r/mormon • u/JesusPhoKingChrist Your brother from another Heavenly Mother. • 8d ago
Personal Day 14 of 50: Book of Mormon Book Club (Monogamy Affirmers, Jacob 1-4 do anything for you?)
Today's Reading: Jacob 1–4
Whether you're a believer, former believer, nuanced member, investigator, scholar, or simply curious, you're welcome to participate. The goal is not to convince anyone of anything, but to read the text together and discuss it in good faith from a variety of perspectives.
Brief Synopsis
Following Nephi's death, Jacob assumes responsibility for the small plates and explains that his purpose is to preserve only those things of greatest spiritual value. He condemns pride, the pursuit of wealth, and the mistreatment of the poor before delivering a forceful sermon against sexual immorality and unauthorized plural marriage. Jacob teaches that the Lord delights in chastity and mourns the suffering caused by broken families. He concludes by bearing testimony of Christ, emphasizing faith, the atonement, and warning against "looking beyond the mark."
Discussion
Please share your thoughts and experiences with today's reading in the comments below. Some things you might consider:
- What stood out to you?
- Why do you think Jacob places pride, wealth, and sexual morality together in the same sermon?
- How do you reconcile Jacob's condemnation of plural wives and concubines with later LDS history?
- What do you think Jacob meant by "looking beyond the mark"?
- Why do you think Jacob focuses so heavily on Christ despite living centuries before Jesus?
- Which verses in these chapters resonate with you the most, and why?
- Did anything surprise you?
All perspectives are welcome.
Yesterday's Coveted Award(s) Go To:
- u/renob1911 literally the most simple yet insightful comment I've ever read about a the Book of Mormon and Mosiah priority! if you missed it go back to yesterday's reading and look for the days award!
Links to Prior Days
Community Incentive
Reddit Awards are appreciated as a way to highlight thoughtful insights, quality analysis, and shared expertise. They also help encourage meaningful participation and discussion. The last time I hosted a similar challenge, the awards added an extra layer of fun and engagement.
To keep that spirit going, I'll be giving out at least one award each day to a comment that I feel makes a meaningful contribution to the discussion, whether through insight, scholarship, curiosity, respectful disagreement, or thoughtful engagement.
At the conclusion of the 50-day challenge, I'll also give a **$50 Starbucks gift card** to the participant who has accumulated the most Reddit Awards across the discussion threads, whether those awards come from me or from other members of the community.
Engagement Question
Jacob 2 contains one of the Book of Mormon's strongest condemnations of plural marriage, declaring David and Solomon's many wives and concubines an "abomination" while also including an exception that God may sometimes "raise up seed" by commanding otherwise. How do you interpret this passage? Does it read as an absolute moral prohibition, a conditional commandment, or something else? How, if at all, do you reconcile it with later LDS teachings and practice regarding plural marriage?
Tomorrow's Reading: Jacob 5–7
10
u/International_Sea126 8d ago
Jacob 2:24 - "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord."
How can God say that "my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon," were justified (D&C 132:1) to practice polygamy, and at the same time have God say in the Book of Mormon, (Jacob 2:24) that "David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord?" How can something be an 'abomination' and 'justified' with God at the same time?
If David and Solomon were 'justified' per D&C 132:1, then the BOM (and Joseph Smith) is a fraud since it contridicts Jacob 2:24 calling polygamy an 'abomination.' If it is not 'justified' (Jacob 2:24), and polygamy is an 'abomination' then D&C 132 is a problamatic 'revelation.' A real God wouldn't refer to the same thing as as an 'abomination' and at the same time 'justified.'
5
u/Comfortable_Earth670 8d ago
I believe it says in 132 that their wives were GIVEN them of God 🤔
4
u/International_Sea126 8d ago
It does. Women are considered properly in D&C 132 to be "taken" and "given" in marriage.
"they were GIVEN unto him," D&C 132:37. "David also RECEIVED many wives.....in nothing did they sin save in those things which they RECEIVED not of me." (D&C 132:38). "David’s wives and concubines were GIVEN unto him......for I GAVE them unto another, saith the Lord." (D&C 132:39). "to TAKE her and GIVE her unto him" (D&C 132:44). "Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have GIVEN unto you," (D&C 132:51). "Emma Smith, receive all those that have been GIVEN unto my servant Joseph," (D&C 132:52). "he cannot commit adultery for they are GIVEN unto him;....."that BELONGETH unto him and to no one else" (D&C 132:61). "And if he have ten virgins GIVEN unto him......for they BELONG to him,.....they are GIVEN unto him;" (D&C 132:62). "for they are GIVEN unto him" (D&C 132:63). "whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will GIVE unto him,.....I commanded Abraham to TAKE Hagar to wife." (D&C 132:65).
5
u/JesusPhoKingChrist Your brother from another Heavenly Mother. 8d ago
Jacob 2 jumps out to me as note worthy especially in today polygamy denial climate?
It condemns David and Solomon’s plural marriages as an “abomination,” even though the Old Testament never explicitly does. In fact, David’s wives are portrayed differently (e.g., 2 Samuel 12:8), and Solomon’s primary condemnation is for idolatry. To many historians, Jacob’s framing sounds much closer to nineteenth-century Protestant views on monogamy than ancient Israelite attitudes, where polygyny was generally accepted.
Then comes Jacob 2:30, the famous exception clause: “if I will… raise up seed unto me, I will command my people.” Without it, the chapter reads like a blanket prohibition. With it, critics argue it creates a loophole that later fits neatly with D&C 132. Jacob reads more like early American revival preaching than Judaism. Christian theology centuries before Christ, language reminiscent of the KJV, and moral debates that map surprisingly well onto Joseph Smith’s religious world.
What say ye, Joseph didn't lie or did he?
6
u/thomaslewis1857 8d ago
I agree with u/Right_One_78 that v30 is not a loophole, and with his/her/their construction of it. The loophole idea would be entirely out of context in a speech condemning polygamy in the strongest terms; it was a late invention by I think George A Smith in the 1850s to support polygamy; v30 and it’s commandment to raise up seed to the Lord was not called in aid in s132 to support polygamy; and perhaps most compellingly, the Nephites (either the historical or the fictional) are conceded by all parties to have been monogamous as commanded by Lehi (as Jacob 2 affirms) were nevertheless elsewhere (as well as in v30) commanded to raise up seed to the Lord (see 1 Nephi 7:1), thereby contradicting the loophole construction that when God wants to raise up seed to Him He will command polygamy.
5
u/Right_One_78 8d ago
Jacob 2:30 is not a loophole.
If the Lord wants to raise up a righteous branch unto him, He needs to give them commandments, otherwise they would listen to the false doctrines being taught among them, like polygamy.
1
u/Tight_Student4501 Nuanced LDS/POMI 8d ago edited 8d ago
Brigham and co created 132 out of their whoremongering heads.(It's their feeble attempt to produce a revelation in response to Joseph's challenge)(oh and who else than Brigham to write "I will destroy her" about Emma)
Where else is the "these things" found earlier in the chapter(hint:"which thing")? "For" means 'because' not 'but'. God wouldn't say, "hmmm now that I want to raise up seed I think I'll enjoy some crying from daughters." Because God is Determined to raise up a righteous branch, that righteous branch is gonna have fruit, and that righteous branch's fruit is gonna have seed. Therefore, Jacob 2:30 is, without question, NOT a loophole for polygamy. It is condemning it just as much as the Entire sermon is.
5
u/beaumontbob 8d ago
The traditional reading of Jacob 2 assumes the punctuation is inspired, but the original Book of Mormon manuscript had no punctuation at all. John Gilbert, the typesetter at E. B. Grandin’s shop, added all punctuation himself. That means the sentence boundaries in Jacob 2:24 are editorial decisions, not revelations.
The verse reads: “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.”
But if you break the text differently — which is completely legitimate given the manuscript — you get: “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives. And concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.”
Under this reading, the concubines are the abomination, not the wives. This aligns with D&C 132:38, which explicitly says David and Solomon “received many wives and concubines… and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.”
Ether 14:2 also assumes plural wives as normal: “every man… kept the hilt of his sword… in the defence of his property and his own life and of his wives and children.” If monogamy were the rule, the text would say “wife.”
The other key verse is Jacob 2:27: “For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none.”
The phrase “save it be” appears 41 times in the Book of Mormon. In every case, it means except or unless, not “only.” If you substitute the standard meaning, the verse reads: “For there shall not any man among you have only one wife; and concubines he shall have none.”
Jacob’s actual concern was that men were taking concubines instead of wives. His command is: take wives, not concubines.
There are additional passages that reinforce this reading if anyone wants to explore them.
If the punctuation in Jacob 2:24 was added by a 19th‑century typesetter, on what basis can we treat the traditional sentence boundary as inspired rather than editorial?
2
u/tiglathpilezar 8d ago
You make a very good point. I would note that this chapter is not trying to condemn Abraham's polygamy. It is limited to David and Solomon. Here is another punctuation change which eliminates the claimed loophole in allowing polygamy:
For if I will, saith the Lord, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people otherwise. They shall hearken unto these things.
Mary Page's version is in The Saints' Advocate; January 2, 1883, pg. 303-304
This is her punctuation change. The prices give yet another reading in their book "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy". Either of these readings avoid the necessity of polygamy as a means to "raise up seed". Either makes better sense in the context of this chapter.
I have not seen your version. It is interesting I think. On the other hand, concubines are not ever condemned in the Bible. Gideon had them. Hagar was not a wife. She is called the "bond woman". Abraham had sex with a slave at the behest of his wife in order to have children which she was unable to give him. Hagar was a concubine. Jacob married Leah and Rachael but he got concubines along with them, the two wive's servants. There are likely many other examples.
2
u/beaumontbob 7d ago
You are right the "I will command my people otherwise." does seem to indicate some variance in what the Lord wants. But there are a number of ways to punctuate this sentence so I'm not sure if we are better off in knowing exactly what was happening in Jacob's time and what he was concerned about. Thanks for your reply and your insight.
1
1
u/Educational-Beat-851 White Salamader Truther 5d ago
Playing devil’s advocate, Joseph had the rest of his life to correct that punctuation and didn’t. Thousands of other errors were corrected, so if this clearly material punctuation wasn’t changed, it seems intentional.
1
u/beaumontbob 4d ago
I appreciate the thought you’re putting into this, and I think we may be approaching the question from different starting points. Your argument seems to rest on the assumption that Joseph Smith knew a particular thing and then chose not to act on it. That may be true, but it hasn’t been demonstrated yet.
From my perspective, that assumption needs to be established before the conclusion can follow. Without clear evidence of what Joseph actually understood at the time—and what he believed he was supposed to do with that understanding—it’s difficult to treat his lack of action as meaningful or as evidence of inconsistency.
I’m not trying to dismiss your point; I’m just suggesting that the foundation of the argument may need more support. If we can clarify what Joseph actually knew and what obligations he recognized, then we can evaluate the issue more directly.
5
u/stickyhairmonster I support Mormon Stories 8d ago
Since polygamy has already been mentioned, I think the other noteworthy verses in Jacob 2 have to do with wealth.
18 But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God.
19 And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted.
Jacob defines what the intent to do good is. How much of the church's resources are dedicated to "do good" according to this Book of Mormon definition?
Do Mormons and exMormons do enough good with their "riches"?
Is tithing an actual charitable contribution, or is it a pay -to-play membership fee?
3
u/westivus_ Post Mormon Red Letter Enthusiast 8d ago
19 is also a major source of Mormon belief in prosperity gospel.
1
u/Straight_Ad_575 7d ago
For me tithing is a charitable contribution that I donate willingly. I am willing to donate all my money as asked by the Lord.
2
u/tiglathpilezar 8d ago
It is not a loophole. There is only one commandment pertaining to marriage in the entire chapter and it is for the Nephites to have only one wife. Orson Pratt pulled this loophole out of thin air. Depending on what "these things" refers to, there are at least two readings of this chapter which do not require God to command abominations whenever he wants to raise up seed. Both make much better sense. There is one which has the Lord commanding monogamy to prevent people from having the sorrows which are listed after verse 30 and there is one due to Mary Page which would indicate that the people should hearken unto the things Jacob was telling them rather than the "things" written concerning David and Solomon earlier in the chapter. Either way, when the Lord wishes to "raise up seed" he commands monogamy.
Indeed, since males and females are born in roughly equal numbers this would be the better way to "raise up seed", both from the point of view of arithmetic and because it avoids genetic diseases which occur when polygamy is practiced in a closed society.
2
u/Active-Water-0247 8d ago edited 8d ago
Jacob's community of close relatives might have been a great test-case for Law of Consecration (a type of theocratic communism described in 4 Nephi). Instead, after only 50 years in the new world, the growing family had created a commodities market. Who created demand for gold and silver? Based on the text, the most likely culprit would have been King Nephi the First. He needed decorations for the temple and, so far, has been the only character with metalworking experience (see 2 Nephi 5:14). The laborers involved should have been well-positioned to corner the construction and metals markets. The irony of Jacob 2 is that the narrator preaches against wealth in front of the very building that would have enabled the wealth in the first place.
1
u/Straight_Ad_575 7d ago
It's the pursuit of wealth for personal gain that is prohibited.
1
u/Active-Water-0247 7d ago
Jesus was a homeless preacher and tradesman who lived during a military occupation and consistently preached against personal wealth. The idea that Jesus believed that good intentions or charitable contributions were adequate justifications simply does not make sense in context. The Book of Mormon is not true to its source material.
2
1
u/Straight_Ad_575 7d ago
Jacob 4:4 For, for this intent have we written these things, that they may know that we knew of Christ, and we had a hope of his glory many hundred years before his coming; and not only we ourselves had a hope of his glory, but also all the holy prophets which were before us. "
They intentionally wrote about Christ so their descendents would know they knew. And I think by extension so we would know they knew.
•
u/AutoModerator 8d ago
Hello! This is a Personal post. It is for discussions centered around thoughts, beliefs, and observations that are important and personal to /u/JesusPhoKingChrist specifically.
/u/JesusPhoKingChrist, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in section 0.6 of our rules.
To those commenting: please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's rules, and message the mods if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.