Why I Argue That Throwing Out 132 Has Precident

[Scott Lloyd]

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?

I'm not certain how involved or dialed into it President Grant was to begin with. And as much as I admire and respect Elder Talmage and his memory, I don't believe he or any other mortal is infallible.

The fact that the thing was not just summarily withdrawn from publication but shredded as soon as it's deficiencies and problems became obvious says a great deal.

The Church has made a few administrative missteps over the years. This would be one of them.

Edited to add: It was President Grant who ordered the shredding. Which President Grant are you supporting here: the one you <think> had something to do with this publication or the one who mandated its destruction?

Edited April 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[canard78]

I'm not certain how involved or dialed into it President Grant was to begin with. And as much as I admire and respect Elder Talmage and his memory, I don't believe he or any other mortal is infallible.

The fact that the thing was not just summarily withdrawn from publication but shredded as soon as it's deficiencies and problems became obvious says a great deal.

The Church has made a few administrative missteps over the years. This would be one of them.

Edited to add: Presumably it was President Grant who ordered the shredding. Which President Grant are you supporting here: the one you <think> had something to do with this publication or the one who mandated its destruction?

There were members of the quorum evidently ready to overturn the priesthood ban much earlier too. It's a shame when the majority just aren't ready for it.

To answer your question, I don't know. I've shared everything I know about the document. Perhaps President Grant had more to do with either the publication or the pulping. I still find it interesting that in 1930 the leadership were willing to publish a volume of revelation with 132 excluded.

Edited April 26, 2015 by canard78

[wtrdog]

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.

 

It's hostile to expect revelations from those who we sustain as revelators?  Tell me more

 

Are we being led well?  That's a matter of perspective.  You seem to have the bar set quite low.  Eat drink and be merry?  Seriously, this is your rubric?  Man, I can't even respond to this without being negative.  If you'd like a list, happy to provide one.  I'm not in any way shape or form impressed by how the church has been run during my lifetime.  Abysmal.  There is a seemingly endless list of problems in the church these days, and every single one of them points back to the bureaucracy in salt lake.

[rodheadlee]

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.

Two things come to  mind.

1) Thy Will be done. It doesn't matter what you or I think. What matters is what Heavenly Father thinks. My wife and family will be whatever Heavenly Father wants them to be even if it takes all eternity to reach that point.

 

2)  I have never been inside a temple, I'm not allowed. My sin is greater than all other sins. I'm addicted to nicotine. I try in my mind to remind myself that it's a covenant I made that I don't keep and I'm just being rebellious.  It really ticks me off when so many people have what I can't get throw it away or worse the liars and hypocrites are the ones keeping me out. You think it's silly to be sealed to your wife? I think that makes you a hypocrite.

[Scott Lloyd]

There were members of the quorum evidently ready to overturn the priesthood ban much earlier too. It's a shame when the majority just aren't ready for it.

To answer your question, I don't know. I've shared everything I know about the document. Perhaps President Grant had more to do with either the publication or the pulping. I still find it interesting that in 1930 the leadership were willing to publish a volume of revelation with 132 excluded.

It was never intended to replace the D&C. It said so itself, right there in the frontmatter.

The source Tacenda quoted said Elder Talmage compiled it and President Grant ordered it be shredded.

And how many publications by the Church do you know of that have been deemed such an embarrassment to the Church that they are shredded, as this stinker was?

Edited April 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

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

I don't know if I understand what you are saying here. A member can only discard a teaching (indicating that he once found it useful or desirable) from his private beliefs and thoughts. Depending on what he does with his non-belief (and his rationale for discarding the teaching from his fund of knowledge), his membership standing could be affected. It does not mean his faithfulness has changed or that his inner faithfulness is a factor considered by his bishop in assessing his membership standing.

[wtrdog]

There were members of the quorum evidently ready to overturn the priesthood ban much earlier too. It's a shame when the majority just aren't ready for it.

To answer your question, I don't know. I've shared everything I know about the document. Perhaps President Grant had more to do with either the publication or the pulping. I still find it interesting that in 1930 the leadership were willing to publish a volume of revelation with 132 excluded.

 

 

This is another one of those things that has evolved over time.  We say, "follow the prophet," but neglect to mention the fact that there isn't one.  There is a body of 15 men which constitute "the prophet."  If it had't been for one hold out racist the ban would have been done away with many decades earlier, perhaps even in the 1940s.  Lay members had been receiving this revelation and getting excommunicated over it for decades.  And in the grand scheme of things we can appreciate the full impact.  Ok, they refused to baptize some people, treated some people poorly.  Yeah, whatever.  That's bad, but that short-term cost was relatively small.  Here we are though in 2015 and that legacy is still an albatross around the church's neck.  And even still today the church hasn't fully addressed the issue.  It still hasn't even been dealt with!  "We disavow racism, but please don't expect us to address the elephant in the room.  Please don't ask us to explain how so many prophets were wrong about this issue.  Please don't ask us what we might be wrong about today that we reserve the right to disavow sometime down the road."

 

I'm actually curious.  Some of the hard-core TBMs here.  What would it take to break your confidence?  If the leaders announced that women were getting the priesthood, would that be too much for you?  What if they announced they were getting onboard with the whole gay marriage thing?  Would that do it?  What if they decided the WOW is a matter of personal conscience, so they aren't going to say what's in keeping with it or not, personal choice?  

 

Just once in my lifetime I'd like to see a leader that actually had the course of his convictions.  I'd like, just once, to see the prophet utter the words, "I am a prophet."  And then say, "The Lord has given me a message for you all, and here it is..."  "I have received a revelation from the Lord, and it reads..."  Never once heard any of the leaders say they are a prophet, they sure like to refer to each other as prophets, but never themselves.  For once I'd like to see a leader that is honest about their spiritual experiences.  "No, I have never seen Christ.  And I don't know of anybody that has."  "I've prayed and prayed to know what to do, and honestly haven't gotten a clear answer.  I believe this is the right thing, but I'm not 100% sure.  I could be wrong."  

 

I would have tons and tons and tons of respect for the leaders if they just said that.  Simply be completely transparent about what they do and don't know, confidence interval, etc.  They are asked about ordaining women for instance.  Don't know if they ever actually bothered to pray about that or not.  Assuming they have, why can't they just say, "Hey, ladies, we get it.  We understand your pain.  We appreciate your concerns and questions, thanks.  And we have taken this issue to the Lord.  We've prayed about it, and we just haven't gotten an answer.  We simply don't feel comfortable changing this policy without a clear answer one way or the other.  To us, the lack of a clear "yes" answer is the same as a "NO" and that's just the way it is."

[Scott Lloyd]

A reminder to wrt: There is a CFR on the table.

You asserted a priori that "the correlation committee" (whatever that is) "overruled" President Packer.

If you don't substantiate your claim, I'll feel at liberty to conclude you don't know what you're talking about.

[wtrdog]

Two things come to  mind.

1) Thy Will be done. It doesn't matter what you or I think. What matters is what Heavenly Father thinks. My wife and family will be whatever Heavenly Father wants them to be even if it takes all eternity to reach that point.

 

2)  I have never been inside a temple, I'm not allowed. My sin is greater than all other sins. I'm addicted to nicotine. I try in my mind to remind myself that it's a covenant I made that I don't keep and I'm just being rebellious.  It really ticks me off when so many people have what I can't get throw it away or worse the liars and hypocrites are the ones keeping me out. You think it's silly to be sealed to your wife? I think that makes you a hypocrite.

 

That is understandably irritating.  Especially given the history of the WOW.  For what it's worth, in my opinion, you can enter the temple of you feel yourself to be worthy.  I'm probably just a heretic, but in my opinion there is no clear definition for the WOW and that it's not a commandment (and never was) in the "thou shalt not" sense.  For example, when asked if you are a full tithe payer who is it that acts as the judge?  You do, right?  Gross, net, leftovers, whatever, there are a lot of different interpretations to the law of tithing.  Study the scriptures for yourself, read, pray, decide what YOU believe to be an honest tithe, what the Lord wants you to do.  In my opinion WOW is no different.  If you look at the history of the WOW, members were drinking up until prohibition, and then the culture changed.  And now today you've got members who are incredibly unhealthy strung out on sugar water and red bull, but somehow that's in keeping with the WOW but a beer (which is actually promoted as good and healthy in the WOW itself) is evil.  The whole thing has been perverted.  The WOW is actually a very hard law to keep, requires a lot of diligence, and in my opinion very very few members are truly living the law.  Very few.  By reducing the law to 5 simple rules the church has managed to make children out of us all and remove a portion of our agency.  Is going out and getting drunk healthy?  No.  But drinking fermented beverages in moderation can be extremely healthy.  And among the "preppers" in the church you'll find a lot of people like this actually, a lot of people brewing their own beer.  They just keep it on the down low, or use other names like "kombucha."  Of course I'm not arguing cigarettes are good.  Just saying in my opinion, you are your own judge.  I don't think we're being asked if we live the WOW perfectly, but if we strive to keep it.  Otherwise, in my opinion, there's a lot of overweight GAs which have no business holding temple recommends.  But of course in their mind they obey the 5 rules, so who cares.  Won't drink green tea that is healthy, but red bull all day long.  lol

 

I didn't think my sealing was silly at the time.  And I still don't, there is nothing silly about the commitment.  I'm simply saying there is no basis from which to take things so seriously.  Some things are probably best dealt with in the next life, assuming there in fact is one.  I certainly hope there is.  I have that faith, but I don't know.  It's a lot of wishful thinking and people need to just chillax.  If you want to take the temple seriously, please never read any of the history about it.  Even in my most TBM of days I never liked the temple to be perfectly honest about it.  I like the beauty, the celestial room and all that.  And I like probably half of the endowment, the story of creation and such, that is good for some deep thinking.  But the handshakes, chanting, etc., all the other stuff just feels super weird and is a huge turn off.  I find it to be spiritually disruptive.  And then after I studied the history and could see where each and every thing came from, just silly.  There should be a balance, and we take it too seriously.  We get much too worked up about temple trips.  So much effort spent on busy work instead of engaging in service towards the living.  I just can't imagine that God is the grand poobah of bureaucracy, cause that's how it feels.  And some of the elements are a bit destructive to relationships as well.  Like not allowing non-member family to witness a child's wedding.  That's pretty bad in my opinion.  At the very least they could encourage, or even allow, a couple to have a normal wedding outside the temple, then get sealed later.  But they throw up every road block in their power to try and control people and prevent that.  End result, relationships get destroyed.  Why, because something "dirty" will happen after the civil wedding that might have a butterfly effect and disrupt eternity or something?  A lot of voodoo nonsense.  Religion is a form of expression more than anything else.  We like to think about marriage in an eternal context with long-lasting ramifications, and I think that's great.  Polygamy is awful though.  Or I should say forced polygamy.

[JLHPROF]

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

 

No, I'm saying spiritual blindness is an epidemic.

[wtrdog]

A reminder to wrt: There is a CFR on the table.

You asserted a priori that "the correlation committee" (whatever that is) "overruled" President Packer.

If you don't substantiate your claim, I'll feel at liberty to conclude you don't know what you're talking about.

 

??

 

Just watch the video and compare with the text.  Elder Packer.  General Conference.  2010.

 

Video he says "revelation".  Text reads "guide." 

 

Pretty simple.

[wtrdog]

No, I'm saying spiritual blindness is an epidemic.

 

Say zealots from every religion.  It's pretty arrogant to assert that you are in a state of spiritual clarity.  If you have achieved such a state, perhaps you can answer these questions that the prophet isn't able to.

[Scott Lloyd]

??

 

Just watch the video and compare with the text.  Elder Packer.  General Conference.  2010.

 

Video he says "revelation".  Text reads "guide." 

 

Pretty simple.

You said the "correlation committee" "overruled" him. A church spokesman was quoted as saying he edited his own text for printing, as was his prerogative.

Prove your bogus assertion about him being "overruled" by the "correlation committee" or withdraw it. That's what a CFR requires.

And don't play dumb.

What is "the correlation committee" anyway? Do you even know?

Edited April 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

By the way, Bonnie Oscarson in general conference called the family proclamation a "revelatory document." She hasn't been slapped down or censored yet as far as I know.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

Offensive, disgusting and false.

[Mystery Meat]

Offensive, disgusting and false.

 

It was cheap and gross. Posters have been banned for less.

[wtrdog]

You said the "correlation committee" "overruled" him. A church spokesman was quoted as saying he edited his own text for printing, as was his prerogative.

Prove your bogus assertion about him being "overruled" by the "correlation committee" or withdraw it. That's what a CFR requires.

And don't play dumb.

What is "the correlation committee" anyway? Do you even know?

 

Edited his own text is the same as correlation committee.  Technically those would both be truthful statements in a Clintonesque kind of way.  The edit was quite substantial, not a simple word change either.  He dropped of a full sentence that stated The Proclamation qualifies according to the definition as a revelation... then chopped this off altogether as "guide."  I agree... stop playing dumb.  The point here is The Proclamation isn't a revelation, they (aka Q15), don't feel comfortable/confident enough to go on record as officially declaring it as such.  

[wtrdog]

Offensive, disgusting and false.

 

 

Read the quotes of BY and other prophets on the subject if you think I'm bad.  

[wtrdog]

It was cheap and gross. Posters have been banned for less.

 

So you guys would ban President Brigham Young from the board? 

[Sleeper Cell]

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 not rejecting D&C 132.  So there lvjd66.  

 

“Not getting ex’ed” strikes me as a pretty low standard.  Especially in view of  the “wheat and tares” parable.

[Teancum]

How many of you that want to toss out 132 are sealed to your spouses and families? Don't you see the hypocrisy in this?

Why?

[Teancum]

Then we should toss a huge chunk of the OT too.  We are no longer under the Law of Moses either.  All that sacrificing of doves and bullocks and stoning people is of no use to us now.

And any prophecies that have already been fulfilled long in the past.  We can get rid of them too since they don't apply to us today either.

great idea!

[Teancum]

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.

This is what you call confirmation bias.

[Teancum]

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

Mohanrimorianctumer was a polygamist ? CFR please.

[Tacenda]

“Not getting ex’ed” strikes me as a pretty low standard. Especially in view of the “wheat and tares” parable.

I'm glad you quoted me. Just noticed an error in my post. I'll have to read this parable and see what you mean here, brain dead.