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

[DBMormon]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

The "unacceptable and irreconcilable" is what ever people see as "unacceptable and irreconcilable".  Polyandry, young brides, false stories about why Marsh and Ryder left, stories of transfigurations, stories of divine experiences where the evidence is weak, unquestioning obedience or blessed when following even if he is wrong.  Much or Mormonism to me is BS but let everyone decide for themselves which parts to them if any.

Edited August 1, 2016 by DBMormon

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

I am not making a preferred explanantion.  Rather I am putting all options on the table and giving people theological and historical room to make up their own mind.  I have no preferred position on 132 though I find it too hard to swallow to simply accept.

your not following.  I show that he may have been deceived, he may have made it up, or he may have gotten it from God, or he may have gotten it from an angel, or he may have been mentally ill and thought he saw an angel..... (i actually don't argue that last one).  My point is to show that we as a church have precedence to dismiss revelation, doctrine, scripture, canon, and prophetic utterances and hence people have room to do the same.

or he was mentally ill and no one visited him but he thought so

none of them.  I am giving people room but never share nor impose my position.

your welcome

isn't all this what people already know? what is so novel about it?

[Teancum]

5 hours 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.

I admire your efforts.  But on the other hand you are fighting a losing battle.  The church is not going to disavow 132 nor polygamy.  To much of a taint on Joseph.  If he got this wrong what else did he get wrong. 

And for you personally the same question is valid.  I am fairly confident he got polygamy wrong.  That was my starting point and it led to me concluding he got a lot of other stuff wrong as well. 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

The BS is what ever people see as BS.  

But we're speaking of D&C 132.  Not "what ever."

Quote

Polyandry, young brides, false stories about why Marsh and Ryder left, stories of transfigurations, stories of divine experiences where the evidence is weak, unquestioning obedience or blessed when following even if he is wrong.  Much or Mormonism to me is BS but let everyone decide for themselves which parts to them if any.

Okay.  But to come back to Consig's point: Do you "rule out the possibility that the command to practice plural marriage came from God?"  Or do you consider that as still being a possibility?

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Alrighty.  Genesis has it that Sarai saw Hagar as her mistress.  "And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes."

There's really no reason to conclude they were marriages, but concubine the term means not married. 

Oh well.  This seems to support the point, in my eyes.  We have to kind throw out what we don't like, maybe even make parts sound better, in order to make scripture work for us. 

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

[VideoGameJunkie]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

Oh for heaven's sake. Do you really think Joseph would practice polyandry and just forget to allow for it? His polyandry came first for the most part.  132 says a woman with another man is not committing adultery if she is with another man, if it is under proper authority. Like I said, this is a stunning example of how even in the very chapter under discussion people pretend that there was no polyandry, even though JS was exactly that! On that basis,  I have to agree with those who ask what the problem is with also ignoring the polygyny that is there as if it never happened. 

I think you misread section 132 to be honest.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Were concubines always a man's wife?  

According to the definition, yes.  They were a lesser wife, afforded some benefits but not the same one's a wife received.  I really don't know much about the practice other than the very basics.

[juliann]

26 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I just find it interesting that all the active mormons on the board are defending polygamy and all the exmormons and anti mormons on the board are saying polygamy was a mistake. Look at who's saying what.

Baloney. There are too many "active" Mormons, especially women, who would never defend polygamy as a celestial state. Just because I feel no need to disavow my ggrandparents' choices does not mean that I think polygamy has any place in anyone else's future. Those that do and won't stop advocating for it will happily tear the Church apart on this topic. 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

Uhhh, that doesn't sound much better...

It was an historical practice.  How we feel about it today is irrelevant.

[salgare]

6 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.

and yet this is what the Givens suggest

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

Baloney. There are too many "active" Mormons, especially women, who would never defend polygamy as a celestial state. Just because I feel no need to disavow my ggrandparents' choices does not mean that I think polygamy has any place in anyone else's future. Those that do and won't stop advocating for it will happily tear the Church apart on this topic. 

i appreciate your honesty Juliann.

[DBMormon]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Oh!  Well, I will wait to be corrected by him.  And if that is the case, I will revise my assessment and apologize to him.

Thanks,

-Smac

I thought I had been clear.  I want people to have space to reject what they see as irreconcilable and still stay.  I have never espoused any view publicly as my set in stone position.  Hell, I don't even buy into the theory I proposed at Sunstone though I will argue its validity as a option that has a rightful seat at the table and people can be informed about and choose from.  If one person stays because if it or uses my reasoning on any other issue, I have done what I set out to do.

[Calm]

53 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Ok.  this is getting difficult because I'm just speeding through with comments.  Let me try and slow down.  It is not said that Hagar was Abraham's concubine--it doesn't even say that she was his wife unless, it appears, that's read into it.  The passage in D&C 132 says Abraham had concubines, this after telling of Hagar's situation, and his having children with concubines (not Hagar and not Sarai) was accounted to him as righteousness--according to D&C 132.  I was trying to point out that Hagar might have been a wife of Abraham, but wife in the language of section 132 seems to be distinct from concubine.  This was in response to Bluebell (I believe) who suggested that concubines themselves were wives--which isn't necessarily the case according to your link. 

And what examples from the OT do we have of Abraham having children with concubines? keturah is one, I suppose. 

I'm not sure how to read this other than to conclude D&C 132 is condoning cases wherein Abraham committed adultery.  I think bluebell responded to my saying that by saying, he did not, because those described as concubines in 132 were his wives.  But, that seems unlikely from what we have.  And I think based on your link alone it appears to say universally, that concubines were wives is mostly inaccurate and probably a little simplistic. 

Hope that helps. 

But to further it'd be odd for David, for instance, who had wives and concubines, to have lesser wives, if we are treat the reading in that sense.  I'm not sure, as someone noted above, that having lesser wives is a view that should be acceptable to us, no?  Anyway you slice it, it feels like D&C 132 is condoning activities and counting these activities as righteousness.  It really throws a wrench into our perceived morality.  It makes polygamy and how it was practiced by JS seem pretty tame, in another sense. 

The Bible calls Hagar his wife, see Genesis 16:3:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 16

Lesser wives make sense in a society that has a caste system, which unfortunately the Hebrews and Jews did.  This gave slaves and lower class women and their children at least some status.  In a culture with no slavery and ideally no bigotry that places other ethnicities as inferior (unfortunately the ideal is not consistently the reality), it makes no sense.

Even if concubines were not the same as "wives", there existed still laws that recognized a legal relationship between the man and the woman, something very different rrom mistresses and prostitutes that had no legal recourse if abandoned or impregnanted.  With that legal relationship, a sexual relationship was not considered adultery in the Bible.  Iirc, adulterers were stoned, so it was considered a deadly sin, but there is no apologetic excusing or explaining how Abraham was excused in his case.  Instead, it appears accepted that what Abraham did with Hagar was not adultery, whether or not she was a wife or concubine.  We might see such a difference between full wives and concubines or even with concubines not given the status of lower wives, their society saw thelimited legal relationship as contextualizing the sexual relationship as not adultery, even if many of us now would disagree because we don't believe that a lower status for a male/female legal sexual contract as appropriate.

We have not practiced concubinage in the more modern version of plural marriage nor are we commanded to, it is only stated that concubines in the past were acceptable to God.  Slavery in the past was also allowed, but God still gave laws to lessen the ability of abuse, the owners were legally responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection to their slaves.  If a church member attempted to practice slavery in this day however, God would condemn that as our society no longer has that built into its construction (at least in a legal sense, unfortunately slavery in its worse forms are still present).  We have progressed enough culturally to understand how wrong on a fundamental level slavery is and I would suggest 'thou shalt not enslave' is part of the Law of the Gospel we are held accountable for.  Unfortunately it would appear that Hebrew, Israelite, and Jewish society in biblical times were not yet ready for that and so they are judged according to the laws they were aware of.  

I think the D&C is making clear that Abraham and the others were following righteously the laws of God as they knew them in their time as is needed due to the presentism with which men read the scriptures.  It does not say though that we are to abide by the same laws, it is not commanding slavery because their wives/concubines were originally slaves nor does it command concubines simply because some in the past righteously had some.

If concubines do have an eternal relationship with their husbands/masters, it definitely won't be as some second class relationship.  No celestial, eternal covenant is second class.

 

[DBMormon]

5 minutes ago, salgare said:

 

Edited August 1, 2016 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I admire your efforts.  But on the other hand you are fighting a losing battle.  The church is not going to disavow 132 nor polygamy.  To much of a taint on Joseph.  If he got this wrong what else did he get wrong. 

And for you personally the same question is valid.  I am fairly confident he got polygamy wrong.  That was my starting point and it led to me concluding he got a lot of other stuff wrong as well. 

i dont need them to.  I am speaking of what people personally do with or without the church's consent

[VideoGameJunkie]

7 minutes ago, juliann said:

Baloney. There are too many "active" Mormons, especially women, who would never defend polygamy as a celestial state. Just because I feel no need to disavow my ggrandparents' choices does not mean that I think polygamy has any place in anyone else's future. Those that do and won't stop advocating for it will happily tear the Church apart on this topic. 

Are you an exmormon or a practicing mormon? I honestly am curious because of the way you critique the prophets and male leaders of the church. I can't tell if you are aware of your open rebellion against the Brethren. 

[DBMormon]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But we're speaking of D&C 132.  Not "what ever."

Okay.  But to come back to Consig's point: Do you "rule out the possibility that the command to practice plural marriage came from God?"  Or do you consider that as still being a possibility?

Thanks,

-Smac

still a possibility.... sure.  but I lean heavily towards it not being of God

[ALarson]

42 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I just find it interesting that all the active mormons on the board are defending polygamy and all the exmormons and anti mormons on the board are saying polygamy was a mistake. Look at who's saying what.

Maybe that's your perception, but I'm an active Mormon and I am not defending polygamy.

[DBMormon]

 

Quote

 

 7 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.

 

 

 

not just intellectually.  but spiritually cant reconcile.  There is much in the Church I cant spiritually reconcile.  I stay because I dismiss it as not god ordained and move along.

[juliann]

14 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I admire your efforts.  But on the other hand you are fighting a losing battle.  The church is not going to disavow 132 nor polygamy.  To much of a taint on Joseph.  If he got this wrong what else did he get wrong. 

And for you personally the same question is valid.  I am fairly confident he got polygamy wrong.  That was my starting point and it led to me concluding he got a lot of other stuff wrong as well. 

I actually think, with the proper foundation, and considering the missteps while implementing it, that mistakes can eventually be acknowledged. We are seeing that in Church essays, very, very carefully stated and sometimes in a read between the lines fashion....but it is happening. I think Pearson's book will ultimately be a help. But she is able to express her love for Joseph. I have not heard her demean him or suggest he talks to devils (but I don't have her book yet.)  I can see where the church's own standard of having children "disavow" their parent's polygamy to be baptized may accelerate the process as a very unintended consequence of that policy. Pearson very cleverly played off of that.

 

[VideoGameJunkie]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Maybe that's your perception, but I'm an active Mormon and I am not defending polygamy.

Honestly, by your posts you came off to me as an exmormon or anti Mormon and I take a look at what posters hit like on the other posts. It seems to be a pattern of who likes who's posts always.

Edited August 1, 2016 by VideoGameJunkie

[DBMormon]

1 minute ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Honestly, by your posts you came off to me as an exmormon or anti Mormon.

you know what they say about assumptions

[juliann]

6 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Are you an exmormon or a practicing mormon? I honestly am curious because of the way you critique the prophets and male leaders of the church. I can't tell if you are aware of your open rebellion against the Brethren. 

I'm Zoroastrian, obviously. Inactive though. 

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Honestly, by your posts you came off to me as an exmormon or anti Mormon.

VGJ.  I hope that you always keep your strong testimony.  For your sake..I hope all you believe is truth.  I care about you.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

But it was slavery. Hagar was owned to the point Sarah could pass her around. She was abused by a prophet by any definition supported by the Church today, yet God spoke to her and created a great nation from her. Abraham may get the credit but she saved and raised her boy despite him collaborating with Sarah to kill them. This is what I am talking about in restoring the Church. We only acknowledge the results not the means. I think a true restoration means we can no longer accept the evil along with the good.

I certainly don't understand everything dealing with Hagar.  I don't think that Abraham acted honorably towards her if the scriptural record is accurate.  As for the results and the means, I think what we can acknowledge is that we don't understand the means.  Beyond that I don't think anything can be absolutely concluded and i think that's why we focus on the results.  It's definitely one of those stories that I have a lot of questions about though.

It's very hard not to define evil according to our present beliefs and culture and it's so easy to forget that we know only the barest of a bare-bones story that was passed around orally for a few hundred years before it was even written down.  I try to remember that.  The concept of concubines seem evil to me, but God seemed to condone them in that culture.  The same with slavery in the OT.  I have a really hard time coming up with any way that slavery isn't evil.  The way that the law of moses treats women seems abusive to me.   I could probably go on for a while on the topic...

But what is more likely (in my opinion) is that my presentism is judging their actions unfairly and also that the narrative we have is really inaccurate in the details.  Right or wrong i'm really glad that it's not something i have to figure out right now.