Article by Benjamin E. Park Re: Dc 132

[stemelbow]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

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

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. 
 

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

I'm not sure why this matters at all.  As far as I can see Jacob 2 doesn't suggest the Nephites were marrying other women, but were committing whoredoms.  

As per the question of whether concubines are wives or not?  They aren't.  In today's vernacular we don't use the term concubine, so I'm not sure why it matters if one can think a concubine can kinda sorta be thought of as a wife.  

Edited May 20, 2020 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

3 hours ago, alter idem said:

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.

I said they weren't wives.  She said they were.  I agree with you.  

[stemelbow]

7 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

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. 

I think you just re-validated my point.  Jacob 2 does not condemn the nephites for taking extra wives.  It condemns them for whoredoms.  If verse 30 is talking about polygamy, one must really squint and stretch the realms of logic to read such a notion into it.  I certainly understand the need, though.

Also, it's quite clear God, if scripture is to be taken seriously, contradicted himself.  David did not commit the sin of whoredoms, according to the D&C.  But he did commit such sins according to Jacob 2.  I certainly get the need to wiggle out of that one too.  Nobody demanded anything be spelled out.    There's really no way to escape the contradiction, it appears--I mean no reasonable way.  Now, certainly anyone can say, "I take scripture seriously" and yet completely pretend there is no contradiction, I suppose.  But that hardly shows anyone really did take the scripture seriously.  

[InCognitus]

30 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think you just re-validated my point.  Jacob 2 does not condemn the nephites for taking extra wives.  It condemns them for whoredoms.  If verse 30 is talking about polygamy, one must really squint and stretch the realms of logic to read such a notion into it.  I certainly understand the need, though.

Also, it's quite clear God, if scripture is to be taken seriously, contradicted himself.  David did not commit the sin of whoredoms, according to the D&C.  But he did commit such sins according to Jacob 2.  I certainly get the need to wiggle out of that one too.  Nobody demanded anything be spelled out.    There's really no way to escape the contradiction, it appears--I mean no reasonable way.  Now, certainly anyone can say, "I take scripture seriously" and yet completely pretend there is no contradiction, I suppose.  But that hardly shows anyone really did take the scripture seriously.  

Have you seriously read Jacob 2?   Verse 30 is about the context of the preceding verses, which includes taking plural wives:

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.  [and what were those "things"?  Answer follows:]
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.

Please read my post from a couple of hours ago, it explains the context of D&C 132 and Jacob 2, and why there is no contradiction without any pretending or straining at meaning.  It's spelled out completely in both the biblical text and in D&C 132.  But you do need to take the time to understand the whole picture. 

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I think you just re-validated my point.  Jacob 2 does not condemn the nephites for taking extra wives.  It condemns them for whoredoms.  If verse 30 is talking about polygamy, one must really squint and stretch the realms of logic to read such a notion into it.  I certainly understand the need, though.

Also, it's quite clear God, if scripture is to be taken seriously, contradicted himself.  David did not commit the sin of whoredoms, according to the D&C.  But he did commit such sins according to Jacob 2.  I certainly get the need to wiggle out of that one too.  Nobody demanded anything be spelled out.    There's really no way to escape the contradiction, it appears--I mean no reasonable way.  Now, certainly anyone can say, "I take scripture seriously" and yet completely pretend there is no contradiction, I suppose.  But that hardly shows anyone really did take the scripture seriously.  

I have no idea how you can say that Jacob 2 doesn't condemn the Nephites for taking extra wives when it literally commands them to refrain from doing exactly that, right after browbeating them for following in the errors of David and Solomon, who are expressly condemned in the same passage for taking many extra wives without prophetic sanction. Nor do I have any idea how you can successfully disassociate "whoredom" from sexual sin, which is what unsanctioned polygamy IS. I'm not squinting at all. 

Your persistence in asserting that "whoredoms" cannot possibly mean unsanctioned polygamy because the precise word "whoredom" does not appear in D&C 132 presumes that the Lord of Heaven and Earth, or at least His servant through which He manifested the entire Book of Mormon, does not have or exercise adjective choice. It certainly is a demanding stance to maintain. 

Edited May 21, 2020 by OGHoosier
Another minor grammatical edit. I need to do more proofreading.

[stemelbow]

Hello good fellas named, OGHoosier and InCongnitus,

I see you two have mistook the plain meaning of the text.  As I previously suggested I understand the need to do so.  I will give this another go for honesty's sake.  Allow me to unfold it all before you.  I know its common for Mormons to want to read polygamy into verse 30 so we'll start by repeating the context that InCongnitus attempted to do, while he seemingly missed the important points and emphasized the unimportant ones.  

Quote

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 ^awhoredoms

Do not fret, I will continue quoting as we move on.  What did the Lord suggest was the iniquity that they waxed in?  Why it was whoredoms.  Just pointing out it does not suggest from the outset that they took more than one wife...just that they committed whoredoms.  

Quote

, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

24 Behold, David and ^aSolomon truly had many ^bwives and concubines, which thing was ^cabominable before me, saith the Lord.

So the Lord is concerned they excused their whoredoms because of the things that David and Solomon did..namely having many wives and concubines.  So it is, the Nephites committed whoredoms and excused themselves or justified themselves, apparently, by appealing to the fact that David and Solomon had many wives and concubines.  Note again, this does not say the Nephites took more than one wife at a time.

Then Jesus prattles on about how he led the people out of a distant land and that he didn't want them to do that which was done by them of old.  

Jesus then instructs:  

Quote

For there shall not any ^aman among you have save it be ^bone ^cwife; and concubines he shall have none;

We certainly could assume, if we wanted, that this means they must have taken more than one wife.  We could.  But such an assumption is not suggestive of the text.  It's reading the notion that the Nephite men, at least some, took more than one wife into the text.  We don't need to do that.  All we need to do is take what the text says--the Nephites committed whoredoms and justified those whoredoms by saying things like "see even old prophets had many wives and concubines, so it's ok to commit whoredoms."  Of course whoredoms is a pretty vague term. But it certain need not mean men took more than one wife.  A man and woman, for that matter, could commit a whoredom without marrying another spouse, or without marrying a spouse at all.  So why do we read the notion that the Nephites might have taken more than one wife into the text?  All because of another vague comment a little later?  It appears the reason Jesus instructs to take one wife and no concubines is simply because the Nephites were using the many wives and concubines taken by previous prophets to justify their whoredoms Note:  This does not suggest the appealed to these two to justify their taking more wives, nor even concubines.  The text doesn't say that.  

Let's continue:

Quote

For I, the Lord God, delight in the ^achastity of women. And ^bwhoredoms 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 ^acursed be the land for their sakes.

 Ok.  So God and Jesus delight in the chastity of women.  How would a woman become unchaste?  Must she marry an already married man?  I don't think so.  I think a woman can be unchaste without marrying a married man, and without marrying at all.  Thus, again, in order to get polygamy out of this, we must read polygamy into it.  

finally:

Quote

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up ^aseed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

We have here, the verse of nonsense.  I know it's a beautiful one to those who wish polygamy was justifiable.  I get that.  I get the need for reading such a notion into the text.  But certainly it is not there.  At best we can read the vague concept whoredoms into the text.  Jesus tells them, if we want to see it as such, that He will command whoredoms to be practiced, if he wishes to raise up seed to Himself.  Apparently he won't command whoredoms if he chooses not to raise seed unto Himself.  Now, I get it. We want to squint.  We want to read it our own way.  Great.  Let's assume, then this means Jesus will command polygamy if he wants to raise seed unto himself.  Of course, it's a silly notion.  He can raise seed whether polygamy or not.  SO why read polygamy into the text?  Is it simply because we need more of a reason to defend the polygamy of early Mormons?  I see no other reason to read it in such a way.

Ok.  The next point--God's obvious unfiltered and yet foolish contradiction:

Quote

David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me

As quoted by Incognitus (You might detect since the same stretch is emphasized).  What is abominable before Jesus?  David and Solomon taking many wives and concubines.  

Let's consider:

Quote

David also received ^amany 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

So David, Solomon and Moses took many wives and concubines.  To God there was no sin in that.  Oh wait...but He said in Jacob it was abominable that they took many wives and concubines.  hm...  

Quote

save in those things which they received not of me.

Oh!  So it wasn't that they took many wives and concubines that was abominable.  It was that they sinned in those things which they received not of Him.  

Quote

^aDavid’s wives and concubines were ^bgiven unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the ^ckeys of this power; and in none of these things did he ^dsin against me save in the case of ^eUriah and his wife;

Ok.  So David did not sin by taking many wives and concubines.  So when God says David taking many wives and concubines was an abomination, he really meant that it was actually a good thing for him to hve taken many wives and concubines.  His sin was in having Uriah killed in order to also take her wife.  SO either God lied in Jacob 2 when he says David's taking of many wives and concubines was an abomination, or he was so upset at the Nephites and their attempt to excuse their whoredoms, He accidentally included David in his condemnation.  Or He lied in the D&C.   But there's an additional problem.  What sins did Moses and SOlomon commit?  Did they receive "things" not from God?  They sure must have.  Solomon had way too many wives.  He must have taken more "things" than God wanted him to have.  Moses must too have had taken more "things" or wives than he was given.  Of course Jesus never gets very specific on this stuff.  That might be because He realized he had contradicted himself.  Maybe.  Or else it's all just kind of hogwash.  Hogwash makes far more sense.  

[alter idem]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I think you just re-validated my point.  Jacob 2 does not condemn the nephites for taking extra wives.  It condemns them for whoredoms.  If verse 30 is talking about polygamy, one must really squint and stretch the realms of logic to read such a notion into it.  I certainly understand the need, though.

Also, it's quite clear God, if scripture is to be taken seriously, contradicted himself.  David did not commit the sin of whoredoms, according to the D&C.  But he did commit such sins according to Jacob 2.  I certainly get the need to wiggle out of that one too.  Nobody demanded anything be spelled out.    There's really no way to escape the contradiction, it appears--I mean no reasonable way.  Now, certainly anyone can say, "I take scripture seriously" and yet completely pretend there is no contradiction, I suppose.  But that hardly shows anyone really did take the scripture seriously.  

I think if you read this in context then the Nephites were logically  practicing polygamy and also possibly concubinage.  The 'whoredoms' was a condemnation of these types of practices, because Polygamy is an abomination (it is 'religiously sanctioned whoredoms')  when it has not been commanded by God but the practitioners pretend that it is.  That's what Jacob 2 says.

Personally, I have a problem with the wording of D&C 132, because it seems to exonerate David's practice of polygamy and maybe it is because all his wives were allowed except Bathsheba, though his many wives and children from different mothers made for a miserable dysfunctional family. There's no way God was supportive of Solomon's 1,000 wives and concubines, it's disgusting and it was his downfall.  It's possible there is some misinterpretation of these verses, but as for me, I trust the Book of Mormon explanation of polygamy, since it is the most correct of any book, and we don't say that about the doctrine and covenants. imo

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I see you two have mistook the plain meaning of the text.

I see you didn't read my post (here), because it anticipated and addresses every single one of your arguments including your final paragraph.  Would you care to deal with what I said about the context, or continue to ignore it?  Your choice.  In either case, there is no contradiction given the stated purposes for both texts.

Edited May 21, 2020 by InCognitus

[OGHoosier]

The blinkered and selective nature of your reading is astonishing. I get it. I really do. You feel really proud of your critique and the ability it gives you to throw the accusation of inconsistency in the face of God. You've practically married yourself to this reading, warts and all. Be careful when adopting the boilerplate tactic of telling believers "you have cognitive obligations to believe x and therefore you are engaging in y". Some swords cut both ways. I'm sure that you're mature enough to realize that people can simply disagree with you on the merits of things without being enthralled in cognitive slavery. And of course, I'm sure you're mature enough to realize that you, too, have cognitive baggage that impacts your judgments. Now, I'm confident that my quoting John 8:7 at you won't do the trick, so I'll instead say that those who live in glass houses ought not cast stones.

12 hours ago, stemelbow said:

So the Lord is concerned they excused their whoredoms because of the things that David and Solomon did..namely having many wives and concubines.  So it is, the Nephites committed whoredoms and excused themselves or justified themselves, apparently, by appealing to the fact that David and Solomon had many wives and concubines.  Note again, this does not say the Nephites took more than one wife at a time.

Then Jesus prattles on about how he led the people out of a distant land and that he didn't want them to do that which was done by them of old.  

You will note, of course, that the scriptures concerning David and Bathsheba's adulterous dalliance are uniformly negative. There's no justification for unfettered sleeping-around in the stories of David and Solomon; in fact, David's story is actually a deterrent for such. The only available justification is for the practice of taking many wives and concubines. Your charge that the Nephites felt motivated to commit adultery by the stories of David and Solomon is baseless, as is your disassociation of unsanctioned polygamy and whoredoms. The former is a class of the latter. 

You appear to skip over a focal point of our argument here. Right before the Savior starts "prattling", as you put it, He explicitly condemns David and Solomon's practice of taking many wives and concubines. It is only then that He illustrates that the Nephites are supposed to be different from them, that they should not partake in the sins of them of old. How do you dodge this association? If whoredoms truly cannot be separated from polygamy, why would polygamy have to enter the conversation at all? The idea that David and Solomon's polygamy somehow justifies adultery is absurd. 

To ensure that I am not misunderstood, I would like to enter another piece of evidence, from later in Jacob's sermon. I submit Jacob 3:5, where we read:

Quote

Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for, they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father - that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them. 

Jacob refers to this tripartite injunction as a single commandment - "the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father". That should terminate any argument that "whoredoms" and "the unsanctioned taking of many wives and concubines" are different. However, if you persist in that stance, I will submit the following: it is clear that the Lamanites are considered more righteous because they remember the commandment to not do polygamy - which means that the Nephites were not remembering that commandment. Either way, the complicity of the Nephites in polygamy is made certain. 

12 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Jesus tells them, if we want to see it as such, that He will command whoredoms to be practiced, if he wishes to raise up seed to Himself. 

This is patently ridiculous. The Lord did not condemn Moses on Mount Sinai for practicing polygamy, even as He gave unto Moses the commandment that adultery was a sin. The idea that Jesus would sanction adultery before polygamy is manifestly absurd, ignorant of the wider context of scripture, and the very definition of eisegesis. 

Regarding the contradiction that has you so exercised, I would like to point out that your D&C 132 references are in a passive tense - David, Solomon, and Moses "received" or "were given", and thus did not sin save in those things which they were not given but still took. It's like Napoleon's coronation - he invited the Pope to crown him but took the crown and put it on his own head. It shot his legitimacy because he did not receive it from the proper authority. The whole point of D&C 132 is that polygamy is not a sin if it receives prophetic sanction, it it is done by the proper keys and authority, the commandment of God. David and Solomon are condemned for taking that which they were not authorized to have, just as the Nephites were condemned. 

13 hours ago, stemelbow said:

His sin was in having Uriah killed in order to also take her wife.

D&C 132 says "in the case of Uriah and his wife", referring to the whole sorry episode. Nathan makes it clear in 2 Samuel 12:10 that David's subsequent marriage to Bathsheba was a sin: "Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thy house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife." This inappropriate marriage was a sin, and condemned by the Lord. David clearly did not receive permission from the Lord and His prophet to marry Bathsheba. Solomon did the same thing with his marrying of many "strange wives." 

13 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Oh!  So it wasn't that they took many wives and concubines that was abominable.  It was that they sinned in those things which they received not of Him.  

It's the same thing. It's the difference between passive and active tense. Like I said, D&C 132 does not condemn those marriages which are entered into under the sanction of proper authority - "given" or "received". "Taking" is active. David, Solomon, Moses, and the many other Lord's servants sinned in those things which they did not receive of the Lord. However, with the addition of "the many of the Lord's servants" that "they" becomes collective. Moses and Abraham are not accused of having sinned, as far as we know they never overstepped their boundaries like David and Solomon. 

In sum: I think your readings are narrow, hyperliteralistic, and context-exclusive. I think you make howlers in your allegation that "whoredoms" are separated from unsanctioned polygamy in these verses, and that the Lord would endorse adulterous whoredoms before polygamy in contravention of all precedent and context. It's clear that unsanctioned polygamy is relevant to these verses, not "read into it." The Lord specifically forbids it and condemns those who practiced it. It cannot be divorced from these verses. Your insistence on doing so takes the feet out from under your entire commentary. 

[SteveO]

13 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I see you didn't read my post (here), because it anticipated and addresses every single one of your arguments including your final paragraph.  Would you care to deal with what I said about the context, or continue to ignore it?  Your choice.  In either case, there is no contradiction given the stated purposes for both texts.

 

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

The blinkered and selective nature of your reading is astonishing. I get it. I really do. You feel really proud of your critique and the ability it gives you to throw the accusation of inconsistency in the face of God. You've practically married yourself to this reading, warts and all. Be careful when adopting the boilerplate tactic of telling believers "you have cognitive obligations to believe x and therefore you are engaging in y". Some swords cut both ways. I'm sure that you're mature enough to realize that people can simply disagree with you on the merits of things without being enthralled in cognitive slavery. And of course, I'm sure you're mature enough to realize that you, too, have cognitive baggage that impacts your judgments. Now, I'm confident that my quoting John 8:7 at you won't do the trick, so I'll instead say that those who live in glass houses ought not cast stones.

You will note, of course, that the scriptures concerning David and Bathsheba's adulterous dalliance are uniformly negative. There's no justification for unfettered sleeping-around in the stories of David and Solomon; in fact, David's story is actually a deterrent for such. The only available justification is for the practice of taking many wives and concubines. Your charge that the Nephites felt motivated to commit adultery by the stories of David and Solomon is baseless, as is your disassociation of unsanctioned polygamy and whoredoms. The former is a class of the latter. 

You appear to skip over a focal point of our argument here. Right before the Savior starts "prattling", as you put it, He explicitly condemns David and Solomon's practice of taking many wives and concubines. It is only then that He illustrates that the Nephites are supposed to be different from them, that they should not partake in the sins of them of old. How do you dodge this association? If whoredoms truly cannot be separated from polygamy, why would polygamy have to enter the conversation at all? The idea that David and Solomon's polygamy somehow justifies adultery is absurd. 

To ensure that I am not misunderstood, I would like to enter another piece of evidence, from later in Jacob's sermon. I submit Jacob 3:5, where we read:

Jacob refers to this tripartite injunction as a single commandment - "the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father". That should terminate any argument that "whoredoms" and "the unsanctioned taking of many wives and concubines" are different. However, if you persist in that stance, I will submit the following: it is clear that the Lamanites are considered more righteous because they remember the commandment to not do polygamy - which means that the Nephites were not remembering that commandment. Either way, the complicity of the Nephites in polygamy is made certain. 

This is patently ridiculous. The Lord did not condemn Moses on Mount Sinai for practicing polygamy, even as He gave unto Moses the commandment that adultery was a sin. The idea that Jesus would sanction adultery before polygamy is manifestly absurd, ignorant of the wider context of scripture, and the very definition of eisegesis. 

Regarding the contradiction that has you so exercised, I would like to point out that your D&C 132 references are in a passive tense - David, Solomon, and Moses "received" or "were given", and thus did not sin save in those things which they were not given but still took. It's like Napoleon's coronation - he invited the Pope to crown him but took the crown and put it on his own head. It shot his legitimacy because he did not receive it from the proper authority. The whole point of D&C 132 is that polygamy is not a sin if it receives prophetic sanction, it it is done by the proper keys and authority, the commandment of God. David and Solomon are condemned for taking that which they were not authorized to have, just as the Nephites were condemned. 

D&C 132 says "in the case of Uriah and his wife", referring to the whole sorry episode. Nathan makes it clear in 2 Samuel 12:10 that David's subsequent marriage to Bathsheba was a sin: "Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thy house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife." This inappropriate marriage was a sin, and condemned by the Lord. David clearly did not receive permission from the Lord and His prophet to marry Bathsheba. Solomon did the same thing with his marrying of many "strange wives." 

It's the same thing. It's the difference between passive and active tense. Like I said, D&C 132 does not condemn those marriages which are entered into under the sanction of proper authority - "given" or "received". "Taking" is active. David, Solomon, Moses, and the many other Lord's servants sinned in those things which they did not receive of the Lord. However, with the addition of "the many of the Lord's servants" that "they" becomes collective. Moses and Abraham are not accused of having sinned, as far as we know they never overstepped their boundaries like David and Solomon. 

In sum: I think your readings are narrow, hyperliteralistic, and context-exclusive. I think you make howlers in your allegation that "whoredoms" are separated from unsanctioned polygamy in these verses, and that the Lord would endorse adulterous whoredoms before polygamy in contravention of all precedent and context. It's clear that unsanctioned polygamy is relevant to these verses, not "read into it." The Lord specifically forbids it and condemns those who practiced it. It cannot be divorced from these verses. Your insistence on doing so takes the feet out from under your entire commentary. 

His analysis was bad enough, but the confidence in his own “unanswerable brilliance” was just irritating.

Thanks for having more patience than was deserved.  Good posts.

[stemelbow]

17 hours ago, alter idem said:

I think if you read this in context then the Nephites were logically  practicing polygamy and also possibly concubinage.  The 'whoredoms' was a condemnation of these types of practices, because Polygamy is an abomination (it is 'religiously sanctioned whoredoms')  when it has not been commanded by God but the practitioners pretend that it is.  That's what Jacob 2 says.

Personally, I have a problem with the wording of D&C 132, because it seems to exonerate David's practice of polygamy and maybe it is because all his wives were allowed except Bathsheba, though his many wives and children from different mothers made for a miserable dysfunctional family. There's no way God was supportive of Solomon's 1,000 wives and concubines, it's disgusting and it was his downfall.  It's possible there is some misinterpretation of these verses, but as for me, I trust the Book of Mormon explanation of polygamy, since it is the most correct of any book, and we don't say that about the doctrine and covenants. imo

THanks for your comments alter idem.  I"m still not feeling convinced the text says the Nephites practiced polygamy at this point.  

[stemelbow]

22 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Have you seriously read Jacob 2?   Verse 30 is about the context of the preceding verses, which includes taking plural wives:

Please read my post from a couple of hours ago, it explains the context of D&C 132 and Jacob 2, and why there is no contradiction without any pretending or straining at meaning.  It's spelled out completely in both the biblical text and in D&C 132.  But you do need to take the time to understand the whole picture. 

Thanks InCognitus.  I did read your post.  I"m not sure why you think anything you said in it suggests there is no contradiction in it.  I appreciate you laying it out, but I didnt' feel it needed specific addressing.  I"m happy to be corrected, but I don't see how your post does that.  

[stemelbow]

6 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

The blinkered and selective nature of your reading is astonishing. I get it. I really do. You feel really proud of your critique and the ability it gives you to throw the accusation of inconsistency in the face of God. You've practically married yourself to this reading, warts and all. Be careful when adopting the boilerplate tactic of telling believers "you have cognitive obligations to believe x and therefore you are engaging in y". Some swords cut both ways. I'm sure that you're mature enough to realize that people can simply disagree with you on the merits of things without being enthralled in cognitive slavery. And of course, I'm sure you're mature enough to realize that you, too, have cognitive baggage that impacts your judgments. Now, I'm confident that my quoting John 8:7 at you won't do the trick, so I'll instead say that those who live in glass houses ought not cast stones.

I don't think much of this is true, but I'll leave it be.  Interesting take.  

6 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

You will note, of course, that the scriptures concerning David and Bathsheba's adulterous dalliance are uniformly negative. There's no justification for unfettered sleeping-around in the stories of David and Solomon; in fact, David's story is actually a deterrent for such. The only available justification is for the practice of taking many wives and concubines. Your charge that the Nephites felt motivated to commit adultery by the stories of David and Solomon is baseless, as is your disassociation of unsanctioned polygamy and whoredoms. The former is a class of the latter. 

I"m not following you here.  You are saying there's no indication in Jacob 2 to think the Nephites appealed to David and Solomon to justify their whoredoms?  What does it mean:  "for they seek to excuse themselves in committing ^awhoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son."  IT doesn't say they seek to excuse themselves for taking additional wives.  It says they appeal to the stories of David and Solomon to excuse themselves for their whoredoms.  

6 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

You appear to skip over a focal point of our argument here. Right before the Savior starts "prattling", as you put it, He explicitly condemns David and Solomon's practice of taking many wives and concubines. It is only then that He illustrates that the Nephites are supposed to be different from them, that they should not partake in the sins of them of old. How do you dodge this association? If whoredoms truly cannot be separated from polygamy, why would polygamy have to enter the conversation at all? The idea that David and Solomon's polygamy somehow justifies adultery is absurd. 

It doesn't matter if you think it justifies it.  It's a matter of whether they thought they were justified in their whoredoms.  It says explicitly in Jacob 2 that they thought they justified their whoredoms by appealing to the things written about Solomon and David.  It doesn't say they attempted to justify their polygamy because of David and Solomon.  Indeed, the text never says they attempted polygamy.  

Quote

To ensure that I am not misunderstood, I would like to enter another piece of evidence, from later in Jacob's sermon. I submit Jacob 3:5, where we read:

Quote

Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for, they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father - that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them. 

Jacob refers to this tripartite injunction as a single commandment - "the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father". That should terminate any argument that "whoredoms" and "the unsanctioned taking of many wives and concubines" are different. However, if you persist in that stance, I will submit the following: it is clear that the Lamanites are considered more righteous because they remember the commandment to not do polygamy - which means that the Nephites were not remembering that commandment. Either way, the complicity of the Nephites in polygamy is made certain. 

But again it doesn't say the Nephites took more wives.  As it says, the Lamanites remembered the commandments.  The Nephites did not.  The Nephites did whoredoms.  THe Lamanites apparently did not.  The commandment is to not take more than one wife...sure...but it also says not to take concubines (not polygamy) and not to commit whoredoms.  Let's start here. 

 

If say, God has a commandment that says, "Do not throw your apples into the garbage nor eat a potato".  If you eat a potato, did you break the commandment?  Sure.  What's the commandment?  Do not throw your apple in the garbage nor eat a potato.  Does it matter that you did not throw your apple in the garbage?  Not really...you still broke the commandment.  And if you broke one part, it'd be wise to add the reminder of the whole of it, lest you forget or feel justified to do the other part of it.  Suppose then God thunders, "You are condemned for eating a potato.  The commandment is don't throw your apple in the garbage nor eat a potato.  I thereby condemn you."  Does such a condemnation mean they threw their apple in the garbage?  nope.  It most definitely does not.  This is the same.  Now, to clarify this...it is quite possible that the potato eater also threw apples in the garbage.  But, since that was never explicitly called out, we'd never know.  We can only, at best, assume that apples were thrown in the garbage.    

Quote

This is patently ridiculous. The Lord did not condemn Moses on Mount Sinai for practicing polygamy, even as He gave unto Moses the commandment that adultery was a sin. The idea that Jesus would sanction adultery before polygamy is manifestly absurd, ignorant of the wider context of scripture, and the very definition of eisegesis. 

Regarding the contradiction that has you so exercised, I would like to point out that your D&C 132 references are in a passive tense - David, Solomon, and Moses "received" or "were given", and thus did not sin save in those things which they were not given but still took. It's like Napoleon's coronation - he invited the Pope to crown him but took the crown and put it on his own head. It shot his legitimacy because he did not receive it from the proper authority. The whole point of D&C 132 is that polygamy is not a sin if it receives prophetic sanction, it it is done by the proper keys and authority, the commandment of God. David and Solomon are condemned for taking that which they were not authorized to have, just as the Nephites were condemned. 

D&C 132 says "in the case of Uriah and his wife", referring to the whole sorry episode. Nathan makes it clear in 2 Samuel 12:10 that David's subsequent marriage to Bathsheba was a sin: "Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thy house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife." This inappropriate marriage was a sin, and condemned by the Lord. David clearly did not receive permission from the Lord and His prophet to marry Bathsheba. Solomon did the same thing with his marrying of many "strange wives." 

Ok.  Not really interested in following that trail.    

Quote

t's the same thing. It's the difference between passive and active tense. Like I said, D&C 132 does not condemn those marriages which are entered into under the sanction of proper authority - "given" or "received". "Taking" is active. David, Solomon, Moses, and the many other Lord's servants sinned in those things which they did not receive of the Lord. However, with the addition of "the many of the Lord's servants" that "they" becomes collective. Moses and Abraham are not accused of having sinned, as far as we know they never overstepped their boundaries like David and Solomon. 

In sum: I think your readings are narrow, hyperliteralistic, and context-exclusive. I think you make howlers in your allegation that "whoredoms" are separated from unsanctioned polygamy in these verses, and that the Lord would endorse adulterous whoredoms before polygamy in contravention of all precedent and context. It's clear that unsanctioned polygamy is relevant to these verses, not "read into it." The Lord specifically forbids it and condemns those who practiced it. It cannot be divorced from these verses. Your insistence on doing so takes the feet out from under your entire commentary. 

I'm still waiting for any explicit message in Jacob wherein it says the Nephites practiced polygamy.  You quote the commandment, but fail to pay attention to the specific element of the commandment that they are called out for--whoredoms.  They aren't called out for polygamy.  It must be read into the text that they practiced polygamy.  

 

 

 

[OGHoosier]

 

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I"m not following you here.  You are saying there's no indication in Jacob 2 to think the Nephites appealed to David and Solomon to justify their whoredoms?  What does it mean:  "for they seek to excuse themselves in committing ^awhoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son."  IT doesn't say they seek to excuse themselves for taking additional wives.  It says they appeal to the stories of David and Solomon to excuse themselves for their whoredoms.  

Let's go over this one more time. 

Unsanctioned polygamy is a sexual sin.

"Whoredom" means sexual sin.

Therefore, unsanctioned polygamy is a whoredom.

That's what he was referring to. The sin of David and Solomon, of "them of old", is explicitly laid out as the taking of many additional wives and concubines. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that the Nephites read the accounts of David and Solomon taking many wives and concubines, and felt that it justified them in committing blatant adultery. The thing is, that is ridiculous. We don't have any Solomonic adultery on record, and the cases of extramarital sexuality which we have from the Davidic era - David/Bathsheba and Amnon/Tamar - are uniformly bad. The Hebrew scriptures never condone adultery or fornication as a good thing, it's always a negative thing. What they do condone is polygamy under certain circumstances. You tell me that the Nephites felt justified in committing adultery by these polygamous exemplars, and I tell you that there is no good adulterous precedent for them to be looking at, though there is a good polygamous precedent. I'm sorry, you don't have a case. 

You keep dancing around the evidence, saying that because the text does not spell out in 40 foot tall flaming letters THE NEPHITES WERE TAKING MULTIPLE WIVES, it wasn't the case? That's why I said that your reading is hyperliteralistic and context-exclusive. Such a reading has almost nonexistent explanatory weight and deserves no respect. 

Finally, to circle back to the original issue: does Jacob 2:30 have any significance for polygamy? I do not for one second concede that your reading is in any way accurate, but even if it were, Jacob 2:30 would be relevant. Like I said, Moses was not condemned for polygamy while he was receiving the commandments against adultery and fornication. Those are worse crimes. Therefore, it is absurd that the Lord would discuss a situation where He would sanction a free-love whoredom environment for the purpose of raising up seed, as you suggest. Polygamy is the only option to fulfill Jacob 2:30. 

[stemelbow]

18 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

 

Let's go over this one more time. 

Unsanctioned polygamy is a sexual sin.

"Whoredom" means sexual sin.

Therefore, unsanctioned polygamy is a whoredom.

That's what he was referring to. The sin of David and Solomon, of "them of old", is explicitly laid out as the taking of many additional wives and concubines. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that the Nephites read the accounts of David and Solomon taking many wives and concubines, and felt that it justified them in committing blatant adultery. The thing is, that is ridiculous. We don't have any Solomonic adultery on record, and the cases of extramarital sexuality which we have from the Davidic era - David/Bathsheba and Amnon/Tamar - are uniformly bad. The Hebrew scriptures never condone adultery or fornication as a good thing, it's always a negative thing. What they do condone is polygamy under certain circumstances. You tell me that the Nephites felt justified in committing adultery by these polygamous exemplars, and I tell you that there is no good adulterous precedent for them to be looking at, though there is a good polygamous precedent. I'm sorry, you don't have a case. 

You keep dancing around the evidence, saying that because the text does not spell out in 40 foot tall flaming letters THE NEPHITES WERE TAKING MULTIPLE WIVES, it wasn't the case? That's why I said that your reading is hyperliteralistic and context-exclusive. Such a reading has almost nonexistent explanatory weight and deserves no respect. 

Finally, to circle back to the original issue: does Jacob 2:30 have any significance for polygamy? I do not for one second concede that your reading is in any way accurate, but even if it were, Jacob 2:30 would be relevant. Like I said, Moses was not condemned for polygamy while he was receiving the commandments against adultery and fornication. Those are worse crimes. Therefore, it is absurd that the Lord would discuss a situation where He would sanction a free-love whoredom environment for the purpose of raising up seed, as you suggest. Polygamy is the only option to fulfill Jacob 2:30. 

Hey Mr Hoosier,

I have your point and disagree.  Just because a polygamous union could also be a whoredom it does not stand to reason that all whoredoms are polygamy.  Let's go back to the apple and potato analogy.  If one eats a potato it does not mean that he threw away an apple.  Likewise someone could very well be guilty of committing a whoredom and yet not be guilty of taking additional wives.   In Jacob the people were said to be guilty of committing whoredoms.  It does not say they are guilty of marrying additional wives.  Really all you need to do is quote the text where it says the nephites were polygamists.  If not you're left reading it into the text.  

[OGHoosier]

15 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Hey Mr Hoosier,

I have your point and disagree.  Just because a polygamous union could also be a whoredom it does not stand to reason that all whoredoms are polygamy.  Let's go back to the apple and potato analogy.  If one eats a potato it does not mean that he threw away an apple.  Likewise someone could very well be guilty of committing a whoredom and yet not be guilty of taking additional wives.   In Jacob the people were said to be guilty of committing whoredoms.  It does not say they are guilty of marrying additional wives.  Really all you need to do is quote the text where it says the nephites were polygamists.  If not you're left reading it into the text.  

@stemelbow, so be it. I thank you for the challenge, it has actually helped me dig into and understand the text more. 

I offer Jacob 1:15:

Quote

And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son. 

Wanton fornication and adultery are not highlighted as the example of "wicked practices", desiring many wives and concubines is. It can't be much clearer. 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

@stemelbow, so be it. I thank you for the challenge, it has actually helped me dig into and understand the text more. 

I offer Jacob 1:15:

Wanton fornication and adultery are not highlighted as the example of "wicked practices", desiring many wives and concubines is. It can't be much clearer. 

As you know desiring something and actually doing or having that which is desired are two different things.  Saying they desired many wives and concubines doesn't mean they did anything other than desiring it.  The tiny tip in the whole thing is when it says they "indulged themselves somewhat in wicked practices".  Wicked practices to some is merely dreaming about scandalous or lascivious activities.   It is quite possible they had lascivious or scandalous affairs all because they desired many wives and concubines yet never really had many wives and concubines.  Of course wives and concubines is just stupid talk today.  In Joseph SMith's day, they married tons of women.  He married them old and really ridiculously young.  He married on average a new female a month the last 3 years of his life.  But, as it were, in a legal sense, these marriages were void.  He was doing something illegal, and if we see marriage as a legal contract, he didn't marry the young girls, old ladies, already married women and so on.  Maybe if there were Nephites, they were doing something similar--maybe they were in secret marrying each other, men marrying many women, and the rumors got out, like they did in Nauvoo about JOseph, and the prophets got upset.  It certainly could be.  THe problem is, as I see it, the words in the BoM don't explicitly say what was going on.  

I enjoyed the discussion too.  I'm glad you benefitted.  I did too.  I think it could definitely be more clear.  ...And I still find verse 30 one of the stupider verses in all of scripture, whether it alludes to polygamy or not.  

Edited May 22, 2020 by stemelbow

[Tacenda]

The following scripture was probably put in there because Emma asked for William Law according to Grant Palmer. Why else would this be in the scripture, kind of odd. This after Joseph asked for William Law's wife, but they were shocked and wouldn't do it. Then Emma asked for William if Joseph got Jane. Anyway, I don't know where any references are. But this while reading section 132 shot out to me, and reminded me of the story that Grant purports. Or why is it in here? We all remember that Joseph asked for Sidney Rigdon's wife and he was the 1st counselor and William Law was 2nd counselor in the presidency at the time.

51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to ^aprove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.

And how unfair in the scripture below for Emma, so unequal and sounds like it's really coming out of Joseph's mouth. 

52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, ^areceive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.

Edited May 22, 2020 by Tacenda

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The following scripture was probably put in there because Emma asked for William Law according to Grant Palmer.

Grant Palmer is not really a very good source, particularly given his reliance on Joseph Jackson.  See, e.g., the FAIR article on this topic, this essay by Brian Hales, and also the Interpreter article by Brian Hales and Gregory Smith.

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Why else would this be in the scripture, kind of odd.

"Why else" indeed.  The FAIR article addresses that a bit.

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This after Joseph asked for William Law's wife, but they were shocked and wouldn't do it.

Are you familiar with the sequence of events that preceded this?  It appears that

A) William and Jane Law requested to be sealed to each other (Link); but
B) Joseph refused the request because William Law had committed adultery and had confessed it to Joseph.  (Link)  However,
C) William had not confessed his misconduct to Jane.  (Link)
D) According to an entry in Alexander Neibaur's journal, Jane Law - having been refused a sealing to William - asked to be sealed to Joseph.  (Link)
E) According to Lyndon Cook, Joseph apparently initially denied Jane's request (in late 1843), and thereafter allowed it (near Christmas 1843).  Joseph "might have sought to have Jane Law sealed to him" (along with the wives of several other apostates) because "'their Husbands could not Save them.'"  (Link)

The historical record is pretty messy.  I'm not inclined to draw too many conclusions pertaining to this story.

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Then Emma asked for William if Joseph got Jane.

That seems quite speculative.  And strange, given Emma's hostility to polygamy.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

40 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The following scripture was probably put in there because Emma asked for William Law according to Grant Palmer. Why else would this be in the scripture, kind of odd. This after Joseph asked for William Law's wife, but they were shocked and wouldn't do it. Then Emma asked for William if Joseph got Jane. Anyway, I don't know where any references are. But this while reading section 132 shot out to me, and reminded me of the story that Grant purports. Or why is it in here? We all remember that Joseph asked for Sidney Rigdon's wife and he was the 1st counselor and William Law was 2nd counselor in the presidency at the time.

51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to ^aprove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.

And how unfair in the scripture below for Emma, so unequal and sounds like it's really coming out of Joseph's mouth. 

52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, ^areceive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.

I like Emma and respect that she objected to polygamy ultimately.  But I really wish once she learned about Fanny Alger, she kicked Joseph in the privates and was like "Seeya!"  

Whenever someone gains enough influence, particularly as it comes to religion, they tend to gain confidence enough and trust enough to get away with all sorts of things.  Claiming God's edict and special privileged blessing upon the one who gets to tell everyone else what God wants should be enough for everyone to be like, "Alright, Joseph.  We get it.  YOu want special privilege and license.  You think you are exception to rule and better than others.  But come on.  Let's not be ridiculous."  

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Grant Palmer is not really a very good source, particularly given his reliance on Joseph Jackson.  See, e.g., the FAIR article on this topic, this essay by Brian Hales, and also the Interpreter article by Brian Hales and Gregory Smith.

"Why else" indeed.  The FAIR article addresses that a bit.

Are you familiar with the sequence of events that preceded this?  It appears that

A) William and Jane Law requested to be sealed to each other (Link); but
B) Joseph refused the request because William Law had committed adultery and had confessed it to Joseph.  (Link)  However,
C) William had not confessed his misconduct to Jane.  (Link)
D) According to an entry in Alexander Neibaur's journal, Jane Law - having been refused a sealing to William - asked to be sealed to Joseph.  (Link)
E) According to Lyndon Cook, Joseph apparently initially denied Jane's request (in late 1843), and thereafter allowed it (near Christmas 1843).  Joseph "might have sought to have Jane Law sealed to him" (along with the wives of several other apostates) because "'their Husbands could not Save them.'"  (Link)

The historical record is pretty messy.  I'm not inclined to draw too many conclusions pertaining to this story.

That seems quite speculative.  And strange, given Emma's hostility to polygamy.

Thanks,

-Smac

I've found GOd's offering of divorce amusing.  He commands Joseph to offer to Emma that they divorce, as Law puts it, so he can live blissfully with his young wives.  Then Hyrum prevails on Joseph in writing down a revelation so he can convince Emma that polygamy was from God.  Then God says he was just trying to test them--it's somehow like the test Abraham had to do in showing that he really would kill his son.  Sheesh...believing sure takes some mental gymnastics and sure requires someone to love a mean, vindictive, petty God.  

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I like Emma and respect that she objected to polygamy ultimately.  But I really wish once she learned about Fanny Alger, she kicked Joseph in the privates and was like "Seeya!"  

This is facile.  It assumes way too much.  Way too presentist

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Whenever someone gains enough influence, particularly as it comes to religion, they tend to gain confidence enough and trust enough to get away with all sorts of things. 

Way too glib.  The notion that polygamy was, for Joseph, nothing more than an exercise in him trying to "get away with" something seems unnecessarily complex.  Like a Rube Goldberg contraption.

It also does not account for the character of Joseph Smith.  Rather, it makes assumptions about his character that do not seem to be borne out in the historical record.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Claiming God's edict and special privileged blessing upon the one who gets to tell everyone else what God wants should be enough for everyone to be like, "Alright, Joseph.  We get it.  You want special privilege and license.  You think you are exception to rule and better than others.  But come on.  Let's not be ridiculous."  

Meh.  You're just slandering a dead man.  And doing so in ignorance.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

This is facile.  It assumes way too much.  Way too presentist

What does it assume?  That Emma caught Joseph?  Or that that which they were caught in was something illicit?  because really that is not in the assumption at all.  I really only pointed out that I'd have preferred it that as soon as Emma found out about Fanny, Emma left him.  The only assumption is that Emma found out about Fanny (and in that there is no assumption about what specifically she found out about the young girl).  There is no presentism.  That is just silly.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Way too glib.  The notion that polygamy was, for Joseph, nothing more than an exercise in him trying to "get away with" something seems unnecessarily complex.  Like a Rube Goldberg contraption.

I don't think "polygamy was, for Joseph, nothing more than an exercise in him trying to "get away with" something".   That's a silly assumption about my position, and a complete misrepresentation.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It also does not account for the character of Joseph Smith.  Rather, it makes assumptions about his character that do not seem to be borne out in the historical record.

What assumptions are you talking about?  I didn't intend to give a whole account on the character of Joseph Smith.  I simply dismiss his teachings on polygamy, at least as discussed here.  

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Meh.  You're just slandering a dead man.  And doing so in ignorance.

Thanks,

-Smac

What am I ignorant of, Smac?  I didn't slander him at all.  The closest I came to slander was saying he thought he was better than others.  That's not slander.  

[smac97]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

What does it assume? 

It assumes that polygamy has never been, can never be, authorized by God.

It assumes that polygamy was a pretext.

It assumes that Joseph Smith had lecherous motives.

It assumes that Joseph Smith would fabricate a Rube Goldberg-esque contrivance to give add means and opportunity to his lecherous motives.

It assumes an overwhelming ignorance of the character of Joseph Smith, or worse, does violence to what the historical record has to say about his character.

It assumes simplicity where complexity is obvious (such as the generational/dynastic, rather than romantic/sexual, nature of most of Joseph's polygamous marriages).

Like I said, a lot.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I really only pointed out that I'd have preferred it that as soon as Emma found out about Fanny, Emma left him.  The only assumption is that Emma found out about Fanny (and in that there is no assumption about what specifically she found out about the young girl). 

Again, this is facile.  Big time.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

There is no presentism.  That is just silly.  

There is nothing but presentism.  Your post presupposes the ickiness of polygamy.  That your readers will taken this ickiness as a given.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I don't think "polygamy was, for Joseph, nothing more than an exercise in him trying to "get away with" something".  

Well, that's odd.  Since you, referring to Joseph, said: "Whenever someone gains enough influence, particularly as it comes to religion, they tend to gain confidence enough and trust enough to get away with all sorts of things."

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

That's a silly assumption about my position, and a complete misrepresentation.  

So you weren't talking about Joseph when you said "Whenever someone gains..."?

Riiiight.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

What assumptions are you talking about?  I didn't intend to give a whole account on the character of Joseph Smith.  I simply dismiss his teachings on polygamy, at least as discussed here.

I get that.  Hence the facile nature of your post.   

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

What am I ignorant of, Smac?  I didn't slander him at all.  The closest I came to slander was saying he thought he was better than others.  That's not slander.  

"Whenever someone gains enough influence, particularly as it comes to religion, they tend to gain confidence enough and trust enough to get away with all sorts of things."

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It assumes that polygamy has never been, can never be, authorized by God.

It assumes that polygamy was a pretext.

It assumes that Joseph Smith had lecherous motives.

It assumes that Joseph Smith would fabricate a Rube Goldberg-esque contrivance to give add means and opportunity to his lecherous motives.

It assumes an overwhelming ignorance of the character of Joseph Smith, or worse, does violence to what the historical record has to say about his character.

It assumes simplicity where complexity is obvious (such as the generational/dynastic, rather than romantic/sexual, nature of most of Joseph's polygamous marriages).

Like I said, a lot.

It assumes none of those things.  It assumes one thing--Emma caught Joseph having some sort of relationship with the younger Fanny.  Nothing more.  

Quote

Again, this is facile.  Big time.

That's merely relative.  

Quote

There is nothing but presentism.  Your post presupposes the ickiness of polygamy.  That your readers will taken this ickiness as a given.

Uh... the general consensus of those in Joseph's day presupposesd the ickiness of polygamy.  Surprised you were ignorant of that fact.  

Quote

Well, that's odd.  Since you, referring to Joseph, said: "Whenever someone gains enough influence, particularly as it comes to religion, they tend to gain confidence enough and trust enough to get away with all sorts of things."

So you weren't talking about Joseph when you said "Whenever someone gains..."?

Riiiight.

Are you saying hoseph didn't gain confidence as followers mounted?  Thatd be an odd and foolish claim.  

Quote

I get that.  Hence the facile nature of your post.   

"Whenever someone gains enough influence, particularly as it comes to religion, they tend to gain confidence enough and trust enough to get away with all sorts of things."

Thanks,

-Smac

Great.  You're in agreement then.  

Edited May 22, 2020 by stemelbow