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

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Senator said:

It better be, or this is really messed up!

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

I think we are probably just coming at this from two different perspectives.  I agree that it was a very significant revelation at the time it was applicable, to the saints to who lived it, but when thinking of the lives of the majority of people, plural marriage is barely a blip. 

[webbles]

4 hours 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.

Sidney Rigdon was a member of the Council of Fifty.  https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/person/sidney-rigdon

Quote

Admitted to Council of Fifty, 19 Mar. 1844.

 

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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.

That’s a lot more than just publicly announcing she doesn’t believe he did it.   She is trying to convert others and even the Church to her way of thinking.

And depending on what she says about Brigham Young and other prophets and apostles who practiced plural marriage and who claimed Joseph taught it, that could be significant apostasy.  

The Priesthood Ban…I can see how that could be combining what Joseph taught was revealed and some personal opinions and arriving at a choice of limiting the temple and then others later on after it had been long established thinking it was all revelation and not extrapolation from revelation plus the philosophies of men, especially with Coltrin and Smoot’s? false testimony about Joseph not allowing black men to be ordained.

I don’t see how it could be an error by Brigham Young and several top leaders claiming Joseph not only taught it, but was sealed to multiple women, had physical relations with some of them, etc.  Maybe dates and places wrong can be expected without lying as a simple memory problem, but the rest qualifies as outright fabrication imo.

So I wouldn’t call her faithful to this Church in the sense of sustaining the prophets and supporting the community within it, though she probably thinks she is doing much better than I am in this.  She may be very faithful to her own personal view of what Jesus taught, his Gospel…which if close enough to Jesus’ actual teachings, focused on his Atonement and Resurrection and his commandment to love God and love and care for each other, I feel that is the more important part of helping her live a godly life though I also see it as unfortunate she created a boundary between herself and the Church. 
 

 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, JVW said:

). I imagine that if I went all public about it I would get excommunicated too

I think that would depend on if you promoted it vs answered a question someone asked you as well as how you perceive the role of prophet and sustain the leaders. 

We have never been required to believe in the infallibility of even modern scripture or of prophets.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, JVW said:

That's really interesting to me because how did he know when he had gotten the revelation "just right"?

That’s assuming he cared about getting revelation “just right” and didn’t see it as always a work in progress, able to be adapted when circumstances merited it.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

The likelihood that Joseph saw an angel who commanded him to practice polygamy is pretty high.  But we don't know what exactly happened.

I really want to hear it from the angel’s POV.

[Tacenda]

4 hours 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

Karen should ask chatGPT!  

[Tacenda]

6 hours 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.

That would be so very helpful for the women in the church especially! (my bold)

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

That’s a lot more than just publicly announcing she doesn’t believe he did it.   She is trying to convert others and even the Church to her way of thinking.

And depending on what she says about Brigham Young and other prophets and apostles who practiced plural marriage and who claimed Joseph taught it, that could be significant apostasy.  

The Priesthood Ban…I can see how that could be combining what Joseph taught was revealed and some personal opinions and arriving at a choice of limiting the temple and then others later on after it had been long established thinking it was all revelation and not extrapolation from revelation plus the philosophies of men, especially with Coltrin and Smoot’s? false testimony about Joseph not allowing black men to be ordained.

I don’t see how it could be an error by Brigham Young and several top leaders claiming Joseph not only taught it, but was sealed to multiple women, had physical relations with some of them, etc.  Maybe dates and places wrong can be expected without lying as a simple memory problem, but the rest qualifies as outright fabrication imo.

So I wouldn’t call her faithful to this Church in the sense of sustaining the prophets and supporting the community within it, though she probably thinks she is doing much better than I am in this.  She may be very faithful to her own personal view of what Jesus taught, his Gospel…which if close enough to Jesus’ actual teachings, focused on his Atonement and Resurrection and his commandment to love God and love and care for each other, I feel that is the more important part of helping her live a godly life though I also see it as unfortunate she created a boundary between herself and the Church. 
 

 

I think you're right, as usual!  

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, JVW said:

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/😞

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!

I appreciate your two cents!!

[Tacenda]

10 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

I understand, I didn't finish the whole video. Not that it matters, she joined the church at 17 years old.

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

You bring up something I had not thought about before. Growing up and being a member all my life, the only thing I learned was that polygamy was lived to help the widows that lost their husbands from the mobs or mostly by crossing the plains. 

So maybe that is why I had such a reaction to finding out JS lived polygamy before they were driven out of Nauvoo. It wasn't to take care of the widows after all. I subconsciously must have felt lied to. If that makes sense. And consciously. I was so dumbfounded when I learned of it in my late 40's. More like a slow motion feeling, shock I guess, more likely. Like I was in a dream like state of mind, or like when involved in an accident and everything is in slow motion. I looked it up, I guess it can be termed the Matrix effect.

In conclusion, I didn't grow up believing it was a revelation. I guess I can only blame myself for not delving into LDS history. 

 

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think you're right, as usual!  

I wish.

[JVW]

4 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

How do you figure?

Uh.. FAIR says it was a hoax, idk. I like to believe that while he was translating the book of Abraham he was commanded to keep some scrolls private for use in temple ceremonies, but that doesn't mean it's reality. I'm just having fun. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Book_of_Abraham/Book_of_Joseph

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 hours ago, JVW said:

Uh.. FAIR says it was a hoax, idk. I like to believe that while he was translating the book of Abraham he was commanded to keep some scrolls private for use in temple ceremonies, but that doesn't mean it's reality. I'm just having fun. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Book_of_Abraham/Book_of_Joseph

Guess I should've been more precise...

How are you extrapolating eternal marriage from the Temple without the revelation that reveals the sealing of marriage?

Also...

How does that jive with the polygamy deniers that now are saying that Temple rites are also an invention Brigham Young?

We already know the direction this whole arguments takes... We need look no further than the Reorganized Church.

Edited December 16, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Guess I should've been more precise...

How are you extrapolating eternal marriage from the Temple without the revelation that reveals the sealing of marriage?

Also...

How does that jive with the polygamy deniers that now are saying that Temple rites are also an invention Brigham Young?

We already know the direction this whole arguments takes... We need look no further than the Reorganized Church.

Eternal sealings were happening before the revelation that is section 132. JS and Emma were sealed months before 132 was received. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Eternal sealings were happening before the revelation that is section 132. JS and Emma were sealed months before 132 was received. 

So you are of the opinion that 132 was received in 1843 and not merely recorded in 1843?

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So you are of the opinion that 132 was received in 1843 and not merely recorded in 1843?

Yes, that is what the historical evidence suggests.

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. 

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

You bring up something I had not thought about before. Growing up and being a member all my life, the only thing I learned was that polygamy was lived to help the widows that lost their husbands from the mobs or mostly by crossing the plains. 

So maybe that is why I had such a reaction to finding out JS lived polygamy before they were driven out of Nauvoo. It wasn't to take care of the widows after all. I subconsciously must have felt lied to. If that makes sense. And consciously. I was so dumbfounded when I learned of it in my late 40's. More like a slow motion feeling, shock I guess, more likely. Like I was in a dream like state of mind, or like when involved in an accident and everything is in slow motion. I looked it up, I guess it can be termed the Matrix effect.

In conclusion, I didn't grow up believing it was a revelation. I guess I can only blame myself for not delving into LDS history. 

 

I think we do have a responsibility to study the scriptures ourselves, and not just get our learning from Sunday school.

But, I also think the church failed in many ways with how they used to teach polygamy. I was blessed with a seminary teacher in high school who taught us about all of the different wives of Joseph Smith. But I also heard plenty that polygamy existed to take care of the widows and women that otherwise wouldn’t have husbands. I think for decades and decades the church had a defensive position in regards to teachings on plural marriage, and it really did mess up a lot of members when they learned that the faith promoting perspective was not always an accurate one.

I don’t think you should be too hard on yourself for reacting like you did when learning new information that changed the paradigm you grew up with. 

[Senator]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

I think that would depend on if you promoted it vs answered a question someone asked you as well as how you perceive the role of prophet and sustain the leaders. 

We have never been required to believe in the infallibility of even modern scripture or of prophets.

While I agree that that is technically true, "where the rubber meets the road culturally" is something different.  I was very much raised with the mindset that "when the prophet speaks, the thinking is done" and "the prophet can never lead us astray".  And this is of course before the modern apologetics to explain it all away.

[Senator]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think we do have a responsibility to study the scriptures ourselves, and not just get our learning from Sunday school.

But, I also think the church failed in many ways with how they used to teach polygamy. I was blessed with a seminary teacher in high school who taught us about all of the different wives of Joseph Smith. But I also heard plenty that polygamy existed to take care of the widows and women that otherwise wouldn’t have husbands. I think for decades and decades the church had a defensive position in regards to teachings on plural marriage, and it really did mess up a lot of members when they learned that the faith promoting perspective was not always an accurate one.

I don’t think you should be too hard on yourself for reacting like you did when learning new information that changed the paradigm you grew up with. 

I appreciate that you can see and admit that.

 

[JVW]

7 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

How are you extrapolating eternal marriage from the Temple without the revelation that reveals the sealing of marriage?

The temple has a ton of stuff that isn't in our canonized text. There is a lot of secret knowledge there. The temple literally has the sealing ordinance and it is not explicitly laid out in our canonized text. Even the wording of the sealing ceremony isn't present. DC 132, more than anything, just makes the argument for why authority is needed for a marriage to be eternal. The temple has everything else that we know about sealing. DC 132 was not needed for sealings to be performed and, in fact, sealings were performed before DC 132 was even dictated.

7 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

How does that jive with the polygamy deniers that now are saying that Temple rites are also an invention Brigham Young?

Yeah... the anti-Brigham Young crowd isn't cool. They're basically just as bad as the anti-Mormons except that they still feel like they're active and are the only "true Mormons". I honestly prefer the "Adam-God theory is true" crowd more. There are journals, notes, etc. regarding the development of temple ceremonies and the council of the 50, and even the Second Anointing that are from before Joseph's martyrdom.

Believing that polygamy is always an abomination before God and that the prophets were confused about the radical new doctrine of sealing is pretty easy to do. All I have to do is believe that the Book of Mormon is more correct than the D&C. The thing is, we all do abominable things before God all the time and yet he still communes with us and leads us along. I don't need to believe that Brigham Young was an evil conspirator to preserve some mystical element about Joseph. I just need to take Joseph Smith at his word.

If the church ever has a major schism equivalent to Catholics V Protestants I do not believe it will be around pre/post 1890 church. I think it would probably be around more modern issues like the family proclamation. I say this because it's the pattern I'm seeing in other churches right now. Like the Anglican church issued a document in 2008 that is basically their version of the family proclamation and they just split along the line of who believes in that document and who doesn't.

[webbles]

48 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, that is what the historical evidence suggests.

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. 

Just to be pedantic but we don't know that Joseph Smith and Emma were sealed on that date.  It is based off of Joseph's diary - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-december-1842-june-1844-book-2-10-march-1843-14-july-1843/233.  All it says is "<Joseph— & J[ames] Adams [[were married]]>".  It doesn't say to whom.  And there is no documentation that women were even present.  We assume the women were there and since James Adams only had one wife at that time and because Emma starts to be involved in ceremonies that we assume required sealings, we assume Joseph and Emma were sealed on that day.  But, the very next day, it is possible that a plural sealing occurred since Mercy Fielding was sealed and her husband was dead at that time.  So it must have been a posthumous sealing or she was sealed to one of the men present (or both which is the more likely situation with posthumous sealings).

[webbles]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So you are of the opinion that 132 was received in 1843 and not merely recorded in 1843?

If Joseph had been asked by Hyrum to record the revelation for other reasons, I strongly suspect it would be very different.  The main ideas (eternal marriage, holy spirit of promise sealings, etc) would be in there, but it would be worded different and wouldn't have been as direct to Emma.

We possibly have recorded sealing ceremony language from Joseph and it contains a lot of what is in 132 - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-27-july-1842/1.  So that could have been added to D&C instead of section 132 or something similar to it.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

Just to be pedantic but we don't know that Joseph Smith and Emma were sealed on that date.  It is based off of Joseph's diary - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-december-1842-june-1844-book-2-10-march-1843-14-july-1843/233.  All it says is "<Joseph— & J[ames] Adams [[were married]]>".  It doesn't say to whom.  And there is no documentation that women were even present.  We assume the women were there and since James Adams only had one wife at that time and because Emma starts to be involved in ceremonies that we assume required sealings, we assume Joseph and Emma were sealed on that day.  But, the very next day, it is possible that a plural sealing occurred since Mercy Fielding was sealed and her husband was dead at that time.  So it must have been a posthumous sealing or she was sealed to one of the men present (or both which is the more likely situation with posthumous sealings).

True, there is some interpretation happening with that specific evidence. 

But even with that possibility it wasn't Joseph and Emma that day, the historical record still shows others were being sealed for eternity that day, and that JS had been teaching about eternal marriage for months or years before he wrote the revelation on plural marriage that was requested by Hyrum for Emma in July 1843.