D&C 132 Contradicts Jacob 2.

[enummaelish]

Hello Don:

Again, to Malachi, God hated divorce; and to Jesus, it was allowed in the law only because of the hardness of men's hearts and actually led to adultery. For David and Solomon, or anyone else, to practice polygamy could have been "abominable" - i.e., hated - to the Lord while being perfectly consistent with the Law.

The text offers no charge that David and Solomon violated the Law. Rather, it quotes God saying that He hates the having of many wives and concubines - that it is abominable to Him. It was not because He forbade it that it was abominable to Him. Rather, it was because He finds it abominable, according to Jacob 2, that He forbade it among the Lehites (27-28).

Of course you are correct to emphasize the word

[Benjamin McGuire]

Don writes:

The 1830 says "was." P says "is." Given what we know through textual criticism of the Book of Mormon, P is to be preferred and is almost certainly more correct. We are on dubious exegetical ground, to say the least, if we ignore the reading of P - "which thing is abominable before me."

Except Don, I didn't ignore the reading, and it has no impact on my argument. I was simply pointing out that without O, arguments based on a P reading (which have doubtful impact on the discussion) aren't going to gain any extra value.

That said, my basic point for you here was intended to be that, accepting both critical biblical scholarship and the antiquity of the Book of Mormon, you can't realistically, IMO, claim to know just what biblical texts, in what form were available to the author of a BoM other than those identifiably quoted, alluded to, or echoed.

But why would we care about the others? If they don't inform the text, they have limited value to us in any case. The issue here, though, is that the primary texts are clearly available to the Nephites.

Even assuming a given author had "E," you couldn't really say that the brass plates version thereof was just the same as the "E" source teased out from the Hebrew Bible. Same goes for proto-Deuteronomy or just about anything else. We are talking about hypothetical sources in the first place, and ones that could have taken a very different form in a "brass plates" version.

I can however, demonstrate quite convincingly that the passages which I am invoking in this application were available. There isn't any doubt, in other words, that Deuteronomy 17 (and 18) played a role in the religious community. It was the apparent standard by which all the kings in the Book of Mormon were measured (those Nephite kings in any case - it wouldn't be applicable to the Jaredite record). Not only this, but we know that these texts were available at the time of Lehi. The primary argument, for example, that they were a part of the proto-Deuteronomy is the fact that they are quoted in Jeremiah. This isn't pure speculation, nor is it a blind stab in the darkness. Levirate marriage and polygamy were both very ancient practices. I don't know how familiar you are with the process I engage in when exploring intertextuality, but, I don't think you are very familiar with it. The Brass Plates are, I repeat, not as unknown as you claim, and the connections can be made. Anyone (such as yourself) who doesn't attempt to make the connections will become less and less able to derive the meaning the author intended from the text. It is that simple. If you attempt to isolate a text from its literary culture, and from its historical setting, you will always end up with a great deal of misapprehension.

As I have argued, the juxtaposition and opposition in Jacob 2 is between many wives and one. And, as I have also argued, "Jacob" does not emphasize the quantity with "truly." Rather, the text is most coherent and logically flowing when "truly" is understood to emphasize the actuality of the people's claims regarding David and Solomon, not the number of their wives and concubines.

But this still doesn't work. Despite the fact that "many" is placed opposite of "one" (and they are opposites), they do not fill the entire spectrum. "Two" is neither "many" nor "one". And "many" cannot lexically be made to fit in the round hole. Jacob could certainly have worded it differently so that "one" and "more than one" were the focus. But he didn't. And, no matter how you describe it, Jacob is in fact still focusing on quantity. Otherwise, "many" would not be placed in opposition to "one". They are quantitative terms.

There may well be Deuteronomy 17 allusions in the Book of Mormon. If so, they will be truly identifiable only if stronger than your putative D17 allusion in Jacob 2. This allusion/quotation exists primarily in your assertion that it does.

Absolutely they are. This, of course, is part of the problem in this discussion. You aren't very aware at all (as far as I can tell) of the use of the Biblical text in the Book of Mormon as both a source of material, and as a model of production.

The law of Moses in the Book of Mormon has a purpose different than any ascribed to it in the Hebrew Bible, and is often presented in a negative light. The Nephites are described as keeping this law; but I would submit that the "Law of Moses" is not a unitary thing with which one is either familiar or unfamiliar. As mentioned above, even if you could know that various hypothetical texts behind the present Bible existed, and know their structure and extent, this would not necessarily tell you that these texts were exactly what the author had available.

The Law of Moses is clearly presented in more favorable terms than in non-favorable terms. And keeping the Law of Moses seems to be a repeated concern. More than that, however, is the notions about the Law of Moses brought up in the Nephi-Laban narrative. The entire purpose of recovering the Brass Plates was so that the people would have the Law. More interesting, for the purposes of this discussion, of course, is the incident between Abinadi and King Noah - where the Law is discussed frequently as being in use, as being studied, as being read to the people. I don't think that you have much ground here to stand on.

It is also worth noting that Book of Mormon practice has sometimes been identified by Bible-informed critics as flouting the Law of Moses; so, again, it's unclear why the pre-Jesus Christian Nephites whose familiar texts are largely unknown and Torah practice non-standard for our Bible would necessarily view and abide the marriage laws as understood by you, especially given their own prophetic tradition's obvious slant against polygamy.

Yes, for example, when Lehi offers burnt offerings in the wilderness before he leaves for the New World. Of course, this is usually based on some critics ignorance and not on any kind of knowledge. After all, Hebrew religion (prior to being rewritten in the Josian reform) allowed for burnt offerings outside of a three day journey from the temple in Jerusalem. Hence, Lehi makes a three day trip into the wilderness (note that the time frame is explicitly used in the Book of Mormon when very few other time frames are - at least in Nephi's travelogue) before offering his burnt offerings. And so on. Since I am very well versed in the Old Testament, and in the dating of the strands of the Old Testament, I am fairly confident that I can address these points quite adequately (and some of them I already have). So if you want to continue this train of thought, lets drop the vagaries, and introduce some real claims so I can respond to them.

Now, unlike your statements about divorce, polygamy was a requirement in certain circumstances. (When was divorce ever mandated by the text)? Polygamy is apparently condoned by God in the Biblical text (see your comments about David). When was divorce ever condoned by God? Do we see a pattern here? Despite the fact that your proof text suggests that God can allow something he hates (which is probably true), God does a lot more than merely "allow" with polygamy.

You have to understand the extent to which Jews historically (and even today) go to keep the Law. Halitzah is an (unpreferrable) alternative to levirate marriage which was required by secular law once polygamy was banned in modern Israel. This created the problem a few years ago of a woman, who had a daughter and was happily married when the family was involved in a serious auto accident. The daughter died immediately. The husband died in the hospital. The woman (who was childless at the time of her husband's death) immediately became betrothed to her already married brother-in-law. He refused for six years to perform the ceremony which would officially "divorce" them (halitzah). Because she could not get married to anyone else, she sued him in court (and eventually won a large settlement) because while she was in that state he was required to pay her upkeep and support her as his wife. I can get you references to literature on the topic if you want. Polygamy as it relates to Levirate marriage was the subject of more than a hundred legal clarifications in the Mishnah. This wasn't simply a minor trivial thing, but a religious obligation. So, I am not going to respond very well to your assertions that it wasn't a consequential issue, or that it was negligible.

The text offers no charge that David and Solomon violated the Law. Rather, it quotes God saying that He hates the having of many wives and concubines - that it is abominable to Him. It was not because He forbade it that it was abominable to Him. Rather, it was because He finds it abominable, according to Jacob 2, that He forbade it among the Lehites (27-28).

Abominable means in violation of the law. David though addresses this, so I won't jump in at the moment.

As, indeed, it is ludicrous to lay this charge at my feet when I have never said anything remotely resembling it. To the contrary, I keep repeating (per the text) that the having of many wives and concubines just is abominable to God in Jacob 2 (vs. 24) and that He forbade it among the Lehites for this reason (vs. 27-28). This is the argument of the text. Neither I nor the text argue that David and Solomon's behavior was abominable to God because it contradicted a later commandment to Lehi.

But, if God not only allowed it, but required it in some places, you can't possibly state that God thought that it was abominable simply as a practice. You have to understand that if this is what you actually think, then Jacob was taking an approach to the topic that no one in his audience would have accepted. Because he wouldn't actually address the concerns that the audience would have. How can it be an abomination? Does God require abominations? You are suggesting that Jacob was claiming exactly this. And the response of the Nephites who were familiar with the Law of Moses would be exactly what I suggest.

To reiterate, according to the text, the having of many wives and concubines is abominable to God, and it is because He hates such things that, whatever He may have done elsewhere or elsewhen, He explicitly forbade them among the Lehites.

And this doesn't make any sense given the historical context. Apart from which, you now leave open my interpretation of verse 30. No matter what he does among the Lehites, he can change it at any time by commandment.

While the Law is normally given respect as what God requires, it is described as a temporary expedient, a law of "outward performances," as being "dead," and as having been given because of the "stiffneckedness" of Israel.

But this doesn't change the fact that it was still followed. And, there is no demarcation between those parts that were true and those parts which weren't. Additionally, polygamy, and levirate marriage predate the Law of Moses. So it is questionable whether or not they would considered a part of this (while the practice of Levirate marriage would be - as would Deuteronomy 17). So, this statement doesn't help us any.

Was the entire Law viewed as a temporary expedient (and it's hard to imagine a "temporary expedient which had existed for 600 years already and would exist for another 600). Was only part of the Law? Did they view polygamy as this part of the Law? Did the view temple sacrifices as this part of the Law? Did they view inheritance laws in this fashion? The command not to kill - was it simply "dead"? Creating such an inconsistent view when the text itself doesn't becomes a problem. It seems that using this approach, instead of considering the fact that the Nephites lived the Law of Moses consistently, allows you to simply dismiss it as being a factor.

This is simply a straw man. The idea of later revelation qualifying and modifying earlier revelation is quite familiar in Mormonism. And Jesus, in offering a higher standard, sometimes condemned behavior allowed or required by the Mosaic Law (e.g., an eye for an eye) - without also condemning the Law itself.

Neither of us are arguing that Jacob/Lehi aren't changing the Law. The problem here is that your claims about the Nephite appraoch to the Law are inconsistent with what the text largely says about the Law. The theological notion isn't the driving factor in the discussion in the text. It is the popular beliefs which are the driving force. In this case, the claim that later revelation can qualify earlier revelation is true. But, in practice, it is almost never cited that way (with some notable exceptions). We don't replace older scripture. We tend to give dead prophets more authority, and so on. So it cannot be considered merely a straw man. Nor do your claims deal with the repeated and consistent pattern that the Nephite people claim to be living the Law of Moses, and that this practice was central to their religious faith (as indicated as early as 1 Nephi 4). And even if the people believed that at some point the law would end (to be replaced perhaps), they also knew that it wasn't going to happen in any of their lifetimes.

Notably, the pre-Christ Christians of Alma's church in the wilderness live the Law, ...

However, Alma (who comes hundreds of years after Jacob) isn't going to have much relevance for a discussion of the Jacob text.

BTW, it's interesting to note a righteous Nephite king's response to the slaughter of many of the husbands among his people. Invoking the Levirate? Nope...

Of course not. After all, we suspect that Jacob was successful in his dealing with the issue hundreds of years earlier.

But it is the people desiring the illicit marriage practices who are invoking the examples of David and Solomon. Why invoke the examples of those who, on your argument, were most vulnerable to the charge of breaking the Law? If the Law of Moses was central to the debate, and the Law only specifically condemned the polygamy of these men, why use them as the justification for polygamy?

I can think of several possibilities, but they are all going to be speculative. The same thing is true for your argument though. Why were they using David and Solomon as the examples - when by your own comments, they couldn't possibly have followed those examples? And we know, from Jacob chapter 1, that they were using David and Solomon, specifically, as examples. The best solution to this, in my opinion, is the notion that here we are seeing evidence of interactions with others. But I don't think this point needs to be resolved to justify the argument one way or the other.

This is one of your most interesting points.

One section of scripture relevant to both Jewish and Christian discussion of polygamy that you have overlooked is Malachi 2; and the relationship of Jacob 2 to this text undermines your argument considerably.

The problem with Malachi 2 is that it doesn't relate to polygamy. Nor was it ever used in conjunction with polygamy by a group who practiced the Law of Moses. And, it seems to be quite capable of being read as a discussion on polygamy which seems to protect Abraham. (By this, I mean that Abraham did not attempt to put away the "wife of his youth").

At the same time, the injunction to "one flesh" which occurs in Genesis was never considered a barrier within Israelite culture to polygamy, even when they were practicing it on a regular basis. And of course, Malachi could not have been available to the Nephites.

One obvious question is why David would be regarded as having too many wives under Deuteronomy 17:17. That Solomon married in excess is clear, but David? You bring up the medieval limitation to four; but this limit was set in a time when polygamy was on its way out. And texts such as Isaiah 4:1 seem to approve of higher numbers. So, almost surely in earlier times, a higher number would have seemed appropriate and not excessive.

How many wives and concubines do you think David had? The number is usually considered to be fairly large (twelve or more). Which is part of the issue. Why not use Jacob as the model?

Another point relevant to David's guilt or absence thereof under Deuteronomy 17 that you have not brought up is that the proscriptions of Deuteronomy 17 were specifically targeted at Solomon:

This isn't an issue. Recognizing that likely Deuteronomy 17 was written in response to Solomon doesn't mitigate the fact that when it was attributed to Moses (as part of the Decalogue), it precedes both David and Solomon in the view of the readers of the text. Kings postdates Lehi and could not have been included on the Brass Plates. In any case, from the perspective that Moses wrote them (which would be the general perception of the Nephites, just as it is the general perception of many Christians - including LDS - today). So this is an irrelevancy. It does, however, show a pattern of how the Deuteronomy text would be applied. And so, in the Book of Mormon, we get a similar treatment (condemnation) of King Noah:

... that Zeniff conferred the kingdom upon Noah, one of his sons; therefore Noah began to reign in his stead; and he did not walk in the ways of his father. For behold, he did not keep the commandments of God, but he did walk after the desires of his own heart. And he had many wives and concubines. And he did cause his people to commit sin, and do that which was abominable in the sight of the Lord. Yea, and they did commit whoredoms and all manner of wickedness. And he laid a tax of one fifth part of all they possessed, ... And all this did he take to support himself, and his wives and his bconcubines; and also his priests, and their wives and their concubines; thus he had changed the affairs of the kingdom.

And so on.

In any case, you have it backwards. You write:

Another point relevant to David's guilt or absence thereof under Deuteronomy 17 that you have not brought up is that the proscriptions of Deuteronomy 17 were specifically targeted at Solomon: ... The ideal king of Deuteronomy 17 was Josiah:

Since Kings was written after Deuteronomy, it uses the Deuteronomic text (much like the Book of Mormon does) to differentiate between the good king and the bad king.

Deuteronomy 17 is targeted at Solomon, whom the author evidently blames for the dissolution of the united kingdom. David, however, is not guilty of these sins, as noted by the authors of the deuteronomic history. While it certainly would make sense for Jacob/Lehi/God to apply Deuteronomy 17 to Solomon; that it should be applied to David is not so clear.

There is a great deal of literature devoted to the issue of the line of kingship in Israel. In any case, the Deuteronomist (who actually follows David) is portrayed as coming before David. And so, whether or not the Deuteronomist convicts David is inconsequential to how Jacob uses the text to convict David, or to how later Judaism would have to be creative about the text to avoid having the Deuteronomist convict David.

Certainly the Nephites had reverence for the Mosaic Law. They also had reverence for contemporary revelation through their prophets, who are mentioned several times as often in the Book of Mormon as the Law of Moses. And their own founding prophet and patriarch received revelation giving them a substantially different approach to polygamy than that known among the Jews with which we are familiar. Without question, such unique Lehite revelation contrasted with and to some degree superseded the Mosaic Law. To understand just how fully it did so, we need to read and carefully interpret Jacob 2 primarily on its own internal evidences and its context in the language, doctrine, and practice of the Book of Mormon, and then set it more fully in and against a biblical background. Only then can the text's own voice be heard, rather than drowned out by what we think it *should* match in the Bible.

Despite the Nephite people revering Lehi as a prophet, the people still returned to the Biblical source which they brought with them, as justification for their behavioral pattern (independant of the cause of that pattern). So, while Nephite religion would have forbade polygamy as soon as Lehi made the restriction (which likely was after he had left Jerusalem - maybe when they went back for the women in Ishmael's family), popular Nephite religion did not forget the polygamy that existed in their religious heritage, and from time to time, used that religious heritage to reinsert the practice into their social behavior. So despite the fact that religious belief gave complete precedence to the living oracles, the observed behavior of the people does not correspond with your claims of what should have (but didn't) happened.

And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son.

This is the preface to Jacob's sermon (as he records it). Quantity. Historical patterns. Of course every reader has to decide for themselves.

My position neither endorses polygamy nor is overtly critical of it, particularly as it has existed (and exists) in other cultures and societies. Do you believe that God views polygamy as an abomination in all instances Don? And if you do, don't you even question your ability to view this issue without an iherent bias which may cause you to misapprehend the sources?

Ben

[enummaelish]

Ben:

I thought that yours was a very strong analysis. Thanks for sharing.

[Zakuska]

Heh... just thought of something.

Where not allot of Josephs and Brigham Youngs wifes sisters and such? Some of them where widows but who where they widowed from?

Perhaps Joseph and BY where practicing a variation of the leverite law?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Zakuska -

Levirate marriage would never allow the a man to marry sisters. Actually, this was a restriction on polygamy in general in the Old Testament - you weren't allowed to marry sisters. But, it does come up in the dozens of legal clarifications on the practice of Levirate marriage in several places. See for example Yebamoth 26 and 29.

Ben

[Guest onandagus]

David,

You are, of course, correct that "if I will saith the Lord of Hosts" in verse 30 introduces a conditional clause: IF God wants to raise up seed unto Him, He'll command His people.

So, one question that arises is, Did He want the Nephites to raise up seed unto Him?

This is where verse 25 becomes relevant:

"Wherefore, 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."

The Lord led the Lehites out of Jerusalem why?

25 "that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch"

And the condition on which He would "command" His people was what?

30 "if I will...raise up seed unto me"

Let's compare what He intends to do in the first case with what He'd intend to do in order to "command" His people in the second:

raise up unto me a righteous branch

raise up unto me seed

For what is "seed" here a metaphor? Posterity.

For what is "righteous branch" here a metaphor? Posterity - specifically, in this case, righteous posterity from "the loins of Joseph."

Therefore, the Lord's intention for the Lehites fulfills the condition in the "if" clause of verse 30: He did intend to raise up posterity to Himself by them; therefore, per the "then" clause, He would have "commanded" His people. And what did He command them, from the start, with respect to marriage? "There shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none" (Jacob 2:27; cf. Jacob 2:34 and Jacob 3:5).

It's notable also that according to verse 26, the reason the Lord would not allow the Lehites to imitate the polygamous behavior of their forbears was that He wanted to raise up by them a righteous branch unto Himself. So, as in verse 30, when He wants to raise up seed to Himself, He commands monogamy.

Don Bradley

[Guest onandagus]

Ben,

It is going to be a while before I get back to all of your posts. (Ditto for you, David). But right now I'd like to respond to this:

Ben:

My position neither endorses polygamy nor is overtly critical of it, particularly as it has existed (and exists) in other cultures and societies. Do you believe that God views polygamy as an abomination in all instances Don? And if you do, don't you even question your ability to view this issue without an iherent bias which may cause you to misapprehend the sources?

Ben, I developed the basic skeleton of my reading of Jacob 2 while attending Ricks college thirteen years ago. At the time, I believed plural marriage to be essential to exaltation, and I worked on exegesis of it (and D&C 132) to learn more about what I regarded as an essential celestial law. Nothing could have shocked me more than to arrive at the reading I did of Jacob's teachings on polygamy.

By this point I had read some biblical criticism and a good deal of early Mormon history and had seen in these that different books of scripture could sometimes contradict. And I believed in D&C 132 strongly enough that I could not reject the doctrine of plural marriage; so, I did not accept the doctrine I found in Jacob 2. Rather, I accepted that Jacob 2 said things I did not believe were completely true. This raised theological questions of "why," but these questions were no more serious for me than questions about other scriptural contradictions.

In short, yes, I was biased - against the doctrine I found propounded in Jacob 2. But I accepted that it was taught there because I found it to be taught there, whether I wanted it there or not.

My beliefs regarding theology and family relations have since changed considerably and frequently - and often in different directions. My reading Jacob 2 as uncompromisingly monogamous has remained constant; and through all my personal changes, I have consistently more evidence in and out of the text to support this reading.

Don

[Programmer]

[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.

That's quite a difference to plural marriage being a commandment, and it says in D&C 132 that this commandment goes back to the time of Abraham.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to read the quote in verse 30 and understand it. So attempting to write 3 pages of wranglings trying to make an issue where there isn't one is useless in my opinion. Any unlearned youngter can read both the BOM and D&C 132 and understand them.

Once again for clarity:

And you quoted / ignored it yourself:

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.

Parse that sentence and you may learn something.

[Zakuska]

Ben,

Ok I didnt phrase that very well. I was thinking more on the lines of who the women where widowed from. Ie where they widowed from relations or brothers of Joseph, Brigham, or others?

[Brackite]

Hello There,

Once again for clarity:

And you quoted / ignored it yourself:

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.

Parse that sentence and you may learn something.

Raising up Seed unto the Lord God always refers to doing it through Monogamy, Not polygamy. Here (again) are other Scriptural Passage in the BofM that refer to raising up seed unto the Lord God through Monogamy:

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 16:7 - 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.

Jacob 2:25 - Wherefore, 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.

Ether 1:43 - And there will I bless thee and thy seed, and raise up unto me of thy seed, and of the seed of thy brother, and they who shall go with thee, a great nation. And there shall be none greater than the nation which I will raise up unto me of thy seed, upon all the face of the earth. And thus I will do unto thee because this long time ye have cried unto me.

The Lord God intended always and only to raise up seed unto Himself through Monogamy throughout in the BofM.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Brackite writes:

Raising up Seed unto the Lord God always refers to doing it through Monogamy, Not polygamy. Here (again) are other Scriptural Passage in the BofM that refer to raising up seed unto the Lord God through Monogamy:

Actually, I disagree. Nothing in these passages indicates an exclusivity of the phrase to monogamy. More than this, since I am arguing that the phrase is an allusion to a Biblical passage (a specific text), Jacob 2:25 is irrelevant, since it doesn't use the same phrase. The same can also be said of the text in Ether. In other words, the phrase "rasie up seed" occurs only one time in the Book of Mormon outside of the debated text, and four in the in the Bible (all cases are references to Levirate marriage, one occuring in the Old Testament, and the other three in parallel passages in the synoptic gospels). In other words, I am arguing that this specific phrase as it stands is the marker which exists in both texts which is the basis for recognizing the allusion.

On another note, it is interesting to me that Jacob in other places uses the text of the Old Testament. Jacob 1:7, for example, alludes to (or quotes) Psalm 95 (which David ought to find interesting given the reference to YHWH as the "King of the gods"):

Jacob 1:7 Wherefore we labored diligently among our people, that we might persuade them to come unto Christ, and partake of the goodness of God, that they might enter into his rest, lest by any means he should swear in his wrath they should not enter in, as in the provocation in the days of temptation while the children of Israel were in the wilderness.

Jacob 1:15 And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son.

These two verse refer to (or allude to) Psalm 95:8-11:

8

[JLH]

In other words, the phrase "rasie up seed" occurs only one time in the Book of Mormon outside of the debated text, and four in the in the Bible (all cases are references to Levirate marriage, one occuring in the Old Testament, and the other three in parallel passages in the synoptic gospels). In other words, I am arguing that this specific phrase as it stands is the marker which exists in both texts which is the basis for recognizing the allusion.

Oh geez.

Let's try and use this same logic for the support of "baptising the dead". How many times do we find it used in the bible?

Yet we can come up with a whole ritual and special buildings for it?

[Benjamin McGuire]

JLH -

Do you have anything intelligent to add to the discussion?

I can't for the life of me see how your comments respond to the issue which I am raising. Perhaps if you read through the entire thread ...

Ben

[sr1030]

JLH -

Do you have anything intelligent to add to the discussion?

I can't for the life of me see how your comments respond to the issue which I am raising. Perhaps if you read through the entire thread ...

Ben

Ben, Jacob 1:15 doesn't support your view. If I recall correctly, you previously had to distort the logical interpretation of the passage to fit your argument.

sr

[Benjamin McGuire]

SR -

This is, as I recall, the very first time I have ever discussed Jacob 1:15 in a public forum.

So, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Ben

[enummaelish]

I have a few comments to add to Ben

[Guest onandagus]

Of course you are correct to emphasize the word

[Zakuska]

Lilo was almost an Abomination for giving Sam the fish tuna!

[Guest Lori]

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

The puzzle pieces fit PERFECTLY together if this revelation came from an Angel of Light (Satan) Secret combinations, breaking marital vows, lying to the church, making proposals with an arrogance and playing GOD-threatening women they will be destroyed, damned or comply. Promising women extra salvation etc.

Does that sound even remotely the same as Sarah giving Hagar to Abraham by her own free will and only because she was barren.

Lets not forget the way it was practiced. It is very relevant in putting the puzzle together.

[enummaelish]

Hello Don:

Thanks for reminding us of the importance of considering Webster's 1828 Dictionary in our efforts to understand the Book of Mormon. I agree that one should not overlook the significance of this reference tool in an effort to perform exegetical analysis.

Of course, since you and I possess strong differences in our beliefs concerning the origin of the Book of Mormon, ultimately, we will not agree on the validity of using biblical Hebrew to elucidate the text.

I believe that the Nephites actually existed and that they spoke Hebrew. I believe that Book of Mormon authors used an Egyptian script to write their native tongue. Therefore, from my perspective, considering a Hebrew origin for a word like abomination in the Book of Mormon proves extremely fruitful. However, I suppose even a critic would have to acknowledge that Book of Mormon vernacular directly reflects the English that appears in the King James Version of the Bible (I believe that this parity occurs by means of divine intent).

If one were to suppose that Joseph Smith actually wrote the BoM, I believe that one would also have to assume that Joseph had direct access to the KJV throughout most of the process. Since the KJV consistently uses the word "abomination" for to

[enummaelish]

Does that sound even remotely the same as Sarah giving Hagar to Abraham by her own free will and only because she was barren.

Perhaps not, but it does sound like: