Why I Argue That Throwing Out 132 Has Precident

[ALarson]

So Joseph's personal practice of polygamy is in D&C 132, the Seminary manual, the Joseph Smith manual, many historical biographies, all over the internet, and heaven only knows how many other places.

 

Worst hidden secret in the world apparently.

Polygamy was not taught in the Joseph Smith manual.  There were instructions to avoid teaching it in the introduction and was not mentioned in any of the lessons about his teachings during his lifetime.

 

And the seminary manual it from this year.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think the Church is in a tough spot in many ways. Some will never be satisfied, as you suggest. I think so. I listen to some critics and it seems every perceived evil was practiced by LDS folks way back when, every little allusion to some past leader doing evil is established fact, as they dogmatically condemn believers. much of the history has just gotten pretty complicated, so much so, that each member would have to go through advanced college programs to get a good feel for it. That's just ridiculous to think about. But that doesn't stop some of us from concluding the materials and manuals are deplorable in some respects.

They're not perfect, certainly.

 

But I think "deplorable" is quite overwrought.

 

And don't show me the quote from Givens; I think he was being snooty when he used that descriptor.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Polygamy was not taught in the Joseph Smith manual.  There were instructions to avoid teaching it in the introduction and was not mentioned in any of the lessons about his teachings during his lifetime.

 

Go back a few posts where calmoriah quoted from the manual. I think this characterization is not quite accurate.

[ERayR]

Of course members know that polygamy was practiced in the early days of the church. They also know that Joseph received the revelation about it. But from there it gets hazey without more research. It's absolutely true that how Joseph lived polygamy is an avoided topic in church. I remember the year we studied the teachings of Joseph Smith in relief society. There are specific instructions in the preface of that lesson manual to NOT discuss polygamy. Why? Wasn't polygamy a teaching of Joseph Smith's? He received the revelation! Thus, the confusion of members on this topic even today.

 

Just perhaps it is because polygamy is not pertinent to today's member and discussions of it lead to dissension in the classroom.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

They should just give Elder Holland a whole session at Conference to address each controversial issue. Hang it out there for all to see.

BTW, I agree the church hasn't really hidden the Joseph Smith polygamy thing, but they have been kind of reticent about explaining all that they believe it entailed. (ie... polyandry) 

[ALarson]

How is it inaccurate?

It states: 

"However, by 1841 the Prophet had begun to obey the commandment and to teach it to some members of the Church, and over the next three years he married additional wives in accordance with the Lord’s commands."

 

 Do you believe that's an accurate portrayal of when Joseph began marrying additional wives?

[Scott Lloyd]

It states: 

"However, by 1841 the Prophet had begun to obey the commandment and to teach it to some members of the Church, and over the next three years he married additional wives in accordance with the Lord’s commands."

 

 Do you believe that's an accurate portrayal of when Joseph began marrying additional wives?

You're going to have to spell it out for me, not just quote the manual to me. I can get that on my own.

 

I'll repeat the question: How is it inaccurate?

[ALarson]

Go back a few posts where calmoriah quoted from the manual. I think this characterization is not quite accurate.

It's very accurate.  Teachers were instructed not to teach about plural marriage because it was not applicable to today.

 

Show me in that manual where there is a lesson that teaches about Joseph's plural marriages and teachings about plural marriage.

[stemelbow]

They're not perfect, certainly.

 

But I think "deplorable" is quite overwrought.

 

And don't show me the quote from Givens; I think he was being snooty when he made that comment.

Seeing you suggest they aren't perfect is good enough for me.

[Tacenda]

You're quoting this year's seminary manual. It has a whole lesson devoted to the discussion of polygamy (which I'm teaching tomorrow, actually ). Previous manuals said very little about it.

Thanks Nevo, I suspected that was the current lesson plan.

[Scott Lloyd]

It's very accurate.  Teachers were instructed not to teach about plural marriage because it was not applicable to today.

 

From calmoriah's post:

Perhaps what you are confusing specific instructions about plural marriage with was this general instruction:

 

Quote

https://www.lds.org/...uction?lang=eng

 

Help participants focus on Joseph Smith’s teachings. Have them read his words to generate discussion and to answer questions. If the discussion begins to stray from the topic or becomes speculative or contentious, redirect the discussion by referring back to an event, doctrine, or principle in the chapter.

 

 

 

 

Show me in that manual where there is a lesson that teaches about Joseph's plural marriages and teachings about plural marriage.

The fact of his receiving the commandment to institute it and teach it and that he himself practiced it is acknowledged in the introduction, which also states that the book is about his teachings, not about polygamy.

 

The absence of content about polygamy in the lessons is in keeping with that explanation in the introduction.

 

(By the way, everyone is expected to read the manual on their own, not wait to have it fed to them in the class.)

Edited April 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Seeing you suggest they aren't perfect is good enough for me.

Well, you should have said something before. We could have saved a lot of time.

[JLHPROF]

Polygamy was not taught in the Joseph Smith manual.  There were instructions to avoid teaching it in the introduction and was not mentioned in any of the lessons about his teachings during his lifetime.

 

And the seminary manual it from this year.

 

Fair enough.

That still doesn't account for the 4 times in D&C 132 Joseph is commanded to enter plural marriage.

Scriptures haven't changed that much have they?

[ALarson]

The absence of content about polygamy in the lessons is in keeping with that explanation in the introduction.

 

(By the way, everyone is expected to read the manual on their own, not wait to have it fed to them in the class.)

I stated that "polygamy was not taught in the Joseph Smith manual" and you responded by saying that wasn't "quite accurate".  So, I asked you to show me a lesson in that manual that teaches about polygamy and your response above confirms it was not taught.

 

And even if everyone studied that manual, they wouldn't have been taught about Joseph Smith's polygamy or his teachings on that subject.

[ALarson]

Fair enough.

That still doesn't account for the 4 times in D&C 132 Joseph is commanded to enter plural marriage.

 

I agree.  And, I also agree that members should take more responsibility for learning and studying on their own.  

[thesometimesaint]

It's a big part of the history of Mormonism, sure, but it's quite separable from contemporary Mormonism. The new 2013 edition of the scriptures goes out of its way to de-emphasize polygamy as a doctrine of the Church.

 

OD1 now has an introductory paragraph stating that “the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that monogamy is God’s standard for marriage unless He declares otherwise (see 2 Samuel 12:7-8 and Jacob 2:27, 30)." Plural marriage was a divinely authorized "religious practice" among nineteenth-century members of the Church, but it was an exception to the rule, a special circumstance.

 

In the 1981 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, the heading to section 132 read: "Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831."

 

It now reads: "Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831." The former reference to "doctrines . . . in this revelation" was dropped. Is this an admission that polygamy may not be doctrinal? Perhaps not, but one is left to wonder. It does not seem to be affirmed anywhere these days.

 

The revelation of Section 132 is still in our Scriptures, and I was married under it. IMNTBHO OD1 doesn't do away with polygamy. Polygamy is still a doctrine of the Church. What is held in abeyance is the earthy practice of 2 or more living wives at this time. God could at any given time re-institute the earthly practice. But I don't foresee him as doing it any time soon.

[ttribe]

Just perhaps it is because polygamy is not pertinent to today's member and discussions of it lead to dissension in the classroom.

 

That there continues to be so much controversy on this issue indicates it is quite pertinent to many.

[Scott Lloyd]

I stated that "polygamy was not taught in the Joseph Smith manual" and you responded by saying that wasn't "quite accurate".  So, I asked you to show me a lesson in that manual that teaches about polygamy and your response above confirms it was not taught.

 

And even if everyone studied that manual, they wouldn't have been taught about Joseph Smith's polygamy or his teachings on that subject.

What I meant by "not quite accurate" was this assertion from you:

 

There were instructions to avoid teaching it in the introduction ....

 

The instruction in the introduction was a general guideline to avoid letting the lesson stray off topic. This was not specifically pertaining to polygamy.

 

I addressed the matter of the lessons not having any content about polygamy, and pointed out that this was consistent with what was said in the introduction about the purpose of the manual and it having contemporary application.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

The revelation of Section 132 is still in our Scriptures, and I was married under it. IMNTBHO OD1 doesn't do away with polygamy. Polygamy is still a doctrine of the Church. What is held in abeyance is the earthy practice of 2 or more living wives at this time. God could at any given time re-institute the earthly practice. But I don't foresee him as doing it any time soon.

Why would He? That could be an interesting question if ever He decided to.

[Scott Lloyd]

That there continues to be so much controversy on this issue indicates it is quite pertinent to many.

Controversy alone doesn't make it a fit subject for classroom discussion, where the purpose is to motivate us to love the Lord, come to Christ, improve our lives and receive the saving ordinances and covenants.

 

If controversy made it appropriate, there is a whole world of material that could be included that isn't.

[ALarson]

What I meant by "not quite accurate" was this assertion from you:

 

The instruction in the introduction was a general guideline to avoid letting the lesson stray off topic. This was not specifically pertaining to polygamy.

Really?  They specifically mentioned "plural marriage" as one of the topics to avoid, how is that "not specifically pertaining to polygamy"?

[stemelbow]

Controversy alone doesn't make it a fit subject for classroom discussion, where the purpose is to motivate us to love the Lord, come to Christ, improve our lives and receive the saving ordinances and covenants.

 

If controversy made it appropriate, there is a whole world of material that could be included that isn't.

Whose to say discussing the topic of polygamy, if commanded of God, is not going to motivate us to love the Lord, come to Christ, improve our lives and receive the saving ordinances and covenants? After all, polygamy wasnt' all that log ago, and to many then living it was better and more godly than monogamy. Shouldn't we learn about these commandments from God, learn from past history in order for our lives to be better?

[VideoGameJunkie]

I don't think polygamy works in this life with courts and money and problems, but I feel polygamy can easily work in the eternities.

[Scott Lloyd]

Really?  They specifically mentioned "plural marriage" as one of the topics to avoid, how is that "not specifically pertaining to polygamy"?

Where did they "specifically mention plural marriage as one of the topics to avoid'?

 

What I saw was a mention of the Law of Consecration and plural marriage as two topics that wouldn't be dealt with in the lessons.

[ttribe]

Controversy alone doesn't make it a fit subject for classroom discussion, where the purpose is to motivate us to love the Lord, come to Christ, improve our lives and receive the saving ordinances and covenants.

 

If controversy made it appropriate, there is a whole world of material that could be included that isn't.

 

Not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that the Venn diagram of "Pertinent" and "Classroom Topic" is 100% overlap.  I said nothing about whether it should be a "fit subject for classroom discussion."  I simply refuted the notion that it's "pertinence" was a valid reason for it's exclusion; there may be other valid reasons.