D&C 132 is the scripture that justifies polygamy. The Church has tried its best to distance itself from polygamy. I'm sure many Church leaders have talked about removing this scripture from the Doctrine and Covenants. This scripture is also very weird and scary to read.

However, there is a big problem. D&C 132 is also the scripture that justifies eternal marriage, i.e. marriage in the temple. Temple marriage is at the very core of Mormonism.

If the Church jettisoned D&C 132, it would have no scriptural justification for temple marriage. So the Church has no choice but to keep the scripture.

The scripture is ambiguous enough that some fundamentalists disagree that it refers to ordinary LDS temple marriage. They think it refers only to plural marriage.

Strange to think that today's temple marriage evolved from polygamy!

It could be under the guise of something 'currently revealed by the Lord' and the members would not be able to dispute it if they believe the Lord reveals the changes. After all, most members believe the church doctrine can change with the times. That is what they have been taught.

I see it happening sooner than later, especially with marriage being in the news with all its controversies and discussions.

The LDS church has always been one step behind. This will be just another example. They will change 132 and the only question is 'when'. They already know the 'how'.

Amazing what people will follow blindly, without question, and that includes the right to change scripture. JSmith changed parts of the New Testament so it isn't anything new. The leaders would simply say that historically it has been done.

The church has made substantial changes to the D&C in the past, such as removing the Lectures on Faith. And this is not ever mentioned--it's just covered up.

It would be the work of a moment to make a few wording changes to section 132. I think they don't do it because they secretly expect to reinstate polygamy at some point.

That couldn't be further from the truth. No one, even at the top, has any interest in re-instituting polygamy. Even many active Mormons (TBM's as RFM-ers like to call them) are troubled by the Church's polygamous past and want nothing to do with it. They shelve as an issue and hope for the best. The corporate Church is interested mainly in growth, in terms of membership, tithes, and corporate holdings. There are probably some too who actually believe in the Church, ie, that it is "true", as they like to say. There are also those who probably don't believe it, and they certainly have no interest in polygamy, rather their interest is money and social influence (Power). They have made changes, but those changes came at a time when you could do that more subtely. At present, if they were to change D&C 132 it would be a PR disaster because it would not go unnoticed, news would spread like wildfire, and it would raise suspicious unnecessarilly. Furthermore, while it is something of a liability, it's also a dormant liability for now. Why would they stir the pot when there isn't any real pressure to do so. The next big change in Mormonism will come from where the pressure is, ie, homosexuality. It won't be in the next five years, but my prediction is that's where it will be...at least long before they feel the need to do anything about section 132.

Just to further a point, for more than section 132, the greatest scriptural liability for Mormonism is in it's "keystone", ie, The Book of Mormon. That whole book, forget the passages, just it's existence, is a much more serious liability for Mormonism. If section 132 were scrapped, it's conceivable that many faithful Mormon's would actually be happy with things. They struggle with it, so extricating it and writing it off according to some wrangling issue over it's inclusion in the scriptures would satisfy most. However, you can't write off The Book of Mormon and satisfy people, or retain Mormon authority. Furthermore, the BOM rather than being distasteful, is actually subject to empirical falsifiable conditions. So, I wouldn't expect anything to happen to D&C 132.

Erick, I think that you hit it on the head. The church has no doctrinal agenda or revelations they just cave in in whatever pressure point is applied to them, no matter what.

Polygmy NEVER happened as a doctrine, that is the new talking point, it was just a trial, needed becuase of the shortage of men, and we are not to discuss it. Going back on this is unthinkable for the next 100 years.

The pressure points are:

The past- it did not happen- CHECK

Being Gay is not a sin- doctrine changed- CHECK

Mormons are peculiar (weird)- we are like everyone, look at at our tattoos and our mall!- CHECK

Next: intellectuals...

Well said.

I would guess that less than 1% of Mormons ever read D&C 132 - and an even smaller percentage read it close enough to understand it. The worst thing they could do to themselves would be to draw attention to it.

from my research on doctrinal changes, i have read that section 132 has come up a few times for removal. As you might know many sections have been taken out over the early part of church history. But by the time polygamy was being diluted as a doctrine it had already ben mass printed and the removal was objected to on these basis. I would see the rewording in a future edition as a more much likely scenario. You would only have to change a couple of words to make it palatable and distance it from polygamy.

I thought the whole point of Woodruff's white-flag waving surrender yelp in OD-1 was exactly that which left sealings while disbanning polygamy (at least in the open). Most members see it as a revelation that changed part of 132.

But what I believe you're saying is, the historical nature of what Joe was proposing -- polygamy to virgins against his wife's wishes was sustained by god -- is not getting white-washed with revision history. I agree.

Did ol' Joe ever get "sealed" to Emma in the temple? Anyone know?

Yes. Emma was one of the first women in the Quorom of the Annointed and maybe the first with Joseph to recieve the Second annointing.

Emma and Joseph sealed May 28, 1843 in Nauvoo.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2013 02:24PM by rutabaga.

on a separate note, i am teaching sun school and will spend plenty of time explaining eternal marriege and what it really means...

Which is?

Eternal marriage means plural marriage, marriage "without end". The reasson for the endowment was to introduce polygamy, it was first only for men to enter into the secret society of men who could take more wives. They lied about it in public in order to keep it "sacred". The temple ceremonies were "revealed" for this purpose only. Women were allowed to participate later.

The one man one woman in the temple is not doctrinally based. There are LOTS of quotes on why polygamy is:
Necessary, required, will never be done away with, its the only way to live with God, was done away with in public to appease the govt, the temple ceremony IS poligamy.

If polygamy became legal and culturally accepted in the US again, I'm pretty sure the church would start practicing it again. If mormons practiced polygamy, the church membership would soar, because they'd have so many children in the polygamous marriages.

I doubt it - they would probably loose half their membership if they did.

Because they never have to. What other things have the "gotten rid of" in their "cannon" of books?

The fact that "The Church" never has to do a thing about D&C 132 and the fact that they DID have to put out a manifesto screams dangerous cult to me.

How is poor "Sister Unmarried" going to achieve her highest glory in the afterlife if she is not assigned to someone in the CK? She has to be married to a Priesthood holder. They could scrap polygamy all together if the scrap the need for a temple marriage to achieve the "Highest Degree of Glory", but we all know that won't happen. How will they be able to Keep the BICs comming.

132 can't go away.

In my opinion, BC is right on the money, in that virtually no one in the church really reads D&C 132. All the church has to do to keep most members from studying and discovering the true order of "celestial marriage" is to skim over it in lesson manuals. They've already done this, and for the most part it's working.

Now only will they dump 132, I will bet–within 25 years, Joseph Smith will become largely irrelevant. Sort of a prophet with a statue in Temple Sq that nobody remembers who he is or what he said.

it could be based on the statement that JS made about god being far more liberal in is teaches that people were prepared to accept. that would be a spring board to allow gays the right.

I don’t think they go so far to dump 132, but they will have revelations in the next 20-25 years that will bring them very close to any evangelical church around.
I’ll think they quietly change the wordings in 132. Who in the LDS really knows what the 132 really is? In the last 30 years they took to focus off the 132 already.
The president already said “I don’t know we teach that”.

Edit:
When the 132 falls or get changed to 132 lite the way than is wide open to become just a differed evangelical church.
The alternative would be that LDS becomes a very small local fundamental church around Utah.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2013 01:10PM by buddyjoe.

I love D&C 132. Many years ago, before the age of the Internet, it kept me from becoming a Mormon. It made me physically sick when I read it. Everyone that is thinking about become a Morman should be REQUIRED to read D&C 132. I think most of them would change their minds.

+ like

The church still does believe in polygamy. They just don't practice it or allow it to be practiced by their members because of pressure from the government. If the IRS decides that they have to give up their tax exempt status, the profits soar downward. But if a man in the church right now divorces and then re-marries several times, or has a wife die and then marries another woman, it is accepted docterine that the man will have as many wives in the hereafter as he married in the temple here on earth. The government can't regulate the afterlife. So they're safe allowing that to happen.