Click here to download a PDF version
In Jacob chapters 2-3 we find one of the most passionate and heart-wrenching sermons in the Book of Mormon. Jacob, the brother of Nephi, observes the following concerning his people:
And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son.
Jacob 1:15
This is a problem because Lehi himself received a commandment from God that men should have only one wife and no concubines. (Jacob 2:27,34, 3:5-6)
Throughout an entire sermon, both the Lord himself and Jacob condemn the practice of having many wives and concubines as gross (vulgar; obscene; indelicate) crimes, sins, iniquities, whoredoms, fornication, lasciviousness, filthiness, and abominations. The deep heartache and damage to the women and children because of this practice are detailed. (Jacob 2:31-35)
Yet, right in the middle of these condemnations in Jacob 2:30, there is a single verse that is said to be an exception to God’s commandment to have only one wife.
Although this practice is condemned in great detail, an official interpretation of verse 30 suggests that the Lord might command men to marry many wives and concubines anyway, even though he acknowledges that it breaks the hearts of wives and causes sorrow, mourning, sobbings, and deep wounds.
This seems to be a paradox at best and a contradiction at worst.
What I am seeking to demonstrate here in this essay is that Jacob 2:30 contains no exception to the commandment that men should have one wife and no concubines.
As with any post on this site, I am open to corrections if I am in error at any point. I don’t speak for the Church, I am not a scholar, and nobody should feel any obligation to believe anything I say. This blog is simply a place where I share some of the things I’m exploring.
Why try and reinterpret this particular verse?
I used to never give this verse a second thought as I read past it over and over because I always understood through various Sunday School lessons, the official church website, and manuals that Jacob 2:30 taught that there was an exception to the commandment of monogamy.
When I took a closer look at the verse from time to time and tried to understand how that interpretation could apply, it seemed to fit but never totally seemed to sit quite right and I could never put my finger on why.
If the verse is actually saying something different, how would you know? What could it be possibly saying other than the official interpretation? Who am I to say that the official interpretation is wrong after people have seen it that way for likely over a century?
I didn’t set out on any particular mission to try and deeply analyze this verse. I have a large collection of notes where I save everything I can find because the information of the past often becomes useful in the future. Around 2015, I was learning about Hebrew literary patterns from Avraham Gileadi’s work on Isaiah and I think this is what got me looking closer at the specific words and phrases in Jacob 2:30.
I found some very interesting things. I added them to my notes and after several months I found some other insights. Later on, and after about 2 years had passed, I reflected on these notes and noticed that the actual meaning of that verse was beginning to take shape. I began to compile the information into an essay and found more and more pieces of evidence. After publishing this essay, I am still updating it as new information keeps coming.
In my attempts to unravel a paradox, what I discovered instead was a contradiction. The official interpretation is incorrect and I believe that this can be objectively proven.
The Book of Mormon condemns the practice of having multiple wives and concubines in every instance it occurs, even among the Jaredites who predate Lehi and were living on another continent likely before Abraham was even born:
- Riplakish the Jaredite (Ether 10:5)
- The rising generation of Nephites (Jacob ch. 2-3)
- King Noah and his wicked priests (Mosiah 11:2-14)
Although The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will take disciplinary action against any persons engaging in these practices, the Church teaches that having more than one wife (polygamy) is valid when authorized by God.
Jacob 2:30 has long been used as the sole reference in the Book of Mormon to justify the practice of polygamy among the early members of the Church. If the information presented here is correct, this verse should not be used to imply something that it doesn’t.
I want to be clear that my intent in publishing this essay is not to attack or defend the practice of polygamy.
All I am seeking to do is correctly interpret a verse of scripture. The consequences of the interpretation I am proposing upon the theological landscape are outside the scope of this essay.
Examining the official interpretation’s premise
Let’s begin by looking at Jacob 2:30 all alone and outside of the context of the sermon.
“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.”
Jacob 2:30
To justify the practice of polygamy among the early Latter-day Saints, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints references Jacob 2:30 to explain how God can command this practice and even a reason why he would in the first place:
The Book of Mormon identifies one reason for God to command it: to increase the number of children born in the gospel covenant in order to “raise up seed unto [the Lord].” [the cross-reference here is to Jacob 2:30]
Source
I believe that the current interpretation of Jacob 2:30 is an example of a fallacy known as proof-texting. An external meaning is being read into the verse that isn’t supported by the internal context of the sermon.
“A proof text is a passage of scripture presented as proof for a theological doctrine, belief, or principle. Prooftexting (sometimes “proof-texting” or “proof texting”) is the practice of using quotations from a document, either for the purpose of exegesis, or to establish a proposition in eisegesis (introducing one’s own presuppositions, agendas, or biases). Such quotes may not accurately reflect the original intent of the author, and a document quoted in such a manner, when read as a whole, may not support the proposition for which it was cited.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prooftext
Since Jacob 2:30 is being explicitly used to provide a theological justification for the practice of polygamy, I want to address the claim that this practice increases the number of children born under the covenant.
Does a single man fathering many children with many women actually produce a net increase in the population? Of all the population data you could look at, surely the practice of polygamy among the early Latter-day Saints should show that polygamous families increased the population more than monogamous families. Well, the data on that has been examined and the opposite is true.
After studying the marriage and birth data from 186,000 Utah adults and their 630,000 children from the 1800s, evolutionary biologist Michael Wade concluded:
“Although [polygamy is] great in terms of number of children for successful males to have harems, the data show that for every new woman added to a male’s household, the number each wife produced goes down by one child or so“
https://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/16939.html
At the time of his death, Brigham Young had married 56 women, but only 16 of these women actually bore children. In total, Brigham fathered 57 children, 46 of which grew to maturity. (Source)
If we divide the total number of children born (57) by the number of mothers (16) we get 3.5 children per mother on average (that number drops to 2.8 if you are counting those that survived). The average number of children born to a woman between 1840 and 1880 was roughly 5.21 children per woman. (source)
Brigham was married to 56 women, and the number of children produced per woman was quite a bit less than the average at that time, 3.5 versus 5.1. If those 56 women had each been in a monogamous marriage and produced children at the average rate, there could have been 291 children versus the 57!
Even if we only count the 16 that bore children, at the average rate, they could have produced 83 children versus 57.
Recently, a man named Ziona Chana passed away (June 13, 2021) and he was survived by 38 widows. Incredibly, this man had 94 children with these women.
He married his first wife at age 17 in 1964. The birth rates in India from 1964 range from 5.85 children per woman to 2.18. That’s an average of 4 births per woman during the time that Ziona was having children but Zion’s wives were producing 2.41 children per woman on average.
If his wives were all married monogamously and produced children at the average birthrate, there could have been around 156 children instead of 93! There also would have been far fewer widows and fatherless children when he passed.
Seeing one man produce a high number of children with many women is only an illusion that the practice itself creates a net increase in population. Because when one man is fathering many children through many women, the birthrate drops below the average. These are just two examples, but if you analyze other cases you will find that the trend continues.
On the other hand, note how successful the monogamous Nephites were at increasing the number of children born under the covenant throughout the millennium of their history:
And it came to pass that we began to prosper exceedingly, and to multiply in the land. (2 Nephi 5:13)
And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land… (Jarom 1:8)
And there were a great number, even so many that they did not number them; for they had multiplied exceedingly and waxed great in the land. (Mosiah 2:2)
…and we did begin to multiply and prosper in the land. (Mosiah 9:9)
And it came to pass that they did multiply and prosper exceedingly in the land of Helam; (Mosiah 23:20)
And they did prosper exceedingly, and they became exceedingly rich; yea, and they did multiply and wax strong in the land. (Alma 50:18)
And the people of Nephi began to prosper again in the land, and began to multiply and to wax exceedingly strong again in the land. (Alma 62:48)
And it came to pass that they did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east. (Helaman 3:8)
And thus it did come to pass that the people of Nephi began to prosper again in the land, and began to build up their waste places, and began to multiply and spread, even until they did cover the whole face of the land, both on the northward and on the southward, from the sea west to the sea east. (Helaman 11:20)
And now, behold, it came to pass that the people of Nephi did wax strong, and did multiply exceedingly fast, and became an exceedingly fair and delightsome people. (4 Nephi 1:10)
And now I, Mormon, would that ye should know that the people had multiplied, insomuch that they were spread upon all the face of the land, and that they had become exceedingly rich, because of their prosperity in Christ. (4 Nephi 1:23)
The evidence suggests that a strong reason the Lord was against the Nephites taking on many wives and concubines is that it actually decreases birthrates, slows down population growth, and is antithetical to the Lord’s desire to “raise up seed.”
For this reason, God commands monogamy not only because it follows the divine pattern set forth in Eden, but also because it is a far more effective way to “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” (Genesis 1:28)
The Lord commands his people to raise up seed (1 Nephi 7:1-2) under monogamy and they multiply “exceedingly fast” and “spread upon all the face of the land.” If you want more children born under the covenant, you would do it through faithful monogamous families which are capable of producing far more children.
Brian C. Hales is the author of Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, which is a three-volume record containing every known document relating to this practice in Latter-day Saint history. Yet, in addressing if polygamy would ever ‘be commanded again,’ he says:
“Do we know that polygamy will ever be commanded again? In the 6000 years of religious history, the only adherents to be commanded were the Latter-day Saints between 1852 and 1890. Upon what basis does anyone assert that it will be commanded again?”
Brian and Linda Hales, http://blog.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Lending-Clarity-to-Confusion.pdf
If men fathering children with multiple women is such an effective way to increase the number of births under the covenant, then why don’t we see examples of this throughout history? Because it decreases the fruitfulness of the people and limits their ability to multiply.
The premise of men taking multiple wives and concubines to increase covenant populations is demonstrably incorrect.
The meaning of “otherwise”
Now let’s dig into the verse itself by examining the word “otherwise” because this is one of the biggest clues as to the meaning of Jacob 2:30.
This is roughly how I understood the verse under the traditional interpretation:
“If I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, increase the number of children born in the gospel covenant unto me by having them take many wives and concubines, I will command my people to do so; until then, they should follow my commandment to have just one wife.”
One official source from the Church newsroom sums up Jacob 2:30 this way:
The standard doctrine of the Church is monogamy, as it always has been, as indicated in the Book of Mormon (Jacob chapter 2): “Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none. … For 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 other words, the standard of the Lord’s people is monogamy unless the Lord reveals otherwise.
Here’s the problem, the Church newsroom uses the word otherwise here as an ordinary adverb in their explanation, but in Jacob 2:30, the word otherwise is being used as a conjunctive adverb.
This is an extremely important distinction to make because it has a dramatic effect on the meaning. A conjunctive adverb is used with a semi-colon to connect two independent clauses together. To illustrate the difference, here is the word otherwise being used as a regular adverb like the Church newsroom example:
Adverb: Under the Bill of Rights, a person is presumed innocent until proved otherwise.
And a conjunctive adverb with a semi-colon the same way it is used in Jacob 2:30:
Conjunctive adverb: We must hurry; otherwise we’ll miss the train.
The Cambridge Dictionary explains that when used as a conjunction, the word otherwise is “used after an order or suggestion to show what the result will be if you do not follow that order or suggestion.”
Merriam-Webster states that otherwise can also mean “if not” and gives two examples that match the way Jacob 2:30 uses it as a conjunctive adverb: “do what I tell you, otherwise you’ll be sorry” and “Tickets can be bought in advance at a discount; otherwise they can be purchased at the door for full price.”
This means that by using the conjunctive adverb “otherwise,” the verse is indicating an intended outcome for an order given, or else there will be an undesirable outcome as the result.
But does the Book of Mormon contain other examples of otherwise being used as a conjunctive adverb and is the usage consistent? The answer is yes and here are several examples.
Notice in these verses there will be first, the intended outcome, then the word otherwise (but if not), and then an undesirable outcome. Here are several examples:
“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)
Here are a few more examples with Jacob 2:30 included in the mix. Note the very similar structure and how the desired outcome begins with an “if” followed by a comma or semicolon, then the word otherwise, and concludes with the undesirable outcome:
“And now, if ye say this in your hearts ye remain guiltless, otherwise ye are condemned;” (Mosiah 4:25)
“Inquire of the Lord, and if he saith unto us go, we will go; otherwise we will perish in the land.” (Alma 27:10)
“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.” (Jacob 2:30)
Of the 13 times that the word otherwise appears in the text of the Book of Mormon, 9 of them are conjunctive adverbs, and in every single case, they follow this pattern:
“[intended outcome]; otherwise, [undesirable outcome].”
The big question here is why would the word otherwise be set in Jacob 2:30 as a conjunctive adverb and mysteriously not follow the same grammatical rules as all the others.
This means that the second half of Jacob 2:30 which states: “they shall hearken unto these things” must be referencing an undesirable outcome and not another desirable outcome such as: “until then, they should follow my commandment to have just one wife.”
What comes after “otherwise” must mean something undesirable; otherwise, the grammar makes no sense. (I will explain how later)
This inconsistency reveals one of many problems with the current interpretation of the verse.
Placing the current interpretation into the grammar rules for this verse suggests that the people are being ordered to follow an existing commandment (monogamy) as the undesirable outcome (as indicated by “otherwise”) for an explanation about a commandment God could hypothetically give but never does throughout their entire history?
That doesn’t make any sense, but it is what the traditional interpretation appears to imply here.
Now that we see that verse 30 is divided by a conjunctive adverb into two clauses, let’s look at what these clauses are and what they mean.
Clause 1: God’s intended outcome: to raise up a righteous branch
If we go back to the verse itself with this particular interpretation, that “raise up seed” involves “increas[ing] the number of children born into the gospel covenant” then some issues arise.
The first part of the verse begins with the words “If I will…” and ends with “…I will command my people.” Is the “if” conditional and implying that the Lord has not yet commanded his people to take “many wives and concubines” but that he could require it if he wanted to? That is what the official interpretation is suggesting.
If so, we could read the verse this way:
“If I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, increase the number of children born unto me in the gospel covenant, I will command my people to take many wives and concubines…”
If the Lord is speaking hypothetically here, this would mean that the Nephites have not been commanded to “raise up seed.”
There is just one big glaring problem with that interpretation: the Nephites have indeed been commanded to “raise up seed,” but, get this, under a very clear commandment to do so monogamously.
What does “raise up seed” mean?
If we go back to 1 Nephi chapter 7, we see the Lord literally command Lehi’s people to “raise up seed unto the Lord.”
…it came to pass that the Lord spake unto him again, saying that it was not meet for him, Lehi, that he should take his family into the wilderness alone; but 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 that I, Nephi, and my brethren, should again return unto the land of Jerusalem, and bring down Ishmael and his family into the wilderness. (1 Nephi 7:1-2)
Since Lehi’s party had been commanded to “raise up seed” using the exact wording of Jacob 2:30, then wouldn’t the men in Lehi’s party have had many wives and concubines?
If there was ever a time that increasing the number of children would be a need, it would certainly be among this small party of individuals seeking to form a new nation in another land. Wouldn’t this be a perfect time for the Lord to command his people to “increase the number of children born in the gospel covenant?”
Apparently not, since Lehi was given a specific commandment that his people should “raise up seed” but monogamously. How do we know? Jacob mentions this commandment four times in his sermon:
- 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; (Jacob 2:27)
- 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. (Jacob 2:34)
- [the Lamanites] 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 3:5)
- And now, this commandment they observe to keep; wherefore, because of this observance, in keeping this commandment, the Lord God will not destroy them… (Jacob 3:6)
The Nephites were commanded to “raise up seed” but under a commandment that they should only have one wife and no concubines. We actually see a more detailed version of what the Lord means by “raise up seed” just before verse 30 in Jacob 2:25:
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. Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
Jacob 2:25 points out that the Nephites have already been commanded to “raise up seed” or “a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins (seed) of Joseph” by perpetuating Joseph’s posterity and establishing a righteous branch of it in a new promised land.
If taking many wives and concubines is a way for more children to be born under the covenant then why did God condemn it as a gross crime, a whoredom, and an abomination for the entire thousand-year history of the Nephites?
Even the one mention of it among the Jaredites was a king who did “not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord.” (Ether 10:5)
If we replace the phrase “raise up seed” with the synonymous language in verse 25 the verse is clarified:
“For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph, I will command my people…”
We need to look closer at the phrase “If I will,” because it is not being understood correctly. It is a rare phrasing that I only found in about three places in all of scripture. In John 21:22, we see the same phraseology that closely mirrors Jacob 2:30:
“Jesus saith unto him, If I will that [John] tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.”
Jesus wasn’t implying that he might hypothetically permit John to tarry at some point in the future; he had already decided that John would tarry.
The King James English is just a little confusing here so if we read the same verse in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, and many others, you’ll see it rendered like this:
“Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!”
“If” can be a transitive verb where it is used as the sign of a condition, but it can also be used (as it is in Jacob 2:30 and John 21:22) to express something that is already true.
A hypothetical sentence starting with “if” could be: “If I’m going to make dessert, you had better eat your dinner.” The dessert hasn’t been created yet and won’t be unless dinner is finished.
You can also start a sentence with “if” to mention something already in progress and not hypothetical: “If you want your pet fish to stay alive, you have to keep feeding it.” The fish is already alive and you are simply trying to keep it that way.
The ‘if’ here is not referencing a future condition that may or may not happen, it is illustrating the conditions involved in his establishment of a people. If he is going to raise up this righteous branch, he will command them.
The word “will” is also being misunderstood. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines will one way as: “divine determination” which is the context that I believe is being used here.
It’s also the dynamics between “if” and “will” that are being misunderstood here. The Lord isn’t saying “If someday I want to…” He is saying, “If it is my divine determination to do this…” or “if I will this to be.” Now, let’s look at the verse again in that light.
“For if it is my will to […] raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph, I will command my people…”
If he is going to raise up this righteous branch that he has already planted in the promised land, he must be the one to command them, or else there will be an undesirable outcome.
In the context of the rest of the sermon, the understanding of the first part of verse 30 is quite clear, let’s compare these two verses by side and look at the three elements that I have marked off in blue, red, and green:
“For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph, I will command my people…”
“For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people…” (Jacob 2:30)
The point here is that while God would likely love more Nephite children born in the gospel covenant, his vision is much larger than that.
Inclusion in the gospel covenant isn’t only attainable by birth, neither is birth within the covenant superior to adoption into the covenant. Consider the following words from Abinadi:
And now I say unto you, who shall declare his generation? Behold, I say unto you, that when his soul has been made an offering for sin he shall see his seed. And now what say ye? And who shall be his seed? Behold I say unto you, that whosoever has heard the words of the prophets, yea, all the holy prophets who have prophesied concerning the coming of the Lord—I say unto you, that all those who have hearkened unto their words, and believed that the Lord would redeem his people, and have looked forward to that day for a remission of their sins, I say unto you, that these are his seed, or they are the heirs of the kingdom of God. (Mosiah 15:10-11)
The righteous branch that God is seeking to establish consists of those who heed the words of the holy prophets and receive the blessings that God has promised. The Book of Mormon speaks elsewhere about becoming the sons and daughters of God and being born again through Christ.
Does it still make sense to understand verse 30 as referencing a program where, at the command of God, men would need to impregnate many women to increase covenant birthrates especially when such a program is never commanded by God in the Book of Mormon or the Bible for that matter?
To paint verse 30 in this fashion ignores a host of other evidence that there is another interpretation that actually fits the context of the sermon.
I propose that the first part of verse 30 is clear, if God seeks to raise up a righteous branch unto himself, he must also be in command of that branch.
It is his work, and he must be at the helm for his purposes to be successful, or else they are under the command of something or someone else.
“I will command my people”
What about the “I will command my people” line? We have already shown that the word “will” when used by God can indicate “divine determination.” Is he saying that he will give his people a future command? Or is he saying here that he is actively determining to take command of his people?
He is, after all, threatening them with imminent destruction.
Taking back command immediately would certainly be a big priority to prevent that from happening. The word command can represent future, past, or present states.
“I am going to command”, “They ignored the command”, or “I command you” all reference different points in time. There are a lot of references to the Lord and his commands in Jacob’s sermon:
- I will command my people (2:30)
- we truly can command in the name of Jesus (4:6)
- O then, why not able to command the earth, or the workmanship of his hands (4:9)
- O that ye would listen unto the word of his commands (2:16)
- to be obedient unto the commands of God (4:5)
- Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts (2:29)
- ye know that these commandments were given (3:34)
- they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord (4:5)
- this commandment they observe to keep; wherefore, because of this observance, in keeping this commandment (4:6)
In all of these examples, it is Jacob speaking, save one, verse 30, that is the Lord speaking.
He determines to command his people and for his people to keep his commandments. This isn’t the only time the Lord has spoken like this, here are some other examples:
- For I command all men… (2 Nephi 29:11)
- I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it. (2 Nephi 15:6 quoting Isaiah)
- …he shall do none other work, save the work which I shall command him… (2 Nephi 3:8)
- And at my command the heavens are opened and are shut; and at my word the earth shall shake; and at my command the inhabitants thereof shall pass away, even so as by fire. (Ether 4:9)
- If I shut up heaven that there be no rain, or if I command the locusts to devour the land (2 Chron. 7:13)
There are many, many more examples so it isn’t unusual for the Lord to use that phraseology. The word “command” is a strikingly bold word to use and considering the seriousness of the sermon as a whole.
God is declaring an ultimatum that details a covenant curse that hangs over the people. He does this by invoking a strategically-placed title that is found around verse 30 in the highest concentration in the Book of Mormon: The Lord of Hosts.
“The Lord of Hosts”
We cannot ignore the placement and frequency of the title “Lord of Hosts” in Jacob’s sermon. When we see the Lord talking about how he determines to “command” his people, that sounds very militaristic and rightly so, because the title Lord of Hosts means:
“Jehovah or God when regarded as having the angelic forces at his command” (lord of hosts. (n.d.).
Collins English Dictionary – Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition)
In the Book of Mormon the title “Lord of Hosts” occurs 52 times and is found most frequently in verses that were actually from Isaiah and Malachi:
Quoting the Old Testament: 39
- Isaiah: 29
- Malachi: 10
In the writings of only three other Book of Mormon individuals do we see this phrase being used and only two of them are actually quoting the Lord himself.
Unique to Book of Mormon figures: 12
- Nephi: 1
- Nephi (quoting The Lord): 2
- Jacob (quoting The Lord): 6
- Samuel: 3
In Jacob 2 we find by far the most frequent use of this title in verses that are unique to Book of Mormon figures. All six occurrences in Jacob 2 are clustered together in the small span of just five verses and again, this is the Lord speaking and referring to himself as “the Lord of Hosts.” (verses 27-33).
Note that in between each set of three, we have the curse mentioned.
- saith the Lord of Hosts
- saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
- saith the Lord of Hosts
- I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
- saith the Lord of Hosts
- saith the Lord of Hosts
- saith the Lord of Hosts. […] I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction;
- saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
- saith the Lord of Hosts
As noted, the title Lord of Hosts implies that God is the commander of angelic forces.
The six times this title is invoked hearkens back to examples the Nephites might have been aware of from the Brass Plates such as when Elisha prayed for his servant’s eyes to be opened and he saw, “the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.” (2 Kings 6:17)
Isaiah is quoted heavily in the Book of Mormon and in Isaiah 37, King Hezekiah prays and addresses God as the “Lord of Hosts” (Isaiah 37:16) to obtain protection from the Assyrians. God then replies through Isaiah referring to himself as the “Lord of Hosts” (Isaiah 37:32) and promises his protection.
During the night, “Then the angel of Jehovah went out and slew a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the Assyrian camp. And when men arose in the morning, there lay all their dead bodies!” (Isaiah 37:36 IIT)
We see that destruction is indeed being threatened for this practice, in contrast to the Lamanites who will be protected because they keep the commandment to have only one wife and no concubines:
But, wo, wo, unto you that are not pure in heart, that are filthy this day before God; for except ye repent the land is cursed for your sakes; and the Lamanites […] shall scourge you even unto destruction. Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our 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. And now, this commandment they observe to keep; wherefore, because of this observance, in keeping this commandment, the Lord God will not destroy them, but will be merciful unto them; and one day they shall become a blessed people.” (Jacob 3:3,5-6)
The obedience to this one particular commandment was granting the Lamanites a stay from destruction. Since the breaking of this commandment will lead to national destruction, the Lord is declaring war upon the Nephites.
Taking all this into account, the language “I will command my people” or “I determine to command my people” is not at all out of place and entirely appropriate given the gravity of the situation.
There are only two other places in the Book of Mormon where the people take many wives and concubines and they both suffered the wrath of the Lord of Hosts: King Noah (Mosiah 11:2-14) and Riplakish (Ether 10:5-8).
This brings us to the second part of the verse, the other half of the clause.
Clause 2: The undesirable outcome: a sore curse, even unto destruction
From my research it appears that only the first clause of the verse is ever commented on in Church publications, the second half doesn’t seem to ever be addressed.
I propose that the second clause of this verse contains the “undesirable outcome” which is a curse of destruction rather than just a recommendation for the Nephites ‘follow the standing monogamous instructions.’
As evidence, I would like to point out verse 29 which, when joined to verse 30 forms a parallelism (a connection of meaning through an echo of form). Note that both verses contain two clauses that follow the same pattern, a desirable outcome and then an undesirable outcome:
“Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.” (Jacob 2:29)
“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.”
Jacob 2:30
It may not seem clear how “cursed be the land” and “they shall hearken unto these things” are parallel ideas but that is what I will attempt to explain next.
“They shall hearken”
At first blush the words seem pretty innocuous, God is saying “they shall hearken unto these things” so one could assume that he’s simply telling them to do as he has instructed, after all, even I am making the case that the main issue is the people not obeying God’s commands.
The first clause of Jacob 2:30 states that if God seeks to raise up a righteous branch unto himself, he must be in command. In a previous verse, Jacob states:
“Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord…”
Jacob 2:27
One could say that the phrase “hearken to the word of the Lord” matches up with the first clause of verse 30 which says, “I will command my people.” Both suggest cooperation between God and his people. As the word indicates an “if not” scenario, watch what happens when we place these words in the first clause and include the second:
“hearken to the word of the Lord; otherwise, they shall hearken unto these things.”
We can see that there are two outcomes being presented, the first being an outcome where the people are obedient and hearkening to the word of the Lord, and a second undesirable outcome where they shall hearken unto “these things” which we assume here are not the word of the Lord.
If they are not the word of the Lord, then what are “these things?”
What are “these things”
The Nephites were directly violating God’s commandment to have only one wife and no concubines. Note that in Jacob’s commentary in chapter 1 before his sermon he very specifically talks about that practice itself as being wicked:
“And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son.”
Jacob 1:15
What was wicked was not the Nephites “acting without authorization,” but the practice itself of desiring many wives and concubines. (Jacob 1:17)
Curiously, the Church changed the chapter heading of Jacob 2 in 2013. Prior to that date, the chapter heading said:
“Jacob denounces the love of riches, pride, and unchastity—Men may seek riches to help their fellow men—Jacob condemns the unauthorized practice of plural marriage—The Lord delights in the chastity of women. About 544–421 B.C.”
Those who made the edits removed the portion that said “unauthorized practice” and replaced it with this:
“Jacob denounces the love of riches, pride, and unchastity—Men may seek riches to help their fellowmen—The Lord commands that no man among the Nephites may have more than one wife—The Lord delights in the chastity of women. About 544–421 B.C.”
While that doesn’t prove anything, I thought it was interesting that they made the decision to alter just that part of the chapter heading.
In Jacob’s sermon, the words “which thing”, “the things”, “this thing” or “these things” and the negatives, the curses, or the condemnations that follow are revealing. Consider the following verses of the sermon and what is being referred to as “things.”
“And now, my brethren, do ye suppose that God justifieth you in this thing? Behold, I say unto you, Nay. But he condemneth you, and if ye persist in these things his judgments must speedily come unto you.” (Jacob 2:14)
Do you not suppose that such things are abominable unto him who created all flesh? (Jacob 2:21)
“But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.” (Jacob 2:23-24)
“For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands. (Jacob 2:30-31)
“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.” (Jacob 2:34)
If in every single instance, the phrase “these things” is referring to the wicked practices of the Nephites, namely, desiring many wives and concubines.
Wouldn’t it be consistent to understand that “these things” in verse 30 are referring to those same “wicked practices” as well? If not, why would there be an exception in this one verse?
I propose that hearkening unto “these things” and becoming cursed is the undesirable consequence of rejecting God’s command. This means that word otherwise (as a conjunctive adverb) is now consistent with all of the other examples in the Book of Mormon.
After the death of Sherem, Jacob noted a reversal of circumstances when they chose not to hearken to the words of wicked men and turned back to God.
And it came to pass that peace and the love of God was restored again among the people; and they searched the scriptures, and hearkened no more to the words of this wicked man.
Jacob 7:23
The curse
In Jacob 2 verse 29 we see the curse directly and clearly mentioned:
“Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.”
Jacob 2:29
Verse 30 is re-emphasizing verse 29 about keeping the commandments but adds a portion about raising up seed, meaning the “righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph” mentioned in verse 25.
The Lord shows that the effects of the curse are already among them by following “otherwise they shall hearken unto these things” and continuing to explain what “these things” are beginning with a “For behold…” and invoking the curse once again:
…otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. (vs.30) For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands. And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts. For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.
Jacob 2:31-33
Jacob observed that the Nephite men were:
“[indulging] themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son. Yea, and they also began to search much gold and silver, and began to be lifted up somewhat in pride.”
Jacob 1:15-16
Jacob must have had access to the book of Deuteronomy via the brass plates because it says there that the kings of Israel shall:
Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
Deuteronomy 17:17
Multiplying wives and gold, and silver, exactly what they were told not to do. Yet this is exactly what the Nephite men were doing, as were King Noah and his priests, and Riplakish the Jaredite king.
Doing these wicked practices caused their hearts to turn away, but this was not the only damage to hearts; just look what happened to the hearts of their women and children:
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.
Jacob 2:35
It has already been shown that the words of Lehi were accepted and taught as the word of the Lord, and the phrase “they shall hearken unto these things” may also be referencing strikingly similar language found in the writing of Jacob’s brother Nephi.
…they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.
2 Nephi 28:14
In this verse, we find a situation very similar to Jacob’s people. They are falling into error because they are not hearkening to the Lord, but rather to the precepts of men.
There were Nephite men justifying taking many wives and concubines for themselves because of what was written concerning David and Solomon.
They were not doing this to help increase the population, the Lord saw their hearts and said: “they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms…” (Jacob 2:23)
Compare that with this warning from Nephi’s words:
Yea, wo be unto him that hearkeneth unto the precepts of men…
2 Nephi 28:26
In the same chapter, just a few verses later, we actually see the word “curse” being associated with those that hearken unto the precepts of men.
Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men…
2 Nephi 28:31
Now see how well this fits in with Jacob’s sermon by looking at verses 29 and 30 together. Notice how the or and the otherwise join two ideas:
Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
Jacob 2:30
Mormon spoke more plainly about who you are really hearkening unto when you hearken unto the precepts of men:
O how foolish, and how vain, and how evil, and devilish, and how quick to do iniquity, and how slow to do good, are the children of men; yea, how quick to hearken unto the words of the evil one, and to set their hearts upon the vain things of the world!
Helaman 12:4
You are really only hearkening unto the commands of God or the words of the evil one, there’s no middle ground.
The Proposed Reinterpretation Compared
Let’s take one more look at the version that represents the traditional understanding of Jacob 2:30:
“If I will increase the number of children born unto me in the gospel covenant, I will command my people to take many wives and concubines; in other respects, they shall hearken unto these standing instructions.”
That is the meaning that is being read into the verse but with the evidence provided in this essay from the context of Jacob’s sermon, the Book of Mormon as a whole, and grammatical analysis, the Lord, in Jacob 2:30, is actually saying something closer to the effect of:
“For if it is my will to raise up unto me a righteous branch, I must command my people; otherwise, they shall hearken unto the words of the evil one.”
Especially today, when God is not the one in command of his people, consider all the things they choose to hearken unto instead.
I am not suggesting that there is any ill intent with the current interpretation. I cannot say why this current interpretation exists other than it has been passed down for so long that it has just become something that is casually accepted.
Meaning can be read into anything, a gesture, a shape, a symbol, etc. You can even do this with scripture, but what if the meaning is not supported by the grammar, word patterns, and internal context? What if instead, all of these things pointed to an entirely different meaning?
Ultimately, it is up to the reader to decide which interpretation best communicates the meaning of Jacob 2:30.
As I went through the process of trying to understand the meaning of this verse and it pulled me deeper into the message of Jacob, I discovered how important and timely his teachings are today.
The physical and virtual harems of the modern world
Is the problem of people having many wives and concubines widespread today? We may see it in practice among splinter groups in small populations but what if it was more widespread and in a different form?
What if there is a deeper problem stemming from the mindset that seeks after these things?
King Benjamin taught that: “The natural man is an enemy to God,” and he must be, “willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.” (Mosiah 3:19)
This is why God must command his people, he must protect them from the natural man and his precepts that are, “carnal, sensual, and devilish, by nature”. (Alma 42:10) because “Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men” (2 Nephi 28:31).
While the phrase “many wives and concubines” clearly refers to the practice of having more than one wife, the fact that concubines are always included raises some questions about how concubines are even relevant today.
Concubinage was practiced differently among the cultures of the world, and the concubine was always inferior to the wife. It was often entered into voluntarily but sometimes it involved sexual slavery. (source)
The evils of concubinage may have a modern parallel not only in cohabitation and fornication but in the realm of pornography and masturbation. C.S. Lewis once wrote a letter where he spoke of a harem of imaginary brides and the influence this has on the mind of a man.
For me the real evil of masturbation would be that it takes an appetite which, in lawful use, leads the individual out of himself to complete (and correct) his own personality in that of another (and finally in children and even grandchildren) and turns it back: sends the man back into the prison of himself, there to keep a harem of imaginary brides. And this harem, once admitted, works against his ever getting out and really uniting with a real woman. For the harem is always accessible, always subservient, calls for no sacrifices or adjustments, and can be endowed with erotic and psychological attractions which no real woman can rival. Among those shadowy brides he is always adored, always the perfect lover: no demand is made on his unselfishness, no mortification ever imposed on his vanity. In the end, they become merely the medium through which he increasingly adores himself…
Letter C. S. Lewis sent in 1956 to Keith Masson
While Lewis makes a compelling case for how destructive a virtual harem of women can be to a man, imagine what an actual harem does not only to the man but the women and children involved as well.
In the creation of pornography today, many men and women submit themselves to being photographed and recorded to become a kind of virtual concubine to an innumerable host of men who crave their images to satisfy their lustful urges.
Modern technology allows for the creation of virtual harems that make Solomon’s actual harem pale in comparison.
This becomes acted out as well in actual sexual slavery and human trafficking out there in the world where men, women, and children are held captive while being bought and sold to satisfy the appetites of the natural man.
These ancient and modern horrors of human behavior prove once more that without God to command his people, “they shall hearken unto these things” (Jacob 2:30) and bring curses upon every civilization that embraces them.
I’m reminded of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s words as he reflected on the unfathomable death and destruction he witnessed in his life and concluded:
But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.
What is more, the events of the Russian Revolution can only be understood now, at the end of the century, against the background of what has since occurred in the rest of the world. What emerges here is a process of universal significance. And if I were called upon to identify briefly the principal trait of the entire twentieth century, here too, I would be unable to find anything more precise and pithy than to repeat once again: Men have forgotten God.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, “Godlessness: the First Step to the Gulag”. Templeton Prize Lecture, 10 May 1983 (London)
In Jacob’s day, God pointed to the state of the women and children as the measure of how wicked the people have become.
One need only look to the women and children of today and compare them with those of the past.
Where the fruits of evil are present, a sore curse unto destruction isn’t far behind unless we begin again to remember God.
Additional Resources
I have noticed some interesting word patterns in Jacob’s sermon that center on verse 30. I’m not an expert in this area but my theory is that there are some Hebrew literary patterns intentionally formed to frame what I believe you could call a formal “covenant curse” from the Lord to his people through his servant, Jacob. It’s a work in progress but I think it is worth looking at because there seems to be a lot of things going on simultaneously in this sermon. Link to document
51 Comments
Wow – what a masterpiece! That took me a long time to read through. I still feel like I need to read it about five more times before I start to grasp the fullness of what you are saying. But I feel like sharing a couple reactions…
First of all, I agree with you a thousand and ten percent about the ofttimes misinterpreted meaning of Jacob 2:30. You have some great scholarly research here and it is presented in an organized and meaningful way. Simply put, it makes a lot of sense. It “feels” good spiritually, morally, ethically. If it means anything, I never interpreted Jacob 2:30 as a reason whereby the Lord would justify men to take wives and concubines. And remember that I read the Book of Mormon as an eighteen year-old with no filters or years of seminary and sacrament meeting talks to skew my mind one way or another. This is Jacob lamenting the practice of something that is egregious, sinful, and abominable. I’ve always seen the Book of Mormon prophet Jacob as an ancient day “Richard G. Scott,” constantly trying to move us to repentance into the safety of the arms of our Savior.
Whenever I study something of this magnitude, I tend to ask myself a lot of questions – sometimes difficult questions. In doing so, I try to collect all the things I know for sure, things I think I know, and those that still remain a mystery. With Jacob, we know that he had the records of the Nephites and that he was commanded to do as his brother did and record the most important spiritual insights on the small plates. Secondly, we know that there was limited space on the small plates. We also think we know that the language of the Nephites was probably not best suited for detailed explanation of spiritual truths, something in which the English or German language can do particularly well. So what now remains a mystery? Well, my mind naturally wants to know WHY the individual prophets emphasized what they emphasized during their time on the earth. I realize that they were commanded of the Lord to write certain things. But as the life of Joseph Smith clearly teaches, the greatest lessons from the Lord are learned as we go through working, learning, asking questions, etc… in our own lives. In other words, the Lord commands the prophets to write, but those writings grow out of the everyday experiences of imperfect, mortal individuals.
So let’s look deeper at the life of Jacob. Who is he? Where did he come from? What was his childhood like? HOW would these experiences shape him to be the prophet he was one day to become? Thereby hangs an interesting tale.
We know that Jacob and his brother Joseph were born “During the days of (Lehi’s) tribulations in the wilderness.” We are not told about any additional brothers or sisters that may have come forward. And most importantly, while we know Lehi fathered these and possibly other children at this stage in his life, we are not told who their mother is. We know that Sariah was probably an old woman at this time. I know there are plenty of examples in the scriptures of old, barren women giving birth to children, but what strikes me about these accounts is the special necessity of the particular child being brought forth, and the mission they would later have in life. Sarah gives birth to Isaac so Abraham’s seed may be as numerous as the sand of the seashore. Elizabeth gives birth to John the Baptist so he can set up the mortal ministry of Jesus Christ. In each of these cases, the old women in question gave birth to one child, and that child went on to serve a peculiar purpose in the Lord’s plan, (I use the word peculiar, because “special” or “important” seems superfluous, i.e. we’re all special, we all have a purpose and a mission). This is just my opinion, but I don’t think that Jacob in the Book of Mormon has one of these “peculiar” roles as did John or Issac, but I could be wrong.
So let’s postulate that Lehi, a prophet of God, a righteous man, did indeed have wives and/or concubines. Would that be so impossible to believe? I’m not saying that it’s true, I’m only suggesting it as a possibility. I’m sure I’m not the first one to think of this, but it’s at least worth considering. We know that David was a righteous man, mostly. We know that Lehi was a righteous man, mostly. We have at least one account of Lehi murmuring and falling short of the mark. But what interests me is the different accounts of “Lehi” we get. We get Nephi’s account of Lehi, largly in 1 Nephi. But then we get the older, more subdued, more holy, more tempered, wiser Lehi during his last years in the promised land. A lot of these words were spoken to Jacob, his “first born in the wilderness during (Lehi’s) days of affliction. We normally assume when Lehi talks about his “days of affliction in the wilderness” that he is referring to Laman, Lemuel, starvation, trial, etc… Now don’t get me wrong, that’s affliction with a capital A!!! But when we take a moment and step back, to what else might Lehi have been referring? Dare I say he might have had some misgivings of his own that he wasn’t too proud of? We know that at least by the time Jacob is mature, the Nephites are apparently still carrying out the practice of taking multiple wives and/or concubines in the promised land. It seems very logical to me that Lehi may be talking about the days of not just his physical afflictions in the wilderness, but also his spiritual tribulations during that time. Might he have been involved in practices that he knew the Lord looked down upon? When the Lord chastises Lehi for murmuring in 1 Nephi, is that ALL the Lord is chastising him for? It’s worth thinking about.
All fathers love their children, but a child born out of wedlock is a constant reminder of the mother that gave birth to him. We suddenly see this very repentant, sober Lehi in his very old age in the promised land that we don’t see before in 1 Nephi. I don’t think we notice that or talk about that enough in the church. Could that be a clue? I don’t know. I’m just throwing out ideas here. What is interesting to me though, is the relationship forged between Lehi and Jacob. I don’t know what it is, but just by reading the chapters that these two share with each other, you can tell there is something very very very special there between these two. It is clear that Lehi loves Jacob like unto Nephi. There is this tenderness there. I’ve felt that way since the first time I ever read the Book of Mormon. And isn’t it interesting that we get some of the purest, most wonderful doctrine in these chapters of 2 Nephi?
It is my belief that Jacob might have known about the practice of taking additional wives and/or concubines from familial experience. It’s something that he’s definitely passionate about, and probably bothered him from an early age. Why else would he talk about that one sin in particular at length? We tend to think, ponder, and dwell about the issues in life that “hit us” the hardest. If our fathers suffered from something, would that not be on our minds? I don’t know what type of father the people reading this right now had in life, but are we not ashamed of the bad, proud of the good – protective one way or the other? These are sacred, personal matters, but the point is that family problems hurt. Maybe Jacob grew up without a mother? Maybe he grew up not knowing just who his mother was? (Cue the Nephite Maury Povich Show). In any case, he is sensitive about this issue, and maybe the Lord raised him up at a time when this trend was evidently still rampant among the Nephites.
The gospel is chuck-full of paradoxes. You find them everywhere. This is healthy. This causes thinking to happen. I believe it is also one of the ways the Lord tests our faith, especially in times of trial. Plural marriage, as far as I can surmise, is reprehensible. It is morally wrong. It is a sin. I couldn’t even begin to think of myself participating in such an act. I don’t care what the doctrine of the church states, that’s how I feel in my heart, and I don’t think you could ever change my mind on the issue. BUT. There is obviously a higher law, something that we cannot understand right now. And God has indeed instituted it among the children of men for His own purposes. And whenever it has been introduced by God, the trials have always been the greatest for those who have been asked to do it – not just the “seed bearers” but the wives, children, etc… There are stories that are almost too much to take. The fact that Joseph Smith probably knew about it for at least 10 to 12 years before he introduced it. What kind of burden to live with!!! The story of Heber C. Kimball and others. Brigham Young. These people gave their lives in the highest form of consecration possible, and it’s hard to think about how they did it. But just as it is in D&C 132, and just as plural marriage was in force in the early church, men can still be sealed to more than one wife in the temple – and that should teach us that although it is something we cannot understand now, it seems to be part of the celestial law in heaven which the righteous will one day abide.
Great stuff, Richard. The theory that Lehi had more than one wife or some concubines is a curious one. Sariah is the only woman mentioned as his wife and there isn’t any hint of concubines in the text. The fact that Lehi was given a commandment that they should have only one wife is significant. It is also significant to note that the Lord says in Jacob 2 that this problem was among the people at Jerusalem and in all the lands of his people. It could have been that polygamy was one of the very things Lehi was testifying against in his preaching. We don’t know when the commandment was given to Lehi, that might have been in the lost book of Lehi. With only one wife attributed to Lehi, and a commandment of monogamy given to him, I’m not sure it is fair to suspect him of polygamy when he perhaps above all others would be the last person you might suspect. It is rare to see a wife of a prophet in the Book of Mormon mentioned and it is even rarer to have evidence that this specific prophet was specifically told to only have one wife. For those reasons I think he is probably the MOST monogamous candidate in the Book of Mormon with maybe Jacob being in second place ;)
Jacob was a special guy, there’s no doubt. He seemed very loyal to Nephi and his father and I think he took very seriously the commandments that they were given. I think that is the source of his passion, I don’t think it requires him to see his father as a polygamist, that’s a bit of a stretch.
I am suspect about Joseph being the source of polygamy among the Latter-day Saints. I can’t get into it here but I remain unconvinced the more I learn about it. While it certainly was a huge trial for the Latter-day Saints, it was a huge trial for the Nephite women and children as well and I’m sure faithfulness all around was rewarded. I do not have any solid ground to land on concerning polygamy as practiced by the Saints, but the Book of Mormon is very solid for me. I’m confident that we’ll know more about this in the future, as for now I can thankfully ignore it because I do find it reprehensible as well.
Where is the reference stating that Lehi is commanded to only take one wife? Or are you saying this may be in the Book of Lehi? Just curious. You have great points about the possible monogamous life of Lehi, especially the fact that only one wife is mentioned.
One thing that has always fascinated me about scripture, (or anything for that matter), is what is purposefully (or not purposefully) left out. The reading in-between the lines based on all the clues we have, not just from scripture itself, but also from history and culture. These are where the mysteries lie.
Why doesn’t the Gospel of John mention Christ in the Garden? I have my own theories. Or, why does Paul’s 2nd missionary journey look like a backwards maze? Or, when it says Moroni was completely alone at the end of the Book of Mormon, was he alone with his extended family? His Wife? Any relatives? Any cool stories of chillin’ with some apostate Lamanaties or getting chased by hungry grizzly bears? That’s a long, lonely walk from Manti to Palmyra.
What interests me the most are your thoughts on Joseph Smith and polygamy. I agree with you that Joseph was definitely not the source of polygamy among the Latter-day Saints, but I do think it was through Joseph that God re-instituted this practice, (for whatever reason). I think the historicity of the several accounts we have are credible and accurate. I’d love to hear your thoughts at length, if not here, then in a private email. Or maybe you can tell them to me in person one day. I don’t know if I can agree with you on this, but I’m VERY interested to hear what you have to say – I totally respect your stance!
The references for Lehi are Jacob 2:27 “For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;” to verse 34 “ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi;” and more especially, Jacob 3:5 “for 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,”
I wouldn’t refer to Lehi as “possibly” monogamous since he was given a commandment concerning having only one wife and only one wife is ever mentioned. The idea that he was polygamous is unsupported by the text and I would say that it is a huge stretch to consider otherwise.
You’re right about things being left out, it is impossible to record every single instance. However, when you consider how many events happen every moment among thousands and millions of people over the course of say, 1000 years, what is left out is far less significant that what is chosen to be preserved and passed down.
Wives aren’t mentioned much in scripture, but occasionally they are. Families are sometimes mentioned but usually only the sons. Mosiah’s and Alma’s sons and descendants are mentioned quite a bit. Not sure why the scriptures lean male.
My thoughts on Joseph Smith, the early church, and polygamy entertain several possibly theories. The history here is extremely complex and I do not wish to get into it. There is so much more to research and that will take time since I do not spend much time on the subject. I just collect pieces here and there as I find them while occasionally dipping deeper. That’s how I study most subjects, it’s like growing a garden, I don’t demand all the answers at once, I let them come to me with a little proactive watering and fertilizing to nudge things along.
Sorry to come very late to this fantastic article, which is very thorough and loaded with insights.
From my understanding of the Old Testament, God tolerated some cultural norms that were part of their time, including polygamy and slavery, but God’s toleration doesn’t make these cultural practices part of His eternal plan. For women, these twin relics of an ancient culture–polygamy and slavery–seemed to go hand in hand. While women were not alone in being slaves, their role as property uniquely included being sometimes given to men such as Hagar, Sarah’s handmaid. Just because it happened in the old testament doesn’t make it something God is pleased with. Elder Packer said, “Do not suppose God willfully causes that which for His own purposes He permits.”
Super fascinating, Steve! Unless I missed it, there’s no paraphrase of Jacob 2:30 here based on all this, and I think that might be useful. Here’s what I got out of it overall, though my wording here is very clumsy: “The Lord says, In order to be spiritually converted to me, people must accept me as their leader; or else they’ll find themselves making these mistakes and be cursed.” Feel free to improve it. Thanks!
Thanks, you are correct, that is needed. What I posted here was basically a long list of notes. I have actually distilled most of this down to a much more concise and easier to understand narrative ending with a paraphrase based on some additional evidence from Nephi’s words. I am planning on a major revision of this post soon.
Your own summary is very much on point, it can be expressed in a few different ways but you’ve definitely captured the spirit of it and in a way that speaks to modern man. I appreciate your feedback and I enjoy your blog quite a bit.
I have posted the update, the entire thing has been restructured and reorganized and features your suggestion. Let me know what you think.
Hi. I am trying to find your update you mentioned here. Could you possibly post the link to it? I am new to your site and love it. Thank you! Teri
Hi Teri, sorry if that wasn’t clear. What I meant is that I had updated the whole essay, note that this was back in 2017. I recently made another major update just a couple of months ago.
Here are my thoughts on the subject of plural marriage as stated and implied in the scriptures.
1. Satan creates no new doctrines. He only twists and perverts what God Himself establishes and creates. Therefore, the single subject of Plural Marriage can be divided two ways. Plural Marriage as approved by God, and Concubines as defined by Satan to oppose the True Doctrine. One based on true needs to fulfill the requirements of Exaltation & Eternal Marriage, and one to mimic taking on many wives to satisfying the lusts of the flesh. So it comes to the motives for which this is being practiced.
2. The House of Israel was built upon 4 wives. Can Good Fruit come from a bad tree ? Where did the Lord tell Jacob to get rid of, or not partake in those 4 wives ?
3. Abraham followed Sarah’s desire to bear children through Hagar. Yet the fruit of that tree, was something that God approved of Sarah’s desire to eventually reject that marriage and child. Bad fruit from a bad tree…Or should I say a lesser tree than Sarah.
4. The requirement of Exaltation requires the need for Celestial marriage. I’m pretty sure there will not be an equal number of men available to worthy women when it comes to fulfilling those requirements.
5. The word “concubine” has always been associated with many wives as it applied to Solomon and David taking on wives that God did not approve of. All because it involved lusts of the flesh.
1. Agreed, there’s nothing new under the sun. Plural marriage is a very complex subject which I why I haven’t addressed it in any post, I’m only looking at the proper interpretation of a single verse.
2. The House of Jacob was built on the Abrahamic covenant, not plural marriage. Jacob did not have 4 wives, he had 2 wives and there were 2 handmaids that became used as concubines. It’s true that the Lord did not tell him to get rid of the additional wife and the two concubines. I would ask a similar question, “Where did the Lord tell Jacob to take an extra wife and to have children with their handmaids to whom he was not married?”
3. In the account of Abram, Sarai, and Hagar, we don’t see God approving of their actions, but we do see him work with the situation. He blesses Hagar, she isn’t cast aside and I like that aspect of the account. I wouldn’t call these people “bad trees” or “good trees” they were people, and like us, they made mistakes and did many great things as well. It gives me a great deal of hope when I see God working through imperfect vessels and showing that even if we jump the gun and cause some chaos, that God is able to work with us for the good. That is one of many things I pull from this story.
4. “Pretty sure” sounds like a guess, and delves into assumptions about the afterlife that have no basis in any revealed doctrine. I’ve heard this argument made many times and for most people this makes a kind of sense. However, we have no idea what that situation will be like and I think that mentality gets us into the same problem that Abram and Sarai got into. Although God promised them seed, and they patiently waited for a time, they eventually lost that patience due to their increasing age, Abram being 86 years old at the time. Sarai decided to propose a solution and that was for Abram to have intercourse with her handmaid. Well, little did they know, God had other plans which were revealed years later when Abram was 99 years old: “But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at THIS SET TIME in the next year.” Sarah laughs at this and the Lord responds: “Is any thing too hard for the Lord? At THE TIME APPOINTED I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.” Sarah then denies laughing to which the Lord replies, “Nay; but thou didst laugh.” My point here is that instead of waiting on the Lord to fulfill his promise, Sarai tried to propose her own solution and Abram agreed to it without any indication that he even asked the Lord about this, they make a conclusion based on an assumption that this child couldn’t come through Sarai because it was physically impossible. We must remember the words, “Is anything too hard for the Lord?” before we go assuming that polygamy HAS to be necessary because there will PROBABLY be more women than men in the next life. We simply don’t know all the details except that we are promised that nobody will miss out on any blessings. I’m going to wait and see on that one.
5. The practice of having concubines is evil. A concubine is a woman that doesn’t hold the same status as a wife, although she may be a secondary wife, she’s usually a woman used solely to pleasure a man or to bear him children. This is adultery, no matter how you cut it. Having sex with women that you are not married to such as Hagar, Zilpah or Bilhah. You suggest that the word “concubine” has “ALWAYS been associated with many wives as it applied to David and Solomon taking on wives that God did not approve of,” But do you have references for this claim and that it has “always” been clearly understood as you suggest? In the Book of Mormon, God does not make any distinctions between a concubine or a wife, they are always mentioned in conjunction: “many wives and concubines.” As for David and Solomon God condemns both: “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.” What “thing” is that? Having many wives and concubines. Well maybe many wives is ok, but concubines aren’t? Nope: “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;”
Now you might be wondering, as I have for many years, why David and Solomon had so many wives when the practice was clearly condemned in Deuteronomy 17:17. Well, I have had an email exchange with someone who has been researching this very issue and they shared some really interesting information from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
I’ll try and sum up the best I can. The writings suggest that David did not know about these commandments in Deuteronomy because the law was lost for hundreds of years. It isn’t discovered again until after David and Solomon by a high priest named Hilkiah. Here is a quote from the scrolls:
“…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 revealed until the appearance of Zadok…” (https://books.google.com/books?id=218JbeU2POgC&pg=PA56#v=onepage&q&f=false)
This text argues that without Deuteronomy, how could David or Solomon have known this law? You can read about the rediscovery of the law in 2 Kings 22:8-11. This raises some interesting questions and adds more layers of intrigue to this story. We simply don’t have all the information on these events and that makes it really hard to understand.
While I realize that my tone here challenges the position of polygamy, I’m merely trying to illustrate some other ways in which these events can be seen. I don’t believe they are as neat, cut and dry as we sometimes make them out.
As for the polygamy practiced in the early church officially for 38 or so years, I have many theories but nothing I can hang my hat on. The subject is very intricate and takes years of study to even begin to wrap your mind around. It is not at all clear, there are contradictions and serious questions that remain unanswered. So for this reason, I have not posted anything on that specific subject on this blog – ever. The subject deserves careful consideration and a great deal of research and although I’m fairly well-red on the subject, I don’t have any conclusions to share.
My point in this post is not to attack or defend polygamy, only to try and understand what this verse is actually saying and I don’t think the current interpretation is correct. This causes us to see only the polygamy exception in this sermon and pass over the point it is actually making which I think is tragic, especially when the world suffers so much from these same issues.
There may be polygamy in the next life, there may be a valid reason behind early LDS polygamy. I’m not attacking any of those things here. I will question the interpretations being read into Biblical accounts though, and that is all I am doing here.
Actually, after Sarah dies Abraham takes another couple of wives.
Only Keturah
1. Joseph Smith himself had a revelation that “Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of men: and some revelations are of the devil.” Read it here from a firsthand witness: http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/address3.htm
Clearly the devil can deceive men through false revelations.
Regarding points 2 and 3:
2. What was the fruit of Jacob’s polygamy? Extreme jealousy among the brothers, and attempted murder to name a couple. Does God immediately reprimand you every time you sin? No, He let’s you make your own choices, good or bad, and you face the consequences. As a side note, Jesus came from Judah, who was the son of Jacob’s first wife, even though Rachel was his favorite.
3. Abraham’s polygamy resulted in generations of warring nations that still persist today and it ultimately resulted in the establishment of Islam. I don’t think God intended for this to happen. However, he let’s man make their own choices because we have free will, and because of this we face the consequences.
As far as Lehi being given the commandment for them to take on only one wife as a result of the malpractice of Plural marriage being performed back in the Holy Land, it places them in a frame of reference to which they were already familiar with as being an abomination before God. If the need was currently not something required of Lehi and His small following, then why practice it ? To do it for any other reason, would be to repeat the abomination the people of the Old Testament were performing for the sake of satisfying the lusts of their flesh.
When the subject is further mentioned later in the BOM, it was obvious that they had acquired the same old lusts of the flesh that their fathers of the Bible had grown accustomed to. It would seem to me that True Plural marriage could ONLY be found among God’s People ONLY when they were of a Higher Spiritual caliber, like Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob, and ONLY when it becomes necessary.
Excellent article! I’ve read it maybe three times now and each time I’m blown away by the incredibly well thought out information you have gathered.
Every so often the thought and subject of polygamy arises which I discuss with people close to me in particular my husband. One day while feeling despair on the topic he brought to light a somewhat similar RE interpretation of Jacob verse 30 which intrigued me. I went online and did some searching and came across this article which left me pretty stunned. What a wonderful feeling of hope rather than despair that filled me! If Jacob chapter 2:30 is indeed misinterpreted, we have some possibly huge misunderstandings with in the church.
I love the leaders of the church and the church itself I just have come to terms with the POSSIBILITY of potential incorrect doctrines inherited by our for fathers.
I’d like to get links to any articles or videos you have on polygamy also.
Thank you for taking time to write your research and thoughts down. It has brought hope and peace into my life and greater knowledge :)
Praise God. This is a powerful clarification. Thank you for your instrumentality. I pray you may continue to offer your gifts of insight in humility.
Nicely done. A solid contribution.
Of course, the “imaginary harems” also exist in the minds of Mormon men who don’t consume porn. I’ve met several, especially of the older generation, who actively contemplate how many wives they will have in their “kingdom” in the next life according to their self-inventory of their standing before the Lord. I suspect they will be very surprised when they get to heaven and discover their secret desires disqualify them from having even one wife.
I’m sure you have seen this; the author reaches similar conclusions:
http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleCasslerPolygamy.html
I haven’t seen the Square Two article yet, I’ll have to give it a read.
Your comment about the imaginary harems in the minds of people who contemplate the next life seems valid to me. I cannot think of how such desires can be anything but selfish on the part of any man. It seems to completely contradict the idea that you should “cleave unto your wife and none else.” How would any man feel if their wife contemplated an afterlife where she would have many husbands and enjoy an intimate relationship with all of them?
Maybe I’m missing some additional information but I’m still waiting for someone to enlighten me on that respect. The concept of polygamy continues to bear no fruit in my mind.
Yes, my own husband had been taught as a convert that we would all practice polygamy in the next life. This old mindset just serves to perpetuate the idea that women are not as fully human as men, which justifies all sorts of inequitable treatment. About 2 months after we were married, God gave my husband a powerful dream in which I was married to both him and his brother. It was so realistic that he woke up in a cold sweat and he said to me, “Now I know from the Lord what the truth is. There is no way there is polygamy in heaven.” He had to really feel for himself before he could acknowledge the old mindset was false.
This is so brilliant that I am speechless. I have heard this idea before but never have I seen it examined and explained so convincingly. The implications of the idea that this scripture has been misinterpreted and misapplied through official church channels are sobering.
Thanks for your feedback. Honestly, it’s such a small verse and the wording is very unique. I don’t believe that very many people have given it any kind of deep examination. I think that the original interpretation was thrown out there and simply accepted. In doing my own research I was surprised to find that there was practically nothing written about the meaning of that verse and I found that kind of astonishing. It was just month after month and year after year of finding little clues here and there until it all started to come together. I just want to understand the meaning of the first independent of the wider subject of polygamy. I am very confident that verse 30 isn’t talking about polygamy at all. And the people that have disagreed with me never want to address any of my points especially the meaning of the phrase “raise up seed unto me.” I’m certainly open to criticism and invite the wisdom of others on the subject.
Thank you.
My wife and I had studied, pondered, and prayed about this topic and specifically Jacob 2:30. The topic of doctrinal polygamy has never say well with either of our hearts. I had taken to intense prayer and supplication of this matter after my wife was quite distraught spiritually because of the insistence by certain people that polygamy was a correct principle. After study and prayer I came to the same conclusion and immediately told her my impressions. We prayed together for confirmation of my impressions and within an hour or so we came upon this blog. I believe you are 100% correct in your research. We both find it quite encouraging to have found a study that quite expertly is put into word what I had attempted to convey to my wife with only my novice level command of the English language.
Let me clarify, I came to the same conclusion as your study.
*never sat well
Thank you for sharing that experience. That’s good that you took your concerns to the Lord. You’re going to get a lot of different opinions from different people but ultimately seeking light from the source will bring you to a peaceful understanding. I still don’t have all of the answers that I would like on this subject, I think there are still many puzzle pieces missing. While we may not have all the answers, we trust in the God of light and truth. I do believe that His designs will bring us joy in that day when we shall see eye to eye.
My first wife and I were sealed and when she passed away I was sealed to a Friend of hers.
She and I have been carefully trying to figure out what the sealing ordinance really means.
For sure it is not polygamy.
However, I have always gained great comfort and peace from the concept of having some type of permanent connection to my first wife.
We do not know much about life after death.
Over the years of Reseach on sealing I have come to the conclusion that Joseph’s polygamy was a mistake.
Eventually the church will realize this and reject the concept.
Sealing ? Multiple sealings? Big question
I know that women who have lost their first husband and married again have felt as much of a bind to their 2nd as to 1st.
Perhaps the broader concept of sealing is to view it as primarily a joint connection with Christ and perhaps multiple connections with others but always with Christ instead of just one.
There are probably much more efficient ways of replicating than hormonal make/female sex.
Perhaps even sealing possibilities between two men and Christ or two women and Christ.
Monogamy on earth Multiple sealing connections in heaven but always in combination with Christ?
When you read about sealing in the scriptures you see this idea of putting things together in a permanent configuration. Things can be unsealed as well, but it seems that the purpose of all these things is to bring intelligences into alignment with God’s will.
People marrying again after the death of a spouse has been common all throughout history. I don’t have an answer for how that will work on the other side. Doctrinally, the union of male and female in marriage has an eternal purpose.
Procreation is not just a mortal experience. When Jesus resurrected, he had eyes to see, ears to hear, a voice to speak, hands to feel, and was alive and functional in likely every way. One of the most profound miracles about the resurrection is the idea that the corporeal form, along with its functions, is part of the afterlife.
The earth was created for marriage to occur. Marriage creates a complete eternal being out of a man and woman. Nowhere in this language do we see multiples (except for D&C 132) we see ONE man and ONE woman repeatedly.
“And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man. Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation; And that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made.” (D&C 49:15-17)
While having multiple spouses seems to solve some of these issues, especially remarrying after the death of a spouse, it is working under the assumption that we know enough about the afterlife to come to that conclusion. I think that is a mistake to assume, but if you believe in D&C 132 then it seems perfectly reasonable.
Personally, I don’t find D&C 132 to be reliable for numerous reasons.
The church rejecting the concept of plural marriage is surrounded by major issues. First, it was taught that plural marriage was essential for exaltation. Post-manifesto, that ‘doctrine’ was done away with. The church has distanced itself from that practice ever since while still affirming it as DOCTRINE due to D&C 132.
At least with the priesthood ban, it was explained to be a “POLICY” based on scripture inferences. It was always known that this would end at some point, not that it was part of the eternal structure of heaven.
Polygamy is woven in much, much deeper. While many would be relieved to have it expunged, it would raise some serious questions about the trustworthiness of other doctrines. People would feel lied to, they would wonder what took so long and there had better be a good explanation.
The other issue is that you’d be removing D&C 132 entirely. I do think that it is likely that the first half of D&C 132 is authentic but it has been added to. But what is or is not authentic? How much of the revelation do you keep? Do we now go back and examine all the sections and revise them? Maybe that’s a good idea, maybe not, and could it even be done?
Maybe there is some truth to polygamy in the eternal realms but it was executed poorly in mortality. Maybe there are other explanations that haven’t been revealed yet and we are just in a holding pattern.
We do know that there is still a lot to be revealed. The best we can do is live by what we know and have. All who have law will be judged by that law, Joseph Smith wrote.
For now, polygamy is an offense that would get you excommunicated from the church. In that sense, we are in line with the Book of Mormon. I think that’s going to have to be good enough for now until the Lord sees fit to give us more light on the issue.
The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that: “As the Holy Ghost falls upon one of the literal seed of Abraham, it is calm and serene; and his whole soul and body are only exercised by the pure spirit of intelligence; while the effect of the Holy Ghost upon a Gentile, is to purge out the old blood, and make him actually of the seed of Abraham. That man that has none of the blood of Abraham (naturally) must have a new creation by the Holy Ghost.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pages 149-150)
It is the reception of the Holy Ghost that makes us Abraham’s (and Aaron’s) literal seed. The reception of the Holy Ghost (different than the necessary formality of confirmation) is a spiritual rebirth.
To “raise up seed” has less to do, in my mind, with providing mortal tabernacles, and more to do with the refinement process of those who are born again. Being born again is a literal “raising up” of Abraham’s seed; of being called, then elected, then having that calling and election made sure. And according to Christ, those who become “his seed” will “do the works of Abraham”.
Polygamy has only been practiced by a small percentage of people because it is only a small percentage of people who are willing to do “all that the Lord commands”. Those who are willing are given opportunities to prove it, and to be refined by the Lord.
As a woman, I see the principle of Polygamy as an opportunity to overcome many less than Christlike attributes. Jealousy is rooted in fear and fear must be rooted out. Rarely does God change our natures without providing a difficulty to do so. Joseph described himself as “… a huge, rough stone rolling down from a high mountain” and the only polishing [he got] was when some corner [got rubbed off] by coming in contact with something else, striking with accelerated force… He “thus [became] a smooth and polished shaft in the quiver of the Almighty” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 304).
Not everyone handles these “opportunities” well. But even less are willing to commit to the growth process at all. I do find it curious that one can acknowledge that wives and concubines are an “abomination” on one hand, but then rationalize that the Lord was some how pleased with Abraham (an alledged adulterer?) who “jumped the gun” by complying with his faithless wife. This prophet (along with his covenant wife) was declared the PARENT of nations. In him are all the families of the earth to be blessed!
King Saul “jumped the gun” and offered sacrifices to the Lord without proper authority, and the Lord rejected him as King. The prophet David, who was called to replace him, was equally rejected because he took a wife that the prophet Nathan did not authorize. Notice that it wasn’t the WIVES that God had given him that were the problem:
2 Samuel 17: “…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.
9 Wherefore hast thou adespised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast bkilled cUriah the Hittite…and hast taken his dwife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house;
This is consistent with (the rejected?) D&C 132: 39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.
We find evidence of Polygamy in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Not only could Jacob be appropriately understood to speak of an exception to the one man and one woman rule, but Nephi quoted Isaiah when he speaks of this principle being re-restored in the “Millennial Day”:
2 Nephi 14:1And in that day, seven women shall take hold of one man, saying: We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel; only let us be called by thy name to take away our reproach. (See also Isaiah 4).
When I hear the phrase “wrest the scriptures” I understand this to mean that one can draw conclusions that suit him through “great difficulty, by pulling or twisting.” It means “to force or gain by determined labor.” It appears that some are willing to excise D&C 132 all together from Holy writ.
I don’t know your heart, but I FEEL that this article wrests the verse at hand. It actually hurts my brain to try to follow your thinking, especially given the multitude of evidence we have in favor of this principle, both biblically and restoratively. The truth is simple.
The truth is plain. And I have a strong witness that polygamy is a holy principle. We mustn’t bend God’s ways to ours, but ours to His.
I agree with you on the “seed” aspect you mentioned. You talked a lot about polygamy but you’ll notice that any discussion of polygamy is entirely out of the scope of this essay.
The whole purpose is the meaning of the verse which I demonstrate with numerous thorough examples. My purpose is an accurate understanding. If you ask me, the official interpretation IS wresting the scripture because it makes no sense in the context of the sermon and you have to distort the meaning of other scriptures which I provide many objective examples.
If you disagree with any specific point, take one at a time and let me know. I’m happy to get feedback and correct errors, but an error would need to be demonstrated.
I know it is a paradigm shift, it took me years to see it clearly as new insights dropped. So I don’t blame you for feeling dizzy about it.
But, please, if I am specifically wresting the scriptures, please tell me where.
These are the words of Joseph Smith himself.
Gems of Joseph Smith.
A Compendium of the doctrines of the Gospel Franklin D. Richards and James A. Little, compilers and publishers 1884
Plurality of Wives —October 5, 1843. ” Gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching, teaching, or practising the
doctrine of plurality of wives; for, according to the law. I “hold the keys of this power in the last days ; for there is never but one on earth at a time on whom the power and its keys are conferred; and I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord directs otherwise.”
Same as Jacob 2:30
These are the words of Joseph Smith himself.
Gems of Joseph Smith. A Compendium of the doctrines of the Gospel Franklin D. Richards and James A. Little, compilers and publishers 1884
Plurality of Wives —October 5, 1843. ” Gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching, teaching, or practising the
doctrine of plurality of wives; for, according to the law. I “hold the keys of this power in the last days ; for there is never but one on earth at a time on whom the power and its keys are conferred; and I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord directs otherwise.”
This is clearly taught in both Jacob 2:30 and D&C 132.
Well, I’m going to kindly push back a little with the information you provided here. You are quoting a revised version of the original journal entry that originally read:
“Evening, at home, and walked up and down Streets with my scribe. Gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives; on this law Joseph forbids it and the practice thereof. No man shall have but one wife”
You can read it for yourself here in the actual journal. This particular entry has the words “to be revised” written in pencil and then someone drew a line through “on this law Joseph forbids it and the practice thereof” and then a completely different set of handwriting fills in additional details that were not in the original journal.
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-draft-1-march-31-december-1843/143
It is unknown who did this, and it appears that you also might have been unaware that this entry was edited in this manner to claim the exact opposite of what it originally said. So I don’t accept the edits as being comparable to the Book of Mormon text itself and all the evidence I have provided.
Several people have said that I’m wrong without providing any evidence that I’m wrong and then get into a discussion about polygamy. I say at the beginning of this essay that my purpose is not to prove or disprove polygamy, but that it is simply about rendering a clear understanding of what Jacob 2:30 is saying and it is quite clear.
I am claiming that the current interpretation is wrong and I have provided evidence to back up my claim.
I’m going to make the same challenge to you as I have made to many others. If you think I have made an error in anything I have written in this essay, please specifically demonstrate to me where I am wrong. If I’m wrong, it should be easy to point it out and refute it. If I’m in error here and you clearly see why then I would say that it is your duty to correct me instead of allowing incorrect information to stand unchallenged. I mean that sincerely, it’s why I have an open comments section where I invite and allow critical comments.
I am NOT closed off to challenges. I realize what I am claiming is controversial but unless anyone can prove me otherwise, what I have written must be accurate in that the correct way to read Jacob 2:30 is not a loophole for taking many wives and concubines but instead:
“For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph (Jacob 2:25), I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto the precepts of men (2 Nephi 28:31) and I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction.”
It’s been nearly 5 years since I published this and not a single person has taken me up on this. Will you be the one?
I’m really struggling with your web site today!😂 I accidentally posted this somewhere else. Feel free to delete my double post and my misplaced one.
Anyway, as I was saying…
I wasn’t aware of the revision. Mark Hoffman put out a lot of forged documents. They admit they haven’t found them all. I’m glad you’ve brought it to my attention, though. It explains a lot. It gives me a better understanding as to why there is so much animosity towards Brigham Young, D&C 132 and the principle of Polygamy (which most definitely is not outside the scope of this verse).
Why did you even feel the need to “reinterpret” this verse if it’s not for the fact that it “indicates an exception to that [monogomous] rule”?
As far as your challenge goes, I already addressed my specific issues with your post and I did it directly with scripture. Unless you have an aversion to polygamy, and are willing to wrest scripture in the Book of Mormon, the D&C and the Bible to destroy belief in this principle, what purpose could there even be in your revisionary effort? Your “final verse” literally reads like nonsense. But it will likely be a satisfactory change for those who do not love the truth.
If we accept the principle of polygamy as it has been taught and practiced by prophets throughout history, there is no need to “reinterpret” this verse or dissect the mind labyrinth you walked through to do it.😁
Anyway, I usually really like what you write. I like that you’re a thinker. But the whole PREMISE of your reinterpretation is that polygamy cannot possibly be an exception to the rule. Polygamy is NOT “entirely out of the scope of this essay”. It’s the whole reason you wrote it.
You can make the case that polygamy is an exception to the rule but what I am demonstrating is that this is not what Jacob 2:30 is saying. The larger discussion of polygamy itself is not addresed here, nor can it be.
I didn’t want this essay to be about either attacking or defending polygamy. I realize that what I am showing here doesn’t “support” polygamy but I don’t think we should be using any verse to try and prove something that it doesn’t.
I have done the same thing with many other verses of scripture like this one: https://oneclimbs.com/2013/07/18/what-does-saved-by-grace-after-all-we-can-do-mean/ and many others along with various phrases and things we say to prove points and their premises are incorrect.
By examining this verse, I’m doing nothing more than I’ve done dozens of other times. I dig deep to understand what the scripture says and try to remove any bias I might have and see what the meaning is using an understanding of Hebrew literary patterns, internal consistency, and the English words and grammar that are chosen to translate the text.
Honestly, this was a big paradigm shift for me. It took a long time before all the pieces came together and I wasn’t pushing super hard to get to this point, little pieces of the puzzle just kind of trickled in overtime until I had enough info to understand how it all fits together. Once I saw it, then it just became obvious.
Haha, I noticed that and replied to you there only to find out you corrected that and reposted here. I removed the other post and moved my reply here.
It’s possible that Hoffman’s forgeries are still out there and unknown, but as I understand it this particular document predates Hoffman and has been in the hands of the church since the beginning.
Knowlege if these edits are not commonly know among members and it is possible that people other than Brigham were responsible for these edits. Why there is animosity towards Brigham is a big topic that couldn’t possibly be touched in a comment. Personally, I’m not one to throw ol’ Brigham under the bus for everything, I don’t get into all of that. I’ve posted here many wonderful things he taught and said and am not seeking to disparage anyone with this or any other post.
Why I decided to reinterpret the verse is a good question, one that I actually addressed at the beginning of the essay and, no offense, but I am wondering if you actually took the time to read the entire thing. Four paragraphs in is the section titled “Why try and reinterpret this particular verse?” where I answer your question. If you want to dig deeper that what I have provided, you can feel free to ask me. If you’d like to hop on a phone call and talk to me, we can arrage that as well, I enjoy this subject and exploring it with people.
Reading scripture accurately is the goal, and the current interpretation being used cannot be supported by the text itself, in fact, it contradicts it. If polygamy is a correct principle, then we don’t need to be forcing meanings on verses to prove it. If we are not interpreting a verse correctly, wouldn’t that be important to know? Will critics of the church not use that to their advantage?
You say my explanation of the verse is nonsense, but isn’t claiming that the phrase “raise up seed” means “increase the number of children born [by men marrying and impregnating many women] in the gospel covenant” odd when that wasn’t even the excuse the Nephites were using to justify taking many wives and concubines?
Here’s a challenge if you chose to accept it. I think that the meaning of the verse heavily hinges on understanding what the phrase “raise up seed” means. I spend a lot of time on this and use verse 25 and 1 Nephi 7:1-2 along with some other verses to show exactly what it means and it has nothing to do with wives or concubines or population increase.
Can you point out specifically where I am in error and that “raise up seed” means “increase the number of children born [by men marrying and impregnating many women] in the gospel covenant” and how in the Book of Mormon that can be supported?
We’ve already seen that God ALREADY commanded Lehi to “raise up seed” but under monongamy: “..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, Jacob 2:27,34 and Jacob 4:5-6).
This is the same Lord who spoke to Jacob and to his father Lehi. If you can raise up seed under the command of monogamy, why would it mean polygamy in this verse? What does raise up seed mean?
Well, just look at a couple of verses before in 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.” This is more specific.
What do you think?
I did read your reasoning for reinterpreting the verse. But when you say, “Honestly, the traditional interpretation never sat quite right with me”, I take from this that you already do have an issue with polygamy (despite your insistence that you’re neutral). And if you aren’t coming at this verse from a biased position, why even bother? If it’s the sheer “awkwardness” of the verse, please step back and compare it to your current verse. It got A LOT more awkward! haha
I understand that you didn’t want the essay to come across as “attacking polygamy”, but there appears to be an obvious preference from the outset that you would LIKE this verse to say something different than what is traditionally understood. And even though you want to disassociate this verse from any discussion of polygamy, you are in fact negating evidence for a principle “that never sat right”. You even suggest in your essay that it’s a “practice never instituted by God in the Bible or Book of Mormon”, which is easily refuted (see 2 Samuel 17:8-10, Abraham 25, D&C 132:39, Isaiah 4, 2 Nephi 14:1…there are more). I think you have more bias than you’re willing to admit.
We all have bias, really. It’s ok. I see the scriptures through the lens of what I already believe. For example, I already know polygamy to be a true principle (by study and faith). So when I come across anything that undermines it, I can immediately see that something is wrong. Approaching scripture exclusively from a literary or academic standpoint could be helpful in ways, but unless we are also learning truth by faith, or through the Spirit, we aren’t going to have the kind of discernment that only God can impart. Elder McConkie knew, for example, that at least one of Mark Hoffman’s documents was a forgery because, he said, he “knew the prophet Joseph Smith”. People mocked Elder McConkie, until the truth came out. Because of his love for the truth, he detected a lie that the nation’s top forgery experts never could.
“And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.”—Moroni 10:5. The Spirit works through the intellect, but also through the heart. If our hearts aren’t pure, and we aren’t willing to receive all truth, our minds can be deceived. Polygamy is a hard doctrine and most people will grab onto anything that refutes it.
Regardless, I am happy to re-address the phrase “raise up seed”. I’ll try to say it in a little different way so that you understand that I was being direct, and not going off on a tangent. What I explain, I learned by faith, and it is confirmed in scripture.
It is the reception of the Holy Ghost that makes us Abraham’s (and Aaron’s) literal seed. The reception of the Holy Ghost (different than the necessary formality of confirmation) is a spiritual rebirth.
To “raise up seed” has less to do with providing mortal tabernacles (though this is going to happen with more than one wife) and more to do with the refinement process of those who are born again.
Being born again is both an event and a process (a literal “raising up” period for Abraham’s seed). And according to Christ, those who become “Abraham’s seed” will “do the works of Abraham”. This may not include polygamy in this life (as only a few have been authorized). It may not include killing one’s son. But it also doesn’t preclude the possibility of raising up sons and daughters of God while living in monogamous union. Mortals can “raise up seed”, spiritually, by teaching their children HOW to be born again. But when you are actually born again, you are literally a new creation, ready to be “raised up” or brought up by our Father in Heaven, “unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13) Notice the Lord says, “IF I WILL… raise up seed unto me, I will command my people.” Not if YOU (i.e. Lehi) will raise up seed…
Once we are born again, we are HIS work and HIS glory. We come under HIS guidance, HIS chastening hand and we learn obedience by the things that we suffer. This could include the refinements of polygamy, if he’s got enough children who are serious enough to “be trained up in the way they should go”.
It never has been very many.
Thanks, Buffy. First off, I want to sincerely thank you for actually taking the time to respond. If anyone else shares your concerns it will be good for them to see this conversation and some of these ideas discussed.
First, let me clarify my statement “Honestly, the traditional interpretation never sat quite right with me.” What I meant by that was the way the verse was worded was kind of awkward and I didn’t understand why “raise up seed” specifically equated with “polygamy.” I just shrugged my shoulders and moved on most of the time and didn’t give it much thought. But then I began to wonder what I would discover if I took more time to examine it to see if there was another way to understand the verse using some of the Hebrew literary patterns I had been reading about while studying Isaiah.
You point out that I’m biased and we all are and that is true. I never said I was unbiased, but instead, I specifically said “I would rather stay neutral on that larger subject [of polygamy] for this post.”
I don’t want to “like” for the verse to say something different, I want to understand what it is clearly saying of itself and not what interpretation is being read onto it.
I stand by my statement that this was a “practice never instituted by God in the Bible or Book of Mormon”, I specifically did not mention D&C, not to be sneaky but because the reasoning for polygamy there is an Abrahamic test and not for the reasons suggested by the official interpretation of the verse in question.
And this is true, nowhere in the Bible or the Book of Mormon do we see God instituting, or I should say, “commanding” men to take on more than one wife.
To back me up, I have Brian C. Hales, the author of the three-volume series “Joseph Smith’s Polygamy” who after compiling every single document on polygamy that exists, and who supports polygamy as a doctrine, by the way, said this:
“Do we know that polygamy will ever be commanded again? In the 6000 years of religious history, THE ONLY adherents to be commanded were the Latter-day Saints between 1852 and 1890. Upon what basis does anyone assert that it will be commanded again?” Brian and Linda Hales, http://blog.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Lending-Clarity-to-Confusion.pdf (emphasis added)
The question is why would God even mention an exception to the Nephites that centered around increasing posterity born in the covenant when God never commanded anyone, not even the Saints for that specific purpose?
You mention a few scriptures and some of your references are incorrect, I know what you were trying to reference in Samuel but your reference was incorrect and I wasn’t sure about Abraham as you only have the number “25” but I couldn’t find any references to God commanding men to take more than one wife. Even in the case of David, the record says that God gave him his masters house and wives, but this is not a case where God is commanding him to do so. There is a whole backstory there on many different levels.
What is interesting is that God commanded this of his kings in the law of Moses: “Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.” (Deuteronomy 17:7)
Yet David did exactly that, he had 13-14 wives, and was already married to more than one wife before he inherited his master’s along with everything else that belonged to him. David continued to try to multiply wives as was forbidden in Deuteronomy and his heart DID turn away as predicted.
But this may have not been David’s fault, it seems that for many generations this knowledge may have faded away because the Book of Deuteronomy was lost for a long time and not discovered again until the priest Hilkiah during Josiah’s reign 25 years before Lehi left Jerusalem. I don’t think it is a coincidence that Deuteronomy is rediscovered with the command to not multiply wives and then Lehi received a commandment that his people should have only one wife.
In an email exchange with an individual from the apologist group FAIR, I was made known of one of the Dead Sea Scrolls that addresses this and stands by the fact that God intended men to be monogamous and excuses David because he was not aware of the law:
“The Shoddy-Wall-Builders who went after “Precept” – Precept is a Raver of whom it says, “they shall surely rave” (Mic. 2:6) – they are caught in two: fornication, 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 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=218JbeU2POgC&pg=PA55#v=onepage&q&f=false
David could not have been obedient to a law that he did not have. The record does not seem to indicate that God condemned certain people such as Abraham, Jacob, and others for having more than one wife or having concubines. Beyond that, there are likely many things that scripture heroes did in the past that they’d be excommunicated from the modern church today for. This doesn’t make them bad people or us good but we know God revealed line upon line. God has taken many of the questionable actions of men and “turned water to wine” with those situations.
It is interesting to note that the first man mentioned in scripture to have more than one wife is Lamech, a grandson of Cain who kills a man. (Genesis 4:18-25)
You re-addressed the phrase “raise up seed” and I actually don’t disagree with anything you wrote there. That is certainly a more detailed aspect and completely legit. While “raise up seed” does, in fact, involve procreation, physical birth is just one side of a coin that has spiritual birth on the obverse.
Yet, there is nothing in what you said that requires “raise up seed” to specifically be talking about a commandment for men to marry many women in Jacob 2:30. “Raise up seed” would HAVE to mean that in that verse, otherwise the interpretation goes in the direction that I suggest in my essay, it is more spiritual in nature.
I point out that the phrase (very rare in scripture) “If I will” matches John 21:22, we see the same phraseology: “Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come. what is that to thee?”
As I’ve pointed out, God has already commanded Lehi to “raise up seed” using that exact language in 1 Nephi 7:1.
Jacob 2:30 is simply stating that if God is going to raise up a righteous branch, he will command them, OTHERWISE [negative effects follow like the curses and evil fruits he is mentioning]. This is supported by the use of English grammar, a conjunctive adverb joining two opposing ideas, that was inserted to make this clear. This usage of “otherwise” is completely consistent in the entire Book of Mormon and you would have to break the grammar rules in this verse to support the idea that “hearken unto these things” is a positive and not a negative. Again, this doesn’t make sense.
As to the argument about polygamy increasing the number of children born in the covenant, this is debatable and I’d suggest that the evidence proves otherwise.
The average number of children born to a woman between 1840 and 1880 was roughly about 5.21 children per woman. (https://populationeducation.org/resource/historic-average-number-of-children-per-u-s-family-infographic/)
Brigham Young was no slacker when it came to polygamy, I think we could agree on that. He had 55 wives and 55 children but he didn’t have a child with each wife; only 16 of his wives had children.
Now 55 divided by 16 is only 3.5 which is well below the average birthrate of his time. Had those wives married other men and each had the average number of children for the time, there could have been around 83 children instead of 55!
Recently a man named Ziona Chana passed away (June 13, 2021) and he was survived by 38 widows. This guy had an amazing 94 children with these wives. He married his first wife at 17 in 1964. The birth rates in India from 1964 range from 5.85 children per woman to 2.18. That’s an average of 4 births per woman during the time that Ziona was having children but Zion’s wives were producing 2.41 children per wife on average. If his wives had all married their own husbands, there could have been around 156 children instead of 93! There also would have been far fewer widows. Will these women all go and collectively marry another man? Or will they go and marry separate husbands? Who is now going to take on the burden of all these women and their children? Now you have a multiplicity of single mothers and children that will grow up without a father.
Now, on average, the ratio of men to women born is roughly 50/50. This limits the number of polygamists possible and polygamy actually reduces the number of children possible per woman. If you want to increase your population, you do it with monogamy and this could be why God commanded the Nephites to be monogamous. As each wife has one husband to support her, they have more children. There was a recent study that I don’t have a link to that examined this and showed that for each subsequent wife, they will have one less child than the previous wife.
For example, on average, if wife one has 5 kids, wife 2 will have 4, wife three will have 3, and downward. Note that a man’s sex drive decreases over time and the ability to support more and more children also decreases with each birth.
This is why we don’t see billions of fundamentalist Mormons or any nations upon the earth that consist of large groups of polygamists.
Polygamy does increase the number of children for a particular man and one might suggest that if one righteous man had more kids to himself that you have more kids under the covenant of that one man.
But that assumes that the one man remains righteous. But what if he sins as David and breaks his covenant, now you have one man corrupting many more children than if those children were spread across multiple families.
God’s use of “I will command my people” is consistent with the use of the phrase “Lord of Hosts” which invokes a military aspect since the phrase means that he is the commander of the armies of heaven. This phrase is repeated six times, three of which flank each side of the “otherwise” in verse 30. This is intentional.
If I may, I’d like to provide a link here to some more recent research I have been doing with Jacob’s sermon. I believe I have discovered a complex chiasm that centers on the “otherwise” in Jacob 2:30. What I believe this shows is that what is being outlined is a covenant curse upon the Nephites where God is stepping into his role as the avenging emperor instead of the protective emperor since the people are violating the terms of his covenant. It seems very complex as there is a structured chisam with unstructured parallels, along with unique themes per side.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1J41cYHqcOdd4rURQY4_6J4xX7kdVYuYbVd4GsFeST6I/edit#
What this shows is that the conjunctive adverb is indeed uniting two opposing clauses of a covenant curse. There is what God intends in the first clause, and the fruits of the Nephties “crimes” in the second clause that are the justification for their destruction if they persist. While I’m focused primarily on verses 25-35, the whole sermon which extends beyond in both directions and into Jacob 3 provide more detail that I haven’t included yet.
As a final note, you mentioned “as only a few have been authorized.” The “authorization” angle has some issues as well.
I’m not sure how many people noticed this but I think it is interesting that in 2013, the church changed the chapter heading of Jacob 2 and removed the portion mentioning “unauthorized practice”
It used to say this prior to 2013:
“Jacob denounces the love of riches, pride, and unchastity—Men may seek riches to help their fellow men—Jacob condemns the unauthorized practice of plural marriage—The Lord delights in the chastity of women. About 544–421 B.C.”
To this:
“Jacob denounces the love of riches, pride, and unchastity—Men may seek riches to help their fellowmen—The Lord commands that no man among the Nephites may have more than one wife—The Lord delights in the chastity of women. About 544–421 B.C.”
Why would they remove that their actions were “unauthorized” if that is what the claim has been for so long?
If this was simply a matter of the Nephites acting without authorization and the practice itself is holy when done under authorization, then why did Jacob say this in Jacob 1:15:
“…the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in WICKED PRACTICES, SUCH AS like unto David of old DESIRING many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son.”
He specifically says that the practice itself is wicked, with no mention of authorization. In fact, the Lord himself says in Jacob 2:31:
“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.”
The Lord was not just displeased with this among the Nephites but among ALL his people. It was the mourning of his daughters because of the actions of their husbands in this regard.
Now are we to assume that “many hearts died, piecred with deep wounds” (vs.35) because the husbands simply didn’t have authorization? So if they DID have authorization, they would have been happy and joyful?
Well, apparently the Saints had authorization to practice polygamy so they should have been joyous and happy. Perhaps many were, but it seems odd that Brigham Young would bring this up in a general conference to all the women:
“Now for my proposition; it is more particularly for my sisters, as it is frequently happening that women say they are unhappy. Men will say, “My wife, though a most excellent woman, has not seen a happy day since I took my second wife;” “No, not a happy day for a year,” says one; and another has not seen a happy day for five years. It is said that women are tied down and abused: that they are misused and have not the liberty they ought to have; that many of them are wading through a perfect flood of tears, because of the conduct of some men, together with their own folly. […] Now recollect that two weeks from tomorrow I am going to set you at liberty. But the first wife will say, “It is hard, for I have lived with my husband twenty years, or thirty, and have raised a family of children for him, and it is a great trial to me for him to have more women;” then I say it is time that you gave him up to other women who will bear children. If my wife had borne me all the children that she ever would bare, the celestial law would teach me to take young women that would have children.
(Sermon by Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4., pp. 55-57; also printed in Deseret News, Vol. 6, pp. 235-236)
Women were still unhappy with a flood of tears, but why weren’t they happy, the men had authorization right? I mean this sounds a lot like the state the women were in at Jacob’s time.
There are only three instances in the Book of Mormon where men having many wives and concubines are mentioned. To go along with Jacob 1:15, let’s look at another very important piece of the puzzle.
Now Riplakish was a Jaredite king and he lived long before Lehi and long before Moses as well so he had no access to the book of Deuteronomy. But note what Moroni has to say about him:
“And it came to pass that Riplakish DID NOT DO THAT WHICH WAS RIGHT IN THE SIGHT OF THE LORD, for he did have many wives and concubines, and did lay that upon men’s shoulders which was grievous to be borne; yea, he did tax them with heavy taxes; and with the taxes he did build many spacious buildings.” (Ether 10:5)
Notice that Moroni didn’t say that what he did wrong was acting without authorization, he says that he did not do THAT which was right, FOR he did have many wives and concubines. Not only that, what else does he do? He taxes the people and multiplies gold and silver along with multiplying wives just like Deuteronomy said that kings should not do.
Moroni writes that Riplakish “did afflict the people with his whoredoms and abominations.” (vs.7) and there was a war that rose up and they killed him.
King Noah is the other example, he multiplies wives and concubines, riches, etc. and destruction comes.
That’s the pattern in the Book of Mormon. In every case where a king multiplies wives, concubines, and riches, destruction comes upon the people. Two of those kings were killed, and in the case of Riplakish, his actions were noted as being wrong long before the law of Moses and Lehi’s commandment.
So for that reason and many more, I find it odd that right in the crux of a sermon on the wicked practices of the Nephites and condemning their taking more than one wife that the Lord would bring up an exception (another excuse that someone could use later) that had nothing to do with the excuses that the Nephites were using to justify their actions in the first place.
I have provided a very detailed response and I am absolutely not trying to “Gish Gallop” you here and I hope you don’t feel that way. It is extremely hard to try and reply to a ton of information and I don’t expect you to. I don’t want our discussion to come down to a “winner” and a “loser.” I asked you before to address specific key points of my essay and you did that. I don’t think that in the terms of “raise up seed” you proved that it means what the current interpretation says it means. What you explained about the seed being spiritual we already agree on and I think you did a great job of explaining that. I would hate having to respond to something as detailed as I have written here but I’m trying my best to be thorough in doing justice to addressing your points.
I will say this though. I have studied the history of the practice for many years and I think there are multiple valid arguments you can make for or against what happened among the Saints. I cannot say one way or the other for sure and I don’t preach one particular version over the other. I just don’t think we need to read unsubstantiated meanings into verses to prove our point. There is no other point I am attempting to prove here other than the meaning of the verse. If I am correct, the larger impact of that is for another discussion but I think we should begin with a correct understanding of scripture.
Anyway, I have thrown a ton at you here and I sincerely apologize for that. This is also a poor format for having a discussion like this that has so many moving parts.
What I am suggesting in this essay is not an attempt to “undermine” the practice of polygamy itself or even what happened among the restoration Saints, but to correctly understand a verse.
If you want to keep going, feel free but I’m not going to hold it against you if you don’t want to take the time to dig into all this. We’re free to agree to disagree on key points that we don’t find convincing.
You should make a part 2 and copy/paste this in it.
I could probably include some of this in another post, but then you’re getting into the subject of polygamy itself and that’s just such a tangled mess, there are sooooo many loose threads to try and tie up that it would take a book or multiple posts to cover everything in the depth that would do justice to the subject.
I only mentioned some of those things to point out that “raise up seed” doesn’t actually cause more children to be born in the gospel covenant or mean this in the context of this sermon. I only touched on very briefly the tip of the iceberg for these arguments because there are MANY and they go very deep. I don’t know that you get to any concrete conclusions one way or the other though.
I DID do a major revision on this article a few days ago. I moved the section about the grammar to the first subject covered as I think that gives more context to how to approach all this. I then had to modify the subsequent sections, and I removed many paragraphs that I thought were confusing or redundant and rewrote others to be more concise.
I did add a few things like the change in the chapter headings and a new observation about Duet 17:17 and Jacob 1:15-16.
I will probably do a post on this in the future after I’ve done more research: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1J41cYHqcOdd4rURQY4_6J4xX7kdVYuYbVd4GsFeST6I/edit#
All the posts on this site are not a “finished” product. I want to thank “Buffy” for challenging me because returning to this information opened up some new ideas and I was able strengthen my arguments because they were challenged. That’s for the reader to decide though.
This article is not the final word on this subject. There are some things in the works that I’m not going to mention here but I will be sure to share them when they are available.
This article was one thing that got me researching into polygamy. Sometime after reading this article I found a direct contradiction between the Book of Mormon and the D&C.
In Jacob 2:24 “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.” but in D&C 132:38-39 “David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon … and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me. David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me … and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife.”
At this point my concern wasn’t polygamy, it was that two canonized texts contradicted each other. It drove me crazy trying to reconcile how these two verses could coexist while still believing that God’s word is eternal and unchanging. Add to that that half of section 132 gets a member excommunicated now and I was really feeling it.
I looked online for any specific mention of these two verses together and could find nothing. I found an old BYU Master’s thesis from the 80’s about the Succession Question (which was 100% connected to the temple which was 100% connected with polygamy from 1842-1844) and printed it into a book and read it. https://archive.org/details/EhatIntroOfTempleOrdinances2/page/n19/mode/1up
I had a theory for a time that Joseph didn’t practice polygamy and it was Brigham Young’s fault and maybe he changed something in the revelation. But even though the revelation wasn’t published until 1852, it is in Joseph Smith papers and was written and presented to Emma in 184x. I do make a distinction between plural marriage and polygamy, and have no issue with plural marriage.
I actually wanted to write the prophet about my question, but knew it would go to my Stake President (who I don’t like) so I just asked my bishop (who I do like). It was several weeks before we talked about it after I asked him, and I continued to do more research. (From the time of reading your article to now has been like 6 months or more. It’s been a long process.)
By the time I spoke with him, I actually had resolved my issue. And after all of my research which also included anti-Mormon literature not related to Church history, and rebuttals, and random blogs, and theories, etc. I am actually… ok with polygamy. Oddly enough, for the first time in my life it doesn’t make me feel weird, or bad, and I can talk about it with anyone and have a positive conversation that points to Christ.
So here’s where I’m at. I view polygamy as never having been commanded of God. I view plural marriage as ok with God. Nobody really knows what sealing means which I’ve always found kind of odd. You’d think we’d have more revealed about the crowning ordinance of the restored Church of Jesus Christ. The way I view sealing has less to do with marriage and more to do with becoming a part of God’s perfect family. I view the plan of salvation as one giant birthing process and what’s produced are family members for God. Beyond that, I have no idea what sealing means or what marriage in the eternities means, and I don’t care to think about it.
Joseph was under a lot of pressure and dealing with a lot of revelation. I can completely understand how he could misinterpret this brand new doctrine and ordinance. I can understand how Brigham Young ran with it and preached about it. I do not think that God will condemn the prophets for having taught that polygamy was a commandment. In fact, because one of God’s patterns is following the prophet, I think God made the best of a bad situation and supported those who participated in it so the Church wouldn’t fall apart.
As far as my actual issue of the contradiction in canonized text. I think those verses in the Doctrine and Covenants are not revelation. I believe the Book of Mormon over the Doctrine and Covenants. And now when I read anything canonized, I use an eye of scrutiny and prayer. Such is life. But, through this process I learned a lot about revelation, how God works with prophets, how to tell when a prophet is speaking for God instead of speaking as a saint, and all sorts of wonderful things. I grew immensely and it started with your article. Thank you for writing it.
Hi JV, thanks for sharing your story. The history behind polygamy in the church is a really tough nut to crack. You’ll find a lot of just about everything. I’ve studied the subject quite a bit myself and have not yet come to a precise understanding of exactly what went down. As far as I can tell, I have about 3-5 general theories that could each be possible. Based on the evidence I have at any given time, and as my knowledge grows, I will favor one over another.
My purpose here with this essay is to simply focus on one small, but I think significant piece of the puzzle. The truth is that there is nothing in Jacob’s sermon or the word of the Lord himself contained therein that offers anything but a thorough condemnation of the practice. Whatever conclusions come out of that are up for debate.
I’ve come to many of the same conclusions as you have. I’m not big on the whole idea of “canonization” and am glad we use the phrase “standard works” instead. This is because all scripture is not limited by the cover of a book, and not everything in those books are the word of God.
I’m glad to see that you have grown through this process and congratulate you for hanging in there so that you can enjoy the rewards of diligent study and prayer.
There is a saying that a little digging will lead you away from the church, but a lot of digging will lead you back. Many people unfortunately leave after a little digging, just when it is starting to get interesting ;)
I appreciate your kind words and being a small part of your journey, I hope that your story and example will inspire and lift others who are going through the same things.
Just found this gem today:
The Prophet Joseph Smith, Jun. said:
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 got nothing up of myself. The same God that has thus far dictated 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 not practice it, I shall be damned with my people. If I do teach it, and practice it, and urge it, they say they will kill me, and I know they will. But we have got to observe it. It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction. -Contributor, 5:259.
https://archive.org/details/contributor0507eng/page/258/mode/2up
Here’s a link to the actual quote as it appears in the Contributor. This quote appears in an article written by a Horace Cummings and published in March of 1884, 40 years after Joseph Smith’s death. There are no references and I cannot find what Horace’s source for this quote is.
He is retelling a narrative from several people with long quotations and no sources provided.
Horace was 26 years old when he wrote that article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_H._Cummings
Horace was born 14 years after Joseph Smith’s death. Needless to say, it’s hard to trust a lengthy unsourced quote from an alleged conversation that appears in a magazine article written 40 years after the death of the one who said it.
Do you have any more background on the source for this quote in the Contributor?
Excellent. I will have to go over parts of this again. However, I hold that an honest reading of 2:30 in context (without the specter of having to justify a belief hanging over one’s head) yields a clear meaning which flows with other surrounding verses in the Lord’s condemnation of polygamy.
I agree. I think Steve’s excellent “re-interpretation” of Jacob 2:30 is correct, but I would add the following insight from the surrounding verses (particularly from verses 25, 31, and 32):
Several times throughout the scriptures, the Lord COMMANDS his people TO RELOCATE in order to get them away from the abominable practices of the society around them. The repeating pattern (Abraham, Lehi, Nephites, etc.) is that the Lord leads them out from among the wicked in order to raise up (righteous) seed unto himself.
As verse 25 says, “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.“
Therefore, it appears that the phrase in Jacob 2:30
“I will command my people…”
could appropriately be rephrased as “I will command my people to depart out from among the wicked (adulterers/ idolaters);
and the phrase “otherwise they shall “hearken unto these things” could be rephrased as “otherwise they shall fall into these same abominable practices.”
This is so good. Thank you so much for articulating such a clear explanation with this one verse. Well done.
Thank you for this! I had actually just finished writing out my thoughts on Jacob 2:30, which were almost identical to yours, and was looking for a specific citation when I found your article. One thing I noticed that I didn’t see in your article (I might have missed it; it’s long!) is that the official LDS interpretation requires the “For” at the start of the verse to mean the same as “but;” i.e. an exception.
But “for” is most often used in the BoM to connect explanatory clauses, as in v. 27-8: “Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; for I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women.”
Also the current versification and punctuation serve to obscure the correct meaning of the words. You’ll remember that the original text had no verses or punctuation, and the punctuation was added by the typesetter. For example, if the punctuation is slightly different, it dramatically alters the reading to closer match the view you present: “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;”
Also also, the earliest instance I can find of the current official interpretation is in the Temple Lot case, when the LDS church was more determined than ever for the RLDS to be wrong about Joseph not starting polygyny. In such an emotionally charged environment, with so much at stake, it would be easy to latch on to an interpretation that isn’t justified by the text.
Thanks for your thoughts, Jeffery, it seems as though many people are starting to take a closer look at Jacob 2.
Yes, that is a good point about the word “For” which is often overlooked, it is one more of the many evidences that the current interpretation is flawed and should no longer be taught.
As for the punctation, it’s correct that the original had none and that the printer added it. But note that Joseph himself reviewed everything and as the punctuation does alter meaning, he approved of at least that first revision and the meanings that were implied so I think that’s worth noting.
There have been many punctuation revisions over time and if the interpretation I am suggesting ever gains support, it’s possible that we may see some changes there if there is any value to it. Language does change over time and certain words have their meanings changed and that can cause us to read scriptures incorrectly as well, which is frustrating.
I agree with you on the Temple Lot case, there was absolutely every reason to “prove” polygamy was legitimate by any means necessary, even forcing false interpretations onto verses of scripture, which I what I believe happened in this case. But I can see how if you have a bias, everything gets viewed through that lens and you can see things that aren’t there.
That’s why I had to be really careful when putting this information together and trying to be as objective as I possibly could. I’m not a professional researcher so this is definitely NOT a scholarly paper. But I do think that my observations here are correct and if you can look past any errors in form or approach and look at the claims themselves, I think you’ll find that they hold up.
For all the years that this essay has been here, nobody has yet to provide any evidence that any of the points listed here are wrong. If I am in error, I absolutely invite correction.