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

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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?

A concubine is just a wive of lower status than regular wives.  I have no idea why there is a difference in terminology, but they are not mistresses.

Share this post


Link to post
29 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 respect your position.  I really do.  But I do not understand its reasoning.  What is the evidentiary basis for your conclusion that "God {n}ever specifically commanded that polygamy be lived?"  What reasoning brought you to this conclusion?

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, bluebell said:

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.  

Ok then.  So it does appear you are saying that OT prophets who slept with women that were not their wives (concubines), like Abraham, did not commit adultery.  I guess not, Abraham's wife allowed the transaction because she was barren.  But then in D&C 132 we have the case of Abraham being blessed in having more than one concubine. 

This really is so messy and it feels so much easier and moral to just disavow 132.

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I respect your position.  I really do.  But I do not understand its reasoning.  What is the evidentiary basis for your conclusion that "God {n}ever specifically commanded that polygamy be lived?"  What reasoning brought you to this conclusion?

I do not believe anything that caused so much pain and heartache (and many times involved lies and deceit) would be something that God commanded or forced anyone to be involved in or live.  I know one can come up with statements from men and women who lived polygamy and made it work or who even enjoyed it, but that does not convince me that it came from God.  I believe even those who came to believe it was from God because of their tremendous faith, would not have instead chosen to be in a marriage with just one man and one woman (at the same time)....most especially the women felt this emotion, IMO.

I also really, really do not like the involvement of the young women and the marrying of other men's wives regarding how Joseph Smith lived polygamy.  Why was that necessary even if he was commanded to live it?  

Was polyandry commanded too?

.

 

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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?  

In addition to what Bluebell said, you might find this informative:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0005_0_04557.html

Concubines are not considered to have been part of the restored practice (I can find the quote I am thinking of, but iirc it is in the GT essay), none of the wives of anyone were considered of lower status officially even if favoritism more or less turned their situation into that.

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, smac97 said:
  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

Maybe you should try listening to the podcast.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

A concubine is just a wive of lower status than regular wives.  I have no idea why there is a difference in terminology, but they are not mistresses.

Alrighty.  Genesis has it that Sarai saw Hagar as her mistress.  "And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes."

There's really no reason to conclude they were marriages, but concubine the term means not married. 

Oh well.  This seems to support the point, in my eyes.  We have to kind throw out what we don't like, maybe even make parts sound better, in order to make scripture work for us. 

Edited by stemelbow

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

A concubine is just a wive of lower status than regular wives. 

Were concubines always a man's wife?  

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, Rivers said:

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

However, in one way the current policy prevents one fullu worthy and obedient individual from participating during mortality and that is the not previously married ans sealed husband of a sealed woman.  Sealing can take place after death, but I find it an interesting glitch in the process since there is so much emphasis on being sealed in the here and now, including not canceling a woman's sealing in a divorce until she is ready to be sealed to another man.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Were concubines always a man's wife?  

Biblically, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Biblically, yes.

How do we know this?  (I'm not doubting you, I'm just curious....)

ETA:

Here's this, do you agree?:

Quote

In the Levitical rules on sexual relations, the Hebrew word that is commonly translated as "wife" is distinct from the Hebrew word that means "concubine". However, on at least one other occasion the term is used to refer to a woman who is not a wife – specifically, the handmaiden of Jacob's wife.

 

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

A concubine is just a wive of lower status than regular wives.  I have no idea why there is a difference in terminology, but they are not mistresses.

Uhhh, that doesn't sound much better...

Share this post


Link to post
42 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??

Rod, I am curious.  Do you allow for the multiple sealings of women to be eternal based on the same reasoning?

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Calm said:

In addition to what Bluebell said, you might find this informative:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0005_0_04557.html

Concubines are not considered to have been part of the restored practice (I can find the quote I am thinking of, but iirc it is in the GT essay), none of the wives of anyone were considered of lower status officially even if favoritism more or less turned their situation into that.

This really isn't working.  D&C 132 uses the terms concubines in reference to what Abraham had.  There's no indication it was used in D&C 132 with this in mind.  Hagar was never mentioned as a concubine.  She was only mentioned as a handmaid, in the OT. 

Thanks for the link by the way.  I was curious what the distinction would be:

Quote

In Jewish Law

A concubine may be defined by Jewish laws as a woman dedicating herself to a particular man, with whom she cohabits without *kiddushin (see *Marriage ) or *ketubbah . "What is the difference between wives and concubines? R. Judah said in the name of Rav: Wives have ketubbah and kiddushin, concubines have neither"

There's only one mention of Abraham in this link and it says, "Their descendants are usually classed as secondary or subsidiary tribes (Gen. 22:24; 36:12), especially the Abrahamic groups (Gen. 25:6; I Chron. 1:32). "

This in a paragraph seemingly suggesting that concubines, which probably wasn't Hagar, were not wives. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

He recorded his chastisement for other things.

This is true and I forgot about that.  Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, ALarson said:

I do not believe anything that causes so much pain and heartache (and many times involved lies and deceit) would be something that God commanded or forced anyone to be involved in or live.  

Okay.  But is this enough of an evidentiary/rational basis for rejecting polygamy in toto?  After all, people joining the Church "causes ... pain and heartache."  People getting married in the temple "causes ... pain and heartache."  The Israelites suffered privations in the desert for 40 years.  So did Lehi and his children.  Christ died on the cross.  

Don't get me wrong.  I think "pain and heartache" should be a consideration.  But the Scriptures are replete with people doing things because God commanded them to do it, even though it caused "pain and heartache."  Abraham and Isaac.  God commanded Abinadi to take a course of action which He knew would lead to Abinadi's horrific murder.  So pain and heartache seem to be common (necessary?) components to discipleship.

There are times when God allows wicked things to be done, and then allows pain and heartache to ensue as a consequence (see Alma 14:11), but there are also times when God commands a righteous thing to be done, and then also allows pain and heartache to ensue (Abinadi's final mission).  Would you agree that this is possible?  If it is, how do you tell the difference?  How do you differentiate "pain and heartache" stemming from wickedness/disobedience from "pain and heartache" stemming from righteousness/obedience?

Quote

I know one can come up with statements from men and women who lived polygamy and made it work or who even enjoyed it, but that does not convince me that it came from God.  

Why not?  You are apparently relying on statements from people who suffered "pain and heartache" because of polygamy, so why do you then turn around and discount/ignore statements from people who reaped blessings and/or happiness from it?

Quote

I believe even those who came to believe it was from God because of their tremendous faith, would not have chosen to be in a marriage with just one man and one woman (at the same time)....most especially the women had to have felt this emotion, IMO.

Which speaks more to the finite perspective we have while on this earth, does it not?  And yet notwithstanding this limited perspective, these folks proceeded on faith.  I think they did so because they received spiritual promptings to do so.  Promptings that were sufficient to overcome their understandable reticence/revulsion at the concept of polygamy.  Promptings that pertained to more than simply romantic love (which is apparently the sole basis for marriage postulated by the blinkered contemporary notions of our day).

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
56 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?

Read The Letters of Brigham Young to His Sons. Dean Jessee, ed. Deseret Book, 1974. Polygamy gave the Restoration a kickstart.

Quote

 

Amongst the pleasures of my life, at the present time, is the thought that so many of my sons are acquiring experimental and practical knowledge that will fit

them for lives of great usefulness, and with this thought, I associate the hope, that by God's mercy, that knowledge will be applied in striving to save

the souls of men, and building up the Kingdom of Heaven on the earth. Brigham Young, 1875.

 

The same can be said for many other church leaders who practiced polygamy. As per Jacob 2.

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, smac97 said:
  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.  

i MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT THERE ARE VARIOUS REASONS TO THROW OUT REVELATION, CANON/SCRIPTURE, DOCTRINE.  I MAKE NO STATEMENTS IN MY PRESENTATION THAT 132 IS MADE UP OR FROM THE DEVIL OR FROM GOD FOR THAT MATTER.  I LEAVE THAT UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL

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?  

NO

3. 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? I AM SUGGESTING THERE IS THEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL ROOM FOR OTHERS TO DO SO IF THEY NEED TO TO BE ABLE TO STAY IN.

4.  What is the evidentiary/analytical basis for your theory as to this contrary origin for D&C 132?  

IF YOU SAW NONE IN THE PDF THEN I LIKELY WONT CONVINCE YOU THAT WHAT I PRESENTED WAS IN FACT VALID ROOM TO DISMISS 132 BUT I BELIEVE IT IS THERE.  

5. 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?  IT IS IN THE PDF WHETHER YOU AGREE IT IS EVIDENCE OR NOT.  AND NO I DONT SHOW EVIDENCE IT IS NOT FROM GOD, RATHER I SHOW ROOM TO DISMISS ANY EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF IT.  

6. Are you claiming that God has revealed something about this to you?

YES THAT MORMONISM'S DOMINANT NARRATIVE IS NOT TRUE.

7. 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 , are we likewise at liberty to reject all other revelations from Joseph Smith as presumptively suspect?

132 IMPOSES THAT ONE CAME IN THE VOICE OF CHRIST BUT THAT CAN BE ANSWERED THROUGH "DIVINE INVESTITURE".

 If we have "theological room" to toss out one section of the D&C, why not another?  And another?\

YEP I AGREE, IT IS ALL UP FOR GRABS

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  But is this enough of an evidentiary/rational basis for rejecting polygamy in toto?  After all, people joining the Church "causes ... pain and heartache."  People getting married in the temple "causes ... pain and heartache."  The Israelites suffered privations in the desert for 40 years.  So did Lehi and his children.  Christ died on the cross.  

Don't get me wrong.  I think "pain and heartache" should be a consideration.  But the Scriptures are replete with people doing things because God commanded them to do it, even though it caused "pain and heartache."  Abraham and Isaac.  God commanded Abinadi to take a course of action which He knew would lead to Abinadi's horrific murder.  So pain and heartache seem to be common (necessary?) components to discipleship.

There are times when God allows wicked things to be done, and then allows pain and heartache to ensue as a consequence (see Alma 14:11), but there are also times when God commands a righteous thing to be done, and then also allows pain and heartache to ensue (Abinadi's final mission).  Would you agree that this is possible?  If it is, how do you tell the difference?  How do you differentiate "pain and heartache" stemming from wickedness/disobedience from "pain and heartache" stemming from righteousness/obedience?

Why not?  You are apparently relying on statements from people who suffered "pain and heartache" because of polygamy, so why do you then turn around and discount/ignore statements from people who reaped blessings and/or happiness from it?

Which speaks more to the finite perspective we have while on this earth, does it not?  And yet notwithstanding this limited perspective, these folks proceeded on faith.  I think they did so because they received spiritual promptings to do so.  Promptings that were sufficient to overcome their understandable reticence/revulsion at the concept of polygamy.  Promptings that pertained to more than simply romantic love (which is apparently the sole basis for marriage postulated by the blinkered contemporary notions of our day).

Thanks,

-Smac

None of which proves that it was commanded by God.  That men and women faithfully entered into living polygamy and did their best to make it work, is not proof that God commanded it to be lived.

And most especially the manner in which young girls were involved and also the deceit that was involved with approaching and convincing women who were already married to become a man's plural wife, was not something God would have commanded a man to do (and behind his wife's back as well).

I believe if you were not defending Joseph Smith's actions here, you'd see this.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour 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.

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

" 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.

Exactly how some commandments are of the devil is not made explicit, "seduced" and the "deceived" that comes in the next verse in no way require these "commandments" are seen as from God when they are not.  It is only a possible interpretation that can be coupled with the expressed counsel elsewhere on needing to tell the difference between God's servants and others as well as Satan presenting himself as God, though without the required glory.  Otoh, do we have any examples in the scriptures that demonstrate this has happened (a prophet declaring a revelation from God and later retracting it by saying he was deceived by an evil spirit appearing as a messenger from God)?  Or even revelation that was not delivered by a supposed angel?

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, DBMormon said:
  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.  

i MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT THERE ARE VARIOUS REASONS TO THROW OUT REVELATION, CANON/SCRIPTURE, DOCTRINE.  I MAKE NO STATEMENTS IN MY PRESENTATION THAT 132 IS MADE UP OR FROM THE DEVIL OR FROM GOD FOR THAT MATTER.  I LEAVE THAT UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL

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?  

NO

3. 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? I AM SUGGESTING THERE IS THEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL ROOM FOR OTHERS TO DO SO IF THEY NEED TO TO BE ABLE TO STAY IN.

...

6. Are you claiming that God has revealed something about this to you?

YES THAT MORMONISM'S DOMINANT NARRATIVE IS NOT TRUE

But no. 1 above doesn't answer my question.  I know you are making an argument "to throw out" D&C 132.  My question was about your "preferred explanation for the origins of D&C 132."  If you are rejecting the the Church's "dominant narrative" (specifically, that D&C 132 was revealed by God to Joseph Smith), and if you are also denying that you are attributing the D&C 132 to Satan, then what are you saying?  

Are you claiming that Joseph Smith was not deceived by Satan, and instead just fabricated it on his own and falsely attributed it to God?  If so, then why present all the stuff in your PowerPoint about "deceiving spirits?"

There appear to be three general options here: Joseph Smith was either A) honest and correct (he received D&C 132 as revelation from God), or B) deceived or a "pious fraud" (Satan tricked him into thinking that D&C 132 was from God, when it really was from Satan), or C) Joseph was consciously fraudulent (he consciously chose to fabricate D&C 132 out of his own imagination and falsely attribute it as a revelation from God).  (I suppose we could also go with D) Joseph Smith was deluded/insane, but I'll let you bring that on up.)

Which of these reflects your position as to the origins of D&C 132?  Any?  If not, what is your theory of its origin?

I'm not trying to be obtuse here.  I just don't understand your position.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited by smac97

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

"If I will", those are the pertinent words here.    

Do you believe it was "God's will" that Joseph was to live polygamy in the manner he lived It?  I do not believe that came from God.

.

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ALarson said:

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

 

Missed this post earlier, see my recent repky referring to it.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Exactly how some commandments are of the devil is not made explicit, "seduced" and the "deceived" that comes in the next verse in no way require these "commandments" are seen as from God when they are not.  It is only a possible interpretation that can be coupled with the expressed counsel elsewhere on needing to tell the difference between God's servants and others as well as Satan presenting himself as God, though without the required glory.  Otoh, do we have any examples in the scriptures that demonstrate this has happened (a prophet declaring a revelation from God and later retracting it by saying he was deceived by an evil spirit appearing as a messenger from God)?  Or even revelation that was not delivered by a supposed angel?

Brigham Young said his Adam God ideas came from God and Elder McConkie agreed that Brigham indeed taught what the critics accuse him of.  But Bruce says it was false doctrine and any who follow would do so to the peril of their soul.  Do you side with Brigham that it was from God or with Bruce that it wasn't?  you see showing revelation to be false goes way beyond 132.  we must decide can prophets feel inspired and dictate what they think is gods revealed word (revelation) only to be wrong and that said revelation came either from their own mind with no inspiration attached or even from the devil.  there is no point you can make that there isn't a historical evidence of an exception to said point.  once you see all the exceptions you realize the power is in your hands and no one else

 

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...