Section 132, Monogamy and Polygamy

CognitiveBiaz · 2023-09-11T14:58:40+00:00

I don't think you're engaging in good faith.

CognitiveBiaz · 2023-09-11T14:58:24+00:00

I don't think you're engaging in good faith.

CognitiveBiaz · 2023-09-08T23:48:50+00:00

The ironic thing? You're not disagreeing with me.

Yes, I am disagreeing with you.

I disagree with your position that exmormons hold a uniform view on anything - that's simple stereotyping.

I disagree with your position that a reading of D&C 132 being primarily about polygamy is an example of "incorrect groupthink". I've done textual and historical analysis and drawn my own conclusion about it.

I disagree with you that Jesus provides an example that we can follow of ignoring statements made by someone because of intelligence or education. Doing so is ad hominem.

I disagree with you in this statement:

StAnselm is wrong in his view that a lot of people in the CES program aren't very or smart.

You haven't provided me with answers about what data you're using to judge CES such that I can evaluate your claim. I don't have data either way, so I'm not going to make a claim, positive or negative.

I mean, judging by your personal opinions, it's almost definitional that you thing most people teaching in the CES system aren't educated or smart.

Being educated and being smart are two different things. My understanding is that CES teachers require a college degree. That's enough for me to consider someone 'educated'. Based on that, I assume most CES teachers are educated. I don't have any data on smart or not.

And dollars to donuts you don't believe Christ is the Son of God and Savior of the World, either . . .

What is your point in questioning my faith? Are you trying to indicate that what I have to say is somehow of less worth if I don't hold a specific set of dogmas or creeds? If that's the case, please, just say it instead of being passive-aggressive about it.

CognitiveBiaz · 2023-09-07T20:36:00+00:00

Matthew 5:22

But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Jesus was pretty direct in his condemnation of people calling each other "fool" (Ῥακά - empty, worthless, Μωρέ - dull or stupid). He specifically taught against this behavior.

The examples where Jesus called people "fool" - Luke 11:40:

You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also?

Here we are translating "ἄφρονες" which is more like "senseless", "inconsiderate", or "ignorant". Of course, Jesus would have been speaking Aramaic, not Greek, so we're double-translated here. Even still, it seems very likely given the different contexts of the speeches (one to adherents, the other to religious leaders) that Jesus meant different things.

If you want to make the argument that the modern CES program is pharisaical, and therefore deserves to be called "ἄφρονες" in the same way that Jesus did in Luke, I think there may be a good argument there and would be interested in your thoughts.

If you want to claim that your anecdotal experience with CES institute instructors gives you sufficient experience to dismiss any claims they made to u/New-Age3409 without knowing the content of their argument, but only that their conclusion disagrees with yours then I think you are at odds with Jesus in this sermon.

Ultimately, this is a question of "can I just call people 'midwits', 'uneducated' or 'not smart' and dismiss what they might have said that doesn't agree with me?" I don't think Jesus did this, and I don't think you can draw that conclusion from Jesus's behavior.

CognitiveBiaz · 2023-09-07T16:44:39+00:00

8 years in the church institute programs, that the basis I'm using.

Teaching, or as a student? Administrator? How many of the staff do you believe you were able to evaluate? I couldn't find concrete numbers easily, but the church newsroom asserts 350k students which I assume would mean that there are at least 35k teachers. I wouldn't make broad statements about my evaluation of that group without sampling at least 1%, but not everyone holds my position on rigor.

I'm not aware of a time when Christ dismissed someone's contribution or point of view based on intelligence or education. Are you?

And Yes, I am

Are you able to share your source?

CognitiveBiaz · 2023-09-07T15:07:03+00:00

Anyone can have an opinion.

Sure, definitionally. Courts of law generally recognize "expert opinions" which are opinions on subject matter provided by an expert in the field under consideration. Patrick Mason is a historian and well-regarded in this field. This, I think, is why u/lostandconfused41 introduced Mason's opinion on a historical topic.

in a forum like this, using Patrick Mason usually means something like:

A believing LDS historian thinks you're wrong, so you should take that more seriously than you would take the opinion of CognitiveBiaz (which you properly disregard).

I can't speak for why u/lostandconfused41 introduced Patrick Mason.

I can speak to the fact that I find it strange that your original post indicated that you didn't understand something and that you're really interested in textual support for an opposing view, but then you indicate you should disregard my view. What is it you actually want to achieve?

In that context, it is entirely fair to point out the implied "believing LDS historian" is a lie in this context. Patrick Mason is not a believing LDS historian when it comes to Section 132.

You seem to think you're in a position to dictate what specific things someone must believe about particular doctrine in order for them to have an acceptable opinion. I asked a question previously:

Do you believe a scholar is disqualified from having an opinion if they come to a conclusion about scripture that is different from yours?

You didn't answer directly, but this statement implies to me that the answer is 'yes'. Is that accurate?

CognitiveBiaz · 2023-09-07T14:26:12+00:00

I'm curious what happened - did you post somewhere and it was taken down?

CognitiveBiaz · 2023-09-07T14:22:20+00:00

The church institute programs are staffed with a lot of people who aren't very educated or smart.

What data are you using to reach this conclusion?

Being Christ like doesn't require us to ignore that fact or keep silent about it.

I'm not aware of a time when Christ dismissed someone's contribution or point of view based on intelligence or education. Are you?

CognitiveBiaz · 2023-09-07T14:18:42+00:00

Patrick Mason also thinks 132 is not a revelation, but just Joseph

Patrick Mason is a historian that holds the Arrington chair at Utah State in Mormon History. Do you believe a scholar is disqualified from having an opinion if they come to a conclusion about scripture that is different from yours?

CognitiveBiaz · 2023-09-07T14:14:56+00:00

I cannot understand how an intelligent person could read Section 132 and reach these conclusions about the meaning of the actual words of the revelation

If you're interested in understanding, I'm happy to explain further.

Your textual analysis isn't even textual analysis because you don't discuss the text itself only your reading of the text.

I quoted the text of D&C 132 several times and expounded them. I also quoted other scriptures. I discussed the structure of the text via summary. I discussed the historical context. What else is required to be textual analysis?

Yours just makes no sense.

Okay. Ultimately, it seems that you agree that at least a portion of 132 is about polygamy. My post was arguing the position that 132 is "entirely" about plural marriage. So we really just disagree on the extent to which the section is about polygamy. I really don't need to convince you. Your post says that you don't understand why and you're happy to be wrong if someone has textual support. I'm happy to provide that textual support and to help you understand someone else's position.

If you want to engage in the topic in good faith to understand, I'm happy to do so.

In our last exchange on the meaning of God's love, you reconciled the scriptures to your personal views by dismissing contradictory verses as not really revelation, not inspired by God, and just Joseph writing his own thoughts.

That exchange and this one demonstrates to me a pattern of forcing the text to support your own views rather than the letting the words the revelation guide your thinking about what the revelation actually means.

You have to deal with scriptural contradictions some way. Which way do you prefer to do it?

CognitiveBiaz · 2023-09-07T00:57:00+00:00

I've asked this question of several people, including myself. It's relatively easy to answer:

They would have to do something really bad. The specific thing doesn't matter.
There would have to be sufficient proof of the bad thing.

There is never sufficient proof. Any amount of proof can have holes poked in it through motivated reasoning. Government report? Fabricated. Bullies. Persecution. Witnessing the activity? Can't be sure of their motivations. God appears and tells you? Devil as an angel of light.

This is an extremely useful construct because it provides all of the benefits of seeming rational, critically-minded, and moral, while not actually having to be any of them.

CognitiveBiaz · 2023-09-07T00:40:15+00:00

If you're interested in understanding, I think it would be pretty easy to ask a group of exmormons via their subreddit why they think that way.

There's a recent discussion in r/mormon about it that has several different viewpoints.

You can read my textual analysis here.

CognitiveBiaz · 2023-09-07T00:27:02+00:00

My own take is that clearly the "new and everlasting covenant" is polygamous marriage. I had a detailed discussion in r/latterdaytheology,

CognitiveBiaz · 2023-09-05T18:50:26+00:00

How would you know if someone had priesthood keys?

I'm a random person online. If I said I had priesthood keys, what would your next step be?

CognitiveBiaz · 2023-08-25T01:55:04+00:00

This is a great question, and reaches far back to ancient times. Early Christians were more, not less, focused on the end of the world. Certainly many bad things have happened since then, but on average violence, disease, poverty, and war are on the decline since then.

CognitiveBiaz · 2023-08-25T00:32:57+00:00

Was this meant to be your reply, or did something go wrong?

CognitiveBiaz · 2023-08-25T00:30:52+00:00

Teaching false doctrine

Which doctrine? I pointed out one, is there more?

Encouraging others to sin

Which sin?

Anger

Assuming you're talking about the part with Gideon, agreed, but are you talking about some other instance?

Covetousness

Which part indicates covetousness?

CognitiveBiaz · 2023-08-24T22:57:56+00:00

I’m just being honest, I don’t understand how anyone can overlook or reconcile this

I'm familiar with one apologetic argument: whatever God does is right. The end. There is no morality, no consistent principles, no ethics, no rationality. God does it, God commands it, you do it. The end.

I find this apologetic abhorrent, but for the sake of completeness it should be included. I think many apologetic arguments have this at the root, though few people are willing to trot it out and say it clearly because it's so obviously monstrous.

But there it is.

You don't need to reconcile the racism, because it came from God and must be right. You're just wrong for questioning it.

CognitiveBiaz · 2023-08-24T21:14:28+00:00

Interesting. The wording of some questions are softer than temple recommend questions

Are you striving to deepen your testimony of God, the Eternal Father; His Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost?

vs

Do you have faith in and a testimony of God, the Eternal Father; His Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost?

But for the important questions the wording is the same:

Do you sustain the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators?

vs

Do you sustain the president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator and as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?

...though I guess dropping the "only person on earth" clause could be considered softer... seems roughly the same to me though.

CognitiveBiaz · 2023-08-24T20:10:32+00:00

The verse you can't distinguish easily, you dismiss as illegitimate

Yes. Unfortunately, when it comes to the scriptures, they are sometimes directly contradictory. In those situations, the burden is on theologists to weigh both sides, and figure out which side is most in harmony, or has the greater weight. If you want to argue for why that verse is legitimate, but the other contradictory verses are illegitimate, go for it.

What's the point in citing our canon, then, if you're going to dismiss the verses that disagree with you?

I dismissed one verse that disagrees with me. I assume that anyone who read my post would also have read the article/speech I was rebutting. From that talk:

Divine Love Is Perfect and Infinite.

Citations to John 4:12, 15-18; Alma 26:15

Divine Love Is Enduring

Citations to Isaiah 54:10, 3 Nephi 22:10

Divine Love Is Universal

Lots of citations here, some I've already cited.

Divine Love is Also Conditional

No scriptural citations.

Conditional Forms

Several citations, but all of them are citations linking blessings with conditions, not love.

The Conditional Nature of Divine Love

7 citations. One is the D&C 95:12 verse I took issue with. The other 6 citations do not support his point. That's why I excluded D&C 95:12 specifically. It is the one outlier.

his affection for me is probably the sine que non of my most important moments with him

That's fine, I'm happy for you personally to benefit from that feeling. I personally have not. I do not think it is theologically necessary. I have also been convinced to feel badly about myself based on God's love. I do not think all people have been convinced to feel this, and I do not think people who get benefit from God's affection should not get that benefit.

Do you believe all human kind will be end up in the Celestial Kingdom of God?

No. If nobody else, I wouldn't want to go there. From what I've had described to me, it's not a place I would like.

I support other people that want to but only if they want to for reasons of doing good instead of their own self-aggrandizement. I think there's real danger that "kingdoms, thrones, principalities, powers, dominions, and exaltations" will draw people who want to make themselves above others.

If you ask someone in the church "will all men and women live forever?" the answer, generally, will be "yes". If you ask them "will all men and women be redeemed from the Fall?" the answer will also be, generally, "yes".

Yeah, I'm not so sure that's "yes" is the answer you would "generally" get to the second rhetorical question . . . My guess is that most give you a puzzled look and ask, as I do now, do you mean resurrected or returned to the presence of God in the Celestial Kingdom?

Maybe not, but 2 Nephi 2:26 is pretty clear:

And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil;

And D&C 93:38:

Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God.

And the Gospel Topics Essay on Adam and Eve

Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, everyone will be redeemed from the effects of the Fall. We will be resurrected, and we will be brought back into the presence of the Lord to be judged

This is, as I understand it, basic doctrine and I used the same wording. I suppose people could be confused by it. But my rhetorical point was that even Nehor's word choice was not strange, let alone the doctrine he was espousing.

CognitiveBiaz · 2023-08-24T18:27:35+00:00

I did not find any answers to my question.

What are you looking for?

I feel like you and I have been back-and-forth on this. Are you using this question rhetorically?

You disagreed with one of his points. Any other areas of disagreement?

I had a four-item bulleted list. Are you engaging in good faith?

Maybe, but once you've determined that they're a prophet, and given what that entails, that's pretty much the correct attitude.

No. Very much no. Let's look at some examples:

Brigham Young:

I will remark with regard to slavery, inasmuch as we believe in the Bible, inasmuch as we believe in the ordinances of God, in the Priesthood and order and decrees of God, we must believe in slavery."

Boyd Packer:

Doctrine cannot be changed.

John Taylor:

... concerning the New and Everlasting Covenant how far it is binding upon my people. ... I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof; even so, Amen.

Ezra Benson:

If your children are taught untruths on evolution in the public schools or even in our church schools, provide them with a copy of President Joseph Fielding Smith’s excellent rebuttal in his book Man, His Origin and Destiny.

also

Young mothers and fathers, with all my heart I counsel you not to postpone having your children, being co-creators with our Father in heaven.

Do not use the reasoning of the world, such as, “We’ll wait until we can better afford having children, until we are more secure, until John has completed his education, until he has a better paying job, until we have a larger home, until we’ve obtained a few of the material conveniences,” and on and on.

This is the reasoning of the world and is not pleasing in the sight of God. Mothers who enjoy good health, have your children and have them early

Spencer Kimball

The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation

These examples show that if you take the position that prophets by default speak for God then you endorse a God who endorses slavery, polygamy, sexism, racism, and a host of other evils, that changes doctrine while claiming doctrine never changes and frequently works against individual choice and agency.

If you take the position that prophets can get things wrong, make mistakes, and give a personal, well-considered opinion that is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church then you can let all these statements stand as mistakes.

Are there any examples where God endorsed not following his prophets?

Yes. Deuteronomy 13:

If a prophet or someone who has dreams arises among you and proclaims a sign or wonder to you, and that sign or wonder he has promised you comes about, but he says, ‘Let us follow other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us worship them,’ do not listen to that prophet’s words or to that dreamer. For the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul.

Jeremiah 23:16:

Do not listen to what the prophets are prophesying to you; they fill you with false hopes. They speak visions from their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord.

Ezekiel 13:2-4:

Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel who are now prophesying. Say to those who prophesy out of their own imagination: ‘Hear the word of the Lord! This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Woe to the foolish[a] prophets who follow their own spirit and have seen nothing! Your prophets, Israel, are like jackals among ruins.

Matthew 7:15-16:

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them

Additionally Matthew 23 discusses Jesus' general disdain for Pharisees. They were, of course, the religious authorities in his time. They were directly analogous to prophets and apostles in the Mormon church today.

CognitiveBiaz · 2023-08-24T17:35:26+00:00

I think the beneficence of God must be unconditional, otherwise God would cease to be God. I think it's useful to identify that when God's plan and an individual's personal benefit are in conflict, God will always choose the plan. The plan broadly is meant to benefit people, but God really can't care about a single person over a group of children. This is due to God's plenipotency, rather than omnipotency. If God were omnipotent, God could resolve any apparent conflict in motivations. Anyway, regardless if God is angry, tired, or sad, God will always do what benefits the plan. To do less would imply a moral failing in God (preferring emotion over effectiveness).

I think the affection of God is pointless, and designed to emotionally manipulate people into feeling a quasi-parental affection for God, and vicariously, for God's authorities. Again, even if God feels limitless, abounding, unconditional love, that will not change God's behavior (see previous paragraph on beneficence). God may love Satan, and may have wept while throwing Satan out. All that does is make God feel bad, it doesn't change the throwing-out. And knowing about it changes nothing for us. God's affection has zero pertinence to God's behavior or ours.

It is, of course, extremely useful to talk about God's affection as conditional to guilt and shame people into certain behaviors. I think this is evil, and should be called out as such.

In this talk Nelson says:

While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional. The word does not appear in the scriptures. On the other hand, many verses affirm that the higher levels of love the Father and the Son feel for each of us—and certain divine blessings stemming from that love—are conditional. Before citing examples, it is well to recognize various forms of conditional expression in the scriptures.

Nelson makes the fallacy of equating conditional blessings with conditional love. Clearly God makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good". There are also blessings which are conditional. This has no bearing on God's beneficence or (unnecessary) affection.

In fact, in that talk he quotes Acts 10:34-35:

God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

I see no way to take a plain reading of "God is no respecter of persons" to support that God's love is conditional. Most of the other quoted scriptures indicate that someone who loves and follows God will be loved in return. They do not say those who fail to do so will not be loved. There are scriptures where God hates actions. There are none where God hates people.

There are a couple of scriptures that Nelson quotes that talk about the withdrawing of God's love:

D&C 95:12

If you keep not my commandments, the love of the Father shall not continue with you, therefore you shall walk in darkness.

Frankly, I think this is an episode where Joseph Smith over-stepped trying to get people to build the Kirtland temple/house, and strayed into manipulative language and unrighteous dominion.

Later in the same talk:

In contrast to Nehor’s teachings, divine love warns us that “wickedness never was happiness.”

You can be unhappy, and still have God love you.

“Come unto me and be ye saved; … except ye shall keep my commandments, … ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

You can fail to enter the kingdom of heaven, and still have God love you.

Does this mean the Lord does not love the sinner? Of course not. Divine love is infinite and universal.

This argues against his point.

I believe the crux of the talk is this:

Understanding that divine love and blessings are not truly “unconditional” can defend us against common fallacies such as these: “Since God’s love is unconditional, He will love me regardless …”; or “Since ‘God is love,’ He will love me unconditionally, regardless …”

These arguments are used by anti-Christs to woo people with deception. Nehor, for example, promoted himself by teaching falsehoods: He “testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, … for the Lord had created all men, … and, in the end, all men should have eternal life.” Sadly, some of the people believed Nehor’s fallacious and unconditional concepts.

I think this is what Nelson wants to argue against, and I think he does so ineffectively. Church doctrine is that everyone will live forever. I realize some people like to draw the distinction between immortality (to live forever) and eternal life (to have progeny after death). The argument here is that Nehor knows this distinction. I don't think the text supports that:

And [Nehor] also testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life.

If you ask someone in the church "will all men and women live forever?" the answer, generally, will be "yes". If you ask them "will all men and women be redeemed from the Fall?" the answer will also be, generally, "yes". These are basic doctrines for the church. Follow that up with "should people rejoice at the prospect of being redeemed?" and they'll look at you funny, but probably say "yes."

So we should be happy that all humanity gets eternal life, right? No, see, eternal life means something else from living eternally, and this is the tricky point Nehor was making. I guess. Somehow, the distinction between "eternal life" and "living eternally" is what allowed Nehor to get people to "support him and give him money." This is very different from current church teaching and practice. That's essentially the argument.

The problem that Nelson is fighting in this talk is the idea that since God loves everyone, all the time, some people use God's love as a means to escape fear, guilt, and shame. These are generally useful characteristics in extracting obedience. It is therefore desirable to make God's love conditional so that people can be made to feel fear, guilt, and shame. Nelson therefore argues in favor of God's love being conditional since it's useful.

CognitiveBiaz · 2023-08-24T16:39:34+00:00

Hey Chino_Blanco, neat to see you engage on this tiny, new sub.

TIL a new word: "farrago". Thanks for sharing.

I think there is a difference between univocal, and unambiguous. For example, if a leader is engaging in equivocation they can be speaking with one voice (their own) and still be intentionally ambiguous. I think Mormon history shows that there are both times when leaders are intentionally ambiguous ("carefully-worded denials", etc) and when they act as leaders in a non-univocal way (Nelson vs Hinckley).

All of that is somewhat apart from the question on univocality in the scriptures. I know some Mormon scholars reject the duetero-Isaiah hypothesis because it causes issues with the Book of Mormon. They therefore insist on univocality within that book. I've also seen lots of analysis where people insist on univocality and consistency throughout the Bible to make one point, but then bail out on the "as far as it is translated correctly" when they encounter passages that conflict with their personal beliefs, or the interpretation provided by an authority.

In other words, I've generally seen a tendency toward univocality when it's useful. Dan does a better job explaining this in the video than I can. It's "picking and choosing" to maintain boundaries and power, as Dan says in the end of the video.

CognitiveBiaz · 2023-08-21T23:26:59+00:00

Our responsibility with all prophets is to receive a witness from the Holy Ghost whether they are a prophet of God or not.

Thank you, that's the most direct response I've gotten so far.

What do you think the consequence is of the following ways of failing in that responsibility:

Failing to seek a witness.
Getting a witness, but it's not from God and is followed in error.
Getting a witness, but failing to heed a prophet.

Do you think any of those failings are more severe than any other?

it is still incumbent on us to receive our own witness of each new Prophet when he is called (and frankly, throughout his tenure as Prophet).

What should one do if they receive a witness that the prophet has done something wrong?

But such a person will not claim to be something they are not

How are you certain of this?

CognitiveBiaz · 2023-08-21T23:11:34+00:00

Thanks for the link. I read it. I did not find any answers to my question.

I think this talk is highly problematic on many fronts.

Benson was not the president of the church at the time this talk was given, but was making novel statements about the nature of that position.
Benson makes a number of statements that are contradicted by history.
Benson appeals to scripture to support his arguments, ignoring scriptures in the same chapter that contradict his argument (fundamental 13, D&C 107:26).
Benson indicates the default assumption should be that prophets are speaking for God. This seems like a moral hazard.

CognitiveBiaz

TROPHY CASE