- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
“Generating even more controversy in discussing the revelation was an officially sanctioned scriptural work entitled, Latter-day Revelations: Selections from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Published in 1930 under the imprint of the LDS Church, the volume was actually compiled by James E. Talmage, who by this time was a senior apostle in the Quorum of the Twelve. This work was characterized as containing “Sections and parts of Sections from the Doctrine and Covenants, the sections comprising scriptures of general an enduring value…”. Its purpose, in the words of Talmage, was “to make the strictly doctrinal parts of the Doctrine and Covenants of easy access and reduce its bulk.” Accordingly some ninety-five sections of the Doctrine and Covenants were completely omitted, along with parts of twenty-one others. The most noteworthy of these omissions was the entire text of Section 132! Fundamentalist Mormons were outraged, “accusing the [LDS] church of changing the scriptures.” In response, then Church President Heber J. Grant, ordered the work immediately “withdrawn” from sale and the remaining copies “shredded to avoid further conflict with the fundamentalists,” according to Talmage biographer, James P. Harris.”
Newell G. Bringhurst, “Section 132: Contents and Legacy” in The Persistence of Polygamy, (Independence: John Whitmer Books: 2010), 83-84.
I’m trying to get a copy of the book or at least a list of the sections/verses omitted.
As long as D&C 19:6-7 was included I’d be happy! I depend heavily on that one as part of my interpretation and application of Mormonism.
I have often heard people ask why we had D&C revelations and now in our church we don’t have new revelations anymore. I think they learned over time, that once you put something in as scripture…its pretty hard to take it out (apart from grammatical corrections).
Its easier to have General Conference talks on subjects, and suggest people study them “as if they were scripture” – but leave the loophole that they are not scripture and can be ignored or explained differently with continuing revelation.
There’s a great series on BCC on section 132. So far, only 2 installments, but I think there are going to be a total of 13. Here is the second: http://bycommonconsent.com/2013/08/25/sunday-evenings-with-the-doctrine-and-covenants-section-132-part-2-manuscripts/ Pure Mormonism has a blog post about why he abandoned polygamy and touches on Section 132 not even being a revelation by Joseph Smith. The trouble is, this sounds good and so does the story above which makes me think that perhaps we have it because the people wanted it not because it’s what God wanted. Kinda like the how God, in the Old Testament, did not want the Children of Israel to have a King over them but the people kept wanting it and God finally said okay, fine, here ya go.
But, where’s the supporting evidence for it?
I’ll provide the smoking gun here: 1) We know from the Book of Mormon that polygamy was considered a sin and against the will of the Lord. The only exception being those who have been directly commanded otherwise by the Lord.
Quote:Jacob 1:15 And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son.
2:22 And now I make an end of speaking unto you concerning this pride. And were it not that I must speak unto you concerning a grosser crime, my heart would rejoice exceedingly because of you.
2:23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
2:24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
2:25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
2:26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
2:27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
2:28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
2:29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
2:30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
2) It was a commandment in the Church JS founded that this should not be done. Section 101 of the 1835 D&C contained the following:
Quote:Marriage should be celebrated with prayer and thanksgiving; and at the solemnization, the persons to be married, standing together, the man on the right, and the woman on the left, shall be addressed, by the person officiating, as he shall be directed by the holy Spirit; and if there be no legal objections, he shall say, calling each by their names: “You both mutually agree to be each other’s companion, husband and wife, observing the legal rights belonging to this condition; that is, keeping yourselves wholly for each other, and from all others, during your lives.” And when they have answered “Yes,” he shall pronounce them “husband and wife” in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by virtue of the laws of the country and authority vested in him: “may God add his blessings and keep you to fulfil your covenants from henceforth and forever. Amen.”
The clerk of every church should keep a record of all marriages, solemnized in his branch.
All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. It is not right to persuade a woman to be baptized contrary to the will of her husband, neither is it lawful to influence her to leave her husband. All children are bound by law to obey their parents; and to influence them to embrace any religious faith, or be baptized, or leave their parents without their consent, is unlawful and unjust. We believe that husbands, parents and masters who exercise control over their wives, children, and servants and prevent them from embracing the truth, will have to answer for that sin.
3) Section 132 was added by the Brighamite Sect of the LDS Church to justify their behavior in 1875!!!
I believe the following facts establish that the LDS Church, which in reality is the Brighamite sect, instituted polygamy as an institution of the Church against the commandment of God to justify their own sin and behavior. Nothing helps clarify the problem by judging them using their own reasons. They stated that polygamy was lived to provide protection, shelter, and to sustain widows and to allow women to have marry and have children that would not otherwise have a chance to do so. However, this is NOT how they conducted themselves. Often young women, who were very eligible for marriage to men their own age, were selected by the older polygamists. This was hypocritical and validated they were only doing it in pursuit of their own lusts and desires and not something God would have wanted. As you can imagine, this caused problems for younger Mormon men in finding wives. And the ultimate sign of how the Lord felt about this is God allowed the US Government to come in and put a stop to the practice. Do you really think if this were an eternal principle ordained of God, that any man-made government could force them to stop?
So… I am as much opposed to plural marriage as anyone on this site. However, I believe it is important that when we state facts that we get them right. Opinion is the free domain of the holder, but if it looks like we are bending facts to our advantage, then we lose credibility. I hope that the Church will someday refute polygamy (plural marriage) and I believe, because of that, that our best course is to be without reproach when it comes to facts. The facts of polygamy are damning enough on their own; we don’t need to enhance them. So, with that in mind, let me clarify a few items: – Section 101 of the 1835 D&C was one of three sections placed in the “Appendix”. It was never considered a revelation, but rather policy and practice. It was adopted by the Church committee in charge of publishing the D&C, and importantly, it was adopted by the vote of those present, which did not include Joseph Smith. The presiding officers were Oliver Cowdery and Sydney Rigdon. See History of the Church, Vol 2, pg 243. Would JS have voted for it? I don’t know. But he didn’t vote, so I believe the content of the section is dubious. JS could have removed it later, but that likely would have served to fan the flames of anti-polygamy… It is clearly written as a policy document. First sentence: “According to the custom of all civilized nations, marriage is regulated by laws and ceremonies: therefore we believe, that all marriages of this church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, should be solemnized in a public meeting…”
– It is correct that Section 132 was not added until very late. It first appeared in the D&C in 1876. However, it had been publicly read in a church conference in August, 1852 and printed in the Deseret news two weeks later. In fairness, the 1876 edition was the first new edition of the D&C in the post JS era. There had been a course of re-printings in England, but none was a new edition until the 1876 edition, the first printing of the D&C in Utah.
– I don’t believe it is accurate to say that “They stated that polygamy was lived to provide protection, shelter, and to sustain widows…” Those rationalizations were listed as benefits of polygamy, not the reason for it. Plural Marriage was ever and always in those days viewed as necessary for exaltation. We have a much stronger tendency in the modern Church to hear this form of “why” response, because we no longer view it as an absolute for exaltation (thankfully).
– Brighamite sect or no, plural marriage was practiced well before BY took over control of the Church. Plural marriage originated with JS. It was his program… and his downfall. BY institutionalized it.
On Own Now already said what I would have said. In order to deal with any issue of which someone doesn’t approve, the best course is to make sure any absolutist statements are as accurate as possible. I don’t like polygamy, but I can’t back any argument based on, “Joseph didn’t institute or practice it.”
On Own Now, I don’t believe anything you’ve cited directly refutes or in any way diminishes anything I said. The D&C up to that point had been a set of man-made writings binding upon the Church by common consent. If you would like to point out any differences, please feel free and I’ll be happy to respond.
Now I’ll deal with this given my view of revelation. I do NOT believe that one set of man-made statements are more important, binding or truthful than another set of man-made statements because someone arbitrarily decides to attach some mystical significance to them such as by designating them as revelation. This is an artificial imposition or interpretation and a flawed view in my opinion. As I’ve already pointed out, the D&C is a man-made document and a commonly agreed upon set of man-made commandments and/or statements. One needs to carefully scrutinize these documents as a result and realize how they were created, were being used and/or abused by men at times. To illustrate my point to you, I’d like you to point out one example of any of these writings that was not written by a man. You will be completely unable to since there have only been a few writings directly written or objects directly created by God himself. None of which we have in our possession. Examples of that would be the Liahona (and the writings that appeared there), the ten commandments, and so on.
On Own Now wrote:I don’t believe it is accurate to say that “They stated that polygamy was lived to provide protection, shelter, and to sustain widows…” Those rationalizations were listed as benefits of polygamy, not the reason for it. Plural Marriage was ever and always in those days viewed as necessary for exaltation. We have a much stronger tendency in the modern Church to hear this form of “why” response, because we no longer view it as an absolute for exaltation (thankfully).
Again, you are not refuting what I said or did not read it carefully. These were the very reasons they gave to the world to defend the practice. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of how they were conducting themselves by not conducting themselves like this. This lack of candor and truthfulness is a symptom of the sin they were committing.
On Own Now wrote:Brighamite sect or no, plural marriage was practiced well before BY took over control of the Church. Plural marriage originated with JS. It was his program… and his downfall. BY institutionalized it.
This is another failure to grasp what I was saying. Whether or not God told JS and those he engaged in polygamy with to do so, I do not know. I think it can be argued quite successfully that what he was doing was unseemly and destructive to the Church (i.e. apparently a sin). However, that is between God, himself, and the lives he affected. I am content to let God judge them for good or ill. My point was one should only do such a things if God has commanded one to do so (and I believe one should deeply question the Lord about such things and do so only based upon the purest of motives). I very much doubt that is the way the Brighamites were living polygamy. They were simply taking multiple wives as they felt the desire to and not as God directly told them to (and this was the sin). And I believe they were forced to stop in time as a result of this sin.
Old-Timer wrote:I don’t like polygamy, but I can’t back any argument based on, “Joseph didn’t institute or practice it.”
Please re-read what I said. That was not my point.
mackay11, thanks for the quote! That is fascinating. I guess I didn’t really think of JETalmage as a reformer. If you are able to acquire this book and gain additional insight, please share. On Own Now wrote:mackay11, thanks for the quote! That is fascinating. I guess I didn’t really think of JETalmage as a reformer. If you are able to acquire this book and gain additional insight, please share.
I would also like to know more. The “Fundamentalists” they wanted to avoid conflict with were in or out of the church? Sorry if that’s obvious to every but me. The one time I had the nerve to speak up regarding 132, I was told, “That doesn’t happen” – deleting or changing it. Why on earth not? There are a fair number of women who want nothing to do with a church that will keep 132 enshrined, untouched – more like entombed -in its canon.
Tobin, are you saying Joseph did or didn’t have more than one wife – and are you saying that, if he did, it was right for him but not right for future leaders, based on how you view the inspiration / revelation or lack thereof involved? Ultimately, what I’m saying is that you are expressing your views as if they were objective fact – and as if anyone who really studied and thought about the issue with an open mind would agree with you. That simply isn’t the case, and with an issue as complex as this one, it’s not a stance we accept here – on either side. We don’t take the position that polygamy was perfectly in line with God’s will, and we don’t take the position that it was evil and purely lust driven. We all have differing opinions about it, and we respect that. We aren’t here to reach a consensus or to convince others we are right and they are wrong. We are here to share differing perspectives and talk about how we “stay LDS” despite seeing things differently than many other people – and even each other.
We have multiple threads in our archives dealing with polygamy – and more than one of those threads deal with polygamy as a broad, general topic. If you want to post comments in one of those threads, you are welcome to do so. This thread, however, is not focused on it that broadly.
[
Admin note: Everyone, let’s go back, re-read the original post and keep the comments focused on it – like Ann’s comment does, for example. Let’s not turn this thread into a generic discussion of polygamy.] Old-Timer wrote:Tobin, are you saying Joseph did or didn’t have more than one wife – and are you saying that, if he did, it was right for him but not right for future leaders, based on how you view the inspiration / revelation or lack thereof involved?
Actually, I did not bring up JS’s polygamy at all in my initial post. I was simply pointing out how Section 132 came to be a part of the D&C and what came before. I would again invite you to read my original post and if you can cite where I discussed JS’s polygamy – then I’ll be happy to apologize.
Anyway, I’ll address your questions. It is a fact that JS was a polygamist and had more than one wife. However, my view of it was this was either a test from the Lord to JS and one he failed or he simply made it all up, which is also possible. And I’m open to change my view. However, given how he conducted himself with others in secret, openly denying it at times, and the problems it caused both in and outside of the Church; I think my view has a factual basis. So given that, I believe leaders and persons that were polygamists afterwards were also not doing so at the commandment of God at all. And I think the Book of Mormon is clear on this point as well. The Lord does not condone polygamy EXCEPT in select instances where he directly says otherwise and I do not think the Lord would be the author of this much confusion and the antics that many of these polygamists were up to. I certainly cannot agree with the taking of other men’s wives as was done. I certainly don’t agree with the secrecy (i.e. if such acts were done out of pure motives why feel the need to hide the fact?). And I believe when someone dispassionately views this in total, it clearly indicates behavior that would not be condoned by God.
Old-Timer wrote:Ultimately, what I’m saying is that you are expressing your views as if they were objective fact
I’m sorry, but It is a fact. Section 132 was added much later to the D&C. I don’t think the facts are in dispute here. However, if I am wrong and you dispute the fact that section 132 was added later to the D&C, please let me know.
My view (and I hope you’ll note this is my opinion) is If it had been a commandment meant for the whole Church, it would have been added to the D&C when it was first given. Clearly it was not meant that way (if it came from God at all?!?), and I believe this was added later to justify behavior that was already going on against the will of God. I believes how one views those facts and the reasons behind this late addition is what makes D&C 132 interesting and worth discussing.
Old-Timer wrote:and as if anyone who really studied and thought about the issue with an open mind would agree with you.
Again, I presented my view. You are welcome to dispute my view as you want and I’m willing to reasonably discuss it with you. I certainly don’t believe my view is necessarily the correct one. However, I have laid out my case clearly as I can I believe.
Old-Timer wrote:That simply isn’t the case, and with an issue as complex as this one, it’s not a stance we accept here – on either side.
I think I should be able to present my views and the facts behind those views. If you disagree with my views, you are welcome to make criticisms. If the facts are in dispute, I’d welcome a correction there as well. And I am perfectly willing to entertain any points you wish to discuss and have no illusions that my view is necessarily the correct one as you seem to be saying.
Old-Timer wrote:We don’t take the position that polygamy was perfectly in line with God’s will, and we don’t take the position that it was evil and purely lust driven.
Again, I think the Lord makes it clear that it is often evil and lust driven in the Book of Mormon (as I cited it). You are welcome to cite the Book of Mormon where it states otherwise. Again, I’d be happy to be corrected.
Old-Timer wrote:We all have differing opinions about it, and we respect that. We aren’t here to reach a consensus or to convince others we are right and they are wrong. We are here to share differing perspectives and talk about how we “stay LDS” despite seeing things differently than many other people – and even each other.
I have not said otherwise. That was not my objective. I was simply presenting the facts and my view of them. Again, I think you adding things to my statements that I simply did not say or are reading in intentions that I simply do not have or share.
Old-Timer wrote:We have multiple threads in our archives dealing with polygamy – and more than one of those threads deal with polygamy as a broad, general topic. If you want to post comments in one of those threads, you are welcome to do so. This thread, however, is not focused on it that broadly.
Again, my comments WERE strictly about D&C 132. I provided additional contextual facts about what was stated in the Book of Mormon on the subject as well as what D&C 1835 101 had said
for comparison purposes. I will remind you again, that I was not the one the brought JS’s polygamy into this discussion. I simply provided my views about section 132, why it was added to the D&C, what the underlying context was, and what I believe the reasons were behind it were. Ann wrote:The “Fundamentalists” they wanted to avoid conflict with were in or out of the church? Sorry if that’s obvious to every but me.
It isn’t obvious to me… Perhaps this isn’t so much fundamentalist break-away groups, but rather hard-liners within the Church. That probably makes more sense. I know that even today, there would be resistance to removing sec 132, even though nobody legally in the Church practices it.Quote:a fair number of women
As always, I simply ask… Please broaden the tent to include men like me. This isn’t a men vs women issue. I am every bit as opposed to the polygamy as any woman here. My opposition to it goes to 11. Polygamy was the single issue that led to my faith crisis. It is the first and foremost doctrine I would change if I was prophet/seer/revelator for a day. There are others, but I would be satisfied if I could make this one change before senior members of the Q12 figured out what was going on and tackled me to the ground, kicking and punching, behind the pulpit of the Conference Center.I know that there are some men that shrug it off as not a big deal. I also know there are some women who wear it as a badge of honor that they are OK with the idea of polygamy, since it is “commanded by God”. I see it as a hard-liner vs reformer concern.
Tobin, I re-read your post, and you are correct. I apologize. Fwiw, I have been a bit distracted the last few days, and I did what I caution others all the time not to do: I read something too quickly and not carefully enough, and ended up misreading it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.