Doctrine and Covenants 132 Is Coercive and Contradictory

The Short Answer

Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches the eternal sealing of marriage and also addresses plural marriage. Those are related in the section, but they are not identical. The “new and everlasting covenant” refers broadly to the fulness of the gospel covenant, not simply to having multiple wives.

The section also contains severe warnings directed at Emma Smith. A defense should not hide them. Readers can reasonably find the language painful or coercive.

The faithful claim is not that every line feels comfortable. It is that eternal sealing can be a true doctrine even while the nineteenth-century command to practice plural marriage remains historically limited and morally difficult.

Say This in Thirty Seconds

“Section 132 is not just a polygamy revelation. Its lasting doctrine is that marriages sealed by proper authority can continue after death. It also contains a command for plural marriage in Joseph’s setting and hard language toward Emma. I will not pretend those verses are easy. But rejecting the whole section requires showing that eternal marriage and plural marriage are the same doctrine, and the Church’s present practice shows they are not.”

Four Distinctions

Eternal marriage: a sealing intended to endure beyond death.
Plural marriage: more than one spouse in mortal life.
The new and everlasting covenant: the fulness of God’s covenantal gospel, expressed through authorized ordinances.
Current practice: monogamous marriage; entering a new plural marriage leads to Church discipline.

Read the Difficult Verses

Do not skip verses 52 through 65. They raise questions about consent, commandment, gender, and Emma’s agency.

A responsible response can say:

the language is severe,
Emma’s pain matters,
the revelation came through Joseph in a conflict involving his own marriages,
and believers still have to decide whether the command was divine, human, or some mixture in its implementation.

Turn the Question Carefully

Does moral discomfort prove that a text cannot be revelation?
Are biblical commands involving Abraham, Hagar, Jacob, or Hosea judged by the same standard?
Can a temporary command differ from an enduring ordinance?
What model of prophecy allows a revelation to be true while its reception and implementation remain human?

Do Not Say

“Section 132 is not about polygamy.” Part of it clearly is.
“Emma simply needed more faith.” That dismisses her moral agency and suffering.
“The section commands all believers to practice plural marriage.” It does not.
“Plural marriage and eternal marriage are interchangeable.” They are not.

Starting Sources

Begin With the Whole Section

Doctrine and Covenants 132 is often quoted from its hardest lines. Those lines deserve attention, but the section has more than one subject.

It opens with Joseph’s question about biblical patriarchs who had multiple wives. It then teaches that covenants must be made by divine authority to remain after death. It describes eternal marriage, promises exaltation to faithful sealed couples, discusses plural marriage, addresses Emma directly, and gives rules that are difficult to reconcile neatly with Joseph’s full practice.

Any summary that calls it only an eternal-marriage revelation or only a polygamy manifesto leaves out part of the text.

The Historical Setting

The revelation was written down in July 1843, although Joseph and associates said portions of its teaching were received earlier. Joseph was already practicing plural marriage. Emma had accepted some unions for a time and resisted the practice at other times.

Hyrum Smith reportedly hoped a written revelation would persuade Emma. It did not resolve the conflict.

This setting matters because the revelation came through the husband whose conduct it defended. That fact does not disprove inspiration, but it gives readers a sound reason to examine the text carefully.

Eternal Marriage

Verses 7 and 15 through 20 teach that a marriage can continue after death when it is:

made by covenant,
sealed by proper authority,
and ratified by God.

A civil marriage that ends at death is contrasted with an eternal covenant. This teaching is central to modern Latter-day Saint temple worship and does not require a person to have multiple spouses in mortal life.

The doctrine answers a Christian question larger than nineteenth-century polygamy: can the family relationships formed in Christ survive resurrection?

The New and Everlasting Covenant

In Latter-day Saint usage, the new and everlasting covenant is the fulness of the gospel covenant administered through authorized ordinances.

Section 132 applies that framework to marriage. Because plural marriage was commanded in that setting, the section can use covenant language while discussing it. That does not make plural marriage the full definition of the covenant.

This distinction is visible in current practice. The Church continues eternal sealing and rejects new plural marriages.

The Biblical Appeal

The section invokes Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon.

The Bible does not treat every plural union alike. Some are narrated without direct approval. Some produce rivalry and suffering. Nathan’s rebuke of David concerns adultery and murder, while Deuteronomy regulates plural households rather than presenting them as the universal ideal.

Section 132 reads some patriarchal marriages as divinely authorized exceptions. A critic can dispute that reading. A believer should not imply that every biblical polygamous relationship was commanded or morally healthy.

Emma and the Severe Warnings

The text tells Emma to receive those given to Joseph and warns of destruction if she rejects the command.

Readers often experience this as coercive, especially because Joseph is both the recipient of the revelation and the beneficiary of the demanded acceptance. That reaction deserves more than “God sometimes gives hard commands.”

Several things can be held together:

the warning language resembles severe covenant language elsewhere in scripture,
believers may understand “destroyed” as divine judgment rather than a threat of violence by Joseph,
Emma remained free to resist and did resist,
and the power imbalance is still morally disturbing to modern readers.

No responsible defense should use the revelation to blame Emma for being hurt.

Verse 61 speaks of the first wife’s consent. Verse 65 then describes a circumstance in which a wife who rejects the law can lose that requirement.

Critics see a loophole that empties consent of meaning. Defenders distinguish the “law of Sarah” from modern consent language and argue that the revelation assigns accountability before God to all involved.

The tension is real. Even if the text uses a covenantal concept different from present legal consent, a wife can reasonably experience a marriage conducted without her knowledge as betrayal.

Calling the practice religious does not erase that human fact.

Practice and Text

Some of Joseph’s sealings appear difficult to fit into a surface reading of section 132, including unions with women already civilly married and marriages Emma did not know about.

Possible faithful explanations include:

different kinds of sealings served different purposes,
not every union was a marital relationship in the modern sense,
the written revelation did not preserve every instruction,
and Joseph implemented a command imperfectly.

These are models, not direct answers supplied by the text. They should be labeled accordingly.

Is the Section Self-Serving?

The self-serving explanation has force: Joseph produced a revelation that demanded acceptance of conduct from which he benefited.

Yet that is not the only evidence. Joseph’s practice brought danger, conflict, legal exposure, family rupture, and little public advantage. Men and women around him testified that they understood the practice religiously, sometimes after resisting it. The system included dynastic and eternal sealings that do not fit a simple pursuit-of-sex model.

None of that proves revelation. It makes the motive question more complicated than “Joseph wanted more women.”

Temporary Command and Enduring Doctrine

The Bible includes commands tied to a particular people and time. Latter-day Saint scripture also allows God to revoke or alter a commanded practice.

The Church ended the authorization of new plural marriages through the Manifesto process and now disciplines members who enter them.

The enduring doctrine is eternal sealing. The historically limited practice was plural marriage. A critic may believe the change exposes contradiction. A believer understands prophetic administration as responsive to divine direction and circumstance.

How to Discuss It Without Losing People

Read the text before defending it.
Admit that plural marriage is part of the section.
Name the severe language to Emma.
Separate eternal sealing from plurality.
Distinguish evidence from reconstructions about specific marriages.
Do not imply that moral concern is rebellion.
Ask what theory of revelation the critic is using.

A Fair Critical Question

If a claimed revelation benefits the man receiving it and places the cost on his wife, how should a reader test it?

That is a legitimate question. A Latter-day Saint answer should appeal to the larger witness of Joseph’s prophetic work, the independent spiritual agency of participants, the fruits of sealing theology, and honest historical study. It should not demand that the concern disappear.

A Fair Faithful Question

If biblical prophets can receive difficult, temporary commands and still act imperfectly while carrying them out, why must a morally difficult command disprove Joseph before the full prophetic case is considered?

That question does not make plural marriage true. It exposes an often unspoken standard of prophetic perfection.

A Balanced Conclusion

Section 132 preserves a beautiful doctrine of eternal family and a painful history of plural marriage in the same text. It also contains language toward Emma that many readers find coercive. Those features cannot be separated by pretending one of them is absent.

A faithful reading is possible, but it is strongest when it admits the moral cost, treats Emma as a person rather than a problem, and distinguishes the lasting sealing covenant from a practice the Church no longer authorizes.