Why I Argue That Throwing Out 132 Has Precident

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I didn't get that you were talking about it being a "blanket dismissive," rather that you were saying it is not valid, even in combination with other factors.

[JLHPROF]

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.

 

I agree with this.

The instructors called would need to be very faithful and knowledgeable on these subject to avoid either prompting people into doubts or even being led to doubts themselves.

I can think of a few on the board that might do an excellent job.

[ttribe]

I didn't get that you were talking about it being a "blanket dismissive," rather that you were saying it is not valid, even in combination with other factors.

 

I'll leave you to the last word on this.  It's a pointless derail at this stage of the discussion.

[ALarson]

I agree with this.

The instructors called would need to be very faithful and knowledgeable on these subject to avoid either prompting people into doubts or even being led to doubts themselves.

I can think of a few on the board that might do an excellent job.

I would love for either you or Nevo to teach it.  That's a class I'd like to attend

[JLHPROF]

I would love for either you or Nevo to teach it.  That's a class I'd like to attend

 

Ah, but would you challenge a teacher in a Sunday class as you do on this board? 

[Scott Lloyd]

I'll leave you to the last word on this.  It's a pointless derail at this stage of the discussion.

Agreed. And that's my "last word."

[Tacenda]

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.

 

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.

They aren't temple presidents, I thought they were, just temple workers I edited my post, my bad. My BIL is a temple sealer, so semi royalty!

[Kaleb Webb]

I learned about polygamy for the first time while I was in primary, around 8 or 9 years old. One of the kids in the class asked the teacher about prophets having more than one wife, and the teacher gave the "a lot of men were dead so the widows needed someone to take care of them" explanation. I thought of polygamy as something started by Brigham Young until I was a sophomore in high school, when I read Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling. We talked about it briefly in Seminary soon after I finished the book, when we covered Section 132.

 

I'm curious though: are there any other mentions of Joseph's polygamy besides section 132? If we remove it, would the casual member who isn't as well-versed in church history be able to figure it out just from reading the scriptures?

[ALarson]

Ah, but would you challenge a teacher in a Sunday class as you do on this board? 

Definitely.  Especially if it were in a class centered around church history.  I would be honest and ask questions, for sure.

[Calm]

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

You are thinking about the institute manual, Church History in the Fulness of Times.  The seminary manual has been changed a couple of times iirc in the past 30 years.  The institute manual before that (by Ivan Barrett iirc) also taught it.  I have both institute manuals on the shelf.

 

add-on:  I see Nevo has added more precise info on seminary manuals.  

Edited April 29, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I agree with this.

The instructors called would need to be very faithful and knowledgeable on these subject to avoid either prompting people into doubts or even being led to doubts themselves.

I can think of a few on the board that might do an excellent job.

I think the Church could do a lot of video and manual work or use the Gospel Topics section on lds.org to provide thorough and accurate resources for wards that lack knowledgeable individuals, but they would definitely need to choose those who can handle discussion without anxiety and who have had enough experiencing with researching church history to know how they are most likely going to react...and this will be in a faithful way of adapting new information with the old.

[DBMormon]

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?

Where is the history behind the revelation of blacks not having priesthood???????????????????????????????????????

[DBMormon]

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

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.

 

If the church can remove old section 101 (later 109) and they can remove lectures on faith, then certainly they can remove the verses on polygamy from 132 as it is no longer binding.  again there is precedent for doing such.  Its not like I am offering a foreign idea that hasn't been done.

 

Also this is a very different thing from my proposing that is should be removed.  which is what you have accused me of.

Edited April 30, 2015 by DBMormon

[JLHPROF]

If the church can remove old section 101 (later 109) and they can remove lectures on faith, then certainly they can remove the verses on polygamy from 132 as it is no longer binding.  again there is precedent for doing such.  Its not like I am offering a foreign idea that hasn't been done.

 

Also this is a very different thing from my proposing that is should be removed.  which is what you have accused me of.

 

Oh for heaven's sake.  The old D&C 101 was canon but it was never a revelation or from God.  It was an administrative document (which Joseph had little to do with).

D&C 132 is a "thus saith the Lord" word of God revelation from the other side of the veil

 

The first was the work of men.  God gave further light and knowledge.  The other is the word of God on eternal principles.

If you can't see the difference between removing one versus the other....

Edited April 30, 2015 by JLHPROF

[DBMormon]

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. 

what is wrong with 132 is a very different question than what is wrong with polygamy.  Consenting informed adults with no compulsion entering a polygamous relationship is between them and God.  

 

132 ideas that make me uncomfortable 

- god condones concubines vs 37 and 38

 

37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.

 38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

 

 

- compeling Emma to accept plural wives  vs 52

52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.

 

 

- the threatening Emma with damnation and destruction if she (choose which interpretation) doesn't abide polygamy or doesn't endure her marriage to Joseph under the polygamy conditions

 

54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall bedestroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

 

 

- Joseph seems to establish a rule of polygamy of 2nd and later wives being virgins but he doesn't seem to keep the rule

 

 

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouseanother, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

 

 

- polygamous wives belong to the men  vs 62

 

 

62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

 

 

 

-  that polygamy gives more offspring than heterosexual relationships vs 63

 

 63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

 

 

 

-  wives not submitting to polygamy will be destroyed  vs 64

 

 

 64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her;

 

 

- one can continue creating polygamous relationships even if the the first wife says no    vs 65

 65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

Oh for heaven's sake.  The old D&C 101 was canon but it was never a revelation or from God.  It was an administrative document (which Joseph had little to do with).

D&C 132 is a "thus saith the Lord" word of God revelation from the other side of the veil

 

The first was the work of men.  God gave further light and knowledge.  The other is the word of God on eternal principles.

If you can't see the difference between removing one versus the other....

And, as has been argued at length here on this board very recently, the notion that Lectures on Faith ever were part of the scriptural canon in the first place is problematical and should not be taken as a settled matter.

[JLHPROF]

what is wrong with 132 is a very different question than what is wrong with polygamy.  Consenting informed adults with no compulsion entering a polygamous relationship is between them and God.  

 

132 ideas that make me uncomfortable 

- god condones concubines vs 37 and 38

 

- compeling Emma to accept plural wives  vs 52

 

- the threatening Emma with damnation and destruction if she (choose which interpretation) doesn't abide polygamy or doesn't endure her marriage to Joseph under the polygamy conditions

 

- Joseph seems to establish a rule of polygamy of 2nd and later wives being virgins but he doesn't seem to keep the rule

 

- polygamous wives belong to the men  vs 62

 

-  that polygamy gives more offspring than heterosexual relationships vs 63

 

-  wives not submitting to polygamy will be destroyed  vs 64

 

- one can continue creating polygamous relationships even if the the first wife says no    vs 65

 

This may make you uncomfortable.  Everyone has a right to their feelings.

That doesn't make them one whit less true or any less from God.

 

These are true principles.  How do I know?  Because I have a testimony of Joseph, his revelations, and the restored Gospel.

If you don't share that testimony that is also your right.

But pretending there is a flaw in the revelation simply because it makes you uncomfortable is a false premise.