Idolatry within Mormonism: Doctrine and Covenants 132
Nov 21, 2021
Preface
I’ve been procrastinating the publishing of this article for several weeks now, I think because I’ve felt unsure about what reaction I’ll get from it. Some Mormons (also known as Latter Day Saints, or LDS) that I’ve spoken to in the past have become offended when I brought up some of the issues I’m about to mention below. To be fair, nobody likes their beliefs to be criticized, but I think it’s important to be able to look inwardly and examine oneself and the organizations one is, or has, been a member. It takes a lot of humility to do that without playing the role of a victim or of the persecuted. I want any LDS members who read this to learn something from it, not to walk away offended. I want LDS readers to know that, although I have a big disagreement with what I’m going to describe below, there are some things I like about the their beliefs as well, and that my disagreements are with certain points of their doctrine, not with them as people.
The other fear I have with regard to how this article could be received is that I don’t want it to accidentally do more harm than good. What I’m about to write, I believe to be the truth, but not everybody is ready for the truth. In my experience, when members of the LDS Church learn about many of the problems within their faith, some feel so angry at God that they lose faith entirely, and become agnostic or atheist. I’ve heard stories about this and I’ve seen it happen. This also happened to me for a season and so I understand the confusion that can result from it. With God’s help, I eventually got my faith back, untangled from Mormon doctrine. In the end, I’m glad I went through that process, and I believe I’m better today than I was prior to it, but it’s also a dangerous process to go through. Not everybody is ready for it.
With that said, writing this article requires care, but I believe I should still write it for anyone who is able to hear what I have to say. Although I believe there are many problems within the LDS Church today, in this article, I’m simply going to deal primarily with two topics: the validity of scripture, and polygamy. Even though these may be trigger-worthy topics, they go to the heart of my disagreements with Mormon doctrine and so need to be addressed. The LDS Church no longer practices polygamy, but its founders taught that polygamy was a commandment of God, and that poses a huge conundrum. If the LDS founders — such as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young — were wrong about polygamy, then for me and others, that is evidence that they were false prophets. And if they were false prophets, the unique claims they made then lose their doctrinal foundation, and they had no divine authority.
Before we begin, it will be helpful if you have read Doctrine and Covenants 132 (D&C 132). You can read the full text with this link.
The Overall Problem
There are three books that the LDS Church binds into their canonical scriptures, alongside the Bible. The three books are: The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants (D&C), and the Pearl of Great Price.
Today’s article deals primarily with the Doctrine and Covenants.
The overall issue I have with D&C is that it was written as if from the voice of the Lord as if it were equivalent to the Word of God. In doing so, I believe in some instances it mixes in some false ideas made up by people, with the perfect truth of God, causing confusion, and where it strays from the Word, it risks profaning the Lord’s name by claiming to be Him. The first paragraph of chapter 132 says, “Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph,” and all of the chapters of D&C similarly claim to be the voice of the Lord, and yet, I’m about to make the argument, below, that it is not the Lord’s voice, but rather, the voice of Joseph Smith or other Mormon founders and influencers who were masquerading as the Lord as they wrote these chapters.
Her prophets whitewash these deeds for them by false visions and lying divinations. They say, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says’—when the Lord has not spoken.
And if that’s the case, it’s extremely serious. The third commandment says not to take the Lord’s name in vain. The Lord said that breaking this commandment is unforgivable:
Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
The reason he said it is unforgivable is because when a person takes the Lord’s name in vain, he turns away from the Lord such that he cannot see the truth, because he doesn’t respect the truth. A person cannot repent, and thus be forgiven, who cannot see the light of truth as it actually is.
It should be noted that I believe that it’s likely that most Mormons today aren’t aware of the fact that this commandment is being broken in their canonical books, and a person is more easily reformed away from sin and forgiven if they were ignorant of it (Numbers 15: 24 - 31).
First of all therefore with a member of the Church comes belief in the Word; and this is the chief characteristic of one who is guided by the truth of faith and governed by the good of love. But with those who are steeped in the evils of self-love and love of the world non-belief in the Word is the chief characteristic; for when they think about it they instantly reject it and also blaspheme it. If anyone were to see how great the blasphemies are against the Word, and what they are like, with those who are steeped in the evils of those kinds of love he would be horrified. While in the world the person is unaware of their existence, since they lie concealed behind the ideas of his conscious thought, and it is this that comes out into speech with other people. Even so they are revealed in the next life, where they appear horrible.
There are two kinds of blasphemies — those that come out of the understanding but not at the same time out of the will, and those that come out of the will by way of the understanding. The second kind are the ones which are so horrible, not the first. Those that come out of the will by way of the understanding spring from evil of life, whereas those that come solely out of the understanding and not at the same time out of the will spring from falsity of doctrine or from the illusions of the outward senses that deceive a person set fast in a state of ignorance. These things have been stated in order that people may know the nature of blasphemy against God’s truth, that is, the Word, and against teachings drawn from it.
—Emanuel Swedenborg (Arcana Coelestia #9222)
A Quick Note About Swedenborg
Rather than merely pointing out what is wrong in D&C and leaving my argument there, I’m also going to point out an alternative, and what I believe to be the truth of the matter, according to the Lord’s teachings in the Bible, and as spoken through Emanuel Swedenborg. I believe Swedenborg to be a true prophet, and Joseph Smith to be a false one. I described why I have such confidence in Swedenborg in this post. The key difference between the two men is that Swedenborg expounds upon the Word by going deeper into it, rather than adding to it. Everything he teaches references back to the Bible itself.
Something I’ve observed among ex-Mormons who’ve converted to other Christian sects is that after they’ve read several facts about Mormon history that had been withheld from them, for example, from sources such as the CES Letter, they become so disgusted and have felt so deceived by Joseph Smith’s claims to be a true prophet, that they discount that modern prophecy is even possible anymore. I went through this once. My position is that we should only look to the Word as divine truth, and that modern prophecy exists insofar as it aligns with it, rather than contradicting it; going deeper into it, rather than adding to it or diminishing it.
You shall not add to the word which I command you, and you shall not diminish from it, that you may keep the commandments of Jehovah your God which I command you.
This is possible insofar as the person claiming to be a prophet gets himself out of the way and allows the Lord’s light to shine through him, rather than becoming a barrier to that light. Within all of my study of Swedenborg, in every instance I’ve found that he has done this correctly, whereas it’s been my experience that Mormon leaders often have not. It should be noted that almost all of Christendom has erred in this manner in one way or another, each church in its own way. Mormons are not entirely unique. This type of error is symbolized by the “dragon” and the “beast” spoken about in the Book of Revelation (but that’s for another article).
If you’re interested in learning more about why Swedenborg is genuine, and not at all like Joseph Smith, the Swedenborg Foundation created an excellent video demonstrating this, called Was Swedenborg Crazy?
I also wrote an article where I explained in-depth about why I think Swedenborg’s writings are uniquely worth our attention: Why Swedenborg Isn’t Like Other Mystics.
And another you may find interesting that explores what Swedenborg wrote, in light of modern scientific discoveries about time and space: Swedenborg’s Alien Visions and the Role of Time in Proving His Sanity.
What is “The Word”?
Swedenborg wrote that The Word broadly means, “Divine Truth,” and more strictly means certain books in the Bible that have an inner spiritual and heavenly meaning, such as most of the Old Testament, the Four Gospels, and Revelation (Arcana Coelestia #10325). He said that each and every word within those books has a threefold meaning; the literal, the spiritual, and the heavenly, such that the words within them perfectly represent the Lord and provide a method of communication between heaven and earth.
Moreover, since the Word means the Lord’s divine humanity, it means all the truth that tells of and comes from him, in his kingdom in the heavens and in his church on earth. That is why it says that in him was life, the life was the light of humankind, and the light appears in the darkness. Since “the Word” means truth, it means all revelation…
Because the Word means Divine Truth, it can also take on many different forms within many different religions. Generally speaking, whoever believes in ideas that are good and true, and follows the Ten Commandments, is worshiping the Lord according to divine truth, regardless of the doctrines of their religion. It doesn’t matter whether the books that contain the Word are fictional or are based on real history. Swedenborg explained that in the case of the Bible, a little bit of it at the beginning in Genesis is fiction, and the rest of it is based on real historical events, but that regardless, it’s divine truth because of the symbolism that’s represented within it either way. the Lord won’t turn anyone away from him who has lived by his commandments, and thus who loves him, simply because they never heard his name in their native language, or because they misunderstood his earthly caricature (Matthew 7: 21), so long as they had good intentions or were otherwise unable to learn the truth or understand. As such, declaring something to be a cultural expression of the Word, in this broader sense, does no harm. Some examples might be The Chosen TV series, or symbolism in fantasy fiction books that are inspired by Christianity, such as The Chronicles of Narnia, The Lord or the Rings, and the Silmarillion. In the Lord of the Rings, for example, Mt. Doom could be thought of as a symbol of hell and Rivendell as heaven. Frodo, Gandalf, and Aragorn, all represent different aspects of the Lord, and we draw a lot of inspiration from that symbolism when we read those kinds of books and watch the movies.
This could also be said of the Book of Mormon, perhaps, and for characters such as Nephi, Lehi, etc. A key point, however, is that as Christians, we are careful not to make fictional works outside of the Biblical canon as equivalent to the Word in its essence, nor to make them the keystone doctrine of our religion. A problem with the Book of Mormon emerges from the culture and teachings by the presidency of the Mormon Church who have often stated that they consider the Book of Mormon to be the “keystone of the religion,” as well the fact that LDS statements of faith connect the Bible to the Book of Mormon in a stricter sense:
For example, the LDS Eighth Article of Faith, states:
“We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.”
An arch made of stones, whereby the keystone, in the middle, holds up the entire edifice.
There are two big problems here:
The Book of Mormon is labeled as an extension of the Word according to its essence, but this is forbidden in Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18-19.
The Word, according to this statement, is only considered divine “as far as it is translated correctly.” However, it isn’t the translation that makes the Word divine, but rather its doctrinal truths, which are composed from correspondences from the Lord, and which were delivered from him through heaven in an unbroken sequence into Hebrew and Greek (Apocalypse Revealed #959). So the focus on whether the Word is divine shouldn’t be merely on its translation — after all, if the only issue with the Word that the Mormon Church had with it was with its translation, they could simply go to the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and translate it into English again — but the issue here is that they’re rejecting the essence of it, rather than simply its translation, otherwise the translation wouldn’t have been utilized as an excuse for attaching another book to it.
Unlike the Book of Mormon, the Eighth Article of Faith doesn’t say Mormons believe the Doctrine and Covenants to be the Word of God, but this is also heavily implied within their Church meetings, grammatical perspective and statements within the Doctrine and Covenants, and the fact that it is bound into a single book alongside the Bible in the LDS scriptures.
By Swedenborg:
The books of the Word are all those which have the internal sense; books which do not have it are not the Word. The books of the Word in the Old Testament are: The five Books of Moses; the Book of Joshua; the Book of Judges; the two Books of Samuel; the two Books of Kings; the Psalms of David; and the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. And in the New Testament they are: The four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; and the Book of Revelation.
This being the case, I would recommend not making the Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, or the Pearl of Great Price your authority for doctrine, but rather, make the above books that authority. If you read the Mormon scriptures, read them only for their historical value, and be very careful not to consume them as if they’re divine truth.
Case in Point: An Example of Problematic Material in 3 Nephi 11
Throughout the chapter of 3 Nephi — and throughout the entire Book of Mormon, for that matter — there is the problem that it’s quoting from the Bible but changing up the sequence of words, which breaks apart the correspondences in the Word, falsifying it.
This can be hard to detect because as you’re reading the Mormon scriptures it sounds good on the surface; it sounds like it’s taking the same tone that the Bible takes, but the problem is that when the order of the Word is disturbed, the original correspondences are lost, and this causes it to lose its link with the Lord and likewise with heaven.
Sometimes it’s more detectable than other times, however, such as here:
And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved, and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.
And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.
Here are several problems that I noticed with this:
It says to be baptized, but the Lord said, specifically, to be baptized “of water and of the spirit” (John 3:5) and with “the Holy Ghost and with fire” (Matthew 3:11) because water and the spirit correspond to a life lived in truth and the Holy Ghost and fire correspond to a life lived in love.
Although the Book of Mormon mentions baptism of the Holy Ghost and with fire (3 Nephi 9:20, 3 Nephi 19:13), words spoken by John the Baptist proclaiming the coming of the Lord, it never links the words “water and of the spirit” in the same way that the Lord did in John the Evangelist. According to the Lord, the Holy Ghost isn’t reserved for those who’ve taken a literal baptism by water, because by “spirit” is meant a way of living in truth, rather than absolution by way of a single blessing and ordinance, as it is incorrectly presented in the Book of Mormon.
Because the Book of Mormon copies and rearranges sections from the Word out of context, it emphasizes the physicality of ordinances for the sake of “completing all things,” rather than the spirituality of them. It appears to point towards both literal and spiritual things because of how it copies snippets directly from the Word, but it switches the emphasis onto the former.
It says “the same shall be saved” based on a literal baptism, which essentially converts the message here into justification by faith alone — by inferring that anyone who isn’t literally baptized isn’t saved, even if they otherwise lived a good life — a doctrine which the Lord condemned (Matthew 7:23). This is why Mormons do vicarious baptisms for the names of deceased people in their temples (called Baptisms for the Dead), because they believe the literal ritual is essential.
And it continues with the same message by saying whoever is not literally baptized “shall be damned.” So the focus here is on earthly rites and corporeal rituals rather than on spiritual and heavenly reality (John 3:10 - 12).
While explaining the Book of Revelation, Swedenborg wrote:
There are two principal points in this prophetic book to which all the others in it have relation: The first is that no other God than the Lord is to be acknowledged; and the second, that no other faith than faith in the Lord is to be acknowledged. Someone who knows this, and yet adds something with the intention of destroying these two points, cannot help but be caught up in falsities and evils and perish on account of them, since from no other God than the Lord, and through no other faith than faith in the Lord, is good possible that is a matter of love, and truth that is a matter of faith, and in consequence of these the felicity of eternal life, as the Lord Himself teaches in many places in the Gospels.
It appears to me as if this is exactly what the author of Book of Mormon has done. It’s going against the two points Swedenborg stated, because it:
Points people towards the Father as if he was someone other than the Son, as a separate person. (See my detailed examination about that, here: “Not ‘God the fathers.’ ‘God, Father.’”). And it,
Points people towards a “faith” in faith alone, which is an alternate, false faith (which I’ve written more about, here: Mormonism and the Trinity: Uncovering the Differences and Deception). It’s doing this by supporting penal substitution theory, similar to that done by other Christian sects, by subtle turns of phrase and the clever use of language copied from the Word and modified, by breaking the internal consistency of correspondences in the Word.
By Swedenborg:
There are two essential elements which make possible a conjunction with the Lord and so salvation: an acknowledgment of one God, and repentance of life. But at the present day instead of an acknowledgment of one God we have an acknowledgment of three, and instead of repentance of life, a repentance solely of the lips that one is a sinner; and these two do not lead to any conjunction. Consequently, unless a new church arises which acknowledges the two essential elements and lives them, no one can be saved.
It is a problematic practice, as a Christian, to make the Book of Mormon or any other work other than the Word the keystone of Christian faith. The Lord’s standards for Christians are higher than that of other religions because we have the Word in our possession. This is true even of Swedenborg’s works, which can only be considered divine truth if they perfectly align with the books listed above that deal with the Lord (which I’ve discovered that they do). Swedenborg’s books were composed with a consistent doctrinal quality, so they enlighten and explain the Word by allowing us to go deeper into it, rather than adding to or subtracting from it. Rather than acting as an adjacent revelation that replaces the Word, they act as an internal revelation that uncovers the Word.
Monogamous Marriage Symbolizes Connection with the Lord
Swedenborg wrote many books, and one of my favorites is titled Conjugial Love, which has also been translated as Love in Marriage. In Conjugial Love, Swedenborg describes what marriage is like in heaven. Marriage in heaven is so much better than marriage on earth that it can hardly be called the same thing. He said every joy of heaven is connected to marriage love, it’s at the very center of heaven, and without it, heaven could hardly be called heaven at all. He means this from both a literal and a spiritual perspective, that is, not only the marriage between a man and a woman, but the marriage between all things within all of creation, which is a marriage to the Lord.
Absolutely everything in us features something equivalent to a marriage. Never could there be an element so tiny as to lack that image of a marriage, whether in our outer self or our inner self, with all that either encompasses. Every single thing comes into existence and remains in existence because of the Lord and because of the union (the marriage, essentially) between his human quality and his divine quality; and also because of the bond — the heavenly marriage, in other words — between both of those qualities and his kingdom in the heavens and on earth.
The marriage between a man and a woman symbolizes a marriage to the Lord, which is why it’s considered so holy within the Christian religion. Not only that, but it’s also the reason why monogamous marriage is considered holy and polygamous marriage profane.
Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For “the two,” He says, “shall become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him.
Unfolding D&C 132
As I begin to unfold D&C 132, it might seem like my arguments appear trivial at first. However, chapter 132 takes a sharp turn for the worst about halfway through and becomes progressively darker as it proceeds to the end. In my experience, this is what is so insidious about it and why I’m going to start near the top of the chapter. It’s a form of deception that deepens as you read, and you need to see how this type of deception takes place so you can guard yourself against it. As the saying goes, if the heat is turned up slowly enough, the frog will boil to death and not even realize it. This illusion of light and dark creates a facade that appears good on the surface, but if you’re not astute, can lead you astray.
So let’s dive into the meat of the subject by analyzing some verses from D&C 132…
15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.
16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.
17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.
—D&C 132: 15 - 17
On the surface, it seems like there is nothing particularly wrong with these paragraphs and they even appear to make sense. Verse 15 seems to be, after all, hard to refute, and I would generally agree with it. The problems begin to emerge in verse 16, which references a verse in the Bible, from Matthew 22:
The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, saying: “Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother. Likewise the second also, and the third, even to the seventh. Last of all the woman died also. Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her.”
Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven. But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”
The problem with how this verse was referenced in the above paragraph from D&C is the way that Mormon doctrine understands Matthew 22, verse 30, where it says “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.” Mormons interpret this to mean that anybody who is not literally married to a spouse within a Mormon temple ceremony will not receive an eternal marriage of this kind in heaven, but will instead remain forever a single adult.
It does seem like that’s what the Lord is saying, right? On the surface. But as we’ll discover in a moment, it’s not what this verse is implying. As the Lord said to the Pharisees in the above quoted verse, this type of simplistic interpretation is a misreading of the scriptures. The Word has a symbolic meaning about a marriage to God in heaven, rather than to a literal spouse. The reason he told the Pharisees that they were mistaken is because they were equating marriage on earth to marriage in heaven, but the two types of marriage are not of the same nature.
Emanuel Swedenborg explains the deeper meaning of the Lord’s words, here, in his book, titled Conjugial Love, Section 41:
The Lord taught that people are not given in marriage in heaven by saying that those who are held worthy to attain the second age neither marry nor are given in marriage. The only kind of marriage meant here is spiritual marriage, and this clearly appears from the words that immediately follow, that they cannot die any more because they are like the angels and are children of God, being children of the resurrection. By spiritual marriage, conjunction with the Lord is meant, and this is achieved on earth. And when it has been achieved on earth, it has also been achieved in heaven. Therefore in heaven the marriage does not take place again, nor are people given in marriage. This, too, is meant by the words, “The children of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are held worthy to attain the second age neither marry nor are given in marriage.” Such persons are also called by the Lord “children of the wedding” (Matthew 9:15, Mark 2:19), and here, “angels,” “children of God,” and “children of the resurrection.” To marry means to be conjoined with the Lord, and to go to a wedding means to be received into heaven by the Lord. This appears from the following references: The kingdom of heaven is like a man, a king, who arranged a wedding for his son, and sent out his servants (with invitations to a wedding). (Matthew 22:2,3, to verse 14) The kingdom of heaven is like ten virgins, who…went out to meet the bridegroom (five of whom were prepared to go to the wedding). (Matthew 25 and the following pages.) The Lord meant Himself in this passage, which is apparent from the thirteenth verse there, where it says, “Stay awake…, because you know not the day and the hour in which the Son of Man will come.” (Matthew 25:13) Also from the book of Revelation: The time for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready… Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb. (Revelation 19:7,9) There is a spiritual meaning in each and every thing the Lord said...
In other words, whenever the Lord used the word “marriage,” he was using it symbolically, to indicate eternal relationship with Himself. This symbolism of marriage as a conjunction with the Lord is spread throughout the Bible, as can been seen by the verses mentioned above by Swedenborg.
In my experience, Mormons today understand this spiritual concept and the symbolism of a marriage to the Lord is, indeed, built into the temple ceremony. But this aspect of the temple ceremony is not the main problem. The problem exists with what’s taught and written in Doctrine and Covenants, and how that keeps their understanding of it bound to the surface level, focused on earth and the things of earth rather than on heaven.
Let’s look again at verse 16 from D&C 132:
Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.
—D&C 132, 16
This simply isn’t true because it takes a literal, rather than a spiritual interpretation of the verses above in Matthew.
Did you catch the difference?
In the Lord’s version, “marriage” means nothing else than spiritual marriage, but in Joseph Smith’s version, there is no inner meaning, and it’s only referring to literal marriage to a spouse. The Lord’s statement about angels in heaven leads into a statement about a life of glory with Him in the resurrection, whereas Smith’s version leads into a comparison of unmarried individuals being ministering servants of a lessor glory.
Do you see how this doctrine by Smith is false and problematic? The Lord’s teaching didn’t bar anyone from entering a literal marriage in heaven if they missed their chance on earth, whereas Smith’s did. This teaching by Smith leads to people believing that if they don’t form a marriage contract in a Mormon temple while on earth, that they will be forever alone and single. This false teaching is a manipulative way of coercing people into joining Mormonism and afraid to leave it even if they begin to sense that something about it may not be true. Once they’re a member, many people don’t dare to leave the religion for fear of losing their spouse and being single forever.
I’m not making this up, it says so in D&C itself. Let’s look at verse 17 again…
For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.
—D&C 132, 17
Here’s a key point I want to make:
The Lord made it possible for us to repent of our mistakes and a Mormon temple ceremony is not necessary for eternal salvation or exaltation. What is necessary is a heart of genuine love for the Lord. This is why Swedenborg wrote that it is spiritual marriage that must take place on earth: joining with the Lord by living a good life in accord with his commandments.
So we have to be careful not to get the “on earth” part mixed up. The part we do on earth is living by the commandments.
And this is an excellent example of how Joseph Smith commonly misquotes the Lord and spins his words to mean something different than what they actually mean. Marriage in general terms means “joining” — the joining of goodness and truth. This joining takes many forms other than sex, so when the Lord mentions marriage here he isn’t talking about sexual partners, but only about what sex symbolizes.
About Lowercase “gods”
The other problem with the passage from D&C just mentioned is how it equates marriage with becoming “gods.”
This is a misreading of the Lord’s words in John 10:34, where he said:
Is it not written in your law, “I said, ‘You are gods’”?
The way the Lord used the term gods here is the same way we, today, use the term angels (Secrets of Heaven #4295). (whereas angels also means messengers.) What makes angels “gods” is that they give all glory and honor to the Lord alone, focusing their primary intention on useful service towards him and their neighbor, and thus become united with him.
“Marriage in heaven” is a symbolic saying that refers to the Lord. It doesn’t imply that marriage in the afterlife with a sexual partner is cut off for those who don’t get married to a sexual partner on earth. And yet, yes, sexual marriage between partners exists in heaven, and is central to it. According to the testimony that angels gave to Swedenborg, this not only exists in heaven, but when it’s united in love in the Lord’s Word, personifies heaven itself (Last Judgment (posthumous) #346), and that because of this, it is far more resplendent there than it is here:
I would like to relate some things about the marriages of angels in heaven. They say that their sexual potency is unlimited. After sex, they are never tired, let alone sad, but vigorous and cheerful. They spend the night in each other’s embrace as though they were born to be a single person. Their climaxes are long-lasting; and when they try they never fail… This creates a connection so that they may be one flesh. The man’s vital force combines itself with the woman’s vital force and they bond together. They say that the pleasure of their climax cannot be expressed in the words of any language in this world and cannot even be imagined in anything other than spiritual ideas; even these do not suffice. The angels told me this.
(From the The Ten Commandments: The Secrets of Spiritual Growth Found in God’s Principles for Living)
Swedenborg affirmed that eternal marriage is central to heaven, but emphasized that spiritual marriage with the Lord must come first, followed by the sexual marriage with a spouse. This proper order is crucial for a true heavenly union. D&C flipped that around, by teaching that first comes the physical marriage, and then the spiritual, which is incorrect.
Swedenborg wrote that the center of heaven is, in fact, made up of married partners, but that what’s most important to accomplish on earth is being joined to the Lord through the regenerate way a person lives his life. So long as that regeneration in the Lord is accomplished, if a marriage to a sexual partner is not found on earth, one can be found in heaven, regardless of Mormon membership or temple rituals.
For people who desire truly conjugial love, the Lord provides similar partners, and if they are not found on earth, he provides them in heaven.
And in their case, after death, they enter heaven from the World of Spirits at the same time that they’re married to their soulmate, because of the correspondent symbolism between it and their spiritual marriage to the Lord.
He also wrote that each of us has a soulmate, but that few people actually couple with their true soulmate during their time on earth (Conjugial Love #229). The reason for that is because we live in a “cursed” condition here on earth (that our ancestors brought upon themselves and passed down to us, Genesis 3: 17), and because our spirits are too young and inexperienced. Our spirits haven’t been formed yet in the Lord. That’s why he said that the essential task of our life on earth is to be joined, or “married,” with the Lord and his Word. Once this is accomplished, a domestic and sexual marriage to a partner of the opposite sex can then proceed successfully — whether here or there — without divorce, sorrow, or the cares of the world weighing it down. Earthly marriages are not only permissible under these conditions but beneficial when this correct order is observed. This alignment supports the connected growth of the Lord’s church on earth as it reflects a heavenly order, fostering spiritual and communal harmony both on earth and in heaven.
To them the bond of conjugial love is not an obligation established because of the written covenant or by the enacted law, but the very love they feel has these two implanted in it from creation. The covenant and law inherent in the love is the reason for the covenant and law established in the world, not the reverse. Consequently everything connected with that love is felt as free.
So, I hope you’re starting to see how marriage in heaven is so much better than marriage on earth (in its current, broken state) that when the Lord uses the word “marriage” it takes on a whole new meaning. It may be confusing at first only until you comprehend what spiritual marriage is and how heaven is composed of it. Because of this, Swedenborg, having written in Latin, used a word that his English translators translated into “Conjugial Love,” conjugial being a variation on the word “conjugal” (without the “i”). I think he did this in order to help us capture the fact that there is a difference between the physical and the spiritual meaning of the word.
By Swedenborg:
All laws ordaining what is true and right flow from heavenly origins, or from the structure of the inner life in a person who belongs to heaven. Heaven, taken as a whole, is a heavenly person because the Lord alone is a heavenly person. He is the totality of each and every thing in heaven and in the heavenly individual. This is how the inhabitants there come to be called heavenly.
Since heavenly origins or the structure of a heavenly person’s life is the source from which arises every law ordaining what is true and right — most of all the law for marriage — the heavenly marriage is the source and pattern for all marriages on earth. The heavenly marriage allows for one Lord and one heaven, or one church with the Lord as head. The resulting law for marriage is that there must be one man and one wife. When there are, they represent the heavenly marriage and provide a model of the heavenly person.
Not only was this law revealed to the men of the earliest church, it was also written on their inner being. Consequently a man in those times had just one wife and set up one household. But when the descendants of those earliest people stopped being deep people and became shallow instead, they began to marry many wives.
For the men of the earliest church, the love that belongs to marriage was like heaven itself and its happiness, because their marriages represented the heavenly marriage. When that church started to go downhill, they no longer found happiness in marriage love but in the enjoyment of many partners instead — a pleasure that resides in the outer self. The Lord calls this phenomenon hard-heartedness, the grounds on which Moses allowed them to marry multiple wives. As the Lord himself teaches:
“Because of your hardness of heart Moses wrote you this commandment. From the beginning of creation, though, God made them male and female. Therefore a person shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and the two will become one flesh; so they are no longer two but one flesh. What God has joined together, then, no human shall separate.” (Mark 10:5, 6, 7, 8, 9)
About Murder as Blasphemy Against the Holy Ghost
The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abides not by this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord.
—D&C 132, 27
This is incorrect. The blasphemy of the Holy Ghost is not murder. Although murder is extremely evil and indicates a severe darkness of soul at the moment it is carried out, a person can still repent from it. The Lord even forgave those who murdered him, while hanging on the cross (Luke 23: 34).
Rather, as was mentioned above, the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost is willingly turning away from the Lord and profaning his name (meaning, his reputation) because it prevents people from being spiritually reborn. The Lord would forgive even this if the person simply turned back toward him, but the reason blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is unforgivable is because the person’s pride is so great that he will not turn. The reason this, alone, is unforgivable is because such a person has his heart set against the Lord, and the Lord would forgive him if he would simply turn toward him again. Without genuine repentance there cannot be genuine forgiveness.
We spoke above about how D&C was potentially blaspheming the Holy Ghost, and so it’s ironic that it should speak about it as well, potentially making the situation worse. I think what Joseph Smith may have been doing here is projecting his own blasphemy away from himself onto someone or something else. Whether this attitude persisted within him into the next life, only God knows. I cannot judge the outcome, only the way it appears, and point out that this is false. The idea that murder is unforgivable isn’t true.
This also begs the question: why is a statement about murder included in the middle of a chapter about polygamy? My suspicion is that Joseph is alluding to abortion when he writes about the shedding of innocent blood, because he didn’t want his wives to abort his children. Although I’m very much pro-life, and don’t think women should abort their children either, under any circumstance, I nonetheless think it’s inappropriate for Smith to use the Lord’s name as a threat against women who he had immoral control over, that they’d be damned for eternity because of it. Repentance would be available to them according to the Lord’s discretion; and I would think that this would especially be taken into consideration when it was shown in the next life the degree to which they were likely living under conditions of emotional and spiritual manipulation and coersion.
Swedenborg wrote that when somebody commits the sin against the Holy Spirit, it corresponds with the sin of violating virgins:
Just before awakening, when I was more asleep than awake, I saw (in a vision) that someone was reading a letter, which I heard, the subject of which was excrements of virginities. And when I awoke, my mind kept deliberating what this was, “excrements of virginities.” Then certain spirits spoke with me and explained what this was, namely, that in the world there are those who are driven by that perverse lust of desiring nothing more than virginities, and that thefts of virginities or of the flowers of virgins are the greatest delights to them, without any purpose looking toward marriage and offspring, and then when they have stolen a virginity and snatched away the first flower of youth, they afterwards abandon them, become sick of, and reject them — some even hating them, as we read of David’s son Ammon (2 Sam. 13:15). Then the more virginities they have taken away by theft and thus the more they are able to deflower, the more they boast. These lusts were what had been meant by excrements of virginities.
…I was told that such lusts, and the practices of such lusts, are what are meant by sins against the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:31, Mark 3:28-29, Luke 12:10). For the holiness of the angels is founded, as said, in marriage love, and in innocence, which are the starting points of all spiritual and heavenly loves and feelings of goodness, thus of societies in the heavens. And since such lusts are contrary to the first principles of holiness, therefore these in the first place are meant by sins against the Holy Spirit.
About Multiple Wives and Concubines
Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.
—D&C 132, 37
Hopefully, anybody can understand how the above paragraph is problematic. From my understanding, it was sinful for Abraham to take multiple wives. The reason his multiple wives are mentioned in the Bible is because they provide symbolism to the story as a whole. It was permitted, not commanded, as we read in Matthew:
He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.
Although Abraham lived before Moses, the part about “from the beginning it was not so” cannot be refuted, because that refers to the times written about in Genesis and of the beginning of God’s creation. This is an example of another instance where the Lord’s Word goes directly against Smith’s, but Smith wrote D&C as if his words were the Lord’s. God himself is the only source and creator of life.
It should be noted again that the term “gods” in the Bible means “angels.” We do not become “gods” in any way equivalent to God himself, nor do angels become what they are because they have multiple wives. Swedenborg wrote that from what he saw, polygamy is not tolerated in heaven except as a temporary exception for a few non-Christians at the outer fringes of heaven who didn’t know better during mortal life, and yet were sincere, and so were given the opportunity for reformation in the spirit world (and he says people from any religion can be saved who live by God’s commandments). Generally speaking, polygamy, if continued by a person into the spirit world, especially a Christian who was taught about the Lord, bars that person from entering heaven proper, at least until they stop living that lifestyle.
About Excusing King David’s Actions
David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.
—D&C 132, 38:
It’s easy to see how this is incorrect because it’s made very clear in the Biblical narrative that David sinned horribly by taking Bathsheba as his wife. We also know that Solomon’s taking of many wives was sinful, especially because of how they caused his heart to wonder towards the worship of other gods. We also know Moses sinned often, such as by murdering the Egyptian, the striking of the rock without reverence to God, destroying the first set of stone tablets, and other things which kept him from entering the promised land at the end of his story.
David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.
—D&C 132, 39:
“He shall not inherit them out of this world” suggests that if he had not sinned with Bathsheba, he could have taken all of his wives into heaven with him, but this is not possible because polygamy is not allowed in heaven. The fallacy here is subtle and if you’re not reading carefully, you might miss it. This is a great example of the type of subtle deceptiveness within D&C. What can happen is that you can become so caught up in reading the part about David being punished for his sin with Bathsheba that you can overlook the fact that he sinned before Bathsheba as well by taking many wives. It may have been permitted in his time and situation, but he certainly could not take them into heaven with him, even if he had not sinned with Bathsheba.
Swedenborg wrote:
The Israelite nation was permitted to take more than one wife because in it the Christian Church did not exist, and so neither was truly conjugial love possible. There are people today who waver in thought regarding the institution of monogamous marriages, or marriages of one man with one wife, and who debate with themselves over the reason, thinking that because polygamous marriages were openly permitted to the Israelite nation and to its kings, as to David and Solomon, polygamy might in itself be permissible for Christians, too. But they know nothing of the differences between the Israelite nation and Christianity, and between external and internal elements of the church, nor of the transformation of the church by the Lord from an external one into an internal one. Consequently they know nothing from any interior judgment concerning marriages. It must be understood in general that a person is born natural and becomes spiritual, and that as long as he remains natural, he is, so to speak, in the dark of night and as though in a state of sleep with respect to spiritual things. In that state he is not aware even that there is a difference between the external, natural person and the internal, spiritual one.
Binding and Loosing and the Power of the Priesthood
For I have conferred upon you the keys and power of the priesthood, wherein I restore all things, and make known unto you all things in due time.
And verily, verily, I say unto you, that whatsoever you seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever you bind on earth, in my name and by my word, saith the Lord, it shall be eternally bound in the heavens; and whosoever sins you remit on earth shall be remitted eternally in the heavens; and whosoever sins you retain on earth shall be retained in heaven.
—D&C 132, 45 - 46
A problem with this is that it’s indicating that “bind” means a temple ritual, but when the Lord came into the world, he fulfilled the old law whereby “binding” and “loosing” were revealed to be spiritual rather than physical concepts. We “bind” and “loose” by the way we live our lives, our daily actions, and by what is in our hearts. Temple ceremonies mean absolutely nothing if our hearts are not pure. He said to clean the inside of the cup first, that the outside might be clean also, not the other way around.
In truth, it is the Lord alone who has the power to bind or loose. He is the rock upon which the church is built. And this power to bind and loose belongs to him alone and not to any earthly priest.
Swedenborg wrote:
Priests ought not to claim to themselves any power over the souls of men, because they do not know in what state the interiors of a man are; still less ought they to claim the power of opening and shutting heaven, since that power belongs to the Lord alone.
Manipulation Towards Emma Smith, Joseph Smith’s First Wife
“And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.”
—D&C 132, 52
The way I understand this is that Joseph is pretending to be the Lord so he can command his wife, Emma, to tolerate his adultery (which is beyond disgusting). By “receive” he means receive into his bed.
“And 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.”
—D&C 132, 54
This is basically Joseph telling Emma that she’s trapped; that he can cheat on her, but she cannot cheat on him, or else she faces God’s wrath. This grossly misrepresents the Lord’s character, that one should be allowed adultery while the other sits by, trapped. Neither of them should adulterate.
I’ll explore this topic further in another article.
Joseph Smith’s Egotism
But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundred-fold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.
—D&C 132, 55
Joseph is basically telling Emma, here, that if she cheats on him as well, he has a hundred other women lined up to replace her, as well as wealth and glory, etc. The part about receiving a hundred-fold is a misuse of the Lord’s words, whereby he said that anyone who gives up their possessions and follows him will receive a hundred-fold in this life, and more in the next. The Lord said this about those who give up everything to follow Him, but Joseph twists what he said to imply that her disobedience would make him eligible for those blessings, rather than his own obedience. Joseph is basically telling Emma, “If you cheat on me, God will bless me with a hundred times more than I already have,” but the Lord’s true words said nothing about rewarding one person for the sin of another — it has nothing to do with that — instead, it has everything to do with the heart of the person who willingly gives up everything for the Lord.
Additionally, the Lord will give nobody more than one wife because polygamy is not allowed in heaven.
And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid forgive my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to rejoice.
—D&C 132, 56
To paraphrase… “Just smile and look the other way, honey.”
In order for there to be genuine repentance there needs to be a genuine change of heart that takes place. But Joseph is saying these things at the same time that he’s saying he’s going to take more wives…
Joseph Redefines the Meaning of Adultery to Suit Himself
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 belongs unto him and to no one else.
—D&C 132, 61
No, that’s not true! It’s still adultery.
If you weren’t yet convinced that Joseph Smith was weaving a lie, now it’s been fully exposed.
The Word says that the “two shall become one flesh,” not the three or four or more.
Threats to “Destroy” Women Who Don’t Practice Polygamy
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.
—D&C 132, 64
This is basically saying that Mormon wives must have sex (i.e. “administer”) with their husbands, regardless of how they feel or whether they’re being abused. Rather than being treated like humans, they’re treated like property. It should go without saying that this is not the Lord’s will.
There are many more problems with D&C, this is just an example of some of the worst of them.
I should also mention that although the LDS temple ceremony has some similarity with the symbolism of a marriage to the Lord, it’s also somewhat twisted by Masonic rituals, which can easily slide into forms of idolatry because of how they’re oriented towards worldly rather than spiritual concerns. The focus in this case is on how the rituals attached to marriage become synonymous with entering a secret club or fraternity of insiders that only those with the secret handshakes and signs can take part in, rather than on the underlying reality about whether or not true love is evident in the relationship. This was the reason why the rituals of the ancient Israelite church with regard to the tabernacle were fulfilled by the Lord during his first advent into the world, so that they’re not practiced within Christianity.
By Swedenborg:
Therefore when the Lord came into the world, he abolished these symbolic acts, all of which were external in nature, and established a church with practices that were all internal in nature. The Lord dispelled the allegories and revealed the true forms themselves, like someone who opens a veil or a door and allows what is behind it not only to be seen but also to be entered into.
Of all the rituals that had existed earlier the Lord carried over just two, although together they contain everything of the internal church. Baptism took the place of the washings, and the Holy Supper took the place of the lamb that was sacrificed every day and the lambs that were killed for the celebration of the Passover (Exodus 12:3-6; 29:38-41).
About the Lord’s True Character
After studying the Bible alongside Swedenborg’s exegesis the last few years, I’ve learned that the Lord never dominates his will over others. For Him to do so would be impossible because it’s completely contrary to love and wisdom. The Lord is dominant in heaven, but only through the willing cooperation of his disciples, who’ve opted into his plan for heaven willingly, never through force, manipulation, or coercion. From my understanding of him, the only time the Lord gets zealous is when the third commandment is broken; when his name is taken in vain, such as when heaven’s boundaries are violated. This was why he overturned the tables in the temple and why he so harshly rebuked the Pharisees and called them hypocrites.
I think it’s okay to feel some zeal against Doctrine and Covenants 132 and about these sorts of violations in general. Not to cause harm, but definitely to defend your boundaries and rebuke these fallacies. It’s my strong belief that D&C was not the work of the Lord, but rather, of men acting alone, as was shown by the many points I made above. This, however, does not mean that the Lord doesn’t exist.
That’s all I have to say for today. I have many more thoughts about early Mormon history, but I’ll save that for another time.
