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

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, JulieM said:

"Alleged"?  You don't believe the quotes on this topic from Brigham Young?  I think they are quite numerous and specific.  You think they are all wrong?

 

I said "alleged" because I don't know specifically what quotes you are referring to. They could be authentic or not. You could be construing them correctly or not. I'm simply trying not to buy a pig in a poke.

Quote

Are you also stating that doctrines taught by dead Prophets are no longer official doctrine?

I'm saying that the principle of ongoing revelation holds that God, at anytime, could speak through His prophet to supersede what might have been taught or commanded in the past. This, too, is Mormonism 101.

Quote

 Which Prophet replaced or corrected the doctrines he taught on this?

How can I answer that when you haven't specifically identified any teachings?

 

Edited August 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

A mere quibble among friends. Jacob does not say that it will be commanded, but that it may be commanded when necessary. I believe it was necessary when it was commanded.

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree with that.

I'm only saying that none of us knows what the future holds and that there's no current Church position to the effect that plural marriage will, with certainty, come back.

My personal opinion (and I underscore, italicize and boldface "personal") is that it won't.

 

Edited August 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm saying that the principle of ongoing revelation holds that God, at anytime, could speak through His prophet to supersede what might have been taught or commanded in the past. This, too, is Mormonism 101.

Some years back, my housemates and I did a Margaret Barker book discussion group for our family home evening. I was struck, in one of the books that I read and presented on, that Barker had identified the central tension in Jerusalem c. 600 BC to concern the desirability vs. 'messiness' of prophets. The ancestors of the Pharisees really hated prophets, claiming that all they did was constantly change/shift things, whereas the Jewish elite really wanted to be able to codify everything into a fixed law that never changed.

Considering how Jesus responded to the Pharisees in His day, I think we can safely conclude that the Lord doesn't like being put into a 'locked box' when it comes to prophecy ... and the ability to continually fine-tune both message and procedures to meet the immediate needs of His people in whatever context they find themselves in.

This is indeed Mormonism 101.

[Bernard Gui]

50 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

 

"I cannot wish the fault undone seeing the issue of it is so proper.” - Kent, King Lear

 

What are the fruits i.e. end results of polygamy? For one thing, the church got thru its first hundred years — which I doubt it would have done without the leadership which came from plural marriages.

 

I myself — no doubt like many on this forum — am the result of polygamous marriages, on both sides of my family. On my father’s side I am descended from my great grandfather's third plural wife. She later left him, but not before bearing him four children. The descendants of these four children number today in the hundreds, and include tradesmen, biz owners, doctors, dentists, lawyers, teachers, hedge fund managers, programmers, artists, musicians, newspapermen, mission presidents, stake presidents, bishops, and one GA. I would estimate that approximately 60% of this progeny is active in the church today.

 

Compare this to the faction that split from the church at time of manifesto. The Utah and AZ LDS fundamentalists/polygamists are one of the most blighted populations in the U.S. today. They are a stunted people — emotionally, spiritually, intellectually and culturally stunted.

 

If a good tree bears good fruit and a bad tree bears bad fruit, then polygamy, despite the difficulty of living it and the suffering it caused, was ultimately a good thing and necessary for the survival of the church.

 

Whether it is going to exist in the next life, be brought back in the Millenium, etc., etc. … well, this seems to me irrelevant now and not worth worrying about.

Precisely, and this is why no apology should be given, no embarrassment felt, nor any wiggle room for the discomforted needed.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

I think there's enough details just in the essay alone on this topic to give us a pretty clear picture (and there's more if one follows up reading the footnotes or studying more resources).  

Not in my opinion, but who am I?

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Do you not consider Brigham Young's teachings on this to be "official doctrine"?  Have those been disavowed?

Or didn't he teach that we'd all live the principle of plural marriage in the highest degree?

Yes, any teachings that actually taught that have been disavowed, see link I provided.  Has multiple quotes disavowing the teaching that exaltation requires plural marriage.

[Alan]

I'm joining this thread late and confess to not having read all of the posts.

I found the OP interesting but I believe Bill Reel is barking up the wrong tree. I believe many members are beginning to disavow Section 132 for a different reason. They have come to realize that it isn't from Joseph.

Parts of it may be, but it's a hybrid at best.

Joseph Smith publicly declared that he was not involved in polygamy and that he had only one wife. He further stated that he could prove those who said otherwise to be liars. I believe him and so do a growing number of LDS.

[jkwilliams]

23 minutes ago, Alan said:

I'm joining this thread late and confess to not having read all of the posts.

I found the OP interesting but I believe Bill Reel is barking up the wrong tree. I believe many members are beginning to disavow Section 132 for a different reason. They have come to realize that it isn't from Joseph.

Parts of it may be, but it's a hybrid at best.

Joseph Smith publicly declared that he was not involved in polygamy and that he had only one wife. He further stated that he could prove those who said otherwise to be liars. I believe him and so do a growing number of LDS.

Interesting. As I recall, you have an RLDS/CofC background, right? I think even the CofC acknowledges that the practice and doctrine of polygamy originated with Joseph Smith. The only people I know who believe otherwise are the Prices and Meg Stout, and I find their "work" unconvincing.

[Glenn101]

37 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Interesting. As I recall, you have an RLDS/CofC background, right? I think even the CofC acknowledges that the practice and doctrine of polygamy originated with Joseph Smith. The only people I know who believe otherwise are the Prices and Meg Stout, and I find their "work" unconvincing.

Just a slight quibble here. Meg does believe that the practice of polygamy came through Joseph Smith.

Glenn

 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Glenn101 said:

Just a slight quibble here. Meg does believe that the practice of polygamy came through Joseph Smith.

Glenn

Well, she believes the "doctrine" of polygamy did, anyway. 

[Alan]

42 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Interesting. As I recall, you have an RLDS/CofC background, right? I think even the CofC acknowledges that the practice and doctrine of polygamy originated with Joseph Smith. The only people I know who believe otherwise are the Prices and Meg Stout, and I find their "work" unconvincing.

No, I don't have an RLDS background particularly. I have been a member of the LDS Church since I was 14. I'm now 55.

I had a little flirtation with the CofC during a brief period when I wasn't attending church and used to participate on their message board.

But the issue under consideration comes down to a simple question as far as I can see. When Joseph publicly denied any connection whatsoever with polygamy, said he had only one wife, had never committed adultery etc, and that he could prove those who claimed otherwise to be liars, and was actually in the process of taking such people to court (would he do that if he was involved?)......... was he lying?

It really is a black and white question. Most members of the this board and of the LDS Church, and even the corporate McChurch, claim he was lying. The problem with this position is that if it can be demonstrated that he was a liar and was prepared to lie publicly and in such a solemn, profound and convincing way, what of the first vision? The Book of Mormon? The priesthood restoration? The Book of Abraham? ..... and so on.

Then there is the provenance of D&C 132. At best this is suspicious. It appears 8 years after Joseph's death but was apparently in Brigham's desk the whole time. This is, of course the very same Brigham who introduced Adam/God, blood atonement, Black priesthood restriction etc., all of which has now been repudiated.

I could go on. But the more I look at the simple bare facts rather than some back-written church history, years after the fact Utah diary entries, or clearly questionable affidavits etc, and actually join the dots, the more I have been forced to conclude that Joseph is the victim of a conspiracy and fraud the like of which is almost unprecedented. He has simply been lied about.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Alan
spelling correction

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Alan said:

No, I don't have an RLDS background particularly. I have been a member of the LDS Church since I was 14. I'm now 55.

I had a little flirtation with the CofC during a brief period when I wasn't attending church and used to participate on their message board.

But the issue under consideration comes down to a simple question as far as I can see. When Joseph publicly denied any connection whatsoever with polygamy, said he had only one wife, had never committed adultery etc, and that he could prove those who claimed otherwise to be liars, and was actually in the process of taking such people to court (would he do that if he was involved?)......... was he lying?

It really is a black and white question. Most members of the this board and of the LDS Church, and even the corporate McChurch, claim he was lying. The problem with this position is that if it can be demonstrated that he was a liar and was prepared to lie publicly and in such a solemn, profound and convincing way, what of the first vision? The Book of Mormon? The priesthood restoration? The Book of Abraham? ..... and so on.

Then there is the provenance of D&C 132. At best this is suspicious. It appears 8 years after Joseph's death but was apparently in Brigham's desk the whole time. This is, of course the very same Brigham who introduced Adam/God, blood atonement, Black priesthood restriction etc., all of which has now been repudiated.

I could go on. But the more I look at the simple bare facts rather than some back-written church history, years after the fact Utah diary entries, or clearly questionable affidavits etc, and actually join the dots, the more I have been forced to conclude that Joseph is the victim of a conspiracy and fraud the like of which is almost unprecedented. He has simply been lied about.

I suppose we could argue about this, but most Mormons I know don't believe he was "lying" but was using "carefully worded" denials, but that's just quibbling. Given that William Clayton wrote in his journal on the day in question that Joseph Smith received a revelation on plural marriage and that many people corroborated his practice of it, both during his life and afterward, I don't see any particular reason to believe he was the "victim of a conspiracy." Obviously, you feel differently, and clearly you can't reconcile his denials with his behavior, so you go with the denials. That's perfectly understandable, but most people disagree with you for good reasons.

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This doesn't say it's going to return, only that it could if the Lord wills it.

I reiterate that there is no official doctrine that it will return.

Since we still seal men to more than one woman, polygamy is expected to return in the Celestial Kingdom. 

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

To me, raising up seed in our generation meant gathering a quick supply of worthy Saints, not only through spectacular missionary conversions, but also through the bearing of many children in faithful families, to kickstart the Restoration.

I think the evidence bears out my belief.

What evidence bears out the belief that polygamy produced "many children"?

[Alan]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I suppose we could argue about this, but most Mormons I know don't believe he was "lying" but was using "carefully worded" denials, but that's just quibbling. Given that William Clayton wrote in his journal on the day in question that Joseph Smith received a revelation on plural marriage and that many people corroborated his practice of it, both during his life and afterward, I don't see any particular reason to believe he was the "victim of a conspiracy." Obviously, you feel differently, and clearly you can't reconcile his denials with his behavior, so you go with the denials. That's perfectly understandable, but most people disagree with you for good reasons.

Actually, most people disagree with me for very poor reasons. This is mainly due to them listening to so-called experts and objective historians (there is no such thing as an objective historian by the way) and abdicating their responsibility to investigate for themselves, in my experience.

I used to be in the polygamy camp. Didn't question it. Why question something that is so obvious, right? But the problem is that it isn't so obvious when the facts are looked at properly. For every affidavit produced in Utah to prove Joseph was involved there is one to prove he wasn't. Yet, the only ones we get shown are the ones which support the polygamy argument.

The whole thing's a fix in my view and I am aware of quite a number of LDS who are now waking up to this.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Alan said:

Actually, most people disagree with me for very poor reasons. This is mainly due to them listening to so-called experts and objective historians (there is no such thing as an objective historian by the way) and abdicating their responsibility to investigate for themselves, in my experience.

I used to be in the polygamy camp. Didn't question it. Why question something that is so obvious, right? But the problem is that it isn't so obvious when the facts are looked at properly. For every affidavit produced in Utah to prove Joseph was involved there is one to prove he wasn't. Yet, the only ones we get shown are the ones which support the polygamy argument.

The whole thing's a fix in my view and I am aware of quite a number of LDS who are now waking up to this.

I suppose I could be offended that you think I haven't reviewed the evidence for myself. I have, and I stand by my conclusions. If I'm looking at primary sources improperly, I'm happy to be shown that. But I am not someone who just listens to "so-called experts" and historians, but if it makes you feel better to say that, fine.

[JulieM]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Yes, any teachings that actually taught that have been disavowed, see link I provided.  Has multiple quotes disavowing the teaching that exaltation requires plural marriage.

So, we have a statement from a Prophet disavowing BY's teachings on plural marriage and establishing new or different official church doctrine?

Which Prophet made these disavowels?

(I'll look for your link too as I haven't read this entire thread).

Edited August 3, 2016 by JulieM

[JulieM]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not in my opinion, but who am I?

 

You, of course, are entitled to your opinion. But if one studies the available resources (including the essays), we have a lot of the details about Joseph Smith's polygamy and polyandry.

[Alan]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I suppose I could be offended that you think I haven't reviewed the evidence for myself. I have, and I stand by my conclusions. If I'm looking at primary sources improperly, I'm happy to be shown that. But I am not someone who just listens to "so-called experts" and historians, but if it makes you feel better to say that, fine.

How much of the evidence indicating that Joseph was not involved have you reviewed?

What was it?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Alan said:

How much of the evidence indicating that Joseph was not involved have you reviewed?

What was it?

I've read the Temple Lot testimonies from both sides, the RLDS summaries of Utah testimony, Emma's statements, and a lot of other primary sources. I even waded through Meg Stout's stuff and the Prices' book, both of which were singularly unimpressive.

What would you suggest I read?

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

When I am talking legality and contracts, I am not doing so in modern terms, but in the sense that if the community has laws that define the relationship, whether in specific terms or in terms of what is or is not required of the participants in the relationship.  

As to the adultery, that defines the current Christian societal morality, not the Biblical Hebrew or Jewish communities' standards.

I am not debating that our current society would see concubinage as adultery.  Of course it does and should see it as immoral for other reasons as well.  The site probably sees plural marriage as adultery now as well; however, if so, it is hardly useful in determining what is moral in latter-day situations according to latter-day scripture. But that doesn't invalidate using the site to be informed about the biblical culture and laws (specifically Old Testament since this is the time of the Patriarchs and David and Solomon) to determine whether biblical law would define concubinage as immoral and given there are laws dictating its practice, it seems clear to me that it does not.  Instead, the Bible descriptions seem to be in accord with how the D&C discusses the biblical persons' behaviour as moral.

Section 132 only talks about concubines in terms of the relationships of biblical prophets.  They lived by the law they were given at that time, it does not say we are commanded to live the identical law.  There is nothing in it commanding for concubines to be taken now.  I do not see even any purpose in discussing whether or not God sees concubines as adultery or not in the modern day because there is no portrayal of a command to take concubines (even if there was, the Law of Sarah as applied to concubines cannot be invoked since there is no "handmaid" slot in our society since thankfully we don't have slaves...at leat officially; you would have to start from scratch figuring out how a surrogate mother would be accepted into a family).

I think significant additional language would need to be added in order to justify concubines in a current society. 

God apparently gave the message to us in our modern day that he blessed concubinage at one time.  If, as you suggest, we should see concubinage in our modern day as adultery, then my point has been made.  This was my initial point.  Two main themes came back at me, stated as certainty, by bluebell and I believe you supported it--concubines are really just wives.  But we've already seen the questionable nature of that statement.  That's hardly a resolved point even for the various times and cultures in which it was practiced in the Bible.  And when it's pointed out that it's adultery to our modern ears, that's what the message in D&C 132 amounts to, it was said it is not adultery.  Again, another piece of guesswork stated as absolute. 

It doesn't appear there was any legality nor contract attached to the concept of concubines in the various times it is mentioned and then in D&C 132 supported. 

To me this marks clearly another reason to think D&C 132 is not to be taken as scripture. 

And sadly, to your point of not having handmaid slots.  I think Joseph taking on Fanny Alger may be a pretty good parallel.  It seems Fanny's slot was as a maid, a teenager, but a maid nonetheless. They may have called them hired help.  It is interesting though.  If Abraham's story was an appeal for Joseph, then Fanny seems to be something akin to Hagar.  And if so, perhaps it didn't take much for Joseph to justify his own practice---after all the message we get in 132 is that Abraham was justified in sleeping with other women (it's a shame but hopefully Joseph didn't take that to mean girls). 

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

My point is rather simple.  Animal sacrifice is, for some, an "icky" concept.  So is polygamy.  Both were previously important religious observances in the eyes of Latter-day Saints (who lay claim not only to Joseph Smith, but to the biblical prophets as "ancestors" in our faith), but are not presently practiced.

My point is that animal sacrifice doesn't merit a significant amount of treatment by prophets and apostles in 2016 because it is not presently an observed religious practice.  The same goes for polygamy.

And to the extent that polygamy merits discussion, the Church has published four extensive essays on the history of polygamy in the Church.

To be fair he questioned why the prophets and apostles did not speak of it, not some anonymous authors in not well known essays.  This of yours seems to support the spirit of what he was saying. 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't think we are embarrassed about it.  We own it.  It's still there in our scripture (the Bible, D&C 132, etc.).

Again, I don't think polygamy merits a significant amount of treatment by prophets and apostles in 2016 because it is not presently an observed religious practice

It is in some sense practiced, right?  I mean Oaks or Nelson might be living the principle now seeing as each may very think they will have at least two wives into eternity, no?  Whatever the case, we're supposed to learn from important points of history.  If plural marriage was so significant, if it meant so much, if the people of that era were to learn so much from it, then it feels important for us to understand that.  But if not, then it's best to essentially ignore it.  Odd that the Church essentially ignores it now--often finding opportunity to excise mention of it in historical writings when composing lesson material. 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure it does.  In fact, I think his "point" is rather strongly rebutted by the essays.  He says the leaders of the Church are "so reluctant to even mention the 'P' word," and yet they've had four essays on the "P" word published to the world.  

I think many of us, me included, see it as the opposite.  the address of it in the essays is good, but that's not the leaders speaking it to the masses.  The essays are largely ignored, much like D&C 132 as luck would have it.  In that end, I think that a good thing because I don't see polygamy as inspired. 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

He's the one making ignorant statements (falsely claiming that the Church is "reluctant to even mention the 'P' word") and publicly - and to our faces - disparaging the honesty and integrity of the Church ("The Institutional Church would not qualify for a TR.  It could not truthfully respond that it has striven to be 'honest in all its dealings with its fellow men.'  Said another way--If the Church were a publicly traded company with traded, listed stock, it would be in blatant violation of SEC disclosure rules intended to provide transparency to investors.").  All I have done is object to his ignorant statements and drive-by potshots.

-Smac

I think you may have confused posters here. 

[stemelbow]

8 hours ago, bdouglas said:

 

"I cannot wish the fault undone seeing the issue of it is so proper.” - Kent, King Lear

 

What are the fruits i.e. end results of polygamy? For one thing, the church got thru its first hundred years — which I doubt it would have done without the leadership which came from plural marriages.

 

It could reasonably be said, or just as reasonably be said that the Church would have been much better off after it's first 100 years if there never was polygamy. 

 

Quote

I myself — no doubt like many on this forum — am the result of polygamous marriages, on both sides of my family. On my father’s side I am descended from my great grandfather's third plural wife. She later left him, but not before bearing him four children. The descendants of these four children number today in the hundreds, and include tradesmen, biz owners, doctors, dentists, lawyers, teachers, hedge fund managers, programmers, artists, musicians, newspapermen, mission presidents, stake presidents, bishops, and one GA. I would estimate that approximately 60% of this progeny is active in the church today.

 

Eh...We all would still be in existence.  It's not liek we didn't exist before the world was and it's not like more people were born because of polygamy.  And the Church might have had a stronger base after 100 years.  People eschewed it for 100 years largely because of polygamy. 

 

Quote

Compare this to the faction that split from the church at time of manifesto. The Utah and AZ LDS fundamentalists/polygamists are one of the most blighted populations in the U.S. today. They are a stunted people — emotionally, spiritually, intellectually and culturally stunted.

 

Good point,  Added to what I've said without polygamy the factions would have never been.  We'd have a larger base. 

 

Quote

If a good tree bears good fruit and a bad tree bears bad fruit, then polygamy, despite the difficulty of living it and the suffering it caused, was ultimately a good thing and necessary for the survival of the church.

 

Nope.  Quite the opposite, I'd say.  This is just weird guesswork, on your part. 

 

Quote

Whether it is going to exist in the next life, be brought back in the Millenium, etc., etc. … well, this seems to me irrelevant now and not worth worrying about.

 

That's a weird conclusion.  I thought you just told us why polygamy was a good thing.  Now you want to forget it and not owrry about it?  It seems like you should be pushing this explanation on others so they know as you know.  Of course, as you do that, people will be like "uh....that's a terrible explanation"  But at least you'll learn from it.

 

[Tacenda]

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

God apparently gave the message to us in our modern day that he blessed concubinage at one time.  If, as you suggest, we should see concubinage in our modern day as adultery, then my point has been made.  This was my initial point.  Two main themes came back at me, stated as certainty, by bluebell and I believe you supported it--concubines are really just wives.  But we've already seen the questionable nature of that statement.  That's hardly a resolved point even for the various times and cultures in which it was practiced in the Bible.  And when it's pointed out that it's adultery to our modern ears, that's what the message in D&C 132 amounts to, it was said it is not adultery.  Again, another piece of guesswork stated as absolute. 

It doesn't appear there was any legality nor contract attached to the concept of concubines in the various times it is mentioned and then in D&C 132 supported. 

To me this marks clearly another reason to think D&C 132 is not to be taken as scripture. 

And sadly, to your point of not having handmaid slots.  I think Joseph taking on Fanny Alger may be a pretty good parallel.  It seems Fanny's slot was as a maid, a teenager, but a maid nonetheless. They may have called them hired help.  It is interesting though.  If Abraham's story was an appeal for Joseph, then Fanny seems to be something akin to Hagar.  And if so, perhaps it didn't take much for Joseph to justify his own practice---after all the message we get in 132 is that Abraham was justified in sleeping with other women (it's a shame but hopefully Joseph didn't take that to mean girls). 

I think you are speaking my language, once again!

[stemelbow]

43 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What evidence bears out the belief that polygamy produced "many children"?

This is odd to me too.  Whether polygamy or not, each of us still exist.  We are eternal beings.  I think it's been said that polygamy caused more people to be born to some leaders.  But what does that matter?  it also caused people to steer clear from Mormonism with the 200 mile pole.  If no polygamy maybe there would have been millions of members by 1900.  Maybe we could have started claiming worldwide status way before the turn of the century.  And we might not have had a weird offshoot groups.  We might not have had leaders getting all upset when people started calling Warren Jeffs and company Mormons, because there would have been no credible basis for Jeffs and company to build a following. 

Shoot without polygamy Mormonism would probably be 10 times what it is today.  I mean we got a good message.  Well, we might also have to say without the priesthood ban too.  but man, polygamy?  it represents, rightfully, the weirdness of our Church.  We have to dismiss it as "we don't do that anymore" and ignore it in our scriptures to just get by today.