cobbettjus

Interesting. So verse 64, the threat of destruction for not accepting plural marriage, is directed only at the wife of a prophet (who holds the keys to this power), in this context it was a threat specifically addressing Emma.

Thanks for the replies. Anddenex - I understand that D&C 132 references destruction of the body as well as the soul. Is there any indication that the verse in question (64) is a reference to the latter?

The way I have understood verse 65 seems to be how Joseph understood it. "The revelation on marriage required that a wife give her consent before her husband could enter into plural marriage. Nevertheless, toward the end of the revelation, the Lord said that if the first wife “receive not this law”—the command to practice plural marriage—the husband would be “exempt from the law of Sarah,” presumably the requirement that the husband gain the consent of the first wife before marrying additional women. After Emma opposed plural marriage, Joseph was placed in an agonizing dilemma, forced to choose between the will of God and the will of his beloved Emma. He may have thought Emma’s rejection of plural marriage exempted him from the law of Sarah. Her decision to “receive not this law” permitted him to marry additional wives without her consent." https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng

Doctrine & Covenants 132 lays out the framework for plural marriage. A man's wife must give consent if he is going to take on additional wives (verse 61). If his wife does not accept plural marriage, however, the man no longer requires his wife's consent (verse 65). It also says that if the wife does not accept plural marriage she will be destroyed (verse 64). What is meant by "destroyed"?