Why I Argue That Throwing Out 132 Has Precident

[DBMormon]

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

maybe she can tell you what I think!  I am not

[readstoomuch]

There is a very good series about section 132 on Bycommonconsent.  There are some very early copies of the section, the earliest is from a copy that Newell Whitney had that was made by Brother Kingsbury at Winter Quarters in 1846.  The other original was burned by Emma.  After reading the three series article I was impressed by the care taken to preserve the revelation.  I have found that generally through the years though.  It is not just a piece of paper that they decided to finally put in the D&C. Read for yourself Mr Bill.  I think the way you put this across in the title as "throwing out" section 132 is off-putting.  I don`t know about your Brother Bill, but I do think you have a good heart.

 

As far as the shortened manuscript put out by Talmage, that was condensed, the article in Wikipedia says 95 sections were left out.  I am guessing that they were trying to get some select sections available to people en mass.  There was hubbub by the Fundamentalists, especially over 132.  That doesn`t mean the revelation was ever meant to be deleted.

 

I could see making the font larger on the portions that we practice now.  That would let people still have access, but emphasize what we are commanded to practice now.  I am not necessarily advocating for this, I could see where it is a possibility.  I don`t have that much of a problem with section 132 now.

 

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.

By the way I don`t think you are an awful apostate.  Just working through things.  

[why me]

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.

 

 

This is usually the response that is given by people in order to lessen the spiritual experience of the lds. And as we know the lds church depends on the spiritual experiences of its members. Take away the importance of these experiences, then one can take away the truth claims in Moroni. Take away that truth claim, give equal precedence to other faiths, then one puts the lds church on the level of other churches and make the spiritual experiences of the lds church members meaningless. I suppose that we can call it spiritual relativism and it is a wonderful gimmick to get the lds to question their own spiritual experience importance. In fact, critics use such logic all the time. I am amazed that when I ask an exmember about their spiritual experiences they had in the lds church and how they would testify of them as a member and now they left the fold...how do they reconcile their former spiritual experiences, they always respond: People in other faiths have the same experiences and so, what then? They are meaningless as to the truth claims of the lds church since everybody has them, muslims, hindus, jews, other christians, even attending a baseball game can give someone such an experience.

 

However we all know that members can receive quite a few spiritual exeriences that are directed by the holy ghost. It is one of the foundations of the lds church: the holy ghost testifying of its truth and allowing members to have its guidence. And yes, I do think that this is a lds happening. Much less so in other faiths. But that is just my perspective. I have met with many members of other faiths and it does not seem to be shared as with the lds. When one prays about the book of mormon and receives a spiritual experience that it is true it can be quite convincing...

 

I have never heard a muslim make such a claim nor do the muslims claim that by reading the koran one can get a spiritual experience from god that it is true. Likewise for other faiths. They make no so claim or promise. But it is just my humble opinion.

Edited April 29, 2015 by why me

[canard78]

I dont think it matters either way. If it was a revelation why would we want to remove it from the canon?

Was it confirmed as a revelation when it was added to the cannon? If it hasn't been added would it prove it wasn't a revelation?

What about sections that were originally in the cannon and have later been removed. Did they cease to be revelations at the time they were removed or does their removal prove that they were never revelations in the first place and were added in error. If so, how many sections are still in but added in error.

[why me]

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.

 

I dont know about the flds women. I have never asked them. I would think however that it is something that few have questioned never mind prayed over. I just know the stories of the lds women who prayed about the principle and received quite strong spiritual experiences confirming its truth. And then they accepted. Now were these women delusional? Were they going through a pyschotic experience or did they have a genuine spiritual experience from god? Likewise do church members who seem to have many spiritual  experiences as members are these experiences from god or are they from some delusional mental happenings? When one compares life in the lds church and life in other churches, it seems that the lds have quite a few spiritual confirmations and daily directions from the holy ghost. I just don't hear people from other faiths making such claims so often.

[canard78]

As far as the shortened manuscript put out by Talmage, that was condensed, the article in Wikipedia says 95 sections were left out. I am guessing that they were trying to get some select sections available to people en mass. There was hubbub by the Fundamentalists, especially over 132. That doesn`t mean the revelation was ever meant to be deleted.

(Scott, you made a similar point so hopefully this will do as a reply to both of you)

The evidence available tells us the following with high confidence (either from Talmage's journal, the book's introduction or other reliable sources)

- The first presidency and Qot12 were involved in compiling and publishing the 1930 volume. This wasn't Talmage's personal project.

- The selections were made based on what was felt to have current and lasting doctrinal relevance and value.

- We don't know why each of the 95 sections and verses were excluded. Some seem to simply be because they were old news (mission calls etc).

- The book was shortlived in English, though enough left in circulation that you can buy one on Amazon today.

- The compilation was used as the basis for early translations

Here's what we know with lower certainty, based mainly on third hand hearsay.

- The book was shredded (I've seen no documentation of this, only hearsay)

- The book was pulled due to reactions from fundamentalists

- The negative reaction was mainly due to the removal of 132

Some of the conclusions both I and you have wanted to draw are largely speculative. We don't know for sure if there was uproar over 132's removal. We don't know if Pres Grant saw the mistake they'd made and pulped it and even if it was pulped, we don't know the full reason why. Perhaps it simply didn't sell very well and so was pulped and not given a second print run. Plenty of books have sat on shelves and then gone the way of the shredder.

I know the implications I'd like to draw from this, but the evidence doesn't allow me to go that far. Not because it contradicts it but because it's simply not there. Perhaps one day we'll get another journal or two to clarify it. Until then, make of it what you will.

[Darren10]

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.

And when asked for specifics about your personal view, you've explicitly refused to answer. That only leaves people to assume what you may mean. I don't thin Lloyd is being holier than thou, just attempting to flush out what you believe. You've already stated that you find it appropriate to take out certain parts of D&C 132 as opposed ot the entire section. what are these parts?

[Darren10]

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...

The 78 revelation, (if about blacks and the priesthood) is unambiguously clear. Perhaps the clearest in Church history.. What revelation d we have "no narrative at all"? I'm clueless. (And note that I qualified my remark of the Church providing a history or background on revelations that are *binding* upon Church members).

"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..."

OK, WHAT IS THE HISTORY BEHIND BRIGHAM YOUNG'S "REVELATION" THAT ADAM WAS GOD THE FATHER?????????????

Is that clear enough a question?

Edited April 29, 2015 by Darren10

[Darren10]

maybe she can tell you what I think!  I am not

If you're not, then why did you mention it in the first place? It is connected to your main thread.

[DBMormon]

And when asked for specifics about your personal view, you've explicitly refused to answer. That only leaves people to assume what you may mean. I don't thin Lloyd is being holier than thou, just attempting to flush out what you believe. You've already stated that you find it appropriate to take out certain parts of D&C 132 as opposed ot the entire section. what are these parts?

I have not.  You seem so intent on maligning me that you read into what I say what you are wanting to hear and hence attack.  I have never personally said 132 should be removed nor have I said that I personally don't think 132 is from God.  What I have done is offer precedent for those struggling with 132 the room they need to personally set it aside or parts of it aside.  I will go so far as to say I am extremely uncomfortable with parts of 132 and to the point that I have had to cope with it in various ways.  What would I remove?  That shows your inability to understand my angle.  Those who like me and support my work have understood from the moment the lesson released that I was not sharing my view but rather discussing the views that are viable and helping those who are reconstructing their faith realize their options are not only eat the whole elephant or leave the faith you love.  Those who despise me, very quickly get on the defensive as usual and simply attribute things and words to me that I have not said.  you are one of those.  

 

Also please don't speak for Scott.  Let him explain himself as he is always writing about his obedience when he perceives another not living to his standards as he feels to impose them.  Even on issues where the Lord has left it to each member to decide, Scott chooses to impose his interpretation as the bar and notify us of his obedience to it.

Edited April 29, 2015 by DBMormon

[Tacenda]

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!

Prove it, prove it by showing me the women in scriptures that Joseph Smith married.  Prove that, even prove the BY did in the scriptures.  Since you mention reading about it in the scriptures. The closest thing I ever read was in "The Work and the Glory" series by Gerald Lund.  He failed to explain the extent that Joseph lived polygamy.  He had a great opportunity to do so but left that out. The only thing he provided was that Joseph was told to live it, and that he struggled to do it, then it skips over all of it, leaving one to believe that he never got the chance before his death.  

 

Formal CFR here.  Also, prove it was taught in Sunday School.  Then tell me as a member for 45 years, how I was to even have read that.  Where, provide it more than in the scriptures where was I to find this info.  In the anti Mormon polygamy stuff?  I distinctly remember being in the city library many years ago and picking up a book that felt anti and quickly put it back on the shelf and feeling a dark feeling, like I had been conditioned to do the minute I see someone putting Joseph in a different light then I was taught.  Maybe that's why I never knew.  I was taught to close my eyes and run.      

[Scott Lloyd]

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.   

"Holier than thou"?

 

I've said only that I'm not among those who have concluded that the early Church leaders were scoundrels who perpetrated a deception in teaching the principle of plurality of wives, and that I am unhindered thereby from drawing inspiration from Section 132 -- all of Section 132.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

Prove it, prove it by showing me the women in scriptures that Joseph Smith married.  Prove that, even prove the BY did in the scriptures.  Since you mention reading about it in the scriptures. The closest thing I ever read was in "The Work and the Glory" series by Gerald Lund.  He failed to explain the extent that Joseph lived polygamy.  He had a great opportunity to do so but left that out. The only thing he provided was that Joseph was told to live it, and that he struggled to do it, then it skips over all of it, leaving one to believe that he never got the chance before his death.  

 

Formal CFR here.  Also, prove it was taught in Sunday School.  Then tell me as a member for 45 years, how I was to even have read that.  Where, provide it more than in the scriptures where was I to find this info.  In the anti Mormon polygamy stuff?  I distinctly remember being in the city library many years ago and picking up a book that felt anti and quickly put it back on the shelf and feeling a dark feeling, like I had been conditioned to do the minute I see someone putting Joseph in a different light then I was taught.  Maybe that's why I never knew.  I was taught to close my eyes and run.      

 

SEE Book of Mormon

 

Jacob 2:24-30

 

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sake

 30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

 

SEE https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=eng

[Alan]

Been away a while, surprised how long this thread has become.

In my view D&C 132 is likely to be a hybrid. It was not an unusual practice for revelations on similar themes to be spliced together to form one revelation/section. It certainly reads that way to me because it appears to be so disjointed.

 

Could 132 be removed from the canon? Yes it could. Is it likely to happen? I wouldn't think so.

For me, 132 isn't really an issue because it certainly leaves room for my belief that Joseph Smith was not a polygamist (ie. married to more than one woman) but was sealed (dynastic sealing) to a number of people.

How Brother Brigham and others interpreted Section 132 is another matter.

[ttribe]

Been away a while, surprised how long this thread has become.

In my view D&C 132 is likely to be a hybrid. It was not an unusual practice for revelations on similar themes to be spliced together to form one revelation/section. It certainly reads that way to me because it appears to be so disjointed.

 

Could 132 be removed from the canon? Yes it could. Is it likely to happen? I wouldn't think so.

For me, 132 isn't really an issue because it certainly leaves room for my belief that Joseph Smith was not a polygamist (ie. married to more than one woman) but was sealed (dynastic sealing) to a number of people.

How Brother Brigham and others interpreted Section 132 is another matter.

 

How do you deal with the Temple Lot affidavits given your belief that Joseph Smith was not a polygamist?

[Mystery Meat]

Prove it, prove it by showing me the women in scriptures that Joseph Smith married.  Prove that, even prove the BY did in the scriptures.  Since you mention reading about it in the scriptures. The closest thing I ever read was in "The Work and the Glory" series by Gerald Lund.  He failed to explain the extent that Joseph lived polygamy.  He had a great opportunity to do so but left that out. The only thing he provided was that Joseph was told to live it, and that he struggled to do it, then it skips over all of it, leaving one to believe that he never got the chance before his death.  

 

Formal CFR here.  Also, prove it was taught in Sunday School.  Then tell me as a member for 45 years, how I was to even have read that.  Where, provide it more than in the scriptures where was I to find this info.  In the anti Mormon polygamy stuff?  I distinctly remember being in the city library many years ago and picking up a book that felt anti and quickly put it back on the shelf and feeling a dark feeling, like I had been conditioned to do the minute I see someone putting Joseph in a different light then I was taught.  Maybe that's why I never knew.  I was taught to close my eyes and run.      

 

I remember being a young missionary.  A group of missionaries were huddled around the computer reading, of all things, an account of Joseph's polygamy. The reaction was generally one of surprise. They all looked at me and asked me what I thought, I said something along the lines of "Is this really all that surprising to you given what you know about our church and its history?" Every single one of them shrugged their shoulders and said guess not. We then went out and did some missionary work. I know the Elders who there quite well, to this day, none of them have any problems with Joseph being a polygamist.

[Darren10]

I will go so far as to say I am extremely uncomfortable with parts of 132 and to the point that I have had to cope with it in various ways.  What would I remove?  That shows your inability to understand my angle.

Huh? This is what you wrote on your #210 post, bold mine:

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

Those who like me and support my work have understood from the moment the lesson released that I was not sharing my view but rather discussing the views that are viable and helping those who are reconstructing their faith realize their options are not only eat the whole elephant or leave the faith you love.  Those who despise me, very quickly get on the defensive as usual and simply attribute things and words to me that I have not said.  you are one of those.

I'm "one of those"? Huh? What in the world are you talking about? Where did I misconstrue your position? As show right above, I think I got it down pretty good. What portions are "appropriate" to *remove* from D&C 132? That's what I've been asking to you who yourself have been adamant about others staying on target. You've even argued against others attacking you instead of addressing the topic at hand. And, yet, here I am, asking you for the third or fourth time a question to further a discussion and you attack me instead of answering the question. If anything, this is quaint; but better than quaint would be an answer or two. It's up to you but by bringing up something and then not answering to it shows you're not interested in a discussion.

[Nevo]

For what it's worth, here is a statement by Joseph F. Smith that I came across a several years ago:

 

When the revelation [on plural marriage] was written, in 1843, it was for a special purpose, by the request of the Patriarch Hyrum Smith, and was not then designed to go forth to the church or to the world. It is most probable that had it been then written with a view to its going out as a doctrine of the church, it would have been presented in a somewhat different form. There are personalities contained in a part of it which are not relevant to the principle itself, but rather to the circumstances which necessitated it being written at the time.

 

(Journal of Discourses [7 July 1878], 20:29; see also, Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippets Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, 2nd ed. [urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1994], xvi)

 

I think the verses pertaining specifically to Emma in the summer of 1843 could be left out without doing any damage to the integrity of the revelation.

[Tacenda]

SEE Book of Mormon

Jacob 2:24-30

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sake

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

SEE https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=eng

You failed on both. First, nothing in scripture particularly to JS, second reference too late, not there on the onset of most people's first learning outside of church curriculum. Where are the details of JS' s living polygamy in church curriculum before 2014?

How appropiate that we discuss this, I believe today or tomorrow, the lesson in seminaries all over, will be on D & C 132.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Tacenda

[ttribe]

Prove it, prove it by showing me the women in scriptures that Joseph Smith married.  Prove that, even prove the BY did in the scriptures.  Since you mention reading about it in the scriptures. The closest thing I ever read was in "The Work and the Glory" series by Gerald Lund.  He failed to explain the extent that Joseph lived polygamy.  He had a great opportunity to do so but left that out. The only thing he provided was that Joseph was told to live it, and that he struggled to do it, then it skips over all of it, leaving one to believe that he never got the chance before his death.  

 

Formal CFR here.  Also, prove it was taught in Sunday School.  Then tell me as a member for 45 years, how I was to even have read that.  Where, provide it more than in the scriptures where was I to find this info.  In the anti Mormon polygamy stuff?  I distinctly remember being in the city library many years ago and picking up a book that felt anti and quickly put it back on the shelf and feeling a dark feeling, like I had been conditioned to do the minute I see someone putting Joseph in a different light then I was taught.  Maybe that's why I never knew.  I was taught to close my eyes and run.      

 

 

You failed on both. First, nothing in scripture particularly to JS, second reference too late, not there on the onset of most people's first learning outside of church curriculum. Where are the details of JS' s living polygamy in church curriculam before 2014.

 

I'm curious - how do you read Section 132 and not come away knowing JS was (at least somehow) involved with polygamy?

[Tacenda]

I'm curious - how do you read Section 132 and not come away knowing JS was (at least somehow) involved with polygamy?

Not clear that he fulfilled the command, he lived a short life.

[ttribe]

Not clear that he fulfilled the command, he lived a short life.

 

Interesting.  Okay.

[stemelbow]

Interesting.  Okay.

Sure with a date of 1843, I can see that misunderstanding from a member. He died in 1844. Little does the revelation or unread member know that many of his polygamous unions occurred before 1843.

[MormonFreeThinker]

The Van Allen's are supposedly being brought before a disciplinary council because they have chosen to disbelieve section 132.  

 

What is so wrong about section 132? Just because most Americans do not like polygamy doesn't mean it was wrong. 

Practicing polygamy was dangerous in the early church because there were a lot of bigots. 

[ttribe]

Sure with a date of 1843, I can see that misunderstanding from a member. He died in 1844. Little does the revelation or unread member know that many of his polygamous unions occurred before 1843.

 

Yeah, I can see the reasoning.  I guess this is where instructor/leader roulette comes into play.  I recall being told about at least some of JS's additional marriages in seminary, etc.  That being said, I admit to some amount of surprise about polyandry years later.  In short, I can see both sides of the argument to some extent.

Edited April 29, 2015 by ttribe