The Offering of Abraham

Joseph F. Smith made this comment about Doctrine and Covenants 132: “When the revelation [D&C 132] was given in 1843, it was for the special purpose, by the request of the Patriarch Hyrum Smith, and was not then designed to go forth to the church or to the world. It is most probable that had it been then written with a view to its going out as a doctrine of the church, it would have been presented in a somewhat different form. There are personalities [Emma Smith, specifically] contained in a part of it which are not relevant to the principle itself, but rather to the circumstances which necessitated its being written at the time. Joseph Smith, on the day it was written, expressly declared that there was a great deal more connected with the doctrine which would be revealed in due time, but this was sufficient for the occasion, and was made to suffice for the time.” Unlike most other revelations, Joseph did not have a chance to prepare it for publication for the whole Church. Most other revelations found in the Doctrine and Covenants, originally given to specific individuals, were edited by Joseph so that they were made ready for a more general audience. Sister Brittany Nash put it this way in a recent podcast: “In earlier versions of the Doctrine and Covenants, when they were prepared for publication during Joseph Smith’s lifetime, he would make revisions to the revelations before they were printed so that they would be adapted for a broader readership. If we look through the revelations, they’re written for people. This is the same with them in mind as the revelations are being prepared for publication. It still includes the names of the people and the surrounding circumstances in the publications, but he does adapt them so that a broader audience can read them and understand them. Revelation is not necessarily a one and done event. It’s ongoing, so I don’t think it’s problematic to be revising revelations for publication ’cause you’re speaking to a different audience and we have an open canon. Revelation can be received in the preparing of publication. All of that is to say that there’s a precedent for Joseph Smith having changed revelations in preparation for them going to a broader audience than he originally intended for that revelation. That likely would’ve been the case for D&C 132.” That is important context to understand as we read this complex and challenging section about marriage.  

                One of the major themes in this revelation is the story of Abraham. His name is mentioned 20 times throughout these verses, highlighting to me the fact that plural marriage was an Abrahamic test not unlike the test Abraham received to offer up his own son. The Lord said to Joseph, “Behold, I have seen your sacrifices, and will forgive all your sins; I have seen your sacrifices in obedience to that which I have told you. Go, therefore, and I make a way for your escape, as I accepted the offering of Abraham of his son Isaac” (v50). Just as Abraham made an offering of that which was most precious to him, so Joseph made an extreme sacrifice in practicing plural marriage. The next verse reads, “Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice” (v51). Again the Lord emphasized that this was an Abrahamic test for them. He also commented in the revelation, “Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness” (v36).  The Lord’s heart-wrenching command to Joseph to practice plural marriage was justified for the same reason that Abraham’s awful instructions to sacrifice Isaac were: the Lord commanded it.   

That this was an Abrahamic test was the same for many of those who lived this principle. One Church essay on the topic recounts, “Some Saints also saw plural marriage as a redemptive process of sacrifice and spiritual refinement. According to Helen Mar Kimball, Joseph Smith stated that ‘the practice of this principle would be the hardest trial the Saints would ever have to test their faith.’ Though it was one of the ‘severest’ trials of her life, she testified that it had also been ‘one of the greatest blessings.’ Her father, Heber C. Kimball, agreed. ‘I never felt more sorrowful,’ he said of the moment he learned of plural marriage in 1841. ‘I wept days. … I had a good wife. I was satisfied.’” The article also described Brigham Young’s reaction to it: “The decision to accept such a wrenching trial usually came only after earnest prayer and intense soul-searching. Brigham Young said that, upon learning of plural marriage, ‘it was the first time in my life that I had desired the grave.’ ‘I had to pray unceasingly,’ he said, ‘and I had to exercise faith and the Lord revealed to me the truth of it and that satisfied me.’” It was a huge Abrahamic test for those who received it, and their faith to practice it should cause us to have admiration—and not embarrassment—to the faithful men and women who lived it. The Lord had said in an earlier revelation, “Therefore, they must needs be chastened and tried, even as Abraham, who was commanded to offer up his only son” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:4). This practice was surely a major way in which these faithful Saints were chastened and tried like Abraham, and they surely received the reward of Abraham for their faithfulness: “Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne” (v29).