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

[ZealouslyStriving]

28 minutes ago, JVW said:

It's just a distinction I made up.

Bingo.

[MustardSeed]

Just a suggestion here, always ID an opinion as such  I’ve found it to be very helpful both as a poster and as a reader. 

[JVW]

8 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Bingo.

The thing is is that nobody can tell me that I'm wrong, because nobody knows what being sealed means. Here are some reasonable inferences I've made about it (Please let me know if you think I'm crazy. I'd love to hear rebuttals from you on these points.):

- Getting married and being sealed are separate things.

- Getting married is until "death do us part". Getting sealed is for "time and eternity".

- I believe that God sealed Adam and Eve in a ceremony and that, over time, the devil corrupted the ceremony into what we now know as marriage. That sealing is "God's union" and marriage is "man's union".

- Marriage has probably been traditionally coupled with sealing in the church because the U.S. government was looking for any reason to eradicate the church. If the U.S. government let the "Mormons" mind their own business under Brigham's leadership I could easily imagine Brigham doing away with the practice of marriage and only doing sealings in the ghost-state of Deseret. He did crazier things than that.

- If I refer to someone as sealed there is a different connotation than when I'm referring to someone as married.

- Therefore, there is a difference between a man being married to multiple women at the same time and a man being sealed to multiple women at the same time. I mean, wasn't Joseph sealed (while not being married) to multiple women (some of whom were currently married to someone else) simultaneously? What do you call that? Polygamy? He wasn't married to them!

There will be many who are sealed in heaven, but how many will be married? This is all stuff that disappointingly is unanswerable because God, with His mysterious ways, has decided to keep the doctrine of sealing a great secret. We literally know next to nothing about it yet it is the capstone doctrine of our church and the fulfillment of the reason why God created the entire plan of Salvation.

I'll also note the conclusion I've reached based off of what little information we have about sealing. Under my view of sealing I view the entire plan of salvation as a pregnancy and sealing as equivalent to the water breaking in the womb. After the resurrection those who are sealed to God become His eternal, exalted family. How do exalted beings create exalted children? The plan of salvation with a savior and a sealing ordinance.

- Sealing binds us to God

- Sealing requires one man and one woman for some mysterious reason

- Nothing else is known

- Therefore, to become part of God's exalted family one needs to be sealed

I'd love to hear your thoughts @ZealouslyStriving . I feel like you have a lot to say in opposition but you've been kind of sitting on the sidelines of the conversation. On a scale of 1 to 10 how crazy and unreasonable do I sound to you?

[JVW]

5 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Just a suggestion here, always ID an opinion as such  I’ve found it to be very helpful both as a poster and as a reader. 

I'm operating under the assumption that everything discussed about polygamy and sealing is personal opinion outside of official church apologetics. My apologies.

[Navidad]

On 12/16/2025 at 3:53 PM, webbles said:

Do you have references for authorized sealings that late?  Because my understanding is that authorization was pretty much removed by the second manifesto (1904) and only a very few after that were accepted.  Brigham Young Jr were all before 1904 as he died in 1903.  I think A. F. Macdonald also died in 1903.  I have an ancestor polygamously married in 1904 which was accepted and another one that was sometime in the 1910s and they were excommunicated for that (both in the Mexican colonies).  Authorized marriages in the 1910s and 1920s are extremely rare, in my understanding.  Most of them usually weren't authorized and would trigger an excommunication once discovered (like my ancestor).

Hi @webbles: I am finally getting around to answering your request. I don't know how to insert a long document into my  response. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to do so anyway. Here are a few paragraphs from a talk I gave at a 2019 MHA conference. It touches on your request. If anyone wants the whole document, which is about the role of the Apostles in the Colonies in general, please PM me with your email address, and I will send you the entire document and a PowerPoint that goes with it, if you want that. Here are a few pertinent paragraphs:

Visiting Apostles

Apostles were also sent to Mexico to resolve differences, preside at conferences, and provide oversight. An example of this is when apostles Brigham Young, Jr., John Henry Smith, and Francis M. Lyman were sent to investigate complaints against prominent colony leaders. They determined that difficult but correct decisions had been made.[1] George F. Richards, Rudger Clawson, and John Henry Smith each visited for different reasons.

President Joseph F. Smith visited the colonies on numerous occasions, including the dedication of the new Juarez Stake Academy building. I have found no sources indicating whether Lorenzo Snow visited the colonies, either as apostle or president. He did, however, have an impact on plural marriage in Mexico. In 1901 he found out that Anthony Ivins and A. F. Macdonald were performing plural marriages. He sent Apostle John Henry Smith to warn them of the consequences (potential excommunication). They received mixed messages from other Church leaders. They responded to the President’s warning with partial compliance.[2]

Apostles and Plural Marriage

In June 1890 Apostle Brigham Young Jr. organized a festive trip to Mexico including ten prospective plural marriage couples plus his own plural wife-to-be. They arrived in Mexico and A. F. MacDonald married all eleven couples the same day![3]

Post-manifesto, the colonies were a place where plural marriages continued, performed by certain local leaders and visiting apostles. Patriarch MacDonald, Apostle Teasdale, and Stake President Ivins performed most of the plural marriages at the local level using a clandestine system of approval from certain Church leaders. Ivins was granted the rare authority to seal couples outside the temple.[4]

Not all visiting apostles were supportive of performing plural marriages. “Apostle Heber J. Grant, for example, reported that while visiting Mormon settlements in Mexico in 1900, he received 10 applications in a single day requesting plural marriages. He declined them all. ‘I confess,’ he told a friend, ‘that it has always gone against my grain to have any violations of documents [i.e. the Manifesto] of this kind.’”[5]

Other visiting apostles performed plural marriages and conducted extended tours of the colonies. Apostles A. O. Woodruff, John W. Taylor, and Matthias Cowley were regular visitors in this regard. The account of A. O. Woodruff is perhaps the most poignant.

Apostle Abraham Owen Woodruff was the son of Wilford Woodruff who had two wives. A review of Anthony Ivins’ journals reveals that from 1899-1904 Woodruff was often in Mexico, at least once a year. He traveled the colonies providing ecclesiastical leadership, hunting, and avoiding testifying at the Smoot Senate hearings.[6]

He built a home in Colonia Juarez for his second wife Avery, where she lived full-time. In May 1904 Apostle Woodruff made a trip to Mexico with his first wife Helen and their children to see Avery’s new baby girl and attend a Mexico City Conference. In Mexico City, Helen became sick with smallpox. She died within a week. Apostle Woodruff also became sick with the disease and died in El Paso a few days later. This was a tragic loss, especially for Avery.

Apostle John. W. Taylor’s three wives (Nellie, Rhoda, and Roxey), together with their children lived in Colonia Juarez in a home he built for them. They were part of a group of wives and children locally known as “the exiles,” a sobriquet to which no stigma was attached.  Apostle Taylor was a regular visitor in the colonies and openly interacted with his three wives, as did President Joseph F. Smith and others.[7] Taylor spent time in Mexico after resigning his apostleship. “Visited in Mexico by apostles John Henry Smith, Francis M. Lyman, and Anthony W. Ivins, Taylor accused the church of cowardice in giving up plural marriage in the face of government pressure.” He was excommunicated soon thereafter.[8]

Apostle Cowley performed plural marriages in Mexico, but it is not clear how many. It is evident that he used the remoteness of the colonies to hide when deemed necessary. Apostle John Henry Smith was sent to Mexico to find Cowley to have him testify at the Smoot trial. Only upon the direct order of Apostle Smith was he located. Cowley refused to return to testify.[9]

That the practice carried on in Mexico was known to the General Authorities cannot be doubted. Many of them visited the Colonies where they could not fail to become aware of what was going on. Among those who came to Mexico on official Church business, some of them many times, were John W. Taylor, Mathias F. Cowley, Hyrum Smith, . . Abraham Owen Woodruff , . . Heber J. Grant, Amasa M. Lyman, B. H. Roberts , . . and President Joseph F. Smith. These men, with few exceptions, preached with fervor the doctrine that plural marriage was a prerequisite to celestial exaltation. They urged the young men in the Colonies to accept and practice the principle.[10]

 

---

[1] FamilySearch, “A F Macdonald by Taylor MacDonald”                                                         https://www.family search.org/photos/artifacts/5986576.

 

[2]Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), 157.

 

[3]Alexander F. Macdonald, Marriage Record, 1888-1900 in D. Michael Quinn, “LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890-1904.” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 18 (Spring 1985), 41.

 

[4] Anderson, Cowboy Apostle. Kindle Edition.

[5] Heber J. Grant to Frank Y. Taylor, April 28, 1904, Heber J. Grant Letterpress Copybook, 38:591, Heber J. Grant Collection, Church History Library, Salt Lake City in “The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, https://www.lds.org/topics/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng#39.

[6] L. A. Snyder, & Snyder, P. A. Post-manifesto polygamy: The 1899-1904 correspondence of Helen, Owen, and Avery Woodruff (Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 2009), 36. This book contains a poignant account of the plural marriage of Abraham, Avery, and Helen, including the death of Abraham and Helen and the bitter aftermath for Avery. It is an excellent read.

[7] Anderson, Cowboy Apostle. Kindle Edition.

[8] Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy, 180, 181.

[9] Anderson, Cowboy Apostle. Kindle Edition.

[10] Anderson, Cowboy Apostle. Kindle Edition

_______________________________________________

It appears from research done by LDS history gurus that as many as from 225-250 post-first manifesto plural marriages were performed in Mexico, including those  performed after the second manifesto up to and including in the 1920s. Most of these marriages were done with some kind of authority and between the first and second manifestos. Plural wives were still living in the colonies up to and including the 1960s and perhaps the early 70s. There are lists of such marriages in several of the sources I am recommending. Were all the marriages performed "with authority"? That is a challenging question, but one that is best responded to as yes, if you consider open and clandestine approvals given by Apostolic authority, including that of the counselors to the presidency during the Joseph F. Smith presidency. Did he give permission for his counselors to authorize marriages in violation of his own manifesto? It appears so, according to several of our most prominent historians. Perhaps it can be said that he was not informed, perhaps, of each marriage authorized by apostles (counselors) under him. It is clear that an elaborate system of codes was set up to inform local officials in Mexico of approval of the performance of such marriages. A number of apostles built homes in the colonies, some of which still stand. Patriarch A. F. Macdonald performed many post-manifesto marriages in Mexico with clear apostolic authority, including those of Brigham Young Jr., John W. Taylor, A. O. Woodruff, Matthias F. Cowley, and several of the Cannons. The episodes of the LeBaron family situation are complex and don't really involve apostolic authority. They are very interesting, however, including impacting the Mexican "Mormon" situation to this day. In some ways, it is not incorrect to say that the LeBarons are the most powerful political group of Mormons in Mexico today. Their intermarriages with current LDS Mormon families make things even more complex.  Here are the sources I would recommend to answer your question as well. There are some sources that are popular, but I don't recommend them, so I won't list them:

Embry, Jessie L. Mormon Polygamous Families: LIfe in the Principle

Van Wagoner. Richard S. Mormon Polygamy: A History

Hardy, B. Carmon. Doing the Works of Abraham: Mormon Polygamy Its Origin, Practice, and Demise

Hardy, B. Carmon. Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage

If you can only get several of these, I would get (personal opinion) that of Embry and both of Hardy's. Embry's is the least known and in some ways, the most helpful. Into the 1930s issues of polygamy in Mexican Mormons (Non-LDS) continued with the third convention issues and the complicated situation with Margarito Bautista. 

I hope this helps.  Navidad

 

Edited December 18, 2025 by Navidad

[blackstrap]

It is known and accepted by millions of Christians worldwide , that Christ is a polygamist... at least metaphorically. JVW might phrase it more in the category of a type of plural marriage, nevertheless...

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, blackstrap said:

It is known and accepted by millions of Christians worldwide , that Christ is a polygamist... at least metaphorically. JVW might phrase it more in the category of a type of plural marriage, nevertheless...

There are still some of us convinced that Christ was an actual polygamist in life too. We know at least three potential wives names.

[gopher]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

I will be very interested in hearing BY's explanation for some of his past controversial comments.  Could it be possible he didn't understand the reasons for the ban?  It wouldn't be the first time prophets were given commandments from God without an explanation. 

But from the CFM lesson from last week:  "We don’t know why priesthood ordination and temple ordinances were not available to Church members of African descent for a time."

When we finally do get the official explanation for the ban (during the millenium, perhaps?),  do you believe it's impossible for an explanation that doesn't accuse the prophets of being in error?  Or acting against the will of God?

Since we don't have the explanation, we are free to draw our own conclusions.  My belief is that the ban was in place until white people inside and outside the church stopped being racist enough for blacks to be able to fully participate without persecution.

I'm not sure it's spiritually healthy to accuse prophets of being wrong or in error, especially when we don't have all the information.  There are plenty of people out there stirring up anger and doubts about prophets of God.  I don't want to be part of that.

But it's still an interesting topic to discuss.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, gopher said:

m not sure it's spiritually healthy to accuse prophets of being wrong or in error, especially when we don't have all the information.  There are plenty of people out there stirring up anger and doubts about prophets of God.  I don't want to be part of that.

I think it’s better than giving the impression we believe they are infallible.  Look at what’s that has done to our own community.

I am not making any judgement about the will of God except perhaps he is willing to let us stumble at times while finding surer footing on the way.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, JVW said:

sealing as equivalent to the water breaking in the womb.

I suspect if you had experienced this, that is not the metaphor you would choose, lol.

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, blackstrap said:

It is known and accepted by millions of Christians worldwide , that Christ is a polygamist... at least metaphorically. JVW might phrase it more in the category of a type of plural marriage, nevertheless...

If I am accurate at what you are driving at, then I would disagree. It is known and accepted by millions of Christians worldwide, that Christ has one bride - the Church United—the worldwide collective of those who acknowledge Him as the bridegroom. It (singular) is the Church United - "alive and well" as the song goes. For me at least, inclusive of the those who claim Christ as their Redeemer from within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints! As in, the group is, the team believes, the crowd was moving. Collective acting as singular! The second half of D&C 1:30 talks about it! -which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually. (emphasis mine)  🙂

Edited December 19, 2025 by Navidad

[Senator]

2 hours ago, gopher said:

When we finally do get the official explanation for the ban (during the millenium, perhaps?),  do you believe it's impossible for an explanation that doesn't accuse the prophets of being in error?  Or acting against the will of God?

 

I'm not sure it's spiritually healthy to accuse prophets of being wrong or in error, especially when we don't have all the information.  There are plenty of people out there stirring up anger and doubts about prophets of God.  I don't want to be part of that.

 

I believe the wording of the TR question is intentional and carefully crafted. Do you “sustain” them to be prophets, seers and revelators? Not, do you have a testimony of them as ……

Big difference. 

[webbles]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi @webbles: I am finally getting around to answering your request. I don't know how to insert a long document into my  response. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to do so anyway. Here are a few paragraphs from a talk I gave at a 2019 MHA conference. It touches on your request. If anyone wants the whole document, which is about the role of the Apostles in the Colonies in general, please PM me with your email address, and I will send you the entire document and a PowerPoint that goes with it, if you want that. Here are a few pertinent paragraphs:

Visiting Apostles

Apostles were also sent to Mexico to resolve differences, preside at conferences, and provide oversight. An example of this is when apostles Brigham Young, Jr., John Henry Smith, and Francis M. Lyman were sent to investigate complaints against prominent colony leaders. They determined that difficult but correct decisions had been made.[1] George F. Richards, Rudger Clawson, and John Henry Smith each visited for different reasons.

President Joseph F. Smith visited the colonies on numerous occasions, including the dedication of the new Juarez Stake Academy building. I have found no sources indicating whether Lorenzo Snow visited the colonies, either as apostle or president. He did, however, have an impact on plural marriage in Mexico. In 1901 he found out that Anthony Ivins and A. F. Macdonald were performing plural marriages. He sent Apostle John Henry Smith to warn them of the consequences (potential excommunication). They received mixed messages from other Church leaders. They responded to the President’s warning with partial compliance.[2]

Apostles and Plural Marriage

In June 1890 Apostle Brigham Young Jr. organized a festive trip to Mexico including ten prospective plural marriage couples plus his own plural wife-to-be. They arrived in Mexico and A. F. MacDonald married all eleven couples the same day![3]

Post-manifesto, the colonies were a place where plural marriages continued, performed by certain local leaders and visiting apostles. Patriarch MacDonald, Apostle Teasdale, and Stake President Ivins performed most of the plural marriages at the local level using a clandestine system of approval from certain Church leaders. Ivins was granted the rare authority to seal couples outside the temple.[4]

Not all visiting apostles were supportive of performing plural marriages. “Apostle Heber J. Grant, for example, reported that while visiting Mormon settlements in Mexico in 1900, he received 10 applications in a single day requesting plural marriages. He declined them all. ‘I confess,’ he told a friend, ‘that it has always gone against my grain to have any violations of documents [i.e. the Manifesto] of this kind.’”[5]

Other visiting apostles performed plural marriages and conducted extended tours of the colonies. Apostles A. O. Woodruff, John W. Taylor, and Matthias Cowley were regular visitors in this regard. The account of A. O. Woodruff is perhaps the most poignant.

Apostle Abraham Owen Woodruff was the son of Wilford Woodruff who had two wives. A review of Anthony Ivins’ journals reveals that from 1899-1904 Woodruff was often in Mexico, at least once a year. He traveled the colonies providing ecclesiastical leadership, hunting, and avoiding testifying at the Smoot Senate hearings.[6]

He built a home in Colonia Juarez for his second wife Avery, where she lived full-time. In May 1904 Apostle Woodruff made a trip to Mexico with his first wife Helen and their children to see Avery’s new baby girl and attend a Mexico City Conference. In Mexico City, Helen became sick with smallpox. She died within a week. Apostle Woodruff also became sick with the disease and died in El Paso a few days later. This was a tragic loss, especially for Avery.

Apostle John. W. Taylor’s three wives (Nellie, Rhoda, and Roxey), together with their children lived in Colonia Juarez in a home he built for them. They were part of a group of wives and children locally known as “the exiles,” a sobriquet to which no stigma was attached.  Apostle Taylor was a regular visitor in the colonies and openly interacted with his three wives, as did President Joseph F. Smith and others.[7] Taylor spent time in Mexico after resigning his apostleship. “Visited in Mexico by apostles John Henry Smith, Francis M. Lyman, and Anthony W. Ivins, Taylor accused the church of cowardice in giving up plural marriage in the face of government pressure.” He was excommunicated soon thereafter.[8]

Apostle Cowley performed plural marriages in Mexico, but it is not clear how many. It is evident that he used the remoteness of the colonies to hide when deemed necessary. Apostle John Henry Smith was sent to Mexico to find Cowley to have him testify at the Smoot trial. Only upon the direct order of Apostle Smith was he located. Cowley refused to return to testify.[9]

That the practice carried on in Mexico was known to the General Authorities cannot be doubted. Many of them visited the Colonies where they could not fail to become aware of what was going on. Among those who came to Mexico on official Church business, some of them many times, were John W. Taylor, Mathias F. Cowley, Hyrum Smith, . . Abraham Owen Woodruff , . . Heber J. Grant, Amasa M. Lyman, B. H. Roberts , . . and President Joseph F. Smith. These men, with few exceptions, preached with fervor the doctrine that plural marriage was a prerequisite to celestial exaltation. They urged the young men in the Colonies to accept and practice the principle.[10]

 

---

[1] FamilySearch, “A F Macdonald by Taylor MacDonald”                                                         https://www.family search.org/photos/artifacts/5986576.

 

[2]Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), 157.

 

[3]Alexander F. Macdonald, Marriage Record, 1888-1900 in D. Michael Quinn, “LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890-1904.” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 18 (Spring 1985), 41.

 

[4] Anderson, Cowboy Apostle. Kindle Edition.

[5] Heber J. Grant to Frank Y. Taylor, April 28, 1904, Heber J. Grant Letterpress Copybook, 38:591, Heber J. Grant Collection, Church History Library, Salt Lake City in “The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, https://www.lds.org/topics/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng#39.

[6] L. A. Snyder, & Snyder, P. A. Post-manifesto polygamy: The 1899-1904 correspondence of Helen, Owen, and Avery Woodruff (Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 2009), 36. This book contains a poignant account of the plural marriage of Abraham, Avery, and Helen, including the death of Abraham and Helen and the bitter aftermath for Avery. It is an excellent read.

[7] Anderson, Cowboy Apostle. Kindle Edition.

[8] Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy, 180, 181.

[9] Anderson, Cowboy Apostle. Kindle Edition.

[10] Anderson, Cowboy Apostle. Kindle Edition

_______________________________________________

It appears from research done by LDS history gurus that as many as from 225-250 post-first manifesto plural marriages were performed in Mexico, including those  performed after the second manifesto up to and including in the 1920s. Most of these marriages were done with some kind of authority and between the first and second manifestos. Plural wives were still living in the colonies up to and including the 1960s and perhaps the early 70s. There are lists of such marriages in several of the sources I am recommending. Were all the marriages performed "with authority"? That is a challenging question, but one that is best responded to as yes, if you consider open and clandestine approvals given by Apostolic authority, including that of the counselors to the presidency during the Joseph F. Smith presidency. Did he give permission for his counselors to authorize marriages in violation of his own manifesto? It appears so, according to several of our most prominent historians. Perhaps it can be said that he was not informed, perhaps, of each marriage authorized by apostles (counselors) under him. It is clear that an elaborate system of codes was set up to inform local officials in Mexico of approval of the performance of such marriages. A number of apostles built homes in the colonies, some of which still stand. Patriarch A. F. Macdonald performed many post-manifesto marriages in Mexico with clear apostolic authority, including those of Brigham Young Jr., John W. Taylor, A. O. Woodruff, Matthias F. Cowley, and several of the Cannons. The episodes of the LeBaron family situation are complex and don't really involve apostolic authority. They are very interesting, however, including impacting the Mexican "Mormon" situation to this day. In some ways, it is not incorrect to say that the LeBarons are the most powerful political group of Mormons in Mexico today. Their intermarriages with current LDS Mormon families make things even more complex.  Here are the sources I would recommend to answer your question as well. There are some sources that are popular, but I don't recommend them, so I won't list them:

Embry, Jessie L. Mormon Polygamous Families: LIfe in the Principle

Van Wagoner. Richard S. Mormon Polygamy: A History

Hardy, B. Carmon. Doing the Works of Abraham: Mormon Polygamy Its Origin, Practice, and Demise

Hardy, B. Carmon. Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage

If you can only get several of these, I would get (personal opinion) that of Embry and both of Hardy's. Embry's is the least known and in some ways, the most helpful. Into the 1930s issues of polygamy in Mexican Mormons (Non-LDS) continued with the third convention issues and the complicated situation with Margarito Bautista. 

I hope this helps.  Navidad

 

Thanks.  I'll look at those books.  I haven't read them yet.  I'm really curious about the post 1904 marriages.  And for me, "with authority" means that they weren't excommunicated or shunned by the community.  I haven't heard of any marriages in the 1920s that didn't trigger excommunication so I'm curious about that.  I have heard of a few in the earlier 1910s that were accepted.

[webbles]

6 hours ago, JVW said:

- Marriage has probably been traditionally coupled with sealing in the church because the U.S. government was looking for any reason to eradicate the church. If the U.S. government let the "Mormons" mind their own business under Brigham's leadership I could easily imagine Brigham doing away with the practice of marriage and only doing sealings in the ghost-state of Deseret. He did crazier things than that.

When you say "I could easily imagine Brigham doing away with the practice of marriage and only doing sealings in the ghost-state of Deseret", do you mean that a husband and wife would be sealed in the temple but not have any sort of marriage ceremony?  Because I don't know what you mean by "doing away with the practice of marriage".  It was really common to get married first before going to the temple.  There is even the famous "honeymoon trail" (https://www.blm.gov/visit/honeymoon-trail) which goes from Arizona and Mexico up to the St. George temple.  It is called "honeymoon trail" because new couples would get married before making the trip and so they honeymoon was the trail.  Also, quite a lot of people would get married, divorced, and remarried.  I have a family ancestor who was married on the trip to Utah (as his 4th wife), he died, she remarried (as a second wife), then divorced him, and then married one more time.  Only the first marriage was sealed.  The other two were not.

 

7 hours ago, JVW said:

- Therefore, there is a difference between a man being married to multiple women at the same time and a man being sealed to multiple women at the same time. I mean, wasn't Joseph sealed (while not being married) to multiple women (some of whom were currently married to someone else) simultaneously? What do you call that? Polygamy? He wasn't married to them!

A problem with this, in my mind, is I don't believe there was hardly anyone married to multiple women who were not also sealed to them unless they were sealed to another man.  I do know of a case where the woman wasn't sealed yet to anyone but was married to a man as a quasi-wife for a few years to have children for her original husband (he was sterile) but that situation was odd and I don't know of any other situation like that.  So during the polygamy years, being married polygamously also meant being sealed.  It was possible to be sealed and not to live as "husband and wife" but many of those were still considered married (Brigham had several of those and they still were treated as his wives).  Joseph is harder because we don't know if he treated it as marriage or not.  Some of the women say he did treat it as marriage but some say he didn't.  But was that just because he was figuring things out and didn't have it out in the open?

[blackstrap]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Christ has one bride - the Church United

Yes, that is one aspect I refer to. There is another in that RC nuns each individually present as a bride of Christ. I'm reasonably sure that the interpretation is to be a metaphor , but some believe it is actual. The PROF gives a third option held by a few .

Personally, I am very grateful never being asked to live such a precept. I have a fiery Latin wife who has access to many large knives.😱

[gopher]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

I think it’s better than giving the impression we believe they are infallible.  Look at what’s that has done to our own community.

I am not making any judgement about the will of God except perhaps he is willing to let us stumble at times while finding surer footing on the way.

I agree.  Even prophets don't claim to be infallible so it's our fault if we give that impression.  The scriptures don't support the notion that prophets are infallible.  If President Oaks were to announce he made a mistake cancelling the Saturday evening session of conference, I would accept it and move on.  But if he doesn't, I'm not comfortable  claiming he is in error based on my own speculation or by being persuaded by someone else.  The scriptures and church history are full of examples of people who thought the prophet at the time was wrong.  It doesn't seem to end well for them spiritually and in many cases they are able to pull others away with them.

I don't doubt God allows even prophets to stumble at times.  My point is that unless they admit to being wrong or in error, I believe we lack the information and understanding to be able to make that judgement.  As a practical matter, it's far better to trust a prophet of God than trust others who haven't been called and set apart to reveal the will of God.  I realize it's a difficult task, but it's one that God has always expected of his believers.

The damage done by those who publicly speak out against prophets claiming they are wrong or in error has been far more damaging to our community.  In my opinion.

Edited December 19, 2025 by gopher

[JVW]

15 hours ago, blackstrap said:

It is known and accepted by millions of Christians worldwide , that Christ is a polygamist... at least metaphorically. JVW might phrase it more in the category of a type of plural marriage, nevertheless...

I've never heard of this! Or the three wives thing. If I went on the FB group Christians VS Mormons and asked "Do you all believe that Christ is a metaphorical or literal polygamist?" I don't think I'd get a single affirmative response, so I don't know if "it is known and accepted by millions of Christians worldwide".

[JVW]

10 hours ago, webbles said:

When you say "I could easily imagine Brigham doing away with the practice of marriage and only doing sealings in the ghost-state of Deseret", do you mean that a husband and wife would be sealed in the temple but not have any sort of marriage ceremony?  Because I don't know what you mean by "doing away with the practice of marriage".  It was really common to get married first before going to the temple.  There is even the famous "honeymoon trail" (https://www.blm.gov/visit/honeymoon-trail) which goes from Arizona and Mexico up to the St. George temple.  It is called "honeymoon trail" because new couples would get married before making the trip and so they honeymoon was the trail.  Also, quite a lot of people would get married, divorced, and remarried.  I have a family ancestor who was married on the trip to Utah (as his 4th wife), he died, she remarried (as a second wife), then divorced him, and then married one more time.  Only the first marriage was sealed.  The other two were not.

The way sealing is one doesn't need to be married by State authority first. The sealing ordinance is complete on its own and, as far as I see it, the State marriage is done to comply with the laws of the government. I'm probably wrong though, but again, all we can do is speculate because we don't know anything about sealing.

10 hours ago, webbles said:

A problem with this, in my mind, is I don't believe there was hardly anyone married to multiple women who were not also sealed to them unless they were sealed to another man.  I do know of a case where the woman wasn't sealed yet to anyone but was married to a man as a quasi-wife for a few years to have children for her original husband (he was sterile) but that situation was odd and I don't know of any other situation like that.  So during the polygamy years, being married polygamously also meant being sealed.  It was possible to be sealed and not to live as "husband and wife" but many of those were still considered married (Brigham had several of those and they still were treated as his wives).  Joseph is harder because we don't know if he treated it as marriage or not.  Some of the women say he did treat it as marriage but some say he didn't.  But was that just because he was figuring things out and didn't have it out in the open?

I agree. I can see why the normal response is to think that "plural marriage" and "polygamy" are interchangeable synonyms because throughout the history of the church, according to my definitions, both plural marriage and polygamy were practiced simultaneously so no distinction was necessary.

AFAIK Joseph denied polygamy anytime he was accused of it. I haven't watched Karen's video yet but she said (in the Mormon Stories podcast interview) that her video (and the book she wrote that's not quite as detailed as the video) is 90% Joseph Smith Papers documents. She claims that all of these papers indicate that Joseph didn't practice polygamy, that it clears his name, and affirms that he was telling the truth when he denied polygamy. Also AFAIK all accusations against him from the women were after he died.

Anyways, there is no way that this https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/common-questions/sexual-polyandry/ , sealings to 14 women who were all legally married to their alive husbands, could be termed a "polygamous" relationship from Joseph's standpoint. He wasn't married to any of them, didn't live with any of them, for all I know he never saw any of them after the sealings took place. This is what I would call "plural marriage" and one of the things I would say argues my case that there is a difference between the two terms. What term would you use to describe it?

[Tacenda]

On 12/16/2025 at 3:36 PM, Calm said:

I think a lot depended on how your family prepared you to deal with what you heard at Church.   In my experience the way people describe their experiences at church often lines up with how they describe their experiences with their parents, which makes sense as parents contribute a great deal to our earliest worldview and filters.  Not saying it’s identical, but rather strong influences.

 When I was 7 and younger, my parents were likely (memory and childhood perspective being what it is, not going to insist my view at that age was accurate, lol) what is viewed as all in active LDS.  When first married, they pretty much ran a little branch that had one other active priesthood holder, a deacon iirc.  I remember my dad being the scoutmaster in our San Bruno ward (suburb of San Francisco, lots of Samoans in our ward, I remember fun church parties) as well as gospel doctrine teacher at various times, Mom was den mother and taught the young women.  It feels like we lived at church as that seems like most of my memories outside of school and home.  After my youngest brother was born when I was 9 (we were in a Chicago suburb by that time and church was an hour drive or so it seemed instead of hop in the car and hop out, we were the only LDS in our schools up to high school I believe), Mom had her health tank and with 5 kids, two under the age of 3, she started examining why she was doing things before she did them to remove the unnecessary busy work.  And she talked about her choices to us kids.  And that included a lot of pulling back from Church activity and pushing back on leaders who didn’t understand her POV.  “Foolish traditions” stands out to me, any tradition in our home had to be for a good and highly meaningful purpose, no walking through life on auto pilot (Dad had been a pilot in the AF, so perhaps that is where I picked that slogan up). There were also the discussions of faith and healing and a pretty constant exploration of why the latter didn’t always occur in the presence of the former and as she wasn’t able to attend church as much, her personal study of the scriptures became a constant feature of her life.  We had the usual church books on the shelves up to and including the Journal of Discourses (impossible to read, imo, with its rotten text, probably the only books in the house I didn’t spend much time reading, my bad), but also Jung and Swedenborg, Freud, Joseph Campbell, National Geographic, Time-Life Science series….anything that presented Mom with new ways of viewing scripture and life (her choices were quite eclectic when we got better off and not always wise, but she listened to criticism and adjusted her views when it made sense to her). 

 Analyzing church doctrine and history (Mom was a massive fan of Joseph Smith) was about finding the truth, not explaining mistakes away, so the idea that is what modern apologetics is doing just seems wrong to me even though I recognize there are some apologists with that attitude.  There are more it seems to me that are like me with a very strong curiosity drive that’s been attached to all things church related or even obsessed with religion or anything touching on spirituality as well as a desire to talk about what they pick up and what they can do with it.

I don’t know how much my dad read (Dad liked closed doors and privacy, didn’t go in for chit chat, but loved dissecting people’s thoughts), not sure whether he was more educated by Mom’s sharing or read it himself, but he was also someone who refused to let his time be wasted and since he took over much of what Mom used to do in the home (without complaining or acting like it wasn’t his job, so that was another moment of disorientation when I found out there were actually men who refused to do women’s work when it was needed and made their wives’ lives hell because of that, it wasn’t just a thing to laugh at on sitcoms or restricted to the poor and uneducated), his involvement with Church started including refusals of callings when he didn’t see it as a good use of his time.  He pretty much just ignored any attempts at persuasion or dominance (if the latter attempts ever occurred, Dad was….impressive in his poise and look, he would have made a great gangster, one of the well dressed, good looking, but scary kind).  He either ignored or laughed about any attempts to guilt him into giving in or appeals to his higher nature.

So even as a kid, I would say a year or three after my baptism I had picked up the attitude we were to test what our leaders required of us by osmosis if not by direct instruction.  So on the occasions I heard stuff like ‘the thinking is done’, it either didn’t register or got rewritten in my head on its way to my memory banks because I don’t remember hearing that kind of stuff much and treated it as unusual and uneducated when I did….yes, in many ways I was a snob as a kid.  I was pretty dismissive of it because I knew better (I was very proud of my parents’ knowledge and experience in the Church, they shared stories but of fond memories, not bragging that they were remarkable because the General Authorities always stayed at her home when visiting the ‘mission field’ or because he was the first Eagle Scout of their branch since it was Grandma who cared deeply and we heard that story because Dad was amused by how much she cared given he was always so oblivious to the status stuff; he also was forced to learn to play the accordion).

When I was 13 we ended up back in California less than a 5 minute walk from Church and we were expected to attend everything even if Mom couldn’t and Dad missed stuff because of work. Being painfully shy, I did not enjoy the social side and resisted when I could.  There were a couple very devout traditional families as the core of our ward as well as a few more like mine, very active overall, but not teaching the Church should consume your life, so I know I got exposed to what I view as the Joseph Fielding Smith/Bruce R McKonkie mindset, but I never saw that as a dominant view.  It shocked me when I got to BYU and learned that geology professors had a hard time from members who considered they were apostates and ran into incidents of the modesty police (one of my grandmothers had a fit I would sit with my knees apart when wearing pants, too bad for her as I always been a sprawler, the pews at church have been my lifelong nemesis; the other grandmother had a fit I had bangs and didn’t style my hair as it was as short as I could manage without standing out being terminally shy, but it was never presented as a moral or church thing).  It never occurred to me before that there were so many educated members who didn’t believe in evolution (I don’t remember how I reconciled Bible stories with the science as both were treated as truth in their context in my family, I think I did Religion in Church and Science where it made sense to do science and just figured it would be revealed some day how it fit together because, you know, we were promised continuing revelation and like my mom, I felt like we were getting it from everywhere).  My parents were practical when it came to politics and voted for both parties or rather neither as they voted for the person or the issue and it was a family amusement at how my greatgrandmother who lived in Utah was a rabid democrat, so it also shocked me how conservative Utah was.  Looking back, my extended family in Utah (both parents were born there) didn’t talk politics around me at least or I ignored it and I apparently grew up in less typical wards or I just assumed the quiet members were more like my family than they were…or perhaps both.

Anyway, all that to say my gut reaction when I read comments like this is to feel bad for you guys, it feels you were cheated of some pretty fantastic opportunities to explore the world by someone telling you to construct some unnecessary mental walls.

Thank you for a window into your childhood dynamics with your parents. I will never forget when you mentioned your mother going on a camping (?) trip by herself (correct me if wrong). I long to go to different scenic places in Utah, my husband not so much, so I think of your mother. 

 

[Tacenda]

Just saw this YouTube on the Cwic Show. It is discussing the topic at hand. 

BTW, the podcast owner was interviewed by John Dehlin recently and spoke about a time he had doubts about the church that led to a firm belief in the church. Good thing to know and inspired me at moments. 

 

[webbles]

4 hours ago, JVW said:

The way sealing is one doesn't need to be married by State authority first. The sealing ordinance is complete on its own and, as far as I see it, the State marriage is done to comply with the laws of the government. I'm probably wrong though, but again, all we can do is speculate because we don't know anything about sealing.

Marriages in the early US didn't really have "state authority".  You could marry someone in your community and never get a license from the state or any other approval.  For instance, the case I mentioned where a woman married another man to have children for her first husband, the marriage was not by "state authority" nor was it a sealing.  There aren't any records of the marriage except through family histories.

And we do know a lot about sealings.  I think the only hang ups are very, very few.  A few from Joseph's time and a few from Brigham's time.  Other than that, a sealing was a marriage.

4 hours ago, JVW said:

AFAIK Joseph denied polygamy anytime he was accused of it. I haven't watched Karen's video yet but she said (in the Mormon Stories podcast interview) that her video (and the book she wrote that's not quite as detailed as the video) is 90% Joseph Smith Papers documents. She claims that all of these papers indicate that Joseph didn't practice polygamy, that it clears his name, and affirms that he was telling the truth when he denied polygamy. Also AFAIK all accusations against him from the women were after he died.

I 100% agree that Joseph denied polygamy in all public statements.  I don't think anyone doubts that.  There is not a lot of contemporary documents that tie Joseph to polygamy.  And most of that isn't in the Joseph Smith Papeers (William Clayton's journal has most of it which I know some people think was edited so we just have to wait and see if the church ever releases them).  But there is a lot more evidence after his death and I find it really hard to ignore that evidence because of the breadth and scope.  For a random instance, R. C. Evans was a member of the RLDS First presidency.  He served with Joseph Smith III.  He has no first hand experience of Joseph Smith (he was born in 1876) but interacted with men who did have first hand experience.  He was adamantly against polygamy and even wrote books against it and denounced Brigham and the Utah church.  He left the RLDS because he came to believe that Joseph actually did practice polygamy and he was angry that the RLDS didn't denounce Joseph for his sins.  He came to this conclusion with talking to men who personally knew Joseph and who had no problems saying that Joseph had practiced polygamy.  These are men who did not go to Utah and who hated polygamy.

Also, I've noticed you mentioned women accusing Joseph.  For me, that is an odd way to put it.  I don't believe they ever accused him.  They didn't go out of their way to say Joseph was a polygamist.  If it wasn't for Joseph III's mission back to Utah or the attempt by the RLDS to own the Independence temple lot or the curiosity of Andrew Jenson, we probably would know very little of his polygamy.

4 hours ago, JVW said:

Anyways, there is no way that this https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/common-questions/sexual-polyandry/ , sealings to 14 women who were all legally married to their alive husbands, could be termed a "polygamous" relationship from Joseph's standpoint. He wasn't married to any of them, didn't live with any of them, for all I know he never saw any of them after the sealings took place. This is what I would call "plural marriage" and one of the things I would say argues my case that there is a difference between the two terms. What term would you use to describe it?

Some of those marriages were probably sealing only with no earthly expectation.  But some probably did have earthly expectations.  Sarah Ann Whitney is one of the later.  She was sealed/married to Joseph before her marriage to Joseph C Kinsgbury.  And he left a journal that was written shortly after Joseph's death (so really close to contemporaneous) where he describes the arrangement he had with Joseph to be a "supposed husband" (https://archive.org/details/journal-of-joseph-c-kingsbury/page/n15/mode/2up).

And many of those women were sealed to Joseph posthumously in the Nauvoo Temple with sometimes their husband standing in place or other men.  And the sealing ceremony in the Nauvoo Temple was like the modern sealings, where it assumed earthly marriage.  For instance, Sylvia Session was married to Windsor Lyons.  He was endowed in the Nauvoo Temple on Feb 3 1846.  Sylvia was endowed on Dec 16 1845 (https://archive.org/details/nauvoo-sealings-adoptions-and-anointings/page/190/mode/2up).  Instead of being sealed to her legal husband, she was sealed to Joseph with Heber C Kimball standing in place.  Why did she choose to be sealed to Heber instead of Windsor?  Especially since he was a faithful member who got his endowment shortly afterward.  We don't know but I think it points to Joseph's sealing to be more marriage like than just a sealing.

As for a term, I would call it polyandrous marriages since it as a woman with more than two husbands.

[Calm]

15 hours ago, gopher said:

The damage done by those who publicly speak out against prophets claiming they are wrong or in error has been far more damaging to our community.  In my opinion.

While I definitely agree there has been great damage done by those who speak out against the prophets, since we can’t know what the Church would have been like if the Ban had only been temporary or rather the First Presidency and the 12 had come to a decision earlier that the time to end it had come, all this type of judgment can be is opinion.

Not saying you are wrong either.  I can’t say what went on outside the history and there are gaps in the records, though not as many as there once were.  My own opinion is it appears that Brigham did not give the Ban as revelation even if he thought it was grounded in/supported by revelation and there was debate while he was still living as well as afterwards on how it should be applied (questions about the Ables as well as Jane Manning and others).  At least one of the explanations used to support the continuation of the Ban was found to be a lie (we have documentation of Able’s ordination being done with Joseph’s knowledge and Brigham did not declare his priesthood as invalid even if he was not able to receive his endowment as he had his washing and anointing).

I am happy with just the Church releasing the info and the public acknowledgment of the actual record, such as this below, through the research supported by the Church and with that available for study, letting people decide the why it happen for themselves, including letting it sit on the shelf until somehow we know more.   I certainly have no problem letting any judgment rest in God’s hands to be revealed when he so chooses, but ignoring the record, pretending contradictions aren’t present within it will not benefit the Church nor increase confidence in our prophets imo and it seems to me the Church agrees since it gave access to scholars and published the Gospel Topic on Race, calling it a policy, not a revelation and citing the long history rather than any doctrinal justification for requiring a revelation to lift it.

Quote

 

Brigham Young responded, “Its nothing to do with the blood for of one blood has God made all flesh.” He then added for emphasis, “We have one of the best Elder an African in Lowell [Massachusetts],” referring to Q. Walker Lewis. 

McCary went on to say, “If I am a darky, I want to serve God.” To which Brigham Young said, “Amen.”

A bit later in the conversation McCary said, “I want you to intercede for me. I am not a priest, or a leader of the people, but a common brother—because I am a little shade darker.” To which Brigham Young replied, “We don’t care about the color.” McCary then asked, “Do I hear that from all?” To which all replied “Aye.” (Spelling, capitalization, and punctuation standardized; “Meeting Minutes of the Twelve, March 26, 1847,” in Richard E. Turley Jr., ed., Selected Collections from the Archives of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, DVD. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 2002, 1:18)

https://doctrineandcovenantscentral.org/blacks-and-priesthood-temple-ban-timeline/

http://www.blacklatterdaysaints.org/history

 

Edited December 20, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

will never forget when you mentioned your mother going on a camping (?) trip by herself (correct me if wrong).

Great memory.  Yep, Dad drove her up to Yosemite and parked her with a trailer for a couple of weeks iirc (might have been longer, but food would likely have become a problem) and it was just her and the park ranger in the camp ground to begin with iirc.  I should check with my older siblings about the details.   She went on retreats quite a number of times, I went with her a few of them. That was the only time it was pretty much just her and nature (others were time share condos in the mountains or health resorts where she would take a couple of potatoes and water and walk the mountains in Southern Utah all day).

[manol]

9 hours ago, JVW said:

AFAIK Joseph denied polygamy anytime he was accused of it. I haven't watched Karen's video yet but she said (in the Mormon Stories podcast interview) that her video (and the book she wrote that's not quite as detailed as the video) is 90% Joseph Smith Papers documents. She claims that all of these papers indicate that Joseph didn't practice polygamy, that it clears his name, and affirms that he was telling the truth when he denied polygamy. Also AFAIK all accusations against him from the women were after he died.

I find your insight into the distinction between "plural marriage" and "polygamy" enlightening.   The working hypothesis I arrived at some years ago (and have not revisited) is along generally similar lines, though lacking that insight.  So this is not me disagreeing with you; this is me hoping to learn from you:

My recollection is that Joseph specifically opposed something called "spiritual wifery".  Now I don't know exactly what that term meant in the context of the day, but at a glance it seems to imply something similar to the definition you ascribe to "plural marriage"; i.e., a sealing but without the couple having a physical marriage relationship.  Am I mistaken about that?

What are your thoughts on this?  Am I missing something obvious, or perhaps something non-obvious?

(By the way, I find it plausible that Mormon women lied under oath about the exact nature of their relationships with Joseph Smith.  My understanding is that during the US Government's crackdown on polygamy, the prosecutors would question Mormon women to find out who was the first (and therefore legal) wife, as she was the only one who could not be compelled to testify against her husband.  The women would be deceptive and say things like they couldn't remember who was the first wife, and/or which child was from which mother, which of course were lies, but it did throw a monkey wrench in that avenue of attack by the Government prosecutors.  I am under the impression that lying for a good cause was considered a virtue, with Joseph Smith's public denials of polygamy being (imo wrongly!) considered a justifying example thereof.)

Edited December 20, 2025 by manol

[Rain]

15 hours ago, gopher said:

I agree.  Even prophets don't claim to be infallible so it's our fault if we give that impression.  The scriptures don't support the notion that prophets are infallible.  If President Oaks were to announce he made a mistake cancelling the Saturday evening session of conference, I would accept it and move on.  But if he doesn't, I'm not comfortable  claiming he is in error based on my own speculation or by being persuaded by someone else. 

There is another option though besides speculation and being persuaded by someone else and it is doing what the church teaches: study and pray about it sincerely and humbly. So if one does that and the answer they get is that polygamy was wrong then I think that's a whole lot different than speculation or persuasion.

I know that many will then say that if it doesn't align with what church leaders say then your answers didn't really come from the Spirit, but if that's the case then we are back to people saying church leaders are not infallible even when they don't believe it.

15 hours ago, gopher said:

The scriptures and church history are full of examples of people who thought the prophet at the time was wrong.  It doesn't seem to end well for them spiritually and in many cases they are able to pull others away with them.

I don't doubt God allows even prophets to stumble at times.  My point is that unless they admit to being wrong or in error, I believe we lack the information and understanding to be able to make that judgement.  As a practical matter, it's far better to trust a prophet of God than trust others who haven't been called and set apart to reveal the will of God.  I realize it's a difficult task, but it's one that God has always expected of his believers.

The damage done by those who publicly speak out against prophets claiming they are wrong or in error has been far more damaging to our community.  In my opinion.

 

Edited December 20, 2025 by Rain