Question for Dr. Peterson Regarding Joseph Smith/Polygamy

[_Daniel Peterson]

I can't, personally, manage the mental gymnastics that would be required to discard several verses of Section 132 while retaining the rest.

As to Section 131, I think it's clearly based on the revelation recorded as Section 132, which seems to have been received as early as 1831.

[_Jason Bourne]

I can't, personally, manage the mental gymnastics that would be required to discard several verses of Section 132 while retaining the rest.

As to Section 131, I think it's clearly based on the revelation recorded as Section 132, which seems to have been received as early as 1831.

So D&C 132 is prior to 131 and 132 says celestial marriage=plural marriage=eternal marriage?

Thus D&C 131 was givin as clarification to D&C 132 and the marriage there referred to is plural/celestial marraige?

Do you then agree that when the 19th century leaders said celestial marriage they meant, almost always, polygamy and that they taught such was required for exaltation?


If so what does the term celestial marriage mean today?

[_KimberlyAnn]

I can't, personally, manage the mental gymnastics that would be required to discard several verses of Section 132 while retaining the rest.

Me either. I suggest discarding the whole thing.

KA

[_harmony]

I can't, personally, manage the mental gymnastics that would be required to discard several verses of Section 132 while retaining the rest.

As to Section 131, I think it's clearly based on the revelation recorded as Section 132, which seems to have been received as early as 1831.

If you accept Sec 132 as written, you must discard part of the Book of Mormon. You must also discard part of Acts and also parts of D&C 1 and 38.

[_Inconceivable]

I can't, personally, manage the mental gymnastics that would be required to discard several verses of Section 132 while retaining the rest.

As to Section 131, I think it's clearly based on the revelation recorded as Section 132, which seems to have been received as early as 1831.

If you accept Sec 132 as written, you must discard part of the Book of Mormon. You must also discard part of Acts and also parts of D&C 1 and 38.

This is what amazes me, Dan.

You and those that practiced it can extract one poorly written verse out of two full chapters that detail the reasoning why this specific abomination is so destructive - and you justify its practice. I suppose it would be much easier for you to see this clearly if you didn't have such unbridled respect for your ancestors.

33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.
34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.
35 Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.

(Book of Mormon | Jacob 2:33 - 35)

If the Book of Mormon is true, Jacob is implying as well, that our Bible was certainly not their brass plates:

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.
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;
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.

(Book of Mormon | Jacob 2:23 - 28)

[_Yoda]

I can't, personally, manage the mental gymnastics that would be required to discard several verses of Section 132 while retaining the rest.

As to Section 131, I think it's clearly based on the revelation recorded as Section 132, which seems to have been received as early as 1831.

If you accept Sec 132 as written, you must discard part of the Book of Mormon. You must also discard part of Acts and also parts of D&C 1 and 38.

This is what amazes me, Dan.

You and those that practiced it can extract one poorly written verse out of two full chapters that detail the reasoning why this specific abomination is so destructive - and you justify its practice. I suppose it would be much easier for you to see this clearly if you didn't have such unbridled respect for your ancestors.

33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.
34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.
35 Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.

(Book of Mormon | Jacob 2:33 - 35)

If the Book of Mormon is true, Jacob is implying as well, that our Bible was certainly not their brass plates:

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.
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;
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.

(Book of Mormon | Jacob 2:23 - 28)

What are your thoughts on this, Dr. Peterson? Why the disconnect between the two scriptures? The Book of Mormon is suppose to be the "most correct" scripture in our canon.

Note the bolded portion. Why the disconnect between this and section 132? The Lord is stating things pretty clearly in this portion of Jacob. Why the vast inconsistency in the Lord's position? It just doesn't make sense to me.

[_Seven]

I can't, personally, manage the mental gymnastics that would be required to discard several verses of Section 132 while retaining the rest.

As to Section 131, I think it's clearly based on the revelation recorded as Section 132, which seems to have been received as early as 1831.

If you accept Sec 132 as written, you must discard part of the Book of Mormon. You must also discard part of Acts and also parts of D&C 1 and 38.

This is what amazes me, Dan.

You and those that practiced it can extract one poorly written verse out of two full chapters that detail the reasoning why this specific abomination is so destructive - and you justify its practice. I suppose it would be much easier for you to see this clearly if you didn't have such unbridled respect for your ancestors.

33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.
34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.
35 Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.

(Book of Mormon | Jacob 2:33 - 35)

If the Book of Mormon is true, Jacob is implying as well, that our Bible was certainly not their brass plates:

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.
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;
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.

(Book of Mormon | Jacob 2:23 - 28)

The loophole scripture of Jacob 2:30 "to raise seed" unto God makes no sense in the context of this revelation and would take another thread to discuss but is a great point. How can God call the act of having plural wives and concubines an abomination/whoredoms but then tell the people if he wants righteous seed then He will command whoredoms?
Here is a look at how RLDS interpret the righteous seed loophole: http://restorationbookstore.org/article ... /chp18.htm


I bolded the portions of your post that interest me on the clear contradictions to section 132. Apologists will say that it was only the wives "not given" by God to David and Solomon (see section 132) that made their acts whoredoms wheereas Jacob 2 makes it clear that it's the practice of all polygamy that is the abomination. If you notice also that God cares about the sobbing and broken hearts of the wives who were living with polygamy but 132 is damning women who won't give their husbands multiple wives/virgins with no mention of their tender hearts or any compassion from God on their emotional pain.

It's ironic that LDS believe the Book of Mormon to be the most correct book of God's word on the earth but they use the Old Testament to justify Joseph's restoration of polygamy when the Book of Mormon is clearly condemning it. Even more ironic is that Bible believing Christians fought and forced the LDS church to discontinue polygamy, yet the Bible doesn't outright condemn it.

[_Seven]

I can't, personally, manage the mental gymnastics that would be required to discard several verses of Section 132 while retaining the rest.

As to Section 131, I think it's clearly based on the revelation recorded as Section 132, which seems to have been received as early as 1831.

So D&C 132 is prior to 131 and 132 says celestial marriage=plural marriage=eternal marriage?

Thus D&C 131 was givin as clarification to D&C 132 and the marriage there referred to is plural/celestial marraige?

Do you then agree that when the 19th century leaders said celestial marriage they meant, almost always, polygamy and that they taught such was required for exaltation?


If so what does the term celestial marriage mean today?

Hi Jason,
looks like August 3rd is the big day for you. :) http://www.thebourneultimatum.com/
I'll be there.

Stn9 is one of my favorite TBM posters on MAD. Here is what he posted on this topic a while back:

commandment to practice polygamy (Pages 1 2 3 ...4 )

stn9
Posted on: Jun 30 2005, 10:47 PM


Replies: 47
Views: 544
Part of this conversation reminds me of the case of Pelatiah Brown and the Nauvoo High Council, which I will use to preface my later remarks. Said the Prophet Joseph:

"Elder Pelatiah Brown, one of the wisest old heads we have among us, and whom I now see before me, has been preaching concerning the beast which was full of eyes before and behind; and for this he was hauled up for trial before the High Council.... It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.

"The High Council undertook to censure and correct Elder Brown, because of his teachings in relation to the beasts. Whether they actually corrected him or not, I am a little doubtful, but don't care....

"Father Brown has been to work and confounded all Christendom by making out that the four beasts represented the different kingdoms of God on the earth. The wise men of the day could not do anything with him, and why should we find fault? Anything to whip sectarianism, to put down priestcraft, and bring the human family to a knowledge of the truth. A club is better than no weapon for a poor man to fight with." (Joseph Smith Diary, entry by William Clayton, 8 April 1843)

Entering the new and everlasting covenant by temple sealing is not the fulfillment of that covenant—it is merely the entry point. Certain covenants are taken upon both parties involved which I will not discuss in any further detail, except to say that they are no where further explained or defined—for the time being.

Consider D&C 131:1-4: "...in order to obtain the highest [degree of the celestial glory], a man must enter into this order of the priesthood...."

An aside here: Entering into an order of the priesthood or any gospel covenant does not mean you have fulfilled that covenant. Baptism is a covenant into which one must enter in order to obtain the highest degree of celestial glory; so is every other ordiance that is performed for the dead.

Back to the main point: D&C 131 comes from notes taken by William Clayton in private discussions between the Prophet Joseph Smith and Benjamin Johnson and his wife in the Johnson's home in Ramus. The purpose of the visit was to instruct the Johnson's in the laws of the new and everlasting covenant. Of this visit Clayton also recorded in his journal:

"Before we retired the Prest. gave bro Johnson & wife some instructions on the priesthood. He put his hand on my knee and says 'your life is hid with Christ in God, and so is many others.' Addressing Benjamin says he 'nothing but the unpardonable sin can prevent him (me) from inheriting eternal glory for he is sealed up by the power of the priesthood unto eternal life having taken the step which is necessary for that purpose.'"

What step had Clayton taken that was necessary to gain eternal life? I will leave that for you to discover, but the hot topic of that trip was not simply eternal marriage sealing.

Joseph had first revealed the doctrine of plural marriage to Benjamin barely a month and a half earlier when Joseph asked Benjamin to apporach his sister about becoming Joseph's plural wife. When Benjamin and his siter Almira—already converted to the doctrine by revelation—came to Nauvoo for the sealing, Hyrum Smith attempted to mollify the apprehension he felt they surely must have had: "Now Benjamin, you must not be afraid of this new doctrine, for it is all right. You know Brother Hyrum don't get carried away by worldly things, and he fought this principle until the Lord showed him it was true" (Johnson to Gibbs, 1903).

Hyrum had indeed not been an early convert to the practice. Clayton recorded the date as 26 May 1843. Note the use of the word priesthood: "Hyrum accepted the doctrine of priesthood." In other entries he calls it the "secret priesthood." Review the language of the scripture; it is Clayton's "priesthood" that is meant.

You can claim this is all interpretive. Clayton knew better: "From him I learned that the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man on the earth, and that without obedience to that principle no man can ever attain to the fulness of exaltation in celestial glory." You cannot mistake the language of 131.

Read D&C 132:1-6 again. It so clear it can almost only be misunderstood willfully. There is no unnecessary or even unrequired "expansion" on the doctrine; it is the doctrine. D&C 132:7 to the end are the conditions of the law and instructions on the practical application of it in Emma and Joseph's lives.

"With regard to it being the law of the Lord for a man to have only one wife, or for a man to have no wife, it is no such thing—all that rests in the traditions of the people, and in the doings of legislative bodies. That is all there is about wives in the world as to having many or none." —Brigham Young, general conference address, October 1854

[_Seven]

I can't, personally, manage the mental gymnastics that would be required to discard several verses of Section 132 while retaining the rest.

Me either. I suggest discarding the whole thing.

KA

LOL. :)

What would it really matter if we did discard the whole thing? When you think about it, having our children sealed to us makes no sense in the big picture. The revelation was about "Celestial Marriage" not the forever family that we think of.
In the LDS beliefs, exaltation is about husband and wives making their own world and producing lots of spirit babies. Unless my husband is planning on doing this with our children, what is the point of them being sealed to us? They will have to find their own spouse for their exaltation. It really doesn't make sense to me why we seal children to us except as a feel good marketing tool.

[_Blixa]

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?