Why I Argue That Throwing Out 132 Has Precident

[why me]

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?

You will begin to find that as the church writes more of its history and offers good explanations for the happenings, critics will develop a different tactic and leave the 'church hides its history' mantra and begin to attack the history itself. Also, some of these people who do not know that polygamy is mentioned in that section may be the same ones who never knew that JS was a polygamist. Somehow they overlooked the meaning in that section.

Edited April 28, 2015 by why me

[ALarson]

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.

Thanks for the link, why me.  I'll check it out!

[SmileyMcGee]

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?

Discarded and hidden are not the same. I don't think anyone on this thread has advocated the hiding of 132. I find the early mormon practice of polygamy fascinating and disturbing. I also think it's man-made. Edited April 28, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[JLHPROF]

Discarded and hidden are not the same. I don't think anyone on this thread has advocated the hiding of 132. I find the early mormon practice polygamy fascinating and disturbing. I also think it's man-made.

 

Well until the Prophet and the other GA's and the majority of Church members agree with you I don't forsee D&C 132 being removed from canon.  Most still believe it to be a revelation from God.

[SmileyMcGee]

Well until the Prophet and the other GA's and the majority of Church members agree with you I don't forsee D&C 132 being removed from canon. Most still believe it to be a revelation from God.

Obviously.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Indeed.

 

Over on another thread, they are complaining because a new book on the translation of the Book of Mormon shows Joseph with his face within a couple of inches of a hat instead of being pressed into the hat.

 

This is me registering frustrated incredulity ---->

Edited April 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[why me]

. I find the early mormon practice of polygamy fascinating and disturbing. I also think it's man-made.

 

The problem with your sentence is that you overlook the spiritual experiences of the women involved with the practice with Joseph Smith. Quite a few had spiritual experiences that it was true before they said yes to him. I think that we need to see the whole picture and not overlook the spiritual experiences of the women. 

Edited April 28, 2015 by why me

[Scott Lloyd]

Well until the Prophet and the other GA's and the majority of Church members agree with you I don't forsee D&C 132 being removed from canon.  Most still believe it to be a revelation from God.

But that doesn't stop the others from trying to refashion the Church to suit their preferences. In effect, they want to make it into another Community of Christ -- as though one weren't sufficient.

[JLHPROF]

But that doesn't stop the others from trying to refashion the Church to suit their preferences. In effect, they want to make it into another Community of Christ -- as though one weren't sufficient.

 

I personally believe there are many members of our Church who would prefer if the restoration had stopped somewhere around 1836.  The Kirtland Church + family sealings is apparently about the limit of what some members are willing to accept.

 

For me, I don't think the restoration really got underway until Joseph started restoring the deeper doctrines in the Nauvoo era.

Prior to that we were little more than another protestant sect with SOME priesthood and a couple of theological differences.  The real power of the restored gospel hadn't arrived yet, but some people just aren't interested in the deeper meat of the gospel.

 

They seem quite happy to focus on the first principles, worship a Jesus that they repeatedly try to revert to traditional Christian beliefs, read their New Testament and Book of Mormon, and ignore the things that actually have the most impact on our lives in the eternities.

 

In short, they wish Mormonism was Protestantism.

Edited April 28, 2015 by JLHPROF

[SmileyMcGee]

The problem with your sentence is that you overlook the spiritual experiences of the women involved with the practice with Joseph Smith. Quite a few had spiritual experiences that it was true before they said yes to him. I think that we need to see the whole picture and not overlook the spiritual expenses of the women.

Do you factor in the spiritual experiences of millions of Catholics or Muslims when determining the ultimate truthfulness of their respective religions. You know why you probably don't? Because their experiences are meaningless to you. We only know our own feelings. You can't know whether a person had a spiritual experience or what caused the experience. You only know what you interpret from your own experiences.

In addition, even if we do factor in spiritual experiences, what weight do we give to each experience? How do we weight opposing experiences? Is a bad experience as important as a good experience? Is a woman's bad feeling about a polygamist proposal from JS as valid as another woman's good feeling? Why or why not?

Humans typically assign greater importance to things that confirm their biases. For whatever reason you probably accept polygamy or feel a need to accept it and are therefore pleading that testimony that confirms your beliefs be given special attention.

Edited April 29, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Scott Lloyd]

I personally believe there are many members of our Church who would prefer if the restoration had stopped somewhere around 1836.  The Kirtland Church + family sealings is apparently about the limit of what some members are willing to accept.

 

For me, I don't think the restoration really got underway until Joseph started restoring the deeper doctrines in the Nauvoo era.

Prior to that we were little more than another protestant sect with SOME priesthood and a couple of theological differences.  The real power of the restored gospel hadn't arrived yet, but some people just aren't interested in the deeper meat of the gospel.

 

They seem quite happy to focus on the first principles, worship a Jesus that they repeatedly try to revert to traditional Christian beliefs, read their New Testament and Book of Mormon, and ignore the things that actually have the most impact on our lives in the eternities.

 

In short, they wish Mormonism was Protestantism.

Yes.  And perhaps this is no better exemplified than by the current sentiment to discard Section 132 from the canon.

[why me]

 

The problem with your sentence is that you overlook the spiritual experiences of the women involved with the practice with Joseph Smith. Quite a few had spiritual experiences that it was true before they said yes to him. I think that we need to see the whole picture and not overlook the spiritual experiences of the women.

 

Smiley encouraged me to correct my spelling mistake. Of course smilely could have made a comment about the women involved and my claim that many of these women had spiritual experiences before saying yes to be JSs plural wife.

Edited April 28, 2015 by why me

[SmileyMcGee]

Smiley encouraged me to correct my spelling mistake. Of course smilely could have made a comment about the women involved and my claim that many of these women had spiritual experiences before saying yes to be JSs plural wife.

I didn't even notice the Freudian slip...I mean spelling error

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I personally believe there are many members of our Church who would prefer if the restoration had stopped somewhere around 1836.  The Kirtland Church + family sealings is apparently about the limit of what some members are willing to accept.

 

For me, I don't think the restoration really got underway until Joseph started restoring the deeper doctrines in the Nauvoo era.

Prior to that we were little more than another protestant sect with SOME priesthood and a couple of theological differences.  The real power of the restored gospel hadn't arrived yet, but some people just aren't interested in the deeper meat of the gospel.

 

They seem quite happy to focus on the first principles, worship a Jesus that they repeatedly try to revert to traditional Christian beliefs, read their New Testament and Book of Mormon, and ignore the things that actually have the most impact on our lives in the eternities.

 

In short, they wish Mormonism was Protestantism.

Ugh, that would be the worst thing in the world! I prefer we get all the pagan traditions and trappings out of our worship, which Christianity as a whole is filled with. My Mormonism would look much more Hebrew in style and practice.

[ttribe]

The problem with your sentence is that you overlook the spiritual experiences of the women involved with the practice with Joseph Smith. Quite a few had spiritual experiences that it was true before they said yes to him. I think that we need to see the whole picture and not overlook the spiritual experiences of the women. 

 

I'm quite sure you could find numerous examples of FLDS women who claim spiritual experiences in support of polygamy as well.  Your statement doesn't help as much as you'd like to think.

[Teancum]

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?

Honestly I have never ever understood a member of the church who has had some time behind them as a member claiming to not know about polygamy, it is right there in our canon. Read your scriptures!

[JLHPROF]

Honestly I have never ever understood a member of the church who has had some time behind them as a member claiming to not know about polygamy, it is right there in our canon. Read your scriptures!

 

These are the folks who don't read their scriptures, they just attend their lessons.  And we don't exactly focus on polygamy when we hit D&C 132 in our lesson manuals.  I have family members like that.

[Teancum]

These are the folks who don't read their scriptures, they just attend their lessons.  And we don't exactly focus on polygamy when we hit D&C 132 in our lesson manuals.  I have family members like that.

Well even given the awful apostate I have apparently become I can say I have known JS was a polygamist as long as I can remember . The details I learned later. But I knew plural marriage originated from him for a long time.

[ERayR]

Well even given the awful apostate I have apparently become I can say I have known JS was a polygamist as long as I can remember . The details I learned later. But I knew plural marriage originated from him for a long time.

 

Well what is the world coming to?  I have just agreed with and given 2 rep points to the "awful apostate".

[Darren10]

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.

For someone who has insisted others not to avoid the point, you have a very effective way of avoiding a point. If there are parts of D&C 132 "appropriate" to remove, which ones? Who cares if my take on Brigham Young's manner of speech os wrong. Let's just say I was entirely wrong. That has nothing to do with the question I poised to you. If I am one to embellish truth your claims should be easily defended.

[Darren10]

So far as revelation from God goes when it comes to binding doctrines upon members of the Church, my understandnig is that the background of the revelation behind the doctrine is provided publically. What was the setting behind Brigham Young's revelation saying Adam was God the Father? And if there was no actual revelation given to Brigham Young over this doctrine, then what was he referring to? A strong personal impression perhaps. While there were those who believed Young on Adam God, many did not. I've never believed it even without knowing the Church's renounciation of it.

[Darren10]

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

That just swell. So, what are sone of the portions of D&C 132 DB finds "appropriate" to remove?

[DBMormon]

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.

 again I applaud your holiness and righteousness, if only I could be as pure and delightsome as you.  Please Scott, you have not once heard my personal position so don't make assumptions and then get all holier than thou with me.   

[DBMormon]

So far as revelation from God goes when it comes to binding doctrines upon members of the Church, my understandnig is that the background of the revelation behind the doctrine is provided publically. What was the setting behind Brigham Young's revelation saying Adam was God the Father? And if there was no actual revelation given to Brigham Young over this doctrine, then what was he referring to? A strong personal impression perhaps. While there were those who believed Young on Adam God, many did not. I've never believed it even without knowing the Church's renounciation of it.

we have mixed stories of the 78 revelation?  we have mixed stories or no narrative at all on several revelations and so again your measuring stick is weak and holds absolutely no water.  When you say many did not.... Many do not with all kinds of revelations... your not proposing that unbelief by some disregards a revelation do you?  and we are told many revelations come by impressions rather than face to face visits....  you are so all over the map trying to tie loose ends...  

[DBMormon]

For someone who has insisted others not to avoid the point, you have a very effective way of avoiding a point. If there are parts of D&C 132 "appropriate" to remove, which ones? Who cares if my take on Brigham Young's manner of speech os wrong. Let's just say I was entirely wrong. That has nothing to do with the question I poised to you. If I am one to embellish truth your claims should be easily defended.

you move the goal post so much that answering you is like tring to catch all the water from a firehose.  Sorry but I won't.