Question for Dr. Peterson Regarding Joseph Smith/Polygamy

[_moksha]

I could see retaining a section touting plural marriage as a necessity, the same way one would want to retain other outmoded laws on the books. First, you never know when you might want to hang a horse thief or place a person in the gallows for spitting on the sidewalk. Second, it is fun to read about these quaint and benighted laws in Cecil Adam's Straight Dope. To put these analogies into more readily accessible context, you never know when or if Polygamy will regain its treasured status within the Church and you never know when columnists will wish to write about this in regards to Mormon political candidates. You do not wish them to turn in blank copy, do you?

[_The Nehor]

Out of curiousity, how could it get discarded? Would it need Revelation, "revelation" ala blacks and the priesthood, or just some kind of bureaucratic redaction?

Interesting question, I don't think there is a procedure for removing things from canon. The closest we've come is to remove things from the D&C that were not intended as actual revelations. Lectures on Faith went away. D&C 134 could probably get the axe as it's not really revelation nor a declaration by the 12. Oliver Cowdery's marriage article came out at the same time and was dropped later (I don't think either was approved by Joseph). Articles of Faith are in the same category. Taking 132 out would require an experience similar to the 1978 Priesthood Revelation in my opinion.

[_Gazelam]

At various times God has called upon his people to enter that marriage dicipline given to Abraham, the practice known as plural marriage. There is no indication whatsoever in the biblical account that God was in any way displeased or even concerned that Abraham took hagar, Sarah's handmaid, to wife (genesis 16). We learn, in fact, in modern revelation that God himself commanded it (see D&C 132).

Why, then, are the actions of David and Solomon spoken of as abominations? Why does the taking of plural wives by Abraham, Jacob, or Moses go uncondemned? Jacob was denouncing unauthorized marriages, on the part of David and Solomon. Such constituted adultery, sexual sin against the marriage covenant. David's adulterous actions with Bathsheba were unauthorized and condemned (2 Samuel 11-12). Solomon's marriage to "strange wives," to foreign women who turned his heart away from the everlasting covenant and the worship of the Lord Jehovah, was unauthorized and condemned (1 Kings 11).

Modern revelation places the entire question into a proper doctrinal and historical perspective: "Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him by [by God], and he abode my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded; they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods. David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me. David's wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife [Bathsheba]; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them[his wives] out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord." (D&C 132:37-39; italics added.)

[_harmony]

How do you reconcile Christ fulfilling the law with Joseph restoring something that was not a law?

[_Jason Bourne]

Interesting question, I don't think there is a procedure for removing things from canon. The closest we've come is to remove things from the D&C that were not intended as actual revelations.

The Lectures, while not revelation were canon, and canonized as the doctrine of the 1835 doctrine and covenants. The revelations were the covenents. The artivle on marriage from the 1835 D&C was removed in 1876 and that was part of canon as well.

Lectures on Faith went away.

Well they were removed without a vote at all and alledly because they were not revelations. But they were canon. The actual reason is because the theology in the Lectures, particularly Lecture 5, conflicted somewhat with the 1916 FP statement on the godhead.

Oliver Cowdery's marriage article came out at the same time and was dropped later (I don't think either was approved by Joseph).

The article on marriage was canonized as part of the 1835 D&C. It was voted upon. It is speculated that Joseph Smith was not pleased that the article on marriage was included but it was approved by the Church. And it really does not make sense that he would not have approved. The preface of the 1835 D&C stated three reasons the book was published-To prove to the world that the LDS Church 1: Believed the Bible-accomplised with the Lectures as they are primarily biblical in nature, 2: That the Church did not practive polygamy-accomplished by the article on marriage and 3: The atha Church obeyed the law of the land-accoplished by the article on government.

[_Jason Bourne]

At various times God has called upon his people to enter that marriage dicipline given to Abraham, the practice known as plural marriage. There is no indication whatsoever in the biblical account that God was in any way displeased or even concerned that Abraham took hagar, Sarah's handmaid, to wife (genesis 16). We learn, in fact, in modern revelation that God himself commanded it (see D&C 132).

Biblical polygamy is not the same as LDS polygamy. A study of it in the Bible reveals that GOd tolerated it but did not command it nor require to get to heaven or exalted.

Why, then, are the actions of David and Solomon spoken of as abominations? Why does the taking of plural wives by Abraham, Jacob, or Moses go uncondemned? Jacob was denouncing unauthorized marriages, on the part of David and Solomon. Such constituted adultery, sexual sin against the marriage covenant. David's adulterous actions with Bathsheba were unauthorized and condemned (2 Samuel 11-12). Solomon's marriage to "strange wives," to foreign women who turned his heart away from the everlasting covenant and the worship of the Lord Jehovah, was unauthorized and condemned (1 Kings 11).

Jacon 2 condemns all of David and Solomon's plural wives. D&VC 132 sanctions them except for Bathsheba. D&C 132 directly contradicts Jacob 2.

[_harmony]

The canon we have today is not much like the canon that was first voted upon. Much has been added and removed, sometimes without a vote.

Anyone viewing our canon today without a detailed knowledge of the history and provence of it would gain a completely different idea of the importance of the canon than someone who knows all of it. One of the greatest lessons I ever learned was taught by Pac on Z, when he instructed me about the canonization process and what common consent really meant.

Studying the canon and the history of it's provence should be part of a year-long process required to become members of the church. We'd have fewer converts, but those we had would be amazingly strong. And maybe it would require us to clean up some of the ambiguity and some of the conflicts within it. (and then we could jettison several verses of Sec 132).

[_The Nehor]

Jacon 2 condemns all of David and Solomon's plural wives. D&VC 132 sanctions them except for Bathsheba. D&C 132 directly contradicts Jacob 2.

My reading is what is condemned is the excess. The D&C states that some of the wives were approved by the Prophet (Nathan, I think?). However it seems they went nuts taking unapproved wives. If the Biblical record is to be believed Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. I'm hoping that's a numbering error and it's only 70 and 30....or it's just an exaggeration designed to make Solomon seem great. If I read the Bible right David may have had as few as 3 or 4 wives (not small family but hardly out there) when the Bathsheba incident occurred. Then David went nuts. I don't think it's coincedence that from that point on David seems to act like a moron. Mistake after mistake. Losing Spirit?

I don't see a contradiction.

[_Blixa]

Thanks for the history lesson, Jason.

harmony, you wouldn't be able to find that Z discussion would you?

[_Jason Bourne]

Jacon 2 condemns all of David and Solomon's plural wives. D&VC 132 sanctions them except for Bathsheba. D&C 132 directly contradicts Jacob 2.

My reading is what is condemned is the excess. The D&C states that some of the wives were approved by the Prophet (Nathan, I think?). However it seems they went nuts taking unapproved wives. If the Biblical record is to be believed Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. I'm hoping that's a numbering error and it's only 70 and 30....or it's just an exaggeration designed to make Solomon seem great. If I read the Bible right David may have had as few as 3 or 4 wives (not small family but hardly out there) when the Bathsheba incident occurred. Then David went nuts. I don't think it's coincedence that from that point on David seems to act like a moron. Mistake after mistake. Losing Spirit?

I don't see a contradiction.

Jacob 2:23-26

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.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
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.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

Jacon says the Nephites are committing whoredoms and they are justifying them based on what David and Solomon did. He then says God says that these the htings David and Solomon did were abominable. No selection of ones that were not, no "it was ok for the ones Nathan gave. Blanket condemnation. He then tells them they should not do this.

D&C 132:38-39

38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.
39 David’s wives and concubines were bgiven unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

So now they did not sin and somehow GOd is letting Joseph use David and Solomon to justify polygamy.

This certianly seems an absolute reversal of the Book of Mormon, the most correct book and keystone to our religion.