David Snell’s New Video on Polygamy in Utah

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Tony uk said:

It seems to me, that people these days, do not want to take a risk on sacrifice. Marriage, kids, starting up their own homes or business, or moving to a new job. Everything seems to be a risk that few people wish to take. Some people may wish to take an easy option and stick with what they know. 

I think it is more that the risk to reward ratio has skewed. In the past you could have children early and have an expectation that income would likely rise over time to match your needs even if you were struggling at the time. That is less likely to be the case now. They aren’t narcissists. They are nihilists. I don’t blame them.

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Nathan stood proxy actually for the sealing. 

Got to admire him for not insisting he be the sealed husband since he could have (since she hadn’t been sealed before he died).  I remember Hyrum Smith standing as proxy for the deceased husband his first plural wife, Mercy Fielding, the sister of his second wife (I say first plural wife as he was sealed to her for time and Mary Fielding was considered “first wife” in terms of plural marriage even though she was his second wife because Jerusha had died before any other marriages/sealings were performed).  I wonder how common that was.

I also wonder if that is still practiced at times, proxy sealing to first husbands who might not even be baptized before their deaths or if the remarried widow is counseled to either wait till death if she wants to be sealed to her first husband or to be sealed to her second, living husband instead.

Edited August 26, 2025 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Got to admire him for not insisting he be the sealed husband since he could have (since she hadn’t been sealed before he died).  I wonder if that is still practiced at times, proxy sealing to first husbands who might not even be baptized before their deaths or if the remarried widowed is counseled to either wait if she wants to be sealed to her first husband or to be sealed to her second, living husband instead.

Good question. I believe Nathan was quoted as saying “he would not rob the dead” or some such. Interestingly the temple work for him and Eliza was completely in the last couple of decades iirc (which actually upset my rather conservative brother for some reason). 
 

By all reports he treated all the mingled children equally and was a very kind guy. 

Edited August 26, 2025 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Rain]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Got to admire him for not insisting he be the sealed husband since he could have (since she hadn’t been sealed before he died).

I'm not sure I do.  The two oldest kids would hardly know their father.  The 5 youngest children would not know the unrelated man they were sealed to. 

3 hours ago, Calm said:

 I remember Hyrum Smith standing as proxy for the deceased husband his first plural wife, Mercy Fielding, the sister of his second wife (I say first plural wife as he was sealed to her for time and Mary Fielding was considered “first wife” in terms of plural marriage even though she was his second wife because Jerusha had died before any other marriages/sealings were performed).  I wonder how common that was.

I also wonder if that is still practiced at times, proxy sealing to first husbands who might not even be baptized before their deaths or if the remarried widow is counseled to either wait till death if she wants to be sealed to her first husband or to be sealed to her second, living husband instead.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 minutes ago, Rain said:

I'm not sure I do.  The two oldest kids would hardly know their father.  The 5 youngest children would not know the unrelated man they were sealed to. 

 

Ultimately in this case it wasn’t his call to make as Eliza was adamant, but I agree that the idea that you are just borrowing a woman as your wife, and that your own biological children will belong to another for eternity is not an ideal situation and shows one of the many downsides to the doctrine of eternal families in the church. 

[Rain]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Good question. I believe Nathan was quoted as saying “he would not rob the dead” or some such. Interestingly the temple work for him and Eliza was completely in the last couple of decades iirc (which actually upset my rather conservative brother for some reason). 
 

By all reports he treated all the mingled children equally and was a very kind guy. 

My grandma was born out of wedlock and was adopted by another couple.  Then her birth parents got married and divorced and her birth mother married again.  Her adopted mom was incredibly controlling/abusive.  Later, my grandmas sought out her birth parents.  

After Granny joined the church and went to the temple she was somehow able to seal her birth mom and her second husband to herself.

Decades later, I discoved that after her death someone also had sealed both parents to her and both adopted parents - 3 sets of parents even though the mom was in 2 of those sets. None of her children or grandchildren gave permission for the adopted parents or the both birth parents set (and would not have because Granny did not want to be sealed to them) and we don't know who did it. 

[blackstrap]

I keep reminding myself that all covenants, sealings etc. entered into in mortality are, in essence ,probationary, and that no one will be forced into any relationship for eternity.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, Rain said:

My grandma was born out of wedlock and was adopted by another couple.  Then her birth parents got married and divorced and her birth mother married again.  Her adopted mom was incredibly controlling/abusive.  Later, my grandmas sought out her birth parents.  

After Granny joined the church and went to the temple she was somehow able to seal her birth mom and her second husband to herself.

Decades later, I discoved that after her death someone also had sealed both parents to her and both adopted parents - 3 sets of parents even though the mom was in 2 of those sets. None of her children or grandchildren gave permission for the adopted parents or the both birth parents set (and would not have because Granny did not want to be sealed to them) and we don't know who did it. 

I think that’s pretty horrible, but not unusual. Much like baptizing people for the dead that were adamant in life about their choices. I guess I don’t see Nathan and Eliza in this light however. Their relationship as recorded by their children was very good and it seems only church doctrine prevented the sealing. With sealings now allowed between one living woman and multiple men these days I’m in the “why not” camp. At least before I left the church. 

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, Rain said:

I'm not sure I do.  The two oldest kids would hardly know their father.  The 5 youngest children would not know the unrelated man they were sealed to. 

 

I was definitely not thinking of it from the point of view of the children.  The main reason I hope leaders become willing to make multiple sealings for living women consistent with their treatment of living men, the rule rather than the exception, is so children can have that sense of eternal bond with their biological or adoptive/step father.  I believe that seeing one’s family as eternal gives greater security/stability to children, which is beneficial.  I don’t think it would be a bad idea to allow sealings to exist with any children one sees as theirs legally.  I see sealings as a web of connections and the more the better.   

Also so stepparents can see step children as truly theirs and not just a temporary relationship.  I assume that some hold back in opening themselves up to children they can’t be sealed to now and don’t expect to be later because they believe the sense of loss will be too painful when they have to ‘give the child back’, but I expect most of those who don’t relate to them like they do their bio children might not fully commit to a child because they don’t know how to understand what their relationship is simply because it doesn’t fit the ideal we talk about of two parents forever together with their biological children.  Hope that mays sense.  Obviously there are other factors that can cause a parent to view step children different.y than bio children.  I am thinking of what is added to the family equation for LDS in contrast with the general population.  Brain is cloudy today, so may not be that clear on the page.

Edited August 27, 2025 by Calm

[Benjamin McGuire]

13 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Ultimately in this case it wasn’t his call to make as Eliza was adamant, but I agree that the idea that you are just borrowing a woman as your wife, and that your own biological children will belong to another for eternity is not an ideal situation and shows one of the many downsides to the doctrine of eternal families in the church. 

I think, though, that we look at this through the lens of modern LDS theology. Families were not the binding units in the Celestial Kingdom until post 1894. Prior to that date, we did not generally perform sealings to deceased parents. The only way that you could be sealed posthumously to your dead parents was if they had been endowed before their deaths. If they hadn't, you were sealed by adoption to someone else (and frequently, even if they had been, you were often sealed by adoption to someone else. Further, prior to 1894, when deceased women were sealed vicariously, they were often simply sealed to a current temple worker, and not to their husbands or parents. It wasn't until President Woodruff changed (with revelation) this policy in 1894 that the perspective shifted. This is what he said at the time:

Quote

I was adopted to my father, and should have had my father sealed to his father, and so on back; and the duty that I want every man who presides over a temple to see performed from this day henceforth and forever, unless the Lord Almighty commands otherwise, is, let every man be adopted to his father. When a man receives the endowments, adopt him to his father; not to Wilford Woodruff, nor to any other man outside the lineage of his fathers. That is the will of God to this people. . . . We want the Latter-day Saints from this time to trace their genealogies as far as they can, and to be sealed to their fathers and mothers. Have children sealed to their parents, and run this chain through as far as you can get it.

This ended the practice of sealings of adoption. This idea of having parents sealed to children was not a particularly significant thing prior to 1894 - and especially not in the 1840s. So when we we talk about our "own biological children" belonging "to another for eternity" this is an evolved concept that really wasn't a part of the 1840s LDS temple theology. Viewing it in this way really misunderstands what is going on at the time, and the contemporary response to such an event that might have been held by those individuals.

Edited August 27, 2025 by Benjamin McGuire

[stelf]

On 8/26/2025 at 2:08 PM, bluebell said:

I guess the idea of inequality in polygamy isn’t a dealbreaker for me when it comes to mortality because I’m a woman.

As a woman, the stuff that I have to suffer through and deal with for 50+ years of my life in order to have children for a few years is completely outrageous. In my opinion, this is especially true when you compared it to what a man has to do to have children. There’s really not anything more unequal in life than that difference, in my opinion.

And yet it appears to be an inequality that God is completely OK with for now, for whatever reasons.

i’m not saying it has to make sense to anybody else, but for me, as long as that inequality punches me in the face every month, I can’t use inequality as a reason not to accept that polygamy could be condoned by God.

(maybe I could come up with some other reasons, but inequality is off the table as a valid one for me.)

 

This is a totally fair take, but I want to expand on what I mean a bit. I fully admit this is my own take and don't expect anyone to necessarily agree with me or feel the same way. However, I do not see any way that I could be married to more than one woman without some feeling of superiority coming along for the ride. Basically, I would be claiming (or at least acting) as though my abilities as a husband are good enough for multiple women. However much you partition my time, feelings, energy, don't worry I can handle another. This is to me laughable. I love my wife dearly and would do anything for her, but I fail as a great husband all the time. This doesn't even count my attention and caring for kids.

I think we can see echoes of this phenomenon in the quotes from early church leaders claiming the monogamous men are weak

“I have noticed that a man who has but one wife, and is inclined to that doctrine, soon begins to wither and dry up, while a man who goes into plurality [of wives] looks fresh, young, and sprightly. Why is this? Because God loves that man, and because he honors his word. Some of you may not believe this, but I not only believe it but I also know it. For a man of God to be confined to one woman is small business. I do not know what we would do if we had only one wife apiece.”
(Apostle Heber C. Kimball – Journal of Discourses Vol 5, page 22  archive.org ).

To me, I believe their is a great evil hear because it relegates women to the role of adornments. Mere objects and trophies that show how much a man is favored of God. I find it utterly repulsive.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, stelf said:

 

“I have noticed that a man who has but one wife, and is inclined to that doctrine, soon begins to wither and dry up, while a man who goes into plurality [of wives] looks fresh, young, and sprightly. Why is this? Because God loves that man, and because he honors his word. Some of you may not believe this, but I not only believe it but I also know it. For a man of God to be confined to one woman is small business. I do not know what we would do if we had only one wife apiece.”
(Apostle Heber C. Kimball – Journal of Discourses Vol 5, page 22  archive.org ).

To me, I believe their is a great evil hear because it relegates women to the role of adornments. Mere objects and trophies that show how much a man is favored of God. I find it utterly repulsive.

I can see how his quote could be interpreted that way.  If that's how he meant it then I agree, it's a repulsive notion.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, stelf said:

This is a totally fair take, but I want to expand on what I mean a bit. I fully admit this is my own take and don't expect anyone to necessarily agree with me or feel the same way. However, I do not see any way that I could be married to more than one woman without some feeling of superiority coming along for the ride. Basically, I would be claiming (or at least acting) as though my abilities as a husband are good enough for multiple women. However much you partition my time, feelings, energy, don't worry I can handle another. This is to me laughable. I love my wife dearly and would do anything for her, but I fail as a great husband all the time. This doesn't even count my attention and caring for kids.

I think we can see echoes of this phenomenon in the quotes from early church leaders claiming the monogamous men are weak

“I have noticed that a man who has but one wife, and is inclined to that doctrine, soon begins to wither and dry up, while a man who goes into plurality [of wives] looks fresh, young, and sprightly. Why is this? Because God loves that man, and because he honors his word. Some of you may not believe this, but I not only believe it but I also know it. For a man of God to be confined to one woman is small business. I do not know what we would do if we had only one wife apiece.”
(Apostle Heber C. Kimball – Journal of Discourses Vol 5, page 22  archive.org ).

To me, I believe their is a great evil hear because it relegates women to the role of adornments. Mere objects and trophies that show how much a man is favored of God. I find it utterly repulsive.

Do you feel the same way when people talk about having lots of children or being around them like a teacher keeping a person young? (Serious question, not a gotcha).

[stelf]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Do you feel the same way when people talk about having lots of children or being around them like a teacher keeping a person young? (Serious question, not a gotcha).

I'm not sure how I feel about a monogamous couple with many children (there are of course physical limits to this), but I think I do have concerns. As an extreme example I would put forth the Duggar family. I am no expert on their situation, but from what I have heard or watched I definitely do not feel like they had lots of children because they were favored of God, although they may have believed it. 

I'm not sure how the comment about being a teacher applies. However, my first "real" job was as a math teacher. I remained an educator for a little more than 7 years. I can confidently say that splitting my attention between more and more students does not result in better outcomes. I had some advanced classes that I taught with small sizes and year after year I saw those students far exceed average performance on AP tests. I also had very large classes of honors students in other subjects. My approach and care of the teaching was the same in both. But in one there was far less of me to go around.

I get the idea that having a lot of kids or students keeps you busy or "young" as the saying goes, but the idea that my eternity is going to be managing an ever growing number of children from potentially multiple partners sounds like hell. 

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 hours ago, stelf said:

the idea that my eternity is going to be managing an ever growing number of children from potentially multiple partners sounds like hell.

I think that is an oversimplification of eternity. But as the saying goes, we will receive that with which we are comfortable or willing to receive- God will not force the fullness of His glory on anyone. If an ever expanding circle of family relationships is not your bag, your preference will be honored.

[The Nehor]

On 8/28/2025 at 9:21 AM, stelf said:

This is a totally fair take, but I want to expand on what I mean a bit. I fully admit this is my own take and don't expect anyone to necessarily agree with me or feel the same way. However, I do not see any way that I could be married to more than one woman without some feeling of superiority coming along for the ride. Basically, I would be claiming (or at least acting) as though my abilities as a husband are good enough for multiple women. However much you partition my time, feelings, energy, don't worry I can handle another. This is to me laughable. I love my wife dearly and would do anything for her, but I fail as a great husband all the time. This doesn't even count my attention and caring for kids.

I think we can see echoes of this phenomenon in the quotes from early church leaders claiming the monogamous men are weak

“I have noticed that a man who has but one wife, and is inclined to that doctrine, soon begins to wither and dry up, while a man who goes into plurality [of wives] looks fresh, young, and sprightly. Why is this? Because God loves that man, and because he honors his word. Some of you may not believe this, but I not only believe it but I also know it. For a man of God to be confined to one woman is small business. I do not know what we would do if we had only one wife apiece.”
(Apostle Heber C. Kimball – Journal of Discourses Vol 5, page 22  archive.org ).

To me, I believe their is a great evil hear because it relegates women to the role of adornments. Mere objects and trophies that show how much a man is favored of God. I find it utterly repulsive.

To Heber C. Kimball:

Buddy, pal, friendo, I've seen pictures of you and "fresh, young, and sprightly" is not how I would describe you.

[The Nehor]

On 8/28/2025 at 10:26 AM, bluebell said:

I can see how his quote could be interpreted that way.  If that's how he meant it then I agree, it's a repulsive notion.

More from Heber C. Kimball:

Quote

In the spirit world there is an increase of males and females, there are millions of them, and if I am faithful all the time, and continue right along with brother Brigham, we will go to brother Joseph and say, “Here we are brother Joseph; we are here ourselves are we not, with none of the property we possessed in our probationary state, not even the rings on our fingers?” He will say to us, “Come along, my boys, we will give you a good suit of clothes. Where are your wives?” “They are back yonder; they would not follow us.” “Never mind,” says Joseph, “here are thousands, have all you want.” Perhaps some do not believe that, but I am just simple enough to believe it.

Lovely. Women are just interchangeable things. If one breaks just get a different one.

And before that in the same sermon:

Quote

Supposing that I have a wife or a dozen of them, and she should say, “You cannot be exalted without me,” and suppose they all should say so, what of that? They never will affect my salvation one particle. Whose salvation will they affect? Their own. They have got to live their religion, serve their God, and do right, as well as myself. Suppose that I lose the whole of them before I go into the spirit world, but that I have been a good, faithful man all the days of my life, and lived my religion, and had favor with God, and was kind to them, do you think I will be destitute there? No, the Lord says there are more there than there are here. They have been increasing there; they increase there a great deal faster than we do here, because there is no obstruction. They do not call upon the doctors to kill their offspring; there are no doctors there, that is, if they are there, their occupation is changed, which proves that they are not there, because they have ceased to be doctors. In this world very many of the doctors are studying to diminish the human family.

I really hope his wives weren't listening to that.

Also he thinks people have children in the spirit world? Interesting. Then talks about how there will be a lot more of them due to the lack of medical care/abortion doctors? Yikes on bikes!

Edited September 2, 2025 by The Nehor

[stelf]

Remember several years ago when 3rd hour was dedicated to studying teaching of the presidents of the church and we had those nice curated books that made it seem like all past prophets just taught things that we are ok with today? Yeah, me too. I hate that the more I learn about past church leaders the more I am convinced they were terrible people.

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

More from Heber C. Kimball:

Lovely. Women are just interchangeable things. If one breaks just get a different one.

And before that in the same sermon:

I really hope his wives weren't listening to that.

Also he thinks people have children in the spirit world? Interesting. Then talks about how there will be a lot more of them due to the lack of medical care/abortion doctors? Yikes on bikes!

I'm not finding this to be as outrageous as I think I'm supposed to.  I mean, don't get me wrong, there is room for outrage here, but I don't feel like these quotes give me enough to make it valid because they are clearly speaking only from the male perspective and clearly only to men.

If Pres. Kimball taught or said that what he was saying here only applied to men, then I'd be very much in disagreement with him.  If he said that wives could not stop husbands from being exalted but that husband could stop wives, those would be fighting words. But since he didn't say it, I can't lay that charge to him.

The whole point of the sermon seems to be that unrighteous spouses cannot use gospel doctrine to blackmail their spouse into getting their way.  He teaches it in a very male-centric way that makes sense with the era he was alive but is clearly problematic in its focus.   I'm glad that the male-centric view has been being flushed away for decades.  I think he could easily teach the exact principal today without being so offensive, but if he was specifically speaking about "uppity women" who didn't know their place, he probably wouldn't choose too.  Though, if he was alive today I don't think the culture would have given him the breeding ground for those kind of ideas to begin with.   He started out much further down the ladder of equality of the sexes than you and I have started out. 

I think most men were sexist to some extent for most of history, and that includes prophets. Pres. Kimball did appear to view women as a resource, and appendage to the husband, rather than someone who had worth a part from that relationship.  

His views on how children come into existence in the next life are interesting, but not really surprising given the medical knowledge of the time.

Edited September 2, 2025 by bluebell

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, stelf said:

Remember several years ago when 3rd hour was dedicated to studying teaching of the presidents of the church and we had those nice curated books that made it seem like all past prophets just taught things that we are ok with today? Yeah, me too. I hate that the more I learn about past church leaders the more I am convinced they were terrible people.

It was so annoying that they pretended that BY didn't have a billion wives!  I'm glad that the church has moved away from that kind of thinking.  It was dumb.

[The Nehor]

On 9/2/2025 at 9:02 AM, stelf said:

Remember several years ago when 3rd hour was dedicated to studying teaching of the presidents of the church and we had those nice curated books that made it seem like all past prophets just taught things that we are ok with today? Yeah, me too. I hate that the more I learn about past church leaders the more I am convinced they were terrible people.

I don’t think they were terrible. I think they were just normal. What Heber C. Kimball was saying is harsh to our ears but take out the plural marriage bit and there were tons of men everywhere echoing similar sentiments about the worth of women.

At times I envy the Catholics. They have lower expectations of popes.

Edited September 4, 2025 by The Nehor

[ZealouslyStriving]

On 9/2/2025 at 7:02 AM, stelf said:

Remember several years ago when 3rd hour was dedicated to studying teaching of the presidents of the church and we had those nice curated books that made it seem like all past prophets just taught things that we are ok with today.

I think it's a tad bit less nefarious than you imply. I think they simply selected the most important teachings and principles, instead of the speculations and less important elements of their discourses.

On 9/2/2025 at 7:02 AM, stelf said:

Yeah, me too. I hate that the more I learn about past church leaders the more I am convinced they were terrible people.

Good to know that if you had been alive at that time and been raised in the same traditions and environment you would've been a much less "terrible" person. 🥇🥇🥇

[stelf]

6 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I think it's a tad bit less nefarious than you imply. I think they simply selected the most important teachings and principles, instead of the speculations and less important elements of their discourses.

Good to know that if you had been alive at that time and been raised in the same traditions and environment you would've been a much less "terrible" person. 🥇🥇🥇

Well, I have a hard time seeing where anything I said implied I would be any different had I lived then. I simply said that they were terrible. I agree with @The Nehor that they were also just normal. That's kinda my point. My wife likes to read regency romances (I must admit that I too enjoy reading them). They romanticize the time period, but every time I read them I can't help but think that the situation of women was terrible in a lot of ways. Doesn't mean that it was out of the ordinary for the time.

In essence, I don't think most past church leaders are any worse than I would expect any human leader to be for their time. However, I would hope that direct communication with an almighty, loving God would have elevated them a bit.

[JVW]

On 9/2/2025 at 10:02 AM, stelf said:

Remember several years ago when 3rd hour was dedicated to studying teaching of the presidents of the church and we had those nice curated books that made it seem like all past prophets just taught things that we are ok with today? Yeah, me too. I hate that the more I learn about past church leaders the more I am convinced they were terrible people.

That's interesting because the more I learn about past church leaders the more convinced I am that they were great people.

Honestly, I used to not really like Joseph Smith very much because his personality type was similar to my mom's and I have mom issues. But the more I've learned about him the more I've come to respect and admire him. Brigham Young has always been my favorite prophet, based on the sheer amount he accomplished, the faith he lived, and his dedication to helping others. The more I learn about him the more marvel I experience because God did what with him?

We are all given weakness as a gift from God. We are all products of our own cultures in our own time periods. We live in a time where if a kid stubs a toe I don't have to worry about him dying. Or if my wife gets sick I don't have to worry about her dying. We are so far removed from death now. Imagine if we were still surrounded by death. If every family had multiple children and wives (via remarriages) dead. Do you think that you'd be the same man with the same views that you currently hold? Society would certainly be different, and marriage would be a much more practical affair. It's like how a man probably won't get a prenup on his first marriage, but after his first divorce he'll get a prenup every time. A man may fall head over heels for his first wife, but after her death, how will his views on marriage change?

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, stelf said:

Well, I have a hard time seeing where anything I said implied I would be any different had I lived then. I simply said that they were terrible. I agree with @The Nehor that they were also just normal. That's kinda my point. My wife likes to read regency romances (I must admit that I too enjoy reading them). They romanticize the time period, but every time I read them I can't help but think that the situation of women was terrible in a lot of ways. Doesn't mean that it was out of the ordinary for the time.

In essence, I don't think most past church leaders are any worse than I would expect any human leader to be for their time. However, I would hope that direct communication with an almighty, loving God would have elevated them a bit.

You seem to forget that Utah had the most liberal divorce laws in favor of women, was the first state or territory that gave women the right the vote, and had strong women go to Washington DC to defend the practices of their religion.

But.... OK.

Edited September 4, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving