Recently, I made some comments on another blog concerning the LDS revelation on polygamy (D&C 132) and I thought that I would re-publish them here. As Jacob 2: 22-35 always seems to come up whenever discussing D&C 132 with people who do not believe that that section is a revelation from God, I felt the need to expound those verses somewhat. Here is my exposition:
Comment expounding Jacob 2: 22-35
[Note: Check out this comment and this comment below for my updated and current (Nov. 9, 2015) understanding of Jacob 2:23-24.—LDS Anarchist.]
Let me attempt a brief explanation of what is going on in Jacob 2, as I understand it. The key to understanding the verses found in 22-35 is the word “whoredoms.” What is being condemned by the Lord is whoredom. And what is a whoredom? A whoredom is any illicit sexual commerce, in other words, whatever the Lord has said, “No,” to, is a whoredom. That is the key. So, with that in mind, let’s take yet another look at these verses:
22 And now I make an end of speaking unto you concerning this pride. And were it not that I must speak unto you concerning a grosser crime, my heart would rejoice exceedingly because of you.
23 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 [illicit sexual commerce], because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
Lehi had received commandments from the Lord modifying the law of Moses and taking away all the plural marriage provisions of it and causing monogamy with no concubinage to be the approved marriage doctrine for the Nephites. Because of this, from Lehi onward plural marriage became a whoredom (illicit sexual commerce.) The Nephite men thought to commence plural marriage anyway, as that was a part of the original law of Moses, and were using the same old prophet (good, righteous and pure, meaning undiluted or unmodified doctrine) – new prophet (modified doctrine, meaning apostate) tactic many people use nowadays. Specifically, they were pointing to David and Solomon and the righteous deeds these polygamous men had done.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
To counteract this, the Lord points to the unrighteous deeds of David and Solomon. He doesn’t point to plural marriage in general, but to the abominations David and Solomon committed in the name of plural marriage, meaning that they “had many wives and concubines” instead of “receiving many wives and concubines” from the Lord. In other words, they illicitly took wives which were forbidden them to take. In the case of David, this was the Uriah affair. In the case of Solomon, he took wives of a forbidden people. Again, to be even plainer in writing, the Lord here is pointing to the whoredoms of David and Solomon.
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.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
A righteous branch is a branch that obeys the Lord. The Lord is not referring to polygamy here and equating righteousness with monogamy and unrighteousness with polygamy. Had the Jews of the Old World obeyed the Lord’s commands, they would have been a righteous branch even while practicing polygamy.
When the Lord says He doesn’t want the Nephites to do like them of old, He is not referring to the Old World practice of polygamy, but to the Old World practice of disobedience. So, the Lord is simply saying that this Nephite branch is to hearken to His words (obedience) or THEY WILL BE CURSED. He will not allow them to prosper in disobedience.
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;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity [approved sexual commerce] of women. And whoredoms [illicit sexual commerce] are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
These are the commandments given to Lehi, repeated here by Jacob. Whoredoms is not referring to polygamy but to all sexual commerce prohibited by the Lord. In the case of the Nephites, as they had received a law of monogamy (a modification of the law of Moses), polygamy in their case was a whoredom, whereas in the case of the Old World Jews, polygamy was not a whoredom, as it was permitted.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
The emphasis is on keeping the current commandments of the Lord. It is the current prophet’s words that are the most important, not the words of dead prophets. The Lord is not so much concerned with polygamy, as He is concerned with obedience.
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.
This is self-explanatory, but I’ll explain it anyway. “Raise up seed unto me” refers to plural marriage. “I will command my people” means that plural marriage is illicit sexual commerce (a whoredom) to the Nephites unless the Lord commands its practice. “These things” refers to the new commandments received by Lehi, which modified the law of Moses for the Nephites.
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 abominations of their husbands.
The abominations and wickedness that the Lord speaks of do not apply to the law of Moses-approved practice of plural marriage found among the Old World Jews (and those of other lands), but to their disobedience to His commandments. Again, the Lord is talking of disobedience to His commandments and not specifically of the general practice of polygamy.
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.
33 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.
Remember, the Lord is still talking about whoredoms (illicit sexual commerce) and other disobedience, not about polygamy in general. Polygamy in the Old World was not whoredom, but in the New World it was.
34 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.
35 Behold, ye have done greater 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 strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.
Okay, that seems self-explanatory to me. They did wrong not because polygamy was intrinsically wrong, but because the Lord made it wrong through Lehi for the Nephite people, until the Lord should make it right again (which He did later on in 4 Nephi.)
End of comment
Here’s another comment I made on the same post, concerning what I had mentioned above about 4 Nephi:
Comment expounding 4 Nephi polygamy
The Nephite branch became righteous when the Lord visited them and they “graduated” from the law of Moses to the law of Christ. Everybody still alive (after the destructions caused by His death) then converted to Christ. Interestingly enough, upon becoming a “righteous branch,” the record states the following:
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.
And they were married, and given in marriage, and were blessed according to the multitude of the promises which the Lord had made unto them. (4 Nephi 1: 10-11)
These passages are referring to the doctrine of plural marriage and the promises made to those who enter therein. When the full Nephite record comes forth, it will show this. So, the Nephites were temporarily prohibited from entering into this practice while they lived the law of Moses, for reasons known only to the Lord, while the Jews in the Old World and the 10 Tribes of Israel in the Northern Countries, were allowed by the Lord to have plural marriage under the same law of Moses. In other words, these were three groups of contemporary people living different laws of the Lord. This doesn’t mean that one group’s laws were unjustified before the Lord. The Lord “commands and revokes” as He pleases. It is His privilege and as long as each group of people kept the commandments He gave to that particular group, they were justified.
Also, it should be kept in mind that the plural marriage under the law of Moses was not the plural marriage under the law of Christ. Plural marriage under the law of Christ is a doctrine of exaltation. Plural marriage under the law of Moses was not a doctrine of exaltation, however, it did prepare a people for the doctrine that came under the law of Christ. And that was what the law of Moses was for, to point people to Christ and to prepare them for Him and His doctrines.
So, the Nephites lived the doctrine of plural marriages under the law of Christ, from the visit of Christ to them onward, a period of 300+ years. Most people miss this and I can only believe that this is by the design of the Lord. When the Book of Mormon went forth at first, it was the intention of the Lord that it be the public doctrine, the milk, while the meat was to be revealed privately and over time revealed publicly as the public was ready for it. Had the Book of Mormon been exceedingly plain on this point of plural marriage, from the get-go, upon it being published, everyone would have rejected it, as the world was not ready for the doctrine of plural marriage.
As it is, the wording in the Book of Mormon was sufficiently obscure (on purpose) that people (even Joseph Smith!) mistook the Lord’s words in Jacob 2 as being a condemnation of all plural marriage. Most people completely missed the meaning of “For if I will, saith the Lord, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things,” the meaning being that only the unauthorized practice of plural marriage was condemned. Now, after the doctrine of plural marriage has been publicly taught, the chapter heading expounds the principle plainly, but when first published, the meaning of Jacob 2 was “hidden in plain sight.”
Also, the verses in 4 Nephi were (and still are) obscure to many people and most did not understand that they spoke of authorized plural marriage being practiced among the Nephites according to the more excellent law of Christ.
Besides all of that, Jacob 2 served another purpose: that of getting Joseph to inquire about plural marriage, which ended up revealing some meat, so we see in this that the purposes of the Lord are fulfilled and none of this has anything to do with perversion or whoring spirits, but with how the Lord works among the children of men, meaning according to their conditions.
End of comment
As I mentioned above that even Joseph Smith, at first, did not understand the meaning of Jacob 2, I will next re-publish here another couple of my comments, from that same post, which talk about Joseph’s understanding.
First, some background. A question had been asked,
Why would Joseph Smith, as the Seer of the Lord who translated the Book of Mormon be asking why God justified David and Solomon in taking multiple wives when in fact it was through his efforts in translating the Book of Mormon that he was able to reveal to the world that David and Solomon WERE NOT JUSTIFIED in having multiple wives[?]
This question was referring to D&C 132: 1. As an answer, I responded with this:
Comment answering question concerning D&C 132: 1
Joseph approached the Lord concerning Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not concerning Moses, David and Solomon. Jacob’s remarks about David and Solomon made him wonder about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and so he made inquiry about these three prophets. The Lord, though, in his answer to Joseph, threw in a surprise for Joseph, for he included three more justified servants in his answer, two of which Joseph was thinking (because of Jacob’s words in the Book of Mormon) were not justified. In fact, when the angel appeared to him with the answer to his question, Joseph quoted the Book of Mormon to him. Joseph knew it was a true angel from God, as he had already received the keys to discern true and false angels and had applied the keys. So, the Lord’s response was to not only explain Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’s justification, but also to expound a bit on the meaning of the Lord’s words to Jacob, which Joseph, at the time, did not fully comprehend. This is why the first verse reads like this:
Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, [at this point there is a break of “as also” because the Lord is giving more than Joseph asked for, to teach him that David and Solomon were also justified, except in those things which they did not receive from the Lord, in other words, the Lord’s intention was to more fully explain Jacob’s words in the Book of Mormon] as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—
Had Joseph made inquiry of all six men, it would have read, “as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David and Solomon, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—”
End of comment
After this, I was asked a question:
“Why would the Lord reveal that David and Solomon were not Justified in the Book of Mormon and then say that they were justified in this revelation?”
My answer was the following:
Comment concerning Joseph’s understanding of Jacob 2
Because the Lord didn’t say that David and Solomon were not justified in the Book of Mormon, he said, “which thing was abominable before me.” He never mentioned justification. He just mentions a “thing” that was abominable before Him.
At first, Joseph (and currently yourself and others) misunderstood Jacob’s words and thought that David and Solomon were unjustified by the practice. He did not understand just what the “thing” the Lord was referring to was and erroneously thought that it referred to all instances of the practice of plural marriage. This is why Joseph quoted Jacob’s words to the angel when he was told of the principle of plural marriage.
And so we have one of Joseph’s wives saying the following:
An angel came to him and the last time he came with a drawn sword in his hand and told Joseph if he did not go into that principle [plural marriage], he would slay him. Joseph said he talked to him soberly about it, and told him it was an abomination and quoted scripture to him. He said in the Book of Mormon it was an abomination in the eyes of the Lord, and they were to adhere to these things except the Lord speak. (Mary Lightner 1905 Address, typescript, BYU, Pg.1 – Pg.2)
So, this shows that Joseph was confused over Jacob’s words in the Book of Mormon and inquired of the Lord about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and NOT Moses, David and Solomon, because he already believed David and Solomon were unjustified per the Book of Mormon. This is why the Lord phrased it “as also,” which means “and also,” to indicate to Joseph that not only were the first three justified, but the last three were also.
So, Joseph’s question was doctrinally sound and consistent with what we know of those times. The problem you are having, then, is not with Joseph’s question, but with the Lord’s answer to him. Joseph applied the keys to determine a real angel from a false angel, so a real angel from God appeared to him and delivered this real doctrine in answer to his honest inquiry.
Again:
I [Mary Lightner] asked him [Joseph Smith] if Emma knew about me, and he said, “Emma thinks the world of you.” I was not sealed to him until I had a witness. I had been dreaming for a number of years I was his wife. I thought I was a great sinner. I prayed to God to take it from me for I felt it was a sin; but when Joseph sent for me he told me all of these things. “Well,” said I, “don’t you think it was an angel of the devil that told you these things?” Said he, “No, it was an angel of God. God Almighty showed me the difference between an angel of light and Satan’s angels. The angel came to me three times between the years of 1834 and 1842 and said I was to obey that principle or he would slay me. “But,” said he, “they called me a false and fallen prophet but I am more in favor with my God this day than I ever was in all my life before.” (Mary Lightner 1905 Address, typescript, BYU, Pg.1 – Pg.2)
The answer made him recoil and resist, but he eventually was able to wrap his mind around it and embrace it.
End of comment
My next group of comments were originally split up into multiple comments, but I’m here putting them all together:
Comments concerning polygamy & the law of Moses
I find it interesting how the Lord’s words to Jacob are held up as the final word and the rest of the Lord’s words given in the Bible are discarded. That is what I see on this post and comments. Of course, anyone is free to do this, but this is the same sort of tactic used by apostate Christianity, but in reverse order: they throw out the Book of Mormon in favor of the Bible.
When both the Bible and Book of Mormon are held up, and both are accepted as the word of God, you cannot honestly take the Lord’s words of “which thing was abominable before me” as meaning a wholesale condemnation of the practice of plural marriage. It must mean something other than that. If you force such a meaning, you must throw the Bible out the window, for the Bible contradicts such an interpretation.
For example:
Paul said of the law of Moses: “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” (Romans 7: 12) And in verse 14 he said, “For we know that the law is spiritual.” So, the law of Moses is holy, just, good and spiritual. Paul’s words, not mine. To say, then, that the law of Moses, which was given by Yahweh, was abomination, or allowed abomination, or even commanded abomination, is contradictory.
We know, from the Bible, that King David married at least 4 women with the approval of the Lord:
David, king of Israel took Abigail and Ahinoam, “and they were also both of them his wives;” (1 Sam. 25: 42-43). Then he “took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem;” (2 Sam. 5: 13). With two wives and concubines (plural) he at this time had at least 4 wives. The Bible later says that “David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from anything that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite;” (1 Kings 15: 5). In this passage we have an assurance that David done right in taking all his wives and concubines, except in one instance, for which he was severely chastised. In the case of Uriah the Hittite, David committed adultery with his wife, and then had Uriah killed in the Battlefield. This was adultery and murder and it was condemned by the Lord, but his prior marriages were, according to the Bible, approved as “right in the eyes of the Lord”.
This is consistent with D&C 132, which basically says the same thing. In order for Jacob 2: 24 to be consistent with the Bible, the abominable thing referred to by the Lord concerning David was the Uriah affair and not the general practice of polygamy.
The law of Moses both permitted polygamy AND COMMANDED IT, in certain instances.
When Moses took a second wife, he was not in violation of the Law given to him by the Lord. That law does not prohibit plural marriage and in fact, recognized the possibility of multiple wives:
If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and [if] the firstborn son be hers that was hated: then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn. (Deuteronomy 21: 15-16)
In fact, the Law of Moses sometimes may have commanded Plural Marriage. When a woman’s husband died, the Lord commanded that a brother of the husband was supposed to take her as his wife. (Deut. 25: 4-10.) If he was already married, then at that point he would have had two wives. The Law as given to Moses does not mind that.
So, in order to hold onto your pet theory that the Lord’s words in Jacob 2 negates D&C 132, you have to throw out the entire Old and New Testaments, too. Now, how badly do you want to keep to such a theory?
Btw, these quotes were taken from polygamy.com. Here is another interesting quote from the same source:
Many of the leading men of the Bible had more than one wife in some form of marriage relationship at the same time. This includes Abraham, Jacob (Israel), Moses, David and others. The Law that Moses gave also made provision for plural marriage and in some cases, it seems that plural marriage was even commanded by the Law of Moses. There is evidence that multiple wives was an acceptable practice all through ancient Israel, including the time of Christ and it was not until the end of the 1st Millennium AD that some Jews officially rejected polygyny. One branch of Jews never agreed to this and still accept the practice of plural wives to this day.
One last thing, the marriage doctrine given in D&C 42 is completely compatible with plural marriage. It is not a doctrine of monogamy, but a doctrine of fidelity. It is, in essence, the law of chastity, stated differently.
End of comment
As the above comment mentioned D&C 42, I might as well talk about that, too.
In addition to holding up Jacob 2 as the standard of monogamy and the reason why D&C 132 must be a false revelation, D&C 42 is also held up as contradictory to section 132. So, here were my answers to such a proposition.
While speaking of D&C 42: 22 and D&C 132: 54, and comparing the two verses, it was stated in a comment,
The definition of “none else” is “not one beside” or “no other.” So, if the Lord meant “none else” to indicate the exclusion of all others in 132 then that is his precise meaning in 42. If you hold to the belief that 42 allows for multiple spouses then you have to believe that the Lord was not excluding Emma from multiple spouses in 132. In which case the verse becomes nonsense. Either way, according to the verse in 132 living this “law” was required for Emma’s salvation.
I replied:
Comment concerning D&C 42: 22 and D&C 132: 54
The Lord was excluding Emma from multiple spouses in 132. The wording in section 132 is different than in section 42. In D&C 42: 22, it is a command to “cleave unto [thy wife],” whereas in D&C 132: 54 the command is to “cleave unto my servant Joseph.” Had the Lord said to Emma, “cleave unto your husband,” it would have left open multiple husbands, but He didn’t say that. He stated a specific person, not a specific title. (”Wife” being a title, designation or office of a person.) This is why the early saints who practiced plural marriage had no problem with D&C 42: 22, at all. It is compatible and not contradictory.
End of comment
Later, came the rebuttal and question,
You focused on the term “cleave” without addressing the issue of the words “none else.” To me the words “none else” are more important in these two passages. Are you suggesting that in section 42 “none else” means something other than “no other” or “not one beside?”
My reply was the following:
Comment on why D&C 42: 22 is a doctrine of fidelity, not monogamy
I left out “none else” because the phrase, when combined with just “wife” does not indicate monogamy. It only indicates fidelity. Have you ever wondered why the Article on Marriage was even necessary, if D&C 42 put forth a doctrine of monogamy? The Article on Marriage would then be redundant in stating that the saints believed in monogamy, would it not?
If I marry a wife and then she dies, does D&C 42 prohibit me from taking another wife? If section 42 indicates that I am to cleave only to one wife, then I can only be married once and I can only cleave to her and to none else, even if she dies. I am to remain single and widowed forever more, for if I take another wife I would be cleaving unto someone other than my (first) wife.
Of course this is not the meaning of the scripture. It is a doctrine of fidelity, not monogamy, meaning that I am only to cleave to my wife, whether I have one wife or ten wives. Each woman married to me, whether in succession (after their deaths) or with all of them still living (in polygamy), is to have me cleave to her and to no one else who is not my wife.
End of comment
Note: the reason why I am placing these comments all together like this in a single post is because of my intention—should I ever again find myself talking to someone about D&C 132 and they bring up Jacob 2 (or D&C 42) as proof that D&C 132 is a false revelation—to point to this post. If you agree with the above comments and also, like me, tire of hearing the same worn out Jacob 2/D&C 42 objections, feel free to use them, also.
Previous Chastity article: The Law of Chastity: What It Is and What It Isn’t
Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist
45 Comments
LDS Anarchy 
For me, verse 30 of Jacob 2 was always the key to understanding his comments. I was surprised, when talking to others, that most seem to miss it.
Also, I never noticed the 4th Nephi reference — Good call.
Excellent post. I am unconvinced that the 4th Ne. reference MUST mean that, but I would not be surprised too much if it did.
Just to add to what you wrote, the meaning I initially got out of the condemnation in Jacob was that they were condemned for selfishness in marriage – which made it into a whoredom. In other words, it was unvirtuous because of the selfishness and self-centeredness, and bad examples to their families. But your position is probably more scripturally defensible.
I “found” that scripture in 4th Nephi a few months ago. I am glad to hear someone agrees with me that it refers to polygamy.
Thanks for the post. I will definitely use it as a resource when debunking beliefs about PM.
Great post. I think you showed a clear understanding of the scriptures in reference to this subject.
I have always have a hard time with people that feel that polygamy is wrong or bad. At the best it is a commandment from God, but… if a person does not believe that it is a commandment from God then at worst it is simply a cultural difference. There is nothing inherently wrong about it. (as I have debated many times, with many people very accepting of the current culture).
One thing that I might not agree with is your belief that the people of Nephi were taught by Lehi not to practice polygamy. I would need to see your logic and reasoning on a statement like that. I would think that polygamy was accepted in the culture until the men abused the privileged (as shown in Jacob), then it was no longer allowed until after Christ came.
There are scriptures in the Book of Mormon that seem to indicate that after Ismael died Lehi became a temporal husband to his wife and temporal father to his children.
Anyway, great post. Loved it.
Troy
Re: “One thing that I might not agree with is your belief that the people of Nephi were taught by Lehi not to practice polygamy. I would need to see your logic and reasoning on a statement like that.”
I also felt moved to demand references when Mr Anarchist posited that Lehi received a modified set of commandments for his people. However, he preempted my request by providing them several paragraphs later. If I weren’t looking for it, I would have missed it entirely. To recap:
Jacob 2:34-35
I think it would also be helpful if people understood the actual definition of polygamy in relation to polygyny which are confused terms. Polyandry is readily accepted and understood and even widly defined: however it seems that people think that polygny is polygamy and its not.
I do not think we have sufficient information to assume that the Nephites were ever commanded to practice polygamy. There just isn’t enough evidence in the scriptures to make that assumption. But plural marriage is lawful when commanded by the Lord; the practice itself is sanctioned by him and by him alone.
Marriage is valid only according to the law of the Lord. It is his right to set the parameters of the commandment. A plural marriage as directly given by the Lord, abiding under his law, is valid. David and Solomon erred by failing to obey the Lord’s commandments regarding marriage when they did not honor their covenants. It was not plural marriage itself that was at fault; it was the illicit marriages.
Plural marriage, when ordained of God, is acceptable, and even honorable. Jacob surely exemplified this. When men decide for themselves to engage in the practice, however, they are not justified.
As the Lord made clear in the New Testament, marriage is an eternal covenant, not temporal, and should not be cast lightly aside. (Matt. 19) Therefore, any treatment of marriage as a temporary arrangement is an abomination in his sight. Matrimony is holy, and we have been warned that those God has joined together should not be put asunder by men.
Many people have bandied about the Validity of Plural Marrige which seems to me to be a waste of time if you believe the Scriptures that Expresses it’s Essence as being the Highest Law of Heaven.
The thoughts here supporting it are All Good but I would like to add some personal thoughts as to WHAT it might be that makes it what it is.
First off, the fact that not all who enter Celestial Marrige will be called to engauge in Plural Marrige, suggests that to be CALLED to it ,obviously requires an understanding of Relationships that Transends the Normal Monogamous train of thought.
First , I can see the Simple Necessity for it in terms of there not being equal numbers of Men and women to pair off in Monogamous Marriges when it comes time for Final Solutuions to providing EVERY worthy Female Her Rightful Spot as a Queen in Heaven.
Life being what it is and Men & Women being what they ARE , dictates the need for Far more Righteous Women to have their RIGHTS Met as long as they are willing to fulfill the Covenant.
But ASIDE from the Logistics of God tending to the Rights & Needs of All….There is something Much Deeper in it’s meaning.
A meaning that will ONLY APPLY to those UNDERSTANDING it’s meaning.
I once read a segment of a Book on Plural Marrige that struck me as being the GREATEST reason for the NEED for a Plural Marrige Relationship.
It’s not so much providing for the INDIVIDUAL RELATIONSHIPS that exist in it , as it is for the need of SHARED RELATIONSHIPS to gain the HIGER ESSENSE of the meaning of Charitable Love, which is the Greatest Love of God.
In my estimation of the way I percieve those Collective Relationships, the Second Wife & any who would Postceed more than two, would hold the KEY to the first Wife’s Greatness & Happiness being MORE than a Wife not experiencing the ADDITIONAL Compasion & Understanding required to fill the needs of a Fellow Sister to have HER Eternal Life Fulfilled by SHARING what is Most Sacred to Her…Her Husband.
Certainly that would Required “SOMETHING MORE”…And where More is Required….More can be Expected…
I think the Mind & Heart Set that Typifies this concept in a little different but similar way, was typified in the Conversation that Jesus had with Peter while walking along the Beach with John conspicuouly on their Tails.
That Whole encounter defines what is Acceptable at it’s Lowest Level to Qualify for Exhaltaion in Peter’s Desire & something that TRANSENDS Minimum Righteous Requirements in the Desires of John.
I think Monogamous & Plural Marriges can be viewed in the SAME LIGHT.
Both are GOOD but ONE is BETTER….. I suppose …. Depending on WHO you ARE….Peter or John ?…
From a Male Perspective, I think the Combined Spirits of those Women engaged in Plural Relationships would form the Single essence of their Husband, as would be Reflected in Jacob,s Twelve Sons Combined to make up the Very Complex Nature of their Father…
As is Very Common among those we see about us in this Life…Some Men are Very Complex in Their Natures as well and tend to serve the Needs of MANY POEPLE….
So why would this Very Natural Condition on Earth not Find it’s Proper Place & Home in Heaven as it applies to multiple Families ?…
Let me add something to the SERIOUS NATURE of the Mental Rejection of this Priciple being applied by members of the Church….
If I were engauged in a Plural Marrige Relationship that was sactioned of God and you were holding my Marrige in Mental Contempt by your OWN STANDARDS of Percieved Decency, then it would be YOU who would not be conforming to Celestial Standards acceptable to God and would be Mocking the Most Sacred Law of Heaven.
It’s ONE THING to not feel the Desire to engauge in it & it is ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT to condem it.
DO SO … & you will SURELY not find yourself being allowed to Mock those who are Blessed above those who are not called to engauge in this.
Emma was being Called to set the Example for others and was Warned by God in Her Reluctance to Support Joseph in this. So EVEN a Prophet’s WIFE was subject to being Removed from Her Place if she Condemed this in Her Heart.
Being a Prophet’s Wife, sort of put Her in a Position of HAVING to become the first Latter Day Prototype, just as JOSEPH was not so keen on the idea when First Presented to Him…BOTH were required to comply.
If a PROPHET & HIS WIFE were not to Show the Way…..Then WHO ?…
If you think a Coke will keep you from Heaven, then condeming or mocking the HIGHEST of God’s Laws is SURE to Grant your fill of Caffine in Hell where you may as well drink it anyway…
What fascinates me, is that most of the arguments used against plural marriage, are used against marriage as well. The divorce revolution soured a lot of children on the institution of marriage and those kids are now marriage-aged. Of course, marriage still happens, but the rates are steadily dropping. That is far more terrifying than the divorce rate.
And the arguments used against marriage are usually a variation on arguments against plural marriage.
If the United Order was consecrating our wallets, then Plural Marriage is consecrating our relationships. We will still consecrate, only one at a time now.
I was recently reading the online book Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy, Volume I and I noticed that it gave an alternate interpretation of the scriptures quoted in the post. Here is what the authors of that book wrote:
Interesting, but it does not make one iota of sense.
If the Lord commands us, the timing is right. If the Lord forbids it, the timing is wrong. And in this case (Jacob ch.2), the motivation was clearly wrong.
This would be a textbook case of “wresting the scriptures”.
LDSAnarchist, can you also expound on this verse.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God.
(Doctrine and Covenants 132:26)
What constitutes a sin of the new and everlasting covenant?
Isn’t baptism the new and everlasting covenant as per DC 22?
What are the buffetings of Satan? What is the day of redemption?
jackdale76,
My understanding of the term “new and everlasting covenant” as used in this revelation is that this term is defined by the revelation itself. Every gospel covenant given anew by God is both a “new” and an “everlasting” covenant. Thus, D&C 22, referring to the “new” ordinance of baptism—which is “new” because it was revealed and commanded anew in this dispensation, and authorized by the newly revealed priesthood—properly calls it “a new and an everlasting covenant,” even though it is, as that revelation states, “even that which was from the beginning.” So, D&C 132, the newly revealed, or revealed anew, “principle and doctrine of…having many wives and concubines,” is also “a new and an everlasting covenant.”
As for what constitutes a sin of this covenant, it is whatever breaks the commandment or commandments associated with this particular covenant. The covenant covers both a singular wife, as well as multiple wives, (and also concubines), thus it is a marriage covenant. As this particular marriage covenant is made with manus and without a vow (on the part of the husband), anything that violates manus is a sin. If the husband enters into a vow, and he breaks it, that, also, is a sin. Then there is also the covenant that the woman makes to the man and the covenant that the man makes to the woman, which, if either covenant is violated, is a sin.
So I will unfold this for you a little bit. The master/servant relationship is of two types and of two sexes: bond and free, and maid-servants and man-servants. If you have a free maid-servant or a free man-servant, this is a man or a woman that is employed by you. They perform a set of tasks in exchange for money (payment.) They are free to terminate their employment, or you are free to terminate it, at any time, or according to whatever prescribed agreement you might have had. The free servant is voluntarily entered into and is typically of a temporary nature. Thus, you will retain your job for as long as you want it, or as long as your boss wants to keep you on, or as long as there is work for you to do, or money to pay you. Once the money runs out, or once the work is finished, or once you show up too late too many times, or once you tire of your employment, the relationship ends.
Now the harlot or whore or prostitute is a free servant, voluntarily employed for a time, who exchanges sex for money and/or gifts. In other words, she doesn’t love the man, she only loves what the man can do for her. In exchange for the provision and maintenance which he gives her, she gives him sex.
Bond servants, on the other hand, do not work for money, or do not perform labor for money. They operate under a different set of principles. There are two types of bond servants: voluntary and involuntary. Involuntary bond servants are what we call slaves, which is against the current laws, so there is no need to speak on these. Voluntary servitude, on the other hand, is perfectly legal.
The priesthood covenant is a man’s way of entering into voluntary servitude, serving the Lord by serving others. For a woman, the way she enters into voluntary servitude, serving the Lord by serving others, is through the marriage bond. She enters into it voluntarily and covenants to honor her husband. Whereas involuntary servitude (slavery) is a master-servant relationship, voluntary servitude is a husband-wife relationship. This honor (obedience + respect) she gives him is unpaid (he doesn’t pay her for it), unqualified (he doesn’t have to “earn” it) and voluntary (it is her free-will offering of herself). In return, he covenants to give her his love.
Again, notice the distinction: the whore is a free servant, and the exchange is sex for provisions or maintenance, whereas the wife is a bond servant, and the exchange is honor for love. Society has perverted marriage by turning it into the whore contract. But I won’t get into this topic now.
Manus is a bond relationship, in which the woman is in the power of her husband. She is bound to his law. This is according to the covenant she enters into, and it is also according to the commandments of God given to her, for she is commanded to have her desire be to her husband and that he rule over her. For the man’s part, he is commanded to love her with all his heart, which is the marriage covenant he enters into. So, any violation of these covenants, in which the woman dishonors her husband or in which the man does not love his wife, is a violation of both the covenant and also the commandments of God given to them. In other words, these are all sins of the “new and everlasting covenant.” Infidelities also would count as sins. So, sins of this category are in relation to each other, how the man treats his wife and how the woman treats her husband.
A case can also be made that perverting (altering) the revelation instructions after having entered into this new and everlasting covenant would constitute a sin or transgression of the same. This type of sin, then, can be said to be in relation to the Lord, how they treat the Lord and His word or law.
Re: the buffetings of Satan, my understanding is that although they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, if they commit any sins afterward, they will feel the effects of the sins nonetheless, but these sins won’t have power to eventually destroy them altogether, unless they commit murder. In other words, they get to suffer the penalties for sin until they repent, and once they repent, they are released and enter into their exaltation.
Also, the day of redemption is the day they repent. If they repent in this life, then that is the day of their redemption. If they don’t repent but instead die in their sins, they do not go to paradise but go to the realms of darkness, to suffer the penalty for their sins, until they repent. Once they repent, then that is the day of their redemption.
I might add one more thing about the husband-wife relationship. The concept of manus is repulsive to many feminists or to those who have been influenced by feminism and the propaganda is to paint manus as involuntary servitude, equating the wife to a slave and her husband as her master. This is because manus destroys feminism and so it must be falsely defined as slavery. This is done by conflating involuntary servitude with voluntary servitude, both meaning slavery. “Servitude is bad,” says the devil, “Right? People shouldn’t be put under covenant to serve others. They ought to serve of their own free will, without any of those entangling covenants.” Satan hates gospel covenants, so he paints them as slavery, to get us to reject them. But as anyone who understands the gospel knows, if you aren’t in the covenant, then you don’t get the promises associated with those covenants. In other words, the gospel is ALL ABOUT COVENANTS, both entering into them and keeping them.
The first three chapters of Hosea illustrate what I was trying to say in the previous two comments. Here Israel has left her husband (the Lord) and is playing the harlot and so the Lord no longer considers her His wife. As a harlot, she has a “sex for provisions/maintenance/gifts relationship” with her lovers, which is the free servant whore contract (an employer-employee relationship) :
More of the same whore contract and the Lord’s response:
This next part demonstrates the difference between the master-servant relationship (which is one type of voluntary bond servant) and the husband-wife relationship (which is another type of voluntary bond servant) and in particular, points to the master-slave relationship (which is that of the involuntary bond servant) that Israel had when she was captive in Egypt, showing that these lovers of hers do not constitute, in the eyes of the Lord, a master-servant (voluntary) relationship but a master-slave (involuntary) relationship, Baal being the master. (See the Bible dictionary entry on Baal, which I’ll quote below.) In other words, Israel has sold herself into slavery. For this reason alone, the Lord doesn’t just divorce her (cut her off), but decides to free her from her iniquities and restore her to Him as His wife. Notice that once restored, Israel is betrothed to the Lord with a covenant, showing that this is, indeed, a marriage covenant, but that it is conditional upon the righteousness of Israel. In other words, Israel has got to honor the Lord and submit to Him, as her Husband, in order for this covenant to be in force.
Here Hosea is commanded to marry a woman, which he does, and then he is commanded to take yet another wife, and to love her:
So, the husband is to love the wife and the wife is to honor, or submit to, the husband. This is the gospel marriage covenant. That is why this scripture says:
So here is the entry on Baal, bold emphasis mine:
LDSAnarchist, I always appreciate your replies. Do you know why in the BoM it says that David unlawfully “had” many wives and concubines
Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
(Jacob 2:24)
Whereas DC says that David had only one unlawful wife, not many
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;
(Doctrine and Covenants 132:39)
the key is in the word “and”. an author wrote that i read years ago that there are times one could not comprehend the scripture passage spiritually if he doesn’t grasp them grammatically. perhaps my byword since then. lol
jackdale76,
This post was published on September 16, 2009, which was a little over six years ago. It may be that my understanding back then was different than it is today. I’m too lazy to re-read the entire post and correct any errors that may be in it. So, I’ll just give my current understanding:
Let’s look at the four main parts, and especially the last part, which messes everyone up:
1. “They seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms.”
Question: How do they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms?
Answer: 2. “Because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.” [<– this statement is expanding upon the previous one (#1) by showing how they are excusing themselves, namely, that they are using the scriptures which speak of David and Solomon.]
Question: What written things are you referring to concerning David and Solomon his son?
Answer: The things which were written about them having many wives and concubines. Which things were true, for
3. “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines.” [<– this statement is clarifying the previous one (#2) by revealing what written things (scriptures) were being referred to and also that these written things (scriptures) are, in fact, true things.]
4. “Which thing was abominable before me.”
Question: What thing are you referring to?
Answer: The thing mentioned in the first part (#1) : “They seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms.”
So, I’ll show the text again, with numbering:
Again I’ll show the text, this time eliminating the explanatory #2 and #3 phrases:
This is the meaning of the text, according to my understanding, showing that God is merely talking about whoredoms being abominable, and not about polygamy being a whoredom and thus abominable. The 2nd and 3rd phrases were explanations on how these Nephites were attempting to excuse themselves, and not explanations of what a whoredom was in the times of David and Solomon. Again, I will write out the whole thing, numbered, and show what refers to what:
Again, I will be as crystal clear as I can: “for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms,…which thing was abominable before me.”
The singular “thing” being referred to, then, is “the commission of whoredoms.”
thank you god for this careful expounding of the text in jacob 2. as i began reading the above comment i realize i was in great mistake!-feeling remorse:[ all along i thought it was david and solomon’s transgression which was referred to and if it were as i thought it was, it was correct for solomon but didn’t believe it cannot be implied to david,but i believed it any way by the wording connection of and-implying also david when acquiring bathsheba he added wife
but anyway it’s inferior reasoning. now as i read along the text in textbox and in the order explained it became clear as i stand corrected and punctuated. now as i refer to lds scriptures i realize the key to interpretation was not only on the commas and phrasing. there is this verse by verse conditioning which this author easily undid to this passage. as if the verse numbering has been part of the written canon placed either to confuse or to prepare them who are ready to come to the feast.
LDSAnarchist, yes, your revised interpretation makes sense and also answers my question. Thanks. Dont forget to update the OP to point to your comment.
Done.
This comment spans multiple subjects but I decided to put it here because I asked LDSA recently about what does “the day of redemption” mean in DC132.
I came across this quote from Joseph Smith expounding on Acts 3:19 which indicates that he did not consider “the day of redemption” to be the day when they repent.
So, does Peter know that it is impossible for them to repent while in mortality and yet he tells them “repent ye therefore” meaning that they should start the process of repenting in mortality and perchance they can finish it in the afterlife while in hell? Dang, that’s a long repentance process.
jackdale76,
The Acts scripture is speaking of murderers who are not sons of perdition. For these, in this passage, the times of refreshing (redemption) means when they get justified. Joseph wrote, per your quote:
The blotting out of sins indicates a receiving of justification. In other words, the price has been paid for their sins, by they themselves, through their own sufferings (not the sufferings of Christ.) The D&C scripture, though, speaks of people who are not murderers. Here is what I wrote above:
So, these words are only speaking of non-murderers, and for those, the day of redemption is the day that they repent. For murderers, though, that day of redemption is the day their sins are blotted out (justification, not by faith, but by their own suffering.)
The scriptures say, concerning murderers who are sons of perdition, “Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come” (D&C 76:34), yet the scriptures also say this: “And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come. And again, I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall die.” (D&C 42:18-19.) That would seem to indicate that no murderer, whether a son of perdition or not, shall have forgiveness, either in this world nor the next. So, murderers can’t repent and exercise faith and get justified (found guiltless) through the blood of Christ, and so their sins aren’t “forgiven” by God in this way. They must do something more to get their sins blotted out. They must suffer just as Christ did. Apparently that is the only way to get their accusers (the people they murdered) satisfaction. But, even then, that still is not enough to allow them back into the kingdom, for all must repent and exercise faith in Christ, and the sooner one does this, the better, if only for this life.
So, it is possible for a murderer to repent while in mortality, but he still must die and go suffer the penalty for the life or lives he took. A disembodied spirit has the capacity to suffer infinitely (see the | they must suffer | even as I | post.) So, in this way, even murderers can end up getting back into the kingdom. Only sons of perdition, then, are ejected, for they refuse to ever repent.
the awful consequences of “sealing” yourself to 6 wicked women
http://mobile.wnd.com/2012/07/report-6-women-rape-man-to-death/
LDS Anarchy
I’m pretty new to your blog. I discovered it a couple of weeks ago and have only read a few of your posts. Quick question. If Joseph Smith was merely restoring the biblical version of the law of chastity and authorized practice of polygamy, why did he teach it (polygamy) secretly while publicly condemning it? He made a number of public denials that he or the church were practicing polygamy. He also pointed to the revelation in the Book of Commandments that commanded monogamy. (this revelation was later removed by Brigham Young years later) Any thoughts? This is a sincere question I’ve been grappling with for a while now.
MC,
Joseph Smith, then, was not “merely restoring the biblical version of the law of chastity and authorized practice of polygamy.” What Joseph was doing was a bit more complex than the biblical stuff. (See, for example, the post, Establishing the tribes of Israel: the real reason for plural marriage.) Certainly Joseph was sealed to women other than his wife, but was he married to multiple women in the traditional sense of biblical polygamy? Not really. There is no evidence of consummation, for example. Was the goal to eventually turn the sealing doctrine into the bona fide practice of plural marriage, with consummation and children from various wives? Without a doubt. Did he practice that while he lived? It doesn’t appear so. There was no one authorized to do that, except him, and he didn’t do that, and except those he authorized to do that, and it doesn’t appear he authorized that, either, except at the very end of his life, when the revelation of D&C 132 was finally read to the high council. Thus, his public denials were true. Neither he nor anyone else was practicing biblical polygamy, and anybody that did that, did so without his express authorization.
Now, to my knowledge, there was never any revelation that commanded monogamy. There was an Article on Marriage, presumably written by Oliver Cowdery, but that wasn’t a revelation and it wasn’t binding upon the church as a commandment, nor was it approved by Joseph Smith, and so Brigham Young was right to remove it. D&C 132 is the revelation on marriage Joseph received, not Cowdery’s Article on Marriage. The doctrine of plurality of wives is a touchy subject, so after his death, those that lived it, understandably did so as a private teaching, and this was according to the spirit of wisdom in the leadership at that time, but when it was finally published publicly, and became canonized, it became binding upon the saints. So, the doctrine was introduced gradually, because of the moral hyper-sensitivities (prudishness) of the Victorian society of that time.
LDSA, I have a hard time squaring what you said
with what Alma said about the two states of spirits upon death.
Isnt a righteous person one who repents? And yet you say that someone who repents in mortality can still be barred from paradise? How can this be?
jackdale76,
A righteous person is one who has been forgiven of his sins, or who has never sinned. It is someone who is justified. Repentance means you’ve turned away from your sin, forsaken them, but that doesn’t mean you’ve been forgiven. David repented, but was not forgiven. He still had to suffer for his crime before the Lord would forgive him.
LDSA,
Why are you saying that “Repentance means you’ve turned away from your sin, forsaken them” and not mention that this is only one of the steps required in order to complete repentance. The other step is to have “faith unto repentance”. Even if the person turns away from all his sins and yet fails to exercise “faith unto repentance”, that person is not considered as someone “who has repented” but only as someone who “is in the process of repentance”? (Tell me if you dont agree with this, then Ill start quoting the scriptures to back it up. But for now, I assume that you probably agree with this)
So, if my understanding above is correct, the corollary is that a former murderer can repent and exercise faith unto repentance but (acc.to you) not be forgiven of his sins. In other words (acc.to you), his sins will not be remitted by the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost and his garments will not be made clean every whit while in mortality.
Then (acc.to your line of thinking) what follows is that such person can never perform any miracle regardless of how much he exercises his faith in mortality, because only someone who is clean every whit can perform miracles
Do you agree that this is where your line of thinking leads?
Ill have more to add, I just dont want to jumble too many questions in one go.
jackdale76, you asked:
From the Bible Dictionary:
We are all familiar with, or should be familiar with, the steps of repentance: acknowledgment of the sin, sorrow felt for the sin, confession of the sin, forsaking of the sin, restitution. But doing this doesn’t automatically grant a remission of the sin. To become clean, one must repent, yes, but it is faith that saves a person. In order to obtain the faith necessary to become clean (the sins remitted) a sinner must repent. You can’t be saved in your sins. You can only be saved from your sins. In other words, every sinner must repent. Only through repentance can a sinner finally obtain the faith necessary for forgiveness and remission of sin. Amulek taught:
Inheriting the kingdom of God requires we be clean, which is accomplished by faith in Christ. But no sinner has faith sufficient to become clean without also repenting of his sins. So, repentance is necessary. Jesus taught:
Faith, repentance and obedience to the commandments are all needed in order to obtain this cleanliness that the atonement provides. Hence, baptism is also necessary, as well as all the other commandments of God. Alma taught:
Again, faith, repentance and obedience to God’s commandments. That’s how salvific faith is exercised. The term “faith unto repentance” is Amulek’s term and it refers to this very three-fold process whereby a person becomes clean (justified by their faith.) Repentance is complete with repentance. A person who doesn’t believe in Christ, who turns away from their sins and forsakes them, feeling sorrow for them, going through restitution, etc., has repented. But they still have their sins upon them, they aren’t yet clean, despite their repentance. They’ve turned from their sins, but still aren’t clean, because the atonement of Christ cleans, but that requires faith in Christ, which they don’t have.
David caused the death of Uriah, and for that innocent blood which he caused to be spilled, he lost his exaltation. But David, after being called on it, repented of that sin. He felt fully sorry for it, and repented. He had faith in Christ, repented, etc., but because of that huge transgression, his faith wasn’t sufficient for Jesus to simply take the sin away without him suffering for it. He had to suffer for it. So, David couldn’t exercise “faith unto repentance” or “faith unto salvation” until he had first suffered the penalty. The atonement was wrought so that we don’t have to suffer the penalty of our sins, but if we screw up royally, such as David did with Uriah, then the justice of God requires that you suffer the penalty yourself. The Lord said to Joseph Smith:
So, David has to suffer that penalty, and once that penalty has been paid, as he has repented of his sins (which he did in mortality), his faith now becomes salvific and instead of being cast off forever, he remains in the kingdom of heaven as a saved individual, inheriting the telestial kingdom.
Only those individuals who don’t repent, ever, even after suffering the wrath of God in hell, get cast off. All the rest who repent, eventually obtain the faith to get themselves clean so that they may remain in the kingdom.
The phrase “faith unto repentance” that Amulek spoke of is a condition in which a person exercises sufficient faith in Christ to the point that he repents of all his sins and has them remitted immediately. He becomes justified. No punishment is exacted from that person because he is clean already. Justification, or cleanliness, is the requirement for salvation. But David couldn’t exercise such faith because there was an additional requirement placed upon him: he had to first suffer for his sin before entering the kingdom of God. That suffering was the penalty that the atonement would not take away. So, David repented during his life, but he couldn’t get clean until he went into prison and served his time. Then, and only then, would the demands of justice be turned away, because he had met all the other requirements: faith, repentance, obedience to God’s commandments. To everyone else who doesn’t commit such a grievous sin, these are the only requirements we have and if we meet those requirements, we won’t go into prison and have to suffer for our sins.
So, answer you question, the “process of repentance” applies to repentance alone. “Faith unto repentance” isn’t a process of repentance, but how one obtains forgiveness of sin. To obtain forgiveness of sin, more than repentance is required. Faith also is required, as well as complying with other commandments of God, and for some, even more is required, such as suffering in hell for having someone murdered. So, David did repent, he did go through the process of repentance, but he still couldn’t obtain forgiveness of his sin at that point.
A murderer, who intentionally murders, shedding innocent blood, can repent, but cannot receive forgiveness. This is why we do not baptize such individuals. They receive no forgiveness, not in this world or in the world to come. They must suffer the penalty for their sin. They must pay the price of suffering themselves. Only after paying that price, if they are penitent and exercise faith in Christ, can they become clean.
Now, where exactly are you going with this miracle thing, with Mormon’s words about needing to be cleansed every whit from iniquity? Do you know of a scriptural character who murdered and yet did miracles?
Thanks for your thoughts,
I’d like to better understand what your idea of “faith unto repentance” exactly is.
Unless the word “unto” has some exotic meaning, on the face of it, it seems to me that the phrase means “sufficient amount of faith necessary in order to impel oneself to turn away from & feel sorrow for sin”.
So, Im not sure what you mean by “remitted immediately”
Normally, a person would repent of his sins first and after that will continue to build his faith until the faith is strong enough to be awarded forgiveness, like the struggle of Enos was. There is nothing immediate in that.
Please clarify.
This refers to the doctrine of immediacy. See https://ldsanarchy.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/various-recent-insights/#comment-8934
If you still need me to unfold this further, let me know.
Following the link, I found your words
But this is just a restatement of what I already understood that you were saying here. It doesnt shed any new light on the subject. So, I’ll reask my question with a bit more verbosity:
If, as we both believe, a person who has not yet repented cannot exercise faith unto salvation, what follows is that the person has to repent first (in order to remove the hindrance preventing him from having faith unto salvation) and only after repenting he can continue to exercise the faith until it becomes salvific. With this in mind, there must be a gap of time between when the person repented and when he obtained faith unto salvation.
Hence, my question, how can you be saying things like “repents of all his sins and has them remitted immediately”? There must be a gap of time, doesnt it?
jackdale76,
No, there doesn’t need to be a gap of time. “Faith unto repentance” and “faith unto salvation” are synonymous terms, which indicate that one has exercised faith, repented of one’s sins and received a remission of sins. If you are a sinner, and repent of your sins, repentance alone does’t get you a remission of sins. It’s the faith that brings remission of sins. If you exercise some faith and outwardly turn from your sins, but do not inwardly turn from them, you receive no remission of sins. If you exercise faith unto repentance, you both outwardly and inwardly turn from your sins and immediately receive a remission of your sins. It happens immediately. However, if you are like David, who caused innocent blood to be shed, then you will exercise faith and outwardly and inwardly turn from your sins, but no remission of sins will come upon you, until you have paid the required penalty for shedding that blood. At that point, after you’ve paid the penalty, your faith become salvific and your sins get remitted, thus David could not exericise faith unto repentance, despite having exercised faith and repented of all his sins. He needed to pay an additional penalty. But once paid, his sins will be remitted immediately.
All of mankind, save those who are required to pay an additional penalty, have their sins remitted immediately, once they exercise sufficient faith to repent of both their inward and outer sins. This is called “faith unto repentance” and remission of sins happens instantly. There is no lag time. Remission of sins always come instantly upon full (inner and outer) repentance, for full (inner and outer) repentance requires the exercise of faith in Christ, unless there is some additional thing that must be done by the sinner. Once that thing is done, then, there is no lag time. It’s all instantaneous.
LDSA, before I address your most recent comment, let me back up and answer something you asked before your hiatus
The point that I was trying to make is that David slew Uriah on the 2nd year of his 33-year-long reign. And yet, down the line something happens to David which is nothing short of a miracle
The Lord miraculously gives David the pattern for the temple. If (as you say) David was unclean at that time because of Uriah incident, how could David have such faith to bring about this miracle from God?
LDSA, so you’ve introduced the concepts of “inward sin” and “inner repentance”.
Do you mean things like:
If one has the spirit of the devil inside and the devil causes the blindness of heart, is that in and of itself a sin? No amount of sorrowing can remove that evil spirit. And yet the Bible says
Does this verse only apply to outward sins?
Is the protocol of repentance (steps to take) for inward sins different than the one for outward sins?
jackdale76, “the Lord made me understand in writing by his hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern” doesn’t give us much to go on, but it sounds like David had an inspired dream in which he read from a parchment that contained the pattern. Whatever was the delivery method of this understanding, this wasn’t a manifestation of the gift of the working of miracles, but of the word of knowledge (the spirit of revelation.) The spirit of revelation can and does come upon those who have not yet received a remission of sins. This is how people learn that the truths of God are true, for example. Nebuchadnezzar and others have had revelatory or inspired dreams in which God communicated great truths, yet these people weren’t saints.
jackdale76, yes unbelief and blindness of heart are inward sins.
Yes, that is a state of sin.
It’s not the sorrowing, but the faith that removes it. But sorrowing for sin (godly sorrow) is a necessary part of the repentance process.
No, that applies to both inward and outward sins.
No, except for the fact that what is stopped for inward sins are the wrong inward thoughts and feelings, whereas what is stopped for the outward sins are the wrong outward actions. It’s the same process, but for one set, we correct the thoughts and feelings, and for the other set, we correct the actions. This is why a person who stops acting outwardly sinfully may still unjustified, because their inward thoughts and feelings don’t match the outward actions. In other words, they become a hypocrite. If you say I never think that or feel that, but you go and do that action, you are a hypocrite. You are pretending. The inward and outward man must match, otherwise you are a prentender (a hypocrite.) Likewise, if you don’t or won’t do that action, but you are thinking about doing it all the time and dreaming of it and planning to do it and feeling it, etc., you are a hypocrite. You need to repent of the inward sins so that there is a match between the two. If you don’t repent, eventually those thoughts and feelings will cause the outward actions to match the inward thoughts and feelings. In other words, eventually everyone gets taken out of “hypocrite status” one way or another. You can take yourself out by repenting of both sets of sins, or your sins will eventually take you out by causing you to be a “matched sinner.”
Question about David and Solomon.
How do you reconcile your interpretation of (Jacob 2:24, 28-30) and (D&C 132:1,38-40) that both seem to justify David and Solomon,
with Deuteronomy 17 where Moses told the people that when they got to their promised land, and ask for a king he shouldn’t multiply wives, or riches.
Do you believe this is an interpolation of man?
14 ¶ When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;
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.
16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
James Affleck,
even though LDSA is the author of this post, I think, Im familiar enough with his viewpoint to address Deut 17:17
As he said in the beginning of this post, the Lord’s problem was not plurality of wives per se but the problem was that they “had” them instead of “receiving” them:
In the same vein, you can apply this idea to Deut 17:17
Could it be that the prohibition was that *he* must not multiply? There was nothing inherently wrong with multiplicity of wives if they are multiplied via proper channels.
Thanks for the response JackDale, I guess that’s one way of interpreting that scripture. It may be right, it may be wrong, I’m not really sure.
Your answer sounds a lot like the spot in the OT where the Lord says the following to Samuel.
So basically, the Lord allowed the people to have a king like they wanted, even though He knew it wouldn’t turn out the very best.
Just like the Nephites wanted:
And the Jaredites:
Because:
Polygamy is a hard issue to totally wrap your head around I think.
D&C 132 says Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were commanded to partake of the practice, but the none of the other scriptures really confirm that claim. The Lord definitely worked with Abraham and Jacob after they had either had a second wife or concubine by covenanting with both of them. Take from that what you will.
My biggest question is, if it is necessary and a practice required for salvation at all, why didn’t God have Adam or Noah practice it? It seems that that would have made a simple example from the first man that this is an approved of and even commanded practice.
Thanks again for responding.