Polygamy Lesson In Priesthood And Rs This Week?

[cinepro]

This Sunday, I will be teaching the lesson in Elder's Quorum on "Eternal Marriage"

As I was reviewing the lesson material, I noticed that in addition to two verses from D&C 132 used in the context of the lesson (19-20), at the end of the lesson the "Additional Scriptures" makes reference to all of Section 132.

So, since section 132 is explicitly referred to in the lesson manual, would there be grounds for complaint if I were to bring up anything from that section during the course of the lesson? How about if I were to encourage all of the Elders to sit with their wives and read the entire section verse-by-verse?

Don't worry, this question is entirely theoretical. I have no desire to bring up anything from the verses >30 from section 132. I just thought it is an interesting test of what it means to "stick to the manual" and "teach from the scriptures".

There is one verse from 132 in the context of the lesson, but it is presented in a severely truncated form that cuts out the poetry and beauty from the unedited verse. At this point in the lesson, I will have someone read the entire verse. In one breath, if possible.

The manual presents it like this:

An eternal marriage must be performed by one who holds the sealing power. The Lord promised, “If a man marry a wife by … the new and everlasting covenant … by him who is anointed, … and if [they] abide in [the Lord’s] covenant, … it … shall be of full force when they are out of the world” (D&C 132:19).

Here's the whole verse:

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.

My favorite part of the condensed version is the "...it...". Those ellipses sure can carry a lot of weight!

Edited August 11, 2011 by cinepro

[bluebell]

Go for it.

No one should have any excuse for NOT having read all of section 132 by the time they are an adult anyway. It's not asking very much-to have actually read the scriptures you claim to acknowledge as the word of God.

[Mortal Man]

This Sunday, I will be teaching the lesson in Elder's Quorum on "Eternal Marriage"

As I was reviewing the lesson material, I noticed that in addition to two verses from D&C 132 used in the context of the lesson (19-20), at the end of the lesson the "Additional Scriptures" makes reference to all of Section 132.

Yikes! Huge mistake. I'm sure it will be removed in the next version.

So, since section 132 is explicitly referred to in the lesson manual, would there be grounds for complaint if I were to bring up anything from that section during the course of the lesson? How about if I were to encourage all of the Elders to sit with their wives and read the entire section verse-by-verse?

Have the wives read the good parts.

Don't worry, this question is entirely theoretical. I have no desire to bring up anything from the verses >30 from section 132.

BOOOO!

I just thought it is an interesting test of what it means to "stick to the manual" and "teach from the scriptures".

Go for it cinepro. Now is your chance. You may not get another golden opportunity like this.

Here's the whole verse:

Wow! According to Dan Peterson that verse is packed full of if/and conditionals. That's good Hebrew.

[mfbukowski]

I just love it when pompous academic elitists think they are the only ones who have ever read section 132.

Horrors! Please don't encourage those poor stupid elders to actually READ THEIR SCRIPTURES!

AND READ THEM WITH THEIR WIVES? OH NO NOT THAT!!!!

[ERayR]

This Sunday, I will be teaching the lesson in Elder's Quorum on "Eternal Marriage"

How about if I were to encourage all of the Elders to sit with their wives and read the entire section verse-by-verse?

What a novel concept. Where did you come up with it? I think I have heard it before.

Edited August 11, 2011 by ERayR

[LeSellers]

What a novel concept. Where did you come up with it? I think I have heard it before.

Yeah, but it was only a General Authority (or twenty), and it was just a General Conference (or ninety), so it really doesn't count.

Lehi

[The Nehor]

Encouraging the Saints to read the scriptures? What blasphemy is this?

Soon they will start getting ideas and thinking and seeking revelation and understanding..... who knows where the madness will end?!?!?!?!?

Best to mirror the advice of the Brethren and encourage the Saints to use their scriptures solely as coffee table ornaments.

[mnn727]

Yeah, but it was only a General Authority (or twenty), and it was just a General Conference (or ninety), so it really doesn't count.

yeah, but it was probably just their personal opinion so it wasn't binding, right?

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

OH to ba fly on that wall.

[ozpoof]

If you're going to stick to the manual, I guess asking how 132 relates to the practice of polyandry will be off limits right?

[Samurai2012]

Hmmm.... Marriage being sanctioned by God is good, while marriage not sanctioned by him is not. Sounds like a good scripture to me. Reading the whole section makes me think close to zilch about polygamy anyways.

[cinepro]

The lesson was pretty good. I always start off my lessons with a few "trivia" questions to get people involved and thinking, and one of them for this lesson was "What was the first documented Eternal Marriage?". I also asked "Who was the last latter-day prophet to have more than one living wife at a time?"

The oddest turn in the lesson was halfway through when a class member asked if Jesus had an eternal marriage. I tried to punt it by saying that logically he would have to be, and we don't know anything beyond that (but there has been speculation by church leaders and non-leaders alike), but the class members had a lot of ideas about it. I didn't see that coming!

[Pahoran]

Wow! According to Dan Peterson that verse is packed full of if/and conditionals. That's good Hebrew.

I'm sorry, that's not correct. The verse contains a compound condition (if this and this and this) followed by the consequent (then this). The "then" is explicit, and not represented by an "and."

An "if-and" conditional statement is when the word "and" is used to represent "then."

It's always a good idea to try to actually understand something before you try to deride it. That way you are less likely to end up wearing omelette makeup.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If you're going to stick to the manual, I guess asking how 132 relates to the practice of polyandry will be off limits right?

Why don't you tell us?

Sealing does not equal marriage. Waite, those pesky facts sure are scary aren't they?

[David T]

The oddest turn in the lesson was halfway through when a class member asked if Jesus had an eternal marriage. I tried to punt it by saying that logically he would have to be, and we don't know anything beyond that (but there has been speculation by church leaders and non-leaders alike), but the class members had a lot of ideas about it. I didn't see that coming!

The scriptures spell out that Christ does have an eternal marriage, sets His marriage up as the template and example for all marriages, and even specifically names the bride! Read all about it in Ephesians 5.22-33

[zelder]

If you're going to stick to the manual, I guess asking how 132 relates to the practice of polyandry will be off limits right?

It's very subtle but I think verse 41 leaves the door wide open for polyandry.

[zelder]

Why don't you tell us?

Sealing does not equal marriage. Waite, those pesky facts sure are scary aren't they?

Not not nearly as scary (or wonderful depending on your view) as the fact the sealing often does equal marriage.

[Pahoran]

Not not nearly as scary (or wonderful depending on your view) as the fact the sealing often does equal marriage.

But "often does" only means that there is an overlap between the two things. Actually "often does equal" is, strictly speaking, an oxymoron. If some variable A is "often" equal to some other variable B, then it follows that they do not always have the same value as each other, which means in turn that they are separate things.

The real point being that just because someone is sealed to someone else, it is not safe to assume that they were necessarily regarded as being married.

Regards,

Pahoran

[subgenius]

But "often does" only means that there is an overlap between the two things. Actually "often does equal" is, strictly speaking, an oxymoron. If some variable A is "often" equal to some other variable B, then it follows that they do not always have the same value as each other, which means in turn that they are separate things.

The real point being that just because someone is sealed to someone else, it is not safe to assume that they were necessarily regarded as being married.

Regards,

Pahoran

so, is it an error that the D&C section was referenced in the manual as supplemental scripture for the chapter titled "eternal marriage"? maybe there is a chapter on "eternal sealing"?

[zelder]

The real point being that just because someone is sealed to someone else, it is not safe to assume that they were necessarily regarded as being married.

Regards,

Pahoran

I understand the point and I agree that Joseph Smith's sealings to married women are a mystery. Becasue they are a mystery it is most "safe" to be open minded toward all the possbilities.

If I find out in the future that monogamy and polygyny are indeed the only acceptable forms of marriage in the eyes of God (as most mormons believe) then I'm still "safe". However, if it is discovered that other forms of non-monogamy are acceptable in the eyes of God then I'm still safe. Until the mystery is solved, all options are on the table.

Edited August 18, 2011 by zelder

[ERayR]

Not not nearly as scary (or wonderful depending on your view) as the fact the sealing often does equal marriage.

No it does not equal but is often done in conjunction with. The ceremony first marries the couple then seals them for time and eternity. Sealing does not equal marriage, not even often, never.

[ERayR]

But "often does" only means that there is an overlap between the two things. Actually "often does equal" is, strictly speaking, an oxymoron. If some variable A is "often" equal to some other variable B, then it follows that they do not always have the same value as each other, which means in turn that they are separate things.

The real point being that just because someone is sealed to someone else, it is not safe to assume that they were necessarily regarded as being married.

Regards,

Pahoran

Pahoran Sealing and marriage are never synonymous. They are combined in one ceremony but are seperate. The ceremony first marries the couple then seals them for time and eternity. Unfortunatly members of the church, non-members and anti's often refer to them as synonymous as in "Married for time and all eternity". To be correct it shoul be "They were married and sealed for time and all eternity". We do get lazy in our language.

[thesometimesaint]

zelder:

Joseph was Sealed to other men too. Don't have such an open mind that your brain falls out.

[ERayR]

Oh by the way we had that same lesson this last Sunday and wonder of wonders polygamy never even entered the discussion. We had a great discussion about how it strengthend our marriages and our testimonies in the gospel. It is great what a spiritual experience can happen if the teacher doesn't let the lesson get side tracked in areas that are no longer pertinent to the present time. Polygamy was stopped over 100 years ago.

[zelder]

zelder:

Joseph was Sealed to other men too. Don't have such an open mind that your brain falls out.

That was rude. Nobody knows the nature of Joseph Smiths marriages or the nature of deceased women being sealed to all husbands and verse 41 suggests unconventional relations are possible.