Section 132: Of Man Or God?

[rockpond]

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?

 

Writing a post about one's views, opinion, or purported revelations and publishing it for public review and commentary is actually a great way to question, analyze, and scrutinize ones beliefs about something.  Perhaps that is what Brother Van Allen was/is doing.

 

For me, the process of having my belief system shattered to pieces, picking it up again, piecing everything back together, rebuilding, staying active in the church, etc has definitely been a process of self-scrutiny and questioning everything I believe and think I know/knew.

 

 

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

 

This just strikes me as an ornate way of promoting prophetic infallibility and blind obedience.  You seem to be suggesting here that any thought, belief, or personal revelation one has that potentially differs from what prophets have taught is obviously from Satan.

 

You suggest that the normative LDS teaching is that differing from the prophet makes one apostate.  Which could, by certain definitions, be true.  But which prophet?  President Hinckley stated to a very large audience that polygamy was not doctrinal.  Kirk Van Allen wrote a blog post explaining why he believed polygamy was not of God.  I don't see things as being so clear cut as your post here suggests.

[rockpond]

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.

 

You're right... I see the distinction.  Thanks for explaining that.

[erastus]

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.

 

I have difficulty reconciling these verses from Jacob with the verses from D&C 132. The contradiction between the two seems like quite a conundrum to me. If anyone who had pondered this for a long time has some true insight on this, I would love to read it. 

 

Jacob chapter 2 

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

 

D&C 132

 

38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

 39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

[smac97]

I have difficulty reconciling these verses from Jacob with the verses from D&C 132. The contradiction between the two seems like quite a conundrum to me. If anyone who had pondered this for a long time has some true insight on this, I would love to read it. 

 

Jacob chapter 2 

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

 

D&C 132

 

38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

 39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

Here's a resource: http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/contradiction_between_jacob_and_dc_132

And another: http://bookofmormonresearch.org/book-of-mormon-criticisms/jacob-224-polygamy-abominable

And another: http://www.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/lameanti.htm

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

I have difficulty reconciling these verses from Jacob with the verses from D&C 132. The contradiction between the two seems like quite a conundrum to me. If anyone who had pondered this for a long time has some true insight on this, I would love to read it. 

 

Jacob chapter 2 

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

 

D&C 132

 

38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

 39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

 

 

In my opinion we misunderstand WHAT about Solomon and David's polygamy was considered "abominable".

Our first clue is that it is David and Solomon being called out.  Not Abraham.  Not Jacob.  Not Moses.  So there must be something different about David and Solomon from the other more prominent polygamists.

 

Key number 1 is:

"in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me" (see also 2 Samuel 12:7)

 

Key number 2 is:

"that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God"

 

Key number 3 is:

"For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands."

 

 

In the end I firmly conclude that polygamy is NOT what was being called abominable in this verse, but rather David and Solomon's corruption in how they lived it.  David committed murder to get a wife and took her without God's permission as well.  Solomon was led into apostasy by taking so many wives (and concubines - captives) of different faiths.  Jacob specifies these two as living polygamy in an abominable way and compares that to the people of Jacob who were also practicing a corrupted version:

"33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts."

 

But it clearly isn't describing polygamy as "abominable" or else verse 30 makes no sense:

"30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things."

 

Why would God say he would ever command polygamy if it was always abominable?  Why would he give (as in II Samuel) plural wives to David.  He wouldn't.  So something else must be the abominable thing.  That's why David and Solomon are specifically named, and not the most famous polygamist in all the Hebrew speaking world (Abraham).

 

Corruption is the sin, not polygamy.

Edited March 10, 2015 by JLHPROF

[erastus]

Thank you for the helpful replies, JLHPROF and Smac97.

[DBMormon]

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.

I was responding to your asking me a question

 

bluebell

Posted 13 hours ago

DBMormon, on 09 Mar 2015 - 10:34 PM, said:

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? 

[DBMormon]

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.

Which sounds like we essentially agree on the principle....  doesn't surprise me 

[Jeanne]

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.

This.  Means so much more than wwe realize and it is so noticible.

[bluebell]

 

I was responding to your asking me a question

 

bluebell

Posted 13 hours ago

DBMormon, on 09 Mar 2015 - 10:34 PM, said:

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

 

 

Yes, i know that.  But your response to my answer to you let's me know that you didn't understand what I had said to buckeye (which is what prompted you to post a response to me in the first place, right?)  

 

Hope that made some sense..

[why me]

Church members cannot say that section 132 is from man and if it is from man, the church is false. There is too much sacritice in 132 that the members made in living polygamy to suddenly say that it is from man. And joseph himself claimed that it was from god. Plus we have the appearance of the angel etc and we have what Joseph said to the women also.  And if Joseph did make up this revelation you would have also made up other revelations. So, church members need to accept this revelation as coming from god. So, where is the debate then? The debate is whether or not joseph was a fraud or a true prophet. If any active member supports the veiw that this section was made up, must come to the conlusion that joseph was a fraud.

[Buckeye]

Church members cannot say that section 132 is from man and if it is from man, the church is false. There is too much sacritice in 132 that the members made in living polygamy to suddenly say that it is from man. And joseph himself claimed that it was from god. Plus we have the appearance of the angel etc and we have what Joseph said to the women also.  And if Joseph did make up this revelation you would have also made up other revelations. So, church members need to accept this revelation as coming from god. So, where is the debate then? The debate is whether or not joseph was a fraud or a true prophet. If any active member supports the veiw that this section was made up, must come to the conlusion that joseph was a fraud.

 

Quite a lot of "sacrifice" was made by black members who, because of a doctrine policy from God man's misunderstanding, were denied priesthood power in their homes and the highest temple ordinances, not to mention the many black people to whom missionaries were not sent because it would serve no purpose at the time. Should those "sacrifices" be a basis to uphold the priesthood ban the justifications given for the ban? Apparently not, because the church has now renounced the justifications and cast serious doubt on whether the ban was instituted by deity.

 

I'll give you a better definition of "sacrifice"; namely, using one's time, talents or resources to make something or someone more sacred. As an example, it is a sacrifice for youth to attend early-morning seminary, not because they lose sleep, but because they exchange something (preferably screen-time the night before) for something more valuable (gospel knowledge). Seminary puts their time to a more sacred use.

 

Under my definition, I believe that Brother Van Allen would maintain his views regarding Section 132. He would say that, looking at the fruit of polygamy, whatever time, talents and resources were put into the practice, those efforts unfortunately led to family relationships that were less godly, less sacred, than they otherwise would have been.

[why me]

Quite a lot of "sacrifice" was made by black members who, because of a doctrine policy from God man's misunderstanding, were denied priesthood power in their homes and the highest temple ordinances, not to mention the many black people to whom missionaries were not sent because it would serve no purpose at the time. Should those "sacrifices" be a basis to uphold the priesthood ban the justifications given for the ban? Apparently not, because the church has now renounced the justifications and cast serious doubt on whether the ban was instituted by deity.

 

I'll give you a better definition of "sacrifice"; namely, using one's time, talents or resources to make something or someone more sacred. As an example, it is a sacrifice for youth to attend early-morning seminary, not because they lose sleep, but because they exchange something (preferably screen-time the night before) for something more valuable (gospel knowledge). Seminary puts their time to a more sacred use.

 

Under my definition, I believe that Brother Van Allen would maintain his views regarding Section 132. He would say that, looking at the fruit of polygamy, whatever time, talents and resources were put into the practice, those efforts unfortunately led to family relationships that were less godly, less sacred, than they otherwise would have been.

However, all that you wrote has very little to do with an official revelation in the D and C. Since we have that official revelation and since it was used to justify polygamy and since we have joseph telling women about a visitation of an angel, I think that if church members claim that it was from man, the church would be false in their eyes, especially if 132 was proven to be a fake out. Reading the bios of the wives of joseph smith, I don't see these women claiming that it was ungodly or unholy or less sacred. Just the opposite. And how it was practiced in utah has very little to do with the official revelation. Whether or not people were ready to practice it in holy and sacred ways is quite another matter.

 

There is nothing much to do with an official revelation. It is there for all to read and crossed referenced with OT verses. If false, the church is false or that joseph was led by his own inclinations, and deceived these women and their families.

Edited March 10, 2015 by why me

[Buckeye]

However, all that you wrote has very little to do with an official revelation in the D and C. Since we have that official revelation and since it was used to justify polygamy and since we have joseph telling women about a visitation of an angel, I think that if church members claim that it was from man, the church would be false in their eyes, especially if 132 was proven to be a fake out. Reading the bios of the wives of joseph smith, I don't see these women claiming that it was ungodly or unholy or less sacred. Just the opposite. And how it was practiced in utah has very little to do with the official revelation. Whether or not people were ready to practice it in holy and sacred ways is quite another matter.

 

There is nothing much to do with an official revelation. It is there for all to read and crossed referenced with OT verses. If false, the church is false or that joseph was led by his own inclinations, and deceived these women and their families.

 

Good grief, man. Joseph lost 132 pages of the BOM and the church somehow survived. I'm sure we could lose quite a few sections of the D/C and be just fine.

 

As I've said before, I'm not passing judgement on D/C 132 one way or the other. But I'm certainly not chaining myself, or my belief in the atonement, resurrection, and the goodness of God, to one wacky Section - a section that was intended only to convince Emma of the program. Perhaps Section 132 will end up being a setting stone for me. So far it hasn't. But it could also end up being a millstone.

[bluebell]

 

 

As I've said before, I'm not passing judgement on D/C 132 one way or the other. But I'm certainly not chaining myself, or my belief in the atonement, resurrection, and the goodness of God, to one wacky Section - a section that was intended only to convince Emma of the program.

 

Can I get a reference for the bolded part above?  I've never heard that that was the sole purpose behind section 132 before.

[Buckeye]

Can I get a reference for the bolded part above?  I've never heard that that was the sole purpose behind section 132 before.

 

Sure. The Church's D/C Student Manual explains that the revelation was written to convince Emma. Only later did Brigham use it for public purposes.

 

Historical Background

It is clear that the Prophet Joseph Smith received section 132 before it was recorded but delayed making it known. The Prophet knew the Lord’s will on plural marriage within the new and everlasting covenant probably as early as 1831 (see History of the Church, 5:xxix). In March 1843 he spoke to William Clayton of eternal marriage. In July of that year, he was discussing the doctrine with his brother Hyrum in William Clayton’s presence when Hyrum said, “If you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take it and read it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace” (History of the Church, 5:xxxii).

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-132-138/section-132-marriage-an-eternal-covenant?lang=eng

 

 

 

There's also this from the recent Brian/Laura Hales Response:

 

Concerning the entire revelation, Apostle Joseph F. Smith observed in 1878:

 

When the revelation was written, in 1843, it was for a special purpose, by the request of the Patriarch Hyrum Smith, and was not then designed to go forth to the church or to the world. It is most probable that had it been then written with a view to its going out as a doctrine of the church, it would have been presented in a somewhat different form. There are personalities [Emma Smith specifically] contained in a part of it which are not relevant to the principle itself, but rather to the circumstances which necessitated its being written at that time. Joseph Smith, on the day it was written, expressly declared that there was a great deal more connected with the doctrine which would be revealed in due time, but this was sufficient for the occasion, and was made to suffice for the time.

 

http://blog.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/FMPapers_1.pdf

 

[JLHPROF]

Sure. The Church's D/C Student Manual explains that the revelation was written to convince Emma. Only later did Brigham use it for public purposes.

 

I think this is twisting things a tiny bit.  Sure, the revelation was written down to "convince Emma", but that wasn't the purpose of its existence.

It's not like Joseph wanted to live plural marriage, sat down, and made up a revelation to convince his wife (despite what some here may believe).

 

The recorder of this revelation reported that Joseph could dictate it off the top of his head.  Now I've read it many, many times.  I can't do that.  I can't imagine ANYONE being able to write that document without revision, adjustment, errors, changes, etc.  Not to mention the additional doctrines contained in it.

No, it was recorded from revelatory inspiration, no matter what caused any particular copy of it to be written out.

[why me]

Good grief, man. Joseph lost 132 pages of the BOM and the church somehow survived. I'm sure we could lose quite a few sections of the D/C and be just fine.

 

As I've said before, I'm not passing judgement on D/C 132 one way or the other. But I'm certainly not chaining myself, or my belief in the atonement, resurrection, and the goodness of God, to one wacky Section - a section that was intended only to convince Emma of the program. Perhaps Section 132 will end up being a setting stone for me. So far it hasn't. But it could also end up being a millstone.

Joseph did not lose the pages, Martin did. And joseph did get a little punishment for it. Of course the revelation was sought because of emma. This is in the seminary manual by stating that:

 

Introduction

While the Prophet Joseph Smith was working on the inspired revisions of the Bible in 1831, he asked the Lord for understanding about the ancient patriarchs having more than one wife. At that time the Prophet began to receive revelation in answer to his inquiries. In subsequent years, the Lord commanded the Prophet and other Latter-day Saints to live the principle of plural marriage. In July 1843, while the Church was headquartered in Nauvoo, Illinois, the Prophet recorded the revelation he had received. Doctrine and Covenants 132 addresses the Lord’s teachings regarding plural marriage, including counsel to Joseph and Emma Smith.

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-teacher-manual-2014/section-6/lesson-140-doctrine-and-covenants-132-1-2-34-66?lang=eng

 

Of course it is up to the teacher to tell why this counsel was needed. The end of the section is pretty clear what would happen if emma refused. But since it is in the manual and since it is being proclaimed as inspired scripture it will be hard to abandoned it as a work of man.

Edited March 10, 2015 by why me

[Buckeye]

I think this is twisting things a tiny bit.  Sure, the revelation was written down to "convince Emma", but that wasn't the purpose of its existence.

It's not like Joseph wanted to live plural marriage, sat down, and made up a revelation to convince his wife (despite what some here may believe).

 

The recorder of this revelation reported that Joseph could dictate it off the top of his head.  Now I've read it many, many times.  I can't do that.  I can't imagine ANYONE being able to write that document without revision, adjustment, errors, changes, etc.  Not to mention the additional doctrines contained in it.

No, it was recorded from revelatory inspiration, no matter what caused any particular copy of it to be written out.

 

I didn't say it made it up. I said he wrote it for Emma, not the church. Joseph F. Smith seems to agree.

 

The whole point of this is why me's argument that if Section 132 were to fall so would the entire church.

[JLHPROF]

I'm not passing judgement on D/C 132 one way or the other. But I'm certainly not chaining myself, or my belief in the atonement, resurrection, and the goodness of God, to one wacky Section - a section that was intended only to convince Emma of the program.

 

 

Without D&C 132 our belief in the "atonement, resurrection, and goodness of God" is nothing more than evangelicalism.  Our reward is to sit on clouds, playing harps, and worshipping God forever and ever.

D&C 132 is the section that provides us with the end goal, eternal lives, eternal marriage, eternal families, eternal increase.  Forget polygamy for a second, that section is as valuable as ANY piece of scripture.  It gives us purpose to OUR existence.

 

And Emma's doubt was certainly NOT the only intention of the section.

[JLHPROF]

I didn't say it made it up. I said he wrote it for Emma, not the church. Joseph F. Smith seems to agree.

 

There is a difference between "wrote down" and "wrote".  The copy may have been dictated to placate Emma.  There revelation didn't exist just for that purpose.

[bluebell]

Sure. The Church's D/C Student Manual explains that the revelation was written to convince Emma. Only later did Brigham use it for public purposes.

 

 

There's also this from the recent Brian/Laura Hales Response:

 

That seems to be saying that the revelation was written down in order to convince Emma, but I thought you were saying that God gave the revelation to JS in order to convince Emma.   

 

I must have misunderstood what you were saying.  

[Buckeye]

Without D&C 132 our belief in the "atonement, resurrection, and goodness of God" is nothing more than evangelicalism.  Our reward is to sit on clouds, playing harps, and worshipping God forever and ever.

D&C 132 is the section that provides us with the end goal, eternal lives, eternal marriage, eternal families, eternal increase.  Forget polygamy for a second, that section is as valuable as ANY piece of scripture.  It gives us purpose to OUR existence.

 

And Emma's doubt was certainly NOT the only intention of the section.

 

I'm pretty sure that Joseph, Emma, Paul, Mary, Abraham, and many others have had a belief in the atonement, resurrectoin, and goodness of God prior to (or without) section 132.

 

We'll just have to disagree about the purpose. The fact that Brigham later used the section for his purposes (and I'm not saying that is wrong) does not change the fact that Joseph did not write the revelation for anyone other than Emma. And to be more accurate (since were nitpicking here), Clayton wrote the section; Joseph dictated it.

[Buckeye]

That seems to be saying that the revelation was written down in order to convince Emma, but I thought you were saying that God gave the revelation to JS in order to convince Emma.   

 

I must have misunderstood what you were saying.  

 

We're good! 

[JLHPROF]

I'm pretty sure that Joseph, Emma, Paul, Mary, Abraham, and many others have had a belief in the atonement, resurrectoin, and goodness of God prior to (or without) section 132.

 

My point was that without D&C 132 that would be all they had, same as any sectarian Christian.  There would be no eternal marriage, no eternal families, no eternal lives etc.  Mormonism would offer little that any other Church already had.

 

 

We'll just have to disagree about the purpose. The fact that Brigham later used the section for his purposes (and I'm not saying that is wrong) does not change the fact that Joseph did not write the revelation for anyone other than Emma. And to be more accurate (since were nitpicking here), Clayton wrote the section; Joseph dictated it.

 

Yes, Joseph dictated it.  Also my point.  I don't care who the copy was written down for.  It's completely irrelevant.  I care about the source of the revelation.  Joseph dictated it off the top of his head to Clayton, no edits/mistakes/adjustements/doctrinal changes.  If that isn't "revelation" then I have no idea what revelation is, because there is no way ANYONE made that section up on the fly word for word.