Modern Polygamy Timeline & Purpose - not sure I follow...

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

I googled looking for more about the most important part of this story, his wives. There was nothing beyond mention of “wives.” Especially from his Foundation’s main page. You would think all his wives’ posterity were conjured up by only him. This is one of the most egregious examples of how women are removed from history that I have seen. 

I agree.  I have done a lot of research on his wives.  Some of their stories would bring tears to your eyes if you read how they suffered.  And yet, they stayed strong and faithful....and are truly the ones who raised up righteous seed.  And they remain nameless for the most part. 

(This is not to say that Jesse was not a good man and was not loving towards his wives....he was.)

I'm traveling so don't have access to many of the stories, but do have this one that I found on my computer.  His first wife was Emma Seraphine West and his second wife was her sister, Margaret.  Margaret passed away when she was 25 years old (while Jesse was serving one of his missions) and Emma took her children as her own to raise.  She also helped raise Jesse's brother's (Silas) children after both of his wives passed away.

This is from a family history: 

Quote

 

Twice Jesse Nathaniel Smith received mission calls to Denmark.  This brought more work and sacrifice to Emma but it was not her nature to complain.  One winter the children had no shoes to wear, bread and molasses was their lunch, breakfast was nothing more than a thickened porridge thinned with a pint of milk, for dinner a few potatoes were added to the porridge.  This kind of ration was all that a family of three women, seven children, and an adopted big boy had to subsist upon.  As though things were not bad enough, Old Line, the cow, fell and broke her neck.  Amid tears the stricken family tried to think that the porridge and potato soup were just as good without the milk.

That Christmas the children hung up their stockings, but when they awoke their stockings were empty.  Emma wept over their disappointment, but composing herself, she found from somewhere just one apple which she divided among the little folks.

Every day and far into the night this mother worked to provide for her family, splints of pitchy wood were lighted and held, at night, by the older children while Emma did her spinning.  Even sorrow and death had to be a part of that winter’s experience.

Emma’s sister Margaret and the second wife of Jesse N. Smith died leaving two children to Emma’s care.  These children she loved and brought up as her very own.  Then Uncle Silas, Emma’s brother-in-law, lost both of his wives.  Arrangements were made and Emma her mother-in-law, Mary A. Smith, moved into the Uncle’s home where the two women cared for the children of four mothers until the return of Jesse N. from the mission field.

 

 

At least this hasn't been posted in this thread as it has been so often posted when discussing this topic (with only the men named):

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70009-reconciling-the-lucy-walker-story/?do=findComment&comment=1209784331

 

 

[Maidservant]

13 hours ago, juliann said:

What difference would that make? Why is being a descendant of this person anymore important than being a descendant of a wife? What was her name? (And he is nowhere to be seen in my intermountain West clan.)

But before this continues, someone is going to have to explain why the heck being a "descendant" of anybody matters. DNA research has pretty much finished off the blood line myths so unless there is some mystical connection that carries on through one magic name and generations to come....it doesn't make one whit of difference. A lot of people don't even know who their ancestors are anyway.

 

I had not nor would I frame this as an issue of 'difference' or 'importance' or 'bloodline'.  Anson Call breeded like a rabbit, lol.  My only point was volume.

[Maidservant]

13 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

So what is it about?  How did polygamy help more children be born who otherwise would not have been?

The men had more children, not each woman.

At least in the family my children is descended from.  Whether that is exception or the rule, I haven't studied enough to know.

I suppose though overall the same number of children would have made their debut had it been done by different husbands, so, as you say.

[juliann]

Every. Single. Time. Someone says ALL the wives were happy, it only takes one look into the stories that they tell themselves to see how absurd that is. 

Some prominent guy wrote in his autobiography that all of his wives loved each other and were happy as clams and this was recited in RS. It was warfare between two of them, IIRC to the point of threats of physical violence. 

I don’t know how people can keep claiming this nonsense. On one hand they insist it was a test and on the other report how everyone was gleefully happy. 

I do not know how, in this day and age, so many can continue to pick one man and talk about his progeny as if women were absent. 

There is so much double talk on polygamy it’s mind boggling. 

[juliann]

3 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

I had not nor would I frame this as an issue of 'difference' or 'importance' or 'bloodline'.  Anson Call breeded like a rabbit, lol.  My only point was volume.

But it was the women who provided the volume and they would have probably had even more in a normal marriage. 

[Okrahomer]

13 hours ago, Maidservant said:

One word:  Anson Call.  I think you'd be hard pressed to find any intermountain West Latter-day Saint that isn't descended from him.

Hey!  I resemble this remark.

[Maidservant]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

Do you know the names of his wives?  I do.

I own his journal and have read every word of it.  He was a good man.  But, in my opinion, it is his wives who are the true heroes and yet they are rarely even mentioned by name when one speaks of Jesse N. Smith.  They are the ones who stayed home while he served his missions (living in extreme poverty and yet remaining loyal and faithful).  

And, they are also the ones who watched as he brought home a 15 year old bride from his last mission.  

Yes, they are the heroes and they loved each other because each one of them was a remarkably strong and valiant woman.

 

My only point in bringing him up was volume.  (see Brother Gui's post of 44 children and 50,000 descendants)

I have not kept in memory all of the names of his wives, no, although I'm sure I've seen them at the museum; only the one whom my children are descended from, which was the bride from the last mission (to Denmark), Maria Outzen.

I have his journal as well, and I read it some time ago.  I also have a play-in-progress about him, especially his intersection with his much older cousin, Joseph Smith, Jr., who was more like a father figure to him.  I am fascinated by that intersection.  For example, Jesse as a young boy was there at the viewing/funeral of Joseph and Hyrum.  I think about how that would have affected him at that point in his life (if I recall, about age 9, but I could be wrong).

[SouthernMo]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

There is so much double talk on polygamy it’s mind boggling. 

There seems to be a hesitancy to look at the practice objectively for what it is.  Rather, we want to tell the stories we want to tell.  Stories help us make sense of our past, and we tend to look for comfort, so we tell ourselves comfortable stories.

[Maidservant]

5 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

Hey!  I resemble this remark.

Meeee toooooo

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

The men had more children, not each woman.

At least in the family my children is descended from.  Whether that is exception or the rule, I haven't studied enough to know.

I suppose though overall the same number of children would have made their debut had it been done by different husbands, so, as you say.

Brigham had only 59 children from 16 of his wives. I have no doubt that if some of the other wives had been allowed to find their own husbands (BY would go after a few, probably leaving them no choice) the children being born into the religion would have been ten times more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Brigham_Young's_wives

ETA: Nevermind, many of these women that didn't have children were probably a bit too old to have children.

Edited January 22, 2019 by Tacenda

[Maidservant]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

if some of these women had been allowed to find their own husbands, (BY would go after a few, probably leaving them no choice) the children being born into the religion would have been ten times more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Brigham_Young's_wives

 

14 minutes ago, juliann said:

But it was the women who provided the volume and they would have probably had even more in a normal marriage. 

Although let's not be expecting women to yield bumper crops either way, ha ha.

= = = = = =

I chose to comment on volume earlier.  Please don't extrapolate entire sections of my view on polgyany in general, nor that done in Church history.  Mostly I don't care.  I'm more concerned with Jesus being an Osiris figure etc than with Church history.  And I'm with those who wish to more honor the women--of course!

However, for anyone who cares, no worries if not, what I really think is that there is no particular moral virtue of monogamy over polygany nor polyandry.  Nor vice versa.  I also think that the best form of marriage is one woman with multiple husbands--since you need that many to care properly for one woman, and what would increase her level of agency as to her body and her childbearing and her relationships; and many less children--born with more distance between the children and cared for and raised much differently than we do now.  That's a personal preference--not a statement of what is right or virtuous.

[CA Steve]

21 minutes ago, juliann said:

But it was the women who provided the volume and they would have probably had even more in a normal marriage. 

This is the thing that has bothered me regarding the "righteous seed" claim. Inherent in that claim is the assumption that it is the man who is the important factor in raising this seed, because we see people pointing to how many offspring these righteous men had and how that is somehow more beneficial to the church that these men had all these kids. We know that it was the women who did the bulk of the work raising these children. They were primarily responsible for how these children turned out and yet the man is still given, even today, all the credit. Given that birth rates would have been higher for these same women had they been in monogamous marriages, wouldn't the expectation be that even more of this "righteous seed" would have been produced had these women not been subjected to polygamy? I do not buy the "righteous seed" argument, it just does not hold up when you look at who should be given the credit for that seed. In reality it should be called "righteous egg."

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

The "otherwise they shall hearken unto these things" is the giveaway.  "These things" being what he just taught about monogamy.   "Otherwise" being the conditional exception to monogamy.  

What else could that possibly mean?  It doesn't seem vague at all that there are exceptions to the rule by the use of the word "otherwise".

I agree with you however that there could be possible alternatives to the interpretation of "raising up seed", Hamba has given one very good alternative interpretation. 

 

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I am always open to different interpretations of scripture.  For now, I'll stand by my interpretation that Jacob 2:30 is referring to polygamy.  It seems clear to me.  But - what alternative interpretation do you offer?  You'd present a stronger case for me to change my mind if you have something that it could mean, rather than just a rejection of what I take it to mean.

You have to read the verses more closely, putting away the contemporary interpretation of the text first.  Don't assume that verse 30 is commanding polygamy (nothing in the entire chapter ever commands polygamy, or even condones it even remotely.  Look at these verses and lets walk through this: 

Quote

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.

24 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.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

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.

31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.

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.

34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.

First focus in on 25-27.  The Lord led people out of Jerusalem to "raise up... a righteous branch"  Similar wording to raising up seed.  Then the Lord will not suffer that this people (BoM people) shall do like them of old (David & Solomon practicing polygamy).  Then gives the commandment - one wife and no concubines. Very clear and strong emphasis throughout this entire section.  

Now look at verses 29.  People need to keep the commandment (monogamy), OTHERWISE (my word, but it means the same things as OR) the land will be cursed for their sake.  

Now look at 30: If the Lord wants to raise up seed righteous seed, he will command it (through monogamy as explicitly explained earlier), OTHERWISE the people will hearken to these things (polygamy & whoredoms) and will be cursed in the process as explained earlier.  

I see reading verse 30 as saying the same things as the previous verses, where very explicitly the law of monogamy was explained in unambiguous terms.  I don't read 30 as an exception to all of the above wording, I read it as repeating the above wording using similar wording.  Can you think of other examples in the scriptures that very clearly lay out commandments, and then have one verse that completely contradicts all of the carefully explained commandment?  This is like the Hebraisms that many people see in the text, with repeating language for emphasis.  Verse 30 is a repeat explanation of what is in verse 29 and earlier, its not an exception to everything else, that would be a very strange way of writing.  

Edited January 22, 2019 by hope_for_things

[SouthernMo]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 

You have to read the verses more closely, putting away the contemporary interpretation of the text first.  Don't assume that verse 30 is commanding polygamy (nothing in the entire chapter ever commands polygamy, or even condones it even remotely.  Look at these verses and lets walk through this: 

First focus in on 25-27.  The Lord led people out of Jerusalem to "raise up... a righteous branch"  Similar wording to raising up seed.  Then the Lord will not suffer that this people (BoM people) shall do like them of old (David & Solomon practicing polygamy).  Then gives the commandment - one wife and no concubines. Very clear and strong emphasis throughout this entire section.  

Now look at verses 29.  People need to keep the commandment (monogamy), OTHERWISE (my word, but it means the same things as OR) the land will be cursed for their sake.  

Now look at 30: If the Lord wants to raise up seed righteous seed, he will command it (through monogamy as explicitly explained earlier), OTHERWISE the people will hearken to these things (polygamy & whoredoms) and will be cursed in the process as explained earlier.  

I see reading verse 30 as saying the same things as the previous verses, where very explicitly the law of monogamy was explained in unambiguous terms.  I don't read 30 as an exception to all of the above wording, I read it as repeating the above wording using similar wording.  Can you think of other examples in the scriptures that very clearly lay out commandments, and then have one verse that completely contradicts all of the carefully explained commandment?  This is like the Hebraisms that many people see in the text, with repeating language for emphasis.  Verse 30 is a repeat explanation of what is in verse 29 and earlier, its not an exception to everything else, that would be a very strange way of writing.  

Interesting.  It's a possibility.  Never read it that way.  Thanks!

Not sure if I'm bought in to your interpretation as 'correct', but it's certainly viable.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Maidservant said:

The men had more children, not each woman.

At least in the family my children is descended from.  Whether that is exception or the rule, I haven't studied enough to know.

I suppose though overall the same number of children would have made their debut had it been done by different husbands, so, as you say.

Iirc, research showed less children from polygamous wives than from monogamous marriages.  Whether this was true for polygynous wives who lived all together and were only a few per man or the number was affected by those in relationships that had 5 wives or more or whose wives lived separately, making less time available to visit each, I don't know.

Edited January 22, 2019 by Calm

[pogi]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

 

You have to read the verses more closely, putting away the contemporary interpretation of the text first.  Don't assume that verse 30 is commanding polygamy (nothing in the entire chapter ever commands polygamy, or even condones it even remotely.  Look at these verses and lets walk through this: 

First focus in on 25-27.  The Lord led people out of Jerusalem to "raise up... a righteous branch"  Similar wording to raising up seed.  Then the Lord will not suffer that this people (BoM people) shall do like them of old (David & Solomon practicing polygamy).  Then gives the commandment - one wife and no concubines. Very clear and strong emphasis throughout this entire section.  

Now look at verses 29.  People need to keep the commandment (monogamy), OTHERWISE (my word, but it means the same things as OR) the land will be cursed for their sake.  

Now look at 30: If the Lord wants to raise up seed righteous seed, he will command it (through monogamy as explicitly explained earlier), OTHERWISE the people will hearken to these things (polygamy & whoredoms) and will be cursed in the process as explained earlier.  

I see reading verse 30 as saying the same things as the previous verses, where very explicitly the law of monogamy was explained in unambiguous terms.  I don't read 30 as an exception to all of the above wording, I read it as repeating the above wording using similar wording.  Can you think of other examples in the scriptures that very clearly lay out commandments, and then have one verse that completely contradicts all of the carefully explained commandment?  This is like the Hebraisms that many people see in the text, with repeating language for emphasis.  Verse 30 is a repeat explanation of what is in verse 29 and earlier, its not an exception to everything else, that would be a very strange way of writing.  

Very contrived reading in my opinion.

The word "hearken" in verse 30 is clearly in reference to the word "hearken" in verse 27.

Vs 30:

Quote

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.

What things?  See vs 27:

Quote

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;

Hearken unto "these things" that I just said to hearken unto...that's what!

If he was suggesting that they shall hearken unto something other than what he just said, than it needs to be clarified, otherwise we should assume the natural, un-contrived reading, and not assume that the Lord was being extremely unclear.  

The other problem with your interpretation is that it assumes that all people will choose polygamy and concubines if not commanded to do otherwise, that just seems unlikely.  Maybe some, but all people "shall hearken unto these things (polygamy/concubines)"?  I don't think so.

The phrase "hearken unto these things" would be completely unusual if used in reference to falling into wickedness.  "Hearken" specifically means to listen or hear.  The only person speaking in this context is the Lord who just specifically said to hear and hearken unto his words; there is no one speaking and encouraging polygamy in this context to hearken to.   So, when he say "otherwise they shall hearken unto these things" we must assume it is in reference to the things the Lord has commanded.  That is the more natural and common usage of the phrase "hearken unto..." in scripture.  Again, I don't think I have ever seen that phrase used in reference to wickedness.  Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but it would be highly unusual either way.

Not to mention, we have D&C 132 to corroborate my interpretation that polygamy is indeed a conditional exception to the rule of monogamy - exactly as Jacob 2 states. 

Edited January 22, 2019 by pogi

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Very contrived reading in my opinion.

The word "hearken" in verse 30 is clearly in reference to the word "hearken" in verse 27.

Vs 30:

What things?  See vs 27:

The phrase "hearken unto these things" would be completely unusual if used in reference to falling into wickedness.  "Hearken" specifically means to listen or hear.  The only person speaking in this context is the Lord who just specifically said to hear and hearken unto his words; there is no one speaking and encouraging polygamy in this context to hearken to.   So, when he say "otherwise they shall hearken unto these things" we must assume it is in reference to the things the Lord has commanded.  That is the more natural and common usage of the phrase "hearken unto..." in scripture.  

Not to mention.  We have D&C 132 to corroborate my interpretation that polygamy is indeed a conditional exception to the rule of monogamy - exactly as Jacob 2 states. 

The problem with your reading, it seems to me, is Lord God is saying he's raising up the seed of those whom he's addressing (so the Nephite people in Jacob's era) then says in verse 30 if he raises up seed unto himself he'd command polygamy.  So he's either raising up seed unto himself with the nephite people or not.  If he is, then he'd command polygamy.  If not, then why would he say he is?  

That doesn't seem to make much sense either.  I'm not sure what the "otherwise" does though.  It doesn't really fit.  

But we can feel good about the last verses:

Quote

For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and ^aabominations of their ^bhusbands.

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.

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 ^awhoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.

34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our ^afather, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.

35 Behold, ye have done ^agreater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the ^bstrictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.

He doesn't want to deal with polygamy's negative effects it seems to me.  it seems it's all negative.  I don't really see him making room for polygamy being ok in this.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Interesting.  It's a possibility.  Never read it that way.  Thanks!

Not sure if I'm bought in to your interpretation as 'correct', but it's certainly viable.

Also remember the history of interpreting the passage the way that you have been taught in more recent times.  If Joseph and Brigham didn't interpret it that way when they implemented polygamy, first in private, and then in public, then its the later apologetic interpretation (which again, runs against the grain of the entire sermon in Jacob) that requires some explanation, and as I'm pointing out, this interpretation is problematic not only to the text itself, but to the history of the use of that text.    

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

Seventh Day Adventists are doing better, without polygamy and with a founding woman prophet.

And good on them! I have a number of close Adventist mates. They’re excellent men, and I’m grateful that their church has an MOU to work with the Church of Jesus Christ on important issues. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

This is the thing that has bothered me regarding the "righteous seed" claim. Inherent in that claim is the assumption that it is the man who is the important factor in raising this seed, because we see people pointing to how many offspring these righteous men had and how that is somehow more beneficial to the church that these men had all these kids. We know that it was the women who did the bulk of the work raising these children. They were primarily responsible for how these children turned out and yet the man is still given, even today, all the credit. Given that birth rates would have been higher for these same women had they been in monogamous marriages, wouldn't the expectation be that even more of this "righteous seed" would have been produced had these women not been subjected to polygamy? I do not buy the "righteous seed" argument, it just does not hold up when you look at who should be given the credit for that seed. In reality it should be called "righteous egg."

The reasoning is not usually volume maximized in the community as a whole, but rather the number of children having two faithful parents to learn from.  This assumes that the men the polygynous wives would have married monogamously were generally less faithful.  Engaging in polygyny is seen as a standard of faithfulness, either in being faithful enough to commit to it or being molded into faithfulness by living it or seeing it lived by parents.  

It would be interesting to see how many monogamous leaders left the Church versus how many polygynous ones did as well as what percentage of their children stayed in the Church, but there might be too many complicating factors.  One thing is number of missions a man served.  Another, polygynous families would not be accepted into other communities, so once committed to polygyny a man would have to stay if he desired to be with all his families.  A woman might have to risk being outcast as well as dealing with the usual poverty an unsupported, divorced woman would experience.  Children tended to stay closer to parents back then as adults, so even if not as committed to the Church itself, they would likely stay in the area and thus participate in the Church community.

It seems likely that polygyny kept families close to church centers as they wouldn't be accepted elsewhere.  Plus research indicates that when we do things that are high cost, we tend to become more committed to them and place a higher value on them, possibly in part to justify putting in resources to them in the first place.

It is therefore certainly possible that polygyny created a well knit emotionally faithful to each other community, which may have been what was needed for God's purposes (though there could have been problems among the monogamous vs. polygynous wives if my great-great gran was typical...the mono wives pitied the poly while the poly thought the mono were snobs and lazy).  I don't think we should automatically assume this equates to a generally more spiritually faithful community though...or that the example of a father and mother living the Principle faithfully equated to children committed to living the Gospel.  The example of the father possibly being long distance most of the time, whether due to missions or being with other families has to complicate the picture as well.  Is it enough to have the example of a father who loves one's mother, but isn't there much or is it more about having two parents there in the home to interact directly with the child.  I wonder if any studies have been done on the children of married, but mostly physically separated parents.

 

Edited January 22, 2019 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

26 minutes ago, pogi said:

The word "hearken" in verse 30 is clearly in reference to the word "hearken" in verse 27.

Vs 30:

Quote

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.

What things?  See vs 27:

Quote

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;

Hearken unto "these things" that I just said to hearken unto...that's what!

If he was suggesting that they shall hearken unto something other than what he just said, than it needs to be clarified, otherwise we should assume the natural, un-contrived reading, and not assume that the Lord was being extremely unclear.  

The other problem with your interpretation is that it assumes that all people will choose polygamy and concubines if not commanded to do otherwise, that just seems unlikely.  Maybe some, but all people "shall hearken unto these things (polygamy/concubines)"?  I don't think so.

The phrase "hearken unto these things" would be completely unusual if used in reference to falling into wickedness.  "Hearken" specifically means to listen or hear.  The only person speaking in this context is the Lord who just specifically said to hear and hearken unto his words; there is no one speaking and encouraging polygamy in this context to hearken to.   So, when he say "otherwise they shall hearken unto these things" we must assume it is in reference to the things the Lord has commanded.  That is the more natural and common usage of the phrase "hearken unto..." in scripture.  Again, I don't think I have ever seen that phrase used in reference to wickedness.  Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but it would be highly unusual either way.

Not to mention, we have D&C 132 to corroborate my interpretation that polygamy is indeed a conditional exception to the rule of monogamy - exactly as Jacob 2 states. 

Hearken means to listen and follow.  So, I think it could easily fit into my reading as well.  Remember the context of the entire chapter is in the balance of this reading.  You're again taking one verse and using it as an exception clause to the entire chapter which is quite clearly condemning polygamy.  Can you think of any other examples in the scriptures where your reading of one sentence contradicts the entirety of the rest of some section? 

Here is how I might interpret the hearken sections:

27: "hearken to the word of the Lord" (the commandment for monogamy)

30: If I want to raise up seed (through leading my people out of Jerusalem and commanding them to obey the law of chastity and monogamy in verses 25 - 27) "I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things" meaning they will listen and follow the bad things that David and Solomon did that God is displeased with.   

As for D&C 132, using a text from 1843 to interpret a text from 1829 is problematic because so many of the teachings in 1843 were completely different from the theology taught in the BoM.  To add to the problem is the fact that D&C 132 never borrows the language of the BoM to support the argument for polygamy.  If Jacob 2:30 were so clearly written to support the idea that God condoned polygamy, then wouldn't Joseph have leaned on this verse for the justification in D&C 132?  Especially to convince Emma, a believer in the BoM and its inspiration.  How could this opportunity possibly have been missed, when the whole reason D&C 132 was written was to convince Emma that polygamy was sanctioned by God.  

As for the word hearken, I found another usage in the BoM that uses hearken in terms of going against God.  In 2 Nephi 28:5-6.  So it seems there are multiple examples where hearken can be used either for following God or going against him, but I would suspect that it is more frequently used in terms of following God.  

[SouthernMo]

45 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Also remember the history of interpreting the passage the way that you have been taught in more recent times.  If Joseph and Brigham didn't interpret it that way when they implemented polygamy, first in private, and then in public, then its the later apologetic interpretation (which again, runs against the grain of the entire sermon in Jacob) that requires some explanation, and as I'm pointing out, this interpretation is problematic not only to the text itself, but to the history of the use of that text.    

Or Joseph Smith was wrong in his implementation of polygamy. 

[rodheadlee]

16 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

You realize how few Mormons there are in the world, right?  Flourish is not a word I’d use to describe the restoration in the grand scheme of history. It’s a blip on US history at best.

Oh really how many religions have their own state?

[SouthernMo]

Just now, rodheadlee said:

Oh really how many religions have their own state?

What state does the LDS church own?

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Or Joseph Smith was wrong in his implementation of polygamy. 

Morally & ethically wrong, I would agree that its not a good practice. 

I'm primarily just pointing out how the text was written and what we should expect the meaning of that early text to be.  The evidence for polygamy being part of Joseph's theology in 1829 (or part of the BoM theology) when this text was first dictated is non-existent.  The idea that Joseph interpreted the text the way it was interpreted much later in the 19th century is also not supported anywhere that I can see.  

Edited January 22, 2019 by hope_for_things