Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Johnnie Cake

Bill Reel's Sunstone Presentation and a Path to the Disavowal of D&C 132

Recommended Posts

In Bill's Sunstone presentation http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2016/07/sunstone-presentation-july-2016-handshakes-drawn-swords/ Bill offers a path by which faithful members of the church who are disturbed by Section 132 of the D&C can maintain faith and yet still disavow it's offending parts.

While this post won't do his presentation justice and I certainly hope Bill's weighs in this post, the jest of the presentation is that prophets are fallible and make mistakes and just as Brigham's Adam God doctrine, D&C Section 109 which originally stated that a man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again; and the removal of the Lectures on Faith, have all been either removed from scriptural status or disavowed...so can Section 132.  That basically Joseph got it wrong, that the angel with drawn sword was not a messenger from God but from Satan and that Joseph was deceived by said angel and succumbed to his baser instincts when he introduced polygamy.  While I found his reasoning compelling I just can not imagine a day when the church would disavow D&C 132, but maybe Bill has found a logical path whereby faithful members can reject 132 and still remain faithful-believers in all else.  This post is best understood after listening to Bill's podcast...to get his full reasoning and argument.

Is Cafeteria Mormonism where the future of the Church lays?

 

Share this post


Link to post

I fear Brother Reel is setting himself up for church discipline if he continues on his present course.   Adam God was never canonized.  Lectures on Faith were removed from the cannon but not disavowed.  Shall we press to remove everything from the Standard Works that offends our 21st century sensibilities?  If so there goes most of the Old Testament.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by drums12

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, drums12 said:

I fear Brother Reel is setting himself up for church discipline if he continues on his present course.

Did you listen to or read his presentation?  I'd guess that he's standing on pretty firm ground

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

In Bill's Sunstone presentation http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2016/07/sunstone-presentation-july-2016-handshakes-drawn-swords/ Bill offers a path by which faithful members of the church who are disturbed by Section 132 of the D&C can maintain faith and yet still disavow it's offending parts.

While this post won't give his presentation  justice and I certainly hope Bill's weighs in this post, the jest of the presentation is that prophets are fallible and make mistakes and just as Brigham's Adam God doctrine, D&C Section 109 and the removal of the Lectures on Faith have all been either removed from scriptural status or disavowed...so can Section 132.  That basically Joseph got it wrong, that the angel with drawn sword wast not a messenger from God but from Satan and that Joseph was deceived by said angel and succumbed to his baser instincts when he introduced polygamy.  While I found his reasoning compelling I just can not imagine a day when the church would disavow D&C 132, but maybe Bill has found a logical path where by faithful members can reject 132 and still remain faithful-believers in all else.  This post is best understood after listening to Bill's podcast...to get his full reasoning and argument.

Is Cafeteria Mormonism where the future of the Church lays?

 

I think the notion that polygamy should have never been in the Church, from Church members has long been had.  It feels like most members still don't think Joseph practiced polygamy, or something.  That it started when everyone came to Utah.  In truth, the polygamy as found taught in D&C 132 has long been ignored and rejected, since no one ever metnions it in Church. 

I haven't listened to Bill's presentation yet, though.

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

In Bill's Sunstone presentation http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2016/07/sunstone-presentation-july-2016-handshakes-drawn-swords/ Bill offers a path by which faithful members of the church who are disturbed by Section 132 of the D&C can maintain faith and yet still disavow it's offending parts.

While this post won't give his presentation  justice and I certainly hope Bill's weighs in this post, the jest of the presentation is that prophets are fallible and make mistakes and just as Brigham's Adam God doctrine, D&C Section 109 and the removal of the Lectures on Faith have all been either removed from scriptural status or disavowed...so can Section 132.  That basically Joseph got it wrong, that the angel with drawn sword wast not a messenger from God but from Satan and that Joseph was deceived by said angel and succumbed to his baser instincts when he introduced polygamy.  While I found his reasoning compelling I just can not imagine a day when the church would disavow D&C 132, but maybe Bill has found a logical path where by faithful members can reject 132 and still remain faithful-believers in all else.  This post is best understood after listening to Bill's podcast...to get his full reasoning and argument.

Is Cafeteria Mormonism where the future of the Church lays?

 

As one who does believe that polygamy was a mistake, this is of interest to me.  I will try to get a chance to listen to this.   I do have to add that I highly doubt the church will ever get rid of section 132 as this will only draw more attention to an already difficult topic for them (among other reasons). 

I actually feel that the church already ignores much of D&C 132 (in their lesson materials and discussions).  I find that today, many members haven't even read the entire section or studied it.  As far as what I've seen regarding any discussions on this section at church, the verses are cherry picked for lessons, etc.,(just pulling out those regarding eternal marriage) and I have not ever heard the difficult verses (with specifications for how to practice polygamy) brought up, presented or discussed.  Now, I know this is my experience and others may have had lessons or discussions that included them.  

.

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think the notion that polygamy should have never been in the Church, from Church members has long been had.  It feels like most members still don't think Joseph practiced polygamy, or something.  That it started when everyone came to Utah.  In truth, the polygamy as found taught in D&C 132 has long been ignored and rejected, since no one ever metnions it in Church. 

I haven't listened to Bill's presentation yet, though.

Its an excellent presentation, while unorthodox and fraught with too many gymnastical movements to work for me...it may just be the means by which some some use to maintain belief...and in that I find it valuable.

Bill points out that Joseph never did practice "Celestial Marriage" as spelled out in D&C 132 in the first place.  He never received the blessing or permission as spelled out in 132 from his 1st wife Emma, he never married 100% virgins, as 132 demands.  Joseph seemed to practice a brand plural marriage arraignment that met his needs rather than the one spelled out in 132

Share this post


Link to post

Why can't we give Joseph a break? Is that what a GA said in a recent conference? I wonder what the GA is talking about? So Joseph wasn't perfect, the church admits. And we see where Joseph has lied in our readings. But no one that is an apologist or TBM, can see Joseph lying about polygamy? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Its an excellent presentation, while unorthodox and fraught with too many gymnastical movements to work for me...it may just be the means by which some some use to maintain belief...and in that I find it valuable.

Bill points out that Joseph never did practice "Celestial Marriage" as spelled out in D&C 132 in the first place.  He never received the blessing or permission as spelled out in 132 from his 1st wife Emma, he never married 100% virgins, as 132 demands.  Joseph seemed to practice a brand plural marriage arraignment that met his needs rather than the one spelled out in 132

Sure.  It sounds like he's mentioned many of the concerns I've had with the section.  I'm sure I'll listen to it, maybe even later today.  Thanks for mentioning it.

From an average Church members stance, it might be wondered why this is pushed, since members haven't really accepted polygamy, often acting like it never was, for a long time.  Whenever it has been discussed the conclusion always come down to--no one really thinks they could do it these days.  But when you look into it, see how it was practiced, you have to have that moment of "what the..?"  "really?"

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

As one who does believe that polygamy was a mistake, this is of interest to me.  I will try to get a chance to listen to this.   I do have to add that I highly doubt the church will ever get rid of section 132 as this will only draw more attention to an already difficult topic for them (among other reasons). 

I actually feel that the church already ignores much of D&C 132 (in their lesson materials and discussions).  I find that today, many members haven't even read the entire section or studied it.  As far as what I've seen regarding any discussions on this section at church, the verses are cherry picked for lessons, etc.,(just pulling out those regarding eternal marriage) and I have not ever heard the difficult verses (with specifications for how to practice polygamy) brought up, presented or discussed.  Now, I know this is my experience and others may have had lessons or discussions that included them.  

.

I agree.  To your point back in high school when I read the whole D&C (which had to include section 132, right?), I walked away rather impressed (by the SPirit as we're told) but didn't remember anything about polygamy.  It plain slipped right past my psyche. 

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Why can't we give Joseph a break? Is that what a GA said in a recent conference? I wonder what the GA is talking about? So Joseph wasn't perfect, the church admits. And we see where Joseph has lied in our readings. But no one that is an apologist or TBM, can see Joseph lying about polygamy? 

 

Hey tacenda, if its any consolation, I'm an apologist, TBM, even critic at times and I think Joseph lied about polygamy, plenty.  Then again while sitting in Church, sometimes it feels like I'm living a lie too.  So, somehow I still kind of give him a break. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I agree.  To your point back in high school when I read the whole D&C (which had to include section 132, right?), I walked away rather impressed (by the SPirit as we're told) but didn't remember anything about polygamy.  It plain slipped right past my psyche. 

When our ward taught the discussion on the essay, "Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo", our Bishop recommended that members actually study the entire section 132.  I cannot tell you how many members came to the Bishop after this and said things like "I never knew that was even in there and I've been an active member my entire life!".  Many were very upset after reading it (and many still are upset about it and several are not attending at all now).  I can see why the leaders do not want to draw attention to this entire section.  

I think if they announced that they were removing it, many would be curious enough to actually read it :) 

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

When our ward taught the discussion on the essay, "Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo", our Bishop recommended that members actually study the entire section 132.  I cannot tell you how many members came to the Bishop after this and said things like "I never knew that was even in there and I've been an active member my entire life!".  Many were very upset after reading it (and many still are upset about it and several are not attending at all now).  I can see why the leaders do not want to draw attention to this entire section.  

I think if they announced that they were removing it, many would be curious enough to actually read it :) 

It's curious thing, I was a member my entire life and didn't know it was in there. But attributed it to my not doing my personal study of the D & C. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

In Bill's Sunstone presentation http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2016/07/sunstone-presentation-july-2016-handshakes-drawn-swords/ Bill offers a path by which faithful members of the church who are disturbed by Section 132 of the D&C can maintain faith and yet still disavow it's offending parts.

While this post won't do his presentation justice and I certainly hope Bill's weighs in this post, the jest of the presentation is that prophets are fallible and make mistakes and just as Brigham's Adam God doctrine, D&C Section 109 which originally stated that a man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again; and the removal of the Lectures on Faith, have all been either removed from scriptural status or disavowed...so can Section 132.  That basically Joseph got it wrong, that the angel with drawn sword was not a messenger from God but from Satan and that Joseph was deceived by said angel and succumbed to his baser instincts when he introduced polygamy.  While I found his reasoning compelling I just can not imagine a day when the church would disavow D&C 132, but maybe Bill has found a logical path whereby faithful members can reject 132 and still remain faithful-believers in all else.  This post is best understood after listening to Bill's podcast...to get his full reasoning and argument.

Is Cafeteria Mormonism where the future of the Church lays?

 

Ain't gonna happen.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

In Bill's Sunstone presentation http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2016/07/sunstone-presentation-july-2016-handshakes-drawn-swords/ Bill offers a path by which faithful members of the church who are disturbed by Section 132 of the D&C can maintain faith and yet still disavow it's offending parts.

While this post won't do his presentation justice and I certainly hope Bill's weighs in this post, the jest of the presentation is that prophets are fallible and make mistakes and just as Brigham's Adam God doctrine, D&C Section 109 which originally stated that a man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again; and the removal of the Lectures on Faith, have all been either removed from scriptural status or disavowed...so can Section 132.  That basically Joseph got it wrong, that the angel with drawn sword was not a messenger from God but from Satan and that Joseph was deceived by said angel and succumbed to his baser instincts when he introduced polygamy.  While I found his reasoning compelling I just can not imagine a day when the church would disavow D&C 132, but maybe Bill has found a logical path whereby faithful members can reject 132 and still remain faithful-believers in all else.  This post is best understood after listening to Bill's podcast...to get his full reasoning and argument.

Is Cafeteria Mormonism where the future of the Church lays?

 

If D&C 132 is disavowed so will every sealing ever done.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It's curious thing, I was a member my entire life and didn't know it was in there. But attributed it to my not doing my personal study of the D & C. 

This is me.  Isn't something that we can so easily blame ourselves.  In seminary, it was basically making sure all of us had Temple Marriage as a goal but it seemed like the discussion ended there.  It is my take that a lot more women than we think are already holding on to Bill's take on Section 132.  If we ignore it..it can go away..and not even blame Joseph.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This is me.  Isn't something that we can so easily blame ourselves.  In seminary, it was basically making sure all of us had Temple Marriage as a goal but it seemed like the discussion ended there.  It is my take that a lot more women than we think are already holding on to Bill's take on Section 132.  If we ignore it..it can go away..and not even blame Joseph.

Unless you are a lot older than I think. You don't have to worry about polygamy. ;)

SEE OD 1

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I agree.  To your point back in high school when I read the whole D&C (which had to include section 132, right?), I walked away rather impressed (by the SPirit as we're told) but didn't remember anything about polygamy.  It plain slipped right past my psyche. 

Anyone with any degree of historical knowledge regarding how Joseph practiced "Celestial Marriage" can read Section 132 and come away knowing that he did not practice it according to 132.  Plain and simple he did not.  The church glosses over 132 in its lesson manuals already...how difficult would it be to simple remove it at some time in the future?  Very easily I believe...but what exactly was the mind set back in the early 20th century when the lectures on faith simply disappeared from scripture? How did members react to or justify its removal?  Certainly there had to be some authoritative justification back then and what about the members following Brigham's death...when John Taylor disavowed Brigham's revelations regarding Adam God?  Did they encounter any cognitive dissonance or push back or relief that they didn't have to reconcile Adam God any longer?

Edited by Johnnie Cake

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Anyone with any degree of historical knowledge regarding how Joseph practiced "Celestial Marriage" can read Section 132 and come away knowing that he did not practice it according to 132.  Plain and simple he did not.  The church already glosses over 132 in its lesson manuals already...how difficult would it be to simple remove it at some time in the future?  Very I believe...but what exactly was the mind set back in the early 20th century when the lectures on faith simply disappeared from scripture? How did members react to or justify its removal?  Certainly there had to be some authoritative justification then and what about the members following Brigham's death...when John Taylor disavowed Brigham's revelations regarding Adam God?  Did they encounter any cognitive dissonance or push back or relief that they didn't have to reconcile Adam God any longer?

Hey, it may just disappear, it's good we have the internet to show of it actually being there in a 100 years!

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post

Sticking with Bill's concept but moving it beyond polygamy-it seems spiritually immature for us to think that if we don't like, don't understand, or don't agree with a doctrine then that means that it's not from God and we can disavow it.

It's a problem when whether or not we like something becomes the measuring stick for deciding whether or not it is from God.  And isn't that what Bill (and others) are doing here?  Arguing something is not of God--while claiming no actual revelation on the subject--because ultimately they don't personally agree with it?

I haven't listened to the podcast (and won't, because i don't do podcasts) so maybe i'm completely misunderstanding Bill's premise.

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Sticking with Bill's concept but moving it beyond polygamy-it seems spiritually immature for us to think that if we don't like, don't understand, or don't agree with a doctrine then that means that it's not from God and we can disavow it.

It's a problem when whether or not we like something becomes the measuring stick for deciding whether or not it is from God.  And isn't that what Bill (and others) are doing here?  Arguing something is not of God--while claiming no actual revelation on the subject--because ultimately they don't personally agree with it?

I haven't listened to the podcast (and won't, because i don't do podcasts) so maybe i'm completely misunderstanding Bill's premise.

Follow the above link...there's a pdf copy of the presentation you can read.

From what I know of Bill,(not much) one of his testimony life lines is attached to the concept that Mormonism's foundations are just plain "messy".  To me that's a understatement...but he's looking to find means for faith to survive where as I no longer am.

In his presentation he lays out a path for faith to survive in spite of Polygamy...by disavowing it.  If someone wants to believe but can't seem to jump the polygamy hurdle...this seems like a means to hold on to their faith.

Edited by Johnnie Cake

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Sticking with Bill's concept but moving it beyond polygamy-it seems spiritually immature for us to think that if we don't like, don't understand, or don't agree with a doctrine then that means that it's not from God and we can disavow it.

It's a problem when whether or not we like something becomes the measuring stick for deciding whether or not it is from God.  And isn't that what Bill (and others) are doing here?  Arguing something is not of God--while claiming no actual revelation on the subject--because ultimately they don't personally agree with it?

I haven't listened to the podcast (and won't, because i don't do podcasts) so maybe i'm completely misunderstanding Bill's premise.

I hear what you are saying, Bluebell.

But to a greater or lesser degree, don't we already do that with parts of the Old Testament?

Like the part about not suffering a witch to live?  We pretty much disavow that for no other reason than it offends our modern sensibilities.

Or the part about stoning kids who act rudely to their parents?

There is no revelation overturning these parts of the scriptures, and yet we pretty much universally disavow them today.

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I hear what you are saying, Bluebell.

But to a greater or lesser degree, don't we already do that with parts of the Old Testament?

Like the part about not suffering a witch to live?  We pretty much disavow that for no other reason than it offends our modern sensibilities.

Or the part about stoning kids who act rudely to their parents?

There is no revelation overturning these parts of the scriptures, and yet we pretty much universally disavow them today.

 

I started to respond to Bluebell, but then I read what you had said.  It was pretty much the same and since I can't just give you a thumbs up...I offer this explanation and support. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Why can't we give Joseph a break? Is that what a GA said in a recent conference? I wonder what the GA is talking about? So Joseph wasn't perfect, the church admits. And we see where Joseph has lied in our readings. But no one that is an apologist or TBM, can see Joseph lying about polygamy? 

 

Ummmm no.  Plenty of apologists have admitted that Joseph publicly denied (lied) about plural marriage.  I'm not an apologist but I tire of blanket statements such as yours.  In fact, I tire of blanket statements from critics and defenders not only of Mormonism, but almost every issue/topic under the sun.  

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Unless you are a lot older than I think. You don't have to worry about polygamy. ;)

SEE OD 1

I am in my sixties and a widow of almost 20 years.  I worry because I have my extended family telling me that God will give my husband other wives.  That unless I return to the church that I will not be acceptable  So...yeah..I know life isn't fair..but I hope death is fair. I was told that my husband had accepted the gospel fully on the other side.  Why would I not be concerned that I have lost my bestest friend?:(

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I hear what you are saying, Bluebell.

But to a greater or lesser degree, don't we already do that with parts of the Old Testament?

Like the part about not suffering a witch to live?  We pretty much disavow that for no other reason than it offends our modern sensibilities.

Or the part about stoning kids who act rudely to their parents?

There is no revelation overturning these parts of the scriptures, and yet we pretty much universally disavow them today.

 

Just reposting this as I agree with it and can't give you a rep point.  

 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...