🔥 Section 132 — The Stone the Church Keeps Tripping Over ---- Day 1
🔥 Section 132 — The Stone the Church Keeps Tripping Over
Some of you know my story. I’ve been digging into this question of polygamy for decades. I’ve wrestled with it, prayed over it, tested it by the Spirit, and held it up against every true record I could find—the Book of Mormon, the Nemenhah, the Books of Remembrance, even the Sealed Book. And every time, the same answer comes back clear:
👉 Joseph Smith did not teach plural marriage as the path of the Savior.
So why are we still being force-fed D&C 132 as if it’s “the new and everlasting covenant”?
📖 Joseph’s Original Section 132
You probably haven’t heard this in Sunday School:
There was an earlier Section 132, recorded before Joseph’s death.
Word-track studies (Professor Hilton did work on this) show the fingerprints of Joseph all over the first version—and its message was against polygamy.
After Joseph’s murder, Brigham Young, William Clayton, and others produced a different Section 132—pro-polygamy, authoritarian, sealing-obsessed—and slipped it into the canon years later.
The two texts don’t even sound the same. One is the voice of a prophet calling men back to monogamy and holiness. The other is the voice of empire builders justifying their appetites.
And which one do we get spoon-fed in 2025’s Come Follow Me?
The corrupted one.
💔 Calling Women’s Pain “Uncomfortable”
This year’s manual actually says that plural marriage was “uncomfortable” for the early Saints.
Uncomfortable?
When Emma Smith wept on her knees before God?
When women like Zina, Eliza, and Helen Mar Kimball were pressured, manipulated, or married off as teenagers?
When families were torn apart and women were told their eternal exaltation depended on sharing their husband with ten others?
That’s not “uncomfortable.”
That’s cruel.
That’s theft of God-given love.
The Book of Mormon is plain:
“There shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none… For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women.” (Jacob 2:27–28)
And the Nemenhah Records echo:
“Women were not made to be divided among men like chattel. The Creator placed in them the sacred stewardship of the home, and it is not given that any man should usurp it.” ✔ VERIFIED
So why does the Church still defend a revelation that contradicts the very scriptures Joseph translated?
✝️ The Abraham Excuse
The manual trots out Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac as a justification for plural marriage: “Sometimes God asks hard things.”
But friends—Abraham never actually killed his son. The ram was provided. God Himself condemned human sacrifice.
Plural marriage, on the other hand, did sacrifice thousands of women’s hearts, families, and hopes. That comparison isn’t just flawed—it’s blasphemous.
🕵️ Historical Smoke & Mirrors
The truth is, the polygamy revelation as we have it today was edited, reshaped, and weaponized long after Joseph’s death. His journals were altered. His words were rewritten.
And yet, in 2025, we’re still told to swallow the Brighamite version whole—while ignoring the pain it caused and the scriptures that condemn it.
🕊️ Following the Savior, Not the Robe
I’ve written before (Don’t Follow the White Robe — Follow the Voice) that Lehi saw a man in a white robe leading souls into darkness. That’s what happens when we follow an institution’s traditions over the Savior’s living voice.
Section 132 (as it stands today) is that white robe.
It looks holy. It wears the trappings of scripture. But it leads into captivity.
The Savior’s way is simpler:
Repent
Be baptized
Receive the Holy Ghost
Come unto Him (2 Nephi 31–32; 3 Nephi 11)
No plural wives required. No theological gymnastics about Abraham. No word-games about “uncomfortable.”
Just His voice. Just His love.
🔑 Final Word
Plural marriage isn’t just a “hard doctrine.” It’s a false one.
Joseph rejected it. Jesus condemned it.
And every true record—the Book of Mormon, the Nemenhah, the Books of Remembrance—warn against it.
The question for us in 2025 is simple:
👉 Will we keep following the robe of Section 132?
Or will we follow the living voice of the Savior who delights in the chastity, love, and equality of His children?
Tomorrow an even more powerful post!
Comments