B (2:30)

Too, of which there are aplenty so. Well, with that then, Casey, should we just get into the context? There's Quite a meaty context on this one. Do you want to start us out with our first C.

A (2:46)

These teachings were received during the intensely personal context of ongoing discussions about the subject of eternal and plural marriage between Joseph Smith and his wife Emma. And it was initially received to help Emma understand the principles surrounding the practice of plural marriage. Now, in order to do that, we need to back up just a little bit and talk about the origins of plural marriage within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. So we don't know the precise origins, though some evidence points us towards the principles of plural marriage being revealed early on. The number we usually give is 1831, but in October of 2025, they actually changed the section heading to section 132 to just, instead of saying as early as 1831, even earlier, because there's some dispute as to when this happens. But it's likely Joseph Smith began asking questions about this practice while he was engaged in his project to produce a new translation of the Bible. In fact, Joseph Noble, who was one of Joseph Smith's associates, said that's what Joseph Smith told him, that he came across those passages in the Book of Genesis in particular, that talked about a new and everlasting covenant and noticed that Abraham and Jacob had multiple wives and then asked about it, too. Doctrine and Covenants 132 directly states that Joseph prayed to know why Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Moses, David and Solomon entered into the practice of having more than one wife. And the Lord responds in verses 34 to 38 that he had commanded these prophets to enter into these relationships. So it's clear that early on, marriage was a big deal. Some early revelations, like Section 49, mention that, but also plural marriage. They're taking everything in the Bible that they read seriously. In fact, I've heard Terrell Givens, who's a wonderful scholar, say it was kind of inevitable that they were going to confront this question, since they're talking about a restoration of all things, not just New Testament teachings, but Old Testament teachings as well. So throughout the 1830s, Joseph Smith begins to privately teach a small number of Latter Day Saint couples that their relationship would become eternal if they had endured in the faith. For example, William W. Phelps wrote to his wife in 1835 about, in his words, a new idea. Sally, if you and I continue faithful to the end, we are certain of being one in the Lord throughout eternity, end of quote. To the early saints, these ideas about plural marriage and eternal marriage are inseparably connected to each other. And around 1836, records indicate that Joseph married his first plural wife, a woman named Fanny Alger. Sources on this relationship are scattered. And because this information was related by some participants decades after the fact, we need to approach these sources cautiously. Don Bradley, our mutual friend who we've. We've interviewed before, he went through the sources really carefully, and the conclusion he came to was that the marriage to Fanny Alger probably happened mid-1836, which seems consistent with the Kirtland temple being dedicated. Joseph Smith receiving the sealing keys and then starting to use them around that time. The big thing that we don't know is what conversations Joseph and Emma had surrounding this first plural union. It appears, and these are all from secondary sources that are fairly late, that Emma did not ultimately approve of the marriage and that Fanny was asked by Emma to leave after this experience. Joseph Smith kind of sets aside plural marriage for several years. So scattered sources, and it's difficult to put together a good picture on those early things because, again, late sources, but also some people that are antagonistic towards Joseph, others that are supportive, it can be difficult to sort through with the information we have right now.

B (6:45)

Yeah, and then after 1836, like latter 1836, 36, 37, we're going to get, like, a lot of trouble in Nauvoo. We're going to get into the banking crisis, the Kirtland apostasy, the move to Far west, and then that doesn't go very well after a couple months. We're going to then get into, you know, expulsion from Missouri, the extermination order. Joseph's in Liberty Jail. Things are all just. I mean, things are in disarray in the church. Like, things are hard to. There's not a lot of continuity and stability. And so once they get to Nauvoo and, you know, they buy this place called Commerce, they change the. To Nauvoo, they start to settle in. And right then again, so we're talking early 1840s. Okay. This is when Joseph begins to introduce the principle of plural marriage again. Apparently, he appears to have been commanded again to begin the practice. So the 1836 one didn't go so well. 1841. Now, let's. Let's get this going again. And he actually starts to teach it to a group of trusted associates. And by the time this revelation is recorded, section 132, which is in July of 1843, Joseph had entered into dozens of plural marriages, some with Emma's knowledge and some without. Emma had continued to struggle to accept this new teaching, and her resistance complicated Joseph's practice of the principle, to put it mildly, Although she did seek for a time to embrace it. This is In May of 1843, before this revelation is recorded. But she just struggled mightily with the actual practice of this on a lot of levels, to the point that it almost ended their marriage. And so section 132 is written down at the request of Hyrum Smith, who was seeking to help Emma understand the principles underneath plural marriage. Hyrum himself had struggled with plural marriage, and accepting this teaching took some time. But after some careful discussions, prayer, he does become convinced of its truth. And so now he actually offers to help Emma understand the principles as well. And William Clayton, Joseph's scribe, remembered being present when this revelation was actually written down. He recorded that on July 12, 1843, Joseph and Hyrum Smith sat down in the office on the upper floor of Joseph's red brick store in Nauvoo. Hyrum told Joseph, quote, if you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take it and read it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace. Joseph smiled and said, you do not know Emma as well as I do. Hyrum felt that this doctrine is so plain, I can convince any reasonable man or woman of its truth, purity, and heavenly origin. So Joseph says, okay, and he asked William to go get some paper so that he could record the revelation. That's when Joseph sits down and dictates section 132, while William Clayton recorded it sentence by sentence. And when Joseph was finished, he asked William to read the revelation back to him, and he pronounced it correct. Joseph then commented that there was much more he could write on the same subject, but what was written was sufficient for the present. Hyrum then took the revelation to Emma while Joseph and William waited in the office. When Hyrum returned, Joseph asked how Emma had responded, and Hyrum replied, quote, he had never received a more severe talking to in his life and that Emma was very bitter and full of resentment and anger. So William Clayton noted that Joseph then quietly remarked, I told you you did not know Emma as well as I did.

A (10:16)

Now, that's the classic context that's always associated with section 132. But I just want to point out a couple of things. The incident that Will Clayton records is not the first or the last conversation that Joseph and Emma have on the subject. And again, just telling that story, a lot of times we make it sound like Hyrum Smith was being sent to fight Joseph's Battles. From what we can tell, they had been discussing this for well nigh over a decade at this point. And Hyrum was trying to break the impasse between them. He was trying to see if he could be a peacemaker between the two. For example, the next thing that Clayton says is that when Joseph said, I told you, you didn't know him as well as I did, that he and Hyrum leave. Where do they go? Joseph's journal for this day records, I was in conversation with Emma most of the day. So he goes and he talks to Emma after she rejects Hyrum's bringing the revelation to her. And it seems like from the sources that we have, even after the revelation was written down, Emma Smith still continues to struggle with it, which is very understandable. This is tough stuff. The challenges surrounding plural marriage would have been really difficult for anybod. But because of this personal context surrounding section 132, we really need to read it carefully and be considerate and kind towards the people involved and the issues they were struggling with. Like, we just need to give them the benefit of the doubt.

B (11:43)

As we read D&C132, it struck me that it's almost like we're eavesdropping in on a difficult moment for Joseph and Emma when their marriage was in trouble. And this revelation is speaking directly into that context for that couple. And to be Frank, Cayce, this revelation, the way it's recorded, was not really intended for the whole church to read originally.

A (12:06)

Yeah, I mean, no less a figure than Joseph F. Smith, who's the son of Hyrum Smith and the president of the church suggests a careful reading of section 132. Like, here's a statement that he made, okay? He said, when the revelation referring to section 132 was given in 1843, it was for the special purpose by the request of the Patriarch Hyrum Smith, and was not then designed to go forth to the church or to the world. It is most profitable that it had been then written with a view of its going out as a doctrine of the Church. It would have been presented in a somewhat different form. There are personalities, Emma Smith specifically contained in a part of it which are not relevant to the principle itself, but rather to the circumstances which necessitated its being written at the time. Joseph Smith, on the day it was written, expressly declared that there was a great deal more connected with the doctrine which would be revealed in due time. But this was sufficient for the occasion and was made to suffice for the time. So here's Joseph F. Smith, who practiced plural marriage, by the way, and was an ardent defender of it, but also led the Church in the post manifesto era after plural marriage had been ended, saying, hey, this was a revelation to an individual. It was a revelation to Emma Smith and not a revelation to the Church. And there are plenty of revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants that are intended for individuals that are still useful for doctrine. But we always got to be cautious with those kinds of revelations to make sure we understand the context. And we don't always do that with section 132. We sometimes just grab portions of it out and use it for whatever purpose suits us. When Joseph Smith said the full teachings would be revealed, the full teachings surrounding the nature of eternal marriage came through the sacred ceremonies that are revealed to take place in the temple. In fact, in a discourse given several days after section 133 was recorded, Joseph Smith taught, a man must enter into an everlasting covenant with his wife in this world or he will have no claim on her in the next. And in the same discourse, he actually openly acknowledges, he said he could not reveal the fullness of these things until the temple was completed. So it's the best thing we have that we can publish openly to the world. But it might not be the ideal thing it might have been. I mean, the ideal would have been if Joseph Smith could have received a revelation intended for the public that could then be canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants. But not having one of those, this is. This is the best we can do.

B (14:37)

Yeah. So although doctrine and Covenants 132 is not originally meant for the broad church audience, at least as it's written in its current form, as President Joseph F. Smith said, it does nevertheless serve as an introduction to the basic principles surrounding the sealing power and the duration of eternal relationships. That's covered in verses 1 through 28. In fact, let me just go through the whole section. That's verse one through 28. This is the eternal marriage stuff, like monogamy stuff. Then in verses 29 through 40, we get a theological justification for plural marriage as one application of the eternal marriage foundation in the first 28 verses, followed in verses 41 through 44, with a brief distinction between authorized plural marriage and adultery, then verses 45 through 50 outline Joseph Smith's unique privileges and blessings as the one upon whom the Lord has conferred the keys of seal healing. Then verses 51 through 57 now specifically address Emma Smith and are best understood when read in that context and handled, please, with a Tender regard for their situation.

A (15:46)

Yeah. And another thing to keep in mind is the source history. So the original manuscript of section 132 was read by several church authorities before it was given to Emma Smith, who, according to one source, in frustration, she destroyed it.

B (16:01)

It.

A (16:02)

She burned it. However, a copy had been made at the request of Bishop Newell K. Whitney. Before the original document was destroyed. Joseph Kingsbury copied the original Revelation. And after seeing a copy of the original, William Clayton said the copy made by Joseph C. Kingsbury is a true and correct copy of the original in every respect. The Revelation was then published in the deseret news in 1852. And when the 1876 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants was published, Section 132 was placed in to replace an earlier article on marriage, which was then removed from the Doctrine and Covenants. So source history is a little bit complicated, but we feel pretty good that the information we have here is the same that was dictated to William Clayton in July of 1843.

B (16:48)

Yeah, I couldn't help myself. One time, KC, you and I were actually in Joseph and Emma's home.

A (16:53)

I was going to tell this story if you didn't tell it. So I'm glad you're telling it, because this is classic Scott Woodward.

B (17:00)

Yeah, we were just there, okay. We were just there in the room with a fireplace. And, you know, legend says Emma burned it in her fireplace. And so I just ask a simple question to the sister missionaries. I just said, is this the fireplace where Emma burns her copy of section 132? And, Casey, they didn't know. They weren't sure.

A (17:22)

I still can't believe you did that. I can't believe you did that.

B (17:26)

I was just wondering it. Okay. I was just wondering.

A (17:29)

Poor little sister missionaries. By the way, audience, this was. Was a couple weeks after the property had been sold to our church. So these sister missionaries were pretty fresh and they were working off a script that was, like, brand new. And Scott goes straight to section 132 while we're in there. But, Scott, that's why I love you. You go there, man. You're bold.

B (17:54)

And if those sister missionaries are listening, I just want to apologize if I put you in an uncomfortable place. I didn't mean to. I was just curious.

A (18:02)

You put me in an uncomfortable place. Can I have an apology?

B (18:07)

Yes. Sorry. I'm so sorry.

A (18:08)

Casey, you were there with your family. I was there with a tour group, and I had to explain to my tour group after. Yeah, that's the guy I do a podcast with. And they Were like. Well, I mean, nobody said anything negative, but it was a fun day.

B (18:22)

Always a pleasure. Okay, well, let's get to the second C here, the content. Okay, this is. We do want to be careful and just go through this verse by verse and enjoy the beauty and face the controversial verses head on. So let's. Let's dig in. Verse 1. Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David, and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines, which I think right there tells you that this did come out of the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible. It all but says that. But anyway, let's continue. Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God and will answer thee as touching this matter. Therefore prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you. For all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.

A (19:28)

Ooh.

B (19:29)

I've sometimes wondered if at that moment, Joseph, you know, it's like, you know what? Let's not go there. I was just curious. I didn't know. I'm sure Joseph was not that way because he was a better soul than me, but I might have paused right there and said, let's talk about Kolob or something else, you know? But no, the Lord is saying, if I reveal this law, you will need to obey it. And then he doesn't go directly to plural marriage. He pulls back in verse four and starts to paint a picture of the eternal principle of marriage. Eternal marriage. By couching it in the broader context, even still, of the everlasting covenant. So let's walk through these verses, for behold, verse four. I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant. And if you abide not that covenant, then are ye damned. For no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory. For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing. Blessing, and the conditions thereof as were instituted from before the foundation of the world, and as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fullness of my glory. And he that receiveth a fullness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God. Okay, we gotta chew on that for a second. So notice the subtle difference in verse four, how the Lord distinguishes between a new and an everlasting covenant with over in verse six, the new and everlasting covenant. What's the difference? This is important, right? Because it's. We're kind of nesting several principles within other principles that need to be understood. His questions about plural marriage and the Lord's like, there's no way I can explain this to you until you understand several other key ideas. Then you'll see where plural marriage fits. And so the new and everlasting covenant covenant is defined as all of the Gospel covenants together, the sum total of all gospel covenants and obligations, said president Joseph Fielding Smith on one occasion. He also said, the Gospel itself is the new and everlasting covenant and embraces all the agreements, promises and rewards which the Lord offers to his people. So that's important to keep in mind. The everlasting covenant is everything that leads to our exaltation. Now, each individual ordinance within the everlasting covenant can be considered an everlasting covenant, as the Lord says in verse four. So the ultimate aim of the new and everlasting covenant is to allow men and women to become like God, as he said in verse 6, to obtain the fullness of my glory, which he's going to clarify in verses 19 and 20, what that means. It is literally to become like God, to become heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ. And so when performed by the proper authority, he's going to, he needs to make a whole side explanation, theological explanation about authority and why that matters. But when it's done correctly in the new and everlasting covenant, which encompasses all the ordinances and covenants, then you can become like God. And as just another example of an everlasting covenant, if we go all the way Back to Section 22 of the Doctrine and Covenants, when speaking about baptism, the Lord calls baptism there quote a new and everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning, that starts to help paint a picture for us, right, that each individual ordinance and the covenants that we make are a individual everlasting covenant within the everlasting covenant, which is intended to exalt men and women to become like God. And so those who don't receive that the Lord says in these verses, will be damned, not in like some punishing sense, but in the sense that you cannot become like God where God and Christ dwell. You cannot come worlds without end if you don't obey the everlasting covenant. And the Lord says, I'm now going to teach you about an everlasting covenant within the everlasting covenant. And here we go on to talk about marriage. And so those are some dense couple verses that I just think are if we walk through them slowly, we start to see the theological groundwork the Lord is starting to lay here.

A (23:32)

Yeah, and you said they were dense. It's about to get really dense. I sort of think verse seven is one of the dense verses in all of Scripture, so I'm just going to dive in here. Verily I say unto you that the conditions of this law are all covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy 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 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. Whew. You still with me? Is that the longest verse in all of Scripture?

B (24:37)

I don't think so. But as dance. Yeah.

A (24:40)

The longest sentence in all of scripture, probably. Okay. Then he goes on and says, behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, not a house of confusion. Will I accept of an offering, saith the Lord, that is not made in my name, or will I receive at your hands that which I have not appointed and will I appoint unto you, saith the Lord, except it be by law, even as I and my Father ordained unto you before the world was, 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, and everything that is in the world, whether it be ordained of men by thrones or principalities or powers or things of name, whatsoever they shall be that are not by me or by my word, saith the Lord, shall be thrown down and shall not remain after men are dead, neither in nor after the resurrection, saith the Lord your God. For whatsoever things remain are by me, and whatsoever things are not by me, shall be shaken or destroyed. Let's walk through it. So in these verses, the Lord emphasized that for any covenant oath, promise. I'm just going to say, et cetera at this Point. But he really covers his bases here. To be eternal, it has to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise. That is the gist of it. Okay. And this includes all the ordinances of the Gospel. For instance, if a baptism, endowment, marriage, or any kind of covenant is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, the ordinance is not in force when we're dead. To be sealed, for instance, means that the covenants are made eternally binding so they can continue after a person's mortal life have ended. And receive this seal is in effect to receive the Lord's seal of approval and his blessings for our covenants to continue beyond the grave. So again, it's not just enough to receive an ordinance. The ordinance then receives the seal of approval or is sealed by the Holy Ghost.

B (26:32)

So the sealing means, if I'm understanding these verses right, that that promise will be efficacious in the next life. Like, to be sealed means bound here, bound there. It's going to continue. Is that oversimplified or.

A (26:45)

Yeah, receiving the ordinance is the first step, Right? But then the ordinance has to be sealed and made efficacious through righteous living. Here's how David A. Bednar explains this. He says the Holy Spirit of promise is the ratifying power of the Holy Ghost. When sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, an ordinance, vow or covenant is binding on earth and in heaven. Receiving this stamp of approval from the Holy Ghost is the result of faithfulness, integrity and steadfastness in honoring gospel covenants in the process of time. However, this sealing can be forfeited through unrighteousness and transgression. Purifying and sealing by the Holy Spirit of promise constitute the culminating steps in the process of being born again. That's the end of Elder Bednar's explanation. Great explanation. So the ratifying seal of the Holy Spirit is necessary for all ordinances of the Gospel, and that includes eternal marriage. They must be performed by someone with authority, meaning someone who's anointed, which is what verse seven is referring to. And then they have to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise to last in the eternity. So if I get married in the temple, it has to happen through someone with authority. A sealer who's been set apart and given the authority to do that. But my marriage really isn't eternal until it's sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which gives can take an entire lifetime of faithfulness and being charitable and learning and growing together with the person.

B (28:12)

That I love, you and me. Our minds go directly to marriage. But he hasn't even mentioned marriage yet. He's just laying out the principle, right? The principle is, whatever is sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise will endure, and whatever is not will be shaken and destroyed. So then he drops us into three marriage sessions, scenarios, starting in verse 15 through, like, 24, verse 15. Here's a scenario, for instance, where it wouldn't work. It would. It's not gonna Last. Marriage scenario 1, verse 15. 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 a force when they are dead and when they are out of the world. World, Therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world. So this, this is talking about a civil marriage. I think we call that a civil marriage. And this kind of marriage is legally binding so long as we are in this life. But the Lord says, as soon as death happens, because it's not sealed by my law, by my word, it will not be of force in the next life. This is a till death do us part kind of kind of marriage. And verse 16 continues still talking about this civil type of marriage. He says, therefore, when they husband and wife 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. 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. Wow. So that's. That's scenario one.

A (30:11)

Scenario one. Basically a civil marriage, right? A marriage. You go to Vegas, you find a chapel, you get married. So verse 18 is the second scenario. Scenario two. It reads, 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, not valid, neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word, when they are out of this world, it cannot be received there, because the angels and gods are appointed there by whom they cannot pass. They cannot therefore inherit my glory, for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord. So in the second scenario, scenario two, the marriage is also not of force when the couple leaves this life. And even if a couple aims to create an eternal marriage without proper authority, the marriage is dissolved at death. In addition, if the individuals in the marriage do not live so that the Holy Spirit can provide a ratifying seal to a marriage, it's also not in force when they're dead. So Joseph Fielding Smith explained it this way. He said, if one or both of these covenanting persons break that covenant by which they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, then the Spirit withdraws the deal and the guilty party or parties stands as if there had been no sealing or promise given. All covenants are based on faithfulness. Now, I want to be clear, clear here that sometimes there's not guilty parties, there's one party who's guilty when a marriage isn't sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise. So I hope neither of these scenarios, scenario one or scenario two, implies that there's some kind of cruel or harsh punishment for those who do not enter into eternal relationships in this life for whatever reason. But those individuals cannot enter into the same kind of life that God lived lives. So instead they serve as ministering angels and assist in the work of salvation in their own way. Joseph Smith, for instance, taught gods have an ascendancy over the angels who are ministering servants in the Resurrection. Some are raised to be angels and others are raised to become gods.

B (32:31)

This is reminding me of our discussion way back with Section 88 of the Doctrine and Covenants, where we were kind of talking about whether or not God is capricious. Right? Is do we worship a capricious God where he's just kind of fickle and he's like, well, if you don't obey my rules, then you can't have my blessings. Or is our understanding of God that the way that things are in reality in the universe? We talked about cosmic entropy. Things grow old, they decay, they die. This is entropy. It happens all over. We're seeing it out in the universe. We see it in our own kitchens. We see it in our own bodies. We understand entropy is working upon us. And I think that's what those verses earlier were talking about, that everything that's not sealed is going to be shaken and destroyed. I think that's entropy is going to. It's. It's just a natural thing. And if God does nothing, okay, this is not a punishment. If God does nothing, then marriages dissolve they just do. That's just the nature of the beast. It's not a punishment. Like you're saying, it's not cruel, that if you don't obey God's law that you don't get that blessing. That's not cruel. That's just what is right. That's just status quo. So God being God, a God of goodness and light and truth, and opposite of entropy, I think we called it negentropy. He infuses his law here, his light, his power, his sealing power, so that couples who are willing to submit to the laws of the celestial kingdom here, the everlasting covenant, are now enabled by his intercession here to have their marriages last throughout eternity, because that's the only way ICN can work. So it's actually, it's a major gift and blessing from God to those who are willing to accept his outreached hand rather than viewing it through like a punishment, that if you don't obey his little rules, then you don't get the blessing. You know, there's just a two very different views of God at play here. And I love how it's being explained here. It's, it's, it's beautiful. Not a punishment, it's an opportunities offering to mankind. Let's do scenario number three. Here's the bullseye, the goal. Okay. Verse 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 this couple, ye shall come forth in the first resurrection, and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection, and shall inherit the thrones, kingdoms, principalities and powers, dominions, all heights and depths, then okay. Then shall it be written in the Lamb's book of life that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood. And if ye abide in my covenant and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them in time and through all eternity. Eternity and shall be of full force when they are out of the world, their marriage will be a full force. Right? And then he says, and they shall pass by the angels and the gods which are set there to their exaltation and glory in all things as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fullness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. This is what verse six was talking about way back in verse six when it said that the. The everlasting covenant was instituted for the fullness of my glory. Well, what is that? This. The glory is a fullness and continuation of seeds forever and ever as husband and wife exalted. What is such a couple called? Verse 20. Then shall they be gods, full stop, 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 unto them. Then shall they be gods because they have all power and the angels are subject to them. That's so interesting. I was just thinking about these verses in light of the entropy discussion, like. They are now above all things that tear things down. They are now untouchable in terms of anything that can destroy, tear apart, disintegrate, dissolve. They're above all of that in an exalted union that cannot be severed ever again. How amazing is that? Verily I say unto you, verse 21, except ye abide my law, ye cannot attain to this glory. Verse 22, it's straight as the gate. Narrow is the way that leads unto exaltation and the continuation of the lives, he calls it. And few there be that find it. Because ye receive me not in the world, neither do ye know me. But if ye receive me in the world, then shall ye know me and shall receive your exalted, that where I am, ye shall be also. This is eternal lives to know the only wise and true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent. I am he, receive ye therefore my law. But broad is the gate, he says, I hear with a tinge of sadness in his voice, Broad is the gate, and wide the way that leadeth to the deaths. And many there are that go in there because they receive me not, neither do they abide in my law. So family relationships here stemming from eternal marriages in the law, in the new and everlasting covenant, are the only kind that can transcend death. That's powerful. And any couple who so transcends are literally called gods because they continue and because they have all power and nothing can now sever that relationship. Relationship. That's so beautiful, Casey. That's not just in section 132, but in almost. I don't know, all the doctrine and Covenants. Is that one of the most beautiful things taught in this dispensation? I think so.

A (38:10)

And it's something that we really take for granted, right? We just gloss over this all the time. And, you know, it's only when we have a conversation with someone from another faith that we appreciate how special this is. Like a couple months ago ago, you and I sat down with Pastor Jeff from hello Saints, and we're talking about this. And we love Jeff, and his wife is really awesome, too, but this just isn't a part of his faith tradition. You know what? Seeing its absence in another church makes me appreciate what a special blessing it is to know that the person I'm sealed to I can be with for all eternity, provided I live up to the covenants that I've made.

B (38:56)

Yeah, that's beautiful, man.

A (38:58)

Let me pick it up in verse 26 then. Okay. And this is a point of controversy. I'll just alert you there. Verse 26. Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant, whatever, and all manner of blasphemies. And if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocence and blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection and enter into their exaltation. But they shall be destroyed in the flesh and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan, unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God. The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world, nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood and ascent unto my death after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord. Lord God. And he that abideth not this law can in no wise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord.

B (40:01)

That is strong medicine.

A (40:02)

And when I say this is controversial, these verses can very easily be misread. For instance, the Nauvoo Expositor, the newspaper that basically lights the fuse that leads to Joseph Smith's martyrdom in Carthage jail, quotes this part of section 132, but then interprets it to mean that if you're sitting sealed, you can do anything you want to, excepting murdering someone that's innocent and you'll still be saved. And I gotta emphasize, that is not what this is teaching. Okay? These verses don't teach that a person's exaltation is assured if they enter into the new and everlasting covenant and do not commit murder or commit the unpardonable sin of denying the Holy Ghost, which is explained here. It's explained in section 76, several other places. So just to bring in a big gun here, Joseph Fielding Smith was bothered by people misinterpreting this. He became so frustrated that he wrote this. He said, verse 26 and section 132 is the most abused passage in any scripture. That's what he wrote. He said, the Lord has never promised any soul that he may be taken into exaltation without the spirit of repentance. While repentance is not stated in this passage message, yet it is and must be implied. Then he continues, it's strange to me that everyone knows about verse 26, but it seems they've never read Matthew 12:31,32, where the Lord tells us the same thing in substance as we find in verse 26, section 132. Just as an aside, Matthew 12:31 32 reads, Wherefore I say unto you, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him. But whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. So President Smith cites that verse, and then he continues, so we must conclude, conclude that those spoken of in verse 26 are those who, having sinned, have fully repented and are willing to pay the price of their sinning, else the blessings of exaltation will not follow. Repentance is absolutely necessary for the forgiveness, and the person having sinned must be cleansed. So again, the wording here can be tricky. But President Smith is saying, if you have a holistic understanding of the Scriptures, if you're looking at the harmonized scriptural canon, if you're taking into account all the time statements about sin against the Holy Ghost are made, it's clear that it's not saying they can get away with anything. It's saying and implying that they have to repent. And if they repent, then yes, they will be saved from any sin. Accepting blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, that's an important clarification.

B (43:01)

Okay, moving on to verse 28. I am the Lord thy God and will give unto thee the law of my holy priesthood as was ordained by me and my Father before the world was. What that law is so far is ambiguous. He continues, Verse 29, Abraham received all things. Whatsoever he received by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his Exaltation and sitteth upon his throne. Abraham received promises concerning his seed and of the fruit of his loins. From whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph. Joseph. Which were to continue so long as they were in the world. And as touching Abraham and his seed out of the world. They should continue both in the world and out of the world. Should they continue as innumerable as the stars. Or if you were to count the sand upon the seashore, you could not number them. This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham. And the promise was made unto Abraham, and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, which, wherein he glorifieth himself. Go ye therefore, and do the works of Abraham. Enter ye into my law, and ye shall be saved. But if ye enter not into my law, ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham. Why did he suddenly abruptly shift here after laying out those principles, to start talking about Abraham? And what does he mean that you need to go and do the works of Abraham? So far he's been ambiguous until verse 34. Now you understand where he's going. God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. Why did she do it? Because this was the law. And from Hagar sprang many people. This therefore was fulfilling, among other things, the promises about innumerable seed. Right. Was Abraham therefore under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, nay, for the Lord commanded it. Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac. Nevertheless, it was written, thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. I hear the Lord's tone of voice here being the Come now and let us reason together, saith the Lord. Let's read. Let's think about the complexities of my law. Yes, thou shalt not kill. But what about God's command to Abraham? Yes, thou shalt not commit adult adultery. However, Hagar was approved of God as a second wife to Abraham. So in these verses, the Lord is starting to unfold the principles behind the practice of plural marriage. First, we should say the obvious thing here is plural marriage is biblical. And Joseph knew that. That's how verse one starts. He was asking about the biblical practice of plural marriage, which, by the way, in the Bible it is neither condition condemned nor is it encouraged. It's just stated it's this kind of morally neutral way of writing that has led lots of readers to puzzle on this, like, is it condemned or is it not? Some people will say, absolutely. Because look how Sarah treated Hagar and Notice, look at the problems in their marriage that it caused. And think about Jacob and his four wives and how there was kind of infighting and stuff. Therefore, it's bad. It's like. But notice that you're the one doing that, right? Because guess what, in monogamous marriages, there's also challenges in the biblical marriages all the time. And so it's neutral. So Joseph's asking a good question, right? And the Lord is saying, I did, I did authorize it. I justified it. It was practiced by men and women in the early histories of Genesis as a way of fulfilling the Lord's promises about posterity that he made to them. Right. As enumerated as the stars. He had told that not just to Abraham, but also to Isaac and to Jacob. By the way, we have no record if Isaac was polygamous, but that doesn't really matter for this discussion, right?

A (46:47)

Yeah. And that seems to suggest the covenant goes beyond plural marriage, that Isaac could partake of the new covenant too, even though he was monogamous as well. But there's no disputing that Abraham and Jacob practiced plural marriage. And everybody who takes the Scriptures seriously obviously has to reckon with the exalted status of Abraham, who was a righteous man and who also practiced plural marriage. So again, it's solid reasoning here. I remember doing this as a missionary when people would bring up plural marriage and say, well, what do you think about, like, Abraham and Jacob? And the best they could do was basically to say, well, that was a different time. Which I guess is an argument saying that plural marriage was a cultural thing and not an eternal thing. The Lord's arguing the opposite. No, this is an eternal law. And I'm citing Abraham as my example. And I think there might be another reason why he cites Abraham here specifically. It appears that one of the primary purposes of commanding the early saints to practice plural marriage was to test their faithfulness.

B (47:49)

I think that's a really important principle to think about. It's not just Latter Day Saints who need to wrestle with our polygamous past. All Christians, Christians and Jews for that matter, need to think about the Old Testament and wrestle with their polygamous past. This was an authorized principle that righteous people, like you said, righteous people practice this, and therefore we must wrestle. And so, by the way, I think this is some of the best commentary on the Old Testament practice of polygamy anywhere in Scripture. This is for the first time and only time actually where the Lord weighs in on the morality of it and the basis of it. And so this is so Good.

A (48:30)

Yeah. I mean, let's say all Abrahamic religions have to kind of have this discussion at some point, not just Latter Day Saints. I'm going to argue for a second reason why he invokes Abraham here, too. And that is because Abraham is sort of the poster child for a test of faith. And it seems like a major part of this was, which is what the verses are leading into, is to say that this is being done deliberately as a test of their faithfulness. Abraham underwent a painfully severe test. He's commanded to sacrifice his son Isaac. That's in Genesis 22. The Lord actually comments on this. And we should point out that this was a major trial for the men and women, especially the women of the early restoration, that these weren't lascivious people, they weren't lustful. They lived in a time when chastity and fidelity were held in high esteem. And asking them to enter into a system of marriage like this was an Abrahamic test of sorts. So let me just quote a couple people here really fast. Brigham Young, who is the poster child for plural marriage today, later in a discourse, said this. He said, my brethren knew what my feelings were at the time. Joseph. Joseph revealed the doctrine. I was not desirous of shrinking from any duty, nor of failing in the least to do as I was commanded. But it was the first time in my life that I had desired the grave, and I could hardly get over it for a long time. When I saw a funeral, I felt to envy the corpse and its situation and to regret that I was not in the coffin. Like that is strong stuff. And again, Brigham Young, we quote. But I also want to quote some women here, too. We always talk about this, but we never really go into what the women who were involved have to say. So, for instance, Phoebe Woodruff, who was the wife of Wilford Woodruff, wrote about her introduction to plural marriage. She said, when the principles of polygamy were first taught, I thought it was the most wicked thing I'd ever heard of, and I consequently opposed it to the best of my ability until I became sick and wretched. As soon, however, as I became convinced that it originated as a revelation, revelation from God through Joseph, and knowing him to be a prophet, I wrestled with my Heavenly Father in fervent prayers to be guided aright. At that all important moment of my life, the answer came. Peace was given to my mind. I knew that it was the will of God. And from that time to the present, I have sought to faithfully honor the patriarchal law of Joseph. My testimony is that he was one of the greatest prophets the Lord ever called, that he lived for the redemption of mankind and he died, died a martyr for the truth. So the challenge here is that Abraham has this severe test and at the last minute he's removed from it. He doesn't actually have to go through it. The saints were asked to go through with this and it became really difficult.

B (51:29)

By the way, I was just thinking, could we say that Abraham entering into plural marriage was also an Abrahamic test? I know the Lord put both of those side by side side. Abraham receiving Hagar and Abraham being asked to sacrifice Isaac. And it just occurred to me that we almost always call the sacrifice of Isaac the Abrahamic test. But I think polygamy could have been up there as well.

A (51:50)

Maybe this was part of it, knowing that Abraham is emblematic of all tests of faithfulness. But again, the early saints thought of it this way as a test of their faith. Like Helen Mark Kimball, who's one of the more well known wives of Joseph. Joseph Smith said the prophet said that the practice of this principle would be the hardest trial the saints would ever have to test their faith. And then she also recalled, I did not try to conceal the fact of it having been a trial, but confessed that it was one of the severest of my life, but that it had also proven one of the greatest of blessings. I could truly say it had done the most towards making me a saint and a free woman in every sense of the word. And I knew many others who could say the same same and to whom it had proven one of the greatest boons, a blessing in disguise. So again, you're not going to bring up Abraham unless you're talking about some kind of intense sacrifice. But the saints are wrestling with these Old Testament figures, with these Old Testament practices. And they also just openly say this wasn't done because of lustfulness or lasciviousness. It was a test of our faith.

B (52:58)

Let's Continue in verse 37. In these verses we're going to see two of the most controversial aspects of plural marriage and as practiced in the Old Testament. Picking up in verse 37, Abraham received concubines and they bore him children, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness because they were given unto him and he abode in my law. As Isaac also. And Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded. And because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation according to the promises and set upon thrones, and are not angels, but are gods, David. Oh, here we go. 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. For instance, David's wives and concubines were given unto him of me by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power. And in none of these things did he sin against me, save in the case of Uriah and his wife. Remember, this is the story where he gets Bathsheba pregnant and then he tries to cover it up by killing her husband. And it's just untangles into this huge mess that's just so bad. And here's the Lord's commentary on that. And therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation and received his portion, and he shall not inherit them, meaning his wives out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord. Whoa. So the Lord speaks of Abraham, David, Solomon, Moses as having wives and concubines. A concubine was seen as like a secondary wife, which is not the most flattering title, but clearly in the Bible. Casey, like we're. We're seeing the Old Testament. Justification here is to have seed and, and notice that it's an application of eternal marriage, not the principle itself. So the principle, if I could say it like this, was laid out in verses 1 through 28, roughly, right? Where we have the everlasting covenant, we have a man and a woman being sealed together. Together they become gods. That's monogamy. But there are occasions when the Lord has authorized it, like Abraham, etc. Moses, Solomon. And that would be an application of the principle, but it's not the core thing. Right? Does that make sense? It's like an authorized aberration of the core idea, not the core idea itself. Is that fair to say?

A (55:25)

Yeah, that's fair to say.

B (55:26)

So I think it's interesting that the Lord's pointing out here that part of this is done to secure posterity, but it's only in those things that we're authorized. And inasmuch as David and Solomon and others engaged in marriage practices or extramarital practices that were not authorized by God, they were condemned by the Lord.

A (55:45)

It seems like the Lord really carefully chose the examples that he uses here, because one, Abraham's engagement in the practice of plural marriage takes place under the guiding hand of Revelation. Joseph Smith taught Abraham was guided in all his family affairs by the Lord, was told where to go, when to stop, was conversed with by angels and by the Lord, and prospered exceedingly, exceedingly in all he put his hand into. And it was because he and his family obeyed the counsel of the Lord. The practice of concubinage, which is mentioned in section 132, is part of the cultural environment of the early biblical period, but it doesn't seem to be a part of marriage relationships in the eternities. And again, I'm bringing this up because a lot of times people will try to attack section 132 by saying, well, Jacob too, in the Book of Mormon, condemns the practice of having wives and concubines and then condemns David and Solomon specifically for doing this. So let's nuance this a little bit. I think in these passages, the Lord's pointing to Abraham, saying, here's the right way to do it. And then he's pointing to David and Solomon and saying, they started correctly and then they went wrongly. They went off the rails at a certain point.

B (56:55)

And that's not apparent very well. In Jacob chapter two, it just seems like from the beginning they're condemned, but the Lord is, like, he said that. He's nuancing that here. They did start right, but they went off the rails.

A (57:07)

Yeah. In fact, in verse 38, in nothing did they sin, save in those things which they received not of me. He says, yes, they started right, but then they started to go beyond what I told them to do. Both David and Solomon took the practice too far, and that's what they're condemned for. In the Book of Mormon by the prophet Jacob, he's rebuking the Nephites. And he uses David. He's rebuking the Nephites. And if you read the text in Jacob 2, he's responding to the Nephites who are pointing to David and Solomon as positive examples and basically declaring that when David and Solomon went too far, they committed whoredoms. That's Jacob 2. 23. That's the exact wording he uses. Then Jacob goes on and says this, David and Solomon had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saying, saith the Lord. But in the same discourse, Jacob seems to establish that monogamous marriage is the rule. Plural marriage is an exception that could be granted under unusual circumstances. For instance, continuing on in Jacob 2, he said, Wherefore, my brethren, hear me and hearken to the word of the Lord, for there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife and concubines, he shall have none. For I, the Lord, delight in the chastity of women, and whoredoms are an abomination before me. Thus saith the Lord of hosts. Wherefore this people shall keep my commandments, Saith the Lord of Hosts. Or cursed be the land for their sakes. For if I will, saith the Lord of hosts, raise up seed unto me. I will command my people, otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. So again, the nuance here is David and Solomon started correctly, but then they went too far and proved putting Abraham, David and Solomon right next to each other. To me is a warning to the people that are going to practice plural marriage to basically say, this is a practice that I commanded and that I led Abraham and David and Solomon into. But it also has the potential for abuse. David and Solomon abused the practice, and that was what led them off the path, essentially. So it seems like a warning, if I'm being honest here, to Joseph Smith, specifically, to basically say, yes, I'm commanding you to do this, but you can choose to be an Abraham and do it right following my directions and being very careful and cautious and thoughtful, or you can do it the wrong way like David and Solomon, and start to pursue it for the wrong reasons, and then it turns into an abomination.

B (59:33)

Yeah, well said. I really like that thought. Okay, now Moving to verses 40 through 45, here's where we get. Get kind of a brief differentiation between adultery and authorized plural marriages, as well as with some insights into Joseph having the keys. So here's what the Lord says. I am the Lord thy God, and I give unto thee my servant Joseph an appointment and restore all things. Ask what you will, and it shall be given unto you according to my word. There's. There's a hint that this is the bringing back of plural marriage is an instance of the restoration of all things. Verse 40, 41. And as you've asked concerning adultery, verily, verily I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man and have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she has committed adultery and shall be destroyed. We're going to come back to this word destroyed, because that's a harsh word. Verse 42, if she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has committed a adultery. And if her husband be with another woman, and he was under a vow, he has broken his vow and has committed adultery, verse 44. And if she has not committed adultery, but is innocent, and hath not broken her vow, and she knoweth it, and I reveal it unto you, my servant Joseph, then shall you have power by the power of my holy priesthood to take her and give her unto him that hath not committed adultery, but hath been faithful, for he shall be made ruler over many. For I have conferred upon you the keys and power of the priesthood, wherein I restore all things and make known unto you all things in due time. So a couple interesting scenarios about adultery. What qualifies or what doesn't? And most of the instances when we would think that's adultery, the Lord confirms, yep, that's adultery. So in the case that a husband cheated on his wife, but the wife is innocent, the Lord says, the wife can be given to another man under the keys of your authority and she is not guilty of adultery. Right. In that case. And so maybe that's a nuanced commentary on some New Testament teachings that if you get divorced and then get remarried, that could be, you know, considered adulterous. And Lord saying, well, not in this case. Right. So some really interesting nuancing that's happening here, as well as, again, that framing in verse 40 and 45 of a restoration of all things. That's what's happening here. And the early saints of the restoration understood this as the restoration of a biblical practice. Like, for instance, Joseph's friend Benjamin F. Johnson. Near the end of his life, he recalled, quote, in 1835, this is early at Kirtland, I learned from my sister's husband, Lyman R. Sherman, who was close to the prophet and received it from him that the ancient order of plural marriage was again to be practiced by the church. Helen Mark Kimball remembered, quote, joseph astonished his hearing hearers by preaching on the restoration of all things, and said that as it was anciently with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, so it would be again, etc. Little cryptic there. Eliza R. Snow also contextualized plural marriage as part of the restoration of all things. This way, she said in Nauvoo, I first understood that the practice of plurality of wives was to be introduced into the church. The subject was very repugnant to my feelings, feelings. So directly was it in opposition to my educated prepossessions that it seemed as though all the prejudices of my ancestors for generations past congregated around me. But when I reflected that I was living in the dispensation of the fulness of times, embracing all other dispensations, surely plural marriage must necessarily be included. And I consoled myself with the idea idea that it was far in the distance and beyond the period of my mortal existence. It was not long, however, after I received the first intimation, before the announcement reached me that the set time had come that God had commanded his servants to establish the order by taking additional wives. I knew that God was speaking As I increased in knowledge concerning the principle and design of plural marriage, I grew in love with it.

A (63:42)

Close Quote Wow, she's a good writer, isn't she?

B (63:45)

She's so good.

A (63:46)

It's also clear from these passages. Let me add that Joseph worried over the possibilities of plural marriage being perceived as adultery. It seems like that's a question that's on his mind. So the Lord assured him that such marital relationships were not adultery if they're performed by the proper authority. However, if either a husband this is in verse 43 or a huge wife that's in verse 41 enters into a plural marriage without the Lord's sanction, it is a sin. So there's going to be careful controls on the practice as well. And let me add one more thing. The Lord also teaches a very comforting truth in doctrine and covenants 13244 and that is, a spouse who engages in sin does not condemn a spouse who remains faithful to their covenants. The Lord taught that the spouse who has remained faithful will still obtain the blessings of exaltation, and later prophets confirm this. For instance, Lorenzo Snow taught, there is no Latter Day Saint who dies after having lived a faithful life who will lose anything because of having failed to do certain things when opportunities were not furnished to him or her. In other words, if a young man or young woman has no opportunity of getting married and they live faithful lives of to the time of their death, they will have all the blessings, exaltation and glory that any man or woman will have who had this opportunity and improved it. That is sure and positive. And let me just say I'm grateful for that in my work in the church. There's often been times when the person that usually comes to the church seeking help is the partner in the marriage who is doing what they're supposed to be doing. And they often express anxiety that they're going to lose their blessings because because of something their spouse has done. And the Lord's just saying here, nope, nope, nope nope nope nope nope. The ideal is that both spouses remain faithful, but recognizing that the ideal doesn't always match what's in reality. If your spouse isn't faithful but you are, you will still receive blessings, and you can still obtain all the blessings of exaltation that come from that. So, I mean, marriage is one wonderful. But if you're married to somebody that doesn't honor their covenants, it can be really, really hard to the point to where you wonder what's going to happen to you. And the Lord's just offering the assurance that as long as you keep your covenants, you're going to be okay, regardless of what happens.

B (66:11)

Well, now comes some words of blessing, too, and some insight about Joseph Smith, specifically in verse 46. We pick it up there. Very, very verily, I say unto you that whatsoever you, Joseph seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven. And whatsoever you bind on earth in my name and by my word, saith the Lord, it shall be eternally bound in the heavens. And whosoever sins you remit on earth shall be remitted eternally in the heavens. And whosoever sins you retain on earth shall be retained in heaven. And again, verily, I say, whomsoever you bless, I will bless. And whoever you curse, I will curse, sayeth the the Lord. For I, the Lord, am thy God. And again, verily I say unto you, my servant Joseph, that whatsoever you give on earth and to whomsoever you give anyone on earth, by my word and according to my law, it shall be visited with blessings and not cursings, and with my power, saith the Lord, and shall be without condemnation on earth and in heaven. This is great justifications for why Joseph Smith can bind people in. In eternal marriages and even plural marriages, but it would be inappropriate if others do the same. Right, he's got the keys. Here's what the Lord says. For I am the Lord thy God and will be with thee even unto the end of the world and through all eternity. Then how about this for a blessing? For verily, I seal upon you your exaltation and prepare a throne for you in the kingdom of my father with Abraham, your father. Behold, I have seen your sacrifices and will forgive all your sins. I have seen your sacrifices in obedience to that which I have told you. Go therefore, and I will make a way for your escape. As I accepted the offering of Abraham of his son Isaac. Whoa. Given the context of this right, it seems like the earlier part of this revelation. Revelation are principles that Joseph has had in his bosom ever since. Like we said, maybe the early 1830s. But these verses seem like they're now caught up to the 1843 context in a way. Right? Joseph is struggling. He's wrestling with his obedience to this principle, the problems that it's causing in his marriage. And the Lord is giving him some pretty powerful assurances here. A, that he's the one authority rise to seal marriages, B, that the Lord honors his sacrifice in trying to obey this principle and that his sacrifice has been accepted even as Abraham's. So those words must have been incredibly reassuring in the context of the 1843 July situation that he's finding himself in here.

A (68:50)

And we need to be cautious here. And note that because there is a tendency for abuse among this, and this isn't hypothetical. There were people in Nauvoo, specifically, I'm talking about John C. Bennett, who were abusing the principle, who were taking this and using it to fulfill lustful desires. That the Lord is really cautious to say, it has to be used. It has to be used carefully, and it has to be used by people that I trust. And that's still the rule in the church today. The power to seal is held by the president of the church church and is used under his direction to bless the lives of the members of the church. In his own lifetime, Joseph Smith carefully oversaw the use of the sealing power. His own history records. I gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives. For according to the law, I hold the keys of this power in the last days. And there is never but one on earth at a time on whom the power and its keys are conferred. And I have constantly said that no man shall have but one wife at a time unless the Lord directs otherwise. So again, there's a potential for abuse. There's controls put in place to make sure that abuse doesn't happen. Now, we're going to get to the next couple of verses, which are extremely sensitive because they address Emma Smith. And so I'm going to walk you through these carefully. Verse 51. Okay. Verily I say unto you a commandment I give unto my 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, that I might require an offering at your hand by covenant and sacrifice. 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. For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice. And I Give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things, for he hath been faithful over a few things. And from henceforth I will strengthen him. And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph Joseph Smith, 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. Now, again, that's probably the most controversial part of section 132, right?

B (71:23)

That's brutal to read. That is so brutal to just hear.

A (71:26)

Yeah, yeah. But let's put this in proper context here, okay? The Lord's stern warning, and it is stern to Emma that she would be disturbed. Destroyed. If we put it in context, several scriptural commentators have pointed out that the use of the word destroyed here is the same as its use by the apostle Peter when he's quoting a prophecy of Moses in the Book of Acts about those who would reject Christ, who would reject the Messiah. Peter taught as follows. A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me. Him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass that every soul that will not hear the prophet shall be destroyed from among the people. That's Acts 3:22 23. When the same prophecy that Moses made is cited by Nephi in the Book of Mormon instead of destroyed, Nephi said those who refused to listen would be cut off from among the people. That's in 1 Nephi 2220. So it seems like in context here, destroyed doesn't mean. Mean like wiped out or killed. It means that they'll be cut off, that they'll be severed from the blessings that come from the covenants of the Gospel.

B (72:38)

I think that's helpful, right? It's hyperbole. It's a way of saying it's not going to be well with you. We know that. For instance, some accounts from Joseph Smith's other wives say that Joseph explained to them that when he resisted wanting to engage in plural marriage, that an angel appeared and threatened Joseph, Joseph with destruction as well. Like the same language was used to Joseph as is here being used to Emma. But I really like that first Nephi 22:20 cross reference, because it's defining destroyed as just being cut off from the promises of the covenant.

A (73:13)

So I think the Lord here is. I mean, obviously he's warning Emma of the consequences if she rejects this.

B (73:19)

Because can we say that we know from the history at this time. Like, she. She is getting pretty close to rebellious about some of this stuff. Like, she's now starting to go and find some of Joseph Smith's other wives, and she's starting to pester them. And she even demanded one of them to give a watch back that Joseph had given her. And she apparently, according to one account, just crushes the watch and leaves. It's a watch that I guess Emma was fond of, and Joseph had given it to another wife. She's starting to get really. She's starting to send some of them away. Away and get him out of the house. And, you know, Emily Partridge talks about that kind of behavior. And so there were some parts where she's not just wrestling with it internally, but she's starting to get a little bit aggressive. And I wonder if that's when we're catching her here in July of 1843, that there needs to be some stern language there. I don't know. Again, the context with these verses is in some ways known only to Joseph and Emma. What we know generally is that they're struggling. Right. The degree to which they're struggling, I mean, it must have been fairly severe for this kind of language to be used, obviously.

A (74:18)

Right? This is as severe a test as a marriage can undergo. And it's really difficult because, you know, we idolize Emma. She's had an interesting historical journey in the church where, you know, the early saints were very critical of her. And today we've sort of swung so far the other direction that she's almost not a human being. And. And it becomes really difficult for us to just have an objective opinion about her because there's so much of emotional investment. And there should be, like, she is the first lady of the restoration. She's with Joseph from the night he gets the plates until he comes home from Carthage jail. And so there's a lot of emotional investment here. And I gotta stress that even the stories about Emma getting upset over Joseph's plural marriages are from secondhand sources. They're from people who also. Also have a stake in the game and are upset at how Emma acted or upset at how Joseph acted. It's just difficult to sit down and have a calm discussion about this because we're so emotionally invested in the people that are involved here. These verses have to be handled with extreme sensitivity. And I'm going to add us giving the benefit of the doubt to everybody involved and saying, we know these people. We know they're good people. We also know this would have been a really good difficult situation for the best of people to navigate. But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said, and I will bless him and multiply him, and give unto him an hundredfold in this world of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal world. 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 will bless her and multiply her and make her heart to rejoice. So these passages directed to Emma Smith, like I said, I plead also be taken in a larger context because again we swing back and forth between Emma's the worst, she's opposing Joseph Smith, and Emma's the best. She never did anything wrong. She's a. She's a full human being capable of good and bad.

B (76:32)

Joseph's not coming out of this unscathed himself.

A (76:35)

He's.

B (76:35)

He has trespassed against Emma somehow in this. Right. Again, details are only known to Joseph and Emma, but it doesn't sound like he had flawless execution. I think his heart was good. He wanted to obey the principle. I think he's frustrated with Emma, Emma's frustrated with him. Some. Some things have transpired between the two of them for which, you know, Emma needs to forgive Joseph. I think that's a great acknowledgment right there that Joseph also was not nailing it, you know, and however, whether that's a reference to his execution of the principle of plural marriage or the way he's treating Emma in response to her resistance, not sure. Again, context, we don't know fully. But both are struggling and both are need to forgive each other here.

A (77:20)

One historian wrote about this moment, this way plural marriage opened the door to Emma's personal Abrahamic sacrifice, namely her own marriage. Joseph and Emma had been sealed for eternity, a deep intimate bond between them, but a bond that was severely tested in unimaginable ways over time, Emma expressed her hope to understand. This is a blessing that Emma Smith wrote. I desire fruitful activity, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God when revealed to his servants without doubting. And somehow, sometime this historian I'm quoting here, before Joseph died, Emma was reconciled in her own way. Although very little is sure about Joseph's practice of plural marriage and Emma's experience, two things are certain. No children resulted from Joseph's plural wives. And Emma was pregnant with Joseph's son when he died. And after Joseph's martyrdom, Emma did not follow Brigham Young and the Twelve to the Great Basin. Beginning in 1860, she supported her sons as they affiliated with the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, today known as Community of Christ. Emma remained a faithful witness of the Restoration and the divine calling of Joseph Smith. Though her statements on plural marriage contradict accounts given by dozens of other witnesses from the same time period, it's best to reserve judgment on Emma to honor her as a stalwart supporter of the Restoration and disciple of Jesus, Jesus Christ. Plural marriage was one of many trials faced by Emma because of her faith. In an 1869 letter to her son Joseph Smith III, she wrote, I have seen many, yes, very many trying scenes in my life which I could not see where any good could come of them. But then she added this testimony. But yet I feel a divine trust in God and that all things shall work for good. So just a plea for accepting complexity in both of them here. Because it can be easy to condemn Emma because of her struggles with this, and it can also be easy to condemn Joseph because of the struggles they have here, because of the attachment we have to Emma. But these are two good people wrestling with a very, very difficult circumstance. And they're complicated individuals. Let's don't oversimplify them.

B (79:23)

Well said. Okay, continuing, verse 57. And again, I say, let not my servant Joseph put his property out of his hands, lest an enemy come and destroy him. For Satan seeketh to destroy. For I am the Lord thy God, and he is my servant. And behold, and lo, I am with him as I was with Abraham, thy father, even unto his exaltation and glory. Not sure the context there. This may have to do with Emma had a concern, according to William Clayton, that should Joseph die, she would be left a destitute widow because all of Joseph's properties would be be claimed by all of his other wives. And shortly after this, Joseph Smith is going to deed multiple lots throughout Nauvoo to Emma just to try to help assuage that concern of hers. So I'm not sure if that's what's being referred to here in verse 57, but that is a possibility. Now, verse 58, as touching the law of the priesthood, there are many things pertaining thereunto. Verily, if a man be called of my father, Father, as was Aaron, by mine own voice and by the voice of him that sent me, and I have endowed him with the keys of the power of this priesthood. If he do anything in my name and according to my law, and by my word, he will not commit sin, I will justify him. The Lord has trusted him with the keys, therefore he backs him up. Let no one therefore set on my servant Joseph, for I will justify him. For he shall do the sacrifice sacrifice which I require at his hands for his transgressions, saith the Lord your God. And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood, if any man espouse a virgin and desire to espouse another, and the first gives her consent, and if he espouses the second, and they are virgins and have vowed to no other man, then he's justified. He cannot commit adultery, for they are given unto unto him. For he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else. And if he has 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. Clearly, the concern of adultery is swirling in the in the air here and trying to get really clear on what would or would not be considered adultery in this context. Continuing verse 63. But if one or either of the 10 virgins after she's espoused shall be with another man, she's committed adultery and shall be destroyed. Let's use that word again from Nephi. Cut off from the covenant promises. For they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth according to my commandment, and to fulfill 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. That's another dense verse that I think could use a little bit of explanation. I think one of the four reasons that Section 132 offers to justify plural marriage is articulated here. We've covered restitution of all things. We've covered multiply and replenish, finished the earth. We've covered Abrahamic test, And now this one, verse 63 suggests that the purpose for plural marriage, or one of them, is for the exaltation of the women involved for their exaltation in the eternal worlds. We know there were some women during this time who were either A not married to any other man, or B married to someone who was unfaithful, and they didn't feel like they had a chance to be sealed in the everlasting covenant. And so Joseph would sometimes marry them for eternity only, with no sexual relationship, simply for this phrase, for their exaltation in the eternal worlds. Because the principle laid out in verses 1 through 28 is that every person needs to be sealed in the everlasting covenant to somebody. Some women didn't have that opportunity to be sealed to a faithful man in a monogamous marriage. Therefore, polygamy was one way to be able to help those women be sealed in the everlasting covenant. So that's, that's an interesting little line there in verse 63, continuing verse 64. And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife who holds the keys of this power, not that the wife holds the keys of this power, that's a confusing way that this phrase says it. But if the man who holds the keys of this power has a wife and he teaches her the law of my priesthood, this could only be one couple at this time. So if Joseph Smith has taught Emma this right and he teaches her the law of my priesthood as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed or cut off from the covenant promises, 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. So if she rejects the law, that's condemned here, right? Is Joseph condemned and continuing to live the law if the wife rejects, rejects it? That's what verse 65 goes on to say. 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. The law of Sarah here seems to be the law that the first wife needs to give permission for the husband to take other wives. But the exception here is what if he explains this law? The one who holds the keys explains this law to his wife and she rejects it. Well, now he's exempt from the law of Sarah, and he does not need her permission. This as challenging as this verse is, Casey. I think it does help keep give a theological justification for one of the biggest concerns a lot of people have about Joseph Smith's plural marriage, and that is that he sometimes didn't tell Emma Smith about some of the women that he married. He married Women without Emma knowing about it. And as scandalous as that sounds, we have the theological justification for it here in verse 65, that again, if she's, if she is so resistant to this, should Joseph no longer live the law? If the wife doesn't want the husband to live the law of God, should he not live the law of God? The Lord here says, if you have to choose, you're choosing. You choose God and your wife will be condemned for rejecting the law. So again, this is stiff medicine. This is stiff medicine. But it does give a theological justification for not telling Emma about some of those marriages. Anything you want to say about that one?

A (86:07)

It also illuminates something about the practice of plural marriage that wasn't always realized too, was that it was consensual. There was consent required on multiple levels for a person enter into a plural marriage. Church leaders had to provide their consent. The people that you were already married to had to provide their consent as well. And then of course, the people that were entering into the plural marriage consented as well. And that's simply explained here as the law of Sarah, which just points back to the book of Genesis that points out that it was Sarah, that actually Sarah was the one that asked Abraham to conceive a child with Hagar, that she was aware of what was going on. And again, we don't know a lot about the previous discussions that Joseph and Emmett had, but I mean, given the timeline, it's likely that we're going back to at least 1836. And that is late, right?

B (86:58)

With Fanny Alger.

A (87:00)

Yeah, I'm guessing that they were having private discussions about this for a while before Fanny Al. And so we know from the historical record that Emma did consent to some of Joseph's plural marriages, that he chose some of the women that he was sealed to. But again, this does emphasize that the Lord felt like consent was very important, but also understood that as the president of the church, if Joseph Smith doesn't initiate the practice, the practice won't be initiated among the saints, which he felt the Lord felt was important as part of the restoration of all things.

B (87:32)

Yeah, well said. The last verse. Okay, here it is, last verse. We made it Cayce. 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 (87:49)

And there's that little statement that Joseph F. Smith was referring to in saying section 132 should be the beginning of our discussions. About this, but obviously a lot more is revealed. And where is it revealed? Revealed in the covenants made in the temples, in the teachings of the leaders of the church. After this, that what we're looking into is an episode that captures how intensely emotional this could be for people. But it's not the primer on plural marriage. It's not like everything about plural marriage and eternal marriage. There's a lot left to explore. But this episode does kind of serve as an introduction into the complexities surrounding family life and the eternities.

B (88:30)

Yeah, let this suffice. He says this is sufficient for now. Well, let's go to our third C. Casey. Anything controversial about Section 132?

A (88:46)

There's a few controversies and I got to be honest with you, in the time constraints we have here, we probably won't be able to cover them all. A wonderful resource was published by the church in summer 2025. If you go go to Gospel Library and click on topics and Questions and scroll down to plural Marriage, they actually put in five or six of the most common questions related to plural marriage. And good answers and good sources linked there, too. We're not going to do all those, but we're going to try and hit the biggest ones right now. So, yeah, let's try a few controversies.

B (89:18)

This one is, I feel like getting louder and louder. It's an oldie that's been resuscitated recently. And it's this is Joseph Smith, the author of doctrine and Covenants 132. I say it's an oldie because, I mean, this was the claim of the, the RLDS church said that Joseph didn't write section 132. This was not his. It was a Brigham Young production that was pawned off on Joseph Smith. And Joseph Smith didn't even start polygamy. It was actually Brigham Young. And then he, you know, it's that whole thing that's a shtick that was brought up way back in the 1860s and 70s. And then it's been brought back again in our day. There's more people saying this again. So how would you respond to that?

A (89:59)

The RLDS Church, which later becomes Community of Christ for a long period of time, like almost over 100 years. And some members of that church still believe that Joseph Smith is not the originator of plural marriage, that it started with Brigham Young and others later on. And recently there's been a movement in our church of people saying Joseph Smith didn't start plural marriage. They even go so far as to say that Section 132 was either not authored by Joseph Smith or that part of it was authored by Joseph Smith, which usually they say is up to about verse 27. All the stuff about the eternal covenant marriage and the promises of exaltation, and then everything after, the monogamous stuff, and then everything after was authored by Brigham Young. Now, again, we gave you the print providence of the document, which goes all the way back to the summer of 1843. But I wanted to point out a great resource, and we got to credit these gentlemen, too, because they reached out to us. I guess this is one of the privileges associated with having a podcast on church history is that a couple of weeks ago, Steve Densley, who's a great scholar, reached out to us and said, hey, we're about to publish a paper. His co authors, just so you know, are Paul Fields, Matt Roper and Larry Bassis. And this paper is available now for free. It's being published by the Interpreter Foundation. Now, I'm going to warn you, the paper is long. It's about 70 pages long. But what they did was they wanted to do an intensive study on the authorship of section 132. So they're looking at the historical sources and they're also looking at the stylometry, like the style of writing in section 132. And again, you and I are familiar with the historical providence and the sources that say it's there. Like, one of the interesting things they point out in the paper is that people in Nauvoo, people that loved Joseph Smith and people that hated Joseph Smith, were all quoting section 132 and various parts of it in letters that they wrote, suggesting the whole thing again existed as a single document while Joseph Smith was alive. But the stylometry, which I read, and I'm still trying to wrap my mind around all the statistical analysis that they used, is also strongly in favor of a single authorship of Joseph Smith. So credit to these wonderful researchers. I'm not going to read the whole 70 pages here. Go and get it on interpreter for yourself. I am going to read their conclusion. Okay, so this is the executive system summary conclusions. They write this assertions contrary to Joseph's authorship of section 132 are not congruent with the stylometric evidence. The stylometric evidence does not support the assertion that Brigham Young wrote Section 132, either in part or as a whole. Further stylometric evidence does not indicate that any of the other candidate authors, because people will suggest other authors like William Clayton or so on and so forth, provided the words for the Revelation. The authorial styles of both parts of section 132 are not distinguishably different and they both align with other relevant sections of the Doctrine and Covenants. The stylometric evidence is consistent with the Church's claimed origin of the Revelation. Then they continue. The combined historical and stylometric evidence presented in this study strongly supports the long standing claim that doctrine and Covenants 132 originated with Joseph Smith and was dictated by him in July 1843 rather than being composed by Brigham Young or any other potential authority. Multiple independent contemporary witnesses, both friendly and antagonistic. In other words, people that loved Joseph and that hated him, as well as those who remained in the Church and those who did not consistently reported the existence, content and public and private readings of the Revelation during Joseph Smith's lifetime. Then they add, while no surviving diary entries in Joseph's own hand replicate the wording of section 132, extensive firsthand reports by his scribes and close associates take taken during his Nauvoo period sermons and instructions document him teaching the same doctrines and using language closely aligned with the text of the Revelation. In addition, stylometric analysis shows that the linguistic features in section 132 are congruent with the prophet's other revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants even as far back as 1831. Thus, the mutually supportive consistency of the historical records and statistical authorship analysis make it highly implausible. The alternative assertions for the authorship of section 132 are valid. So again, you can go and get this for free and it's an impressive piece of research, but just I was already on board with the historic side of things, but using this stylometric analysis that they're talking about, they go through extensively and say, yeah, it all points towards Joseph Smith being the author of all of section 132, or I should say the revelator who receives it. That's probably the best way to say it is that it's consistent with the other revelations that Joseph Smith received.

B (94:57)

Tremendous amount. Thank you, Steve for sending that to us, making us aware of that. We recommend it to everyone out there. Hopefully this helps put to bed that controversy that this did not come from Joseph Smith, but from later authors. So thank you for your great research. Okay, let's do another one.

A (95:16)

Okay, so I'm going to ask you, Scott, this is one that comes up sometimes, but is the Church teaching that plural marriage is required for exaltation? Is. Is that necessary for a person to be exalted.

B (95:27)

Short answer. No, but this one's. This one's become a difficult one to stamp out because there are a couple statements by some leaders during the time that plural marriage was a thing, like Brigham Young, George Q. Cannon, I think, who said things to that effect. And so people like, ah, there it is. See, your church leaders said that. But no, that is not accurate. No scripture or revelation teaches that plural marriage is required for exaltation. And that's actually never been an established doctrine of the Church, even though some apostles had taught that during the time period of plural marriage. If we look carefully, section 132 1, let's just go to verse 21. 20 are establishing marriage between one man and one woman. Woman as necessary for exaltation in the everlasting covenant sealed by the Holy spirit of promise. That is what's required for exaltation. It's explicit in verse 19 and 20. That's what's required for exaltation. What's plural marriage then? Plural marriage is one application of eternal marriage where you're bringing others in to the everlasting covenant, but the minimum requirement is. Is 1, 1, 1 wife, 1 husband together. So that's it.

A (96:45)

All right. Any other controversies you want to talk about?

B (96:48)

We kind of talked about this, but let's hit it straight on. What did Emma Smith know about Joseph's practice of plural marriage? This is one of those questions directly from that new resource that you pointed out. That's a good question. What's the best way to answer that?

A (97:03)

That's a tough one. Right? And we've got to express a little humility here and basically say we don't have the sources to give a really great answer to this question. Almost everything we know comes from secondhand sources. Emma doesn't really leave a contemporary record of her own thoughts and feelings or experiences relating to plural marriage. She was asked about it several times and she gave varying answers throughout the rest of her life. According to these second Atticus, Emma opposed plural marriage. I'm quoting from the Church's response here. Except for a short period of time when she consented to at least four of her husband's plural sealings. But ultimately she rejected the practice. So this caused a lot of turmoil in their marriage. But Emma and Joseph remain together to the end of his life. We mentioned she is carrying his child when Joseph Smith is killed. And we've got to give her a little bit of the benefit of the doubt. Like Emily Partridge, who was one of Joseph's plural wives, and one that was chosen by Emma and was no fan of Emma. From her writings reflected toward the end of her life about Emma's complexity towards plural marriage. This is what Emily said. She said, I know it was hard for Emma and any woman to enter plural marriage in those days. And I do not know as anybody would have done any better than Emma did under the circumstances. So, so charity for all involved here and I'm grateful for the shift we've done as a church towards seeing Emma Smith in a good light. But I also sometimes think we need to just see her more as a human, as a person and not somebody who was perfect all the time, not somebody who was bad all the time either, but just as a real thinking, feeling person who obviously struggled with this and had a hard time. We just don't know would be the correct answer. Answer. We don't know how much she knew and when she knew it. She just hasn't left us any benefit of historical sources. And neither did Joseph on that part.

B (98:59)

Yeah, and Casey, like you said, this is not the end of all of the questions about plural marriage. The controversies about it. There are a lot. And so we recommend that anyone listening to this who wants to dig further into some of the controversies here, go check out the church's recent resource on that. Tell them how to get that. Again, Casey, where do they go?

A (99:21)

You go to Gospel Library and there's a tab in Gospel Library called Topics and Questions. And it's just an alphabetical listing of a whole bunch of stuff that is so fascinating. But go to the one on plural marriage and there's a church essay on plural marriage and then like five or six common questions asked about plural marriage. And each one of those has a fairly short essay that is also linked to a ton of primary sources. So again, you don't have to take our word for it. It'll link you, for instance, directly to William Clayton's journal. William Clayton was the person that was there when section 132 was recorded. So that's a tremendous resource that I think could be really helpful as you're exploring this question further.

B (100:05)

Perfect. And not to toot our own horn at all, but we have done about a five or six hour long series. We have multiple one hour episodes, about five or six, I can't remember on plural marriage. And we go into some of the more, you know, controversial things as well. Not directly related to section 132, but related more broadly. Stuff like Joseph getting sealed to other men's wives, marrying some younger women. What's going on with those. We do dive into all of that there as well. And if you don't want to go to our stuff, there's great stuff available. We recommend Brian Hill's great research that's free online called Joseph Smith's polygamy dot Org. If you go there, you can find all kinds of great. A lot of biographies of Joseph's wives that are there and walks through their experience. And I think of anyone involved in Joseph Smith's polygamy, like the ones we want to listen to are the wives. Like, the wives are the world's leading experts on what it was like to deal with the complexities growing out of section 132 direction directly with the prophet Joseph Smith. And so highly recommend that Brittany Chapman.

A (101:10)

Nash, who is an excellent historian. Brittany's wonderful. She also wrote a short book. She wrote the let's Talk About Polygamy book. And there's a Walk Through Plural Marriage by a female scholar who is exceptionally skilled at what she does. And so that's not a long read. But if you have issues with this and you're working on through them, her stuff is very helpful. And she's also given interviews in a lot of different venues. So Brittany's a good person to listen to on this subject as well.

B (101:41)

Love that. I like that you mentioned, like, if you're having issues with this, go, go get more resources. I would just say if you're having issues with this, you're normal. From the very beginning, those who were first introduced to this principle wrestled with it. I think it's very appropriate for all of us to wrestle with this. We all need to wrestle with this to one degree or another. And there are some awesome resources out there to help us. So if anything was difficult in all that we ran through today, or if you're teaching this in a Sunday school class, you're teaching this in other setting, just know there will be those who wrestle with these things. And so be sensitive, be kind both to yourself and to others. If you wrestle with it, you're normal. If others wrestle with it, they're normal. That's important, too. Okay, last C. Casey, Consequences. What flows out of this? One consequence that comes out of this, obviously, is that plural marriage is instituted into the church because of this revelation. And that's going to continue in the church for the next 70 years or so of authorized plural marriage. And a lot of church members today can find in their family history some. Some plural marriage. A lot of members of the church come through plural marriages today. Like, we can trace Our families back to that. And so there are people alive today because of section 132 specifically. Right. And that's a lot of them. It's not. It's not a few, it's a lot. So that. That's big. That's a big consequence that comes out of section 132.

A (103:09)

I've often said that, you know, my wife is a descendant of Heber C. Kimball and his last plural wife, Mary Smithies. And any revelation that gets Elizabeth Griffiths to earth, I'm okay with. And many members of the church are descendants of people that practice this. But we should mention Also, section 132 doesn't just initiate plural marriage. It initiates eternal marriage, which is huge. Right. It's one of the best things about being a Latter Day Saint is to have the privilege of entering into a marriage relationship that is for time and all eternity and not just till death to his part like that is difficult to overstate how important that is to us. And again, anytime that you start to make family relationships go into the eternities, it starts to get complicated. Right. President Nielsen, our dear departed prophet, had been sealed to two women because his first wife passed away. So I'm okay with moving a little bit of the messiness into the eternities as long as we get to keep our families and the eternities too. And that's something we should keep in mind. The section 132 gives us.

B (104:11)

What about Emma? Anything else we should say about Emma? The aftermath, the consequences here.

A (104:16)

A big part of the challenge with section 132 is it's difficult to look at objectively because we love the people that are involved. We love Joseph, we love Hyrum, we love Emma. And again, the statements in here about Emma and what's going to happen if she rejects plural marriage seem really difficult to us. So when it to comes. When it comes to questions surrounding Emma's salvation, I usually refer back to an experience that was told by Emma's nurse. Elizabeth Revelle was her name. And she was at Emma's bedside during the final days of her life. And this is what Elizabeth Revelle wrote. She said that Emma told her Joseph came to her in a vision and said, emma, come with me. It is time for you to come with me. As Emma related it, she said, I put on my bonnet and my shawl and my went with him. I did not think that it was anything unusual. I went with him into a mansion and he showed me through the different apartments of that beautiful mansion. And one room was the nursery. And in that nursery was a babe in the cradle. She said, I knew my babe. It was my Don Carlos that was taken from me. And I should mention most of Joseph and Emma's children died in childbirth. Don Carlos was a baby that was born in Nauvoo that actually lived 18 months, months old and then passed away. So that must have been particularly difficult for Emma. And this is the baby that she sees in the cradle, this little boy that she had for a year and a half and then was taken. She said, I sprang forward, I caught the child up in my arms and wept with joy over the child. When Emma recovered herself sufficient, she turned to Joseph and said, joseph, where are the rest of my children? He said to her, emma, be patient and you shall have all of your children. Then she saw standing by him, a personage of light, even the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, that doesn't sound like somebody who lost their exaltation. I'll just say, and again, it's a secondhand source, and so we're being cautious with it. But it sounds like somebody who remained a devoted witness of the Restoration, who undoubtedly had struggles with this particular teaching in the Restoration, but seems to have got on to a great and glorious reward. So I'm going to withhold judgment on anybody involved here and just say I can sympathize with how difficult the situation is, but until I get more information, I can't say exactly what everybody was doing and what all the feelings were and what all the complexities of the situation were to begin with. I know section 132 is there. I'm grateful for the teaching of eternal marriages and eternal families, eternal lives, the way the Revelation says it. But I'm also willing to. To say, yeah, sometimes the Gospel is really difficult and the Lord asks us to make huge sacrifices. And section 132 is a text that just illustrates that principle.

B (107:00)

Well said. I'll end where I began with this. Casey. This section contains some of the most uplifting and illuminating of Joseph's revelations, and also some of the most controversial and challenging revelations simultaneously in one section of the Doctrine and Covenants. We thank you all for joining and making it with us this long. This is a lot to get into and to get through, so bless you for being with us on this journey and we'll see you next week.

A (107:29)

Yeah, thanks, everybody. Sa.