Section 132: Of Man Or God?

[ttribe]

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.

 

smh

[why me]

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?

What do you think it tells us? I love it when people ask a question like this, as if they have no answers or wish someone to answer the question for them. Now that we have settled that joseph's polygamy was from god based on various experiences of joseph's plural wives, we now should move on to the wives of BY? Human relationships are always complicated and being married to tens of women would make life a little complicated, fulled with many new experiences. But what was your point in changing the goal posts and asking your question?

[Buckeye]

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.  

 

This is new to me. Can you point me to a source? It seems odd that BY would teach all women are exalted when D/C 132 discusses women being cut off for denying their husband additional wives. FWIW (and I can't find a source right now), I've read that BY taught the exact opposite - namely, that exaltation applies only to men, and women receive their fulness of joy through being sealed to an exalted man.

 

Edit to add: I skimmed through section 132. All verses discuss exaltation terms of men only, with the exception of v. 26 which discusses exaltation as applying jointly to a man and woman.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Buckeye

[Calm]

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.

The mansion was the center of social life iirc at that time. It was built in part to give the Smiths an income so it is hardly surprising that Emma put it to that purpose. Helen's less than favourable view of Emma is IMO most likely a result of her separation from the Church and the disagreements with Young over Joseph's property. From what I've studied, Emma did not have significant income, Joseph was generous with giving away what they did have so Emma was more likely struggling to make ends meet and feed and clothe her family as well as others they kindly sheltered rather than seeking funds out of greed.

Edited March 9, 2015 by calmoriah

[why me]

 

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.

My argument is that mostly all the women involved with the principle had positive experiences and looked fondly on those times with the saints. They had no regrets. That was my point and most remained faithful to the church and cherished their spiritual experiences. And that says much about polgyamy with joseph and also about the lds church at that time. Also, joseph was not alone with the practice. Other members also practiced it in nauvoo. So, this was not a one man event. Reading the biographes of the wives from the link that I provided gives strength to a testimony that the practice was from god. Of course, we could consider these women weak and docile. But it doesn't seem to be the case. They were rugged pioneer women with their own thoughts and strengths and would not look kindly to people who would consider them to be dupes and simpletons who fell for a con.

[rockpond]

What do you think it tells us? I love it when people ask a question like this, as if they have no answers or wish someone to answer the question for them. Now that we have settled that joseph's polygamy was from god based on various experiences of joseph's plural wives, we now should move on to the wives of BY? Human relationships are always complicated and being married to tens of women would make life a little complicated, fulled with many new experiences. But what was your point in changing the goal posts and asking your question?

 

I was asking the question as part of an ongoing discussion.

 

And I appreciate the insights of others.  I'm learning from this thread -- which was my objective in starting it.

 

We haven't settled that Joseph's polygamy was from God nor would I anticipate "settling" that here on this thread.  And, despite what you keep claiming, the thread was never about Joseph's wives exclusively.  It is about polygamy.  So kindly stop pretending that I have changed the goal posts.  I haven't.

 

I agree with you that relationships are complicated.  I think that if BY's wives left him for monogamous marriages there are a number of things that could tell us.  Like Calmoriah said, maybe they were happy but preferred a monogamous marriage.  If BY blessed those divorces, maybe he had some differing views about polygamy than what is often understood from some of the statements that we have from him.  Maybe, as someone else indicated, he viewed polygamy as required for men but not women.  Maybe he had varied reasons for taking on so many wives.  I think there is much to consider.

[JLHPROF]

smh

 

nmh

[Teancum]

 

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.  

 

 

Yea women were simply property then.  Why is God giving houses, land, cows, wives, etc,  More than condoning. Show me where anywhere but Section 132 where God says many wives is required and if your current wife says no way baby she will be destroyed.

 

Thank you ahead of time.

[Calm]

Well, that was the quote that was provided to me by Why Me as a "neutral" source.

I think Hales misses on this quote, possibly because of focusing too much on what I see as misinterpretation (sometimes intentional from what I've seen of quotes manipulated). 

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 see Helen as unhappy with plural marriage probably at least one time during her adult life, but she was also in difficult circumstances at the time with ill health iirc (it has been many years since I studied her in depth).

 

It would be interesting to have seen plural marriage in a context of wealth and comfort overall (and not just for some participants) without any sense of persecution but acceptance from outer society….and then see how the women felt about it.  When even monogamous marriages were suffering from hardship due to droughts, persecution, etc., it is hard to divide what the cause of dissatisfaction actually was, even for those going through the experience.

 

Emma, I am guessing, but I don't think she was ever happy with plural marriage but tolerated it as her duty on occasion before her unhappiness resurged enough so that she would again begin to resist it.  It is possible she might have come to eventual terms with it if Joseph had survived.  OTOH, having the marriages more public might have been the last straw.  She didn't share much of her personal feelings, we only have secondhand reports at best and some of those from less than credible sources.

Edited March 9, 2015 by calmoriah

[bluebell]

Yea women were simply property then.  Why is God giving houses, land, cows, wives, etc,  More than condoning. Show me where anywhere but Section 132 where God says many wives is required and if your current wife says no way baby she will be destroyed.

 

Thank you ahead of time.

 

I agree that the OT is not a great place to turn to if one wants to see how much God loves His daughters.  But regardless of how you feel about the bible (whether or not it's God's word or whatever), the verse in 2 Sam. does support polygamy.  You can't just say 'nope, doesn't say that' when it does actually say that.

 

And the church isn't teaching that 'many wives is required;" I don't believe that the church ever taught that (people's messed up opinions aside) about polygamy so that part of your post just seems like a straw man.

 

Lastly, in regards to Emma, the rebuttal that the Hales' wrote which Buckeye linked to (i believe on the first page, maybe the second) addresses this and it's an interesting perspective.  

[why me]

  And, despite what you keep claiming, the thread was never about Joseph's wives exclusively.  It is about polygamy.  So kindly stop pretending that I have changed the goal posts.  I haven't.

 

 

Actually, it is about whether or not section 132 is from god or not. If not, then the polygamous wives of BY would not be from god. So, this thread is about whether or not the revelation came from god or from his libido. Speaking about BY is actually off subject. Now for many of joseph's wives, it came from god. And their spiritual experiences with the practice and with the saints would confirm this. That was my point.

 

I have two posts left because of my limited status and so, I will need to stop commenting now. I need to load up on posts which can take several hours depending on geographic location.

Edited March 9, 2015 by why me

[bluebell]

This is new to me. Can you point me to a source? It seems odd that BY would teach all women are exalted when D/C 132 discusses women being cut off for denying their husband additional wives. FWIW (and I can't find a source right now), I've read that BY taught the exact opposite - namely, that exaltation applies only to men, and women receive their fulness of joy through being sealed to an exalted man.

 

Edit to add: I skimmed through section 132. All verses discuss exaltation terms of men only, with the exception of v. 26 which discusses exaltation as applying jointly to a man and woman.

 

http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/07/15/can-women-sin/#more-2909

 

[ttribe]

nmh

 

So, you would have the reader believe that you are utterly incapable of putting yourself into the shoes of any faithful member of the Church who struggles with the very notion that polygamy is divinely appointed?  Really?  You were so convinced of its truthfulness, instanteously, that you never felt even a millisecond of doubt?

[Guest]

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)

 

No, I used the correct word for me...overjoyed. I think it was to build up a people as quickly as he could. I don't think God views polygamy as a necessity at times, but wants traditional marriage about all else. I could be projected my views on the issue, but don't think so. My fear is that many men wish that polygamy was still be practiced. I am even more sure no women hopes for this.

[Buckeye]

http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/07/15/can-women-sin/#more-2909

 

 

Very interesting. Sounds eerily similar to Professor Bott's justifications for the racial priesthood ban; i.e., it's for their own good.

 

That said, I have a hard time taking this one quote (two sources) as undermining all of the scriptural canon regarding women's agency and need for the atonement, repentence, etc. the same as men. What would it even mean for "all women to be saved"? Which kingdom? And how does that square with threat's to Emma in D/C 132? Maybe Young is simply saying that there are no 'daughters of perdition'?

[JLHPROF]

So, you would have the reader believe that you are utterly incapable of putting yourself into the shoes of any faithful member of the Church who struggles with the very notion that polygamy is divinely appointed?  Really?  You were so convinced of its truthfulness, instanteously, that you never felt even a millisecond of doubt?

 

That isn't what I said.  I said "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."

The reason I have the hard time with them ISN'T because they express doubt.  This wasn't about those who believe God didn't give polygamy.  It's about those who accept D&C 132 as scripture AND believe it was a negative.

God doesn't give ordinances and revelations that aren't for our benefit and happiness.

If you believe D&C 132 wasn't a revelation, well that's an entirely different issue.

 

 

I think it was to build up a people as quickly as he could. I don't think God views polygamy as a necessity at times, but wants traditional marriage about all else.

 

These two statements are contradictory.  Either God wants polygamy to build up a people or he never wants polygamy.  Which is it?  Jacob 2:30 (not to mention D&C 132) says that sometimes God DOES want polygamy at times.

And whatever God wants is definitely a necessity.

Edited March 9, 2015 by JLHPROF

[ttribe]

That isn't what I said.  I said "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."

The reason I have the hard time with them ISN'T because they express doubt.  This wasn't about those who believe God didn't give polygamy.  It's about those who accept D&C 132 as scripture AND believe it was a negative.

God doesn't give ordinances and revelations that aren't for our benefit and happiness.

If you believe D&C 132 wasn't a revelation, well that's an entirely different issue.

 

I'm sorry, but I see Pa Pa's statements as being expressions of doubt.  If we are to accept the notion that God always commands us to do things that are a net positive for us, and we are still wondering how a given commandment could ever be a posistive, how is that not having doubt in the thing we are commanded to do?

 

It may not be an explicit statement of doubt, per se, but (IMO) it's still a statement of doubt.  That doubt manifests itself differently in different people is rather beside the point.

Edited March 9, 2015 by ttribe

[JLHPROF]

I'm sorry, but I see Pa Pa's statements as being expressions of doubt.  If we are to accept the notion that God always commands us to do things that are a net positive for us, and we are still wondering how a given commandment could ever be a posistive, how is that not having doubt in the thing we are commanded to do?

 

There is a difference between wondering how a given commandment could ever be a positive and definitively stating that it is a negative and always will be.

[ttribe]

There is a difference between wondering how a given commandment could ever be a positive and definitively stating that it is a negative and always will be.

 

Why?  Because you say so?  People's minds are incapable of changing?

[JLHPROF]

Why?  Because you say so?  People's minds are incapable of changing?

 

No because the second states that God gave a negative harmful ordinance.

[ttribe]

No because the second states that God gave a negative harmful ordinance.

 

And that's not an expression of doubt in God and His commandment?

Edited March 9, 2015 by ttribe

[JLHPROF]

And that's not an expression of doubt in God and His commandment?

 

No it's a statement of belief.

I can doubt Joseph saw God and Christ in the sacred grove.

That's very different from claiming that Joseph didn't see God and Christ in the sacred grove.

 

Doubting leaves room for ambiguity.  Declaring polygamy to always be wrong even though believing it came from God is unambiguous.  It's stating clearly that you believe God gave something negative or harmful.

Edited March 9, 2015 by JLHPROF

[name]

No because the second states that God gave a negative harmful ordinance.

Maybe it wasn't/isn't from God?

Possible?

[ttribe]

No it's a statement of belief.

 

Oh, come now.  You can't possibly be so black-and-white in your thinking that you think a belief cannot change, are you?

 

I see such a statement as how doubt manifests itself for someone, not an affirmative statement of permanent and open rebellion.

Edited March 9, 2015 by ttribe

[JLHPROF]

Maybe it wasn't/isn't from God?

Possible?

 

If someone wants to claim that belief sure.  But claiming that D&C 132 came from God AND polygamy is always wrong is pure contradiction.