Gospel Doctrine And D&c 132: The Tetraannual Discussion

[juliann]

 

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?

 

Why are you asking what it "means"?   It is no secret there was polyandry along with the polygyny.

 

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.

 

You are correct.  There is no way to know.   Most did not engage in polygamy at all and there were no mass graves.

 

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.

 

 

 That is possible, of course.   But if it came from Joseph he put some kind of odd stuff in there if the intent was to keep them "in line".  

[Tacenda]

Deleted

Edited September 2, 2013 by Tacenda

[juliann]

Of course she was upset.  She fought against polygamy all of her life, how can that be news?   But if you are going to use "iffy" sources, please cite them.    Then you can explain what the heck is understandable about "cute little" men inciting 5' 9" Emma to dream of marriage.   That isn't what she picked for the first or second husband.

Edited September 2, 2013 by juliann

[Tacenda]

Of course she was upset. She fought against polygamy all of her life, how can that be news? But if you are going to use "iffy" sources, please cite them. Then you can explain what the heck is understandable about "cute little" men inciting 5' 9" Emma to dream of marriage. That isn't what she picked for the first or second husband.

I would but I'm sitting in a rainstorm on a camping trip, not near a computer. I'll delete my post.

[cdowis]

del

Edited September 2, 2013 by cdowis

[Senator]

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.

 

It always surprises me that we simply gloss over this era of our church doctrine and history, being as it is so often referred to as an "Abrahamic Test" of the early saints.

 

One would think that we would want to celebrate, reinstill, extract those faithful lessons, just as much as we do with Abraham's test when we get to that section of our Biblical study of doctrine (and history).

[Questing Beast]

 

...   It is no secret there was polyandry along with the polygyny.

 

...  

 

Oh malarkey. Polyandry has been one of the best kept "secrets" about JS. The Church has said not, one, word, anywhere, in any publication, about JS's marrying other LDS men's wives. You get that info only from scholars, hopefully friendly but honest ones like Compton.

 

The obvious "polyandry" content in Section 132 is intended for Emma. She was being offered what JS was taking for himself, perhaps even Wm Law, such a "nice little man", whom Emma liked. That didn't fly either.

 

I will here add my "vote" for striking 132 from the D&C entirely, and inserting a historical note on the original, as it is replaced with a modern revelation on eternal marriage....

[juliann]

Oh malarkey. Polyandry has been one of the best kept "secrets" about JS. The Church has said not, one, word, anywhere, in any publication, about JS's marrying other LDS men's wives. You get that info only from scholars, hopefully friendly but honest ones like Compton.

 

The obvious "polyandry" content in Section 132 is intended for Emma. She was being offered what JS was taking for himself, perhaps even Wm Law, such a "nice little man", whom Emma liked. That didn't fly either.

 

 

Straw man, QB.  This wasn't a discussion about what the church does or doesn't do.    So it isn't malarky it is a strawman.  This topic can't even be approached without extensive reading and lots of scholars.  I have at least 24 books on polygamy and there isn't one tidy little treatment of it anywhere, let alone from the church.   The church could print volumes on this, as scholars have, and still not get to the bottom of it.  What they shudda, cudda do is another topic.  As it stands,  there is so much information out there that it will take months to get through it.  But it is possible.  And it is there. 

 

Like it or not, you will have to deal with all of the scholars because there really is no such animal as "polygamy".  The Nauvoo era is different than the first BY era.  Later eras are different than that.  And if you think you can describe scholars as dishonest rather than sharing in the bias they all have you are immediately out of the running as a serious contender for discussion.   They have all privileged certain data over other data and you literally have to make up your own mind.  But you won't know that unless you are reading their critiques of each other....which, BTW, are certainly more civil than your pulling out the "dishonest!" discussion stopper.

 

BTW,  the first stop to confirm polyandry is....church sealing records. 

[juliann]

A 3 part must read in an attempt to understand 132:   http://bycommonconsent.com/2013/09/01/sunday-evenings-with-the-doctrine-and-covenants-section-132-part-3-the-public-revelation/

 

Joseph never meaning for this version of the revelation to be made public gives a different perspective.

[Questing Beast]

Straw man, QB.  This wasn't a discussion about what the church does or doesn't do.    So it isn't malarky it is a strawman.  This topic can't even be approached without extensive reading and lots of scholars.  I have at least 24 books on polygamy and there isn't one tidy little treatment of it anywhere, let alone from the church.   The church could print volumes on this, as scholars have, and still not get to the bottom of it.  What they shudda, cudda do is another topic.  As it stands,  there is so much information out there that it will take months to get through it.  But it is possible.  And it is there. 

 

Like it or not, you will have to deal with all of the scholars because there really is no such animal as "polygamy".  The Nauvoo era is different than the first BY era.  Later eras are different than that.  And if you think you can describe scholars as dishonest rather than sharing in the bias they all have you are immediately out of the running as a serious contender for discussion.   They have all privileged certain data over other data and you literally have to make up your own mind.  But you won't know that unless you are reading their critiques of each other....which, BTW, are certainly more civil than your pulling out the "dishonest!" discussion stopper.

 

BTW,  the first stop to confirm polyandry is....church sealing records. 

Yes, the Nauvoo sealing book. Compton mentions it many times. His "bias" was to produce a book that was publishable and as in depth on each of JS's wives as practical. His approach was thoroughly honest. I'm not so sure about Wagoner, but did not find his book egregiously negative, ditto "Mormon Enigma".

 

My "malarkey" contention is that you said polyandry is "no secret", which is untrue. With all the information the Church has on it, not one word admitting it is the same thing as keeping it a secret. It appears that the Church's approach to difficult issues is to just not teach anything about them, e.g. BY's polygany got not one word in the "Teachings of Presidents of the Church" manual, yet it is the most well known feature of his life. If the Church doesn't ever bring up what it wants to go away, perhaps it will go away in the minds of future generations. Stay silent is the best policy. But in today's information highway Net world, it is a ridiculous way to compose a curriculum....

[juliann]

No,  QB.  The bias is in how they privilege or ignore data and quotes.  They all do that.   Hales/Quinn/Bergera have all given instances where each other have done that.  That is why you have to read them all and decide for yourself what data to use.  If you think there was "sexual" polyandry, you will privilege the data/sources given primacy by Quinn.  If for some bizarre reason you can only stomach polygyny, you will privilege the data/sources Hales considers to be most valid.  Each make their case.  If you can't acknowledge that why should you be taken seriously?

 

And one more time,  I don't give a flip what the church does or doesn't do with history lessons right now.  I'm here to discuss 132 not  curriculum so you will have to lure someone else into your rabbit hole.

[USU78]

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.

 

Horsepucky.  That is the ultimate source for sealings in the temple found in scripture.

[USU78]

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.

 

That last sentence proves you're just being silly.

 

I'm out of this here conversation if you're not going to be serious.

[David T]

Yes, the Nauvoo sealing book. Compton mentions it many times. His "bias" was to produce a book that was publishable and as in depth on each of JS's wives as practical. His approach was thoroughly honest. I'm not so sure about Wagoner, but did not find his book egregiously negative, ditto "Mormon Enigma".

 

My "malarkey" contention is that you said polyandry is "no secret", which is untrue. With all the information the Church has on it, not one word admitting it is the same thing as keeping it a secret.

Have you seen the introduction essay to Journals, Volume 2 of the Joseph Smith Papers, published by the Church Historian's press?

[canard78]

That last sentence proves you're just being silly.

I'm out of this here conversation if you're not going to be serious.

I'm not being silly at all. Obviously it would need to be an inspired change, like OD2. But our canon is not closed and it is not set in stone. I'd be delighted if God inspired the prophets to strike a line through 132 and gave them a new revelation that stil taught eternal marriage but took the plural out of it.

[BCSpace]

My "malarkey" contention is that you said polyandry is "no secret", which is untrue.

 

I would go so far as to say that polyandry didn't even exist because the relationships in question don't seem to fit the yellow journalistic accusations.

[Sargon]

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.

 

For those wishing to remove Section 132 from the canon, you may be interested to know that something like this was attempted once:

 

“Generating even more controversy in discussing the revelation was an officially sanctioned scriptural work entitled, Latter-day Revelations: Selections from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Published in 1930 under the imprint of the LDS Church, the volume was actually compiled by James E. Talmage, who by this time was a senior apostle in the Quorum of the Twelve. This work was characterized as containing “Sections and parts of Sections from the Doctrine and Covenants, the sections comprising scriptures of general an enduring value…”. Its purpose, in the words of Talmage, was “to make the strictly doctrinal parts of the Doctrine and Covenants of easy access and reduce its bulk.” Accordingly some ninety-five sections of the Doctrine and Covenants were completely omitted, along with parts of twenty-one others. The most noteworthy of these omissions was the entire text of Section 132! Fundamentalist Mormons were outraged, “accusing the [LDS] church of changing the scriptures.” In response, then Church President Heber J. Grant, ordered the work immediately “withdrawn” from sale and the remaining copies “shredded to avoid further conflict with the fundamentalists,” according to Talmage biographer, James P. Harris.”

 

Newell G. Bringhurst, “Section 132: Contents and Legacy” in The Persistence of Polygamy, (Independence: John Whitmer Books: 2010), 83-84.

 

Edited September 3, 2013 by Sargon

[Calm]

While I like having many personal revelations in the D&C and ones that were specifically relevant to the time they were given because it shows how the Church developed and God's concern for the individual, it does add some confusion in reading them...they are in fact my least favourite because of that....which is personal instruction to the individual, which is instruction to the Church at the time, which is instruction to all members and which is instruction to the Church in every age.  I think it would be very useful if the Lord and the Prophet were willing, for the two of them to have some extended discussion about a revision of the text including an expansion on Sec. 132 that removed the counsel to Joseph or perhaps put it in a separate section by itself and gave us more info on eternal marriage and what sealings are and how they are to be performed.

 

OTOH, if I am confused about what I am reading, I have to depend more on the Spirit so perhaps that is why the Lord allows such confusion to stand, to encourage us to go to him for intelligence on what he wants us to know.

[Tacenda]

My mind is changing on taking out the 132 section. It's possibly dishonest to take it out because generations ahead won't understand why our members did what they did without it. What would be nice is to have added scripture/revelation to the D&C. And do that continually, even if it's things like no tattoos or one set of earrings for women, which was taken pretty seriously back when Pres. Hinckley asked it of us. Why not continually add specific revelation to our canon? It would have been good to have a whole section on how polygamy was retracted back in1890, even the reasons leading up to it. Or the priesthood given to the blacks in 1978 and the story behind it. Now that would be nice.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Tacenda

[Senator]

My mind is changing on taking out the 132 section. It's possibly dishonest to take it out because generations ahead won't understand why our members did what they did without it.

 

You don't have to remove the text in order for that to happen!

[Tacenda]

You don't have to remove the text in order for that to happen!

Oh, you're right!

[Tacenda]

I guess there was a section in the D&C that was taken out. It was section 101 that was there until 1876. Apparently it was against polygamy.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/7103-dc-1014-1835-1876-forbade-polygamy/

Maybe it'll be put back in and 132 taken out?

Edited September 3, 2013 by Tacenda

[Questing Beast]

Have you seen the introduction essay to Journals, Volume 2 of the Joseph Smith Papers, published by the Church Historian's press?

Ah? That would be new, wouldn't it? No, I have not seen the JS Papers in published form, yet. Is polyandry mentioned in said-intro? If so, then my blanket assertion would no longer apply, which is a good thing....

Edited September 3, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Questing Beast]

For those wishing to remove Section 132 from the canon, you may be interested to know that something like this was attempted once:

Well, I'll be swizzled! Never heard of that before. Too bad it didn't fly....

[David T]

Ah? That would be new, wouldn't it? No, I have not seen the JS Papers in published form, yet. Is polyandry mentioned in said-intro? If so, then my blanket assertion would no longer apply, which is a good thing....

 

Didn't realize it was also online here. The mention is brief, but highly noteworthy for appearing in an official Church publication, and on the website.

 

Here's the relevant text:

 

Several later documents suggest that several women who were already married to other men were, like Marinda Hyde, married or sealed to Joseph Smith. Available evidence indicates that some of these apparent polygynous/polyandrous marriages took place during the years covered by this journal. At least three of the women reportedly involved in these marriages—Patty Bartlett Sessions, Ruth Vose Sayers, and Sylvia Porter Lyon—are mentioned in the journal, though in contexts very much removed from plural marriage.58 Even fewer sources are extant for these complex relationships than are available for Smith’s marriages to unmarried women, and Smith’s revelations are silent on them. Having surveyed the available sources, historian Richard L. Bushman concludes that these polyandrous marriages—and perhaps other plural marriages of Joseph Smith—were primarily a means of binding other families to his for the spiritual benefit and mutual salvation of all involved.