A Question For Mormon Critics

[inquiringmind]

The way the story is told in Genesis, it seems that Rachel was the only wife that Jacob ever really wanted.

Perhaps as payback for tricking his father into giving him his brother's blessing, he was tricked into marrying Rachel's older sister after working for his father-in-law for seven years, and had to work another seven years for Rachel.

He ended up with the handmaids because of a rivalry among the sisters, but Rachel was clearly the love of his life.

But how did God look at all this?

This first occurred to me when I was debating polygamy with a Mormon here on this forum.

Genesis also says that Leah was the first to be blessed with a child "because the Lord saw that she was unloved."

It seems that God wanted Jacob to love both of the sisters here in mortality.

Leaving sex aside, isn't it logical that He will want Jacob, Lea, and Rachel (and their children) to love each other in the hereafter.

How bad can polygamy be if there are to be polygamous families (like Jacob's) in eternity?

P.S. I'm not talking about sex here, I'm talking about love and family.

Edited May 11, 2013 by inquiringmind

[Five Solas]

How bad can polygamy be if there are to be polygamous families (like Jacob's) in eternity?

Whatever ambiguity concerning polygamy you read into Jacob's story in Genesis, it's "bad" enough that it's forbidden outright for Christian deacons & elders (1 Timothy 3, Titus 1). No ambiguity there...

;0)

--Erik

[MormonMason]

Whatever ambiguity concerning polygamy you read into Jacob's story in Genesis, it's "bad" enough that it's forbidden outright for Christian deacons & elders (1 Timothy 3, Titus 1). No ambiguity there...

;0)

--Erik

Actually, from the perspective of the Greek phraseology (from a little more advanced grammatical perspective, that is, and in spite of some third-century and later Fathers understanding it to refer to someone who never remarried after death or divorce of spouse) it is not pointing to marital status from the standpoint of number of wives but rather the three-word phrase (literally "male of one-woman" or "one-woman male") functioning as adjectival phrase among a sentence of adjectives, refers, as do other words in the passage, to the behaviors of the man in question (definitely a male so ordinations of female clergy are out here)--"not a ladies' man" being the actual meaning. Well, there is that and the fact that 1Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus, all commonly are regarded by mainstream biblical scholars as texts forged and faked in the name of Paul. In that light, it is of interest that the oldest codex containing letters of Paul ever found omits the Pastorals, and always did. Its earlier exemplar apparently omitted them as well. So, yes there is just a tad bit of ambiguity that can be found there.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Leah was essentially a victim herself in this whole escapade. Also, she was a woman in a culture that didn't place the same value on them as on men.

So even though the marriage wasn't the will of the LORD, He still looked with mercy on Leah. That is all the line quoted means.

Praise the LORD for His mercy towards us unworthy creatures.

[inquiringmind]

Praise the LORD for His mercy towards us unworthy creatures.

Amen to that.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

The way the story is told in Genesis, it seems that Rachel was the only wife that Jacob ever really wanted.

Perhaps as payback for tricking his father into giving him his brother's blessing, he was tricked into marrying Rachel's older sister after working for his father-in-law for seven years, and had to work another seven years for Rachel.

He ended up with the handmaids because of a rivalry among the sisters, but Rachel was clearly the love of his life.

But how did God look at all this?

This first occurred to me when I was debating polygamy with a Mormon here on this forum.

Genesis also says that Leah was the first to be blessed with a child "because the Lord saw that she was unloved."

It seems that God wanted Jacob to love both of the sisters here in mortality.

Leaving sex aside, isn't it logical that He will want Jacob, Lea, and Rachel (and their children) to love each other in the hereafter.

How bad can polygamy be if there are to be polygamous families (like Jacob's) in eternity?

P.S. I'm not talking about sex here, I'm talking about love and family.

He wanted to marry the sister he had loved and courted. He was deceived, but would not put out her sister and dishonor her. The remaining wives were I would guess his choice alone.

[blackstrap]

Genesis also says that Leah was the first to be blessed with a child "because the Lord saw that she was unloved."

Is this opinion or revelation?

[inquiringmind]

Genesis also says that Leah was the first to be blessed with a child "because the Lord saw that she was unloved."

Is this opinion or revelation?

If Genesis is part of the standard works, it's revelation.

I don't remember the chapter and verse but it's there.

P.S. I haven't checked the JST, but it's in every other translation (and I think it's in the JST?)

Edited May 12, 2013 by inquiringmind

[MormonMason]

Leah was essentially a victim herself in this whole escapade. Also, she was a woman in a culture that didn't place the same value on them as on men.

So even though the marriage wasn't the will of the LORD, He still looked with mercy on Leah. That is all the line quoted means.

Praise the LORD for His mercy towards us unworthy creatures.

There is a passage in Genesis where one of Jacob's wives stated that the Lord blessed her because she gave her handmaid to her husband. The KJV falsely renders it:

And Leah said, God hath given me my hire, because I have given my maiden to my husband: and she called his name Issachar.

(Genesis 30:18)

The actual meaning of the Hebrew of the passage is: "God has given me my reward for giving my maid to my husband. So she called his name Issachar." By the way, it better fits the context because Issachar also means "reward." It derives from the same Hebrew word used to translate "reward" in the Hebrew versions of the New Testament, such as in Matthew 6:2, 6:5, and 6:16.

God also stated through a prophet of the Lord that he gave David all of his wives but one and that, had he asked it, God would have given him twice as many as he already had. (See 2 Samuel 12:7-8 ). God was clear that it was his will for David to have more than one wife except for Bathsheba. God also stated (you can see this better in Hebrew but some translations actually give the proper meaning of the passage) that he would have added more had he just asked.

Edited May 12, 2013 by MormonMason

[3DOP]

The way the story is told in Genesis, it seems that Rachel was the only wife that Jacob ever really wanted.

Perhaps as payback for tricking his father into giving him his brother's blessing, he was tricked into marrying Rachel's older sister after working for his father-in-law for seven years, and had to work another seven years for Rachel.

He ended up with the handmaids because of a rivalry among the sisters, but Rachel was clearly the love of his life.

But how did God look at all this?

This first occurred to me when I was debating polygamy with a Mormon here on this forum.

Genesis also says that Leah was the first to be blessed with a child "because the Lord saw that she was unloved."

It seems that God wanted Jacob to love both of the sisters here in mortality.

Leaving sex aside, isn't it logical that He will want Jacob, Lea, and Rachel (and their children) to love each other in the hereafter.

How bad can polygamy be if there are to be polygamous families (like Jacob's) in eternity?

P.S. I'm not talking about sex here, I'm talking about love and family.

Understood inquiring mind.

According to those who accept the Old Testament, polygamy seems clearly to have been an acceptable way of life. I have no wish to argue otherwise. But as a Catholic, I would say polygamy was as it were, by dispensation (see thread above about that subject). The law was suspended until Christ restored it. So...polygamy is not intrinsically evil. From a Catholic perspective polygamy is not now permitted, is less perfect than monogamy, which itself is less perfect than chastity. I can readily admit that if there was a great apostasy, there is no reason why we could not expect polygamy to be allowed once more.

You also asked about families in the hereafter. Most "Mormon Critics" would probably reject the idea of eternal families because they accept the authority of all of St. Paul's writings in I Corinthians. I have argued elsewhere for why they should be accepted, because of other problems that arise by denying them. Mormons would answer that Paul was writing in these passages "as a man." I thought the appeal by five solas appeal to the Pastoral Letters for a partial answer was interesting. Mormon Mason answered that those letters are dubious according to mainstream biblical scholars. We can see immediately that the question is irresolvable through continuing to quote the Bible. It is resolved, at least individually, by various appeals to authority including those which are biblical, academic, and ecclesiastical.

I would find it interesting to set aside our opinions on this and other debated issues and reason out our conclusions depending upon whether we do or do not accept pertinent passages of Scripture as equally authoritative. I think we would be pleasantly at how we agree on what the words mean. Much fruitless debate and misunderstanding occurs when people on both sides forget that the other places different levels of confidence in different parts of Scripture. You see an example of this potential in the exchange between five solas and Mormon Mason where Mason explains why he dismisses the restriction for elders and deacons to monogamy in the pastorals. It is good when it becomes evident at once why we have differences of opinion.

Everyone tends to interpret words the same way. But we tend to give priority to words in significantly different ways. I am not just talking about Mormons and non-Mormons. The King James, in one of Paul's letters to Timothy (arguably a fake) refers to "rightly dividing the word of truth". Some, who accept the book, and I agree with them, argue that this means that all Scripture needs prioritized for times, seasons, and circumstances. It seems correct to say that in this sense, all Scripture is not necessarily equal. Someone asked about a passage in the book of Ecclesiastes earlier in the week. It was not any reflection against the inclusion of the book as true and inspired Scripture to question the truth of some of the statements which are made by the author while he was in a state of disillusionment. As a side note, much skeptical biblical criticism is based on this simplistic and mistaken view that all Scripture is always equal. Everyone needs to remember that all parties give varying weights to various passages that are balanced against each other and that is a very ordinary foundation of our differences of opinion.

It seems impossible to me to think one could "rightly divide" such diverse and potentially bewildering literature as Scripture presents apart from personal revelation, living prophets, or an authoritative church. Maybe a combination of the three would be the LDS view.

3DOP

Edited May 12, 2013 by 3DOP

[thesometimesaint]

While I have no desire for polygamy in this life. I see nothing in Scripture that totally precludes it. It would seem that monogamy is the default rule, except for where polygamy is commanded on an individual basis.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Leah also thought the LORD blessed her with more children for using a pagan fertility ritual (i.e mandrakes). So Leah can think what she wants, doesn't mean she it right.

[volgadon]

Leah also thought the LORD blessed her with more children for using a pagan fertility ritual (i.e mandrakes). So Leah can think what she wants, doesn't mean she it right.

The text itself doesnot suggesting that eating dudaim was a pagan fertility ritual.

[Dcharle]

For me the real debate is what is more likely the actions of a Prophet of God, those of Jacob the prophet in the Old Testament who loved Rachel and wanted to marry her, and worked for seven years to convince her father Laban to allow them to marry vs. those of Smith when Isaac Hale disapproved of Joseph, they eloped.

[3DOP]

For me the real debate is what is more likely the actions of a Prophet of God, those of Jacob the prophet in the Old Testament who loved Rachel and wanted to marry her, and worked for seven years to convince her father Laban to allow them to marry vs. those of Smith when Isaac Hale disapproved of Joseph, they eloped.

Hi Dcharle,

But Jacob is as problematic as Joseph Smith. Does it not trouble you about how Jacob lied to his father, representing himself as Esau? Maybe God entrusts his truth even to men who are occasionally disappointing?

[MormonMason]

Leah also thought the LORD blessed her with more children for using a pagan fertility ritual (i.e mandrakes). So Leah can think what she wants, doesn't mean she it right.

Eating dudaim ("mandrakes") is not a pagan fertility ritual. (I just noticed right above this post before posting that I was beaten to the punch by Volgadon but am reinforcing his statement, which is correct). Additionally, in spite of what Leah thought and believed, a prophet of God plainly stated that God gave David all his wives but one, and that he would have given him twice as many (check the Hebrew, which is less euphemistic here than the English mistranslation) had he just asked God for them instead of sinning the way he did. It is the clearest text stating the will of God regarding David. And, if God can will in this case, he can will again for others.

The only reason a priest in the Book of Mormon condemned David is for what he did in the case of Bathsheba, which case involved lust (which subject is addressed in the relevant Jacob passage. In the original, God states that if he willed he would command his people to practice what was forbidden to the children of Lehi at the time. It is amazing what a punctuation modification can alter so far as meaning is concerned. Sadly, the Hebrew translation published by Hebrew Translations, Inc., has faulty punctuation altering the intended meaning. (Even the 1908 RLDS edition has the correct punctuation and meaning of the passage!)

Yes, I know that punctuation wasn't in the original manuscript. However, check very carefully the contexts, both historical and textual. The LDS punctuation follows the punctuation used in three preceding editions of the Book of Mormon under the editorship and/or oversight of Joseph Smith, and far better fits the entire context and structure of the text. The later translation of the RLDS edition's punctuation (and, perhaps the actual RAV edition of 1966 itself, although I do not recall and my copy is not with me at the present) was modified to remove the so-called "escape" clause that allows for a later practice of plural marriage.

[Dcharle]

I don't see these two issues as being equivalent 3DOP. Esau sold his birthright to Jacob, and Jacob with his mothers assistance no less, represented himself as his brother. Isaac was old and his mental capacity had greatly diminished impacting his ability to understand what had transpired between Esau and Jacob. Not sure this is the same as Iassac Hale being suspect of JS due to his glass looking activities.

[3DOP]

I don't see these two issues as being equivalent 3DOP. Esau sold his birthright to Jacob, and Jacob with his mothers assistance no less, represented himself as his brother. Isaac was old and his mental capacity had greatly diminished impacting his ability to understand what had transpired between Esau and Jacob. Not sure this is the same as Iassac Hale being suspect of JS due to his glass looking activities.

I dunno. I have never actually heard of Isaac Hale. For purpose of discussion, I would grant that whoever he was, was a good guy. But isaac in the Bible was a good guy, yet deliberately deceived by the prophet you cited as a good example. He was cracked? Alzheimer's maybe? So God wants us to lie to crazy people, parents even, so they can give us a blessing? I am not saying Jacob was especially despised of God. It just seems like your own good example was arguably flawed. If that is so, we non-Mormons have to give Joseph Smith some slack too. Maybe Isaac Whoever He Was Who Didn't Want Joseph Smith For A Son-In-Law was a little off his chump too. If I were LDS, I would first note that prophets are not impeccable. I don't think they say Joseph Smith is perfect. Then I would note that this Mr. Hale, for an unknown reason, maybe Alzheimer's like his biblical namesake, has a prejudice against Joseph. As you suggest, Mormons maybe don't see lying as equal to elopement. I don't. Depending on circumstances, elopement might be okay. I don't know that lying to your father to get what you want is ever okay. Even if Mom, (Happy Mother's Day you wonderful moms), says to lie.

Edited May 13, 2013 by 3DOP

[volgadon]

I don't see these two issues as being equivalent 3DOP.

That is ok, I don't see your two examples as equivalent, either. We are talking two verry different legal and cultural settings here.

[volgadon]

I dunno. I have never actually heard of Isaac Hale. For purpose of discussion, I would grant that whoever he was, was a good guy. But isaac in the Bible was a good guy, yet deliberately deceived by the prophet you cited as a good example. He was cracked? Alzheimer's maybe? So God wants us to lie to crazy people, parents even, so they can give us a blessing? I am not saying Jacob was especially despised of God. It just seems like your own good example was arguably flawed. If that is so, we non-Mormons have to give Joseph Smith some slack too. Maybe Isaac Whoever He Was Who Didn't Want Joseph Smith For A Son-In-Law was a little off his chump too. If I were LDS, I would first note that prophets are not impeccable. I don't think they say Joseph Smith is perfect. Then I would note that this Mr. Hale, for an unknown reason, maybe Alzheimer's like his biblical namesake, has a prejudice against Joseph. As you suggest, Mormons maybe don't see lying as equal to elopement. I don't. Depending on circumstances, elopement might be okay. I don't know that lying to your father to get what you want is ever okay. Even if Mom, Happy Mother's Day you wonderful ladies, says to lie.

As always, a voice of reason.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

The text itself doesnot suggesting that eating dudaim was a pagan fertility ritual.

http://godasagardener.com/2011/04/24/jacob-the-mandrakes/

[volgadon]

http://godasagardene...-the-mandrakes/

Where in that blog post do we find that this was a pagan fertility ritual?

[MormonMason]

Where in that blog post do we find that this was a pagan fertility ritual?

Nowhere. Funny thing about that, though, is that the Bible seems to imply that it worked. But, none of that changes the fact that, as you and I both know, God himself gave David most all of his wives, and so stated through a seer, and even stated that he would have offered him "twice as much" (literally, "I would have added to you such things and such things") had he but asked God rather than sinning in the case of Bathsheba.

Edited May 13, 2013 by MormonMason

[Yirgacheffe]

Understood inquiring mind.

According to those who accept the Old Testament, polygamy seems clearly to have been an acceptable way of life. I have no wish to argue otherwise. But as a Catholic, I would say polygamy was as it were, by dispensation (see thread above about that subject). The law was suspended until Christ restored it. So...polygamy is not intrinsically evil. From a Catholic perspective polygamy is not now permitted, is less perfect than monogamy, which itself is less perfect than chastity. I can readily admit that if there was a great apostasy, there is no reason why we could not expect polygamy to be allowed once more.

3DOP

Would you consider something that "directly negates the plan of God" to be intrinsically evil?

[3DOP]

Would you consider something that "directly negates the plan of God" to be intrinsically evil?

I don't think so Yirgacheffe. Intrinsic evil, according to my meaning, would be something that could never at any time be permissible. But please, if you see an inconsistency, expose it for my benefit as you have on past occasions.

Thanks,

3DOP