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

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What point?  I'm not sure i understand what you are saying.  Mormon doctrine right now is that we should see polygamy in our modern day as adultery, but we don't believe that means it's always adultery.  Why can't it be the same thing with concubinage?

I am more than free to see polygamy, even practiced by JS and others, as adultery too, Bluebell.  I don't get why polygamy in early Mormonism was not adultery but polygamy today is.  Polygamy is practiced in different parts of the world and is legal in some cases.  But that's still interesting.  He blessed concubinage in a message in our modern day, apparently, in order to support the notion that modern people should practice polygamy.  "I bless Abraham for sleeping with other women not his wife because, well, they had his children".  Huh?  I can't buy that.  It makes little sense, in the long run.  Another reason D&C 132 should not be considered scripture. 

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'll say it again, concubines, by definition, were considered lesser wives.  That's a statement of historical fact and I'm not sure why you are struggling so much to understand it.

Of coruse I can understand the statement, Bluebell.  I can comprehend. The problem is  it's simply wrong as demonstrated by the very links Calm offered.  Keep in mind we're talking about a concept (concubinage) that was practiced in various times and various cultures, all seeing it a little differently.  It is true, I will grant, that some saw concubines as lesser wives in some cases. But I also have to acknowledge that in some cases concubines weren't considered married to their men.  Blanket statements as you have made just aren't supported.   

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It doesn't have anything to do with opinion or someone's feelings. It's just what they were.  They were more than illicit sexual partners but less than full fledged wives.

Yes, in some cases they were not seeing as wives at all.  In most cases they were not seen as legitimate wives (meaning not married).  Of course, I would argue that even those who sleep with each other today outside of marriage do not see their partners are illicit sexual partners.  We all have feelings.  Even those of old times. 

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't know if you've missed them, but Cal specifically linked to ancient laws regarding concubines written in the Hammurabi Code.  This is the most famous legal code in history because it's the oldest.  It comes from Mesopotamia (where Abraham lived) and it comes from the same time as Abraham (Abraham and Hammurabi, whom the code is named after, were contemporaries).  This evidence contradicts your claim above.

It seems Calm conceded that none of the links specify legality nor contracts. 

Quote

According to the Babylonian Talmud (Sanh. 21a), the difference between a concubine and a legitimate wife was that the latter received a Ketubah and her marriage was preceded by a formal betrothal ("ḳiddushin"), which was not the case with the former (comp. Rashi on Gen. xxv. 6, and Naḥmanides ad loc.).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12148-pilegesh

It's pretty clear that your insistence that they were legitimate wives just isn't true, at least in all cases.  The Hamarabi Code dates to after Abraham, most likely.

Quote

Hagar was Sarah's slave.  The laws at the time specifically allowed (could even be said that they required) Sarah to give Abraham Hagar should she be found barren.  In what ways is Fanny something akin to Hagar?

I already said that--they were maids, each of the two.  I certainly did not say they were the same in every way.  What laws at the time are you alluding to, Bluebell?  Not that it matters.  This is more about whether or not God really blessed sexual activities outside the bonds of marriage. 

[rockpond]

50 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm certainly not consig, but I read your post and had a thought....and I got time now anyway.

We are all just people composed individual with our own material makeup and our own personal experiences from which we gain more and more who we are.  In this process, billions of people also carry with them diversity.  Meaning I'm not you nor do I think like you, even if we are both LDS.  Surely the Church may take a portion of our billions and limit our diversity of thought in the process.  But with all the variety of members, and the potential number of differing thoughts, ideas beliefs, conclusions and all that, it feels reasonable to conclude not any two of us agree on all things.  Thus, when someone seems completely in line with the messages of the Church, not expressing any exceptions, nuance, grayness, at all, well then it seems that person has abrogated independent thought. 

To be fair we have all abrogated independent thought to some extent.  We hear some message from someone and just cling to it because it appeals to us.  But it might be that if we were tedious enough to investigate all messages we might find we disagree with that which we cling to.  I think this is true, because in time after I learn different things I often eschew certain ideas I once held. 

I'm not sure this is what Consig was thinking, but his point resonates with me on some level as per this explanation.

It's often said that we don't blindly follow, that we are supposed to listen to the prophet/apostles/scriptures and then receive our own personal spiritual confirmation.  As Scott might say, that's Mormonism 101.

But when someone tells me that I'm wrong if my spiritual confirmation doesn't align with the mainstream LDS thought/teaching/etc, the proclamation of "not blindly following" strikes me as intellectual veneer.

[stemelbow]

30 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I have no idea what his mindset was or whether he thought he was righteous or not. In the written records my ancestors left, they explain that they entered into plural marriage because they believed they were commanded of God to do so, despite their personal misgivings. It seems that among some in Utah, having more wives was seen as a sort of status symbol, both in terms of being "righteous" and in having the means to support a large family, but I don't think it's fair to apply that brush too broadly.

I agree.  I didn't.  I said, "if..." after all.

[rockpond]

52 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It produces many children in faithful families, not necessarily more children per wife.  Polygamy creates faithful lineages in a way that monogamy often can't. I think that's what Bernard was referring to.

Why wouldn't monogamy create faithful lineages?

[RevTestament]

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

In Bill's Sunstone presentation http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2016/07/sunstone-presentation-july-2016-handshakes-drawn-swords/ Bill offers a path by which faithful members of the church who are disturbed by Section 132 of the D&C can maintain faith and yet still disavow it's offending parts.

While this post won't do his presentation justice and I certainly hope Bill's weighs in this post, the jest of the presentation is that prophets are fallible and make mistakes and just as Brigham's Adam God doctrine, D&C Section 109 which originally stated that a man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again; and the removal of the Lectures on Faith, have all been either removed from scriptural status or disavowed...so can Section 132.  That basically Joseph got it wrong, that the angel with drawn sword was not a messenger from God but from Satan and that Joseph was deceived by said angel and succumbed to his baser instincts when he introduced polygamy.  While I found his reasoning compelling I just can not imagine a day when the church would disavow D&C 132, but maybe Bill has found a logical path whereby faithful members can reject 132 and still remain faithful-believers in all else.  This post is best understood after listening to Bill's podcast...to get his full reasoning and argument.

Is Cafeteria Mormonism where the future of the Church lays?

 

There is absolutely no reason to disavow section 132. People who don't understand the doctrine should read Calm's link below. It cites the First Presidency from the 30's saying that a marriage between one man and one woman is celestial. Further, McKonkie quotes the Apostle  Melvin J. Ballard (1873–1939) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles: “Those who are denied endless increase cannot be what God is, because that in connection with other things, makes him God. The eternity of the marriage covenant ought to be understood by Latter-day Saints clearly to be the sealing of at least one woman to one man for time and for all eternity. Then do not get confused on that point and imagine that it necessarily means more than one woman."

I believe Bruce McKonkie fully believed that as an apostle as well. I believe BY stressed polygamy, but went a little astray on the promotion of it, which has caused a lot of factions, but then if they had simply stuck with the revelation itself, they wouldn't have left the Lord's Church. I am glad the Church published the article below to emphasize this point. It should be noted that the worst faction to leave over the subject, the FLDS, do not practice polygamy according to the revelation, but have departed from it in their sin, and take wives according to the desires of their hearts and not with their consent, which is clearly contrary to Section 132. 

11 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not sure that means you saw it and are going to read it later or you missed my link and understand me to mean I am posting it later.  If the latter, I will post it again just in case:

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

 

[stemelbow]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I like the bolded part.  It's what makes message board's go round.

I was under the impression that Consig. was talking about LDS doctrine, not agreeing with every single policy, thought, action, or word that LDS leadership ever uttered.  Maybe i misunderstood him.

Certainly we can probably accept the Consig was exaggerating to some extent because even he might acknowledge most members, if not all, think about how they'll get things done day to day. 

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's probably safe to assume that working as a maid for someone for a few weeks, and being literally owned by someone in Mesopotamia a few thousand years ago would be so different as to basically have nothing in common.

Where did I state that?  I think both are wrong, but I never said it was the same.

[Tacenda]

40 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's Bring em young for the same reason that it's sometimes old Joe Smith.  Name calling when trying to show disrespect is "Immaturity and Behaving Like a 7th Grader When Disagreeing With Someone 101".  

I don't want to call Bill out, but he says it over and over in his Sunstone presentation podcast linked in the OP, starting at 13:08. I happen to have mentioned it in the past in a comment to another podcast on his website. I never found out why, just that he verified he really said it that way. It apparently it isn't just Bill either. What I want to know is, if BY ever said "Bring them young".  The only thing close is what Heber C. Kimball may have said, it's not proven that I know about, to the missionaries about not keeping the pretty ones to themselves.   

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_polygamy/Leaders_worried_missionaries_take_best_plural_wives

Edited August 3, 2016 by Tacenda

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Okrahomer said:

Sometimes I think Consiglieri might fear the church is exactly what it claims to be

It is a scary thought.

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Why wouldn't monogamy create faithful lineages?

Maybe she has somewhat of a point seeing the mass exodus of the younger generation.

Ok, i'm playing a bit off of the idea that so many youngsters are leaving today coupled with our insistence on monogamy.  Maybe it's about time we brought polygamy back--then our youth will be more faithful. 

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Why wouldn't monogamy create faithful lineages?

It's not that monogamy doesn't create faithful lineages, it's that it often limits their size and their staying power (for lack of a better word).  My father's lineage ends with him because there were no sons had (by him or his brother) to carry on the line.  That's not a big deal for him or in spiritual terms, but it seems that sometimes God does care about the survival of lineages (I don't know why and i've never studied it.  I could probably come up with some guesses-such as some people needing to come to earth thru specific lineages-but that's all they would be)

I'll use the example of the well known modern day polygamist cody brown (of Sister Wives fame) to illustrate what i mean.

Brown has four wives and (I think?) 19 kids.  HIs first wife was only able to have one child (a girl) and the remaining children were had by his other three wives.  Polygamy increased his lineage and extended his familial line in a way that his monogamous marriage was incapable of.  

As a side note-the Brown family is so interesting to me because it is an example of a successful polygamist family.  Though i don't agree with polygamy and have no desire to ever live it, it's kind of cool to be able to look into their family and see how it might have worked in the past and to see that polygamy is capable of created happy families where all the wives and the children feel loved and supported.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

It's not that monogamy doesn't create faithful lineages, it's that it often limits their size and their staying power (for lack of a better word).  My father's lineage ends with him because there were no sons had (by him or his brother) to carry on the line.  That's not a big deal for him or in spiritual terms, but it seems that sometimes God does care about the survival of lineages (I don't know why and i've never studied it.  I could probably come up with some guesses-such as some people needing to come to earth thru specific lineages-but that's all they would be)

I'll use the example of the well known modern day polygamist cody brown (of Sister Wives fame) to illustrate what i mean.

Brown has four wives and (I think?) 19 kids.  HIs first wife was only able to have one child (a girl) and the remaining children were had by his other three wives.  Polygamy increased his lineage and extended his familial line in a way that his monogamous marriage was incapable of.  

As a side note-the Brown family is so interesting to me because it is an example of a successful polygamist family.  Though i don't agree with polygamy and have no desire to ever live it, it's kind of cool to be able to look into their family and see how it might have worked in the past and to see that polygamy is capable of created happy families where all the wives and the children feel loved and supported.

I agree with your sentiments on the Brown family.

Regarding faithful lineages:

1.  Daughters are also part of one's lineage.

2.  The points you make refer to the lineage of ONE MAN, not the overall quantity of faithful lineages.  Obviously, Brigham Young's 55 wives gave him an abundant faithful lineage.  But there is no evidence to suggest that it is an increase in the overall faithful lineage had those women stayed with their husbands or married other husbands.

[RevTestament]

On 8/1/2016 at 4:32 PM, bluebell said:

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.

 

On 8/1/2016 at 4:38 PM, Calm said:

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.

 

I believe in the social context of the priestly class, the priests often had 2 wives. The first had the first inheritance rights, as did her children. The second was usually housed separately in a north-south alignment to the first, and her children would have inheritance rights to the southern portion. Often these two wives were cousins. In Abraham's case he took Hagar to wife with Sarai's consent, but Hagar was Sarai's servant, thus the relationship didn't nullify Sarai's right to inheritance under the law. That is why she is called a concubine, and why her child, Ishmael, didn't receive the inheritance. Abraham was still obligated to take care of her as a wife in every other respect tho. It was not a sex slave relationship like the Romans used the word concubine. In Abraham's context it had more to do with the right of inheritance. Later in the Bible the scribes apparently refer to Keturah as a concubine by using the plural concubines. However, I don't believe she was. I have met one who insists Keturah was a Canaanite, and therefore her children had no right to the priesthood. But I don't believe the law supports this, and Jethro may or may not have been a direct descendant of her son Midian. He may have just inherited the Midianite title or name, but this seems unlikely. Nevertheless, God later treats Midian roughly because they had fought against Israel.

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Where did I state that?  I think both are wrong, but I never said it was the same.

Stemelbow claimed Fanny and Hagar were similar and it sounded like you were agreeing with him.  Sorry if i misunderstood.

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's not that monogamy doesn't create faithful lineages, it's that it often limits their size and their staying power (for lack of a better word).  My father's lineage ends with him because there were no sons had (by him or his brother) to carry on the line.  That's not a big deal for him or in spiritual terms, but it seems that sometimes God does care about the survival of lineages (I don't know why and i've never studied it.  I could probably come up with some guesses-such as some people needing to come to earth thru specific lineages-but that's all they would be)

I'll use the example of the well known modern day polygamist cody brown (of Sister Wives fame) to illustrate what i mean.

Brown has four wives and (I think?) 19 kids.  HIs first wife was only able to have one child (a girl) and the remaining children were had by his other three wives.  Polygamy increased his lineage and extended his familial line in a way that his monogamous marriage was incapable of.  

As a side note-the Brown family is so interesting to me because it is an example of a successful polygamist family.  Though i don't agree with polygamy and have no desire to ever live it, it's kind of cool to be able to look into their family and see how it might have worked in the past and to see that polygamy is capable of created happy families where all the wives and the children feel loved and supported.

Giving men preeminence seems problematic to me.  Why does it matter if 19 kids are this one guy's kids when these wives could have had more kids, if the number matters, and the women themselves could have extended their lines to far greater extent then it is in polygamy? 

I don't see why it's important to God to see certain men have more kids than others, particularly at the expense of the women.

[Tacenda]

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Maybe she has somewhat of a point seeing the mass exodus of the younger generation.

Ok, i'm playing a bit off of the idea that so many youngsters are leaving today coupled with our insistence on monogamy.  Maybe it's about time we brought polygamy back--then our youth will be more faithful. 

And the bachelor and the bachelorette can pick more than one. Every time I watch either the the Bachelor or Bachelorette, which hasn't been much, I've thought about it. If they had been JS and BY, they could have married everyone on the show!! Well at least the bachelor could have. 

[RevTestament]

On 8/1/2016 at 9:46 AM, consiglieri said:

I hear what you are saying, Bluebell.

But to a greater or lesser degree, don't we already do that with parts of the Old Testament?

Like the part about not suffering a witch to live?  We pretty much disavow that for no other reason than it offends our modern sensibilities.

Or the part about stoning kids who act rudely to their parents?

There is no revelation overturning these parts of the scriptures, and yet we pretty much universally disavow them today.

 

There is revelation overturning them - the revelation of Jesus Christ who gave the greater law to forgive. Justice demands an eye for an eye, but love calls for forgiveness, and Jesus died that the demand for punishment may be fulfilled in Him. Therefore He called on His disciples to forgive rather than stone their perpetrators.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree with your sentiments on the Brown family.

Regarding faithful lineages:

1.  Daughters are also part of one's lineage.

2.  The points you make refer to the lineage of ONE MAN, not the overall quantity of faithful lineages.  Obviously, Brigham Young's 55 wives gave him an abundant faithful lineage.  But there is no evidence to suggest that it is an increase in the overall faithful lineage had those women stayed with their husbands or married other husbands.

Because girls do not carry on the family name, they are not the same as sons in that sense.  That's what i meant about 'staying power'.  The evidence that we have that God cares about lineage and sometimes uses polygamy to increase them is Jacob's words in the BOM.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Giving men preeminence seems problematic to me.  Why does it matter if 19 kids are this one guy's kids when these wives could have had more kids, if the number matters, and the women themselves could have extended their lines to far greater extent then it is in polygamy? 

I don't see why it's important to God to see certain men have more kids than others, particularly at the expense of the women.

I don't think it's important to God to do anything at the expense of women. But because of the weaknesses of both men and women that sometimes happens.  Beyond that, we don't have any specific answers on why He does what He does sometimes.

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Stemelbow claimed Fanny and Hagar were similar and it sounded like you were agreeing with him.  Sorry if i misunderstood.

To be clear I said in one aspect there was similarity.  I certainly did not extend it to the same in every way. 

[bluebell]

Just now, stemelbow said:

To be clear I said in one aspect there was similarity.  I certainly did not extend it to the same in every way. 

So, the fact that both of them may have washed dishes for a prophet of God, and both were female, is an important similarity to point out?

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Because girls do not carry on the family name, they are not the same as sons in that sense.  That's what i meant about 'staying power'.  The evidence that we have that God cares about lineage and sometimes uses polygamy to increase them is Jacob's words in the BOM.

God said that He cares about the family name being carried on?

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think it's important to God to do anything at the expense of women. But because of the weaknesses of both men and women that sometimes happens.  Beyond that, we don't have any specific answers on why He does what He does sometimes.

Part of my faith transition was the rejection of the idea that God would ask His sons and daughters to do things that violate basic morality without offering any explanation.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

God said that He cares about the family name being carried on?

I think sometimes He does.  For example, isn't there a prophecy that the prophet of the restoration would have the same name as his father?  I could be really mangling that, but yes, i think that sometimes people need to have certain names.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Part of my faith transition was the rejection of the idea that God would ask His sons and daughters to do things that violate basic morality without offering any explanation.

Our difference is that i haven't needed a faith transition and I believe the same thing.