Gospel Doctrine And D&c 132: The Tetraannual Discussion

[David T]

Oh, and if you go to lds.org's search page, and do a search for 'polyandrous' - that is exactly what comes up right up on top., Other things come up, but I don't know why, because they are not relevant at all.

 

Also - VERY strange and interesting, if you do a search for 'polyandry on lds.org', the result is... D&C 132:51 (!!!!). Someone working on lds.org specifically tagged that scripture as having reference to polyandry:

 

 

 

51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.

 

Woah.

Edited September 3, 2013 by David T

[foster]

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.

Nice to know I am not the only one who struggles with these same issues.

[David T]

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.

 

I don't think the solution is in removing problematic scriptures. It is in having a stronger understanding of the nature of scripture, and also a willingness to add to the canon.

 

When I say I accept the scriptures as Revelation, I believe that, taken as a whole, they reveal God through the process of those who have had encounters with Him. And in just as many cases as not, those encounters completely contradict the assumed worldview of earlier writers. It is progressive revelation. We're still learning about God, so of course the canon should be open. The Book of Job can be seen as a substantial inspired critique of the view otherwise expressed in the scriptures that the suffering must have been wicked, and the prosperous must be righteous.

 

It's weird when we sometimes like to quote earlier positions that were later contradicted and corrected by later prophetic figures in the same Standard Work to prove the validity of a preferred doctrinal point. This happens with the BoM as well - later prophets at time have a stronger or more nuanced view of a subject (and sometimes completely different!) than some earlier ones. Do we view both as equally prescriptive? Or do we take the progression of the narrative as a whole as being the more valuable interpretive lens?

 

Our problem with approaching scripture is trying to read it as if all the writers at all times believed in (and agreed with) everything found in the 2009 Edition of Gospel Principles.

 

Scriptures are far more valuable as a history of man's grappling with understanding God and discovering revelations about him than, well, history. I believe sometimes we have revelations about God by grappling with misunderstandings and scriptural attributions to God of things that he did not actually do. I view modern prophets in the same way.

 

The JST is beautiful when viewed as a New and Modern Edition of the Bible, added to the canon in the midst of the D&C sections,  rather than replacing the earlier text. It is updated with Joseph's developing understandings and paradigms, with doctrinal corrections. I think it's a perfect example of what we should be willing to do when approaching ancient scripture - try to determine what they would have done or said if they knew what we know now. And learn why they didn't feel that way.

 

So again, I'll restate my thought - it is not difficult scriptures that should be adjusted, it is our understanding and approach to scripture that would be most beneficial to be broadened. Good manuals and constantly updated study helps that assist in such a view as auxiliaries to the scripture. And I think the Church is heading on that path. And I like it!

Edited September 3, 2013 by David T

[LordUther]

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.

 

Why would they do that when we still believe in the doctrines contained therein and practise polygamy?

[Questing Beast]

Oh, and if you go to lds.org's search page, and do a search for 'polyandrous' - that is exactly what comes up right up on top., Other things come up, but I don't know why, because they are not relevant at all.

 

Also - VERY strange and interesting, if you do a search for 'polyandry on lds.org', the result is... D&C 132:51 (!!!!). Someone working on lds.org specifically tagged that scripture as having reference to polyandry:

 

 

 

 

Woah.

Indeed! That is a surprise. I have always attributed that verse to JS offering Emma polyandry in the name of the Lord, but have allowed that it is only my asserted interpretation. To have that verse come up at the top of the list on the official LDS website is quite astonishing, and, as I said, a good sign. The Church is always very low key about changes, and I consider this good evidence that the changes to a more candid disclosure of Church history issues are already well underway....

[juliann]

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.

 

I think you just don't want them to exist.  There is no way to rule it out.  It seems a little unscriptural to even try given it is given the go ahead in 132.  

[Questing Beast]

I don't think the solution is in removing problematic scriptures. It is in having a stronger understanding of the nature of scripture, and also a willingness to add to the canon.

 

When I say I accept the scriptures as Revelation, I believe that, taken as a whole, they reveal God through the process of those who have had encounters with Him. And in just as many cases as not, those encounters completely contradict the assumed worldview of earlier writers. It is progressive revelation. We're still learning about God, so of course the canon should be open. The Book of Job can be seen as a substantial inspired critique of the view otherwise expressed in the scriptures that the suffering must have been wicked, and the prosperous must be righteous.

 

It's weird when we sometimes like to quote earlier positions that were later contradicted and corrected by later prophetic figures in the same Standard Work to prove the validity of a preferred doctrinal point. This happens with the BoM as well - later prophets at time have a stronger or more nuanced view of a subject (and sometimes completely different!) than some earlier ones. Do we view both as equally prescriptive? Or do we take the progression of the narrative as a whole as being the more valuable interpretive lens?

 

Our problem with approaching scripture is trying to read it as if all the writers at all times believed in (and agreed with) everything found in the 2009 Edition of Gospel Principles.

 

Scriptures are far more valuable as a history of man's grappling with understanding God and discovering revelations about him than, well, history. I believe sometimes we have revelations about God by grappling with misunderstandings and scriptural attributions to God of things that he did not actually do. I view modern prophets in the same way.

 

The JST is beautiful when viewed as a New and Modern Edition of the Bible, added to the canon in the midst of the D&C sections,  rather than replacing the earlier text. It is updated with Joseph's developing understandings and paradigms, with doctrinal corrections. I think it's a perfect example of what we should be willing to do when approaching ancient scripture - try to determine what they would have done or said if they knew what we know now. And learn why they didn't feel that way.

 

So again, I'll restate my thought - it is not difficult scriptures that should be adjusted, it is our understanding and approach to scripture that would be most beneficial to be broadened. Good manuals and constantly updated study helps that assist in such a view as auxiliaries to the scripture. And I think the Church is heading on that path. And I like it!

One vote up, David.

 

I've often viewed the Nephites as limited in their understanding of the afterlife, heaven and hell, etc. The "fullness of the gospel" doesn't include fullness of doctrine or understanding: it means an account of God offering redemption through his sacrifices for the world, showing that all people get included, even cut off branches of the House of Israel on foreign soil. The land becomes a "promised land" to them and their posterity. The same promises are held out to everyone who accepts the gospel of Jesus Christ, no matter what the differing facets of doctrines might otherwise be: it is their life choices, their cultural value systems that determine if God is blessing them or leaving them to their own devices (cursed). Most people read the scriptures expecting harmony across the millennia, and that is not even a reasonable expectation or assertion....

[juliann]

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

My BIL is a Mormon book collector and has a copy of this volume. 

 

Oh, and if you go to lds.org's search page, and do a search for 'polyandrous' - that is exactly what comes up right up on top., Other things come up, but I don't know why, because they are not relevant at all.

 

Also - VERY strange and interesting, if you do a search for 'polyandry on lds.org', the result is... D&C 132:51 (!!!!). Someone working on lds.org specifically tagged that scripture as having reference to polyandry:

 

 

 

 

Woah.

Wow, thanks for that!

[foster]

For the Church to remove it would be slap in the face to all former Prophets till the removal. (Before anyone brings up the blacks and the priesthood, former Prophets stated the restriction would be lifted on God's time so the situation is not comparable.) 

 

We believe in polygamy, we do not practice polygamy (per se) in our mortal state - we know and accept that many males in the Church have been sealed to more than one woman - I refer specifically to marriage/sealing to a second spouse after the death of the first spouse. The scriptures suggest polygamy is possible in the future. There is no credible argument that the Church has abandoned polygamy as a belief.

Edited September 3, 2013 by foster

[juliann]

For the Church to remove it would be slap in the face to all former Prophets till the removal. (Before anyone brings up the blacks and the priesthood, former Prophets stated the restriction would be lifted on God's time so the situation is not comparable.) 

 

We believe in polygamy, we do not practice polygamy (per se) in our mortal state - we know and accept that many males in the Church have been sealed to more than one woman - I refer specifically to marriage/sealing to a second spouse after the death of the first spouse. The scriptures suggest polygamy is possible in the future. There is no credible argument that the Church has abandoned polygamy as a belief.

This is a good example of how church doctrine and history has been typically viewed only through male perspective.  That is why we are just now noticing that polyandry is just as scriptural as polygyny.    I cannot believe that this has to be said in every single polygamy thread.  Women are also sealed to multiple husbands.  Right now it is by special permission.  They can, of course, sealed to all of their husbands after they are dead.  Although it is critical for some to protect male privilege, the idea that women's sealings aren't valid undermines that.  Every woman's sealing that is undone also undoes a man's sealing.  In other words, you better make sure your wife dies first because if she marries she may end up canceling your sealing if she has to "choose".   It is way past time to wake up to the reality that polygamy goes both ways and no one can rely on their sealing unless it does.

 

That creates another set of uncomfortable logistical problems, of course.  I suspect it will all end up giving us a more accurate vision of the meaning of sealings.

[Scott Lloyd]

What does "tetraannual" mean? I Googled it and couldn't find a definition.

 

Does it mean "every four years"? Wouldn't that be quadrennial?

[Questing Beast]

This is a good example of how church doctrine and history has been typically viewed only through male perspective.  That is why we are just now noticing that polyandry is just as scriptural as polygyny.    I cannot believe that this has to be said in every single polygamy thread.  Women are also sealed to multiple husbands.  Right now it is by special permission.  They can, of course, sealed to all of their husbands after they are dead.  Although it is critical for some to protect male privilege, the idea that women's sealings aren't valid undermines that.  Every woman's sealing that is undone also undoes a man's sealing.  In other words, you better make sure your wife dies first because if she marries she may end up canceling your sealing if she has to "choose".   It is way past time to wake up to the reality that polygamy goes both ways and no one can rely on their sealing unless it does.

 

That creates another set of uncomfortable logistical problems, of course.  I suspect it will all end up giving us a more accurate vision of the meaning of sealings.

There comes a point when you have to "cut bait".

 

The entire polygamy "period" was a huge mistake, just as separating into exclusively "Zion" communities on the frontier was a huge mistake. But both practices, which raked up the ire and suspicions of the local inhabitants and later of the whole Nation, resulted in Mormons pulling together, taking their marginalization out into the wilderness and founding a religious "empire" that endured because of that adversity. Had the first Mormons instead strictly practiced above board monogamy and intermixed with the local inhabitants instead of forming enclaves of "cultism" (so perceived), the religion would never have amounted to anymore than some other flash in the pan religious craze. We can recognize these phenomenons as probably necessary to the religion's growth.

 

But we can also see God's foreknowledge in it, and still accept that none of those practices of the first Mormons were ever intended to be more than a galvanizing force. They were not and are not a reflection of eternity. If they were, then we can all look forward to exclusive association separately from the rest of the cosmos, sort of like our own "gated communities" on the upper benches overlooking SLC. Celestial snobbery, wonderful. And inside those elite communities of the "sun" we will have men and women sharing each other as husbands' wives are sealed to their male friends and family members and visa versa. Inconceivable, since Mormon polygamy, both kinds, involved an essential sexual dimension from the getgo.

 

You see, I don't buy that JS was only sealing people to himself to assure their exaltation. That doctrine didn't even survive BY, so why angst over the necessity of still believing in polygamy? We don't try to build up "Zion communities" as envisioned by JS and BY either, we don't believe in that anymore. So why polygamy? It isn't necessary in eternal marriage, despite what the earliest "brethren" taught to the contrary. We don't believe them anymore either.

 

I do not accept a heaven where some souls depart to glories unknown and secret themselves away from the rest of the resurrected beings. Immortals are immortally associated. Some are more intelligent. Some are more advanced. But they still associate with lesser intelligent beings and always have, just like "our Father and Mother" have always done. And that association does not, cannot, include marriages that cross over and share everybody with everybody else....

[juliann]

I agree with you other than the mistake part.  I think it could have been much better implemented, obviously,  but if the result was to guarantee the survival of the religion then it was hardly a mistake.  I have used Malina's theories on the early Christian theologians that demonstrated they made alliances based on social ties and the beliefs followed not vice versa.  I think that creating family ties supported strong belief.   I don't disagree with anything you are saying.   The only problem that I see with polygamy,  which should just be a quirky historical practice, is that some men won't let go of it and continue to insist it is alive and well.  Ridiculous theories to support that are then pulled out.  But these theories are never followed to their natural consequences.  So for those who swear polygamy is the real deal, they are no longer going to be able to ignore polyandry.  They will have to fit it in there if they are advocating for polygamy.   No more picking and choosing.

 

However,  there is no more of a gated Celestial community than monogamous sealings.  Family units exclude they do not include.  That is why I think sealings have much more to do with the whole heavenly family than couples in an eternal honeymoon cottage.  The long and short of it is that we really know next to nothing about the afterlife but that won't stop us from thinking we do.

[canard78]

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

Wow Sargon, that's fascinating.

Is there any way to get a full copy of the excluded/included sections? Or was it completely deleted from all history?

[BCSpace]

There comes a point when you have to "cut bait".

 

The entire polygamy "period" was a huge mistake, just as separating into exclusively "Zion" communities on the frontier was a huge mistake. But both practices, which raked up the ire and suspicions of the local inhabitants and later of the whole Nation, resulted in Mormons pulling together, taking their marginalization out into the wilderness and founding a religious "empire" that endured because of that adversity. Had the first Mormons instead strictly practiced above board monogamy and intermixed with the local inhabitants instead of forming enclaves of "cultism" (so perceived), the religion would never have amounted to anymore than some other flash in the pan religious craze. We can recognize these phenomenons as probably necessary to the religion's growth.

 

But we can also see God's foreknowledge in it, and still accept that none of those practices of the first Mormons were ever intended to be more than a galvanizing force. They were not and are not a reflection of eternity.

 

 

It can't possibly have been a mistake if God at the very least intended it to be galvanizing.

 

If they were, then we can all look forward to exclusive association separately from the rest of the cosmos, sort of like our own "gated communities" on the upper benches overlooking SLC. Celestial snobbery, wonderful. And inside those elite communities of the "sun" we will have men and women sharing each other as husbands' wives are sealed to their male friends and family members and visa versa. Inconceivable, since Mormon polygamy, both kinds, involved an essential sexual dimension from the getgo.

 

You see, I don't buy that JS was only sealing people to himself to assure their exaltation. That doctrine didn't even survive BY, so why angst over the necessity of still believing in polygamy? We don't try to build up "Zion communities" as envisioned by JS and BY either, we don't believe in that anymore. So why polygamy? It isn't necessary in eternal marriage, despite what the earliest "brethren" taught to the contrary. We don't believe them anymore either.

 

I do not accept a heaven where some souls depart to glories unknown and secret themselves away from the rest of the resurrected beings. Immortals are immortally associated. Some are more intelligent. Some are more advanced. But they still associate with lesser intelligent beings and always have, just like "our Father and Mother" have always done. And that association does not, cannot, include marriages that cross over and share everybody with everybody else....

 

I disagree.  The communities are gated but I believe we can visit (one way).  The scriptures themselves so testify.  "He cannot have an increase" etc.

 

In addition, the Church does not apologize for previous plural sealings and it continues to make plural sealings.  The doctrine of plural marriage is intact and survives.  Being sealed to someone else is still required to assure exaltation. At the very least they are dynastic and I daresay many of them reflect eternity else God would not have bothered with any sort of notion of the sealing power in the first place.

Edited September 4, 2013 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

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.

 

I think you just don't want them to exist.  There is no way to rule it out.  It seems a little unscriptural to even try given it is given the go ahead in 132.

 

It's not a matter of what I want.  It's a matter of there is no way to rule it in so far hence the accusation remains false until there is some realistic evidence.

 

It seems a little unscriptural to even try given it is given the go ahead in 132.

 

At best, it's a go ahead on paper, but not a go ahead on an actual polyandrous relationship as envisioned by the critics of the Church.  I think it's a mistake to refer to these relationships as "polyandrous" without qualifier as I have just done.  And I think it's a mistake on the Church's part to link D&C 132:52 to the term as JS's version of plural marriage forbids sexual polyandry.

 

http://mormonstories.org/brian-hales-12-myths-regarding-joseph-smiths-polygamy/

 

See 0:52:52 for a comparison table of JS's plural marriage doctrine with Bennett's spiritual wifery.

See 1:07:42 for a discussion on how JS's plural marriage forbids sexual polyandry. D&C 132 specific.

 

To paraphrase Hales, don't you think JS would have thrown a verse in the revelation on plural marriage allowing for sexual polyandry if that is what he had been practicing?

Edited September 4, 2013 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

“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.

 

If I have the right book:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Latter-Day-Revelation-Selections-Doctrine-Covenants/dp/B000PKT1N2

 

then I think it no coincidence that one copy was available for $30 at nearly the same instant of the above quoted post but now multiple copies are available for north of $100.

Edited September 4, 2013 by BCSpace

[Tacenda]

This is a good example of how church doctrine and history has been typically viewed only through male perspective.  That is why we are just now noticing that polyandry is just as scriptural as polygyny.    I cannot believe that this has to be said in every single polygamy thread.  Women are also sealed to multiple husbands.  Right now it is by special permission.  They can, of course, sealed to all of their husbands after they are dead.  Although it is critical for some to protect male privilege, the idea that women's sealings aren't valid undermines that.  Every woman's sealing that is undone also undoes a man's sealing.  In other words, you better make sure your wife dies first because if she marries she may end up canceling your sealing if she has to "choose".   It is way past time to wake up to the reality that polygamy goes both ways and no one can rely on their sealing unless it does.

 

That creates another set of uncomfortable logistical problems, of course.  I suspect it will all end up giving us a more accurate vision of the meaning of sealings.

I don't want to sound crass but this just feels like wife and husband swapping.  I hate it with a passion.  Men sealed to several wives, and women sealed to several husbands?  This is so just too weird, I think I'll go with no marriage in heaven, but still together as families.  Are we the only religion that believes this way?      

[Calm]

So unmarried parents with children is a better solution than allowing all married couples who desire eternal companionship to have it in your view?

Why not simply stop hyperventilating over something we have little ability to currently understand instead?

Edited September 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

So unmarried parents with children is a better solution than allowing all married couples who desire eternal companionship to have it in your view?

Why not simply stop hyperventilating over something we have little ability to currently understand instead?

Cal, how did you know (hyperventilating), can you see me through your computer?    Okay, I'm calm now.  If indeed women and men are sealed to more than one, how does it have meaning anymore?  Is it to stay together in the same realm?  Oh, yeah, we don't understand it all at the moment.  

[Calm]

If you really want to know the answer, stop sending your free time on the board and instead go to the only source that can tell you, God.

[stemelbow]

If you really want to know the answer, stop sending your free time on the board and instead go to the only source that can tell you, God.

 

No offense, but what has God told you about polygamy?  It doesn't seem like He's had anything to say on the subject for over a hundred years--and it appears many would suggest He didn't say anything about it to Joseph Smith either.  This is not easy, it's not black and white. 

[Tacenda]

If you really want to know the answer, stop sending your free time on the board and instead go to the only source that can tell you, God.

He isn't there right now, too busy I guess.  I envy the people he's talking to.  It ain't me.  Ok, let's move on.   

[Calm]

No offense, but what has God told you about polygamy?  It doesn't seem like He's had anything to say on the subject for over a hundred years--and it appears many would suggest He didn't say anything about it to Joseph Smith either.  This is not easy, it's not black and white.

He hasn't told me anything but that I don't need to worry about it.

But I am not the one who is obsessing about it, worried that somehow it is going to turn heaven into some kind of orgy or any other number of fruitless frantic scenarios. If someone is truly bothered by the idea, then simply repeating one's angst over and over on a message board going nowhere but in a endless vicious circle seems kind of pointless and nonproductive, don't you think?

Don't you think trying a different approach would make more sense than appealing for answers from those who don't have them?

[stemelbow]

He hasn't told me anything but that I don't need to worry about it.

But I am not the one who is obsessing about it, worried that somehow it is going to turn heaven into some kind of orgy or any other number of fruitless frantic scenarios. If someone is truly bothered by the idea, then simply repeating one's angst over and over on a message board going nowhere but in a endless vicious circle seems kind of pointless and nonproductive, don't you think?

Don't you think trying a different approach would make more sense than appealing for answers from those who don't have them?

 

Fair enough.  I just wanted to point out that this is a tough subject--and for beleivers it has to be complex.  There has to be many layers or else in simplistic terms it can be damaging.  I can't blame people for reacting strongly when discussing it.