Vilate Kimball Receives a Vision About Plural Marriage

[kirtland r.m.]

A true principle(only to be lived in mortality when God commands it), though probably not easy to live in the early days of the restoration.
Vilate Kimball received a revelation about her husband, Heber C. Kimball, taking an additional wife.

In Nauvoo, shortly after his return from England, my father, among others of his brethren, was taught the plural wife doctrine, and was told by Joseph, the Prophet, three times, to go and take a certain woman as his wife; but not till he commanded him in the name of the Lord did he obey. At the same time Joseph told him not to divulge this secret, not even to my mother, for fear that she would not receive it; for his life was in constant jeopardy, not only from outside influences and enemies, who were seeking some plea to take him back to Missouri, but from false brethren who had crept like snakes into his bosom and then betrayed him.
My father realized the situation fully, and the love and reverence he bore for the Prophet were so great that he would sooner have laid down his life than have betrayed him. This was one of the greatest tests of his faith he had ever experienced. The thought of deceiving the kind and faithful wife of his youth, whom he loved with all his heart, and who with him had borne so patiently their separations, and all the trials and sacrifices they had been called to endure, was more than he felt able to bear.

He realized not only the addition of trouble and perplexity that such a step must bring upon him, but his sorrow and misery were increased by the thought of my mother hearing of it from some other source, which would no doubt separate them, and he shrank from the thought of such a thing, or of causing her any unhappiness. Finally he was so tried that he went to Joseph and told him how he felt—that he was fearful if he took such a step he could not stand, but would be overcome. The Prophet, full of sympathy for him, went and inquired of the Lord. His answer was, "Tell him to go and do as he has been commanded, and if I see that there is any danger of his apostatizing, I will take him to myself."

The fact that he had to be commanded three times to do this thing shows that the trial must have been extraordinary, for he was a man who, from the first, had yielded implicit obedience to every requirement of the Prophet.

When first hearing the principle taught, believing that he would be called upon to enter into it, he had thought of two elderly ladies named Pitkin, great friends of my mother's who, he believed, would cause her little if any, unhappiness. But the woman he was commanded to take was an English lady named Sarah Noon, nearer my mother's age, who came over with the company of Saints in the same ship in which father and Brother Bridham returned from Europe. She had been married and was the mother of two little girls, but left her husband on account of his drunken and dissolute habits. Father was told to take her as his wife and provide for her and her children, and he did so.

My mother had noticed a change in his manner and appearance, and when she inquired the cause, he tried to evade her questions. At last he promised he would tell her after a while, if she would only wait. This trouble so worked upon his mind that his anxious and haggard looks betrayed him daily and hourly, and finally his misery became so unbearable that it was impossible to control his feelings. He became sick in body, but his mental wretchedness was too great to allow of his retiring, and he would walk the floor till nearly morning, and sometimes the agony of his mind was so terrible that he would wring his hands and weep like a child, and beseech the Lord to be merciful and reveal to her this principle, for he himself could not break the vow of secrecy.

The anguish of their hearts was indescribable, and when she found it was useless to beseech him longer, she retired to her room and bowed before the Lord and poured out her soul in prayer to Him who hath said: "If any lack wisdom let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not." My father's heart was raised at the same time in supplication. While pleading as one would plead for life, the vision of her mind was opened, and, as darkness flees before the morning sun, so did her sorrow and the groveling things of earth vanish away.

Before her was illustrated the order of celestial marriage, in all its beauty and glory, together with the great exaltation and honor it would confer upon her in that immortal and celestial sphere, if she would accept it and stand in her place by her husband's side. She also saw the woman he had taken to wife, and contemplated with joy the vast and boundless love and union which this order would bring about, as well as the increase of her husband's kingdoms, and the power and the glory extending throughout the eternities, worlds without end.

With a countenance beaming with joy, for she was filled with the Spirit of God, she returned to my father, saying: "Heber, what you kept from me the Lord has shown me." She told me she never saw so happy a man as father was when she described the vision and told him she was satisfied and knew it was from God. She covenanted to stand by him and honor the principle, which covenant she faithfully kept, and though her trials were often heavy and grievious to bear, she knew that father was also being tried, and her integrity was unflinching to the end. She gave my father many wives, and they always found in my mother a faithful friend.





Sources:
Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, "Life Incidents", 15 July 1882;
cited in Stanley B. Kimball, "Heber C. Kimball and Family, the Nauvoo Years,"

[MMbelieve]

Wonder why a husband sealed to his wife could ever be asked to keep a secret such as that. No more twain but one flesh, god sees both in marriage as “one” not as individuals. He is not entitled, nor is she to keep such things secret.
It doesn't make sense to me.

Stuff like this is incredibly sensationalized to pull at human emotion, wipe all that away and it just sounds terrible how it played out.

[ParticleMan]

Wonder why a husband sealed to his wife could ever be asked to keep a secret such as that. No more twain but one flesh, god sees both in marriage as “one” not as individuals. He is not entitled, nor is she to keep such things secret.
It doesn't make sense to me.

Stuff like this is incredibly sensationalized to pull at human emotion, wipe all that away and it just sounds terrible how it played out.

One's perspective can change everything. There are eternal principles at work in this account. Whether this test was Abrahamic or not, these faithful Saints kept their covenants and thus passed the test.

Throughout the Gospels, the Lord told people to tell no one, for a time, of certain experiences or teachings. But many couldn't keep a secret, which sometimes adversely affected the Lord's work.

And Elder Richard G. Scott occasionally spoke about having had sacred experiences. He said they were "too numerous" and "too sacred." He seems to have meant not only too sacred to share with the world but also, in some cases, to share with his wife. On one occasion, he discussed keeping a journal of sacred experiences in an encrypted computer file of which he didn't share the password with his wife.

Clearly, secrecy can be required of the faithful. Whether one is single or married/sealed, the fact of having a spouse does not remove one's personal obligations to the Lord, which may require keeping a secret until further directed.

[Col. Flagg]

Polygamy is no 'eternal principle' and those who think it is and aspire to it are going to be sorely disappointed and ought to be ashamed of themselves.

[The Airbender]

Stuff like this is incredibly sensationalized to pull at human emotion, wipe all that away and it just sounds terrible how it played out.

I think you are literally describing the job description of the Media Team at the CoB.

[The Airbender]

It makes me wonder how things might have turned out if Emma had sought out and received the same kind of manifestation about Joseph.

[MMbelieve]

It makes me wonder how things might have turned out if Emma had sought out and received the same kind of manifestation about Joseph.

You think Emma would have been 1st and foremost to receive such a manifestation from the Lord, I have no doubt Emma was a faithful woman who prayed often.

[MMbelieve]

Wonder why a husband sealed to his wife could ever be asked to keep a secret such as that. No more twain but one flesh, god sees both in marriage as “one” not as individuals. He is not entitled, nor is she to keep such things secret.
It doesn't make sense to me.

Stuff like this is incredibly sensationalized to pull at human emotion, wipe all that away and it just sounds terrible how it played out.

One's perspective can change everything. There are eternal principles at work in this account. Whether this test was Abrahamic or not, these faithful Saints kept their covenants and thus passed the test.

Throughout the Gospels, the Lord told people to tell no one, for a time, of certain experiences or teachings. But many couldn't keep a secret, which sometimes adversely affected the Lord's work.

And Elder Richard G. Scott occasionally spoke about having had sacred experiences. He said they were "too numerous" and "too sacred." He seems to have meant not only too sacred to share with the world but also, in some cases, to share with his wife. On one occasion, he discussed keeping a journal of sacred experiences in an encrypted computer file of which he didn't share the password with his wife.

Clearly, secrecy can be required of the faithful. Whether one is single or married/sealed, the fact of having a spouse does not remove one's personal obligations to the Lord, which may require keeping a secret until further directed.

If secrecy of this nature or any nature between couples is okay who are eternally joined then I would have to consider that “marriage” is an individual thing and it matters nothing who you marry or how you are with them (as long as you keep your righteousness).
You do not go sleeping with another and share your body with them and keep it secret from your spouse...your body is not your own in marriage so he had no right getting physical with another behind his wife's back. This is not right and makes marriage cheap. Yes, this is my opinion and I realize that others will not have the same conviction I do. Afterall, marriage is cheap anymore in the world and the church, sadly.

[oneClimbs]

My perspective is informed by these words of Joseph Fielding Smith first because I believe they are correct:

"STANDARD WORKS JUDGE TEACHINGS OF ALL MEN. It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.

You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.

Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it.

If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3:203–204. italics in original)

Joseph Smith said:

“I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”

...including the D&C so my opinion on having many wives is informed by the Book of Mormon where it is condemned three times and in some of the harshest language used in scripture. Jacob taught that having many wives and concubines would destroy the Nephites and that the Lamanites were only being preserved because they DIDN'T practice it (Jacob 4). Having many wives and concubines was practiced by King Noah who died by fire and lost his kingdom, and it was practiced by Riplakish who was killed and his descendants driven out of the land.

Having many wives was practiced among our people and Joseph Smith and Hyrum were killed and the church was driven from the promised land. Again the leaders were thrown in prison and the church was almost destroyed again until it was ceased.

Men having multiple wives brings a curse of death and destruction. Jacob's sermon and the words of God in Jacob 2-3 lay out all the details.

I don't care how heartwarming a story is, that doesn't make it true. Religions all over the world have heartwarming stories about doing abominable things. THIS IS WHY DOCTRINE AND PRINCIPLES ARE IMPORTANT. This is why the Book of Mormon is important. I won't set aside the keystone of my religion and what Jesus Christ called "The New Covenant" D&C 84:57. The curses in the Book of Mormon that follow that practice fell upon our people so to me, I'll stick with the Book of Mormon on this topic.

For those who want to throw out Jacob 2:30 as a loophole of some kind, nope, I don't agree, here's my reasoning: http://oneclimbs.com/2017/01/05/a-propo ... jacob-230/

[Zathura]

My perspective is informed by these words of Joseph Fielding Smith first because I believe they are correct:

"STANDARD WORKS JUDGE TEACHINGS OF ALL MEN. It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.

You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.

Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it.

If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3:203–204. italics in original)

Joseph Smith said:

“I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”

...including the D&C so my opinion on having many wives is informed by the Book of Mormon where it is condemned three times and in some of the harshest language used in scripture. Jacob taught that having many wives and concubines would destroy the Nephites and that the Lamanites were only being preserved because they DIDN'T practice it (Jacob 4). Having many wives and concubines was practiced by King Noah who died by fire and lost his kingdom, and it was practiced by Riplakish who was killed and his descendants driven out of the land.

Having many wives was practiced among our people and Joseph Smith and Hyrum were killed and the church was driven from the promised land. Again the leaders were thrown in prison and the church was almost destroyed again until it was ceased.

Men having multiple wives brings a curse of death and destruction. Jacob's sermon and the words of God in Jacob 2-3 lay out all the details.

I don't care how heartwarming a story is, that doesn't make it true. Religions all over the world have heartwarming stories about doing abominable things. THIS IS WHY DOCTRINE AND PRINCIPLES ARE IMPORTANT. This is why the Book of Mormon is important. I won't set aside the keystone of my religion and what Jesus Christ called "The New Covenant" D&C 84:57. The curses in the Book of Mormon that follow that practice fell upon our people so to me, I'll stick with the Book of Mormon on this topic.

For those who want to throw out Jacob 2:30 as a loophole of some kind, nope, I don't agree, here's my reasoning: http://oneclimbs.com/2017/01/05/a-propo ... jacob-230/

amen amen amen

[passionflower]

Thank you Kirtland for another absolute gem. I have always wanted to read this. Most inspiring.

And I am NOT one who enjoys "heartwarming" stories. YUCK.

[ParticleMan]

If secrecy of this nature or any nature between couples is okay who are eternally joined then I would have to consider that “marriage” is an individual thing and it matters nothing who you marry or how you are with them (as long as you keep your righteousness).
You do not go sleeping with another and share your body with them and keep it secret from your spouse...your body is not your own in marriage so he had no right getting physical with another behind his wife's back.

Are you, perhaps, making some assumptions?

The marrying/sealing of a plural wife does not imply the consummation of that marriage. There were also eternity-only sealings then. Now, I don't know whether this was one such instance, but either way, they have but one Judge.

It's flabbergasting that some Latter-day Saints do not accept some doctrines of the gospel, including of D&C 132.

There is no escaping that if we do not obey a commandment, it is to our condemnation, regardless of our opinions.

[Zathura]

If secrecy of this nature or any nature between couples is okay who are eternally joined then I would have to consider that “marriage” is an individual thing and it matters nothing who you marry or how you are with them (as long as you keep your righteousness).
You do not go sleeping with another and share your body with them and keep it secret from your spouse...your body is not your own in marriage so he had no right getting physical with another behind his wife's back.

Are you, perhaps, making some assumptions?

The marrying/sealing of a plural wife does not imply the consummation of that marriage. There were also eternity-only sealings then. Now, I don't know whether this was one such instance, but either way, they have but one Judge.

It's flabbergasting that some Latter-day Saints do not accept some doctrines of the gospel, including of D&C 132.

There is no escaping that if we do not obey a commandment, it is to our condemnation, regardless of our opinions.

It wouldn't be flabbergasting if you read and prayed about it like they did.

D&C 132s origin is a joke

[MMbelieve]

If secrecy of this nature or any nature between couples is okay who are eternally joined then I would have to consider that “marriage” is an individual thing and it matters nothing who you marry or how you are with them (as long as you keep your righteousness).
You do not go sleeping with another and share your body with them and keep it secret from your spouse...your body is not your own in marriage so he had no right getting physical with another behind his wife's back.

Are you, perhaps, making some assumptions?

The marrying/sealing of a plural wife does not imply the consummation of that marriage. There were also eternity-only sealings then. Now, I don't know whether this was one such instance, but either way, they have but one Judge.

It's flabbergasting that some Latter-day Saints do not accept some doctrines of the gospel, including of D&C 132.

There is no escaping that if we do not obey a commandment, it is to our condemnation, regardless of our opinions.

Yes, there is an assumption made that he was to take this young woman and make her his wife. Why would there not be consummation? I HIGHLY doubt it was eternity only simply because of the earthly request to provide for her and her children IN marriage.
I do question some of D&C 132 because its in conflict with the gospel in a few ways.

Even if there was not yet consummation, he was taking part of himself, his energies, his means and giving them to another behind her back and promising to continue to do so for life and eternity. If a wife did this, how well would it go over?
Why not be upfront and honest? Give your wife a little respect? Treat her like shes actually a meaningful member of your life. If her account is true then God already knew that she would accept such a thing so what exactly was the point of putting him through agony to the point of physical illness? Causing such distress in them both when it could have been a good thing right of the bat? I really do not understand the secrecy, its like secret combinations to me so it stinks a little bit.

[justme]

If secrecy of this nature or any nature between couples is okay who are eternally joined then I would have to consider that “marriage” is an individual thing and it matters nothing who you marry or how you are with them (as long as you keep your righteousness).
You do not go sleeping with another and share your body with them and keep it secret from your spouse...your body is not your own in marriage so he had no right getting physical with another behind his wife's back.

Are you, perhaps, making some assumptions?

The marrying/sealing of a plural wife does not imply the consummation of that marriage. There were also eternity-only sealings then. Now, I don't know whether this was one such instance, but either way, they have but one Judge.

It's flabbergasting that some Latter-day Saints do not accept some doctrines of the gospel, including of D&C 132.

There is no escaping that if we do not obey a commandment, it is to our condemnation, regardless of our opinions.

Yes, there is an assumption made that he was to take this young woman and make her his wife. Why would there not be consummation? I HIGHLY doubt it was eternity only simply because of the earthly request to provide for her and her children IN marriage.
I do question some of D&C 132 because its in conflict with the gospel in a few ways.

Even if there was not yet consummation, he was taking part of himself, his energies, his means and giving them to another behind her back and promising to continue to do so for life and eternity. If a wife did this, how well would it go over?
Why not be upfront and honest? Give your wife a little respect? Treat her like shes actually a meaningful member of your life. If her account is true then God already knew that she would accept such a thing so what exactly was the point of putting him through agony to the point of physical illness? Causing such distress in them both when it could have been a good thing right of the bat? I really do not understand the secrecy, its like secret combinations to me so it stinks a little bit.

I do agree in general with MMBelieve. There is one interesting point of circumstantial evidence in this case I once read. Apparently at some point after the sealing her parents chastised her for flirting with someone else. They said that was inappropriate for a wife. Her action and response made it seem like she was confused that she really was a wife already in the traditional sense.

[ori]

My perspective is informed by these words of Joseph Fielding Smith first because I believe they are correct:

"STANDARD WORKS JUDGE TEACHINGS OF ALL MEN. It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.

You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.

Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it.

If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3:203–204. italics in original)

Joseph Smith said:

“I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”

...including the D&C so my opinion on having many wives is informed by the Book of Mormon where it is condemned three times and in some of the harshest language used in scripture. Jacob taught that having many wives and concubines would destroy the Nephites and that the Lamanites were only being preserved because they DIDN'T practice it (Jacob 4). Having many wives and concubines was practiced by King Noah who died by fire and lost his kingdom, and it was practiced by Riplakish who was killed and his descendants driven out of the land.

Having many wives was practiced among our people and Joseph Smith and Hyrum were killed and the church was driven from the promised land. Again the leaders were thrown in prison and the church was almost destroyed again until it was ceased.

Men having multiple wives brings a curse of death and destruction. Jacob's sermon and the words of God in Jacob 2-3 lay out all the details.

I don't care how heartwarming a story is, that doesn't make it true. Religions all over the world have heartwarming stories about doing abominable things. THIS IS WHY DOCTRINE AND PRINCIPLES ARE IMPORTANT. This is why the Book of Mormon is important. I won't set aside the keystone of my religion and what Jesus Christ called "The New Covenant" D&C 84:57. The curses in the Book of Mormon that follow that practice fell upon our people so to me, I'll stick with the Book of Mormon on this topic.

For those who want to throw out Jacob 2:30 as a loophole of some kind, nope, I don't agree, here's my reasoning: http://oneclimbs.com/2017/01/05/a-propo ... jacob-230/

Good points. How do you explain D&C 132? It’s also part of the standard works.

[ori]

One can argue about D&C 132 origins, but the prophet quoted above said use the standard works as our yardstick and D&C 132 *is* part of the standard works, whether one likes it or not.

[oneClimbs]

Good points. How do you explain D&C 132? It’s also part of the standard works.

Good question. I think it was fabricated, perhaps from parts of an actual revelation, because the first part of 132 where it discusses and man and his wife (in the singular) actually meshes with what is recorded in Joseph Smith's journal entry here which was used as the basis for D&C 131:

Before we retired the prest. gave bro Johnson & wife some instructions on the priesthood. He put his hand on my knee and says “your life is hid with Christ in God.” and so is many others”. Addressing Benjamin says he “nothing but the unpardonable sin can prevent him (me) from inheriting eternal glory for he is sealed up by the power of the priesthood unto eternal life having taken the step which is necessary for that purpose.” He said that except a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and be married for eternity while in this probation by the power and authority of the Holy priesthood they will cease to increase when they die (i e) they will not have any children in the resurrection, but those who are married by the power & authority of the priesthood in this life & continue without committing the sin against the Holy Ghost will continue to increase & have children in the celestial glory. The unpardonable sin is to shed innocent blood or be accessory thereto. All other sins will be visited with judgement in the flesh and the spirit being delivered to the buffetings of Satan untill the day of the Lord Jesus.” I feel desirous to be united in an everlasting covenant to my wife and pray that it may soon be. prest. J. said that they way he knew in whom to confide. God told him in whom he might place confidence. He also said that in the celestial glory there was three heavens or degrees, and in order to obtain the highest a man must enter into this order of the priesthood and if he dont he cant obtain it. He may enter into the other but that is the end of his kingdom he cannot have an increase. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... -clayton/2

Many people feel like if they give up D&C 132 they throw out polygamy but they also throw out celestial marriage. Well, that isn't true because above is a record Joseph taught celestial marriage but there is no mention of polygamy.

Joseph Smith never publicly taught polygamy and there are none of his writings that teach it. The only times Joseph commented on it were vehement condemnations. Then, all of a sudden this secret copy of a revelation (132) conveniently appears years later after the fact when they are debating the temple lot case and it was necessary to prove that Joseph was a polygamist all along. He may indeed have been or not, personally, I could be convinced either way.

D&C 132 contradicts the Book of Mormon in many places and it contradicts doctrine concerning man and wife that are clearly stated in many places while it is just a single witness with questionable origins.

I'll explain why I think it is contradictory.

Remember: "Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else. (D&C 42:22) unless of course: "if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified;" (D&C 132:61)

This makes about as much sense as "thou shalt not commit adultery" unless of course "she's really hot and you can get her husband out of the picture." (the law of David and Bathsheba)

Cleave unto your wife and NONE else, UNLESS you desire another wife?

In Jacob 1:15, the Nephite's were considered wicked for desiring more than one wife, the very thing that D&C 132 allows: "...the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son."

New revelation cannot contradict scripture, especially the most correct book on earth and its precepts (a precept is a command respecting MORAL conduct by the way).

[Benaishtart]

I’ll say this time and time again. Those who don’t believe in D&C 132 don’t have the faith necessary for abrahamic sacrifices. They through ancient and modern prophets under the bus. And they have an incorrect view on the reality that God lives. I think they’re going to be headed for a rude awakening at some point.

[Zathura]

Good points. How do you explain D&C 132? It’s also part of the standard works.

Good question. I think it was fabricated, perhaps from parts of an actual revelation, because the first part of 132 where it discusses and man and his wife (in the singular) actually meshes with what is recorded in Joseph Smith's journal entry here which was used as the basis for D&C 131:

Before we retired the prest. gave bro Johnson & wife some instructions on the priesthood. He put his hand on my knee and says “your life is hid with Christ in God.” and so is many others”. Addressing Benjamin says he “nothing but the unpardonable sin can prevent him (me) from inheriting eternal glory for he is sealed up by the power of the priesthood unto eternal life having taken the step which is necessary for that purpose.” He said that except a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and be married for eternity while in this probation by the power and authority of the Holy priesthood they will cease to increase when they die (i e) they will not have any children in the resurrection, but those who are married by the power & authority of the priesthood in this life & continue without committing the sin against the Holy Ghost will continue to increase & have children in the celestial glory. The unpardonable sin is to shed innocent blood or be accessory thereto. All other sins will be visited with judgement in the flesh and the spirit being delivered to the buffetings of Satan untill the day of the Lord Jesus.” I feel desirous to be united in an everlasting covenant to my wife and pray that it may soon be. prest. J. said that they way he knew in whom to confide. God told him in whom he might place confidence. He also said that in the celestial glory there was three heavens or degrees, and in order to obtain the highest a man must enter into this order of the priesthood and if he dont he cant obtain it. He may enter into the other but that is the end of his kingdom he cannot have an increase. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... -clayton/2

Many people feel like if they give up D&C 132 they throw out polygamy but they also throw out celestial marriage. Well, that isn't true because above is a record Joseph taught celestial marriage but there is no mention of polygamy.

Joseph Smith never publicly taught polygamy and there are none of his writings that teach it. The only times Joseph commented on it were vehement condemnations. Then, all of a sudden this secret copy of a revelation (132) conveniently appears years later after the fact when they are debating the temple lot case and it was necessary to prove that Joseph was a polygamist all along. He may indeed have been or not, personally, I could be convinced either way.

D&C 132 contradicts the Book of Mormon in many places and it contradicts doctrine concerning man and wife that are clearly stated in many places while it is just a single witness with questionable origins.

I'll explain why I think it is contradictory.

Remember: "Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else. (D&C 42:22) unless of course: "if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified;" (D&C 132:61)

This makes about as much sense as "thou shalt not commit adultery" unless of course "she's really hot and you can get her husband out of the picture." (the law of David and Bathsheba)

Cleave unto your wife and NONE else, UNLESS you desire another wife?

In Jacob 1:15, the Nephite's were considered wicked for desiring more than one wife, the very thing that D&C 132 allows: "...the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son."

New revelation cannot contradict scripture, especially the most correct book on earth and its precepts (a precept is a command respecting MORAL conduct by the way).

Even section 131 seems to have the same origin as section 132. The full story of the origin of section 132 is just silly.

[Zathura]

I’ll say this time and time again. Those who don’t believe in D&C 132 don’t have the faith necessary for abrahamic sacrifices. They through ancient and modern prophets under the bus. And they have an incorrect view on the reality that God lives. I think they’re going to be headed for a rude awakening at some point.

I'll say this time and time again, those who believe in D&C 132 don't know that it wasn't revealed to the church until 8 years after Joseph died, originally having been supposedly recorded by someone who never recorded Joseph's revelations, and wasn't added to D&C for another 20 years after that, all of this during the time that Brigham Young explicitly made instructions to remove the portion from D&C 101 that explicitly condemned any man from having more than one wife. They also don't know that there isn't a single shred of verifiable evidence that Joseph every publicly taught or admitted that polygamy was of God and there is a plethora of evidence to suggest that he always believed it a complete and utter abomination.

Anyone who believes and looks forward to Polygamy is looking forward to committing whoredoms.

Anyone who believes D&C 132 doesn't realize that the Lord will listen to the cries of his fair daughters and visit such a people with judgement if they don't repent, as stated in the unchangeable word of God in the Book of Mormon.

[Zathura]

I’ll say this time and time again. Those who don’t believe in D&C 132 don’t have the faith necessary for abrahamic sacrifices. They through ancient and modern prophets under the bus. And they have an incorrect view on the reality that God lives. I think they’re going to be headed for a rude awakening at some point.

Talk about rude awakenings, I'm interested to know what God will say to you when you're confronted about having taught his fair daughters that even if they are the most righteous of all, they can never be clean until after death if they are raped.

[Benaishtart]

I just crack up when people bring up muh dee’n’say 101 business and all that jazz. God’s power comes from plural marriage. Women would be signing up for plural marriage in droves if they truly knew what it was like.

[Zathura]

I just crack up when people bring up muh dee’n’say 101 business and all that jazz. God’s power comes from plural marriage. Women would be signing up for plural marriage in droves if they truly knew what it was like.

This excerpt comes to you from the Gospel of Benaishtart

[MMbelieve]

I’ll say this time and time again. Those who don’t believe in D&C 132 don’t have the faith necessary for abrahamic sacrifices. They through ancient and modern prophets under the bus. And they have an incorrect view on the reality that God lives. I think they’re going to be headed for a rude awakening at some point.

Thats a talking point to say they throw old prophets under the bus. It holds no water unless they specifically state so in their words. I do not believe that black men should have been denied priesthood and temple sealings, that statement has no bearing in my mind on any previous prophet that upheld that policy. The truth is, today they can have full access to these ordinances so....am I wrong? Or do I see things with the vision of today instead of the vision of yesterday? Same with polygamy. I can say its bad and shouldn't happen yet that has zero implications of previous prophets who endorsed it. And today...its a major sin to participate in polygamy to the point of being crossed out of the Lambs Book of Life. So am I wrong? Doesn't seem so. Seems im right in line with the teachings.

Abrahamic tests or polygamy “test”. An abrahamic test is a general term used for any type of test. Abraham was given his version because human sacrifice was actually something happening at the time. Everyones Abrahamic test will be different.
And since you already believe and accept polygamy, that likely will never be yours. It has to be something that actually tests you. Polygamy would test many but not all and to some polygamy will never be the type of test that produces what the point of such a test is if they accept it or don't accept it now.

To broadly say one does not have faith to pass a test if they question 132 is incredibly narrow minded. Are you aware of some of the test people are already experiencing? Open your mind and extend your vision beyond polygamy.