Section 132: Of Man Or God?

[stemelbow]

I can't wait to apologize to everyone who has died and whom I have judged in some way or another. Joseph won't be the only one or the one I misunderstood the most, I'm sure. imagine we'll all be pretty forgiving at that time, even Joseph.

[Buckeye]

I can't wait to apologize to everyone who has died and whom I have judged in some way or another. Joseph won't be the only one or the one I misunderstood the most, I'm sure. imagine we'll all be pretty forgiving at that time, even Joseph.

 

One of the things I love most about Joseph is how quick he was to forgive others and to apologize when he believed he was in the wrong. He had a quick temper, but also a quick kindness. His instructions to the school of the prophets are some of my favorite.

[Uncle Dale]

...adhere to a different gospel...

 

.

I've already mentioned my "take" on this stuff, so I won't

belabor all of that -- but a thought did cross my mind.

There must be at least some overlap between the "good news"

voiced by Mormons and the "good news" professed by the

mainstream Christians

If a thoughtful and knowledgeable Mormon speaker were

asked to address a class of college students studying

comparative religion, or history of religions, etc., what

part of 132 would he or she naturally point to, as

demonstrating some of that overlap?

Finish this introduction for me....

"I'm happy to be here today, students, because I want

to review just a little of my church's printing of the

final revelations we profess were given to Joseph

Smith. You may be surprised to hear just how similar

his communication of a divine message was in a

text we call Section 132, to what nearly everbody

identifies as Jesus' gospel. I'll now read to you a

passage which any obsevant Christian will recognize

as being clearly within the 'Good News' tradition..."

???

UD

Edited March 9, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[stemelbow]

One of the things I love most about Joseph is how quick he was to forgive others and to apologize when he believed he was in the wrong. He had a quick temper, but also a quick kindness. His instructions to the school of the prophets are some of my favorite.

Indeed. But he certainly carried complexities on this issue. It seems he was quick to forgive in some situations and to some people and almost unwilling to forgive in other situations and with certain people. I'm thinking these days he's pretty quick to forgive knowing how hard this life is on us, and how foolish we all can be when we make our assessments of others.

I used to marvel at how easily and genuinely my dad forgave people--loved it. But one day I started to realize that although he was so forgiving there were times when he was unforgiving. He was pretty good at it though, from my perspective. We're all quick to forgive sometimes and unforgiving at other times, it seems to me.

[Buckeye]

Indeed. But he certainly carried complexities on this issue. It seems he was quick to forgive in some situations and to some people and almost unwilling to forgive in other situations and with certain people. I'm thinking these days he's pretty quick to forgive knowing how hard this life is on us, and how foolish we all can be when we make our assessments of others.

I used to marvel at how easily and genuinely my dad forgave people--loved it. But one day I started to realize that although he was so forgiving there were times when he was unforgiving. He was pretty good at it though, from my perspective. We're all quick to forgive sometimes and unforgiving at other times, it seems to me.

 

That's why I included the limitation "when he believed he was in the wrong." For example, Joseph was adament about the fanny anger issue, even to the point of allowing Oliver to be excommunicated over it.

[rockpond]

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.

 

I didn't change the goal post.  The topic is not about Joseph Smith's wives -- you brought them up, not me (the OP).  The thread is about polygamy and Section 132.

 

But since you brought up Joseph Smith's wives in defense of polygamy, I just mentioned that Emma (one of his wives) was not entirely pleased with polygamy.  And, looking at Brigham Young's wives, nine of them divorced him.  Which doesn't exactly speak positively of the practice.

 

I didn't read the link because I am familiar with it and because I don't disagree with the point you were making in citing it.  (Although I would argue against your suggestion that the Hales are neutral.)  I don't think that Joseph instituted polygamy to satisfy his libido.  And I think that, for the most part, the women who participated did so out of sincere belief.  There were some who did not seem so happy with the arrangement:  Emma, as I mentioned, and Helen Mar for starters.  Here is a quote from Helen Mar cited in her biography link at the URL you provided:

 

During the winter of 1843, there were plenty of parties and balls. . . . Some of the young gentlemen got up a series of dancing parties, to be held at the Mansion once a week. . . . I had to stay home, as my father had been warned by the Prophet to keep his daughter away from there, because of the blacklegs and certain ones of questionable character who attended there. . . . I felt quite sore over it, and thought it a very unkind act in father to allow [my brother] to go and enjoy the dance unrestrained with others of my companions, and fetter me down, for no girl loved dancing better than I did, and I really felt that it was too much to bear. It made the dull school still more dull, and like a wild bird I longer for the freedom that was denied me; and thought myself a much abused child, and that it was pardonable if I did murmur.

[rockpond]

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.

 

Good point.  I think it is a problem that both the doctrine of eternal marriage and the doctrine of polygamy are intertwined in Section 132.  I suspect that the Church would like to further distance itself from polygamy but can't disavow Section 132 because it's where we draw our belief about eternal marriage.

[bluebell]

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?

 

Plainly speaking, i don't think that being wrong is a sin. I don't think that being wrong implies that someone needs to apologize to someone else.  I do think that sometimes how we are wrong means that we very much owe someone an apology.

 

We can be wrong and sincere.  Wrong and kind.  Wrong and faithful.  Wrong and honest.  Wrong and merciful.  Wrong and charitable.  Wrong and ignorant.

 

None of those wrongs need to be apologized for.  

 

But we can also be wrong and cruel. Wrong and self righteous.  Wrong and prideful.  Wrong and spiteful.  Wrong and merciless.  Wrong and petty. Wrong and unfaithful.

 

Those things we do need to apologize for.

[Calm]

"And, looking at Brigham Young's wives, nine of them divorced him"

He encouraged at times women who were in plural marriages if they had the opportunity to move into a monogamous marriage.

I think it would be important to determine why these women chose to divorce him. Iirc, only one sued him for alimony and her marital history was problematic (there is significant evidence her prime motive in marriage was financial IMO).

Add-on: I found 7 at least remarried, Webb was single for a time, but I haven't determined if any of the others divorced without anticipation for another marriage immediately.

Got my info from a dialogue art on his marriages.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V20N03_59.pdf

Edited March 9, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

There were some who did not seem so happy with the arrangement: Emma, as I mentioned, and Helen Mar for starters. Here is a quote from Helen Mar cited in her biography link at the URL you provided:

During the winter of 1843, there were plenty of parties and balls. . . . Some of the young gentlemen got up a series of dancing parties, to be held at the Mansion once a week. . . . I had to stay home, as my father had been warned by the Prophet to keep his daughter away from there, because of the blacklegs and certain ones of questionable character who attended there. . . . I felt quite sore over it, and thought it a very unkind act in father to allow [my brother] to go and enjoy the dance unrestrained with others of my companions, and fetter me down, for no girl loved dancing better than I did, and I really felt that it was too much to bear. It made the dull school still more dull, and like a wild bird I longer for the freedom that was denied me; and thought myself a much abused child, and that it was pardonable if I did murmur.

Note that she was required to stay home not because she was married (she had attended plenty of parties prior to this) but because of the presence of disreputable men at those parties ("blacklegs"). Initially her brother was not to go either. But he talked his dad into allowing him.

Remarkable the difference including what is missing behind the " . . .".

Edited March 9, 2015 by calmoriah

[Teancum]

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

 

 

Ah nope. Good condoned it but did not promote it nor require it for Exaltation.

[Guest]

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/

God allowed polygamy for thousands of years, at least D&C puts limits on it. Do I believe it was of God; yes...but overjoyed that it was done away with. Be it OT or D&C, it was always a hardship for women. Either way, in any age I am a one woman man...so I would have not, nor ever would have more than one wife. We were discussing marriage and the topic came up; what if you wife passed away. My response was I would not remarry, ever! A friend responded, "Bill,mI felt the same way, but when my wife passed away, I remarried". I replied, I am nearing sixty and have been married to Pam going on 40 years...if she dies I would bury her, go home and mourn myself to death. Also, I could never match or love my wife. But polygamy...out of the question!

[Calm]

The full quote from her autobiography:

During the winter of 1843, there were plenty of parties and balls, and many were held at the mansion. The last one that I attended there that winter was on Christmas Eve. Some of the young gentlemen got up a series of dancing parties to be held at the mansion once a week. My brother William put his name down before asking father's permission, and when questioned about it made him believe that he must pay the money for himself and the lady, whether he went or not, and that he could not honorably withdraw from it. He carried the day, but I had to stay at home, as my father had been warned by the Prophet to keep his daughter away from there, because of the blacklegs and certain ones of questionable character who attended there. His wife Emma had become the ruling spirit and money had become her God. I did not betray William, but I felt quite sore over it, and thought it a very unkind act in father to allow him to go and enjoy the dance unrestrained with others of my companions, and fetter me down, for no girl loved dancing better than I did and I really felt that it was too much to bear. It made the dull school still more dull and like a wild bird, I longed for the freedom that was denied me; and thought myself a much abused child, and that it was pardonable if I did murmur. I imagined that my happiness was all over and brooded over the sad memories of sweet departed joys and all manner of future woes, which (by the by) were of short duration, my bump of hope being too large to admit of my remaining long under the clouds. Besides my father was very kind and indulgent in other ways, and always took me with him when mother could not go, and it was not a very long time before I became satisfied that I was blessed in being under the control of so good and wise a parent who had taken counsel and thus saved me from evils, which some others in their youth and inexperience were exposed to though they thought no evil. Yet the busy tongue of scandal did not spare them.

http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/HWhitney.html

Edited March 9, 2015 by calmoriah

[rockpond]

"And, looking at Brigham Young's wives, nine of them divorced him"

He encouraged at times women who were in plural marriages if they had the opportunity to move into a monogamous marriage.

I think it would be important to determine why these women chose to divorce him. Iirc, only one sued him for alimony and her marital history was problematic (there is significant evidence her prime motive in marriage was financial IMO).

Add-on: I found 7 at least remarried, Webb was single for a time, but I haven't determined if any of the others divorced without anticipation for another marriage immediately.

Got my info from a dialogue art on his marriages.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V20N03_59.pdf

 

Yes, Webb was clearly unhappy and went on to become an outspoken critic of polygamy.

 

But that's interesting... let's say that 7 divorced with Brigham Young's blessing and entered into monogamous marriages.  What would that tell us?

[bluebell]

Ah nope. Good condoned it but did not promote it nor require it for Exaltation.

 

The verse in question is Nathan, a prophet of God, reminding David that it was God who gave him at least some of his wives (among other things).

 

It's best understood if it's included with verse 7-

"7 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;

8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom..."

 

That's more than God just condoning something.  

[rockpond]

Note that she was required to stay home not because she was married (she had attended plenty of parties prior to this) but because of the presence of disreputable men at those parties ("blacklegs"). Initially her brother was not to go either. But he talked his dad into allowing him.

Remarkable the difference including what is missing behind the " . . .".

 

Well, that was the quote that was provided to me by Why Me as a "neutral" source.  So I used it to counter Why Me's point that none of Joseph's wives had anything negative to say.

 

You are more educated than I on the topic... from everything you have read about Helen Mar, would you say that she only had positive feelings about her marital situation?  Same question for Emma.

 

I'm not saying that a few negative opinions from the wives unravels the doctrine of polygamy.  I just don't agree with that argument (as I understood it) from Why Me.

[Calm]

Yes, Webb was clearly unhappy and went on to become an outspoken critic of polygamy.

But that's interesting... let's say that 7 divorced with Brigham Young's blessing and entered into monogamous marriages. What would that tell us?

That they preferred monogamy or at least the men they were married to (we can't tell if they reentered a plural relationship without more research). That doesn't mean they were automatically unhappy with polygyny. Edited March 9, 2015 by calmoriah

[rockpond]

That they preferred monogamy. That doesn't mean they were automatically unhappy with polygyny.

 

True.  And that Brigham Young saw some value in allowing them out of a plural marriage and into a monogamous one.  Which, if true, is fascinating to me given all that BY taught on the matter.  But, I find BY just generally fascinating... I am sure that I do not understand all of his depth.

[Duncan]

This is me thinking out loud but I wonder if having polygamy eternally and not having to live it eternally can be exclusive and both be required for exaltation. I say that because for one God has required various things that are the same but expressed differently over the years of his chosen people. For example living the Law of Moses and now Polygamy but in our day 2015 we aren't required to live either but still have to sacrifice and maybe our burden to cross is "bear the shame of the world" Jacob 1:8 So whether it's Law of Moses or Polygamy abrahamic like tests are required to see who is faithful and who isn't-My 2 cents

[bluebell]

 

 

But that's interesting... let's say that 7 divorced with Brigham Young's blessing and entered into monogamous marriages.  What would that tell us?

 

It would seem to tell us that BY did not believe polygamy was necessary in order for a woman to be exalted.  However, BY believed that all women would be exalted by default so this could be more about his sexist notions than his beliefs about the doctrine of polygamy.  

[Calm]

As I added, we don't know if they did have monogamous marriages without more research.

At this point all we can claim is they preferred being married to someone else.

[rockpond]

The full quote from her autobiography:

During the winter of 1843, there were plenty of parties and balls, and many were held at the mansion. The last one that I attended there that winter was on Christmas Eve. Some of the young gentlemen got up a series of dancing parties to be held at the mansion once a week. My brother William put his name down before asking father's permission, and when questioned about it made him believe that he must pay the money for himself and the lady, whether he went or not, and that he could not honorably withdraw from it. He carried the day, but I had to stay at home, as my father had been warned by the Prophet to keep his daughter away from there, because of the blacklegs and certain ones of questionable character who attended there. His wife Emma had become the ruling spirit and money had become her God. I did not betray William, but I felt quite sore over it, and thought it a very unkind act in father to allow him to go and enjoy the dance unrestrained with others of my companions, and fetter me down, for no girl loved dancing better than I did and I really felt that it was too much to bear. It made the dull school still more dull and like a wild bird, I longed for the freedom that was denied me; and thought myself a much abused child, and that it was pardonable if I did murmur. I imagined that my happiness was all over and brooded over the sad memories of sweet departed joys and all manner of future woes, which (by the by) were of short duration, my bump of hope being too large to admit of my remaining long under the clouds. Besides my father was very kind and indulgent in other ways, and always took me with him when mother could not go, and it was not a very long time before I became satisfied that I was blessed in being under the control of so good and wise a parent who had taken counsel and thus saved me from evils, which some others in their youth and inexperience were exposed to though they thought no evil. Yet the busy tongue of scandal did not spare them.

http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/HWhitney.html

 

So the dance with "blacklegs" in attendance was at the prophet's mansion?  That's where she couldn't attend?  Also interesting are her comments about her sister wife, Emma.

[Teancum]

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

 

 

Ahh to be so certain and self assured in a world of uncertainty. I am sure if gives some sort of comfort, meaning and purpose even if it is not factual.  Other true believers of their religious dogma are similar.  Just look at the world today.

 

Who is right?  Who is wrong. I long at times for this certainty I once had. Facing reality can be a hard thing. 

[JLHPROF]

Do I believe it was of God; yes...but overjoyed that it was done away with.

 

So God revealed something from heaven, a law that was to create plural families into the eternities

A law that odds are he and his son (and most of the prophets) also lived.

And you are overjoyed (or would relieved be a better word) that he took it away?  I have a hard time with people who believe polygamy was a negative.  It is saying that God gave an ordinance with a result into the eternities that was NOT for our benefit.  I think God would be greatly offended by such an attitude.

(I think D&C 130:20-21 and D&C 58:32 would be applicable)

 

 

Either way, in any age I am a one woman man...so I would have not, nor ever would have more than one wife.  But polygamy...out of the question!

 

You would disobey a direct command from God or his prophet if it was proposed?

I think in such instance Matthew 25:14-30 might apply.

[rockpond]

That they preferred monogamy or at least the men they were married to (we can't tell if they reentered a plural relationship without more research). That doesn't mean they were automatically unhappy with polygyny.

 

True