Scripture Question... What's Your Opinion?

[ngreninger]

Hello!

I'm actually new here, great website so far! I'm really enjoying reading these discussions here. I love diving deep into the gospel!

I had a question that I came across in my scripture studies. That question led to many more questions upon further reading and investigation. I think after talking with my Bishop and a couple of my teachers and friends, I've come up with all the answers I need for myself that I think make sense, but I wanted to know your opinions on the subject too!

My original question was this... I was reading in Jacob one day and came across this verse:

Jacob 2:24-

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord...

After reading this, I remembered a verse in D&C...

D&C 132:1-

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—

When I first read these verses, my first thoughts were that these verses contradicted. In Jacob, the Lord says it was an abomination, yet in D&C the Lord tells Joseph Smith it was justified. What do you guys think? Like I said, I think I got some good answers but I want to see your opinions as well! I'm excited to see the discussion.

 

Edited December 13, 2017 by ngreninger

[mordorbund]

39 minutes ago, ngreninger said:

Hello!

I'm actually new here, great website so far! I'm really enjoying reading these discussions here. I love diving deep into the gospel!

I had a question that I came across in my scripture studies. That question led to many more questions upon further reading and investigation. I think after talking with my Bishop and a couple of my teachers and friends, I've come up with all the answers I need for myself that I think make sense, but I wanted to know your opinions on the subject too!

My original question was this... I was reading in Jacob one day and came across this verse:

Jacob 2:24-

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord...

After reading this, I remembered a verse in D&C...

D&C 132:1-

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—

When I first read these verses, my first thoughts were that these verses contradicted. In Jacob, the Lord says it was an abomination, yet in D&C the Lord tells Joseph Smith it was justified. What do you guys think? Like I said, I think I got some good answers but I want to see your opinions as well! I'm excited to see the discussion.

 

I think verse 38 addresses the issue:

Quote

David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

David and Solomon were justified in taking additional wives when they did so the Lord's way (see the subsequent verses for what that way was/is). When they did things their way, it was abominable.

Joseph Smith compares it to a child taking an apple versus asking for an apple. In both cases the child has an apple, but he's still in trouble for one of them.

[Guest]

So, what's to discuss?

[zil]

Welcome, @ngreninger!

[Guest]

The more I learn about David, the more I like Goliath.

[Guest]

48 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

The more I learn about David, the more I like Goliath.

I think that this just goes to show that the Lord will always use whatever tools He has -- as imperfect as they are -- to accomplish His goals.

[JohnsonJones]

4 hours ago, mordorbund said:

I think verse 38 addresses the issue:

David and Solomon were justified in taking additional wives when they did so the Lord's way (see the subsequent verses for what that way was/is). When they did things their way, it was abominable.

Joseph Smith compares it to a child taking an apple versus asking for an apple. In both cases the child has an apple, but he's still in trouble for one of them.

This is it.

David was given many wives from the Lord, but he was not satisfied with what the Lord gave him.  Instead he took Bath Sheba (who was another's wife) and not only was that an abomination, but then proceeded to have her husband killed (basically murder in the first degree after all he had known from the Lord).

Solomon in like manner was probably given many wives, but he had (as per myth) up to a thousand wives.  Many of these were not with the gospel or Hebrew, and eventually these wives led him away from the Lord into Idolatry.  This too was an abomination.  The wives which the Lord gave him were justified.  Those that he took himself for other reasons (treaties, oaths, just because he felt he wanted another wife) were an abomination.

The lesson is that polygamy is ONLY justified when organized and placed there by the Lord.  Without his guidance telling what and when, and under his covenants and power, it is an abomination. 

Thus today, those practicing polygamy are participating in an abomination before the Lord.

[Alex]

Yes, to add to this discussion, Brigham got upset with one of the few male black priesthood holders for taking on more wives than his first wife without the approval of the Lord. It looks like this act plus the actions of another black priesthood holder --who started claiming he was Christ-- may have influenced Brigham's decree that the negro could not hold the priesthood for there were only a handful of black priesthood holders. To have 2 of the few stray so far so quickly may have influenced things.

 

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, Alex said:

Brigham got upset with one of the few male black priesthood holders for taking on more wives than his first wife without the approval of the Lord. It looks like this act plus the actions of another black priesthood holder --who started claiming he was Christ

References, please. I am no Church historian, but I haven't heard either of these claims.

[Alex]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

References, please. I am no Church historian, but I haven't heard either of these claims.

It's all there. You just gotta wade through it:

Joseph T. Ball was the one practicing polygamy without consent.

[Alex]

yeah and William McCary was the other one.

wiki says he was claiming he was Adam but I've read somewhere else he was claiming he was Christ.

[Vort]

References, please, Alex. "It's all there" doesn't cut it.

[Guest]

I also question if David marrying Abigail in 1 Samuel 25 was righteous.

David shows up and is ready to kill poor Nabal and all of his employees over a petty insult.  He doesn't commit murder this time, but the second Nabal dies, David "asks" Abigail to become his wife in what I interpret to be an exceedingly icky, disturbing, and dishonorable act possibly involving coercion.  (I do question whether the Lord really had anything to do with Nabal's death, or if this was yet another Old Testament mistranslation or alteration, perhaps to salvage David's image).

Already, David's out of control sexual appetites and penchant for violence are present in his personality.  I am not surprised he went on to murder Uriah in Cold blood to steal his wife. 

Yeah, my opinion is David was frankly a real jerk for most of his adult life, and it finally caught up with him.  It boggles my mind that David is considered a hero in so many religions.  I am glad the Church calls David what he really is - a wicked, wicked man who sold his soul for the things of this world and is now going to pay for his foolishness for all eternity.

 

Edited December 14, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[Vort]

1 minute ago, DoctorLemon said:

David shows up and is ready to kill poor Nabal and all of his employees over a petty insult.  He doesn't commit murder this time, but the second Nabal dies, David "asks" Abigail to become his wife in what I interpret to be an exceedingly icky, disturbing, and dishonorable act possibly involving coercion.  (I do question whether the Lord really had anything to do with Nabal's death, or if this was yet another Old Testament mistranslation or alteration, perhaps to salvage David's image).

This is pure presentism, DocL. Abigail realized that Nabal's insults were sufficient to get him killed. He had a big mouth and no sense of decorum. A lesser man than David would have killed him where he stood.

2 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

Already, David's out of control sexual appetites and penchant for violence are present.  I am not surprised he went on to murder Uriah in Cold blood to steal his wife.

David's sexual appetites were not out of control, at this point. Marrying a widow is not dishonorable, not then and not now.

As for Uriah, I won't make any apologies for David engaging in an act that our scriptures suggest cost him his exaltation. His treachery was pretty much the definition of cold-blooded murder.

18 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

Yeah, my opinion is David was frankly a real jerk for most of his adult life, and it finally caught up with him.

Again, I think this is pure presentism. David is universally regarded as Israel's greatest king, a man of peerless talents and the very archetype of the king-prophet (at least before his disgrace with Bathsheba).

[Midwest LDS]

I would like some sources too @Alex because I could not find anything about Ball and polygamy. I'm genuinly curious. I found this link @Vort https://www.mormonwiki.com/Joseph_T._Ball,_Jr. I looked through it a bit and Mormon wiki looks kosher. All I can find on the subject is that Joseph Ball was an early black member who was Branch President of the Boston branch, apparently the largest outside of Nauvoo, and that he apostatized with William Smith for unknown reasons in 1845 before receiving his endowments. He was also baptized initially by Brigham or his brother the record apparently isn't sure.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Midwest LDS

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Alex said:

Yes, to add to this discussion, Brigham got upset with one of the few male black priesthood holders for taking on more wives than his first wife without the approval of the Lord. It looks like this act plus the actions of another black priesthood holder --who started claiming he was Christ-- may have influenced Brigham's decree that the negro could not hold the priesthood for there were only a handful of black priesthood holders. To have 2 of the few stray so far so quickly may have influenced things.

By that logic, why didn't he take the priesthood away from all white men too.  The biggest blotch on our polygamist history is because of one white man -- John C. Bennett.  Pure evil, that one.  Did any black priesthood holder in Church History even come close to his (Bennett's) offenses regarding polygamy?

Stop trying to explain the Blacks and the priesthood thing.  Many people have looked at history and studied all the theories put forth.  But the final conclusion is: We don't know why it began.  But we do know it ended by revelation.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Guest

[CV75]

18 hours ago, ngreninger said:

Hello!

I'm actually new here, great website so far! I'm really enjoying reading these discussions here. I love diving deep into the gospel!

I had a question that I came across in my scripture studies. That question led to many more questions upon further reading and investigation. I think after talking with my Bishop and a couple of my teachers and friends, I've come up with all the answers I need for myself that I think make sense, but I wanted to know your opinions on the subject too!

My original question was this... I was reading in Jacob one day and came across this verse:

Jacob 2:24-

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord...

After reading this, I remembered a verse in D&C...

D&C 132:1-

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—

When I first read these verses, my first thoughts were that these verses contradicted. In Jacob, the Lord says it was an abomination, yet in D&C the Lord tells Joseph Smith it was justified. What do you guys think? Like I said, I think I got some good answers but I want to see your opinions as well! I'm excited to see the discussion.

 

They were justified when their marriages were condoned and performed by the living prophet but an abomination when they entered into them on their own, especially with sinful aims.

[ngreninger]

18 hours ago, mordorbund said:

I think verse 38 addresses the issue:

David and Solomon were justified in taking additional wives when they did so the Lord's way (see the subsequent verses for what that way was/is). When they did things their way, it was abominable.

Joseph Smith compares it to a child taking an apple versus asking for an apple. In both cases the child has an apple, but he's still in trouble for one of them.

This makes sense. I’ve found that a lot of verses can be seen as contradicting when taken out of context. I hadn’t read this yet when the original question came up. Thanks for pointing this out.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Vort said:

This is pure presentism, DocL. Abigail realized that Nabal's insults were sufficient to get him killed. He had a big mouth and no sense of decorum. A lesser man than David would have killed him where he stood.

David's sexual appetites were not out of control, at this point. Marrying a widow is not dishonorable, not then and not now.

As for Uriah, I won't make any apologies for David engaging in an act that our scriptures suggest cost him his exaltation. His treachery was pretty much the definition of cold-blooded murder.

Again, I think this is pure presentism. David is universally regarded as Israel's greatest king, a man of peerless talents and the very archetype of the king-prophet (at least before his disgrace with Bathsheba).

Perhaps David acted completely above reproach towards Nabal and my interpretation of the story reflects more my personal feelings towards David along with a dose of presentism.  However, I can't help but compare David, who is ready to slaughter Nabal and his employees over an insult, to Nephi, who only lived a few hundred years later and had to be basically compelled by God into killing Laban even after Laban stole all of Nephi's property, tried to murder Nephi and his brothers, and had a record that was vital for the spiritual survival of Nephi's people.  And marrying the wife of your hated enemy within a few days after you threatened to kill all of the males in her household and a couple of days after your enemy died is behavior that makes my skin crawl, regardless of whether it was culturally allowable back then.  Maybe I would have felt differently had I grown up in that culture, but it sure is difficult for me to stomach such behavior when reading it today . . . 

 

 

Edited December 14, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[pam]

4 hours ago, Midwest LDS said:

I would like some sources too @Alex because I could not find anything about Ball and polygamy. I'm genuinly curious. I found this link @Vort https://www.mormonwiki.com/Joseph_T._Ball,_Jr. I looked through it a bit and Mormon wiki looks kosher. All I can find on the subject is that Joseph Ball was an early black member who was Branch President of the Boston branch, apparently the largest outside of Nauvoo, and that he apostatized with William Smith for unknown reasons in 1845 before receiving his endowments. He was also baptized initially by Brigham or his brother the record apparently isn't sure.

Mormon Wiki is owned by the same company that owns this forum. 

[eVa]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Stop trying to explain the Blacks and the priesthood thing.  Many people have looked at history and studied all the theories put forth.  But the final conclusion is: We don't know why it began.  But we do know it ended by revelation.

It is really hard to explain and when presented an opportunity in a non-LDS bible study, I did not chime in.

[JohnsonJones]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

By that logic, why didn't he take the priesthood away from all white men too.  The biggest blotch on our polygamist history is because of one white man -- John C. Bennett.  Pure evil, that one.  Did any black priesthood holder in Church History even come close to his (Bennett's) offenses regarding polygamy?

Stop trying to explain the Blacks and the priesthood thing.  Many people have looked at history and studied all the theories put forth.  But the final conclusion is: We don't know why it began.  But we do know it ended by revelation.

I think historians and the LDS church and others have a good idea of why it started.  However, this is one subject that becomes far too controversial with many to really discuss in an intelligent matter normally.

Because this is so, at times the best thing (but not always) to do is to refer an individual to the church essays on the subject and leave it be.

I'll simply post this...

Race and the Priesthood

It will not satisfy everyone...but here it is.

Edited December 14, 2017 by JohnsonJones
To include the link

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think historians and the LDS church and others have a good idea of why it started.  However, this is one subject that becomes far too controversial with many to really discuss in an intelligent matter normally.

Because this is so, at times the best thing (but not always) to do is to refer an individual to the church essays on the subject and leave it be.

I'll simply post this...

Race and the Priesthood

It will not satisfy everyone...but here it is.

Sounds like Brigham Young was not racist at all, but rather received instruction from the Lord at some point before 1852 to institute the ban.  This is what I am seeing when I study how the prophets reacted to the ban - none of them particularly wanted it in place and all of them promised someday the ban would be lifted, but they all were confined by the hand of the Lord, who instituted the policy for reasons only known to Himself.  This is very different behavior  from many Southern Protestant churches of the era, which were actually and obviously racist and taught that those of African descent we're fundamentally inferior, would always be so, and denied even baptism.

Edited December 14, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[anatess2]

3 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

Perhaps David acted completely above reproach towards Nabal and my interpretation of the story reflects more my personal feelings towards David along with a dose of presentism.  However, I can't help but compare David, who is ready to slaughter Nabal and his employees over an insult, to Nephi, who only lived a few hundred years later and had to be basically compelled by God into killing Laban even after Laban stole all of Nephi's property, tried to murder Nephi and his brothers, and had a record that was vital for the spiritual survival of Nephi's people.  And marrying the wife of your hated enemy within a few days after you threatened to kill all of the males in her household and a couple of days after your enemy died is behavior that makes my skin crawl, regardless of whether it was culturally allowable back then.  Maybe I would have felt differently had I grown up in that culture, but it sure is difficult for me to stomach such behavior when reading it today . . . 

A dose of culture:

Not too long ago in the neck of the woods where I hailed from, marrying the wife of the enemy you vanquished is the honorable thing to do.  Unlike the 1st World, wives where I come from are financially fully dependent on their husbands and his loss is tragic, not just because of the loss of the patriarch that provides discipline and safety and security to the family, but practically the loss of the source to sustain the lives of the wife and her children.  Therefore, marrying the King of the tribe that vanquished one's husband is the highest honor.  This guarantees that the wife and her children gain instant respect from the tribe and would be protected from dishonor by the tribe's warriors.

The dishonorable thing to do after one vanquishes his enemy is to then pillage and rape their wives and take them and their children in for slaves.  The second dishonorable thing is to leave them to die from starvation after all their men are killed or left to be raped and pillaged by someone else.

As far as Nephi compared to David, Nephi was just a guy tasked with bringing his family and the gospel to the Americas.  David was a king tasked with guaranteeing the survival of the line of Christ.

I love David, imperfect though as he may be.  His cry for repentance speaks to me.  The psalms is one of my favorite books in the Bible and I'd like to think that David wrote a lot of them even if that is just conjecture.

Edited December 14, 2017 by anatess2

[Alex]

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

By that logic, why didn't he take the priesthood away from all white men too.  The biggest blotch on our polygamist history is because of one white man -- John C. Bennett.  Pure evil, that one.  Did any black priesthood holder in Church History even come close to his (Bennett's) offenses regarding polygamy?

Stop trying to explain the Blacks and the priesthood thing.  Many people have looked at history and studied all the theories put forth.  But the final conclusion is: We don't know why it began.  But we do know it ended by revelation.

Hmm, he didn't take the priesthood away from all white men because of the numbers. There were only a few black males holding the priesthood and 2 of them went of the rails.

 

It's not evil for latter day historians to see the actions of those 2 as influencing Brigham. If you have a problem with historians then maybe you and vort can organize burning their books ?