Try as you might Coggins7, There is absoultely NO Evidence whatsoever, that the Phrase, 'raise up seed unto me,' in Jacob 2:30, refers that the Lord God will command His People to Practice Polygamy.
Except that there is not a single General Authority who has had anything publically or authoritatively to say about it has ever not interpreted that verse in precisely that manner.
You lose Brack, yet again, but not for lack of trying.
As Gregory Smith has written at FAIR:
God never introduced the Patriarchal order of marriage with a view to please man in his carnal desires, nor to punish females for anything which they had done; but He introduced it for the express purpose of raising up to His name a royal Priesthood, a peculiar people.
- Brigham Young349
The Book of Mormon's general condemnation of polygamy is frequently mentioned by critics; its exception to this condemnation is less frequently noted: "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."350 Clearly, one theological function of polygamy could have been to "raise up" groups of people that would be faithful to God. As Doctrine and Covenants 132 explains:
Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins--from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph--which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them. This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself. Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved. But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham. God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.351
Thus, descendants from a covenant people may have been part of polygamy's purpose. This scripture also confirms our supposition that plural marriage played multiple roles, since righteous posterity is important, "among other things."
Some Church members have presumed that polygamy was thus designed to ensure a larger number of descendants than would be possible under monogamy. This need not be the case: polygamy was, as we have seen, an effective tool for "winnowing." Any family willing to make the sacrifices attendant to plural marriage were unreservedly dedicated to the restored gospel. Children raised in such an environment can have had no doubt, from an early age, of their parents' convictions. This effect can only have been magnified by the fact that most Church leaders were in polygamous unions.
Plural marriage served, therefore, to train a "peculiar" generation in devotion to their faith, while sparing them the physical persecution of Ohio, Missouri, or Illinois. The Saints were faced with the question of where their ultimate devotion lay: to Church or country? To God or man? To revelation or convention? Plural marriage cast that choice in stark terms which could not be avoided, and the early members did not shrink from the choice.
Oh, you forgot about the D&C did you? Yes, there are
four standard works, not just one (Book of Mormon). We take them as a whole, not as part of a cafeteria, and hence the differences between us.
A trip to the FAIR Wiki is needed. First, the Old Testament:
Critics take an extremely limited survey of the Bible with this claim. It is true that David and Solomon were condemned for some of their marriage practices. This problem was mentioned in Deuteronomy:
15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother...17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away... (Deut. 17:15,17
Critics ignore the fact that only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat equitably plural wives and children. (See Deut. 21:15-17.) Why does He not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He instruct the Israelites on how to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?
So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
1. not multiply wives to themselves (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see 2_Sam. 12:8, Jac. 2:30, D&C 132:38-39);
2. that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God (1_Kings 11:3-4);
3. not take excessive numbers of wives (see Jac. 2:24).
David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.
David
David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and Uriah (see 2_Sam. 11:1-27. Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:
7 ¶ And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
8 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 despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife 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; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. (2_Sam. 12:7-10)
Nathan here tells David that the Lord "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.
But, David sinned and did evil in the matter of Uriah. If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for it now? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier?
Solomon
Solomon's problem is described:
1 BUT king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
2 Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love...
7 Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
8 And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. (1_Kings 11:1-8
Solomon's wives turned his heart away from, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.
Other Biblical examples
David and Solomon do not prove the critics' point, but in fact demonstrate that plural marriage may, on occasion, be sanctioned (as in David's case certainly).
But, we need not rely on these examples only to demonstrate that plural marriage was practiced by righteous followers of God in the Bible. Other cases include:
* Abraham married Hagar (Gen. 16:3), Keturah (Gen. 25:1) and other unnamed concubines (Gen. 25:6).
* Jacob (Gen. 29:21-30, Gen. 30:3-4, Gen. 30:9)
* Abijah had fourteen wives (2_Chron. 13:21) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord (2_Chron. 13:8-12) and prosper in battle because of the Lord's blessing (2_Chron. 13:16-18)
* Jehoiada, priest under king Joash had two wives (2_Chron. 3:{{{4}}}) and is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" ({s|2|Chronicles|24|16}}).
and also possibly:
* Moses [married Zipporah (Ex. 2:22 and an "Ethiopian" (Cushite) woman Num. 12:1 which may or may not be the same person.[1]]
The Law of Moses
As noted above, Deut. 21:15 provides rules governing Israelites who have plural wives. Further instructions are also given in Ex. 21:10. Why did God not ban plural marriage through Moses if it is always an immoral act?
Conclusion
The Bible does not forbid plural marriage. In fact, many of the most noble Biblical figures (e.g. Abraham) had more than one wife. Furthermore, Biblical laws quoted by critics forbid kings from being led astray by plural spouses, or entering relationships not sanctioned by God's authority. However, the same Biblical laws provide guidelines for legitimate plural relationships.
And this is of particular interest:
However, critics go too far when they conclude that early Christians believed in an absolute prohibition on plural marriages.
Tertullian
As I think, moreover, each pronouncement and arrangement is (the act) of one and the same God; who did then indeed, in the beginning, send forth a sowing of the race by an indulgent laxity granted to the reins of connubial alliances, until the world should be replenished, until the material of the new discipline should attain to forwardness: now, however, at the extreme boundaries of the times, has checked (the command) which He had sent out, and recalled the indulgence which He had granted; not without a reasonable ground for the extension (of that indulgence) in the beginning, and the limitation of it in the end.[2]
Tertullian's perspective is strikingly similar to Jac. 2:30, in which monogamy is the norm, but God may command exceptions to "raise up seed."
Justin Martyr
Justin Martry argued that David's sin was only in the matter of Uriah's wife, and echoed a common early Christian idea that marriage was a "mystery," or sacred rite of the type which Latter-day Saints associate with temple worship:
And this one fall of David, in the matter of Uriah's wife, proves, sirs," I said, "that the patriarchs had many wives, not to commit fornication, but that a certain dispensation and all mysteries might be accomplished by them; since, if it were allowable to take any wife, or as many wives as one chooses, and how he chooses, which the men of your nation do over all the earth, wherever they sojourn, or wherever they have been sent, taking women under the name of marriage, much more would David have been permitted to do this.[3]
Justin saw the patriarchs' marriages not as corruptions or something which God 'winked at,' but acts with significant ritual and religious power.
Augustine
Even Augustine, a towering figure in Christian theology, held that polygamy was not something that was a crime before God, but rather a matter that depended more upon cultural biases:
Again, Jacob the son of Isaac is charged with having committed a great crime because he had four wives. But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom. There are sins against nature, and sins against custom, and sins against the laws. In which, then, of these senses did Jacob sin in having a plurality of wives? As regards nature, he used the women not for sensual gratification, but for the procreation of children. For custom, this was the common practice at that time in those countries. And for the laws, no prohibition existed. The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the [secular] laws forbid it.[4]