Gospel Doctrine And D&c 132: The Tetraannual Discussion

[canard78]

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:

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'm delighted to see this progress towards more open books.

Polyandru was among the last few "hidden" bits of our history. To see polyandry admitted on LDS.org means that it can now be removed from the list.

http://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&query=%22polyandrous+marriages+took+place%22

I'm not saying it'll now become a Sunday school topic, but it can be used as a church sourced quote if relevant.

[canard78]

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

Thanks David, I'd not seen that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

[canard78]

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.

Hi USU78, the source you provided is not an official one. David T has kindly provided one. I'd not been asking the question for the reasons you seem to assume but because it was one of the few things the church had never acknowledged that I was still interested to see their take on.

I'm currently compiling a reference list of history from official sources for hobbyist reasons. Not because the non-official sources are invalid but because some people continue to view them with suspicion and would prefer to read things with the church stamp of approval on them.

I've chilled out quite a lot in the last few months having reached a new paradigm that works. It's one that would still be considered somewhat heterodox by some but that I've found brings spiritual peace and also feel the heavens approve of (having asked in prayer).

[Tacenda]

 

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.

Pernicious for sure, not notion.  It is harmful that we haven't known about so much in church history unless we are scholars and search outside the box.  You are definitely mistaken when you say something like that.  The only reason the church is coming out with things now, is because they can't hide it, not with the internet explosion.  The source for the BlogSpot you pasted was Todd Compton's "In Sacred Loneliness" and it was pulled from the Deseret Bookstore shelves several years ago.  I wonder if the church will put it back, haha.       

[canard78]

Pernicious for sure, not notion. It is harmful that we haven't known about so much in church history unless we are scholars and search outside the box. You are definitely mistaken when you say something like that. The only reason the church is coming out with things now, is because they can't hide it, not with the internet explosion. The source for the BlogSpot you pasted was Todd Compton's "In Sacred Loneliness" and it was pulled from the Deseret Bookstore shelves several years ago. I wonder if the church will put it back, haha.

I think you make a very fair point. My wife observed the same. If it weren't for the advent of the Internet and the easy availability of information I'd wonder whether this would be opening in this way.

Having said that, the Joseph Smith Papers Project is not a knee jerk reaction to the recent swathe of Internet information. It's been a project in progress for over a decade (since 2001??)

[foster]

Not sure if it was mentioned here. I realized something on Sunday, Section 132 is about two topics Eternal Marriage and plural spouses.

The New and Everlasting Covenant is eternal marriage.

The Law of the Priesthood is plurality of spouses.

[cinepro]

Not sure if it was mentioned here. I realized something on Sunday, Section 132 is about two topics Eternal Marriage and plural spouses.

The New and Everlasting Covenant is eternal marriage.

The Law of the Priesthood is plurality of spouses.

 

It's also quite possible that the definition for those terms has changed a little over the last 170 years.

[USU78]

Pernicious for sure, not notion.  It is harmful that we haven't known about so much in church history unless we are scholars and search outside the box.  You are definitely mistaken when you say something like that.  The only reason the church is coming out with things now, is because they can't hide it, not with the internet explosion.  The source for the BlogSpot you pasted was Todd Compton's "In Sacred Loneliness" and it was pulled from the Deseret Bookstore shelves several years ago.  I wonder if the church will put it back, haha.       

 

Compton's agenda-driven piece is nice, but hardly scholarship.

 

And, no, nothing was secret.  Not ever.

 

If you grew up when I did, in the '50s-'60s, you simply knew this stuff,  Everybody talked about it.  High Priest groups (if my grandfathers' were remotely typical, which i tend to believe), they spent several HP lessons a year speculating on multiple wives, JSJr's sealings, the Vilate Kimball story, BY's "real" and "not-so-real" marriages to both the nubile and the post-menopausal.

 

Those who came up with the "secret polygamy" story conflate the "running and hiding" years between BY's death and, roughly, Utah statement, when the federal mashalls were all over Deseret, looking for "cohabs" and the later de-emphasis on teaching polygyny over the pulpit with a suppression of the Principle and everything to do with it with the Missouri-esque "Mormons are liars and thieves and murderers" ethos.  It neither was nor is  true.  It neither is nor was secret.  If you didn't know, you were ignoring the plain truth.

 

The Vilate Kimball story shows up all over the place.  Ignoring this fact makes the "you guys lied to us" crowd look disingenuous.  JSJr proposes marriage to a close associate's wife.  If it hadn't been a real possibility, known to the Kimballs, their willing sacrifice means nothing.  You don't need an abacus to connect those dots.  And to claim the Church impliedly taught that nobody ever was required to go through with it is hollow and tendentious.  You've got to want the Church to be sleasy pretty badly to make such a claim against common sense.

Edited September 12, 2013 by USU78

[Analytics]

And, no, nothing was secret.  Not ever.

 

Except, of course, for the doctrine of plural marriage itself, which was secret until August 29, 1852.

[cinepro]

The Vilate Kimball story shows up all over the place.  Ignoring this fact makes the "you guys lied to us" crowd look disingenuous.  JSJr proposes marriage to a close associate's wife.  If it hadn't been a real possibility, known to the Kimballs, their willing sacrifice means nothing.  You don't need an abacus to connect those dots.  And to claim the Church impliedly taught that nobody ever was required to go through with it is hollow and tendentious.  You've got to want the Church to be sleasy pretty badly to make such a claim against common sense.

 

That's great to hear that the Church is so open with the story of Joseph Smith and Vilate Kimball.  I'd love to read more about it in a Church publication.   Is there a place on the Church website that tells the story?

[David T]

Compton's agenda-driven piece is nice, but hardly scholarship.

 

Most scholars who research this period of JS's life would seriously disagree with you there. Even Brian Hales, in his exhaustive book and decidedly Pro-faithful-LDS perspective, expressed the great value that came from Compton's  work. There are, of course, differences in interpretation, but the scholarship is indeed massive, was groundbreaking, and remains very valuable.

Edited September 13, 2013 by David T

[SargentYork]

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.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

Do you have any answers to offer?

[MormonMason]

In one polyandry case I actually looked into in-depth, I found some interesting things.  Unfortunately, I do not have access to my notes so I cannot recall the name of either the man or the woman involved.  But what I do recall in that case I looked into is that what had happened was that Joseph Smith knew there could be problems with State law concerning marriage while in Nauvoo.  So, he had the woman sealed to him but then had a marriage ceremony performed and recorded in the Nauvoo marriages book for the public records.  It was a sham marriage in which the woman was married to a widower for the public books but the marriage was identified in the man's personal journal as a "pretended marriage."  Joseph Smith would frequently visit this plural wife who was married on the books to a widower but sealed to Joseph Smith.  In exchange for what the man was willing to do for Joseph, he sealed the man's deceased wife to the widower.

 

In another case that I looked into (I also do not recall the names but someone here might), there was a woman who was married to a non-member and Joseph Smith had her sealed to himself as a plural wife when her husband had left her for a time.  When the husband decided to try to work things out and returned, Joseph returned her to her non-member husband but she still remained sealed to the Prophet.

 

Wish I could recall the details now, and wish I had access to my notes, but there are other circumstances in which I think similar things happened with some of the others as well.

[USU78]

Except, of course, for the doctrine of plural marriage itself, which was secret until August 29, 1852.

 

non sequitur.

[foster]

When did correlation come about in the Church? With correlation were members asked to stick to topics at hand and the materials in the manual. To project ones experience in the Church onto to rest of world is ridiculous.

[USU78]

That's great to hear that the Church is so open with the story of Joseph Smith and Vilate Kimball.  I'd love to read more about it in a Church publication.   Is there a place on the Church website that tells the story?

 

Smartaleck.

 

Do you really assert that the Vilate Kimball as Abrahamic Sacrifice story is generally unknown presently . . . or 50 years ago . . . or 100 years ago . . . or 150 years ago?

[USU78]

When did correlation come about in the Church? With correlation were members asked to stick to topics at hand and the materials in the manual. To project ones experience in the Church onto to rest of world is ridiculous.

 

As ridiculous as claiming, perhaps, that tightening up curriculum for a no-longer-regional church and, thereby, encouraging the breaking of [bad?] habits amounts to suppressing information.

 

I understand the agenda and the narrative that's driven by the agenda:  Mormons are not only violent, patriarchal, and dishonest, they are also secretive.

 

If they/we are so secretive, why is all this information so freely available . . . and from Church-sponsored sources . . . and to just about anybody interested enough to look at it?

[USU78]

Most scholars who research this period of JS's life would seriously disagree with you there. Even Brian Hales, in his exhaustive book and decidedly Pro-faithful-LDS perspective, expressed the great value that came from Compton's  work. There are, of course, differences in interpretation, but the scholarship is indeed massive, was groundbreaking, and remains very valuable.

 

We'll have to disagree on that.

 

To me a real scholar takes no positions where there is evidence on both sides of a question.  He doesn't marshall evidence for one side like a prosecutor.

 

Do you disagree that Compton's work was for general circulation and had an agenda?

[David T]

 

If they/we are so secretive, why is all this information so freely available . . . and from Church-sponsored sources . . . and to just about anybody interested enough to look at it?

 

There's a bit of presentism going on there. Church Archives haven't ever, ever been as open or accessible as they are now. And even then, it seems pretty much every other volume of the JSPP utilized First Presidency Vault material previously specifically unavailable to anyone. Book of Commandments and Revelations (BCR, IE, Revelation Book 1). William Clayton Journal. Council of 50 Minutes., etc.

 

It's undeniable the Church's history archives are wonderfully and amazingly open and accessable now (and online searchable!). This hasn't always been the case. One may give arguments whether that was good or bad, but that things are different now is a fact. That information is being presented in official Church publications and settings now that wasn't in the past is also a fact. This isn't an attack, there isn't value or motivation attached, it's simply a fact.

[MormonMason]

Not sure if it was mentioned here. I realized something on Sunday, Section 132 is about two topics Eternal Marriage and plural spouses.

The New and Everlasting Covenant is eternal marriage.

The Law of the Priesthood is plurality of spouses.

This is true.  With the exception of the introductory verses introducing the reader to the principles contained in the revelation and the basis for it, you actually can draw a line between verses 27 and 28 and separate the topics cleanly.

[USU78]

There's a bit of presentism going on there. Church Archives haven't ever, ever been as open or accessible as they are now. And even then, it seems pretty much every other volume of the JSPP utilized First Presidency Vault material previously specifically unavailable to anyone. Book of Commandments and Revelations (BCR, IE, Revelation Book 1). William Clayton Journal. Council of 50 Minutes., etc.

 

It's undeniable the Church's history archives are wonderfully and amazingly open and accessable now (and online searchable!). This hasn't always been the case. One may give arguments whether that was good or bad, but that things are different now is a fact. That information is being presented in official Church publications and settings now that wasn't in the past is also a fact. This isn't an attack, there isn't value or motivation attached, it's simply a fact.

 

You'll get no argument from me that there has been differing degrees of access at different times.  An organization on the run, at war, and in serious debt during the majority of its history will not have the leisure to engage in such useful and peaceful pursuits. 

 

But you're avoiding the principal issue, as I understand it:  the agenda-driven narrative that foster, cinepro and others so enthusiastically push; viz, that Mormons are not only violent, patriarchal and dishonest, but also secretive.  Any factual datum that is used in aid of that agenda-driven narrative cannot be looked at in a vaccuum.  We need to get it out into the open and air it out.

 

If you're going to quibble about presentism under these circumstances, you ought to be fair in how you present the argument. 

[foster]

As ridiculous as claiming, perhaps, that tightening up curriculum for a no-longer-regional church and, thereby, encouraging the breaking of [bad?] habits amounts to suppressing information. I understand the agenda and the narrative that's driven by the agenda:  Mormons are not only violent, patriarchal, and dishonest, they are also secretive. If they/we are so secretive, why is all this information so freely available . . . and from Church-sponsored sources . . . and to just about anybody interested enough to look at it?

From what official Church source can I find out about Vilate Kimball being given to Joseph Smith? I did not know her story till 10 minutes ago when you proclaimed that all should know it. When should I have first learned Vilate was given to Joseph Smith at his instruction but when she was brought he wept and told heber and Vilate it was a test.

[David T]

We'll have to disagree on that.

 

To me a real scholar takes no positions where there is evidence on both sides of a question. 

I must not be familiar with any Real Scholars, then. Even Bushman wouldn't qualify. Or Hales. Or David McCullough

 

There is a difference between presenting a Documentary History, which only provides the raw documents, and a work that seeks to interpret the evidence, and explores what it means in context. Most biographers and historians in general use material in the former to compose an informed version of the latter, often expressing different perspectives on what the evidence mean, and then expressing why one position may be more logical or accurate than another. This is scholarship. Scholarship involves making informed connections between documentary material.

 

Compton definitely had an interpretive lens, but his presentation of documentary evidence and biogrpahical insight into the lives of Joseph's wives is a work of acknowledged scholarship. Flawed scholarship, or scholarship that is later surpassed by something better or more informed doesn't make it not scholarship, or even useless. 

 

Heck, even the Joseph Smith Papers uses Compton's book as a useful reference source. For just two examples, see Note 54 here, 112 here, etc. (and its reference in the Comprehensive Works Cited, here).

 

Your definition of scholarship does not appear to be one shared with scholars.

Edited September 13, 2013 by David T

[foster]

 

But you're avoiding the principal issue, as I understand it:  the agenda-driven narrative that foster, cinepro and others so enthusiastically push; viz, that Mormons are not only violent, patriarchal and dishonest, but also secretive. 

 

 

 

USU YOU WILL CEASE BEARING FALSE WITNESS AGAINST ME! You will cease your lies about me!

 

I have challenged your claim about Vilate Kimball and nothing more.

Edited September 13, 2013 by foster

[USU78]

I must not be familiar with any Real Scholars, then. Even Bushman wouldn't qualify. Or Hales. Or David McCullough

 

There is a difference between presenting a Documentary History, which only provides the raw documents, and a work that seeks to interpret the evidence, and explores what it means in context. Most biographers and historians in general use material in the former to compose an informed version of the latter, often expressing different perspectives on what the evidence mean, and then expressing why one position may be more logical or accurate than another. This is scholarship. Scholarship involves making informed connections between documentary material.

 

Compton definitely had an interpretive lens, but his presentation of documentary evidence and biogrpahical insight into the lives of Joseph's wives is a work of acknowledged scholarship. Flawed scholarship, or scholarship that is later surpassed by something better or more informed doesn't make it not scholarship, or even useless. 

 

Heck, even the Joseph Smith Papers uses Compton's book as a useful reference source. For just two examples, see Note 54 here, 112 here, etc. (and its reference in the Comprehensive Works Cited, here).

 

Your definition of scholarship does not appear to be one shared with scholars.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

To the extent history is a science, it should not be agenda-driven.  Don't care about the old dictum:  "The victors write the history."  We should be neither too fawning nor too indictful in our treatment of matters of historical importance.  A feminist-agenda-driven piece on Mormon women of the XIXth Century is presentism of the worst sort.