I was referred by a Church leader to the book, Making Sense of the Doctrine & Covenants, by Steven C. Harper. It was published in 2008. Even though this book was written 17 years ago, the arguments to support D&C 132 are the same.

For many though, the perception of the 132 as reality and absolute truth has flipped. This is because of materials available to research, more independent people doing the research, and people sharing what they find.

In this post, I am considering some points in Harper’s chapter on D&C 132.

A Sidetrack: Pennywise and the D&C

Remember the 1986 movie IT about kids that were tormented by a monster disguised as a clown? The movie has scenes of their childhood encounters with Pennywise the clown in the 1960s, and scenes of their reunion as adults 30 years later to finally confront and defeat the monster.

It may be a stretch, but I like to think I’m confronting the D&C 132 monster from 30 years ago. The more I study this doctrine and practice, the more I realize “monster” is a better description of 132 than a harmless cockroach.

Since I no longer believe plural marriage is from God, I can read Section 132, and the arguments to support it, without the trauma it used to induce. Yet 132 still contains harmful, monstrous teachings. It’s past time for this section to be removed.

A Polygamist and a Liar

Harper only refers to the practice twice as polygny and the rest of the time as plural marriage or plural wives. He omits the name of the principle given in Section 132: the principle and doctrine of having many wives and concubines.

Obviously, the author is coming with the assumption that Joseph started, practiced, and taught the principle of having many wives. On p. 481 he writes:

“Joseph Smith entered a plural marriage in the 1830s, though it did not last. Then, between early 1841 and the fall of 1843, Joseph was sealed to approximately thirty women.”

This is the view Church members have been taught, at least since 2014 when the four polygamy-related Gospel Topic Essays showed up on the Church’s website. However, the primary source statements from Joseph only condemn the practice. The statements claiming he supported polygamy came from others, not Joseph, and these statements are made long after his death.

But after Joseph’s death, was the practice always pinned on him? Apparently not.

At least three reliable people from around the 1860s say it started with Brigham. They were not members of the church but they either lived in the Salt Lake area or passed through and met with Brigham Young. Each says that polygamy was a new principle that started after Joseph’s death. I share details in this post.

If Joseph lied and kept his polygamy secret, that could explain the reason for only primary-source statements publicly denying and condemning polygamy. Yet why, after Joseph’s death with the practice out in the open, would Brigham and the other saints not boast about Joseph being the founder of this principle? None of these non-member authors, who interacted with the Church during Brigham’s lifetime, suggest that as a possibility.

Crafting a Sacred Story

A 2025 paper entitled Crafting a Sacred Story: Joseph F. Smith and the William Clayton Affidavits by Cheryl Bruno and Michelle Stone describes the lack of evidence that Joseph F. Smith found for Joseph’s polygamy. They conclude their paper with this:

“Within weeks, Pratt answered the letter, responding to other questions, but about polygamy he said nothing. Despite being the foremost writer on the theological defense of polygamy, Pratt pointedly held back from giving a personal witness on the subject ofJoseph Smith’s involvement in plural marriage.
Joseph F. Smith’s polygamy narrative was a labor of faith, an attempt to solidify a legacy in the face of doubt and silence. His plea to Orson Pratt reveals a profound yearning—not just for evidence, but for witnesses to stand firm in preserving a cornerstone of the Church’s identity. Yet, Pratt’s silence and the constructed nature of the affidavits remind us that history is not always built on certainty; it is shaped by choices, omissions, and the stories we choose to tell.
As historians, we must confront these documents with courage and care, honoring the complexity of the past without becoming captive to its constructions. The power of collective memory is undeniable, but its strength lies not in the unity of a single story, but in the rich, conflicting voices it holds. Joseph F. sought to leave no vacancies in the foundation, but history itself demands room for questions, dissent, and truth in all its untidy forms.”

A New and An Everlasting Covenant

Harper says this New and Everlasting Covenant is not plural marriage, but is marriage according to the law of God. On page 485 he writes:

“Section 132 begins by acknowledging Joseph’s question about the polygynous relationships of Old Testament patriarchs, but in verse 4 it leaves that ultimately tangential question to set forth a fundamental premise: “For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant.” One must enter this covenant to obtain a fulness of God’s glory, as verses 4-6 explain, but this covenant is not plural marriage. It is marriage according to the law of God... ”

Harper goes on to say that verses 7-8 and verses 15-21 set forth the law which is not polygamy-related. He’s right. The 7-8 verses mention vows, and so forth and a house of confusion. The 15-21 verses say that those who don’t marry in God’s way will be single servants to those who did. Those who do it the right way will be gods with all power.

Harper cites verse 4 and subsequent verses and says they are not about plural marriage. They may not have originally been. Perhaps there was an original document about eternal marriage that had nothing to do with polygamy. However, with this section presented as it is, the entire section is detailing the many wives doctrine. The first 4 verses are the thesis statement letting us know what this “essay” is about.

The Introductory Thesis Statement of the 132 Essay

Essays typically begin with a thesis statement, which is a summary of the essay's main argument or point of view. The essay ends with a conclusion, which restates the thesis in a slightly different way and provides a final thought or takeaway for the reader (more on the conclusion later).

Here’s the first four verses of 132, which I consider the thesis statement of 132:

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.

This long, complex essay has a long, complex thesis statement. With these first 4 verses as the thesis statement, here’s what we know our essay is about: (I covered this more thoroughly in this post)

You have asked how to justify “having many wives and concubines.” I will tell you. Prepare to receive and obey this law. So here it is, in order to have many wives I reveal “a new and an everlasting covenant” of marriage. BTW, you must obey this law or be destroyed. I’ll spell out the details in the rest of this revelation because the whole revelation is about justifying many wives through the new and everlasting law or covenant of marriage.

As an aside, the variations of “a new and an everlasting” covenant in other scriptures (new covenant, everlasting covenant, etc.) has nothing to do with marriage. However, in D&C 131 and 132 this covenant has to do with marriage, and the first 4 verses let us know it is many-wives-marriage.

Even the heading of Section 132 tells us that this revelation is about the “new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant and the principle of plural marriage.”

A Multiple Wives Sealing Ceremony

In a previous post, I shared the wording from a multiple wives sealing ceremony during Brigham’s tenure.

After the first wife places the hand of the new bride in her husband’s hand, the President speaks. Part of the wording includes “…with a covenant and a promise on your part that you fulfill all the laws, rites, and ordinance pertaining to this holy matrimony, in the new and everlasting covenant.”

The same wording is repeated to the bride. He says this holy marriage is in the new and everlasting covenant.

This plural marriage sealing ceremony only applied to one wife at a time, but that same man returned, with a heartbroken previous wife, and repeated the ceremony with subsequent brides.

A Response to the Old Testament?

Near the beginning of his chapter on D&C 132 Harper considers the origins of this revelation. On page 480 he writes:

“Joseph frequently asked the Lord questions as he revised the Bible, and it seems likely that Joseph had years earlier received some of section 132 in answer to the question the Lord restates in verse 1 about His rationale for the seemingly adulterous yet biblical practice of polygny—simultaneously having more than one wife—by his servants Abraham, Issac, Jacob, and others.”

On page 487 Harper explains the old Testament justifications made in Section 132. He makes four points and cites the 132 verses:

Abraham received and obeyed revelation and is now exalted (v. 29)
God promised Abraham an endless posterity (v. 30)
Joseph has the same promise (v. 31)
Joseph should do as Abraham did—that is, receive and obey revelation (vv. 31-32)

That’s Not in my Old Testament

Here’s my response to his four points.

Verse 29 says Abraham received and obeyed revelation. That revelation is polygamy since the entire section is referring to polygamy, including verse 29 (see New and Everlasting Covenant section). Yet never in any of the Old Testament examples used by 132 and mentioned by Hansen is anyone commanded by God to take multiple wives.
It was an impatient wife that persuaded Abraham to take Hagar. A conniving father-in-law that tricked Jacob. Later Jacob’s wives followed their culture and gave him their slaves in hopes of gaining more children. In the Old Testament story, Issac wasn’t a polygamist, and neither was Moses.
David and Solomon followed the surrounding cultures. The Old Testament Kings collected women as part of the spoils of battle or to seal an alliance with other kingdoms despite the warning in Deuteronomy 17:17 to not multiply wives. They also ignored the command to cleave to one wife that was stated by Adam as what he learned from God in Genesis 2:24. It was later repeated by Jesus in the New Testament.
The Old Testament describes many practices that God is not endorsing. Things are happening and being described. It is descriptive, not prescriptive. This post touches on how God used these sad Old Testament multiple wives stories to teach by example, not encourage His children to repeat these mistakes.
The only place in scripture where god commands polygamy is Section 132.
Verse 30 says God promised Abraham endless seed . The expression for endless seed referred to his extended posterity, not his immediate offspring. Also, as described in Jacob 2, God’s seed is not about quantity, but instead quality—a chosen righteous seed or righteous branch. This post explains an alternative to 132’s definition of endless seed in more detail.
In verse 31 Joseph is given the same promise as Abraham. This promise is ONLY in Section 132: take a bunch of wives and have a lot of offspring. It’s doubtful that Joseph did the first and he failed at the second since his only offspring came from Emma.
To me, the message of verses 31 & 32 is not to obey just any revelation, but to obey the revelation to take many wives. Obey the law of the new and everlasting covenant that justifies the principle and doctrine of having many wives and concubines.

The New Testament in Section 132

Besides the Old Testament question that became the impetuous for many wives, Joseph also questioned the New Testament. On page 480 Harper writes:

“The New Testament question comes from Matthew 22:30, Jesus’ teaching that ‘in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven’ ”

In Matthew 22:23-30 the Sadducees, who don’t believe in the resurrection, are trying to catch Jesus in an error. They present Him with an unlikely story of a woman who under the Law of Levirate Marriage was repeatedly widowed and married to seven husbands. The Sadducees ask Jesus whose will she be in the resurrection?

On page 486 Harper says that 132 answers the question about whether there will be marriage after the resurrection and on what terms. He says D&C 132: 7 provides the basis with three steps. Later verses provide more detail, but here’s the gist:

Any kind of marriage agreement is temporary unless a covenant is made
It must be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise
And sealed by one man on earth at a time with the authority

Each of these 3 points are only described in 132 and nowhere else in scripture.

Jesus Answers the Question in the New Testament

The doctrine of the Church, which Harper echoes, places 132’s interpretation above all other scripture, including Jesus’s words in Matthew 22. Harper doesn’t spend time defending this position.

FAIR Latter-day Saints does defend this position and mainly argues the following:

a living prophet overrides what’s in the Bible,
that Matthew 22 wasn’t interpreted correctly, and
that Jesus side steps the issue anyway.

1) The 1st point saying a living prophet overrides the Bible is refuted by multiple living prophets during their lifetimes who seemed to say the opposite. Joseph Fielding Smith said:

“It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.”

Section 132 may currently be in the Church’s scriptures, but it does not square with any of the other scriptures. Even the long-dead prophets emphasized that there should be multiple witnesses. Nephi, among others, said that multiple witnesses prove scripture.

“Wherefore, by the words of three, God hath said, I will establish my word. Nevertheless, God sendeth more witnesses, and he proveth all his words.”

2) The 2nd point says this passage is not interpreted correctly. They point out the difference between given in marriage and the state of marriage, yet that seems to be a stretch that I can’t find elsewhere. Here’s what AI says:

Yes, generally, Matthew 22:30 is interpreted correctly from the Greek text, which states that after the resurrection, people "neither marry nor are given in marriage." The Greek verbs used, gameō (to marry) and gamizō (to be given in marriage), are in the present tense, indicating a state of being, not an act of marriage. This implies that marriage, as it is known in the current world, will not exist in the resurrection

3) The 3rd point, FAIR says Jesus side-steps the issue. I think He is very direct. As Jesus often did, he tells the Pharisees and, in this case, the Sadducees that they don’t know the scriptures. They prioritized their own interpretations and traditions, such as the Talmud, to the point where they sometimes disregarded or even contradicted the written word. (Perhaps we do the same as we ignore scripture and focus on conference talks).

Jesus tells them directly there won’t be marriage in the afterlife. Maybe he meant what he said and there won’t be relationships that resemble earthly marriage, or that these ceremonies won’t be part of the requirement. As is the fate of most living people, I don’t know what to expect in the next life. If 132 answered Joseph’s question about marriage after the resurrection, it did so without the confirmation of any other scripture.

What’s the Escape?

Harper says verse 50 of D&C 132 says the Lord will help Joseph out of this mess. On page 487 he writes:

“...in verse 50 forgives his sins (Joseph’s) and then promises to help him escape the awful predicament the commandment about plural marriage has put him in.”

The author doesn’t provide further explanation but I wish he had. I think Joseph fought polygamy, but if he didn’t what is being said about an escape in verse 50? How did the Lord help Joseph escape this predicament? Perhaps by ending his life?

There is no escape for anyone believing Section 132 and the monstrous doctrine it teaches: this is an eternal principle.

Poor Emma & the Thesis Conclusion

Harper says that the Lord address Emma’s situation in verse 51 before speaking directly to her in verse 52. He admits that it is hard doctrine to hear. On page 487 he writes:

“The Lord requires Emma to receive Joseph’s plural wives, to cleave to him, to abide ‘this commandment.’ (vv. 54, 55), and to obey the ‘law of Sarah,’ Abraham’s wife, as set forth in verses 64-65, meaning that having been taught the doctrine, Emma is supposed to facilitate Joseph in taking plural wives as Sarah did Abraham.”

In verses 54-55 Emma is commanded to cleave to Joseph while he is cleaving to other women. She’ll be destroyed if she doesn’t. He’ll be given countless other things, including wives, anyway.

Verses 64-65 describe women being destroyed who don’t live this law and accept adultery-type behavior from their husbands. If she doesn’t believe and administer unto him, she is the transgressor. He is then exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham when god commanded Abraham to take Hagar.

As I’ve said, the text of Genesis doesn’t say that God was involved or commanded Abraham to take Hagar. Only Section 132 creates this made-up version of the story. Calling it the law of Sarah makes sense since it was Sarah’s idea, not God’s. Of course this is not what the 132-law-of-Sarah doctrine has in mind.

A Unique License for Evil

I never considered that the law of Sarah means a wife “is supposed to facilitate” a man taking plural wives. This gives wickedness a unique license. The Elizabeth Smart kidnapping was facilitated by a first wife. Warren Jeffs had his wives involved in bringing him young girls. Claiming to have keys and authority does not lessen the chance for abuse.

The Conclusion to the Thesis

Again, essays begin with a thesis statement and end with a conclusion, which restates the thesis in a slightly different way and provides a final thought or takeaway for the reader.

In my opinion, the conclusion of this 132 essay is verses 61-66. I stuck my thoughts in purple.

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.

(My understanding from verses 5-6 is that “law of the priesthood” or “law” in this section refers to the “new and everlasting covenant”. So related to this law, if any many is marrying a virgin and wants another one, he can have them both, if they’re not committed to someone else. They belong to him. It works with 10 virgins also. He is justified because the “new and everlasting covenant” justifies many wives, according to the first 4 verses which are the thesis statement).

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.

(If any of these espoused virgins are with another man they’ll be destroyed. These virgins are what we would call today, sex slaves, who are given to men. Although it is couched in some religious-sounding language that is nowhere else in scripture. Better said, it is in Old Testament scripture but it was not sanctioned by God).

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.

(If a man teaches the new and everlasting covenant or law to his wife, she must allow him to have other wives and perhaps facilitate him having other wives or she’ll be destroyed. If she doesn’t go along with this, he can take other wives without her. He is exempt from the law of Sarah. After all, Sarah gave her slave, Hagar, to Abraham for sex. That is the example).

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.

That is the law or new and everlasting covenant of marriage. That is also the conclusion that sums up the thesis statement in a slightly different way. Section 132 begins with multiple wives and ends with multiple wives. Anything in between relates to the thesis of multiple wives.

In Moroni 7:16 it says the light of Christ is given to every man to know good from evil. In the Church’s study helps it adds that this gift can be deadened through sin and misuse. Harper is not alone. This is hard doctrine to hear. It goes contrary to Christ’s teachings and what we know of God’s nature. Most people with a conscience do not want to hear this evil called good.

Trust God & Sacrifice Women?

Near the conclusion on page 488, Harper writes:

“The revelation forced them—and us—to find out whether we trust the god who gave it. That would not be an Abrahamic test if the circumstances were simple and made sense, as if the gospel could be summed up as ‘exaltation made effortless.’ ”

This story of Abraham’s test found in Exodus 22 is called the “binding of Isaac” in Hebrew, rather than the “sacrifice of Isaac.” Isaac was never sacrificed. Human sacrifice was the norm at the time and some Bible scholars believe this dramatic story was given to emphasize that God forbids human sacrifice. This post has more details.

Women are Sacrificed

While Issac was not sacrificed, women were sacrificed under the new and everlasting covenant of marriage law described in Section 132. No, they were not killed, but their lives and happiness were sacrificed. As multiple wives, women who believed what they were told about this many-wives doctrine went against their God-given nature to desire a husband who would cleave unto them alone. They were denied a father who would solely invest in their children. Similar to the sad stories in the Old Testament, multiple wives in the early church were robbed of God’s plan for marriage and families.

The early and current church wives have a unique challenge that was not part of what Old Testament plural wives endured. Latter-day women who believe D&C 132 consider they will be sacrificed eternally through the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. Eternal plural marriage is their fate.

Trust God or the Arm of Flesh?

Harper says “the revelation forced them to find out whether they trust the god who gave it.” Or, could it be that this “revelation” forced them to find out whether they would

oppose God’s word and ignore his law of marriage?
whether they would sacrifice women to their own lust and power?
whether they would act contrary to their conscience and trust the arm of flesh?

Senseless

Can anyone make sense of Section 132? I don’t believe this author did. Harper says it is a complicated text. I agree. I also believe it is built on a house of confusion. Many are realizing their perception of the 132 reality was not absolute truth, but was a monstrous evil that was called good.

Can Anyone Make Sense of D&C 132?