Pastor Gallatin's reading of the scripture is incomplete. Only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat plural wives and children. (See Deuteronomy 21꞉15,17.) Why does the Lord not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He then give instructions on how a good Israelite is to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?

What does the scripture addressed to kings in Deuteronomy say?

Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.... (Deuteronomy 17꞉15,17)

So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:

1. not multiply wives to themselves (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see Jacob 2꞉30, DC 132꞉38-39.)
2. that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God.
3. not taking an excessive numbers of wives (analogous to hording too many horses in v. 16; see Jacob 2꞉24).

David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.

To read more:

• Polygamy not Biblical?
• Orson Pratt and John Philip Newman, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" Deseret News (12–14 August 1874) [debate].

David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and and his involvement in the death of her husband, Uriah. (See 2 Samuel 11꞉1-27.) Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:

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

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.

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.

Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. (2 Samuel 12꞉7-10)

Nathan here tells David that the Lord "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.

But, David then sinned and did evil in the matter of Uriah. If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for all his plural marriages? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier, when David was righteous and hearkening to the Lord?

To read more:

• Polygamy not Biblical?

Solomon's problem is described:

But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;

Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love....

Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.

And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. (1 Kings 11꞉1-2,7-8)

Solomon's wives turned his heart away from God, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.

To read more:

• Polygamy not Biblical?

Certainly—examples include:

• Abraham married Hagar(Genesis 16꞉3) and other unnamed concubines (Genesis 25꞉6).
• Jacob (Genesis 29꞉21-30, Genesis 30꞉3-4, Genesis 30꞉9).
• Abijah had fourteen wives (2 Chronicles 13꞉21) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord (2 Chronicles 13꞉8-12) and prospered in battle because of the Lord's blessing (2 Chronicles 13꞉16-18).
• Jehoiada, priest under King Joash "took for him two wives" (2 Chronicles 24꞉3). Jehoiada is clearly approved of, for he is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" (2 Chronicles 24꞉16).

If a righteous king, a righteous priest, Jacob the father of the twelve tribes, and Abraham—the pre-eminent figure of the entire Old Testament—are not condemned or corrected for legitimate plural marriages, it is untenable to claim that a Biblical prohibition exists in Deuteronomy.

To read more:

• Polygamy not Biblical?

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with this scripture. However, it says nothing at all about plural marriage—it merely indicates that a husband and wife must become one. It says absolutely nothing one way or the other about having more than one wife with which one is joined by God and commanded to "be one."

To read more:

• Polygamy not Biblical?

There would be no reason to limit church leaders to one wife if polygamy was not found within the early church. Jews of that period allowed polygamy and this was undoubtedly brought with them as they converted to Christianity (off-site). Latter-day Saints agree that the standard instruction to all believers is monogamy—exceptions can only be commanded by God through His prophet (see Jacob 2꞉30).

Multiple early Christian writers also understood there to be no absolute prohibition against plural marriage in some circumstances.

To read more:

• Early Christians on plural marriage

Joseph's healing accounts are well-attested to by multiple witnesses. There are numerous "historical documents" testifying that Joseph performed healings on multiple occasions.

Critics ought to be careful when dismissing or criticizing healing by God's power: the scribes and Pharisees likewise sought to minimize or negate the miraculous healings performed by Jesus by insisting that He was, in fact, wicked. (See, for example, Matthew 9꞉34, Matthew 12꞉13-14, Matthew 12꞉24, Mark 3꞉5-6, Luke 5꞉17-26, Luke 6꞉7, Luke 14꞉3-4, John 7꞉32, John 9꞉13, John 11꞉44-50, John 12꞉17-19).

To read more:

• Personal failings of Joseph Smith
• Joseph Smith healings and miracles

Joseph never claimed to be perfect, and mentioned that following his vision he made foolish errors (JS-H 1꞉28). However, the video attempts to deceive its viewers on numerous points, as discussed in the sections below.

To read more:

• Personal failings of Joseph Smith

The video omits the outcome of this legal proceeding. The appearance before the judge was not a trial—as demonstrated by the Reverend Wesley Walters, a prolific anti-Mormon author. Therefore, he was not found guilty and no trial was held. The video obviously wants the viewer to conclude that Joseph was found guilty in court—after all, there is no shame in being charged with a crime if one is found not guilty. Jesus Himself was falsely condemned.

But, these facts would not serve the video's purposes, so they say nothing about the outcome.

This is one more "historical document" which the video hides from its viewers.

To read more:

• History of 1826 court appearance

Despite their claims that they are trying to "Search for the Truth," the video does not tell its viewers that Josiah Stowell testified for Joseph as a defense witness and did not believe that Joseph had defrauded him at all. Stowell testified of Joseph's claims, "Do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

To read more:

• History of 1826 court appearance

The charges were brought by Stowell's family members, who seem worried that Josiah would accept Joseph's religious claims. Stowell joined the Church founded by Joseph, and remained a faithful member to the day of his death.

Do the video's authors condemn Paul because he was brought before many courts because of religious persecution? (See Acts 23꞉6.)

To read more:

• History of 1826 court appearance

The reader will by now not be surprised that the video distorts in both what it says and does not say. Emma Hale was not "a girl"—she was, in fact, older than Joseph Smith (she was born 10 July 1804; Joseph was born 23 December 1805).

She was an adult of twenty three at the time of their marriage (18 January 1827), but the video's goal of portraying Joseph as a rake and womanizer is made easier if they distort matters.

It is no secret that plural marriage was extremely challenging for Emma. However, the authors give us no citations to demonstrate what Emma thought about plural marriage and Joseph's claim to be a prophet.

Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma:

I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side.... I desire the spirit of God to know and understand myself, I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting.

Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but this trouble arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet. When one woman asked Emma if she felt Joseph was still a prophet despite her opposition to plural marriage Emma replied, "Yes, but I wish to God I did not know it." That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later:

I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.

If the video's producers accept Emma as an important witness, their search for truth obligates them to include her witness of Joseph's prophetic calling to the very end of her life.

To read more:

• Emma Smith and polygamy (follow link for citations)

It is disappointing that the Christian DVD producers think that making a public accusation against someone is sufficient to prove the case against them. Many charges were made against Jesus and the apostles, even by close friends and associates with the same purpose in mind.

That Joseph practiced plural marriage is not a matter of debate. But the video presumes that the practice is by definition immoral in all times and circumstances. To do so is circular reasoning and begging the question.

Oliver Cowdery left the Church in 1838. But the video leaves out important details. As a lawyer, Cowdery's integrity was once challenged in court because of his Book of Mormon testimony:

The opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified and had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a "Mormon," or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which he had given to the world, was literally true.

—George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses 22:251. off-site wiki

Despite his harsh personal feelings toward Joseph Smith, Oliver continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, and that he had seen an angel and the plates.

Oliver later returned to the Church and was rebaptized, remaining faithful to his death in a witness of Joseph's prophetic calling and the truth of the Book of Mormon.

To read more:

• Oliver Cowdery's faithfulness to his testimony

David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, remained out of the Church. Whitmer disagreed with Joseph about plural marriage. The producers have created another dilemma for themselves, however, because he steadfastly maintained the truth of the Book of Mormon up to his death. If the producers accept Whitmer as an important witness, their search for truth again obligates them to disclose his witness to the truth of the Book of Mormon.

Following their excommunication from the Church, Thomas B. Marsh approached Cowdery and Whitmer about their witness.

I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to the testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book.... I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.

—"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," Deseret News (24 March 1858).

To read more:

• David Whitmer's faithfulness to his testimony

McLellin was an original member of the Twelve apostles. He was eventually excommunicated. It should be no surprise that McLellin vilified the Saints since he took part in mob violence and theft against them:

He took an active part with the mob in Missouri, in robbing and driving the Saints. At the time Joseph Smith was in prison, he and others robbed Joseph's house and stable of considerable property.

—Andrew Jenson, Historical Record (Salt Lake City: Andrew Jenson, 1888), 5:38–39.

McLellin also tried to form his own Church with himself at the head, and admitted at his excommunication hearing that

he quit praying and keeping the commandments of God, and indulged himself in his lustful desires.

—History of the Church, 3:91. Volume 3 link

If the producers are indeed searching for the truth, they are obligated to disclose McLellin's unrelenting hostility towards Joseph Smith and the Saints.

William Law continued to insist that Joseph was a prophet, but a fallen one:

It was not until perhaps April or May 1844 that he organized his thinking in such a way as to systematically attack his enemy. Even then he was not assailing the validity of the Restoration. The vehemence with which William Law denounced the Prophet in 1844 was not due to disbelief in Mormon polity, but to his conviction that the Mormon leader had plunged into apostate practices.

— Lyndon W. Cook, "William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter," Brigham Young University Studies 22 no. 1 (Fall 1982), 56.off-site

Again, if the producers are engaged in a search for truth, they are obligated to disclose that Law did not dispute the validity of the Restoration despite the dilemma this creates for them.

To read more:

• Nauvoo Expositor

As the introduction to section 132 states, the evidence is clear that Joseph mentioned the doctrines of plural marriage as early as 1831—the ideas were well-developed in his mind long before 1843. (DC 132, History of the Church 5:xxix–xxx, 501–07.)

Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches of "the new and everlasting covenant" which includes marriage, since celestial marriage is a gospel ordinance:

The gospel is the everlasting covenant because it is ordained by Him who is Everlasting and also because it is everlastingly the same. In all past ages salvation was gained by adherence to its terms and conditions, and that same compliance will bring the same reward in all future ages. Each time this everlasting covenant is revealed it is new to those of that dispensation. Hence the gospel is the new and everlasting covenant. All covenants between God and man are part of the new and everlasting covenant. (DC 22, DC 132꞉6-7.) Thus celestial marriage is "a new and an everlasting covenant" (DC 132꞉4) or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage....

—Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 529–530. GL direct link

The key doctrine described in D&C 132 is not plural marriage, but eternal or celestial marriage, which may (if so commanded) include plural marriage. While plural marriage was practiced, some members of the Church interpreted D&C 132 as applying exclusively to polygamy, which is understandable given that they were under a duty to obey the commands given to them.

However, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:

Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation.... In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. (DC 132꞉1-28.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church. (DC 132꞉7,29-66.)

—Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 578. GL direct link

The video misunderstands LDS doctrine, garbles the history of Joseph's revelations on plural marriage, and distorts LDS teaching on the matter.

To read more:

• Is plural marriage required for exaltation?

Unsurprisingly, the video omits material which clarifies Brigham Young's meaning (material not included in the video is indicated by red italics):

We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us.... It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.

—Brigham Young, "Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City," Journal of Discourses, reported by G.D. Watt, E.L. Sloan, and D.W. Evans, (19 August 1866), Vol. 11 (London: Latter-day Saint's Book Depot, 1867), 268–269.off-site (emphasis added)

Brigham Young made several points:

• the command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
• to obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage in practice, but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets.
• it was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward.
• if one were commanded to enter into plural marriage ("had blessings offered to them"), and if one refused, God would withhold blessings later because of disobedience now.

Thus, in the context of the speech, "enter into polygamy" does not mean that all members at all times are required to be actual polygamists, but that they accept the doctrine ["polygamists at least in your faith"] and be ready to practice it if so commanded without regard for worldly pressures.

It is beyond dispute that the Saints considered plural marriage to be a command from God. Even so, it was only practiced by a minority. Thus, it is troubling that a video claiming to search for the truth removes the portions of a quote making it clear that Brigham allows for faithful members who are polygamists in faith only.

To read more:

• Is plural marriage required for exaltation?
• Brigham Young in JD 11:269

Once again, the video treats a complex issue with sound-bite superficiality. It is shameful that its producers will not allow the early Saints to speak for themselves. B.H. Roberts, an influencial leader explained:

The Saints did not accept into their faith and practice the plural-wife system with the idea that it increased the comfort, or added to the ease of anyone. From the first it was known to involve sacrifice, to make a large demand upon the faith, patience, hope and charity of all who should attempt to carry out its requirements. Its introduction was not a call to ease or pleasure, but to religious duty; it was not an invitation to self-indulgence, but to itself-conquest; its purpose was not earth-happiness, but earth-life discipline, undertaken in the interest of special advantages for succeeding generations of men.

—B.H. Roberts, The Truth, The Way, The Life: An Elementary Treatise on Theology (Provo, Utah: BYU Studies, 1991), 557.

Even neutral observers have long understood that this attack on plural marriage is probably the weakest of them all. George Bernard Shaw, certainly no Mormon, declared:

Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.

—Bernard Shaw, The Future of Political Science in America (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933).

Furthermore, Joseph Smith would not permit sexual misconduct. For example, he refused to countenance John C. Bennett's serial infidelities. If Joseph was looking for easy access to sex, Bennett—mayor of Nauvoo, First Councilor in the First Presidency, and military leader—would have been the ideal confederate. Yet, Joseph publicly denounced Bennett's actions, and severed him from the First Presidency and the Church. Bennett became a vocal opponent and critic.

The critic cannot argue that Joseph felt that only he was entitled to polygamous relationships, since he went to great efforts to teach the doctrine to Hyrum and the Twelve, who embraced it with much less zeal than Bennett would have. Nor do the film producers mention the women who accepted and defended the principle as God's will despite initial reservations.

Historian B. Carmon Hardy observed:

Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine [of plural marriage]. He had to overcome opposition from his brother Hyrum and the reluctance of some of his disciples. Reflecting years later on the conflicts and dangers brought by plural marriage, some church leaders were struck with the courage Joseph displayed in persisting with it.

—B. Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 9.

One can read volumes of the early Saints public writings, extemporaneous sermons, and private journals. One can reflect on the hundreds or thousands of miles of travel on missionary journeys and Church business. If the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon, Helen Mar Kimball, Zina D. Young, Martha Q. Cannon and many others cannot persuade someone that they were honest men and women (even if mistaken) then one should sincerely question whether such a person is capable of looking charitably upon any human let alone any Mormon.

But, the producers of Search for the Truth have already demonstrated that they will not treat Latter-day Saints or their beliefs with honesty and respect, much less charity. As a result, their conclusion is unsurprising, even though the historical record tells a different story.

To read more:

• Lustful motives?

It is not surprising that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not wish to be mistaken for Jeffs, since Jeffs is not a member of the Church and never has been.off-site

The video now slanders Joseph Smith through the tactic of "guilt by association," because Jeffs appeals to some of Joseph Smith's teachings.

Christians ought to realize the dangers of such tactics. The name and teachings of Jesus Christ Himself have been invoked for such purposes as:

• the Crusades
• the persecution and murder of Jews
• the persecution, torture, and murder of "heretics" or "witches" by Catholics and such Protestant Reformers as Calvin and Zwingli
• justifying and protecting slavery by southern Baptists prior to the American Civil War
• acts of political terrorism

Because these evils were done by those claiming justification in the name of Jesus, is He therefore to be condemned?

To read more:

• "Fundamentalist" splinter groups

This is a textbook example of judging a historical figure by modern cultural standards rather than the standards of the society they lived in to ensure that they will be found wanting.

The DVD wants its modern viewers judge the age of Joseph's marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century. The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate, since under twenty-first century law, Warren Jeffs could be found guilty of "statutory rape."

The video will not point out to its viewers that this is a modern cultural and legal framework.

The age of consent under English common law was ten. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to seven.off-site

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.

To read more:

• Marriages to young women: includes charts showing age differences in monogamous marriages in and out of the Church.

The video's producers do not want viewers to know that Joseph generally approached a close male relative before approaching a woman about plural marriage—a strange choice for a seducer, since men zealously guarded the virtue and reputation of the female relatives. Joseph also promised those involved that God would tell them what He wanted them to do.

The video does not want its viewers to read the many first-person testimonies available from those who entered plural marriage.

To read more:

• Plural marriage spiritual manifestations

As noted above, the critics neglect to mention that those who were taught plural marriage bore witness that they had been told by God to obey regardless of how difficult it was for them to comply.

The video does not want viewers to know that faithful husbands of these women were also aware of the sealings, and often stood as witnesses.

The video also does not wish its viewers to understand that Joseph's plural marriages were motivated by the doctrine of sealing rather than carnal motives.

Members of the Church believed then, as now, that the entire human family must be sealed together in order to return to God's presence. Rather than deferring such sealing until family history work is completed during the Millennium, they would seal families to each other, and then seal a family member to Joseph Smith—given that those so sealed to Joseph were usually close friends, this might be called a kind of "adoptive friendship."

Members do not seem to have understood this process as one of abandoning an earthly spouse for Joseph, but rather a desire to be with Joseph and his close friends, by having them all sealed together by the Melchezidek priesthood, the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God (DC 76꞉57, DC 107꞉3-4, Alma 13꞉1-9).

The point was that by sealing together through Joseph (holder of the dispensational keys) into the family of Christ, the entire family was confident of being together in the eternities, not only with each other, but with their dear friend and prophet Joseph Smith.

Members have, since the administration of Wilford Woodruff, refrained from sealing their family lines to Church leaders, and await more family history information—during the Millennium, if need be—to complete the sealing of the human family back to Adam, who will then present his posterity to the Lord Jesus Christ.

To read more:

• Sealing to married women? (PDF file)
• Further resources

Plural marriage as practiced by 19th century Latter-day Saints is an uncomfortable topic for many because it is easier to revile it than to understand it. Understanding plural marriage requires the compilation and mastery of a great deal of historical information. Many credible historians and scholars are attempting to do this but the film producers do not use them. They have relied on accusations and innuendo designed to shock rather than inform the viewer. Helen Mar Kimball, a plural wife of Joseph Smith, expresses the sentiments of those men and women who suffered the censure of others who so freely judged them:

If those not of our faith, who visit our cities, came with a determination to lay aside their prejudices, to learn the facts concerning us, or our religion, nothing would give more pleasure than to tell it them; but too many who have come here, after being treated with every politeness and escorted to seats in our tabernacle which are reserved for the stranger, sit there, under the very altar of the Lord's Supper, in the hearing of Saints who assemble to worship God, and spit out their venom, or make ridicule of everything that we hold sacred.

But the most despicable characters are the overly righteous souls, who are filled with such holy horror at the mention of "Mormon" polygamy, and are the ones whom we look upon with suspicion, and set them down as among the most corrupt of hypocrites."

—Helen Mar Kimball, Woman's Exponent 10 no. 13 (1 December 1881), 97–99.

The FAIR website has extensive resources on the issue of polygamy, and interested readers are encouraged to follow the links provided below for a more in-depth view of polygamy.

To read more:

• Plural marriage wiki resources
• FairMormon Topical Guide: Plural marriage resources FairMormon link
  
• Lengthy paper on polygamy's history: 1830–1904 PDF format

• Home page
• Introduction
• Who Is Jesus?
• Who Is God?
• Eternal Life
• Archaeology
• Prophecies &
  Revelations
• Polygamy
• The First Vision
• The Occult
• The Translator
• DNA
• Book of
  Abraham
• Witnessing to
  Mormons
• Summary
• Call to LDS Leaders
• Music Video
• Credits

• The Good Test
• Burning in the Bosom
• The Priesthood?
• What is Hell?
• A New Beginning

• Letter given
  to distributors
• Annotated with comments
• Producers' press release with comments
• Selected reader comments
• Distorted quotes

Other Protestant attacks on the Church of Jesus Christ:

• Contradictions in LDS scripture?
  Many anti-Mormon protestants use a list of supposed "contradictions" between the Book of Mormon and other LDS scripture. This table reviews and rebuts each.
• Do Christians Believe in Three Gods?
  Review of an anti-Mormon pamphlet.
• Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves
  Questions which protestant critics think that Latter-day Saints cannot answer are here answered.
• 50 Answers from FAIR to 50 Questions Critics Ask Latter-day Saints
  Even more questions which protestant critics think that Latter-day Saints cannot answer are here answered.
• Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith DVD
  A review and examination of this slick anti-Mormon video