Section 132: Of Man Or God?

[Guest]

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.

Are you suggesting that he wants polygamy and that we are not following or fulfilling God's wishes. Also, growing the a Church or his people which polygamy can do well. Beyond that why would he want this...just look at the abuses of groups who continue to practice polygamy. As far as Jacob 2: 30, it is very clear how he views polygamy. But he is God, he gets to define his laws...but via the BoM, he favors, one man, one woman. So...not sure where you are going with this, by pointing out Jacob 2 and D&C 132, unless it is to point out contradiction?

But, Nuff said...don't need anymore correction. Just my opinion.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Pa Pa

[bluebell]

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'?

 

I think he's definitely saying there are no daughters of perdition.  You know, because we are to dumb to be able to sin to that level.  

[Shanky82]

Why do people fixate so much on this subject as if this was the only aspect of Joseph Smith's life? What about all the other things Joseph Smith taught and did?

Edited March 9, 2015 by Shanky82

[rockpond]

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.

You make a lot of assumptions about these women who were involved in polygamy and I don't think you've substantiated all of those claims. If you are going to judge polygamy based on the wives experience, you can't just look at Joseph's wives. I'm not sure why you'd limit it in that way.

That said, I think there are many who have a positive experience with polygamy. I'm just not sure if I'd say "most". There are women still today who seek out such marriages. So I think it's a good fit for some women. And, as I've stated here before, I think polygamy should be legal as a matter of religious freedom.

You've mentioned a couple of times about critics claiming that these women were simpletons duped by a con man. I haven't seen anyone here make that argument. Did Kirk Van Allen make that claim in his article and I missed it?

As I stated before, I think it's a false dichotomy that polygamy was either about Joseph's libido or it was from God. I know Hales has subscribed to that theory and you seem to like his work (which is really good work) but I don't think we need to force it into that either/or scenario.

[rockpond]

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.

Speaking about BY's practice of polygamy is not off the subject. I'm sorry but you don't get to make such a declaration.

But, I think I understand your point better now... If those practicing polygamy had spiritual experiences with respect to polygamy, that could confirm that the practice was of God. I can get on board with that.

[jwhitlock]

Section 132 is definitely from God.

 

I've been in the church for quite a long time, and I can remember very distinctly as a teenager hearing discussions about polygamy - and not from the perspective that Van Allen tries to convey in his post. We had one brother in the ward who said that on his mission (in the 1960's) they would put out flyers about hearing the Mormons discuss polygamy as a way of attracting people to meetings, and they'd pack the house. There were people who would talk openly about polygamy in our ward and I don't remember it bearing much resemblance to the shallow caricature painted by Van Allen in order to make his point.

 

Polygamy was an interesting subject. It was speculated on, it was argued about, but it was never hidden or hushed up. With so many people outside of the church who know about polygamy (it was, after all, lampooned heavily in the late 19th and early 20th century by the media of the time), it's hard to understand people who claim to have never known about it.

 

I consider Van Allen's post to be rather shallow from an intellectual standpoint, flawed in the assumptions it makes, and too heavily dependent on strawmen assumptions. It doesn't address the complexities of polygamy, nor does it acknowledge the fact that polygamy was successfully practiced.

[rockpond]

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).

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.

Good info. Thanks for sharing.

[Guest]

Why do people fixate so much on this subject as if this was the only aspect of Joseph Smith's life? What about all the other things Joseph Smith taught and did?

It a sexy topic and gets traction...those of other sites are obsessed with the topic.

[DBMormon]

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.

What are they saying?  you make exceptions for when an apology is needed but Elder Oaks seems to be making no exceptions for the church.  It simply as an institution does not seek nor give apologies.  You seem to be making a loophole or an exception where none was given

Edited March 10, 2015 by DBMormon

[bluebell]

What are they saying? you make exceptions for when an apology is needed but Elder Oaks seems to be making no exceptions for the church. It simply as an institution does not seek nor give apologies. You seem to be making a loophole or an exception where none was given

You honestly believe the church is teaching that there is *never* a need to tell someone you are sorry?

[Coreyb]

Condemning polygamy online is quite popular these days. Whether it's from Denver Snuffer, Lindsay Hansen Park, or this Van Allen fellow. The problem is, eternal marriage makes no sense without polygamy. Even if it came in a separate revelation, strict monogamy in heaven makes no logical sense. Of course I am a heretic because I believe in full polygamy not just polygyny

[rockpond]

Why do people fixate so much on this subject as if this was the only aspect of Joseph Smith's life? What about all the other things Joseph Smith taught and did?

 

I don't know anyone who I would consider "fixated" on the subject aside from researchers like Brian Hales... but that's kinda his career and it's a good thing that he's provide so much research to the world.

 

As far as it being a hot topic of interest... there are a lot of reasons for that.  It was a significant driving force for the Saints in Nauvoo and the exodus.  It contributed to the Prophet Joseph's assassination.  The practice was a part of the church for longer than it has *not* been a part of the church.  Many believe that it will be practiced again in the next life.  It is emotionally charged.  With greater information access in recent years, church members have learned the details that weren't generally taught as a part of church curriculum and have found those details intriguing.

 

What else have I missed?

[rockpond]

Condemning polygamy online is quite popular these days. Whether it's from Denver Snuffer, Lindsay Hansen Park, or this Van Allen fellow. The problem is, eternal marriage makes no sense without polygamy. Even if it came in a separate revelation, strict monogamy in heaven makes no logical sense. Of course I am a heretic because I believe in full polygamy not just polygyny

 

How does monogamy in heaven make no logical sense?

 

Scratch that.  I get what you are saying.

Edited March 10, 2015 by rockpond

[Coreyb]

My great grandmother had three husbands and fourteen children by all three. Which one shall I seal her to?

[Pahoran]

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."

Which is amazing. How can anyone know? Here's a parallel claim: 90% of all murders go undetected. Sounds gruesome, right? But how can anyone know they are murders if they were never detected? And how can Arnie know about all those unreported rapes if nobody reports them?

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.

Really?

And who, may I ask, are "They?"

What is your source?

Given that you are repeating someone's opinion, I think we are entitled to know whose opinion it is, don't you?

There are, after all, no anonymous authorities.

 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.

And Mitchell was such a representative Mormon, wasn't he?

 

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.

CFR, please. Stats that you cite so confidently must be pretty solid, mustn't they?

 

Could that section scripture be a problem?

The connection is so absurd as to look desperate.

But here's something to chew on: men and boys are both male.

That means they are the same sex.

Do I need to join the dots for you?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

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

I'm satisfied that it's of God.

But this raises a number of related questions.

It's been often observed that those who are most exercised about the fallibility of prophets and apostles, and the sources of their revelation, almost never see their own views, opinions or purported revelations as being fallible at all. In fact, they frequently seem to regard their own views, opinions or purported revelations as the infallible yardstick by which the teachings of fallible prophets ought to be measured.

So, is it only prophets whose revelations ought to be held up to scrutiny? Is it only they who might potentially be mistaken about the source of knowledge they regard as revealed?

I ask this question: Since the Lord has gone to the very considerable trouble of raising up prophets and apostles to speak authoritatively on His behalf, is it likely that He would then bypass the very channels He has been at such pains to set up, in order to reveal His mind and will to some anonymous individual somewhere, and not to His prophets?

I trow not.

And this is not just my opinion; it is normative LDS teaching. (I say this with some trepidation, since I know that normative LDS teaching is no longer very welcome here. But that's what it is.)

In fact, the teaching goes farther: it declares that if anyone claims that God has revealed something to him or her, regarding His mind and will concerning the direction the Church ought to take, which He has not revealed to His anointed servants, then that person is in apostasy and teaching apostate doctrine.

With that in mind, I pose this question, of contemporary relevance: suppose someone claimed that God had revealed to him or her that it is His will that some key Priesthood ordinance, and the doctrine embodied therein, be materially changed, but the anoited leaders of the Church were unaware of it; would that revelation be of man, or of Satan?

Because it would, most manifestly, not be of God.

Regards,

Pahoran

[DBMormon]

You honestly believe the church is teaching that there is *never* a need to tell someone you are sorry?

Nope.  I think they are saying the institution has a policy of not saying its sorry. That is two very different things.  Even in Elder McConkie's "Forget all I have said" quote, there is not an apology.  Several leaders have apologized on behalf of themselves (Paul Dunn, Marlin Jensen on prop 8 ) , but as far as institutional apologies we have one on Mountain meadows and I am struggling to think of another.  Can you name any?

Edited March 10, 2015 by DBMormon

[thesometimesaint]

My great grandmother had three husbands and fourteen children by all three. Which one shall I seal her to?

 

All of them. God will work it all out to everyone's complete satisfaction.

[Alan]

I have always felt uneasy about Section 132. Mainly, of course, because I don't believe Joseph practiced plural marriage in the physical sense.

The first red rag for me is that Joseph is presented as asking how God could approve of David and Solomon's polygamy, when the Book of Mormon clearly states that their polygamy was an abomination to the Lord.

Why ask a question he already had the definitive answer to? It doesn't make any sense to me.

 

There is also, of course, the warning to Emma that she would be destroyed if she didn't embrace the principle. She didn't, and wasn't.

 

My own personal belief, based upon nothing but my own reason, is that 132 is a hybrid of some kind. The practice of splicing two or more revelations together to make them appear as one revelation, as well as editing and removing material, was done a number of times to the D&C. It was an established practice. Just compare the early editions with later ones. Therefore I believe it is reasonable to speculate that 132 underwent the same procedure prior to its publication in 1852. In fact, I would be very surprised if it didn't.

It could be made to say what they wanted it to say given the reality of the practice in Utah by then.

[Coreyb]

All of them. God will work it all out to everyone's complete satisfaction.

Yes he will, and he will do it with polygamy.

[bluebell]

Nope. I think they are saying the institution has a policy of not saying its sorry. That is two very different things. Even in Elder McConkie's "Forget all I have said" quote, there is not an apology. Several leaders have apologized on behalf of themselves (Paul Dunn, Marlin Jensen on prop 8 ) , but as far as institutional apologies we have one on Mountain meadows and I am struggling to think of another. Can you name any?

I don't think you understand what I said to buckeye then because this post has nothing to do with my original post to him in the topic.

[Buckeye]

Nope.  I think they are saying the institution has a policy of not saying its sorry. That is two very different things.  Even in Elder McConkie's "Forget all I have said" quote, there is not an apology.  Several leaders have apologized on behalf of themselves (Paul Dunn, Marlin Jensen on prop 8 ) , but as far as institutional apologies we have one on Mountain meadows and I am struggling to think of another.  Can you name any?

 

Scott Lloyd will disagree on this point. He will say that Elder Eyring did not apologize for MMM, but that the DN editors incorrectly labeled their article about Elder Eyring's address at MMM as an "apology." Sometimes he cares very much about semantics. Other times, not so much.

 

As for your question, I am unware of a time when a church official as expressly said "I apologize for the church regarding X "  Yes, individuals have apologized (as you point out), but not the institution.

[JLHPROF]

There is also, of course, the warning to Emma that she would be destroyed if she didn't embrace the principle. She didn't, and wasn't.

 

You have no way of knowing her eternal condition.

But I'm sure Joseph went to bat for her immortal soul.

[rockpond]

The first red rag for me is that Joseph is presented as asking how God could approve of David and Solomon's polygamy, when the Book of Mormon clearly states that their polygamy was an abomination to the Lord.

Why ask a question he already had the definitive answer to? It doesn't make any sense to me.

 

This is a good point.

[JLHPROF]

This is a good point.

 

Not really - Joseph didn't ask how God approved of David and Solomon's polygamy.  He asked how he could justify them AND Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses etc while they were living polygamy.  A subtle difference.

 

Basically, he asked how the Lord was able to sustain them as prophets even in the living of polygamy.  And it was answered that polygamy was NOT a sin unless lived wickedly.  He didn't ask if God approved of polygamy, but why he approved of men who were living it.  That is an important distinction.

Edited March 10, 2015 by JLHPROF