Jacob Chapter 2

[wbrisett]

First, I don't post very often. I'm not a member of the Church, but I have on multiple occassions gone to sacrament meetings and two of my best neighbors are members of the Church. While reading Jacob this weekend, I found it interesting that Jacob warned and commanded the people not to be like Solomon and David and to only have one wife. So, my question as an outsider is, when did this change? D&C 132 seems a bit out of place in context with Jacob. I'm not trying to stir up any trouble, I'm just trying to grapple with how one part of scripture can say one thing, then have that changed, only to have it changed again.

In the Commandments we are warned about adultery, yet Solomon and David had many wires, so they weren't committing adultery because they were married to all of them (well, except when David slept with leader of his Army's wife). Anyhow, as we move on throughout the Old Testament, we don't hear of multiple wives any longer. Makes me wonder when that changed in the Old Testament as well. But, the Old Testament (to my knowledge) doesn't say don't do "X" just to have another book say the opposite.

Anyhow, if this is inappropriate, then please remove it. I do not want this to turn into a mud-slinging fest.

Wayne

[Just_A_Guy]

Mormons note the presence of Jacob 2:30:

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.

We interpret that as saying that the Lord may command to the contrary at different times and places; but in the absence of such a specific commandment, the only approved form of marriage is monogamy.

The idea of conflicting commandments to different sets of people is no more troubling to me than it would be to tell a sixteen-year-old to light a campfire and then scold a four-year-old for playing with matches.

From a historical standpoint: I'm not sure when the Israelites phased out polygamy--it seems to me that a couple of members of Herod's family were polygamists. One of Paul's epistles to Timothy would seem to rule out polygamy--it states that a bishop should be the husband of one wife.

Following the kerfluffle with Joseph Smith's first polygamous relationship with Fanny Alger, some Church leaders (notably Oliver Cowdery, who was disgusted by the whole Alger business) basically rammed an "Article on Marriage" through a Church conference in Joseph Smith's absence. This article explicitly condemned polygamy. The Article was approved by the conference and its canonization was presented to Smith as a fait accompli. As canon, the article was subsequently published in the 1835 and 1844 editions of the Doctrine and Covenants. The Church openly announced polygamy in the 1850s, but (as I recall) didn't happen to publish a new edition of the D&C until the 1870s or so. In that edition the Article on Marriage was removed and Section 132 was inserted.

Edited May 30, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[livy111us]

FAIR has an article on this subject that should be able to help you. Doctrine and Covenants/Contradiction between Section 132 and Jacob 2 - FAIRMormon

[volgadon]

From a historical standpoint: I'm not sure when the Israelites phased out polygamy--it seems to me that a couple of members of Herod's family were polygamists.

The 1950s. Yes, the nineteen-fifties.

[Tyler90AZ]

The part in Jacob 2 regarding polygamy not being authorized has always been a faith builder for me. It has been a faith builder regarding the fact that God can allow and not allow polygamy during different times. It also has been a faith builder that Joseph Smith Jr. instituted polygamy via revelation. If you think about it, if Joseph Smith Jr. authored The Book of Mormon why would that be in the book? It would have been more convenient to not be in The Book of Mormon; if he had any thought of having a polygamous religion later. Try selling polygamy to people when it is not allowed in the book you brought forth. Yea, doesn't seem like a very smart idea.

Also God only reveals polygamy to strengthen his church. In the early days of the church it would have been of the utmost importance to grow in numbers. That is exactly what polygamy did, grow the church in numbers. God does not just do it so the men can be happy having more sex, polygamy is done in a righteous manner.

There has also been interesting scientific studies done lately. The studies have concluded that we were not created or evolved to be in a monogamous relationship.

You seem like a sincere seeker of truth Wayne, watch this video regarding The Book of Mormon

LDS.org - Mormon Messages

Edited May 30, 2012 by Tyler90AZ

[wbrisett]

Thanks everybody! Tyler I found your last post useful in explaining how you see it. Livy's link to the FAIR site was spot on. I just found that part of Jacob interesting as I was reading through it, and the cross-reference to the TG wasn't all that helpful.

Thanks again to everybody.

Wayne

[Tyler90AZ]

Do you think he just changed his mind regarding polygamy? Just curious as to what you believe.

[skalenfehl]

Wait until you read Jacob 5! It's very meaty, but an amazing allegory about the scattering and gathering of Israel.

[garryw]

One of Paul's epistles to Timothy would seem to rule out polygamy--it states that a bishop should be the husband of one wife.

This implies that during that time there were husbands with more than one wife. Otherwise the statement is meaningless.

For example, if I go to a car lot and and tell the salesman I want a car with only one steering wheel, that would be a waste of words. Unless there are cars with multiple steering wheels in existence, it's an absurd thing to say you don't want that.

[wbrisett]

Do you think he just changed his mind regarding polygamy? Just curious as to what you believe.

That thought has crossed my mind and honestly I believe it will with anybody who see it. I think for me personally, I sometimes struggle with something very different than most. For most mainstream Christians I know, they think the whole Book of Mormon is untrue. I don't have that thought, I suspect because I think there are both logical arguments that the book is divinely inspired, but on a more personal level, I feel that the Holy Spirit has answered my questions about authenticity. However, I do have questions about some of the D&C that are written and when I see parts of the BoM that on the surface seem to contradict parts of the D&C, I question why. Questioning is good, you don't want to following blindly.

Wayne

[uniderth]

The condemnation of Nephite polgyny was a rare instance. For most of human history polygyny has been an acceptable practice.

[jcob]

Mormons note the presence of Jacob 2:30:

Quote:

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.

We interpret that as saying that the Lord may command to the contrary at different times and places; but in the absence of such a specific commandment, the only approved form of marriage is monogamy.

How can you use this defence? Joseph Smith didnt have any children to any of his other wives. The passage says that the Lord will only command polygamy if he wants to raise up a seed. If Gods sole purpose in restoring polygamy was to "raise up a seed unto me" then why did Joseph Smith marry other wives, without having children with them?

Something else to consider is that DNC 132 only allows for plural marriage to a virgin. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and many others were married to widows who had children. So he is in breach of the revelation.

[jcob]

One of Paul's epistles to Timothy would seem to rule out polygamy--it states that a bishop should be the husband of one wife.

John D. Lee an LDS bishop had at least 19 wives.

[uniderth]

How can you use this defence? Joseph Smith didnt have any children to any of his other wives. The passage says that the Lord will only command polygamy if he wants to raise up a seed. If Gods sole purpose in restoring polygamy was to "raise up a seed unto me" then why did Joseph Smith marry other wives, without having children with them?

This helps illustrate that the phrase "raise up seed unto me" doesn't mean have lots of children. Rather it means that children should be raised unto the Lord. A Polygamous family would have a higher adult to child ratio thus allowing for better parenting.

Something else to consider is that DNC 132 only allows for plural marriage to a virgin. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and many others were married to widows who had children. So he is in breach of the revelation.

I believe virgin may have a different meaning here as in a pure woman. IIRC there are other uses of the word virgin that do not strictly mean a woman who has no, "carnal knowledge of man."

Joseph Smith also married women who were already married. This is allowed for in section 132 verse 41.

The bishop should be the husband of one wife quote can also be interpreted to mean that a bishop must be married. It is not a restriction on the number of wives rather a restriction on the marital status.

[jcob]

However, I do have questions about some of the D&C that are written and when I see parts of the BoM that on the surface seem to contradict parts of the D&C

My opinion is that by now it was to late for Joseph Smith to remove what it said in Jacob 2. If you go to the Joseph Smith papers website Doctrine and Covenants, 1835 - Summary View you will see that polygamy was originally banned in D&C (then known as The Book of Commandments). This was later removed by Joseph Smith in future editions of the D&C.

"Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again." - The Book of Commandments (now known as D&C) page 251

The Book of Mormon in itself is a fairly Christian book. Its the D&C which stems away from Biblical teaching.

It appears deceptive. Abstain from all appearance of evil. (1 Thessalonians 5:22)

Edited June 2, 2012 by cobbettj

[jcob]

This implies that during that time there were husbands with more than one wife. Otherwise the statement is meaningless.

For example, if I go to a car lot and and tell the salesman I want a car with only one steering wheel, that would be a waste of words. Unless there are cars with multiple steering wheels in existence, it's an absurd thing to say you don't want that.

The bishop should be the husband of one wife quote can also be interpreted to mean that a bishop must be married. It is not a restriction on the number of wives rather a restriction on the marital status.

Your argument goes against what Garry was saying. And its a pretty far stretch in my opinion.

[Just_A_Guy]

My opinion is that by now it was to late for Joseph Smith to remove what it said in Jacob 2. If you go to the Joseph Smith papers website Doctrine and Covenants, 1835 - Summary View you will see that polygamy was originally banned in D&C (then known as The Book of Commandments). This was later removed by Joseph Smith in future editions of the D&C.

"Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again." - The Book of Commandments (now known as D&C) page 251

The Book of Mormon in itself is a fairly Christian book. Its the D&C which stems away from Biblical teaching.

It appears deceptive. Abstain from all appearance of evil. (1 Thessalonians 5:22)

Cobbettj, you obviously saw my post earlier to this thread regarding the Article on Marriage. I'm disappointed you chose to ignore it and persist in presenting a version of history you knew was false.

To review: The Article on Marriage was not authored by Joseph Smith, was slipped into the D&C during Smith's absence from the body of the Church, and was not removed from the D&C until nearly thirty years after Smith died.

As for your arguments regarding "seed": I agree with what Uniderth has said and would add the following:

--First off, you cannot lock Mormonism into the D&C or the Book of Mormon any more than you can lock it into the Bible. The process of revelation is continuing. We will continue to seek all the light and knowledge God sees fit to reveal to us. We revere, respect, and are instructed by what God has said to other groups of His children throughout the history of this world; and we do hold it as a standard for righteous behavior generally. However, we will not try to muzzle Him or deny what He tells us now based on what he told someone else centuries ago.

--Second, Smith apparently did have sexual relations with at least some of his polygamous wives; and if no children came of those relationships it was not his fault. You cannot fault Smith for childless polygamous marriage under Mormon scripture, anymore than you can fault any random couple for a childless marriage under the Biblical view of monogamous marriage.

--Third, polygamous marriage in early LDS practice was tied to notions of Abrahamic covenant and (as far as can be determined, from Smith's own sermons) the establishment of a heavenly society in which everyone would be sealed to everyone by kindred, marriage, or male-male adoptive relationships. In this sense, interpreting Jacob 2's reference to "seed" as being only biological parent-child relationships is woefully short-sighted.

Edited June 2, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[wbrisett]

hmmm... this thread is turning a bit more in the direction I was hoping it wouldn't turn.

But, I want to thank everybody on both sides, you've given me some wonderful material to study and pray about...

Thanks,

Wayne

[Tyler90AZ]

I don't see anyway around it, if The Book of Mormon is true then everything else is also true. No doubt, you have probably heard that already. Nonetheless, think it out and try to come up with a way it would not be true if The Book of Mormon is true. Everything Joseph Smith Jr. brought forth must be true, which is the majority of the D&C.

Don't mistake me as telling you not to question. Joseph Smith Jr. would never tell Saints not to question or gain knowledge nor would I.

“A man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge”

― Joseph Smith Jr.

“By proving contraries, truth is made manifest.”

― Joseph Smith Jr.

I would also recommend reading D&C 88 one of the best chapters. If you read through our whole cannon and compare they are interwoven.

Doctrine and Covenants 88 

[Tyler90AZ]

"In the revelations the doctrines of the gospel are set forth with explanations about such fundamental matters as the nature of the Godhead, the origin of man, the reality of Satan, the purpose of mortality, the necessity for obedience, the need for repentance, the workings of the Holy Spirit, the ordinances and performances that pertain to salvation, the destiny of the earth, the future conditions of man after the resurrection and the judgment, the eternity of the marriage relationship, and the eternal nature of the family. Likewise the gradual unfolding of the administrative structure of the Church is shown with the calling of bishops, the First Presidency, the Council of the Twelve, and the Seventy, and the establishment of other presiding offices and quorums. Finally, the testimony that is given of Jesus Christ—his divinity, his majesty, his perfection, his love, and his redeeming power—makes this book of great value to the human family and of more worth than the riches of the whole earth."

Thus we see how carefully the Lord is preparing every detail to carry out the full plan He has designed for the guidance of His children on their journey through mortality. The population growth indicates He is sending many more of His spirit children to earth to have a mortal experience. Technology makes travel and communication accessible to all corners of the earth, and, most important, He is protecting and preserving His holy scriptures for our guidance.

My encouragement to you tonight is to study the doctrines of the Lord's Church. With all the mountains of information being fed to the world today, how comforting it is to know that the Lord has preserved His dealings with His children as contained in His holy scriptures. Here is our foundation of truth. It will stand the test of time. It is the doctrine and His revealed covenants we must take upon ourselves that will lead us back to His presence. It is the only course that will lead to life eternal, which is surely the objective of each of us. This is my witness to you in the name of our Lord and Savior, even Jesus Christ, amen.

Apostle of Jesus Christ L. Tom Perry

[uniderth]

In the Commandments we are warned about adultery, yet Solomon and David had many wires, so they weren't committing adultery because they were married to all of them (well, except when David slept with leader of his Army's wife). Anyhow, as we move on throughout the Old Testament, we don't hear of multiple wives any longer. Makes me wonder when that changed in the Old Testament as well. But, the Old Testament (to my knowledge) doesn't say don't do "X" just to have another book say the opposite.

I guess I never did address your opening post. Here's my take:

Its true that we don't hear much about plural wives in the old testament but nothing changed. According to Israelite law plural marriage is acceptable and in certain cases required. When a man dies without any children his brother must marry his wive. This is called Levirate marriage.

From before Abraham until Adam there is no condemnation or requirement of Plural marriage so we just don't know. Some have speculated that since Adam had only one wife them monogamy must be God's approved form of marriage. However it seems more that Humanity was started with the minimum number possible. Alternatively if Adam and Eve are symbolic then ever represents all women then we still have not requirement of monogamy for this time period.

We know that Abraham and his descendants were never condemned for Plural Marriage. So from Abraham until before Moses there was not condemnation of Plural Marriage.

I already discusses the Mosaic law. So again we see no condemnation of Plural Marriage from Moses until before Christ.

Plural Marriage was never condemned until during the great apostasy about 600AD. And it wasn't condemned in Jewish law until about 1000AD. So you have to ask yourself, did God approve that actions of an apostate church when it condemned polygamy? I don't believes so. Therefor I believe that from the time of Christ until Joseph Smith, God still approved plural marriage.

So from the time of Adam until Joseph Smith the only clear condemnation of Plural Marriage was given specifically to the Nephites during that limited period of time. But even then we find no evidence of God commanding Alma(who had many wives and concubines) to divorce any of his wives of concubines after he converted to the gospel. Some have also suggested that the ban on plural marriage was lifted when Christ came to the Americas.

So then we come to Joseph Smith. Josephs public statements condemned polygamy While many look to statements of witnesses as evidence that Joseph practiced polygamy. If we accept Joseph as having practiced polygamy then we can see his polygamy was truly polygamy rather than Brigham's polygyny only. Meaning that Joseph allowed women to have multiple husbands in addition to men having multiple wives.

If we look from Joseph to today the history becomes a bit more complicated. The statements I am about to make are purely historical and are not meant to speak against the Church, its practices, or leaders. I am not making them to oppose the Church, I am simply discussing history.

From Brigham(1845) until Wilford Woodruff(1890) we find repeated declarations that the Church would go into apostasy, or would loose priesthood keys, if they ever gave up plural marriage. We find revelations from John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff repeatedly approving of plural marriage. John Taylor ordained a group of people to continue practicing plural marriage no matter what the Church would do. This was his idea of a safety net against the lost of priesthood that he believed would come upon the Church if they gave up polygamy. This group later became the beginnings of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints , and the Apostolic United Brethren.

In 1890 we find Wilford Woodruff declaring that the Church was to give up Plural Marriage. This statement contradicted a revelation he had received just one year prior. It should be noted that there is no available text to the 1890 revelation Wilford Woodruff claimed to have received(I say "claimed" because there is no written text to verify there was indeed a revelation). It should also be noted that vote to accept the change in policy was not unanimous. There was at least one person who voted "no."

All this action, in 1890, did was publicly reject plural marriage. Plural marriage continued, authorized by the first presidency, until Heber J. Grant. But even though it was approved it was always publicly denied.

I don't see anyway around it, if The Book of Mormon is true then everything else is also true. No doubt, you have probably heard that already. Nonetheless, think it out and try to come up with a way it would not be true if The Book of Mormon is true. Everything Joseph Smith Jr. brought forth must be true, which is the majority of the D&C.

I have to politely disagree with this. There are, in fact, many ways that everything else can be false even if the Book of Mormon is true. The truthfulness of each principle must stand independent and also must be determined independently. Discussion of this topic could be continued further but it would probably be best done in a separate thread.

Edited June 3, 2012 by uniderth

[Vort]

But even then we find no evidence of God commanding Alma(who had many wives and concubines) to divorce any of his wives of concubines after he converted to the gospel.

This is blatantly false. There is no evidence -- zero -- that Alma was polygamous.

And if you're talking about Amulek, you have to read A LOT into the Book of Mormon narrative to place polygamy among his people. Many have done just that, of course, seeking to justify polygamy. Thank God for our modern prophets, who think with their brains and not their genitals, and who tell us that polygamy is evil and that we are not to live it.

I have no problem with polygamy as my ancestors attempted to live it. I have no problem with the idea that God has commanded, and may in the future again command, polygamy. I have very great problems with seeking to justify polygamy and falsely attributing it to ancients in order to normalize it.

[Tyler90AZ]

I guess I never did address your opening post. Here's my take:

Its true that we don't hear much about plural wives in the old testament but nothing changed. According to Israelite law plural marriage is acceptable and in certain cases required. When a man dies without any children his brother must marry his wive. This is called Levirate marriage.

From before Abraham until Adam there is no condemnation or requirement of Plural marriage so we just don't know. Some have speculated that since Adam had only one wife them monogamy must be God's approved form of marriage. However it seems more that Humanity was started with the minimum number possible. Alternatively if Adam and Eve are symbolic then ever represents all women then we still have not requirement of monogamy for this time period.

We know that Abraham and his descendants were never condemned for Plural Marriage. So from Abraham until before Moses there was not condemnation of Plural Marriage.

I already discusses the Mosaic law. So again we see no condemnation of Plural Marriage from Moses until before Christ.

Plural Marriage was never condemned until during the great apostasy about 600AD. And it wasn't condemned in Jewish law until about 1000AD. So you have to ask yourself, did God approve that actions of an apostate church when it condemned polygamy? I don't believes so. Therefor I believe that from the time of Christ until Joseph Smith, God still approved plural marriage.

So from the time of Adam until Joseph Smith the only clear condemnation of Plural Marriage was given specifically to the Nephites during that limited period of time. But even then we find no evidence of God commanding Alma(who had many wives and concubines) to divorce any of his wives of concubines after he converted to the gospel. Some have also suggested that the ban on plural marriage was lifted when Christ came to the Americas.

So then we come to Joseph Smith. Josephs public statements condemned polygamy While many look to statements of witnesses as evidence that Joseph practiced polygamy. If we accept Joseph as having practiced polygamy then we can see his polygamy was truly polygamy rather than Brigham's polygyny only. Meaning that Joseph allowed women to have multiple husbands in addition to men having multiple wives.

If we look from Joseph to today the history becomes a bit more complicated. The statements I am about to make are purely historical and are not meant to speak against the Church, its practices, or leaders. I am not making them to oppose the Church, I am simply discussing history.

From Brigham(1845) until Wilford Woodruff(1890) we find repeated declarations that the Church would go into apostasy, or would loose priesthood keys, if they ever gave up plural marriage. We find revelations from John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff repeatedly approving of plural marriage. John Taylor ordained a group of people to continue practicing plural marriage no matter what the Church would do. This was his idea of a safety net against the lost of priesthood that he believed would come upon the Church if they gave up polygamy. This group later became the beginnings of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints , and the Apostolic United Brethren.

In 1890 we find Wilford Woodruff declaring that the Church was to give up Plural Marriage. This statement contradicted a revelation he had received just one year prior. It should be noted that there is no available text to the 1890 revelation Wilford Woodruff claimed to have received(I say "claimed" because there is no written text to verify there was indeed a revelation). It should also be noted that vote to accept the change in policy was not unanimous. There was at least one person who voted "no."

All this action, in 1890, did was publicly reject plural marriage. Plural marriage continued, authorized by the first presidency, until Heber J. Grant. But even though it was approved it was always publicly denied.

I have to politely disagree with this. There are, in fact, many ways that everything else can be false even if the Book of Mormon is true. The truthfulness of each principle must stand independent and also must be determined independently. Discussion of this topic could be continued further but it would probably be best done in a separate thread.

Start the thread...

[uniderth]

This is blatantly false. There is no evidence -- zero -- that Alma was polygamous.

And if you're talking about Amulek, you have to read A LOT into the Book of Mormon narrative to place polygamy among his people. Many have done just that, of course, seeking to justify polygamy. Thank God for our modern prophets, who think with their brains and not their genitals, and who tell us that polygamy is evil and that we are not to live it.

When King Noah was put into power he replaced all the true priests with false ones. Alma was one of the false priests. Noah and his false priests had many wives and concubines. After Alma converted there is no record of him having to divorce his wives or concubines.

I have no problem with polygamy as my ancestors attempted to live it. I have no problem with the idea that God has commanded, and may in the future again command, polygamy. I have very great problems with seeking to justify polygamy and falsely attributing it to ancients in order to normalize it.

Polygamy does not need justification because it is a good principle when not condemned. And as I have pointed out, through out human history, acceptance of polygamy has been the rule and condemnation is the exception.

Polygamy is not an ugly thing that is only needed on rare occasions to care for widows or repopulate the earth or whatever. As the verse states in Jacob chapter 2 when the Lord desires that children be raised up unto him he will command polygamy.

If the Church is to accept polygamy again in the future it must become more normalized in the minds of the people or else it will be that much harder for people to accept. I am not condoning active members of the Church going out and practicing it. But people should be more educated about it.

[Just_A_Guy]

When King Noah was put into power he replaced all the true priests with false ones. Alma was one of the false priests. Noah and his false priests had many wives and concubines.

Sure; but I think it's over-reaching to conclude that the Book of Mormon text necessarily requires that all of Noah's priests were polygamists, or that (even if this is true) Alma's ceasing the practice would have been considered sufficiently noteworthy for Mormon to include it in his abridgement.

From Brigham(1845) until Wilford Woodruff(1890) we find repeated declarations that the Church would go into apostasy, or would loose priesthood keys, if they ever gave up plural marriage.

Generally (but not always), this was while litigation was ongoing in which a core element of the defense was whether polygamy was a "core doctrine" of the Mormon religion.

We find revelations from John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff repeatedly approving of plural marriage.

Anything beyond the uncanonized and arguably ambiguous 1886 revelation?

John Taylor ordained a group of people to continue practicing plural marriage no matter what the Church would do. This was his idea of a safety net against the lost of priesthood that he believed would come upon the Church if they gave up polygamy. This group later became the beginnings of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints , and the Apostolic United Brethren.

Err . . . allegedly. This story comes from Lorin Woolley, who spent much of the early 20th century alleging that his father had been a bodyguard of John Taylor's and then, in the 1920s, suddenly remembered that some forty years earlier his father had actually been one of this select "Council of Friends".

I highly recommend the entire mormonfundamentalism.com website, by the way. Not particularly well-designed, but a goldmine of information on a topic that, frankly, we mainline LDS members need to bone up on.

Edited June 3, 2012 by Just_A_Guy