Doctrine & Covenants Section 132

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" colspan=2 height=90 BGCOLOR="#006699" TEXT="#080000" background="043fd5a3.jpg"> <div> <B>Polygamy Versus Common Sense</B></div> <div> <A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Polygamy Versus Common Sense"><U>Home</U></A>     <A HREF="id18.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Infamous Polygamists"><U>Essays </U></A>    <A HREF="id22.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Essay Submission"><U>Essay Submission </U></A> <B> </B><A HREF="id36.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Infamous Polygamists"><U>Infamous Polygamists</U></A></div> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" width=210 BGCOLOR="#FFCC66" TEXT="#080000" background="044d2b03.jpg"> <bR> <bR> <div> <A HREF="id24.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="What every potential polygamist man and "><U><B>What every potential polygamist man and woman should know</B></U></A><B>   </B></div> <div> <A HREF="id26.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Faith What is it?"><U><B>Faith: What is it?</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id31.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Who are the Heroes of Mormon Fundamental"><U><B>Who are the heroes of Mormon Fundamentalism?</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id32.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Freedom to be oppressed!"><U><B>Freedom to be oppressed!</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id33.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Are Organized Polygamous Groups Cults?"><U><B>Are Organized Polygamous Groups Cults</B></U></A></div> <div> <I><B>Doctrine & Covenants Section 132, Fact or Fiction?</B></I></div> <div> <A HREF="id35.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Christian Polygamy What Does the Term Me"><U><B>Christian Polygamy, What is it?</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id38.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="The Duplicity of Religion"><U><B>The Duplicity of Religion</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id39.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Celestial Bootlegging"><U><B>Celestial Bootlegging</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id40.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Tricked into Eternal Polygamy"><U><B>Tricked into "eternal polygamy"</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id41.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Damning Quotes!"><U><B>Damning quotes!</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id42.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crime Corruption and Sexual Abuse in Pol"><U><B>Crime: Corruption and Sexual Abuse in Polygamous Groups</B></U></A></div> <bR> </td> <td valign="top" height=390 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <I><B>Doctrine & Covenants Section 132</B></I></div> <div> Section 132 has an ambiguous and nefarious beginning. To accept it as a commandment from God takes a lot of imagination and faith, but if you can ignore the revelation’s questionable chronology, especially its inconsistency with the Bible, archeology and world history, then you have the makings of a true, blue Mormon fundamentalist.</div> <bR> <div> Mormons and Christian polygamists are fond of saying that polygamy is Biblical, implying that because Moses, Abraham, David and Solomon had more than one wife that polygamy is a religious undertaking. Mormons promote the notion that the Bible ratifies Section 132, but it is my contention that the Bible does more to discredit 132 than ratify.</div> <bR> <div> Mormons purport that Mormonism is the restored gospel, however, I have never been able to find out from where or when it was restored. 132 is an alleged commandment from God, a religious tenet. Either you live it or you're damned. Those who live it will go to the highest degree of the celestial kingdom and become gods, priests and rulers of men of their own worlds, a world for each wife. According to the many discourses by Brigham and his apostles, found in the Journal of Discourses, only polygamists will be able to procreate in heaven, which is a nice way of saying, have sex and bear children. The non polygamists, even men like Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, will be servants to the polygamists. [Visualize if you will, Abe Lincoln shining the shoes of Owen Allred or Warren Jeffs.] </div> <bR> <div> The problem with the foregoing doctrine is that it cannot be corroborated by the Bible, archeology or history. There is nothing in the Bible that even hints that plural marriage was a religious tenet or prerequisite to the celestial kingdom. Brigham Young said that 132 was the most important revelation ever to come from heaven. If that were the case, don’t you think there would be some mention of its religiosity in the Bible? There is absolutely nothing.</div> <bR> <div> Section 132 did not make its formal debut until 1852 when Brigham was safe and seemingly secure in the Great Basin. Hundreds of European women were being converted to a monogamous Mormonism only to have a rude awakening when they arrived in the Great Basin.</div> <bR> <div> It wasn’t until 1852, nearly ten years after the alleged revelation was received (1843) that Brigham Young and his apostles attempted to justify plural marriage. And it was ten years after Joseph Smith started taking plural wives (1833) that the 132<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >nd</FONT> Section of the D & C was allegedly received. Furthermore, it was not until 19 years after Joseph’s first concubine (Fanny Alger, age 16) that all the highfalutin rhetoric justifying plural marriage appeared, and there is no evidence that Joseph’s actions conformed with any of that pious rhetoric.</div> <bR> <div> Between the years 1833 and 1844, when Joseph died, historians (see <I>Sacred Loneliness, </I>by Todd Compton) have recorded at least 33 known women and girls Joseph seduced, and this doesn’t include the women he tried to seduce but failed: Examples - Sarah Pratt, wife of Orson Pratt, Nancy Rigdon, daughter of Sidney Rigdon and the comely wife of William Law, which lead to his downfall and martyrdom. And Joseph didn’t seem to care who he seduced, young girls in his care and custody, the wives and daughters of his friends and apostles, as long as they wore a skirt he didn’t seem to care. </div> <bR> <div> In reading from objective historical research Joseph’s sexual dalliances appears to be more incontinent and hedonistic than the plausible piety dreamed up by Brigham Young, Orson Pratt and Heber C. Kimball, after the fact, years later. And since that time Mormon apologists and intellectuals have continued to work hard in inventing new rational to explain and sanitize plural marriage. But no matter how you define it, no matter how pious the euphemisms and acronyms like "celestial marriage," the bottom line is sexual intercourse. You can’t "raise up a righteous seed" without sexual intercourse. </div> <bR> <div> Apologists claim God commanded the righteous men of the priesthood to take plural wives and raise up a righteous seed. In everyday language, that means gather up a gaggle of women and have sex with them, which I find rather amusing, because, since when has God had to command men to have sex with women? I thought Mother Nature had taken care of that important little detail rather well. </div> <bR> <div> When you have a religion, the central axis of which is sexual intercourse, around which everything else revolves, you are inviting abuse - and sexual abuse is exactly what you have in the Mormon polygamist subculture. Tom Green is merely the top of the iceberg. </div> <bR> <div> Pious Mormon apologists pretend that plural marriage is such a high and mighty sacred principle that it should be above scrutiny. They become livid when someone like me coming from inside the subculture has the temerity to tell the truth. They think that the practice of plural marriage is so sacrosanct that even when men like Tom Green sexually exploit little girls, and self-proclaimed prophets like Jim Harmston cheat old women out of their life savings, we should not sound the alarm or interfere, but keep quite and let God work it out. It is their philosophy that it is better to let these predators have their way than to expose them and taint the sacred Mormon practice of "porking" multiple wives. </div> <bR> <div> You may think that "porking" is a disrespectful euphemism for celestial marriage or the "true and everlasting principle," but within the context of men like Tom Green and Jim Harmston, the verb is more harmonious with the actual practice. For example, Jim Harmston said to Cindy Stewart, that if he married her "he might throw her down on a flat rock and throw one into her." This is a man who claims to talk in person with Jesus Christ on a regular basis.</div> <bR> <div> Sexual intercourse is a biological necessity for a continuation of a species. Men and women have been doing a pretty good job in conforming to this biological urge for centuries. Therefore, is it logical or plausible, especially in the absence of corroboration, that God needed to issue a commandment? After all, Joseph Smith wasn’t sitting on his thumbs before the 1843 commandment. He was out there working his way through the female Mormon population trying to convince the good looking girls that he had the ok from God.</div> <bR> <div> Section 132 is a coercive, hypocritical commandment. It says, [paraphrased] you have your free agency, but if you don’t live plural marriage you will be damned. In the revelation, God told Emma, Joseph’s reluctant wife, give Joseph a bunch of virgins or I will destroy you. How’s that for intimidation? </div> <bR> <div> I asked my daughter who is a plural wife, if polygamy was not a commandment would you still live it. It only took her a few seconds to say, "No, there wouldn't be any need to." In essence, my daughter is being coerced into becoming a plural wife by a bogus revelation, and unscrupulous men are exploiting the revelation for financial gain and power.</div> <bR> <div> Section 132 in the hands of men like Tom Green, who have the morals of an ally cat, is like giving a bottle of whiskey to an alcoholic.</div> <bR> <div> If you are a "blind believer" in Mormonism you may think I’m irreverent - well your right. You see, I am iconoclastic and a muckraker, its my style of writing. I have found that its not very effective to pussyfoot around, worrying about hurting someone’s feelings, its better to be blunt and get to the point. If you have a good argument, then make something happen, otherwise, nothing will happen.</div> <div> You may have observed that I am not to keen on Islam. Did you know that Joseph and his 132 have a lot in common with Mohammad, Islam and the Koran? If you have the time, take a look at my other web: <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><U>www.polygamybooks.com,</U></FONT> and my essay on Islam and Mormonism. It will give you even more reason to doubt the divinity of 132.</div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arrus BT" >Contact me at:  </FONT><A HREF="mailto:webmaster@polygamyversuscommonsense.com" TARGET="_top" TITLE="mailto:webmaster@polygamyversuscommonsen"><U>webmaster@polygamyversuscommonsense.com</U></A> .                                                                            <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arrus BT" ><B>Copyright 2004 John R. Llewellyn and Power Link ISP, Inc. All rights reserved</B></FONT></div> <bR> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <A HREF="http://www.powerlinkisp.com" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.powerlinkisp.com"><U><B><IMG SRC="06aaa220.jpg" border=0 width="682" height="34" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="http://www.powerlinkisp.com" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.powerlinkisp.com"><U><B>For hosting services and other fine products please visit our internet host </B></U></A></div> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>