Why I Argue That Throwing Out 132 Has Precident

[Gray]

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.

 

Sorry, late to the party. The apostasy charges were dismissed?

[Scott Lloyd]

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

The whole grand panorama of eternal exaltation, eternal lives, the sealing of families together across generations, all being one with God and Christ in divinity, glory, thrones, kingdoms, powers.

If you can't catch a glimpse of that by reading Section 132, I'm afraid I can't do it for you with commentary on a message board.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

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.

 

I have them as a direct source but it is private correspondence that I am not at liberty to share here.

[rockpond]

Sorry, late to the party. The apostasy charges were dismissed?

 

No further action is being taken.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

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.

 

The Van Allen's said it themselves on the podcast. Thankfully the charges have been dismissed (via Dehlin).

I'm curious why a 70 told them the charges were dismissed. DC's are "local" issues. Right?

[rockpond]

The whole grand panorama of eternal exaltation, eternal lives, the sealing of families together across generations, all being one with God and Christ in divinity, glory, thrones, kingdoms, powers.

If you can't catch a glimpse of that. It's by reading Section 132, I'm afraid I can't do it for you with commentary on a message board.

 

I see that in vs 19... some beautiful promises there.  But I think that the doctrinal framework still exists (110, 131, & elsewhere) without 132.  As I said, I don't think we should remove 132 but I think it is problematic because of its connection to polygamy.  If the new & everlasting covenant is polygamy, than the vs 19 promises don't really apply to us.  If the new & everlasting covenant is not polygamy but being sealed (Section 131) than 132 becomes muddled... is it a command to practice polygamy or to receive the new & everlasting covenant?

[canard78]

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?

 

You're right. You didn't say it was a rogue project.

 

You did however say more than "administrative misstep."

 

You called it an "ill-considered and hare-brained... venture." Now that Nevo has brought it to your attention that this was a project that was endorsed the first presidency and done with the collaboration and contribution of the entire quorum, do you still consider it such?

 

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.

[rockpond]

 

 

The Van Allen's said it themselves on the podcast. Thankfully the charges have been dismissed (via Dehlin).

I'm curious why a 70 told them the charges were dismissed. DC's are "local" issues. Right?

 

Unless the Van Allen's have lied in their account, the disciplinary action taken against them was not only a local issue.

[wtrdog]

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.

 

Is this meant to be a troll?  lol

[Russell C McGregor]

This is what you call confirmation bias.

This is what you call anti-Mormon ideology.

[Sleeper Cell]

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

 

 

And an angel (or God, Himself) might not have similarly authorized Joseph to do other things on a one time (or case by case) basis?  Don’t you think that He who makes the rules has the authority to grant exceptions?   

 

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

As opposed to Abraham sneaking off behind his wife’s back and committing child abuse and attempted murder?  

[why me]

Who's bias?

 

Can you actually demonstrate that his depiction is an exaggeration?  

Of course. Words are used for emotional effect and how john worded his statement reflects his emotionally charged language. Of course, people fall for such words and react accordingly. What is important with such wording is to show conflice where no conflict exists. The critics can use language very well to show conflict and aggression even though not conflict and aggression exists. And then someone reposts what john said and uses aggressive connotative words also that fit nicely into the package. Again here is how john worded his blog post:

 

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!!!!"

 

As I showed on page 15, I believe, such wording in bold black could have been made much softer.

 

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.

 

However such change in wording would not convey the emotional bias that John wanted to tap into.

Edited April 27, 2015 by why me

[BookofMormonLuvr]

 

And an angel (or God, Himself) might not have similarly authorized Joseph to do other things on a one time (or case by case) basis?  Don’t you think that He who makes the rules has the authority to grant exceptions?   

 

 

As opposed to Abraham sneaking off behind his wife’s back and committing child abuse and attempted murder?  

 

So, God told Joseph to sneak around behind Emma's back and "marry" the girl living with them (likely to help tend the children)? Gotcha. Except the whole sneaking around thing is diametrically opposed to the "revelation" you are attempting to uphold.

Pray tell, when did Abraham abuse a child and attempt to murder someone whilst sneaking around behind Sarah's back?

Edit: Gotcha:

Well, if you consider a 100 + year-old man feebly binding his 20-30 year-old son abuse... sure.

http://ldsdoctrinalstudy.com/prophets/abraham/81-how-old-was-isaac-when-abraham-was-asked-by-the-lord-to-sacrifice-him.html

Edited April 27, 2015 by BookofMormonLuvr

[ERayR]

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.

 

Please demonstrate that the interchange was as combative and confrontational as described.

[ERayR]

So official revelation must be written down?

 

No.  To be official revelation it simply has to be declared so by critics of the Church.

[ERayR]

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. 

 

And they know this how?

[Scott Lloyd]

You're right. You didn't say it was a rogue project.

 

You did however say more than "administrative misstep."

 

You called it an "ill-considered and hare-brained... venture." Now that Nevo has brought it to your attention that this was a project that was endorsed the first presidency and done with the collaboration and contribution of the entire quorum, do you still consider it such?

In view of what happened to the project, what else am I to conclude?

Again, I ask: which President Grant do you claim to support, the one who reportedly endorsed the book or the one who ordered it be shredded?

Me, I support both. And I forgive an occasional error in judgment if amends are made for it.

Meanwhile, this obscure footnote doesn't prove what you so desperately want it to.

[SmileyMcGee]

This is what you call anti-Mormon ideology.

I agree (and love the irony of your statement). Being cautious of personal biases is anti-mormon....

[Calm]

Fanny Alger marrying Joseph Smith:

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives/Fanny_Alger

 

Most likely not married/sealed for eternity (it would appear that the principle of plural marriage was taught to Joseph before the sealing keys for eternal marriage were given him, but there was a marriage ceremony (that was not just a conjugal relationship in a barn as was implied by one poster since it was apparently performed by her uncle).

 

Question: How could Joseph and Fanny have been married in 1831 if the sealing power had not yet been restored? There is historical evidence that Joseph Smith knew as early as 1831 that plural marriage would be restored

There is historical evidence that Joseph Smith knew as early as 1831 that plural marriage would be restored. Mosiah Hancock (a Mormon) reported a wedding ceremony in Kirtland, Ohio in 1833.

Apostate Mormons Ann Eliza Webb Young and her father Chauncery both referred to Fanny's relationship as a "sealing." Ann Eliza also reported that Fanny's family was very proud of Fanny's relationship with Joseph, which makes little sense if it was simply a tawdry affair. Those closest to them saw the marriage as exactly that—a marriage.

Joseph and Fanny's marriage was a plural marriage, not an eternal marriage

Some have wondered how the first plural marriages (such as the Alger marriage) could have occurred before the 1836 restoration of the sealing keys in the Kirtland temple (see DC 110:). This confusion occurs because we tend to conflate several ideas. They were not all initially wrapped together in one doctrine:

1. plural marriage - the idea that one could be married (in mortality) to more than one woman: being taught by 1831.
2. eternal marriage - the idea that a man and spouse could be sealed and remain together beyond the grave: being taught by 1835.
3. "celestial" marriage - the combination of the above two ideas, in which all marriages—plural and monogamous—could last beyond the grave via the sealing powers: implemented by 1840-41.

Thus, the marriage to Fanny would have occurred under the understanding #1 above. The concept of sealing beyond the grave came later. Therefore, the marriage of Joseph and Fanny would have been a plural marriage, but it would not have been a marriage for eternity.

 

 

[ERayR]

I have them as a direct source but it is private correspondence that I am not at liberty to share here.

 

Then why mention it.  If it can not be shared it is no better than hearsay.

[Gray]

And they know this how?

 

They base it off of Joseph Smith's comments about the Song of Solomon. I believe his statements on the SoS were also preserved in Mormon Doctrine, which was held in high esteem when I was a lad. 

Edited April 27, 2015 by Gray

[ERayR]

They base it off of Joseph Smith's comments about the Song of Solomon. I believe his statements on the SoS were also preserved in Mormon Doctrine, which was held in high esteem when I was a lad. 

 

Okay, thanks.

[Tacenda]

Please demonstrate that the interchange was as combative and confrontational as described.

I don't know what you mean, please expand on your question to me.  

 

BTW, I'm re-listening to the podcast on Mormon Stories with the Van Allen's.  Here are bits of it.  For one thing their own SP had heard of the church essays but not really knew what was in them, according to them.  Which BTW, the essays are what started the Van Allen's on their intense reading of section 132!  So far they say that after posting the blog, after 4 days they were contacted by their bishop who told them it came from the SP and then the SP let it slip that he had been told by an area authority from Salt Lake to take care of it, and apparently to start the disciplinary council.  Pretty interesting that this blog that wasn't advertised etc had someone paying attention to it.  Incredible!!  I feel like that seems like the novel "1984"!         

Edited April 27, 2015 by Tacenda

[ERayR]

I don't know what you mean, please expand on your question to me.  

 

 

Here, this post from why me lays it out quite well.

 

Of course. Words are used for emotional effect and how john worded his statement reflects his emotionally charged language. Of course, people fall for such words and react accordingly. What is important with such wording is to show conflice where no conflict exists. The critics can use language very well to show conflict and aggression even though not conflict and aggression exists. And then someone reposts what john said and uses aggressive connotative words also that fit nicely into the package. Again here is how john worded his blog post:

 

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!!!!"

 

As I showed on page 15, I believe, such wording in bold black could have been made much softer.

 

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.

 

However such change in wording would not convey the emotional bias that John wanted to tap into.

[Calm]

For additional background on the Van Allens' story, you might want to read this blog.  Feel free to ignore his commentary (tone may be troubling for some) and just read the Van Allens' own stuff:

 

http://mofemwatch.blogspot.ca/2015/04/the-saga-of-lindsay-and-kirk-van-allen.html

 

http://mofemwatch.blogspot.ca/2015/04/the-saga-of-lindsay-and-kirk-van-allen_15.html

 

http://mofemwatch.blogspot.ca/2015/04/the-saga-of-lindsay-and-kirk-van-allen_19.html

 

http://mofemwatch.blogspot.ca/2015/04/the-saga-of-lindsay-and-kirk-van-allen_22.html

Edited April 27, 2015 by calmoriah