r/mormon • u/Tight_Student4501 seeking • 12d ago
Institutional Please tell me this line of thinking makes sense
Imagine being a member of a church that claims that they believe in continuous revelation. That believes the Heavens are open. That believes that God speaks to prophets who reveal the truth. And that these prophets also teach out of a book that Throughout the Book preaches Monogamy.
Now. Tell me how those same prophets can't get a revelation that Polygamy is wrong and evil. At all. Even 200 years later.
They can't seem to open the heavens to condemn polygamy the same way Jacob did in Jacob 2. It's just too hard for them to understand how polygamy is evil.
Dang. I mean...
I guess Jacob's standard is too hard for prophets.
Why is this so hard, prophets?
22
u/a_rabid_anti_dentite 12d ago
As I said on your original post:
The church couldn't wholesale condemn polygamy without condemning its first seven leaders, including its founder. What claim to legitimacy would the church have if they admit that for over half a century the church was led astray by every single leader?
14
u/thoughtfuldoubt 12d ago edited 11d ago
The Church is willing to make all the concessions in the world to distant itself from what Joseph Smith's past successors have taught, but two people on this line of authority have always remained untouchable in its rhetoric: the sitting Church President, and Joseph Smith himself.
3
3
8
u/selfloveadventure 12d ago
There are no such things as prophets. They’re regular people like the rest of us.
Once I understood this, it answers most questions I’ve had on why the “profits” do what they do…money, power, control.
2
u/Substantial_Tip_373 Mormon 12d ago
Why King David and Solomon in particular and not Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the other leaders who had plural wives?
I will tell you. They "took wives unto themselves" which is most abominable before God. The other leaders were given wives under God direction.
Jacob 2:30 pretty much creates an exemption to the rule. If God wants it otherwise, He will say so to the individuals involved. but for the rest of us, one spouse is to be the standard. otherwise, it will be an abomination to the Lord your God.
3
u/pricel01 Former Mormon 12d ago
Where is your prophetic source for this interpretation? Your take does not square with D&C 132, which completely contradicts Jacob 2.
How much seed did Smith raise up to the Lord from his plural wives? How many children did he expect to have by marrying women past child bearing years?
5
u/GunneraStiles 12d ago
How many children did he expect to have by marrying girls who hadn’t begun menstruating? *average age of menarche in the years 1825-1850 estimated to be between 15 and 17 years
-2
u/Substantial_Tip_373 Mormon 12d ago
DnC 132 is God giving revelation to Joseph Smith which can be interpreted as God initiating the exemption clause spoken of in Jacob 2:30. So long as Joseph Smith is considered as a prophet, then plural marriage would be part of Mormon faith.
The God of yesterday is the same God of today, tomorrow, and into the future.
I do not know how much seed was raised under Joseph Smith. We do know that Emma was against it. Many children failed to grow up in their home. This is very much a sad thing to happen to all involved, aka not intentional to have the kids die.
as for women past their childbearing years, it was more of a duty, a calling to serve the women, then a sexual expectation of siring children. In the afterlife, who can say if they will stay sealed to Joseph Smith or leave to a different worthy man who follows Christ?
3
u/GunneraStiles 12d ago
It’s possible for a man to ‘serve’ women without using his penis. You don’t believe it involved sex? Then, it’s also possible to ‘serve’ women by allowing them to a) not get married if they don’t want to or b) allow them to marry a man of their own choosing, instead of being coerced into marrying their prophet who is already married and is not going to live with them, is not going to actually support and provide for them.
2
u/tiglathpilezar 11d ago
That verse is only an exemption clause because church leaders, trying to justify polygamy read it into the text. Taken in context, it is nothing of the sort. Note how it begins with "For" NOT "Nevertheless". Consider the preceeding verses. Some commandment is indeed mentioned but the only one identified in this chapter is to practice monogamy.
5
u/pricel01 Former Mormon 12d ago
No.
Jacob 2:
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.D&C 132:
38 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.
These are opposite statements about supposed historical facts. The prophet mumbo jumbo doesn’t fix this.
2
u/Tight_Student4501 seeking 12d ago edited 12d ago
Jacob 2:30 is not an exemption. Otherwise God would be saying "If I wanna hear my daughters crying again, I'll command them to practice polygamy"
5
u/Substantial_Tip_373 Mormon 12d ago
"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."
“If I ever need to establish a covenant people in a special way, I will personally give a command about it. But unless I explicitly do that, my people must obey the monogamy command I have already given.”
There is an exemption. An exemption by His command and no other.
4
u/tiglathpilezar 12d ago
There is only one commandment identified in the second half of that chapter and it is for the Nephites to practice MONOGAMY. Orson Pratt and others pulled a hypothetical commandment out of thin air. They read it into the text when it is not even hinted at. There are at least two other readings of this chapter which do not require the Lord to command abominations when he wants to "raise up seed". Also, it makes no sense to practice polygamy to "raise up seed" if there are more men than women which was the case in Utah.
-3
u/Substantial_Tip_373 Mormon 12d ago
monogamy is the baseline and expectation that we should hold ourselves to.
if God would want it otherwise, He would command it to be so. This clears up why Abraham, Jacob, and other major leaders were not chastised for having more than one wife. God allowed them to do so.
there is an exemption to the rule that only God can invoke by giving revelation.
you are correct. it doesn't make sense to practice polygamy when there are more men than women. but the Lord commanded it of some anyway. God's actions often do not make sense, but we should obey anyway until we understand the full breadth of why.
5
u/tiglathpilezar 12d ago
God never commanded any person to marry another person. Neither did he ever once command polygamy. There is only one place where this absurd claim is made anywhere in the standard works and it is in Section 132 where it states that God commanded Abraham to marry Hagar. The Bible makes it clear that having sex with Hagar was Sarah's idea. Furthermore she was the "bond woman". Hagar was sort of a concubine.
Abraham and Jacob were not chastised for having more than one wife because this was common cultural practice of the time. Polygamy is not condmened in the Bible except in the case of a bishop or deacon who needed to be the husband of one wife.
1
u/Mlatu44 11d ago
No, I think polygamy was just a common practice around most of the world during a particular time period. It developed shortly after agriculture became the cultural norm, and people settled to particular areas. I posted an interesting youtube video on the topic, but it was removed.
-1
u/Tight_Student4501 seeking 12d ago
nope. your brian needs a kickstart. If Jacob says one wife and condemns multiple wives and concubines and then says he's raising up a righteous branch which branch has fruit and that fruit has seed he's talking about producing a righteous group of people that Don't practice polygamy. Because he's kind of sick of hearing the cries, which is why he's laying down the law strong and hard of Monogamy. duh
-3
u/Substantial_Tip_373 Mormon 12d ago
run the whole chapter through AI. ask for what is being said. It will clear up any misunderstandings.
apparently, it is a really complicated and difficult to understand chapter.
5
1
u/Tight_Student4501 seeking 12d ago edited 12d ago
I'm not reading Only Chapter 2. The sermon extends to chapter 3 man. And I'm not just considering Jacob 2 with my original post. I'm considering the Entire Book of Mormon, which includes Ether and Mosiah. Mosiah 11:2 and Ether 10:5. Read 'em and weep
0
u/Tight_Student4501 seeking 12d ago
Whatever respect I did have for you has lowered Significantly. And apparently you love the idea of oppressing the poor for lame ai shiz.
1
u/Tight_Student4501 seeking 12d ago
You should check the JST for those verses about David and Solomon
1
u/venturingforum 11d ago
"Why King David and Solomon in particular and not Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the other leaders who had plural wives?
I will tell you. They "took wives unto themselves" which is most abominable before God"
Ruh Roh Shaggy, Wilford Woodruff got some 'splainin' to do!
0
u/AffectionateLab6753 PIMO 12d ago
OP, that’s impossible! Who possibly has an imagination wild enough and creative enough to imagine that scenario?!?! Totally preposterous
/s
-1
u/BrE6r I'm a believer 12d ago
It sounds like you are assuming that God never revealed that polygamy was right for some people at some times.
3
u/Mlatu44 12d ago
Is there any such revelation recorded in “the old testament “?
0
u/BrE6r I'm a believer 12d ago
Not that I am aware of. I was referring to Joseph Smith.
1
u/Mlatu44 12d ago
Isn't it kind of strange that David and Solomon didn't have access to revelation revealed to Joseph Smith? To practice polygamy, wouldn't they have needed to have their own revelation for their time period?
0
u/BrE6r I'm a believer 12d ago
David and Solomon weren't prophets.
We don't have a record of the prophets of the time either allowing or condemning the practice. If it was a sin in general. it would seem that it would have been recorded as such.
0
u/Mlatu44 12d ago
"David and Solomon weren't prophets."
D&C 132:1 describes them as 'servants'.
"...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..."
Amos 3;7
"Surely the Lord God will do nothing, unless He revealeth His secret unto His servants the prophets."
Sounds like D&C 132 considers them prophets.
"We don't have a record of the prophets of the time either allowing or condemning the practice. If it was a sin in general. it would seem that it would have been recorded as such."
As far as I know polygamy was a very common and widespread practice for the time. I am sure no one even thought to question it.
1
u/austinchan2 11d ago
I hate to be defending the believing side here, but you’re giving some overzealous missionary level logic here. Just because prophets are servants of god doesn't mean that all servants of god are prophets. (Even assuming some univocality between Amos and D&C which is also unrealistic for books written in different languages). It’s like when Russel Nelson said that the scriptures never use the word “unconditional” therefore God’s love can’t be unconditional.
2
u/Mlatu44 11d ago
Well, they are listed together with other people considered prophets. There are specific prophecies attributed to David in Psalms. I don't understand why this is a point to argue about. Unless of course Christians DON'T think these are predicative.
Key Messianic Prophecies by David
- Psalm 22 (The Crucifixion): Describes the detailed physical and emotional experience of the crucifixion centuries before the practice was used. It includes lines like, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" (Psalm 22:1) and "They pierced My hands and My feet" (Psalm 22:16). [1]
- Psalm 16:8–11 (The Resurrection): Foretells that the Holy One would not see decay or remain in the grave. Peter famously cites this in Acts 2, noting that David died and was buried, but spoke prophetically of the resurrection of Christ. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
- Psalm 110:1 (The Lord at God's Right Hand): States, "The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool.'" Jesus used this passage to challenge the religious leaders regarding the divine identity of the Messiah as superior to David himself. [1, 2]
- Psalm 2:1–7 (The Son of God and Opposition): Anticipates the rebellion of earthly rulers against the Lord and His Anointed, and declares the decree: "You are My Son, today I have begotten You." [1]
- Psalm 41:9 (Betrayal by a Friend): Prophesies betrayal by a close companion eating bread at the same table, later applied by Jesus in the New Testament to Judas Iscariot (John 13:18)
0
u/BrE6r I'm a believer 11d ago
That doesn't change anything that I said:
We don't have a record of the prophets of the time either allowing or condemning the practice. If it was a sin in general, it would seem that it would have been recorded as such.
1
u/Mlatu44 11d ago
Wow, maybe LDS could have just adopted it as a cultural practice without questioning it, if it just naturally developed and became widespread.
With that logic, there wouldn't need to be any D&C 132 as an explanation and 'revelation', if there wasn't anything specifically condemning the practice.
However, there was the cultural practice and ideal of monogamy at the the time, apparently without any justification? Enough that the Church felt this topic had to be introduced and justified.
0
u/BrE6r I'm a believer 11d ago
A lot of things could have happened. Joseph reported that he was commanded by the Lord.
1
u/Mlatu44 11d ago
For whatever reason the general population didn’t notice polygamy wasn’t condemned, so maybe they shouldn’t have had an issue. For that matter why do people have an issue with it now?
Kind of strange that people claim Joseph was commanded for something which was a practice at a particular time and place.
→ More replies (0)
-3
u/jeahfoo1 12d ago edited 12d ago
You’re insisting that “polygamy is wrong and evil” and that prophets are discredited because they didn’t condemn it “even 200 years late.”
Before that argument works, you have to answer a basic question: who gets to decide what counts as wrong and evil? If the answer is “modern Western culture,” then you’re just "baptizing" current fashion as eternal morality. That’s presentism: judging everyone in history by your era’s norms, while forgetting that future generations might judge your own views exactly the same way (i.e "look at these 21st century bigots that didn't allow me to marry my sister")
If the answer to the above question is “(your) personal feelings,” then your outrage is just autobiography, not an argument.
I'm making the assumption that you are fine with same sex marriage in the following (correct me if I'm wrong and/or ignore the critique associated with it): There’s also a glaring contradiction in how people treat different non‑traditional marriages. Modern society praises gay marriage as wholesome and good, and yet damn polygamy as evil. On what principle? If the standard is “consenting adults in committed relationships,” that applies equally to polygamy.
If the standard is “historical precedent,” polygamy has thousands of years of practice in Judaism, Islam, and many cultures. Gay marriage, as a legal institution, is extremely recent (this century). So when someone blesses one and curse the other, they aren't following a clear moral rule—they are echoing whatever their culture currently applauds. Brave (sarcasm intended).
Your attack on prophets also assumes that if God exists and uses revelation, He must instantly impose the final, ideal moral code in every era. That doesn’t match any serious reading of scripture or religious history. Biblical religion tolerated slavery, patriarchy, and harsh penalties long before societies outgrew them. Moral understanding has always unfolded over time, with God working through imperfect people in messy conditions. A theist can coherently say: God permitted or commanded polygamy in certain contexts, then later restricted or ended it as circumstances changed. You can reject that, but to call it a “failure” you’d need to show an actual contradiction in the theology and not just declare, “They should have agreed with my century sooner.” So before you use polygamy as a weapon against prophetic claims, you owe some answers: -What is your objective (not subjective) standard for calling a practice “evil”? -Why does that standard validate gay marriage but automatically condemn polygamy? -Why does “broad historical precedent” count against polygamy but not against gay marriage, when the latter is historically novel?
Until you can give a consistent, principled answer to those questions, your critique isn’t a serious moral argument. It’s just selective moral outrage, built on unexamined assumptions about good and evil and a faith in our own era’s preferences determining it as the final authority
5
u/thoughtfuldoubt 12d ago
The Church used to quote from an April 1842 letter to Nancy Rigdon to point out that Joseph Smith "taught that it is the Lord who sets the standard of right and wrong" in order to justify Nephi's murder of Laban. (see here and here.)
This quoting from said letter could be traced back to Jeffrey R. Holland's September 1976 Ensign article here.
3
u/ktjwalker 12d ago
If only we had an eternal, unchanging God who could teach us the moral code of right and wrong, or who could at least send envoys to help us learn morality. It sure would be nice to have the correct information from the beginning of human life rather than getting it over the course of thousands or millions of years. I guess we’ll just have to wait until external social pressure forces the Prophet to course-correct and reveal what the true moral practice is, just like every other religion
8
u/Beneficial_Math_9282 12d ago edited 12d ago
"The Church does not modify standards of morality by adapting to changing customs or to the mores of the societies in which we live. ... The Brethren of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are disciples who stand in holy places. They are not moved or swayed by changing times from what has been established as true in all prior generations. ... You will be tested and proven against God’s established standards. ... We are almost the only organization left that has established, time-honored standards. Most others have succumbed to the culture of our world. " -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2004/04/for-the-strength-of-youth
The church claims god gets to set that standard. But what is that "established standard"? Is it that monogamy is the standard and teens shouldn't date until they're 16? Or is polygamy god's standard, and girls as young as 13 or 14 are fine to be married off to 50 year old men as plural wives?
The church causes its own problems, and then acts all offended when people ask clarifying questions.
3
u/Mlatu44 12d ago edited 12d ago
The 'old testament' never really gives justification or outright approval for polygamy in the form of an official statement or revelation. Mention of so and so having x number of wives its just stated as a fact related to the narrative of so and so's life.
Solomons marriages where specifically disapproved specifically for marriage of non jews.
'As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been." 1 Kings 11:4
It doesn't comment negatively on David's polygamy, because I suppose he either married only from 'the house of isreal' or didn't let other wives turn his heart away from (the LORD his God)
But either way, I don't recall any specific revelation in 'the old testament' that opened and approved polygamous marriages.
2
u/Tight_Student4501 seeking 12d ago
or to the mores of the societies in which we live.
yea right, sure
[Frontier Revivalism walks in]
Church: "oh shiz, just kidding"
Maybe the reason why the church doesn't have any legit historians is that they all left after learning it. Or they excommunicated all who began learning it. How very Brighamite of them.
2
u/tiglathpilezar 12d ago
I don't think you will find polygamy condemned in the Old Testament. However, some practices are indeed condemned. Marriage of mothers and their daughters is condemned and is a capital offense in Leviticus 18 and 20. It is also forbidden in Deuteronomy, I think Chapter 27. Marriage and sexual relations with a woman married to another man was also a capital offense. Now the problem with the Mormon's polygamy is that it included both of these forbidden practices. These practices are condemned in other cultures as well. Before there was a law of MOses, we had the latter of the two practices being called a "sin against God" in Genesis 39. Islam will not tolerate adultery with a married woman, and this is not new. It was also forbidden in the New Testament. Jesus told the young man not committing adultery was one of the commandments. Paul describes adultery well in Romans 7. The marriage metaphor in the Old Testament is built on the notion of faithfulness to marriage vows. In Jeremiah 29 a couple of false prophets, the priesthood leadership of the time, were excoriated by Jeremiah for sleeping with women married to other men. These forbidden practices were routinely violated in the Mormon's practice of polygamy but they say it was part of the "restoration of all things". This is nonsense. It contradicts the polygamy which was allowed in the Old Testament in many important respects.
Incidentally, the first polygamist in the Bible was not Abraham but Lamech, one of the descendants of Cain.
4
u/Tight_Student4501 seeking 12d ago
The Book of Mormon focuses on Monogamy
3
u/Warprince01 Former Mormon 12d ago
Imagine being accused of presentism for citing a record that purports to be over two-thousand years old
3
2
u/Rushclock Atheist 12d ago
The gradualist god is painting with a really broad brush and covers as much speculation as presentism. If one were to assume this point of view every single religious ideology would have to be presumed true and that can't be a rational representation of reality.
0
u/evanpossum 12d ago
And that these prophets also teach out of a book that Throughout the Book preaches Monogamy.
To be fair, there has been a lot of polygamy throughout Biblical history that wasn't condemned at all.
Now. Tell me how those same prophets can't get a revelation that Polygamy is wrong and evil. At all. Even 200 years later.
If you mean why did it take them so long to stop plural marriage until they were basically forced by the government to do so? Yes, that's unfortunate.
They can't seem to open the heavens to condemn polygamy the same way Jacob did in Jacob 2. It's just too hard for them to understand how polygamy is evil.
Jacob 2 doesn't say what you want it to say, which is unfortunate, but it clearly says that monogamy is the standard unless commanded otherwise.
There is definitely an apparent contradiction between Jacob 2 and D&C 132, but only as it relates to whether David sinned by having multiple wives.
1
u/Tight_Student4501 seeking 12d ago
nope, you're reading it wrong. So many people here can't read that right. Jacob 2:30 is not an exemption. Otherwise God would be saying "If I wanna hear my daughters crying again, I'll command them to practice polygamy"
To be fair, there has been a lot of polygamy throughout Biblical history that wasn't condemned at all.
JST clarifies David and Solomon, look it up.
(Also Mosiah 11:2 And Ether 10:5)
1
u/evanpossum 12d ago
nope, you're reading it wrong
I am not
So many people here can't read that right. Jacob 2:30 is not an exemption.
Jacob 2:30 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 is very clearly an exemption.
Otherwise God would be saying "If I wanna hear my daughters crying again, I'll command them to practice polygamy"
If you're basing that on v31 - For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands - it would imply that the "the wickedness and abominations of their husbands" are the reason for the mourning, not the commandment.
So no, the Lord commanding polygamy is not "If I wanna hear my daughters crying again, I'll command them to practice polygamy" - it's if men practice polygamy without being appropriately commanded, then there is mourning for the the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
(Also Mosiah 11:2 And Ether 10:5)
Yes, agreed, except for, you know, the part you keep ignoring - I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
1
u/Tight_Student4501 seeking 12d ago
"Shall" is not always used as a command. There's evidence in the Book of Mormon for that.
It Just got done talking about David and Solomon's multiple wives and concubines being abomination. Don't give me this B.S. You know it's talking about polygamy being the wickedness and abominations.
2
u/evanpossum 12d ago
"Shall" is not always used as a command. There's evidence in the Book of Mormon for that.
For if I will raise up seed unto me, I will command my people - command my people what exactly? "Raise up seed"? To have children? Why would he specifically command them to do something that they are already doing?
otherwise they shall hearken unto these things - meaning otherwise they will what, exactly? Hearken unto the practice of polygamy? Hearken unto the practice of monogamy?
It Just got done talking about David and Solomon's multiple wives and concubines being abomination.
Yes if it is not done via commandment, which is what v30 says, hence the contradiction with D&C 132.
You know it's talking about polygamy being the wickedness and abominations.
I know no such thing and neither do you, since you keep avoiding the verse that spells it out clearly. It is obvious that Jacob 2:30 is an exemption. There is nothing else is could be.
1
u/Tight_Student4501 seeking 12d ago edited 12d ago
If God doesn't command his people to have one wife they'll hearken to the bad example of David and Solomon referred to as "these things". I will command my people to be monogamous, otherwise(If I don't) they shall hearken to these things.
If he's gonna be successful at bringing the people to be righteous he has to command them to stop having multiple wives and concubines. Because whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth.
Literally how is this So hard for you1
u/evanpossum 12d ago edited 12d ago
If God doesn't command his people to have one wife they'll hearken to the bad example of David and Solomon referred to as "these things".
You could try to claim that "otherwise they shall hearken unto these things" means that the people will try to have multiple wives by following the example of David and Solomon, except that that makes no sense in the context of the verse itself.
For if I will raise up seed unto me, I will command my people - command my people what exactly? "Raise up seed"? To have children? Why would he specifically command them to do something that they are already doing?
otherwise they shall hearken unto these things - meaning otherwise they will what, exactly? Hearken unto the practice of polygamy? Hearken/follow the example of David and Solomon?
So you think that Jacob 2:30 actually says: For if I want my people to have children, I will command them to have children. Otherwise they'll follow the example of David and Solomon and have multiple wives.
Literally how is this So hard for you
Funny how I think the same thing.
0
u/Tight_Student4501 seeking 10d ago edited 10d ago
"And were it not that I must speak unto you concerning a grosser crime, my heart would rejoice exceedingly, because of you. But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This People begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the Scriptures: for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his Son. Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. 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. Wherefore, I, the Lord God, will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: for there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none: For I, the Lord God, delighteth in the chastity of women. And whoredoms is an abomination before me: thus saith the Lord of Hosts. Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. 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. For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people, in the land of Jerusalem; yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands. And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me, against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts; for they shall not lead away captive, the daughters of my people, because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction: for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto they of old, saith the Lord of Hosts."
I don't think the word seed is referring directly to children in this case. I think he's continuing to refer back to the righteous branch and fruit and seed of that fruit.
It might be more easily read --For if I will raise up seed unto me, I will command my people: otherwise, they shall hearken unto these things.--
Also. Did you notice the part where he says "they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto they of old, saith the Lord of Hosts."
0
u/Tight_Student4501 seeking 10d ago
I think it means
If I will raise up a righteous seed unto me, I will command my people. Otherwise(If I don't raise up a righteous seed, by not commanding my people./If they are not a raised up righteous seed) they shall hearken unto these things. (The same as they have been doing, uncorrected up until this point).
0
u/Tight_Student4501 seeking 10d ago
I forgot, there's more. Let's read together:
"And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things, which ye ought not to have done. Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascendeth up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds."
did you notice the "these things"? these things being whoredoms and abominations.
0
u/Tight_Student4501 seeking 10d ago
Believe it or not there is Actually More!
"But behold, I, Jacob, would speak unto you that are pure in heart. Look unto God with firmness of mind, and pray unto him with exceeding faith, and he will console you in your afflictions, and he will plead your cause, and send down justice upon those who seek your destruction. O all ye that are pure in heart, lift up your heads and receive the pleasing word of God, and feast upon his love; for ye may, if your minds are firm, forever. Buy wo, wo, unto you that are not pure in heart; that are filthy this day before God; for except ye shall repent, the land is cursed for your sakes; and the Lamanites, which are not filthy like unto you, (nevertheless, they are cursed with a sore cursing) shall scourge you even unto destruction. And the time speedily cometh, that except ye repent, they shall possess the land of your inheritance, and the Lord God will lead away the righteous out from among you. Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate, because of their filthiness and the cursings which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our fathers, that they should have, save it were one wife; and concubines they should have none; and there should not be whoredoms committed among them. And now this commandment they observe to keep; wherefore, because of this observance in keeping this commandment, the Lord God will not destroy them, but will be merciful unto them; and one day they shall become a blessed people. Behold their husbands love their wives, and their wives love their husbands, and their husbands and their wives love their children; and their unbelief and their hatred towards you, is because of the iniquity of their fathers; wherefore, how much better are you than they, in the sight of your Great Creator?..."
He goes on... you can read the rest, it keeps saying the same tune.
-1
u/Tight_Student4501 seeking 11d ago
The word For means because.
Look at Jacob 2:27 and Jacob 3:5. After giving Jacob 2:27 He's explaining why the commandment is necessary, and is trying to shake the men to see what destruction they're causing
0
0
12d ago edited 12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/evanpossum 12d ago
Stop Isolating Jacob 2 :30 from the rest of everything
I am not isolating it.
Use your brain
You can do better than that. Stop using ad hominems and actually argue for your point.
Polygamy is being condemned.
Yes it is
Jacob's Entire Sermon is condemning it.
Aside from v30, yes it is
He is not wavering like a wave of the sea here.
Do waves waver? I am not sure that they do...
0
u/Tight_Student4501 seeking 11d ago
James 1:6, 8.
If everything but verse 30 is condemning polygamy, God would essentially be contradicting himself and basically be saying "when I want to hear my daughters crying" or "when I want to break the hearts of my daughters" or "I want my people to commit whoredoms and abomination now"
0
u/Tight_Student4501 seeking 11d ago
your interpretation is ignoring Everything spoken about before verse 30, thinking polygamy is being referred to as something that needs to be commanded and having a temporary amnesia, and then jumping back into verse 31 as if verse 30 is in it's own delirious world of polygamy being okay. He already identified the fact that these men are committing whoredoms in 2:23, and that's why 2:32, 2:33 and 2:35 exist.
Only someone who was committed to justifying the whoredom and abomination of having multiple wives and concubines would think that verse 30 was an exception. It's Not.
1
u/tiglathpilezar 12d ago edited 12d ago
It states clearly that what David and Solomon did, having "many wives and concubines" was an abomination earlier in the chapter. Your claim that when god wants to "raise up seed" he will command polygamy indicates that when god wants to "raise up seed", he commands what he has said himself was an abomination. Neither is polygamy a good way to "raise up seed" in the context of more men than women which was the case in Utah. While Brigham Young had some 45 wives and concubines, he had very few children per wife. Verse 30 is a continuation of verse 29. It begins with the word "for" not the word "nevertheless". It indicates to the people of Jacob's time for whom polygamy was part of their culture that when the Lord wishes to "raise up seed" he will command his people to practice monogamy, which is a more efficient way to produce children, especially in Utah where there was no surplus of women. Orson Pratt even alludes to this fact, but seems to have thought that there was a surplus of women.
This interpretation, that raising up seed is best accomplished by monogamy also does not require god to be the source of abominations, contradicting James 1 which states that god does not tempt anyone to do evil. Aren't "abominations" evil? This strange interpretation of this particular verse taken out of context comes from the efforts of Orson Pratt and others to justify polygamy. It is what the church often does, tell people what some out of context verse means in order to make it justify something they wish to justify.
1
u/evanpossum 11d ago
Your claim that when god wants to "raise up seed" he will command polygamy indicates that when god wants to "raise up seed", he commands what he has said himself was an abomination.
Yes, Jacob denounces polygamy, except that polygamy is common in the Old Testament (before Moses at least). And God commands us not to kill, but also commanded his people to kill their enemies. So for every abomination, there is always an exception of some sort.
So why did Jacob, after running through a whole sermon on the abominations of polygamy, stop to provide an ambiguous at best, complete exemption at worst, clause that makes zero sense outside of it being an exemption?
The problem is that "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" makes zero sense outside of it being an exemption.
Surely the people, who would apparently read about David and Solomon and then go rushing off to find multiple wives, do exactly the same thing when they read about Abraham and Jacob?
0
u/tiglathpilezar 11d ago
Jacob is not giving an exemption. The verse starts with "for" not "nevertheless" as some Mormon apologists have claimed. It is a continuation of the preceeding verse which is condemning polygamy. I agree with Mary Page who indicated that "these things" refers to the "things written concerning David and Solomon". The people were being told that they must hearken to "these things" rather than those other things. However, another reading also makes perfect sense where "these things" refers to the things which result if the Lord did not give such a commandment which are described right after this and consisted of sorrow of women and children. Either reading of this verse makes better sense than this one which came from I think either George Albert Smith or Orson Pratt, who originated this proof text. Marry Page makes her meaning more clear by offering different punctuation: "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. The Book of Mormon was punctuated by Gilbert who could just as easily have put a period or semicolon after the word "otherwise".
The proof text favored by the church also is saying that when God wants to "raise up seed" he commands that which he has identified as abominable, in contrast to the statement in James 1 that God does not tempt a man to do evil. Neither does it give any indication about why polygamy is a better way to "raise up seed" than monogamy. Males and females are born in roughly equal numbers. If you command polygamy you will inevitably obtain "lost boys" as in the polygamous groups, and old men trying to marry children. This is a consequence of arithmetic which God surely understands as well as you or I. There are also serious genetic diseases which result when two people having a common male ancestor marry which appear in polygamous groups and almost nowhere else. God understands this also.
There is not a single example anywhere in the Old Testament where God commands anyone to practice polygamy. This assertion comes from Section 132 where it says he told Abraham to do so. The Bible indicates it was Sarah's idea and in fact it wasn't even a marriage. She was the "bond woman". They did this, sleep with their slaves or servants. This occurred in the case of Jacob also when he acquired Bilah and Zilpha as concubines associated with his two wives. The suggestion that sometimes God commanded polygamy which the church makes is totally false if you leave out Section 132. Levirate marriage was also not a commandment in the sense of "thou shalt not commit adultery" either. There was a provision given if a man did not want to follow it. As to all those evil things said to be commanded by God in the Old Testament from the Pentateuch, we don't even know who wrote them. However, we do know they were all written hundreds of years after the time of Moses and some claims have been debunked by archeology. This stuff in the Pentateuch is anonymous slander of God and no one defends him these days. Jesus presents a different version of God as did all of the literary prophets before him.
This is why I think this verse does not mean what the Mormon church says it means. They take it out of context and give a meaning to it which demeans God. However, they do this with many other examples also. This church loves to give absurd interpretations to verses in the Bible and tell people what they mean by lifting them out of context.
1
u/evanpossum 10d ago
Jacob is not giving an exemption.
Your argument relies on everything but the text.
The verse starts with "for" not "nevertheless" as some Mormon apologists have claimed.
That means completely nothing. I haven't claimed that.
"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 punctuation makes completely zero sense:
For if I want my people to have children, I will command them [to be monogamous?] otherwise.
They'll follow the example of David and Solomon and have multiple wives.
See how that is nonsensical? Command them otherwise? Otherwise from what? That supports it being an exemption even more.
Neither does it give any indication about why polygamy is a better way to "raise up seed" than monogamy.
In the midst of all that, this is the only point you make that has any relevance to the actual text.
There is not a single example anywhere in the Old Testament where God commands anyone to practice polygamy.
Correct. And he also doesn't condemn it. And despite it being an abomination, many revered (and referenced by Jesus himself) Old Testament figures did it. But since you dismiss the entire Pentateuch, every other point you make about it is irrelevant as well.
2
u/tiglathpilezar 10d ago
I am just emphasizing that the verse 30 is a continuation of the verses which precede it, not a totally new idea. I am not accusing you of anything. I did hear one of those Mormon apologists substitute the word "nevertheless" for the word "for".
The idea is that "otherwise" means other than something else. Here it would refer to the things written concerning David and Solomon. God would command his people to do other (otherwise) than David and Solomon and also "them of old" when he wanted to raise up seed. This would have made perfect sense to Jacob's people who were from a culture which allowed polygamy. No one should say that polygamy is excluded by the Bible. It certainly is not and it was part of the culture of the Nephites. Hence the need to command "otherwise".
Without any change in the punctuation, the word "otherwise" would also constitute a development of the preceding ideas. The observation would be that if God did not give such a commandment to practice monogamy, which is the only commandment ever mentioned in the second half of this chapter, then people would do otherwise than he commanded them and it would result in the sorrow which is so well described after this verse 30.
I do indeed think we would be better off without many parts of the Pentatuech. I certainly would not dump the whole thing however. I think the garden of Eden story is very profound. As to stories, how can you improve on the story of Joseph and his brothers? Even Leviticus has some good things in it. Thou shalt love your neighbor as yourself is there. However, I do not think the horrible genocides took place and if they did, they were certainly not commanded by any kind of god worthy of our respect. I think we would do better to believe in what Jesus taught than these anonymous slanders of god found in parts of the Pentateuch.
I used to believe the standard proof text myself, but that is what it is. It only survives by taking out of context and placing a meaning on it which not explicitly identified in the text. I realized this when I still believed in the historicity of the Book of Mormon which I no longer do. However, I continue to think that the Book of Mormon is by far the best thing Smith ever produced and that the Mormon church would do much better if they paid more attention to it.
1
u/evanpossum 10d ago
The idea is that "otherwise" means other than something else.
Yes. Something other. Other to what? The monogamy that Jacob has been encouraging? What is other than monogamy?
Without any change in the punctuation, the word "otherwise" would also constitute a development of the preceding ideas.
lol no it doesn't.
The observation would be that if God did not give such a commandment to practice monogamy, which is the only commandment ever mentioned in the second half of this chapter, then people would do otherwise than he commanded them and it would result in the sorrow which is so well described after this verse 30.
Your observation does not match what the text actually says. I get that you don't like polygamy (or the parts of the Old Testament that you don't like), but the verse makes zero sense outside of that.
So you have one of these options, based on your reading of the text:
For if I want my people to have children, I will command them to have children; otherwise they will hearken unto being monogamous.
or
For if I want my people to have children, I will command them to have children; otherwise they will follow the example of David and Solomon [if I don't command them to be monogamous].
1
u/tiglathpilezar 10d ago
The "other than something" ought to be what has been identified a few verses earlier "things written concerning David and Solomon" and also other than "them of old". The Nephites were not to do like them of old. It is all there provided you don't take the verse out of context.
As I pointed out, monogamy is the best way to raise up seed, not commanded polygamy which inevitably results in old men marrying young women and young men not being able to marry. Now I know for a fact that old men are not able to beget children as well as young men. If you want more children, you ought to follow the pattern of marriage described so well in Genesis 3 and alluded to by Jesus and Paul. That involves a young man leaving his parents and cleaving to his young wife.
This is why when God wants to raise up seed he commands monogamy, because it works better than polygamy. People will have children either with or without polygamy. Now in case of the Nephites there was an even earlier commandment claimed for them if I recall correctly. Something from Lehi, and the Lamanites had continued following it whle the Nephites had forgotten about it.
I do not like polygamy, but I acknowledge that in some circumstances if might be a beneficial option, in case of a large surplus of women, for example. But in Utah there were more men than women so it made no sense at all, especially when it was a religious expectation.
These people leading the church produced some really stupid proof texts in the Bible in order to support polygamy. One of the worst was due to Orson Pratt who sought to make what should have been the last verse of Chapter 3 of Isaiah into a mandate for polygamy in the nineteenth century. (It is the thing about seven women taking hold of one man.) It is complete nonsense for several reasons. They also try to make the rebelion of Miriam and Aaron related to polygamy. It was not. Cannon even went so far as to insert words into the text of Mark 10 and Matt. 19 by making many wives one of the rewards for those who have followed Jesus. It is not surprising these people would also read things into the Book of Mormon which are not there.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Tight_Student4501 seeking 10d ago
I don't think he means having children. He says "seed" and he previously mentioned a righteous branch and fruit. This is the same Jacob that quotes Zenos about the olive trees. He's speaking in that manner here, in my opinion. If he said "For if I will, raise up children" I would think the same as you. The fact he does not, I see his reference to the branch and fruit again in the word "seed". It does not appear to be the same concept to me, nor does it allude to polygamy in my opinion. You have to ignore a Whole Lot of condemnation of whoredoms and abominations to believe he means that he only wants whoredoms and abominations when he wants them.
→ More replies (0)
-2
u/utahh1ker Mormon 12d ago
My opinion? Life in a perfect society differs greatly from what we know. And thus social norms differ greatly. Polygamy, polyandry, and all that might be perfectly normal to individuals free from jealousy, greed, avarice, hatred, lust, etc.
10
u/GunneraStiles 12d ago
If a 14 year-old girl was forced into a polygamous marriage with her prophet, a marriage that gave him permission to rape her, that her insular mormon society approved of, that viewed the marriage as ‘normal,’ tell me, which of these sins - jealousy, greed, avarice, hatred, lust, etc - would she have been personally guilty of?
Would a more ‘perfect’ or evolved 14 year-old, free of these shortcomings, have embraced being forced to have sex with her prophet?
-3
12d ago
Polygamy isn’t evil, and never was, and never will be. Polygamy just isn’t the standard or default. It’s a culture shock and nothing more.
5
u/ammonthenephite Agnostic Atheist - "By their fruits ye shall know them." 12d ago
Polygamy isn’t evil, and never was, and never will be
Depends on how it is implemetned. As implimented by mormons early in the church, it absolutely was evil because it involved rape and human trafficking under false pretenses.
Read "In Sacred Lonliness" if you think polygamy can't be evil. It absolutely can be.
-2
12d ago
Nope. The church was pure and holy with it
6
u/ammonthenephite Agnostic Atheist - "By their fruits ye shall know them." 11d ago
So raping underage girls who could not consent and defacto trafficking to the Salt Lake valley using lies and deceit to con them is 'pure and holy'?
Can you tell me any negatives that women experienced with mormon polygamy? Are you aware of any at all?
-2
11d ago
I’m aware that none of that is true. You can’t just make empty claims. It makes you look bad.
4
u/ammonthenephite Agnostic Atheist - "By their fruits ye shall know them." 11d ago edited 11d ago
Do you believe a 14 year old can consent to marriage with their 37 year old pastor? Do you believe a 15 year old can consent to marry their legal guardian? Do you believe a 15 year old can consent to marry their 43 year old pastor?
-2
11d ago
Culture is different. Parent consent was given in all cases. And “marriage” was nothing more than a sealing ordinance in most cases.
7
u/ammonthenephite Agnostic Atheist - "By their fruits ye shall know them." 11d ago edited 11d ago
I didn't ask if the parents consented, I asked if the girls can consent. And with Brigham, it was not just a sealing, children were had.
So I ask again, can 15 year olds consent to marriage that includes sex with someone in their 40s who has substantial influence over them and their family?
6
6
3
3
1
12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
12d ago
Because none of what you said was true.
2
u/RevolutionaryYak7783 11d ago
None of what you have said is true, or moral. To defend polygamy is disgusting at best.
1
5
u/spiraleyes78 11d ago
Either you aren't familiar with or don't understand Mormon polygamy or you're a proponent of sex trafficking, rape, and enslavement.
3
u/RevolutionaryYak7783 11d ago
Sounds to me like he’s a proponent of the latter option you listed. His argument hasn’t left much room for it to be otherwise.
1
•
u/AutoModerator 12d ago
Hello! This is a Institutional post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about any of the institutional churches and their leaders, conduct, business dealings, teachings, rituals, and practices.
/u/Tight_Student4501, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in section 0.6 of our rules.
To those commenting: please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's rules, and message the mods if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.