Gospel Doctrine And D&c 132: The Tetraannual Discussion

[Calm]

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.

What I see as problematic is that discussing it here isn't helping Tac to clarify it for herself at all, instead it appears to be making it worse for her. It is like she is picking at a scab so much that not only isn't it healing, but it is becoming infected. If this is what is happening, then for her own sake she needs to realize this and stop doing something that is damaging herself emotionally and mentally.

If someone goes to therapy and it ends up making them worse, not better, then the intelligent and prudent thing to do is to look for another avenue of healing and not just carry on with the same thing because it is the simplest or most familiar and comfortable approach.

Edited September 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[Kenngo1969]

I envy all ya'all who have ascended to such a level that you can pontificate on past polygyny (hey, alliteration ... cool! ) and prognosticate on future polygyny/relationships.  How's the air up there?   Dang, I'm still working on getting 100% Home Teaching!

 

Maybe someday I'll be able to join all ya'all, but ... Dang! ...

[foster]

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.

 

Is there any evidence that in the present policies/Doctrine/practices of the Church, that a woman - sealed to a first husband, which husband is now deceased or divorced - can be sealed another man with the first sealing remaining in effect? If there is evidence, that is not hearsay, will you provide the evidence?

Edited September 4, 2013 by foster

[juliann]

Is there any evidence that in the present policies/Doctrine/practices of the Church, that a woman - sealed to a first husband, which husband is now deceased or divorced - can be sealed another man with the first sealing remaining in effect? If there is evidence, that is not hearsay, will you provide the evidence?

What, like asking the Temple Prez to photocopy records?   The evidence is the women who are saying it was done.    If you want to call that "hearsay",  shame on you.   Why would they lie?  Why would a bishop I have known for decades lie about facilitating it for his sister in law...or the women who are talking about it online?  More to the point,  can you provide evidence that women will have to choose one husband... from an official church source? That has been removed from the CHI.   The church has been slowly backing away from the Victorian age.

 

Most troubling,  what does it say about those that would not feel anything but jubilation that women can participate in the same blessings enjoyed by men.   

[juliann]

 

 

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?

He did.  Even the church website is admitting that.   Deny it until the cows come home....but it is there.

[David T]

Julian, Note: The suggested theory is not one of sexual polyandry. IE, if Emma had accepted the offer, there would have been no more authorized sexual contact between her and Joseph. This is consistent with what Hales generally says.

Edited September 4, 2013 by David T

[juliann]

Julian, Note: The suggested theory is not one of sexual polyandry. IE, if Emma had accepted the offer, there would have been no more authorized sexual contact between her and Joseph. This is consistent with what Hales generally says.

Perhaps.  But that has to be read in.  V. 41 makes provisions that it will not be adultery which is rather odd insertion if there is no sexual contact to begin with.   Like I said before,  I find all of the researchers to be tied to an ideology.  They are all giving support for that ideology.  So I'm not picking one over the other.   The need to keep women virtuous while the men are all running amuck I do find...interesting in a sad commentary on how far we need to go kind of way.   Whatever they were doing they were doing.  Scholars should not be trying to reshape it and redefine it they should lay it all on the table for examination.   Especially when it only takes one example to prove "sexual" polyandry and even Hales can't write them all off.  That is the danger in taking such a hard line stance that is, I think, based more on maintaining cultural constrictions for women than the reality of what may have occurred.  Until we can over ourselves and acknowledge the very real possibility there was polyandry we will never get past denial to understanding why.

[David T]

Scholars should not be trying to reshape it and redefine it they should lay it all on the table for examination. Especially when it only takes one example to prove "sexual" polyandry and even Hales can't write them all off.

Actually, what Hales does in his books is exactly what you are calling for. He presents every single piece of polygamy related evidence known, and even some never before published. Even those who disagree with his interpretations or ultimate conclusions applaud him for this. It's a major plus. There is no substantial evidence for concurrent sexual relationships. I highly suggest the set. It changed my mind.

Edited September 4, 2013 by David T

[Questing Beast]

...

 

Most troubling,  what does it say about those that would not feel anything but jubilation that women can participate in the same blessings enjoyed by men. 

"Enjoyed"? Not hardly my dear. Is it a blessing to imagine your husband "enjoying" multiple "heavenly mothers" in eternity? I do not enjoy contemplating something so complex that it involves my wife being married to multiple men in the eternities. Try and sell THAT to investigators, or even many generational Mormons. If "patriarchal marriage" is also matriarchal marriage, the religion needs to go down. I'm not in....

Edited September 4, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Questing Beast]

This is why I am a "cafeteria Mormon". Polyandry is just out, end stop. JS was mistaken in an huge way to go that route. No sex? Too much evidence for it I'm afraid. No concurrent sex then? Big, flippin' deal! So the woman leaves her husband and only has sex with JS. Then she returns to her legal husband after they patch things up, and JS is now either dead or they don't have sex because she's having sex with her legal husband again. What nonsense!

 

"God" can help a religion become a reality by knowing that its founder will institute "the practice" and other weird, inimical doctrines such as gathering into exclusively Mormon communities, which bring down the wrath of the "gentiles": and knowing does not mean that "God" approves of those inimical practices. Prophets are products of their cultures, religious ideas and personalities. JS was complex. And in polygamy and Zionism he was unwise. I don't think that the modern Church ("That was then, this is now", Hinckley) needs to accept either doctrine as God-given, but rather JS's excessive approach to a "restitution of all things". It got better, and we should be glad that it did, not waiting/hoping for some kind of return to 19th century darkness....

Edited September 4, 2013 by Questing Beast

[foster]

What, like asking the Temple Prez to photocopy records? The evidence is the women who are saying it was done. If you want to call that "hearsay", shame on you. Why would they lie? Why would a bishop I have known for decades lie about facilitating it for his sister in law...or the women who are talking about it online? More to the point, can you provide evidence that women will have to choose one husband... from an official church source? That has been removed from the CHI. The church has been slowly backing away from the Victorian age.

Most troubling, what does it say about those that would not feel anything but jubilation that women can participate in the same blessings enjoyed by men.

Hearsay is hearsay, no shame in me calling it what it is. Knowing hearsay from verifiable fact is important. What I did find on wikipedia is a reference to the 1998 CHI which only allowed a deceased woman could be sealed to more than one man. The 2006 version does not seem much different. "Other woman talking about it online" isn't really the a basis for truth. The Church does allow for Temple marriages for time only uncertain circumstances.

I know a woman who is living who was sealed to her first husband (who died as a member in good standing) and this woman is now sealed to her second husband who is also a member in good standing. However, she had to get special permission and I was told the first sealing was "cancelled" to allow the second. Would she be a liar to say "i was sealed to my first husband who is dead, and I am now sealed to my second husband who is living."

Edited September 4, 2013 by foster

[Tacenda]

This is why I am a "cafeteria Mormon". Polyandry is just out, end stop. JS was mistaken in an huge way to go that route. No sex? Too much evidence for it I'm afraid. No concurrent sex then? Big, flippin' deal! So the woman leaves her husband and only has sex with JS. Then she returns to her legal husband after they patch things up, and JS is now either dead or they don't have sex because she's having sex with her legal husband again. What nonsense!

 

"God" can help a religion become a reality by knowing that its founder will institute "the practice" and other weird, inimical doctrines such as gathering into exclusively Mormon communities, which bring down the wrath of the "gentiles": and knowing does not mean that "God" approves of those inimical practices. Prophets are products of their cultures, religious ideas and personalities. JS was complex. And in polygamy and Zionism he was unwise. I don't think that the modern Church ("That was then, this is now", Hinckley) needs to accept either doctrine as God-given, but rather JS's excessive approach to a "restitution of all things". It got better, and we should be glad that it did, not waiting/hoping for some kind of return to 19th century darkness....

You never mince words QB, that's for sure.  I think at the time JS instituted polygamy there was another group that practiced it nearby.  Maybe JS did take what was going on around him and use it to restore the church, for instance the "Jackson Era Clean Living Movement 1830-1860" was going on before the WoW was implemented by Joseph, I believe.  Also, our church has Masonic leanings, which makes me think that is why the men and women in it have high ideals and work towards them, hence progression.  And the church's members are usually very thrifty and charitable.  I think the Lord is pleased about most of what we do in the church and displeased with other things we do.         

[juliann]

Actually, what Hales does in his books is exactly what you are calling for. He presents every single piece of polygamy related evidence known, and even some never before published. Even those who disagree with his interpretations or ultimate conclusions applaud him for this. It's a major plus. There is no substantial evidence for concurrent sexual relationships. I highly suggest the set. It changed my mind.

I have it.  I also have Compton's book and many, many more.  No argument on compiling the documents.  But even 3 out of 4 of the commendations on his dust jacket had reservations about his "conclusions" or how he contextualized the data.  I have never seen so many reservations on a dust jacket that is supposed to be high praise.  Ever.  He is convincing because, like all of them,  he picks and chooses his information.  Quinn is quite convincing when it comes to polyandry.  So it is all there.  Pick your bias.   And the bias I find deeply disturbing is the one that accepts that men can have multiple wives but women can't have multiple husbands.   This would not even be an issue if the polygyngy advocates (who are the ones most scandalized by equality) would just shut UP.  The obvious and actually most "provable" solution is that there just isn't going to be any of this kind of thing.  But we have way too many Mormon men still out there talking about polygyny as the real deal (including Hales, BTW).

 

"Enjoyed"? Not hardly my dear. Is it a blessing to imagine your husband "enjoying" multiple "heavenly mothers" in eternity? I do not enjoy contemplating something so complex that it involves my wife being married to multiple men in the eternities. Try and sell THAT to investigators, or even many generational Mormons. If "patriarchal marriage" is also matriarchal marriage, the religion needs to go down. I'm not in....

 

My dear?  Seriously?  That says a lot about how you view women so a stance that winks at polygyny but gets hysterical at the thought of polyandry sort of fits, unfortunately.  Like it or not,  there are blessings attached to sealings.  It is a here and now thing for a man to be sealed to a second wife where the woman has to have special permission and just hope.  If she can't be, she and the new husband end up in a situation where his children are not sealed to him.   So this isn't about what happens after you are dead.  It is what happens when we continue to support 19th century attitudes about women while giving men all kinds of allowances.  So as theoretical as these debates are,  it does come down to real life consequences and heart ache.

 

 

Hearsay is hearsay, no shame in me calling it what it is. Knowing hearsay from verifiable fact is important. What I did find on wikipedia is a reference to the 1998 CHI which only allowed a deceased woman could be sealed to more than one man. The 2006 version does not seem much different. "Other woman talking about it online" isn't really the a basis for truth. The Church does allow for Temple marriages for time only uncertain circumstances.

I know a woman who is living who was sealed to her first husband (who died as a member in good standing) and this woman is now sealed to her second husband who is also a member in good standing. However, she had to get special permission and I was told the first sealing was "cancelled" to allow the second. Would she be a liar to say "i was sealed to my first husband who is dead, and I am now sealed to my second husband who is living."

Well, they are all liars then.  And your example is absurd.  Whatever.

Edited September 5, 2013 by juliann

[foster]

No reason to call them liars. It could be a simple misunderstanding.

Edited September 5, 2013 by foster

[Calm]

These women would know whether or not they had to apply for a cancellation of a sealing, would they not?

[Calm]

Btw, it is not hearsay for us when we have been told by someone with a firsthand experience...someone we know quite well and know that this person (the bishop Juliann refers to) is well aware of the implications of a living woman having two sealings at once, is well aware of what the CHI currently says and so would not make so clumsy of an error of somehow magically forgetting about a cancelation that took place when stating a second sealing took place without there being a cancelation first.

Just to be clear, in this specific case and others that Juliann refers to as having been shared online, people are specifically saying "no cancelation was involved". These are not cases where the cancelation hasn't been mentioned, they are cases where the cancelation has been specifically mentioned as not being required by special permission.

One does not need special permission to get a cancelation...that is a standard procedure with its own standard forms, etc.

Edited September 5, 2013 by calmoriah

[foster]

Calmoriah, human error is a wonderful thing and it is not as though people who know better act better. Nothing in the handbooks allows for it, but oh well. Marriages "for time" can be done in Temples even with a prior sealing.

[Calm]

Calmoriah, human error is a wonderful thing and it is not as though people who know better act better. Nothing in the handbooks allows for it, but oh well. 

This is not about error due to a vague story or uncertain process, this is about people relating a very specific story like the bishop who told us about helping his sister-in-law get clearance for a second sealing.  Do you really think he could be mistaken about whether or not a cancelation was done when he went through all that effort to make it possible for the first sealing to stay intact even with a second sealing?  Do you really think he didn't know exactly what he asked for in the process?  Your reasoning about human error crosses into the guy having amnesia or delusions or the church leadership who approved the process intentionally going ahead with a cancelation behind their backs and lying to them about it not being done.

 

Marriages for eternity can and have been done in the temple even with a prior sealing still in place with special permission....the reason for special permission is because there is nothing in the handbooks.  Not all ordinances are done by the handbook.  We had a member who was baptized even though he was a heavy smoker because his doctors told him not to quit smoking.  Special permission was given because it was not by the handbook.

 

Marriages "for time" can be done in Temples even with a prior sealing.

 

Which has nothing to do with what we are talking about.  If you think these people would have gone to all of this effort and not noticed once they were in the temple the person marrying them stated "for time only"....  It is not that difficult of a request to figure out...."Dear First Presidency, I am soon to marry a wonderful man as my second husband and it would break my heart if I couldn't be sealed to him, but I also love my first husband dearly and don't want to turn my back on the commitment we made to each other in the temple when we were sealed together even though he is now dead and I am now with this other man.  I know it's not the way things are usually done, but please allow me to be sealed to two men even though it is currently not standard protocol."  

Edited September 5, 2013 by calmoriah

[BCSpace]

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?

He did.  Even the church website is admitting that.   Deny it until the cows come home....but it is there.

 

Is the Church admitting or implying actual polyandrous relationships? I do so deny.

Edited September 5, 2013 by BCSpace

[canard78]

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.

 

I just found one for £27 including postage (about $40).

 

I couldn't resist and bought it. 

 

Once it arrives I'll report back on the sections included/excluded.

 

More info on the book:

 

 

One University of Utah graduate student in 1963 described Mormon fundamentalism as a “protest to adaptation.”18While certainly a majority of Mormons had grown weary of the conflicts with the larger society, some dissenters sought to preserve the old ways, and some were in positions of religious authority.19 They grumbled and fought change from within until they died or were driven out by the striving for a new future that Grant represented. In a way, the Church insured that these fundamentalists would metastasize. By the 1930s they emerged as an annoying voice in opposition, challenging the big church’s version of whether, how, and why this change came about.

One of the things I stumbled across in studying this subject was that in 1930 the LDS Church published Latter-Day Revelations: Selections from the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As its title states, it was an abridged version of the Doctrine and Covenants, one of the four Mormon canonized texts. It contained forty-one sections, some of them abridged, and did not include Section 132 on celestial marriage. Prepared by James E. Talmage, an educator, scientist, and apostle, the book was published in English, Spanish, and Norwegian. Fundamentalist Mormons leaped on the book as an example of the Church’s continuing efforts to jettison unique Mormon doctrines. The Church quickly retreated, withdrawing the book from sale.20 In 1941 an essay in the fundamentalist Mormon monthly magazine TRUTH pointed out that, in addition to omitting Section 132, Section 85, which predicted a time when one “mighty and strong” would have to set the Church “in order,” had also been omitted. “These two revelations apparently constituted a thorn in the side of the leaders of the Church who had repudiated and surrendered the principles involved.” TRUTH then noted sarcastically that omitted revelations “were considered obsolete and of no ‘enduring value’, and hence were omitted from Dr. Talmage’s book.”21

 

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V41N02_87.pdf

Edited September 6, 2013 by canard78

[foster]

Is the Church admitting or implying actual polyandrous relationships? I do so deny.

Are you attempting to distinguish "spiritual marriages" from "conjugal marriages"? The Church admits Joseph Smith engaged in the former by accepting that Joseph Smith was involved in polyandry from a "spiritual" standpoint. I have not read anything from the Church discussion Joseph Smith and "conjugal" polyandry.

Edited September 6, 2013 by foster

[canard78]

Are you attempting to distinguish "spiritual marriages" from "conjugal marriages"? The Church admits Joseph Smith engaged in the former by accepting that Joseph Smith was involved in polyandry from a "spiritual" standpoint. I have not read anything from the Church discussion Joseph Smith and "conjugal" polyandry.

I've been asking for any church reference to Joseph's polyandry from an official source (lds.org/newsroom/josephsmithpapers).

Can you provide a source to back up your claim that the church admits Joseph engaged in "spiritual polyandry." I can't find a single one.

[David T]

Canard, had you seen my Post #50? Wanted to make sure it didn't get past you. Didn't see you comment on it.

[USU78]

I've been asking for any church reference to Joseph's polyandry from an official source (lds.org/newsroom/josephsmithpapers).

Can you provide a source to back up your claim that the church admits Joseph engaged in "spiritual polyandry." I can't find a single one.

 

I find the Vilate Kimball story all over the place [here is a nice summary with some sources, all ultimately sourced to Church documents:  http://ldswomenshistory.blogspot.com/2009/03/vilate-murray-kimball.html]

 

That story is only interesting if some people actually went through with the sealing.  Abrahamic tests abound in the Restoration.  This was one type.  Polygyny itself is another. 

 

You need to free yourself from the pernicious notion that stuff is being kept secret.  You can research whatever you want and can gain access to most primary sources.

[BCSpace]

He did.  Even the church website is admitting that.   Deny it until the cows come home....but it is there.

Is the Church admitting or implying actual polyandrous relationships? I do so deny.

 

 

I followed up with the Church on D&C 132:51 and other references coming up when one searches on the term "polyandry" even though none of the references contains the word "polyandry".  Here is the response I got back:

 

 

Thank you for your feedback.  What you experienced was the programmatic relationship between polygamy and polyandry and the search indexing system as it follows links.  The link for D&C 132 came up because in the section summary online there is a link to the Official Declaration 1, which has 3 mentions of the word "polygamy" since that's the main subject of the document.  Due to the number of references to "polygamy", the internal index reached for other synonyms or in this case likely a homonym which would include "polyandry" in the linguistic relationship.  This was the "intelligence" of a machine trying to increase your search results without it knowing that there were meaningful inferences involved

 

We appreciate this feedback as we can correct links like this that can be misleading to others.

 

Now I don't think polygamy and polyandry are actual homonyms, but I do understand search indexes and algorithms.  As of this moment, the search results are the same, but I don't think it matters anymore to those of us who are now in the know.  It does illustrate that every little thing, especially on a hair trigger subject like this, can erroneously be taken as a statement by the Church.

Edited September 7, 2013 by BCSpace