Why I Argue That Throwing Out 132 Has Precident

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Discard 132 and you may as well discard the temple, because all of the doctrinal underpinnings pertaining thereto are found in 132.

In fact, discard 132, and the Church of Jesus Christ ceases to be, having been redefined out of existence.

And you're right: It won't happen.

[Mystery Meat]

Discard 132 and you may as well discard the temple, because all of the doctrinal underpinnings pertaining thereto are found in 132.

In fact, discard 132, and the Church of Jesus Christ ceases to be, having been redefined out of existence.

And you're right: It won't happen.

 

Looks like we are on the same page on this one.

[Scott Lloyd]

Looks like we are on the same page on this one.

In fact you expressed my feelings with more eloquence and precision than I did or perhaps could have. Thank you.

[Mystery Meat]

In fact you expressed my feelings with more eloquence and precision than I did or perhaps could have. Thank you.

 

I actually kind of feel bad for Bill. First, because I know he is a good guy and I hope he knows I know that. Second, because of the spiritual experiences I have had over the past two months which are directly related to the doctrines contained in 132. I know this discussion was meant as hypothetical. But I don't want to even let it go that far. I am not willing to give up a few verses of scripture that make me uncomfortable (and there are a few) for doctrines I know are true. 

[rodheadlee]

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.

Bravo!

[readstoomuch]

I don`t quite understand the last part of vs 19. There are other parts that I like more than others, but I am not ready to throw it out. I especially appreciate the part about eternal marriage. The politically correct, don`t offend any body, presentism crowd cannot stomach polygamy. Even if they aren`t required to live the principle. Maybe polygamy was necessary to raise up a generation that could sustain the gospel. Do I want to practice it? No thanks. I read about it and at least came to some understanding and comfort.

No comparison between Adam-God and Section 132. Section 132 was voted on by the Church, some of Brigham`s sermons sounds nothing like AG, several apostles and members struggled with it. There is a whole book about Brigham Young and Orson Pratt`s infighting, much of it over AG. BY himself finally gave up on getting people to accept it or convince them of it. I just don`t see how they can compare. We have learned from some of those episodes. Unity of the quorum of the twelve and first presidency and scripture that is submitted to the whole Church to confirm for example.

I believe in some elasticity in the Doctrine and Covenants. Of course some of that happened early on and has gone through years of soldification since then. If the prophet/or unity of apostles suggested a change and the Church were to confirm it as they would a new revelation, then I could find it binding. I sure would also hope that eternal marriage wouldn`t get thrown out because part of the section makes some people uncomfortable.

As for the Van Allen`s, I don`t think it is so much about disagreeing with Section 132 as it is about their advocating publicly that they disagree with it. They can believe what they want to privately if they don`t advocate it publicly.

[JLHPROF]

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.

 

AMEN!

 

Without D&C 132 we might as well all be protestants.  It contains the very sum of the exalting gospel of Mormonism.  Remove it and the teachings contained therein and Gods entire work would be thwarted.

[Tacenda]

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.

Well where does Jesus fit in all this, the 132 section? If you think these feelings should warrent excommunication so be it. I know if I ever resign, it will be based on my feeling that polygamy led to bad fruit.

[JLHPROF]

Well where does Jesus fit in all this, the 132 section? If you think these feelings should warrent excommunication so be it. I know if I ever resign, it will be based on my feeling that polygamy led to bad fruit.

 

Christ inherits those who are worthy of membership in the Church of the Firstborn.

Without the principles of D&C 132 there would be no members for him to inherit.  They are the principles of the Celestial Kingdom.  If we no longer taught/followed them God and Christ wouldn't have us there to reign over.

[Tacenda]

If Section 132 IS the end all be all, why is it basically ignored in GD class!?!? Unless anyone has experienced otherwise, please share.

[Mystery Meat]

Well where does Jesus fit in all this, the 132 section? If you think these feelings should warrent excommunication so be it. I know if I ever resign, it will be based on my feeling that polygamy led to bad fruit.

 

"This is eternal lives—to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore, my law."

 

-The Savior, Jesus Christ- D&C 132:24

 

He fits in because it is HIS law. He is the giver of the Section. Joseph Smith directly quotes him. The Savior goes on to say that those who reject 132 (eternal marriage, the New and Everlasting Covenant) are rejecting Him.

[Mystery Meat]

If Section 132 IS the end all be all, why is it basically ignored in GD class!?!? Unless anyone has experienced otherwise, please share.

 

Section 132 is still at the Heart of everything we do in the Church. We still preach and teach that man may become exalted, divine, even gods. We still teach the eternal nature of marriage. We still teach of the importance of the Holy Spirit of Promise. Do you want to eliminate those sacred and pure doctrines. Where else are they taught in our Holy Scripture? 

 

I am sure you are mostly talking about polygamy. I suppose the doctrine of polygamy is not actively taught in every gospel doctrine class for a variety of reasons. I know I would never focus on it if I were teaching BECAUSE WE ARE NOT ASKED TO LIVE IT AT THE PRESENT TIME. 

 

That does not mean I do not appreciate the above doctrines that are also taught in 132 or that the Church no longer teaches those.

[Tacenda]

Section 132 is still at the Heart of everything we do in the Church. We still preach and teach that man may become exalted, divine, even gods. We still teach the eternal nature of marriage. We still teach of the importance of the Holy Spirit of Promise. Do you want to eliminate those sacred and pure doctrines. Where else are they taught in our Holy Scripture? 

 

I am sure you are mostly talking about polygamy. I suppose the doctrine of polygamy is not actively taught in every gospel doctrine class for a variety of reasons. I know I would never focus on it if I were teaching BECAUSE WE ARE NOT ASKED TO LIVE IT AT THE PRESENT TIME. 

 

That does not mean I do not appreciate the above doctrines that are also taught in 132 or that the Church no longer teaches those.

https://lehislibrary.wordpress.com/2013/09/03/omission-of-section-132-from-the-dc/ Omission of Section 132 from the D&C

A fascinating bit if history on Section 132 that I was previously unaware of:

“Generating even more controversy in discussing the revelation was an officially sanctioned scriptural work entitled, Latter-day Revelations: Selections from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Published in 1930 under the imprint of the LDS Church, the volume was actually compiled by James E. Talmage, who by this time was a senior apostle in the Quorum of the Twelve. This work was characterized as containing “Sections and parts of Sections from the Doctrine and Covenants, the sections comprising scriptures of general an enduring value…”. Its purpose, in the words of Talmage, was “to make the strictly doctrinal parts of the Doctrine and Covenants of easy access and reduce its bulk.” Accordingly some ninety-five sections of the Doctrine and Covenants were completely omitted, along with parts of twenty-one others. The most noteworthy of these omissions was the entire text of Section 132! Fundamentalist Mormons were outraged, “accusing the [LDS] church of changing the scriptures.” In response, then Church President Heber J. Grant, ordered the work immediately “withdrawn” from sale and the remaining copies “shredded to avoid further conflict with the fundamentalists,” according to Talmage biographer, James P. Harris.”

Newell G. Bringhurst, “Section 132: Contents and Legacy” in The Persistence of Polygamy, (Independence: John Whitmer Books: 2010), 83-84.

 

 

 

 

[Sleeper Cell]

Well where does Jesus fit in all this, the 132 section? If you think these feelings should warrent excommunication so be it. I know if I ever resign, it will be based on my feeling that polygamy led to bad fruit.

From my reading of 19th century LDS history, I got the impression that it was the opposition to polygamy that led to bad fruit.  Such as religious persecution. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Well where does Jesus fit in all this, the 132 section? If you think these feelings should warrent excommunication so be it. I know if I ever resign, it will be based on my feeling that polygamy led to bad fruit.

Where does Jesus fit in? Read verses 11 and 12. This is Jesus Himself speaking, revealing these doctrines and principles through Joseph Smith.

John 17, Jesus's intercessory prayer, alludes to what is explained in fuller and richer detail in Section 132. We are sealed together by covenant as families across the generations and thus become one in Christ as He is One with the Father.

Where does Jesus fit into it? He is the very Author of it, the Plan of Salvation, the Plan of Happiness, the Plan of Exaltation.

[DonBradley]

DBMormon,

 

I think actually the most common reason given why we can't discard D&C 132 is that it is the only revelation that teaches eternal marriage. I'm not sure that's technically true, but 132 is certainly the only canonical scripture that teaches the doctrine of eternal marriage explicitly and without room for misunderstanding.

 

A possible response to this is that we have a number of doctrines that are not explicit in the canon: doctrine doesn't need to be explicit in the canon in order to be doctrine. For instance, the idea that God the Father is the actual father of our spirits is not in the scriptures (at least not in the explicit way eternal marriage is in 132). And the idea that we have a Heavenly Mother is decidedly not explicit in the canon. And so on.

 

In any case, I think this is an objection one would have to overcome to decanonizing D&C 132.

 

Don

[why me]

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

 

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/

 

We all have permission to believe what we want to believe. If you don't want to believe in section 132 or in other section, it is your own business. Likewise for any other member. The problem comes when people start to talk openly about their disbeliefs and make them public on blogs etc. and begin to influence others to disblieve also.

 

No church can go by a person's whims and even though we live in an age of ego, narcissism, self interest, self centerness etc, no church can exit by bowing to such people. The church will never take out 132 because by doing so, the implication would be that polygamy was a mistake and joseph lied. No evil spirits need apply because many members would just see it as all a lie.

 

I dont remember seeing any of Brigham's revelations about adam god in the D&C.

[why me]

Well where does Jesus fit in all this, the 132 section? If you think these feelings should warrent excommunication so be it. I know if I ever resign, it will be based on my feeling that polygamy led to bad fruit.

 

Bad friut? Please do not tell this to the people alive today because of polygamy. Many people in utah and elsewhere who are decendents of polygamist back in the day will not want to think of themselves as bad fruit. Where does jesus fit into the old testament? Or in Acts or the letters of Paul? The answer may not be that much different from the D&C.

Edited April 25, 2015 by why me

[The Nehor]

Bad friut? Please do not tell this to the people alive today because of polygamy. Many people in utah and elsewhere who are decendents of polygamist back in the day will not want to think of themselves as bad fruit. Where does jesus fit into the old testament? Or in Acts or the letters of Paul?

 

Exactly. Think of all the people that would not be here without polygamy. Some of them must be doing good. I would not be here without polygamy and that would be....ummmm.....wait.....never mind.

[The Nehor]

Your argument basically hinges on making it plausible for prophets to be wrong.

What is your argument for why it was wrong in this instance other then personal distaste and that some people then and now do not like it. You can do that with virtually any commandment or doctrine. If you are convinced it is false then stand up and bear testimony that it has been revealed to you to be false. Don't mince around with possibilities and maybes and plausibilities. If you have not had such revelation then I suggest you shut up instead of risking your own testimony and the testimony of others in what amounts to intellectual unfounded speculation.

(Edited to remove possibly offensive term that I did not imagine would be found offensive. I have learned better.)

Edited April 25, 2015 by The Nehor

[Scott Lloyd]

Don't know if this has been cited yet, either here or elsewhere, but it is an insightful response by Brian and Laura Hales to Van Allen's blog post.

[Tacenda]

Bad friut? Please do not tell this to the people alive today because of polygamy. Many people in utah and elsewhere who are decendents of polygamist back in the day will not want to think of themselves as bad fruit. Where does jesus fit into the old testament? Or in Acts or the letters of Paul? The answer may not be that much different from the D&C.

I have a habit of leaving detail out. Not the people are bad fruit, then I'd fit the bill also. But how corrupt it can be in hundreds of lives in this day and age. Not directing it to the Cody Browns of the world either. You should listen to the umpteen podcasts that Lindsey Hansen Park (sp?) has made. She's a wonderful historian focusing her work on polygamy. I guess we don't have much to talk about unless you know the information in these podcasts.

When I ask where is Jesus, I guess I have a hard time believing Jesus said that. More, where is Jesus as in His ability to give eternal life w/o living polygamy. But I'll move on, I understand it's super important to not leave this section out. And it's the only thing separating us from the other religions. Let them be angels, we're going to be Gods.

[Garden Girl]

Section 132 is still at the Heart of everything we do in the Church. We still preach and teach that man may become exalted, divine, even gods. We still teach the eternal nature of marriage. We still teach of the importance of the Holy Spirit of Promise. Do you want to eliminate those sacred and pure doctrines. Where else are they taught in our Holy Scripture? 

 

I am sure you are mostly talking about polygamy. I suppose the doctrine of polygamy is not actively taught in every gospel doctrine class for a variety of reasons. I know I would never focus on it if I were teaching BECAUSE WE ARE NOT ASKED TO LIVE IT AT THE PRESENT TIME. 

 

That does not mean I do not appreciate the above doctrines that are also taught in 132 or that the Church no longer teaches those.

 

Section 132 teaches about more than polygamy... i.e., Vs 1 - 20 particularly... the reasons why we have temples for sealings by the Holy Spirit of Promise, and by those properly anointed and appointed under the keys of the priesthood to seal in time  and through all eternity.  Therefore, I don't see how Section 132 can simply be "thrown out" ...  

 

GG

[sheilauk]

Don't know if this has been cited yet, either here or elsewhere, but it is an insightful response by Brian and Laura Hales to Van Allen's blog post.

thanks for posting that link, Scott, a good read.

[why me]

I have a habit of leaving detail out. Not the people are bad fruit, then I'd fit the bill also. But how corrupt it can be in hundreds of lives in this day and age. Not directing it to the Cody Browns of the world either. You should listen to the umpteen podcasts that Lindsey Hansen Park (sp?) has made. She's a wonderful historian focusing her work on polygamy. I guess we don't have much to talk about unless you know the information in these podcasts.

When I ask where is Jesus, I guess I have a hard time believing Jesus said that. More, where is Jesus as in His ability to give eternal life w/o living polygamy. But I'll move on, I understand it's super important to not leave this section out. And it's the only thing separating us from the other religions. Let them be angels, we're going to be Gods.

I think that I have told you before that you listen to many podcasts or read too many sites that usually have a bad affect on your own spirituality. I can listen to her podcasts but it would not affect my opinion of the practice. Why? Because it is only her interpretation of the facts. I am sure that there were abuses in polygamous relationships as there are in monogamous relatioships. And I am sure that it was a sacrifice for both the men and women involved in the lds church when polygamy was okay. At the end of the day, it was lived as a commandment of god and much good came out of it. God had people do strange things back in old testament times and in new testament times. And god did strange things too. For after all, why did god kill the two people in the NT for cheating on their tithing? Is this the jesus that you know and love?