Gospel Doctrine And D&c 132: The Tetraannual Discussion

[cinepro]

It's that time of the year, every four years.  Summer is coming to an end, and we spend an hour in our "Doctrine and Covenants and Church History" Sunday School class not talking about the Doctrine and Covenants or Church History.

 

I'm referring, of course, to lesson 31 in the Gospel Doctrine Doctrine and Covenants Manual:

 

“Sealed … for Time and for All Eternity”

 

This lesson discusses the doctrine of eternal marriage, with tangential references to some out-of-context verses in D&C Sections 131 and 132. 

 

 

If any of you get bored during this lesson, I recommend any of the following questions to liven things up:

 

1. Where did Section 132 come from?

 

2. Whom does verses 15-18 of Section 132 apply to?  Is it everyone who was married but not sealed?  Is it only those people who had access to a Temple and priesthood authority, or everyone who ever lived?  In other words, who, exactly, will be a "ministering angel"?

 

3. The manual says "Faithful Saints will not be denied the blessings of eternity".  Verses 15-16 of Section 132 don't mention anything about whether or not someone was a "faithful saint".  It only says that we had to be sealed here on Earth or you will be a ministering angel, and you can't "marry" or be "given in marriage" once we're out of this world.  So will single LDS be getting married once they're out of this life, or not? What about part-member marriages?

 

4. Section 131 says that the celestial glory has three heavens or degrees (verse 1).  Verse 2 explains that "the highest" is for those who enter the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage".  Who are the other two tiers for?  In other words, if someone wanted to go to the middle tier, or the lower tier, how would they do it?

 

5. In verse 51 of Section 132, what was Joseph commanded to offer Emma that God was now telling her not to "receive"?

 

6. In verse 55 of Section 132, Joseph is promised that if Emma will not "abide" this commandment, he will be blessed and multiplied "in this world", including an hundred-fold "wives and children".  We know about Joseph's polygamous wives.  Was the promise for "an hundred-fold children" also fulfilled? (also verse 63)

 

7. People are repeatedly being told they'll be "destroyed" in section 132 (v. 26, 41, 52, 54, 57, 63, 64).  What does this mean?

 

 

 

Obviously, I'm not actually saying you should bring any of this stuff up in Sunday School.  But if anyone has thoughts on these questions, I'd be curious to how they relate to our current understanding of the doctrine and history of the Church.

[David T]

To understand all of the nuances of the historical context behind Section 132 and the practice of Plural Marriage by Joseph Smith to properly respond to any question of the subject if raised, a little light reading is helpful to prepare for the lesson.

 

Seriously, though, this book set is awesome. I have it, and have read it. The Theology volume, however, is actually the weakest, sadly. That doesn't mean it's bad, just not nearly as complete as I think it could have been. The historical volumes, however,  the heart of the set, are top notch, and should be consulted by anyone wanting to know what is and is not known. If any assertions are made about JS's polygamy, every single known reference made is found here.

 

Still may not answer all of your questions. Especially concerning those 3 Celestial Degrees. Joseph never got around to answering that one himself, as far as we can determine. Good luck with that.

Edited August 29, 2013 by David T

[canard78]

You're possibly a couple of weeks too late. We're already onto the martyrdom.

I can report that during this lesson (the one where some on this board say is the moment when all are taught clearly that Joseph practiced it) plural marriage was mentioned '0' times. I asked a few friends and they also had it mentioned '0' times.

It remains hidden to all intents and purposes. Hidden inasmuch as it is not in plain site to most members who do not have a personal hobby of reading academic publications or trawling through decades old back-catalogues of Ensigns.

[cinepro]

You're possibly a couple of weeks too late. We're already onto the martyrdom.

I can report that during this lesson (the one where some on this board say is the moment when all are taught clearly that Joseph practiced it) plural marriage was mentioned '0' times. I asked a few friends and they also had it mentioned '0' times.

It remains hidden to all intents and purposes. Hidden inasmuch as it is not in plain site to most members who do not have a personal hobby of reading academic publications or trawling through decades old back-catalogues of Ensigns.

 

Yeah, it was mentioned 0 times for us as well.

 

The oddest comment came from the teacher.  She had married later in life, and told about her weirdest date of all time: the guy said that a good thing about getting married in the Temple is that the woman is less likely to cheat on the husband (big laugh).

 

I was browsing section 132 during the lesson, and realized the guy might have been referring to verse 41:

 

41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.

 

But I didn't point that out to the class.

[canard78]

Yeah, it was mentioned 0 times for us as well.

The oddest comment came from the teacher. She had married later in life, and told about her weirdest date of all time: the guy said that a good thing about getting married in the Temple is that the woman is less likely to cheat on the husband (big laugh).

I was browsing section 132 during the lesson, and realized the guy might have been referring to verse 41:

But I didn't point that out to the class.

Yuk. I like to consider section 132 as an aberration. In the same category as Adam-God, blood atonement and the black priesthood ban. Errors and aberrations of the era of the 'yankee guesser.'

Given section 132 didn't emerge until the 1850s I put it in a mental compartment called 'ignore.'

Is there any viable evidence that Joseph didn't write 132? I'd only need a little

At any rate, he didn't canonise it, even though he could have when he did what would be his final review in 1843 (printed after his death in 1844).

[Tacenda]

Canard, I wonder if 132 could be taken out? Has that happened before? Probably not likely. I gather it won't because, whether anyone agrees or not, it's doctrine.

[canard78]

Canard, I wonder if 132 could be taken out? Has that happened before? Probably not likely. I gather it won't because, whether anyone agrees or not, it's doctrine.

There's plenty of precedence for the canon being switched around. Lectures of Faith was in the first D&C and later removed. The old section 101 which prohibited polygamy was taken out when 132 was added. If we believe in living prophets (which I do) then we should be comfortable wit the principle that they could say "that used to be doctrine, it isn't now."

There are whole sections of the Old Testament that could be taken out because they are not doctrine to Mormons. They are still God's doctrine to a specific group of people. They aren't to us. Section 101 (prohibiting polygamy) at one point was canon for Mormons and isn't now. The same could be so of (parts of) 132.

[juliann]

Yeah, it was mentioned 0 times for us as well.

 

The oddest comment came from the teacher.  She had married later in life, and told about her weirdest date of all time: the guy said that a good thing about getting married in the Temple is that the woman is less likely to cheat on the husband (big laugh).

 

I was browsing section 132 during the lesson, and realized the guy might have been referring to verse 41:

 

 

 

 

But I didn't point that out to the class.

 

Actually,  v. 41 gives a married woman permission to be with another man if done under the proper authority.   Since it only talks about what happens if she isn't doing it under the proper conditions,  we tend to only see adultery! for women and skip the "unless...".  You need to find another verse.   There is ample data that temple marriages have a far lower divorce rate so it is more likely that was what he was thinking of.  

[juliann]

Canard, I wonder if 132 could be taken out? Has that happened before? Probably not likely. I gather it won't because, whether anyone agrees or not, it's doctrine.

It was an exception to the rule,  eternal marriage is now the doctrine, and monogamy has always been the rule.   Those who maintain polygamy is "doctrine" tend to be in fundamentalist groups.   The rest of us don't think they were kidding when they put out the Proclamation on the Family.

[theplains]

 

Obviously, I'm not actually saying you should bring any of this stuff up in Sunday School.  But if anyone has thoughts on these questions, I'd be curious to how they relate to our current understanding of the doctrine and history of the Church.

 

I have some ideas for additional questions.

 

#8 -  "Why does the law of the priesthood specifically mention virgins instead of non-virgins,

and why is the number 10 chosen instead of another like 5, 15, or 20? (verses 61-62).

 

#9 - "Why did Heavenly Father believe he needed to glorify Himself with polygamy?

(verse 31).

 

#10 - "What would happen if the husband keeps on wanting to espouse other virgins but

the first never gives her consent?  How could she exercise her free agency without the

fear of being destroyed ? (verse 54).

 

Thanks,

Jim

[BCSpace]

The only thing that came up in our local lesson is that the GD teacher said there was no temple in the CK.  Another woman challenged this and the GD teacher told her she'd show her afterwards.  I ended up finding the verse the GD teacher was referring to and showed them both afterwards.

 

Plural marriage almost came up and I was ready.  However, I'm not there to sabotage a teacher's lesson.  I just wait for the issue to arise.

[foster]

It was an exception to the rule,  eternal marriage is now the doctrine, and monogamy has always been the rule.   Those who maintain polygamy is "doctrine" tend to be in fundamentalist groups.   The rest of us don't think they were kidding when they put out the Proclamation on the Family.

Does this mean you regard the Declaration on the Family as speaking against plural marriage?

[Tacenda]

Does this mean you regard the Declaration on the Family as speaking against plural marriage?

Ditto

[USU78]

Yuk. I like to consider section 132 as an aberration. In the same category as Adam-God, blood atonement and the black priesthood ban. Errors and aberrations of the era of the 'yankee guesser.'

Given section 132 didn't emerge until the 1850s I put it in a mental compartment called 'ignore.'

Is there any viable evidence that Joseph didn't write 132? I'd only need a little

At any rate, he didn't canonise it, even though he could have when he did what would be his final review in 1843 (printed after his death in 1844).

 

How a practicing Mormon can ignore eternal marriage, sealings, and everything else that happens in the Temples is, to put it mildly, puzzling to me. 

 

When Moroni first spoke to JSJr, he stated, as reported by the latter:

 

“Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.

“And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming” (see JS—H 1:38–39; emphasis added; see also D&C 2:1–3).

 

Elijah, the prophet who sealed the Heavens, then unsealed them, the prophet whose especial province is sealing, comes to seal people together.  Where does that happen?  In the Temples.  Where do we read a whole bunch about sealings?  Section 132.  Ignore that and you ignore Mormonism.  We are in no place more "Mormon" than when we engage in sealing ordinances.  Baptisms, both inside and outside the Temples, ordinations, confirmations, washings and anointings, endowments are all preparatory to the sealing ordinances:  parent to child, spouse to spouse.

 

You apparently get very little of Mormonism if you ignore Section 132.

[canard78]

How a practicing Mormon can ignore eternal marriage, sealings, and everything else that happens in the Temples is, to put it mildly, puzzling to me.

When Moroni first spoke to JSJr, he stated, as reported by the latter:

Elijah, the prophet who sealed the Heavens, then unsealed them, the prophet whose especial province is sealing, comes to seal people together. Where does that happen? In the Temples. Where do we read a whole bunch about sealings? Section 132. Ignore that and you ignore Mormonism. We are in no place more "Mormon" than when we engage in sealing ordinances. Baptisms, both inside and outside the Temples, ordinations, confirmations, washings and anointings, endowments are all preparatory to the sealing ordinances: parent to child, spouse to spouse.

You apparently get very little of Mormonism if you ignore Section 132.

Lol. Nice twisting of my intended meaning. I am sealed to my wife, kids and parents. Naturally I sincerely appreciate the doctrine of eternal families.

That doctrine would not be eliminated by removing 132.

[juliann]

Does this mean you regard the Declaration on the Family as speaking against plural marriage?

It isn't "speaking against" anything.   But it does proclaim that a marriage is between A man and A woman with Adam and Eve as the example.  Notice they did not include Lilith.   Now, I suppose anyone can try and wiggle around this by saying they just left out  " a woman and a woman and a woman"  but that would an accusation the church is setting out to hoodwink people.

 

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

[juliann]

I have some ideas for additional questions.

 

#8 -  "Why does the law of the priesthood specifically mention virgins instead of non-virgins,

and why is the number 10 chosen instead of another like 5, 15, or 20? (verses 61-62).

 

#9 - "Why did Heavenly Father believe he needed to glorify Himself with polygamy?

(verse 31).

 

#10 - "What would happen if the husband keeps on wanting to espouse other virgins but

the first never gives her consent?  How could she exercise her free agency without the

fear of being destroyed ? (verse 54).

 

Thanks,

Jim

You don't seem to have actually read 132.

 

V. 61 sets up rules for "virgins"  because v. 41 sets up different rules for already married women.  

 

You are begging the question as to why HF "glorifies himself" at all.  Answer that then get back to us with the specifics.  And you are misreading...or purposefully ignoring...what it really says.  It is the continuation of the works of the Father wherein he is glorified.

 

And ten virgins?  Explain to us why the Parable use ten virgins and maybe that will shed some light on it.

 

Your last "question" is very strange.   Are you setting up a definition of free agency that can only exercised if there are no negative consequences?   Not sure how to respond to that idea.  You also might look at v. 26 that also threatens destruction in the flesh.  Then you might consider that Emma was never literally "destroyed in the flesh" despite ultimately rejecting polygamy unless you consider that to be a natural death at old age.  

[foster]

It isn't "speaking against" anything. But it does proclaim that a marriage is between A man and A woman with Adam and Eve as the example. Notice they did not include Lilith. Now, I suppose anyone can try and wiggle around this by saying they just left out " a woman and a woman and a woman" but that would an accusation the church is setting out to hoodwink people.

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

But wasn't lillith exiled hence the reason for Eve. We also know that plural marriage is ordained of God. And "a man and a woman" does not prohibit plural marriage as a man is married to a woman and the marriage is only recognized as between a particular man and a particular woman. Edited August 31, 2013 by foster

[juliann]

But wasn't lillith exiled hence the reason for Eve. We also know that plural marriage is ordained of God. And "a man and a woman" does not preclude plural marriage as a man is married to a woman and the marriage is only recognized as between a particular man and a particular woman.

 

OK,  they were trying to deceive everyone who speaks English.   

Edited September 1, 2013 by juliann

[foster]

OK,  they were trying to deceive everyone who speaks English.

How so?

[Rivers]

Yuk. I like to consider section 132 as an aberration. In the same category as Adam-God, blood atonement and the black priesthood ban. Errors and aberrations of the era of the 'yankee guesser.'

Given section 132 didn't emerge until the 1850s I put it in a mental compartment called 'ignore.'

Is there any viable evidence that Joseph didn't write 132? I'd only need a little

At any rate, he didn't canonise it, even though he could have when he did what would be his final review in 1843 (printed after his death in 1844).

If we get rid of section132, what would be our doctrinal basis for temple marriage?

[cinepro]

If we get rid of section132, what would be our doctrinal basis for temple marriage?

 

Mormonads.

 

[Rivers]

Mormonads.

 

That'll do.

[theplains]

You don't seem to have actually read 132.

 

V. 61 sets up rules for "virgins"  because v. 41 sets up different rules for already married women. 

 

Why is the law of the priesthood (to take additional wives and/or concubines) applicable

to virgin women only?

 

Regarding verse 41, "And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say

unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be

with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath

committed adultery and shall be destroyed.

 

What does the underlined part mean?

 

And ten virgins?  Explain to us why the Parable use ten virgins and maybe that will shed some light

on it. 

 

Maybe ten virgins was some form of custom at the time and Jesus used that in his

parable instead of using a larger number so people would be more familiar with the

analogy.

 

I was just wondering if 10 was some sort of maximum or usual number for that passage

in D&C 132 for certain priesthood holders to marry.

 

 

Your last "question" is very strange.  Are you setting up a definition of free agency

that can only exercised if there are no negative consequences?  Not sure how to respond 

to that idea.  You also might look at v. 26 that also threatens destruction in the 

flesh.  Then you might consider that Emma was never literally "destroyed in the flesh" 

despite ultimately rejecting polygamy unless you consider that to be a natural death 

at old age 

 

If being destroyed in the flesh means dying a natural death in old age, then there is no

way for someone to tell if certain men and women died because they had rejected

polygamy.  Imagine God punishing Korah and his followers (Numbers 16:42) without

giving a visible sign to all those who chose to follow God instead. They would not know

that God punishes.

 

Another explanation is that this threat was not given by God but rather by Joseph as a

means to keep Emma and other women in line.

 

Thanks,

Jim

[canard78]

If we get rid of section132, what would be our doctrinal basis for temple marriage?

The articles of faith are still in the scriptures right?

"AoF 9: We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."

If we removed D&C 132 then our living prophet can replace it with a new revelation.

Edited September 1, 2013 by canard78