Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Bill Atkinson wrote:
This is just a first pass at looking for possible changes. Section 132 was not published in the D&C until 1876 when Orson Pratt added 26 new revelations and put the sections into verses and added the first footnotes. We have very good information as to the time when the revelations was written out in July of 1843 primarily to try and convince Emma that plural marriage was OK (Hyrum was sure it would work and Joseph was skeptical as it turned out both were right, Emma did agree for at least a short time and then reverted to her opposition). In was published in 1852 in Salt Lake and read and accepted at a general conference making the practice finally public knowledge.
Do you mind providing a reference for the information on Hyrum and Joseph thinking the revelation would convince Emma regarding plural marriage?
@Bill, RSR by Bushman on page 439,3rd full paragrah states:
Joseph told a prospective wife that submitting to plural marriage would “ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household. & all your kindred.” A father who gave his daughter to the Prophet as a plural wife was assured hat the marriage “shall be crowned upon your heads with honor and immortality and eternal life to all your house both old and young.”
This sounds similar to 132:19 to me,but obviously he wasn’t quoting the scripture at them.
Any chance that the singular wife is a change made to D&C since it was written. What is a good source to see what changes have been introduced into D&C over time?
Also, the phrase “abide in my covenant” in 132:19 is currently interpreted by the church to mean essentially “endure to the end” (you have to get sealed in the temple and then endure to the end to have eternal life), however, couldn’t it as easily be construed to mean you must remain Celestially married (e.g. no divorce) in order to obtain the promised blessings, since it says you can do anything other than murder someone and still obtain exaltation. This interpretation would be more in line with the things JS is quoted as telling his prospective wives. What do you think Bruce? What is the fundamentalist position on “abide in my covenant”? Endure to the end or stay married?
Thanks for the responses. While I don’t personally have fundamentalist leanings, I think the fundamentalist viewpoint may be the best representation of what the church felt about 132 when it was given, being the most accurate interpretation of “original intent”. I look forward to hearing what others think.
