On October 22, 2014, LDS.ORG posted three essays dealing with the practice of plural marriage by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints between the 1830s and 1904. Perhaps the most controversial essay is the one dealing with the earliest period, which discusses Joseph Smith’s practices and teachings as he introduced plurality to fellow Church members.
It appears that some readers’ expectations were not met by this essay. It is true readers did not receive:
- An apology for polygamy.
- An explanation for why polygamy was not discussed openly in the past.
- A defense of polygamy.
- A declaration labeling plural marriage as adultery.
- A portrayal of Joseph Smith as a hypocrite or libertine.
- A statement that D&C 132 was not a true revelation.
- A declaration that polygamy was an historical mistake.
- A lengthy discussion of Emma’s trials because of the practice.
- A list of injustices suffered by Joseph’s plural wives and an exhaustive detailing of their pain and suffering.
- A concise and accurate history (according to available documents) of the introduction of plural marriage by Joseph Smith.
- A brief discussion of all major controversies dealing with this subject.
- Permission to discuss these topics in Church meetings without being viewed as delusional or an apostate.
- Another evidence of the transparency the Church is striving to achieve regarding its history.
Thoughts for the Critics
The omissions in the essay have elicited scathing criticism. However, as authors who have extensively researched this topic, we might offer a few observations of our own for those who criticize:
(1) Many critics seemed to have little grasp of the historical record of the period. Therefore, it is not uncommon or surprising that glaring historical errors are promoted in their assessments.
(2) Many criticisms seem more focused upon the practice of polygamy than upon the essay itself. It might be said the essay has opened the pressure-release valve for venting about the practice.
(3) Observers who are complimentary to the essay are often labeled as “apologists,” perhaps implying their assessments could not be accurate. This argumentum ad hominem is one of the most overused logical fallacies and undermines the ability to carry on reasonable, articulate discussions.
(4) Joseph Smith’s theological teachings regarding plural marriage are universally ignored.
The Essay Addresses All Major Controversies
Several major controversies have been generated in conjunction with the introduction of plural marriage in Nauvoo in the early 1840s. All of these are briefly discussed in the introductory essay:
Polyandry (paragraphs 20–23, endnotes 29–30). The essay acknowledges that “Joseph Smith was sealed to a number of women who were already married,” estimating the number of these sealings at 12–14 (endnote 29). Several possible explanations for this curious practice are provided. Significantly, it provides a plausible line of reasoning that he did not practice polyandry except in a ceremonial sense. The essay states, “Polyandry, the marriage of one woman to more than one man, typically involves shared financial, residential, and sexual resources, and children are often raised communally. There is no evidence that Joseph Smith’s sealings functioned in this way, and much evidence works against that view” (endnote 30).
Emma Smith’s involvement (paragraphs 25–28). The essay explains that plural marriage was “an excruciating ordeal” for Emma. It also recounted: “Joseph and Emma loved and respected each other deeply. … Emma approved, at least for a time, of four of Joseph Smith’s plural marriages in Nauvoo. … In the summer of 1843, Joseph Smith dictated the revelation on marriage, a lengthy and complex text containing both glorious promises and stern warnings, some directed at Emma.”
Denials (paragraph 16, endnote 23). Public denials, reflecting special verbal gymnastics, is conceded. George A. Smith is also quoted: “Any one who will read carefully the denials, as they are termed, of plurality of wives in connection with the circumstances will see clearly that they denounce adultery, fornication, brutal lust and the teaching of plurality of wives by those who were not commanded to do so.”
The essay also discusses these controversial issues:
Fanny Alger (paragraph 9).
Sexuality (paragraphs 12, 17–18).
Children with plural wives (endnote 25).
Number of plural wives (paragraph 18, endnote 24).
Young wives (paragraph 19).
The Pain Remains Despite the Essays
While the essay addressed many never-before, publicly-addressed issues, the outcry on the blogosphere has shown it did not sufficiently address some of the issues that really bother people. Therefore, if people were upset and confused about these issues before the posting of the essay, its contents may not have assuaged their pain. Of the issues, three will be discussed here:
(1) No official church publication has explicitly discussed the introduction of plural marriage by Joseph Smith, the number of wives he had, or his participation in ceremonial polyandry, including Seminary, Institute, Sunday School, or Priesthood/Relief Society manuals.
The other day I was meeting with a former CES educator, whom I greatly respect. He shared that a friend had approached him with surprise at the essays presenting “new” material. This man, he commented, must not know his Church history. In the surprised man’s defense, I stated, “It was new material to me when I read Brian’s trilogy.” I am well-versed in Church history, took early Church history at BYU, and had an ancestor who took a plural wife in the Nauvoo period, but I had no idea that Joseph practiced plural marriage to the extent and in the manner he did (a). Many people have told us that when they first heard the details of Joseph Smith’s practice of polygamy they felt betrayed. Joseph was presented as one person at Church, yet this aspect of his life was conspicuously avoided. This at times is a faith-shaking experience.
In recent years, the Church has been quick to correct misconceptions in the media regarding other issues such as the consumption of caffeinated drinks (b), but they have refrained from addressing fallacious comments regarding the practice of polygamy (c). While grateful I no longer need to keep my Diet Coke in the bedroom closet, it might be noted that a correction of the misinformation regarding Joseph and polygamy may have comforted readers who first heard of the details from unfriendly sources.
(2) The thought of sharing one’s husband with another woman is horrifying to most women. In the twenty-first century, true intimacy that involves more than physical relations is at the heart of mutually satisfying marriages and true companionship. How that dynamic could exist with the existence of a second, third, fourth, or fifth woman involved is incomprehensible in an earthly venue. That polygamy is no longer commanded in this life is not comforting to those who fear they will need to practice it in the next life.
Brigham Young acknowledged the difficulty in understanding eternal marriage (with or without plurality): “The whole subject of the marriage relation is not in my reach, nor in any other man’s reach on this earth. It is without beginning of days or end of years; it is a hard matter to reach” (d).
Within the context of Joseph Smith’s teachings, a few eternal polygamists are needed, but certainly all worthy men and women will not need to enter polygamous unions. Tears have filled the eyes on men’s and women’s faces as Brian and I have explained that nobody needs to be a polygamist in the celestial kingdom who doesn’t want to be. Lucy Walker, one of Joseph’s plural wives, explained that Joseph taught: “A woman would have her choice, this was a privilege that could not be denied her” (e). Women and men get a second chance to choose their eternal companions even if they are married monogamously in this life. Agency doesn’t disappear with death. The keys that bind can also loose (Matt. 16:19).
(3) The perception that D&C 132 is misogynistic.
One young woman voiced that she was experiencing cognitive dissonance after the release of the essays. On the one hand, she was being told that she was a daughter of her Heavenly Father who loved her (f), but on the other she was reading in D&C 132 that she could be “given” as if she were chattel to a man as a plural wife.
When studying D&C 132, one must keep in mind that Joseph Smith dictated revelation in the language of the Bible. “Given” is not a term used today to describe the choice of a woman to marry a certain man. Similarly, the term as used in D&C 132 does not indicate that a woman would not have a choice to participate in a plural union. Lucy Walker’s statement is again applicable here: “A woman would have her choice, this was a privilege that could not be denied her” (g).
Wording that on the surface may seem to be overly strong, such as “damned” and “destroyed,” when interpreted by its scriptural meaning and applied in context to what it is referring, may not seem so shocking as it may initially appear. D&C 132 primarily concentrates on the doctrine of eternal marriage as opposed to being the “plural marriage section” as it is often labeled. The first 33 verses concentrate solely on monogamist relationships and express doctrine presented in the temple endowment ceremony.
When the section discusses eternal marriage, it is clear that women are not subjugated to men in their eternal privileges. Joseph Smith taught that couples who are sealed in eternal marriage, not exclusively plural marriage, “shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths … and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. Then shall they be gods” (D&C 132:19–20). A plurality of wives allows all worthy women to be sealed to a husband and become eligible for these blessings in heaven. If a single woman is sealed to a single man after death, she will also be able to partake of these eternal blessings through a monogamous eternal marriage. Other parts of the section are harder to understand, so we wait for the further clarification promised in D&C 132:66.
In lauding the Church’s effort to explain this difficult topic, some may assume that in defending the essay we are in fact defending polygamy. We are not. As historians, we seek to explain what happened. The essays are a good first step in conveying historically correct information to the members of the Church. Perhaps a positive response would encourage even more openness. One of Joseph’s plural wives, Helen Mar Kimball, remembered: “The Prophet said that the practice of this principle would be the hardest trial the Saints would ever have to test their faith” (h). Ironically, simply trusting that God commanded them to do so in the past is a test of faith for some Saints today.
Brian and Laura Hales
Notes:
(a) For a more comprehensive discussion of the nuances of Joseph Smith’s practice of polygamy, see JosephSmithsPolygamy.org.
(b) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, The Newsroom Blog, “Mormonism in the News: Getting It Right,” August 29, 2012, accessed November 1, 2014, http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormonism-news–getting-it-right-august-29.
(c) Craig L. Foster, “Separated but Not Divorced: The LDS Church’s Uncomfortable Relationship with Its Polygamous Past,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 10 (2014), 45–76, accessed November 1, 2014, http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/separated-but-not-divorced-the-lds-churchs-uncomfortable-relationship-with-its-polygamous-past/.
(d) Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 2:90 (October 6, 1854).
(e) Lucy Walker Kimball, “A Brief Biographical Sketch of the Life and Labors of Lucy Walker Kimball Smith,” LDS Church History Library; quoted in Littlefield, Reminiscences of Latter-day Saints, 46.
(f) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Young Women Theme,” accessed November 1, 2014, https://www.lds.org/young-women/personal-progress/young-women-theme?lang=eng.
(g) Lucy Walker Kimball, “A Brief Biographical Sketch of the Life and Labors of Lucy Walker Kimball Smith,” LDS Church History Library; quoted in Littlefield, Reminiscences of Latter-day Saints, 46.
(h) Jeni Broberg Holzapfel and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, eds., A Woman’s View: Helen Mar Whitney’s Reminiscences of Early Church History (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1997), 140.
Brian C. Hales is the author of six books dealing with Mormon polygamy—most recently the 3 volume, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy: History and Theology (Greg Kofford Books, 2013). He has presented at numerous meetings and symposia and published articles in The Journal of Mormon History, Mormon Historical Studies, Dialogue, as well as contributing chapters to The Persistence of Polygamy series. He served a mission to Venezuela for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and sang with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir for fourteen years. Brian works as an anesthesiologist and has served as the president the Utah Medical Association. He is currently President-Elect of the John Whitmer Historical Association. Brian has an almost insatiable appetite for both learning and movie theater popcorn. He is also an avid runner and enjoys running half-marathons with his four children and their spouses.
Laura Harris Hales earned a BA in International Studies from BYU and an MA in Professional Writing from New England College. She works as an educator and freelance copy editor. Recently Laura and Brian co-authored Joseph Smith and Nauvoo Polygamy: Separating Fact from Fiction, which is scheduled for release by Greg Kofford Books in early 2015. She and Brian are co-webmasters of JosephSmithsPolygamy.org. Though comfortable with her polygamous roots, she was initially disturbed when she learned some details of Joseph Smith’s practice of polygamy. Her work on the website and the book is an effort on her part to contextualize the events of the 1840s for others who may be troubled by what they learn. Currently she is compiling an anthology addressing sixteen controversial topics regarding LDS history and doctrine. Chapters are written by leading LDS scholars and are directed toward members of the LDS Church seeking answers to difficult questions. The anthology is expected to be released in the winter of 2015.
Brian Hales
Brian C. Hales is an anesthesiologist and amateur historian. He is the award-winning author of six books on Mormon polygamy. Along with his wife, Laura, he maintains JosephSmithsPolygamy.org. Brian's entire database of polygamy-related documents may be accessed at Mormon PolygamyDocuments.org. He is the father of four children.
All posts by Brian Hales
‘Any woman who is not sealed will “remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever” (D&C 132.17).’
Does this mean that a woman may never find her highest fulfillment without a man? Is the same true of men? I know that Mormonism has no official institution of celibacy, but occasionally there are people who for one reason or another choose to remain single all their lives, not to mention people who are gay. How do people respond and how does the church respond to these questions?
Short answer: Yes, this applies to men as well.
Laura Hales
Long answer:
Thanks for the message.
Through Joseph Smith, obedient couples sealed by proper authority are given great promises:
“Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power.” (DC& 132:20.)
To receive these blessings, every man needs an eternal wife and every woman needs an eternal husband. Without eternal marriage, men and women remain single, without exaltation, to all eternity and they do not “continue.”
Individuals in mortality who do not marry, but who are faithful, will have an opportunity to receive all blessings. In 1899, Lorenzo Snow counseled:
“There is no Latter-day Saint who dies after having lived a faithful life who will lose anything because of having failed to do certain things when opportunities were not furnished him or her. In other words, if a young man or a young woman has no opportunity of getting married, and they live faithful lives up to the time of their death, they will have all the blessings, exaltation and glory that any man or woman will have who had this opportunity and improved it. That is sure and positive. . . .
“The Lord is merciful and kind, and He is not unjust. There is no injustice in Him; yet we could scarcely look upon it as being just when a woman or a man dies without having had the opportunity of marrying if it could not be remedied in the other life.”
President Snow also observed, “My sister, Eliza R. Snow, I believe was just as good a woman as any Latter-day Saint woman that ever lived, and she lived in an unmarried state until she was beyond the condition of raising a family. . . I cannot for one moment imagine that she will lose a single thing on that account. It will be made up to her in the other life, and she will have just as great a kingdom as she would have had if she had had the opportunity in this life of raising a family.”
More recently in the April 2014 General Conference, President Boyd K. Packer explained: “Those who do not marry or those who cannot have children are not excluded from the eternal blessings they seek but which, for now, remain beyond their reach. We do not always know how or when blessings will present themselves, but the promise of eternal increase [exaltation] will not be denied any faithful individual who makes and keeps sacred covenants.” President Packer emphasized the need for each of us to “make and keep sacred covenants,” promising all eternal blessings will be available.
Brian Hales
Excellent article. It is strange the only true church is a bit hesitant about its history..
I’m not so sure about the idea that “nobody needs to be a polygamist in the celestial kingdom who doesn’t want to be”. If one has been sealed in the temple, they have already covenanted to obey the laws and principles of the new and everlasting covenant (i.e. Polygamy). The agreement to be ok with it has already been made.
Also- this strikes me as interesting:
“Lucy Walker, one of Joseph’s plural wives, explained that Joseph taught: “A woman would have her choice, this was a privilege that could not be denied her”
Really??? Because Joseph’s OWN wife didn’t have a choice, and in fact was threatened with destruction if she did not agree to polygamy. Are we women to believe that we will have it better off, be given more agency, than the prophet’s own wife? Oh, and remember D&C 132 does have that work around- a man has to ask for permission, and the wife has to give it- unless she doesn’t, then he can go ahead without it. The idea of agency- making one’s own decisions about participating in polygamy seems to be poorly missing both in how it played out in the history of the church and how it is written in scripture.
Yes, all of this! This right here is why Mormon women get so hung up on the experience of Emma Smith. Because her lived experience and the scriptures directed toward her, directly refute apologist reassurances that “oh, if you don’t want to live polygamy, you won’t have to.” Uh.huh. Right. Maybe if you are a man. But the scriptures are pretty clear on the amount of choice a woman has in the matter. Taking D and C 132 and it’s word, best case scenario, your choice will be “live in polygamy, or don’t be married at all and free your husband to gather wives who will accept the principle.”
But, you know, “destruction” just means eternal damnation, not physical harm, so…that’s much better. Right? o.O
(at it’s word, not and it’s word)
Here are some interesting quotes about Emma’s struggle with plural marriage with which you may not be familiar:
The next morning, Emma approached her:
“She told me to sit down on the bed by her and we both sat down on the bed that I was making. She looked very sad and cast down, and there she said to me, ‘The principle of plural marriage is right, but I am like other women, I am naturally jealous hearted and can talk back to Joseph as long as any wife can talk back to her husband, but what I want to say to you is this. You heard me finding fault with the principle. I want to say that that principle is right, it is from our Father in Heaven,’ and then she again spoke of her jealousy.
Then she continued, ‘What I said I have got to repent of. The principle is right but I am jealous hearted. Now never tell anybody that you heard me find fault with Joseph or that principle. The principle is right and if I or you or anyone else find fault with that principle we have got to humble ourselves and repent of it.'”
Maria Jane Woodward, statement, attached to letter from George H. Brimhall to Joseph F. Smith, April 21, 1902, in Turley, Jr., Selected Collections from the Archives of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1: DVD 28.
Leonora Taylor, wife of Apostle John Taylor, recalled: “Sister Emma Smith told her that she had received a testimony of the truthfulness of plural marriage.”
Mary Alice Cannon Lambert, “Leonora Cannon Taylor,” 347.
These are second-hand sources, but they seem to be reliable. Emma left no personal records of this period of her life. More on Emma’s struggle with plural marriage can be found at http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/faq/emmas-response/. She was a remarkable lady in many ways.
Laura Hales
The first time I talked to an ecclesiastical leader (a stake president) about my concerns with polygamy, he told me that polygamy is a higher law, and eternal principal, and that the problems in polygamy arose from women like me who harbored jealousy and selfishness. Somehow, framing the issue by saying that he only trouble with the whole thing is that women are jealous-hearted makes me feel worse, not better. And it smacks mightily of victim blaming. I read these quotes and I hear a woman struggling mightily to reconcile her heartbreak with the commands of her husband in whom she has put her faith not only as a lover and spouse, but as a prophet.
The new and everlasting covenant is eternal marriage not i.e. plural marriage. It can be and is loosed in heaven and on earth.
Parley P Pratt:
“It is well known, however, to the congregation before me, that the Latter-day Saints have embraced the doctrine of a plurality of wives, as part of their religious faith. … I think, if I am not mistaken, that the Constitution gives the privilege to all inhabitants of this country, of the free exercise of their religious notions, and the freedom of their faith, and the practice of it. Then if it can be proven … that the Latter-day Saints have actually embraced, as a part and portion of their religion, the doctrine of a plurality of wives, it is constitutional. … There will be many who will not hearken, there will be the foolish among the wise who will not receive the new and everlasting covenant in its fullness, and they never will attain to their exaltation, they never will be counted worthy to hold the sceptre of power over a numerous progeny, that shall multiply themselves without end, like the sand upon the seashore. ”
Brigham Young expounded on Pratt’s words later that day. Young’s proclamation began:
“The doctrine which Orson Pratt discoursed upon this morning was the subject of a revelation anterior to the death of Joseph Smith. It is in opposition to what is received by a small minority of the world; but our people have for many years believed it, though it may not have been practiced by the elders. The original of this revelation has been burnt. William Clayton wrote it down from the Prophet’s mouth; it found its way into the hands of Bishop [Newel K.] Whitney [father of Smith’s 16th wife Sarah Ann Whitney], who obtained Joseph Smith’s permission to copy it. Sister Emma [Smith] burnt the original. I mention this to you because such of you as are aware of the revelation, suppose that it no longer exists. I prophesy to you that the principle of polygamy will make its way, and will triumph over the prejudices and all the priestcraft of the day; it will be embraced by the most intelligent parts of the world as one of the best doctrines ever proclaimed to any people. You have no reason whatever to be uneasy; there is no occasion for your fearing that a vile mob will come hither to trample underfoot the sacred liberty which, by the Constitution of our country, is guaranteed to us. It has been a long time publicly known, and in fact was known during his life, that Joseph had more than one wife. A Senator, a member of Congress, was well aware of it, and was not the less our friend for all that; so much so, as to say that were this principle not adopted by the United States, we would live to see human life reduced to a maximum of thirty years. He said openly that Joseph had hit upon the best plan for re-invigorating men, and assuring a long life to them; and, also, that the Mormons are very good and very virtuous. We could not have proclaimed this principle a few years ago; everything must abide its time, but I am now ready to proclaim it. This revelation has been in my possession for many years, and who knew it? No one, except those whose business it was to know it. I have a patent lock to my writing-desk, and nothing gets out of it that ought not to get out of it. Without the doctrine which this revelation makes known to us, no one could raise himself high enough to become a god.”
Lucy Walker’s saying that a woman would have her choice meant that she would have her choice of a husband, not whether or not she would have to live the law of plural marriage once taught by her husband who had, in turn, been commanded/authorized by the Lord through His prophet.
Susa Young Gates said that her father, Brigham Young, taughter her that “Sisters ought to have their choice in the matter [marriage partner] for they can choose but one and they have a right to select that one.”
Plural marriage, in Brigham Young’s day, and in the eternities is so tightly interwoven with the rights and privileges of women. We invite you to join the discussion regarding the LDS theology of plural marriage over at thewonderwomen.squarespace.com headed by two faithful LDS women who feel it is a principle about, because of and FOR women. Don’t believe us? Come and find out. You might like to start with the post “Forbidden Fruit, Hagars in the Hereafter, Mandrakes and Motherhood” – link included below
https://thewonderwomen.squarespace.com/blog/2014/12/27/the-test-of-sarah-and-rachel
Laura Hales,
That doesn’t make any sense. If it can be simply loosed, why the huge emphasis on making sure it all gets done?
There are some good articles that address this question on lds.org. The first one talks about “loosing” the eternal bonds. Here are the links:
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/temple-marriage
https://www.lds.org/youth/learn/yw/marriage-and-family/marriage?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/youth/article/why-temple-marriage?lang=eng
Really?
“The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.” — Brigham Young (JoD, vol. 11, p. 269)
“This monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers… Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord’s servants have always practiced it. ‘And is that religion popular in heaven?’ It is the only popular religion there.” — Brigham Young (Deseret News, August 6, 1862)
“… [Joseph Smith taught] the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man on the earth, and that without obedience to that principle no man can ever attain to the fullness of exaltation in the celestial glory.” — William Clayton (Historical Record, vol. 6, p. 226)
“President B Young Spoke 1 Hour & 18 Minuts. In his remarks He said that a Man who did not have but one wife in the Resurrection that woman will not be his but [be] taken from him & given to another But he may be saved in the kingdom of God but be single to all Eternity. Mother Eve was the Daughter of Adam.” (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 7, p.152, August 31, 1873)
“It is a glorious privilege to be permitted to go into a Temple of God to be united as man and wife in the bonds of holy wedlock for time and all eternity by the Authority of the Holy Priesthood, which is the power of God, for they who are thus joined together “no man can put asunder,” for God hath joined them. It is an additional privilege for that same man and wife to re-enter the Temple [p.31] of God to receive another wife in like manner if they are worthy. But if he remain faithful with only the one wife, observing the conditions of so much of the law as pertains to the eternity of the marriage covenant, he will receive his reward, but the benefits, blessings and power appertaining to the second or more faithful and fuller observance of the law, he never will receive, for he cannot. As before stated no man can obtain the benefits of one law by the observance of another, however faithful he may be in that which he does, nor can he secure to himself the fullness of any blessing without he fulfills the law upon which it is predicated, but he will receive the benefit of the law he obeys. This is just and righteous. If this is not correct doctrine then I am in error, and if I am in error I want to be corrected.
I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that every man in this Church, who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and will not, shall be damned, I say I understand it to mean this and nothing less, and I testify in the name of Jesus that it does mean that. But what will become of him that cannot abide it? Says the Lord, “whose having knowledge have I not commanded to repent, and he that hath not understanding it remaineth with me to do according as it is written.” In other words he that is without understanding is not under the law and it remains for God to deal with him according to his own wisdom. If a man acknowledges that he is incapable, or disqualified by a lack of knowledge, wisdom or understanding to obey this law, when it remains with God to deal with him according to those principles of justice which are written, or are yet to be revealed it is not likely however, that he will take his seat with Abraham. Isaac and Jacob, or share in their promised blessings.
This law is in force upon the inhabitants of Zion, and he that is qualified to obey it cannot neglect or disregard it with impunity. But it must be observed in righteousness. The commandment is “be ye righteous as your Father in heaven is righteous; be ye holy as he is holy.” (Joseph F. Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 20, p.31, July 7, 1878)
Hi Leah,
Check out lds.org for quotes regarding the practice for current members of the Church. It is a rich resource to answer your questions. The quotes you shared are all pre-Manifesto.
Laura Hales
I’m not unfamiliar with what you’re referring to, but I don’t understand how that is relevant. When exactly is the expiration date for quotes from the prophets? Brigham Young wasn’t just referring to marriage in his day, he was referring to eternal marriage. He never meant for His words to be discarded. The Manifesto didn’t come about because God and His prophets suddenly decided polygamy wasn’t necessary in the Celestial Kingdom. It happened because of outside pressure. So, when do we get to say, “Oh, that’s old, so its not true anymore?” Is it just every time something changes? And if that is the case, why do we read scriptures at all? We should definitely just throw out the Old Testament because it was all pre-Savior, amiright? A LOT changed after that.
Writing these quotes off as pre-Manifesto is not good rationale and is exactly why people refer to the two of you as apologists.
Please read D&C 132 1-7. I my opinion it is quite clear the new and everlasting covenant is indeed plural marriage.
IF you read to verse 15, the concept is clarified further. However, since the chapter starts talking about the patriarchs, I understand how you may get that impression.
I really appreciate this, and there are some good insights into this new release. I was actually pretty happy with most of it until it tried to explain the Law of Sarah as meaning that a man didn’t need his wife’s permission to practice polygamy if she refused. That there confirms every worst fear about polygamy and the status of women in it. If we are to progress and Joseph Smith was as great as the Church says, why wouldn’t we eventually be asked to do the same? While it’s nice that many people believe we won’t be required to practice polygamy in the next life, where is there a prophetic decree stating as much? There are many, MANY quotes and talks from prophets saying the opposite, so how do I counter that in my own researching?
Also, the Law of Sarah confuses me since Sarah was the one who chose for Abraham. She was not commanded. So how is this at all the same?
Laurel,
You are not the first to be confused by the law of Sarah. I don’t understand it myself. Anyone who can find something on this topic beyond what is in Genesis and D&C 132 from an authority is welcome to chime in. I couldn’t find much on lds.org.
Laura Hales
Apostle Orson Pratt also explained this clause [the law of Sarah] in the Lord’s Law of Celestial Marriage:
Apostle Orson Pratt”When a man who has a wife, teaches her the law of God, and she refuses to give her consent for him to marry another according to that law, then, it becomes necessary, for her to state before the President the reasons why she withholds her consent; if her reasons are sufficient and justifiable and the husband is found in the fault, or in transgression, then, he is not permitted to take any step in regard to obtaining another. But if the wife can show no good reason why she refuses to comply with the law which was given unto Sarah of old, then it is lawful for her husband, if permitted by revelation through the prophet, to be married to others without her consent, and he will be justified, and she will be condemned, because she did not give them unto him, as Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham, and as Rachel and Leah gave Bilhah and Zilpah to their husband, Jacob.” (The Seer, Vol.1, No.3, p.41)
Of course, that justification is pretty ridiculous given that Hagar was Sarah’s handmaid (servant), so she was her property to give to her husband. Likewise, Bilhah and Zilpah were servants to Rachel & Leah. Women giving their servants to their husbands is not the same as a husband demanding a younger wife of his own choosing, and the wife’s lack of consent being ignored.
From what I can see, the Law of Sarah = unrighteous dominion.
When cross-examined during the Reed Smoot hearings, church president Joseph F. Smith gave the official church position on the necessity of a wife’s consent to polygamy:
Prophet Joseph F Smith: “The condition is that if she does not consent the Lord will destroy her, but I do not know how he will do it.”
Question: “Is it not true that … if she refuses her consent her husband is exempt from the law which requires her consent.”
President Smith: “Yes; he is exempt from the law which requires her consent. She is commanded to consent, but if she does not, then he is exempt from the requirement.”
Question: “Then he is at liberty to proceed without her consent, under the law. In other words, her consent amounts to nothing?”
President Smith: “It amounts to nothing but her consent.”
In 1875 Apostle Wilford Woodruff announced, “We have many bishops and elders who have but one wife. brigham youngThey are abundantly qualified to enter the higher law and take more, but their wives will not let them. Any man who permits a woman to lead him and bind him down is but little account in the church and Kingdom of God.”
Brigham Young declared “Let the father be the head of the family … and let the wives and the children say amen to what he says, and be subject to his dictates, instead of their dictating the man, instead of trying to govern him.”
Likewise, in the church today we frequently see that members are entitled to their own personal revelation, but not to disagree with revelation from those in power above them. That’s the same principle, or so it seems to me. Not one I think is right or just.
Laura,
The Law of Sarah can only be understood within the big picture. I have heard your husband say something to the effect that D&C 132 operates off of the assumption that there will be more women, after all is said and done, who are willing and worthy to abide a celestial glory. The law of plural marriage, then, is a mercy to women left companionless. You are aware of the fact that a woman will have her choice, since she can have only one husband, to select the best husband she can qualify herself to receive. Doesn’t it follow that the Law of Sarah is a necessary appendage to the merciful, fair law of God that would ensure every woman a righteous husband of her choice? The Law of Sarah implies that any wife who is taught by her husband this law, provided that he is authorized/commanded to enter it by proper authority, and she is noncompliant will be “destroyed” (i.e. removed from her position in the hereafter). It is the only fair, merciful thing to do. It’s “tough love,” no doubt; but love, nonetheless.
That is how I understand the Law of Sarah.
I think we are participating in a process of continuing revelation regarding the role of women in ecclesiastical affairs. While we can be disappointed that God has not been more progressive on these issues, recognize that disappointment spans thousands of years of Judeo-Christian tradition.
It seems to me that sometimes we ask the wrong question here. Disappointment with the the current narrative is clearly born from progress with women’s utility in power roles in broader western society during the past few decades. However, was there not great utility, sacred and profane, with polygamy during the times it was sanctioned? Did polygamy not provide participants the opportunity for the greatest calls of Christian faith, including selflessness, charity and sacrifice?
Polygamy is not a call I would choose but I see great commitment to faith and utilitarian practicality in journals of some of my ancestors who embraced the practice. I think those voices need to be heard in the conversation.
You wrote, “While we can be disappointed that God has not been more progressive on these issues…”
In a later post, Verl_S will complain, “Everyone … gave me different opinions. But that was the problem- they were all OPINIONS!”
Verl wanted “the definition of ‘new and everlasting covenant'”, not just opinions; wanted something he could rely on.
But if “God has not been more progressive on these issues” so far, but presumably could be, and hopefully will be, at some point in the future— aren’t even the ‘new and everlasting covenant’, the ‘eternal covenants’ and so forth— just (God’s) current “OPINIONS” too??!
How is it that, despite being so much farther “progressed” than we are— he doesn’t know, he could be wrong, or misinformed, or sexist, or whatever— and even has to learn (why, look at this!) the *very lessons* that we ourselves are learning *only just now*— and that in fact he seems to lag behind us?
If God doesn’t know, and is still stuck in sexism etc— is there really in fact any ultimate, absolute, final, infinite, unchanging Truth— or are there only current, temporary OPINIONS, even from God, whose truth, quite frankly, looks at present little more than a projection of the opinions of us sexist and ignorant men?
I don’t quite understand what you are asking in your question. I would direct you to lds.org for several clear definitions of the new and everlasting covenant of marriage from General Authorities and Prophets.
John,
If you are looking for a God that is ultimate, absolute, final, infinite, or unchaining truth, I fear that you will inevitably be disappointed. First, because no one has the capacity to comprehend the full scope of that God, any more than they have the capacity to comprehend dark matter or a host of other unknowns. Second, because while prophets and religion do their best to help us along our faith journey (and they do many people much good) they are flawed and prone to mistakes like the rest of us.
Love and beauty and kindness are our primary paths to grace. I think our job is to find in religion what yields those qualities in us. Anything else is just distractions.
Mike, I’m glad you finally replied. You wrote, “While we can be disappointed that God has not been more progressive on these issues…”, and I had asked, “If God doesn’t know, and is still stuck in sexism etc— is there really in fact any ultimate, absolute, final, infinite, unchanging Truth— or are there only current, temporary OPINIONS, even from God, whose truth, quite frankly, looks at present little more than a projection of the opinions of us sexist and ignorant men?”
You replied, “If you are looking for a God that is ultimate, absolute, final, infinite, or unchaining truth, I fear that you will inevitably be disappointed. First, because no one has the capacity to comprehend the full scope of that God…”
If God is just a fallen, sexist, imperfect, opinionated guy who is no better, really, than i am (despite all his “progression”), then he’s no god at all. He’s obviously somewhere about as far down the ladder as i am, and to call someone like that, “God”, and to pay him any worship at all— how is that not just sheer *idolatry*? (And not a very smart idolatry, either.) That’s why your initial comment, “While we can be disappointed that God has not been more progressive on these issues…”, so astonished me.
Regarding knowledge of the true God who is infinite and absolute and rules over all (including lesser “gods” who live on planets with wives and who still apparently need to figure some important stuff out)— there’s a difference between “knowing someone”, and “knowing everything about them”, even in human relations. The issue is not whether one “can comprehend the full scope of that God”— nor is our inability to do so an excuse for turning our loyalty toward any other! The issue is simply whether he can be known at all.
Reason can bring us to recognize and admit that he exists, just as it can bring me to recognize and admit that you exist. As St Paul says, “since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made” (Rm 1.20); in your case, since the beginning of your posting on this blog, your own ‘power and nature’ have been seen, being understood through what you’ve posted.
But actually to *know you*, you would have to disclose yourself to me. To some degree, you already have, of course, and we’re having this conversation. There might be further meetings, more and more self-disclosure, long conversations over slugs of carrot juice at your favorite health bar (I assume you don’t drink coffee), and we could even end up close friends who know each other quite well. It’s not that I would ever “comprehend your full scope”— nor certainly that i would know you in the mathematical way i might comprehend a principle of physics, for personal knowing is different than knowing *about*.
So i’m guessing that / wondering if you think that the “God that is ultimate, absolute, final, infinite, or unchaining truth” simply cannot be known, has never revealed himself personally, will not (or cannot?) do so… and so forth. Would you say that’s an accurate characterization of your point of view on the Infinite and Ultimate God of, say, Isaiah 43-48? But even if you don’t know him and don’t think you can, how can you call “God” someone who “has not been more progressive” than you are?
That’s what astonishes me! Laura, I don’t need “clear definitions of the new and everlasting covenant of marriage from General Authorities and Prophets”. That was something Verl was looking for. What I was asking was— “Prophets” of exactly *what*?? Of a sexist, racist guy, just as fallen as we are??
Kindly forgive me. I am not trying to attack— I really don’t understand how this is even possible!
Mike,
I agree. Here is a quote from my grandmother: “With the greatest of pleasure I bear my testimony to the truthfulness of the gospel, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I believe polygamy was right at the time we practiced it and that it was directed by God through Joseph Smith.” She married her second husband for “time only” in a plural marriage. She was sealed to her first husband, who died young and whom she dearly loved, for eternity. This is her testimony not mine. She lived the principle until the Manifesto, then divorced her plural husband to avoid persecution. She had a brief, but unhappy third marriage that was monogamous.
For more stories of Nauvoo polygamists, check out http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/home-3/stories-of-faith-nauvoo-polygamists/, http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/stories-of-faith-joseph-smiths-plural-wives/, and http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history-2/plural-wives-overview/.
Thanks for your comment.
Laura Hales
Laura Hales
This apologetic piece is defending the indefensible, as is the LDS.org essay. When I look at narcissistic, charismatic, male religious leaders over time, I see the exact same pattern: they gather a group of loyal followers, impose unique and often extreme rules on them, separate themselves from the majority, and at some point the charismatic leader gets a revelation that he needs more women in his life. Mohammed, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Wayne Bent, Joseph Smith – all variations on the same theme.
It will be nice when decades from now, the old guard has passed on and the younger more feminist generation acknowledges polygamy for what it has always been through the ages: a method for gaining power and control supposedly sanctioned by god.
Will,
I find your position on this narrow and overly-simplistic. Virtually every human institution (religious, political, military, educational, etc) since the beginning of time has been male-dominated because of male physical prowess and the essential biological demands on female’s pregnancy and child rearing. Technology has, in just a few decades, leveled the playing field for males and females (at least is western 1st world societies). However, I don’t believe that means we should demonize all past institutions where, in many cases, they simply made the most utilitarian decisions about how to survive and run their society.
I suggest you step back from trendy feminist sound bytes and actually study the economic utility as well as the faith commitment of polygamists, past and present. (Laura provided some very good links to some of these) There is a rich history of faith, love, sacrifice and economic practicality that I think you are missing with your one-dimensional “male power” narrative.
“Polyandry, the marriage of one woman to more than one man, typically involves shared financial, residential, and sexual resources, and children are often raised communally. There is no evidence that Joseph Smith’s sealings functioned in this way, and much evidence works against that view” (endnote 30).
Doesn’t the marriage of one man to several women not include the benefits listed above? It often did in Utah polygamy but Joseph , of course, didn’t live with any of the single women he “married,” so he also wouldn’t have lived with his polyandry us wives. The Lawrence and Partridge sisters don’t count since they were living with the Smiths prior to the sealings.
Hi Martie,
Joseph actually lived with the Partridge and Lawrence sisters after the sealings as well for a period of time thereafter. His sealings to legally-married women living with their legal husbands in the manner described in the essay were only polyandrous in a ceremonial sense. They did not take effect until the next life and were for eternity only. More information is available about these relationships at josephsmithspolygamy.org.
Laura Hales
Laura, yes, he continued to live with the two sets of sisters after their sealings, no change there, and Emma knew nothing about it, not until she finally relented for a time and approved of the unions, and he had them repeated. My point was that Joseph never, at any point, started living as husband and wife with any of the single women he was sealed to. So the fact that the married women he had himself sealed to didn’t move in with him and Emma proves nothing about polyandry.
All of Joseph’s polygamy was secret, so, of course he didn’t have the polyandous wives live in the Nauvoo Mansion.
I’d love to see how Mr. and Mrs. Hales justify these statements. Brigham spoke ‘as a prophet’ to the faithful believing members of his day with these teachings. Either he was mistaken and lead the entire church astray with these teachings, or he WAS mistaken, and we should look at any current teachings of prophets with skepticism. You can’t have it both ways.
Leah Marie,
Hi Leah Marie:
I found some interesting nuggets about this topic on lds.org.
First from a seminary manual found at https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-teacher-resource-manual/nauvoo-period/doctrine-and-covenants-132?lang=eng.
“Note: Avoid sensationalism and speculation when talking about plural marriage. Sometimes teachers speculate that plural marriage will be a requirement for all who enter the celestial kingdom. We have no knowledge that plural marriage will be a requirement for exaltation.”
Here is a choice nugget by Bruce R. McConkie found at https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-student-study-guide/the-church-in-nauvoo-illinois/doctrine-and-covenants-131-132-the-new-and-everlasting-covenant-of-marriage?lang=eng
Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:
“Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation. Nephi and his people were denied the power to have more than one wife and yet they could gain every blessing in eternity that the Lord ever offered to any people. In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. (D. & C. 132:1–28.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church.” (D. & C. 132:7, 29–66.)
Lds.org is a great resource for answers to your questions.
Laura Hales
Point out that there are contradictory quote about this does not make it less confusing. It makes it more unbelievable that people ever defended it in the first place. All of the mental gymnastics we do instead of just saying, “Joseph Smith messed up. That should not have happened.”
Laura’s position seems to be that the most recent official stance trumps all previous official stances.
She also does not see the inherent problems with this position for a church that claims to be led directly by God through his prophets. The minute it became clear to me that men lead this church, not God, was the minute I stopped being a TBM. The irony is that the LDS.org essay on race and the priesthood was what crystalised it for me.
Even if a prophet got it wrong on one issue, I am not sure how that equates to leading the entire church astray. The church is a multi-faceted vehicle to help us find grace for our salvation. It is on us to figure out if our how we leverage that vehicle for that purpose.
I think we should always question and seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit regarding any teaching from a prophet that does not feel right to us — as Brigham Young and other prophets have taught.
I would suggest that teaching any false doctrine – especially one as significant as polygamy – is the corrent and perhaps only definition of prophets leading the church astray.
Laura Hales,
Interesting. When I was desperately trying to find the definition of ‘new and everlasting covenant’ I asked so many leaders and CES people for the answer. I was horrified that I had made a covenant to be ok with polygamy without even knowing it! Everyone had a different take, sent me to different articles. gave me different opinions. But that was the problem- they were all OPINIONS! I wanted official statements from men who had authority, men who had been given the keys of prophet, seer, and revelator, who had the authority to speak for the church, or it needed to be scripture. Articles that were either author-less or were written by people I had barely heard of meant nothing- they didnt have any authority to be making claims for the church. Anything they offer up is pure conjecture. No one could give me what I was needing- statements from General authorities clearly defining exactly what that covenant I made in the temple actually was. (Which is interesting, isn’t it? Because every other covenant you make in the temple has a very clear and concise definition Attached and disclosed) But… I read and re-read d&c 132. By its heading and it’s content, it’s pretty clear that the ‘new and everlasting covenant’ most certainly means, or at least includes polygamy.
Hi Beverly,
The definition can be found in D&C 131:1-2. Also, Elder Scott echoed the definition in a conference talk that can be found at https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2009/04/temple-worship-the-source-of-strength-and-power-in-times-of-need?lang=eng&query=new+and+everlasting+covenant+April+2009+General+Conference and so did Elder Perry at https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1985/04/born-of-goodly-parents?lang=eng&query=new+and+everlasting+covenant+April+2009+General+Conference.
Thanks for your inquiry. Lds.org is a great repository of information for curious members of the Church about gospel topics.
Laura
Laura and Brian,
Please address the questions about the Law of Sarah. Thank you.
I checked lds.org and did not find a lot of information. The law of Sarah was addressed in the Nauvoo Polygamy essay but not in ours. Perhaps you may want to review the essay’s discussion.
“The revelation on marriage required that a wife give her consent before her husband could enter into plural marriage.42 Nevertheless, toward the end of the revelation, the Lord said that if the first wife “receive not this law”—the command to practice plural marriage—the husband would be “exempt from the law of Sarah,” presumably the requirement that the husband gain the consent of the first wife before marrying additional women.43 After Emma opposed plural marriage, Joseph was placed in an agonizing dilemma, forced to choose between the will of God and the will of his beloved Emma. He may have thought Emma’s rejection of plural marriage exempted him from the law of Sarah. Her decision to “receive not this law” permitted him to marry additional wives without her consent. Because of Joseph’s early death and Emma’s decision to remain in Nauvoo and not discuss plural marriage after the Church moved west, many aspects of their story remain known only to the two of them.”
Laura Hales,
” The law of Sarah was addressed in the Nauvoo Polygamy essay but not in ours.”
Are you saying you and your husband Authored the other recently released essay on LDS.org?
I’m curious as to why authors aren’t listed on any of the essays?
My husband was not asked to write the lds.org essays. I have just co-authored my first book on polygamy, so I certainly wasn’t consulted.That would have been humorous. The lds.org essays are written by committee. There is no single author hence there is no author name given. The essay I was referring to is this blog post. I encourage you to check out josephsmithspolygamy.org for answers to polygamy questions by Brian Hales or consult Joseph Smith’s Polygamy: History and Theology. Those were both written by Brian Hales.
john burnett,
Um, yeah… It does look that way, doesn’t it?
Hi Verl.
since your reply appears unconnected to my question, i’ll repeat what i asked, for clarity:
“If God doesn’t know, and is still stuck in sexism etc— is there really in fact any ultimate, absolute, final, infinite, unchanging Truth— or are there only current, temporary OPINIONS, even from God, whose truth, quite frankly, looks at present little more than a projection of the opinions of us sexist and ignorant men?”
You said, “Um, yeah… It does look that way, doesn’t it?”
So…. what do you make of this? What do you think others ought to make of it?
Thanks in advance.
john burnett,
My response ‘yes, looks like it’ was in response to “or are there only current, temporary OPINIONS, even from God, whose truth, quite frankly, looks at present little more than a projection of the opinions of us sexist and ignorant men?”
This issue (along with the racism) was what blew it all up for me- so my take is that God (if He exists) wasn’t involved in any of it.
As far as what do I think others should ‘make of it?’ – I think everyone needs to find their own truth, and I have no intentions to try to tell someone else how to think.
In the William Clayton diaries there is an entry where Clayton tells Smith that his wife has objections to his taking another wife. Smith’s response was “you have the right to all you can get”
George Smith wrote in Sunstone ” That next month, Margaret became pregnant and Clayton sought Joseph Smith’s advice. After discussing the problem with Emma, the Prophet advised Clayton to “just keep her at
home and brook it and if they raise trouble about it and bring
you before me I will give you an awful scourging and probably
cut you off from the church and then I will baptize you and set
you ahead as good as ever..9 from Intimate Chromcle The Journals of William Clayton (Salt Lake Ctty Signature Books, 1991). So much that is wierd about Mormon polygamy
Thank you for your write-up. I especially appreciate that you address that for many, perhaps most long-time members, the details of Joseph Smith’s practice of polygamy are surprising and shocking. Hopefully we can stop blaming well-meaning, sincere members for not doing enough study or for not paying attention.
mental gymnastics….my favorite way of working my brain. How does it work….I find a controversial topic….i’ll choose polygamy. I then find all the problems with it…i.e. a full grown man marrying teens, having sex with women that aren’t his wife, lying to his wife about it, lying to the church population, claiming that he has angels with flaming swords threatening to remove his agency, sending men off on missions and then marrying their wives, and so much other fun stuff. Then, I try and find every justification in the book for why this will fit my spiritual narrative that this man was the conduit through which the true church of God was restored to the earth. Then, i’m going to try and pretend like i could ever imagine in today’s day and age having a man like him restoring any kind of truth, let along imagining that he’s not in prison for his behavior with teens and married women. After all the mental gymnastics and trying to fit a narrative into a framework that cannot ever make sense I will declare that he is still the prophet of the restoration.
Leah, the Hales, by definition ARE LDS APOLOGISTS by definition.
Sorry for the redundancy in my last text. :). What I am meaning to say Leah (and btw my wife and I both loved your comments!) is that though the Hales would like to be considered experts in the LDS historian arena, they are nothing but thinly veiled apologists as is evidenced by the comments by Laura in the comments above.
I agree Mike. You can’t call yourself an historian, and then keep using lds.org as your go to reference. That’s…. not a good source for accurate LDS history. And an historian would know that.
Using LDS.org for a source of verifiable, correct, unbiased, accurate, trustworthy information would be the same as me using theonion as my go to source of news…..
When many early saints were introduced to the doctrine of polygamy, their initial reaction was revulsion – including Brigham Young.
To paraphrase Alexander Pope, first they endured but later they embraced.
I suppose anyone can eventually quiet a burning conscience if sufficiently motivated, but I think those early saints should have trusted in their own conscience – polygamy was a mistake. It’s time to stop defending it.