- Please review the following passages; I will have questions concerning them at the end:
[Jacob and DC 132 references]
The questions that I have from the above passages are these:
First, there seems to be a direct contradiction between the two passages; In the book of Jacob, the wives and concubines are “abominable before me(The Lord)” while in the Doctrine and Covenant, David’s wives and concubines “were given unto him of me”(Again, the Lord). How does Mormon Church reconcile the two passages? Does it teach that the Lord gave an abomination to David?
Second, in the Doctrine and Covenants, there is a passage (132:4) that says that if the Mormon Church does not follow the “new and everlasting covenant” that it will be “damned”. The Mormon Church does not currently follow the statutes concerning wives and concubines as outlined in Chapter 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the chapter that contains the warning to follow the covenant or be “damned”. What is the Mormon Church’s teaching about why it does not follow the principle and doctrine concerning wives and concubines contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, Chapter 132?
The context of the two different passages is important for interpretation but honestly as an objective reader I can still see the contradiction as it relates to David, but here is how Mormons interpret the two passages:
Jacob was preaching
against the unauthorized taking of multiple wives that was occurring right in front of him, so we can expect his language to be strongly against the practice if he is seeking to curb the behavior. I have seen the punctuation in verse 24 debated before (there was no punctuation in the original manuscript) arguing that the abomination was the concubines, I personally don’t subscribe to that as a satisfactory explanation. The key verse in Jacob as it relates to the Mormon understanding of D&C 132 is verse 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.” and ‘these things’ is referring to statements in verse 27 &28, “For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none. For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women.” So the interpretation is the general rule is one man - one woman but the Lord says he may command his people to take multiple wives with the reason being “to raise up seed unto me.”
D&C 132 follows the same basic argument but in that context the Lord is explaining why he is instructing
the exception to the rule. So verse 29, speaking of Abraham having multiple wives, “Abraham received all things, whatesoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word” and then the passage continues about the “seed of Abraham” throughout the ages of history. v 35 “Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay, for I the Lord, commanded it.” then in reference to David “in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.” Then it is described that David was commanded to take additional wives through Nathan the prophet but in the case of Uriah and Bathsheba he sinned because it was not by the law through the Lord’s servant Nathan. Later in the revelation the Lord hints at another reason he would give such a commandment, v51 “for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.”
From a faithful Mormon perspective looking back at the history of polygamy in the 1800’s the general conclusion is the Lord commanded it, nobody was particularly excited about it and it was hard. And the understanding of the Lord’s purpose in making the commandment was that it was to “raise up seed,” part of the “restoration of all things” and as an Abrahamic test. The effect was a division in the Church and those willing to accept it as being of God went to be extremely loyal, enduring the challenges of crossing the plains and starting from scratch in the deserts of the West. It might not have produced a population boom in terms of numbers of seed but it certainly built up generations of faithful followers who were willing to sacrifice for the kingdom of God. Many of the Church’s leadership, even up to this day, are descendants of polygamous families in the 1800’s. So I think the general sentiment of modern Mormons is “I’m glad I didn’t have to live then, I don’t know if I could have done it” but also a deep respect for those pioneers and their obedience to the commandment. There is general acceptance that polygamy is at times approved by the Lord but what that means for the eternities is largely speculation with most hoping that it was only an earthly necessity while bracing themselves if it might be a continued pattern in the eternities and others openly convinced that it must be the pattern in heaven due to the balance of the righteous number of men and women in the Church. In my interactions with mainstream Mormons I have never heard as openly expressed sincere desire that polygamy be reinstated.
