D&C 132 Contradicts Jacob 2.

March 30, 2005

Hi Again Mo Fool,

I just read your comments about the Levirate law and Jacob 2:30. What they have in common is the notion of raising up seed unto X. What differs is the X. Raising up seed unto a brother means providing the brother with children. By the same token, raising up seed unto the Lord means providing the Lord with children.

In the Book of Mormon, God's children are those who repent and come unto Christ:

Mosiah 15

10 Behold, I say unto you, that when his soul has been made an offering for sin he shall see his seed. And now what say ye? And who shall be his seed?

11 Behold I say unto you, that whosoever has heard the words of the prophets, yea, all the holy prophets who have prophesied concerning the coming of the Lord

March 30, 2005

Oh, I overlooked passages sagely provided by Cacheman:

1 Nephi 7:

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.

1 Nephi 17:

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.

If God can "raise up seed unto" Himself by monogamy - as He does among the sons of Lehi, why would He need to command polygamy when He desires to do so, per the traditional reading of Jacob 2:30?

Jacob 2:30 in itself doesn't supply any words explicitly referring to polygamy or monogamy; but it does tell us that when God wants to raise up such seed, He commands something. And what is the something He enjoins on the Lehites in general (Jacob 2:27) when He wants to raise up seed by them (Jacob 2:25) and that He enjoins on Lehi's sons in particular - by commanding them to take the daughters of Ishmael, of whom there are apparently just enough to supply each man with one wife, and concubines, none, when He wants them to raise up seed unto Him?

In the actual instances in the Book of Mormon of God seeking to raise up seed unto Himself, He does it by implicitly (1 Nephi 7:1) or explicitly (Jacob 2:25-27) commanding monogamy. How much more directly could the actualities of the Book of Mormon flout the polygamy-exception reading of the Jacob 2:30 hypothetical? What God is supposed to command under this reading in seeking to raise up seed to Himself is diametrically opposed to what He does command. Is the problem with God, or with the reading?

Don Bradley

Ray Agostini · March 31, 2005

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.

I didn't write the above. I also believe that Joseph Smith did in fact father at least one child to a plural wife, probably more.

I'm addressing the contradiction between Jacob 2 and D&C 132.

Don't have much time now but I'll tackle it more thoroughly on the weekend.

March 31, 2005

Not remotely. The Tanners have for some 30 years been pointing out Joseph's failure to do much in the way of raising up seed, though they've never suggested it wasn't for a lack of trying!

don

mormon fool · March 31, 2005

onandagus writes:

BTW, MoFool, lest you should wonder why I would go on at such length about Jacob 2, this has been a major project of mine, of which the above is but a woefully incomplete sketch. The real paper will be about 30 pages, covers many other lines of evidence (and the above more fully), and is something I plan to submit for publication in Dialogue.

Welcome to the FAIR boards.

With your knowledge of this subject, I am flattered that you would respond to some of my tentative musings. Good luck with your work published in Dialogue.

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.

I think how Jacob uses the word thing/s in his discussion on provide is very relevant to his use in the polygamy discussion. The meaning of thing means {pride, pride,riches,pride} showing that Jacob feels free to change what he means by thing /s in sucessive sentences. Therefore arguments based on the continuity of meaning of "thing/s " are considerably weakened. The v. 7 reference also shows that Jacob can appropriate things to mean something else besides abominations even though he is speaking on the same topic.

So what exactly is the appeal of using the ambiguous word things as evidence that Jacob means abominations in v. 30?

I'd be interested in hearing your feedback on (what's here of) this work in progress and also your take on the grammar of Jacob 2:7.
BTW, MoFool, you stated, "In v. 7 it is used in a positive sense "which thing [chaste feelings] is pleasing unto God," and I would be interested in further clarifying what you think Jacob meant by this statement. It appears from your bracketed insertion that you take "which thing is pleasing unto God" from "many of whose feelings are exceedingly tender and chaste and delicate before God, which thing is pleasing unto God" to indicate that it was the very having of tender, chaste, delicate feelings that was pleasing to God - nothing more, nothing less. Am I right here? Do you see the grammar as merely permitting this reading, or as requiring it? (I know this is probably seems an inane question, but since how one takes grammatical constructions have everything to do with how one reads Jacob 2, I'm curious to know how you read such a construction.)

I think v. 28 states the Lord delights in chastity. Reading that back into v. 7, I take it that the Lord is pleased that the women and children are not complicit in the polygamy craze that males are forcing on them. Furthermore I imagine that some of these feelings were being directed toward the Lord in form of praying for relief.

I support a range of permissable readings and tend not to become very focused on grammar issues. I'll leave that up for the experts. Does anything hinge on how this verse is interpretted?

The Lehi revelation and Jacob's exposition of it are both entirely consistent in using "thing(s)" to refer to having many wives and concubines and the notion of commandment with reference to God commanding people *not* to do "these things."

Why do you read that Jacob is merely expositing Lehi's revelation? It appears to me, especially in v. 23, that Jacob is originally citing his own dialogic revelation with the Lord and then bringing up Lehi's previous revelation as a proof text. If this is the case, Jacob could be re-interpretting or restating Lehi's commandments in light of his new revelation. I don't think it works to show both Lehi and Jacob understand things consistently different than Joseph Smith when Jacob could be controlling Lehi's text.

I will have to respond to the rest of your post later. I am trying to grasp how you can fit in "these things" in as an imperative if it is not referring to the recently issued commandment.

Later,

fool

Ray Agostini · March 31, 2005

I only have about five minutes before I have to jump to the request of a demanding daughter then go to work, but just a couple of points:

1) Don, good to see you here.

2) My so far superficial readings still leave the question unanswered as to why polygamy, or plural marriage, would be given to Abraham as a commandment, and not to Lehi. Why would "the commandment given to Lehi" be for monogamy, when God, according to D&C 132, told Abraham that he must "abide by this law" or be damned? He told Joseph that he must "go ye and do the works of Abraham" or he could not be exalted.

I'm afraid for me the contradiction remains pretty strong, and it can only be undone with some spohisticated semantics.

Even Mormon Fool seems unaware of the clear and unambiguous statements from BY and early leaders that without polgamy one cannnot be exalted. I'll do some more net searching when I have time and see what I can come up with - again - I don't meticulously keep my past posts like Brent. The list is very long, very clear, and there's simply no way to misinterpret what was said and believed. No plural marriage - no exaltation. BY chided those who thought otherwise, and called them to repentance.

I'll give my sources later.

Cheers for now,

Ray.

March 31, 2005

Mo Fool:

<Welcome to the FAIR boards.

With your knowledge of this subject, I am flattered that you would respond to some of tentative musings. Good luck with your work published in Dialogue.>

Thank you! :-)

<I think how Jacob uses the word thing/s in his discussion on provide is very relevant to his use in the polygamy discussion. The meaning of thing means {pride, pride,riches,pride} showing that Jacob feels free to change what he means by thing /s in sucessive sentences. Therefore arguments based on the continuity of meaning of "thing/s " are considerably weakened. The v. 7 reference also shows that Jacob can appropriate things to mean something else besides abominations even though he is speaking on the same topic.

So what exactly is the appeal of using the ambiguous word things as evidence that Jacob means abominations in v. 30?>

Ah, I see your point. Yes, this would tend to weaken a point based on the alleged consistency of usage of the word "things." "Things" is never going to be the strongest word to claim such consistency on in the first place, since it can readily refer to so many...things! I do, however, think that the fact that "thing(s)" *is* used consistently in Jacob 2:23-34 outside verse 30 is relevant to the interpretation of its use in verse 30. The consistent usage of the language of commandment here and in the polygamy section of Jacob 3 is more significant. And it is hardly irrelevant that "things" and "commandments" are juxtaposed not only in verse 30, but also in verse 34, and there with the meanings the monogamy-only reading proposes, and the opposite meanings to those the polygamy-exception reading proposes.

I'd be interested in hearing your feedback on (what's here of) this work in progress and also your take on the grammar of Jacob 2:7.
BTW, MoFool, you stated, "In v. 7 it is used in a positive sense "which thing [chaste feelings] is pleasing unto God," and I would be interested in further clarifying what you think Jacob meant by this statement. It appears from your bracketed insertion that you take "which thing is pleasing unto God" from "many of whose feelings are exceedingly tender and chaste and delicate before God, which thing is pleasing unto God" to indicate that it was the very having of tender, chaste, delicate feelings that was pleasing to God - nothing more, nothing less. Am I right here? Do you see the grammar as merely permitting this reading, or as requiring it? (I know this is probably seems an inane question, but since how one takes grammatical constructions have everything to do with how one reads Jacob 2, I'm curious to know how you read such a construction.)

Mo Fool:

<I think v. 28 states the Lord delights in chastity. Reading that back into v. 7, I take it that the Lord is pleased that the women and children are not complicit in the polygamy craze that males are forcing on them. Furthermore I imagine that some of these feelings were being directed toward the Lord in form of praying for relief.

I support a range of permissable readings and tend not to become very focused on grammar issues. I'll leave that up for the experts. Does anything hinge on how this verse is interpretted? >

What I find significant about it is it's exact parallel construction with verse 24. It appeared to me that you gave the obvious, grammatical reading to verse 7 in seeing "tender, and chaste, and delicate feelings, which thing is pleasing unto me" as meaning straightforwardly that it was their having of chaste feelings that pleased God. I don't believe anyone would read this passage any other way - trying, for instance, to sneak in the notion that it wasn't their very *having* of such feelings that pleased God, but their having them under certain conditions, without certain exceptions, etc. - clearly what pleased God was the very having of them.

And yet when the same grammatical construction is used in "David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing is abominable before me," suddenly the claim is made that it isn't their very having of many wives and concubines that was abominable to God, but something about the way they had them....

So far as I can see, the difference isn't in the text but in the desire to read it differently than its grammar requires.

I'd be interested in whether people who take a polygamy-favorable reading of verse 23 also see verse 7 as meaning something other than what it seems gramatically to say, or, if not, what in the text justifies such different readings of identical grammatical constructions.

< I am trying to grasp how you can fit in "these things" in as an imperative if it is not referring to the recently issued commandment.>

I don't. "These things" is not part of an imperative. It is part of a description of what God's people do when He does not command them monogamy so He can raise up seed to Himself by them.

I can see how my wording was confusing. I used "these things" in that sentence as a reference to polygamy and concubinage, which are explicitly forbidden in verse 27. I did not mean to suggest that verse 30 says anything like "These things are forbidden." Obviously it does not. My sentence would be clearer like so:

MoFool:

I don't see how the latter is a problem at all. The polygamy text of Jacob 2:23-34 and Jacob 3 as we have it has consistent uses of terminology. I can't imagine why would hypothesize changes to the text, nor is my purpose to give an imaginative text-critical analysis to such possible changes. My purpose is to interpret the text as presented to us here. And as presented here, it has consistent usages that surely have bearing for usage in the more ambiguous verse 30.

Why do I take 2:23-33 as a revelation to Lehi?

First off, why would I take it to be anything else? There is nothing in Jacob's presentation of this revelation in verse 23 to indicate whether he is citing revelation to himself or quoting previously received revelation - but verse 34 and Jacob 3:5 both indicate that Lehi had received a revelation of this nature. Why multiply revelations unecessarily? It is more parsimonious to posit a single revelation to Lehi, later quoted by Jacob, than to posit two revelations with the same content.

Second, the parallels would appear to be rather precise. Jacob tells his people, after quoting the revelation in question, "ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before." It would appear that they know - have known before - the exact commandments given in this revelation had been given to Lehi and "known" to them. And Jacob tells his people regarding the Lamanites: "they have not forgotten the commandment ["commandments" in the original] of the Lord, which was given unto our father

mormon fool · March 31, 2005

I see what you're saying; but I think you are mistaken. While I do not have the results of this on hand, I once made a study of all uses of "they shall" in the Book of Mormon and compared these uses against the varied uses of "shall" in the Oxford English Dictionary.
[......]
Does this logical flow make sense? How much sense? The text, read thus, is making a coherent argument, isn't it? Now try reading it under the traditional polygamy-exception view. Which reading is more coherent? Do verses 25 and 30 fit comfortably on both views? Does the polygamy-exception reading have a logical flow to it that explains why verses 25-30 are grammatically chained as they are? And does it employ a consistent use of terms, as does the above reading?
Texts are supposed to be coherent. Indeed, coherence is generally the main thing we seek in reading a text, as Wolfgang Iser sets forth in his reader-response theory. Coherence is, and ought to be, a criterion - perhaps the principal criterion - we use in assessing a reading of the text under discussion. If there is a more coherent reading than the one sketched above, its adherents have yet to demonstrate this.

I think it is the combination of "shall" and "hearken" that make v. 27 the better resolver of what "these things" are than juxtaposing v. 30 with v. 34. A scan of "hearken" in the Book of Mormon shows that it almost always is used in the context of following a righteous commandment or righteous "voice." There are a few exceptions like "hearkening to the precepts of men" or the "voice of the devil", but in these to case the "thing" being hearkened to is made rather explicit. I notice that Onandagus equates "these things" to "the examples of "them of old" and seek many wives and concubines." but this is considerable less explicit then grabbing the recently formed imperative just a few verses earlier.

The word "begin" causes some tension to O's claim of best coherency. First the revelation, whether received by Jacob or Lehi or both, came AFTER they were lead out of Jerusalem. Yet the polygamy problem is just beginning. None of the previous listed reasons given for leaving Jerusalem involve polygamy that I aware of. Lehi's problems against Jerusalem came from him preaching about Christ and preaching repentance for un-named sins. I am unaware that Jerusalem was about to be destroyed just because of polygamy. I don't think Jeremiah or Ezekiel or any of Lehi's contemporaries are concerning themselves much with polygamy in Jerusalem.

Now if the polygamy problem is just beginning, I don't see why the revelation Jacob is citing was received by Lehi first. None of Lehi's sons are reported as taking second wives. I don't see a lot of temptation for them to take multiple wives before the Nephite-Lamanite split. Even the most rebellious of his sons, who openly admire Jerusalem culture, henceforth establish a solid monogomous tradition (v.35)

The LGT, as discussed by Brant Gardner, provides a coherent framework to interpret Jacob being a crisis mode. Being assimulated by a new culture that practices polygamy is a possible explanation why suddenly the Nephites are citing OT examples to justify polygamy. This is a new development that leads to Jacob's fearfulness. I doubt he would be fearful if all he had to do is quote a scripture or two that the people already familiar with. I think it is less parsimonious to say that Jacob is not citing his own original revelation that adds a new authoritive edge to his sermon. Later in his debate with Sherem, Jacob claims to have had many revelations.

7:5 And he had hope to shake me from the faith, notwithstanding the many revelations and the many things which I had seen concerning these things; for I truly had seen angels, and they had ministered unto me. And also, I had heard the voice of the Lord speaking unto me in very word, from time to time; wherefore, I could not be shaken.

Just my thoughts for now.

fool

Edward Lalone · March 31, 2005

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 · March 31, 2005

What I find significant about it is it's exact parallel construction with verse 24. It appeared to me that you gave the obvious, grammatical reading to verse 7 in seeing "tender, and chaste, and delicate feelings, which thing is pleasing unto me" as meaning straightforwardly that it was their having of chaste feelings that pleased God. I don't believe anyone would read this passage any other way - trying, for instance, to sneak in the notion that it wasn't their very *having* of such feelings that pleased God, but their having them under certain conditions, without certain exceptions, etc. - clearly what pleased God was the very having of them.

Actually I have plead guilty to this now that you bring it up. I would define chastity as sexual relations only within authorized unions. What constitutes an authorized union or abomination is dependent on the current operative commandments. Where "there is no law there is no condemnation" is what I believe father Lehi taught in 2 Nephi 2 (esp v. 13).

This is one of point that creates some incoherency in the position that in the absence of a commandment, the Nephites would take up abominations. This is contrary to the Nephite law-based philosophy. If Jacob is not allowing for circumstantially justifiable polygamy, then Nephites would be right in rebelling against his hardline based on OT laws and practices by prophets beyond reproach like Moses and Abraham.

Zakuska · March 31, 2005

I still cant see how people don't see the Chiasmus in the Chapter.

mormon fool · March 31, 2005

My proposed reading

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people [speaking of the Nephites between 544 and 421 B.C.] 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 [in some cases, as explained later] before me, saith the Lord.

25 Wherefore, [Why the logical connector? The Jerusalem environment was unconducive for raising a righteous nation] 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. [because in Jacob's audience's situation polygamy was not conducive to righteous posterity.]

[Note: this line of argument has weight because the Lord didn't show mercy in rescuing the Nephites from one bad environment merely to have them disobey him in another ("choice") environment]

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;

[Here Jacob lays down a command that the people shall hearken to]

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.

[ God gets upset when people violate "chastity" and commit "whoredoms" as defined by his commandments.]

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

[Wherefore - i.e., because He is concerned about raising a righteous posterity and is un-delighted when chastity is violated, he will enforce his recently re-issued command through a curse]

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.

["For..." - here He is laying out the general principle on which the above is based. If He finds polygamy to be a better way of raising righteous posterity in some exceptional situations and so wills it, He will issue a new command, otherwise the standing commandment is to practice monogamy like He just gave in v. 27. ]

edit: trying to fix my grammar in a post about interpretting grammar0

Ray Agostini · March 31, 2005

My goodness, you guys go on with so much verbose intellectual crap. How about just addressing the original post and just giving some STRAIGHT answers?

Stop playing mind games with each other!

Good night.

Benjamin McGuire · March 31, 2005

Sorry, I haven't been around the past three or four days. Brackite writes:

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

Benjamin McGuire · March 31, 2005

Ray writes:

My goodness, you guys go on with so much verbose intellectual crap. How about just addressing the original post and just giving some STRAIGHT answers?

Ray, are you are familiar with my interpretation already? If not, I would be happy to review it. Part of the issue with this particular discussion and this group is that several of us have hashed this topic out several times over the past several years. Perhaps it would help us if you could simply state whether or not you agree with any of the positions of those earlier threads. (And I still have a CD for you Don, I just keep forgetting to send it out).

Ben

Ray Agostini · March 31, 2005

Ray writes:
My goodness, you guys go on with so much verbose intellectual crap. How about just addressing the original post and just giving some STRAIGHT answers?
Ray, are you are familiar with my interpretation already? If not, I would be happy to review it. Part of the issue with this particular discussion and this group is that several of us have hashed this topic out several times over the past several years. Perhaps it would help us if you could simply state whether or not you agree with any of the positions of those earlier threads. (And I still have a CD for you Don, I just keep forgetting to send it out).
Ben

Ben,

We went over this at ZLMB, but that was some time ago. What I would like is a concise summary which does not bore readers with minute, lengthy discussions and intellectual mind-games. Surely any good writer can say concisely what his/her position is without Nibleyesque footnotes, and endless Platonic dialogue.

Thanks Ben. I look forward to your contribution.

Ray Agostini · March 31, 2005

Third, there is any number of ways to deal with Jacob 2:24. No matter how you want to read it, the Lord didn't actually speak to the people. Jacob did. If, for example, Jacob was prefacing a quotation from Deuteronomy which he believed came from God through Moses, then his "thus saith the Lord" is completely reasonable even though he himself was not the oracle. In any case, as we have gone over in the past, I have a distinctly different view of the revelatory process than you yourself have. (Although, if you have the time, I recommend reading Umberto Eco's Kant and the Platypus).
Ben

So Ben,

If I understand you correctly, you believe, to use the old worn cliche, Jacob "was speaking as a man, not a prophet"? And that is why he incorrectly applied Deut.17 to David and Solomon, too?

I'm just making sure I understand this properly. But already I'm a lot clearer on your position, unless you correct me.

So, just to use another worn analogy, could this be similar to modern prophets who have, according to J.Reuben Clark, "spoken out of turn"? Like when leader believes the hemispheric model instead of the LGM?

Zakuska · March 31, 2005

Gal 2

Peter was teaching false doctrine. Paul called him on it.

Brackite · March 31, 2005

Ben writes:

First, yes, I am of the opinion that Jacob incorrectly applied Deuteronomy 17 to David and Solomon. This doesn't, as you point out, resolve the conflict between the two passages.
Second, let's suggest, for the purpose of this argument, that Section 132 was written by Joseph Smith. I would be of the opinion that Joseph's interpretation of the revelation which he had received was that David and Solomon were justified.

Thanks for your answer here, Ben. I was pretty sure that is what you believed about the Book of Mormon Prophet Jacob incorrectly applied Deuteronomy Chapter 17 to David and Solomon, but I wanted to make sure. I do however strongly disagree with you there. Remember that the Prophet Jacob continues to use the phrase,

Ray Agostini · March 31, 2005

Gal 2
Peter was teaching false doctrine. Paul called him on it.

That's fine Zak, but what I want to know is who was teaching the "false doctrine" here, Jacob, or Joseph Smith? If it was Joseph Smith then D&C 132 will have to be excised from the LDS canon.

Skeptics would say this was an "evolution" or progression of Joseph's views, and that he wanted to justify his later polygamous feelings, which as has been pointed out may have arisen as early as 1831, possibly before in latent form/idea.

For me, Jacob gives a clear denunciation of polygamy, and notwithstanding BC's point that in Jacob's day it (polygamy) was unauthorised and in Joseph's day it was, surely Jacob's words apply explicitly to the effects polygamy has had on women (think of Emma, for example), and that only in extreme circumstances such as to "raise up seed" should it be justified, and in no ohter situation. Yet in Section 132 it is commanded as an exaltation necessity and is the New and Everlasting Covenant given originally to Abraham, and restored through Joseph Smith.

132:

45 For I have conferred upon you the keys and power of the priesthood, wherein I restore all things, and make known unto you all things in due time.
46 And verily, verily, I say unto you, that whatsoever you seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever you bind on earth, in my name and by my word, saith the Lord, it shall be eternally bound in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you remit on earth shall be remitted eternally in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you retain on earth shall be retained in heaven.

Benjamin McGuire · March 31, 2005

Ok. To put it briefly.

My interpretation goes something like this -

Jacob 2 needs to be read within the context of Mosaic Law. Mosiac Law, as a legal institution (followed by the Nephite peoples) deals with polygamy in a couple of different fashions. Polygamy was an accepted social practice. It was required under certain (perhaps rare) circumstances involving the practice of Levirate marriage. And, polygamy had a number of restrictions (not to marry sisters, etc.) Additionally, in the Kingship codes in Deuteronomy 17, there was a restriction placed on kings:

He [the king] must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.

My interpretation depends in part on the fact that Jacob stresses the numerical number of the wives of David and Solomon. Thus - "David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines". This would indeed be an abomination under Mosaic Law (given Deuteronomy 17:17 as a point of reference). However, polygamy in general could not have been considered an abomination strictly under Mosaic Law, since Mosaic Law not only allowed it, but required it from time to time. So, while this notion may have applied to David and Solomon, it could not be said of other polygamists (notably Jacob/Israel, Abraham, and Moses) that they "truly had many wives and concubines". Nor would it be appropriate to claim that what they did was an abomination under Mosaic Law, since there were no stipulations against it, and it seems just a little out of place to have Jacob claiming that past patriarchs were committing an abomination based on Lehi's prophetic commandment. Further, Lehi, Nephi, Laman, Lemuel, and company, all were raised within this culture which allowed polygamy. So while it is possible, it seems quite unlikely that the polygmay in general of those who practiced it during the patriarchal period, could be considered an abomination.

So, no matter how it is viewed, the notion that the patriarchs committed an abomination in the practice of polygamy is inconsistent with a historical approach to the Book of Mormon. So, we are left with the notion that I introduce, which is that David and Solomon were specifically open to this criticism (and not other prominent polygamous Israelites) because they appeared (at least to Jacob) to be in violation of Mosaic Law.

At the same time, the purpose of Levirate marriage was to "raise up seed" to the dead brother. And this would be the one valid claim that Israelites could bring against a ban on polygamy. (And this approach is one that was taken historically when polygamy was banned among Jews in the middle ages). Jacob pre-emptively addresses this notion by claiming that if God wants seed raised up, then God can specifically command it.

The notion here is that God has already reversed his position on polygamy through Lehi. And that Lehi should be considered more significant than the dead prophets. But that Lehi can be overridden by later revelation.

Those who criticize my interpretation do so on several grounds (some of which have already been raised in this thread). First, there is the claim that verse 30 speaks of raising up seed unto the Lord. Personally, I don't think this is insurmountable. If in fact Jacob is referring to Levirate marriage (or rather alluding to it), he may well have simplified his reference in this fashion. And it may be an alternate way of looking at Levirate marriage. Additionally, as Brackite points out, Jacob does in effect say "Thus saith the Lord" - but as I point out, this may be a formulaic introduction to a statement from the Law of Moses.

In any case, the difficulties which face Brackite and Don deal with the fact that culturally, polygamy was acceptable and widely practiced under Mosaic Law. I don't think that Lehi can be seen as issuing a referendum on Moses. Nor does it seem reasonable to suggest that Jacob would have considered the polygamy of Abraham, of Jacob and of Moses as abominations. This also impacts their interpretation since it creates a situation in which Lehi has issued a change to Mosaic Law - and replaced a portion of it. In doing so, Lehi has set a precedent in which God can change the commandments which he gives to his people. Thus, it is not unreasonable to have Jacob include a caveat that essentially states "this is the way it is unless God commands otherwise".

It also seems to me to be gramatically awkward and logically inconsistent to have God (through Jacob) saying (paraphrased): For if I will raise up seed unto me, I will command my people to practice monogamy; otherwise they shall shall practice polygamy (like David and Solomon).

Why does the failure of God to instruct his people in monogamy automatically guarantee polygamy?

Finally, D&C 132 is concerned with an entirely different issue. Taken at face value, I see them as bein contradictory. In fact, no matter how you look at it, if you presume that Deuteronomy 17 existed at the time of David and Solomon, then they were clearly in violation of it. This was enough of an issue that later Judaism responded to it by claiming that it was unavailable at the time of David and Solomon (I can provide references to this later if you want). My response is that it simply didn't exist at the time of David and Solomon - although for Jacob, who viewed Deuteronomy (as it existed in the Brass Plates) as the writings of Moses, it had to exist at the time of David and Solomon. So, while an approach which accepts Deuteronomy as a work of Moses, or which accepts Jacob uncritically as wholly inspired, would still contain the contradiction, I don't accept either premise. And while Jacob could view David and Solomon as violating Deuteronomy 17, and thus comitting an abomination, Joseph Smith doesn't need to view this in this fashion at all, and can instead focus on the nature of the marriages (and not their number).

Ben

Benjamin McGuire · March 31, 2005

Ray writes:

If I understand you correctly, you believe, to use the old worn cliche, Jacob "was speaking as a man, not a prophet"? And that is why he incorrectly applied Deut.17 to David and Solomon, too?
I'm just making sure I understand this properly. But already I'm a lot clearer on your position, unless you correct me.

I am saying that his view of the scriptures wasn't necessarily accurate. Which is to say that he quoted scripture to the people - and generally speaking, accepted that scripture at face value. (Even though we might say with some degree of certainty that Deuteronomy could not have been written by Moses, Jacob probably could not have been aware of that fact - unless he was given special dispensation beyond what Nephi said - that the scriptures they had, had already been subject to some manipulation).

And certainly, as far as he was concerned, if the Mosaic Law gave him a way of criticizing a practice which Lehi had stopped, then it was a good thing.

Ben

Benjamin McGuire · March 31, 2005

Brackite writes:

Remember that the Prophet Jacob continues to use the phrase,

Ray Agostini · March 31, 2005

Finally, D&C 132 is concerned with an entirely different issue. Taken at face value, I see them as bein contradictory. In fact, no matter how you look at it, if you presume that Deuteronomy 17 existed at the time of David and Solomon, then they were clearly in violation of it. This was enough of an issue that later Judaism responded to it by claiming that it was unavailable at the time of David and Solomon (I can provide references to this later if you want). My response is that it simply didn't exist at the time of David and Solomon - although for Jacob, who viewed Deuteronomy (as it existed in the Brass Plates) as the writings of Moses, it had to exist at the time of David and Solomon. So, while an approach which accepts Deuteronomy as a work of Moses, or which accepts Jacob uncritically as wholly inspired, would still contain the contradiction, I don't accept either premise. And while Jacob could view David and Solomon as violating Deuteronomy 17, and thus comitting an abomination, Joseph Smith doesn't need to view this in this fashion at all, and can instead focus on the nature of the marriages (and not their number).
Ben

Ben,

Thanks for your response. Much clearer than the others have been. Two things:

1) In Samuel 2 Nathan does tell David that if he has asked, the Lord would have given him anything he wanted, presumably more wives too, as he was referring to the case of Bathsheeba. So this throws a spanner in the works too. As you note:

So, no matter how it is viewed, the notion that the patriarchs committed an abomination in the practice of polygamy is inconsistent with a historical approach to the Book of Mormon. So, we are left with the notion that I introduce, which is that David and Solomon were specifically open to this criticism (and not other prominent polygamous Israelites) because they appeared (at least to Jacob) to be in violation of Mosaic Law.

But David did not have that many wives, and as D&C 132 pointed out, he was only condemned for the case of Bathsheeba. Hence when Jacob says "many wives" he's obviously referring to Solomon, not to David, though he lumps them both together for the purpose of his sermon. Maybe this was the reason for the clarification in section 132.

2) You're right, D&C 132 is a separate issue. All of this still does not reconcile the basic problem that D&C 132 and Jacob contradict in a significant way. If plural marriage was given as a commandment to Abraham, it should also have been a commandment at the times of David and Solomon. But even in Genesis there's no hint it was ever a commandment, nor anywhere else in the OT. And it is clear that when Nathan says to David he could have anything he wanted IF he asked the Lord, this was a "gift" because of his special status as the King of Israel (abused by Solomon, who took hundreds of wives with "strange gods"), not as a "saving ordinance", or a covenant.

Confidential Informant · March 31, 2005

I just read your comments about the Levirate law and Jacob 2:30. What they have in common is the notion of raising up seed unto X. What differs is the X. Raising up seed unto a brother means providing the brother with children. By the same token, raising up seed unto the Lord means providing the Lord with children.

Don,

I'm not clear on the distinction you are drawing here. How would the fact that a leverite marriage was intended to "raise up seed" to the brother be appreciably different from another polygamous marriage intended to "raise up seed" to the Lord? I fail to see a functional difference here, thus I tend to support Ben's interpretation of this passage.

I'm a bit tired right now and more than a little punchy, but could you please expand for me on how these different "X" in this case would make any difference to how God views the act of having more than one wife?

C.I.

Sign In

D&C 132 Contradicts Jacob 2.

Recommended Posts

Guest onandagus

Guest onandagus

Ray Agostini

Guest onandagus

mormon fool

Ray Agostini

Guest onandagus

mormon fool

Edward Lalone

mormon fool

Zakuska

mormon fool

Ray Agostini

Benjamin McGuire

Benjamin McGuire

Ray Agostini

Ray Agostini

Zakuska

Brackite

Ray Agostini

Benjamin McGuire

Benjamin McGuire

Benjamin McGuire

Ray Agostini

Confidential Informant

Archived

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse