Revelations In Context: Section 132

[cinepro]

To aid teachers in our upcoming year of Sunday School study of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Church has prepared a website that gives the "context" for the receipt of the revelations. 

The page discussing Section 132 is interesting.  As would be expected, the "context" for D&C 132 is the story of Mercy Thompson.  Her experience is key to understanding the receipt of this revelation, and to understanding the principles contained therein.

Doctrine and Covenants - Section 132 - Eternal Marriage

For those not familiar with the important and keystone experience of Mercy Thompson, the essay explains that her husband Robert had died while they lived in Nauvoo and she was blessed to be sealed to him by proxy.  But in light of the hardships of being a widow on the frontier, the idea of becoming a plural wife to Hyrum was given suggested to her by none other than Robert himself (in a dream).  So the event given to give "context" to section 132 is a widow marrying out of hardship:

Quote

Mercy was not being asked to become the wife of Hyrum Smith for eternity. The message from Robert Thompson was that Hyrum should marry Mercy for time; or, in Mercy’s words, until such time as Hyrum “would deliver me up on the morning of the day of the resurrection to my husband Robert Blashel Thompson.”

36 The marriage with Hyrum was like the levirate marriages of the Old Testament in which the man was commanded to marry the wife of his deceased brother.37 This combination of patriarchal practice and angelic appearance made sense to biblical restorationists like Hyrum Smith. He told Mercy that when he first learned of Robert Thompson’s request, “the Holy Spirit rested upon him [Hyrum] from the Crown of his Head to the Soles of his Feet.”38

Considering the age old canard believed by many LDS about polygamy being instituted to care for pioneer widows, I'm leery of the wisdom of including this story as the sole explanation of the "context."

 

Also, as expected, Emma Smith isn't mentioned once in the entire 3,000+ word essay.  She is, however, mentioned in a footnote:

Quote

Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2013), 2:64–65. Clayton later reported that Joseph Smith committed the revelation to writing, at Hyrum Smith’s suggestion, in order to persuade Joseph’s wife Emma Smith that she should cease her opposition to plural marriage. Emma had accepted plural marriage for a time but was opposed to the principle by July 12, 1843, when the revelation was written down. William Clayton statement, Feb. 16, 1874, in Andrew Jenson, “Plural Marriage,” Historical Record, May 1887, 225–26.

 

 

Edited December 10, 2016 by cinepro

[Jeanne]

I read the link provided..good luck with all this.  Interesting.  I do have a few problems with it but I am sure classes will enjoy the story.

[Teancum]

Pretty sad.  The church seemingly still wants to run away from the stain of Polygamy. 😩

Edited December 10, 2016 by Teancum

[Jeanne]

35 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Pretty sad.  The church seemingly still wants to run away from the stain of Polygamy. 😩

My thought exactly. 

[Tacenda]

Ditto Jeanne and Teancum. The whitewash never ends. I will never feel normal in the church as long as this is hidden. And no, most people have no idea about the church essays or the extent polygamy was lived. 

Edited December 10, 2016 by Tacenda

[Benjamin Seeker]

Seriously? What in the world are they doing? Isn't the account that JS dictated 132 to placate Emma and at Hyrum's suggestion accepted historical fact?? 

[Atheist Mormon]

11 hours ago, Teancum said:

Pretty sad.  The church seemingly still wants to run away from the stain of Polygamy. 😩

What part of this is sad? Who wants to live, regurgitate their past? 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

What part of this is sad? Who wants to live, regurgitate their past? 

That past is the church's whole premise actually. Without polygamy it's all for not. 

[cinepro]

12 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Seriously? What in the world are they doing? Isn't the account that JS dictated 132 to placate Emma and at Hyrum's suggestion accepted historical fact?? 

Apparently it's really all about Mercy Thompson marrying Hyrum Smith as a plural wife "for time." 

Emma is a footnote, in spite of the fact that portions of the revelation are given directly and explicitly to her!

 

Edited December 10, 2016 by cinepro

[RevTestament]

A little more historical context. I find it interesting. I don't really understand the "shock" this is seeming to cause.

I don't see the Church "running" from polygamy either.

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

What part of this is sad? Who wants to live, regurgitate their past? 

They want to run away from it because it clearly cast doubts and makes suspect the prophetic claim of Joseph Smith. 

[carbon dioxide]

17 hours ago, Teancum said:

Pretty sad.  The church seemingly still wants to run away from the stain of Polygamy. 😩

I would not say run away. The Church has never denied the practice of it.  They just don't want to talk about it.  It more they want to ignore it than run away.

[CV75]

20 hours ago, cinepro said:

To aid teachers in our upcoming year of Sunday School study of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Church has prepared a website that gives the "context" for the receipt of the revelations. 

The page discussing Section 132 is interesting.  As would be expected, the "context" for D&C 132 is the story of Mercy Thompson.  Her experience is key to understanding the receipt of this revelation, and to understanding the principles contained therein.

Also, as expected, Emma Smith isn't mentioned once in the entire 3,000+ word essay.  She is, however, mentioned in a footnote:

I guess there isn’t enough time to teach all the stuff on the lesson material LOL… I don't think he story of Mary Thompson is the context for the revelations and teachings compiled into Section 132. Her story provides a great object lesson and may have had a significant role in Joseph writing these things down, but that is not the same as context.

“Over and against this culture of death [that’s the context, I think!], a revelation received by Joseph Smith promised that our most cherished relationships can persist in the next life.”

“The idea of a social heaven grew in popularity during the 19th century,” in contrast to the prevailing view for centuries prior, of “single and solitary angels worshipping and praising God in perfect union,” I think provides additional context.

“How could a new marriage contract be made when only one spouse was living?” was the driving contextual question.

I would say that, “Around the same time as Robert Thompson’s appearance, Joseph Smith committed section 132 to writing,” describes the circumstances of the document rather than the context for the revelation(s) explained therein, since “Parts of the revelation [i.e. plural marriage] had been known to Joseph long before…”

As far as squeamishness about polygamy is concerned, I think it is fairly addressed from “Eternal marriage struck Mercy Thompson far more favorably than plural marriage did,” onward.

Edited December 10, 2016 by CV75

[Atheist Mormon]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

They want to run away from it because it clearly cast doubts and makes suspect the prophetic claim of Joseph Smith. 

wouldn't you? It's like having a disastrous Ex-Spouse..........

 

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

They want to run away from it because it clearly cast doubts and makes suspect the prophetic claim of Joseph Smith. 

Not for everyone.   For some it strengthens their testimony.

[canard78]

On 12/10/2016 at 1:07 AM, cinepro said:

To aid teachers in our upcoming year of Sunday School study of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Church has prepared a website that gives the "context" for the receipt of the revelations. 

The page discussing Section 132 is interesting.  As would be expected, the "context" for D&C 132 is the story of Mercy Thompson.  Her experience is key to understanding the receipt of this revelation, and to understanding the principles contained therein.

Doctrine and Covenants - Section 132 - Eternal Marriage

For those not familiar with the important and keystone experience of Mercy Thompson, the essay explains that her husband Robert had died while they lived in Nauvoo and she was blessed to be sealed to him by proxy.  But in light of the hardships of being a widow on the frontier, the idea of becoming a plural wife to Hyrum was given suggested to her by none other than Robert himself (in a dream).  So the event given to give "context" to section 132 is a widow marrying out of hardship:

Considering the age old canard believed by many LDS about polygamy being instituted to care for pioneer widows, I'm leery of the wisdom of including this story as the sole explanation of the "context."

 

Also, as expected, Emma Smith isn't mentioned once in the entire 3,000+ word essay.  She is, however, mentioned in a footnote:

 

 

It's like there are two factions of historical writers working for the church at the moment.

There are those writing a richer, broader history of Mormon origins.

And then there are essays written like this by people who evidently didn't get the memo. Or, perhaps, got a different memo!

[Duncan]

I hear what you're saying but this isn't the first time in this series that they've done this. In section 138 they have an article about Susa Young Gates and her experiences. It mentions WW1 and Elder Hyrum M. Smith's death but when you think of section 138, Susa Young Gates isn't who or what you instantly think of. It's just one story though. It isn't wrong, it's just one story among so many and no one saying you can't talk about other ones 

[CV75]

5 hours ago, Duncan said:

I hear what you're saying but this isn't the first time in this series that they've done this. In section 138 they have an article about Susa Young Gates and her experiences. It mentions WW1 and Elder Hyrum M. Smith's death but when you think of section 138, Susa Young Gates isn't who or what you instantly think of. It's just one story though. It isn't wrong, it's just one story among so many and no one saying you can't talk about other ones 

I agree—the context it isn’t about the one story. As with the previous example, I think the story of Sister Gates shows how the revelation came as a blessing, but the actual frame of reference for the revelation is the setting faced by the one receiving it.

I think in this case the context described for the revelation is two-fold: On a small scale, an elderly, frail, declining and grief-stricken President carrying our his large-scale, worldwide responsibilities under the global duress of WWI and the Spanish Flu Epidemic. He was enabled to do so by not living alone; “dwelling in the spirit of prayer, of supplication, of faith and of determination;” and having “communication with the Spirit of the Lord continuously.”

[Jeanne]

On 12/10/2016 at 1:43 PM, RevTestament said:

A little more historical context. I find it interesting. I don't really understand the "shock" this is seeming to cause.

I don't see the Church "running" from polygamy either.

It's not shock.  All of us here are pretty aware of a lot of things...now..the members need the real deal.

[Tacenda]

I remember a while back some on here saying the church doesn't want to teach about it because there are some LDS that would decide to go into polygamy because of it. I agree because there are many LDS that have gone into polygamy. Some polygamists try to recruit them too. Kody Brown of the Sister Wives show's parents were LDS and decided to go into polygamy while Kody was serving an LDS mission. His own daughters both wanted to join the LDS church and the church recently turned them down, one last year and another this year. 

This could be the reason they don't go into JS's polygamy.

[Jeanne]

I really enjoy  Sister Wives.  Their problems are real and sometimes I put myself in their shoes..with great respect. The very fact that Cody and his wives are so willing to give their children this choice speaks volumes to me.  Kids are not going to denounce their parents though..funny that..so many parents of LGBT children do just that.

Edited December 11, 2016 by Jeanne

[Calm]

10 hours ago, canard78 said:

It's like there are two factions of historical writers working for the church at the moment.

There are those writing a richer, broader history of Mormon origins.

And then there are essays written like this by people who evidently didn't get the memo. Or, perhaps, got a different memo!

It makes sense to me given the purpose is to add content to SS lessons, not just provide historical content in general.  Therefore being emotionally and spiritually uplifting is going to be one of the requirements.  Another one is enough detail is known to provide a coherent short story for a doctrinal principle to be taught, where one doesn't feel they are left hanging, where there is resolution and a sense of fulfillment of blessing.

I prefer using a narrative of someone else that can naturally fulfill those requirements while being relevant as well rather than trying to fit up Emma and Joseph's story, which is not only rather piecemeal in terms of what went on with them in the context of plural marriage so that there might need to be too much gap filling and mindreading to have a coherent and complete feeling, yet relatively short narrative (I see their companionship as only coming to a satisfying conclusion in the next life, there were too many things left unresolved in their lives even with or perhaps because of their great love for each other...they both wanted more from each other than their situation allowed), but also it would have to, in my opinion, leave out important details or worse misrepresent their experience in order for it to result in an uplifting tale given the time/length limitation (to be continued stories don't work if you can guarantee the person will be there next week).  One may be uplifted by Emma and Joseph's story if one treats it superficially (which has been the past complaint) or, in my opinion, if one goes into it in great depth and personally struggles over their struggles and finally comes to a resolution (of course, this will not be positive for everyone, but it is possible to be uplifted by others' struggles even in cases where one doesn't see those struggles as having a happy ending because one can learn how to be aware of pitfalls and if not to avoid them, how to climb out of the pit), but I don't think one will be uplifted with only a middling approach if it is accurate history to our best ability.

I think they are also trying to add new stories rather than just repeat familiar ones with a little more detail.  And I like that a lot.  We need more narratives, not just doing the ones we have better.

Edited December 11, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

 Kids are not going to denounce their parents though..funny that..so many parents of LGBT children do just that.

Kids do this all the time, especially as teenagers.  I know of a number of cases where children have chosen to cut off all contact with parents to make it very clear they are rejecting them for who they are.  It is of course more shocking to hear of parents kicking kids out of the house than kids moving far away and never calling or writing.

Edited December 12, 2016 by Calm

[Jeanne]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

Kids do this all the time, especially as teenagers.  I know of a number of cases where children have chosen to cut off all contact with parents to make it very clear they are rejecting them for who they are.  It is of course more shocking to hear of parents kicking kids out of the house than kids moving far away and never calling or writing.

I understand what you are saying..Teenagers are so much fun anyway aren't they?  Now..if I could just get my adult children out of the condo..I guess it works both ways.  But so many kids..even those who choose to leave (teenagers) need to know that they can come home.  As a parent, I can't comprehend it any other way.  You are right though..it works both ways.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I really enjoy  Sister Wives.  Their problems are real and sometimes I put myself in their shoes..with great respect. The very fact that Cody and his wives are so willing to give their children this choice speaks volumes to me.  Kids are not going to denounce their parents though..funny that..so many parents of LGBT children do just that.

I love watching Sister Wives.  I'd love to be friends with each of the women, they look like a lot of fun!