How To Teach Your Children The Heritage And Doctrine Of Polygamy

[Peppermint Patty]

Polygamy is a topic in our Church that brings about extreme mixed emotions and feelings. Pride, anger, resentment, embarrassment, shame and confusion. It also seems that we rarely talk about polygamy as a Church. It gets swept under the rug. I think we need to do a much better job openly discussing the difficult issues.

I grew up in a household where lesser known doctrines of the Church were openly taught. I found this extremely beneficial later life as it inoculated me from many of the critic’s common attacks on our faith.

However, when it came to polygamy I was taught not to worry about it and to “Put it on a shelf” and that “We’ll understand when we have an eternal perspective.” But that never worked for me. From the time I was a child, I have always been a thinker, and serious about my religion.

Lately, my oldest daughter has been asking me questions about polygamy. My answer has been to direct her to LDS scholar Valerie Hudson’s FAIR talk:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700168842/Recent-events-highlight-confusion-of-polygamy.html

audio available here:

http://www.nothingwavering.org/2012/02/15/34376-fair-examination-9-polygamy-as-an-abrahamic-sacrificedr-valerie-hudson.html

Valerie Hudson puts forth an excellent argument that polygamy is not an eternal principal (but only an Abrahamic sacrifice) and that monogamy is the order of true things here on earth and in the heavens. She argues that Section 132 can be truly understood by reading Section 36. She also busts the myths about how there will be more women than men in heaven (actually, more men than women have lived on earth) and the erroneous belief regarding polygamous sealings here on earth. I find her arguments well thought out, persuasive, and frankly very comforting.

My daughter has found this very beneficial in understanding the concept of polygamy and its true place in our Church and the hereafter.

So, count me and my daughter among the many Mormons who do not believe that polygamy is an eternal principle, even as I honor and respect all the Mormons who did and do believe polygamy, and the sacrifices they made and make for faith. I love the idea that none of us enters the heavens alone, that we all go in together.

Thoughts?

[cinepro]

How old is your daughter? I suspect learning about polygamy (beyond the soft and fluffy Work-and-the-Glory version) would be very difficult for some LDS teenage girls.

I started reading the "Storm Testament" (a series of LDS historical novels written in the 1980's) when I was 10. In the second book of the series, Nauvoo polygamy figures quite prominently into the plot. In the fourth book of the series, the Mountain Meadows massacre occurs. So by the time I was 13, I knew more than most 13 year olds about both subjects. While I still have issues with both polygamy and the MMM, I never had the "shock" of learning about these things when I was older (like my wife did upon seeing a History Channel show about the MMM). So I firmly believe that we should teach these things in an age appropriate manner to younger church members if possible.

That being said, there can come a point where no amount of defense or "just look at it this way" can make someone feel better with the nuts-and-bolts of polygamy. There are some people who will just never accept everything that Joseph Smith did as being okay or inspired.

If I'm right, then the question would be this: If there is a member of the Church who will categorically reject Joseph Smith should they learn in detail about the practice of polygamy, should we share the truth with them, or keep it from them to preserve their testimony? Suppose in a conversation, a ward member said "Thank goodness Joseph never married any women with living husbands, because that's one thing I could never, ever handle and would lose my testimony if that were the case!"

I know there are many people who can know all the details and maintain their testimony, but for those who can't, is it ethical to not tell them?

Edited February 18, 2012 by cinepro

[Peppermint Patty]

How old is your daughter?

16

[jwhitlock]

If monogamy is the order of heaven in the eternities, I'm curious how that works with a man whose first wife passes away (temple sealing) and who then is sealed to a second wife in the temple. After reading the links, I'm not sure that Hudson ever stated that there will be NO polygamy in the eternities. If that is the case, then it would be a valid principle to be practiced upon commandment by the Lord.

One clarification is in order; the Book of Mormon does not condemn polygamy; it condemns the practice of it when not commanded by the Lord. There's a significant difference there.

[Calm]

If monogamy is the order of heaven in the eternities, I'm curious how that works with a man whose first wife passes away (temple sealing) and who then is sealed to a second wife in the temple.

And let's not forget women who have been sealed to multiple husbands.

[Peppermint Patty]

jwhitlock,

Thanks, great comment. Your comment is addressed in great detail in the audio portion.

There is no official Church doctrine that polygamy will be practiced in the Celestial Kingdom. In the Celestial Kingdom nobody will be put into a relationship that does not result in a fullness of joy.

Briefly, according to Valerie Hudson and Section 36 and 132, choosing enter the sacred covenants of sealing is all that matters from the standpoint of the individual’s exaltation as a member of God’s eternal family. The actual people to whom one is sealed might or might not change in the re-forging of the great family link of all of God’s exalted children. Everyone will be sealed together. That is one of the reasons the Church does not cancel sealing’s of a wife in a divorce situation unless another marriage sealing is to take place, because what matters is that the wife chose to marry a worthy Mel Priesthood holder -even though she will most likely end up having that sealing transferred to someone else. The first husband remains a stand in until a transfer can take place.

Such stand in or proxy marriages were common in the early Church because one could not be sealed to loved one who were not baptized in the Church before they died.

Women will be free to have any such sealings transferred in the Celestial Kingdom.

[why me]

Polygamy was never an issue in the lds church until recently. Now it is all over the internet and this has made it an issue. But in the past, polygamy was just a part of lds history which made the faith unique. The best way to explain it is to have the practice come from the God. Look at the spiritual witnesses of the women involved especially those sealed to Joseph Smith. Many had such a spiritual experience when they prayed abput it, they could no longer say no to it. The best way to teach it is to say that it was a commandment and a select few were called to be polygamists.

[Calm]

Polygamy was never an issue in the lds church until recently.

Did you grow up in the Church?

I would beg to differ. There have been mixed feelings about it since as long as I can remember, which goes back to the early 60s.

[Calm]

Such stand in or proxy marriages were common in the early Church because one could not be sealed to loved one who were not baptized in the Church before they died.

Do you know when the policy changed? Edited February 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[Peppermint Patty]

Do you know when the policy changed?

Thanks, Calmoriah,

It appears that this practice was performed in LDS temples from 1846 until 1894 and over 13,000 such sealings occured. Gordon Irving wrote a fascinating article about this: "The Law of Adoption, One Phase of the Development in the Concept of Salvation" BYU Studies 14: 291-314

You can download the entire article in PDF format here: https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/BYUStudies/article/view/4755/4405

Here is also a Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_adoption

[Peppermint Patty]

If I'm right, then the question would be this: If there is a member of the Church who will categorically reject Joseph Smith should they learn in detail about the practice of polygamy, should we share the truth with them, or keep it from them to preserve their testimony? Suppose in a conversation, a ward member said "Thank goodness Joseph never married any women with living husbands, because that's one thing I could never, ever handle and would lose my testimony if that were the case!"

I know there are many people who can know all the details and maintain their testimony, but for those who can't, is it ethical to not tell them?

Great question, Cinepro. I guess it depends on each individual and how they want to raise their children in the Church.

For me, it's a no-brainer. Complete and open honesty (warts and all) about the Church and the LDS religion which they (hopefully) will devote their entire lives to and serve in with all of their hearts, might, mind and strength. I would much rather my children learn about Church history and doctrines from me than the internet or a critic.

Also, according to Marlin Jensen, the Church is now currently engaged in a program to address and better inform the members of these issues.

For example, the way my daughter now views polygamy after studying Valerie Hudson's material, it will never be an issue for her again. I think it really helped that we were able to study and discuss the issue of polygamy together.

Edited February 18, 2012 by Peppermint Patty

[Calm]

Thank you, it is one aspect of early practices I had not heard before.

[Garden Girl]

First of all... polygamy is only valid when commanded of God as Jwhitlock points out (re BoM). But, polygamy was a matter of practice in ancient times (and today in eastern cultures)... Abraham, Isaac and Jacob all had polygamous marriages... In fact, Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel, had four wives in a polygamous marriage who bore him 12 sons and 1 daughter... the 12 sons becoming the twelve tribes of Israel, the chosen people of the Lord.

I can't remember where I read this, but I always felt one reason for the Church's early practice of polygamy was to call certain saints to live the principle in order to raise up righteous seed unto the Lord... a righteous generation.

I would also read with her the Official Declaration 1 in D&C, including the excerpts from Wilford Woodruff regarding the revelation he received from God to stop the practice of plural marriage and follow the law of the land lest the US government condemn the church leaders and confiscate church properties, including the temples, thereby losing all means of performing the complete ordinances of the Gospel.

We still continue to seal a widower to subsequent wives as each dies so that a man in his lifetime might end up with two or three wives, each of which may or may not have had children, to whom he is sealed.

I certainly do not see approaching this with a sense of shame if one believes it was a commandment of the Lord at the time. That said, I'm certainly glad we do not have the practice today and I'm sure the majority by far feel likewise.

The other thing is... non-LDS think polygamy is so strange, yet they don't bat an eye at men and women having affairs when married, and certainly multiple partners when not married.

GG

[bluebell]

My concerns with using scholarly articles alone would be that I might give the impression to my child that we discover God's doctrines in our church based on what scholars say about it and how comfortable we are with it.

I certainly believe that such articles have an important place, and that our feelings have a place, but I don't think they should have the most important place.

In our church, every day people are being sealed who have already had one spouse die, and those who are male are being sealed with the promise, sanctioned by the prophet, that those plural marriages will be eternal (if all conditions are met, of course).

As good as Hudson's article is, I'm not comfortable having her conclusions trump what the church is currently teaching as doctrine. I wouldn't want my children to be comfortable with that either (and i'm not trying to be snarky or judgmental about the way you are teaching your daughter Peppermint. I'm just trying to honestly share my thoughts on why it's not the route i would take).

I also don't feel comfortable with the idea that the 'plural marriage for this life only' question will be solved in heaven by allowing the women to dissolve those unions. It's not the choice i disagree with but the assumption that every woman who has ever been in a plural marriage would obviously choose a monogamous marriage if she had the choice. That notion (and maybe i'm misunderstanding what is actually being said) seems degrading and demeaning to the women who chose polygamy, as if we know better than they did and we know what is actually best for them.

Edited February 18, 2012 by bluebell

[Peppermint Patty]

As good as Hudson's article is, I'm not comfortable having her conclusions trump what the church is currently teaching as doctrine. I wouldn't want my children to be comfortable with that either (and i'm not trying to be snarky or judgmental about the way you are teaching your daughter Peppermint. I'm just trying to honestly share my thoughts on why it's not the route i would take).

I also don't feel comfortable with the idea that the 'plural marriage for this life only' question will be solved in heaven by allowing the women to dissolve those unions. It's not the choice i disagree with but the assumption that every woman who has ever been in a plural marriage would obviously choose a monogamous marriage if she had the choice. That notion (and maybe i'm misunderstanding what is actually being said) seems degrading and demeaning to the women who chose polygamy, as if we know better than they did and we know what is actually best for them.

Great comment, Bluebell. I think the whole point of Hudson's article is that we don't have any official Church doctrine currently on polygamy. All we really have are statements from early Church leaders that are all over the map. To further compound this issue, the Church is largely silent today on the issue of polygamy and it's largely swept under the rug.

I agree with Hudson's article that a reasonble and clear interpretation of Section 132 and 36 shows that polygamy is not an eternal principle and will not be practiced in the Celestial Kingdom.

[cinepro]

Polygamy was never an issue in the lds church until recently. Now it is all over the internet and this has made it an issue. But in the past, polygamy was just a part of lds history which made the faith unique.

I agree that polygamy was never an issue in the Church when people thought it was used for caring for widowed pioneer women. Once word got out that its origins and practice in Nauvoo were a little more interesting than that (and this info was widely propagated via the internet), people have had to reevaluate their views, with sometimes negative results.

In other words, for some people their degree of comfort with the history of polygamy may be directly proportional to their ignorance on the subject.

Edited February 18, 2012 by cinepro

[bluebell]

Great comment, Bluebell. I think the whole point of Hudson's article is that we don't have any official Church doctrine currently on polygamy. All we really have are statements from early Church leaders that are all over the map. To further compound this issue, the Church is largely silent today on the issue of polygamy and it's largely swept under the rug.

I agree with Hudson's article that a reasonble and clear interpretation of Section 132 and 36 shows that polygamy is not an eternal principle and will not be practiced in the Celestial Kingdom.

I just think that since Hudsan has to ignore current temple doctrine on sealings to multiple partners as well as the promises made to males in such sealings in order to make her case, that it shows her case has some serious weaknesses.

Going along with that, it seems that the church's current temple practices and doctrine on sealings shows that the church isn't 'silent' on the issue of polygamy in the celestial kingdom at all.

Given those two things, I don't agree with her conclusions and feel that her personal feelings might be leading her to interpret things in a way that is easiest for her to accept.

Given the nature of the topic however and that there is not a lot of action a member of the church is asked to take in regards to polygamy, it's nice to know there is room in the church for both our views.

[cdowis]

jwhitlock,

Thanks, great comment. Your comment is addressed in great detail in the audio portion.

There is no official Church doctrine that polygamy will be practiced in the Celestial Kingdom. In the Celestial Kingdom nobody will be put into a relationship that does not result in a fullness of joy.

Briefly, according to Valerie Hudson and Section 36 and 132, choosing enter the sacred covenants of sealing is all that matters from the standpoint of the individual’s exaltation as a member of God’s eternal family.

The idea that plygamy was some temporary practice and will simply go away is nonsense ==>> Polygamy is sanctioned and practiced today in the temple. Specifically, when a widow was sealed to her previous, deceased husband, and wants to be sealed to her current husband, she must first obtain a temple divorce thru the First Presidency. But that is not the case with a man, whether he is a widow or divorced.

May I suggest that you restrict your listening to church leaders rather than someone .... well, not sure how to say this nicely, but someone full of gospel baloney.

Bottom line, polygamy is a celestial principle which is practiced in the temples today. If you are having difficulty explaining it to your daughter, just think how you would explain tithing -- paying ten percent of your income to the church. What do you tell her?

Edited February 18, 2012 by cdowis

[frankenstein]

There is real danger in allowing a "intellectual" to teach what the Church does or does not teach. I agree with bluebell that Hudson seems to be driven by her personal philosophy.

As has been stated numerous time herein, men can be sealed to more than woman, a woman can not be sealed to more than one man - having a "stand in" is just absurd and requires one to rely on ones own personal philosophy.

Here is what my sisters say about polygamy "God will not ask us to do anything we can not do".

[CV75]

Polygamy is a topic

My children are now grown with families of their own, but when they were young, I wasn’t inclined to go out of my way (or theirs) to teach about polygamy.

Of course it came up in casual conversation with friends, members or schoolwork, and I would give them a response according to their age and the requirements of the situation. We are not from Utah so maybe that watered down the relevancy of the subject to our day-to-day lives. It just wasn’t a big deal, just one of those things that make you go, “hmm.” Explaining what President Clinton did with Miss Lewinski seemed to be a much bigger issue.

We did make it a point to remember and live the covenants that we made, and the Gospel was a big part of our lives and we applied it to our circumstances. To each their own.

[Peppermint Patty]

frankenstein and cowdis,

Thanks for your comments. I think the current practice of sealings can best be understood if one studies the transferablity of sealings in Church history. I would recommend reading the Gordon Irving article that I linked. It's interesting to note that sealings have changed considerably, and many times, throughout Church history.

Also, as explained by Hudson in regards to why currently a deceased woman can only be sealed to one man, but a woman who is alive cannot, "we have good reason, however, to believe that constraint will be removed by the Lord in the near future". Based on my understanding of sealings, Church history and Section 132, I would agree with Hudson that this constraint will be removed shortly.

[zelder]

As has been stated numerous time herein, men can be sealed to more than woman, a woman can not be sealed to more than one man

That's not true anymore. As long as all parties are deceased, women can be sealed to all husbands to whom they were ever married.

[zelder]

What will I teach my children about polygamy? I will teach them that it's a mystery. I'll start with the basics. I'll tell them that D&C 132 clearly teaches that polygyny is acceptable in the eyes of God at times and God condnes it and as long as the first wife gives her consent. I'll then show them that Jacob Ch 2 explaines that this practice is often abused and women and children can get their feelings hurt because of the lack of love and lack of feelings of security. Therefore, God usually only allows monogamy. I'll go further and explain that Joseph Smith married women who had living husbands and that there is disagreement among mormons about the meaning of the polyandrous/polygynandrous marriages. I'll also shown them that D&C 132 versus 41 and 42 subtly leave the door open to polyandry.

I think the important thing for my children to understand is that God wants us to be happy. The marriage covenant helps us learn how to love one another and provides a secure environment for our children. I don't think God is very interested in human sexuality, He is interested in human relations and our happiness and how we love each other. Monogamy is the easiest sexual relationship to try and work at. Adding additional people just adds difficulty. However, for people who love each other and are deeply committed to each other, plural marriage (in any configuration) is not evil. The only thing that matters is that people love each other and that they are happy in their relationships.

Edited February 19, 2012 by zelder

[thesometimesaint]

While I have no interest in having a polygamous relationship in this life, why would I refuse in the next?

[Fly Fisherman]

I attended this FAIR presentation by Hudson. I enjoyed it, and most of the ideas that Hudson presented were ideas that I had already discovered myself. However, I was a bit bothered by her somewhat "trivializing" the sealings of plural marriages, for lack of a better description. "bluebell" does a very good job of addressing this, and I won't repeat the same thoughts.

I will have to read Hudson's presentation again, but I remember feeling that she left open the possibility of the practice of polygamy in the Celestial Kingdom, and the possibiliity of its return on the earth - although remaining extremely doubful that it will return, including during the Millenium. Yes, her thesis is that monogamy is the norm on earth and in the Celestial Kingdom - no arguing that, and I don't disagree in the least. But I don't think that Hudson is saying that there will never be polygamy on the earth again, and that there will not be polygamy required for some souls in the Celstial Kingdom - she seems to leave open the possibility of it, if I am not mis-understanding her presentation (which I could be). If you have a quote from Hudson where you believe she states otherwise, please include it - I would be interested in it.

Hudson did make a strong case for remembering that monogamy is the norm, and polygamy the rare exception. There should not be any argument to that. But it is worth re-emphasizing, as I have been shocked at the numbers of members of the Church (mostly men) who believe that polygamy will return on earth again, and that polygamy will be the norm in the Celestial Kingdom - I don't see doctrine on that, especially that polygamy will make a return on earth, even during the millenium. (Although the Lord could make it return, if He desired, of course.)