http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/ ... awn-sword/
Handshakes and Drawn Swords
Today’s episode deals with Section 132 of the D&C. We talk about the introduction of polygamy, the angel with the drawn sword, and Joseph’s adherence with the revelation. While Critics accuse Joseph Smith of creating section 132 to fulfill his sexual needs and while apologists proclaim the revelation is from God and that criticism should cease, I argue there is indeed a third option. An option that is much more nuanced. We take time and use scriptural sources as well as the quotes of leaders to show there is possibly room and precedent to set off to the side section 132 while still holding up Joseph as the prophet of the restoration. When we add up nuanced views of Scripture, Prophets, and ministering angels, is there room to both doubt section 132 while still leading with faith.
The Van Allen's are supposedly being brought before a disciplinary council because they have chosen to disbelieve section 132. They otherwise consider themselves faithful members and it seems that is the case. But I share sources that seemingly gives room for us to possibly set aside section 132. I will present the myths as I see them and the reasons for calling them myths
Myth #1 - We can not disbelieve 132 because it is cannon
cannon = scripture. But is all scripture from God? Consider this quote from Brigham Young
I have heard some make the broad assertion that every word within the lids of the Bible was the word of God. I have said to them, "You have never read the Bible, have you?" "O, yes, and I believe every word in it is the word of God." Well, I believe that the Bible contains the word of God, and the words of good men and the words of bad men; the words of good angels and the words of bad angels and words of the devil; and also the words uttered by the *** when he rebuked the prophet in his madness. I believe the words of the Bible are just what they are; but aside from that I believe the doctrines concerning salvation contained in that book are true, and that their observance will elevate any people, nation or family that dwells on the face of the earth. The doctrines contained in the Bible will lift to a superior condition all who observe them; they will impart to them knowledge, wisdom, charity, fill them with compassion and cause them to feel after the wants of those who are in distress, or in painful or degraded circumstances.Journal of Discourses 13:175 (May 29, 1870)
Brigham seems comfortable not believing every word of it to be from God. we also should acknowledge that each of us interpret and understand portions of scripture very differently. literal vs figurative, local or global flood, WoW interpretation, skin will become white, sexual sin next to murder, etc...
We can not discard 132 because a Prophet believed it was revelation.
Consider the quote where Brigham Young claims his Adam God theory was Revelation
"How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revleaed to me – namely that Adam is our father and God – I do not know, I do not inquire, I care nothing about it. Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him, and after it was made he and his companions came here. He brought one of his wives with him, and she was called Eve, because she was the first woman upon the earth. Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or who ever will come upon the earth. I have been found fault with by the ministers of religion because I have said that they were ignorant. But I could not find any man on the earth who cold tell me this, although it is one of the simplest things in the world, until I met and talked with Joseph Smith."
- Prophet Brigham Young, Deseret News, v. 22, no. 308, June 8, 1873
And then how the Church discarded it.
Now may I say something for your guidance and enlightenment.... As it happens, I am a great admirer of Brigham Young and a great believer in his doctrinal presentations. He was called of God.
He was guided by the Holy Spirit in his teachings in general. He was a mighty prophet. He led Israel the way the Lord wanted his people led. He built on the foundation laid by the Prophet Joseph. He completed his work and has come on to eternal exaltation.
Nonetheless, as Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine. This is one of the reasons the Lord has given us the Standard Works. They become the standards and rules that govern where doctrine and philosophy are concerned. If this were not so, we would believe one thing when one man was president of the Church and another thing in the days of his successors. Truth is eternal and does not vary. Sometimes even wise and good men fall short in the accurate presentation of what is truth. Sometimes a prophet gives personal views which are not endorsed and approved by the Lord.
Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is that Brigham Young contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. - Elder Bruce R McConkie
We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.
—Spencer W. Kimball, "Our Own Liahona," Ensign (November 1976), 77
Brigham claimed his teaching of Adam as God came from God himself and yet we have discarded his revelation as false.
Myth #3 we can not discard 132 because it was given by an angel of the Lord
Lehi's dream has Lehi possibly being deceived by an evil spirit
5 And it came to pass that I saw a man, and he was dressed in a white robe; and he came and stood before me.
6 And it came to pass that he spake unto me, and bade me follow him.
7 And it came to pass that as I followed him I beheld myself that I was in a dark and dreary waste.
8 And after I had traveled for the space of many hours in darkness, I began to pray unto the Lord that he would have mercy on me, according to the multitude of his tender mercies.
D&C 129 gives us room to acknowledge that evil spirits come in the name of God and can fool us if we don't test them properly. Lehi's dream is a possible demonstration of this along with Jesus being tempted, and Adam and eve being tempted as other examples. The question must be asked if Joseph took time to shake hands with an angel that threatened him with a drawn sword...
At a minimum it should be acknowledged that we set aside portions of cannon (song of solomon, parts of the law of moses, old D&C section 109, lectures on faith) as not binding and in some cases as not divine truth or from God.
At a minimum it must be acknowledged that we have on occasion discarded what was believed by our prophets to be revelations.
At a minimum it must be acknowledged that we leave room for leaders to think they got info from an angel of God only to have been deceived.
On this basis it appears Mormonism itself may possibly give you permission to personally discard portions of its theology and proposed revelations.
In my personal views I have not discarded 132 though I admit i am very uncomfortable with it.