Why I Argue That Throwing Out 132 Has Precident

[DBMormon]

For me, 132 has some uncomfortable parts but there is a lot of beautiful teaching in there as well.  When I read the section I don't see it has being soley being about polygamy.  It uses the singular term "a wife" when describing the eternal marriage covenant.  If we get rid of sections 132, we are getting rid of the scriptural foundation for eternal marriage.

and like many sections of the D&C it was a culmination of more than one proposed revelation which might account for that.

[JLHPROF]

is the bible less canon than 132?   NO

Are we more bound to section 132 than other scripture?   YES

 

what about old section 109 which was canon and then discarded. CANON, NOT REVELATION.  REPLACED BY ACTUAL REVELATION

[Darren10]

is the bible less canon than 132?  Are we more bound to section 132 than other scripture?  

 

what about old section 109 which was canon and then discarded.

 

I am simply discussing that it is messier than we acknowledge and there is more room to possibly discard scripture and proposed revelation than we think.

With all due respect, you're not dealing with the issue I laid out before you. Are the Standard Works in existence in order to use as a rubric for modern-day revelation or are they not? If they are, how can we cite fallibility of mortal beings, even prophets, to get rid of parts of the Standard Works? Your questions only create abstract thought while answering nothing and thus not generating any discussion.

[DBMormon]

 

is the bible less canon than 132?   NO

Are we more bound to section 132 than other scripture?   YES

 

what about old section 109 which was canon and then discarded. CANON, NOT REVELATION.  REPLACED BY ACTUAL REVELATION

 

what about Brigham's revelation on Adam God that we discard?  you may not but the Church has.  If the church's leaders can discard revelations and ask us to then why can I not do it outside of this one example of Adam God?

Edited April 25, 2015 by DBMormon

[Darren10]

There's some pretty significant errors in Van Allen's blog against D&C 132.

http://blog.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Lending-Clarity-to-Confusion.pdf

[DBMormon]

With all due respect, you're not dealing with the issue I laid out before you. Are the Standard Works in existence in order to use as a rubric for modern-day revelation or are they not? If they are, how can we cite fallibility of mortal beings, even prophets, to get rid of parts of the Standard Works? Your questions only create abstract thought while answering nothing and thus not generating any discussion.

what makes them the standard works? vote by a group of human beings.  And yet Brigham is comfortable not believing every word of it.  What if Orson had not disagreed with Adam God and it got canonized, would that have made it true?  this is messier than we want to admit.  I agree the standard works are a measuring stick but one that is an imperfect one.

[DBMormon]

There's some pretty significant errors in Van Allen's blog against D&C 132.

http://blog.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Lending-Clarity-to-Confusion.pdf

I don't use Van Allen's argument so unsure why you brought it up.

[JLHPROF]

what about Brigham's revelation on Adam God that we discard?  you may not but the Church has.  If the church's leaders can discard revelations and ask us to then why can I not do it outside of this one example of Adam God?

 

YOU can discard D&C 132 to your hearts content.  You have as much right to do that as those who discarded Adam-God.

It's no wonder God has all but stopped speaking new revelation for us to argue over with so many of us wanting to chuck bits of his word in the trash.

[Darren10]

what about Brigham's revelation on Adam God that we discard?  you may not but the Church has.  If the church's leaders can discard revelations and ask us to then why can I not do it outside of this one example of Adam God?

You answered that question yourself, DB. Journal of Discourse is not canon. Not even remotely part of the Standard Works and therefore should not EVER be used as the foundation of doctrine but rather corroborate with established doctrine such as scriptural canon and the Standard Works.

As for Brigham Young saying he knew Adam as God the Father as being revealed to him from God, that was a common way of Brother Young expressing himself. His strong Protestant background often lead him to say, "God has let me know..."

[Darren10]

what makes them the standard works? vote by a group of human beings.  And yet Brigham is comfortable not believing every word of it.  What if Orson had not disagreed with Adam God and it got canonized, would that have made it true?  this is messier than we want to admit.  I agree the standard works are a measuring stick but one that is an imperfect one.

Now you're sounding as humanistic as the Van Allens. "A group of human beings"? That's all you see in establishing canon? No priesthood power? No Holy Spirit involved? Whenever I hear words of a prophet and do not feel the Spirit I do NOT hold myself bound to said doctrine though I earnestly pray and study the issue. Now, is it not significant that the Adam-God theory did NOT become canon?

[DBMormon]

You answered that question yourself, DB. Journal of Discourse is not canon. Not even remotely part of the Standard Works and therefore should not EVER be used as the foundation of doctrine but rather corroborate with established doctrine such as scriptural canon and the Standard Works.

As for Brigham Young saying he knew Adam as God the Father as being revealed to him from God, that was a common way of Brother Young expressing himself. His strong Protestant background often lead him to say, "God has let me know..."

my answer was to someone else who accepts adam god and changed the word canon to revelation and so since you are coming from a different angle I would need to answer you separately.  

[DBMormon]

You answered that question yourself, DB. Journal of Discourse is not canon. Not even remotely part of the Standard Works and therefore should not EVER be used as the foundation of doctrine but rather corroborate with established doctrine such as scriptural canon and the Standard Works.

As for Brigham Young saying he knew Adam as God the Father as being revealed to him from God, that was a common way of Brother Young expressing himself. His strong Protestant background often lead him to say, "God has let me know..."

so we just write Brigham off as having mispoke and not take him too seriously.....  how can I dialogue with someone when no ground stays still

[Darren10]

I don't use Van Allen's argument so unsure why you brought it up.

Their situation was your spring board of inspiration to launch this thread. I simply gave it some background. They are going in for a disciplinary council not for personally rejecting D&C 132, but for the false doctrine their rejection is founded upon.

[Rivers]

You can always go by that assumption that things are cannon because God wanted them to be cannon.

[Darren10]

so we just write Brigham off as having mispoke and not take him too seriously.....  how can I dialogue with someone when no ground stays still

Mispoke? It was not ""mispeaking" but understanding more precisely what he meant by "God has made it known to me..."

[DBMormon]

You can always go by that assumption that things are cannon because God wanted them to be cannon.

sure you could but is that required to be LDS?

[Rivers]

sure you could but is that required to be LDS?

Thankfully no. 

[carbon dioxide]

If you don't like Section 132, tear it out of your D&C.  I happen to like Section 132.  In fact it is one of my favorite D&C sections. 

[JLHPROF]

If you don't like Section 132, tear it out of your D&C.  I happen to like Section 132.  In fact it is one of my favorite D&C sections. 

 

I like having an eternal companion and the potential for exaltation as a God.  I think I'll keep it too.  I would prefer not to return to the "death do us part" and "sitting on a cloud playing a harp for eternity" alternative.

[carbon dioxide]

Think of how many more converts the Church would have if it got rid of D&C 89.  Polygamy may bring discomfort to some but it is not currently practiced by the Church so for members today it really has no practical application.  How many investigators have word of wisdom issues that keeps them from baptism?   Perhaps throwing out Section 89 would be more important than throwing out 132. 

[JLHPROF]

Think of how many more converts the Church would have if it got rid of D&C 89.  Polygamy may bring discomfort to some but it is not currently practiced by the Church so for members today it really has no practical application.  How many investigators have word of wisdom issues that keeps them from baptism?   Perhaps throwing out Section 89 would be more important than throwing out 132. 

 

Oooh, can we get rid of D&C 119 and stop paying tithing?  That would win a few converts too.  Paying tithing is apparently a sacrifice and causes some members discomfort.

Edited April 25, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Darren10]

I like having an eternal companion and the potential for exaltation as a God.  I think I'll keep it too.  I would prefer not to return to the "death do us part" and "sitting on a cloud playing a harp for eternity" alternative.

That's another topic of discussion. The scriptures are for mankind to learn of the potential for salvation. DB himself cited this from Brigham Young. I fully agree. D&C 132 teaches the world something which is *absolutely* necessary for salvation. (Especially true when in Heavenly Father's eyes, "salvation" is exaltation and nothing less for He wants nothing less for anyone). Despite what the Van Allens think, polygamy is NOT necessary for exaltation, so why reject it?

[rodheadlee]

Think of how many more converts the Church would have if it got rid of D&C 89.  Polygamy may bring discomfort to some but it is not currently practiced by the Church so for members today it really has no practical application.  How many investigators have word of wisdom issues that keeps them from baptism?   Perhaps throwing out Section 89 would be more important than throwing out 132. 

There is actually scriptural evidence that it shouldn't be a requirement , not supposed to be by commandment.D&C 89: 2 To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days—

 

Matthew 15:

 17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

 18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders,adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

 20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

 

Mark 7:15

 15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.

Edited April 25, 2015 by rodheadlee

[Mystery Meat]

I have a few free moments so I thought I would expound on the episode referred to in the OP of this thread.  The Van Allen's are supposedly being brought before a disciplinary council because they have chosen to disbelieve section 132.  They otherwise consider themselves faithful members and it seems that is the case.  But I share sources that seemingly gives room for us to possibly set aside section 132.  I will present the myths as I see them and the reasons for calling them myths

 

Myth #1   - We can not disbelieve 132 because it is canon

 

 

canon = scripture.  But is all scripture from God?  Consider this quote from Brigham Young

 

Brigham seems comfortable not believing every word of it to be from God.  we also should acknowledge that each of us interpret and understand portions of scripture very differently.  literal vs figurative, local or global flood, WoW interpretation, skin will become white, sexual sin next to murder, etc...

 

Myth #2 

 

We can not discard 132 because a Prophet believed it was revelation.

 

Consider the quote where Brigham Young claims his Adam God theory was Revelation

 

 

 

 

And then how the Church discarded it.

 

 

Brigham claimed his teaching of Adam as God came from God himself and yet we have discarded his revelation as false.

 

Myth #3 we can not discard 132 because it was given by an angel of the Lord

 

 

D&C 129 gives us room to acknowledge that evil spirits come in the name of God and can fool us if we don't test them properly.  Lehi's dream is a possible demonstration of this along with Jesus being tempted, and Adam and eve being tempted as other examples.  The question must be asked if Joseph took time to shake hands with an angel that threatened him with a drawn sword... 

 

At a minimum it should be acknowledged that we set aside portions of canon (song of solomon, parts of the law of moses, old D&C section 109, lectures on faith) as not binding and in some cases as not divine truth or from God.

 

At a minimum it must be acknowledged that we have on occasion discarded what was believed by our prophets to be revelations.

 

At a minimum it must be acknowledged that we leave room for leaders to think they got info from an angel of God only to have been deceived.

 

On this basis it appears Mormonism itself may possibly give you permission to personally discard portions of its theology and proposed revelations.

------------------------------------------------------------

In my personal views I have not discarded 132 though I admit i am very uncomfortable with it.  

The episode this comes from is here  

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2015/04/shaking-hands-and-drawn-sword/

 

Throw out 132 and you might as well throw me out too. 132 contains some of the most important Doctrines in the Kingdom. A few days ago I made a post about trials and faith. I also said I had an increase in the Spirit and firmer testimony. 

 

I KNOW (not think, not believe, not desperately want) that the Doctrines in 132 are true. The experiences I alluded to are in direct correlation to what is taught in 132. Get rid of them and I seriously have to wonder if the Church is led by revelation anymore.

 

Fortunately, it's not going to happen.

[Mystery Meat]

Throw out 132 and you might as well throw me out too. 132 contains some of the most important Doctrines in the Kingdom. A few days ago I made a post about trials and faith. I also said I had an increase in the Spirit and firmer testimony. 

 

I KNOW (not think, not believe, not desperately want) that the Doctrines in 132 are true. The experiences I alluded to are in direct correlation to what is taught in 132. Get rid of them and I seriously have to wonder if the Church is led by revelation anymore.

 

Fortunately, it's not going to happen.

 

I will go one step further. You want to start a Holy War, get rid of 132. Seriously. Get rid of it. 132 contains THE MOST IMPORTANT doctrines of ETERNAL SALVATION, save it be the Atonement of Jesus Christ. These doctrines are worth fighting for to keep. Anyone who seriously advocated to get rid of them is no friend of God's.

 

Why in the hell are we even trying to come up with possible ways to rationalize removing sacred and divine truth? Sorry DB, and you know how much respect I have for you, but this very thread, the discussion and even entertaining this thought exercise is offensive to me. Especially considering the experiences I have had lately (none of which are binding on anyone but me). 

 

Section 132 essentially describes exaltation and eternal lives. Get rid of it and we are nothing. We are dross. Cast us out. We are no different from any of the Church's of Joseph's day. We are hollow and tinkling brass. We may yet have a form of godliness, but we wouldn't even recognize GODLINESS if it was standing directly in front of us without 132. 132 extends to all of our doctrines; Proclamation to the Family? Temple Work? The Sealing Power? Missionary Work? EVEN THE VERY PURPOSE OF OUR MORTAL EXISTENCE? All of them become utter crap without the doctrines of 132. 

 

I am sorry. I do not mean to get this defensive. But I can tolerate differences of opinion on a wide range of issues. I would be MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more willing to tolerate a discussion on removing the BOM or the BOA from the list of Church Approved scripture before 132. But when I think of the effect eliminating 132 would have on the Church, I think anyone who advocates for its removal should be excommunicated so fast it makes their head spin. Its too insidious and too dangerous of a teaching to tolerate in the Kingdom of God.