Posted on

Breaking Sealings: Who has the Power?

In a previous conversation with Dr. Bill Smith, we talked about how polygamous sealings were considered nearly permanent.  There are cases in which those can be broken.  After Joseph Smith died, Brigham Young claimed sole possession of the sealing power. Many apostles disagreed. How did it get resolved? Dr. Bill Smith explains in this interview. Does more than one man hold the sealing keys? And who is in charge of breaking sealings?  Is it just one man, or are there several people who can do it?

Bill:  I think that—opinions sort of vary with this but Brigham Young’s divorces where a sealing was involved, I think Brigham Young’s divorces that he granted were taken as dissolving the sealing.

GT:  Theological?  Ok.

Bill:  Which is in perfect harmony with the idea that sealing.  You could do it and you could undo it.

GT:  As prophet he had power to loose.

Bill: Yes, so that’s another big point in the discussion of the book is that in the revelation it’s very clear that only one person at a time has this authority to decide you can be sealed, you can’t be.  Or, you can engage in polygamy, you can’t, kind of thing.  This has all evolved onto a single person.  It even says historically, this is the way it has always been.  I don’t know how serious to take that, but it supports the idea that it’s really a one-man job.  So, who has the authority to decide?  This is a huge issue in succession.  Because obviously the guy who has this one-man authority is the guy to be in charge, right?

At one point, Joseph tries to separate his church presidency from his temple priest position as the one guy.  People don’t like this.  They are worried about it.  They don’t want to accept Hyrum as the church president and Joseph as saying.  Unfortunately, he is addressing a group, a very small group who is acquainted with his temple theology.  The people who aren’t are really upset by this.  “We don’t want Hyrum to be the prophet.  You are.”  He can’t be the prophet.

So, he takes it all back that afternoon.  But yes, he is really speaking to this idea of where things are, and I can’t go into the background here, but his sort of presidency of the High Priesthood sort of vaults him into the position of the one guy.  So, after he has died, after he is dead, the apostles weren’t in that tradition of High Priesthood. They weren’t in there at all.  They try to write themselves in at first, and then they say you can’t really do that.  It doesn’t work.  So, we have to a new tradition about this.

Is adultery grounds for breaking sealings?

Bill:  Adultery is a really touchy point within the revelation.  It’s a little bit confused.  Also, the whole thing is tied up in this idea where I mention in Matthew about the binding and loosing thing.  That is sort of Mark Staker’s thing about Peter, James, and John.  That’s connected in there.  So, the text is not perfectly clear.  That’s another point I try to make about the revelation.

Check out our conversation…..

After Joseph Smith died, Brigham Young claimed only he held the sealing power. Many apostles disagreed. Bill Smith tells how the issue was settled.

 

Posted on

LDS Literacy of Biblical Polygamy

According to the Bible, King David and Solomon had hundreds of wives and concubines, yet the Book of Mormons condemns this practice.  How does this square with the polygamy revelation in Doctrine & Covenants 132?  Dr. Bill Smith will answer questions about Biblical polygamy in just a moment.

Bill:  Let me preface this by revealing to you something about how I think about scripture.  My personal point of view is really colored by what I’ve read or studied or worked through in terms of scholarship of the Bible.  I tend to trade on that in how I think about Mormon scripture.  The main point is this:  I think it’s a mistake to try to really seek for a continuity of narrative between how people did this 3,000 years ago, or how people thought about this 1,000 years ago or 2,000 years ago, or what the New Testament says about this or that.

I think that Joseph Smith saw a continuity.  He makes the Old Testament elites, he turns them all into Christians, which I think is utterly interesting, remarkable and strange.  There is a kind of hermeneutic that is kind of a conservative Protestant one that sort of fits in I think to how we, at least in the 20th century in the LDS Tradition have thought about scripture as being one continuous revelation.  It’s all really got to be reconciled as one thing.  I think that’s a mistake and not really justifiable historically.

We will also discuss how biblically literate Mormons are.

Bill:  One general authority wrote to the First Presidency about his experiences with missionaries, after he had toured some missions on the east coast and said, “We have got great missionaries with testimonies, but they just don’t know anything about religion.  It makes it very hard for them to interface with people who do, or who have experience in their own religions.  They need to know how to deal with such people, or at least have a knowledgebase from which to go.”  I think that’s kind of a controversial statement, but it is interesting that he thought we didn’t, or the missionaries didn’t have that.

GT:  Yes, to me that’s not very surprising, although I would say I guess in defense of Mormons, I do think that we have a better understanding of the Bible than a lot of Protestants do.

Bill: I think that’s absolutely true, especially post-missionary people.  You know you have to deal in the Bible because most of our missionaries go to Christian peoples, people who know about the New Testament, and at least through their churches or their ministers or preachers that they have heard.  They know passages of the New Testament.  They may have even been schooled in how to deal with Mormons.  All of that is biblical.

What do think?  Are LDS better or worse than Protestants or Catholics with regards to biblical literacy?  Who needs more improvement?

Don’t forget to check out part 1 of our conversation with Dr. Bill Smith!  Check out our conversation…..

Rachel and Leah, wives of Jacob/Israel

 

Posted on

Dr. Bill Smith on the Origins of Polygamy

Section 132 of the Doctrine & Covenants was given to Joseph Smith when he inquired about questions about polygamy in the Bible.  Dr. Bill Smith has recently written a book that’s been out for a few weeks now on Section 132 of the Doctrine & Covenants.  I’m excited to be one of the first to receive a copy and also one of the first to interview Dr. Bill Smith about his book.  It’s a great book, Textual Studies of the Doctrine & Covenants:  The Plural Marriage Revelation.  I encourage you to go out and buy it.  In the next few series of interviews, I’ll give you a little taste of the book.  I asked him if the origins of polygamy were as early as 1831?

Bill: It may indeed have pieces or parts that come earlier than 1843, but as far as I argue in the book, it’s really a structure that is an 1843 structure.  It’s an 1843 document, certainly by scribal accounts, it’s 1843.  As far as theologically, culturally, it seems like it is an 1843 document.  I don’t see too much in there beyond what has typically been said about the opening preamble of the revelation being an answer to a question about Abraham’s polygamy.  I think that could be a connection to Joseph Smith’s translation to the Bible, but I don’t see that as necessary.

Bill:  Going back to what I said about it being an 1843 revelation, it is clearly in its genesis a letter to Emma Smith.  The entirety is a justification to Emma about to why Joseph is, and ought to be allowed to practice plural marriage and recruit other people to do so.  She was up and down in terms of whether she approved of the practice, or whether she didn’t.  She had a terrible mental trial as most women probably did at least to one degree or another, at least when they were introduced to the idea.

I think the whole thing is really structured as a letter to Emma Smith.  Its component parts, I think you can deal with that like Denver did, a theological document, saying this is legitimate.  This isn’t.  But I think it is a unified whole in terms of its purpose.  My opinion, and I think this is justified.  I try to argue this in the book.  I don’t think it was ever intended to be public.

It’s going to be a fun conversation…..  Don’t forget to check out our conversations with other polygamy experts like Mark Staker, Brian Hales, & Anne Wilde.