Article by Benjamin E. Park Re: Dc 132

[OGHoosier]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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.  

It seems like we did. My apologies for my part in it as well. 

From here, for the sake of understanding, you ask the question, "Why would the Lord need polygamy if he could raise up seed to himself without it?" I understood that to mean that, since members of the church can have kids without polygamy, polygamy would not be necessary to raise up seed. Is that a correct understanding of your position? 

[Stargazer]

On 5/14/2020 at 9:22 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

Okay, well and good, but how much anxiety do those thoughts cause you (or perhaps, how much anxiety do they cause your wife) when they do occur?

Didn't seem to bother my late wife. She even had my next wife picked out, just in case we were ever asked to practice plural marriage.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

It seems like we did. My apologies for my part in it as well. 

From here, for the sake of understanding, you ask the question, "Why would the Lord need polygamy if he could raise up seed to himself without it?" I understood that to mean that, since members of the church can have kids without polygamy, polygamy would not be necessary to raise up seed. Is that a correct understanding of your position? 

No.  Any two people can raise up seed.  I mean to say any grown twosome can have kids and raise them, or attempt to.  I wouldn't contest that.  

Jacob 2 has been used to explain polygamy or why God might use polygamy.  The problem is many though.  First off, the passage in Jacob doesn't suggest polygamy.  It references David and Solomon having many wives sure, but that's not the focus.  His condemnation against the people was not about them having many wives, but that they committed many whoredoms, justifying their whoredoms because David and Solomon had many wives and concubines.  Verse 30 could possibly, in a very slim and stretching the imagination way, be saying God will command polygamy to raise up seed to Him, but it also could be read quite differently.  It could simply be saying that GOd could command his people to practice whoredoms to raise up seed unto Him.  Hmm...interesting thought.  

But...

Even just granting that this passage explicitly suggests God might command polygamy (just for fun but for not actual reasoning from the text itself), God comes off looking a little foolish.  We all know if he is God, he can raise up seed to Himself without commanding polygamy.  So either the passage is just plain foolishness, or it is not suggesting what polygamy defenders think it's suggesting.  

[OGHoosier]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

No.  Any two people can raise up seed.  I mean to say any grown twosome can have kids and raise them, or attempt to.  I wouldn't contest that.  

Jacob 2 has been used to explain polygamy or why God might use polygamy.  The problem is many though.  First off, the passage in Jacob doesn't suggest polygamy.  It references David and Solomon having many wives sure, but that's not the focus.  His condemnation against the people was not about them having many wives, but that they committed many whoredoms, justifying their whoredoms because David and Solomon had many wives and concubines.  Verse 30 could possibly, in a very slim and stretching the imagination way, be saying God will command polygamy to raise up seed to Him, but it also could be read quite differently.  It could simply be saying that GOd could command his people to practice whoredoms to raise up seed unto Him.  Hmm...interesting thought.  

But...

Even just granting that this passage explicitly suggests God might command polygamy (just for fun but for not actual reasoning from the text itself), God comes off looking a little foolish.  We all know if he is God, he can raise up seed to Himself without commanding polygamy.  So either the passage is just plain foolishness, or it is not suggesting what polygamy defenders think it's suggesting.  

I see, thank you for the clarification. 

I think there's good reason for conflating the "whoredoms" committed by the Nephites with polygamy. I don't think that is a stretch at all. The specific thing which the Lord condemns in Jacob 2 is David and Solomon's practice of taking many wives and concubines. The specific injunction against the taking of plural wives and concubines is given in Jacob 2:27, preceded by the command in verse 26 that the Nephites shall not "do like unto them of old." The sin attributed to "them of old" is the taking of many wives and concubines, which suggests quite strongly that the "whoredoms" (namely, sexual sins or deviations from the worship of God) and "taking many wives and concubines" are one and the same in this instance. 

I'm hesitant to believe this is "just plain foolishness", since, again, this was an intelligent person writing this. I must again suggest a degreed interpretation, that is, if the Lord wants to raise up additional seed He can. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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

There are still plenty of 21st-century Saints who know ... and plenty who don't. It's all a muddle to the second lot. Always has been.

[alter idem]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Didn't seem to bother my late wife. She even had my next wife picked out, just in case we were ever asked to practice plural marriage.

You do know that your wife's attitude was probably not the norm?  I think most LDS and non LDS  women aren't that gung ho about choosing who their husband might marry if they died, or about practicing polygamy;  those who are are the exception, IMO.  A lot of polygamist wives weren't that gung ho about their husbands adding more wives into the mix, as it was often a crap shoot as to whether or not it was going to have a positive or negative impact on the family.

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, alter idem said:

You do know that your wife's attitude was probably not the norm?  I think most LDS and non LDS  women aren't that gung ho about choosing who their husband might marry if they died, or about practicing polygamy;  those who are are the exception, IMO.  A lot of polygamist wives weren't that gung ho about their husbands adding more wives into the mix, as it was often a crap shoot as to whether or not it was going to have a positive or negative impact on the family.

The older I get the more I realize I would have a hard time with it. It has taken a daughter.in law and a daughter almost 30 to teach me I like my home to be a certain way and while I want to give other adults their fair input while living or guests in my home, it bugs me and I feel like part of my home isn’t mine at times. 
 

Add to that the complications of a shared husband...I am definitely not as easy going as I once thought I was. 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

I see, thank you for the clarification. 

I think there's good reason for conflating the "whoredoms" committed by the Nephites with polygamy. I don't think that is a stretch at all. The specific thing which the Lord condemns in Jacob 2 is David and Solomon's practice of taking many wives and concubines. The specific injunction against the taking of plural wives and concubines is given in Jacob 2:27, preceded by the command in verse 26 that the Nephites shall not "do like unto them of old." The sin attributed to "them of old" is the taking of many wives and concubines, which suggests quite strongly that the "whoredoms" (namely, sexual sins or deviations from the worship of God) and "taking many wives and concubines" are one and the same in this instance. 

I'm hesitant to believe this is "just plain foolishness", since, again, this was an intelligent person writing this. I must again suggest a degreed interpretation, that is, if the Lord wants to raise up additional seed He can. 

Where does it say any of them had more than 1 wife?  Are you saying taking additional wives is practicing whoredoms?  At best it appears it.could be said that some of the nephite men took on concubines in addition to their wives.  If god is consistent then recall David's taking of wives was acceptable to god until he it took it too far.  

[Calm]

Concubines are wives of a lower legal status whose children has rights to inherit, they are not mistresses.

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Concubines are wives of a lower legal status whose children has rights to inherit, they are not mistresses.

Where'd you get that definition?  If david and Solomon took many wives only (since concubines are wives)   then what would be the point of saying wives and concubines?  I'd also be interested to see any particular mention of the Nephites in this era marrying multiple women.  The complaint was their whoredoms.  Was taking multiple wives by definition whoredoms in Gods mind?  

[OGHoosier]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Where does it say any of them had more than 1 wife?  Are you saying taking additional wives is practicing whoredoms?  At best it appears it.could be said that some of the nephite men took on concubines in addition to their wives.  If god is consistent then recall David's taking of wives was acceptable to god until he it took it too far.  

Per D&C 132, David and Solomon sinned in taking wives without prophetic sanction. D&C 132:38-39, emphasis mine:

Quote

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.

Since Jacob is clearly not sanctioning these additional marriages and concubinage relationships, they are illicit in the eyes of the Lord and therefore are sins. 

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Where'd you get that definition?  If david and Solomon took many wives only (since concubines are wives)   then what would be the point of saying wives and concubines?  I'd also be interested to see any particular mention of the Nephites in this era marrying multiple women.  The complaint was their whoredoms.  Was taking multiple wives by definition whoredoms in Gods mind?  

According to biblical Jewish law, having more than 4 wives counted as “many” (trying to remember if that reflected back to the four wives of Jacob) iirc.

Even though legally wives as we understand it and not mistresses, they were not of full standing as what were labeled as wives.  Iirc, they weren’t as protected in terms of divorce, for one thing.

Modernly some might view them as identical, but in biblical times they were not, even if both were legally wives by our standards today.

Let me know if you want something more authoritative than wiki, but it is a good summary for what I have read elsewhere. 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concubinage#In_Judaism

Edited May 20, 2020 by Calm

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Per D&C 132, David and Solomon sinned in taking wives without prophetic sanction. D&C 132:38-39, emphasis mine:

Since Jacob is clearly not sanctioning these additional marriages and concubinage relationships, they are illicit in the eyes of the Lord and therefore are sins. 

It says the only sin David committed was in the case of uriah.  It doesn't say his actions were whoredoms.  The problem of course at bottom is simply God contradicts himself if one is to take scriptures seriously.  

 

CALM says:

"According to Jewish law, having more than 4 wives counted as “many” (trying to remember if that reflected back to the four wives of Jacob).

Let me know if you want something more authoritative than wiki, but it is a good summary for what I have read elsewhere"

ME: 

Your link agrees with me and contradicts your claim--that concubines were wives.   Thank you.  Curious if you would address the question I posed to you?

Edited May 20, 2020 by stemelbow

[Calm]

What do we define as wives these days?  A woman a marital contract with a spouse, correct?  If so, by our rules what they labeled as concubines were what we view as wives. Concubines had a protected status a mistress or a prostitute picked up off the street wouldn’t have had, as did their kids, but it wasn’t as good as a man’s wives (or the label that is translated as wives).  The man was legally accountable for providing for them, where he was not accountable for a mistress or a prostitute.

I am not saying they were identical or labeled wives by Jews of that day.  I am saying by our current laws, they would be seen as wives because we don’t have first, second, third tier marital contracts, one is either married or not no matter how the partners decide to set up the relationship (shared home, individual homes, shared or not bank accounts, kids are blended or adopted or seen as just the spouse’s, sex or no sex, etc).

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/concubine

Quote

A concubine did not always reside in her husband's home (Judg. 8:31), but such was not the general rule (Judg. 19–20). Her spouse was called the son-inlaw (ḥatan) of her father, who was the father-in-law (ḥoten). Therefore, the concubinage relationship could partake of many aspects of regular marriage. 

Iow, in biblical times a wife had x, y, z laws of protection where a concubine only had y and z where z is a marriage contract. 
 

For someone to qualify as a wife nowadays, all that is needed is a valid marriage contract or z.  By our definition of wives, a concubine was a wife even if by their definition she wasn’t. 
 

Quote

A wife is a female partner in a continuing marital relationship.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wife

Edited May 20, 2020 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, alter idem said:

You do know that your wife's attitude was probably not the norm?  I think most LDS and non LDS  women aren't that gung ho about choosing who their husband might marry if they died, or about practicing polygamy;  those who are are the exception, IMO.  A lot of polygamist wives weren't that gung ho about their husbands adding more wives into the mix, as it was often a crap shoot as to whether or not it was going to have a positive or negative impact on the family.

I'm not going pretend I have an opinion on how women (or other men) feel about polygamy.

What I find fascinating is what appears to be a complete lack of willingness to follow God's commands without murmuring in all things.  Polygamy, tithing, callings, temple covenants, word of wisdom, etc.  All have complainers and murmuring among the believers.

Whatever happened to "When God commands, do it" and quit the murmuring?  I know early Saints had issues with polygamy too and there was ample murmuring.  I guess I look for the examples of those who gave EVERYTHING for God on the altar, withholding nothing, even their lives sometimes.  I see so few (myself included) who are willing to be that way.  And I think that does impact the next life.

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Whatever happened to "When God commands, do it" and quit the murmuring?

Does this include ceasing the practice of plural marriage???

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm not going pretend I have an opinion on how women (or other men) feel about polygamy.

What I find fascinating is what appears to be a complete lack of willingness to follow God's commands without murmuring in all things.  Polygamy, tithing, callings, temple covenants, word of wisdom, etc.  All have complainers and murmuring among the believers.

Whatever happened to "When God commands, do it" and quit the murmuring?  I know early Saints had issues with polygamy too and there was ample murmuring.  I guess I look for the examples of those who gave EVERYTHING for God on the altar, withholding nothing, even their lives sometimes.  I see so few (myself included) who are willing to be that way.  And I think that does impact the next life.

Recognizing the difficulty and lack of desire to do something just to do it doesn’t equate to a murmuring response if actually commanded by God.  That it is difficult to do makes it appear a greater sacrifice for obedience than it would be if treated as no big deal.

[JLHPROF]

10 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Does this include ceasing the practice of plural marriage???

Of course, just as it means ceasing to disparage a God given principle.  I have never suggested we ignore God's direction.  Only that polygamy as outlined in D&C 132 is an eternal principle and shouldn't be constantly insulted by the faithful.

[JLHPROF]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Recognizing the difficulty and lack of desire to do something just to do it doesn’t equate to a murmuring response if actually commanded by God.  That it is difficult to do makes it appear a greater sacrifice for obedience than it would be if treated as no big deal.

You are correct as usual.  But there's a big difference between saying this is hard and God's direction isn't something I'll do willingly.

[OGHoosier]

13 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It says the only sin David committed was in the case of uriah.  It doesn't say his actions were whoredoms.  The problem of course at bottom is simply God contradicts himself if one is to take scriptures seriously.  

David sinned in the case of Uriah, thus losing his exaltation. His murder of Uriah was obviously evil, and his marriage to Bathsheba was not sanctioned by the prophets (see 2 Samuel 12:1-11). However, these verses are not talking about David alone. D&C 132:38 says "they." You are forgetting Solomon, who is never known to have killed for a bride but is specifically condemned in the book of 1 Kings for taking "strange wives" in contravention of the Mosaic commandments. That fact that he also stands condemned means that we're not just talking about Uriah here, but a bigger pattern of sexual sin, which is one of the meanings of the word whoredom. The English word whoredom in the KJV represents the translation of a couple different Hebrew terms, all connoting sexual sin or following other gods. Both meanings would be applicable to the Nephite situation. Taking the scriptures seriously means reading deeply and considering contexts, not planting your flag on a narrow interpretation and demanding everything be spelled out for you. 

[InCognitus]

This is a slightly edited version of part of a post that I made prior to 1995 (I don't know the exact date), on the topic of Jacob 2 and the supposed contradiction to D&C 132:

The practice of plural marriage requires priesthood "keys" in order to have it administered: "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" (D&C 132:39).  Only plural marriages which had the approval of God through his prophet, administered by one holding the "keys of this power", were to be considered as authorized marriages.  All other plural marriages would be considered abominations.  D&C 132 also indicates that plural marriages are sanctioned only upon the principles of righteousness, by doing what the Lord commands, by "abiding" in the law:  "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" (D&C 132:37).  To do "none other things than that which they were commanded" means (among other things) to not take additional wives without the Lord's command, or in unrighteousness.

Initially, wives and concubines were given to David by the Lord, "by the hand of Nathan, [the Lord's] servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power" (D&C 132:39).  The Bible confirms this in 2 Samuel 12:7-8; "And Nathan said to David... Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;  And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom..".  

The many wives and concubines of David and Solomon were sanctioned by the Lord *until* David and Solomon no longer "abode" in the law of the Lord.   Both David and Solomon became unrighteous by taking wives unto themselves through their own lusts.  It was at this point that their many wives and concubines became an "abomination" in the sight of the Lord *because* of their unrighteousness.

In the case of David, his sin (in opposition to the law of the Lord) was in committing adultery with Bathsheba and in having her husband, Uriah, killed on the battlefield, and finally in taking Bathsheba to wife.  "David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite." (1 Kings 15:5, see also D&C 132:39).  This act brought his whole house under condemnation, and the Lord then rejected David's other wives:  "Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.  Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.  For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun." (2 Samuel 12:10-12)

In the case of Solomon, he started out in righteousness before the Lord, but later he "loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites" (1 Kings 11:1).  Solomon took wives "of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them".  These women eventually turned Solomon's heart away from the LORD God of Israel, and he went after "other gods".  This act, of taking wives from the non-Israelite nations, was contrary to the commandment of the Lord.  In Deuteronomy 7:1-4, the command was given, "When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;... thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.  For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly."

This sinful act by Solomon of taking "strange women" to wife was also noted by Nehemiah:  "Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves.  Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things?  yet among many nations was there no king like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel: nevertheless even him did outlandish women cause to sin.  Shall we then hearken unto you to do all this great evil, to transgress against our God in marrying strange wives?" (Nehemiah 13:25-27).

So to recap, the wives of David and Solomon were given to them from the Lord and sanctioned so long as those marriages were administered by one holding the "keys of this power" (i.e. in the case of David, the one holding the "keys" was Nathan the prophet), and only so long as David and Solomon abode in the law of the Lord.  If the wives were taken in any other way, or if David or Solomon did not continue to abide in the law of the Lord, their wives would be considered to be an abomination.

Now the supposed "contradiction" between Jacob 2:24 and D&C 132:39 can be resolved by understanding the perspective and context of the two different records.  

In the book of Jacob (in the Book of Mormon), Jacob was addressing the people of Nephi who were "beginning to labor in sin".  We read in verse 23 how the people of Jacob's day were attempting to justify the fact that they were engaging in unauthorized plural marriages.  The Lord, through Jacob, said that the people "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."  Their plural marriages in the days of Jacob were "whoredoms" because the people were taking additional wives in unrighteousness, without the Lord's command and without the approval and confirmation of the priesthood keys, and they were using David and Solomon (specifically) as their example and justification for committing these "whoredoms".  But because the final state of David and Solomon was that of sin and unrighteousness (just as the state of the people of Nephi at that time was unrighteousness), Jacob used the example of the final state of David and Solomon to indicate that such action was an abomination, saying (in verse 24) "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord." 

Contrast this with the purpose of D&C 132, where Joseph Smith "inquired of [the Lord] to know and understand wherein... the Lord, justified... Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, [the servants of the Lord], as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines" (D&C 132:1).  Joseph Smith wanted to know how it all began (in regard to plural marriage), prior to the time when David and Solomon fell into sin. (And it wasn't just David and Solomon who practiced plural marriage that Joseph Smith was wondering about.  In D&C 132, the Lord also mentioned Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses - all of whom practiced plural marriage in righteousness throughout their lives, and all of whom were not mentioned at all by Jacob as being in "abomination").  The Lord told Joseph Smith that, "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" (D&C 132:38).

So, to summarize, the apparent contradiction that you see between the two verses you mentioned is harmonized when one understands and includes the textual and historical context, and when one reads and understands the verses from the perspective of each incidence.  While D&C 132 was given from the perspective of Joseph Smith wanting to know about the wives given to David and Solomon by the Lord (when the principle of plural marriage was practiced in righteousness), Jacob 2 was given from the perspective of those things which David and Solomon received not of the Lord (when plural marriages were practiced without authority in unrighteousness, as was the case with the people of Nephi).  The Lord did indeed give wives and concubines unto David and Solomon, and at that time the practice was not an abomination.  But because of their later unrighteous taking of wives unto themselves without the authority of the Lord (i.e. their failure to abide by the law of the Lord), all of their wives and concubines then became an abomination in the sight of the Lord.  Both verses then (D&C 132:39 and Jacob 2:24) are quite correct and do not contradict each other.

Edited May 20, 2020 by InCognitus

[alter idem]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

The older I get the more I realize I would have a hard time with it. It has taken a daughter.in law and a daughter almost 30 to teach me I like my home to be a certain way and while I want to give other adults their fair input while living or guests in my home, it bugs me and I feel like part of my home isn’t mine at times. 
 

Add to that the complications of a shared husband...I am definitely not as easy going as I once thought I was. 

I can relate.  I find the same thing, I have become one of those people who would rather do the dishes myself than have others help, they use way too much water, they are rough with the faucet, they fill the dishwasher wrong, they put things in that should be handwashed, they drip on the cabinets and throw away leftovers that should be saved--I used to not understand why someone wouldn't want another person to do dishes after a meal, but I've become that.  I realized that after 30 years, my house is my 'domain' and I want it taken care of properly, especially the kitchen, because I'm responsible for knowing what's in the cupboards and fridge, what needs to be used up, what we're low on, where things go, etc.  It's a 'job' for me and I guess I've got more of a need to be in charge than I realized.  I don't think men can really understand what it would be like to have to share a home and a husband with another woman.  It's absolutely a terrible sacrifice to not have your own space and not even to have a man who you can feel is yours and devoted to you alone in what ought to be an intimate marital bond.  If you are one of many, it's just not the same.  For polygamist wives who had their own separate home at least they could feel they had some control and privacy, but then they would be alone a lot more, as their husband made his rounds to the other wives. And then there was the problem of personality conflicts and weaknesses.  The husband was more likely to distance himself from his wives' day to day arrangements to get along and live together, the husband was usually desired by his wives, for his time, attention and love, and this no doubt would pit the wives against each other, even subconsciously.  

[alter idem]

18 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Where'd you get that definition?  If david and Solomon took many wives only (since concubines are wives)   then what would be the point of saying wives and concubines?  I'd also be interested to see any particular mention of the Nephites in this era marrying multiple women.  The complaint was their whoredoms.  Was taking multiple wives by definition whoredoms in Gods mind?  

She's right.  Concubines were not wives, that's why the scripture said, they were not to have ANY concubines.  Concubines were the property of the man or his wife and did not even have legal claim to their own children. Concubinage is a system of oppression of women to a lower legal status.

[alter idem]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm not going pretend I have an opinion on how women (or other men) feel about polygamy.

What I find fascinating is what appears to be a complete lack of willingness to follow God's commands without murmuring in all things.  Polygamy, tithing, callings, temple covenants, word of wisdom, etc.  All have complainers and murmuring among the believers.

Whatever happened to "When God commands, do it" and quit the murmuring?  I know early Saints had issues with polygamy too and there was ample murmuring.  I guess I look for the examples of those who gave EVERYTHING for God on the altar, withholding nothing, even their lives sometimes.  I see so few (myself included) who are willing to be that way.  And I think that does impact the next life.

I have tried to follow the commandments, and I've accepted callings when they've been extended, but I'm not righteous enough not to murmur when I've been unhappy or overwhelmed or struggling with trying to do the things I know I should or in struggling to serve the Lord.  I have great empathy for the early church members who had to practice polygamy because it was required. I think it was hard to live it for men and women, but some of the day to day living was probably harder on the women because of the emotional toll it took.  Unless a man had wives who hated each other and he was stuck in the middle because he didn't have the resources to keep them separate.  I think in some situations, polygamy had the potential to be a certain kind of hell on earth.  I'm just so thankful we don't have to live it anymore.  I'm so grateful that the Lord's standard is one man and one woman, and polygamy is only a temporary situation when he requires it to fulfill his purposes.

[Stargazer]

19 hours ago, alter idem said:

You do know that your wife's attitude was probably not the norm?  I think most LDS and non LDS  women aren't that gung ho about choosing who their husband might marry if they died, or about practicing polygamy;  those who are are the exception, IMO.  A lot of polygamist wives weren't that gung ho about their husbands adding more wives into the mix, as it was often a crap shoot as to whether or not it was going to have a positive or negative impact on the family.

I have no reason to believe that her attitude isn't the norm, but on the other hand, it may very well be that it isn't all that rare, either.  After I remarried, the topic came up one day, and my current wife told me that if we were called upon to practice plural marriage, she would accept the calling.  As for being "gung ho," that wasn't the attitude my late wife had about it. Nor is it the attitude my current wife could be said to have. Nor is it mine.  All of us, however, have strong testimonies of the Gospel, of the Church, and the prophetic calling of the President of the Church.  One needn't be gung ho about it to realize that it is a principle of the gospel and be willing to practice it if called upon.  "Willingness" of course, being a matter of degree.