Why I Argue That Throwing Out 132 Has Precident

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

we do live by 132 as it is properly understood in light of other scripture and doctrine.

[rockpond]

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.

 

It appears in the case of Brother & Sister Van Allen that it is not considered apostasy.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

He could have received them concomitantly. Or there could have been prior revelation. Not all revelation is written down and published. Edited April 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

It appears in the case of Brother & Sister Van Allen that it is not considered apostasy.

Not all apostasy results in formal discipline.

And if you're referring to Dehlin's account, I don't regard him as a trustworthy source.

[JulieM]

He could have received them concomitantly. Or there could have been prior revelation. Not all revelation is written down and canonized.

Um ok, "could have beens"?

This still doesn't really address Fanny's sealing to Joseph before he received the sealing keys. But maybe more "could have beens" explains that too?

[Scott Lloyd]

Um ok, "could have beens"?

This still doesn't really address Fanny's sealing to Joseph before he received the sealing keys. But maybe more "could have beens" explains that too?

Again, I don't see a problem. Presumably, he had the sealing power. Elijah appeared to him in the Kirtland Temple and restored the sealing keys.

[ALarson]

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

This is your response to my question:

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?  

 

 

 

Did you misunderstand my question?

 

It's fine if you have no other answer.  I only asked it because there are those who are stating that if you throw out all of D&C 132, you will be discarding eternal sealings too.  But, it seems to be established here that there were sealings done prior to Joseph receiving 132.

 

I'm not advocating throwing out 132.  I really don't care if it stays or goes.

 

I highly doubt the leaders would ever even get rid of the parts in section 132 pertaining to polygamy.  That would only draw attention to the very verses that cause issues or doubts with members today.

[canard78]

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).

Nevo, you are like a walking encyclopaedia. These quotes are amazing. It shifts it from a rogue project by Talmage as Scott has been trying to position it to something far more significant.

[JulieM]

Again, I don't see a problem. Presumably, he had the sealing power. Elijah appeared to him in the Kirtland Temple and restored the sealing keys.

Before he was sealed to Fanny?

[Tacenda]

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.

bold mine

 

http://www.millennialstar.org/days-of-defiance/

 

"In 1914 John W. Woolley was excommunicated for performing plural marriages in his role as a temple sealer. Despite this public censure, John and Lorin appear to have believed the Church itself was secretly continuing the practice of plural marriage. In this vein, Lorin alleged that church president Heber J. Grant and apostle James E. Talmage had taken plural wives in the “recent past.” ²² The Church vigorously denied Lorin’s claims and excommunicated him in 1924."

 

The above is alleged information, but puts apostle James E. Talmage and president Heber J. Grant together in a scenario that befits answering your concerns Scott, with imagination I admit.  The below is a podcast about Pres. Grant being the last practicing polygamist prophet.  Wouldn't that put him in close proximity to the Mormon fundamentalist community.  Maybe he held tight to the teaching of polygamy in section 132 while understanding it needed to end while on this earth for however long.

 

For more background you could listen to the "Year of Polygamy" podcast,

 

Maybe James E. Talmage thought having section 132 in this shredded volume could enlist LDS men and women to live polygamy despite it being discontinued.  Here is an excerpt of how he was involved in the excommunication of John C. Wooley.   http://www.mormonfundamentalism.com/NEWFILES/PMs1904to1934.htm

 

"The Quorum of the Twelve considered Woolley's case on March 30th.  Apostle James E. Talmage recorded: "It became our painful duty to take action by which Brother John W. Woolley was excommunicated from the Church for insubordination and disobedience to the regulations of the Church.  It may be here stated that Brother Woolley, according to evidence and his own confession, has been instrumental in bringing about the unauthorized and sinful pretenses for plural marriage in the cases of other brethren who have been of late visited with the extreme penalty of excommunication."

 

Or maybe you're right and the shredded volume thing might never have happened or that it was really insignificant if it had.  I just spent way too much time giving my ideas on it.  I need a life.    

[canard78]

"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.

So you know better than the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 in 1930?

While they spent time considering the sections that were of the most current and relevant doctrinal value you simply dismiss the project as ill considered?

What was the phrase you used earlier?

I wonder if you would describe the new essays in the same way or perhaps the proclamation on the family?

[Scott Lloyd]

This is your response to my question:

 

Did you misunderstand my question?

 

It's fine if you have no other answer.  I only asked it because there are those who are stating that if you throw out all of D&C 132, you will be discarding eternal sealings too.  But, it seems to be established here that there were sealings done prior to Joseph receiving 132.

 

I'm not advocating throwing out 132.  I really don't care if it stays or goes.

 

I highly doubt the leaders would ever even get rid of the parts in section 132 pertaining to polygamy.  That would only draw attention to the very verses that cause issues or doubts with members today.

132 provides the doctrinal framework for temples and temple work and as such is part of the scriptural canon. At the time period you're talking about, there were no temples and indeed no Standard Works as they are known today?

Why is it that people want to throw out 132? Is it only because of polygamy? That has been discontinued by the Lord. But the Church isn't going to disavow it. It was the Lord who commanded it be practiced in the first place.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

According to faithful LDS historians, Joseph was "married" to Fanny in about 1833.

The sealing power was restored in 1836.

So, again, the question:

How was Joseph sealed to Fanny Alger before the sealing power had been restored?

1833-1836= -3

 

Edited April 27, 2015 by BookofMormonLuvr

[Scott Lloyd]

Nevo, you are like a walking encyclopaedia. These quotes are amazing. It shifts it from a rogue project by Talmage as Scott has been trying to position it to something far more significant.

I never said it was a rogue project.

I've said it was an administrative misstep.

And "far more significant"? It's an obscure footnote in Church history. The thing vanished almost as soon as it appeared and, by all existing accounts, was shredded, no doubt because it was such an embarrassment.

Again, in the entire history of the Church, how many works do you know of that this has happened to?

[Sleeper Cell]

Um ok, "could have beens"?

This still doesn't really address Fanny's sealing to Joseph before he received the sealing keys. But maybe more "could have beens" explains that too?

But it does address the assertion that Joseph committed adultery in the eyes of God.  It all depends on whether God authorized Joseph to do what he did.  Since there are plausible “could have beens,” might I suggest that neither of us really knows or can know, absent personal revelation.  

Edited April 27, 2015 by Sleeper Cell

[Scott Lloyd]

So you know better than the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 in 1930?

While they spent time considering the sections that were of the most current and relevant doctrinal value you simply dismiss the project as ill considered?

What was the phrase you used earlier?

I wonder if you would describe the new essays in the same way or perhaps the proclamation on the family?

I know that the project was quite obviously suppressed soon after publication. If the project has the stature with which you seem to want to imbue it, why did that happen?

Again, what other Church writings have been so summarily and drastically suppressed?

Edited April 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

 

132 provides the doctrinal framework for temples and temple work and as such is part of the scriptural canon. At the time period you're talking about, there were no temples and indeed no Standard Works as they are known today?

Why is it that people want to throw out 132? Is it only because of polygamy? That has been discontinued by the Lord. But the Church isn't going to disavow it. It was the Lord who commanded it be practiced in the first place.

 

Except there were temples and sealings prior to Sec 132 so it wasn't the original doctrinal framework. It was added later.

Regarding polygamy, it was against the canonized scripture/doctrine of the time. That changed when 132 was added to the D&C but it doesn't change the fact that those puzzle pieces didn't fit nicely together during Joseph's life.

[rockpond]

Not all apostasy results in formal discipline.

And if you're referring to Dehlin's account, I don't regard him as a trustworthy source.

 

Referring to the Van Allen's account.

 

It's true that not all apostasy results in a formal discipline but in their case, it was reviewed by their Bishop, SP, and a 70.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

 

 

Except there were temples and sealings prior to Sec 132 so it wasn't the original doctrinal framework. It was added later.

Regarding polygamy, it was against the canonized scripture/doctrine of the time. That changed when 132 was added to the D&C but it doesn't change the fact that those puzzle pieces didn't fit nicely together during Joseph's life.

Agreed.

Scott would be better served to hang his framework for temples and temple work on D&C 124.

[Gray]

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? 

 

SoS is canonized, Joseph Smith's statement is not. But I've heard many times from members of the church that SoS is not authentic scripture. 

[Sleeper Cell]

According to faithful LDS historians, Joseph was "married" to Fanny in about 1833.

The sealing power was restored in 1836.

So, again, the question:

How was Joseph sealed to Fanny Alger before the sealing power had been restored?

1833-1836= -3

 

I’m still trying to figure out how Joseph could receive the priesthood before he was even baptized.

[Gray]

we do live by 132 as it is properly understood in light of other scripture and doctrine.

 

We don't, as 132 is explicitly about marrying multiple living wives. 

Edited April 27, 2015 by Gray

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I’m still trying to figure out how Joseph could receive the priesthood before he was even baptized.

Well, an angel of God coming and ordaining you might have something to do with it.

Quite a bit different then sneaking around behind your wife's back and being secretly "married" in the barn, as is claimed.

 

[rockpond]

132 provides the doctrinal framework for temples and temple work and as such is part of the scriptural canon. At the time period you're talking about, there were no temples and indeed no Standard Works as they are known today?

Why is it that people want to throw out 132? Is it only because of polygamy? That has been discontinued by the Lord. But the Church isn't going to disavow it. It was the Lord who commanded it be practiced in the first place.

 

What doctrinal framework for temples is in 132 that isn't elsewhere in the canon?

[Scott Lloyd]

Referring to the Van Allen's account.

 

It's true that not all apostasy results in a formal discipline but in their case, it was reviewed by their Bishop, SP, and a 70.

Not sure I understand you clearly. Do you have them as a direct source or as filtered through Dehlin as quoted in Tacenda's post.

And whatever has happened in their specific case that doesn't rule out that publicly advocating for removal of scripture is conceptually flirting with apostasy.