Please consider supporting this podcast:

132 includes many troubling threats of destruction toward women. We’ll look at the purpose and tone of these threats and compare them to the rest of scripture and what we know of the nature of God.

Links

(From last week) Lot’s Wife Guest Post
Lot’s Wife Sunstone Presentation (Session 162. Scroll down and click the play button below Session 162)
William Clayton Journal

Scriptures:
D&C 132: 41, 52, 54, 63, 64
Isaiah 43:15, 40:28, 2 Nephi 9:5, Helaman 14: 12, Mosiah 3:8
Genesis 6:7, 13, 17 (Moses 8:26, 30)
2 Nephi 23:22 (Isaiah 13,) 3 Nephi 21:14 (Micah 5,) Alma 37:25 (1 Cor. 4:5)
John 8: 3-11

Summary

In this episode, Michelle Stone explores the “darkest sections” of Doctrine & Covenants 132, focusing on threats of destruction, particularly those directed at Emma Smith and other women who resisted polygamy. She critically examines the historical context of the revelation, its inconsistencies, and how its coercive language contradicts the nature of God as portrayed in other scriptures.

Key Themes:

  1. Questioning the Origin of Doctrine & Covenants 132
    • Stone analyzes William Clayton’s 1874 account, which describes how Joseph Smith dictated the revelation from memory, allegedly received years earlier.
    • She argues that the content of the revelation contradicts this claim, as certain verses directly address Emma Smith’s struggles at that time, making it unlikely that the revelation was truly years old.
    • Stone raises serious doubts about whether D&C 132 was divinely inspired or simply a product of Joseph’s own justifications for polygamy.
  2. Examining the “Threats of Destruction” in D&C 132
    • Several verses in D&C 132 threaten destruction for women who do not comply with polygamy:
      • If a wife is with another man, she will be destroyed (v. 41).
      • If she falsely claims to be virtuous, she will be destroyed (v. 52).
      • If Emma Smith refuses to accept polygamy, she will be destroyed (v. 54).
      • Women who do not submit to their husband’s priesthood authority will be destroyed (v. 64).
    • Stone highlights how these verses create a system of control, specifically designed to coerce women into polygamy.
  3. Contradictions with the Nature of God
    • Stone argues that God is the Creator, not the Destroyer, citing numerous scriptures from the Bible and Book of Mormon that portray God as a loving, merciful being.
    • She contrasts D&C 132’s destruction threats with other scriptural examples, where destruction is usually tied to nations or groups rather than individual women for resisting polygamy.
    • The story of Lot’s Wife is analyzed, with Stone challenging traditional LDS interpretations that view her as an example of divine punishment.
  4. Jesus vs. Doctrine & Covenants 132: The Adulterous Woman
    • Stone compares D&C 132’s threats against women to Jesus’ treatment of the woman caught in adultery (John 8).
    • While D&C 132 commands destruction, Jesus shows mercy, refuses to condemn, and extends grace.
    • This stark contrast leads Stone to conclude that the threats in D&C 132 could not have come from the same God who spoke through Jesus Christ.
  5. Final Reflections: Rejecting Fear-Based Theology
    • Stone calls for re-examining harmful doctrines that have been used to control and manipulate women.
    • She encourages listeners to separate institutional claims from personal faith in God, focusing on love, compassion, and truth-seeking.
    • She emphasizes the importance of critical thinking when evaluating LDS scripture and history.

Transcript

[00:00:00] Welcome to 132 Problems revisiting Mormon Polygamy, where we explore the scriptural and theological case for plural marriage. Please remember if you feel so inclined to listen to each of these episodes ideally in order, they’re meant to build on one another, and they all address different topics that I think are important. Um, my name is Michelle Stone, and this is episode 18, the second of two parts looking at the darkest sections of 132. In episode 16, we discussed women as property, and today we’ll discuss the threats of destruction. Thank you for joining us as we take a deep dive into the murky waters of Mormon polygamy. As we get started, since we’re going to be talking about verses in this section that refer directly to Emma, I want to just take a second and talk about another problem of 132 that we haven’t yet discussed. This is again referring to the um The understanding we have of how 132 came to be, um, from William Clayton’s account that was given decades later. Again, William Clayton was the scribe who wrote um the prophecy as Joseph dictated it according to his own account. So I just want to talk about it. Couple of things. Um, the story is that Hiram wanted Joseph to write the revelation so he could take it to Emma to convince her because according to Clayton’s account, he said, it’s such a plain and beautiful doctrine that surely she can understand it if I can just read her the revelation. So I’m reading now from William Clayton’s, oh, it was in 1878. Yeah, 1874. So this is William Clayton’s 1874 account. Um, and which is where our church narrative comes from. I will link it in the notes as well. Hiram very urgently requested Joseph to write the revelation by means of the Urim and Thummim, but Joseph in reply said he did not need to, for he knew the revelation perfectly from beginning to end. OK, so the clear implication from this is that he had received this revelation long ago. And had either thought over it so many times or had heard it repeated so many times that he had it perfectly memorized. So, um, Joseph then went on to recite the memorized revelation, as we’re supposed to understand, sentence by sentence, as Clayton wrote it, again quoting Clayton, after the whole was written, Joseph asked me to read it through slowly and carefully, which I did, and he pronounced it correct. OK, so this is in keeping with the church narrative that the revelation had been received as as early as 1831. Again, that’s another, I have a lot of problems with those claims, but we’ll discuss those in another later episode. So, um, according to the official story, Joseph was reciting a perfectly memorized revelation from 12 years earlier, around 12 years earlier, we don’t know that date for sure. Um, he was not receiving new revelation, so. This is bizarre that this is what we’re supposed to believe. It seems to me because There were obviously, OK, the parts of the revelation that are dealing with Emma have would make no sense 12 years earlier. They are dealing with problems that Joseph and Emma are struggling through right now in their relationship, and so it It wouldn’t possibly be that Joseph was reciting things from a revelation 12 years earlier that are addressing Emma directly regarding struggles that they’re having right now. So that doesn’t make any sense at all. Let’s see what what I wrote about this.

[00:03:43] I lost my place. Um. OK, yep, but Joseph, according to this story, Joseph made it very clear that he was reciting an old revelation, not receiving a new one, which is why he said he didn’t need the Yerman thumb. He had it memorized, he didn’t need new revelation. So, Um, and then according to Clayton’s account, after his after his recitation and his approval when Clayton read it back, he then remarked that this is quoting, he then remarked that there was much more that he could write on the same subject, but what was written was sufficient for the present. So again, how could this be a memorized revelation? Joseph said that there was much more he could write on the same subject, making it clear that Joseph Smith, or, you know, if William Clayton’s account is correct, that Joseph Smith or if his account is not correct, then somebody else, whoever was the author of it, whoever wrote it, was the author of 132, not God. Joseph didn’t say there is more that God will reveal at a future time, or I have received more but am forbidden from speaking at the present or anything implying that God was involved in any way. His own words and our own account and narrative make it very clear that Joseph was the one speaking, expounding on this, according to Clayton’s account. Again, you know, people disagree on that. So I’m leaving room for everyone’s own opinion. Um, so even if William Clayton’s count is true and this was from Joseph Smith. It was from, at best, Joseph Smith, not God, because of those really like, I don’t see a way to overcome those problems. Joseph claimed this was, he was reciting a memorized revelation from many years earlier, but then it addressed things that he was dealing with right then, and then after saying it was correct, he said there’s much more I could expound on this if I felt so inclined, but that will do for now. So, so this revelation is not coming directly from God in any case. Um, either Joseph was receiving new revelation, which he made it clear that he wasn’t and didn’t need to. Or anyway, so I hope that that’s clear. You guys can make of that what you with what you will. I think that is a very big and substantial problem that leaves us enough clues to very clearly see that God is not the author of whatever, whatever, um, whoever was the author of that, it wasn’t God. So, OK, now on to the threats of destruction. So first I’ll read them. Um, I think there are something like 7 specific threats of destruction that I’m going to include in this episode. So I’ll start with verse 41. And as you 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. So that’s the first one. And in all of these, there are also some The language is very,

[00:06:47] we can say confusing, although God is not the author of confusion. It’s very confusing, we’ll get into that later cause there are lots of problems embedded in each of these verses that aren’t just the threats of destruction that we’re talking about today. OK, next is verse 52, and let my handmaid Emma Smith receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me, and those that are not pure and have said they were pure shall be destroyed, sayeth the Lord God. OK, then 54, but if she will not abide this commandment, she shall be destroyed, sayeth the Lord, for I am the Lord thy God, and I will destroy her if she abide not my law. 63, but if one or the other of or but if one or either of the 10 virgins after she is espoused shall be with another man, she has committed adultery and shall be destroyed. And then 64 and again verily verily I say unto you, if any man have a wife who holds the keys of this power and he teaches her how the law of teaches her the law of my priesthood as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, sayeth the Lord your God, for I will destroy her. OK, so. These are problematic and even hearing the word administer unto him after knowing how Warren Jeffs interpreted and used that word, it’s just all so sad, so problematic and so sad, so. The threats of destruction, I don’t know if you were keeping track, but if a woman is with another man, she’ll be destroyed. If she lies about, if she’s not a virgin and claims to be, she will be destroyed. If she doesn’t accept polygamy, she will be destroyed. If she’s mad at her husband about polygamy, she’ll be destroyed, you know, it goes on, so. There’s quite a bit there that I think when I read 132, again, they’re bad right here, but reading them in context is somehow even worse. So I hope that we all are on the same page that these verses are deeply troubling. And, um, so my goal today is to compare them again to the rest of scripture and to what we know of the nature of God so that we can see how they fit in, or if they don’t. So I think that, you know, I will say from the very beginning that these are very strange and unusual. I have done my best to search the scriptures and think through them. And I have not found anything that compares. First of all, I have found nowhere else in scripture where God threatens to to destroy women or a woman. Um, if any, if I’ve missed something which is totally possible, um, please, please comment if you have. Examples that I’ve missed. I, I again, I will refer at the end of this episode to Lot’s wife. I hope that you were able to either read the paper or listen to the presentation on Lot’s wife, just cause I think that that’s an important story. We’ll we’ll address it at the end. Lot’s wife wasn’t necessarily threatened with destruction, but according to the traditional interpretation, she was actually destroyed. By God, so that’s something that I think applies, and I’ll go into it a little bit later. So anyway,

[00:09:59] but, but as far as making a threat of destruction against a woman in order to control her, or even any threat of destruction against women at all, I can’t, I can’t find them. So, so we’re gonna go there are other threats of destruction in the scriptures, particularly in the Old Testament. So we are going to cover those. I will confess, I don’t love them. I, I, I struggle with the threats of destruction. I, I find them difficult, strange. Um, they’re often vague and they’re hard to know how to interpret. So I think, um, I think it’s good that we address these things with some level of open-mindedness and a willingness to struggle, rather than just Just see things as black and white, either, well, this is from God, so it must all be good, or, well, this is from God, so God must be bad, right? I, I think that it’s, I think that we can do better than that. I believe. That’s what I am, I am hoping for anyway. So one reason I don’t like the threats of destruction is that God is the creator, not the destroyer. If you think of or search, search the scriptures for the word destroyer, it is not referring to God. It’s quite the opposite, right? If you think of the destroyer, um, what, what do you think of? Do you think of God? And if you search the scriptures or think of the word the Creator, it is always referring to God. Here are just a few examples. Um, Isaiah 43:15. I am the Lord, your holy one, the Creator of Israel, your King, Isaiah 40:28. Hast thou known? Hast thou not known, Hast thou not heard that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary. There is no searching of his understanding. There are, there are so many. It’s all throughout scripture. I’ll read just a few from the Book of Mormon, um, 2 Nephi 9:5, for it behooveth the great Creator that he suffereth himself to become subject unto man in the Flesh and die for all men, that all men might become subject unto him. The great Creator, right? Heli in 14:12, and also that you might know of the coming of Christ, the Son of God, the coming of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and of earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning, last one Mosiah 3:8, and he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning, and his mother shall be called Mary. So. Again, I mean, and there are,

[00:12:25] there are hundreds of these references to the Creator, and it’s always God and when you think about it, the um I think, oh, am I messing something up? The work of creation is infinitely more involved and demanding than the work of destruction. Just in the world around us and throughout history, it’s so easy to see mobs, they can pull down statues, tear apart buildings. They can wreck a city, criticize and destroy a system of government, government, and Even like destroy a a functioning society, and they can kill people, but could they ever do the opposite of any of these? Can these destructive forces, these mobs, organize the united vision, effort, talent, and resources, etc. to build? Anything could they replace the statue that they tore down? Could they fix the building they destroyed? Could they create the life that they destroyed, right? Or could they create a functioning society with all of its difficulties and I, I think, I think that It’s easy to see why God is the creator, not the destroyer. Destruction is almost always motivated by hate, at the very least, anger, right? Creation by its nature has to be motivated by love, and along with love, like vision, inspiration and hope and faith that that vision can be accomplished. Creation is so godly and destruction is so the opposite. So it’s interesting to think of God threatening to destroy it’s, and, and I know maybe, maybe I’m overcomplicating this in some way, but it is part of why it’s difficult for, for me. So I wanted to share some of my struggles and the things that I think through, so that, you know, hopefully you can understand why I think it’s important to be sort of. Circumspect very careful before attributing destruction to God or assuming that that should be just fine or easy, you know, I think it’s good to struggle with these things. So I also think one other thing I want to say, it is better for us to think of God as the creator than as the destroyer. We want to emulate God and we want to worship God. And when we think of God as the Creator, that calls us to be creators, right? To be motivated by love and inspiration and faith and hope. If we think of God as the destroyer, then that justifies us in acting as destroyers, and acting out of our rage or hate or anger. And I think we’ve seen that happen sometimes with people of faith and the faith gets crooked and they You know, follow God as the destroyer, and I think that that’s something that we need to really think about. So, so, OK, so we’re gonna talk about Um, these cases of God as the destroyer,

[00:15:26] and I want to share some of my insights that I hope are at least interesting if not helpful to some of you. So the most obvious example is Noah and the flood of God threatening destruction and being the destroyer, right? So Genesis 6:7, and the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from off the face of the earth, both man and beast and the creeping thing and the owls of the air, for, for it repenteth me that I have made them. And God said unto Noah, this is skipping to 13, and God said unto Noah, the end of all flesh has come before me, for the earth is filled with violence through them, and behold, I will destroy them with the earth. I’m just reading the threats of destruction. Next is 17, and behold, I, even I do bring a flood upon flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life from under heaven. And everything that is in the earth shall die. So these things are um repeated in the Pearl of Great Price and Moses 8:26, and 30. So those are the threats of destruction regarding the flood, which is probably the, I mean, that’s the main thing I think of as God with God as the destroyer. So if you’ve just studied the or the Origination of the Bible, as I have tried to do, there’s a great um course by a Yale professor talking about the history of the Bible. We’ve learned a lot about just doing research and trying to understand how the Bible was compiled and where it may may have come from, and it’s really fascinating. And um I think it’s a good to question how literally we should take these stories, right? That because there are a lot of people who believe they shouldn’t be taken literally at all. There are a lot of people who just through faith think that they’re completely literal. For me, that’s not necessarily that important. For me, these stories were handed down and so they’re important, whether they’re literal or not. But I think we can approach them. In the idea of wrestling with them to try to understand what we are supposed to learn from them. Why have they been passed down, right? So I don’t necessarily know the the answers to those questions. Um, but I did have an insight yesterday about the about the flood that I wanted to share cause I, I’m a little bit, I’m a little embarrassed sharing it because it might sound silly, but to me it was actually beautiful and profound. So I’m going to share. I, OK, so this year is my first year. Going gung ho, trying to learn to garden. I’ve got my permaculture all set up. I’m trying so hard and praying that, you know, something, something works that I that I I’m able to grow some food for my family. It’s an immense amount of work and it is this, it’s this act of creation founded in love and hope and faith. I have a hope that something will work, but I’m also so scared of everything going wrong, right? And it’s actually Kind of hard to put that much effort into something, not knowing if you’re gonna get anything. And, um, I, I was talking to some friends who were all kind of on this path together,

[00:18:26] and one of my friends was talking about failing, you know, and gardening is failing, farming is failing. You just keep failing. And she lamented that she had a 10 year old fig tree that she loved and she thinks that she killed her fig tree this year and she was so sad. And it just kind of occurred to me in that moment because I have been wrestling and grappling with the story of destruction and. For me, I just was like. Oh, I get it. I, I love when you get an insight that takes a story you’re struggling with and a scripture that you’re struggling with and turns it into something you can be so thankful for. Cause all of a sudden, I just saw this story in a new way where God is empathizing with us and giving us permission to fail. Let me see if I can explain that a little bit better. The amount of effort, the investment of love and resources and time and vision that God put into the creation of the earth and the creation of mankind, right? And then he felt like a complete failure. The whole earth was filled with violence and, you know, and, and I know that there are different explanations of the flood like. Maybe um the world was so bad that it actually reduced suffering to just destroy it and, you know, and, and, and I just had a friend tell me this morning that um you know, it wasn’t fair to send babies to that world when it was so wicked and Those explanations I think can help us work through it, but I, you know, then why is it ever fair to send a baby to bad circumstances in the earth when lots of babies are sent to really bad circumstances and And you know, it’s pretty hard to make the decision that someone’s life isn’t worth living. I think that that’s hopefully an idea that we have gone away from. We don’t any longer preach eugenics, right? So, and, and, you know, I, I think that’s an idea that’s been used to promote abortion and, and just things that I think. I anyway, I think ideas are interesting and can be dangerous, so we should think about them a lot. So, so I have struggled with these ideas of how to understand the flood. But for me to see God having put that much effort in and then to feel like he failed and he had to completely start over and all of his work and all of his effort. I, I know maybe I’m Do approaching this in a really different way, but it made me feel it was like wow, wow, OK, God completely failed, but he tried again. He kept going and, and you know, the the the earth flourished again and, and no matter how badly I fail. I can’t fail as badly as God did. Does that makes sense. I can’t possibly, like, even if I let my fig tree die, I can’t possibly kill all the fig trees in the, in the world, let alone all of life in the world. There will be another fig tree and I can plant another fig tree, right?

[00:21:28] I can always start again and try again. So for me, that story actually made me feel again, like God was loving me and saying, hey, you know what? Go ahead and try cause it’s OK if you fail, you can try again. And even I did that as God, even, even I, God, tried and felt like I failed and had to try again. So anyway, there’s a new insight into the story of Noah’s ark for all of us, struggling humans trying so hard not to fail and trying to have the faith and the hope and the love and to stay motivated to keep trying, whatever it is that we’re doing. So that was one insight that was really useful to me and took this story out of the category of, I don’t like that. I don’t get it into the category of I love God, you know. So if that’s useful to you, there it is. Um, and so anyway, there’s, there’s one take on that story, but I do want to point out why even that story, the destruction threatened in the flood. Does not in any way compare to the threats of destruction in 132. 1st of all, the flood was worldwide, right? It was against all, all humankind, all life. It wasn’t threatening individual people. It also wasn’t even threatening them. It was God just going, OK, this is what I’m going to do. God wasn’t using the threat of destruction to try to control and manipulate people to do things that went against their morality, right? That went against their, not only their best interest, but even their sense of right and wrong. And, um, that felt like a betrayal to them. So it’s very different, even though we have This case of, you know, in the Old Testament of God who threatens and carries out destruction, you can’t use that to extrapolate out that therefore the threats of destruction in 132 could also, you know, be valid cause they are just completely different. There’s no parallel at all. Um, and so let’s see if I left anything out. Um, oh, also in Noah in in the flood, God makes his case, makes it clear why he feels this is necessary. The entire earth is filled with violence. It was irredeemable is what. The story tells us. And, um, you know, so there is this like this understanding, kind of the, the, um, parable of the vineyard, right? And what more could I do for my vineyard before I burn it to the ground. Like God tries and tries and tries and tries and finally it’s like it’s, it’s hopeless.

[00:24:00] I have to start again. God makes that case and so that can’t at all compare that. Like that can’t help us understand 132, how, um, let’s see what what are the uh women not being virgins and claiming they are, therefore they will be destroyed, or um somebody, a woman committing adultery, therefore she will be destroyed, or a woman not accepting polygamy when her husband presents it to her, she will be destroyed. There’s just not any comparison whatsoever. So, OK, so that’s the first story of destruction. Then there’s sort of a category of destruction in the Old Testament. This is actually the one that I find the most troubling, this category. It’s the aggressive wars and slaughters and genocides committed by the Israelites. And in these cases, God isn’t the one threatening destruction or carrying out destruction, but Those who are threatening and carrying out destruction are doing it in the name of God. So again, I think that these scriptures should make us struggle, right? And, um, I have my thoughts on them, you know, I, I, I’m sure I need to study them out and think about them more, but I’ll share just my thoughts at this time where they are. I think that As I’ve been thinking about and studying the Old Testament, um, an idea has emerged that I’m, that I’m kind of thinking has some value, that there seems to be an Old Testament morality, right? And the Old Testament morality that I think is undeveloped, underdeveloped, immature, like not a good morality that we should settle on is sort of this idea of we’re good, we’re the good group, so whatever we do is good. And they’re not us, so whatever we do to them is justified. That makes sense. It’s about who you are rather than what you do. So a more advanced morality is an idea of universal morality that this action is bad. So whether I do it or whether you do it, it’s bad. We’re held to the same standard and, you know, and like the whole foundation of of America and this beautiful idea that did stem out of Christianity that each soul has worth. So no matter where you were born or what your economic status or your um Um, your culture you were born into, what, no matter what your, the circumstances of your birth are, your life is as much is is is is has as much value as my life, and I need to see you the same way I see myself, right? I think that that is a better morality, and I think that the Old Testament can possibly teach us that this old immature morality is not what we should accept. I think unfortunately, We see that this morality is still alive and well in our world today. Like,

[00:27:03] I mean, how long have we heard the different political parties complain about something that the other side does when they’re in power, but then as soon as they they are in power, they turn around and do exactly the same thing, right? And even just so many issues in our world today where people claim one thing and then You, you know, like, here I’ll just use one example. I don’t want to alienate anyone in different perspectives, but hopefully you can at least see what I mean. I, um, you know, I spend a lot of time in communities of LGBT people, not, not as much, well, I have, I have children who are gay, who are magnificent people who I adore, so I do spend quite a bit of time. Um, talking to other parents and in those communities, and it’s really interesting how, you know, there are some things that I disagree with in certain communities. I’m also, my, my daughters are athletes, they were college athletes. I’m a woman, I’m an athlete, and I struggle with some of the claims made. In the LGBT community specifically regarding the trans movement, I am absolutely about loving, accepting, embracing everyone, but I’m also about protecting women, and I think that those things are at odds. Anyway, too much information. I’m sorry. The thing that I have found interesting is how on the one hand. People claim to be about love and acceptance and tolerance, but the second I say something that some of them disagree with, the way that, and, and this is not universal, there are beautiful people everywhere, right? But the absolute hatred and intolerance that I am treated with amazes me. So that’s another case of we’re right, we have the right ideas, and if you’re one of us, right, but if you’re not, then we don’t have to follow any of our own rules. The same thing sadly can happen in the church where, you know, we can be so filled with love and so, but the second someone says something. That challenges any of our paradigms or beliefs, boy, the claws can come out and a different side can be seen, at least, you know, and and so I think it’s good for all of us to remember that kindness is universal, right? Even if someone is saying something that we disagree with and we can engage with ideas. Anyway, sorry, I’m just going off a little bit too much. Just these are things that are important to me and seeing that the Old Testament is kind of like whatever the children of Israel did was good, and God wanted them to do it. They were moral. They were acting on his behalf and seeing that so present in our world today is really interesting to me. So that’s one of the lessons that I’m taking from the Old Testament is to make sure that I’m not acting in ways that are Hypocritical and have a different standard for me and my group than for others

[00:29:49] just because I disagree with them or I think they’re wrong and I can label them or. Whatever it is. Anyway, I spent more time on that than I meant to. But, um, these, these stories, I’m not gonna go into a lot, the all of the genocides and threats and destructions that the children of Israel carried out. The only thing I want to say is that I do think that one other lesson we can learn from that is, to me, this is part of the definition of taking the Lord’s name in vain. When we say or do things. That gratify our own desires that benefit ourselves, and we claim that we are speaking or acting in the name of God. I think we are taking the name of God in vain, and I think that that is a very dangerous thing because it alienates people from God, right? If that’s God, God is terrible. And, and so I, my opinion is I think that that was part of what was happening in the Old Testament. Um, and so I, I think, I mean, you know, we either have to believe that God is this bloodthirsty, vengeful, cruel. Entity or we have to approach it a different way and think that something else is going on here. So I’m still struggling with those, but in any case, I’m not going over them right now. They will be addressed in some future episodes. I’m not going over them right now because the threats of destruction. And the action of destruction doesn’t come directly from God. It comes from people claiming to be acting in the name of God. So, OK, sorry for that sidetrack. And I hope I didn’t offend everybody. I would love to hear your thoughts, always argue back. I always I’m up for a good discussion. So, OK, there are a few other threats. Of God’s destruction in the scripture, the vast majority of them are in the Old Testament, and they are actually almost all kind of cryptic and distant prophecies of destructions of the of entire peoples or nations, um, mainly in books like Isaiah and Jeremiah, so that are kind of end times. Prophecies of destruction, right? So again, those are very, very different from the direct and present threats made against Emma and other women in section 132. So, um, I’ll quote, let’s see, I’ll, I’ll quote a couple of these cause a few of them are repeated in the Book of Mormon. So, um, there are only 3 times in the Book of Mormon that God says, I will destroy. That’s a good search. If you put that in parentheses and search that on LDS.org, search the scriptures, you can see God’s threats of destruction. So there are only 3 of those in the Book of Mormon, and 2 are quoting the Old Testament. So the first is 2 Nephi 23:22, which is quoting Isaiah 13, and the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses and dragons in their pleasant places, and her time is near to come and her day shall not be prolonged, for I will destroy her speedily. Yeah, for it, I will,

[00:32:37] for I will be merciful unto my people, but the Wicked shall perish. So there’s one of those. So, you know, you can hear how very different it is. When, when God there says, I will destroy her speedily. He’s not talking about a woman. He’s referring to a nation as as the female, most likely Babylon, right? And then 35 21 14, which is resting and expanding Mica 5. Yeah, woe be unto the Gentiles except they repent, for it shall come to pass. Say it shall come to pass in that day, sayeth the Father, that I will cut off thy house horses out of thy out of the midst of thee, and I will destroy thy chariots. Sorry for stumbling so much. Um, please note in this thread of Destruction. This is talking to us. We are the Gentiles in the Book of Mormon. I think that’s such a critical thing for each of us to become aware of, that the Book of Mormon refers to us as the Gentiles, and it’s us that needs to give heed to these prophecies. But again, you can hear how very different that is from section 132. And then the last one, Alma 37. 25 is also a warning to us, the Gentiles, and this is repeating and expanding 1 Corinthians 4:5. I will bring forth out of darkness and to light all their secret works and their abominations. And except they repent, I will destroy them from off the face of the earth. And I will bring to light all their secrets and their, and abominations and to every nation that shall hereafter possess the land. I actually really like this scripture because I see this as Referring directly to the things that we see happening now with governments and churches, including our church, every institution, with the internet and the revelations, the secrets and deceptions and cover-ups that have That are just continuing to be uncovered and revealed that I see that as fulfillment of this scripture. And, um, and so I think it’s actually, uh, uh, something that we should give heed to. This, um, scripture, again, is very different than 132, but it does give us a warning that when we see these things start happening, we need to repair. And I think that it’s important because it tells us what our response should be to new information being made available to us. And in short, our response needs to be to repent. In other words, to have a desire and a willingness to recognize truth instead of an insistence on defending error, right? I think Second Nephi 28 and 29 are just, uh, they’re some of my favorite scriptures. I keep saying that. I have a lot of favorites, but they are some of my favorites that talk to us directly right now in our lives about our times. And I think it’s human nature in general that what we already know we are going to defend, right, rather than being open to learning more. Jesus said that in his day, you have Moses and Abraham,

[00:35:30] but if God sends a new prophet, oh, watch out, right? It’s what we already know that we that that is our sandy foundation and we will tremble lest we shall fall. And so, um, so instead, that’s what it’s warning us of when we see new information come out, we have to be willing to consider the new information and shake off the false ideas that it reveals to us, um, even the ones we’ve been taught from birth. So I think it is important. We need to be willing to do the hard work of discerning what is true, even when it causes. The discomfort of cognitive dissonance, right? I think that God has called us into this struggle, and it’s useful and important for us. I’m actually going to address these things more in the next episode. So I guess that was just a little preview. So, anyway, OK. So those are the threats of destruction so far that we’ve covered. So I’m, my hope is that going through the other threats of destruction in the scriptures and can Comparing them to the threats in 132, kind of, you know, shows the contrast between them, the difference, shows how really unique and troubling the threats in 132 are. Um, if anyone, if I’ve left any out that you think are pertinent, please, please go ahead and tell me and I’ll correct in a later episode, or, you know, as always, I’d love to hear your thoughts. So, Um, but really these section, these threats in 132 are not at all comparable to the rest of scripture. Unlike all the other threats of destruction, the threats in 132 are not ancient prophecy prophets prophesying far future events for entire peoples intermingled with with promises of blessings and salvation like Isaiah and Jeremiah do. There are immediate threats against specific people filled with contradiction and hypocrisy used to control and manipulate women, specifically Emma, to go along with things they knew to their core to be wrong. I cannot find anything else like that in the scripture from God. Um, so. Let’s see the the the threats in in 132 were designed to give those in power permission to control and hurt those with less power in order to gratify their own desires, and that might seem harsh, but remember Orson Pratt’s. State in the special conference in 1852 where they revealed section 132, was it 1853, where they revealed section 132, he says, for we have got a fallen nature to grapple with, you know, this is, this is what God wants us to do. Uh, and if you don’t go along with it, God’s gonna destroy you. It’s really, really hard to take. So I think I will say this since this is giving. Men who are in power, right, the leaders of the church, permission to gratify their desires with the threat of destruction against less powerful women. I just have to say, if there is such thing as toxic masculinity,

[00:38:36] which I have 7 sons, that’s not an idea that I’m big on when I’m raising good boys, you know. But if there is such thing as it, these threats in 132 certainly qualify. This is what I would call toxic masculinity. It’s not good. It’s, it’s not good for these men in power to be threatening women with destruction in order to get their way in. This dark doctrine. So anyway, I think, again, I wanna compare, I’m sorry, I, I, I’m worried that maybe I was too strong there. I really don’t want to offend anybody. I try to be careful, so I guess I just feel really strongly about this, so. Anyway, I think the most important thing that I want to do is to compare. The threats in 132 with what we know of the nature of Jesus Christ. So thankfully, we have another scripture story that is perfectly designed to completely disprove 132 and show how very contradictory to the nature of God it really is. So, obviously, probably many of you have been thinking about this for a long time and wondering if or when I was going to get to it, but John 8. Talks about the woman taking in adultery, right? And so I’m going to go ahead and read it starting at verse 3, and the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery in the very act. Now Moses and the law commanded us that she should be stoned. But what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down. And with his finger rode on the ground as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself and said unto them, He that it is without sin among you. Let him cast the first stone at her. And again he stooped down and rode on the ground, and they, which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last, and Jesus was left alone and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted himself up and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee? She said, No, man, Lord, and Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee. Go and sin no more. OK, Sorry, I really love this story. Both similarities and the differences between this story and 132, I find amazing. So in both stories, the men in power, the church leaders are filled with hypocrisy. In section 132, where are the threats of destruction against the male adulterers, right? Men not only won’t be punished for adultery, but are allowed to take as many wives as, you know, as they can get and and that’s righteous, but a woman will be destroyed, right? I mean,

[00:41:44] it’s just so hypocritical. So and in the story in John or in in the story with the story of the adulterous woman. Where was her lover? If she was caught in the very act, why was only she dragged before the savior? Where was the man that she was committing adultery with and were the threats of destruction against him. Anyway, the hypocrisy is just like thick. Um, these men were filled with hypocrisy and also very eager to accuse, condemn, and destroy. A powerless woman. In both stories, the what I see at the men that I see as rather self-righteous and entitled, they callously in in in. In the story with the savior, they callously humiliated and threatened destruction. Of a woman and they are blind to their own sin and hypocrisy, right? I guess that’s true in both stories. The threats being made against Emma are being made by men who are blind to their own hypocrisy and they’re eager with those threats of destruction. In both women are seen as objects. For the scribes and Pharisees, the woman is a tool to trap the savior. For the writers of 132, woman is a tool to exalt and gratify themselves. There is not only no compassion, there is not even an awareness that that there could that there could possibly be a need for compassion. It they seem to be completely unaware of and unconcerned about women’s feelings or experiences. Um, but let’s see. The men in both examples seem to be acting from similar motivations and perspectives, but clearly they have very little in common with the savior. The savior’s treatment of this woman should tell us all we need to know about how the Lord deals with women. Including even women guilty of serious sin. While other men, while, while the men took no, the other men took no care for her as a person, the savior got down in the dirt with her, as if to say to her, You are not alone. And with and and as if to say to the crowd, you throw rocks at her, you throw rocks at me, right? The love, gentleness, patient, patience, compassion and courage that he demonstrated in the face of exactly the opposite from everyone else is just breathtaking. I think it’s so beautiful and teaches us so much. About who the savior is and how the savior sees and values and understands and cares about women, right? So how could we ever imagine it is possible that this Jesus, the author of verses like these. That this, this Jesus who did this with this one woman is the author of verses like these. 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, sayeth the Lord your God, for I will destroy her. Is that the same Jesus? Is that possible? I do not see any way that that that that could be possible or that we should be expected to believe it’s possible. I feel the need to

[00:45:17] repent forever having believed that it was possible because it shows me that I lacked understanding of who my savior is and how he sees me. So that’s one thing I’ve done is I have felt the need to repent for and repent isn’t a shameful bad thing, right? It’s just going, wow, I was wrong. I feel really bad that I was so wrong and I’m gonna try and not be so wrong going forward. So, OK, so in this episode we have covered many of the threats of destruction. Um, and talked about how they, throughout the rest of scriptures, contradict 132, right? And, and also everything we know of the nature of God. Not only are there no other cases of threats that were directed against women, there are also no other cases of threats from God that were used directly to manipulate someone, to remove their agency, to make them go against their strongly held moral beliefs that were in line with the commandments of God, right? And so, Um, there are no other threats of destruction against women, and there is an extremely prominent example of how God responded when a woman did face the threat of destruction. So I think the case should be very clear that these could not possibly have come from God. It’s not possible, and I’m sad that anyone thinks that it is because it shows me that they don’t understand God, and they don’t understand women, and they certainly don’t understand God’s relationship with women. And so, um, OK, so and then I was going to put this here, but I did that last quick episode. I’m sorry you had to wait so long for this episode, but there is one other woman in scripture. Who has long been believed to have faced destruction at the hand of God. She wasn’t necessarily threatened with destruction, but according to the traditional beliefs, she experienced destruction. And so I just want to really quickly talk about her. I linked the presentation I gave, gosh, 8 years ago, almost 10 years ago, I linked that. And, um, I just want to talk about her really quickly here and it’s Lot’s wife who Um, has become one of my scripture heroines. I love her and I love her story, and I won’t go into it now. I hope that you’ll go and I’ll, I’ll post it again in the show notes here, and I hope that you will take time to look at her story with fresh eyes because I think that she has a lot to teach us and just to give away the punch line. I pray that I can be seen as worthy of being, of becoming a pillar of salt in the eyes of God. Those are important and profound symbols of being a type of Christ. And if we look at where the savior talks about her, just really quickly, I know this is already long, so Elma 12 talks about the greater and the lesser portion of the word, right? And And we talk about how Jesus teaches in parables, so it’s on many levels, so we can get the lesser portion or the greater portion. We talk about that, but we don’t often really get in. And discuss what is the lesser portion, what is the greater portion. So just really quickly,

[00:48:31] Jesus talks about Lot’s wife in Luke 17, and I just want to tell you two different ways to read it. I hope you’ll go listen to this more in depth. So if you read it, verse 31 and 32, I think that’s less lesser portion. It says, in that day, he which shall be upon the housetop and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away. And he that is in the field, let him not like let him likewise not return back. Remember Lot’s wife. I think that’s the lesser portion that can probably teach us useful lessons of not having our hearts on the thing set upon the things of the world, right? That’s not who Lot’s wife was. That was the lesser portion. I want to now read it if you start with verse 32 and then read 33, which I think this is just a profound example of lesser and greater portion. And if you understand a little more of who Lot’s wife was and what her situation was, what her experience was, and what it was that she was losing, I think you’ll see this story in a different light. So just read it 32 and 33 to see the greater portion. Remember Lot’s wife, whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it, and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it. Shall shall preserve it like salt, and as a pillar will have the power to uplift and preserve other lives just beyond her own. So I think she’s a powerful, beautiful type of Christ. I’m only bringing her up because I think that when we’re talking about God’s threats of destruction against women, it’s obvious to think about, well, God destroyed Lot’s wife. And I very much disagree. So anyway, I’ll put more about that story below and, um, and thank you so much. I, of course, I’m always happy to respond to questions as I have time, it’s gotten my load has gotten heavy. I’m, I’m having a hard time keeping up with everything I have going on. And so I also am including the Patreon link below. If any of you feel so inclined, I would so appreciate um any donations or help or if you. Have any insights of connections of people who might be willing to support this podcast, I would really appreciate it. I just want to get enough to be able to earn enough to pay for some help with my home because my poor family is done picking up the slack. So anyway, the Patreon link will be below, and please, please, if you feel so inclined to share this podcast, I would love to see it grow and, um, More people be open to these ideas, if at all possible. So anyway, thank you so much. I can’t tell you how much I appreciate your support and your continued patience, and I will see you next time.