In Jacob chapters 2-3, we encounter one of the most fervent and emotionally charged sermons in the Book of Mormon. Delivered by Jacob, the brother of Nephi, this sermon provides profound insights into the condition of his people, as he remarks:
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
Lehi emphasized that it was a divine commandment from the Lord for men to have only one wife and no concubines (Jacob 2:27, 34, 3:5-6).
In the midst of an extensive sermon, both the Lord Himself and Jacob unequivocally condemn the practice of having many wives and concubines, denouncing it as gross (vulgar; obscene; indelicate) crimes, sins, iniquities, whoredoms, fornication, lasciviousness, filthiness, and abominations. The sermon also vividly portrays the profound suffering and harm inflicted on women and children due to this practice (Jacob 2:31-35).
However, there is a conventional interpretation of Jacob 2:30 that suggests an exception to the Lord’s commandment of monogamy, proposing that the Lord might command men to marry multiple wives and concubines, even though He acknowledges that the practice breaks wives’ hearts and causes sorrow, mourning, sobbing, and deep wounds.
This essay’s objective is to demonstrate that Jacob 2:30 does not contain an exception to the commandment that men should have only one wife and no concubines.
Please note that the content shared on this site reflects personal explorations, and I am open to corrections if any errors are found. I am not a professional theologian or linguistics expert, and readers are not obligated to accept my viewpoints. This blog serves as a platform for me to share my thoughts and research.
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 understood that Jacob 2:30 taught that the Lord could command polygamy to be practiced if he required it.
That perspective might seem reasonable on the surface – after all, the Lord is omnipotent and can issue any command He wishes. But, is that the message being conveyed in Jacob 2:30?
Upon closer examination, I occasionally revisited this verse, attempting to make sense of how that interpretation could work, and while it seemed to align with the text at times, it never quite felt wholly convincing, leaving me with an underlying uncertainty.
I didn’t embark on a specific mission to deeply scrutinize this verse; rather, I have an extensive collection of notes where I preserve valuable insights that cross my path, as they often prove useful in the future. Around 2015, my exploration of Hebrew literary patterns, inspired by Avraham Gileadi’s work on Isaiah, led me to examine the specific words and phrases in Jacob 2:30 more closely.
At times, I noticed intriguing elements that piqued my curiosity, prompting me to add them to my notes. After about two years of accumulating these observations, I took a step back to reflect on them and realized that the meaning of this verse was gradually crystallizing.
I began the process of organizing this information into an essay, continually uncovering more evidence along the way. Even after publishing this essay, I remain open to further updates as new insights continue to emerge.
First, it is important to note that 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, Israel, and Abraham for that matter:
- 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)
I want to be clear that my intent in publishing this essay is not to attack or defend the practice of plural marriage among the early Latter-day Saints.
My primary objective with this essay is to arrive at a correct interpretation of a verse of scripture. The entirety of the consequences of the interpretation I am proposing upon the theological landscape are outside the scope of this essay.
Examining the conventional interpretation’s premise
First, let’s begin by reviewing the verse in question:
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
Jacob 2:30
The conventional interpretation of Jacob 2:30 posits that the prevailing rule prescribed by the Lord is monogamy, unless a divine command is issued to His people, permitting them to enter into non-monogamous marriages involving one man and multiple wives for the purpose of “raising up seed.” Furthermore, in the absence of such divine command, they shall adhere to the practice of monogamy.
Is this the message that the verse is really conveying? What if it was saying something else entirely?
I propose that interpreting Jacob 2:30 this way exemplifies the fallacy known as proof-texting, where an external meaning is being imposed onto the verse, unsupported 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
For the purpose of this essay, I kindly request you to momentarily put aside the conventional interpretation and join me in a comprehensive analysis. Let’s explore not only this specific verse but also delve into the broader context of the entire sermon and the Book of Mormon in its entirety.
I believe that this approach will shed new light on this verse and objectively demonstrate it’s actual meaning.
The meaning of “otherwise”
I want to begin by examining the word “otherwise” because this is a clue to understanding the meaning of Jacob 2:30.
The word “otherwise” in this verse functions as a conjunction, introducing a conditional statement or clause that contrasts an alternative outcome or consequence based on the preceding statement. It conveys a condition or choice and the result if that condition is not met.
In every usage found in the Book of Mormon, we can observe a consistent pattern where the main statement or action always represents an intended outcome, and the alternative condition or consequence is always an undesirable outcome.
If we impose the conventional interpretation, the only exception in the group is Jacob 2:30. While it is conceivable that Jacob 2:30 may deviate from the others, there exists compelling evidence supporting the contention that it aligns with the rest.
Here are each of these highlighted instances, demonstrating the pattern:
“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)
If these verses all use the word otherwise consistently, the second half of Jacob 2:30, “…they shall hearken unto these things,” would have to be referencing an undesirable outcome, but does it?
This one verse, being the outlier, deserves a closer look.
The conventional interpretation suggests that “raise up seed” means taking many wives (and concubines?) only if God commands. However, in the absence of such a commandment, the Nephite people should obey the standing commandment of monogamy.
There is another way to interpret this verse that fits the narrative of the sermon, the Book of Mormon as a whole, and is consistent with the other examples, but we will need to take a closer look at each of these two clauses and examine their contents.
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 conventional 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 yet been commanded to “raise up seed.”
There is a significant issue with that interpretation: the Nephites have indeed been commanded to “raise up seed,” but remarkably, they are commanded to do so monogamously under a clear directive.
What does “raise up seed” mean?
If we go back to 1 Nephi chapter 7, we see the Lord 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)
Considering the commandment given to Lehi’s party, which included the precise wording of Jacob 2:30 (“raise up seed”), wouldn’t it imply that the men in Lehi’s party must have had multiple wives and concubines?
If there were 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.
Would not this be a perfect time for the Lord to command his people to “increase the number of children born in the gospel covenant?”
It appears not, as Lehi received a specific commandment for his people to “raise up seed” monogamously. How can we ascertain this? Jacob underscores 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)
Why does the phrase “raise up seed” refer to the monogamous growth of a faithful people in 1 Nephi 7:1, yet seem to imply polygamy in Jacob 2:30, especially when the entire surrounding sermon vehemently condemns the practice, using some of the strongest language in scripture?
The Nephites received a specific commandment to “raise up seed” while being instructed to maintain only one wife and abstain from having concubines. Additionally, Jacob 2:25 furnishes a more detailed explanation of the Lord’s intentions regarding “raising up seed” In verse 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 emphasizes that the Nephites had received a commandment to “raise up seed” or establish a righteous branch from Joseph’s descendants, perpetuating Joseph’s posterity in a new promised land.
If taking multiple wives and concubines is considered a sacred means to have more children under the covenant, why did God repeatedly condemn the practice itself as a “gross crime,” equating it to whoredom and abomination throughout the thousand-year history of the Nephites?
Does it seem reasonable that the Nephite women and children were so profoundly heartbroken by the men’s practice of taking multiple wives and concubines simply because they lacked “authorization”? And would everything have been harmonious if they had indeed been authorized to do so?
Would there have been no “sorrow,” “mourning,” “cries,” “sobbing,” “captiv[ity],” or “hearts [dying], pierced with deep wounds” if only there were “authorization”?
Even the sole mention of this practice among the Jaredites involved a king who “did not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord” (Ether 10:5). It is worth noting that the Jaredites separated from the main body of God’s people at the Tower of Babel, centuries before the existence of Abraham or the House of Israel, and this practice was still deemed unacceptable among them.
When we replace the phrase “raise up seed” with synonymous language from verse 25, the verse becomes clearer:
“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 should examine the phrase “If I will” more closely, as this is a point where our understanding of this verse can become unclear.
This phrasing is rare in the Standard Words and appears in only four places (Jacob 2:30, Malachi 3:10, John 21:22-23). I think that John 21:22-23 most closely resembles the language of Jacob 2:30:
“Jesus saith unto him, If I will that [John] tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me… He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?”
Jesus wasn’t implying that he might hypothetically permit John to tarry at some point in the future; it was already decided that John would tarry.
The King James English is just a little confusing here so here are the verses in some alternate translations:
“Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!”
Revised Standard Edition
Jesus answered, “Suppose I want him to remain alive until I return. What does that matter to you? You must follow me.”
NIV
Yeshua said to him, “If I want him to stay on until I come, what is it to you? You, follow me!”
The Complete Jewish Bible
Using “if” to signify a condition functions as a transitive verb. Jacob 2:30 and John 21:22 demonstrate that it can also convey something already a fact.
For example, consider a hypothetical sentence that starts with “if”: “If I intend to make dessert, you must eat your dinner first.” In this scenario, dessert has yet to be prepared, and it will be if dinner is eaten.
Similarly, starting a sentence with “if” can address something already in progress, not hypothetical: “If you want your pet fish to stay alive, you must keep feeding it.” In this case, the fish is already alive, and the goal is to maintain its well-being.
In the context of Jacob 2:30, the use of “if” illustrates the conditions associated with the Lord’s establishment of a righteous branch. It signifies that if He intends to raise such a branch, it can only happen if He is in command of it.
Furthermore, the term “will” may be misconstrued. According to Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, one of its definitions is “divine determination,” which I propose aligns with the context in which it appears in this verse.
The true nuance lies in the interplay between ‘if’ and ‘will.’ The Lord is not necessarily suggesting, ‘If someday I decide to…’ but rather, He is conveying, ‘If it aligns with my divine determination…’ or ‘If it is my intent for this to happen…’ The conventional interpretation hinges on the context in which ‘if’ is used in scripture, denoting conditions already true or ongoing, not solely future actions.
Here is the verse reflecting this meaning:
“For if I determine to […] raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph, I will command my people…”
To ensure the growth of the righteous branch he has already established in the promised land, he must issue the commands; otherwise, an undesirable outcome shall result.
In the broader context of the sermon, the understanding of the initial segment of verse 30 becomes quite evident when comparing the modified verse with the original and examining the three elements I have highlighted in blue, red, and green:
“For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph unto me, 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 essential idea here is that while God certainly desires the birth of more Nephite children within the gospel covenant, His vision extends far beyond this singular goal.
Inclusion in the gospel covenant is not limited solely to birth; nor does being born within the covenant hold precedence over adoption into it. Abinadi’s words shed light on this matter:
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 God seeks to establish comprises those who heed the words of the holy prophets and receive the blessings He has promised. In the Book of Mormon, there are references to becoming the sons and daughters of God and experiencing spiritual rebirth through Christ.
Given that there is no record in the extensive scriptural history detailed in the Book of Mormon or the Bible, spanning over 6,000 years, of God ever issuing a directive commanding men to increase covenant birthrates through simultaneous marriage and impregnation of multiple women, does it still seem reasonable to interpret verse 30 as implying such a directive?
Why would God even raise such a topic with a people who neither held a desire to increase covenant birthrates as their justification nor would ever receive such a command in that manner?
I suggest that the opening portion of verse 30 is crystal clear: if God intends to establish a righteous branch for Himself, He must also take command of that branch. It is His mission, and for His objectives to prosper, He must be the one in control; otherwise, they would be subject to the command of another authority.
Increasing children under the covenant?
There is another conventional idea that God commands men to marry multiple women, not just to increase covenant births, but also to increase the population.
It’s important to note that while the monogamous Nephites did experience significant population growth at various junctures in their history, the practice of men marrying more than one woman, contrary to expectation, can actually result in a decrease in the population.
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 [plural marriage 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
For instance, consider the case of Brigham Young at the time of his death. He had entered into marriage with 56 women, but only 16 of these women actually gave birth to children. In total, Brigham fathered 57 children, with 46 of them reaching maturity. (Source)
If we calculate the average number of children born per mother by dividing the total number of children (57) by the number of mothers (16), we arrive at an average of 3.5 children per mother (this figure drops to 2.8 when considering only surviving children). In contrast, the average number of children born to a woman between 1840 and 1880 was approximately 5.21 children per woman. (source)
Comparatively, Brigham was married to 56 women, and the number of children produced per woman was significantly lower than the contemporary average, 3.5 compared to 5.21. If each of those 56 women had been in a monogamous marriage and produced children at the average rate, there could have been 291 children instead of 57!
Even if we focus solely on the 16 women who bore children, at the average birth rate, they could have produced 83 children instead of 57.
To provide another example, on June 13, 2021, a man named Ziona Chana passed away, survived by 38 widows. Remarkably, he had 94 children with these women.
He married his first wife at the age of 17 in 1964. During the period when Ziona was having children, the birth rates in India ranged from 5.85 children per woman to 2.18. On average, there were about 4 births per woman during that time frame. However, Ziona’s wives collectively produced 2.41 children per woman on average.
If his wives had all been married monogamously and had children at the average birthrate, there could have been around 156 children instead of 93. This would have also resulted in far fewer widows and fatherless children upon his passing.
It’s crucial to recognize that observing a single man fathering numerous children with multiple women creates an illusion that such a practice leads to a net increase in population. In reality, when one man fathers many children through several women, the birth rate often falls below the average. While these are just two examples, similar patterns emerge when analyzing other cases.
On the contrary, consider the notable success of the monogamous Nephites in increasing the number of children born under the covenant over the course of their millennia-long 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 strongly indicates that one of the primary reasons the Lord opposed the Nephites taking many wives and concubines is that it leads to a decrease in birthrates, hinders population growth, and runs counter to the Lord’s desire to “raise up seed.”
I would argue that God commands monogamy, not only because it aligns with the divine pattern established in Eden, but also because it proves to be a significantly more effective means of fulfilling the mandate to “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Genesis 1:28).
If the goal is to have more children born within the covenant, this objective is most effectively achieved through faithful monogamous families, which can produce a significantly higher number of children.
Brian C. Hales, the author of “Joseph Smith’s Polygamy,” a comprehensive three-volume collection of all known documents related to this practice in Latter-day Saint history, addresses the question of whether polygamy might ever be “commanded again” with the following insight:
“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 the practice of men fathering children with multiple women was indeed an effective method for increasing the number of births within the covenant, one might wonder why historical examples of this approach are notably absent.
I think that the reason lies in the fact that such a practice tends to diminish the overall fruitfulness of the people and curtails their capacity to multiply.
“I will command my people”
What about the line “I will command my people”? We have previously established that when used by God, the word “will” can signify “divine determination.”
Is this a conditional phrase where God is indicating that he could possibly command His people to do a specific thing in the future? Or is He speaking to a larger idea here?
The term “command” can encompass future, past, or present states, as seen in phrases like “I am going to command,” “They ignored the command,” or “I command you.” Jacob’s sermon alone contains numerous references to the Lord and His commands.
- 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 these instances, the speaker is Jacob, except for verse 30, where the Lord is speaking.
The Lord asserts His determination to command His people and expects them to heed His commandments. This declaration aligns with similar instances where the Lord has similarly expressed Himself. Here are a few additional 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)
Numerous additional examples underscore that it’s not uncommon for the Lord to employ this phraseology.
Deuteronomy 11:28 talks about there being a curse if the people turn aside from the command of God to hearken to other gods.
And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known.
In Jeremiah 11:4, God explains to the people of Judah that in order for them to be his people, they must obey his voice and command.
Obey my voice, and do them, according to all which I command you: so shall ye be my people, and I will be your God:
The term “command” carries a notably strong and assertive connotation, a fitting choice considering the gravity of the sermon as a whole, but more on that later.
When it comes to the seed that God is looking to raise up, Abinadi posed the question, “And who shall be his seed?” (Mosiah 15:10) He gave the answer shortly after:
Behold I say unto you, that whosoever has heard the words of the prophets, […] 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.
When God commands His people and they give heed to His words, they become His seed. This is how God raises up seed and why He must command them; otherwise, they can’t be His people and seed.
In the absence of God’s command or when His commands are set at naught, the people will inevitably give heed to the words of whoever rises up to fill that vacuum.
The spaceship analogy
Imagine you are the captain of a spaceship on a critical mission to save humanity. The ship is heading towards a new habitable planet that can sustain life for the remnants of the human race.
You are the only one that knows exactly how to get the ship to its destination safely. And absent your commands, the crew will be left to improvise in the vastness of space where there is no margin for error.
So to ensure survival, the captain might say:
“If I want to ensure the survival of humanity, my crew must follow my precise instructions; otherwise, they will implement their own improvised plans and doom humanity to extinction.”
The survival of humanity (raising up seed) depends on the captain’s clear and authoritative instructions (God’s command). If the captain (God) does not provide this guidance, the crew (people) will inevitably create their own plans (precepts of men), resulting in the mission’s failure (undesirable consequences).
“The Lord of Hosts”
God has issued an ultimatum, outlining a covenant curse looming over the people. He does so by strategically invoking a title, prominently featured in verse 30 and most concentrated in the Book of Mormon: 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 frequent use of this title harkens back to examples that the Nephites may have been familiar with from the Brass Plates. For instance, there is the account of Elisha, who, when he prayed for his servant’s eyes to be opened, revealed a vision of “the mountain [being] full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha” (2 Kings 6:17).
Isaiah’s writings are extensively quoted in the Book of Mormon. In Isaiah 37, King Hezekiah sought divine protection from the Assyrians and addressed God as “the Lord of Hosts” (Isaiah 37:16). In response, God, referring to Himself as the “Lord of Hosts” (Isaiah 37:32), promised His protection. During the night, “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)
This use of such language emphasizes that the Nephites are facing a threat of destruction due to their “gross crimes,” which encompass taking many wives and concubines. In stark contrast, the Lamanites are assured protection because they follow the commandment of having 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)
Adherence to this specific commandment spared the Lamanites from impending destruction. Since violating this commandment would lead to the nation’s downfall, the Lord essentially declares war on the Nephites.
Considering these factors, the language “I will command my people” or “I determine to command my people” is entirely fitting and appropriate, given the gravity of the situation.
There are only two other instances in the Book of Mormon where people take many wives and concubines, and in both cases, they faced the wrath of the Lord of Hosts: King Noah (Mosiah 11:2-14) and Riplakish (Ether 10:5-8).
This leads us to the second part of the verse, the latter portion of the clause.
Clause 2: The undesirable outcome: a sore curse, even unto destruction
I propose that the second clause of this verse conveys the “undesirable outcome,” which involves a curse of destruction, rather than merely suggesting that the Nephites should “follow the standing monogamous instructions.”
To support this argument, I would like to draw attention to verse 29, which, when examined alongside verse 30, reveals a parallel structure—an alignment of meaning emphasized through a similarity in form. Both verses comprise two clauses that follow a consistent pattern: first, a description of a desired outcome, and then an illustration of an undesirable consequence:
“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”
Do the words, “they shall hearken unto these things,” lead one to assume that the Lord is merely urging the Nephites to heed the instructions He has already provided?
The initial clause of Jacob 2:30 establishes that for God to establish a righteous branch unto Himself, He must command authority. In a preceding verse, Jacob affirms:
“Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord…”
Jacob 2:27
I suggest that Jacob 2:30 implies that if the Lord’s words or commands are not heeded, it is inevitable that His people shall instead hearken to the doctrines of men and be swayed by wicked practices and abominations.
However, in a rebuttal to this essay, Jeff Lindsay cites Dr. Steve Bonta, a linguistics PhD graduate from Cornell University, to challenge my assertion that the term “hearken” in Jacob 2:30 implies listening to someone other than the Lord in the context of this sermon.
Reed argues that “otherwise” in the Book of Mormon in such contexts always has a negative or undesired consequence in the following clause; but one could as easily argue that the word “hearken” almost always in the Book of Mormon refers to listening to the Lord or his representatives, and not to the devil or those who do his bidding (as indeed it does; I did a quick count, and out of 55 total occurrences of this word, all but three referred to listening to the Lord or to righteous men).
Source
I believe Dr. Bonta’s perspective is valid, as one could make a case for either interpretation.
I assert that using “otherwise” as a conjunction consistently follows a pattern, as I have previously explained. It can be demonstrated that the Nephites had already been specifically “commanded” to “raise up seed” under monogamy.
Jacob 2:25 indicates that “raising up seed” is related to establishing a righteous branch of people who were brought out of Jerusalem, with no indication that this process involves men taking additional wives and concubines.
Contrary to Dr. Bonta’s “quick count” of 50, there are, in fact, 100 references (source) to the word “hearken” in the Book of Mormon (including variations like “hearkeneth,” “hearkened,” and “hearkening”).
Excluding Jacob 2:30, there are approximately 13 references, not 3, that mention hearkening to sources other than God and His servants (1 Nephi 3:28, 2 Nephi 12:6, 2 Nephi 28:5, 2 Nephi 28:6, 2 Nephi 28:26, 2 Nephi 28:31, Jacob 7:23, Alma 5:41, Alma 50:32, Alma 51:3, Helaman 4:3, Helaman 12:4, and 3 Nephi 3:12).
While “hearken” is frequently used when talking about listening to the Lord and His representatives, it is not exclusively reserved for them.
Dr. Bonta mentioned finding only 3 references, but there are 4 references in just one sermon, delivered by Nephi, Jacob’s brother, which refer to sources that are not God and His servants:
5 [Churches built up in the last days that are not of the Lord shall say:] Hearken unto us, and hear ye our precept; for behold there is no God today, for the Lord and the Redeemer hath done his work, and he hath given his power unto men;
6 Behold, hearken ye unto my precept; if they shall say there is a miracle wrought by the hand of the Lord, believe it not; for this day he is not a God of miracles; he hath done his work.
26 Yea, wo be unto him that hearkeneth unto the precepts of men, and denieth the power of God, and the gift of the Holy Ghost!
[I included verse 30 here to show how the Lord contrasts hearkening to his words versus the precepts of men] 30 “…blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel…
31 Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men…
2 Nephi 28:6
“Hearkening unto the precepts of men” is exactly what Jacob’s people were doing, and he describes how they were following the examples of men in the scriptures instead of God’s commands:
[The people] 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
He goes on to explain this further in his sermon:
…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.
Jacob 2:23
In this instance, it’s evident that they are not heeding God’s command. The term “hearken” is referenced four times in Jacob’s sermon. The first (Jacob 2:5) and the last (Jacob 3:11) instances involve Jacob urging the people to heed his own words. He implores them to “listen” to “the word of [the Lord’s] commands” (Jacob 2:16) and to “hearken” to the word of the Lord (Jacob 2:27).
However, when the Lord is speaking in verse 30, the context strongly suggests that His use of the phrase “they shall hearken unto these things” pertains to the doctrines of men that His people will inevitably follow if they disregard the commands of the Lord of Hosts.
I think that two opposing things are being contrasted here:
“hearken to the word of the Lord; otherwise, they shall hearken unto these things.”
Two distinct outcomes are being presented: the first involves the people being obedient and heeding the word of the Lord, while the second, less favorable outcome entails them hearkening to “these things,” which I posit are not aligned with the word of the Lord.
If “these things” are not the word of the Lord, the question arises: what exactly do they refer to?
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)
Back in 2013, updates were made to some of the chapter headings in the Book of Mormon. I immediately looked up Jacob 2 and discovered that it had been significantly altered from the original.
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.”
The new version reflects what is in the text, while the previous version injects a meaning that I do not believe is supported by the context of the sermon.
The words “thing” or “things” are used to describe both the word of the Lord and the “gross crimes” of the Nephites. While the majority of the “things” are the “gross crimes” of the Nephites, the word “things” cannot be exclusively applied to those crimes.
But if we look at the usage of these phrases in the sermon, it seems far more likely that the “these things” that the Lord is referencing in verse 30 have to do with the gross crimes of the Nephites.
“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)
To hearken means “to give heed to” so “these things” must be something that one can take notice of and attend to.
Jacob’s people were ignoring some specific commands of God (perhaps Deut 17:17) by multiplying wives, concubines, along with gold and riches, and were instead “giving heed” to their own teachings.
Later on in their history, Jacob observed a significant change in circumstances after the death of Sherem, highlighting that they chose not to heed the words of wicked men and instead returned 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
I propose that what God is saying in Jacob 2:30 regarding “these things” is that if God is not there to command and guide his people, they will inevitably give heed to perverse ideas like the wickedness and abominations that they are currently caught up in.
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 re-emphasizes 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; 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
As previously demonstrated, Lehi’s words were embraced and conveyed as the word of the Lord. Furthermore, the phrase “they shall hearken unto these things” may also allude to strikingly similar language found in the writings 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 encounter a situation strikingly similar to that of Jacob’s people. These individuals are straying from the path of righteousness because they are failing to heed the Lord’s guidance and, instead, are following the precepts of men.
Among the Nephites, some men were attempting to justify their practice of taking multiple wives and concubines by citing writings related to 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 is no middle ground.
A conversation with ChatGPT about the meaning of Jacob 2:30
(September 3, 2023 – I want to give Jeff Lindsay credit for the idea of asking ChatGPT to interpret Jacob 2:30 based on the entire context of the sermon. Note that ChatGPT is not perfect, and should not be relied upon alone for accurate information, especially theological interpretations. But I liked Jeff’s idea and was curious to see what type of output it would give me if I provided ChatGPT with the entire text of Jacob’s sermon and asked it some basic questions. I was interested to see that the responses appeared to support my proposed interpretation, but again, this is just an exercise and isn’t definitive and is only posted here as an additional exercise to contrast with Jeff’s ChatGPT exercise. I have copied and pasted the conversation I had with ChatGPT below.)
Question: [pasted the entire chapters of Jacob 2-3]
[ChatGPT responded thanking me for pasting those two chapters and noted that it recognized them as being from the Book of Mormon and provided a short summary.]
Question: What is the meaning of verse 30 in Jacob ch 2?
In verse 30 of Jacob chapter 2, Jacob speaks about the relationship between seeking for the kingdom of God and obtaining riches. The verse states:
“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.”
The meaning of this verse can be understood in the context of the preceding verses where Jacob addresses the people’s pride, materialism, and the mistreatment of their brethren. Jacob emphasizes that seeking after riches should not be their primary focus. Instead, he teaches that the people should seek for the kingdom of God first and foremost.
The phrase “raise up seed unto me” can be interpreted as the Lord’s desire to have righteous descendants or followers who are faithful and devoted to Him. In this context, Jacob is conveying that if the people seek after the kingdom of God and prioritize their spiritual growth and obedience, the Lord will guide and command them according to His will.
On the other hand, if the people continue in their wickedness, disregarding the commandments and mistreating others, they will need to “hearken unto these things” or listen and take heed of the consequences and judgments that will come upon them.
In summary, verse 30 emphasizes the importance of seeking the kingdom of God and aligning one’s actions with His commandments rather than pursuing worldly wealth and status. It reminds the people that their obedience and devotion to God will determine the blessings or consequences they will experience.
ChatGPT
After getting this response I decided to dig a little deeper and ask it a more specific question about the meaning of the phrase “raise up seed” and if it is connected to taking many wives and concubines.
Question: Does verse 30 indicate that God will command his people to take many wives and concubines if he wants to “raise up seed”
Verse 30 of Jacob chapter 2 does not explicitly state that God will command His people to take many wives and concubines in order to “raise up seed.” The verse itself does not address the specific practice of polygamy or provide any direct command regarding the matter.
However, it is important to consider the broader context of the Book of Mormon and the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) on this topic. In the early history of the LDS Church, polygamy was practiced for a period of time. Some individuals, including certain prophets and leaders of the Church, believed that this practice was commanded by God as a means to “raise up seed” and increase the number of faithful followers.
It’s worth noting that the LDS Church officially disavowed the practice of polygamy in 1890, and it is not currently practiced by the Church. The specific doctrines and practices of the Church regarding marriage and family have evolved over time.
In summary, while verse 30 does not explicitly mention polygamy, the topic of multiple wives and concubines has been discussed in other parts of the Book of Mormon and in the history of the LDS Church. However, the interpretation and understanding of those teachings have evolved, and the current stance of the LDS Church is against the practice of polygamy.
ChatGPT
I think it’s fair that ChatGPT tried to provide broader context by looking at the conventional interpretation and the history of plural marriage in general, but for the sake of this experiment, I only wanted it to consider the context of the sermon.
Question: Given the context of Jacob chapters 2 and 3, could verse 30 be interpreted to mean that “raise up seed” refers to taking many wives and concubines or God commanding the practice of polygamy?
Verse 30 of Jacob chapter 2 does not explicitly mention the practice of polygamy or taking many wives and concubines. The phrase “raise up seed” can be interpreted more broadly as God’s desire to have righteous descendants or followers who are faithful to Him. The verse does not provide specific instructions or details about how this is to be accomplished.
Interpreting verse 30 as a direct command to practice polygamy would require making assumptions and reading into the text beyond what is explicitly stated. It is important to consider the overall message and teachings of the Book of Mormon and the doctrines of the LDS Church as a whole.
It’s worth noting that the LDS Church, as mentioned earlier, officially disavowed the practice of polygamy in 1890. The current teachings and practices of the LDS Church do not endorse or encourage the practice of polygamy.
Interpretation of scripture can vary among individuals, and it is always important to seek guidance from reliable sources and consider the teachings of the Church and its leaders.
ChatGPT
It’s true the verse alone doesn’t suggest how “raising up seed” is to be accomplished which is why the context of the whole sermon is important, as is the rest of the Book of Mormon such as 1 Nephi 7:1. I decided to ask next what it thinks verse 30 means.
Question: What does “raise up seed” mean in verse 30?
In verse 30 of Jacob chapter 2, the phrase “raise up seed” can be understood as a broader call for God’s people to bear righteous and faithful children who will continue to follow God’s commandments and carry on His covenant. This phrase emphasizes the importance of raising a righteous posterity and maintaining a heritage of faithfulness.
The concept of “raising up seed” can be seen as part of God’s plan for His people to perpetuate a righteous lineage, both spiritually and physically. It involves instilling faith, values, and a love for God in future generations, ensuring that His covenant is passed down from one generation to the next.
While the specific interpretation of “raise up seed” may vary among individuals, it generally encompasses the idea of raising a righteous family and ensuring the continuation of God’s covenant through faithful descendants. It emphasizes the importance of nurturing a legacy of righteousness and devotion to God.
ChatGPT
I completely agree with this response and thought it was very well expressed. Next, I wanted to see what it had to say about the rest of the verse and ChatGPT nails it.
Question: What does “otherwise they shall hearken unto these things” in verse 30 mean?
The phrase “otherwise they shall hearken unto these things” in verse 30 of Jacob chapter 2 can be understood to mean that if the people do not follow God’s commandments, they will be inclined to listen to and engage in the practices that were condemned earlier in the chapter. In this context, the previous verses address the wickedness of seeking after riches, pride, and committing sexual sins, including the practice of taking many wives and concubines.
The phrase suggests that if the people do not repent and turn away from their wickedness, they will be susceptible to the temptations and cultural practices that were prevalent among other nations. It serves as a warning that if they do not keep the commandments, they will be influenced by the worldly behaviors and practices that God has instructed them to avoid.
In essence, the verse implies that obedience to God’s commandments is necessary to protect the people from falling into the same sins and cultural patterns that were prevalent among other nations. By hearkening or listening to the commandments and following them, they can avoid the negative consequences associated with those practices.
ChatGPT
While I wouldn’t put my complete trust in AI to interpret scripture, as a language model, I think it can be an interesting tool that could lead to additional ideas that can be validated in more trustworthy ways.
The Proposed Reinterpretation Compared
Let’s take one more look at the version that represents the traditional understanding of Jacob 2:30:
“If I want to 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, we can understand something closer to the real meaning.
I propose that the Lord, in Jacob 2:30, is actually saying something closer to the effect of:
When I determine to raise up a righteous people unto me, I alone will be the one to command my people; otherwise, (without me at their command) they shall hearken unto the precepts of men.
Consider the state of the world today when God is not at the helm of His people, and contemplate the various things that individuals choose to hearken to instead of His divine will and command.
I am not insinuating any malicious intent behind the conventional interpretation. I cannot ascertain why this interpretation has persisted for so long, aside from it appearing around the time that plural marriage was announced publicly in 1852.
In Jeff Lindsay’s post, he fairly notes that Jacob 2:30 was never used by Joseph Smith to justify polygamy. He shares some insights that Brian C. Hales, author of the three-volume Joseph Smith’s Polygamy shared with him:
It is interesting to note that, according to all available documents, JS never referred to Jacob 2:30 to justify the restoration of PM [plural marriage]. Undoubtedly later voices have done so. It is, to me, largely a red herring since Abraham and Jacob were polygamists, which observation is found to justify the restoration of the practice in D&C 132: 1, 37 (see also 40, 45). As you know, v. 63 lists “multiple and replenish” rather than “raise up seed” to describe polygamy’s role in expanding the number of children being born.
Source
There is a noteworthy issue with Hales’ claim that “raise up seed” is equivalent to “multiply and replenish,” as the evidence demonstrates that polygamy, in fact, reduces birthrates within populations.
The Nephites were capable of multiplying “exceedingly” under monogamy and spreading across the face of the land, so what potential advantage does polygamy offer in comparison? Moreover, if polygamy were advantageous, why is there no scriptural precedent for its use in that manner?
Lindsay also supplied an update from Hales who concluded:
I just did another search of my JS polygamy manuscripts and some other databases. No one quotes JS as referring to the BofM and Jacob 2:30 to justify his introduction of plural marriage.
Source
I commend Lindsay and Hales for their transparency on this matter. To be equitable, it’s essential to recognize that the absence of evidence regarding Joseph Smith not teaching this does not necessarily imply that he did not teach it.
Further research is needed to discover when and how the conventional interpretation came to be and what the reasoning was behind it.
In Jacob’s day, the meaning of the scriptures was distorted because they didn’t understand them.
“…they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms…”
Jacob 2:23
The Nephites initially adhered to the Lord’s commandments concerning marriage; however, when they abandoned his command, they were subsequently able to rationalize their wickedness by embracing the precepts of men.
King Benjamin explained:
For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, 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
Mormon observed:
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! […] Therefore, blessed are they who will repent and hearken unto the voice of the Lord their God; for these are they that shall be saved.
Helaman 12:4,23
Throughout my quest to comprehend the essence of this verse and delve deeper into Jacob’s message, I’ve come to recognize the enduring significance and relevance of his teachings in the contemporary world.
The physical and virtual harems of the modern world
Is the issue of people having multiple wives and concubines prevalent today? While we may observe it in practice among splinter groups within small populations, what if it takes on a different form and is more widespread than we realize?
What if the deeper problem lies in the mindset that seeks after these things? As King Benjamin taught, “The natural man is an enemy to God,” and individuals must be willing to submit to whatever the Lord deems necessary, much like a child submits to their father (Mosiah 3:19). This is why God must command His people and protect them from the influence of the natural man and his inherently carnal, sensual, and devilish precepts (Alma 42:10). As it’s stated, “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 multiple wives, the inclusion of concubines raises questions about their relevance today.
Concubinage varied in its practice among different cultures, with concubines generally being considered inferior to wives. It sometimes involved voluntary arrangements, but at other times, it amounted to sexual slavery. (source)
The moral issues associated with concubinage may have modern parallels not only in cohabitation and fornication but also in the realm of pornography and masturbation. C.S. Lewis once wrote a letter discussing the idea of a man’s imagination creating a harem of imaginary brides and the impact this could have on one’s mind.
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
C.S. Lewis makes a compelling case for how destructive a virtual harem of women can be to a man. However, it’s worth contemplating the profound impact that an actual harem has, not only on the man but also on the women and children involved.
In the creation of contemporary pornography, many men and women willingly subject themselves to being photographed and recorded, effectively becoming virtual concubines for an endless multitude of individuals seeking to gratify their lustful desires. Modern technology enables the development of virtual harems that far surpass Solomon’s actual harem in scale and reach.
Furthermore, this disturbing reality extends to real-life instances of sexual slavery and human trafficking, where individuals, including men, women, and children, are held captive and traded like commodities to satisfy the sickening, wicked, and insatiable appetites of the natural man.
These ancient and modern manifestations of human behavior serve as stark reminders that without God to command His people, they will inevitably “hearken unto these things” (Jacob 2:30) and thereby bring curses upon any civilization that embraces such practices.
This brings to mind Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s profound reflections as he contemplated the incomprehensible death and destruction he witnessed throughout his life, ultimately leading to the realization:
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 time, God used the state of women and children as a gauge of the people’s wickedness. Today, we need only examine the condition of women and children in our modern world and compare it to the past.
Where the bitter fruits of evil prevail, the shadow of a devastating curse looms ominously, threatening destruction. Yet, there remains hope if we choose to hearken unto God, cast aside the precepts of men, and embark on a path of righteousness once more.
Additional Resources
I have observed intriguing word patterns in Jacob’s sermon, particularly revolving around verse 30. While I’m not a linguistic expert, I have a theory that suggests deliberate Hebrew literary structures that shape what could be described as a formal “covenant curse” delivered by the Lord through His servant, Jacob. My exploration of this concept is ongoing, but it appears to be a multi-layered aspect of this sermon that warrants further examination. Link to document
Updates
- June 9, 2024 – Added the spaceship analogy and some verses from Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, and some of Abinadi’s words to the “I will command” section. Also added some clarification to my position on the meaning of “these things.”
- Sept. 14, 2023 – Removed section, “Commandments given unto our fathers,” going to get some additional information and put it in another post.
- Sept. 5, 2023 – Added section “Commandments given unto our fathers”
- Sept. 3, 2023 – Made several updates to the essay thanks to Jeff Lindsay’s constructive criticism of my usage of grammar and my premise regarding what I was referring to as the “Church’s” official position. I have made attempts to “strongman” what will be referred to as the “conventional interpretation” and correct my analysis of the grammar regarding the usage of the word “otherwise.” These are not the first updates to this essay, and they will likely not be the last.
83 Comments
Great article Steve!
You raised some very compelling parallel points I never considered, when I explored this subject on my first blog post back in Sept of 2014.
Polygamy vs the Book of Mormon: https://gregstocks.wordpress.com/2014/09/
I think if you put these two viewpoints together it is even more clear that God has never commanded polygamy/plural marriage/spiritual wives, etc. until the false doctrine of D&C 132 was introduced after Joseph Smith’s death(which was the analysis of my third post a couple months later).
My daughters, who were in seminary at the time asked be about polygamy so I took a hard look at it like you did. I trust the Book of Mormon, its’ 3, clear witnesses against the evils of polygamy and not any other man’s opinion, especially one claiming “special authority” to tell me it is ok.
Jacob 2 is a great example of how our God communicates to us in terms of our own agency.
It is just ambiguous enough to allow you two different roads. You get to decide who your God is, and the wages of that choice.
But once the spirit interprets it for you, if you ask, you no longer have confusion. But you do now have accountability. The kind that led Jacob to speak boldly to those that justified their actions.
It is a very usually worded verse of scripture that’s for sure. And you are correct about ambiguity acting as a kind of test for us, that is true about many things. We have learned from history that often the traditions of our fathers can be incorrect and cause us to err or even sin.
This is why it is important to feast upon the word and make our journey to Christ and his Comforter to guide us. It is true that God speaks through his servants and when they are speaking the words of the Spirit that they are as binding upon us as if from the mouth of God, they too can err as they have done all throughout the ages from time to time.
Ultimately we must be accountable to God. Some of the best people in scripture were put to death by their own misguided leaders.
Really dig your website and essays. Keep it up. However I can’t go with you on this one. In order to read the verse the way you describe it amounts to one reading the verse in a very convoluted way. The entire chapter, the book of Jacob, and the rest of the Book of Mormon never require that I read/ interpret a verse such as you have done with this verse.
To me the chapter is clear as well as verse 30. The Nephites Jacob is speaking to are guilty of “whoredoms”. Jacob doesn’t mince any words about that. Jacob is correcting them and in verse 30 Jacob parenthetically mentions a motive that the Lord would have to authorize multiple wives.
God bless.
Welcome, and thanks for visiting. I could make my argument a LOT shorter but there’s just so much evidence that the conventional interpretation isn’t correct. “Raise up seed” doesn’t mean taking many wives and concubines. (Compare 1 Nephi 7:1) During Joseph Smith’s lifetime this verse was never used in the way it was after the martyrdom. Hyrum Smith even used Jacob’s sermon to condemn the practice of having many wives and concubines.
Levi Richards recorded: “I attended meeting at the Temple un the aftrernoon. Hyrum Smith adressed the people on subjects from the 2nd. Chapter [now second and third] of the Book of Mormon. He represented the Book of Mormon as a mirror, a key to the Bible. … He said there were many that had a great deal to say about the ancient order of thing as Solomon and David having many wives and concubines: but its an abomination in the sight of God. If an angel from heaven should come and preach such doctorine some would be sure to see his cloven foot and cloud of darkness over head, though his garments might shine as white as snow. A man might have one wife but concubines he should have none. He observed that the idea was that this was given to Jacob for a perpetual principle.”
The Nephites were commanded to “raise up seed” monogamously. So by what reasoning does “raise up seed” indicate taking many wives and concubines in Jacob’s sermon? Well I think the answer is pretty clear, the Lord raising up seed involves having a covenant people raised up in righteousness and that he must be their commander or else, or “otherwise,” men tend to hearken unto their own precepts and engage in whoredoms.
The wording of the verse is very strange, it’s kind of awkward, but you can parse it out and look at it from a number of different angles and then the meaning becomes clear. It involves taking of the conventional lenses we tend to wear. The church even changed the chapter heading in 2013 and removed the idea of “authorization” and such and now it more accurately reads that the Nephite men are commanded to have only one wife.
To me, it makes far more sense that the Lord in this verse is saying something we already know is true, that without God’s commands, men will inevitably hearken unto their own precepts and it will bring curses of destruction. This is what the Lord is condemning them for and it’s consistent with all the patterns in scripture.
Brian Hales, the author of the three volume, “Joseph Smith’s Polygamy” 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
It doesn’t make sense that the Lord would have a motive to authorize multiple wives. Especially when polygamy is proven to reduce populations and on top of that, he has never commanded such in the entire history of mankind. So why have an exception to something that he never actually commands? Even among the early Latter-day Saints, where is the command? It’s not in D&C 132, it’s left up to the man if he desires another wife or not.
So what are the odds that God is instead saying in this one place where he is condemning a particular practice that he’ll command it and then never actually do that among the Nephites or any group of people anywhere that we have record of?
The subject of polygamy itself in LDS history is another Pandora’s box that I don’t really get into here, I think others are better equipped to take on that subject as I have not found any satisfactory conclusions based on my own study. But I do think that we can render a more accurate interpretation of this verse and I think it’s important because I think the main point here is far more critical to us. There’s a covenant curse when we violate the command to have only one wife.
If we invent another interpretation to obscure the real one, the far more significant and damning one, that’s pretty important in my eyes.
But hey, thanks for your input and making your case. I invite any criticism at any time.
Interesting that you tie the recent hubbub about polygamy to the chapter summary change in 2013. You could be right. I actually think the change has more to do with the fact that verse 30 has no business being included in the chapter summary of Jacob 2. The verse is parenthetical to the entire chapter. In “early mormon” times including the “authorization” of plural marriage language in the chapter heading would make sense since it was being practiced (not that they had chapter headings back then, but its placement previously makes sense in that light). But in the end it makes a lot of sense to take it out now.
Like most I don’t perfectly understand the role plural marriage plays in the plan of salvation. However we do have the luxury of hindsight with some of this.
God sees the end from the beginning. Part of me does not want to dismiss the fact that so many of us have heritage linked to plural marriage which played a big role (maybe bigger than we want to admit) in the stone being cut out of the mountain without hands that fills the world. In my mind there is no question that plural marriage played a significant role in the growth of the kingdom of God on earth prior to the second coming. However, the Nephite nation did not exist to that end, thus perhaps the lack of “authorization” during their era. It’s almost as if verse 30 acts a prophetic teaser. Or wink, wink, this is coming…pay attention Joseph, Brigham. God is saying essentially I reserve the right to command in this regard to “raise up seed” unto Him. “Raise up seed” unto Him is actually perfect language for the godly fruit of plural marriage in the Brigham era. Say what you want about all the messiness of it plural marriage, we all know there is plenty of it. So I guess I’m saying that I can see that God’s hand was in plural marriage for a time and I tend to believe verse 30 is a nod to that future day.
Thanks again for all you do. I’ve enjoyed yr website and content for years.
Eee 😬 you had such a BRILLIANT article until your conclusion where you veered way too hard and crashed.
Because Jacob 2 is a chiasm, verse 29 and 30 are the peek of it and mirror one another.
So “these things” HAS to mean that they must hearken unto their punishment which is that the land will be cursed for their sake. There is no way that “these things” has to do with something obscure like tying it back to verses nowhere near it. It is not the pattern of logic or the scriptures to tie it to the abominations that they were committing. It has to do with the verse immediately before it because it’s a continuation and emphasis.
Oh, where do you think that I veered too hard and crashed out of curiosity, I don’t think you elaborated on this.
I have a link at the end of the essay to a document where I lay out the potential chiastic structure of Jacob’s sermon and have those verses at the center. I think I see your point about “these things” tying to the covenant curse and in the big picture it’s all tied together. You and I agree that this is the main point, that these abominations will result in curses and destruction.
I’d have to think about your point more. My premise is that “these things” is referring to the wicked practices that bring about the curses and destruction so while it seems that we may disagree on that particular meaning, it seems that we agree on what the net effect of it all is.
But feel free to elaborate more on your point and make your case, I’d like to hear what you’re thinking.
I appreciate your nice response to a not so nicely worded critique of your article. I can see that your main goal is to learn more, and I’m grateful for that.
And yes, your article was brilliant. You identified a few structures that I hadn’t discovered with my prior study of this sad topic.
Jacob 2:30 is a tough nut to crack.
Thanks, Russ, yeah it’s a “proposed” reinterpretation. I’ve had a lot of great feedback and challenges over the years that have really helped polish this. It’s always good to hear people out because someone might have a missing piece. I’m always looking for alternative insights, I’m sure there is a ton that I’ve missed in the details but I’m convinced that the conventional interpretation is not correct.
All the so-called evidence in the world, cannot hold a candle or a prayer to the knowledge given to those who seek God’s answers to these questions through the lens and witness of the Holy Ghost. It is all conjecture and will always contain myths and fallacies. Man’s logic is and always will be flawed without the more sure word that only the Holy Ghost can give to each of us!
I have personally received that more sure word through the revelatory means of the Holy Ghost and that which is given to us through Him, trumps all forvit is He who leads us along the straight and narrow path which is our personal path to Jesus Christ, our declared by God, 2nd Comforter!
I do not merely believe, but I know, thrgh that witness that Jesus Christ, gave the parable of the 10 virgins in full contexwithe fullness of His gospel!
He was teaching the Jews whom He had, through His holy prophets – Abraham, Mises, Nathan, etc. including Jesus Christ Himself.
His prophets that Hecommanded to practice it and that law will one day, once again be commanded by Him and it will indeedbecome incumbent upon us to live as stated in Isaiah 4
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/isa/4?lang=eng
And in 2 Nephi 14
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/14?lang=eng
This is the literal word of God unto salvation! To ask God, and trust His word instead of relying on our own faulty, falsified interpretations of what He says and means.
Otherwise we will indeed be ever learning, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth!
Thanks Diana, I appreciate your desire to learn through the teachings of the Holy Spirit. God does expect us to learn by study and by faith and that begins with a correct understanding of the scriptures.
The parable of 10 virgins is not about 10 wives if that is what you are suggesting. The 10 virgins are part of the wedding party, they aren’t there to marry the bridegroom but escort him to his bride and the bridal chamber and rest of the wedding party in accordance with those ancient traditions.
In Isaiah, we are reading about a dire situation among wicked people where is seems that many men have fallen by the sword and the wicked women left alive are seeking to take hold of the remaining men to have their “reproach” taken away. It never says that the man marries all seven women, just that seven women are fighting over a single man. It’s true that the women suggest by “us” that he take all of them under his name, but it doesn’t say that he follows through. It also doesn’t indicate anywhere that this is being demanded in righteousness or that God is commanding it. Again, Isaiah is simply describing a scene.
This happened in the Book of Mormon when after three battles, many men were killed and the king had the remaining men care for the widows but without marrying them.
Since it’s isaiah, it’s possible that there are many interpretations of this verse. The seven women could be tied to the seven churches John wrote about because the church is often equated with a woman.
In the previous chapter, these women are described as the “daughters of Zion” here: “Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion…” (Isaiah 3:17)
That phrase isn’t just talking about the women of the church specifically, “Shake thyself from the dust; arise, and sit down, O Jerusalem: loose thyself from the bands of thy neck, O captive daughter of Zion” (Isaiah 52:2)
“And awake, and arise from the dust, O Jerusalem; yea, and put on thy beautiful garments, O daughter of Zion; and strengthen thy stakes and enlarge thy borders forever…” (Moroni 10:31)
So these “seven women” may represent wicked churches seeking to take hold of “one man” and take his name upon them, and that could be a number of things, the Lord, the Davidic Servant, or perhaps anyone that seems to have credibility since they may have lost theirs and feel like they need some kind of structure to get back on track.
I think what I’m explaining here fits the context of Isaiah’s words better than prooftexting that one verse and reading polygamy into it. People do the same things with Jacob 2:30 and that’s kind of my whole point.
We should be seeking to hear what the scriptures are saying and not reading in foreign meanings that don’t align at all with the context of the scriptures themselves. This is exactly what the wicked Nephites were doing as described in Jacob 2:23:
“This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms…”
The Lord cannot be any clearer in his condemnation of the practice of desiring and seeking after many wives and concubines. No righteous society in the history of recorded scripture has ever been built on polygamy, not one. This is because it actually reduces populations and requires that many men have no prospects for wives and families.
This leads to foolish and false teachings that men are more wicked than women and we should expect the vast majority of them to fail so that the remainder can split the righteous women among themselves thus “rewarding” the righteous women not with a husband who’s heart is only for her, but to be part of a massive harem where she is one among many.
In D&C 42:22 the Lord said it plainly: “Thou shalt love thy WIFE (singular) with ALL thy heart, and shalt cleave unto HER and NONE ELSE.”
I’m not sure how anyone can read an exception into that, but I’m sure some will try.
I have studied and studied and studied and this feels the the correct interpretation to me as well. I am curious, has anyone had conversations with any of the “higher ups” about this possibility? I would love to see the constant assumed polygamy interpretation of Jacob 2 abolished.
Not to my knowledge. As far as I know, nobody else really questioned this verse within recent history. This essay is just a post on some random blog nobody knows about.
But I do think that perhaps the change of the chapter heading in 2013 was a start. I think there was some kind of recognition that the whole “authorization” argument wasn’t supported by the text and so it was changed to more accurately reflect the context of the sermon.
I agree that the conventional interpretation of this verse is wrong and should no longer be supported.
But, I also understand that doing anything to publicly touch this topic opens a can of worms. I think it’s only a matter of time, but perhaps there is a wise desire to have some order as to how that information would unfold without distracting people’s spiritual journey and how to do that is currently unknown.
I don’t envy anyone who is in a position to do something about this. I could speak at length about all the pros and cons; it’s not as straightforward as you’d expect in the grand scheme.
But that’s why this topic interests me so much because I think we have a great example of something that can be objectively proven in scripture and I think that it is much easier to come to terms with rather than trying to read the minds of people and assume their intentions.
I sent a letter to the 1st presidency about the conclusion that these things means that they will be cursed. Because that’s the pattern of the chiasm, and that’s the truth of the verse.
Time will tell. Before anything changes, the evidence for the change would need to be bulletproof. Then the church would have to deal with the Book of Mormon now being 100% against having multiple wives and what that means looking back on our history and leadership. Kinda hard to do when you keep doubling down on the idea that church leaders cannot lead the membership “astray” whatever that means.
I don’t believe such a thing and am fine with leaders getting things wrong and repenting rather than this idea of infallibility.
The fact is that leaders have been wrong and false doctrines like Adam-God, blood atonement, and priesthood bans were taught over the pulpit at the highest levels.
We course corrected then and we can and should not if we need to in the future. Why on earth would you want to maintain false doctrines just to avoid admitting that we got something wrong?
Repentance and forgiveness should go both ways, we should have compassion on leaders.
But I could be completely wrong as well, if I am, I’d sure like someone to correct me with a solid argument.
In my own studies I have never found an instance where Joseph Smith, Jr. promoted polygamy. In fact, I have found that he always condemned the practice. Revisions were made after his death that showed that he supported it. The 1844 D&C Section 109 still contained the charge that polygamy was not acceptable. If Joseph actually practiced polygamy but constantly said he didn’t and that it was forbidden, that would make him a liar. The following YouTuber documented what I had learned in my research. These links are very good for anyone who is interested in further research: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r57oPlOgY6w, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5heXE5xS5w
Great article. Just one note on the section regarding the change from “fathers” to “father”. I believe this was changed because the original printers manuscript uses “father”. You can see that here: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/printers-manuscript-of-the-book-of-mormon-circa-august-1829-circa-january-1830/103
Hi Dean, great point. You’re right, the printer’s manuscript did say “father,” however, of the 4 editions published during Joseph Smith’s lifetime, he had every opportunity to correct it but he did not. Perhaps he just missed it, but it was published that way continually up until 1983 so why changed it back to the printer’s manuscript?
After the first edition and in subsequent editions, they meticulously made grammatical edits all over the place, added verses, etc. It would seem that Joseph would have caught an error like that and would have corrected it, so I’m erring on the side of the four editions Joseph had published and what was consistent there rather than the printer’s manuscript which could have been in error.
What do you think?
There actually was an error where commandments is written but the “s” is crossed out. It could also be that an “s” was left off of fathers as well. It’s hard to say for sure.
I think those additional details are worth adding though, I may make an update and include this information because I can see how helpful it would be, thanks Dean!
I think it’s fair to say that Joseph Smith could have “fixed” it in later editions. Especially considering that the 1837 edition was supposed to have been updated based on the printers manuscript and the 1840 edition on the original manuscript. Since it was left in, the original manuscript possibly could have used “fathers”. It’s hard to say, but, for what it’s worth, Royal Skousen determined that “father” was the most likely earliest text. And my guess would be that the 1981 change back to “father” was more to align it with the earliest text, rather than to intentionally obscure the meaning. In any case, it does obscure the meaning, since now it can be interpreted multiple ways, depending on which text you pick.
Yeah, I saw that Skousen went with “father” based on the earliest text, but I think it is important to ponder if “earliest” equates to “correct” in this instance especially when Joseph had 3 more editions to change it but left it how it was. There were many other changes made, thousands, but not to that word.
Skousen’s work “attempts to sift through changes in the manuscript to bring the reader back to the best approximation of what the original text of the Book of Mormon would have said” (Book of Mormon Central) but note that Joseph Smith corrected errors in the Book of Mormon that were made in the printer’s manuscript by comparing it with the ORIGINAL manuscript. So I think that Skousen reverting back to the printer’s manuscript doesn’t give us a more correct version, especially in this case.
Personally, I would err on the side of Joseph as the editor through four editions vs. relying on the printer’s manuscript which could have been wrong to begin with.
The implications of one vs. the other in terms of interpretation are quite impactful.
Please revisit the section “Commandments given unto our fathers” and note the updates that I made, I found some important new information that makes my case for the keeping the word “fathers” the same.
“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.” There are some issues in your approach that can be critiqued, Steve. I think the dictionary sources don’t support your argument, for one thing. I explore a number of concerns in a post at Arise from the Dust: https://www.arisefromthedust.com/what-does-jacob-230-say-about-polygamy-is-the-traditional-interpretation-and-the-churchs-view-wrong/
Hi Jeff, thanks for your comment. I wanted to publicly acknowledge your insights and that I have been in communication via email.
I have read your post and think that you have some valid points in regards to how I frame the traditional interpretation most church members are familiar with and my presentation of the grammar surrounding the word “otherwise.” I thank you for your sincere efforts to make a great case for some valid corrections that I will be implementing in a revised version of my post here.
It has been a while since I have visited this subject and there are some potentially new and interesting insights to be added along with some corrections. That said, I still stand by my argument that Jacob 2:30 has nothing to do with God allowing his people to engage in the abomination of taking many wives and concubines by way of commandment.
I assert that the meaning of the verse has to do with God desiring to raising up a righteous branch of his people that hearken to his command; otherwise, they hearken to arm of flesh and commit whoredoms and abominations, as described, and bring upon themselves curses and destruction.
This is consistent with the context of the sermon and with Nephi’s teachings which Jacob was well acquainted and influenced by.
While this essay makes this claim, I have made errors in how I have presented the information and thanks to your feedback, will correct those errors. That said, even with said errors intact, I stand by my central thesis that the official interpretation is incorrect and that the original, accurate interpretation is closer to what I have presented here.
Like I’ve said, I plan on leaving this version up so that anyone reading your article can link back to this one, but I will post a link at the top to this one in the future to guide the reader to a revised version that will take into consideration your constructive feedback.
I invite you to also take on not just the “otherwise” section, which is not as your article states “central to my argument,” but look at the others as well, particularly, what I think IS central to my argument which is the meaning of the phrase “raise up seed.”
That all made perfect sense and was a really great explanation! I personally agree with all of it too.
But now I wonder, since the church has always stood by the way it interprets Jacob 2:30 if maybe the use of the semicolon there is actually an error and they just have yet to notice and take care of it. Maybe a comma is meant to be there…Idk… I personally would be relieved if the semicolon is meant to be there and the usual interpretation has just been a great oversight that the church can correct but… yeah Idk since they still stand by the usual interpretation.
For me also, the usual interpretation has always seemed strange because of the context around it and everything else in the Book of Mormon (and the rest of our standard works) speaking out against having multiple wives. It seems strange that God would spend so much time explaining how bad and abominable this practice is to Him, just to suddenly be like “Oh but if I want you to do it at some point, then it’s ok and I will let you know,” then to just go straight back into explaining how bad it is and how badly affected by it the women and children of the men who practice it are/have been… It just seems so out of context to me. And it’s a strange thing for Him to want to command something that He is well aware causes so much heartache. And especially to interject “I might command this sometime” right before going into how hurtful this practice can be… It’s all just so strangely put and there’s nothing else in the Book of Mormon that reads like this :/
I think a lot of the concerns we have as church members about plural marriage also feed very deeply into the suspicion about the usual interpretation being incorrect. Like some of the points you made about how it doesn’t seem to really accomplish the supposed purpose of it very well, and how to another commenter you made the point that like ‘so just bc it’s authorized it isn’t gonna be heartbreaking anymore but will somehow just turn into a happy event?’ I’ve had those thoughts as well, and it all just keeps making me wonder if 2:30 really isn’t being interpreted correctly.
So even if you took away the punctuation, the placement of the word otherwise in the verse is how you would use a conjunctive adverb. The semicolon is simply the correct punctuation that goes with the grammar. This same punctuation and grammatical pattern are used consistently for all other occurrences in the Book of Mormon.
Yes, it does sound out of context and strange because the current interpretation is incorrect. It’s only difficult to grapple with because we’ve been forcing a flawed interpretation onto the verse. If you eliminate that flawed interpretation and explore the context of the verse and know some simple facts about the English language, it is clear as to what is being said.
Ultimately, you’ll need to decide for yourself. I’ve laid out my reasoning for why I think it is incorrect and an example of an interpretation that fits the context of the sermon.
But I think this is just the beginning. I know there’s more to it than this and when it comes to light, I think there will need to be some adjustments to how we have treated the meaning of this verse.
I think maybe I didn’t explain myself well enough 😅… I still agree with your assessment and wasn’t trying to say that I didn’t or that I forgot any of those important points from the article, but this whole idea of being able to say “Oh the church got that wrong” is really new to me and makes me a little uneasy due to harsh things I was taught in my upbringing, so I was emotionally harboring a bit of self-doubt about the correct interpretation of the verse 😅 Logically, I completely agree with everything you’ve explained and have always viewed the verse the same way, but emotionally I’m trying to work through allowing myself to be comfortable with fully admitting when I see these kinds of errors without telling myself it’s not ok to see them.
Yeah, there will need to be some adjustments for sure since a handful of teachings kind of hinge off the way this verse has been taught.
No, you’re good, I think my response may have been unclear. I was looking at the situation with you and answering more generally.
I’m not bothered or surprised by mortals making mistakes. It’s documented with Joseph Smith and with subsequent leaders. I don’t believe this idea that the church’s leaders “cannot lead us astray.”
But that just makes me more forgiving to error when I see it rather than holding up men as lights and flying to pieces at the slightest hint of anything questionable.
We all have blind spots as well. I think this verse is one of them. It just doesn’t seem like anyone has really questioned this interpretation that was put on this verse in the polygamy years. I certainly never saw it or questioned it for a long time.
Ah ok! Thanks for explaining! And I’m so sorry for such a late response!!!
I spent most of 2023 deconstructing and yeah about blind spots….there were so many things that I had never seen or thought about before either, until recently. Tho a lot of them I had thought about, but didn’t REALLY let myself think about bc you’re always told to follow the leaders as is they’re infallible and you get backlash if you don’t. But I was at a point where I couldn’t live that way anymore. My list of things I had never thought about or seen before at all got so large. I’m still seeing more things all the time too. Bc of this whole experience I feel that I’ve become more aware and more teachable. I feel more directly led by Christ now that I look to Him for interpretations of scripture rather than trying to wrap my head around what the leaders told me something was saying.
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.
This is so good. Thank you so much for articulating such a clear explanation with this one verse. Well done.
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 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?
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.
“If we accept the principle of polygamy as it has been taught and practiced by prophets throughout history, ”
I used to believe the same thing. After all, that is what our history indicates and the references in D&C 132. There is so much coming to light because of the Joseph Smith Papers. We are blessed to see more clearly what the prophet Joseph Smith and his brother and prophet Hyrum Smith wrote, said and did during their lives. Also I went on a search and deep dive into the ancient prophets. I have changed my position. I hope you enjoy your own search into the Old and New Testaments and please reply if you find where God commanded polygamy in either book.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
Thank you.
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.
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.
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Great insights on Jacob 2:30! Levirate marriage is one example where polygamy could be required by ancient laws of Israel (see Ex. 25:5, quoted below), but I know of know other such requirement.
I do want to add some minor textual evidences that Lehi may have had a second wife.
Evidence 1:
Of the 31 times “mother” occurs in 1 Nephi, 2 Nephi and Jacob, it only occurs 9 times in reference to a “mother” in their traveling company.
(See 1 Ne 2:5; 1 Ne 5:1,3,6,7; 1 Ne 7:19; 1 Ne 8:14; 1 Ne 18:18; and 2 Ne 3:1.)
Those 9 occurrences can be divided as follows:
(1) 5 occurrences are of Nephi referring to his own mother as “my mother”,
(2) 1 occurrence is Nephi referring to his wife’s mother as “her mother”,
(3) 1 occurrence is Lehi speaking to his four sons (he only had four at the time) about their mother as “your mother”,
(4) 1 occurrence of Lehi speaking to Joseph about his mother as “your mother”, and
(5) 1 occurrence of Nephi speaking of the mother of Jacob and Joseph as “their mother.”
Nephi seems to be very consistent throughout his record to include the correct possessive adjective to “mother” each time. In the last occurrence, the use of “their” might imply that Nephi and Jacob/Joseph have different mothers.
Evidence 2:
Further, Sariah’s youngest son Nephi is already a married adult before their departure into the wilderness (see 1 Ne 16:7-9) and yet, despite her age, Lehi as two more sons in the wilderness (see 1 Ne 18:7).
Also, Lehi calls Jacob “my first-born in the wilderness” (see 2 Ne 2:1-2,11). He calls Laman “my first-born” (see 2 Ne 4:3). This is like father Jacob (Israel) calling his son Joseph his firstborn, though he was born much later. He was the firstborn of Rachel, but not Leah.
Evidence 3:
Ishmael died early on in the 8-year journey across the wilderness. Israelite levirate law may apply here.
Deuteronomy 25:5 states:
“When brothers live together, and one of them dies without a son, his wife shall not marry a strange man outside; rather, her [in-law] shall come to her, take her for himself as a wife, and support her. The firstborn son that she bears is to rise upon the name of his dead brother so that his name is not obliterated in Israel.”
Ishmael’s wife is said to be the mother of Nephi’s wife, but it never mentions her as the mother of any other of Ishmael’s children. This does not mean she wasn’t, but it is not mentioned.
If Ishmael’s wife had yet to have a son, then Lehi was the nearest-kin (brother) and they were clearly living together. As such, Lehi would be obligated to take her as his wife.
Further, it was in the generation of Lehi (or the one preceding him) in which the Deuteronomic Law was restored, and the laws regarding polygamy and levirate were restored.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, here are some of my own.
Evidence 1:
In reference to Laman and Lemuel, there are three occurrences of Nephi saying “their father” which by the same logic might imply that Laman and Lemuel had a different father than Nephi. I don’t think this is very good evidence in this regard.
Evidence 2:
We don’t know how old Nephi was when he got married, he could have been 16 or in his early 20s. But it’s entirely within the realms of biology for Sariah to have had more children in the wilderness.
Typically men married in their late teens and early 20s and none of Lehi and Sariah’s sons had married yet. They seemed to have great wealth so one reason they had not yet married is that they may have all been very young at the start of the Book of Mormon.
They could have either all been very close in age, or Laman and Lemuel could have been twins, for example, as they are always grouped together and seemed more close knit and separate than Nephi and Sam. Jacob and Joseph may have been a set of twins as well.
Laman was indeed the first-born but being mentioned as the firstborn in the wilderness is simply a distinction of his child being born outside of any promised lands and at this time of trial for the family. It doesn’t necessarily mean that he has another mother.
The reason Joseph (of Egypt) was the “first born” of Rachel was because his father Israel’s first wife, Leah, was someone he was tricked into marrying. Rachel was his only intended wife. Like Abraham, Isaac was called by the Lord “your only son” even though he had Ishmael. These two situations were very complicated.
Evidence 3:
Ishmael had two sons that were already married with families, this is very clear in the text. So there would have been no need for Lehi to provide Ishmael’s wife with a son because it wasn’t important for the wife to have a son, but for the man or brother to have a son, and Ishmael already had two of them so Levirate law wouldn’t apply.
We know from Jacob that Lehi was given a commandment that they should only have one wife and no concubines. I think there is evidence that Lehi was preaching against this practice and that they were taken out of Jerusalem to be free of this practice.
If Lehi had another wife I think that would have been mentioned and be clear in the text since Nephi writes very specifically about his family members and who they are.
Levirate marriage was a real thing but I don’t think I would equate that with polygamy especially as it is defined and described as a choice made for desire without any extenuating circumstances.
Levirate “marriage” had a specific purpose, it was to provide an heir to a deceased brother who did not produce one. This was not done so the living brother could have another wife, it was done so that a deceased brother could have a son.
And this wasn’t a necessity, either party could refuse but there was a shaming ritual that you had to do publicly.
Levirate marriage isn’t always a solution because let’s say the wife is barren and the brother dies of old age and his old, barren widow is clearly not going to be having any kids and there is a younger brother who sees the hopelessness of the endeavor and decides to bow out. He’d just go through the ritual and pass on it which I don’t think anyone would fault him for.
So I do think it is quite the stretch to try and manifest a second wife for Lehi in the text. I don’t see any of the three evidences really working.
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.”