Why I Argue That Throwing Out 132 Has Precident

[Teancum]

No, I don't think they do.  There are numerous examples from scripture and from our own lives where we do and accept a certain thing because the Lord tells us it is his will.  We sacrifice our own will for his and follow after him.  What you are proposing is to sever that link and only support those things that we want to believe, which is the very definition of following after the teachings of man.

But you are justifying what YOU beleive because somehow you reason it is God's will. Others conclude things beacuse they reason it is not. Different approaches are used to reach differing conclusions. Some methodology may be better than others.

This thread is about rejecting a particular section of the D&C. You may disagree with the author of the OP. but his reasoning is as sound as anyone who accepts it. My post that ypu responded to was in response to someone who said that the OP here was just another attempt to justify rejecting God's will. That implies that the person who posted in at least in their mind taking a higher road and the author of the OP is not. Your post is similar really and is such by closing that you don't follow the will of men. Frankly it is nonesense. Joseph Smith was as much a man as you and me. You may have faith that he has special privlige to God but all it this is is your own personal faith. Others who are just as honest and decent as you make a different conclusion based on the evidence they examine and whatever other means they may have. They applying their methodology have concluded that D&C 132 is simply not of God and they may be right and you wrong.

And there is lots of things that others claim to be of God is scripture that you reject. I Assume you eat pork and don't stone sabbath breakers. Nor do you follow Muhammed and his scripture. Why not?

[Teancum]

Though I appreciate the guidance of Church leadership, I have become rather guarded and believe doctrines only when I personally have been led to a spiritual witness of their truthfulness.  I don't for one minute believe that one need live plural marriage in order to obtain the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.  More importantly, I honestly believe that God is the final arbiter of what is and is not required for a specific individual to enter a specific kingdom.  

 

I have know many people that don't know nearly as much about God as I do and they were still more holy than I will ever be.  All of these bits and pieces of truth are nice, but it is how we live the truths we possess rather than what we know that leads us to holiness and righteousness.  

 

Give me the widow that is capable of throwing in her two mites before all the rest; it is she who will wear the crown.

So you pick and choose as well.

[Teancum]

There's something fundamental you are missing here.

 

Section 132 is revealed truth.  There are many evidences for its truthfulness; the fact that it is "out of step" with the twisted priorities of a wicked world is only one of them.

 

The "precedents" you've cited are, on inspection, not symmetrical.

 

There's no need to discard Section 132.

 

But there might be valid reasons for discarding those who reject it.

What are the many evidences that section 132 is revealed truth? If so why did the church discard a fundamental portion of it?

[thesometimesaint]

What are the many evidences that section 132 is revealed truth? If so why did the church discard a fundamental portion of it?

 

Because God told me it is, and the Church agrees. 

 

We didn't toss any of it out. It is ALL still there. What is now is the temporary earthly application of not having multiple living wives.

Edited April 26, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Teancum]

Because God told me it is, and the Church agrees.

We didn't toss any of it out. It is ALL still there. What is now is the temporary earthly application of not having multiple living wives.

These are not evidences.

And yes better said the church has suspended a large part of the section.

What if God told DB that parts of the section are not from Him? What if God told Tacenda or me that polygamy was a mistake?

Edited April 26, 2015 by Teancum

[thesometimesaint]

These are not evidences.

And yes better said the church has suspended a large part of the section.

What if God told DB that parts of the section are not from Him? What if God told Tacenda or me that polygamy was a mistake?

 

it is sufficient evidence for me. I knew about polygamy from before I became a member. I further suspect that most adult members have too.

 

Polygamy was never a large portion of Section 132. The vast majority of it applies to whether we have one or more wives.

 

Then DB, Tacenda , and you are responsible for that belief.  Section 132 is still there in all its glory, and OD 1 is still in the canon of the Church.

[wtrdog]

Within the next couple decades the church will either toss out section 132 or start doing polygamy again.  Tossing it out does create some complications for the whole eternal marriage thing, but I reject that this is much of a problem.  Honestly, reading through the tedious comments in this thread the whole thing becomes quite laughable.  Look at how much of 132 is already being ignored and openly opposed or reinterpreted through all sorts of mental and linguistic gymnastics.  And then there's the history of 132 which is quite dubious itself.  You know, like Joseph rejecting polygamy publicly.  No firm proof that Joseph even authored it, BY was the one that added it to the canon, etc.  After SCOTUS legalizes gay marriage it will be a few short years (if that) later that polygamy also becomes legal and even culturally acceptable.  At that point the church will have no excuses to not practice it anymore.  Especially with there currently being a 2:1 activity ratio for women vs men.  So many single sisters.  The irony of it all.  The days of the church leaders being able to shirk their revelatory responsibilities is quickly coming to an end.  And that really is the only problem here.  If they were actually receiving revelation these are all questions they should be able to deal with easily... but just like it took them decades and decades to figure out whether racism is good or not, they don't have a clue on this issue.  They'd love to toss out 132, but are clueless how to do it without undermining themselves.

Edited April 26, 2015 by wtrdog

[rodheadlee]

How many of you that want to toss out 132 are sealed to your spouses and families? Don't you see the hypocrisy in this?

Edited April 26, 2015 by rodheadlee

[thesometimesaint]

Within the next couple decades the church will either toss out section 132 or start doing polygamy again.  Tossing it out does create some complications for the whole eternal marriage thing, but I reject that this is much of a problem.  Honestly, reading through the tedious comments in this thread the whole thing becomes quite laughable.  Look at how much of 132 is already being ignored and openly opposed or reinterpreted through all sorts of mental and linguistic gymnastics.  And then there's the history of 132 which is quite dubious itself.  You know, like Joseph rejecting polygamy publicly.  No firm proof that Joseph even authored it, BY was the one that added it to the canon, etc.  After SCOTUS legalizes polygamy it will be a few short years (if that) later that polygamy also becomes legal and even culturally acceptable.  At that point the church will have no excuses to not practice it anymore.  Especially with there currently being a 2:1 activity ratio for women vs men.  So many single sisters.  The irony of it all.  The days of the church leaders being able to shirk their revelatory responsibilities is quickly coming to an end.  And that really is the only problem here.  If they were actually receiving revelation these are all questions they should be able to deal with easily... but just like it took them decades and decades to figure out whether racism is good or not, they don't have a clue on this issue.  They'd love to toss out 132, but are clueless how to do it without undermining themselves.

 

So you toss out Temples, Sealings, all work for our dead, Eternal Marriage and Eternal Increase. Why not we just become another Protestant sect and be done with it? I guess that is what is laughable to you.

 

You know like Martin Luther privately advocated for polygamy and publicly rejected it?

 

Polygamy is in the Book of Mormon. Brigham Young had nothing to do with the publication of the Book of Mormon. I guess you didn't know that.

 

Polygamy has been legal in many countries that have Church members. I guess you didn't know that. Why don't we allow them to practice polygamy?

 

Jesus during his mortal ministry went only to the Jews. So Jesus was a racist?

[DBMormon]

How many of you that want to toss out 132 are sealed to your spouses and families? Don't you see the hypocrisy in this?

I am not necessarily in favor of tossing out 132 though I see no harm in removing the portions the teach a principle that is not binding on us. That could could easily be done and would seem appropriate

[Damien the Leper]

If I were LDS, I would require evidence that JS oversaw the publication and read allowed himself, this section. Likewise with the KFS. It's not an impossible or improbable request.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Valentinus

[JLHPROF]

I am not necessarily in favor of tossing out 132 though I see no harm in removing the portions the teach a principle that is not binding on us. That could could easily be done and would seem appropriate

 

Then we should toss a huge chunk of the OT too.  We are no longer under the Law of Moses either.  All that sacrificing of doves and bullocks and stoning people is of no use to us now.

And any prophecies that have already been fulfilled long in the past.  We can get rid of them too since they don't apply to us today either.

[thesometimesaint]

I am not necessarily in favor of tossing out 132 though I see no harm in removing the portions the teach a principle that is not binding on us. That could could easily be done and would seem appropriate

 

Section 132 applies to the next life as well. It is ALL binding on us, or none of it is. OD1 merely clarifies that concurrent polygamy is for the next life until God commands otherwise. 

[ALarson]

I am not necessarily in favor of tossing out 132 though I see no harm in removing the portions the teach a principle that is not binding on us. That could could easily be done and would seem appropriate

I would agree with this.  

 

I really wonder how many active members of the church have even read the entire Section 132?  I know that verses are selected to use in lessons regarding eternal marriage, but I'm not sure if I've ever heard the confusing scriptures quoted that relate to how one should live polygamy in a lesson or talk at church.  

 

There is also the problem with the fact that Joseph Smith did not live polygamy as outlined in Section 132.  So, it could be beneficial for the church to remove those parts of 132.  Especially with more members learning the details of how Joseph Smith practiced polygamy.

[thesometimesaint]

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Joseph_Smith%27s_wives

[JLHPROF]

I really wonder how many active members of the church have even read the entire Section 132?  I know that verses are selected to use in lessons regarding eternal marriage, but I'm not sure if I've ever heard the confusing scriptures quoted that relate to how one should live polygamy in a lesson or talk at church. 

 

I have.  Many, many times.  But what percent?  I don't think that should really be an issue.  The amount of studying of the average member is irrelevant to the word of God's validity.

 

 

There is also the problem with the fact that Joseph Smith did not live polygamy as outlined in Section 132.  So, it could be beneficial for the church to remove those parts of 132.  Especially with more members learning the details of how Joseph Smith practiced polygamy.

 

This is just not true, although you misinterpret D&C 132 (which you even seem to accept as revelation) to pretend it is.

[ALarson]

This is just not true, although you misinterpret D&C 132 (which you even seem to accept as revelation) to pretend it is.

Joseph Smith did not practice polygamy as it's outlined in section 132.  Some instructions he followed, but some he did not.  There is nothing in there about needing to practice polyandry, for example.

 

And, I haven't said whether I think the section is revelation or not.  I was just speaking as to what parts are causing issues for members.  And, this will continue as more learn the truth about Joseph's polygamy and polyandry and then go to section 132 to read more.  That's why I think it would be a wise decision to remove those parts pertaining to polygamy.  We hear over and over again how these don't pertain to modern day members anyway.

 

But the leaders will do what they feel best regardless of what any of us here think.

Edited April 26, 2015 by ALarson

[wtrdog]

How many of you that want to toss out 132 are sealed to your spouses and families? Don't you see the hypocrisy in this?

 

I'm sealed.  No I don't see the hypocrisy at all.  In fact, I see the opposite.  I find the 132-defenders to be the hypocrites, for essentially what they are saying is that their wives and daughters are eternally destined to be concubines in some great cosmic harem.  Such a hypocrisy would only be perceived by someone who doesn't understand the history of the temple.  Very little of the temple can be doctrinally substantiated (where can I find the endowment ceremony described in the scriptures, for example), and in the historical context it all becomes quite dubious and difficult to take seriously.  

 

I mean really, let's take a moment and just put all the dogma aside and try to rely on our thinking caps.  The temple doesn't make very much sense.  Purely in terms of logic.  Is it impossible to get divorced in the afterlife?  No agency on the other side of the veil?  People who aren't sealed when they die, is there some invisible force in the next life that prevents people from choosing to be committed to each other.  If they aren't "sealed," like opposing magnets they just repel against each other or something?  What's the point of getting sealed to your kids when they simply grow up and likewise become sealed to their kids?  So we have a bunch of adults "sealed" to each other, what, really, does that even mean?  What is the point of these baptisms and endowments?  We need not-so-secret handshakes and videos of actors debating about forbidden fruit to get into heaven?  Why would a person need to receive an ordinance in "proxy"?  They can't just make the same covenant themselves in the next life?!?

 

Do you think non-LDS people don't also want to be with their loved ones in the next life?  I observe that we tend to be a bit self-righteous about our eternal marriages.  We seem to think that we're better, that we're more committed to our families than people of other faiths because we use the word "eternity" and they don't.  Simply not true.  And I know plenty of LDS widows and widowers who have gotten remarried.  I happen to know a man right now who's wife recently passed away, and he happens to be from a very famous family in the church with high-ranking siblings.  Took this man virtually no time before he was back on the dating scene.  And I'm not saying this man should be lonely, but gee, he sure can't stand being without "companionship" for very long.  In the context of the temple I find this a bit difficult to reconcile.  Will this man's first wife now be forced to be a polygamist in the next life?  She has no say in the matter?  Or will the second wife get discarded?

 

Long story short, real-life, relationships, etc., are messy.  This black/white mindset of families all coming apart without these rituals is silly.  It's very silly to think that right here and now with our child-like perceptions of reality we're making decisions that are binding and unchangeable throughout eternity.  ETERNITY.  It's easy to change section 132 or create another basis for eternal sealings, just as it's been easy for them to change the temple in countless other ways throughout the years.

[JLHPROF]

Very little of the temple can be doctrinally substantiated (where can I find the endowment ceremony described in the scriptures, for example), and in the historical context it all becomes quite dubious and difficult to take seriously.  

 

The temple endowment is all throughout the scriptures if you know what you are reading.  Elements of the endowment are found scattered throughout  the OT, the NT, the BoM , the D&C, and the PoGP.

You just need to have eyes to see.

Edited April 26, 2015 by JLHPROF

[SmileyMcGee]

The temple endowment is all throughout the scriptures if you know what you are reading. Elements of the endowment are found scattered throughout the OT, the NT, the BoM , the D&C, and the PoGP.

You just need to have eyes to see.

You mean having eyes to see the direction of causation that you want to see. The endowment may be seen in the scriptures because it is a 19th century product that draws on teachings from the scriptures...and other sources. Or the scriptures could be driven by a ceremony that has existed since Adam...who knows Edited April 26, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[JLHPROF]

You mean having eyes to see the direction of causation that you want to see.

 

If you say so.  Moses' endowment is virtually described in the Pearl of Great Price.  Christ's second anointing is described in the New Testament.  References to being given garments are all through scripture.  When Paul said he bore the marks of Christ (which were not stigmata despite what some scholars assume).  Examples of receiving a new name from God are also found in the OT (Abraham, Israel, Book of Revelation etc).  Second anointing ordination is also referenced in the Book of Revelation.  Isaiah prophecies the creation of the temple, the return of polygamy in the last days, and more.

 

If you think I'm reading in that's your business.  But no man made up the endowment from so many disparate sources and references.

[wtrdog]

So you toss out Temples, Sealings, all work for our dead, Eternal Marriage and Eternal Increase. Why not we just become another Protestant sect and be done with it? I guess that is what is laughable to you.

 

You know like Martin Luther privately advocated for polygamy and publicly rejected it?

 

Polygamy is in the Book of Mormon. Brigham Young had nothing to do with the publication of the Book of Mormon. I guess you didn't know that.

 

Polygamy has been legal in many countries that have Church members. I guess you didn't know that. Why don't we allow them to practice polygamy?

 

Jesus during his mortal ministry went only to the Jews. So Jesus was a racist?

 

No, you don't toss out all that.  And if you do, man, you have really built your house on sand.  If everything that happens in the temple is based on 132, then we've got real problems.

 

Yeah, polygamy is in the BOM, it rejects it as an abomination.  There's a contradiction between BOM and D&C.

 

Polygamy being legal in other countries is irrelevant because the church is all about Utah culture.  And what countries are you even talking about BTW?  Lebanon?  We have a single branch with less than 100 people there.  In most foreign countries where the church exists (meaning non-English speaking countries), they don't even know about the church's history with polygamy.  That is in fact one of the current problems.  The "swedish rescue" and all that.  The church has done its darndest to obfuscate and bury the history of polygamy.  The issue is only one that exists in America, where you have large numbers of people who WANT polygamy and think that it is synonymous with celestial marriage.  I'd encourage you to listen to the "year of polygamy" podcast.  Few realize the scope of the problem.  Right now today there are polygamists, real life polygamist families, in a shockingly large number of LDS wards in America.  Not FLDS, but LDS.  Many of the non-practicing leaders believe it in but are simply waiting for the day.  The way it will go down is pretty simple.  Men can already be sealed to multiple women in the temple... even multiple living women... right now today.  The only hangup is that it's not legal at a civil level.  After it becomes legal at a civil level, how can the church prevent it?  Genuine question here.  Explain to me the mechanics of how the church stops it.

 

Here's a scenario.

 

Man is sealed to woman.  Divorces her civilly.  Man becomes sealed to second woman (he's still sealed to the first one).  Note this happens already right now today.  Now he remarries the first one at the county courthouse civilly.  He is now married to two living women for both TIME and ETERNITY.  

 

Are you starting to see the can of worms?

 

The only way the church could physically prevent members from engaging in polygamy is if they change the current rules/practices.  So what would those changes look like?  If someone gets a civil divorce does that automatically result in a sealing divorce also?  That would be a substantial change.  What happens to the kids?  Who gets to stay sealed to who?  What if both parents are still fully active members, just married to others people?  What of one or the other leaves the church?  We can what if all day, this is a mess.  Right now sealings are very difficult to terminate.  Requires unanimous signed consent from Q15.  And you really gotta have the right connections to even make it happen.  And if kids are involved, impossible from what I understand.  I've never heard of a sealing that involved kids terminated.  Two single people, yeah, they'll do it.  But not with kids.  Even if one or other parents leaves the church, pretty hard to undo.  They reach out to the apostate parent for their permission.

 

Imagine this scenario.  Sealed, have kids, divorce (civil only), sealed to second lady, have kids with #2, remarry first wife (civilly).  Seriously, what does the church do?  Kids with both women.  Sealed to both women.  Legally married civilly to both women.  Honestly even me who is opposed to polygamy is at a loss what to do here.  If they are cool with it I say let them be sealed.  I'm not opposed to purely voluntary polygamy.  I am opposed to the stuff that's said in 132 though, that it's a requirement to enter the top tier of celestial kingdom, that women have no say in the matter, etc.  I simply don't believe any of that gibberish was inspired.  I could accept that a portion of it was inspired, that there really are certain times and places where polygamy can work, etc., but I think Joseph bungled it big time.

 

This is all going to come to a head.

[JLHPROF]

Yeah, polygamy is in the BOM, it rejects it as an abomination.  There's a contradiction between BOM and D&C.

 

Someone should have told the Brother of Jared that.  You know, the polygamist guy who had such faith he saw Christ through the veil.

[wtrdog]

The temple endowment is all throughout the scriptures if you know what you are reading.  Elements of the endowment are found scattered throughout  the OT, the NT, the BoM , the D&C, and the PoGP.

You just need to have eyes to see.

 

The canned answer that nobody can ever back up with specifics.  Yes, we Mormons love our symbolism.  I can make up symbolism and find correlations to anything.  And also an awesome blame the victim response.  If you can't see the the endowment all throughout the scriptures you just aren't righteous enough.  Yeah, that's it.  I say, if you can't see the source of the endowment in the history of masonry, 19th century mysticism and secret society culture, you aren't (put your favorite adjective here) enough.  lol

[SmileyMcGee]

If you say so. Moses' endowment is virtually described in the Pearl of Great Price. Christ's second anointing is described in the New Testament. References to being given garments are all through scripture. When Paul said he bore the marks of Christ (which were not stigmata despite what some scholars assume). Examples of receiving a new name from God are also found in the OT (Abraham, Israel, Book of Revelation etc). Second anointing ordination is also referenced in the Book of Revelation. Isaiah prophecies the creation of the temple, the return of polygamy in the last days, and more.

If you think I'm reading in that's your business. But no man made up the endowment from so many disparate sources and references.

Are you kidding? Do you really not see that this is purely your interpretation? What makes you right and others, such as scholars, wrong? And of course uniquely lds scriptures are going to have commonalities with the lds endowment.