Section 132: Of Man Or God?

[bluebell]

I admit that i'm only half way thru the article and it might be a while before i get to the next part.  

 

My first question is, does he ever actually address the real teachings of the church concerning polygamy or does he take all the myth and legend surrounding polygamy that members of the church have said to each other over time at church and only argue against that?

 

Because already my biggest issue is that all of the stuff about polygamy that he's heard (and i don't think he's lying about it at all) is not anything i've ever been taught about it in church.  I was never taught that polygamy would be required in heaven for example, or that the more righteous a man the more wives he would have (i'm 38 so grew up in the 80s and 90s).  So so far his 'set the record straight' just seems like a huge straw man.

 

But like i said, i'm only a little ways into it.  I'll read more in a bit and do plan on reading it all.  I just thought it would be easier for me to discuss if i broke it down a little.

[Nofear]

Apparently Kirk Van Allen will be facing disciplinary proceedings for the post. To preempt possible conditions that he take down his blog post he has given permission to Dehlin and others to repost his article.

[rockpond]

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

 

For David.

[rockpond]

Critics would claim that joseph just wanted to mess around and because of his libido, he began polygamy. I doubt it.

 

I doubt it also.  But I also don't think we need to create a false dichotomy wherein polygamy was either libido-driven or God-inspired.

 

 

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.

 

Well, Emma was sealed to him and she seemed to have negative words about it.  Though she obviously loved him and stood by him, allowing him to take additional wives to a point.  So yeah, that counts for something.  But from that perspective, Brigham Young's nine divorces should also count for something.

[Buckeye]

Apparently Brian and Laura Hales have just released a 30+ page response to Van Allen's blog. I haven't read the response yet, but have to say that I'm impressed they produced this barely a week after the blogpost.

 

http://blog.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Lending-Clarity-to-Confusion.pdf

 

Edited to clarify that Laura Hales is a joint author of the response.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Buckeye

[Tacenda]

Buckeye, to your question below. ..

I don't, maybe through DN they'd have it, I didn't look for footnotes in the article. Maybe they've gotten complaints on campus but for whatever reason these women don't report it to the police

.

Hi Tacenda,

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

Edited March 9, 2015 by Tacenda

[DBMormon]

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?

Not mine though I am up in the air on 132

[Nevo]

Is Section 132 of man or of God? I think the answer could well be that it's both. I'm not sure that any revelation mediated through human agents can be considered "100% of God." The Introduction to the Doctrine and Covenants speaks of the revelations being received through Joseph Smith (rather than being received by him) and notes that Joseph and the early Saints "viewed the revelations as they did the Church: living, dynamic, and subject to refinement with additional revelation." Certainly the Prophet had no compunction about modifying the revelations, as the need arose, to "correct errors, clarify wording, and recognize developments in Church doctrine and organization."

 

D&C 132 wasn't published in Joseph's lifetime and was dictated primarily to convince Emma to accept polygamy. Had Joseph intended it to go out to the world, he likely would have changed some things. Joseph apparently wasn't above dictating spurious revelations (see his 19 May 1843 revelation to Hiram Kimball), but I hesitate to place D&C 132 (or at least some of it) in that category—not least because it would seem to undermine the validity of my own temple marriage.

[Mystery Meat]

Not mine though I am up in the air on 132

 

To clarify, I am not saying people who wonder about the divinity of 132 lack intelligence. I am saying that those who think 132 can be used to explain instances of rape in Mormon culture do.

[stemelbow]

Is Section 132 of man or of God? I think the answer could well be that it's both. I'm not sure that any revelation mediated through human agents can be considered "100% of God." The Introduction to the Doctrine and Covenants speaks of the revelations being received through Joseph Smith (rather than being received by him) and notes that Joseph and the early Saints "viewed the revelations as they did the Church: living, dynamic, and subject to refinement with additional revelation." Certainly the Prophet had no compunction about modifying the revelations, as the need arose, to "correct errors, clarify wording, and recognize developments in Church doctrine and organization."

 

D&C 132 wasn't published in Joseph's lifetime and was dictated primarily to convince Emma to accept polygamy. Had Joseph intended it to go out to the world, he likely would have changed some things. Joseph apparently wasn't above dictating spurious revelations (see his 19 May 1843 revelation to Hiram Kimball), but I hesitate to place D&C 132 (or at least some of it) in that category—not least because it would seem to undermine the validity of my own temple marriage.

that's my reaction too, with or without reading the blog posts.

[thesometimesaint]

Of God implemented by man. 

[smac97]

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/

To some extent I understand where Bro. Van Allen is coming from. I find the concept of polygamy hard to accept. But I think there's way too much evidence on the table to argue that Joseph Smith fabricated a revelatory pretext for polygamy, or that the concept itself is "of men" and not "of God."

It's mostly a cultural thing. I find the idea of slaughtering animals and burning their carcasses on an altar to be fairly repugnant, yet we seldom see anyone suggesting that such a thing was fabricated by ancient prophets. Also, it is my understanding that many people who have joined the Church and live in areas where polygamy is part of the cultural fabric (some parts of Africa, for example) don't have a moral objection to polygamy. I think this points to polygamy as being culturally, rather than doctrinally/spiritually, repugnant to folks like, well, me. That doesn't really create any problems for me, though, since polygamy is prohibited (as is animal sacrifice, which is likewise culturally, but not doctrinally/spiritually, icky).

Thanks,

-SMac

Edited March 9, 2015 by smac97

[bluebell]

Apparently Brian and Laura Hales have just released a 30+ page response to Van Allen's blog. I haven't read the response yet, but have to say that I'm impressed they produced this barely a week after the blogpost.

 

http://blog.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Lending-Clarity-to-Confusion.pdf

 

Edited to clarify that Laura Hales is a joint author of the response.

 

I went back and read the rest of the blog in the OP and was going to respond further, but having also read the response by the Hales I can't think of anything else to say.  They pretty much covered my thoughts on it.  Thanks for sharing the link.

[why me]

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".

I  wouldn't condemn you for listeing to it. But you do seem to gravitate toward believing the critics and their information. And you seem to overlook the more positive interpretations that are offered. For exmaple, I provided a link in a previous post that seems to paint the polygamy of Joseph in a more positive light, complete with biographies of his plural lives. Did you access the link and read all the information that was on there?

 

My point is that you tend to believe critic interpretations. Perhaps it makes you more comfortable to do so. But of course this is only my opinion. I can be wrong.

[why me]

To some extent I understand where Bro. Van Allen is coming from. I find the concept of polygamy hard to accept. But I think there's way too much evidence on the table to argue that Joseph Smith fabricated a revelatory pretext for polygamy, or that the concept itself is "of men" and not "of God."

It's mostly a cultural thing. I find the idea of slaughtering animals and burning their carcasses on an altar to be fairly repugnant, yet we seldom see anyone suggesting that such a thing was fabricated by ancient prophets. Also, it is my understanding that many people who have joined the Church and live in areas where polygamy is part of the cultural fabric (some parts of Africa, for example) don't have a moral objection to polygamy. I think this points to polygamy as being culturally, rather than doctrinally/spiritually, repugnant to folks like, well, me. That doesn't really create any problems for me, though, since polygamy is prohibited (as is animal sacrifice, which is likewise culturally, but not doctrinally/spiritually, icky).

Thanks,

-SMac

I thought that I would run this response again here:

 

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://josephsmithsp...-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. Also, joseph himself has claimed that it came from god if the quotation can be believed.

 

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

 

http://josephsmithsp...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

 

Reading the biographies of his wives linked above, many of them remained faithful and practically all were thankful for being sealed to Joseph and experienced wonderful spiritual experiences. .

[Glenn101]

I will add my two cents worth to this thread. Section 132 is of God. Polygamy is one part of it, but the sealing power wives and husbands and families together for eternity is a glorious truth. I have received a testimony of that section, and it was confirmed twice in the temple when I was sealed to my first wife and later when I was sealed to my second wife.

 

If any wish to disagree, that is fine. We shall all find out for sure bye and bye. Maybe right after the every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ part. And I do believe that there will be a lot of people apologizing to Brother Joseph.

 

Glenn

[DBMormon]

To clarify, I am not saying people who wonder about the divinity of 132 lack intelligence. I am saying that those who think 132 can be used to explain instances of rape in Mormon culture do.

completely understood.

[JLHPROF]

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/

 

Ok, I read the whole thing, but realized from the first paragraph exactly what this was - the same old evangelical arguments recycled.  No new insights.  Nothing worth the time it took to read.

 

But most damning of all is NOT that this is arguing against "polygamy", it's that it is arguing against D&C 132.

If I did have a problem with polygamy (which I don't) as other here do, I STILL could never accept that D&C 132 is anything less than a revelation.

 

Imagine all the truths of the gospel contained in it that we would miss - eternal marriage, eternal increase, godhood.  They are alluded to elsewhere, but this was the revealing from heaven of these principles.

 

Sometimes I think we have many members that can only really accept the restoration up through 1839, that think we should have stayed like the Kirtland Church - no polygamy, no sexist endowment, no garments, no real theosis (King Follett), and all the other Nauvoo doctrines etc..

Such a shame.

Edited March 9, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Buckeye]

I will add my two cents worth to this thread. Section 132 is of God. Polygamy is one part of it, but the sealing power wives and husbands and families together for eternity is a glorious truth. I have received a testimony of that section, and it was confirmed twice in the temple when I was sealed to my first wife and later when I was sealed to my second wife.

 

If any wish to disagree, that is fine. We shall all find out for sure bye and bye. Maybe right after the every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ part. And I do believe that there will be a lot of people apologizing to Brother Joseph.

 

Glenn

 

Unfortunately, if people end up apologizing to Joseph, it will be because they adhere to a different gospel. The LDS church teaches that “[w]e sometimes look back on issues and say, 'maybe that was counterproductive for what we wish to achieve,’ but we look forward and not backward." We do not "seek apologies ... and we don’t give them.”  http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2108746-155/we-all-can-be-more-civil

[bluebell]

Unfortunately, if people end up apologizing to Joseph, it will be because they adhere to a different gospel. The LDS church teaches that “[w]e sometimes look back on issues and say, 'maybe that was counterproductive for what we wish to achieve,’ but we look forward and not backward." We do not "seek apologies ... and we don’t give them.”  http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2108746-155/we-all-can-be-more-civil

 

I don't think the church is teaching that if we think nefarious things about someone or accuse them of nefarious motives that we shouldn't apologize if we later learn we were wrong.

[JLHPROF]

Unfortunately, if people end up apologizing to Joseph, it will be because they adhere to a different gospel.

 

Well of course.  We know we are going to get out of order in some ways or else a setting in order wouldn't be necessary.  We know that we are going to change the gospel that Joseph revealed because it's been prophesied.

The gospel taught by the church today is not the same as the gospel taught by Joseph Smith on many points.

But we know that the gospel was restored for the last time, that things will be corrected starting on the Lords House, and that the gospel will never be taken from the earth.

 

So yes, many people will definitely be apologizing to Joseph when all that he restored is fully implemented correctly.

[why me]

I doubt it also.  But I also don't think we need to create a false dichotomy wherein polygamy was either libido-driven or God-inspired.

 

 

 

Well, Emma was sealed to him and she seemed to have negative words about it.  Though she obviously loved him and stood by him, allowing him to take additional wives to a point.  So yeah, that counts for something.  But from that perspective, Brigham Young's nine divorces should also count for something.

Of course we can change the goal post back 30 yards and speak about BYs marriages. But that is not the topic of the thread. I provided a link about polygamy that seems to take a neutral position and this link also has biographies of joseph's wives. And uses compton quite often. It paints a rather positive picture of the women and their experiences. And it is documented. Have you read this link? I say this because it seems that 'critics' seem to enjoy their confirmation bias and seem to be hestitant to read something that may shake it. Now of course this can also be said of defenders but to a lesser extent. Also, reading the bios of the women from the link I see the women who commented on their spiritual experiences within the church at that time and displaying a positive attitude toward joseph because of the spiritual experiences with the church. Now this does say much about the practice itself.

 

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

 

 

I don't see any lust confirmation in their statements or in the statements of others. Just the opposite. I get the impression that these were strong minded women who were no dupes. However, it seems that the critics today seem to ignore these women and lay it all on joseph. But I do believe that if these women could come back to life, they would be doing a lot of butt kicking and the critics may not be able to sit properly.

Edited March 9, 2015 by why me

[stemelbow]

Unfortunately, if people end up apologizing to Joseph, it will be because they adhere to a different gospel. The LDS church teaches that “[w]e sometimes look back on issues and say, 'maybe that was counterproductive for what we wish to achieve,’ but we look forward and not backward." We do not "seek apologies ... and we don’t give them.”  http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2108746-155/we-all-can-be-more-civil

Hey I brought this up in EQ yesterday as the lesson was on true repentance. "That was for the Church, not us...the Church is perfect but the members aren't..." type of stuff was spouted off.

But it was said again and again that it is not "true repentance" unless you are a member of the Church and regularly attend Church, magnify your calling, visit the temple weekly and all that. I was instructing on the fly since the assigned teacher didn't show and I left wondering what happened to my Church? I kept reiterating that repentance is rejuvenating and members and non members can, through the infinite nature of the atonement and the universal useage of the Spirit of Christ, experience divine forgiveness by applying the principle. "no" they said, "we're talking about "true repentance" in this class".

ugh...

[stemelbow]

I don't think the church is teaching that if we think nefarious things about someone or accuse them of nefarious motives that we shouldn't apologize if we later learn we were wrong.

ya mean like the way things have been expressed about gay people by the Church? hmm...I'll have to think on that some more I guess.

[Buckeye]

I don't think the church is teaching that if we think nefarious things about someone or accuse them of nefarious motives that we shouldn't apologize if we later learn we were wrong.

 

Maybe not. The specific issue Elder Oaks was addressing was whether the church should apologize for the harm it caused to homosexuals and their loved ones, such as by teaching that wrongful doctrine that LGBT members should marry someone of the opposite sex in order to cure their desires. So is the distinction the "nefariousness"? If someone intentionally misjudges Joseph then they should apologize, but if they in good faith read accounts of his polygamy and reject him because it looks awful, then there's no need to apologize because their actions were not nefarious?