Why I Argue That Throwing Out 132 Has Precident

[Kenngo1969]

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. ...

 

Perhaps I would have better luck attracting female attention if she knows there's a deadline date on the arrangement, and she only has to put up with me for so long!

[JLHPROF]

Mohanrimorianctumer was a polygamist ? CFR please.

 

Ether 1:41 Go to and gather together thy flocks, both male and female, of every kind; and also of the seed of the earth of every kind; and thy families; and also Jared thy brother and his family; and also thy friends and their families, and the friends of Jared and their families.

 

Jared had a family.  The Brother of Jared had families.

Which is why Jared had 12 kids but the Brother of Jared somehow managed to have 22 kids.

 

Ether 6:20 And accordingly the people were gathered together. Now the number of the sons and the daughters of the brother of Jared were twenty and two souls; and the number of sons and daughters of Jared were twelve, he having four sons.

 

Jared - one family, 12 kids.

Brother of Jared - multiple families, 22 kids.

[JLHPROF]

great idea!

 

Somehow I knew you'd be in favor.  Do you enjoy setting at nought the things of God?

Edited April 27, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Teancum]

Somehow I knew you'd be in favor.  Do you enjoy setting at nought the things of God?

No. I enjoy setting aside the nonsense that some think of is of God but is not.

[carbon dioxide]

Ether 1:41 Go to and gather together thy flocks, both male and female, of every kind; and also of the seed of the earth of every kind; and thy families; and also Jared thy brother and his family; and also thy friends and their families, and the friends of Jared and their families.

 

Jared had a family.  The Brother of Jared had families.

Which is why Jared had 12 kids but the Brother of Jared somehow managed to have 22 kids.

 

Ether 6:20 And accordingly the people were gathered together. Now the number of the sons and the daughters of the brother of Jared were twenty and two souls; and the number of sons and daughters of Jared were twelve, he having four sons.

 

Jared - one family, 12 kids.

Brother of Jared - multiple families, 22 kids.

Don't forget Orihah

 

Ether 7:1-2: "And it came to pass that Orihah did execute judgment upon the land in righteousness all his days, whose days were exceedingly many. And he begat sons and daughters; yea, he begat thirty and one, among whom were twenty and three sons."

 

I guess it is possible that he has all these kids with one wife but if I had to choose what is most likely...

Edited April 27, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[carbon dioxide]

If D&C 132 bothers you and you prefer that it not be included in the standard works, just tear it out of you copy.  As for my copy, it will remain.

[Sleeper Cell]

Edited his own text is the same as correlation committee.  Technically those would both be truthful statements in a Clintonesque kind of way.  

 

If you believe ”edited his own text” is the same as “correlation committee,“ why don’t you go back to your post and change the words:  “but then the correlation committee overrules him, edits his words …”  to: “but then he edited his own text….”  ?  

 

Since, according to you, the meaning is the same, you will maintain your integrity, satisfy the CFR, and everyone will be happy.  `

[SmileyMcGee]

If D&C 132 bothers you and you prefer that it not be included in the standard works, just tear it out of you copy. As for my copy, it will remain.

Haha, probably the best advice in this thread.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Just as I suspected: You have no idea what you're talking about in saying he was "overruled" by the "correlation committee." Now you're trying to back peddle to cover up the fact that you uttered a falsehood that, when challenged, you can't substantiate or document. Apparently you can't even define what the "correlation committee" is.

Calling the proclamation a "guide" does not diminish in any way its inspired nature. Its content is not revelation in the sense of declaring new doctrine or knowledge that was not already had among the Latter-day Saints. But its drafting and issuance was a divinely directed act. Thus, Sister Oscarson spoke the truth when she called it a "revelatory document."

Edited April 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Sleeper Cell]

Don't forget Orihah

 

Ether 7:1-2: "And it came to pass that Orihah did execute judgment upon the land in righteousness all his days, whose days were exceedingly many. And he begat sons and daughters; yea, he begat thirty and one, among whom were twenty and three sons."

 

I guess it is possible that he has all these kids with one wife but if I had to choose what is most likely...

 

Thirty one (31) children!  If Orihah was not a polygamist, I bet Mrs. Orihah wished he were.  

[Scott Lloyd]

If you believe ”edited his own text” is the same as “correlation committee,“ why don’t you go back to your post and change the words:  “but then the correlation committee overrules him, edits his words …”  to: “but then he edited his own text….”  ?  

 

Since, according to you, the meaning is the same, you will maintain your integrity, satisfy the CFR, and everyone will be happy.  `

Never mind. It's pretty clear by now he was purveying ignorant supposition for fact.

[Teancum]

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.

Ok. Present it to the church body and then add it to the canon.

[why me]

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.

Notice the words that I boldened in John's text. They are rather connotative in their intent. The words could have been much softer. For example, instead of threatened, John could have used counseled. Instead of furious, John could have used, disappointed. And Instead of backed down, John could have used changed their mind. And instead of reject John could have used disagree with.

 

But you see, John could not help his own bias. He needed to show harsh confrontation. But noticing such words goes a long way in starting to critically think ones way through a text. I also highlighted two of your own words. Damned and backlash are also two emotionally connotative words meant to show bias.

Edited April 27, 2015 by why me

[williamsmith]

Brigham Young was not teaching what anti-mormons claim he was teaching.....

It is that which is what the Church has disavowed, in fact, they clearly stated that Brigham Young contradicted himself, by teaching what he taught and the traditional understanding of Adam.

 

Me, I know what Brigham was teaching, and it's still and always has been doctrine.  He simply wasn't teaching the distortion of his words and meaning, that takes a more deeper understanding and the spirit to understand.

 

Further, revelation to a person is not the same as "actual revelation" that is given to the Church, is written down, etc..

Big difference.

[canard78]

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?

The version I have has Pres Grant's name in the front.

The reason for pulling it in Tacenda's source was to appease the fundamentalists:

“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.

Bold mine

[DBMormon]

Brigham Young was not teaching what anti-mormons claim he was teaching.....

It is that which is what the Church has disavowed, in fact, they clearly stated that Brigham Young contradicted himself, by teaching what he taught and the traditional understanding of Adam.

Me, I know what Brigham was teaching, and it's still and always has been doctrine. He simply wasn't teaching the distortion of his words and meaning, that takes a more deeper understanding and the spirit to understand.

Further, revelation to a person is not the same as "actual revelation" that is given to the Church, is written down, etc..

Big difference.

So official revelation must be written down? This post makes so many assumptions and doesn't clarify any of them as if you are the holder of truth which you can't share. Why speak at all other than to boast of your enlightenment. Edited April 27, 2015 by DBMormon

[wtrdog]

 

If you believe ”edited his own text” is the same as “correlation committee,“ why don’t you go back to your post and change the words:  “but then the correlation committee overrules him, edits his words …”  to: “but then he edited his own text….”  ?  

 

Since, according to you, the meaning is the same, you will maintain your integrity, satisfy the CFR, and everyone will be happy.  `

 

 

Yeah you see, the committee (which he's a member of) overruled him, and then he voluntarily edited his own words, see how that works...

 

Packer got overruled.  Packer also edited his own words.  Both things happened.

 

Fact remains: The Proclamation isn't revelation.

 

Is there a particular reason you're trying to twist the truth of what happened?  Elder Packer has a long history of this type of thing.  Props to the CC.  As much as correlation bugs me, I have to admit that Elder Packer is, much like Elder McConkie was, an example of why it was created to begin with. 

[wtrdog]

Notice the words that I boldened in John's text. They are rather connotative in their intent. The words could have been much softer. For example, instead of threatened, John could have used counseled. Instead of furious, John could have used, disappointed. And Instead of backed down, John could have used changed their mind. And instead of reject John could have used disagree with.

 

But you see, John could not help his own bias. He needed to show harsh confrontation. But noticing such words goes a long way in starting to critically think ones way through a text. I also highlighted two of your own words. Damned and backlash are also two emotionally connotative words meant to show bias.

 

Who's bias?

 

Can you actually demonstrate that his depiction is an exaggeration?  

[wtrdog]

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.

 

Yeah, a revelatory document constructed by lawyers in order to facilitate political lobbying against SSM.  

 

But a cute point.  I love word games, unusual phrases like "revelatory document" that can be interpreted so many different ways, whatever the audience wants to hear.  Touche to Sis. Oscarson.  Clever.  Maybe like the 14 fundamentals her talk will be the tipping point that sets the precedent from which the The Proclamation will morph from a legal document or "guide" to a bonafide "revelation."  I can imagine it now.  Over the next 10 years a bulk of the current Q15 leadership will probably turn over.  As is few the men in leadership at the time Proclamation came out are even left. So a few years from now, after all the guys who actually know who the authors were (first hand) are gone, and using Sis. Oscarson's little phrase as a justification, the fact that it didn't get censored, it probably will turn into a revelation.  Except we'll be well into SSM by then so maybe just the very opposite will happen.

 

I actually happen to have known one of the authors that was involved.  If The Proclamation is revelation then literally anything could be construed as such.  If we're going to attribute any process, regardless of who and how many people were involved, regardless of their positions and titles, but believing that the whole process was in some way shape or form guided by God in response to prayer, then yes, Proclamation could be called revelation.  But by that same rubric we could also say the bleeding-heard mormon mommy bearing testimony of finding her lost keys also received revelation.

 

When we talk about revelation, this isn't what we're talking about.  Revelation is meant to describe a "clear" process with a much higher confidence interval.  You know, like seeing God face to face.  Seeing words appear on a magic rock in a hat.  Not some nebulous process that's highly open to interpretation and human error.  But, maybe that's really the heart of the matter.  If Joseph Smith, and all the other prophets, received revelation in exactly the same manner as a bishopric or ward council, through nebulous feelings open to all sorts of interpretation and subject to bias, well, that would explain quiet a lot wouldn't it.  Suddenly all that messy history actually makes quite a bit of sense.  Which would then take me back to me point that people take things just a bit too seriously.  Under the assumption that section 132 was not conceived through a clear process of revelation, amending it, or setting it on fire altogether, both seem reasonable to me.

[thesometimesaint]

Yeah, a revelatory document constructed by lawyers in order to facilitate political lobbying against SSM.  

 

But a cute point.  I love word games, unusual phrases like "revelatory document" that can be interpreted so many different ways, whatever the audience wants to hear.  Touche to Sis. Oscarson.  Clever.  Maybe like the 14 fundamentals her talk will be the tipping point that sets the precedent from which the The Proclamation will morph from a legal document or "guide" to a bonafide "revelation."  I can imagine it now.  Over the next 10 years a bulk of the current Q15 leadership will probably turn over.  As is few the men in leadership at the time Proclamation came out are even left. So a few years from now, after all the guys who actually know who the authors were (first hand) are gone, and using Sis. Oscarson's little phrase as a justification, the fact that it didn't get censored, it probably will turn into a revelation.  Except we'll be well into SSM by then so maybe just the very opposite will happen.

 

I actually happen to have known one of the authors that was involved.  If The Proclamation is revelation then literally anything could be construed as such.  If we're going to attribute any process, regardless of who and how many people were involved, regardless of their positions and titles, but believing that the whole process was in some way shape or form guided by God in response to prayer, then yes, Proclamation could be called revelation.  But by that same rubric we could also say the bleeding-heard mormon mommy bearing testimony of finding her lost keys also received revelation.

 

When we talk about revelation, this isn't what we're talking about.  Revelation is meant to describe a "clear" process with a much higher confidence interval.  You know, like seeing God face to face.  Seeing words appear on a magic rock in a hat.  Not some nebulous process that's highly open to interpretation and human error.  But, maybe that's really the heart of the matter.  If Joseph Smith, and all the other prophets, received revelation in exactly the same manner as a bishopric or ward council, through nebulous feelings open to all sorts of interpretation and subject to bias, well, that would explain quiet a lot wouldn't it.  Suddenly all that messy history actually makes quite a bit of sense.  Which would then take me back to me point that people take things just a bit too seriously.  Under the assumption that section 132 was not conceived through a clear process of revelation, amending it, or setting it on fire altogether, both seem reasonable to me.

 

SEE http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

[Gray]

D&C 132 is problematic, it's true. But if you throw out D&C, you still have many more problematic verses throughout the scriptures. Many are more problematic than D&C 132.

[Nevo]

I find it very significant that the book was withdrawn from publication and shredded.

 

 

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?

 

 

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?

 

Before you place too much weight on the "fact" that Latter-day Revelation was shredded at the behest of President Grant, you should know that this is really just a rumor.

 

Tacenda's (and canard78's) source for the shredding story is Newell Bringhurst. Bringhurst cites James P. Harris's foreword to Signature Books' edition of The Articles of Faith. Harris's source is Dale LeCheminant, who heard the story in the 1970s from T. Edgar Lyon, who said he heard it from an assistant store manager at Deseret Book in the 1930s:

 

According to LDS Institute of Religion professor Dale C. LeCheminant, Latter-day Revelation became scarce almost immediately after it was released. When historian T. Edgar Lyon inquired about it at Deseret Book, an assistant store manager “took him down to the basement vault where he showed him fifty remaining copies. He then told Lyon that the book had been on display a short time. Some copies had been sold when the fundamentalists got one and immediately charged the Mormon Church with changing the scriptures … Heber J. Grant then gave orders for the remaining books to be withdrawn and shredded to avoid further conflict with the fundamentalists.”

 

Where the assistant store manager heard the story from is anyone's guess. The story may be true, of course, but it's far from certain.

[Scott Lloyd]

The version I have has Pres Grant's name in the front.

The reason for pulling it in Tacenda's source was to appease the fundamentalists:

Bold mine

Merry Christmas. I gave you an accidental rep point.

Is President Grant's name there as trustee-in-trust for the Church, or some such thing? That's a copyright thing. You would expect that in any work published by the Cuurch at that time, whether or not the Church president played an active role in its creation or publication.

I'm aware already of what Tacenda's work said, and it sounds like bias on the part of a biographer who evidently didn't agree with the work's removal. Why does he call the opponents of the work "fundamentalists"? Because they disagreed with the omission of 132? By that definition, I suppose I'm a "fundamentalist" too, as would be most faithful Church members today. I can't think it would refer to apostate polygamist groups, as the Church of Jesus Christ had never has any part or quarter with such groups. Why would President Grant be anxious to placate that bunch?

The glaring fact is the work very soon became such an obvious embarrassment to the Church that the Church President not only jerked it from publication but ordered the shredding of all unsold copies. That's the equivalent of capital punishment for a written work. You can't come any closer to annihilation short of buying back all sold copies and destroying them too, which would be impossible.

Think of it: Has this happened to any other Church books in history for whatever reason, be it placating "fundamentalists" or something else?

Edited April 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Before you place too much weight on the "fact" that Latter-day Revelation was shredded at the behest of President Grant, you should know that this is really just a rumor.

 

Tacenda's (and canard78's) source for the shredding story is Newell Bringhurst. Bringhurst cites James P. Harris's foreword to Signature Books' edition of The Articles of Faith. Harris's source is Dale LeCheminant, who heard the story in the 1970s from T. Edgar Lyon, who said he heard it from an assistant store manager at Deseret Book in the 1930s:

 

According to LDS Institute of Religion professor Dale C. LeCheminant, Latter-day Revelation became scarce almost immediately after it was released. When historian T. Edgar Lyon inquired about it at Deseret Book, an assistant store manager “took him down to the basement vault where he showed him fifty remaining copies. He then told Lyon that the book had been on display a short time. Some copies had been sold when the fundamentalists got one and immediately charged the Mormon Church with changing the scriptures … Heber J. Grant then gave orders for the remaining books to be withdrawn and shredded to avoid further conflict with the fundamentalists.”

Where the assistant store manager heard the story from is anyone's guess. The story may be true, of course, but it's far from certain.

See my response to canard78. Why would President Grant be anxious to placate "fundamentalists" as we understand the term, meaning polygamous apostates?

Again, this word of mouth account smacks of bias on the part of disgruntled individuals who didn't like it that the book was removed.

Again the fact that the thing was shredded -- if it was shredded -- fairly shouts that it must have been deemed a real embarrassment to warrant such extreme measures of suppression. If it wasn't shredded, why else did it become so scarce so quickly?

Whatever happened, it's very brief life makes it extremely insignificant and hardly persuasive evidence that Church leaders in the 1930s minimized the importance of 132.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Don't forget Orihah

 

Ether 7:1-2: "And it came to pass that Orihah did execute judgment upon the land in righteousness all his days, whose days were exceedingly many. And he begat sons and daughters; yea, he begat thirty and one, among whom were twenty and three sons."

 

I guess it is possible that he has all these kids with one wife but if I had to choose what is most likely...

 

Or he was at one point (or multiple points) a widower and remarried... His days were "exceedingly many" after all...

Edited April 27, 2015 by BookofMormonLuvr