Section 132, a forgery?

[Maverick]

7 minutes ago, HaggisShuu said:

I may be wrong? Isn't it the official position of the Community of Christ that Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy? 
 

 

This was their official position for a very long time, established by their first church president, Joseph Smith III, when they were still known as the RLDS church. It is my understanding that their church historians have since admitted that Joseph Smith had more than one wife, which led to a schism in their church and the formation of "Josephite" breakoff groups, who still adhere to the original position. 

Edited December 22, 2024 by Maverick

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Maverick said:

I have the polar opposite take on Brigham Young. I consider him to be a true prophet and man of God, who is appropriately referred to as the "Lion of the Lord." I should have been more clear in my post, but I am a bit surprised, that considering my defense of the priesthood ban and the false charge of racism against Brother Brigham, that @Vort and @NeuroTypical jumped to the conclusion that they did. 

My apologies for being so slow on the uptake. I completely missed the irony (still do), and such proclamations are not unknown on this list.

[Maverick]

32 minutes ago, Vort said:

My apologies for being so slow on the uptake. I completely missed the irony (still do), and such proclamations are not unknown on this list.

Thank you for the apology. It certainly is ironic that the two of you jumped to the conclusion that you did about me. That was very unexpected, considering our prior interactions about the character of Brigham Young and the truthfulness of his teachings, where it was very clear that I considered him to be a true prophet and man of God. 

[laronius]

8 hours ago, Maverick said:

But I've also seen people in this camp accusing President Nelson and President Oaks of being polygamists because they are sealed to two wives (the first wives being deceased). 

 

IMO they are correct, at least from an eternal perspective. 

[Just_A_Guy]

13 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Dehlin and others are now saying that we're "grooming" our children by including section 132 in the children's D&C picture book.

And if we had left that out, they'd be accusing us of hiding something.

 

Considering Dehlin’s own history with women, it appears that Dehlin can’t recognize a groomer even when it stares back at him in the mirror every day.  

[HaggisShuu]

11 hours ago, laronius said:

IMO they are correct, at least from an eternal perspective.

I maintain that polygamy still exists and is still practiced. Like so many other things which have changed over the years, the method of doing it has changed, but the principle has remained the same. 

[Carborendum]

7 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Considering Dehlin’s own history with women, it appears that Dehlin can’t recognize a groomer even when it stares back at him in the mirror every day. 

A recent study I saw indicated that slightly less than half of the people who leave the church usually give up on the law of chastity and the word of wisdom really quickly.  I'd be interested in seeing if there was much of a difference between those who resign from the faith vs the excommunicated.

[Traveler]

8 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

I maintain that polygamy still exists and is still practiced. Like so many other things which have changed over the years, the method of doing it has changed, but the principle has remained the same. 

I do not follow your line of thinking.  Could you please explain?  In a manner that I could understand.  Please do not mind if I have some questions regarding your logic to clarify what I am not getting.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

A recent study I saw indicated that slightly less than half of the people who leave the church usually give up on the law of chastity and the word of wisdom really quickly.  I'd be interested in seeing if there was much of a difference between those who resign from the faith vs the excommunicated.

Just as everyone has spiritual gifts (Moroni 10).  It would seem that we all have our spiritual weaknesses that evil loves to exploit.   Isaiah prophesied that there is a trifecta of separation of mankind from G-d.  Transgression of the law, changing of the ordinances and breaking the everlasting covenant.  What Satan does with those that find pleasure to separate themselves from G-d is Satan’s pleasure. 

Hopefully those that experience the flaxen cords applied as the separation stages take place will repent before the flaxen cords become iron chains.

 

The Traveler

[HaggisShuu]

46 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I do not follow your line of thinking.  Could you please explain?  In a manner that I could understand.  Please do not mind if I have some questions regarding your logic to clarify what I am not getting.

 

The Traveler

I meant in the sense of, the sacrament used wine before the word of wisdom was introduced.  Change in the way the ordinance is practiced, but the theological principles are the same. The presentation of temple ordinances have changed over the years, but the theological principles and what we learn, remains the same. 

Similarly, I see official declaration 1 as a change in policy, motivated by the fact that Utah needed to become a state, not necessarily a spiritual motivation. So while the Church no longer practices polygamy for time, it does for eternity, with Russell M Nelson and Dallin H Oaks being prime examples. Again, a change in policy and method, but the end result is that the principle of a man having a plurality of marriages remains.  

Edited December 23, 2024 by HaggisShuu

[zil2]

43 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I do not follow your line of thinking.  Could you please explain?  In a manner that I could understand.  Please do not mind if I have some questions regarding your logic to clarify what I am not getting.

My dad was sealed to my mom for time and all eternity.  My mom died.  After some years, my dad remarried and was sealed for time and all eternity to the woman he married.  It is all our¹ understanding that my father now has two wives, and will in eternity have two wives, assuming all three of them keep their covenants and are worthy of exaltation.

¹Even my mom, with whom I had a discussion about polygamy decades before she died (or imagined dying young - generic conversation).

In other words, polygamy, just sequentially (rather than concurrently) in mortality.  Obviously, it will be concurrent in eternity.

[Traveler]

21 minutes ago, HaggisShuu said:

I meant in the sense of, the sacrament used wine before the word of wisdom was introduced.  Change in the way the ordinance is practiced, but the theological principles are the same. The presentation of temple ordinances have changed over the years, but the theological principles and what we learn, remains the same. 

Similarly, I see official declaration 1 as a change in policy, motivated by the fact that Utah needed to become a state, not necessarily a spiritual motivation. So while the Church no longer practices polygamy for time, it does for eternity, with Russell M Nelson and Dallin H Oaks being prime examples. Again, a change in policy and method, but the end result is that the principle of a man having a plurality of marriages remains.  

It is my understandint that the presentation of an ordinance may change but the ordinances are never changed.

19 minutes ago, zil2 said:

My dad was sealed to my mom for time and all eternity.  My mom died.  After some years, my dad remarried and was sealed for time and all eternity to the woman he married.  It is all our¹ understanding that my father now has two wives, and will in eternity have two wives, assuming all three of them keep their covenants and are worthy of exaltation.

¹Even my mom, with whom I had a discussion about polygamy decades before she died (or imagined dying young - generic conversation).

In other words, polygamy, just sequentially (rather than concurrently) in mortality.  Obviously, it will be concurrent in eternity.

I am of the mind that we are allowed to seek out and have one marriage of our choice.  If there is to be another it is only allowed under the conditions that G-d prescribes and initiates. That here on earth where such things are made through divine ordinance – that only the prophet (president of the Church) hold the keys for any ordinance of eternal or divine marriage – which still must be sealed by the Holy Ghose.  All others will end when there is a death (until death do ye part).

 

The Traveler

[zil2]

16 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I am of the mind that we are allowed to seek out and have one marriage of our choice.  If there is to be another it is only allowed under the conditions that G-d prescribes and initiates. That here on earth where such things are made through divine ordinance – that only the prophet (president of the Church) hold the keys for any ordinance of eternal or divine marriage – which still must be sealed by the Holy Ghose.  All others will end when there is a death (until death do ye part).

I'm not sure what you're trying to hint at, but the temple sealing of my dad and his second wife (I don't remember the sealing of my parents, which happened before I was conceived) was in fact for time and eternity - conditioned, of course, on their faithfulness.  I have no reason to think that they will not be sealed in eternity (again, on the stated conditions).  Maybe there are more ordinances to come, and obviously, at some point, the sealings must be sealed by the Holy Ghost in order to be binding in eternity.  But I see no reason to think this is not a type of polygamy.

[Vort]

On 12/22/2024 at 9:17 AM, Maverick said:

Thank you for the apology. It certainly is ironic that the two of you jumped to the conclusion that you did about me. That was very unexpected, considering our prior interactions about the character of Brigham Young and the truthfulness of his teachings, where it was very clear that I considered him to be a true prophet and man of God. 

I often respond to what was said without consideration (or realization) of who said it. I'm getting better about that, but it still occurs from time to time.

[Traveler]

4 hours ago, zil2 said:

I'm not sure what you're trying to hint at, but the temple sealing of my dad and his second wife (I don't remember the sealing of my parents, which happened before I was conceived) was in fact for time and eternity - conditioned, of course, on their faithfulness.  I have no reason to think that they will not be sealed in eternity (again, on the stated conditions).  Maybe there are more ordinances to come, and obviously, at some point, the sealings must be sealed by the Holy Ghost in order to be binding in eternity.  But I see no reason to think this is not a type of polygamy.

How can I explain this?  In ancient Egypt there was a g-d called Khepri.  His symbol was the scarab beetle.  It is the symbol of things that are brought to pass – like the sun rising, moving across the sky and then setting.  There are some scholars that believe the scripture reference – “And it came to pass” is reminiscent of such divine influence.   

An initial marriage is a gift of G-d that is given by covenant that we can achieve mostly on our own effort.  But, under certain circumstances, one can be gifted something in addition.  Something which comes (gifted) entirely from circumstances beyond their control.  In essence - "And it came to pass".

Maledictions could also be provided for broken promises or covenants.  Which in the case of your father most likely was a benediction and not a malediction.

 

The Traveler

Edited December 24, 2024 by Traveler

[HaggisShuu]

11 hours ago, Traveler said:

It is my understandint that the presentation of an ordinance may change but the ordinances are never changed.

Exactly the point I was trying to illustrate. I am suggesting that the way eternal marriages functioned prior to 1890, and the way it functions now, is nothing more than one of many changes in presentation. 

[HaggisShuu]

So to add further context, the evidence cited of the claims of D&C 132 being a forgery is that it was published only after Joseph Smiths death and the only reliable wittiness connecting Joseph Smith to the revelation is William Clayton, who's journal is locked in the first presidencies vault and has not been released to the public. 
 

The biggest proponent I can find is youtuber "Connor Boyack" who has a weekly series in which he releases some lengthy reflections. I do think he's quite interesting, and has some excellent commentary to offer. I'm not sure how well known he is but I know he's gotten in trouble with the Church for campaigning to legalise medicinal marijuana in Utah when the church was publicly opposing it. So while he is a "faithful member" his conclusions should probably be taken with a pinch of salt. 

Edited February 15 by HaggisShuu

[Just_A_Guy]

6 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

So to add further context, the evidence cited of the claims of D&C 132 being a forgery is that it was published only after Joseph Smiths death and the only reliable wittiness connecting Joseph Smith to the revelation is William Clayton, who's journal is locked in the first presidencies vault and has not been released to the public. 
 

The biggest proponent I can find is youtuber "Connor Boyack" who has a weekly series in which he releases some lengthy reflections. I do think he's quite interesting, and has some excellent commentary to offer. I'm not sure how well known he is but I know he's gotten in trouble with the Church for campaigning to legalise medicinal marijuana in Utah when the church was publicly opposing it. So while he is a "faithful member" his conclusions should probably be taken with a pinch of salt. 

Excerpts of Clayton’s journals have been published in the past.  In 2017 the JSPP was saying they’d publish the whole thing after the JSP were completed; though so far that hasn’t happened.

From what I gather, the journals are highly unlikely to present Joseph as a monogamist or even as having been particularly ambivalent about the divine origin of polygamy.  To the contrary, my understanding is that they likely contain some seamier details of polygamy generally and the drama between Joseph and Emma in particular—supposedly even including Emma declaring her intent that if Joseph could pursue additional wives, then she could and would pursue additional husbands.

[HaggisShuu]

10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Excerpts of Clayton’s journals have been published in the past.  In 2017 the JSPP was saying they’d publish the whole thing after the JSP were completed; though so far that hasn’t happened.

From what I gather, the journals are highly unlikely to present Joseph as a monogamist or even as having been particularly ambivalent about the divine origin of polygamy.  To the contrary, my understanding is that they likely contain some seamier details of polygamy generally and the drama between Joseph and Emma in particular—supposedly even including Emma declaring her intent that if Joseph could pursue additional wives, then she could and would pursue additional husbands.

I didn't realise some of the excerpts had actually been released. The polygamy denial does seem a bit conspiracy theorist to me. 
 

Do you think perhaps they have been withheld to protect the image of the prophet then? If the journals do contain alot of drama then it would likely continue to fuel skepticism. 

[Just_A_Guy]

8 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

I didn't realise some of the excerpts had actually been released. The polygamy denial does seem a bit conspiracy theorist to me. 
 

Do you think perhaps they have been withheld to protect the image of the prophet then? If the journals do contain alot of drama then it would likely continue to fuel skepticism. 

IIRC, Joseph F Smith was church historian for a while in the late 19th century; and there were several docs that he felt people just weren’t ready to hear (and of course, being Joseph’s nephew, he had a personal interest in not wanting negative matter about his uncle being published).  For example, I think it was him who managed to obtain William McClellin’s journals and he locked them away so deeply that the church (and everyone else) forgot it had them . . . leading Mark Hoffman to claim he had the journals, and the Church (via proxy) to express interest in obtaining them.  When the (real) journals were finally found and released, there was nothing really earthshaking; just run-of-the-mill disaffected Mormon stuff.

I suspect most of the really saucy stuff from Clayton’s journal is already “out there”; and If the Church has been deliberately suppressing them in the name of protecting anyone’s image over the past 20-30 years, I would guess it has more to do with protecting Emma’s rather than Joseph’s—from what I gather, Clayton sometimes doesn’t paint her in a good light; and there are factions in the Church right now that can’t abide anything negative being said about Emma.  My *guess* is that at this point the Church is ok releasing them eventually if/when it can be done in a format that will properly contextualize them.  Heck, they may even be working on it now.

Edited February 16 by Just_A_Guy

[mrmarklin]

On 12/22/2024 at 5:31 AM, NeuroTypical said:

I'd like to suggest you give mormondialogue.org a try.  They welcome debate and criticism. 

 

This is a very poisonous website. I don’t recommend it at all. Too many antis and jack Mormons. 

[NeuroTypical]

10 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

This is a very poisonous website. I don’t recommend it at all. Too many antis and jack Mormons. 

100% agreement. It’s a perfect place for anyone who wants to go argue/criticize our faith or its members or whatever. We don’t allow it here, but there’s a place folks can go if they really want to do that.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

On 12/21/2024 at 8:33 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

Brian Hales is probably the leading expert on Joseph Smith’s plural marriages and he recently did a couple of episodes with “Mormonism With the Murph” on YouTube where he addresses a lot of this.

IIRC, as to Section 132 itself:  in short, we have a number of contemporaneous accounts (including from people who rejected it, like Marks and Law) of Joseph Smith having shown it to them or otherwise teaching it.

Hales also points out that JS basically took plural wives in three “waves”, if you will:

1) Fanny Alger.  That situation blows up so badly that JS abandons plural marriage for years.

2) Following a threat from an angel with a drawn sword, JS begins marrying plural wives—but nearly all of them are women who are already married to other men.  Hales posits that he deliberately chose married women because, out of respect for Emma as well as Joseph’s own feelings, he planned to have these be sexless “eternity-only” marriages.

3)  The angel with drawn sword comes again, basically saying “that’s not what I meant and you know it.  Now, do it right.”  At this point Smith’s future brides are single women, and several of them later affirm (as genteelly as Victorians ever would) that there was indeed a sexual element to their marriages with Smith.

Which section of the D&C talks about the angel with a sword? seems like hearsay.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Which section of the D&C talks about the angel with a sword? seems like hearsay.

Not in the D&C but communicated to Smith by at least nine different people; including three future apostles and two future general RS presidents.
 

https://ensignpeakfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Encouraging-Joseph-Smith-to-Practice-Plural-Marriage-The-Accounts-of-the-Angel-with-a-Drawn-Sword.pdf

Edited February 18 by Just_A_Guy