D&C 132 Contradicts Jacob 2.

[Mighty Curelom]

I noticed you avoided the second part of my question.

If President Hinkley received a revelation commanding homsexual pairing, would you comply? You can't say "that would never happen," because as you've just demonstrated, God tells us to do things that he previously told us not to.

Well? Would you?

[Zakuska]

You know how your little story ends don't you MC?

God sends the Goat to appease the Homo before anything is consumated.

"Thy will be done Lord."

[mormon fool]

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

Thanks for pointing this out to me, I did indeed miss it. I followed your previous discussion on this topic on ZLMB and here. I am quite impressed with your reasoning ability. Before your posts I did not see how any rational person could maintain that there is a contradiction between the two scriptures. But I think in your case we have an unstated exception to a general rule.

My reconciliation still works.

Jacob is making accusations that a group G = {D,S} that includes David and Solomon committed a group of sins A= {W,C}. In order for his accusations to be true we need to justify that each element in both sets are worth mentioning. In other words both men were guilty of at least one of the sins and both sins were committed by at least one of the men. Clearly this is the case, S -> A, D -> W, W -> G, C ->S, where -> indicates a commited, or committed by relationship between the sets. Hence there is nothing logically wrong with Jacob's accusation.

What if someone says "fool and Scott Peterson committed traffic violations and murder" it would technically be correct using my same set manipulations and logic. But informed people might not jump to conclusions that fool is a murderer, especially people who have prior knowledge about fool or evidence surfaces later that vindicates fool.

But in this case the set elements are much more similiar. David is related to Solomon and-- by setting a bad example for his son by committing a similiar crime-- is somewhat complicit in his son's crimes. Because of the similarity of the kings and crimes, there is no need for Jacob to be hair splittingly explicit with who did what. People tend to gloss over such details when they advocate a position. We don't expect critics to make such fine distinctions in presenting an argument while laboring under a limited word count (like the Gold plates enscribers did), so why should we hold some 6th century B.C. prophet to such an impossible standard?

later,

fool

[Mighty Curelom]

You still haven't answered the question. You've just made an inappropriate and offensive little joke.

Did God send a "goat" to "appease" Joseph Smith's lusts? Nope. Poor Joseph had to grit his teeth and do God's will.

Would you? Would you follow the prophet's revelation, even if it contradicted scripture? I'm not talking about some Abrahamic test, here. I'm talking about living a new domestic lifestyle that previously was considered an abomination to God.

[mormon fool]

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.

I think in some case when God wants to "raise up seed" to himself, quality is more important than quantity. In some cases, the quality is best preserved though monogamy as Jacob 2 points out. I think that it was Brant G. who points out that polygamy was a sign that the Nephites were being assimialated into a different culture. If this is the case then Jacob's counsel to curtail polygamy is a great idea. Stopping polygamy sends a message that his people should not adopt the negative traits of the host culture just because they find a little bit of scriptural justification.

Again, following the qualitative argument, polygamy was the better set-up for the early mormons to "raise up seed". It helped drive a wedge between the Saints and their host culture, creating a healthy sense of otherness. It helped bind Joseph Smith to many families creating valuable loyalties. It provided a valuable test of faith to weed out slackers. Some of the polygamous lineages have provided a solid backbone for the church. Take Hyrum Smith's descendents. It also helped establish the ability of the prophet to reveal unpopular doctrines and practices. Think of how many more people would jump off the bandwagon for much less, if this precedent hadn't have been set early on.

Looked at this way, polygamy was a great success story for mormonism. I am proud of my heritage.

[Jan]

I am not well-versed enough in polygamy to do more than read this thread; however, I have read Kathryn Dayne's book More Wives Than One and would like to add a specific fact to support some of what Edward posted (as I believe someone asked him for specifics).

IIRC, one outcome of polygamy (whether intentional or not) was to "equalize" income and socio-economic standings. Many of the women in polygamous marriages (that were not the first wife) had poor chances of marrying when they arrived in Utah - either widows with children or older spinsters. Polygamous marriages tended to "share the [economic] wealth" with these women who would have otherwise had little chance of the type of income they shared once married.

[Zakuska]

My sister is a perfect example of this. After a 17 year abusive relationship she finally put her foot down, and got out. She's dated but once they find out she has MS they are no where to be found. (one of the reasons her husband was out fooling around). Now she works three jobs just to make ends meet.

Some of that social economic aid would be greatly appreciated in her case.

[1dc]

Would you follow the prophet's revelation, even if it contradicted scripture? I'm not talking about some Abrahamic test, here. I'm talking about living a new domestic lifestyle that previously was considered an abomination to God.

The question is rather, would you follow God if He gave an extremely difficult commandment directly to you? One that was accepted thousands of years ago by others who had seen God and in much of the rest of the world, but not now in your part of the world.

[PhilipTraum]

If President Hinkley received a revelation commanding homsexual pairing, would you comply? 

I think Brigham Young's "desir[ing] the grave" quotation may be even more applicable in your hypothetical.

[jerm]

If President Hinkley received a revelation commanding homsexual pairing, would you comply?

That would make me leave the church I think. However there was never a precident for such in the past.

[simply_disappear]

I'm raising this subject again as it came up with Jan in my thread "Has it been worth it?" I have discussed this quite extensively on ZLMB and not found satisfactory answers. It is concerning what I feel is a contradiction between D&C 132 and Jacob in the BoM.

Here are the relevant verses from the D&C, which teaches that plural marriage is a commandment.

4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

The above verse has been reinterpreted in a context of monogamy after 1890. But initially it referred to plural marriage:

6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.

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.

29 Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne.

[simply_disappear]

look at all the fruit the law of Polygamy has brought to the church...nothing but pain, and controversy.

Did you ever stop to realize the fruit that was borne out of polygamy was

1) the sacrifice that all endured---some to the end, of course others not

2) the Lord RAISED up a mighty kingdom through polygamy.

3) the persecution remains----- but look at the wheat and the tares being separated-----hmmmmmm all that pain and controversy is good for something, isn't it?

There have come the fruits of plural marriage but whether one chooses to look at the glass as half full or empty is of course up to the individual.

Wheat and tares..............................

[BCSpace]

JLH:

"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." Jacob 2:30

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.

The problem here is that you do not know or understand LDS doctrine. D&C 132:19 shows that eternal life includes the 'continuation of the seeds'. God's need to raise up seed may have been in the eternities.

Careful lest your reply run into D&C 132:2 which shows that God may have wanted JS to get a head start developing relationships now in preparation for the afterlife.

You have yet another flaw(secondary) in your logic. You are assuming that JS took those wives for the purpsoe of sex and not for children. I'll admit that in those days, the people had some limited form of birth control and some knowledge of the cycle etc. But not as much as we have and know today.

Therefore, to see a relative lack of children and assume it was for sex only does not match the far greater likelyhood that if it was for sex, there would be more pregancies and children.

[Mighty Curelom]

If Joseph didn't engage in sex with his extra wives, he was violating his own...er...I mean God's commandment.

"for they (virgins) are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth" D&C 132 v. 63

And then there's the problem of virgins. The revelation explicitly and repeatedly specifies that additional wives must be virgins. Even in the loosest sense (no pun intended), how could some of Joseph's wives be considered virgins, as they were already married to other men when he wed them? Again, another case of Joseph not abiding by his own revelations.

Jerm--

 

If President Hinkley received a revelation commanding homsexual pairing, would you comply?

That would make me leave the church I think. However there was never a precident for such in the past.

Thank you for giving an honest answer. I respectfully disagree with your statement that there has never been a precident in the past, though. I contend that polygamy is that precident.

1- Polygamy is deemed an abomination by God in scripture

Homosexuality is deemed an abomination by God in scripture.

2- The revelation to institute plural marriage overruled previous scriptural bans on the practice.

A revelation to institute homosexual pairings would overrule previous scriptural bans on the practice.

Theoretically, God could command ANY behavior and it would be right, by definition. The fact that God has ---(1) commanded behavior that contradicts his previous commandments and (2) commanded behavior that many find repulsive--- demonstrates that a revelation requiring homosexuality isn't out of the question. (Of course, since there is no god and the LDS church is run by old ultra-conservative white guys, I don't see any radical changes or surprising revelations on the horizon.)

[cacheman]

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.

This isn't a commandment that we are reading differently, but rather a statement by the Lord about two people (David and Solomon), and how the Lord felt about it. The exception to the commandment issue is found in Jacob 2:30.

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.

True, Or possibly he was aware of a higher law.

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

You bring up a good point here. To keep with my interpretation, I would have to assume that everything in the Bible, is not the word of God, such as some Jewish laws that may have more to do with tradition than revelation. I'm open to making that assumption, but admit that it would be a huge assumption on my part.

or

3) Jacob doesn't exist.

I'm open to this scenario as well. But if Jacob didn't exist then our discussion is pointless.

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

This is possible.

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

I'm not sure where he appears to be asking about the passage in Jacob? Do you mean in a general sense, or specifically Jacob 2:30?

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

Obviously you are right here. If Jacob meant it one way, then it means the Lord allows exceptions, if he meant it the other way, it means the Lord is against polygamy.

You brought up some very valid points. I think that I need to look at this a bit more. Maybe someday I'll figure it out.

cacheman

[cacheman]

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 ).

This is not true. Unlike the added qualifier to the D&C verse earlier in this thread, the interpretation is not altered by the words I added. Take those words out, and you can have the exact same interpretation. Look at the context of the chapter, and what is referred to when Jacob refers to "things". ie. "hearken unto these things".

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.

It wouldn't be necessary for the original audience to be familiar with the earlier writings.

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.

These are very good points, that I would have to make some big assumptions to avoid.

cacheman

[Brackite]

Hello There,

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

I have read all of those Articles before. None of those Articles satisfactory addresses the very apparent contradiction between Jacob Chapter 2 and Doctrine and Covenants Section 132. Mormon fool's recent Post here does a better job at addressing the very apparent contradiction between Jacob Chapter 2 and Doctrine and Covenants Section 132, but I still don

[mormon fool]

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 ).

This is not true. Unlike the added qualifier to the D&C verse earlier in this thread, the interpretation is not altered by the words I added. Take those words out, and you can have the exact same interpretation. Look at the context of the chapter, and what is referred to when Jacob refers to "things". ie. "hearken unto these things".

Cacheman,

Thanks for your well thought out response. I think you correctly point out some of the less cogent parts of my position. I retract what I said about having to add words to Jac. 2:30 in order interpret it that particular way.

Let me address the thing(s) argument first, which is impressive at first glance. First, I submit that when Jacob uses the words in chapter 2, he expects his listeners to figure out what the antecedent is in its context. In 8 of the 9 references, it is fairly obvious what he is referring to. Only v. 30 is debatable. The question is, does Jacob have a usage pattern that can resolve the debate for the ambiguous case?

Starting with the less relevant discussion on riches, Jacob uses "thing(s)" to refer to sinful behaviour 3 times (v .14(2) v. 21) but switches to using it in a positive sense once (v. 20 "things which God hath given you").

For the discussion on polygamy, Jacob clearly uses "thing(s)" 3 times in the abomination sense (v. 23,24,34). In v. 7 it is used in a positive sense "which thing [chaste feelings] is pleasing unto God.

As can be seen, Jacob is not consistent enough with his use of "thing(s)" to establish a very compelling pattern that can resolve the ambiguity.

My main objection to the monogamy-without-exceptions-interpretation is the difficulty that not interpreting "these things" as a commandment causes. Usually an object to be hearkened to is some statement that delivers a moral (or immoral) imperative. The proximity in the discussion of the Mount Sinai-like commandment (esp v. 27) explicitly formulating such an imperative makes it the most logical fit.

This isn't a commandment that we are reading differently, but rather a statement by the Lord about two people (David and Solomon), and how the Lord felt about it. The exception to the commandment issue is found in Jacob 2:30.

You make a good point here and I agree that to make my argument work I have to read much into verses 23-24 that is not readily apparent. I think that the unifying theme in Jacob chapter 2 is to "keep the commandments". Jacob brings up commands/commandments 7 times in the chapter and uses it as bridge from the pride part to the polygamy part. For Jacob, it is the failure to follow the Lord's commands that constitutes wickedness and abominations. Reading 23-24 with this framework, an exception to a commandment likewise means an exception has to made in judging something wrong.

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.

It wouldn't be necessary for the original audience to be familiar with the earlier writings.

You are right here. Bad reasoning on my part, especially when Jacob takes the people to task for not following Lehi's previously given anti-polygamy commandment.

Maybe one day I will be able figure it all out.

later,

fool

[Guest onandagus]

Cacheman:

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.

Don:

BINGO, Cacheman. :-)

A careful examination of verses 23-33 shows that "thing/things" is used regarding polygamy ("the things which were written concerning David and Solomon" and "this thing which ye ought not to have done") and what is spoken of being commanded is monogamy (e.g., vs. 33). In fact, God *does* want to "raise up" to Himself a righteous posterity among the Lehites (vs. 25), and *therefore* commands them to have only wife and no concubines (vs.26-27).

Don Bradley

[cacheman]

Maybe one day I will be able figure it all out. 

I'm with you on that. You gave me some thoughts to chew on for a while. When I figure it all out, I'll let you know

cacheman

[cacheman]

Don,

It's nice to see you here, and over at ZLMB again. Where did everyone go??

It does make more sense to me to interpret it that way, but as mormon fool showed, it does require some built in assumptions. Of course each way I look at it seems to require some assumptions. Sometimes I think that this is an impossible puzzle, and I'll never figure it out.

cacheman

[Ray Agostini]

Did you ever stop to realize the fruit that was borne out of polygamy was

1) the sacrifice that all endured---some to the end, of course others not

2) the Lord RAISED up a mighty kingdom through polygamy. 

3) the persecution remains----- but look at the wheat and the tares being separated-----hmmmmmm  all that pain and controversy is good for something, isn't it?

There have come the fruits of plural marriage but whether one chooses to look at the glass as half full or empty is of course up to the individual. 

Wheat and tares..............................

I haven't been reading this thread because I've been way too busy with work and other things, so I'm just jumping in here, for now, on the last page. I'll have more time to comment on Saturday my time, when I have time to read all the posts.

The subject really is about the contradiction, but I'll comment briefly on the matter of polygamy. Have you read Todd Compton's In Sacred Loneliness? I highly recomment it, and Compton's conclusions about Mormon polygamy in the 19th century. His is about the most balanced book yet written on the subject. Richard Van Wagoner's Mormon Poygamy: A History is also good. And there are some excellent artcles in Dialogue from over the years.

Some LDS women did defend polygamy, but many others did not. Overall, I think it was a great trial for the majority. The best yardstick, however, is to be practical, and imagine if you were asked to practice it today. I have heard women say "no problem, I would do it if it ever happened", but I have found the reality to be very different. It would tear your heart and soul just like it did the pioneer women. It's easy to defend polygamy from the comfort of knowing you'll probably never have to endure it in your lifetime, and you can leave it to some nebulous possible future or afterlife.

For me this is the bottom line: I have two daughters, and I know how they feel about things like this. Polygamy is NOT NORMAL, it is against every civil and humane notion known to human beings, because it dehumanises women by using religious authority to coerce them into something they would not normally do. Whether this occurs in Islam or Mormonism or any tribal setting, it is wrong and inhumane. The moral sense is outraged by it, and that's why the church now refuses to even speak about it. That's why Pres. Hinckley has said, "it's in the past, it's behind us", and there it should stay, both in theory, theology, and practice. The dehumanisation of the defenders of polygamy was evident too, in that some of the women were eventually saying that man/woman love was "not normal" and that women should abandon any notions of true romanticism and learn to live with the fact that they would have to share a husband. For me, this is totally distorted thinking, that one should ask a young girl of 14,15,16,17, to forget about romance and prepare herself to be a harem member.

[mormon fool]

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

I'm not sure where he appears to be asking about the passage in Jacob? Do you mean in a general sense, or specifically Jacob 2:30?

I think a few things point to the likelihood that Jacob chapter 2 was Joseph's mind. First some people date the reception of at least part of the revelation to 1831 when Joseph Smith was working on the JST. If this is so, the Book of Mormon was written only a short time earlier and Joseph Smith seems to have a phenomenal memory of scripture passages. Given the time lapse between when the concept of polygamy first occured to Joseph Smith and when it gets recorded, Joseph had years to encounter the contradicting passage in the Book of Mormon and discover how to reconcile it. Section 132:38-39 seems to be asking us to read Jacob 2:23-34 with the clarified nuances that the section is emphasizing.

Joseph Smith is asking in verse 1 about a group of OT men. His particular selection of names is particularly telling. He picked some prophets who were beyond reproach (Abraham, Moses, etc.) and then some cases that become problematic (David and Solomon). Abraham is used as a model polygamist to give polygamy some level of legitimacy. Then the need for tight control over polygamy (the general commandment-exceptional commandments) is justified by bringing up the Isaac sacrifice. With these principles set, D. & C. 132 moves into solving the problems that are largely created by Jacob 2. Although some tension over David and Solomon's polygamy can be found in the Bible too.

Sec. 132:38 and Jacob 2 show at least one striking point of textual dependency. The use of the word "things" to describe polygamous unions. This stands out to me because it seems to be an awkward usage of "things".

edit: versification

[Ray Agostini]

I haven't read any of the other posts to your new thread.  But I have a question---yes another one! 

When and how did you suppose that Brigham Young ever taught that "The New and Everlasting Covenant"  MEANS plural marriage? 

It does not nor did it ever.  This covenant refers to a covenant of the Melchizedek Priesthood.  It is the eternal order of marriage only through which can we attain the Celestial Glory that we seek. 

I don't know what exactly you are referring to about Brigham Young teaching that it is only about plural marriage.  I find that a bit out of sinc (sp) only because NOT everyone was called to serve in the capacity of having a plural marriage.  Don't you think those people would be up in arms about NOT receiving exaltation to the Celestial Kingdom? 

....

Brigham Young's and other leaders' statements are clear and unequivocal. Perhaps I'll have to start another thread, though I've done this ad nauseam before on this subject. They all taught that one must enter plural marriage to be saved, because that is in accordance with the instructions in D&C 132.

What you have been taught is the reinterpretation I have referred to in my original post. Even McConkie's Mormon Doctrine does not tells us the historical facts, and I'm afraid that's why you've been given reinterperted information. John Taylor in 1889 said that the church could not and would not abandon polygamy or it would be the apostasy of the church.

The duality that ensued after the Woodruff declaration went on until at least 1904, and that's why the church has been very dual on this subject ever since, so that you'll hear some members say that "we believe it in principle" (plural marriage). But if you read official statements, or General Authority comments, none of them will publicly say that today. Not even in a General Conference will you hear a GA now say "we believe it in principle". All of Pres. Hinckley's media statements have disavowed polygamy. Now it could well be that they privately believe it "in principle", but if this is so then it's secret doctrine. The simple fact is they know it's unChristian, and that the BoM teaches against it, and the BoM is more in line with Christianity.

You said on the other thread something about how the Lord worked miracles and brought about great works with imperfect men and yet you begin this thread to talk about all their imperfections----well, those that you imply, anyhow.

No, I have said nothing about their personal imperfections. Indeed, I think Joseph was a rather imperfect man with many personal faults, and sins (he said so himself), yet God did great things through him. Polygamy wasn't one of them. Especially when he invited already married women to become his plural wives.

[Guest onandagus]

Mormon fool writes:

<The question is, does Jacob have a usage pattern that can resolve the debate for the ambiguous case?

Starting with the less relevant discussion on riches, Jacob uses "thing(s)" to refer to sinful behaviour 3 times (v .14(2) v. 21) but switches to using it in a positive sense once (v. 20 "things which God hath given you").>

The question is not whether in Jacob's general usage "thing(s)" is used to refer to good things or bad things. This will almost certainly depend on context. The uses in verses 14 and 21 are in another context, and not relevant to how he uses the term in the passage in question. Verse 7 uses "thing," but obviously not with reference to what things were written concening David and Solomon, the sins of the Nephite men, and to what the people "shall hearken" when not commanded according to verse 30. IOW, verse 7 is obviously referring to a different "thing" than the uses of "thing" at the end of the chapter. If we look at how the term is used in the more immediate context of Lehi's revelation on polygamy (vs. 23-33) and his own discussion of it (vs. 34), it is, outside verse 30, used with consistent reference to the having of many wives and concubines.

The language of commandment is also used consistently in the polygamy text in Jacob 2:23-34 and Jacob 3:

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.

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.

3:

5 Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father