The Ultimate Polygamy Thread - It started in the Past

[oneClimbs]

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.

In the context of Jacob speaking to the people, raise up seed is more than one wife, otherwise, they will hearken unto one wife and one husband.

Your focus on IF seems to imply that the Lord commanding them to raise up seed is a hypothetical situation that they are not currently under but the Lord could command if he so desired.

"IF" doesn't have just one meaning, and if this interpretation is correct, that God is speaking hypothetically about something he has not yet commanded. The glaring problem with this is that he has already commanded them to "raise up seed" unto him but under monogamy. Again, the Nephites have already been commanded to raise up seed, and this language, particularly the "unto him" is indicative of the covenant language used in verse 25 where the Lord is again talking about how he brought them out of Jerusalem for the purpose of raising up seed (the fruit of the loins) of Joseph.

It's already been commanded. So to suggest that the Lord is indicating that it hasn't been is contradictory. If indeed does tend toward some hypothetical state such as "If your toys are not picked up, you are going to be grounded" or "If I'm going to finish this project I'll need to follow the instructions better" but the hypothetical state is not polygamy, it is whether or not the Lord will be able to raise up seed unto him, the condition being whether or not his people will obey his commands. If he is going to establish a righteous people (raise up) from the fruit loins of Joseph (seed), the only way is for that people to be obedient to the commandments of God.

[Separatist]

So verse 30 reads like this?:

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people [to engage in this practice I just described as producing crimes, iniquity, whoredoms, abominations, sorrow, mourning, wickedness, cries, broken hearts, bad examples, lost confidence, sobbings, pierced hearts, not pure hearts, filthy, lasciviousness]; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

Never mind 5tev3's good analysis that raising seed does not equal polygamy.

[rewcox]

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.

In the context of Jacob speaking to the people, raise up seed is more than one wife, otherwise, they will hearken unto one wife and one husband.

Your focus on IF seems to imply that the Lord commanding them to raise up seed is a hypothetical situation that they are not currently under but the Lord could command if he so desired.

"IF" doesn't have just one meaning, and if this interpretation is correct, that God is speaking hypothetically about something he has not yet commanded. The glaring problem with this is that he has already commanded them to "raise up seed" unto him but under monogamy. Again, the Nephites have already been commanded to raise up seed, and this language, particularly the "unto him" is indicative of the covenant language used in verse 25 where the Lord is again talking about how he brought them out of Jerusalem for the purpose of raising up seed (the fruit of the loins) of Joseph.

It's already been commanded. So to suggest that the Lord is indicating that it hasn't been is contradictory. If indeed does tend toward some hypothetical state such as "If your toys are not picked up, you are going to be grounded" or "If I'm going to finish this project I'll need to follow the instructions better" but the hypothetical state is not polygamy, it is whether or not the Lord will be able to raise up seed unto him, the condition being whether or not his people will obey his commands. If he is going to establish a righteous people (raise up) from the fruit loins of Joseph (seed), the only way is for that people to be obedient to the commandments of God.

The correct interpretation and context is confirmed by the link to D&C 132, and the Official Declaration. That shows what Christ and Jacob were communicating.

It is simple and straightforward, like freedomforall has said.

[oneClimbs]

It's all about the "things"

http://myfamilyconversation.blogspot.co ... -wife.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting Separatist, we seem to have come to some of the exact same conclusions independently. I like how you have focused on the meaning of "these things" and I had to laugh at the Dr. Seuss nod. There is quite a bit more to that single verse than meets the eye. Most people I've talked to about it simply take it for granted and think, "Oh yeah, it means this, I've heard it a million times at church or somewhere." Hey, I was there at one point. I didn't give it a second thought. A critical reading of the verse, however, doesn't support the meaning that is traditionally read into it. You made a lot of great points.

[oneClimbs]

The correct interpretation and context is confirmed by the link to D&C 132, and the Official Declaration. That shows what Christ and Jacob were communicating.

It is simple and straightforward, like freedomforall has said.

Well, we each have our own views and that's ok. I think we have each stated our positions ad nauseum and contributed to the thread far more than was perhaps necessary. The points of view are there for the passerby to examine and judge for themselves.

[shadow]

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.

What you refuse to grasp is that many of us have considered your interpretation and we simply disagree. That's OK. You believe your interpretation and I believe my interpretation. Minds are not going to be changed.

[Separatist]

Some minds are changed.

[oneClimbs]

What you refuse to grasp is that many of us have considered your interpretation and we simply disagree. That's OK. You believe your interpretation and I believe my interpretation. Minds are not going to be changed.

I get that others disagree, I was just hoping to see more of a critical analysis to the text and some direct responses to specific points. Rewcox was responding more along those lines toward the end here, which I appreciated. While some minds are not going to be changed, the whole point of having a discussion is to see things in a new light and to place your ideas into an area of your peers where they can be tested. I find that aspect of a forum very valuable, even if it is a bit like the wild west with no referees. I value the discussion and contribution of everyone even if there is not an agreement.

[rewcox]

Some people, and I'm not saying 5tev3, want to say Jacob 2:30 is not about justification for plural marriage. Then they can say the Book of Mormon gives no allowance for plural marriage.

Then, using a new trendy concept, they say Joseph Smith did not practice or condone polygamy. The blame for polygamy then goes to Brigham Young, the church went into apostasy, and now someone whether a messenger or self-proclaimed prophet is here to save the day.

These people usually end up outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and are negative about the church and leaders.

The truth is that Joseph Smith did receive commandment to practice plural marriage and the church did so for about 60 years. This was a long time before we showed up!

Some people, usually anti-mormons use polygamy as a reason to reject the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. While we practice monogamy today, the polygamy topic still comes up.

I don't think Jesus was on a well deserved vacation when Joseph Smith was killed and Brigham Young became the next Prophet. Brigham Young was a great Prophet in his tenure.

Christ leads His Church today, selects and sustains His Prophet and Apostles. I see this all the time and am grateful He didn't go on vacation.

I have no issue with people not liking plural marriage, it is not for us, just like it wasn't for the Nephites.

[oneClimbs]

You are correct, and I want to confirm that is not my premise. I am simply trying to render a correct interpretation. Anyone can still support or condemn polygamy no matter what the verse actually means.

There is a verse in 1 John in the New Testament that has been used for perhaps centuries to support the doctrine of the Trinity. Fairly recently, it was discovered that the verse was absent from any texts and only visible in the form of a note in the margins of two documents that came from a scribe. It made its way into scripture but in most modern translations such as the NIV or the NASB it has been removed and appropriately so.

Even though people still argue for the doctrine of the Trinity, it wouldn't be correct to use that as part of your foundation. This is essentially the same spirit that I am approaching Jacob 2:30.

Whatever arguments are to be made, it is important that the scriptures mean what we think they mean. I think we can all agree on that even though we may disagree on our respective interpretations.

[Melissa]

You are correct, and I want to confirm that is not my premise. I am simply trying to render a correct interpretation. Anyone can still support or condemn polygamy no matter what the verse actually means.

There is a verse in 1 John in the New Testament that has been used for perhaps centuries to support the doctrine of the Trinity. Fairly recently, it was discovered that the verse was absent from any texts and only visible in the form of a note in the margins of two documents that came from a scribe. It made its way into scripture but in most modern translations such as the NIV or the NASB it has been removed and appropriately so.

Even though people still argue for the doctrine of the Trinity, it wouldn't be correct to use that as part of your foundation. This is essentially the same spirit that I am approaching Jacob 2:30.

Whatever arguments are to be made, it is important that the scriptures mean what we think they mean. I think we can all agree on that even though we may disagree on our respective interpretations.

Great point here. The things we are to do and become are listed over and over again within the scriptures. The gospel and commandments are no secret and are backed up with multiple scriptures through out all the books.

Putting all the weight on one verse is a problem. It for one doesn't give enough information to have a clear understanding and there is nothing to supplement it with to add clarification. The "spirit" is not felt (to me) with in the one verse in Jacob. And there is no where that talks about plural marriage except D&C. And even within D&C, it really is pretty bland and doesn't take a possitive approach that inspires one to desire it.

[rewcox]

You are correct, and I want to confirm that is not my premise. I am simply trying to render a correct interpretation. Anyone can still support or condemn polygamy no matter what the verse actually means.

There is a verse in 1 John in the New Testament that has been used for perhaps centuries to support the doctrine of the Trinity. Fairly recently, it was discovered that the verse was absent from any texts and only visible in the form of a note in the margins of two documents that came from a scribe. It made its way into scripture but in most modern translations such as the NIV or the NASB it has been removed and appropriately so.

Even though people still argue for the doctrine of the Trinity, it wouldn't be correct to use that as part of your foundation. This is essentially the same spirit that I am approaching Jacob 2:30.

Whatever arguments are to be made, it is important that the scriptures mean what we think they mean. I think we can all agree on that even though we may disagree on our respective interpretations.

Great point here. The things we are to do and become are listed over and over again within the scriptures. The gospel and commandments are no secret and are backed up with multiple scriptures through out all the books.

Putting all the weight on one verse is a problem. It for one doesn't give enough information to have a clear understanding and there is nothing to supplement it with to add clarification. The "spirit" is not felt (to me) with in the one verse in Jacob. And there is no where that talks about plural marriage except D&C. And even within D&C, it really is pretty bland and doesn't take a possitive approach that inspires one to desire it.

Are you going to discount Abraham, Jacob, Moses? 2 Samuel 12?

[oneClimbs]

Don't forget Lamech, Cain's great grandson, he was the first polygamist in the Bible.

[freedomforall]

Some minds are changed.

What, did you go to the "dark" side?

[oneClimbs]

I learned an interesting fact this afternoon in an exchange with a scholar. As we know, according to the law Israelite kings were forbidden from having many wives: “He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray." (Deuteronomy 17:17) This makes one wonder why David and Solomon would have taken many wives in violation of this commandment. Interestingly, Hilkiah the priest during the reign of Josiah which was over 300 years after both David and Solomon's reigns so they would not have had access to Deuteronomy and these commandments "the torah of the king."

He pointed out these verses in 2 Kings:

"And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it. ...And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes." (2 Kings 22:8,10-11)

In a text from the Dead Sea Scrolls it says this:

"...by taking two wives in their lifetimes, although the principle of creation is "male and female He created them" (Gen. 1:27) and those who went into the ark "went into the ark two by two" (Gen. 7:9). Concerning the Leader it is written "he shall not multiply wives to himself" (Deut. 17:17); but David had not read the sealed book of the Law in the Ark; for it was not opened in Israel from the day of the death of Eleazar and Joshua and the elders who served the goddess Ashtoret. It lay buried <and was not> revealed until the appearance of Zadok. Nevertheless the deeds of David were all excellent, except the murder of Uriah and God forgave him for that." https://books.google.com/books?id=218Jb ... &q&f=false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (bottom of page 55-56)

While David and Solomon may have involved themselves in this practice innocent of the Lord's will on this, it is interesting to see the condemnation coming from the Lord that is directed toward them in the Book of Mormon. This is just a little tidbit I'm throwing out there, I don't know that it proves anything one way or the other but it seems like an interesting enough piece of information that could be useful no matter what your perspective happens to be. Like I said, I'm not making a point just sharing data.

[freedomforall]

What you refuse to grasp is that many of us have considered your interpretation and we simply disagree. That's OK. You believe your interpretation and I believe my interpretation. Minds are not going to be changed.

I get that others disagree, I was just hoping to see more of a critical analysis to the text and some direct responses to specific points. Rewcox was responding more along those lines toward the end here, which I appreciated. While some minds are not going to be changed, the whole point of having a discussion is to see things in a new light and to place your ideas into an area of your peers where they can be tested. I find that aspect of a forum very valuable, even if it is a bit like the wild west with no referees. I value the discussion and contribution of everyone even if there is not an agreement.

God's word does not need critical analysis. It simply needs to be feasted upon and inquired of the Lord for meanings we don't yet grasp, and by the power of the Holy Ghost we may know the truth of all things. Moroni 10:5 Critical thinking can and will bring false conclusions, because there are those that insist on using their own faulty reasoning, even though the evidence of the faulty reasoning has been revealed time and time again, and God's true meaning has been thrown under a bus. Stubbornness and critical thinking is not good evidence behind learning truth. Ir only shows itself as it truly is...stubbornness and an unwillingness to reevaluate one's own errors.
Case in point...Jacob 2:30 and its preceding verses have been analyzed and turned every which way, yet some here will no accept the narrative due to critical thinking. Not only that, they are determined to get others to buy into false narratives so they may feel validated. Go figure!
When does two wrongs ever make a right?

Remember too, that scripture is of no private interpretation. We must ask God, we must receive truth from the Holy Ghost, then at that point, critical thinking has no purpose.

[oneClimbs]

"Keep my eyes open. Give things time. And re-examine my own assumptions now and then. The alternative is to not pay attention. Insist on final answers now. And never re-examine my own assumptions. Either choice on these three points has consequences in life." - Kevin Christensen

I'm sorry, I don't share your view Freedomforall, you don't share mine and that's ok.

[Melissa]

You are correct, and I want to confirm that is not my premise. I am simply trying to render a correct interpretation. Anyone can still support or condemn polygamy no matter what the verse actually means.

There is a verse in 1 John in the New Testament that has been used for perhaps centuries to support the doctrine of the Trinity. Fairly recently, it was discovered that the verse was absent from any texts and only visible in the form of a note in the margins of two documents that came from a scribe. It made its way into scripture but in most modern translations such as the NIV or the NASB it has been removed and appropriately so.

Even though people still argue for the doctrine of the Trinity, it wouldn't be correct to use that as part of your foundation. This is essentially the same spirit that I am approaching Jacob 2:30.

Whatever arguments are to be made, it is important that the scriptures mean what we think they mean. I think we can all agree on that even though we may disagree on our respective interpretations.

Great point here. The things we are to do and become are listed over and over again within the scriptures. The gospel and commandments are no secret and are backed up with multiple scriptures through out all the books.

Putting all the weight on one verse is a problem. It for one doesn't give enough information to have a clear understanding and there is nothing to supplement it with to add clarification. The "spirit" is not felt (to me) with in the one verse in Jacob. And there is no where that talks about plural marriage except D&C. And even within D&C, it really is pretty bland and doesn't take a possitive approach that inspires one to desire it.

Are you going to discount Abraham, Jacob, Moses? 2 Samuel 12?

What about Abraham? Hagar was a slave to Sarah and was used as a sex slave to bear her a child. That's polygamy? Hagar was not referred to as his wife anyways. She belonged to Sarah not Abraham.

What about moses?

David being given all these women....he was a king and inherited a kingdom. David as all kings were instructed not to multiply wives so...? When the Lord tells David he would have given him more...I see that as the Lord's sadness in that He didn't seem to be able to bless David enough to have him be a good righteous king.

What about Jacob? Jacob never says that God will command polygamy when and if he chooses to. Jacob says how much sexual whoredoms hurt women. Are you going to excuse and brush over the pain that women experience? Or are women not that important?

[freedomforall]

.

I know you really like your interpretation, but you are incorrect.

Notice it is the Lord speaking:

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;

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.

This is a direct commandment from Christ. Whoredoms are an abomination. That is serious, not a simple transgression.

On something this serious, Christ, Jacob, Mormon and Joseph Smith are not going to make a confusing statement. A straight forward statement would be:

I, the Lord of Hosts, will command my people to raise up seed unto me, and they will hearken unto these things.

But the statement, from Christ, recorded by Jacob, included in the plates by Mormon, and translated by the power of God through Joseph Smith is:

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.

In the context of Jacob speaking to the people, raise up seed is more than one wife, otherwise, they will hearken unto one wife and one husband.

Seed has a link to D&C 132, which explains the justification of more than one wife and adultery. Adultery would be a sin and would be an abomination.

This is also the Official position of the Church, which includes Prophets and apostles.

While you continue to hold onto your Maypo, you are incorrect in your interpretation.

It's called critical thinking. I have a different name for it.

[freedomforall]

I like 5tev3's analysis and it does indeed make valid sense and I appreciate the time put into sharing this analysis.

Many people are afraid to think outside what they are told is okay bounds to think within. Only when you travel outside the box can you truly understand what the box even is.

Thinking outside the box involves, among other things, asking God what he means. Ever try it? Scripture is of no private interpretation, or, will of man.

2 Peter 1:20
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

JST 2 Pet. 1:20 … no prophecy of the scriptures is given of any private will of man.

Thus we have......Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scriptures is given of any private will of man.

2 Peter 1:21
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Doctrine and Covenants 46:28
28 And it shall come to pass that he that asketh in Spirit shall receive in Spirit;

Moroni 10:5
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

By this we may know that critical thinking is both unnecessary and not of the spirit, because it may lead the man down the wrong path without having rfecxeived truth from God, or at least a confirmation of one's deduction.

[freedomforall]

It's all about the "things"

http://myfamilyconversation.blogspot.co ... -wife.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

An absolute, viable point. Things.

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.

So the question is...what are "these things" being referred? First we can point out the things they are called to do, then point out things the Lord is disgusted with.

Good things:

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.

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;

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.

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.

Now for the bad things:

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.

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 bone wife; and concubines he shall have none;

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.

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.

Sad things the Lord has witnessed in the following verses.

31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.

32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.

34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.

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. This does not imply stabbings with a sharp instrument in the least bit. It implies a deep rooted hurt and sorrow that eats at their very souls.


So the Lord expects and commands the people to do and live according to his will, and not commit whoredoms and further destroy the tender hearts of their wives and daughters.

If he wants more seed than normal to be raised...he then will command the people to be polygamous.

This is what God is saying.

[Melissa]

I like 5tev3's analysis and it does indeed make valid sense and I appreciate the time put into sharing this analysis.

Many people are afraid to think outside what they are told is okay bounds to think within. Only when you travel outside the box can you truly understand what the box even is.

Thinking outside the box involves, among other things, asking God what he means. Ever try it? .

And this is where I stopped reading.
Personal insult of who I am and if I believe and talk to God or seek his guidance. This slimy statement "ever try it?" is meant to insult. I am LDS and many on here are, of course I have seeked God's guidance to understand Him and life and heaven and everything else that goes through my mind - daily. Your comment is an insult to every believer.

[freedomforall]

I like 5tev3's analysis and it does indeed make valid sense and I appreciate the time put into sharing this analysis.

Many people are afraid to think outside what they are told is okay bounds to think within. Only when you travel outside the box can you truly understand what the box even is.

Thinking outside the box involves, among other things, asking God what he means. Ever try it? .

And this is where I stopped reading.
Personal insult of who I am and if I believe and talk to God or seek his guidance. This slimy statement "ever try it?" is meant to insult. I am LDS and many on here are, of course I have seeked God's guidance to understand Him and life and heaven and everything else that goes through my mind - daily. Your comment is an insult to every believer.

I thought "ever try it" was question requiring a yes or no answer. No wonder our communication on this forum is whacky.

[oneClimbs]

This isn't the best form of communication, but it has it's uses.

[Melissa]

I like 5tev3's analysis and it does indeed make valid sense and I appreciate the time put into sharing this analysis.

Many people are afraid to think outside what they are told is okay bounds to think within. Only when you travel outside the box can you truly understand what the box even is.

Thinking outside the box involves, among other things, asking God what he means. Ever try it? .

And this is where I stopped reading.
Personal insult of who I am and if I believe and talk to God or seek his guidance. This slimy statement "ever try it?" is meant to insult. I am LDS and many on here are, of course I have seeked God's guidance to understand Him and life and heaven and everything else that goes through my mind - daily. Your comment is an insult to every believer.

I thought "ever try it" was question requiring a yes or no answer. No wonder our communication on this forum is whacky.

Yes. Thought I was clear on that.

Your frustrations or whatever is going on, is misguided towards me. Be peaceful.