I Know the Church is True: Part 2
Click here to read Part 1 of this post.
By Bob Dixon
“I know the church is true”.
This is a really dangerous phrase. Why? Because it appears to communicate truth, while in reality being completely subjective to the person hearing it. It thus
creates a misunderstanding between two people underneath the veneer of apparent agreement.
creates a misunderstanding between two people underneath the veneer of apparent agreement.Taken literally it can’t really be correct, because churches are composed of fallible men and women. They can never be 100% true. Without clarification the phrase “I know the church is true” is almost meaningless.
My previous post was about my own experience with the idea of the church being “true”, so I thought I would unpack at least what *I* mean by the church being “true”.
Mormonism is many things to many people. For most people I think the bedrock of Mormonism is the restoration of priesthood authority. Jesus is often obscured by leaders and callings and programs and meetings and the rhythm of being an active Mormon, which seems to mean being always on the go.
To me the bedrock of Mormonism is the principle of personal revelation, as exemplified in the story of Joseph Smith’s first vision. A fourteen year old boy had sincere theological questions, took them to God, and got answers. This single event, regardless of which set of historical facts about it that you believe, completely changes the paradigm of religion. Before, you needed someone to approach God for you. Joseph Smith’s vision teaches that we can trust God to speak for himself. We don’t need seminary trained pastors, or even seminary teachers or church leaders, to tell us what the scriptures mean. We can read for ourselves and pray and expect to get answers. No longer do fallible men and women with their own agendas stand between us and God.
Compare this idea to how most Christian bodies are governed. Even non-denominational Christian churches generally claim the Bible as their authority, using phrases like “Sola Scriptura”, or “the bible alone”. But do they really mean that? Consider just one doctrine, that of the Trinity. The word “trinity” is found nowhere in the Bible. In my own opinion you can argue the nature of the Godhead many different ways depending on which verses you choose to take out of context. Jesus himself has no precise statements on the specific nature of the Godhead, other than phrases like “the Father and I are one”, while using a similar expression to refer to the disciples being one, from John 17:10 – 12. The core doctrines of virtually all Christian churches outside Mormonism don’t come directly from the Bible, but from four centuries of church councils that codify the official interpretation of what the Bible actually says through things like the Nicene Creed. When Christians refer to the Bible as being “inerrant”, what they really mean is that the opinions of men over 1600 years ago about what it says are inerrant, rather than the text itself. The thinking has been done by others already. Any idea to the contrary is heresy and not up for discussion.
My own view is that our own perception of the gospel is by nature imperfect, like trying to use a crude wooden ruler to measure precisely machined surfaces. Our understanding at any time can only be a rough approximation of the truth about God, because we are finite and God is infinite. The creation can never exceed the understanding of the Creator.
I think Joseph Smith understood this quite well, because his understanding of God was constantly evolving, from the earliest recorded version of the first vision story in 1832 to the King Follett sermon. His understanding of God’s will for the saints was constantly evolving, from the basically orthodox Christianity expressed in the Book of Mormon through the new and everlasting covenant of marriage necessary for exaltation expressed in D&C 132, by which of course I mean polygamy and not merely temple marriage.
I don’t think God will ever be completely done revealing himself and his nature to us. We receive according to our capacity to understand, line upon line, precept upon precept.
Although it sometimes devolves to functioning more like a corporate bureaucracy, the foundation and bedrock of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is revelation, continuing, past, present, and future, and not the static pronouncements of councils 1600 years ago. Our faith doesn’t lead us to merely a leather-bound book or to historic pronouncements of church leaders that are assumed to be eternal in nature, but directly to the living God. Even when it doesn’t function as it should, the LDS church leads us towards study, prayer, and personal confirmation and not merely repeating the words of others. Although we often fall back to bureaucracy and relying too much on our leaders, the core principles are always there to be found. They will lead us to Jesus, salvation, and personal and eternal progression as we apply them, in a surer and more reliable fashion than any other religious system with which I am acquainted.
Many churches will tell you that we have everything we need for doctrine in the Bible and everything we need for salvation in Jesus. Mormonism teaches that salvation is the beginning of the journey and not the end. It leads us to continue to stretch our understanding and our capacity in a journey that will never end. When properly understood, our doctrine doesn’t teach that we must ever keep reaching out for heaven lest we fall short. That’s an all too familiar recipe for guilt and anti-depressants. It teaches that we can trust in Jesus for our salvation, and from that stable platform keep reaching upward. Truly we have everything we need in Jesus, but the restless spirit keeps searching for the further enlightenment that is ours, as we continue to stretch.
As I dig downward through the cruft of Mormonism, the foundation I find is the solid bedrock of revelation. As I dig downward through the foundation of other Christian systems, what I find is a hard shell of static biblical interpretations, which for me crumbles under the weight of examination. It leaves me on my own to resolve the conflicting scriptures on the Trinity, just what we must do to be saved, the behaviors that prevent us from being saved, historical accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion and other details of his life, seemingly conflicting statements in Paul’s letters, and many other things.
What I mean when I say “the church is true” is that this system based on personal revelation provides a solid foundation I can build on to continue to seek God’s will for my life. As I have questions I can take them to a source I trust, the Holy Spirit, and I have a way of measuring the truth of all things. Although my understanding is often imperfect, I can place my trust in God and his desire to lead me home and not on human authority structures and their byproducts.
What does “the church is true” mean to you?
Bob Dixon
Bob graduated from the U. S. Naval Academy and spent twelve years in the Marine Corps. Bob joined the LDS church as an adult convert and spent twenty years as a fully active and participating member. Due to a wave of historical and doctrinal concerns Bob spent about eight years on hiatus from full participation in the LDS church, although they still attended and kept in touch. As a result of the experiences shared in the blog Bob has a more nuanced perspective on some of these issues and am transitioning back towards a fuller involvement again. I work as a computer programmer in the Raleigh NC area.
All posts by Bob Dixon
“It teaches that we can trust in Jesus for our salvation, and from that stable platform keep reaching upward. Truly we have everything we need in Jesus, but the restless spirit keeps searching for the further enlightenment that is ours, as we continue to stretch. . .”
Well said.
For me “the church is true” has come to mean “I know Christ lives and I believe Joseph Smith had a divine vision which opened a previously undiscovered doorway to enlightenment.” His enlightenment experience provides a concrete example of how readily available God is to us. Sure, there are others who have had such visions, but I was born now. And Joseph Smith did this for our time. So, the church is true for me.
The central doctrine of Christ: Faith in Him, repentance and so-forth, is expressed within the context of the LDS faith in a way that rings true to me. Sometimes I feel it in my bones. Literally. In the cells of my body. What else can I do but say, “Yea, Lord, I believe.”
Because I have experienced moments in which I “Know” – later, when my faith is challenged, to deny what I know is self-deception at its worst. It’s a crime against heaven for me personally. So there you have it. I know a few things. I believe a lot of things. And I hope to be able to believe and endure all true things. Amen.
I will write you a dissertation tonight . . . hang on.
An nteresting blog Mr. Bob Bixon. I like the freedom of expression you use . . . it is refreshing to hear someone’s heartfelt ideas in an open forum. I have always believed that was the initial intent of testimony meeting. Every crazy, loyal, or apostate thought is openly expressed without bridle once/month. I love your idea about the meaningless of the statement the church is true. ALL true? Nothing false in it? every leader, teacher always tells the truth perfectly? It is the same as how the church uses the word “obedience.” Obedience to what? In the scriptures obedience is always in the context of “to something.” Obedience to the commandments, obedience to the will of the Lord. Obedience by it self is not a virtue, therefore it cannot qualify as the first law of heaven. It could qualify s the first law of Naziism, or the first law of Jim Jones’ cult, but not heaven. How did that phrase evolve, when it is literally the opposite of what the gospel of christ teaches. Isn’t agency the first law of heaven?
I think you give the prophet Joseph smith too much credit. He is the “great seer” and “like unto Moses” liberating the remnant of Israel with the Book of Mormon and its plain and precious truths, but he (speaking like he is Alpha and Omega) teaches opposite doctrines from the BOM. Section 132 is a grand example of this, and I wonder why we still pretend it is scripture. Let me explain.
One common occurrence in the mission field was the opportunity to engage your peers in gospel discussions. I remember arguing about where the ten tribes were, whether or not Jesus was married, and one of our favorite discussions was the topic of polygamy. It was something that would be brought up from time to time by investigators and we as the representatives of the church had to have a reasonable explanation.
We would explain to them that it was of course a restoration of lost doctrine from the Old Testament. We reminded them that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon (per section 132 of the D&C) all practiced polygamy which had the purpose of raising up seed unto the Lord (See Jacob 2:27). “So see Mr. Garcia, it was a divine law that was revealed to JS in Section 132 of the D&C . It is not lived today because we found out we were not ready to live such a higher law.” We would look at Mr. Garcia nodding our heads and keeping our fingers crossed hoping he wouldn’t get discouraged from further pursuit of our message. If Mr. Garcia continued to struggle with the doctrine we reminded him to strive instead to develop his faith by reading the BOM as it is the foundation of faith, indeed the keystone of our religion. If the BoM is true, then Joseph Smith is a prophet and of course the church must also be true.
I always worried about the line we used knowing it was a little deceitful. What worried me was the fact that it was not a divine law revealed to JS. Jacob in the BOM expressly condemns the practice.
23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
Of course the D&C and the BOM directly contradict each other here. In Section 132:38 of the D&C it states:
38 David also received many wives and concubines, and 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.
So which one is correct? Why do we have two scriptures teaching opposite doctrines? Was polygamy the Lord’s will? I read and re-read section 132. It was written in 1833 but it says in the heading of section 132 that there is evidence that Joseph had knowledge of the doctrine in 1831.
In section 49:16 of the D&C it states:
15 And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.
16 Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation;
Section 49 was written in May of 1831 per the heading of the section. This was distressing to me. Here the Lord preaches in 1831 that man should have one wife, but then also in 1831 he revealed to JS that plural wives were part of a new and everlasting covenant. So which is it? Does God change his mind at the very same moment saying first that men are to have one wife and then say it is suddenly ok to have multiple wives?
1 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 Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—
2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.
3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.
4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an 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.
So what we told Mr. Garcia was deceitful on a different level also. We didn’t stop the practice of polygamy because we weren’t ready for it; it says you are damned if you know of it and don’t practice it. Not being ready to receive it does not apparently save you from damnation.
The doctrine of Polygamy has always been controversial since the time of the very first plural wife to the present. What woman in the LDS church perceives that polygamy in the world to come is a good idea?
As a missionary I never wanted anyone to read section 132 after seeing the discrepancy with bom teachings and the d&c itself in section 49. In addition to opposite doctrines being taught by the Lord in the same year, the language of 132 in the below quoted verses makes one question a loving god who is no respecter of persons, who is omniscient, who loves us all the same.
61 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 is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
62 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 is he justified.
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.
64 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 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.
65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.
66 And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice for the present. Behold, I am Alpha and Omega. Amen.
In the mission field one must be unified to the doctrine and to the cause for the solidarity of the movement. Autonomous thinking and creative interpretations of rules or policies let alone doctrine is utterly forbidden. Conformity is the rule. I wanted to endure the toughest time of my life and come home having served faithfully and I did.
Since the mission, I have served faithfully in the church for many years having callings in every organization. Since studying section 132 thoroughly I came to believe that despite the fact that Joseph Smith was called of God, he made up section 132. This was a difficult realization to fully accept for me for the founder of the restored gospel and the “great seer” prophesied in the BOM. Reading that section of the D&C however, makes it for me impossible to believe that Jesus who suffered so much, dying on the cross so he as God could experience the pain of mankind because of his love, could turn around and reveal something so utterly insulting to JS as is written in section 132. It is unbelievable that the ardent love of Christ portrayed in the pages of 3rd Nephi wherein he groans for the welfare of mankind, is the same deity who revealed teachings so contradictory to a true and loving god.
Although this may sound harsh, unlike the Bom, which pleads for man to come unto Christ, section 132 wreaks of potential fraud suggesting rationalization, ulterior motives, and corruption. Bear with me as we analyze together and realize the implications to mankind if it is indeed the truth.
Verse 61 and 62: Jesus says a man can have a virgin. Why does Jesus suddenly start referring to women as virgins? Nowhere else in any scripture does he refer to the woman gender as such. Someone may contend that the virgin Mary is an example, but that reference is to illustrate the miracle of Jesus’ birth, not a general reference to marriageable women. So Jesus implies that women who have had sexual intercourse are not eligible for marriage. This is new doctrine for sure. A widow is not eligible to be remarried. We learn here also that women belong to the man. Jesus discusses women like they were livestock. It is interesting the man’s virginity is not in question here.
Verse 63: Jesus teaches that women’s role is not just to bear children, but to bear them for the man. This so important her exaltation hangs in the balance. If we contemplate the significance of this, it means women who choose not to have children will not be exalted, but also women who can’t have children. Indeed, it means any female who has never had the opportunity to have children cannot be exalted. The child dying in infancy discussed in Moroni 8 wherein Mormon says to his son Moroni:
17 And I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are alike unto me; wherefore, I love little children with a perfect love; and they are all alike and partakers of salvation.
Here the Lord contradicts himself again. He says that a female must: fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men. So Jesus tells Mormon they are assured salvation, but then tells Joseph Smith that if females don’t bear children they cannot be exalted.
Verse 64: Here women are told that if they are able to bear children, but they don’t accept the law of polygamy and don’t administer unto their husbands . . . they will be destroyed. Jesus, aren’t you being a little harsh here? First of all you can’t force someone to believe, and then destroy them if they don’t, right? Did you forget the beatitudes, section 121 where you say you cannot compel righteousness? How about the principle of forgiveness or charity, longsuffering? How about we just whip her a few times rather than destroy her?
Verse 65: Women must support the man no matter how many women I decide to give to him. If she can’t deal with it, she is the transgressor. Again Jesus, can’t you at least have an iota of compassion for a wife watching her husband in the intimate embrace of another woman? Certainly you must be able to understand the pain, anguish, leveling of the wife’s self esteem. Why is chastity for a man and woman so different? If the husband feels a desire for a cute young blond, he goes and asks for permission from the church and poof he has another girlfriend for a wife. No restraint? No self control? No righteous example, Lord? Why is it that there is no requirement for men to be virgins prior to marriage as it is specified for women? Did you forget the compassion you had for the feelings of women as described in Jacob 2?
7 And also it grieveth me that I must use so much boldness of speech concerning you, before your wives and your children, many of whose feelings are exceedingly tender and bchaste and delicate before God, which thing is pleasing unto God;
23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing awhoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any aman among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none.
Jesus again changes his mind. He wants the Nephites to be a righteous branch and have only one wife and no concubines, not like Solomon and David. But Jesus says in section 132 that plural wives in certain situations were his will regarding David and Solomon. (dc 132:38). Which do we believe?
Verse 66: Jesus signs off as Alpha and Omega. This implies the first and the last all knowing, all wise, he covers everything from A to Z. I believe he is exactly that, but to me it is clear that the being talking here in section 132 is deluded or extremely confused. This Alpha and Omega is not the same that appeared to the Nephites, with loving counsel, meaningful doctrine, and obvious divine power. He isn’t the same god that hung on the cross to feel all the pains of mankind. The latter is the one I feel happy to pray to, to ask for guidance. The latter is the one I strive to worship. He is the God of the Book of Mormon, the book that Joseph Smith told us would bring us closer to God than any other book, the book that contains the fullness of the gospel.
I believe however that if your revelations contradict previous revelations you have received or contradict other teachings delivered to the earth by prophetic miraculous events (e.g. the bom) one should carefully weigh whether the revelation is valid. I believe all teaching originating from men should be evaluated I this manner.
An nteresting blog Mr. Bob Bixon. I like the freedom of expression you use . . . it is refreshing to hear someone’s heartfelt ideas in an open forum. I have always believed that was the initial intent of testimony meeting. Every crazy, loyal, or apostate thought is openly expressed without bridle once/month. I love your idea about the meaningless of the statement the church is true. ALL true? Nothing false in it? every leader, teacher always tells the truth perfectly? It is the same as how the church uses the word “obedience.” Obedience to what? In the scriptures obedience is always in the context of “to something.” Obedience to the commandments, obedience to the will of the Lord. Obedience by it self is not a virtue, therefore it cannot qualify as the first law of heaven. It could qualify s the first law of Naziism, or the first law of Jim Jones’ cult, but not heaven. How did that phrase evolve, when it is literally the opposite of what the gospel of christ teaches. Isn’t agency the first law of heaven?
I think you give the prophet Joseph smith too much credit. He is the “great seer” and “like unto Moses” liberating the remnant of Israel with the Book of Mormon and its plain and precious truths, but he (speaking like he is Alpha and Omega) teaches opposite doctrines from the BOM. Section 132 is a grand example of this, and I wonder why we still pretend it is scripture. Let me explain.
One common occurrence in the mission field was the opportunity to engage your peers in gospel discussions. I remember arguing about where the ten tribes were, whether or not Jesus was married, and one of our favorite discussions was the topic of polygamy. It was something that would be brought up from time to time by investigators and we as the representatives of the church had to have a reasonable explanation.
We would explain to them that it was of course a restoration of lost doctrine from the Old Testament. We reminded them that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon (per section 132 of the D&C) all practiced polygamy which had the purpose of raising up seed unto the Lord (See Jacob 2:27). “So see Mr. Garcia, it was a divine law that was revealed to JS in Section 132 of the D&C . It is not lived today because we found out we were not ready to live such a higher law.” We would look at Mr. Garcia nodding our heads and keeping our fingers crossed hoping he wouldn’t get discouraged from further pursuit of our message. If Mr. Garcia continued to struggle with the doctrine we reminded him to strive instead to develop his faith by reading the BOM as it is the foundation of faith, indeed the keystone of our religion. If the BoM is true, then Joseph Smith is a prophet and of course the church must also be true.
I always worried about the line we used knowing it was a little deceitful. What worried me was the fact that it was not a divine law revealed to JS. Jacob in the BOM expressly condemns the practice.
23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
Of course the D&C and the BOM directly contradict each other here. In Section 132:38 of the D&C it states:
38 David also received many wives and concubines, and 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.
So which one is correct? Why do we have two scriptures teaching opposite doctrines? Was polygamy the Lord’s will? I read and re-read section 132. It was written in 1833 but it says in the heading of section 132 that there is evidence that Joseph had knowledge of the doctrine in 1831.
In section 49:16 of the D&C it states:
15 And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.
16 Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation;
Section 49 was written in May of 1831 per the heading of the section. This was distressing to me. Here the Lord preaches in 1831 that man should have one wife, but then also in 1831 he revealed to JS that plural wives were part of a new and everlasting covenant. So which is it? Does God change his mind at the very same moment saying first that men are to have one wife and then say it is suddenly ok to have multiple wives?
1 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 Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—
2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.
3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.
4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an 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.
So what we told Mr. Garcia was deceitful on a different level also. We didn’t stop the practice of polygamy because we weren’t ready for it; it says you are damned if you know of it and don’t practice it. Not being ready to receive it does not apparently save you from damnation.
The doctrine of Polygamy has always been controversial since the time of the very first plural wife to the present. What woman in the LDS church perceives that polygamy in the world to come is a good idea?
As a missionary I never wanted anyone to read section 132 after seeing the discrepancy with bom teachings and the d&c itself in section 49. In addition to opposite doctrines being taught by the Lord in the same year, the language of 132 in the below quoted verses makes one question a loving god who is no respecter of persons, who is omniscient, who loves us all the same.
61 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 is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
62 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 is he justified.
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.
64 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 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.
65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.
66 And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice for the present. Behold, I am Alpha and Omega. Amen.
In the mission field one must be unified to the doctrine and to the cause for the solidarity of the movement. Autonomous thinking and creative interpretations of rules or policies let alone doctrine is utterly forbidden. Conformity is the rule. I wanted to endure the toughest time of my life and come home having served faithfully and I did.
Since the mission, I have served faithfully in the church for many years having callings in every organization. Since studying section 132 thoroughly I came to believe that despite the fact that Joseph Smith was called of God, he made up section 132. This was a difficult realization to fully accept for me for the founder of the restored gospel and the “great seer” prophesied in the BOM. Reading that section of the D&C however, makes it for me impossible to believe that Jesus who suffered so much, dying on the cross so he as God could experience the pain of mankind because of his love, could turn around and reveal something so utterly insulting to JS as is written in section 132. It is unbelievable that the ardent love of Christ portrayed in the pages of 3rd Nephi wherein he groans for the welfare of mankind, is the same deity who revealed teachings so contradictory to a true and loving god.
Although this may sound harsh, unlike the Bom, which pleads for man to come unto Christ, section 132 wreaks of potential fraud suggesting rationalization, ulterior motives, and corruption. Bear with me as we analyze together and realize the implications to mankind if it is indeed the truth.
Verse 61 and 62: Jesus says a man can have a virgin. Why does Jesus suddenly start referring to women as virgins? Nowhere else in any scripture does he refer to the woman gender as such. Someone may contend that the virgin Mary is an example, but that reference is to illustrate the miracle of Jesus’ birth, not a general reference to marriageable women. So Jesus implies that women who have had sexual intercourse are not eligible for marriage. This is new doctrine for sure. A widow is not eligible to be remarried. We learn here also that women belong to the man. Jesus discusses women like they were livestock. It is interesting the man’s virginity is not in question here.
Verse 63: Jesus teaches that women’s role is not just to bear children, but to bear them for the man. This so important her exaltation hangs in the balance. If we contemplate the significance of this, it means women who choose not to have children will not be exalted, but also women who can’t have children. Indeed, it means any female who has never had the opportunity to have children cannot be exalted. The child dying in infancy discussed in Moroni 8 wherein Mormon says to his son Moroni:
17 And I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are alike unto me; wherefore, I love little children with a perfect love; and they are all alike and partakers of salvation.
Here the Lord contradicts himself again. He says that a female must: fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men. So Jesus tells Mormon they are assured salvation, but then tells Joseph Smith that if females don’t bear children they cannot be exalted.
Verse 64: Here women are told that if they are able to bear children, but they don’t accept the law of polygamy and don’t administer unto their husbands . . . they will be destroyed. Jesus, aren’t you being a little harsh here? First of all you can’t force someone to believe, and then destroy them if they don’t, right? Did you forget the beatitudes, section 121 where you say you cannot compel righteousness? How about the principle of forgiveness or charity, longsuffering? How about we just whip her a few times rather than destroy her?
Verse 65: Women must support the man no matter how many women I decide to give to him. If she can’t deal with it, she is the transgressor. Again Jesus, can’t you at least have an iota of compassion for a wife watching her husband in the intimate embrace of another woman? Certainly you must be able to understand the pain, anguish, leveling of the wife’s self esteem. Why is chastity for a man and woman so different? If the husband feels a desire for a cute young blond, he goes and asks for permission from the church and poof he has another girlfriend for a wife. No restraint? No self control? No righteous example, Lord? Why is it that there is no requirement for men to be virgins prior to marriage as it is specified for women? Did you forget the compassion you had for the feelings of women as described in Jacob 2?
7 And also it grieveth me that I must use so much boldness of speech concerning you, before your wives and your children, many of whose feelings are exceedingly tender and bchaste and delicate before God, which thing is pleasing unto God;
23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing awhoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any aman among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none.
Jesus again changes his mind. He wants the Nephites to be a righteous branch and have only one wife and no concubines, not like Solomon and David. But Jesus says in section 132 that plural wives in certain situations were his will regarding David and Solomon. (dc 132:38). Which do we believe?
Verse 66: Jesus signs off as Alpha and Omega. This implies the first and the last all knowing, all wise, he covers everything from A to Z. I believe he is exactly that, but to me it is clear that the being talking here in section 132 is deluded or extremely confused. This Alpha and Omega is not the same that appeared to the Nephites, with loving counsel, meaningful doctrine, and obvious divine power. He isn’t the same god that hung on the cross to feel all the pains of mankind. The latter is the one I feel happy to pray to, to ask for guidance. The latter is the one I strive to worship. He is the God of the Book of Mormon, the book that Joseph Smith told us would bring us closer to God than any other book, the book that contains the fullness of the gospel.
I believe Joseph Smith was entitled to revelations, however if your revelations contradict previous revelations you have received or contradict other teachings delivered to the earth by prophetic miraculous events (e.g. the Book of Mormon) one should carefully weigh whether the revelation is valid. I believe all teaching originating from men should be evaluated in like manner so that catastrophies like section 132 never gain any credance.