Thursday, August 21, 2014


The Official Petition to Remove Polygamous Section 132 from the Doctrine and Covenants and Reinstate Section 101 in its Original Form

The Petition – A Summary
D&C 132 is a deplorable and fabricated “revelation” that must be openly condemned and immediately removed from the Doctrine and Covenants. 
  • D&C 132 was a false revelation that did not originate with Joseph Smith as claimed in Section 132, but with Brigham Young and his cohorts.  Brigham Young, with the help of William Clayton, fabricated Section 132, and made up a preposterous story of its origins, all in order to justify a vile and wicked practice.   In the process, Brigham Young maliciously defamed Emma Smith. 
  • At the time D&C 132 was included in the Doctrine and Covenants (1876), Brigham Young removed the “rule of marriage” as contained in Section 101 without revelation or common consent.  The “rule of marriage,” confirmed by Joseph Smith, stated: 

“Inasmuch as this church 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.”

– D&C 101 (1835 and 1844 editions) (revelation dated, December 16, 1833)

Brigham Young’s removal of the “rule of marriage” was a gross violation of God’s word and the policy of the church.  Thus, D&C 101 must be rectified and include the “rule of marriage” as originally contained in Section 101. 
  • In addition to being a fraud, D&C 132 caused the widespread relegation of women to inferior status in the church and led to the treatment of women as almost property.  So long as D&C 132 remains in the Doctrine and Covenants, the LDS Church condones the unrighteous mistreatment of women.
NOW THEREFORE, in the spirt of common consent, as identified in D&C 26:2 (“And all things shall be done by common consent in the church”), 28:13 (“For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith”), and 104:21 (“And let all things be done according to the counsel of the order, and united consent”), we do hereby affix our name to this petition in order to request that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to finally and unequivocally end all association of polygamy with our faith, or in the very least, to take this matter before the Lord.  We believe it is the right thing to do and necessary in order for the Church to repent and come closer to the Lord.
To affix your name to the petition, please include your name in the comments section and click on the following link:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/844/781/640/
 
Section 132 – The Most Wicked of Scriptures
Now here’s a “scripture” for you to discuss in Sunday School (it probably wasn't one of the scripture mastery in Seminary) - D&C 132:61-62

“And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood - 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 he is justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that belongeth unto him and to no one else.  And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law; he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore he is justified.”

What if a young virgin refuses to become property of one of these revolting priesthood holders?
D&C 132:64 provides: 
“[I]f any man have a wife, who hold the keys of this power, and 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; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.”
This is the worst of abominations!!!  This is the type of wickedness that you would have seen in the halls of King Noah, the same King Noah that murdered the prophet Abinadi. 

Brigham Young and his cohorts lusted after young virgins and even claimed that the Lord would destroy them if they refused to accept their despicable and immoral advances. 
Without question, this proves how disgusting the Section 132 polygamous doctrine is and how polygamy is an affront to the status and sanctity of women.  Section 132 must be removed and condemned.

A Vile Fabrication – The Origins of Section 132
Few members of the LDS Church are familiar with the origins of Section 132 and do not know that the “revelation” wasn’t revealed until eight years after Joseph’s death and not in Joseph’s handwriting.  The official introduction to Section 132 states:
“Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant and the principle of plural marriage.  Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831.”
However, the introduction is entirely false and does not adequately explain the alleged and laughable origins of the “revelation.”  Joseph Smith neither revealed Section 132 nor taught polygamous principles to anyone.  
  • Joseph repeatedly and unequivocally denounced polygamy as a vile and wicked practice up until the date of his death.  Joseph even sued Chauncey Higbee in court for defamation related to Higbee’s claims that Joseph taught polygamy.  One of Joseph’s harshest sermons against polygamy occurred only one month and one day before his death (“I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives . . . I am innocent of all these charges . . . What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one.”  LDS History of the Church 6:410-11).
  • Many other leaders of the Church, including the Presidents of the Seventies and the Relief Society, repeatedly, publicly, and unequivocally denounced polygamy up until the date of Joseph’s death and denied that Joseph Smith was preaching any such doctrine, secret or otherwise.  These Church leaders submitted affidavits and public statements attesting to Joseph’s innocence.  Either these Church leaders were liars, conspiring with Joseph in covering up polygamy as a "secret doctrine" as the LDS Church claims, or they were telling the truth and Joseph was innocent of polygamy.
  • Emma Smith and Joseph Smith III (he was 11 1/2 years old at the time of Joseph's death) continually declared until the end of their lives that Joseph was innocent of polygamy.  Emma denied every seeing D&C Section 132 or burning the original document.   
What is the LDS Church’s Explanation as to the Origins of Section 132?
It is clear that the Prophet Joseph Smith received section 132 before it was recorded but delayed making it known. The Prophet knew the Lord’s will on plural marriage within the new and everlasting covenant probably as early as 1831 (see History of the Church, 5:xxix). In March 1843 he spoke to William Clayton of eternal marriage. In July of that year, he was discussing the doctrine with his brother Hyrum in William Clayton’s presence when Hyrum said, “If you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take it and read it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace” (History of the Church, 5:xxxii).
The Prophet consented and told William Clayton to get some paper to write; but to his brother’s “urgent request” that the Prophet use the Urim and Thummim to recall the exact revelation, Joseph replied that he did not need it, “for he knew the revelation from beginning to end” (History of the Church, 5:xxxii). When he had finished dictating, William Clayton read it back slowly, and Joseph said that it was exact.
Bishop Newel K. Whitney heard the revelation read and asked permission of the Prophet Joseph Smith to have it copied.  With the Prophet’s approval, Bishop Whitney sent Joseph C. Kingsbury the next day to copy it.  Brothers Kingsbury and Clayton compared the copy line by line to the original and found it correct.
The revelation was not made public until Elder Orson Pratt, under the direction of President Brigham Young, announced it at a Church conference on 29 August 1852. The revelation was placed in the Doctrine and Covenants in 1876.
(Emphasis added).
From the above, the LDS Church claims that Hyrum (not Joseph) wanted to take the original copy of the revelation to Emma Smith so that Hyrum could convince Emma of the truth of polygamy.  Thus, Joseph fortuitously and inexplicably “dictated” Section 132 to William Clayton, who acted as a scribe.   
So what happened to the original copy of the revelation (in Clayton's handwriting)?
Already, the above story strains all credulity, but it gets even better.
Do you believe William Clayton? 
Clayton said that on July 12, 1843, when Joseph Smith fully revealed D&C Section 132, for the inane purpose of convincing Emma of the truth of polygamy, Joseph just happened to ask Clayton to act as Joseph’s scribe (no one has ever explained why Joseph needed a scribe) and create the original copy of the purported revelation, even though Joseph supposedly just said he was about to write the revelation down.   

According to Clayton:
“Joseph then said, ‘Well, I [i.e., Joseph] will write the revelation and we will see.’  He then requested me to get paper and prepare to write.  Hyrum very urgently requested Joseph to write the revelation by means of the Urim and Thummim, but Joseph, in reply, said he did not need to, for he knew the revelation perfectly from beginning to end.  Joseph and Hyrum then sat down, and Joseph commenced to dictate the Revelation on Celestial Marriage, and I wrote it, sentence by sentence, as he dictated.” 
Before Hyrum (and Joseph apparently) took the “revelation” (in Clayton's handwriting) to Emma, Clayton (or Bishop Whitney) conveniently caused Joseph C. Kingsbury, the store clerk for Bishop Whitney, to make a second copy of the revelation (of course, this never happened at any other time).  It is the supposed Kingsbury copy that exists today.
Once it was shown to her, Emma supposedly became so upset about the doctrine, in Clayton's handwriting, that she seized it from Hyrum and tossed it into a fire.  It was just so fortunate that Kingsbury had created a second copy – I guess some would claim that it was a miracle.  The more reasonable of us would call it hogwash.

Now here’s the really crazy part.  The revelation was so unimportant that Brigham put the Kingsbury copy into his desk drawer and forgot about it.  Strangely, Joseph and Hyrum both never mentioned the Section 132 revelation or Emma’s destruction of the original copy. 

Even though Joseph and Hyrum both knew the original bearing Clayton's handwriting had been burnt by Emma, Joseph and Hyrum were simply unconcerned with making the revelation known to everyone else (think about it . . . they lived for almost another year – and yet never mentioned it anywhere).  Then eight years after Joseph’s death, Brigham happened to find the Kingsbury copy (of Clayton's dictation) in Brigham’s long forgotten desk drawer and finally but dutifully released it to the members.  Of course, Brigham had to also simultaneously but quietly amend Section 101's prohibition of polygamy as the "rule of marriage" (since that was such an unimportant matter – it didn’t require any formal revelation to amend it). 
Or do you believe Emma Smith? 
Emma vehemently denied until her death, even under oath, ever seeing Section 132.  Emma said she never saw or burned a copy of the document as claimed by Brigham Young and William Clayton.  Emma loved and defended Hyrum until the day that she died (even naming her son Hyrum as well). 
Conclusion
As is evident, the origins of Section 132 are a complete hoax.  William Clayton’s story (at the behest of Brigham Young) has every telltale sign of being a forgery.  Section 132 was fabricated and falsely attributed to Joseph Smith in order to justify the wicked practices of Brigham Young and his followers.  In addition to fabricating the Lord’s revelation in order to engage in abominable acts, Brigham Young repeatedly defamed Emma Smith.   

2 comments:

  1. My signature. I will also include my membership number as soon as I get home.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Check out the petition and let me know if you see any problems.

      http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/844/781/640/

      Delete