Why I Argue That Throwing Out 132 Has Precident

[Nevo]

Again the fact that the thing was shredded fairly shouts that it must have been deemed a real embarrassment to warrant such extreme measures of suppression.

 

Again, it is not a settled "fact" that the books were shredded. But be that as it may, the book was an official Church production and was approved at the highest levels.

 

This is clear from two journal entries of Elder Talmage that Harris quotes in his foreword (see my previous post for the link).

 

The first entry is dated 28 June 1930:

 

By prearrangement I sat with the First Presidency during the afternoon, and together we examined in detail the copy I had prepared for the prospective bringing out of a book containing extracts from the Doctrine and Covenants. The purpose of this undertaking is to make the strictly doctrinal parts of the Doctrine and Covenants of easy access and reduce its bulk, furthermore making it suitable for distribution by missionaries and for general use by investigators. Many of the revelations received by the prophet Joseph related to personal directions in temporal activities incident to the early years of the Church, the immediate importance of which was localized as to time and place. Part of my work in the immediate future will be the carrying of this book of extracts through the press.

 

For 22 November 1930, he recorded the following:

 

I had the pleasure of presenting to the First Presidency advance copies of the little book “Latter-day Revelation” which is described on the title pages as “Selections from the book of Doctrine and Covenants.” The selections were decided upon by the First Presidency and the Twelve and the matter of arranging, editing, proof reading, etc., has been under my immediate direction, and I must be held personally responsible for the correctness of the type and the matter.

 

[thesometimesaint]

For all those that want to get rid of Section 132. What do you propose to replace it with that would permit Sealings?

[rockpond]

For all those that want to get rid of Section 132. What do you propose to replace it with that would permit Sealings?

 

Not that I am in favor of getting rid of Section 132... but what permitted sealings prior to 132 being published?  The vision and granting of keys document in Section 110?

[Mystery Meat]

Not that I am in favor of getting rid of Section 132... but what permitted sealings prior to 132 being published?  The vision and granting of keys document in Section 110?

 

Section 132 permitted it. Its publication came (allegedly) well after it was received. Removing it would, I suppose, not require the Church to stop sealing, but man it sure would make it a lot harder to explain.

Edited April 27, 2015 by lvjd66

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Again CFR that President (note the correct title) Packer got overruled by anybody, "correlation committee" or not. He is president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. I can think of only one other individual in the hierarchy more highly placed than he.

You continue to spout your own supposition as though it were fact, and the you ignore CFRs. This is called specious argumentation. Another word for it is dishonesty.

[ALarson]

Section 132 permitted it. Its publication came (allegedly) well after it was received. Removing it would, I suppose, not require the Church to stop sealing, but man it sure would make it a lot harder to explain.

What about Joseph's sealing to Fanny Alger?  That took place before Joseph received Section 132 (and the sealing keys too).

 

Were there others prior to when Section 132 was received?  

Edited April 27, 2015 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

Again, it is not a settled "fact" that the books were shredded. But be that as it may, the book was an official Church production and was approved at the highest levels.

 

This is clear from two journal entries of Elder Talmage that Harris quotes in his foreword (see my previous post for the link).

"Approved at the highest levels" though it may have been, it disappeared very quickly, and, by every extant account, the most extreme measures were taken to suppress it.

The compelling conclusion is that it must be regarded as an administrative misstep and hardly persuasive evidence that the Church leaders devalued 132, which remained in the canon all along, together with the rest of the D&C.

[rockpond]

Section 132 permitted it. Its publication came (allegedly) well after it was received. Removing it would, I suppose, not require the Church to stop sealing, but man it sure would make it a lot harder to explain.

 

Sealings were being performed before 132 was ever written down and possibly before all of it was even received.  Sealings were widespread prior to its publication to the church.  How were sealings explained back then?

 

D&C 110 documents the granting of the keys from Elijah to the Prophet Joseph.

 

D&C 131 explains the necessity of Celestial Marriage and the New & Everlasting Covenant for exaltation.

 

Wouldn't those be enough?  

 

(Again, I am not arguing in favor of removing 132, just trying to answer the question of how sealings are explained outside of 132.)

[Scott Lloyd]

What about Joseph's sealing to Fanny Alger?  That took place before Joseph received Section 132 (and the sealing keys too).

 

Were there others prior to when Section 132 was received?

Plurality of wives was not officially unfolded to the Church as a whole until the Utah period.

[Sleeper Cell]

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. 

 

Being “overruled” is not the same as “voluntarily edited.”  And you still have provided no evidence that the “correlation committee" even discussed  the matter with President Packer, let alone “overruled”  him.  But, as you admit in a subsequent post (#294)

 

I love word games 

 

BTW, CFR that the “correlation committee” ever discussed the matter with President Packer.  

And you still have not answered the CFR for your assertion that the “correlation committee” overruled him.

 

Is there a particular reason you're trying to twist the truth of what happened?  

 

Is there a particular reason why you insist on playing word games, rather than answer the CFR?

 

For that matter, is there a particular reason why you insist on calling President Packer, “Elder Packer,” even after being corrected?  

Edited April 27, 2015 by Sleeper Cell

[JulieM]

Plurality of wives was not officially unfolded to the Church as a whole until the Utah period.

I think his question had to do with Fanny Alger's sealing to Joseph Smith, not the Utah period. I'd like to know about any sealings that were performed before Joseph received D&C 132 too. What is your opinion on those?

[Scott Lloyd]

I think his question had to do with Fanny Alger's sealing to Joseph Smith, not the Utah period. I'd like to know about any sealings that were performed before Joseph received D&C 132 too. What is your opinion on those?

My understanding is that it was received long before it was published. I don't see a problem.

[JulieM]

My understanding is that it was received long before it was published. I don't see a problem.

Before Joseph received the sealing keys?

[thesometimesaint]

Not that I am in favor of getting rid of Section 132... but what permitted sealings prior to 132 being published?  The vision and granting of keys document in Section 110?

 

I guess we could use Christ's injunction to Peter that whatsoever he bound on earth would be bound in Heaven, but that seems like a stretch too far for me.

[JLHPROF]

Section 132 permitted it. Its publication came (allegedly) well after it was received. Removing it would, I suppose, not require the Church to stop sealing, but man it sure would make it a lot harder to explain.

 

This whole thread is kind of pointless anyway.

The Church isn't going to remove D&C 132 ever, no matter how much people might wish it.

IF it was a revelation from God and IF God is still leading this Church then the leaders wouldn't dare remove it without a revelation requiring them to do so.

Yeah, it's not going anywhere.

Edited April 27, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Scott Lloyd]

Before Joseph received the sealing keys?

No.

[Scott Lloyd]

I guess we could use Christ's injunction to Peter that whatsoever he bound on earth would be bound in Heaven, but that seems like a stretch too far for me.

I think a more urgent question is whether publicly advocating its removal amounts to flirting with apostasy.

[JLHPROF]

I think a more urgent question is whether publicly advocating its removal amounts to flirting with apostasy.

 

I think so.

If someone was publicly advocating dropping the Book of Mormon, the Bible, the D&C or Pearl of Great Price they are advocating against something considered by the Church to be holy scripture.  I don't see how that can be considered anything less than apostasy.

[Gray]

I think a more urgent question is whether publicly advocating its removal amounts to flirting with apostasy.

 

It's probably more likely to be considered apostasy for publicly advocating that we should live by D&C 132, as so many polygamous offshoot groups do. 

[Gray]

I think so.

If someone was publicly advocating dropping the Book of Mormon, the Bible, the D&C or Pearl of Great Price they are advocating against something considered by the Church to be holy scripture.  I don't see how that can be considered anything less than apostasy.

 

What if you advocate the removal of Song of Solomon? 

[JulieM]

No.

Then sealings did take place before Joseph received D&C 132 (or do you not consider Joseph's marriage to Fanny a sealing?). To me it's one or the other and not both.

[JLHPROF]

What if you advocate the removal of Song of Solomon? 

 

Well, the only way to do that would be to accept Joseph's statement that it is not inspired as a revelation.  If God revealed it was not inspired then it could be removed.  I also have no idea why anyone would advocate for that.  Are the teachings contained causing problems for some? 

[thesometimesaint]

I think a more urgent question is whether publicly advocating its removal amounts to flirting with apostasy.

 

I personally have no desire to practice polygamy, at least not in this life. So I think it is dangerously close to apostasy to publicly advocate for the removal of Section 132.

[thesometimesaint]

It's probably more likely to be considered apostasy for publicly advocating that we should live by D&C 132, as so many polygamous offshoot groups do. 

 

OD1 takes car of that.

[rockpond]

I guess we could use Christ's injunction to Peter that whatsoever he bound on earth would be bound in Heaven, but that seems like a stretch too far for me.

 

What do you feel 132 adds to our understanding of the sealing ordinance that isn't already provided in 110 and 131?

Edited April 27, 2015 by rockpond