The Ultimate Polygamy Thread - It started in the Past

[Melissa]

Polygamy was commanded for multiple reasons, one being an Abrahamic test. And that verse in 132 most likely refers to Joseph being commanded to offer Emma, and Emma continues to be commanded to receive Joseph's wives. One test I noticed that Abraham had, was in trusting in the Lord when the Lord told him to tell the Egyptions that Sarai was his sister. After he did that Sarai was taken into the Pharoh's house, implying that she would belong to Pharoh to be one of his concubines presumably. But we see that Abraham was blessed for this sacrifice and the Pharoh's house was cursed, persuading then to release Sarai, and that symbolic ram in the thicket was presented as deliverance.

But the speed issue, it's not about speed, it's about giving every man and woman an opportunity to have eternal increase/seed within the New and Everlasting Covenant. And within a certain time-frame, more women will be bearing children at the same time within that covenant. It doesn't matter that the the birth rate isn't sped up, but that every woman have that opportunity to be given this gift. Men have been given the responsibility and opportunity to offer this gift. If they don't enter into the covenant it is on them. But women must have this gift offered to them. So let's say a woman is 25 in the early days of the Church, with no marriage prospects, except a plural marriage offer. If she is serious about loving God in bringing forth children within this covenant, she will marry and have children before her child bearing days run out. Will it be a sacrifice? Yes, but it will fulfill the requirements of the covenant and she will be crowned as queen in the Celestial Kingdom and have her posterity. What will women do if this becomes the case before the morning of the first resurrection, when there are more mortal women desiring to enter into that covenant than there are men? Will women be humble enough to share this gift with other women? What happens when we all enter into our glory? There will be no more single women waiting, and we will live the United Order and Celestial principles. The key is that men and women are not allowed to take for themselves, they must be given and then receive correctly.

You may want to include that the men must be willing as well. Not all men want more wives. It's not a default that we should presume to be a given.

If a woman has no man, then I hope that some guy takes her. Guys can be picky and if they weren't so picky then the un-advantaged ones TODAY would be offered marriage by a man who desires to fulfill the commandments and not withhold the "gift" (as you put it) to ugly or less than desirous women.

You see...until we fix the mentality TODAY then the problems will not be solved by any future allowance of plural marriage. There should be no single woman in our LDS faith as long as there is a living single male within the church.

Everything is not as simple or basic as you imply or make them out to be.

My husband is not a vessel of life at my disposal. He is a human being who has willingly chose marriage with me and made covenants to be true and faithful in his marriage to me. I cannot simply wave my hand and change things because that would make me unfaithful to my covenants in my marriage to him and would treat him disrespectfully. And allowing him to have another wife is not a higher form of love, respect, or sacrifice.

God cares about each of us and values us more than our simple ability to procreate. There is so much more to becoming like God than having children. Not everyone will have children in this life and putting our value in that ability is wrong when there are plenty of people who will never have that ability in their life. Infertility, mental incapabilities, autism, disorders, underdevelopment etc.

I don't much like the narrow view many members within this church have. Yes, we want to become Godlike but does that mean that we become sacrificing mindless robots? No! I have the free agency to speak for myself and to reason with God. I don't fear Him like many members are taught to fear Him. He knows my husband and I don't want or believe that plural marriage is ideal or required so when and if he asked us to live it we can say no, we don't want to. If then he doesn't allow me and my husband to enter His house...then so be it. Maybe that's the true test! Will we sacrifice what we want most for what is right?

I don't believe for even a second that I will be denied every blessing and joy I'f I reject plural marriage for my self.

After all, the Abrahamic test of plural marriage supposedly already happened....why does it need to happen again? Aren't we tested enough in this hellish world? The early saints had nothing compared to the moral onslaught and confusion we have today. It's nearly impossible to be faithful in mind, body and spirit to the covenants we have made. We don't need plural marriage to test this last and final generations before the savior comes.

[simpleton]

A few days before his death, ( Joseph Smith) :

“They accuse me of polygamy, and of being a false Prophet, and many other things which I do not now remember; but I am no false Prophet: I am no impostor: I have had no dark revelations. I have had no revelations from the devil; I made no revelations; I have thought nothing up of myself: the same God that has thus far dictated to me and directed me and strengthened me in this work, gave me this revelation and commandment on celestial and plural marriage, and the same God commanded me to obey it. He said to me that unless I accepted it and introduced it, and practiced it, I, together with my people, would be damned and cut off from this time henceforth. And they say if I do so, they will kill me! Oh, what shall I do? If I do practice it, and urge it, they say they will kill me, and I know they will. But,” said he, “we have got to observe it. It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction.”

This same individual also was the instrument in God's hand that brought us the the book of Mormon and the translation thereof.....

He also complained about teaching people truths that went against their false traditions and they would fly apart like glass....

Over all its a very interesting history that requires much thought, reflection and prayer...

Actually, this is not a quote from Joseph smith..,it is a quote of a quote...made over 30 years after Jospehs death. I also disagree with the idea that the Lord does things in secret. Performing things in secret falls in line with secret combinations. Priestcraft is also man's false interpretations of scripture being taught purposefully to fulfill their desires and motives. See the document below.

Here is the full information...

JS0401.doc

Statement of Dennison Lott Harris, 15 May 1881

LDS Church Archives

MS 2725



This statement was made by Dennison Lott Harris, son of Emer Harris, who was brother to Martin Harris.



This is typed copy of the statement.



________________________________________________________________________



[page 1]



Sunday, May 15:​15 May 1881



VERBAL STATEMENT OF BP. DENNISON L. HARRIS

Of Monroe, Sevier C., Utah, made by him to President Jos.

F. Smith in the presence of Elder Franklin Spencer, at the

house of Bp. Dorius of Ephraim, Sanpete Co., Utah, on Sun-

day Afternoon, May 15th, 1881



Reported by George. F. Gibbs





[***]







[page 5]



​You know Brother Joseph, (here the speaker addressed himself to Bro. Joseph F. Smith) that the Prophet started over the river, just before he gave himself up, to go away; it might be that he intended or meant that he would leave the place, and it might be that he knew his life would be taken. I could not say as to that.

​Before leaving Joseph put a seal upon our mouths, and told us to tell nobody not even our fathers for 20 years. He cautioned us very seriously, and I did as he told me.

​There was one thing that Joseph said which I have not related. He said: they accuse me of polygamy, and of being a false prophet, and many other things which I do not now remember; but, said he, I am no [page 6] false prophet, I am no impostor; I have had no dark revelations, I have had no revelations from the devil. I have made no revelations; I have not got anything up myself. The same God that has thus far dictated and directed me, and inspired me and strengthened me in this work, gave me this revelation and Commandment on Celestial and Plural marriage; and the same God Commanded me to obey it. He said to me that unless I accept it and introduce it, and practise it, I, together with my people, should be damned and cut off from this time henceforth. And they say if I do so, they will kill me. What shall I do! What shall I do! If I do not practise it, I shall be damned with all my people. If I do teach it and practise it and urge it, they say they will kill me, and I know they will. But said he, we have got to observe it, that it is an eternal principle, and that it was given to him by way of Commandment and not by way of instruction."

That is about all.

[***]



[page 7]

[***]



N. B.

​This statement was made under the following circumstances: Bro. Harris spoke to Bro. Jos. F. immediately before the forenoon meeting of Sunday saying that he would like to relate the foregoing to him; consequently an appointment was made, and Bro. Jos. F. asked me to be present to take what Bro. Harris might say in short hand. The time appointed was after the morning meeting. As the afternoon meeting had been announced to commence half an hour earlier than usual [most of line illegible because of damage to film] opportunity to make Moroni and Fountain Gree that evening on their home) the time at our disposal to hear Bro. H. also to eat dinner was not sufficient to enable [page 8] him to do justice to it. He told it in his own way and had to hurry at that.​

George F. Gibbs, Reporter.





[Harris, Dennison Lott, Statement, May 15, 1881, LDS Church Archives, MS 2725.]

Actually this is where I read that quote ...it is in the book "fate of the persecutors of the prophet Joseph Smith" NB Lundwall , and it came also out 20 years later in the Contributor....

But what is the point, do you disagree with the statement that he (Joseph) made? Or because it came from a faithful follower it cannot be relied upon? Or maybe (just supposing) because you despise that principle do everything to discredit the secondary sources? Or any source for that matter that does not agree with our traditions.

Personally I believe that Joseph was not deceived into the promulgation of that doctrine or all of the other important doctrines that he taught. Our rejection of principles that go against our traditions does not make them false...

But also to each his or her own , every person has to stand on their own testimony and light as no man will be able to stand on borrowed light...

[Sarah]

Sarah, your explanation of the practice of polygamy fits with the traditional understanding. You have also notes that speed is not an issue.

How do you interpret the phrase "raise up seed unto me" in the context of Jacob's sermon?

I think the key phrase is "unto me." These are children born in the New and Everlasting Covenant. Were the Nephites given that opportunity? I don't know. I would assume at least some of them had the higher ordinances, but all the righteous? Even though the Nephites were to establish a righteous branch of Israel, this doesn't seem to be a time and place that the Lord has a large family group sealed to Him in this way.

[Melissa]

Sealing the family of God on earth doesn't have to mean that we are sealed as husband and wife. I am sealed to my mother and father not being asked or treated as though I am their wife. I am sealed/will be sealed through an unbroken chain all the way back to Adam and Eve (the purpose of doing genealogy and temple work). My only "spouse" is my husband.

We all need to be sealed as a family and we each will be required to be sealed to A spouse to inherit only the top kingdom of the highest degree. A spouse is not required to be able to live in God's house or to inherit the "mansion" he has prepared for everyone of His children.

There are many believers in the gospel, who worship Christ, who will not ever debate the plurality of wives, or how to reach the highest of the high glory. They will be content with living with the Savior and following and worshiping Him and serving those around them.

Us members need to not be so haughty and puffed up, making things so complex and dividing one from another. We seriously need to try and simply follow the commandments and try to at least make it to the middle kingdom where we will be accepted by Christ. The statistics for the church are very sad. Most of us don't ever have to even worry about if plurality of wives will be apart of our existence after this life, as many of us won't ever be privaledged to know.

We need to be more humble and become true disciples of Christ. We don't need to be debating one verse of scripture over another to produce division and dischord. We each will understand what we will and what we are ready to understand. We should live by the commandments and study to understand how the scriptures can help us in our lives now and how to become better. Be an example of Christ and others will see your light. And for now and for most of time, that has been one wife and one husband. Be good to them and be an example of Christ. Raise your children to be followers of Christ and to be self reliant - and serve your fellow man. What more can we honestly do?

Work out polygamy and get on with life. It's not a focus and anyone who is holding it in their mind waiting for an opportunity to live it has likely already missed the mark.

But with the high prevelance of men who use pornography or worse, I'm not suprised with the amount of attention polygamy gets.

If I wanted to live it insure would advocate and defend it and find evidence to persuade others to join my thought. Likewise, if my testimony of the gospel was dependent on accepting polygamy as a higher form of Gods marriage, you better believe I would defend it. But I personally don't believe it is God's higher standard and my testimony is not dependant on accepting it because of early church history any more than born again Christians testimony is dependant in Abraham or David's plurality of wives.

We should be careful as members of the Lds faith that we don't think we are better than any of Gods other children.

[oneClimbs]

I think the key phrase is "unto me."

Very good, I agree, this is indeed covenantal language. We know that the Lord wishes to have a covenant people and to create a righteous nation that hearkens to his laws.

These are children born in the New and Everlasting Covenant. Were the Nephites given that opportunity? I don't know. I would assume at least some of them had the higher ordinances, but all the righteous? Even though the Nephites were to establish a righteous branch of Israel, this doesn't seem to be a time and place that the Lord has a large family group sealed to Him in this way.

The New and Everlasting covenant consists of all the ordinances, as Joseph taught. Seeing as how the Nephites were under the law of Moses and as the posterity of Abraham, heirs of that covenant, they were promised blessings associated with that covenant as recorded in Genesis.

When you read Jacob 2:30, do you believe that the verse is associating the phrase "raise up seed unto me" with polygamy specifically? This is roughly the claim that some support. The idea is that Jacob's sermon forbids it but verse 30 indicates that the Lord will command it if he desires to "raise up seed." In order for this interpretation to work, the phrase "raise up seed unto me" must be synonymous with polygamy. Would you agree? If not, how do you approach it?

[oneClimbs]

We don't need to be debating one verse of scripture over another to produce division and dischord. We each will understand what we will and what we are ready to understand. We should live by the commandments and study to understand how the scriptures can help us in our lives now and how to become better.

I agree, the vast majority of my live is consumed with so many other matters. I study a wide variety of things and those that are the most valuable to me are those that have practical use in a way that is related to coming closer to God. You can check out my blog oneclimbs.com and note that in over 400 posts there is little to no controversial or heated material. It is filled with practical observations from my own study and the great deal are positive and could even be utilized by people not of the LDS faith. That's where my focus is.

That said, I appreciate the existence of forums where we can have deep and thorough discussions with like-minded people on any subject we prefer. Seeing as how this is an "ultimate thread" about polygamy, those that feel that they want to engage in a respectful and informative dive into various viewpoints should be able to, while those that see no need for it can move on to other topics that interest them. People are free to come and go as they please, but as for me, I'm interested in discussing this topic at the moment.

[freedomforall]

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.

In the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses shall every word be established. I've provided many witnesses while you are basing your interpretation on your word alone. I'm not challenging the word of God, I'm challenging your interpretation. If you want to call study, evidence, context, and critical thinking "mental gymnastics" that's fine. It's better to exercise the mind than lazily read in your own interpretation, Which you have surly done use no effort exploring context, and coming up with reasoning that has no basis in reality. I've shown what the purpose of polygamy was intended for and nowhere is it ever mentioned as a tool for accelerated population increase. It isn't even mentioned in the Church's Gospel Topics essay on the subject. Here is a portion of the conclusion: As smart as you would like us to think you are, you sure show a lack of understanding scripture with having to resort to other sources to cover your own interpretation. And you're so out of it to even see the problem, so determined to push your own views that all else appears to be meaningless.

Plural marriage was among the most challenging aspects of the Restoration. For many who practiced it, plural marriage was a trial of faith. It violated both cultural and legal norms, leading to persecution and revilement.

Perhaps Jacob 2:30 isn't exactly what I claim, I'm open to that, I am merely proposing an interpretation based on actual evidence. What I am not doing is inventing a meaning that is completely unsupported.

For pete sakes, stev3, everything one needs to figure out those passages is in black and white right in front of the eyes of those reading it. I have taken the time to explain it every which way, using the passages alone and in providing other scriptures, but it still does not sink in. Why?/ Because you refuse to see it for what it is. And you are correct, in the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses shall every word be established. I've had other posters fully agree with my interpretation because it matches the church's view all the way down the line. So I have plenty of witnesses; I can't say the same for you.

[oneClimbs]

For pete sakes, stev3, everything one needs to figure out those passages is in black and white right in front of the eyes of those reading it. I have taken the time to explain it every which way, using the passages alone and in providing other scriptures, but it still does not sink in. Why?/ Because you refuse to see it for what it is. And you are correct, in the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses shall every word be established. I've had other posters fully agree with my interpretation because it matches the church's view all the way down the line. So I have plenty of witnesses; I can't say the same for you.

Nope. All you've said here is "I'm right, you're wrong, the church sides with me."

I've taken the time to present the church's position on why polygamy was practiced among the Saints. Your theory of "accelerated birthrates" is not among any of it, from D&C 132, to the Gospel Topics essays, other scholars, and I could go on and on. There is no evidence for your theory in the scriptural record, it exists as your opinion alone.

I'm going to throw you a bone here though. Let's take the whole "accelerated birthrates" idea out of the picture and say that in some fashion or another Jacob 2:30 has some kind of connection to God allow polygamy. Here's a portion of my blog post that takes this into consideration and shows the main problem with that theory:

In a sermon so enflamed against a particular practice with an emphasis on the suffering that it causes to women and children, we find verse 30 which it is said justifies polygamy for the specific purpose of “rais[ing] up seed” unto the Lord if he commands his people to do so. The idea is that the Lord disapproves of the Nephite’s current polygamous practices but implies that he could command them to do it if he wanted to “raise up seed.”

This interpretation only works if the phrase “raise up seed unto me” involves polygamy or men marrying and impregnating additional wives along with employing concubines. Under this interpretation, Jacob 2:30 could be read in the following manner:

For if I will have men take many wives and concubines to produce children, I will command my people to do so; but for now, they shall hearken unto the current one wife policy.

If the phrase “raise up seed unto me” is indeed another way of implying polygamy, then the Lord would be indicating in verse 30 that Nephites are not currently under this command, then this means that the Nephites have not yet been commanded to “raise up seed” unto the Lord. Jacob declares repeatedly that there is has been a standing commandment for the Nephites to have only one wife, and it was given to decades before to Lehi:

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;… ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before;…they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father—that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them. (Jacob 2:27,34 – Jacob 3:5)

If the Lord is saying that polygamy, or raising up seed, is something that should be done only when he commands and the Nephites are not currently under that command, then what are we to make of the following account that goes back to when Lehi’s party was still in the Middle East:

…the Lord spake unto [Lehi] again, saying that it was not meet for him, Lehi, that he should take his family into the wilderness alone; but that that his sons should take daughters to wife, that they might raise up seed unto the Lord in the land of promise. And it came to pass that the Lord commanded him… (1 Nephi 7:1-2)

These verses seem to imply the exact same things that the Lord is saying here in Jacob 2:30:

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people;

In 1 Nephi 7:1-2, the Lord specifically commands Lehi’s sons to raise up seed to him using almost the exact language as Jacob 2:30.

If in Jacob 2:30 the Lord is saying that they are not currently commanded to “raise up seed” (meaning polygamy), then how does one explain the fact that they were indeed commanded to “raise up seed” using monogamy in the very beginning? If they are not currently commanded to “raise up seed” (in the sense of polygamy), then how do we explain just a few verses earlier in Jacob 2:25 where the Lord says:

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.

It appears that the Lord is indeed still trying to “raise up seed” or in other words “a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.” The command to raise up seed unto the Lord that was given before any of Lehi’s sons were even married appears to still be in force down to the present time as indicated in verse 25. If this is the case then why would the Lord be saying just a few verses later that the Nephites were forbidden from raising up seed unless they were commanded to do so?

Equating “raise up seed” with polygamy simply doesn’t make any sense. The phrase “raise up seed” seems to sound like it is saying “increase the amount of children” and an assumption is made that the best way to do this is by impregnating as many women as possible by men taking on many wives and concubines. The Lord has certainly told his people to multiply and replenish the earth, but this can and has been done throughout history with monogamy, especially among the monogamous Nephites in the Book of Mormon.

See: 2 Nephi 5:13, Jarom 1:8, Mosiah 2:2, Mosiah 9:9, Mosiah 23:20, Alma 50:18, Alma 62:48, Helaman 3:8, Helaman 11:20, 4 Nephi 1:10, 4 Nephi 1:23, Ether 6:18

What I'm saying is very simple, "raise up seed" means to establish a righteous branch/people unto the Lord and if God is not their commander (See the first commandment), then they will descend into whoredoms just like everyone at Jerusalem and in all the lands of his people. God then provides evidence by showing the fruits of their actions, the damage their behavior is causing to their wives and children. The curse is already being felt among them. That, in plain English, is what the verse is saying.

Why would God command them to raise up seed in 1 Nephi 7, then say in Jacob 2:25 that he brought them out of Jerusalem to raise up a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins (seed) of Joseph only to tell them that they are only supposed to raise up seed if he commands them to when he already has, but now "raise up seed" means the thing he just told them to stop doing? Makes absolutely no sense to equate "raise up seed" to polygamy, you end up in a contradiction.

[TrueIntent]

A few days before his death, ( Joseph Smith) :

“They accuse me of polygamy, and of being a false Prophet, and many other things which I do not now remember; but I am no false Prophet: I am no impostor: I have had no dark revelations. I have had no revelations from the devil; I made no revelations; I have thought nothing up of myself: the same God that has thus far dictated to me and directed me and strengthened me in this work, gave me this revelation and commandment on celestial and plural marriage, and the same God commanded me to obey it. He said to me that unless I accepted it and introduced it, and practiced it, I, together with my people, would be damned and cut off from this time henceforth. And they say if I do so, they will kill me! Oh, what shall I do? If I do practice it, and urge it, they say they will kill me, and I know they will. But,” said he, “we have got to observe it. It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction.”

This same individual also was the instrument in God's hand that brought us the the book of Mormon and the translation thereof.....

He also complained about teaching people truths that went against their false traditions and they would fly apart like glass....

Over all its a very interesting history that requires much thought, reflection and prayer...

Actually, this is not a quote from Joseph smith..,it is a quote of a quote...made over 30 years after Jospehs death. I also disagree with the idea that the Lord does things in secret. Performing things in secret falls in line with secret combinations. Priestcraft is also man's false interpretations of scripture being taught purposefully to fulfill their desires and motives. See the document below.

Here is the full information...

JS0401.doc

Statement of Dennison Lott Harris, 15 May 1881

LDS Church Archives

MS 2725



This statement was made by Dennison Lott Harris, son of Emer Harris, who was brother to Martin Harris.



This is typed copy of the statement.



________________________________________________________________________



[page 1]



Sunday, May 15:​15 May 1881



VERBAL STATEMENT OF BP. DENNISON L. HARRIS

Of Monroe, Sevier C., Utah, made by him to President Jos.

F. Smith in the presence of Elder Franklin Spencer, at the

house of Bp. Dorius of Ephraim, Sanpete Co., Utah, on Sun-

day Afternoon, May 15th, 1881



Reported by George. F. Gibbs





[***]







[page 5]



​You know Brother Joseph, (here the speaker addressed himself to Bro. Joseph F. Smith) that the Prophet started over the river, just before he gave himself up, to go away; it might be that he intended or meant that he would leave the place, and it might be that he knew his life would be taken. I could not say as to that.

​Before leaving Joseph put a seal upon our mouths, and told us to tell nobody not even our fathers for 20 years. He cautioned us very seriously, and I did as he told me.

​There was one thing that Joseph said which I have not related. He said: they accuse me of polygamy, and of being a false prophet, and many other things which I do not now remember; but, said he, I am no [page 6] false prophet, I am no impostor; I have had no dark revelations, I have had no revelations from the devil. I have made no revelations; I have not got anything up myself. The same God that has thus far dictated and directed me, and inspired me and strengthened me in this work, gave me this revelation and Commandment on Celestial and Plural marriage; and the same God Commanded me to obey it. He said to me that unless I accept it and introduce it, and practise it, I, together with my people, should be damned and cut off from this time henceforth. And they say if I do so, they will kill me. What shall I do! What shall I do! If I do not practise it, I shall be damned with all my people. If I do teach it and practise it and urge it, they say they will kill me, and I know they will. But said he, we have got to observe it, that it is an eternal principle, and that it was given to him by way of Commandment and not by way of instruction."

That is about all.

[***]



[page 7]

[***]



N. B.

​This statement was made under the following circumstances: Bro. Harris spoke to Bro. Jos. F. immediately before the forenoon meeting of Sunday saying that he would like to relate the foregoing to him; consequently an appointment was made, and Bro. Jos. F. asked me to be present to take what Bro. Harris might say in short hand. The time appointed was after the morning meeting. As the afternoon meeting had been announced to commence half an hour earlier than usual [most of line illegible because of damage to film] opportunity to make Moroni and Fountain Gree that evening on their home) the time at our disposal to hear Bro. H. also to eat dinner was not sufficient to enable [page 8] him to do justice to it. He told it in his own way and had to hurry at that.​

George F. Gibbs, Reporter.





[Harris, Dennison Lott, Statement, May 15, 1881, LDS Church Archives, MS 2725.]

Actually this is where I read that quote ...it is in the book "fate of the persecutors of the prophet Joseph Smith" NB Lundwall , and it came also out 20 years later in the Contributor....

But what is the point, do you disagree with the statement that he (Joseph) made? Or because it came from a faithful follower it cannot be relied upon? Or maybe (just supposing) because you despise that principle do everything to discredit the secondary sources? Or any source for that matter that does not agree with our traditions.

Personally I believe that Joseph was not deceived into the promulgation of that doctrine or all of the other important doctrines that he taught. Our rejection of principles that go against our traditions does not make them false...

But also to each his or her own , every person has to stand on their own testimony and light as no man will be able to stand on borrowed light...

Yeah, but true prophets are stoned and murdered for what they believed and preaching the truth....I didn't see anyone die after Joseph. There is a TRUE quote attributed directly from Joseph not to long before he died...he publicly made a statement that he had been accused of having 7 wives when he can only find one.

By the way...it is a true teaching that Prophets can, and will, and do make mistakes. It is up to us to determine what is truth! You're right, we must stand on our own testimony....Will it mortally wound me if he made a mistake...No, but it is up to me to figure it out. Remember, on the pathway of the tree of life, Lehi follows a man in white....we are supposed to be mislead. It reveals where we are and what sins we are willing to commit.....its not a reflection of God, its a reflection of us.

Here is a better question for you....do you believe that God does things in secret?????? Especially things of a sexual nature? Please show me scripturally where this is acceptable.....better yet...show me all the places where it is not.

[Sarah]

I think the key phrase is "unto me."

Very good, I agree, this is indeed covenantal language. We know that the Lord wishes to have a covenant people and to create a righteous nation that hearkens to his laws.

These are children born in the New and Everlasting Covenant. Were the Nephites given that opportunity? I don't know. I would assume at least some of them had the higher ordinances, but all the righteous? Even though the Nephites were to establish a righteous branch of Israel, this doesn't seem to be a time and place that the Lord has a large family group sealed to Him in this way.

The New and Everlasting covenant consists of all the ordinances, as Joseph taught. Seeing as how the Nephites were under the law of Moses and as the posterity of Abraham, heirs of that covenant, they were promised blessings associated with that covenant as recorded in Genesis.

When you read Jacob 2:30, do you believe that the verse is associating the phrase "raise up seed unto me" with polygamy specifically? This is roughly the claim that some support. The idea is that Jacob's sermon forbids it but verse 30 indicates that the Lord will command it if he desires to "raise up seed." In order for this interpretation to work, the phrase "raise up seed unto me" must be synonymous with polygamy. Would you agree? If not, how do you approach it?

I think Jacob intended his phrase to APPLY to plurality of wives, and that he indeed was implying plurality of wives when he used that phrase. It doesn't mean that the phrase must ALWAYS be synonymous with it. We know that children can be raised up unto the Lord in a system of monogamy, but I think plurality of wives CAN increase the amount. I am a decedent of a second wife. Would I have come at this time in history if not for her? I don't know?
We have a young sister in our ward who only has one son, divorced, and is of child bearing years, and while I agree with Melissa that we probably wouldn't have this problem if more men stepped up, I believe plurality of wives isn't just a necessary test or practical thing for single women, but it really is a part of the Order of Heaven - Celestial Plural Marriage. I don't claim to know how it is lived, but I see that everything having to do with the Gods involves a plurality and multiplying as the form of progression.

[oneClimbs]

Sarah, see my reply to freedomforall a few posts up.

[freedomforall]

We don't need to be debating one verse of scripture over another to produce division and dischord. We each will understand what we will and what we are ready to understand. We should live by the commandments and study to understand how the scriptures can help us in our lives now and how to become better.

I agree, the vast majority of my live is consumed with so many other matters. I study a wide variety of things and those that are the most valuable to me are those that have practical use in a way that is related to coming closer to God. You can check out my blog oneclimbs.com and note that in over 400 posts there is little to no controversial or heated material. It is filled with practical observations from my own study and the great deal are positive and could even be utilized by people not of the LDS faith. That's where my focus is.

That said, I appreciate the existence of forums where we can have deep and thorough discussions with like-minded people on any subject we prefer. Seeing as how this is an "ultimate thread" about polygamy, those that feel that they want to engage in a respectful and informative dive into various viewpoints should be able to, while those that see no need for it can move on to other topics that interest them. People are free to come and go as they please, but as for me, I'm interested in discussing this topic at the moment.

We should consult with the person who created this redundant thread on polygamy. They must have known the topic is controversial and yet allowed even more contention to occur and perhaps laughs about it. There are over sixty threads about polygamy, to the point that it is beyond reason and purpose to keep this topic revved up. There is no finality to the whys, maybes and what ifs dealing with polygamy. And the contention is ever present.
Big, rotten deal about who practiced polygamy 180 years ago. Today we do not practice it. God does not want us to be in a plural marriage lifestyle. Adam had one wife, Noah had one wife, President Monson has one wife...so let's not continue to get all worked up over polygamy.

Jacob 2 reveals that God does want to raise a righteous seed, but he also said he will not do this be way of doing as David and Solomon by having multiple wives. Any person with any reasoning power would know that the term "multiple wives" is the same as "polygamy." God forbade polygamy and stated so.
Excuse me, no more than one wife and absolutely no concubines, which equates to having a whoredom.

[freedomforall]

Sarah, see my reply to freedomforall a few posts up.

See my posts, Sarah. Less brain strain.

[oneClimbs]

Sarah, see my reply to freedomforall a few posts up.

See my posts, Sarah. Less brain strain.

Yeah, I mean, who wants to use their brain or anything. It's exhausting studying, applying critical thinking, and looking for evidence to justify one's assertions.

[freedomforall]

Sarah, see my reply to freedomforall a few posts up.

See my posts, Sarah. Less brain strain.

Yeah, I mean, who wants to use their brain or anything. It's exhausting studying, applying critical thinking, and looking for evidence to justify one's assertions.

Ain't that the truth. Maybe you should try some real study instead of going round and round with the same line of thinking and still coming up short.

[oneClimbs]

And by real study are we talking about reading our own meanings into a single verse? I published a huge post covering all of my points and you have not addressed a single one of them. The only reason I keep repeating myself is because you keep addressing the same thing over and over again without providing any evidence while accusing me of having no evidence. Instead of backing up your position with facts you are resorting to ad hominem attacks. The only thing I'm challenging here are your methods and your conclusions. You clearly wish to stand by them and you have every right to, but this is a public thread where anybody can join the conversation and present their view points while challenging the view points of others. I've backed up my position by explaining the official position of the church, analyzing the verse in the context of the sermon and the larger context of the book of Mormon and the Abrahamic covenant, I provided an in-depth analysis of the various words and phrases used in the sermon and have discovered a great number of things that I believe have previously gone unnoticed, that help place the verse into a proper context. Your response offers no critical thinking and instead attacks me personally, while you stand by a position that you still have not backed up with any evidence in the form of references to establish your point of view that the phrase raise up seed is synonymous with accelerated birth rates. I'm not exactly sure what constitutes "real study" in your world, but if it is simply drawing conclusions without evidence you might want to re-examine your strategy. I tried to help you out a little by doing some additional homework on what the official position of the church is on the subject but you haven't provided a single quote to back up that polygamy is used for accelerated population increase, not a single one. Think about that for a second. I've shown clear examples in the text itself of what "raise up seed" means and all the evidence you provide is your own idea that you force on the text and say that it must mean that because you say so. Saying that something clearly means something just because you say so, is just like me saying that the last verse of Jacob 2 says that the knee fights were stabbing their wives to death in the heart, because that is what it clearly implies.

You have pointed out that doing such a thing is ridiculous, and I agree it is. It is ridiculous to do that with any verse, context matters, evidence matters, supporting text, and supporting doctrine matters.

You have every right to believe whatever you want though, I'm not trying to step on anyone's beliefs. I'm just being accused of having a lack of scholarship when I am the only one in this discussion that is backing up their position with actual evidence that anyone can examine for themselves.

I'm not sure how long you want to continue dancing around in circles on this. I think we have all said our peace on it, unless you have some quotes or any other evidence to back up your take, I would be genuinely interested to see it.

[rewcox]

Official Declaration 1
The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that monogamy is God’s standard for marriage unless He declares otherwise (see 2 Samuel 12:7–8 and Jacob 2:27, 30). Following a revelation to Joseph Smith, the practice of plural marriage was instituted among Church members in the early 1840s (see section 132). From the 1860s to the 1880s, the United States government passed laws to make this religious practice illegal. These laws were eventually upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. After receiving revelation, President Wilford Woodruff issued the following Manifesto, which was accepted by the Church as authoritative and binding on October 6, 1890. This led to the end of the practice of plural marriage in the Church.

Witness 1:
2 Samuel 12:7-8
7 ¶And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I aanointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

Witness 2:
Jacob 2:27, 30
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;

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.

Other witnesses: Abraham had more than 1 wife, he also had concubines. Jacob/Israel had 4 wife's, or 2 wives and 2 handmaidens.

I think it is straight forward that plural marriage was done under God's approval in the past. That approval would include Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon. Certainly Abraham, Jacob and Moses are considered major prophets in God's plan.

Joseph Smith is also considered a major prophet in God's plan. Jacob 2:30 shows that God can command plural marriage. It is up to Him. God did command Joseph who did practice plural marriage.

A person can try to say that Jacob 2:30 means something else, but we know that Joseph did start the practice of plural marriage in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

[oneClimbs]

Official Declaration 1
The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that monogamy is God’s standard for marriage unless He declares otherwise (see 2 Samuel 12:7–8 and Jacob 2:27, 30). Following a revelation to Joseph Smith, the practice of plural marriage was instituted among Church members in the early 1840s (see section 132). From the 1860s to the 1880s, the United States government passed laws to make this religious practice illegal. These laws were eventually upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. After receiving revelation, President Wilford Woodruff issued the following Manifesto, which was accepted by the Church as authoritative and binding on October 6, 1890. This led to the end of the practice of plural marriage in the Church.

Witness 1:
2 Samuel 12:7-8
7 ¶And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I aanointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

Witness 2:
Jacob 2:27, 30
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;

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.

Other witnesses: Abraham had more than 1 wife, he also had concubines. Jacob/Israel had 4 wife's, or 2 wives and 2 handmaidens.

I think it is straight forward that plural marriage was done under God's approval in the past. That approval would include Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon. Certainly Abraham, Jacob and Moses are considered major prophets in God's plan.

Joseph Smith is also considered a major prophet in God's plan. Jacob 2:30 shows that God can command plural marriage. It is up to Him. God did command Joseph who did practice plural marriage.

A person can try to say that Jacob 2:30 means something else, but we know that Joseph did start the practice of plural marriage in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

The point in the discussion I have been involved in here with mostly Freedomforall is not to debate the validity of the practice of plural marriage, but the meaning of a particular verse. Freedomforall indicates that Jacob 2:30 is saying that polygamy is specifically used for "accelerated birthrates" and I have challenged that assertion. Nothing you have provided here indicates that such a doctrine is suggested, but I'm going to assume that you might be a little mistaken as to what the point of our exchange has been.

I know that the official declaration tries to reference this Book of Mormon verse in saying "unless He declares otherwise." What I have done is tried to analyze that verse and the surrounding context to see if that interpretation plays out and my conclusion is that it doesn't. Polygamy supporters need not freak out here. I'm sorry if my evidence here removes an important key that has traditionally been part of explaining the polygamy doctrine, but there are some major, and I mean major holes that deserve consideration. If you want to support a particular doctrine, shouldn't your evidence be as bulletproof as possible?

In Jacob 2:30, we are assuming the Lord is saying, "IF I will raise up seed, or have people engage in polygamy, then I will command them to." The IF is speculative, it assumes that they have not been commanded to raise up seed. That would mean that the Nephites have NOT been commanded to raise up seed. Here's just one problem with that, the Nephites WERE commanded to raise up seed unto the Lord, specifically, using those exact words by marrying wives but under MONOGAMY because Lehi received a commandment from God that they should only have one wife. Furthermore, in the same sermon, same chapter, only a few short verses before verse 30, the Lord says in verse 25:

"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."

We see in 1 Nephi 7 that the Lord indeed did lead them out of Jerusalem, commanded them to raise up seed, and here those words are specified in more depth, it is to raise up a righteous branch from the "fruit of the loins" (which is seed) of Joseph. So why would the text show that the Nephites had been commanded to raise up seed, specifically using monogamy but then have the Lord saying, "IF (speculating) I will (future tense) raise up seed", indicating that he has not commanded them to raise up seed yet.

The fact is that they have already been commanded to raise up seed, but under monogamy. For this reason, I find it impossible that the phrase raise up seed means polygamy when the exact opposite is proven from the text itself.

Verse 25, 27, and 29 are telling. The Lord says he's led his people out of Jerusalem to raise up a righteous branch from the seed of Joseph and that they are to obey his commandments. Then in verse 30 he is basically repeating himself only emphasize another point in verses 31 to the end of the chapter. In verse 30 he says, "For if I'm going to establish a people, I will command them" and then the word "otherwise" is key. It follows a semi colon and connects two clauses. In official declaration 1, "unless He declares otherwise" is a correct use of the word because it ends a thought, but it is not between two clauses here. This changes the meaning quite dramatically. "Otherwise" between two clauses follows a pattern of showing an ultimatum and then a consequence afterwards. Do a word search for "otherwise" in the Book of Mormon to see many examples of this and compare with verse 30. You'll find that the same pattern should apply here. The wording is a little tricky here, it's a very unique phrase in the Book of Mormon so it is important to look at other examples and the larger context of the text, specifically what falls just before and just after the verse. Beginning a sentence with Wherefore or For is significant, it indicates that the current thought is connected with a previous one. These connections are typically ignored, and meaning is simply read into certain phrases because it appears to support a pre-existing idea.

Even if you know that a doctrine is correct, you cannot force a verse that doesn't have anything to do with that doctrine to then support that doctrine. What that does is betray the original meaning of the verse and you miss out on the doctrine it is trying to communicate.

The consequence for not hearkening to the Lord and following his commandments is to meet the same fate as those at Jerusalem and among all the lands of his people because they are following after the precepts of men to their destruction. This verse relates to the first commandment, that we should have no other gods before God. It also is a part of a narrative that shows how men tend toward whoredoms when they reject the commandments of God. We are warned when we are following down that same path by looking at the fruits which are broken hearts of wives and children, lost confidence, captivity and cries. Do we not see that among porn-addicted men in the church and all over the world today? Is Jacob 2 not a warning that we have a huge problem with not giving heed to God's commands?

If the Lord is going to raise up and establish a people, he alone will command them, otherwise (or else) they will listen to and follow after whoredoms, just like are seeing presently in our society.

[rewcox]

I know that the official declaration tries to reference this Book of Mormon verse in saying "unless He declares otherwise." What I have done is tried to analyze that verse and the surrounding context to see if that interpretation plays out and my conclusion is that it doesn't.

The Official Declaration is official. You can conclude for yourself that verse 30 doesn't mean that, but it does.

[oneClimbs]

I know that the official declaration tries to reference this Book of Mormon verse in saying "unless He declares otherwise." What I have done is tried to analyze that verse and the surrounding context to see if that interpretation plays out and my conclusion is that it doesn't.

The Official Declaration is official. You can conclude for yourself that verse 30 doesn't mean that, but it does.

The Book of Mormon is said to be a new covenant and the Lord has commanded us to obey the former commandments which he has given, if you want to ignore everything the text itself says and give more credence to a passing phrase in a declaration, I don't see that as very solid ground. It's important to note that the chapter heading for Jacob to was recently changed in a manner that moves away from this whole idea of "authorization" which is the specific word that was removed.

The one thing that I find particularly troubling is the refusal for anyone to specifically address the points that I'm making here. I'm providing a critical analysis of the text that is worth considering. Yes, it means that we have been using a verse in a manner that is incorrect, but even the Book of Mormon authors acknowledge that there could be mistakes. Even the Book of Mormon introduction acknowledges that there could still be mistakes. Yet we deem it impossible that we could have interpreted a tricky verse incorrectly today? We've reached infallibility in our day it seems?

[rewcox]

I know that the official declaration tries to reference this Book of Mormon verse in saying "unless He declares otherwise." What I have done is tried to analyze that verse and the surrounding context to see if that interpretation plays out and my conclusion is that it doesn't.

The Official Declaration is official. You can conclude for yourself that verse 30 doesn't mean that, but it does.

The Book of Mormon is said to be a new covenant and the Lord has commanded us to obey the former commandments which he has given, if you want to ignore everything the text itself says and give more credence to a passing phrase in a declaration, I don't see that as very solid ground. It's important to note that the chapter heading for Jacob to was recently changed in a manner that moves away from this whole idea of "authorization" which is the specific word that was removed.

The one thing that I find particularly troubling is the refusal for anyone to specifically address the points that I'm making here. I'm providing a critical analysis of the text that is worth considering. Yes, it means that we have been using a verse in a manner that is incorrect, but even the Book of Mormon authors acknowledge that there could be mistakes. Even the Book of Mormon introduction acknowledges that there could still be mistakes. Yet we deem it impossible that we could have interpreted a tricky verse incorrectly today? We've reached infallibility in our day it seems?

You aren't the Prophet, so it is not your responsibility to change the meaning of the verse. Even if verse 30 wasn't in the Book of Mormon, current revelation can change things, like Nephi killing Laban, and Joseph Smith being commanded to practice plural marriage.

[oneClimbs]

You aren't the Prophet, so it is not your responsibility to change the meaning of the verse. Even if verse 30 wasn't in the Book of Mormon, current revelation can change things, like Nephi killing Laban, and Joseph Smith being commanded to practice plural marriage.

Nephi killing Laban is not an equivalent example. Justice had broken down in Jerusalem, Herbrew law forbid murder, which would involve taking the law into your own hands. They had a form of due process, the leadership did have the ability and responsibility to carry out capital punishment. You could kill someone to defend yourself as well. Nephi was authorized to kill Laban particularly because Laban had broken three laws that would have earned him the death penalty under Hebrew law any way. If you want to see details on that just look here: http://oneclimbs.com/2012/01/08/the-jus ... -of-laban/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not claiming to be a prophet, I am doing a open analysis of the text providing evidence to back up what I am saying in a forum where we things like this are discussed. The "you're not the prophet so shut up" argument would end virtually every discussion in this forum and is very disrespectful. I'd suggest that you consider what Hugh B. Brown, a former member of the first presidency wrote:

We should all be interested in academic research. We must go out on the research front and continue to explore the vast unknown. We should be in the forefront of learning in all fields, for revelation does not come only through the prophet of God nor only directly from heaven in visions or dreams. Revelation may come in the laboratory, out of the test tube, out of the thinking mind and the inquiring soul, out of search and research and prayer and inspiration.

This is what I am doing, I'm thinking, inquiring, searching, and researching and I'm basically told to shut up because I'm not the prophet? The definition of a forum (which is this) is: "A public meeting place for open discussion or voicing of ideas." To this point, none of my ideas or the points I have made have been refuted. I'm told that I am wrong because of the authority of enigmatic references and the authority of the Topical Guide that points to a verse and says nothing more. I've already pointed out that the chapter heading has recently been changed to move away from the word "authorization" and focus on the fact that the practice was forbidden.

To sustain means to "uphold" and to "keep from falling" because we men are fallible. I found some flaws in an interpretation. We should be open to such things because finding and fixing flaws only better helps us reinforce the truth.

[rewcox]

You aren't the Prophet, so it is not your responsibility to change the meaning of the verse. Even if verse 30 wasn't in the Book of Mormon, current revelation can change things, like Nephi killing Laban, and Joseph Smith being commanded to practice plural marriage.

Nephi killing Laban is not an equivalent example. Justice had broken down in Jerusalem, Herbrew law forbid murder, which would involve taking the law into your own hands. They had a form of due process, the leadership did have the ability and responsibility to carry out capital punishment. You could kill someone to defend yourself as well. Nephi was authorized to kill Laban particularly because Laban had broken three laws that would have earned him the death penalty under Hebrew law any way. If you want to see details on that just look here: http://oneclimbs.com/2012/01/08/the-jus ... -of-laban/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not claiming to be a prophet, I am doing a open analysis of the text providing evidence to back up what I am saying in a forum where we things like this are discussed. The "you're not the prophet so shut up" argument would end virtually every discussion in this forum and is very disrespectful. I'd suggest that you consider what Hugh B. Brown, a former member of the first presidency wrote:

We should all be interested in academic research. We must go out on the research front and continue to explore the vast unknown. We should be in the forefront of learning in all fields, for revelation does not come only through the prophet of God nor only directly from heaven in visions or dreams. Revelation may come in the laboratory, out of the test tube, out of the thinking mind and the inquiring soul, out of search and research and prayer and inspiration.

This is what I am doing, I'm thinking, inquiring, searching, and researching and I'm basically told to shut up because I'm not the prophet? The definition of a forum (which is this) is: "A public meeting place for open discussion or voicing of ideas." To this point, none of my ideas or the points I have made have been refuted. I'm told that I am wrong because of the authority of enigmatic references and the authority of the Topical Guide that points to a verse and says nothing more. I've already pointed out that the chapter heading has recently been changed to move away from the word "authorization" and focus on the fact that the practice was forbidden.

To sustain means to "uphold" and to "keep from falling" because we men are fallible. I found some flaws in an interpretation. We should be open to such things because finding and fixing flaws only better helps us reinforce the truth.

Witness 2:
Jacob 2:27, 30
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;

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.

Otherwise is what refutes you. Jacob has been talking about one man and one woman. Christ says they shall hearken unto these concepts.

You don't need otherwise if the subject hasn't changed. Raise up Seed in this case means plural marriage or polygamy. Even accelerated.

It is not a simple case of a mistake.

[oneClimbs]

Otherwise is what refutes you. Jacob has been talking about one man and one woman. Christ says they shall hearken unto these concepts.

You don't need otherwise if the subject hasn't changed. Raise up Seed in this case means plural marriage or polygamy. Even accelerated.

It is not a simple case of a mistake.

I agree, you don't need otherwise if the subject hasn't changed, but the word otherwise is there in plain English and it indicates that there is a change. That's actually one of the points that I think swings in my favor. Since I'm not for claiming things without proof, here are some definitions from various sources:

Merriam-Webster: "if not <do what I tell you, otherwise you'll be sorry>"

Cambridge Dictionary: "used after an order or suggestion to show what the result will be if you do not follow that order or suggestion:"

MacMillian Dictionary: "used for saying that if one thing does not happen or is not true, something else will happen, usually something bad"

Here are some examples from the Book of Mormon where the usage of otherwise follows these patterns with consistency:

"And now, if ye say this in your hearts ye remain guiltless, otherwise ye are condemned;" (Mosiah 4:25)

"But the king said unto him: Inquire of the Lord, and if he saith unto us go, we will go; otherwise we will perish in the land." (Alma 27:10)

"Verily, verily, I say that I would that ye should do alms unto the poor; but take heed that ye do not your alms before men to be seen of them; otherwise ye have no reward of your Father who is in heaven." (3 Nephi 13:1)

"And behold, there were divers ways that he did manifest things unto the children of men, which were good; and all things which are good cometh of Christ; otherwise men were fallen, and there could no good thing come unto them." (Moroni 7:24)

"And we did magnify our office unto the Lord, taking upon us the responsibility, answering the sins of the people upon our own heads if we did not teach them the word of God with all diligence; wherefore, by laboring with our might their blood might not come upon our garments; otherwise their blood would come upon our garments, and we would not be found spotless at the last day." (Jacob 1:19)

"But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God." (Alma 42:22)

"If thou wilt grant that my brethren may be cast out of prison, and also that Lamoni may retain his kingdom, and that ye be not displeased with him, but grant that he may do according to his own desires in whatsoever thing he thinketh, then will I spare thee; otherwise I will smite thee to the earth." (Alma 20:24)

"Behold, here are our weapons of war; we will deliver them up unto you, but we will not suffer ourselves to take an oath unto you, which we know that we shall break, and also our children; but take our weapons of war, and suffer that we may depart into the wilderness; otherwise we will retain our swords, and we will perish or conquer." (Alma 44:8)

There you go, clear evidence to support my point, I have defined the word otherwise and have show examples right from the text of the Book of Mormon that support the definition of the word and how it is used.

"Raise up seed unto me" has already been demonstrated to show that it has reference to the Lord establishing a people and more importantly that the Nephites are already under the command to raise up seed unto the Lord but under a commandment of monogamy.

Think about that, they were commanded to raise up seed unto the Lord, using those exact words, then Lehi was told that his people should only have one wife. This is abundantly clear, here we have a place where people are commanded to raise up seed but monogamously. So how on earth does raise up seed in the same sermon where this former commandment to have only one wife and this reference to them being brought out of Jerusalem to "raise up" a righteous branch "from the loins" (seed) of Joseph somehow is now implying polygamy? I just doesn't work.

[rewcox]

Otherwise is what refutes you. Jacob has been talking about one man and one woman. Christ says they shall hearken unto these concepts.

You don't need otherwise if the subject hasn't changed. Raise up Seed in this case means plural marriage or polygamy. Even accelerated.

It is not a simple case of a mistake.

I agree, you don't need otherwise if the subject hasn't changed, but the word otherwise is there in plain English and it indicates that there is a change. That's actually one of the points that I think swings in my favor. Since I'm not for claiming things without proof, here are some definitions from various sources:

Merriam-Webster: "if not <do what I tell you, otherwise you'll be sorry>"

Cambridge Dictionary: "used after an order or suggestion to show what the result will be if you do not follow that order or suggestion:"

MacMillian Dictionary: "used for saying that if one thing does not happen or is not true, something else will happen, usually something bad"

Here are some examples from the Book of Mormon where the usage of otherwise follows these patterns with consistency:

"And now, if ye say this in your hearts ye remain guiltless, otherwise ye are condemned;" (Mosiah 4:25)

"But the king said unto him: Inquire of the Lord, and if he saith unto us go, we will go; otherwise we will perish in the land." (Alma 27:10)

"Verily, verily, I say that I would that ye should do alms unto the poor; but take heed that ye do not your alms before men to be seen of them; otherwise ye have no reward of your Father who is in heaven." (3 Nephi 13:1)

"And behold, there were divers ways that he did manifest things unto the children of men, which were good; and all things which are good cometh of Christ; otherwise men were fallen, and there could no good thing come unto them." (Moroni 7:24)

"And we did magnify our office unto the Lord, taking upon us the responsibility, answering the sins of the people upon our own heads if we did not teach them the word of God with all diligence; wherefore, by laboring with our might their blood might not come upon our garments; otherwise their blood would come upon our garments, and we would not be found spotless at the last day." (Jacob 1:19)

"But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God." (Alma 42:22)

"If thou wilt grant that my brethren may be cast out of prison, and also that Lamoni may retain his kingdom, and that ye be not displeased with him, but grant that he may do according to his own desires in whatsoever thing he thinketh, then will I spare thee; otherwise I will smite thee to the earth." (Alma 20:24)

"Behold, here are our weapons of war; we will deliver them up unto you, but we will not suffer ourselves to take an oath unto you, which we know that we shall break, and also our children; but take our weapons of war, and suffer that we may depart into the wilderness; otherwise we will retain our swords, and we will perish or conquer." (Alma 44:8)

There you go, clear evidence to support my point, I have defined the word otherwise and have show examples right from the text of the Book of Mormon that support the definition of the word and how it is used.

"Raise up seed unto me" has already been demonstrated to show that it has reference to the Lord establishing a people and more importantly that the Nephites are already under the command to raise up seed unto the Lord but under a commandment of monogamy.

Now you are twisting. The subject did change, because God saiid if it was his will, he would raise up seed to him. If it didn't mean plural marriage, otherwise wouldn't be needed. This is what you are trying to construe:

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

This is what it means because OTHERWISE is used:
"30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, use plural marriage to raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things."

This is confirmed by the Official position of the Church. Also confirmed by Joseph Smith starting the practice of plural marriage in our early church. Also confirmed by David, Abraham, Jacob and Moses in more ancient times.