Jacob 2 vs D&C 132

[mass168]

How do Jacob 2 and D&C 132 work together? I know that polygamy is now understood to be only by special revelation for certain times. But doesn't Jacob 2 say that God only "suffered" David and Solomon to do what they did? In other words, God was never a fan of polygamy, he just chose to put up with it. D&C 132 seems to point to polygamy being the "higher" way, that is not able to be lived out perfectly on this earth (for many reasons). Aren't the different viewpoints exclusive to each other?

[JLHPROF]

Jacob 2 directly references living polygamy wickedly, causing it to be banned.
D&C 132 specifically references living polygamy correct as commanded by God.

There is no contradiction.

[mass168]

I'm not seeing in Jacob 2 where it references a difference between living it wickedly or righteously. Verse 27 seems to point to it being just plain not approved by God. 

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;

[JLHPROF]

Jacob 2

• 23...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.
  24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

Why David & Solomon and not the more significant patriarchs Abraham and Jacob?  Because David and Solomon both were guilty of living corrupted polygamy as clearly specified in the Old Testament, something that neither Abraham or Jacob were guilty of.

•  30 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.

Polygamy is ok when commanded by God.

•  32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.
  33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.

Identification of the wickedness being practiced that caused polygamy to be banned by the Lord.  Abuse of women, military concubinage, forced marriages.

Polygamy isn't the sin of Jacob 2, corruption of polygamy is the sin and D&C 132 explains all this very clearly:

• 37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.
  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’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

[Glenn101]

Remember when Nathan called Davis out for adultery and the murder of Uriah the Hittite in 2 Samuel, chapter 12???

Let us consider verse eight of that chapter. "And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."

Unless there has been some mistranslation, it is pretty clear there that God did not just condone polygamy, he was an active participant in it being promulgated. So, in accordance with the principle of continuing revelation, it would be a good idea to understand D&C 132 as just that. A revelation concerning the New and Everlasting Covenant, which includes polygamy, and a clarification on the practice of polygamy also.

 

Glenn

[mass168]

Trying to understand your position: Because neither scripture goes into a ton of detail on which specific wives/concubines were "received from God," we can never make a determination that way. However, it is clear when the patriarchs were practicing polygamy correctly, it was ok. When they were not, it was not. Is that accurate? 

Edited January 24, 2016 by mass168

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, mass168 said:

 it is clear when the patriarchs were practicing polygamy correctly, it was ok. When they were not, it was not. Is that accurate? 

Sure, sounds close enough.
Isn't that true for any religious principle?  Prayer, marriage, sacrifice, tithing, fasting.  Pretty much any gospel principle can become corrupted.

 

[CV75]

15 minutes ago, mass168 said:

Trying to understand your position: Because neither scripture goes into a ton of detail on which specific wives/concubines were "received from God," we can never make a determination that way. However, it is clear when the patriarchs were practicing polygamy correctly, it was ok. When they were not, it was not. Is that accurate? 

Yes, the correct way is the "higher way" as you put it, which refers to the marriage covenant being authorized under the sealing power in D&C 132, not necessarily the plurality of wives.

[ALarson]

40 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Remember when Nathan called Davis out for adultery and the murder of Uriah the Hittite in 2 Samuel, chapter 12???

Let us consider verse eight of that chapter. "And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."

Glenn

But, he was not commanded by God to live polygamy.  This has been discussed at length on other threads here, so I don't want to derail.  But I did want to point that out.  There is no where in the Bible when God commanded anyone to live polygamy (the Levirate law which contained very specific conditions comes the closest and may involve polygamy).  God did allow polygamy at times, but did not command it as was claimed by Joseph Smith.

God gives us many things, but that doesn't mean He is commanding us to use them.

 

Edited January 24, 2016 by ALarson
correction

[mass168]

32 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Sure, sounds close enough.
Isn't that true for any religious principle?  Prayer, marriage, sacrifice, tithing, fasting.  Pretty much any gospel principle can become corrupted.

 

Yes, that is true that any principle can become corrupted... I still feel that Jacob 2 just sounds so general though.

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

This verse does not give any details about which wives were the problem. It seems to say the whole thing was abominable.

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, mass168 said:

Yes, that is true that any principle can become corrupted... I still feel that Jacob 2 just sounds so general though.

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

This verse does not give any details about which wives were the problem. It seems to say the whole thing was abominable.

At first glance and without the context provided by D&C 132 the verse may seem to condemn the practice in broad strokes under all circumstances. The people receiving this instruction at this time in the Book of Mormon only had to repent of using David and Solomon to justify unauthorized marriages as well as entering such marriages in the first place. They were not required to practice authorized plural marriage through the sealing power. It seems the necessary sealing power to legitimize the practice wasn't even exercised (or recorded or documented, a key component of its proper exercise) among the Lehites until much later (see Helaman 10).

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, mass168 said:

Yes, that is true that any principle can become corrupted... I still feel that Jacob 2 just sounds so general though.

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

This verse does not give any details about which wives were the problem. It seems to say the whole thing was abominable.

Well, if I ever get to meet Jacob I'll be sure to let him know that he wasn't clear enough in that one statement.
He probably thought he was being very clear referencing David and Solomon and then finishing his discourse up with describing the abominations.

[Calm]

Quote

 

One of the challenges is that at some point after these events (David and Solomon), it was encoded into Mosaic law that a man was not to have many wives–and this (back when polygamy was still considered acceptable in mainstream Judaism) was later interpreted by the Rabbis to mean that a man could have as many as four wives.

This injunction on the number of wives seems to be carried over into the polemic given in Jacob. The key in my interpretation of the text is the phrase “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines…”. This is a citation of the Old Testament text found in Deuteronomy 17:17, although the rendering is much closer to the NIV than to the KJV. Here is the relevant passage from the NIV, which describes the responsibilities and powers of the king.

Deuteronomy 17:14-20 (NIV, emphasis added)
14 When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, “Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us,”
15 be sure to appoint over you the king the Lord your God chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Israelite.
16 The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the Lord has told you, “You are not to go back that way again.”
17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.
18 When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the priests, who are Levites.
19 It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the Lord his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees
20 and not consider himself better than his brothers and turn from the law to the right or to the left. Then he and his descendants will reign a long time over his kingdom in Israel.

Compare this with the KJV:

Deuteronomy 17:14-20 (KJV, emphasis added)
14 When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;
15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:
19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:
20 That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.

It is probable that Jacob is effectively quoting this passage (or a precursor to it) from the Brass Plates, and whether or not some of those wives/concubines were given to these men by God is to an extent irrelevant to his point. In other words, the passage in the Book of Mormon and the passage in the Doctrine and Covenants, quite possibly, are really not discussing the same issue at all.

Jacob was not just saying that David and Solomon had more than one wife, he says that they truly had “many wives,” as if to say, “there is no question that David and Solomon had many wives.” The fact that the Old Testament strictly forbade the practice of taking many wives for a king (both Solomon and David were kings) leads one to conclude that they were in violation of Torah. The reason why I suggest it as a recitation of Deuteronomy 17:17 is because of the context.

If it is not a recitation, then there is no previous indication that this is an abomination (at least within the scriptures that we have today) and that this would be a new rule. How then could it be retroactively applied to Solomon and David? This ultimately is the point–Jacob was defending the new ‘party line’ on polygamy from the scriptures.

The Book of Mormon account is basing their statements on an interpretation of Mosaic Law to defend a new position on polygamy. The other is trying to understand how and when polygamy can be acceptable to God. One states that the abomination of Solomon and David was in their breaking the commandments in Torah according to the text, and while there are many polygamous figures in the Old Testament, very few “truly had many wives.” I really doubt that the Nephite proponents of polygamy restricted their proof texts to only David and Solomon.

 

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/contradiction_between_jacob_and_dc_132

[CV75]

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, if I ever get to meet Jacob I'll be sure to let him know that he wasn't clear enough in that one statement.
He probably thought he was being very clear referencing David and Solomon and then finishing his discourse up with describing the abominations.

I agree. I just happened to read this:

“To peoples of past dispensations and ages, the most important prophet was the one then living, teaching, and revealing the will of the Lord in their time. In each of the past dispensations, prophets have been raised up by the Lord as his spokesmen to the people of that particular age and for the specific problems of that age.” https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-howard-w-hunter/chapter-7-continuous-revelation-through-living-prophets?lang=eng

Jacob was the prophet for this population’s time and place. Without reference to the sealing power, polygamy was a “whoredom” for the Nephite saints of 544-421 BC (by some interpretations arguably prohibited under the Law of Moses). Mormon chose to insert these unannotated “small plates” in his abridgement of the greater Nephite record.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

But, he was not commanded by God to live polygamy.  This has been discussed at length on other threads here, so I don't want to derail.  But I did want to point that out.  There is no where in the Bible when God commanded anyone to live polygamy (the Levirate law which contained very specific conditions comes the closest and may involve polygamy).  God did allow polygamy at times, but did not command it as was claimed by Joseph Smith.

God gives us many things, but that doesn't mean He is commanding us to use them.

 

Not to derail, but what part of God saying ""And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom," sounded optional or like God was merely tolerating the situation?  Sounds like God specifically made David a polygamist to me.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, mass168 said:

Yes, that is true that any principle can become corrupted... I still feel that Jacob 2 just sounds so general though.

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

This verse does not give any details about which wives were the problem. It seems to say the whole thing was abominable.

Too often when Orthodox or others speak of polygamy, they think of people like the FLDS who have perverted it. But monogamous marriage too can be perverted. I believe a main problem with it is that people came to believe that the more wives and children a family has, the more exalted they are going to be. I believe there is nothing further from the truth. I echo JHLPROF's statement:

"Jacob 2 directly references living polygamy wickedly, causing it to be banned.
D&C 132 specifically references living polygamy correct as commanded by God.

There is no contradiction."

Jacob 2:27 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;

Who is the Lord speaking to here? Everybody? He is speaking to the Nephites because they weren't really living the spirit of the law. They were committing fornication, taking concubines and hurting the hearts of their wives it says. What were they doing wrong then?

D&C says that if a man desire a second wife, and the first consent, then they are not sinning in entering into polygamous covenants. Does it sound like the Nephite men were receiving the consent of their wives so as to maintain happy family relationships? or were they just doing what they wanted? I dare say the latter. FLDS have trampled on righteous polygamy in D&C 132 in favor of the former, more and more wives in arranged marriages controlled by old men taking pubescent children. Thus, they are like the unrighteous Nephites.

How about David and Solomon? David wanted another man's wife, and sent him to the battle front to get killed so he could have Uriah's wife. That's dirty and underhanded. What did the Lord say? Nathan gave David the parable of the man who had many sheep, who wanted the one sheep of another man - David even saw that this man had an unrighteous desire. Then Nathan told David he was that man who wanted the one sheep of the other man. Nathan did not say that it was unrighteous of the first man to have more than one sheep/wife. The Lord said that he gave David his wives, but then said He would give them to another... So apparently didn't see this as wrong. This other was apparently his son, Solomon. Solomon's problem was that he kept taking wives, and lots of foreign wives who had their own gods, and turned Solomon away from the Lord. Otherwise he probably would have been OK. The Torah warns that the king should not take many wives. So to live polygamy requires righteous souls, because there is more chance for jealousy and other negatives to creep into the family. However, it was recognized in the Torah, and is not against God's law if lived righteously. But to live it with the idea of making oneself more righteous and receiving higher exaltation is totally the wrong idea. I personally feel Joseph caused this view to take root, but it is not scriptural. According to D&C 132 a marriage with one wife fulfills the covenant and the law of the priesthood.

[mass168]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

D&C says that if a man desire a second wife, and the first consent, then they are not sinning in entering into polygamous covenants. Does it sound like the Nephite men were receiving the consent of their wives so as to maintain happy family relationships? or were they just doing what they wanted? I dare say the latter. FLDS have trampled on righteous polygamy in D&C 132 in favor of the former, more and more wives in arranged marriages controlled by old men taking pubescent children. Thus, they are like the unrighteous Nephites.

How about David and Solomon? David wanted another man's wife, and sent him to the battle front to get killed so he could have Uriah's wife. That's dirty and underhanded. What did the Lord say? Nathan gave David the parable of the man who had many sheep, who wanted the one sheep of another man - David even saw that this man had an unrighteous desire. Then Nathan told David he was that man who wanted the one sheep of the other man. Nathan did not say that it was unrighteous of the first man to have more than one sheep/wife. The Lord said that he gave David his wives, but then said He would give them to another... So apparently didn't see this as wrong. This other was apparently his son, Solomon. Solomon's problem was that he kept taking wives, and lots of foreign wives who had their own gods, and turned Solomon away from the Lord. Otherwise he probably would have been OK. The Torah warns that the king should not take many wives. So to live polygamy requires righteous souls, because there is more chance for jealousy and other negatives to creep into the family. However, it was recognized in the Torah, and is not against God's law if lived righteously. But to live it with the idea of making oneself more righteous and receiving higher exaltation is totally the wrong idea. I personally feel Joseph caused this view to take root, but it is not scriptural. According to D&C 132 a marriage with one wife fulfills the covenant and the law of the priesthood.

So you don't think Joseph was practicing it correctly? 

[carbon dioxide]

9 hours ago, mass168 said:

Yes, that is true that any principle can become corrupted... I still feel that Jacob 2 just sounds so general though.

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

This verse does not give any details about which wives were the problem. It seems to say the whole thing was abominable.

That is why one needs to read the whole chapter to get the whole meaning.  Jacob 2:30 does exist yet some people want to pretend that it is not there.

[RevTestament]

7 hours ago, mass168 said:

So you don't think Joseph was practicing it correctly? 

Correctly for what? Do I believe he is more exalted for entering temporal polygamy? 

Does a marriage with one wife meet the covenant and the law of D&C 132? If not, why not?

Edited January 25, 2016 by RevTestament

[RevTestament]

How many wives did Joseph Smith need to marry to be exalted according to D&C 132?

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

How many wives did Joseph Smith need to marry to be exalted according to D&C 132?

Doesn't specify, but verse 52 implies God will give many wives to Joseph when it says "all those".

And rejecting any blessing from God is a risk to exaltation.

[ALarson]

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Not to derail, but what part of God saying ""And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom," sounded optional or like God was merely tolerating the situation?  Sounds like God specifically made David a polygamist to me.

God giving us something is not the same as Him commanding us to do something.  We still have our free agency.  I'm sure that David had the option to gratefully decline the offer to have all of his master's wives as his own.  The first time we really have record of God specifically commanding anyone to live polygamy (sending an angel with a drawn sword) is Joseph Smith's.  God did not threaten David if he chose not live polygamy.  There was no commanding involved.

Edited January 25, 2016 by ALarson
correction

[Ginger Snaps]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

God giving us something is not the same as Him commanding us to do something.  We still have our free agency.  I'm sure that David had the option to gratefully decline the offer to have all of his master's wives as his own.  The first time we really have record of God specifically commanding anyone to live polygamy (sending an angel with a drawn sword) is Joseph Smith's.  God did not threaten David if he chose not live polygamy.  There was no commanding involved.

Isn't the angel-with-a-drawn-sword thing a second or third hand account? I could have sworn I read somewhere that we don't have an account of that in JS' own words or writing. 

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, Ginger Snaps said:

Isn't the angel-with-a-drawn-sword thing a second or third hand account? I could have sworn I read somewhere that we don't have an account of that in JS' own words or writing. 

Well it's set in stone now, with the church's essay...so for the church's sake it better be right.

[ALarson]

Quote

"Isn't the angel-with-a-drawn-sword thing a second or third hand account? I could have sworn I read somewhere that we don't have an account of that in JS' own words or writing."

Ginger Snap, the quote function and reply function aren't working properly for me....but Tacenda is correct regarding this being included in the church essay.  The "drawn sword" statement came from Zina Huntington Jacobs and the "flaming sword" statement came from Eliza R. Snow and  Orson F. Whitney.  Brian Hales has stated that there are 21 accounts of this from 9 different witnesses.