DC 132 why?

I agree with your position in many ways, Dax, but I feel like I need to point out the following:

if (The Church) continues to teach DC132

I know it’s still in the D&C as scripture, and I know we study the D&C every few years, but, just like the other stuff we basically ignore from our other scriptures (including the Book of Mormon), we don’t really teach D&C 132 anymore as a church. It’s kind of treated as an explanation for what used to be and nothing more.

Honestly, I don’t remember hearing D&C 132 referenced in a General Conference talk or a Sacrament Meeting talk. It might have happened at some point in the last 50 years of my time attending church, but I don’t remember one case.

I wouldn’t cry if that section was removed from the D&C, but our method of operation is more to ignore stuff we don’t accept anymore (like Paul’s cultural messages about women speaking in church and not cutting their hair). I’m OK with that, since I personally like to know what used to be believed – and since critics would use the removal of a section from the D&C as further proof of white-washing. Given those two alternatives, I’m OK with ignoring and not teaching it.

I can remember talking in Sunday school about how Joseph modified revelations as he grew in his understanding — so I don’t see any reason why the top leadership can’t edit 132 to bring it in line with current teachings on the subject. It could be much much shorter and address the monogamous version of eternal marriage & covenants, exaltation etc. without the polygamy and women submission parts.

That’s my vote.

I can remember talking in Sunday school about how Joseph modified revelations as he grew in his understanding — so I don’t see any reason why the top leadership can’t edit 132 to bring it in line with current teachings on the subject. It could be much much shorter and address the monogamous version of eternal marriage & covenants, exaltation etc. without the polygamy and women submission parts.

That’s my vote.

Seconded!

I’m not really even sure that D&C 132 came, as we have it, from JS. Here are a handful of reasons for my suspicions:

– The revelation was never published during JS’s lifetime. It was made public August 28th, 1852 and first printed in the Deseret News, September 14, 1852. It was published abroad, in the English Millenial Star in 1869. It appeared in the D&C, for the first time, in 1876.

– JS did apparently dictate a revelation and show it to Emma. This fact was recorded by William Clayton, JS’s scribe. According to later info, Emma burned the revelation. However, a man named Joseph Kingsbury was said to have copied the original before Emma burned it.

– William Law said, in 1887, that he had seen the revelation and that it was much shorter than the one in the D&C… that’s a long time to remember that specific detail, however.

– From a textual criticism viewpoint, there are many elements that could point to it having been written at a later time: 1) verse 60 hints at JS’s “sacrifice which I will require at his hands” probably referencing the martyrdom, 2) references to Emma being destroyed if she doesn’t accept, certainly the view of Utah-era mormons, 3) polygamy as described in D&C 132 closely reflects Utah-era polygamy (organized and institutionalized, with formulated rules and procedures, done to multiply and replenish the earth, only virgin women, first wife to give consent), and does not closely reflect Nauvoo-era polygamy (highly varied; lacking consistency, marriages without children, probably most marriages without sex, polyandry, marriages kept secret from Emma).

– To me, it doesn’t sound like a JS revelation. It is very dogmatic and lacks his usual flair.

I’m not saying that JS was innocent of polygamy… he clearly practiced it, and it caused problems with Emma, with other church leaders, with neighbors, and eventually led to his demise. I’m just skeptical that Section 132 contains the words as dictated by JS.

Would that we could put a cosmic microphone up to the mouth of all women who lived polygamously and tell them to be honest.

From Eliza Partridge (Smith) (Lyman) in 1877:

After a time, my sister Emily and myself went to live in the family of the Prophet Joseph Smith. We lived there about three years. While there, he taught to us the plan of celestial marriage and asked us to enter into that order with him. This was truly a great trial for me but I had the most implicit confidence in him as a Prophet of the Lord and not but believe his words and as a matter of course accept of the privilege of being sealed to him as a wife for time and all eternity. We were sealed in 1843 by H. C. K. in the presence of witnesses. I continued to live in his family for a length of time after this but did not reside there when he was martyred which was the 27th of June, 1844.

I was then living with a family by the name of Coolidge. I stayed with them for a year or more until I was married to a man by the name of Amasa Lyman, one of the Twelve Apostles. I then went to live with my mother for a while and after that lived with him and his wife, Maria Louisa. Times were not then as they are now in 1877, but a woman living in polygamy dare not let it be known and nothing but a firm desire to keep the commandments of the Lord could have induced a girl to marry in that way. I thought my trials were very severe in the line and I am often led to wonder how it was that a person of my temperament could get along with it and not rebel, but I know it was the Lord who kept me from opposing his plans although in my heart I felt that I could not submit to them; but I did and I am thankful to my Heavenly Father for the care he had over me in those troublous times.

Roy,

I don’t think that it is that black or white. In my own mind, while I emphatically reject polygamy as being from God, I don’t really believe it was all a ruse to sleep with as many women as possible. I just believe JS was too substantial of a figure, who accomplished too much, to simply be relegated to creeper status.

Personally, I think it had more to do with family bonding, similar to royal marriages. Just before polygamy burst onto the scene, JS nearly lost control of the church to the Whitmer family, and in the ensuing power struggle, the Whitmers were exommunicated. This included Oliver Cowdery and Hiram Page, early important leaders in the church, who were married to Whitmer daughters. The Smith family, conversely, wasn’t related by marriage to any family of consequence in the church hierarchy. My opinion is that JS saw the value of family bonds, as a way to strengthen the movement. Some of his wives were family members of important church leaders of the Nauvoo era. Heber C Kimball’s only daughter (at the time), Willard Richard’s sister, Brigham Young’s sister, Newel K. Whitney’s daughter. Familial relationships must have become very important for the inner circle Mormons as the doctrines were developed regarding families in the eternities, and I think polygamy provided a way to accomplish it.

In addition, polygamy solved a quandary about eternal marriages in a time when most people would probably have more than one spouse in their lifetime, due to plain old mortality.

Finally, JS made a real attempt to connect with the ancient. Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods, for example. Restoring the ancient church. Translation of the bible. Study of Hebrew. Apostles and Patriarchs. Zion. Temples. Revelations or translations regarding Moses and Abraham. Using masonic elements (supposedly from ancient orders connected to the Temple of Solomon) in his own rituals… JS had a fascination with that kind of thing… It’s not out of the realm of possibility that JS was just trying, sincerely, to model his society after the time of the patriarchs.

In other words, his motives could have been sincere… I don’t think it is even a stretch to believe so.

Here’s a proposed statement that I suggested the church could make (from a long-ago thread on these forums):

“In the early days of the Church, Joseph Smith attempted to coalesce the doctrine of eternal marriage with the reality that many would be married more than once in this life. He came to believe and to preach that eternal marriages could be performed between a righteous man and more than one woman. Later prophets, including Brigham Young, followed the teachings faithfully, and polygamy grew to become a major characteristic of the Church. In 1890, the Church officially ceased the practice of polygamy. We now declare that while Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other faithful leaders of the time tried to mesh their lives with the principles that they learned from God, that polygamy itself is not a doctrine of the gospel. We declare that a man should have one spouse and that a woman should have one spouse, and that it will be so in the eternities.”

“In the early days of the Church, Joseph Smith attempted to coalesce the doctrine of eternal marriage with the reality that many would be married more than once in this life. He came to believe and to preach that eternal marriages could be performed between a righteous man and more than one woman. Later prophets, including Brigham Young, followed the teachings faithfully, and polygamy grew to become a major characteristic of the Church. In 1890, the Church officially ceased the practice of polygamy. We now declare that while Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other faithful leaders of the time tried to mesh their lives with the principles that they learned from God, that polygamy itself is not a doctrine of the gospel. We declare that a man should have one spouse and that a woman should have one spouse, and that it will be so in the eternities.”

Great wording On Our Own. I would add though that such sections as DC 132 need to be addressed as most likely incorrect or they will still do harm. This is supposed “revelation” straight from God.

I also agree with Ann that women being silent about these things is not agreement more conditioning.