💒 D&C 132¶
Estimated time to read: 12 minutes
This is still canon scripture somehow.
I won't copy the entire section here, just some excerpts with commentary. The page header is a link to the scripture itself, if you'd like to read it for yourself. Or, consider the Topical Guide entry for the New & Everlasting Covenant, which is definitely just eternal marriage, regular ol' hetero marriage— just longer. Nothing about external parties, nope.
Notes¶
Quick observation: the term "saith the Lord" appears 23 times in this section. Out of 66 verses, 34% of them need to remind us of who's talking... You know, in case that wasn't evident by the pretext of this document being revelatory.
Section Heading¶
Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet . . . relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant and the principle of plural marriage.
Wait, hold on, I think they misspelled 'eternal' marriage...
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.
Why would we dress it up and call it the new and everlasting covenant if it wasn’t a code term? There’s already a word for it. Marriage. English grammar allows us to put a qualifying adjective before it; Eternal Marriage is self-explanatory enough that it doesn’t need a code phrase, because Plural Marriage (explicitly stated in the section header; also self-explanatory) just doesn’t sound so innocuous.
There wasn’t a recognized term for religious sanction on polygamy. Gotta call it something or else we’ll look like a sex cult.
7¶
And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants . . . that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise . . . 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.
Only one person on the earth can do this…? Can sanctify a marriage to be eternal, or justify polygamy?
“This is very important; only my boy Joseph Smith can do this, it’s that special.” Gotcha. What's that? Hundreds of temples being constructed in the 21st century, each to officiate marriages? Nah, just one guy can do it.
12¶
I am the Lord thy God; and I give unto you this commandment—that no man shall come unto the Father but by me or by my word, which is my law, saith the Lord.
If this is a tangent, not fitting the context of polygamy, then… what is it doing here? This has been iterated enough times already. Is it safe to assume the context of this verse is applicable to polygamy? No man comes to the Father unless they are polygamous? Because I have a hard time imagining God emphasizing obedience and compliance His authority, if he's going to command you to do something that already sounds appealing.
15 to 17¶
Therefore, if a man 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.
Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.
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 angels of God forever and ever.
These verses are only describing marriage, which stands in contrast to the mentions of one new & everlasting covenant. Those who do not get married by proper authority will not become gods but will be single, unmarried angels... for some reason.
I'm interested to find a timeline of events from when this document was purportedly written, and the notorious Plan of Salvation. Angels that "did not abide my law" are not put in the lesser kingdoms of glory? To be clear, I've encountered claims that D&C 132 has been retroactively modified by later church leaders, but I haven't gathered enough info to prove one way or the other.
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 covenant 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. . . .
Whoops, what’s this? We can make a covenant with our spouse for eternity outside the purview of priesthood authority? That’s an explicitly stated use case here.
This makes me think that the new & everlasting covenant is not simply and exclusively eternal marriage.
19¶
And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them— Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; . . . to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.
“If they get married by the new and everlasting covenant…”
Or, to "translate" the milquetoast definition of that covenant,
"If they get married by the 'getting married' agreement"
Do you see how silly that sounds? This new covenant must not mean simply eternal marriage, or else God has a kindergartners level of sentence structure. The only way for that sentence to make sense is if the new & everlasting covenant is something more than simply and exclusively marriage.
20 to 21¶
Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory.
Idk man, I was always told that Mormons becoming Gods wasn’t canon. How did I miss this? Moreover, this is pretty strongly implying that only the polygamous Mormons will become gods, so... I guess by some mental gymnastics, no, today's Mormons wouldn't.
33¶
But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.
Can’t get into heaven unless you do it.
Also, can't we delineate and specify what this promise exactly is? Did God make only one promise to Abraham, and it's that one? Is that the only verbal assurance of anything from God via his chosen mouthpiece, messenger, spokesperson, representative, etc? About anything? Is it so commonly known that we can just say "that promise"?
38¶
David also received many 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.
Many wives and concubines, you say? It wasn't a sin? ... We're still talking about eternal monogamous marriage, right?
Quick side note:
Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
Which is it? These verses are talking about the same thing and are in direct conflict.
47¶
And again, verily I say, whomsoever you bless I will bless, and whomsoever you curse I will curse, saith the Lord; for I, the Lord, am thy God.
No room for abuse of power here, nope
"You" refers to Joseph, I assume?
“Everything I do, God does. What I will to happen is God’s will.”
Shouldn’t this be the other way around? The prophet does God’s will?
This is an endorsement, this is committing to back up anything the mortal leader does. JS’ actions have God’s unconditional seal of approval.
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.
I suppose that settles who "you" refers to.
... Am I being told to believe that this would mean Emma is not meant to follow the new & everlasting covenant, which means eternal marriage? Or should I conclude that this means Emma, specifically, should not have extramarital affairs? (in case that's what the world today needed to know)
I’ve seen an unsubstantiated claim that this is referring to Emma being offered to have extramarital relations to “get even” with Joseph, hoping it would even the score, so she’ll get off his back about polygamy. "Go hook up with William Law."
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.
“God said you have to shut up and accept my extra plural wives. So there.”
How can I interpret this to mean ANYTHING ELSE other than polygamy?
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.
“Thus saith me (I'm still God talking, btw): Joseph, your wife needs to stop being a bitch and shut up.”
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.
What trespasses? This is still the revelation about eternal monogamous marriage, right?
At face value, this sounds passive aggressive, condescending to Emma who perceives the attempts at polygamy as trespasses. This is speculation, but God Joseph seems to be deflecting saying he has to be forgiven, because “well Emma not like you haven’t been pristine-perfect either 🤓”
61 to 63¶
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.
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.
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. . .
WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS
THIS IS STILL CANON
IT IS STILL BEING PUBLISHED AND DISTRIBUTED
One could make the argument that “virgin” could mean “young female human irrespective of sexual encounters”, much like it does in biblical times? That argument, if valid, would mean that polygamy and pedophilia go together nicely? Is that what I'd be reading?
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.
“pertaining to these things” appended to “the law of my priesthood” in this section makes me think that the law of priesthood is another phrase to describe polygamy.
“Or she shall be destroyed” hmm ok sure
Are we going to spin this and say being destroyed doesn’t mean being destroyed? Or that this isn't spousal abuse? Its literally describing threat of death as a consequence for not being obedient.
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. . .
With God’s seal of approval from verse 47, there’s no way for me to know at this point if it’s Joseph or God dictating this verse.
D&C 1:38: whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.
Huh. Well I guess it doesn’t matter, then.