Section 132: Of Man Or God?

[rockpond]

Kirk Van Allen takes a scripture-based, reasonable (IMO) look at whether polygamy is of God. Some of his positions reflect my beliefs.

http://mormonverse.com/2015/02/02/dc-132-a-revelation-of-men-not-god/

[The Nehor]

132 is of God. 134 is of man.

[Avatar4321]

God

[VideoGameJunkie]

I hope all scripture is from God and not from man.

[carbon dioxide]

Section 132 is of God.  Polygamy in general is of God when God authorizes the practice. 

 

Some of Mr Allens conclusions are not proven

 

"It is self-evident that monogamy is the only type of relationship where total fidelity, trust, and equality can be accomplished."  Really"  How many people cheat in such relationships. 

 

"In polygamy, marital relationships are perverted beyond something recognizable to any modern Mormon."   This does not mean that there is a problem with polygamy.  Just perhaps with modern society and how people have been raised.  A modern Mormon can live polygamy that is not perverted if God commands it again. 

 

"Science, itself, has shown that those in polygamous relationships have less children than monogamous couples would.  For example: if a man had three wives, and each of his wives had three children, there would be 9 children born.  Statistically, three men married to those same women would have an average of 12 children instead of only nine."  What is Mr Allen smoking?  Science does not teach that.  In fact science teaches that monogamy is the exception in the animal kingdom.  Math does suggest that if a man wants to have a bunch of kids, he needs to have multiple wives or women to accomplish it.

 

2 Chronicles 13:21: "But Abijah waxed mighty, and married fourteen wives, and begat twenty and two sons, and sixteen daughters".

 

Judges 12:13-14: "And after him Abdon the son of Hillel, a Pirathonite, judged Israel. And he had forty sons..." [40 sons and unknown number of daughters. Impossible without plural marriage.]

 

Judges 10:3-4: "And after him arose Jair, a Gileadite, and judged Israel twenty and two years. And he had thirty sons that rode on thirty *** colts, and they had thirty cities, which are called Havothjair unto this day, which [are] in the land of Gilead."   [Jair had 30 sons and who knows how many daughters. Impossible without plural marriage]

 

Ether 6: 20 And accordingly the people were gathered together. Now the number of the sons and the daughters of the brother of Jared were twenty and two souls;... [i guess its possible that a woman can have 22 kids but most likely the brother of Jared had at least another wife. 

 

Ether 7:1-2 1 "And it came to pass that Orihah did execute judgment upon the land in righteousness all his days, whose days were exceedingly many. And he begat sons and daughters; yea, he begat thirty and one, among whom were twenty and three sons."  31 kids for Orihah.  My bet he had more than one wife.

 

How can he not read 2 Samuel 12:7-12 and not see clearly from the prophet Nathan that not only did God (not man but God) gave David his wives and David would have received even more wives from God had he been faithful.  Since he had not been, God gave his wives to his neighbor.  So now his neighbor is a polygamist. 

 

2 Samual 12:7-12: "And Nathan said to David, Thou [art] the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if [that had been] too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.  Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife [to be] thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.  Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house,and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give [them] unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.  For thou didst [it] secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.

 

I guess for some people this is not even enough.  God can come down and say to them "I commanded polygamy" and they will think he was just kidding.

Edited March 9, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[rockpond]

Section 132 is of God.  Polygamy in general is of God when God authorizes the practice. 

 

Some of Mr Allens conclusions are not proven

 

"It is self-evident that monogamy is the only type of relationship where total fidelity, trust, and equality can be accomplished."  Really"  How many people cheat in such relationships. 

 

"In polygamy, marital relationships are perverted beyond something recognizable to any modern Mormon."   This does not mean that there is a problem with polygamy.  Just perhaps with modern society and how people have been raised.  A modern Mormon can live polygamy that is not perverted if God commands it again. 

 

"Science, itself, has shown that those in polygamous relationships have less children than monogamous couples would.  For example: if a man had three wives, and each of his wives had three children, there would be 9 children born.  Statistically, three men married to those same women would have an average of 12 children instead of only nine."  What is Mr Allen smoking?  Science does not teach that.  In fact science teaches that monogamy is the exception in the animal kingdom.  Math does suggest that if a man wants to have a bunch of kids, he needs to have multiple wives or women to accomplish it.

 

2 Chronicles 13:21: "But Abijah waxed mighty, and married fourteen wives, and begat twenty and two sons, and sixteen daughters".

 

Judges 12:13-14: "And after him Abdon the son of Hillel, a Pirathonite, judged Israel. And he had forty sons..." [40 sons and unknown number of daughters. Impossible without plural marriage.]

 

Judges 10:3-4: "And after him arose Jair, a Gileadite, and judged Israel twenty and two years. And he had thirty sons that rode on thirty *** colts, and they had thirty cities, which are called Havothjair unto this day, which [are] in the land of Gilead."   [Jair had 30 sons and who knows how many daughters. Impossible without plural marriage]

 

Ether 6: 20 And accordingly the people were gathered together. Now the number of the sons and the daughters of the brother of Jared were twenty and two souls;... [i guess its possible that a woman can have 22 kids but most likely the brother of Jared had at least another wife. 

 

Ether 7:1-2 1 "And it came to pass that Orihah did execute judgment upon the land in righteousness all his days, whose days were exceedingly many. And he begat sons and daughters; yea, he begat thirty and one, among whom were twenty and three sons."  31 kids for Orihah.  My bet he had more than one wife.

 

How can he not read 2 Samuel 12:7-12 and not see clearly from the prophet Nathan that not only did God (not man but God) gave David his wives and David would have received even more wives from God had he been faithful.  Since he had not been, God gave his wives to his neighbor.  So now his neighbor is a polygamist. 

 

2 Samual 12:7-12: "And Nathan said to David, Thou [art] the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if [that had been] too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.  Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife [to be] thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.  Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house,and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give [them] unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.  For thou didst [it] secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.

 

I guess for some people this is not even enough.  God can come down and say to them "I commanded polygamy" and they will think he was just kidding.

 

Your response here regarding number of children doesn't address the research he cited.

 

But I also realize that your post here really only responds to a small fraction of the points he made in the article.  I'm not suggesting you go need to go through point-by-point.

 

I just wouldn't want readers here to think that what you've mentioned above is the crux of the essay.  There's much more.

Edited March 9, 2015 by rockpond

[Coreyb]

I read it and am not sure what " the crux" of the article is. Maybe you could help me out on this one Rockpond? It seems toe like all the regular arguments against polygamy and section 132, just gathered into one place.

[Uncle Dale]

The Brighamites should have never canonized it --

but, since they did, we now know that the god who

communicated the text was verbose, repetitive,

vindictive, threatening, grandiose, provincial,

narrow-minded, and would have never supported

the "lost cause" of amending the U. S. Constitution 

with an "equal rights" statement.

 

Happily, those sorts of communications appear to

have gone the way of the buggy whip, and once

again the heavens are like unto brass.

 

UD

(just my opinion, mind you -- I never had a testimony of 132 to lose)

Edited March 9, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[BCSpace]

Kirk Van Allen takes a scripture-based, reasonable (IMO) look at whether polygamy is of God.

 

 

 

Doesn't take into account other verses such as 2 Samuel 12 which happens to be a case of God directly authorizing plural marriage.

[why me]

Kirk Van Allen takes a scripture-based, reasonable (IMO) look at whether polygamy is of God. Some of his positions reflect my beliefs.

http://mormonverse.com/2015/02/02/dc-132-a-revelation-of-men-not-god/

I read it as being from god. I do think that Joseph needed to have a concrete revelation about plural marriage. He began the practice in the early 1830s and then abandoned it when it caused serious problems. Later, in the early 40s when it began again, he needed some surety about the principle and thus we have 132. Critics would claim that joseph just wanted to mess around and because of his libido, he began polygamy. I doubt it. Joseph didn't need to start polygamy to get more sex. He could have traveled a few miles and had some action with a prostitute etc. In fact, polygamy caused him more headaches in his life. And these problems would have taken the enjoyment out of sex. And no women who was sealed to him ever said a negative word about him and about being his plural wife. And that counts for something.

 

So, I go with from god as a restoration of a principle from the OT.

 

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history-2/nauvoo-polygamy-1844/

 

Summary

 

During the last year of Joseph Smith’s life, he successfully shared the secret teaching of plural marriage with dozens of other Latter-day Saints. At his death, 115 men and women had entered into polygamous relationships by his authority. Emma’s rocky acceptance eventually morphed into a truce with Joseph marrying no additional wives after November of 1843. Joseph’s Second Counselor in the First Presidency, William Law, rejected plural marriage and Joseph Smith. Starting his own newspaper, the Nauvoo Expositor, he began the series of actions that ended in the martyrdom. In the 1860s William Marks asserted that Joseph had intended to abandon polygamy, but his claims are problematic. Numerous evidences regarding the Prophet’s last weeks and months support he had no such intentions. One late recollection quotes Joseph Smith as saying:

The same God that has thus far dictated and directed me, and inspired me and strengthened me in this work, gave me this revelation and commandment on Celestial and plural marriage; and the same God commanded me to obey it. He said to me that unless I accept it and introduce it, and practice it, I, together with my people, should be damned and cut off from this time henceforth. And they say if I do so, they will kill me. What shall I do! What shall I do! If I do not practice it, I shall be damned with all my people. If I do teach it and practice it and urge it, they say they will kill me, and I know they will. But said he, we have got to observe it, that it is an eternal principle, and that it was given to him by way of commandment and not by way of instruction.⁴²

 

 

Now this is an interesting link because it shows that joseph was actively teaching polygamy to many of the saints. And quite a few saints began to practice plural marriage in nauvoo in the early 40s. It wasn't such a secret at all.

 

To further along the discussion is a bio of Joseph's wives:

 

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history-2/plural-wives-overview/

 

Here is an excerpt from the Ruth Vose biography:

 

Ruth and Edward chose to return to Boston where they stayed until 1849. She was unable to be sealed by proxy to Joseph in the Nauvoo temple, but Church President Lorenzo Snow arranged for a vicarious ceremony to be performed for Ruth in the Salt Lake Temple in 1899.¹⁰ After their 5 year stay in Boston, Ruth and Edward moved to Utah, reuniting with old acquaintances.

Edward died in 1861 and Ruth in 1884. Her obituary gives a glimpse of her demeanor: “Tall and erect in figure, a countenance always beaming with human kindness, charitable to the poor and ever ready to comfort the disconsolate, she endeared herself to her associates. She was a woman of brilliant conversational powers and possessed a ready fund of valuable information, especially upon topics of interest to the Saints. She was never tired of relating incidents of her Boston life nor of dwelling upon Gospel themes and the days of Joseph and Hyrum.”¹¹

Edited March 9, 2015 by why me

[CV75]

Kirk Van Allen takes a scripture-based, reasonable (IMO) look at whether polygamy is of God. Some of his positions reflect my beliefs.

http://mormonverse.com/2015/02/02/dc-132-a-revelation-of-men-not-god/

Which ones warrant discussion?

[JLHPROF]

100% of God. There more in there than polygamy too. Doctrine that is clearly heaven sent.

[Buckeye]

Kirk Van Allen takes a scripture-based, reasonable (IMO) look at whether polygamy is of God. Some of his positions reflect my beliefs.

http://mormonverse.com/2015/02/02/dc-132-a-revelation-of-men-not-god/

 

Interesting read, rockpond. IMO, the most radical idea Mr. Van Allen proposes is not the rejection of polygamy per se, but the notion that revelations should be judged on their fruits. Imagine what would happen if we actually believed Alma 32?

[Tacenda]

http://www.deseretnews.com/user/comments/515039389/90-of-Provo-rapes-not-reported-to-police.html  

 

"PROVO — More than 90 percent of rapes in the city go unreported, according to the lead rape investigator for the BYU Police Department.

BYU officer Arnie Lemmon said only 43 rapes were reported last year in Provo, leaving the actual number of rapes estimated at more than 400 during 2002."

 

I just learned of this problem today, in a podcast I listened to that provided the information.  They attribute D&C 132 to be at the root.  They say it's a lust factor with the men, and their thinking that they'll live polygamy one day.  Also, the rape victims don't report and think it's partly their fault.  I know that D&C 132 was used by Elizabeth Smart's kidnapper/rapist.    

 

They mention this scripture in Moroni 9:9 "And notwithstanding this great ^aabomination of the Lamanites, it doth not exceed that of our people in Moriantum. For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after ^bdepriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is ^cchastity and ^dvirtue—" 

 

In Utah, 1 out of 3 girls and 1 out of 5 boys will be sexually abused by 18.  Nationally it is only 1 out of 6 for girls, and 1 out of 33 for boys, 6 times more likely to be sexually abused as a male, twice as likely for girls.  And usually by someone they know.  In a study in 1986 it stated 63% were abused by family members.

 

Could that section scripture be a problem?     

[bcuzbcuz]

Kirk Van Allen takes a scripture-based, reasonable (IMO) look at whether polygamy is of God. Some of his positions reflect my beliefs.

http://mormonverse.com/2015/02/02/dc-132-a-revelation-of-men-not-god/

Thank you. An excellent post. Polygamy is an abomination.

The scene I remember best from the movie Titanic (a movie That failed to thrill me in general), was about an elderly couple. Upon viewing the chaos and panic around them, they retired into their suite and chose to meet the end of life in a loving embrace. They chose serene companionship instead of a tormented, divisive struggle against the natural catastrophy and against the myriad others that fought for survival.

If polygamy is the ticket to the upper levels of salvation, I´ll be content at a lower level in the embrace of my one (!) wife. Content with one person who feels equally devoted to the concept of mutual enjoyment and the learning curve of the difficulties in a relationship.

Besides, my life experience has shown me that I have a terrible memory for names and dates and such. I have 9 children and thirteen grandchildren (as of yet). If it wasn´t for facebook I would never remember a dozen of the birthdays. At family reunions I habitually mix up all the kids whose names start with "L" or "M". If I had 35 wives I would never get beyond wife number 4 when calling everyone to dinner. They´d all need name tags.

[Mystery Meat]

Doesn't take into account other verses such as 2 Samuel 12 which happens to be a case of God directly authorizing plural marriage.

 

Exactly. He is no better than the folks at the time of the Savior who wrested the scriptures.

[Mystery Meat]

http://www.deseretnews.com/user/comments/515039389/90-of-Provo-rapes-not-reported-to-police.html

 

 

I just learned of this problem today, in a podcast I listened to that provided the information.  They attribute D&C 132 to be at the root.  They say it's a lust factor with the men, and their thinking that they'll live polygamy one day.  Also, the rape victims don't report and think it's partly their fault.  I know that D&C 132 was used by Elizabeth Smart's kidnapper/rapist.    

 

 

Somebody actually said this? And they actually believed it? 

 

If true, people are less intelligent then I thought (and I didn't think it was that high to begin with).

 

Which podcast was this?

[Tacenda]

Somebody actually said this? And they actually believed it? 

 

If true, people are less intelligent then I thought (and I didn't think it was that high to begin with).

 

Which podcast was this?

Sorry, it's not a podcast but a show, listened to, not watched.  And I know I'll get condemned for listening to it, it's called "Polygamy, What Love is This".

Edited March 9, 2015 by Tacenda

[bcuzbcuz]

 

Now this is an interesting link because it shows that joseph was actively teaching polygamy to many of the saints. And quite a few saints began to practice plural marriage in nauvoo in the early 40s. It wasn't such a secret at all.

 

You were raised in the church,¿No? Me too. But I´m probably a good deal older than you. I was baptized 1953. The number of times polygamy was discussed in Sunday school classes? Zero. The number of times polygamy was talked about from the pulpit during sacrament meeting? Zero. I remember a missionary companion joking about it in front of a group of other elders and he was quickly hushed by all present.

The internet has changed many things. I think it also creates false memories about the openness of the church regarding polygamy.

[omni]

In Utah, 1 out of 3 girls and 1 out of 5 boys will be sexually abused by 18. Nationally it is only 1 out of 6 for girls, and 1 out of 33 for boys, 6 times more likely to be sexually abused as a male, twice as likely for girls. And usually by someone they know. In a study in 1986 it stated 63% were abused by family members.

Could that section scripture be a problem?

.

Hi Tacenda,

This sounds really high. I'm wondering where they got there data. Do you have a link?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Interesting read, rockpond. IMO, the most radical idea Mr. Van Allen proposes is not the rejection of polygamy per se, but the notion that revelations should be judged on their fruits. Imagine what would happen if we actually believed Alma 32?

I am sorry were in Alam 32 do we learn that we can reject canonized scripture based upon personal opinion?  Why am I not surprised that Rockpond thinks that part of the D&C is not of God and I am not surprised that you agree with him. And Mr Allen does indeed reject polygamy. That is his entire premise.

[Lachoneus]

Kirk Van Allen takes a scripture-based, reasonable (IMO) look at whether polygamy is of God. Some of his positions reflect my beliefs.

http://mormonverse.com/2015/02/02/dc-132-a-revelation-of-men-not-god/

 

Citing a few verses that you think agree with your position while ignoring all those verses that disagree with you does not constitute taking "a scripture-based" look at anything. This is just propaganda.

[Buckeye]

I am sorry were in Alam 32 do we learn that we can reject canonized scripture based upon personal opinion?  Why am I not surprised that Rockpond thinks that part of the D&C is not of God and I am not surprised that you agree with him. And Mr Allen does indeed reject polygamy. That is his entire premise.

 

Good heavens. Where to start with this?

 

Yes, Van Allen rejects section 132 in his blog. I never suggested otherwise. I simply pointed out that, IMO, a more intriguing point is how arrives at this conclusion.

 

Rockpond said that "some of his [Van Allen's] positions reflect my beliefs", not that Rockpond rejected section 132. I did not espouse a view on 132 as scripture, though I admit much of troubles me.

 

As for Alma 32, I never suggested that chapter allows for rejection of canon based on personal opinion. But it does invite us to experment on a teaching and expressely states that we should reject a teaching which results in bad fruit.

 

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.

32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

[Avatar4321]

http://www.deseretnews.com/user/comments/515039389/90-of-Provo-rapes-not-reported-to-police.html  

 

"PROVO — More than 90 percent of rapes in the city go unreported, according to the lead rape investigator for the BYU Police Department.

BYU officer Arnie Lemmon said only 43 rapes were reported last year in Provo, leaving the actual number of rapes estimated at more than 400 during 2002."

 

I just learned of this problem today, in a podcast I listened to that provided the information.  They attribute D&C 132 to be at the root.  They say it's a lust factor with the men, and their thinking that they'll live polygamy one day.  Also, the rape victims don't report and think it's partly their fault.  I know that D&C 132 was used by Elizabeth Smart's kidnapper/rapist.    

 

They mention this scripture in Moroni 9:9 "And notwithstanding this great ^aabomination of the Lamanites, it doth not exceed that of our people in Moriantum. For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after ^bdepriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is ^cchastity and ^dvirtue—" 

 

In Utah, 1 out of 3 girls and 1 out of 5 boys will be sexually abused by 18.  Nationally it is only 1 out of 6 for girls, and 1 out of 33 for boys, 6 times more likely to be sexually abused as a male, twice as likely for girls.  And usually by someone they know.  In a study in 1986 it stated 63% were abused by family members.

 

Could that section scripture be a problem?

where exactly does section 132 allow rape?

and how does anyone know how many rapes are unreported?

[rockpond]

I read it and am not sure what " the crux" of the article is. Maybe you could help me out on this one Rockpond? It seems toe like all the regular arguments against polygamy and section 132, just gathered into one place.

 

Yes, it does contain all the "regular arguments".  I thought that the interesting point was his judging of polygamy on its fruits.