Question for Dr. Peterson Regarding Joseph Smith/Polygamy

[_The Nehor]

Nehor has not respponced to the comparison of Jacob 2 and D&C 132 which shows a clear contradiction so what is the point I wonder.

I also am curious as to Dr Peterson's comments I aksed on the idea that celestial marriage does in fact mean plural marriage.

Maybe he has departed this board for good.

I apologize for not responding. Let's see if I can make my thoughts clear here.

Jacob may have been wrong. Not a popular one but it should be stated.

I don't think that's the case though. Last time I read this I noticed something I hadn't before. Jacob is saying the people are excusing themselves in committing whoredoms because of what was written about David and Solomon. I just looked up whoredoms. The relevant definitions are:

1. Prostitution
2. Unlawful Sexual Relations
3. Promiscuous Sex

Then I checked out concubine which can mean both an inferior wife or a woman cohabitating with a husband or a member of a harem.

Nowhere does Jacob say he is talking to individuals married to more than one woman. They excuse themselves in committing whoredoms by saying that David and Solomon did. And they did. David stole Bathsheba and Solomon was a voluptuary (I still question the passages in the Old Testament praising them) and may or may not have married all his dalliances (I'm guessing not). In addition I doubt these were marriages because how could they sneak bigamy in? Jacob seems to be the religious head. I doubt Nephite dominion was so vast one generation in that other priests could be performing plural marriages without him knowing about it. It was a sacral state, there were probably no secular weddings.

If these people were not married than the passage makes much more sense. Men were sleeping around and justifying it by saying David and Solomon did it. Jacob comes out and says yes, they did have many wives and concubines (could mean mistresses). Then God said he hated what they were doing. God then told Jacob that this was not going to happen here. You WILL have one wife and no concubines (i.e. no sleeping around). Then in explanation in Verse 28 he personifies God and states that he does this because he delights in the chastity of women which seems to me like a further hint there were no marriages taking place. You can hardly accuse a man of being unchaste with his wife. Then in Verse 30 (still personifying God) he says that if I want anything but monogamy I will tell you. Until then, DO WHAT I SAY. Then he says that he will not put up with having to hear the prayers of his faithful daughters come up against their husbands. He'll destroy their nation first. Then he compares them to the 'savage' Lamanites where the spouses love each other and love their children contrasting that to the weeping women and children before him right then.

If he seems a little harsh and unclear I think we should look at the context. Everyone is at the Temple (presumably on a religous holiday) and he has just heard about cheating men. They come to the Temple and he sees the ones offended by these actions and also the men standing there as well....some probably ashamed but some smug in finding a loophole in their marriage to play the field a little. Jacob's job is to break them here. He has to drive home how serious it is to shake them out of their self-justification so he attacks their heroes as sinners (which they were) and says God is royally ticked off. The goal is to get them to break down and repent. In Chapter 3 he tries to console the offended.

I don't think this is just a speech on plural marriage it's a lesson on what men (and women) can do to their spouses and children when they cheat and how seriously God takes it. I could tell a tale or two of men and women in the Church who have committed whoredoms and other sins and justified it in flimsier fashion.

[Guest]

Doctrine and Covenants 132 is the source for the doctrine of eternal marriage, just as it is the source for the doctrine of plural marriage.

Jettison Section 132 as merely Joseph's self-interested imagination and, yes, you get rid of polygamy. But, in that very act, you also toss out celestial marriage and the doctrine of the eternal family.

I appreciate that statement. With this acknowledgement in hand, I don't understand why more Mormons don't find many of the teachings they hear about polygamy today to directly contradict your above statement. On the other hand, maybe I do...I don't think many of them fully grasp or are aware of section 132 and other early church history teachings and how they connect polygamy and eternal marriage.

On another note, in reference to your statements in the original post about how you can't get past the 3 witnesses and their statements about what happened to them. I personally can't detach those earlier statements with their actions and statements later on, particularly David Whitmer, his address to all believers in Christ and his testimony therein and denouncement of the revelations of Joseph Smith. How trustworthy of a witness was he really?

E-0

[_Seven]

Jacob may have been wrong. Not a popular one but it should be stated.

How can you suggest this if the Book of Mormon is translated more correctly than any book on earth? This section of the Book of Mormon is there to clarify what the Old Testament was more silent on. In other words, God is letting the people know that the Old Testament scriptures should not be used to justify sins of Prophets. This is done by LDS today each time they note that the Old Testament doesn't clearly condemn polygamy, therefore it must have been of God. Jacob is clear that ONE WIFE is only sanctioned by God.

I don't think that's the case though. Last time I read this I noticed something I hadn't before. Jacob is saying the people are excusing themselves in committing whoredoms because of what was written about David and Solomon. I just looked up whoredoms. The relevant definitions are:

1. Prostitution
2. Unlawful Sexual Relations
3. Promiscuous Sex

This is not in context here. The whoredoms committed were defined as plural wives and concubines.

If these people were not married than the passage makes much more sense. Men were sleeping around and justifying it by saying David and Solomon did it.

The men Jacob was addressing were using scriptures to justify whoredoms, which means that they would have been married or using concubines as David, Solomon, and "those of old" had done. In other words, modeling themselves after those people who practiced cultural polygamy. If they were simply sleeping around, they wouldn't be modeling themselves after the examples of Prophets.

Jacob comes out and says yes, they did have many wives and concubines (could mean mistresses). Then God said he hated what they were doing. God then told Jacob that this was not going to happen here. You WILL have one wife and no concubines (I.e. no sleeping around). Then in explanation in Verse 28 he personifies God and states that he does this because he delights in the chastity of women which seems to me like a further hint there were no marriages taking place. You can hardly accuse a man of being unchaste with his wife. Then in Verse 30 (still personifying God) he says that if I want anything but monogamy I will tell you. Until then, DO WHAT I SAY. Then he says that he will not put up with having to hear the prayers of his faithful daughters come up against their husbands. He'll destroy their nation first. Then he compares them to the 'savage' Lamanites where the spouses love each other and love their children contrasting that to the weeping women and children before him right then.

This is totally out of context with the words of Jacob. He didn't say you "WILL" have one wife, as in at least one. He said:
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;

It doesn't get much clearer than that. Only one wife was sanctioned by God.

Don't forget that when God led Lehi and his family to America, they would have come from a culture of polygamy. He commands them to raise righteous seed through monogamy. Here is another verse from Jacob 2 of great importance:

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 arighteous 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.

If God intended for them to raise righteous seed through polygamy, then why didn't he command Lehi's family to do this?

He doesn't want them to follow the culture of the previous Prophets and has led them out of there to raise seed through monogamy.

[_Seven]

Hi Nehor,
I have a question for you. Do you feel the pain, broken hearts, and tears shed by the women of LDS polygamy differs from those in Jacob 2?

31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and aabominations of their bhusbands.
32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

35 Behold, ye have done agreater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the bstrictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds. [/quote

Hannah Hood Hill's autobiography offers an eyewitness account of the Romney family's polygamous past. Hardy, the Cal-State historian, found it amid research for his upcoming book, "Doing the Works of Abraham: Mormon Polygamy."

Hood Hill wrote of Miles Park Romney[b]: "I felt that was more than I could endure, to have him divide his time and affections from me. I used to walk the floor and shed tears of sorrow. If anything will make a woman's heart ache, it is for her husband to take another wife. ...[/b] But I put my trust in my heavenly father, and prayed and pleaded with him to give me strength to bear this great trial."

Emmeline B. Wells
Emmeline's marriage to Daniel was unhappy. "O, if my husband could only love me even a little and not seem to be perfectly indifferent to any sensation of that kind," she wrote in her 30 September 1874 diary. "He cannot know the craving of my nature; he is surrounded with love on every side, and I am cast out.… O my poor aching heart when shall it rest its burden only on the Lord.… Every other avenue seems closed against me." On their twenty second wedding anniversary she wrote in her diary, "Anniversary of my marriage with Pres. Wells. O how happy I was then how much pleasure I anticipated and how changed alas are things since that time, how few thoughts I had then have ever been realized, and how much sorrow I have known in place of the joy I looked forward to."

Sarah Pratt:
"Here was my husband," she said, "gray headed, taking to his bed young girls in mockery of marriage. Of course there could be no joy for him in such an intercourse except the indulgence of his fanaticism and of something else, perhaps, which I hesitate to mention."


Sarah castigated polygamy as the "direst curse with which a people or a nation could be afflicted. It completely demoralizes good men, and makes bad men correspondingly worse. As for the women—well, God help them! First wives it renders desperate, or else heart-broken, mean-spirited creatures; and it almost unsexes some of the other women, but not all of them, for plural wives have their sorrows too."

Brigham Young gives Mormon women 2 week ultimatem to quit complaining about polygamy:

“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 AHAPPY 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,...

Apparently God only cared about the tears and broken hearts of the women in Jacob for those that believe he authorized LDS polygamy.

[_The Nehor]

Hi Nehor,
I have a question for you. Do you feel the pain, broken hearts, and tears shed by the women of LDS polygamy differs from those in Jacob 2?

Apparently God only cared about the tears and broken hearts of the women in Jacob for those that believe he authorized LDS polygamy.

I doubt God sees it differently. I expect that unless the women were doing something equally destructive to what the men were doing that they will lose their exaltation. A statement like this needs dozens of provisos to cover every case but what it boils down to is this:

"If you make your wife miserable you will not enter eternal glory....because you'd have to spend it with her and it would not be glory."

The provisos would include such things as the woman being a spiteful and ruinous fault-finding woman or the like in which case she could not be made happy and she will presumably not enter glory and he will do so with another.

I do know and have read many happy journals from polygamous women in Utah. I'm guessing their husbands succeeded and the women succeeded. Husbands then were under the same mandates as they are now. I feel that if there is one thing I can do to show God that I'm a failure it will be to destroy my wife in any way.

I don't think I'm under a mandate to defend every plural marriage that ever transpired. Heck, I don't want to defend every monogamous Temple marriage now....some of them....to be blunt....suck. Generally the blame falls on one or the other or more often both of the parties involved.

I won't judge a man based on a private journal entry. I use my journal to blow off steam and there are things in there that would shock some people close to me. I intend to have them burned before I die. They may have been cretins in which case they will be judged for it.

As for comparing Jacob to the D&C apparently God thought it was worth doing with these people. I'm guessing if it was a test that the Church failed as we did the test of Consecration and it was taken away. I for one have ancestors that recount being blessed by the practice and being grateful for it. I have no problem with it having happened and while I have NO desire to live it myself I would obey if commanded to.

[_The Nehor]

How can you suggest this if the Book of Mormon is translated more correctly than any book on earth? This section of the Book of Mormon is there to clarify what the Old Testament was more silent on. In other words, God is letting the people know that the Old Testament scriptures should not be used to justify sins of Prophets. This is done by LDS today each time they note that the Old Testament doesn't clearly condemn polygamy, therefore it must have been of God. Jacob is clear that ONE WIFE is only sanctioned by God.

I don't think that's the correct response but I've heard it voiced and included it for completeness. The Book of Mormon is not translated more correctly than other books; it is the most correct book on Earth. With what it has for competition this is not a stretch even if it does have mistakes. I don't think this is one of them. I'm shadowing for a friend who believes this.

The men Jacob was addressing were using scriptures to justify whoredoms, which means that they would have been married or using concubines as David, Solomon, and "those of old" had done. In other words, modeling themselves after those people who practiced cultural polygamy. If they were simply sleeping around, they wouldn't be modeling themselves after the examples of Prophets.

Perhaps I have more experience using scriptures to justify things and have seen others who awe me with their ability to justify sin and even what I consider to be horrible crimes using scripture. This is par for the course. Radical Fundamentalist Islam? The Crusades? MMM? It's nothing new and it's not even much of a stretch. Some people I know have gotten seerstones because 'Joseph had one' and they want one. God didn't tell them to get one and hasn't given approval for it but Joseph way back then did so they should too. The difference is that their mistake is relatively benign and the people in Jacob's mistake is most certainly not.

If God intended for them to raise righteous seed through polygamy, then why didn't he command Lehi's family to do this?

He doesn't want them to follow the culture of the previous Prophets and has led them out of there to raise seed through monogamy.

Why does God tell this generation to obey the Word of Wisdom and not others? Why did God tell me specifically to go back to School and said nothing to my LDS friend in the same job doing the same thing? I'm willing to believe that omniscience knows what it's doing. I can barely figure out my own life. I have no business judging two dead cultures and what would be best for them when for one I have a single book that covers the topic in less than a page and a mixed story on the other with people I've never met.

[_Polygamy Porter]

Why does God tell this generation to obey the Word of Wisdom and not others?

Show me proof that god told this generation ANYTHING.

Why did God tell me specifically to go back to School and said nothing to my LDS friend in the same job doing the same thing?

So you had a self induced emotional epiphany to confirm what you wanted and your friend did not. Big whoop.

[_Seven]

Hi Nehor,
I have a question for you. Do you feel the pain, broken hearts, and tears shed by the women of LDS polygamy differs from those in Jacob 2?

Apparently God only cared about the tears and broken hearts of the women in Jacob for those that believe he authorized LDS polygamy.

I doubt God sees it differently. I expect that unless the women were doing something equally destructive to what the men were doing that they will lose their exaltation.

Along this same thought..do you see much difference in the pain a woman feels when her husband is having sexual relations with a concubine/plural wife, and the woman who has endured the pain of her husband "sleeping around" as you are speculating Jacob is speaking of? The trials and heartache of a polygamist wife would be even more painful. She is degraded in her submissive role when commanded to obey her husband in taking additional wives.

I can imagine the horror of pacing the halls of my home knowing that my husband is sharing intimate moments, sexual pleasure, conceiving children etc. with another woman I was required to give him.
He has not only multiple wives, but multiple families to provide for. It is impossible for a man to live this principle without hurting women. Neglect and emotional abuse was the natural consequence.

I do know and have read many happy journals from polygamous women in Utah. I'm guessing their husbands succeeded and the women succeeded. Husbands then were under the same mandates as they are now. I feel that if there is one thing I can do to show God that I'm a failure it will be to destroy my wife in any way.

There are people who can find happiness in the most horrible of circumstances. Slaves have done it, so it's not surprising that you will read happy entries in some journals. It is not the norm. Every ancestor I have read about in my family history had many tears and heartache. Were there happy times too? Sure. The tears and pain were directly caused by the plural marriages, not husbands who were failures at living it properly. Obviously a bad man would only add more pain to the already impossible situation.

This is how some women were able to find some relief from the emotional abuse:

Zina was quoted in the 19 November 1869 New York World. "They expect too much attention from the husband, and because they do not get it, or see a little attention bestowed upon one of the other wives, they become sullen and morose, and permit their ill-temper to finally find vent." Zina felt that "a successful polygamous wife must regard her husband with indifference, and with no other feeling than that of reverence, for love we regard as a false sentiment; a feeling which should have no existence in polygamy."

Submission was the key. Women had to become inferior.

I don't think I'm under a mandate to defend every plural marriage that ever transpired. Heck, I don't want to defend every monogamous Temple marriage now....some of them....to be blunt....suck. Generally the blame falls on one or the other or more often both of the parties involved.

There are specefic pains and heartache unique to polygamy which are not comparable to unahppy monogamous marriages where the husband is faithful to his wife. A husband devoting his time, love, sharing intimate moments with other women, having sexual relations that include children from these women, is something that a monogamous temple marriage (of faithful spouses) does not include. It's quite a difference!

I won't judge a man based on a private journal entry. I use my journal to blow off steam and there are things in there that would shock some people close to me. I intend to have them burned before I die. They may have been cretins in which case they will be judged for it.

It's the principle that's rotten. The women don't always blame the husband for their unhappiness:

Zina D. Jacobs Smith Young

When a woman whose husband had taken a second wife went to Zina in great anguish of mind to ask, "Does the fault lie in myself that I am so miserable; or is the system to blame for it?" Zina reportedly replied, "Sister, you are not to blame, neither are you the only woman who is suffering torments on account of polygamy. There are women in this very house [Brigham Young's] whose hearts are full of hell, and in that room … is a woman who has been a perfect fury ever since Brother Young married Sister Amelia Folsom. Brigham Young dare not enter that room or she would tear his eyes out. It is the system that is to blame for it, but we must try and be as patient as we can."

As for comparing Jacob to the D&C apparently God thought it was worth doing with these people. I'm guessing if it was a test that the Church failed as we did the test of Consecration and it was taken away. I for one have ancestors that recount being blessed by the practice and being grateful for it. I have no problem with it having happened and while I have NO desire to live it myself I would obey if commanded to.

Most LDS men would obey the command to take multiple brides. It's so noble of them. ;)
Would you also give your wife to the Prophet if commanded? Once you get married and experience that level of love, commitment, and intimacy you will have to rethink your beliefs.

[_Jason Bourne]

Nehor has not respponced to the comparison of Jacob 2 and D&C 132 which shows a clear contradiction so what is the point I wonder.

I also am curious as to Dr Peterson's comments I aksed on the idea that celestial marriage does in fact mean plural marriage.

Maybe he has departed this board for good

I apologize for not responding. Let's see if I can make my thoughts clear here.

Jacob may have been wrong. Not a popular one but it should be stated.

I don't think that's the case though. Last time I read this I noticed something I hadn't before. Jacob is saying the people are excusing themselves in committing whoredoms because of what was written about David and Solomon. I just looked up whoredoms. The relevant definitions are:

1. Prostitution
2. Unlawful Sexual Relations
3. Promiscuous Sex

Then I checked out concubine which can mean both an inferior wife or a woman cohabitating with a husband or a member of a harem.

Nowhere does Jacob say he is talking to individuals married to more than one woman. They excuse themselves in committing whoredoms by saying that David and Solomon did. And they did. David stole Bathsheba and Solomon was a voluptuary (I still question the passages in the Old Testament praising them) and may or may not have married all his dalliances (I'm guessing not). In addition I doubt these were marriages because how could they sneak bigamy in? Jacob seems to be the religious head. I doubt Nephite dominion was so vast one generation in that other priests could be performing plural marriages without him knowing about it. It was a sacral state, there were probably no secular weddings......

Wow, it seems you have to gyrate a lot to get there. But...even if you are correct you still are left with the fact that Jacob says what David and Solomon did was an abomination and D&C 132 says they were not accept for Bathsheba. So, either Jacob is wrong or Joseph Smith in D&C 132 is wrong. Both cannot be right basen on a straight forward reading of each text.

[_Yoda]

Wow, it seems you have to gyrate a lot to get there. But...even if you are correct you still are left with the fact that Jacob says what David and Solomon did was an abomination and D&C 132 says they were not accept for Bathsheba. So, either Jacob is wrong or Joseph Smith in D&C 132 is wrong. Both cannot be right based on a straight forward reading of each text.

Ahh...the voice of non-hoop jumping reason!

Thank you, Jason!