Jacob 2:26-30

[inquiringmind]

I hate to start another polygamy thread, but I have a question that keeps bothering me.

Jacob 2:26-30 says:

Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. 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.

The last verse seems to put the lie to those who say the book of Mormon condemns polygamy, but it also raises a question (at least for me.)

I can't understand how or why more seed would be raised up by two or more women being married to one man, than by two or more women being married to two or more men.

If there weren't enough men to go around, I guess polygamy would produce more children, but there are web sites that say that "All census numbers in Utah from about 1850 up to 1960 show more males than females in the state."

If that's true, why would God institute polygamy (when Jacob 2 says that the rule was to be for a man to have one wife, unless God wanted to raise up seed to Himself?)

I've heard it suggested that it was an Abrahamic test, and I can see how it might be for the women, but the passage in Jacob doesn't say anything about Abrahamic tests, and I really don't see how it would be any hardship on the men.

(All jokes aside, it was more of a temptation to Solomon and the Nephites, than a hardship.)

I'm confused here.

Why would God institute this practice for a mere sixty some odd years (if there were more men than women among the early Latter Day Saints at the time), and then ban it?

Edited January 3, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Robert F. Smith]

I hate to start another polygamy thread, but I have a question that keeps bothering me.

Jacob 2:26-30 says:

Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. 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.

The last verse seems to put the lie to those who say the book of Mormon condemns polygamy, but it also raises a question (at least for me.)

I can't understand how or why more seed would be raised up by two or more women being married to one man, than by two or more women being married to two or more men.

If there weren't enough men to go around, I guess polygamy would produce more children, but there are web sites that say that "All census numbers in Utah from about 1850 up to 1960 show more males than females in the state."

If that's true, why would God institute polygamy (when Jacob 2 says that the rule was to be for a man to have one wife, unless God wanted to raise up seed to Himself?)

I've heard it suggested that it was an Abrahamic test, and I can see how it might be for the women, but the passage in Jacob doesn't say anything about Abrahamic tests, and I really don't see how it would be any hardship on the men.

(All jokes aside, it was more of a temptation to Solomon and the Nephites, than a hardship.)

I'm confused here.

Why would God institute this practice for a mere sixty some odd years (if there were more men than women among the early Latter Day Saints at the time), and then ban it?

Much of the work on early Mormon polygyny has been done by Jessie L. Embry of BYU, so you may want to consult some of her work.

Among nomadic tribes such as the Bedouin, polygyny prevented any stray women from creating problems within the tribe, prostitution being virtually unheard of -- except in cities. Naturally, not every man could support multiple wives (whether due to limited means or limited patience), so that more well-to-do men might be more likely to have plural wives. Lest it seem that this was a matter of lust, bear in mind Mark Twain's sardonic view after taking a gander at the rough frontier women in Utah: He thought the men who would marry more than one had great forebearance.

Another problem which could present itself was childlessness of a wife. During the Middle Ages, a Jew could appeal to the Pope for permission to marry a second wife under levirate law. Just some thoughts, FWIW.

[Zeta-Flux]

inquiringmind,

I think the important phrase is "raise up seed unto me" not just "raise up seed." There is a slight difference between the two concepts.

[Vance]

"raise up seed unto me", perhaps quality vs. quantity?

[bluebell]

Didn't only 15% or so of the men in Utah practice polygamy during this time? If i'm remembering that right, then that also might reveal the importance of the 'unto me' part of that verse.

[frankenstein]

The verses quoted do not state that the reason given is the only reason for polygamy. The verse at most provide one reason. Later in the BOM is prophesied that seven woman shall cleave unto one man.

[Deborah]

I agree with those who Point out the "raise up seed unto me" part. Many of the subsequent leaders of the church came from polygamous families. Perhaps there was significance in the lineage of those who did practice plural marriage.

[LeSellers]

The verses quoted do not state that the reason given is the only reason for polygamy. The verse at most provide one reason. Later in the BOM is prophesied that seven woman shall cleave unto one man.

But that's merely quoting Isaiah, so it's not "Mormon" scripture, it's Christian (and Jewish) scripture.

Moreover, it's also just a sign of the times ("in that day"), and does not specify that this will be a practice among the Saints alone.

Further, since John H. Gilbert not only set the type for the Book of Mormon, he also provided the capitalization and punctuation (which were virtually missing entirely in the manuscripts), and since we believe in inspired prophesy, not inspired punctuation, we can view the current punctuation with some suspicion. I propose an alternative text, with the same words, but a more apparent, and truer, meaning, that goes like this.

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. 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, and Solomon his son behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; 28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. 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, and Solomon his son (behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines), which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph. 26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; 28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

Notice that, in either version, the subject matter is "whoredoms", not "plural marriage" and that those committing whoredoms were using David and Solomon as excuses for the practice. The phrase "behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines" only affirms the truth of 1 & 2 Samuel, but is not the antecedent of "which thing" (not "things"—either the plural wives or the two kings). The "thing" that God is talking about is whoredoms, which He explicitly shows to be the abomination.

For this reason, I believe that the Lord took plural marriage away from the Nephites because, like the Jews and the Brass Serpent in the Temple, they had perverted the righteous use of plural marriage into simple lust and were using plural marriage as an excuse for adultery and fornication (and as John C. Bennett did in Nauvoo).

In short, this passage is not well understood even by us Saints, and those who try to turn it against us (or our spiritual ancestors) commit a grave error in their eisegesis of the text, and both largely because of a non-believing (and somewhat antagonistic) typesetter and his red editor's pen.

BTW, this is why I frequently get frustrated with the sad state of punctuation and spelling in this and other forums. They add so much to understanding and communication. Of particular note is the "flying apostrophe", that so many seeming think is an integral part of a final "s" in any word, unless it's actually filling its role as a placeholder for a missing letter (as in "it's" in this very sentence and for most possessives, but never for possessive pronouns—"it's xxx" never means "the xxx that belongs to it"; no one would write "hi's xxx", so why the former?). The mechanical part of writing, in any language, is an encoding effort, and the reader 's first job is to decode. When the code is badly applied, the result can be odd or distorted, and the reader's more important job (to understand the writer's intent) is made much more difficult.

Lehi

Edited January 3, 2012 by LeSellers

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

The simple truth is...none of us knows. I am just glad I live now as opposed to that day. There is no way I could have lived under or in polygamy. Most like to sensationalize polygamy and accuse all Mormon men of secretly wanting to live in or under a polygamist society. This of course is not true.

[frankenstein]

Pa pa you said it best none of us know.

[Traela]

There may have been an equal number of men and women, but were they good men? And what proportion of the men were interested in marriage?

Those who focus on the male:female ratio ignore how very few options there were for women at that time. A single or widowed woman could take a low-paying job (generally all that was available to women), get married, or become a prostitute. What happens when the only jobs available don't pay enough, and the woman isn't willing to sell herself?

My husband's great-great-grandmother faced this situation. Her husband died young, leaving her with several young children. When faced with starvation, she finally resorted to marrying the only man available. Unfortunately he was an abuser who made life miserable for her and for her children.

If society and the laws of the land basically require a woman to be married, then she should at least have options. I'm pretty sure gggma would have preferred a good polygamist to a bad monogamist.

[frankenstein]

There may have been an equal number of men and women, but were they good men? And what proportion of the men were interested in marriage?

Those who focus on the male:female ratio ignore how very few options there were for women at that time. A single or widowed woman could take a low-paying job (generally all that was available to women), get married, or become a prostitute. What happens when the only jobs available don't pay enough, and the woman isn't willing to sell herself?

I dare say that very few people had jobs, but rather most lived off their own ability to grow and eat the sweat of their own brow, there is nothing to suggest a female was incapable of doing the same. And considering the "ruralness" of the Saints at most times during the polygamy days, even less people would have had a "job" but rather would have produced their own substance.

--------------------------------------------------------

For the sake of the LDS Church, we really need to simply admit and hold firm, that the Church does not have an Official position on polygamy as instituted by Joseph and later abandoned between 1890 and 1903.

To state anything more than "God commanded it" is to mix ones own philosophy with the Doctrine/Practices of the Church.

There is ZERO Doctrine to support polygamy was about lack of men i.e. ratio of men to woman.

There is ZERO Doctrine to support polygamy was about a lack of men interested in marriage.

There is ZERO Doctrine to support almost everthing on this thread concerning polygamy.

All the LDS know about polygamy is that the LDS Church teaches that it was commanded of God and other than Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants God did not give a reason for polygamy in the early days of the modern Church.

So it is best that members of the Church not put words into Gods mouth by conjuring up personal philosophies as to why polygamy was practiced.

[frankenstein]

Why would God institute this practice for a mere sixty some odd years (if there were more men than women among the early Latter Day Saints at the time), and then ban it?

To your first question "Why institute polygamy"; The answer is The LDS do not know, nor teach a reason why.

To your second question "Why ban it"; The answer can be found in the Official Declarations, in part, the People of the Church made to choice to abandon the practice of polygamy.

[zerinus]

For the sake of the LDS Church, we really need to simply admit and hold firm, that the Church does not have an Official position on polygamy as instituted by Joseph and later abandoned between 1890 and 1903.

To state anything more than "God commanded it" is to mix ones own philosophy with the Doctrine/Practices of the Church.

There is ZERO Doctrine to support polygamy was about lack of men i.e. ratio of men to woman.

There is ZERO Doctrine to support polygamy was about a lack of men interested in marriage.

There is ZERO Doctrine to support almost everthing on this thread concerning polygamy.

All the LDS know about polygamy is that the LDS Church teaches that it was commanded of God and other than Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants God did not give a reason for polygamy in the early days of the modern Church.

So it is best that members of the Church not put words into Gods mouth by conjuring up personal philosophies as to why polygamy was practiced.

Well the scriptures actually do give a reason for polygamy in the early days of the Church. It was more than just about "raising up seed . . .". Here is the explanation that the Lord gave:

D&C 132:

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

The explanation is that in the celestial law you can have as many wives you want, simple as that. The more the better. You can't have too much of a good thing! It was discontinued because it was disallowed by the law of the land; and we are also commanded not to break the law of the land--"until he reigns whose right it is to reign" (D&C 58:22).

Edited January 3, 2012 by zerinus

[inquiringmind]

The verses quoted do not state that the reason given is the only reason for polygamy.

I thought they kinda implied it, but I guess I may have been wrong.

Jacob is addressing his people, in their time and culture.

The men wanted more than one wife, so polygamy would be no Abrahamic test for them--but I suppose it could be for a later people, in a different time and culture.

Thank you.

[Robert F. Smith]

Didn't only 15% or so of the men in Utah practice polygamy during this time? If i'm remembering that right, then that also might reveal the importance of the 'unto me' part of that verse.

The situation was far more complex, as one can see from this quote from Jessie L. Embry, Mormon Polygamous Families: Life in the Principle (Univ. of Utah, 1987), p. 38, online at http://www.bhporter.com/Porter%20PDF%20Files/Mormon%20Polygamous%20Families.pdf ,

Although such figures give a general view of polygamy, recent studies indicate variations in individual communities. “Ben” Bennion’s current study based on the 1880 census in Washington County shows, for example, the figures varied from almost 40 percent in St. George to only just over 11 percent in Harrisburg/Leeds. In Kane County, the figures ranged from 10 percent in Rockville to 67 percent in Orderville. In northern Utah’s Davis County, only 5 percent practiced polygamy in South Weber while nearly 30 percent of the families in Bountiful did. His study of Springville (Utah County) showed 15 percent were polygamous families. Larry Logue, a research assistant at the University of Southern California, found that nearly 30 percent of the men in St. George were polygamists in 1870 – a figure that rose to 33 percent in 1880. Chris Nelson determined 63 percent of the Mormon men in Mexico were polygamists. Why did communities vary to such an extent? The relative safety from judicial prosecution drew many polygamists to Mexico, particularly after the 1890 Manifesto. Bennion hypothesized that the higher percentage of polygamists in St. George reflected greater religious commitment in general since many accepted calls from Church leaders to settle there.

[BCSpace]

I can't understand how or why more seed would be raised up by two or more women being married to one man, than by two or more women being married to two or more men.

If there weren't enough men to go around, I guess polygamy would produce more children, but there are web sites that say that "All census numbers in Utah from about 1850 up to 1960 show more males than females in the state."

If that's true, why would God institute polygamy (when Jacob 2 says that the rule was to be for a man to have one wife, unless God wanted to raise up seed to Himself?)

I think it's about having a larger quantity of quality. For example, one only has to look at the roles today to see that righteous TR holding men are in a relatively small minority and there are many more active and believing women with no such male counterpart to match. The ideal condition for a child is an active and believing father and mother. Only plural marriage can accomplish that ideal under these conditions for most or all children. The large number of children growing up in part-member and inactive families is literally tearing the Church apart from the inside. Still a long way to go before it comes to that point but I say (imho) that........

.......if you don't want plural marriage to come back, stop baptising the unbeliever and uncommitted and start doing your home teaching and reactivation work.

Edit: Perhaps now something could be said about why it is that women are so much better at Visiting Teaching than men are at Home Teaching.

Edited January 4, 2012 by BCSpace

[The Nehor]

For this reason, I believe that the Lord took plural marriage away from the Nephites because, like the Jews and the Brass Serpent in the Temple, they had perverted the righteous use of plural marriage into simple lust and were using plural marriage as an excuse for adultery and fornication (and as John C. Bennett did in Nauvoo).

The problem with this reading is Jacob 3:5

"Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for 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."

Lehi gave monogamy as the marriage law of God to the Nephites. If Nephi or Jacob changed the law under the instructions of God to allow plural marriage it is doubtful Jacob would have used the Lamanites as a comparison of people following the law the right way.

[ebeddoulos]

It may surprise some but Jacob is not the only passage that deals with polygamy. More than 400 years later, about 82 b.c., Amulek, that great missionary companion of Alma, proclaimed how the Lord had blessed him and his household which included multiple wives.

“For behold, he hath blessed mine house, he hath blessed me, and my women, and my children, and my father and my kinsfolk; yea, even all my kindred hath he blessed, and the blessing of the Lord hath rested upon us according to the words which he spake” (Alma 10:11 - emphasis added)

As you can see, plural marriage was practiced by righteous men at a time later than Jacob.

[zerinus]

It may surprise some but Jacob is not the only passage that deals with polygamy. More than 400 years later, about 82 b.c., Amulek, that great missionary companion of Alma, proclaimed how the Lord had blessed him and his household which included multiple wives.

“For behold, he hath blessed mine house, he hath blessed me, and my women, and my children, and my father and my kinsfolk; yea, even all my kindred hath he blessed, and the blessing of the Lord hath rested upon us according to the words which he spake” (Alma 10:11 - emphasis added)

As you can see, plural marriage was practiced by righteous men at a time later than Jacob.

That is a little bit doubtful interpretation. Expressions such as “my women,” “your women,” and “their women” is often used in scripture to refer to all the females in the household, including mothers, daughters, sisters, grandmothers, female servants etc., as the following examples show:

1 Corinthians 14:

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

Mosiah 19:

13 And it came to pass that those who tarried with their wives and their children caused that their fair daughters should stand forth and plead with the Lamanites that they would not slay them.

14 And it came to pass that the Lamanites had compassion on them, for they were charmed with the beauty of their women.

Mosiah 22:

2 And it came to pass that they could find no way to deliver themselves out of bondage, except it were to take their women and children, and their flocks, and their herds, and their tents, and depart into the wilderness; ...

Alma 54:

12 And behold, if ye do not this, I will come against you with my armies; yea, even I will arm my women and my children, ...

Helaman 6:

13 Behold their women did toil and spin, and did make all manner of cloth, of fine-twined linen and cloth of every kind, to clothe their nakedness. And thus the sixty and fourth year did pass away in peace.

In all of these verses “women” does not refer to “wives” exclusively, but includes all the females in a household, or in the community. It is not inconceivable that Amulek might have had more than one wife; but it cannot be deduced with certainty from the scripture cited.

[bluebell]

That is a little bit doubtful interpretation. Expressions such as “my women,” “your women,” and “their women” is often used in scripture to refer to all the females in the household, including mothers, daughters, sisters, grandmothers, female servants etc., as the following examples show:

1 Corinthians 14:

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

Mosiah 19:

13 And it came to pass that those who tarried with their wives and their children caused that their fair daughters should stand forth and plead with the Lamanites that they would not slay them.

14 And it came to pass that the Lamanites had compassion on them, for they were charmed with the beauty of their women.

Mosiah 22:

2 And it came to pass that they could find no way to deliver themselves out of bondage, except it were to take their women and children, and their flocks, and their herds, and their tents, and depart into the wilderness; ...

Alma 54:

12 And behold, if ye do not this, I will come against you with my armies; yea, even I will arm my women and my children, ...

Helaman 6:

13 Behold their women did toil and spin, and did make all manner of cloth, of fine-twined linen and cloth of every kind, to clothe their nakedness. And thus the sixty and fourth year did pass away in peace.

In all of these verses “women” does not refer to “wives” exclusively, but includes all the females in a household, or in the community. It is not inconceivable that Amulek might have had more than one wife; but it cannot be deduced with certainty from the scripture cited.

I think the biggest difference between your examples and Eb. is that Amulek is speaking only about himself and in your examples, the people are speaking about a group or a whole people. "My women" is completly different than "the lamanite and their women", for example, and i don't see how the two can be compared.

I'm not suggesting that Eb. interpretation is wrong or right, just pointing out that i don't believe the verses you posted actually address the issue.

[LeSellers]

My Hebrew is limited (and that's probably overstating it), but, as I was told, there is no Hebrew word for "wife": all women were married. That's why the LXX could get away with translating almah (young woman) as parthanos (virgin) in, for example, Isaiah. It is similar in modern languages, too. While French has the word epouse (female spouse), it is rare: they nearly always say "femme" (woman) instead. In contrast, they use mari (masculine of married) for husband, and rarely homme, if ever. In German, my sister-in-law talks about her mann (man). This is not the case in Italian at all.

So, when a (reformed) Hebrew speaker like Alma or Amulek talks about his "women", there is little reason to assume he meant just any female humans living in his house and much to suggest he meant his plural wives.

Lehi

[zerinus]

I think the biggest difference between your examples and Eb. is that Amulek is speaking only about himself and in your examples, the people are speaking about a group or a whole people. "My women" is completly different than "the lamanite and their women", for example, and i don't see how the two can be compared.

I'm not suggesting that Eb. interpretation is wrong or right, just pointing out that i don't believe the verses you posted actually address the issue.

I think that some of them do very specifically. Take Mosiah 19 for example:

13 And it came to pass that those who tarried with their wives and their children caused that their fair daughters should stand forth and plead with the Lamanites that they would not slay them.

14 And it came to pass that the Lamanites had compassion on them, for they were charmed with the beauty of their women.

This clearly distinguishes between "wives" and "daughters," and then identified their "daughters" as their "women". Didn't Amulek have any daughters? If he did, wouldn't they qualify as his "women"? How about sisters, or sisters-in-law; mothers, or other female relatives? They would all have been classified as his "women". Or take this one:

Helaman 6:

13 Behold their women did toil and spin, and did make all manner of cloth, of fine-twined linen and cloth of every kind, to clothe their nakedness. And thus the sixty and fourth year did pass away in peace.

In those days spinning yarn and making cloth was a female occupation. It was the job of "women". That does not mean that they had to be married. So Amulek might have had "women" in his household who would have been engaged in that activity. That doesn't mean that they would have all been his wives.

Or take the example of "arming their women and children". That doesn't mean that they would have all been "wives". It means adult females of the population.

Edited January 4, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

My Hebrew is limited (and that's probably overstating it), but, as I was told, there is no Hebrew word for "wife": all women were married. That's why the LXX could get away with translating almah (young woman) as parthanos (virgin) in, for example, Isaiah. It is similar in modern languages, too. While French has the word epouse (female spouse), it is rare: they nearly always say "femme" (woman) instead. In contrast, they use mari (masculine of married) for husband, and rarely homme, if ever. In German, my sister-in-law talks about her mann (man). This is not the case in Italian at all.

So, when a (reformed) Hebrew speaker like Alma or Amulek talks about his "women", there is little reason to assume he meant just any female humans living in his house and much to suggest he meant his plural wives.

Lehi

There are several languages in which the same word is used for "wife" and "woman". The context determines which you are referring to.

[LeSellers]

There are several languages in which the same word is used for "wife" and "woman". The context determines which you are referring to.

The Amulek passage doesn't give us much context, but the common usage of "woman" to mean "wife" tends to overweigh any presumption that "my women" means "all those female humans in my household", especially since he includes a reference to "[his] children" immediately following "[his] women". It certainly did not include "[his] daughters" among "[his] women".

Lehi