Tribune Op Ed: Section 132 In Seminary This Week

[Scott Lloyd]

Well when your rebuttal involves manipulating words and taking things out of context based on preconceived notions I call that a tap dance.

 

Look, I agree with you that SSM is wrong and as of right now I don't see the Church changing, or any time in the next few years.

(Bold emphasis mine.)

 

So you essentially agree with rockpond, then. And Dehlin: It is only a matter of time.

 

That's where you and I part company.

 

But to say that the Church never changed official doctrine on the negro, that it was always just opinion, is simply not true, no matter how you bend the recorded official doctrine.

 

Again, the doctrine hasn't changed. The priesthood restriction was in accordance with the will of God until June 1978, when He revealed that it was to be lifted.

 

Theories about the reason for it never were doctrine.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

(Bold emphasis mine.)

 

So you essentially agree with rockpond, then. And Dehlin: It is only a matter of time.

 

That's where you and I part company.

 

It's only a matter of time unless Elder Packer is wrong and the winding up scene kicks off preventing it.  The Church will be partially out of order and will be set in order before Christ comes.  How far we will get out of order is a matter of how long we have to be influenced.  I only agree with Rockpond and Dehlin IF everything continues as it has to this point.  If something changes to prevent it then I see no SSM in the Church ever.

 

 

 

Again, the doctrine hasn't changed. The priesthood restriction was in accordance with the will of God until June 1978, when He revealed that it was to be lifted.

 

Theories about the reason for it never were doctrine.

 

I just showed you where the doctrine changed.  You proceeded to manipulate what it said.

George Albert Smith said that the Negro not holding the priesthood went back to the pre-existence and to revelation in an official First Presidency proclamation.

The disavowal essays say that was never official doctrine.

It's really simple.

 

But I agree with you about June 1978.  I don't see why this has to be a conflict.

[mormonnewb]

We should have more respect for Scott's parsing techniques... they'll be used in 39 years* to explain how old church teachings fit with our new acceptance of gay marriage.

*I don't have Scott's countdown clock or I would post the exact timing.

Mobile device rep point!

[ttribe]

If I were in the author's position, I don't think I would use the wording she did, but Op-Eds are generally controversial by design...so I would likely never be asked to write one.  That being said, aside from the "call to action" portion of her article, I think I understand the premise.  Here's how I see it -

 

- The Church has taught that polygamy, as practiced by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc., until the Manifesto, was revealed by God (not to mention various OT prophets);

 

- This teaching has been used to heap substantial abuses on, mostly, women (in a minority of instances, but a significant amount, nonetheless; frankly, even one matters, IMO);

 

- This teaching has been used by many to justify a "property" type of treatment of women (again, the exception, but an important one);

 

- A significant (anecdotal) part of the Church, and society at large, find this teaching deeply disturbing on a moral level.

 

Given the above, the natural follow-on question is - "Are we sure this was commanded by God?"

 

I think a lot of the consternation in this discussion comes from a discomfort with asking this question.  Perhaps it is viewed as subversive?  Lacking "enough" faith?  I don't know.  But, I find myself asking it. 

 

I've never been particularly comfortable with some of the wording of D&C 132 (even when I was actively defending it, or teaching it).  As a father to a daughter, I am even less so.  The more I reflect on the historical facts surrounding its beginnings under Joseph Smith, and its continuation under Brigham Young, et al., the less comfortable I become with outright acceptance of its divine origins.  Call me faithless, if you will, but I cannot get my head around how the positives outweight the negatives with the docrine as practiced in our Church's history; especially in light of many of the "fruits" it has spawned (not the least of which are the horrors coming out of Hilldale, UT/Colorado City, AZ).

[Teancum]

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.

 

 

Mass murder is never ok. If your religion teaches it is you should challenge it.

 

Destroying angels are no more real than Gandalf the wizard or the elves of Lothlorien.

 

Revelation that tells you to do bad things is simply a product of a deranged mind.

[JLHPROF]

Mass murder is never ok. If your religion teaches it is you should challenge it.

 

Destroying angels are no more real than Gandalf the wizard or the elves of Lothlorien.

 

Revelation that tells you to do bad things is simply a product of a deranged mind.

 

1. My religion teaches that it is ok IF it is of God, as scripturally recorded.

2. That is your opinion, not a fact.

3. Agreed, but our definitions of "bad" probably differ.

[ttribe]

1. My religion teaches that it is ok IF it is of God, as scripturally recorded.

 

But, what if God didn't actually command such a thing?

[carbon dioxide]

Mass murder is never ok. If your religion teaches it is you should challenge it.

 

So you are leaving murder being ok on the table.  Just as long as it is not mass murder.

[carbon dioxide]

If I were in the author's position, I don't think I would use the wording she did, but Op-Eds are generally controversial by design...so I would likely never be asked to write one.  That being said, aside from the "call to action" portion of her article, I think I understand the premise.  Here's how I see it -

 

- The Church has taught that polygamy, as practiced by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc., until the Manifesto, was revealed by God (not to mention various OT prophets);

 

- This teaching has been used to heap substantial abuses on, mostly, women (in a minority of instances, but a significant amount, nonetheless; frankly, even one matters, IMO);

 

- This teaching has been used by many to justify a "property" type of treatment of women (again, the exception, but an important one);

 

- A significant (anecdotal) part of the Church, and society at large, find this teaching deeply disturbing on a moral level.

 

Given the above, the natural follow-on question is - "Are we sure this was commanded by God?"

My answer is yes it was commanded.  God commands certain things but sometimes people take that command and abuse it for their own purposes.  One does not need to look at polygamy to find men abusing women or seeing them as property.  God commands people to do righteous things and Satan takes those commands and perverts them and leads people to believe "surely God did not command that, look at the abuse." when it is Satan putting into the hearts of the people to abuse.

[ttribe]

My answer is yes it was commanded.  God commands certain things but sometimes people take that command and abuse it for their own purposes.  One does not need to look at polygamy to find men abusing women or seeing them as property.  God commands people to do righteous things and Satan takes those commands and perverts them and leads people to believe "surely God did not command that, look at the abuse." when it is Satan putting into the hearts of the people to abuse.

 

1 - What is the basis for your answer that "it was commanded"?

 

2 - You understand that your reasoning can be used by people of other faiths for things you probably don't believe God actually commanded, right?

Edited April 4, 2015 by ttribe

[carbon dioxide]

1 - What is the basis for your anser that "it was commanded"?

 

2 - You understand that your reasoning can be used by people of other faiths for things you probably don't believe God actually commanded, right?

1. The scriptures show that God has commanded it in the past.  If I have a testimony of Joseph Smith and what he was called to do, then I have no reason to believe that God did not command him to practice it.  The evidence to me shows that Joseph did not really want to practice it.  He believed that God commanded it.

 

2.  Of course. People can find reason for everything they do.  Even those who are part of ISIS find some justification for what they are doing.  People can also find reasons not to do something. 

[toon]

I was about to agree with her point about "raising righteious seed" and how it doesn't add up, but then I remembered polygamy got us Steve Young.  And me.

[ttribe]

1. The scriptures show that God has commanded it in the past.  If I have a testimony of Joseph Smith and what he was called to do, then I have no reason to believe that God did not command him to practice it.  The evidence to me shows that Joseph did not really want to practice it.  He believed that God commanded it.

 

2.  Of course. People can find reason for everything they do.  Even those who are part of ISIS find some justification for what they are doing.  People can also find reasons not to do something. 

 

1 - Your conclusion, then, is based on your personal revelation and spiritual experiences with the scriptures and (presumably) some specific ones related to the truth claims of the Church as it relates to the Restoration.  Correct?

 

2 - Suggestions on how to reconcile the two? 

[The Nehor]

Mass murder is never ok. If your religion teaches it is you should challenge it.

 

Destroying angels are no more real than Gandalf the wizard or the elves of Lothlorien.

 

Revelation that tells you to do bad things is simply a product of a deranged mind.

 

3 Nephi and the flood of Noah suggest that mass murder can be okay. God does not appear to like it but He is okay with doing it if needed. Usually God takes care of such things himself for which I am grateful but I know of no promise that God would never ask such a thing of his people. The Law of War given in the Doctrine and Covenants allows for God to tell his people to attack an enemy.

 

I intend to create Lothlorien and people it with elves when I have the power of the gods. As time is relative therefore they exist now and therefore destroying angels do too. Checkmate.

 

Actually revelation that tells you to do bad things probably comes from good old Satan's flunkies. God telling his people to do things that seem bad but that he knows are good......that can be not fun but does happen.

[carbon dioxide]

I was about to agree with her point about "raising righteious seed" and how it doesn't add up, but then I remembered polygamy got us Steve Young.  And me.

Without polygamy, there is no house of Israel. 

[The Nehor]

Without polygamy, there is no house of Israel. 

 

Considering the House of Israel's track record would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

[Coreyb]

I have no problem with LDS folks who distain polygamy and would respectfully refuse to practice it if asked/commanded. I do have a problem with folks who seek to superimpose their bias/deeply held views and feeling about the practice upon literally BILLIONS of families throughout time by declaring plural marriages to not be eternal or ordained of God. Isn't it interesting that the most vocal supporters of marriage equality in mormondom tend to be the most vocal opponents of plural marriage. The way people compartmentalize their beliefs never ceases to amaze

[JLHPROF]

But, what if God didn't actually command such a thing?

 

Then, if you truly believe they were prophets, he should have issued a correction before it went too far.

[Thinking]

Jacob 2 has been explained repeatedly.

It is very clear that polygamy was not the abomination referred to.  If taken in context it was the misuse of polygamy that was being called abomination.

 

Yes it has, and according to Jacob 2, its sole purpose was to raise up seed. Yet apologists go to great lengths to suggest that Joseph Smith didn't raise up any seed other than with Emma. What then was the purpose of Joseph's polygamy?

[ttribe]

Then, if you truly believe they were prophets, he should have issued a correction before it went too far.

Actually, whether I believe they were prophets is irrelevant. The real issue is whether it makes sense for God to command such things. And, if so, how to differentiate when it is God issuing the command and when it is not. The stakes are awfully high to risk getting it wrong.

[The Nehor]

Yes it has, and according to Jacob 2, its sole purpose was to raise up seed. Yet apologists go to great lengths to suggest that Joseph Smith didn't raise up any seed other than with Emma. What then was the purpose of Joseph's polygamy?

 

I go to great lengths not to care either way. Either he had children by them or he didn't. We haven't found any but that does not mean they don't exist.

 

You go to great lengths to insinuate that some apologists are ashamed of Joseph having sex with his plural wives as if that is some damning point scored against the apologists for some reason I am not sure I understand. Some may even be ashamed but most do not probe into the sex lives of others out of respect and maybe do a few genetic tests to see if he had offspring.

 

As to plural marriage being a failure if there is no seed of course having children is the ideal. It is the ideal in every marriage. In this world we do not deal exclusively in the ideal. Would you also taunt an infertile couple for their marriage as it obviously has no purpose?

[Mystery Meat]

Actually, whether I believe they were prophets is irrelevant. The real issue is whether it makes sense for God to command such things. And, if so, how to differentiate when it is God issuing the command and when it is not. The stakes are awfully high to risk getting it wrong.

 

I have come to a firm a conclusion to this question (i.e., How do I know if it is commanded by God?). And I think the answer makes people (including myself) a little uncomfortable to be honest. The ONLY answer to this question is simply: 

 

By the Spirit.

 

It is irrelevant if it makes sense to you or me. There is plenty of scriptural for the idea that God will command you and me to do things that don't make sense to our mortal minds. I also find it interesting that there is a whole movement now where people are trying to confuse and destroy other people's confidence in the Spirit and their encounters with the Spirit. How many times have you heard any of the following arguments:

• How can you tell the difference between your emotions and the Spirit?
• People of other faiths think they "know" too.
• It is impossible to know.
• I used to think I know what the Spirit feels like, but now I can make myself feel that way on command.

There are a lot of little arguments that are just like this, whose only intention is to try and destroy people's confidence. I know because my own sister has used them. Her faith, sad to say was weak. As I have spent the last while studying the scripture on this very topic the more sharp the contrast has become for me on this. People do not like the fact that they have to listen to a still, small voice. That that same voice is hard to discern. That it requires a certain kind of heart and certain standard of living (sometimes/always for a prolonged period of time). It makes people uncomfortable that the Spirit is so easily offended and will leave them in a moment. People are like Laman and Lemuel, who complained that the Lord made no such thing known unto them. This was their faults, not the Lord's and certainly not Nephi who did receive such revelation.

 

A few weeks ago I had a phone call with a poster on this board. One of the many things we discussed was usage of the phrase "I know." I said I believe, but I don't think I know. I have had some awesome experiences with the Spirit over the past few weeks that have taught me to listen, trust and obey. I can say with surety now that I know. Listen to the Spirit. Rely on the Spirit. Learn how to recognize it. That is the only answer to your question. There is no other way. Logic and reason don't cut it. They never have and they never will. You are left with the Spirit and only the Spirit. If people don't like that answer they will be kept in the dark.

[Bobbieaware]

Considering the House of Israel's track record would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

If the prophecies of LDS scripture are true and will ultimately be fulfilled, then the fact that the house of Israel descended from righteous polygamist ancestors will prove to be a very good thing indeed! As promised, those who inherit the highest degree of glory will rule and reign in the exalted House of Israel forever along with the polygamous patriarchs Abraham, Issac and Jacob (aka Israel).

Edited April 4, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[JLHPROF]

Yes it has, and according to Jacob 2, its sole purpose was to raise up seed. Yet apologists go to great lengths to suggest that Joseph Smith didn't raise up any seed other than with Emma. What then was the purpose of Joseph's polygamy?

 

The same as it always was.  To create eternal families with eternal increase.  The couple of early attempts at polygamy notwithstanding, Joseph was only married plurally for basically 3 years.  Most wives he only roomed with once or twice.  Even Brigham Young who had children with many of his wives said that he had wives he had only seen for the sealing ceremony and didn't expect to see again until the resurrection.

 

But I guarantee Joseph and Brigham will be raising a righteous seed with all of them in the eternities.  We need to lose the mortal focus and remember that marriage is eternal and as with all laws it may take a long time into eternity till all the conditions are fulfilled.

Edited April 4, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Teancum]

1. My religion teaches that it is ok IF it is of God, as scripturally recorded.

2. That is your opinion, not a fact.

3. Agreed, but our definitions of "bad" probably differ.

 

 

1: As noted it is something you should challenge even if the scriptures record it.  It is bad business.

 

2:  Please provide evidence that destroying angels exist.

 

3:  The definition of bad is subjective I guess.   I would suggest that if your ethics, common sense and good judgment it is probably bad.  It someone says God is telling them to tell you do so something against these things, or your think the spirit is I would suggest you not do it.  It is likely the better choice.