Faithful LDS woman ex'd for publicly announcing she doesn't believe JS lived polygamy.

[Tacenda]

What are your thoughts? Karen isn't the only one, there is another gal too, Michelle Stone, but not sure if Michelle was x'd, she relented and took down some podcasts. And many more out there that don't believe Joseph Smith lived polygamy.

I listened to the Inside Out podcast last night and this morning.  https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a-conversation-with-karen-hyatt/id1682941294?i=1000741157141  The polygamy thing is what took me into inactivity when finding out JS lived polygamy, and the way he did, in my mid forties. It changed my life to learn of this and sent me down the rabbit hole. It's strange how these women don't believe the given polygamist wives' testimonies in a court of law, such as the Reed Smoot hearings, or don't seem to mention it. Could they be oblivious?  https://wheatandtares.org/2018/02/04/the-reed-smoot-hearings/

Karen thinks the church should change the narrative of Joseph Smith living polygamy in church history. She thinks just like the ban on blacks getting the Priesthood, polygamy came from Brigham Young. She thinks now that the church is calling that a racist thing now, BY's teachings, the same should go for JS's polygamy just being a teaching of BY.

Karen has a movie and a book she made and wrote, and she's gone to several leaders to get the news out and shared these items with leaders at the top.

Does Karen have a leg to stand on? I'm not sure.

Found this YouTube, that might help give context. 

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a-conversation-with-karen-hyatt/id1682941294?i=1000741157141

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

She didn't merely "announce" she is a polygamy denier- she went in the offensive. When you publicly and persistently impugn the name of former prophets and apostles and promote conspiracy theories up to, and including, suggesting that former Church leaders killed or had Joseph killed- don't be surprised if your Stake Presidency comes calling.

Edited December 15, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

What are your thoughts? Karen isn't the only one, there is another gal too, Michelle Stone, but not sure if Michelle was x'd, she relented and took down some podcasts. And many more out there that don't believe Joseph Smith lived polygamy.

I listened to the Inside Out podcast last night and this morning.  https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a-conversation-with-karen-hyatt/id1682941294?i=1000741157141  The polygamy thing is what took me into inactivity when finding out JS lived polygamy, and the way he did, in my mid forties. It changed my life to learn of this and sent me down the rabbit hole. It's strange how these women don't believe the given polygamist wives' testimonies in a court of law, such as the Reed Smoot hearings, or don't seem to mention it. Could they be oblivious?  https://wheatandtares.org/2018/02/04/the-reed-smoot-hearings/

Karen thinks the church should change the narrative of Joseph Smith living polygamy in church history. She thinks just like the ban on blacks getting the Priesthood, polygamy came from Brigham Young. She thinks now that the church is calling that a racist thing now, BY's teachings, the same should go for JS's polygamy just being a teaching of BY.

Karen has a movie and a book she made and wrote, and she's gone to several leaders to get the news out and shared these items with leaders at the top.

Does Karen have a leg to stand on? I'm not sure.

Found this YouTube, that might help give context. 

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a-conversation-with-karen-hyatt/id1682941294?i=1000741157141

 

I can't really speak to it without watching the video, and to be honest I don't want to watch the video.  I'm guessing that she's doing more than just being public about her personal views on JS and polygamy, but that's just a guess.

[JVW]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

What are your thoughts? Karen isn't the only one, there is another gal too, Michelle Stone, but not sure if Michelle was x'd, she relented and took down some podcasts. And many more out there that don't believe Joseph Smith lived polygamy.

I listened to the Inside Out podcast last night and this morning.  https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a-conversation-with-karen-hyatt/id1682941294?i=1000741157141  The polygamy thing is what took me into inactivity when finding out JS lived polygamy, and the way he did, in my mid forties. It changed my life to learn of this and sent me down the rabbit hole. It's strange how these women don't believe the given polygamist wives' testimonies in a court of law, such as the Reed Smoot hearings, or don't seem to mention it. Could they be oblivious?  https://wheatandtares.org/2018/02/04/the-reed-smoot-hearings/

Karen thinks the church should change the narrative of Joseph Smith living polygamy in church history. She thinks just like the ban on blacks getting the Priesthood, polygamy came from Brigham Young. She thinks now that the church is calling that a racist thing now, BY's teachings, the same should go for JS's polygamy just being a teaching of BY.

Karen has a movie and a book she made and wrote, and she's gone to several leaders to get the news out and shared these items with leaders at the top.

Does Karen have a leg to stand on? I'm not sure.

Found this YouTube, that might help give context.

I believe that Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage, due to a misunderstanding in how the radical new doctrine of sealing operates. They used to do adoptions and believe that everyone had to be sealed to the prophet in order to go to heaven. To this day we don't really know anything about what sealing means and I don't fault Joseph for getting sealed to a bunch of women.

I do not believe that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. That is, living a married lifestyle with more than one woman. Anytime he was asked about polygamy he vehemently denied it and condemned the practice. As far as I recall (I don't have time to write a scholarly, well sourced article in this post) all of the women's testimonies in court were given after Joseph was dead and he was unable to defend himself against his accusers. Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants wasn't released until like the 1850s. The angel with the drawn sword story was first told in like the mid-1850s and nearly every other account was 1860s, 1880s, or later and it was all "I heard from a friend who heard it from their dad who heard it from Joseph" type of things.

I do not believe that Joseph was murdered by Brigham Young, but I do think it's possible that Willard Richards murdered Hyrum in jail during the commotion. I saw a pretty persuasive video essay about it once examining the bullet wounds. For the record, Brigham Young is my favorite prophet and I do not believe that the "Brighamite" church went into apostasy and departed from Joseph's teachings and all of that.

I can't explain the D&C 132 thing. Even though it was released posthumously, there strong evidence that Joseph dictated the revelation. This record is from 1843, before Joseph died, and it has all of the juicy polygamy stuff in it https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-12-july-1843-dc-132/5 The strangest thing about 132 is that it contradicts the dead sea scrolls, the Bible, and the Book of Mormon all in one fell swoop! Note this quote from the Damascus Document, found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (copied from this article https://oneclimbs.com/2023/09/15/commandments-given-unto-our-fathers/):

Quote

“[took] two wives in their lifetimes, although the principle of creation is “male and female He created them” (Gen. 1:27) and those who went into the ark “went into the ark two by two” (Gen. 7:9). Concerning the Leader it is written “he shall not multiply wives to himself” (Deut. 17:17); but David had not read the sealed book of the Law in the Ark; for it was not opened in Israel from the day of the death of Eleazar and Joshua and the elders who served the goddess Ashtoret. It lay buried [and was not] revealed until the appearance of Zadok. Nevertheless the deeds of David were all excellent, except the murder of Uriah and God forgave him for that.

132 says that David will not be exalted because of Uriah. It contradicts the Bible because Isaac didn't have more than one wife but 132 says he did. It contradicts the Book of Mormon because Jacob says that "many wives and concubines is an abomination to God" and 132 says it is not.

Anyways, I had an itch to scratch with polygamy and researched into it for 2-3 years until I reached a personal resolution (which is that half of section 132 is not God's word). Before I started my research journey I wanted to write a letter to the prophet about it, but realized it would be kicked down to the Stake, and the Stake would kick it down to the Bishop, and the Bishop doesn't have any idea so I just minded my own business. I tend to keep my position on the topic somewhat private because it is against the church's official apologetics (which I think are trying to justify an abomination). I imagine that if I went all public about it I would get excommunicated too.

To me it is obvious that polygamy was a Brigham Young thing because it basically started with Brigham Young and ended like a decade after he died. God allowed Brigham to live in error because he lets us humans do that, and then in order to preserve the church he quickly course corrected it using political influence from the U.S. Government. Thank goodness he did!

That's my two cents. I love this topic. Thanks for the video recommendation and the OP. Cheers!

[bluebell]

One thing with section 132 that might be helpful is to remember that it was written specifically to Emma (at the request of Hyrum) to try to convince her of the truthfulness of polygamy. That, along with the fact that it was never revised by JS for publication to the general membership (while many if not most of the other revelations were), is good evidence that the version we have is not the version we would have had if JS had lived longer. 

[JVW]

33 minutes ago, bluebell said:

One thing with section 132 that might be helpful is to remember that it was written specifically to Emma (at the request of Hyrum) to try to convince her of the truthfulness of polygamy. That, along with the fact that it was never revised by JS for publication to the general membership (while many if not most of the other revelations were), is good evidence that the version we have is not the version we would have had if JS had lived longer. 

I appreciate the thought here. I was just leaning towards chalking it up to a revelation from an evil spirit or a forgery or something.

I wasn't aware that Joseph edited his revelations in the D&C. That's really interesting to me because how did he know when he had gotten the revelation "just right"? Do you know which revelations Joseph considered complete and which were unfinished? AFAIK the JST of the Bible isn't regarded as canon because he was in the middle of it even though he did the bulk of the work in the early 1830s.

[SkyRock]

This is a distant family member. I felt sad. 

People get obsessed with their points of doctrine.  Best not to go public with it if you want to stay in the church. 

 

[bluebell]

49 minutes ago, JVW said:

I appreciate the thought here. I was just leaning towards chalking it up to a revelation from an evil spirit or a forgery or something.

I wasn't aware that Joseph edited his revelations in the D&C. That's really interesting to me because how did he know when he had gotten the revelation "just right"? Do you know which revelations Joseph considered complete and which were unfinished? AFAIK the JST of the Bible isn't regarded as canon because he was in the middle of it even though he did the bulk of the work in the early 1830s.

Latter-day Saint scholar Brittnay Nash has a good take on it. She wrote the book “Let’s Talk about Polygamy” and was on the Follow Him podcast for section 132.  I’m going to quote right from the transcript below. It’s all her speaking.

”For D&C 132, we have the backstory. I would love to share that with listeners so that they can approach it knowing how it came about and why we have a revelation written for one person.

That person is Emma Smith. The historical context of the revelation is written down by William Clayton, who was one of Joseph Smith’s scribes and historians, but there are others that can corroborate with the account of how he recorded it. I’ll just read straight from his account where he had written down several of Joseph Smith’s revelations. They were in the red brick store. They were talking about plural marriage, and it was weighing on Joseph. He did not have Emma’s support to practice the principle. He didn’t know how to handle it. He was with his brother Hyrum and William Clayton. Hyrum said, “just write a revelation and the principle’s so plain I’ll take the revelation over to her once it’s complete and I’ll read it to her and she’ll believe because the doctrine’s so plain.” This is from William Clayton’s later reminiscences of that day. He says that Hyrum said to Joseph, “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 remarked, “you do not know Emma as well as I do.” Hyrum repeated his opinion and further remarked “the doctrine is so plain I can convince any reasonable man or woman of its truth, purity, and heavenly origin or words to their effect.”

Joseph then said, “well, I will write the revelation and we will see.”

We learned from this paragraph that this revelation came about to help appease Emma Smith’s concerns about plural marriage. It’s being dictated with Emma in mind and we see through the revelation that there are specific references to Joseph, specific references to Emma, which further conveys the domestic relationship in this revelation. Maybe he had other people besides Emma in mind for this revelation, but Emma was its primary audience. Hyrum presented the revelation to Emma. It did not go well.

Emma rejected the revelation and according to existing records, she ended up burning it. She did not believe it. Joseph Smith and Emma were sealed together on May 28th, 1843. This revelation came July 12th, 1843, so just a few months after they had been sealed. We can learn that Emma was already familiar with the concept of eternal marriage. She and Joseph had already been sealed. Joseph Smith had been teaching the concept of eternal marriage for a number of years. By this time plural marriage was an appendage of that larger concept of eternal marriage. This revelation includes information about eternal marriage, but in my mind, this is a plural marriage document. It’s not intended to teach us solely about eternal marriage. This is not all there is to know about marriage. It’s intended to explain plural marriage to Emma. In the meantime, we get insight into what eternal marriage is.

I don’t think it was easy for anyone when it was practiced in reality. Kind of how I want to frame this section going forward is in this quotation by Joseph F. Smith. He’s the son of Hyrum Smith, later becomes President of the Church. He has what I think is a good way to look at this revelation as a whole. He says, when the revelation was written in 1843, 

"--it was for a 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 probable that had it then been written with a view to its going out as a doctrine of the church it would have been presented in a somewhat different form. There are personalities 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 that 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 being."

That really rings true to me in how we should approach this section. It was a revelation made by the request of Hyrum Smith to read to Emma who had preexisting knowledge of eternal marriage and plural marriage. Sometimes as I’ve read the section, I felt like I’ve kind of dropped into a topic mid conversation or things are alluded to and you think, oh what happened here? What’s this? It could feel a little disjointed while reading, that is because we are somewhat being dropped into a mid-conversation record. There’s that as well to be mindful of as we go through and take a look at this.

If it were written with a view of its going out as a doctrine of the church, it would’ve been presented in a somewhat different form. There’s a great case to make because that’s a precedent. 

This was included in the 1876 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. It wasn’t publicly presented to the church until 1852. Once the Saints were in the Salt Lake Valley, they had lived here for several years. They had kept the practice of plural marriage quiet, as quiet as they could for that long. They weren’t preaching openly about it from the pulpit. If you were to live in a Latter-day Saint community, it would be obvious some people were practicing it. But if you are not in a Latter-day Saint community, if you lived in Europe, it would not have been something that was taught to you as a doctrine of the church.

But finally in 1852, they decided they would start preaching publicly about it Orson Pratt who we’ve heard about several times already, who put together this edition of the Doctrine and Covenants was the one who first talked about plural marriage in front of a large audience in Salt Lake City. After that, the revelation was published, distributed in newspaper form and in some other formats over the years, and then finally came out canonized in 1876. 

Joseph Smith did not touch the revelation for it to be published. That was done completely without his say in the matter. He had long been dead after that. In earlier versions of the Doctrine and Covenants, when they were prepared for publication during Joseph Smith’s lifetime, he would make revisions to the revelations before they were printed so that they would be adapted for a broader readership.

If we look through the revelations, they’re written for people.This is the same with them in mind as the revelations are being prepared for publication. It still includes the names of the people and the surrounding circumstances in the publications, but he does adapt them so that a broader audience can read them and understand them. Revelation is not necessarily a one and done event. It’s ongoing, so I don’t think it’s problematic to be revising revelations for publication ’cause you’re speaking to a different audience and we have an open canon. Revelation can be received in the preparing of publication. All of that is to say that there’s a precedent for Joseph Smith having changed revelations in preparation for them going to a broader audience than he originally intended for that revelation. That likely would’ve been the case for D&C 132.

 For our purposes if we read it with the understanding that it was for an audience of one, primarily for an audience of one, that can help us in our reading.

 It was written at a certain moment of time under certain pressures and circumstances.

When you’re looking at a document, particularly something as important as what you’re going to declare as scripture, you want to make sure you know its provenance. Where did it come from? Who had it, whose possession was it in and for what period of time? That day, the revelation was copied by Joseph Kingsbury word for word. It was read back and verified as being the same document transcribed by William Clayton. Hyrum brought his William Clayton version of the revelation and Emma burned that revelation, but a copy was in the hands of Joseph Kingsbury. That copy was actually read in a very tight circle. It was read to the council of the 50 and a few other people had it in their possession for a short time. It did get small circulation during Joseph Smith’s lifetime and of course plural marriage was continued to be taught during and after Joseph Smith’s death by that corpus of people who had the revelation.

It was not read publicly though until 1852. In that time period it had been in the possession of Newell K. Whitney and then was given to Brigham Young. We have record of the hands that it went between. Provenance is really important for establishing whether or not a record can be trusted as being what it says it is and having a line that you can trace of people. There wasn’t just a gap of 30 years and then this document shows up out of nowhere. And then what’s being said around the document, you like to be able to triangulate your sources. How many sources? Bad, good, it doesn’t matter if they’re friendly sources or unfriendly sources. What mentions this, the more sources you can get that at least make reference or illusion to something existing, the better. It’s quite clear that this document is what it says it is, that it was indeed dictated by Joseph Smith and kept in possession of church leaders until it was announced at the pulpit in 1852.

That part at the end about provenance is really important because it helps us to understand historical documents a little better. Sometimes we want to dismiss things because we don’t like what they mean or what they say, but provenance is about looking at the evidence in order to judge, whether or not something is what it reports to believe.

When it comes to section 132, the provenance seems clear. You can believe that Joseph Smith was wrong or deceived, but all the evidence we have supports this revelation coming from his hand.

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, SkyRock said:

This is a distant family member. I felt sad. 

People get obsessed with their points of doctrine.  Best not to go public with it if you want to stay in the church. 

 

Especially since there is no requirement that somebody accepts polygamy as being from God.  You can tell your Bishop that you don’t believe it was from God and still get a temple. Recommend because you can still answer all the questions correctly.  

[JVW]

42 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Latter-day Saint scholar Brittnay Nash has a good take on it. She wrote the book “Let’s Talk about Polygamy” and was on the Follow Him podcast for section 132.  I’m going to quote right from the transcript below. It’s all her speaking.

”For D&C 132, we have the backstory. I would love to share that with listeners so that they can approach it knowing how it came about and why we have a revelation written for one person.

That person is Emma Smith. The historical context of the revelation is written down by William Clayton, who was one of Joseph Smith’s scribes and historians, but there are others that can corroborate with the account of how he recorded it. I’ll just read straight from his account where he had written down several of Joseph Smith’s revelations. They were in the red brick store. They were talking about plural marriage, and it was weighing on Joseph. He did not have Emma’s support to practice the principle. He didn’t know how to handle it. He was with his brother Hyrum and William Clayton. Hyrum said, “just write a revelation and the principle’s so plain I’ll take the revelation over to her once it’s complete and I’ll read it to her and she’ll believe because the doctrine’s so plain.” This is from William Clayton’s later reminiscences of that day. He says that Hyrum said to Joseph, “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 remarked, “you do not know Emma as well as I do.” Hyrum repeated his opinion and further remarked “the doctrine is so plain I can convince any reasonable man or woman of its truth, purity, and heavenly origin or words to their effect.”

Joseph then said, “well, I will write the revelation and we will see.”

We learned from this paragraph that this revelation came about to help appease Emma Smith’s concerns about plural marriage. It’s being dictated with Emma in mind and we see through the revelation that there are specific references to Joseph, specific references to Emma, which further conveys the domestic relationship in this revelation. Maybe he had other people besides Emma in mind for this revelation, but Emma was its primary audience. Hyrum presented the revelation to Emma. It did not go well.

Emma rejected the revelation and according to existing records, she ended up burning it. She did not believe it. Joseph Smith and Emma were sealed together on May 28th, 1843. This revelation came July 12th, 1843, so just a few months after they had been sealed. We can learn that Emma was already familiar with the concept of eternal marriage. She and Joseph had already been sealed. Joseph Smith had been teaching the concept of eternal marriage for a number of years. By this time plural marriage was an appendage of that larger concept of eternal marriage. This revelation includes information about eternal marriage, but in my mind, this is a plural marriage document. It’s not intended to teach us solely about eternal marriage. This is not all there is to know about marriage. It’s intended to explain plural marriage to Emma. In the meantime, we get insight into what eternal marriage is.

I don’t think it was easy for anyone when it was practiced in reality. Kind of how I want to frame this section going forward is in this quotation by Joseph F. Smith. He’s the son of Hyrum Smith, later becomes President of the Church. He has what I think is a good way to look at this revelation as a whole. He says, when the revelation was written in 1843, 

"--it was for a 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 probable that had it then been written with a view to its going out as a doctrine of the church it would have been presented in a somewhat different form. There are personalities 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 that 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 being."

That really rings true to me in how we should approach this section. It was a revelation made by the request of Hyrum Smith to read to Emma who had preexisting knowledge of eternal marriage and plural marriage. Sometimes as I’ve read the section, I felt like I’ve kind of dropped into a topic mid conversation or things are alluded to and you think, oh what happened here? What’s this? It could feel a little disjointed while reading, that is because we are somewhat being dropped into a mid-conversation record. There’s that as well to be mindful of as we go through and take a look at this.

If it were written with a view of its going out as a doctrine of the church, it would’ve been presented in a somewhat different form. There’s a great case to make because that’s a precedent. 

This was included in the 1876 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. It wasn’t publicly presented to the church until 1852. Once the Saints were in the Salt Lake Valley, they had lived here for several years. They had kept the practice of plural marriage quiet, as quiet as they could for that long. They weren’t preaching openly about it from the pulpit. If you were to live in a Latter-day Saint community, it would be obvious some people were practicing it. But if you are not in a Latter-day Saint community, if you lived in Europe, it would not have been something that was taught to you as a doctrine of the church.

But finally in 1852, they decided they would start preaching publicly about it Orson Pratt who we’ve heard about several times already, who put together this edition of the Doctrine and Covenants was the one who first talked about plural marriage in front of a large audience in Salt Lake City. After that, the revelation was published, distributed in newspaper form and in some other formats over the years, and then finally came out canonized in 1876. 

Joseph Smith did not touch the revelation for it to be published. That was done completely without his say in the matter. He had long been dead after that. In earlier versions of the Doctrine and Covenants, when they were prepared for publication during Joseph Smith’s lifetime, he would make revisions to the revelations before they were printed so that they would be adapted for a broader readership.

If we look through the revelations, they’re written for people.This is the same with them in mind as the revelations are being prepared for publication. It still includes the names of the people and the surrounding circumstances in the publications, but he does adapt them so that a broader audience can read them and understand them. Revelation is not necessarily a one and done event. It’s ongoing, so I don’t think it’s problematic to be revising revelations for publication ’cause you’re speaking to a different audience and we have an open canon. Revelation can be received in the preparing of publication. All of that is to say that there’s a precedent for Joseph Smith having changed revelations in preparation for them going to a broader audience than he originally intended for that revelation. That likely would’ve been the case for D&C 132.

 For our purposes if we read it with the understanding that it was for an audience of one, primarily for an audience of one, that can help us in our reading.

 It was written at a certain moment of time under certain pressures and circumstances.

When you’re looking at a document, particularly something as important as what you’re going to declare as scripture, you want to make sure you know its provenance. Where did it come from? Who had it, whose possession was it in and for what period of time? That day, the revelation was copied by Joseph Kingsbury word for word. It was read back and verified as being the same document transcribed by William Clayton. Hyrum brought his William Clayton version of the revelation and Emma burned that revelation, but a copy was in the hands of Joseph Kingsbury. That copy was actually read in a very tight circle. It was read to the council of the 50 and a few other people had it in their possession for a short time. It did get small circulation during Joseph Smith’s lifetime and of course plural marriage was continued to be taught during and after Joseph Smith’s death by that corpus of people who had the revelation.

It was not read publicly though until 1852. In that time period it had been in the possession of Newell K. Whitney and then was given to Brigham Young. We have record of the hands that it went between. Provenance is really important for establishing whether or not a record can be trusted as being what it says it is and having a line that you can trace of people. There wasn’t just a gap of 30 years and then this document shows up out of nowhere. And then what’s being said around the document, you like to be able to triangulate your sources. How many sources? Bad, good, it doesn’t matter if they’re friendly sources or unfriendly sources. What mentions this, the more sources you can get that at least make reference or illusion to something existing, the better. It’s quite clear that this document is what it says it is, that it was indeed dictated by Joseph Smith and kept in possession of church leaders until it was announced at the pulpit in 1852.

That part at the end about provenance is really important because it helps us to understand historical documents a little better. Sometimes we want to dismiss things because we don’t like what they mean or what they say, but provenance is about looking at the evidence in order to judge, whether or not something is what it reports to believe.

When it comes to section 132, the provenance seems clear. You can believe that Joseph Smith was wrong or deceived, but all the evidence we have supports this revelation coming from his hand.

Thanks for sharing that. I agree about the provenance, there was a brief period of time where I refused to believe that Joseph dictated it, but the evidence is too strong against that belief. While this does offer a helpful perspective, 132 still makes some very outrageous claims and I most definitely believe that Joseph would have revised it in a less emotionally volatile setting. But that also explains why Brigham was so hard-nosed about polygamy and led the church that direction. If the council of the 50 were using this document as instruction then there is little room to interpret it any differently than it was. And that group was the reason why Brigham was chosen over Sidney to be the next president, because Sidney wasn't part of the 50.

Even though Joseph was an amazing prophet, he was still a guy and got things wrong. It's just a shame that it had to be 132 of all things. Or maybe God wanted this blemish on church history for His own wise and mysterious purposes and so He intentionally withheld more information about it, who knows?

It would be nice if we could get some new sections of the D&C from living church leaders to elucidate further on what sealing actually means.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, JVW said:

Thanks for sharing that. I agree about the provenance, there was a brief period of time where I refused to believe that Joseph dictated it, but the evidence is too strong against that belief. While this does offer a helpful perspective, 132 still makes some very outrageous claims and I most definitely believe that Joseph would have revised it in a less emotionally volatile setting. But that also explains why Brigham was so hard-nosed about polygamy and led the church that direction. If the council of the 50 were using this document as instruction then there is little room to interpret it any differently than it was. And that group was the reason why Brigham was chosen over Sidney to be the next president, because Sidney wasn't part of the 50.

Even though Joseph was an amazing prophet, he was still a guy and got things wrong. It's just a shame that it had to be 132 of all things. Or maybe God wanted this blemish on church history for His own wise and mysterious purposes and so He intentionally withheld more information about it, who knows?

It would be nice if we could get some new sections of the D&C from living church leaders to elucidate further on what sealing actually means.

I would guess that any new revelations we do receive that make it into the doctrine and covenants will be revelations applicable and relevant to our current lives. Since polygamy is completely historical at this point (or theoretical in terms of the next life) I don’t foresee us getting one on that subject anytime soon.

I do think it’s important not to be offended on behalf of those we don’t know or for hurts or injustices we never suffered though.  

[Senator]

58 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Especially since there is no requirement that somebody accepts polygamy as being from God.  You can tell your Bishop that you don’t believe it was from God and still get a temple. Recommend because you can still answer all the questions correctly.  

I'm sensing some possible dissonance here.  Particularly with questions 3 and 7.

How does one have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel when one believes significant revelations were not of God? (question 3)

By believing certain significant "teachings, practices or doctrines" were not God given, how does that not put someone in a contrary position to the church? (question 7)

asking for a friend...😉

[bluebell]

Just now, Senator said:

I'm sensing some possible dissonance here.  Particularly with questions 3 and 7.

How does one have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel when one believes significant revelations were not of God? (question 3)

By believing certain significant "teachings, practices or doctrines" were not God given, how does that not put someone in a contrary position to the church? (question 7)

asking for a friend...😉

I'm not sure that plural marriage can be described as being supported by 'significant revelation', but I think it would be more helpful to ask those who don't believe plural marriage was from God but still fully support the church and have temple recommends.  I know quite a few but I've never asked them these questions and I don't want to put words in their mouth.

If I had to guess, I think the answer most people who don't believe it was of God give is that this is one time when JS was a fallible prophet.

For question 7, I don't think most people see disagreeing with polygamy as supporting or promoting "teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."  Publicly preaching it was wrong and trying to call the church to repentance about it or teaching that JS was a fallen prophet, sure, that would probably be included.  But not agreeing that a historical practice was from God being connected to question 7?  I don't think that causes much angst for most members in this position.

Sis. Nash (besides an author she's a church historian) had this disclaimer at the beginning of speaking about section 132 that I thought was really important for members who struggle with this to think about.

"So before we jump into section 132, the revelation on eternal and plural marriage. I want everyone to understand that we do not need to leave this section feeling that we must have a testimony of plural marriage, that it’s a requirement to believe in it in order to be a faithful member of the church. That is not the case."

Then she goes on to explain some good reasons to study the section, and some things that we can learn from it without having to accept polygamy.

[Buckeye]

27 minutes ago, Senator said:

I'm sensing some possible dissonance here.  Particularly with questions 3 and 7.

How does one have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel when one believes significant revelations were not of God? (question 3)

By believing certain significant "teachings, practices or doctrines" were not God given, how does that not put someone in a contrary position to the church? (question 7)

asking for a friend...😉

Answering for myself …. By not believing that polygamy is part of the restoration, and by not promoting that polygamy was/is false. If someone asks me I’ll answer truthfully that I don’t believe polygamy was ever Gods will. But I don’t actively go around trying to teach members it’s false. 
FWIW, I find it interesting that you’d cite question 7 here, considering the original purpose of that question was to root out polygamists. 

[Senator]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure that plural marriage can be described as being supported by 'significant revelation',

It better be, or this is really messed up!

This makes me shake my head.  I don't get it.

[Senator]

9 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

 By not believing that polygamy is part of the restoration. 

My GG grandfather spent 6 summer months in the Yuma territorial prison on the charges of practicing polygamy.  I am genuinely curious how he would respond to that sentiment.

 

[JVW]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I do think it’s important not to be offended on behalf of those we don’t know or for hurts or injustices we never suffered though.  

Even though I view polygamy as an abomination in God's site and against His will when the church practiced it I do not discount or ignore the myriad testimonies of women who God supported during that time. He takes care of His own, regardless of what decisions the leaders of His church make. It is actually quite beautiful and I'm glad can operate independently, at a personal level, for each of His children and not solely through church leaders who do dumb stuff from time to time.

[longview]

38 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure that plural marriage can be described as being supported by 'significant revelation'

It was very urgent, significantly so, according to Joseph Smith. I asked chatGPT:

in lds history, did an angel with a sword stand over joseph smith asserting that he must practice plural marriage?

 

Yes. Multiple independent historical sources within early Latter-day Saint history attest that Joseph Smith reported being commanded by an angel—described as bearing a drawn sword—to institute and practice plural marriage, under threat of divine judgment if he refused. While the precise wording varies among accounts, the core claim is consistent across time, witnesses, and provenance.

Below is a careful, source-based explanation.

---

Core Claim

Joseph Smith taught privately that an angel of God appeared to him with a drawn sword and commanded him to practice plural marriage, warning that failure to obey would result in his destruction.

This claim is not late folklore; it appears in firsthand and secondhand accounts from individuals closely connected to Joseph Smith, including his plural wives, close associates, and later Church leaders who learned of it directly from participants.

---

Primary and Near-Primary Sources

1. Eliza R. Snow (plural wife of Joseph Smith)

Eliza Snow stated that Joseph Smith told her that the commandment came by angelic visitation and was enforced by threat.

Later summaries of her testimony report:

Joseph Smith “received the revelation from God, and that an angel with a drawn sword stood before him and commanded him to obey.”

Snow was not recounting hearsay decades removed; she was personally involved in the early practice and regarded plural marriage as divinely mandated despite personal cost.

---

2. Heber C. Kimball (Apostle, First Presidency)

Kimball taught publicly that Joseph Smith struggled deeply with the commandment and only proceeded after repeated angelic warnings.

Paraphrase from Kimball’s teaching:

Joseph Smith delayed obeying the commandment until an angel appeared with a drawn sword and threatened him with destruction if he did not proceed.

Kimball framed this not as indulgence, but as reluctant obedience.

---

3. Brigham Young

Brigham Young consistently testified that plural marriage was introduced by Joseph Smith under extraordinary divine compulsion, not personal desire.

Young stated that Joseph:

• Found the principle abhorrent at first

• Attempted to avoid it

• Finally complied only after angelic enforcement

Young explicitly referenced the drawn sword motif in multiple sermons.

---

4. Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner (plural wife)

Lightner gave a detailed autobiographical account stating that Joseph told her:

• An angel appeared to him

• The angel held a drawn sword

• He was commanded to enter plural marriage or face destruction

Her account is among the most detailed and consistent first-person recollections.

---

5. William Clayton (Joseph Smith’s secretary)

Clayton recorded in his journals that Joseph told him:

• He was commanded by an angel

• The commandment was not optional

• Severe consequences were attached to refusal

Clayton was present when the 1843 revelation (now Doctrine and Covenants 132) was dictated.

---

Canonical LDS Context

Doctrine and Covenants 132

While D&C 132 does not explicitly mention an angel with a sword, it repeatedly emphasizes:

• Divine command

• Severe consequences for disobedience

• The principle being restored through Joseph Smith specifically

The angelic enforcement narrative functions as historical context, not canonized text.

---

Scholarly and Institutional Consensus

Importantly, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not deny this claim. Modern Church historians and official publications acknowledge that:

• Joseph Smith taught that plural marriage was commanded by God

• He resisted the commandment

• Angelic visitation was part of his explanation for proceeding

The Church refrains from dramatizing the image but does not reject its historicity.

---

Important Clarifications

• The angel is never named in surviving accounts.

• The language “with a sword” appears consistently, sometimes phrased as “drawn sword.”

• The experience is described as coercive, not persuasive.

• No contemporary, hostile source invented the story; it comes from insiders defending the practice.

---

Summary Judgment

Yes. According to multiple independent LDS historical sources, Joseph Smith taught that an angel with a drawn sword commanded him to practice plural marriage and threatened him with destruction if he did not comply.

This claim:

• Is early

• Is consistent

• Comes from participants and witnesses

• Is acknowledged (though not emphasized) by modern LDS scholarship

[Buckeye]

36 minutes ago, Senator said:

My GG grandfather spent 6 summer months in the Yuma territorial prison on the charges of practicing polygamy.  I am genuinely curious how he would respond to that sentiment.

 

I hope you get to ask him someday. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

Scenario:

Poof! Section 132 disappears...

Where does the doctrine of eternal marriage come from?

Edited December 16, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[JVW]

48 minutes ago, longview said:

It was very urgent, significantly so, according to Joseph Smith. I asked chatGPT:

in lds history, did an angel with a sword stand over joseph smith asserting that he must practice plural marriage?

 

Yes. Multiple independent historical sources within early Latter-day Saint history attest that Joseph Smith reported being commanded by an angel—described as bearing a drawn sword—to institute and practice plural marriage, under threat of divine judgment if he refused. While the precise wording varies among accounts, the core claim is consistent across time, witnesses, and provenance.

Below is a careful, source-based explanation.

---

Core Claim

Joseph Smith taught privately that an angel of God appeared to him with a drawn sword and commanded him to practice plural marriage, warning that failure to obey would result in his destruction.

This claim is not late folklore; it appears in firsthand and secondhand accounts from individuals closely connected to Joseph Smith, including his plural wives, close associates, and later Church leaders who learned of it directly from participants.

---

Primary and Near-Primary Sources

1. Eliza R. Snow (plural wife of Joseph Smith)

Eliza Snow stated that Joseph Smith told her that the commandment came by angelic visitation and was enforced by threat.

Later summaries of her testimony report:

Joseph Smith “received the revelation from God, and that an angel with a drawn sword stood before him and commanded him to obey.”

Snow was not recounting hearsay decades removed; she was personally involved in the early practice and regarded plural marriage as divinely mandated despite personal cost.

---

2. Heber C. Kimball (Apostle, First Presidency)

Kimball taught publicly that Joseph Smith struggled deeply with the commandment and only proceeded after repeated angelic warnings.

Paraphrase from Kimball’s teaching:

Joseph Smith delayed obeying the commandment until an angel appeared with a drawn sword and threatened him with destruction if he did not proceed.

Kimball framed this not as indulgence, but as reluctant obedience.

---

3. Brigham Young

Brigham Young consistently testified that plural marriage was introduced by Joseph Smith under extraordinary divine compulsion, not personal desire.

Young stated that Joseph:

• Found the principle abhorrent at first

• Attempted to avoid it

• Finally complied only after angelic enforcement

Young explicitly referenced the drawn sword motif in multiple sermons.

---

4. Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner (plural wife)

Lightner gave a detailed autobiographical account stating that Joseph told her:

• An angel appeared to him

• The angel held a drawn sword

• He was commanded to enter plural marriage or face destruction

Her account is among the most detailed and consistent first-person recollections.

---

5. William Clayton (Joseph Smith’s secretary)

Clayton recorded in his journals that Joseph told him:

• He was commanded by an angel

• The commandment was not optional

• Severe consequences were attached to refusal

Clayton was present when the 1843 revelation (now Doctrine and Covenants 132) was dictated.

---

Canonical LDS Context

Doctrine and Covenants 132

While D&C 132 does not explicitly mention an angel with a sword, it repeatedly emphasizes:

• Divine command

• Severe consequences for disobedience

• The principle being restored through Joseph Smith specifically

The angelic enforcement narrative functions as historical context, not canonized text.

---

Scholarly and Institutional Consensus

Importantly, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not deny this claim. Modern Church historians and official publications acknowledge that:

• Joseph Smith taught that plural marriage was commanded by God

• He resisted the commandment

• Angelic visitation was part of his explanation for proceeding

The Church refrains from dramatizing the image but does not reject its historicity.

---

Important Clarifications

• The angel is never named in surviving accounts.

• The language “with a sword” appears consistently, sometimes phrased as “drawn sword.”

• The experience is described as coercive, not persuasive.

• No contemporary, hostile source invented the story; it comes from insiders defending the practice.

---

Summary Judgment

Yes. According to multiple independent LDS historical sources, Joseph Smith taught that an angel with a drawn sword commanded him to practice plural marriage and threatened him with destruction if he did not comply.

This claim:

• Is early

• Is consistent

• Comes from participants and witnesses

• Is acknowledged (though not emphasized) by modern LDS scholarship

I'd like to see this but with the dates of when the stories were shared. All of these witness accounts were decades after Joseph passed. There was no story of an angel with a drawn sword while he was alive or even before the Saints moved to Utah.

[JVW]

18 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Scenario:

Poof! Section 132 disappears...

Where does the doctrine of eternal marriage come from?

It also comes from the temple which some have speculated come from other papyrus that Joseph translated which could have been the book of Joseph of Egypt.

It is very strange that the capstone doctrine of the church has next to nothing explaining it. And the one document we have is half-bad. Even if we set aside the contradictions in it that I pointed out earlier, it basically says if you are sealed you can commit as much sin as you want excepting cold-blooded murder and you will be part of the first resurrection and obtain Celestial glory. That's not a cool doctrine at all so I'm disinclined to believe it.

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 minutes ago, JVW said:

It also comes from the temple which some have speculated come from other papyrus that Joseph translated which could have been the book of Joseph of Egypt.

How do you figure?

[webbles]

1 hour ago, longview said:

It was very urgent, significantly so, according to Joseph Smith. I asked chatGPT:

in lds history, did an angel with a sword stand over joseph smith asserting that he must practice plural marriage?

 

Yes. Multiple independent historical sources within early Latter-day Saint history attest that Joseph Smith reported being commanded by an angel—described as bearing a drawn sword—to institute and practice plural marriage, under threat of divine judgment if he refused. While the precise wording varies among accounts, the core claim is consistent across time, witnesses, and provenance.

Below is a careful, source-based explanation.

---

Core Claim

Joseph Smith taught privately that an angel of God appeared to him with a drawn sword and commanded him to practice plural marriage, warning that failure to obey would result in his destruction.

This claim is not late folklore; it appears in firsthand and secondhand accounts from individuals closely connected to Joseph Smith, including his plural wives, close associates, and later Church leaders who learned of it directly from participants.

---

Primary and Near-Primary Sources

1. Eliza R. Snow (plural wife of Joseph Smith)

Eliza Snow stated that Joseph Smith told her that the commandment came by angelic visitation and was enforced by threat.

Later summaries of her testimony report:

Joseph Smith “received the revelation from God, and that an angel with a drawn sword stood before him and commanded him to obey.”

Snow was not recounting hearsay decades removed; she was personally involved in the early practice and regarded plural marriage as divinely mandated despite personal cost.

---

2. Heber C. Kimball (Apostle, First Presidency)

Kimball taught publicly that Joseph Smith struggled deeply with the commandment and only proceeded after repeated angelic warnings.

Paraphrase from Kimball’s teaching:

Joseph Smith delayed obeying the commandment until an angel appeared with a drawn sword and threatened him with destruction if he did not proceed.

Kimball framed this not as indulgence, but as reluctant obedience.

---

3. Brigham Young

Brigham Young consistently testified that plural marriage was introduced by Joseph Smith under extraordinary divine compulsion, not personal desire.

Young stated that Joseph:

• Found the principle abhorrent at first

• Attempted to avoid it

• Finally complied only after angelic enforcement

Young explicitly referenced the drawn sword motif in multiple sermons.

---

4. Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner (plural wife)

Lightner gave a detailed autobiographical account stating that Joseph told her:

• An angel appeared to him

• The angel held a drawn sword

• He was commanded to enter plural marriage or face destruction

Her account is among the most detailed and consistent first-person recollections.

---

5. William Clayton (Joseph Smith’s secretary)

Clayton recorded in his journals that Joseph told him:

• He was commanded by an angel

• The commandment was not optional

• Severe consequences were attached to refusal

Clayton was present when the 1843 revelation (now Doctrine and Covenants 132) was dictated.

---

Canonical LDS Context

Doctrine and Covenants 132

While D&C 132 does not explicitly mention an angel with a sword, it repeatedly emphasizes:

• Divine command

• Severe consequences for disobedience

• The principle being restored through Joseph Smith specifically

The angelic enforcement narrative functions as historical context, not canonized text.

---

Scholarly and Institutional Consensus

Importantly, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not deny this claim. Modern Church historians and official publications acknowledge that:

• Joseph Smith taught that plural marriage was commanded by God

• He resisted the commandment

• Angelic visitation was part of his explanation for proceeding

The Church refrains from dramatizing the image but does not reject its historicity.

---

Important Clarifications

• The angel is never named in surviving accounts.

• The language “with a sword” appears consistently, sometimes phrased as “drawn sword.”

• The experience is described as coercive, not persuasive.

• No contemporary, hostile source invented the story; it comes from insiders defending the practice.

---

Summary Judgment

Yes. According to multiple independent LDS historical sources, Joseph Smith taught that an angel with a drawn sword commanded him to practice plural marriage and threatened him with destruction if he did not comply.

This claim:

• Is early

• Is consistent

• Comes from participants and witnesses

• Is acknowledged (though not emphasized) by modern LDS scholarship

It was definitely a significant revelation to him.  But many people who learned of polygamy while Joseph was alive were not required or forced to enter polygamy.  We know of several men and women who said no to it and were still accepted in the church and even in high positions.  And during Brigham's presidency, there were many who didn't practice polygamy and were never punished for it.  It has never been a requirement for the temple or for membership.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

I'd like to see this but with the dates of when the stories were shared. All of these witness accounts were decades after Joseph passed. There was no story of an angel with a drawn sword while he was alive or even before the Saints moved to Utah.

I think this is one of the better studies of the angel with a sword - https://ensignpeakfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Encouraging-Joseph-Smith-to-Practice-Plural-Marriage-The-Accounts-of-the-Angel-with-a-Drawn-Sword.pdf

And you are correct.  The earliest is about 1853, though it could be a little earlier.  It was 9 different people who probably had 1st hand knowledge of it.  The likelihood that Joseph saw an angel who commanded him to practice polygamy is pretty high.  But we don't know what exactly happened.