The Ultimate Polygamy Thread - It started in the Past

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
Post Reply
freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: The Ultimate Polygamy Thread - It started in the Past

Post by freedomforall »

The people....we want many wives like David and Solomon did.

God.... No, you cannot do that.

The people .... oh, gee whiz, why not?

God....because you are to keep my commandments and have no whoredoms, at all. You are to abide by there being one woman and one man in marriage unless I say otherwise. Period.

The people....oh, all right, if you say so.

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: The Ultimate Polygamy Thread - It started in the Past

Post by freedomforall »

5tev3 wrote:
Separatist wrote:
5tev3 wrote: Brian and Linda Hales who wrote the three volume "Joseph Smith's Polygamy" actually agree on this point. They wrote:
“Do we know that polygamy will ever be commanded again? In the 6000 years of religious history, the only adherents to be commanded were the Latter-day Saints between 1852 and 1890. Upon what basis does anyone assert that it will be commanded again?”
Let that sink in for a moment..."the only adherents to be commanded..."
That's interesting, considering the main justification was that it was part of the "restoration" of all things. From whom? When?
Yeah, I found that quote quite astounding. It sounds like an outrageous claim but considering that it is being said by a man and woman who have compiled every single document in LDS history that pertains to polygamy and have bound them into three volumes published by Deseret Book, I don't take it lightly. I have found the "restoration of ALL things" idea somewhat problematic in that respect. Since there is no evidence in scripture that God has ever commanded anyone to enter into a polygamous marriage, I wonder why something that never was would need to be restored.

You could say that perhaps any mention of it has been stricken from the text of the Bible that this is the reason it is absent. However, it would be helpful to have such a thing to explain and justify the polygamy that we DO see there. Wouldn't make sense to remove it.

Additionally, it is significant that a book written for our day, the Book of Mormon speaks in open and thorough condemnation of the practice in the three places it is mentioned. No examples of what a righteous polygamous relationship looks like and no examples of it being done correctly. There's a single misinterpreted verse that is said to allow it upon a condition that I have tried ad nausem to show is related to something else entirely but I feel like that horse has been beaten to dust.

This leaves one to conclude that the polygamy practiced by Latter-day Saints was restored from the pre-earth life having never been authorized in all of human history except for perhaps among people who's records are absent from our knowledge, or it was done as an Abrahamic test to prove the early members, or Joseph's intentions were to initiate sealing and his intentions were confused for something else and practiced incorrectly by his replacements, or Joseph introduced something forbidden and paid the price with his life, or Joseph tried to fight it but so overwhelming was the resistance that he was taken from the saints and the rest were punished and scattered for a time, or it was all a mistake that we are still trying to recover from.

These are some of the many possibilities that I consider as plausible. I haven't settled on the one I think is accurate, so while I have opinions on certain aspects, I don't yet know how it all fits together. Others may have strong opinions this way or that, others may think that the Church's current stance on it is 100% accurate. That's fine, I don't have a problem with anyone taking either of those stances. If I wanted to, I could defend polygamy as rigorously as anyone with a careful selection of scripture and quotes.

What I can't defend are incorrect interpretations of scripture when a fairly brief analysis and a much deeper analysis reveal a meaning that fits much better with the narrative and is supported by patterns in the Book of Mormon as a whole.
This is not related but is an example of why we cannot always compare things said as if everything matches perfectly for sake of posting corroborating verses in order to make a point.

What's wrong with this picture? In other words, what makes these two scriptures not match? Which of the two is correct?

Doctrine and Covenants 86:7
7 Therefore, let the wheat and the tares grow together until the harvest is fully ripe; then ye shall first gather out the wheat from among the tares, and after the gathering of the wheat, behold and lo, the tares are bound in bundles, and the field remaineth to be burned.

Matthew 13:30
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

User avatar
oneClimbs
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3187
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: The Ultimate Polygamy Thread - It started in the Past

Post by oneClimbs »

freedomforall wrote:
5tev3 wrote:Again, I invite you to prove using any of the four standard works that the phrase "raise up seed" means "accelerated childbirth via polygamy." It's termed as "the birds and the bees." Do you know any other method? Also, why would God tell them they were not to have more than one wife like David and Solomon did, if it didn't mean copying the practice of plural wives? Come on, does it have to be spelled out?
I don't think you are understanding my question. You are speaking of "accelerated childbirth" using polygamy as the tool for that thing. You are suggesting that polygamy is used specifically for accelerated childbirth and that this is actually a strategy of the Lord. I'm saying that there is zero evidence for it in all of scripture, it's not a thing.

The birds and the bees works just fine with one wife and the Nephites did just great with it, the Duggars did amazing things with monogamy too. I'm wondering why polygamy was needed when the regular way works just fine, the Nephites multiplied exceedingly, again and again, the text states this. Also why would the Lord be implying "accelerated childbirth" when the Nephites weren't using that as an excuse anyway.

I don't know why speed is a factor here. I get that is a theory of yours, but the Nephites weren't going for speed and child production, they didn't say "Hey, we need a ton of people, let's make babies", they wanted the sex, the whoredoms. So why would the Lord say, "Hey if I want a ton of people really fast I'll command it." Doesn't make sense, but what does make sense is an interpretation that is supported by the text.

Having more than one wife, is condemned, the way David and Solomon did it was condemned too. The Nephites were lusting after women, that was their motive and they were using David and Solomon as an excuse. God said he had a purpose in separating them from the people at Jerusalem and if he's going to raise up a righteous branch than he would need to command them or else they end up doomed.

He's saying that he's trying to do this thing, and if it's going to happen, he needs to be calling the shots or else the people always end up going off into perversions. He mentions the people at Jerusalem and elsewhere to prove his point, it's going on all over, they aren't listening. He then lists the fruits of their perversions as evidence that he needs to be back in charge.

User avatar
oneClimbs
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3187
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: The Ultimate Polygamy Thread - It started in the Past

Post by oneClimbs »

freedomforall wrote:unless I say otherwise. Period.
Nope try again. He doesn't use the word "unless," the pattern is a statement of fact, then an OR ELSE (otherwise) and the consequence. There is no period after otherwise, the consequence is given. You are adding and omitting not only words but their meanings.

User avatar
oneClimbs
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3187
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: The Ultimate Polygamy Thread - It started in the Past

Post by oneClimbs »

freedomforall wrote:This is not related but is an example of why we cannot always compare things said as if everything matches perfectly for sake of posting corroborating verses in order to make a point.

What's wrong with this picture? In other words, what makes these two scriptures not match? Which of the two is correct?

Doctrine and Covenants 86:7
7 Therefore, let the wheat and the tares grow together until the harvest is fully ripe; then ye shall first gather out the wheat from among the tares, and after the gathering of the wheat, behold and lo, the tares are bound in bundles, and the field remaineth to be burned.

Matthew 13:30
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
They are both the same, the only difference is when the wheat is gathered, before or after the tares are bundled. Regardless of the wheat, the tares are in each case burned after they are bundled. I'm not sure why the ordering is different but each of the elements have exactly the same meaning, there is only a difference in the ordering of single element. The results are the same. This wasn't a great example to use.

Let's look at a better example since we are suggesting that taking a verse at face value alone is the right way. I've got Jacob 2:35 here and I'm going to just look at what it says and accept it.
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 ascend 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.
The Nephites are worse than the Lamanites because they have actually broken the hearts of their wives, they stabbed them to death with deep wounds. That's exactly what the text says, hearts were broken, and how? By being pierced with deep wounds, the only way to cause a deep wound is by stabbing so probably a sword, a knife or sharp stick perhaps. I don't want to assume so we'll just stick with what it says and accept that wives are being murdered by stabbing here.

Hey, maybe you are on to something here.
Last edited by oneClimbs on January 6th, 2017, 8:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
rewcox
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5873

Re: The Ultimate Polygamy Thread - It started in the Past

Post by rewcox »

5tev3 wrote:
freedomforall wrote:unless I say otherwise. Period.
Nope try again. He doesn't use the word "unless," the pattern is a statement of fact, then an OR ELSE (otherwise) and the consequence. There is no period after otherwise, the consequence is given. You are adding and omitting not only words but their meanings.
You present a strong case for your position.

What is your position on Joseph Smith starting polygamy?

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: The Ultimate Polygamy Thread - It started in the Past

Post by freedomforall »

5tev3 wrote:
freedomforall wrote:
5tev3 wrote:Again, I invite you to prove using any of the four standard works that the phrase "raise up seed" means "accelerated childbirth via polygamy." It's termed as "the birds and the bees." Do you know any other method? Also, why would God tell them they were not to have more than one wife like David and Solomon did, if it didn't mean copying the practice of plural wives? Come on, does it have to be spelled out?
I don't think you are understanding my question. You are speaking of "accelerated childbirth" using polygamy as the tool for that thing. You are suggesting that polygamy is used specifically for accelerated childbirth and that this is actually a strategy of the Lord. I'm saying that there is zero evidence for it in all of scripture, it's not a thing.

The birds and the bees works just fine with one wife and the Nephites did just great with it, the Duggars did amazing things with monogamy too. I'm wondering why polygamy was needed when the regular way works just fine, the Nephites multiplied exceedingly, again and again, the text states this. Also why would the Lord be implying "accelerated childbirth" when the Nephites weren't using that as an excuse anyway.

I don't know why speed is a factor here. I get that is a theory of yours, but the Nephites weren't going for speed and child production, they didn't say "Hey, we need a ton of people, let's make babies", they wanted the sex, the whoredoms. So why would the Lord say, "Hey if I want a ton of people really fast I'll command it." Doesn't make sense, but what does make sense is an interpretation that is supported by the text.

Having more than one wife, is condemned, the way David and Solomon did it was condemned too. The Nephites were lusting after women, that was their motive and they were using David and Solomon as an excuse. God said he had a purpose in separating them from the people at Jerusalem and if he's going to raise up a righteous branch than he would need to command them or else they end up doomed.

He's saying that he's trying to do this thing, and if it's going to happen, he needs to be calling the shots or else the people always end up going off into perversions. He mentions the people at Jerusalem and elsewhere to prove his point, it's going on all over, they aren't listening. He then lists the fruits of their perversions as evidence that he needs to be back in charge.
Just what is polygamy? Could there be one wife bearing "75 plus kids" over a long period of time, or several wives bearing those same "75 plus kids" in a much speedier time frame? The latter is polygamy and this scenario does bring about accelerated childbearing unless the husband takes long vacations between jumping into bed with a different wife. Just add all the facts up and see that I am correct. Rather simple really without having to consult with other theories or scriptures for a clear understanding. Everything needed is right there in Chapter 3.

User avatar
oneClimbs
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3187
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: The Ultimate Polygamy Thread - It started in the Past

Post by oneClimbs »

freedomforall wrote:Just what is polygamy? Could there be one wife bearing 75 kids over a long period of time, or several wives bearing those same 75 kids in a much speedier time frame? The latter is polygamy and this scenario does bring about accelerated childbearing unless the husband takes long vacations between jumping into bed with a different wife. Just add all the facts up and see that I am correct. Rather simple really without having to consult with other theories or scriptures for a clear understanding. Everything needed is right there in Chapter 3.
Why are you so focused on speed? What's the rush?

User avatar
oneClimbs
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3187
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: The Ultimate Polygamy Thread - It started in the Past

Post by oneClimbs »

rewcox wrote:You present a strong case for your position.

What is your position on Joseph Smith starting polygamy?
Well, I appreciate that. It's nice to know that someone willing to at least entertain what I'm suggesting.

As for a position on Joseph Smith starting polygamy. To be completely honest, with all I've read, I don't know. I have a ton of information but I'm unable to settle down on a single theory. There is of course a theory I lean slightly more toward than others, but there are problems with that one as well.

One the one hand, there are more witnesses that claim he started it. On the other, Joseph Smith himself, while alive and his own wife denied it, and until their dying days. During his life the church was 100% anti-polygamy, even D&C 101 banned it. Several affidavits and declarations were made denouncing it by the church and auxiliaries. After Joseph and almost a decade later a new bombshell drops in the Rockies right around the time of the Temple Lot case which is curious timing.

Then consider that in the Joseph Smith papers there is a journal entry where Joseph is denouncing the practice just like other statements he made while living, but the words "to be revised" are written in pencil by the words "Joseph forbids it" and different handwriting crosses out words and inserts new words that change it from negative language to the opposite, now Joseph is praising polygamy and that is the version present in History of the Church.

Was this a deliberate attempt to modify the past and paint Joseph as a polygamist, or was it an attempt to correct the entry and record what he taught about it secretly? Either possibility is plausible. I don't think modifying records is right though, no matter what someone secretly intended, you shouldn't go changing records and adding in additional language that was never said, you simply create a new affidavit.

Things like that make it really hard to nail down an interpretation. I simply don't know, so I do what I can to examine what I can and find the best evidence possible. Jacob 2:30 was this lone, confusing verse that was this sole point in the BofM that could be tied to polygamy. It never sat right to me, the language seems to indicate that interpretation if you ignore everything else, but upon further examination, it indeed has another meaning which makes the Book of Mormon 100% against polygamy instead of 99%. This is kind of a big deal. I'm interested in running my research by some higher ups to see what others who are more adept at critical analysis think.

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: The Ultimate Polygamy Thread - It started in the Past

Post by freedomforall »

5tev3 wrote:
freedomforall wrote:This is not related but is an example of why we cannot always compare things said as if everything matches perfectly for sake of posting corroborating verses in order to make a point.

What's wrong with this picture? In other words, what makes these two scriptures not match? Which of the two is correct?

Doctrine and Covenants 86:7
7 Therefore, let the wheat and the tares grow together until the harvest is fully ripe; then ye shall first gather out the wheat from among the tares, and after the gathering of the wheat, behold and lo, the tares are bound in bundles, and the field remaineth to be burned.

Matthew 13:30
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
They are both the same, the only difference is when the wheat is gathered, before or after the tares are bundled. Regardless of the wheat, the tares are in each case burned after they are bundled. I'm not sure why the ordering is different but each of the elements have exactly the same meaning, there is only a difference in the ordering of single element. The results are the same. This wasn't a great example to use.

You cannot claim these two verses as the same and then point out differences. They are not the same

Let's look at a better example since we are suggesting that taking a verse at face value alone is the right way. I've got Jacob 2:35 here and I'm going to just look at what it says and accept it.
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 ascend 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.
The Nephites are worse than the Lamanites because they have actually broken the hearts of their wives, they stabbed them to death with deep wounds. That's exactly what the text says, hearts were broken, and how? By being pierced with deep wounds, the only way to cause a deep wound is by stabbing so probably a sword, a knife or sharp stick perhaps. I don't want to assume so we'll just stick with what it says and accept that wives are being murdered by stabbing here. v It does not imply that wives were being stabbed to death.
[/u][/b]

Hey, maybe you are on to something here.
Their hearts were pierced by ugly and cruel words thrown at them by evil husbands along with their desires for extra women in their household. Here are some examples of being how people can be cut:

1 Nephi 16:2
2 And it came to pass that I said unto them that I knew that I had spoken hard things against the wicked, according to the truth; and the righteous have I justified, and testified that they should be lifted up at the last day; wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.

Acts 5:33
33 ¶When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them.

Mosiah 13:7
7 Ye see that ye have not power to slay me, therefore I finish my message. Yea, and I perceive that it cuts you to your hearts because I tell you the truth concerning your iniquities.

Moses 6:37
37 And it came to pass that Enoch went forth in the land, among the people, standing upon the hills and the high places, and cried with a loud voice, testifying against their works; and all men were offended because of him.
.............................................................................................................................................
35 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 ascend 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.

The actions of the fathers cut to the heart, those who wanted to do right. The words of God cut them to the very center.

This is a very neat game of wits, perception, scripture chasing and intellect we're playing. In the end, I'll still be standing by my lenghy explanation of Jacob 2:30.

User avatar
rewcox
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5873

Re: The Ultimate Polygamy Thread - It started in the Past

Post by rewcox »

5tev3 wrote:
rewcox wrote:You present a strong case for your position.

What is your position on Joseph Smith starting polygamy?
Well, I appreciate that. It's nice to know that someone willing to at least entertain what I'm suggesting.

As for a position on Joseph Smith starting polygamy. To be completely honest, with all I've read, I don't know. I have a ton of information but I'm unable to settle down on a single theory. There is of course a theory I lean slightly more toward than others, but there are problems with that one as well.

One the one hand, there are more witnesses that claim he started it. On the other, Joseph Smith himself, while alive and his own wife denied it, and until their dying days. During his life the church was 100% anti-polygamy, even D&C 101 banned it. Several affidavits and declarations were made denouncing it by the church and auxiliaries. After Joseph and almost a decade later a new bombshell drops in the Rockies right around the time of the Temple Lot case which is curious timing.

Then consider that in the Joseph Smith papers there is a journal entry where Joseph is denouncing the practice just like other statements he made while living, but the words "to be revised" are written in pencil by the words "Joseph forbids it" and different handwriting crosses out words and inserts new words that change it from negative language to the opposite, now Joseph is praising polygamy and that is the version present in History of the Church.

Was this a deliberate attempt to modify the past and paint Joseph as a polygamist, or was it an attempt to correct the entry and record what he taught about it secretly? Either possibility is plausible. I don't think modifying records is right though, no matter what someone secretly intended, you shouldn't go changing records and adding in additional language that was never said, you simply create a new affidavit.

Things like that make it really hard to nail down an interpretation. I simply don't know, so I do what I can to examine what I can and find the best evidence possible. Jacob 2:30 was this lone, confusing verse that was this sole point in the BofM that could be tied to polygamy. It never sat right to me, the language seems to indicate that interpretation if you ignore everything else, but upon further examination, it indeed has another meaning which makes the Book of Mormon 100% against polygamy instead of 99%. This is kind of a big deal. I'm interested in running my research by some higher ups to see what others who are more adept at critical analysis think.
The Beginnings of Plural Marriage in the Church
The revelation on plural marriage was not written down until 1843, but its early verses suggest that part of it emerged from Joseph Smith’s study of the Old Testament in 1831. People who knew Joseph well later stated he received the revelation about that time.4 The revelation, recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 132, states that Joseph prayed to know why God justified Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon in having many wives. The Lord responded that He had commanded them to enter into the practice.5

User avatar
oneClimbs
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3187
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: The Ultimate Polygamy Thread - It started in the Past

Post by oneClimbs »

freedomforall wrote:Their hearts were pierced by ugly and cruel words thrown at them by evil husbands along with their desires for extra women in their household. Here are some examples of being how people can be cut:
Uh oh, i'm afraid that you can't look at other verses, or try to jump over to the new testament when we are in the book of Mormon. According to you, we have to accept verses at face value, or we are twisting them, and getting it wrong. You scolded me repeatedly for bringing up other scripture verses to try and provide context, now here you are doing the same thing. It looks like you do believe in context after all.

You have said repeatedly that a verse must be taken at face value without reading too much into it. So why can't you operate by your own standards and simply accept that this verse clearly says that Nephite men were stabbing their wives to death in the heart?

Are we going to be consistent, or set up double standards and make up the rules as we go along?

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: The Ultimate Polygamy Thread - It started in the Past

Post by freedomforall »

5tev3 wrote:
freedomforall wrote:Their hearts were pierced by ugly and cruel words thrown at them by evil husbands along with their desires for extra women in their household. Here are some examples of being how people can be cut:
Uh oh, i'm afraid that you can't look at other verses, or try to jump over to the new testament when we are in the book of Mormon. According to you, we have to accept verses at face value, or we are twisting them, and getting it wrong. You scolded me repeatedly for bringing up other scripture verses to try and provide context, now here you are doing the same thing. It looks like you do believe in context after all.

You have said repeatedly that a verse must be taken at face value without reading too much into it. So why can't you operate by your own standards and simply accept that this verse clearly says that Nephite men were stabbing their wives to death in the heart?

Are we going to be consistent, or set up double standards and make up the rules as we go along?
Where did you see the word stabbed in the said verse? The word stabbed doesn't exist therein.
The word Pierced does not necessarily mean stabbed.

I'm no longer going to play your games. I do not need justification from you to think and reason things through. If you do not understand Jacob 3:20 as written, this is on you, not me. I detailed what it said so you are free to reject it. But don't play dumb games in an attempt to belittle my intellect and knowledge. Your play on words is nothing less than insulting, but I can see now how it is that you find it so difficult to understand some scripture.

You also seek justification by equating all the papers and notes written by you, as if everything you say is correct and true because it is written down. I've seen this very same tactic by many other posters, and it doesn't hold water. I also ascertain that you would rather nitpick than have a decent dialog.

I gave plenty of info as to why I think the way I do concerning Jacob 2:30 but if you don't agree or accept it, big deal, nothing to get all bent out of shape over. Just because you don't accept it doesn't mean I'm wrong. It only means you won't accept it. Fine with me, but I still stand by my explanation because it is as ever as good as yours...that you expect others on board to accept, evidenced by all the scratching and quick picks you find in order to try to brow beat me. More power to you.

User avatar
oneClimbs
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3187
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: The Ultimate Polygamy Thread - It started in the Past

Post by oneClimbs »

freedomforall wrote: Where did you see the word stabbed in the said verse? The word stabbed doesn't exist therein.
The word Pierced does not necessarily mean stabbed.
I'm only trying to point out that your logic is inconsistent. I applied the logic you are using to interpret verse 30 to another verse. Of course it doesn't say stabbed and pierced doesn't mean a knife was used. Context is key. Likewise, "raise up seed" doesn't mean "accelerated birthrates via polygamy" none of those words appear, that's my point!
If you do not understand Jacob 3:20 as written, this is on you, not me.
I understand what is written just not your interpretation that's all.
Your play on words is nothing less than insulting, but I can see now how it is that you find it so difficult to understand some scripture.
I don't find it difficult at all and I'm sorry that you find my attempt to use your reasoning on another verse as insulting. The approach is flawed, you need context.
You also seek justification by equating all the papers and notes written by you, as if everything you say is correct and true because it is written down. I've seen this very same tactic by many other posters, and it doesn't hold water. I also ascertain that you would rather nitpick than have a decent dialog.
I'm trying to have a decent dialog but that is hard to do when you have a double standard. I'm trying to provide context while you refuse to look outside of a verse for any additional meaning. I tried to show you how flawed that reasoning is by using your "accept scripture at face value" the same thing with another verse.
I gave plenty of info as to why I think the way I do concerning Jacob 2:30

Not really, you just reiterated your opinion over and over without demonstrating that there is a doctrine of accelerated childbirth using polygamy that is supported by scripture. I can demonstrate, on the other hand, exactly what "raise up seed" actually means.
but if you don't agree or accept it, big deal, nothing to get all bent out of shape over. Just because you don't accept it doesn't mean I'm wrong. It only means you won't accept it. Fine with me, but I still stand by my explanation because it is as ever as good as yours...that you expect others on board to accept, evidenced by all the scratching and quick picks you find in order to try to brow beat me. More power to you.
Not bent out of shape, still just trying to have a discussion but it's hard when the rule is "accept scripture at face value" but only when it suits your purposes. You may want to reexamine that premise since I've shown that it is clearly the wrong approach. I interpreted a scripture "at face value" and you did what any wise person would do, you didn't just accept it at face value, you looked for context and gave examples. Great job, that what I've been trying to do all along.

I'm not saying that my interpretation is correct, but it can actually be substantiated by the surrounding text and other scriptural patterns. I wish I could throw you a little bone on your theory here, but the idea that God commands polygamy for rapidly accelerating birthrates is completely unsubstantiated for the following reasons:

1. God using polygamy to rapidly accelerate birthrates is 100% absent from scripture.
2. D&C 132 says polygamy was for an Abrahamic test not accelerating birthrates (see reason 1).
3. "Raise up seed" is synonymous with "raise up a righteous branch" and neither have anything to do with "rapidly accelerate birthrates with polygamy"

These are the key flaws in your argument. You cannot support your point with scripture, with D&C 132, or with the sermon itself. Can you name a time in history when God asked people to take more wives specifically for the purpose of rapidly increasing birthrates? In the mouth of two or three witnesses...

User avatar
Melissa
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1697

Re: The Ultimate Polygamy Thread - It started in the Past

Post by Melissa »

5tev3 wrote:
freedomforall wrote:Their hearts were pierced by ugly and cruel words thrown at them by evil husbands along with their desires for extra women in their household. Here are some examples of being how people can be cut:
Uh oh, i'm afraid that you can't look at other verses, or try to jump over to the new testament when we are in the book of Mormon. According to you, we have to accept verses at face value, or we are twisting them, and getting it wrong. You scolded me repeatedly for bringing up other scripture verses to try and provide context, now here you are doing the same thing. It looks like you do believe in context after all.

You have said repeatedly that a verse must be taken at face value without reading too much into it. So why can't you operate by your own standards and simply accept that this verse clearly says that Nephite men were stabbing their wives to death in the heart?

Are we going to be consistent, or set up double standards and make up the rules as we go along?

I will just mention that the word "pierced" is a very strong word essentially meaning that it is like unto stabbing their very core to cause death. Now granted, this was likely an emotional/mental piercing and not physical. But none the less, it is a very strong word indicating their husband's hurt them in the most intimate and personal manner they could have.

We also know that kind of pain does theoretically "kill" many women. They are damaged and broken and often suffer spiritually as well.

User avatar
oneClimbs
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3187
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: The Ultimate Polygamy Thread - It started in the Past

Post by oneClimbs »

Melissa wrote:I will just mention that the word "pierced" is a very strong word essentially meaning that it is like unto stabbing their very core to cause death. Now granted, this was likely an emotional/mental piercing and not physical. But none the less, it is a very strong word indicating their husband's hurt them in the most intimate and personal manner they could have.

We also know that kind of pain does theoretically "kill" many women. They are damaged and broken and often suffer spiritually as well.
I don't actually believe that the Nephites were stabbing their wives. I was trying to make a point about interpreting verses. We've had a long discussion and one impediment has been a demand that Jacob 2:30 be interpreted "at face value" meaning that you couldn't look to context and other verses for support. Blocking out any external evidence allowed one to read in their own interpretation and deny others, accusing them of "wresting" scripture by trying to explore context.

So I decided to demonstrate how absurd that line of thinking is by picking a verse a few verses down and simply interpreting it "at face value." The response was to try and analyze the verse with other verses to give it context, the exact thing I have been trying to do with Jacob 2:30. The double standard is obvious, you cannot simply take verses "at face value" while ignoring the fact that every word is part of an entire sermon and every sermon follows doctrinal patterns that flow throughout the religious history of the people.

So apologies for any confusion, I agree with your interpretation, the only murders here were spiritual at least.

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: The Ultimate Polygamy Thread - It started in the Past

Post by Finrock »

5tev3 wrote:
Melissa wrote:I will just mention that the word "pierced" is a very strong word essentially meaning that it is like unto stabbing their very core to cause death. Now granted, this was likely an emotional/mental piercing and not physical. But none the less, it is a very strong word indicating their husband's hurt them in the most intimate and personal manner they could have.

We also know that kind of pain does theoretically "kill" many women. They are damaged and broken and often suffer spiritually as well.
I don't actually believe that the Nephites were stabbing their wives. I was trying to make a point about interpreting verses. We've had a long discussion and one impediment has been a demand that Jacob 2:30 be interpreted "at face value" meaning that you couldn't look to context and other verses for support. Blocking out any external evidence allowed one to read in their own interpretation and deny others, accusing them of "wresting" scripture by trying to explore context.

So I decided to demonstrate how absurd that line of thinking is by picking a verse a few verses down and simply interpreting it "at face value." The response was to try and analyze the verse with other verses to give it context, the exact thing I have been trying to do with Jacob 2:30. The double standard is obvious, you cannot simply take verses "at face value" while ignoring the fact that every word is part of an entire sermon and every sermon follows doctrinal patterns that flow throughout the religious history of the people.

So apologies for any confusion, I agree with your interpretation, the only murders here were spiritual at least.
You are making sense and using sound principles of reasoning and critical thinking to present your points. Although I am not a participant in this discussion, I appreciate what you are doing.

-Finrock

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: The Ultimate Polygamy Thread - It started in the Past

Post by freedomforall »

I have not added other supporting scriptures. I have merely added clarification. And if you don't like that, I post the verses with no added wording. I am done with mental gymnastics and smug attitudes. I really don't care if my analysis is accepted by those that set themselves up as light.

If anyone does not agree with my analysis, pray with a sincere heart, with real intent, and ask God to reveal the truth of it. A stack of papers replete with notes is not sufficient.

Chapter 2
Jacob denounces the love of riches, pride, and unchastity—Men may seek riches to help their fellowmen—The Lord commands that no man among the Nephites may have more than one wife—The Lord delights in the chastity of women.

22 And now I make an end of speaking unto you concerning this pride. And were it not that I must speak unto you concerning a grosser crime, my heart would rejoice exceedingly because of you.

23 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.

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

25 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.

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. He is still talking about polygamy (having many wives)

27 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; He is condemning polygamy and having concubines, who are not wives.

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. He is still telling them they are to not have many wives or concubines, and to keep his commandments.


Here, in verse 30, the Lord explains what he would do if he were to want more kids than normal to be raised up.


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. They will do what the Lord told them to do, and not enter into polygamy unless he tells them to do so, etc.

In short, the Lord is telling them to do as he commands unless he comes back and tells them otherwise, as in instructing to do as David and Solomon did.

So I ask: if a man marries several wives, isn't it reasonable to assume that there will be increased childbearing? Or will all the wives, except one, be infertile?

What does the word "seed" mean in a biblical sense?

What did God tell the people concerning David and Solomon?

What did God say they cannot do?

What did God say to them with regard to the implication that having many wives would increase childbearing or seed?

Then what did God say to them about what he would do if he wanted them to have many wives and an increase of seed being produced?

Lastly, who doesn't really give a rat concerning what God was telling them, how or why?

23 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 awhoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

24 Behold, David and aSolomon truly had many bwives and concubines, which thing was cabominable before me, saith the Lord.

25 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 arighteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any aman among you have save it be bone cwife; and concubines he shall have none;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the achastity of women. And bwhoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or acursed be the land for their sakes.

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up aseed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

User avatar
rewcox
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5873

Re: The Ultimate Polygamy Thread - It started in the Past

Post by rewcox »

freedomforall wrote:I have not added other supporting scriptures. I have merely added clarification. And if you don't like that, I post the verses with no added wording. I am done with mental gymnastics and smug attitudes. I really don't care if my analysis is accepted by those that set themselves up as light.

If anyone does not agree with my analysis, pray with a sincere heart, with real intent, and ask God to reveal the truth of it. A stack of papers replete with notes is not sufficient.

Chapter 2
Jacob denounces the love of riches, pride, and unchastity—Men may seek riches to help their fellowmen—The Lord commands that no man among the Nephites may have more than one wife—The Lord delights in the chastity of women.

22 And now I make an end of speaking unto you concerning this pride. And were it not that I must speak unto you concerning a grosser crime, my heart would rejoice exceedingly because of you.

23 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.

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

25 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.

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. He is still talking about polygamy (having many wives)

27 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; He is condemning polygamy and having concubines, who are not wives.

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. He is still telling them they are to not have many wives or concubines, and to keep his commandments.


Here, in verse 30, the Lord explains what he would do if he were to want more kids than normal to be raised up.


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. They will do what the Lord told them to do, and not enter into polygamy unless he tells them to do so, etc.

In short, the Lord is telling them to do as he commands unless he comes back and tells them otherwise, as in instructing to do as David and Solomon did.

So I ask: if a man marries several wives, isn't it reasonable to assume that there will be increased childbearing? Or will all the wives, except one, be infertile?

What does the word "seed" mean in a biblical sense?

What did God tell the people concerning David and Solomon?

What did God say they cannot do?

What did God say to them with regard to the implication that having many wives would increase childbearing or seed?

Then what did God say to them about what he would do if he wanted them to have many wives and an increase of seed being produced?

Lastly, who doesn't really give a rat concerning what God was telling them, how or why?

23 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 awhoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

24 Behold, David and aSolomon truly had many bwives and concubines, which thing was cabominable before me, saith the Lord.

25 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 arighteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any aman among you have save it be bone cwife; and concubines he shall have none;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the achastity of women. And bwhoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or acursed be the land for their sakes.

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up aseed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
That's the way I read it. It is also the position of the church.

We also know how serious adultery is. Lehi gave the position to his group when the came to the Americas. Jacob is reinforcing God's position for them, which also let's us know that God makes the decision.

In the days of our early church, God gave the commandment that plural marriage was ok knowing that each woman would be sealed in Eternal marriage to her husband. Some woman were married for time, others for eternity. God did not condone woman married to more than 1 man having sexual relations with both, that would be considered adultery.

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: The Ultimate Polygamy Thread - It started in the Past

Post by freedomforall »

rewcox wrote:That's the way I read it. It is also the position of the church.

We also know how serious adultery is. Lehi gave the position to his group when the came to the Americas. Jacob is reinforcing God's position for them, which also let's us know that God makes the decision.

In the days of our early church, God gave the commandment that plural marriage was ok knowing that each woman would be sealed in Eternal marriage to her husband. Some woman were married for time, others for eternity. God did not condone woman married to more than 1 man having sexual relations with both, that would be considered adultery.
Thanks, rewcox, I'm truly appreciative for your comments.

User avatar
oneClimbs
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3187
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: The Ultimate Polygamy Thread - It started in the Past

Post by oneClimbs »

I've studied polygamy quite a bit, believe it or not. While it may seem like I'm attacking polygamy, I'm actually trying defend against an erroneus reasoning for it. Here's a little olive branch, these are the words of Blake T. Ostler who made perhaps the best case I've read for why polygamy was instituted among the saints. Read carefully:
For Joseph Smith, polygamy was a type of Abrahamic test. It served the same purpose in God’s plan. The divine purpose rests in the very fact that God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice his only begotten son sets the mind in revolt. How could a loving God ask such a thing, let alone command it? Everything in my head screams, “No, that is impossible!” at the very thought of such a command. Can the being who commands such a thing really be regarded as just, as good, as holy, as loving …. as God? If the answer is even possibly yes, then everything we think we know, every moral judgment we hold onto to give some order to our notions of justice, love and the holy must be abandoned. But how can we abandon these beliefs without losing ourselves wholly and giving up our own lives entirely? No, it is not Isaac that was sacrificed on the altar on Moriah (for he was saved by the angel’s intervention), it was every hope of making any sense of God in a way true to our own moral judgments.
Now go back and read D&C 132:51
for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.
Note that they key reason polygamy was used as an Abrahamic test. Nothing, absolutely nothing is said of rapid childbirth. It's not "the" reason for polygamy. There is zero evidence to that point and I would say that such an interpretation is not in harmony with the doctrine of the church.

Therefore, how can Jacob 2:30 be suggesting that God will command polygamy for rapid population increase when that isn't the purpose and it has never once been used for that?

Furthermore, why does "raise up seed" have to only mean "accelerated childbirth via polygamy" and any other interpretation is invalid? How can you say "raise up seed" means that and that alone when there is no corroborating evidence and all the other examples of that phrase point to another meaning that is well-supported?

User avatar
shadow
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10542
Location: St. George

Re: The Ultimate Polygamy Thread - It started in the Past

Post by shadow »

Doesn't God test His people to see if they really are His people, thus an Abrahamic test? Passing the test is part of being raised as His seed.

User avatar
Melissa
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1697

Re: The Ultimate Polygamy Thread - It started in the Past

Post by Melissa »

freedomforall wrote:
5tev3 wrote:
freedomforall wrote:
5tev3 wrote:Again, I invite you to prove using any of the four standard works that the phrase "raise up seed" means "accelerated childbirth via polygamy." It's termed as "the birds and the bees." Do you know any other method? Also, why would God tell them they were not to have more than one wife like David and Solomon did, if it didn't mean copying the practice of plural wives? Come on, does it have to be spelled out?
I don't think you are understanding my question. You are speaking of "accelerated childbirth" using polygamy as the tool for that thing. You are suggesting that polygamy is used specifically for accelerated childbirth and that this is actually a strategy of the Lord. I'm saying that there is zero evidence for it in all of scripture, it's not a thing.

The birds and the bees works just fine with one wife and the Nephites did just great with it, the Duggars did amazing things with monogamy too. I'm wondering why polygamy was needed when the regular way works just fine, the Nephites multiplied exceedingly, again and again, the text states this. Also why would the Lord be implying "accelerated childbirth" when the Nephites weren't using that as an excuse anyway.

I don't know why speed is a factor here. I get that is a theory of yours, but the Nephites weren't going for speed and child production, they didn't say "Hey, we need a ton of people, let's make babies", they wanted the sex, the whoredoms. So why would the Lord say, "Hey if I want a ton of people really fast I'll command it." Doesn't make sense, but what does make sense is an interpretation that is supported by the text.

Having more than one wife, is condemned, the way David and Solomon did it was condemned too. The Nephites were lusting after women, that was their motive and they were using David and Solomon as an excuse. God said he had a purpose in separating them from the people at Jerusalem and if he's going to raise up a righteous branch than he would need to command them or else they end up doomed.

He's saying that he's trying to do this thing, and if it's going to happen, he needs to be calling the shots or else the people always end up going off into perversions. He mentions the people at Jerusalem and elsewhere to prove his point, it's going on all over, they aren't listening. He then lists the fruits of their perversions as evidence that he needs to be back in charge.
Just what is polygamy? Could there be one wife bearing "75 plus kids" over a long period of time, or several wives bearing those same "75 plus kids" in a much speedier time frame? The latter is polygamy and this scenario does bring about accelerated childbearing unless the husband takes long vacations between jumping into bed with a different wife. Just add all the facts up and see that I am correct. Rather simple really without having to consult with other theories or scriptures for a clear understanding. Everything needed is right there in Chapter 3.
I have to say, I find this line of talk or reasoning offensive as a woman. Why do we assume that women are just in such abundance and willing to bear children one right after another and have no care for their husband's being sperm donors to whomever he finds in his bed?

And who is providing for these women since their focus and energy is on growing and caring for babies? 1 man?? Lol, not unless he's a king- and that only takes into account the provisions. What about the actual full responsibilities of man?

What's faster? A man with one wife having 12 kids. A man with 6 wives having 12 kids or 12 couples of 1 man and 1 woman having same 12 kids? Monogamy is ALWAYS faster! I sure wish people would find problems with the typical way polygamy is spoken about. Men should find this offensive too!

Women are being treated as only child bearers and men as slaves to said childbearing women. It's not healthy or well.

Men may just be blind to it because they are once again being treated as sex crazed dogs and are having their weakness used to enslave them.

I still stand by my belief that a woman who actually wants polygamy is a lazy woman who doesn't care to do all the responsibilities a wife/Mother has to do. What if men did the same thing?

They allowed for other men to enter the family? Why would they allow or desire such a thing? So they wouldn't have to make all the money? Wouldn't have to play with the kids nightly or stay home and do "family" stuff, or so they wouldn't be the only one taking care of the woman's needs emotionally as well as physically?

Women who take this pro stance to polygamy are somewhat hailed for their ability to sacrifice and share but a man, would he be viewed the same?? I highly doubt it!

Polygamy does not result in higher birthrates for women just more kids per man...which limits the gene poole and causes other men to be left without their eternal companion which they NEED to advance and grow.

The entire thing is dumb and we have all been brainwashed to believe a certain way. And the hush hush by the church has made it so people don't get to work these things out but simply live with the standard line of thinking, which I believe has impacted many women in the church very negatively.

Have a wife who is distant and less affectionate than you think is normal...maybe tell her that you won't live polygamy and you don't believe that it's God desired form of marriage. See if that changes anything.

You just may be suprised!

User avatar
oneClimbs
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3187
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: The Ultimate Polygamy Thread - It started in the Past

Post by oneClimbs »

My question is why does this have to be about speed? That seems to be what many are assuming here, but does the Lord require speed?

If so, where on earth is this requirement anywhere else in scripture because I've never once seen it and furthermore, what benchmarks are specified to know when one is operating at the optimum speed of child production? What are the optimum number of wives to achieve the quotas? 5, 10, 100? If speed is the dominant factor, as is suggested by claiming that Jacob 2:30 demands that we interpret the enigmatic phrase "raise up seed" as synonymous with "accelerated birthrates via polygamy," how does one know when they are achieving acceptable speed? You just marry as many as possible and do your best? Is an unpregnant woman frowned upon as not pulling her weight? What is the point of saying, "Ok, quickly, I command you to marry and impregnant as many women as possible. I need babies and I need them now!" and not specifying what numbers God finds satisfactory? Doesn't there need to be a way to measure the difference between normal and rapid child production? What time limit do they have? With all this urgency is there a date of accountability or does everyone get credit for doing their best? What exactly is the rush?

When you get right down to it, the mechanics and logistics of "accelerated population increase" sound only more bizarre when you think of what that might actually look like. You do have to actually use your imagination quite a bit since there is nothing in scripture or church history to go on.

Kind of odd to say in Jacob 2:30 that you have a tool for accelerated childbirth, never use that tool for that purpose ever in all of history, and then use it for only about 38 years among a few hundred people but then tell them that the tool is for proving their faithfulness like Abraham.

Doesn't it make more sense to interpret "raise up seed" to mean "raise up a righteous branch" which is mentioned a few sentences earlier? Raise up a people unto the Lord that will keep his commandments because if they don't, they'll end up hearkening to the natural man, the precepts of men, and whoredoms just like those at Jerusalem and among all the lands of his people?

The same way that when men today do not hearken unto the Lord by cleaving to their wife and NONE else they dabble in pornography and create virtual harems of many concubines? Without God, this is what men do, just look at the world around you. They didn't have the Internet or Playboy back then and adultery was punished by death so they married the women instead. Why go to great lengths? Ever seen "To Catch a Predator" where married men risk everything to try and seduce young kids?

Yes, many men who reject God's command end up hearkening to "these things" which may be a nod to the "things" every man carries below their belt. ;)

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: The Ultimate Polygamy Thread - It started in the Past

Post by freedomforall »

5tev3 wrote:My question is why does this have to be about speed? That seems to be what many are assuming here, but does the Lord require speed?

If so, where on earth is this requirement anywhere else in scripture because I've never once seen it and furthermore, what benchmarks are specified to know when one is operating at the optimum speed of child production? What are the optimum number of wives to achieve the quotas? 5, 10, 100? If speed is the dominant factor, as is suggested by claiming that Jacob 2:30 demands that we interpret the enigmatic phrase "raise up seed" as synonymous with "accelerated birthrates via polygamy," how does one know when they are achieving acceptable speed? You just marry as many as possible and do your best? Is an unpregnant woman frowned upon as not pulling her weight? What is the point of saying, "Ok, quickly, I command you to marry and impregnant as many women as possible. I need babies and I need them now!" and not specifying what numbers God finds satisfactory? Doesn't there need to be a way to measure the difference between normal and rapid child production? What time limit do they have? With all this urgency is there a date of accountability or does everyone get credit for doing their best? What exactly is the rush?

When you get right down to it, the mechanics and logistics of "accelerated population increase" sound only more bizarre when you think of what that might actually look like. You do have to actually use your imagination quite a bit since there is nothing in scripture or church history to go on.

Kind of odd to say in Jacob 2:30 that you have a tool for accelerated childbirth, never use that tool for that purpose ever in all of history, and then use it for only about 38 years among a few hundred people but then tell them that the tool is for proving their faithfulness like Abraham.

Doesn't it make more sense to interpret "raise up seed" to mean "raise up a righteous branch" which is mentioned a few sentences earlier? Absolutely not. Raise up a people unto the Lord that will keep his commandments because if they don't, they'll end up hearkening to the natural man, the precepts of men, and whoredoms just like those at Jerusalem and among all the lands of his people?

The same way that when men today do not hearken unto the Lord by cleaving to their wife and NONE else they dabble in pornography and create virtual harems of many concubines? Without God, this is what men do, just look at the world around you. They didn't have the Internet or Playboy back then and adultery was punished by death so they married the women instead. Why go to great lengths? Ever seen "To Catch a Predator" where married men risk everything to try and seduce young kids?

Yes, many men who reject God's command end up hearkening to "these things" which may be a nod to the "things" every man carries below their belt. ;)
What gives you the right to challenge the word of God and make light of what he says? Jacob 2:30 says what it says, and it isn't the way you claim. All your mental gymnastic exercises will not change the true meaning of the text in that chapter.

Post Reply