Evidence For An 1831 Date For Section 132?

[canard78]

What I am suggesting is that the timing of the restoration of the sealing power doesn't negate the 1831 dating of the revelation or related practices, nor is it evidence one way or another In other words, your confusing principles with restored keys and practices, does not negate multiple testimonies to the contrary, nor is it evidence, in and of itself for when the revelation may have been received.

However, people are free to speculate, with or without evidence, as they wish on this relatively inconsequential issue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

But what evidence have you offered for 1831? I've not seen any.

[canard78]

http://bycommonconsent.com/?s=sunday+evening+s+part+1

Stumbled onto this website...very interesting insights and a lot to read, seems like legit info and may hold the key.

Can you be more specific? Not sure which bit you're referring to.

[canard78]

Like I said at the beginning, there are only two evidences.

One is the revelation given about marrying Lamanites received while on the mission. The other is the probable coincidence of the answer in D&C 1 with the asking of the question during the translation of the Bible.

If neither is sufficient then there is little proof. Personally, I find them sufficient.

A revelation recalled only 30 years later and a coincidence? Correlation is not causality.

[Tacenda]

Can you be more specific? Not sure which bit you're referring to.

I thought it held thorough documentation of a timeline and might have something. But it's hard to get through it all, was just putting it out there.

[cinepro]

It looks like the subject of an 1831 revelation on polygamy has been discussed by historians elsewhere, including the Tanners.

 

This page discusses the subject.  It appears to be a pro-LDS review of an anti-Mormon pamphlet, which also discusses the Tanners.  Or it may be an anti-Mormon review of a pro-Mormon rebuttal to the Tanners.  I'm not sure which,and most the website is written in Finnish, but this quote is interesting:

 

 

 

Just when and how the practice of plural marriage started in the Mormon Church has caused much controversy. There is evidence, however, to show that it was secretly practiced when the Church was in Kirtland, Ohio. In the introduction to Vol. 5 of Joseph Smith's History of the Church, the Mormon historian B. H. Roberts stated that the 'date in the heading of the Revelation on the Eternity of the Marriage Covenant, including the Plurality of Wives, notes the time at which the revelation was committed to writing, not the time at which the principles set forth in the revelation were first made known to the Prophet.' Fawn Brodie states that Joseph Fielding Smith told her "that a revelation foreshadowing polygamy had been written in 1831, but that it had never been published. In conformity with the church policy, however, he would not permit the manuscript, which he acknowledged to be in possession of the church library, to be examined.' (No Man Knows My History, page 184, footnote) Mormonism--Shadow or Reality? p. 203)

 

So apparently the missing link is a written revelation that Joseph Fielding Smith told Fawn Brodie that the Church had...

 

Also this:

 

Michael Marquardt, a young scholar who was very disturbed with the Church's policy of suppressing important records, became interested in doing research with regard to the 1831 revelation. He found that some Mormon scholars had copies of the revelation, but they had had to promise not to make any copies. Finally, Mr. Marquardt learned what appears to be the reason why the revelation was suppressed--i.e., thatthe revelation commanded the Mormons to marry the Indians to make them a "white" and "delightsome" people.

Edited November 11, 2014 by cinepro

[stemelbow]

I remember this claim to revelation.

How did Michael Marquardt know the reason for the suppression? It seems like that could be relying on the note posted earlier in this thread, no?

[Calm]

It is an anti site.

There is a very strong antimormon presence in Finland according to a Finnish friend I have.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You seem angry. We're not talking about pigs here (at least I didn't imagine so).

Cam angry?? Rofl.

[Calm]

I do get angry, I just save telling people about it (in hopefully a relatively intelligent and controlled manner and not hulking out) most of the times for where it will have a positive impact and avoid indulging in it the rest of the time (as it takes a lot of energy and leaves me feeling physically sick...adrenalin rush followed by drop…I am sensitive that way ), which it won't here.

 

It is hard to get angry about anything on this board because I usually get angry when I see someone being attacked in a nasty way (think "abuse") and here I know the mods will take care of it so the motivation to protect which drives my anger doesn't kick in enough save to hit the report button.

Edited November 13, 2014 by calmoriah