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

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, juliann said:

Abraham may get the credit but she saved and raised her boy despite him collaborating with Sarah to kill them.

I don't see any collaboration with intent to kill.  That may have been Sarah's desire, kicking her and Ishmael out in hopes of them dying, but Abraham is told by an angel that they will be saved and prosper.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 21&version=NRSV

I agree it was slavery and there was definitely abuse, even if Hagar was a willing participant in the sex (it would raise her status significantly so it makes sense to me that she was) since Abram gave permission to Sarai to do whatever she wanted to Hagar (which indicates that Hagar was no longer considered Sarai's property, right?) and Sarai treated her so "harshly" that a pregnant Hagar ran away.

Edited August 1, 2016 by Calm

[consiglieri]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I get that.  But D&C is presented as a commandment from God.  In the LDS paradigm, it has all the earmarks of being a commandment.  It A) came from the Presiding High Priest, who B) was acting/writing in his official capacity, and who C) specifically attributes it to God, and D) it was canonized by the body of the Church.

 

I think it important to note that the historical context of this revelation was an attempt by Joseph Smith to privately convince his wife to accept the plural wives he was taking.

It is complete with threats of destruction to be visited on Emma if she did not comply.

It was not canonized until long after Joseph's death and long after Brigham Young publicly announced in1852 that the saints were practicing plural marriage.

But the inception of the revelation was a purely private affair, and one that an objective viewpoint could consider unrighteous dominion in the extremis.

 

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I think it important to note that the historical context of this revelation was an attempt by Joseph Smith to privately convince his wife to accept the plural wives he was taking.

It is complete with threats of destruction to be visited on Emma if she did not comply.

It was not canonized until long after Joseph's death and long after Brigham Young publicly announced in1852 that the saints were practicing plural marriage.

But the inception of the revelation was a purely private affair, and one that an objective viewpoint could consider unrighteous dominion in the extremis.

 

It was largely practiced by many leaders before it was given the chance of being publically taught and voted on by the membership. 

[DBMormon]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So it sounds like apart from rejecting Joseph Smith's and the Church's explanation for D&C 132...

Option (A): It is a revelation from God

... you have no preferred explanation as to its origins.  You are postulating that ...

Option (B): Joseph Smith could have been deceived by Satan, or

Option (C): Joseph Smith could have been mentally ill or otherwise deluded or insane, and hence involuntarily or "piously" defrauded the Church by writing D&C 132 and attributing it to God, or

Option (D): Joseph Smith was a conscious fraud (he may have been a sexual degenerate out to slake his lusts, and he could have had other ungodly/wicked motivations as well), and so defrauded the Church by writing D&C 132 and attributing it to God, or . . .

 . . . well, the list goes on for as long as far as anyone's imagination will take them.

The only possible explanation which you reject as to the origins of D&C 132 is . . . the one given by Joseph Smith and the Church.

I think I am following you now.

Thanks,

-Smac

I simply want people to have more room to discard the unacceptable and irreconcilable in mormonism and stay rather than leave.  I used 132 as one issue to demonstrate room on any issue.

Edited August 1, 2016 by DBMormon

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I think it important to note that the historical context of this revelation was an attempt by Joseph Smith to privately convince his wife to accept the plural wives he was taking.

It is complete with threats of destruction to be visited on Emma if she did not comply.

It was not canonized until long after Joseph's death and long after Brigham Young publicly announced in1852 that the saints were practicing plural marriage.

But the inception of the revelation was a purely private affair, and one that an objective viewpoint could consider unrighteous dominion in the extremis.

I concede this is a reasonable interpretation of the events.  But it is not the only reasonable interpretation.

Which is why I am surprised to see Bill categorically reject one particular "reasonable interpretations" as a possibiliity.  Any theory as to the origins of D&C 132 will do.  Any theory except . . . the one presented by Joseph Smith and the LDS Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[consiglieri]

3 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

I simply want people to have more room to discard the BS in mormonism and stay rather than leave.  I used 132 as one issue to demonstrate room on any issue.

I think you have done a good job of making it clear that you are not necessarily advocating a non-divine source for Section 132, but that you offer the idea as a way to allow room for Mormons who have problems with it to stay in the Church.

The question then comes down to this, I think:

Would the LDS Church rather keep members who don't believe Section 132 is from God?

[consiglieri]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I concede this is a reasonable interpretation of the events.  But it is not the only reasonable interpretation.

Which is why I am surprised to see Bill categorically reject one particular "reasonable interpretations" as a possibiliity.  Any theory as to the origins of D&C 132 will do.  Any theory except . . . the one presented by Joseph Smith and the LDS Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

I haven't seen Bill "categorically reject" any reasonable interpretations as a possibility.

If I understand Bill correctly, he does not rule out the possibility that the command to practice plural marriage came from God.

 

[Rivers]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

How does the practice of polygamy allow all people to fully participate in the new and everlasting covenant?

In the case that there are more women than men in the celestial kingdom, some polygamy would need to exist.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I concede this is a reasonable interpretation of the events.  But it is not the only reasonable interpretation.

Which is why I am surprised to see Bill categorically reject one particular "reasonable interpretations" as a possibiliity.  Any theory as to the origins of D&C 132 will do.  Any theory except . . . the one presented by Joseph Smith and the LDS Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

This is simple.

Emma's ticked with Joseph's practice of taking plural wives. Her disapproval threatens Joseph's stature as leader. Hyrum is concerned so he asks Joseph to give him a revelation so he (Hyrum) can give it to Emma to convince her it is of God. Joseph creates a "revelation" from God so Hyrum can convince Emma that Joseph is righteous for sleeping around marrying multiple wives and Emma is wicked for not accepting the behavior. The "revelation" sits around for a few decades until the church wants to change the official canonized position on marriage to match their current practice.

That's D&C 132, complete with threats, rules for practice that aren't followed, and false/incomplete doctrines about how a person who enters plural marriage will be saved no matter what they do(except they shed innocent blood).

Joseph made it up.

Bill's being gracious and faithful by arguing that it's possible Joseph was deceived by a spirit.

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I think you have done a good job of making it clear that you are not necessarily advocating a non-divine source for Section 132, but that you offer the idea as a way to allow room for Mormons who have problems with it to stay in the Church.

The question then comes down to this, I think:

Would the LDS Church rather keep members who don't believe Section 132 is from God?

This.  In many ways  Though I love Bill's idea of being able to keep membership and to still sustain or belong, eventually, all this and more begins to weigh itself on shelves that eventually break.  It really does come down to...if the church wasn't true, would you really want to know?

[Rivers]

10 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I think you have done a good job of making it clear that you are not necessarily advocating a non-divine source for Section 132, but that you offer the idea as a way to allow room for Mormons who have problems with it to stay in the Church.

The question then comes down to this, I think:

Would the LDS Church rather keep members who don't believe Section 132 is from God?

Probably.

Members have a lot of wiggle room to believe or disbelieve all sorts of things.  Teaching something as doctrine is another matter.

I can believe that the Celestial kingdom is made out of waffles but I shouldn't be publicly teaching it.

Edited August 1, 2016 by Rivers

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

1-If you think the goal of OW was to shout for X,Y, or Z in hopes of realistically getting X,Y, or Z then I would agree. But what OW did was ask for a mile so they could gain five yards.

I don't see any indication that OW saw the "five yards" as anything save a step in the right direction.  They consistently presented ordination as the only acceptable outcome and everything was aimed towards that end.  Getting admitted to the Conference Center for the Priesthood Session was a means to that end, meant to show the leadership they were present as "prospective elders",  They did not ask for more than that in hopes of just getting ordination.

The previous organization, which was iirc "All Enlisted" did in my view approach it differently, they had a more global goal of equality and did not define what that would have to mean, but presented small steps that would change perception of women without changing doctrinal teachings, such as wearing pants to church intending to contribute to accepting women in more diverse ways and praying in conference to contribute to viewing women as equally able to invite the Spirit to be present, etc. with their faith as a man is who has the Priesthood.

Btw, it was not OW who were the instigators of Let Women Pray, though the current narrative seems intended to give them credit for it.  And Kate Kelly couldn't be bothered at that time to endure the discomfort of wearing pants for one Sunday to express solidarity with her sisters.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

I simply want people to have more room to discard the BS in mormonism and stay rather than leave.  

Just to clarify: The "BS" you propose "to discard" is . . . a portion of canonized scripture which Joseph Smith and the LDS Church present as revelatory.

And your reasoning and evidence for characterizing D&C 132 as "BS" is . . . nowhere to be seen.  No evidence.  No reasoning.  No analysis.  Just an assertion.  You dislike polygamy, and so have labeled it as "BS".  And you do these things under the pretext of creating "room" for people to "stay" in the LDS Church, the organization which - according to you - was founded by Joseph Smith the liar, Joseph Smith the sexual degenerate, Joseph Smith the lunatic.  

Joseph Smith "the prophet?"  Well, nope.  Not when it comes to doctrines you personally dislike.

Quote

I used 132 as one issue to demonstrate room on any issue.

"Room on any issue" = anarchy, not unity.

Rejection of any revelation you personally dislike, for any reason or no reason at all.  

Rejection of Joseph Smith's prophetic calling.

The setting up of voices within the Church which are alternative and superior to that of the Lord's anointed.

Incoherence, not clarity.

This is not a winning formula for the Church in terms of presenting the Gospel message ("God has prophets again on the earth!  Except when you personally dislike what the prophet is saying, then nevermind!"), or for encouraging members "to stay."

AFAICS, it appears to be a formula for . . . something else.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't know.  On the one hand, God can do whatever He wants, right?  Does that mean that every option is equally valid in God's eyes as long as it's possible to accomplish it? 

God could have sent an angel to every person on the earth to restore His gospel.  He could have 'beamed' the children of Israel out of Egypt without using moses and all that hoopla. What God could have done is literally endless when we look back at history.  He rarely (if ever?) seemed to choose the easiest option, or the most agreeable.  Beyond that, all we can do is speculate on what his reasons are.  

But yes, God did use polygamy to create the 12 tribes of Israel.  Whether or not He needed to is certainly up for debate.  But that it happened and it served God's purpose is a part of our scriptural record.

The only other scriptural record we have that supports the idea that polygamy is sometimes condoned of God is where Nathan says that he, as God's prophet, gave some of David's wives to him. That is more than just allowing it to happen and it is prior to JS's writings.

I like this man's take on it.  http://clearbibleanswers.org/understanding-difficult-texts.html?start=7  (bold mine)

"Let us get the background of the text. David committed adultery with Bathsheba, and murdered Uriah, her husband. He tries to hide from the people, but the all-seeing God catches up with him at last. God sends Nathan the prophet with a parable. David does not realize that it is about him. He pronounces his own curse. The parable is about a poor man and a rich man.

And the LORD sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor. The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds: But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter. And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man's lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him. And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the LORD liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die: And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity. And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul. (2 Samuel 12:1-7)

The ewe lamb “lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter”. To lay in his bosom means it was precious to him. In another parable, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, (again we have a rich man and a poor man here), Lazarus was “carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom” (Luke 16:22). That means Lazarus was cared for and loved by Abraham. Isn’t Jesus too pictured as being in the “bosom” of the heavenly Father? John records:

The only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father. (John 1:18)

The Father loved and cared for His Son, and vice versa.

What did God tell David?

And I gave thee…thy master's wives into thy bosom. (2 Samuel 12:8)

It doesn’t say I gave thy master’s wives to be thy wives, but I gave them into “thy bosom”. David was to take care of them and love them and provide for them.

“Into thy bosom” does not mean he had a husband-wife relationship with them. The ewe lamb, Lazarus and Jesus too were at the bosom of someone. King Saul being dead, David his successor had the moral responsibility to take care of the welfare of Saul’s wives. This was a God given responsibility.

BUT ONE MIGHT SAY: The context and the verse clearly suggests that God was telling David – “Why did you take Uriah’s wife when you could have satisfied yourself with Saul’s wives which I gave you?” Well, that is surely not what God was saying in the text.

We need to know that David had many of his own wives already - Michal, Abigail, Ahinoam, Maacah, Haggith, Abital, Eglah, etc. (2 Samuel 3:1-6, 1 Samuel 18:27). So why should God talk only about Saul’s wives at this time? Why didn’t God remind him of his own wives that he had?

By the way, apart from God being upset with David for the adultery with Uriah’s wife and the murder of Uriah, God was upset with him even for taking her as his wife. The prophet said:

Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife. (2 Samuel 12:9)

If God gave Saul’s wives, after the death of Saul, to be David’s wives, why was God upset with David taking Uriah’s wife to be his wife, after Uriah’s death?

Well, let us analyze the text again to see the context and the verse in its true setting. In the parable king David was the “rich man”. And what were his riches? Nathan the prophet reveals it. He said:

Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel. 
(2 Samuel 12:7)

He was the “rich man”. He was the Lord’s “anointed”; he was the “king over Israel”. And who made him king? It was God who picked him from the shepherd’s tent! And when his life was in danger in the presence of Saul, God said:

I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul. (2 Samuel 12:7)

God also gave him the entire kingdom of Saul to be his kingdom. He was the custodian of everything – the riches, the people, the place, etc. God said:

And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah. (2 Samuel 12:8)

And God gave this ordinary shepherd boy all things freely. God even wanted to exalt him more by extending his boundaries and the domain of his rule. God said:

And gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. (2 Samuel 12:8)

God dethroned Saul because of the grave sins he had committed, and now David is departing for the path of righteousness, and God punishes him too.

God was upset with him and his crime. He, being the Lord’s anointed king, was not expected to step so low!

Consider this illustration: A man has a mother and many sisters. And he takes care of them in the place of the father who is dead. One day he commits adultery with a stranger. And everyone in town now knows about it. What will the society say about this man who was taking care of the female members of his family? “Look at this man! He has a mother and many sisters, and he had no shame to spoil another woman’s life!” What were the people of the society actually saying? Were they suggesting that he should have committed that crime with one of the members of his family? Not at all! They were simply saying - How could a man, who is the custodian of female members in the family, commit this act?

That is exactly what God told David. He being the successor of king Saul, who was dead, was given the responsibility to take care of them. And what trust would God have on him, and what trust would Saul’s wives have on him after this heinous crime, of committing adultery, murder, and adding another wife?"

 

 

 

 

Edited August 1, 2016 by Tacenda

[consiglieri]

5 minutes ago, Rivers said:

In the case that there are more women than men in the celestial kingdom, some polygamy would need to exist.

And what if there are more women than men?

This is the fundamental problem with hinging exaltation on marriage.

If you don't have exactly the same number of men and women, you're going to run into trouble.

[cinepro]

31 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

 

If God didn't see fit to command plural marriage to raise up seed at the very inception of the Nephite civilization in the New World, when would he?

God didn't need to "at the very inception of the Nephite civilization" because there absolutely gobs of other people and civilizations nearby, coming and going and intermingling with them to the point that they didn't have to. 

The early saints in Nauvoo, on the other hand, could only grow the nascent Church by marrying plurally (not counting missionary work and/or marriage to the rest of the millions of people in the discovered world at that time). 

Also, apparently Joseph Smith didn't have children under the principle, so it was more of a symbolic gesture, I guess.

[VideoGameJunkie]

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

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is simple.

Emma's ticked with Joseph's practice of taking plural wives. Her disapproval threatens Joseph's stature as leader. Hyrum is concerned so he asks Joseph to give him a revelation so he (Hyrum) can give it to Emma to convince her it is of God. Joseph creates a "revelation" from God so Hyrum can convince Emma that Joseph is righteous for sleeping around marrying multiple wives and Emma is wicked for not accepting the behavior. The "revelation" sits around for a few decades until the church wants to change the official canonized position on marriage to match their current practice.

If so, then how did Joseph manage to convince Hyrum and others that plural marriage was a commandment from God?  Even if not written down, they (especially Hyrum) seemed aware of some of the details in it.  Hyrum was perfectly comfortable with Joseph recalling the revelation from memory and does not require a new version.

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I think you have done a good job of making it clear that you are not necessarily advocating a non-divine source for Section 132, but that you offer the idea as a way to allow room for Mormons who have problems with it to stay in the Church.

The question then comes down to this, I think:

Would the LDS Church rather keep members who don't believe Section 132 is from God?

Would the LDS Church rather keep members who don't believe that the Church is led by prophets and apostles who are in communion with God, and who encourage other members of the Church to adopt that stance?

Would the LDS Church rather keep members who feel at liberty to ignore revealed doctrines for any reason or no reason at all, and who encourage other members of the Church to adopt that stance?

Would the LDS Church rather keep members who sow seeds of rebellion and apostasy?

I've said this before: "Look, I don't want them to leave the Church. I want them in it. I want everyone in it. But we are a community of faith. We cohere around faith. When we disregard apostasy we weaken our community."

So boundary maintenance is going to be required.  Always.  Don Bradley said it this way (same link):

Quote

Those who know my personal history and the tenor of my posting in the last few years will not be surprised to hear that I would like to see us make our LDS sub-culture more tolerant of doubt and disagreement. So, when I say how much I like what Smac says here and how important I think his insight is, I hope it's clear that it's decidedly not because I'm trigger happy to see people be labeled apostates and kicked out of the church. 
 
What Smac says above is simple realism. Abundant sociological research shows, unsurprisingly, that strong community boundary maintenance helps maintain strong communities: i.e., if communities want to thrive, they should set high standards and hold people to them.
 
My point isn't to comment on the Calderwoods' case: I don't know enough about it; and I'd prefer to leave discussion of it to the other thread. 
 
But I think it's worth pointing out how this principle might apply to the recent cases I know more about, particularly that of Kate Kelly. While there are definitely some gray areas regarding appropriate ways to express disagreement with church policy, and while I think we need more cultural "space" for such disagreement, there are also clear boundaries. For instance, no one (in their right mind) with an LDS background could seriously think that it's okay with the church to do protest-style actions and form national pressure groups to change church policy. 
 
When people knowingly flout the boundaries, and then refuse to take into account or even compromise with instructions on this from their church leaders, the church is not obligated to allow them to perpetually continue these actions as members in good standing. Nor would the church be wise to do so. To not take disciplinary action in such cases fails to reinforce the boundaries, sends the message that the actions taken are okay, and weakens the community. 

Moreover, we are told in scripture that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."  So the implied threat in your question ("Hey, LDS Church!  You'd better abandon D&C 132 and any other doctrines we don't like, or else we're outta here!") is just not a workable formula, in my view.  It reeks of coercion and rebellion.  I do not think the Church will capitulate to it.  Ever.  

There will be times when adherents, for various reasons (including discomfort with doctrine), falter in their discipleship.  Polygamy is a toughie.  I readily concede that.  But rejection of it based on emotion, based on it being uncomfortable, would be problematic.  Some of the Savior's followers were not able/willing to abide by some of this teachings, and so left 'and walked no more with him."  Others, however, withstood the difficulties because, notwithstanding the strangeness and difficulty of some of the things the Savior said, they knew something more important:

Quote

66 ¶ From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 1, 2016 by smac97

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Do you honestly believe that if this was important for God to convey to his people, He would not have done so without also "commanding" that polygamy be lived?

 

I believe that we will be with those we love after this life (if they also choose to be with us).  There will be no one "commanded" or "forced" to live polygamy.  

What about a woman who has married more than one man here on earth?  Do you believe she won't be able to be with these men if they all choose to be together?  Why would just the men living polygamy be allowed to be with their multiple spouses?

 

I believe He did command it to Joseph Smith and the early Church members.. I don't believe anyone will be forced to do anything they don't want to do in the next life. I used a poor choice of words. I think if your are in the highest celestial kingdom you will do whatever Heavenly Father asks of you, male or female or you won't be in the highest section. I don't know if I can say this without being tacky but I can see where it would be beautiful to share my wife's love with another man who has none, who has never experienced the deep love she gives me, provided she felt the same way. Please don't make it into some cheap, I'm not talking about just the flesh. So yeah polygamy, polyandry, if that what Heavenly Father requires of us, so be it. Thy will be done.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I think Juliann is mistaken believing section 132 allows for polyandry as it threatens Emma and other women with being destroyed if they partake what Joseph is doing. Read the full section again everybody.

Edited August 1, 2016 by VideoGameJunkie

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I haven't seen Bill "categorically reject" any reasonable interpretations as a possibility.

If I understand Bill correctly, he does not rule out the possibility that the command to practice plural marriage came from God.

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

Thanks,

-Smac

[juliann]

58 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Polygamy was restored?  

Really?

Please show me where polygamy was ever tied to receiving exaltation and the highest rewards God has for us.  Use the Book of Mormon or the Bible. 

Joseph and Brighams polygamy doctrine was simply unique.  Nothing like it before. 

And Brigham had his own version.

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

I believe He did command it to Joseph Smith and the early Church members.. I don't believe anyone will be forced to do anything they don't want to do in the next life. I used a poor choice of words. I think if your are in the highest celestial kingdom you will do whatever Heavenly Father asks of you, male or female or you won't be in the highest section. I don't know if I can say this without being tacky but I can see where it would be beautiful to share my wife's love with another man who has none, who has never experienced the deep love she gives me, provided she felt the same way. Please don't make it into some cheap, I'm not talking about just the flesh. So yeah polygamy, polyandry, if that what Heavenly Father requires of us, so be it. Thy will be done.

I certainly respect your right to have these feelings and beliefs.  I also even understand your feelings.  

I just honestly do not believe that polygamy will even be something that's thought much about after this life.  I believe we will be with those we love and that will include all types of relationships and types of love.  

I do feel strongly that God has not and will not ever command or force someone to live polygamy (here or in the life after this life) and I doubt anything will change my mind about that.  So, let's just agree to disagree on that point    

[juliann]

7 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I think Juliann is mistaken believing section 132 allows for polyandry as it threatens Emma and other women with being destroyed if they partake what Joseph is doing. Read the full section again everybody.

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