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

[provoman]

On August 1, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

 

Is Cafeteria Mormonism where the future of the Church lays?

 

Cafeteria Mormonism, as you put it, is where IMO, much of the membership of the Church some  of the apologetics is even cafeteria style.

[DBMormon]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Included in the narrative of Taylor's revelation was his invitation to his body guard to continue polygamy.  If one buys into the whole narrative of this story then fundamentalist Mormons are doing gods work by fulfilling prophecy.  Talk about messy

yes once you are willing to validate this revelation is almost assuredly from the hand of taylor you realize the FLDS groups likely have just as a legitmate claim as we do and the Lorin wooley story suddenly becomes credible.  so yes..... very messy

[rockpond]

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To my knowledge, there is no official Church doctrine or statement that polygamy will return.

Well, it returns in the Celestial Kingdom, right?

[provoman]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

On the contrary we have quite current teaching on whether plural marriage is required.  From last December:

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/12/the-new-and-everlasting-covenant?lang=eng

See the section "The Place of Marriage...".  Multiple statements from multiple leaders that plural is not required for exaltation.

Part of the problem, for many, is in assuming that everything about 132 is about plural marriage. 132 is about two subjects New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage ( as identified in the talk you link) and Law of the Priesthood which is mentioned in verses 61 & 64 of Section 132. 

I agree that 132 does not indicate that exaltation will be for those who are not in plural marriages.

Edited August 3, 2016 by provoman

[rockpond]

49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I do uphold the truth of it -- for the time and setting in which it was commanded and instituted.

More and more I'm coming to appreciate all of the mental gymnastics I see used here to faithfully disregard past prophetic teachings... I figure they'll be used to get us out of some of the messes that are being created now. 

[Calm]

What appears to you as mental gymnastics can be quite straightforward thinking depending on the assumptions people make about life and the way God interacts with mankind.

To me, Scott's answer is a simple nobrainer as soon as one accepts continuing revelation as a given.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

What appears to you as mental gymnastics can be quite straightforward thinking depending on the assumptions people make about life and the way God interacts with mankind.

To me, Scott's answer is a simple nobrainer as soon as one accepts continuing revelation as a given.

I believe in continuing revelation. 

But when someone uses "continuing revelation" as a means of unraveling past prophetic teachings/errors but claims nothing being taught today could ever be in error or reversed by future continuing revelation -- I consider that to be mental gymnastics. 

[JulieM]

43 minutes ago, provoman said:

Cafeteria Mormonism, as you put it, is where IMO, much of the membership of the Church some  of the apologetics is even cafeteria style.

It seems everyone picks and chooses what to believe (past teachings for example discussed here).  I'd say the term Cafeteria Mormon fits quite well for the last couple of pages in this discussion. 

Not comfortable with them?  That's fine because they don't apply to us and we will be able to choose if we want to live them in the afterlife.

Edited August 3, 2016 by JulieM

[provoman]

 

34 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well yeah, that makes sense  

I guess I don't know then who is advocating for polygamy to return (other than a very few on here and maybe just one that I'm aware of).  Who are these "polygamy advocates" that juliann is referring to (you stated above that you know this part "well")?  I've not seen any in my local area as I know most would dread its return!  

I have yet to hear the advocates as well. The article that Calm linked, by Elder Nash, states that a man can be sealed to more than one woman. This practice does not violate monogamy, as the man is only sealed to one living spouse.

[Storm Rider]

I really do shake my head at times when I read these types of threads.  All of the opinions being bandied about and absolutely none of it has anything to do with the day to day living of the gospel and striving to emulate the example of Jesus Christ.  Yet, individuals will strain over the specific doctrines to the point of putting themselves beyond the faith and even beyond the Savior.  

Faith in the Spirit turns into faith in the arm of flesh.  They conclude that because they cannot understand then the Spirit cannot be true, guidance is abandoned, and the conclusion is they know more than everyone else.  They don't see God so obviously he is the frivolous pursuit of the ignorant. 

I often think of the example of the woman who gave her two mites - all that she had.  In that moment of giving all she had I wonder if she busied herself with such concepts?  Did she try to gain a perfect understanding of God's interactions with Moses?  Did she conclude that because she had not seen the Ark of the Covenant than the stories of Israel were null and void?  Did she even worry about the discord between the Pharisees and the Sadducees?  I strongly believe that none of these things crossed her simple mind because she was focused on obedience to God, her love for him, and her heart was so pure, her faith so encompassing, that she gave all she had.  

There can be pleasure in discussion, glory in intelligence, and wonder in contemplating the mysteries of God, but none of it is worth two mites if faith is forfeited at the alter of man's pride and the thought that flesh knows best.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Storm Rider

[Bernard Gui]

On August 1, 2016 at 1:41 PM, ALarson said:

"If I will", those are the pertinent words here.    

Do you believe it was "God's will" that Joseph was to live polygamy in the manner he lived It?  I do not believe that came from God.

 

Yes, I believe polygamy was God's will at that time for the reasons I have stated. How Joseph lived it (none of us really knows) will be between him and God.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

What appears to you as mental gymnastics can be quite straightforward thinking depending on the assumptions people make about life and the way God interacts with mankind.

To me, Scott's answer is a simple nobrainer as soon as one accepts continuing revelation as a given.

Not just a no-brainer but pretty much Mormonism 101.

That rockpond regards it as "mental gymnastics" strikes me as odd.

I wonder if he read the link to Elder Nash's talk.

Or if he is acquainted with official Church writings such as this from "Guide to the Scriptures."

 

Quote

 

Plural marriage

The marriage of a husband to two or more living wives. It is lawful for a man to have only one wife, unless the Lord commands otherwise by revelation (Jacob 2:27–30). By revelation, plural marriage was practiced in Old Testament times and in the early days of the restored Church by the direction of the prophet who held the priesthood keys (D&C 132:34–40, 45). It is no longer practiced in the Church (D&C OD—1); today, having more than one wife is incompatible with membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

Or this from the Gospel Topics essay:

Quote

 

Latter-day Saints believe that the marriage of one man and one woman is the Lord’s standing law of marriage. In biblical times, the Lord commanded some to practice plural marriage—the marriage of one man and more than one woman.1 By revelation, the Lord commanded Joseph Smith to institute the practice of plural marriage among Church members in the early 1840s. For more than half a century, plural marriage was practiced by some Latter-day Saints under the direction of the Church President.2

Latter-day Saints do not understand all of God’s purposes in instituting, through His prophets, the practice of plural marriage. The Book of Mormon identifies one reason for God to command it: to increase the number of children born in the gospel covenant in order to “raise up seed unto [the Lord].”3

 

Or the passage in Jacob referenced in both of these sources.

 

Edited August 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Flexible said:

Smac

1.I bet if you and I were members of the same ward we would get along splendidly and our public perception of each other would be as faithful members of the Church.  We just have one significant difference: I believe you can sustain the Church and its leaders faithfully but have honest dissonance with some things.  That's why DC 21 asks for patience and faith in supporting them.  But this Board allows for healthy discussion where faithful members can be honest about their doubts as well.  If you believe that faithful and having doubts cannot coexist, well, I just don't feel that way.

2.  Based on my integrity barometer, personal to me, I am very disappointed in the Church's historical narrative, including relating to Section 132.  I expressed my opinion  that , as concerning its history and origins, the Church cannot say that it has been honest in its dealings with its fellow men.  I attribute some of that to what I see as a bad case of institutional paranoia and defensiveness justifiably developed through the course of its contentious life.  I stand by that, even if you call it a sleazy attack.  I don't see it as an attack.  And I think Elders Snow, Jensen, Ballard, among others, might just agree with me.  I think the Church is slowly making restitution for this, but I feel more must be done and done sooner.

3.  You incorrectly said I was giving blanket support to everything Bill Reel is advocating.  Not so.  I pray Bill will continue to take a faithful approach to grappling with the problems.  But even though I don't blanketly endorse his thoughts, I do believe some are very good and can actually be healthy.  I fear any members who do not learn to deal with the complexities and nuances of Mormonism but instead insist on black and white and no gray, will struggle.  I don't believe the Q15 sees everything in black and white terms.

I'm going to do 90 minutes of hot yoga now.  I was actually asked by someone in my ward if faithful members were allowed to do yoga.  What do you think?

I tried to PM you, but I guess you can't receive messages yet.  I'll try to figure out a way to communicate with you privately.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To my knowledge, there is no official Church doctrine or statement that polygamy will return.

I beg to disagree, mon ami.

Quote

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. 

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is it because you are posting on a mobile, or is there a problem with your browser?

Old ipad. Just stopped one day.

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Well yeah, that makes sense  

I guess I don't know then who is advocating for polygamy to return (other than a very few on here and maybe just one that I'm aware of).  Who are these "polygamy advocates" that juliann is referring to (you stated above that you know this part "well")?  I've not seen any in my local area as I know most would dread its return!  

I know I'm no advocate for polygamy to return.

Hopefully Juliann or Calm will let us know who the polygamy advocates are today.  Maybe "they" are only hoping to live it on the Celestial Kingdom?

Edited August 3, 2016 by JulieM

[JulieM]

11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes, I believe polygamy was God's will at that time for the reasons I have stated. How Joseph lived it (none of us really knows) will be between him and God.

I think there's enough details just in the essay alone on this topic to give us a pretty clear picture (and there's more if one follows up reading the footnotes or studying more resources).  

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I beg to disagree, mon ami.

 

This doesn't say it's going to return, only that it could if the Lord wills it.

I reiterate that there is no official doctrine that it will return.

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This doesn't say it's going to return, only that it could if the Lord wills it.

I reiterate that there is no official doctrine that it will return.

Do you not consider Brigham Young's teachings on this to be "official doctrine"?  Have those been disavowed?

Or didn't he teach that we'd all live the principle of plural marriage in the highest degree?

Edited August 3, 2016 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, JulieM said:

Do you not consider Brigham Young's teachings on this to be doctrine?  Have those been disavowed?

Whatever Brigham Young is alleged to have said, and however you are construing it, I don't give precedence to the teachings of dead prophets over living ones.

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Whatever Brigham Young is alleged to have said, and however you are construing it, I don't give precedence to the teachings of dead prophets over living ones.

"Alleged"?  You don't believe the quotes on this topic from Brigham Young?  I think they are quite numerous and specific.  You think they are all wrong?

Are you also stating that doctrines taught by dead Prophets are no longer official doctrine?  Which Prophet replaced or corrected the doctrines he taught on this?

Edited August 3, 2016 by JulieM

[bdouglas]

 

"I cannot wish the fault undone seeing the issue of it is so proper.” - Kent, King Lear

 

What are the fruits i.e. end results of polygamy? For one thing, the church got thru its first hundred years — which I doubt it would have done without the leadership which came from plural marriages.

 

I myself — no doubt like many on this forum — am the result of polygamous marriages, on both sides of my family. On my father’s side I am descended from my great grandfather's third plural wife. She later left him, but not before bearing him four children. The descendants of these four children number today in the hundreds, and include tradesmen, biz owners, doctors, dentists, lawyers, teachers, hedge fund managers, programmers, artists, musicians, newspapermen, mission presidents, stake presidents, bishops, and one GA. I would estimate that approximately 60% of this progeny is active in the church today.

 

Compare this to the faction that split from the church at time of manifesto. The Utah and AZ LDS fundamentalists/polygamists are one of the most blighted populations in the U.S. today. They are a stunted people — emotionally, spiritually, intellectually and culturally stunted.

 

If a good tree bears good fruit and a bad tree bears bad fruit, then polygamy, despite the difficulty of living it and the suffering it caused, was ultimately a good thing and necessary for the survival of the church.

 

Whether it is going to exist in the next life, be brought back in the Millenium, etc., etc. … well, this seems to me irrelevant now and not worth worrying about.

Edited August 3, 2016 by bdouglas

[Bernard Gui]

On August 1, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Calm said:

Raising up seed may refer more to creating a covenant society, where even adults adopted into the community are God's righteous seed...after all, he doesn't state they are the seed/children of the Nephites, but "seed unto me".  Now why plural marriage would be a part of that, I don't know but perhaps it was simply to ensure everyone had the ability to take on God's covenant in mortality and thus become part of God's seed though sealing, whether as a child, marriage partner or adopted adult (until the temple was built where proxy family sealings could take place).  Perhaps the covenants available to the Nephites at that time were not as full or perhaps the concubines and polygynous wives were not part of the spirtual community or had other opportunities as children to be sealed into the covenant and thus be a part of the covenant community.  Perhaps plural marriage needed to be restored in order to quickly provide sufficient opportunities for all who were worthy for sealings along with the Law of Adoption, but once the community was large enough to sustain the primary ways of sealing that we continue today they were dispensed with, though due to tradition it took sometime for their cessation to occur even after they were no longer needed.

To me, raising up seed in our generation meant gathering a quick supply of worthy Saints, not only through spectacular missionary conversions, but also through the bearing of many children in faithful families, to kickstart the Restoration.

I think the evidence bears out my belief.

[Bernard Gui]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This doesn't say it's going to return, only that it could if the Lord wills it.

I reiterate that there is no official doctrine that it will return.

A mere quibble among friends. Jacob does not say that it will be commanded, but that it may be commanded when necessary. I believe it was necessary when it was commanded.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

To me, raising up seed in our generation meant gathering a quick supply of worthy Saints, not only through spectacular missionary conversions, but also through the bearing of many children in faithful families, to kickstart the Restoration.

I think the evidence bears out my belief.

That's how I view it as well.