When will D&C 132 be removed or modified?

[SoonerCoug]

It's got to happen eventually--especially the whole "I will destroy you, Emma" bit.

I think the Church purposely delayed translating the Doctrine and Covenants into Russian because they were worried about implications of really unusual D&C scriptures in a nation where the Church's status was already precarious.

[MikeWaters]

probably when you give the word.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

probably when you give the word.

I'm not even a good home teacher.

But I do think that it's an interesting question. Can they remove "Emma must accept additional wives or Emma will be destroyed verses" without compromising the concept of revelation? Has the Church hierarchy tried too hard to protect Joseph Smith's image? Personally, I have a hard time believing that a loving God would talk that way to Emma.

Of course, other fundamental revelations and concepts including ordinances have changed over the years, and the Church isn't exactly collapsing as a result.

One great thing about Mormonism is that we always have the "continuing revelation" and "receiving additional truth" excuses to change.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I'm not even a good home teacher.


One great thing about Mormonism is that we always have the "continuing revelation" and "receiving additional truth" excuses to change.

So does the Reorganized church, I mean Community of Christ. They've changed a lot of things beyond recognition.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by BlueK

So does the Reorganized church, I mean Community of Christ. They've changed a lot of things beyond recognition.

Right. You could also argue that many things in the LDS Church today do not remotely resemble the way things were 150 years ago in Utah--including major doctrinal issues.

The people in Colorado City would use the same argument about us that you use about the Community of Christ.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Right. You could also argue that many things in the LDS Church today do not remotely resemble the way things were 150 years ago in Utah--including major doctrinal issues.

The people in Colorado City would use the same argument about us that you use about the Community of Christ.

Probably so.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by BlueK

Probably so.

Yup.

But it makes sense to me that God would provide a system whereby new truths would be continually revealed. Great concept.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by BlueK

So does the Reorganized church, I mean Community of Christ. They've changed a lot of things beyond recognition.

and look what happened to them.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

But I do think that it's an interesting question. Can they remove "Emma must accept additional wives or Emma will be destroyed verses" without compromising the concept of revelation? Has the Church hierarchy tried too hard to protect Joseph Smith's image? Personally, I have a hard time believing that a loving God would talk that way to Emma.

Has it occured to you that "God" may have had nothign to do with this but lust did?

The Mormon Church doesn't have a doctrine. It's not a creed-based religion. So there's nothing to change about it. I think that is one thing we have reached a consensus about here.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Has it occured to you that "God" may have had nothign to do with this but lust did?

The Mormon Church doesn't have a doctrine. It's not a creed-based religion. So there's nothing to change about it. I think that is one thing we have reached a consensus about here.

Well, Mormonism is about searching for truth and personal revelation--and anything good or praiseworthy--yet another beautiful, relatively flexible concept. But having verses like these in modern scriptures hurts the world's perception of the Church (but only because the verses are just 170 years old). If those verses were in the old testament instead, I probably wouldn't be worried about them, since I basically ignore anything crazy that's in the old testament anyway.