Article by Benjamin E. Park Re: Dc 132

[alter idem]

22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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.  

Thanks, and I appreciate the work you put into your posts. I did read your explanations, but to me, as I explained, a straight reading of the text, to me is that they were practicing polygamy and they were justifying it by what they knew of David and Solomon in the Old Testament.  I agree that Jacob was calling out other 'iniquity' of a sexual nature besides just polygamy.  There's lots of things they could have been doing that was causing such misery for their wives and children.

 

I can't agree with you that it's silly that God needs polygamy to raise up seed.  That's what it says.  The Book of Mormon is the most correct book, so I'll take that at face value.

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, alter idem said:

Thanks, and I appreciate the work you put into your posts. I did read your explanations, but to me, as I explained, a straight reading of the text, to me is that they were practicing polygamy and they were justifying it by what they knew of David and Solomon in the Old Testament.  I agree that Jacob was calling out other 'iniquity' of a sexual nature besides just polygamy.  There's lots of things they could have been doing that was causing such misery for their wives and children.

 

I can't agree with you that it's silly that God needs polygamy to raise up seed.  That's what it says.  The Book of Mormon is the most correct book, so I'll take that at face value.

Ok.  Have a good one

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, alter idem said:

Hopefully this clears it up for you.

Hope springs eternal ...

[smac97]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

The text is fairly explicit.  The Church teaches it.  

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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.

So in your view, their "whoredoms" consisted of thinking about ("desiring") polygamy, but not actually practicing it?

I don't think that works.

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

I don't think you are accurately summarizing things here.

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Curious reading Jacob 2, what gives you the impresison that some of David's concubines and wives was acceptable to God? 

Context.  I'm not reading Jacob 2 in isolation.  I'm reading it inthe context of Jacob 1, and 2 Samuel 12, and D&C 132.

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

The text suggests none of it was, as I see it. 

"As I see it" being the operative phrase here.

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Why do you disagree?  

Again, because I am reading Jacob 2 in context.  I don't think you are.  I am attempting an exegesis, and you seem to be attempting an eisegesis.

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

Jacob 1-2 are pretty explicit about the "Nephites being polygamous."

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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

Not "in spite of."  That's your thing.  I'm reading the entirety of Jacob 2.  And Jacob 1.  And D&C 132.  And 2 Samuel 12.

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Youv'e misunderstood. 

Thay may indicate something about the overall incoherence of your position.  

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

The point is not what I think God would or would not do. 

Actually, I think that's just about precisely what your position is about.  It's about your hostility toward polygamy, and your attempt to read that hostility into Jacob 1-2, 2 Samuel 12, and D&C 132.

I'm not a fan of polygamy, TBH.  I struggle with it.  But I'm not about to deny its scriptural provenance.

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It's about what God apparently has said. 

Indeed.  

3 hours ago, stemelbow 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"

Yes.  That you cannot accommodate an "it depends" response to your inquiry rather strongly indicates a doctrinaire, fundamentalist outlook on your part.

A non-fundamentalist approach to polygamy is that God condemns unauthorized polygamy, but that there are times when he authorizes/commands it.  

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

So it depends on context if God really said what is quoted in Jacob 2? 

I don't understand this.

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I think what you mean to say is it depends on context as to whether God really meant what he said in Jacob 2. 

No, I don't mean that.  

Contextually, the scriptures indicate quite clearly that polygamy is prohibited unless authorized.  

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

No, that is not correct.

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

But, what was abominable, at least for David, was the case of Uriah and his wife--the rest were not abominable at all. 

Again, you are decontextualizing.  You are ignoring Jacob 2:30.  You are ignoring 2 Samuel 12:8.  You are ignoring D&C 132 (particularly v. 39).

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

That actually pretty much ruins the story in Jacob 2. 

Only for a doctrinaire, black-and-white-thinking fundamentalist.

I think most folks understand that God can and does command different people to do different things at different times.

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

But to each his own, when it comes to reading the contradictory and confused god of scripture.  

Again, the only contradictions and confusion are amongst those with a doctrinaire, fundamentalist mindset.  The rest of us manage to do just fine.

Thanks,

-Smac

[alter idem]

18 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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.  

While there is a remote possibility that the Nephites were simply 'desiring' to practice polygamy (Jacob 1:15),  we know that later in the text, Jacob condemns them for their whoredoms which they justified 'because of the things which were written' about David and Solomon (Jacob 2:23).  This has been interpreted pretty solidly that they were doing it and they were 'desiring'  the church sanction of their polygamy.   Jacob did not give them the church sanction, he explained to them that God must command it, or it is an abomination.  The wording of Jacob's response is pretty obvious that He, the prophet,  prayed for revelation on this (and he received it, it is Jacob 2:24-26,28-33, notice the wording, it is clearly the Lord speaking, and the wording is similar to the revelations found in Doctrine and covenants when the Lord speaks to his prophet), and that is why Jacob addressed the people and called them out, and Mormon felt it was important enough to include this revelation in the record, so we would have this clear explanation of when polygamy may be practiced and how it is an abomination otherwise, before the Lord.  Because of the record, and how we can see that Jacob was concerned about the practice and received a revelation on it, to me, your supposing that the Nephites never acted on their desires is unlikely, though you are free to believe it, but I'm sure you'll get flack from most everyone else.   I agree that 'whoredoms' involved more than just polygamy, if they were doing that and trying to justify it, they were probably doing other stuff as well.

To sum up my position;  The Nephites were most likely practicing polygamy.  What they 'desired' was the church's sanction of their polygamy.  Jacob shot that down with the revelation he received in which the Lord condemns the practice, and explains the very rare times that it is allowed. 

This is my opinion only, but the Lord also points out that while David and Solomon may have been 'given' wives through the prophet, and they felt justified, their behavior displeased the Lord, probably, because their were not good 'stewards' in this practice. I'm sure there was a lot of misery and cries from their wives and children that the Lord had to listen to and he saw them treated like chattel, ignored when they were no longer attractive or useful to their husbands and I'm certain that displeased him also.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, alter idem said:

Jacob condemns them for their whoredoms which they justified 'because of the things which were written' about David and Solomon (Jacob 2:23).  This has been interpreted pretty solidly that they were doing it and they were 'desiring'  the church sanction of their polygamy.   Jacob did not give them the church sanction, he explained to them that God must command it, or it is an abomination. 

Which shows the main issue.  If they were using David and Solomon as examples of polygamy they were starting wrong.
Abraham and Jacob would have been far better choices and were equally well known. 

In fact for me that is the crux of the Jacob 2 argument.  Despite a literal interpretation of vs 24 it's clear from the reference to David and Solomon INSTEAD of Abraham and Jacob that the sin was not polygamy itself.
It's a reference to kings, political polygamy which included concubines and the "leading away captive".
Not to priesthood, the polygamy of the Patriarchs, the eternal marriage polygamy that was restored through Joseph Smith.

[OGHoosier]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Which shows the main issue.  If they were using David and Solomon as examples of polygamy they were starting wrong.
Abraham and Jacob would have been far better choices and were equally well known. 

In fact for me that is the crux of the Jacob 2 argument.  Despite a literal interpretation of vs 24 it's clear from the reference to David and Solomon INSTEAD of Abraham and Jacob that the sin was not polygamy itself.
It's a reference to kings, political polygamy which included concubines and the "leading away captive".
Not to priesthood, the polygamy of the Patriarchs, the eternal marriage polygamy that was restored through Joseph Smith.

Interesting point! That actually makes some sense. The Nephite wickedness is introduced in Jacob 1:15 as occurring under the reign of the second king, which could be a coincidence or simple time-stamp but could also signal a connection between that king and and the outbreak of the Nephite iniquity. It helps that Jacob 2 correlates with Deuteronomy 17:17, one of the commandments for kings in the Mosaic code, and half of Jacob's sermon focuses on the wanton acquisition of wealth and pride. Jacob might be speaking to King Nephi II here. 

[stemelbow]

On 5/26/2020 at 7:59 PM, smac97 said:

Context.  I'm not reading Jacob 2 in isolation.  I'm reading it inthe context of Jacob 1, and 2 Samuel 12, and D&C 132.

Yes, that's been my point.  If you read Jacob 2 assuming what need be read into it, you'll come out with your assumptions read into the text.  

The rest of your post, seems to be the same repeated statements, so I'll leave it as it is.  

[stemelbow]

On 5/27/2020 at 1:25 PM, alter idem said:

While there is a remote possibility that the Nephites were simply 'desiring' to practice polygamy (Jacob 1:15),  we know that later in the text, Jacob condemns them for their whoredoms which they justified 'because of the things which were written' about David and Solomon (Jacob 2:23).  This has been interpreted pretty solidly that they were doing it and they were 'desiring'  the church sanction of their polygamy.   Jacob did not give them the church sanction, he explained to them that God must command it, or it is an abomination.  The wording of Jacob's response is pretty obvious that He, the prophet,  prayed for revelation on this (and he received it, it is Jacob 2:24-26,28-33, notice the wording, it is clearly the Lord speaking, and the wording is similar to the revelations found in Doctrine and covenants when the Lord speaks to his prophet), and that is why Jacob addressed the people and called them out, and Mormon felt it was important enough to include this revelation in the record, so we would have this clear explanation of when polygamy may be practiced and how it is an abomination otherwise, before the Lord.  Because of the record, and how we can see that Jacob was concerned about the practice and received a revelation on it, to me, your supposing that the Nephites never acted on their desires is unlikely, though you are free to believe it, but I'm sure you'll get flack from most everyone else.   I agree that 'whoredoms' involved more than just polygamy, if they were doing that and trying to justify it, they were probably doing other stuff as well.

To sum up my position;  The Nephites were most likely practicing polygamy.  What they 'desired' was the church's sanction of their polygamy.  Jacob shot that down with the revelation he received in which the Lord condemns the practice, and explains the very rare times that it is allowed. 

This is my opinion only, but the Lord also points out that while David and Solomon may have been 'given' wives through the prophet, and they felt justified, their behavior displeased the Lord, probably, because their were not good 'stewards' in this practice. I'm sure there was a lot of misery and cries from their wives and children that the Lord had to listen to and he saw them treated like chattel, ignored when they were no longer attractive or useful to their husbands and I'm certain that displeased him also.

 But I agree, there is a possibility that the Nephites didn't practice polygamy, just as there is the possibility they did, assuming, of course, they even existed.  If there is the possibility that they did not practice polygamy, committing whoredoms based on their justifications appealing to David and Solomon having not only many wives, of course, but many concubines, then I see no reason to read into the text that they must have been polygamists.  Its just as likely that they were committing whoredoms.  Considering this is Lehi's son, in the very near distance of Lehi, then I can see that their whoredoms were taking them close to their desire of being open polygamists on concubiners (I made that word up).  

[stemelbow]

23 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Which shows the main issue.  If they were using David and Solomon as examples of polygamy they were starting wrong.
Abraham and Jacob would have been far better choices and were equally well known. 

In fact for me that is the crux of the Jacob 2 argument.  Despite a literal interpretation of vs 24 it's clear from the reference to David and Solomon INSTEAD of Abraham and Jacob that the sin was not polygamy itself.
It's a reference to kings, political polygamy which included concubines and the "leading away captive".
Not to priesthood, the polygamy of the Patriarchs, the eternal marriage polygamy that was restored through Joseph Smith.

IT could be a lot of things, like, them being very fond of and familiar with David and Solomon and not so much with Abraham and Jacob.  Did Abraham and Jacob have concubines?  I'd wonder if they could use these two for their whoredoms because they didn't have concubines?  Or because they didn't multiple their wives and concubines to the extent that David and Solomon did.  

[smac97]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

Context.  I'm not reading Jacob 2 in isolation.  I'm reading it in the context of Jacob 1, and 2 Samuel 12, and D&C 132.

Yes, that's been my point. 

No, I don't think so.  

Quote

If you read Jacob 2 assuming what need be read into it, you'll come out with your assumptions read into the text.  

With respect, I disagree.  Reading Jacob 2 "in context" is not equivalent to reading it "assuming what need{s} be read into it."

Quote

The rest of your post, seems to be the same repeated statements, so I'll leave it as it is.  

I'm glad.  We've both had our say.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 29, 2020 by smac97

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

 But I agree, there is a possibility that the Nephites didn't practice polygamy, just as there is the possibility they did, assuming, of course, they even existed.  If there is the possibility that they did not practice polygamy, committing whoredoms based on their justifications appealing to David and Solomon having not only many wives, of course, but many concubines, then I see no reason to read into the text that they must have been polygamists.  Its just as likely that they were committing whoredoms.  Considering this is Lehi's son, in the very near distance of Lehi, then I can see that their whoredoms were taking them close to their desire of being open polygamists on concubiners (I made that word up).  

In My humble opinion you are reaching for your conclusions.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

IT could be a lot of things, like, them being very fond of and familiar with David and Solomon and not so much with Abraham and Jacob.  Did Abraham and Jacob have concubines?  I'd wonder if they could use these two for their whoredoms because they didn't have concubines?  Or because they didn't multiple their wives and concubines to the extent that David and Solomon did.  

I don't think you're looking at their culture in context.

[Hamba Tuhan]

36 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't think you're looking at their culture in context.

I suspect it is difficult to seriously consider the cultural context of a people one believes never to have existed.

Edited May 29, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[stemelbow]

50 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't think you're looking at their culture in context.

I don't thin abraham is their context.  Indeed that is reading into the text.  

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

In My humble opinion you are reaching for your conclusions.

I do believe you misunderstand, but that's how it goes.  Certainly it is not explicitly said that the nephites practiced polygamy.  That is assumed.  It could very well be that they were about to expand their whoredoms to practicing polygamy.  

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

No, I don't think so.  

With respect, I disagree.  Reading Jacob 2 "in context" is not equivalent to reading it "assuming what need{s} be read into it."

That doesn't make much sense.  You said: "Context.  I'm not reading Jacob 2 in isolation.  I'm reading it inthe context of Jacob 1, and 2 Samuel 12, and D&C 132."

That's been my point.  You seemed to have misunderstood my point.  You are reading into the context of Jacob, 2 Samuel and D&C 132.  It makes sense why you are reaching your conclusions based on reading those into Jacob.  

 

 

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm glad.  We've both had our say.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[stemelbow]

I"m pretty surprised by the pushback, even though I shouldn't be.  Of course Mormons want to see polygamy as sanctioned by God.  Why of course.  But the plain reading of the text actually adds some complexity to what the text is and thus gives the BoM that element it needs to survive as something authentic--complexity.  If, for instance, Joseph made up the book, it would be less likely he'd add this level of complexity--suggesting the Nephites practiced whoredoms while appealing to David and Solomons many whoredoms via their many wives and concubines, while not suggesting the Nephites themselves had wives nor concubines, per se.  Of course we don't really know what they thought concubines were, and it all seems a bit silly in the sense that they don't know David and Solomon other than through stories told them, most likely (since the masses were unlikely to be able to read themselves).  And we wouldn't really know what their brass plates would have said about David and Solomon.  This gives a small hint, though--they were aware David and Solomon were practicing whoredoms with their many wives and concubines.  

Of course, this all plainly shows God is contradictory, when read in light of other scriptures.  But if Joseph was attempting to be thorough in his trickery, then that too might expose him--or lend thinkers in that direction.  

[smac97]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I"m pretty surprised by the pushback, even though I shouldn't be.  Of course Mormons want to see polygamy as sanctioned by God.  Why of course. 

I don't think this is an accurate characterization.  Few Latter-day Saints are fans of polygamy.  It is, for most, a very difficult doctrine to accept.  Nevertheless, the scriptures make it clear that plural marriage is, sometimes, "sanctioned by God."  

Quote

But the plain reading of the text actually adds some complexity to what the text is and thus gives the BoM that element it needs to survive as something authentic--complexity. 

A "plain reading" of Jacob 2 is that the Nephites engaged in unauthorized polygamy.

A "plain reading" of Jacob 2:30 is that God sometimes authorizes/commands polygamy, a point buttressed by other scriptural provisions (2 Samuel 12, D&C 132).

Of the two readings, the generally-understood one (the Nephites were practicing unauthorized polygamy, such that they were condemned by Jacob) versus yours (that the Nephites were only thinking about practicing polygamy), I think the former is eminently more plausible.

Quote

If, for instance, Joseph made up the book, it would be less likely he'd add this level of complexity--suggesting the Nephites practiced whoredoms while appealing to David and Solomons many whoredoms via their many wives and concubines, while not suggesting the Nephites themselves had wives nor concubines, per se. 

I think few people read Jacob 2 with an eye towards it being evidence that Joseph was not the author.  Authorship is more of a threshold issue.  A presumption that establishes one's overall approach to the text.

Quote

Of course we don't really know what they thought concubines were,

I think we can make some very good educated surmises about it.  Jacob was, after all, born in the Old World, was the son of Lehi, and was likely well versed in the history of his people's history.

Quote

and it all seems a bit silly in the sense that they don't know David and Solomon other than through stories told them, most likely (since the masses were unlikely to be able to read themselves). 

And yet Jacob notes, in his condemnation of the Nephites' behavior: "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."  (Jacob 2:23.)

"They seek to excuse themselves ... because of the things which were written..."

Quote

And we wouldn't really know what their brass plates would have said about David and Solomon. 

Well, we know the brass plates contained "a record of the Jews from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah" (1 Nephi 5:12).

David and Solomon were not exactly minor players in the history of Israel.  

Quote

Of course, this all plainly shows God is contradictory, when read in light of other scriptures. 

No, it doesn't.

😁

Quote

But if Joseph was attempting to be thorough in his trickery, then that too might expose him--or lend thinkers in that direction.  

This is too clever by half, I think.

If Joseph was the author, then none of what you've said matters a whit.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 29, 2020 by smac97

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think this is an accurate characterization.  Few Latter-day Saints are fans of polygamy.  It is, for most, a very difficult doctrine to accept.  Nevertheless, the scriptures make it clear that plural marriage is, sometimes, "sanctioned by God."  

A "plain reading" of Jacob 2 is that the Nephites engaged in unauthorized polygamy.

A "plain reading" of Jacob 2:30 is that God sometimes authorizes/commands polygamy, a point buttressed by other scriptural provisions (2 Samuel 12, D&C 132).

Of the two readings, the generally-understood one (the Nephites were practicing unauthorized polygamy, such that they were condemned by Jacob) versus yours (that the Nephites were only thinking about practicing polygamy), I think the former is eminently more plausible.

I think few people read Jacob 2 with an eye towards it being evidence that Joseph was not the author.  Authorship is more of a threshold issue.  A presumption that establishes one's overall approach to the text.

I think we can make some very good educated surmises about it.  Jacob was, after all, born in the Old World, was the son of Lehi, and was likely well versed in the history of his people's history.

And yet Jacob notes, in his condemnation of the Nephites' behavior: "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."  (Jacob 2:23.)

"They seek to excuse themselves ... because of the things which were written..."

Well, we know the brass plates contained "a record of the Jews from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah" (1 Nephi 5:12).

David and Solomon were not exactly minor players in the history of Israel.  

No, it doesn't.

😁

This is too clever by half, I think.

If Joseph was the author, then none of what you've said matters a whit.

Thanks,

-Smac

For a minute, lets assume Joseph was the author.  If Joseph at a young age (like 22-23) writing pretended scripture and had a design to be a polygamist, you would think he would be very explicit about the Nephites polygamy, and you would think he would not have God saying "David and ^aSolomon truly had many ^bwives and concubines, which thing was ^cabominable before me".  By that, we may need to conclude that Joseph did not, at the very least, have designs to be a polygamist.  

If Joseph wrote it and was not planning to be a polygamist, as young married fellow...you would think he would add a condemnation on men taking many wives (which is there).  You would expect it to include a condemnation on whoredoms and many wives and concubines (check).  You would expect him to include a story, if broaching the subject, of ancient people explicitly practicing polygamy and God condemning them for it (not check, due to the complication as read in context).  Since that is not the case, we can safely say this complication should help anyone who wants to take the Joseph didn't write it approach.  But that's not what we see.  

If Joseph wrote it, you would not expect to see a story where in the people were practicing whoredoms and justifying those whoredoms by appealing to two well-known libidinous OT players.  The desiring to have many wives growing to outright whoredoms, to God saying he will not tolerate these people to have multiple wives--putting stop to such designs (found in verse 27).  Here then we see perfectly a supportive story suggesting Joseph didn't write it.  But, instead of taking the plain reading of the text, instead of accepting the context, we have Mormons arguing something strange, based on them reading things like 2 Sam and D&C 132 into the story.  

With that said, the story becomes more interesting when read in context.  Of course reading verse 30 as Mormons typically do, ruins it all, for all sides.   Many wives, many concubines and whoredoms are not necessary at all for God to raise up seed unto him.  Not all of those things combined, and not any one of them, individually (recall Mormons are want to throw out the condemnation on whoredoms and many concubines so they can pretend verse 30 is only talking about men marrying many wives).  It's made verse 30 into a nonsensical teaching--used only in the light of God needing something in hopes to save face for their history.  One would hope, if they wanted the BoM to be truly scripture from God, that verse 30 would be less useful and less emphasized. 

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

For a minute, lets assume Joseph was the author. 

Okay.  In that minute, none of what we've been discussing matters at all.  There were no Nephites, so whether they were actually practicing polygamy or only - as you would have - thinking about it does not matter.  

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If Joseph at a young age (like 22-23) writing pretended scripture and had a design to be a polygamist, you would think he would be very explicit about the Nephites polygamy, and you would think he would not have God saying "David and ^aSolomon truly had many ^bwives and concubines, which thing was ^cabominable before me".  By that, we may need to conclude that Joseph did not, at the very least, have designs to be a polygamist.

Joseph at 22-23 would put him at 1827-1828.  He purportedly "contracted his first plural marriage in 1835 or 1836 in Kirtland, Ohio, with Fanny Alger."

8-9 years seems like a pretty long con.

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If Joseph wrote it and was not planning to be a polygamist, as young married fellow...you would think he would add a condemnation on men taking many wives (which is there).

There is no evidence that Joseph Smith had any thoughts about polygamy when he wsa 22-23.  If you are claiming otherwise, then CFR.

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You would expect it to include a condemnation on whoredoms and many wives and concubines (check).  You would expect him to include a story, if broaching the subject, of ancient people explicitly practicing polygamy and God condemning them for it (not check, due to the complication as read in context).  Since that is not the case, we can safely say this complication should help anyone who wants to take the Joseph didn't write it approach.  But that's not what we see.  

Again, I don't think anybody is taking a "What can we glean from Jacob 2 as evidence of Joseph Smith's views on polygamy when he was 22-23."

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If Joseph wrote it, you would not expect to see a story where in the people were practicing whoredoms and justifying those whoredoms by appealing to two well-known libidinous OT players. 

This is a pretty massive non sequitur.

You have presented no basis for postulating anything about Joseph's views on polygamy when he was 22-23.

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The desiring to have many wives growing to outright whoredoms, to God saying he will not tolerate these people to have multiple wives--putting stop to such designs (found in verse 27). 

And yet there's the caveat in verse 30, which you are studiously ignoring.

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Here then we see perfectly a supportive story suggesting Joseph didn't write it. 

No, we don't.

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

But, instead of taking the plain reading of the text, instead of accepting the context, we have Mormons arguing something strange, based on them reading things like 2 Sam and D&C 132 into the story.  

And the entirety of Jacob 2.  And Jacob 1.

Your doctrinaire/fundamentalist/prooftexting approach doesn't work.  Trying to scold others for reading Jacob 2 in context doesn't work, either.

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

With that said, the story becomes more interesting when read in context. 

Says the guy who has spent many posts ignoring context, importing sheer speculation and guesswork into the text, etc.

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Of course reading verse 30 as Mormons typically do, ruins it all, for all sides.  

I don't understand what this means.

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Many wives, many concubines and whoredoms are not necessary at all for God to raise up seed unto him. 

That's an unsubstantiated assertion.  I reject it.  You've provided no basis for it.  And it contravenes both the text and context of the scriptures in question (Jacob 1-2, 2 Samuel 12, D&C 132).

And above all that, it doesn't made sense in a prima facie sort of way.

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Not all of those things combined, and not any one of them, individually (recall Mormons are want to throw out the condemnation on whoredoms and many concubines so they can pretend verse 30 is only talking about men marrying many wives).

Not so.  Our position is that polygamy is prohibited generally, but in some instances is authorized/commanded by God.

No need to throw anything out.

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's made verse 30 into a nonsensical teaching--used only in the light of God needing something in hopes to save face for their history. 

Not so.  Verse 30 is pretty easy to understand, particularly when contextualized (as you are trying so hard to avoid).

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

One would hope, if they wanted the BoM to be truly scripture from God, that verse 30 would be less useful and less emphasized. 

Verse 30 is quite helpful in clarifying the Lord's will regarding plural marriage.

Thanks,

-Sac

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  In that minute, none of what we've been discussing matters at all.  There were no Nephites, so whether they were actually practicing polygamy or only - as you would have - thinking about it does not matter.  

Joseph at 22-23 would put him at 1827-1828.  He purportedly "contracted his first plural marriage in 1835 or 1836 in Kirtland, Ohio, with Fanny Alger."

Oops.  Bad math.  Joseph turned 22 the last week of 1827.  He was 22 during the years 1828 and 23 during the year 1829.  Hope that helps.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

8-9 years seems like a pretty long con.

There is no evidence that Joseph Smith had any thoughts about polygamy when he wsa 22-23.  If you are claiming otherwise, then CFR.

Again, I don't think anybody is taking a "What can we glean from Jacob 2 as evidence of Joseph Smith's views on polygamy when he was 22-23."

This is a pretty massive non sequitur.

You have presented no basis for postulating anything about Joseph's views on polygamy when he was 22-23.

And yet there's the caveat in verse 30, which you are studiously ignoring.

No, we don't.

What do you mean?  Are you now saying Joseph wrote it?  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

And the entirety of Jacob 2.  And Jacob 1.

Your doctrinaire/fundamentalist/prooftexting approach doesn't work.  Trying to scold others for reading Jacob 2 in context doesn't work, either.

Says the guy who has spent many posts ignoring context, importing sheer speculation and guesswork into the text, etc.

I haven't ignored the context, but of course I"m not defining the context of Jacob 2 as including 2 Sam and D&C 132.  It does stand on its own, as I see it.  I know you disagree, but I can't help the weird way you view how to read in context.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand what this means.

That's an unsubstantiated assertion.  I reject it. 

Ok.  So you actually think God can only raise up seed to himself if he institutes polygamy, concubinage and whoredoms?  That'd be weird.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

You've provided no basis for it.  And it contravenes both the text and context of the scriptures in question (Jacob 1-2, 2 Samuel 12, D&C 132).

And above all that, it doesn't made sense in a prima facie sort of way.

Not so.  Our position is that polygamy is prohibited generally, but in some instances is authorized/commanded by God.

No need to throw anything out.

Not so.  Verse 30 is pretty easy to understand, particularly when contextualized (as you are trying so hard to avoid).

Verse 30 is quite helpful in clarifying the Lord's will regarding plural marriage.

Thanks,

-Sac

Thanks for deciding not to consider and then ranting in response.  At least I tried.  Have a good one.  

[nuclearfuels]

On ‎5‎/‎14‎/‎2020 at 3:15 PM, smac97 said:

Thoughts?

Sophistry is my general thought of the article.

Interesting how the author and many who also write about UT politics don't always cite the Church's incredibly forward-thinking when they organized the sister wives and encouraged them to fight for women's right to vote.

Since I support polygamy being legalized globally and reinstituted by the Church though, I might not be the best one to ask.

I imagine Church Leaders understand that as the last days progress, as more signs and wars and plagues come forth, giving Heavenly Father's spirit children bodies - in families that have been sealed in the Temple - will become increasingly difficult. Hence, more immigration and/or more plural marriages

[Hamba Tuhan]

39 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

... giving Heavenly Father's spirit children bodies - in families that have been sealed in the Temple - will become increasingly difficult. Hence, more immigration ...

Because being raised in a family that has been sealed in the temple can only happen in certain nations that people will need migrate to?

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Because being raised in a family that has been sealed in the temple can only happen in certain nations that people will need migrate to?

Given the continuing spread of temples, it seems the opposite is becoming more common, not less.