rockpond Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 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.Exactly. And that's one reason why I am not on board with calls to remove 132. But I'm also not certain that it adds much to our understanding of temple ordinances nor origins of sealings. And the downside is the confusion inherent in some of the statements and the contradictions when compared to Book of Mormon scripture and how polygamy was practiced.Still, there is benefit in having it as part of our history and, I believe, our canon as well.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 Exactly. And that's one reason why I am not on board with calls to remove 132. But I'm also not certain that it adds much to our understanding of temple ordinances nor origins of sealings. And the downside is the confusion inherent in some of the statements and the contradictions when compared to Book of Mormon scripture and how polygamy was practiced. Still, there is benefit in having it as part of our history and, I believe, our canon as well.Viewed from a modern-day perspective, the passages on plurality of wives help us to understand and appreciate the faithfulness of our forebears in living this difficult principle and to love and honor them for their sacrifices and courage.
rockpond Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 Viewed from a modern-day perspective, the passages on plurality of wives help us to understand and appreciate the faithfulness of our forebears in living this difficult principle and to love and honor them for their sacrifices and courage.Yes, on that you and I certainly agree.
Tacenda Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 Yes, on that you and I certainly agree.I'll second that!
Popular Post Scott Lloyd Posted April 28, 2015 Popular Post Posted April 28, 2015 (edited) Yes, on that you and I certainly agree.Thank you.And I will say here that though there are subjects over which you and I are starkly and perhaps hopelessly at odds, yet you possess qualities that I have come to respect and admire during our interactions on this message board. Edited April 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 5
Darren10 Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 I am not necessarily in favor of tossing out 132 though I see no harm in removing the portions the teach a principle that is not binding on us. That could could easily be done and would seem appropriate Now I'm curious as to what portions, or at least a couple of portions you deem as "appropriate" to throw out. Could you share them, or at least a couple of them?
Garden Girl Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 Now I'm curious as to what portions, or at least a couple of portions you deem as "appropriate" to throw out. Could you share them, or at least a couple of them? Good morning, Darren10...Where have you been? There's 21 pages here that answer your inquiry. You probably need to read the last 10 pages to more than answer your question... GG
DBMormon Posted April 28, 2015 Author Posted April 28, 2015 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.132 is not even canon until years later in BY's presidency (1852 ish I believe) and yet it's doctrine (sealings) were official long before. We want to make a big deal that something is only binding when it becomes canon (as BY revelation on Adam God misses this standard) then we make excuses for revelations that are binding long before becoming canon. which one is it. Are revelations considered official once they are canon or are they official once a prophet has claimed them?
DBMormon Posted April 28, 2015 Author Posted April 28, 2015 Now I'm curious as to what portions, or at least a couple of portions you deem as "appropriate" to throw out. Could you share them, or at least a couple of them?Darren you explain away BY's claiming divine knowledge of Adam as God as exaggerated speech and hence there is no solid ground to debate you. So I choose to no longer engage your questions. If you deal with BY's claim of divine knowledge more credibly, I will be happy to answer this question.
DBMormon Posted April 28, 2015 Author Posted April 28, 2015 (edited) Viewed from a modern-day perspective, the passages on plurality of wives help us to understand and appreciate the faithfulness of our forebears in living this difficult principle and to love and honor them for their sacrifices and courage. That could be accomplished much more easily in personal stories of these families and the tension they felt (which strangely we avoid like the plague) rather than 132. Edited April 28, 2015 by DBMormon 1
Teancum Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 132 is not even canon until years later in BY's presidency (1852 ish I believe) and yet it's doctrine (sealings) were official long before. We want to make a big deal that something is only binding when it becomes canon (as BY revelation on Adam God misses this standard) then we make excuses for revelations that are binding long before becoming canon. which one is it. Are revelations considered official once they are canon or are they official once a prophet has claimed them?I think it was added in the early 1870s.
DBMormon Posted April 28, 2015 Author Posted April 28, 2015 I think it was added in the early 1870s.better yet.
Mystery Meat Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 132 is not even canon until years later in BY's presidency (1852 ish I believe) and yet it's doctrine (sealings) were official long before. We want to make a big deal that something is only binding when it becomes canon (as BY revelation on Adam God misses this standard) then we make excuses for revelations that are binding long before becoming canon. which one is it. Are revelations considered official once they are canon or are they official once a prophet has claimed them? I dont think it matters either way. If it was a revelation why would we want to remove it from the canon?
ALarson Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 (edited) Viewed from a modern-day perspective, the passages on plurality of wives help us to understand and appreciate the faithfulness of our forebears in living this difficult principle and to love and honor them for their sacrifices and courage.I'm not real sure how reading the verses regarding polygamy in section 132 will do that. I think reading their journals about their sacrifices, faith and struggles does more to accomplish this than anything else can. I have polygamist ancestors on both sides and have read everything written by them that I can find. Much of it is absolutely heartbreaking (especially the accounts by the good, faithful women but the men sacrificed greatly too). I have no issue with the members who were trying to be obedient and live a principle they believed was from God. But read the journals and writings of those who actually lived polygamy, if you want to understand and appreciate their courage. I think most members end up confused and with many questions after reading in 132 how polygamy was to be lived. This is especially true if they know the details of how Joseph lived polygamy and polygandry. Edited April 28, 2015 by ALarson 2
DBMormon Posted April 28, 2015 Author Posted April 28, 2015 I dont think it matters either way. If it was a revelation why would we want to remove it from the canon?dont brush aside the point. pick one or say either is ok
Skylla Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 wtrdog: Reports are coming in regarding your disrespectful tone. Review the board guidelines. Members can be banned from threads, put on limited status, or banned from the board altogether for violating them. Skylla
thesometimesaint Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 dont brush aside the point. pick one or say either is ok If I have to pick I'll pick keeping Section 132 along with OD1 in the Scriptures. 2
BookofMormonLuvr Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 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.Yes, I believe that if the wife believes she may unable to bear children or bear more children, the pattern is that it is her option, if she feels so led, to bring another wife into the family, that more children can be born.The grand key is that it is her decision. I believe that this is the Law of Sarah, mentioned in 132- but I believe it was mingled in with a bunch of falsehoods when the "revelation" was invented. I don't believe men can take as many wives as he desires, and I don't believe there is any exemption to the Law of Sarah, except the kinsman redeemer clause in the Law. Plural Marriages are subject to the will and direction of the wife.Notice, Rebecca did not take that option and Isaac didn't try to persuade her- he simply petitioned the Lord on her behalf- and she was able to conceive.
rockpond Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 Thank you.And I will say here that though there are subjects over which you and I are starkly and perhaps hopelessly at odds, yet you possess qualities that I have come to respect and admire during our interactions on this message board. Very kind of you to say and I feel likewise. At times I get riled up on here (sometimes inappropriately, which I always regret) but I try to imagine you and I knowing each other in the same ward and it reminds me that we would likely get along quite well in person. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 (edited) That could be accomplished much more easily in personal stories of these families and the tension they felt (which strangely we avoid like the plague) rather than 132. Personal stories are fine (and I, for one, don't avoid them like the plague), but reading the revelation allows us to peer into the mind of God and to glimpse the motivation that strengthened the faith and fortitude of these noble souls in a way that merely reading journal entries might not accomplish as well, if at all. If you have already concluded in advance that the plural marriage principle was deception perpetrated by the scoundrels who led the Church, I can see where reading the words of the revelation might not be of much benefit to you. But some of us are not like that. Edited April 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 Very kind of you to say and I feel likewise. At times I get riled up on here (sometimes inappropriately, which I always regret) but I try to imagine you and I knowing each other in the same ward and it reminds me that we would likely get along quite well in person.I have no doubt of that.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 dont brush aside the point. pick one or say either is okHe didn't brush aside the point. He challenged your false dichotomy.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 The thought just occurred: Are those who are clamoring for Section 132 to be discarded because they don't like polygamy being mentioned in the scriptures some of the same ones who fuss about the Church "hiding its history" because some people are oblivious to the fact that Joseph received the commandment to institute it and to set the example by living it himself? 3
why me Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 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.You may find this interesting: http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/faq/fanny-alger-2/ Also don bradley has done research on the topic and published an article about it. Unfortunately, I could not find the link to the article. Perhaps someone could link the article. Fanny was married to joseph smith as his plural wife as the evidence shows.
JLHPROF Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 The thought just occurred: Are those who are clamoring for Section 132 to be discarded because they don't like polygamy being mentioned in the scriptures some of the same ones who fuss about the Church "hiding its history" because some people are oblivious to the fact that Joseph received the commandment to institute it and to set the example by living it himself? Yep.If we remove the polygamy verses from D&C 132 even fewer members will be aware of Joseph living polygamy. Then the Church will definitely be accused of hiding it's past and covering things up. They really just can't win with the complainers. That's why the complainers don't get the "support" they claim to want. 1
Recommended Posts