There is clear evidence that the D&C 132 revelation on polygamy was manufactured by Brigham Young and was not written by Joseph Smith. The LDS church teaches that Joseph wrote it and practiced it and lied about it and hid it. There are plenty of videos debunking the LDS claim of which here are a few:
Karen Hyatt: https://youtu.be/bLbLQR95zj8?si=k-2P9fF3Sv3KIblc
Connor Boyack: https://youtu.be/p-7q2N2HefY?si=oEvL1Mqb80GJoTzs
Rob Fotheringham: https://youtu.be/r57oPlOgY6w?si=Pb0xihhRqXpscaf2
Jeremy Hoop: https://youtu.be/bnVKijsYLHE?si=9Q2wW3qb31koxjXs
With that out of the way - I want to argue that according to the teachings of the Church via D&C 132 - pornography is perfectly acceptable if you feel the Lord has sectioned it for you. Let's see how I get there.
Webster's 1828 Dictionary
Concubine
CONCUBINE, noun [Latin , to lie together, to lie down.]
1. A woman who cohabits with a man, without the authority of a legal marriage; a woman kept for lewd purposes; a kept mistress.
A concubine is kept for sexual purposes. D&C 132 accepts the use of concubines if the Lord gives them to you.
37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.
38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.
39 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; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.
If you are a man who feels that the Lord has given you multiple sexual partners (aka concubines), according to the LDS church as found in D&C 132, this is perfectly acceptable.
And let's say you were deceived by that "prompting" telling you that the Lord wanted you to take on more sexual partners...D&C 132:26 accounts for that and assures you that, well... you'll be okay in the end. Verse 26 says that if a man marries a wife and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise and they go on to commit ANY sin or transgression and if they do all manner of blasphemies AND as long as they don't murder - they're still fine - they will still come forth in the first resurrection and enter into their exaltation. Yes, they may have some trials until the day of redemption but in the end they will still be exalted.26 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.
I'm not advocating for this. But I am saying that the LDS church's own narrative provides justification for multiple sexual partners.
I find Abraham interesting. For one, He chose, not God, to have a child with another women. Did Abraham lack the faith his wife could have a child? Eventually she did.
ReplyDeleteNo where in the BofM does it justify or say polygamy was practiced. The Saints practicing it was a cause of the condemnation that came upon them as stated in the D&C. They did not follow the BofM as the Lord said to do. They were removed from their place, suffered greatly, the temple destroyed.
In the time of Moses, they were commanded to help support the widows and their children, not to fornicate with the women/mother. It’s so they would not become destitute. The BofM upholds the support of the widows and children, not polygamy.
The “revelation” of John Taylor recently published by the church contradicts its self. It says the practice will stand always and continued to be practiced as it was. Well it’s not at all as described in that paper. It was stopped by the leaders, not by way of commandment, but by force from the government. God is far more powerful than the government, so what happened?
The church still practices polygamy today. A man can be sealed to multiple women = spiritual polygamy. Not how JS intended at all. Where does the BofM support this 132 addition? JS said that if one followed the BofM, it is the book that will get one closer to God than any other. The Doctrine of Christ contained is quite simple, even Christ saying don’t add to it/change my doctrine. The BofM flat out condemns it and doesn’t support it. If it was so important why didn’t the Lord teach it in his own voice to the Nephites when he visited them. Does the Lord operate in secret? So many wars and women without their husbands. If it was so important for exhalation, for a woman to be sealed to a man, where is it in the most correct book on earth? It’s amazing the church doesn’t come clean and move on. Maybe then we could be on the path for the condemnation to be lifted.
Why do you seek to deceive by ignoring the dictionary definition that actually applies to the scriptures? You mislead by equivocation.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who reads this comment (if posted), should look up the Webster’s 1828 definition of Concubine for themselves.
There are arguments to be made, but it is falsehood that concubines are prostitutes, sex slaves, etc.
If there is another definition of concubines then please offer it rather than being an accuser of my intentions. Be a teacher - please present alternative views of concubines and why concubines are okay or whatever you feel about concubines. I seek learning and understanding.
DeleteYou are the one that quoted Webster’s 1828, but only the non-scriptural sense of the word, then used it to cast aspersions. I am a teacher in that I invited everyone to look up the source themselves. However, to ease the burden of searching further, I will post the rest of the Webster’s definition that was omitted (and this is the part that is applicable to scriptural discussions):
Delete“2. A wife of inferior condition; a lawful wife, but not united to the man by the usual ceremonies, and of inferior condition. Such were Hagar and Keturah, the concubines of Abraham; and such concubines were allowed by the Roman laws.”
In other words, concubines were wives - legal wives. Yes, they had different legal statuses, and there is a lot of social context that goes along with this (and social context that certainly does not apply today), but they were not simply loose, immoral women or something like that. In “Mormon Speak” we might say that a concubine is a wife that is married but not sealed (and thus of a different status).
The scriptures have categories for sexual wickedness. They talk about prostitution, incest, adultery, beastiality, homosexuality, etc. Being a legal wife is never considered wickedness - even in the Book of Mormon.
Thank you for elaborating. Could you show in the Book of Mormon where being a concubine is not considered wickedness?
DeleteSure, the key is not to equivocate. That is, change definitions from one context to another but pretend like you are talking about the same thing.
DeleteThe Book of Mormon authors presume that you have read the Bible already, and know about the words of God it contains.
(I am aware that the BOM says that plain and precious things, and covenants, have been taken away, but it also says these corruptions happen after the time of the apostles. Fortunately, we have copies of Biblical texts from the time before the apostles (the LXX and DSS) and can compare them to see that the texts are reliable, but this is another discussion.)
Back to what I was saying; the Bible uses and defines words for us, and we cannot change their definitions from one context to another to suit our purposes (which is what prompted my original message). I was precise in my speech when I said that being a legal wife is never wicked (this is the context of 132). The Book of Mormon condemns Kings for multiplying wives (as does the Bible - in fact, this is where the Book of Mormon gets this idea - Deut 17:17). The Book of Mormon also condemns “whoredoms”. Biblically, these are two different things, and we cannot commit equivocation by pretending they are the same. The Book of Mormon condemns whoredoms, which were commonly committed by both Judah and Israel (“them of old”) - and which the Biblical prophets frequently spoke about. Jacob further condemns them for trying to justify their committing of whoredoms because of the ancient kings multiplying wives to themselves. These are both (whoredom and kings multiplying wives) violations of God’s Law, and are therefore abominations.
The Book of Mormon does not condemn legal wives (including concubines). The Law of God actually forbids illegitimate children from being a part of the congregation of Israel (Deut 23:2). This is relevant because the Book of Mormon does not consider Abraham nor Jacob (among others) to be whoremongers. Further, the Book of Mormon does not consider Jacob’s children to be illegitimate (which they would be if their mothers were simply prostitutes). Rather, all 12 sons are legitimate heads of tribes and the very founders of the House of Israel. The fact that the scriptures air some of their family drama does not make their marriages and children illegitimate or sinful any more than the Book of Mormon airing Lehi’s family drama make them illegitimate or sinful.
This is sufficient for now. The Scriptures have to be used in harmony with each other, but this cannot be done if equivocation obscures the meaning of words. I don’t feel the need to continue explaining things further. I only wanted to point out that this entire post was built upon a faulty dictionary definition (one whose sense did not apply to the topic at hand). Perhaps you did not do this intentionally (perhaps someone else committed the equivocation by telling you this was the Webster’s definition that applied to the scriptures), and it was done in ignorance rather than deceit. If so, then I apologize for questioning your integrity.
I also glory in my Jesus, and marvel that God himself would condescend to reclaim a soul like mine. Blessings to you and yours.
That gives more insight. It is my stance that D&C 132 was manufactured by Brigham Young and others (see above videos in the post for more information on that). So I don't view polygamy and concubines as being from God but from man. We aren't likely to come together on our view of polygamy and concubines but I am always interested to see why people think the way they do.
DeleteThis post isn't built upon a faulty dictionary definition but on an actual dictionary definition of concubine. You have a definition that supports your feelings on concubine and I have mine. Both can be found in the dictionary.
Perhaps you could view someone with a different perspective than you as you would the Covid vaccines. You could use abundant evidence to support reasons why they have been helpful. I could provide abundant evidence as to why they are harmful. It is not deceitful to focus on one aspect. I trust that the people who read my blog are of intelligent stock and will not take my word as the final say on anything. I would venture to guess that 100% of the people who read this blog are natural researchers.
I stand by the definition I wrote in this post and I stand with the Book of Mormon:
Jacob 2:
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 of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
Jacob 3:
5 Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father—that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them.
I just want to say, Ruth—this was bold, clear, and thought-provoking. Thank you for taking on a tough subject with scripture, logic, and even a little wit.
ReplyDeleteTo the concubine defenders: it’s kind of telling that we’re now parsing ancient legal codes to try and make concubines sound righteous. Are we really saying that “a wife of inferior condition” is part of God’s eternal plan? If so, where does Jesus ever teach anything close to that? Where’s the Book of Mormon verse that praises concubines?
Jacob 2 says "this people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures"—because they justify whoredoms by David and Solomon. That's not me talking. That's the Book of Mormon. It calls these plural arrangements an abomination and warns that polygamy leads to destruction (Jacob 2:24–29).
This isn’t about ancient cultural nuance. It’s about what God actually approves of, not what He “allows.” If it’s critical for exaltation, why didn’t Christ ever mention it in 3 Nephi or anywhere in His own voice?
Ruth’s point stands strong: D&C 132 contradicts the Book of Mormon and the teachings of Jesus. Thank you again for the clarity.
That comment has to be from upward thought. When he is irked with topics like this he consistently reacts emotionally by doling out accusations, passive-aggressive labeling, attacking the person's intentions and the like. Ignore it. This post was on point. For whatever reason he has an unusual interest in justifying multiple wives and concubines. I've read too much of what he thinks on the topic and that commenter is him 100%.
ReplyDelete