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

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think that's a really interesting question.  I know a lot of people who's tastes definitely do not match God's decrees, so there seems to be a limit to the applicability of that scripture.  For example, i know people who extol the virtue of adultery (and they are serious!).  Adultery is a good fruit to them.  I know people who have given up their belief in Jesus Christ to become Jewish (not Christian Jewish, but plain Jewish).  The tree of Jesus Christ produced no good fruit for them so they left it behind.

Alma talks a little about why this sometimes happens-

38 But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.

 39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

It seems that sometimes our own weaknesses will get in the way of us being able to accurately judge whether or not something is a good or bad fruit.

All good points. But there are also similar points where someone's tastes prove "right" over time. For example, many members found the church's doctrine or racist priesthood/temple restrictions, and the church's doctrines underlying those restrictions (curse of cain and premortal choices) to not match their personal judgments of what is good fruit. Some brazenly challenged the church through publicity or even performing ordinations w/o church sanction. Others simply stopped teaching those doctrines and prayed for a change (e.g., Elder Holland as a youth). 

So yes, people often misjudge whether something is good fruit. And that includes the people running the church (at all levels). My point was that, despite our proneness to error, for some reason God still leaves to us to judge right from wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I consider myself as one the good fruits of polygamy...had it never been practiced I would not exist :-)  

Doesn't LDS doctrine hold that all of us will get a turn on earth? If polygamy hadn't happened, you still would have come down at some time.

And this line of argument can be used to justify any number of horrors. Consider just one: "yes, my dad raped my mom, but if he hadn't then I wouldn't have existed."

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

In some measure the directives given in D&C 132 about how to conduct polygamy were ignored by Joseph Smith.  He didn't just marry virgins afterall.  If he saw so little value in the revelation, why should we?  Besides, as it's been said here, no one ever brings up polygamy in church, unless as a passing comment.  The section itself is essentially ignored these days, along with tons of other scriptures, sure, but it is one of those that no one really pays attention to.  In that way, rejecting the scripture already happens. 

132 allows for polyandry. If there is a case to be made for ignoring 132, we have successfully ignored that piece of it to the point it the very words in the verses are denied. We also have the attempt to remove 132 when the church published the most "important" chapters, which it had to step back from due to fundamentalist outrage (per the recent thread on this.)

Reel seems to be riding the coat tails of Carol Lynn Pearson's book. However, the problem isn't 132 anymore than discarded Bible verses are a problem. The problem is the masses of Mormons who keep polygamy alive and say stupid, hurtful, and completely unnecessary things to women. The Church doesn't need to do much beyond equalizing the sealing policy. That is always the fall back for those who do not care about the damage they are doing to the church by creating a polygamist heaven for themselves. 

I think a very beginning step is being taken in the Aug. Ensign where Pres. Erying speaks to worries about the construction of celestial families. 

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I didn't say that God commanded it, I said that He used it.  God used polygamy to create the House of Israel. 

I understand that this is your opinion.  But you cannot know this is true.  I agree that much has to be accepted on faith here, but we do not know that God ever used the practice of polygamy.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Calm said:

I am sorry.  Some commandments that the prophet felt came from God come from the devil.  is that better?

 

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Doctrine and Covenants 131 sets up the need to be sealed. Doctrine and Covenants 132 sets up the conditions of being sealed as well as the blessings. It is the New and Everlasting Covenant.

It is part of the New and Everlasting Covenant, all the covenants of the Gospel form the New and Everlasting Covenant.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/12/the-new-and-everlasting-covenant?lang=eng

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I consider myself as one the good fruits of polygamy...had it never been practiced I would not exist :-)  

yeah you would.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I didn't say that God commanded it, I said that He used it.  God used polygamy to create the House of Israel.  In the OT--whether or not He commanded polygamy--God allowed it, used it to serve His purposes, and condemned none of His prophets for it, despite that it would be adultery if it was a sin.

I don't think that is going to hold up because we then have to say God used adultery and other horrific acts, as well.

I think we are truly going through a restoration and that includes a finer and more true understanding of moral boundaries as we seek to become more like God.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

I am sorry.  Some commandments that the prophet felt came from God come from the devil.  is that better?

 

Your belief certainly, you have not demonstrated that Joseph ever believed this happened.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, juliann said:

132 allows for polyandry. If there is a case to be made for ignoring 132, we have successfully ignored that piece of it to the point it the very words in the verses are denied. We also have the attempt to remove 132 when the church published the most "important" chapters, which it had to step back from due to fundamentalist outrage (per the recent thread on this.)

Reel seems to be riding the coat tails of Carol Lynn Pearson's book. However, the problem isn't 132 anymore than discarded Bible verses are a problem. The problem is the masses of Mormons who keep polygamy alive and say stupid, hurtful, and completely unnecessary things to women. The Church doesn't need to do much beyond equalizing the sealing policy. That is always the fall back for those who do not care about the damage they are doing to the church by creating a polygamist heaven for themselves. 

I think a very beginning step is being taken in the Aug. Ensign where Pres. Erying speaks to worries about the construction of celestial families. 

I would love for the sealing policy to be equalized. But the inequality in the temple ordinances goes much deeper than that. Without going into details, husbands are placed into a position over their wives, similar to how Christ is positioned over them. True equality will take many more changes to the endownment and sealing ordinances that just allowing women to have multiple sealings.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Your belief certainly, you have not demonstrated that Joseph ever believed this happened.

I don't believe Joseph would have wanted anyone to know.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Your belief certainly, you have not demonstrated that Joseph ever believed this happened.

" similar to a later revelation found in Doctrine and Covenants 46:7 that says some commandments \"are of men, and others of devils.\" " from the same article.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I don't believe Joseph would have wanted anyone to know.

He recorded his chastisement for other things.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Your belief certainly, you have not demonstrated that Joseph ever believed this happened.

the article you shared is very uncoherant.  Could you please better help me understand what we know about Joseph's having said some revelations come from the devil.  Also it should be noted this is a tangent and affects my theory zilch.  it is simply a side note

Share this post


Link to post

Bill,

I've been engaged in side discussions so far. Also, I still haven't listened to the podcast, but I have read over the PDF outline on your site.

Here's what I would add to your discussion: the church's essay on the BOA translation and tacit approval of the catalyst theory. In a nutshell, the church had blessed an argument used by apologists to explain why the historical record shows that Joseph thought he was literally translating fromthe papyrii even though modern scholarship shows that his translation does not come anywhere close to what's actually on the papyrii. The argument is essentially that God allowed Joseph to misunderstand (and misreport) his actual work; that the revelations are true, but Joseph was allowed to mistakenly believe that the source was the papyrii rather than pure inspiration. 

That argument is a reasonable one (IMO) for saving the BOA. However, it also opens the door to rejecting the literalness of Smith's other teachings (and those of subsequent prophets). If Joseph could make a factual mistake as to the papyrii, then he could make a factual mistake as to the literalness of the nephites, getting keys from Moses, or (to finally get my point) ... the angel/sword and section 132.

I raise this because I think you're going to lose a lot of people with the assertion that Joseph was mislead by the devil. That's just too far for most any active member I know and it is unsupported by church statements. I would suggest an alternative - not that Joseph was deceived, but that whatever angelic visitation he thought he received that instructed him to adopt polygamy, he severely misunderstood it. That's why there are a lot of good things still in Section 132 (e.g., the idea of eternal families), but also some serious steps backwards (e.g., law of Sarah). This approach is more defensible and continues the catalyst line of argument that the church has already approved.

My take on Section 132: In any journey, there are going to be some stumbles. That's just par for the course. We shouldn't dismiss the entire journey (restoration in this case) because of the stumbles. But we also do not need to justify, praise, or repeat them. The journey continues. 

 

Share this post


Link to post

It states David Whitmer put words into JS's mouth, words we would expect DW to say.

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, juliann said:

132 allows for polyandry. If there is a case to be made for ignoring 132, we have successfully ignored that piece of it to the point it the very words in the verses are denied. We also have the attempt to remove 132 when the church published the most "important" chapters, which it had to step back from due to fundamentalist outrage (per the recent thread on this.)

Reel seems to be riding the coat tails of Carol Lynn Pearson's book. However, the problem isn't 132 anymore than discarded Bible verses are a problem. The problem is the masses of Mormons who keep polygamy alive and say stupid, hurtful, and completely unnecessary things to women. The Church doesn't need to do much beyond equalizing the sealing policy. That is always the fall back for those who do not care about the damage they are doing to the church by creating a polygamist heaven for themselves. 

I think a very beginning step is being taken in the Aug. Ensign where Pres. Erying speaks to worries about the construction of celestial families. 

I don't see an allowance for polyandry in 132. 

I think you're on to something with the rest. 

Share this post


Link to post
53 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Point of clarification to my post...they've disavowed Temporal Polygamy

They've discontinued temporal polygamy. I've never heard a disavowal of it as a practice when it was allowed. Purely a policy and timing issue for the church :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

So yes, people often misjudge whether something is good fruit. And that includes the people running the church (at all levels). My point was that, despite our proneness to error, for some reason God still leaves to us to judge right from wrong. 

That's the whole point of this earth life-to learn how to judge between right and wrong-so it makes sense that ultimately it's completely up to us.  We're accountable for our judgments and no one else's, which is probably a bit of a double edged sword sometimes. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, DBMormon said:

the article you shared is very uncoherant.  Could you please better help me understand what we know about Joseph's having said some revelations come from the devil.  Also it should be noted this is a tangent and affects my theory zilch.  it is simply a side note

Incoherent? if God did give section 132 then why are you wanting to get rid of it?  if he didn't give it then why would Joseph saying some revelations are of the Devil be a tangent to your theory, wouldn't that prove your theory?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think that most people who believe that polygamy is of God even if we aren't asked to live it, would say that nothing that is of God could be compared to a cockroach.  Therefore, there is no part of 132 that can be classified as 'bug'.

What about rampant dishonesty? Would that be a bug?

What about coercion or abuses of power? Is that a bug?

What about the angst and fear so many feel when they consider the possibility that they may have to share a spouse against their will? A bug?

What about the plural families which were abandoned when the policy of practicing polygamy changed? A bug?

 

There are plenty of bugs in the fruit of polygamy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, Calm said:

Your belief certainly, you have not demonstrated that Joseph ever believed this happened.

What is your opinion then regarding this verse in the D&C section 46?

Quote

 

7 But ye are commanded in all things to ask of God, who giveth liberally; and that which the Spirit testifies unto you even so I would that ye should do in all holiness of heart, walking uprightly before me, considering the end of your salvation, doing all things with prayer and thanksgiving, that ye may not be seduced by evil spirits, or doctrines of devils, or the commandments of men; for some are of men, and others of devils.

 

 

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, juliann said:

I don't think that is going to hold up because we then have to say God used adultery and other horrific acts, as well.

That could be.

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

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, bluebell said:

That's the whole point of this earth life-to learn how to judge between right and wrong-so it makes sense that ultimately it's completely up to us.  We're accountable for our judgments and no one else's, which is probably a bit of a double edged sword sometimes. :D

Agreed. I probably wouldn't design the system that way, but it appears God has more trust in our decision-making ability that I do.

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...