DiscussMormonism.com

The following verses never stuck out to me until today. Am I the only one that never noticed the possible implications of these verses?

D&C 132:51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.

Apparently god told Joseph to make an offer to Emma. Apparently, Emma was going to take Joseph and the Lord up on their offer, because the Lord tells her to “stay herself” and then explains that the offer was only a test (like the story of Abraham and the killing of his son). Anyone know what this offer was?

D&C 132:52 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.

Her the lord requires Emma to agree to let Joseph take all the wives he pleases as long as they are ”… virtuous and pure before me….

D&C 132:54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

Here the lord tells Emma to stay with Joseph. I makes me wonder whether the offer referred to in verse 51 was divorce.

D&C 132:55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.

To me this verse also lends itself to the speculation that divorce was on the table. The lord states that if she will not obey the commandment to stay with Joseph (verse 54) that Joseph will ”do all things for her, even as he hath said”. However, the lord tells Emma that Joseph will be a wealthy and powerful individual in this life and the next despite her not obeying the commandment (verse 54).

D&C 132:56 And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid forgive my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to rejoice.

Here, Emma is told that if she forgives Joseph, then her sins will be forgiven. Brilliant move. Well played.

D&C 132:57 And again, I say, let not my servant Joseph put his property out of his hands, lest an enemy come and destroy him; for Satan seeketh to destroy; for I am the Lord thy God, and he is my servant; and behold, and lo, I am with him, as I was with Abraham, thy father, even unto his exaltation and glory.

To me this is another verse that supports the theory that Emma had threatened divorce. The lord tells Joseph not give away his property. Presumably this was some sort of offered divorce settlement.

Have I read too much into these verses?

Yeah, I love it.

Joseph is commanded to only take wives which God sees fit, and God will only tell Joseph which wives those are.

Mad Viking wrote:The following verses never stuck out to me until today. Am I the only one that never noticed the possible implications of these verses?

I read about all these quite some time ago, but I'm afraid my memory fails me when it comes to which book(s) and which pages. I'll answer anyway:

Apparently god told Joseph to make an offer to Emma. Apparently, Emma was going to take Joseph and the Lord up on their offer, because the Lord tells her to “stay herself” and then explains that the offer was only a test (like the story of Abraham and the killing of his son). Anyone know what this offer was?

Yes. Emma was making such a fuss about Joseph's many absences--understandably so, since some of these absences involved visits to plural wives he'd already taken--that Joseph said that God had authorized her to take a plural husband. He called it a "proxy husband," though.

Anyway, apparently Joseph was too narcissistic to think she'd actually take him up on it. When she chose William Law, Joseph quickly got cold feet and put that into the revelation.

D&C 132:54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

Here the lord tells Emma to stay with Joseph. I makes me wonder whether the offer referred to in verse 51 was divorce.

Nope. The "cleave. . . to none else" part means to stay away from William Law. Joseph added the "she shall be destroyed" part for good measure.

To me this verse also lends itself to the speculation that divorce was on the table. The lord states that if she will not obey the commandment to stay with Joseph (verse 54) that Joseph will ”do all things for her, even as he hath said”.

No, God wanted her to NOT obey the (original) commandment to take a proxy husband. Since she wouldn't have a proxy to cover for Joseph's absences, Joseph had to double his efforts to fulfill his husbandly duties, hence the "do all things for her" part.

To me this is another verse that supports the theory that Emma had threatened divorce. The lord tells Joseph not give away his property. Presumably this was some sort of offered divorce settlement.

No, this "property" was referring to the plural wives that Joseph had already received. Even though Joseph was to "do all things for her," Emma had to be reminded that this didn't include giving up his plural wives.

Have I read too much into these verses?

Nope. Your conclusions are reasonable under the circumstances.

HOWEVER, in Nauvoo there was indeed an instance wherein Emma was packing her things and about to leave to return to her father's home in Pennsylvania. Joseph begged her to stay, made whatever promises were necessary, and thus averted scandal. D&C 132 didn't have anything to do with that particular incident, however.

And while we're on the subject, are you aware that Emma apparently tried to poison Joseph not once, but twice?

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.

Here the lord requires Emma to agree to let Joseph take all the wives he pleases as long as they are ”… virtuous and pure before me…"

Yep, God is threatening destruction to Emma if she balks about Joseph accepting all the virgins he "receives" from the lord. And God is also threatening destruction to any Joseph groupie who lies on her application about being a virgin. It takes a sick man, I tell ya.

The whole about the virgins in sec. 132 is really kind of inexplicable, given how many women (8? 12?) Joseph faux-married who were already married to other guys. I think it's pretty safe to assume they weren't virgins.

What's the answer from the mopologists to that? Some pedantic attempt to redefine "virginity" to something that applies to these married women? Insistence that all of these cases were platonic only (despite what's her name, Sister Lyon, telling her daughter that Joseph Smith was her father)? What's the mopologetic spin on this? That no matter what section 132 says, God commanded it, so it's all good?

Dr. Shades wrote:I read about all these quite some time ago, but I'm afraid my memory fails me when it comes to which book(s) and which pages. I'll answer anyway:
Yes. Emma was making such a fuss about Joseph's many absences--understandably so, since some of these absences involved visits to plural wives he'd already taken--that Joseph said that God had authorized her to take a plural husband. He called it a "proxy husband," though.

Anyway, apparently Joseph was too narcissistic to think she'd actually take him up on it. When she chose William Law, Joseph quickly got cold feet and put that into the revelation.

D&C 132:54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

...The "cleave. . . to none else" part means to stay away from William Law. Joseph added the "she shall be destroyed" part for good measure.

To me this verse also lends itself to the speculation that divorce was on the table. The lord states that if she will not obey the commandment to stay with Joseph (verse 54) that Joseph will ”do all things for her, even as he hath said”.

No, God wanted her to NOT obey the (original) commandment to take a proxy husband. Since she wouldn't have a proxy to cover for Joseph's absences, Joseph had to double his efforts to fulfill his husbandly duties, hence the "do all things for her" part.

To me this is another verse that supports the theory that Emma had threatened divorce. The lord tells Joseph not give away his property. Presumably this was some sort of offered divorce settlement.

No, this "property" was referring to the plural wives that Joseph had already received. Even though Joseph was to "do all things for her," Emma had to be reminded that this didn't include giving up his plural wives.

Have I read too much into these verses?

Nope. Your conclusions are reasonable under the circumstances.

HOWEVER, in Nauvoo there was indeed an instance wherein Emma was packing her things and about to leave to return to her father's home in Pennsylvania. Joseph begged her to stay, made whatever promises were necessary, and thus averted scandal. D&C 132 didn't have anything to do with that particular incident, however.

And while we're on the subject, are you aware that Emma apparently tried to poison Joseph not once, but twice?

Uh... WOW! Is there anything to corroborate the William Law/Emma connection?

I did not know about the poisoning.

I am having a hard time seperating the commandment referred to in v54 and the commandment referred to in v55. My theory ties them. Which makes logical sense to me since they are right next to one another. Yours serparates them, but works for the William Law connection.

Sethbag wrote:What's the answer from the mopologists to that? Some pedantic attempt to redefine "virginity" to something that applies to these married women? Insistence that all of these cases were platonic only (despite what's her name, Sister Lyon, telling her daughter that Joseph Smith was her father)? What's the mopologetic spin on this? That no matter what section 132 says, God commanded it, so it's all good?

Sure. I'll put my Mopologetic hat on here. ;) The women Joseph married who were already married to others were virgins when they married their original husbands. Therefore, they were still considered virgins in the Lord's eyes since they did as commanded, and were virgins until they got married. There is a verse in the Bible which actually talks about this, involving widows remarrying. I'll see if I can look it up later.

(Swiftly taking off Mopologetic hat) LOL

Sethbag wrote:The whole about the virgins in sec. 132 is really kind of inexplicable, given how many women (8? 12?) Joseph faux-married who were already married to other guys. I think it's pretty safe to assume they weren't virgins.

What's the answer from the mopologists to that? Some pedantic attempt to redefine "virginity" to something that applies to these married women? Insistence that all of these cases were platonic only (despite what's her name, Sister Lyon, telling her daughter that Joseph Smith was her father)? What's the mopologetic spin on this? That no matter what section 132 says, God commanded it, so it's all good?

That's easy, Seth. "Virgin" simply means they are pure before the Lord. Much the same way that rape victims are still virgins in the eyes of God.

Scottie wrote:

Sethbag wrote:The whole about the virgins in sec. 132 is really kind of inexplicable, given how many women (8? 12?) Joseph faux-married who were already married to other guys. I think it's pretty safe to assume they weren't virgins.

What's the answer from the mopologists to that? Some pedantic attempt to redefine "virginity" to something that applies to these married women? Insistence that all of these cases were platonic only (despite what's her name, Sister Lyon, telling her daughter that Joseph Smith was her father)? What's the mopologetic spin on this? That no matter what section 132 says, God commanded it, so it's all good?

That's easy, Seth. "Virgin" simply means they are pure before the Lord. Much the same way that rape victims are still virgins in the eyes of God.

LOL! We would make a pretty good apologetic team! That's scary! ;)