Section 132, a forgery?

[HaggisShuu]

There are some who purport that section 132 wasn't actually written by Joseph Smith but was rather forced onto him by senior church members like Brigham Young and John Bennet to justify their adulterous behaviour. 
 

While I personally don't agree with this I can get why people would want to believe it, John Bennet was a known adulterer and had great political power in Nauvoo, and Brigham Young as president of the 12 went on to have 55 wives, many of them sexual relationships which was of course different to how Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, mainly just being sealed to them with very little evidence to suggest a significant number of these marriages were intimate. 
 

Some go one step further and deny Joseph practiced polygamy in the first place. 
 

Is there any substance to these theories or are they just coping mechanisms for people who can't reconcile the doctrine of polygamy? 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HaggisShuu said:

There are some who purport that section 132 wasn't actually written by Joseph Smith but was rather forced onto him by senior church members like Brigham Young and John Bennet to justify their adulterous behaviour. 
 

While I personally don't agree with this I can get why people would want to believe it, John Bennet was a known adulterer and had great political power in Nauvoo, and Brigham Young as president of the 12 went on to have 55 wives, many of them sexual relationships which was of course different to how Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, mainly just being sealed to them with very little evidence to suggest a significant number of these marriages were intimate. 
 

Some go one step further and deny Joseph practiced polygamy in the first place. 
 

Is there any substance to these theories or are they just coping mechanisms for people who can't reconcile the doctrine of polygamy? 

Do have something that shows the argument that Section 132 is a forgery?

[HaggisShuu]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Do have something that shows the argument that Section 132 is a forgery?

No it's just an argument I've heard thrown around in online discourse. I'm just wondering if this is a commonly held belief or fringe internet argument. 

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

There are some who purport that section 132 wasn't actually written by Joseph Smith but was rather forced onto him by senior church members like Brigham Young and John Bennet to justify their adulterous behaviour. 
 

While I personally don't agree with this I can get why people would want to believe it, John Bennet was a known adulterer and had great political power in Nauvoo, and Brigham Young as president of the 12 went on to have 55 wives, many of them sexual relationships which was of course different to how Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, mainly just being sealed to them with very little evidence to suggest a significant number of these marriages were intimate. 
 

Some go one step further and deny Joseph practiced polygamy in the first place. 
 

Is there any substance to these theories or are they just coping mechanisms for people who can't reconcile the doctrine of polygamy? 

1.  132 is not a forgery.

2.  Of all the sealings* of Joseph Smith, the only one we know of that generated offspring was with Emma.

• Most of the descendants, as well as exhumed corpses (of the few that were available) of known children of the women involved have been tested.
  • About 60% to 70% were found to share no familial chromosomes.
  • Of the remaining, the DNA was unclear.  There didn't seem to be enough to be a close relative (i.e. father/child) to Joseph. But there was enough that the father could have been a distant cousin.  Remember that many of the first generation of the restoration were later found to be distant cousins.

[LDSGator]

2 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

No it's just an argument I've heard thrown around in online discourse. I'm just wondering if this is a commonly held belief or fringe internet argument. 

There are people online who think Elvis is still alive and that the world is flat. Don’t engage with them, all it will do is drive you crazy. Pat them on the head and move on. 

[Just_A_Guy]

Brian Hales is probably the leading expert on Joseph Smith’s plural marriages and he recently did a couple of episodes with “Mormonism With the Murph” on YouTube where he addresses a lot of this.

IIRC, as to Section 132 itself:  in short, we have a number of contemporaneous accounts (including from people who rejected it, like Marks and Law) of Joseph Smith having shown it to them or otherwise teaching it.

Hales also points out that JS basically took plural wives in three “waves”, if you will:

1) Fanny Alger.  That situation blows up so badly that JS abandons plural marriage for years.

2) Following a threat from an angel with a drawn sword, JS begins marrying plural wives—but nearly all of them are women who are already married to other men.  Hales posits that he deliberately chose married women because, out of respect for Emma as well as Joseph’s own feelings, he planned to have these be sexless “eternity-only” marriages.

3)  The angel with drawn sword comes again, basically saying “that’s not what I meant and you know it.  Now, do it right.”  At this point Smith’s future brides are single women, and several of them later affirm (as genteelly as Victorians ever would) that there was indeed a sexual element to their marriages with Smith.

Edited December 21, 2024 by Just_A_Guy

[zil2]

27 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

There are people online who think ... that the world is flat.

Send them to my yard - on the east side of the house - definitely not flat!  Tell them to bring whatever tools one uses to flatten out a yard after the voles have been through and made it lumpy.

[Traveler]

9 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

There are some who purport that section 132 wasn't actually written by Joseph Smith but was rather forced onto him by senior church members like Brigham Young and John Bennet to justify their adulterous behaviour. 
 

.......

I have a few ancestors that were part of the Church’s polygamy society.  One particular ancestor was quite worried about the practice of polygamy within the Church.  His claim was that many that practiced polygamy were guilty of gross sin and that their wickedness would bring about great condemnations of the Church.  I am inclined to believe that polygamy as instructed by divine commandment is not understood.  A story from my ancestorial history.

My great grandfather was commanded to take on an additional wife.  My great grandfather turned down the “recommendation” in somewhat the same manner that many members often do not accept callings they do not wish to fulfill.  He was recommended again and again.  Eventually his wife, that was aware of the recommendations, became quite angry.  

According to family records, early one morning, she left on foot – some 50 or so miles to Salt Lake City to express her opinions on the matter.  As she walked, she was offered several rides – which she refused.  She arrived in Salt Lake City and went immediately to the Temple Square Office Building and the office of Brigham Young.  She walked past everyone that attempted to stop her and confronted Brigham in his office.  It was said that her voice could be heard everywhere in the office building.

Brigham quietly closed the office door and within a few moments my great grandmother settled down.  About 20 minutes later she left the office in a very pleasant manner and within a week my great grandmother had convinced her husband and picked the second wife for my great grandfather.  When she was asked what Brigham said to her, she refused to reply except to say that she had never understood the importance of plural marriage.  She never spoke of what was revealed to her.

I am inclined to echo somewhat the impressions of my great grandfather.  That polygamy as most (nearly everybody?) realize and think of polygamy – as they would think of instituting it themselves – is wrong and likely unacceptable to G-d.   Being somewhat ignorant myself – I have determined attempting to even discuss this topic (especially to those more ignorant than myself) is an exercise in futility.

 

The Traveler

Edited December 21, 2024 by Traveler

[HaggisShuu]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

I have a few ancestors that were part of the Church’s polygamy society.  One particular ancestor was quite worried about the practice of polygamy within the Church.  His claim was that many that practiced polygamy were guilty of gross sin and that their wickedness would bring about great condemnations of the Church.  I am inclined to believe that polygamy as instructed by divine commandment is not understood.  A story from my ancestorial history.

My great grandfather was commanded to take on an additional wife.  My great grandfather turned down the “recommendation” in somewhat the same manner that many members often do not accept callings they do not wish to fulfill.  He was recommended again and again.  Eventually his wife, that was aware of the recommendations, became quite angry.  

According to family records, early one morning, she left on foot – some 50 or so miles to Salt Lake City to express her opinions on the matter.  As she walked, she was offered several rides – which she refused.  She arrived in Salt Lake City and went immediately to the Temple Square Office Building and the office of Brigham Young.  She walked past everyone that attempted to stop her and confronted Brigham in his office.  It was said that her voice could be heard everywhere in the office building.

Brigham quietly closed the office door and within a few moments my great grandmother settled down.  About 20 minutes later she left the office in a very pleasant manner and within a week my great grandmother had convinced her husband and picked the second wife for my great grandfather.  When she was asked what Brigham said to her, she refused to reply except to say that she had never understood the importance of plural marriage.  She never spoke of what was revealed to her.

I am inclined to echo somewhat the impressions of my great grandfather.  That polygamy as most (nearly everybody?) realize and think of polygamy – as they would think of instituting it themselves – is wrong and likely unacceptable to G-d.   Being somewhat ignorant myself – I have determined attempting to even discuss this topic (especially to those more ignorant than myself) is an exercise in futility.

 

The Traveler

Thank you for sharing, 

I must admit the way you tell the story is quite amusing.
I do think Studying Church History it's plain to see the importance polygamy had, just today I was reflecting on how it could have served as a test of loyalty for senior leadership. At the time of Joseph Smiths death 10 out of the 12 Apostles were practicing plural marriage. By introducing the practice of Polygamy God had weeded out dissenters like the William Law's of the Church and prepared the Apostles for the succession crisis by cultivating a Quorum extremely loyal to prophetic Authority and the law of God. 
 

As you rightly say, we'll probably never fully understand it in this life, but it is so brutally looked down upon by modern members of the Church, that some try to flat out deny it, my goal with my post was to try and find out how widespread this kind of thinking is.  Reading section 132, these plural marriages were designed to be consenting, and the practice no doubt had many benefits and blessing for the community, so I guess I don't understand the modern shame harboured by members of the Church.  

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, HaggisShuu said:

Thank you for sharing, 

I must admit the way you tell the story is quite amusing.
I do think Studying Church History it's plain to see the importance polygamy had, just today I was reflecting on how it could have served as a test of loyalty for senior leadership. At the time of Joseph Smiths death 10 out of the 12 Apostles were practicing plural marriage. By introducing the practice of Polygamy God had weeded out dissenters like the William Law's of the Church and prepared the Apostles for the succession crisis by cultivating a Quorum extremely loyal to prophetic Authority and the law of God. 
 

As you rightly say, we'll probably never fully understand it in this life, but it is so brutally looked down upon by modern members of the Church, that some try to flat out deny it, my goal with my post was to try and find out how widespread this kind of thinking is.  Reading section 132, these plural marriages were designed to be consenting, and the practice no doubt had many benefits and blessing for the community, so I guess I don't understand the modern shame harboured by members of the Church.  

I thought to add some other things few know about plural marriage.  After the birth of Issac, Abraham took a concubine (Keturah) in marriage and had more sons.   Anciently the difference between a wife and a concubine was that a wife came to the marriage with a dowery that belonged to her and if there was any kind of separation the dowery had to be returned to her and her children.  It was common for a dowery to come with land and servants – and even treaties with families that could include armies and other assets.

Upon the death of Abraham, Issac inherited the birthright but Abraham other sons inherited land and wealth that became the rise of other nations known in the Bible records.  A descendant of Abraham through Keturah established the Midianite kingdom.  When Moses fled from Egypt he came into contact with Midian priest, Reuel, a Midianite that ordained Moses to the priesthood and prepared him to deliver Israel.  Moses also married his daughter Zipporah (Exodus 2).

In Jacob chapter 2 (Book of Mormon) G-d points out that the Nephites (by commandment) were to only have one wife and no concubines.  But it is pointed out that it is possible for G-d to command otherwise to “raise up seed unto him” (verse 30).  I understand that this means one only takes additional wives (or concubines) as commanded by G-d (as was Abraham).  Taking additional wives without commandment will bring a curse upon the land (verse 29).

As we read in the Book of Mormon we learn that even the wickedness of a few can bring difficulty upon many (the reason for so many wars).  I believe there is a connection to social violence and “whoredoms” in a society.

 

The Traveler

[laronius]

To claim that polygamy was not a commandment of God in the early Church it would not be sufficient to denounce Brigham Young. You would need to denounce perhaps a majority of all leadership top to bottom, in addition to a good chunk of the general membership. Do people really think the Lord would be okay with that? My guess is people just don't connect the dots on what that claim means.

[Maverick]

On 12/21/2024 at 4:03 AM, HaggisShuu said:

There are some who purport that section 132 wasn't actually written by Joseph Smith but was rather forced onto him by senior church members like Brigham Young and John Bennet to justify their adulterous behaviour. 
 

While I personally don't agree with this I can get why people would want to believe it, John Bennet was a known adulterer and had great political power in Nauvoo, and Brigham Young as president of the 12 went on to have 55 wives, many of them sexual relationships which was of course different to how Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, mainly just being sealed to them with very little evidence to suggest a significant number of these marriages were intimate. 
 

Some go one step further and deny Joseph practiced polygamy in the first place. 
 

Is there any substance to these theories or are they just coping mechanisms for people who can't reconcile the doctrine of polygamy? 

No, there's really no substance to these theories. This is the basic thought process of people who espouse these theories:

1) I don't like polygamy. It makes me really uncomfortable and I don't want to believe God commanded it.

2) Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith made multiple public denials that they were teaching and practicing polygamy and Emma denied that Joseph ever had any other wives to her children.

3) No known offspring have been found from Joseph Smith by any other woman than Emma.

4) If only accept Joseph and Hyrum's own publicly recorded contemporaneous statements and Emma's later denials as evidence and ignore the mountain of very solid evidence that Joseph Smith taught and practice polygamy, including receiving and teaching D&C 132, then I don't have to believe that polygamy was commanded by God or that Joseph Smith would "lie" or say or do anything that makes me uncomfortable.

But now I also believe that Brigham Young was a really bad dude and the church went off the rails after Joseph Smith's death, so I don't really believe that the church is the Lord's church anymore...*

 

Edited for clarity:

*I do not espouse these beliefs or agree with this thought process. I'm pointing out the thought process of those who reject D&C 132 and speak evil of Brigham Young over polygamy and other grievances. 

Edited December 22, 2024 by Maverick

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Maverick said:

But now I also believe that Brigham Young was a really bad dude and the church went off the rails after Joseph Smith's death, so I don't really believe that the church is the Lord's church anymore...

Then why do you call yourself a Latter-day Saint?

[HaggisShuu]

3 hours ago, Maverick said:

But now I also believe that Brigham Young was a really bad dude and the church went off the rails after Joseph Smith's death, so I don't really believe that the church is the Lord's church anymore...

If I remember correctly the first 7 presidents of the church had plural wives, so by this logic, the Church leadership only realigned itself with God after 1945. 
 

Hating on Brigham Young is an easy out. I know people who essentially disregard his status as prophet, because "too many wives, too racist"

[NeuroTypical]

7 hours ago, Maverick said:

I also believe that Brigham Young was a really bad dude and the church went off the rails after Joseph Smith's death, so I don't really believe that the church is the Lord's church anymore...

I'd like to suggest you give mormondialogue.org a try.  They welcome debate and criticism. 

 

[JohnsonJones]

The Dialogue of the Church has changed over the years...

Indications are that Joseph Smith was sealed to quite a number of women (though whether they actually were acted upon in how we see marriage is what is debatable).

We have no evidence that Joseph actually ever slept with other women (we know he was fertile, and as such, if he did consummate as many marriages as were recorded, there should be children and that means DNA evidence of such relations and relationships.  There is none that I know of).

The idea that Joseph had acted upon these relationships, rather than they were ceremonial (well, more than that, they were actual sealings) comes from the time of Brigham Young.  One of the more famous cases at the time dealt with  a messy divorce in which Brigham Young somehow dredged up a bunch of woman who claimed to have lived with Joseph in the same way wives lived with Brigham Young. 

At a later date it was shown that most of this, if they had investigated it properly with more modern ideas, would not be admissible.  Some of these witnesses were basically making things up whole clothe. 

This has been a source of contention for over a century now.  The Anti-Mormons leapt on these things to try to use the testimony to prove Joseph was an active polygamist doing certain acts.  The Church at the time pointed out how these witnesses were unreliable and because of this there was no actual evidence of Joseph having physical relationships outside his marriage to Emma (a point no longer pursued  by the Church today). 

It made some things that Young stated, from a Historical perspective (rather than a faith based, religious one), prone to more analysis and investigation as in some instances what he said was not able to be verified as historically accurate. 

In that same line, a story started that he either wrote, or discovered, section 132.  Many Anti-Mormons using the debunked testimony of the witnesses used it as further proof that section 132 had been forged by Brigham Young.

Officially, that has never been what the Church taught.  The Church has taught that section 132 was divine revelation, and that it was enacted by the Prophet at the time.  The method in which it was enacted has been debated and changed in it's form over the decades, but section 132 was always seen as coming from Joseph Smith and as divine revelation.  This is one item that has never changed that I recall, at least from the time I joined the Church to today.

[zil2]

6 hours ago, Vort said:

Then why do you call yourself a Latter-day Saint?

I believe he was still "in character", recounting the thoughts that the people who disbelieve D&C 132 would have.

[Carborendum]

Dehlin and others are now saying that we're "grooming" our children by including section 132 in the children's D&C picture book.

And if we had left that out, they'd be accusing us of hiding something.

 

[Maverick]

5 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

8 hours ago, Maverick said:

But now I also believe that Brigham Young was a really bad dude and the church went off the rails after Joseph Smith's death, so I don't really believe that the church is the Lord's church anymore...

If I remember correctly the first 7 presidents of the church had plural wives, so by this logic, the Church leadership only realigned itself with God after 1945. 
 

Hating on Brigham Young is an easy out. I know people who essentially disregard his status as prophet, because "too many wives, too racist"

7 hours ago, Vort said:

Then why do you call yourself a Latter-day Saint?

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'd like to suggest you give mormondialogue.org a try.  They welcome debate and criticism. 

54 minutes ago, zil2 said:

I believe he was still "in character", recounting the thoughts that the people who disbelieve D&C 132 would have.

Thank you @zil2! This is correct, I was referring to the thought process of those who deny that Joseph Smith taught and practiced polygamy, not stating my own views. 

I have the polar opposite take on Brigham Young. I consider him to be a true prophet and man of God, who is appropriately referred to as the "Lion of the Lord." I should have been more clear in my post, but I am a bit surprised, that considering my defense of the priesthood ban and the false charge of racism against Brother Brigham, that @Vort and @NeuroTypical jumped to the conclusion that they did.  

[Maverick]

6 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

If I remember correctly the first 7 presidents of the church had plural wives, so by this logic, the Church leadership only realigned itself with God after 1945. 

According to the thought process of those who reject that polygamy was commanded by God through Joseph Smith, the church didn't abandon this abomination until after the manifesto in 1890, when the practice began to stop. But I've also seen people in this camp accusing President Nelson and President Oaks of being polygamists because they are sealed to two wives (the first wives being deceased). 

6 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

Hating on Brigham Young is an easy out. I know people who essentially disregard his status as prophet, because "too many wives, too racist"

Agreed. And what drives me crazy is the inconsistency of people who do this. They'll downplay or outright ignore similar teachings and actions of Joseph Smith that they don't like, praising him as a true prophet, while criticizing Brigham Young and speaking evil of him until kingdom come. 

Edited December 22, 2024 by Maverick

[Maverick]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

The idea that Joseph had acted upon these relationships, rather than they were ceremonial (well, more than that, they were actual sealings) comes from the time of Brigham Young.  One of the more famous cases at the time dealt with  a messy divorce in which Brigham Young somehow dredged up a bunch of woman who claimed to have lived with Joseph in the same way wives lived with Brigham Young. 

Can you please provide the source for this? As I mentioned in the another thread, I think you're referring to the Temple Lot Case, which was after Brigham Young's death, which had nothing to do with a divorce. In the case of the Temple Lot, the testimonies of 3 of Joseph Smith's plural wives given by deposition is evidence that he consummated some of his marriages, but it's not the only source of this evidence. Other testimony by witnesses also show this. There's also considerable evidence that Emma was very upset with Joseph Smith over his marriages to other women. It seems unlikely that she would be this upset if these marriages were nothing more than a ceremonial sealings.

[Maverick]

7 hours ago, Vort said:

Then why do you call yourself a Latter-day Saint?

It's certainly a conundrum for those who hate on Brigham Young and consider D&C 132 to be a forgery to justify his abominable practice. If they were consistent they would join the Community of Christ (RLDS), the Rigdonites, or some other group that agrees with their position. But they tend to remain members of our church or become affiliated with fringe groups like the Snufferites or Doctrine of Christ. 

[zil2]

32 minutes ago, Maverick said:

I am a bit surprised, ..., that @Vort and @NeuroTypical jumped to the conclusion that they did.  

Perhaps they haven't had their morning coffee yet.

 

Oh.  Wait.  That's not it.

[Maverick]

9 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Perhaps they haven't had their morning coffee yet.

 

Oh.  Wait.  That's not it.

Or perhaps their morning Pepsi or Mountain Dew.  

[HaggisShuu]

1 hour ago, Maverick said:

It's certainly a conundrum for those who hate on Brigham Young and consider D&C 132 to be a forgery to justify his abominable practice. If they were consistent they would join the Community of Christ (RLDS), the Rigdonites, or some other group that agrees with their position. But they tend to remain members of our church or become affiliated with fringe groups like the Snufferites or Doctrine of Christ. 

I may be wrong? Isn't it the official position of the Community of Christ that Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy?