Review
Title: Textual Studies of the Doctrine and Covenants: The Plural Marriage Revelation
Authors: William Victor Smith
Publisher: Greg Kofford Books
Genre: Mormon History
Year Published: 2018
Number of Pages: 273
Binding: Softcover
ISBN13 978-1-58958-690-1
Price $26.95
Reviewed by Cheryl Bruno for the Association for Mormon Letters
Mormons tend to be defensive, distrustful, or dismissive about Doctrine and Covenants 132. This section of scripture is framed as a revelation to Joseph Smith in response to his questions about plural marriage. Since Latter-day Saints no longer practice polygyny, a natural reaction to Section 132 is to construct ways of understanding that make it relevant to the modern Mormon religion. Lately, I’ve encountered revisionist views that are more and more strained.
Some have decided that the “new and everlasting covenant” of marriage is simply monogamy sealed by patriarchal authority. Others opine that polygamy was not of God, it was a mistake for which Joseph Smith (and now the Church) should repent.
“Lo, here!” one voice cries, “Joseph Smith never lived polygamy.”
“Lo, there,” says another, “D&C 132 is an invention of Brigham Young and William Clayton.”
To avoid looking like a fool on Facebook groups or Youtube channels, William V. Smith’s dispassionate historical treatment of the plural marriage revelation should be the first step for any audacious buccaneer venturing an opinion on the subject.
Smith lays to rest any notion that D&C 132 does not deal with the salvific nature of plural marriage. Although the modern LDS Church separates sealing and polygamy, he demonstrates how this section of scripture “fuses” the two “into a single tributary to the stream of the 1843 Mormon narrative of salvation” (2). The revelation addresses the eternal nature of “the law” of polygyny: “It was not just about generating eternal contracts; it was about husbands with multiple wives siring children with those wives” (100). “Fundamental to the revelation is polygamy: its justification, purpose, regulation, and salvific force” (1). Furthermore, Smith explodes an apologetic myth by affirming the 1839-1846 belief in expanding one’s glory in the hereafter: “the greater one’s posterity, the greater one’s glory—and that theme was the outward logic of polygamy” (97).
A tightly-written introduction to the volume presents the historical background of the original manuscript. William Smith supports the traditional story that Hyrum Smith asked his brother to write the revelation on Celestial marriage and that he would read it to Emma and try to convince her of its truth. Joseph dictated the revelation to William Clayton, who wrote the original manuscript copy. It was read to Emma and several others throughout the day. The next day it was copied by Joseph C. Kingsbury. Tradition has it that Emma Smith burned Clayton’s manuscript, so the Kingsbury copy is the oldest copy of the revelation in existence. In an addendum in William Smith’s book, he discusses the several early extant manuscripts of the plural marriage revelation and includes a typescript of the Kingsbury manuscript in its entirety. Smith acknowledges that the present form of the revelation “results from a fusion of several revelations and ideas that developed during Joseph Smith’s lifetime” (5). For example, the author believes that verses 58-63 (which deal with the logistics of and authority necessary for entering plural marriage) and 64-66 (in which Emma is threatened with destruction for not accepting the principle) were possibly “added in response to Emma Smith’s rejection and burning of the original dictation” (134). The evidence, however, does not support the manuscript being fabricated wholesale after the Prophet’s death.
The author of this study deftly avoids polemics, instead presenting historical evidence without equivocation. Smith considers small portions of the text at a time, giving their historical context and impact. He then discusses the evolving theology of each topic. This allows him to cover such subjects as priesthood and apostolic “cycles,” sealing, priesthood adoption, Universalism, exaltation, eternal increase, keys, and more. One example is his coverage of the doctrine of a Heavenly Mother. Beginning with D&C 132’s pronouncement that righteous humans “shall be gods” and have eternal increase, a “synergistic elevation took place after Smith’s death” (170). Spirit propagation necessitated both a male and a female God in the material view of Mormon cosmology which prevailed in the late Nauvoo and early Utah period. Early Mormons “rewrote God as a polygamist, who required multiple partners…to create his human family” (170). When polygamy was terminated, the theology of numerous Heavenly Mothers faded from official discourse. Although many appendant doctrines such as the Adam-God theory disappeared, the idea of a Mother in Heaven remained. William Smith traces its initial dependence on the plural marriage revelation, its dwindling institutional support, the framing of a “existent but unapproachable” female Deity by Church president Gordon B. Hinckley, and the doctrine’s reinstatement in the 1995 “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” (171). Today, the Church’s website includes an approved essay titled “Mother in Heaven.” While Smith may mention the feelings and reactions of Mormons to changing doctrine, he himself shows little uneasiness describing historical evolution of policy, practice, or principle.
This is especially evident in chapters 8 and 10, which provide an “uncomfortable peek into the tension that polygamy put on [Emma’s] relationship with Joseph Smith” (141). William Smith pulls no punches in describing the intricacies of the “Law of Sarah” which is directed to Emma. “Simply put,” Smith summarizes, “under the law of Sarah the wife can either grant permission for her husband to marry additional wives or she can be damned” (174). Later in chapter 10, Smith shows the importance of the textual authority for plural marriage throughout the years of Church-sanctioned polygyny. He cites the case of a letter to Church president John Taylor from a man whose spouse could not agree that he should take another wife. Taylor lamented the federal prohibition of polygamy that made it possible for the wife to turn the husband over to the authorities if she found him with another woman: “If it weren’t for the law of man, he could do this without her consent, after having given her the privilege of exercising the right of the law of Sarah. As we are now situated he cannot do this without endangering his liberty” (176). Though the author’s forthrightness can be distressing, I appreciate his frank and open discussion of the realities of how the plural marriage revelation was perceived at various times in Mormon history.
Smith notes that D&C 132 differs from earlier published revelations, which had “undergone significant redaction and revision before publication” (142). To Smith, its unpolished state suggests that Joseph did not intend to publish it, but instead was attempting to provide his brother Hyrum with a private document that he could use to convince Emma of the truthfulness of plural marriage. To this end, the prophet included “portions of past revelations, scripture, and experience” (142). In Chapter 11, William Smith wonders what the revelation might have looked like had it been revised and amended for public use and provides an alternative “speculative modern revision” informed by Joseph’s 1844 remarks to the Nauvoo City High Council. Although I find his attempt to refine the section legitimate, I was not satisfied with the result of this exercise. Smith’s revision will appeal to modern sensibilities, but it does damage to the original intent of the revelation. In his modification, Smith removes “the imperative to practice plural marriage but preserve[s] important details about [eternal marriage] sealing” (181). The revision fails to reflect Joseph Smith’s original intent in writing the revelation—to persuade his wife that plural marriage was divine. Although the revision retains the original inquiry by Joseph 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” (D&C 132:1), it does not answer or even respond to the question. It obscures the meaning of the oft-repeated reference to “my law”—which in the original revelation clearly refers to plural marriage—and removes the injunction to accept it or be destroyed.
A church with continuing revelation might aptly announce that plural marriage will no longer be tolerated, and the emphasis will now be placed on eternal sealing of one husband and one wife. However, it is a different kettle of fish to put these words into Joseph Smith’s mouth. Trained historians find it objectionable when modern commentators suggest that what we are teaching today is consistent with what Joseph Smith taught.
William V. Smith’s textual study of the plural marriage revelation is an ambitious project. Using succinct examples and definitive sources, Smith teases out the role of polygamy in evolving Mormon soteriology. He then concludes with a dense chapter on the legacy of the revelation. “Despite the LDS Church’s distancing from the practice itself,” he observes, “its accumulated theological superstructure is widely and deeply entrenched in LDS theology and practice” (187). Throughout this engaging volume, Smith succeeds in providing a sound theological and historical approach to the multifaceted doctrines and principles which surround the subject of celestial plural marriage.