In Mormonism there is a growing trend to awaken to our awful situation, with a heavy focus on the problems with D&C 132. Many see the state of things and realize that at some point we got off track. The exact point though seems to be the confusion that everyone disagrees about. Many want to remove one thing and leave everything else. However, if you remove one thing then you remove support for something else. If we actually look, then almost all that makes Mormonism unique is not supported at all by the scriptures.
Search for truth
In our search for truth, we naturally develop a set of core beliefs that we hold sacred. These are the bedrock that we build everything else upon. Often when someone shows that one of these core principles are in fact wrong, then we react defensively and circle the wagons with others who feel the same way. This is typically repeated several times until we decide to analyze the core principle ourselves, and either strengthen our understanding of it or remove it entirely. This is a cycle the seems to repeat indefinitely.
In order to minimize the mental pain involved with this process, then we naturally want to limit the damage as much as possible. As a consequence, when we remove one core belief then we typically don’t reevaluate the other core beliefs. However, this would be a perfect time to do so. This is because quite often our core beliefs support each other to a degree. When you remove one belief then it can often remove support for another core belief.
For instance, in Mormonism, a set of common beliefs would be that the prophet can’t lead us astray, there is a modern-day prophet like Moses, and the President of the LDS church is this prophet. These beliefs are actually core central beliefs in the LDS church. Suppose however that someone comes to remove the belief that the prophet can’t lead the people astray. They now believe that it actually is possible and maybe even is more likely than not.
A typical member would reevaluate the actions of the current prophet based on this new understanding, which makes sense. However, what about the previous prophet? Could he lead the people astray? What about the prophet before that? Could he? Based on this new understanding, then shouldn’t we go all the way back to the beginning which is Joseph? Could Joseph lead people astray or is that not possible? If it’s not possible, then why is that not possible, but it’s possible today?
Some people get around this by redefining history so that their favored point is clean, but everything afterwards is dirty. This establishes a checkpoint in their minds that is now a core belief for them until it is reevaluated. This often is not logically valid and leads to a set of inconsistent criteria. For instance, many claim Joseph couldn’t lead us astray however others could. This is logically inconsistent and certainly not based on anything except an emotional attachment.
Shaky ground
Currently, in Mormonism there is a growing effort to view D&C 132 as a questionable revelation. Some believe Brigham made it up, some believe Joseph made it up, and others believe it may have been a combination of the two. Who authored it honestly doesn’t really matter to us today, however it seems pretty fun to argue about though.
I personally don’t believe polygamy is a doctrine of God. However, if God wanted it then I am okay with it also. I am okay with whatever God wants. If we are honest with ourselves, then the scriptures are full of strange things that we would reject today. In modern religion, God is simply a being that helps us do what we wanted to do already. He is not really a being with a fundamentally different view on how things should go like the scriptures mention he actually is. On such an emotionally charged subject as polygamy though, we just have to know God’s will much more clearly than a series of dubious revelations with no scriptural backing.
Today, many want to take Mormonism and just remove polygamy while retaining everything else. This would essentially give us a church named, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Without Polygamy”. I completely understand why people feel this way. However, I believe it is fundamentally a wrong approach and actually a very short sighted one.
Yes, we should remove false doctrines in the church, and polygamy is one of them. However, why stop there? Shouldn’t we go back to the basics while we’re at it? Does it even make any sense at all to retain all the false traditions of our fathers, in our quest to only get rid of polygamy? If D&C 132 is not scripture, then what does that say about the doctrines which D&C 132 is used to support? These doctrines are eternal marriage, exaltation, eternal offspring, unconditional eternal life, and honestly almost all the rest of Mormonism. If D&C 132 is removed, then we honestly must reevaluate those doctrines as well.
D&C 132
For our purposes today, let’s assume that D&C 132 is no longer considered scripture. Consequently, polygamy is no longer a doctrine of the church and women everywhere no longer have to worry about just being one wife in an eternal harem. This is obviously a step forward, no doubt. However, what specifically does D&C 132 describe that the church would no longer believe in?
D&C 132 actually describes many things since it is the longest revelation in the Doctrine & Covenants. The first major point is of course polygamy, this is described in some detail and is defined as the “new and everlasting covenant” in verse 6. This new and everlasting covenant is seen as the summation of every other covenant and is described as the crowning stone in our journey back to God. The next major point, in verse 7, is the description that there is only one person on the earth which can have the keys of the priesthood at a time.
The next point, in verse 15, is that we must be married by God’s authority, to have an eternal marriage, otherwise our marriage has no effect in the next life, and we would be angels forever instead. In Mormonism, this higher level is called exaltation and is described as being like God, while the lower levels are not fully like God. The next point, in verse 19, is a description of the concept that we can be sealed unto eternal life with an unconditional promise.
The next point, in verse 20, is that this eternal marriage allows the couple to become gods who are given power over all things, including those that chose not to marry and are consequently angels instead. The next point, in verse 30, is the description that through this eternal marriage then couples can have eternal offspring.
The next point, in verse 46, describes a sealing concept, which in Mormonism, is interpreted as the ability to make things binding in heaven. This is implied through descriptions of the other verses, however, is simply made more explicit here. It does though essentially give the President of the church the power of God on earth. What he says and does is binding in heaven.
D&C 132 does describe many other things, mostly related to polygamy, which are not directly applicable to the conversation here. We can however briefly mention them in an effort to be more complete. Verse 44 describes how leaders of the church could reassign women to a different man if the man was seen as unfaithful. Verse 52 describes how the wife has to allow her husband to take other polygamist wives otherwise she will be punished. Lastly verse 61 describes how the first wife has to give consent to each additional wife. However, if she doesn’t, she is punished so I am not sure the point of consent in this case.
D&C 132 is the longest section in the Doctrine and Covenants so naturally there is a lot to consider if the section was to be removed. For simplicity, we can summarize the ideas found in that section.
- Polygamy is allowed by God
- Only one person can hold all of God’s priesthood authority at a time
- Marriage is eternal and necessary
- Unconditional sealing to eternal life
- We can become gods with power over all things
- We can have eternal offspring
- Man can control what is eternally binding in heaven
Naturally, if D&C 132 is no longer considered scripture then some support for these ideas would be removed. Some of the ideas can be supported elsewhere, which is certainly good in a belief system, however, let’s examine the cascading failure, in Mormonism, that would necessarily happen if we removed D&C 132. Again, I am not saying we shouldn’t remove that section. I am just saying that if we do then we absolutely must be aware of the ramifications otherwise our collective doctrine would get even more absurd.
False Doctrines
As mentioned previously, polygamy would now be removed which is great. However, so would the concept of eternal marriage. There is not a single other place in scripture which describes the concept of eternal marriage. Therefore, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to consider it such a central doctrine. Naturally, people have twisted vague things to support the concept. However, there is certainly nothing in Mormon scripture which directly supports it either.
If polygamy and eternal marriage are removed, then it no longer makes sense to imagine that God creates eternal children through a sexual union with his polygamist wives. There is absolutely nothing in scripture which supports this. Certainly, he could do so without a marriage like we would understand it. However, there is also no reason to believe that he does it either. If he doesn’t need marriage to create children, then why does he command us to get married to do so?
If eternal marriage and eternal offspring are no longer doctrines of the church, then what is the eternal purpose of a body as we understand it? God needed a body because he was going to literally procreate with his polygamist wives. However, if he doesn’t do that then what is the purpose of his body? D&C 130 does describe God has having a body. However, this section is a collection of confusing notes from two scribes that don’t even agree on this and other points. We do have other accounts like Ether 3 that describe physical attributes of God.
However, appearing to us in a human form or interacting with physical items doesn’t necessarily mean God has a permanent physical form like we do. There are a ton of assumptions made when we say that God has a body, therefore it makes more sense to say that he doesn’t, or he can assume a physical form as needed. Again, assuming a physical form is not the same as always being in a physical form. For instance, when someone is deep sea diving, they assume an aquatic form however are not permanently aquatic beings.
If eternal marriage and eternal offspring are not doctrines, then what does exaltation mean as described in D&C 132? Exaltation is a concept only found in that section. All other concepts describe being saved in God’s kingdom and nothing else. We do have different levels of God’s kingdom described in D&C 76. However, there is no mention of this being exclusionary based on marriage status or even exclusionary at all. I doubt anyone is permanently stuck somewhere since eternity is such a final state of being. There are actually no other references to multiple exclusionary levels in God’s kingdom. Therefore, the entire concept of exaltation would have to be removed also.
If eternal marriage and exaltation are no longer doctrines of the church, then we would have to remove them from the temple. Certainly, we have marriage in the temple, and the Second Anointing ordinance, which is no longer valid since the concept is removed by removing D&C 132. However, we also have exaltation, and eternal marriage, featured prominently in the entire endowment ordinance in the temple. Therefore, we would have to either remove the endowment or change it entirely.
It also is entirely unclear what the purpose of the endowment would be if those concepts are removed. It would honestly seem to make sense to just remove the endowment entirely since there is no scriptural support for that either. There is no scriptural mention that we need secret signs or tokens in order to access God or pass by guardians on the path to God. In this case then the only purpose of the temple would be to do baptisms for the dead.
If God no longer has a body, is not eternally married, and doesn’t create children through marriage, then it also no longer makes sense to describe God’s kingdom in dynastic terms like the King Follett discourse does. For instance, in Mormonism, God is just one god of many. When our god is finished with the earth then he accepts a higher role and moves up. His place is taken by someone else and this cycle repeats. This is not supported by the scriptures and so should also be abandoned.
If God no longer has a body and we are not eternally married, with eternal offspring, then this means there was a very substantial error made somewhere. This would not be a simple doctrinal accident, but a monumental blunder in the foundational teachings of the church. This would mean prophets could be wrong and could be wrong about major points of doctrine.
This would also mean that it was highly likely to not be the only doctrinal error that has been made in the church. As a result, we would then need to reexamine everything. This would then mean that leaders can be wrong about things, and the members need to be much more careful about what they accept as doctrine.
Lastly, if D&C 132 is removed then we would also have to remove the concept that there can only be a single person on the earth at a time that can hold the priesthood keys of God. Certainly, we have sections like D&C 81, and D&C 107 which describes the leadership as presiding over the church. However, there is not a single other place, than D&C 132 which describes an exclusivity of priesthood keys in a single person. If multiple people can hold these keys at a single time, then does this mean that other churches can hold them as well? If they can, then what does that say about the LDS church?
Conclusion
I think it’s great that we are having a conversation about whether, we as a people, should consider D&C 132 as scripture. However, this conversation is significantly more involved than just removing the section from our scriptures and consequently ignoring polygamy. D&C 132 is the basis for many of the beliefs in the church so what does that mean for the church overall?
We can’t just remove what we don’t like and keep what we do like simply because we like it. This is not how God works or how we should be seeking truth. Doctrine should not be determined by whether it makes us happy or not. We actually need a full reset back to the simple Doctrine of Christ. As we have seen, then if we remove D&C 132 from our scriptures then we must also remove the following ideas or at least completely reenvision them:
- Polygamy
- Eternal marriage
- Eternal offspring
- God has a body
- Exaltation is a higher level
- Temple ordinances
- We can be unconditionally sealed to eternal life
- Eternal line of progressing gods
- Prophets can’t be wrong
- Only one person can have priesthood keys
If we assumed a version of Mormonism with all those things removed, then how would Mormonism fundamentally be any different from any other Christian religion? Certainly, Mormonism would have prophets and the Book of Mormon which is a difference. However, this is a very minor difference overall. Mormonism would essentially become like any other biblical religion with just a few minor differences. This would be opposed to what it is now which is a significantly different religion with just a few minor similarities.
When the true servants return and God’s house is set in order, then I absolutely would expect a complete reset back to basics. I certainly wouldn’t expect the same thing we already have, just without polygamy. We must be willing to be corrected in many things and not just in whatever is popular to talk about at the time.
I suspect this will be a challenge for many who are incapable of seeing things outside the sphere of Mormonism. I personally really love Mormonism and have honestly not found anything quite as good. However, I have also worshipped with other Christians and seen that their simplicity and genuine focus on Christ alone is much more scripturally based. In the scriptures, the doctrine of Christ is fundamentally simple. We however in Mormonism have made it so complicated that we have a hard time imaging anything simpler.
