Marriage to virgins

[webbles]

31 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

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.

As far as I can tell, that quote isn't a real quote.  The earliest I've found is 2011 from mormonthink.  Searching the entire journal of discourses doesn't find any match for even partial versions of the quote.

[webbles]

32 minutes ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

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?)

I have not read the site in full, but I have read the site.  The main reason I haven't read it in full is I keep having to correct it and it just gets too frustrating for me.  I don't see the point to read it in full when it is confusing, it doesn't cite sources (I sometimes spend hours tracking down sources), it wanders all over the place, it invents things (the quote from a book that I went to purchase is an example, though that was Historical Monogamy Doctrine).  I get that you like it, so it somehow suits you.  But copying and pasting it to me isn't going to help since my first inclination is to distrust it.

32 minutes ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

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.

My point is that we have pretty much the same contemporaneous evidence for Nauvoo polygamy for all that are involved.  If others had died in Carthage, we would be having the same debate, but around them.  The only reason why we accept that Brigham had Nauvoo polygamy is because of later testimonies and statements.  So, saying that Joseph was adamant about polygamy while he is alive does not tell me that he wasn't practicing polygamy.  Because everyone was doing that.  Brigham was accused of polygamy and he wrote out an affidavit denying it.  Joseph was a much more public person.  So that is why he would have much more public statements.  But it is only a difference in scale which doesn't do much for me since the scale makes sense when I look at how much more public he is.

32 minutes ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

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. 

That's because no one accused him of teaching polygamy.  That's actually an interesting thing because of all of the people (both pro-Joseph and anti-Joseph), in all later testimonies, no one ever said Brigham taught polygamy.  It is almost always Joseph.  So, the fact that Joseph sued and not Brigham fits perfectly with the story that Joseph was actually teaching and not Brigham.

When Brigham was actually accused of something (Martha Brotherton), he wrote out an affidavit.

32 minutes ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

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.

32 minutes ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

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.

The Nephi killing Laban is going to really go tangential, but MDD section 8 is just wrong.  Its rationalization for why Nephi was ok to kill Laban isn't the rationalization that the Spirit gives to Nephi.  The Spirit first constraints him (no rationalization at all), then says "Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands." and then says "Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;  Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief".  The rationalization that MDD 8 writes out is nice and all but not what the Spirit actually said.  That is something that you have to add to the story, not what is actually in the story.

Edited Wednesday at 03:49 AM by webbles

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

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.

Abraham sacrificing Isaac, Hosea marrying a prostitute (apparently working, not retired), Israelites to steal Egyptian property (since iirc they say they will bring it back…that could be seen as breaking the commandment about coveting a neighbour’s possessions too), Jesus saying something about hating mothers and father to follow him, commanding to commit genocide…

Did some searching to come up with more…

Abraham abandoning Hagar and Ishmael

Hadn’t heard this one before…Ezekiel was commanded to break some purity commandments, like cooking food over human excrement (Ezekiel 4:12).

Edited Wednesday at 03:59 AM by Calm

[AnchoredinChrist]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

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. 

Great, love this.

3 hours ago, webbles said:

But Hyrum was sealed to 2 women and so Joseph must have been teaching and practicing some form of polygamy. 

You specifically mean eternal polygamy only, yes? Specifically for widowers? I imagine you'd find monogamy-affirmers on both sides of that, like I said I have my own  opinion on it but I think whichever way you fall is besides the point when talking about denouncing all of Brigham Young's harmful teachings. 

But no, Joseph letting Hyrum being sealed to two women doesn't automatically in the minds of monogamy-affirmers mean that they believe there will be eternal polygamy for remarried widowers. The LDS church now allows remarried widows to be sealed to more than one husband, does that mean that the LDS church now teaches eternal polyandry? Most LDS members still say "No" about that.

4 hours ago, webbles said:

So, an argument could be made that Joseph taught Brigham this and he then misinterpreted it and included living polygamy.

As in Joseph only ever taught of eternal polygamy for widowers and then Brigham Young maybe came up with mortal polygamy doctrine as a misinterpretation of what Joseph taught? Supposing that, a "Brigham Young misinterpreted Joseph" argument wouldn't explain why Brigham Young forbid Augusta Cobb from ever meeting with Joseph Smith, it wouldn't explain why Brigham claimed that Joseph called Emma the "wickedest woman who ever lived" and that Emma tried to kill Joseph, it wouldn't explain why Brigham Young started openly acquiring wives but only after the Martyrdom, and others that I won't list off as it would make this comment too long, so there would be a lot of plot holes left open for me with such an argument as that.

[AnchoredinChrist]

49 minutes ago, webbles said:

Searching the entire journal of discourses doesn't find any match for even partial versions of the quote.

I've had very little success with the Journal of Discourse online search in past years. On more than one occasion I've made a search for a quote that I *know* is in there that either I or others have seen with their own two eyes, but the search came up with nothing.

[webbles]

11 minutes ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

I've had very little success with the Journal of Discourse online search in past years. On more than one occasion I've made a search for a quote that I *know* is in there that either I or others have seen with their own two eyes, but the search came up with nothing.

Considering that the historic monogamy site gives an actual book and page number which is false and that it looks like it originally came from mormonthink, my guess is that it was invented and that historic monogamy site just assumed it was real without doing any checking.

[AnchoredinChrist]

4 hours ago, webbles said:

So why doesn't it refer to those sections?  I would say it didn't refer to them because they don't exist. 

HMD 28. The traditional LDS interpretation of Jacob 2:30 is contradicted by child mortality rates of early Mormon polygamists.

In addition to polygamy producing fewer children than traditionally claimed, data analysis of early Mormon households has also found that child mortality rates (defined here as children under age 15) were higher within Mormon polygamous families in the 1800s than within monogamous families. It was shown that even children of wealthy polygamist men had a lower survival rate than children of poorer families with less wives (most of the poorer men included in the data had only one wife).  The analysts state, "This is amazing, given that the poor men had less than 10 per cent of the wealth of the rich men, and the rich men had significantly more total offspring (including those that did not make it to [age] 15)." The researchers speculated these numbers are indicative that fathers with less wives were more family-involved and less neglectful of their wife and children, whereas wealthy men with multiple wives devoted more time, funds, and attention towards adding additional wives.

historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine

Sources:

 

Heath K. M., Hadley C. 1998. Dichotomous male reproductive strategies in a polygynous human society: mating versus parental effort. Curr. Anthropol. 39, 369–374 10.1086/204748 (doi:10.1086/204748) [DOI] [Google Scholar][Ref list]   

Henrich J, Boyd R, Richerson PJ. The puzzle of monogamous marriage. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2012 Mar 5;367(1589):657-69. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0290. PMID: 22271782; PMCID: PMC3260845.

Edited Wednesday at 04:29 AM by AnchoredinChrist

[webbles]

38 minutes ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

As in Joseph only ever taught of eternal polygamy for widowers and then Brigham Young maybe came up with mortal polygamy doctrine as a misinterpretation of what Joseph taught? Supposing that, a "Brigham Young misinterpreted Joseph" argument wouldn't explain why Brigham Young forbid Augusta Cobb from ever meeting with Joseph Smith, it wouldn't explain why Brigham claimed that Joseph called Emma the "wickedest woman who ever lived" and that Emma tried to kill Joseph, it wouldn't explain why Brigham Young started openly acquiring wives but only after the Martyrdom, and others that I won't list off as it would make this comment too long, so there would be a lot of plot holes left open for me with such an argument as that.

I'm just trying to see how you fit Joseph teaching Hyrum about polygamy (eternal sealings if you want to say that).  Because I want to see how you actually deal with the evidence.  I agree there are tons of plot holes because it fits a lot better to have Joseph being the original teacher of polygamy.  To me, there are a ton more plot holes trying to force Brigham to be the source of polygamy.  I'm trying to find evidence that you agree is real and is contemporaneous.  I've talked with people who would not accept that Hyrum said what he said.  They would add or remove extra words or change its meaning.  For example, Whitney Horning in "Hyrum Smith: A Prophet Unsung" talks about this speech and misrepresents it.  She says on page 298 that "Hyrum had to choose which one of his wives he would enter into an Eternal marriage covenant and be sealed for eternity, the living one, Mary, or the deceased one, Jerusha".  That is not what Hyrum says.  So, I'm glad to know that you do accept that Hyrum was talking about being sealed to two women.  Now, whether that meant he would be sealed to both in the hereafter, I'm fine with not arguing about it.  But the sealing to two women did happen.

[webbles]

29 minutes ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

HMD 28. The traditional LDS interpretation of Jacob 2:30 is contradicted by child mortality rates of early Mormon polygamists.

In addition to polygamy producing fewer children than traditionally claimed, data analysis of early Mormon households has also found that child mortality rates (defined here as children under age 15) were higher within Mormon polygamous families in the 1800s than within monogamous families. It was shown that even children of wealthy polygamist men had a lower survival rate than children of poorer families with less wives (most of the poorer men included in the data had only one wife).  The analysts state, "This is amazing, given that the poor men had less than 10 per cent of the wealth of the rich men, and the rich men had significantly more total offspring (including those that did not make it to [age] 15)." The researchers speculated these numbers are indicative that fathers with less wives were more family-involved and less neglectful of their wife and children, whereas wealthy men with multiple wives devoted more time, funds, and attention towards adding additional wives.

historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine

Sources:

 

Heath K. M., Hadley C. 1998. Dichotomous male reproductive strategies in a polygynous human society: mating versus parental effort. Curr. Anthropol. 39, 369–374 10.1086/204748 (doi:10.1086/204748) [DOI] [Google Scholar][Ref list]   

Henrich J, Boyd R, Richerson PJ. The puzzle of monogamous marriage. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2012 Mar 5;367(1589):657-69. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0290. PMID: 22271782; PMCID: PMC3260845.

Edited: ah, I misread this.  I'm reading those documents.  I just wish it had been with MDD 56 instead of having to go to the sister site and then having to notice that HMD 28 is somehow related and then to know to track down the sources.  As I've said, this site is confusing and not very well built.

Edited Wednesday at 04:54 AM by webbles

[webbles]

15 minutes ago, webbles said:

Edited: ah, I misread this.  I'm reading those documents.  I just wish it had been with MDD 56 instead of having to go to the sister site and then having to notice that HMD 28 is somehow related and then to know to track down the sources.  As I've said, this site is confusing and not very well built.

"The Puzzle of monogamous marriage" barely even touches Mormon polygamy.  It talks about how the government was able to impose monogamy and that changed the number of available males and females for marriage.  And then it mentions the Heath & Hadley article.  So, not a really great source about Mormon Polygamy.

The Heath & Hadley article "Dichotomous male reproductive strategies in a polygynous human society" is interesting.  It focuses on wealth and how that impacts the number of kids and how many survive.  It shows that poorer fathers had more kids per wife (they included poor polygamous fathers in this group) and had more that reached the age of 15.  That looks like it would be a great source for the site's statement except the fact that it shows that a poor polygamous household also did better than a wealthy polygamous household.  So, if we want something that says "polygamy bad, monogamy good", that source is not it.  It just says "wealthy fathers bad, poor fathers good".

So, no, I don't find this to be a source for the websites statements.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

20 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

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.

I think the best way to determine what was taught is by looking at what people who lived in that era believed and understood. By your own reckoning apostles were teaching that it was required. The belief it was required was wide spread and must have come from somewhere. Lorena entered into it soley based on that belief:

Quote

The Lord had revealed to Joseph Smith our L. D. S. Prophet the principle of plural marriage and had commanded him to marry other wives. That principle had been practiced in the Church for years. My mother was married in the temple at Nauvoo in January, 1846, a plural wife. Her first baby was born in Winter Quarters 15 Jan. 1847. I myself was a product of that order of marriage. I believed that God had revealed it, and that some of the finest men and women on earth had been born and reared in polygamous families. I knew that people must have self control. They must master selfishness, and greed, and try to love all members of their husband's families, or there could be no happiness in plural marriages. We were taught that there was no way of getting into the Celestial Kingdom only by plural marriage.

20 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

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.

And yet she married a Norwegian immigrant farmer. He left a year after their marriage and left Lorena and her sister wife to provide for themselves while he returned to Norway on a mission. Later they struggled immensely as Bent (her husband) went to prison (for plural marriage), they lived underground, and eventually Lorena raised her kids as a single mother as she was the second wife.  Bent Larsen (her husband) was not well to do or a pillar of the community. He was not a man of means. Just a man who had unquestioning faith (not using that in a derogatory sense) in what he was taught. Understanding what they were willing to sacrifice and why is undermined by downplaying their belief as local leaders simplifying the message. 

Edited Wednesday at 04:55 PM by SeekingUnderstanding

[Pyreaux]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think the best way to determine what was taught is by looking at what people who lived in that era believed and understood. By your own reckoning apostles were teaching that it was required. The belief it was required was wide spread and must have come from somewhere. Lorena entered into it soley based on that belief:

And yet she married a Norwegian immigrant farmer. He left a year after their marriage and left Lorena and her sister wife to provide for themselves while he returned to Norway on a mission. Later they struggled immensely as Bent (her husband) went to prison (for plural marriage), they lived underground, and eventually Lorena raised her kids as a single mother as she was the second wife.  Bent Larsen (her husband) was not well to do or a pillar of the community. He was not a man of means. Just a man who had unquestioning faith (not using that in a derogatory sense) in what he was taught. Understanding what they were willing to sacrifice and why is undermined by downplaying their belief as local leaders simplifying the message. 

I'm not sure how acknowledging what the official doctrine was and what local members genuinely believed "downplays" their sacrifice. They sacrificed because they loved God and believed their local leaders. Is it not entirely fair to parcel out what people in an era believed and official doctrine without being accused of undermining either?

In any religious movement, grassroots popular theology often expands beyond the official canon. In 1880s Utah, local pulpits heavily emphasized plural marriage as the supreme mark of faith. As a result, many ordinary members like Bent Larsen and Lorena grew up believing it was the only way to the highest degree of glory. Bent Larsen was not a man of means, but local leaders often called and cleared ordinary faithful men, not just wealthy men.

You can hold both truths together

A. The lived experience of Lorena and thousands like them were taught at the local ward level that plural marriage was mandatory for the highest celestial degree, and they courageously sacrificed everything based on that belief.

B. Whereas Brigham Young in the 1869 School of the Prophets to post-Manifesto presidency clarifications maintained that eternal sealing was the essential requirement, and that faithful monogamists who embraced the covenant in their heart inherited full exaltation.

Can we be allowed to look at history objectively and hold these two distinct historical realities at once?

Or is the driving force behind your argument at its core just a moral indictment of Brigham Young? Maybe you want to lay the emotional, domestic, and physical suffering of Saints like Lorena Washburn directly at the feet of Brigham Young? When you realized that top-level theological clarifications, like Brigham’s 1869 statement, don't support a universal requirement, are you then pivoting by questioning my moral responsibility for what I believe in this matter?

Edited Wednesday at 10:33 PM by Pyreaux

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

I'm not sure how acknowledging what the official doctrine was and what local members genuinely believed "downplays" their sacrifice. They sacrificed because they loved God and believed their local leaders. Is it not entirely fair to parcel out what people in an era believed and official doctrine without being accused of undermining either?

I'm not so sure "official doctrine" can ever be neatly contained, summarized or pinned down. I think that likely for Brigham Young, his views were not static and his rhetoric was not either. I think the historical data point to wide spread belief that the highest degree of the celestial kingdom required polygamy and that this was taught (at least at times) by the highest levels of the church and not just rogue local leaders. Lorena's family were among the first to practice plural marriage and were connected to apostles. Their and others understanding of the matter provide data in understanding the complex topic of how plural marriage was understood and thought of at the time.  And just for the record, there are many women and men that to this day, view plural marriage as a requirement in the celestial kingdom. As far as I know the church position on this is officially agnostic (but I'm happy to accept corrections). As a reference see https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/10590_eng.pdf?lang=eng which instructs

Quote

Avoid speculation

Do not speculate about whether plural marriage is a requirement for the celestial kingdom. We have no knowledge that plural marriage will be a requirement for exaltation.

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Or is the driving force behind your argument at its core just a moral indictment of Brigham Young? Maybe you want to lay the emotional, domestic, and physical suffering of Saints like Lorena Washburn directly at the feet of Brigham Young? When you realized that top-level theological clarifications, like Brigham’s 1869 statement, don't support a universal requirement, are you then pivoting by questioning my moral responsibility for what I believe in this matter?

Nothing of the sort. At least here. Lorena's journey was a spiritual one led by dreams, visions, prayer and faith. She and Bent and Julia made their own decisions. Laying "blame" at someone else's feet for her adult grown up decisions would undermine and cheapen her own life experience.

Edited Thursday at 12:39 AM by SeekingUnderstanding

[webbles]

20 hours ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

As in Joseph only ever taught of eternal polygamy for widowers and then Brigham Young maybe came up with mortal polygamy doctrine as a misinterpretation of what Joseph taught? Supposing that, a "Brigham Young misinterpreted Joseph" argument wouldn't explain why Brigham Young forbid Augusta Cobb from ever meeting with Joseph Smith, it wouldn't explain why Brigham claimed that Joseph called Emma the "wickedest woman who ever lived" and that Emma tried to kill Joseph, it wouldn't explain why Brigham Young started openly acquiring wives but only after the Martyrdom, and others that I won't list off as it would make this comment too long, so there would be a lot of plot holes left open for me with such an argument as that.

Your "plot holes" that you listed here are interesting.

For Augusta Cobb, that is a misunderstanding of her letter.  He didn't forbid her from ever meeting with Joseph Smith.  He made her promise to never meet with Joseph alone.  And the reasoning was because Joseph would overcome her and make her his wife, instead of Brigham.  In her letter she talks about how she would rather have been sealed to Joseph since Brigham is ignoring her.  And she would rather have Joseph's child.  And she also says that she did meet with Joseph (though I guess not in private) and she talks about how Joseph asked for her twice before she is sealed to Brigham.  I was actually able to find the transcript of the letter.  Page 89 of https://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/JSP_Book_91.pdf

Here's the relevant parts

Quote

Now B Br [sic] Young Can you not see how all this disgrace and distress might have been avoided?  Most assuredly you can  If you had allowed me to have gone up to Nauvoo free and untrameled
In my Spiret I should have seen Br Joseph the first thing.  But instead of that you exacted a promise of me that I would not see him alen Saying he would certainly over come me I replied if he did he would be the first man.  You then Said I had never had to deal with a Prophet of the Lord  Now suppose he had over come me  And I should by that means have raised up a Son or King if you please Who would have been the wiser?  Not Mrs Lews Most certainly
And I should have been Sealed to him And all would have been right Instead of that you waited for him to come and Seal
us a few days and he did not come you then went to work and sealed us yourself
After that he came And you said the Charm was broken, I have laid this over

Quote

I believe in every one's being rewarded according to their works, do not you had I been left free to have been sealed to Br Joseph Smith when I arrived at Nauvoo You can see as well as me that it would have saved me a great deal of suffering and humiliation, But you have required a promise of me not to see Br Joseph Alone I would not break that promise altho he sent for me twice,

So Augusta Cobb's letter is actually evidence of Joseph practicing polygamy, not the other way around.

For Brigham speaking bad about Emma, yes, he was angry with her.  I'm not sure how that is a plot hole for polygamy.  The two did not get along, especially after the martyrdom and Brigham said some really harsh words.

For Brigham openly acquiring wives after the martyrdom, where do you get that?  And don't quote #85 from the site since that is not talking about "openly" acquiring.  As far as I know, polygamy was still pretty much in secret and only those in the know really knew about it.  It wasn't till the exodus that it was openly shown.  And, if we ignore the "openly" part, the acquisition of wives actually fits better with Joseph being polygamist.  Joseph probably had 18 wives in 1843.  That's far more than Brigham ever did.  And after he died, Brigham and others married many of the widows.  That causes many of them to have higher number of wives than they would normally have.  I find Joseph's widows and their pattern (especially the Nauvoo temple records) to be one of the major plot holes for those who don't accept Joseph's polygamy.  I've yet to see a good explanation for them.  Usually the explanation is that they were under the thumb of Brigham and his cronies and so they had to testify about their marriage to Joseph but that doesn't really fit with the evidence.  For instance, Agnes Coolbrith (widow of Don Carlos Smith and Joseph Smith) was living in California and had no more connections with the Mormon church and yet she told her nephews (Joseph Smith III and his brothers) that Joseph Smith did practice polygamy and had other wives (page 5 (or 59) in https://ensignpeakfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Joseph-Smith’s-Plural-Wives-after-the-Martyrdom.pdf).  

[telnetd]

On 10/19/2026 at 2:07 PM, webbles said:

And your last questions don't make any sense.

That portion of the Welsh Saints Project had this section:

The "Parable of the ten talents" means wives.

...

Joseph F. Smith said that young men who hold the Lesser Priesthood an [and] aspire to 
the Higher should be put under covenant to adopt Plural marriage or forfeit all right 
to the High Priesthood, said this time would soon come. Young men had better be married 
by the Bishop than go into the House of God and make covenants they do not intend to 
keep.

I associated female "virgins" to my question based on what was written in Doctrine
and Covenants 132:61-63.

One can conclude these "young men" would naturally be seeking virgins for their 
plural marriage.

Why should they be virgins and how young would these virgins be?

[webbles]

3 hours ago, telnetd said:

That portion of the Welsh Saints Project had this section:

The "Parable of the ten talents" means wives.

...

Joseph F. Smith said that young men who hold the Lesser Priesthood an [and] aspire to 
the Higher should be put under covenant to adopt Plural marriage or forfeit all right 
to the High Priesthood, said this time would soon come. Young men had better be married 
by the Bishop than go into the House of God and make covenants they do not intend to 
keep.

I associated female "virgins" to my question based on what was written in Doctrine
and Covenants 132:61-63.

One can conclude these "young men" would naturally be seeking virgins for their 
plural marriage.

Why should they be virgins and how young would these virgins be?

"Why should they be virgins and how young would these virgins be?"

The first part of that question still makes no sense to me.  "Why should they be virgins?"   Are you asking about why D&C 132 talks about virgins?  What does this have to do with the Joseph F Smith's talk?  I don't see any thing in there about him using the term virgin.

The second part of that question is weird.  There's no mention in Joseph F. Smith about youth.  He says "Young men" but that isn't the same term we use today in the church.  It wasn't until 1906 before it became normal for boys to be regularly ordained to the Aaronic priesthood (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/adjustments-to-priesthood-organization?lang=eng).  Before then, it was sporadic.  Most holders of the Aaronic priesthood would be 20+.  So, the "young men" would probably be men in the 20s or 30s (Joseph F Smith would be ~50 at this time so someone in their 20s and 30s would be young to him).  I would assume the wives that these young men would marry would also be in the 20s.  That was the average age.  It sometimes went lower (usually when the husband was also young).

[AnchoredinChrist]

On 10/20/2026 at 8:17 PM, webbles said:

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.

Does it distinguish that it is the first infants of a first wife, and that it is while they are infants, that the mortality rates for her are high? Because if it is just, "children of a first wife" in general, then such figures could suggest that a first wife and the children of a first wife become more proportionately neglected than other plural wives after a second, third, or fourth wife are added.

If it's an average of 11 years after first marriage that a man gets a second wife, then the children of his first marriage are still under the 15-year-age benchmark used to determine child mortality in the 2012 meta analysis study. So it would potentially be possible that it is when a man gets a subsequent wife that the mortality rates for his current and future children from his first wife rise higher.

[AnchoredinChrist]

On 10/20/2026 at 10:39 PM, Pyreaux said:

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.

The above quote was published in the Deseret News though, in addition to the Journal of Discourses. The publication date is above.

On 10/20/2026 at 10:39 PM, Pyreaux said:

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)

Then I would consider Brigham Young to have contradicted himself on that point too:

Feb. 23, 1862 - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 9:289
“The Lord Almighty leads this Church, and he will never suffer you to be led astray if you are found doing your duty. You may go home and sleep as sweetly as a babe in its mother’s arms, as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray, for if they should try to do so the Lord would quickly sweep them from the earth.”

Aug. 31, 1873 - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 16th Volume, p. 161, reported by George Q. Cannon
"If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason."

Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: ‘There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,’ said he, ‘when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.’ 

Wilford Woodruff, Conference Report, October 1897, 22-23. 

[AnchoredinChrist]

On 10/20/2026 at 11:47 PM, webbles said:

The Nephi killing Laban is going to really go tangential, but MDD section 8 is just wrong.  Its rationalization for why Nephi was ok to kill Laban isn't the rationalization that the Spirit gives to Nephi.  The Spirit first constraints him (no rationalization at all), then says "Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands." and then says "Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;  Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief".  The rationalization that MDD 8 writes out is nice and all but not what the Spirit actually said.  That is something that you have to add to the story, not what is actually in the story.

Then it will be another point that we are speaking past eachother due to not seeing eye-to-eye, as while it’s clear that the Lord had other motivated reasoning, that the conditions were such that it would be justified regardless of what other additional motivation the Lord had. (We also don’t know that Nephi and his family would have definitely been safe if Nephi had only taken his clothes and left an unconscious naked Laban where he found him – Laban likely could have sent his servants outside of the city wall to find them once he awoke and found his stuff gone.) I think it to be significant that the angel only said, “the Lord will deliver Laban into thy hands” once the exact situation of theft/attempted killing had already occurred.

[AnchoredinChrist]

On 10/20/2026 at 11:47 PM, webbles said:

That's because no one accused him of teaching polygamy.  That's actually an interesting thing because of all of the people (both pro-Joseph and anti-Joseph), in all later testimonies, no one ever said Brigham taught polygamy.  It is almost always Joseph.  So, the fact that Joseph sued and not Brigham fits perfectly with the story that Joseph was actually teaching and not Brigham.

Because he was the church president, so it was his name they were using to seduce women,

I preached in the grove, and pronounced a curse upon all Adulterers and Fornicators, and unvirtuous persons and those who have made use of my name to carry on their iniquitous designs. (DHC 4:587) 

The public will perceive the aggravating nature of this case; and will see the propriety of this exposure. Had he only been guilty of adultry, that was sufficient to stamp disgrace upon him because he is a man of better information, and has been held high in the estimation of many. But when it is considered that his mind was so intent upon his cruel, and abominable deeds, and his own reputation not being sufficient to enable him to do it, he must make use of my name in order to effect his purposes, an enlightened public will not be astonished at the course I have pursued.
In order that it may be distinctly understood that he wilfully and knowingly lied, in the above insinuations, I will lay before my readers an affidavit taken before an alderman of the city, after I had charged him with these things:
(19 May 1842 - Nauvoo City Council)

“[A] charge [was] [preferred] against Chauncey L. Higbee by George Miller for unchaste and un-virtuous conduct with the widow [Sarah] Miller, and others.” In the trial, “Three witness[es] testified that he had seduced [several women] and at different times [had] been guilty of unchaste and unvirtuous conduct with them and taught the doctrine that it was right to have free intercourse with women if it was kept secret &c and also taught that Joseph Smith authorised him to practice these things &c” (24, May 1842 -Joseph files charges against Chauncey L. Higbee in court.)

25 May 1842 - Catherine Warren learns that John C. Bennett incorrectly claimed support by the leaders of the church --
The charge was preferred “against Ms. Catherine Warren by George Miller for unchaste and unvirtuous conduct with John C. Bennett and others. The defendant confessed to the charge and gave the names of several other [men] who had been guilty having unlawful intercourse with her[,] stating they taught the doctrine that it was right to have free intercourse with women and that the heads of the Church also taught and practiced it[,] …learning that the heads of the church did not believe of [the] practice [of] such things[,] she was willing to confess her sins and did repent before God for what she had done and desired earnestly that the Council would forgive her.”

 

“...he went to some of the females in the city, who knew nothing of him but as an honorable man, & began to teach them that promiscous [promiscuous] intercourse between the sexes, was a doctrine believed in by the Latter-Day Saints, and that there was no harm in it; but this failing, he had recourse to a more influential and desperately wicked course; and that was, to persuade them that myself and others of the authorities of the church not only sanctioned, but practiced the same wicked acts; and when asked why I publicly preached so much against it, said that it was because of the prejudice of the public, and that it would cause trouble in my own house. (Times and Seasons, July 1, 1842, p. 839-840) 

1st for trying to seduce a young girl, living in his house by the name of Phebe Madison. 2nd. For using my name in a blasphemous manner, by saying that I tolerated such things in which he is guilty of lying &c &c. Joseph Smith (Dinger, J. S. (2011). The Nauvoo City and High Council Minutes, p. 479-480. Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books)

 

I was present with several of the Twelve, and gave an address tending to do away with every evil, and exhorting them to practice virtue and holiness before the Lord— told them that the church had not received any permission from me to commit fornication, adultery, or any corrupt action, but my every word and action has been to the contrary... I condemned such actions in toto, and warned the people present against committing such evils, for it will surely bring a curse upon any person who commits such deeds. (25 November 1843 - Joseph gave an address to the Twelve)

 

I know that the LDS church argument to those quotes is, "But none of those instances were authorized polygamy," but I consider HMD section 43 to address that well too,

 

43. 'Can't polygamy be seen as being different from Celestial plural marriage?'

LDS historians have argued that the "plural marriage" commanded by God and supposedly practiced by Joseph Smith was of a different nature than man-made polygamy, and so argue that even when Joseph condemned polygamy by name, he was never condemning "Celestial plural marriage". One significant problem with this theory is that Joseph's denunciations include not just polygamy by name, but also any plurality of wives:

...we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.

1835 - “General Assembly,” Messenger and Advocate 1 (August 1835) 2: 162.

Question 7th. Do the Mormons believe in having more wives than one. [sic] Answer. No, not at the same time. But they believe that if their companion dies, they have a right to marry again. 

Joseph Smith, July 1838 - [Editorial,] Elder’s Journal, 1 (July 1838), 43.

No man shall have but one wife.

Joseph Smith's office journal, 5 October 1843. As written by Willard Richards

What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one.

Joseph Smith, LDS History of the Church 6:409-411

Another major issue with this theory is that Joseph never used the terms, "plural marriage" nor "Celestial marriage" in any of his first-hand or contemporaneous records. Yet another significant issue with this theory is that D&C 132:1 does not describe itself as giving the doctrine of "Celestial plural marriage" nor "Celestial plurality of wives" but simply, "the principle and doctrine of... having many wives and concubines." 

The terminology that church historians use to distinguish between the polygamy they believe Joseph Smith to have been practicing versus the polygamy they argue him to be condemning appears to be anachronistic, as Joseph condemned, by name, polygamy, spiritual wifism, fornication (the legal term in use), and having more than one wife in general. "Celestial marriage", "Celestial plural marriage", or any of their variations were not in recorded use until after Joseph and Hyrum's deaths, and polygamists in later years describe "spiritual wifery" as being the term in common use previous to their trek west,

...Mrs. Durfee invited my sister, Eliza, and me to her house to spend the afternoon. She introduced the subject of spiritual wives, as they called it in that day.

Emily Dow Partridge Young, "Incidents in the Life of a Mormon Girl", 1876

Spiritual wives, as we were then termed, were not very numerous in those days...

Emily Dow Partridge Young, "Pioneer Day". Women's Exponent, 24 July 1883

At the time [in Nauvoo] 'spiritual wife' was the title by which every woman who entered into the this order was called, for it was taught and practiced as a spiritual order."

Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, Juvenile Instructor. 1882

Brigham Young in 1844, 1845, 1847, 1849, and 1851 used the terms 'spiritual wife' and 'spiritual wifery' when speaking of polygamy. In 1855 Heber C. Kimball preached,

If you oppose any of the works of God you will cultivate a spirit of apostasy. If you oppose what is called the "spiritual wife doctrine," the Patriarchal Order, which is of God, that course will corrode you with a spirit of apostasy, and you will go overboard.

Heber C. Kimball, Salt Lake City. 6 October 1855. Journal of Discourses vol. 3 p. 125

 

[Pyreaux]

7 hours ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

The above quote was published in the Deseret News though, in addition to the Journal of Discourses. The publication date is above.

Then I would consider Brigham Young to have contradicted himself on that point too:

Feb. 23, 1862 - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 9:289
“The Lord Almighty leads this Church, and he will never suffer you to be led astray if you are found doing your duty. You may go home and sleep as sweetly as a babe in its mother’s arms, as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray, for if they should try to do so the Lord would quickly sweep them from the earth.”

Aug. 31, 1873 - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 16th Volume, p. 161, reported by George Q. Cannon
"If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason."

Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: ‘There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,’ said he, ‘when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.’ 

Wilford Woodruff, Conference Report, October 1897, 22-23. 

Brigham Young explicitly laid down other essential qualifiers

What he "sent out to the children of men"

Referring to specific formal, vetted publications produced for public or global circulation. Periodicals like the Millennial Star in Great Britain were edited and compiled by Apostles specifically to present vetted doctrine to investigators and foreign branches. Formal documents signed and issued directly by the First Presidency to the world such as the 1845 Proclamation of the Twelve Apostles or official General Epistles.

"Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve"

The Deseret News was a weekly newspaper where shorthand reporters sat in the congregation, took rapid shorthand notes of a Sunday sermons given without preparation, and rushed those transcriptions into print to keep the frontier community informed. This was not a meticulous canonical review where Brigham Young could sit down with to carefully vet, rewrite, and officially authorize every single paragraph of his rhetoric as doctrine. 

The theological mechanism Brigham Young was invoking when he held up the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine & Covenants was the living oracles are more authoritative to us today than written books. He was championing a foundational pillar of Latter-day Saint theology. The principle of continuous, living revelation, for the immediate, active challenges of the present day, which changes all the time.

Brigham had a right to propose new scripture, but if he truly intended a sermon to be officially accepted, it would be first presented and voted on by the body of the Church.

What Brigham actually taught about his own preaching,

"I have known many times I have preached wrong and spoken false principles, but I am but a human being and I am not perfect... pray to God in the name of Jesus to bind me up from speaking false principles." (Brigham Young, May 1854, speaking in Springville, Utah)

If Brigham Young himself explicitly acknowledged that his impromptu pulpit preachings could contain human error, rough edges, or false principles, then he certainly would not view a quick newspaper transcription of a Sunday sermon as an infallible, immutable scripture.

God will not suffer the leaders to "lead the Church astray" (JD 9:289), as that has a very specific theological meaning.

It refers to a collective institutional apostasy. God will not allow the Church as a whole to lose its priesthood keys, wander into total unauthorized darkness, or break the eternal covenant path to salvation.

It does not mean every administrative policy, disciplinary decision, personal opinion, or sermons spoken without preparation made by a Brigham Young is free from error.

Edited 2 hours ago by Pyreaux

[AnchoredinChrist]

On 10/20/2026 at 11:50 PM, Calm said:

Abraham sacrificing Isaac, Hosea marrying a prostitute (apparently working, not retired), Israelites to steal Egyptian property (since iirc they say they will bring it back…that could be seen as breaking the commandment about coveting a neighbour’s possessions too), Jesus saying something about hating mothers and father to follow him, commanding to commit genocide…

Did some searching to come up with more…

Abraham abandoning Hagar and Ishmael

Hadn’t heard this one before…Ezekiel was commanded to break some purity commandments, like cooking food over human excrement (Ezekiel 4:12).

That’s a good list, I’m not familiar with a couple of them so I’d need to look them up. Abraham of course didn’t sacrifice Isaac, so an Abrahamic test is only such if the Lord doesn’t actually intend for you to ever go through with it. And was it against a commandment to marry a prostitute? I understand it was breaking commandments to be one, but I’ve not heard it was to be married to one.

The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible gives more clarification to the quote of Jesus. The King James Version says,

26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

The Joseph Smith Translation says,

26 If anyone come to me and hate not his father and mother and wife and children and brethren and sisters or husband, yea and their own life also, or in other words is afraid to lay down their life for my sake, cannot be my disciple. (https://rsc.byu.edu/sites/default/files/pub_content/pdf/Luke.pdf – page 74)

So the clarification is that Jesus is talking about laying down one’s life for Christ.

As far as the importance of commandments to God goes, I think Monogamy as Divine Design section 71 to give a valuable viewpoint,

 

71 ~ Jacob promises destruction to the men over polygamy, even if they are following every other commandment ~

Jacob quotes the Lord as saying, "For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction;" (Jacob 2:33)

That the Lord would threaten the Nephite men with destruction for breaking the law of monogamy, even though they were obeying every other commandment, is significant. The Nephite men are even threatened by the Lord with destruction by the Lamanites, who were not following the law of Moses as the Nephites were. This suggests that the Lord considered the law of monogamy to be of greater importance to follow than the Mosaic Law. This also indicates that the Lord considers there to be no level of spiritual obedience to other commandments that can compensate for not obeying the law of monogamy.

historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/divinedesign

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

And was it against a commandment to marry a prostitute? I understand it was breaking commandments to be one, but I’ve not heard it was to be married to one.

If Hosea was a priest, it was:

https://www.esv.org/Leviticus+21:7;Leviticus+21:13–14/

hThey shall not marry a prostitute or a woman who has been defiled, neithershall they marry a woman divorced from her husband, for the priest is holy to hisGod.

Do we know his tribe?

Edited 3 hours ago by Calm

[webbles]

8 hours ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

Does it distinguish that it is the first infants of a first wife, and that it is while they are infants, that the mortality rates for her are high? Because if it is just, "children of a first wife" in general, then such figures could suggest that a first wife and the children of a first wife become more proportionately neglected than other plural wives after a second, third, or fourth wife are added.

If it's an average of 11 years after first marriage that a man gets a second wife, then the children of his first marriage are still under the 15-year-age benchmark used to determine child mortality in the 2012 meta analysis study. So it would potentially be possible that it is when a man gets a subsequent wife that the mortality rates for his current and future children from his first wife rise higher.

The graph has 3 lines, one for monogamous wife, first polygamous wife, and subsequent polygamous wives.  It then shows the infant mortality of each child position (child 1 to child 9).  So the first child of the first wife (and the second child and third) have a much, much higher infant mortality rate than the same child of monogamous wives and later polygamous wives.  It is specific on which child position it is and it is solely infant mortality (<1 year of age).  So a wife who's husband will later take a second wife has a higher infant mortality than a wife who's husband doesn't end up taking a second wife.  That's why it is odd to me.  It could be that these men were more likely to go on missions and so would be leaving their wives alone and that is the reason, which would make sense since polygamous husbands were more active in the church, but that would mean that polygamy isn't the cause of higher child mortality but instead it was higher activity in the church (the dissertation also pointed to that as well).

What 2012 meta analysis are you talking about?

[webbles]

7 hours ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

Then it will be another point that we are speaking past eachother due to not seeing eye-to-eye, as while it’s clear that the Lord had other motivated reasoning, that the conditions were such that it would be justified regardless of what other additional motivation the Lord had. (We also don’t know that Nephi and his family would have definitely been safe if Nephi had only taken his clothes and left an unconscious naked Laban where he found him – Laban likely could have sent his servants outside of the city wall to find them once he awoke and found his stuff gone.) I think it to be significant that the angel only said, “the Lord will deliver Laban into thy hands” once the exact situation of theft/attempted killing had already occurred.

Oh, we definitely will speak past each other.  You don't believe God can command someone to practice polygamy while I do.  And your scriptural sources for it won't convince me just as my scriptural sources won't convince you.  That's another reason I don't care much about the historical monogamy site.  Because it is trying to convince me that my understanding of God is wrong.  So most of the arguments on why D&C 132 is not theologically correct don't work for me because I see God being able to command that.  Just like how you find a way to rationalize Nephi's killing of Laban, I can rationalize God's commanding polygamy.  So, I like to focus on the actual physical evidence (affidavits, journals, statements, etc) vs the theological debate.  What really happened vs what I want to have happened.  That could by why I kept not understanding why you were quoting some of those sections.