Earliest usage of Jacob 2:30 for polygamy defense or offense?

[webbles]

I'm listening to Michelle Stone's videos on section 132 and it made me wonder what is the earliest usage of Jacob 2:30 for polygamy (either pro or anti).  I don't think it was used in any Nauvoo era talks (since polygamy was secret).  The earliest that I've found is a talk from Orson Pratt in 1869 where he goes over the history of marriage and discusses Jacob 2:30 ( https://journalofdiscourses.com/13/22 ).  Any one know of an earlier reference?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Orson Pratt discusses it in 1853 in The Seer.

But, personally, I think that 132:39-40 is written as a response to Jacob 2:24, which means that Pratt's discussion has its roots in Nauvoo.

[webbles]

14 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Orson Pratt discusses it in 1853 in The Seer.

But, personally, I think that 132:39-40 is written as a response to Jacob 2:24, which means that Pratt's discussion has its roots in Nauvoo.

Thanks.  Found it online - https://dn790004.ca.archive.org/0/items/OrsonPratt/TheSeer.pdf page 30

[webbles]

8 minutes ago, webbles said:

Thanks.  Found it online - https://dn790004.ca.archive.org/0/items/OrsonPratt/TheSeer.pdf page 30

I was reading this and noticed that he quotes the entire sealing ceremony (page 31-32).  The wording is very similar to the modern language.

[PortalToParis]

The Historical Monogamy Doctrine website had this question — it mentions two earlier references of Jacob chapter 2 (but not Jacob 2:30 on its own):

23 ~ The traditional LDS interpretation of Jacob 2:30 was not taught during Joseph Smith's life ~

During Joseph Smith's life, Jacob chapter 2 is only recorded as being used to teach against polygamy, without verse 30 or any other caveat taught to be an exception,

'May 14 attended meeting at the Temple A.M. Hyrum Smith addressed the people – subjects from the book Mormon 2d chap Jacob remarked that – the book Mormon was a mirror, a key to the Bible... said there were many that had a great deal to say about the ancient order of things as Solomon and David having many wifes [sic] & concubines – but it’s an abomination in the sight of god... a man might have one wife, – concubines he should have none – observed that, the idea was, that this was given to Jacob for a perpetual principle . . .'

Levi Richards papers, 1837-1867; Diaries; Volume 18, 1843 May 14 - June 11; Church History Library.

Hyrum Smith is recorded here as using Jacob chapter 2 to teach that monogamy is "a perpetual principle". In the weeks following the martyrdom, after polygamous activity had increased, Joseph Fielding (Hyrum’s brother-in-law) recorded that the women’s voices against plural marriage had also increased, stating they'd “risen to a very high pitch, saying it is abomination, whoredom, etc. A passage in the Book of Mormon is quoted in opposition to this Doctrine where it is said that a man should have but one Wife and no concubines.” It is only nine years after the martyrdom that Jacob 2:30 is first recorded by Orson Pratt in The Seer as being interpreted as an exception to the rule.

historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine

[webbles]

19 hours ago, PortalToParis said:

The Historical Monogamy Doctrine website had this question — it mentions two earlier references of Jacob chapter 2 (but not Jacob 2:30 on its own):

23 ~ The traditional LDS interpretation of Jacob 2:30 was not taught during Joseph Smith's life ~

During Joseph Smith's life, Jacob chapter 2 is only recorded as being used to teach against polygamy, without verse 30 or any other caveat taught to be an exception,

'May 14 attended meeting at the Temple A.M. Hyrum Smith addressed the people – subjects from the book Mormon 2d chap Jacob remarked that – the book Mormon was a mirror, a key to the Bible... said there were many that had a great deal to say about the ancient order of things as Solomon and David having many wifes [sic] & concubines – but it’s an abomination in the sight of god... a man might have one wife, – concubines he should have none – observed that, the idea was, that this was given to Jacob for a perpetual principle . . .'

Levi Richards papers, 1837-1867; Diaries; Volume 18, 1843 May 14 - June 11; Church History Library.

Hyrum Smith is recorded here as using Jacob chapter 2 to teach that monogamy is "a perpetual principle". In the weeks following the martyrdom, after polygamous activity had increased, Joseph Fielding (Hyrum’s brother-in-law) recorded that the women’s voices against plural marriage had also increased, stating they'd “risen to a very high pitch, saying it is abomination, whoredom, etc. A passage in the Book of Mormon is quoted in opposition to this Doctrine where it is said that a man should have but one Wife and no concubines.” It is only nine years after the martyrdom that Jacob 2:30 is first recorded by Orson Pratt in The Seer as being interpreted as an exception to the rule.

historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine

Thanks but unfortunately, neither of those actually reference Jacob 2:30, just Jacob 2.  So I don't know how they interpreted Jacob 2:30.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

So I don't know how they interpreted Jacob 2:30.

Maybe it was the time of day when they read it?

[DonBradley]

7 hours ago, webbles said:

Thanks but unfortunately, neither of those actually reference Jacob 2:30, just Jacob 2.  So I don't know how they interpreted Jacob 2:30.

Actually, I have to agree with Portals to Paris about the Levi Richards reference.

Hyrum is explicit in saying in this sermon that if an angel commanded polygamy it would have to be an angel of the devil, since (Hyrum says) Jacob 2's prohibition on polygamy "was given for a perpetual principle."

Suppose Hyrum understood Jacob 2:30 to be a loophole for divinely commanded polygamy. In that case, he clearly would not have thought the prohibition was a "perpetual principle" - how could it be if it had a loophole built into it? And if he thought verse 30 was a loophole for God to command polygamy, why would he assume that any angel who commanded polygamy--as the built-in loophole allowed--would have to be an angel of the devil?

Hyrum clearly did not, at this point, see verse 30 as polygamy loophole.

Don