Does Jacob 2 Allow any Polygamy?

[Anonymous]

I’m placing my latest “presentation” at the top here because I have honed it a lot. Don’t worry about anything below the line. Please tell me where I might be wrong! Also, does anyone know of a single instance in the scriptures (excluding D&C 132) of the Lord instituting polygamy to raise up seed? Abraham has already been considered. So here’s how I read verse 30 of Jacob 2:

For This word indicates that what follows will support a previous statement. In this case, that statement is “this people shall keep my commandments” (v. 29).

if I will, This does not necessarily refer to a future event. In this case, the Lord is saying, “If I will continue to…” because the process had already begun – “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” (v. 25).

saith the Lord of Hosts, Jacob is speaking the Lord’s words.

raise up seed unto me, Adam and Eve were sufficient alone when commanded to multiply and replenish the earth. Noah and his sons were likewise commanded and they each had only one wife, and it was the same for Lehi and his sons (again, see v. 25). I don’t know of a single instance in the scriptures (excluding D&C 132) of the Lord instituting polygamy to raise up seed.

I will command my people; This is not referring to a future or hypothetical event. Jacob was delivering the commandment from the Lord at that very time.

otherwise This means “If I do not command my people…” or “If I am not the God of this people…”

they shall hearken unto these things. The words “these things” refer to their misunderstanding of scriptures and seeking to excuse whoredoms.

Essentially, the verse could read like this:

Quote:

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, which is what I have been doing since I led this people out of Jerusalem to raise up unto me a righteous branch, then I will command my people to have only one wife, which commandment I am now giving through Jacob; otherwise (or, if I do not give this commandment), then they shall hearken unto their misunderstanding of scriptures and seek to excuse whoredoms because of what was written concerning David and Solomon.

For further support of this interpretation, consider the following points:

-There is no indication in Jacob’s sermon that “whoredoms” refers to having affairs outside of a marital agreement (I am including concubinage here because concubines were considered to be inferior, de facto wives). It does not say that David was justified “save in the case of Uriah and his wife” (D&C 132); his sins of adultery and having Uriah killed were separate and different from polygamy. Jacob related abominations and whoredoms to polygamy only.

-The people are commanded to have one wife and no concubines (v. 27), for the Lord delights in the chastity of women, and there is an inference that having more than one wife violates chastity. And whoredoms are an abomination to the Lord (v. 28). This people shall keep his commandments or be cursed (v. 29).

-The Lord had seen the sorrow and heard the mourning of his daughters because of their husbands (v. 31). They shall not commit whoredoms like them of old (v. 33). The sobbings of the hearts of their wives and children ascend up to God against them (35).

In light of these points, it would be ludicrous for the Lord say there is a possibility of an exception to his commandment.

________________________________________________

OLD STUFF

Please let me know what you think of my analysis of Jacob 2. Tell me if there are holes in the argument. Here it is:

Let’s consider the second chapter of Jacob and two possible meanings of verse 30. The verse reads, “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.”

1. Polygamy can be an Exception to the Rule

The popular meaning of the verse is that God will command his people to take multiple wives if he wants to raise up seed. This meaning does not make sense for many reasons:

a. When the word “For” is used at the beginning of a sentence or phrase in the scriptures, it indicates it will support or continue the preceding point. It does not indicate an exception is being introduced.

b. The phrase “raise up see unto me” does not necessarily imply the institution of polygamy. In fact, the Lord had led Lehi to the promised land to “raise up a righteous branch unto the house of Israel” (2 Nephi 3:5) and they were strictly monogamous.

c. It is made clear in the chapter that having many wives and concubines constitute whoredoms (v. 33) and is abominable. No exceptions are made – every case was abominable, not just “the case of Uriah and his wife” or Solomon taking pagan wives.

d. The phrase “these things” does not necessarily refer to the words of Jacob about having only one wife. The over-arching subject is the people seeking “to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms” by what was written “concerning David, and Solomon his son.”

e. One reason for the command to be monogamous is “the chastity of women.” There is a clear indication that polygamy violates chastity (vs. 27-28).

f. In verses 31 and 33, the Lord talks about hearing the cries of his daughters and says he will destroy the people if they commit whoredoms like David and Solomon did. It would be quite absurd for the Lord to say he might command his people to take multiple wives and then follow it up with that.

To summarize the first possible meaning of verse 30, it could read like this:

Quote:

But if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people to have multiple wives, even though that violates the chastity of women and is abominable to me and despite my warning that I will visit them with destruction if they commit whoredoms like them of old; otherwise they shall hearken unto these words about having only one wife.

2. If the Lord Will Raise Seed unto Him, He Will Command them to Practice Monogamy

This meaning makes mores sense. In additions to the above points, here are some reasons:

a. The phrase “For if I will…raise up seed unto me” does not necessarily refer to a future or hypothetical event. At that very time, the Lord was working to raise up seed unto him; as noted already, he had led Lehi to the promised land to “raise up a righteous branch unto the house of Israel” (2 Nephi 3:5).

b. It follows that the phrase “I will command my people” also does not necessarily refer to a future or hypothetical event. When Jacob quotes the Lord as saying “I will command my people,” he was relaying what the Lord had previously revealed to him. By preaching the sermon, Jacob was fulfilling that resolution to command the people.

c. This meaning is in harmony with Jacob’s entire sermon and the first meaning contradicts it.

To summarize the second possible meaning of verse 30, it could read like this:

Quote:

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, which is what I am actually working to do now since I led this people out of Jerusalem to raise up unto me a righteous branch, then I will command my people to have only one wife, which commandment will be given through Jacob; on the other hand, if I do not give this commandment, then they shall hearken unto the temptation to have multiple wives and try to excuse themselves because of what was written concerning David and Solomon.

[Anonymous]

I think it’s hard to overlook the word “otherwise” and it’s traditional reading. I think it’s hard to read that chapter, with that word, and not come to the conclusion that what is said allows polygamy in some rare cases (only when commanded directly by God), with monogamy being the standard. I also think “raise up seed unto me” doesn’t have to be numerical in any way (meaning it doesn’t have to mean lots of kids), since there is nothing at all in the passage about numbers. Finally, given the “otherwise” usage, the text seems to say that polygamy (and concubines) are a whoredom unless God commands differently on occasion – that David and Solomon weren’t commanded, but Abraham might have been, for example.

I’m not saying that belief has to be correct or pure doctrine, since I don’t accept infallible prophets (meaning I am open to Jacob [and JS] being wrong about it, perhaps due to not being able to throw people like Abraham, Issac and Jacob under the bus), but I think it’s the most straightforward reading of the text.

[Anonymous]

I appreciate your reply, Ray. But what if we focused less on the word “otherwise” and more on the phrase “they shall hearken unto these things”? What does “these things” refer to? Maybe it is too much of a stretch for me to say “The over-arching subject is the people seeking ‘to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms’ by what was written ‘concerning David, and Solomon his son'” and that “these “things” refers to that instead.

[Anonymous]

I think your reading of that is true to the text, Shawn – but citing David and Solomon, specifically, and not Abraham, Isaac and Jacob leaves open the idea that kings were committing whoredoms but prophets weren’t (because they were commanded).

The Old Testament text says God commanded Abraham to take a concubine, for example, so there is scriptural precedence for the traditional reading of Jacob 2 – and, remember, Jacob was an Old Testament time prophet. His statement in that chapter is perfectly in line with the scriptures of his people, meaning he might have been doing nothing more than passing on the incorrect traditions of his fathers – albeit with the caveat that monogamy is the ideal.

I just don’t think that means he was correct in all of his statements, and I think the dark skin prejudice of the time is a great example of prophets passing on the “incorrect traditions of their fathers” and not being correct in all of their assumptions.

I don’t think my reading is the one and only true reading – but it is that one that makes the most sense to me.

[Anonymous]

I’ll consider your whole post, but I want to address this now:

Old-Timer wrote:

I think your reading of that is true to the text, Shawn – but citing David and Solomon, specifically, and not Abraham, Isaac and Jacob leaves open the idea that kings were committing whoredoms but prophets weren’t (because they were commanded).

The Old Testament text says God commanded Abraham to take a concubine, for example, so there is scriptural precedence for the traditional reading of Jacob 2…

I don’t see anything in the OT that indicates God commanded Abraham to take a concubine. I think he, Sarai, and Hagar did that all on their own, and it created a big mess. On the other hand, nothing indicates Abraham was condemned for it. It seems that God forgave it.

I have never heard of Isaac being with any woman besides Rebekah.

Jacob’s story is similar to Abraham’s. I don’t see anything indicating God commanded it.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, I wasn’t clear. The text says in Genesis 16 that Sarai told Abraham to take Hagar as a concubine so he could have children – in order to fulfill the promise God had made to him in Chapter 15 about his posterity, since she was barren. The implication is that they were doing it because God had promised him children – that they saw it as a command in practical terms. It is D&C 132 that frames it in terms of a commandment – and I can understand that framing, given the promise. I agree that I personally don’t read a command into it, but my point is that the wording in Jacob doesn’t mention prophets who had multiple wives and concubines – only kings.

Also, I was lumping Abraham, Isaac and Jacob together, since they were considered the founders of the Israelite nation. That was just sloppy.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for clarifying. Overall, you bring up a good point. I need to consider how Abraham and other OT prophets fit into the mix. There are definitely differences between the prophets and the kings.

[Anonymous]

I believe that Prophets are heavily influenced by the cultures they grow up in. We have already discussed in other threads the current general church position that the priesthood ban was most likely the result of BY and anothers inserting the racism of their culture into the gospel. There are many objectional things in the OT, polygamy, slavery, genocide etc. I feel strongly that there are objectional things in the NT (sexism being the most prominant example).

Prophets seem generally constrained by the cultures they are immersed in. I believe that the OT prophets saw polygamy as a given.

I also find that it is very difficult for a sub-culture like the church to go too far from the standards of the larger culture. For this reason I believe that polygamy will never be reinstituted – the vast majority of the membership simply would not stand for it. It was certainly not easy to implement in the 1840’s but women today are better educated and accustomed to more rights. I believe that the church would loose all but the most stalwart and fundamentalist of membership.

OTOH, we as the church find ourselves in an odd place. We do not want to disavow poligamy completely because that is our history and heritage. But we certainly don’t emphasize it or teach it anymore. That is not what we are about, what we stand for and represent.

More precisely to Jacob 2, I do believe that JS justified polygamy by OT prophets by believing they were acting under orders from God. This would require a world view in which God does not prohibit polygamy (and lying and murder) in every circumstance. This is supported by the words of JS in trying to convince another plural wife – paraphrased “whatever God commands is right even if we do not see the wisdom of it until long after the fact.”

I believe that at least some of JS’s mentality ended up in the pages of the BOM. Therefore, I see Jacob 2 as further evidence of the worldview of JS.

[Anonymous]

I think the context makes it crystal clear that polygamy is permissible if God allows it. However one wants to micro-analyze the phrase “raise up seed,” the intended meaning is very clear: If God commands plural marriage, it is acceptable; otherwise, monogamy is the rule.

[Anonymous]

I won’t say your interpretation is wrong, but I think you all should consider the whole context again.

Jacob was told the day before giving the sermon that he was to declare the Lord’s word (11).

The Nephites are trying to excuse their whoredoms because of what is written concerning David and Solomon (23).

What does “whoredoms” refer to? Nothing indicates the Nephites were having affairs outside of some kind of marital agreement. In this chapter, a whoredom is having anything more than one wife.

David and Solomon had many wives and concubines and that was abominable to the Lord (24). Because of that, the Lord led this people from Jerusalem to raise up a righteous branch (25) and he will not allow this people to do like unto them of old (26). It does not say that David did right “save in the case of Uriah and his wife” (D&C 132). All of it was an abomination.

The people are commanded to have one wife and no concubines (27), for the Lord delights in the chastity of women. Whoredoms are an abomination to the Lord (28). Because of this, this people must keep the commandments (29)…

SKIP VERSE 30 FOR NOW.

For the Lord has seen the sorrow and heard the mourning of his daughters because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands (31). And the Lord will not suffer the cries of his daughters of this people against the men (32). For he will destroy them if they take his daughters captive, for they shall not commit whoredoms like them of old (33).

The Nephite men have broken the hearts of their tender wives and lost the confidence of their children, and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against them (35).

Verses 23-29 indicate:

1. Having anything more than one wife is a whoredom and is abominable.

2. The Lord led Lehi out of Jerusalem because of those abominations to raise up a righteous branch and he will not allow them to do what they of old did.

3. Having more than one wife violates chastity (I really don’t think this interpretation is a stretch).

4. This people must keep the commandments regarding chastity.

Verses 31-35 indicate:

1. The Lord has seen the sorrow and heard the mourning of his daughters.

2. He will not suffer the cries of his daughters of this people.

3. This people shall not commit whoredoms like them of old.

4. The sobbings of the hearts of their wives and children ascend up to God.

Considering the context, it makes no sense for the Lord to insert language allowing for an exception in the middle of all that. That would mean the Lord might decide to allow whoredoms and ignore the sorrow and mourning of his daughters.

Now let’s consider verse 30 along with verses that go with it.:

The people are commanded to have one wife and no concubines (27), for the Lord delights in the chastity of women. Whoredoms are an abomination to the Lord (28). Because of this, this people must keep the commandments (29). The Lord told Jacob the day before that, if he will raise up people to him, he will give these commandments (the commandments to have one wife and no concubines); otherwise they will hearken unto unjustified excuses to commit whoredoms.

The widely accepted interpretation essentially means the Lord is saying, “David and Solomon committed whoredoms that are abominable to me. Because of that, I led this people from Jerusalem to raise up a righteous branch clearly and I will not allow this people to do what they of old did. This people shall have one wife only, for I delight in the chastity of women. This people shall keep the commandments. However, I might command them to live polygamy if I will raise up seed unto me (even though I am already raising up seed unto me); otherwise they shall hearken unto these commandments to have one wife only. For I have seen the sorrow and heard the mourning of my daughters, and the sobbings of the hearts of your wives and children ascend up to me.”

[Anonymous]

Also I don’t think 2 Samuel 12:7-8 is a problem. The message given to David by Nathan, “Thus saith the Lord…I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom” could mean the “master’s wives” were given in the same sense that the Lord sent quails to the Israelites, gave them a king, and acquiesced when Martin Harris wanted to borrow the BoM transcript. It could also mean the women were just placed in the care of the king’s household. Or the whole thing could be bullcrap.

[Anonymous]

I have considered the idea that Joseph Smith’s life and culture influenced the translation of the Book of Mormon. I have no doubt that they did. The facts seem to indicate that any influnce Joseph may have had on Jacob 2:30 would be AGAINST inserting an exception for polygamy.

His revision of 1 Kings 3:1 condemns Solomon. He changed it from “And Solomon made affinity with Pharaoh king of Egypt, and took Pharaoh’s daughter…” to “And the Lord was not pleased with Solomon, for he made affinity with Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and took Pharaoh’s daughter to wife…”

In February of 1831, a revelation through Joseph stated, “Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else” (D&C 42:22). In May of 1831, another stated, “Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation” (D&C 49:16).

I think it was after May of 1831 when Joseph really started to consider the possibility of instituting plural marriage.

[Anonymous]

I totally changed my “presentation” and posted it at the top of this thread. I would really appreciate any further feedback.

[Author]

Posts