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

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To the extent that David and Solomon had one or more wives and/or concubines not approved of God, the practice was an abomination. Apparently, the only offense David committed in this regard was with the wife of Uriah. Solomon apparently wasn't as limited in his sinning.

Bottom line: It is an abomination to have more than one wife, unless commanded or approved by God. That's the takeaway point for those of us living today and for whom the Book of Mormon was expressly brought forth.

Well I'm glad your settled, but it's not as easy for me when I see the contradiction.  Jacob doesn't say anything about approving of David or Solomon's wives and concubines.  He said that they had wives and concubines was an abomination. 

[ksfisher]

24 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

But in General Conference, some of the apostles read letters they received.

Think about it this way:

There are roughly 15 million members of the church.

If each member of the church wrote a letter to the First Presidency or an Apostle once every 5 years, that would be 200,000 letters each of those 15 would receive every year.

That is 547 lettters that each of the 15 would need to read every day of the year.

How many of those letters do you think they would be able to respond to every day?

How much time do you think they would be able to devote to each letter?

Even a tenth of that, 50 letters a day would allow little time for anything else but reading and answering letters from members.

That is why, in His wisdom, the Lord has appointed each member of the church local priesthood and auxiliary leaders who are better able to respond to the individual needs of each member.

I'm sure that there are many letters received by church headquarters every day.  And, as you point out, some of them are read and responded to by the apostles.  I'm guessing that all of these letters are read by someone, probably a church employee, and some are passed on to a general authority.  As important as this subject is to you, I would not count on an apostle being able to read and respond to your letter.

 

Edited August 3, 2016 by ksfisher

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Men who were already plurally married had demonstrated staying power, in terms of staying put with both the family and the Church.  

Well since we didn't give no plural marriage the same chance at that time it's hard to say otherwise, I guess.  But if no polygamy it could have been possible that more men were involved in Mormonism at that time, and more men were more committed.  But we don't know either way. 

I really do wish the sealings were about joining families back then, as you had said.  But, if that were the case, then marriages and all the preaching about polygamy would never need to be.  Just seal families together. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

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

God in the scriptures appears to assign certain callings by family, such as the Levites and the various divisions assigned to different tasks.  This could be very elpful because training could begin very young.  Plus attitudes and family culture is passed on as much as blood.  In cultures where women became part of their husband's family, daughters cannot create the same sense of family heritage without a heck of a lot of work and in the past where there was less social interaction between the males and females, especially once past puberty, this gap of influence would be very significant.  Families help prepare their children for the world.  If God needed a special preparation over time, it makes sense to focus on a few families to fill these roles over the centuries.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

But in General Conference, some of the apostles read letters they received.

Yep, that seems like a mixed message, doesn't it?  "Please don't send us letters.  But if you do, we might find them so noteworthy we will share them with the entire body of the Church."

I think the General Authorities are in a tough spot.  They can't invite direct correspondence with them, as that would frustrate the priesthood structure of the Church and impede the ability of bishops, stake presidents, etc. to address concerns that can and should be addressed at the local level.  

Additionally, inviting direct correspondence would probably trigger a flood of communications, to most of which General Authorities could simply not respond.  They do not have the time or resources.  

And responding to correspondence could end up impeding their ability to perform the important ecclesiastical and administrative duties they were called to perform.

And inviting correspondence and then not responding to it would likely hurt or offend members of the Church who send it.  Charges of neglectful, living-in-an-ivy-tower aloofism would inevitably follow.

On the other hand, there is something quite personable in listening to a general authority recount a personal interaction he has had with John/Joan Q. Member.

Also, virtually all of the general authorities have had extensive experience in serving and interacting with members of the Church in more direct ways (as bishops, stake presidents, etc.).  I think the "higher" ecclesiastical and administrative responsibilities inherent in being a GA can get a bit . . . stale.  I think they may yearn to re-connect with the people of the Church.  The people they love.  The people they serve from afar.  Letters allow that.

So . . . I don't know.  I see the wisdom of the policy, but I also have a hard time faulting general authorities who direct attention to instances where church members ignore that policy.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

So . . . I don't know.  I see the wisdom of the policy, but I also have a hard time faulting general authorities who direct attention to instances where church members ignore that policy.

Thanks,

-Smac

I find the GAs sweet enough to be available to certain people in certain instances.  I dont' know that they are reading from members who ignore it, but are reading from members whom they've given exception to for some reason or another. 

They try.  And that means a lot.  But I certainly get the purpose of the policy. 

[rockpond]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I find this to be quite overwrought.  And twaddle to boot.

I predict that the concept of polygamy is on its way to becoming more sociopolitically palatable in the United State, not less.  Unlike the novelty of same-sex marriage, polygamy has a long, long pedigree in the world.  There are plenty of reasoned arguments that the decriminalization and subsequent legalization of polygamy has already begun:

• Huffington Pot: Legalize Polygamy! No. I am not kidding. By Jillian Keenan
• Vice: After Gay Marriage, Why Not Polygamy?  By Harry Cheadle
• CNN: It's time to reconsider polygamy. By Mark Goldfeder
• The New American: Is Polygamy the Next Form of "Marriage" to be Legalized? By Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
• Verdict, by Justia: Is Three Still a Crowd? Polygamy and the Law After Obergefell v. Hodges. By Joanna L. Grossman and Lawrence M. Friedman
• Emory Law School: Can polygamy bans survive a legal challenge? By Emory University School of Law
• TheWeek: How gay marriage paves the way for legal polygamy. By Michael Brendan Dougherty
• ListLand: Top 10 Reasons The US Should Legalize Polygamy

My personal opinion is that legalization of polygamy is a matter of when, not if.  Once the traditional understanding of marriage is destroyed (SSM is doing that), once marriage as a concept is decoupled from procreation (SSM is doing that), once marriage becomes just another type of contract (SSM is doing that), then polygamy is essentially indistinguishable from same-sex marriage.  So if the latter is a constitutional right, then so is the former.  If the states are constitutionally prohibited from defining marriage as to gender, how on earth can they be constitutionally permitted to define marriage as to number?  The eventual answer to this question is . . . they are not so permitted.  We have destroyed the traditional purpose and function of marriage (from the government's point of view, anyway).  We did so by legalizing same-sex marriage.  So polygamy is, I think, well on its way.

So back to the above-referenced melodramatic twaddle.  I may be wrong, but isn't a fair bit of this stuff coming from the same factions within the Church which have embraces same-sex marriage, which have criticized the Church's stance on SSM?  If so, that's . . . pretty weird.  And inconsistent.  

I think those who A) have previously embraced same-sex marriage, but B) are presently exhibiting all sorts of pearl-clutching histrionics about polygamy as a "ghost" that "haunts" the Church . . . yeah, no.  Such flamboyance will be squelched as soon as society begins to view "prejudice" against polygamy as being the twin to "prejudice" against same-sex marriage.  That process has already started.  

I can't help but think of the quandary which will be encountered by the SSM-is-wonderful-but-polygamy-is-horrible crowd when they are the on the receiving end of hostilities from their compatriots: self-congratulatory "virtue signalling" social justice types, the transgressivists, the self-selected gainsayers who presume to dictate to the rest of us on matters of ethics.  And since polygamy is trangressive, I think it will be just a matter of time before we see more visible calls for legalization of its various forms: polygyny (one husband having multiple wives at the same time), polyandry (one wife having multiple wives at the same time) and group marriage (infinite variations on numbers of husbands, wives, all-same-sex polygamy, etc.).

I suspect that the SSM-is-wonderful-but-polygamy-is-horrible crowd, having abandoned prophetic counsel as a voice of influence, will be left without a viable moral code, and hence will not enjoy being accused by their fellows of being haters, of being polygamyphobic (or whatever neologism will be created to define people who oppose polygamy).  So . . . they will capitulate.  Sooner or later.

I certainly understand and respect people who oppose polygamy on actual, principled grounds.  On moral grounds.  On religious grounds.  Right or wrong, such folks are at least trying to do what they feel is right.  But I think there are broad swaths of transgressive, social justice types who are essentially crowd-followers, who abandon principle and capitulate to prevailing and popular social trends.  Who take their cues on morality more from Hollywood, Facebook and Twitter, and less from the judeo-christian tradition (and, for Latter-day Saints, from modern prophets and apostles).  Sadly, I also think there are some members of the LDS Church who are in the thrall of this crowd.  And some of these are the SSM-is-wonderful-but-polygamy-is-horrible crowd.  Frankly, I do not see a coherent line of reasoning for this, as support for the former seems to logically require support for the latter.

In any event, to such folks I say: Good luck!  Good luck embracing same-sex marriage on the one hand, but rejecting polygamy on the other!  Your transgressive compatriots will turn on you, sooner or later.  And it will be . . . unpleasant.  In the days ahead, should you attempt to voice opposition to polygamy, you will be excoriated.  You will be branded as haters and bigots.  You will be silenced.  That will be your lot, I think.  The folks who publicly call (or "screech" or "violently demand") the loudest for "tolerance" and "diversity" seem the least likely to actually either when it comes to the shibboleths of transgressivism and "social justice."

Meanwhile, in the long run I think the LDS Church will be in the somewhat ironic position of being criticized for not accepting or allowing its members to engage in polygamy (again, much as we are presently excoriated for not accepting same-sex marriage).  But unlike the SJW types, the Latter-day Saints have an actual, quantifiable moral code.  It's not always popular.  And we do not always perfectly understand it or implement it.  But it's ours, and we are working hard to adhere to it.  It is well-described in Ether 12:4:

So I predict that we will see the LDS Church as an institution which restricts its members from entering into not only same-sex marriage, but also polygyny, polyandry, and group marriages.

Thanks,

-Smac

Making something legal does not make it approved by God.

I'm in favor of legalizing polygamy but that doesn't mean I think God wants us to practice it.

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

God in the scriptures appears to assign certain callings by family, such as the Levites and the various divisions assigned to different tasks.  This could be very elpful because training could begin very young.  Plus attitudes and family culture is passed on as much as blood.  In cultures where women became part of their husband's family, daughters cannot create the same sense of family heritage without a heck of a lot of work and in the past where there was less social interaction between the males and females, especially once past puberty, this gap of influence would be very significant.  Families help prepare their children for the world.  If God needed a special preparation over time, it makes sense to focus on a few families to fill these roles over the centuries.

Were the Levites commanded to practice plural marriage?

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Making something legal does not make it approved by God.

I quite agree.

Quote

I'm in favor of legalizing polygamy but that doesn't mean I think God wants us to practice it.

I am not in favor of legalizing polygamy, for a number of reasons.  I may be open to decriminalizing it, though.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

3 hours 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.

Considering how much the understanding of "basic morality" has changed over the centuries, I am quite certain we currently have little understanding of it and like our ancestors a couple of thousand years ago we are operating on the basis, not of morality, but what works best in our society.  I am hopeful God in his infinite wisdom is slowly guiding us towards actual basic morality...after all we have had the law "love thy neighbour as thyself" for eons out there, eventually we might even get to the point we can do that.

[why me]

On 1.8.2016 at 5:36 PM, stemelbow said:

I think the notion that polygamy should have never been in the Church, from Church members has long been had.  It feels like most members still don't think Joseph practiced polygamy, or something.  That it started when everyone came to Utah.  In truth, the polygamy as found taught in D&C 132 has long been ignored and rejected, since no one ever metnions it in Church. 

I haven't listened to Bill's presentation yet, though.

Not sure if this is true. Polygamy is discussed in seminary with it starting with JS. It is not hidden. Those who don't know that Joseph practiced polygamy may not have read 132 very well. Or if they did, did not have the means to analyse what it actually said. And why emma was rebuked. It is up to the teacher to mention it or for members to bring it up when 132 is discussed. No one should shut such a conversation down since it is a fact.

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-teacher-manual-2014/section-6/lesson-140-doctrine-and-covenants-132-1-2-34-66?lang=eng

We really do need to stop spreading such things that you mentioned in your post. It is taught to the young.

[stemelbow]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In any event, to such folks I say: Good luck!  Good luck embracing same-sex marriage on the one hand, but rejecting polygamy on the other!  Your transgressive compatriots will turn on you, sooner or later.  And it will be . . . unpleasant.  In the days ahead, should you attempt to voice opposition to polygamy, you will be excoriated.  You will be branded as haters and bigots.  You will be silenced.  That will be your lot, I think.  The folks who publicly call (or "screech" or "violently demand") the loudest for "tolerance" and "diversity" seem the least likely to actually either when it comes to the shibboleths of transgressivism and "social justice."

Based on this, you seem to have a pretty dim view of others.  I mean putting aside the silly "if you think SSM is legal then you can't on moral grounds be opposed to polygamy", I'm seriously wondering why you have such a bad view of other people--perhaps those on the other side on issues as you.  I just don't see this unfolding like this at all. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

hm...well getting back to section 132.  It is said that God blessed Abraham in taking concubines because they had his children.  I'm curious to know if the women involved would have been better off without Abraham...

Probably not given their status as slaves or outsiders. They would not have had the choice who to marry and their children could have been sold or given to another to raise. Becoming secondary wives, they were likely treated better, had better food and accomodations, lived longer and had more interaction with their children even if those children were technically seen as belonging to another mother (notice Hagar took care of Ishmael, not Sarah though technically Ishmael was Sarah's son).

Edited August 3, 2016 by Calm

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Probably not given their status as slaves or outsiders. They would not have had the choice who to marry and their children could have been sold or given to another to raise. Becoming secondary wives, they were likely treated better, had better food and accomodations, lived longer and had more interaction with their children even if those children were technically seen as belonging to another mother (notice Hagar took care of Ishmael, not Sarah though technically Ishmael was Sarah's son).

I don't know how you can be sure of any of this.  But it'd be nice if Hagar had a baby with Abraham in order to let her live in better conditions.  It doesn't seem to be that way, though. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Surely we would have found offspring by Joseph Smith if this were true.

The children of those who were sealed to him don't count?  Even if he was not biologically their father, they are of his lineage.  I believe this is why the Law of Adoption was allowed to stand for as long as it did.  While a lesser law, it created a spiritual lineage that was needed at the time.  Once the Church was large enough, the community itself took over the symbolic role of spiritual parent thus removing the need of those who were converts to be sealed as children to someone in the faith.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Calm

[VideoGameJunkie]

The most current apostle or prophet to touch on the subject of polygamy was Gordon B Hinckley in 1998 on Larry King Live. When Larry King interviewed President Hinckley in 1998 about polygamy he responded:

I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law. (Larry King Live, September 8, 1998,

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know how you can be sure of any of this.  

From the history.  This was typical in the culture.  You just need to look at the laws to see concubines were treated differently than slaves and it was viewed as a very harsh punishment for concubines who had been slaves to be reduced to the status of slaves again.  It may have been an exception in Hagar's case, but the way Hagar acted...she knew having a child gave her much greater status to the point where she believed it was safe to lord it over her mistress....and in another marriage she might have been right, but Abram loved Sarai for herself, not the children she might have given him....it seems obvious to me that Hagar viewed it as a huge step up in the world.

[Tacenda]

53 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What?  You called the general info line? That's not going to get you much. She probably just grabbed some random dude walking by to give his opinion.

Oh man, our Church is so funny in some ways.  "well" says a nice meaning woman, "we better ask a priesthood holder the question.  He'll know the answer.  A sweet old lady like me, can't do that.  I just answer the phones."

You never know, and for some reason I thought it would be a more authorized answer coming from church headquarters! If even to lesson the guilt of think of trying it. Maybe it will help alleviate VGJ's fears. But it's a much more controversial question too.

[smac97]

 

Quote

I mean putting aside the silly "if you think SSM is legal then you can't on moral grounds be opposed to polygamy"

I'd like to hear a rational explanation for that position.  I think it's hard to formulate one that will not be full of ad hoc reasoning, special pleading, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 3, 2016 by smac97

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Are you saying that JS's case proves that a man can't have more children with multiple wives than he can have with one?

No, not really..but the fact that JS at this point as no other offspring from other wives means (IMO) that the reason for polygamy was to bring up seed..doesn't really work.

[stemelbow]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

From the history.  This was typical in the culture.  You just need to look at the laws to see concubines were treated differently than slaves and it was viewed as a very harsh punishment for concubines who had been slaves to be reduced to the status of slaves again.  It may have been an exception in Hagar's case, but the way Hagar acted...she knew having a child gave her much greater status to the point where she believed it was safe to lord it over her mistress....and in another marriage she might have been right, but Abram loved Sarai for herself, not the children she might have given him....it seems obvious to me that Hagar viewed it as a huge step up in the world.

Well sure for Hagar.  But, I don't know it is known that it was always a step up. 

[Scott Lloyd]

56 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well I'm glad your settled, but it's not as easy for me when I see the contradiction.  Jacob doesn't say anything about approving of David or Solomon's wives and concubines.  He said that they had wives and concubines was an abomination. Jacob doesn't say anything about approving of David or Solomon's wives and concubines.  He said that they had wives and concubines was an abomination. 

 

Have you read the FairMormon treatment of this matter by two volunteers (Michael Fordham and Ben McGuire)? That may help you understand these writings in context.

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

I'd like to hear a rational explanation for that position.  I think it's hard to formulate one that will not be full of ad hoc reasoning, special pleading, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well fair enough.  I'm not even thinking on legalizing polygamy, even though I agree it's probably on it's way.  But the two seem quite different to me.  Back when the legalizing SSM was being reviewed in 2008 for California, I thought it silly to try and stop marriage to loving consenting adults.  On that reasoning, I can't really find fault with polygamy either. 

  Then again, Bluebell made a convincing case, earlier in this thread, that even modern day polygamy has it's merits.  Watching TV apparently, you can find some women in polygamy to be quite happy, or very happy, I think she put it. 

Edited August 3, 2016 by stemelbow

[why me]

28 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

The most current apostle or prophet to touch on the subject of polygamy was Gordon B Hinckley in 1998 on Larry King Live. When Larry King interviewed President Hinckley in 1998 about polygamy he responded:

I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law. (Larry King Live, September 8, 1998,

I think that we need to go to the manual for seminary students.

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-teacher-manual-2014/section-6/lesson-140-doctrine-and-covenants-132-1-2-34-66?lang=eng

I  would give a ninety something year old man a break. The poor guy misspeaks and he is criticized over and over again for one interview. Amazing. I think that the link explains polygamy very well to the lds young people.

Edited August 3, 2016 by why me

[Calm]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

In Jacob he also says having more wives and concubines is a whoredom and an abomination.  One of the additional issues I'd have with polygamy as practiced by Joseph is how many wives he had.  Okay, so a wife or two, maybe 4 wives help men to have more kids...but 30-40?  Seems ridiculous.  Would be safe to assume, in your estimation, that polygamy, at least, got out of hand? 

It would depend on the reason, if we assume it was meant to just multiply biological offspring (and it is possible that many involved interpreted it in that fashion) then I would agree it likely got out of hand for some few (the vast majority had 2 wives, 5 was the high save for a very few outliers like BY) simply due to the logistics of caring for that many children and wives in that day and age.  Very different than the days of the Patriarch where children were guaranteed work force and an expansion of one's tribe, thus creating a safer and more resourceful community.

Otoh, it we are talking spiritual offspring, raising up God's seed unto him as the scripture actually states and not unto ourselves, then it could very well have been what was needed or at least not overall damaging, benefits equaling the costs.