Rivers Posted November 15, 2021 Posted November 15, 2021 Jacob 2:30 “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 exactly does it mean to “raise up seed” unto the Lord?
Danzo Posted November 15, 2021 Posted November 15, 2021 20 minutes ago, Rivers said: Jacob 2:30 “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 exactly does it mean to “raise up seed” unto the Lord? I would start in mosiah 15. Abinidi answers the question quite well 1
Popular Post rongo Posted November 15, 2021 Popular Post Posted November 15, 2021 1 hour ago, Rivers said: Jacob 2:30 “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 exactly does it mean to “raise up seed” unto the Lord? a) numerical progeny, and b) consolidating fatherhood in specific lines. 19th century Mormon polygamy was a mix of the two. The birthrate didn't vastly outstrip monogamous marriage, but it did dramatically increase the "market share" of progeny under "preferred" fathers. It's amazing to me how, even today, with a lot of first and second generation members, Mormon polygamy is still in people's backgrounds when they research it. I think the impact is much more spiritual and intangible than simple genetics. When God commands it, He has a specific purpose in mind for it. 5
bluebell Posted November 15, 2021 Posted November 15, 2021 1 hour ago, Rivers said: Jacob 2:30 “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 exactly does it mean to “raise up seed” unto the Lord? I agree with Rongo. It seems to me that when God wants to concentrate and increase parentage under specific male lines, He uses polygamy to do it. 4
JAHS Posted November 15, 2021 Posted November 15, 2021 1 hour ago, Rivers said: Jacob 2:30 “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 exactly does it mean to “raise up seed” unto the Lord? It means there might be times when God wants to quickly increase the numbers of followers of Him and His gospel. Plural marriage is one way to do it. By accepting the everlasting covenant of marriage it increases the possibility the progeny of such unions will be raised in the gospel and be followers of God. 3
Calm Posted November 15, 2021 Posted November 15, 2021 8 minutes ago, JAHS said: Plural marriage is one way to do it. Only if you mean the more faithful men have more wives and therefore more children and therefore more children growing up in highly devout homes. There were enough men in the overall community that the married women could have been monogamous if that was first priority, but possibly with husbands less committed to the Church. And I am guessing that a husband who wasn’t a devout member was less likely to be supportive of his wife and kids devoting their own time, efforts, and resources towards the Church, though many are in my experience. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted November 15, 2021 Posted November 15, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, rongo said: a) numerical progeny, and b) consolidating fatherhood in specific lines. 19th century Mormon polygamy was a mix of the two. The birthrate didn't vastly outstrip monogamous marriage, but it did dramatically increase the "market share" of progeny under "preferred" fathers. It's amazing to me how, even today, with a lot of first and second generation members, Mormon polygamy is still in people's backgrounds when they research it. I think the impact is much more spiritual and intangible than simple genetics. When God commands it, He has a specific purpose in mind for it. The polygamy background in the lineages of Church members — estimated at about 20 percent just now — is bound to increase, not decrease, over time as more recent converts and their progeny intermarry with those who have polygamy in their ancestry. This is due to the “everyone is descended from Charlemagne” mathematical phenomenon in genealogical descendancy. To put it another way, a little bit of yeast eventually leavens the whole loaf, but the leavening process is hastened by increasing the amount of yeast. Edited November 15, 2021 by Scott Lloyd 1
Teancum Posted November 16, 2021 Posted November 16, 2021 2 hours ago, rongo said: a) numerical progeny, and b) consolidating fatherhood in specific lines. 19th century Mormon polygamy was a mix of the two. The birthrate didn't vastly outstrip monogamous marriage, but it did dramatically increase the "market share" of progeny under "preferred" fathers. Preferred fathers meaning the one's who held the power. 2 hours ago, rongo said: It's amazing to me how, even today, with a lot of first and second generation members, Mormon polygamy is still in people's backgrounds when they research it. I think the impact is much more spiritual and intangible than simple genetics. When God commands it, He has a specific purpose in mind for it. But God did not command it and it really is simply genetics now. 1
Teancum Posted November 16, 2021 Posted November 16, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, JAHS said: It means there might be times when God wants to quickly increase the numbers of followers of Him and His gospel. Plural marriage is one way to do it. By accepting the everlasting covenant of marriage it increases the possibility the progeny of such unions will be raised in the gospel and be followers of God. If that is the case then it failed for Utah Mormons. The birth rates for polygamous wives was was below that for monogamous. But it did create more descendents for the men who held power in Utah. Edited November 16, 2021 by Teancum 2
Teancum Posted November 16, 2021 Posted November 16, 2021 2 hours ago, bluebell said: I agree with Rongo. It seems to me that when God wants to concentrate and increase parentage under specific male lines, He uses polygamy to do it. I am sure Warren Jeffs and crew make the same argument. Specific male lines means those that had the power. It has always been thus. 1
Popular Post Hamba Tuhan Posted November 16, 2021 Popular Post Posted November 16, 2021 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Teancum said: Preferred fathers meaning the one's who held the power. My father held zero power in this world, but he was a devout disciple of Jesus Christ who regularly called down the powers of heaven upon his family. Preferred? Absolutely! Every one of his five children has been blessed to this day because of his influence, which blessing has carried over to grandchildren and now great-grandchildren. Such is the legacy of genuine faith and faithfulness. Your cynical version is just a backhanded way of claiming that the only thing women care about is worldly power. That's both ugly and historically inaccurate. Edited November 16, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan 6
Calm Posted November 16, 2021 Posted November 16, 2021 19 minutes ago, Teancum said: But it did create more descendents for the men who held power in Utah. About half my polygamous ancestors were not particularly noteworthy. 3
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 16, 2021 Posted November 16, 2021 2 minutes ago, Calm said: About half my polygamous ancestors were not particularly noteworthy. Yep, Teancum in his cynicism is selling a demonstrably false narrative. Again. 1
Teancum Posted November 16, 2021 Posted November 16, 2021 6 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: My father held zero power in this world, but he was a devout disciple of Jesus Christ who regularly called down the powers of heaven upon his family. Preferred? Absolutely! Your cynical version is just a backhanded way of claiming that the only thing women care about is worldly power. That's both ugly and inaccurate. Your conclusion is incorrect. It was the men with power that convinced the women to marry them. Was your father a polygamist? Not likely. I am talking about the Utah period of the Church where the justification for polygamy was to raise up righteous seed. For the most part I don't blame the women though I think there were a few that likes being part of a powerful family. You can call me cynical if you wish. It is a way is a complement to me. At least I don't make arguments that I would never give a pass on for anyone else but the LDS leaders. And I can think you foolish for believing such and abominable practice was really from a God being. I am sure you don't think Mormon splinter groups who still practice it like it was in 19th century Utah are doing God's will. But they make the same arguments to justify it. Why are they wrong but Joseph, Brigham and crew were right. Maybe President Woodruff and Smith were wrong. Other powerful men in history have used similar lines of reasoning to take on may wives or concubines.. Just read the Bible and other history. But your comments are a straw man because you are stating something that I did not argue. 1
Teancum Posted November 16, 2021 Posted November 16, 2021 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Calm said: About half my polygamous ancestors were not particularly noteworthy. Nevertheless it did create more descendents from those in power. How may of your ancestors had more than a few wives? Did any have a dozen or more like the top LDS leaders? I had polygamous ancestors as well. None that I now of had more than two or three wives. Edited November 16, 2021 by Teancum
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 16, 2021 Posted November 16, 2021 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Teancum said: Your conclusion is incorrect. It was the men with power that convinced the women to marry them. Thanks for the correction. So instead of claiming women were just interested in power, you're willing to call them weak-willed, easily fooled, and/or easily controlled. I'm not sure which is worse ... Quote Was your father a polygamist? No, but he would have made a fantastic one! Women would have queued up to marry him. My mum was repeatedly told by women at church and female co-workers that they wished they'd married someone like my dad. Edited November 16, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan 2
Teancum Posted November 16, 2021 Posted November 16, 2021 5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Yep, Teancum in his cynicism is selling a demonstrably false narrative. Again. Did I hurt your feelings? My narrative is totally spot on if you bother to understand my point rather than spin your straw man.
Calm Posted November 16, 2021 Posted November 16, 2021 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Teancum said: Nevertheless it did create more descendents from those in power. How may of your ancestors had more than a few wives? Did any have a dozen or more like the top LDS leaders? I had polygamous ancestors as well. None that I now of had more than two or three wives. One had 5. Never came across him in church history. Settled in Logan area, iirc, then moved to SLC when older. Edited November 16, 2021 by Calm
Teancum Posted November 16, 2021 Posted November 16, 2021 1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Thanks for the correction. So instead of claiming women were just interested in power, you're willing to call them weak-willed, easily fooled, and/or easily controlled. I'm not sure which is worse ... Another straw man. No I don't call them any of that. I consider the circumstances of their lives as well as their conviction in a false religious narrative. People do all sorts of things based on beliefs, circumstances and so on. I actually have a lot of sympathy for 19th century LDS women as well as the less powerful men in the LDS community of America's Great Basin region.
Teancum Posted November 16, 2021 Posted November 16, 2021 Just now, Calm said: One had 5. One. Had 5. None had as many as the top leaders.
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 16, 2021 Posted November 16, 2021 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Teancum said: Did I hurt your feelings? Nope. You completely lack the power to do such a thing. But thanks for your (faux?) concern. Quote My narrative is totally spot on if you bother to understand my point rather than spin your straw man. Solid, universally acclaimed academic research says that you're wrong. If you're genuinely interested in understanding the agency of 19th-century Latter-day Saint women in relation to marriage -- instead of reconstructing them as powerless victims of powerful men in order to suit your false narrative -- you might want to start with one of the seminal works: Kathryn M. Daynes. More Wives Than One: Transformation of the Mormon Marriage System, 1840–1910. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2001. Edited November 16, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan 1
webbles Posted November 16, 2021 Posted November 16, 2021 22 minutes ago, Teancum said: One. Had 5. None had as many as the top leaders. Many top leaders didn't even have 5. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latter_Day_Saint_practitioners_of_plural_marriage, here's some apostles with less than 5: Abraham H. Cannon - 3 George Q. Cannon - 3 Albert Carrington - 2 Rudger Clawson - 3 Matthias F. Cowley - 3 Francis M. Lyman - 2 Charles W. Nibley - 3 John Henry Smith - 2 It looks like most major names have less than 10 wives. There are some that have a lot (Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, etc), but they are really rare.
webbles Posted November 16, 2021 Posted November 16, 2021 4 hours ago, Rivers said: Jacob 2:30 “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 exactly does it mean to “raise up seed” unto the Lord? I think a lot of times we read this and interpret it using the early church history. We know that early polygyny didn't really increase the amount of children over monogamy (in fact, it looks like it decreased it). But Jacob is talking and he is in a different time and place. (warning: pure speculation ahead) Since I'm a believer that the Lehites arrived to an already populated continent, what if Jacob's listeners were marrying non-Lehite women in order to "convert" them and to increase the Nephite population. By doing this, these men would be "raising seed unto [the Lord]" and maybe they were using it as an excuse for their behavior. Jacob is informing them that their excuse is only valid if the Lord commands it.
JAHS Posted November 16, 2021 Posted November 16, 2021 41 minutes ago, webbles said: Many top leaders didn't even have 5. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latter_Day_Saint_practitioners_of_plural_marriage, here's some apostles with less than 5: Abraham H. Cannon - 3 George Q. Cannon - 3 Albert Carrington - 2 Rudger Clawson - 3 Matthias F. Cowley - 3 Francis M. Lyman - 2 Charles W. Nibley - 3 John Henry Smith - 2 It looks like most major names have less than 10 wives. There are some that have a lot (Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, etc), but they are really rare. My great great grandfather had 2 wives and 22 children. Glad he did or I might not be here. 😊
Calm Posted November 16, 2021 Posted November 16, 2021 46 minutes ago, webbles said: I think a lot of times we read this and interpret it using the early church history. We know that early polygyny didn't really increase the amount of children over monogamy (in fact, it looks like it decreased it). But Jacob is talking and he is in a different time and place. (warning: pure speculation ahead) Since I'm a believer that the Lehites arrived to an already populated continent, what if Jacob's listeners were marrying non-Lehite women in order to "convert" them and to increase the Nephite population. By doing this, these men would be "raising seed unto [the Lord]" and maybe they were using it as an excuse for their behavior. Jacob is informing them that their excuse is only valid if the Lord commands it. Interesting idea. Hadn’t heard of that one before.
Recommended Posts