Omission of Section 132 from the D&C

A fascinating bit if history on Section 132 that I was previously unaware of:

“Generating even more controversy in discussing the revelation was an officially sanctioned scriptural work entitled, Latter-day Revelations: Selections from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Published in 1930 under the imprint of the LDS Church, the volume was actually compiled by James E. Talmage, who by this time was a senior apostle in the Quorum of the Twelve. This work was characterized as containing “Sections and parts of Sections from the Doctrine and Covenants, the sections comprising scriptures of general an enduring value…”. Its purpose, in the words of Talmage, was “to make the strictly doctrinal parts of the Doctrine and Covenants of easy access and reduce its bulk.” Accordingly some ninety-five sections of the Doctrine and Covenants were completely omitted, along with parts of twenty-one others. The most noteworthy of these omissions was the entire text of Section 132! Fundamentalist Mormons were outraged, “accusing the [LDS] church of changing the scriptures.” In response, then Church President Heber J. Grant, ordered the work immediately “withdrawn” from sale and the remaining copies “shredded to avoid further conflict with the fundamentalists,” according to Talmage biographer, James P. Harris.”

Newell G. Bringhurst, “Section 132: Contents and Legacy” in The Persistence of Polygamy, (Independence: John Whitmer Books: 2010), 83-84.

About these ads
This entry was posted in ..

6 comments on “Omission of Section 132 from the D&C

  1. jr says:

    I do not understand why the church leaders have removed and put back various sections in the D and C. Why do we not have all the originals that the early members had (Book of Commandments). If it all came from revelation then why keep it from members? I am a member, and I believe Jos. Smith was a true Prophet. But sometimes I think the leaders after J. Smith relied more on what they wanted versus what God wanted.
    I hate to agree with the Fundamentalists but they had a point.

  2. James says:

    First of all, there probably hasn’t been as much removed and/or replaced from the D&C as you think. There are a few significant items, but it isn’t that big a deal. The concept of “continuing revelation”, which we hold dear, is what is at play in this. The Lord can give revelation, change revelation, revoke revelation, etc., as he sees fit for the benefit of his children. “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”

    If a revelation is removed from scripture is is not suppressed or hidden from view of interested students. It is available to read, it just isn’t going to be published and disseminated far and wide (and why should it be?).

    To be clear, this post is not talking about removing or replacing anything in the D&C. My interpretation is that the book Talmage was putting together was more or less a “greatest hits” collection of D&C sections. It wasn’t meant to be a replacement for the original D&C.

    • jr says:

      Thank you for clarifying this. It can get confusing. And I do wonder sometimes about why the leaders did what they did. I appreciate your time to respond as I know you are busy.

      By the way, I have read your comments on sites critical of the LDS religion and I have learned much from your responses.

  3. James says:

    No problem! It is nice to hear that somebody is getting something out of the silly debates I get sucked into at various anti-Mormon blogs.

  4. Peter Eriksson says:

    I have a question..do you think polygamy will desolves after Death since D&C seems to incline that in chapter 132?? Polygamy is likened to the the offering of Isac by Abraham…it is an offering that we do not have to endure in eternity????
    Peter E

  5. James says:

    Good question. I believe that nobody will be in a relationship they do not want to be in. I also believe that the choice will remain open to practice plural marriage for those who did so in mortality. This is just speculation, but I think it makes sense.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s