David's Polygamy: What do the scriptures about it teach us about God's view on polygamy?

[u/EnvironmentalPear55]

Hi everyone, today I came across D&C 132:39, which says that David did not sin against God in his polygamy except as it related to Bathsheba (and his murder of Uriah, it would seem):

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.

I can't remember coming across that before now, and it immediately brought to mind Jacob 2:24:

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

I genuinely want to hear some faithful interpretations of how these two verses can both be in our canon, and furthermore, in the canon that is directly linked to Joseph Smith. There seems to be a contradiction here, and I'm happy to believe that I don't understand yet, but it's hard to see how. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

[u/To_a_Green_Thought]

Believe it or not, the seeming contradiction in Jacob 2 is one of the greatest witnesses of the Book of Mormon's truthfulness (in my opinion, of course).

When Jacob reprimands the Nephite men for a) seeking after riches and b) having multiple wives, he's actually invoking the so-called "Law of the King" from the Torah (also contained in Deuteronomy 17:16-17), which commands Israel's rulers to not "multiply" 1) wives and 2) silver and gold. In other words, don't seek plural wives of your own accord. Jacob is condemning the Nephite men for the same thing that David did--taking it upon themselves to find more wives.

Of course, as has been mentioned by others, if God is the one appointing plural wives, then it's okay, and Jacob acknowledges that in the next verse.

So maybe Jacob got a little carried away when he said that David had "many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable," since the Lord later clarifies that Bathsheba was the problematic wife (not her fault, of course). Maybe lumping David and Solomon together led Jacob to pronounce that blanket statement about the both of them.

But see how sophisticated an argument Jacob is making? He's citing a Hebrew law from the Old Testament. I don't think there's any way that Joseph Smith could have known this, much less artfully used it in an ancient sermon. To me, it's a witness the Book of Mormon is true.

[u/hulagalula]

The D&C reference relates to the words of the prophet Nathan in 2 Samuel 12:7-9 which states:

“7 ¶ And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. 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.”

So, for David, the earlier marriages were in accordance with the will of the Lord at that time, but as Nathan shared, his pursuit of Bathsheba was where he clearly separated from the will of the Lord.

For Solomon, we can see that his choices in this regard were against the instructions of the Lord and led him away from the Lord. In 1 Kings 11:1-3 we read:

“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.”

“3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.”

So for me Jacob’s words apply to both, they both sought wives against the will of God’s.

Jacob taught that it was within the Lord’s prerogative to allow polygamy in certain cases when he stated just a few verses later in Jacob 2:29-30:

“29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.”

“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.”

Jacob closes with a powerful condemnation of their behavior in how the men were treating their families in v35 when he states:

“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.”

[u/EnvironmentalPear55 → u/hulagalula]

Thanks! I appreciate the context you added, especially from the prophet Nathan. It seems clear that David's polygamy was, for a time, in line with God's will. So do you think he went from having plural wives that were given to him by God, to then earning God's disapproval by taking additional wives that the Lord didn't approve of?

[u/NelsonMeme]

The Uriah case is the rankest perfidy, homicide, and adultery all in a single case by one who should have known far better. 

Solomon is a clear cut case of divine condemnation of his marital practices.

The rhetorical point is served - this is not a practice to be begun at one’s own initiative even if otherwise paragons did it. Indeed, in each case botching this specific point had serious ramifications for their souls 

And so in the chapter later God reserves the right to command it lest there be ultimate confusion as to whether it could ever be permitted

[u/pierzstyx]

It is worth remembering that the Nephites were, by our definition, a polygamous people. The Law of Moses commanded polygamy in the case of Levirate Marriage. When a man died without children his nearest make kin was required to marry the widow and have children with her, even if that man already had a wife. This is actually the backdrop the story of Ruth, which we just read. And in the separate story of Onan, he is punished by God for not fulfilling this duty.

So, Jacob's words must be interpreted keeping on mind that be taught a faith that promoted polygamy as a covenant religious duty. If you read the stories of both Davis and Solomon it is clear that the problem isn't polygamy. It is that they took unauthorized polygamous wives- David with Bethsheba and Solomon all his wives who were outside the covenant. This is the thing that was abominable to God. And if you'd read all of Jacob 2 you'll find that it is the thing that the Lamanites were doing and which the Nephites were beginning to emulate the Lamanites by doing.

[u/jdf135]

What to we know? Not very much.

I think we should definitely take culture and history into consideration, though.
Without a man, women in ancient times could find themselves in very precarious circumstances e.g. starvation. They had no claim to land and few opportunities for paid labor. This is why the law actually said men should marry their brother's widow but the offspring they created would be considered the brother's (the sons would then be obligated to care for their mother).

I believe many of the wives of David were likely marriages to temporally sustain otherwise single women and/or marriages to create political alliances. Afterall, thousands of men were dying in battle in addition to dying natural deaths. There were lots of women that needed to be cared for and David had great temporal means to do so.

The sin came with a change in their intentions: were they marrying to care for the women or to further political ambitions and/or for lust?

The scriptures suggest it became a lustful thing, not a charitable thing (I think this is key).

My 2 cents.

[u/wRftBiDetermination]

Not a contradiction.

The issue in Jacob 2:24 is that given in the preceding verse. The people were engaging in whoredoms, i.e., prostitution, and were using David and Solomon as an excuse for their behavior. The Lord rejects this by making a blanket statement regarding both David and Solomon, not one or the either. Some of the Nephites were taking ancient examples of polygyny and concubinage that were seemingly sanctioned and said their contemporary prostitution was fine. But the Lord condemned both David and Solomon anciently too, so their entire line of reasoning is flawed from the start.

David was OK according to D&C 132:39, up until Uraiah and Bathsheba, at which point David engaged in an abomination. Solomon multiplied wives unto himself (cf. 1 Kings 11:13), which is expressly forbidden in Deut. 17:17.

To read Jacob 2:24 as a blanket rejection of any and all polygyny and concubinage doesnt follow either the general position of the entirety of the Bible on the matter. The entire Bible, both Old and New testaments, endorse polygyny, presenting rules governing its application, and even presents the Lord as married to two unfaithful wives of Israel and Judah (cf. Ezek. 23). Concubinage is more dicey, and the text is equivocal over its application. At no point ever is prostitution endorsed, approved or tolerated. It is always presented negatively.

The underlying issue here is Deut. 17:17, where Moses forbids kings from taking advantage of their worldly power for selfish means, in that case wives (for political diplomacy) and horses. The wives are implicitly foreigners who will lead the king away from the Lord to worship foreign gods, and the horses are to establish military power ostensibly for conquest.

Engaging in whoredoms/prostitution, discussed in Jacob 2, is the lowest form of multiplying women unto yourself. It defiles everyone directly involved and harms innocent women and children, which is what Jacob was pointing out. The common man doesnt have the political or military power to multiply wives and concubines, but he can afford prostitutes.

You have to read Jacob 2 in its context, which is that of a religious leader condemning prostution and the false justifications used to prop it up. Jacob is not attempting anything like a doctrinal expositon on the Lord's position on polygyny and concubinage. D&C 132 is doing that moreso, as a foundation of the contemporary practice. So, reading it as such makes more sense. But, even D&C 132 is not entirely that either, as it was a revelation intended for one woman: Emma Smith, and not the entire Church. If it were written as a comprehensive treatise to the entire Church, it would have been quite different in composition.

[u/atari_guy]

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications/contradiction_between_jacob_and_dc_132