Moral, Scriptural, and Theological Questions About Plural Marriage

Polygamy Sandbox > Moral, Scriptural, and Theological Questions About Plural Marriage

Moral, Scriptural, and Theological Questions About Plural Marriage

Summary: There are several moral and theological questions that surround plural marriage. This page aims to gather all of these questions and respond to them.

---

Is plural marriage required for exaltation?

Critics sometimes argue that early Latter-day Saint leaders taught plural marriage was required for exaltation and that, therefore, it must still be necessary today. A careful reading of scripture, historical context, and modern prophetic teaching, however, shows that plural marriage is not a requirement for exaltation.

The Church has no position that plural marriage will be reinstated

Bruce R. McConkie wrote in Mormon Doctrine that plural marriage would resume in the Millennium. However, Mormon Doctrine was not an official publication of the Church, and his opinion does not constitute binding doctrine.

When asked whether polygamy is “gone forever,” the Church’s official newsroom responded:

 :“We only know what the Lord has revealed through His prophets, that plural marriage has been stopped in the Church. Anything else is speculative and unwarranted.”

The Church does not speculate about future reinstatement and does not teach that plural marriage is required for salvation or exaltation.

Modern instructional materials reject speculation

The 2013 Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual directly instructs:

 :“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.”

This manual represents official teaching guidance and explicitly states that there is no revealed knowledge establishing plural marriage as a requirement for exaltation.

Historical context: commandment versus permanence

Plural marriage was practiced when specifically commanded. John Taylor explained in 1866 that the command to practice plural marriage had come from God and was binding at that time.

But this reflects a broader Latter-day Saint principle: obedience to current revelation is required for exaltation. When the commandment was in force, rejecting it constituted rejecting divine instruction. When the commandment was later withdrawn, the obligation ceased.

In 1890, Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto ending the practice of plural marriage in the Church. Under the doctrine of continuing revelation, commandments can be given and withdrawn according to divine will.

Scripture distinguishes eternal marriage from plural marriage

Some critics argue that Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches that polygamy is required for exaltation. The argument usually centers on verse 4, which warns of damnation for rejecting the “new and everlasting covenant.”

However, scripture elsewhere defines the “new and everlasting covenant” as the fulness of the gospel (see D&C 66:2; 49:9; 76:101; 131:2). It predates plural marriage and encompasses all saving ordinances—not polygamy alone.

D&C 132:19 promises exaltation to a man who marries “a wife” (singular) by proper authority and lives faithfully. The text teaches the necessity of eternal marriage, not specifically plural marriage.

The Book of Mormon reinforces that monogamy is the norm unless God commands otherwise (Jacob 2:27–30). Plural marriage functions in Latter-day Saint theology as an exception permitted only by specific divine command—not as a universal or eternal requirement.

Official clarification on eternal marriage

In 1912, Charles W. Penrose addressed the matter directly in the Improvement Era:

Question: Is plural or celestial marriage essential to a fulness of glory in the world to come?
Answer: Celestial marriage is essential to a fulness of glory in the world to come, as explained in the revelation concerning it; but it is not stated that plural marriage is thus essential.

Penrose clearly distinguished between eternal (celestial) marriage and plural marriage. Eternal marriage is essential for the highest degree of celestial glory; plural marriage is not.

Revelation is adapted to circumstance

Joseph Smith taught that God governs His Church “by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed.” Latter-day Saint theology explicitly rejects the idea that divine commands cannot change.

The Bible itself demonstrates this pattern:

• Noah was commanded to build an ark (Genesis 6).
• Moses instituted the Passover (Exodus 12).
• Jesus Christ reinterpreted Passover at the Last Supper (Matthew 26).
• Peter was later commanded to preach to the Gentiles (Acts 10), reversing earlier restrictions.

In each case, obedience to current revelation—not strict permanence of former commands—was the standard.

Conclusion

Plural marriage was practiced when commanded and discontinued when rescinded. The consistent teaching of scripture and official Church instruction is that eternal marriage—sealed by proper authority—is necessary for exaltation. There is no authoritative doctrine that plural marriage is required.

Exaltation in Latter-day Saint theology is grounded in covenant faithfulness under living prophetic direction. Plural marriage is a historical practice that functioned under specific command, not an eternal prerequisite for salvation. Under current revealed doctrine, plural marriage is not required for exaltation.

Did D&C 132 contradict earlier-canonized revelations that stipulated monogamy?

One of the most common claims made about early Latter-day Saint scripture is that Doctrine and Covenants 132 contradicts the 1835 statement on marriage published as Doctrine and Covenants 101 in the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. Critics argue that the 1835 declaration—stating that “one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband”—directly conflicts with the later revelation on plural marriage.

However, a careful reading of both texts—alongside historical context—shows that there is no necessary contradiction. Rather, the two texts address different purposes, different audiences, and different circumstances.

What Was the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants' statement on marriage?

The 1835 statement on marriage (Section 101 in the 1835 edition; it was later removed) was not presented as a revelation received by Joseph Smith. Instead, it was a formal declaration adopted by the Church to clarify its public stance in response to accusations. By 1835, critics were already accusing the Church of promoting “polygamy” or “spiritual wifery.” In this context, the statement functioned as a public denial of unauthorized marital practices. It affirmed:

“Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband…”

Several important features stand out:

• It was defensive and declarative, not revelatory.
• It addressed public accusations, not the inner theology of sealing or eternal marriage.
• It did not claim that God could never command otherwise.

Most significantly, the statement says what the Church believed and taught publicly at that time. It does not declare that God is incapable of authorizing plural marriage under any circumstances.

What Is Doctrine and Covenants 132?

Doctrine and Covenants 132, recorded in 1843 but reflecting principles taught earlier in private, presents a revelation on eternal marriage and, within that broader doctrine, explains the possibility of plural marriage when commanded by God.

The revelation explicitly frames plural marriage as:

• A divine command given in specific periods,
• Comparable to commands given to biblical patriarchs like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David,
• Not a general rule for all people at all times.

Section 132 teaches that monogamy is the default standard unless God commands otherwise. It presents plural marriage not as a universal moral norm, but as an exception instituted by revelation.

Is There a Logical Contradiction?

A genuine contradiction would require two irreconcilable propositions such as:

• Proposition A: “God can never authorize plural marriage.”
• Proposition B: “God has authorized plural marriage.”

But the 1835 statement does not make Proposition A. It affirms monogamy as the Church’s marital standard. It does not deny God’s sovereign right to command exceptions.

Throughout scripture, divine marital commands vary by dispensation:

• Under the Law of Moses, levirate marriage was commanded.
• Biblical patriarchs practiced plural marriage with divine approval.
• In the New Testament era, monogamy is the assumed norm.

Latter-day Saint theology has long affirmed that God gives commandments “according to the times and seasons.” From that perspective, D&C 132 does not negate monogamy as a general rule; it situates plural marriage within a limited, commanded framework.

Historical Timing and Public Secrecy

Another key issue is historical development.

Evidence suggests that Joseph Smith began privately teaching principles related to plural marriage before 1843, though the public announcement came much later under Brigham Young in 1852 in Salt Lake City.

In 1835, plural marriage was not publicly practiced by the Church at large. The defensive statement in Section 101 addressed public conduct and unauthorized relationships. It did not function as a comprehensive theological treatise on eternal sealing.

Thus, rather than contradicting a standing revelation, Section 132 expands upon doctrines that were not publicly formalized in 1835.

The Removal of the 1835 Statement

When the 1876 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants was published under Brigham Young, the 1835 declaration was removed and replaced with Section 132.

This editorial change reflected:

• Recognition that the 1835 text was not presented as a revelation.
• The fact that the Church was then openly practicing plural marriage.
• An effort to align the canon strictly with revelatory material.

The removal does not imply contradiction; rather, it clarifies genre. One was a policy declaration; the other, a claimed revelation.

Monogamy as the Standing Rule

Importantly, Latter-day Saints today practice monogamy. Following the 1890 Manifesto issued by Wilford Woodruff, new plural marriages ceased in the Church.

From a doctrinal perspective, the pattern is consistent:

• Monogamy is the general standard.
• Plural marriage may be commanded by God in specific circumstances.
• Absent command, monogamy governs.

This structure mirrors the biblical precedent invoked in D&C 132 itself.

When read carefully in context, there is no necessary conflict between the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants 101 and Doctrine and Covenants 132.

The 1835 statement was:

• A public declaration,
• Defensive in tone,
• Not presented as revelation.

Doctrine and Covenants 132 was:

• A recorded revelation,
• Theological in scope,
• Presenting plural marriage as an exception by divine command.

Rather than presenting a flat contradiction, the historical and doctrinal record shows development, clarification, and situational application consistent with the broader Latter-day Saint understanding of continuing revelation.

The question ultimately turns not on logical incompatibility, but on whether one accepts the premise of prophetic authority and divine command operating in different times and circumstances. Within that framework, the two texts can coherently stand together.

Is plural marriage sexist?

It is claimed that the historical practice of polygamy as well as contemporary theology about polygamy and its possible extension into the eternities by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is sexist. This has been most passionately argued by Latter-day Saint poet Carol Lynn Pearson in her book The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy: Haunting the Hearts and Heaven of Mormon Women and Men.

The observation that allegedly grounds this assertion is that polygamy fragments women's emotional and sexual opportunities as a wife. As Brian C. Hales has argued:

In the case of a new plural wife who would have remained unmarried if monogamy was exclusively practiced, her “emotional and sexual opportunities as a wife” are increased from zero to some fraction depending on how many other wives the man has. However, the other wives’ opportunities are diminished as a result of the new plural matrimony.

Do these assertions hold?

The Three Aspects of Equality

It's important that we divide equality into three distinct aspects.

The global concept of equality includes but is not necessarily limited to three, distinct aspects: the descriptive aspect, the normative aspect, and the programmatic aspect. We often think that people should be equal in what they have because they are equal in terms of who they are. That thought involves identifying three separate things: what people are (the descriptive aspect), what people should have (the normative aspect), and actually giving that kind of thing to all people (the programmatic aspect), if they are indeed equal in terms of what they are.

Now, let’s focus on the programmatic aspect of equality, since this is the one that most people struggle with when evaluating different institutions and their policies. Everyone agrees (or should agree) that equality involves quantitative sameness. 1=1, 2=2, and so on. However, the more controversial point to make is that equality does not necessarily imply qualitative sameness. Let’s first start with a thought experiment. Suppose I have two children, a boy and a girl, before me. Say that I take some scissors and construction paper and cut out a circle for the boy and a square for the girl. Are the two children equal in terms of what they have? In the context of a discussion about equality, 9 out of 10 people will say that the children are not equal. Thus, for many, the definition of equality is having the same amount and the same kind of stuff; the children are only equal if they both get a circle or a square. This is a popular, naive definition of equality. However, it’s not the definition that plays out at the institutional level. Men’s and women’s sports, prisons, shelters, locker rooms, bathrooms, and certain dormitories are segregated.

This demonstrates that what society actually believes about equality is that we should give the same kinds of opportunities to men and women when there are no moral or practical reasons precluding us from giving them those opportunities. Using the terms of the analogy, it is fine that we give a boy a circle and a square and a girl a circle and a triangle.

But we can go even further because society also agrees that it is fine to override the programmatic aspect of equality when morality and justice require it. For example, women are the only ones, constitutionally and legally, with the right to decide when to have an abortion.

Did plural marriage actually accomplish the goal of raising up seed to God?

Yes, absolutely. Data gathered by Mormonr confirms that the Latter-day Saints, because of polygamy, had higher birth rates than the rest of the United States at the time.

Do Jacob 2 and D&C 132 contradict each other?

Short Answer

Doctrine and Covenants 132 and Jacob 2 address different circumstances and different abuses. Jacob condemns unauthorized plural marriage—particularly the misuse of scripture to justify sexual immorality—while Doctrine and Covenants 132 explains that plural marriage may be divinely commanded under specific covenantal conditions. Jacob criticizes David and Solomon for violating divine law, while Doctrine and Covenants 132 clarifies that the wives given to David by prophetic authority were not sinful, but that David sinned in the case of Uriah. The two passages therefore address distinct issues: unauthorized taking of wives versus divinely sanctioned plural marriage.

Long Answer

Jacob demonstrates that some of David and Solomon's actions were contrary to Torah

In Jacob 2, the prophet Jacob rebukes Nephite men who were attempting to justify plural marriage by appealing to David and Solomon:

Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. ( Jacob 2꞉23-24 )

Jacob states that David and Solomon “truly had many wives and concubines,” and that this was “abominable before me, saith the Lord. Jacob’s concern was not merely numerical plurality, but covenant violation. His audience was:

• Seeking to “excuse themselves in committing whoredoms.”
• Selectively invoking scripture to justify sexual misconduct.
• Acting without divine authorization.

Jacob’s rebuke frames their behavior as a violation of God’s established order, not a neutral continuation of an approved principle.

Deuteronomy 17 provides important legal context

Jacob’s language closely echoes the Mosaic injunction to Israelite kings:

Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. ( Deuteronomy 17:17 )

This Torah restriction warns that a king “shall not multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.”

David and Solomon were kings. If they “truly had many wives,” they violated this royal limitation. Jacob’s argument appears to rely on this legal tradition—likely preserved on the Brass Plates—as evidence that these kings exceeded divinely sanctioned bounds.

Thus, Jacob is not inventing a new prohibition but invoking covenant law to demonstrate that royal excess was contrary to established commandment.

Doctrine and Covenants 132 addresses a different question

Doctrine and Covenants 132 does not defend unlimited polygamy. Instead, it explains:

• That plural marriage was at times commanded by God.
• That it must be authorized by prophetic priesthood keys.
• That divine sanction determines legitimacy.

Regarding David, the revelation states:

David's wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord. ( D&C 132꞉39 )

Here the Lord distinguishes between wives “given unto him of me” and the specific case in which David sinned—“in the case of Uriah and his wife.”

The issue was not plural marriage per se, but David’s murder of Uriah and the unlawful taking of Bathsheba.

The biblical text supports this distinction

In the Old Testament, the prophet Nathan declares to David:

7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. ( 2 Samuel 12:7-8 )

God affirms that He gave David his wives. The very next verse identifies David’s sin:

Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. ( 2 Samuel 12:9 )

The transgression was murder and covetous acquisition—not the wives previously given by divine authority.

Doctrine and Covenants 132 harmonizes with this biblical account by distinguishing between:

• Divinely granted plural marriages.
• Unauthorized, sinful seizure of another man’s wife.

Solomon’s sin was covenantal apostasy

The Bible similarly explains Solomon’s downfall ( 1 Kings 11:1-6 ).

Solomon’s wives “turned away his heart after other gods.” His sin is explicitly identified as idolatry and covenant violation, not the mere existence of plural marriage.

Thus, both Jacob and the biblical record frame the issue as spiritual corruption and disobedience—not solely marital plurality.

Jacob’s prohibition contains an exception clause

Jacob establishes monogamy as the standing rule among the Nephites:

Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; ( Jacob 2꞉27 )

However, he includes a conditional clause:

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. ( Jacob 2꞉30 )

This verse clarifies:

• Monogamy is the default divine standard.
• God reserves the right to “command” otherwise for covenantal purposes (e.g., “raise up seed”).
• Without divine command, plural marriage is prohibited.

This principle precisely matches the framework later articulated in Doctrine and Covenants 132: plural marriage is lawful only when commanded and regulated by God through authorized prophets.

The passages address different abuses

Jacob condemns:

• Unauthorized plurality.
• Sexual immorality disguised as scriptural justification.
• Royal excess that violated Torah limitations.

Doctrine and Covenants 132 explains:

• The conditions under which plural marriage may be divinely instituted.
• That David’s sin was specifically the case of Uriah.
• That authority and revelation determine legitimacy.

Rather than contradicting one another, the texts function together:

• Jacob establishes covenant boundaries and condemns unauthorized abuse.
• Doctrine and Covenants 132 clarifies prophetic authority and divine prerogative.
• Both passages affirm that plural marriage is never self-authorizing. Without God’s command, it is condemned. With divine command and covenant authority, it may be permitted for specific purposes.

Notes (click to expand)

Back to Top