Plural Marriage Revelation Written By Request Of Hyrum Smith

[ALarson]

Over on the thread, "Why I Argue That Throwing Out 132 Has Precident", Nevo posted something that I wanted to ask about.  I thought I'd start a new thread rather than derail that one.

 

Here's what Nevo posted:  

 

 

 

For what it's worth, here is a statement by Joseph F. Smith that I came across a several years ago:

 

When the revelation [on plural marriage] 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 been then 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 it being written at the time.

 

(Journal of Discourses [7 July 1878], 20:29; see also, Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippets Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, 2nd ed. [urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1994], xvi)

 

 

 

Nevo, I'm reading Andrew F. Ehat's thesis (I asked you about it awhile ago on here), and it mentions this too.

 

Ehat seems to connect Hyrum's request for the revelation with the problems Hyrum encountered when he "acted on the sealing principle" and then was rebuked by Joseph for sealing "without counsel" (the sealing that Joseph had to annul).

 

What are your thoughts on this (or anyone else on here)?

Edited April 29, 2015 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

"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 it being written at the time."

 

 

To me this means that the personal instructions to Emma and Joseph are private and not for public consumption.  The rebuke to Emma for wanting plural husbands for instance was probably never meant to be a Churchwide canonized statement.

 

There are clearly things in D&C 132 that are doctrinal for all, and there are clearly a few things that are for Joseph and Emma.

There are other canonized D&C revelations that were probably never intended to be part of Church teachings too.

 

I mean, would you want a personal rebuke from the Lord against you put into Church canon?  How about your patriarchal blessing?  A very private and personal thing.

Now look at how many personal revelations somehow found their way into the canon.

 

That's all I think he means by "a somewhat different form" and "there are personalities contained in a part of it which are not relevant to the principle".

[theplains]

I mean, would you want a personal rebuke from the Lord against you put into Church canon?

 

I don't see anything wrong with it. Thomas Marsh prayed for the Twelve and sharply admonished

them for their sins. They were told not to rebel against Joseph Smith (D&C 112:12-15). The saints

even had to be admonished for their evil speech and drunkenness during their travel west (D&C

136:23-24).  It's part of history.  No need to hide it.

 

Regards,

Jim

[ALarson]

Brigham Young is the one who writes about the rebuke.  

 

My question is regarding whether Hyrum may have asked Joseph to write the revelation down to prevent something like this happening again (to him or anyone else).

[ALarson]

After Ehat explains what took place when Hyrum sealed Parley P. Pratt to his wife, Mary Ann Frost, when Joseph was out of town and how Joseph annulled the marriage upon his return (at the end of June, 1843), he states:

 

It is well known that it was at Hyrum's insistence that the revelation on eternal and plural marriage was first reduced to writing on July 12, 1843.  In his enthusiasm he believed he could convince Joseph's wife, Emma, of its truth and rationality.  After it was composed, Hyrum found that Emma was not as cordial to the concept as she was when she was sealed in late May.  Clayton wrote that day of the episode that, "Prests. Joseph and Hyrum presented [the revelation] and read it to E[mma].  who said she did not believe a word of it and appeared very rebellious."  It appears that the revelation on Celestial Marriage was a better lesson for Hyrum than it was for Emma.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

The Hales reference that quote as well, recognizing that 132 was not originally intended for the entire church body.

Clearly JS didn't include 132 in the D&C at that time. It was treated as a family revelation that was later added by BY to defend the church's systemic practice of polygamy.

[JLHPROF]

The Hales reference that quote as well, recognizing that 132 was not originally intended for the entire church body.

Clearly JS didn't include 132 in the D&C at that time. It was treated as a family revelation that was later added by BY to defend the church's systemic practice of polygamy.

 

Despite what we are often led to think, things of the temple order and higher priesthood ordinances were for those who reached that stage, not for every member.  Anymore than you would ordain a 12 year old to be a High Priest or endow someone who had been baptized a week previous.

The conditions upon which a person was qualified to receive their higher temple ordinances always specified someone who had been faithful to the gospel and priesthood their whole life and had never wavered.

 

D&C 132 was considered a higher order too.  Not for every Church member, but for those who had proven themselves faithful.

[JulieM]

Rebuked? I know what that generally means but how was Hyrum rebuked by Joseph? And, why did Hyrum believe it was ok for him to perform sealings? Hadn't others performed them by then (the men who'd performed Joseph's sealing to plural wives)?

Sorry for all the questions!

[ALarson]

Here's what Andrew Ehat wrote about the rebuke::

 

Hyrum's intentions in the matter were honorable but that did not lessen the forcefulness of Joseph's rebuke.  He told Hyrum that if he ever did it again, "he would go to hell and all those he sealed with him."  Twelve days later, when the revelation on Celestial Marriage was first written, Hyrum was again reminded of these strict rules by the words:  "I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred".

 

Edited to add footnotes for the sections in quotes above:

 

- Brigham Young to William Smith, 9 August 1845, Brigham Young Collection, Church Archives.

 

- D&C 132:7

Edited April 29, 2015 by ALarson

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Despite what we are often led to think, things of the temple order and higher priesthood ordinances were for those who reached that stage, not for every member.  Anymore than you would ordain a 12 year old to be a High Priest or endow someone who had been baptized a week previous.

The conditions upon which a person was qualified to receive their higher temple ordinances always specified someone who had been faithful to the gospel and priesthood their whole life and had never wavered.

 

D&C 132 was considered a higher order too.  Not for every Church member, but for those who had proven themselves faithful.

 

So what is the highest order within the church? Does anyone know for sure? We speak about the temple often and it becomes an aspirational symbol of devotion. It is the pinnacle of worship...that we know of. Yet some are blessed with a "higher" order in the 2nd Annointing. I'm curious if there is anything beyond that, which is a better held secret from the unwashed masses of LDS.

Does the gnostic quality of the faith bother anyone else, or is it just me? Even after serving in leadership positions I have no confidence that I have been given all the information about my own religion.

ETA: The vast majority of members will live and die never knowing about additional secret knowledge and ordinances within the church. What value does this secret knowledge have if it cannot be used to inspire and bring people to Christ?

Edited April 30, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[ALarson]

Julie,

Hyrum had been "appointed by revelation as a prophet, seer, and revelator to the church" a couple of years earlier and was promised that he would "hold the sealing blessings of the church".

 

Here is what Andrew Ehat states regarding why Hyrum performed the sealing:

 

In 1843, when he [Hyrum] became Joseph's chief representative in teaching and administering eternal and plural marriage, Hyrum assumed that these earlier appointments gave him the authority to perform these ordinances without needing to consult Joseph.

 

 

But only Joseph could delegate the sealing powers.

Edited April 30, 2015 by ALarson

[ALarson]

 

 

So what is the highest order within the church? Does anyone know for sure? We speak about the temple often and it becomes an aspirational symbol of devotion. It is the pinnacle of worship...that we know of. Yet some are blessed with a "higher" order in the 2nd Annointing. I'm curious if there is anything beyond that, which is a better held secret from the unwashed masses of LDS.

Does the gnostic quality of the faith bother anyone else, or is it just me? Even after serving in leadership positions I have no confidence that I have been given all the information about my own religion.

:

ETA: The vast majority of members will live and die never knowing about additional secret knowledge and ordinances within the church. What value does this secret knowledge have if it cannot be used to inspire and bring people to Christ?

In this thesis by Andrew F. Ehat, he explains the 2nd anointing and the history of if quite thoroughly.  It is fascinating to read.

 

If you have not read his thesis (written in 1982), it is excellent so far, (I'm still reading it).  Ehat was given access to the church archives to write it and there are quotes and information in here that I have not seen before.

 

The title of this thesis is:

Joseph Smith's Introduction of Temple Ordinances and the 1844 Mormon Succession Question

 

Edited to add:

I'll try to find a link to an online copy of the thesis, if you're interested in reading it.

Edited April 30, 2015 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

 

 

So what is the highest order within the church? Does anyone know for sure? We speak about the temple often and it becomes an aspirational symbol of devotion. It is the pinnacle of worship...that we know of. Yet some are blessed with a "higher" order in the 2nd Annointing. I'm curious if there is anything beyond that, which is a better held secret from the unwashed masses of LDS.

Does the gnostic quality of the faith bother anyone else, or is it just me? Even after serving in leadership positions I have no confidence that I have been given all the information about my own religion.

ETA: The vast majority of members will live and die never knowing about additional secret knowledge and ordinances within the church. What value does this secret knowledge have if it cannot be used to inspire and bring people to Christ?

 

The 2nd anointing is ordination for exaltation in this life.  It is supposed to be given by direct revelation to those who have proven themselves worthy (although as Fanny Stenhouse and Tom Phillips proved sometimes it is given to the wrong people).

 

It is the crowning ordinance of the priesthood that can be received in this life, preparatory to meeting the Savior face to face.

It is alluded to in the New Testament in several places.  Joseph Smith referred to it repeatedly.  There are tons of books that discuss it.

 

However for many members this blessing will be given in our post mortal existence.  And just like those who receive work for the dead it will be just as valid.  But the fact that some are ordained Kings and Priests in this life and some are ordained Kings and Priests in the next life by proxy is well established.

 

I can't speak to unwashed masses, but given how easily members come and go, leave, break temple covenants, remove their garments, etc making this ordinance available to the general membership would be an absolute blasphemous act.  It has been reasoned by some that denying the faith after receiving these ordinances is how sons of perdition are made.  Therefore it is only offered to the most proven members, usually in their old age, that falling might not occur.

Edited April 30, 2015 by JLHPROF

[HappyJackWagon]

 

The 2nd anointing is ordination for exaltation in this life.  It is supposed to be given by direct revelation to those who have proven themselves worthy (although as Fanny Stenhouse and Tom Phillips proved sometimes it is given to the wrong people).

 

It is the crowning ordinance of the priesthood that can be received in this life, preparatory to meeting the Savior face to face.

It is alluded to in the New Testament in several places.  Joseph Smith referred to it repeatedly.  There are tons of books that discuss it.

 

Are you absolutely positive there is nothing beyond the 2A? If so, how?

Recognizing that this eternal judgement is given by revelation, yet is sometimes wrong, begs the question, "What's the purpose of passing an eternal judgement incorrectly? Why not wait so that judgement can be passed perfectly?"

[JLHPROF]

 

 

Are you absolutely positive there is nothing beyond the 2A? If so, how?

Recognizing that this eternal judgement is given by revelation, yet is sometimes wrong, begs the question, "What's the purpose of passing an eternal judgement incorrectly? Why not wait so that judgement can be passed perfectly?"

 

I am absolutely positive that there is much beyond the 2A.  However, it is no longer a mortal thing.  The 2A prepares us to meet Christ (who will eventually bring us to the Father).  What could be higher than that in mortality?  The presence of Christ really is as far as you go in mortality.

 

The second part of your post is interesting.  Was the ordinance given incorrectly (to the wrong person) or was it given correctly (to the right person) who then used their agency to fall?  As I have said, the higher you go the more agency you are given, but the further you have to fall.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

I am absolutely positive that there is much beyond the 2A.  However, it is no longer a mortal thing.  The 2A prepares us to meet Christ (who will eventually bring us to the Father).  What could be higher than that in mortality?  The presence of Christ really is as far as you go in mortality.

 

The second part of your post is interesting.  Was the ordinance given incorrectly (to the wrong person) or was it given correctly (to the right person) who then used their agency to fall?  As I have said, the higher you go the more agency you are given, but the further you have to fall.

 

But unless you shed innocent blood or sin against the Holy Ghost, a person who has received the 2A cannot fall. I don't believe either of the individuals you cited have shed innocent blood and we simply couldn't know the surety of their testimony, but I'd expect that neiter were perdition in the sense that they would agree to the crucifixion of Christ.

[stemelbow]

This is all very fascinating, thanks for the thread.

For what it's worth, here is a statement by Joseph F. Smith that I came across a several years ago:

When the revelation [on plural marriage] 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 been then 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 it being written at the time.

(Journal of Discourses [7 July 1878], 20:29; see also, Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippets Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, 2nd ed. [urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1994], xvi)

Recorded revelations are drenched in the assumptions, ideas, limitations, of men. Calling the scriptures the word of God can, it seems, only be regarded as such parochially. That's interesting because perhaps "scripture" can refer to any inspired text. "Canon" alludes to a certain subset of scripture, and perhaps, part of the canon is not really inspired text, or "scripture".

[ALarson]

HappyJackWagon,

 

Joseph Smith referred to the 2nd Anointing as "The fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood and Calling and Election Sure".  

 

This doctrine of "making one's calling and election sure" was a very important doctrine to Joseph Smith.  When he first began to teach it (using this term), he specifically defined "calling and election sure" as a revelation from Jesus Christ directly to an individual absolutely assuring eternal life in words such as "Son" or "Daughter"--"Thou shalt be exalted!".

He taught that those who heard such an audible voice could then approach the Lord and through prayer receive the mysteries of godliness by the manifestation of the "Second Comforter".

 

Joseph goes on to explain how a person so blessed with the "Second Comforter" will "have the personage of Jesus Christ to attend him or appear unto him from time to time, & even [Christ] will manifest the Father unto him & they will take up their abode with him, & the visions of the heavens will be opened unto him & the Lord will teach him face to face & he may have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God..."

Edited April 30, 2015 by ALarson

[JulieM]

This is all very fascinating, thanks for the thread.Recorded revelations are drenched in the assumptions, ideas, limitations, of men. Calling the scriptures the word of God can, it seems, only be regarded as such parochially. That's interesting because perhaps "scripture" can refer to any inspired text. "Canon" alludes to a certain subset of scripture, and perhaps, part of the canon is not really inspired text, or "scripture".

I think this seems to be the case too. I wasn't aware that Hyrum requested the revelation on plural marriage be put in writing. This is all very interesting to read and also the information on the second comforter and 2nd anointing.

[JLHPROF]

 

 

But unless you shed innocent blood or sin against the Holy Ghost, a person who has received the 2A cannot fall. I don't believe either of the individuals you cited have shed innocent blood and we simply couldn't know the surety of their testimony, but I'd expect that neiter were perdition in the sense that they would agree to the crucifixion of Christ.

 

I am certainly not assigning them that perdition label.  Merely trying to show why this ordinance is not available to the general membership.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

I am certainly not assigning them that perdition label.  Merely trying to show why this ordinance is not available to the general membership.

But if they haven't fallen the "revelation" for giving them the 2A must necessarily be wrong. And if these revelations can be wrong, it would seem best to wait for a perfect judgement in the next life instead of an imperfect one in this life.

[ALarson]

JLHPROF (or anyone),

 

What is your opinion on the need to have entered into plural marriage (in the early days of the church) before someone was "allowed" to receive their 2nd anointing (or at least accepted the principle).  I'm just trying to figure this out as I read through what Ehat wrote.  I know I should also read other's writings on this, and I will.

 

Joseph waited until Emma accepted the principle of plural marriage before they received their 2nd anointings.  "She and Joseph were to be the first on whom the fulness would be conferred."

 

"The exact date of this event is at present unknown; however, it was on or before 28 September 1843."

 

He writes that there were 24 couples (plus other individuals without their wives) who received their 2nd anointing prior to Joseph's death and then he gives a list of their names. I need to go through them and see if all had accepted the principle of plural marriage or were already living it, but what are your thoughts?

 

(I know that in one of my ancestor's journal (who lived polygamy), he seemed to be sealed to another wife in the temple and then she "also received the same day her second anointing".)  

Edited April 30, 2015 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

JLHPROF (or anyone),

 

What is your opinion on the need to have entered into plural marriage (in the early days of the church) before someone was "allowed" to receive their 2nd anointing (or at least accepted the principle).  I'm just trying to figure this out as I read through what Ehat wrote.  I know I should also read other's writings on this, and I will.

 

Joseph waited until Emma accepted the principle of plural marriage before they received their 2nd anointings.  "She and Joseph were to be the first on whom the fulness would be conferred."

 

"The exact date of this event is at present unknown; however, it was on or before 28 September 1843."

 

He writes that there were 24 couples (plus other individuals without their wives) who received their's prior to Joseph's death and then he gives a list of their names.  I need to go through them and see if all had accepted the principle of plural marriage or were already living it, but what are your thoughts?

 

(I know that in one of my ancestors journal (who lived polygamy), he seemed to be sealed to another wife and then she "also received the same day her second anointing".)  

 

My opinion is that is is one of two possibilities:

 

1. A refusal to accept plural marriage was a faith question, and one of the requirements for the higher ordinances was an unwavering faith.

 

or

 

2. They were operating under the teaching that Brigham gave that plural marriage was a requirement for exaltation.  If Joseph required plural marriage to give the higher ordinance then he may have agreed with that teaching at that time. 

[JLHPROF]

Julie,

Hyrum had been "appointed by revelation as a prophet, seer, and revelator to the church" a couple of years earlier and was promised that he would "hold the sealing blessings of the church".

 

Here is what Andrew Ehat states regarding why Hyrum performed the sealing:

 

 

But only Joseph could delegate the sealing powers.

 

This is brings up an interesting topic.

Joseph recorded that he said in a meeting that he wanted Hyrum to be President of the Church (as he was the Patriarch and held the birthright) and that he (Joseph) was going to go on to be King and Priest.

 

Of course the members reacted badly and didn't want that to happen.  Joseph said something like "have you not understood the priesthood".

So is President of the Church a lower office than King & Priest or the one man with sealing powers?  I realize they are the same person, but are the offices different?

[ALarson]

This is brings up an interesting topic.

Joseph recorded that he said in a meeting that he wanted Hyrum to be President of the Church (as he was the Patriarch and held the birthright) and that he (Joseph) was going to go on to be King and Priest.

 

Of course the members reacted badly and didn't want that to happen.  Joseph said something like "have you not understood the priesthood".

So is President of the Church a lower office than King & Priest or the one man with sealing powers?  I realize they are the same person, but are the offices different?

I'm not sure about the answers to your 2 questions, but when Joseph asked the members, "have you not understood the priesthood?", he was probably referring to the fact that he had already been ordained a King and Priest (and so had all the other men who had received their 2nd anointing).  Joseph called this ordinance receiving "the fullness of the Melchizedek Priesthood".

 

Is "King & Priest" an office in the church?

 

Here's what Ehat stated (quoting Brigham Young):

 

For any person to have the fullness of that priesthood, he must be a king and priest."(236) Brigham had in 1842 with the eight others of the Quorum received an anointing promising him he would, if faithful, eventually receive another anointing actually ordaining him a king and priest.(237) Based on this understanding which he received from Joseph Smith, Brigham Young later taught in the Nauvoo Temple of this order of priesthood blessings that those who . . . come in here [the Nauvoo Temple] and have received their washing & anointing will [later, if faithful], be ordained Kings & Priests, and will then have received the fullness of the Priesthood, all that can be given on earth. For Brother Joseph said he had given us all that could be given to man on the earth.(238)

 

Edited April 30, 2015 by ALarson