Analysis of Section 132

Analysis of section 132

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears”;  2 Tim. 4: 3

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” Gal. 1: 8-9

In previous posts I have pointed to historical documentation that indicates that originally, the revelation now known as Section 132 was much shorter and only about restoring the biblical principle of patriarchal polygamy. It was apparently some time later that the theological portions pertaining to the spiritual wife doctrine were added.

I have already put my two cents worth about how I feel about the spiritual wife doctrine in another post. If you have not read it, you may view it here.

I have, however, felt for a long time that since section 132 claims that after a person becomes aware of the doctrine contained therein, that they need to live it and have multiple wives  in order to receive the highest glory of the Lord, and since it is included in the four standard works and is presented by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints as a true revelation containing true doctrine, that I am compelled to take it very seriously and weigh it in the balance, against the other revelations contained in the four standard works.

So I finally took the time the other night to read the entire section through again, and to scrutinize each and every verse to see just how congruent this revelation is with the rest of Gods revealed word. As usual, I was not able to take as much time as I desired and this article, like most of the ones I have written, will remain a work in progress.

Joseph Smith has informed us that true revelations never contradict previous ones. That one key should raise a big red flag when one reads section 132.

The prophet Joseph Smith one made the following comment,

“There have also been ministering angels in the Church which were of Satan appearing as an angel of light. (Gives an example).. Many true things were spoken by this personage, and many things that were false. How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel? By the color of his hair; that is one of the signs that he can be known by, and by his contradicting a former revelation.” (Joseph Smith, TPJS, pp. 214-215)

There are doctrinal sophists that will look at you with a strait face and tell you that the spiritual wife doctrine contained in section 132 does not contradict celestial law contained in section 42, or the command to limit yourself to one wife in section 49. But each of us need to determine the truthfulness of that teaching for ourselves.l

One of the truly disturbing things about the so-called “revelation” contained in section 132 is how it redefines so many of the plain and simple doctrines and phrases of the gospel that are contained in the Bible, Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenant.

Here are some of the terms and doctrines that seem to be redefined in this section;

·    New and Everlasting Covenant
·    Oath and covenant
·    Strait gate

My concern is that redefining terms and doctrines previously defined by God and his holy prophets constitutes the preaching of a different gospel. This is something else we need to keep in mind as we review this section.

Here is my analysis of how the doctrines in section 132 measures up to the holy and infallible word of God. Section 132 is in black, my comments and observations are in Red,

SECTION 132

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—

Verse one is a big red flag in my opinion.

It would have us believe that the revelation came as a result of Joseph Smith asking (or Joseph Smith asking on behalf of one of the Elders of Israel,) the Lord to explain why he had justified, among others, David and Solomon in having multiple wives.

The Book of Mormon had already revealed that David and Solomon were NOT justified in having many wives and concubines!

Did Joseph Smith believe the Book of Mormon that he had brought forth by the gift and power of God? Of course he did!

Why would Joseph Smith, as the Seer of the Lord who translated the Book of Mormon be asking why God justified David and Solomon in taking multiple wives when in fact it was through his efforts in translating the Book of Mormon that he was able to reveal to the world that David and Solomon WERE NOT JUSTIFIED in having multiple wives;

“For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.”

Not only does the Book of Mormon clarify that David and Solomon were not justified, it declares that what they did was an abomination. It reveals that those who used the scriptures to justify their actions in practicing polygamy DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE SCRIPTURES!

It is almost inconceivable that the Lords anointed would ask such an unsound question of the Lord, when he had already been an instrument in the hands of God to shed light on this issue.

If the question would have been limited to asking why Abraham and Jacob and the righteous patriarchs that lived the principle were justified, there would have been no inconsistency and it would have been a sound and valid question.

I have a little more to say about the ramifications pertaining to this most disturbing opening verse, but I am going to come back to this later in the article after we review more of this section.

2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.

3 Therefore, aprepare thy heart to receive and bobey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.

Common sense and a literal rendering of these verses up to the word YOU, would indicate that if this really was a true revelation, the commandment to live this law is being given directly to Joseph Smith exclusively at this point, and that others would need to have a direct revelation from God or a tap on the shoulder from Gods anointed in order to be justified in practicing it.

And that appears to be what it is saying until you get to the last sentence which actually makes the living of the law binding on everyone that reads the revelation or has it explained to them.

“for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same”

Would God really do that? Would he take a so-called “higher law” and make it binding on virtually everyone who becomes aware of it?

This brings up a very important issue. If God really did reveal this revelation to Joseph Smith and if it was a valid accurate revelation, why didn’t God instruct Joseph to canonize it into the D&C?

Did you realize that Joseph was getting ready to publish a new version of the D&C just before his death that contained about 6 or 8 new additional revelations but he did not intend to include this one?

Why?

When the new version of the scriptures that Joseph had prepared came out, they contained section 124 which warned the Saints that anything more or less than what was in the Book of Mormon and the published revelations up to section 124 (and any others that Joseph had published and made public), “cometh of evil and shall be attended with cursings”.(see 124:119,120)

According to that ominous warning, section 132 must be considered evil and is attended with cursings.

One only needs to read the diaries of the Saints who struggled to live polygamy to get a glimpse of the cursings God warned the saints about.

So if God did not commission Joseph or Hyrum (who was actually the sole prophet of the church at the time of the martyrdom) to legitimize and canonize the current version of section 132 even though it had supposedly been given by then, who gave Brigham Young the authority to replace the Article on Marriage (which forbids the practice of polygamy) and replace it with 132?

If Brigham really was authorized by God to insert it, why did he have Brigham wait nearly 30 years to do it instead of having him do it when the Saints reached Utah?

Brigham openly stated numerous times that he had never seen God nor did he claim to be a prophet, so where did he get the authority to canonize a revelation that binds the Saints to the strange and contradictory doctrines found in this section?

The insertion of section 132 without authority from God and without the law of common consent is not very consistent with previous protocol. It contradicts previous revelations and it neglects some kind of requirement of righteousness or justification through grace with regard to the promises of eternal life that it makes… those promises of eternal life are soley predicated upon the acceptance of a strange and unnatural marital law.

It neglects the law of common consent, it opens up the practicing of this law to everyone, not just the church membership. According the William Law, the original revelation limited the practice of this law to High Priests.

4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting acovenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye bdamned; for no one can creject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

This is the first of several sacred gospel terms that this revelation redefines.

Prior to this revelation the phrase “New and Everlasting Covenant” ALWAYS had specific reference to the saving ordinance of the baptism of water, fire and the Holy Ghost which is the sacred covenant that gets us through the gate and onto the strait path. It sometimes also includes the messenger holding the keys to the saving ordinance of water, fire and Holy Ghost..

Now, for the first time in the four standard works, the phrase is redefined to refer to a commandment to have multiple wives.

Frankly it seems blasphemous to me to redefine the New and Everlasting Covenant of Baptism and the power of the atonement, as referring a mandatory requirement to have multiple wives sealed to you. I wonder how God feels about diverting the attention from the sacrifice and atonement of his Son to the principle of polygamy.

Would God really confuse us this way? Especially since the Law of the Gospel contained in section 42 requires monogamy?

This is not only redefining a term, it is reversing the meaning of a term!

I don’t think so!

Section 42 and section 132 cannot both be true because they contradict each other.

The law of the Gospel in section 42 is sacred to me. The spirit bears witness that it is true. I am forced to accept one revelation or the other. They can’t contradict each other and both be true.

5 For all who will have a ablessing at my hands shall abide the blaw which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.

6 And as pertaining to the new and aeverlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my bglory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.

Ok, this revelation is now revealing that the only people who can receive a fullness of Gods glory are those that enter into this new definition of the New and Everlasting Covenant, requiring multiple wives.

The fullness of Gods glory was addressed long before section 132 was crafted. Those crafting it should have studied section 76 a little closer because it addresses this issue.

Apparently Joseph and Sidney were not aware of this new doctrine in section 132 when they experienced the vision now known as section 76 because they actually received a fullness of the Glory of God while living monogamy in the flesh. Please notice the following verses;

“We, Joseph Smith, Jun., and Sidney Rigdon, being in the Spirit on the sixteenth day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two—

By the power of the Spirit our eyes were opened and our understandings were enlightened, so as to see and understand the things of God—

Even those things which were from the beginning before the world was, which were ordained of the Father, through his Only Begotten Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, even from the beginning;

Of whom we bear record; and the record which we bear is the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, who is the Son, whom we saw and with whom we conversed in the heavenly vision.

And while we meditated upon these things, the Lord touched the eyes of our understandings and they were opened, and the glory of the Lord shone round about.

And we beheld the glory of the Son, on the right hand of the Father, and RECEIVED OF HIS FULNESS;

21 And saw the holy angels, and them who are sanctified before his throne, worshiping God, and the Lamb, who worship him forever and ever.

And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!

23 For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—

Not only did these two monogamists experience the fulness of the glory of God in the flesh, they revealed that all of those who receive the testimony of Jesus and are baptized and keep the commandments (which are detailed in the law of the gospel) and overcome by faith and are sealed up by the Holy Spirit of Promise, will be made kings and priests and will RECEIVE OF HIS FULNESS AND GLORY!

Clearly Joseph and Sidney received of his fulness as monogamists.

Furthermore, Section 76 explains exactly what the Gospel of Christ is that enables us to enter into the fulness of his glory for eternity. Please note the following passages;

“And again we bear record—for we saw and heard, and this is the testimony of the gospel of Christ concerning them who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just

They are they who received the  testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given—

That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power;

And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true.

They are they who are the church of the Firstborn.

They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things—

They are they who are priest and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory;

I didn’t notice anything in there about multiple wives being a requirement to receive the fullness of Gods glory.. did you?

Is it possible that section 132 is preaching ANOTHER Gospel?

7 And verily I say unto you, that the aconditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, boaths, cvows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and dsealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is eanointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by frevelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this gpower (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this hpower in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the ikeys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

8 Behold, mine house is a house of aorder, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion.

I’m glad to know that God’s house is a house of order and not a house of confusion however, now I am really confused. This revelation is stating that the priesthood power to seal someone up according to the Holy Spirit of Promise is never held by more than one person on the earth at a time. First of all, the Holy Spirit of Promise can seal anyone up that the Father chooses, the Holy Spirit of Promise does not function under the direction of mortal man. We will get more into this in a minute but for right now, let talk about priesthood keys.

Apparently the people who crafted this revelation neglected to read section 68 and 124. Lets review them;

Speaking to several brethren who had been ordained to the office of High Priest, the Lord gives this promise,

“And of as many as the Father shall bear record, to you shall be given power to seal them up unto eternal life. Amen.” (section 68:12)

In addition to the incredible promise given above, which was given to several high priests (and undoubtedly applies to the 144,000 High Priests when they begin their ministry), section 124 makes it abundantly clear that in 1841 Joseph and Hyrum both held the power to seal people up in conjunction with the Holy Spirit of Promise (based on providing the ordinances of salvation).

Furthermore, section 81 tells us that the three people that compose the first presidency of the High Priesthood jointly hold the keys of the kingdom!

Do I now have to throw out sections 45, 68, 76, 81 and 124 in order to embrace this new gospel that is being preached in section 132?

The problem with verse 7 however is much deeper than that. In verse 5 and again in verse 7, section 132 introduces the LAW of CONDITIONS pertaining to salvation in the highest kingdom, or in other words, it lays the foundation for what the “conditions” of the gospel  and the “conditions” of salvation are.

At this point in my critique of this section I am going to submit the glorious discourse that King Benjamin gave regarding the “CONDITIONS” of the gospel. I challenge you to read Mosiah 4:8 and ponder the fact that this righteous king had just delivered a message to his people that he had received from an angel. Then in verse 8 he then outlines what the conditions of salvation really are.

I challenge you to read Mosiah chapters 2,3 and 4 and make bullet points of what the conditions of salvation are (and what they are not) and then make bullet points based on what section 132 claims the conditions of salvation are.

You will be shocked.

Section 132 gives entirely different and contrary conditions than King Benjamin gives.

Section 132 preaches quite a different gospel than the Book of Mormon preaches.

The Book of Mormon tells us to put our faith and trust in God and the atonement, section 132 teaches us to put our faith and trust in human priesthood authority.

The Book of Mormon has God bestowing the Holy Spirit of Promise on his children, section 132 emphasizes that God only has one man on the earth at a time that has the authority to seal you up by the Holy Spirit of Promise.

The four standard works teach that the Holy Spirit of Promise works under the direction of the Father and the Son and independent of Man, yet section 132 claims that you can only recieve the Holy Spirit of Promise through the special person who is anointed to give it.

The Book of Mormon states in no uncertain terms, “the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel and he employeth no servant there; and there is no other way save it be by the gate; for he cannot be deceived, for the Lord God is his name..”

Do a key word search in the four standard works to see what Paul and others taught about the Holy Spirit of Promise and see if the associated doctrines point you to putting your trust in God or Human Priesthood authority… after doing so and after comparing the words of King Benjamin to the strange new doctrine found in section 132, you will get incredible clarity on how section 132 differs from the gospel taught in the true Word of God

9 Will I aaccept of an offering, saith the Lord, that is not made in my name?

10 Or will I receive at your hands that which I have not aappointed?

11 And will I appoint unto you, saith the Lord, except it be by law, even as I and my Father aordained unto you, before the world was?

12 I am the Lord thy God; and I give unto you this commandment—that no man shall acome unto the Father but by me or by my word, which is my law, saith the Lord.

Why is the Lord making specific reference to his new LAW contained in this proposed revelation as the conflicting law contained in section 42 had never been given? Why didn’t he mention his LAW which he had already given, which this new law contradicts?

Has it been done away with? If so, why doesn’t the Lord notify Joseph Smith that a higher or lower law is being instituted, just as the lord notified Moses when the lesser law containing “carnal commandments” was being instituted instead of the higher law? (See JST Ex. 34: 1-2, 14)

This is very confusing and not congruent with previous revelations and commandments.

13 And everything that is in the world, whether it be ordained of men, by athrones, or principalities, or powers, or things of name, whatsoever they may be, that are not by me or by my word, saith the Lord, shall be thrown down, and shall bnot remain after men are dead, neither in nor after the resurrection, saith the Lord your God.

14 For whatsoever things remain are by me; and whatsoever things are not by me shall be shaken and destroyed.

15 Therefore, if a aman marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in amarriage; but are appointed angels in bheaven, which angels are ministering cservants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

I don’t see any major discrepancies in those passages. Perhaps they were taken from a valid revelation? Or perhaps those that crafted this revelation just got lucky? Or perhaps old Scratch throws in a little truth to give credibility to the lies he is perpetuating?

17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are aangels of God forever and ever.

I’m not positive, because I have not taken the time to do an extensive key word search, but I believe this is the first time in the four standard works that the word “exaltation” is used in this context. Prior to this, when used in a positive context, it simply means raised up.”

I think that possibly the word “saved” categorically meant saved in the highest kingdom of God in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon. The word salvation also categorically referred to being saved in the celestial kingdom in the D&C UNTIL section 76 was received. It was then, for the first time that the word saved was used to refer to a “saved condition” in any kingdom of glory, but the broader use of the word was clearly spelled out in that revelation.

I believe section 132 introduces “exaltation” theology for the first time.

Why is this important? It may not be.

I don’t necessarily see a problem with using the word exaltation in place of salvation, however it is curious that God would never introduce this term until now. Particularly when it would have been so appropriate in section 76 if in fact it is an accurate descriptive.

The exaltation doctrine in 132 possibly creates a necessity for multiple kingdoms within the celestial Kingdom based on number of wives, etc. Hence the misinterpretation of section 131:1-4 by many people.

Yet the scriptures are so clear about the fact that there are three kingdoms of glory and that all of the elect that go to the highest kingdom are equal, having received the fulness of the Father.

It is interesting how the Lord warns leaders of the restoration movement to not “exalt” themselves.

Notice also how the Lord uses the word “exalt” when telling Satan what he was thinking in his heart;

“For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.” Isa. 14: 13

18 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that acovenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God.

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man amarry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and beverlasting covenant, and it is csealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of dpromise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the ekeys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit fthrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s gBook of Life, that he shall commit no hmurder whereby to shed innocent iblood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their jexaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the kseeds forever and ever.

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from aeverlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be bgods, because they have call power, and the angels are subject unto them.

21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my alaw ye cannot attain to this glory.

22 For astrait is the gate, and narrow the bway that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the clives, and few there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know me.

Now section 132 is redefining the phrase “strait is the gate and narrow the way”.

Lets do a key word search to see if the new definition squares with the original definition given by Christ.

“Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them, for this is the law and the prophets.

Enter ye in at the strait gate; for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, which leadeth to destruction, and many there be who go in thereat;
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” (Mat 7:13)

It is interesting that Christ first introduces the term strait gate in the sermon on the mount after telling his followers to treat people the same way they would want to be treated. The implication is that his followers already knew what the phrase “strait gate” had reference to.

Now lets see what the prophets understood about the phrase Christ was using
“Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost.


And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive” 2 Ne. 31: 17
Modern Revelation confirms what the Bible and Book of Mormon tell us about the strait gate, it also reiterates what the new and everlasting covenant really is and reminds us that the carnal commandments of the law of Moses (like polygamy) are done away with-
1  BEHOLD, I say unto you that all old covenants have I caused to be done away in this thing; and this is a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning.
2  Wherefore, although a man should be baptized an hundred times it availeth him nothing, for you cannot enter in at the strait gate by the law of Moses, neither by your dead works.
3  For it is because of your dead works that I have caused this last covenant and this church to be built up unto me, even as in days of old.
4  Wherefore, enter ye in at the gate, as I have commanded, and seek not to counsel your God.  Amen.

Section 132 is telling us that we get into the strait gate by multiple wives instead of by the baptism of water, fire and the Holy Ghost. Are you willing to bet your salvation on this “other gospel”?


25 aBroad is the gate, and wide the way that leadeth to the bdeaths; and many there are that go in thereat, because they creceive me not, neither do they abide in my law.

Again, this is the second part of a phrase we have already researched.. it just doesn’t square with God’s holy and infallible word in the scriptures.

26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God.

What an interesting doctrine! We talk about the insidious doctrine of works that overrides the grace of God through the atonement pursuant to the saving ordinances of the Gospel, but this really takes the cake.

According to this “enlightened” bit of legislation, if a man is sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, as long as he does not shed innocent blood, he can commit any sin or transgression and all manner of blasphemies and still be guaranteed exaltation in the highest kingdom after he gets his hands slapped for a while.

The above doctrine in section 132 reminds me of the prophetic warning in the Book of Mormon that says in the last days men will be saying,

“… God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God. Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark. … O the wise and the learned and the rich, that are puffed up in the pride of their hearts, and all those who preach false doctrines, and all those who commit whoredoms, and pervert the right way of the Lord, wo, wo, wo be unto them sayeth the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell!” 2nd Nephi 28:8-

Are you buying what section 132 is selling? Or are you sticking with the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Are the above passages in section 132 preaching the simple and pure doctrine of Christ or is it teaching a vain and foolish doctrine that justifies people in committing whordoms?

Try reconciling the above passages in 132 with the gospel of Jesus Christ that is taught in section 42 and the rest of the scriptures.

Try reconciling it with section 76!

(of course, in the passage above,  in 132, we don’t know which “New and Everlasting Covenant” it is speaking about, but it doesn’t make any sense either way)

Having gotten that little rant out of the way, let me suggest that verse 26 is perhaps one of the most blatant doctrinal slip-ups from those that crafted this revelation.

If you will do a key phrase search for “delivered unto the buffetings of Satan, you will find that this phrase only shows up in modern revelation. It showed up in three separate revelations before section 132 was crafted. EVERYONE of the other three passages reveals that it is breaking the law of consecration that turns a person over to the buffetings of Satan!

Furthermore, and perhaps even more telling, the scriptures are clear about the fact that everyone that dies is ether sealed up to go to the spirit paradise because of their faith and righteousness OR they are sealed up to go to the spirit prison to await the wrath of God because they died in their sins without repenting during probation.

Never do the scriptures speak of those that come forth out of prison as being the elect of God.

Those that go to the spirit prison because they died in their sins are not caught up in the cloud to meet Jesus during the first resurrection… period, end of story.

We therefore know beyond question that the above passage and associated doctrine is out of harmony with the gospel that is revealed in the true revelations.

It is after they have all suffered for their own sins, in the flesh that the terrestrial and telestial spirits will receive their final resurrected bodies and eternal inheritances.

27 The ablasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall bnot be cforgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit dmurder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be edamned, saith the Lord.

We’ve already discussed the absurdity of the doctrine that you are damned from entering into the glory of the Lord if you haven’t enslaved a bunch of wives. We shan’t belabor it.

28 I am the Lord thy God, and will give unto thee the alaw of my Holy Priesthood, as was ordained by me and my Father before the world was.

As subtle as it is, this of course is the redefining of the “oath and covenant of the Father” as mentioned in section 84, which is commonly referred to in the Church as the “oath and covenant of the priesthood”.

In a previous article I have shown beyond dispute that the oath and covenant of the Father pertains to the New and Everlasting Covenant of Baptism. It is the baptismal covenant that enabled Father Adam and all of the great prophets and patriarchs to enter into the highest priesthood.

Of course, now that this revelation of questionable origin has redefined the term New and Everlasting Covenant to mean multiple wives, everything has changed, and we now have “another gospel”. We can now focus on obtaining additional wives instead focusing on the baptism of water, fire and the Holy Ghost!

In JST Luke 11:53 the Savior makes an astonishing accusation towards the religious “lawyers” that were largely responsible for teaching doctrine in the corrupt Jewish church,

Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge, the fulness of the scriptures; ye enter not in yourselves into the kingdom; and those who were entering in, ye hindered.

Is it possible that the other gospel contained in section 132 hinders people from entering into the kingdom by obscuring and redefining the true doctrines and ordinances contained in the four standard works?

Perhaps when the fulness of the scriptures are made available when the first laborers of the last kingdom return, it will be much clearer to us that the first gospel that was revealed through the prophet Joseph Smith was true.

29 aAbraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne.

30 aAbraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins—from whose bloins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph—which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the cstars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.

31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of aAbraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.

32 Go ye, therefore, and do the aworks of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.

I agree that we need to do the works of Abraham.

What exactly did Abraham do that will enable us to become save?

He paid tithes to Melchizedek. That means he entered into the Law of the Gospel and consecration. In order to do that, he had to do what Melchizedek, Enoch and Adam all did, he had to enter into the everlasting covenant of Baptism… even the baptism of water, fire and the Holy Ghost.

After being baptized, he kept his oath to serve God which is to be willing to sacrifice all things.

Those are the works of Abraham that we are supposed to follow.

If this is a true revelation, how could God have overlooked including this information under the topic of “do the works of Abraham”?

33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.

Here we have another redefining of what God’s law is.

In sections 37, 38 and 39 the Lord had commanded the Saints to go to the Ohio where he would give them his law. Once they got to the Ohio, he gave them is law as contained in section 42. That is the “law of the gospel”

In that section the Lord said,

“Again I say unto you, hearken and hear and obey the law which I shall give unto you…” He then made specific mention of several laws including the law of having only one wife. Eventually the revelation stated that,

“Thou shalt take the things which thou hast received, which have been given unto thee in my scriptures for a law, to be my law to govern my church;”

Of course the four standard works up to that period of time had all taught that the Saints should only have one wife.

Now, however, this revelation is redefining the law of the Gospel that was given in section 42. This is a huge contradiction and itappears to be redefining previous definitions of sacred laws that the Lord had already given to the Saints.

Is this not preaching “another gospel” than that found in the New Testament, Book of Mormon and D&C?

34 God acommanded Abraham, and Sarah gave bHagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

The scriptures support the proposition that Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham and that God tolerated the patriarchal law of plural wives as practiced in Old Testament times. However, they don’t ever indicate that God gave Hagar to Abraham by revelation and they certainly don’t indicate that the biblical law of polygamy was an celestial principle that would continue on into eternity.

We need to remember that the children of Israel who rejected the higher law and were living the law of carnal commandments were living polygamy.

Many pro-polygamists will tell you that the children of polygamist wives are of a higher spiritual realm, however, the scriptures don’t confirm this, Isaiah informs so that the righteous only come from Sarah, not Hagar! check out Isaiah 51!

Furthermore, we Paul informs us in Galations 4 that Abraham had two sons, one from a bondwoman (Hagar) and one from a freewoman (Sarah). He then informs us that those children from the freewoman are the children of the PROMISE while those of the bondwoman are born after the flesh and are born unto BONDAGE!

The offspring of a polygamous union from Abraham appear to be terrestrial spirits at best!

35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, acommanded it.

36 Abraham was acommanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not bkill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for crighteousness.

37 Abraham received aconcubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and bJacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their cexaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.

Stating that Abraham, Issac and Jacob have received their exaltation and are now Gods sitting on their thrones is simply not congruent with the scriptures and is a false doctrine.

Paraphrasing a scripture in Hebrews, the prophet Joseph Smith made the following comment found in section 128,

“… as Paul says concerning the fathers- that they without us cannot be made perfect– neither can we without our dead be made perfect” D&C 128:15

Abraham has been redeemed from this telestial world but he has not been made perfect. He can’t be made perfect until the righteous from our dispensation have been made perfect.

Father Abraham and others have been redeemed from the powers of this world but they have not received their final salvation (exaltation?) and been made perfect yet.

In fact, God hasn’t even completed his covenant with Abraham and Jacob and the other patriarchal fathers yet. Please note the following passages,

“.. your dwellings shall become desolate until the time of the fulfilling of the covenant to your fathers..” 3 Nephi 10:7

“And when the day cometh that the wrath of God is poured out upon the mother of harlots, which is the great and abominable church of all the earth, whose founder is the devil, then, at that day, the work of the Father shall commence, in preparing the way for the fulfilling of his covenants, which he hath made to his people who are of the house of Israel.” 1st Nephi 14:17

“Wherefore, our father hath not spoken of our seed alone, but also of all the house of Israel, pointing to the covenant which should be fulfilled in the latter days; which covenant the Lord made to our father Abraham, saying: In thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.” 1st Nephi 15:18

“Nevertheless, when that day cometh, saith the prophet, that they no more turn aside their hearts against the Holy One of Israel, then will he remember the covenants which he made to their fathers.” 1 Ne 19:15

Why don’t we wait until the covenant between God and Abraham has been fulfilled before we try to exalt Abraham and send him off to create other worlds?

38 David also received amany wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

39 aDavid’s wives and concubines were bgiven unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the ckeys of this power; and in none of these things did he dsin against me save in the case of eUriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath ffallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I ggave them unto another, saith the Lord.

As pointed out after the very first passage of this revelation, the prophet Joseph Smith revealed to the world through the Book of Mormon that David was not justified in the taking of many wives and concubines. The case of Uriah was not the only case in which he sinned.

Additionally, one could assume from the above passage that David did not sin in any other way than in the case of Uriah. That of course would not be accurate either as David was prevented from building the temple because of the wars he had been involved in,

“ And David said to Solomon, My son, as for me, it was in my mind to build a house unto the name of the Lord my God. But the word of the Lord came to me, saying, Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars; thou shalt not build a house unto my name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my sight.” Jst 1 Chron 22:7

40 I am the Lord thy God, and I gave unto thee, my servant Joseph, an aappointment, and restore all things. Ask what ye will, and it shall be given unto you according to my word.

41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man areceiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy banointing, she hath committed cadultery and shall be destroyed.

42 If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has acommitted adultery.

43 And if her husband be with another woman, and he was under a avow, he hath broken his vow and hath committed adultery.

44 And if she hath not committed adultery, but is innocent and hath not broken her vow, and she knoweth it, and I reveal it unto you, my servant Joseph, then shall you have power, by the power of my Holy Priesthood, to take her and agive her unto him that hath not committed badultery but hath been cfaithful; for he shall be made ruler over many.

45 For I have conferred upon you the akeys and power of the priesthood, wherein I brestore all things, and make known unto you all things in due time.

46 And verily, verily, I say unto you, that whatsoever you aseal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever you bbind on earth, in my name and by my word, saith the Lord, it shall be eternally bound in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you cremit on earth shall be remitted eternally in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you retain on earth shall be retained in heaven.

47 And again, verily I say, whomsoever you bless I will bless, and whomsoever you curse I will acurse, saith the Lord; for I, the Lord, am thy God.

48 And again, verily I say unto you, my servant Joseph, that whatsoever you give on earth, and to whomsoever you agive any one on earth, by my word and according to my law, it shall be visited with blessings and not cursings, and with my power, saith the Lord, and shall be without condemnation on earth and in heaven.

49 For I am the Lord thy God, and will be awith thee even unto the bend of the world, and through all eternity; for verily I cseal upon you your dexaltation, and prepare a throne for you in the kingdom of my Father, with Abraham your efather.

The implication from this verse is that even after exaltation, the patriarchal order within this mortality continues on…. Abraham continues to be Joseph Smiths patriarchal Father in the celestial kingdom. This seems inconsistent with previous scriptures that indicate that after the Saints are redeemed. All are equal with each other… even with Christ,

“And again, another angel shall sound his trump, which is the seventh angel, saying: It is finished; it is finished! The Lamb of God hath overcome and trodden the wine-press alone, even the wine-press of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God.

And then shall the angels be crowned with the glory of his might, and the asaints shall be filled with his bglory, and receive their inheritance and be made equal with him.”(section 88)

50 Behold, I have seen your asacrifices, and will forgive all your sins; I have seen your bsacrifices in obedience to that which I have told you. Go, therefore, and I make a way for your escape, as I caccepted the offering of Abraham of his son Isaac.

51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to aprove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.

It seems like a poor analogy to compare a commandment from the Lord offering other husbands to Emma to the commandment of the Lord for Abraham to sacrifice his only son.

The historicity behind this very strange verse appears to be the situation where Joseph was trying to pacify the jealousy of Emma towards her sister wives by offering to let her have other husbands… pretty sick. But even if Emma wanted other husbands and would be pacified by having them, I hardly see that as something that could be compared to the sacrifice of Abrahams only son!

Further, the terms “covenant and sacrifice” are foundational terms pertaining to the great sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit that we are commanded to offer up when we enter into the true New and Everlasting Covenant.

Again, this revelation is redefining existing gospel terms and preaching another gospel. Please note the following verses which are all unified in revealing the true sacrifice and covenant that the Lord requires of us;

8 Verily I say unto you, all among them who know their hearts are honest, and are broken, and their spirits contrite, and are willing to observe their covenants by sacrifice—yea, every sacrifice which I, the Lord, shall command—they are accepted of me.

9 For I, the Lord, will cause them to bring forth as a very fruitful tree which is planted in a goodly land, by a pure stream, that yieldeth much precious fruit.

10 Verily I say unto you, that it is my will that a house should be built unto me in the land of Zion, like unto the pattern which I have given you.

11 Yea, let it be built speedily, by the tithing of my people.

12 Behold, this is the tithing and the sacrifice which I, the Lord, require at their hands, that there may be a house built unto me for the salvation of Zion—

Clearly, the sacrifice and covenant spoken of in the scriptures is different from what section 132 is referring to.

52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, areceive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.

53 For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been afaithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him.

54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and acleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be bdestroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

I find it very interesting that the Lord is threatening to destroy Emma if she doesn’t follow this commandment. In other parts of this revelation being destroyed in the flesh corresponds with being turned over to the  “buffetings of satan”.

That phrase shows up four times in modern revelation. The first three times it always has to do with those who break the law of consecration that they have entered into… yet this revelation would have us believe that it pertains to rejecting polygamy… again, we are redefining the use of this term from the sacred law of consecration to pertain to a different law of multiple wives, which is a carnal commandment!

Please notice the following verses,

D&C 78: 12

12 And he who breaketh it shall lose his office and standing in the church, and shall be delivered over to the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption.

D&C 82: 21

21 And the soul that sins against this covenant, and hardeneth his heart against it, shall be dealt with according to the laws of my church, and shall be delivered over to the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption.

D&C 104: 9-10

9 Inasmuch as ye are cut off for transgression, ye cannot escape the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption.

10 And I now give unto you power from this very hour, that if any man among you, of the order, is found a transgressor and repenteth not of the evil, that ye shall deliver him over unto the buffetings of Satan; and he shall not have power to bring evil upon you.

BTW

Do you find it just a little strange how the Lord pummels us with warnings about living consecration all throughout the D&C until this revelation.. then it is not even mentioned. Very strange.

55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an ahundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of beternal lives in the eternal worlds.

56 And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid aforgive my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to brejoice.

57 And again, I say, let not my servant Joseph put his property out of his hands, lest an enemy come and destroy him; for aSatan bseeketh to destroy; for I am the Lord thy God, and he is my servant; and behold, and lo, I am with him, as I was with Abraham, thy father, even unto his cexaltation and glory.

58 Now, as touching the law of the apriesthood, there are many things pertaining thereunto.

59 Verily, if a man be called of my Father, as was aAaron, by mine own voice, and by the voice of him that bsent me, and I have endowed him with the ckeys of the power of this priesthood, if he do anything in my name, and according to my law and by my word, he will not commit dsin, and I will justify him.

60 Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph; for I will justify him; for he shall do the sacrifice which I require at his hands for his transgressions, saith the Lord your God.

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse aanother, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

62 And if he have aten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to amultiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be bglorified.

This spiritual wife law contained in this revelation appears to apply only to virgins.

This of course is totally inconsistent with the actions of Joseph smith according to the claim of multiple historians who claim to have provided significant documentation showing that the majority of women that Joseph Smith took as wives had been or currently were married to other men. One of the biggest problems with the credibility of this revelation is that Joseph Smith did not seem to honor the terms and conditions laid out in this revelation.

Additionally, according to the testimony of William Law, the original version of this revelation limited the living of this law to High Priests. Yet that limitation appears to have been removed by those who crafted it.

64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take aHagar to wife.

66 And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice for the present. Behold, I am Alpha and Omega. Amen.

Ok, before I wrap things up here, I want to go back to the beginning verse of section 132 and go into a little more detail. What I have to say about it needed to be at the end of this article, not at the beginning. Please forgive the repetition of the few things I have previously stated. Please keep reading, there is information you need to read!

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—

Verse one is a big red flag in my opinion.

It would have us believe that the revelation came as a result of Joseph Smith asking (or Joseph Smith asking on behalf of one of the Elders of Israel,) the Lord to explain why he had justified, among others, David and Solomon in having multiple wives.

The Book of Mormon had already revealed that David and Solomon were NOT justified in having many wives and concubines!

Did Joseph Smith believe the Book of Mormon that he had brought forth by the gift and power of God? Of course he did!

Why would Joseph Smith, as the Seer of the Lord who translated the Book of Mormon be asking why God justified David and Solomon in taking multiple wives when in fact it was through his efforts in translating the Book of Mormon that he was able to reveal to the world that David and Solomon WERE NOT JUSTIFIED in having multiple wives;

“For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.”

Not only does the Book of Mormon clarify that David and Solomon were not justified, it declares that what they did was an abomination. It reveals that those who used the scriptures to justify their actions in practicing polygamy DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE SCRIPTURES!

It is almost inconceivable that the Lords anointed would ask such an unsound question of the Lord, when he had already been an instrument in the hands of God to shed light on this issue.

If the question would have been limited to asking why Abraham and Jacob and the righteous patriarchs that lived the principle were justified, there would have been no inconsistency and it would have been a sound and valid question.

It may seem a little odd that the Lord would play along, as if the question was a valid one.

There is actually a biblical principle that is invoked here having to do with asking idolatrous questions to the Lord. We will cover that in a minute..

However, we need to remember that God had warned the Saints in the original version of what is now known as section 5  that he would deliver them up to Satan if they harden their hearts against his word. Is it not hardening our hearts against His word in the Book of Mormon if we reject what it teaches about David and Solomon?

In Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith we are informed that Joseph Smith taught the Relief Society that the church was in a state of darkness because they were blindly following the prophet instead of being responsible for their own salvation.

“President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel–said the Lord had declared by the Prophet, that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church–that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls–applied it to the present state of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints–said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall–that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds…” TPJS p.237


This is an incredibly insightful and ominous declaration made by the Prophet Joseph Smith. He is telling the relief society that the current state of the restored church in Nauvoo, in 1842 is in the same condition as the corrupt Jewish Church!

What an appropriate time for the Spiritual Wife Doctrine to raise its ugly head!

It seems to me he is telling them that they are in as state of darkness because they are blindly following him instead of searching the scriptures for themselves and taking the Holy Ghost as their guide.


Putting this declaration from the prophet Joseph Smith in historical context;

  • It is after the church rejected the full implications and greater light that was offered them at the special conference at the Morley Farm in 1831.
  • It was after the failure of the Saints to redeem Zion in 1836.
  • It is after the defiling of the Kirtland Temple.
  • It is after the declaration of the Lord in section 112 that all flesh has become corrupt.
  • It is after section 124 in 1841 when the Lord revealed that the fullness of the priesthood has been lost and that the Saints were currently practicing abominations before him.
  • And it was after he had declared that baptisms for the dead were no longer allowed in the river… indicating, according to Lyman Wight, that the sufficient time to complete the temple had lapsed, causing the Lord to reject the church with their dead.

I guess the state of the church was pretty grim at that time. To think that the Lord is now going to reveal some glorious higher law, when the Saints had rejected the last higher law, as contained in section 42, is ludicrous. Especially since the new higher law contradicted the last higher law!


And if we believe the research that has been done by those who have studied Joseph Smith’s involvement in polygamy in Nauvoo, he was allegedly taking some of the married Relief Society women in the audience as wives, yet he was chastising them for blindly following his teachings!


But most people miss the “rest of the story” by only noting the summary of Joseph’s remarks that he made to these ladies.

The deeper story is found in analyzing the biblical text upon which he built his sermon to them.

Have you ever studied Ezekiel 14?

Note the first four verses… I hope you are sitting down because your paradigm about how God responds to his apostate people may be challenged a little,

“Then came certain of the elders of Israel unto me, and sat before me. And the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of man, these men have set up their idols in their heart, and put the stumbling block of their iniquity before their face; should I be inquired of at all by them?

Therefore speak unto them, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Every man of the house of Israel that setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumbling block of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to the prophet; I the Lord will answer him that cometh, according to the multitude of his idols; That I may take the house of Israel in their own heart, because they are all estranged from me through their idols.”


When an Elder of Israel inquires of God with a pure heart he will get a pure answer from the Lord, usually through His anointed servant. If an Elder inquires of the Lord based on the idolatry in his heart, his answer that he gets will be based on that idolatrous spirit that is in him.

It is possible that Joseph Smith may very possibly have been originally inquiring in behalf of another elder of Israel rather than directly for himself, but at this point, it doesn’t really matter because I want to stay on topic and even if Joseph was asking on behalf of himself, it is all covered by the atonement statute and associated scapegoat doctrine, anyway.

We know that the sins of Israel were artificially placed upon Joseph, Sidney and others at some point in time and they acted them out.

The point is that section 132 begins with an unsound inquiry, it is initiated by an idolatrous question, one that appears to have been based on the idolatry in a persons heart. If those inquiring had believed what the Lord had taught about David and Solomon in the Book of Mormon the inquiry would never have been made because they would have known that David and Solomon were NOT justified.

Hence, the first verse of this revelation is extremely problematic.

According to Ezekiel 14, the Lord may mirror the response based on the idolatry that is in the heart of the person inquiring.

Sometime we will do a much more in-depth analysis of Ezekiel 14 to show that the message gets much deeper. It addresses the scapegoat doctrine and it is actually a prophecy of the very event we are discussing, but it covers it at a deeper level that I don’t want to get into right now.

Nevertheless, it is referring to a very specific event that was to take place in the last days.

After teaching us that God can send a strong delusion upon an apostate people (see also 2nd Thess) based on the idolatry in their hearts in Ezekiel 14, the Lord continues to build upon that doctrine in chapter 20.

He explains that when a people fail to exercise his true judgments and statutes, such as failing to live the true law of the Gospel which includes consecration and monogamy, he will then give them false judgments and statutes,

“Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my Sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers’ idols. Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;  And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord” Ezek 20:24-26


Now I suspect you are saying to yourself, that you don’t believe the Lord would ever lie to anyone… I agree.

The Lord never personally lies directly to anyone, it is against his nature and it is against eternal law.

He uses Satan and other lying spirits to deceive people and hand them over to their delusions.

Please read the following text from 1st Chronicles very carefully and don’t bother digging out your Inspired Version because this IS the Inspired Version,


“And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the Lord; I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.


And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.


And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him.

And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also; go forth, and do so.

Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.” (1st Kings 22:22-23 you can see the exact same account in 2nd Chronicles 18:22-23)

God can and does turn his apostate people over to Satan and lying spirits.

He does send strong delusion.

He does use lying spirits to answer people according to the idolatry in their hearts.

As the Old Testament informs us he creates both the good and the evil. He uses evil people as his pawns to accomplish his purposes.

Nebuchadrezzar the king was an evil tyrant, however the Lord refers to him as “his servant”, because the Lord used him to accomplish his purposes,

“And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will send and take Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will set his throne upon these stones that I have hid; and he shall spread his royal pavilion over them.”  ·  Jer. 43: 10

Before leaving this portion of the critique, let me briefly show you an amazing prophecy in Deuteronomy that is probably related to the prophecy Ezekiel was speaking of in chapter 14. More importantly, it is probably a prophecy about a great test that God puts the Latter day Saints through.

Please understand, the following verses contain a prophesy of a future event that takes place in the latter days after God cuts off the nations of a land that Israel inhabits  (read chapter 12 for context);

“When the Lord thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land;

Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.

Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt  in the fire to their gods.

What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor nor diminish from it.
If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,

And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;

Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

Ye shall walk  after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.

And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.” (see Deut 12 & 13)

As you can see, this prophecy is about a great test that God is going to put his people through in the last days. He is going to have a true prophet lead those people astray that are not able to discern truth from error for themselves.
The warning God gave to his people was “thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from” the word of God… even if his prophet tells you to!

How ironic it is that the prevailing arm of flesh teaching among Gods people is that the “prophet will never lead you astray!”

There is no credible scriptural documentation for that false doctrine. As illustrated in Ezekiel 14 and Deut 12-13, God does use his prophets to test his people and lead his rebellious people into further darkness. Another incredible story about how God uses true prophets to test people by delivering false messages, is contained in 1 kings 13.

When God’s true prophet tells us to go contrary to the word of God, we are to “not hearken to the words of that prophet… for the Lord your God proveth you to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul”

Do you idolize Joseph Smith so much that you are going to believe anything that he taught without proving it against the holy and infallible word of God?

If so, you have failed the test.

Do you love the Lord more than Joseph Smith?

If you worship God and love HIM with all your heart, then you will be able to stand firm in the word of God and cast aside anything that adds to or diminishes from it regardless of who introduces it… even if it is our beloved Joseph Smith.. even if Joseph was very convincing… even if he showed signs and wonders.

Even if Joseph gave parables about polygamy as signs of its truthfulness. Even if Joseph produced wonders such as angels threatening to destroy him and take away his free agency, etc.

I feel that those who have searched the scriptures and have taken the Holy Spirit as their guide, and that believe the Book of Mormon, would acknowledge that the assumption and associated question upon which section 132 is predicated is a false premise..

that’s problematic….

We would probably be justified in rejecting this revelation after the first verse, but I continued on evaluating this section anyway… because there is a lot at stake here.

It would certainly be a grave mistake for me to reject this revelation if in fact it was a true revelation from God. However, I would be forced to reject several other revelations by accepting this one.

Based on the myriad of doctrinal inconsistencies that I have found in this revelation, I have no choice but to reject the other gospel that is taught in this revelation.

I have decided to stay true to all of the passages in the four standard works that this revelation mocks.

As with all of the articles that I write, I encourage the reader to discount my own interpretations and to study for yourselves the scriptures presented above.

May the Holy Spirit Guide you as you discern truth from error.

Advertisements

55 Responses to Analysis of Section 132

  1. sputnik says:

    OWIW,

    Thanks for the in-depth analysis. I found a few obious things that didn’t sit right with me when I read this section. After reading through your comments I can start to conherently discern why I felt that way.

    The one doctrine I’m still coming to terms with, which you have mentioned several times in other aricles, is the ability of true prophets to lead the people astray. I suppose prophets are still human but wouldn’t God choose them because he knows there hearts? If God wants us to be our own “prophets”, that is receive revelation for ourselves and not depend on the arm of flesh, then what is the ultimate meaning of having a prophet at all?

    On a related note. I find it interesting in the Book of Mormon how Alma and the sons of Mosiah take it upon themselves to preach the gospel after their experience with the angel. They were relying on their own testimonies of Christ and the Sprirt not on an organization or prophet to tell them where or what to preach.

  2. sputnik

    It is important to realize that Joseph Smith is quite different than virtually all other prophets except Moses in that he had the sins of an apostate people artificially put upon his head and acted them out according to Gods will.

    I cannot express how incredibly important it is for people to understand and gain a testimony of the atonement statute and the prophetic implications it has pertaining to the scapegoat doctrine.

    Prophets and apostles play an important role in the progression of God’s people but once they give us the fulness of the Gospel and the keys by which be can receive the baptism of water, fire and the Holy Ghost, if we don’t move forward in becoming prophets ourselves and taking responsibility for our own salvation, then God may use prophets to test us and curse us.

    When the servants return and offer the ordinances of salvation, we better be ready to move forward quickly, offer up the sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit and get into strait gate and narrow path and make our calling and election sure.

  3. Fantastic! Thanks for pointing out Ezekiel, I can’t wait to read it in depth.

    I am so on board with the question of why Joseph would even approach the Lord about polygamy being justified to begin with. That right there is problematic.

    Thanks for another great article.

  4. Something else that has been bothering me about this is the way in which it was taught. Why was it not taught in the completed, dedicated temple?

    History of the Church Vol.5, page 423
    Joseph Smith gave a discourse on the gathering of Isreal.

    “The main object was to build unto the Lord a house whereby he could reveal unto His people the ordinances of His house and the glories of His kingdom, and teach the people the way of salvation; for there are certain ordinances and principles that, when they are taught and practiced, must be done in a place or house built for that purpose.”

    If this statement is true then the “endowment” introduced in Nauvoo should have been introduced after the completion of the temple as well as the “spiritual wife doctrine.”
    It is out of order for these things to be revealed and practiced outside the temple if they were truly from God.

    Okay, something else that 132 mentions is Abraham and his wives and the promises fulfilled through them. There is a reason that the everlasting covenant only continued through Isaac-the child of Sarah. In fact, the oath and covenant is made with Abraham and Sarah.

    The promises made to Abraham before he became a father could have been fulfilled through the seed of Sarah alone. The promise made to Hagar and Abraham regarding Ishmael and his descendants is restricted.

  5. Joseph approached the Lord concerning Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not concerning Moses, David and Solomon. Jacob’s remarks about David and Solomon made him wonder about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and so he made inquiry about these three prophets. The Lord, though, in his answer to Joseph, threw in a surprise for Joseph, for he included three more justified servants in his answer, two of which Joseph was thinking (because of Jacob’s words in the Book of Mormon) were not justified. In fact, when the angel appeared to him with the answer to his question, Joseph quoted the Book of Mormon to him. Joseph knew it was a true angel from God, as he had already received the keys to discern true and false angels and had applied the keys. So, the Lord’s response was to not only explain Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’s justification, but also to expound a bit on the meaning of the Lord’s words to Jacob, which Joseph, at the time, did not fully comprehend. This is why the first verse reads like this:

    Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, [at this point there is a break of “as also” because the Lord is giving more than Joseph asked for, to teach him that David and Solomon were also justified, except in those things which they did not receive from the Lord, in other words, the Lord’s intention was to more fully explain Jacob’s words in the Book of Mormon] as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—

    Had Joseph made inquiry of all six men, it would have read, “as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David and Solomon, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—”

  6. TruthSeekerToo

    All of your points are well taken.

    You said,

    “If this statement is true then the “endowment” introduced in Nauvoo should have been introduced after the completion of the temple as well as the “spiritual wife doctrine.”

    I agree. I would also point out that the proper use of the term “endowment” in the scriptures refers to a charismatic, spiritual gift from God. It does not refer to an outward ceremony conducted by men, such as the masonic ceremony modified by Brigham Young.

    Here are a few of the scriptures that use the word endowment in the appropriate context,

    #
    D&C 38: 32, 38
    32 Wherefore, for this cause I gave unto you the commandment that ye should go to the bOhio; and there I will give unto you my claw; and there you shall be endowed with power from on high;
    • • •
    38 See that all things are preserved; and when men are endowed with power from on high and sent forth, all these things shall be gathered unto the bosom of the church.
    #
    D&C 43: 16
    16 And ye are to be taught from on high. Sanctify yourselves and ye shall be endowed with power, that ye may give even as I have spoken.
    #
    D&C 95: 8
    8 Yea, verily I say unto you, I gave unto you a commandment that you should build a house, in the which house I design to endow those whom I have chosen with power from on high;
    #
    D&C 105: 11-12, 18, 33
    11 And this cannot be brought to pass until mine elders are endowed with power from on high.
    12 For behold, I have prepared a great endowment and blessing to be poured out upon them, inasmuch as they are faithful and continue in humility before me.
    • • •
    18 But inasmuch as there are those who have hearkened unto my words, I have prepared a blessing and an endowment for them, if they continue faithful.
    • • •
    33 Verily I say unto you, it is expedient in me that the first elders of my church should receive their endowment from on high in my house, which I have commanded to be built unto my name in the land of Kirtland.
    #
    D&C 110: 9
    9 Yea the hearts of thousands and tens of thousands shall greatly rejoice in consequence of the blessings which shall be poured out, and the endowment with which my servants have been endowed in this house.

  7. TruthSeekerToo

    You said,

    “It is out of order for these things to be revealed and practiced outside the temple if they were truly from God.”

    Fantastic point.

    “Okay, something else that 132 mentions is Abraham and his wives and the promises fulfilled through them. There is a reason that the everlasting covenant only continued through Isaac-the child of Sarah. In fact, the oath and covenant is made with Abraham and Sarah.

    The promises made to Abraham before he became a father could have been fulfilled through the seed of Sarah alone. The promise made to Hagar and Abraham regarding Ishmael and his descendants is restricted.”

    Man you are on a roll tonight! The fact that Isaac came through Sarah and that he and he alone is the one always mentioned in the patriarchal promises, ie Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is very revealing!

  8. Interesting interpretation Anarchist.

    As you undoubtedly know, the phrase “as also” does not show up in the 1828 Websters.

    It is a scriptural term which means “and also”.

    Please see the following verses from the Old Testament, New Testament and modern revelation which ALL use the phrase consistently to mean “and also”.

    Neh. 2: 18
    18 Then I told them of the hand of my God which was good upon me; as also the king’s words that he had spoken unto me. And they said, Let us rise up and build. So they strengthened their hands for this good work.

    Neh. 13: 15
    15 In those days saw I in Judah some treading wine presses on the sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and lading asses; as also wine, grapes, and figs, and all manner of burdens, which they brought into Jerusalem on the sabbath day: and I testified against them in the day wherein they sold victuals.

    Acts 22: 5
    5 As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished.

    1 Cor. 14: 34
    34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to rule; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

    D&C 77: 2
    2 Q. What are we to understand by the four beasts, spoken of in the same verse?
    A. They are figurative expressions, used by the Revelator, John, in describing heaven, the paradise of God, the happiness of man, and of beasts, and of creeping things, and of the fowls of the air; that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal; and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual; the spirit of man in the likeness of his person, as also the spirit of the beast, and every other creature which God has created.

    D&C 83: 6
    6 And the storehouse shall be kept by the consecrations of the church; and widows and orphans shall be provided for, as also the poor. Amen.

    According to the use of the phrase “as also” in the above passages, verse one of section 132 really means this,

    “Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, [AND ALSO] Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines”

    As you can see, the Lord was saying “…you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord justified the three patriarchs AND ALSO Moses, David and Solomon.

    The Lord was simply separating the three patriarchal fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob into one group and putting the others into another group. It is quite common for the Lord to speak this way.

    Even if you had been correct in your interpretation, it would not improve your argument as it would simply change the problematic verse from an doctrinally unsound and inconsistent QUESTION FROM JOSEPH SMITH to a doctrinally unsound and inconsistent ANSWER FROM THE LORD.

    Why would the Lord reveal that David and Solomon were not Justified in the Book of Mormon and then say that they were justified in this revelation?

    This is a HUGE inconsistency either way, even if your interpretation of what was being asked would have been accurate.

    “..they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things that were written concerning David and Solomon his son.. David and Solomon had many wives and concubines which thing was abominable before me saith the Lord”

    Of course the accurate interpretation implies that God is simply responding to the question based on the stumbling block that the inquirer(s) have put before them.

    Your interpretation would probably be an indication that the entire revelation was simply a fabrication.

    Either way, verse one provides a huge red flag and destroys the credibility of the rest of the revelation.

  9. “Why would the Lord reveal that David and Solomon were not Justified in the Book of Mormon and then say that they were justified in this revelation?”

    Because the Lord didn’t say that David and Solomon were not justified in the Book of Mormon, he said, “which thing was abominable before me.” He never mentioned justification. He just mentions a “thing” that was abominable before Him.

    At first, Joseph (and currently yourself and others) misunderstood Jacob’s words and thought that David and Solomon were unjustified by the practice. He did not understand just what the “thing” the Lord was referring to and erroneously thought that it referred to all instances of the practice of plural marriage. This is why Joseph quoted Jacob’s words to the angel when he was told of the principle of plural marriage.

    And so we have one of Joseph’s wives saying the following:

    An angel came to him and the last time he came with a drawn sword in his hand and told Joseph if he did not go into that principle [plural marriage], he would slay him. Joseph said he talked to him soberly about it, and told him it was an abomination and quoted scripture to him. He said in the Book of Mormon it was an abomination in the eyes of the Lord, and they were to adhere to these things except the Lord speak. (Mary Lightner 1905 Address, typescript, BYU, Pg.1 – Pg.2)

    So, this shows that Joseph was confused over Jacob’s words in the Book of Mormon and inquired of the Lord about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and NOT Moses, David and Solomon, because he already believed David and Solomon were unjustified per the Book of Mormon. This is why the Lord phrased it “as also,” which means “and also,” to indicate to Joseph that not only were the first three justified, but the last three were also.

    So, Joseph’s question was doctrinally sound and consistent with what we know of those times. The problem you are having, then, is not with Joseph’s question, but with the Lord’s answer to him. Joseph applied the keys to determine a real angel from a false angel, so a real angel from God appeared to him and delivered this real doctrine in answer to his honest inquiry.

    Again:

    I [Mary Lightner] asked him [Joseph Smith] if Emma knew about me, and he said, “Emma thinks the world of you.” I was not sealed to him until I had a witness. I had been dreaming for a number of years I was his wife. I thought I was a great sinner. I prayed to God to take it from me for I felt it was a sin; but when Joseph sent for me he told me all of these things. “Well,” said I, “don’t you think it was an angel of the devil that told you these things?” Said he, “No, it was an angel of God. God Almighty showed me the difference between an angel of light and Satan’s angels. The angel came to me three times between the years of 1834 and 1842 and said I was to obey that principle or he would slay me. “But,” said he, “they called me a false and fallen prophet but I am more in favor with my God this day than I ever was in all my life before.” (Mary Lightner 1905 Address, typescript, BYU, Pg.1 – Pg.2)

    The answer made him recoil and resist, but he eventually was able to wrap his mind around it and embrace it. You need to do the same.

    The problem you are having seems to me to be that you are not applying Moroni’s promise and so fail to see that the Lord’s response is not “doctrinally unsound and inconsistent.”

  10. watchingandwaiting says:

    I am not quite ready to call this a false revelation, however the more I study the more I tend to agree with OWIW. If you read the whole part of that chapter in Jacob, he explains why he doesn’t want the children of Lehi to live this.

    24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
    25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
    26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
    27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be bone wife; and concubines he shall have none;
    28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
    29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
    30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
    31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
    32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.
    33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.
    34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.
    35 Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the bstrictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.

    So as I understand it biblical polygamy was allowed, however the only justification the Lord gives for it is to raise up a righteous seed. However that is what the Lord was doing when he led Lehi and his family away was to preserve a righteous branch of the loins of Joseph. And he was doing it without the practice of plural marriage. Which leads me to conclude that plural marriage has nothing to do with salvation. It has at times in history been allowed for the Lords purposes in raising up a righteous nation. But in the latter part of the chapter it talks about the sorrows and negative effects that can happen to those(meaning the wives and children of the men living it) that don’t live the law properly and so for that reason the Lord doesn’t even want the people of Lehi living it. It sounds to me like he wants to ensure this people remains righteous so he forbids it. This leads me to agree with OWIW that biblical polygamy was more of a cursing than a blessing, as evidence from the latter verses of the chapter. And it just doesn’t make sense that the Lord would ask this people in the latter days to live something that put the people at risk of falling into sin by not living it properly. And I believe it has been discussed on this site about those who perverted the practice of polygamy (I don’t have documentation for this just going off of the top of my head on quotes that I’ve read) People taking other mens wives as their own. Some receiving the benefits of being married without really being married, etc.

  11. NEPT says:

    My favorite part of this essay is the connection you make between verse 26 and 2nd Nephi 28:8. For too long has verse 26 bugged the hell out of me.

    Sure, we can repent of those sins and be cleansed by the grace and merits of Christ through naught of our own, but verse 26 appears to say that even repentance is not necessary, hence the handing-over to Satan for a time. Such a scenario seems like that described in section 76 regarding telestial beings; they are punished for 1000 years, then obtain a telestial glory. Except that verse 26 seems to indicate that punishment would come before judgment and the first resurrection, allowing unrepentant sinners to come forth in glory in the first resurrection.

    Never could wrap my mind around that verse.

  12. WAW, the Nephite branch became righteous when the Lord visited them and they “graduated” from the law of Moses to the law of Christ. Everybody still alive (after the destructions caused by His death) then converted to Christ. Interestingly enough, upon becoming a “righteous branch,” the record states the following:

    And now, behold, it came to pass that the people of Nephi did wax strong, and did multiply exceedingly fast, and became an exceedingly fair and delightsome people.

    And they were married, and given in marriage, and were blessed according to the multitude of the promises which the Lord had made unto them. (4 Nephi 10-11)

    These passages are referring to the doctrine of plural marriage and the promises made to those who enter therein. When the full Nephite record comes forth, it will show this. So, the Nephites were temporarily prohibited from entering into this practice while they lived the law of Moses, for reasons known only to the Lord, while the Jews in the Old World and the 10 Tribes of Israel in the Northern Countries, were allowed by the Lord to have plural marriage under the same law of Moses. In other words, these were three groups of contemporary people living different laws of the Lord. This doesn’t mean that one group’s laws were unjustified before the Lord. The Lord “commands and revokes” as He pleases. It is His privilege and as long as each group of people kept the commandments He gave to that particular group, they were justified.

    Also, it should be kept in mind that the plural marriage under the law of Moses was not the plural marriage under the law of Christ. Plural marriage under the law of Christ is a doctrine of exaltation. Plural marriage under the law of Moses was not a doctrine of exaltation, however, it did prepare a people for the doctrine that came under the law of Christ. And that was what the law of Moses was for, to point people to Christ and to prepare them for Him and His doctrines.

    So, the Nephites lived the doctrine of plural marriages under the law of Christ, from the visit of Christ to them onward, a period of 300+ years. Most people miss this and I can only believe that this is by the design of the Lord. When the Book of Mormon went forth at first, it was the intention of the Lord that it be the public doctrine, the milk, while the meat was to be revealed privately and over time revealed publicly as the public was ready for it. Had the Book of Mormon been exceedingly plain on this point of plural marriage, from the get-go, upon it being published, everyone would have rejected it, as the world was not ready for the doctrine of plural marriage.

    As it is, the wording in the Book of Mormon was sufficiently obscure (on purpose) that people (even Joseph Smith!) mistook the Lord’s words in Jacob 2 as being a condemnation of all plural marriage. Most people completely missed the meaning of “For if I will, saith the Lord, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things,” the meaning being that only the unauthorized practice of plural marriage was condemned. Now, after the doctrine of plural marriage has been publicly taught, the chapter heading expounds the principle plainly, but when first published, the meaning of Jacob 2 was “hidden in plain sight.”

    Also, the verses in 4 Nephi were (and still are) obscure to many people and most did not understand that they spoke of authorized plural marriage being practiced among the Nephites according to the more excellent law of Christ.

    Besides all of that, Jacob 2 served another purpose: that of getting Joseph to inquire about plural marriage, which ended up revealing some meat, so we see in this that the purposes of the Lord are fulfilled and none of this has anything to do with perversion or whoring spirits, but with how the Lord works among the children of men, meaning according to their conditions.

  13. Welcome to the discussion WAW

    It is nice to have another contributor and another perspective.

    I find the passages from the Book of Jacob, that you quoted extremely compelling.

    They speak to my soul.

    The Book of Mormon has a quality about it all its own. I believe that quality is what JS was addressing when he said a man could get closer to God reading that book than any other.

    Many of the scriptures in the four standard works deal with cold hard components of doctrine and history, (which is extremely important and necessary) but those passages you quoted, which are typical of much of the spirit and style of the BofM deal not only with doctrine, but with the essence of human nature and the emotional and spiritual make up of the female gender… as well as the potential flaws of the natural man.

    “For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.”

    The inherent problem being addressed here is not just among the Book of Mormon people. It was not just back in Jerusalem. It was raising its ugly head in “all the lands of my people”.

    “And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts
    .
    For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.”

    Those passages are a commentary on the previous declaration;

    “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.”

    The Lord appears to be categorically declaring “many wives” and “concubines” to be “whoredoms”.

    He further classifies the daughters of his people who are victims of these practices to be “captives”.

    He explains that part of the reason he led this branch away from the corrupt Jewish state back in Jerusalem was because he wanted to raise up a righteous branch,

    “Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.”

    Because of the inherent flaws in man and because of the “tenderness” of women, he gives the following commandment which is not unlike the commandment of monogamy given in the law of the Gospel that he has given us gentiles in section 42,

    “Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be bone wife; and concubines he shall have none”

    The Lord shares this observation;

    “For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.”

    In our corrupt society today some probably think that chastity is a virtue that pertains to single people however the 1828 Websters informs us that it also has reference to fidelity in marriage!

    “Purity of the body; freedom from all unlawful commerce of sexes. Before marriage, purity from all commerce of sexes; after marriage, fidelity to the marriage bed.”

    This doctrine of chastity and monogamy was not a new doctrine to these people. He reminds the people that Lehi had been given this commandment and had taught it to their posterity. That is why they were under “great condemnation” for having multiple wives,

    “And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.”

    The Lord now informs them that the sin they have committed is so grievous that it is worse than the unbelief of the Lamanites!

    “Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren.”

    Polygamy breaks the hearts of wives and destroys the confidence that children might otherwise have in their fathers.

    ” Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.”

    “Many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds”? Wow.

    The Lord then gives the following warning,

    “Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old….Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.”

    It appears to me that the reason the Lord eventually favored the Lamanites over the Nephites and allowed the Nephite nations to be wiped off the face of the land is because of the pride that resulted in polygamy.

    This is why the Lord gave the inheritance that was going to go to the Nephites to the Gentiles,

    “And behold, the Lord hath reserved their blessings, which they [the polygamous Nephites] might have received in the land, for the Gentiles who shall possess the land”.

    Realizing that the Gentiles would have the same pride that would lead to the same whordoms of polygamy the Lord give the newly restored gentile church the following warning;

    “…but beware of pride, lest ye become as the Nephites of old.” D&C 38: 39

    Three sections later the LAW OF THE GOSPEL CONTAINING MONOGAMY WAS GIVEN

  14. BTW

    I just remembered another inconsistency that I forgot to include in the article

    If you punch “new and everlasting covenant” into the LDS scripture cruncher you get the following two verses,

    1.
    D&C 22: 1
    1 Behold, I say unto you that all old covenants have I caused to be done away in this thing; and this is a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning… For it is because of your dead works that I have caused this last covenant and this church to be built up unto me, even as in days of old.

    2.
    D&C 132: 4
    4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

    Very strange how section 132 gloriously announces a new everlasting covenant that is being introduced to he Church, yet the Lord in his infinite foreknowledge declares in section 22 that the new and everlasting covenant of baptism is the LAST covenant that he is giving to the Church!

  15. Fabledsog says:

    It’s kind of hard to be One with your Wife, when you have more than one wife.

    Also I think its a false assumption, to say what Joseph knew or did not know concerning the writings in the scriptures. He at least held the key of knowledge, which we currently do not possess.

    11 Now the great and grand secret of the whole matter, and the summum bonum of the whole subject that is lying before us, consists in obtaining the powers of the Holy Priesthood. For him to whom these keys are given there is no difficulty in obtaining a knowledge of facts in relation to the salvation of the children of men, both as well for the dead as for the living.
    (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 128:11)

    When did he acquires these keys…aprox 10~ years, since the time of this section 132. From Section 128, it seems he would have no difficulty in obtaining the fact if polygamy was required for salvation to dwell with the Father and the Son and others, before then.

  16. I love this quote from Spencer W. Kimball:

    “When the Lord says all thy heart, it allows for no sharing nor dividing nor depriving…
    The words none else eliminate everyone and everything…
    Marriage presupposes total allegiance and total fidelity. Each spouse takes the partner with the understanding that he or she gives totally to the spouse all the heart, strength, loyalty, honor, and affection, with all dignity. Any divergence is a sin; any sharing of the heart is transgression. As we should have ‘an eye single to the glory of God,’ so should we have an eye, an ear, a heart single to the marriage and the spouse and family” (Faith Precedes the Miracle [1972], 142-43).

  17. Strange. I tried to post a comment, but it wouldn’t go through.

  18. I will post it in halves and see if it goes through.

  19. I find it interesting how the Lord’s words to Jacob are held up as the final word and the rest of the Lord’s words given in the Bible are discarded. That is what I see on this post and comments. Of course, anyone is free to do this, but this is the same sort of tactic used by apostate Christianity, but in reverse order: they throw out the Book of Mormon in favor of the Bible.

    When both the Bible and Book of Mormon are held up, and both are accepted as the word of God, you cannot honestly take the Lord’s words of “which thing was abominable before me” as meaning a wholesale condemnation of the practice of plural marriage. It must mean something other than that. If you force such a meaning, you must throw the Bible out the window, for the Bible contradicts such an interpretation.

    For example:

    Paul said of the law of Moses: “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” (Romans 7: 12) And in verse 14 he said, “For we know that the law is spiritual.” So, the law of Moses is holy, just, good and spiritual. Paul’s words, not mine. To say, then, that the law of Moses, which was given by Yahweh, was abomination, or allowed abomination, or even commanded abomination, is contradictory.

    We know, from the Bible, that King David married at least 4 women with the approval of the Lord:

    David, king of Israel took Abigail and Ahinoam, “and they were also both of them his wives;” (1 Sam. 25:42-43). Then he “took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem;” (2 Sam. 5:13). With two wives and concubines (plural) he at this time had at least 4 wives. The Bible later says that “David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from anything that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite;” (1 Kings 15:5). In this passage we have an assurance that David done right in taking all his wives and concubines, except in one instance, for which he was severely chastised. In the case of Uriah the Hittite, David committed adultery with his wife, and then had Uriah killed in the Battlefield. This was adultery and murder and it was condemned by the Lord, but his prior marriages were, according to the Bible, approved as “right in the eyes of the Lord”.

    This is consistent with D&C 132, which basically says the same thing. In order for Jacob 2: 24 to be consistent with the Bible, the abominable thing referred to by the Lord concerning David was the Uriah affair and not the general practice of polygamy.

  20. The law of Moses both permitted polygamy AND COMMANDED IT, in certain instances.

    When Moses took a second wife, he was not in violation of the Law given to him by the Lord. That law does not prohibit plural marriage and in fact, recognized the possibility of multiple wives:

    If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and [if] the firstborn son be hers that was hated: then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn. (Deuteronomy 21:15-16)

    In fact, the Law of Moses sometimes may have commanded Plural Marriage. When a woman’s husband died, the Lord commanded that a brother of the husband was supposed to take her as his wife. (Deut. 5:4-10.) If he was already married, then at that point he would have had two wives. The Law as given to Moses does not mind that.

    So, in order to hold onto your pet theory that the Lord’s words in Jacob 2 negates D&C 132, you have to throw out the entire Old and New Testaments, too. Now, how badly do you want to keep to such a theory?

  21. Well, it won’t let me get the rest through, so that will have to do.

  22. Btw, these quotes were taken from polygamy dot com. Here is another interesting quote from the same source:

    Many of the leading men of the Bible had more than one wife in some form of marriage relationship at the same time. This includes Abraham, Jacob (Israel), Moses, David and others. The Law that Moses gave also made provision for plural marriage and in some cases, it seems that plural marriage was even commanded by the Law of Moses. There is evidence that multiple wives was an acceptable practice all through ancient Israel, including the time of Christ and it was not until the end of the 1st Millennium AD that some Jews officially rejected polygyny. One branch of Jews never agreed to this and still accept the practice of plural wives to this day.

  23. One last thing, the marriage doctrine given in D&C 42 is completely compatible with plural marriage. It is not a doctrine of monogamy, but a doctrine of fidelity. It is, in essence, the law of chastity, stated differently.

  24. watchingandwaiting says:

    OWIW,

    Thank you for the warm welcome. I have enjoyed reading many articles on this as well as three watches. I like how you always back up your points of view with scriptures. The deeper doctrines are interesting to me, and it is nice to discuss them with people who have the same questions. Great sites.

    LDS Anarchist,

    It is also nice to finally talk to you as well. I frequent your site as well. You have great stuff as well. I agree that plural marriage was totally accepted by the Lord in Old Testament times. My point was the reason why Lehi and his family were commanded not to, was because of the ill effects on the wives and children of the men who were not living plural marriage the way the lord intended. And so he told them just not to do it at all. You make a very good point about the scripture in 4 Nephi. I never thought about it that way. I do have something to say about that. The Nephites after Jesus’ visit also successfully lived the law of consecration.(And there was no poor among them)
    However the latterday saints failed at living that law. Why would the Lord then give them another higher law when they couldn’t live the first one? I am not convinced either way. I look forward to the day when things that are unclear become clear to us all.

  25. I found that Joseph Smith made changes to 1 Kings 15:5 that add a new dimension.

    JST 1 Kings 15:5 Because David did right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from all that he commanded him, to sin against the Lord; but repented of the evil all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite, wherein the Lord cursed him.

    We also know that he was not allowed to build a temple unto the Lord because of all the blood he had spilt. The Lord does not command in all things-just because David is recorded as doing something didn’t mean it was a commandment.
    It appears to me he didn’t have the high priesthood. If he wasn’t worthy to build the temple, how could he have been a part of the “New and Everlasting Covenant of marriage?”
    He committed adultery and caused the shedding of innocent blood which are both against the rules in 132 and against Celestial law. So wouldn’t his sealings all be null and void anyway?

    The Nephites did have temples. According to the BoM they were living the law of Moses. They had prophets. What would prevent them from being “authorized” to live polygamy if the Jews were “authorized.” If the law of Moses permitted and COMMANDS polygamy then the Nephites would have been justified living it and Jacob 2 would never have been written. Actually, they would not be justified in not living it.

    *******************

    There are two instances where the Lord commands people to “cleave” to “none else” but their spouse. One is in section 42 and (ironically) the other is in 132.

    D&C 42:22 Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else.

    D&C 132:54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

    The definition of “none else” is “not one beside” or “no other.” So, if the Lord meant “none else” to indicate the exclusion of all others in 132 then that is his precise meaning in 42. If you hold to the belief that 42 allows for multiple spouses then you have to believe that the Lord was not excluding Emma from multiple spouses in 132. In which case the verse becomes nonsense. Either way, according to the verse in 132 living this “law” was required for Emma’s salvation.

    ****************************

    The law of Moses permitted killing, slavery, rape and a host of things we no longer hold to. It also COMMANDED killing adulterers, rapists (only if the woman was married/betrothed), rape victims, rebellious children, idolaters, blasphemers, Sabbath breakers, false prophets, prostitutes, etc, etc.
    This is the lower, preparatory law.

    No where in the Bible does it name polygamy as the New and Everlasting Covenant. The Mosaic law is not the New and Everlasting Covenant…it is the old covenant. There is more evidence in the Old Testament that circumcision is the New and Everlasting Covenant than how many wives a man has.

    If each of Abraham’s wives were sealed to him in the “New and Everlasting Covenant of marriage” then each of his children would have been born in the covenant. However, we find that this is not the case. The only child that the covenant passed through is the seed of Sarah. Why? Because the oath and covenant was made with Abraham AND Sarah.

    Genisis 17:21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.

  26. TruthSeekerToo

    Among the several points you made, you said,

    “:The Nephites did have temples. According to the BoM they were living the law of Moses. They had prophets. What would prevent them from being “authorized” to live polygamy if the Jews were “authorized.” If the law of Moses permitted and COMMANDS polygamy then the Nephites would have been justified living it and Jacob 2 would never have been written. Actually, they would not be justified in not living it.”

    You bring up a great point and a great question, Since we know that the Nephites were living the Law of Moses why weren’t they justified if not commanded to live polygamy?

    I believe the answer to your question is that there are two ways the Law of Moses can be lived.

    One is as a cursing… as Joseph Smith stated. This takes place when people refuse to progress to the higher law and to see worship the Father. in short it becomes a cursing when the people are wicked.

    The other way is to “sanctify” the Law of Moses by living the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

    This is why the Law of Moses in the Book of Mormon does not sound anything like the Law of Moses in the Old Testament. The Lord had forbid Lehi and his posterity to live polygamy.

    Notice the words of a great Book of Mormon prophet who was living the Law of Moses but had gained the highest priesthood through the atonement of Christ and the fulness of the Gospel.

    He informs us that the Law of Moses had been “sanctified” by worshiping the Father.

    ” 5 Behold, they believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his name. And for this intent we keep the law of Moses, it pointing our souls to him; and for this cause it is sanctified unto us for righteousness, even as it was accounted unto Abraham in the wilderness to be obedient unto the commands of God in offering up his son Isaac, which is a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son.

    6 Wherefore, we search the prophets, and we have many revelations and the spirit of prophecy; and having all these witnesses we obtain a hope, and our faith becometh unshaken, insomuch that we truly can command in the name of Jesus and the very trees obey us, or the mountains, or the waves of the sea.” Jacob 4: 5-6

    How interesting that this passage is one chapter after the warning about polygamy!

    This great prophet had entered into the gate without multiple wives!

    He had entered into the oath and covenant of the Father. He had the fulness of the priesthood and was commanding the elements!

    He was bearing testimony of the atonement of Christ, not of multiple wives.

  27. WAW, let me attempt a brief explanation of what is going on in Jacob 2, as I understand it. The key to understanding the verses found in 22-35 is the word “whoredoms.” What is being condemned by the Lord is whoredoms. And what is a whoredom? A whoredom is any illicit sexual commerce, in other words, whatever the Lord has said, “No,” to, is a whoredom. That is the key. So, with that in mind, let’s take yet another look at these verses:

    22 And now I make an end of speaking unto you concerning this pride. And were it not that I must speak unto you concerning a grosser crime, my heart would rejoice exceedingly because of you.

    23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms [illicit sexual commerce], because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

    Lehi had received commandments from the Lord modifying the law of Moses and taking away all the plural marriage provisions of it and causing monogamy with no concubinage to be the approved marriage doctrine for the Nephites. Because of this, from Lehi onward plural marriage became a whoredom (illicit sexual commerce.) The Nephite men thought to commence plural marriage anyway, as that was a part of the original law of Moses, and were using the same old prophet (good, righteous and pure, meaning undiluted or unmodified doctrine) – new prophet (modified doctrine, meaning apostate) tactic many people use nowadays. Specifically, they were pointing to David and Solomon and the righteous deeds these polygamous men had done.

    24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

    To counteract this, the Lord points to the unrighteous deeds of David and Solomon. He doesn’t point to plural marriage in general, but to the abominations of David and Solomon committed in the name of plural marriage, meaning that they “had many wives and concubines” instead of “receiving many wives and concubines” from the Lord. In other words, they illicitly took wives which were forbidden them to take. In the case of David, this was the Uriah affair. In the case of Solomon, he took wives of a forbidden people. Again, to be even plainer in writing, the Lord here is pointing to the whoredoms of David and Solomon.

    25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

    26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

    A righteous branch is a branch that obeys the Lord. The Lord is not referring to polygamy here and equating righteousness with monogamy and unrighteousness with polygamy. Had the Jews of the Old World obeyed the Lord’s commands, they would have been a righteous branch even while practicing polygamy.

    When the Lord says He doesn’t want the Nephites to do like them of old, He is not referring to the Old World practice of polygamy, but to the Old World practice of disobedience. So, the Lord is simply saying that this Nephite branch is to hearken to His words (obedience) or THEY WILL BE CURSED. He will not allow them to prosper in disobedience.

    27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

    28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity [approved sexual commerce] of women. And whoredoms [illicit sexual commerce] are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

    These are the commandments given to Lehi, repeated here by Jacob. Whoredoms is not referring to polygamy but to all sexual commerce prohibited by the Lord. In the case of the Nephites, as they had received a law of monogamy (a modification of the law of Moses), polygamy in their case was a whoredom, whereas in the case of the Old World Jews, polygamy was not a whoredom, as it was permitted.

    29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

    The emphasis is on keeping the current commandments of the Lord. It is the current prophet’s words that are the most important, not the words of dead prophets. The Lord is not so much concerned with polygamy, as He is concerned with obedience.

    30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

    This is self-explanatory, but I’ll explain it anyway. “Raise up seed unto me” refers to plural marriage. “I will command my people” means that plural marriage is illicit sexual commerce (a whoredom) to the Nephites unless the Lord commands its practice. “These things” refers to the new commandments received by Lehi, which modified the law of Moses for the Nephites.

    31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.

    The abominations and wickedness that the Lord speaks of do not apply to the law of Moses-approved practice of plural marriage found among the Old World Jews (and those of other lands), but to their disobedience to His commandments. Again, the Lord is talking of disobedience to His commandments and not specifically of the general practice of polygamy.

    32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

    33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.

    Remember, the Lord is still talking about whoredoms (illicit sexual commerce) and other disobedience, not about polygamy in general. Polygamy in the Old World was not whoredom, but in the New World it was.

    34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.

    35 Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.

    Okay, that seems self-explanatory to me. They did wrong not because polygamy was intrinsically wrong, but because the Lord made it wrong through Lehi for the Nephite people, until the Lord should make it right again (which He did later on in 4 Nephi.)

    Now, concerning your question, “Why would the Lord then give them another higher law when they couldn’t live the first one?”, I will ask you a question:

    Do you know for a fact that the doctrine of plural wives was revealed to Joseph Smith after the people failed to live the law of consecration?

  28. TruthSeekerToo,

    You stated,

    The definition of “none else” is “not one beside” or “no other.” So, if the Lord meant “none else” to indicate the exclusion of all others in 132 then that is his precise meaning in 42. If you hold to the belief that 42 allows for multiple spouses then you have to believe that the Lord was not excluding Emma from multiple spouses in 132. In which case the verse becomes nonsense. Either way, according to the verse in 132 living this “law” was required for Emma’s salvation.

    The Lord was excluding Emma from multiple spouses in 132. The wording in section 132 is different than in section 42. In D&C 42: 22, it is a command to “cleave unto [thy wife],” whereas in D&C 132: 54 the command is to “cleave unto my servant Joseph.” Had the Lord said to Emma, “cleave unto your husband,” it would have left open multiple husbands, but He didn’t say that. He stated a specific person, not a specific title. (“Wife” being a title, designation or office of a person.) This is why the early saints who practiced plural marriage had no problem with D&C 42: 22, at all. It is compatible and not contradictory.

  29. In my opinion it is really unfortunate that the real New and Everlasting Covenant is so misunderstood and under-valued.

    I suspect this is the case because it is hard to comprehend a spiritual phenomenon that one has not experienced.…

    but I think this results in “looking beyond the mark”

    Nevertheless, it is unfortunate that those who are so passionate about various aspects of the carnal commandments within the Law of Moses, whether it be doing home teaching, or taking on other wives, are not as passionate about seeing the face of God.

    In previous posts and in this comment string we have briefly mentioned that the New and Everlasting Covenant of Baptism was “from the beginning” (D&C22:1) as demonstrated by the fact that Adam entered into the Order of the Son of God and into the Gate via baptism of water, fire and the holy Ghost (Moses 6:64 )

    AND

    We have also addressed the fact that Baptism is the “last covenant” that God gave to the Church, (D&C 22:3) indicating that it is inconsistent for God to give “A New and Everlasting Covenant” to the church AFTER having given the New and Everlasting Covenant of Baptism.

    I have shown in another article that the “oath and covenant of the Father” refers to the proper manner of Baptism and that the baptism of water, fire and the Holy Ghost is the gate by which one enters into the highest priesthood after the order of the Son of God and it is also the gate into the Kingdom

    It is also very clear that many people have entered into the oath and covenant of the Father and entered into the kingdom WITHOUT having multiple wives.

    It occurs to me that perhaps there is another way to illustrate and clarify this simple concept and provide additional scriptural witnesses showing that there are no additional covenants required after one receives the baptism of water, fire and the Holy Ghost. (remember, the sacrament is simply a renewing of the New and Everlasting Covenant of Baptism.)

    I want to point your attention to the word “ENDURE” and an application it has in the scriptures pertaining to salvation following baptism.

    I believe the scriptural definition of the word “endure” is consistent with the following definition contained in the 1828 Websters,

    “To last; to continue in the same state”

    I think one of the things that is emphasized time and time again is that after one experiences the baptism of water, fire and the Holy Ghost, one is to ENDURE to the END ie, “continue in the same state”.

    Virtually everyone we know of that has entered into the gate has been monogamous.

    Despite apocryphal writings that suggest that Adam had three wives, the four standard works, the JST of the Bible, the creation story in the book of Abraham and the words of JS confirm the creation story in Genesis that Adam did not have multiple wives. He only had one. H

    e was monogamous when he entered into the oath and covenant of the Father through the baptismal ordinance.

    Following his baptism, he was to “continue in the same state”, enduring to the end.

    Additionally there are so many others who have entered into the gate that did not appear to have multiple wives such as Melchizedek, Enoch, Lehi, Nephi, Jacob, Lyman Wight, Joseph Smith and the several other first elders that received the “other comforter” and the “promise of eternal life” in 1832, in section 88.

    With that in mind, let’s review a few of the scriptures that declare that once a person has entered into the strait gate, they are to ENDURE to the end… or in other words, they are to “continue in the same state” that they were in when they entered into the strait gate.

    24 And if they will not repent and believe in his name, and be baptized in his name, and ENDURE to the end, they must be damned; for the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, has spoken it. 2 Ne. 9: 18, 24

    16 And now, my beloved brethren, I know by this that unless a man shall ENDURE to the end, in following the example of the Son of the living God, he cannot be saved.
    17 Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost.
    18 And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive.
    19 And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.
    20 Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and ENDURE to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.

    22 And as many as repent and are baptized in my name, which is Jesus Christ, and ENDURE to the end, the same shall be saved. D&C 18: 22

    25 That as many as would believe and be baptized in his holy name, and ENDURE in faith to the end, should be saved—

    • • •
    29 And we know that all men must repent and believe on the name of Jesus Christ, and worship the Father in his name, and ENDURE in faith on his name to the end, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God. D&C 20: 25, 29

    If in fact the Saints who accept the gospel and are baptized while in a monogamous state need to eventually enter into yet another New and Everlasting Covenant by taking on multiple wives, then they are not ENDURING (continuing on in the same state)!

  30. LDSA-You focused on the term “cleave” without addressing the issue of the words “none else.” To me the words “none else” are more important in these two passages. Are you suggesting that in section 42 “none else” means something other than “no other” or “not one beside?”

    Thou shalt love thy wife [singular] with all thy heart, and cleave unto her [singular wife] and none else [to the exclusion of all others].

    Now, this was the law to the church, so we need to liken it unto ourselves-just as the early saints should have done. I’ll pick on Adam and Eve for an example:

    Adam, thou shalt love thy wife, Eve, with all they heart and cleave unto her [Eve] and none else [no other person besides Eve].

    It could not be any plainer.

    We can also see by this command how inferior the law of Moses was. The law of Moses allowed men to hate their wives, put them away, divorce them and be justified in those actions.

    Watcher, thanks for the insight into the word endure. That is not something I knew before.
    2 Nephi 31:19-20 is an all time favorite passage!

  31. I left out “none else” because the phrase, when combined with just “wife” does not indicate monogamy. It only indicates fidelity. Have you ever wondered why the Article on Marriage was even necessary, if D&C 42 put forth a doctrine of monogamy? The Article on Marriage would then be redundant in stating that the saints believed in monogamy, would it not?

    If I marry a wife and then she dies, does D&C 42 prohibit me from taking another wife? If section 42 indicates that I am to cleave only to one wife, then I can only be married once and I can only cleave to her and to none else, even if she dies. I am to remain single and widowed forever more, for if I take another wife I would be cleaving unto someone other than my (first) wife.

    Of course this is not the meaning of the scripture. It is a doctrine of fidelity, not monogamy, meaning that I am only to cleave to my wife, whether I have one wife or ten wives. Each woman married to me, whether in succession (after their deaths) or with all of them still living (in polygamy), is to have me cleave to her and to no one else who is not my wife.

    This is why the very quote that you used from Spencer W. Kimball stresses fidelity to the spouse.

  32. watchingandwaiting says:

    I have a few questions. So is receiving the gift of the holy ghost by being confirmed different then being baptized with fire and the holy ghost? What was the purpose of Polygamy in that part of the church’s history?(this question is for those who are against it)

    Also I was reading in D&C 88:84-92. And your idea of servants returning made sense to me here. Does it to you guys? Also 3 Nephi 21:10

  33. Watcher said,

    Despite apocryphal writings that suggest that Adam had three wives, the four standard works, the JST of the Bible, the creation story in the book of Abraham and the words of JS confirm the creation story in Genesis that Adam did not have multiple wives. He only had one.

    Lol! Oh, you mean Lilith and that other wife?

    And there shall the beasts of the desert meet with the jackals, and the wild goat shall cry to his fellow; the lilith also shall settle there, and find for herself a place of rest. (Isaiah 34: 14, Darby Translation)

    Watcher, I’m not trying to pick on you, but you need to make more concrete arguments. It is one thing to say that the Standard Works only mention one wife of Adam, it is another thing to say that the Standard Works say (or, confirm, as you put it) that Adam only had one wife. The first statement is correct, the second is incorrect. You are free to believe and to speculate on the second, but you shouldn’t put it forth as fact, because you lose credibility.

  34. Anarchist

    I don’t think it is a stretch to point out that with the wealth of information we have about Adam from the JST, other standard works, creation story in Abraham and words of JS that no other wives are ever mentioned.

    As important as section 132 and the spiritual wife doctrine make the principle of multiple wives, if the doctrine was true then surely Adam would have had multiple wives and surely the scriptures would have mentioned that fact in all of that information… particularly if it was a celestial doctrine required for the highest possible salvation.

    Therefore, the absence of any documentation about multiple wives of Adam, to me is indeed confirmation of all of the other evidences already provided that the spiritual wife doctrine is false.

    My reference to apocryphal writings pertaining to Adam and three wives was indeed referring to information contained in the apocrypha, not to Isaiah 34:14.

    However, if you are suggesting that Isaiah 34:14 provides us with credible documentation that Adam had multiple wives, perhaps it is your own credibility you should be worried about.

    “The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the “screech owl” also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest.

    There shall the great owl make her nest, and lay, and hatch, and gather under her shadow; there shall the vultures also be gathered, everyone with her mate.” JST Isaiah 34:14-15

    The Screech Owl is one of Adam’s multiple wives? LOL

  35. Watcher, I quoted Isaiah 34: 14 to show that you don’t have to go anywhere other than the Bible to find Lilith.

    No other wives being mentioned in a text is not evidence that there were no other wives. Zenock, Zenos, Neum and Ezias aren’t mentioned in the Bible, either, yet we know from the Book of Mormon that these were Hebrew prophets. Before the advent of the Book of Mormon, no one thought there were prophets with these names. But the lack of mention of them is not evidence that they did not exist.

    Only if somewhere in the Standard Works it categorically states that Adam had only one wife and her name was Eve, can we state that he had only wife, even Eve. We can state that he had a wife named Eve, and cite scripture that talks about her, but we can’t state authoritatively that he had only one wife, because the scriptures are silent on this point.

    The only antediluvian plural marriages that scripture mentions are Lamech’s, who had two wives. Can we infer from that that nobody else from Adam to Noah, except for Lamech, practiced plural marriage, just because he is the only one mentioned to have practiced it? And since he was such an evil man, then surely plural marriage must be evil, as well, kind of like how the Jehovah’s Witnesses say that birthdays are not to be celebrated because the Bible mentions an evil man celebrating it? Such an interpretative tactic is widely used by apostate Christianity, but it’s not an example that I would recommend that people follow.

    So, there is no credible documentation that Adam had only one wife and there is no credible documentation that Adam had three wives; all we know (from scripture) is that he did have a wife named Eve and that in the seventh generation from Adam we find Adam’s great-great-great-great-grandson Lamech practicing plural marriage. Did the practice start with Lamech or was he simply following in the footsteps of his fathers? We don’t know. But the possibility exists for either scenario, until the Lord reveals more information and clears up the confusion.

    For this reason it is best to keep an open mind as to the possibilities and to reserve judgment on things that haven’t been revealed, because if we assume that only one of the possibilities can be correct, not only does it make a you-know-what out of you and me, but our closed minds might end up rejecting something that truly does come from the Lord.

  36. Anarchist

    You said;

    “The only antediluvian plural marriages that scripture mentions are Lamech’s, who had two wives. Can we infer from that that nobody else from Adam to Noah, except for Lamech, practiced plural marriage, just because he is the only one mentioned to have practiced it? And since he was such an evil man, then surely plural marriage must be evil,”

    Although the categorical characterization of the practice of polygamy as being good or evil is probably a tendency for some of us that are debating these issues, I think that the real issue of importance is whether it is a celestial principal that continues into the eternities.

    I realize you don’t like to make a distinction between “biblical polygamy” and the “spiritual wife doctrine” , when you are making your points, however I really think that by not doing so, you have a tendency to blur the issues and and confuse people.

    An example of this would be the recent comment you made,

    “Do you know for a fact that the doctrine of plural wives was revealed to Joseph Smith after the people failed to live the law of consecration?”

    The real question in my opinion should be,

    “Do you know for a fact that the Spiritual Wife Doctrine which requires a man to be sealed to multiple wives was revealed to Joseph Smith after the people failed to live the law of consecration?”

    I suspect most or all of us who have been debating these issues accept that polygamy was practiced at various times in the bible and that just because someone was practicing it, doesn’t necessarily mean that they are good or evil people.

    Although I don’t think the fruits of polygamy on the marital relationship appear to be very good in light of passages pertaining to Abraham and his wives and in light of what the Book of Mormon has to say about it, I still don’t think it is wise to make the conclusion that the practice of polygamy is categorically good or evil. I suspect it depends on the people and the circumstances.

    Additionally, there were undoubtedly Godly men who practiced the patriarchal law of plural wives for the purposes of raising up seed as mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

    The real issue here in my opinion has to do with whether or not the patriarchal law of plural wives is a “temporal” or “carnal” commandment within a lessor law or whether it is a celestial commandment contained within celestial law.

    The reason I wrote the above critique of section 132 was to simply point out that the theological portion of the revelation pertaining to the requirement to be sealed to multiple wives in order to gain the highest salvation is not supported anywhere in the rest of the scriptures.

    Every article I have ever read supporting the doctrine uses verse out of section 132 or comments from the leaders of the church who embraced it, to support the doctrine. I have never seen anyone prove the theological statements in 132 using credible documentation from the standard works, including the JST version of the Bible.

    I challenge you to show me one clear and understandable scripture from the Old Testament, New Testament or Book of Mormon that teaches that salvation in the highest kingdom of God requires an eternal sealing to multiple wives.

    After you fail to provide just one scripture from those three books of scripture, I then challenge you to provide just one clear and understandable scripture from the D&C prior to the insertion of section 132 that teaches that salvation in the highest kingdom of God requires an eternal sealing to multiple wives.

    After you fail to do that, you might want to humor those of us who have a differing point of view by making the distinction between “biblical polygamy” and the “spiritual wife doctrine” in your future attempts to substantiate your points.

  37. Fabledsog says:

    Not being sarcastic or anything, just trying to create comic relief, but I hope Adam’s ribs are doing ok. 😉

  38. watchingandwaiting says:

    Lol Fabledsog.

    OWIW, even if there is one that is not enough. Doctrine cannot be built off of one verse. In the mouth of two or three witnesses. I like to try to find at least two verses that back something up, and are in the same context talking about the same thing. There is plenty of scripture to back up the pure gospel of Jesus Christ. Faith, repentance, baptism, enduring to the end. That is very clear. That should be our focus. However I agree with what Lds Anarchist said about keeping an open mind. If section 132 talked about living this law to raise up a righteous nation to the Lord, then I would have a much easier time accepting the practice. I personally do not feel that plural marriage is necessary for my own salvation. However I agree with LDS Anarchist in that we should not have a closed mind on the subject, but live to have the holy spirit guide us. Right now we don’t have to worry about this subject, but someday we might. Whether right or wrong.

  39. Watchingandwaiting

    You are absolutely right, of course we cannot accept a doctrine based on just one scripture. I have pointed that out several times on my other blog. That is why we have the law of two or three witnesses.

    It is much easier to misinterpret one scripture than several of them that are all teaching the same doctrine.

    I was not saying I would convert if he could show me one scripture, was simply making a point… in hopes that it might wake people up from the mesmerizing blue smoke that some people probably feel this discussion is wallowing in.

    After 20 years of debating with polygamists, I am not aware of even just one scripture in the four standard works prior to section 132 that clearly and definitively teaches that one must be sealed to multiple wives in order to gain the highest salvation.

    That should be a HUGE RED FLAG to those who are new to this topic… or those who have not studied it very deeply.

    It isn’t that I don’t have an open mind. It is that I have been over all this stuff so many times for so long that I am bored to death with it and tired of all of the warn out false assumptions and sophistry that many people use to make a case for the Spiritual Wife doctrine that is contained in section 132.

    There is a difference between having an understanding of something and having a firm testimony of it and being able to back it up in the scriptures vs having a closed mind.

    I am happy to consider that my current testimony of section 42 and the celestial law of monogamy is false as soon as someone can teach me out of the four standard works that my understanding of the scriptures is wrong.

    I would ask those who passionately support the Spiritual Wife Doctrine to search into the deepest parts of their hearts and conscience to see if they can say the same thing.

    Do they feel that they have studied this issue out from an unbiased point of view and come to a conclusion having uncovered cold hard scriptural proof validated by the Holy Spirit, or did they latch on to this doctrine initially because it was presented as scripture and it resonated with how they want things to be?

    Is it possible that some people after having blindly accepting this doctrine have put themselves out on a limb by writing articles to promote this very questionable doctrine or perhaps they are living it, and now their motivation is to save face? Now they feel compelled to prove they made the right decision?

    Please remember that I did not arrive at my current point of view of rejecting section 132, from a bias against it.

    I originally bought into 132 hook line and sinker.

    My wife was thinking about her friends in the ward that would make great sister wives. It took a long time of searching and praying to arrive at where I am.

    Do you think I would write an article like the one above based on a “strong opinion” or “speculation”?

    If the New and Everlasting Covenant pertaining to having multiple wives sealed to a person in order to make it into the highest kingdom, as contained in section 132, is true, then it would be taught as clearly and as frequently in the scriptures as the New and Everlasting Covenant of Baptism… and yet section 132 stands by itself with no scriptural supporting documentation.

    The fact that the Spiritual wife doctrine shows up nowhere in the scriptures until section 132 is finally inserted into the D&C once the Saints find their way to Utah, with all of the controversy and putrid fruits that have been associated with it pertaining to the relationship dynamics of what it does to wives and children the way many have lived it, should create real indigestion for any thinking person who is not just blinding following along.

    The fact that this discussion is even taking place is a sure sign that our generation is wallowing in the darkest abyss of apostasy and scriptural ignorance.

    The Anarchist has an incredible mind. He is a very capable debater. He is obviously much more educated than I. He has the ability to dissect sentence structures and prove to his satisfaction that they mean what he thinks they mean.

    I will admit that he has done a much better job of debating in behalf of the Spiritual Wife Doctrine than any fundamentalist I have ever known, but not from a scriptural point of view, from a purely intellectual point of view as a skilled debater.

    One of the things he has used to his great advantage, to his credit as a debater, is obscuring the difference between the distinction between “biblical polygamy” and the “spiritual wife doctrine” as contained in section 132.

    Having said all of that, I have acknowledged in a paper that I sent out to a few people that I am very open to the possibility that biblical polygamy was restored to the earth during the LDS foundation movement as a result of the restoration of the Gospel of Abraham in 1836.

    This is a great forum for those who want to better understand these issues to listen to various points of view.

    I appreciate your input Watchingandwaiting but please don’t get us sidetracked…

    I am still waiting to hear back from the Anarchist.

    Have you found me that one scripture yet Anarchist?

    I am waiting…

    waiting waiting waiting.

    Watching and waiting.

  40. Watcher, you must forgive my reluctance to reply in a timely manner, or even at all. There are many, many points both in the post above and in the comments that follow it of which I totally disagree. I could address every single one, but it would take too much of my time and above all, you need to know that I am lazy. I’ve cultivated this over many years and I think I have it down to a perfection. I am content to let people believe what they believe even if I see the errors in those beliefs. This is a fault of mine, I admit, which some take as an I-don’t-care attitude, but it is not that I don’t care, but that if I assess that something will be a waste of my time, I don’t feel like wasting it. And in this particular topic, I feel that no matter what I say, your mind is already made up. Also, there seem to be so very many errors that I’d have to address every single one to make any sense of addressing just a couple. What I’ve written above seems, to me, to be sufficient to figure out the rest and correct many of the errors of the post, but apparently it has not done its job.

    (If what4anarchy were here he would address everything and spend inordinate amounts of time doing it, too, but would probably have as little success in correcting the errors as I have. To his credit, he has more patience than me, or, to his detriment, he has less discernment than me, take your pick.)

    For example, that Deuteronomy prophecy you quote is used by you as a scriptural proof that “God does use his prophets to test his people and lead his rebellous people into further darkness.” And the test you allude to is D&C 132, in other words, polygamy. Yet, this prophecy was given by polygamous Moses. So, polygamous Moses, who gave the law of Moses, a good, holy and spiritual law according to Paul, in which polygamy was both allowed and commanded in certain instances, this same Moses who approved of polygamy, gives a prophecy that in the last days God would use polygamy (or the Spiritual Wife doctrine, as you term it) to test his people and lead his rebellious people into further darkness? Such an interpretation is, quite frankly, contradictory and disingenuous.

    And many of the other points you’ve made are equally on shaky ground. For instance, your use of the term New and Everlasting Covenant of Baptism. This is a term you’ve made up. It doesn’t exist in the scriptures. There are only three sections that mention either “New and Everlasting Covenant” or “a New and an Everlasting Covenant.” Three. That’s it. One in section 22, one in section 131 and one in section 132. Yet, there are plenty of uses of “everlasting covenant” and also “new covenant.” Your statement:

    Prior to this revelation the phrase “New and Everlasting Covenant” ALWAYS had specific reference to the saving ordinance of the baptism of water, fire and the Holy Ghost which is the sacred covenant that gets us through the gate and onto the strait path. It sometimes also includes the messenger holding the keys to the saving ordinance of water, fire and Holy Ghost..

    gets the phrase wrong (it’s A new and AN everlasting covenant in section 22), presupposes multiple references (by saying “ALWAYS had specific reference”), and defines the phrase where there is no given definition. There is a definition of “new covenant” and of “everlasting covenant” (defined in section 66 as “the fulness of the gospel”), but the Lord has given no definition to either the phrase “a new and an everlasting covenant” nor to “new and everlasting covenant.”

    If there is no given definition, then, the Lord is free to define it as He sees fit, including to give it multiple shades of meaning, as is often done with English words and phrases.

    So, you are pitting one revelation (section 22) against another revelation (section 132). That’s one witness against another witness. That doesn’t work. Also, you are defining the phrase yourself in section 22, which is undefined there and then using your made up definition to counter the definition or shade of meaning of the phrase in 132. That also doesn’t work.

    I could expound upon the New and Everlasting Covenant, and its significance, but what’s the point? You’ve obviously already made up your mind about it. But I’ll give you this as food for thought:

    Even without defining the phrase “a New and an Everlasting Covenant,” what do we know that the Lord said in both section 22 and 132? Did He not say (in D&C 22) “this is A new and AN everlasting covenant” and did He not say (in D&C 132) “I reveal unto you A new and AN everlasting covenant”?

    In case you still don’t get it, let me ask you this, is the Lord limited to the number of covenants He can reveal or make? In D&C 22, He used “A” and “AN”, not “THE”, when referring to a certain covenant. He did the same in D&C 132. Why do you assume He is referring to the SAME COVENANT?

    Now, concerning your question about the one scripture. If I had the time, I would provide John 8: 39. Then I would have you review Genesis and list on a piece of paper all the works of Abraham, what we absolutely know he did. Then I would have you search out all the references to Abraham’s seed. Then I would have you review Abinadi’s words. And then I would expound it all. But I don’t have the time.

  41. In response to my challenge, the Anarchist said,

    “Now, concerning your question about the one scripture. If I had the time, I would provide John 8: 39. Then I would have you review Genesis and list on a piece of paper all the works of Abraham, what we absolutely know he did. Then I would have you search out all the references to Abraham’s seed. Then I would have you review Abinadi’s words. And then I would expound it all. But I don’t have the time.”

    Let me first remind everyone what the challenge was, in the event that the blue smoke has diverted your attention from the current issue,

    “I challenge you to show me one clear and understandable scripture from the Old Testament, New Testament or Book of Mormon that teaches that salvation in the highest kingdom of God requires an eternal sealing to multiple wives.

    After you fail to provide just one scripture from those three books of scripture, I then challenge you to provide just one clear and understandable scripture from the D&C prior to the insertion of section 132 that teaches that salvation in the highest kingdom of God requires an eternal sealing to multiple wives.

    After you fail to do that, you might want to humor those of us who have a differing point of view by making the distinction between “biblical polygamy” and the “spiritual wife doctrine” in your future attempts to substantiate your points.”

    (If I understand the Anarchist’s remarks, he does not believe there has ever been a distinction between biblical polygamy and the spiritual wife doctrine. This is very problematic for his argument. Among other things, this means that after the apostate children of Israel rejected the higher law and were living the lesser law, they apparently were still living the celestial law of the spiritual wife doctrine as contained in section 132. Very very problematic. I have more to say on this but I don’t want to get side tracked right now)

    I was asking the Anarchist to provide just one clear and understandable scripture that teaches that salvation in the highest kingdom of God requires an eternal sealing to multiple wives.

    With the exception of section 132, he had the entire four standard works to choose from.

    After a considerable time to search the scriptures and consult with his mentor, here is the one scripture he came up with that he feels provides a clear and understandable explanation that one must be sealed to multiple wives in order to inherit the highest glory,

    “They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father, Jesus saith unto them, if ye were Abraham’s Children, ye would do the works of Abraham.” (John 8:39)

    I guess the Anarchist feels like that is a real clear and understandable scripture… one that clearly explains that one must be sealed to multiple wives in order to reach the highest salvation.

    Of all the works that Abraham did, including the sacrifice of his only son, apparently having multiple wives is the one Jesus is referring to here.

    One of the many problems with this is of course that the scriptures say nothing about Abraham being “sealed” to multiple wives.

    Nor do they ever clearly state that having multiple wives was “mandatory for the highest salvation”.

    Apparently the Anarchist feels that even though this scripture is very clear in explaining the concept of multiple wives, eternal marriage and the process of being sealed up by the Holy Spirit of Promise, that it may need a little more supporting documentation and clarification despite the fact that it is so clear and understandable, hence he suggests that in addition to that most compelling expose on the spiritual wife doctrine, which is contained is John 8:39, that we should study Genesis and make a listing of all of the temporal works listed therein pertaining to Abraham.

    Following that, he informs us that there is added information contained in the words of Abinidi which will further demystify the scripture in John 8:39.

    Happily, the Anarchist has the ability to decipher the words of Abinidi for us in a way to make all of the commandments contained in Genesis and the mystical statement in John 8 make sense and provide a clear and understandable scripture that proves that the spiritual wife doctrine was taught prior to the mysterious entry of 132 into our cannon of scripture.

    Sadly, he is to busy and to lazy and frankly, he just doesn’t care enough to take the time to do it for us.

    Although I have already addressed the topic of the true celestial works of Abraham in the article above, showing that the works of Abraham that lead to a celestial glory had to do with his willingness to “sacrifice all things” and enter into the true “oath and covenant of the Father”, I am going to use this opportunity to lead into the topic of the Abrahamic Covenant and a new paper that I hope to post today.

    One of the things that the Anarchist and most LDS fundamentalists don’t seem to comprehend is the fact that the Gospel of Abraham and the Gospel of Christ are two completely separate and distinct gospels.

    Christ and the Jews were speaking about the Gospel of Abraham in John 8, not the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    In the latter days, the dispensation of the gospel of Jesus Christ and His Church were committed in 1830 yet the dispensation of the Gospel of Abraham was not committed until 1836. (see section 110)

    There is a huge difference between the higher gospel which Abraham personally entered into himself, vs the lessor law and gospel that was named after Abraham, because of the covenant that God entered into with him, making him a father of nations.

    The multitude of nations pertaining to the Abrahamic Covenant and the countless people that are now considered the seed of Abraham, does not pertain to the highest salvation, it pertains to a lesser glory as pointed out in section 76..

    It appears that the Anarchist and other LDS Fundamentalists fail to realize that the Gospel of Abraham is a lesser Gospel containing a lesser law than the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    In John 8, Jesus was speaking to a group of Jews who claimed that Abraham was their patriarchal father.

    They took great comfort in this and felt that they were guaranteed salvation because of their lineage and their efforts in keeping the letter of the lesser laws that the Anarchist wants us to study.

    The wicked Jews were claiming to be covered by the Covenant that God made with Abraham. Jesus was questioning whether or not these people were really of the seed of Abraham or whether the Devil was their Father.

    I guess the Anarchist would have us believe that the short statement Christ made to them about doing the works of Abraham pertained to “Celestial Law” and the New and Everlasting Covenant pertaining to multiple wives as taught in section 132.

    I don’t think so.

    But I am grateful to the Anarchist for providing the false assumptions that provided this introduction to an article that I am getting ready to post.

    It pertains to this very subject.

    Many of you have been reviewing it already.

    The Anarchist was invited to review it but he declined. (I’m sure it had nothing to do with closed mindedness)

    Those of you that are still trying to understand the polygamy and the spiritual wife issues may find additional food for thought in the article.

    In this article I address several issues pertaining to the difference between the Gospel of Abraham and the Gospel of Jesus Christ and how the lesser, carnal law of multiple wives fits in to all of this.

    I will be posting it on this blog… possibly today

    Keep Watching

  42. 4 Nephi 1:10 And now, behold, it came to pass that the people of Nephi did wax strong, and did multiply exceedingly fast, and became an exceedingly fair and delightsome people.

    Multiply exceedingly fast is not secret code for plural marriage. In fact, one could more easily suppose that people were giving birth to twins and triplets.

    Statistics show that more children are born in monogamous marriages than in plural marriages. One only has to look as far as Joseph Smith or Brigham Young to prove this point.

    The math doesn’t support this claim. A man may have more children with multiple wives, but women have FEWER children in polygamist marriages. The community as a whole will reproduce faster using monogamy.

  43. TruthSeekerToo

    That is an interesting observation about 4 Nephi 1:10. I certainly think God has the ability to bless a righteous people to multiply exceedingly without the need for polygamy.

    In addition I would suggest there is a huge contextual problem with such a creative and reckless interpretation of 4th Nephi.

    If in fact polygamy was practiced among the Nephites when they lived consecration, why would an enlightened Book of Mormon prophet like Jacob make such a scathing and categorical rebuke of the practice?

    Notice how he declares that the Lord had commanded Lehi’s posterity to not live it… period, end of story.

    Notice how the wicked Lamanites had become more righteous than the Nephites because,

    “they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father- that they should have save it were one wife… and now this commandment they observe to keep; wherefore because of this observance, in keeping this commandment, the Lord God will not destroy them, but will be merciful unto them and one day they shall become a blessed people..” (Jacob 3:5)

    How incredible is that! The Lamanites will become a blessed people some day BECAUSE they subjected themselves to the commandment God gave to the posterity of Lehi to only have ONE WIFE!

    The Nephite nation was destroyed because they violated the commandment from the Lord to only have one wife!

    This proves that the commandment given to Lehi from God was not given just to him and his immediate family, it was given to his posterity… to continue to all generations. Had the Nephites that Christ visited been living polygamy they would have been destroyed.

    How can we suppose that Christ instituted polygamy among the Nephites after what the Book of Mormon tells us about the commandment God to Lehi?

  44. […] The second post resulted in a doctrinal critique of section 132. […]

  45. FUbrigham says:

    Great analysis. I found this a little late, but I hope you still read the comments.

    I think you may have overlooked another point that invalidates D&C 132. The analogy that D&C 132 attempts to make between Abraham being commanded by God to sacrifice his son Isaac, and the notion of Abraham being commanded by God to have plural marriage/concubines is a FALSE analogy; a logical fallacy. Abraham DID NOT sacrifice his son. Abraham showed his faith and *understanding* in the true God and the goodness of God, that God would provide another way. And that’s what happened; God provided and animal instead. Abraham knew God was good and that it was a test of his faith and a blessing of knowledge about the sacrifice that would eventually be made by the Son of God. The D&C 132 analogy can only work if God also stepped in to STOP the plural marriage from taking place. I got news for you: God doesn’t make false analogies. Therefore, God is not the author of D&C 132; Satan is the author of D&C 132, and Satan sucks at logic.

  46. Very interesting perspective.

    Regarding the screen name FUbrigham LOL LOL LOL

  47. Questioning says:

    In regards to polygamy, Joseph, from what I understand, stepped down as prophet leaving Hyrum as the sole prophet. I thought this might be because Joseph was sinning due to polygamy. But wasn’t Hyrum a polygamist too? So I’m confused why Joseph stepped down and why was Hyrum a polygamist?
    Thanks for your insight!!!!!

  48. It is my belief that Joseph had taken upon himself the sins of apostate Israel per the terms explained in Lev 16 and that is why he began doing things in Nauvoo that he preached against and brought forth scripture condemning in Kirtland.

    Nevertheless, I don’t think he believed in his own mind that he was stepping down because he was sinning.

    I don’t think he saw himself and Hyrum is fulfilling the succession prophecy in section 43.

    It is not real clear what instigated his decision to make the announcement that he was stepping down.

    He obviously was no longer receiving revelations of significance for canonization by that time. That may have been part of the reason for his decision.

    It is even possible that he received a personal revelation from the Lord to do it. But he characterized himself as moving forward in his progression, not as as being a sinner, in the sermon where he made the announcement.

    I don’t think he knew he was sinning. I think the Lord simply covered the eyes of the seer as it says in Isaiah.

    However, there is another theory that he was intentionally sinning and that he knew exactly what he was doing and that he was simply testing the saints to see which of them would follow God’s message vs God’s messenger that had departed from the message.

    With regard to Hyrum, he fought polygamy initially.

    According to some accounts, Brigham Young is the primary one that was instrumental in getting him to eventually accept the secret doctrine.

    Hyrum was the one that presented the doctrine to the High Council in an effort to get them to sustain the practice, which makes sense since he was the sole president of the church.

    Although I have written about Joseph and Sidney as being the blood offering and the scapegoat offering, represented in Lev 16, it is important to realize that Leviticus 16 actually identifies five or six players in the atonement prophecy enactment. It is my belief that Hyrum and Oliver are also among the players and that they did what they did in fulfillment of their prophetic roles in the intercessory offering.

  49. Questioning says:

    Now that I have finished reading your articles on the Spiritual Wife Doctrine, I have turned to the scriptures to begin to pounder these things. I am grateful for all you insight and help. I have always struggled with this aspect of mormonism. There is however one scripture that I just do not understand and wonder what it pertains to. It is Isaiah 4:1-2, about 7 women holding to 1 man? I always heard this scripture used in church to justify the early saints polygamy. If you could shed some light on this scripture and its meaning I would love your insight.
    Thank you again for your testimony and faithfulness to the word of God.

  50. Questioning-

    I have covered that in detail somewhere but I can’t remember which post it is in.

    The short answer is that a contextual reading of those verses shows that the passage has nothing to do with a higher gospel law, rather, it is during a ruthless time when women need the protection of a man. Women are striving for protection and are willing to take care of their own physical needs of food and clothing in return for the protection that marriage often provides from those that would otherwise take advantage of women.

    My guess is that it takes place after the elect are gathered out and those that are left among the tares, are in a state of oppression and anarchy. I think most people don’t realize just how difficult and dangerous it becomes for women once the law of the land is know longer being enforced and men without morals that are acting like savages, roaming the land causing all sorts of mischief.

  51. stockoneder says:

    I32 is clearly condemned by the BOM by three separate witnesses found in Jacob 2, Mosiah 11 and Ether 10.
    Jacob 2:30 is not a weasel clause allowing the practice to be used to raise seed up unto the Lord as the polygamists claim. why would God put a weasel clause right in the MIDDLE of something he is clearly condemning?
    “For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.”
    To get the true meaning one should refer to to the 1828 Websters dictionary and look up the word, “otherwise”. The definition found there is: “in a different manner”.
    So lets try the verse with that definition and see if it then fits better with the context it is in and makes more sense.
    “For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; IN A DIFFERENT MANNER they shall hearken unto these things.
    What manner is He talking about here? The abominable matter of David and Solomon, right? The manner which we find in the next verse caused sorrow and the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in ALL the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
    So WHEN the Lord will raise up seed unto Him He will command them to act in a different manner than did David and Solomon whose
    “many wives and concubines” . . . . “was abominable before me, saith the Lord.”
    He is not telling people to use the practice of polygamy to raise up seed to him He is stating just the opposite. Hearken unto His commandment not to do what David and Solomon did and to have just one wife like the Lamanites.
    Jacob 3:5 Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are MORE righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father—that they should have save it were one wife, AND concubines they should have none, AND there should not be whoredoms committed among them.
    6 And now, this commandment they observe to keep; wherefore, because of this observance, in keeping this commandment, the Lord God will not destroy them, but will be merciful unto them; and one day they shall become a blessed people.
    Mosiah 11 and Ether 10 both teach this same lesson very clearly.

    132 also states falsely Isaac had more than one wife. No proof of that exists. No conclusive proof Moses had more than one either for that matter.

  52. stockoneder says:

    Doctrine and Covenants 132 says in verse:

    7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

    This is a pretty broad brush. Associations are also friendships, so is this is saying your friendships will cease to exist after death?

    But more importantly what about the covenant of Baptism? It says here if it isn’t sealed up by the Holy Spirit of promise as well as for time and all eternity it will have NO efficacy, virtue or force after the resurrection. And since that is the most important covenant necessary to salvation this is a big red flag.

    How is one baptized and sealed for time and all eternity by the LDS church? Where and how is that done? And if it isn’t done this verse says their baptism will be of no force. I see that as a huge problem.

  53. Here is something else to consider about those passages in section 132 and how they were used to destroy the morality of some of the people in Nauvoo.

    On the following post I used a passage out of section 85 to show how God uses long sentences with what I refer to as “cryptic filler” in them to obscure what is really being said, unless the reader really hyperfocuses:

    http://threewatches.blogspot.com/2008/09/33-their-names-shall-not-be-found.html

    In that particular example I shortened the sentence by removing the cryptic filler and showed that section 85 actually forbids those who refuse to consecrate and receive their inheritance, from having their names enrolled with the people of God or having their genealogy work done.

    I would suggest that if you use the same method with the above passages, the abbreviated passage and associated interpretation is what you can get.

    “that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity… are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in [this life] and after the resurrection from the dead”

    In other words, all civil marriages that had not been performed by God’s anointed servant were null and void.

    I am not suggesting that is the proper or literal meaning of the passage, that was meant by whoever created it, but it appears to be how they were interpreting it in Nauvoo, because at the time that polygamy raised its ugly head in Nauvoo, some of the leaders that were promoting polygamy were secretly teaching that secular marriages were not acknowledged and accepted of God and therefore, not legally in force. Hence, virtually all of the marriages up to that point in time were not binding even in mortality, since they had not been done through God’s anointed servant.

    This absurd doctrine is one of the reasons that some people were duped into spiritual wife, polygamous relationships.

    Elder Willard Richards and Orson Hydes wife would be one of many examples of how people committed fornication that was justified via the belief that previous civil unions were not accepted by God.

    I don’t have any specific references handy on this topic other than this statement I just Googled

    Compton explains the Prophet’s willingness to cultivate such relationships as, among other things, a consequence of his disbelief in the binding authority of civil marriages..

    I have read historical documentation to support the conclusions that Compton arrived at, I just don’t have the references handy.

    The true doctrine that had been taught during the Kirtland years is explained in the “Article on Marriage” that was sustained by the church as scripture but later replaced with section 132 by Brigham Young.

    Notice that it is the “public meeting” or public “feast”, that is the custom of all civilized nations, that solemnizes a marriage.

    Notice also, that members of the church were not prohibited from marrying someone outside of the faith and by having the unions directed by other authorities. Although doing so was to be considered “weak in the faith”, the marriages were none the less binding and not considered fornication:

    According to the custom of all civilized nations, marriage is regulated by laws and ceremonies; therefore we believe that all marriages in this Church of Christ of Latter-day Saints should be solemnized in a public meeting or feast prepared for that purpose, and that the solemnization should be performed by a Presiding High Priest, High Priest, Bishop, Elder or Priest, not even prohibiting those persons who are desirous to get married, of being married by other authority. We believe that it is not right to prohibit members of this Church from marrying out of the Church, if it be their determination so to do; but such persons will be considered weak in the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

  54. Ryan says:

    Watcher,

    You wrote:

    “I’m not positive, because I have not taken the time to do an extensive key word search, but I believe this is the first time in the four standard works that the word “exaltation” is used in this context. Prior to this, when used in a positive context, it simply means raised up.”

    Thought you’d like this.

    9 And again, I will visit and soften their hearts, many of them for your good, that ye may find grace in their eyes, that they may come to the light of truth, and the Gentiles to the exaltation or lifting up of Zion. (D&C 124:9)

    The ONLY other time the word “exaltation” is used apart from D&C 132.

    One thing that wasn’t covered in your banter with LDSA was that David was given wives by Nathan as in…

    7 ¶And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

    8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

    (2 Samuel 12:7-8)

    Or that one of the plain and precious parts missing from the Bible (if that’s really the book Nephi saw as the Book of the Lamb of God and not some other book) was polygamy.

    Just food for thought. Though you do a fine job defending monogamy and putting down the spiritual wife doctrine when held up against the standard works.

  55. Ryan

    Yes, thank you for pointing that out.

    I find it very significant that the term “exaltation” is rarely if ever used in the D&C to mean what it means in section 132.

    This is also true in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. They almost always use “Salvation” to refer to the highest state of salvation.

    Section 76 introduces the concept of differing levels of salvation, but even it is silent with regard to using the term exaltation.

    I love how exaltation is used in reference to the “lifting up” or rapture in section 124 (in my opinion)

    The passage you quoted from the Bible is an interesting and curious one. As I recall, it was not altered in the JST which makes it even more curious, and yet, it appears to contradict a mountain of scriptural evidence to the contrary.

    If the evidence in favor of polygamy is put on one side of a scale and the evidence against put on the other side, you have a 1 to 99 ratio.

    furthermore, the 1 % only addresses a temporal and temporary commandment and does not support the spiritual wife doctrine and the nonsense about needing to have plural wives to receive the highest “exaltation” LOL

%d bloggers like this: