How To Teach Your Children The Heritage And Doctrine Of Polygamy

[Freedom]

I recall many years ago as an elders quorum president leading a discussion that lead to the topic of polygamy. This was the first time I was introduced to the idea that the doctrine does not require the practice in the celestial kingdom. We, by consensus, decided to make polygamy a topic of discussion for the next quorum meeting and a few members of the quorum prepared material. With that announcement, two men stopped coming to the quorum and asked to attend the High Priests without even attending the subsequent class, and not a few women were bothered by us discussing it. The discussion was very informative and we only discussed the doctrine. All involved went away edified as a greater understanding of the doctrine and a greater appreciation for the role of women in the church was discovered. My critics were no better than the anti-mormons or believers of anti-mormon material who pass judgement on an idea because of prejudice and an unwillingness to learn the truth. When I proudly defended the decision and asked why, if it is doctrine and if it is of concern, it should be better understood but they could not answer this question because they were, in my view, closed minded.

[cinepro]

D&C 132 verse 61 states that the first wife must give her consent for the husband to take a second wife. Verse 64 states that the man who hold the keys of this [sealing] power (aka the prophet) can take a second without her consent. The prophet is the only man that than take plural wives without the consent of the first.

And that, of course, is the best three-sentence summary anyone could ever give on why some people have serious issues with Joseph Smith's polygamy.

[BCSpace]

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!"

We should share the truth with all and not some. The parable of the sower is in operation and what will be will be.

Plural marriage was a common topic on Sundays in the LDS Church in Texas as I recall growing up (1970's primary to early priesthood). Probably not manual based, but everyone seemed to know of it.

[Maidservant]

I live in a small town that was settled by Mormons. Polygamy is in the short past and it just is. At the museum, which every cub scout group etc etc etc etc has ever gone, they show the founding people, all their wives, their children. It is known about jail time the men had to do for being polygamists. The old houses, "That is for that wife, this was for this wife." There is absolutely no hiding and it isn't church history, it's family history. People worry about the church hiding it, but they forget that people used to go to jail for this, and there was reason to lay low; and also to be mocked in an honest relationship (speaking of the frontier days beyond Joseph Smith) might have made some reluctant to put that out. So to downplay that to the world was a habit from people living it. Fast forward 40 to 80 years and now its a big secret that the church is trying to hide . . . but that is just not exactly how it played.

I agree with all the things that have been said about that we don't know how our eternal relationships will be like. My husband is deceased (I am sealed to him), and while I am single still, but should I ever marry again, I would never like to marry anyone I plan on losing. I would like to keep him. So there is two husbands for me. And since I have two, I guess I should be fair and acknowledge any wives either of my husbands also loved and be willing to live like that. On the other hand, I do see the beauty, as I imagine, in have a consuming and complete relationship with just one other person (man), and honestly, I'm on the search for that, I would love there to be that one person for eternity. So . . . again, who knows . Maybe it will be different for everyone, as we choose. But most definitely agency is always involved, no matter what.

Also the idea of polygamy as a kingdom for men, I do find that a bit laughable. That just doesn't make any sense to me, but I didn't even hear that version of polygamy advanced here in the thread, so that is refreshing.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I don't know if her FAIR talk is up but she even gave statistics on the percentage of extra women required if a man was to have 2 wives. Or 3 wives. When you see the stats the absurdity of trying to take an exception to a rule and insert it into eternity becomes obvious.

Bingo! When I was studying in America, I took an Institute class from Kenneth Godfrey. I don't remember the exact number, but he pointed out that, from his research, plural marriage as practiced during a few decades in the second half of the nineteenth century resulted in about 30-35% of all Latter-day Saint men never marrying during that time. If the gender balance is equal, every incidence of polygyny results in a single male: a man with three wives would be responsible for consigning two single males to eternal bachelorhood. And this is all before one considers the facts that male births outnumber female births and that the infant mortality rate for boys has historically been much higher than for girls.

[juliann]

Any attempt to determine the nature of our relationships in the next life is like having a group of 6 year olds explain teenage hormones. We are, in essence, gods in embryo. We are so limited by our immaturity and ignorance that it is pointless to determine what is to come. If there is no jealousy, no sexual deviance, no sense of emotional abandonment, many of the criticisms of polygamy goes away. There may or may not be polygamy in the next life. Women may or may not have more than one husband and men may or may not have more than one wife. We can no more define the nature of our eternal relationships than a 6 year old can define the emotions of a 15 year old.

Arriving in the Celestial kingdom may be like going through puberty. A whole new realm of emotions and sensations will be awoken in us that we could not ever imagine before. If this life is a type and a shadow, we may go through a sharp emotional learning curve all over again to adjust to the new glorified circumstances. We may look back at these debates about polygamy and laugh as we see how naive we once were. Young children think of kissing as disgusting but adults are quit accommodating to far intimate affections.

We can neither reject or embrace the possibility of polygamy in the next life. There is the suggestion that there may be an imbalance of the number of males and females but this is also naive. This assumes that the only people to populate the realm of the Gods comes from this earth. There are countless worlds with souls advancing to exaltation. If there are twice as many women as men that enter this domain from the earth, there may be other planets where the statistics are reversed. Just as my children may marry someone that doesn't even live in our country at this time, some of us may end up married to someone who never lived on this planet.

I agree that we have no idea what relationships will be in the afterlife. However, that makes it even more strange that anyone would insist on creating even more complicated relationships for which we have even less information and experience. The very fact that you have to appeal to an even greater unknown... other worlds.... to maintain an unworkable system tends to point out how problematic it is to make an exception the norm. Based on current teachings we have no business trying to reinstate polygamy now or later.

Edited February 22, 2012 by juliann

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I agree that we have no idea what relationships will be in the afterlife. However, that makes it even more strange that anyone would insist on creating even more complicated relationships for which we have even less information and experience. The very fact that you have to appeal to an even greater unknown... other worlds.... to maintain an unworkable system tends to point out how problematic it is to make an exception the norm. Based on current teachings we have no business trying to reinstate polygamy now or later.

Amen!

[zelder]

Maybe the part of the extreme fear of polygamy comes from the idea that God calls you to do it and you have to do it even if you don’t want to. Maybe BY made some people feel that way but I think he was out of line. Did he have any basis for making people feel like it was necessary for their salvation?

I wonder if polygamy would have faded out of existence in the early church if members were made to feel like it was an option rather than an obligation or priesthood duty.

I don't think there will ever be closure on polygamy in the church. D&C 132 and Jacob Chapter 2 would both need to be repudiated before any closure in the church could be obtained.

Polygamy will always be a topic of discussion because it has always existed as a lifestyle choice and continues to exist throughout the world. Even polyandry continues to exist in Napal and a few other places. If past is prelude to future, polygamy will always as part of the human experience. Is it any more evil than serial monogamy? I doubt it. Personally, I think divorce and serial monogamy is the greater evil.

For those who find it repugnant, take comfort in the fact that it’s a choice. Even if it was legal you still would not have to do it. I don’t think I would do it but I wouldn’t be offended if my neighbors chose to live that way.

Edited February 22, 2012 by zelder

[LeSellers]

I don't think there will ever be closure on polygamy in the church. D&C 132 and Jacob Chapter 2 would both need to be repudiated before any closure in the church could be obtained.

This is confusing. Jacob 2 and Doc&Cov 132 are compatible, and both say that the Lord can command His people when it's right. They both limit polygyny to those times when God approves the practice.

You'd also have to decanonize ("repudiate"?) large sections of the Old Testament, and purge several passages in the New.

Further, I am entirely unsure as to what "closure on polygamy [sic] in the church" means.

Personally, I think divorce and serial monogamy ["polygamy" is the right word here] is the greater evil.

This is correct, although even worse are outright fornication outside any marriage at all, the fathering of children one has no intention of raising, and the myriad of evils attendant to abortion as a means of birth control.

BTW, the group most supportive of abortion-on-demand is men, aged 18~34. The cause is not a matter of debate. Although it's painted as a "women's rights" issue, it's really a "men's freedom to abuse" question, as well as a manifestation of the dismal view huge numbers of USmericans and westerners hold towards children.

Lehi

[zelder]

This is confusing. Jacob 2 and Doc&Cov 132 are compatible, and both say that the Lord can command His people when it's right. They both limit polygyny to those times when God approves the practice.

Sorry for the confusion. I agree with everything you say. I'm not the one advocating "closure". I'm telling the advocates of closure that so long as the scriptues on the subject exist, polygamy will always be considered an acceptable form of marriage. There has been talk of "members keeping polygamy alive" and comparisons with the priesthood ban but these issues are not completely similar. Polygamy will always be "alive" in mormonism as long as our scriptures approve of the practice. For those who want polygamy to be a dead subject and forgotten, sorry, we will have to repudiate our scriptures before polygamy will be a dead subject or in other words, before there can be closure (for those who want closure).

This is correct, although even worse are outright fornication outside any marriage at all, the fathering of children one has no intention of raising, and the myriad of evils attendant to abortion as a means of birth control.

BTW, the group most supportive of abortion-on-demand is men, aged 18~34. The cause is not a matter of debate. Although it's painted as a "women's rights" issue, it's really a "men's freedom to abuse" question, as well as a manifestation of the dismal view huge numbers of USmericans and westerners hold towards children.

I agree with you.

Edited February 22, 2012 by zelder

[cinepro]

BTW, the group most supportive of abortion-on-demand is men, aged 18~34. The cause is not a matter of debate. Although it's painted as a "women's rights" issue, it's really a "men's freedom to abuse" question, as well as a manifestation of the dismal view huge numbers of USmericans and westerners hold towards children.

Lehi

That's fascinating. Where can I read more about that? (CFR)

[LeSellers]

That's fascinating. Where can I read more about that? (CFR)

Once again, I am forced to plead old age. My information is dated, as I am, and I cannot recall the source.

However, it was a national publication, from back in the late '90s. Not much help, but it's the best I can do.

Lehi

[Freedom]

I agree that we have no idea what relationships will be in the afterlife. However, that makes it even more strange that anyone would insist on creating even more complicated relationships for which we have even less information and experience. The very fact that you have to appeal to an even greater unknown... other worlds.... to maintain an unworkable system tends to point out how problematic it is to make an exception the norm. Based on current teachings we have no business trying to reinstate polygamy now or later.

My point is that polygamy is often justified by the idea that there may be more women then men based on this earth. This earth, however, is only one source of candidates for celestial marriage. There will be an eternal supply of eligible celestial beings making the need for polygamy mute. I do not see how this is unworkable. It is like comparing the prospects for marriage of a small town to the options in a big city. The larger the population, the greater the possibility of finding a mate. And the greater the population base, the greater the chance of the genders equaling out.

[thesometimesaint]

Freedom:

I can't speak to what other worlds, or the eternities might be like, but on this planet male babies outnumber females babies 106/100. I don't have a problem with polygamy in the next life, but if true, I don't see it as anything more than rare.

[Freedom]

Freedom:

I can't speak to what other worlds, or the eternities might be like, but on this planet male babies outnumber females babies 106/100. I don't have a problem with polygamy in the next life, but if true, I don't see it as anything more than rare.

I have never denied this, in fact, my point was to demonstrate that this disparity is a red herring. Our doctrine is that the celestial kingdom is the domain of all Gods children, not just humans from earth. We will no more need polygamy there than the town of Spuzzum British Columbia must practice polygamy because there are 7 extra women in town. Those women who cannot find a spouse in Spuzzum can and will look elsewhere. It is the human condition that gender numbers tend to balance out unless humans interfere as is occurring in China.

[thesometimesaint]

Freedom:

While I have no love for China's population control measures. The ratio stands up in all countries, cultures, and from what I can find in history. Us males just aren't as strong as we keep telling ourselves. IF the same applies to other worlds it doesn't make the ratio any better.

[Freedom]

Freedom:

While I have no love for China's population control measures. The ratio stands up in all countries, cultures, and from what I can find in history. Us males just aren't as strong as we keep telling ourselves. IF the same applies to other worlds it doesn't make the ratio any better.

So we know then that there have been more males born than females which suggests that the women, not the men, will have more than one spouse. But my point is that there will be an eternal supply of new people populating the eternal worlds. Since our experience has been that men, not women, had multiple spouses then there is a problem pending. I suspect that there is balance in the universe and that the law of averages will balance the numbers out. More males are born, but more fewer males survive which brings the balance on earth. Nature tends to correct itself. I am just saying that people create problems where there are none, and make assumptions based on our narrow and sheltered experience of life here in mortality on this single planet. Nothing we observe here requires the practice of polygamy.

[Rivers]

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?

I never knew all the little detail's of Joseph Smith's polygamy until I read Rough Stone Rolling. And Bushman has a really interesting take on the whole polyandry thing. With the the way he explains it, it doesn't bother me a whole lot. But I wouldn't know how to explain it to a kid.

I don't think its ethical to keep truth from people. Because that person who says they couldn't handle such a teaching might learn of it eventually so I think its better that they learn it early. I think Institute and seminary are the places where young people should learn the more difficult aspects of church history. I really wish the CES program would do a better job of that.

[dougtheavenger]

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.

This is the best way to start a discussion with your teenage daughter about polygamy. Ask her what she would want in a case like this. I would only add that all Christians and all Jews have the same problem. Polygamy is not a uniquely LDS issue. Odds are your daughter will never have to confront the issue of polygamy. In that sense its like incest. Remember Abraham was married to his half-sister, Sariah. This was before the law of Moses forbade such unions.

Edited February 24, 2012 by dougtheavenger

[KevinG]

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.

My LDS wife would bat something besides an eye if I ever had an affair. Just sayin' ;-)

[jwhitlock]

This is the best way to start a discussion with your teenage daughter about polygamy. Ask her what she would want in a case like this. I would only add that all Christians and all Jews have the same problem. Polygamy is not a uniquely LDS issue. Odds are your daughter will never have to confront the issue of polygamy. In that sense its like incest. Remember Abraham was married to his half-sister, Sariah. This was before the law of Moses forbade such unions.

Interestingly enough, my traditional Christian friends explain away Old Testament polygamy as an aberration, something that was not sanctioned by the Lord. That seems to be the easy way out for them; however, it doesn't appear to be supported by the OT itself. The practice itself, and the reasons behind it are too complex to be explained away so readily.

I still am of the opinion that trying to explain away 19th century Mormon marriage practices using 21st century perspectives is a mistake. Unlike the priesthood ban, for which Darius Gray's explanations make a great deal of sense, it appears to me that the practice of polygamy was directed in its implementation by the Lord. It needs to be understood in that context.

[treeface]

Yes, I really am going to quote calmoriah's whole post:

If the reason for celestial polygny is that it is unfair and diminishes the love and happiness a man can experience to ask a man to choose between women he has loved and lived with, had children or raised a family with or grew old together with, then surely it is just as unfair and inappropriate to ask a woman to choose between men she has done the same thing with for the same reasons....unless one believes that for some reason men are capable of loving more than one woman at a time, but a woman for some reason is not and will have no problem turning her back on men who she has loved in the past because somehow that love instantly dies because she loves another.

So if the reason for celestial polygyny is to maximize the joy and family relationships of men, then it seems only natural that there will be celestial polyandry present to maximize the joy and family relationships of women for all those who desire it (this is not to suggest that the eternities will be one long orgy of free love, LDS look on the eternal marriage relationship more in terms of its place in the family structure as well as personal development and opportunities to serve and share charity as well as the more romantic form of love (which has only recently played a major role in determining marriage relationships in mortality).

Also why would sealings that women accepted be any less eternal than sealings men accepted? And why would there be any difference between sealings covenanted when alive and sealing covenanted when dead? If so, then the sealings of women to multiple husbands are all just as valid as the ones of men to multiple wives, no matter when they are made. If the former can be set aside for whatever reason, then it makes sense that the latter can be as well so there is no more likely reason for men to engage in multiple relationships as it would be for women.

Remember this is not an eternal arrangement between mortals where one has to deal with limited time and resources and carnal emotions of jealousy and resentment, but relationships that exist in a context of eternity---no limits on time or power to devote to any relationship---and between perfect individuals with perfect love and understanding of each other who are already one in harmony with each other as they are one with the Father and the Son.

I think this is the most hopeful post I have ever seen on this subject. Heaven isn't heaven unless it's a better deal for everyone involved, and polygyny alone clearly is not a better deal for everyone involved.

I would be interested in the thought process that led you to this conclusion, if you don't mind... and if you do, no problem. But I hope you're right.

[Tacenda]

Interestingly enough, my traditional Christian friends explain away Old Testament polygamy as an aberration, something that was not sanctioned by the Lord. That seems to be the easy way out for them; however, it doesn't appear to be supported by the OT itself. The practice itself, and the reasons behind it are too complex to be explained away so readily.

I still am of the opinion that trying to explain away 19th century Mormon marriage practices using 21st century perspectives is a mistake. Unlike the priesthood ban, for which Darius Gray's explanations make a great deal of sense, it appears to me that the practice of polygamy was directed in its implementation by the Lord. It needs to be understood in that context.

Can you please provide scripture where God commands polygamy? I think there are some that show he is against it.

[Tacenda]

Interestingly enough, my traditional Christian friends explain away Old Testament polygamy as an aberration, something that was not sanctioned by the Lord. That seems to be the easy way out for them; however, it doesn't appear to be supported by the OT itself. The practice itself, and the reasons behind it are too complex to be explained away so readily.

I still am of the opinion that trying to explain away 19th century Mormon marriage practices using 21st century perspectives is a mistake. Unlike the priesthood ban, for which Darius Gray's explanations make a great deal of sense, it appears to me that the practice of polygamy was directed in its implementation by the Lord. It needs to be understood in that context.

Can you please provide scripture where God commands polygamy? I think there are some that show he is against it.

[Calm]

I think this is the most hopeful post I have ever seen on this subject. Heaven isn't heaven unless it's a better deal for everyone involved, and polygyny alone clearly is not a better deal for everyone involved.

I would be interested in the thought process that led you to this conclusion, if you don't mind... and if you do, no problem. But I hope you're right.

It was pretty much a logical process based on a few axioms...that God's greatest gift to men is love, both his own and others is the first. Second, that heaven is a state of maximized joy and happiness (why would it be anything less?) and therefore maximized love and thus the family structure will be one that maximizes the opportunity to express all forms of love to each other in the best way possible.

After that, it is simply an observation that women in general are as capable as men, though perhaps not as prone, to loving more than one man at a time (and I don't mean lust or even simply romantic love, I mean the full form of love that comes from committing to share one's whole existence with another) and thus if the goal of celestial polygyny is to maximized the opportunity for men to experience love both with their wives and children, then surely the same must exist for women. And if it is possible for celestial women to have maximized love without the experience of polyandry, with only one man, then surely it is equally possible for celestial men to experience maximized love with only one woman.

Edited November 28, 2012 by calmoriah