Introduction
Since Mike Parker’s blog post on plural marriage has garnered more comments than all our other threads combined, my keen market research skills have told me that polygamy posts are traffic gold.
One of my research interests at FAIR is plural marriage, and I’ve been reading as much of the primary and secondary literature as I can get my hands on.
I thought our readers might be interested in a periodic look at a few of the things that I’ve found interesting, weird, or different from the common portrayals of plural marriage. In particular, primary sources that may have been misread or misrepresented, are also worth looking at. I hope that readers will spot things that I haven’t, or correct some of my own blind spots.
I’ll try to post at least once or twice a week, until people get bored, I run out of material, or FAIR tells me to stop so this doesn’t become the All Plural Marriage, All the Time blog.
The RLDS/CoC and Jacob 2:30
A key difference (arguably the key difference) between the LDS and RLDS churches is the issue of plural marriage. The “Brighamites” insisted that Joseph had both taught and practiced plural marriage, and that God endorsed the practice. The “Reorganites” tended (following Joseph Smith III) to insist that Joseph had never taught the practice. A few (such as Austin Cowles, formerly of the Nauvoo Stake leadership) argued that Joseph had taught or practiced plural marriage, but that Joseph was wrong to do so–he was a fallen prophet who either repented or didn’t.
Both groups did, at least, claim the Book of Mormon as scripture. Anti-Mormon (and even some ostensibly “objective” accounts, such as Richard Van Wagoner’s Mormon Polygamy: A history) always point to the general prohibition of plural marriage in Jacob 2. Usually unmentioned is verse 30, which LDS readers have seen as indicating that God may (under some circumstances) endorse plural marriage.
I recently encountered an alternate RLDS reading. It is by Richard Price, who “is a Reorganization conservative who interprets redirection in the church’s policy and doctrine as evidence of apostacy from the truths of the Restoration. He has become the chief spokesman for Reorganization fundamentalists, and a rival church organization is now developing around him.” [1]
Despite a tacit or overt admission by many RLDS members, leaders, and scholars that Joseph taught and practiced plural marriage in Nauvoo, Price and wife Pamela continue to insist that (in the words of their book and series of articles) Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy.
[Given that the Prices sometimes engage in anti-LDS polemic, accusing LDS leaders of fraud and the possible destruction or alteration of documents, I’ve not linked to their site as per FAIR policy. Anyone who is interested can certainly find it, though. I found some stuff I hadn’t seen before in their research.]
As probably goes without saying, I consider this stance historically untenable. The Prices have done some good research, however. Their analysis of difficulties which the physical layout of Joseph’s home presents for the folklore about Emma Smith reportedly pushing a pregnant Eliza R. Snow down the stairs adds to Beecher, Newell, and Avery’s analysis of the dubious textual and chronological evidence for this story. [2]
At other times, I think the Prices’ ideological commitment to absolving Joseph of plural marriage and blaming it all on the Brighamites trips them up. This brings me to the example I want to discuss today.
Jacob 2:30
Jacob 2:30 can be defanged, from the Prices’ point of view, if it excludes plural marriage. They attempt to do it thusly:
The Mormon Church leaders and missionaries still use the above passage to claim that God commanded them to practice polygamy to “raise up a righteous seed”—with the theory that children born of polygamy are more righteous than children born of monogamy, and that when God decides to establish an especially righteous people, He will command that they must practice polygamy.
They interpret this passage:
For if I will, saith the Lord of hosts, raise up [righteous] seed [or people] unto me, I will command my people [to practice polygamy]: otherwise [if the Lord does not give the commandment to practice polygamy], they shall hearken unto these things [Jacob’s instruction to not practice it].
This interpretation makes this passage completely out of harmony with all the rest of Jacob’s revelation against polygamy, and all of Joseph Smith’s writings which were printed before his death.
The true interpretation of the passage shows that it is definitely monogamous, and that it is in harmony with all the rest of the revelation which the Lord gave through Jacob. The true interpretation is:
For if I will, saith the Lord of hosts, raise up [righteous] seed unto me, I will command my people [the Lord will be their commander—He will give them commandments to obey]: otherwise [if the Lord is not their commander; or they do not obey His commandments], they shall hearken unto these things [they shall practice the sins of polygamy].
This is the true meaning of this passage—and therefore it condemns polygamy, rather than justifying it as the Mormon Church leaders claim.
This is certainly a creative reading. I see a few problems, however:
- The reading requires the “shall hearken” to be read as predictive (what will happen), not imperative (what should happen). Yet, in Joseph’s day, shall is typically an imperative when applied in the second and third person, not a future tense. [See Webster’s 1828 dictionary, “shall,” definition #2.]
- It seems strange for the Lord to say simply that He will be “their comamnder,”–the verse is clearly talking about commanding SOMETHING. And, it involves the Lord “will”[ing] something that He might not will in other situations.
- It ignores the fact that Jacob is almost certainly commenting on Deuteronomic (or Deuteronomy-like) writing about plural marriage in Judaic kings, some of whom clearly had wives given them by God. (e.g., 2 Sam 11:8) See here for analysis on these lines by FAIR.
I also wonder if the Prices’ reading of shall is idiosyncratic or typical for how the Book of Mormon uses it. Or the KJV?
So: is this a possible or probable reading of Jacob 2:30? Or has zeal lead the Prices’ astray? If so, what can LDS apologists do to avoid similar errors in their own efforts to read their own texts and articulate their own beliefs?
Discuss.
Important Note: I do not believe that anyone is currently authorized to practice plural marriage. Any comments arguing that plural marriage should be taught or practiced by the LDS Church (or anyone else) will be deleted without further warning. Get your own blog.
Notes
[1] Roger D. Launius,” An Ambivalent Rejection: Baptism for the Dead and the Reorganized Church Experience,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 23/2 (Summer 1990): 61n1.] (For more on Price, see William D. Russell, “Richard Price: Leading Publicist of the Reorganized Church’s Schismatics,” in Roger D. Launius and Linda Thatcher, eds., Differing Visions: Dissenters in Mormon History (University of Illinois Press, 1994), 319–340.)
[2] See Maureen Ursenbach Beecher, Linda King Newell, and Valeen Tippetts Avery, “Emma and Eliza and the Stairs,” Brigham Young University Studies 22/1 (Fall 1982): 86–96.
Greg,
I am thrilled that you have started blogging.
A couple of years ago we had some big discussion on the former FAIR boards.
Critic Don Bradley (“onandagus”) championed the idea that “shall” was predictive. Ben McGuire took the position that “shall” was imperative, drawing on parallels from OT texts. I contributed one from Deut. 18:15 that Ben liked.
On an earlier thread there I posted my reading of Jacob 2.
23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people [speaking of the Nephites between 544 and 421 B.C.] begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable [in some cases, as explained later] before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, [Why the logical connector? The Jerusalem environment was non-conducive for raising a righteous nation] thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. [Because in Jacob’s audience’s situation polygamy was not conducive to righteous posterity.]
[Note: this line of argument has weight because the Lord didn’t show mercy in rescuing the Nephites from one bad environment merely to have them disobey him in another (“choice”) environment]
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
[Here Jacob lays down a command that the people shall hearken to]
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
[ God gets upset when people violate “chastity” and commit “whoredoms” as defined by his commandments.]
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
[Wherefore – i.e., because He is concerned about raising a righteous posterity and is un-delighted when chastity is violated, he will enforce his recently re-issued command through a curse]
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.
[“For…” – here He is laying out the general principle on which the above is based. If He finds polygamy to be a better way of raising righteous posterity in some exceptional situations and so wills it, He will issue a new command, otherwise the standing commandment is to practice monogamy like He just gave in v. 27. ]
This is another point I missed – note that Jacob here says “this people shall keep my commandments.” It’s hard to read the Book of Mormon as saying they did keep His commandments (i.e., merely describing the future); it’s a command that they should keep His commandments.
It’s hard to maintain two separate uses of the same word in two verses, especially when the second requires a very strained reading on other grounds.
I think their reading is a little weird. Would not God provide his commandments through a prophet? I guess I fail to see any distinction.
Greg,
When I was responding to Bradley’s arguments, his assertion was that shall is always predictive when used in third person. If you think about it most of the commandment giving formulas employ some form of second person, like “thou shalt” or “ye shall.”
So even though the shalls in verse 27 and 29 are imperative, Bradley argued that the one in verse 30 can not be due to grammatical rules set up by the Oxford English Dictionary.
However I don’t think we should approach the Book of Mormon text with the idea that Joseph Smith tightly used advanced grammar rules. I think it is justified to use a third person imperative if you are talking about what command you would give to a group of people that does not include your current audience.
Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy volume 2 i thought was to be published in 2006. I was told that in a small e-mail i once got from Pamela Price. I am Community of Christ which is not the same group as the Restoration RLDS. The book is being published as a serie’s of on-going articles in Vision Magazine. I see them as continuing the series in Vision for a few more year’s. I got my copy of volume 1 in 2000, and Vision magazine only come’s out a few time’s a year.
Other than Eliza Snow, and Louisa Beaman they have not presented their case against the wive’s.
Louisa Beaman underwent a re-baptism after her marriage to Joseph Smith. They assume that meant she committed some kind of sin. That’s possible, but it’s more likely to me she was renewing her covenant. Re-baptism’s were done for reason’s more than a person losing membership and needing re-baptized.
I know she never bore Joseph Smith a child. But rather than seeing that as firm evidence she was not married to him i take it they were not close. I know Joseh Noble alleged a honey-moon for Joseph Smith and Louisa Beaman. That may, or may not be true, but i doubt they saw each other much if ever in private after the ceremony.
I would like to know if the original copy of what became D.&C. 132 exist’s. A quick reading of the original copy would settle RLDS concern’s it was altered. Jame’s Whitehead said he briefly saw it at Winter Quarter’s and that the later LDS D.&C. version was altered. He said it was altered to sanction polygamy in the modern time’s.
Pamela Price did not say document’s like William Clayton’s journal was altered or a fake. I think they probably privately think that’s possible. All she told me in her e-mail was a wise i have not made an in-depth study of them, so she could not comment on them at the time. Her answer i took as meaning she was not unaware of the fact they implicated Joseph Smith in polygamy. I am quite sure both her and Richard Price have read the quote’s. I know they have read book’s like Mormon Enigma which cite from them.
While i like Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy i have my own more cautious approach to the subject. I really don’t want to comment on the content of the book and article’s much more than that. I agree and disagree with them some. It’s easy to get off track with an extended discussion of the history of Mormon polygamy.
I will try and limit my comment’s to Jacob 2:30 if i have any to make. So if anybody replie’s to me i will read and not respond. Unless of course i feel my comment’s will not get in the way of the topic at hand.
Here’s my reading of Jacob 2:24-33
Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines which
thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
Behold…an abomination occurred and the land of Jerusaleum was cursed.
Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the
land of Jersulalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto
me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
Thus….Because the land of Jersuleum was cursed by the abominations commited by David and Solomon, God had to take his people to a new land to raise up a righteous seed.
Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like
unto them of old.
Therefore…Because God went to all the efforts of leading this people to a new land, he will not suffer that this effort was in vain, and that this new land will be cursed, too.
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;
Therefore….it is imperative that the people keep His commandments; one wife for each man, and no concubines.
For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms
are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
Because…anything other than one wife and one husband is an abomination.
Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of
Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
And…if the people do not hearken unto Gods commandment, then this land will be cursed like Jersuleum was.
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.
And, if God went to all the trouble of leading this people out of Jersuleum to raise up seed unto himself (refer back to Jacob 2:25), than He WILL command (and warn) them to correct their behavior; and whose to say he can’t command another “Lehi” to separate himself from this people, Land be cursed, and take this new “Lehi” to a new land that is’nt cursed. So, the people should hearken unto the threat that the LAND WILL BE CURSED.
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.
Here, Jacob rehashes what is said from Jacob 2:24-2:30 in Jacob 2:31-2:33, only he gives it more color this go around (or tries to Spell it out): Look Again…God saw his daughters led into captivity in the Land of Jersuleum.
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.
And… God does’nt want to see what happened in Jerusalem happen again, especially since he went to all the trouble of leading this people to this new land.
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.
Therefore…God warns again (reiterating Jacob 2:29, 2:30) and is more thorough in his explanation of what will happen to this people; that if they lead his daughters into captivity by commiting whoredoms (plural wives and/or concubines), then they will be cursed…AND destroyed. For God will not have them do like David and Solomon. And the part about destruction hints again at the idea that God will just take up another “Lehi.”
So, how you address the points #1-3 in the original blog post? From what I can see, you’ve just reiterated the RLDS reading.
How do you account for those points I raised?
Saying that Jacob 2:30 is God saying sometimes polygamy is righteous and sometimes it’s not, Is a non-sequitur interpretation of 2:30 that does not follow the context of what goes on in 2:24-2:33. Such an interpretation by the people he was speaking to would have taken everything that he was saying and debunked it and gave it no power. The reason Jacob even has to go into lines 2:31-33 is too make himself clear, if he has’nt made him self clear enough. Jacob must feel as though he did’nt make himself clear enough, or that he was too sharp in Jacob 2:29 and 2:30 with the people. So he trys to paint the picture in Jacob 2:31-2:33 by bringing attention to Gods daughters whose hearts are crying. Line 2:33 is a reiteration of what he is trying to say in 2:29-2:30. And really, Jacob brings it all home in line 2:34 by bringing up Lehi’s name. Because what Jacob is saying in 2:30 and 2:33 is that God will just raise up another “Lehi.”
Bonnie,
I can give you some points for the creative reading of the Book of Mormon text.
I would like to explain why some of your ideas are non-starters, though.
1. Nowhere in the Book of Mormon or Bible does it show that the land of Jerusalem was cursed for any reason, especially not because during David and Solomon’s reigns. These kings were responsible for leading Israel into its golden era and predated Lehi by several centuries.
2. The curse on “this land” refers to the promised land arrived at by the Lehite colony and was fungible with wherever the Nephites relocated. Because this land is distinct from Jerusalem, I think Jacob is relaying some original revelation that he received as well as appealing to Lehi’s revelation as well.
3. The most likely time when Lehi received a revelation on marriage is when his sons were sent back to rescue Ismael’s daughters from a fate of joining polygamous Babylonian harems. The promise of monogamous marriage made for a good sales pitch in comparison to the lascivious Jerusalem practices and prophesied destruction.
4. The land of Jerusalem was practicing Levirate marriage as commanded by Moses at the time prior to Lehi’s exile. It would take considerable prophetic gravitas to overturn the precedent set by Moses. Levirate marriages would have been at an all time high as men were killed in wars to maintain Israel’s sovereignty. Yet we don’t see Lehi or any other prophet calling Jerusalem to repentance away from that practice. There were much bigger abominations going on that occasioned prophetic jeremiads.
Who says the Lord was thinking about polygamy in Jacob 2:30? He could have had in mind periods of history when the population was thinned or got wicked. If he ever saw the need to have future persons raise up seed via monogamy he could do so. Under other circumstances until then they were to follow the words just given. Certainly he had already raised rightious seed to himself, and saw no more need for it.
Robert,
v. 30 has to be talking about polygamy one way or another.
“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.”
If “shall” is imperative, then the Jacob is reiterating the monogamy imperative–“these things”–given in preceding verses. Since monogamy fits under the otherwise clause, then its opposite, polygamy, is associated with the prerogative to “raise up seed” through polygamy. The purpose of the Levirate law was to raise up seed for one’s dead brother (and by extension to the Lord as Israel was God’s covenant people.) Verse 30 does seem to be a reference to Levirate marriage. Jacob knew that the Law of Moses commanded polygamy in certain exceptional situations and needed to have his bases covered should his opponents launch another scripture-based article about a prior divinely-mandated exception that required polygamy.
If the shall in v. 30 is predictive (which I dispute) the prediction would then signify abominable polygamous practices as “these things.” Either way polygamy makes its appearance in v. 30.
Despite the above response, I am not opposed to a reading that includes monogamy among the strategies the Lord can employ to raise up a righteous people. But I insist that that strategic arsenal includes polygamy as well, as it has demonstratively done for Abraham and Jacob and for the Church of Jesus Christ in modern times. “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
God did not command that Sarai give her handmaid to her husband. Sarai did that all on her own. By her own Free Will. As did Keturrah after her.
God had forgotten Sarai…and when he turned around and saw that she had given her handmaid to her husband…God wept. Because, he realized he had forgotten her. And he said to himself, “I’m sorry Sarai…but don’t you worry…because I’m going to make things right. And you’re going to become a symbol of the Handmaid of God herself. And then God called down to Abram….and he said, “Abram, with you I am well pleased, because you have loved and obeyed your wife. And that makes you Choice among men. So I’m going to make my Covenant with you. And your wife Sarai…she’s going to have a son in her old age. And his name shall be Isaac” etc etc.
And as much as Isaac is a symobol of the Christ, so too is Abraham a symbol of God, and Sarah a symbol of the Handmaid of God.
Bonnie,
Are you willing to show us the scriptures that tell the version of the story you posted above about God forgetting Sarai?
I don’t believe God forgets. I also don’t know where in the scriptures it talks about God weeping over forgetting Sarai.
Please inform.