Yes, Alan is right – I got the gender wrong.

Thanks for sharing your concerns. I believe it’s very helpful to approach D&C 132 from a diachronic rather than a synchronic perspective. D&C 132 is in reality an amalgamation of three separate revelations given to Joseph Smith in connection with his work on revising the King James Bible (the JST). Danel Bachman’s Master’s thesis as well as his article “New Light on an Old Hypothesis: The Ohio Origins of the Revelation on Eternal Marriage.” in Journal of Mormon History 5 (1978):19-32, provides a helpful historical and literary analysis from this angle.

From this perspective, portions of the section deal with the doctrine of theosis while other sections address the concept of plural marriage. In the same way that some Mormons (and other critical readers of the Bible) accept and reject various portions of the book as inspired, I could see a Latter-day Saint who found the portions of the revelation you’ve cited dealing with plural marriage problematic still accepting the theological construct of theosis (which as I tried to illustrate is from my perspective very much intentionally gender inclusive).

Interestingly, not only does the new introduction to the D&C allow for the possibility of human error within the revelations themselves, but it specifically states that from an historical perspective,”Joseph and the early Saints viewed the revelations as they did the Church: living, dynamic, and subject to refinement with additional revelation.”

“If a woman marry a husband by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant…”

It is just as true constructed that way, yet feels different (perhaps). I often reconstruct gender-specific scriptures that way to see how my perspective might change/be expanded. I’ve enjoyed many insights thereby.

I believe we have a long way to go, as a Mormon culture; I also notice that many current analyses of LDS (and other) traditional (including secular) doctrines (even: letting females play on male football/wrestling/soccer/etc. teams) are also products of the cultural conditions from which they arise.

It is very hard to take seriously a psychological analysis which gets basic, fundamental issues such as gender completely wrong. Also, was there a question in there?

Maybe there is some implication that women are necessary, that there is some mutuality in the eternities, but the earthly commandments outlined barely envision women as human agents, let alone potential goddesses.