D&C 132 Contradicts Jacob 2.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Ray writes:

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.

It depends perhaps on your definition of "many". David had at least a half dozen wives, and probably at least a dozen. And some speculate more than that.

And I certainly am not suggesting that my interpration resolves the conflict. It merely changes the perspective.

Ben

[Brackite]

Hello There,

Another problem I find with Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 is that it lists Isaac and Moses among those who had many wives and concubines. According to the Bible, Isaac had just only one wife throughout his lifetime. According to the Bible, Moses just had two wives throughout his lifetime. Moses' having two wives would not qualify as having many wives and concubines. Isaac having just only one wife would certainly not qualify as having many wives and concubines. This is another reason why I believe that Jacob Chapter 2 and 3 is more correct and is the word of the Lord God as opposed to Doctrine and Covenants Section 132. Doctrine and Covenants section 132 was given under curious, strange and suspicious circumstances.

[mormon fool]

Does some one want explain why Jacob would not be citing his own revelation instead of prior scriptures?

The way I see it the case for Jacob citing original revelation is as follows.

1) Jacob claims to have had revelations prior to his Sherem debate. Therefore it is not necessarily parsimonious to assume he is not receiving revelation just because there is prior revelation on the same theme.

2) Some of Jacob's quotes seem to highly tailored to the current situation. "This people . . .begins", cursing the land, reactionism to current "tender feelings", Jacob 1:15's historical background. It would be awkward pinning all the phrases on previous scripture.

3) There appears to polemical standstill before Jacob's sermon. Assuming that his opponents had all the scripture he did and had knowledge of Lehi's command, it seems odd that there would still be a controversy if all of Jacob's ideas were already attested to. Therefore Jacob' s words must have constituted a new authoritative wrinkle.

What do posters think?

Note: I am using revelation in a dialogic sense. If other forms of revelation are assumed it would weaken my argument a bit. But it would also weaken Jacob's stance, somewhat, to resolve a controversy.

[Benjamin McGuire]

mormonfool writes:

Does some one want explain why Jacob would not be citing his own revelation instead of prior scriptures?

That's simple enough. It's about authority. Who was more authoritative? Jacob or Moses. It didn't matter what Lehi said - after all, the Nephites were practicing polygamy and justifying it based on a biblical model. Not only that, but in at least one instance, the new policy started by Lehi, directly contradicted the Law of Moses. Thus an appeal to the Law of Moses would be the natural place to start.

Ben

[Alan]

I'm joining this thread late but I'd just like to say that I am absolutely convinced that LDS D&C 132 is not God's word nor Joseph's.

I believe it was cobbled together by either Brigham Young or one or more of his co-conspiritors. It doesn't even read like Joseph's writing.

Given that Joseph was familiar with Jacob and that it says David and Solomon committed sin when they took plural wives, why would Joseph then have asked the Lord how he justified them in taking plural wives? It just does not make sense.

Alan

[enummaelish]

Hello Alan:

I'm joining this thread late but I'd just like to say that I am absolutely convinced that LDS D&C 132 is not God's word nor Joseph's.

I believe it was cobbled together by either Brigham Young or one or more of his co-conspiritors. It doesn't even read like Joseph's writing.

Given that Joseph was familiar with Jacob and that it says David and Solomon committed sin when they took plural wives, why would Joseph then have asked the Lord how he justified them in taking plural wives? It just does not make sense.

Before you express such certainty on the issue of authorship, you may wish to do a bit of research. Have you read Daniel W. Bachman, "New Light on an Old Hypothesis: The Ohio Origins of the revelation on Eternal Marriage," Journal of Mormon History, vol. 5 pages 19-32. If not, it would be a good place to start. I would be very surprised if most members of your Church these days agreed with your view.

[YH8]

Not sure if this has been brought up yet, but I came across the following last night. In the LDS version of the scriptures, 1 Sam 25:43 (David having at least 2 wives) refers to Jacob 1:15 (David's wives not a good thing) and D&C 132:37-39 (David's wives may or may not have been a good thing). Also, Jacob 1:15 and D&C 132:38 refer to each other. If there is such a controversy why did the LDS Church go ahead and make obvious references to "both views?" One explanation could be that it was so obvious it would look worse if they didn't make the references. Another explanation could be that it isn't as simple as it looks; maybe there isn't a contradiction.

[Guest onandagus]

Alan:

<I'm joining this thread late but I'd just like to say that I am absolutely convinced that LDS D&C 132 is not God's word nor Joseph's.

I believe it was cobbled together by either Brigham Young or one or more of his co-conspiritors. It doesn't even read like Joseph's writing.>

Hi Alan,

That D&C 132 was dictated by Joseph Smith ought to be beyond controversy. William Clayton - the scribe for the document - recorded as much in his journal on July 12, 1843, and Willard Richards, who kept Joseph's diary for him, recorded the same in Joseph's journal under the same date. A copy of the document was made by Joseph B. Noble several days later, as he attested to in later years. Hyrum made the document known to the High Council on August 11, 1843, a fact recorded at the time by Franklin D. Richards and attested to in affidavit by several dissenting the High Council members (such as Austin Cowles) the following spring and by non-dissenting High Council members (such as Thomas Grover) in later years.

D&C 132:41-66 also fits very well what we know of the historical context of July 1843. For instance, verse 56 instructs Emma to not make Joseph "put his property out of his hands." She apparently fails to follow this instruction, since - on that very day - Joseph deeds her his interest in the steamboat "The Maid of Iowa" and all his unencumbered lots in Nauvoo.

Was there a conspiracy between various Nauvoo diarists, the people who handled the land records, Emma (who filed the deed), the High Council - both those who believed in polygamy *and* those who did not, other Nauvoo dissenters, such as William Law, and event early Reorganites who had been highly placed in Nauvoo - such as William Marks, who acknowledged that Joseph dictated the revelation but claimed he burned it just before going to Carthage? A vast conspiracy indeed!

And despite your claims about the style of D&C 132, this has been examined more objectively in an unpublished paper by Bachman (Danel, not Tal!) and found to match the style of Joseph's other revelations.

I presented a paper on D&C 132 at the Mormon History Association several years ago using D&C 132 as a source for uncovering events of July 1843. In doing so, I examined carefully how this document, like other Joseph Smith revelations, subtly alludes to various biblical passages and to previous revelations. It is a precise fit with the general pattern of his revelations. I also placed D&C 132 in the exact context of July 12, 1843, and, again, the fit is more than beautiful. The dictation of D&C 132 and the events alluded to within it explain not only the July 12 deed to Emma, but also various otherwise cryptic comments Joseph Smith made in sermons given July 9, 16, and 23, 1843 - just before and after the date of D&C 132. This project I hope to eventually publish as a book. If you care to read it when it's published, you can make your own judgment.

Until you acquire more detailed information on the subject, or even deal with the information already readily available, perhaps you'd do best to not be "absolutely convinced" of your position.

Don Bradley

[Guest onandagus]

Don quote:

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.

Incidental Conformant (Just kidding - that was just too fun a one to *not* switch it around!):

<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 puzzled how these would be the same. The idea suggested by someone earlier in this discussion was that the "raising up seed unto the Lord" was the Levirate raising up of seed to a brother. But, unless the Lord is one's deceased brother, I fail to see how the one simply is the the other. Certainly, there is a parallel notion of raising up seed to someone else - i.e., providing them with children. But the idea of raising up children of the Lord - i.e., children who will grow up in righteousness to salvation, in BoM usage - simply is not the same as the idea of providing a deceased brother with children he cannot know physically beget by his own power (obviously). The distinction between the two is plainly there, and the two are distinct even in the language - the indirect object of the raising up. Thus it is the equation of the two, not the distinguishing of the two, that requires justification.

Don

[Guest onandagus]

QUOTE (onandagus @ Mar 30 2005, 07:15 PM)

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.

MoFool

Actually I have plead guilty to this now that you bring it up.

Don:

So why would the construction, "_____, which thing is _____" communicate something unqualified in the first place and something qualified in the second? I fail to see anything in the text that justifies this. What is used to justify it is its presumed need to be consistent with other documents, as though contradictions between different works of scripture are unknown in religious history.

What we would expect to almost surely be consistent is the text with itself. And we would expect its clear grammatical meaning to be the meaning it is supposed to put across. And the grammatical meaning of "David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing is abominable before me" is that

MoFool:

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.

Don:

This is a straw man. On my reading, the text doesn't say this behavior would be abominable in the *absence* of a commandment. It says there *was* a commandment to the Lehites, which they have "known before" and are therefore under condemnation for flouting (vs. 34), and that when God does *not* give a commandment for His people to be monogamous, the people naturally tend toward having "many wives and concubines" as did David and Solomon.

Also, what verse 24 says is that this practice is "abominable before" God - that He hates it, not that people *not* commanded to avoid it stand under condemnation before Him. My reading is entirely consistent with Lehi's broader theology.

Mo Fool:

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.

Don:

This strikes me as a personal theological judgment about what Jacob *should* have said - a form of eisegesis - not as exegetical analysis of the text - i.e., of what he did say.

The Book of Mormon represents God as giving the Lehites a "strict commandment" to have only one wife and no concubines. Whatever may have been done under previous set-ups and by previous prophets and patriarchs, this is represented as His commandment to *them*.

[Brackite]

IMHO, Joseph Smith concocted and dictated Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 to William Clayton in order to try to justify his adulterous affairs with Emma Smith. Later on Emma Smith ended burning Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 with Joseph Smith

[Confidential Informant]

Remember that Bigamy was illegal in the state of Illinois already by the time that Joseph Smith and the Latter-day saints arrived in the state of Illinois.  Joseph Smith had None of his Plural Marriages with the state of Illinois since Bigamy was illegal.

One more time. Joseph Smith was not, no matter how you slice it, guilty of Bigamy in the State of Illinois or any other state.

They were nearly all very secret strange and quite suspicious religious plural marriages ceremonies.

Which is exactly why they weren't bigamous in nature. They were the result of religious rites, unrecognized by the State of Illinois. They did not follow the statutory requirement for marriage in Illinois and thus could not have been used to convict him of Bigamy.

I do believe that Joseph Smith was guilty of having adulterous affairs.  I also believe that Brigham Young was guilty of having adulterous affairs.

I guess it all comes to down to a single question: Was Joseph really a prophet? If he was, then the sec 132 is real and, in God's eyes at least, Joseph is blameless. If he wasn't, then Joseph was guilty of adultery.

While I do believe that JS and BY were guilty of adulterous affairs, I do Not believe that ever Mormon male in the 1800 hundreds who enter into the practice of plural marriage was guilty of adulterous affairs.  I do Not believe that every Mormon male in the 18800 hundreds who into Plural Marriage was guilty of adultery, because they didn’t marry the wives of other men and Polygamy in the Territory of Utah was somewhat pretty much legitimatize unlike it was in the state of Illinois.

Aside from the fact that you've created an unsupportable bifurcation here, I'm curious because you seem to be more concerned about the law of the land than about anything else. For example, if Illinois had had no law regarding bigamy, would still say that Smith hadn't commited adultery?

Personally, I don't think the question of the was it "legal" is really the issue here. I can think of lots of "legal" behavior that I still think God disapproves of. The question is, did it violate God's commandments against adultery. If it did, then all the men in Utah were just as guilty as you claim Smith and Young were.

Plus these men (most of them I believe were good and honorable men) were doing what they felt and believe was right.

And what is your evidence, beyond person opinion and speculation, that Smith and Young weren't equally as honorable?

They were doing their best at time to live their Religion, and I do Not believe that these men were guilty of adultery, as I believe that JS and BY were guilty of adultery.

And I find your reasoning to be self-serving and specious at best.

C.I.

[Guest onandagus]

Brackite:

IMHO, Joseph Smith concocted and dictated Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 to William Clayton in order to try to justify his adulterous affairs with Emma Smith.

Don:

I disagree (though the language of "adulterous affairs with Emma Smith" strikes me funny). D&C 132 was decidedly not Joseph's first revelation on polygamy; so it's hard to justify the notion that Joseph only concocted this document as a smokescreen. If there was a smokescreen, it had been in place for years prior to this. And D&C 132 responds to a very difficult and complex situation between Joseph and Emma in July 1843. I believe Joseph Smith thought it as much a revelation as his other revelatory dictations (which in my opinion means that he believed its basic content, though perhaps not its exact words, represented the word and will of God).

Interestingly, though, 132 *does* deal with a question Joseph asked about adultery, though the exact question is not given in the text (vs. 41-45).

I definitely agree with you that Joseph had sexual relations with at least some of the women he married who were legally married to other men. In fact, I think that was the point - to have children by these women without arousing the suspicion that would come from "illegitimate" births to numerous single women.

Here is a question I have for you, if Joseph Smith made up polygamy, or received false revelation on it, how does this affect his general credibility as a prophet? I once counted Joseph Smith's claimed revelations (including angel visits) on polygamy. By my count, they number about two dozen. How does he get it wrong (or lie) that many times and remain credible? If he can't, or won't, distinguish true revelation from false on dozens of occasions, doesn't that cast suspicion on his credibility as a revelator in the first place?

[Ray Agostini]

Here is a question I have for you, if Joseph Smith made up polygamy, or received false revelation on it, how does this affect his general credibility as a prophet? I once counted Joseph Smith's claimed revelations (including angel visits) on polygamy. By my count, they number about two dozen. How does he get it wrong (or lie) that many times and remain credible? If he can't, or won't, distinguish true revelation from false on dozens of occasions, doesn't that cast suspicion on his credibility as a revelator in the first place?

It's a bind. I've written before, on this board some months ago, that if D&C 132 was false, then Joseph was a false prophet.

Let me make some qualifications here. It's a real bind for believing Mormons, and I understand that well. It's like you have to make a do or die choice, and I've seen LDS go to extraordinary lengths to defend polygamy in order to salvage, or maintain, Joseph's reputation as a prophet. IMO, this is what sorts out many, and those who follow the Utah Mormon chuch have to be vigourous defenders of polygamy.

Some points I think pertinent:

1) Even if D&C 132 was a false revelation it is not the end of Joseph Smith, or Mormonism, no more so than the black PH ban was the deathknell for Mormonism. Don you claim that there are some dozen revelations on polygamy given by Joseph, but I know of only one canonised one, and that is the official section 132. If you want to include all of Joseph's non-canonised revelations, then I suggest that you also include the false Canadian revelation wherein he admitted - "some revelations are of God, some are of man, and some are of the devil", and bear in mind which category Emma thought section 132 came from! And not only Emma.

2) Section 132 is, as far as I know, the only revelation on which Joseph expressed some serious doubts. This was very uncharacteristic, and according to William Marks, he (Joseph) expressed regret that it was ever given, and voiced his opinion that it would "lead to the ruin of the church". Perhaps some prophetic insight there!?

3) As to the "witnessses" that many people had about polygamy, by way of personal revelation, that is more difficult to explain. Dan Vogel will be flattered to know that I've seriously considered his theory of mass hypnotism here. I can't explain it, but for the first time Dan's theory is kind of making a little sense to me. I've been thinking about this over the last few days and I thought of the following examples:

a) Hitler's powerful influence over the German people, almost "hypnotic".

b ) The influence of the Emperor of Japan over the Japanese people.

c) The influence of Mao over the Chinese people.

d) The continuing infuence of the Buddha over his followers, who claim to still receive revelation from him and confirmation of his teaching. I know this firsthand as I work with a very devoted Buddhist

I could give many more, but, as Dr.Susan Blackmore put it, ideas can influence people and "catch on" as fads or beliefs, and this is described as memetic theory. In conjunction with Blackmore, Dan's theory in this case may not be far off the mark. The "hypnotic influence" I was criticising in Dan's theory was different to the above examples I gave. In other words, a person can convnce themselves that they have had a vision or very deep personal experience/revelation in regard to something suggested to them. This is common in the world of spiritual phenomena, and many examples can be found in, and the one I strongly recommend is I.M.Lewis, Estatic Religion: An Anthropological Study of Spirit Possession and Shamanism (Penguin, 1971) How does this affect the BoM? I'll deal with that later. But briefly, it does not affect the BoM directly as it does D&C 132, not as far as content goes, nor what was suggested in these polygamous "witnesses". Let's not call apples and oranges the same thing here, but I can't make detail differentiations unless I have more time, and it's not pertinent to this thread.

4) The LDS church is, sorry to use this almost offensive term again, almost "schizophrenic" because of the differences between ploygamy/132 versus monogamy/BoM. So much so that it has lead Pres.Hinckley to make some very duvious public statements which seem contradictory to the revelation. I suggest that the LDS church, sooner or later, is going to have to choose between section 132 and the BoM. I believe it has been moving away from 132 for many years now, and there's some concrete evidence of that for those who are paying attenion.

[Brackite]

Hi Don,

Don:

I disagree (though the language of "adulterous affairs with Emma Smith" strikes me funny). D&C 132 was decidedly not Joseph's first revelation on polygamy; so it's hard to justify the notion that Joseph only concocted this document as a smokescreen. If there was a smokescreen, it had been in place for years prior to this. And D&C 132 responds to a very difficult and complex situation between Joseph and Emma in July 1843. I believe Joseph Smith thought it as much a revelation as his other revelatory dictations (which in my opinion means that he believed its basic content, though perhaps not its exact words, represented the word and will of God).

Interestingly, though, 132 *does* deal with a question Joseph asked about adultery, though the exact question is not given in the text (vs. 41-45).

You do have a Good Point there, Don. While Joseph Smith did Not receive Doctrine and Covenants section 132 as a Revelation until 1843, the idea of Polygamy came to him quite a few years before that.

Here is a question I have for you, if Joseph Smith made up polygamy, or received false revelation on it, how does this affect his general credibility as a prophet? I once counted Joseph Smith's claimed revelations (including angel visits) on polygamy. By my count, they number about two dozen. How does he get it wrong (or lie) that many times and remain credible? If he can't, or won't, distinguish true revelation from false on dozens of occasions, doesn't that cast suspicion on his credibility as a revelator in the first place?

I view Joseph Smith pretty much the same way I view King David and king Solomon. While King David and King Solomon did some Great things and produced some Great writings (such as Psalms and Proverbs), I however believe that both fell into the sin of adultery. Likewise I believe that Joseph Smith did a few great things and produced some Great writings (such as the Book of Mormon), I however believe that he fell into the sin of adultery. As for Doctrine and Covenants section 132, while I don

[Ray Agostini]

I'm joining this thread late but I'd just like to say that I am absolutely convinced that LDS D&C 132 is not God's word nor Joseph's.

I believe it was cobbled together by either Brigham Young or one or more of his co-conspiritors. It doesn't even read like Joseph's writing.

Given that Joseph was familiar with Jacob and that it says David and Solomon committed sin when they took plural wives, why would Joseph then have asked the Lord how he justified them in taking plural wives? It just does not make sense.

Alan

I agree with Alan to a certain extent. Don is correct that Joseph is indeed the author of section 132, there can be no serious doubt about that. A good account of some of the circumstances surrounding this revelation can be found in Mormon Enigma. What I believe, however, is that Brigham Young is largely responsible for getting 132 into the canon. Young was "polygamy's man", "polygamy's defender", and I believe that had Joseph lived it might not have made it into the canon. But that's only speculation. I think Joseph may have done some serious reconsiderations. But it would have come at a price - his credibility as a prophet. This is something we will never know, but the fact that it took so long to get into the canon suggests that the atmosphere surrounding post-1847 Utah in regard to polygamy, and the 1852 official announcement of the practice of polygamy, and its later intorduction to the canon as a buffer, all place some doubt upon this, and reaffirm the foundation text, the BoM, as the most reliable LDS scripture.

[auteur55]

So Brackbite you accept the validity of the Book of Mormon but you believe that Joseph was a "fallen prophet" like many of the early bretheren? So much for the statement that the lord "will never let the Prophet lead the church astray" seems like Joseph led everyone astray before the Lord could remove him and replace him with an even more Polygamous prophet, Brigham Young. Or are you saying the church, that was supposed to be the restitution of all things, slid into apostasy due to Josephs indiscretions? If we come to believe that Joseph was in fact an adulterer and a liar should we logically denounce the Book of mormon as well? Hmmm...quoting a line from the film Being John Malkovich..."do you see what a metaphysical can of worms this is?"

[Alan]

Was Joseph teling the truth when he claimed to have had his First vision experience?

Was Joseph telling the truth when he claimed to have translated the Book of Mormon from gold plates?

Was Joseph telling the truth when he claimed that he had received the priesthood from heavenly messengers?

Was Joseph telling the truth when he claimed, shortly before his death, that he had only one wife?

Was Joseph an honest man or not?

Alan

[Ray Agostini]

Was Joseph teling the truth when he claimed to have had his First vision experience?

Was Joseph telling the truth when he claimed to have translated the Book of Mormon from gold plates?

Was Joseph telling the truth when he claimed that he had received the priesthood from heavenly messengers?

Was Joseph telling the truth when he claimed, shortly before his death, that he had only one wife?

Was Joseph an honest man or not?

Alan

Alan, I can only seriously cast doubt on one:

Was Joseph telling the truth when he claimed, shortly before his death, that he had only one wife?

The rest are a matter of mostly anti-Mormon conjecture. And unfortunately, it seems as though you've been thoroughly indoctriniated with that crap. Sorry to be so blunt.

It's the sort of garbage one finds on RFM.

[Alan]

Ray A,

Not so.

I believe Joseph was telling the truth in all these instances. It is you Mormons who claim he was a liar. Still, at least you have some common ground with the anti's.

Alan

[mormon fool]

Don: (old)

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.

MoFool

Actually I have plead guilty to this now that you bring it up.

Don:

So why would the construction, "_____, which thing is _____" communicate something unqualified in the first place and something qualified in the second? I fail to see anything in the text that justifies this. What is used to justify it is its presumed need to be consistent with other documents, as though contradictions between different works of scripture are unknown in religious history.

What we would expect to almost surely be consistent is the text with itself. And we would expect its clear grammatical meaning to be the meaning it is supposed to put across. And the grammatical meaning of "David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing is abominable before me" is that

You might have to help me see why my reading of v. 7 relates something unqualiified to something qualified. I think I have been clear that I see an underlying qualification on both sides of "which thing is". Feelings are chaste and hence pleasing in the presence of Lehi's no polygamy ban. David and Solomon's excessive polygamy is abominable under Jacob's (God's) interpretation of OT/ Mosaic law application. The text may not require my reading, but I fail to see how it creates a coherency problem for it.

MoFool:

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.

Don:

This is a straw man. On my reading, the text doesn't say this behavior would be abominable in the *absence* of a commandment. It says there *was* a commandment to the Lehites, which they have "known before" and are therefore under condemnation for flouting (vs. 34), and that when God does *not* give a commandment for His people to be monogamous, the people naturally tend toward having "many wives and concubines" as did David and Solomon.

Also, what verse 24 says is that this practice is "abominable before" God - that He hates it, not that people *not* commanded to avoid it stand under condemnation before Him. My reading is entirely consistent with Lehi's broader theology.

Thanks for clarifying your position. In your reading, there is no *requirement* to see polygamy as abominable in the absence of a command. Does your reading require God to hate polygamy even in the absence of a command? What are God's feelings in the presence of pro-polygamy commands such as levirate marriages?

Depending on the way the answers to these questions break, the "predictive" clause doesn't serve as much of a predictor. The people have taken up excessive polygamy like D & S despite having a command not to do so. What rhetorical value does the phrase have in your reading?

Mo Fool:

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.

Don:

This strikes me as a personal theological judgment about what Jacob *should* have said - a form of eisegesis - not as exegetical analysis of the text - i.e., of what he did say.

I will admit to not having much training to discipline myself against forms of eisegesis. However, I understand that trying to recover the socio-historical paradigm of Jacob's audience and trying to see how they would have interpretted his words is a legimate approach. My model treats Jacob's audience as scripturally informed. If they are, that increases the lilkelihood that Jacob is making a statement acknowledging past exceptions. One that is to the effect of what you write below:

The Book of Mormon represents God as giving the Lehites a "strict commandment" to have only one wife and no concubines. Whatever may have been done under previous set-ups and by previous prophets and patriarchs, this is represented as His commandment to *them*.

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people [as to the best way to accomplish this whether polygamy or monogamy]; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things [the monogamy command I gave Lehi and Jacob].

later,

fool

[Benjamin McGuire]

mormon fool writes:

My model treats Jacob's audience as scripturally informed. If they are, that increases the lilkelihood that Jacob is making a statement acknowledging past exceptions.

They are arguing from the scriptures (I don't really see any other way to read the people using David and Solomon as examples - examples which are known to them only from the text - and probably not from any particular cultural background - particularly if Lehi's commandment to practice monogamy occurs before the journey to the New World.

Ben

[Ray Agostini]

Ray A,

Not so.

I believe Joseph was telling the truth in all these instances. It is you Mormons who claim he was a liar. Still, at least you have some common ground with the anti's.

Alan

Then I obviously misread your post.

BTW, I am not Mormon. Nor anti.

[Alan]

Ray A,

My apologies too. I assumed you were Mormon, sorry.

Just to clarify things, I am Community of Christ (formerly called the Reorganised Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints).

Peace,

Alan

[Ray Agostini]

Ray A,

My apologies too. I assumed you were Mormon, sorry.

Just to clarify things, I am Community of Christ (formerly called the Reorganised Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints).

Peace,

Alan

Alan,

No worries. I knew you were Community of Christ. Many people on this board think I am Mormon. But officially I am ex-Mormon. I am however still a believer in the (teachings of the) Book of Mormon, even though I don't have the faintest idea if it's history or not. That's another subject.