Marriage to virgins

[webbles]

1 hour ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

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.)

I get it that those who don't think Joseph practiced polygamy have to hang their hat on the "no contemporaneous records" but I think it is a really weak hat to hang on.  We have contemporaneous record that Joseph did teach about the parable of the 10 talents while he was staying with Benjamin Johnson.  See https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/instruction-2-april-1843-as-reported-by-willard-richards-dc-130/7.  Yes, there is no smoking gun (I personally think Hyrum's public preaching about being sealed to his dead wife and his living wife to be pretty smoking gun, but that's just me), but when you look at all the evidence together, it is really hard to overcome for me.

1 hour ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

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? 

No, at this time, men didn't automatically receive the priesthood.  You could also pick and choose which office you started at.  The idea of progressing from Deacon to High Priest wasn't yet there.  And it is possible that Peder was talking about the Melchezidek priesthood when he said those without the priesthood were asked to withdraw.

1 hour ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

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.

Hyrum Smith, in that exact same discourse, says he is sealed to both his dead wife and his living wife.  I don't know how else to reconcile that than to say that Hyrum will be practicing polygamy in the here after.  Here's Thomas Bullock's record of it https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/daa151c4-7bae-49d0-8cef-d281a70f1d32/0/33.  The part I'm referring to is

Quote

Every thing belongs to man— legally & lawfully— if a thing belongs to me legally it cannot belong to any one I married me a wife & was the only one who had any write to her— till we had 5 Chi’d the covt. was made for our lives— she fell in the grave bef God shewed us his authy God has shewed me that the Covt. is dead & had no more force neither could I have her in the resn. but we shod. be as the angels— it troubled me— Bro J sd. you can be sealed to her upon the same prin as you can be bap for the dead what can I do for more 2nd. wife — you can make a covt. with her for etern & sealed to her — & she sd. I will act as proxy for the one that is dead — and I will be sealed to you for eternity.

 

1 hour ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

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?

Only if that priesthood man has been taught to practice polygamy and denies it (which would mean that he wasn't actually living righteously).  I understand you don't believe that Joseph taught polygamy, but set that aside and think of how we, as a church, believe obeying commandments and progressing.  Because I'm taught about the Word of Wisdom and have covenanted to obey it, then by not keeping the Word of Wisdom, I will be in trouble.  But someone who hasn't made that covenant, they don't have the same trouble.  This includes both those who don't follow Christ as well as those who do.  Joseph, Brigham, and other early saints never covenanted to follow the Word of Wisdom so they are not in trouble for not following it.  Christ and the early saints didn't even have the Word of Wisdom so they are not in trouble for following it.  This teaching about polygamy is no more different.  The only difference is that you don't believe it was from God while I do.

Edited Sunday at 11:31 PM by webbles

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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

I think this specific episode is related to the 1842 revelation to John Taylor (https://cdm15999.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p15999coll24/id/42491) that said (along with a bunch of other things):

Quote

for it is not meet that men who will not abide my law shall preside over my priesthood

At least one Stake President resigned because he wouldn't practice polygamy.  There is an April 1844 conference that talks about this resignation and also has similar wording as what Peder recorded in his document.

https://welshsaints.byu.edu/Resource_Info.aspx?id=4081

Quote

Prest Joseph F. Smith explained the law of Celestial or Plural marriage as revealed to Joseph Smith. The question as proponded to the Lord, by the Prophet, was as to why the Lord justified the ancients in having a plurality of wives. The Lord proceded to explain first the eternity of the marriage covenant, and then to give the law of Celestial or plural marriage, and told Joseph that he and all others unto whom this law should be revealed must receive and enter it or be damned. The revelation as now before us in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants was written to convince a certain person of the plural part of it. That person had already accepted the doctrine of the eternity of the marriage covenant. (The person above alluded too [sic] was Emma Smith)

The speaker honored brother Peely of Ogden, who resigned his office as President of Weber Stake some 18 months ago, when the Lord gave a revelation requiring all of the official members of the church to enter into the order of Plural Marriage; he did not see his way clear to preach that principle, and very rightly concluded to resign. All other Presidents of Stakes and Bishops of Wards should follow that example so that good me who will keep the law may be installed in their places, if men will now not take the hint they will be invited personally to resign, that is if the spirit continues to move upon Prest as it has been. (The succession of Bro Peely of Ogden, Bro Shetliff has not done better than his predecessor up to this date, and if he will not, he will be asked to resign.

Some men have preached the doctrine that if aman has a dead wife who has been sealed to him by the Priesthood, and a living wife who is in the same relationship to him, that he is in plural marriage, and living the Celestial Law, the doctrine is not true.

You can see Joseph F. Smith basically saying you have to practice polygamy or be damned.  Then honoring Brother Peely for resigning because he wouldn't practice polygamy and pointing out that Brother Shetliff still hasn't entered polygamy and will be asked to resign if he doesn't get to it.

I find it interesting that Joseph F. Smith doesn't condemn Peely for not entering polygamy but instead honors him for resigning.  Kind of makes me think that it isn't a strictly "you must practice polygamy or you are damned" but more like "if you want to be a leader in the church, you must practice polygamy".

Peder's story is 1843 which is right in the middle of this.

[AnchoredinChrist]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

set that aside and think of how we, as a church, believe obeying commandments and progressing. 

The doctrine of "having many wives and concubines", as contained in Section 132, is not put forward as a way for (certain, if you want to argue it to only be certain) women to "progress" at whatever point that she feels able to progress, but 'she must do this or I will destroy her, saith the Lord.' Moreover, put forward to (certain, if you want to argue it to only be certain) men outside of Section 132 rhetoric, it was not,"Do this to progress" but, 'Do this or your family will cease to exist as your family.'

1 hour ago, webbles said:

But someone who hasn't made that covenant, they don't have the same trouble.

The husbands of the church who had made vows of faithfulness at their one legal marriage and were later commanded to enter into polygamy were being told by their leaders to break their marriage vow:

 

62 ~ Vows to God, to man, and to the State ~

In the 1800s, the legal marriage vows taken by grooms were traditionally the following words,

I [Groom's name], do take thee, [Bride's name] to be my wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; and I promise to be faithful to thee until death do us part.

The promise to be "faithful to thee until death do us part" is a vow of complete monogamy to one's wife until either she or yourself dies. Open sexual affairs (including bigamy) were regarded in the eyes of the law as breaking the legally binding marital contract, and in the eyes of Christianity as breaking a vow to God. Mormon husbands who had made such vows at marriage (either previous to polygamy being practiced by Mormons or previous to a family converting to Mormonism) were breaking the vows they had made when married.

In the Book of Mormon, the Anti-Nephi-Lehi men, having vowed to never kill again, later considered breaking their oath in order to assist the Nephites, who were dying in their wars with the Lamanites. Our record says that Helaman and his brethren persuaded them to keep their oath, out of fear that "lest by so doing [breaking the oath] they should lose their souls". (Alma 53:13-15) Despite it being a life-or-death situation for Nephite men, the Nephite leaders instructed the Anti-Nephi-Lehi men to not make any exception to break their oath.

The LDS church leaders who directed Mormon husbands to break their vows of monogamy were not following after the instruction of our Book of Mormon leaders when they taught to never break one's oaths. The Mormon husbands who broke their marital vows of monogamy by entering into polygamy were violating oaths made to God and to their wife, and were not following the teachings of the importance of honoring solemn oaths found in the Book of Mormon.

'The Family: A Proclamation to the World' reads, "Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity."

Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/divinedesign

[webbles]

57 minutes ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

The doctrine of "having many wives and concubines", as contained in Section 132, is not put forward as a way for (certain, if you want to argue it to only be certain) women to "progress" at whatever point that she feels able to progress, but 'she must do this or I will destroy her, saith the Lord.' Moreover, put forward to (certain, if you want to argue it to only be certain) men outside of Section 132 rhetoric, it was not,"Do this to progress" but, 'Do this or your family will cease to exist as your family.'

We teach that if you don't get sealed to your spouse, then you won't have your spouse in the hereafter.  But if you are never taught about the sealing and then later learn about it in the spirit world and accept it, then you can be sealed to your spouse.  This is the same rhetoric.  Yes, it feels harsh when you

59 minutes ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

The husbands of the church who had made vows of faithfulness at their one legal marriage and were later commanded to enter into polygamy were being told by their leaders to break their marriage vow:

 

62 ~ Vows to God, to man, and to the State ~

In the 1800s, the legal marriage vows taken by grooms were traditionally the following words,

I [Groom's name], do take thee, [Bride's name] to be my wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; and I promise to be faithful to thee until death do us part.

The promise to be "faithful to thee until death do us part" is a vow of complete monogamy to one's wife until either she or yourself dies. Open sexual affairs (including bigamy) were regarded in the eyes of the law as breaking the legally binding marital contract, and in the eyes of Christianity as breaking a vow to God. Mormon husbands who had made such vows at marriage (either previous to polygamy being practiced by Mormons or previous to a family converting to Mormonism) were breaking the vows they had made when married.

In the Book of Mormon, the Anti-Nephi-Lehi men, having vowed to never kill again, later considered breaking their oath in order to assist the Nephites, who were dying in their wars with the Lamanites. Our record says that Helaman and his brethren persuaded them to keep their oath, out of fear that "lest by so doing [breaking the oath] they should lose their souls". (Alma 53:13-15) Despite it being a life-or-death situation for Nephite men, the Nephite leaders instructed the Anti-Nephi-Lehi men to not make any exception to break their oath.

The LDS church leaders who directed Mormon husbands to break their vows of monogamy were not following after the instruction of our Book of Mormon leaders when they taught to never break one's oaths. The Mormon husbands who broke their marital vows of monogamy by entering into polygamy were violating oaths made to God and to their wife, and were not following the teachings of the importance of honoring solemn oaths found in the Book of Mormon.

'The Family: A Proclamation to the World' reads, "Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity."

Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/divinedesign

I'm not sure why you wrote this.  I was talking about the covenant of obeying the commandments and then learning about said commandment.  But for item 62 itself, I don't really see what it is trying to argue.  They were making new vows with each other that replaced the previous marriage vows.  These new marriage vows were being done by proper priesthood authority and superseded any previous vows done.

That's kind of the problem I have with the historical monogamy site.  For many of its sections, it is not arguing that polygamy is wrong but instead showing the consequences of what would happen if polygamy wasn't revealed from God.  Because if polygamy is from God, then arguing that the men broke their vows with God is a silly because God is the one changing the vows.  Some of its sections are valid arguments on why polygamy isn't from God, but 62 isn't one of those.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, webbles said:

"if you want to be a leader in the church, you must practice polygamy".

And an assumption that they can do good in other areas of life even if not church leaders, otherwise even if he applauded his principled stand, he would have likely expressed sorrow, regret, etc for the guy losing out on essential blessings.  It doesn’t seem leaders were shy of doing that when they believed it was happening.

[TheTanakas]

On 10/17/2026 at 2:54 PM, 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." 

I see your point after you provided the other materials.

[bluebell]

I find the history behind section 132 really fascinating.  I loved these podcasts from the Church History Matters guys (faithful institute teachers) because they are very light on editorializing and heavy on giving us the sources whether faith promoting or not.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/church-history-matters/id1676164770?i=1000735385039

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/church-history-matters/id1676164770?i=1000616792568

[telnetd]

@Calm @webbles

The so-called revelation doesn't only deal with wives; concubines are there too.

"I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David 
and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many 
wives and concubines ... David also received many wives and concubines, and also 
Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning 
of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which 
they received not of me".

Jacob 2:24 said the opposite. "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and 
concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord".

I am not aware of any wives and concubines that did not turn their heart away from God.

Do you believe Abraham, Jacob and Moses really had MANY wives and concubines? Which 
MANY others of my servants from Adam all the way down to our time also participated?

If talents really means "many wives" as the Welsh Saints Project records, why must they 
be virgins?  Is there a minimum age for the virgins?

[webbles]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

@Calm @webbles

The so-called revelation doesn't only deal with wives; concubines are there too.

"I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David 
and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many 
wives and concubines ... David also received many wives and concubines, and also 
Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning 
of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which 
they received not of me".

Jacob 2:24 said the opposite. "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and 
concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord".

I am not aware of any wives and concubines that did not turn their heart away from God.

Do you believe Abraham, Jacob and Moses really had MANY wives and concubines? Which 
MANY others of my servants from Adam all the way down to our time also participated?

If talents really means "many wives" as the Welsh Saints Project records, why must they 
be virgins?  Is there a minimum age for the virgins?

Abraham had 3 wives/concubines (the last woman is called both a wife and a concubine so not sure which type she would have been).  Jacob had 2 wives and 2 concubines.  Moses potentially had 2 wives, per the Bible (there is debate on whether the other woman is the same as his first wife or another woman).  Solomon's wives/concubines caused him to turn away from God.  You could probably argue that David turned away from God because of his lust for Bethsheba as well.

How many other people practiced polygamy?  Who knows but it was a really common marriage practice.  How many were commanded by God?  Who knows since we don't have a fully history of the world.

I wouldn't say the D&C 132 deals with concubines.  It mentions them but I don't see it authorizing any.

And your last questions don't make any sense.

[The Nehor]

On 10/18/2026 at 5:33 PM, AnchoredinChrist said:

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 🙃

You read wisely then. Well done.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, telnetd said:

@Calm @webbles

The so-called revelation doesn't only deal with wives; concubines are there too.

Abraham H. Cannon’s journal gives a few quotations about concubines. Both Wilford Woodruff and Lorenzo Snow say that concubinage will be practiced.

‘I have no doubt but concubinage will yet be practiced in this church, but I had not thought of it in this connection. When the nations are troubled good women will come here for safety and blessing, and men will accept them as concubines.' - President Snow

‘If men enter into some practice of this character to raise a righteous posterity, they will be justified in it‘ - President Woodruff

[AnchoredinChrist]

On 10/18/2026 at 7:31 PM, webbles said:

Prest Joseph F. Smith explained the law of Celestial or Plural marriage as revealed to Joseph Smith. The question as proponded to the Lord, by the Prophet, was as to why the Lord justified the ancients in having a plurality of wives. The Lord proceded to explain first the eternity of the marriage covenant, and then to give the law of Celestial or plural marriage, and told Joseph that he and all others unto whom this law should be revealed must receive and enter it or be damned.

The Nauvoo Expositor made this claim too, and Joseph Smith is contemporaneously recorded in the High Council minutes notes as publicly refuting it:

 

 

67 ~ The traditional Section 132 revelation story contradicts Joseph Smith's statement of his marriage revelation ~

LDS historians have stated Joseph Smith received a revelation on marriage in answer to a question asked by Joseph during his translation of the Bible. They have stated plural marriage as being the question and the doctrine received in this case, citing Section 132 where it says,

...inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines -

The Nauvoo Expositor also made this claim. However, Joseph's testimony to the Nauvoo City Council against the Expositor states his revelation on marriage to have been from his inquiry on an altogether different passage of the Bible (specifically Matthew 22:30), and was in reference to eternal marriage, not plural marriage,

Mayor [Joseph Smith] said he had never preached the revelation in private as he had in public - had not taught it to the annointed in the church in private which many confirmed. - On enquiry the passage in the resurrection they neither mary & I received for answer. Men in this life must be married in view of eternity, was the amount of the revelation, otherwise they must remain as angels - in heaven, and spoke at considerable length in explanation of this principle..."

    Nauvoo City Council, 10 June 1844;  published in "EXTRA," Nauvoo Neighbor 2:8, published 19 June 1844

historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine 

Edited yesterday at 12:13 AM by AnchoredinChrist

[AnchoredinChrist]

On 10/18/2026 at 7:02 PM, webbles said:

I get it that those who don't think Joseph practiced polygamy have to hang their hat on the "no contemporaneous records" but I think it is a really weak hat to hang on. 

If it were only that we have no verified contemporaneous records of him speaking in favor of polygamy, then it would indeed be a weaker argument than it is, but the fact that we have no verified records (during his life) of him teaching polygamy while *also* having a very long page of verified, first-hand words of him specifically denouncing polygamy makes it a much, much stronger case.

These quotes are words that are predominantly either from him or that he approved for publication, many of them being said during the same years that polygamy apologists argue he was practicing polygamy himself:

Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/timeline

[AnchoredinChrist]

On 10/18/2026 at 7:02 PM, webbles said:

I'm not sure why you wrote this.  I was talking about the covenant of obeying the commandments and then learning about said commandment. 

It would be noteworthy to add that the Lord in D&C says the Saints are to be following the "Book of Mormon and the former commandments":

 

106 ~ The Lord in D&C confirms that members in Joseph Smith's time were under condemnation ~

Section 84 of the Doctrine & Covenants reads,

And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written—

That they may bring forth fruit meet for their Father’s kingdom; otherwise there remaineth a scourge and judgment to be poured out upon the children of Zion.                                   D&C 84:57-58

The Lord here states explicitly that church members will be under condemnation for not following the "former commandments" and the Book of Mormon, and that this condemnation will follow us until we both do and say according to that which the Lord has written. The Book of Mormon was written for Joseph Smith's day, for our day, and for the day of our future generations. We have never had any valid doctrinal excuse to dismiss the Lord's commandments to the Nephites through Jacob as only being for the Nephites

Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/divinedesign

 

Me again: (This was received from the Lord by Joseph and added to the D&C during the years that Joseph was supposedly practicing polygamy himself, but it was in fact other men who were practicing it behind Joseph's back. Arguing that polygamy was a higher commandment that the Lord wanted the Saints to follow doesn't align with D&C 84.)

[AnchoredinChrist]

On 10/18/2026 at 7:02 PM, webbles said:

Hyrum Smith, in that exact same discourse, says he is sealed to both his dead wife and his living wife.

Hyrum Smith's entire address was an anti-polygamy sermon, stating that Joseph's marriage revelation was about eternal marriage, not plural marriage, and Hyrum specifically included the detail of himself being sealed to his deceased wife and his current wife to emphasize to the men that being sealed to more than one woman *isn't* justification for any of the men to start thinking there to be polygamy being practiced or taught in the church.

On 10/18/2026 at 7:02 PM, webbles said:

I don't know how else to reconcile that than to say that Hyrum will be practicing polygamy in the here after. 

The Historical Monogamy Doctrine sites themselves, while arguing against the idea of mass polygamy in the afterlife (see HMD section 32) nevertheless don't outright protest against the idea of selective cases of it, they rather argue that it wouldn't be a necessity for anyone. But they also suggest that it's not unreasonable to ask whether a spouse might only be eternally matched to progress in exaltation with whichever one spouse they are most compatible to be eternally paired with:

MDD 67. "Even if there isn't mass polygamy in Heaven, there would still have to be some polygamy. What about widowers who remarry? They have to be polygamists in heaven."

Widowers who remarry do not have to have two wives for all eternity any more than widows who remarry have to have two husbands for all eternity. It is just as reasonable to suggest that we may only be eternally paired with the one spouse to whom we are most mutually compatible with, and that any other remaining spouse will be paired with someone else who is more mutually and eternally suitable for them. If God doesn't allow for any polygamy exceptions in this life, it is reasonable to discuss whether there might not be any polygamy exceptions in the next life. Heber C. Kimball, even while asserting that, "The principle of plurality of wives never will be done away" also divulged, "some sisters have had revelations that, when this time passes away and they go through the veil, every woman will have a husband to herself".

Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/divinedesign

[AnchoredinChrist]

On 10/18/2026 at 10:57 PM, webbles said:

That's kind of the problem I have with the historical monogamy site.  For many of its sections, it is not arguing that polygamy is wrong but instead showing the consequences of what would happen if polygamy wasn't revealed from God. 

I find it noteworthy that so many of the systemic issues we see in modern polygamy were also seen in higher rates in Mormon polygamy, even during the years that it was supposedly approved by God:

MDD 56. 'Doesn't polygamy produce different outcomes if it's sanctioned by God?" 

There are those who have argued that data from polygamous or polyamorous groups outside of early Mormonism should never be applied to the polygamy of early Mormonism. They argue that polygyny as practiced by Muslims, FLDS, or non-religious individuals is unsanctioned polygamy, and so ought never to be compared to the polygamy that was supposedly commanded by God to the early Mormons. They argue that God blessed the early Mormons with divine strength, understanding, and purity of heart, and so any polygamy figures from groups outside early Mormonism is therefore misapplied data. But with the early-Mormon-isolated data that young children of polygamous Mormons had higher mortality rates, that polygamous Mormons had higher divorce rates, and that polygamous Mormon women and children suffered under greater levels of neglect, we can see that the level of suffering and dysfunction experienced by early Mormons in polygamy refutes such an argument. Whatever it was that God still blessed early Mormon polygamous family members with, they were not blessed to be as demographically healthy, secure, prosperous, or functional as their monogamous counterparts. Early Mormon monogamous families fared better than Mormon polygamous families during every period in which Mormon church leaders practiced polygamy.

It is significant that so many of the exact same societal issues of present day polygamous societies — higher rates of neglect, poverty, contention, and death itself — were found in early Mormon polygamy as well. 

Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/divinedesign

[webbles]

3 hours ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

If it were only that we have no verified contemporaneous records of him speaking in favor of polygamy, then it would indeed be a weaker argument than it is, but the fact that we have no verified records (during his life) of him teaching polygamy while *also* having a very long page of verified, first-hand words of him specifically denouncing polygamy makes it a much, much stronger case.

These quotes are words that are predominantly either from him or that he approved for publication, many of them being said during the same years that polygamy apologists argue he was practicing polygamy himself:

Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/timeline

If Brigham Young, John Taylor, or many of the other men who we knew practiced polygamy in Nauvoo had also died in Carthage, we would be having this same argument over whether or not they practiced polygamy.  Because they also denounced polygamy.  Many of them put out statements or signed documents that denounced polygamy.  Joseph was better recorded than them so we have more of his statements (and he probably does more denials because he is actively teaching polygamy, unlike the others who aren't actively teaching it).  But we have pretty much the same amount of contemporaneous documentation for all of the men involved.  So, basing the argument on just what is contemporaneously recorded isn't good enough or else we would all have to say that there was no polygamy in Nauvoo, which is obviously false.

You say there are no verified records during his life.  I'm guessing you are on the side that says Clayton's journals are not contemporaneous (I sure hope the Yale printing has photographs of the actual journals so we can really know this).  What do you make of Hyrum publicly stating that he is sealed to 2 women (one dead and one living)?

3 hours ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

It would be noteworthy to add that the Lord in D&C says the Saints are to be following the "Book of Mormon and the former commandments":

 

106 ~ The Lord in D&C confirms that members in Joseph Smith's time were under condemnation ~

Section 84 of the Doctrine & Covenants reads,

And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written—

That they may bring forth fruit meet for their Father’s kingdom; otherwise there remaineth a scourge and judgment to be poured out upon the children of Zion.                                   D&C 84:57-58

The Lord here states explicitly that church members will be under condemnation for not following the "former commandments" and the Book of Mormon, and that this condemnation will follow us until we both do and say according to that which the Lord has written. The Book of Mormon was written for Joseph Smith's day, for our day, and for the day of our future generations. We have never had any valid doctrinal excuse to dismiss the Lord's commandments to the Nephites through Jacob as only being for the Nephites

Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/divinedesign

 

Me again: (This was received from the Lord by Joseph and added to the D&C during the years that Joseph was supposedly practicing polygamy himself, but it was in fact other men who were practicing it behind Joseph's back. Arguing that polygamy was a higher commandment that the Lord wanted the Saints to follow doesn't align with D&C 84.)

D&C 84 was received in 1832.  Long before any polygamy was introduced.  It was added to the D&C as section 4 in 1835, which is still before polygamy.  I find Bradley's recent research in the start of the Alger relationship to be pretty strong and he dates it to shortly after the Kirtland Temple dedication in 1836.  I don't see how D&C 84 has anything to do with polygamy.

[AnchoredinChrist]

On 10/18/2026 at 10:57 PM, webbles said:

Because if polygamy is from God, then arguing that the men broke their vows with God is a silly because God is the one changing the vows. 

We don't have doctrinal precedence for the idea of God "changing" an oath someone has made, especially not to the point of it being such a complete contradiction that the initial oath is broken — and remember, a marital vow wasn't an oath just made to your wife and to God, but was also a legal contract to the state itself, which polygamy was an irreconcilable violation of. There's this point made in Historical Monogamy Doctrine:

 

HMD 36 ~ The 'angel with a drawn sword' story is contradicted by both the Doctrine & Covenants and Pearl of Great Price ~

Polygamy, whether called spiritual wifery, plural marriage, or by any other term, was not lawful during Joseph Smith's life and fell under the legal definition of adultery or bigamy, which in some cases was a serious enough offense to lead to legal charges and fines. The Lord in D&C 58:21 states,

Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

Joseph Smith included Section 58 in both the first and the second edition selections of the Doctrine and Covenants. In The Articles of Faith, the list of twelve basic tenets of church doctrine which is included in the Pearl of Great Price, he wrote as number twelve,

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.     
Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine

 

Me again: Even if you want to argue that God was okay with men disregarding their marital vow to God in order to practice polygamy, the law was definitely not okay with men disregarding their legally contractual marital vows made to the state in order to practice polygamy, to the point that they enforced real legal punishment for doing so.

Monogamists: "Grooms' marital vows were made to their wife, to God, and to the State."

Polygamists: "God was okay with them not following those vows made to Him, in order to adopt polygamy."

Monogamists: "What about the other two?"

[webbles]

6 minutes ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

I find it noteworthy that so many of the systemic issues we see in modern polygamy were also seen in higher rates in Mormon polygamy, even during the years that it was supposedly approved by God:

MDD 56. 'Doesn't polygamy produce different outcomes if it's sanctioned by God?" 

There are those who have argued that data from polygamous or polyamorous groups outside of early Mormonism should never be applied to the polygamy of early Mormonism. They argue that polygyny as practiced by Muslims, FLDS, or non-religious individuals is unsanctioned polygamy, and so ought never to be compared to the polygamy that was supposedly commanded by God to the early Mormons. They argue that God blessed the early Mormons with divine strength, understanding, and purity of heart, and so any polygamy figures from groups outside early Mormonism is therefore misapplied data. But with the early-Mormon-isolated data that young children of polygamous Mormons had higher mortality rates, that polygamous Mormons had higher divorce rates, and that polygamous Mormon women and children suffered under greater levels of neglect, we can see that the level of suffering and dysfunction experienced by early Mormons in polygamy refutes such an argument. Whatever it was that God still blessed early Mormon polygamous family members with, they were not blessed to be as demographically healthy, secure, prosperous, or functional as their monogamous counterparts. Early Mormon monogamous families fared better than Mormon polygamous families during every period in which Mormon church leaders practiced polygamy.

It is significant that so many of the exact same societal issues of present day polygamous societies — higher rates of neglect, poverty, contention, and death itself — were found in early Mormon polygamy as well. 

Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/divinedesign

Notice how your source cites 0 sources?  How do I know that the website just made this all up?

[webbles]

38 minutes ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

Hyrum Smith's entire address was an anti-polygamy sermon, stating that Joseph's marriage revelation was about eternal marriage, not plural marriage, and Hyrum specifically included the detail of himself being sealed to his deceased wife and his current wife to emphasize to the men that being sealed to more than one woman *isn't* justification for any of the men to start thinking there to be polygamy being practiced or taught in the church.

The Historical Monogamy Doctrine sites themselves, while arguing against the idea of mass polygamy in the afterlife (see HMD section 32) nevertheless don't outright protest against the idea of selective cases of it, they rather argue that it wouldn't be a necessity for anyone. But they also suggest that it's not unreasonable to ask whether a spouse might only be eternally matched to progress in exaltation with whichever one spouse they are most compatible to be eternally paired with:

MDD 67. "Even if there isn't mass polygamy in Heaven, there would still have to be some polygamy. What about widowers who remarry? They have to be polygamists in heaven."

Widowers who remarry do not have to have two wives for all eternity any more than widows who remarry have to have two husbands for all eternity. It is just as reasonable to suggest that we may only be eternally paired with the one spouse to whom we are most mutually compatible with, and that any other remaining spouse will be paired with someone else who is more mutually and eternally suitable for them. If God doesn't allow for any polygamy exceptions in this life, it is reasonable to discuss whether there might not be any polygamy exceptions in the next life. Heber C. Kimball, even while asserting that, "The principle of plurality of wives never will be done away" also divulged, "some sisters have had revelations that, when this time passes away and they go through the veil, every woman will have a husband to herself".

Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/divinedesign

So you are ok with polygamy?  And you do accept that Joseph did teach polygamy?

[webbles]

1 minute ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

We don't have doctrinal precedence for the idea of God "changing" an oath someone has made, especially not to the point of it being such a complete contradiction that the initial oath is broken — and remember, a marital vow wasn't an oath just made to your wife and to God, but was also a legal contract to the state itself, which polygamy was an irreconcilable violation of. There's this point made in Historical Monogamy Doctrine:

 

HMD 36 ~ The 'angel with a drawn sword' story is contradicted by both the Doctrine & Covenants and Pearl of Great Price ~

Polygamy, whether called spiritual wifery, plural marriage, or by any other term, was not lawful during Joseph Smith's life and fell under the legal definition of adultery or bigamy, which in some cases was a serious enough offense to lead to legal charges and fines. The Lord in D&C 58:21 states,

Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

Joseph Smith included Section 58 in both the first and the second edition selections of the Doctrine and Covenants. In The Articles of Faith, the list of twelve basic tenets of church doctrine which is included in the Pearl of Great Price, he wrote as number twelve,

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.     
Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine

 

Me again: Even if you want to argue that God was okay with men disregarding their marital vow to God in order to practice polygamy, the law was definitely not okay with men disregarding their legally contractual marital vows made to the state in order to practice polygamy, to the point that they enforced real legal punishment for doing so.

Monogamists: "Grooms' marital vows were made to their wife, to God, and to the State."

Polygamists: "God was okay with them not following those vows made to Him, in order to adopt polygamy."

Monogamists: "What about the other two?"

We have scriptures where prophets disobey laws (famous case is Daniel praying when it is against the rules).  We have scriptures where God commands someone to go against His previous commandments (famous case is Nephi being commanded to kill).  I don't get this type of argument.  Why is marriage/polygamy "special" when we have many other scriptures showing God can command things to be different.  If God did command Joseph to practice polygamy, then I don't see how this argument matters.

[AnchoredinChrist]

39 minutes ago, webbles said:

Brigham Young, John Taylor, or many of the other men who we knew practiced polygamy in Nauvoo had also died in Carthage, we would be having this same argument over whether or not they practiced polygamy.  Because they also denounced polygamy.  Many of them put out statements or signed documents that denounced polygamy.  .... 

But we have pretty much the same amount of contemporaneous documentation for all of the men involved.  So, basing the argument on just what is contemporaneously recorded isn't good enough or else we would all have to say that there was no polygamy in Nauvoo, which is obviously false.

We also have the canonized scripture, the excommunications and the court cases to consider:

HMD 5. 'Couldn't that have been empty language that was used to protect himself?'

Joseph Smith went beyond merely speaking out against polygamy. In 1835 he included monogamy in the Doctrine & Covenants as the law of marriage in the church (the original Section 101.) He also excommunicated men in the church for having practiced and taught it (John Bennet, Francis M. Higbee, Chauncey Higbee, Hirum Brown, Harrison Sagers) and acted to sue one of the same men in court (Chauncey Higbee) for slander for stating that Joseph was teaching it in private. He also had church members write affidavits swearing to his innocence during his preparations for the trial.

 

HMD 6. 'Weren’t his public actions against polygamy in part because of Emma?'

The idea that Joseph was hiding his polygamy due to Emma’s opposition and bad temper was first reportedly taught by lawyer Chauncey Higbee, and Joseph and Emma together acted to sue him in court for defamation over this teaching:

“…one Chancy [sic] L. Higbee has slandered and defamed the character of the said Joseph Smith, and also the character of Emma Smith, his wife, in using their names, the more readily to accomplish his purpose in seducing certain females, and further this deponont [sic] saith not.”
Complaint, 24 May 1842 [State of Illinois v. C. L. Higbee]

That Joseph made motion to sue a lawyer for defamation, in a state where polygamy of any kind was illegal, is significant — If Chauncey Higbee had any evidence to show that Joseph Smith was in fact practicing polygamy, even with one woman, then not only would the case against Chauncey have been lost but Joseph would then be exposed and brought under punishment of the law himself, for a considerably more serious crime than defamation.

Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine

 

When Hyrum was accused of polygamy, he made complaint to the city, trial was held, and the man was found guilty of slander and charged $50 and costs (HMD section 10)

Section 101 was included by Joseph in the selection of sections for both editions of the D&C, and it wasn't the only pro-monogamy scripture either:

 

HMD 19 ~ Section 132 is contradicted by other parts of the Doctrine & Covenants ~

 

Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else                                                       D&C 42:22                                              
Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation;                D&C 49:16

Both of these sections were included by Joseph Smith in both the first and second editions of the Doctrine & Covenants. Those who argue that polygamy is a "higher law" or a "restoration of all things" forget that D&C 49:16 states that the earth has answered "the end of its creation" by having one wife to one husband. "Twain" means "two".  

Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine

[AnchoredinChrist]

45 minutes ago, webbles said:

Notice how your source cites 0 sources?  How do I know that the website just made this all up?

This section is referencing the directly preceding sections of the same website, as well as referencing the first website too. The second website (Monogamy as Divine Design) has multiple sections (all previous to this one) that individually address each aspect. The sections of the websites are intended to be read all together in numerical order. It would rather be too much however for me to copy and paste 15+ sections into one comment in order to show you all the info it is referencing.

[AnchoredinChrist]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

So you are ok with polygamy? 

?

Whether someone thinks there will be zero cases of eternal polygamy (neither polyandry nor polygyny), or whether someone thinks there will only be selective cases of eternal polyandry/polygyny (from certain remarried widows/widowers. The HMD sites themselves don't strictly argue as to whether there will be no instances of them or only select instances of them. I have my own personal opinion on it of course) it still yet remains that in either scenario, there is no polygamy doctrine being taught as being a commandment by God for anyone to live either for this life or the next, and is being taught that God expressly forbids it in any form for this life.

1 hour ago, webbles said:

And you do accept that Joseph did teach polygamy?

Also ?

Edited yesterday at 06:10 AM by AnchoredinChrist

[AnchoredinChrist]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

We have scriptures where prophets disobey laws (famous case is Daniel praying when it is against the rules).

God specifically says in the D&C that "no man" needs to break the lands of the land that the Saints were living under at the time.

1 hour ago, webbles said:

We have scriptures where God commands someone to go against His previous commandments (famous case is Nephi being commanded to kill).  I

Monogamy as Divine Design expounds on this too! (They're really great sites, I really recommend reading them.) These are the specific sections in question, they're situated right next to eachother on the website:

 

MDD 7. 'Couldn't the practice of polygamy still have been given to Brigham Young as a temporary commandment?'

One talk in the October 2024 General Conference contained this quote,

The Lord’s commandments are of two types: permanent, like the doctrine of Christ, and temporary. Temporary commandments are those necessary for the needs of the Lord’s Church or the faithful in temporary circumstances, but to be set aside when the need has passed. An example of temporary commandments are the Lord’s directions to the early leadership of the Church to move the Saints from New York to Ohio, to Missouri, and to Illinois...

          Dallin H. Oaks, October 2024 General Conference

Some have argued this to be the case for early Mormon polygamy — that it was a temporary commandment, meant to be followed for only a set period of time before being discontinued. But this assertion does not align with an exegetical reading of D&C 132, as the text does not leave itself open to be viewed as a temporary commandment when it reads, "all those who have this law revealed to them must obey the same." (D&C 132:3)

Another issue with applying a commandment to "move the Saints" with a practice like polygamy is that moving homes doesn't break any previously-established commandments, whereas polygamy will always break the previously-given commandment to have only one wife. A "temporary commandment" cannot be morally described as such if it is something that breaks a permanent commandment.

 

MDD 8. 'But the Spirit told Nephi to kill Laban, which was against the commandment to not kill.'

Nephi's actions of killing Laban qualified as self defense (and defense of others), even under the conditions of the law of Moses and the law of the land of his time, as Laban was actively seeking to kill Nephi and his brothers. That Laban had already given the orders to kill Nephi (and had even sent his men out to fulfill those orders) justified Nephi under the law to take the actions against Laban that he did. Laban had also stolen Nephi's family's property by force, meaning Nephi was then justified to take Laban's brass plates by the law of Moses "eye for an eye" reasoning of recovering property of an equal or lesser value. It is significant that the Lord did not deliver Laban into Nephi's hands until the conditions had been met that Nephi would be morally justified in taking the plates for his family. Nephi did not violate any law of God or law of the land by killing Laban or taking his plates, and the Lord from the outset orchestrated it to be so.

However, these conditions of self defense did not apply to Mormon polygamy, and cannot apply to polygamy in any circumstance. There is no scenario in which a Mormon man has to practice polygamy as a means of self defense.

Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/divinedesign