Marriage to virgins

[TheTanakas]

For priests who were instructed to enter plural marriage in Doctrine and Covenants 
132:61, was the mandate to only marry virgins a principle carried over from Old 
Testament teachings?

"And he shall take a wife in her virginity ... but he shall take a virgin of his own people
to wife" (Leviticus 21:13-14, KJV).

"They shall not take as wife a widow or a divorced woman, but take virgins of the 
descendants of the house of Israel, or widows of priests" (Ezekiel 44:22, NKJV)

[Pyreaux]

Section 132 is not a restatement of the Levitical law codes. Leviticus 21:13-14 and Ezekiel 44:22 restrict the High Priest exclusively to virgins of Israel. Joseph Smith’s later plural sealing included non-virgin widows, the same for many other early LDS polygamists. It seems 132 is a copy of a letter to Emma concerning Joseph’s marriages to Emily and Eliza Partridge specifically who were indeed virgins, but also sisters which is against Levitical law, 132 is not a rule book for all plural marriages in the future.

Edited Saturday at 06:22 PM by Pyreaux

[telnetd]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

132 is not a rule book for all plural marriages in the future.

Verse 61 doesn't really make sense. It assumes you will marry a virgin, then she will 
remain a virgin all the while you are looking for your second or other virgins to marry.

Would your 5 wives really remain virgins as you march toward your tally of ten mentioned
in the next verse?

[Pyreaux]

45 minutes ago, telnetd said:

Verse 61 doesn't really make sense. It assumes you will marry a virgin, then she will 
remain a virgin all the while you are looking for your second or other virgins to marry.

Would your 5 wives really remain virgins as you march toward your tally of ten mentioned
in the next verse?

In scriptural idioms, a "virgin" in the context of marriage simply referred to her status at the time she entered the covenant (as opposed to a widow or divorcee). The descriptor applies when she is espoused (betrothed/married). If a law said, "If a man marry a maiden, and she bear him children..." nobody interprets that to mean she remained a literal "maiden" after childbirth.

Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language a "virgin" can be an unattached woman.

The main point of verse 61 is stating that if a man marries a woman who is not bound to another husband, and then enters a subsequent marriage with another unattached woman under priesthood authority, he is not committing adultery. It is addressing covenant legalities, not demanding that previous wives remain perpetually untouched.

Edited Saturday at 05:36 PM by Pyreaux

[AnchoredinChrist]

4 hours ago, TheTanakas said:

For priests who were instructed to enter plural marriage in Doctrine and Covenants 132:61

By "For priests who were instructed to enter plural marriage..." are you implying that certain church members weren't being instructed to practice polygyny in D&C 132? Because in verse 3 it says, "for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same." 

And then verse 64 states that the Lord will destroy any wife who has been taught of this but does not "believe and administer" in it. Those who insist that Section 132 is only talking about Joseph & Emma seem to be forgetting those verses of it entirely. 

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

By "For priests who were instructed to enter plural marriage..." are you implying that certain church members weren't being instructed to practice polygyny in D&C 132? Because in verse 3 it says, "for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same." 

And then verse 64 states that the Lord will destroy any wife who has been taught of this but does not "believe and administer" in it. Those who insist that Section 132 is only talking about Joseph & Emma seem to be forgetting those verses of it entirely. 

The revelation sets out broader teachings about eternal marriage and plural marriage. But has a personal context involving Joseph and Emma. The passage is describing one category of authorized plural marriage, while other arrangements may have involved different circumstances.

Verse 64 is specifically about a wife in a particular situation

"If any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things…"

The verse then says she must "believe and administer unto him."

The verse describes a husband who holds the relevant keys and teaches his wife the law. It is not phrased as a general instruction to every woman or every married couple. It doesn't establish a universal command for every Church member to practice it.

Edited Saturday at 09:53 PM by Pyreaux

[AnchoredinChrist]

42 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

The revelation sets out broader teachings about eternal marriage and plural marriage. But has a personal context involving Joseph and Emma. The passage is describing one category of authorized plural marriage, while other arrangements may have involved different circumstances.

Verse 64 is specifically about a wife in a particular situation

"If any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things…"

The verse then says she must "believe and administer unto him."

The verse describes a husband who holds the relevant keys and teaches his wife the law. It is not phrased as a general instruction to every woman or every married couple. It doesn't establish a universal command for every Church member to practice it.

I still don't think that interpretation works with an exegetical reading of Section 132, as it says, "all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same."

Such an interpretation of the law of polygamy was also not shared by Brigham Young, 

 

93 ~ Those unwilling to practice polygamy were told they would lose their families in the hereafter ~

In later years Brigham Young went so far as to teach that a husband who was living monogamously would have his wife taken from him in the eternities:

Now, where a man in this church says, ‘I don't want but one wife, I will live my religion with one.' He will perhaps be saved in the Celestial Kingdom; but when he gets there he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all.... and he will remain single forever and ever.    Brigham Young, Deseret News, September 17, 1873. Journal of Discourses volume 16, pg. 166. August 31, 1873

[A] man who did not have but one wife in the Resurrection that woman will not be his but [be] taken from him & given to another.   Prophet Brigham Young, quoted by Wilford Woodruff, in Abanes, One Nation Under Gods, p. 579

He also told me that he would preach a sermon that day for me which I would understand, while the rest of the congregation would not comprehend its meaning. His subject was the ten talents, “Unto him that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundantly, but from him that hath not (or will not receive), shall be taken away that which he hath (or might have had).” Plainly giving me to understand that the talents represented wives and children, as the principle of enlargement throughout the great future to those who were heirs of salvation.

                                         The Historical Record:   https://archive.org/details/historicalrecord06jens/page/220/mode/2up

In light of this it could be argued that many may have entered polygamy not due to belief of it being a wonderful, glorious principle of heaven, but out of fear of receiving cursing, eternal damnation, and being eternally separated from one's family.

Historical Monogamy Doctrine

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, telnetd said:

Verse 61 doesn't really make sense. It assumes you will marry a virgin, then she will 
remain a virgin all the while you are looking for your second or other virgins to marry.

Would your 5 wives really remain virgins as you march toward your tally of ten mentioned
in the next verse?

They accepted Jesus’s and Paul’s call to celibacy even within marriage?

[webbles]

56 minutes ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

I still don't think that interpretation works with an exegetical reading of Section 132, as it says, "all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same."

Such an interpretation of the law of polygamy was also not shared by Brigham Young, 

 

93 ~ Those unwilling to practice polygamy were told they would lose their families in the hereafter ~

In later years Brigham Young went so far as to teach that a husband who was living monogamously would have his wife taken from him in the eternities:

Now, where a man in this church says, ‘I don't want but one wife, I will live my religion with one.' He will perhaps be saved in the Celestial Kingdom; but when he gets there he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all.... and he will remain single forever and ever.    Brigham Young, Deseret News, September 17, 1873. Journal of Discourses volume 16, pg. 166. August 31, 1873

[A] man who did not have but one wife in the Resurrection that woman will not be his but [be] taken from him & given to another.   Prophet Brigham Young, quoted by Wilford Woodruff, in Abanes, One Nation Under Gods, p. 579

He also told me that he would preach a sermon that day for me which I would understand, while the rest of the congregation would not comprehend its meaning. His subject was the ten talents, “Unto him that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundantly, but from him that hath not (or will not receive), shall be taken away that which he hath (or might have had).” Plainly giving me to understand that the talents represented wives and children, as the principle of enlargement throughout the great future to those who were heirs of salvation.

                                         The Historical Record:   https://archive.org/details/historicalrecord06jens/page/220/mode/2up

In light of this it could be argued that many may have entered polygamy not due to belief of it being a wonderful, glorious principle of heaven, but out of fear of receiving cursing, eternal damnation, and being eternally separated from one's family.

Historical Monogamy Doctrine

It isn't really obvious from how the site uses those quotes, but the last quote (the one from the Historical Record) is talking about Joseph Smith.  It is Benjamin Johnson's testimony about what Joseph taught him.  Joseph was asking Benjamin to help him propose to Almera Johnson and gave that indication.

 

The first quote is interesting because shortly before he says that, he also says:

Quote

Just a few words upon this. We would believe this doctrine entirely different from what it is presented to us, if we could do so. If we could make every man upon the earth get him a wife, live righteously and serve God, we would not be under  the necessity, perhaps, of taking more than one wife. But they will not do this; the people of God, therefore, have been commanded to take more wives.

Basically, the reason why the saints were commanded to take more wives is because there aren't enough good men.

 

The second quote is Wilford Woodruff's journal entry about the 1873 discourse.  So it isn't a separate time that Brigham Young said it.

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

I still don't think that interpretation works with an exegetical reading of Section 132, as it says, "all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same."

Such an interpretation of the law of polygamy was also not shared by Brigham Young, 

 

93 ~ Those unwilling to practice polygamy were told they would lose their families in the hereafter ~

In later years Brigham Young went so far as to teach that a husband who was living monogamously would have his wife taken from him in the eternities:

Now, where a man in this church says, ‘I don't want but one wife, I will live my religion with one.' He will perhaps be saved in the Celestial Kingdom; but when he gets there he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all.... and he will remain single forever and ever.    Brigham Young, Deseret News, September 17, 1873. Journal of Discourses volume 16, pg. 166. August 31, 1873

[A] man who did not have but one wife in the Resurrection that woman will not be his but [be] taken from him & given to another.   Prophet Brigham Young, quoted by Wilford Woodruff, in Abanes, One Nation Under Gods, p. 579

He also told me that he would preach a sermon that day for me which I would understand, while the rest of the congregation would not comprehend its meaning. His subject was the ten talents, “Unto him that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundantly, but from him that hath not (or will not receive), shall be taken away that which he hath (or might have had).” Plainly giving me to understand that the talents represented wives and children, as the principle of enlargement throughout the great future to those who were heirs of salvation.

                                         The Historical Record:   https://archive.org/details/historicalrecord06jens/page/220/mode/2up

In light of this it could be argued that many may have entered polygamy not due to belief of it being a wonderful, glorious principle of heaven, but out of fear of receiving cursing, eternal damnation, and being eternally separated from one's family.

Historical Monogamy Doctrine

Did Section 132 then make plural marriage mandatory for everyone who heard it? No, it didn't. Even under Brigham Young, the majority of active Latter-day Saints were monogamous, and could never be polygamists if they wanted to. If plural marriage were the sole requirement to enter exaltation, the overwhelming majority of Saints, including bishops, stake leaders, and faithful members and every member not in the US would have been excluded.

The quotes from Brigham Young in 1873 are historical footnotes, they don't define the universal doctrine of the Church, and ignores both the specific historical context of the 1870s and subsequent clarification by Church leaders.

Brigham was not talking to those who simply lived faithful monogamous lives because they were never called to take additional wives. Men were typically called and vetted by local bishops or First Presidency leaders who deliberately targeted men of means who were financially, socially, and spiritually stable enough to provide housing, food, and protection for additional families, especially single immigrant women, widows, and young women who lacked financial support on the frontier.

When Brigham Young made statements like the one in 1873, he was speaking directly to men who had been extended specific callings to care for women in the community and shrank back from that responsibility. Brigham Young believed that backing down or choosing monogamy out of cowardice or social pressure was a failure of faith. It was harsh rhetoric preached to push men who had been called.

In the very same August 19, 1866 discourse in which Brigham Young you partially quoted, he explicitly softened his speech, "Now, we as a people will be polygamists, at least in our faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 11:269)

Leaders both during and after Brigham Young's era clarified that plural marriage was never a universal command. Wilford Woodruff explicitly stated that monogamous men and women could attain the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. Joseph F. Smith taught in 1878 that plural marriage was only required of those to whom it was specifically commanded or given as a personal law by God, not an absolute blanket mandate for every individual in all eras.

D&C 132:19 explicitly states that a man and one wife sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise will inherit exaltation.

Claiming Saints only entered polygamy out of 'fear of damnation' oversimplifies history.

Edited Saturday at 11:58 PM by Pyreaux

[AnchoredinChrist]

36 minutes ago, webbles said:

Basically, the reason why the saints were commanded to take more wives is because there aren't enough good men.

 

30. 'But what if there are more righteous women than men? Weren't there a higher number of Mormon women than men in Utah?

Early Mormon polygamy severely exacerbated, rather than resolved, any gender disparity by creating a severely limited number of available women for single men. A National Institute of Health meta analysis states that there was an average of 2.6 times more single men than single women throughout the course of polygamy being practiced by early Mormons. This imbalance continued until monogamy was mandated by enforcement, at which point the ''mate selection competitiveness'' afterwards fell (meaning balanced-out) by eight levels of measured intensity.

Historical Monogamy Doctrine

 

It doesn't make sense that Brigham Young was arguing things both ways -- he argued that any man in the church who wasn't a polygamist would be damned from exaltation, but then he also married such a high number of women to himself and other already-polygamists, that there weren't enough single women for all the single priesthood holders who were left to even have one wife -- so then you can argue, "those men perhaps weren't righteous enough", but he taught that any priesthood holder who wasn't a polygamist was defaulting their own chances at exaltation, meaning that he apparently thought that any "man in the church", as he is quoted above, *should* be a polygamist. His teachings were that polygamy is what gets a priesthood holder exaltation, and condemned any man who hadn't yet found a plural wife -- even though by math he made it so that there literally weren't enough single women for all the priesthood holders. He even said that even if a man had tried but hadn't found anyone wanting to be his plural wife, it's still the man's fault and he would still be out of exaltation as a result.

Brigham Young: *creates a severe shortage of single women to single men*

Also Brigham Young: "If you can't find one wife it's your fault, and if you only find one wife that's your fault too and she'll be taken from you in heaven."

I've seen many arguments over the exact gender ratio of the early Mormon church in Utah, debating exactly how many more "faithful" women there were to whatever are deemed to be the number of men with the "same level of faithfulness", but whatever side of the argument you are on, there was definitely not twice as many women to faithful priesthood holders, so that made every faithful man having two wives untenable, which made Brigham Young and others of the Twelve having dozens of wives an even bigger demographic problem.

[AnchoredinChrist]

51 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Did Section 132 then make plural marriage mandatory for everyone who heard it? No, it didn't. Even under Brigham Young, the majority of active Latter-day Saints were monogamous, and could never be polygamists if they wanted to.

You may interpret most Mormon men not being polygamist as argument that polygamy was not intended for everyone by Brigham Young, but I think he definitely meant it for every man in the church:

He [Brigham Young] also said the Lord was about to Empty the earth th[at?] men would be destroyed & He should live to see the day when thousands of women would Come to the men of this Church for salvation. One man would have to take thousands to save them.

Journal of Wilford Woodruff

Brigham Young wasn't the only one to be preaching "polygamy is necessary for exaltation" either:

 

MDD 65 ~ Women given charge to help recruit additional wives for their husband ~

The idea that a wife must be in a polygamous marriage to obtain exaltation was promoted in the following song published in the Deseret News in 1856, which went so far as to state that wives should be employed in helping their husbands find additional wives to secure their own exaltation,

Now sisters, list to what I say

With trials this world is rife,

you can't expect to miss them all,

Help husband get a wife!

Now, this advice I freely give,

If exalted you would be,

Remember that your husband must

Be blessed with more than thee.

Then O, let us say,

God bless the wife that strives

And aids her husband all she can

T' obtain a dozen wives.

Deseret News, 26 November 1856.

Certain LDS members have argued that even when polygamy was in practice, monogamy was still regarded as the primary law of marriage, and that polygamy was taught to be the exception. But the teachings of the church of Brigham Young's day could not have been further removed from honoring monogamy as the primary law of marriage. 

Monogamy as Divine Design

 

[AnchoredinChrist]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Joseph F. Smith taught in 1878 that plural marriage was only required of those to whom it was specifically commanded or given as a personal law by God, not an absolute blanket mandate for every individual in all eras.

Was it the same Joseph F. Smith who said this:

He finally concluded with these striking remarks: to all who have received the priesthood but have never lived with but one wife at a time in this world, it matters not what excuse you may make, you may say you was unable to support any more wives, you may say you have had sealed to you dead women, or you may say you could find none that would have you, suffereth to say [if] you have lived with but one wife, that wife and her children will be taken from you and given to some man who has more than one wife and you will be that man’s servant.   --- Journal of Peder Christian Wallentine, 1883 ---

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Claiming Saints only entered polygamy out of 'fear of damnation' oversimplifies history.

The quote, "many may have entered polygamy not due to belief of it being a wonderful, glorious principle of heaven, but out of fear of receiving cursing, eternal damnation, and being eternally separated from one's family" still holds for me, because there were women and men who believed, based on what church leaders said, that they were required of God to be polygamists, even if they didn't want to, and would face eternal consequences if they didn't. The address given by Brigham Young above specifically caused one of Carol Lynn Pearson's ancestors to take a second wife against his first wife's wishes -- the first wife, her great-something grandmother, immediately left him, breaking the family up. She relates the story in her book.

[Pyreaux]

13 hours ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

You may interpret most Mormon men not being polygamist as argument that polygamy was not intended for everyone by Brigham Young, but I think he definitely meant it for every man in the church:

He [Brigham Young] also said the Lord was about to Empty the earth th[at?] men would be destroyed & He should live to see the day when thousands of women would Come to the men of this Church for salvation. One man would have to take thousands to save them.

Journal of Wilford Woodruff

Brigham Young wasn't the only one to be preaching "polygamy is necessary for exaltation" either:

 

MDD 65 ~ Women given charge to help recruit additional wives for their husband ~

The idea that a wife must be in a polygamous marriage to obtain exaltation was promoted in the following song published in the Deseret News in 1856, which went so far as to state that wives should be employed in helping their husbands find additional wives to secure their own exaltation,

Now sisters, list to what I say

With trials this world is rife,

you can't expect to miss them all,

Help husband get a wife!

 

Now, this advice I freely give,

If exalted you would be,

Remember that your husband must

Be blessed with more than thee.

 

Then O, let us say,

God bless the wife that strives

And aids her husband all she can

T' obtain a dozen wives.

Deseret News, 26 November 1856.

Certain LDS members have argued that even when polygamy was in practice, monogamy was still regarded as the primary law of marriage, and that polygamy was taught to be the exception. But the teachings of the church of Brigham Young's day could not have been further removed from honoring monogamy as the primary law of marriage. 

Monogamy as Divine Design

Plucking a 3rd-hand journal recollections or newspaper poems out of context isn't an exegetical reading of LDS doctrine, it's quote-mining.

1856 Deseret News song and similar sermons were produced during the Mormon Reformation of 1856–1857. Jedediah M. Grant and Brigham Young launched a fiery revival campaign characterized by hyperbole, intense calls to repentance, rebaptisms, and heavy pressure to adopt plural marriage as a mark of spiritual devotion. A short-lived revival is not a permanent baseline of Latter-day Saint theology, nor canonized theology.

Wilford Woodruff's diary noting that Brigham Young believed the very common Christian and Saint belief the end times were coming soon, and saying that one man might have to 'take thousands' was apocalyptic hyperbole regarding the last days, not a literal domestic mandate.

13 hours ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

Was it the same Joseph F. Smith who said this:

He finally concluded with these striking remarks: to all who have received the priesthood but have never lived with but one wife at a time in this world, it matters not what excuse you may make, you may say you was unable to support any more wives, you may say you have had sealed to you dead women, or you may say you could find none that would have you, suffereth to say [if] you have lived with but one wife, that wife and her children will be taken from you and given to some man who has more than one wife and you will be that man’s servant.   --- Journal of Peder Christian Wallentine, 1883 ---

The quote, "many may have entered polygamy not due to belief of it being a wonderful, glorious principle of heaven, but out of fear of receiving cursing, eternal damnation, and being eternally separated from one's family" still holds for me, because there were women and men who believed, based on what church leaders said, that they were required of God to be polygamists, even if they didn't want to, and would face eternal consequences if they didn't. The address given by Brigham Young above specifically caused one of Carol Lynn Pearson's ancestors to take a second wife against his first wife's wishes -- the first wife, her great-something grandmother, immediately left him, breaking the family up. She relates the story in her book.

Keep mining databases for the most shocking, extreme quote available, while ignoring how historical documentation and the church canon actually functions.

Peder Wallentine's personal, third-party diary entry is not an official published sermon, a transcript, or canonized doctrine. In 1882, the U.S. Congress passed the Edmunds Act, which made "unlawful cohabitation" a crime and stripped polygamists of the right to vote or hold public office. Some leaders did give fiery, defensive talks attempting to rally members against the government pressure.

However, when speaking in an official, published capacity, Joseph F. Smith explicitly clarified the exact opposite. In 1878 (published in the Journal of Discourses, 20:28), Joseph F. Smith taught that plural marriage was not a universal condition for exaltation for every individual, but was only required of those who were specifically commanded by God in their circumstances.

Using Carol Lynn Pearson's book (The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy) to argue that people entered plural marriage out of fear of losing their families, I don't deny that high-pressure sermons caused intense personal anxiety or that some families suffered heartbreak because of it. But rhetoric and individual decisions do not equate to the overarching doctrine of the Church, the story does not reflect a majority consensus among Latter-day Saints that only polygamists could be exalted.

Historical diaries, journals, and official Church teaching you didn't find in your database shows how the majority of the Saints understood polygamy. Most Saints understood that one had to merely accept plural marriage as a divinely restored principle to be a "polygamist in faith," as Brigham Young put it, rather than every single individual physically entering a plural marriage. The Saints understood it was a specific calling or stewardship given to certain individuals, often leaders or men with financial means, not a blanket mandate for every member of the Church. And Saints understood the doctrine of exaltation centered on being sealed by priesthood authority in the temple and applied fully to monogamous couples.

Carol Lynn Pearson’s heartbreaking human experiences stand out in historical literature precisely because they represent the extreme examples. While these incidents happened, treating them as representative of the everyday beliefs and lived realities of the majority of Saints is historically inaccurate.

[telnetd]

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They accepted Jesus’s and Paul’s call to celibacy even within marriage?

Show me where the elders accumulated virgins but remained celibate after each instance. 

Imagine this conversation ... "Sorry honey, but I'm going to marry up to ten virgins but I
promise to remain celibate with each one of them"

Did Joseph Smith remain celibate with Emma?

Edited Sunday at 04:45 PM by telnetd

[telnetd]

22 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language a "virgin" can be an unattached woman.

So 132:61 is speaking of unmarried (unattached) women who are not virgins?

[AnchoredinChrist]

55 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Plucking a 3rd-hand journal recollections or newspaper poems out of context isn't an exegetical reading of LDS doctrine, it's quote-mining.

Section 132 states, "any man who has this law revealed unto him must obey the same" -- not 'believe' this law, but 'obey' this law, so I don't consider a belief-only interpretation as aligning with an exegetical reading of it. I consider Brigham Young's words on the matter, not just his words in selective instances, as indicating that he believed "living" polygamy (not just believing in it) to be necessary for exaltation.

Peder Wellentine's contemporaneous written words, heard first-hand, were from a conference attended by hundreds of priesthood holders. Joseph F. Smith was then here giving blanket teaching to all men present that they have to practice polygamy under threat of being separated from their loved ones by God.

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

not a permanent baseline of Latter-day Saint theology, nor canonized theology.

My argument doesn't really have to do with what "is" or "isn't" Latter-day Saint theology or canonized theology. Even the "canonized theology" has had 180⁰ changes, as the monogamous Section 101 was replaced with the polygamous Section 132. My core argument is that Brigham Young changed certain doctrines of God as taught by Joseph Smith and introduced false doctrines, like polygamy. I hope that clarifies my position to you more, I realize that I didn't explicitly explain that first.

A much larger compilation of stories of women in polygamy than Carol Lynn Pearson's book would be Jennie Anderson Froiseth's volume of interviews, which is hundreds of pages long and was written contemporaneously. It's free to read online and I would recommend doing so if you think that women in polygamy were generally satisfied or content, or that they somehow had not actually been taught that polygamy was the "highest principle" (Monogamy as Divine Design makes reference to Froiseth in a couple of the sections, I don't know which ones and can't look it up now as I'm on my phone.)

But it seems from your responses that you haven't yet ventured to read the Historical Monogamy Doctrine or Monogamy as Divine Design sites, which is perhaps why we've not had a proper baseline of understanding in our back-and-forth together. I'd encourage you to read them as there is expounding of thought in them that I haven't seen elsewhere and that I feel very grateful to have learned. At the very least, by reading them you can come back after and convince me why they're all wrong:

Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine 

Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/divinedesign

 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, telnetd said:

Show me where the elders accumulated virgins but remained celibate after each instance. 

Imagine this conversation ... "Sorry honey, but I'm going to marry up to ten virgins but I
promise to remain celibate with each one of them"

Did Joseph Smith remain celibate with Emma?

That was a joke.

[webbles]

18 hours ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

 

30. 'But what if there are more righteous women than men? Weren't there a higher number of Mormon women than men in Utah?

Early Mormon polygamy severely exacerbated, rather than resolved, any gender disparity by creating a severely limited number of available women for single men. A National Institute of Health meta analysis states that there was an average of 2.6 times more single men than single women throughout the course of polygamy being practiced by early Mormons. This imbalance continued until monogamy was mandated by enforcement, at which point the ''mate selection competitiveness'' afterwards fell (meaning balanced-out) by eight levels of measured intensity.

Historical Monogamy Doctrine

 

It doesn't make sense that Brigham Young was arguing things both ways -- he argued that any man in the church who wasn't a polygamist would be damned from exaltation, but then he also married such a high number of women to himself and other already-polygamists, that there weren't enough single women for all the single priesthood holders who were left to even have one wife -- so then you can argue, "those men perhaps weren't righteous enough", but he taught that any priesthood holder who wasn't a polygamist was defaulting their own chances at exaltation, meaning that he apparently thought that any "man in the church", as he is quoted above, *should* be a polygamist. His teachings were that polygamy is what gets a priesthood holder exaltation, and condemned any man who hadn't yet found a plural wife -- even though by math he made it so that there literally weren't enough single women for all the priesthood holders. He even said that even if a man had tried but hadn't found anyone wanting to be his plural wife, it's still the man's fault and he would still be out of exaltation as a result.

Brigham Young: *creates a severe shortage of single women to single men*

Also Brigham Young: "If you can't find one wife it's your fault, and if you only find one wife that's your fault too and she'll be taken from you in heaven."

I've seen many arguments over the exact gender ratio of the early Mormon church in Utah, debating exactly how many more "faithful" women there were to whatever are deemed to be the number of men with the "same level of faithfulness", but whatever side of the argument you are on, there was definitely not twice as many women to faithful priesthood holders, so that made every faithful man having two wives untenable, which made Brigham Young and others of the Twelve having dozens of wives an even bigger demographic problem.

30 doesn't respond to what Brigham said.  First, it doesn't even attempt to answer its own question: "But what if there are more righteous women than men?".  It solely discusses the question about higher number of Mormon women.  But Brigham isn't even talking about what 30 is talking about.  He isn't talking about the number of righteous women or the number of women in Utah.  He is saying that if every man in the whole world (not Mormons, not Utahns) was righteous and had a wife, then there would be no need for polygamy.  And he is correct.  Because if every single person born on Earth made it to the Celestial Kingdom, there would be more men than women there.  At birth, there is a few more boys born than girls (about 105 boys to 100 girls - see page 6 at https://unstats.un.org/unsd/gender/downloads/WorldsWomen2015_chapter1_t.pdf).  That means we actually need polyandry in the Celestial Kingdom, not polygyny if every one made it and we didn't want single people.  So, if every single man on Earth was righteous and had a wife, no woman would be left out.

As for the rest of what you said, have you read his talk?  Here's an online version - https://journalofdiscourses.com/16/22.  He is talking about a pretty normal idea that we believe.  Here's a quote that I suspect you would agree with:

Quote

This people I say are very tardy. I will ask you a question, and I will let you answer it in your own minds, for you know, and I am satisfied that the answer I shall give will satisfy the Saints. Can we stand still, receive so much pertaining to the blessings of the kingdom of God, receive so much knowledge, just so much wisdom, just so much power, and then stop and receive no more? How is this, Latter-day Saints? Your answer will be precisely like mine—I can answer with you all. This people must go forward, or they will go backward. Will all answer this question the same way? Will the same conclusion be in the mind of every Latter-day Saint, that this work is a progressive work, this doctrine that is taught the Latter-day Saints in its nature is exalting, increasing, expanding and extending broader and broader until we can know as we are known, see as we are seen? That is the answer of the Latter-day Saints.

As we receive more light and knowledge, we need to keep progressing.  We can't just stop or go backwards.  This fits with the Parable of the Talents.

Brigham continued in the talk about polygamy.  If someone has learned about polygamy and doesn't actually believe it (they have a wife and don't want another wife), then, just like if someone hears about baptism and doesn't act on it, they might loose out.  If you swapped out the polygamy teaching and used a different aspect (such as endowment, tithing, word of wisdom, etc), the teaching is fairly normal.  So I don't see any issue with it just because he is talking about polygamy (which was a commandment in his day).

I also don't see him "arguing both ways".  Because it seems like you misread him.

[webbles]

18 hours ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

You may interpret most Mormon men not being polygamist as argument that polygamy was not intended for everyone by Brigham Young, but I think he definitely meant it for every man in the church:

He [Brigham Young] also said the Lord was about to Empty the earth th[at?] men would be destroyed & He should live to see the day when thousands of women would Come to the men of this Church for salvation. One man would have to take thousands to save them.

Journal of Wilford Woodruff

I'm confused on why you think Wilford's journal entry has anything to do with Brigham believing that every man must be polygamists.  The journal entry just says that at some point, a lot of men will die and so women will not have men available to marry and they will turn to men of the Church.  Nothing to do with how men must be a polygamist.

[webbles]

On 10/17/2026 at 7:06 PM, AnchoredinChrist said:

Was it the same Joseph F. Smith who said this:

He finally concluded with these striking remarks: to all who have received the priesthood but have never lived with but one wife at a time in this world, it matters not what excuse you may make, you may say you was unable to support any more wives, you may say you have had sealed to you dead women, or you may say you could find none that would have you, suffereth to say [if] you have lived with but one wife, that wife and her children will be taken from you and given to some man who has more than one wife and you will be that man’s servant.   --- Journal of Peder Christian Wallentine, 1883 ---

If anyone wants to read the full piece, it can be found on familysearch.org - https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/memories/KWJ2-X4G is the person (transcribed version is at https://www.familysearch.org/memories/memory/141515625?cid=mem_copy and original version is at https://www.familysearch.org/memories/memory/18585578?cid=mem_copy).  It is titled "Religious Life of Christian Wallentine".  This statement was really impactful to him.

There was a priesthood conference that Joseph F Smith attended in 1883.  In that conference, Smith asked that all non-priesthood holders leave.  He then talked about D&C 132 and about what Joseph Smith had taught (including the Parable of the Talents).  He then made those remarks (which is just rephrasing what Joseph Smith had said decades earlier back in Nauvoo).

Peder was surprised to hear it as it was the first time he had ever heard anything like it (he was baptized at age 10 so he has been a member for almost 30 years at this point).  He didn't agree with the teachings and stopped paying tithing.  That triggered an excommunication court and he argued that the teaching must be false.  The bishop's court and the high council court basically said that they don't have jurisdiction over the teachings and so excommunicated him.  He ends his statement by saying that "not one percent of them ever believed that God was the author of any such interpretation" but they didn't have the courage to stand up to it.

 

An interesting thing that comes out of this is that Joseph F Smith explicitly asked for non-priesthood holders to leave.  Similar to what Brigham said in the discourse I've quoted earlier, the teachings that you need to have another wife is only valid for those that have been taught about it and are progressing.  It is not a requirement for all men.

 

Edited to fix the links to the actual FamilySearch memories

Edited yesterday at 04:47 AM by webbles

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, webbles said:

Peder was surprised to hear it as it was the first time he had ever heard anything like it (he was baptized at age 10 so he has been a member for almost 30 years at this point).

Doesn’t sound like it was taught or shared much if so.

Edited Sunday at 09:25 PM by Calm

[AnchoredinChrist]

35 minutes ago, webbles said:

He then talked about D&C 132 and about what Joseph Smith had taught (including the Parable of the Talents).  He then made those remarks (which is just rephrasing what Joseph Smith had said decades earlier back in Nauvoo).

We have no contemporaneous records of Joseph Smith teaching of the ten talents in such a way, he was alleged to have said so from polygamists after his death (and not shortly after his death either.)

40 minutes ago, webbles said:

An interesting thing that comes out of this is that Joseph F Smith explicitly asked for non-priesthood holders to leave.  Similar to what Brigham said in the discourse I've quoted earlier, the teachings that you need to have another wife is only valid for those that have been taught about it and are progressing.  It is not a requirement for all men.

Were not all men in the church (except for African American men) intended to receive the priesthood during their life, even if they didn't have it initially? Was the priesthood not given to every man in the church who was deemed worthy of it (except Africans), and they were all meant to live in a worthy way to receive it? 

But such semantics being debated does not fundamentally change the ethics of the topic for myself, as I consider it to be unethical (and ultimately wrong) for any man or woman to have been told by leaders that God commands them to practice polygamy. Arguing that only *some* people had to be polygamist to receive exaltation does not in any way make it a moral situation. It is not a God-given requirement for any man to have more than one wife. You may think that to be a too-unfounded assertion on my part, but Hyrum Smith’s own recorded words, less than three months before he died, in a conference of priesthood holders, were that God has not commanded anyone to have more than one wife.

[AnchoredinChrist]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

30 doesn't respond to what Brigham said.  First, it doesn't even attempt to answer its own question: "But what if there are more righteous women than men?".  It solely discusses the question about higher number of Mormon women.  But Brigham isn't even talking about what 30 is talking about.  He isn't talking about the number of righteous women or the number of women in Utah.  He is saying that if every man in the whole world (not Mormons, not Utahns) was righteous and had a wife, then there would be no need for polygamy. 

So, if every man in the whole world was righteous and had a wife, there would be no need for polygamy, but because they are not all righteous, Mormon priesthood holders therefore have to practice polygamy? And if the priesthood men only live righteously with one wife, they will have her taken away and given to a polygamist man? Even though there weren't enough single women for all the priesthood holders to have two wives?

2 hours ago, webbles said:

Brigham continued in the talk about polygamy.  If someone has learned about polygamy and doesn't actually believe it (they have a wife and don't want another wife), then, just like if someone hears about baptism and doesn't act on it, they might loose out.  If you swapped out the polygamy teaching and used a different aspect (such as endowment, tithing, word of wisdom, etc), the teaching is fairly normal.  So I don't see any issue with it just because he is talking about polygamy (which was a commandment in his day).

Remember that from my viewpoint, polygamy is an abominable false doctrine that Brigham Young created as a commandment all on his own (and lied about to do so), and so cannot be 'swapped out' in principle with tithing or the word of wisdom.

[AnchoredinChrist]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That was a joke.

I recognized it as a joke, but only because you wrote it. I guess I've been reading your comments with their own special sarcasm filter 🙃