POLYGAMY: Nauvoo Expositor & Interview with William Law, March 30, 1887

[ajax]

It's a completely made up "doctrine" in order to cover his arse with the saints.

What about "I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good" (D&C 56:4)? Could polygamy have been a commandment at one time and revoked at another? The Lord laid the groundwork for that pattern back in 1831. Maybe the Lord commanded through Joseph, and revoked through WW.

Because the people weren't living the law? According to the BoM by which we are to abide its precepts because it will get us closer to God than any other book, if God gives a commandment, he prepares the way so that it might be fulfilled. So apparently he all of a sudden states, through vision that If you don't stop this commandment that I gave then you will be destroyed? It doesn't follow or make sense.
Edit: additionally as far as I'm aware, it wasn't a I the Lord God revoke this, it was a "if yhou don't stop this you will be destroyed." It's one thing for the Lord to command to revoke and if they ignore it they will be destroyed, but that vision certainly wasn't shared that way.

Correct, the words "I revoke" are not in the Manifesto. But in effect and in practice, that is what occurred. The Lord showed WW ("revelation", he said) what would happen if they didn't stop practicing polygamy.

Was it the Lord who showed him, or the US government?

And WW didn't even comply with his own command. Polygamous sealings / marriages continued on until the second manifesto, including I think WW himself.

[iWriteStuff]

What about "I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good" (D&C 56:4)? Could polygamy have been a commandment at one time and revoked at another? The Lord laid the groundwork for that pattern back in 1831. Maybe the Lord commanded through Joseph, and revoked through WW.

Because the people weren't living the law? According to the BoM by which we are to abide its precepts because it will get us closer to God than any other book, if God gives a commandment, he prepares the way so that it might be fulfilled. So apparently he all of a sudden states, through vision that If you don't stop this commandment that I gave then you will be destroyed? It doesn't follow or make sense.
Edit: additionally as far as I'm aware, it wasn't a I the Lord God revoke this, it was a "if yhou don't stop this you will be destroyed." It's one thing for the Lord to command to revoke and if they ignore it they will be destroyed, but that vision certainly wasn't shared that way.

Correct, the words "I revoke" are not in the Manifesto. But in effect and in practice, that is what occurred. The Lord showed WW ("revelation", he said) what would happen if they didn't stop practicing polygamy.

Was it the Lord who showed him, or the US government?

And WW didn't even comply with his own command. Polygamous sealings / marriages continued on until the second manifesto, including I think WW himself.

I guess you'll have to ask WW about that. Me personally, I'm looking forward to asking JS about his take on all that.

Whatever else we can say on the subject, this much seems pretty certain: we have a lot of theories about what really went down and why. Polygamy seems to be one of those Rorshach tests. You see in it what you want to see.

[Col. Flagg]

It... is... a... mess... no matter how you slice it.

[Chip]

The church, though, seems to have made these acknowledgments based on what its legal counsel advised, while pretending that it and its history are all kosher. Certainly, something is screwed up and the church isn't interested in genuine resolution, yet. I figure God's moving forward and everyone and every institution is given their agency to choose what they will do, with consequence often being delayed, but unavoidable, in the end.

Precisely. I don't consider myself "In opposition of the church", but I don't care to argue if someone says I am.

Clearly history has been somewhat doctored. The story I'm told is not what happened in many cases. I believe that gives me the right to look into what was doctored, why it was doctored, and come to my own conclusion.

I don't believe Joseph Smith practiced and preached what Brigham Young did. I believe the polygamy that was practiced was an abomination according to the scriptures that I believe to be true.

I should have just said that your view is opposite of the church's view. I think I used an accusative tone just to emphasize the point, out of personal frustration. The fact is, we cannot be reconciled to the truths of what happened and the truths of the church. It's a catch-22.

[Chip]

I am often left with the supposition that perhaps God never intended there to be any giant organized churches, because men's problems enter in quickly and become cemented and create big ugly edifices that entrap many people and force them to worship what's all screwed up.

Take the song, "Praise To The Man".

"Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah..."

Well, wasn't that story the product of an Nth iteration of the First Vision, finally written down 12 or 13 years after the incident? The first first Visions included an angel, only. Now, two hundred years later, we are made to suppose that whatever the leaders say is inerrable in any serious sense. This, after they are shown to practice deceit over basic historical matters. And after having taught strange doctrine that was later refuted.

Things are hard to understand because of the blessings that certainly come from obeying the biblical Commandments that the church teaches.

The pie needs to be cut somewhere, in order for things to be properly partitioned, to put truth and error in their proper places, so that we can think straight.

[oneClimbs]

We do know this, that for whatever reason, the saints in Nauvoo didn't qualify for God's protection and were cast out of not only their land but the United States of America. They dwelt in the wilderness and despite the odds, prospered to a degree under harsh circumstances and were almost driven to a second destruction by the continued practice of polygamy. Only after the church ceased the practice did it begin to really flourish. Then the erroneous priesthood restriction was removed and today a lot of progress has been made.

I think one of the most important things we are doing now is the baptisms for the dead. I think that is the prime reason for the restoration above all other things because it is directly tied to the fulfilling of the Abrahamic covenant. The Book of Mormon coming forth was the sign that the time of fulfillment was beginning. Preaching the gospel and such are a continuation of what Jesus already started in his ministry.

I think that the restoration has had a rocky start. Despite how far I think we have to go, this is where I want to be in that journey. The Lord has promised that he will clean his own house in due time and I want to be with the people that worship the Father and the Son, stand with the Book of Mormon, abide by its teachings, and seek to fulfill the Abrahamic covenant in their temples. All the other stuff is interesting but of lesser importance.

[Arenera]

The church, though, seems to have made these acknowledgments based on what its legal counsel advised, while pretending that it and its history are all kosher. Certainly, something is screwed up and the church isn't interested in genuine resolution, yet. I figure God's moving forward and everyone and every institution is given their agency to choose what they will do, with consequence often being delayed, but unavoidable, in the end.

Precisely. I don't consider myself "In opposition of the church", but I don't care to argue if someone says I am.

Clearly history has been somewhat doctored. The story I'm told is not what happened in many cases. I believe that gives me the right to look into what was doctored, why it was doctored, and come to my own conclusion.

I don't believe Joseph Smith practiced and preached what Brigham Young did. I believe the polygamy that was practiced was an abomination according to the scriptures that I believe to be true.

I should have just said that your view is opposite of the church's view. I think I used an accusative tone just to emphasize the point, out of personal frustration. The fact is, we cannot be reconciled to the truths of what happened and the truths of the church. It's a catch-22.

I know we are part of the Abrahamic Covenant and are part of Israel. Israel had 4 wives. I believe all the scriptures to be true.

[Zathura]

The church, though, seems to have made these acknowledgments based on what its legal counsel advised, while pretending that it and its history are all kosher. Certainly, something is screwed up and the church isn't interested in genuine resolution, yet. I figure God's moving forward and everyone and every institution is given their agency to choose what they will do, with consequence often being delayed, but unavoidable, in the end.

Precisely. I don't consider myself "In opposition of the church", but I don't care to argue if someone says I am.

Clearly history has been somewhat doctored. The story I'm told is not what happened in many cases. I believe that gives me the right to look into what was doctored, why it was doctored, and come to my own conclusion.

I don't believe Joseph Smith practiced and preached what Brigham Young did. I believe the polygamy that was practiced was an abomination according to the scriptures that I believe to be true.

I should have just said that your view is opposite of the church's view. I think I used an accusative tone just to emphasize the point, out of personal frustration. The fact is, we cannot be reconciled to the truths of what happened and the truths of the church. It's a catch-22.

No problem

My supposition is the same. I believe it was supposed to have been loosely organized. Instead of a single “President Nelson” and a quorum of twelve that everyone looks upto, each stake would be full men and women equally inspired and full of the Spirit, a church of Gods people who are equal, who have been Born of God and are at least closer to Zion that we are now. There would still be callings, bishops, presidents, first Presidency obviously, but they’d be “looked up to” the same way currently only 15 men are. Each Stake would manage its own affairs , the quorum(s) of 12 and the seventies would properly do their jobs as they originally did etc.
anyways.

Edit: when I say “looked up to” I merely mean that our expectation would be that our local Stake and ward leadership would be every bit full of the Spirit and revelations as the First Presidency and co. Because as it stands now, our church has the hierarchy in our minds that grows in spiritual power as your climb up the “ladder”

[Col. Flagg]

Here's something else to consider... the first vision reportedly took place 199 years ago and in almost 200 years' time, only .0025% of everyone on planet earth are members of the church. Approx. half of the 15 million members are inactive and so then that number goes to .00125. In 200 years' time, that is the best God has done after restoring his only true church? And there was absolutely no one on the entire planet for 1,820 years righteous enough to restore the gospel with God allowing 18 generations to pass with no truth, gospel of Christ or necessary saving ordinances for billions of people who he apparently didn't care enough about to have everything he needs them to have to enter back into his presence? Sorry for playing the devil's advocate.

[Arenera]

Here's something else to consider... the first vision reportedly took place 199 years ago and in almost 200 years' time, only .0025% of everyone on planet earth are members of the church. Approx. half of the 15 million members are inactive and so then that number goes to .00125. In 200 years' time, that is the best God has done after restoring his only true church? And there was absolutely no one on the entire planet for 1,820 years righteous enough to restore the gospel with God allowing 18 generations to pass with no truth, gospel of Christ or necessary saving ordinances for billions of people who he apparently didn't care enough about to have everything he needs them to have to enter back into his presence? Sorry for playing the devil's advocate.

That seems like a long time for us.

Just a little longer...

[MMbelieve]

So you're saying WW was completely off base? And because no president ever will attempt to lead the church astray, the Lord will never have to remove any of them? Or is it more that Joseph never did lead the church astray with polygamy because God wouldn't have allowed that?

It's a completely made up "doctrine" in order to cover his arse with the saints.

What about "I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good" (D&C 56:4)? Could polygamy have been a commandment at one time and revoked at another? The Lord laid the groundwork for that pattern back in 1831. Maybe the Lord commanded through Joseph, and revoked through WW.

Wait, I thought God was removing JS because he taught it; now he was commanded it?

When? When did he teach it and present it to the saints as such?

I don't think God commands abominations. And since Jesus is the standard, God manifest among us, whatever deviates from that is nothing more than men using God's name to justify bad behaviour.

Interesting thought.
In Jacob we hear these things being termed an abomination to the Lord so yeah, why exactly would he command an abomination?

Abomination is pretty much saying its really not what he wants at all and he dislikes it.

Definition of abomination

a·bom·i·na·tionDictionary result for abomination
/əˌbäməˈnāSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
a thing that causes disgust or hatred.
"concrete abominations masquerading as hotels"

synonyms: atrocity, disgrace, horror, obscenity, outrage, curse, torment, evil, crime, monstrosity, violation, bugbear, anathema, bane; bête noire

"in both wars, internment was an abomination"

a feeling of hatred.
"their abomination of indulgence"
synonyms: detestation, loathing, hatred, aversion, antipathy, revulsion, repugnance, abhorrence, odium, execration, disgust, horror, hostility, disdain, contempt, distaste, dislike
"he had a Calvinist abomination of indulgence"

In contrast heres the definition of “sin”

sin1Dictionary result for sin
/sin/Submit
noun
1.
an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
"a sin in the eyes of God"
synonyms: immoral act, wrong, wrongdoing, act of evil/wickedness, transgression, crime, offense, misdeed, misdemeanor, error, lapse, fall from grace; More
verb
1.
commit a sin.
"I sinned and brought shame down on us"
synonyms: commit a sin, offend against God, commit an offense, transgress, do wrong, commit a crime, break the law, misbehave, go astray, stray from the straight and narrow, go wrong, fall from grace; archaictrespass
"I sinned and brought down shame on us"

[simpleton]

Yes, possibly. If I am to believe that Joseph engaged in "Lying for the Lord" for all those years. I don't believe that's the case, but I certainly think it's possible and accept that it may have been that way.

I'd like to clarify I'm not saying it was that way. But if the principle is that the Lord will remove any man who leads the church astray, you're left with only a few premises:

A) Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and his death was a martyrdom. He was innocent of any wrong doing and the doctrine of polygamy is an eternal principle.
B) Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and eternal sealings to multiple spouses is true, but he never practiced polygamy the way Brigham et al did later on.
C) Joseph Smith was a true prophet, but polygamy was not a true principle and the Lord removed him.
D) Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and all teachings about polygamy attributed to him were fabrications by other parties.

There are probably variations on that theme, but they sound a lot more like William Law's version of things.

Brigham Young was Prophet for 30 years, so that shows that God commanded polygamy.

Or, WW's statement is completely erroneous.

Yes to that... it was erroneous for sure... IMO

[simpleton]

Here's something else to consider... the first vision reportedly took place 199 years ago and in almost 200 years' time, only .0025% of everyone on planet earth are members of the church. Approx. half of the 15 million members are inactive and so then that number goes to .00125. In 200 years' time, that is the best God has done after restoring his only true church? And there was absolutely no one on the entire planet for 1,820 years righteous enough to restore the gospel with God allowing 18 generations to pass with no truth, gospel of Christ or necessary saving ordinances for billions of people who he apparently didn't care enough about to have everything he needs them to have to enter back into his presence? Sorry for playing the devil's advocate.

Or rather His children mostly just dont give a rat's rear about their personal salvation....

[Chip]

The church, though, seems to have made these acknowledgments based on what its legal counsel advised, while pretending that it and its history are all kosher. Certainly, something is screwed up and the church isn't interested in genuine resolution, yet. I figure God's moving forward and everyone and every institution is given their agency to choose what they will do, with consequence often being delayed, but unavoidable, in the end.

Precisely. I don't consider myself "In opposition of the church", but I don't care to argue if someone says I am.

Clearly history has been somewhat doctored. The story I'm told is not what happened in many cases. I believe that gives me the right to look into what was doctored, why it was doctored, and come to my own conclusion.

I don't believe Joseph Smith practiced and preached what Brigham Young did. I believe the polygamy that was practiced was an abomination according to the scriptures that I believe to be true.

I should have just said that your view is opposite of the church's view. I think I used an accusative tone just to emphasize the point, out of personal frustration. The fact is, we cannot be reconciled to the truths of what happened and the truths of the church. It's a catch-22.

No problem

My supposition is the same. I believe it was supposed to have been loosely organized. Instead of a single “President Nelson” and a quorum of twelve that everyone looks upto, each stake would be full men and women equally inspired and full of the Spirit, a church of Gods people who are equal, who have been Born of God and are at least closer to Zion that we are now. There would still be callings, bishops, presidents, first Presidency obviously, but they’d be “looked up to” the same way currently only 15 men are. Each Stake would manage its own affairs , the quorum(s) of 12 and the seventies would properly do their jobs as they originally did etc.
anyways.

Edit: when I say “looked up to” I merely mean that our expectation would be that our local Stake and ward leadership would be every bit full of the Spirit and revelations as the First Presidency and co. Because as it stands now, our church has the hierarchy in our minds that grows in spiritual power as your climb up the “ladder”

That is a very cool vision of how things could be!

[oneClimbs]

The church, though, seems to have made these acknowledgments based on what its legal counsel advised, while pretending that it and its history are all kosher. Certainly, something is screwed up and the church isn't interested in genuine resolution, yet. I figure God's moving forward and everyone and every institution is given their agency to choose what they will do, with consequence often being delayed, but unavoidable, in the end.

Precisely. I don't consider myself "In opposition of the church", but I don't care to argue if someone says I am.

Clearly history has been somewhat doctored. The story I'm told is not what happened in many cases. I believe that gives me the right to look into what was doctored, why it was doctored, and come to my own conclusion.

I don't believe Joseph Smith practiced and preached what Brigham Young did. I believe the polygamy that was practiced was an abomination according to the scriptures that I believe to be true.

I should have just said that your view is opposite of the church's view. I think I used an accusative tone just to emphasize the point, out of personal frustration. The fact is, we cannot be reconciled to the truths of what happened and the truths of the church. It's a catch-22.

I know we are part of the Abrahamic Covenant and are part of Israel. Israel had 4 wives. I believe all the scriptures to be true.

Jacob had two wives, Rachel and Leah while Bilhah and Zilpah were concubines that served as additional wombs. Fun fact: he was tricked into marrying Leah, he only wanted Rachel.

But when Rachel didn’t seem able to have kids and Leah was popping them out left and right, she told Jacob to impregnate her servant so Leah did the same to compete since she knew that Jacob loved Rachel more. The great baby war continued until we had 12 tribes.

God worked with it though like he does with all of the wackiness we create in our own lives. That doesn’t make what they did a shining model for a good family. If it does then heck, why not go for 700 wives and concubines like Solomon?

If there is nothing wrong with multiple wives, what about concubines? They had them too back then, not true wives but lesser status women used mostly for sex and additional kids. Note that the Book of Mormon always mentions the phrase “many wives and concubines” together.

[Chip]

Brigham Young was Prophet for 30 years, so that shows that God commanded polygamy.

Or, WW's statement is completely erroneous.

So you're saying WW was completely off base? And because no president ever will attempt to lead the church astray, the Lord will never have to remove any of them? Or is it more that Joseph never did lead the church astray with polygamy because God wouldn't have allowed that?

It's a completely made up "doctrine" in order to cover his arse with the saints. Believing in such, makes the man and the office diety. Any man can lead you astray at any time. JS warned the saints against this thinking via Eze 14. Eze 34 also speaks of shepherds scattering the flock. And we are warned many times not to trust in man or arm of the flesh. It makes persons atrophy spiritually.

Exactly, exactly, exactly, Ajax!

The notion that certain men cannot lead you astray is a huge pitfall. Where is your need for discernment? How are you not completely and utterly trusting in the arm of flesh under such a paradigm? And, yes, it elevates man to deity, while simultaneously causing spiritual atrophy.

[Arenera]

Precisely. I don't consider myself "In opposition of the church", but I don't care to argue if someone says I am.

Clearly history has been somewhat doctored. The story I'm told is not what happened in many cases. I believe that gives me the right to look into what was doctored, why it was doctored, and come to my own conclusion.

I don't believe Joseph Smith practiced and preached what Brigham Young did. I believe the polygamy that was practiced was an abomination according to the scriptures that I believe to be true.

I should have just said that your view is opposite of the church's view. I think I used an accusative tone just to emphasize the point, out of personal frustration. The fact is, we cannot be reconciled to the truths of what happened and the truths of the church. It's a catch-22.

I know we are part of the Abrahamic Covenant and are part of Israel. Israel had 4 wives. I believe all the scriptures to be true.

Jacob had two wives, Rachel and Leah while Bilhah and Zilpah were concubines that served as additional wombs. Fun fact: he was tricked into marrying Leah, he only wanted Rachel.

But when Rachel didn’t seem able to have kids and Leah was popping them out left and right, she told Jacob to impregnate her servant so Leah did the same to compete since she knew that Jacob loved Rachel more. The great baby war continued until we had 12 tribes.

God worked with it though like he does with all of the wackiness we create in our own lives. That doesn’t make what they did a shining model for a good family. If it does then heck, why not go for 700 wives and concubines like Solomon?

If there is nothing wrong with multiple wives, what about concubines? They had them too back then, not true wives but lesser status women used mostly for sex and additional kids. Note that the Book of Mormon always mentions the phrase “many wives and concubines” together.

We are part of Israel, which includes the 4 wives/concubines and the 12 sons. So, it was ok with God. So you consider concubines of lessor importance, just a "womb".

You don't believe in the dignity of women?

[MMbelieve]

Arenera, it has nothing to do with what anyone thinks of womens dignity....its the way it was.
Concubines were less than wife OTHERWISE why the special designation of title if its the same as a wife.

The wives used these women, shame on them for using the women and acting stupid with Jacob, of course he didnt have to sleep with their handmaids but he did.

[Arenera]

Arenera, it has nothing to do with what anyone thinks of womens dignity....its the way it was.
Concubines were less than wife OTHERWISE why the special designation of title if its the same as a wife.

The wives used these women, shame on them for using the women and acting stupid with Jacob, of course he didnt have to sleep with their handmaids but he did.

My point MMbelieve, is that you are of the House of Israel, which comes from Jacob and his wives / concubines. I don't believe these women were "less than". They are Exalted!

Of course, you can call them a "womb" if that helps your argument.

[Col. Flagg]

Here's something else to consider... the first vision reportedly took place 199 years ago and in almost 200 years' time, only .0025% of everyone on planet earth are members of the church. Approx. half of the 15 million members are inactive and so then that number goes to .00125. In 200 years' time, that is the best God has done after restoring his only true church? And there was absolutely no one on the entire planet for 1,820 years righteous enough to restore the gospel with God allowing 18 generations to pass with no truth, gospel of Christ or necessary saving ordinances for billions of people who he apparently didn't care enough about to have everything he needs them to have to enter back into his presence? Sorry for playing the devil's advocate.

Or rather His children mostly just dont give a rat's rear about their personal salvation....

How would 18 generations have even known what that was? Isn't/wasn't that the purpose/reason for a 'restoration' in the first place?

[oneClimbs]

I should have just said that your view is opposite of the church's view. I think I used an accusative tone just to emphasize the point, out of personal frustration. The fact is, we cannot be reconciled to the truths of what happened and the truths of the church. It's a catch-22.

I know we are part of the Abrahamic Covenant and are part of Israel. Israel had 4 wives. I believe all the scriptures to be true.

Jacob had two wives, Rachel and Leah while Bilhah and Zilpah were concubines that served as additional wombs. Fun fact: he was tricked into marrying Leah, he only wanted Rachel.

But when Rachel didn’t seem able to have kids and Leah was popping them out left and right, she told Jacob to impregnate her servant so Leah did the same to compete since she knew that Jacob loved Rachel more. The great baby war continued until we had 12 tribes.

God worked with it though like he does with all of the wackiness we create in our own lives. That doesn’t make what they did a shining model for a good family. If it does then heck, why not go for 700 wives and concubines like Solomon?

If there is nothing wrong with multiple wives, what about concubines? They had them too back then, not true wives but lesser status women used mostly for sex and additional kids. Note that the Book of Mormon always mentions the phrase “many wives and concubines” together.

We are part of Israel, which includes the 4 wives/concubines and the 12 sons. So, it was ok with God. So you consider concubines of lessor importance, just a "womb".

You don't believe in the dignity of women?

I don’t think there is any dignity in being a concubine.

I don’t think God was happy about David and Bathsheba but he worked with it. I don’t think it was OK with God that Joseph lost the 116 pages but he worked with it. I don’t think God is happy with personal and national apostasy but he works with it.

Just because someone did something and God turned that water to wine doesn’t mean he endorsed the actions.

[Sarah]

Arenera, it has nothing to do with what anyone thinks of womens dignity....its the way it was.
Concubines were less than wife OTHERWISE why the special designation of title if its the same as a wife.

The wives used these women, shame on them for using the women and acting stupid with Jacob, of course he didnt have to sleep with their handmaids but he did.

My point MMbelieve, is that you are of the House of Israel, which comes from Jacob and his wives / concubines. I don't believe these women were "less than". They are Exalted!

Of course, you can call them a "womb" if that helps your argument.

Do we assume "exalted" means all the wives are now equalized, or that one is not above the other? If so, then can we assume husbands and wives are equalized when they are exalted?

[MMbelieve]

Arenera, it has nothing to do with what anyone thinks of womens dignity....its the way it was.
Concubines were less than wife OTHERWISE why the special designation of title if its the same as a wife.

The wives used these women, shame on them for using the women and acting stupid with Jacob, of course he didnt have to sleep with their handmaids but he did.

My point MMbelieve, is that you are of the House of Israel, which comes from Jacob and his wives / concubines. I don't believe these women were "less than". They are Exalted!

Of course, you can call them a "womb" if that helps your argument.

You assume alot, do you know for a fact the state of these women and their marriage(s).

The women had a lower status in life and were not wives. I think you dont understand there was a real distinction back then.
It doesn't seem to matter to you though. You do realize that being exalted has NOTHING to do with their earthly status right? Unless your insinuating that if they were concubines (as the book says they were) then they couldnt be exalted so therefore they must have been wives based on your personal assumption they are exalted in heaven?

I never called them a womb, by the way. They were concubines taken advantage of (one would assume so) by their master and Jacob. And it is true that they were used for the purpose of sex and babies. I see them as women though, not “wombs”.

If they were the same as the wives then why were they concubines? Do you have an explaination for that or....?

[Arenera]

I know we are part of the Abrahamic Covenant and are part of Israel. Israel had 4 wives. I believe all the scriptures to be true.

Jacob had two wives, Rachel and Leah while Bilhah and Zilpah were concubines that served as additional wombs. Fun fact: he was tricked into marrying Leah, he only wanted Rachel.

But when Rachel didn’t seem able to have kids and Leah was popping them out left and right, she told Jacob to impregnate her servant so Leah did the same to compete since she knew that Jacob loved Rachel more. The great baby war continued until we had 12 tribes.

God worked with it though like he does with all of the wackiness we create in our own lives. That doesn’t make what they did a shining model for a good family. If it does then heck, why not go for 700 wives and concubines like Solomon?

If there is nothing wrong with multiple wives, what about concubines? They had them too back then, not true wives but lesser status women used mostly for sex and additional kids. Note that the Book of Mormon always mentions the phrase “many wives and concubines” together.

We are part of Israel, which includes the 4 wives/concubines and the 12 sons. So, it was ok with God. So you consider concubines of lessor importance, just a "womb".

You don't believe in the dignity of women?

I don’t think there is any dignity in being a concubine.

I don’t think God was happy about David and Bathsheba but he worked with it. I don’t think it was OK with God that Joseph lost the 116 pages but he worked with it. I don’t think God is happy with personal and national apostasy but he works with it.

Just because someone did something and God turned that water to wine doesn’t mean he endorsed the actions.

All children of God have Divinity in them. While in this Telestial kingdom, there is a lot of inequality, but the Divinity is always there.

Abraham and Jacob/Israel were not considered by God to be following the abomination of multiple wives, it was condoned by God.

[Arenera]

Arenera, it has nothing to do with what anyone thinks of womens dignity....its the way it was.
Concubines were less than wife OTHERWISE why the special designation of title if its the same as a wife.

The wives used these women, shame on them for using the women and acting stupid with Jacob, of course he didnt have to sleep with their handmaids but he did.

My point MMbelieve, is that you are of the House of Israel, which comes from Jacob and his wives / concubines. I don't believe these women were "less than". They are Exalted!

Of course, you can call them a "womb" if that helps your argument.

Do we assume "exalted" means all the wives are now equalized, or that one is not above the other? If so, then can we assume husbands and wives are equalized when they are exalted?

Joint heirs. All that God has. Is equal the right word? Can men then have babies? I don't know, we believe gender is important.