Musings of a Mormon Jesuit
Jot: Sermon or Screed
“I don’t know why people hope for kind angels. No angel ever was or ever is kind. Neither is any angel a friend to humans. They are the strong arm of a vengeful, high-maintenance god. They are the application of absolute allegiance to that god. And if an angel visits you for any reason, even with “good” news, you are in for a ride.
“Stop waiting for the gospel to be fun.”
Tittle: An Holy Meme… or Sarcasm
How patriarchy started for me:
“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.”
Doctrine and Covenants 132:54 from the scriptural canon of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (but relax. if read in context, there’s no reason to be concerned about implications for the ladies)
How patriarchy’s goin’ for me:
“Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women… Holy Mary, Mother of God… Hail Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, our Life, our Sweetness, and our hope.”
Excerpts from the Rosary prayer used by the Roman Catholic Church (I mean, I literally just spent 16 minutes saying it over and over. I like to think this is an improvement given my past veneration of D&C 132, but, uh… yeah, I’ll defer to qualified feminists on whether or not that constitutes personal progress)
Thank you for reading! Comments and reactions are welcome below.
Wheat & Tares 
Yah, we’re warned pretty early in the Bible (Gen. 6 :1-4) to keep our daughters locked up and away from Angels (i.e. Nephilim). 1 Enoch, chapters 6-8 give the best account, which is also where we learn about the original “Watchers”.
I’m sorry Jake, the Personal Progress program was discontinued in 2019. You could count learning the rosary as one of your Intellectual Goals, because it’s always wonderful to learn about other cultures 🙂
This is exactly how I developed my horrific authoritarian view of God!! And ocd. Smith created a voice of God that was so shaming, fear based, and belittling. Opposite of the Christ of NT and grace. A control freak. A projection of Smiths.
It’s sad that even the gospel is built on the backs of the outs (Emma) by the ins (Mary). The outs are disposable while the ins get preferential treatment even if their mission is the same.
docjohn51,
Good news! Joseph Smith did not write D&C 132.* That this memo is in the “Standard Works” is an abomination, a mocking of God. That section 132 continues to exist as “scripture” is evidence no one cares, including Latter-day saints, about what the scriptures actually say. If we did care we would demand either a retraction or a correction.
* The claim Joseph Smith authored the “revelation” is based on the statement of William Clayton who says it was dictated to him. Some of the content most likely originated from Joseph Smith as it is known Joseph Smith was publicly teaching the merits of celestial marriage. But the argument for polygamy was not only NOT taught publicly by Joseph Smith but he publicly denounced it. Here is a video with more explanation: https://youtu.be/r57oPlOgY6w
We have the first conundrum that Joseph Smith was either a liar and adulterer or section 132 is a farce. We have a second conundrum in that section 132 is inherently contradictory. It not only contradicts itself but it contradicts fundamental principles also taught as Truth.
Consider that in section 121 the Lord reveals “No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;” Section 132 states the opposite, that if the wife disagrees with the husband she should be destroyed.
Here is more on the irreconcilable doctrines of section 132: https://exponentii.org/blog/the-irreconcilable-voices-in-dc-132/
“What can we do with these two vastly different voices and different visions presented in this one section? Is there a way to reconcile them? Can women be gods alongside their husbands, and also their husbands’ possessions at the same time? As my title suggests, I have personally not been able to reconcile the two voices. All I have is question after question, as I wonder if female subordination necessarily results when polygyny enters the equation.”
A Disciple,
I’m inclined to believe that the reason the two halves of the revelation may seem to be irreconcilable is because we don’t fully understand their meaning.
Ummm. The Nauvoo expositor pretty clearly illustrates that 132 came from Joseph Smith. The fact that Joseph taught otherwise in public only shows he was a liar as well. Not really that surprising though once you realize that the BOM is fiction, the BOA is fiction, that large parts of the Bible translation came from other bible commentaries. The first vision and stories of priesthood restoration are made up and all came many years after they supposedly happened. There is no correlating evidence at the time they supposedly occurred and conveniently came to be know precisely when Joseph was loosing his grip on authority because being a translator wasn’t enough anymore.
Thank you to those who have actually commented on the post. Instereo, your remark struck a chord with me, and has me thinking about the phenomenon of being in or out of favor, relative to the preferences of those in positions of power and privilege. Thanks for getting me thinking. Your idea deserves to be its own post
“The fact that Joseph taught otherwise in public only shows he was a liar as well.”
I’ve no doubt that Joseph would have lied to the gestapo about the Jews he was hiding in his basement. Does that make him a liar? Remember–his practice polygamy, for all intents and purposes, did ultimately lead to his death–just as the gestapo would have killed him had they learned (after the fact) that he had lied to them. So he had good reason to conceal the practice for a time–and it was not only for his own protection but for the safety of others as well. Even after Brigham young pulled the lid off of polygamy so that it was practiced in the open there were folks in Washington who wanted to destroy the saints off the face of the earth for their supposed abomination. Imagine if Joseph had openly revealed the practice in his time–before the saints fled to the Rookies. And as it happened, the saints would have been destroyed had they not left Nauvoo.
Hello, folks. Little handholding with regard to genre seems in order here. This is NOT a church history post. This is a creative-writing centered post of personal reflection, intended to spark introspection on issues of theme and emotional experience. The reference to D&C 132 was not an invitation to sink into a standard stalemate discussion of historicity where everybody recites what they already think and why they will never change their minds.
We do have church history posts available for such discussion. Use the search feature in the sidebar and knock yourselves out. Also, there has gotta be a subreddit or two where you can gainsay your favorite sources ad nauseum, if that is really how you want to spend your time. Luke, Kaylee, docjohn51, and Instereo read the post and responded to what I actually wrote about. Others’ comments following that are simply regurgitating old standoffs between apologists and skeptics. In addition to feeling mind numbing, I find it inconsiderate and dismissive of the discussion I invited our readers to embark on.
To be blunt, if you just want to argue Church history topics, please take it elsewhere. Thank you
Sorry Jake, Much respect!
Very interesting statements, especially viewed together. Agree that Instereo’s comment adds depth.
Jack makes a valid point, though. Shielding a people targeted for genocide is clearly on equal footing with lying about “marrying” minors, other men’s wives, married ladies, and multiple partners. And hiding it from your wife. /s
Now, my apologies, Jake. I do not want Jack’s comparison to be left uncontested. I’ve heard it before, referenced from someone in the CH department. Not good.
The comparison to the Holocaust is despicable.
Ecce ancilla Domini.
Fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum.
Difference is between Mary’s willing acceptance and the order to Emma to obey under threat of destruction.