Faithful LDS woman ex'd for publicly announcing she doesn't believe JS lived polygamy.

[JVW]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Indeed.

Any deceased woman can be sealed to multiple men.  Iirc the explanation that only one sealing is actually meaningful (she will be making a choice of only one after death) has been removed, but it seems most members still understand it that way.

Since the explanation these members typically give justifying multiple spouses for men is it is wrong to make them choose among all they love, it makes sense to me if that is the logic, it must equally apply to women as well…unless we also believe that a man’s love is more important or meaningful than a woman’s and I suspect everyone would think that nonsense (at least I would hope everyone in the Church believes that; I have seen some men say things about women online where it makes it obvious that women’s experiences are pretty meaningless to them, so no doubt there are those who do see women’s love as trivial unless it’s about them).

There are also confirmed reports that living widows have been allowed to be sealed to multiple men (a deceased husband and a living husband).  I have a friend who as a bishop sent in a request for this to happen and it was approved, but to know you can do this seems to be a word is a word of mouth thing.  The option needs to be put into the handbook if it is truly okay.  If it isn’t okay, then why would they be allowing it?

I think making the sealing protocol the same for men and women would clean up a lot of mess, multiple sealings allowed as long as only one of the sealings is to a living spouse or multiple sealings allowed for everyone.

100% agree

[webbles]

20 minutes ago, JVW said:

I agree and disagree with this. I know in -theory- this is always a possibility but the reality is probably much different. If the prophet, the president of the church, who has all the keys and is in charge of carving out the church's doctrinal path forward, declares new doctrine then how is anyone supposed to know if it's heretical or not? I know that, in -theory-, it has to conform to the standard works and stuff. Also that, in -theory- all of the brethren would get some magical witness from God that the doctrine is correct. But in practice is that actually the case? There are many times that God chooses not to answer and allows us to use our best judgment. And He does that for wise purposes only known to Him.

This is probably why we don't have very many doctrinal changes.  Joseph Smith had a lot of leeway as he was The Prophet.  He was unique.  Brigham Young was just an elevated apostle.  When Brigham died, it took a while to redo the First Presidency because Brigham had acted a bit more than many of the apostles had liked.  They didn't want another Brigham.  To end polygamy, it required a lot of work and was several decades later that it finally took hold.  And Wilford even had to make the statement that the Lord wouldn't let the prophet lead the church astray and even then, it wasn't enough to convince many members.  The quorum removed two members who didn't agree with the change in polygamy.  The quorum removed another member for breaking Law of Chastity (a quasi-polygamy situation).  The change to the priesthood ban basically involved waiting for apostles to die who wouldn't agree with the change and a bunch of inner politics.  The current prophets really aren't "in charge of carving out the church's doctrinal path forward" anymore.  It is the 15 who are now in charge of that.

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Be patient. I am not avoiding your request. I simply haven't had time yet today to answer you with the answers you deserve. There is some  debate about the debate of Macdonald's death because his tombstone in Dublan has one day and tradition has another. I think the one who carved the tombstone made a mistake. The tombstone is newer than his death. Much more later; I am a flowing fountain on polygamy in the colonies, and on the activity of the apostles in the colonies! A flowing fount! Ha! 

No problem.  I very much enjoy learning about polygamy and have quite a lot of Mexican colony ancestry (half of my ancestors are from there) so it is always interesting to learn new things.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

This is probably why we don't have very many doctrinal changes.  Joseph Smith had a lot of leeway as he was The Prophet.  He was unique.  Brigham Young was just an elevated apostle.  When Brigham died, it took a while to redo the First Presidency because Brigham had acted a bit more than many of the apostles had liked.  They didn't want another Brigham.  To end polygamy, it required a lot of work and was several decades later that it finally took hold.  And Wilford even had to make the statement that the Lord wouldn't let the prophet lead the church astray and even then, it wasn't enough to convince many members.  The quorum removed two members who didn't agree with the change in polygamy.  The quorum removed another member for breaking Law of Chastity (a quasi-polygamy situation).  The change to the priesthood ban basically involved waiting for apostles to die who wouldn't agree with the change and a bunch of inner politics.  The current prophets really aren't "in charge of carving out the church's doctrinal path forward" anymore.  It is the 15 who are now in charge of that.

Wow, it's like Church fanfiction.

[Rain]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Indeed.

Any deceased woman can be sealed to multiple men.  Iirc the explanation that only one sealing is actually meaningful (she will be making a choice of only one after death) has been removed, but it seems most members still understand it that way.

Since the explanation these members typically give justifying multiple spouses for men is it is wrong to make them choose among all they love, it makes sense to me if that is the logic, it must equally apply to women as well…unless we also believe that a man’s love is more important or meaningful than a woman’s and I suspect everyone would think that nonsense (at least I would hope everyone in the Church believes that; I have seen some men say things about women online where it makes it obvious that women’s experiences are pretty meaningless to them, so no doubt there are those who do see women’s love as trivial unless it’s about them).

There are also confirmed reports that living widows have been allowed to be sealed to multiple men (a deceased husband and a living husband).  I have a friend who as a bishop sent in a request for this to happen and it was approved, but to know you can do this seems to be a word is a word of mouth thing.  The option needs to be put into the handbook if it is truly okay.  If it isn’t okay, then why would they be allowing it?

Those exceptions are frustrating.  The sealing, which I attended, of one of my nieces to her parents was a big exception, but afterwards the church told her parents no one should be telling others what happened. So was that sealing ok or not?

6 hours ago, Calm said:

I think making the sealing protocol the same for men and women would clean up a lot of mess, multiple sealings allowed as long as only one of the sealings is to a living spouse or multiple sealings allowed for everyone.

 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, JVW said:

How does that language, which I agree has been pushed historically, reconcile with "the man and woman are one in the Lord". ?

My opinion is it doesn’t even if I can make suggestions of how it could if you ignored implications 

[gopher]

18 hours ago, Senator said:

I don't think it is disrespectful to declare that one does not have a testimony of the divinity of the practice of polygamy by the early saints and simultaneously  grant that the practitioners did actually believe it was Gods will.  They are not dismissing that, by not sharing that belief. 

[edited to add:]  I understand the feeling of dissonance that this may create.  This is what I have been trying to express

Maybe it's only possible to only get a testimony of the divinity of polygamy by actually practicing it.  Until then, I'll just trust the testimonies of those early righteous saints who faithfully live it.

[gopher]

18 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Why can’t two or three prophets be wrong?  If one can be? 

I haven't conceded that even one prophet is wrong.  Who gets to decide if they are wrong?  Do we even have enough information to decide?  Was God wrong to choose Adam and Eve to put in the garden instead of a couple that would keep his commandments?  Was Jesus wrong to choose Judas as an apostle?  I realize it's offensive to many critics, but trusting God's prophets has always been a requirement of believers.

[gopher]

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think some (not all) think that God would never ask anyone to sacrifice as much as polygamy requires some to sacrifice.  But from the scriptures and journals of the early saints, it seems to me that that level of sacrifice is very much on the table for all of us.

I think others (again, not all) think that it's so inherently unfair to women that a God who loves His daughters would never ask such of them.  Again, I don't think there's evidence to support that.

And for some, it's just the optics.  A prophet of God who implements changes to the moral code that allows him to have sex with multiple women and still be considered moral is suspect regardless of anything else.  This one makes the most sense to me, but I still find a lot of flaws in it as a reason alone to reject plural marriage.

And I'm sure there are other reasons (and combinations of reasons) for why people don't believe it could be condoned or commanded by God.  Thankfully, it's a moot point right now so we can all be comfortable in our opinions.  From my perspective, the real danger isn't whether or not God commanded polygamy.  The real danger is whether or not the church confirming the practice was of God is going to contribute to someone losing their testimony and abandoning their covenants. 

Some people have left the church over something someone else was asked to do over a hundred years ago.  To me, that's the only reason the topic is still relevant.  Not because of what we believe about the historical practice but because of how we respond to the historical practice.

Thanks, I am definitely NOT dismissing the concerns people have about polygamy.  I agree that it was an enormous sacrifice to many.  I think it's important to continue to talk about it with the realization that we may not fully understand it in this life.  Do you think believing members have a responsibility to defend polygamy?  Do you see any danger in believing members (I have to distinguish between non-believing members) who publicly claim that polygamy never came from God?  I'm just not sure that is helpful to someone struggling to understand polygamy yet believes and trusts in ancient and modern day prophets to reveal the will of God.

A recent convert brought her nonmember husband to church a few weeks ago.  He's been very critical of the church in the past, but has started to mellow.  And of course, the one week he stays for Sunday School is the week we discussed polygamy.  But his only comment after class was, "Well, they did it in the Old Testament".  It made me wonder if attitudes outside the church have softened over the years.

[gopher]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you accept the Priesthood Ban as revelation?

Is this a trick question or am I not aware of an official revelation released by the church instituting the Priesthood Ban  

Do you believe the Official Declaration 2 was revelation?  I do.  But it's easy to accept since since I completely agree with with it.  But we are also asked to accept revelations that we may not agree with and may not understand.  The sacrifices required to be a believing member are real.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, gopher said:

Is this a trick question or am I not aware of an official revelation released by the church instituting the Priesthood Ban  

Do you believe the Official Declaration 2 was revelation?  I do.  But it's easy to accept since since I completely agree with with it.  But we are also asked to accept revelations that we may not agree with and may not understand.  The sacrifices required to be a believing member are real.

Not a trick question.  Something you said made me wonder how you applied your standard (iirc one prophet in error was one thing, more than one was another, I see the Ban as more than one prophet being in error, but because later ones followed the first who made the mistake).  

I thoroughly believe the Declaration removing the Ban was revelation.

Now we have documented evidence of how Brigham Young approached limitations of priesthood and lack evidence that Joseph instituted it except from a man (Coltrin) who most likely lied about the details, the timing and place of announcement, what was going on that likely impacted it, Brigham’s actual language, as well as the numerous debates of leadership about it that went on for decades, I see the Ban itself as something thought to be in accord with revelation as in not contradictory, but not revelation itself and then because details of the origin of it got lost, was assumed to be revelation.

Edited December 18, 2025 by Calm

[JVW]

5 hours ago, gopher said:

Do you think believing members have a responsibility to defend polygamy?  Do you see any danger in believing members (I have to distinguish between non-believing members) who publicly claim that polygamy never came from God?  I'm just not sure that is helpful to someone struggling to understand polygamy yet believes and trusts in ancient and modern day prophets to reveal the will of God.

I rarely speak to people about my beliefs about polygamy or even what catalyzed my research into polygamy and how I drew my ultimate conclusions. If I had not taken the years that I did to figure it out I probably would have ended up leaving the church. Not because of polygamy, but because of the irreconcilable contradiction between the Book of Mormon and DC 132 that's related to polygamy. I do think there is danger to it and think it's appropriate for church members to believe in the official apologetics until they grow mature enough to consider more difficult matters. It's the same reason why I wouldn't just hand out copies of the CES Letter to any average member.

However, there is another dangerous issue that is implicitly related to believing, and parroting, official church apologetics. I have talked to many members who honestly believe that the prophet is infallible whenever he speaks. These members will say to me "I don't believe that the prophet is infallible" but in the same breath will say "the prophet always speaks for God and will never lead the church astray". They cannot tease apart in their mind that a prophet is frail, weak, and human just like the rest of us and says and does a lot of things in his managerial position that are wrong, even if they are according to his best judgment. Joseph and Brigham were in vehement opposition to people viewing prophets as gods and accepting everything they do and say as God's will and blindly following. Yet I see that cancer spread among the membership, at least in Utah.

To have power is inherently dangerous. To have power means that you are easily able to break the law. In my position, coming from a background of atheism, I can very easily leave the church. I can easily discount the authority of the men I see who are purportedly prophets. I can easily choose to stop paying tithing. I am not bound by immature, irrational, emotional bonds to the church and its leaders. That makes me more powerful than someone who is because I now get to exercise my agency and intentionally choose which paths forward I want to take. This is in stark contrast to a couple of my cousins who ended up divorcing when they left the church because their entire world was emotionally connected to this earthly religious structure.

Hopefully I'm making some sort of sense. I liked your question and writing helps me process my thoughts, so even if nobody reads this it was helpful for me to get this on paper.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, JVW said:

the same reason why I wouldn't just hand out copies of the CES Letter to any average membe

For what reason would you hand it out if any and how if there is one?

Edited December 18, 2025 by Calm

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, gopher said:

Maybe it's only possible to only get a testimony of the divinity of polygamy by actually practicing it.  Until then, I'll just trust the testimonies of those early righteous saints who faithfully live it.

I believe one of the main reasons why a fair number of members are struggling with the church’s history of plural marriage is due to the fact that they are carnally minded. The spiritually darkened and muddled thought processes of the carnal mind make it nigh unto impossible for anyone to even imagine it’s possibile that plural marriage can be practiced in holiness by men and women who possess great spiritual strength, insight and wisdom. As a consequence of being unable to accept the word of God as plainly set forth in Doctrine and Covenants 132, the spiritual foundations of some of the these carnally minded individuals are already beginning to crack and crumble under the weight of unbelief, greatly increasing the likelihood that they will falter when the prophesied sever persecutions of the last days are unleashed by the adversary.

Simply put, plural marriage is a divinely ordained Abrahamic test of faith for those who were commanded to practice it, and it’s another kind Abrahamic test of faith for the members of the Church who now view the unpopular and misunderstood principle from our present-day vantage point. Sadly, it appears likely that some will fail the test and falter in their testimonies because their carnal minds prevent the from understanding that plural marriage can indeed be practiced in wholesomeness and purity by those who are well on the way to being sanctified. The main problem is that too many members fail to realize that God has always commanded his people to do very difficult and even seemingly impossible things as part of the fiery refining process that’s wisely designed to purify our souls and prepare us for greater happiness. And since it’s inevitable that some will kick against the pricks, so be it…

1) Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. (Titus 1:15)

 

[JVW]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

For what reason would you hand it out if any and how if there is one?

I personally have gained a lot of knowledge and insight because the CES Letter was a catalyst that motivated me to research more about church history. I read several lengthy apologetics pieces, saw what was unsatisfactory to me, and took time to research more sources until my mind was satisfied. It's like when a missionary goes on a mission and they get berated and challenged at every turn. There are so many morning scripture studies where they will read a scripture that jumps out at them as an answer to respond to the attacks. Pondering is like a clam making a pearl, you need an irritant, a piece of sand to begin the process. And critical thinking requires exposure to a novel viewpoint that hasn't been considered before.

This forum is really nice because we all have conversations about really interesting things that, really, could be testimony-crushing for many people. There's a time and place to discuss different things related to the church and I'm just very careful about polygamy. Does that make sense and/or answer your question?

[JVW]

2 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

I believe one of the main reasons why a fair number of members are struggling with the church’s history of plural marriage is due to the fact that they are carnally minded. The spiritually darkened and muddled thought processes of the carnal mind make it nigh unto impossible for anyone to even imagine it’s possibile that plural marriage can be practiced in holiness by men and women who possess great spiritual strength, insight and wisdom. As a consequence of being unable to accept the word of God as plainly set forth in Doctrine and Covenants 132, the spiritual foundations of some of the these carnally minded individuals are already beginning to crack and crumble under the weight of unbelief, greatly increasing the likelihood that they will falter when the prophesied sever persecutions of the last days are unleashed by the adversary.

Simply put, plural marriage is a divinely ordained Abrahamic test of faith for those who were commanded to practice it, and it’s another kind Abrahamic test of faith for the members of the Church who now view the unpopular and misunderstood principle from our present-day vantage point. Sadly, it appears likely that some will fail the test and falter in their testimonies because their carnal minds prevent the from understanding that plural marriage can indeed be practiced in wholesomeness and purity by those who are well on the way to being sanctified. The main problem is that too many members fail to realize that God has always commanded his people to do very difficult and even seemingly impossible things as part of the fiery refining process that’s wisely designed to purify our souls and prepare us for greater happiness. And since it’s inevitable that some will kick against the pricks, so be it…

1) Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. (Titus 1:15)

 

You're funny, brother.

We aren't discussing the history of plural marriage, plural marriage still exists, it's not in the past. We are discussing the history of polygamy, which is different from plural marriage and results in many children and a lot of women in one house while on Earth. Two distinct things. Plural marriage is a bit confusing because there isn't much revelation about it, but it's not really super offensive. Polygamy is crazy and is explicitly condemned by God in the Book of Mormon.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

Plural marriage is a bit confusing because there isn't much revelation about it, but it's not really super offensive. Polygamy is crazy

Explain the difference please.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

You're funny, brother.

We aren't discussing the history of plural marriage, plural marriage still exists, it's not in the past. We are discussing the history of polygamy, which is different from plural marriage and results in many children and a lot of women in one house while on Earth. Two distinct things. Plural marriage is a bit confusing because there isn't much revelation about it, but it's not really super offensive. Polygamy is crazy and is explicitly condemned by God in the Book of Mormon.

What is the separation between Plural Marriage and Polygamy?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

that, really, could be testimony-crushing for many people. There's a time and place to discuss different things related to the church and I'm just very careful about polygamy. Does that make sense and/or answer your question?

Yes.

I was concerned you might just be pointing members to the CES letter because you felt in one area it was useful, but that opens up the whole letter as a source to them.  Seems unlikely someone would stop with just one.

Your approach with the letter is good.  I have found it useful to find out what criticisms are out there, but it would always be the beginning of research for me as I know enough about it (including that he changed his story from how he presented it in the beginning to make it appear like sincere questioning rather than a critical challenge, I don’t know if you can still find the conversations of him crowdsourcing finding issues on reddit or not) not to trust it.  I would never suggest it to a person unless I knew they were a decent researcher and wouldn’t be satisfied without doublechecking the sources etc.

[JVW]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

What is the separation between Plural Marriage and Polygamy?

Plural marriage is a man sealed to multiple women simultaneously, whatever being sealed means.

Polygamy is a man being married to multiple women simultaneously, consummating each marriage, and living together as married people do.

The church actively does the former, excommunicates for the latter. I haven't done a ton of research into plural marriage and how that shows up in LDS canon, mostly because there's just not much out there to study. But as far as my research into polygamy goes, God unequivocally views it as an abomination.

If someone used to believe that it was a man's duty to be sealed to multiple women while they were all alive but sealing and marriage were coupled, then the nature of plural marriage would have involved polygamous marriages. The direction the church is currently headed is decoupling marriage from sealing which makes me wonder if living plural marriage will be on the table again in a future where men and women don't need to be legally married in order to be sealed. Who knows?

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, JVW said:

Plural marriage is a man sealed to multiple women simultaneously, whatever being sealed means.

Polygamy is a man being married to multiple women simultaneously, consummating each marriage, and living together as married people do.

The church actively does the former, excommunicates for the latter. I haven't done a ton of research into plural marriage and how that shows up in LDS canon, mostly because there's just not much out there to study. But as far as my research into polygamy goes, God unequivocally views it as an abomination.

If someone used to believe that it was a man's duty to be sealed to multiple women while they were all alive but sealing and marriage were coupled, then the nature of plural marriage would have involved polygamous marriages. The direction the church is currently headed is decoupling marriage from sealing which makes me wonder if living plural marriage will be on the table again in a future where men and women don't need to be legally married in order to be sealed. Who knows?

Not to argue, but where did you get the distinctions between the definitions for plural marriage and polygamy? It’s something I’ve never heard before and when you look up plural marriage in Webster’s dictionary it’s the same definition as the one for polygamy. I’m just wondering if you read it in a church source somewhere?

[JVW]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Not to argue, but where did you get the distinctions between the definitions for plural marriage and polygamy? It’s something I’ve never heard before and when you look up plural marriage in Webster’s dictionary it’s the same definition as the one for polygamy. I’m just wondering if you read it in a church source somewhere?

It's just a distinction I made up. There's obviously a difference or else the church wouldn't call it plural marriage unless they're just trying to use soft language to mask a harsh reality.

[JVW]

The Mormon Stories podcast popped up a little while ago on my FB feed and I've been listening to it for the past 30 minutes or so. It's an interview with the woman being discussed in the OP. She is super cool. Very peaceful, no anger. She says that she felt God helping here with her research into polygamy. And she also felt God with her during the excommunication proceedings that happened in three meetings over a month timeframe. Before the second meeting she had the impression she would lose her temple recommend at the meeting so she went and did baptisms for the dead before going (since she'd never done them before). She's being very kind and generous towards the Stake Council and feels like God is with them as well knowing they're acting according to the best knowledge they have.

[MustardSeed]

24 minutes ago, JVW said:

It's just a distinction I made up. There's obviously a difference or else the church wouldn't call it plural marriage unless they're just trying to use soft language to mask a harsh reality.

I don’t necessarily see any distinction.  The church likes to say same sex attraction, instead of anything else.  I think the church is fairly uncomfortable using common colloquialisms.  I think if there was any other word for pornography they would use that as well.
 

 

[Chum]

As near as I can tell, Polygamy and Plural Marriage are fully interchangeable.  Both mean marriage to more than one spouse and include Polygyny, Polyandry, Group Marriage.

Judging it's use in Church publications, I suspect the Church wants us to assume Plural Marriage means Polygyny (1 man, multiple women).