Navigating the Straits of Polygamy
The Church has a problem.
We are caught between the Scylla of our long history of practicing — and strongly defending — plural marriage, and the Charybdis of having given up that practice and now having to disassociate ourselves from modern polygamous groups.
From the standpoint of defending the Church, how should we navigate that strait?
The Church has clearly taken the position that they aren’t going discuss it, except to say “yes, we did practice it; no, we don’t practice it anymore.” Here are some of the few statements that can be found on the Church web site and in recent Church publications:
The brief primer “Polygamy: Latter-day Saints and the Practice of Plural Marriage” in the Newsroom section is probably the most comprehensive statement available. (You have to use the search feature to find it; the “Polygamy” link under “Background Information: History of the Church” is broken.) This document is as interesting for what it says as for what it does not say:
Plural marriage is described as “an important part of the teachings of [the Church] for a half-century” and the Church members today “honor and respect the sacrifices made by those who practiced polygamy in the early days of the Church.” With reference to modern polygamous groups, it offers President Hinckley’s October 1998 General Conference statement.
It explains that “the practice [of plural marriage] began during the lifetime of Joseph Smith,” without mentioning that Joseph himself entered into the practice with nearly 40 women, some of whom were already married, and a few of whom were quite young by modern marriage age standards.
It mentions the discomfort and foreignness that most early converts must have felt about the practice, but avoids discussing what percentage of Church members entered the practice, or how how common it was to have two or three wives (as it was among the general membership) versus five or more (as it was among general authorities).
It (correctly) separates the revelation to end plural marriage from Wilford Woodruff’s 1890 Manifesto, which was more of a political/public relations document. It does not mention post-Manifesto plural marriages or Joseph F. Smith’s 1904 “Little Manifesto.”
The only lesson in the four-year Gospel Doctrine curriculum cycle that mentions polygamy is Doctrine and Covenants Lesson 31. The lesson plan covers only the parts of D&C 132 that relate to eternal marriage; polygamy is relegated to a supplemental section that may be used “if class members have questions.” The instructor is admonished, “It should not be the focus of the lesson.”
This year’s Priesthood/Relief Society study is Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith. The manual focuses on “teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day” (p. xii). It briefly mentions Joseph teaching plural marriage, but does not mention his own participation in the practice or the extent thereof.
I don’t bring this up to be critical of the Church. We clearly have a public relations problem, and the Church is doing their best to deal with it. A 2007 Gallup survey asked Americans, “What comes to mind when you think about [the Mormon] religion?” The number one response — among those who view us unfavorably and those who view us favorably — is “polygamy.” That response was given by nearly three times as many people who said “good people” or “strong morals,” and nearly four times as many who said “family-oriented.” No matter how we think of ourselves, the fact is that many non-Mormons think of polygamy when they think of us. The Church’s public relations arm is trying to change that.
But the problem with downplaying polygamy is that many faithful Church members don’t hear about the more difficult issues — Joseph Smith’s involvement in particular — in a faithful Church setting where it can be put into context with the rest of Church history.
FAIR solicits questions about criticisms of the Church; FAIR volunteers try to respond to all of them. In 2007 we received more questions about polygamy than any other topic. Many of these people were just finding out about Joseph Smith’s polygamy, polyandry, and marriages to young women. We don’t talk about it in church, so they usually end up finding out about it on unfriendly web sites.
How do we solve this problem? We’re not likely to see Sunday School lessons on polygamy anytime soon. Outside of that, what can Latter-day Saints who know about these things do to “inoculate” your average Mormon in the pews?
FAIR volunteers have some ideas. We’d like to hear yours.
January 28th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
We can teach people the difference between principles (or doctrines) and practices. Principles never change. They are eternal. Practices of those principles do change, and are variable according to God’s will.
We believe in the doctrine of celestial marriage. One of the particular practices of this doctrine is plural marriage. Do we believe in the practice of plural marriage? Yes. It was and is a revealed practice that was given to the prophet Joseph Smith by God, as it was to ancient patriarchs like Abraham and Jacob who also clearly practiced it. To believe that it was not a true revelation and God-given practice would be to believe that Joseph was not a true prophet (the same goes for Abraham and Jacob). Today, God has commanded us not to practice it through revelation to His prophet on earth. It was the same during the dispensation of the meridian of time. Indeed, to practice such when God has forbid it is against His law, and those found practicing it will be excommunicated. The practice of the principle of celestial marriage has changed. Today, the practice is monogamous marriage.
There are parallels in many other practices of the Church. God has revealed the law of consecration. This is a principle or doctrine. It is eternal. But the practice of it varies. In the early days of the Church, the United Order was set up as a Church program to practice the law of consecration in a particular way. Today, the practice has changed. We no longer practice the United Order. We now practice tithing, offerings, and the Church welfare program, as well as sacrificing our time and talents in other ways. The practice of the law has changed.
Another example could be the doctrine of the gospel. The gospel itself is eternal and never changes. The practice of it has changed through time. The practice of it before the time of Christ was through the law of Moses, all in similitude of Christ’s coming. But when Christ came, he fulfilled and supplanted the law of Moses with the gospel of repentance and baptism. The practice of the gospel changed significantly. Was the law of Moses wrong? No. Was it wrong to practice it after Christ fulfilled it with the New Covenant? Yes. The practice changed.
Principles or doctrines are eternal and never change. Practices of those doctrines can change according to God’s will for His people.
January 28th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
I appreciate you bringing this up…
I recently started a website (www.graceforgrace.com) and I encounter people daily who have questions that I can’t answer about polygamy…I personally don’t know the extent of how polygamy was practiced and I’ve always sort of skirted around the issue.
Here’s a question I have. In the Book of Mormon Christ says salvation comes through faith, baptism, repentance, gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end…nowhere does polygamy come into play as a means to salvation or even eternal marriage.
How do you respond to questions about this?
January 28th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
I would even go so far as to say plural marriage is not an eternal principle. I think the Lord appointed the practice of plural marriage for a time.
As it is not an eternal principle, the fact the church says little about it is entirely appropriate.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Johnna,
Joseph Smith taught, “Every principle proceeding from God is eternal and any principle which is not eternal is of the devil.”
If you are correct that plural marriage in not an eternal principle, and if Joseph Smith is correct that non-eternal principles come from the devil, then wouldn’t that have to mean the revelation providing for eternal marriage is actually of the devil?
January 29th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Aaron said:
Here’s a question I have. In the Book of Mormon Christ says salvation comes through faith, baptism, repentance, gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end…nowhere does polygamy come into play as a means to salvation or even eternal marriage.
Neither polygamy nor eternal marriage is necessary for your salvation (see D&C 131). Eternal marriage is necessary for your exaltation. Contrary to most of our 19th-century brethren, I do not read D&C 132 as requiring polygamy for our exaltation.
Brent Hartman said:
If you are correct that plural marriage in not an eternal principle, and if Joseph Smith is correct that non-eternal principles come from the devil, then wouldn’t that have to mean the revelation providing for eternal marriage is actually of the devil?
Please read Bryce Haymond’s response more carefully. Plural marriage was a temporary practice in fulfilment of the eternal principal of celestial marriage.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Perhaps Pres. Hinckley response on the Larry King Show sheds some light on the issue of polygamy:
“I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal.”
January 29th, 2008 at 9:40 am
“I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal.”
I think that’s taking President Hinckley’s words somewhat out of context.
What is not doctrinal is practicing plural marriage without authorization from the President of the Church.
January 29th, 2008 at 10:27 am
I think Jacob 2:30 holds a key to understanding this.
January 29th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Hey, Last Lemming, please read my response more carefully. I was responding to Johnna.
January 29th, 2008 at 11:47 am
I completely disagree with polygamy– in practice and doctrine. I don’t believe that polygamy was of God. Something that caused so much heartache and strife and tried to ignore jealousy, unfairness and, yes, misogyny and virtual slavery of women, cannot (I believe) be of God. So, to answer the question… and I know this will get me flamed and then some… about if it is of the devil, I believe that (well, I just won’t put this in writing here lest someone accuse me of being a troll, which I am not. You can say that polygamy was necessary to protect women who, at the time, did not have many rights and opportunities. Well, the same can be said of all other women in society and the US society as a whole wasn’t practicing it and it was met with revolsion by society in general. Why did a man have to marry a woman in order for him (or the community at large) to help her and her family? You can say that the marriages were dynastic and nature and many never involved se*. But, by far, most of them were. I believe that God loves his sons and daughters equally and there is nothing equal about polygamy.
And to the question about how the church should respond to polygamy? With total and absolute transparency. Ignoring polygamy looks like they’re white-washing it and that serves no one. It makes me severely disappointed that in the entire Joseph Smith book that we’re studying over the next couple years, I can fine one single sentence referring to polygamy. If that doesn’t look white-washed, I don’t know what does. Being able to honestly and openly discuss our history, whether or not it is comfortably, makes us look like we’re hiding. When we hear of large corporations hiding relevant data, it doesn’t gain them more credibility– it gives them much less.
–I know there are probably lots of typos above. Sorry, I’m at work and don’t have time to edit my ramblings.–
January 29th, 2008 at 11:52 am
“For it is not meet that men who will not abide my law shall preside over my priesthood.” (1882 revelation to John Taylor)
“If we do not embrace that principle soon, the keys will be turned against us. If we do not keep the same law that our Heavenly Father has kept we cannot go with him. A man obeying a lower law is not qualified to preside over those who keep a higher law.” (John Taylor, Life of Wilford Woodruff, p. 542)
“What would be necessary to bring about the result nearest the hearts of the opponents of Mormonism, or properly termed the Gospel of the Son of God? Simply to renounce, abrogate and apostatize from the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage in its fulness. Were the Church to do that as an entirety, God would reject the Saints as a body, the authority of the Priesthood would be withdrawn, with its gift and powers and there would be no more heavenly recognition of the administrations among the people the heavens would permanently withdraw themselves and the Lord would raise up another people of greater valor and stability…” (Deseret Evening News, April 23, 1885)
The President of the LDS church cannot preside over that which he has rejected. President Hinckley stated that plural marriage was not doctrinal, which prevents him from presiding over those in the priesthood who have abided by the law. The President of the Church lost all authority over plural marriage.
D&C 132:4-6 is clear. To receive the blessings promised in 132, we must live the laws in which those blessings are predicated. The whole law.
The Lord revealed to John Taylor the following, “…It is more pleasing unto me that men should use their free agency in regards to these matters. Nevertheless, I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not. And as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph: all those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law. And have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham’s seed and would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham? I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions therof; Even so, Amen”
Perhaps John Taylor was a false prophet, along with all the other leaders that taught plural marriage was necessary for exaltation, as would have to be the case for the position of the LDS church to work today.
January 29th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Lulubelle,
How do you feel about eternal marriage? You can’t reject plural marriage without rejecting eternal marriage.
I’m always amused when the members of the Church today adopt the same language as the persecuters of the church in the 1800’s.
You might want to read “The Women of Mormondom” to find out how plural wives were really viewed and treated in the early days of the Church.
January 29th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Brent,
You are, of course, endorsing the fundamentalist/polygamist line of reasoning that the LDS Church presidents lost their priesthood authority when they put an end to polygamy.
The fatal flaw in this logic is that God’s commandments override everything:
The revocation of plural marriage was in accordance with D&C 124:49:
January 29th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Endless quibbling and justifying seems to be the FAIR solution. Maybe Joseph was just wrong to practice polygamy. Maybe other leaders were wrong to follow it. Could we admit that? Or do we have to keep parcing definitions of ‘principles’ ‘doctrines’ and ‘whoredoms’
January 29th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
tiredmormon:
I think your wish would be up for debate if polygamy wasn’t part of a canonized revelation.
So, no — that’s not on the table for those who accept Joseph Smith as a prophet.
January 29th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Getting back on topic…
I return to my original question: Your average Latter-day Saint isn’t aware of some of the messy details of polygamy, especially Joseph Smith’s practice of it. How do we get that historical information out to them in a faithful context?
January 29th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
tired.
I think polygamy (in its ideal Celestial form) is a beautiful principle. And I see ZERO need to apologize for it.
While my great great grandfather was providing for somewhere around 20 wives, across the border in Wyoming, good God-fearing monogamists were busy raping prostitutes and good Christians in Boston were cheating on and beating on their wives.
As soon as you are willing to apologize for the horrific and ugly institution of MONOGAMY, I might consider apologizing for polygamy. Yes, I’m being sarcastic, but honestly, I’m just tired of putting up with this crap. We didn’t do anything particularly more wrong than any screwed up group of human beings. Marriage has always had potential for a lot of abuse, no matter what form you are practicing it under.
Maybe it’s time our critics took a sniff of what they are shoveling.
January 29th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
So Joseph is right, the canonized revelation is right, and modern prophets are right. Got it. Let the parcing continue. We will admit no mistake. Onward!
January 29th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Mike Parker: In a completely open and transparent way with just the facts. I was shocked when I discovered the truths about polygamy in our history– and it wasn’t in church or church-approved reading materials or at BYU. I found it on the Internet, was shocked and didn’t believe it, then did fact checking on my own and, wow, that was a realy eye opener. We should be able to talk about this in church but the church does everything possible to ignore the elephant in the room. Ignoring it doesn’t make it go away, though.
January 29th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Seth,
Kind of a hot head today, aren’t you? When you see tiredmormon do you just go blank and type unconnected nonsense? I never trashed polygamy. Although your trashing of monogamy (sarcastic of course)seems reminiscent of Parley.
Why don’t you re-read my post and comment on something I said instead of using my post as a spring board for your own rant.
January 29th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Mike, actually telling our kids in Sunday School that Joseph practiced polygamy might be a good start. It would also help if we would quit acting embarrassed by it. We still practice it in fact. Guy’s wife dies, he remarries… viola! Celestial Polygamy! There is absolutely nothing weird, wrong, or immoral about it.
For the record, I am not a supporter of practicing polygamy in mortal life. I have no desire to do so either. But I am sick of being ashamed about it.
January 29th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Maybe Parley was onto something (and I do think I know which quotes you are talking about).
I did respond to you tired. You said we ought to admit polygamy was wrong. My response is “why should we?”
Or are you simply trying to make the point that Joseph was mistaken in his execution of polygamy. If so, I’ve actually thought that (personally) for a long time.
January 29th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Brent Hartman,
I believe in eternal marriage but I don’t believe in polygamy. At all. I believe that those who are/were sealed to more than one wife, well, God will figure it all out.
January 29th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
I don’t believe polygamy will be mandatory in the hereafter. But if people wish to practice it there, why not? What is particularly wrong with it once you take away the inevitable abuses and inequities that accompany its flawed mortal application?
January 29th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Mike,
Whose line of reasoning did the “fundamentalist/polygamist” adopt? Did they just come up with that on their own, or did the early prophets and apostles of this dispensation teach that very thing? Were the prophecies that Brigham Young, John Taylor, Heber C. Kimball, etc., who stated that if the Church were ever to abandon plural marriage that the priesthood would be taken away from the church, were all those prophecies false? Does the Church today descend from a line of false prophets?
You mentioned D&C 124:49.
Charles W. Penrose (refers to D&C 124:49 and states):
“. . . Quotations sometimes referred to by the weak-backed who need a ramrod fastened parallel to their spinal column. . .It is a little singular that some people will persistently refuse to see the difference between a certain special work and a principle or law. The consistency of the Lord relieving a people from any such obligation as the building of a house when prevented by enemies from accomplishing it is self-evident. When it comes to the abrogation of a law, a principle, a truth, the matter is entirely different. The revelation does not apply even remotely. . .” (Deseret Evening News, Editorial, June 5, 1885)
January 29th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Saying that polygamy was a mistake is better, in my opinion, than running around in circles trying to reconcile 170+ years of inconsistent discourse on the subject by making unpersuasive arguments that it was a principle rather than a doctrine. How is that for a run-on sentence?
Now, you can argue that there really is a distinction between doctrines and principles or that all of the prophets made perfect sense of the subject or whatever. But to hold, as Parker does, that Joseph, the scriptures, and the modern prophets are all 100% correct on the issue creates a lot of cognitive dissonance.
In my view, if Hinckley says, or said, r.i.p., that it was not doctrinal, case closed. Name it a mistake and move on.
January 29th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Brent Hartman does reveal one valid point here and that is that if were are going to disagree with him, we have to admit that somebody in authority in the 19th-century Church made a big mistake. Personally, I do not believe that mistake to have been polygamy per se (although like Seth R, I readily acknowledge the flaws in its execution). Instead, I believe the mistake was to insist that polygamy was not situational but was foundational, and therefore necessary to one’s exaltation. We should be upfront that such was the teaching back then and that it was wrong.
January 29th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Martin Luther, the father of protestantism, found nothing wrong or immoral about polygamy, and counseled Philip I that it was acceptable before God. If one were to reject the teachings of polygamist, then one would also have to reject a good portion of the Bible. Every Christian religion, whether they like it or not, has polygamy in it’s past. By condemning the Mormon doctrine of plural marriage, the are also condemning the early patriarchs of Christianity. The Church, in it’s rush to fit in with the rest of the Christian world, has started to do the same thing. They’ve adopted the teachings of the apostate Christian church by stating that polygamy is not doctrinal, and not of God. Too bad for Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, and Brigham. Now they haven’t just been rejected by modern Christianity, but by modern Mormons as well.
January 29th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Brent Hartman: How can you feel we can compare our society and its mores, practices, and morals with those of thousands of years past? They also stoned women, had very different dietary practices, and … well I could go on and on, Should we say that they are equal or superior in thoughts and actions to how we believe today? Gosh, if we’ve evolved and have, in that time, provided better rights, protections, and assumptions for humans (not just men), let’s acknowledge that (overall), it’s a good thing. Slice it or dice it any way you like but polygamy is not equal or fair. If it’s OK to practice polygamy in the next life, how is that fair to women? How is that equal? Do you really think my personality is going to change that radically in the next life? Do you think I’ll be OK with knowing that my husband is having se* with my sister wife? Or that I’ll think it’s ok to for him to share his affections, love and emotion with other women? That I’ll not wonder who his favored wife is– me or the other wife(s)? Polygamy, at its core, is unfair, and is akin to slavery.
Tiredmormon: I agree with you. It would be nice to have the church admit that it was just a mistake and move on. I am really, really, really tired of the church ignoring polygamy, never ever talking about Joseph practicing it (and not just practicing polygamy, but practicing polyandry and marrying very young girls, and lying to Emma about it), or just trying to sweep it under the rug. Face it, open, honestly, transparently, talk about it in church or wherever– Whatever, just not hide from it. Grrrrr.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Incidentally Lulubelle, I think it will apply both ways. Women will be able to be sealed to more than one person. Not doctrinal at all, but that’s how I see it.
Also, you have to make a distinction between the different terms:
Polygyny = one man with more than one wife
Polyandry = one woman with more than one husband
Polygamy = any system in which one person has more than one spouse.
So although polygamy has become synonymous with polygyny, it really encompasses more than that.
Polyamory is the desire, practice or acceptance of having more than one loving intimate relationship at a time with full consent of all involved. It is characterized by a lack of structured and ritual associations that characterize both monogamy and polygamy.
I consider polyandry and polygyny to both be fundamentally unequal and don’t personally believe that either represents the Celestial order (I’ll admit I could be wrong). Polygamy, under its official definition, I have no problem with. Symbology and ritual seems to be a little too important in the eternities for me to think that polyamory is going to be the arrangement.
I agree it’s better to just have this out in the open and let people either cope with it or not than continually hiding it. But perhaps a graduated approach would be best.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Seth R: Thanks. And I can’t disagree with a single thing you said.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
The fundamentalist aspect of polygamy is not in following the 19th century assertion that members who were commanded to practice polygamy needed to do so in order to be right with God.
The fundamentalist aspect is to deny God the right to change that command, as Jacob 2 anticipated, and as Brigham Young alluded to:
Polygamy was never about polygamy per se (though doubtless some so interpreted it). It was about obedience and demonstrating whether one believed in real prophets with real revelation as an ongoing, continuing reality. Brigham made this quite clear:
Thus, it was the acceptance of God’s will as revealed to his prophet which was key, not the actual fact of whether one practiced or did not practice plurality.
That principle applied in starting polygamy (which was difficult) and in ending it (which was also difficult). Those who wanted to cling to old sureties or assume that God could not speak further did not weather the storm well.
Those who did believe in and experience revelation did just fine. We ought to be cautious about assuming that plural marriage was a “mistake” when so many women reported profound spiritual witnesses to allay their concerns.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Lulubelle,
The scriptures don’t teach us that mankind naturally evolves. The scriptures teach us that apostasy is the norm, or in other words, the scriptures teach of devolution. God establishes the gospel on earth, and then man screws it up. Your postition, if I understand correctly, is that the Gospel is restored in a flawed state by the dispensational head, and then man eventually rejects those flawed portions of the gospel.
You speak of plural marriage being unfair to the woman, but I think it’s unfair to tell a woman who she can, or can’t marry. If a woman finds a righteous and honorable man, who happens to be married, and all parties agree with the marriage, who is the one standing up for the right of the woman to marry the man of her choice? Who’s the one who views the woman of being incapable of making a decision for herself? Every plural wife I’ve ever met entered into polygamy on her own volition. How insulting to these women to think of them as being nothing but virtual slaves. People accuse the polygamist of viewing women as slaves, but in reality that is the position of the anti-polygmaist. Like I said earlier, read “The Women of Mormondom”. It may change your perspective.
By the way, if plural marriage is unfair to anyone, it’s the man. His workload just doubled. He has less time for himself, while the wives have more time to do as they wish.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Greg,
Where did God revoke plural marriage? Where can I find that revelation?
January 29th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
The authority to perform plural marriages was revoked by Joseph F. Smith. One could argue about times and dates, but by 22 October 1904 the following letter was sent out (from Raymond, Alberta, Canada):
Given that only one holds the keys and controls them (D&C 132:7, and given that Pres. Smith was sustained by the 1st Pres and Council of the Twelve in this action, that is sufficient. The authority to practice plural marriage was vested in Pres. Smith and the others, and they exercised it. Plural marriage did not need to be “revoked,” merely the practice of it.
In harmony with D&C 42: “11 Again I say unto you, that it shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church.” (emphasis added)
This is why fundamentalist claims based on “secret” ordinantions (which are historically dubious anyway) don’t hold theologic water either. (To say nothing of them being a veritable rats’ nest of competing spaghetti-like authority and ordination claims.)
I don’t expect you to accept either of those premises, but there they are.
But, this is getting far afield from Mike’s question.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Greg,
Too bad, for the sake of your position, that plural marriages took place well after this letter.
I repeat my previous questions. Where did God revoke plural marriage, and where can I find that revelation?
January 29th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Brent Hartman said: How do you feel about eternal marriage? You can’t reject plural marriage without rejecting eternal marriage.
I’m always amused when the members of the Church today adopt the same language as the persecuters of the church in the 1800’s.
———–
The First Presidency disagreed with you.
“Celestial marriage–that is, marriage for time and eternity–and polygamous or plural marriage are not synonomous terms. Monogamous marriages for time and eternity, solemnized in our temples in accordance with the word of the Lord and the laws of the Church, are Celestial marriages.”James R. Clark, Messages Of The First Presidency, 5:329.
Heber J. Grant
Anthony W. Ivins,
J. Reuben Clark, Jr.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
We are a church of living prophets. What we need to see are quotes from a modern prophet that says polygamy is going to be reinstituted at any time. Please provide quotes from modern prophets. We are no longer living in the 19th century.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Juliann brings up an important point — it’s always easier to believe in dead prophets than in living ones. Virtually every prophet in the scriptures encountered this. The Savior encountered it.
There is a desire among a small faction of apostates to want to “freeze dry” the Church to prevent any further will of the Lord from intruding.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Juliann,
You just quoted Heber J. Grant. Is he still alive?
Heber J. Grant apostatized from the teachings of his predecesors. If you look at the teachings of the prophets before Heber J. Grant, you would find that they agree with Joseph F. Smith’s take on the issue.
“Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false…The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the law of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part… But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fulness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 20, p. 28)
January 29th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Moderator stepping in:
The comments on this blog have gone far afield of the original question I asked.
I’m not one to shut off a good conversation, but I would appreciate it if we could get back to the subject at hand.
Brent: I fully realize that nothing said here will satisfy you with regard to the cessation of plural marriage by the mainline Church. If water-tight arguments could be made then there would be no “fundamentalist” Mormons. Let’s just all agree that we disagree on this subject. Please.
Now, speaking to Latter-day Saints in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, short of reinstituting plural marriage, how do we communicate the historical difficulties to them in a faithful context?
January 29th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Mike,
True prophets speak the word of God. We know from D&C 3:2 that God does not “vary from that which he hath said”, nor does he “walk in crooked paths”. This goes along with what Bishop Heber Bennion said:
“We are told that the living oracles take precedence over all other authority, living or dead. We agree that the living oracles take precedence, PROVIDING THAT THEY DO NOT CONFLICT WITH THE DEAD ORACLES. …If it is true that the living oracles take precedence over all others regardless of their disagreements with the dead prophets, then the Saints must necessarily CHANGE THEIR FAITH every time there is a change in the presidency, to conform to the views of the new president. We must believe in Adam-God so long as Brigham Young lives, but so soon as a president arises differing with Brigham Young, we must disbelieve this doctrine and adopt the views of the new oracle. The mention of such an attitude is so absurd as to border upon the ridiculous.” (Gospel Problems, p. 6)
January 29th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Greg, polygamy was never revoked as a doctrine.
The only thing the revelation did was forbid the mortal practice of it. It’s still an active, though ignored, doctrine in our church.
Juliann,
Your James R. Clark quote is more troubling than anything else. Technically, you might say he isn’t denying the idea of Celestial polygamy. But if he is, you say, his words take precedence over what Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, George Q. Cannon and others were saying on the subject because he’s more recent correct?
So what’s guaranteeing that Elder Clark isn’t going to be overruled 20 years from now? The idea of obeying “living prophets” over dead ones is a useful tool of convenience and handy for compartmentalizing your life as long as you don’t care to think too much about things. But theologically, it tends to be a bit messy.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Brent:
Going by Bishop Heber Bennion’s reasoning, the early Christian Church should have never given up circumcision.
Now, can we please get back on topic?
January 29th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Moderator,
The comments on this topic reflect the problem that the LDS church has in regards to polygamy. It’s the change of doctrine, along with the cover-up, that allows the anti-Mormons to lead so many away from the church. The church needs to take the lead in starting these discussions. Instead, the church discourages any discussion of topics, like plural marriage, or Adam-God. I was born and raised in the church and I’d never heard anything about Adam-God until I was 25 years old. I know a lady in my ward, who’d been a member for 15 years, that didn’t know Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage. This isn’t new. I was just discusing this topic with my grandmother over Sunday dinner, and she said that when she joined the church over 50 years ago, that they actively taught Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy.
I’ve discussed plural marriage with many people, LDS, and non-LDS, and the only people that are really uptight about the issue are the LDS people. Like I said in an earlier post, all of Christianity has polygamy in their past. Why are we so embarrased by it? It makes the Church look foolish.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Actually, we (people) get a bit messy in our wording of thoughts, but here is the bottom line: We are not to obey prophets, we are to obey God. If, in the act of obeying God, we also obey prophets, then that is great.
The “don’t care to think too much about things” comes in if we choose to presume that any given prophet is speaking directly for God, and therefore we don’t need to ask God ourselves.
Fact of the matter is, polygamy never would have gotten off the ground if people–independent of Joseph–had not sought verification from God. Only when they received that independent witness of the Spirit did they obey, as should be.
Presuming, in the first place, that Elder Clark was speaking according to God’s will, there is absolutely nothing to guarantee that he won’t be overruled in 20 years or 25 or 26.5. It doesn’t matter, because God is capable of overruling whomever He desires.
If one doesn’t accept Elder Clark, fine; their choice. They can choose to or not. If one thinks that all thinking was set in stone with the advent of Joseph F. Smith, fine; that is their choice. But that doesn’t excuse anyone from discovering God’s will for themselves and then acting accordingly.
If I discover, through revelation from God, that a living prophet is telling me God’s will on a particular matter, and what he is telling me is inconvenient and may not comport with what I understood from a previous prophet, whom do you think God will expect me to follow?
January 29th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Brent, I respectfully disagree. I’m certainly not embarrassed by the polygamists in my past. The Church leadership is not embarrassed. The only ones who are embarrassed are those who don’t understand it and find it personally repugnant. That is one of the unfortunate consequences of not having taught our own history, something which the Church is doing because they need to distinguish themselves from pedophile groups like the FLDS.
So, acknowledging that things are as they are, how do we move forward to protect those who are learning about it from unfriendly sources?
(No, Brent, we’re not going back to polygamy. Please drop it. Future comments by you that attempt to demonstrate the Church is off course on this matter will be deleted.)
January 29th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Mike,
Are you talking about the law of circumcision, or the token of the covenant? One was of man, and one was of God. You might want to look up “gospel” in the index of the Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Sorry about the multiple threadjacks!
January 29th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Mike,
I have no doubt that you are not embarrassed by the polygamist in the past, but the actions and statements of the church seem to indicate otherwise. Where is the mention of polygamy in the teachings of the presidents manuals? How can you discuss John Taylor and Brigham Young and not explore their teachings on plural marriage? Did President Hinckley ever do anything but distance the church from polygamy? Just look at some of the comments by church members on this thread. The LDS people, in general, despise plural marriage. They are afraid to discuss it, and when they do, they don’t do a very good job. How could they? How much knowledge does the average member have on the subject? When the anti-mormons are doing a better job at educating people about our history than we are, that’s a huge problem.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Brent,
If you’ll re-read my original post, you’ll see that I give reasons for the exclusion of polygamy from the manuals. It has nothing to do with embarrassment and everything to do with relevancy to modern Mormons’ lives and a public relations attempt to distinguish ourselves from polygamist cults.
I fully realize that there is “blowback” to this action — in fact, that’s what my original post was all about. My question is how we defenders of the Church can help minimize that blowback under the current circumstances (which do not include affirming polygamy as an authorized practice today).
January 29th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Sigh. The point is that Joseph F. Smith and the twelve revoked any authority given previously to perform plural marriages. Pres. Smith certainly could have given other permission for marriages on a case-by-case basis after the Raymond letter (and I’d have no problem if he did) but given that no ordinations with authority to solemnize marriages were made publicly, and it is not known to the church (as per the requirement of D&C 42) that pretty much puts the kibosh on anyone existing in the present day who has the authority, short of the heirs of Pres. JF Smith.
And, since Pres. Hinckley has said we aren’t doing it right now, voila, quoi.
You don’t need “a” revelation to stop plural marriage, any more than Joseph needed D&C 132 written down before he started it. If the prophet is told to do something, he does it. That’s revelation; you don’t need a written document to somehow sanctify his official acts done in concert with the twelve. (Where’s the written, canonized revelation saying where the Salt Lake Temple should be built?)
But, to return to Mike’s question
Why don’t we teach the matter?
1. The only relevance that plural marriage has at present (theologically) is if someone has an issue with Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling (or his successors’) because of it. Simply put, if you want to believe that Joseph simply “mesed up” on plural marriage, but was still a prophet and those keys persist to the present day with Pres. Hinckley/Monson, I don’t think it really matters.
2. The Church’s efforts to “distance” itself from plural marriage are due, I believe, to the following factors (which are not exhaustive):
a) the Church does not wish to give even tacit support to polygamist offshoot groups;
b) the Church does not wish to leave itself vulnerable to having those who advocate present-day polygamy use benign discussion of it as a “backdoor” to convince vulnerable LDS members that the Church “really” approves of polygamy in the present day, and can only say so in oblique terms [we've seen examples of that tendency on this thread already]
c) the issues which concern most people (polyandry, Joseph’s early sealings, etc.) are those about which we know the least. We simply don’t understand how Joseph or others saw these things; it is not very satisfying to many people to teach things without some degree of closure. People generally are not comfortable with the ambiguity of real history.
d) There are, frankly, far more important issues. Most of the Church is first generation. Time is limited.
So, how ought we to deal with this?
Frankly, I think teaching about polygamy requires other groundwork. Members need to know their scriptures better. They need to get better at understanding personal revelation and enlightenment–hence the constant admonitions to scripture study, to understanding our doctrine, to focus on the basics, etc.
When one does these things, scriptures become a conduit for revelation. When members generally become better at doing this, they will understand the matter of personal revelation and direction better. They will, ironically, by immersion in the scriptures come to better understand that revelation begins (rather than ends) at the scriptures. (Elder Bednar has spoken repeatedly about this idea).
As we increase our ability to do that, we will be in a better position both to understand the personal revelation which drove plural marriage, and to receive the revelation for ourselves that will reassure us if we are troubled.
Thus, there is no need to wait on the Church. Such things can happen, and do happen, as soon as we are ready and willing to expend the energy and effort.
In a related note, part of the problem is that there is no good history of plural marriage without serious defects in fact and/or interpretation. Almost all treatments are hostile to the idea as being based on revelation.
I do not think the Church is in a position to produce a proper history–partly because there is just too much we don’t know, and if the Church endorsed or printed a history of plural marriage, then there would be a hue and cry when the historical data changed (which it inevitably will). The Church does not, by and large, endorse matters of history, save for a very few: the founding narratives of the restoration, like the First Vision, translation of the Book of Mormon, the priesthood restoration, restoration of keys, etc. But, aside from insiting on their “historicity” the Church doesn’t take a position. (Nothing would change, for example, if it was discovered that the Church was restored April 7 1830 instead of April 6.)
So, I think we need a faithful history of plural marriage that is both historically informed and which avoids some of the philosophic defects of previous treatments.
But, that must come from outside the institutional Church.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Mike,
When the number one response to what people associate with the LDS church is polygamy, and when that response was given by nearly three times as many people who said good people or strong morals, and nearly four times as many who said family-oriented, then I’d say that plural marriage IS relevant to the modern church, whether you like it or not. Section 132 is still in the Doctrine and Covenants, and will always be, as that’s where the doctrine of eternal marriage stems from. You can’t hide that.
The church has been trying to seperate itself from it’s polygamist past for a hundred years. What were the results of that Gallup survey again? Obviously, it’s not working.
You want to know how to deal with the problems the current policy creates, and I’m saying that the current policy is the problem.
The fundamentalist “cults”, as you put it, aren’t loosing membership to the anti-Mormon propaganda machine. Why? Because, if an anti-Mormon tries to tell a polygamist cult-member about one of the shocking teachings of the early brethren, they already know it. They’ve studied it, and they can defend it. Their knowledge diffuses any argument the anti’s may make. It works. The policy of never discusing plural marriage in church, does not.
I am curious as to what solutions FAIR volunteers have. How do you deal with these issues without discussing them in church?
January 30th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Greg:
Are you serious about your statement that time is limited so, therefore, we don’t have the time to teach polygamy in official church avenues? I beg to differ. What other church spends 3 hours on Sunday in various classes, has dedicated magazines and newspapers, and so much more? We have loads of time. As it stands, most of our Sunday topics are the same bland ones Every Single Sunday– fasting, prayer, reading scriptures, personal preparedness and regurgitated. Adding variety would be a weclomed change.
And are you really advocating that the church not have a responsibility to talk about polygamy and that members just study it on their own? Now how realistic is that? And if there aren’t credible sources in the church, members will find it elsewhere– and from far less credible (and sympathetic) sources who have their own agenda and ability to spin.
History on any subject changes constantly. That is certainly no excuse to ignore it. The same stands true with polygamy.
I have to admit that I learned about Joseph Smith’s practice of polygamy and polyandry from a non-church source about a year ago and it literally pulled the rug from under my feet. I started questioning Joseph Smith entirely– many of his teachings and revelations that were given to him at the time he was taking multiple wives and lying to Emma about it. I started questioning if he had fallen out of favor with God and, if he had, if the other revelations could possibly be true. I truly wish that I had learned about these uncomfortable aspects of church history in church or in church literature or at least in my religion classes at BYU. If I had, I believe things would be much different for me right now in regards to how I feel about the church (right now, it’s a love-not love relationship and I’m struggling). I guess I’ll compare it with the adoption of my daughter. From day one, I’ve always openly discussed how she was born and how she came to be my daughter. I felt that if I waited until she was older and then laid it on her, it would make it seem that the adoption was embarassing or something to be hidden (which it isn’t– it’s a cool story). By telling her from day one, it was never shocking, it was normal, and it was something that didn’t need to be hidden or kept confidential because it is what it is. I wish the church would take the same approach about polygamy and other not-so-comfy issues in its history.
–again, sorry the above isn’t written better. I’m at work and on limited time.–
January 30th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Lulubelle,
If you don’t mind me asking, how long were you a member of the Church before you found out about Joseph’s plural wives?
I also agree that there is plenty of time to discuss this in Church. They could even have a special class like the temple prep. class. I know that my wife and I took a voluntary class on parenting that met during Sunday school. Why not do the same thing for plural marrige? Let those that are interested take the class, and those that are not interested can go to gospel doctrine.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
I actually agree with Brent here. I think a weekday evening class, taught on a stake level, with a vetted instructor, covering some of the more difficult issues in Church history would be an excellent idea.
January 30th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Brent: I was born and raised a member of the church, born in the covenant, with very (emphasis on VERY) active parents. Well, dad is definitely more “into” it than mom, who more goes through the emotions. My entire extended family is LDS. My ancestors were the pioneers who made it to Utah with Brigham. I went to BYU for four years. Graduated from seminary. The whole nine yards.
I love the idea of an extracurricular class on church history (which fascinates me, if it’s not white-washed, which pretty much all of it is), and other doctrine, and REAL teachings of the prophets– not just the faith promoting kind. It makes me resent the church sometimes and wonder what else is out there that they’re not telling us. I’ll never leave the church, though. Not ever. It’s who I am, my family, my heritage. But it doesn’t mean that I haven’t become quite cynical about some of it.
January 30th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Actually, what I said was:
And, this was only one prong of a series of issues, which make things difficult. A far more serious issue to doing it formally in Church is, as I indicated, a fair degree of historical uncertainty.
I think faith in Christ, the ordinances, grace, mercy, charity, repentence, etc. are all more important. Plural marriage is a particular area of interest of mine. I would be thrilled to discuss it for hours. But, what interests or inthralls me doesn’t necessarily for everyone. It is common to think that whatever is preoccupying us should be important/interesting to everyone.
Is has been my experience that any lesson topic and any discussion can be made worthwhile and meaningful when tied to the atonement of Christ. Any discussion of Our Lord does not become boring. Most attempts to add “variety” fall short of that, in my experience.
I’m not sure why the Church has a “responsibility” to talk about any historical topic. The Church’s responsiblity is to teach the gospel and provide the ordinances.
As I said in my previous post, I agree that we need better sources. But, I’m not convinced that the CHURCH is the one to provide those sources. Unlike some break-off groups and others, the Church is fairly reticent about what it will assert. Given that historical data is fragmentary, any conclusion drawn in an official, correlated manual on this topic would immediately be pounced on as evidence that the Church was “hiding history” or “changing its story.” They’re damned if they do, and damned if they don’t.
Thus, I agree we need better sources, but they will likely come from outside the institutional Church. And, the production of those materials will, of necessity, have to come by those who learn by themselves.
How realistic is it? Well, at present, I don’t have much hope for most of North America, given that over half the population hasn’t read a book since high school, and when they do read they probably don’t pick works of history. Even fewer get into primary sources.
Thus, the topics you dismiss as bland: “fasting, prayer, reading scriptures, personal preparedness [which includes spiritual self-reliance],” are exactly those topics which must be emphasized so that those with the skills, interest, aptitude, and calling to produce the materials we need will do so.
For the future, I would definitely like to see some kind of “extra-curricular” teaching on this point. Again, the need for reliable materials and sources comes to the fore. It’s something of a Catch-22 until we can get better materials more widely available.
Even now, if the Church had a lesson or two on it, where do you send people for “further information”? There isn’t a book out there that I could in good conscience recommend.
I certainly sympathize with how Lulubelle experienced her discovery, and I agree that helping people not to be “ambushed” by information is a good thing.
But, as I’ve attempted to point out, there are interlocking problems that are not easily solved in isolation–all the pieces need to be in place (I believe) for an effective strategy. And, that takes time.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
I most certainly did not mean to imply that the topics I mentioned were boring. But let’s face it, there are very few really great teachers out there who can consistently bring up new and interesting ways of thinking about the same topics. Usually they are, sorry but it’s true, trite examples of oft-heard topics. I would love for at least GD classes to delve into really meaty topics. I’m not saying that let’s study polygamy for an entire year is appropriate but not talking about it at all? Well, the silence is deafening. And it really sucks to learn about polygamy from outside sources. I oftentimes don’t know if the author has an ax to grind against the church or if the info presented at least attempts to be fair and balanced. It would be great for the church to be more forthcoming. The fact that they don’t leaves in question what else they’re trying to sweep under the rug. From a PR perspective (and I am a PR profssional), it’s a disasterous approach.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Lulubelle,
Much of the blame for the condition you describe can be laid at the feet of correlation. Correlation is a lot like McDonald’s — you get the same thing everywhere you go (high consistency), but that thing doesn’t taste very good (low quality).
For people whose palates are tired of Big Macs and Happy Meals, there are other restaurants to eat at; for people who are tired of questions like “what does Nephi’s example teach us about the importance of Family Home Evening?”, there aren’t any options other than (a) finding a different church or (b) studying at home.
Option (b) is problematic because it’s hard to determine which sources are reliable. And starting one’s investigation with a Google search of “Mormon polygamy” is fraught with danger (try it and see what kind of links you get).
So back to my question: The Church is unlikely to start up “Advanced Church History” classes anytime soon. What can we lay members do to help uninformed Mormons?
January 30th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Yes. Hence my insistence that if all members immersed themselves in the scriptures, our classes would improve.
I would like that too. I taught GD for 5 years, and my class did talk about plural marriage. And, probably any other topic that anti-Mormons bring up. I told my class they were being vaccinated. No one complained, nor did my bishops or stake president (all of whom attended the classes) have anything bad to say.
But, that’s the problem with lay teachers in a lay church. The best you can get is what each member, as it were, is prepared to give. So, I repeat, if we all study these things more, we’ll be in a position to teach them responsibly if we’re called to do so and the spirit so dictates, and we’ll be useful in class if it becomes necessary and we’re the students.
With religious topics, “fair and balanced” probably exists mostly in the eyes of the beholder.
And, virtually all treatments of polygamy have an axe to grind AGAINST POLYGAMY, if not the Church per se. The best one is probably Kathryn Daynes’ More Wives Than One. There’s also Bachman’s 1975 Purdue thesis, which I think remains the best introduction. He at least gives Joseph the benefit of the doubt, which few authors seem willing to do.
I agree it can be made to look bad. Again, I think the Church needs a good history; by the same token, I don’t think the Church can be seen as having solicited or produced said history.
So, get writing.
Plural marriage was always in many was an Abrahamic test, putting one utterly at odds with surrounding culture. It remains so for us, I suspect. It is not meant to be comfortable, or easily wrapped into a neat package.
That said, the more I learn about it, the more impressed I am. I have become convinced (I wasn’t initially) that it was a vital part of the restoration, an inspiring story, and one of the great tales of religious liberty. And, I suspect we will eventually see more clearly (within our lifetime) some of the value in the way the Church and its members handled those difficult decisions.
I have not (yet?), however, figured out how best to transmit that sense to others. Perhaps it cannot be.
In the meantime, I think the stakes are certainly able to teach such things in outside classes if they want. Despite the critics’ caricature of the Church being dictated to in a “top down” fashion, stake presidents are being encouraged to take greater and greater latitude in how they do things, and how they solve problems which they perceive in their stakes.
A stake president is in a far better position to decide that this needs dealt with, and to find someone qualified to help, and find the means and forum to do so, than the Church heads in SLC are to find a fit for everywhere from Boston to Botswana.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:08 am
Greg: I’m glad you feel better about polygamy the more you’ve studied it but the more I’ve studied it, the more it repulses me. My dad, though he said he doesn’t understand it and would never practice it, defends it because some of my pioneer ancestors practiced it (ick). Mostly, it goes against everything I believe in to more core– that marriage is two people becoming one. The only way that can happen is for those two people to be devoted to each other with no other distractions, to put all their energy into strengthening the relationship and building a family. For me, it’s about equals, about fairness, about fidelity, about love. When the male in the relationship is given free reign to find other sweeties out there, date them, marry them, have sexual relations with them, and have children with them, that destroys the primary union. (And if only the male gets to practice polygamy, how is that even fair??) Sister wives don’t necessarily get along. There is competition to be favored wife. There is jealousy. Of course there is– it’s human nature. (And not all wives were happy– not even Brigham’s wives all thought polygamy was such a great thing.) Anyway– total threadjack. Sorry, I know this isn’t about debating polygamy, but how the church should deal with it (which, as I’ve stated, should be openly, honestly, transparently)
Brent: So eloquently said. And you are absolutely correct here– there is absolute fear, bordering on paranoia, about approaching certain topics or talking about beliefs or ideas or even questions outside the mainstream. My dad, bless his heart, whenever I bring up polygamy or MMM or other topics, absolutely panics, gets shrill, defensive, angry, and accusatory. Some of the comments range from:
1. “You’re on the road to apostasy.”
2. “Your intellect will get in the way of your testimony.”
3. “You’re reading anti-Mormon literature again.”
4. “How dare you critisize the religion of your ancestors– your grandparents, your family?”
5. “You need to pray more and read the scriptures.”
6. “Where did you get this information? If it didn’t come from the church, then it’s false. Everything you need to know about the church comes from the church.” (Really? Seriously, dad? If I want to know everything about a Honda, do you really think I’m only going to get answers from Honda Corp? Or maybe others who’ve owned Hondas, consumer reports, Kelly Blue Book, etc? Good heavens!)
In seminary, if I ever brought up different thoughts in class, my seminary teacher would call my dad and tell him to keep me in line. There were two weeks where my dad had to come to seminary and sit next to me to ensure I would keep my mouth shut or my teacher wouldn’t let me into class. I’m not kidding here. I graduated. Barely. And not because I didn’t go to seminary or do the homework and tests either.
I’ve taught Sunday School and Relief Society and I would never even approach sensitive topics lest I get a bad reputation as an apostate or get removed from my calling.
I will never understand such fear of learning, questioning, debating, and sharing opinions on any topic.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:09 am
Lulubelle:
I appreciate this perspective. But please understand that it represents a view of marriage held by a minute fraction of people who happen to live in Western society in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Billions of people have — and continue to — see marriage much differently than you do.
Peterson’s First Rule for the Study of Other Religions has application here: “If a substantial number of sane and intelligent people believe something that seems to you utterly without sense, the problem probably lies with you, for not grasping what it is about that belief that a lucid and reasonable person might find plausible and satisfying.”
January 31st, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Mike,
While I don’t agree with Lulubelle’s position on marriage, isn’t her position the official position of the Church? What happens when the missionaries go to a culture in which polygamy is accepted, and convert a polygamist? Doesn’t he have to renounce his views on marriage to comply with the Church’s view on marriage in order to get baptized? If the majority of the world’s cultures accept polygamy then how does Peterson’s First Rule for the Study of Other Religions apply to the Church? You apply that rule to Lulubelle when her posistion is the same as the Church. Am I wrong?
January 31st, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Brent,
You are confusing an individual’s feelings about a practice with an institution’s policy on that practice.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:44 pm
I don’t really want to participate in most of what this discussion has become, but I do have a question.
It appears to me that we acknowledge Fanny Alger as a wife of Joseph Smith. But who performed the ceremony? When/Where was it performed? It doesn’t seem that we know the answers to those questions, but is there any evidence that a ceremony was performed? Who was Joseph preaching plural marriage to before this first one.
I think this aspect is one of the most difficult to address.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:00 pm
You’re right about the difficulty rating, spencer. We have so few details, and most of what little we know comes from antagonistic sources.
Of course, it’s quite possible that there was no ceremony performed, in the sense that we now think of a sealing ordinance. It’s not even clear if Joseph saw this as a “time and all eternity” sealing vs. a “time only” marriage. We need to be very careful that we don’t look back with our institutional eyes on that time before everything was doctrinally organized.
Joseph’s first inkling of plural marriage appears to be in a comment he made in Missouri in July 1831 to a group that included Oliver Cowdrey, Martin Harris, Ziba Peterson, W. W. Phelps, Joseph Coe, and Joshua Lewis that “in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and Just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles.” (source)
(This revelation is problematic, however, in that it’s based on W. W. Phelps’ recollection decades after the event.)
January 31st, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Spencer,
I am sure someone else is working on a response as I type.
I consider the evidence to very strong that Joseph had a revelation about polygamy in early 1831 and that he discussed polygamy with members of the Johnson family that he was staying with at the time. Orson Pratt heard about polygamy from Lyman Johnson while the two were on a mission. There was also another revelation in 1831 that Phelps recalled in Utah and apostate Ezra Booth wrote about in his Dec. 1831 letters to the Painsville telegraph that suggested polygamous marriages with Lamanites.
I recently posted on M* about Annie Lyman, who historians disagree whether she was Oliver Cowdery’s plural wife. My contribution to the subject was to narrow the time frame this marriage would have occurred to when Joseph Smith was away with Zion’s Camp and Oliver was absent from his first wife for over a year. However this remains conjectural.
Levi Hancock performed the Alger marriage according to his son Mosiah. There is some debate on when it happened between 1833-1835. Greg Smith has created a more thorough chronology for it than I. Even some apostates considered it to be a “sealing” or “celestial” union. Benjamin Johnson reported that the Alger family consented to the marriage and we know most of her family (but not her) went with the Church to Utah.
The FAIR wiki covers these things better.
January 31st, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Thanks for the responses. I kept looking a bit and came across Compton’s article on Alger in the JMH, spring 1996. I haven’t finished reading it yet.
I think the lack of documentation probably and early time frame make it difficult. As Compton points out, the marriage is typical of others that took place later that don’t seem as difficult to accept.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:21 pm
spencer,
Glad we can help. I liked Compton’s treatment of Fanny Alger in In Sacred Lonliness, so I imagine that the JMH article is helpful as well. He was the one that discovered the material in the Mosiah Hancock journal.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Lulubelle,
I really appreciate what you bring to the discussion. The fact that most members don’t know how to answer your questions certainly makes most defensive. The institutional instruction of difficult topics is something that the Church History Department recently decided to address. Thus you saw the MMM article in the Ensign last year. I believe that the best materials will be written by historians who are faithful members of the church.
You may want to check out his thread at MormonMatters.org regarding what benefits the church found from the practice of polygamy.
January 31st, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Have you been studying the primary documents, or various people’s treatments of it? In my experience, the documents tell a somewhat different story than the slant often put on things. I’ve found that the closer I can get to the original stuff, the better the story becomes.
As Mike as pointed out, this is a fairly presentist view of marriage. This is not to say that it is not a valuable, or even ideal state. For most of history, though, marriage was seen far more as an economic and social arrangement. The answer of “What’s love got to do with it,” was “Nothing, usually.”
Believers in every age must make the marital practices or traditions work for them in a gospel context.
Interestingly, Mormons managed to resacralize marriage just as it was becoming more secularized in the west than anytime since the time of Christ, at least. This was a good counter-current to the American culmination of a long series of changes dating back to the Reformation.
We have joined the mainstream to a degree, but we have maintained a sacralization and seriousness for marriage that would not stand out much in the Victorian era, but does in the 21st century, especially outside of the USA (see: Europe).
A good book on this change is From Sacrament to Contract: Marriage, Religion, and Law in the Western Tradition (Family, Religion, and Culture) by John Witte Jr.
For a social history, see: Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage by Stephanie Coontz.
For further background on the American development of things, see: Nancy F. Cott, Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation.
And, Mormon polygamists did not, by and large, buy into the Victorian view of how marriage should be. (Some have argued that the Victorian backlash against polygamy says a great deal about the dissatisfaction with Victorian marriage felt by many. In fact, anti-polygamy works tell us a lot more, I think, about 19th century authors and their issues than they do about the Mormons.)
See: Cannon, Charles A. “The Awesome Power of Sex: The Polemical Campaign against Mormon Polygamy.” The Pacific Historical Review 43, no. 1 (February 1974): 61–82.
So, if you’re wanting 19th century Mormon polygamy to be a model for a 21st century monogamy, romance-based marriage, you will be consistently disappointed. But, this was not how they felt it was intended to be for them. Nor, I think, was that the point.
This is one point that will be absolutely neccessary for members to “get” if we hope people to understand plural marriage.
January 31st, 2008 at 8:38 pm
I don’t think you should extend how your father reacts to how everyone else does or would react. This is an extreme reaction, and probably doesn’t reflect the “mean.”
I think people’s reaction will often be determined (or at least exaggerated) by how we present things. If you present an issue like MMM, or plural marriage, or whatever, in the negative tone that you’ve taken here, people are going to get defensive.
This is not to say that you are not entitled to your feeling or reaction–or even that such a reaction is not the proper one (that would be determined on a case-by-case basis). It is simply to point out that if you go into a discussion about plural marriage being something that “repulses” you, or “goes against everything I believe in,” you’re going to get a defensive reaction.
Mormons have a long history of having our beliefs mocked, misunderstood, and caricatured. We also have a long history of much of the fodder for such thing coming from former members of the Church–apostates, as it were.
It is easier, I think, to deal with opposition from outside than someone who was once inside. We can take being misunderstood or misrpresented by those who do not know us. But, it cuts deeply to have someone who was inside, who we hoped knew us and our hearts, come to a different conclusion about such things and attack that which we hold dear.
(As an example, witness the Muslim reaction to Salmon Rushdie’s Satanic Verses. I’m not saying Rushdie deserved the treatment they dished out–no one does. But, Rushdie was also not the holy innocent in all that–as a lapsed Muslim, he knew all the buttons to push to outrage, offend, and denigrate Muslim belief–and he pushed them, knowing full well, I suspect, how the “Muslim in the street” would feel.)
We also have a long and painful institutional memory of society using plural marriage as a political club to achieve ends that had nothing to do with plural marriage per se. It has been used as a tool by religious enemies. And, it has been distorted and caricaturized beyond recognition repeatedly.
Like a whipped child, some of us have an almost instictual reaction to try to head off what appears or feels like efforts to do the same thing. (Again, this is hardly unique to Mormons. One can see the same thing in other groups with race issues, the Holocaust, etc.)
The fear is not learning; the fear, I suspect, is what people think you are doing when you try to engage in those things.
I think the forum matters a great deal. Seminary class, to use your example, is not the place for such things. I will certainly grant that seminary can be deadly boring, and teach false doctrine on occasion. Been there, done that.
But, to bring up “tough questions” can often look like an effort to showboat, or get attention, or sow discord, or stir the pot. (Not that they were such things in your case, but I think we can all think of cases where that impression seemed overwhelming.) And, in such cases, people’s motives are not often pure or admirable.
As I said earlier, I’ve taught SS, and never had problems, and no one has ever thought me apostate. But, I suspect this hinges on how one approaches such things. Do we have an affirmative way of doing things? Are we there to help people and bring them to Christ through that discussion? If not (and I am not at that place with every topic; I thus don’t touch those topics) we ought, I think, to go elsewhere in our discussion.
Boyd K. Packer gave a fascinating account of how he views such matters, and I think it speaks to this issue (as well as putting the lie to the caricature of him as someone trying to “suppress the truth”):
Too often (and I do not say this about you, but about us in general) we are too interested and excited by the process of searching for answers, that we do not much care if we have no answer forthcoming.
As Elder Maxwell warned:
Sigh. I miss him.
Greg
January 31st, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Greg,
I’m a little suprised by your comment in which you said, “if you go into a discussion about plural marriage being something that “repulses” you, or “goes against everything I believe in,” you’re going to get a defensive reaction”.
I believe that any defensive reaction in church would come from not being repulsed by polyamy, or stating that polygamy is something that you do believe in. I didn’t hear any defensiveness from people at church when Mitt Romney said, “I can’t imagine anything more awful than polygamy”. I just don’t see a member of the Church receiving any kind of grief for being against polygamy. Who’s more likely to be called to the Bishop’s office, the person who speaks up in Gospel Doctrine and says, “I hate polygamy!”, or the person who says, “I support polygamy!”?
January 31st, 2008 at 10:35 pm
The defensive reaction comes when the implicit or explict stand is that polygamy was a mistake, uninspired, or driven by base motives on the part of Joseph, Brigham or others.
No one will have a problem with the expression (as with Romney’s remark) that we are glad not to have polygamy now, or that it was filled with difficulties. Brigham Young, John Taylor, and many others were equally clear about that. Few people were keen on the idea.
The question is not opposing or supporting the practice of polygamy. The question is about the source, purposes, and goals of plural marriage, and whether it has a revelatory basis or not.
That’s the rub, as any review of scholarship and polemic on this topic (e.g., Todd Compton’s In Sacred Loneliness or the Tanners’ subsequent treatment of the information Compton included). Compton argues that polygamy was a mistake. That’s the issue.
It’s like crossing the plains. That it was difficult and we’re glad we don’t have to do it is easy. To argue that moving to SLC was an uninspired MISTAKE (using the challenges experienced in the trek as evidence) would be quite another matter.
It is, in a sense, the position with the most tension.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Brent,
I’ll openly confess that I was offended by Mitt Romney’s remark. I’m the descendant of polygamists, and I’m honored to be the descendant of people who sacrificed so much and were so obedient.
(My great-great-great grandfather, Mads Christian Jensen, was married to four women. He died 11 July 1898 in Brigham City, Utah. President Wilford Woodruff sent a letter to his family, writing, “If any man understood the proper meaning of polygamy, and lived it correctly, it was Mads Christian Jensen.”)
I can imagine a lot of things more “awful” than polygamy. Romney made that statement to score political points with non-Mormons, plain and simple. (One reason among many that I’m not voting for him).
There is a difference, however, between being grateful and honored to be the descendants of polygamists, and stating, in the the present tense, “I support polygamy.” The key word support is a red flag for someone who is headed down the road to apostasy.
I have publicly stated in church meetings that I would have no problem if the Church returned to practicing polygamy. But I would never use the phrase you did.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:47 pm
I appreciate everyone’s perspectives and comments on my posts– and they’ve been respectful responses, too! Food for thought. I try not to purposely push buttons when I’ve had questions on these topics or have just wanted to discuss them. But when someone gets shrill on my, I have to admit, I get shrill back. I’m not sure where the proper venue is to discuss anything so, in fear, I just shut my mouth in church, with my HT, Bishop, you name it– most everyone. I’ve even learned to shut my mouth around my dad )(most of the time). But when I feel like I’ve been lied to and misled about pieces of our past– important pieces, mind you, as they are the words of our prophets– then I get really angry and feel decieved (not a good feeling to have about the church that, apparently, is the One and Only True Church and Who God Would Never Lead Astray or Allow Mistakes in Doctrine To Be Made Especially When His Prophets Speak. I’m trying to reconcile it all in my mind but it’s not easy since many of these topics seem to be off limits. It’s why I love these message boards most of the time (when I’m not getting flamed). So, thanks for all your input. I’ll look into some of the suggested reading. But I doubt I’ll ever see polygamy as inspired, Godly, and right.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:49 pm
PS: I, too, am a descendent of polygamy and while I’m grateful to be born and I’m sure my ancestors were pretty fascinating, resilient, obedient and faithful people, I’m not proud that they practiced The Principle. I’m ashamed of it, actually, and would never admit it to anyone if I didn’t have to. If the church brought back polygamy,Mike, I think that would finally push me over the edge. I’m pretty dang sure I’d leave the church over that one (and I have a feeling I’d have a lot of company on my way out). Maybe I’ll change some day. I doubt it, though.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Again, sorry about all the typos and poorly written comments above. I’m actually a writer/PR Vice President with a degree in English but you’d never know it by the way I write on these boards!
February 1st, 2008 at 2:18 am
This is certainly a difficult subject.
One thing that I have had to come to terms with as I have looked into apologetics and understanding the mass of information surrounding LDS polemics is that sometimes people are wrong… and it’s okay. We have a terrible information problem in the church, we have many speakers with different opinions emerging from different time periods saying different things. Often we know (or at least are shown) little of the context and rationale behind their words. Those who burrow deep into these things soon find it to be a maze.
I truly and wholeheartedly believe Bruce R. McConkie was an Apostle. I also strongly disagree with some of the things he said during his lifetime, perhaps going so far as to say he was wrong on multiple occasions. It is Ok. I needn’t attempt to harmonize every piece of data that I receive.
Church leaders misspeak. It happens. I suspect this is why speeches over the pulpit in conference have the tendency to become more and more “vanilla”. As our leaders are learning from the mistakes of their very opinionated forbears they are trying to prevent further confusion.
Anyone who wants to ponder matters of salvation should start by reading the scriptures and praying. As they deal personally with many great and difficult questions, including polygamy, they will certainly seek guidance from the writings of prophets and other sources (i.e. fair, ensign etc.) But the conclusions they come to should generally be private and should rely deeply on the power of revelation. Not having all the answers is OK.
What I am saying is, These are not simple matters, and are therefore not simply resolved. But las time I checked my testimony was rooted in (first and foremost) Christ’s atonement, and then in the scriptures and my faith in Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling and subsequent prophetic calling of his successors. All of this pertaining to salvation and the Christlike life. All other matters, however deep, interesting, or troubling will be secondary. Polygamy never left me feeling washed of my sins, nor has the doctrine of Calling and election being made sure filled my mind with light. Just saying. The church has made my life stronger and better. This I know.
I too would appreciate some openness on difficult subjects from church leaders.
I guess that was a really long was of saying that discrepancies in statements by church leaders ought not to testimony breaking issues, and that Church Leaders have said things that weren’t true in the past. While we may be unable to explain everything the scriptures are clear that we follow the living prophet and the teachings of the gospel on the path to salvation. Therefore I press forward despite the fact that I don’t have the full picture.
Did any of this make sense? or did I just ramble. I can handle the truth.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:10 am
I encounter new information about Mormonism all the time in my personal studies. The discovery process makes the experience rewarding. I find it hard to get others excited about the subjects I am interested in, so I imagine if I ever got a Sunday School teaching gig, my class size would whittle down in a hurry.
When I find new information that counters some of the erroneous folk doctrine taught by ignorant, yet well meaning teachers, I find that cause for rejoicing. I don’t think it is wise to cast things in terms of deception and people lying to me, because a) they did not do so knowingly and b) I like to take responsibility for what I choose to believe.
In my engineering profession I frequently simplify reality by creating models. Those models provide good enough description of observations and predictions of behavior under some range of conditions, but breaks down outside of that range. When models break down, I feel free to switch to a more complicated one. Even so the more nuanced model is not always preferable to the simpler one. There is less of a learning curve, fewer calculations involved, etc.
So when I encounter new information that goes beyond what my well meaning seminary teacher’s speculation, rather than setting Christ and his prophets for “things of naught” I just give thanks that the Lord has blessed me to be more wise than they.
So even in our scriptures, our prophets have not claimed to be error-free in matters of doctrine. However they have pleaded with us to be charitable to them when we do discover such imperfections.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:36 pm
I think this is a common feeling, and I think many do not do a good enough job of clarifying this doctrine. What you express here is, no doubt, how some Mormons think about the matter, but it is not Church doctrine.
The issue is not _God_ leading people astray, but whether God will allow _his prophets_ to lead the Church astray.
Boyd K. Packer (not, I think we will agree, a doctrinal “liberal”) makes this very clear:
Prophets can make mistakes. But, God doesn’t let the Church drift in a way that is permanently harmful. But, He gives us a fair amount amount of leeway. The point, after all, is to learn to exercise our native capacities more and more as He would; it is not to become simply good marionettes. That plan was vetoed long ago…
And, Brigham Young and others have long insisted that they MIGHT make mistakes teaching doctrine, and that the only guard against that was revelation–which each individual in the Church has a right and duty to get, and keep.
I particularly like this one: vintage Brigham. Earthy, funny, good spirited, warm, and comforting:
There are, of course many, many similar statements throughout Church history.
This is not to argue that I don’t think prophets ought to be given the benefit of the doubt. My first reaction ought not to be, “Huh, I’ll bet that’s not true.”
As Trevor and Keller have so eloquently put it, only revelation can resolve these issues. It was all that solved it for the people who lived it–their accounts are crystal clear on that scope. Yet, we somehow want all the historical pieces to “mesh” for us without that. Why? If the record is clear about anything, it is that they weren’t able to do it without revelation.
After the fact, they came up with what they thought were good reasons, explanations, etc. But, that’s all whistling in the dark without the revelation which undergirded it. I feel to embrace their revelation; their explanations I think less vital.
Plural marriage was, and remains, fundamentally a question about revelation. We are too accustomed, I think, to a pattern that people sometimes fall into–of looking for the “external proofs,” or the “good things” that come out of obedience, as proof that we’re doing the right thing.
We like that we don’t get cancer from cigarettes, or STDs when we keep the law of chastity, or better marriages when sealed in the temple. (This is not to say that there are not fruits of obedience, but they are–in my experience–far more likely to be internal. I know them, but they are not on display, nor can I–or should I–parade them.)
All these are (in a sense) to trust the Gift more than the Giver of the Gift. Do we want what God offers us because it will do good things for us? Or, do we want what He wants because HE wants it? Can we give our will to Him?
Early Christians didn’t get a lot of perks. Being a Christian would shorten your lifespan, get you fed to lions, get you tried for treason by the state, separate you from your family, etc. There was no good REASON to believe, other than that it was true.
Early Mormons would be vilified, attacked by at least two state militias and the U.S. army, have legislative attacks waged on them, vilified in the press, caricaturized in novels, taken from the comfortable east and stuck in a desert fighting grasshoppers.
Can we, as C.S. Lewis was wont to remark, cease advocating Christianity because it is useful, and start advocating it because it was true?
Only revelation makes that possible. Without it, polygamy or something else will ultimately be too hard to swallow.
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:58 am
Greg,
You said, “God doesn’t let the Church drift in a way that is permanently harmful”.
Is that the lesson we learn from the scriptures? It seems to me that one of the primary lessons of the Book of Mormon is ‘apostasy happens’. The message is ‘learn from our mistakes, or you will fail as we did’. Tell me, which of the previous churches, established by God, did not fail? The only example I can thing of is the city of Enoch, and I don’t think weR