Laura Brignone (PhD, MSW) is a Visiting Scholar at the University of California, Berkeley where she studies technology and domestic violence. This is Part 4 in a six-part series on the domestic violence implications of D&C 121 and 132. Find Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 5 and Part 6 here.
Doctrine and Covenants 132 introduces the law, covenant or doctrine of plural marriage. It poses a significant challenge to many readers and teachers in the church, especially women, and especially domestic violence survivors. Originally articulated as a private document in 1843, it was the only surviving written record explicitly describing plural marriage after Joseph Smith’s death. [1] Joseph F. Smith reflected in 1878 that, when written, the text “was not then designed to go forth to the church or to the world. It is most probable that had it been then written with a view to its going out as a doctrine of the church, it would have been presented in a somewhat different form.”
Time and language have only evolved since 1878; read now, the language used to present D&C 132 mirrors the rhetoric and origin of abusive relationships. While the language in D&C 121 relates to the priesthood and abuse across a wide variety of relationships, the language in D&C 132 specifically mirrors the origin and pattern of intimate partner violence against women, or, abuse perpetrated by a man against a woman he has ever dated, been married to, or with whom he shares a child in common.
Narratives of abuse
We are not accustomed to thinking of God (who provides the voice of this section) or Joseph Smith (who dictated the revelation) as perpetrators of abuse. Yet, when read through modern eyes, the language in D&C 132 mirrors strategies for developing and maintaining abusive relationships.[2] I’ve paraphrased and italicized several of these strategies below, followed by descriptions of how they are reflected in a modern reading of the language used in D&C 132.
Intimate partner violence against women typically starts with the perpetrator establishing a power differential and gaining control over the survivor. To accomplish this, he often uses mind games, such as gaslighting, manipulation, bait-and-switch, and other forms of coercion.
According to D&C 132:61 “if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent…then is he justified.” So consent from a first wife, such as Emma Smith, appears to be necessary before a husband practices plural marriage. Yet, per verses 52-55, “Let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph…But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed…and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundred-fold [of] wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.”
So, while verse 61 appears to require Emma’s consent, verses 52-55 make it clear that Joseph will have plural wives whether Emma says yes or no; her real choice is whether she is one of them. The circular language in D&C 132:65 underscores this reading: “It shall be lawful in me, if [a first wife] receive not this law, for [her husband] to receive all [wives] whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe…and she then becomes the transgressor.” If she does not consent to plural marriage, she’s a transgressor. If she’s a transgressor, he does not need her consent to marry additional women.
Based on modern definitions of “consent” and “coercion,” several elements in this section suggest coercion, rather than consent, motivated many women’s participation in plural marriage. First, choice and true consent mean the person is free to say “yes” or “no.” Coercion implies that the person may have a nominal choice, but not a viable one. Per verse 54, Emma’s alternative to saying “yes” was destruction — not a viable choice, and so she was not free to say “no.” In addition, per verse 65, a first wife saying “no” to plural marriage invalidates the requirement for her consent, thereby permitting her husband to marry additional wives anyway. This means the outcome in a woman’s marriage is fixed independent of her choice and agency — this constitutes coercion. It’s relevant to note that some accounts suggest an angel with a sword threatened Joseph with destruction if he said “no” to plural marriage. This nominal, not viable, choice would constitute coercion as well.
In addition, according to historical records, Joseph Smith likely had entered plural marriages already, without Emma’s consent. This is different from choosing whether or not to consent to Joseph having plural wives in the first place (v. 61), and in a modern reading would be considered gaslighting, or a bait-and-switch — which are also types of coercion.
The perpetrator preemptively cuts off avenues of support for the survivor; this may include invalidating doctrine, community rules or social norms that would undermine or contradict abusive behavior.
Joseph Smith’s scribe later reported that Hyrum had asked Joseph to dictate the revelation in D&C 132 in order to convince Emma to accept and participate in plural marriage. Based on this report, the “power and influence…maintained by virtue of the holy priesthood” God, Joseph, and Hyrum respectively used to give, dictate, and share with Emma the covenant of righteous priesthood exercise in D&C 121:41-46 should have been accomplished “by persuasion, by longsuffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned.” (D&C 121:41-46).
Yet, very few of these values are evident in D&C 132, and several appear to be fundamentally undermined. For example, while D&C 121:37 indicates “Amen to the priesthood” of anyone who uses it to “exercise… dominion or compulsion,” D&C 132:54 suggests that Emma Smith is compelled to “abide this commandment [or] she shall be destroyed” (emphasis added). [3]
Some efforts to reconcile the covenant of righteous priesthood exercise in D&C 121 with the coercive and compulsory language in D&C 132 involve redefining persuasion, longsuffering, gentleness and meekness, etc., to include the language in D&C 132. This weakens D&C 121 as a resource against abuse by modern perpetrators who use strategies and language similar to that in D&C 132. Put another way, it’s difficult to reconcile that modern priesthood holders cannot say “I have the priesthood so you’ve got to do what I say” when the language used in D&C 132 makes it look like Joseph Smith can tell Emma Smith “I’m the prophet so you’ve got to do what I say or face destruction.”
One goal of abuse is to take away the survivor’s agency and make her dependent on the perpetrator of abuse. This involves undermining her senses of personhood, self and autonomy.
The language of D&C 132 frames plural wives without independent agency. In verse 44, any woman who is innocently accused of adultery does not choose her fate.[4] Instead, her priesthood leader (Joseph Smith) is instructed to “take her and give her unto [a man that]…hath been faithful; for he shall be made ruler over many.”
This language also frames plural wives’ value and exaltation as fundamentally contingent on their husbands. Verse 63 describes women’s exaltation as the state of being “given unto [their husbands] to multiply and replenish the earth…that they may bear the souls of men;” and per verse 64, any woman whose husband “teaches unto her [the law of plural marriage] shall…believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed.”
Throughout the section, the words spoken in God’s voice repeatedly refer to women as men’s possessions, without autonomy or independent value:
- Verse 61: “that that belongeth to him”
- Verse 62: “they belong to him”
- Verse 51: “whom I have given unto you”
- Verse 52, 62, 63: “they are given unto him”
- Verse 37: “Abraham received concubines…and it was accounted unto him for righteousness”
- Verse 39: “David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me”
Some details in this word choice underscore women’s lack of independent value and dependent status on men in the presentation of this section. Verse 61 uses the pronoun for a thing to refer to virgins given in plural marriage, rather than the pronoun for a person (“that that belongeth” vs “she that belongeth”). Further, the term ”concubine” refers to a lower-status woman legally bound to a powerful man in a unidirectional relationship to satisfy his sex and child-bearing interests.
Once the survivor in an abusive relationship has complied with the perpetrator’s desired choice, she is restored as an independent moral agent – but only to be unjustly held accountable for decisions she made under duress.
We see this as Emma and other women are restored as agents to accept the consequences of refusing to participate in plural marriage (v. 52, 64, 65), as we’ll discuss more in the next section. We also see this in the historical fallout after section 132 was canonized. Any sexual, social, spiritual or physical unhappiness women felt as a result of plural marriage was considered her own responsibility because she had assented to participate.[5]
We also see this in some instances of the way the church has handled sexual assault. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, teachings such as “it is better to die in defending one’s [chastity] than to live having lost it without a struggle;”[6] while presumably well-meaning, shamed survivors for the fact of their survival and held them accountable for crimes perpetrated against their bodies. Among most members, this specific passage was typically held to mean that women were responsible for some degree of breaking the law of chastity if they survived a sexual assault by a non-spouse, and that sexual assault by a spouse was a lesser sin.
These teachings have been quoted and repeated throughout the decades since. Elizabeth Smart has spoken eloquently about the effects of these teachings on modern survivors of child abuse, domestic violence and sexual assault. Beloved church leaders echoed a view of survivors’ partial culpability in abuse until at least 1992; and ample documentation notes BYU’s use of the Honor Code to punish victims of sexual and other assault until 2016. Moroni 9:9 (a scripture describing rape) was listed in the Young Women’s manual under “Virtue” until 2016, as well.
Recent church statements tend to be more supportive of survivors. However, challenges surrounding survivors’ misplaced culpability persist; these intensify when an assault is committed by a spouse and/or results in pregnancy.
Relationship characteristics of abuse
Once the perpetrator of abuse has established a dynamic of power and control over the survivor, there are often three relationship characteristics that help him maintain power and control over her:
1. Enforcing different behavioral standards for himself vs the survivor
2. Implementing consequences and negative fallout that are only binding on the survivor
3. Securing positive fallout that is binding only on himself.
1. Enforcing different behavioral standards for himself vs the survivor:
Men: D&C 132 includes no behavioral standards for men within plural marriage: no prohibitions against harming their wives, no guidelines on participating in plural marriage in a way that benefits their wives, no admonishment to recognize (or that God recognizes) their wives as having independent value.
The text includes no behavioral standards for men based on their fidelity within plural marriage or their treatment of their wives. Men are specifically exempted from accusations of adultery within plural marriage in D&C 132:62, “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.”
Women: Behavioral standards for women practicing plural marriage are described in D&C 132:41, 44, 52, 54, and 63-64:
- 41: “If a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man…she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.”
- 44: “If she hath not committed adultery…then shall you have power…to take her and give her unto him that hath… been faithful; for he shall be made ruler over many.”
- 52: “Let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph…But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed.”
- 54: “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 thy God, for I will destroy her if she abide not in my law.”
- 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…for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men.”
- 64: “If any man have a wife…and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe…or she shall be destroyed.”
Both verses 44 and 63-64 describe how women should accept and practice plural marriage to facilitate the blessings, power and exaltation of their husbands. In addition, women face strict guidelines with steep consequences based on their fidelity within plural marriage (v. 41, 63), their willingness to practice plural marriage (v. 52) and their treatment of their husband (v. 54, 64)
2. Implementing consequences and negative fallout that are binding only on the survivor:
Men: The primary negative consequence described in D&C 132 is destruction. This section discusses God destroying men once, in verse 26: “If a man marry a wife…and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise…and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant…they shall be destroyed in the flesh…unto the day of redemption.”
The two other references to male destruction are encouragements to Joseph Smith that Satan and wicked men want to destroy him, but God does not, in verse 57: “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…I am with him…even unto his exaltation and glory.”
Women: Section 132 discusses God destroying women eight times; either for adultery (v. 26, 41, 52, 63) or for failing to practice plural marriage (v. 54[2], 64[2]):
- 26: “If a man marry a wife…and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise…and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant…they shall be destroyed in the flesh…unto the day of redemption.”
- 41: “If a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man… she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.”
- 52: “…those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed.”
- 54: “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.”
- 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…”
- 64: “If any man have a wife…and he teaches unto her [the law of plural marriage], then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her.”
3. Securing positive fallout that is binding only on himself:
Men: D&C 132:37 and D&C 132:55 describe blessings specific to men who have participated in plural marriage as follows: “they… are gods” (v. 37). Referring to Joseph Smith, “I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundred-fold in this world, of… houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives” (v. 55).
Women: D&C 132:63 describes blessings specific to women who practice plural marriage as follows: “[women] are given unto [men]…for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men.”
Conclusion
As read through modern eyes, the language used in D&C 132 describes a woman’s access to exaltation, and exaltation itself, as the process of entering a unidirectional relationship with her husband in which she gives but does not receive; in which her agency, individuality and salvation are contingent on him; to which her only alternative is destruction. This might help explain why this section is triggering for so many abuse survivors, and why it leaves many, many LDS women — whether or not they have suffered abuse — struggling with fears of divine irrelevance or objectification. More on that next week.
****
[1] Unless otherwise linked, facts, quotes and details about the practice of plural marriage come from: Brittany Chapman Nash, Let’s Talk About Polygamy; 2021. Deseret Book: United States.
[2] See also: Lundy Bancroft, Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men; 2002. Penguin Books: United States. 408 pages. Excellent, accessible introduction and my go-to recommendation on this topic.
[3] This wouldn’t be the first time it appeared coercion followed failed efforts at persuasion. A commenter last week highlighted that the “Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man” section in D&C 121 was likely directed at the once-faithful priesthood holders and leaders who signed the affidavits that sent Joseph Smith and his companions to Liberty Jail. (The main difference, of course, is that — as far as I’m aware — no record suggests these affidavits were directed by God.)
[4] D&C 132:44 really stands out compared to the parable of the woman taken in adultery in John 8:1-11.
[5] In academic research, the term “assent” is used to refer to agreement by participants (usually minors and vulnerable adults) who have some agency but face formal, codified limitations on their ability to use it; their response is only valid with the sign-off of an institution or guardian. I use it intentionally here, because the “consent” solicited from women re: plural marriage faced these formal limitations.
[6] Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness; 1969. Bookcraft: United States; p196
****
If you suspect you or someone you know may be experiencing abuse, the following resources are available to call or chat 24/7. Abuse is never the survivor’s fault:
- Childhelp National Child Abuse Hotline: 1-800-422-4453; https://www.childhelp.org/hotline/
- available to kids, parents and concerned individuals in the US and Canada
- National Domestic Violence Hotline: 1-800-799-7233; https://www.thehotline.org/
- available to survivors and concerned individuals in the US
- RAINN: 1-800-656-4673; https://www.rainn.org/
- Available to survivors of unwanted sexual contact, parents, caregivers and concerned individuals
- National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: 1-800-273-8255; https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/chat/
- Available to anyone with thoughts of self-harm or suicide, their loved ones, and other concerned individuals.