Bill Reel's Sunstone Presentation and a Path to the Disavowal of D&C 132

[ttribe]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I really have no idea what you are trying to say.  Maybe you could clarify.

I'm not using concubines to defend my position. There is no reason to even try to do so.  They existed.  They were considered lesser wives in their culture.  Those are simply facts.  How we feel about them today is irrelevant because our feelings have absolutely no bearing on their previous existence or their place in earlier cultures.

 

3 hours ago, Calm said:

If the past legal status of concubines was viewed by their society as that of a lesser wife, what do you think would be an appropriate term to use to describe their legal status that would still be respectful?

Bluebell, imo, is not defending the practice of concubinage, but simply arguing that it was not adultery in their society and should not be described as such simply because our society has different laws.

My apologies.  I was responding to an argument not being made.  Sorry about that.

[carbon dioxide]

D&C 132 does not but me too much.  I would like to see a disavowal of tithing and anything else that might make me personally uncomfortable.

[Flexible]

6 hours ago, DBMormon said:

I simply want people to have more room to discard the unacceptable and irreconcilable in mormonism and stay rather than leave.  I used 132 as one issue to demonstrate room on any issue.

I have always been uncomfortable with Section 132  Unlike some others who have posted, I have read and re-read Section 132, with prayer, many, many times.  I remember reading it the night before my wife and I were married in the SL Temple.  As a conservative TBM, with a strong testimony, the feelings I had did not add to the joy of the occasion.  On the contrary, it left me feeling perplexed, disturbed and cold.  It felt anachronistic and totally demeaning of the kind of marriage I was looking forward to.  Complete dissonance.  I felt the God that was speaking those words to Joseph was alien to the dominant Church narrative on marriage and family that I had been raised on. But being a conservative, literal believer, I had no choice but to accept polygamy as an eternal principle that we would be required to practice in the CK. I filed it away in the nethermost regions of my faith space and trusted that one day I would see the light.

But while still a believing TBM, with a testimony of the Restoration, holding a TR and serving in HP leadership and in the temple, I can't be true to myself and family and at the same time accept all of Joseph's, or Brigham's, or Spencer's, et. al. teachings as the revealed word of God.  It's the only way I can stay in Mormonism and not feel like I'm living a lie.  My conclusion about orthodox Mormonism  and the "Dominant Church Narrative"?  It is this:  The Institutional Church would not qualify for a TR.  It could not truthfully respond that it has striven to be "honest in all its dealings with its fellow men."  Said another way--If the Church were a publicly traded company with traded, listed stock, it would be in blatant violation of SEC disclosure rules intended to provide transparency to investors. 

Please no responses criticizing this analogy.  I know it's limitations.  But anyone investing their and their family's life in a belief system has a right to an intellectually honest presentation of the system's origins and beliefs.  Even if final acceptance is a matter of faith. 

I really enjoy this Board.  Been reading for a while but never posted.  I'm sympathetic to Bill's attempt to provide "space" in dealing with Mormonism's very messy origins.   

 

[JulieM]

4 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

We do not understand polygamy as it was practiced in the Old Testament, but we do know that it was not only allowed under the Mosaic law, but in some instances it was actually commanded.

Can you give a reference for where polygamy was commanded to be practiced (from the OT).  I've read conflicting statements about this.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Bruce R McConkie an apostle of the Lord in the 20th century wrote in his book Mormon Doctrine that polygamy will be reinstated with the ushering in of the Millennium. Is our apostle wrong? It just gets so confusing trying to get a clear answer.

[Johnnie Cake]

10 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Really? How could you possibly know that? Even if you come through polygamous family lines, you don't really think you wouldn't exist, do you?

If we're all spirits in heaven waiting to come to earth, and polygamy doesn't exist, would you be stuck up there forever, or would you come to another home? Polygamy may have impacted the place and religious orientation into which you were born but your existence doesn't rely on it, does it?

 

I have no doubt that not for my forefathers and mothers who were engaged in polygamy who shared their DNA and begat children who then passed along their DNA and so forth...I would not exist.  I doubt a pre or post existence exists

[Flexible]

6 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Bruce R McConkie an apostle of the Lord in the 20th century wrote in his book Mormon Doctrine that polygamy will be reinstated with the ushering in of the Millennium. Is our apostle wrong? It just gets so confusing trying to get a clear answer.

VGJ

Success in life, including Mormonism, is realizing we'll never have all the answers and at some point accept that we must live with the questions.  I don't believe God intended it any other way.  Unfortunately, some of our well-intentioned leaders have made the questions unnecessarily messy by trying too hard to provide the answers!

 

[VideoGameJunkie]

One important thing that might settle my mind on the issue is that one of the essays says the members of the church weren't in love or doing it for love, they were just following church commands, and I realized I only want a marriage with love. Love is the most important thing to me and I can't think of greater love in the eternities than 1 king and 1 queen joined together.

[Rivers]

2 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Bruce R McConkie an apostle of the Lord in the 20th century wrote in his book Mormon Doctrine that polygamy will be reinstated with the ushering in of the Millennium. Is our apostle wrong? It just gets so confusing trying to get a clear answer.

Bruce R. McConkie said a lot of things😉

I like what the new heading to OD 1 has to say:

"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)."

So knowing that monogamy is the standard, I really don't think plural marriage is something that we need to fret about.  

 

[DBMormon]

Part of what I cover is the 1886 revelation by John Taylor.  When one asks what this revelation is most likely about, it is the pressure Taylor feels to do something with the conundrum of polygamy.  It appears John is told that polygamy being restored is part of the new and everlasting covenant and that plural marriage can not cease.  This revelation is also in the first person voice of Christ and says thus Sayeth the Lord.  

Yet we have ignored and dismissed it. 

The church has given the reason that they don't believe it is legit and is hence able to be ignored.

fairmormon leans heavily towards it being legit as it most certainly seems to be in Taylor's handwriting.

isnt about time we acknowledge its legitimacy and offer a legitimate reason for dismissing christ?   Surely any who disagree with my presentation's thesis would not want to dismiss Jesus speaking directly to his prophet on such an important matter.

[JLHPROF]

35 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Part of what I cover is the 1886 revelation by John Taylor.  When one asks what this revelation is most likely about, it is the pressure Taylor feels to do something with the conundrum of polygamy.  It appears John is told that polygamy being restored is part of the new and everlasting covenant and that plural marriage can not cease.  This revelation is also in the first person voice of Christ and says thus Sayeth the Lord.  

Yet we have ignored and dismissed it. 

The church has given the reason that they don't believe it is legit and is hence able to be ignored.

fairmormon leans heavily towards it being legit as it most certainly seems to be in Taylor's handwriting.

isnt about time we acknowledge its legitimacy and offer a legitimate reason for dismissing christ?   Surely any who disagree with my presentation's thesis would not want to dismiss Jesus speaking directly to his prophet on such an important matter.

I believe it to be a legitimate revelation, but did it apply to the Church as a body.  The Church being an organization that works on common consent.
President Taylor knew that and never presented the revelation to the Church.  Observation of laws is always a matter of agency (at first).

• have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandments, and yet have I borne with them these many years; and this because of their weakness—because of the perilous times, and furthermore, it is more pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters.

But that does raise the question - if the revelation wasn't directed to the Church as an organization, then who was it meant for?

• All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law. And have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham’s seed and would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham. I have not revoked this law nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof

Interesting phrasing - the LAW was never revoked, but the practice by the organization of the Church was voted on and stopped.
Using this revelation that you feel should be legitimized perhaps polygamy will begin again when we as a people are willing to allow it.

[consiglieri]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Would the LDS Church rather keep members who don't believe that the Church is led by prophets and apostles who are in communion with God, and who encourage other members of the Church to adopt that stance?

Would the LDS Church rather keep members who feel at liberty to ignore revealed doctrines for any reason or no reason at all, and who encourage other members of the Church to adopt that stance?

Would the LDS Church rather keep members who sow seeds of rebellion and apostasy?

I've said this before: "Look, I don't want them to leave the Church. I want them in it. I want everyone in it. But we are a community of faith. We cohere around faith. When we disregard apostasy we weaken our community."

 

Have you noticed that your "community of faith" always seems to revolve around faith in Church leaders?

[consiglieri]

14 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

 

   You also are fully aware that the Mosaic law under which those edicts were given has been fulfilled. We are no longer living the Mosaic law. It would be impossible for us to live that law and practice all of its edicts here in the United States in any event. We would be arrested for certain of those practices that you mentioned, such as stoning a child that is rude to its parents, or putting a witch, if it could be ascertained that a person is indeed a witch (I don't even want to go there ), etc. 

That is not as good as some of your others.

Glenn

This is a key point, Glenn, and thank you for bringing it up.

When early Christians put the Law of Moses behind them, they viewed it as being "fulfilled," or in other words, having served its purpose and of no further use.

Why cannot modern Mormons do something similar with plural marriage? 

Why cannot we say that it has been "fulfilled," or in other words, it has served its purpose and is of no further use.

Instead, we keep getting drawn back into it as something that will not only be renewed in the eternities, as some believe, but also practice it in the here and now, with multiple sealings to wives in the temple.

While such an approach doesn't take care of the great harm and pain the practice originally caused, at least it could put it behind us once and for all, and not have it haunting our membership like the ghost of polygamy past.

[consiglieri]

8 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Bruce R McConkie an apostle of the Lord in the 20th century wrote in his book Mormon Doctrine that polygamy will be reinstated with the ushering in of the Millennium. Is our apostle wrong? It just gets so confusing trying to get a clear answer.

The truth is in the confusion.

 

[oremites]

8 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

One important thing that might settle my mind on the issue is that one of the essays says the members of the church weren't in love or doing it for love, they were just following church commands, and I realized I only want a marriage with love. Love is the most important thing to me and I can't think of greater love in the eternities than 1 king and 1 queen joined together.

There was no love involved in any of the polygamous marriages?  I guess if an essay said this, it must be true.

[HappyJackWagon]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't see any indication that OW saw the "five yards" as anything save a step in the right direction.  They consistently presented ordination as the only acceptable outcome and everything was aimed towards that end.  Getting admitted to the Conference Center for the Priesthood Session was a means to that end, meant to show the leadership they were present as "prospective elders",  They did not ask for more than that in hopes of just getting ordination.

The previous organization, which was iirc "All Enlisted" did in my view approach it differently, they had a more global goal of equality and did not define what that would have to mean, but presented small steps that would change perception of women without changing doctrinal teachings, such as wearing pants to church intending to contribute to accepting women in more diverse ways and praying in conference to contribute to viewing women as equally able to invite the Spirit to be present, etc. with their faith as a man is who has the Priesthood.

Btw, it was not OW who were the instigators of Let Women Pray, though the current narrative seems intended to give them credit for it.  And Kate Kelly couldn't be bothered at that time to endure the discomfort of wearing pants for one Sunday to express solidarity with her sisters.

Of course, the 5 yards is a step in the right direction. They were forceful about the call for ordination. They represented the extreme. Because the brethren don't want to work with the extreme like OW or give them what they want, they look for the more moderate view so they work with feminists like Neylan McBaine they may not have bothered with in the past. So by bringing attention to the issue and acting as a lightening rod, OW actually helped to open up the conversation between the brethren and more moderate feminists, who in comparison looked like more reasonable conversation partners.

I've heard Kate Kelly express this philosophy on podcasts. I think she'd love to get what she was asking for, but also realized that she's move the conversation 5 yards down the field. That 5 yards may not be enough but it is a start.

[Glenn101]

10 hours ago, JulieM said:

Can you give a reference for where polygamy was commanded to be practiced (from the OT).  I've read conflicting statements about this.

It is the so called Levirite marriage command, although it seemingly was not just for the Levites, as laid out in Deuteronomy 25:5. If a man dies childless, his brother was commanded to take the dead brothers spouse to wife and have conjugal relations with her and the firstborn was to have the name of the dead brother and continue the dead brother's line in Israel. Of course there is the possibility that the living brother would not have been married, however, the greater probability would have been that both brothers would have been married in light of the cultural mores of Israel at the time.

Glenn

[Calm]

Levirate comes from the Latin "levir" which means "husband's brother" apparently, not from "Levi".

[smac97]

3 hours ago, DBMormon said:

Part of what I cover is the 1886 revelation by John Taylor.  

This FAIR article on this document is worth a read.

Quote

When one asks what this revelation is most likely about, it is the pressure Taylor feels to do something with the conundrum of polygamy.  

Well, maybe.  The document references "the new and everlasting covenant."  ("My son John, you have asked me concerning the New and Everlasting Covenant how far it is binding upon my people.").  For some, "the new and everlasting covenant" is synonymous with "plural marriage."  But I don't think that's right.  See, e.g., these remarks by Elder Packer (quoting President Joseph Fielding Smith re: use of the phrase "new and everlasting covenant in D&C 132):

Quote

What is the new and everlasting covenant? I regret to say that there are some members of the Church who are misled and misinformed in regard to what the new and everlasting covenant really is. The new and everlasting covenant is the sum total of all gospel covenants and obligations, and I want to prove it. In the 66th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, verse 2, I read:

"Verily I say unto you, blessed are you for receiving mine everlasting covenant, even the fulness of my gospel, sent forth unto the children of men, that they might have life and be made partakers of the glories which are to be revealed in the last days, as it was written by the prophets and apostles in days of old."

More definitely stated is the definition of the new and everlasting covenant given to us in section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Now I am going to say before I read this that marriage is not the new and everlasting covenant. If there are any here that have that idea I want to say that right to them. Baptism is not the new and everlasting covenant. In section 22 of the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord says that baptism is "a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning." Marriage in the temple of the Lord for time and for eternity is "a" new and everlasting covenant. (Doctrine of Salvation, 1:156.)

...

Now there is a clear-cut definition of the new and everlasting covenant. It is everything--the fulness of the gospel. So marriage properly performed, baptism, ordination to the priesthood, everything else--every contract, every obligation, every performance that pertains to the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise according to his law here given, is part of the new and everlasting covenant. (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:158)

See also these remarks by Elder Bruce R. McConkie:

Quote

"The new and everlasting covenant" is the fulness of the gospel, and the gospel is the covenant of salvation that the Lord makes with men. It is new because it has been revealed anew in our day; it is everlasting because it has always been had by faithful people, not only on this earth but on all the earths inhabited by the children of our Father. (Brigham Young University, 6 November 1977)

Elder D. Todd Christofferson (same link):

Quote

The scriptures speak of the new and everlasting covenant. The new and everlasting covenant is the gospel of Jesus Christ. In other words, the doctrines and commandments of the gospel constitute the substance of an everlasting covenant between God and man that is newly restored in each dispensation. If we were to state the new and everlasting covenant in one sentence it would be this: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).

Jesus explained what it means to believe in Him: "Now this is the commandment [or in other words, this is the covenant]: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day" (3 Nephi 27:20). (Ensign, May 2009)

Then-Elder Harold B. Lee (same link):

Quote

The plan of salvation was nothing more or less than a series of commandments. We call them principles and ordinances of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is called the new and everlasting covenant or the everlasting covenant—“new” because it applies to us and is new in this dispensation. ("The Fall of Man," Lecture Given to Seminary and Institute Teachers, June 23, 1954)

More remarks by President Joseph Fielding Smith:

Quote

“The new and everlasting covenant is the fulness of the gospel. It is composed of ‘All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations’ that are sealed upon members of the Church by the Holy Spirit of promise, or the Holy Ghost, by the authority of the President of the Church who holds the keys. The President of the Church holds the keys of the Melchizedek Priesthood. He delegates authority to others and authorizes them to perform the sacred ordinances of the priesthood.

“Marriage for eternity is a new and everlasting covenant. Baptism is also a new and everlasting covenant, and likewise ordination to the priesthood, and every other covenant is everlasting and a part of the new and everlasting covenant which embraces all things.” (Answers to Gospel Questions, 1:65.)

This document also provides: "I have not revoked this law nor will I for it is everlasting and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof..."  Again, for some, the reference to "this law" is synonymous with "plural marriage."  But that seems problematic, or at least far from established.  Consider these observations (written, I believe, by Brian C. Hales):

Quote

The question arises as to what "law" is being referred to. If the law is strictly plural marriage, then the 1886 "Revelation" may be interpreted to be a declaration that the practice of polygamy will never be suspended.  This is the popular stance of most "Mormon Fundamentalists."  

However, on closer examination, it appears clear that the "law" mentioned in the 1886 "Revelation" is the same "law" which is referred to in section 132.  This "law" is the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage which encompasses all eternal marriages, whether polygamous or monogamous.  

To say that the law is strictly plural marriage is unjustified by the revelation itself (section 132).  Plural marriage is a part of the law (see verses 32 and 34).  But the law is obviously not limited strictly to polygamous marriages.  D&C 132:7 tells us the "conditions" of this "law."  

...

The conditions of this law involve proper authority when sealing an eternal marriage. There is no mention of the plurality of wives as a "condition" of that "law." Likewise, we recall that in D&C 132:19, the promise of "a continuation of seed forever and ever" is extended, not to men who practice plural marriage, but whenever a man marries a wife by proper authority in the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage...

...

Again the emphasis is on authority, not the plurality of wives.

So . . . yeah.  Lots of room for ambiguity here.  Lots of room to reject or stay judgment on the this-document-is-about-polygamy-and-only-polygamy interpretation.

We don't really have much in the way of context for this document.  President John Taylor did not provide any.  Context is particularly important here, given that this document was apparently written in response to Pres. Taylor's questions "concerning the New and Everlasting Covenant" and "how far it is binding upon {the Lord's} people."  What were these questions?  What was the context in which Pres. Taylor asked them?  In the absence of such context and evidence, we are left to surmise and speculate.  That's not exactly the strongest analytical framework .

We also have some issues pertaining to provenance.  We don't have the original of it, just a photograph.  This document is not in the Church's archives.  

We also have some substantive doctrinal impediments to it being accepted as binding revelation.  It was never presented to the Church or priesthood leaders or approved using the law of common consent (D&C 26:2).  It was found among his personal papers after his death (July 25, 2887).

So you have a number of real problems with your utilization of this document.

Quote

It appears John is told that polygamy being restored is part of the new and everlasting covenant and that plural marriage can not cease.  

That's speculative eisegesis.  I don't think it is warranted given the current state of things.

Quote

This revelation is also in the first person voice of Christ and says thus Sayeth the Lord.  

And yet it is not in the Church's archives, despite there being a commandment that "there shall be a record kept among you" (D&C 21:1).

And this document was never presented to the Church or priesthood leaders using the law of common consent (D&C 26:2).

Quote

Yet we have ignored and dismissed it. 

It was addressed by The First Presidency in a statement issued on June 17, 1933.  It is also specifically addressed the the recent Gospel Topic Essay, "The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage."  This essay, along with the other recently-published essays, "have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles."  So someone is ignoring and dismissing stuff about this document, but it's not the Church.

Meanwhile, you seem to be ignoring all sorts of things, like A) the document does not specifically reference polygamous marriage, B) the references in the document to "the New and Everlasting Covenant" and "the law" are open to interpretation, C) issues concerning the provenance of the document, D) issues of noncompliance with scriptural requirements pertaining to record-keeping (D&C 21:1) and the law of common consent (D&C 26:2), and E) the First Presidency's repeated treatment of this document.

Quote

 

The church has given the reason that they don't believe it is legit and is hence able to be ignored.

 

Facile.  I don't think you are accurately assessing the Church's treatment of this issue.  You are ignoring/dismissing a lot of important details here.

Quote

fairmormon leans heavily towards it being legit as it most certainly seems to be in Taylor's handwriting.

Misleading.  The article on FairMormon, relying on current scholarly consensus, says it is "probably genuine, though some past Church officials have been skeptical."  The article also specifically disclaims any conclusion as to provenance, and instead states: "This article will presume, for the sake of argument, that the document is from John Taylor, third president of the Church."

This, according to you, amounts to "fairmormon lean{ing} heavily towards it being legit."

Quote

isnt about time we acknowledge its legitimacy

Gotta love the loaded terminology here.  "Acknowledge its legitimacy," as if its legitimacy is established beyond doubt, that your interpretation of it as speaking of polygamy is beyond doubt, as if we are supposed to ignore scriptural requirements pertaining to record-keeping (D&C 21:1) and the law of common consent (D&C 26:2), and that all we are left to do is to publicly call for the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to take a knee and submit to your say-so.

Chutzpah personified.  Well done!

Quote

and offer a legitimate reason for dismissing christ?  

Even more loaded terminology.  Meanwhile, have you stopped beating your wife yet?  My question is just as legit as yours.

-Smac

Edited August 2, 2016 by smac97

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

This is a key point, Glenn, and thank you for bringing it up.

When early Christians put the Law of Moses behind them, they viewed it as being "fulfilled," or in other words, having served its purpose and of no further use.

Why cannot modern Mormons do something similar with plural marriage? 

Why cannot we say that it has been "fulfilled," or in other words, it has served its purpose and is of no further use.

Instead, we keep getting drawn back into it as something that will not only be renewed in the eternities, as some believe, but also practice it in the here and now, with multiple sealings to wives in the temple.

While such an approach doesn't take care of the great harm and pain the practice originally caused, at least it could put it behind us once and for all, and not have it haunting our membership like the ghost of polygamy past.

Actually that is what I am advocating. Let the subject alone. Let it die. I said as much in a later post. I am not concerned how many women that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or any other prophet was sealed to, or how many they will have in the next life. That is between them and God. For us in the here and now, the subject is moot, or should be. I am a pretty fundamentalist LDS, in that I believe that we have everything that we need right now before us to attain exaltation, in whatever form that may be. We do not have the Law of Consecration to live either. I believe in living within whatever sphere we are placed with revelations and scriptures that we have been given and do the best we can to live up to the principles that we have been given. That is not to say that we should not seek further light and knowledge, as that is part of our progression.

I am in a position of some uncertainty. I was sealed to my first wife, now deceased. All of our children were either sealed to us or were born under the Covenant. I was sealed to my current wife and two of her children that I adopted were sealed to us. How will that work in the next life. I have absolutely no idea. We can only take care of the things that are in our control. Worrying about anything has absolutely no effect, except to frazzle our minds and sometimes even our health. But I do trust the Lord, that whatever He has in store for us will be something that will be so great and glorious that all of these earthly concerns will fade away.

Glenn

[salgare]

24 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

It is the so called Levirite marriage command, although it seemingly was not just for the Levites, as laid out in Deuteronomy 25:5. If a man dies childless, his brother was commanded to take the dead brothers spouse to wife and have conjugal relations with her and the firstborn was to have the name of the dead brother and continue the dead brother's line in Israel. Of course there is the possibility that the living brother would not have been married, however, the greater probability would have been that both brothers would have been married in light of the cultural mores of Israel at the time.

Glenn

interesting, never thought about that

[stemelbow]

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

Sarah was Hagar's mistress-basically meaning Hagar was Sarah's servant, her maid, for lack of a better term.

Yes.  That's what I'm saying.  I don't know why the term mistress was brought up, but this is what you had said, "I have no idea why there is a difference in terminology, but they are not mistresses. "

I pointed out that you were wrong in your terminology on this.

According to Calm's link it remains a question or debate whether concubines were married to the male.  I'm not sure if you noticed my quotation from it, but it basically suggests for some they were considered married for others not.  So, it could be that D&C 132 is blessing adultery in the strictest sense.  We simply don't know.  I hope that helps explain my point.

Thanks.

[stemelbow]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

And there wasn't in the sense that Bluebell was using.

I'm sure that's the case, but the whole point of my comment was to determine what was meant by the terminology.  It didn't work to throw in a word that was not fitting with the way the text was using it.  It makes it tough to discuss this stuff if terms that are found in the text are treated as meaning differently than the way they are used in the text.  Anyway, going back...it appears according to your link there's plenty of room to argue either way--in some cases concubines were considered married and in some cases not.  It was tough when you and Bluebell kept trying to define it, when our source in consideration was far less dogmatic about it.  It very well could be that D&C 132's references to concubines were women who were not married to the men.  For modern ears it's weird to think of concubine as anything other than a non spouse.  It's an interesting question, I think, particularly in light of the Fanny Alger situation.  She was like a handmaid, perhaps.  It is a question of whether they were married.  The revelation on polygamy was not out yet...

[DBMormon]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, maybe.  The document references "the new and everlasting covenant."  ("My son John, you have asked me concerning the New and Everlasting Covenant how far it is binding upon my people.").  For some, "the new and everlasting covenant" is synonymous with "plural marriage."  But I don't think that's right.  See, e.g., these remarks by Elder Packer (quoting President Joseph Fielding Smith re: use of the phrase "new and everlasting covenant in D&C 132):

 

I will look at the rest of this as I have time but wanted to make a comment about this.  Your using hindsight and walking back from a later interpretation to make an earlier one seem as if they are the same.  How earlier leaders define an item and how later leaders define such must be parsed out.  Using Elder Packer Packer to impose a later definition on a word that may have been defined differently earlier is in my opinion poisoning the well.  I think when one looks at what was weighing on Pres, Taylor's Mind, when reading the disciplinary trial of Pres. Taylor's son John W. Taylor, when reading the quotes of how earlier leaders saw polygamy and seeing how the modern church prefers to assume this revelation is false and hence need not be dealt with paints a very different picture for myself comes to mind.  How later leaders define "new and everlasting covenant" means little to the issue if we can show probabilities that it meant something different to earlier leaders and at least something different to Pres.Taylor.

We rather than walk it back from the present need to be more vulnerable to asking what did these earlier leaders believe and what is most likely going on.

 

 

Edited August 2, 2016 by DBMormon

[stemelbow]

3 hours ago, DBMormon said:

Part of what I cover is the 1886 revelation by John Taylor.  When one asks what this revelation is most likely about, it is the pressure Taylor feels to do something with the conundrum of polygamy.  It appears John is told that polygamy being restored is part of the new and everlasting covenant and that plural marriage can not cease.  This revelation is also in the first person voice of Christ and says thus Sayeth the Lord.  

Yet we have ignored and dismissed it. 

The church has given the reason that they don't believe it is legit and is hence able to be ignored.

fairmormon leans heavily towards it being legit as it most certainly seems to be in Taylor's handwriting.

isnt about time we acknowledge its legitimacy and offer a legitimate reason for dismissing christ?   Surely any who disagree with my presentation's thesis would not want to dismiss Jesus speaking directly to his prophet on such an important matter.

Can't we also consider the means of revelation in this?  maybe it was John Taylor thinking it was Christ when it was not?  If so, if the Church thinks this, then why not think it possible the same is true regarding the plural marriage revelation of section 132?