How the unpalatable dish of polygamy leads to a taste for cafeteria Mormonism

During the Hans Mattsson debate some people have incredulously cast doubt on his claim to have found Joseph's polygamy a surprise. "Hadn't he read D&C 132," they ask. 

Just because someone has read D&C 132 (including the section heading) it doesn't mean they know the full implications. You have to do lots more background reading for that. Much of which is not available from LDS sources. 

As such it's reasonable that someone who has faithfully served his whole life and focused his study on the scriptures, the Ensign and a few other books (the missionary library) would not have been negligent in their study, nor would they they be naive. But they almost certainly would be surprised to discover the detail of plural marriage (among many others).

The full detail is certainly unsettling. 

Marriages to teenagers (about 10 or them). Marriages to other men's wives (another 10 of them). Around 30+ wives in the records. 

The revelation now found in section 132 was recorded, in private, around 10 years after polygamy appears to have started. The section was not in the edition of the D&C that Joseph signed off in 1835, nor was it in the version that Joseph reviewed in 1843 that was published in late 1844 (delayed from its earlier publication date of mid-1844 due to Joseph's death) even though the revelation that would become section 132 had been recorded in 1843. In other words, Joseph had the opportunity to, but made no attempt to canonise it.

Are you still with me? My head's a muddle. 

The institute manual states: "The revelation was not made public until Elder Orson Pratt, under the direction of President Brigham Young, announced it at a Church conference on 29 August 1852. The revelation was placed in the Doctrine and Covenants in 1876."

If you want to throw in an affair with their 17 year old house maid, Fanny Alger, to start the whole thing off in 1833 you could find some evidence to reach that conclusion, though many others conclude it was a plural marriage, not an affair.

Either way, it was done without Emma's knowledge and I am disturbed by both options. 

It's not a belief in infallibility that makes me consider Joseph a prophet. I consider him a prophet because the application of the scripture he dictated actually works. 

But... because I recognise his fallibility I also don't feel the need to accept every piece of 'doctrine' he revealed. Just as I am selective with the teachings of other non-Mormon 'prophets and wise men' (to quote a GA).

I am proudly a "cafeteria Mormon." But only because I am confident that God is my personal trainer and helps me choose the eating plan best suited to me. 

I have a hard time understanding anyone who believes there's a set menu for all of humanity. That simply makes no sense as is not borne out by taking a look at the diversity of the human family.