D&C 132 Contradicts Jacob 2.

[cacheman]

Jerm,

How about:

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people [to not practice polygamy] ; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things [whoredoms and abominations] .  Jacob 2:30

This would be consistent with the chapter, and with earlier BoM passages that spoke of raising up a seed unto the Lord.

cacheman

[jerm]

I have to admit I have never heard that one before. Do you have sources for this? Even a discussion where this was mentioned.

Addit: this question was for edward lalone.

[Edward Lalone]

Deleted by poster (Dunamis needs to be moderated - if I had the power he would be placed on queue but since I do not I instead make my objections known by deleting all my posts from this forum).

[jerm]

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people [to not practice polygamy] ; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things [whoredoms and abominations] .  Jacob 2:30

Hmm, the only thing is, why would he need to command his people to not practice polygamy in order to raise up seed? I think that mine fits better, sorry.

[Brackite]

I also hope that Ben McGuire joins this discussion here, because I have at least one question for him. Ben if you are reading this my question is this. Is it your position that the Prophet Jacob was mistaken if believing that Deuteronomy Chapter 17 was available by the time of King David and King Solomon, and therefore what King David and King Solomon did wasn

[cacheman]

Jerm,

1 AND now I would that ye might know, that after my father, Lehi, had made an end of prophesying concerning his seed, it came to pass that the Lord spake unto him again, saying that it was not meet for him, Lehi, that he should take his family into the wilderness alone; but that his sons should take daughters to wife, that they might raise up seed unto the Lord in the land of promise.

7 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, took one of the daughters of Ishmael to wife; and also, my brethren took of the daughters of Ishmael to wife; and also Zoram took the eldest daughter of Ishmael to wife.

8 And thus my father had fulfilled all the commandments of the Lord which had been given unto him. And also, I, Nephi, had been blessed of the Lord exceedingly.

What do you make of these verses?

cacheman

[cacheman]

Jerm,

What is the context of the chapter 2 in Jacob? Does that verse (30) really read like a disclaimer? I guess it could, but the way I read it makes sense to me.

cacheman

[Brackite]

Here is a link to a Great Article by a Person who is a Believer in the Book of Mormon, and this Person rightly states and points out that Jacob Chapter 2 and Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 do indeed contradicts each other. Here is the URL:

http://www.greaterthings.com/Topical/Polyg...mblingblock.htm

[mormon fool]

This is what led Brigham Young and others to teach that without plural marriage a man would be damned.

The new and everlasting covenant was initially plural mariage.

I am a little skeptical of this claim, but perhaps you have a statement from Brigham Young that demonstrates his interpretation. I encountered a brief quote on another message board and demonstrated it to be out of context. I wonder if there are any stronger statements?

I was responding to:

"the only men who become gods, even the Son of God, are those who enter into polygamy" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p.269)

with:

[Previous poster] cites BY JOD 11:269 but the context of the quote actually rebuts the idea that polygamy is unconditionally required for the exaltation of males. I will give some snippets from the same speech:

"If it is wrong for a man to have more than one wife at a time, the Lord will reveal it by and by, and he will put it away that it will not be known in the Church."

This demonstrates that Brigham Young was open to a revelation that changed the practice.

"I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained."

Here is a clear cut admission that exaltation is achievable without actual participating in the practice, as exceptions are made for merely believing the doctrine. As a side note it is not the doctrine of polygamy that has changed over time in the LDS, just the practice (or not) of it.

[Edward Lalone]

Deleted by poster (Dunamis needs to be moderated - if I had the power he would be placed on queue but since I do not I instead make my objections known by deleting all my posts from this forum).

[mormon fool]

Here is a link to a Great Article by a Person who is a Believer in the Book of Mormon, and this Person rightly states and points out that Jacob Chapter 2 and Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 do indeed contradicts each other.  Here is the URL:

http://www.greaterthings.com/Topical/Polyg...mblingblock.htm

In reading the great article, does anyone want to explain the appeal of this argument?

As my first point of support for my premise, let me call your attention to a contradiction between the words of Jacob, and those of D&C 132.  Jacob says, "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord." (2:24)

On the other hand D&C 132 states, "David's wives and concubines were given unto him of me..., and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife."

These statements, in my estimation, are mutually exclusive.  Both could not be right.

The hermenuetic of proclaiming a contradiction only at the last resort, i.e. only when all plausible reconciliations have been analyzed and dismissed, is largely absent in this "believer's" article.

I reconcile this as meaning some of David's and Solomon's marriages were abominable and some weren't. The difference--and this is a major theme in Section 132-- is that it is abominable when it isn't specifically commanded and righteous when it is. The same message is found in Jacob 2 esp. v. 30. There is no need to unparsimoniously proclaim a contradiction.

[cacheman]

In order for you to reconcile it in that way, you have to alter the text.

"Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing (in some cases) was abominable before me, saith the Lord."

Without adding that qualifier then the logical reading would be that the fact that David and Solomon had many wives was the thing that was abominable. I don't see how to interpret it differently without adding to or modifying what the Lord said. Jacob 2:30 though could concievably be interpreted either way without changes.

cacheman

[Edward Lalone]

Deleted by poster (Dunamis needs to be moderated - if I had the power he would be placed on queue but since I do not I instead make my objections known by deleting all my posts from this forum).

[cacheman]

Hmm, the only thing is, why would he need to command his people to not practice polygamy in order to raise up seed? I think that mine fits better, sorry.

I realized that I didn't totally address your question here. What is being talked about is not simply raising up seed, but raising up seed unto the Lord. Bringing up children in an environment of "whoredoms and abominations" would not facilitate a righteous upbringing (raising up seed unto the Lord).

It can be read either way, but after I started reading it this way, my stupor of thought on this issue cleared right up .

cacheman

[cacheman]

Edward,

You are making just as broad generalizations as the author that you are deriding, only you are making them from a different perspective. The way people felt in and out of polygamy,and their views on women's rights aren't as black and white as you are portraying. With that in mind, maybe you should tone down your accusations

cacheman

[Edward Lalone]

Deleted by poster (Dunamis needs to be moderated - if I had the power he would be placed on queue but since I do not I instead make my objections known by deleting all my posts from this forum).

[Edward Lalone]

Deleted by poster (Dunamis needs to be moderated - if I had the power he would be placed on queue but since I do not I instead make my objections known by deleting all my posts from this forum).

[Edward Lalone]

Deleted by poster (Dunamis needs to be moderated - if I had the power he would be placed on queue but since I do not I instead make my objections known by deleting all my posts from this forum).

[mormon fool]

In order for you to reconcile it in that way, you have to alter the text.

"Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing (in some cases) was abominable before me, saith the Lord."

Without adding that qualifier then the logical reading would be that the fact that David and Solomon had many wives was the thing that was abominable. I don't see how to interpret it differently without adding to or modifying what the Lord said. Jacob 2:30 though could concievably be interpreted either way without changes.

cacheman

This is a fair enough analysis. I will email Skousen and see if there is any evidence for Oliver spacing out when that passage was dictated . My argument would be stronger if those words were in it, but it doesn't require them to be there. If every commandment was accompanied with every exception to it, the scriptures would read more like a law book. I can wait a few verses for Jacob or even a few millenia for Joseph Smith to point out the exceptions.

I recognize that Jacob 2:30 can be interpretted differently. But I would imagine that the alternative interpretion only works if we grant a lot of underlying assumptions like:

1) Jacob was ignorant that some of David's and Solomon's wives were given to them under the proper authority.

2) Jacob was ignorant of the levirate law, even though it seems to quote from it in v. 30.

or

3) Jacob doesn't exist and

4) Joseph Smith needed to pull a fast one and critics have caught him in the act.

5) Joseph Smith slipped up against the passage in Jacob even though he appears to be asking about it.

The alternative interpretation of Jacob 2:30 only works if it used as a pawn for critical arguments against polygamy or Joseph Smith.

[Brackite]

Hello There,

I reconcile this as meaning some of David's and Solomon's marriages were abominable and some weren't. The difference--and this is a major theme in Section 132-- is that it is abominable when it isn't specifically commanded and righteous when it is. The same message is found in Jacob 2 esp. v. 30. There is no need to unparsimoniously proclaim a contradiction.

Sorry, but I disagree with you here. Here is part of my Post just a bit earlier in this thread on why your explanation doesn't explain away the contradiction between Jacob Chapter 2 and Doctrine and Covenants Section 132:

Jacob 2:24 states that King David having many wives and concubines was abominable before the Lord God.

Doctrine and Covenants 132:1 &38-39 states that King David received all of his wives and concubines except for the wife of Uriah. Doctrine and Covenants 132:39 states that David only received one wife, which was a sin before the Lord God. Remember that Jacob 2:24 states that David had many wives and concubines which were abominable before the Lord God.

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=7529&st=15

[Outshined]

Hasn't this been beaten to death before?

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/misc/misc13.html

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/forbid.htm

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/contradictDC.htm

[mormon fool]

2) Jacob was ignorant of the levirate law, even though it seems to quote from it in v. 30.

I just wanted to add some support for my brief critique of assumption 2.

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/leviratelaw.html

Levirate Law

from Latin levir, "a husband's brother"

the name of an ancient custom ordained by Moses, by which, when an Israelite died without issue, his surviving brother was required to marry the widow, so as to continue his brother's family through the son that might be born of that marriage (Gen. 38:8; Deut. 25:5-10; compare Ruth 3; 4:10)

Its object was "to raise up seed to the departed brother."

I also note that Cacheman has supplied in kind evidence for the monogomous interpretation of Jac. 2:30 (which he has to add words to make it clear ). I don't know that the original audience would have associated the "raise up seed" with the former Nephite passages. The Nephite record may not have been very available to them. On the other hand, the people were very aware of the Brass Plates version of the OT up to that point, at least the passages relevant to polygamy. I imagine that the Brass Plates would have been thoroughly analyzed in the prior arguments that Jacobs said the Nephites used to justify polygamy.

If Jacob doesn't bring up Jacob 2:30 in "the polygamy by special command only" people would have brought up the levirate law and charged him with a contradiction.

[Mighty Curelom]

This issue is a perfect example of avoiding cognitive dissonance through extreme mental contortion.

The BoM explicitly states that polygamy is an abomination to God.

The D&C commands polygamy.

Can anyone else think of a single action that God calls an abomination but later makes a commandment? God calls homosexuality an abomination--would you engage in homosexual acts if Hinkley received a revelation commanding it? If not, why is Joseph's revelation any different?

[emaughan]

Even if one believes this to be a revelation from God, and then rationalizes that this line allows polygamy, one can see that Smith himself violated it. He never used polygamy to raise seed with the women he took as wives. This always seems to be the fact that lds posters want to avoid.

Ray, Joseph is often accused of having sex with all these women and some say he did not consumate any of the marriages. I'm open to either. I do think it humorous that you're probably the first to criticize Joseph for not being "active" enough with his other wives.

As to why the revelation came to the Nephites to not have plural wives it seems obvious (to me at least) that the Nephites were abusing the practice. Just as David and Solomon abused it - so were the Nephites. God did make it clear - as has been pointed out over and over and over that it was up to him when His people would practice it. It was not up to abusive men to decide when it should be instituted, it is the Lord's command.

This is one of those arguments that is like the "Adieu" issue. It comes up often, but has little weight to it. Ray this is not ment to critisize you and I enjoy your comments, it is just in this case it seems very clear - to me at least - that this is not a contradiction to the D&C. Nephi does show us that polygamy should never be practiced in unrightsness and it is God's will when it is instituted.

One last thing. The only two "bad guys" mentioned are David and Soloman. Reading the bible it is obvious why each was not practicing polygamy in rightousness. David murdered to gain one of his wives and Soloman married outside of the covenant for political reasons. The Lord was likening the Nephite's current state of unrightous dominion over the women, with these two kings who also failed to practice in righteousness. Finally, whenever dealing with scripts in the bible or the BoM, we have to remember that we do not have all the background or history. One of your critisisms is that the Nephites did not carry over the traditional practice of the prophets. It is hard for me to see this as a big problem since we do not have a complete record of all of their dealings with the Lord, their history, all the things God told Lehi in Jeruselum, if Lehi was told not to practice, or to wait, etc...

[Zakuska]

This issue is a perfect example of avoiding cognitive dissonance through extreme mental contortion. 

The BoM explicitly states that polygamy is an abomination to God.

The D&C commands polygamy.

Can anyone else think of a single action that God calls an abomination but later makes a commandment?  God calls homosexuality an abomination--would you engage in homosexual acts if Hinkley received a revelation commanding it?  If not, why is Joseph's revelation any different?

Yes... I can.

"Though shall not Kill"

Then God says to comit genocide on the Amorites, Every Man, Woman, Child, Horse, Cow, Pig, and Donkey (Even the talking kind).

"Though shalt not Kill Abraham"

"Go sacrifice your son"

Have your ever read your scriptures MC?

People get so focused in on verse 24 and 30... that they miss the Chiasmus in the chapter. IMHO Brakite and Cacheman are up in the night on their interpretation.