Today’s episode continues the discussion on Polygamy with the (in)famous revelation still canonized in Mormon/LDS scripture as Section 132 of the Doctrine & Covenants. Mike sets up the historical & personal context of the timing of this revelation and the problematic ideas presented in it as coming from God including how God views women, redefining adultery and other moral issues, and the various rules and justifications given by God to practice polygamy.
Mike goes on to show that Joseph admits himself that polygamy is something he wanted, and despite being the receiver of the various specific rules defined by God, he nevertheless proceeds to break every one of them.
Finally, Mike goes over the many apologetics around this section of the Doctrine & Covenants and the problems with most of the arguments attempting to justify the revelation, Joseph’s polygamy, and the resulting polygamy among many of the branches of Mormonism, some continuing to this day.
Special Guest: Elisha Lee
- Faith Unraveled Tiktok (Faith Transition Focused)
- Soul Unraveled Tiktok (Personal Journey Focused)
LDS Discussion Essay on Polygamy
- 1673: An Introduction to Mormon Polygamy w/ LDS Discussions – 24
- 1679: Joseph Smith’s Plural Marriage Proposals Pt 1 w/ LDS Discussions – 26
- 1682: Joseph Smith’s Plural Marriage Proposals Pt 2 w/ LDS Discussions – 27
- 1688: The Happiness Letter (Joseph Smith’s Proposition to Nancy Rigdon) w/ LDS Discussions – 28
- 1691: Polygamy Apologetics, Spiritual Wifery, etc w/ LDS Discussions – 29
LDS Discussions is made possible by generous donors!
Help us continue to deliver quality content by becoming a donor today:
- One-time or recurring donation through Donorbox
- Support us on Patreon
- Pick “Mormon Stories” as your charity on Amazon Smile or through the Amazon App
LDS Discussions Platforms:
- LDS Discussions Website
- LDS Discussions on Anchor
- LDS Discussions on Spotify
- LDS Discussions Playlist on YouTube
Contact LDS Discussions:
- Twitter: @ldsdicussions
- Facebook: @ldsdiscussion
- Insta: @ldsdiscussions
- Email: ldsdiscussions@gmail.com
Contact us:
MormonStories@gmail.com
PO Box 171085, Salt Lake City, UT 84117
Social Media:
Show Notes:
Related Mormon Stories Episodes:
- 1555: Mormon Polygamy Apologetics w/ Sandra Tanner Pt. 1
- 1565: Mormon Polygamy Apologetics w/ Sandra Tanner Pt. 2
- 1577: The TRUTH About Joseph Smith’s Polygamy w/ Sandra Tanner – pt 3
- 860-861: Carol Lynn Pearson – The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy
- 1652-1654: Taking Down Warren Jeffs – Elissa Wall
- 324-326: Grant Palmer on Sexual Allegations Against Joseph Smith, William and Jane Law, and His Resignation
- 1332-1335: Ed Decker – Ex-Mormon, Evangelical Christian, Career “Anti-Mormon,” and Creator of “The God Makers”
- 012-014: An Introduction to Mormon Polygamy with Todd Compton
Official LDS Gospel Topics Essays on Polygamy:
- Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
- Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo
- Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah
- The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage
Books Mentioned
- In Sacred Loneliness by Todd Compton
- The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy by Carol Lynn Pearson
Podcasts
- Year of Polygamy w/ Lindsay Hansen Park
Other Sources
- And upon the Handmaids in Those Days Will I Pour Out My Spirit by Julie B Beck (Mormon/LDS Relief Society President)
- Doctrine & Covenants 121:41-43 Liahona article on unrighteous dominion
- Godmakers Cartoon by Ed Decker
7 Responses
According to William Law. Smith proposed that he (Law) serve as a surrogate husband for Emma. To quote from Letter 1. from Law to W. Wyl, (Jan 7 1887) “…the fact the Joseph offered to furnish his wife, Emma with a substitute for him, by way of compensation for his neglect of her, on condition that she would forever stop her opposition to polygamy, and permit him to enjoy his young wives in peace. . .” Then read the portion of D&C 32 where the Lord Commands Emma to cleave unto Joseph and no one else or be destroyed. And also declared that what he had just commanded was just a test. Draw your own conclusions what that was all about.
I’m only about 45 minutes into this episode but I have a couple of thoughts.
It is referenced that Joseph could’ve added in the supposed beginning of polygamy revelations from 1831 into the 1835 D&C. I think a stronger case is to look at the 1844 D&C. The newer 1844 edition was in its final stages of editing. Two arguments: Joseph could’ve added in this current section 132 revelation if it was valid, he also could’ve added in anything related to the Nauvoo endowments and sealings at this time. Along with this is the fact that he left in the sections that supports monogamy in 1844.
My last thought around the 45 minute mark is with Mike reference to D&C 132: 1. I appreciate him bringing up that Joseph was the one asking about it. If we link this to Ezekiel 14, a chapter that Joseph taught on in Nauvoo during a Relief Society meeting. The Lord says he will answer men according to their false idols. I will link this in my scriptures now when members say that 132 is a valid revelation.
William Clayton recorded “Made Deed for 1/2 S[team] B[oat] Maid of Iowa from Joseph to Emma. Also a Deed to E[mma] for over 60 city lots.” George D. Smith, ed., An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1995), 110.
I have always wondered if the command “…let not my servant Joseph put his property out of his hands…” in verse 57 was added to undo this transfer, since it was undone.
Mormon doctrine is so convoluted. We are told we will have the same personalities and traits in the hereafter as we do now. Yet we are expected to believe people will completely change when they are perfected.
What I find so ridiculous and contradicting is that apologetics, Book of Mormon, D&C initially say that polygamy was supposed to be used only to “raise up seed”. Then, Joseph smith goes on to say that polygamy is a law for the eternities. So which one is it? This guy can’t keep his story straight.
Need a downloadable audio-only file for those of us who commute through dead zones. Thank you@
Apologies, Edward! It’s up now!