141: Handshakes and Drawn Swords

I enjoyed the podcast! There are some issues of concern however. I think that in 1 Nephi 8 the man in white is more likely an angel of light guiding Lehi through the darkness rather than a dark angel tricking him into it. The interpretation is yours to make, but I disagree. There are sufficient cases of prophets being wrong in addition to the few you mentioned to not need the wide interpretation of 1 Nephi.

There is one other scenario of D&C 132 to consider. It is conceivable to me that the basic concept of plural marriage was inspired, but in the heat of the moment with Emma and all the deceit and cajoling that was required to get it started Joseph may have taken liberties with his memory of the revelation previously received possibly years earlier and embellished it in some areas. Then in his execution of the principle there were additional mistakes made that cause some to consider the whole thing wrong.

In dealing with this and other complex Church issues I remember that God’s leaders are not perfect and that God, for reasons I don’t understand, apparently gives them great latitude in decision making and may not provide recognizable inspiration to them in some cases. This appears to result in small and large errors and distortions in doctrine, policy and actions by Church leaders and their associates even in the highest councils of the Church. This is frustrating, because it is not what I grew up to understand was the role of revelation and of the prophets and leaders in the restored church of God. Nonetheless, that is apparently the way it is. I will be content with it, though where I can I will make an effort to facilitate positive change.

I heartily sustain the leaders with my eyes open. I also remember that just because God’s servants make mistakes, even large ones, doesn’t mean all their actions need be called into question, though it behooves me to obtain spiritual confirmation of anything that feels odd or not right. I feel they have at times made or approved statements that appear at best misinformed or incomplete and at worst deceitful. I take note, but don’t judge harshly and I don’t obsess since I don’t know what their minds and motives were, nor do I have all the facts and haven’t walked in their shoes. I have plenty of loving and serving to do which gets tainted and derailed when I nit-pick and am critical of church leaders.

Within reason, I am willing to overlook even significant flaws in and errors by our past and current leaders as I recognize all the other good they’ve accomplished. Though, based on what I understand are historical facts I wonder why God didn’t remove some leaders, I believe God chose them and delegates to them and therefore in the true spirit of delegation He upholds them. I leave judgment to Him.

I believe God has asked me to follow leaders, so I will do it. I believe God has also asked me to do what is right, so I will do it. When they conflict I will plead to God for help in making make a choice.

So with Joseph and polygamy I choose to believe in the principle, but not in every facet of the revelation or its execution by Joseph or others.

WITH your reasoning, the revelation on shaking hands could be false doctrine.
also, the book of mormon could be fake
because js did not shake moroni’s hand
when he appeared to him in his room.

What exactly did Pres Hinkley say @cinderella58? He said 132 in it’s entirety is “not doctrinal”?

Bill, I appreciate your thoughtfulness on this. And it’s a very interesting perspective to consider. However, I find it all very confusing and lacking in any kind of conclusion. Yet some very foundational, important, even critical doctrines are taught in 132, other than plural marriage. It seems like a pretty tall order to condemn plural marriage (which the saints practiced at great hardship and sacrifice–and for which we still suffer somewhat today) as something from Satan that misguided generations. As big of a deal as that is, it’s a small item in the eternal scheme of things when compared with some of the other doctrines taught in 132. Do we throw out eternal marriage and other essential doctrines taught or expounded upon in 132 as well? Do we assume the other temple themes and items of priesthood order and authority are all wrong too? Much of what makes Mormonism unique gets discarded if we are to throw out 132 in it’s entirety. Do we also assume that Joseph was repeatedly deceived. It seems the angel may have visited him multiple times and/or received multiple revelations on the matter.

Or if instead we question or filter-out only parts of it, what guidelines do we use? It seems like we’re grasping at straws to try and justify, explain, or otherwise set aside the polygamy problem. Just because we’re uncomfortable with it, doesn’t mean it’s not from God. Some theorize that perhaps one major purpose of polygamy was largely an Abrahamic trial for the saints as a whole, and many individually. As such it also serves as a divider as to who will follow, and who won’t (or in our case who will accept it as from God), along with keeping the Saints separate and peculiar so that entrance or remaining in the church isn’t a simple and easy thing. Perhaps much of the discomfort with 132 is intended by God, is a reflection of our own cultural discomfort, and is a manifestation of Joseph’s own discomfort with the matter. He related it in a way that’s imperfect, because of his discomfort.

Finding yourself uncomfortable or confused by scripture doesn’t necessarily indicate an evil source. It could merely indicate a misunderstanding of God’s perspective and reasons. He often tells us we can’t fully comprehend why he does all that he does, in the same way we can’t comprehend how he does so much of what he does. I’m not attempting to invalidate what you said, or those feelings. But I find it extremely hard to 1. label plural wives and it’s practice in the church a heresy, 2. believe Joseph was deceived on that entire issue and his deceit was allowed to misguide the church for generations, and 3. especially assume that the rest of 132 is either wrong, or tainted and twisted by a Satanic messenger.

I appreciate this podcast and your attempt at trying to find a third way to look at section 132. However I believe you are 180 degrees off. using section 129 as you did let’s look at it in the context of the temple video without being disrespectful. look at the way Satan approached Adam and Eve. No handshakes. Look at the way Peter James and John approached Adam and Eve. there were hand shakes. Using section 129 logic and your logic in an attempt to find a third way you just described it in the temple video. You make Satan a beam of light and a just man who was not resurrected yet and you make Peter James and John evil man attempting to shake hands but appear in white robes. Again what I think you’re trying to do is noble and I agree with you that 132 is not of God. but its not of God because it is morally you’re reprehensible not because Joseph was naively fooled. God is not the author of confusion and would not allow over a hundred years of his people to be persecuted and damaged by this practice. I am sealed to two living women and the brethren have refused to cancel my sealing to my adulterous ex wife. Polygamy to this day subverts free will and .its fruits have not been good. trying to wrap your mind around 132 as anything but disgusting institute mental gymnastics I’m not flexible or willing enough to perform.