Revelations In Context: Section 132

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

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.

And parents need to know when they get older they won't be abandoned by kids that dump them in a home and never visit or even worse don't even care enough to be sure they are safe and cared for.

[canard78]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

It makes sense to me given the purpose is to add content to SS lessons, not just provide historical content in general.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.

I agree with you that a 40min SS lesson on Joseph era polygamy history is unlikely to be emotionally or spiritually uplifting for lots of people. 

Having said that, the church needs to decide who controls the narrative around this topic. Currently, their syllabus shows that they've consciously decided not to.

It's true to say that they are not ignorning it completely, the essays prove that, but they do appear to still be uncertain what to do with it as a topic. 

I'd imagine it will gradually work into more seminary and institute lessons, then older youth and perhaps, eventually, adult Sunday school lessons. It's just a shame it's moving at such a slow pace. 

[cinepro]

10 hours ago, canard78 said:

I agree with you that a 40min SS lesson on Joseph era polygamy history is unlikely to be emotionally or spiritually uplifting for lots of people. 

Having said that, the church needs to decide who controls the narrative around this topic. Currently, their syllabus shows that they've consciously decided not to.

It's true to say that they are not ignorning it completely, the essays prove that, but they do appear to still be uncertain what to do with it as a topic. 

I'd imagine it will gradually work into more seminary and institute lessons, then older youth and perhaps, eventually, adult Sunday school lessons. It's just a shame it's moving at such a slow pace. 

The biggest problem I have with the "context" article is that it strongly supports the "widows needing support" narrative of early LDS polygamy which obviously isn't true for the majority of cases (and especially the most disturbing cases). 

If members leave the lesson with the idea that a widow marrying Hyrum "for time" is somehow the correct context for Section 132, they have been mislead and their discomfort at learning the truth about Joseph Smith's implementation could be worse.  I don't know what the opposite of "inoculation" is, but this would be that.

[canard78]

1 minute ago, cinepro said:

The biggest problem I have with the "context" article is that it strongly supports the "widows needing support" narrative of early LDS polygamy which obviously isn't true for the majority of cases (and especially the most disturbing cases). 

If members leave the lesson with the idea that a widow marrying Hyrum "for time" is somehow the correct context for Section 132, they have been mislead and their discomfort at learning the truth about Joseph Smith's implementation could be worse.  I don't know what the opposite of "inoculation" is, but this would be that.

Completely. It's an age-old adage in Mormonism that "polygamy only happened to act as a form of social security for widows and older women."

I remember being in a car with my headmaster (principle) when I was in 6th form (12th grade). Somehow, Mormonism and polygamy came up and I gave exactly this type answer. 

The full detail of the reality, and the fact that I discovered it, rather than was told it, was a significant contributing factor to losing trust and confidence in Mormonism. 

So yes, it's a missed opportunity and a also perpetuation of a false impression of the reality of polygamy. 

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The biggest problem I have with the "context" article is that it strongly supports the "widows needing support" narrative of early LDS polygamy which obviously isn't true for the majority of cases (and especially the most disturbing cases). 

If members leave the lesson with the idea that a widow marrying Hyrum "for time" is somehow the correct context for Section 132, they have been mislead and their discomfort at learning the truth about Joseph Smith's implementation could be worse.  I don't know what the opposite of "inoculation" is, but this would be that.

I don't see how the article strongly supports the "widows needing support" narrative unless one is predisposed to read that into it. It simply does not show up; just teh opposite: it says that she provided for herself, and that lonesomeness drove the decision to re-marry for time as a plural wife.

Yes, she was a widow who a) rejoiced in being sealed to her husband for eternity; b) decided to become a plural wife for time; and c) had spiritual experiences and developed a doctrinal understanding to justify both. She may well have had other motives and purposes but they are not mentioned.

The long religious debate over the practice is acknowledged, but no actual reason for it is ever offered (I presume because people get married for lots of reasons), leaving it quite open and suggesting that when commanded and approved of God and justifiable to consenting adults in good faith, it can solve a variety of practical problems within some societies.

[cinepro]

On 12/12/2016 at 11:17 AM, CV75 said:

I don't see how the article strongly supports the "widows needing support" narrative unless one is predisposed to read that into it. It simply does not show up; just teh opposite: it says that she provided for herself, and that lonesomeness drove the decision to re-marry for time as a plural wife.

Yes, she was a widow who a) rejoiced in being sealed to her husband for eternity; b) decided to become a plural wife for time; and c) had spiritual experiences and developed a doctrinal understanding to justify both. She may well have had other motives and purposes but they are not mentioned.

 

The problem with the article is that it doesn't actually give any context for Section 132. 

It gives an anecdote about one of the ways in which Section 132 was claimed to be used (it helped Mercy Thompson feel better about marrying Hyrum Smith "for time"), but that's not what Section 132 is about, or why we have it.  There is nothing in Section 132 about marrying "for time".  There isn't a single verse anywhere in the entire section that applies to this situation.  The situation with Mercy Thompson and Hyrum didn't involve the sealing power, or the "new and everlasting covenant."  It didn't involve one of Hyrum's wives being barren and thus him needing to have children with Mercy.  It was (apparently) a temporal marriage (and an illegal one at that). 

If the story was about how Mercy Thompson had a lumpy mattress, and so she used the parchment with Section 132 to stuff the mattress so she would be more comfortable, that doesn't mean that the "context" for Section 132 is Mercy Thompson stuffing her mattress.  It simply means that is an ancillary anecdote about one of the ways the Section was used.

 

[stemelbow]

On ‎12‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 5:32 PM, bluebell said:

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

They all may willingly embrace you.  You never know until you ask. 

[CV75]

11 hours ago, cinepro said:

The problem with the article is that it doesn't actually give any context for Section 132. 

It gives an anecdote about one of the ways in which Section 132 was claimed to be used (it helped Mercy Thompson feel better about marrying Hyrum Smith "for time"), but that's not what Section 132 is about, or why we have it.  There is nothing in Section 132 about marrying "for time".  There isn't a single verse anywhere in the entire section that applies to this situation.  The situation with Mercy Thompson and Hyrum didn't involve the sealing power, or the "new and everlasting covenant."  It didn't involve one of Hyrum's wives being barren and thus him needing to have children with Mercy.  It was (apparently) a temporal marriage (and an illegal one at that). 

If the story was about how Mercy Thompson had a lumpy mattress, and so she used the parchment with Section 132 to stuff the mattress so she would be more comfortable, that doesn't mean that the "context" for Section 132 is Mercy Thompson stuffing her mattress.  It simply means that is an ancillary anecdote about one of the ways the Section was used.

 

I commented on the context given in the article, and it is not the "anecdote" you focus on: Posted Saturday at 05:04 PM

D&C 132 is not a revelation that was dispensed in response to Mary's need, so that is clearly not the context. As the article explains, Joseph compiled more than one revelation given over a few years' time in handling the situation faced by Mary and Hyrum, and that is the circumstance (not the context). Here's a link about that (there are probably better ones; just Googled this quickly): http://wikidiff.com/context/circumstance

"Over and against this culture of death, a revelation received by Joseph Smith [prior to his including it with Section 132] promised that our most cherished relationships can persist in the next life," is an actual example of context.

Marrying for time is mentioned quite a number of times (verse 15 for a good example).

The sealing power was involved when Hyrum stood in for Robert.

"The marriage with Hyrum was like the levirate marriages of the Old Testament" in that it was a patriarchal practice involving the remarriage of widows.

Edited December 14, 2016 by CV75

[bluebell]

54 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

They all may willingly embrace you.  You never know until you ask. 

I'm sure they would.  We're actually from the same town in Wyoming and you can tell that they are good people.  But they currently live in Nevada and i don't know them so it would be kind of weird to ask to be friends.  

[stemelbow]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm sure they would.  We're actually from the same town in Wyoming and you can tell that they are good people.  But they currently live in Nevada and i don't know them so it would be kind of weird to ask to be friends.  

They're all from the same town?  Well, then, no wonder you're so confident.  the winters aren't so cold, at least, in Las Vegas. 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

They're all from the same town?  Well, then, no wonder you're so confident.  the winters aren't so cold, at least, in Las Vegas. 

All but one lived in the same town as I grew up in.  Three are actually from the area.  Some of my friends have been on episodes with them when they have visited family and friends.

But alas, i doubt our circles will ever actually cross more than that.

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

All but one lived in the same town as I grew up in.  Three are actually from the area.  Some of my friends have been on episodes with them when they have visited family and friends.

But alas, i doubt our circles will ever actually cross more than that.

I can tell I've been far too subtle with any implication. Ah well too late to make a joke of it now

[Gray]

On 12/12/2016 at 0:25 PM, canard78 said:

Completely. It's an age-old adage in Mormonism that "polygamy only happened to act as a form of social security for widows and older women."

I remember being in a car with my headmaster (principle) when I was in 6th form (12th grade). Somehow, Mormonism and polygamy came up and I gave exactly this type answer. 

The full detail of the reality, and the fact that I discovered it, rather than was told it, was a significant contributing factor to losing trust and confidence in Mormonism. 

So yes, it's a missed opportunity and a also perpetuation of a false impression of the reality of polygamy. 

I always found that to be a bizarre idea. As if the only way to take care of widows would be to marry them? 

[Alan]

I will make a point of being absent from the SS lesson regarding D&C 132.

I wouldn't be able to keep quiet about my committed view that Joseph was a monogamist and that Sec 132 has been seriously tampered with. I have a feeling a discussion would ensue which could land me in trouble.

[canard78]

34 minutes ago, Gray said:

I always found that to be a bizarre idea. As if the only way to take care of widows would be to marry them? 

You're right. It's a weak justification. If that was the primary intention then other couples could have easily been assigned to care for a given family or individual. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I can tell I've been far too subtle with any implication. Ah well too late to make a joke of it now

Don't worry, I know what you are trying to imply. I just didn't want to go there.  

[CV75]

56 minutes ago, canard78 said:

You're right. It's a weak justification. If that was the primary intention then other couples could have easily been assigned to care for a given family or individual. 

...and it might have been mentioned in the article...

[Jeanne]

On 12/11/2016 at 5:56 PM, Calm said:

And parents need to know when they get older they won't be abandoned by kids that dump them in a home and never visit or even worse don't even care enough to be sure they are safe and cared for.

Not going to argue there..I am living it..and you are too!! 

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I always found that to be a bizarre idea. As if the only way to take care of widows would be to marry them? 

Hasn't worked for me..

[Thinking]

On 12/10/2016 at 7:10 AM, Atheist Mormon said:

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

The Church consistently regurgitates its past when talking about things like the first vision or the saints crossing the plains, among other things. A Church that claims to be the restored Church shouldn't have anything institutional that needs to be softened.

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, Thinking said:

The Church consistently regurgitates its past when talking about things like the first vision or the saints crossing the plains, among other things. A Church that claims to be the restored Church shouldn't have anything institutional that needs to be softened.

I thought the church would have learned by now, not to sugarcoat (bad use of that phrase maybe). Doesn't the curriculum department speak with the CES department? Do they not know that the truth about Joseph and D&C 132 is being taught to the seminary students, and in all likelihood passed onto their parents, grandparent etc.?

[Oliver_Cowdery]

It's always been a difficult thing to teach.  If teachers say nothing about polygamy people learn about it later in life and feel cheated.  On the other hand if historical polygamy is only spoken of positively in church, the church runs the risk of people finding polygamy appealing.

It is not enough to for the church to speak openly about polygamy.  Somewhere along the way a value call must be made.   If the church teaches the story of Helen Mar Kimball then the church must either explicitly teach divine command theory or teach that Joseph Smith did something wrong. 

Edited December 14, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[CV75]

44 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

It's always been a difficult thing to teach.  If teachers say nothing about polygamy people learn about it later in life and feel cheated.  On the other hand if historical polygamy is only spoken of positively in church, the church runs the risk of people finding polygamy appealing.

It is not enough to for the church to speak openly about polygamy.  Somewhere along the way a value call must be made.   If the church teaches the story Helen Mar Kimball then church must either explicitly teach divine command theory or teach that Joseph Smith did something wrong. 

If divine command theory is what I think it is, there must be more options to teach than the two presented here. How about, “Here is what the available, most incontrovertible, good-faith record says happened; here is the testimony of the faithful; each of us can decide whether it was right or wrong and what we are going to with our conclusion.” This allows that the morality of command and obedience is in the mind of the commander and the commanded, and that there may or may not be a shared sense of morality between them. This understanding is key to such LDS practices as hearkening to the light of Christ, prayer and using the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

[Oliver_Cowdery]

27 minutes ago, CV75 said:

If divine command theory is what I think it is, there must be more options to teach than the two presented here. How about, “Here is what the available, most incontrovertible, good-faith record says happened; here is the testimony of the faithful; each of us can decide whether it was right or wrong and what we are going to with our conclusion.” This allows that the morality of command and obedience is in the mind of the commander and the commanded, and that there may or may not be a shared sense of morality between them. This understanding is key to such LDS practices as hearkening to the light of Christ, prayer and using the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

It is tricky. I do prefer that everyone would be allowed to come to their own conclusions.  But I don't really see that happening in a culture that teaches that every young man must go on a mission and teach from correlated material that say the prophet can not lead the church astray and that when the prophet has spoken the debate is over and to avoid any speculation of "deep doctrine".

I wish the church would stop teaching the narrative that polygamy was practiced for the sake of the widows and to solve the supposed great male shortage of the 19th century.  But as a church we are not there yet.  When no value judgement about Joseph's polygamy is made in church, more people can conclude the Holy Ghost is calling them to practice polygamy.  If the church were to make a value judgement and teach that Joseph Smith was wrong in his practice of polygamy than it seems like it would reduce the risk of people accepting polygamy.

 

Joseph's image would suffer, but that is a small price to pay when weighed against the problem of modern Mormon polygamy.

 

Edited December 14, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I thought the church would have learned by now, not to sugarcoat (bad use of that phrase maybe). Doesn't the curriculum department speak with the CES department? Do they not know that the truth about Joseph and D&C 132 is being taught to the seminary students, and in all likelihood passed onto their parents, grandparent etc.?

It seems like a constant that the church takes a couple of steps ahead..and then two steps back..it is not moving anywhere.