Why I Argue That Throwing Out 132 Has Precident

[Scott Lloyd]

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?

 

I don't see anybody saying not to learn about it, just don't occupy scarce Sabbath day time with it. Inspired leaders have made the decisions about what should be discussed; I trust them.

 

By the way, if you think learning about the commandment to past generations to live the practice would make our lives better, I take it you would disagree quite strongly with Bill Reel and others who apparently want mention of it deleted from Section 132, if not removal of Section 132 altogether.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Given the scarcity of time in Sunday classes, I don't see why its pertinence is not a valid concern.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

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

 

Not one I personally am thrilled about, but God is not answerable to me.

[ttribe]

Given the scarcity of time in Sunday classes, I don't see why its pertincnece is not a valid concdern.

 

Of course you don't.

[Darren10]

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.

Very interesting!

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course you don't.

So you don't believe that pertinence is a valid concern when time is scarce, then?

Edited April 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

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

 

Controversy does not necessarily indicate it is pertinence.  Much ado over nothing. 

 

1. relevant or applicable to a particular matter; apposite.

   "she asked me a lot of very pertinent questions"

   synonyms: relevant, to the point, apposite, appropriate, suitable, fitting, fit, apt, applicable, material, germane, to the purpose, apropos; More

   on-topic;

   formalad rem

   "he asked a lot of pertinent questions"

   antonyms: irrelevant

[ttribe]

So you don't believe that pertinence is a valid concern when time is scarce, then?

 

I don't agree that this topic isn't pertinent.  How was that not clear the first time?

 

 

Controversy does not necessarily indicate it is pertinence.  Much ado over nothing. 

 

1. relevant or applicable to a particular matter; apposite.

   "she asked me a lot of very pertinent questions"

   synonyms: relevant, to the point, apposite, appropriate, suitable, fitting, fit, apt, applicable, material, germane, to the purpose, apropos; More

   on-topic;

   formalad rem

   "he asked a lot of pertinent questions"

   antonyms: irrelevant

 

 

This shows a profound lack of sympathy for those in a faith crisis as it relates to this issue.  They would most certainly consider this topic pertinent to them and the well-being of their testimony.  Whether Gospel Doctrine class is the appropriate venue for the topic is a completely separate issue.

[JulieM]

Wow. I'm reading through these comments and it's amazing the lengths some will go to in order to deny that the subject of plural marriage has been a topic that has been discouraged and avoided in Sunday lesson materials. This is still happening today and they still say it's not. I am happy it's at least currently being taught to teenagers in seminary. And, in the essays. That's progress and I commend & support the leaders for making this effort.

(And Nevo! I wish I could be in your seminary class! Lucky kids to have you for their teacher )

Edited April 29, 2015 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

Wow. I'm reading through these comments and it's amazing the lengths some will go to in order to deny that the subject of plural marriage has been a topic that has been discouraged and avoided in Sunday lesson materials. This is still happening today and they still say it's not. I am happy it's at least currently being taught to teenagers in seminary. And, in the essays. That's progress and I commend & support the leaders for making this effort.

 

I don't deny this at all.  The subject has clearly been downplayed in Sunday meetings.

But that is ZERO excuse for a member not reading the clear as day D&C 132.  If it is in your scriptures you shouldn't be complaining about not having it taught to you.

[JulieM]

I don't deny this at all.  The subject has clearly been downplayed in Sunday meetings.

But that is ZERO excuse for a member not reading the clear as day D&C 132.  If it is in your scriptures you shouldn't be complaining about not having it taught to you.

I do agree, JLHPROF. The teachings about plural marriage are definitely in the D&C for anyone to study. However, discussions about Joseph Smith's polygamy are not allowed at church yet. And maybe they never will be? I know it's up to each one of us to study and research on our own and that's what I'm trying to do. Thank you for your input and help!

[stemelbow]

I don't see anybody saying not to learn about it, just don't occupy scarce Sabbath day time with it. Inspired leaders have made the decisions about what should be discussed; I trust them.

 

By the way, if you think learning about the commandment to past generations to live the practice would make our lives better, I take it you would disagree quite strongly with Bill Reel and others who apparently want mention of it deleted from Section 132, if not removal of Section 132 altogether.

The thing is, Scott, polygamy, particularly as people study the details of it, is difficult to swallow. It makes little sense. So I can sympathize with those who don't want it in the canon. But, on the other hand, if it's so grand as some had suggested, it it is commanded of God, then it could be very instructive to us. Could be quite inspiring to us in a way that other commands may not be. That we're largely discouraged from talking about it, in some ways, lends credence to the argument of taking it out. It doesn't seem to add to what our religion is, these days.

[why me]

(And Nevo! I wish I could be in your seminary class! Lucky kids to have you for their teacher )

I am happy it's at least currently being taught to teenagers in seminary..

The seminary manual hasn't changed in over 30 years. It has always been taught. This is why the whole church hides its history mantra is just a little bogus. However, it seems that people who have attended seminary have forgotten what they were taught.

[Scott Lloyd]

The thing is, Scott, polygamy, particularly as people study the details of it, is difficult to swallow. It makes little sense. So I can sympathize with those who don't want it in the canon. But, on the other hand, if it's so grand as some had suggested, it it is commanded of God, then it could be very instructive to us. Could be quite inspiring to us in a way that other commands may not be. That we're largely discouraged from talking about it, in some ways, lends credence to the argument of taking it out. It doesn't seem to add to what our religion is, these days.

Understanding it could be a milk vs. meat sort of thing.*

 

But I believe we need to be very, very careful about whether to make deletions from the canon just because some people have heartburn over them.

 

*Edited to add:

 

I've learned to come to grips with it over the years in that I accept the fact that the Lord needed to quickly establish a critical mass of faithful, "covenant people" families in which spirits could be born and, within a generation or two, the Church would be strong enough to fulfill the mandate to carry the gospel to every nation, kindred, tongue and people.

 

I'm perfectly comfortable with that explanation. But judging by the push-back I get whenever I mention it here on this board, a lot of people aren't.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't agree that this topic isn't pertinent.  How was that not clear the first time?

 

 

It was not clear in that you seemed to imply that because there is a lot of controversy over it, a lot of people are interested in it and thus  it is a fit subject for Sunday lessons.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

Understanding it could be a milk vs. meat sort of thing.

 

But I believe we need to be very, very careful about whether to make deletions from the canon just because some people have heartburn over them.

You and Talmage both, huh? Oh wait...

[ALarson]

The seminary manual hasn't changed in over 30 years.

Really?  It hasn't changed in over 30 years?  I didn't know that!  Where did you learn this?

[JLHPROF]

You and Talmage both, huh? Oh wait...

 

Ah Talmage...the McConkie of his day.

[why me]

Really?  It hasn't changed in over 30 years?  I didn't know that!  Where did you learn this?

From when it was first published. My copy goes back to the 90s. But I think that it has now been updated but what is new in it, I have no idea. There is no way that such manuals could avoid the subject of JSs polygamy since it is in the verses.

Edited April 29, 2015 by why me

[Tacenda]

I don't deny this at all. The subject has clearly been downplayed in Sunday meetings.

But that is ZERO excuse for a member not reading the clear as day D&C 132. If it is in your scriptures you shouldn't be complaining about not having it taught to you.

I'm a little ashamed to say I never remember once reading section 132 before a few years ago. I was always in Primary callings it seemed or missed the years it was taught, if it even was taught in GD. But that doesn't excuse why I didn't study on my own. Raising a family perhaps, nope? Maybe not a good excuse. But I'll tell you who did read her scriptures and that is my sister in law and her retired CES instructor husband who taught at the high school level on up to the college institute level. They are currently the Logan temple presidents. I just outed myself, who cares. They've been mission presidents in Ireland, taught institute at the Southern Virginia University on a mission and recently put in their papers to serve another mission. They read their scriptures religiously.

How come when I had to get out of going to a temple ceremony for the umpteenth time in our large family, I finally had to tell her I was struggling over JS's polygamy. You know what she said? She said she had only ever read something about Helen Mar Kimball and it was a spiritual sealing. I'd dare say this is more common then you'd dare believe. And don't worry, I left JS's polygamy at that. ETA: Need to correct something, my SIL & BIL are temple workers not presidents.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Tacenda

[ttribe]

It was not clear that in that you seemed to imply that because there is a lot of controversy over it, a lot of people are interested in it and thus  it is a fit subject for Sunday lessons.

 

I specifically stated there may be other valid reasons to exclude the topic.  My argument, from the beginning, is that the blanket dismissive of "it's not pertinent" is incorrect.

[JLHPROF]

But I'll tell you who did read her scriptures and that is my sister in law and her retired CES instructor husband who taught at the high school level on up to the college institute level. They are currently the Logan temple presidents. I just outed myself, who cares. They've been mission presidents in Ireland, taught institute at the Southern Virginia University on a mission and recently put in their papers to serve another mission. They read their scriptures religiously.

 

Wow.  You're almost Church royalty. 

Just kidding.  I would have thought a temple president and matron would have a bit more doctrinal knowledge than the average member.

 

 

How come when I had to get out of going to a temple ceremony for the umpteenth time in our large family, I finally had to tell her I was struggling over JS's polygamy. You know what she said? She said she had only ever read something about Helen Mar Kimball and it was a spiritual sealing. I'd dare say this is more common then you'd dare believe.

Oh no, I believe you.  Most of my mother's side of the family is LDS, and few of them have ever cracked a book that wasn't published by the Church (ie, scriptures or manuals) and most of them know little to nothing of Church history.  For them the Church is primarily a social club that provides spiritual support in their life.  The doctrines and history don't seem to matter much to them.  But they are some of the most Christ-like people I know.  They just have a lot to learn doctrinally.

[Nevo]

From when it was first published. My copy goes back to the 90s. But I think that it has now been updated but what is new in it, I have no idea. There is no way that such manuals could avoid the subject of JSs polygamy since it is in the verses.

 

This year's manual is brand new. The curriculum was completely overhauled and rewritten. Last year's manual too. The previous manuals were from the 1990s.

[carbon dioxide]

In our ward during Sunday School, we have added a class on teaching members on family history and also have started a class on overcoming all kinds of addictions.  What I am thinking is the Church should dedicate a class during this period  simply on church history, the good and what is called the bad and ugly.  Then issues like polygamy, mountain meadows, ect could be addressed in a more proper setting.  I might take a few people out of gospel doctrine or gospel essentials but might help a lot of people who may not know too much about history but have a good grasp on the gospel issues.

 

(Side issue:  The church is going to publish 4 "versions" of the First Vision in 10 languages. Good for the Church http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2456387-155/mormon-founder-joseph-smiths-four-versions

Edited April 29, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[ALarson]

In our ward during Sunday School, we have added a class on teaching members on family history and also have started a class on overcoming all kinds of addictions.  What I am thinking is the Church should dedicate a class during this period  simply on church history, the good and what is called the bad and ugly.  Then issues like polygamy, mountain meadows, ect could be addressed in a more proper setting.  I might take a few people out of gospel doctrine or gospel essentials but might help a lot of people who may not know too much about history but have a good grasp on the gospel issues.

Great idea.  There may be some who aren't even interested in attending a class like that, but I'd imagine most would enjoy it.