Article by Benjamin E. Park Re: Dc 132

[Calm]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Not really.  Ether 1 specifies that Jared had a family and the Brother of Jared had families plural.  Not speculation and clearly explains the 22 children vs Jared's single family number.

Families could refer to his parents, his kids' families (maybe he was much older than Jared), sisters' or sister-in-laws' families he was responsible for (widows), or maybe even servants' families.  22 kids could have included fosters or adopted (maybe there were youth who wanted to be part of their group where the rest of their family didn't) as well as serial wives.  Too little info about their culture as well as individual circumstances to assume, imo.

Edited May 26, 2020 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

Families could refer to his parents, his kids' families (maybe he was much older than Jared), sisters' or sister-in-laws' families he was responsible for (widows), or maybe even servants' families.  22 kids could have included fosters or adopted (maybe there were youth who wanted to be part of their group where the rest of their family didn't) as well as serial wives.  Too little info about their culture as well as individual circumstances to assume, imo.

You hear hoofbeats you think horses, not zebras.  I think it's pretty clear when one brother has a "family" with 12 children and another brother has "families" and 22 children it's polygamy given the old testament culture they came from.

All else is grasping at straws.

Edited May 26, 2020 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

You hear hoofbeats you think horses, not zebras.  I think it's pretty clear when one brother has a "family" with 12 children and another brother has "families" and 22 children it's polygamy given the old testament culture they came from.

All else is grasping at straws.

Zebras exist though, so sometimes it will be zebras...especially if you are zebra territory. 

These days for many people if they hear hoofbeats, it makes more sense to think TV or Youbtube or synthetizer than horse.  A few years ago for me it was horses, but fields are gone, owners have moved so if I hear hoofbeats these days it is most likely coconut shells and an improv Monty Python skit  

We have no detailed knowledge of their family culture. Assumptions are therefore unwarranted.
 

Edited May 26, 2020 by Calm

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

so if I hear hoofbeats these days it is most likely coconut shells and an improv Monty Python skit

I have long thought, from reading your posts on this board, that you have been influenced by the wisdom of the people of Monty Python, and now I know of a surety that my impressions on these things are true.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

I have long thought, from reading your posts on this board, that you have been influenced by the wisdom of the people of Monty Python, and now I know of a surety that my impressions on these things are true.

Family tradition, though I saw Holy Grail way before my husband as I saw it when it first came out while his was post mission, so I claim seniority even if it wasn’t part of my upbringing as TV was pretty limited (none of school nights, Dad got first pick, off by 10). OTOH, my kids have major parts memorized**** which I have never put the effort into, so I can’t claim dominance there.

****Along with Princess Bride (I read the book as a teen, bought it as part of my dowry to my marriage; anyone who hasn’t read the book who says they are a fan are all just wannabes even if they have memorized all the best lines...probably the only book I fully approve of the film version of, though Greystoke 84 wasn’t bad) and various Star Wars (me, I am a fan of the originals, just couldn’t get past midichlorians and teen angst Anikan, lost interest).

Edited May 26, 2020 by Calm

[stemelbow]

On 5/24/2020 at 8:28 AM, JLHPROF said:

Perhaps Lehi too.  It's clear from God's choice of prophets that polygamy is no sin. Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Lehi, the Brother of Jared, all polygamists and highly favored by God.

So were David and Solomon until they sinned.  Their polygamy never brought rebuke.

And the first seven Presidents of the Church all polygamists and most being given recorded revelation with not a single rebuke for their polygamy over the course of seventy years.  Polygamy is not a sin when God allows it.

I know the scripture contradict themselves over and over again.  I realize God contradicts Himself to the point of HIs teaching amounting to nonsense.  Who am I to say what God really means.  But of course, none of that reconciles how one who believes in the divinity of scripture and Church teaching.  What does God mean when he says:

Quote

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

in Jacob?

If David and Solomon's many wives and concubines were approved by God why did God lie to Jacob and say the practice they took up was abominable?  Or was Jacob lying himself?  

[stemelbow]

18 hours ago, alter idem said:

These are the same excuses always used. No reason to compare the two, we have revelation.  Monogamy is the standard since the garden of Eden.  It is the standard set forth in the family proclamation. Polygamy is a temporary solution for raising up seed to the Lord when he commands it, otherwise it is an abomination. For us today, it is forbidden to practice it. Only a small portion ever practiced it properly and I expect only a small portion will live this way in eternity.  I don't expect it to be a concern for me, and I let Heavenly Father worry about it in the next life. 

Hey Alter, just wanted to point out, as far as I see it, your position seems to be the majority position among active LDS.  So you're safe, in that sense.  These more fundamentalist thinkers, we have here, are a very honest bunch though.  Not that you aren't.  I'm just impressed with their level of integrity.  

Edited May 26, 2020 by stemelbow

[alter idem]

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Not really.  Ether 1 specifies that Jared had a family and the Brother of Jared had families plural.  Not speculation and clearly explains the 22 children vs Jared's single family number.

That's a real stretch.  I don't read that to mean Jared had 'families' as in polygamous wives. I read it in the context, as 'thy families ' referring to the group,  and then in typical book of Mormon language, it identifies the ones to be included in 'thy families '.  No need to point out to Moriancumr that he' should bring his family also, that's a given. There was no punctuation in the manuscript so when reading and trying to consider the meaning, we need to keep in mind that the punctuation was not Mormon's. 

It doesn't clearly explain his 22 children,  as we have no explanation and a number of ways a man could have 22 children.  One I bet you didn't consider was adoption as a way to be considered  someone's child. Is that not also a possibility?  

But I have no more evidence to support that theory as you do. 

I think we need to be careful about making assumptions with little or no evidence to support them.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I know the scripture contradict themselves over and over again.  I realize God contradicts Himself to the point of HIs teaching amounting to nonsense. 

I don't think this is so.

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Who am I to say what God really means. 

Indeed.

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

But of course, none of that reconciles how one who believes in the divinity of scripture and Church teaching.  What does God mean when he says:

Quote

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

in Jacob?

If David and Solomon's many wives and concubines were approved by God why did God lie to Jacob and say the practice they took up was abominable?  Or was Jacob lying himself?  

Have you reviewed FAIR's treatment of this issue?  If so, what do you think of it?

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't think this is so.

Indeed.

Have you reviewed FAIR's treatment of this issue?  If so, what do you think of it?

Thanks,

-Smac

Let's take a look together (it's basically a disaster):

Quote

The argument critics use in conjunction with the scriptures you refer to are that David and Solomon were condemned for having plural wives. Not so.

That is the question/concern.  When Jacob says "David and ^aSolomon truly had many ^bwives and concubines, which thing was ^cabominable before me, saith the Lord."  It appears this FAIR piece is ignoring what is explicitly said.  The FAIR piece says it doesn't say David and Solomon were condemned for having plural wives.  We can all see Jacob says "the Lord" calls them having many wives and concubines an abominable thing, no?

Quote

What were the wrongdoings of David and Solomon? Was polygamy the sinful act they committed, or was it something else? Obviously, polygamy was accepted by the Lord at times, since many of His prophets participated in the practice.

That is assuming, of course, that the scriptures are always representing God when they claim to.  If in one place God says, their having many wives and concubines was an abomination, and in another place it says God gave them many wives and concubines and that David's only sin in regards to polygamy was with one instance, then we have a direct contradiction.  Why is that skirted?  

Quote

Would God give anyone something that was sinful, wrong, or evil? Absolutely not.

Look.  The concern here, explicitly, is why is there contradiction in scripture.  ITs not remedied by suggesting God can't contradict himself.  That's just silly.  "well it's not contradiction because we already know God can't contradict himself so it's not contradiction to say two completely contradictory things".  

Quote

It was the murder of Uriah and the taking of his wife that was the sin David committed, not polygamy. David already had plural wives. These wives were given to him by God. Polygamy was not the sin David was guilty of, but murder and coveting another’s wife was. David committed this murder (or rather caused it to happen) so he could have Uriah’s wife as his own. In other words, David took an additional wife that the Lord did not give him. But the fact that he had plural wives was in no wise a sin.

Yes, but Jacob 2 tells us what the LORD found to be the abominable thing that David and SOlomon did.  He did not say it was one case by David that was abominable.  he said David having many wives and concubines was abominable, and added, it was abominable for Solomon too to have many wives and concubines.  

Quote

It was the fact that Solomon allowed some of his wives to turn his heart away from the Lord, just like Uriah’s wife did with David, that resulted in sin or evil. It was not polygamy that was evil.

uh...serious?  This FAIR piece just blamed the women?  Wow.  

Quote

The Book of Mormon explains that only when God commands it can a man have more than one wife at a time.

That was a horrible attempt at justifying that reading.  As I've pointed out here, David and Solomon having many wives and concubines was used as justification by the Nephites to commit whoredoms.  It doesn't explicitly say the Nephites had many wives and concubines.  Also the Lord says David and Solomon having many wives and concubines was abominable.  Thus, The Lord is saying that He did not command any such activity--He did not sanctify nor find it acceptable.  I realize other passages contradict that message...but that's the point.  

Quote

Their plural wives and concubines were an abomination in that not all of them were approved by the Lord.

Uh..the Lord says David and Solomon's wives and concubines were an abomination.  He says of the Nephites, that they sinned by committed whoredoms and justifying those whoredoms by appealing to the fact that David and Solomon had many wives and concubines.  It does not say that the Nephites' whoredoms were polygamy.  He's reading that into the text.  

Quote

Jacob was not just saying that David and Solomon had more than one wife, he says that they truly had “many wives,” as if to say, “there is no question that David and Solomon had many wives.” The fact that the Old Testament strictly forbade the practice of taking many wives for a king (both Solomon and David were kings) leads one to conclude that they were in violation of Torah. The reason why I suggest it as a recitation of Deuteronomy 17:17 is because of the context.

If it is not a recitation, then there is no previous indication that this is an abomination (at least within the scriptures that we have today) and that this would be a new rule. How then could it be retroactively applied to Solomon and David? This ultimately is the point–Jacob was defending the new ‘party line’ on polygamy from the scriptures.

The passage says The Lord saw them having many wives and concubines as abominable.  It does not say Jacob was defending the new party line.  Jacob, apparently, was voicing God's words not his own.  I do think that Ben attempted a somewhat clever response here, but it is absolutely assumption and absolutely twisting what is said.  

Quote

The Book of Mormon account is basing their statements on an interpretation of Mosaic Law to defend a new position on polygamy. The other is trying to understand how and when polygamy can be acceptable to God. One states that the abomination of Solomon and David was in their breaking the commandments in Torah according to the text, and while there are many polygamous figures in the Old Testament, very few “truly had many wives.” I really doubt that the Nephite proponents of polygamy restricted their proof texts to only David and Solomon.

I mean...wow.  We can only surmise the Nephites appealed to David and Solomon because that is all it says.  I don't know why he's trying to complicate this, other than to try and sound like there is room to reconcile these.  The BoM isn't claiming to try and defend an interpretation.  It is claiming that the Lord saw and sees David and Solomon taking many wives and concubines as an abomination.  Other passages say God endorsed them taking many wives and concubines, true.  But that is the problem.  The problem isn't resolved by saying it couldn't possibly be a problem so we assume it's not a problem.  That's what it appears that FAIR piece is doing.  

Edited May 26, 2020 by stemelbow

[smac97]

57 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Let's take a look together (it's basically a disaster):

Okay.

Quote

Quote

The argument critics use in conjunction with the scriptures you refer to are that David and Solomon were condemned for having plural wives. Not so.

That is the question/concern.  When Jacob says "David and ^aSolomon truly had many ^bwives and concubines, which thing was ^cabominable before me, saith the Lord." 

Yes.

Quote

It appears this FAIR piece is ignoring what is explicitly said. 

I don't think FAIR has done that at all.  

Quote

The FAIR piece says it doesn't say David and Solomon were condemned for having plural wives. 

Actually, that's not what the FAIR article says.  Instead, it states: "It was not the concubines or the multiple wives that was abominable, it was abominable because there was some abuse and not all of it was specifically approved by the Lord."

This point is substantiated by Jacob 2:30, which states (speaking of polygamy) : "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."

That is, polygamy is not "abominable" per se.  Rather, it is unauthorized polygamy that is sinful.  As the FAIR article notes (having quoted Jacob 2:30): 

Quote

In other words, when the Lords commands it, polygamy is acceptable. If Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, then you have to accept that God told him to bring the principle into practice. After all, this dispensation is the RESTORATION of all things, therefore, the principle of plural marriage was restored.

The problem is, critics of the LDS Church use scriptures selectively, and not fully, in their arguments, therefore their interpretations are faulty of what LDS teachings really are.

The argument critics use in conjunction with the scriptures you refer to are that David and Solomon were condemned for having plural wives. Not so. What were the wrongdoings of David and Solomon? Was polygamy the sinful act they committed, or was it something else? Obviously, polygamy was accepted by the Lord at times, since many of His prophets participated in the practice. In fact, the Bible says that God gave David his plural wives:

2 Samuel 12:7-8 (emphasis added)
7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

Would God give anyone something that was sinful, wrong, or evil? Absolutely not. If polygamy was not the sin that David committed, then what was it? The very next verse in the Bible explains the sin.

2 Samuel 12:9 (emphasis added)
Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

It was the murder of Uriah and the taking of his wife that was the sin David committed, not polygamy. David already had plural wives. These wives were given to him by God. Polygamy was not the sin David was guilty of, but murder and coveting another’s wife was. David committed this murder (or rather caused it to happen) so he could have Uriah’s wife as his own. In other words, David took an additional wife that the Lord did not give him. But the fact that he had plural wives was in no wise a sin.

That seems pretty solid reasoning.

Quote

We can all see Jacob says "the Lord" calls them having many wives and concubines an abominable thing, no?

No, not quite.  We can all see Jacob says "the Lord" allows for polygamy in Jacob 2:30, and also in 2 Samuel 12:7-8.

Again, per the FAIR article: "Polygamy was not the sin David was guilty of, but murder and coveting another’s wife was. David committed this murder (or rather caused it to happen) so he could have Uriah’s wife as his own. In other words, David took an additional wife that the Lord did not give him. But the fact that he had plural wives was in no wise a sin."

And regarding Solomon, the FAIR article states (having quoted 1 Kings 11:1-6) : "It was the fact that Solomon allowed some of his wives to turn his heart away from the Lord, just like Uriah’s wife did with David, that resulted in sin or evil. It was not polygamy that was evil. The Book of Mormon explains that only when God commands it can a man have more than one wife at a time. If you were to study the Bible, you would see it is in agreement with the Book of Mormon on this matter."

This seems pretty solid.

Quote

Quote

What were the wrongdoings of David and Solomon? Was polygamy the sinful act they committed, or was it something else? Obviously, polygamy was accepted by the Lord at times, since many of His prophets participated in the practice.

That is assuming, of course, that the scriptures are always representing God when they claim to.

Well, yes.  Scriptures need to be read in context.

Are you suggesting that Jacob 2:30 is "{mis}representing God"?  What about 2 Samuel 12:7-8?  If so, what is the basis for your argument?

Quote

If in one place God says, their having many wives and concubines was an abomination, and in another place it says God gave them many wives and concubines and that David's only sin in regards to polygamy was with one instance, then we have a direct contradiction.  Why is that skirted?  

It's not skirted.  It's directly addressed at length in the FAIR article.

And there's no "direct contradiction."  Polygamy is sometimes authorized, and otherwise condemned when prohibited.  

Quote

Quote

Would God give anyone something that was sinful, wrong, or evil? Absolutely not.

Look.  The concern here, explicitly, is why is there contradiction in scripture. 

I disagree.  I think you are presupposing that which has yet to be demonstrated: that there is "contradiction in scripture."

I don't think there is contradiction on this point.  Based on the scriptures we have, polygamy is prohibited and condemned unless authorized by God.

Quote

ITs not remedied by suggesting God can't contradict himself.  That's just silly.  "well it's not contradiction because we already know God can't contradict himself so it's not contradiction to say two completely contradictory things".  

Again, you assume that which has yet to be demonstrated.  I don't think there is a contradiction here.  I think there is a rule (polygamy is prohibited/condemned) with an exception (unless authorized by God).  

Quote

Quote

It was the murder of Uriah and the taking of his wife that was the sin David committed, not polygamy. David already had plural wives. These wives were given to him by God. Polygamy was not the sin David was guilty of, but murder and coveting another’s wife was. David committed this murder (or rather caused it to happen) so he could have Uriah’s wife as his own. In other words, David took an additional wife that the Lord did not give him. But the fact that he had plural wives was in no wise a sin.

Yes, but Jacob 2 tells us what the LORD found to be the abominable thing that David and Solomon did. 

Yes.  Unauthorized polygamy was the thing "found to be the abominable thing that David and Solomon did."

Do you really dispute this point?  How can you, given the context (Jacob 2:30 and 2 Samuel 12:7-8).

Quote

He did not say it was one case by David that was abominable.  he said David having many wives and concubines was abominable, and added, it was abominable for Solomon too to have many wives and concubines.  

Again, context.

Quote

Quote

It was the fact that Solomon allowed some of his wives to turn his heart away from the Lord, just like Uriah’s wife did with David, that resulted in sin or evil. It was not polygamy that was evil.

uh...serious?  This FAIR piece just blamed the women?  Wow.  

You seem to be relying on the notion that women are not capable of persuading men to commit sin.  I dispute that notion.  Women can certainly commit wrongs, and influence others to do so (as can men).

Quote

Quote

The Book of Mormon explains that only when God commands it can a man have more than one wife at a time.

That was a horrible attempt at justifying that reading. 

I think it's an eminently sensible interpretation of Jacob 2:30 and 2 Samuel 12:7-8.

As the FAIR article notes, "{i}t is very interesting that critics NEVER quote verse 30 {of Jacob 2}."  You do not seem to be addressing it.  More to the point, your position requires that we ignore it.  I don't think that works.

Quote

As I've pointed out here, David and Solomon having many wives and concubines was used as justification by the Nephites to commit whoredoms. 

I don't think this is accurate.  See above.  Again, you are not accounting for Jacob 2:30 and 2 Samuel 12:7-8.

Quote

It doesn't explicitly say the Nephites had many wives and concubines.

Well, Jacob 2:22 speaks of a "grosser crime," and verse 23 speaks of "committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son."  Verse 24 then speaks of David and Solomon having "had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord."  Verse 26 states that "I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old." 

Question No. 1: What, in your view, is this a reference to, if not "whoredoms" (meaning unauthorized polygamy)?  

Also, verse 26 states that "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."  Verse 27 states that "For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none."  Verse 30 states: "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."

Question No. 2: What, in your view, is being referenced in "I will command my people?"  Command them to do what?

Question No. 3: What, in your view, is being referenced in "otherwise they shall hearken unto this things?"  Hearken unto what?  (I think it's the commandment for monogamy in v. 27.)

Quote

Also the Lord says David and Solomon having many wives and concubines was abominable. 

Again, this is addressed in the FAIR article.  

Again, you are not accounting for Jacob 2:30 and 2 Samuel 12:7-8.

Quote

Thus, The Lord is saying that He did not command any such activity--He did not sanctify nor find it acceptable.  I realize other passages contradict that message...but that's the point.  

I don't think there is a contradiction here.  I think there is a rule (monogamy), with occasional exceptions to that rule (divinely-authorized polygamy).

Allow me to illustrate, by analogy, my perspective: Last week I was helping another attorney in my firm in settlement negotiations.  The key issue is whether our client (the bank's property preservation company) committed a "trespass" on a property in Montana by going onto the property without the owner's permission.  We do not dispute that our client went onto the property, which the opposing attorney is now insisting means that the existence of a "trespass" is a foregone conclusion.

However, case law in Montana defines a civil trespass as occurring when there is “(1) an intentional entry or holdover (2) by the defendant or a thing; (3) without consent or legal right.”  Davis v. Westphal, 2017 MT 276, ¶ 15, 389 Mont. 251, 405 P.3d 73.  We have pointed out to opposing counsel that the mortgage the bank has, which the property owner signed, gives the bank the authority to enter onto the property to preserve it when necessary (such as when it has been left unattended, which is what happened here).  Thus, our client had the "legal right" to enter onto the property per the Davis case, such that there was no trespass.  The opposing attorney keeps insisting that a trespass has occurred, but so far he has refused to respond to our inquiries about the third Davis element for trespass (that the entry onto the land occurred "without consent or legal right").  He is ignoring it.  Over and over again.  He is refusing to discuss its application.  He is refusing to consider it.

With respect, I submit you are taking a similar tack relative to the issue of polygamy.  You are not accounting for Jacob 2:30 and 2 Samuel 12:7-8.  You are ignoring these passages.  You are refusing to address their meaning and application.

Quote

Quote

Their plural wives and concubines were an abomination in that not all of them were approved by the Lord.

Uh..the Lord says David and Solomon's wives and concubines were an abomination. 

In context, the Lord says David and Solomon's unauthorized wives and concubines and concomitant sins (such as David facilitating the murder of Uriah and Solomon having "turned {his} heart away")  were an abomination. 

That, I think, is the main point of the FAIR article.  And you aren't addressing it.

Quote

He says of the Nephites, that they sinned by committed whoredoms and justifying those whoredoms by appealing to the fact that David and Solomon had many wives and concubines.  It does not say that the Nephites' whoredoms were polygamy.  He's reading that into the text.  

I don't think so.  Verses 26-27 is pretty clear ("Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.  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.")

Quote

Quote

Jacob was not just saying that David and Solomon had more than one wife, he says that they truly had “many wives,” as if to say, “there is no question that David and Solomon had many wives.” The fact that the Old Testament strictly forbade the practice of taking many wives for a king (both Solomon and David were kings) leads one to conclude that they were in violation of Torah. The reason why I suggest it as a recitation of Deuteronomy 17:17 is because of the context.

If it is not a recitation, then there is no previous indication that this is an abomination (at least within the scriptures that we have today) and that this would be a new rule. How then could it be retroactively applied to Solomon and David? This ultimately is the point–Jacob was defending the new ‘party line’ on polygamy from the scriptures.

The passage says The Lord saw them having many wives and concubines as abominable. 

Again, in context, the Lord says David and Solomon's unauthorized wives and concubines and concomitant sins (such as David facilitating the murder of Uriah and Solomon having "turned {his} heart away") were "abominable."

Quote

It does not say Jacob was defending the new party line.  Jacob, apparently, was voicing God's words not his own. 

I agree.  Those "words" include plain references to polygamy, and to the idea that polygamy can be authorized by God, but is otherwise prohibited and "abominable."

Quote

I do think that Ben attempted a somewhat clever response here, but it is absolutely assumption and absolutely twisting what is said.  

I disagree.

Quote

Quote

The Book of Mormon account is basing their statements on an interpretation of Mosaic Law to defend a new position on polygamy. The other is trying to understand how and when polygamy can be acceptable to God. One states that the abomination of Solomon and David was in their breaking the commandments in Torah according to the text, and while there are many polygamous figures in the Old Testament, very few “truly had many wives.” I really doubt that the Nephite proponents of polygamy restricted their proof texts to only David and Solomon.

I mean...wow.  We can only surmise the Nephites appealed to David and Solomon because that is all it says.

I don't think we need to surmise.  Verse 23 states: "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."

Quote

I don't know why he's trying to complicate this, other than to try and sound like there is room to reconcile these. 

I invite you to reconsider your position.  I think your presumption about a contradiction is not warranted.

Quote

The BoM isn't claiming to try and defend an interpretation.  It is claiming that the Lord saw and sees David and Solomon taking many wives and concubines as an abomination.  Other passages say God endorsed them taking many wives and concubines

Again, the context matters.  A lot.

Again, you are not accounting for Jacob 2:30 and 2 Samuel 12:7-8.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 26, 2020 by smac97

[InCognitus]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I know the scripture contradict themselves over and over again.  I realize God contradicts Himself to the point of HIs teaching amounting to nonsense. 

SOOO many contradictions.  But if you take the time to understand what's going on, it really all adds up.

[stemelbow]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As the FAIR article notes, "{i}t is very interesting that critics NEVER quote verse 30 {of Jacob 2}."  You do not seem to be addressing it.  More to the point, your position requires that we ignore it.  I don't think that works.

I don't think this is accurate.  See above.  Again, you are not accounting for Jacob 2:30 and 2 Samuel 12:7-8.

Well, Jacob 2:22 speaks of a "grosser crime," and verse 23 speaks of "committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son."  Verse 24 then speaks of David and Solomon having "had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord."  Verse 26 states that "I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old." 

Question No. 1: What, in your view, is this a reference to, if not "whoredoms" (meaning unauthorized polygamy)?

I hope its ok that I skip to this point.  I can see the circle forming in the discussion and having been at this so many times before I know how it'll go if we continue that approach.  The FAIR article starts off by assuming, it seems, polygamy amongst the Nephites.  You seem convinced of it too.  SO let's go here, if you don't mind.

you ask:  

Quote

Question No. 1: What, in your view, is this a reference to, if not "whoredoms" (meaning unauthorized polygamy)?

My answer is whoredoms can be many things.  They need not be limited to polygamy.  Since its not specific I'll leave it to your imagination.  It doesn't really matter to me.  

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Also, verse 26 states that "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."  Verse 27 states that "For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none."  Verse 30 states: "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."

Question No. 2: What, in your view, is being referenced in "I will command my people?"  Command them to do what?

It could be many things.  THat is the problem, as I pointed out many times in this thread, with verse 30.  It could be polygamy.  It could be polygamy accompanied by concubinage.  It could be whoredoms generally.  But since it's not specific enough, we need to not think it means or only means polygamy.  

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Question No. 3: What, in your view, is being referenced in "otherwise they shall hearken unto this things?"  Hearken unto what?  (I think it's the commandment for monogamy in v. 27.)

Again many things.  Verse 27 says the command is one wife and no concubines.  Verse 28 says the command is against whoredoms, which I think we can all agree extends beyond having many wives and perhaps even many concubines.  

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, this is addressed in the FAIR article.  

Again, you are not accounting for Jacob 2:30 and 2 Samuel 12:7-8.

I don't think there is a contradiction here.  I think there is a rule (monogamy), with occasional exceptions to that rule (divinely-authorized polygamy).

You have clearly mistook what the contradiction is.  

I'm going to simplify this at this point.  

Jacob 1:15 references this same issue when it says that the Nephites did "indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many ^awives and ^bconcubines, and also Solomon, his son."

HEre it does not specify that the Nephites had many wives and concubines.  Also here it clearly says David and Solomon desiring many wives and concubines was a wicked practice.  It could very well be that the Nephites desired many wives and concubines but never had many wives or concubines.  There's more to this in chapter 2, of course.

Speaking of the Nephites it says "they seek to excuse themselves in committing ^awhoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.  Behold, David and ^aSolomon truly had many ^bwives and concubines, which thing was ^cabominable before me, saith the Lord."

HEre we are able to get into it.  What are the Nephites condemned for?  The whoredoms they practiced.  They justified those whoredoms by the abominable practice of David and Solomon having many wives and concubines.  It certainly could be that the Nephites committed whoredoms and justified them by appealing to David and Solomon, and those whoredoms did not entail polygamy at all.  The text never says they were polygamists.  IT says they committed whoredoms, and that was what was said to be the iniquity they waxed in.  

Then the lord outlines his commands by saying men should have one wife, and no concubines and that whoredoms are an abomination. He delights in the chastity of women, if not men--and we all know women can be unchaste whether they are involved in polygamy or not.  He says people need to obey his commands or be cursed, or the land will be cursed then he gets to the very verse that is so important to Mormons, but fails to support their contentions:  "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."

What things shall they hearken to?  Well, taking one wife and no concubines nor practicing any whoredoms--all of that was described as his commands  What might God command his people at times?  I mean we could imagine a ton here, based on this.  It suggests He might command whoredoms generally, apparently.  Or concubines.  Or men taking more wives.  It certainly doesn't allow for women having more than one husband as practiced by Joseph Smith and his followers.  But this the problem with this set of passages.  It could mean something other than polygamy.  Or it could mean polygamy coupled with other things, like concubines or whoredoms generally.  But since it could mean more, it certainly need not be limited to only meaning polygamy.  

To get back to the contradiction, that is simply terribly dealt with by FAIR, as I see it, there is no explicit reason to accept that the Nephites practiced polygamy.   David and Solomon had many wives and concubines which was clearly the abomination according to the Lord in Jacob 2.  D&C contradicts that.  It says David and Solomon having many wives was no sin.  The sin was in what they took that God did not give them.  Also note, D&C also suggests God endorses men having many concubines--meaning sex outside of marriage.  I dont' know.  Interesting?  whatever.  Sounds all messed up and silly of course.

FAIR appealing to 2 Samuel doesn't really comment on the contradiction.  It's an attempt to obscure the discussion, clearly.  

FAIR:

Quote

The argument critics use in conjunction with the scriptures you refer to are that David and Solomon were condemned for having plural wives. Not so. What were the wrongdoings of David and Solomon? Was polygamy the sinful act they committed, or was it something else? Obviously, polygamy was accepted by the Lord at times, since many of His prophets participated in the practice. In fact, the Bible says that God gave David his plural wives

It's not a critic's argument to point out that Jacob 2 says explicitly that David and Solomon were condemned for having many wives and concubines.  That's the Lord's point.  To jump to saying "obviously, polygamy was accepted by the Lord at times..." simply obscures the discussion.  It doesn't matter.  Because in Jacob 2 these two fellows were condemned for having many wives and concubines.  Thus, their polygamy wasn't accepted to the Lord.  He say so--I mean in one place he says so.  In another he says the opposite.  

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I hope its ok that I skip to this point.  I can see the circle forming in the discussion and having been at this so many times before I know how it'll go if we continue that approach.  The FAIR article starts off by assuming, it seems, polygamy amongst the Nephites.  You seem convinced of it too.  SO let's go here, if you don't mind.

Okey doke.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

you ask:  

Quote

Question No. 1: What, in your view, is this a reference to, if not "whoredoms" (meaning unauthorized polygamy)?

My answer is whoredoms can be many things.  They need not be limited to polygamy.  Since its not specific I'll leave it to your imagination.  It doesn't really matter to me.  

Sounds like we agree on this point.  The context of Jacob 2 makes it pretty clear that he is referencing polygamy as the "whoredoms" in which some of the Nephites were involved.  That does not mean that polygamy was the *only* form of misconduct ("whoredom") in which they were involved.  To the contrary, the context suggests there was abusive behavior as well.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

Also, verse 26 states that "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."  Verse 27 states that "For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none."  Verse 30 states: "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."

Question No. 2: What, in your view, is being referenced in "I will command my people?"  Command them to do what?

It could be many things. 

Well, not really.  Givent he context established in the preceding verses (v. 26-27), I think it's pretty much impossible to deny that verse 30 is speaking of polygamy.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That is the problem, as I pointed out many times in this thread, with verse 30.  It could be polygamy. 

I think it must be polygamy.  

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It could be polygamy accompanied by concubinage. 

Well, yes.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It could be whoredoms generally. 

I don't think so.  You can only get there (avoid polygamy) by ignoring the context (v. 26-27).

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

But since it's not specific enough, we need to not think it means or only means polygamy.  

I disagree.  I think think your approach is eisegetical, rather than exegetical.  I guess we'll just need to agree to disagree.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

Question No. 3: What, in your view, is being referenced in "otherwise they shall hearken unto this things?"  Hearken unto what?  (I think it's the commandment for monogamy in v. 27.)

Again many things.  Verse 27 says the command is one wife and no concubines.  Verse 28 says the command is against whoredoms, which I think we can all agree extends beyond having many wives and perhaps even many concubines.  

I'm not sure what you are saying.

My position is that God has occasionally commanded polygamy, which is otherwise strictly prohibited.  You seem to dispute this.  I don't understand your position, particularly given the verses that you are not addressing (Jacob 2:30 and 2 Samuel 12:7-8).

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

Again, this is addressed in the FAIR article.  

Again, you are not accounting for Jacob 2:30 and 2 Samuel 12:7-8.

I don't think there is a contradiction here.  I think there is a rule (monogamy), with occasional exceptions to that rule (divinely-authorized polygamy).

You have clearly mistook what the contradiction is.  

I'm going to simplify this at this point.  

Well, okay.  I'm not sure why you are bowing out rather than simply explaining what you see as a "contradiction," but I'll leave you to it.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Speaking of the Nephites it says "they seek to excuse themselves in committing ^awhoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.  Behold, David and ^aSolomon truly had many ^bwives and concubines, which thing was ^cabominable before me, saith the Lord."

Here we are able to get into it.  What are the Nephites condemned for?  The whoredoms they practiced. 

Well, yes.  And given the context, the "whoredoms" involved A) unauthorized polygamy, and, likely, B) other forms of misconduct.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

They justified those whoredoms by the abominable practice of David and Solomon having many wives and concubines. 

Well, no.  Again, you are not accounting for Jacob 2:30 and 2 Samuel 12:7-8.

I get that you want poygamy to be an offense to God in any and all circumstances.  But you can only get there by decontextualizing.  By ignoring scriptures.  I don't think it works.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It certainly could be that the Nephites committed whoredoms and justified them by appealing to David and Solomon, and those whoredoms did not entail polygamy at all. 

I disagree.  I think it is patently unreasonable to exclude polygamy as something under discussion in Jacob 2.  

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The text never says they were polygamists.  It says they committed whoredoms, and that was what was said to be the iniquity they waxed in.  

I think you can only reach this by heavily decontextualizing Jacob 2, and by outright ignoring several provisions of it (v. 23-24, 26-27, 30), and by ignoring other scriptures that address this issue (2 Samuel 12, D&C 132).

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Then the lord outlines his commands by saying men should have one wife, and no concubines and that whoredoms are an abomination.

Yes, that is the general rule.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

He says people need to obey his commands or be cursed, or the land will be cursed then he gets to the very verse that is so important to Mormons, but fails to support their contentions:  "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."

What things shall they hearken to?  Well, taking one wife and no concubines nor practicing any whoredoms--all of that was described as his commands.  What might God command his people at times?  I mean we could imagine a ton here, based on this.  It suggests He might command whoredoms generally, apparently.  Or concubines.  Or men taking more wives.  It certainly doesn't allow for women having more than one husband as practiced by Joseph Smith and his followers.  But this the problem with this set of passages.  It could mean something other than polygamy.  Or it could mean polygamy coupled with other things, like concubines or whoredoms generally.  But since it could mean more, it certainly need not be limited to only meaning polygamy.  

Again, you are heavily relying on decontextualizing Jacob 2 and ignording several portions of it.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

To get back to the contradiction, that is simply terribly dealt with by FAIR, as I see it, there is no explicit reason to accept that the Nephites practiced polygamy.  

You continue to presume that which has yet to be demonstrated.  I don't see a contradiction.  I'm not stupid.  I'm not playing dumb.  I just don't see it.  And you are refusing to explain even what it is.

Also, I think the FAIR article does quite a good job at addressing this issue.

Also, I think it's nigh unto impossible to suggest that the Nephites were not practicing polygamy.  The cotext makes it very clear that they were.

Also, you aren't really presenting argument here.  You are decontextualizing Jacob 2 by, inter alia, not addressing Jacob 2:30 and 2 Samuel 12:7-8.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

David and Solomon had many wives and concubines which was clearly the abomination according to the Lord in Jacob 2. 

Bolstering.  Again, you are not addressing Jacob 2:30 and 2 Samuel 12:7-8.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

D&C contradicts that. 

No, it does not.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It says David and Solomon having many wives was no sin. 

"Having many wives" that were authorized by God "was no sin."

C'mon.  You may as well say "having sex is not sin."  Well, whether it is a sin or not depends on context.  It depends on what God has commanded.  

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The sin was in what they took that God did not give them. 

The sin was in a few things.  Unauthorized polygamy.  Uriah's murder.  Solomon's apostasy.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Also note, D&C also suggests God endorses men having many concubines--meaning sex outside of marriage.  I dont' know.  Interesting?  whatever.  Sounds all messed up and silly of course.

This is not argument.  It's facile ridicule.

From this article:

Quote

A word about concubinage. Concubines were not mistresses or prostitutes, they were lawful wives—usually captive slaves or foreigners—who had legitimacy but not full honor. Their children enjoyed no rights of inheritance. [5] It was a case of social inferiors becoming part of a man’s family.

Concubinage reflected the realities of the ancient world. It was a lesser law for a lesser time. In viewing those times the issue is not what was ideally right or wrong, fair or unfair, but what was workable. If concubinage was a relative evil, it was the lesser of evils; better a concubine than a woman alone, or a harlot. That the Lord justified his servants in having concubines—and he did—is no proof that he viewed the practice as more than a necessary, albeit unfortunate aspect of an imperfect order of things.

The article goes on to address a purported contradiction between Jacob 2 and D&C 132:

Quote

Critics have been quick to point out the apparent contradiction between Jacob’s denunciation of plural wives and concubines (Jacob 2:23–28) and the subsequent defense of both by Joseph Smith (D&C 132:1, 30, 37–39). How can plural marriage be “abominable” in the Book of Mormon and a righteous principle associated with heaven’s highest rewards in the Doctrine and Covenants?
...
David and Solomon. Still, it may be argued, in the Book of Mormon God condemns David and Solomon for having “many wives and concubines” (see Jacob 2:24), while in the Doctrine and Covenants he says, “I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines” (D&C 132:1). How can both statements be true?

The answer, I believe, is that in the Book of Mormon the Lord was speaking specifically of two men who had been cited by the Nephites in defense of their own misbehavior. However, in the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord, speaking generally, alluded to all those polygamists in the Old Testament about whom Joseph had made inquiry, including David and Solomon.

These men were justified in “the principle” of having additional wives given them by authorized servants of God. “Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment” (D&C 132:29). He “received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him” (D&C 132:37). But such was not always the case with David and Solomon. They committed abominations when they took wives not given them by those holding the sealing power. Their sheer excessiveness and their indifference toward the Lord’s duly authorized servants brought them under condemnation.

In Doctrine and Covenants 132, Christ speaks of the “principle and doctrine of [his servants] having many wives and concubines” (v 1). But how many is “many”? Presumably, the prophets cited in verse one had many of each. Yet Abraham had but one wife and two known concubines, and Isaac had but one wife and no concubines insofar as the Old Testament has recorded. Jacob had two wives and two concubines, and Moses had two known wives and no known concubines. [7] David, on the other hand, had a large but unspecified number of wives and concubines. Solomon, as previously noted, had a thousand. Plainly, in referring to “many wives and concubines,” the Lord was speaking of a general principle applying only to those he cited.

nsofar as his ancient servants’ being justified in taking plural wives, the Lord told Joseph Smith: “In nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me” (D&C 132:38). David did not receive Bathsheba from the Lord. His adulterous relationship with her, followed by his murder of her husband, Uriah, cost Israel’s king his exaltation. His lawful wives were forfeited and sealed to another unidentified man (D&C 132:39).

Thus, although Jacob denounced Nephite polygamists in the strongest terms, it is clear that he did not make an absolute statement on the subject for all times and all peoples. He knew that plurality of wives was a divine principle, hence the addendum in Jacob 2:30: “For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.” What “things”? Jacob’s teachings on monogamy. How else would the Lord raise up a more numerous people unto himself save it were by magnifying the monogamous principle of marriage into plurality of wives even as he had done with Abraham? (see Abr 1:2; D&C 132:34). But it was not for the Nephites, or any later individual or group, to presume to expand the principle; the Lord would command. He alone would determine when conditions warranted its introduction and what its manner of implementation would be.

And when he did so, it would not be in a dictum to the world, but to “my people” (Jacob 2:30). They alone, a holy people, would be permitted to perpetuate and expand the doctrine of marriage (whether monogamous or plural) into eternity. For, as stated before, marriage is a celestial talent which can only be retained by celestial men and women. Those who bury it by unworthiness, abuse, or neglect will be saved, but single, worlds without end (see D&C 132:17).

Nor, I believe, will there ever be concubinage again. Those lesser times with their lesser laws are gone forever. 

The entire article is worth a read.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

FAIR appealing to 2 Samuel doesn't really comment on the contradiction.  It's an attempt to obscure the discussion, clearly.  

I guess we'll agree to disagree.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

FAIR:

Quote

The argument critics use in conjunction with the scriptures you refer to are that David and Solomon were condemned for having plural wives. Not so. What were the wrongdoings of David and Solomon? Was polygamy the sinful act they committed, or was it something else? Obviously, polygamy was accepted by the Lord at times, since many of His prophets participated in the practice. In fact, the Bible says that God gave David his plural wives

It's not a critic's argument to point out that Jacob 2 says explicitly that David and Solomon were condemned for having many wives and concubines. 

Yes, it is a critic's argument.  Critics decentextualize.  Critics ignore other relevant scriptures.  

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That's the Lord's point. 

The Lord's point is further explained in the passages you are ignoring.  Jacob 2:30.  2 Samuel 12:7-8.  D&C 132.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

To jump to saying "obviously, polygamy was accepted by the Lord at times..." simply obscures the discussion. 

Nobody is "jumping."  I am reading Jacob 2 in context.  I don't think you are.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It doesn't matter. 

It can matter.  

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Because in Jacob 2 these two fellows were condemned for having many wives and concubines. 

These two fellows were condemned for having many unauthorized wives and concubines. 

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Thus, their polygamy wasn't accepted to the Lord. 

You can only say this by decontextualizing.  By ignoring Jacob 2:30 and 2 Samuel 12:7-8. 

Their unauthorized polygamy wasn't accepted by the Lord. 

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

He say so--I mean in one place he says so.  In another he says the opposite.  

Nope.  That is not the case.  Authorized polygamy is acceptable.  Unauthorized polygamy is sinful.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okey doke.

Sounds like we agree on this point.  The context of Jacob 2 makes it pretty clear that he is referencing polygamy as the "whoredoms" in which some of the Nephites were involved.  That does not mean that polygamy was the *only* form of misconduct ("whoredom") in which they were involved.  To the contrary, the context suggests there was abusive behavior as well.

Nobody, as I've seen, has shown that the Nephites practiced polygamy.  In each case, as the attempts have come, the concept that they practiced polygamy was read into the text.  Can you show otherwise?  As I see it, the context shows they were condemned for whoredoms.  They justified those whoredoms by appealing to David and Solomon's many wives and concubines.  (also to note, it clearly says, unquivocally, that David and Solomon having many wives and concubines was abominable.  It also says these two desiring many wives and concubines was wickedness).  

As I said, if you can show it, then so be it.  A lot of talk and no support.  I've not seen where it says the Nephites practiced polygamy.  It says they used the old practice of taking many wives and concubines by a couple of OT prophets as justification for their whoredoms.  I say it's possible the Nephites took on many wives as part of their whoredoms.  But it never specifically says that.  

I think this point is key to the whole disagreement,  SO I'll await your response.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 26, 2020 by stemelbow

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

Okey doke.

Sounds like we agree on this point.  The context of Jacob 2 makes it pretty clear that he is referencing polygamy as the "whoredoms" in which some of the Nephites were involved.  That does not mean that polygamy was the *only* form of misconduct ("whoredom") in which they were involved.  To the contrary, the context suggests there was abusive behavior as well.

Nobody, as I've seen, has shown that the Nephites practiced polygamy. 

I think it's kind of hard to suggest that they did not.  I'm fairly surprised that you find this to be a point in dispute.

The Church clearly teaches that the Nephites were being condemned for practicing unauthorized polygamy.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Remind students that one way the Nephites were committing sexual sins was by entering into unauthorized plural marriages (see Jacob 1:15).

What does Jacob 1:15 say?  Well... "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."

And here:

Quote

Invite a student to read Jacob 2:27, 30 aloud. Emphasize the following principle: Marriage between one man and one woman is God’s standard unless He commands otherwise. Point out that these verses also include a reason given by the Lord for the practice of plural marriage —to “raise up seed unto [the Lord]” by increasing the number of children born to faithful parents (see also D&C 132:63).

And here:

Quote

Jacob clearly taught that the Lord did not want the Nephites to practice any form of plural marriage. He stated that men were to have only one wife unless the Lord commanded otherwise (see Jacob 2:27–30).

And here:

Quote

The prophet Jacob condemned these Nephites for their unauthorized practice of plural marriage.

And here:

Quote

You may want to point out that one of the sins of the Nephites appears to have been the unauthorized practice of plural marriage.

And so on.

In legal parlance, the case for Nephite polygamy has its prima facie evidence in Jacob 1:15 and Jacob 2 (almost all of it).

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

In each case, as the attempts have come, the concept that they practiced polygamy was read into the text. 

I don't think so.

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Can you show otherwise? 

Again, Jacob 1:15 states "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."

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

As I see it, the context shows they were condemned for whoredoms. 

Which were identified in, inter alia, Jacob 1:15 and in several verses in Jacob 2. 

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

As I said, if you can show it, then so be it.  A lot of talk and no support. 

I reciprocate the sentiment.  You are heavily decontextualizing Jacob 2.  You are ignoring parts of it.  And Jacob 1:15.  And And 2 Samuel 12:7-8.

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I've not seen where it says the Nephites practiced polygamy.  It says they used the old practice of taking many wives and concubines by a couple of OT prophets as justification for their whoredoms.  I say it's possible the Nephites took on many wives as part of their whoredoms.  But it never specifically says that.  

How do you account for Jacob 1:15?

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think this point is key to the whole disagreement,  SO I'll await your response.

Done.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I think it's kind of hard to suggest that they did not.  I'm fairly surprised that you find this to be a point in dispute.

The Church clearly teaches that the Nephites were being condemned for practicing unauthorized polygamy.  See, e.g., here:

What does Jacob 1:15 say?  Well... "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."

And here:

And here:

And here:

And here:

And so on.

In legal parlance, the case for Nephite polygamy has its prima facie evidence in Jacob 1:15 and Jacob 2 (almost all of it).

I don't think so.

Again, Jacob 1:15 states "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."

That's it?  The Nephites desired many wives and concubines like David and Solomon?  That doesn't mean they had many wives and concubines, right?  I mean they could have desired it and that alone was a wicked practice, no?  

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Which were identified in, inter alia, Jacob 1:15 and in several verses in Jacob 2. 

I reciprocate the sentiment.  You are heavily decontextualizing Jacob 2.  You are ignoring parts of it.  And Jacob 1:15.  And And 2 Samuel 12:7-8.

How do you account for Jacob 1:15?

Done.

Thanks,

-Smac

So you offered that passage in Jacob 1:15 as your evidence that Jacob 2:30 is explicitly and exclusively talking about polygamy as that which God will at times command in order to raise up seed unto him?  The commands in Jacob 2:27-28 including men marrying many women, men having many concubines, and whoredoms (that which the Nephites were condemned for).  Jacob 1:15 only says the Nephites desired many wives and concubines and that desire is a wicked practice--Solomon and David were condemned for desiring many wives and concubines, contradicting, of course, other scriptures.  

Why did you ask how I account for Jacob 1:15 when I already addressed it a couple of times in my responses to you.  Are you following along or just kind of regurgitating that which you've been told?  That may sound bad, but I'm confused why it is so obvious you keep ignoring, like to the point of not realizing any point I raise.  

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That's it?  The Nephites desired many wives and concubines like David and Solomon?  That doesn't mean they had many wives and concubines, right?  I mean they could have desired it and that alone was a wicked practice, no?  

Honestly, no.  I think you are not being reasonable.  The Book of Mormon is an ancient text and hence can be somewhat ambiguous, but even so, it is quite clear that the Nephites were practicing polygamy.

You are, of course, at liberty to demand linguistic exactitude along the lines of "The Nephites practiced polygamy!", but you'll be mostly alone in such expectations.

40 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So you offered that passage in Jacob 1:15 as your evidence that Jacob 2:30 is explicitly and exclusively talking about polygamy as that which God will at times command in order to raise up seed unto him? 

Explicitly talking about polygamy?  Yes (and not just Jacob 1:15, since Jacob 2:22-30 are also explicitly about polygamy).  Exclusively talking about polygamy?  No.  I think polygamy was the main problem, but that other "whoredoms" and sinful conduct were in play.

40 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The commands in Jacob 2:27-28 including men marrying many women, men having many concubines, and whoredoms (that which the Nephites were condemned for).  Jacob 1:15 only says the Nephites desired many wives and concubines and that desire is a wicked practice--Solomon and David were condemned for desiring many wives and concubines, contradicting, of course, other scriptures.  

Why did you ask how I account for Jacob 1:15 when I already addressed it a couple of times in my responses to you.  Are you following along or just kind of regurgitating that which you've been told?  That may sound bad, but I'm confused why it is so obvious you keep ignoring, like to the point of not realizing any point I raise.  

I'm not following this thread closely.  You have apparently latched on to an idea that is facially strained, tendentious and unreasonable.  

Jacob 1-2 discuss some Nephites transgressing by entering into unauthorized polygamy.  The text is about as plain and explicit as you can hope to get out of an ancient text.  I'm a big fan of "reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things," but I think you are not being reasonable here. 

Anyhoo, you've said your piece, and I've said mine.  I find your position untenable and your argument unpersuasive, but that's no big deal.  Let's just agree to disagree and move on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Honestly, no.  I think you are not being reasonable.  The Book of Mormon is an ancient text and hence can be somewhat ambiguous, but even so, it is quite clear that the Nephites were practicing polygamy.

You are, of course, at liberty to demand linguistic exactitude along the lines of "The Nephites practiced polygamy!", but you'll be mostly alone in such expectations.

Explicitly talking about polygamy?  Yes (and not just Jacob 1:15, since Jacob 2:22-30 are also explicitly about polygamy).  Exclusively talking about polygamy?  No.  I think polygamy was the main problem, but that other "whoredoms" and sinful conduct were in play.

I'm not following this thread closely.  You have apparently latched on to an idea that is facially strained, tendentious and unreasonable.  

Jacob 1-2 discuss some Nephites transgressing by entering into unauthorized polygamy.  The text is about as plain and explicit as you can hope to get out of an ancient text.  I'm a big fan of "reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things," but I think you are not being reasonable here. 

Anyhoo, you've said your piece, and I've said mine.  I find your position untenable and your argument unpersuasive, but that's no big deal.  Let's just agree to disagree and move on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Interesting.  So far, it appears you haven't been able to support the claim that the Nephites practiced polygamy.  Instead it appears you are sticking with the, "well the context demands they must have so they must have".   Inspecting the context--there is no such requirement.  As reason would have it, it is quite possible that the Nephites practiced whoredoms without practicing polygamy.  It's quite possible in practicing non-polygamy whoredoms they desired many wives and concubines, and yet did not have many wives and concubines.  But as it were, in verse 26, God spoke out.  He said He could not tolerate them doing as old, so he stopped them before their desire for more wives became a reality.  hmm...Makes perfect sense according to the context.   

Next up.  Jacob 2:24 says "Behold, David and ^aSolomon truly had many ^bwives and concubines, which thing was ^cabominable before me, saith the Lord."

Compared to D&C 132:  "^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"

So which is it?  David having many wives and concubines was abominable to God?  Or David did not sin for having many wives or concubines?  

I realize the FAIR piece wants to say that it never really condemned David for having many wives and concubines, wants to blame the women for David and Solomon's sins, and complains about critics for quoting scripture.  But that's not really doing much but obscuring what we have here.   So let's be clear, did the Lord say that having many wives and concubines, as David and Solomon did, was abominable to Him or not?  

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Interesting.  So far, it appears you haven't been able to support the claim that the Nephites practiced polygamy. 

Oh, piffle.  I've cited a number of sources, which you are unilaterally disregarding.  That's your prerogative, but you can't say I haven't "been able to support the claim."

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Instead it appears you are sticking with the, "well the context demands they must have so they must have".  

No, that's not what I'm doing.

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Inspecting the context--there is no such requirement. 

Yes, I think there is.

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

As reason would have it, it is quite possible that the Nephites practiced whoredoms without practicing polygamy. 

I don't think so.

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's quite possible in practicing non-polygamy whoredoms they desired many wives and concubines, and yet did not have many wives and concubines. 

I think that's a strained and tendentious reading of the text.

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

But as it were, in verse 26, God spoke out.  He said He could not tolerate them doing as old, so he stopped them before their desire for more wives became a reality.  hmm...Makes perfect sense according to the context.   

Next up.  Jacob 2:24 says "Behold, David and ^aSolomon truly had many ^bwives and concubines, which thing was ^cabominable before me, saith the Lord."

Compared to D&C 132:  "^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"

So which is it?  David having many wives and concubines was abominable to God?  Or David did not sin for having many wives or concubines?  

It was both.  Some of David's practice of polygamy was authorized, and some was not.

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I realize the FAIR piece wants to say that it never really condemned David for having many wives and concubines, wants to blame the women for David and Solomon's sins, and complains about critics for quoting scripture. 

Sigh.

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

But that's not really doing much but obscuring what we have here.  

I disagree.  I think the FAIR article does a good job of addressing the issue.

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So let's be clear,

Says the guy who's heavily and consistently decontextualizing Jacob 1-2, ignoring key elements of it, ignoring 2 Samuel 12:7-8, and instead resorting to a strained, ad hoc interpretation.

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

did the Lord say that having many wives and concubines, as David and Solomon did, was abominable to Him or not?  

That depends on . . . the context.  It appears that the default is to prohibit polygamy, but to authorize it in some instances.

I'm beginning to understand that yours is very much a fundamentalist position.  That's the lens through which you are looking at this issue.  Context doesn't matter, because everything is always black, or always white.

From the previously quoted article by Rodney Turner:

Quote

The attempt to circumscribe God’s moral sphere of action, to delimit what he can and cannot do, or, as the Prophet Joseph put it, “to set up stakes and set bounds to the works and ways of the Almighty” (TPJS 320), is characteristic of Spiritless men and religions. The very diversity in the natures and conditions of people requires diverse application of the laws and commandments leading to salvation. This means that while certain specific commandments may be binding on one people under a given system of law, they are not necessarily binding on another people subject to a different system of law. [8] For example, the spiritual law of Christ (the gospel) was binding on God’s people from the time of the antediluvian patriarchs to the time of Joseph, while the carnal law of Moses was not imposed on their descendents until a thousand years after the Rood. Not only this, but changing circumstances within a given system may call for the modification or revocation of a former commandment and the introduction of a new one (see for example, D&C 56:3–4).

Such occurred when the doctrine of plural marriage was introduced by Joseph Smith. In a letter written justifying such marriages, he wrote:

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, “Thou shalt not kill;” at another time He said, “Thou shalt utterly destroy.” This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire (TPJS 256).

If we understand the Prophet’s words, we can understand why the Nephites were forbidden to have plural wives and why the early Latter-day Saints were enjoined to do so. The time to “raise up seed unto me” (see Jacob 2:30) came with the Latter-day Saints, not the Nephites. Much of the leadership of the Church has been drawn from just that seed. Many members of the Church today are also products of plural marriage. So the temporary need was met and the commandment suspended. Of course, there are still eternal needs yet to be met, so in due time the Lord will speak again on the subject.

If you think that God is prohibited from authorizing polygamy at some times for some people, and otherwise prohibiting it, then I'll leave you to it.  I fund such a notion way too rigid and doctrinaire, and also unsupportable from a scriptural point of view.  But I respect your right to believe as you wish.

Thanks,

-Smac

[InCognitus]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Interesting.  So far, it appears you haven't been able to support the claim that the Nephites practiced polygamy.  Instead it appears you are sticking with the, "well the context demands they must have so they must have".   Inspecting the context--there is no such requirement.  As reason would have it, it is quite possible that the Nephites practiced whoredoms without practicing polygamy.  It's quite possible in practicing non-polygamy whoredoms they desired many wives and concubines, and yet did not have many wives and concubines.  But as it were, in verse 26, God spoke out.  He said He could not tolerate them doing as old, so he stopped them before their desire for more wives became a reality.  hmm...Makes perfect sense according to the context.   

Next up.  Jacob 2:24 says "Behold, David and ^aSolomon truly had many ^bwives and concubines, which thing was ^cabominable before me, saith the Lord."

Compared to D&C 132:  "^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"

So which is it?  David having many wives and concubines was abominable to God?  Or David did not sin for having many wives or concubines?  

I realize the FAIR piece wants to say that it never really condemned David for having many wives and concubines, wants to blame the women for David and Solomon's sins, and complains about critics for quoting scripture.  But that's not really doing much but obscuring what we have here.   So let's be clear, did the Lord say that having many wives and concubines, as David and Solomon did, was abominable to Him or not?  

This has been addressed ad nauseam in this thread, but you are holding on to a narrow interpretation in order to sustain your arguments.   Good luck with that.

[stemelbow]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Oh, piffle.  I've cited a number of sources, which you are unilaterally disregarding.  That's your prerogative, but you can't say I haven't "been able to support the claim."

No, that's not what I'm doing.

Yes, I think there is.

I don't think so.

I think that's a strained and tendentious reading of the text.

Thanks for responding.  Although I would disagree with most of this.  I don't think you showed any reason to accept the Nephites practiced polygamy.  It appears, as I pointed out many times, they were condemned for whoredoms, and desired many wives and concubines, justified their sins by appealing to David and Solomon, and luckily, for them, anyway, God stopped them from practicing the same sin as David and Solomon which was having wives and concubines.

Quote

It was both.  Some of David's practice of polygamy was authorized, and some was not.

Sure according to the D&C, but According to Jacob 2 not only was David's having many wives and concubines abominable, but his desire to have them was wickedness.  Curious reading Jacob 2, what gives you the impresison that some of David's concubines and wives was acceptable to God?  The text suggests none of it was, as I see it.  Why do you disagree?  

Quote

Sigh.

I disagree.  I think the FAIR article does a good job of addressing the issue.

Says the guy who's heavily and consistently decontextualizing Jacob 1-2, ignoring key elements of it, ignoring 2 Samuel 12:7-8, and instead resorting to a strained, ad hoc interpretation.

I'm confused you haven't really engaged what I"ve said, when I asked for some explicit context to support your contention of Nephites being polygamous you quoted Church publication that read polygamy by the Nephites into the text and offered the desire to have many wives and concubines as proof that they had them.  I don't understand why you keep misunderstanding that which I've been clearly saying, as if you haven't really been following along.  

Quote

That depends on . . . the context.  It appears that the default is to prohibit polygamy, but to authorize it in some instances.

I see.  in spite of what Jacob 2 says, it really just depends on the context.   

Quote

I'm beginning to understand that yours is very much a fundamentalist position. 

Not even a little close, actually.  

Quote

That's the lens through which you are looking at this issue.  Context doesn't matter, because everything is always black, or always white.

about as far from true as you'll get, sadly for you.  

Quote

From the previously quoted article by Rodney Turner:

If you think that God is prohibited from authorizing polygamy at some times for some people, and otherwise prohibiting it, then I'll leave you to it.  I fund such a notion way too rigid and doctrinaire, and also unsupportable from a scriptural point of view.  But I respect your right to believe as you wish.

Thanks,

-Smac

Youv'e misunderstood.  The point is not what I think God would or would not do.  It's about what God apparently has said.  I ask did he say David and Solomon's practice of having many wives was abominable or not?  You say, depends..but that of course, is right after quoting the Lord as saying, "David and ^aSolomon truly had many ^bwives and concubines, which thing was ^cabominable before me"

So it depends on context if God really said what is quoted in Jacob 2?  Ok.  I think what you mean to say is it depends on context as to whether God really meant what he said in Jacob 2.  The context of Jacob 2 suggests, apparently to you, that God didn't really mean David and Solomon having many wives and concubines was abominable.  But, what was abominable, at least for David, was the case of Uriah and his wife--the rest were not abominable at all.  That actually pretty much ruins the story in Jacob 2.  But to each his own, when it comes to reading the contradictory and confused god of scripture.  

Edited May 26, 2020 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

22 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

This has been addressed ad nauseam in this thread, but you are holding on to a narrow interpretation in order to sustain your arguments.   Good luck with that.

I disagree.  The narrow interpretation is had by those who are forcing polygamy upon the Nephites, as explained (that actually defines a narrow definition to a 'T"--assuming the text suggests what you want it to say).  Unfortunately no one seems too eager to dig into it to see that, it appears.  But as I 've said, I get the need to see them as practicing polygamy.  It makes sense people who need to defend polygamy want it true that God commands it, at least sometimes.  

Edited May 26, 2020 by stemelbow

[alter idem]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Nobody, as I've seen, has shown that the Nephites practiced polygamy.  In each case, as the attempts have come, the concept that they practiced polygamy was read into the text.  Can you show otherwise?  As I see it, the context shows they were condemned for whoredoms.  They justified those whoredoms by appealing to David and Solomon's many wives and concubines.  (also to note, it clearly says, unquivocally, that David and Solomon having many wives and concubines was abominable.  It also says these two desiring many wives and concubines was wickedness).  

As I said, if you can show it, then so be it.  A lot of talk and no support.  I've not seen where it says the Nephites practiced polygamy.  It says they used the old practice of taking many wives and concubines by a couple of OT prophets as justification for their whoredoms.  I say it's possible the Nephites took on many wives as part of their whoredoms.  But it never specifically says that.  

I think this point is key to the whole disagreement,  SO I'll await your response.

 

 

 

 

I think it's clearly talking about polygamy as one of the 'whoredoms', because otherwise, why would Jacob specifically bring it up and then give an explanation for it being an abomination when NOT commanded?  The Nephites had several of the Old Testament books of scripture; therefore we know that they were aware of polygamy of David and Solomon and Jacob says they were using it to justify their own taking of multiple wives and concubines (Jacob 2:23)  It's pretty clear.

It's right there in the text that they were indeed practicing a form of polygamy and they used David and Solomon's actions to justify it.

In Jacob 2:23, Jacob calls the men out for commiting whoredoms "because of the things which were written concerning David and Solomon his son." Here he specifically links their 'whoredoms' and iniquity to the actions of David and Solomon.  And what were the things written about them?  That they had many wives and concubines (they were polygamists).  Then Jacob goes on to say in verse 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.'  I don't see how this can be misconstrued at all, it's very clear.  Jacob was calling them out for practicing polygamy and causing much sorrow and mourning, breaking the hearts of their wives and children by this wickedness and abominations by their husbands.  

Hopefully this clears it up for you.

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I think it's clearly talking about polygamy as one of the 'whoredoms', because otherwise, why would Jacob specifically bring it up and then give an explanation for it being an abomination when NOT commanded?  The Nephites had several of the Old Testament books of scripture; therefore we know that they were aware of polygamy of David and Solomon and Jacob says they were using it to justify their own taking of multiple wives and concubines (Jacob 2:23)  It's pretty clear.

It's right there in the text that they were indeed practicing a form of polygamy and they used David and Solomon's actions to justify it.

In Jacob 2:23, Jacob calls the men out for commiting whoredoms "because of the things which were written concerning David and Solomon his son." Here he specifically links their 'whoredoms' and iniquity to the actions of David and Solomon.  And what were the things written about them?  That they had many wives and concubines (they were polygamists).  Then Jacob goes on to say in verse 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.'  I don't see how this can be misconstrued at all, it's very clear.  Jacob was calling them out for practicing polygamy and causing much sorrow and mourning, breaking the hearts of their wives and children by this wickedness and abominations by their husbands.  

Hopefully this clears it up for you.

Thanks for commenting alter idem.  It doesn't appear you've read or addressed any of my points pertaining to these passages.  It takes a bit more reading from your scriptures to get the whole of what is being said. In chapter 1 verse 15 the Nephites are said to be committing wickedness by desiring to have many wives and concubines just as david and solomon were wicked for so desiring.  Then later in chapter 2the nephites are condemned for their whoredoms, justifying those whoredoms by appealing to the practice of solomon and david having many wives and concubines.  

It's quite possible that the nephites committed whoredoms but did not practice polygamy.  The text never says they did.  Therefore there's no reason to read such a narrow view into the text.  We have to be more open and honest and take the text more seriously if we want it to really be meaningful.  

My point in the whole is not that the nephites weren't practicing polygamy but that the text leaves room to the notion that the nephites were practicing whoredoms that did not include polygamy.  God even puts a stop to their desire for many wives and concubines, pointed out in verse 26, 27 and 28.  He would not tolerate them taking their whoredoms to the level of david and solomon.  Womens chastity, apparently,  is too important to Him for that.   

Verse 30, doesn't explicitly say polygamy either.  It can mean many things considering the context.  These passages only support polygamy to those who want or need a defense of polygamy.  It's also quite silly to say God needs polygamy to raise up seed to him.  He can do so without that abominable(his word) practice.