Difference between revisions of "Emma Smith in Doctrine and Covenants 132"

(→‎Question: Was Emma Smith promised "annihilation" if she didn't accept plural marriage?)
(→‎Question: Was Emma Smith promised "annihilation" if she didn't accept plural marriage?)
Line 6: Line 6:
 
It is claimed that "In the revelation [D&C 132] Emma was promised annihilation if she failed to 'abide this commandment.'"<ref>{{CriticalWork:Smith:Nauvoo Polygamy|pages=29}}</ref>
 
It is claimed that "In the revelation [D&C 132] Emma was promised annihilation if she failed to 'abide this commandment.'"<ref>{{CriticalWork:Smith:Nauvoo Polygamy|pages=29}}</ref>
  
−
There is no "annihilation" in Latter-day Saint doctrine. One definition of "destroy" in the 1828 Webster's Dictionary is "[t]o take away; to cause to cease; to put an end to; as, pain destroys happiness."<ref>Webster's Dictionary, "Destroy," Def. #6 <http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Destroy> (16 June 2020).</ref> In 132:20 the Lord promises the exalted couple: “Then shall they be gods, ''because they have no end''; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, ''because they continue''” (emphasis added). Rejecting God’s commandments makes people ineligible for exaltation and polygamy was commanded at that time (it isn’t today). Emma would be “destroyed” in the sense that she would ''not continue''—or not be exalted. An earlier verse makes it clear that death will "destroy" all that is not sanctioned and endorsed by God, including marriage contracts ({{s||D&C|132|12-14}}).  The section in a later verse then draws a distinction between being "destroyed" and "destroyed in the flesh." ({{s||DC|132|26}})&mdash;thus some sinners may suffer physical "buffeting" by Satan while their marital relationship may remain sanctioned.  
+
Here are the verses of Doctrine and Covenants 132 in question:
 +
:54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.
 +
:55 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 hundred-fold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.
  
−
The scripture says,  
+
One can see that the commandment given to Emma was to "to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else". This likely is a reference to adultery and/or being sealed to another man and not to accepting the plural marriage commandment. She is to remain faithful and supportive of her spouse. The punishment for committing adultery or being sealed to another man is that she will be "destroyed". The next verse is likely the one that refers to plural marriage though it's not entirely clear. It sets off a new clause with that "But". Plus, a different kind of consequence is promised for not accepting plural marriage. The consequence is that Joseph would "do all things for her; even as he hath said". A much more mild
  
−
<blockquote>
+
Keep in mind that that same punishment is promised to both men and women that don't abide strictly by the new and everlasting covenant by either committing adultery or are sealed illegally. This from verse 26 of the revelation:
−
And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else.  But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law" ({{s||D&C|132|54}}.
 
−
</blockquote>
 
  
−
The commandment given to Emma which she must "abide" is to "abide and cleave unto" Joseph.  She is to remain faithful and supportive of her spouse.  G.D. Smith's portrayal of this language applying to polygamy is false.
+
: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 innocent 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 (emphasis added).
  
−
===Other references to "destroyed"===
+
This from verses 41&ndash;42 of the revelation:
 +
:41 And as ye have 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 I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.
 +
:42 If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has committed adultery.
  
−
Elsewhere, others said to be destroyed are those who have pretended to moral purity despite sexual sins (see {{s||DC|132|52,63}}).
+
So a woman is not supposed to cleave unto another man after having been sealed to another man first in the new and everlasting covenant.
  
−
A final verse says that "if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law."  Note that ''God'' will destroy those who disobey&mdash;this is not a threat from Joseph about physical harm to Emma, and Emma certainly did not refrain from opposing plural marriage thereafter.  She does not seem to have been frightened or intimidated.
 
−
 
−
===This verse should be weighed with other revelation===
 
−
There is no annihilation in Latter-day Saint doctrine. There is promises of a capping of our increase (which is to be damned) and there is punishment (but not eternal as we don't believe in a hell for those that tried to be righteous).
 
  
 +
Other uses of the word "destroy" in the revelation are used in relation to those that are not sealed by priesthood authority ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.14?lang=eng Doctrine & Covenants 132:14]), in relation to those that Emma elects for Joseph to be sealed to and who have pretended to moral purity yet weren't morally pure ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.52?lang=eng Doctrine & Covenants 132:52]), in relation to Joseph and what will happen to his property if he put it out of his hands ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.57?lang=eng Doctrine and Covenants 132:57])<ref>The reference to "property" does appear to be an oblique reference to women. The language will appear stereotypically sexist to many viewers. So is D&C 132 sexist? Men and women sealed together are promised to share the same amount of power once they are out of the world in the revelation. See [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.19-20?lang=eng verses 19&ndash;20]. See also our page on this: [[Question: Is polygamy sexist?]]. So the revelation itself is not sexist. It doesn't intend to value men over women. God values us all equally and it is made clear by the revelation that he intends to give us the same blessings once we become gods. The language in verse 57 is certainly influenced by Joseph's legal milieu which followed a more patriarchal system of marriage that included laws for protecting a man's property including, as they were then legally considered, women. We need to remember that Heavenly Father speaks unto prophets "in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding" ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/1.24?lang=eng Doctrine & Covenants 1:24]). So the revelation follows Joseph's legal language and understanding. That does not, however, mean that that is how God valued women ''morally''. Thus the revelation does ''not'' need to be seen as sexist. We should be grateful for activists and legal scholars that have reshaped our understanding of marriage to not make women property.</ref>
  
 
{{Emma polygamy Hales site links}}
 
{{Emma polygamy Hales site links}}

Revision as of 21:49, 10 June 2022

  1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

Question: Was Emma Smith promised "annihilation" if she didn't accept plural marriage?

There is no "annihilation" in LDS doctrine: An earlier verse makes it clear that death will "destroy" all that is not sanctioned and endorsed by God

It is claimed that "In the revelation [D&C 132] Emma was promised annihilation if she failed to 'abide this commandment.'"[1]

Here are the verses of Doctrine and Covenants 132 in question:

54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.
55 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 hundred-fold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.

One can see that the commandment given to Emma was to "to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else". This likely is a reference to adultery and/or being sealed to another man and not to accepting the plural marriage commandment. She is to remain faithful and supportive of her spouse. The punishment for committing adultery or being sealed to another man is that she will be "destroyed". The next verse is likely the one that refers to plural marriage though it's not entirely clear. It sets off a new clause with that "But". Plus, a different kind of consequence is promised for not accepting plural marriage. The consequence is that Joseph would "do all things for her; even as he hath said". A much more mild

Keep in mind that that same punishment is promised to both men and women that don't abide strictly by the new and everlasting covenant by either committing adultery or are sealed illegally. This from verse 26 of the revelation:

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 innocent 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 (emphasis added).

This from verses 41–42 of the revelation:

41 And as ye have 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 I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.
42 If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has committed adultery.

So a woman is not supposed to cleave unto another man after having been sealed to another man first in the new and everlasting covenant.


Other uses of the word "destroy" in the revelation are used in relation to those that are not sealed by priesthood authority (Doctrine & Covenants 132:14), in relation to those that Emma elects for Joseph to be sealed to and who have pretended to moral purity yet weren't morally pure (Doctrine & Covenants 132:52), in relation to Joseph and what will happen to his property if he put it out of his hands (Doctrine and Covenants 132:57)[2]

See also Brian Hales' discussion
Sometime in 1840 Joseph Smith first broached the topic of plural marriage privately to trusted friends. Most of the apostles were in England and thus were unavailable for an introduction to the practice.
Joseph's first foray into plural marriage was deeply painful for Emma, his first wife.
It is impossible to definitively determine when Emma learned of Joseph’s plural marriages. However, many historical clues help to create a possible timeline.
The earliest documentable date for Emma’s awareness of time-and-eternity plural marriage is May of 1843, when she participated in four of her husband’s polygamous sealings.
Emma’s resistance to plural marriage prompted Hyrum to encourage Joseph to dictate a written revelation on the subject.
Rather than generating Emma’s active support, the revelation [D&C 132] appears to have brought a smoldering crisis to flame. She and Joseph took serious counsel together with some sort of agreement being negotiated.


Notes

  1. ↑ George D. Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy: "...but we called it celestial marriage" (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2008), 29. ( Index of claims , (Detailed book review))
  2. ↑ The reference to "property" does appear to be an oblique reference to women. The language will appear stereotypically sexist to many viewers. So is D&C 132 sexist? Men and women sealed together are promised to share the same amount of power once they are out of the world in the revelation. See verses 19–20. See also our page on this: Question: Is polygamy sexist?. So the revelation itself is not sexist. It doesn't intend to value men over women. God values us all equally and it is made clear by the revelation that he intends to give us the same blessings once we become gods. The language in verse 57 is certainly influenced by Joseph's legal milieu which followed a more patriarchal system of marriage that included laws for protecting a man's property including, as they were then legally considered, women. We need to remember that Heavenly Father speaks unto prophets "in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding" (Doctrine & Covenants 1:24). So the revelation follows Joseph's legal language and understanding. That does not, however, mean that that is how God valued women morally. Thus the revelation does not need to be seen as sexist. We should be grateful for activists and legal scholars that have reshaped our understanding of marriage to not make women property.
Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=Emma_Smith_in_Doctrine_and_Covenants_132&oldid=216631"