Article by Benjamin E. Park Re: Dc 132

[alter idem]

14 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

I must question the applicability of your reading. 

Jacob 2:30 is significant in that God makes it clear that He possesses the authority to authorize and forbid polygamy. From the get-go it is clear that polygamy is within the spectrum of possibilities that God considers. That is why it is significant to this discussion. However, the text of Jacob 2:30 occurs in a specific context, which context must be remembered. 

Jacob 2:30 reads as follows, emphasis mine:

A principle objection to this passage is the modern statistics which suggest that polygamy decreases the amount of children an individual woman would bear relative to the children she would bear if in a monogamous marriage. I contend that that objection is irrelevant under the circumstances in which Jacob taught this passage. 

Jacob was speaking to a small Nephite colony which was surrounded by those that did not share their religious and cultural beliefs. Increasing the total population of the area was not a concern, rather the concern was with raising up seed unto the Lord, ie within the Nephite religion. Under such circumstances, polygamy could indeed be beneficial for raising up more seed unto the Lord. It would ensure that no Nephite women married outside the faith while increasing the reproductive output of Nephite men. If Nephite men were to marry women from outside the Nephite colony and raise those children in the Nephite tradition, it would indeed raise up more seed unto the Lord.  The Lord expressly connects the actions of the iniquitous Nephites to those of David and Solomon in Jacob 2:24-26. David and Solomon "sought many wives and concubines," whereas there were almost certainly not enough women in the Nephite colony to make the seeking of "many wives and concubines" possible. Solomon in particular was famous for looking outside Israel for wives and concubines. Clearly the iniquitous Nephite men were doing just that: taking wives and concubines from outside the Nephite colony while the cries of the betrayed daughters of the Nephites ascended up to God. It was exactly this practice, likely to increase the population of Nephites, which the Lord declined to permit. 

In my opinion, this passage is perfectly sensible when read in context. Jacob and the Lord were speaking unto the Nephites at this point in time. I can't speak for @Bernard Gui, but I don't think this passage is relevant to the present debate because it gives the Lord's rationale for modern polygamy. I think it is relevant because it establishes the Lord's authority to command and revoke polygamy. 

Edit: I forgot to ask this because I got carried away in the context of Jacob 2, but how does issuing a commandment interfere with agency? The Lord commanded some people to participate in polygamy...much as He commands us all to do some things all the time and never do other things. Agency is not imperiled by the presence of a commandment or lack thereof. 

Finally, you read this as saying that the Saints can't or aren't raising up seed to the Lord outside of polygamy. I think that's a really selective reading and don't consider it valid. 

I've never understood that claim that polygamy reduces the number of children a woman would have if she were in a normal monogamous marriage.  I don't trust this to be accurate, because there are really a lot of reasons why women have a lot of children or very few children.   My polygamous great grandfather had 50 children with five wives, my great grandmother had 8 children.  My two grandmothers in monogamous marriages had two children each.  My mom had 7 children, my mother in law had 6, I was only able to have 3, but would have had more.  I think it's not being polygamous or monogamous which determines how many children a marriage will produce.

[OGHoosier]

4 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I've never understood that claim that polygamy reduces the number of children a woman would have if she were in a normal monogamous marriage.  I don't trust this to be accurate, because there are really a lot of reasons why women have a lot of children or very few children.   My polygamous great grandfather had 50 children with five wives, my great grandmother had 8 children.  My two grandmothers in monogamous marriages had two children each.  My mom had 7 children, my mother in law had 6, I was only able to have 3, but would have had more.  I think it's not being polygamous or monogamous which determines how many children a marriage will produce.

You make a good point. I'll just quote from  footnote #6 from the Gospel Topics Essay on Plural Marriage in Utah:

Quote

Studies have shown that monogamous women bore more children per wife than did polygamous wives except the first. Fertility at the societal level, however, was enhanced because of the near universality of marriage among women and the abundant opportunities for remarriage among previously married women of childbearing age. L. L. Bean and G. P. Mineau, “The Polygyny-Fertility Hypothesis: A Re-evaluation,” Population Studies 40 (1986): 67–81; Miriam Koktvedgaard Zeitzen, Polygamy: A Cross Cultural Analysis (Oxford and New York: Berg, 2008), 62–63.

This would back up the point that plural marriage would raise up seed unto the Lord. I definitely think it's valid to challenge the premise that modern polygamy would not have served that purpose. However, my purpose in posting was not to challenge that premise but rather exegete the context of Jacob 2:30, as well as raise other objections. 

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

In my opinion, this passage is perfectly sensible when read in context. Jacob and the Lord were speaking unto the Nephites at this point in time. I can't speak for @Bernard Gui, but I don't think this passage is relevant to the present debate because it gives the Lord's rationale for modern polygamy. I think it is relevant because it establishes the Lord's authority to command and revoke polygamy. 

I can't speak for Bermard Gui either, but I think it (Jacob 2:30) is relevant to the present debate given exactly what you said, that "it establishes the Lord's authority to command and revoke polygamy".  Polygamy was revoked by the Lord in the manifesto (Official Declaration 1), and he would need to command it again for it to be reestablished. 

Edited May 19, 2020 by InCognitus

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

I can't speak for @Bernard Gui, but I don't think this passage is relevant to the present debate because it gives the Lord's rationale for modern polygamy.

It was cited by the practitioners as the reason for plural marriage.

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, stemelbow said:

That passage was always certainly odd enough to make an argument, I guess.  

"I command these people to be polygamists so I can raise up seed unto me."

"Aren't you raising up seed unto you without polygamy?"

"No.  Only when I command it.  Or I guess I can otherwise, but it's easier."

"Ok.  I didn't realize you interfered with our agency in order to do things, like, raise up seed unto you?"  

"I interfere sneakily so it doesn't appear I interfere."

"But having us be polygamists isn't a sneaky thing.  People notice that kind of crazy stuff."

"it'll work.  Don't you worry."

"Thanks.  I guess you know what you're doing.  Although I hear women will have more children, as it were, if they aren't stuck in a polygamist relationship."

"me raising 'em up has little to do with more seed."

"Ok.  So you need us to be polygamists, so you can raise up seed?  But if we weren't polygamists you couldn't raise up seed or it makes it too hard on you?  And we come off looking like crazies in all of this?  I don't think this will work."

"It won't work with questioning doubters like you.  I need some real believers.  Let's rescind what I said and we can all just carry on pretending that monogamy is good.  I'll wait for another era to raise up seed unto me.  curses upon you, I never knew you."

"Oh....welll...there you go.  I thought people were finicky.   

That’s one way to look at it.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 hours ago, stemelbow said:

"... I need some real believers ... "

I think you may have inadvertently hit upon something here. From my perspective, the command to practise plural marriage in the 19th century required and therefore created 'real believers'. And it takes real believers to raise up seed unto the Lord. Parents who indulge in 'cultural Mormonism' simply don't.

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

I must question the applicability of your reading. 

Jacob 2:30 is significant in that God makes it clear that He possesses the authority to authorize and forbid polygamy. From the get-go it is clear that polygamy is within the spectrum of possibilities that God considers. That is why it is significant to this discussion. However, the text of Jacob 2:30 occurs in a specific context, which context must be remembered. 

Jacob 2:30 reads as follows, emphasis mine:

A principle objection to this passage is the modern statistics which suggest that polygamy decreases the amount of children an individual woman would bear relative to the children she would bear if in a monogamous marriage. I contend that that objection is irrelevant under the circumstances in which Jacob taught this passage. 

Jacob was speaking to a small Nephite colony which was surrounded by those that did not share their religious and cultural beliefs. Increasing the total population of the area was not a concern, rather the concern was with raising up seed unto the Lord, ie within the Nephite religion. Under such circumstances, polygamy could indeed be beneficial for raising up more seed unto the Lord. It would ensure that no Nephite women married outside the faith while increasing the reproductive output of Nephite men. If Nephite men were to marry women from outside the Nephite colony and raise those children in the Nephite tradition, it would indeed raise up more seed unto the Lord.  The Lord expressly connects the actions of the iniquitous Nephites to those of David and Solomon in Jacob 2:24-26. David and Solomon "sought many wives and concubines," whereas there were almost certainly not enough women in the Nephite colony to make the seeking of "many wives and concubines" possible. Solomon in particular was famous for looking outside Israel for wives and concubines. Clearly the iniquitous Nephite men were doing just that: taking wives and concubines from outside the Nephite colony while the cries of the betrayed daughters of the Nephites ascended up to God. It was exactly this practice, likely to increase the population of Nephites, which the Lord declined to permit. 

In my opinion, this passage is perfectly sensible when read in context. Jacob and the Lord were speaking unto the Nephites at this point in time. I can't speak for @Bernard Gui, but I don't think this passage is relevant to the present debate because it gives the Lord's rationale for modern polygamy. I think it is relevant because it establishes the Lord's authority to command and revoke polygamy. 

Edit: I forgot to ask this because I got carried away in the context of Jacob 2, but how does issuing a commandment interfere with agency? The Lord commanded some people to participate in polygamy...much as He commands us all to do some things all the time and never do other things. Agency is not imperiled by the presence of a commandment or lack thereof. 

Finally, you read this as saying that the Saints can't or aren't raising up seed to the Lord outside of polygamy. I think that's a really selective reading and don't consider it valid. 

Thanks for the comments, OGHoosier.  I feel quite pleased that the reasoning you offer is not part of my mindset any longer.  I know that may sound mean but I don't know how else to put it.  You see, from the start I don't think God said a thing in Jacob 2.  To me, those aren't his words, those are just words written in a book.  I think you're initial assumption there throws everything off and forces you to see things all goofy, causing you to strain and stretch.  It makes no sense that God needs polygamy to raise up seed to himself.  If he wishes to raise up seed unto himself, he can just do it without polygamy as it appears you also suggest.

I'll address your questions.  

Quote

I forgot to ask this because I got carried away in the context of Jacob 2, but how does issuing a commandment interfere with agency?

Good question.  I don't think I was very clear there.  It's not the issuing of a command.  It is God doing the raising that gets in the way of agency.  If God's the one raising up seed unto him, it appears to me, he's interfering, and encroaching upon the agency issue.  Humans do the raising, as it stands.  If other words, God commands and instructs and let's the product of such be people raised up to Him, then it doesn't seem like agency is interfered with.  But stepping back and letting it happen isn't him doing the raising at all.  

Quote

inally, you read this as saying that the Saints can't or aren't raising up seed to the Lord outside of polygamy. I think that's a really selective reading and don't consider it valid.

If God can raise up seed unto himself without polygamy then what's the point of polygamy?  He says "if I will raise up seed unto me" then the reading suggest, He'll command polygamy.  If He will raise up seed unto Himself, as per reason, doesn't seem to mean anything. He's just saying nonsense if its true that he can raise up seed to Himself without polygamy.  It throws the whole using this passage as a defense out the window.  There is no reason for polygamy on such a position.   

[stemelbow]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think you may have inadvertently hit upon something here. From my perspective, the command to practise plural marriage in the 19th century required and therefore created 'real believers'. And it takes real believers to raise up seed unto the Lord. Parents who indulge in 'cultural Mormonism' simply don't.

I know those modern wimps today.  If they only knew....

[Bob Crockett]

7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think you may have inadvertently hit upon something here. From my perspective, the command to practise plural marriage in the 19th century required and therefore created 'real believers'. And it takes real believers to raise up seed unto the Lord. Parents who indulge in 'cultural Mormonism' simply don't.

So goes the standard response.  But the scriptures don't seem to indicate that the Saints will be requested to practice illegal things as a test. 

Romans 13:1 clearly states that: “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.” 1 Peter 2:13-14 says: “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.”

Edited May 19, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, alter idem said:

I've never understood that claim that polygamy reduces the number of children a woman would have if she were in a normal monogamous marriage.  I don't trust this to be accurate, because there are really a lot of reasons why women have a lot of children or very few children.   My polygamous great grandfather had 50 children with five wives, my great grandmother had 8 children.  My two grandmothers in monogamous marriages had two children each.  My mom had 7 children, my mother in law had 6, I was only able to have 3, but would have had more.  I think it's not being polygamous or monogamous which determines how many children a marriage will produce.

It was simply a comparison--Women in polygamous relations in Mormonism in the 19th century had on average, to a significant sounding degree, less children than women nationally during that time.  That's certainly not to say that some women or certain polygamous situations didn't produce many kids.  And it's without a doubt true, and has been for a century, we simply don't have near as many kids as they did then.  When there are 30 plus wives, as Joseph had, or 40 plus as Brigham had, you simply don't get a night with them but every other month or so.  If there are 4 or 5 wives, which just seems ridiculous on the face of it so not trying to downplay it, but even then you might not be with your husband much.  

I think the counter argument has been, essentially, "well what God really meant was raising up seed was in his mind, pertaining to the children's fathers.  If a child was of the loins of Brigham then God had a better chance that that child would have been better and more faithful than a child born to Joe Schmo, or whoever."  

I find that a ridiculous type of claim.  The raising up seed unto God is just silly nonsense.  

Edited May 19, 2020 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

So goes the standard response.  But the scriptures don't seem to indicate that the Saints will be requested to practice illegal things as a test. 

Isn't D&C 132 scripture?  Relying on scripture is relying on a world of contradiction, confusion and absurdity.  

[CA Steve]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

If a child was of the loins of Brigham then God had a better chance that that child would have been better and more faithful than a child born to Joe Schmo, or whoever."  

I find that a ridiculous type of claim.  The raising up seed unto God is just silly nonsense.  

I agree. I have never seen any evidence that the descendants of the polygamous Mormon families were more or less faithful (active?) than the descendants of non-polygamous Mormon families. It also makes one wonder why God would be promoting an institution which, in many cases, resulted in an absentee father from the family unit when a hundred years later His own prophet would borrow the phrase "No success in life compensates for failure in the home" and make the traditional family unit the focus of the church.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I know those modern wimps today.  If they only knew....

Throwing a host of people under the bus there.

[Tacenda]

35 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Isn't D&C 132 scripture?  Relying on scripture is relying on a world of contradiction, confusion and absurdity.  

I couldn't agree more, in fact scripture is probably the most frustrating to God, who has to see men speaking for Him when He wasn't speaking to them. 

Edited May 19, 2020 by Tacenda

[Bob Crockett]

I don't think section 132 is specific.

[alter idem]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It was simply a comparison--Women in polygamous relations in Mormonism in the 19th century had on average, to a significant sounding degree, less children than women nationally during that time.  That's certainly not to say that some women or certain polygamous situations didn't produce many kids.  And it's without a doubt true, and has been for a century, we simply don't have near as many kids as they did then.  When there are 30 plus wives, as Joseph had, or 40 plus as Brigham had, you simply don't get a night with them but every other month or so.  If there are 4 or 5 wives, which just seems ridiculous on the face of it so not trying to downplay it, but even then you might not be with your husband much.  

I think the counter argument has been, essentially, "well what God really meant was raising up seed was in his mind, pertaining to the children's fathers.  If a child was of the loins of Brigham then God had a better chance that that child would have been better and more faithful than a child born to Joe Schmo, or whoever."  

I find that a ridiculous type of claim.  The raising up seed unto God is just silly nonsense.  

I don't think it's silly nonsense since it's in the scriptures, but maybe the explanations offered aren't correct. Personally I do think he meant it when he said to 'raise up seed' and just maybe it matters what kind of 'seed' it is and who's raising it. It may be that the monogamous non member couplings in  in 19th century America were more productive, but I  suspect  that was irrelevant to his purposes as the Lord cared about raising up seed among a small portion of his people. What was it? Something like 12 to 15 percent were all that practiced it, and only for 40 years, but, imo his purposes were fulfilled.

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I don't think section 132 is specific.

Specific to what?  Specific in saying "break the law so I can test you" or something?  

[Bob Crockett]

46 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Specific to what?  Specific in saying "break the law so I can test you" or something?  

Commanding or endorsing plural marriage

[OGHoosier]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Thanks for the comments, OGHoosier.  I feel quite pleased that the reasoning you offer is not part of my mindset any longer.  I know that may sound mean but I don't know how else to put it.  You see, from the start I don't think God said a thing in Jacob 2.  To me, those aren't his words, those are just words written in a book.  I think you're initial assumption there throws everything off and forces you to see things all goofy, causing you to strain and stretch.  It makes no sense that God needs polygamy to raise up seed to himself.  If he wishes to raise up seed unto himself, he can just do it without polygamy as it appears you also suggest.

I'll address your questions.  

Good question.  I don't think I was very clear there.  It's not the issuing of a command.  It is God doing the raising that gets in the way of agency.  If God's the one raising up seed unto him, it appears to me, he's interfering, and encroaching upon the agency issue.  Humans do the raising, as it stands.  If other words, God commands and instructs and let's the product of such be people raised up to Him, then it doesn't seem like agency is interfered with.  But stepping back and letting it happen isn't him doing the raising at all.  

If God can raise up seed unto himself without polygamy then what's the point of polygamy?  He says "if I will raise up seed unto me" then the reading suggest, He'll command polygamy.  If He will raise up seed unto Himself, as per reason, doesn't seem to mean anything. He's just saying nonsense if its true that he can raise up seed to Himself without polygamy.  It throws the whole using this passage as a defense out the window.  There is no reason for polygamy on such a position.   

Forgive me, I see no substantive rebuttal to my reading here. Just condescension. Tell me, what is the merit of adopting the quickest and most facile modern reading without looking deeper into the context of a text? Your self-professed disregard for the scriptures blinds you and boxes you into a selective reading of the text that ignores the context, unacceptable for any serious exegete. And if you aren't interested in exegesis, why should we care about your opinion? Isn't this whole question about the doctrinal bearing of this passage on Church practice? 

Regarding your responses to my questions, the command to marry and multiply is how God raises up seed. You seem to believe that, in order to truly raise up seed unto Himself, God needs to do more than command that His people marry and multiply. Surely you know that God fulfills His directives by issuing commands to His servants, as well as through direct intervention. How are you reading infringement on agency into this? 

You also read into this an unnecessarily exclusive definition of "raising up seed". By your lights, there's no degrees of raising up seed, it's either you are or you are not. Again, I think this is a facile reading. We're talking about quantity here. More vs. less, not all vs. none. 

[stemelbow]

40 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Commanding or endorsing plural marriage

Oh I see.  Well that's...I mean...an odd claim.  But to each his own, when it comes to reading scripture I say.  Make it fit whatever you need it to fit, as long as you aren't hurting others.  

[stemelbow]

24 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Forgive me, I see no substantive rebuttal to my reading here. Just condescension. Tell me, what is the merit of adopting the quickest and most facile modern reading without looking deeper into the context of a text? Your self-professed disregard for the scriptures blinds you and boxes you into a selective reading of the text that ignores the context, unacceptable for any serious exegete. And if you aren't interested in exegesis, why should we care about your opinion? Isn't this whole question about the doctrinal bearing of this passage on Church practice? 

 It suggests God will command polygamy if he wishes to raise up seed unto Himself.  It doesn't say he could raise up seed unto Himself without commanding polygamy does it?  If he can, which presumably he can do whatever he wants, then whats the point of polygamy?   

24 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Regarding your responses to my questions, the command to marry and multiply is how God raises up seed. You seem to believe that, in order to truly raise up seed unto Himself, God needs to do more than command that His people marry and multiply. Surely you know that God fulfills His directives by issuing commands to His servants, as well as through direct intervention. How are you reading infringement on agency into this? 

Ok.  But again, what's the point of polygamy?  If he raises up seed to Himself by having his people marry and have kids, then why polygamy?  

24 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

You also read into this an unnecessarily exclusive definition of "raising up seed". By your lights, there's no degrees of raising up seed, it's either you are or you are not. Again, I think this is a facile reading. We're talking about quantity here. More vs. less, not all vs. none. 

So as a result of polygamy was there more kids born then there would have been if there was no polygamy?  How would you know?   It seems in the sum we have this reading:

"If I choose to raise up seed to me, but not very many of 'em, I'll command that you not practice polygamy.  If I choose to raise up seed to me, I mean at a faster degree, well, then I'll command it".  I don't see the scripture saying anything of the sort.  How'd you come up with that?  

[InCognitus]

"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." (Jacob 2:30)

The point is about quality, not quantity.   Children born in the covenant to parents who keep their covenants.
 

Edited May 19, 2020 by InCognitus

[SteveO]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

 It suggests God will command polygamy if he wishes to raise up seed unto Himself.  It doesn't say he could raise up seed unto Himself without commanding polygamy does it?  If he can, which presumably he can do whatever he wants, then whats the point of polygamy?   

Ok.  But again, what's the point of polygamy?  If he raises up seed to Himself by having his people marry and have kids, then why polygamy?  

So as a result of polygamy was there more kids born then there would have been if there was no polygamy?  How would you know?   It seems in the sum we have this reading:

"If I choose to raise up seed to me, but not very many of 'em, I'll command that you not practice polygamy.  If I choose to raise up seed to me, I mean at a faster degree, well, then I'll command it".  I don't see the scripture saying anything of the sort.  How'd you come up with that?  

Type “Infant mortality rate 1850” into the Google machine...

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

 It suggests God will command polygamy if he wishes to raise up seed unto Himself.  It doesn't say he could raise up seed unto Himself without commanding polygamy does it?  If he can, which presumably he can do whatever he wants, then whats the point of polygamy?   

Ok.  But again, what's the point of polygamy?  If he raises up seed to Himself by having his people marry and have kids, then why polygamy?  

So as a result of polygamy was there more kids born then there would have been if there was no polygamy?  How would you know?   It seems in the sum we have this reading:

"If I choose to raise up seed to me, but not very many of 'em, I'll command that you not practice polygamy.  If I choose to raise up seed to me, I mean at a faster degree, well, then I'll command it".  I don't see the scripture saying anything of the sort.  How'd you come up with that?  

I will explain how I came up with this. 

It starts with the acknowledgement that Jacob 2 was written by an intelligent person, be it Jacob, God, or Joseph Smith. 

With that in mind, I look at this verse and see that in Jacob 2:27, the Lord explicitly endorses marriage. This includes the implicit endorsement of having children. It's manifestly illogical to believe that the original author of this passage would command marriage and then preclude childbearing just 3 verses later. Therefore, I conclude that "raise up seed to me" was not intended as an exhaustive reference to childbearing, as you seem to understand it. It's a matter of authorial intent, not how we might read it during a once-over for argumentative purposes. 

When I'm dealing with intelligent people, I usually take contradictions or seeming howlers as a sign that I am not looking deeply enough. 

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

I will explain how I came up with this. 

It starts with the acknowledgement that Jacob 2 was written by an intelligent person, be it Jacob, God, or Joseph Smith. 

With that in mind, I look at this verse and see that in Jacob 2:27, the Lord explicitly endorses marriage. This includes the implicit endorsement of having children. It's manifestly illogical to believe that the original author of this passage would command marriage and then preclude childbearing just 3 verses later. Therefore, I conclude that "raise up seed to me" was not intended as an exhaustive reference to childbearing, as you seem to understand it. It's a matter of authorial intent, not how we might read it during a once-over for argumentative purposes. 

When I'm dealing with intelligent people, I usually take contradictions or seeming howlers as a sign that I am not looking deeply enough. 

I'm not sure why you think I saw this as "an exhaustive reference to childbearing".  I haven't suggested this precludes childbearing.  Seems like we spoke past each other and for my part, I apologize for the confusion.