. "Thing" is a bit ambiguous here. It could simply mean that for the Nephites and Lamanites, it was an abomination, as they are the audience, not David and Solomon... well, except for the verb tense, which indicates Jacob was talking about David and Solomon's wives.

Regardless, it's pretty clear we don't have to worry about this on a doctrinal level, because we're ALL banned from having even a single concubine or bonus wife.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Cinepro writes:

1. Other than Bathsheba, how did God feel about David's multiple wives?

2. How did God feel about David's concubines?

3. How did God feel about Solomon's multiple wives?

4. How did God feel about Solomon's concubines?

Wouldn't you have to ask God to get an answer to this Cinepro? Unless, of course, you are presuming to speak for Him ....

Ben M.

[cinepro]

Cinepro writes:Wouldn't you have to ask God to get an answer to this Cinepro? Unless, of course, you are presuming to speak for Him ....

Ben M.

Methinks the answers to each of those questions can be found in the scriptures. So, for those who believe God speaks to us through the scriptures, the answer to your first question would be "No".

The answer to you second question would be "?", since I am asking the questions, not answering them...

[Benjamin McGuire]

Cinepro writes:

Methinks the answers to each of those questions can be found in the scriptures. So, for those who believe God speaks to us through the scriptures, the answer to your first question would be "No".

But God doesn't write scripture. And in fact, I don't think many people at all feel as you do that "God speaks to us through the scriptures". I think most people would be far more comfortable with the notion that God speaks to us through the Holy Spirit as we read the scriptures - but that's entirely different.

And to your second point, I find that in my own reading of your comments, you are quite often disguising assertions as questions. This doesn't actually make them questions, it means that you are making an assertion and pretending that it's a question. Putting a question mark at the end of the sentence doesn't make something a question. Unless, of course, you have stopped beating your wife?

Ben M.

[cinepro]

Cinepro writes:But God doesn't write scripture. And in fact, I don't think many people at all feel as you do that "God speaks to us through the scriptures". I think most people would be far more comfortable with the notion that God speaks to us through the Holy Spirit as we read the scriptures - but that's entirely different.

You might be right. I was just going with Elder Doxey on that one:

In the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord tells us that he speaks to us through the scriptures.

And to your second point, I find that in my own reading of your comments, you are quite often disguising assertions as questions. This doesn't actually make them questions, it means that you are making an assertion and pretending that it's a question. Putting a question mark at the end of the sentence doesn't make something a question. Unless, of course, you have stopped beating your wife?

Ben M.

I beat my wife up every morning.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Cinepro writes:

You might be right. I was just going with Elder Doxey on that one:

Heaven forbid he was using poetic license there. Actually, I really, really doubt that you were "going with Elder Doxey". I think you spent some time searching to find the quote after the fact (which doesn't mean you were going with him, you just happened to end up in what you believed was the same place).

But this still does absolutely nothing to address the point which I made. In fact, you simply seem to be avoiding the issue which I raised. Why don't you try addressing my comments instead of side stepping them?

You know, it would do you a lot of good to read Elder Bruce Hafen's book, The Believing Heart.

Ben M.