Marriage to virgins

[AnchoredinChrist]

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

There is an 1844 conference

Do you mean 1882? Or 1884?

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

Peder's story is 1843

Do you mean 1883?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 10/17/2026 at 5:55 PM, 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. 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.

These types of posts always trigger me. So I have polygamous ancestors everywhere in my family tree. I found out recently on this board that Lorena Washburn (my gg-grandma) was featured extensively in church publications. She wrote an autobiography. Lorena was one of 8 children born to a second wife. She wrote:

Quote

We were taught in those days that there was no way to get to the highest degree in the Celestial Kingdom, only by plural marriage.

Further she spoke of the sacrifice entailed:

Quote

I believed Bent Larsen to be a thoroughly religious, straightforward and splendid man, and though it was a hard thing to do and it required so much sacrifice on my part, yet I finally consented after Aunt Julia said she would feel worse if I did not marry him than if I did.

Her son BF Larson (who was well educated and led the fine arts school at BYU) later recalled:

Quote

The Law of Celestial Marriage.

With Church approval, Father had married a plural wife. He married my mother, Lorena Eugenia Washburn, in the Saint George Temple February 24,1880. Mother has told me many times that Father was esteemed by her and others as one of the very finest young men in Monroe.

At that time, the Church emphasized the fact that plural marriage was the Law of Celestial Marriage and that abiding by this law was the only way of securing entrance into the highest glory in the Celestial Kingdom. The general authorities of the church were generally living this law.

Three of the four girls in Lorena's family became plural wifes. None of the boys did. This just highlights the impossibility of the commandment. There was certainly no shortage of men trying though to indicate there was some high bar you had to pass. Lorena records being courted by countless married individuals started as young as six or eight:

Quote

Our bishop, George's father, was a jolly man and a great tease. He usually wore boots, with one trouser leg inside the boot and one outside. He always had a twinkle in his eyes. He was medium height, dark complexioned, not overly large, yet a bit inclined to be fleshy. From the time I was 6 or 8 years old, I always felt like hiding or running in the opposite direction when I saw him, for no matter where I was nor how large the crowd, he would always announce that here is the girl which will be my wife some day. Why, said he on many occasions, when she is old enough to marry, I will just be in the prime of life, and she shall be mine.  

He was president of the Co-op store, and as he did not appear to have much to do, he was often at the store. I did the small shopping for my mother and two married sisters. On one occasion, they sent me to get a supply of nutmegs, which in those days we bought whole, and [we] grated them on a grater. James or Jim Browne, a Scotchman, was store clerk, and one time he gave me wormy nutmegs, quite a package of them. When I got home, Mother and my sisters examined them and told me to take them right back and tell Mr. Browne that they could not use them. I tried to make excuses. I would have preferred taking a whipping, I thought, though I had never had a real one. But my excuses were of no avail back I must go. So, with faltering steps and shaky nerves I went back to the store. And when I got there, to my great dismay, Mr. Browne was busy with 16 other customers and the bishop hopped over the counter and came to me and said, What can I do for my best girl today? If blushing was possible, I must have blushed scarlet, but I knew I must face the music, so I handed him the paper sack of nutmegs and said, "Mother said tell Mr. Browne to never send nutmegs like these to her again because she had no use for them." He looked into the sack, and then said, Jim don't ever send out such things to the people again. To me he said, "You are a brave little girl." And to the crowd he said, "I will marry this girl some day." And with the newly selected nutnegs he gave me a sack of candy, which was a rarity in those days.

<snip>

When I was 15 years old, our Bishop Harris and his wife invited Father and Mother to their home and told them that they had decided if it was possible to get my parents and my consent, they were both very anxious that I should marry the bishop. The family was an extremely fine family and my parents gave their consent. They were to arrange a time when the bishop could meet me. When they told me about it, I told my parents I was too young to marry, and although the bishop was one of the finest men in the land, he was old enough to be my father, and that either of his three fine older sons were much more desirable for a husband than their father. My father said, I am afraid d you will some day be sorry for turning down such a fine man. 

Here are more proposals:

Quote

In less than a week after I went there, three married men came and asked my father if they could marry me. They were fine men, and Father said to each one, Yes, if you can get her consent. They were as follows: Bishop Oldroyd of Glenwood, Hyrum Palmer, and Andrew Hepler who was later our county judge.

Another a week later:

Quote

During the following week there came a letter addressed to Father from Orderville, Utah. I had a sister living there, and supposed it was from her, so I opened it, and to my astonishment it read as follows: Elder Washburn It is long since I fell in love with your daughter Lorena. And if you will give her to me, to be my wife, I will devote all my time and talents to her exaltation and mine. Very humbly yours. I laughed until my sides ached, and said, Is there no place I can go to be shielded from this bombardment? I said to the family, If Mr. _____ should have the privilege of spending all his time working for my exaltation and his, what would become of his present wife and 3 children? 

She writes of more but one of note. A young man she turned down as a first wife later came back to ask her to be her second:

Quote

We commenced a new correspondence, and in August, 1879, he came to Monroe, and after asking my parents' consent, I went home with him to meet his wife. She was very kind to me, but I could plainly understand that she was sorely tried. He was a merchant and had plenty of means, but she took off her shoes and went around barefooted. I thought it was to humiliate her husband.

After visiting with friends for a few days, I asked him one evening to take me to the depot next morning and I would go to Nephi by train and by stage the rest of the way home. He called me to his wife's room that evening, and while we sat there, he told his wife that I was the girl he should have married before he married her. And that he had told her that before he married her. She, dear girl, couldn t remember. Next morning it was a little hard for me to see tears in his eyes all the way to the depot, but I felt that I must not spoil the happiness of his wife. He kissed me as he left me on the train and said, God be with you wherever you go. Remember I can never forget.

There doesn't seem to be any shortage of men approved for a second wife, rather there is a shortage of women available to be plural wives. And just because not everyone makes it to the " into the highest glory in the Celestial Kingdom" doesn't mean it wasn't taught and understood at the time that plural marriage was the requirement to gain entry there.

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

These types of posts always trigger me. So I have polygamous ancestors everywhere in my family tree. I found out recently on this board that Lorena Washburn (my gg-grandma) was featured extensively in church publications. She wrote an autobiography. Lorena was one of 8 children born to a second wife. She wrote:

Further she spoke of the sacrifice entailed:

Her son BF Larson (who was well educated and led the fine arts school at BYU) later recalled:

Three of the four girls in Lorena's family became plural wifes. None of the boys did. This just highlights the impossibility of the commandment. There was certainly no shortage of men trying though to indicate there was some high bar you had to pass. Lorena records being courted by countless married individuals started as young as six or eight:

Here are more proposals:

Another a week later:

She writes of more but one of note. A young man she turned down as a first wife later came back to ask her to be her second:

There doesn't seem to be any shortage of men approved for a second wife, rather there is a shortage of women available to be plural wives. And just because not everyone makes it to the " into the highest glory in the Celestial Kingdom" doesn't mean it wasn't taught and understood at the time that plural marriage was the requirement to gain entry there.

All this, I have polygamy in my heritage and it was something those who were commanded to do it put up with without much enthusiasm and they treated it as a requirement for exaltation. So……frustrating which is bad but not nearly as bad as the way it was turning adult men into sex pests about literal children as SU says. The “it was never mandatory” apologetic requires ignoring the reality of reported experience.

[AnchoredinChrist]

29 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

These types of posts always trigger me. So I have polygamous ancestors everywhere in my family tree. I found out recently on this board that Lorena Washburn (my gg-grandma) was featured extensively in church publications. She wrote an autobiography. Lorena was one of 8 children born to a second wife. She wrote:

Further she spoke of the sacrifice entailed:

Her son BF Larson (who was well educated and led the fine arts school at BYU) later recalled:

Three of the four girls in Lorena's family became plural wifes. None of the boys did. This just highlights the impossibility of the commandment. There was certainly no shortage of men trying though to indicate there was some high bar you had to pass. Lorena records being courted by countless married individuals started as young as six or eight:

Here are more proposals:

Another a week later:

She writes of more but one of note. A young man she turned down as a first wife later came back to ask her to be her second:

There doesn't seem to be any shortage of men approved for a second wife, rather there is a shortage of women available to be plural wives. And just because not everyone makes it to the " into the highest glory in the Celestial Kingdom" doesn't mean it wasn't taught and understood at the time that plural marriage was the requirement to gain entry there.

What a story, so many men clamoring for her when she was fifteen years old, and she seems to be especially perceptive as she's rebuffing them -- to think that as a fifteen year old girl she wasn't intimidated by all of these men who are so much older than her. What is the name of her autobiography?

[AnchoredinChrist]

26 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

All this, I have polygamy in my heritage and it was something those who were commanded to do it put up with without much enthusiasm and they treated it as a requirement for exaltation. So……frustrating which is bad but not nearly as bad as the way it was turning adult men into sex pests about literal children as SU says. The “it was never mandatory” apologetic requires ignoring the reality of reported experience.

I found out just today that Brigham Young's youngest wife was 13, when he was 43 -- beginning at 8:35,

[SeekingUnderstanding]

47 minutes ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

What a story, so many men clamoring for her when she was fifteen years old, and she seems to be especially perceptive as she's rebuffing them -- to think that as a fifteen year old girl she wasn't intimidated by all of these men who are so much older than her. What is the name of her autobiography?

I received my copy from family. Do you have a familysearch account? https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/memories/KW8P-5HR search for autobiography

Edited 19 hours ago by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

All this, I have polygamy in my heritage and it was something those who were commanded to do it put up with without much enthusiasm and they treated it as a requirement for exaltation. So……frustrating which is bad but not nearly as bad as the way it was turning adult men into sex pests about literal children as SU says. The “it was never mandatory” apologetic requires ignoring the reality of reported experience.

In order to make things neat and tidy we diminish their sacrifice. BF Larsen on his mother Lorena said:

Quote

Farmers generally had very little or no cash money. At the stores people traded eggs, butter, and grain for necessities which they could not produce. At Mother's home, from the very beginning, we had very little to trade. Our small flock of chickens had usually scratched for themselves most of the time. With one and sometimes two cows it was often difficult to supply nine growing children with much-needed milk and butter. At times, when our cow was dry, we borrowed an unbroken range cow for a period. Probably no one, except some of Mother's children, can ever know of her fatigue, her heartaches, and ofttimes her humiliation with poverty and with the feeling of aloneness in the struggle to provide for her family and to secure the wherewith to make her dreams come true.

(emphasis added by me)

Edited 19 hours ago by SeekingUnderstanding

[Pyreaux]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

These types of posts always trigger me. So I have polygamous ancestors everywhere in my family tree. I found out recently on this board that Lorena Washburn (my gg-grandma) was featured extensively in church publications. She wrote an autobiography. Lorena was one of 8 children born to a second wife. She wrote:

Further she spoke of the sacrifice entailed:

Her son BF Larson (who was well educated and led the fine arts school at BYU) later recalled:

Three of the four girls in Lorena's family became plural wifes. None of the boys did. This just highlights the impossibility of the commandment. There was certainly no shortage of men trying though to indicate there was some high bar you had to pass. Lorena records being courted by countless married individuals started as young as six or eight:

Here are more proposals:

Another a week later:

She writes of more but one of note. A young man she turned down as a first wife later came back to ask her to be her second:

There doesn't seem to be any shortage of men approved for a second wife, rather there is a shortage of women available to be plural wives. And just because not everyone makes it to the " into the highest glory in the Celestial Kingdom" doesn't mean it wasn't taught and understood at the time that plural marriage was the requirement to gain entry there.

Lorena wrote, "We were taught in those days that there was no way to get to the highest degree in the Celestial Kingdom, only by plural marriage."

Sure, small southern Utah towns during the 1870s and 1880s (St. George, Monroe, Orderville), leaders heavily emphasized plural marriage as the pinnacle of devotion, local speakers simplified the message down, and many Saints may have believed plural marriage was necessary for the highest exaltation, because that was the dominant local cultural narrative preached from the rural pulpits.

However, official clarifications by the Church, even Brigham Young himself, Joseph F. Smith and Wilford Woodruff, at that time affirmed that faithful monogamous couples inherit exaltation. Once, Apostle John Holman argued that no one could achieve Celestial glory without taking multiple wives and Brigham Young directly corrected him and shut the debate down (Recorded in Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Sept 25, 1869). Brigham did feel it was sin to entertain feelings against the doctrine, meaning rebellion against God's revelations, or refusing a priesthood calling for selfish reasons. A monogamous man who lived faithfully and accepted the restoration, including the revelation "in his heart" was completely acceptable, a man who rejected the revelation or refused an assignment out of rebellion was the one under condemnation.

The Discourse by Joseph F. Smith July 1878, "We are not under the necessity of practicing polygamy because God gave laws and commandments for its observance and regulation in ancient times... [I think referring to Section 132]"  

Let's not conflate what local Utah Saints felt and understood in 1880 with either Section 132 nor what 1880 official doctrine of the Church actually required.

Lorena Washburn Larsen’s autobiography is an incredible historical document. Lorena’s accounts do actually demonstrate the historical dynamics I have been outlining. Lorena repeatedly turned down proposals, and her father supported her right to do so. Lorena didn't seem obligated into sealings. The men proposing to Lorena were prominent local figures, a bishop, a Co-op store president, a merchant who had plenty of means, and a future county judge. This fits the precise pattern of established, financially stable men who weren't necessarily proposing spontaneously, someone was suggesting specific women to men in the ward whom they believed could provide for them.

Edited 14 hours ago by Pyreaux

[AnchoredinChrist]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Sure, small southern Utah towns during the 1870s and 1880s (St. George, Monroe, Orderville), leaders heavily emphasized plural marriage as the pinnacle of devotion, local speakers simplified the message down, and many Saints may have believed plural marriage was necessary for the highest exaltation, because that was the dominant local cultural narrative preached from the rural pulpits.

Then at best Brigham Young can only be said to have wildly contradicted himself on more than one occasion, as he was one of the leaders in a "small town" (Paris, Idaho in this case) who was preaching such things publicly:

"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

It's significant that it was published both in the Deseret News and in the Journal of Discourses — with him saying that his preached word is as good as scripture,

 

HMD 47. 'Weren't some of those things merely stated as his own personal opinion?'

I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture.

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95

I say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible...

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 264

historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine 

 

Brigham Young also taught that it's not good enough to be a polygamist in name only, he taught that such marriages needed to follow the model of Abraham and Hagar in being consummated or maybe supposed attempted impregnation in order to have it count in the eyes of God:

 

HMD 94 ~ Some members who practiced polygamy on paper still weren't willing to use it to ‘raise up seed’ ~

There seem to have been certain husbands and wives who were willing to believe in the teaching that plural marriage was necessary for exaltation, but who nonetheless put it off for themselves until later in life, perhaps deciding to raise a family together as a couple first with the plan to find an old widow or spinster to support as a plural wife at some point in the future. Brigham Young spoke out against these men who were not willing to procreate with plural wives (as well as against plural wives who were not willing to procreate with their husbands) when he said,

Few, if any, of the temple marriages have been made binding upon the Lord by the participants fulfilling their vow and covenant, 'to fulfill all the laws, rites and ordinances pertaining to this holy matrimony in the new and everlasting covenant.' This means obeying the law of Abraham and Sarah as set forth in the Holy Scriptures (D&C Sections 131 and 132, especially verse 34). Without compliance to this law upon which eternal marriage is predicated, you will get about as far as anyone married outside the temple. The Lord says, "I the Lord am bound when ye do what I say, but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise." See D&C 82:10.

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 16, p. 167

The Doctrine & Covenants verse that he references (D&C 132:34) is the verse stating that Abraham had been commanded to impregnate Hagar. Brigham Young's counsel here then, is that men are commanded to consummate marriages with plural wives who are young enough to bear children, and that plural wives are commanded to allow their husband to try to impregnate them.

historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Three of the four girls in Lorena's family became plural wifes. None of the boys did.

I bet they didn’t become monogamous wives either…. 😛 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

However, official clarifications by the Church, even Brigham Young himself, Joseph F. Smith and Wilford Woodruff, at that time affirmed that faithful monogamous couples inherit exaltation. Once, Apostle John Holman argued that no one could achieve Celestial glory without taking multiple wives and Brigham Young directly corrected him and shut the debate down (Recorded in Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Sept 25, 1869). Brigham did feel it was sin to entertain feelings against the doctrine, meaning rebellion against God's revelations, or refusing a priesthood calling for selfish reasons. A monogamous man who lived faithfully and accepted the restoration, including the revelation "in his heart" was completely acceptable, a man who rejected the revelation or refused an assignment out of rebellion was the one under condemnation.

This reminds me of the treatment of young men who chose or could not go on missions in the past.  Sure, no one said they were excluded from exaltation and I would say official doctrine officially rejected that, but girls and young women were being taught to marry returned missionaries, so that first off dropped the likelihood of a temple marriage for those who didn’t go.  And while those who couldn’t go may not have been looked down on as sinners, they were pitied in my experience and that raised caution in thinking of them as marriage partners….if they couldn’t handle a mission, maybe they would have trouble with marriage.

When one ideal is emphasized, it can too often make something else look less than, not ideal even when it may qualify as such.

[webbles]

17 hours ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

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:

I have read that site.  I've mentioned to you before that I very much dislike the site.  it is very disorganized, it misuses sources, it doesn't provide sources, it sometimes makes up sources (I even went and bought one of the Whitney Horning's books because it referenced it and couldn't find the actual reference which was frustrating).  The site could be good, but as it is, it is hard to understand the argument besides "polygamy is bad".

18 hours ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

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

I'm not really sure why you posted this.  I completely agree that Joseph is very publicly vocal about it.  So was everyone else.  So if Brigham had died in Carthage, we would be debating whether is a polygamist.

Also, Brigham Young excommunicated people for practicing unauthorized polygamy.  William W. Phelps was excommunicated in 1847.

 

17 hours ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

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.

I wasn't talking about a temporary commandment.  I'm not even sure what the point of quoting this is.  I was talking about how a person could make a vow with God and then change that vow because God told him to change.

17 hours ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

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.

Also completely misunderstanding what I was talking about.  Are you even trying to understand me or just toss out quotes from the site?

[webbles]

17 hours ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

?

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.

Also ?

Ok, I'm fine with saying that Joseph never taught that you absolutely must be a polygamist to reach the highest kingdom.  That could be something that Brigham later adds.  But Hyrum was sealed to 2 women and so Joseph must have been teaching and practicing some form of polygamy.  Brigham was in the same situation.  So, an argument could be made that Joseph taught Brigham this and he then misinterpreted it and included living polygamy.

[webbles]

17 hours ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

Do you mean 1882? Or 1884?

Do you mean 1883?

Yes, I meant the conference was 1884.  And Peder's writing was 1883.

[webbles]

18 hours ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

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.

So why doesn't it refer to those sections?  I would say it didn't refer to them because they don't exist.  You quoted 56.  The previous one about Utah polygamy is all the way back in 37 and guess what, it has no sources either about Utah polygamy divorce rates.  I then kept going back and there are some that kind of mention Utah polygamy but most are focused on modern polygamy or other cultures.  I don't find any source that indicates that Utah polygamy had worse of situations than monogamous relationships in Utah.

But, that's ok, because I did go and find some.  Here's 2 studies that use the Utah Population Database to examine mortality of infants, children, and adults.  https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?facet_department_t="Economics"&facet_format_medium_t="application%2Fpdf"&facet_setname_s="ir_etd"&id=1701242&rows=100&sort=sort_date_t+desc is a dissertation from 2019 and https://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2026-044.pdf is a working paper from 2026.

The dissertation was interesting because it looked at all ages.  Page 45 has its hypothesis of adult mortality and points out that it couldn't prove or disprove the idea that polygamy made it worse for men or women.  But it did show that if a man was more involved in the church (baptized, endowed, polygamous), his mortality went down.  No sign that it affected women.  Which is kind of contra what section 56 says.

On page 72, it has the hypotheses if infant and child mortality.  Two of them I found very interesting.  The first one is that the older the father, the better off the infant/child was (discusses this more on page 74).  I find it interesting because modern research has shown that the older the father is, the higher mortality of his kids are.  But yet, somehow, in Utah polygamy, it was the opposite.  And an older man also means he would already have more wives, so it might infer some relationship to polygamy (though the dissertation did try to split that out).  The second one is that the more involved a husband or wife was in the church (baptism, endowed, polygamous), the higher the mortality rate.  For instance (from page 71), if both parents are baptized and just one is endowed (so no polygamy yet), the infant mortality increased by 83% compared to non-baptized parents (aka non-Mormons).  That is an odd result.  And also kind of contra what section 56 says.

The working paper focus solely on infant and child mortality.  And it shows that polygamous relationships had higher infant mortality compared to monogamous relationships.  But there is something funny in the data.  If you look at Figure 2, it shows that a polygamous first wife has higher infant mortality than a monogamous wife, even in the first few births.  Yet, men, on average, didn't enter polygamy till 11 years after first marriage (the dissertation talks about that).  So, the first 2-3 infants for a polygamous first wife are in a monogamous relationship.  There must either be some extreme outliers, something is coded wrong, or some other thing.  And that makes me worry about both this study and the dissertation and any other study that might use the Utah Population Database.  I, unfortunately, can't get access to the data (I have to be a real researcher) so I can't play around it with it.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

And an older man also means he would already have more wives, so it might infer some relationship to polygamy (though the dissertation did try to split that out)

Did or did not?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

The second one is that the more involved a husband or wife was in the church (baptism, endowed, polygamous), the higher the mortality rate

 

This is the crucial part, correct?

Quote

The second surprising but extremely robust discovery was the increase in mortality of infants and children given the religious status of their parents when measured by activity in the social rites of passage for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Being a member of a polygamous household seems to have had no effect on the mortality of adults, male or female. However, the negative Church affiliation effects in our analysis for adult males and both infants and children are substantially different from the general findings from the Utah Population Database (UPDB), possibly reflecting the fact that our analysis covers an earlier period than many prior analyses. As a result, the health impacts of migration and resettlement are more visible, necessitating the need for closer consideration of the conditions of arrival in early Utah

So migration was possibly easier for those not invested in the Church at all or even those associated with the Church , but not as heavily is their speculation for the findings?

I would love to know the when and how of the families’ migration and resettlement.  If someone was able to choose the timing of migration, they may have been better supplied and traveling during better weather.  Same thing with resettlement.  Non church heavily invested families likely choose most convenient and productive spot for the family, while devoted families might have been sent to settle places for the overall benefit of the community.

Edited 10 hours ago by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

Yet, men, on average, didn't enter polygamy till 11 years after first marriage (the dissertation talks about that).  So, the first 2-3 infants for a polygamous first wife are in a monogamous relationship.  There must either be some extreme outliers, something is coded wrong, or some other thing

Maybe due, at least in part, to what I speculated…. that more devout families accepted assignments or circumstances that were physically harder for what they saw as spiritual benefits where less devout families based their choices more on their own family’s physical needs first…or didn’t see a spiritual need to follow the LDS community leaders choices?

Did they control for where they settled and what time of year they migrated, etc?

Or where they migrated from?  I wonder if those who fled Nauvoo and headed to Utah eventually had a higher mortality rate or those who came from overseas (how many did that early on?)

Could the more devout families have had more fathers out on missions enough to make a difference?

I may attempt to read the whole study later…but ain’t happening now

Edited 10 hours ago by Calm

[webbles]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

Did or did not?

Did.  Page 62:

Quote

It appears that, controlling for mother’s age, birth order, and wife order, the
children of older fathers were less likely to die, either as infants or as young children.
This is a surprising result given the modern literature about the negative effects of an
aging father presented earlier in this chapter.

 

[Calm]

Just now, webbles said:

Did.  Page 62:

 

So how did they try to split it out?  Sorry, may just be misreading, but it seems like they had to guess who was and wasn’t polygamous from the word “try”.

[Pyreaux]

4 hours ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

Then at best Brigham Young can only be said to have wildly contradicted himself on more than one occasion, as he was one of the leaders in a "small town" (Paris, Idaho in this case) who was preaching such things publicly:

"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

It's significant that it was published both in the Deseret News and in the Journal of Discourses — with him saying that his preached word is as good as scripture,

 

HMD 47. 'Weren't some of those things merely stated as his own personal opinion?'

I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture.

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95

I say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible...

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 264

historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine 

 

Brigham Young also taught that it's not good enough to be a polygamist in name only, he taught that such marriages needed to follow the model of Abraham and Hagar in being consummated or maybe supposed attempted impregnation in order to have it count in the eyes of God:

 

HMD 94 ~ Some members who practiced polygamy on paper still weren't willing to use it to ‘raise up seed’ ~

There seem to have been certain husbands and wives who were willing to believe in the teaching that plural marriage was necessary for exaltation, but who nonetheless put it off for themselves until later in life, perhaps deciding to raise a family together as a couple first with the plan to find an old widow or spinster to support as a plural wife at some point in the future. Brigham Young spoke out against these men who were not willing to procreate with plural wives (as well as against plural wives who were not willing to procreate with their husbands) when he said,

Few, if any, of the temple marriages have been made binding upon the Lord by the participants fulfilling their vow and covenant, 'to fulfill all the laws, rites and ordinances pertaining to this holy matrimony in the new and everlasting covenant.' This means obeying the law of Abraham and Sarah as set forth in the Holy Scriptures (D&C Sections 131 and 132, especially verse 34). Without compliance to this law upon which eternal marriage is predicated, you will get about as far as anyone married outside the temple. The Lord says, "I the Lord am bound when ye do what I say, but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise." See D&C 82:10.

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 16, p. 167

The Doctrine & Covenants verse that he references (D&C 132:34) is the verse stating that Abraham had been commanded to impregnate Hagar. Brigham Young's counsel here then, is that men are commanded to consummate marriages with plural wives who are young enough to bear children, and that plural wives are commanded to allow their husband to try to impregnate them.

historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine 

Brigham Young claiming his sermons were "as good as scripture" (JD 13:95, 264), things "copied and approved by me," he was referring specifically to sermons that were transcribed from shorthand by his secretaries, like George D. Watt, read back to him, corrected, and then officially published in Church publications like the Deseret News or Millennial Star. The Journal of Discourses was not that. He also acknowledged that he spoke as a man, gave personal opinions, and made mistakes. Hence in 1862, he famously said, "I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him." (JD 9:150)

The 1873 "Paris, Idaho" Sermon was addressing a specific group of men who explicitly said, "I don't want but one wife, I will live my religion with one." Brigham Young in his 1869 School of the Prophets instruction "a man may embrace the Law of Celestial Marriage in his heart and not take the second wife, and be justified", the defining issue was whether a man rejected God's revelations in his heart, not whether he was physically capable of marrying multiple women.

The quote starting with 'Few, if any, of the temple marriages have been made binding...' cited from historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com as Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p. 167 seems incorrect. Volume 16, page 167 of the Journal of Discourses, is the end of a sermon about tithing.

Historically, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both entered sealings with older women and widows past childbearing age (Zina D. H. Young, Agnes Coolbrith). If the requirement were strictly young, fertile women for procreation, these older sealings would make no sense. They served to form eternal, family connections across the covenant structure.

Brigham Young didn't 'wildly contradict' himself, you can harmonize his statements.

In 1866, Brigham says be "polygamists at least in your faith" (Journal of Discourses Vol 11, p 269).

In 1869, Brigham says "a man may embrace the Law of Celestial Marriage in his heart and not take the second wife, and be justified before the Lord" (Wilford Woodruff Journal, Sept 25, 1869).

In 1873, he condemned men who actively rejected God's revelations or dodged priesthood callings out of selfish convenience or fear. It seems to align.

Edited 9 hours ago by Pyreaux

[webbles]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

This is the crucial part, correct?

So migration was possibly easier for those not invested in the Church at all or even those associated with the Church , but not as heavily is their speculation for the findings?

I would love to know the when and how of the families’ migration and resettlement.  If someone was able to choose the timing of migration, they may have been better supplied and traveling during better weather.  Same thing with resettlement.  Non church heavily invested families likely choose most convenient and productive spot for the family, while devoted families might have been sent to settle places for the overall benefit of the community.

 

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Maybe due, at least in part, to what I speculated…. that more devout families accepted assignments or circumstances that were physically harder for what they saw as spiritual benefits where less devout families based their choices more on their own family’s physical needs first…or didn’t see a spiritual need to follow the LDS community leaders choices?

Did they control for where they settled and what time of year they migrated, etc?

Or where they migrated from?  I wonder if those who fled Nauvoo and headed to Utah eventually had a higher mortality rate or those who came from overseas (how many did that early on?)

Could the more devout families have had more fathers out on missions enough to make a difference?

I may attempt to read the whole study later…but ain’t happening now

The working paper didn't try to control for migration or devoutness.  It did try to control for urbanization, parental age, and certain time windows (early polygamy, early anti-polygamy laws, heavy anti-polygamy laws, post 1890).  So the the one that had the odd child mortality rate is mostly just polygamous vs non-polygamous.

The dissertation is the one that tried to control for devoutness (using baptism, endowment, and polygamy) and mentioned migration but didn't do anything about migration or callings.

It would be interesting to try and control for fathers on missions and other absent fathers (it does talk about separate households for polygamy but no indication that it could control for that).  I don't think this information is in the population database both used, though.

[webbles]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

So how did they try to split it out?  Sorry, may just be misreading, but it seems like they had to guess who was and wasn’t polygamous from the word “try”.

The data does appear to separate which husbands are polygamous and non-polygamous.  The dissertation does use it in some other areas, but when talking about the impact of father's age on infant mortality, it doesn't mention using it.  It does say it controlled for wife order which would be an indication of polygamy.  So I said "try" since it wasn't obvious if they actually did control for polygamy vs non-polygamy.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, webbles said:

The data does appear to separate which husbands are polygamous and non-polygamous.  The dissertation does use it in some other areas, but when talking about the impact of father's age on infant mortality, it doesn't mention using it.  It does say it controlled for wife order which would be an indication of polygamy.  So I said "try" since it wasn't obvious if they actually did control for polygamy vs non-polygamy.

Got it.  I don’t trust my reading comprehension at times these days, so asking questions that may seem trivial or nit picky even more than usual  to others.  

[AnchoredinChrist]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

I have read that site.  I've mentioned to you before that I very much dislike the site. 

In the first thread in which I posted the Monogamy as Divine Design site (it was a recent month, as the site was released earlier this year) I remember you replying that you looked through it and pointed out a few of the sections that you didn't like and so didn't read it all the way through, which is, along with your more recent responses, what gave me the impression that you hadn't read it in full as you now say you have (unless you're thinking of Historical Monogamy Doctrine?)

1 hour ago, webbles said:

I'm not really sure why you posted this.  I completely agree that Joseph is very publicly vocal about it.

I would argue that going out of his way to canonize scripture explicitly against it, to sue accusers in court, to publish confessions from those guilty (John C Bennet & one of the victimized girls), etc is a lot more than simply being "publicly vocal" against polygamy. That is why I included that section.

3 hours ago, webbles said:

Brigham Young excommunicated people for practicing unauthorized polygamy.  William W. Phelps was excommunicated in 1847.

Joseph Smith didn't just excommunicate men practicing polygamy, he acted to sue one of the same men (lawyer Chauncey Higbee) for defamation for Chauncey having said that Joseph was teaching polygamy himself. Brigham Young certainly never did that. You might not think that to be a relevant enough point to mention, but I do, which is why I included it. 

3 hours ago, webbles said:

I wasn't talking about a temporary commandment.  I'm not even sure what the point of quoting this is.

You were talking about God, in your view, being inconsistent with His commandments, a view which I don't share myself. I consider MDD sections 7 & 8 to both be relevant to that same topic, which is why I copied them together side-by-side in my response, as they were responding to the same thing.

3 hours ago, webbles said:

Also completely misunderstanding what I was talking about.  Are you even trying to understand me or just toss out quotes from the site?

You specifically said that God sometimes commands people to break previous commandments (a view which I do not share) and specifically used Nephi killing Laban as an example. Others have made that argument as well, which is apparently why Monogamy as Divine Design has a section addressing that very point, explaining why "Nephi killing Laban" is not an example of God telling someone to break the commandments at all. If you want to bring up a different scriptural example of God in your view commanding someone to break a commandment then I'm open to hearing it.