New Article Marking 25 Years Since Family Proclamation

[Robert F. Smith]

56 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Gay marriage in Canada didn't undo no gay marriage in Canada. I know non members who get married who have kids. I think reluctance to get married has always been around. People have kids whether they were planned or not

The statistics do not support these notions.

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I understand what you are saying, but these attitudes are well-known among women.  It is a fact that women are just not as likely to marry a man who is not a good earner.  What is she to do when she gets pregnant and has a child, and needs to take some time off of work?  These considerations make a woman hesitate to marry until at least her mid-thirties, and then the prospects are not as good, and pregnancy tends to be less likely.  Time is a huge factor.

There are a lot of happy couples that start out dirt poor and some even say those were the best years.

[Ahab]

18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It has been 25 years since “The Family: a Proclamation to the World.” The Church has released insightful content marking this occasion. 
 

I think it impressive that the Church has not backed down from any of the precepts in the proclamation, notwithstanding some rather dramatic changes in the political and societal landscape over the past 25 years. 
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2020/09/seeing-yourself-in-the-family-proclamation?lang=eng&fbclid=IwAR3Dx2L968S0dePH_2JLTWf29xw5Z_ADcnACSEmkXYOJGdxyMZn9gsEmeR0

Nice article from this month's Liahona.  I particularly like the point about how all of us are in the same family with our Father in heaven whether or not we have or will ever have another family of our own, with us as a parent of that other family.

I can already forsee that I will always enjoy having my/our Father in heaven to learn from as I try to be as good of a Father as him.

Edited September 24, 2020 by Ahab

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Are you suggesting the church is inspired because it hasn't changed it's position on something in 25 years?  (although both Duncan and Calm point out something has changed).  

Of course there was a time when the divine celestial order of marriage, on the Church's position, was polygamy.  That changed, of course, as the Church was forced to change by "the world".  With this celebrating post one must wonder when the next "revelation" comes as "the world" forces the Church to change again and what that will mean.  The Church seems to have always been in the position of being right until it is shown by others it is wrong.  Reason tends to beat out revelation given enough time and given enough demonstration. 

 

You’re either ignoring or purposely twisting what I’m saying, that the precepts re-emphasized in the proclamation — the divine and eternal nature of the marriage covenant, the importance of the nuclear family and the law of chastity — have not changed. 
 

And eternal and divine truth does not change with the shifting whims of society. I should think even you could recognize the logic of that premise, even if you don’t believe it. 

[Duncan]

13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The statistics do not support these notions.

there are more marriages in Canada now than there were 20 years ago, so I beg to differ

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The citation in your OP is worth reading, and it speaks of multigenerational (extended) families -- which, in my opinion, are far more likely to be successful than nuclear families.

What faces us today is far more dangerous than any imagined sexual revolution of the 60s.  The danger today is anomie, the growing absence of family.  Any kind of family.  Stats show us a diminishing interest in marriage, a lack of reproduction.  People in America today live alone more than at any time in our history.  Not only are they not marrying, but they are not even living together, or having babies.  While fertility levels among orthodox Jews and among Latter-day Saints may be at replacement levels, this is not the case generally.  America only gains population now via immigration.  This is a feature not only of the West (Europe), but also of Japan -- which doesn't really accept immigrants well, and which has a diminishing population.

We need to examine the causes of this torpor in Western and Japanese society.  Can it be arrested?  If so, how?

I have in mind the normative definition of the nuclear family, being a married couple (a man and a woman) and their dependent children. The proclamation champions this, and I don’t see the position of the Church as having changed in the 25 years since the proclamation was issued. 

[Ahab]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Are you suggesting the church is inspired because it hasn't changed it's position on something in 25 years?  (although both Duncan and Calm point out something has changed).  

Of course there was a time when the divine celestial order of marriage, on the Church's position, was polygamy.  That changed, of course, as the Church was forced to change by "the world".  With this celebrating post one must wonder when the next "revelation" comes as "the world" forces the Church to change again and what that will mean.  The Church seems to have always been in the position of being right until it is shown by others it is wrong.  Reason tends to beat out revelation given enough time and given enough demonstration. 

 

No, that's not really true.  The divine celestial order of marriage is all about the power that binds people together as a married couple in a marriage that will be as valid in the celestial realm of heaven as it is here when that couple is sealed.

That hasn't changed, and it never will change.  Looks to me like you just don't and maybe never did understand what the divine celestial order of marriage is.

[Duncan]

Forcing people to get married doesn't work and forcing people to have kids is illegal so that doesn't fly either

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, cacheman said:

???  The same percentage of white evangelicals voted for Romney and GW Bush (78%).  McCain got only 74% in 2008.   Certainly, there were some who did not support him due to his religion.  But, he ended up faring pretty well with that group. 

You are correct, cacheman.  Romney actually did quite well with evangelicals -- https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/election-2012-marks-the-end-of-evangelical-dominance-in-politics/265139/ . 

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No, that's not really true.  The divine celestial order of marriage is all about the power that binds people together as a married couple in a marriage that will be as valid in the celestial realm of heaven as it is here when that couple is sealed.

That hasn't changed, and it never will change.  Looks to me like you just don't and maybe never did understand what the divine celestial order of marriage is.

does that include 2/3 of the 1st Presidency who are sealed to non reproducing wives? the Church doesn't have an answer as to what is a "traditional marriage" because it has employed several versions or marriage, i.e. polygamy, one man to one woman, one woman to two men, one man to two women not at the same time, which is a polygamy combo deal

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

Forcing people to get married doesn't work and forcing people to have kids is illegal so that doesn't fly either

Well, maybe it might work if the married people can manage to stay married to each other.  It takes a lot of work to make that work and God's power must be involved in that work otherwise the marriage just will not last.

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

does that include 2/3 of the 1st Presidency who are sealed to non reproducing wives? the Church doesn't have an answer as to what is a "traditional marriage" because it has employed several versions or marriage, i.e. polygamy, one man to one woman, one woman to two men, one man to two women not at the same time, which is a polygamy combo deal

all that matters, in the long run, is whether a marriage has been sealed by the power of God and whether the married persons want to remain married to who they married.  reproduction is usually a natural byproduct of marriage but it is not essential.

[Robert F. Smith]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have in mind the normative definition of the nuclear family, being a married couple (a man and a woman) and their dependent children. The proclamation champions this, and I don’t see the position of the Church as having changed in the 25 years since the proclamation was issued. 

The reason I appreciated the citation you gave in the OP was precisely because it did not make a fetish of the nuclear family.  The same is true of the Proclamation, which nowhere mentions the word "nuclear," and does in no way delimit the family to man & woman & dependent children.  All the actual statements made in the Proclamation could as easily be accommodated by a multigenerational (extended) family -- which is what the piece you cited in the OP actually discusses.  And for good reason (Mosiah 2:5).

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The reason I appreciated the citation you gave in the OP was precisely because it did not make a fetish of the nuclear family.  The same is true of the Proclamation, which nowhere mentions the word "nuclear," and does in no way delimit the family to man & woman & dependent children.  All the actual statements made in the Proclamation could as easily be accommodated by a multigenerational (extended) family -- which is what the piece you cited in the OP actually discusses.  And for good reason (Mosiah 2:5).

Show me a mutigenerational (extended) family that doesn't have a man & woman & children and then tell me how that equates to a family.  Please.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Which is a difference of degree, not kind.  Polygamous marriages were between a man and a woman.  The women married to the same man were not married to each other.

I mean how do you argue with that?  So monogamy and polygamy are not different kinds of marriage...apparently.  I mean I disagree, but I can see you will dig your heels in so...

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The doctrine is still there.  The enactment of it changed, as contemplated in scripture (see Jacob 2:30).

And the "change" came from God, in response to "the world."  See the excerpts from addresses by Pres. Woodruff appended to OD-1.

A revelation is still a revelation, including those given as a consequence to events in the world.  Consider Matthew 2 (emphases added):

God gave guidance (revelation) to Joseph through a dream to take his family and flee into Egypt.  Because Herod was a threat.

God later gave further guidance (revelation) to Joseph through another dream in which an angel appeared and told Joseph to return to Israel.  Because Herod was no longer a threat.

These revelations were given as a consequence to events in the world.  Many similar instances of such revelations are found throughout the scriptures.

So if God can give revelation responsive to events in the world, isn't it possible that He gave a revelation responsive to, say, the circumstances of the 19th-century Saints in relation to polygamy (and governmental intervention in, and prosecution of it)?

And if God can give such responsive-to-events-in-the-world revelations, then OD1 could be both revelation and responsive to actions taken by the federal government under the Edmunds-Tucker Act in the late 19th century.

Herod "forced" Joseph to take his family and flee into Egypt.  That does not negate the revelation given to Joseph.

I've never understood this line of reasoning from critics.  God gives revelations to His children for their benefit.  Those revelations will often pertain to the particular circumstances in which they find themselves while living in this mortal sphere.  Joseph and his family fled to Egypt because Herod was a threat.  Lehi and his family left Jerusalem because, in part, of a threat (Jerusalem was going to be destroyed).  Noah built the ark in response to a threat (the flood).  Moses parted the waters because of a threat (the Egyptians).  Joseph of Egypt interpreted dreams predicting a threat (seven years of hard times).  Omer was warned by revelation about, and was able to avoid, a threat (Akish).

And on and on.  The circumstances of this world will obviously figure in to the Lord's revelations to His children.  That's a feature of the Plan, not a bug.

That's no so at all.  The Church has never claimed infallibility.  To the contrary, its doctrines acknowledge and require quite the contrary proposition.  

Nephi acknowledged his own weaknesses. 

The author of the Title Page to the Book of Mormon (presumably Moroni) acknowledged "faults" and "mistakes."

Joseph Smith repeatedly acknowledged his own flaws.

The Gospel Topics essays about "Race and the Priesthood" and the "Peace and Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints" acknowledge errors by members and leaders.

Pres. Uchtdorf acknowledged mistakes made by members and leaders in an October 2013 General Conference address.

God Himself appears to have acknowledged the flaws and mistakes of His people in D&C 1:31.

Latter-day Saints are frequently reminded that they and their leaders are not infallible (that is, that they make mistakes).

And on and on and on.

It will never be enough, though.  That's the pernicious thing about faultfinding: You will always be able to succeed at it if you try hard enough.

I have the two work in marvelous harmony together.  Consider these remarks by Michael Ash:

The other legs of the stool (scripture, prophets and reason) function well in "vetting" personal revelation.  Utilizing all four "legs" is, in my view, a far more reliable mechanism for discerning truth than relying on just one of them exclusively.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Fewf! that a lot of statements to the contrary.  I disagree starting from the top.  As it is the Nephites in early Jacob were condemned for their whoredoms.  They apparently used the venerable polygamous David to justify their whoredoms, but as it were, Jacob the prophet, proclaimed David was wrong to practice polygamy, its an abomination, and they should not let their whoredoms get so bad as to follow his path.  It appears he nipped that in the bud, as they say.  

[stemelbow]

48 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You’re either ignoring or purposely twisting what I’m saying, that the precepts re-emphasized in the proclamation — the divine and eternal nature of the marriage covenant, the importance of the nuclear family and the law of chastity — have not changed. 
 

And eternal and divine truth does not change with the shifting whims of society. I should think even you could recognize the logic of that premise, even if you don’t believe it. 

I asked a question and didn't twist your words.  

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I asked a question and didn't twist your words.  

It’s pretty clear your post was motivated by your fantasy that the Church will one day bless homosexual relations and homosexual marriage as acceptable before God. Hadn’t happened, and it ain’t gonna happen. 

[Robert F. Smith]

48 minutes ago, Duncan said:

there are more marriages in Canada now than there were 20 years ago, so I beg to differ

Yes, of course, there are more marriages, but that is only because you are using gross figures.  As a percentage of the overall population, the marriage rate has decreased.  Only per capita figures or percentages have value:

Quote

 

In 1981, 60.9% of the population aged 15 and over was married, while 39.1% was unmarried.
In 2011, 46.4% of the population aged 15 and over was legally married, while 53.6% was unmarried—that is, never married, divorced or separated, or widowed

The decreasing share over time of the population that was married and the corresponding increase in the unmarried population may be related to a number of factors, including a higher average age at marriage and an increase in the divorced or separated population. In addition, a higher proportion of people live in common-law unions than in the past—either as a relatively shorter-term relationship prior to marriage or as a longer-term alternative, as well as a fairly large share of young adults who live in the parental home, most of whom have never been married.  https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/91-209-x/2013001/article/11788-eng.htm .

 

Perhaps you can find the figures for 2019.  I couldn't find them.

[Robert F. Smith]

15 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Show me a mutigenerational (extended) family that doesn't have a man & woman & children and then tell me how that equates to a family.  Please.

A nuclear family is two parents and their children.  An extended family includes grandma, grandpa, etc., as in Mosiah 2:5, and which used to be normal in American and most other societies.  Surely you understand the two concepts.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

There are a lot of happy couples that start out dirt poor and some even say those were the best years.

Sure, and many happy families came through the Great Depression the better for it.  I am not talking about the exceptions, but rather large numbers of people who are alone and unsuccessful.  It is a fast growing sector of society, and no amount of excuses will allay that problem.  Indeed, in coming years it will only grow worse, as our economy goes into a tailspin.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I mean how do you argue with that?  So monogamy and polygamy are not different kinds of marriage...apparently. 

They are different, but still constitute a man-woman marital relationship.  Again, each woman was only married to the husband, not to the other wives.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I mean I disagree, but I can see you will dig your heels in so...

I'm not being obstinate.  I'm presenting reasoned argument.  

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Fewf! that a lot of statements to the contrary. 

Yep.  The beauty of Copy and Paste.

These days we seldom broach new topics.  I substantial portion of my posts are just copied and pasted from prior posts.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I disagree starting from the top. 

Okay.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

As it is the Nephites in early Jacob were condemned for their whoredoms. 

Yes.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

They apparently used the venerable polygamous David to justify their whoredoms, but as it were, Jacob the prophet, proclaimed David was wrong to practice polygamy,

Nope.  Jacob said it was wrong to practice unauthorized polygamy, and to use polygamy as a pretext to commit "whoredoms."  He also chastized them for other sins.

Nathan in 2 Samuel 12 differentiated what you seem to conflate.  Authorized polygamy is good, unauthorized polygamy is bad.  David's sins pertained to the latter.  See 1 Kings 15:5.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

its an abomination,

Unauthorized polygamy is wrong.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

and they should not let their whoredoms

"Their whoredoms" being unauthorized and pretextual polygamy (and likely other things, I think).

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

get so bad as to follow his path. 

They had already done so.  Jacob was not cautioning them about prospective behavior, he was condemning present and ongoing behavior.  They had already followed David down that path.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It appears he nipped that in the bud, as they say.  

The "whoredoms" were more than just a "bud."  From Jacob 2:

Quote

6 Yea, it grieveth my soul and causeth me to shrink with shame before the presence of my Maker, that I must testify unto you concerning the wickedness of your hearts.

7 And also it grieveth me that I must use so much boldness of speech concerning you, before your wives and your children, many of whose feelings are exceedingly tender and chaste and delicate before God, which thing is pleasing unto God;

8 And it supposeth me that they have come up hither to hear the pleasing word of God, yea, the word which healeth the wounded soul.

9 Wherefore, it burdeneth my soul that I should be constrained, because of the strict commandment which I have received from God, to admonish you according to your crimes, to enlarge the wounds of those who are already wounded, instead of consoling and healing their wounds; and those who have not been wounded, instead of feasting upon the pleasing word of God have daggers placed to pierce their souls and wound their delicate minds.

10 But, notwithstanding the greatness of the task, I must do according to the strict commands of God, and tell you concerning your wickedness and abominations, in the presence of the pure in heart, and the broken heart, and under the glance of the piercing eye of the Almighty God.

11 Wherefore, I must tell you the truth according to the plainness of the word of God. For behold, as I inquired of the Lord, thus came the word unto me, saying: Jacob, get thou up into the temple on the morrow, and declare the word which I shall give thee unto this people.

12 And now behold, my brethren, this is the word which I declare unto you, that many of you have begun to search for gold, and for silver, and for all manner of precious ores, in the which this land, which is a land of promise unto you and to your seed, doth abound most plentifully.

13 And the hand of providence hath smiled upon you most pleasingly, that you have obtained many riches; and because some of you have obtained more abundantly than that of your brethren ye are lifted up in the pride of your hearts, and wear stiff necks and high heads because of the costliness of your apparel, and persecute your brethren because ye suppose that ye are better than they.

14 And now, my brethren, do ye suppose that God justifieth you in this thing? Behold, I say unto you, Nay. But he condemneth you, and if ye persist in these things his judgments must speedily come unto you.

15 O that he would show you that he can pierce you, and with one glance of his eye he can smite you to the dust!

16 O that he would rid you from this iniquity and abomination. And, O that ye would listen unto the word of his commands, and let not this pride of your hearts destroy your souls!

17 Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you.

18 But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God.

19 And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted.

20 And now, my brethren, I have spoken unto you concerning pride; and those of you which have afflicted your neighbor, and persecuted him because ye were proud in your hearts, of the things which God hath given you, what say ye of it?

21 Do ye not suppose that such things are abominable unto him who created all flesh? And the one being is as precious in his sight as the other. And all flesh is of the dust; and for the selfsame end hath he created them, that they should keep his commandments and glorify him forever.

22 And now I make an end of speaking unto you concerning this pride. And were it not that I must speak unto you concerning a grosser crime, my heart would rejoice exceedingly because of you.

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

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

25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

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

31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.

32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.

34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.

35 Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A nuclear family is two parents and their children.  An extended family includes grandma, grandpa, etc., as in Mosiah 2:5, and which used to be normal in American and most other societies.  Surely you understand the two concepts.

Or another way of looking at it is a man & woman & children when the children become parents while remaining children of their Mother & Father.  The only kind of family any of us have ever been a part of if we are children of a man & woman who had parents.

[Robert J Anderson]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s pretty clear your post was motivated by your fantasy that the Church will one day bless homosexual relations and homosexual marriage as acceptable before God. Hadn’t happened, and it ain’t gonna happen. 

I don't think Mr. Stemelbow was referring to homosexual marriage.  I think he was referring to how the church changes through revelation from time to time.  Of course he couched it as change from outside pressure and perhaps that is why you assume he meant the church eventually changing to homosexual marriage?

Still, subsequent revelation pretty much covers any changes that the church makes.  This is why we have prophets, seers and revelators.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

there are more marriages in Canada now than there were 20 years ago, so I beg to differ

But is the rate of marriage going up?

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/91-209-x/2013001/article/11788-eng.htm
2011

Quote

Legal marital status refers to the marital status of the person under the law (e.g., never married, married, divorced or separated, or widowed). In 2011, 46.4% of the population aged 15 and over was legally married, while 53.6% was unmarried—that is, never married, divorced or separated, or widowed—a widening of the gap first observed among the total population in 2001.4In contrast, thirty years earlier, in 1981, 60.9% of the population aged 15 and over was married, while 39.1% was unmarried.

The provinces with the largest shares of the population aged 15 and over that were married in 2011 were Newfoundland and Labrador (52.9%), Prince Edward Island (51.7%), Ontario (50.3%) and Alberta (50.2%). The smallest shares of the population that was married were found in the territories: Yukon (37.6%), Northwest Territories (35.0%), Nunavut (29.7%) and in the province of Quebec (35.4%).

The decreasing share over time of the population that was married and the corresponding increase in the unmarried population may be related to a number of factors, including a higher average age at marriage and an increase in the divorced or separated population. In addition, a higher proportion of people live in common-law unions than in the past—either as a relatively shorter-term relationship prior to marriage or as a longer-term alternative, as well as a fairly large share of young adults who live in the parental home, most of whom have never been married.

Hard to find specific recent analyses.  One page said the government was saving money by not collecting stats that weren’t being used enough to be worth it. 
 

Divorce rates are going down, speculation is that this is because fewer people are getting married (rate is going down) and they are getting married when older.

https://phys.org/news/2020-02-canada-divorce-revealingand-murky.html

Edited September 24, 2020 by Calm

[stemelbow]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

They are different, but still constitute a man-woman marital relationship.  Again, each woman was only married to the husband, not to the other wives.

I'm not being obstinate.  I'm presenting reasoned argument.  

I disagree.  You are presenting argument without reason, which is kind tough to do and you should commended for such a feat.  I'm sure it's difficult.  

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  The beauty of Copy and Paste.

These days we seldom broach new topics.  I substantial portion of my posts are just copied and pasted from prior posts.

Okay.

Yes.

Nope.  Jacob said it was wrong to practice unauthorized polygamy, and to use polygamy as a pretext to commit "whoredoms."  He also chastized them for other sins.

Nathan in 2 Samuel 12 differentiated what you seem to conflate.  Authorized polygamy is good, unauthorized polygamy is bad.  David's sins pertained to the latter.  See 1 Kings 15:5.

Unauthorized polygamy is wrong.

"Their whoredoms" being unauthorized and pretextual polygamy (and likely other things, I think).

They had already done so.  Jacob was not cautioning them about prospective behavior, he was condemning present and ongoing behavior.  They had already followed David down that path.

The "whoredoms" were more than just a "bud."  From Jacob 2:

Thanks,

-Smac

Hah...I think I recall our Jacob 2 discussions of the past.  Not really eager to get back into reading 2 Sam into Jacob, but it's a memory at least.