I'll bet you guys (and gals) 10 dollars

[SoonerCoug]

that D&C 132 is removed within the next 5 years.

That's not 10 dollars each. That's 10 dollars to be divided amongst yourselves.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

that D&C 132 is removed within the next 5 years.

That's not 10 dollars each. That's 10 dollars to be divided amongst yourselves.

For being a doctor, you're sure a cheap bastard. And I would take that bet because I don't seeing it being removed, but perhaps revised to eliminate references to polygamy.

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

that D&C 132 is removed within the next 5 years.

That's not 10 dollars each. That's 10 dollars to be divided amongst yourselves.

I'll take that deal.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

For being a doctor, you're sure a cheap bastard. And I would take that bet because I don't seeing it being removed, but perhaps revised to eliminate references to polygamy.

Better if the whole thing is just removed. We could just skip from section 131 to 133. The D&C could be like a building without a 13th floor.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

I'll take that deal.

Yeah, I'm sure you love the destroy Emma + many virgins for Joseph verses.

[All-American]

It would be a horrendously stupid move, to say the least. Right now, the only attestation to this potentially embarrassing doctrine (which we haven't officially revoked as wrong) is tucked away in a list of D&C sections. What better way to draw attention to it than to officially designate it as "removed"?

Analogously, with which of the two scriptures are you more familiar as it pertains to Mormonism and racism: the now-changed promise that the Lamanites shall become "white and wholesome," or the assertion in Abraham that Pharoah, being of a certain lineage, could not hold the priesthood?

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by All-American

It would be a horrendously stupid move, to say the least. Right now, the only attestation to this potentially embarrassing doctrine (which we haven't officially revoked as wrong) is tucked away in a list of D&C sections. What better way to draw attention to it than to officially designate it as "removed"?

Analogously, with which of the two scriptures are you more familiar as it pertains to Mormonism and racism: the now-changed promise that the Lamanites shall become "white and wholesome," or the assertion in Abraham that Pharoah, being of a certain lineage, could not hold the priesthood?

I don't see what's stupid about opposing polygamy and denying that it was a genuine revelation.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I don't see what's stupid about opposing polygamy and denying that it was a genuine revelation.

So long as it was not a genuine revelation, you're right. Problem is, the church has never denied that Polygamy was legit. If the church is going to do away with the doctrine of Polygamy, rather than just the practice, it should do so officially and outright, rather than stick their hands in their pockets and say "Section 132? What Section 132?"

The chances that this will happen, by the way, are minuscule, first and foremost because I don't think any leaders of the church actually believe polygamy was not a principle taught by God to his prophets.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by All-American

If the church is going to do away with the doctrine of Polygamy, rather than just the practice, it should do so officially and outright, rather than stick their hands in their pockets and say "Section 132? What Section 132?"

When did I say they shouldn't deny the doctrine officially? I never said they shouldn't do that. I just said that they should get rid of section 132.

The Church has made a heck of a lot of changes over its history, and I don't see what would be wrong with this change.

Also, women holding the priesthood ought to happen within the next 30 years, IMO. I'm going to the Community of Christ this week to see it in action--just for fun.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

When did I say they shouldn't deny the doctrine officially? I never said they shouldn't do that. I just said that they should get rid of section 132.

The Church has made a heck of a lot of changes over its history, and I don't see what would be wrong with this change.

Also, women holding the priesthood ought to happen within the next 30 years, IMO. I'm going to the Community of Christ this week to see it in action--just for fun.

I guess you didn't say "They shouldn't deny the doctrine officially." You did say "I don't see what's stupid about opposing polygamy and denying that it was a genuine revelation." I apologize for what step of logic I took betwixt the two.

I just happen to think that quietly removing section 132 will draw far more attention to it than simply letting a sleeping dog lie.