Section 132 in the Year 2015

[Anonymous]

Instead of comparing this with race and the priesthood, maybe we could make a comparison with the Adam-God theory. That was taught as doctrine repeatedly by Brigham Young, John Taylor, and others including in General Conference and anything as close to official church publications as there were at the time, and in the temple. Yet today I wager few members have ever heard the term, or if they have don’t know anything about it. At some point in the early 20th century it was abandoned and later disavowed. Granted we have the complication of section 132 with polygamy and we have a much larger membership now than we did 100 years ago, but I think it could happen with the right leadership taking the stand to do so. Frankly I don’t think Pres. Monson is that leader, nor do I think Elder Packer is. I do think there is some credence tot he point that part of why polygamy is “protected” or whitewashed is because many of out top leaders have polygamist ancestors. I also see that changing.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

Paulista wrote:

Ann wrote:

Sometimes I wish President Hinckley was here. I don’t think he wanted this for us.

I agree with this…the way things are now make me wonder who is really running the church.

Not to derail, but I’m not understanding this. I really liked Pres. Hinckley and he was the face of the church to millions for many years, and I recognize that the church was different under his leadership (which actually spanned several presidencies). What is it you think he didn’t want for us and what’s the question about who is running the church?

On topic, I had read the original blog but didn’t realize there was this back and forth going on. The essays will keep FAIR busy for a while in IMO, not because of what they say but because of what they don’t say. Or perhaps more correctly, how they leave some things open to interpretation. Thus we have different points of view by these blogging brothers and sisters and others.

For my part I meant that I don’t think President Hinckley, if this had erupted at a time when he was healthy, would have published the essays as written. I like to think that he would have steered toward some of the early saints believing it a valid revelation and acting accordingly. I would love to know what he thought about Section 132’s future in the canon.

I think the essays will keep FAIR “busy for awhile” mostly because of what they do say – that God Himself commanded a young, faithful wife and mother to open up her marriage to hired help and foster daughters (and various others) on pain of “destruction.” Once you posit that I think you’ve got a job for life.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I don’t want to forget history, since that leads too often to repeating history. I want to wrestle with it, since that leads to NOT repeating it.

Can you explain what you mean by wrestle with? In this I’m not accusing you of anything. Fwiw, you’re the main source of this site’s vitality and no one likes to appear confrontational towards you. But I do think that men in the church don’t get what equivocating on polygamy does to women. So if wrestling is more equivocating, I’m against it.

The church wants the outside world to think that polygamy is over and done with. They count on “Gentile” reporters not reading carefully or knowing where to look, or not being privy to the private exchanges where girls first learn about this. Women on the inside know – and if they didn’t know before the essays, they know now – that the church’s current stance is that polygamy is righteous “when God commands it.” We do teach our girls this and I think it’s wrong.

Also,

Quote:

The official doctrine of the LDS Church currently is NOT that polygamy is required for exaltation.

Sure, there are many members, including leaders at all levels, who believe that – but it is not the official doctrine currently. I have never heard it taught over any pulpit, in any manual or in any lesson in my lifetime – and neither have any of my children, and I was raised in central Utah. I’m sure someone, somewhere has done so (multiple people, in fact) – but it is an incredibly rare occurrence.

The Van Allens are wrong in that point, and it’s a critical point.

But I think it’s far from their main point. And here’s where Asperger-y thirty-page rebuttals fall flat. Okay, so technically van Allens are wrong on that point, but they are right that LDS women and girls still hear that polygamy is on the table as a test of their righteousness. FAIR-types write like women aren’t in the room. We’re here! We know what’s what. We’ve been living it.

[Anonymous]

I can’t speculate about what Pres. Hinckley would do or what he thought, Ann. I know our stake president said at one point that Pres. Monson as well as all of the Apostles were deeply involved in and interested in the essays, and that he had been told that by a Seventy. I really do believe that the church is currently run by committee (the committee being the Q15) and that they do sit in council often enough and openly enough that what they say generally is the consensus opinion. That doesn’t mean that any one of them can’t occasionally say something that’s a bit rogue, off the cuff, or simply misunderstood or misconstrued. I really liked Pres. Hinckley as a person (at least his public persona), but I don’t agree with everything he said (the one set of earrings is a bit too Pharisaical for my liking, for instance). I also think he was very wishy-washy at times and sometimes said what he thought people wanted to hear (from a PR standpoint) as opposed to what he actually believed for himself.

So I’m not sure the essays would have been any different under GBH than they are under TSM because there are at least 14 other voices involved.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

I really liked Pres. Hinckley as a person (at least his public persona), but I don’t agree with everything he said (the one set of earrings is a bit too Pharisaical for my liking, for instance). I also think he was very wishy-washy at times and sometimes said what he thought people wanted to hear (from a PR standpoint) as opposed to what he actually believed for himself.

So I’m not sure the essays would have been any different under GBH than they are under TSM because there are at least 14 other voices involved.

I see what you’re saying, and I was dismayed this last Sunday in Primary to hear a talk from one of the kids about how having only one pair of earrings was following the prophet.

I’m saying that “what he actually believed for himself,” which is that polygamy isn’t doctrinally sound, would serve us well right now. I also think he would have averted the PR nightmare that is the LDS church saying God commanded all the goings-on.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

I do think there is some credence to the point that part of why polygamy is “protected” or whitewashed is because many of out top leaders have polygamist ancestors.

I have polygamist ancestors, some not that far back generationally. My take is that the vast majority who were in polygamy, guys and gals, followed it because they believed sincerely that it was from God. In other words, they didn’t invent polygamy, polygamy happened to them. I can compartmentalize that quite easily. They did what they thought was right. Now I want to do what is right. I don’t have to throw any ancestors under the bus to say that polygamy was an attempt to live a godlike life as they saw it, but it turns out it wasn’t from God and we don’t believe in it now.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

I really liked Pres. Hinckley as a person (at least his public persona), but I don’t agree with everything he said (the one set of earrings is a bit too Pharisaical for my liking, for instance). I also think he was very wishy-washy at times and sometimes said what he thought people wanted to hear (from a PR standpoint) as opposed to what he actually believed for himself.

So I’m not sure the essays would have been any different under GBH than they are under TSM because there are at least 14 other voices involved.

I see what you’re saying, and I was dismayed this last Sunday in Primary to hear a talk from one of the kids about how having only one pair of earrings was following the prophet.

I’m saying that “what he actually believed for himself,” which is that polygamy isn’t doctrinally sound, would serve us well right now. I also think he would have averted the PR nightmare that is the LDS church saying God commanded all the goings-on.

Keeping in mind, of course, that before he was Elder Hinckley, he pretty much invented and was the church’s PR department.

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

I do think there is some credence to the point that part of why polygamy is “protected” or whitewashed is because many of out top leaders have polygamist ancestors.

I have polygamist ancestors, some not that far back generationally. My take is that the vast majority who were in polygamy, guys and gals, followed it because they believed sincerely that it was from God. In other words, they didn’t invent polygamy, polygamy happened to them. I can compartmentalize that quite easily. They did what they thought was right. Now I want to do what is right. I don’t have to throw any ancestors under the bus to say that polygamy was an attempt to live a godlike life as they saw it, but it turns out it wasn’t from God and we don’t believe in it now.

I agree, OON, it most certainly can be done without foul or harm. Perhaps it’s a matter of individual perception that doing so would in some way be disrespectful. But again, there are now fewer who have such ancestors and it’s safe to say that in the future there will be still fewer. That alone can have an impact on the policy/stance/doctrine.

[Anonymous]

Frist – Ray – I really appreciate you being here – even when I disagree with what/how you sometimes say things. I can appreciate the enormous amount of effort you put into this site and keep it from running off the rails. Thanks.

DarkJedi wrote:

Instead of comparing this with race and the priesthood, maybe we could make a comparison with the Adam-God theory. That was taught as doctrine repeatedly by Brigham Young, John Taylor, and others including in General Conference and anything as close to official church publications as there were at the time, and in the temple. Yet today I wager few members have ever heard the term, or if they have don’t know anything about it. At some point in the early 20th century it was abandoned and later disavowed.

I was about to comment that given the Journal of Discourses (where blood atonement and Adam-God) was once cannon and then removed by vote from the canonized scripture that they should do the same. But I didn’t want to say something incorrect, so I delved into a good 10 minutes of googling and found out it was the Lectures on Faith that was canonized for a period – not JoD.

I do get a bit of how some responses can be whitewashing, but I am not convinced all responses would be that. And I draw the line on just letting it fade into history when people are hurting over it. The church loses members over it. Yes Pres Hinckley said in an interview on TV that we don’t believe it, but why not say that once in general conference.

I am not a big fan of just quietly walking away from a doctrine in all cases. Once again – when it deals with people getting hurt, needlessly suffering (including mentally), or being burdened with guilt I feel it isn’t the best tactic. I see the church doing that on masturbation and if you go to ldssexuality.com, it almost could be renamed “ldsmasturbationdebate.com”. Meanwhile there is dramatic differences in all levels of the church on the seriousness of this and how it should be handled. Some bishops don’t even ask and if admitted they say, “don’t let it get out of hand” while other bishops ask probingly and if the YM admits it (since most are), the YM isn’t allowed to pass the sacrament for a few weeks. I had a friend who had a son held back from placing his mission papers at BYU-I because he admitted to masturbating months before he even started going to BYU-I. And at the SAME TIME the president of BYU-I was telling reporters, “Well masturbation could lead to sin.” Grrrr.

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

Some bishops don’t even ask and if admitted they say, “don’t let it get out of hand” …

[img]http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/nvrmnd.gif[/img]

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

especially since marriage itself, in ANY form in the hereafter, is “an affront to all that is good” in the minds of many millions of people – and preaching marriage in the next life but telling people who have loved more than one spouse (men and women) that they have to choose only one and “divorce” the other(s) also is “an affront to all that is good” to those people.

I’m so much more concerned about THIS life than the NEXT. I’m so much more concerned about what WE SAY than what other people THINK about what we say. Here is what we say in our accepted, canonized scriptures that we publish right now, both in print and on lds.org:

Quote:

…if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment…

And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her…

Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife. –D&C 132:61-65

I’m pretty friendly toward the Church and its doctrine. I try always to give the benefit of the doubt. I even believe that JS thought of himself as a prophet, that he gave his all for the movement, and that he believed that polygamy was right in the sight of God. But I cannot come up with any way to look at the above and not feel ashamed that my Church continues to say this.

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

My point is this: as the Church continues to walk a tight-rope (or slackline, for you younger people) it is trying to defend polygamy first, and appease the people next. It is an impossible position to take.

Section 132 is an affront to all that is good.

The main reason for my faith crisis was polygamy, and a huge factor in it was that I could not reconcile the doctrine/practice with the goodness of God. Specifically, I could not justify how God would place one truth on the earth for us to find, and then attach something to it that was so awful that it would require me to suspend morality and decency toward women in order to follow it.

The early saints made huge sacrifices to live polygamy for the sake of the kingdom, but will their descendants be able to detach it for that same sake?

When presented with a different formulation of women-as-property to be moved around and traded by men, we decry the dowry system in Africa and India, but we’re blind to it in our own doctrine.

[Anonymous]

Two points:

1) Please don’t hesitate to say something just because it is a different view than mine. I try very hard not to be that kind of admin, and I’ve never suggested any kind of moderation simply because of differing points of view.

2) I try really hard to understand and value, whenever possible, how other people view things – and I try even harder to do that for positions with which I disagree, since it is so easy to default to total rejection in those cases.

With those things in mind:

I don’t like polygamy. I don’t think it was commanded or approved by god. I have said so multiple times here in this forum over the years. I would love it if a disclaimer was added to our footnotes or it was stated over the pulpit in General Conference that it’s okay to to disagree about it and remain in good standing in the Church. etc, etc, etc.

However, it is important to me to recognize and admit that many people, men and women, see and saw it differently – and that many of the ones who don’t see it the way I see it aren’t deluded or ignorant or naive or misogynistic or whatever. I also think it’s important to separate what it brought in terms of theological elasticity, for example, especially when talking about people who have been married to multiple spouses, again both men and women, who can’t imagine life after death without some sort of special relationship with all of their spouses. I have used that example in this sort of conversation specifically because it was a paradigm shifter for me when it came to my attention. Also, polygamy (and all its related forms during Joseph’s life), ironically, broke the stranglehold in this country on heteroseuxal monogamy, at least theoretically – and that is not understood by very many people, especially now that the LDS Church is a hardcore defender of heterosexual monogamy (a discussion which would take time and space I don’t have here to explain properly). Third, the persecution over it forged a unique community in a very real way – and, while I would have preferred a different catalyst, I can’t dismiss totally the solidifying effect it had that was a major reason why the movement survived. I can say that as a historian. The Church might have faded away into oblivion without it, like has happened to the break-away sects who separated at the beginning. Finally, polygamy ended after only a few decades, which saved the LDS church from becoming the FLDS Church – so, the temporary time frame was another plus.

I’m not saying I approve. I’m not saying anything like that. I’m saying, as a historian and a social scientist, that I can understand and even respect to a degree that there are elements of its practice that meant a lot, at a very deep level, to some people (men and women), that not everyone’s life experiences make them want eternal monogamy AND that there are elements that benefited the organization in real and important ways.

I’m saying I wouldn’t cry or be upset if Section 132 was removed from the D&C – but I understand enough to not expect it to happen AND not to invest lots of emotional capital in hopes that it will happen. Also, to put this as directly as I can, that is NOT because I am a man. The largest part of my inability to embrace polygamy in any way is due to having a mother, five sisters, a wife and four daughters whom I love dearly and whom I pray will not end up in polygamous relationships. (My wife also has a high school friend who is the first wife in a polygamous relationship, and I am convinced she was duped into it, although she won’t talk about it.) It is repugnant to me, personally. My comments are because I am analytical by nature and intentionally try to seek balance wherever possible – even if it isn’t right in the middle. It is because I try hard to avoid extremes, wherever possible – and this is one case that, while closer to an extreme for me than most other issues, still isn’t at the extreme for the reasons I listed above.

[Anonymous]

The way all books of scriptures are written it’s virtually impossible to tell what our doctrine is. This is one of the issues I have with God. If he wants me to obey Him, He should have provided instructions that are a lot easier to understand.

About Section 132. If it was about race it would have been removed years ago (not a perfect comparison I know). I think since the polygamy issue bothers women more than men it’s not as high a priority. I know men who want more than one wife in the hereafter.

To me it’s a no brainer to disavow polygamy. Polygamy hurts the testimony of current members and the idea keeps people from joining the church. Disavow the practice and clearly state it’s not doctrinal. If you ask 1000 stake presidents, a fair number of them will not be able to explain the official church stance on polygamy.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I also think it’s important to separate what it brought in terms of theological elasticity, for example, especially when talking about people who have been married to multiple spouses, again both men and women, who can’t imagine life after death without some sort of special relationship with all of their spouses. I have used that example in this sort of conversation specifically because it was a paradigm shifter for me when it came to my attention.

There are several questions in my mind, but this one is fairly easily detached. I have never understood this. What does the sealing of sequential spouses living monogamously in mortality have to do with young, marriageable girls strong-armed into becoming the umpteenth wives of older men? Why do we talk about these things together? Why is the former put up as justification for the latter?

[Author]

Posts