67 thoughts on “Verse 63”

1. For a moment, I wondered if President Nelson’s usage of D&C 132:63 was related to Dantzel Nelson’s death (2005) and his subsequent marriage to Wendy Watson Nelson (2006). But your timeline puts that to rest, it looks like he was using it to describe a Mormon woman’s role since it is one of the only (the only? as you ask) that fits current eternal family doctrine.

   So I really do wonder if he sees D&C 132, with it’s polygamous ramifications for his own relationships as anything more than just fitting neatly within the Plan of Salvation. And yet by just glossing over the polygamy problems (women as expendable) found even within the very scripture he used, I feel like he glosses over the very real hurt women in the church feel with the current spiritual eternal marriage system.

   While not experiencing it personally, so I cannot fully understand how it feels or how the current sealing practices can hurt, I know of women who are single who wonder if they will have to be placed with another man as a second or third wife. I know of women who have chosen to be sealed to a man as an additional wife after their first wife has died. I know of women who have chosen to be sealed to a man as an additional wife after the first wife is divorced, so they can be married in the temple to the man they love. I know of women who, after a divorce, have not chosen to be sealed to their former spouse, and when that spouse is sealed to a second wife, they are not allowed a sealing cancellation and thus remain sealed as the first wife.

   It’s complicated and heart-wrenching and maybe one of those things that should be both discussed in the new RS council meetings and in the highest councils of the church, with much female input.

2. Thanks for this important examination of the usage and meaning of D&C 132:63. I’m impressed that you did all of this in less than 24 hours. From what you portray here, it appears to be the favorite go-to scripture about women’s primary “roles.” It certainly suits the popular priesthood=motherhood narrative used to defend male ecclesiastical authority. But it also might be due to the fact that there are so few modern scriptures that address women’s diverse roles, this has become the standard and ubiquitous reference when addressing all things “women” in a Mormon framework. You’ve also highlighted the common problem we have of cherry-picking without historical or other context. I will continue to think about your final question.

3. I think the rampant proof-texting is evidence enough that our “understanding” of this “doctrine” is…shall we say…incomplete.

4. Well said, Ardis. It’s important to identify the context of these scriptures because for women, these contexts are more poignant than they may be for our brothers. It’s hard for me as a woman to find anything comforting or even neutral in D&C 132.

5. I don’t have a scripture to suggest (yet) but the reason that this verse in context bothers me so much isn’t the polygamy (I have complicated thinks on that) it’s the not viewing women as fully embodied human beings. Women are in relationship to men and through that children, never just a woman for a women’s sake. Ugh.

6. I don’t have anything substantial to add, Ardis, other than to thank you for drawing this to my attention. It’s not a scripture I’ve noticed being used, and I certainly won’t be using it in the context that seems to be favoured in the talks you cite.

7. Thanks for this timely and brilliant essay. I wish I had other scriptures to offer in place of this (and other) oft and ill-used references. I don’t. But this detailed and careful review is like a breath of fresh air after yesterday’s smog-filled press conference. Thanks for the good work. Again!

8. I think the best scripture is just Genesis 1:28: “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” It gets across the idea that God intended for Adam and Eve to have children even though they hadn’t technically eaten of the fruit yet. Add in 2 Nephi 2:22-23 (they would not have been able to have children without the Fall), and you have a good argument that God intended from the beginning for humans to reproduce in marriage partnerships on this earth. Much of 2 Nephi 2 is really fantastic for this idea of filling the measure of our creation: “men are that they might have joy.”

   Most everyone understands the context of Genesis 1 and 2 Nephi 2. It’s not as succinct, but I’d argue they are much more common sources for these ideas anyway. President Nelson seems to be driving the majority of traffic for D&C 132:63. (Nash’s reference is hidden in a footnote related to polygamy. Nelson is much more forceful about tying it to modern women’s roles in more recent addresses. The main quote in the Eternal Family cornerstone class manual is from a 2015 Ensign reprint of Nelson’s 2013 CES address.)

9. Leaving my feelings and opinions aside (as they are a bit more volatile than I think you allow here), I do think the Proclamation on the Family has as one of its purposes providing a new text to take the place of the section 132 phrases you investigate so thoroughly. I would suggest that the perceived need for the Proclamation is a backhanded proof of the paucity of alternate texts.

10. I’ve had so many swirling strong feelings since yesterday. I hate that is scripture is used the way it is, and I hate that we have so very little that supports anything pertaining to being a woman outside of out-of-context birthing of men. I have nothing to offer that makes it better, but I very much appreciate your work here in giving context, and sourcing its use.

11. Extraordinary work here. Thank you, Ardis. It is helpful to see a wealth of sources and citations all relating to that verse pulled together like this.

12. Thanks for this interesting context. I hope this isn’t too unwelcome a thing for me to say, but I felt uncomfortable with Pres. Nelson’s use of that particular scripture as the basis of his understanding of women’s destiny and personhood. I have always felt a great darkness when reading the second half of D&C 132, and concluded after many years of struggle that the spirit was telling me it was not inspired. I feel about as good about hearing our church president quote that verse as I would have felt had he quoted 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. Reading D&C 132:63-66 for the first time was a major earthquake in my spiritual life, and it still rattles me every time.

13. Thank you for your thoughtful words, Ardis. I appreciate how well you dissect the issue.

    I found many aspects of the press conference to be troubling (especially this topic), so it is comforting to see someone point out these concerns.

14. A very thought provoking article. Thank you for your research and personal thoughts.

15. I am appreciating the views that have been expressed and have read them carefully and thoughtfully . . . Meanwhile: I had never heard of this Scripture Citation Index until now, and I looked it up. Incredible! I can see that I will be spending time there!

16. This work really highlights something about that whole news conference and the response to that question in particular. Clearly, the brethren were not rehearsed in their answers and were speaking off the cuff. This demonstrates that Pres. Nelson’s long time “go to” for speaking about women has long been anchored in this scripture and explains why it was so easy for him to reference it. Your deeper analysis of the use of this scripture and the lack of alternatives really underscore for me both what helps drive the thinking of the brethren and its limitations if they choose to constrain themselves to existing canon. It also highlights why and how “the ghost of polygamy” continues to haunt all Mormon theological discourse on gender and women’s roles/authority. It seems to be a straight jacket that they prefer not or don’t feel they can remove.

17. Thanks for pulling all this together, Ardis. Doesn’t cheer me up much, but it is a valuable piece of reference work, which no doubt will be viewed by many looking for clarification and thoughts to ponder in the weeks ahead.

18. Thanks for this instructive and thoughtful post, Ardis. Since I feel like the church has acknowledged the problems with Moroni 9:9 as a verse instructing us about chastity, I hope a similar cultural shift will happen regarding D&C 132:63. At the very least, if we are going to use it in lesson manuals, we need to look at the whole of it, the problems of it, the discomfort members of the class will have when we look at it.

    I’m really grateful for the sources and links you have gathered here—seeing the pattern as it is laid out here, it almost seems like these authorities are just echoing each other rather than discovering this verse in its original placement and context.

19. I appreciate your thoughtful analysis of this. It’s one of the glaring short comings of our scriptural cannon that it is so incredibly androcentric. For a church that is so hung up on gender roles, there really isn’t much in the way of scriptural support. Especially when the authors of “the most correct book” — that our church was founded upon — fail to even mention the names of any of their mothers or daughters or wives (Sariah being the only exception). The scriptures seem to leave me with only 2 logical conclusions. Either God views his daughters as fully equal to men and the authors of scripture just used gendered language because linguistics or human frailty. Or 2) women are inconsequential to God or man other than breeding stock to produce more men. Obviously, I’m inclined to believe the first.

20. I fear that we will never be able to treat women as fully human in the Church until we have excised this section of the Doctrine and Covenants, and the deep-seated belief that women’s reason for existence is contingent on their instrumentality in men’s lives, from our collective consciousness. Even President Hinckley, who was not so tone deaf in his pronouncements about women usually spoke of “wives,” “mothers,” “daughters.” The only women we talk about from scripture are Mary and Eve, even though the majority of named women in scripture—Abish, Priscilla, Junia, Deborah, Miriam, Eunice, Lois, Joanna, Huldah, Anna, etc.—are NOT there because of their excellent wifing, daughtering, or mothering, but because they were generals, diplomats, teachers, deacons, patrons, leaders, and PROPHETS. We have no business reducing the importance of women in the kingdom to intact hymens and functional ovaries and uteruses—it’s unscriptural, even blasphemous, to speak of creations in God’s image in such reductive and dehumanizing ways.

21. In regards to President Packer’s use of the verse to support his statement that gender is eternal– I find that it makes sense if one doesn’t read the verse too carefully.
    When the verse says:

    for they [women] are given unto him to […] fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds…

    Women can’t have been given to men or entered into promises in regards to birthing children before the foundation of the world if they were not women at that time.

    However, if you pay close attention to the wording you’ll see that it was just the promises made by the Father that existed before the foundation of the world, and not the giving of women to men, nor the assignment of specific souls be be the ones bearing children.

22. I find it so disheartening that my worth is located in my womb. My unused, dry, brittle, virginal womb.

23. Thank you for being the historian we all need today, and writing such a fair and clear-eyed treatment of the material. It’s distressingly fitting that the only verse that tells women that their divine role is to make and rear [male?] children is embedded in claims that men may marry multiple women. After all, if women’s bodies are said to exist to glorify God by increasing the population–that is, if their humanity goes unrecognized–then it makes perfect sense that their preferences would go unheard.

    The only other verse I’m aware of that might serve a fraction of the purpose that this verse is currently being used for is not even from the body of Restoration scripture; it’s Jeremiah 1:5, where Jeremiah says God knew him before he was born. But even then, the point of the passage is to help Jeremiah explain to his audience how he knows for sure that 1) God is with him and that 2) he is to prophesy. (Like most prophets, Jeremiah is reticent, but God urges him on by saying this is and has always been what he was meant to do.) It would be begging the question to use that verse to argue that Jeremiah had a *male* spirit in the preexistence, or that his preordained role has any bearing on the divine roles of anybody else.

24. Yes – right out of the gate and our new prophet is quoting polygamy scriptures. I had the same experience while anguishing over Section 132 – concluding it wasn’t of God. I felt such peace when I concluded that so it was awful to hear the prophet quote it. So awful.

25. Personally, I think part of the reason we teach scriptures about women in this manner is that our cultural reverence for the wording of the temple ordinances precludes an open discussion of the doctrines those ordinances infer about the nature and role of women in the plan. (Yes I know there are points in our temple liturgy that beg for clarification and have been frustrating for some, but I still think there’s more in the temple that speaks to the divine role of women beyond vs. 63 here.)

    The sealing ordinance makes clear (at least to me) that women and men both “shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions” (yes I’m cherry picking the verse, and yes there’s more history in that verse that I don’t understand). I see women officiating in the temple (albeit with asymmetric visibility), and I think there’s something there. In sum, I think our temple ordinances teach more than the printed scriptures, but they don’t make good quotable material. Thus we’re left with cherry-picking.

    The scriptural canon is relatively quiet on Women’s issues. I think that has to do, in part, with the fact that revelation is driven by questions, and those with the keys to receive such revelation have historically (over the last few thousand years) not been asking intensively about women’s issues. I think another issue at play here is that going after those issues requires seeking answers to a whole family of doctrinal ambiguities that are treated in the modern church as largely vestigial.

    I think Elder (now President) Ballard summed up a common sentiment in a recent address at BYU in which, as I recall, he basically said the twelve are busy performing the day-to-day ministering and administration of the church, such that they haven’t personally tried to go after finding answers to every difficult question out there.

    So additions to the Doctrine & Covenants seem off the table for the moment. Perhaps there’s space in the JSPP to find some answers. Sermons and pronouncements by Joseph Smith (perhaps in the Relief Society Minute Book or elsewhere) on the subject could carry enough weight to provide some better clarification and support to our doctrine. (I don’t know if anything’s there. Just making suggestions.)

26. This is wonderful work. I am always surprised that D&C 132 gets referenced at all when it causes so much pain. Of course, it’s usually men referencing it; they probably have no idea how hurtful it is to women.

    The idea that I, as a woman, am of value to the Plan primarily because of my child-bearing abilities is extremely painful. Whenever I hear this idea promoted, I have to remind myself of the story from Luke 11:27-28. Jesus rejected the idea that our worth is in our wombs.

27. Ardis, I admire your consummate professionalism and your ability to channel yesterday’s discomfort into this valuable analysis of sources. I agree with Mary Ann above that you can winkle it out of Genesis and 2 Nephi without wading through the polygamy/punishment swamp that is D&C 132, but it takes a bit of work. Wish I had more to offer you. I applaud your ability to make a silk purse from this sow’s ear.

28. I have little to base this on, so grain of salt. In the past, there have been statements made about the centrality of scripture, about trying to answer questions with scripture, about not going beyond the scriptures. And certainly, General Authorities have sometimes gone waaaayyy beyond scripture.

    I wonder/suspect if past mistakes and speculations have not led to some kind of small-scope “policy” to only answer questions with scripture. Because if it’s simply quoted scripture, how can it be wrong? The problem is, scripture doesn’t work this way. It *has* context and contexts. Just as you can use a credit card as a screwdriver in a pinch, but twisting too hard breaks it, a scripture can be reappropriated to a different context and different meaning. But when pushed too hard, it too can break in this new usage. Answering questions only with scripture, responsibly, requires a knowledge of original context and the “breaking point” of the passage in repurposing.

    Far be it from me to wish we had Apostles openly speculating and preaching beyond scripture, but it seems that (if what I’m proposing is actually the case), the pendulum may have swung too hard the other way.

29. Thanks for putting this all together, and so quickly, Ardis! I think your comparison to Moroni 9:9 is spot on. Unfortunately, I don’t have an answer for your question. I agree with christiankimball that the lack of a nice clear scripture to say something like this seems like one of the motivations for writing the Family Proclamation.

30. Has no one in the Quorum read Proverbs 31:10 ff? Even the Israelites conceived of the ideal woman as having more capabilities than merely bearing children, though that was culturally central.

    For example,

    31: 16 She considers a field and buys it;
    out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
    17 She sets about her work vigorously;
    her arms are strong for her tasks.
    18 She sees that her trading is profitable,
    and her lamp does not go out at night.

    She’s got critical judgment, is involved in business and trading, as well as the physical labor of daily life in a largely agrarian society.

31. I tend to read things in context, so it does leave me uncomfortable about the way scriptures are used on many occasions. I’ve heard some ‘humdingers’ of verses taken out of context. The clearest statement I can find in the scriptures on God’s view of women is:

    2 Nephi 26:33
    33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

    There are an awful lot of policies I don’t understand. And it would really help if our leaders would think some of these things through carefully rather than jumping up and shouting “Huzzah for the ladies!” and thinking that covers the question.

    One aspect of the recent changes in Relief Society and priesthood quorum curricula is that now every adult member is officially a member of a church council. Perhaps the ultimate goal is to give each individual a clear pathway to bring up their concerns through the councils of the church. We’ll see.

    Meanwhile, I frequently find myself giving God the benefit of the doubt in hopes that He will see fit to return the favor.

32. Good work, Ardis. Thanks.

    I’m struck that the Sept 2013 use of 132 was followed by a talk in October where he doesn’t quote 132, but extends the idea of foreordination to women using Alma 13 (which of course McConkie’s intro would have us limit foreordination to men). And specifically says “You were chosen not for your bodily characteristics.”

    “Your Heavenly Father has known you for a very long time. You, as His son or daughter, were chosen by Him to come to earth at this precise time, to be a leader in His great work on earth. You were chosen not for your bodily characteristics but for your spiritual attributes, such as bravery, courage, integrity of heart, a thirst for truth, a hunger for wisdom, and a desire to serve others.

    You developed some of these attributes premortally. Others you can develop here on earth as you persistently seek them.”
    https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/decisions-for-eternity?lang=eng

    Completely different interpretations a decade apart, sure…but a month apart? I’d be so interested in the context of that shift.

33. Yesterday someone cited verse 63 as the source of those remarks, and upon reading the verse, I thought they must be wrong. Yes, I see that some of the words are the same, but that’s about it.

    The verse starts off about polygamy, which to me is a black hole (sucking in and effectively destroying all that is good around it).

    Then we read about women being destroyed for having multiple partners (whereas men are glorified in the Section for doing the same thing). As a woman who is not interested in sharing my husband sexually, there’s another black hole for me.

    Then we get to what I see as the central focus of the verse: “for they are GIVEN unto him to multiply and replenish the earth.” I see this as being about what men get, not about women, and it’s incredibly disheartening to think of myself as some type of prize to be given out in groups of 10 to a man — another black hole.

    So for me, this verse hits me with a triple black hole, sucking in and hiding or destroying any other possible truth that may be contained in the verse.

34. I would like a cross-stitch of Kristine’s comment above, please.

35. The way Pres. Nelson used the verse really bothered me. “[B]efore the foundation of the world, women were created to bear and care for….” It sounds like the spirits of all women were created for one single purpose.

    Well, I can read the verse, and it doesn’t say any of that. Leaving what I think of the section and the verse aside to just parse it, “care for” isn’t there at all. “Before the foundation of the world” is about when “the [Abrahamic] promise” was given, not about why women (or men, for that matter) were created. Reading the language about why or what for more closely, it’s about why “they are given to him” (so, the purposes of a polygamous marriage), and why the adulterous wife “shall be destroyed” (so, justifying the “destruction” by listing purposes of a polygamous marriage that would be frustrated by adultery).

    At most, you could arguably generalize the verse to say that similar purposes of a monogamous marriage could be similarly frustrated by adultery. But, despite the sexist language describing marriages in terms of women being given to men, the verse is about purposes of marriage, not about women as a class.

    I just can’t get to “women were created to” from there. At best, I can get, “humanity was created to glorify God by being, and by continuing, his offspring.” But I don’t see any purpose announced there for the creation of women that would not equally apply to the creation of men.

    So, everything Pres. Nelson said after “In the Doctrine and Covenants there is a verse that says” is, simply, not what the verse says? I expect better from him. Part of me is inclined to give Pres. Nelson the benefit of the doubt, as someone who mis-stated a verse while speaking extemporaneously. The other part of me remembers that he, as the President of a sizable world-wide church, was asked a foreseeable question at a scheduled press conference, and that he certainly could have prepared a better answer.

    And, of course, as President of the Church, he is entitled to declare doctrine authoritatively, without citation. But if he and I are reading the same verse, I think I can still believe in prophets while saying “he’s reading that verse wrong.”

36. This is history blogging at its finest, Ardis. Thanks.

37. This post is righteous fire. Thank you, Ardis.

38. Look at the amazing conversation you’ve spurred! Great work Ardis!

39. “..the twelve are busy performing the day-to-day ministering and administration of the church, such that they haven’t personally tried to go after finding answers to every difficult question out there”

    Figuring out the place of HALF of the children of God in eternity is part of ministering–it’s not a “difficult question” to be bracketed for a day with some spare time, like the precise location of the Lost Tribes. It’s not an academic question.

40. Thanks for putting this together – informative and thought provoking.. I might just add for what it’s worth in considering section 132 – I believe it was common in 1830 America to speak of women being “given to men” in marriage, and we are taught the revelations were given to Joseph using his language & expressed in words he was accustomed to. Also, the use of the word “virgin” so predominantly which offends our modern ears wouldn’t have been so unusual then.. it’s a common biblical way of expressing what we might just call “young woman” today. Kristine’s comment (20) definitely made me think. I hadn’t ever considered how that language could be taken to be offensive. I suppose I might just point out that in context of most church talks, men are also often generalized as husbands, sons and fathers.. (or as “the priesthood” which is totally wrong, and lately openly discouraged). In answer to the question – “why quote it out of context?” – I think that if Pres. Nelson was using this verse – then he wanted to express what he sees in it (right or wrong) about the role of women — while avoiding discussion of the thorny issue of polygamy. After reading through the great analysis and comments here, it seems to me that second-half of the verse should be viewed as speaking about the purpose of marriage, not just of women, and certainly not just those particular virgins.. it’s a more generalized statement.

41. Tom W.–that’s a sort of reasonable reading of the verse in isolation, and yes, presumably “be given in marriage” from the KJV might have been in colloquial use in the 1830s. But the context is about virgins being taken from one man and given to another as punishment for the man’s wickedness or a reward for his righteousness. The “virgins” are not agents, not making choices. Later verses promise that women who do assert their agency contrary to their husband are damned. It makes women chattel, and there’s really no way around it.

    There’s simply no honest reading of Section 132 that makes it other than deeply, profoundly, horribly sexist. And I think as a church (even including President Nelson), we simply do not accept any longer that God would treat his daughters that way. I think this is evidence that, as Apostle Orson Whitney said, “This great social upheaval, this woman’s movement that is making itself heard and felt . . . [is] one of the great levers by which the Almighty is lifting up this fallen world, lifting it nearer to the throne of its Creator.” Unfortunately, despite our progress, we haven’t figured out a good way to acknowledge that some things that remain in the canon do not accord with current belief or practice.

42. @Kristine. By “difficult questions” I’m implying in part the exact things you’re referring to. Polygamy / polyandry (Abrahamic test or core part of the Eternities?), temple sealings for widows (1-to-many vs. many-to-many?), priesthood authority and women (in and out of the temple), priesthood ordinances and women (in and out of the temple), the function of exalted woman (women?) in the Godhead, how exactly “a continuation of seeds” gets operationalized are all (in my mind) a ball of doctrinal questions that are so intertwined, it’s hard to even think about pulling on one thread without having to work through the entire jumbled ball. In my statement, I simply meant to suggest I can imagine a situation in which these weighty issues can get put off under the press of urgent demands on the apostles’ attention.

    I’m hopeful the JSPP will help with some of this unraveling, so we can understand context of some of these teachings and decisions further.

    I’m intrigued by the increasing use of the phrase “Heavenly Parents” in public sermons by church leaders. This phrase is embedded in the Proclamation, which appears to carry quasi-canon status as far as citations are concerned. So I expect it to endure.

    Conformant with the articles of faith, I believe God will yet reveal many great and important things. It’s possible these things are being discussed in senior council meetings. I honestly don’t know. I believe these questions will ultimately get sorted out, I just don’t know when. In the mean time, I trust the Lord will inspire President Nelson with ways to move this work forward. As President Oaks stated in the press conference, we’re not relying on our church leaders to be infallible. I trust the Lord can work with that as well.

    In saying this, I don’t mean to marginalize any of these issues. for any who may be hurt or even scared about all of this. In my own earnest pondering and praying over the issues, I have felt a strong spiritual confirmation that women indeed matter to God and that great, meaningful blessings are available to them in His plan regardless of historical or contemporaneous norms or repression. And for now, I just have to trust in that as I do my best to raise my family, perform my job and serve in the Church.

43. If 132 is used, all of it needs to be used. 132:41 “And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.”
    In other words, if an already married woman is with another man and HAS been “appointed” she has NOT committed adultery. JS was engaging in polyandry so we should expect to find it in 132. We need to stop reading past this. There is no better way to get 132 set aside.

44. 63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

    This jumps out to me “and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds.” It is common to connect men’s exaltation with their progeny obtained through invisible women. How often has the exaltation been directed toward women? This does not seem to be talking to men or making women the agents of men’s exaltation that I expect to hear.In other words, it is her increase that is the topic rather than the mechanics of birth…just as it was for men. Aside from the “given to,” this seems to be between women and God. Putting aside, the insults of polygamy, am I reading this wrong?

45. Aaron,

    You miss my point. Questions affecting the salvation of women are at least as urgent as other “demands on the apostles’ attention.” They don’t _seem_ urgent because everyone who is deciding what is important is male.

    And if they can’t prep for a softball version of the most predictable question at a press conference, I really doubt they are spending a lot of time on it in quorum meetings. Their remarks yesterday suggest that they don’t have even the most basic sense of what the problems are, and that they think they already know everything there is to know about what women are for.

    Yes, polygamy is complicated. The question of female ordination is complicated. Questions about viviparous spirit birth are complicated (and honestly super weird and boring).

    It is _not_ complicated to learn how to treat women (like Peggy Fletcher Stack) as grown ups, to have regular meetings with the General Auxiliary presidents to get the insight and influence they claim to value, to let women speak for more than 10 minutes in two full days of speeches in General Conference, to speak of women as something other than daughters, wives, and mothers (imagine how offended President Nelson would be if no one ever mentioned that he was a surgeon, and just told him how sorry they were that his un-ideal circumstances did not allow him to stay home with his children!), to use and value the stories of women in the scriptures and church history, to quote women leaders as well as men in their talks—in short, to treat women as fully human and not merely as a bundle of biological functions that can sometimes do the background work of the kingdom. None of that requires extra effort or time or theological gymnastics; it would only take a tiny bit of willingness to learn and change.

46. Sorry, I forgot OR TO CITE PROVERBS 31 INSTEAD OF SECTION 132!!

47. Ardis, thank you.

    I have to say that my dear wife had an extraordinarily difficult time yesterday. She has long struggled with polygamy, and the way it continues to exist in the modern Church. She struggles that two of the current FP married women significantly younger than their first wives. And she struggled with the way that Peggy Fletcher Stack’s question was answered. She said, “the only thing I’ve learned today is that women in the church have no value and are completely replaceable. When they get old, just trade them in for a younger model, we’re only good for having children.”

    Once she learns the context of the verse being used to justify this mindset, it will be doubly hurtful.

48. JNR,

    “In other words, if an already married woman is with another man and HAS been “appointed” she has NOT committed adultery. JS was engaging in polyandry so we should expect to find it in 132. We need to stop reading past this. There is no better way to get 132 set aside.”

    I think you are right, and I also find it really interesting that (many) men find polyandry so much more offensive than polygyny—as though it’s worse to take another man’s property than to merely coerce/seduce an unattached woman. Deceiving George Harris is somehow worse than deceiving Emma?

    (Not saying you, or anyone, consciously thinks that—only that I can’t figure out a rational explanation for why polyandry is regarded as so much more disturbing.)

49. JNR: in regard to your #43 comment: I have always understood that phrase “and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds” to mean the exaltation of the man and the woman both; not just the man. As far as “invisible women” — do you think there are any invisible women in God’s eyes? I don’t. . . . now I’ll get back to my corner and continue silently observing.

50. Kristine has succinctly described the problem in a nutshell.

51. Kristine, polyandry is more disturbing, I think, because we measure virtue through the control of women not men, thus we see more rationalizations of polyandry as non-sexual. JS can remain of good character and have multiple partners as long as women were restricted to one man. It is a real head scratcher. But part of the problem is that women are always portrayed as dupes and are never described with a name and as having two husbands. They are always some man’s wife. JS was Sylvia’s second husband…not the other way round.

    Bruce, there is no male antecedent to apply “their” to in that blizzard of pronouns. To supply it out of thin air can only be done if one assumes it is about men. And it almost always is. But I don’t see it here. So we have a chapter that allows women to be exalted by their progeny just as men are, and a verse that allows them to chose another man to sire their progeny if they are married.

52. An outstanding post; thank you, Ardis.

53. Reading and learning here. Thanks, all.

54. This this this this this this this!!!!!

55. Great post, Ardis. I am so glad someone is shining light on this.

    Kristine, thank you.

56. In response to #38 Kristine: “..the twelve are busy performing the day-to-day ministering and administration of the church, such that they haven’t personally tried to go after finding answers to every difficult question out there”

    Figuring out the place of HALF of the children of God in eternity is part of ministering–it’s not a “difficult question” to be bracketed for a day with some spare time, like the precise location of the Lost Tribes. It’s not an academic question.

    ===

    My viewing of the press conference was sporadic. I heard the question from Peggy Fletcher Stack and some of the response. As I thought about it and the context that President Nelson has 9 daughters, I wondered if there is an opportunity for women under President Nelson’s leadership. (These thoughts were coming without hearing his other comment and before reading your very well written post.)

    I started thinking about the phrase from the temple about “further light and knowledge” and wondered what would happen in my life if I prayed for that in regards to being female and female in the church. What would happen if I prayed for that further light and knowledge to be given to church leaders? And what if I pray for the ability to recognize that knowledge when it comes?

    I want more. I want to believe I am worth more to my Heavenly Parents than just a body, or a vessel for the souls of men/children. I want to believe that I have worth even if those children that I bear and try to raise in the gospel exercise their agency and do not continue in the gospel (something I wrestle with already and neither are old enough to be baptized!).

    Every time I read President Nelson’s October 2015 talk “A Plea to my Sisters” I feel inspired and empowered (is that the right word?) I think there is so much more that could be available to us! I think as women we do have power that is not tied to our relationships to husbands or children.

    I’ve been feeling a tug to study divine nature. So I thought I would start with the Young Women Personal Progress page about divine nature. I wish I hadn’t. (And I suppose I should have known better.) It proof-texts verses that I don’t think apply to who we are as children of God.

    I guess I’ll seek for more on my own.

57. Kristine, At least in the context of Joseph Smith, I think polyandry causes a different reaction for a couple reasons. Most members have heard of polygamy at some point, and are familiar with reasons for it happening. Not so with polyandry. Polygamy is usually explained in terms of children and families, but when women are already married that reason no longer makes any sense(although it’s usually framed in terms of exaltation, which I think makes sense with many of Joseph’s wives). As for a lack of understanding when it’s Emma, I think many details there are conveniently left out of church manuals and lessons. When she is brought in it’s a token acknowledgement that she “disagreed” with Joseph on the matter, I don’t think I’ve heard a church lesson mention that many of those marriages probably happened behind her back, or her agreement was given under extreme pressure. Anyhow, polygamy is a sensitive topic, I’d say we’re just more used to discussing the case when it’s a second wife, rather than a second husband. And out of all the questions here, this is the only I feel qualified to even speculate on.

58. Yes, this great. Also possibly Esther 4 where her brother says “Look, the Lord will save our people one way or another. But maybe you were put in your position (as Queen) to make a difference here.”

59. Thank you Ardis

60. I think a good scripture verse that highlights the importance of both the work of women and men is found in the Pearl of Great Price, Moses 6:59 – “That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory.”
    Although the first part of the verse may be interpreted as negative, if one truly understands the importance of the Fall in relation to the Plan of Salvation, it can be viewed as essential, rather than negative. However, the point I want to focus on at this time is found in the later part of the verse, where it discusses our two births – the first when we “were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit” to become living souls, and the second birth when we as living souls choose to “be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten.”

    No man is better or worse for having baptized more or less people; likewise, no woman is better or worse for having birthed more or less people. However, each has the opportunity to hold the keys for one of the two births, which, even if not employed or unavailable to them in this life, will be used in harmony with her or his spouse in the next life in an even grander, more eternal way. One of the main goals of mortality (that functions alongside the goal of providing to God’s children their first and second births) is to HELP those living souls after their first birth and after their second birth so that they may “enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory.” Both genders have a charge to help after each birth – as teachers, parents, relatives, friends, mentor figures, and in many other roles – which means, going back to President Nelson’s statement, that BOTH women and men “glorify God” through their participation in this glorious work.

61. This post about scripture reminds me of what Harold Bloom said about poetry:

    ” A strong poem, which alone can become canonical for more than a single generation, can be defined as a text that must engender strong misreadings, both as other poems and as literary criticism. Texts that have single, reductive, simplistic meanings are themselves already necessarily weak misreadings of anterior texts. When a strong misreading has demonstrated its fecundity by producing other strong misreadings across several generations, we can and must accept its canonical status.”

62. We could accept something’s canonical status, but should we? One of the most important themes of the Restoration is that it is through the asking of questions that we receive revelation. Knowledge comes when it is being sought.

63. Wow, this is how posts and comments should work, right? What an interesting, informative, civil thread. Thanks, Ardis, for starting this.

64. Teaching the D&C in SS last year, the realization that revelation is a response to questioning really struck me and I tried to emphasize it by asking people to identify the question(s) at the root of various sections/doctrines.

    Leadership seems to have been so fearful of fostering doubt that seeking deep revelation to significant doctrinal questions has been quashed both for us personally and as a church as a whole.

    The early church was messy. I would love to have some of that messiness and ambivalence back.

65. Thank you for this important post, Ardis.

    Here is one question I have: I am actually not so sure that when verse 63 says women are given to men “that they may bear the souls of men” it is not literally referring to male souls, not both male and female souls. After all, looking at the context, everything else in that verse is gendered, so why would we assume that the language suddenly shifts to talking about “mankind” instead of simply “men” at that point? The verse has already been very specific about gender up until then: Men, but not women, are welcome to have multiple spouses; Women, but not men, will be destroyed for having sex with someone besides their original spouse; Women are “given” to men like property, but not vice versa; the purpose of women, but not men, is to bear children–none of this is gender neutral.

    And given these teachings, it seems to follow that women glorify God by producing more males, while daughters are only useful in that they might someday be given to a man as property and give birth to males as well.

    Of course, this is bleak and terrible and (I hope) untrue doctrine, but it raises the question of why we believe and quote and study one bit of this scripture (and even that bit is modified, as Nelson adjusted it in his quote to say that women glorify God by giving birth to sons and daughters) but ignore the rest.

    I think we ignore it because we really don’t believe in that awful version of the plan of salvation–which raises questions about we we maintain D&C 132 as scripture, instead of reexamining its place in our cannon.

66. April, if this post means anything, it is that context matters — and that isn’t limited to the few words surrounding a quoted text. The phrase “souls of men” appears in the Doctrine and Covenants in only this one place, but it appears in several places in the Book of Mormon: 1 Nephi 14:3, where the devil drags the “souls of men” down to hell; Alma 40:9, where the “souls of men” await the resurrection; Ether 12:4, where faith and hope are an anchor to the “souls of men,” and perhaps others. The language is gendered, but I see no reason, other than angst, to force gendered language into a gendered object when “men” so often means “mankind.”

    In the scriptures, women are vastly more often invisible (hidden in gendered language, as one example) or ignored than made to appear as you’re reading this. Is there anything in your experience that suggests Mormonism teaches that women don’t have souls? Or that men’s obliviousness to women’s contributions is a positive doctrinal statement that women in fact have no purpose beyond breeding? Reading something into a few lines of scripture that is not supported by teaching or practice can only lead to unnecessary pain.

    We retain Section 132 in our scriptures because it does teach about eternal marriage, and we get that nowhere else. Our scriptures contain many superseded chapters — laws of animal sacrifice, counsel on how to treat slaves (or how to be a proper slave to a master) among them. Section 132 isn’t going anywhere, but Latter-day Saints could stand to avoid prooftexting by citing verse 63 out of context, surely!

    I haven’t responded to comments through the thread but have read and appreciated them the discussion. A very few comments have not been posted because newcomers are not aware of Keepa’s commenting norms: Keepa is a place for believing Latter-day Saints, or those who may not believe but are willing to respect our beliefs for the sake of civil conversation. Listing all the imaginary reasons why Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet, or making crude remarks about women’s bodies, or issuing invitations (or commands!) to Mormons to leave the Church, are well outside Keepa’s commenting norms and will never be posted where they are visible to anyone but me.

67. Our scriptures contain many superseded chapters — laws of animal sacrifice, counsel on how to treat slaves (or how to be a proper slave to a master) among them. Section 132 isn’t going anywhere, but Latter-day Saints could stand to avoid prooftexting by citing verse 63 out of context, surely!

    Thanks for this! A wonderfully helpful comment.

Comments are closed.