The 1930 "cut-Down" D&c. The One That Removed Section 132 And 135...

[Questing Beast]

Not to FLDS and others; to them patriarchal marriage refers to the original "patriarchs" of the OT, who all had multiple wives/concubines....

[Stone holm]

Not to FLDS and others; to them patriarchal marriage refers to the original "patriarchs" of the OT, who all had multiple wives/concubines....

 

Possibly,have no idea what the FLDS believe or don't believe -- thought we were talking in the LDS context.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

The D&C should always be a concertina scripture. It's the one that is still 'living.' If, like my waistline, it regularly changes size, expands and contracts, that should be something we can be comfortable with. Unfortunately, in 1930, there were too many people who couldn't deal with that and kicked off.

Expanding. Without a doubt, contracting...no that would not be living scripture, but dying. I joined the Church in 1979, that is the Church I love and want to remain a part of for the rest of my life.

[Questing Beast]

Possibly,have no idea what the FLDS believe or don't believe -- thought we were talking in the LDS context.

I prefer to assign the title "patriarchal marriage" simply because the whole notion of polygamy sticks in my throat, and that title is beloved of modern polygamists and is therefore associated with them in my mind....

[canard78]

Hard to imagine they would chop 132 given its importance to the Temple. However, was Pres Grant the Pres who finally really stopped polygamy?

"...will reveal many great and marvellous things."

Why can't a section 139 replace a 132? There have been plenty of times when new things have been added. The family proclamation is expected by many to eventually be added. This would remove the need for 132.

[canard78]

Expanding. Without a doubt, contracting...no that would not be living scripture, but dying. I joined the Church in 1979, that is the Church I love and want to remain a part of for the rest of my life.

Where are the Lectures on Faith? Where is section 101/109? It did shrink at least once.

What "Latter-day Revelation" did was to show that many of the sections are interesting as a piece of history but are not current. They are not essential.

[foster]

"...will reveal many great and marvellous things."Why can't a section 139 replace a 132? There have been plenty of times when new things have been added. The family proclamation is expected by many to eventually be added. This would remove the need for 132.

Why would section 132 need to be replaced? Does the proclamation cover eternal marriage by the Priesthood Authority? Does the proclamation cover The Law of The Priesthood?

[JLHPROF]

I think the Proclamation on the Family should replace section 132.

 

That is the most horrifying thing I've ever read...to replace the direct word of God answering a prophet's question with eternal information with a policy document and press release.

 

The proclamation is a good document, but it isn't literally the Lord's voice - D&C 132:2 - Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.

 

Who are we to decide this is no longer scripture?

[canard78]

That is the most horrifying thing I've ever read...to replace the direct word of God answering a prophet's question with eternal information with a policy document and press release.

The proclamation is a good document, but it isn't literally the Lord's voice - D&C 132:2 - Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.

Who are we to decide this is no longer scripture?

We're not. But apparently two prophets thought it was ok to drop it from a condensed version in 1930.

[Stone holm]

"...will reveal many great and marvellous things."

Why can't a section 139 replace a 132? There have been plenty of times when new things have been added. The family proclamation is expected by many to eventually be added. This would remove the need for 132.

Would have to disagree that the Proclamation could replace the 132nd, and certainly hope it is not added.

[JLHPROF]

No it is still relevant.  A Priesthood holder, can still have two eternal wives -- they just aren't suppose to both be alive.  In addition, a civil divorce does not necessarily result in a cancelation of sealings -- so a divorced man can remarry in the Temple without having the sealing to a former wife canceled.

How many post-manifesto Church presidents and apostles are sitting up there in the next life with plural wives?

 

Heber J. Grant, Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee, Howard W. Hunter, (and if you believe certain urban rumours, David O. McKay) to name just a few.

And there will likely be more - who knows, maybe President Monson will remarry.

[JLHPROF]

We're not. But apparently two prophets thought it was ok to drop it from a condensed version in 1930.

And quickly realized they were wrong and put it back - ...well, public demand had them put it back.

But seriously, if God specifically said something, (i.e. it's in his voice), even if the doctrine had changed I would still consider it scripture.  After all, aren't the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and other sources of the law of Moses still scripture?

[Stone holm]

How many post-manifesto Church presidents and apostles are sitting up there in the next life with plural wives?

 

Heber J. Grant, Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee, Howard W. Hunter, (and if you believe certain urban rumours, David O. McKay) to name just a few.

And there will likely be more - who knows, maybe President Monson will remarry.

I suspect there are quite a few Brs. In the same situation.

[canard78]

And quickly realized they were wrong and put it back - ...well, public demand had them put it back.

But seriously, if God specifically said something, (i.e. it's in his voice), even if the doctrine had changed I would still consider it scripture.  After all, aren't the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and other sources of the law of Moses still scripture?

You mean membership opinion agitated for change (albeit back to the status quo)? Excellent. I'm glad it sometimes has an effect.

And yes, Leviticus was scripture that applied at a certain time. Lots of it doesn't any more. I'm guessing you don't apply all of leviticus to your own life? The same could apply to parts of D&C if God wanted it to.

[JLHPROF]

You mean membership opinion agitated for change (albeit back to the status quo)? Excellent. I'm glad it sometimes has an effect.

And yes, Leviticus was scripture that applied at a certain time. Lots of it doesn't any more. I'm guessing you don't apply all of leviticus to your own life? The same could apply to parts of D&C if God wanted it to.

No, I mean membership opinion objected to change to God's word without God's word on the matter.  That is the key issue here - I don't care if every single member of the church up to and including the GA's say that a piece of scripture is no longer necessary.  I only care what God says and since he cared enough to give it to us we should keep hold to it until he says otherwise.  That's the big issue with this thread, the women and priesthood thread, and most of the doctrines that get discussed and debated.  We keep worrying about what we the members want and it should be completely irrelevant.  The will of the Lord is the only thing that matters.

 

And yes, while we don't apply all of Leviticus today,  I don't see anyone saying "remove it from the Bible".   We didn't replace Leviticus with Matthew just because it's more applicable.  And getting back to the original point, we don't replace D&C 132 with the Proclamation.

[Coreyb]

I say remove nothing, add king follet, sermon in the grove, the lectures on faith, Josephs uncanonized revelations, John Taylor's revelations, Wilford Woodruff's revelations, Lorenzo Snow's revelations and The Proclamation. Most members dont read the D&C anyways, make it for those of us who do. Not that I want to command God, just hopeful wishing

[Calm]

Nothing is stopping people from studying those now. Why do they need to be canonised?

[JLHPROF]

I say remove nothing, add king follet, sermon in the grove, the lectures on faith, Josephs uncanonized revelations, John Taylor's revelations, Wilford Woodruff's revelations, Lorenzo Snow's revelations and The Proclamation. Most members dont read the D&C anyways, make it for those of us who do. Not that I want to command God, just hopeful wishing

 

Amen.

[Coreyb]

Because right now if you were to quote from them half the congregation is clueless and the other half are alarmed that you aren't sticking to the scriptures. Plus it would make them more easily available to everybody

[Garden Girl]

I get upset when I accidentally give a rep point (OP) and don't know how to retract it... Is there a way?

 

GG

[canard78]

Because right now if you were to quote from them half the congregation is clueless and the other half are alarmed that you aren't sticking to the scriptures. Plus it would make them more easily available to everybody

 

I tend to find that as long as you start by saying something like: "The beauty of LDS.org is the availability of the back-catalogue of conference and Ensign talks. In the April 1971 Ensign a sermon that Joseph Smith gave at the funeral of a man called King Follet was included. In this sermon he said..." and then quote what you like from here: http://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon

 

LDS.org is a genuine treasure trove of "quotables."

 

For example: August 2000 Ensign quotes Elder B. H. Roberts, who says:

 

“While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is established for the instruction of men; and it is one of God’s instrumentalities for making known the truth yet he is not limited to that institution for such purposes, neither in time nor place. God raises up wise men and prophets here and there among all the children of men, of their own tongue and nationality, speaking to them through means that they can comprehend. … All the great teachers are servants of God; among all nations and in all ages. They are inspired men, appointed to instruct God’s children according to the conditions in the midst of which he finds them.”

B.H. Roberts

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/08/a-latter-day-saint-perspective-on-muhammad?lang=eng

[canard78]

I get upset when I accidentally give a rep point (OP) and don't know how to retract it... Is there a way?

 

GG

 

 

I know the feeling; I've sometimes done it by accident too.

 

Don't worry, I'll ignore it. Maybe if I ever say something you do actually agree with you can skip giving me a rep point. That way equilibrium will be restored.

 

(P.S. I repped you back just to keep us even   )

[Calm]

Canard undoubtedly has some quiet, quirky post that deserved a rep point and didn't get one, so in the season of giving and joy, think of that worthy, but so sad and lonely post and be at peace.

http://www.sherv.net/plugging.xmas.tree-emoticon-1525.html

Edited December 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

Canard undoubtedly has some quiet, quirky post that deserved a rep point and didn't get one, so in the season of giving and joy, think of that worthy, but so sad and lonely post and be at peace.

http://www.sherv.net/plugging.xmas.tree-emoticon-1525.html

I switched out of mobile version especially to be able to rep you too

[Calm]

I just need to remember how to code that image so we can all enjoy Christmas lights...I think my email got hacked on my laptop and computer and so that leaves with an iPad....

Couldn't get it to work...tomorrow I swear by yea and nay to find the best collection of Christmas smilies I can with a very minimal of effort that work on this board.

Edited December 15, 2013 by calmoriah