Tribune Op Ed: Section 132 In Seminary This Week

[Tacenda]

No, he has asked more difficult things of me than commanding me to practice polygamy and I'm not the only one.

I wish I believed God commanded polygamy, then maybe all my troubles might go away. I believe he allowed it, right along with free agency.

[The Nehor]

I wish I believed God commanded polygamy, then maybe all my troubles might go away. I believe he allowed it, right along with free agency.

 

I must admit I envy your life if being able to believe one thing would make all your troubles go away.

[HappyJackWagon]

In all honesty, I don't know how this went down, and neither do you.

We do not know when Joseph first sat Emma down and explained the doctrine of plural marriage to her.

We do not know which wives Joseph asked Emma's approval on or whether she had rejected plural marriage at the time of marrying  each wife and thus exempted him.

We do not know exactly when the principle of plural marriage was fully revealed and when the principle of consent and the Law of Sarah was revealed or whether they were revealed together.

We do know that on several occasions she DID give consent, but not all and that she sometimes allowed for plural marriage briefly, only to withdraw her acceptance of the law later.

Also, the consent clause would have applied to all his wives.  He would have needed the consent of all 28 wives to take wife number 29.  Perhaps if they agreed and accepted plural marriage then blanket consent was presumed.  We do not know.

 

In the end we have absolutely no way of knowing because these dozens of private conversations are not in the historical record.

But I know Joseph was approved of God after he began living plural marriage in earnest, so there can be no sin in it.

I think you're understating the evidence we do have. We may not know everything but there is good evidence to at least suggest that there were wives Emma did not know about in advance. It doesn't really matter if we don't have a date when Joseph told Emma about the principle of plural marriage. We do know that she wasn't aware of these wives in advance, often evidenced by her having the maid, step children, boarder, removed from the home.

[Alan]

I think the evidence is being significantly overstated.

We don't know when Joseph sat Emma down to explain the doctrine for one simple reason.... he didn't.

We don't know which wives Joseph asked Emma's approval for because there were no plural wives.

We don't know exactly when the principle of plural marriage was revealed.... because it wasn't.

 

The truth will prevail and one day all will see it.

Joseph was telling the truth when he said he only had one wife, and had only ever had one wife. Interestingly, there are a growing number of Saints who are now coming to the same view, despite all the so-called "evidence".

[Gray]

I prefer revelation to attempting to reason out what God will or will not do. My reasoning would never have arrived at the Abraham/Isaac situation, polygamy, allowing genocide, and the like. 

 

Maybe that's because you're created "in the image of God' and those things you mention are, in reality, not godly. Which is why they don't ring true.

[ALarson]

The truth will prevail and one day all will see it.

Joseph was telling the truth when he said he only had one wife, and had only ever had one wife. Interestingly, there are a growing number of Saints who are now coming to the same view, despite all the so-called "evidence".

Alan,

 

What do you think about the essay discussing Joseph's polygamy?  Do you believe the leaders are also mistaken or deceived?

[JLHPROF]

I wish I believed God commanded polygamy, then maybe all my troubles might go away. I believe he allowed it, right along with free agency.

 

God always allows agency.

In the hotly debated 1886 revelation to John Taylor (which has never been canonized I agree, but has never been disavowed either) the Lord said:

 

Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject? Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandments, and yet have I borne with them these many years; and this because of their weakness—because of the perilous times, and furthermore, it is more pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters. Nevertheless, I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not, and as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph: All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law. And have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham’s seed and would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham. I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof; even so, Amen

[JLHPROF]

 It doesn't really matter if we don't have a date when Joseph told Emma about the principle of plural marriage. We do know that she wasn't aware of these wives in advance, often evidenced by her having the maid, step children, boarder, removed from the home.

 

Of course it matters.  If she had rejected the law of plural marriage out of hand then Joseph had NO obligation to tell her about his wives or seek consent.

[JLHPROF]

Maybe that's because you're created "in the image of God' and those things you mention are, in reality, not godly. Which is why they don't ring true.

 

Or maybe we have a false image of what God is like and how he lives and we are struggling to bring our mindset into alignment with his.  Cognitive dissonance is a powerful mortal weakness.

[stemelbow]

Says the Nehor:

People try to use this as some kind of trump card. God has asked much more difficult things of people then this.

Ringing in my ears is:

“Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what

they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and the

unnatural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that

to anyone?"

From Pres Packer, which of course, was edited out from the talk after conference. That editing may support your point, I suppose.

[The Nehor]

Maybe that's because you're created "in the image of God' and those things you mention are, in reality, not godly. Which is why they don't ring true.

Assuming that everything I like and dislike mirrors the opinion of God is the surest way to create God in my image. I am the flawed one. If everything that comes from God were pleasing to me then I am either ready for translation or I am worshipping an idol and/or my own thoughts and opinions.

There are portions of the gospel I do not like and revelations I receive that I do not like. This is a relief to me. It means the God I worship is not just me having delusions of grandeur. God pushes back.

Your statement also contains within it an implicit condemnation of the apostles and the prophet and that you understand the will of God better than they do. i call that flirting with apostasy.

[The Nehor]

I think the evidence is being significantly overstated.

We don't know when Joseph sat Emma down to explain the doctrine for one simple reason.... he didn't.

We don't know which wives Joseph asked Emma's approval for because there were no plural wives.

We don't know exactly when the principle of plural marriage was revealed.... because it wasn't.

 

The truth will prevail and one day all will see it.

Joseph was telling the truth when he said he only had one wife, and had only ever had one wife. Interestingly, there are a growing number of Saints who are now coming to the same view, despite all the so-called "evidence".

Brigham Young, John Taylor, and Wilford Woodruff were all lying? Is that supposed to be more palatable?

[Gray]

Assuming that everything I like and dislike mirrors the opinion of God is the surest way to create God in my image. I am the flawed one. If everything that comes from God were pleasing to me then I am either ready for translation or I am worshipping an idol and/or my own thoughts and opinions.

There are portions of the gospel I do not like and revelations I receive that I do not like. This is a relief to me. It means the God I worship is not just me having delusions of grandeur. God pushes back.

Your statement also contains within it an implicit condemnation of the apostles and the prophet and that you understand the will of God better than they do. i call that flirting with apostasy.

 

If you or I can't be trusted to discern right from wrong via reason, intuition and conscience, how then can we be trusted to discern good prophetic council from bad, or true revelation from false?

 

As I said, we are in the image of God. It follows then that our innate sense of morality and reason ought not to be tossed aside so lightly. 

Edited April 2, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

Or maybe we have a false image of what God is like and how he lives and we are struggling to bring our mindset into alignment with his.  Cognitive dissonance is a powerful mortal weakness.

 

It's likely that none of us will ever have a complete or fully accurate picture of God.

[The Nehor]

If you or I can't be trusted to discern right from wrong via reason, intuition and conscience, how then can we be trusted to discern good prophetic council from bad, or true revelation from false?

 

As I said, we are in the image of God. It follows then that our innate sense of morality and reason ought not to be tossed aside so lightly.

Our innate sense of morality is of value. Of course what most people mean when they say this is their culturally conditioned definitions of right and wrong which are much less reliable.

I do not lightly cast aside my moral bearings but I am willing to correct them via revelation and prophetic counsel as I am commanded to do. I do not place my moral reasoning on a pedestal so high that I question the prophets. If God thought so highly of my moral reasoning that he wanted me to influence prophetic counsel he would have made me an apostle.

[Gray]

Our innate sense of morality is of value. Of course what most people mean when they say this is their culturally conditioned definitions of right and wrong which are much less reliable.

I do not lightly cast aside my moral bearings but I am willing to correct them via revelation and prophetic counsel as I am commanded to do. I do not place my moral reasoning on a pedestal so high that I question the prophets. If God thought so highly of my moral reasoning that he wanted me to influence prophetic counsel he would have made me an apostle.

 

How do you personally separate out your culturally conditioned morality from, say, the light of Christ? Is the dividing line exactly at the intersection of doctrines you don't like and doctrines you do like?

 

In reality, everyone, from the prophet on down to the young men's secretary, is operating under the same limitations. We have our innate sense of right and wrong which we sometimes violate for what we feel are valid reasons, ideological or other. Sometimes it works out well and sometimes it works out not so well. I believe there are broader, universal principles that arise from the spiritual quest that ought not to be violated by more particular ideological concerns, however. For example, principles of unconditional love and compassion. If you depart from something like that because a doctrine has arisen that seems to be more important, then you've gone astray from the whole purpose of spirituality. The universal principles should always trump the particular doctrines. 

[The Nehor]

How do you personally separate out your culturally conditioned morality from, say, the light of Christ? Is the dividing line exactly at the intersection of doctrines you don't like and doctrines you do like?

 

In reality, everyone, from the prophet on down to the young men's secretary, is operating under the same limitations. We have our innate sense of right and wrong which we sometimes violate for what we feel are valid reasons, ideological or other. Sometimes it works out well and sometimes it works out not so well. I believe there are broader, universal principles that arise from the spiritual quest that ought not to be violated by more particular ideological concerns, however. For example, principles of unconditional love and compassion. If you depart from something like that because a doctrine has arisen that seems to be more important, then you've gone astray from the whole purpose of spirituality. The universal principles should always trump the particular doctrines.

Via revelation and prophetic counsel. I would argue that those are the best ways to separate them. I have already explained that I am relieved that the dividing line is obviously not based on my personal preferences. There are enough doctrines I dislike to convince me of that.

[Gray]

Via revelation and prophetic counsel. I would argue that those are the best ways to separate them. I have already explained that I am relieved that the dividing line is obviously not based on my personal preferences. There are enough doctrines I dislike to convince me of that.

 

No, meant to say the dividing line between where your personal morality steers you right and where it fails. As in, your ability to correctly discern right from wrong fails at exactly the points where doctrine says something like mass murder is okay if God commands it or similar controversial issues. That would be the point where your own conscience would say something like that is wrong, but you accept it as right if it comes from authoritative sources. I'm not sure I'm being clear, hopefully that makes sense. 

[The Nehor]

No, meant to say the dividing line between where your personal morality steers you right and where it fails. As in, your ability to correctly discern right from wrong fails at exactly the points where doctrine says something like mass murder is okay if God commands it or similar controversial issues. That would be the point where your own conscience would say something like that is wrong, but you accept it as right if it comes from authoritative sources. I'm not sure I'm being clear, hopefully that makes sense.

But what we call mass murder can be okay. Destroying Angels do it all the time. Admittedly it would be an exception to a more general rule about killing so you would need a specific revelation. Probably one coming from someone with Priesthood keys.

[Gray]

But what we call mass murder can be okay. Destroying Angels do it all the time. Admittedly it would be an exception to a more general rule about killing so you would need a specific revelation. Probably one coming from someone with Priesthood keys.

 

This is the danger of focusing on the particulars at the expense of the universals. 

[ksfisher]

But what we call mass murder can be okay. Destroying Angels do it all the time.

 

I'm itching to CFR that, but I'm afraid most of the references would somehow involve Cthulhu.

[Senator]

God always allows agency.

In the hotly debated 1886 revelation to John Taylor (which has never been canonized I agree, but has never been disavowed either) the Lord said:

 

"All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law. And have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham’s seed and would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham. I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof; even so, Amen"

 

Wow, that's really interesting!

 

So by deduction, should we then be expecting an additional work  to be introduced in the temples; that of proxy plural sealings/marriages.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Senator

[Mystery Meat]

How do you personally separate out your culturally conditioned morality from, say, the light of Christ? Is the dividing line exactly at the intersection of doctrines you don't like and doctrines you do like?

 

In reality, everyone, from the prophet on down to the young men's secretary, is operating under the same limitations. We have our innate sense of right and wrong which we sometimes violate for what we feel are valid reasons, ideological or other. Sometimes it works out well and sometimes it works out not so well. I believe there are broader, universal principles that arise from the spiritual quest that ought not to be violated by more particular ideological concerns, however. For example, principles of unconditional love and compassion. If you depart from something like that because a doctrine has arisen that seems to be more important, then you've gone astray from the whole purpose of spirituality. The universal principles should always trump the particular doctrines. 

 

The answer to this question is contained in Moroni 7. Happy reading.

 

Edited to add a healthy dose of Alma 32 would also prove helpful in the endeavor.

Edited April 2, 2015 by lvjd66

[The Nehor]

This is the danger of focusing on the particulars at the expense of the universals. 

 

Only if you are expecting said exceptions and seeking them out. I try not to spend my days seeking out exceptions to the laws of God. If I am involved in one it is God's job to tell me.

 

I am more worried about those who exempt themselves from prophetic counsel thinking they know better and seeking to become a law unto themselves.

[The Nehor]

I'm itching to CFR that, but I'm afraid most of the references would somehow involve Cthulhu.

 

We can only hope.