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

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

My guess is that, like me, you were taught that Joseph was pretty much perfect. It is a bit of a shock to find out he wasn't.

Exactly..and when I reactivated in the church, I attached myself deeply to those teachings and trusted the entire restoration.  I wanted to be sealed to my husband and I ended up feeling burned by learning other things about him.

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I honestly have no idea.  I didn't know Emma personally.  I didn't know Joseph.  I don't know what kind of stress either were under.  I'm not an advocate for lying to our spouses or for doing something that huge behind their back (so in that sense, yes, I absolutely believe Emma should have been told) but i know enough to know that perspective and knowledge can really change my mind on how something should be handled.  And there's a whole lot of perspective and knowledge that i don't have concerning this situation.

 

You have a very strong testimony.  Your trust in God and His plan seems to be tied to your study and knowledge of the scriptures.  To not be concerned about Joseph not following his own scripture is hard for me to understand.  But I respect the fact that your are open to continuing knowledge.

[bcuzbcuz]

17 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

You have a very strong testimony.  Your trust in God and His plan seems to be tied to your study and knowledge of the scriptures.  To not be concerned about Joseph not following his own scripture is hard for me to understand.  But I respect the fact that your are open to continuing knowledge.

I've followed this topic and find myself amused by the numbers of defenders of Joseph's polygamy and polyandry. Assuming that very few actual polygamists respond to this site and subject, those who find ways to imagine Smith's behaviours as anywhere approximating proper and decent, are then people who are literally talking about something they know nothing about. 

They are the blind, trying to lead others equally blind.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I've followed this topic and find myself amused by the numbers of defenders of Joseph's polygamy and polyandry. Assuming that very few actual polygamists respond to this site and subject, those who find ways to imagine Smith's behaviours as anywhere approximating proper and decent, are then people who are literally talking about something they know nothing about. 

They are the blind, trying to lead others equally blind.

They same can be said about anyone imagining JS's behavior as not being proper and decent. They are also literally talking about something they know nothing about. 

Dealing with each other's hypocritical weaknesses is part of the fun of message boards.

 

[bcuzbcuz]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

They same can be said about anyone imagining JS's behavior as not being proper and decent. They are also literally talking about something they know nothing about. 

Dealing with each other's hypocritical weaknesses is part of the fun of message boards.

 

I beg to differ. I'm a white, male, heterosexual, former TBM, of European descent. I've spent my adult life in three of the richest democracies in the world. I can have an opinion about how life is for those who have not had my advantages in life, but I can never assume to know what I'm talking about. I can read all the books I can get my hands on but would never assume to be a spokesperson for women (although many men do exactly that).  

I am/have been married twice.... But not to two women at the same time. I can therefore not tell anyone what it is like to be married to more than one woman at a time. I can have an opinion of polygamy (and I do) but I would literally not know what I was talking about. If there are any polygamists on this site, let them step forward in their anonymity and tell the rest of us what such living is like (although I'd rather hear from the women in such relationships, (my bias).

But I do know about living faithfully to the woman I'm married to. I do know the church's stance on fidelity, morality and living with one person of the opposite sex. Were I to secretly (without my wife's knowledge) take a second or third or fourth wife, I would not expect to escape the criticism, disfellowship and excommunication from the church. And it doesn't matter what D&C 132 says. 

And my opinion, should anyone care to listen, is that Joseph Smith was unfaithful to Emma (many times over). D&C 132 came after the fact. Therefore, doesn't count.

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I beg to differ. I'm a white, male, heterosexual, former TBM, of European descent. I've spent my adult life in three of the richest democracies in the world. I can have an opinion about how life is for those who have not had my advantages in life, but I can never assume to know what I'm talking about. I can read all the books I can get my hands on but would never assume to be a spokesperson for women (although many men do exactly that).  

I am/have been married twice.... But not to two women at the same time. I can therefore not tell anyone what it is like to be married to more than one woman at a time. I can have an opinion of polygamy (and I do) but I would literally not know what I was talking about. If there are any polygamists on this site, let them step forward in their anonymity and tell the rest of us what such living is like (although I'd rather hear from the women in such relationships, (my bias).

But I do know about living faithfully to the woman I'm married to. I do know the church's stance on fidelity, morality and living with one person of the opposite sex. Were I to secretly (without my wife's knowledge) take a second or third or fourth wife, I would not expect to escape the criticism, disfellowship and excommunication from the church. And it doesn't matter what D&C 132 says. 

And my opinion, should anyone care to listen, is that Joseph Smith was unfaithful to Emma (many times over). D&C 132 came after the fact. Therefore, doesn't count.

We will have to agree to disagree concerning your personal knowledge of JS's standing before God.

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So NO gay marriage in heaven is just as basic and sure as Jesus is the Christ?

One of the problems is I don't believe God told anyone "there is no gay marriage in heaven".

I believe those claims are the results of time and culture among those leading the church. I haven't seen any revelation where God appeared or spoke directly to the prophet saying "there is no gay marriage in heaven." The brethren reason it out in their mind based on their understandings of other doctrines and principles. Nothing wrong with that, but it's far from an absolute certainty from the lips of God.

If it's not a "perfect knowledge" then it's a belief. I don't have a problem with anyone claiming they believe something. My problem is with people stating absolute, unchanging fact, which is really only a belief.

Basic as in it's easily answered with a yes or a no, a true or false.  

And the question of whether or not God has ever told someone about gay marriage in heaven is a completely separate issue than whether or not He could. 

You can have whatever justifications you'd like for not believing the church's doctrine on gay marriage. I don't see that it's relevant to what we've been discussing. 

[bcuzbcuz]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We will have to agree to disagree concerning your personal knowledge of JS's standing before God.

Well, as far as I've seen, God has been rather silent on this board. But not silent about proper behaviours. But if you think Joseph gets a pass because he knows the "big guy" I bow to your superior knowledge.

[rodheadlee]

20 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Why?

 1 aJudge not, that ye be not bjudged.

  2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

  3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

  4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

  5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

[Glenn101]

23 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

And my opinion, should anyone care to listen, is that Joseph Smith was unfaithful to Emma (many times over). D&C 132 came after the fact. Therefore, doesn't count.

The canonization of D&C 132 did not occur until 1876, and was not published until 1852 to the general church. There were select members practicing those principles before that time. Joseph Smith was the first actually commanded to the practice and as far as I know, the only one. Every other apostle was given the option. Some refused. The plural marriages came after the fact of the original commandment, which was evidently revealed sometime in 1831. 

The point that bluebell made in the post that you responded to stands. We just do not know anything about what really went on and the timing. We, for example, do not know when Joseph first told Emma about the command he had received from the Lord. You, of course, are entitled to your opinion, but God's opinion is and will be the one that counts.

Glenn

[bcuzbcuz]

12 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

The canonization of D&C 132 did not occur until 1876, and was not published until 1852 to the general church. There were select members practicing those principles before that time. Joseph Smith was the first actually commanded to the practice and as far as I know, the only one. Every other apostle was given the option. Some refused. The plural marriages came after the fact of the original commandment, which was evidently revealed sometime in 1831. 

The point that bluebell made in the post that you responded to stands. We just do not know anything about what really went on and the timing. We, for example, do not know when Joseph first told Emma about the command he had received from the Lord. You, of course, are entitled to your opinion, but God's opinion is and will be the one that counts.

Glenn

But God has not shared his opinion with me and I doubt he ever will. When I must make decisions on a daily basis of how I shall/should behave, I cannot wait for God to sort it out. I base those decisions on what society and laws and norms and my internal scales of justice dictate.

Joseph Smith had similar parameters, but obviously with a slightly skewed set of internal scales when he betrayed Emma. When God sorts it out, and God claims to be the only one whose opinion matters, will Emma get her say or is she compelled to quietly voice acquiescence?

[JLHPROF]

13 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

The canonization of D&C 132 did not occur until 1876, and was not published until 1852 to the general church.

There is a reason for that.
If you read the history you will see that Joseph was creating two separate organizations during the Nauvoo era.
Under Joseph the Annointed Quorum was being formed outside of the Church and Joseph had wanted Hyrum to lead the Church while he continued on with plural marriage, temple ordinances and order etc.

If there was one area Brigham did differ from Joseph it was in his combining these two orders under the direct banner of the Church.
That IN MY OPINION ONLY is why D&C 132 was not given to the entire Church until 1852.  Polygamy under Joseph was not intended for the Church but as a higher order.
 

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

But God has not shared his opinion with me and I doubt he ever will. When I must make decisions on a daily basis of how I shall/should behave, I cannot wait for God to sort it out. I base those decisions on what society and laws and norms and my internal scales of justice dictate.

Joseph Smith had similar parameters, but obviously with a slightly skewed set of internal scales when he betrayed Emma. When God sorts it out, and God claims to be the only one whose opinion matters, will Emma get her say or is she compelled to quietly voice acquiescence?

You are making judgments about the situation without the knowledge to understand the situation. I pointed out some of those unknowns. But, since God has not shared his opinion with either of us, except implicitly, and since we are looking through that glass darkly, very darkly, I feel we are much safer in laying off those judgments and leaving it up to God. We are told in the scriptures, that whatever judgments that we render will be turned back on us.

Moroni 7:18 And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.

Our legal history has shown us that even when we think we have enough facts, that all too often we do not have enough facts to make the correct decisions.

Do you know for a fact that Joseph was never commanded to practice polygamy? Do you know for a fact that an angel with a drawn sword did not appear to Joseph and order him to comply or be cut off? Do you know for a fact that Joseph did not share this information with Emma or when he did share it?

None of those things may sit well with you, but until you know the answers to those questions will you be in any position to pass any sort of righteous judgement upon Joseph Smith.

Glenn

 

[DBMormon]

On 8/2/2016 at 11:37 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm saying that the principle of ongoing revelation holds that God, at anytime, could speak through His prophet to supersede what might have been taught or commanded in the past.

So your saying God could at one time tell a prophet he is adam and at another say he isn't?   hmmmm interesting

Edited August 6, 2016 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

On 8/3/2016 at 5:56 AM, Alan said:

I'm joining this thread late and confess to not having read all of the posts.

I found the OP interesting but I believe Bill Reel is barking up the wrong tree. I believe many members are beginning to disavow Section 132 for a different reason. They have come to realize that it isn't from Joseph.

Parts of it may be, but it's a hybrid at best.

Joseph Smith publicly declared that he was not involved in polygamy and that he had only one wife. He further stated that he could prove those who said otherwise to be liars. I believe him and so do a growing number of LDS.

I agree that regardless of the criticisms, Joseph polygamy and Brigham's polygamy and that of later leaders was not apples to apples 

[bcuzbcuz]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

There is a reason for that.
If you read the history you will see that Joseph was creating two separate organizations during the Nauvoo era.
Under Joseph the Annointed Quorum was being formed outside of the Church and Joseph had wanted Hyrum to lead the Church while he continued on with plural marriage, temple ordinances and order etc.

If there was one area Brigham did differ from Joseph it was in his combining these two orders under the direct banner of the Church.
That IN MY OPINION ONLY is why D&C 132 was not given to the entire Church until 1852.  Polygamy under Joseph was not intended for the Church but as a higher order.
 

Wow, you make a number of claims regarding Joseph and Hyrum and Brigham that I've never heard before. But I recognize your defense for polygamy that I've read from you many times before. You have stated a number of times that you view polygamy as the top peg in the ladder to godhood, a "higher order". You come across as a person who (not so secretly) desires to be polygamous. Just how well are you acquainted with the actual practice of polygamy? Do you already have multiple wives? Have you talked your wife into accepting other women as wives number 2 or 3 or 4?

[DBMormon]

On 8/3/2016 at 9:30 AM, Tacenda said:

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

lets be clear, your saying I am pronouncing Brigham Young's name wrong accidentally?  You are not accusing me of intentionally pronouncing wrong to mock?

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Wow, you make a number of claims regarding Joseph and Hyrum and Brigham that I've never heard before. But I recognize your defense for polygamy that I've read from you many times before.

I make no claim that is not in the history.  You may disagree with my interpretation of those historical records, but that is how I read them.
Joseph was very clear on his goals in Nauvoo.  Brigham is very clear in his actions in Salt Lake.
You can read for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

 

Quote

 You have stated a number of times that you view polygamy as the top peg in the ladder to godhood, a "higher order". You come across as a person who (not so secretly) desires to be polygamous. Just how well are you acquainted with the actual practice of polygamy? Do you already have multiple wives? Have you talked your wife into accepting other women as wives number 2 or 3 or 4?

I don't "desire to be polygamous".  I desire to be like God and Christ and I believe God and Christ to be polygamous.  Whatever characteristics they possess and laws they abide by I too desire to emulate that I may become like them.  If God practices a form of consecration then I want to as well.  If God does turn out to be Adam as Brigham taught then I desire the opportunity to do as Adam did.  If God advanced in the priesthood, I desire to advance in the priesthood.  If "God" consists of husband and wife/wives then I desire to be married in the same pattern as they were.

• Abraham 1:2 And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers.

And I'd hardly be a member of the Church if I had multiple wives.  But my wife and I agree on the doctrinal aspects, even if the practice would be an entirely different issue.

Edited August 6, 2016 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

28 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

So your saying God could at one time tell a prophet he is adam and at another say he isn't?   hmmmm interesting

God reveals truths in each restoration as we are prepared to receive them.
But God cannot lie.

25 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

I agree that regardless of the criticisms, Joseph polygamy and Brigham's polygamy and that of later leaders was not apples to apples

Joseph and Brigham's law and principle of polygamy was exactly the same.  The implementation of the practice among the Church membership and society differed as the Church relocated.
Joseph wanted to build God's kingdom on the earth and a temple based society but he barely got that started with 30 men or so.
Brigham with thousands of members now located outside of the US government (at least at first) attempted to integrate the entire Church membership with Joseph's planned society.  So of course they LOOKED different.  But doctrinally they were identical.

[DBMormon]

45 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

God reveals truths in each restoration as we are prepared to receive them.
But God cannot lie.

say a little more.  Are you saying God is not the author of both but that one or both must be untrue and not form God?

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

 Are you saying God is not the author of both but that one or both must be untrue and not form God?

This seems overly simple but I'll bite and say yes.
Truth is eternal.  God is eternal and cannot lie.
So any contradiction must be man made.

In your example of Adam-God Brigham said he was and claimed to know it by revelation.  Spencer W. Kimball called it a heresy.
Given one prophet claiming revelation and the other offering opinion - even an authoritative one, I choose the revelation.
It's possible that the revelation is actually just opinion and the non-revelatory opinion is actually true, but that seems to me to require the bigger leap.

Edited August 6, 2016 by JLHPROF

[DBMormon]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

This seems overly simple but I'll bite and say yes.
Truth is eternal.  God is eternal and cannot lie.
So any contradiction must be man made.

In your example of Adam-God Brigham said he was and claimed to know it by revelation.  Spencer W. Kimball called it a heresy.
Given one prophet claiming revelation and the other offering opinion - even an authoritative one, I choose the revelation.
It's possible that the revelation is actually just opinion and the non-revelatory opinion is actually true, but that seems to me to require the bigger leap.

Perfect.  Thank you!  Prophets contradicting prophets.  regardless of where you come down this proves my point in the op either way.  These guys struggle just as much to discern truth as I do.

Edited August 6, 2016 by DBMormon

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Perfect.  Thank you!  Prophets contradicting prophets.  regardless of where you come down this proves my point in the op either way.  These guys struggle just as much to discern truth as I do.

I don't agree that the extent you take this to is valid.
Of course prophets struggle to find the truth.  That is the very premise and origin of Mormonism.

But once God has spoken and truth has been revealed I don't see what's so hard to "discern"?
Those who struggle to accept polygamy with a canonized revelation recorded and available to study mystify me.  Same for those who would take a Church President's prevarication or opinion over an actual revelation.

See for me I have no problem with people questioning the prophets.  I have a big problem with people questioning God's actual word given through his prophets.
And therein lies the real issue we have in discerning.
You want to question what President Hinckley told Larry King about polygamy - go for it.  He said nothing that came direct from God there.  It was a press interview.
You want to question D&C 132 as given to Joseph Smith by God.  That's where I have an issue.

Truth is not hard to discern.  Stick to what God says and any actual inspired teachings from the prophets.  Avoid opinions, press conferences, and anything that contradicts revelation.

[Sky]

On August 5, 2016 at 1:37 PM, JLHPROF said:

I don't agree that the extent you take this to is valid.
Of course prophets struggle to find the truth.  That is the very premise and origin of Mormonism.

But once God has spoken and truth has been revealed I don't see what's so hard to "discern"?
Those who struggle to accept polygamy with a canonized revelation recorded and available to study mystify me.  Same for those who would take a Church President's prevarication or opinion over an actual revelation.

See for me I have no problem with people questioning the prophets.  I have a big problem with people questioning God's actual word given through his prophets.
And therein lies the real issue we have in discerning.
You want to question what President Hinckley told Larry King about polygamy - go for it.  He said nothing that came direct from God there.  It was a press interview.
You want to question D&C 132 as given to Joseph Smith by God.  That's where I have an issue.

Truth is not hard to discern.  Stick to what God says and any actual inspired teachings from the prophets.  Avoid opinions, press conferences, and anything that contradicts revelation.

 

 

So the President of the Church lied.  Spencer W. Kimball and Gordon B. Hinckley were in error.  And Thomas S. Monson is in error today.  Plural marriage is God's eternal, unchanging will for His children.  Got it.   

Using your logic, JLHPROF, I guess we can disregard most of General Conference, because after all, it does not qualify as an actual revelation.  

Just remember that you are on shaky ground when you start criticizing the current, living, president of the Church.  And that is what I see you doing here.  

 

Quote

I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives. - Joseph Smith

 

Quote

I will give you a key which Brother Joseph Smith used to give in Nauvoo. He said that the very step of apostasy commenced with losing confidence in the leaders of this church and kingdom, and that whenever you discerned that spirit you might know that it would lead the possessor of it on the road to apostasy - Heber C. Kimball

 

Edited August 6, 2016 by Sky

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours ago, DBMormon said:

So your saying God could at one time tell a prophet he is adam and at another say he isn't?   hmmmm interesting

It's a basic principle of the Gospel that many of the deeper mysteries of the kingdom of God must be withheld from those who are spiritually unprepared to receive them:

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteriesof God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him. (Alma 12)

 In his epistle to the Hebrews, Paul warned that the reason why the mysteries of the kingdom need to be withheld from the spiritually immature is because if some of those who are spiritually immature do happen to learn about a particular more advanced mystery of the kingdom, much more often than not theirimmediate responses will be that such a doctrine couldn't possibly be true and that it must be regarded as something despicable and evil. The prophet Joseph Smith was well-aware of the fact that the deeper mysteries of the kingdom are hard for the spiritually unaware to swallow and digest, and this is why he made the following most-remarkable assertion:

"If I revealed all that has been made known to me, scarcely a man on this stand would stay with me. Brethren, I I were to tell you all I know of the kingdom of God, I do know that you would rise up and kill me." (Joseph Smith, Jr)

So there you have it, the deeper teachings and principles of the Gospel seem unture --and even evil -- to the spiritually immature and unprepared. And are not many of the comments on this thread a perfect demonstration of this principle in action?

But what happens when one of the deeper mysteries of the kingdom is at one time openly taught and practiced but then, in the wisdom of God, withdrawn and, at least for a time, no longer disseminated, taught and practiced? Well the spiritually mature can know by the whisperings of the Spirit that the formerly-practiced principle is true but no longer disseminated, taught and required. But when the spiritually immature look back to the time when that higher principle was taught and practiced they do exactly what the Prophet Joseph Smith warned they would do: they look back and condemn the holy practice as an evil and unclean thing and then set about to assassinate the names and reputations of those great and noble pioneers who laid a solid and secure foundation for the restored latter-day kingdom of God on earth.

 

 

i