Appearance
D&C 132 Contradictions
The claim:
"Many members do not realize that there is a set of very specific and bizarre rules outlined in Doctrine & Covenants 132 on how polygamy is to be practiced. It is the kind of revelation you would expect from the likes of Warren Jeffs to his FLDS followers. ... The only form of polygamy permitted by D&C 132 is a union with a virgin after first giving the opportunity to the first wife to consent to the marriage. If the first wife doesn't consent, the husband is exempt and may still take an additional wife, but the first wife must at least have the opportunity to consent. In case the first wife doesn't consent, she will be 'destroyed.'"[1]
The CES Letter then lists how Joseph violated every rule in his own revelation: marrying women who weren't virgins, marrying without Emma's consent, marrying women already married to other men, and receiving a revelation that threatened Emma with destruction if she didn't comply.
But does D&C 132 actually say what the CES Letter claims it says?
What D&C 132 is -- and isn't
D&C 132 was recorded on July 12, 1843, when William Clayton served as scribe while Joseph Smith dictated. But the revelation itself didn't originate that day. The early verses address Joseph's questions about why Old Testament patriarchs practiced plural marriage -- questions that arose during his work on the Bible translation in 1831.[2]
Hyrum Smith prompted the writing. He believed that if the revelation were put on paper, he could convince Emma to accept plural marriage. Joseph was skeptical. "You do not know Emma as well as I do," he reportedly told Hyrum afterward.[3]
Four purposes, not one
The CES Letter treats D&C 132 as a polygamy document. The revelation addresses four distinct subjects:
| Subject | Verses | Still practiced today? |
|---|---|---|
| Eternal marriage -- the new and everlasting covenant | vv. 7, 15--20 | Yes -- every temple sealing |
| Restitution of all things -- restoring Abrahamic practices | vv. 34--40, 45 | Underlying theology, yes |
| Rules for plural marriage -- conditions for additional wives | vv. 61--66 | No -- discontinued 1890 |
| Instructions to Emma -- personal counsel | vv. 51--56 | N/A |
Eternal marriage remains central to Latter-day Saint temple worship. Millions of couples are sealed under its authority. Plural marriage is one topic within the revelation, not the whole of it.
Claim #1: "Jacob 2 condemns polygamy -- D&C 132 endorses it"
The verses the CES Letter stacks together
Jacob 2:24 calls David and Solomon's many wives "abominable before me." Jacob 2:27 commands: "there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife." D&C 132:1, 34--39 then justifies Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and Solomon in having many wives.
Contradiction? Only if you stop reading Jacob 2 at verse 27.
The verse the CES Letter skips
"For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." (Jacob 2:30)
Monogamy is the rule. God can command exceptions. That's not a tension between Jacob 2 and D&C 132 -- it's Jacob 2 announcing the very principle D&C 132 invokes.
What Jacob 2 actually condemns
Jacob condemns unauthorized polygamy. David and Solomon's sin was not polygamy itself but taking wives God did not give them. D&C 132:38--39 makes this precise distinction: David "received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon" -- but David's sin was "in the case of Uriah and his wife," because Bathsheba "had not been given unto him."[4]
Brian Baird's Interpreter study reads Jacob 2:24--30 against the backdrop of levirate marriage -- the Mosaic obligation to marry a deceased brother's childless widow. This reframes "raise up seed" in a specific legal-cultural context and shows that Jacob's condemnation targets David and Solomon's excesses, not divinely sanctioned practice as a category.[5]
| Text | Says about polygamy |
|---|---|
| Jacob 2:24 | David and Solomon's unauthorized practice was "abominable" |
| Jacob 2:27 | Default rule: one wife |
| Jacob 2:30 | Exception: God can command His people otherwise |
| D&C 132:34--39 | Abraham, Isaac, Jacob received wives from God -- David's sin was Bathsheba specifically |
Two halves of the same framework: monogamy is the standard; God reserves the right to command exceptions.
Claim #2: "The new wife must be a virgin"
What the CES Letter says
D&C 132:61 requires every plural wife to be a virgin. Since Joseph married widows and women previously married to other men, he violated his own revelation.[1:1]
What the verse actually says
"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." (D&C 132:61)
The verse describes a scenario -- if a man marries a virgin and wants another wife, here are the conditions. It doesn't say "only virgins may ever be married in plural marriage." One permitted case, not the only permitted case.[6]
The revelation's own counterexample
D&C 132 itself undermines the virgin-only reading. Verses 34--35 discuss God commanding Abraham to take Hagar -- an Egyptian handmaid who was not a virgin. If the revelation's own example of divinely sanctioned plural marriage involves a non-virgin, the "virgin-only" reading collapses under the weight of the text itself.
"Virgin" in 19th-century usage -- and in biblical usage -- carried a broader meaning than strict biological virginity. It could mean an unmarried, chaste woman.[7] The CES Letter reads one verse as the comprehensive rule and ignores everything else in the revelation.
Claim #3: "The first wife must consent"
What D&C 132 actually says about consent
The revelation establishes a two-part framework.
The standard rule (v. 61): "the first give her consent" before the husband takes an additional wife.
The exception (vv. 64--65): If the first wife refuses to consent, she "becomes the transgressor" and the husband "is exempt from the law of Sarah, which gave unto Abraham power to take Hagar to wife."[4:1]
The "Law of Sarah" is the requirement to obtain the first wife's consent. The revelation explicitly provides for the case where the first wife rejects plural marriage -- and says the husband may proceed without her consent.
This isn't a loophole invented by apologists. It's in the text. The CES Letter quotes the consent requirement but never mentions the exception clause two verses later.[8]
Emma's actual consent history
The record shows Emma's relationship with plural marriage was not a simple "no":
| Date | What happened |
|---|---|
| ~1836 | Emma discovered or learned of the Fanny Alger relationship. Her reaction was intensely negative.[9] |
| Early 1843 | Joseph taught Emma about plural marriage. She oscillated between acceptance and rejection.[9:1] |
| May 1843 | Emma personally participated in sealings to the Partridge sisters (Emily and Eliza) and the Lawrence sisters (Sarah and Maria). She gave explicit consent for these four marriages.[2:1] |
| July 12, 1843 | The revelation was dictated and presented to Emma. She rejected it.[3:1] |
| Late 1843--1844 | Emma and Joseph reached a working truce.[9:2] |
Emma gave consent, withdrew consent, gave it again, and withdrew it again. The CES Letter presents her as perpetually ignorant and victimized. The record shows something harder -- a woman wrestling with a doctrine she found agonizing, sometimes accepting it and sometimes rejecting it.
Under D&C 132's own framework, once Emma rejected the principle, Joseph was "exempt from the law of Sarah." Whether that exemption satisfies the modern reader is a separate question from whether it satisfies the text.
Worth Acknowledging
This is one of the hardest parts of D&C 132 for modern readers. An exception clause that allows a husband to bypass his wife's consent -- even if framed as a consequence of her rejection -- feels coercive regardless of the theological reasoning. Honest engagement requires acknowledging that discomfort while also acknowledging what the text says. The CES Letter's error isn't in finding this troubling. It's in claiming D&C 132 requires consent with no exception, when the text itself provides one.
Claim #4: "D&C 132 threatens Emma with destruction"
What the verse says
"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." (D&C 132:54)
What "destroyed" means in this revelation
The 1828 Webster's Dictionary defines "destroy" as "to cause to cease; to put an end to."[10] In D&C 132's theological framework, "destruction" refers to the cessation of eternal family relationships -- not physical death.
Every person who fails to enter the new and everlasting covenant faces the same outcome: their family bonds do not continue past death (D&C 132:4, 6, 15--18). The warning to Emma is the same warning the revelation issues to everyone. She isn't singled out for unique punishment -- she's being told the same stakes that apply universally.[11]
| What the CES Letter implies | What the text says |
|---|---|
| Emma will be physically harmed | "Destroyed" = loss of eternal blessings (same as vv. 4, 6, 15--18) |
| The warning is unique to Emma | The same consequence applies to all who reject the covenant (v. 6) |
| The passage ends with a threat | Verse 56 immediately offers mutual forgiveness: "let mine handmaid forgive my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses" |
The CES Letter quotes verse 54 and stops. Verse 56 -- two sentences later -- pivots to reconciliation and mutual forgiveness. Reading it as a standalone threat requires cutting it off mid-paragraph.[11:1]
Key Point
D&C 132:4 states that "all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing." The "destruction" in verse 54 is the same loss of blessings described throughout the revelation for anyone -- man or woman -- who rejects the covenant.
Claim #5: "Joseph practiced polygamy before the revelation"
The timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1831 | Joseph's questions about Old Testament polygamy arise during Bible translation work.[2:2] |
| ~1835--1836 | The Fanny Alger relationship. Fragmentary evidence; Mosiah Hancock's account describes a ceremony.[12] |
| April 3, 1836 | Elijah restores sealing keys in the Kirtland Temple (D&C 110). |
| 1841--1843 | Joseph performs plural sealings in Nauvoo. |
| May 28, 1843 | Emma sealed to Joseph. |
| July 12, 1843 | D&C 132 dictated and recorded by William Clayton. |
Why the timeline doesn't prove fraud
The revelation was recorded in 1843. It wasn't necessarily received in 1843. The D&C 132 section heading itself states that "evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831."[13]
The Gospel Topics Essay is direct: "The revelation [D&C 132] was recorded in 1843, but its early verses suggest that part of it emerged from Joseph Smith's study of the Old Testament in 1831."[2:3] William W. Phelps wrote to his wife about eternal marriage concepts as early as 1835 -- suggesting these principles circulated among select Saints years before the formal recording.[14]
Practice preceding formal written revelation is not unique to D&C 132. Baptism for the dead was practiced in the Mississippi River before D&C 124 formalized the requirement for temple baptistries. The priesthood was restored before its specific offices were fully defined.
The Fanny Alger question
The CES Letter calls the Alger relationship "adultery" because it preceded the restoration of sealing keys in April 1836. But scholars distinguish between an early plural marriage "for time" and an eternal sealing requiring Elijah's keys. Brian Hales dates the relationship to late 1835 or early 1836 and concludes it was a plural marriage, not an affair.[12:1]
The Gospel Topics Essay itself calls it a "marriage": "Fragmentary evidence suggests that Joseph Smith acted on the angel's first command by marrying a plural wife, Fanny Alger, in Kirtland, Ohio, in the mid-1830s."[2:4]
The CES Letter treats the written date as the origin date. The evidence doesn't support that.
Claim #6: "The 1835 D&C banned polygamy"
Who wrote the 1835 statement
The Article on Marriage was written by Oliver Cowdery, not Joseph Smith.[15]
Joseph was in Michigan Territory when the article was presented to a priesthood conference in Kirtland on August 17, 1835. He didn't return until August 23. Brigham Young later stated that Cowdery "insisted on its being inserted in the Book of D.&C. contrary to the thrice expressed wish and refusal of the Prophet Jos. Smith."[16]
| What the CES Letter implies | What the record shows |
|---|---|
| Joseph Smith wrote or endorsed the 1835 statement | Oliver Cowdery wrote it; Joseph was absent when it was adopted |
| The statement was a binding revelation | It was never a revelation -- it was a policy statement read at a conference |
| Joseph hypocritically included anti-polygamy language | Brigham Young said Joseph objected to its inclusion three times |
The 1835 statement was removed from the Doctrine and Covenants in 1876, when D&C 132 was added. The two documents were never competing revelations -- one was a conference policy statement, the other a revealed text.[17]
The complication: Joseph kept it
A fair objection: if Joseph objected to the statement, why did he retain it in the 1844 Nauvoo edition?
The most likely answer is the same reason the 1842 Times and Seasons affidavit existed -- Joseph distinguished between what he was practicing (celestial marriage under priesthood authority) and what his accusers were charging (polygamy, "spiritual wifery," and sexual free-for-all). As long as the public charge was "polygamy" in the Bennett sense, the 1835 statement's denial of that practice remained useful even as Joseph practiced something he considered categorically different.
That distinction may not satisfy every reader. But the CES Letter treats the 1835 statement as Joseph's own position when the authorship evidence points to Cowdery. (See Joseph Smith's Marriages for more on the public denials pattern.)
Claim #7: "D&C 132 says polygamy is only for procreation -- but Joseph married already-married women"
What the verse actually says
D&C 132:63 states that plural wives are given "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."
Two purposes, not one. Procreation and exaltation. The CES Letter quotes the first clause and drops the second.[6:1]
The revelation also ties plural marriage to "the restitution of all things" (vv. 40, 45), to the Abrahamic covenant (vv. 34--36), and to exaltation (vv. 19--20). Treating procreation as the sole justification requires ignoring every other stated purpose in the same revelation.
The polyandry tension -- honestly
The CES Letter's strongest point here is the marriage to Zina Huntington Jacobs, who was about six months pregnant by her legal husband when sealed to Joseph.[1:2] That doesn't fit a procreation-only framework.
But it fits an eternity-only sealing framework. The polyandrous sealings were not marriages in the mortal sense. The women continued living with their legal husbands, bearing their husbands' children, and maintaining their existing households. D&C 132 condemns a woman being "with another man" -- language that implies an active marital relationship. An eternity-only sealing created no such relationship in mortality.[18]
This is covered in depth in the Polyandry article. The short version: D&C 132 condemns sexual polyandry three separate times (vv. 41--42, 63). If Joseph were inventing rules to justify his behavior, why would he dictate a revelation that condemns the very thing critics accuse him of?
The absence of confirmed children from Joseph's plural marriages further undermines the procreation-only reading. If the marriages were only about procreation and Joseph had no children from them, that's harder to explain under the CES Letter's framework than under the eternity-only model. (See Joseph Smith's Marriages for the DNA evidence.)
What the mismatches actually mean
If Joseph Smith were inventing a revelation to justify his behavior, you'd expect the text to match his practice exactly. It doesn't.
D&C 132 condemns sexual polyandry in the strongest terms -- despite critics accusing Joseph of practicing it. It establishes a consent requirement -- despite Emma's consent being erratic. It references virgins -- despite some of Joseph's sealings being to widows and married women.
A self-serving fraudster writes rules he's already following. The gaps between D&C 132 and Joseph's practice suggest something messier and more human: a man receiving revelation about eternal principles and implementing them in a developing theological framework where not everything was settled from the start.
The genuine difficulty
None of this makes D&C 132 comfortable reading.
The language directed at Emma in verses 54--56 is stern. The consent framework -- standard rule plus exception -- can feel like a stacked deck. The fact that Joseph practiced plural marriage before the revelation was formally recorded raises real questions. The secrecy surrounding most of the marriages is genuinely troubling, even if D&C 132:65 provides a theological framework for it.
These tensions are real. Faithful Latter-day Saints have wrestled with them for nearly two centuries, and the Church's Gospel Topics Essay on Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo addresses them directly.[2:5]
But the CES Letter doesn't wrestle with the tensions. It reads six words from verse 61, ignores the exception clause in verse 65, collapses eternity-only sealings into sexual marriages, and presents the result as a list of "contradictions" that proves Joseph was a fraud.
The theology that endures
Strip away the plural marriage provisions and D&C 132 still contains one of the most consequential revelations in the Restoration: the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.
Verses 15--20 teach that marriage can endure beyond death. Those sealed by proper priesthood authority "shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers" and "shall be gods." Those not sealed remain "separately and singly" as ministering angels.
This is the foundation of every temple sealing performed today. It's why Latter-day Saints build temples. It's why families gather at altars in white. The Church discontinued plural marriage in 1890, but D&C 132's eternal marriage theology remains the bedrock of Latter-day Saint worship and hope.
The CES Letter focuses exclusively on the plural marriage provisions (roughly vv. 34--66) while ignoring the eternal marriage framework (vv. 1--33) that gives the revelation its enduring theological significance. That framing makes D&C 132 look like a discarded relic. For millions of temple-attending Latter-day Saints, it's anything but.
Bottom line: The CES Letter claims Joseph Smith violated his own revelation. D&C 132 includes an exception clause for spousal consent the CES Letter never quotes, condemns sexual polyandry in the very terms Joseph's eternity-only sealings avoided, and describes "virgins" in ways consistent with broader biblical and 19th-century usage. The real misfit isn't between Joseph and D&C 132 -- it's between what D&C 132 actually says and what the CES Letter claims it says.
Runnells, CES Letter (2017), "Polygamy | Polyandry," pp. 55--57. ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
"Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo," Gospel Topics Essays, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
William Clayton, journal entry, July 12, 1843. Clayton recorded the dictation of D&C 132 and Emma's reaction. See also Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2013), 2:43--49. ↩︎ ↩︎
Doctrine and Covenants 132:38--39, 41--42, 54, 61, 64--65. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng ↩︎ ↩︎
Brian J. Baird, "Understanding Jacob's Teachings about Plural Marriage from a Law of Moses Context," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 25 (2017): 227--237. https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/understanding-jacobs-teachings-about-plural-marriage-from-a-law-of-moses-context/ ↩︎
"D&C 132," Debunking the CES Letter. https://debunking-cesletter.com/polygamy-polyandry-1/dc-132/ ↩︎ ↩︎
"Detailed Response to CES Letter, Polygamy and Polyandry," FAIR. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Detailed_response_to_CES_Letter,_Polygamy_and_Polyandry ↩︎
"D&C 132 -- The Law of Sarah," Debunking the CES Letter. https://debunking-cesletter.com/polygamy-polyandry-1/dc-132-the-law-of-sarah/ ↩︎
Brian C. Hales, "Emma's Path Through Plural Marriage," Joseph Smith's Polygamy. https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/common-questions/emma-smith-plural-marriage/ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (New York: S. Converse, 1828), s.v. "destroy." ↩︎
"D&C 132 and Being Destroyed," Debunking the CES Letter. https://debunking-cesletter.com/polygamy-polyandry-1/dc-132-and-being-destroyed/ ↩︎ ↩︎
Brian C. Hales, "Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger," Joseph Smith's Polygamy. https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/common-questions/fanny-alger/ ↩︎ ↩︎
"Revelation, 12 July 1843 [D&C 132]," Joseph Smith Papers. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-12-july-1843-dc-132/1 ↩︎
W.W. Phelps, letter to Sally Waterman Phelps, 1835. Phelps discussed eternal marriage concepts, suggesting these principles circulated among select Saints years before D&C 132 was formally dictated. ↩︎
"Appendix 3: Statement on Marriage, circa August 1835," Joseph Smith Papers. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/appendix-3-statement-on-marriage-circa-august-1835/1 ↩︎
Brigham Young, 1869 statement, cited in the Joseph Smith Papers editorial note for the 1835 Statement on Marriage. Young recalled that Cowdery "insisted on its being inserted in the Book of D.&C. contrary to the thrice expressed wish and refusal of the Prophet Jos. Smith." ↩︎
"1835 Doctrine and Covenants Denies Polygamy," FAIR. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/1835_Doctrine_and_Covenants_denies_polygamy ↩︎
Brian C. Hales, "Sealings to Legally Married Women -- Sexual Polyandry," Joseph Smith's Polygamy. https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/common-questions/sexual-polyandry/ ↩︎