John Taylor on the question of interpreting D&C 132--eternal marriage or plural marriage necessary?

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

John Taylor on the question of interpreting D&C 132--eternal marriage or plural marriage necessary?

Post by Luke »

“Dear Sister:
In regard to the question which you have proposed pertaining to plurality of wives you say: ‘According to my understanding of the revelation, I thought it was sealing, but some say it is plurality.’ Permit me to say that it is both, you will find that the revelation is on The Eternity of the Marriage Covenant, including Plurality of Wives, and the first paragraph reads: ‘Verily thus saith the Lord, unto you my Servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand, to know and understand wherein I the Lord justified my Servants, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; as also my servants Moses, David and Solomon, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines.’ The question that was asked was evidently in relation to those people, and especially in relation to the plurality of wives. In the 4th verse it is said: ‘For behold, I reveal unto you a new, and everlasting covenant, and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned, for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory. For all who will have a blessing at my hand shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof as were instituted from before the foundation of the world, and as pertaining to the new, and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory, and he that receive the fullness thereof, must and shall abide my law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.’
You ask: ‘If a man and woman go to the House of the Lord and get their Endowments and are sealed for time and all eternity, and they two live together quietly and peaceably and teach their children the principles of life and salvation, and bring them up in the fear of the Lord, will they gain an exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom with a continuation of their seed or not? I have been sealed to my husband, and my patriarchal blessing says: “I shall raise children in the Millenium,” and I would like to live so as to gain that blessing. I hear men say that one cannot gain an exaltation and a continuation of their seed in the eternal world unless they take more wives than one, and I am anxious to understand it.’ In fulfilling this, you have entered so far into the everlasting covenant, which is so far into the everlasting covenant, which is so far acceptable before the Lord, but in regard to the Law, it is further said, verse 32: ‘Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham.’ The question is: What is the Law? The 34th verse says: ‘God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law: and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.’ In the 37th verse it is said: ‘Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode my law; as Isaac also, and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded.’ ‘David also received many wives and concubines, as also Solomon and Moses my servants; as also many others of my servants. from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin, save in those things which they received not of me.’ 38th verse.
You seem desirous to take part of the Law and reject the other part, but it is plainly stated as above quoted, that they were ‘to do the works of Abraham, and that if ye enter not into my Law, ye cannot receive the promise of my Father which was made unto Abraham.’ It is further said: ‘God commanded Abraham and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife, and that the reason why she did it was because it was the Law.’ It is evident therefore from the whole of the above that other wives were included in this Law as well as the one. You further inquire: ‘What is the difference in a man having dead wives sealed to him than living women, so that he has one living wife; will they gain as great an exaltation if they have dead women sealed to them as they would if they had living women sealed to them?’ This Law pertains more particularly to the living, and on this point I refer you to verse 52 wherein it is said: ‘And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God,’ and in the 64th verse: ‘And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her this law of my Priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, said the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.’ ‘This is the Law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the Law, when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.’ You seem to be desirous of having dead women sealed to your husband instead of living ones, where as the law pertaining to these matters does not put things in that shape. We read that the Lord commanded and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife, and it is for wives as well as husbands to perform their part in relation to these matters as explicitly stated in verse 64 wherein it is said: ‘If he teaches unto her the law of my Priesthood as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God.’ Circumstances do not always place it in the power of man to enter into this Covenant and these matters are left with the Lord to adjust, but no man or woman has authority to point out any other way than that which the Lord has appointed.
Respectfully your Brother in the Gospel. Signed: John Taylor.” (John Taylor, Letter to Malinda J. Merrill, 19 January 1883, HBLL, as quoted in The Most Holy Principle 1:314-316)

User avatar
LDS Physician
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1812

Re: John Taylor on the question of interpreting D&C 132--eternal marriage or plural marriage necessary?

Post by LDS Physician »

Joseph Smith's death: 1844
D&C 132 pulled out of BY's desk drawer: 1852

D&C 101 until removed in 1876: "All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband"

User avatar
TheDuke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5862
Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs

Re: John Taylor on the question of interpreting D&C 132--eternal marriage or plural marriage necessary?

Post by TheDuke »

It seems John Taylor is providing his personal beliefs on the "plurality" part of D&C. We of course (active LDS) don't even read the "plurality" into the section any more. Sure it is there and Taylor uses the intro sentences about enquiring on plurality to be his reasoning. But, that doesn't match of the lord spoke to Joseph. I mean he asked about which church and got the first vision, he asked about spitting tobacco and got WoW, he asked about resurrection and got 3 degrees of glory, he found a papyrus and got BoA. I don't follow JT's logic and further he never says his words are prophetic, he just provides his logic in telling this woman "what" she is doing right being sealed to the man but must let him do more, some time some where if they don't follow Abraham? he then equates Abraham's doing to having Hagar. So, I would follow JT and say we should all take our wife's slave/servant to wife if they are from Egypt and our wife is barren. then we should find Melchizedek and pay him tithes after we kill the Syrian army with out 300 slaves/servants, of course after promising to offer our firstborn on the alter. We must first kill many sheep and burn their fat. Seems there is much to say about doing as Abraham did w/o just focusing on Hagar. JT's logic seems to be his justification for his understanding of polygamy. Not saying he is either right or wrong but that this statement does little if anything to clarify the commandments, especially in 21st century (after 1895). BTW now I even wonder how he got shot and how that teeny hole in his watch saved his life? That entire story makes his words possibly a bit more opinion based (we know the watch didn't save his life and he was shot by a pistol not bayonetted muskets).... Just saying

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

Re: John Taylor on the question of interpreting D&C 132--eternal marriage or plural marriage necessary?

Post by Sarah »

Luke wrote: December 6th, 2022, 2:27 pm “Dear Sister:
In regard to the question which you have proposed pertaining to plurality of wives you say: ‘According to my understanding of the revelation, I thought it was sealing, but some say it is plurality.’ Permit me to say that it is both, you will find that the revelation is on The Eternity of the Marriage Covenant, including Plurality of Wives, and the first paragraph reads: ‘Verily thus saith the Lord, unto you my Servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand, to know and understand wherein I the Lord justified my Servants, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; as also my servants Moses, David and Solomon, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines.’ The question that was asked was evidently in relation to those people, and especially in relation to the plurality of wives. In the 4th verse it is said: ‘For behold, I reveal unto you a new, and everlasting covenant, and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned, for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory. For all who will have a blessing at my hand shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof as were instituted from before the foundation of the world, and as pertaining to the new, and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory, and he that receive the fullness thereof, must and shall abide my law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.’
You ask: ‘If a man and woman go to the House of the Lord and get their Endowments and are sealed for time and all eternity, and they two live together quietly and peaceably and teach their children the principles of life and salvation, and bring them up in the fear of the Lord, will they gain an exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom with a continuation of their seed or not? I have been sealed to my husband, and my patriarchal blessing says: “I shall raise children in the Millenium,” and I would like to live so as to gain that blessing. I hear men say that one cannot gain an exaltation and a continuation of their seed in the eternal world unless they take more wives than one, and I am anxious to understand it.’ In fulfilling this, you have entered so far into the everlasting covenant, which is so far into the everlasting covenant, which is so far acceptable before the Lord, but in regard to the Law, it is further said, verse 32: ‘Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham.’ The question is: What is the Law? The 34th verse says: ‘God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law: and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.’ In the 37th verse it is said: ‘Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode my law; as Isaac also, and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded.’ ‘David also received many wives and concubines, as also Solomon and Moses my servants; as also many others of my servants. from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin, save in those things which they received not of me.’ 38th verse.
You seem desirous to take part of the Law and reject the other part, but it is plainly stated as above quoted, that they were ‘to do the works of Abraham, and that if ye enter not into my Law, ye cannot receive the promise of my Father which was made unto Abraham.’ It is further said: ‘God commanded Abraham and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife, and that the reason why she did it was because it was the Law.’ It is evident therefore from the whole of the above that other wives were included in this Law as well as the one. You further inquire: ‘What is the difference in a man having dead wives sealed to him than living women, so that he has one living wife; will they gain as great an exaltation if they have dead women sealed to them as they would if they had living women sealed to them?’ This Law pertains more particularly to the living, and on this point I refer you to verse 52 wherein it is said: ‘And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God,’ and in the 64th verse: ‘And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her this law of my Priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, said the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.’ ‘This is the Law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the Law, when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.’ You seem to be desirous of having dead women sealed to your husband instead of living ones, where as the law pertaining to these matters does not put things in that shape. We read that the Lord commanded and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife, and it is for wives as well as husbands to perform their part in relation to these matters as explicitly stated in verse 64 wherein it is said: ‘If he teaches unto her the law of my Priesthood as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God.’ Circumstances do not always place it in the power of man to enter into this Covenant and these matters are left with the Lord to adjust, but no man or woman has authority to point out any other way than that which the Lord has appointed.
Respectfully your Brother in the Gospel. Signed: John Taylor.” (John Taylor, Letter to Malinda J. Merrill, 19 January 1883, HBLL, as quoted in The Most Holy Principle 1:314-316)
The early brethren didn't recognize that this revelation was given to Joseph specifically, to give he and Emma the justification and law behind obeying the specific commandments that were ONLY given to Joseph and Emma to obey. This revelation specifically was not a commandment to the entire church. We also have some accounts saying Joseph was commanded to introduce these Laws to the apostles. We don't have record of that command, but I assume it also included commands to ask for the wives of the apostles, as it appears that that's what he did. Instead, the early brethren mistakenly interpreted the commandments in 132 to Joseph and Emma as commandments to the entire church, but it clearly wasn't spelled out that way in this communication to Joseph.

The Lord was giving the Laws that applied to the use of the priesthood keys Joseph was given. Whoever holds the Keys, can seal whomever he wants, and these Laws govern their use. And so the direction in the early church for every man to take on more wives, was Brigham's decision and commandment, which God allowed, because Brigham could seal whomever he chose to seal together. But this revelation of 132 is not a commandment for every man to go seek out more wives. What the Lord did do was command the entire church to obey the laws of stewardship and consecration, which they failed to do. He commanded Brigham to establish the Order of Enoch, which he failed to do. These were the specific commandments from the Lord to the church.

The plurality of wives was allowed because the keys had been given to start the process of sealing people together, and this was one part of the Law of the Priesthood, the Law of Sarah. It appears Brigham had more understanding of more of the Law of the Priesthood. They failed the test to become one people who were one in ALL things, and obey previous commandments, and so the Lord showed them what would happen if they continued in the multiple wife practice by their choice without progressing any further. They would be overcome completely by the gentiles for not progressing.


Everyone should read section 132 with the intent of differentiating between the New and Everlasting Covenant (which is a Law itself, in that relationship contracts/covenants are by God's authority etc.), the Law of the Priesthood, and commandments. These three things are different and should not be lumped all together. Just because a commandment was given to Joseph and Emma specifically, does not mean that the commandment is part of "the Law," nor is it a command for everyone.

The Lord in sec 132 does not tell the entire church that they all have a special appointment, that they all hold the keys of this power, that the Lord requires a sacrifice and offering appointed unto each one of them individually, etc.

Joseph is also commanded to offer something to Emma, and then the Lord then commands Emma to not partake of it. If John T. was being consistent, then the "Law" he is referring to would also require offering your wife whatever Joseph was commanded to offer her. And we should also take note that the very first verse that is the answer to Joseph's question on adultery is the justification for a woman to have more than one husband or sealing, if it is "appointed unto her by the holy anointing." So if Taylor assumes everyone must obey every part of the "Law" of this revelation, then these men must also recognize that the Law allows a wife to be appointed to another husband. BY said that he had only revealed to a few people that a wife could move up to someone higher in the Priesthood, but then the question remains as to why they did not seek out and reveal the entire law, for we see at the end of 132 that the Lord says that there is more to this Law. If JT is right that all of the law must be obeyed, then where is the rest of the Law that must be obeyed?

When the Lord tells Joseph and Emma to abide in the Law, that simply means that they are complying within the rules or the if/then statements of the Law. Every person who enters into a temple marriage with the New and Everlasting Covenant, through priesthood authority by one with the keys, is abiding the Law. Isaac and Rebecca were abiding the Law. We simply need to realize that a commandment for Abraham does not mean that Isaac and Jacob and everyone else were given the exact same commandments. The Law of the Priesthood, with all of its if/then statements, justifies or allows obeying the commandments for plurality, and the Law of the the New and Everlasting Covenant, makes the covenant/contract/action sealed and legal in Heaven. Abraham and Sarah, Joseph and Emma, had a special appointment to fulfill this part of the Law of Sarah where a wife is allowed to give her husband another wife. Leah and Rachel did the same things, fulfilling the Law of Sarah or of giving another wife to your husband. All the other wives who gave their husbands wives were permitted by the Lord to do so, commanded by Brigham and Taylor, and will be rewarded for obeying that part of the Law, but while they have done their part in fulfilling one part of the Law of the Priesthood, the men still need to fulfill the Law of Consecrating their wife/wives to the Lord/prophet, who in turn gives all men all that he has. Joseph clearly tried to fulfill this part of the Law that requires men to consecrate their wife to the Lord or a higher Priesthood authority, which was Joseph, and then Joseph gave other men wives in the sense that he allowed them to teach their wives the Law of Sarah, and he was commanded to offer Emma another husband. My guess is that Joseph was trying to establish the Order of Enoch but because he had some of the apostles/counselors and Emma opposed to his choices, he wasn't successful. Perhaps the Lord allowed Joseph to go about it his own way. Perhaps we should learn from everyone's mistakes and the seek to establish it in a way that shows charity.

User avatar
JLHPROF
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1087

Re: John Taylor on the question of interpreting D&C 132--eternal marriage or plural marriage necessary?

Post by JLHPROF »

LDS Physician wrote: December 7th, 2022, 10:48 am Joseph Smith's death: 1844
D&C 132 pulled out of BY's desk drawer: 1852

D&C 101 until removed in 1876: "All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband"
The only thing you got right was Joseph's death and the text of the non revelatory old D&C 101.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: John Taylor on the question of interpreting D&C 132--eternal marriage or plural marriage necessary?

Post by Luke »

LDS Physician wrote: December 7th, 2022, 10:48 am Joseph Smith's death: 1844
D&C 132 pulled out of BY's desk drawer: 1852

D&C 101 until removed in 1876: "All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband"
Not a revelation mate

Post Reply