Question for LDS Regarding Doctrine and Covenants 132

  • Thread starter Thread starter Melchior_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Melchior_1

Guest
Hello to the LDS members of the community,

I would like some assistance on section 132 of the DOC. For the life of me, I can’t see this as being anything short of being a doctrine on being able to have multiple wives; yet when I talk to members of the LDS church they say that marriage is for one man, one woman.

How does one properly look at section 132? And how does this square away with the traditional Christian teaching that marriage should be monogamous?
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.
 
Not LDS, but I will start the discussion here.
Melchior said:
How does one properly look at section 132?
Click to expand...
As codified revelation to Joseph Smith, if LDS; as man-made doctrine, if not. Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, wrote “Obviously, the holy practice will commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the Millennium (see Isaiah 4).” Plural Marriage, pg 578 of 1979 paperback edition]
Melchior said:
And how does this square away with the traditional Christian teaching that marriage should be monogamous?
Click to expand...
It doesn’t. LDS revelation supersedes Christian teaching. And later LDS revelation can supersede a prior LDS revelation. Wilford Woodruff’s “Declaration #1” was not codified into D&C, just appended. It is always “better” to have a living prophet.
 
Our Father…Hail Mary x10
Glory Be…Fatima Prayer…Amen!
 
Exmormon here -

venite adoremus is correct in that the LDS revelation contained within D&C trumps previous Christian doctrine. One thing I’d like to point out about the Manifestos (there are 2) - they are not revelations. They were concessions to the government to end persecutions against the LDS Church and gain more mainstream acceptance.

Plural marriage never stopped. Not after the Manifestos, and certainly not now. Plural marriages continued to be endorsed by leaders and performed, in secret, after the public denouncement of them.

The doctrine of plural marriage is still contained within LDS theology, and it is taught (though a bit on the sly) that in order to reach the highest degree within the Celestial Kingdom, you must be living Celestial Marriage. My understanding is that only those who have received their Second Anointing here on Earth (this is a temple ritual that the elite, for lack of better term, go through. It is not the typical Endowment ceremony that everyone hears about)

ALL good Mormons believe that the Church was in error when they walked away from the Principle. ALL good Mormons believe that someday plural marriage will be practiced again.

~S
 
Melchior said:
Hello to the LDS members of the community,

I would like some assistance on section 132 of the DOC. For the life of me, I can’t see this as being anything short of being a doctrine on being able to have multiple wives; yet when I talk to members of the LDS church they say that marriage is for one man, one woman.

How does one properly look at section 132? And how does this square away with the traditional Christian teaching that marriage should be monogamous?
Click to expand...
The official LDS Church position at this time is that polygamy was practiced as commanded by their God. Then, and now, it is not practiced as commanded by their God.

When I was LDS it was taught that polygamy could/should be commanded again at any time. I don’t see that as being taught generally to all LDS any longer. What is taught is defending polygamy. All Mormons will say marriage should be monogamous because that is what the LDS Church teaches at this time. They will also defend polygamy as being a valid form of marriage when their Church leaders declare it to be so.

LDS don’t hold to traditional Christian teachings.
 
So, I have a question why do so many Mormons get so defensive when you point that out? If Mormons believe in polygamy, they should just say they believe in polygamy. If they believe Jesus was married, they should just say they believe Jesus was married. I believe Mary was a Perpetual virgin, and never had any biological children other than Jesus. I know some people disagree with me, but I don’t have a problem saying it.
 
There is a sensitivity among Mormons about being confused with Mormon branches that practice polygamy today. They know it’s weird to most people and don’t want to be viewed as being weird.
 
I’m a little confused about why the Book of Mormon (Jacob 2:23-28) contradicts D & C 132. How is it that it is that polygamy is called “whoredom” in the BOM, and then allowed 13 years later? Did God decide to approve “whoredom”? I would really like someone to clear this up for me.
 
Last edited:
adamhovey1988 said:
Jacob 2:23-28
Click to expand...
For the Mormons who are followers of Brigham Young, the view is that practicing polygamy in Jacob 2 was not allowed by their God so it was a sin. Joseph Smith and his contemporaries practicing polygamy was allowed by their God so it was a good thing. Today the Mormon groups that practice polygamy are sinning again, like in Jacob 2.

For Church of Christ LDS, they don’t believe polygamy is ever a valid practice and they go by Jacob 2 as an unchanging truth. D&C 132 was added to the Brighamite version of the D&C by Brigham Young. Long after Smith was murdered.
 
adamhovey1988 said:
I’m a little confused about why the Book of Mormon (Jacob 2:23-28) contradicts D & C 132. How is it that it is that polygamy is called “whoredom” in the BOM, and then allowed 13 years later? Did God decide to approve “whoredom”? I would really like someone to clear this up for me.
Click to expand...
Mormon doctrine was still being developed by Joseph Smith at the time, so you’re gonna find a lot of contradictions between early Joseph Smith (Book of Mormon) and later Joseph Smith (Doctrines and Covenants). For example, did you know that Joseph Smith’s theology regarding God was actually more inclined towards Trinitarianism at the start? In fact, a lot would argue he even seems to go farther than that, instead going straight into Modalism. Take these Book of Mormon verses:
“Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father. Amen.” - Mosiah 16:15
Click to expand...
“Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last; And he shall come into the world to redeem his people; and he shall take upon him the transgressions of those who believe on his name; and these are they that shall have eternal life, and salvation cometh to none else.” - Alma 11:38-40
Click to expand...
“Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.” - Ether 3:14
Click to expand...
The Book of Mormon was published in 1830, and it wasn’t until 1832 when Smith began to see the Father and the Son as two different personages. By 1844, Smith’s doctrine had been fully developed and became what we know today as Mormon “orthodoxy.”

Likewise, many other elements of his doctrine developed, including his views on polygamy, as seen in this thread, as well as his views on predestination and grace which switched between Calvinism and Arminianism.
 
Last edited:
Then why would I trust Mormon missionaries that tell me that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book of written? Book of Mormon
 
No disagreement here. But that’s the thing, shouldn’t Mormons at least be consistent? I don’t want people to think I’m bashing Mormons, I’m not. But if the most correct book every written (according to Joseph Smith himself) condemns polygamy, then why in the heck would Smith decide that it’s okay? It’s just a bit confusing to me.
 
adamhovey1988 said:
No disagreement here. But that’s the thing, shouldn’t Mormons at least be consistent? I don’t want people to think I’m bashing Mormons, I’m not. But if the most correct book every written (according to Joseph Smith himself) condemns polygamy, then why in the heck would Smith decide that it’s okay? It’s just a bit confusing to me.
Click to expand...
Well exactly, they should be consistent since they claim to hold to the “most correct book ever written”, but their texts certainly aren’t consistent. Mormons do attempt to reconcile these contradictions within the context of their current theology, whilst ignoring the context of early Mormon theology, and end up failing to give any good defense with that in mind.
 
Last edited:
What Mormons currently teach about certain things, such as the nature of God, is not consistent with the Book of Mormon. There are a lot of contradictions within Mormon doctrine. Jacob 2 condemns polygamy. The original 1835 Doctrine and Covenants also condemned it. It got changed years later in Section 132 after Joseph Smith was killed (in a gunfight). Their doctrine is ever changing. Look at blacks and the priesthood, Adam-God, and the temple ceremony, for instance. It’s hard to keep up. The Mormon God is a fickle God.
 
Even Joseph Smith did not heed his own words in D&C 132. There were three basic requirements for polygamy:
  1. The wife’s consent.
  2. The wife-to-be is a virgin.
  3. The wife-to-be is given to no other man.
JS failed on all three of these. In addition, he took at least eleven other men’s wives from them. The world calls that polyandry. I call it evil.
 
At the time of the section in D & C, this was the norm, under commandment from God, which I recognize is how for some to understand, nonetheless that is what occurs. Remember that Brigham Young had multiple wives.

Lorenzo Snow, a future President of the Church, received a revelation from God, ending plural marriage. Anyone thereafter who wanted to be in good standing in the church no longer could have more than one spouse ---- leading to today of marriage between one man and one woman.
 
But it wasn’t a “revelation”. History shows the LDS claimed they stopped polygamy in order to obtain statehood and federal protection.
 
The Manifesto was a smokescreen in order for Utah to get statehood. Many leaders and others secretly continued to practice polygamy for years after the Manifesto.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top