Jacob 2 vs D&C 132

[Gray]

22 hours 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."

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

As God is not the author of any book of scripture, it behooves us to be cautious about treating scripture as if it were quoting God verbatim. 

[smac97]

23 hours ago, mass168 said:

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?

No, Jacob 2 does not say that.  Jacob 2:24 states (speaking of David's and Solomon's unauthorized polygamy): "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord."  Verse 24 then states "Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.", followed by verse 27 which commands monogamy, followed by what seems to be a caveat in verse 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.", followed by verses 31-33, which speaks of the Lord seeing the "sorrow" and hearing the "mourning" and "cries" of his "fair daughters" because of the unauthorized practice of polygamy (described in verse 31 as "the wickedness and abominations of their husbands").

So the basic premise of your post (that a conflict exists between Jacob 2 and D&C 132 because "God only 'suffered' David and Solomon to do what they did") appears to be incorrect.  Can you clarify?

My general understanding is that polygamy is authorized when, and only when, God says so, and is otherwise forbidden (and, in fact, becomes "wickedness and abominations").

Thanks,

-Smac

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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

Are 500 wives more exalting than one?

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

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

As God is not the author of any book of scripture, it behooves us to be cautious about treating scripture as if it were quoting God verbatim. 

3 Nephi 27:26

26 And behold, all things are written by the Father; therefore out of the books which shall be writtenshall the world be judged.

Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortlycome to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Deut 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

He is the author. Men are the scribes.

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Are 500 wives more exalting than one?

Depends on your definition of "exalted".  Given the definitions we have I would say yes.

Quote

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

It meets entry into the covenant and law.
Oddly enough, when you enter this covenant you make a covenant to live all the rites (ordinances) associated with it.  Yet this is considered the finale, no further ordinances.  Interesting.  What further ordinances of marriage can a married person partake in?

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

3 Nephi 27:26

26 And behold, all things are written by the Father; therefore out of the books which shall be writtenshall the world be judged.

Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortlycome to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Deut 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

He is the author. Men are the scribes.

That's the fundamentalist interpretation, yes. 

[RevTestament]

31 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Depends on your definition of "exalted".  Given the definitions we have I would say yes.

It meets entry into the covenant and law.
Oddly enough, when you enter this covenant you make a covenant to live all the rites (ordinances) associated with it.  Yet this is considered the finale, no further ordinances.  Interesting.  What further ordinances of marriage can a married person partake in?

Doctrine and Covenants 82:18

18 And all this for the benefit of the church of the living God, that every man may improve upon his talent, that every man may gain other talents, yea, even an hundred fold, to be cast into the Lord’s storehouse, to become the common property of the whole church—

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Doctrine and Covenants 82:18

18 And all this for the benefit of the church of the living God, that every man may improve upon his talent, that every man may gain other talents, yea, even an hundred fold, to be cast into the Lord’s storehouse, to become the common property of the whole church—

I fail to see what this verse has to do with polygamy or exaltation.
I have seen the parable of the talents used in polygamy doctrines before, but never in connection with this verse which is clearly referring to United Order/Consecration.

[mass168]

21 hours ago, mass168 said:

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

I was referring to this sentence. 

On 1/24/2016 at 4:00 PM, RevTestament said:

I personally feel Joseph caused this view to take root, but it is not scriptural.

It sounds to me like you're saying Joseph had the idea all wrong, OR he had it right (EDIT: in his own head) but wasn't revealing it correctly. 

Edited January 25, 2016 by mass168

[mass168]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

So the basic premise of your post (that a conflict exists between Jacob 2 and D&C 132 because "God only 'suffered' David and Solomon to do what they did") appears to be incorrect.  Can you clarify?

My general understanding is that polygamy is authorized when, and only when, God says so, and is otherwise forbidden (and, in fact, becomes "wickedness and abominations").

Thanks,

-Smac

To clarify, my premise: The overall ideas contained in Jacob 2 (entire chapter) and D&C 132 (entire chapter) are apparently contradictory to me. I say this for reasons including but not limited to the way the following 2 passages sound when read in close succession.

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

 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.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, mass168 said:

To clarify, my premise: The overall ideas contained in Jacob 2 (entire chapter) and D&C 132 (entire chapter) are apparently contradictory to me. I say this for reasons including but not limited to the way the following 2 passages sound when read in close succession.

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

 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.

And what you see as a contradiction has been explained and shown to not be contradictory.

Verse 24 taken in isolation and out of context gives a false impression.  That is the problem with prooftexting.

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I fail to see what this verse has to do with polygamy or exaltation.
I have seen the parable of the talents used in polygamy doctrines before, but never in connection with this verse which is clearly referring to United Order/Consecration.

One person's talents or blessings are not necessarily the next one's, and they are all beneficial to the whole.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, RevTestament said:

One person's talents or blessings are not necessarily the next one's, and they are all beneficial to the whole.

Ok.  Still seems a little off topic.

If we are talking blessings and laws, I like:

• D&C 130: 20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—
  21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

AND

• D&C 58:32 I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing.

[RevTestament]

36 minutes ago, mass168 said:

I was referring to this sentence. 

It sounds to me like you're saying Joseph had the idea all wrong, OR he had it right (EDIT: in his own head) but wasn't revealing it correctly. 

I'm not saying that Joseph Smith was not blessed. I'm saying that temporal polygamy is not necessary to be blessed or as blessed or more blessed.

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I'm not saying that Joseph Smith was not blessed. I'm saying that temporal polygamy is not necessary to be blessed or as blessed or more blessed.

And I am saying that IF there is a separate law of plural marriage (as D&C 132 seems to state) that there are separate/additional blessings to living it that were revoked along with the law.

[RevTestament]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And I am saying that IF there is a separate law of plural marriage (as D&C 132 seems to state) ...

But doesn't and never has. The idea that one can only be exalted only through temporal polygamy has caused more grief than blessings imho, and is totally unsupported in the standard works.

Edited January 25, 2016 by RevTestament

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

But doesn't and never has. The idea that one can only be exalted only through temporal polygamy has caused more grief than blessings imho, and is totally unsupported in the standard works.

Sure it does:

• D&C 132: 32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.
• 33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.
• 34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.
• 35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Sure it does:

• D&C 132: 32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.
• 33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.
• 34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.
• 35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.

You yourself admitted one marriage fulfills the law. Yes, the Mosaic law allowed polygamy, as apparently did the law in Abraham's day. But according to God's law, Isaac was the legal son. I'm not saying that polygamy is not supported by the law, but that the law does not support the idea that temporal polygamy is necessary. If so, the law could not be fair, since there aren't enough women to go around.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Jacob 2 and D&C 132 don't really work together. But it isn't a unique problem within Mormonism. The Old Testament has this potential conflict that occurs between two different traditions - the first is in Deuteronomy 17 (the Torah of the King), where we read in verse 17 (NIV):

"He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold."

And of course the passage in 2 Samuel 12:7-8

"Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more."

When we get to Jacob 2, Jacob refers us back to the passage in 2 Samuel -

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

And this shouldn't surprise us, given the context and the issues going on at the time of Jacob's speech. D&C 132 on the other hand refers us back to 2 Samuel in 132:38-39:

"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. 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."

In the Book of Mormon, where there is a local commandment (given by Lehi) to avoid polygamy, and the people were trying to justify the practice by referring back to David and Solomon, the use of Deuteronomy 17 would put the polygamy of David and Solomon into a context which suggested it was a bad thing (and so shouldn't be used as justification for Nephite behavior). Jacob seems to be referencing the specific references to polygamy understood through the Mosaic Law in verse 30 (the issue of Levirate marriage), in response to the inevitable contrast between Moses and Lehi. This approach is probably also prefaced with the very negative view of the monarchy more generally, held by the northern tribes (Ephraim and Manasseh included), and particularly of Solomon. And this general negativity comes through in a number of places in the Small Plates texts.

In the D&C, which is dealing with a local commandment to practice polygamy, the Old Testament passage being appealed to is in 2 Samuel, where we are told that God did approve of it in certain circumstances. And while there is this approval, it isn't, of course, a blanket approval. This is true of Judaism more generally (Judah was the southern kingdom who favored David and to a lesser extent Solomon), and they had to deal with this problem later on. They do so in some unique ways. For example, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, we have a conflation of the rediscovery of the text of Deuteronomy when the temple is rebuilt as described in 2 Kings 22:8-11 -

"And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it. And Shaphan the scribe came to the king, and brought the king word again, and said, Thy servants have gathered the money that was found in the house, and have delivered it into the hand of them that do the work, that have the oversight of the house of the Lord. And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes."

So, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, we find a text contemporary with Jesus that attempts to address this same conflict between Deuteronomy 17 and 2 Samuel 12 with an appeal to this passage in 2 Kings -

http://books.google.com/books?id=218JbeU2POgC&pg=PA55#v=onepage&q&f=false

(It starts at the bottom of page 55, and continues to page 56). The part of interest to us reads:

"The Shoddy-Wall-Builders who went after "Precept" - Precept is a Raver of whom it says, "they shall surely rave" (Mic. 2:6) - they are caught in two: fornication, by taking two wives in their lifetimes, although the principle of creation is "male and female He created them" (Gen. 1:27) and those who went into the ark "went into the ark two by two" (Gen. 7:9). Concerning the Leader it is written "he shall not multiply wives to himself" (Deut. 17:17); but David had not read the sealed book of the Law in the Ark; for it was not opened in Israel from the day of the death of Eleazar and Joshua and the elders who served the goddess Ashtoret. It lay buried <and was not> revealed until the appearance of Zadok. Nevertheless the deeds of David were all excellent, except the murder of Uriah and God forgave him for that."

What does this mean? It is an argument for monogamy based on the creation (Gen. 1:27), based on the flood (Gen. 7:9), and based on the commandment in the Torah of the King (Deut. 17:17). David clearly violated this law (and the Book of Mormon notes this). And you can see admitted in the text above. But then we get more interpretation - the "book of the Law" was the term used to name the Book of Deuteronomy. And so this text excuses David from living the Torah of the King because he didn't know if it's existence. That is, if the Book of Deuteronomy was hidden in the Ark until the time of Hilkiah, David couldn't possibly have read it, and so he couldn't be held responsible for breaking those commandments, which means, when we deal with David, the only real blemish to his record was that whole dirty affair with Bathsheba, and, as the text above notes, "God forgave him for that". The D&C is not nearly quite so forgiving (it isn't pro-David or pro-Solomon), and so there is in some ways a similarity between those verses I cited in Section 132 and the DSS text on this point -  "... 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."

I think that when we (LDS) deal with these passages, it is a good idea to place them in this sort of historical context - and to remember that they reflect this idea of local commandments and not universal commandments. And we shouldn't be overly eager to extrapolate any of these sets of particulars back onto some universal condition. And perhaps to recognize that as the D&C refers us to 2 Samuel 12, and the Book of Mormon uses Deuteronomy 17, what we are seeing is perhaps more of a "likening" of scripture to the current circumstances (both of which involve immediate current revelation) rather than an attempt to accurately explain the past.

Ben McGuire