Why I Argue That Throwing Out 132 Has Precident

[BookofMormonLuvr]

 

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).

 

 

 

This creates quite a quandary, as this explanation leaves the impression that plural marriage is a perfectly acceptable contractual agreement without commandment or sealing power required, which again contradicts the very "revelation" it is trying to defend. 

I cannot accept 132 because the history of it's practice in the early church and comparing it to the scriptural practice are in stark contrast to the the "revelation" itself.

I also do not accept the Josephite premise that it is wrong not matter what, no matter how it's practiced.

There is a perfectly good scriptural pattern for the practice, if one is willing to lay aside their denominational prejudices and look.

 

[SmileyMcGee]

And they know this how?

Bible dictionary refers to JST saying it's not inspired. Footnote to 1st chapter of SoS may say the same

Edited April 27, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[why me]

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"!         

But it seems unless I missed something, we have only one side to the story. Where is the other side to the story? From the SP or bishop? I would like to hear from them. And unless I do, I will withhold judgement until more information comes forth.

[Calm]

BoML:

I don't get where you get no commandment or sealing power required.

That eternal marriage and its keys hadn't been restored yet doesn't automatically imply no commandment or priesthood keys pertaining to plural marriage.

[Sleeper Cell]

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

 

Genesis 22.  Even if you interpret “lad” to mean “teenager” or “young adult,” and even if you believe that, at the last minute, Isaac “must” have “voluntarily consented,” it was still abuse (given Abraham’s parental and priesthood authority) and attempted murder  -- unless you believe that God commanded it.  

 

BTW, when I was growing up it was not unusual (at least in my experience) for protestant Christians to depict Isaac-on-the-altar as a child.  My point is not whether “Isaac was a child” is the official doctrine of any church, but to illustrate that, in my experience, many ordinary Christians were willing to believe that God sometimes does command things that are diametrically opposed  to revelations that Christians are attempting to uphold.  The Ten Commandments, for starters.   

 

If you believe -- on the basis of personal revelation -- that God never commanded Joseph to marry Fanny, and therefore he committed adultery (or even that therefore he was a “fallen prophet”), so be it.  You are hardly answerable to me for what is between you and God.  But if you reach that conclusion based solely on the fact that somebody whom you acknowledge was a prophet violated a revelation or commandment (and that God never would make an exception), you should judge all prophets by the same standard. 

[ttribe]

BoML:

I don't get where you get no commandment or sealing power required.

That eternal marriage and its keys hadn't been restored yet doesn't automatically imply no commandment or priesthood keys pertaining to plural marriage.

 

But the record is, at best, incomplete on the issue.  That leaves significant room for interpretation and, at the end of the day, there is simply no record of a revelation regarding the practice of polygamy until well after Joseph's relationship with Ms. Alger.  It's an issue defenders will have to deal with into perpetuity.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

 

Genesis 22.  Even if you interpret “lad” to mean “teenager” or “young adult,” and even if you believe that, at the last minute, Isaac “must” have “voluntarily consented,” it was still abuse (given Abraham’s parental and priesthood authority) and attempted murder  -- unless you believe that God commanded it.  

 

BTW, when I was growing up it was not unusual (at least in my experience) for protestant Christians to depict Isaac-on-the-altar as a child.  My point is not whether “Isaac was a child” is the official doctrine of any church, but to illustrate that, in my experience, many ordinary Christians were willing to believe that God sometimes does command things that are diametrically opposed  to revelations that Christians are attempting to uphold.  The Ten Commandments, for starters.   

 

If you believe -- on the basis of personal revelation -- that God never commanded Joseph to marry Fanny, and therefore he committed adultery (or even that therefore he was a “fallen prophet”), so be it.  You are hardly answerable to me for what is between you and God.  But if you reach that conclusion based solely on the fact that somebody whom you acknowledge was a prophet violated a revelation or commandment (and that God never would make an exception), you should judge all prophets by the same standard. 

 

Far as I know Abraham lived before the 10 Commandments, but I digress...

I do judge the prophets by the same standard... the fullness of scripture.

I believe Joseph may have felt he received some type of insight in plural marriage. but I do not believe D&C 132 is that insight, and I do not believe the Lord commanded him to marry Fanny Alger, I believe if the situation did occur, that he ran ahead of the Lord in marrying her.

[Sleeper Cell]

 

This creates quite a quandary, as this explanation leaves the impression that plural marriage is a perfectly acceptable contractual agreement without commandment or sealing power required, which again contradicts the very "revelation" it is trying to defend. 

I cannot accept 132 because the history of it's practice in the early church and comparing it to the scriptural practice are in stark contrast to the the "revelation" itself.

I also do not accept the Josephite premise that it is wrong not matter what, no matter how it's practiced.

There is a perfectly good scriptural pattern for the practice, if one is willing to lay aside their denominational prejudices and look.

 

Again, this assumes that God did not command Joseph to marry Fanny.  Or is it you argument that God could not because only Elijah held the keys? It also assumes that no revelation on the subject was received prior to 132 and that no further revelation on the subject was received after 132.  And that God can never revoke or change a commandment, once given, nor can ever authorize exceptions to His own commandments. 

[ALarson]

I believe Joseph may have felt he received some type of insight in plural marriage. but I do not believe D&C 132 is that insight, and I do not believe the Lord commanded him to marry Fanny Alger, I believe if the situation did occur, that he ran ahead of the Lord in marrying her.

I agree with this.  I have asked this question before, but I really wonder by what authority was Joseph sealed or married to Fanny?  He could not be legally married to her and he could not be sealed to her (he hadn't received the sealing keys yet).  

 

I have to admit that I was a bit surprised that Fanny is included as one of Joseph's wives in the church essay regarding Joseph's polygamy.  Did anyone else feel this way?  I thought they'd omit her entirely.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Again, this assumes that God did not command Joseph to marry Fanny.  Or is it you argument that God could not because only Elijah held the keys? It also assumes that no revelation on the subject was received prior to 132 and that no further revelation on the subject was received after 132.  And that God can never revoke or change a commandment, once given, nor can ever authorize exceptions to His own commandments. 

 

Has nothing to do with the keys, it has to do with the pattern for engaging in the practice. It doesn't fit the scriptural pattern, and was deceptive towards Emma.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

The patterns are in scripture:

 

Pattern #1

1) Barrenness
2) Wife gives husband additional wife to raise up seed.

Pattern #2

1) Widow with no seed
2) Brother-in-Law marries and produces seed for deceased brother.

**It really is about raising up seed, as Jacob says. The Nephite men were just taking women of their choosing, when they wanted- just like David and Solomon. Notice the Patriarchs were not mentioned- what was the pattern of the Patriarch's plural marriages?

Emma was not barren, Joseph was still alive, and she didn't make the decision. It doesn't fit the patterns.

Edited April 27, 2015 by BookofMormonLuvr

[Calm]

Rachel did not get married to Jacob because Leah had no children.  Leah had children and still gave a wife to Jacob.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Rachel did not get married to Jacob because Leah had no children.  Leah had children and still gave a wife to Jacob.

He was deceived into marrying Leah, and was already engaged to Rachel before the deception took place. Leah did not give Rachel to Jacob.

Now that that is clear...

Under what circumstances was Jacob given the servant girls as wives?

Edited April 27, 2015 by BookofMormonLuvr

[Scott Lloyd]

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

Enlightening.

I've not read through every blog post yet, but, well, let's just say that the agitating for discarding of sacred scripture does not strike me as out-of-character for this pair.

[Teancum]

This is what you call anti-Mormon ideology.

I am so sorry I irritate you so Russell.

[ERayR]

I am so sorry I irritate you so Russell.

 

I can not answer for Russell but as for me it is not irritation but sadness for those who choose to reject the light of Christ and instead choose to walk by the light of their own brilliance.

[Scott Lloyd]

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?

We know from subsequent revelation that the practice of plural marriage was discontinued. So that part has no contemporary application. But the rest does. View the revelation in doctrinal context. I don't think that too much to expect.

[Calm]

He was deceived into marrying Leah, and was already engaged to Rachel before the deception took place. Leah did not give Rachel to Jacob.

Now that that is clear...

Under what circumstances was Jacob given the servant girls as wives?

Leah had four sons by Jacob before she gave him her maid to have more.

[Teancum]

I can not answer for Russell but as for me it is not irritation but sadness for those who choose to reject the light of Christ and instead choose to walk by the light of their own brilliance.

I don't think I walk by any brilliance. I am just seeking best I can. For some reason I really seem to bug a few posters here. Maybe I really am a loathsome apostate.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Leah had four sons by Jacob before she gave him her maid to have more.

 

Yes. When did she give him the maid?

[Calm]

If you are saying any woman can give her husband another wife when she wants to have more children and isn't getting pregnant herself soon enough for her taste, yeah, that could be the principle taught in Genesis 29 and 30. After all both Rachel and Leah had kids after they gave Jacob more wives so there is no indication they had gone through menopause.

Add-on: whetherthat is a righteous as opposed to a selfish motivation would need to be debated IMO. genesis 29/30 looks less like concern about raising seed to God or even worry about inheritance or posterity and much more described like a jealous competition for a husband's attention, including sexual attention. It is quite possible that the only reason for Leah's temporary "barrenness" was her husband wasn't spending any nighttime with her so she bribes Rachel to borrow their husband so she can conceive, the same reason Rachel steps aside for a night as she thinks mandrakes will help her get pregnant....and apparently Leah was able to rekindle the flame for more than just one night as she had three more children.

Edited April 28, 2015 by calmoriah

[readstoomuch]

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?  

A plural marriage.  It seems that eternal marriage came after that.  FA was in the mid 1830`s.

[readstoomuch]

 

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?

You can be a little testy at times,canard.  I saw one of these books when I was on a mission in the 80s.  It looked like it left out some sections, but gave some readings that a person could carry in their pocket. If it left out section 132, how many others did it leave out?  A number I bet and I think this is a nonissue.  When I was in the military out in the field we had hymnbooks like that as well as sunday schools books and other items.  They were not the full compliment of writings, but were able to be carried in a pocket or field pack.  We were glad to have those and dang glad just to have anything for the sacrament.  Forget about having bread in the field.  No way, crackers were about as good as we could get and that is if we could find those.  Remember you are sometimes carrying up to 50 pounds or more if you are carrying a tent and sleeping bag.  Just a M-16, 45 and extra ammo was plenty.  My 9mm and 2 clips are still hard to carry around, even though they are much lighter.  Thank the Dear Lord for small books to carry around, especially the small versions the Church came out with in the 80s.  The Catholic Priest for my unit ordered some and got them for me and all of the LDS guys in my unit.  He was a good guy.  We really liked the Father a lot.   

 

So there is my take on the nonissue of Section 132 from a small book that could go in your pocket.  Somehow in my memory book, my father had a Bible like that with part of the books mission.  Again a field size book that he could carry in his pocket.  That particular version was carried on ship during the Korean War and early Vietnam War.  

[Damien the Leper]

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.

Passive voice is inappropriate and poor word choice.

[rockpond]

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

Scott asked for my source - so I answered him.