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

[JulieM]

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

D&C 132; I don't like any of it. Which part do you like?

D&C 131 is the basis for holding onto eternal marriage. D&C 132 is the basis for holding onto plural marriage.

This reminds me of the old Mormon Ad where it show a beautiful ice cream Sunday with a cockroach leg sticking out of it. Would you eat hot fudge sundae even if it had bugs in it? Fortunately, the vast majority of 132 is the cockroach so it's easy to make that decision.

Again, anything good in 132 is also in 131. Can you tell me what is uniquely good about D&C 132?

I'd like to see rodheadlee or someone else give their thoughts on this or response to the question you asked!

Edited August 1, 2016 by JulieM

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

I'd like to see rodheadlee or someone else give their thoughts this or response to the question you ask!

Oh...so would I!!

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Why did polygamy need to be restored when we have no record of it being commanded by God prior to Joseph's claims?  And why did polyandry need to be restored as part of "restoring" polygamy?  

I believe polygamy has never been specifically commanded by God.  I believe Joseph was in error with his claims and it was a mistake to teach plural marriage as a restored doctrine.

I don't know.  

Our scriptural record shows that God used polygamy to created the House of Israel (HIs chosen people and lineage thru which He blesses the whole earth) and that he condoned it with many heads of dispensations.  But why it needed to be restored when other parts of the OT weren't I don't think has been explained.  The only thing the BOM teaches is similar to what we get from the OT-that it is used to created specific lineages.  I don't know why those lineages are necessary though. 

[DBMormon]

Also I feel I have cleared every possible argument out of the way.  That there is no gaping hole.  Sure some of what I say is based on plausibilities. But how is that any different than what apologetics does within Mormonism?  I have tried to work through every possible criticism of this theory and believe I have plugged every hole.  

 

Also I hope others will see the bigger picture.  This isn't just about 132.  Rather I am showing there is precedence for doing so on a personal level where ever you feel the need.

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't know.  

Our scriptural record shows that God used polygamy to created the House of Israel (HIs chosen people and lineage thru which He blesses the whole earth) and that he condoned it with many heads of dispensations.  But why it needed to be restored when other parts of the OT weren't I don't think has been explained.  The only thing the BOM teaches is similar to what we get from the OT-that it is used to created specific lineages.  I don't know why those lineages are necessary though. 

It is hard for me to think that God discriminates..and I think those special lineages do that...don't they???  I am open.  Perhaps I just misunderstand the "House of Israel".

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

D&C 132; I don't like any of it. Which part do you like?

D&C 131 is the basis for holding onto eternal marriage. D&C 132 is the basis for holding onto plural marriage.

This reminds me of the old Mormon Ad where it show a beautiful ice cream Sunday with a cockroach leg sticking out of it. Would you eat hot fudge sundae even if it had bugs in it? Fortunately, the vast majority of 132 is the cockroach so it's easy to make that decision.

Again, anything good in 132 is also in 131. Can you tell me what is uniquely good about D&C 132?

I think that most people who believe that polygamy is of God even if we aren't asked to live it, would say that nothing that is of God could be compared to a cockroach.  Therefore, there is no part of 132 that can be classified as 'bug'.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Also I feel I have cleared every possible argument out of the way.  That there is no gaping hole.  Sure some of what I say is based on plausibilities. But how is that any different than what apologetics does within Mormonism?  I have tried to work through every possible criticism of this theory and believe I have plugged every hole.  

 

Also I hope others will see the bigger picture.  This isn't just about 132.  Rather I am showing there is precedence for doing so on a personal level where ever you feel the need.

Sure it's straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel if we dont' learn to do this.  Good point.

Edited August 1, 2016 by stemelbow

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't know.  

Our scriptural record shows that God used polygamy to created the House of Israel (HIs chosen people and lineage thru which He blesses the whole earth) and that he condoned it with many heads of dispensations.  But why it needed to be restored when other parts of the OT weren't I don't think has been explained.  The only thing the BOM teaches is similar to what we get from the OT-that it is used to created specific lineages.  I don't know why those lineages are necessary though. 

Do you believe that those lineages couldn't have been created without polygamy?

And, I do not agree that "God used polygamy".  He may have allowed it at times, but there is no record that he "used" it or specifically "commanded" it prior to Joseph Smith's writings.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

It is hard for me to think that God discriminates..and I think those special lineages do that...don't they???  I am open.  Perhaps I just misunderstand the "House of Israel".

Since everyone is either born into that lineage, or has the ability to be adopted into it, it's not discriminatory or exclusive.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

It is hard for me to think that God discriminates..and I think those special lineages do that...don't they???  I am open.  Perhaps I just misunderstand the "House of Israel".

It's a difficult issue for me too.  I think of the NT wherein it says God is no respecter of persons, but the Old seems pretty keen on describing Israel as those who are favored by God.  I've tried to see the NT comment on that, as a correction of our understanding of the OT.  Also, if Jacob and Israel are myths given us as what seems to be a lot of what is the OT, then what are we to gain by the story?  Maybe there was no reason to bring back polygamy at all.  It surely doesn't seem like there was a point to it. 

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Also I feel I have cleared every possible argument out of the way.  That there is no gaping hole.  Sure some of what I say is based on plausibilities. But how is that any different than what apologetics does within Mormonism?  I have tried to work through every possible criticism of this theory and believe I have plugged every hole.  

 

Also I hope others will see the bigger picture.  This isn't just about 132.  Rather I am showing there is precedence for doing so on a personal level where ever you feel the need.

As I think of the fruits of polygamy, I struggle to see any point to it.  In the end, it feels like it's been nothing but a detriment to humanity--seeing it restored in these latter days. 

[DBMormon]

By the way, such a perspective is faithful.  One can continue to believe in Joseph and the Book of Mormon, as well as the restoration.  And dismissing polygamy has in some ways already been done by the Church.  There is no current need to believe in polygamy to be active and faithful in today's church.

[Buckeye]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Sticking with Bill's concept but moving it beyond polygamy-it seems spiritually immature for us to think that if we don't like, don't understand, or don't agree with a doctrine then that means that it's not from God and we can disavow it.

It's a problem when whether or not we like something becomes the measuring stick for deciding whether or not it is from God.  And isn't that what Bill (and others) are doing here?  Arguing something is not of God--while claiming no actual revelation on the subject--because ultimately they don't personally agree with it?

I haven't listened to the podcast (and won't, because i don't do podcasts) so maybe i'm completely misunderstanding Bill's premise.

I also haven't listened to the presentation (yet), but isn't Christ's instruction (and Alma's and many other prophets) that we judge teachings by whether the fruit they bear taste good to us? Granted, tastes can change over time. And the church's teachings have to broadly reflect the member's consensus as to whether a fruit is good or not. But over the long term, if we are honest and patient, it must be that our own "tastes" match with God's decrees. Otherwise, why leave it to us to judge in the first place?

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Do you believe that those lineages couldn't have been created without polygamy?

And, I do not agree that "God used polygamy".  He may have allowed it at times, but there is no record that he "used" it or specifically "commanded" it prior to Joseph Smith's writings.

I don't know.  On the one hand, God can do whatever He wants, right?  Does that mean that every option is equally valid in God's eyes as long as it's possible to accomplish it? 

God could have sent an angel to every person on the earth to restore His gospel.  He could have 'beamed' the children of Israel out of Egypt without using moses and all that hoopla. What God could have done is literally endless when we look back at history.  He rarely (if ever?) seemed to choose the easiest option, or the most agreeable.  Beyond that, all we can do is speculate on what his reasons are.  

But yes, God did use polygamy to create the 12 tribes of Israel.  Whether or not He needed to is certainly up for debate.  But that it happened and it served God's purpose is a part of our scriptural record.

The only other scriptural record we have that supports the idea that polygamy is sometimes condoned of God is where Nathan says that he, as God's prophet, gave some of David's wives to him. That is more than just allowing it to happen and it is prior to JS's writings.

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

good point.  There seems to be plenty of precedence in just simply excising a piece of scripture.  most of us will get over it, even if there would be some fall out.  But if that ever becomes a reality, you'd have ot ask, why did it take so long? 

It takes so long because people live a long time and tend to hold onto the beliefs taught to them as children. The racial priesthood ban ended only after the strong majority of members stopped defending it. If eternal polygamy is to be dropped, it'll be through the same process. The challenging this with polygamy is that, at the moment, it is more theoretical than immediate.

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

D&C 132; I don't like any of it. Which part do you like?

D&C 131 is the basis for holding onto eternal marriage. D&C 132 is the basis for holding onto plural marriage.

This reminds me of the old Mormon Ad where it show a beautiful ice cream Sunday with a cockroach leg sticking out of it. Would you eat hot fudge sundae even if it had bugs in it? Fortunately, the vast majority of 132 is the cockroach so it's easy to make that decision.

Again, anything good in 132 is also in 131. Can you tell me what is uniquely good about D&C 132?

Doctrine and Covenants 131 sets up the need to be sealed. Doctrine and Covenants 132 sets up the conditions of being sealed as well as the blessings. It is the New and Everlasting Covenant.

Edited August 1, 2016 by rodheadlee

[Johnnie Cake]

29 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

So to weigh in I show in the presentation that we have precedence to dismiss each of the following.

Revelation:  The Church dismissed and ignored the 1886 john taylor revelation. Also Adam God as Brigham taught this teaching was revealed to him by God

Doctrine: Adam/God, Inter racial Marriage as sin, and blacks less valiant all stated to be Doctrine in their day but later changed to theories then disavowed theories

Canon: old section 101 which became 109 and the lectures on faith

Scripture:  Brigham Young taught that the bible was the word of God but not entirely the words of God.

Prophets: Elder McConkie in his letter to Eugene England states that Brigham taught false Doctrine, that False Doctrine continues to be taught in the Church as part of the sifting process and that "If we choose to believe and teach the false portions of his doctrines, we are making an election that will damn us."  (The last part being very different than following a prophet if he is wrong and being blessed for it." - Not only shall we not be blessed we shall put out exaltation at risk.

 

I then show room to believe that it is possible that 132 was delivered by a deceiving spirit and that in light of section 129 Joseph may not have tested an angel holding a sword.  And use the idea of "Divine Investiture" to explain why 132 is in the voice of Christ which both FairMormon and The Church sees as a valid concept.  And Moses 1 to show that deceiving spirits also do talk in the first person voice of Christ

 

Lastly is Mary Elizabeth Rollings Lightner statement that Joseph told her he did test the angel is countered by the fact her statement is quite vivid and elaborate and to measure that against her age 87 and the years that occur between her telling and when the conversation took place (62 years)

And also the Church acknowledging that 

The LDS Church itself when speaking on evidence that diminishes faith that is a late word of mouth account states “Something told second-hand sixty years after the fact is less verified history than it is vague memory.” https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/08/the-alvin-smith-story-fact-and-fiction?lang=eng

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Sunstone-Angel-Drawn-Sword.pdf

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2016/07/sunstone-presentation-july-2016-handshakes-drawn-swords/

 

 

 

Thank you for weighing in Bill...I hope I did not distort or misrepresent any of your points.  I thoroughly enjoyed your presentation and felt it was a step in the right direction...one that I hope the church is eventually brave enough to take.

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But yes, God did use polygamy to create the 12 tribes of Israel.  Whether or not He needed to is certainly up for debate.  But that it happened and it served God's purpose is a part of our scriptural record..

That's a whole lot of conjecture going on regarding what God did.  All that you write above may be true, but it also may not be true.  God did not command polygamy to be lived in order to create the 12 tribes of Israel (from the records we have available).  

Quote

The only other scriptural record we have that supports the idea that polygamy is sometimes condoned of God is where Nathan says that he, as God's prophet, gave some of David's wives to him. That is more than just allowing it to happen and it is prior to JS's writings

The only place I have see where polygamy may have been a part of what was commanded was with Levirate marriages.

Edited August 1, 2016 by ALarson

[Johnnie Cake]

46 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No. I don't think the church has disavowed polygamy. Not only is celestial plural marriage still practiced, but the church defends the past practice of polygamy in the early days of the church. The first manifesto was given with a wink, wink, nudge, nudge. The 2nd was more serious, but it didn't disavow the doctrine of polygamy, only the temporal practice as  matter of policy.

The difference between the modern church and the fundamentalist polygamist groups is that the fundamentalists believe it should be practiced here and now as well as in eternity while the church has relegated it to eternity only.

Point of clarification to my post...they've disavowed Temporal Polygamy

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

I also haven't listened to the presentation (yet), but isn't Christ's instruction (and Alma's and many other prophets) that we judge teachings by whether the fruit they bear taste good to us? Granted, tastes can change over time. And the church's teachings have to broadly reflect the member's consensus as to whether a fruit is good or not. But over the long term, if we are honest and patient, it must be that our own "tastes" match with God's decrees. Otherwise, why leave it to us to judge in the first place?

I think that's a really interesting question.  I know a lot of people who's tastes definitely do not match God's decrees, so there seems to be a limit to the applicability of that scripture.  For example, i know people who extol the virtue of adultery (and they are serious!).  Adultery is a good fruit to them.  I know people who have given up their belief in Jesus Christ to become Jewish (not Christian Jewish, but plain Jewish).  The tree of Jesus Christ produced no good fruit for them so they left it behind.

Alma talks a little about why this sometimes happens-

38 But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.

 39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

It seems that sometimes our own weaknesses will get in the way of us being able to accurately judge whether or not something is a good or bad fruit.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Its an excellent presentation, while unorthodox and fraught with too many gymnastical movements to work for me...it may just be the means by which some some use to maintain belief...and in that I find it valuable.

Bill points out that Joseph never did practice "Celestial Marriage" as spelled out in D&C 132 in the first place.  He never received the blessing or permission as spelled out in 132 from his 1st wife Emma, he never married 100% virgins, as 132 demands.  Joseph seemed to practice a brand plural marriage arraignment that met his needs rather than the one spelled out in 132

How does him not practicing it the way it is spelled out in Sec 132 make it likely that Sec 132's polygamy should be dumped?  It possibly makes the way JS practiced it wrong, not Sec 132.

[Johnnie Cake]

32 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

As I think of the fruits of polygamy, I struggle to see any point to it.  In the end, it feels like it's been nothing but a detriment to humanity--seeing it restored in these latter days. 

I consider myself as one the good fruits of polygamy...had it never been practiced I would not exist :-)  

[DBMormon]

Just now, Johnnie Cake said:

I consider myself as one the good fruits of polygamy...had it never been practiced I would not exist :-)  

then there were other good fruits never born because we did rather than didn't

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's a whole lot of conjecture going on regarding what God did.  All that you write above may be true, but it also may not be true.  God did not command polygamy to be lived in order to create the 12 tribes of Israel (from the records we have available).  

The only place I have see where polygamy may have been a part of what was commanded was with Levirate marriages.

I didn't say that God commanded it, I said that He used it.  God used polygamy to create the House of Israel.  In the OT--whether or not He commanded polygamy--God allowed it, used it to serve His purposes, and condemned none of His prophets for it, despite that it would be adultery if it was a sin.

[ALarson]

26 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Doctrine and Covenants 131 sets up the need to be sealed. Doctrine and Covenants 132 sets up the conditions of being sealed as well as the blessings. It is the New and Everlasting Covenant.

 Here is what is stated regarding D&C 131 on lds.org:

Quote

Doctrine and Covenants 131 contains a compilation of principles the Prophet Joseph Smith taught while in Ramus, Illinois, on May 16–17, 1843. He taught about the new and everlasting covenant of marriage and the promise of eternal life for the faithful

Joseph Smith delayed making Section 132 known because it dealt with plural marriage.

What specific information or promises were given in Section 132 that did not pertain to living plural marriage?  What information would we be missing if we just had D&C 131 regarding eternal marriage?

 

Edited August 1, 2016 by ALarson