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

[Rivers]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Lots of bugs in the practice- I definitely agree.

But what is the good fruit of polygamy? What good do we get from it that we wouldn't otherwise have? The stated purpose was to raise up a righteous seed but there is no evidence to suggest that polygamous relationships yielded more children. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, there are studies that state the opposite.

So there must be some good that outweighs all the bad, right? What is it?

Polygamy allows all people to fully participate in the New and Everlasting Covenent.

[DBMormon]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Also, how does Bill account for the various accounts of men and women who received independent spiritual experiences confirming the validity of polygamy as a revealed principle?  Does he discount them as liars?  As deceived?  As stupid?

how do you account for 15 prophets seers and revelators believing inter-racial marriage as sin to be doctrine?  or blacks as less valiant?  Or members believing they knew by revelation that Brigham young's doctrine that Adam was heavenly Father and begat Jesus which he knew by revelation to be true when later prophets disavowed it?  

Your using deeply flawed logic in your argument that doesn't account for historical examples on the other side of your coin

[Rivers]

Just now, DBMormon said:

how do you account for 15 prophets seers and revelators believing inter-racial marriage as sin to be doctrine?  or blacks as less valiant?  Or members believing they knew by revelation that Brigham young's doctrine that Adam was heavenly Father and begat Jesus which he knew by revelation to be true when later prophets disavowed it?  

Your using deeply flawed logic in your argument that doesn't account for historical examples on the other side of your coin

There was no canonized revelations to support any of that stuff.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Polygamy produced God's covenant people.  How is that not God using polygamy?

Well, in Jesus' lineage there are a number of extreme sins that led to his birth, including murder (David having Uriah killed) and prostitution (Tamar pretending to be a prostitute to sleep with her father-in-law to have a child after the death of her husband), incest (Lot's daughters produced the Moabites that Ruth was a part of).

Now! I don't see these as in the same category because these were condemned in the scriptures and polygyny was not plus Nathan talks of God giving David his wives, but I think you need to modify your approach to be more specific in how God chose to use people's choices.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

Perhaps. I do intend to listen to his podcast so I should reserve comment. 

But you know that isn't going to happen now. Those who won't start where things could happen are not trying to fix anything.

What does that mean?

This seems like a very defeatist approach. If I don't think the church is likely to disavow despicable practices I shouldn't talk about the need to disavow despicable practices? Maybe the discussion and sunlight on these practices will create a space where the church decides to address it more directly. Isn't that what we've seen with the essays? A need is created so the church decides to address it?

[DBMormon]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

3 minutes ago, Rivers said:

There was no canonized revelations to support any of that stuff.

What about old section 101 which became 109 and the lectures on faith which were canon?

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Whether or not it was necessary isn't being discussed though.  I said earlier that that question was certainly up for debate.  What I'm discussing is that, necessary or not, it was used to produce God's covenant people.  If polygamy is always adultery then the OT shows that God was fine with His prophets committing it. 

I'm not sure how that can be disputed.  That's why i'm asking for clarification, thinking i must be misunderstanding something.

Well we have God seeing righteousness in his prophets commiting adultery in D&C 132

Quote

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;

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

 

Edited August 1, 2016 by stemelbow

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, Rivers said:

There was no canonized revelations to support any of that stuff.

Sadly, there is way too much canonized material about the race issue and "mixing seed" etc.

Regarding Adam/God, while I'm not aware of any canonized revelation about it, I am aware of it's teaching at the veil in the St George temple for 30 years. Are we requiring canonized revelation for temple ordinances and practices today? or does the temple get a pass. Or is temple material considered doctrinal even though it is outside of the canon?

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

 Here is what is stated regarding D&C 131 on lds.org:

Joseph Smith delayed making Section 132 known because it dealt with plural marriage.

What specific information or promises were given in Section 132 that did not pertain to living plural marriage?  What information would we be missing if we just had D&C 131 regarding eternal marriage?

 

This is a starter.

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

 20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have call power, and the angels are subject unto them.

I have to ask if polygamy is not enforce in the eternal world then which wife will Abraham choose? Brigham Young? Joseph Smith etc. Which wife will my father in law choose? I had him sealed to both of his wives. Which wife will be left behind? The one I have never met and is the mother of my wife or the one that put up with me for 37 years? I love them both. Will these men that have been sealed to plural wives have to leave them all behind and choose one each??

[juliann]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That could be.

Can you give some examples of what you are referring to?

Jesus' lineage for starters. Bathsheba, the Tamar incident. . . .   God worked through all of this and worse, yet we don't consider adultery, prostitution, and murder as needing to be restored. So taken as a single argument, I don't think God working through polygamy raises polygamy above anything else he worked through.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I simply do not believe that God ever specifically commanded that polygamy be lived.  I do not believe this practice comes from God.  I will possibly concede that in some cases, God may have allowed it or may not have specifically condemned it and this may have been one of those times.

. 

I don't think it had to be commanded for it to be condoned or used.

But i get what you are saying.

[Buckeye]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Whether or not it was necessary isn't being discussed though.  I said earlier that that question was certainly up for debate.  What I'm discussing is that, necessary or not, it was used to produce God's covenant people.  If polygamy is always adultery then the OT shows that God was fine with His prophets committing it. 

I'm not sure how that can be disputed.  That's why i'm asking for clarification, thinking i must be misunderstanding something.

Good clarification. I don't dispute that there is not OT passage suggesting disapproval of the polygamuy. However, I would argue that God can be "fine" with something at one time and situation, but not at another. Consider that He was fine with "eye for an eye" in the OT, but not in the NT. So just because polygamy was not denounced in the OT, it doesn't stand to reason that it should be approved today, or will be approved in the eternities. 

[bluebell]

Just now, juliann said:

Jesus' lineage for starters. Bathsheba, the Tamar incident. . . .   God worked through all of this and worse, yet we don't consider adultery, prostitution, and murder as needing to be restored. So taken as a single argument, I don't think God working through polygamy raises polygamy above anything else he worked through.

I agree.  If that was the only argument, it would not hold water.  I think it's in the BOM where it says that sometimes God uses the choices of the wicked to bring about His purposes.  I think the conflict happens when we are discussing a prophet.

In the case of Israel, it's not just the production of the 12 tribes thru polygamy, but it's also God condoning it by His prophets.  If polygamy is always adultery, then the OT is a scriptural record of God condoning and blessing His prophets while they are committing adultery.  That becomes harder to ignore.  I'm not saying it's impossible, but harder.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well we have God seeing righteousness in his prophets commiting adultery in D&C 132

 

I don't think i'm understanding what you are saying.  God specifically said that none of those things were adultery in the part you quoted (only David sinned in taking Bathsheba).

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

16 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Polygamy allows all people to fully participate in the New and Everlasting Covenent.

How does the practice of polygamy allow all people to fully participate in the new and everlasting covenant?

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Well, in Jesus' lineage there are a number of extreme sins that led to his birth, including murder (David having Uriah killed) and prostitution (Tamar pretending to be a prostitute to sleep with her father-in-law to have a child after the death of her husband), incest (Lot's daughters produced the Moabites that Ruth was a part of).

Now! I don't see these as in the same category because these were condemned in the scriptures and polygyny was not plus Nathan talks of God giving David his wives, but I think you need to modify your approach to be more specific in how God chose to use people's choices.

I posted a reply to Juliann that I think speaks to what you've said here.  I never intended to imply that because polygamy produced the 12 tribes that it it wasn't a sin.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If polygamy is always adultery, then the OT is a scriptural record of God condoning and blessing His prophets while they are committing adultery.  That becomes harder to ignore.  I'm not saying it's impossible, but harder.

This thread is moving fast now, but just to be clear, D&C 132 has God condoning and blessing His prophets for committing adultery, already. 

It says of Abraham "Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness"

 

[bluebell]

Just now, stemelbow said:

This thread is moving fast now, but just to be clear, D&C 132 has God condoning and blessing His prophets for committing adultery, already. 

It says of Abraham "Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness"

 

Yes, but where does it say that Abraham doing that was adultery?  That's where you've lost me.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think i'm understanding what you are saying.  God specifically said that none of those things were adultery in the part you quoted (only David sinned in taking Bathsheba).

 

 

You had said, "If polygamy is always adultery, then the OT is a scriptural record of God condoning and blessing His prophets while they are committing adultery"

I'm suggesting that if we argue for D&C 132 then we have to accept that God did indeed condone and bless His prophets for committing adultery. 

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Didn't say he got it wrong.  Rather what I say is there is theological room and precedence for one to discard 132 for a number of reasons and still be faithful and in the church.  I have never once said he got 132 wrong as an absolute.

1. So what is your preferred explanation for the origins of D&C 132?  If it did not come from God, where did it come from?  I don't see anything in your PowerPoint presentation about this.  
2. You make some allusions to "deceiving spirits in scripture," so that sounds like you are attributing D&C 132 to those (IOW, to Satan).  Is that correct?   Are you proposing that Satan, not God, was the author of D&C 132, and that Joseph Smith was deceived when he attributed it to God?
3. What is the evidentiary/analytical basis for your theory as to this contrary origin for D&C 132?  I don't see anything in your PowerPoint presentation for this, either.  There is a decent amount of evidence for the Church's position on the origins of D&C 132.  What evidence supports your theory?
4. Are you claiming that God has revealed something about this to you?
5. If D&C 132 did not come from God, despite Joseph Smith specifically stating that it did ("Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph..."), and despite D&C 132 having been canonized (unlike the purported revelation to John Taylor referenced in your PowerPoint), are we likewise at liberty to reject all other revelations from Joseph Smith as presumptively suspect?  If we have "theological room" to toss out one section of the D&C, why not another?  And another?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 1, 2016 by smac97

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, but where does it say that Abraham doing that was adultery?  That's where you've lost me.

The definition of concubines are those who were not married to him.  At least that's what I thought.  how else do we read it?  Are you saying some prophets who are otherwise married are allowed to sleep with women whom they aren't married to and such action is not adultery?

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Good clarification. I don't dispute that there is not OT passage suggesting disapproval of the polygamuy. However, I would argue that God can be "fine" with something at one time and situation, but not at another. Consider that He was fine with "eye for an eye" in the OT, but not in the NT. So just because polygamy was not denounced in the OT, it doesn't stand to reason that it should be approved today, or will be approved in the eternities. 

Part of the doctrine of polygamy is that sometimes it's approved and sometimes it's not.  If God was once 'fine' with polygamy, then all arguments claiming that polygamy is of the devil are false.  We can't disavow it on that premise.

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

This is a starter.

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

 20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have call power, and the angels are subject unto them.

Do you honestly believe that if this was important for God to convey to his people, He would not have done so without also "commanding" that polygamy be lived?

 

11 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

I have to ask if polygamy is not enforce in the eternal world then which wife will Abraham choose? Brigham Young? Joseph Smith etc. Which wife will my father in law choose? I had him sealed to both of his wives. Which wife will be left behind? The one I have never met and is the mother of my wife or the one that put up with me for 37 years? I love them both. Will these men that have been sealed to plural wives have to leave them all behind and choose one each??

I believe that we will be with those we love after this life (if they also choose to be with us).  There will be no one "commanded" or "forced" to live polygamy.  

What about a woman who has married more than one man here on earth?  Do you believe she won't be able to be with these men if they all choose to be together?  Why would just the men living polygamy be allowed to be with their multiple spouses?

 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You had said, "If polygamy is always adultery, then the OT is a scriptural record of God condoning and blessing His prophets while they are committing adultery"

I'm suggesting that if we argue for D&C 132 then we have to accept that God did indeed condone and bless His prophets for committing adultery. 

I'm saying that there is nothing in section 132 where it says or implies that God condoned adultery.  Abraham taking concubines is an example of polygamy.  

[rodheadlee]

28 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

how do you account for 15 prophets seers and revelators believing inter-racial marriage as sin to be doctrine?  or blacks as less valiant?  Or members believing they knew by revelation that Brigham young's doctrine that Adam was heavenly Father and begat Jesus which he knew by revelation to be true when later prophets disavowed it?  

Your using deeply flawed logic in your argument that doesn't account for historical examples on the other side of your coin

Can you show me the scripture that says that?