Why I Argue That Throwing Out 132 Has Precident

[JLHPROF]

The canned answer that nobody can ever back up with specifics.  Yes, we Mormons love our symbolism.  I can make up symbolism and find correlations to anything.  And also an awesome blame the victim response.  If you can't see the the endowment all throughout the scriptures you just aren't righteous enough.  Yeah, that's it.  I say, if you can't see the source of the endowment in the history of masonry, 19th century mysticism and secret society culture, you aren't (put your favorite adjective here) enough.  lol

 

See post #221.

[wtrdog]

Someone should have told the Brother of Jared that.  You know, the polygamist guy who had such faith he saw Christ through the veil.

 

(insert huge eye roll)

[wtrdog]

Are you kidding? Do you really not see that this is purely your interpretation? What makes you right and others, such as scholars, wrong? And of course uniquely lds scriptures are going to have commonalities with the lds endowment.

 

This.

[tonie]

What are the many evidences that section 132 is revealed truth? If so why did the church discard a fundamental portion of it?

 

I suspect his response would be that many others, testified about LDS plural marriage, thus there testimonies would be regarded as "many evidences that section 132 is revealed truth".

[tonie]

While there is precedent for the Church renouncing or establishing clarifications; I do not believe as and individual member, I can use the Church Official actions to deny individual scriptures/revelations.

[wtrdog]

There are so many modern examples that can be used here.

 

Take Elder Bednar.  With tears in his eyes he says "we know from modern revelation" that April 6 is Christ's birthday, referring to D&C 20:1.  But oops, he wasn't aware that this verse wasn't actually part of the "revelation" but was actually some header/intro text added by a scribe and it's not at all meant to say anything about the birthdate of Christ.  Epic fail.

 

Take Elder Packer.  He says that The Proclamation on the Family is revelation, but then the correlation committee overrules him, edits his words and replaces the word "revelation" with "guide."

 

We can make an endless list of examples like this.  Some things seem trite, others not so much.  The issue here though is one of honesty, knowledge vs belief, etc.  Our leaders can't even get it straight whether their own words should be considered "revelation" or not.  They can't agree on totally irrelevant things like D&C 20:1.  But we're supposed to have confidence that D&C 132 was breathed from the mouth of God?  Give me a break.  It's a joke.  Is the story of Noah a literal history or just inspired fiction?  How much of the scriptures is literature vs history?  

 

The issue seems quite simple to me.  They are supposed to be prophets and revelators.  Send the Lord an email, get a response, and update the darn book.  

[thesometimesaint]

I'm sealed.  No I don't see the hypocrisy at all.  In fact, I see the opposite.  I find the 132-defenders to be the hypocrites, for essentially what they are saying is that their wives and daughters are eternally destined to be concubines in some great cosmic harem.  Such a hypocrisy would only be perceived by someone who doesn't understand the history of the temple.  Very little of the temple can be doctrinally substantiated (where can I find the endowment ceremony described in the scriptures, for example), and in the historical context it all becomes quite dubious and difficult to take seriously.  

 

I mean really, let's take a moment and just put all the dogma aside and try to rely on our thinking caps.  The temple doesn't make very much sense.  Purely in terms of logic.  Is it impossible to get divorced in the afterlife?  No agency on the other side of the veil?  People who aren't sealed when they die, is there some invisible force in the next life that prevents people from choosing to be committed to each other.  If they aren't "sealed," like opposing magnets they just repel against each other or something?  What's the point of getting sealed to your kids when they simply grow up and likewise become sealed to their kids?  So we have a bunch of adults "sealed" to each other, what, really, does that even mean?  What is the point of these baptisms and endowments?  We need not-so-secret handshakes and videos of actors debating about forbidden fruit to get into heaven?  Why would a person need to receive an ordinance in "proxy"?  They can't just make the same covenant themselves in the next life?!?

 

Do you think non-LDS people don't also want to be with their loved ones in the next life?  I observe that we tend to be a bit self-righteous about our eternal marriages.  We seem to think that we're better, that we're more committed to our families than people of other faiths because we use the word "eternity" and they don't.  Simply not true.  And I know plenty of LDS widows and widowers who have gotten remarried.  I happen to know a man right now who's wife recently passed away, and he happens to be from a very famous family in the church with high-ranking siblings.  Took this man virtually no time before he was back on the dating scene.  And I'm not saying this man should be lonely, but gee, he sure can't stand being without "companionship" for very long.  In the context of the temple I find this a bit difficult to reconcile.  Will this man's first wife now be forced to be a polygamist in the next life?  She has no say in the matter?  Or will the second wife get discarded?

 

Long story short, real-life, relationships, etc., are messy.  This black/white mindset of families all coming apart without these rituals is silly.  It's very silly to think that right here and now with our child-like perceptions of reality we're making decisions that are binding and unchangeable throughout eternity.  ETERNITY.  It's easy to change section 132 or create another basis for eternal sealings, just as it's been easy for them to change the temple in countless other ways throughout the years.

 

Concubines were married for a specific prearranged length of time. IE; If I am were woman I would be saying that I will be your wife your 5 years, after which we part ways, and I am free to marry whomever I want. That is the exact opposite of Eternal Marriage.

 

The Temple Ceremony is in the Scriptures. It is just not in one easy to read place in the Scriptures. You might find The Temple and The Cosmos by Hugh Nibley helpful in your search.

 

Why would you want to get divorced in the next life? Jesus said that God allows for divorce because of the hardness of our hearts. Do you have a hard heart?

 

If I put on a lab coat wear a stethoscope around my neck, and really want to be an MD am I a MD?  People of other faiths are free to believe whatever they want to. That has no effect on what God believes or accepts as binding on him.

 

They, like you, are free to accept or reject the Sealing. No one will be Sealed to anyone they don't want to be Sealed to.

 

It means that eventually all the generations of Adam will be Sealed together in one family. That my father and mother will always be my father and mother. That I will always be the father of my children. That my sons will always be the father of my Grandchildren, ad infinitum.

 

The Temple Ceremony isn't about "secret handshakes" or video's. It's about making and keeping sacred covenants with God.

 

I know plenty of adults who remarry too. So what? Those that want to be Sealed will be. Those that don't won't. What is that to you?

 

Why would they not want all the God has to offer? Do those that never had the opportunity in this life, though of no fault of their own, never have the opportunity in the next? Frankly you sound more like an Evangelical Christian than any LDS that I know of.

 

Speak for thy self John. I've never felt myself "better" than anyone else because of my belief. It has always been my challenge to live up to my beliefs. I don't waste my time worrying about others not living up to mine.

 

I first went through the Temple in 1972. I've seen the changes. NOT ONE has altered in the slightest the covenants and promises we have made with God, or his covenants and promises with us.

[CV75]

On this basis it appears Mormonism itself may possibly give you permission to personally discard portions of its theology and proposed revelations.

Possibly? "Mormonism" teaches that "permission" to believe or disbelieve is inherent in our agency and in the basis of our probation. No organization, practice, system, philosophy, ideology or movement can truly grant or deny such permission except one has imposed his own rationalizations upon it and then imposed these chains  upon himself! Seems kind of double-minded to me.

[canard78]

No, I know. I am not talking about feelings or warm and fuzzies. I am talking about actual, concrete, and unmistakeable knowledge.

As for your doctrine that it is impossible to know, I will remind you that Korihor in the Book of Mormon taught the same thing. I would advise you and all others who read the false doctrine you espoused in your post to consider the same.

Wow... Just call me the anti-christ and be done with it.

[canard78]

Don't think I ever saw canard78's response on this.

Maybe he elected not to pursue it. If so, that's fine.

 

 

Sorry, replied to the others on my phone and wanted to check a couple of things about this one before replying that needed my laptop. Normal service will be resumed in a couple of minutes.

[canard78]

I went back and looked at your 2013 thread on this.

 

If I remember correctly, "selections from" compilations of the Book of Mormon have also been made in non-standard languages to meet an urgent need while the entire book is awaiting translation. It's not my understanding that the "selections from" book was ever meant to replace the entire book permanently.

 

Was that the case with what you are talking about?

 

I've just noticed Tacenda had already referenced it:

 

https://lehislibrary.wordpress.com/2013/09/03/omission-of-section-132-from-the-dc/ Omission of Section 132 from the D&C

A fascinating bit if history on Section 132 that I was previously unaware of:

“Generating even more controversy in discussing the revelation was an officially sanctioned scriptural work entitled, Latter-day Revelations: Selections from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Published in 1930 under the imprint of the LDS Church, the volume was actually compiled by James E. Talmage, who by this time was a senior apostle in the Quorum of the Twelve. This work was characterized as containing “Sections and parts of Sections from the Doctrine and Covenants, the sections comprising scriptures of general an enduring value…”. Its purpose, in the words of Talmage, was “to make the strictly doctrinal parts of the Doctrine and Covenants of easy access and reduce its bulk.” Accordingly some ninety-five sections of the Doctrine and Covenants were completely omitted, along with parts of twenty-one others. The most noteworthy of these omissions was the entire text of Section 132! Fundamentalist Mormons were outraged, “accusing the [LDS] church of changing the scriptures.” In response, then Church President Heber J. Grant, ordered the work immediately “withdrawn” from sale and the remaining copies “shredded to avoid further conflict with the fundamentalists,” according to Talmage biographer, James P. Harris.”

Newell G. Bringhurst, “Section 132: Contents and Legacy” in The Persistence of Polygamy, (Independence: John Whitmer Books: 2010), 83-84.

 

For completeness, here is the title page, the full intro and section missing:

 

 

 

 

 

So what...

 

Scott, I think the first "so what" is that this is more than just a condensed version for translation purposes. It was an English publication first. Does that mean Pres Grant and Elder Talmage were trying to "throw 132 under the bus?" No, I'm not making that claim. But it's at least interesting that:

• They spend time explaining that the collection of modern revelations has changed in size and scope over time. Was this to help make the condensed version more acceptable?
• They say that "...many of these revelations... become of relatively reduced importance with the passing of the conditions that brought them forth."
• And that what they've retained are those that have "...general and enduring value..."
• They finish by saying that the D&C is a "...current publication." I completely agree that this is not a disavowal of 132. But it at least suggest that they felt that when a collection of revelations was to be made that were of "enduring value" and that were not of "reduced importance with the passing" of time and conditions, that 132 isn't necessarily and essential component.

[canard78]

Tacenda, it seems to me that you have a pretty good knowledge about controversial Church history and doctrine. Why don`t you lay off the year of polygamy podcasts and other various sundry topics. Just read the scriptures or faith-promoting things. It seems like you are waiting for every one else to tell you what is right, correct or should be believed. You get some good opinions, but aren`t yours valid. How about working at finding some peace. Focus on Christ. Have a relationship with him. Find those parts of the gospel and Church which lead you to him. If you still have to have intellectual books, read someone like the Givens. Crucible of Doubt and Wrestling with Angels. At the very least balance every thing controversial with the same amount of time spent in the scriptures/words of the prophets. Just walk the doubts under your feet. They`ll still be there. Some day you`ll figure them out, but probably not today. Regards, RTM

This sounds like: Ignore your doubts (different to the good advice from Pres Uchtdorf to doubt your doubts... though some people seem to conflate your version and his version).

While she's at it should she also burry her head in the sand and perhaps even put all her questions away on a shelf somewhere?

[canard78]

The temple endowment is all throughout the scriptures if you know what you are reading. Elements of the endowment are found scattered throughout the OT, the NT, the BoM , the D&C, and the PoGP.

You just need to have eyes to see.

So you're saying you just have to see what you want to see?

[DBMormon]

Possibly? "Mormonism" teaches that "permission" to believe or disbelieve is inherent in our agency and in the basis of our probation. No organization, practice, system, philosophy, ideology or movement can truly grant or deny such permission except one has imposed his own rationalizations upon it and then imposed these chains  upon himself! Seems kind of double-minded to me.

but to discard teachings even those with official stature and still be a faithful member in good standing.

[Scott Lloyd]

Wow... Just call me the anti-christ and be done with it.

I don't read lvjd66 as calling you an anti-Christ. I think the application is only in limited respects.

That said, contradicting one's attestation of sure knowledge as revealed through the Spirit rather invites the comparison. The similarity is almost too striking to avoid.

[Scott Lloyd]

I've just noticed Tacenda had already referenced it:

 

 

For completeness, here is the title page, the full intro and section missing:

 

 

 

 

 

So what...

 

Scott, I think the first "so what" is that this is more than just a condensed version for translation purposes. It was an English publication first. Does that mean Pres Grant and Elder Talmage were trying to "throw 132 under the bus?" No, I'm not making that claim. But it's at least interesting that:

• They spend time explaining that the collection of modern revelations has changed in size and scope over time. Was this to help make the condensed version more acceptable?
• They say that "...many of these revelations... become of relatively reduced importance with the passing of the conditions that brought them forth."
• And that what they've retained are those that have "...general and enduring value..."
• They finish by saying that the D&C is a "...current publication." I completely agree that this is not a disavowal of 132. But it at least suggest that they felt that when a collection of revelations was to be made that were of "enduring value" and that were not of "reduced importance with the passing" of time and conditions, that 132 isn't necessarily and essential component.

This is indeed a curious footnote to Church history, one of which I wasn't aware.

I find it very significant that the book was withdrawn from publication and shredded. It strikes me that such a drastic action must have been motivated by more than just a desire to placate the "fundamentalists." Rather, I'm guessing that the uproar over the omission of 132 brought into stark relief how ill-considered and hare-brained the entire venture was in the first place.

By the way, it is not unheard of to produce a condensed work in English to serve as a prototype basis for a foreign-language translation. That's what was done with the Guide to the Scriptures, a sort of hybrid between the Bible Dictionary and the Topical Guide made expressly for translation and inclusion in non-English versions of the LDS scriptures.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[why me]

 

The issue seems quite simple to me.  They are supposed to be prophets and revelators.  Send the Lord an email, get a response, and update the darn book.  

I think that you are being a little too hostile. Words at GC have always been edited. No problem there. I think that conference talks are the opinions of the speakers. Not sure if they are revelations or even directly from god. Likewise for talks at church. One must question everything. But at the end of the day, we need to hope that the members will be led well. And this seems to be the case. I don't see the members being led wrongly, do you? No if the leaders would be advising, eat and drink and be merry, I may find that questionable. Or if they were preaching a joel osteen type of success christianity or a joyce meyer. But the lds leaders seem to be on the right track.

[Scott Lloyd]

There are so many modern examples that can be used here.

 

Take Elder Bednar.  With tears in his eyes he says "we know from modern revelation" that April 6 is Christ's birthday, referring to D&C 20:1.  But oops, he wasn't aware that this verse wasn't actually part of the "revelation" but was actually some header/intro text added by a scribe and it's not at all meant to say anything about the birthdate of Christ.  Epic fail.

 

Take Elder Packer.  He says that The Proclamation on the Family is revelation, but then the correlation committee overrules him, edits his words and replaces the word "revelation" with "guide."

 

We can make an endless list of examples like this.  Some things seem trite, others not so much.  The issue here though is one of honesty, knowledge vs belief, etc.  Our leaders can't even get it straight whether their own words should be considered "revelation" or not.  They can't agree on totally irrelevant things like D&C 20:1.  But we're supposed to have confidence that D&C 132 was breathed from the mouth of God?  Give me a break.  It's a joke.  Is the story of Noah a literal history or just inspired fiction?  How much of the scriptures is literature vs history?  

 

The issue seems quite simple to me.  They are supposed to be prophets and revelators.  Send the Lord an email, get a response, and update the darn book.

CFR that the "correlation committee" overruled President Packer (note the correct title). My understanding from news reports is that he exercised the prerogative all the Brethren have to revise or amend their own texts for the printed version.

[why me]

While she's at it should she also burry her head in the sand and perhaps even put all her questions away on a shelf somewhere?

No. However, it does seem that she spends a lot of time reinforcing her belief structure. Much better to give it a rest and enjoy the spring flowers. Read the scriptures and pray about them and just enjoy what the church teaches: Help the neighbor, have love for humanity, live the word of wisdom, be chaste and enjoy life and live the commandments. Instead of attempting to find information to reinforce one's disbelief. In other words, some people need to take a break from critical literature and renew the soul.

 

If she would do the same search for any church, she would find skeletons in the closet. No church is perfect because we are all imperfect. .

Edited April 26, 2015 by why me

[Mystery Meat]

Wow... Just call me the anti-christ and be done with it.

 

Because I dont think you are the anti-christ. 

 

But I do think it is fair to point out false teachings.

[SmileyMcGee]

Because I dont think you are the anti-christ.

But I do think it is fair to point out false teachings.

And how do you determine false teachings? Would you have pointed out to Brigham young his false teachings regarding Adam-God, blood atonement, and blacks? Edited April 26, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[canard78]

I don't read lvjd66 as calling you an anti-Christ. I think the application is only in limited respects.

That said, contradicting one's attestation of sure knowledge as revealed through the Spirit rather invites the comparison. The similarity is almost too striking to avoid.

 

 

Almost...

[Tacenda]

Almost...

John Dehlin: "Super good/interesting news! After being threatened with church discipline for blogging about their disbelief in polygamy/D&C 132 and refusing to take down their blog post, Kirk Van Allen and Lindsay Van Allen were told today by an LDS 70 that a disciplinary council will not be convened, and that they do not have to remove their blog post after all.

The 70 was "furious" about the Mormon Stories Podcast episode, but it appears as though the church has officially backed down, and that publicity, exposure, sunshine, and sanity rule the day....at least for today. And now you can relax, active LDS Church members. It looks like you are free to reject polygamy (and D&C 132) if you so choose. Yay for all!!!!"

I guess you won't get ex'ed for rejecting D&C 132. So there lvjd66.

But it's really not my fight but just hope no young woman or women, ever get shown this particular scripture and made to believe they need to live polygamy or be damned. And I believe that it's why there is such a backlash against it being shown in the church essays without any connotations of what should not happen.

This is a lot of people's beef, IMO.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Tacenda

[canard78]

This is indeed a curious footnote to Church history, one of which I wasn't aware.

I find it very significant that the book was withdrawn from publication and shredded. It strikes me that such a drastic action must have been motivated by more than just a desire to placate the "fundamentalists." Rather, I'm guessing that the uproar over the omission of 132 brought into stark relief how ill-considered and hare-brained the entire venture was in the first place.

By the way, it is not unheard of to produce a condensed work in English to serve as a prototype basis for a foreign-language translation. That's what was done with the Guide to the Scriptures, a sort of hybrid between the Bible Dictionary and the Topical Guide made expressly for translation and inclusion in non-English versions of the LDS scriptures.

 

An "ill considered" and "hare-brained venture?" That'll be President Grant and Elder Talmage for you. Always up to their hare-brained ventures. Do you speak that way about all of the projects that Elder Talmage/President Grant worked on?

[Mystery Meat]

And how do you determine false teachings? Would you have pointed out to Brigham young his false teachings regarding Adam-God, blood atonement, and blacks?

 

No, but I wouldn't have needed to. First, know your role. Its not yours or my place to correct the prophet. If God wants to correct His false doctrine, he can. Second, I determine false teachings through the Spirit. It is a tricky process, but it is the ONLY way to do so.