Question About Section 132

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_consiglieri
_Emeritus
Posts: 6186
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:47 pm

Question About Section 132

Post by _consiglieri »

I have some friends who are starting to take the line advocated by Rock Waterman that Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy but it was started up by Brigham Young after Joseph died.

This view necessitates a reassessment of D&C 132.

What they have told me is that this section was unknown in the days of Joseph Smith and that Brigham Young pulled it out of a drawer in his desk in Utah at some late date and falsely attributed it to Joseph Smith.

I don't know anything about this particular issue and was wondering if somebody could fill me in.

Thanks in advance!

--Consiglieri
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
_consiglieri
_Emeritus
Posts: 6186
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:47 pm

Re: Question About Section 132

Post by _consiglieri »

I have already pointed out the irony that modern-day "restorationist" Mormons are taking the same position as that advocated for a century by the Reorganized LDS Church . . . only to be finally jettisoned when the evidence became too overwhelming that Joseph Smith did, in fact, practice polygamy.

I have also asked the question why there were so many accusations against Joseph Smith that he was practicing polygamy, including section 101 of the 1835 D&C as well as the one and only issue of the Nauvoo Expositor, if there was really no fire at all to cause such smoke.

I was hoping to find a little more about any contemporary evidence of the circulation of section 132.

I know the story is that Hyrum asked Joseph to write it down so Hyrum could present it to Emma, thinking he could convince Emma of its truth . . . an attempt less than successful.

Did Hyrum or anybody else mention this? What is the source for this story?

How early can it be dated?

These are among the things I am wondering.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
_Brackite
_Emeritus
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:12 am

Re: Question About Section 132

Post by _Brackite »

If Brigham Young authored D&C Section 132 instead of Joseph Smith, I very much doubt that Brigham Young would have included verse 66 in that section.
Here is that verse:

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.
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
_consiglieri
_Emeritus
Posts: 6186
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:47 pm

Re: Question About Section 132

Post by _consiglieri »

Brackite wrote:If Brigham Young authored D&C Section 132 instead of Joseph Smith, I very much doubt that Brigham Young would have included verse 66 in that section.
Here is that verse:

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.


A good point.

Though now that you bring it up, that does sound reminiscent of the closing language of the only D&C section attributed to Brigham Young:

136:42 Be diligent in keeping all my commandments, lest judgments come upon you, and your faith fail you, and your enemies triumph over you. So no more at present. Amen and Amen.


Just did a search for the word "present" in the D&C. The only two times it appears as a closing from the Lord in terms of saying that this is all the information that will be given at "present" are in these two instances.

This is starting to get interesting . . .
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Re: Question About Section 132

Post by _Jason Bourne »

consiglieri wrote:I have some friends who are starting to take the line advocated by Rock Waterman that Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy but it was started up by Brigham Young after Joseph died.

This view necessitates a reassessment of D&C 132.

What they have told me is that this section was unknown in the days of Joseph Smith and that Brigham Young pulled it out of a drawer in his desk in Utah at some late date and falsely attributed it to Joseph Smith.

I don't know anything about this particular issue and was wondering if somebody could fill me in.

Thanks in advance!

--Consiglieri

Quite simply they are full of BS and deluded. Joseph Smith practiced and introduced plural marriage.

And how does this help a Utah church Mormon? Do they feel better if BY was off the wall rather than Joseph?
_consiglieri
_Emeritus
Posts: 6186
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:47 pm

Re: Question About Section 132

Post by _consiglieri »

I went through the link to the Nauvoo Expositor and copied and pasted the relevant affidavits of William Law and his Wife Jane.




Excerpts from the first and only issue of the Nauvoo Expositor, published June 7, 1844, p. 2

AFFIDAVITS.

I hereby certify that Hyrum Smith did, (in his office,) read to me a certain written document, which he said was a revelation from God, he said that he was with Joseph when it was received. He afterwards gave me the document to read, and I took it to my house, and read it, and showed it to my wife, and returned it next day. the revelation (so called) authorized certain men to have more wives than one at a time, in this world and in the world to come. It said this was the law, and commanded Joseph to enter into the law.--And also that he should administer to others. Several other items were in the revelation, supporting the above doctrines.

Walmart. LAW.

State of Illinois, | I Robert D.
Hancock County | Foster, certify
that the above certificate was sworn to before me, as true in substance, this fourth day of May A.D. 1844.

ROBERT D. FOSTER, J.P.


I certify that I read the revelation referred to in the above affidavit of my husband, it sustained in strong terms the doctrine of more wives than one at a time, in this world, and in the next, it authorized some to have to the number of ten, and set forth that those women who would not allow their husbands to have more wives than one who should be under condemnation before God.
JANE LAW.

Sworn and subscribed before me this fourth day of May, A. D. 1844.
ROBERT D. FOSTER, J.P.

To all whom it may Concern:
Forasmuch as the public mind hath been much agitated by a course of procedure in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, by a number of persons declaring against certain doctrines and practices therein, (among whom I am one,) it is but meet that I should give my reasons, at least in part, as a cause that hath led me to declare myself. In the latter part of the summer, 1843, the Patriarch, Hyrum Smith, did in the High Council, of which I was a member, introduce what he said was a revelation given through the Prophet; that the said Hyrum Smith did essay to read the said revelation in the said Council, that according to his reading there was contained the following doctrines; 1st, the sealing up of persons to eternal life, against all sins, save that of sheding innocent blood or of consenting thereto; 2nd, the doctrine of a plurality of wives, or marrying virgins; that "David and Solomon had many wives, yet in this they sinned not save in the matter of Uriah. This revelation with other evidence, that the aforesaid heresies were taught and practiced in the Church; determined me to leave the office of first counsellor to the president of the Church at Nauvoo, inasmuch as I dared not to teach or administer such laws. And further deponent saith not.

AUSTIN COWLES.
State of Illinois, | ss. To all whom
Hancock County, | it may concern
I hereby certify that the above certificate was sworn and subscribed before me, this fourth day of May, 1844.

ROBERT D. FOSTER, J.P.



In light of these affidavits demonstrably in circulation prior to Joseph Smith's death, I think one would be hard pressed to argue that section 132 was a late creation by Brigham Young.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
_Nevo
_Emeritus
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:05 pm

Re: Question About Section 132

Post by _Nevo »

consiglieri wrote:I know the story is that Hyrum asked Joseph to write it down so Hyrum could present it to Emma, thinking he could convince Emma of its truth . . . an attempt less than successful.

Did Hyrum or anybody else mention this? What is the source for this story?

William Clayton's journal mentions it.

12 July 1843, Wednesday
Wednesday 12th This A.M, I wrote a Revelation consisting of 10 pages on the order of the priesthood, showing the designs in Moses, Abraham, David and Solomon having many wives & concubines &c. After it was wrote Prests. Joseph & Hyrum presented it and read it to E. who said she did not believe a word of it and appeared very rebellious. J told me to Deed all the unincumbered lots to E. and the children He appears much troubled about E.


http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/clayton-diaries
_consiglieri
_Emeritus
Posts: 6186
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:47 pm

Re: Question About Section 132

Post by _consiglieri »

Boom, Nevo!

I think that pretty much cinches the case.

I am starting to wonder, though, along the lines of Jason, why it is that a group of current LDS are beginning to promulgate this theory that was too much even for the Reorganized LDS Church to keep going.

Any thoughts on that?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Re: Question About Section 132

Post by _bcspace »

Any thoughts on that?


I think it's as simple as they were unable to successfully defend something about it or reconcile it with their personal worldview and so they claim it's not doctrine or it's not scripture or it doesn't exist. Happens all the time as you can plainly see on the MDDB though usually it's mostly among Mormons who consider themselves left wing which makes them much more susceptible to unbelief.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Re: Question About Section 132

Post by _Jason Bourne »

bcspace wrote:
I think it's as simple as they were unable to successfully defend something about it or reconcile it with their personal worldview and so they claim it's not doctrine or it's not scripture or it doesn't exist. Happens all the time as you can plainly see on the MDDB though usually it's mostly among Mormons who consider themselves left wing which makes them much more susceptible to unbelief.



Nah BC it is on both side. Alan Rock Waterman is pretty conservative in his LDS views and he denies JSs involvement in polygamy.

You either simply accept from Joseph Smith what you would never accept from anyone else because you believe God told him to do some of this far out stuff, you decide he didn't do it because the far our stuff is too hard to reconcile really coming from God, or you reject it as simply not plausible.

It really seems conservative views makes one more likely to be irrational and accept the bizarre well and put aside critical thinking.
Post Reply