Doctrine and Covenants 132--Revelation on Mormon plural marriage

[Catholic20064]

A revelation given to Joseph Smith. Emma Smith was his first wife.

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 prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.
52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive 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 faithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him.
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.
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 hundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.
56 And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid forgive 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 rejoice.
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 Satan seeketh 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 exaltation and glory.
58 Now, as touching the law of the priesthood, there are many things pertaining thereunto.
59 Verily, if a man be called of my Father, as was Aaron, by mine own voice, and by the voice of him that sent me, and I have endowed him with the keys 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 sin, 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 another, 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 ten 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 multiply 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 glorified.
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 Hagar 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.

To quote a nineteenth century Mormon apostle, Heber C. Kimball:

I think no more of taking another wife than I do of buying a cow.

The above quote is found in “The Twenty Seventh Wife”, Irving Wallace, p. 101.

 

[Chi_Rho_Joe]

Inaccurately stated:

A revelation given to Joseph Smith…

Accurately stated:

A revelation allegedly given to Joseph Smith.

If this was a game of Scrabble, I’d hit the “I Challenge” button!

Let’s not immediately be so quick to subscribe to naked assertions!

Peace,
CRJ

 

[Third_Day]

This so-called revelation makes adultery a commandment from God. Yet if the woman takes another man she commits adultery and shall be destroyed.

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, 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 ten 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

In the Book of Mormon, Jacob 2:23-24 having multiple wives is considered an "abomination’ and “whoredom” Yet Joseph Smith had a “revelation” allowing it.
Brigham Young had 55 wives. Only the Fundamental LDS continue to adhere to this “revelation” of multiple wives… The LDS received a new “revelation” in 1890 when president Wilford Woodruff said he received a revelation “to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land”

 

[lax16]

This so-called revelation makes adultery a commandment from God. Yet if the woman takes another man she commits adultery and shall be destroyed.

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, 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 ten 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

In the Book of Mormon, Jacob 2:23-24 having multiple wives is considered an "abomination’ and “whoredom” Yet Joseph Smith had a “revelation” allowing it.
Brigham Young had 55 wives. Only the Fundamental LDS continue to adhere to this “revelation” of multiple wives… The LDS received a new “revelation” in 1890 when president Wilford Woodruff said he received a revelation “to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land”

Yes, it is VERY difficult to understand how anyone can believe that God, who gave Moses the 10 Commandments, the foundation of all of Judaic and Christian belief would “change” His mind about the commandments for a short time to test one’s faith and actually allow it to happen hurting people in the process.
The LDS teaching on the concept of God participating in this type of test with Joseph Smith is one of the hardest things to accept about their religion. It goes against Judeo-Christian teachings about God. He would never, ever, ever ask anyone to break a commandment (then expect them to follow through) as a test of their faith.
Here comes the “but what about Abraham and Isaac…” God STOPPED Abraham from doing it.
Gen 22:11 “But the Lord’s messenger called to him from heaven, Abraham! Abraham! Yes, Lord, he answered. Do not lay your hand on the boy, said the messenger. Do not do the least thing to him…”
If Joseph Smith had not followed through with the commandment because God stopped him after seeing his great faith, that would be an entirely different story.

 

[Catholic20064]

Yes, it is VERY difficult to understand how anyone can believe that God, who gave Moses the 10 Commandments, the foundation of all of Judaic and Christian belief would “change” His mind about the commandments for a short time to test one’s faith and actually allow it to happen hurting people in the process.
The LDS teaching on the concept of God participating in this type of test with Joseph Smith is one of the hardest things to accept about their religion. It goes against Judeo-Christian teachings about God. He would never, ever, ever ask anyone to break a commandment (then expect them to follow through) as a test of their faith.
Here comes the “but what about Abraham and Isaac…” God STOPPED Abraham from doing it.
Gen 22:11 “But the Lord’s messenger called to him from heaven, Abraham! Abraham! Yes, Lord, he answered. Do not lay your hand on the boy, said the messenger. Do not do the least thing to him…”
If Joseph Smith had not followed through with the commandment because God stopped him after seeing his great faith, that would be an entirely different story.

I almost hate to mention this in answer to your comment, but didn’t Moses have more than one wife?

 

[lax16]

I almost hate to mention this in answer to your comment, but didn’t Moses have more than one wife?

Very good question. Yes he did.
If one googles “did Abraham have more than one wife” quite a bit of info pops up.

Once again, keeping things in historical context, one would have to have a good understanding of the concept of marriage prior to the birth of Judaism and post commandments. And of course, how the concept of “marriage” evolved from there.

That being said, I am not sure how this relates to a Christian people in the 1800’s in America. Long before JS was around, marriage to one person was considered a sacramental and legal obligation, was it not?

Your thoughts?

 

[Catholic20064]

Very good question. Yes he did.
If one googles “did Abraham have more than one wife” quite a bit of info pops up.

Once again, keeping things in historical context, one would have to have a good understanding of the concept of marriage prior to the birth of Judaism and post commandments. And of course, how the concept of “marriage” evolved from there.

That being said, I am not sure how this relates to a Christian people in the 1800’s in America. Long before JS was around, marriage to one person was considered a sacramental and legal obligation, was it not?

Your thoughts?

The LDS Church claims to be a restoration of all things. So part of the restoration was the restoration of plural marriage as practiced by the prophets. In fact some LDS marriages may have had contact with the Cochranites who also practiced plural marriage.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Cochran

 

[TheosisM]

The LDS Church claims to be a restoration of all things. So part of the restoration was the restoration of plural marriage as practiced by the prophets. In fact some LDS marriages may have had contact with the Cochranites who also practiced plural marriage.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Cochran

That’s interesting, thanks, never heard of Cochran.

 

[Catholic20064]

That’s interesting, thanks, never heard of Cochran.

I meant to say that some LDS members may have had contact with Cochran, not some LDS marriages. Some of the RLDS use the Cochranite contacts as a way to implicate someone other than Joseph Smith as the creators of polygamy within the LDS Church, but that doesn’t make a lot of sense:

restorationbookstore.org/articles/nopoligamy/jsfp-vol1/chp1.htm
restorationbookstore.org/articles/nopoligamy/jsfp-vol1/chp2.htm
restorationbookstore.org/articles/nopoligamy/jsfp-vol1/chp3.htm

 

[lax16]

The LDS Church claims to be a restoration of all things. So part of the restoration was the restoration of plural marriage as practiced by the prophets. In fact some LDS marriages may have had contact with the Cochranites who also practiced plural marriage.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Cochran

You make a good point and I need to remember the “restoration of all things” concept when discussing things with LDS.

What throws me off is the often quoted references to OT scripture. If LDS is a restoration of all things, then why reference the OT? Just start over with a new religion all by itself with its own ideas and doctrines not tied to anything else. (Ooops! I forgot I am not supposed to ask you these questions because you are a former LDS). If you choose to answer, I would appreciate your insight. I might get a hand slap for it, but maybe LDS will answer too, then all will be balanced.

Do LDS acknowledge the possible influence of Cochran on JS or LDS teachings? Once again, this question is open to all.

 

[Catholic20064]

You make a good point and I need to remember the “restoration of all things” concept when discussing things with LDS.

What throws me off is the often quoted references to OT scripture. If LDS is a restoration of all things, then why reference the OT? Just start over with a new religion all by itself with its own ideas and doctrines not tied to anything else. (Ooops! I forgot I am not supposed to ask you these questions because you are a former LDS). If you choose to answer, I would appreciate your insight. I might get a hand slap for it, but maybe LDS will answer too, then all will be balanced.

Do LDS acknowledge the possible influence of Cochran on JS or LDS teachings? Once again, this question is open to all.

LDS do not acknowledge any possible influence from Cochran. That is an RLDS argument (I mention RLDS simply because the people who promote this tend to be members of RLDS Restoration branches rather than the Community of Christ). LDS will always insist this is a doctrine revealed to Joseph Smith. I suspect the idea of polygamy may have been introduced to the LDS by Cochranites, but that Joseph Smith rather than fighting polygamy taught it as the LDS claim. It is amazing how many different religious groups were arising in the 19th century with the introduction of religious freedom in the U.S.

 

[lax16]

LDS do not acknowledge any possible influence from Cochran. That is an RLDS argument (I mention RLDS simply because the people who promote this tend to be members of RLDS Restoration branches rather than the Community of Christ). LDS will always insist this is a doctrine revealed to Joseph Smith. I suspect the idea of polygamy may have been introduced to the LDS by Cochranites, but that Joseph Smith rather than fighting polygamy taught it as the LDS claim. It is amazing how many different religious groups were arising in the 19th century with the introduction of religious freedom in the U.S.

I never really thought about that. How many of these religious groups were polygamists or believed in spiritual marriages? Was that fairly common? Are any still around today (other than FLDS?)
I had never even heard of the Cochranites until you linked it and it makes me wonder how common it was in America in the 19th century for these small(?) religious groups to practice polygamy?

 

[Catholic20064]

I never really thought about that. How many of these religious groups were polygamists or believed in spiritual marriages? Was that fairly common? Are any still around today (other than FLDS?)
I had never even heard of the Cochranites until you linked it and it makes me wonder how common it was in America in the 19th century for these small(?) religious groups to practice polygamy?

I don’t have any reason to believe polygamy was very common, but it was a very fertile time for new religious groups. The LDS can make the claim that among the new movements of the 19th century theirs is one of the few that have been able to survive. Some LDS no doubt see some divine providence in that.

 

[dianaiad]

I never really thought about that. How many of these religious groups were polygamists or believed in spiritual marriages? Was that fairly common? Are any still around today (other than FLDS?)
I had never even heard of the Cochranites until you linked it and it makes me wonder how common it was in America in the 19th century for these small(?) religious groups to practice polygamy?

There are several polygamous Mormon groups that practice polygamy nowadays. I believe that the FLDS is the largest one, but there are several smaller (in the hundreds to no more than two thousand member level) groups that do.

As to the time you are referring to, there were a great many different religions starting up; I’m not certain how many practiced polygamy, but other experiments with marital relationships were common; for instance, the Shakers began their American colonies right about then, as did Utopian societies like the Amana colony, with its concept of 'complex marriage."

 

[lax16]

There are several polygamous Mormon groups that practice polygamy nowadays. I believe that the FLDS is the largest one, but there are several smaller (in the hundreds to no more than two thousand member level) groups that do.

As to the time you are referring to, there were a great many different religions starting up; I’m not certain how many practiced polygamy, but other experiments with marital relationships were common; for instance, the Shakers began their American colonies right about then, as did Utopian societies like the Amana colony, with its concept of 'complex marriage."

Is it safe to say that these different religions were starting up in America because there was (supposed to be) religious tolerance and they could do things a little differently - or - did they bring these ideas with them from Europe etc. where they were already in the planning stages?

I guess what I am asking is, were these new religions trying something totally new or was it a break off of something else from the old country?

Did/do the Shakers and the Amana colony people (?) tie into an existing religion or is it totally their own? (I guess I could google it…)

 

[dianaiad]

Is it safe to say that these different religions were starting up in America because there was (supposed to be) religious tolerance and they could do things a little differently - or - did they bring these ideas with them from Europe etc. where they were already in the planning stages?

I guess what I am asking is, were these new religions trying something totally new or was it a break off of something else from the old country?

Did/do the Shakers and the Amana colony people (?) tie into an existing religion or is it totally their own? (I guess I could google it…)

the Shakers started in the mid-1700’s in England, and were subject to the usual…and it was a lot more freely tolerated in the USA. Mind you, even here everybody got grief (and I do mean EVERYBODY got grief from the neighbors, because religious revivalism was rampant; from the free will Baptists through the Calvinists to…???) , but it was more acceptable then and there to be different than it ever was before, or anywhere else. The Amana colony, along with other Utopian colonies, were part of that…and part of the Transcendentalist movement that got some of our most notable authors tied up; Brook Farm, the Onieda colonies…

It was an interesting time.

…and probably the only time in which Mormonism could have successfully begun. Whether you think that’s because everybody was terminally weird, or because God intended it that way depends upon whether one is Mormon or not, but either way, it’s a FUN era to look at!

Diana

 

[Trcy52]

How do Mormon women feel about polygamy now and in the future?

Since Mormons believe that if they have a celestial marriage in the temple and live worthy lives, that they will remain married in the eternities and continue to have children, etc.

So what happens to a worthy woman who marries a worthy man in the temple who was previously widowed. That man will then be “sealed” to two women in the eternities. Is that polygamy in heaven?

And if a worthy woman never marries will she be given to a worthy man in the eternities who may have other wives? I believe the latter-day saints will say “yes.”

So my question then is, how do the Mormon women living now feel about sharing their husbands throughout eternity?

Just asking.

 

[dianaiad]

How do Mormon women feel about polygamy now and in the future?

Since Mormons believe that if they have a celestial marriage in the temple and live worthy lives, that they will remain married in the eternities and continue to have children, etc.

So what happens to a worthy woman who marries a worthy man in the temple who was previously widowed. That man will then be “sealed” to two women in the eternities. Is that polygamy in heaven?

And if a worthy woman never marries will she be given to a worthy man in the eternities who may have other wives? I believe the latter-day saints will say “yes.”

So my question then is, how do the Mormon women living now feel about sharing their husbands throughout eternity?

Just asking.

Some are fine with it. Some are not. Depends on the woman. As for me…I honestly do not know. When I was younger, a new wife and mother, I would have said 'no thanks…" (I think.) Now?

After having read my g-grandmothers’ journals about their experiences with it, I’m not so certain that it would be a bad thing.

The thing is, since I am a widow, I don’t have to worry about it.

 

[lax16]

Some are fine with it. Some are not. Depends on the woman. As for me…I honestly do not know. When I was younger, a new wife and mother, I would have said 'no thanks…" (I think.) Now?

After having read my g-grandmothers’ journals about their experiences with it, I’m not so certain that it would be a bad thing.

The thing is, since I am a widow, I don’t have to worry about it.

Can a woman “not be fine with it” and remain LDS?

 

[zerinus]

What throws me off is the often quoted references to OT scripture. If LDS is a restoration of all things, then why reference the OT? Just start over with a new religion all by itself with its own ideas and doctrines not tied to anything else.

In a sense Mormonism is a “new religion all by itself;” but I don’t see how that translates into “no reference to the OT”.