FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Difference between revisions of "Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Becoming Gods/Chapter 9"
< Criticism of Mormonism | Books | Becoming Gods
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-\#\* +#)) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-#<br>\n +)) |
||
| Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
"Although wives continued to live with their husbands, they would receive conjugal visits from Smith whenever the need arose." | "Although wives continued to live with their husbands, they would receive conjugal visits from Smith whenever the need arose." | ||
|authorsources=<br> | |authorsources=<br> | ||
| − | |||
*{{CriticalWork:Van Wagoner:Mormon Polygamy|pages=62}} | *{{CriticalWork:Van Wagoner:Mormon Polygamy|pages=62}} | ||
*{{JDfairwiki|author=Jedediah Grant|disc=2|vol=2|start=14}} | *{{JDfairwiki|author=Jedediah Grant|disc=2|vol=2|start=14}} | ||
| Line 122: | Line 121: | ||
"Wife swapping" was "wholly acceptable." | "Wife swapping" was "wholly acceptable." | ||
|authorsources=<br> | |authorsources=<br> | ||
| − | |||
*{{JDfairwiki|author=Jedediah Grant|disc=2|vol=2|start=14}} | *{{JDfairwiki|author=Jedediah Grant|disc=2|vol=2|start=14}} | ||
*Lee, ''Confessions of John D. Lee'', p. 165 | *Lee, ''Confessions of John D. Lee'', p. 165 | ||
| Line 151: | Line 149: | ||
"Early Mormon leaders" believed that Jesus and his apostles were polygamists. | "Early Mormon leaders" believed that Jesus and his apostles were polygamists. | ||
|authorsources=<br> | |authorsources=<br> | ||
| − | |||
*{{JDfairwiki|author=Jedediah M. Grant|disc=49|vol=1|start=346}}. | *{{JDfairwiki|author=Jedediah M. Grant|disc=49|vol=1|start=346}}. | ||
*{{JDfairwiki|author=Orson Hyde|disc=34|vol=2|start=210}}. | *{{JDfairwiki|author=Orson Hyde|disc=34|vol=2|start=210}}. | ||
| Line 166: | Line 163: | ||
The Book of Mormon "seems to condemn polygamy," but Latter-day Saints "deny that this is the case." | The Book of Mormon "seems to condemn polygamy," but Latter-day Saints "deny that this is the case." | ||
|authorsources=<br> | |authorsources=<br> | ||
| − | |||
*{{s||Jacob|1|15}} | *{{s||Jacob|1|15}} | ||
*{{s||Jacob|2|24-27}} | *{{s||Jacob|2|24-27}} | ||
Revision as of 20:27, 20 October 2017
- REDIRECTTemplate:Test3
Response to claims made in "Chapter 9: More Than One Wife"
| Chapter 8 | A FAIR Analysis of: Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism, a work by author: Richard Abanes
|
Chapter 10 |
| Claim Evaluation |
| Becoming Gods |
|
Response to claims made in Becoming Gods, "Chapter 9: More Than One Wife"
Jump to details:
- Response to claim: 225 - In Mormon theology, "creating" includes not only making a world, but peopling it through procreating, through sexual union with one's spouse
- Response to claim: 226 - The statement in the 1835 D&C condemning polygamy was "perhaps in an attempt to conceal Smith's affair"
- Response to claim: 233, 422n47 - Mormons believed that plural marriage was necessary for deification in the Celestial Kingdom
- Response to claim: 233, 422n48-49 - Brigham Young said, "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy"
- Response to claim: 237 - "Although wives continued to live with their husbands, they would receive conjugal visits from Smith whenever the need arose"
- Response to claim: 237, 424n71 - Zina Huntington married Brigham Young while still married to Henry Jacobs, and Henry stood as a witness
- Response to claim: 237, 425n73-75 - "Wife swapping" was "wholly acceptable"
- Response to claim: 237 - The Bible does not sanction or command polygamy. "Most Israelites were monogamous"
- Response to claim: 239, n. 80-83 - "Early Mormon leaders" believed that Jesus and his apostles were polygamists
- Response to claim: 241 - How could Jesus have been a god before he was born, before he had a physical body?
- Response to claim: 241 - How could the Holy Ghost be a god, since he does not have a physical body?
- Response to claim: 244 - "...nowhere in the Old Testament is polygamy linked with any mandates to practice it"
- Response to claim: 245, n97 - Plural marriages were performed after the 1890 Manifesto
Response to claim: 225 - In Mormon theology, "creating" includes not only making a world, but peopling it through procreating, through sexual union with one's spouse
The author(s) of Becoming Gods make(s) the following claim:
In Mormon theology, "creating" includes not only making a world, but peopling it through procreating, through sexual union with one's spouse.Author's sources:
Melodie Moench Charles, "The Need for a New Mormon Heaven," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 21 no. 3 (Fall 1988), 77-78. The reference to "sexual union" comes from Melodie Moench Charles, who is not representative of orthodox LDS teaching.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
The offensive term "celestial sex" is the creation of critics, not Latter-day Saints. Latter-day Saints do not claim to know the process by which spirits are created.
Question: Do Latter-day Saints believe in a practice called "celestial sex," and that this is the manner in which "spirit children" are formed?
It is the critics of the Church that invented and use the offensive term "celestial sex"
This is not a term used by Latter-day Saints. It has, in fact, never been used by Latter-day Saints. The use of the term "celestial sex" by critics is intended to be demeaning and shocking to Latter-day Saints or interested readers. The use of such tactics may say much about the mainstream culture's preoccupation with sexual behavior. However, it says nothing about the actual beliefs of Church members.
Critics of the Church twist LDS beliefs into a form that makes them look ridiculous. Quotes made by early LDS leaders are often used to support the claim that Latter-day Saints believe in “Celestial sex.” It should be noted, however, that LDS leaders have never used the term "Celestial sex." This phrase was coined by critics of the Church, likely for its “shock value” in portraying the following concepts in LDS belief:
- The belief that God the Father has a physical body.
- The belief that there exists a Heavenly Mother who also possesses a physical body.
- The belief that our Heavenly Father and Mother together are capable of creating “spirit children.”
Critics take these ideas and combine them, leading to a declaration that Latter-day Saints therefore believe in “Celestial sex.” Various anti-Mormon works then use this idea to mock LDS beliefs or shock their readers—though this claim does not describe LDS beliefs, but the critics' caricature of them.
One of the earliest uses of the term "celestial sex" was in the anti-Mormon film The God Makers
For example, the 1982 anti-Mormon film The God Makers makes reference to “engaging in celestial sex with their goddess wives." One woman in the film, who is claimed to have once been a Latter-day Saint, expresses the idea that the primary goal of women in the Church is to "become a goddess in heaven" in order to "multiply an earth" and be "eternally pregnant." The claim that Latter-day Saints expect to have "endless Celestial sex" in order to populate their own planet is very popular among critics of the Church, though members themselves would not explain their beliefs in that way.
The critics' assumptions simply take what we know about our physical world and naively apply it to the afterlife. When one examines the critics’ point further, a key question ought to be raised: How does the union of two immortal beings in a physical manner produce spirit offspring? Latter-day Saint belief is that “spirit children” only receive a physical body upon being born on earth.
This question, of course, cannot be answered. It is pointless to speculate on the exact manner in which “spirit children” are produced, and to assume that this occurs through “Celestial sex” and being "eternally pregnant" is to apply a worldly mindset to a spiritual process. The bottom line: Latter-day Saints do not know the mechanism by which “spirit children” are produced, and no LDS doctrine claims that "celestial sex" and being "eternally pregnant" are the means.
Response to claim: 226 - The statement in the 1835 D&C condemning polygamy was "perhaps in an attempt to conceal Smith's affair"
The author(s) of Becoming Gods make(s) the following claim:
The statement in the 1835 D&C condemning polygamy was "perhaps in an attempt to conceal Smith's affair."Author's sources:
- D&C CI:4 (1835 edition), p. 251.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
This is the author's fantasy.
Why did the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants include a statement of marriage that denied the practice of polygamy at a time when some were actually practicing it?
Polygamy was not being taught to the general Church membership at that time
The Article on Marriage was printed in the 1835 D&C as section 101 and in the 1844 D&C as section 109. The portion of the Article on Marriage relevant to polygamy states:
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, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. [1]
This was true—the Church membership generally was not being taught plural marriage, and were not living it at that time.
The statement itself was not changed between the 1835 and 1844 editions of the D&C
In fact, the statement remained in the D&C until the 1876 edition, even though plural marriage had been taught to specific individuals since at least 1831, practiced in secret since 1836, and practiced openly since 1852. The matter of not removing it in 1852 was simply due to the fact that a new edition of the D&C was not published until 1876.
The available evidence suggests that Joseph Smith supported its publication
While some have suggested that the article was published against Joseph's wishes or without his knowledge, the available evidence suggests that he supported its publication. It was likely included to counter the perception that the Mormon's practice of communal property (the "law of consecration") included a community of wives.
The statement was not a revelation given to Joseph Smith - it was written by Oliver Cowdery
This statement was not a revelation given to Joseph Smith—it was written by Oliver Cowdery and introduced to a conference of the priesthood at Kirtland on 17 August 1835. Cowdery also wrote a statement of belief on government that has been retained in our current edition of the D&C as section 134. Both were sustained at the conference and included in the 1835 D&C, which was already at the press and ready to be published. Joseph Smith was preaching in Michigan at the time Oliver and W.W. Phelps introduced these two articles to the conference; it is not known if he approved of their addition to the D&C at the time, although he did retain them in the 1844 Nauvoo edition, which argues that he was not opposed to them. (Phelps read the article on marriage, while Cowdery read the one on government.) [2]
Some have suggested that the manner in which the conference was called suggests that Joseph was not the instigator of it, since it seems to have been done quite quickly, with relatively few high church leaders in attendance:
The General Assembly, which may have been announced on only twenty-four hours' notice, was held Monday, August 17[, 1835]. Its spur-of-the-moment nature is demonstrated by observing that a puzzling majority of Church leaders were absent. Missing from the meeting were all of the Twelve Apostles, eight of the twelve Kirtland High Council members nine of the twelve Missouri High Council members, three of the seven Presidents of the Quorum of Seventy, Presiding Bishop Partridge, and...two of the three members of the First Presidency. [3]
However, there is also some evidence that an article on marriage was already anticipated, and cited four times in the new D&C's index, which was prepared under Joseph's direction and probably available prior to his departure. Thus, "if a disagreement existed, it was resolved before the Prophet left for Pontiac." [4]
Was Oliver Cowdery aware that some in the Church were practicing polygamy in 1835 at the time he authored the "Article on Marriage"?
Oliver Cowdery, the author of the 1835 "Article on Marriage," was aware that some in the Church were practicing polygamy at the time that the statement was published
On July 7, 1878, Joseph F. Smith discussed Oliver's awareness of polygamy at the time of this publication:
To put this matter more correctly before you, I here declare that the principle of plural marriage was not first revealed on the 12th day of July, 1843. It was written for the first time on that date, but it had been revealed to the Prophet many years before that, perhaps as early as 1832. About this time, or subsequently, Joseph, the Prophet, intrusted this fact to Oliver Cowdery; he abused the confidence imposed in him, and brought reproach upon himself, and thereby upon the church by "running before he was sent," and "taking liberties without license," so to speak, hence the publication, by O. Cowdery, about this time, of an article on marriage, which was carefully worded, and afterwards found its way into the Doctrine and Covenants without authority. This article explains itself to those who understand the facts, and is an indisputable evidence of the early existence of the knowledge of the principle of patriarchal marriage by the Prophet Joseph, and also by Oliver Cowdery. [5]
However, there continues to be debate about whether Oliver Cowdery knew about--or prematurely practiced--plural marriage in the 1830s. [6] Oliver would learn about the Fanny Alger marriage, but his reaction at the time seems to have been wholly negative.
The original D&C 101 article outlined the general practice of performing a Latter-day Saint wedding, explained LDS beliefs about the marriage relationship, and denied that the Saints were practicing polygamy.
Was the practice of polygamy general knowledge among Latter-day Saints in 1835 when the "Article on Marriage" was published?
Knowledge of the practice of polygamy among the Saints was limited prior to the 1840s
Some have argued that rumors of "polygamy" may already have been circulating as a result of the Prophet teaching the concept to some of his close associates. However, Brian Hales has argued that there are few if any extant attacks on Joseph or the Saints about polygamy prior to the 1840s:
...if the article was designed to neutralize reports about Joseph Smith and his alleged "crimes," polygamy would not have been included because that allegation was not made then nor at any other time during the Kirtland period according to any documentation currently available. In other words, assuming that the denial of polygamy in the "Marriage" article [of D&C 101] was specifically tied to rumors of Joseph Smith's behavior is problematic, unless other corroborating evidence can be located. [7]
Charges of polygamy or "free love" or having wives in common were often made against new or little-known religious or social groups
On the other hand, charges of polygamy or "free love" or having wives in common were often made against new or little-known religious or social groups. As Hales reports:
Some [nineteenth-century utopian societies] experimented with novel marital and sexual practices, which focused suspicion on all the groups....Accordingly, early Latter-day Saint efforts to live the law of consecration, even though it sustained traditional monogamy, were instantly misunderstood....
John L. Brooke...wrote: "Among the non-Mormons in Ohio there were suspicions that the community of property dictated in the 'Law of Consecration' included wives."...
It seems plausible, even likely, that beginning in 1831, some uninformed individuals assumed that the law of consecration included a community of wives as one of its tenets, even publishing such claims, although there is no indication that this is how the Mormons themselves interpreted the law of consecration. Understandably, Church leaders would actively seek to deny such untrue allegations in a document on marriage to be included in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. [8]
Gilbert Scharffs notes:
The original Section 101 (never claimed as a revelation but approved as a statement of belief) did state that monogamy was the practice of the Church at that time. The section was not written by Joseph Smith and was voted upon by members in his absence. Perhaps the section was intended to prevent members from getting involved with plural marriage until such a time as the practice would be authorized by the Lord Church-wide. When that became the fact, the current Section 132 replaced the old Section 101. [9]
Wiki links |
|
Navigators |
Critical sources |
|
Notes
- ↑ Doctrine and Covenants, 1835 edition, Section 101.
- ↑ History of the Church, 2:246–247. Volume 2 link
- ↑ Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy Volume 1: History (Salt Lake City, Utah: Greg Kofford Books, 2013), 154.
- ↑ Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy Vol. 1, 173, see pp. 171–1731 for full details.
- ↑ Joseph F. Smith, Journal of Discourses 20:29.
- ↑ Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy Vol. 1, 156–158.
- ↑ Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy Vol. 1, 161–162.
- ↑ Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy Vol. 1, 166, 168.
- ↑ Gilbert Scharffs, "Marriage Is Ordained of God", The Truth About "The God Makers" off-site
Response to claim: 233, 422n47 - Mormons believed that plural marriage was necessary for deification in the Celestial Kingdom
The author(s) of Becoming Gods make(s) the following claim:
Mormons believed that plural marriage was necessary for deification in the Celestial Kingdom.Author's sources:
- J.W. Musser, "The New And Everlasting Covenant Of Marriage: An Interpretation Of Celestial Marriage, Plural Marriage, Polygamy."
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event
It is true the 19th-century Mormons believed this. This does not mean that present members of the Church believe that the principle of plural marriage is false—rather, they believe that it is a principle only to be practiced when the Lord commands it for His purposes.
Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual: "Do not speculate about whether plural marriage is a requirement for the celestial kingdom"
Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual, LESSON 140:
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.[1]
Gospel Topics: "During the years that plural marriage was publicly taught, all Latter-day Saints were expected to accept the principle as a revelation from God"
Gospel Topics on LDS.org:
During the years that plural marriage was publicly taught, all Latter-day Saints were expected to accept the principle as a revelation from God. Not all, however, were expected to live it. Indeed, this system of marriage could not have been universal due to the ratio of men to women. Church leaders viewed plural marriage as a command to the Church generally, while recognizing that individuals who did not enter the practice could still stand approved of God. Women were free to choose their spouses, whether to enter into a polygamous or monogamous union, or whether to marry at all. Some men entered plural marriage because they were asked to do so by Church leaders, while others initiated the process themselves; all were required to obtain the approval of Church leaders before entering a plural marriage.[2]
Charles W. Penrose (Improvement Era): "it is not stated that plural marriage is thus essential"
Charles W. Penrose in the September 1912 Improvement Era:
Question 4: 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.[3]
Did early Mormon leaders teach the plural marriage was a requirement for exaltation?
Some 19th century Church leaders taught that plural marriage was a requirement for those wishing to enter the highest degree of the celestial kingdom
To obey the Lord's commands in all things is necessary for exaltation. (Our inevitable failure to live perfectly requires the grace of Christ's atonement.) Members of the Church in, say, 1860 who refused to follow the counsel of prophets and apostles put their spiritual standing in jeopardy. Likewise, members who refuse to obey present counsel are at risk.
Because Mormons do not currently practice plural marriage, does this mean that early leaders who taught that is was required were wrong?
The purpose of modern prophets is to give the Saints the will of God in their particular circumstances
Joseph Smith wrote specifically of the issue of plural marriage:
This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed...in obedience there is joy and peace unspotted, unalloyed; and as God has designed our happiness—and the happiness of all His creatures, he never has—He never will institute an ordinance or give a commandment to His people that is not calculated in its nature to promote that happiness which He has designed, and which will not end in the greatest amount of good and glory to those who become the recipients of his law and ordinances. [4]
LDS doctrine also holds that the prophet, when speaking in an official capacity, speaks on behalf of the Lord:
whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. (D&C 1꞉38)
Critics of the Church often come out of an inerrantist background, or draw on arguments first formulated by religious inerrantists or fundamentalists. In an inerrantist religion, God's instructions cannot change with circumstances—if they did, then the Biblical record would not be sufficient, on its own, to guide us. Since inerrantists require, above all, that the Bible be the sole authority, they must assume that God's requirements are always the same.
Bible examples
However, even the Bible gives many examples of God giving new instructions because of new circumstances, or contravening previous instructions:
- Noah (but no other prophet) was to build an Ark (Genesis 6:14)
- Moses implemented the Passover, which was hitherto unknown (Exodus 3:12-28)
- Jesus revoked the celebration of Passover, and modified the ordinance and its performance at the Last Supper (Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19)
- Hosea was commanded to marry a prostitute as a sign to Israel Hosea 1:1-3
- Jesus told his disciples only to preach to Israelites (Matthew 10:5-6, Matthew 15:24)
- The Lord later told the prophet (Peter) to preach to all people (Acts 10:14-28)
In each case, failure to obey carried significant penalties. Yet, when proper authority altered or rescinded a command, spiritual disaster followed those who did not obey the new instructions.
John Taylor
President John Taylor said:
Where did this commandment come from in relation to polygamy? It also came from God. It was a revelation given unto Joseph Smith from God, and was made binding upon His servants. When this system was first introduced among this people, it was one of the greatest crosses that ever was taken up by any set of men since the world stood. Joseph Smith told others; he told me, and I can bear witness of it, "that if this principle was not introduced, this Church and kingdom could not proceed." When this commandment was given, it was so far religious, and so far binding upon the Elders of this Church that it was told them if they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom would be taken from them. When I see any of our people, men or women, opposing a principle of this kind, I have years ago set them down as on the high road to apostacy, and I do to-day; I consider them apostates, and not interested in this Church and kingdom. [5]
If early Church leaders taught that plural marriage was required, does this mean that current members are not capable of achieving exaltation?
There is no doctrine in the Church that states that plural marriage is the norm, or that it is something that will be required for exaltation
The fact that the modern Church does not approve of or practice polygamy does not mean that present members of the Church believe that the principle of plural marriage is false—rather, they believe that it is a principle only to be practiced when the Lord commands it for His purposes.(See Jacob 2꞉27-30.) There is no doctrine in the Church that states that plural marriage is the norm, or that it is something that will be required for exaltation.
Does D&C 132 state that polygamy is required for our exaltation?
The verse that is cited as supporting this cannot be logically read as a support of polygamy being required for exaltation
Some critics have claimed that D&C 132:4 supports the notion that polygamy is required for exaltation in the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[6] The text reads as follows:
For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory
There are a number of problems with the assumption that this supports polygamy. The following points should demonstrate the appropriate context and thus provide a better exegesis of the relevant passages:
- An 1831 revelation through Joseph Smith defines the everlasting covenant as "the fulness of my gospel, sent forth unto the children of men, that they might have life and be made partakers of the glories which are to be revealed in the last days" (D&C 66:2; see also 133:57). All mortal who inherit celestial glory will enter into this covenant (D&C 76:101; D&C 131:2), which is comprised of bonds that cannot be broken (D&C 78:11).
- The everlasting covenant existed even before the world was organized. "Wherefore, I say unto you that I have sent unto you mine everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning" (D&C 49:9; italics added). From the beginning, God has made covenants with mortals on earth and as they comply with them, they are blessed with exaltation (D&C 6:1, 14:7, 132:23). Compliance begins with baptism (D&C 22:1-4) and is completed through temple ordinances including eternal marriage sealings (D&C 131:2, 132:4, 18-20).
- The Lord's pattern is to reveal the everlasting covenant to believers on earth. Then, when it is lost through apostasy, He reveals it again to a living prophet as a "new" covenant. That prophet is authorized to teach and is given priesthood authority to administer the requisite ordinances. Joseph Smith taught "…in all ages of the world, whenever the Lord has given a dispensation of the priesthood to any man by actual revelation, or any set of men, this power has always been given" (D&C 128:9).
- The scriptures indicate that this covenant was made with Adam (Moses 6:54-55), Enoch (JST Genesis 9:21-23, 13:13), Noah (Genesis 9:16), Abraham (Genesis 17:7, 13, 19), Jacob (1 Chronicles 16:17), and Moses and the Children of Israel (Leviticus 24:8, Numbers 25:13, Jeremiah 32:40). Although Christ came in the meridian of time, He is the mediator of this covenant (Hebrews 13:20). Joseph Smith taught that the everlasting covenant would be reestablished through him (D&C 1:17-22; see also 15) "to be a light to the world, and to be a standard for my people, and for the Gentiles to seek to it, and to be a messenger before my face to prepare the way before me" (D&C 42:9).
- The first public references to the new and everlasting covenant of marriage came in May 1843 when the Prophet taught that "[w]e have no claim in our eternal comfort in relation to eternal things unless our actions and contracts and all things tend to this end." Then two months later, on July 16, he became more specific. According to William Clayton, "He [Joseph Smith] showed that a man must enter into an everlasting covenant with his wife [notice the use of the singular] in this world or he will have no claim on her in the next."
- The verses surrounding verse 4 explain that once the covenant is revealed to a people, this covenant must be obeyed—that is, once the sealing ordinance is introduced among God’s followers on earth, they must marry according to that covenant or incur divine condemnation. The revelation reads:
4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.
5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.
6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.[7]
- Later verses in the revelation demonstrate that the "covenant" that must be obeyed is eternal marriage, not plural marriage. Verse 19 promises exaltation to a man who marries a wife monogamously by proper authority and they live worthily. The threat of damnation in these verses is directed at individuals who have the opportunity to be sealed in eternal marriage, but instead choose a civil union or some other form of matrimony. They are "damned" in the sense that they "remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity" (D&C 132:17) and are not married in the next life. This threat of eternal consequences is similar to that accompanying other covenants and ordinances. For example, a person cannot reject baptism when the opportunity is presented and thereafter expect a second chance to accept it without penalties (see Alma 34:33-35; D&C 45:2).
- The revelation further explains how a husband and "a wife" will be exalted if they are sealed by proper authority and they live worthily: "Verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, . . . [it] shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things" (D&C 132:19). Modern polygamists are all condemned because their marriages are not authorized. See D&C 132:18, 38.
Verse 19 does make use of the indefinite article "a wife" instead of a possessive pronoun (i.e. "his wife") or the definite article (i.e. "the wife" which wouldn't make sense grammatically), but that can simply be because both monogamous and polygamous marriages are in harmony with the covenant.
What all of these points should demonstrate is that the covenant of eternal marriage was necessary for exaltation and not specifically polygamous sealings.
D&C 132 itself says that a man must marry a wife "by [God's] word, which is his law". Thus, it is likely that plural marriage was necessary for exaltation when commanded (and exaltation would be an appropriate reward for keeping such an extremely difficult commandment) and it is not necessary for exaltation now since the commandment was rescinded by the Lord's word to his prophet Wilford Woodruff in 1890.
Critical sources |
|
Notes
- ↑ "LESSON 140: Doctrine and Covenants 132:1–2, 34–66," Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual, 488 (2013).
- ↑ "Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah", Gospel Topics (2013)
- ↑ "Peculiar Questions Briefly Answered," Improvement Era 15:11 (September 1912)
- ↑ Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 5:135. Volume 5 link
- ↑ John Taylor, "Our Religion Is From God," (7 April 1866) Journal of Discourses 11:221.
- ↑ Jeremy Runnells, "Letter to a CES Director" April 2013 edition
- ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 132:4–6
Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual: "Do not speculate about whether plural marriage is a requirement for the celestial kingdom"
Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual, LESSON 140:
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.[1]
Gospel Topics: "During the years that plural marriage was publicly taught, all Latter-day Saints were expected to accept the principle as a revelation from God"
Gospel Topics on LDS.org:
During the years that plural marriage was publicly taught, all Latter-day Saints were expected to accept the principle as a revelation from God. Not all, however, were expected to live it. Indeed, this system of marriage could not have been universal due to the ratio of men to women. Church leaders viewed plural marriage as a command to the Church generally, while recognizing that individuals who did not enter the practice could still stand approved of God. Women were free to choose their spouses, whether to enter into a polygamous or monogamous union, or whether to marry at all. Some men entered plural marriage because they were asked to do so by Church leaders, while others initiated the process themselves; all were required to obtain the approval of Church leaders before entering a plural marriage.[2]
Charles W. Penrose (Improvement Era): "it is not stated that plural marriage is thus essential"
Charles W. Penrose in the September 1912 Improvement Era:
Question 4: 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.[3]
Did early Mormon leaders teach the plural marriage was a requirement for exaltation?
Some 19th century Church leaders taught that plural marriage was a requirement for those wishing to enter the highest degree of the celestial kingdom
To obey the Lord's commands in all things is necessary for exaltation. (Our inevitable failure to live perfectly requires the grace of Christ's atonement.) Members of the Church in, say, 1860 who refused to follow the counsel of prophets and apostles put their spiritual standing in jeopardy. Likewise, members who refuse to obey present counsel are at risk.
Because Mormons do not currently practice plural marriage, does this mean that early leaders who taught that is was required were wrong?
The purpose of modern prophets is to give the Saints the will of God in their particular circumstances
Joseph Smith wrote specifically of the issue of plural marriage:
This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed...in obedience there is joy and peace unspotted, unalloyed; and as God has designed our happiness—and the happiness of all His creatures, he never has—He never will institute an ordinance or give a commandment to His people that is not calculated in its nature to promote that happiness which He has designed, and which will not end in the greatest amount of good and glory to those who become the recipients of his law and ordinances. [4]
LDS doctrine also holds that the prophet, when speaking in an official capacity, speaks on behalf of the Lord:
whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. (D&C 1꞉38)
Critics of the Church often come out of an inerrantist background, or draw on arguments first formulated by religious inerrantists or fundamentalists. In an inerrantist religion, God's instructions cannot change with circumstances—if they did, then the Biblical record would not be sufficient, on its own, to guide us. Since inerrantists require, above all, that the Bible be the sole authority, they must assume that God's requirements are always the same.
Bible examples
However, even the Bible gives many examples of God giving new instructions because of new circumstances, or contravening previous instructions:
- Noah (but no other prophet) was to build an Ark (Genesis 6:14)
- Moses implemented the Passover, which was hitherto unknown (Exodus 3:12-28)
- Jesus revoked the celebration of Passover, and modified the ordinance and its performance at the Last Supper (Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19)
- Hosea was commanded to marry a prostitute as a sign to Israel Hosea 1:1-3
- Jesus told his disciples only to preach to Israelites (Matthew 10:5-6, Matthew 15:24)
- The Lord later told the prophet (Peter) to preach to all people (Acts 10:14-28)
In each case, failure to obey carried significant penalties. Yet, when proper authority altered or rescinded a command, spiritual disaster followed those who did not obey the new instructions.
John Taylor
President John Taylor said:
Where did this commandment come from in relation to polygamy? It also came from God. It was a revelation given unto Joseph Smith from God, and was made binding upon His servants. When this system was first introduced among this people, it was one of the greatest crosses that ever was taken up by any set of men since the world stood. Joseph Smith told others; he told me, and I can bear witness of it, "that if this principle was not introduced, this Church and kingdom could not proceed." When this commandment was given, it was so far religious, and so far binding upon the Elders of this Church that it was told them if they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom would be taken from them. When I see any of our people, men or women, opposing a principle of this kind, I have years ago set them down as on the high road to apostacy, and I do to-day; I consider them apostates, and not interested in this Church and kingdom. [5]
If early Church leaders taught that plural marriage was required, does this mean that current members are not capable of achieving exaltation?
There is no doctrine in the Church that states that plural marriage is the norm, or that it is something that will be required for exaltation
The fact that the modern Church does not approve of or practice polygamy does not mean that present members of the Church believe that the principle of plural marriage is false—rather, they believe that it is a principle only to be practiced when the Lord commands it for His purposes.(See Jacob 2꞉27-30.) There is no doctrine in the Church that states that plural marriage is the norm, or that it is something that will be required for exaltation.
Does D&C 132 state that polygamy is required for our exaltation?
The verse that is cited as supporting this cannot be logically read as a support of polygamy being required for exaltation
Some critics have claimed that D&C 132:4 supports the notion that polygamy is required for exaltation in the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[6] The text reads as follows:
For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory
There are a number of problems with the assumption that this supports polygamy. The following points should demonstrate the appropriate context and thus provide a better exegesis of the relevant passages:
- An 1831 revelation through Joseph Smith defines the everlasting covenant as "the fulness of my gospel, sent forth unto the children of men, that they might have life and be made partakers of the glories which are to be revealed in the last days" (D&C 66:2; see also 133:57). All mortal who inherit celestial glory will enter into this covenant (D&C 76:101; D&C 131:2), which is comprised of bonds that cannot be broken (D&C 78:11).
- The everlasting covenant existed even before the world was organized. "Wherefore, I say unto you that I have sent unto you mine everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning" (D&C 49:9; italics added). From the beginning, God has made covenants with mortals on earth and as they comply with them, they are blessed with exaltation (D&C 6:1, 14:7, 132:23). Compliance begins with baptism (D&C 22:1-4) and is completed through temple ordinances including eternal marriage sealings (D&C 131:2, 132:4, 18-20).
- The Lord's pattern is to reveal the everlasting covenant to believers on earth. Then, when it is lost through apostasy, He reveals it again to a living prophet as a "new" covenant. That prophet is authorized to teach and is given priesthood authority to administer the requisite ordinances. Joseph Smith taught "…in all ages of the world, whenever the Lord has given a dispensation of the priesthood to any man by actual revelation, or any set of men, this power has always been given" (D&C 128:9).
- The scriptures indicate that this covenant was made with Adam (Moses 6:54-55), Enoch (JST Genesis 9:21-23, 13:13), Noah (Genesis 9:16), Abraham (Genesis 17:7, 13, 19), Jacob (1 Chronicles 16:17), and Moses and the Children of Israel (Leviticus 24:8, Numbers 25:13, Jeremiah 32:40). Although Christ came in the meridian of time, He is the mediator of this covenant (Hebrews 13:20). Joseph Smith taught that the everlasting covenant would be reestablished through him (D&C 1:17-22; see also 15) "to be a light to the world, and to be a standard for my people, and for the Gentiles to seek to it, and to be a messenger before my face to prepare the way before me" (D&C 42:9).
- The first public references to the new and everlasting covenant of marriage came in May 1843 when the Prophet taught that "[w]e have no claim in our eternal comfort in relation to eternal things unless our actions and contracts and all things tend to this end." Then two months later, on July 16, he became more specific. According to William Clayton, "He [Joseph Smith] showed that a man must enter into an everlasting covenant with his wife [notice the use of the singular] in this world or he will have no claim on her in the next."
- The verses surrounding verse 4 explain that once the covenant is revealed to a people, this covenant must be obeyed—that is, once the sealing ordinance is introduced among God’s followers on earth, they must marry according to that covenant or incur divine condemnation. The revelation reads:
4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.
5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.
6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.[7]
- Later verses in the revelation demonstrate that the "covenant" that must be obeyed is eternal marriage, not plural marriage. Verse 19 promises exaltation to a man who marries a wife monogamously by proper authority and they live worthily. The threat of damnation in these verses is directed at individuals who have the opportunity to be sealed in eternal marriage, but instead choose a civil union or some other form of matrimony. They are "damned" in the sense that they "remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity" (D&C 132:17) and are not married in the next life. This threat of eternal consequences is similar to that accompanying other covenants and ordinances. For example, a person cannot reject baptism when the opportunity is presented and thereafter expect a second chance to accept it without penalties (see Alma 34:33-35; D&C 45:2).
- The revelation further explains how a husband and "a wife" will be exalted if they are sealed by proper authority and they live worthily: "Verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, . . . [it] shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things" (D&C 132:19). Modern polygamists are all condemned because their marriages are not authorized. See D&C 132:18, 38.
Verse 19 does make use of the indefinite article "a wife" instead of a possessive pronoun (i.e. "his wife") or the definite article (i.e. "the wife" which wouldn't make sense grammatically), but that can simply be because both monogamous and polygamous marriages are in harmony with the covenant.
What all of these points should demonstrate is that the covenant of eternal marriage was necessary for exaltation and not specifically polygamous sealings.
D&C 132 itself says that a man must marry a wife "by [God's] word, which is his law". Thus, it is likely that plural marriage was necessary for exaltation when commanded (and exaltation would be an appropriate reward for keeping such an extremely difficult commandment) and it is not necessary for exaltation now since the commandment was rescinded by the Lord's word to his prophet Wilford Woodruff in 1890.
Critical sources |
|
Notes
- ↑ "LESSON 140: Doctrine and Covenants 132:1–2, 34–66," Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual, 488 (2013).
- ↑ "Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah", Gospel Topics (2013)
- ↑ "Peculiar Questions Briefly Answered," Improvement Era 15:11 (September 1912)
- ↑ Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 5:135. Volume 5 link
- ↑ John Taylor, "Our Religion Is From God," (7 April 1866) Journal of Discourses 11:221.
- ↑ Jeremy Runnells, "Letter to a CES Director" April 2013 edition
- ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 132:4–6
Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual: "Do not speculate about whether plural marriage is a requirement for the celestial kingdom"
Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual, LESSON 140:
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.[1]
Gospel Topics: "During the years that plural marriage was publicly taught, all Latter-day Saints were expected to accept the principle as a revelation from God"
Gospel Topics on LDS.org:
During the years that plural marriage was publicly taught, all Latter-day Saints were expected to accept the principle as a revelation from God. Not all, however, were expected to live it. Indeed, this system of marriage could not have been universal due to the ratio of men to women. Church leaders viewed plural marriage as a command to the Church generally, while recognizing that individuals who did not enter the practice could still stand approved of God. Women were free to choose their spouses, whether to enter into a polygamous or monogamous union, or whether to marry at all. Some men entered plural marriage because they were asked to do so by Church leaders, while others initiated the process themselves; all were required to obtain the approval of Church leaders before entering a plural marriage.[2]
Charles W. Penrose (Improvement Era): "it is not stated that plural marriage is thus essential"
Charles W. Penrose in the September 1912 Improvement Era:
Question 4: 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.[3]
Did early Mormon leaders teach the plural marriage was a requirement for exaltation?
Some 19th century Church leaders taught that plural marriage was a requirement for those wishing to enter the highest degree of the celestial kingdom
To obey the Lord's commands in all things is necessary for exaltation. (Our inevitable failure to live perfectly requires the grace of Christ's atonement.) Members of the Church in, say, 1860 who refused to follow the counsel of prophets and apostles put their spiritual standing in jeopardy. Likewise, members who refuse to obey present counsel are at risk.
Because Mormons do not currently practice plural marriage, does this mean that early leaders who taught that is was required were wrong?
The purpose of modern prophets is to give the Saints the will of God in their particular circumstances
Joseph Smith wrote specifically of the issue of plural marriage:
This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed...in obedience there is joy and peace unspotted, unalloyed; and as God has designed our happiness—and the happiness of all His creatures, he never has—He never will institute an ordinance or give a commandment to His people that is not calculated in its nature to promote that happiness which He has designed, and which will not end in the greatest amount of good and glory to those who become the recipients of his law and ordinances. [4]
LDS doctrine also holds that the prophet, when speaking in an official capacity, speaks on behalf of the Lord:
whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. (D&C 1꞉38)
Critics of the Church often come out of an inerrantist background, or draw on arguments first formulated by religious inerrantists or fundamentalists. In an inerrantist religion, God's instructions cannot change with circumstances—if they did, then the Biblical record would not be sufficient, on its own, to guide us. Since inerrantists require, above all, that the Bible be the sole authority, they must assume that God's requirements are always the same.
Bible examples
However, even the Bible gives many examples of God giving new instructions because of new circumstances, or contravening previous instructions:
- Noah (but no other prophet) was to build an Ark (Genesis 6:14)
- Moses implemented the Passover, which was hitherto unknown (Exodus 3:12-28)
- Jesus revoked the celebration of Passover, and modified the ordinance and its performance at the Last Supper (Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19)
- Hosea was commanded to marry a prostitute as a sign to Israel Hosea 1:1-3
- Jesus told his disciples only to preach to Israelites (Matthew 10:5-6, Matthew 15:24)
- The Lord later told the prophet (Peter) to preach to all people (Acts 10:14-28)
In each case, failure to obey carried significant penalties. Yet, when proper authority altered or rescinded a command, spiritual disaster followed those who did not obey the new instructions.
John Taylor
President John Taylor said:
Where did this commandment come from in relation to polygamy? It also came from God. It was a revelation given unto Joseph Smith from God, and was made binding upon His servants. When this system was first introduced among this people, it was one of the greatest crosses that ever was taken up by any set of men since the world stood. Joseph Smith told others; he told me, and I can bear witness of it, "that if this principle was not introduced, this Church and kingdom could not proceed." When this commandment was given, it was so far religious, and so far binding upon the Elders of this Church that it was told them if they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom would be taken from them. When I see any of our people, men or women, opposing a principle of this kind, I have years ago set them down as on the high road to apostacy, and I do to-day; I consider them apostates, and not interested in this Church and kingdom. [5]
If early Church leaders taught that plural marriage was required, does this mean that current members are not capable of achieving exaltation?
There is no doctrine in the Church that states that plural marriage is the norm, or that it is something that will be required for exaltation
The fact that the modern Church does not approve of or practice polygamy does not mean that present members of the Church believe that the principle of plural marriage is false—rather, they believe that it is a principle only to be practiced when the Lord commands it for His purposes.(See Jacob 2꞉27-30.) There is no doctrine in the Church that states that plural marriage is the norm, or that it is something that will be required for exaltation.
Does D&C 132 state that polygamy is required for our exaltation?
The verse that is cited as supporting this cannot be logically read as a support of polygamy being required for exaltation
Some critics have claimed that D&C 132:4 supports the notion that polygamy is required for exaltation in the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[6] The text reads as follows:
For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory
There are a number of problems with the assumption that this supports polygamy. The following points should demonstrate the appropriate context and thus provide a better exegesis of the relevant passages:
- An 1831 revelation through Joseph Smith defines the everlasting covenant as "the fulness of my gospel, sent forth unto the children of men, that they might have life and be made partakers of the glories which are to be revealed in the last days" (D&C 66:2; see also 133:57). All mortal who inherit celestial glory will enter into this covenant (D&C 76:101; D&C 131:2), which is comprised of bonds that cannot be broken (D&C 78:11).
- The everlasting covenant existed even before the world was organized. "Wherefore, I say unto you that I have sent unto you mine everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning" (D&C 49:9; italics added). From the beginning, God has made covenants with mortals on earth and as they comply with them, they are blessed with exaltation (D&C 6:1, 14:7, 132:23). Compliance begins with baptism (D&C 22:1-4) and is completed through temple ordinances including eternal marriage sealings (D&C 131:2, 132:4, 18-20).
- The Lord's pattern is to reveal the everlasting covenant to believers on earth. Then, when it is lost through apostasy, He reveals it again to a living prophet as a "new" covenant. That prophet is authorized to teach and is given priesthood authority to administer the requisite ordinances. Joseph Smith taught "…in all ages of the world, whenever the Lord has given a dispensation of the priesthood to any man by actual revelation, or any set of men, this power has always been given" (D&C 128:9).
- The scriptures indicate that this covenant was made with Adam (Moses 6:54-55), Enoch (JST Genesis 9:21-23, 13:13), Noah (Genesis 9:16), Abraham (Genesis 17:7, 13, 19), Jacob (1 Chronicles 16:17), and Moses and the Children of Israel (Leviticus 24:8, Numbers 25:13, Jeremiah 32:40). Although Christ came in the meridian of time, He is the mediator of this covenant (Hebrews 13:20). Joseph Smith taught that the everlasting covenant would be reestablished through him (D&C 1:17-22; see also 15) "to be a light to the world, and to be a standard for my people, and for the Gentiles to seek to it, and to be a messenger before my face to prepare the way before me" (D&C 42:9).
- The first public references to the new and everlasting covenant of marriage came in May 1843 when the Prophet taught that "[w]e have no claim in our eternal comfort in relation to eternal things unless our actions and contracts and all things tend to this end." Then two months later, on July 16, he became more specific. According to William Clayton, "He [Joseph Smith] showed that a man must enter into an everlasting covenant with his wife [notice the use of the singular] in this world or he will have no claim on her in the next."
- The verses surrounding verse 4 explain that once the covenant is revealed to a people, this covenant must be obeyed—that is, once the sealing ordinance is introduced among God’s followers on earth, they must marry according to that covenant or incur divine condemnation. The revelation reads:
4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.
5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.
6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.[7]
- Later verses in the revelation demonstrate that the "covenant" that must be obeyed is eternal marriage, not plural marriage. Verse 19 promises exaltation to a man who marries a wife monogamously by proper authority and they live worthily. The threat of damnation in these verses is directed at individuals who have the opportunity to be sealed in eternal marriage, but instead choose a civil union or some other form of matrimony. They are "damned" in the sense that they "remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity" (D&C 132:17) and are not married in the next life. This threat of eternal consequences is similar to that accompanying other covenants and ordinances. For example, a person cannot reject baptism when the opportunity is presented and thereafter expect a second chance to accept it without penalties (see Alma 34:33-35; D&C 45:2).
- The revelation further explains how a husband and "a wife" will be exalted if they are sealed by proper authority and they live worthily: "Verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, . . . [it] shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things" (D&C 132:19). Modern polygamists are all condemned because their marriages are not authorized. See D&C 132:18, 38.
Verse 19 does make use of the indefinite article "a wife" instead of a possessive pronoun (i.e. "his wife") or the definite article (i.e. "the wife" which wouldn't make sense grammatically), but that can simply be because both monogamous and polygamous marriages are in harmony with the covenant.
What all of these points should demonstrate is that the covenant of eternal marriage was necessary for exaltation and not specifically polygamous sealings.
D&C 132 itself says that a man must marry a wife "by [God's] word, which is his law". Thus, it is likely that plural marriage was necessary for exaltation when commanded (and exaltation would be an appropriate reward for keeping such an extremely difficult commandment) and it is not necessary for exaltation now since the commandment was rescinded by the Lord's word to his prophet Wilford Woodruff in 1890.
Critical sources |
|
Notes
- ↑ "LESSON 140: Doctrine and Covenants 132:1–2, 34–66," Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual, 488 (2013).
- ↑ "Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah", Gospel Topics (2013)
- ↑ "Peculiar Questions Briefly Answered," Improvement Era 15:11 (September 1912)
- ↑ Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 5:135. Volume 5 link
- ↑ John Taylor, "Our Religion Is From God," (7 April 1866) Journal of Discourses 11:221.
- ↑ Jeremy Runnells, "Letter to a CES Director" April 2013 edition
- ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 132:4–6
Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual: "Do not speculate about whether plural marriage is a requirement for the celestial kingdom"
Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual, LESSON 140:
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.[1]
Gospel Topics: "During the years that plural marriage was publicly taught, all Latter-day Saints were expected to accept the principle as a revelation from God"
Gospel Topics on LDS.org:
During the years that plural marriage was publicly taught, all Latter-day Saints were expected to accept the principle as a revelation from God. Not all, however, were expected to live it. Indeed, this system of marriage could not have been universal due to the ratio of men to women. Church leaders viewed plural marriage as a command to the Church generally, while recognizing that individuals who did not enter the practice could still stand approved of God. Women were free to choose their spouses, whether to enter into a polygamous or monogamous union, or whether to marry at all. Some men entered plural marriage because they were asked to do so by Church leaders, while others initiated the process themselves; all were required to obtain the approval of Church leaders before entering a plural marriage.[2]
Charles W. Penrose (Improvement Era): "it is not stated that plural marriage is thus essential"
Charles W. Penrose in the September 1912 Improvement Era:
Question 4: 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.[3]
Did early Mormon leaders teach the plural marriage was a requirement for exaltation?
Some 19th century Church leaders taught that plural marriage was a requirement for those wishing to enter the highest degree of the celestial kingdom
To obey the Lord's commands in all things is necessary for exaltation. (Our inevitable failure to live perfectly requires the grace of Christ's atonement.) Members of the Church in, say, 1860 who refused to follow the counsel of prophets and apostles put their spiritual standing in jeopardy. Likewise, members who refuse to obey present counsel are at risk.
Because Mormons do not currently practice plural marriage, does this mean that early leaders who taught that is was required were wrong?
The purpose of modern prophets is to give the Saints the will of God in their particular circumstances
Joseph Smith wrote specifically of the issue of plural marriage:
This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed...in obedience there is joy and peace unspotted, unalloyed; and as God has designed our happiness—and the happiness of all His creatures, he never has—He never will institute an ordinance or give a commandment to His people that is not calculated in its nature to promote that happiness which He has designed, and which will not end in the greatest amount of good and glory to those who become the recipients of his law and ordinances. [4]
LDS doctrine also holds that the prophet, when speaking in an official capacity, speaks on behalf of the Lord:
whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. (D&C 1꞉38)
Critics of the Church often come out of an inerrantist background, or draw on arguments first formulated by religious inerrantists or fundamentalists. In an inerrantist religion, God's instructions cannot change with circumstances—if they did, then the Biblical record would not be sufficient, on its own, to guide us. Since inerrantists require, above all, that the Bible be the sole authority, they must assume that God's requirements are always the same.
Bible examples
However, even the Bible gives many examples of God giving new instructions because of new circumstances, or contravening previous instructions:
- Noah (but no other prophet) was to build an Ark (Genesis 6:14)
- Moses implemented the Passover, which was hitherto unknown (Exodus 3:12-28)
- Jesus revoked the celebration of Passover, and modified the ordinance and its performance at the Last Supper (Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19)
- Hosea was commanded to marry a prostitute as a sign to Israel Hosea 1:1-3
- Jesus told his disciples only to preach to Israelites (Matthew 10:5-6, Matthew 15:24)
- The Lord later told the prophet (Peter) to preach to all people (Acts 10:14-28)
In each case, failure to obey carried significant penalties. Yet, when proper authority altered or rescinded a command, spiritual disaster followed those who did not obey the new instructions.
John Taylor
President John Taylor said:
Where did this commandment come from in relation to polygamy? It also came from God. It was a revelation given unto Joseph Smith from God, and was made binding upon His servants. When this system was first introduced among this people, it was one of the greatest crosses that ever was taken up by any set of men since the world stood. Joseph Smith told others; he told me, and I can bear witness of it, "that if this principle was not introduced, this Church and kingdom could not proceed." When this commandment was given, it was so far religious, and so far binding upon the Elders of this Church that it was told them if they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom would be taken from them. When I see any of our people, men or women, opposing a principle of this kind, I have years ago set them down as on the high road to apostacy, and I do to-day; I consider them apostates, and not interested in this Church and kingdom. [5]
If early Church leaders taught that plural marriage was required, does this mean that current members are not capable of achieving exaltation?
There is no doctrine in the Church that states that plural marriage is the norm, or that it is something that will be required for exaltation
The fact that the modern Church does not approve of or practice polygamy does not mean that present members of the Church believe that the principle of plural marriage is false—rather, they believe that it is a principle only to be practiced when the Lord commands it for His purposes.(See Jacob 2꞉27-30.) There is no doctrine in the Church that states that plural marriage is the norm, or that it is something that will be required for exaltation.
Does D&C 132 state that polygamy is required for our exaltation?
The verse that is cited as supporting this cannot be logically read as a support of polygamy being required for exaltation
Some critics have claimed that D&C 132:4 supports the notion that polygamy is required for exaltation in the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[6] The text reads as follows:
For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory
There are a number of problems with the assumption that this supports polygamy. The following points should demonstrate the appropriate context and thus provide a better exegesis of the relevant passages:
- An 1831 revelation through Joseph Smith defines the everlasting covenant as "the fulness of my gospel, sent forth unto the children of men, that they might have life and be made partakers of the glories which are to be revealed in the last days" (D&C 66:2; see also 133:57). All mortal who inherit celestial glory will enter into this covenant (D&C 76:101; D&C 131:2), which is comprised of bonds that cannot be broken (D&C 78:11).
- The everlasting covenant existed even before the world was organized. "Wherefore, I say unto you that I have sent unto you mine everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning" (D&C 49:9; italics added). From the beginning, God has made covenants with mortals on earth and as they comply with them, they are blessed with exaltation (D&C 6:1, 14:7, 132:23). Compliance begins with baptism (D&C 22:1-4) and is completed through temple ordinances including eternal marriage sealings (D&C 131:2, 132:4, 18-20).
- The Lord's pattern is to reveal the everlasting covenant to believers on earth. Then, when it is lost through apostasy, He reveals it again to a living prophet as a "new" covenant. That prophet is authorized to teach and is given priesthood authority to administer the requisite ordinances. Joseph Smith taught "…in all ages of the world, whenever the Lord has given a dispensation of the priesthood to any man by actual revelation, or any set of men, this power has always been given" (D&C 128:9).
- The scriptures indicate that this covenant was made with Adam (Moses 6:54-55), Enoch (JST Genesis 9:21-23, 13:13), Noah (Genesis 9:16), Abraham (Genesis 17:7, 13, 19), Jacob (1 Chronicles 16:17), and Moses and the Children of Israel (Leviticus 24:8, Numbers 25:13, Jeremiah 32:40). Although Christ came in the meridian of time, He is the mediator of this covenant (Hebrews 13:20). Joseph Smith taught that the everlasting covenant would be reestablished through him (D&C 1:17-22; see also 15) "to be a light to the world, and to be a standard for my people, and for the Gentiles to seek to it, and to be a messenger before my face to prepare the way before me" (D&C 42:9).
- The first public references to the new and everlasting covenant of marriage came in May 1843 when the Prophet taught that "[w]e have no claim in our eternal comfort in relation to eternal things unless our actions and contracts and all things tend to this end." Then two months later, on July 16, he became more specific. According to William Clayton, "He [Joseph Smith] showed that a man must enter into an everlasting covenant with his wife [notice the use of the singular] in this world or he will have no claim on her in the next."
- The verses surrounding verse 4 explain that once the covenant is revealed to a people, this covenant must be obeyed—that is, once the sealing ordinance is introduced among God’s followers on earth, they must marry according to that covenant or incur divine condemnation. The revelation reads:
4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.
5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.
6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.[7]
- Later verses in the revelation demonstrate that the "covenant" that must be obeyed is eternal marriage, not plural marriage. Verse 19 promises exaltation to a man who marries a wife monogamously by proper authority and they live worthily. The threat of damnation in these verses is directed at individuals who have the opportunity to be sealed in eternal marriage, but instead choose a civil union or some other form of matrimony. They are "damned" in the sense that they "remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity" (D&C 132:17) and are not married in the next life. This threat of eternal consequences is similar to that accompanying other covenants and ordinances. For example, a person cannot reject baptism when the opportunity is presented and thereafter expect a second chance to accept it without penalties (see Alma 34:33-35; D&C 45:2).
- The revelation further explains how a husband and "a wife" will be exalted if they are sealed by proper authority and they live worthily: "Verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, . . . [it] shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things" (D&C 132:19). Modern polygamists are all condemned because their marriages are not authorized. See D&C 132:18, 38.
Verse 19 does make use of the indefinite article "a wife" instead of a possessive pronoun (i.e. "his wife") or the definite article (i.e. "the wife" which wouldn't make sense grammatically), but that can simply be because both monogamous and polygamous marriages are in harmony with the covenant.
What all of these points should demonstrate is that the covenant of eternal marriage was necessary for exaltation and not specifically polygamous sealings.
D&C 132 itself says that a man must marry a wife "by [God's] word, which is his law". Thus, it is likely that plural marriage was necessary for exaltation when commanded (and exaltation would be an appropriate reward for keeping such an extremely difficult commandment) and it is not necessary for exaltation now since the commandment was rescinded by the Lord's word to his prophet Wilford Woodruff in 1890.
Critical sources |
|
Notes
- ↑ "LESSON 140: Doctrine and Covenants 132:1–2, 34–66," Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual, 488 (2013).
- ↑ "Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah", Gospel Topics (2013)
- ↑ "Peculiar Questions Briefly Answered," Improvement Era 15:11 (September 1912)
- ↑ Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 5:135. Volume 5 link
- ↑ John Taylor, "Our Religion Is From God," (7 April 1866) Journal of Discourses 11:221.
- ↑ Jeremy Runnells, "Letter to a CES Director" April 2013 edition
- ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 132:4–6
Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual: "Do not speculate about whether plural marriage is a requirement for the celestial kingdom"
Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual, LESSON 140:
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.[1]
Gospel Topics: "During the years that plural marriage was publicly taught, all Latter-day Saints were expected to accept the principle as a revelation from God"
Gospel Topics on LDS.org:
During the years that plural marriage was publicly taught, all Latter-day Saints were expected to accept the principle as a revelation from God. Not all, however, were expected to live it. Indeed, this system of marriage could not have been universal due to the ratio of men to women. Church leaders viewed plural marriage as a command to the Church generally, while recognizing that individuals who did not enter the practice could still stand approved of God. Women were free to choose their spouses, whether to enter into a polygamous or monogamous union, or whether to marry at all. Some men entered plural marriage because they were asked to do so by Church leaders, while others initiated the process themselves; all were required to obtain the approval of Church leaders before entering a plural marriage.[2]
Charles W. Penrose (Improvement Era): "it is not stated that plural marriage is thus essential"
Charles W. Penrose in the September 1912 Improvement Era:
Question 4: 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.[3]
Did early Mormon leaders teach the plural marriage was a requirement for exaltation?
Some 19th century Church leaders taught that plural marriage was a requirement for those wishing to enter the highest degree of the celestial kingdom
To obey the Lord's commands in all things is necessary for exaltation. (Our inevitable failure to live perfectly requires the grace of Christ's atonement.) Members of the Church in, say, 1860 who refused to follow the counsel of prophets and apostles put their spiritual standing in jeopardy. Likewise, members who refuse to obey present counsel are at risk.
Because Mormons do not currently practice plural marriage, does this mean that early leaders who taught that is was required were wrong?
The purpose of modern prophets is to give the Saints the will of God in their particular circumstances
Joseph Smith wrote specifically of the issue of plural marriage:
This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed...in obedience there is joy and peace unspotted, unalloyed; and as God has designed our happiness—and the happiness of all His creatures, he never has—He never will institute an ordinance or give a commandment to His people that is not calculated in its nature to promote that happiness which He has designed, and which will not end in the greatest amount of good and glory to those who become the recipients of his law and ordinances. [4]
LDS doctrine also holds that the prophet, when speaking in an official capacity, speaks on behalf of the Lord:
whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. (D&C 1꞉38)
Critics of the Church often come out of an inerrantist background, or draw on arguments first formulated by religious inerrantists or fundamentalists. In an inerrantist religion, God's instructions cannot change with circumstances—if they did, then the Biblical record would not be sufficient, on its own, to guide us. Since inerrantists require, above all, that the Bible be the sole authority, they must assume that God's requirements are always the same.
Bible examples
However, even the Bible gives many examples of God giving new instructions because of new circumstances, or contravening previous instructions:
- Noah (but no other prophet) was to build an Ark (Genesis 6:14)
- Moses implemented the Passover, which was hitherto unknown (Exodus 3:12-28)
- Jesus revoked the celebration of Passover, and modified the ordinance and its performance at the Last Supper (Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19)
- Hosea was commanded to marry a prostitute as a sign to Israel Hosea 1:1-3
- Jesus told his disciples only to preach to Israelites (Matthew 10:5-6, Matthew 15:24)
- The Lord later told the prophet (Peter) to preach to all people (Acts 10:14-28)
In each case, failure to obey carried significant penalties. Yet, when proper authority altered or rescinded a command, spiritual disaster followed those who did not obey the new instructions.
John Taylor
President John Taylor said:
Where did this commandment come from in relation to polygamy? It also came from God. It was a revelation given unto Joseph Smith from God, and was made binding upon His servants. When this system was first introduced among this people, it was one of the greatest crosses that ever was taken up by any set of men since the world stood. Joseph Smith told others; he told me, and I can bear witness of it, "that if this principle was not introduced, this Church and kingdom could not proceed." When this commandment was given, it was so far religious, and so far binding upon the Elders of this Church that it was told them if they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom would be taken from them. When I see any of our people, men or women, opposing a principle of this kind, I have years ago set them down as on the high road to apostacy, and I do to-day; I consider them apostates, and not interested in this Church and kingdom. [5]
If early Church leaders taught that plural marriage was required, does this mean that current members are not capable of achieving exaltation?
There is no doctrine in the Church that states that plural marriage is the norm, or that it is something that will be required for exaltation
The fact that the modern Church does not approve of or practice polygamy does not mean that present members of the Church believe that the principle of plural marriage is false—rather, they believe that it is a principle only to be practiced when the Lord commands it for His purposes.(See Jacob 2꞉27-30.) There is no doctrine in the Church that states that plural marriage is the norm, or that it is something that will be required for exaltation.
Does D&C 132 state that polygamy is required for our exaltation?
The verse that is cited as supporting this cannot be logically read as a support of polygamy being required for exaltation
Some critics have claimed that D&C 132:4 supports the notion that polygamy is required for exaltation in the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[6] The text reads as follows:
For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory
There are a number of problems with the assumption that this supports polygamy. The following points should demonstrate the appropriate context and thus provide a better exegesis of the relevant passages:
- An 1831 revelation through Joseph Smith defines the everlasting covenant as "the fulness of my gospel, sent forth unto the children of men, that they might have life and be made partakers of the glories which are to be revealed in the last days" (D&C 66:2; see also 133:57). All mortal who inherit celestial glory will enter into this covenant (D&C 76:101; D&C 131:2), which is comprised of bonds that cannot be broken (D&C 78:11).
- The everlasting covenant existed even before the world was organized. "Wherefore, I say unto you that I have sent unto you mine everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning" (D&C 49:9; italics added). From the beginning, God has made covenants with mortals on earth and as they comply with them, they are blessed with exaltation (D&C 6:1, 14:7, 132:23). Compliance begins with baptism (D&C 22:1-4) and is completed through temple ordinances including eternal marriage sealings (D&C 131:2, 132:4, 18-20).
- The Lord's pattern is to reveal the everlasting covenant to believers on earth. Then, when it is lost through apostasy, He reveals it again to a living prophet as a "new" covenant. That prophet is authorized to teach and is given priesthood authority to administer the requisite ordinances. Joseph Smith taught "…in all ages of the world, whenever the Lord has given a dispensation of the priesthood to any man by actual revelation, or any set of men, this power has always been given" (D&C 128:9).
- The scriptures indicate that this covenant was made with Adam (Moses 6:54-55), Enoch (JST Genesis 9:21-23, 13:13), Noah (Genesis 9:16), Abraham (Genesis 17:7, 13, 19), Jacob (1 Chronicles 16:17), and Moses and the Children of Israel (Leviticus 24:8, Numbers 25:13, Jeremiah 32:40). Although Christ came in the meridian of time, He is the mediator of this covenant (Hebrews 13:20). Joseph Smith taught that the everlasting covenant would be reestablished through him (D&C 1:17-22; see also 15) "to be a light to the world, and to be a standard for my people, and for the Gentiles to seek to it, and to be a messenger before my face to prepare the way before me" (D&C 42:9).
- The first public references to the new and everlasting covenant of marriage came in May 1843 when the Prophet taught that "[w]e have no claim in our eternal comfort in relation to eternal things unless our actions and contracts and all things tend to this end." Then two months later, on July 16, he became more specific. According to William Clayton, "He [Joseph Smith] showed that a man must enter into an everlasting covenant with his wife [notice the use of the singular] in this world or he will have no claim on her in the next."
- The verses surrounding verse 4 explain that once the covenant is revealed to a people, this covenant must be obeyed—that is, once the sealing ordinance is introduced among God’s followers on earth, they must marry according to that covenant or incur divine condemnation. The revelation reads:
4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.
5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.
6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.[7]
- Later verses in the revelation demonstrate that the "covenant" that must be obeyed is eternal marriage, not plural marriage. Verse 19 promises exaltation to a man who marries a wife monogamously by proper authority and they live worthily. The threat of damnation in these verses is directed at individuals who have the opportunity to be sealed in eternal marriage, but instead choose a civil union or some other form of matrimony. They are "damned" in the sense that they "remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity" (D&C 132:17) and are not married in the next life. This threat of eternal consequences is similar to that accompanying other covenants and ordinances. For example, a person cannot reject baptism when the opportunity is presented and thereafter expect a second chance to accept it without penalties (see Alma 34:33-35; D&C 45:2).
- The revelation further explains how a husband and "a wife" will be exalted if they are sealed by proper authority and they live worthily: "Verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, . . . [it] shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things" (D&C 132:19). Modern polygamists are all condemned because their marriages are not authorized. See D&C 132:18, 38.
Verse 19 does make use of the indefinite article "a wife" instead of a possessive pronoun (i.e. "his wife") or the definite article (i.e. "the wife" which wouldn't make sense grammatically), but that can simply be because both monogamous and polygamous marriages are in harmony with the covenant.
What all of these points should demonstrate is that the covenant of eternal marriage was necessary for exaltation and not specifically polygamous sealings.
D&C 132 itself says that a man must marry a wife "by [God's] word, which is his law". Thus, it is likely that plural marriage was necessary for exaltation when commanded (and exaltation would be an appropriate reward for keeping such an extremely difficult commandment) and it is not necessary for exaltation now since the commandment was rescinded by the Lord's word to his prophet Wilford Woodruff in 1890.
Critical sources |
|
Notes
- ↑ "LESSON 140: Doctrine and Covenants 132:1–2, 34–66," Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual, 488 (2013).
- ↑ "Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah", Gospel Topics (2013)
- ↑ "Peculiar Questions Briefly Answered," Improvement Era 15:11 (September 1912)
- ↑ Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 5:135. Volume 5 link
- ↑ John Taylor, "Our Religion Is From God," (7 April 1866) Journal of Discourses 11:221.
- ↑ Jeremy Runnells, "Letter to a CES Director" April 2013 edition
- ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 132:4–6
Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual: "Do not speculate about whether plural marriage is a requirement for the celestial kingdom"
Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual, LESSON 140:
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.[1]
Gospel Topics: "During the years that plural marriage was publicly taught, all Latter-day Saints were expected to accept the principle as a revelation from God"
Gospel Topics on LDS.org:
During the years that plural marriage was publicly taught, all Latter-day Saints were expected to accept the principle as a revelation from God. Not all, however, were expected to live it. Indeed, this system of marriage could not have been universal due to the ratio of men to women. Church leaders viewed plural marriage as a command to the Church generally, while recognizing that individuals who did not enter the practice could still stand approved of God. Women were free to choose their spouses, whether to enter into a polygamous or monogamous union, or whether to marry at all. Some men entered plural marriage because they were asked to do so by Church leaders, while others initiated the process themselves; all were required to obtain the approval of Church leaders before entering a plural marriage.[2]
Charles W. Penrose (Improvement Era): "it is not stated that plural marriage is thus essential"
Charles W. Penrose in the September 1912 Improvement Era:
Question 4: 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.[3]
Did early Mormon leaders teach the plural marriage was a requirement for exaltation?
Some 19th century Church leaders taught that plural marriage was a requirement for those wishing to enter the highest degree of the celestial kingdom
To obey the Lord's commands in all things is necessary for exaltation. (Our inevitable failure to live perfectly requires the grace of Christ's atonement.) Members of the Church in, say, 1860 who refused to follow the counsel of prophets and apostles put their spiritual standing in jeopardy. Likewise, members who refuse to obey present counsel are at risk.
Because Mormons do not currently practice plural marriage, does this mean that early leaders who taught that is was required were wrong?
The purpose of modern prophets is to give the Saints the will of God in their particular circumstances
Joseph Smith wrote specifically of the issue of plural marriage:
This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed...in obedience there is joy and peace unspotted, unalloyed; and as God has designed our happiness—and the happiness of all His creatures, he never has—He never will institute an ordinance or give a commandment to His people that is not calculated in its nature to promote that happiness which He has designed, and which will not end in the greatest amount of good and glory to those who become the recipients of his law and ordinances. [4]
LDS doctrine also holds that the prophet, when speaking in an official capacity, speaks on behalf of the Lord:
whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. (D&C 1꞉38)
Critics of the Church often come out of an inerrantist background, or draw on arguments first formulated by religious inerrantists or fundamentalists. In an inerrantist religion, God's instructions cannot change with circumstances—if they did, then the Biblical record would not be sufficient, on its own, to guide us. Since inerrantists require, above all, that the Bible be the sole authority, they must assume that God's requirements are always the same.
Bible examples
However, even the Bible gives many examples of God giving new instructions because of new circumstances, or contravening previous instructions:
- Noah (but no other prophet) was to build an Ark (Genesis 6:14)
- Moses implemented the Passover, which was hitherto unknown (Exodus 3:12-28)
- Jesus revoked the celebration of Passover, and modified the ordinance and its performance at the Last Supper (Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19)
- Hosea was commanded to marry a prostitute as a sign to Israel Hosea 1:1-3
- Jesus told his disciples only to preach to Israelites (Matthew 10:5-6, Matthew 15:24)
- The Lord later told the prophet (Peter) to preach to all people (Acts 10:14-28)
In each case, failure to obey carried significant penalties. Yet, when proper authority altered or rescinded a command, spiritual disaster followed those who did not obey the new instructions.
John Taylor
President John Taylor said:
Where did this commandment come from in relation to polygamy? It also came from God. It was a revelation given unto Joseph Smith from God, and was made binding upon His servants. When this system was first introduced among this people, it was one of the greatest crosses that ever was taken up by any set of men since the world stood. Joseph Smith told others; he told me, and I can bear witness of it, "that if this principle was not introduced, this Church and kingdom could not proceed." When this commandment was given, it was so far religious, and so far binding upon the Elders of this Church that it was told them if they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom would be taken from them. When I see any of our people, men or women, opposing a principle of this kind, I have years ago set them down as on the high road to apostacy, and I do to-day; I consider them apostates, and not interested in this Church and kingdom. [5]
If early Church leaders taught that plural marriage was required, does this mean that current members are not capable of achieving exaltation?
There is no doctrine in the Church that states that plural marriage is the norm, or that it is something that will be required for exaltation
The fact that the modern Church does not approve of or practice polygamy does not mean that present members of the Church believe that the principle of plural marriage is false—rather, they believe that it is a principle only to be practiced when the Lord commands it for His purposes.(See Jacob 2꞉27-30.) There is no doctrine in the Church that states that plural marriage is the norm, or that it is something that will be required for exaltation.
Does D&C 132 state that polygamy is required for our exaltation?
The verse that is cited as supporting this cannot be logically read as a support of polygamy being required for exaltation
Some critics have claimed that D&C 132:4 supports the notion that polygamy is required for exaltation in the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[6] The text reads as follows:
For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory
There are a number of problems with the assumption that this supports polygamy. The following points should demonstrate the appropriate context and thus provide a better exegesis of the relevant passages:
- An 1831 revelation through Joseph Smith defines the everlasting covenant as "the fulness of my gospel, sent forth unto the children of men, that they might have life and be made partakers of the glories which are to be revealed in the last days" (D&C 66:2; see also 133:57). All mortal who inherit celestial glory will enter into this covenant (D&C 76:101; D&C 131:2), which is comprised of bonds that cannot be broken (D&C 78:11).
- The everlasting covenant existed even before the world was organized. "Wherefore, I say unto you that I have sent unto you mine everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning" (D&C 49:9; italics added). From the beginning, God has made covenants with mortals on earth and as they comply with them, they are blessed with exaltation (D&C 6:1, 14:7, 132:23). Compliance begins with baptism (D&C 22:1-4) and is completed through temple ordinances including eternal marriage sealings (D&C 131:2, 132:4, 18-20).
- The Lord's pattern is to reveal the everlasting covenant to believers on earth. Then, when it is lost through apostasy, He reveals it again to a living prophet as a "new" covenant. That prophet is authorized to teach and is given priesthood authority to administer the requisite ordinances. Joseph Smith taught "…in all ages of the world, whenever the Lord has given a dispensation of the priesthood to any man by actual revelation, or any set of men, this power has always been given" (D&C 128:9).
- The scriptures indicate that this covenant was made with Adam (Moses 6:54-55), Enoch (JST Genesis 9:21-23, 13:13), Noah (Genesis 9:16), Abraham (Genesis 17:7, 13, 19), Jacob (1 Chronicles 16:17), and Moses and the Children of Israel (Leviticus 24:8, Numbers 25:13, Jeremiah 32:40). Although Christ came in the meridian of time, He is the mediator of this covenant (Hebrews 13:20). Joseph Smith taught that the everlasting covenant would be reestablished through him (D&C 1:17-22; see also 15) "to be a light to the world, and to be a standard for my people, and for the Gentiles to seek to it, and to be a messenger before my face to prepare the way before me" (D&C 42:9).
- The first public references to the new and everlasting covenant of marriage came in May 1843 when the Prophet taught that "[w]e have no claim in our eternal comfort in relation to eternal things unless our actions and contracts and all things tend to this end." Then two months later, on July 16, he became more specific. According to William Clayton, "He [Joseph Smith] showed that a man must enter into an everlasting covenant with his wife [notice the use of the singular] in this world or he will have no claim on her in the next."
- The verses surrounding verse 4 explain that once the covenant is revealed to a people, this covenant must be obeyed—that is, once the sealing ordinance is introduced among God’s followers on earth, they must marry according to that covenant or incur divine condemnation. The revelation reads:
4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.
5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.
6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.[7]
- Later verses in the revelation demonstrate that the "covenant" that must be obeyed is eternal marriage, not plural marriage. Verse 19 promises exaltation to a man who marries a wife monogamously by proper authority and they live worthily. The threat of damnation in these verses is directed at individuals who have the opportunity to be sealed in eternal marriage, but instead choose a civil union or some other form of matrimony. They are "damned" in the sense that they "remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity" (D&C 132:17) and are not married in the next life. This threat of eternal consequences is similar to that accompanying other covenants and ordinances. For example, a person cannot reject baptism when the opportunity is presented and thereafter expect a second chance to accept it without penalties (see Alma 34:33-35; D&C 45:2).
- The revelation further explains how a husband and "a wife" will be exalted if they are sealed by proper authority and they live worthily: "Verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, . . . [it] shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things" (D&C 132:19). Modern polygamists are all condemned because their marriages are not authorized. See D&C 132:18, 38.
Verse 19 does make use of the indefinite article "a wife" instead of a possessive pronoun (i.e. "his wife") or the definite article (i.e. "the wife" which wouldn't make sense grammatically), but that can simply be because both monogamous and polygamous marriages are in harmony with the covenant.
What all of these points should demonstrate is that the covenant of eternal marriage was necessary for exaltation and not specifically polygamous sealings.
D&C 132 itself says that a man must marry a wife "by [God's] word, which is his law". Thus, it is likely that plural marriage was necessary for exaltation when commanded (and exaltation would be an appropriate reward for keeping such an extremely difficult commandment) and it is not necessary for exaltation now since the commandment was rescinded by the Lord's word to his prophet Wilford Woodruff in 1890.
Critical sources |
|
Notes
- ↑ "LESSON 140: Doctrine and Covenants 132:1–2, 34–66," Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual, 488 (2013).
- ↑ "Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah", Gospel Topics (2013)
- ↑ "Peculiar Questions Briefly Answered," Improvement Era 15:11 (September 1912)
- ↑ Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 5:135. Volume 5 link
- ↑ John Taylor, "Our Religion Is From God," (7 April 1866) Journal of Discourses 11:221.
- ↑ Jeremy Runnells, "Letter to a CES Director" April 2013 edition
- ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 132:4–6
Response to claim: 233, 422n48-49 - Brigham Young said, "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy"
The author(s) of Becoming Gods make(s) the following claim:
Brigham Young said, "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy."Author's sources:
- Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11:268-269
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
If you read the entire passage from which this quote is taken, you will see that Brigham is also acknowledging those who do not actually practice plural marriage. Critics of the Church, however, only extract this single phrase.
Question: Is plural marriage required in order to achieve exaltation?
Critics quote Brigham Young saying that "[t]he only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy"
Critics of the Church point to a statement made by Brigham Young to make the claim that Latter-day Saints believe that one must practice plural marriage in order to achieve exaltation (i.e. become like God not just be saved).[1]
The relevant text is as follows:
The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11:269.)
This quotation is often used in anti-Mormon sources. They do not include the surrounding text which explains what Brigham Young had in mind on this occasion:
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.[2]
Brigham was stating that the command to practice plural marriage was from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
It is clear from the quote that Brigham was making several points which the critics ignore:
- 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.
- Faithful Saints cannot expect to receive "all that the Father has" if they willfully disobey God. When the people have "had blessings offered unto them," and if they refuse to obey, God will withhold blessings later because of that disobedience now.
Finally, it must be remembered that Brigham Young is speaking to a group who had been commanded to live the law of polygamy. There is no basis for speculating about what he would have said to a group who did not have that commandment given to them, as present-day members do not.
Response to claim: 237 - "Although wives continued to live with their husbands, they would receive conjugal visits from Smith whenever the need arose"
The author(s) of Becoming Gods make(s) the following claim:
"Although wives continued to live with their husbands, they would receive conjugal visits from Smith whenever the need arose."Author's sources:
- Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), 62.
- Jedediah Grant, Journal of Discourses 2:14.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is false
The sources quoted in the endnotes do not say anything about "conjugal visits" to women to whom Joseph was sealed who already had husbands for time.
Response to claim: 237, 424n71 - Zina Huntington married Brigham Young while still married to Henry Jacobs, and Henry stood as a witness
The author(s) of Becoming Gods make(s) the following claim:
Zina Huntington married Brigham Young while still married to Henry Jacobs, and Henry stood as a witness.Author's sources:
- Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997), 20, 48-49. ( Index of claims )
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
Zina and Henry had ended their marriage before she was married to Brigham Young.- Full details: Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men."
Zina and polyandry
Summary: In 1839, at age 18, Zina arrived with her parents in Nauvoo after being driven out of Missouri. Faithful LDS missionary Henry Jacobs courted her during 1840–41. At the same time, Joseph Smith had taught Zina the doctrine of plural marriage, and thrice asked her to marry him. She declined each time, and she and Henry were wed 7 March 1841.- Analysis of Zina and Henry Jacobs—Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young by Allen Wyatt (Link)
∗ ∗ ∗
Zina and polyandry
Summary: Zina was a woman who was sealed to Joseph while she had a living husband.Availability for testimony in 1892 Temple Lot case
Summary: Nine plural wives were living in 1892. Whether they were called as witnesses seems to have depended upon whether they could testify to conjugality in the plural marriages.Child by Joseph ruled out by DNA testing
Summary: DNA research in 2005 confirmed Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs's son Zebulon was the son of Henry Bailey Jacobs.Divine manifestations to Zina Huntington
Summary: Did those who entered into plural marriage do so simply because Joseph Smith (or another Church leader) "told them to"? Is this an example of "blind obedience"? No, they bore witness that only powerful revelatory experiences convinced them that the command was from God.Why would Joseph be sealed to the wife of someone who was not only married to someone else, but pregnant with her husband's child?
Joseph asked Zina three times to marry him before she married Henry
In 1839, at age 18, Zina arrived with her parents in Nauvoo after being driven out of Missouri. Faithful LDS missionary Henry Jacobs courted her during 1840–41. At the same time, Joseph Smith had taught Zina the doctrine of plural marriage, and thrice asked her to marry him. She declined each time, and she and Henry were wed 7 March 1841.[3] Zina and Henry were married by John C. Bennett, then mayor of Nauvoo. They had invited Joseph to perform the ceremony, but Bennett stepped in when Joseph did not arrive:
…Zina asked the Prophet to perform the marriage. They went to the Clerk’s office and the Prophet did not arrive, so they were married by John C. Bennett. When they saw Joseph they asked him why he didn’t come, and he told them the Lord had made it known to him that she was to be his Celestial wife.[4]
Zina and Henry were aware of Joseph's plural marriage teachings and his proposal to Zina
Family tradition holds, then, that Zina and Henry were aware of Joseph's plural marriage teachings and his proposal to Zina. While this perspective is late and after-the-fact, it is consistent with the Jacobs' behaviour thereafter. Zina's family also wrote that Henry believed that "whatever the Prophet did was right, without making the wisdom of God's authorities bend to the reasoning of any man." [5]
On 27 October 1841, Zina was sealed to Joseph Smith by her brother, Dimick Huntington. She was six months pregnant by Henry, and continued to live with him.
Did Joseph Smith and Brigham Young steal Henry Jacobs' family?
This plaque located in the Church History Museum mentions Zina's sealing to Joseph Smith and marriage to Brigham Young (Photo taken in 2012)
Zina had refused Joseph's suit three times and chosen to marry Henry, but then decided to be sealed to Joseph
Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's "mistreatment" of Henry and their "theft" of his family have received a great deal of publicity, thanks to late 19th century anti-Mormon sources, and Fawn Brodie increased their cachet for a 20th century audience.[6] For present purposes, we will focus on Zina. She had refused Joseph's suit three times, and chosen to marry Henry. Why did she decide to be sealed to Joseph?
Zina stated that God had prepared her mind for Joseph's teachings even before she had heard them
When interrogated by a member of the RLDS Church, Zina refused to be drawn into specifics. She made her motivations clear, and explained that God had prepared her mind for Joseph's teachings even before she had heard them:
- Q. "Can you give us the date of that marriage with Joseph Smith?"
- A. "No, sir, I could not."
- Q. "Not even the year?"
- A. "No, I do not remember. It was something too sacred to be talked about; it was more to me than life or death. I never breathed it for years. I will tell you the facts. I had dreams—I am no dreamer but I had dreams that I could not account for. I know this is the work of the Lord; it was revealed to me, even when young. Things were presented to my mind that I could not account for. When Joseph Smith revealed this order [Celestial marriage] I knew what it meant; the Lord was preparing my mind to receive it." [7]
Henry Jacobs stood as proxy for Zina's post-martyrdom sealing to Joseph, and her marriage for time to Brigham Young
Henry was to stand as proxy for Zina's post-martyrdom sealing to Joseph, and her marriage for time to Brigham Young. He and Zina separated soon thereafter, and Henry was soon gone on one of his many missions for the Church.[8]
Zina herself clearly explains the basis for her choice:
…when I heard that God had revealed the law of Celestial marriage that we would have the privilege of associating in family relationships in the worlds to come, I searched the scriptures and by humble prayer to my Heavenly Father I obtained a testimony for myself that God had required that order to be established in his Church.[9] Faced with questions from her RLDS interviewer that she felt exceeded propriety, Zina became evasive. She finally terminated the interview by saying, "Mr. Wight, you are speaking on the most sacred experiences of my life…."[10]
What did the husband of Zina D. Huntington know about her sealing to Joseph Smith for eternity?
Zina married Henry Jacobs in 1840, and was sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity in 1841
Zina married Henry Jacobs in 1840, and was sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity in 1841,
Be it remembered that on this first day of May A.D. eighteen sixty nine before me Elias Smith Probate Judge for Said County personally appeared, Zina Diantha Huntington ^Young^ who was by me Sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath Saith, that on the twenty-Seventh day of October A.D. 1841, at the City of Nauvoo, County of Hancock, State of Illinois, She was married or Sealed to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, by Dimick B. Huntington, a High Priest in Said Church, according to the laws of the same; regulating marriage; In the presence of Fanny Maria Huntington.[11]
There are many stories and accusations related to the marriage of Zina and Henry, and her sealing to Joseph. For details regarding each of these allegations, see Brian and Laura Hales, "Zina Diantha Huntington," josephsmithspolygamy.org off-site.
See also: Allen Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young," FAIR Conference, 2006.
Did Brigham Young tell Henry Jacobs in front of hundreds of people that he needed to find another wife?
The immediate problem with such a statement is that there is no contemporary corroboration for it from among the "hundreds" who supposedly observed it
Allen Wyatt explains how this story originated,
The Charge by William Hall
Critics of the early Saints have, often with glee, latched onto William Hall’s story and used it as a prime example of ecclesiastical abuse, pitting a powerful Brigham Young against a penniless and ill Henry Jacobs, with Zina as some kind of prize for the winner of their imagined contest. It is easy to understand how one might see things that way; it is certainly the way that William Hall portrayed the episode:
At a place called, by the Mormons, Pisgah, in Iowa, as they were passing through to Council Bluffs, Brigham Young spoke in this wise, in the hearing of hundreds: He said it was time for men who were walking in other men’s shoes to step out of them. "Brother Jacobs," he says, "the woman you claim for a wife does not belong to you. She is the spiritual wife of brother Joseph, sealed up to him. I am his proxy, and she, in this behalf, with her children, are my property. You can go where you please, and get another, but be sure to get one of your own kindred spirit."37
The immediate problem with such a statement is that there is no contemporary corroboration for it. Hall states that Brigham’s statement was made in the hearing of hundreds of people, yet there are no other diaries that indicate such a statement or, indeed, any statement from Brigham to Henry. The statement itself would need to have been made sometime between Henry’s arrival at Mt. Pisgah (May 18) and his departure on his mission (approximately June 1).
For instance, Patty Bartlett Sessions, who was a detailed journal writer, arrived at Mt. Pisgah in the same company as the Jacobs’ and left Mt. Pisgah on June 2, 1846. None of her diary entries for the period refer to any such statement by Brigham Young, and it is safe to assume that she would have been among the "hundreds" referenced by William Hall. In fact, Sessions continues to refer to Zina as either "Zina Jacobs" or "sister Jacobs" as late as June 3, 1847,38 which reference would seem unlikely if she had heard Brigham claim Zina (and her children) as his property and exile Henry.
The diary of William Huntington records only one semi-public and one fully public meeting between May 18 and the first of June. There was a prayer meeting for selected individuals held on May 31,39 and a meeting in the grove near Huntington’s house on June 1 that turned into a "special conference" at which "considerable business" was done.40 There is, however, no record in his diary of any denouncing of his son-in-law by Brigham.[12]
For more information, see Allen Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young," FAIR presentation transcript, 2006. FAIR link
Joseph Smith's Polygamy: "Zina Huntington", by Brian C. Hales
Joseph Smith's Polygamy: "After Louisa Beaman, Joseph Smith Seeks Almost Exclusively “Eternity Only” Sealings", by Brian C. Hales
Notes
- ↑ The following critical works use this quote from Brigham to claim that Latter-day Saints must accept polygamy as a requirement to enter heaven. Contender Ministries, Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves. Answers; Richard Abanes, Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism (Harvest House Publishers: 2005). 233, 422 n. 48-49. ( Index of claims ); George D. Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy: "...but we called it celestial marriage" (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2008), xiv, 6, 55, , 356. ( Index of claims , (Detailed book review)); Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism (Moody Press, 1979), 29, 258.( Index of claims )
- ↑ Brigham Young, "Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City," (19 August 1866) Journal of Discourses 11:268-269. (emphasis added) See Quote mining—Journal of Discourses 11:269 to see how this quote was mined.
- ↑ Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, 263–264.
- ↑ Allen L. Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young," in FAIR Conference (Salt Lake City, Utah: FAIR, 1st draft, 2006).
- ↑ Oa J. Cannon, "History of Henry Bailey Jacobs," (L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Brigham Young University, n.d.), 1; cited by Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young," (emphasis added). See also Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy, 44; Van Wagoner, "Mormon Polyandry in Nauvoo," 78; Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, 80.
- ↑ These charges are examined in detail (here).
- ↑ Cannon, "History of Henry Bailey Jacobs," 5; cited in Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy, 44.
- ↑ See here for a more in-depth analysis of attacks on Brigham and Joseph regarding Zina and Henry.
- ↑ Interview of John Wight [RLDS] with Zina D.H. Young, October 1, 1898, "Evidence from Zina D. Huntington-Young," Saints’ Herald, 52 (11 January 1905), 29; cited in Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young".
- ↑ Autobiography of Zina D. Young, no date, part of the Zina Card Brown Family Collection (1806-1972), LDS Church Archives, MS 4780, box 2, folder 17, cited by Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young,"; John Wight with Zina D.H. Young, 1 October 1898, "Evidence from Zina D. Huntington-Young," Saints Herald, 52 (11 January 1905): 28.
- ↑ Joseph F. Smith Affidavit Books, 1:5, CHL.
- ↑ Allen Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young," 2006 FAIR Conference.
Zina and polyandry
Summary: In 1839, at age 18, Zina arrived with her parents in Nauvoo after being driven out of Missouri. Faithful LDS missionary Henry Jacobs courted her during 1840–41. At the same time, Joseph Smith had taught Zina the doctrine of plural marriage, and thrice asked her to marry him. She declined each time, and she and Henry were wed 7 March 1841.- Analysis of Zina and Henry Jacobs—Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young by Allen Wyatt (Link)
∗ ∗ ∗
Zina and polyandry
Summary: Zina was a woman who was sealed to Joseph while she had a living husband.Availability for testimony in 1892 Temple Lot case
Summary: Nine plural wives were living in 1892. Whether they were called as witnesses seems to have depended upon whether they could testify to conjugality in the plural marriages.Child by Joseph ruled out by DNA testing
Summary: DNA research in 2005 confirmed Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs's son Zebulon was the son of Henry Bailey Jacobs.Divine manifestations to Zina Huntington
Summary: Did those who entered into plural marriage do so simply because Joseph Smith (or another Church leader) "told them to"? Is this an example of "blind obedience"? No, they bore witness that only powerful revelatory experiences convinced them that the command was from God.Why would Joseph be sealed to the wife of someone who was not only married to someone else, but pregnant with her husband's child?
Joseph asked Zina three times to marry him before she married Henry
In 1839, at age 18, Zina arrived with her parents in Nauvoo after being driven out of Missouri. Faithful LDS missionary Henry Jacobs courted her during 1840–41. At the same time, Joseph Smith had taught Zina the doctrine of plural marriage, and thrice asked her to marry him. She declined each time, and she and Henry were wed 7 March 1841.[1] Zina and Henry were married by John C. Bennett, then mayor of Nauvoo. They had invited Joseph to perform the ceremony, but Bennett stepped in when Joseph did not arrive:
…Zina asked the Prophet to perform the marriage. They went to the Clerk’s office and the Prophet did not arrive, so they were married by John C. Bennett. When they saw Joseph they asked him why he didn’t come, and he told them the Lord had made it known to him that she was to be his Celestial wife.[2]
Zina and Henry were aware of Joseph's plural marriage teachings and his proposal to Zina
Family tradition holds, then, that Zina and Henry were aware of Joseph's plural marriage teachings and his proposal to Zina. While this perspective is late and after-the-fact, it is consistent with the Jacobs' behaviour thereafter. Zina's family also wrote that Henry believed that "whatever the Prophet did was right, without making the wisdom of God's authorities bend to the reasoning of any man." [3]
On 27 October 1841, Zina was sealed to Joseph Smith by her brother, Dimick Huntington. She was six months pregnant by Henry, and continued to live with him.
Did Joseph Smith and Brigham Young steal Henry Jacobs' family?
This plaque located in the Church History Museum mentions Zina's sealing to Joseph Smith and marriage to Brigham Young (Photo taken in 2012)
Zina had refused Joseph's suit three times and chosen to marry Henry, but then decided to be sealed to Joseph
Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's "mistreatment" of Henry and their "theft" of his family have received a great deal of publicity, thanks to late 19th century anti-Mormon sources, and Fawn Brodie increased their cachet for a 20th century audience.[4] For present purposes, we will focus on Zina. She had refused Joseph's suit three times, and chosen to marry Henry. Why did she decide to be sealed to Joseph?
Zina stated that God had prepared her mind for Joseph's teachings even before she had heard them
When interrogated by a member of the RLDS Church, Zina refused to be drawn into specifics. She made her motivations clear, and explained that God had prepared her mind for Joseph's teachings even before she had heard them:
- Q. "Can you give us the date of that marriage with Joseph Smith?"
- A. "No, sir, I could not."
- Q. "Not even the year?"
- A. "No, I do not remember. It was something too sacred to be talked about; it was more to me than life or death. I never breathed it for years. I will tell you the facts. I had dreams—I am no dreamer but I had dreams that I could not account for. I know this is the work of the Lord; it was revealed to me, even when young. Things were presented to my mind that I could not account for. When Joseph Smith revealed this order [Celestial marriage] I knew what it meant; the Lord was preparing my mind to receive it." [5]
Henry Jacobs stood as proxy for Zina's post-martyrdom sealing to Joseph, and her marriage for time to Brigham Young
Henry was to stand as proxy for Zina's post-martyrdom sealing to Joseph, and her marriage for time to Brigham Young. He and Zina separated soon thereafter, and Henry was soon gone on one of his many missions for the Church.[6]
Zina herself clearly explains the basis for her choice:
…when I heard that God had revealed the law of Celestial marriage that we would have the privilege of associating in family relationships in the worlds to come, I searched the scriptures and by humble prayer to my Heavenly Father I obtained a testimony for myself that God had required that order to be established in his Church.[7] Faced with questions from her RLDS interviewer that she felt exceeded propriety, Zina became evasive. She finally terminated the interview by saying, "Mr. Wight, you are speaking on the most sacred experiences of my life…."[8]
What did the husband of Zina D. Huntington know about her sealing to Joseph Smith for eternity?
Zina married Henry Jacobs in 1840, and was sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity in 1841
Zina married Henry Jacobs in 1840, and was sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity in 1841,
Be it remembered that on this first day of May A.D. eighteen sixty nine before me Elias Smith Probate Judge for Said County personally appeared, Zina Diantha Huntington ^Young^ who was by me Sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath Saith, that on the twenty-Seventh day of October A.D. 1841, at the City of Nauvoo, County of Hancock, State of Illinois, She was married or Sealed to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, by Dimick B. Huntington, a High Priest in Said Church, according to the laws of the same; regulating marriage; In the presence of Fanny Maria Huntington.[9]
There are many stories and accusations related to the marriage of Zina and Henry, and her sealing to Joseph. For details regarding each of these allegations, see Brian and Laura Hales, "Zina Diantha Huntington," josephsmithspolygamy.org off-site.
See also: Allen Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young," FAIR Conference, 2006.
Did Brigham Young tell Henry Jacobs in front of hundreds of people that he needed to find another wife?
The immediate problem with such a statement is that there is no contemporary corroboration for it from among the "hundreds" who supposedly observed it
Allen Wyatt explains how this story originated,
The Charge by William Hall
Critics of the early Saints have, often with glee, latched onto William Hall’s story and used it as a prime example of ecclesiastical abuse, pitting a powerful Brigham Young against a penniless and ill Henry Jacobs, with Zina as some kind of prize for the winner of their imagined contest. It is easy to understand how one might see things that way; it is certainly the way that William Hall portrayed the episode:
At a place called, by the Mormons, Pisgah, in Iowa, as they were passing through to Council Bluffs, Brigham Young spoke in this wise, in the hearing of hundreds: He said it was time for men who were walking in other men’s shoes to step out of them. "Brother Jacobs," he says, "the woman you claim for a wife does not belong to you. She is the spiritual wife of brother Joseph, sealed up to him. I am his proxy, and she, in this behalf, with her children, are my property. You can go where you please, and get another, but be sure to get one of your own kindred spirit."37
The immediate problem with such a statement is that there is no contemporary corroboration for it. Hall states that Brigham’s statement was made in the hearing of hundreds of people, yet there are no other diaries that indicate such a statement or, indeed, any statement from Brigham to Henry. The statement itself would need to have been made sometime between Henry’s arrival at Mt. Pisgah (May 18) and his departure on his mission (approximately June 1).
For instance, Patty Bartlett Sessions, who was a detailed journal writer, arrived at Mt. Pisgah in the same company as the Jacobs’ and left Mt. Pisgah on June 2, 1846. None of her diary entries for the period refer to any such statement by Brigham Young, and it is safe to assume that she would have been among the "hundreds" referenced by William Hall. In fact, Sessions continues to refer to Zina as either "Zina Jacobs" or "sister Jacobs" as late as June 3, 1847,38 which reference would seem unlikely if she had heard Brigham claim Zina (and her children) as his property and exile Henry.
The diary of William Huntington records only one semi-public and one fully public meeting between May 18 and the first of June. There was a prayer meeting for selected individuals held on May 31,39 and a meeting in the grove near Huntington’s house on June 1 that turned into a "special conference" at which "considerable business" was done.40 There is, however, no record in his diary of any denouncing of his son-in-law by Brigham.[10]
For more information, see Allen Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young," FAIR presentation transcript, 2006. FAIR link
Joseph Smith's Polygamy: "Zina Huntington", by Brian C. Hales
Joseph Smith's Polygamy: "After Louisa Beaman, Joseph Smith Seeks Almost Exclusively “Eternity Only” Sealings", by Brian C. Hales
Notes
- ↑ Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, 263–264.
- ↑ Allen L. Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young," in FAIR Conference (Salt Lake City, Utah: FAIR, 1st draft, 2006).
- ↑ Oa J. Cannon, "History of Henry Bailey Jacobs," (L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Brigham Young University, n.d.), 1; cited by Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young," (emphasis added). See also Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy, 44; Van Wagoner, "Mormon Polyandry in Nauvoo," 78; Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, 80.
- ↑ These charges are examined in detail (here).
- ↑ Cannon, "History of Henry Bailey Jacobs," 5; cited in Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy, 44.
- ↑ See here for a more in-depth analysis of attacks on Brigham and Joseph regarding Zina and Henry.
- ↑ Interview of John Wight [RLDS] with Zina D.H. Young, October 1, 1898, "Evidence from Zina D. Huntington-Young," Saints’ Herald, 52 (11 January 1905), 29; cited in Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young".
- ↑ Autobiography of Zina D. Young, no date, part of the Zina Card Brown Family Collection (1806-1972), LDS Church Archives, MS 4780, box 2, folder 17, cited by Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young,"; John Wight with Zina D.H. Young, 1 October 1898, "Evidence from Zina D. Huntington-Young," Saints Herald, 52 (11 January 1905): 28.
- ↑ Joseph F. Smith Affidavit Books, 1:5, CHL.
- ↑ Allen Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young," 2006 FAIR Conference.
Zina and polyandry
Summary: In 1839, at age 18, Zina arrived with her parents in Nauvoo after being driven out of Missouri. Faithful LDS missionary Henry Jacobs courted her during 1840–41. At the same time, Joseph Smith had taught Zina the doctrine of plural marriage, and thrice asked her to marry him. She declined each time, and she and Henry were wed 7 March 1841.- Analysis of Zina and Henry Jacobs—Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young by Allen Wyatt (Link)
∗ ∗ ∗
Zina and polyandry
Summary: Zina was a woman who was sealed to Joseph while she had a living husband.Availability for testimony in 1892 Temple Lot case
Summary: Nine plural wives were living in 1892. Whether they were called as witnesses seems to have depended upon whether they could testify to conjugality in the plural marriages.Child by Joseph ruled out by DNA testing
Summary: DNA research in 2005 confirmed Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs's son Zebulon was the son of Henry Bailey Jacobs.Divine manifestations to Zina Huntington
Summary: Did those who entered into plural marriage do so simply because Joseph Smith (or another Church leader) "told them to"? Is this an example of "blind obedience"? No, they bore witness that only powerful revelatory experiences convinced them that the command was from God.Why would Joseph be sealed to the wife of someone who was not only married to someone else, but pregnant with her husband's child?
Joseph asked Zina three times to marry him before she married Henry
In 1839, at age 18, Zina arrived with her parents in Nauvoo after being driven out of Missouri. Faithful LDS missionary Henry Jacobs courted her during 1840–41. At the same time, Joseph Smith had taught Zina the doctrine of plural marriage, and thrice asked her to marry him. She declined each time, and she and Henry were wed 7 March 1841.[1] Zina and Henry were married by John C. Bennett, then mayor of Nauvoo. They had invited Joseph to perform the ceremony, but Bennett stepped in when Joseph did not arrive:
…Zina asked the Prophet to perform the marriage. They went to the Clerk’s office and the Prophet did not arrive, so they were married by John C. Bennett. When they saw Joseph they asked him why he didn’t come, and he told them the Lord had made it known to him that she was to be his Celestial wife.[2]
Zina and Henry were aware of Joseph's plural marriage teachings and his proposal to Zina
Family tradition holds, then, that Zina and Henry were aware of Joseph's plural marriage teachings and his proposal to Zina. While this perspective is late and after-the-fact, it is consistent with the Jacobs' behaviour thereafter. Zina's family also wrote that Henry believed that "whatever the Prophet did was right, without making the wisdom of God's authorities bend to the reasoning of any man." [3]
On 27 October 1841, Zina was sealed to Joseph Smith by her brother, Dimick Huntington. She was six months pregnant by Henry, and continued to live with him.
Did Joseph Smith and Brigham Young steal Henry Jacobs' family?
This plaque located in the Church History Museum mentions Zina's sealing to Joseph Smith and marriage to Brigham Young (Photo taken in 2012)
Zina had refused Joseph's suit three times and chosen to marry Henry, but then decided to be sealed to Joseph
Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's "mistreatment" of Henry and their "theft" of his family have received a great deal of publicity, thanks to late 19th century anti-Mormon sources, and Fawn Brodie increased their cachet for a 20th century audience.[4] For present purposes, we will focus on Zina. She had refused Joseph's suit three times, and chosen to marry Henry. Why did she decide to be sealed to Joseph?
Zina stated that God had prepared her mind for Joseph's teachings even before she had heard them
When interrogated by a member of the RLDS Church, Zina refused to be drawn into specifics. She made her motivations clear, and explained that God had prepared her mind for Joseph's teachings even before she had heard them:
- Q. "Can you give us the date of that marriage with Joseph Smith?"
- A. "No, sir, I could not."
- Q. "Not even the year?"
- A. "No, I do not remember. It was something too sacred to be talked about; it was more to me than life or death. I never breathed it for years. I will tell you the facts. I had dreams—I am no dreamer but I had dreams that I could not account for. I know this is the work of the Lord; it was revealed to me, even when young. Things were presented to my mind that I could not account for. When Joseph Smith revealed this order [Celestial marriage] I knew what it meant; the Lord was preparing my mind to receive it." [5]
Henry Jacobs stood as proxy for Zina's post-martyrdom sealing to Joseph, and her marriage for time to Brigham Young
Henry was to stand as proxy for Zina's post-martyrdom sealing to Joseph, and her marriage for time to Brigham Young. He and Zina separated soon thereafter, and Henry was soon gone on one of his many missions for the Church.[6]
Zina herself clearly explains the basis for her choice:
…when I heard that God had revealed the law of Celestial marriage that we would have the privilege of associating in family relationships in the worlds to come, I searched the scriptures and by humble prayer to my Heavenly Father I obtained a testimony for myself that God had required that order to be established in his Church.[7] Faced with questions from her RLDS interviewer that she felt exceeded propriety, Zina became evasive. She finally terminated the interview by saying, "Mr. Wight, you are speaking on the most sacred experiences of my life…."[8]
What did the husband of Zina D. Huntington know about her sealing to Joseph Smith for eternity?
Zina married Henry Jacobs in 1840, and was sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity in 1841
Zina married Henry Jacobs in 1840, and was sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity in 1841,
Be it remembered that on this first day of May A.D. eighteen sixty nine before me Elias Smith Probate Judge for Said County personally appeared, Zina Diantha Huntington ^Young^ who was by me Sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath Saith, that on the twenty-Seventh day of October A.D. 1841, at the City of Nauvoo, County of Hancock, State of Illinois, She was married or Sealed to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, by Dimick B. Huntington, a High Priest in Said Church, according to the laws of the same; regulating marriage; In the presence of Fanny Maria Huntington.[9]
There are many stories and accusations related to the marriage of Zina and Henry, and her sealing to Joseph. For details regarding each of these allegations, see Brian and Laura Hales, "Zina Diantha Huntington," josephsmithspolygamy.org off-site.
See also: Allen Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young," FAIR Conference, 2006.
Did Brigham Young tell Henry Jacobs in front of hundreds of people that he needed to find another wife?
The immediate problem with such a statement is that there is no contemporary corroboration for it from among the "hundreds" who supposedly observed it
Allen Wyatt explains how this story originated,
The Charge by William Hall
Critics of the early Saints have, often with glee, latched onto William Hall’s story and used it as a prime example of ecclesiastical abuse, pitting a powerful Brigham Young against a penniless and ill Henry Jacobs, with Zina as some kind of prize for the winner of their imagined contest. It is easy to understand how one might see things that way; it is certainly the way that William Hall portrayed the episode:
At a place called, by the Mormons, Pisgah, in Iowa, as they were passing through to Council Bluffs, Brigham Young spoke in this wise, in the hearing of hundreds: He said it was time for men who were walking in other men’s shoes to step out of them. "Brother Jacobs," he says, "the woman you claim for a wife does not belong to you. She is the spiritual wife of brother Joseph, sealed up to him. I am his proxy, and she, in this behalf, with her children, are my property. You can go where you please, and get another, but be sure to get one of your own kindred spirit."37
The immediate problem with such a statement is that there is no contemporary corroboration for it. Hall states that Brigham’s statement was made in the hearing of hundreds of people, yet there are no other diaries that indicate such a statement or, indeed, any statement from Brigham to Henry. The statement itself would need to have been made sometime between Henry’s arrival at Mt. Pisgah (May 18) and his departure on his mission (approximately June 1).
For instance, Patty Bartlett Sessions, who was a detailed journal writer, arrived at Mt. Pisgah in the same company as the Jacobs’ and left Mt. Pisgah on June 2, 1846. None of her diary entries for the period refer to any such statement by Brigham Young, and it is safe to assume that she would have been among the "hundreds" referenced by William Hall. In fact, Sessions continues to refer to Zina as either "Zina Jacobs" or "sister Jacobs" as late as June 3, 1847,38 which reference would seem unlikely if she had heard Brigham claim Zina (and her children) as his property and exile Henry.
The diary of William Huntington records only one semi-public and one fully public meeting between May 18 and the first of June. There was a prayer meeting for selected individuals held on May 31,39 and a meeting in the grove near Huntington’s house on June 1 that turned into a "special conference" at which "considerable business" was done.40 There is, however, no record in his diary of any denouncing of his son-in-law by Brigham.[10]
For more information, see Allen Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young," FAIR presentation transcript, 2006. FAIR link
Joseph Smith's Polygamy: "Zina Huntington", by Brian C. Hales
Joseph Smith's Polygamy: "After Louisa Beaman, Joseph Smith Seeks Almost Exclusively “Eternity Only” Sealings", by Brian C. Hales
Notes
- ↑ Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, 263–264.
- ↑ Allen L. Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young," in FAIR Conference (Salt Lake City, Utah: FAIR, 1st draft, 2006).
- ↑ Oa J. Cannon, "History of Henry Bailey Jacobs," (L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Brigham Young University, n.d.), 1; cited by Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young," (emphasis added). See also Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy, 44; Van Wagoner, "Mormon Polyandry in Nauvoo," 78; Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, 80.
- ↑ These charges are examined in detail (here).
- ↑ Cannon, "History of Henry Bailey Jacobs," 5; cited in Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy, 44.
- ↑ See here for a more in-depth analysis of attacks on Brigham and Joseph regarding Zina and Henry.
- ↑ Interview of John Wight [RLDS] with Zina D.H. Young, October 1, 1898, "Evidence from Zina D. Huntington-Young," Saints’ Herald, 52 (11 January 1905), 29; cited in Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young".
- ↑ Autobiography of Zina D. Young, no date, part of the Zina Card Brown Family Collection (1806-1972), LDS Church Archives, MS 4780, box 2, folder 17, cited by Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young,"; John Wight with Zina D.H. Young, 1 October 1898, "Evidence from Zina D. Huntington-Young," Saints Herald, 52 (11 January 1905): 28.
- ↑ Joseph F. Smith Affidavit Books, 1:5, CHL.
- ↑ Allen Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young," 2006 FAIR Conference.
Zina and polyandry
Summary: In 1839, at age 18, Zina arrived with her parents in Nauvoo after being driven out of Missouri. Faithful LDS missionary Henry Jacobs courted her during 1840–41. At the same time, Joseph Smith had taught Zina the doctrine of plural marriage, and thrice asked her to marry him. She declined each time, and she and Henry were wed 7 March 1841.- Analysis of Zina and Henry Jacobs—Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young by Allen Wyatt (Link)
∗ ∗ ∗
Zina and polyandry
Summary: Zina was a woman who was sealed to Joseph while she had a living husband.Availability for testimony in 1892 Temple Lot case
Summary: Nine plural wives were living in 1892. Whether they were called as witnesses seems to have depended upon whether they could testify to conjugality in the plural marriages.Child by Joseph ruled out by DNA testing
Summary: DNA research in 2005 confirmed Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs's son Zebulon was the son of Henry Bailey Jacobs.Divine manifestations to Zina Huntington
Summary: Did those who entered into plural marriage do so simply because Joseph Smith (or another Church leader) "told them to"? Is this an example of "blind obedience"? No, they bore witness that only powerful revelatory experiences convinced them that the command was from God.Why would Joseph be sealed to the wife of someone who was not only married to someone else, but pregnant with her husband's child?
Joseph asked Zina three times to marry him before she married Henry
In 1839, at age 18, Zina arrived with her parents in Nauvoo after being driven out of Missouri. Faithful LDS missionary Henry Jacobs courted her during 1840–41. At the same time, Joseph Smith had taught Zina the doctrine of plural marriage, and thrice asked her to marry him. She declined each time, and she and Henry were wed 7 March 1841.[1] Zina and Henry were married by John C. Bennett, then mayor of Nauvoo. They had invited Joseph to perform the ceremony, but Bennett stepped in when Joseph did not arrive:
…Zina asked the Prophet to perform the marriage. They went to the Clerk’s office and the Prophet did not arrive, so they were married by John C. Bennett. When they saw Joseph they asked him why he didn’t come, and he told them the Lord had made it known to him that she was to be his Celestial wife.[2]
Zina and Henry were aware of Joseph's plural marriage teachings and his proposal to Zina
Family tradition holds, then, that Zina and Henry were aware of Joseph's plural marriage teachings and his proposal to Zina. While this perspective is late and after-the-fact, it is consistent with the Jacobs' behaviour thereafter. Zina's family also wrote that Henry believed that "whatever the Prophet did was right, without making the wisdom of God's authorities bend to the reasoning of any man." [3]
On 27 October 1841, Zina was sealed to Joseph Smith by her brother, Dimick Huntington. She was six months pregnant by Henry, and continued to live with him.
Did Joseph Smith and Brigham Young steal Henry Jacobs' family?
This plaque located in the Church History Museum mentions Zina's sealing to Joseph Smith and marriage to Brigham Young (Photo taken in 2012)
Zina had refused Joseph's suit three times and chosen to marry Henry, but then decided to be sealed to Joseph
Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's "mistreatment" of Henry and their "theft" of his family have received a great deal of publicity, thanks to late 19th century anti-Mormon sources, and Fawn Brodie increased their cachet for a 20th century audience.[4] For present purposes, we will focus on Zina. She had refused Joseph's suit three times, and chosen to marry Henry. Why did she decide to be sealed to Joseph?
Zina stated that God had prepared her mind for Joseph's teachings even before she had heard them
When interrogated by a member of the RLDS Church, Zina refused to be drawn into specifics. She made her motivations clear, and explained that God had prepared her mind for Joseph's teachings even before she had heard them:
- Q. "Can you give us the date of that marriage with Joseph Smith?"
- A. "No, sir, I could not."
- Q. "Not even the year?"
- A. "No, I do not remember. It was something too sacred to be talked about; it was more to me than life or death. I never breathed it for years. I will tell you the facts. I had dreams—I am no dreamer but I had dreams that I could not account for. I know this is the work of the Lord; it was revealed to me, even when young. Things were presented to my mind that I could not account for. When Joseph Smith revealed this order [Celestial marriage] I knew what it meant; the Lord was preparing my mind to receive it." [5]
Henry Jacobs stood as proxy for Zina's post-martyrdom sealing to Joseph, and her marriage for time to Brigham Young
Henry was to stand as proxy for Zina's post-martyrdom sealing to Joseph, and her marriage for time to Brigham Young. He and Zina separated soon thereafter, and Henry was soon gone on one of his many missions for the Church.[6]
Zina herself clearly explains the basis for her choice:
…when I heard that God had revealed the law of Celestial marriage that we would have the privilege of associating in family relationships in the worlds to come, I searched the scriptures and by humble prayer to my Heavenly Father I obtained a testimony for myself that God had required that order to be established in his Church.[7] Faced with questions from her RLDS interviewer that she felt exceeded propriety, Zina became evasive. She finally terminated the interview by saying, "Mr. Wight, you are speaking on the most sacred experiences of my life…."[8]
What did the husband of Zina D. Huntington know about her sealing to Joseph Smith for eternity?
Zina married Henry Jacobs in 1840, and was sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity in 1841
Zina married Henry Jacobs in 1840, and was sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity in 1841,
Be it remembered that on this first day of May A.D. eighteen sixty nine before me Elias Smith Probate Judge for Said County personally appeared, Zina Diantha Huntington ^Young^ who was by me Sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath Saith, that on the twenty-Seventh day of October A.D. 1841, at the City of Nauvoo, County of Hancock, State of Illinois, She was married or Sealed to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, by Dimick B. Huntington, a High Priest in Said Church, according to the laws of the same; regulating marriage; In the presence of Fanny Maria Huntington.[9]
There are many stories and accusations related to the marriage of Zina and Henry, and her sealing to Joseph. For details regarding each of these allegations, see Brian and Laura Hales, "Zina Diantha Huntington," josephsmithspolygamy.org off-site.
See also: Allen Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young," FAIR Conference, 2006.
Did Brigham Young tell Henry Jacobs in front of hundreds of people that he needed to find another wife?
The immediate problem with such a statement is that there is no contemporary corroboration for it from among the "hundreds" who supposedly observed it
Allen Wyatt explains how this story originated,
The Charge by William Hall
Critics of the early Saints have, often with glee, latched onto William Hall’s story and used it as a prime example of ecclesiastical abuse, pitting a powerful Brigham Young against a penniless and ill Henry Jacobs, with Zina as some kind of prize for the winner of their imagined contest. It is easy to understand how one might see things that way; it is certainly the way that William Hall portrayed the episode:
At a place called, by the Mormons, Pisgah, in Iowa, as they were passing through to Council Bluffs, Brigham Young spoke in this wise, in the hearing of hundreds: He said it was time for men who were walking in other men’s shoes to step out of them. "Brother Jacobs," he says, "the woman you claim for a wife does not belong to you. She is the spiritual wife of brother Joseph, sealed up to him. I am his proxy, and she, in this behalf, with her children, are my property. You can go where you please, and get another, but be sure to get one of your own kindred spirit."37
The immediate problem with such a statement is that there is no contemporary corroboration for it. Hall states that Brigham’s statement was made in the hearing of hundreds of people, yet there are no other diaries that indicate such a statement or, indeed, any statement from Brigham to Henry. The statement itself would need to have been made sometime between Henry’s arrival at Mt. Pisgah (May 18) and his departure on his mission (approximately June 1).
For instance, Patty Bartlett Sessions, who was a detailed journal writer, arrived at Mt. Pisgah in the same company as the Jacobs’ and left Mt. Pisgah on June 2, 1846. None of her diary entries for the period refer to any such statement by Brigham Young, and it is safe to assume that she would have been among the "hundreds" referenced by William Hall. In fact, Sessions continues to refer to Zina as either "Zina Jacobs" or "sister Jacobs" as late as June 3, 1847,38 which reference would seem unlikely if she had heard Brigham claim Zina (and her children) as his property and exile Henry.
The diary of William Huntington records only one semi-public and one fully public meeting between May 18 and the first of June. There was a prayer meeting for selected individuals held on May 31,39 and a meeting in the grove near Huntington’s house on June 1 that turned into a "special conference" at which "considerable business" was done.40 There is, however, no record in his diary of any denouncing of his son-in-law by Brigham.[10]
For more information, see Allen Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young," FAIR presentation transcript, 2006. FAIR link
Joseph Smith's Polygamy: "Zina Huntington", by Brian C. Hales
Joseph Smith's Polygamy: "After Louisa Beaman, Joseph Smith Seeks Almost Exclusively “Eternity Only” Sealings", by Brian C. Hales
Notes
- ↑ Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, 263–264.
- ↑ Allen L. Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young," in FAIR Conference (Salt Lake City, Utah: FAIR, 1st draft, 2006).
- ↑ Oa J. Cannon, "History of Henry Bailey Jacobs," (L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Brigham Young University, n.d.), 1; cited by Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young," (emphasis added). See also Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy, 44; Van Wagoner, "Mormon Polyandry in Nauvoo," 78; Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, 80.
- ↑ These charges are examined in detail (here).
- ↑ Cannon, "History of Henry Bailey Jacobs," 5; cited in Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy, 44.
- ↑ See here for a more in-depth analysis of attacks on Brigham and Joseph regarding Zina and Henry.
- ↑ Interview of John Wight [RLDS] with Zina D.H. Young, October 1, 1898, "Evidence from Zina D. Huntington-Young," Saints’ Herald, 52 (11 January 1905), 29; cited in Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young".
- ↑ Autobiography of Zina D. Young, no date, part of the Zina Card Brown Family Collection (1806-1972), LDS Church Archives, MS 4780, box 2, folder 17, cited by Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young,"; John Wight with Zina D.H. Young, 1 October 1898, "Evidence from Zina D. Huntington-Young," Saints Herald, 52 (11 January 1905): 28.
- ↑ Joseph F. Smith Affidavit Books, 1:5, CHL.
- ↑ Allen Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young," 2006 FAIR Conference.
Response to claim: 237, 425n73-75 - "Wife swapping" was "wholly acceptable"
The author(s) of Becoming Gods make(s) the following claim:
"Wife swapping" was "wholly acceptable."Author's sources:
- Jedediah Grant, Journal of Discourses 2:14.
- Lee, Confessions of John D. Lee, p. 165
- C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 1, p. 73.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is false
Jedediah Grant's quote is about consecrating everything to God's service: money, wives, etc. It does not sanction "wife swapping."- See: One Nation Under Gods/Use of sources/Wife swapping
- This claim is also made in One Nation Under Gods: p. 295, 582n81-82 (HB) 580n81-82 (PB)
Question: Did Jedediah Grant sanction "wife swapping"?
The theme of Grant's remarks was consecration, not an endorsement of "wife swapping"
Grant insists that God will try his people; some were tried by plural marriage, some by the command to consecrate all their worldly goods, and some by other things. Consecration is his theme, not an endorsement of "wife swapping."
Grant's talk is about sacrifice and consecration; it is not about legitimizing "swapping wives."
Men used to talk on this wise—"But would you believe in the Prophet if he should demand all your property?" Lucifer would suggest this idea to them. "No." says another, "I would not." "Suppose he should come to you, and tell you, you must sell your farm in the east, and go to Kirtland, and consecrate your property to the Lord, would you do it?" "No, answers his neighbor, "the Lord has no use for my property, I would not do it." "Well," says one, "do you think Joseph is right to dictate in temporal matters?" "No," There were quite a majority, I believe, in the days of Joseph, who believed he had no right to dictate in temporal matters, in farms, houses, merchandize, gold, silver, &c.; and they were tried on various points.
When the family organization was revealed from heaven—the patriarchal order of God, and Joseph began, on the right and on the left, to add to his family, what a quaking there was in Israel. Says one brother to another, "Joseph says all covenants are done away, and none are binding but the new covenants; now suppose Joseph should come and say he wanted your wife, what would you say to that?" "I would tell him to go to hell." This was the spirit of many in the early days of this Church.
If you maintain the fact that the Priesthood of God is upon the earth, and God's representatives are upon the earth, the mouth-piece of Jehovah, the head of the kingdom of God upon earth, and the will of God is done upon earth as it is in heaven, it follows that the government of God is upon the earth. I allude to the church which it dictates; and then to the whole earth which it will dictate. Satan may succeed for a season to curtail the extent of this government, and the free working of its machinery, but if the Lord Almighty has organized a government upon the earth, and has committed the keys and Priesthood of it to His Prophet, that Prophet holds jurisdiction over the earth, the same as Adam did in the beginning. And righteous men in every dispensation since the creation, if they had any keys, had the keys of the kingdom of God; and they extended over this wide world wherever God had a people and a government; and just as far as the Priesthood exercised its authority, just so far the rule of the Almighty reached.
If Joseph had a right to dictate me in relation to salvation, in relation to a hereafter, he had a right to dictate me in relation to all my earthly affairs, in relation to the treasures of the earth, and in relation to the earth itself. He had a right to dictate in relation to the cities of the earth, to the natives of the earth, and in relation to everything on land and on sea. That is what he had a right to do, if he had any right at all. If he did not have that right, he did not have the Priesthood of God, he did not have the endless Priesthood that emanates from an eternal being. A Priesthood that is clipped, and lacks length, is not the Priesthood of God; if it lacks depth, it is not the Priesthood of God; for the Priesthood in ancient times extended over the wide world, and coped with the universe, and had a right to govern and control the inhabitants thereof, to regulate them, give them laws, and execute those laws. That power looked like the Priesthood of God. This same Priesthood has been given to Joseph Smith, and has been handed down to his successors....
What would a man of God say, who felt aright, when Joseph asked him for his money? He would say, "Yes, and I wish I had more to help to build up the kingdom of God." Or if he came and said, I want your wife?" "O yes," he would say, "here she is; there are plenty more."
There is another main thread connected with this; that I have not brought out. You know in fishing with the hook and line, if you draw out suddenly on the line when you have got a large trout, you may break your line; you must therefore angle a little, and manage your prize carefully. I would ask you if Jehovah has not in all ages tried His people by the power of Lucifer and his associates; and on the other hand, has He not tried them and proved them by His Prophets? Did the Lord actually want Abraham to kill Isaac? Did the Prophet Joseph want every man's wife he asked for? He did not, but in that thing was the grand thread of the Priesthood developed. The grand object in view was to try the people of God, to see what was in them. If such a man of God should come to me and say, "I want your gold and silver, or your wives," I should say, "Here they are, I wish I had more to give you, take all I have got." A man who has got the Spirit of God, and the light of eternity in him, has no trouble about such matters.
I am talking now of the present day. There was a time when we could be tried pretty severely upon these points, but I now could pick you out hundreds of men that cannot be tried in this way, but they will hand over every thing they possess. They understand the nature of such doctrines, and the object of such requirements. They know it is to prove the people, both men and women, and to develop what they will do. How can the Priesthood judge the people, if it does not prove them.
If ever you are brought into the presence of God, and exalted to a seat in His celestial kingdom, it will be by virtue of the Holy Priesthood, therefore you have got to be proved, not only by being tempted by the devil, but the Priesthood will try you—it will try you to the core. If one thing won't try you, something else will be adopted, until you are like the passive clay in the hands of the potter. If the Lord our God does not see fit to let the devil loose upon you, and mob you, He will employ some other means to try, you as in a crucible, to prove you as gold is tried seven times in the furnace.
Response to claim: 237 - The Bible does not sanction or command polygamy. "Most Israelites were monogamous"
The author(s) of Becoming Gods make(s) the following claim:
The Bible does not sanction or command polygamy. "Most Israelites were monogamous." Abraham's polygamy "portrays his acceptance of plural marriage as a mark of disobedience to, and a lack of faith in, God."Author's sources:
- Author's interpretation.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
This claim is simply nonsense.
With the authority of the Bible behind them, early Mormons argued for 'plural marriage,' and some Mormon fundamentalist sects continue to practice polygyny. They were and are right: if the Bible provides authoritative models, then a man should be allowed to have more than one wife, as did Abraham, Jacob, David, and other biblical heroes, with no hint of divine disapproval.
—Michael Coogan, God and Sex: What the Bible Really Says (New York, N.Y.: Twelve, 2010), 78–79.
Was there no biblical mandate for plural marriage?
This claim is false; levirate marriage was mandated by the law of Moses
While sometimes forced to admit that some Old Testament figures practiced polygamy, some Christians insist that there was no biblical mandate or command to practice plural marriage.
This claim is false; levirate marriage was mandated by the law of Moses (Deuteronomy 25:5-6).
Even if true, this claim is immaterial. God did not condemn the practice of plural marriage in the Bible. If it was everywhere and always forbidden, God could and would have done so. Early Christian authors understood this.
The practice of levirate marriage did not make any conditions on whether or not the brother-in-law was married
The details of this practice are outlined in Deuteronomy 25:5-6, which the Sadducees quote in asking the question to Jesus. The practice of levirate marriage did not make any conditions on whether or not the brother-in-law was married. There was a way for the brother-in-law to avoid this marriage, through a ceremony called halitza, which was a mark of shame on the brother-in-law for refusing to continue his brother's name, thus declaring that his brother was irrevocably dead. This secondary option however, has become much more relevant to the modern practice of Judaism than it was to ancient Israel. Additionally, the practice makes no distinction to whether or not the brother was already married. It is the only instance in the Old Testament where polygamy was mandated under certain circumstances. Finally, the widow with no children, upon the death of her husband, was automatically considered to be betrothed, or engaged, to the next brother in the family of her now-deceased husband.
This practice was changed somewhat in Talmudic law where we find more than a hundred clarifications and expansions on the practice. Among these was a shift towards the practice of halitza being preferable to levirate marriage. This became a ban that was established by religious law in modern Israel in 1957. Because of this, there was an interesting case reported in 1998 in the Spring Newsletter of the International Council of Jewish Women. It describes the unusual case of a married woman, living in Israel, who had a single daughter. In 1991, the family was involved in a serious automobile accident, and the daughter died immediately. The husband died hours later. According to Jewish law, the woman (who was childless at the time of her husband's death) was immediately placed in the role of the childless widow. Before she could remarry, she needed to go through the halitza ceremony with the only living brother of her late husband, who lived in Paris. This case was of significance because the brother-in-law refused to perform the ceremony. At first the Jewish courts simply ordered the brother-in-law to either perform the ceremony, or to pay the woman a thousand dollars a month for maintenance. He refused to do either. It took the woman six years to get the brother-in-law to perform the ceremony, and he also ended up paying her thousands of dollars as ordered by the religious courts.
This practice was not just a custom, but an integral part of the religious law at the time of Jesus
This practice was not just a custom, but an integral part of the religious law at the time of Jesus. While the above story happened only recently, ancient Israel was just as fervent in their keeping the Law of Moses, even in cases such as this. While a hypothetical situation was proposed to Jesus, it was a hypothetical situation that could actually happen, and the statements provided by the authors do not represent correctly this practice.
Does the Bible forbid plural marriage?
The Bible does not forbid plural marriage
Some Christians claim that plural marriage has no Biblical precedents—they point to condemnation of King David and King Solomon as evidence that polygamy is always forbidden by God. Some claim that Abraham's polygamy "portrays his acceptance of plural marriage as a mark of disobedience to, and a lack of faith in, God." It is claimed that since the Bible didn't allow a man to marry two sisters, this proves that LDS plural marriage was "unbiblical" because some Mormons did so.
The Bible does not forbid plural marriage. In fact, many of the most noble Biblical figures (e.g., Abraham) had more than one wife. Furthermore, Biblical laws quoted by critics forbid kings from being led astray by plural spouses, or entering relationships not sanctioned by God's authority. However, the same Biblical laws provide guidelines for legitimate plural relationships.
It is true that David and Solomon were condemned for some of their marriage practices
This problem was mentioned in Deuteronomy:
15 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...17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away... (Deuteronomy 17:15,17
Only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat equitably plural wives and children
Critics ignore the fact that only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat equitably plural wives and children. (See Deuteronomy 21:15-17.) Why does He not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He instruct the Israelites on how to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?
So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
- not multiply wives to themselves (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see 2 Samuel 12:8, Jacob 2꞉30, D&C 132꞉38-39);
- that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God (1 Kings 11:3-4);
- not take excessive numbers of wives (see Jacob 2꞉24).
David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.
David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and Uriah
David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and Uriah (see 2 Samuel 12:1-27. Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:
7 ¶ 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;
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.
9 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.
10 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 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 it now? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier?
Solomon's wives turned his heart away from the Lord, as Deuteronomy cautioned
Solomon's problem is described:
1 BUT king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
2 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...
7 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.
8 And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. (1 Kings 11:1-8
Solomon's wives turned his heart away from the Lord, 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.
Abraham and other Biblical examples demonstrate that plural marriage may, on occasion, be sanctioned
David and Solomon do not prove the critics' point, but in fact demonstrate that plural marriage may, on occasion, be sanctioned (as in David's case certainly).
But, we need not rely on these examples only to demonstrate that plural marriage was practiced by righteous followers of God in the Bible. Other cases include:
- Abraham married Hagar (Genesis 16:3), Keturah (Genesis 25:1) 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 prosper in battle because of the Lord's blessing (2 Chronicles 13:16-18)
- Jehoiada, priest under king Joash had two wives (2 Chronicles 3:) and 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).
and also possibly:
- Moses [married Zipporah (Exodus 2:22 and an "Ethiopian" (Cushite) woman Numbers 12:1 which may or may not be the same person. [1]
The Law of Moses provides rules governing Israelites who have plural wives
As noted above, Deuteronomy 21:15 provides rules governing Israelites who have plural wives. Further instructions are also given in Exodus 21:10. Why did God not ban plural marriage through Moses if it is always an immoral act?
The Law of Moses did not allow plural marriages to two sisters
Latter-day Saint plural marriage did not rely on biblical authority or interpretation (though they used biblical parallels to explain and understand the command which they believed they had received from God via a modern prophet.)
Marrying two sisters was quite frequent, possibly because sisters had already learned to get along together, which made for more harmonious plural families. One researcher noted:
Marriage to the wife's sister, defined as incest only by Anglican canon law, is the only form of polygamous marriage of the [potentially 'incestuous] categories...that occurs in significant numbers. [2]
The Saints did not claim to be restoring Mosaic plural marriage—they only used Moses' example as precedent for the fact that God could and had commanded plural marriage in the past. The specific structure, rules, and restrictions varied from time to time as guided by prophets.
What are the "works of Abraham" and how does this relate to plural marriage?
The "works of Abraham" are fundamentally about obedience to God's laws, obedience to any commandment given, and willingness to sacrifice
D&C 132 tells Joseph and others to "do the works of Abraham." What are the "works of Abraham" and how does this relate to plural marriage?
The "works of Abraham" are fundamentally about obedience to God's laws, obedience to any commandment given, and willingness to sacrifice. For Joseph and the early Saints, a prominent part of such works was plural marriage, but this was (in a sense) incidental—the great work was obedience to covenant and law; plural marriage was simply their burden and trial.
It is often casually assumed that "the works of Abraham" refer mainly to plural marriage
It is often casually assumed that "the works of Abraham" refer mainly to plural marriage.[3] A consideration of both the phrase's orgins, and its use in D&C 132, may suggest that a broader meaning is intended.
The phrase has its origins in the gospel of John. Jesus rebuked unrighteous Jews, saying:
...Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father (John 8:34-38).
Stung, the Jews replied, "Abraham is our father." Jesus answered:
If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham (John 8:39-40).
At its most basic level, "the works of Abraham" are to obey and serve God, and not be "the servant of sin"
Even before the abolition of plural marriage, leaders of the Church understood this,[4] though many also used obedience to the command to practice plural marriage as a pre-eminent example.[5]
Abraham plays a central role in D&C 132's justification of plural marriage
Yet, it is not simply as a polygamist that Abraham is appealed to:
29 Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne.
30 Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins—from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph—which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.
31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.
Abraham received blessings because of revelation and obedience to covenant and commandment
32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.
33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.
The works of Abraham, we remember, were obedience and service to God. Joseph and others were to "enter into [God's] law," which has been explained earlier in the section as the law of sealing as part of the new and everlasting covenant (D&C 132꞉7; see here for a more extensive discussion of the new and everlasting covenant).
34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.
35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.
We must not confuse "the law" to which verse 34 refers with "the law" described in verse 7
We must not confuse "the law" to which verse 34 refers with "the law" described in verse 7: "The conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise...are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead."
"The law" which Sarah obeys or follows is later (v. 64-65) referred to as "the law of Sarah"—this law seems to imply that a man who will practice plural marriage must first give his wife the opportunity to approve and endorse the new wife. Thus, the rhetorical question and answer is not
- Q: Why did Sarah do this?
- A: Because plural marriage is "the law."
But, rather:
- Q: Why did Sarah give the wife to Abraham, when he could have simply, by his culture's rules, taken another wife himself?
- A: Because "the law" [of Sarah] requires a righteous man to give his wife a chance to approve, and not proceed unilaterally.
We here recall that this revelation was written to persuade Emma Smith to endorse plural marriage; this argument, then, is especially directed at her (see verses 51-56).
We note also that Abraham was not condemned because he was commanded and then acted
We note also that Abraham was not condemned—but not because plural marriage was "the law" and he practiced it, but because he was commanded and then acted. And, it was this fundamental obedience to any and every commandment that made Abraham great, as the next verse makes clear:
36 Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.
If taking a plural wife was "the law," which Abraham was bound by, then this analogy makes little sense—for it is surely not a law to murder. Indeed, the Lord acknowledges that the "default setting" for the law is not to kill. But, Abraham was commanded to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham took a plural wife not because it was the law, but because he was commanded (just as Joseph had been):
37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.
Abraham kept "the law"—the sealing power and conditions detailed earlier. He, Isaac, and Jacob were justified because they "did the works of Abraham"—they did "none other things than that which they were commanded."
The Lord returns to Abraham later in the section:
49 For I am the Lord thy God, and will be with thee even unto the end of the world, and through all eternity; for verily I seal upon you your exaltation, and prepare a throne for you in the kingdom of my Father, with Abraham your father.
50 Behold, I have seen your sacrifices, and will forgive all your sins; I have seen your sacrifices in obedience to that which I have told you. Go, therefore, and I make a way for your escape, as I accepted the offering of Abraham of his son Isaac.
The same themes recur—Joseph has been obedient, and thus will join Abraham. He has sacrificed (as with Isaac, notably, rather than as with Hagar) in obedience.
Gregory L. Smith, M.D., "Polygamy, Prophets, and Prevarication: Frequently and Rarely Asked Questions about the Initiation, Practice, and Cessation of Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"
Gregory L. Smith, M.D., FairMormon Papers, (2005)The criticism that polygamy is irreligious appeals to western sensibilities which favor monogamy, and argues that polygamy is inconsistent with biblical Christianity or (ironically) the Book of Mormon itself.Even were there no such precedents, LDS theology has no problem accepting and implementing novel commandments, since the Saints believe in continuing revelation. I will not belabor the matter here, since ample resources are available.
This is a weak attack at best, and replies–devotional, apologetic, and scholarly–have been made to the claim. There is extensive, unequivocal evidence that polygamous relationships were condoned under various circumstances by biblical prophets, despite how uncomfortable this might make a modern Christian. Elder Orson Pratt was widely viewed as the victor in a three-day debate on this very point with Reverend John P. Newman, Chaplain of the U.S. Senate, in 1870.
Click here to view the complete article
Critical sources |
|
Notes
- ↑ Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 2:10. off-site
- ↑ Jessie L. Embry, "Ultimate Taboos: Incest and Mormon Polygamy," Journal of Mormon History 18/1 (Spring 1992): 93–113.
- ↑ B. Carmon Hardy's sourcebook on plural marriage is even given this title:B. Carmon Hardy (editor), Doing the Works of Abraham: Mormon Polygamy, Its origin, practice and demise, Vol. 9 of Kingdom in the West Series: The Mormons and the American Frontier (series editor Will Bagley), (Norman, Oklahoma: The Arthur H. Clark Company, 2007). ISBN 0870623443. ISBN 978-0870623448.
- ↑ See: Franklin D. Richards, Conference Report (April 1880), 94.; John Taylor, (8 April 1853) Journal of Discourses 1:226-227.; Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses 11:151-152.; Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses 13:158.; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses 21:238.; Franklin D. Richards, Journal of Discourses 24:282.; Franklin D. Richards, Journal of Discourses 24:337.; N[ewell] K. Whitney [et al.], "A Voice from the Temple," Times and Seasons 5 no. 22 (2 December 1844), 729. off-site GospeLink
- ↑ See: Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses 1:60.; Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses 4:224.; Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses 4:259-260.; Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses 5:91.; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 9:322-333.; George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses 13:198.; George Teasdale, Journal of Discourses 26:48.; Franklin D. Richards, Journal of Discourses 26:341.;
Response to claim: 239, n. 80-83 - "Early Mormon leaders" believed that Jesus and his apostles were polygamists
The author(s) of Becoming Gods make(s) the following claim:
"Early Mormon leaders" believed that Jesus and his apostles were polygamists.Author's sources:
- Jedediah M. Grant, Journal of Discourses 1:346..
- Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses 2:210..
- Orson Pratt, "Celestial Marriage," The Seer, vol. 1, no. 11, p. 172.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
A few believed this, but it was never official doctrine of the Church.
Question: Did early Mormon leaders believe that Jesus Christ was a polygamist?
A few Church leaders believed this, but the idea was never official Church doctrine
Since members in the nineteenth century were commanded to practice polygamy, many presumed that Jesus would have had to also practice this law.
Jedediah M. Grant
Jedediah M. Grant said:
This ancient philosopher says they were both John's wives. Paul says, "Mine answer to them that do examine me is this:—.Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas." He, according to Celsus, had a numerous train of wives.
The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion, was evidently based upon polygamy, according to the testimony of the philosophers who rose in that age. A belief in the doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might almost think they were "Mormons."
But if you pass on in their history to seek for uniformity and beauty, you will find some grand flare-ups among them. Look, for instance, at Paul and Peter, disputing and quarrelling with each other....[1]
Grant believed that early writers, hostile to the Christians, charged members and even Jesus, with polygamy (a charge which would have offended sophisticated Roman opinion in the day). Grant sees the obvious parallels with how the Saints have been treated over the same issue, but Jesus' marital state is not his main point, but conflict and persecution. (It is not clear, however, to which source Grant is referring—FAIR has been unable to locate any such reference to Celsus.)
Orson Hyde
Likewise, Orson Hyde remarked:
I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great blasphemer, because I said, in my lecture on Marriage, at our last Conference, that Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee, that Mary, Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begat children.
All that I have to say in reply to that charge is this—they worship a Savior that is too pure and holy to fulfil the commands of his Father. I worship one that is just pure and holy enough "to fulfil all righteousness;" not only the righteous law of baptism, but the still more righteous and important law "to multiply and replenish the earth." Startle not at this! for even the Father himself honored that law by coming down to Mary, without a natural body, and begetting a son; and if Jesus begat children, he only "did that which he had seen his Father do."[2]
Hyde is again not focused on Jesus' matrimonial state, and notes that being married and begetting children—polygamously or otherwise—is no evil, but is in accordance with God's commandments from time to time.
Response to claim: 240 - The Book of Mormon "seems to condemn polygamy," but Latter-day Saints "deny that this is the case"
The author(s) of Becoming Gods make(s) the following claim:
The Book of Mormon "seems to condemn polygamy," but Latter-day Saints "deny that this is the case."Author's sources:
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
The author does not mention Jacob 2꞉30, which states "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" as the reason that Latter-day Saints "deny that this is the case."
Does the Book of Mormon condemn polygamy?
Book of Mormon Central, KnoWhy #64: What Does the Book of Mormon Say About Polygamy? (Video)
"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 2:24-29 states:
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 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;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
Those who cite this as a condemnation of plural marriage generally refrain from citing the very next verse:
30 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).
The Book of Mormon makes it clear that the Lord may, under some circumstances, command the practice of plural marriage.
Why does Doctrine and Covenants 132 speak favorably about some Old Testament practitioners of plural marriage, while Jacob 2 is negative?
Jacob demonstrates that some of David and Solomon's actions were contrary to Torah, and contrary to God's established order
Jacob demonstrates that some of David and Solomon's actions were contrary to Torah, and contrary to God's established order. If God will not justify even the kings of Israel in such behavior (Jacob seems to argue) why do you think he will justify you in taking plural wives which I, Jacob, have not approved as God's representative among you?
On the other hand, the Doctrine and Covenants' intention is to explain under what circumstances God has and would not only permit but command plural marriage through his prophets.
These two texts are not discussing the same thing at all. This is not immediately obvious, but becomes clear as we look closer.
At some point after David and Solomon, it was encoded into Mosaic law that a man was not to have many wives
One of the challenges is that at some point after these events (David and Solomon), it was encoded into Mosaic law that a man was not to have many wives—and this (back when polygamy was still considered acceptable in mainstream Judaism) was later interpreted by the Rabbis to mean that a man could have as many as four wives.
This injunction on the number of wives seems to be carried over into the polemic given in Jacob. The key in this interpretation of the text is the phrase "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines...". This is a citation of the Old Testament text found in Deuteronomy 17:17, although the rendering is much closer to the NIV than to the KJV. (Deuteronomy in its present form was probably not written before the Lehites' departure, but a similar body of law and thought would have gone back to Lehi's day.)
Here is the relevant passage from the New International Version of the Bible (NIV), which describes the responsibilities and powers of the king.
Deuteronomy 17:14-20 (NIV, emphasis added)
- 14 When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, "Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us,"
- 15 be sure to appoint over you the king the Lord your God chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Israelite.
- 16 The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the Lord has told you, "You are not to go back that way again."
- 17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.
- 18 When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the priests, who are Levites.
- 19 It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the Lord his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees
- 20 and not consider himself better than his brothers and turn from the law to the right or to the left. Then he and his descendants will reign a long time over his kingdom in Israel.
Compare this with the KJV:
Deuteronomy 17:14-20 (KJV, emphasis added)
- 14 When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;
- 15 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.
- 16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
- 17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
- 18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:
- 19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:
- 20 That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.
It is probable that Jacob is effectively quoting this passage (or a precursor to it) from the Brass Plates
It is probable that Jacob is effectively quoting this passage (or a precursor to it) from the Brass Plates, and whether or not some of those wives/concubines were given to these men by God is to an extent irrelevant to his point. In other words, the passage in the Book of Mormon and the passage in the Doctrine and Covenants, quite possibly, are really not discussing the same issue at all.
Jacob was not just saying that David and Solomon had more than one wife, he says that they "truly had many wives," as if to say, "there is no question that David and Solomon had many wives." The fact that the Old Testament strictly forbade the practice of taking many wives for a king (both Solomon and David were kings) leads one to conclude that they were in violation of Torah. The reason to suggest it as a recitation of Deuteronomy 17:17 is because of the context.
If it is not a recitation, then there is no previous indication that this is an abomination (at least within the scriptures that we have today) and that this would be a new rule. How then could it be retroactively applied to Solomon and David? This ultimately is the point—Jacob was defending the new 'party line' on polygamy from the scriptures.
The Book of Mormon account is basing its statements on an interpretation of Mosaic Law to defend a new (to them) negative position on polygamy. The Doctrine and Covenants, by contrast, wishes to explain how and when polygamy can be acceptable to God. One states that the abomination of Solomon and David was in their breaking the commandments in Torah according to the text, and while there are many polygamous figures in the Old Testament, very few "truly had many wives." It is doubtful that the Nephite proponents of polygamy restricted their proof texts to only David and Solomon.
It was the murder of Uriah and the taking of his wife that was the sin David committed, not polygamy
What were the wrongdoings of David and Solomon from Jacob's perspective? Was polygamy the sinful act they committed, or was it something else? Obviously, polygamy was accepted by the Lord at times, since many of His prophets participated in the practice. In fact, the Bible says that God gave David his plural wives:
2 Samuel 12:7-8 (emphasis added)
- 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.
Would God give anyone something that was sinful, wrong, or evil? Absolutely not. If polygamy was not the sin that David committed, then what was it? The very next verse in the Bible explains the sin.
2 Samuel 12:9 (emphasis added)
- 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.
It was the murder of Uriah and the taking of his wife that was the sin David committed, not polygamy. David already had plural wives. These wives were given to him by God. Polygamy was not the sin David was guilty of, but murder and coveting another's wife was. David committed this murder (or rather caused it to happen) so he could have Uriah's wife as his own. In other words, David took an additional wife that the Lord did not give him. But the fact that he had plural wives was in no wise a sin.
The Doctrine and Covenants confirms what the Bible tells us concerning this matter.
- 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;
It was the fact that Solomon allowed some of his wives to turn his heart away from the Lord that resulted in sin, not polygamy
What of Solomon? Was polygamy his sin? Not according to the Bible.
1 Kings 11:1-6 (emphasis added)
- 1 BUT king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
- 2 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.
- 3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.
- 4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.
- 5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.
- 6 And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father.
It was the fact that Solomon allowed some of his wives to turn his heart away from the Lord, just like Uriah's wife did with David, that resulted in sin or evil. It was not polygamy that was evil. The Book of Mormon explains that only when God commands it can a man have more than one wife at a time.
Now, let's return to the second chapter of Jacob:
Jacob 2꞉23 (emphasis added)
- But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures...
Remember that verse 30 could be the "exception clause." That is why it is important to look at the full account in the scriptures, and not selectivity pick one or two verses.
Jacob 2꞉23 (emphasis added)
- ...for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
The Lord had not given permission for the people to have more than one wife at that time. The people were selectively using the scriptures to obtain more than one wife. Because the Lord had not given His permission, it was wrong to have more than one wife at a time, and Jacob can demonstrate how both these kings were also condemned by the Law for their unapproved actions.
- Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
It was not the concubines or the multiple wives that was abominable, but the fact that not all of it was specifically approved by the Lord
It was not the concubines or the multiple wives that was abominable, it was abominable because there was some abuse and not all of it was specifically approved by the Lord.
- 27 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;
- 28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
- 29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
- 30 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.
Their plural wives and concubines were an abomination in that not all of them were approved by the Lord. They were kings who used their temporal power to take that which God had not approved.
Critical sources |
Did early Church leaders state that the Book of Mormon condemns polygamy?
Critics of the Book of Mormon attempt to use the words of early LDS leaders to bolster their position. For example, note how the words of Orson Pratt are "mined" to support the critic's assertion that the Book of Mormon condemns polygamy:
| Reference | Original quote... | What the critics want the quote to say... |
|---|---|---|
| Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism, p. 221 quoting Orson Pratt in Journal of Discourses 6:351 | The Book of Mormon, therefore, is the only record (professing to be Divine) which condemns plurality of wives as being a practice exceedingly abominable before God. But even that sacred book makes an exception in substance as follows—"Except I the Lord command my people." The same Book of Mormon and the same article that commanded the Nephites that they should not marry more than one wife, made an exception. Let this be understood—"Unless I the Lord shall command them." We can draw the conclusion from this, that there were some things not right in the sight of God, unless he should command them. We can draw the same conclusion from the Bible, that there were many things which the Lord would not suffer his children to do, unless he particularly commanded them to do them. | The Book of Mormon, therefore, is the only record (professing to be divine) which condemns the plurality of wives as being a practice exceedingly abominable before God. |
The critics use this quote to state that Orson Pratt "admitted" that the Book of Mormon condemns plural marriage by extracting only the portion of his quote that mentions it. They omit Pratt's subsequent explanation regarding the exception mentioned in Jacob 2:30, thus implying that Pratt was making an "admission" that the Book of Mormon condemned polygamy.
The Smoot hearings
Jerald and Sandra Tanner quote Vol. 1, p. 480 of the Smoot hearings for this claim. They ignore the exchange on the very next page in which President Joseph F. Smith responds to this claim in the Senate, with the senate making the same error made by the Tanners and other critics.
Is Jacob 2:30 actually not saying that polygamy is an occasional exception to monogamy?
Introduction to Question
A splinter group of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints known as the "Doctrine of Christ" have been adamant that the Book of Mormon doesn’t actually condone polygamy under certain circumstances.
The focus is over Jacoh 2:30. Jacob is speaking to Nephite men and women. Here are the verses in question verbatim
- 23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
- 24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
- 25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
- 26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
- 27 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;
- 28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
- 29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
- 30 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.
Those associated with the Doctrine of Christ have interpreted this verse in a variety of ways that do not include the "exception clause" provided by Jacob 2:30 that polygamy may be commanded by God when God needs to raise up seed.
This article will respond to the major arguments in favor of reinterpreting this passage.
Response to Question
"Command My People" May Mean "Move to a Different Location"
One of the arguments is that to "raise up seed", God wouldn’t need to command polygamy but, like Lehi, he could just command his covenant people to move to another location. In the case of Lehi, he was commanded to leave Jerusalem and sail to another location. At the beginning of 1 Nephi 7, Nephi informs us of the following:
- And now I would that ye might know, that after my father, Lehi, had made an end of prophesying concerning his seed, it came to pass that the Lord spake unto him again, saying that it was not meet for him, Lehi, that he should take his family into the wilderness alone; but that his sons should take daughters to wife, that they might raise up seed unto the Lord in the land of promise.
Thus, the Lord commanded Lehi to get his sons to take daughters to wife and take them to the land of promise where they could raise up seed. Monogamously, the Nephites may very well have done that. There are many verses in the Book of Mormon that speak of the Nephites multiplying monogamously.
In Jacob 2 itself Jacob declares:
- Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
But verse 30 does not entirely rule out that polygamy might be among the strategies the Lord might pursue in order to raise up seed. Leading people away from hostile environments might only be one of those strategies. Saying that verse 30 totally rules out polygamy is thus a form of eisegesis.
The Book of Mormon clearly states that the David and Solomon’s sin was having many wives and concubines
The next major assertion is that Jacob flatly condemns polygamy in his discourse. At first blush, this assertion seems to be entirely correct. Jacob 2:25 says:
- Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
There is a lot more complexity to Jacob’s assertion though. We have outlined that complexity in the article below.
As a clue to some of the complexity, several biblical characters practiced plural marriage and they did not receive condemnation from neither God nor Jacob.
Richard and Pamela Price's Interpretation
Richard Price "is a Reorganization conservative who interprets redirection in the church’s policy and doctrine as evidence of apostacy [sic] from the truths of the Restoration. He has become the chief spokesman for Reorganization fundamentalists, and a rival church organization is now developing around him."[3] Him and his wife Pamela are the authors of the three-volume series Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy.
They claim the following:
The true interpretation of the passage shows that it is definitely monogamous, and that it is in harmony with all the rest of the revelation which the Lord gave through Jacob. The true interpretation is:This is the true meaning of this passage—and therefore it condemns polygamy, rather than justifying it as the Mormon Church leaders claim.[4]
- For if I will, saith the Lord of hosts, raise up [righteous] seed unto me, I will command my people [the Lord will be their commander—He will give them commandments to obey]: otherwise [if the Lord is not their commander; or they do not obey His commandments], they shall hearken unto these things [they shall practice the sins of polygamy].
Other authors have followed their lead in interpreting Jacob 2:30 this way.
Gregory L. Smith pointed out the major flaws of their argument in a post on the FAIR Blog:
This is certainly a creative reading. I see a few problems, however:
- The reading requires the "shall hearken" to be read as predictive (what will happen), not imperative (what should happen). Yet, in Joseph’s day, shall is typically an imperative when applied in the second and third person, not a future tense. See Webster’s 1828 dictionary, "shall," definition #2.
- It seems strange for the Lord to say simply that He will be "their commander,"–the verse is clearly talking about commanding SOMETHING. And, it involves the Lord "will"[ing] something that He might not will in other situations.
- It ignores the fact that Jacob is almost certainly commenting on Deuteronomic (or Deuteronomy-like) writing about plural marriage in Judaic kings, some of whom clearly had wives given them by God. (e.g., 2 Sam 11:8) See here and here for analysis on these lines by FAIR.[5]
Conclusion
These rebuttals should suffice in demonstrating that the major arguments in favor of reinterpretation are all either false or non-determinative.
Gospel Topics: The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that the marriage of one man to one woman is God’s standard, except at specific periods when He has declared otherwise
"Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah," Gospel Topics on LDS.org
The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that the marriage of one man to one woman is God’s standard, except at specific periods when He has declared otherwise. [6]
Critical sources |
|
Notes
- ↑ Jedediah M. Grant, "UNIFORMITY," (7 August 1853) Journal of Discourses 1:346.
- ↑ Orson Hyde, "The Judgements of God on the United States--The Saints and the World," (18 March 1855) Journal of Discourses 2:210.
- ↑ Roger D. Launius, "An Ambivalent Rejection: Baptism for the Dead and the Reorganized Church Experience," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 23, no. 2 (Summer 1990): 61n1. For more on Price, see William D. Russell, "Richard Price: Leading Publicist of the Reorganized Church’s Schismatics," in Differing Visions: Dissenters in Mormon History, ed. Roger D. Launius and Linda Thatcher (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 319–40.
- ↑ Richard Price and Pamela Price, Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy, 3 vols. (Independence, MO: Price Publishing Co., 2000), 1:226.
- ↑ Gregory L. Smith, "Plural marriage ponderings: An RLDS/CoC apologetic for Jacob 2:30," FAIR Blog, February 4, 2008, https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2008/02/04/plural-marriage-ponderings-an-rldscoc-apologetic-for-jacob-230.
- ↑ "Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah," Gospel Topics on LDS.org. (2013)
Response to claim: 241 - How could Jesus have been a god before he was born, before he had a physical body?
The author(s) of Becoming Gods make(s) the following claim:
How could Jesus have been a god before he was born, before he had a physical body?Author's sources:
- No source given
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
Critics ignore that the gospel teaches us what we must do to fulfill God's commandments and purposes. It does not spend much time telling us what Jesus was required to do—clearly, he had many duties and abilities which far outstripped ours.
Question: How did Christ achieve deification before mortality?
It was necessary that at some point Jesus receive a body, but the specific time in which He did so is not particularly important
It is claimed that Latter-day Saint doctrine, which teaches that a physical body is necessary for a fulness of glory, is inconsistent, since Jesus was God prior to his mortal birth. However, having a body is necessary for a fullness of joy (D&C 93꞉33). The Holy Ghost is also God, but does not at present have a body in LDS doctrine.
It was necessary that at some point Jesus receive a body, but the specific time in which He did so is not particularly important. (To travel overseas, one needs both a passport and an airplane ticket. It doesn't matter in which order one gets the passport or the ticket, but one must eventually have both in order to reach one's destination.)
If a specific sequence is an absolutely requirement, then all Christians would need to explain how Christ's atonement could be efficacious to those who were born, lived, and died prior to His crucifixion. The fact that the atonement was effective should caution us against adopting an absolute requirement for sequence concerning Christ's receipt of a physical body.
Critics ignore that the gospel teaches us what we must do to fulfill God's commandments and purposes. It does not spend much time telling us what Jesus was required to do—clearly, he had many duties and abilities which far outstripped ours. That is why he was God and Savior before we came to this earth, and why we must rely upon his grace for salvation.
Response to claim: 241 - How could the Holy Ghost be a god, since he does not have a physical body?
The author(s) of Becoming Gods make(s) the following claim:
How could the Holy Ghost be a god, since he does not have a physical body?Author's sources:
- No source given
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
Jehovah, the premortal Jesus Christ, was part of the Godhead before his mortal birth. Why not the Holy Ghost?
Question: Can the Holy Ghost not be fully God, because he does not have a physical body?
It is not known by revelation that it will be necessary for the Holy Spirit to receive a body at some point
Critics charge that since LDS doctrine teaches that a body is required for exaltation, the Holy Ghost cannot be fully God, because he does not have a physical body.
Modern scriptures indicate that having a body is necessary for a fullness of joy (D&C 93꞉33). It is assumed by some Latter-day Saints—but not known by revelation—that it will be necessary for the Holy Spirit to receive a body at some point, but the timeframe in which He does so is not particularly important. (To travel overseas to another country, one needs both a passport and an airplane ticket. It doesn't matter in which order one gets the passport or the ticket, but one must eventually have both in order to reach one's destination.)
Jehovah, the premortal Jesus Christ, was part of the Godhead before his mortal birth. He was the God of Israel, and his yet-future atonement was efficacious to those who were born, lived, and died prior to His crucifixion. The fact that it was effective should blunt any feigned requirement for sequence concerning the Holy Ghost's receipt of a physical body, a matter about which the Church has no official doctrine.
Response to claim: 244 - "...nowhere in the Old Testament is polygamy linked with any mandates to practice it"
The author(s) of Becoming Gods make(s) the following claim:
"...nowhere in the Old Testament is polygamy linked with any mandates to practice it."Author's sources:
- No source given.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is false
Levirate marriage was mandated by the law of Moses (Deuteronomy 25:5-6). Even if true, this claim is immaterial. God did not condemn the practice of plural marriage in the Bible. If it was everywhere and always forbidden, God could and would have done so. Early Christian authors understood this.
Response to claim: 245, n97 - Plural marriages were performed after the 1890 Manifesto
The author(s) of Becoming Gods make(s) the following claim:
Plural marriages were performed after the 1890 Manifesto.Author's sources:
- 1911 telegram to Reed Smoot from Joseph F. Smith, Apr. 1, 1911.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event
This is correct.
Gospel Topics: "The Second Manifesto. At first, the performance of new plural marriages after the Manifesto was largely unknown to people outside the Church"
"The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage," Gospel Topics on LDS.org:
At first, the performance of new plural marriages after the Manifesto was largely unknown to people outside the Church. When discovered, these marriages troubled many Americans, especially after President George Q. Cannon stated in an 1899 interview with the New York Herald that new plural marriages might be performed in Canada and Mexico.40 After the election of B. H. Roberts, a member of the First Council of the Seventy, to the U.S. Congress, it became known that Roberts had three wives, one of whom he married after the Manifesto. A petition of 7 million signatures demanded that Roberts not be seated. Congress complied, and Roberts was barred from his office.41
The exclusion of B. H. Roberts opened Mormon marital practices to renewed scrutiny. Church President Lorenzo Snow issued a statement clarifying that new plural marriages had ceased in the Church and that the Manifesto extended to all parts of the world, counsel he repeated in private. Even so, a small number of new plural marriages continued to be performed, probably without President Snow’s knowledge or approval. After Joseph F. Smith became Church President in 1901, a small number of new plural marriages were also performed during the early years of his administration.[1]—(Click here to continue)
Gospel Topics: "The Church’s role in these marriages became a subject of intense debate after Reed Smoot, an Apostle, was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1903"
"The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage," Gospel Topics on LDS.org:
The Church’s role in these marriages became a subject of intense debate after Reed Smoot, an Apostle, was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1903. Although Smoot was a monogamist, his apostleship put his loyalty to the country under scrutiny. How could Smoot both uphold the laws of the Church, some of whose officers had performed, consented to, or participated in new plural marriages, and uphold the laws of the land, which made plural marriage illegal? For four years legislators debated this question in lengthy public hearings.[2]—(Click here to continue)
Gospel Topics: "Church President Joseph F. Smith took the stand in the Senate chamber in March 1904. When asked, he defended his family relationships"
"The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage," Gospel Topics on LDS.org:
The Senate called on many witnesses to testify. Church President Joseph F. Smith took the stand in the Senate chamber in March 1904. When asked, he defended his family relationships, telling the committee that he had cohabited with his wives and fathered children with them since 1890. He said it would be dishonorable of him to break the sacred covenants he had made with his wives and with God. When questioned about new plural marriages performed since 1890, President Smith carefully distinguished between actions sanctioned by the Church and ratified in Church councils and conferences, and the actions undertaken by individual members of the Church. "There never has been a plural marriage by the consent or sanction or knowledge or approval of the church since the manifesto," he testified.43
In this legal setting, President Smith sought to protect the Church while stating the truth. His testimony conveyed a distinction Church leaders had long understood: the Manifesto removed the divine command for the Church collectively to sustain and defend plural marriage; it had not, up to this time, prohibited individuals from continuing to practice or perform plural marriage as a matter of religious conscience.[3]—(Click here to continue)
Why were some plural marriages performed after the First Manifesto (Official Declaration 1)?
Summary: The leaders were agreed that President Woodruff had been right to issue it, and acknowledged his action of the Lord; the full implications of the Manifesto, however, were still the subject of discussion and debate.Lisa Olsen Tait: The Manifesto and the end of Polygamy
Gregory L. Smith, M.D., "Polygamy, Prophets, and Prevarication: Frequently and Rarely Asked Questions about the Initiation, Practice, and Cessation of Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"
Gregory L. Smith, M.D., FairMormon PapersWe note again that the Church and its members were in an impossible position–the government showed no concern for the women and children who would be left without support if government policies were obeyed. Members and leaders again had agonizing choices to make, in which all their moral duties simply could not be honored. Joseph F. Smith wrote to a member who faced just this dilemma, “The whole thing in a nut shell is this, you should keep your covenants with your family and you should also not violate the law. Now if you can comprehend it–you will grasp the situation.”President Woodruff continued similar tactics throughout the remainder of his administration. By July 1892 he had granted a few recommends for plural marriages in Mexico, and in June 1897 marriages sanctioned by the First Presidency were performed at sea, on the Great Lakes, and in Mexico. There is circumstantial evidence that President Woodruff himself married a plural wife at sea in September 1897. At times, President Woodruff seems to have maintained some “plausible deniability” by declining to personally approve a polygamous marriage, while referring the potential polygamists to his counselor, George Q. Cannon, for a recommend.
The situation–which critics and many modern members have not grasped–is that it was impossible to do both. A choice had to be made, the Saints chose whatever was most important, and most seem to have chosen support for families over being straightforward with the government.
Click here to view the complete article
Gospel Topics, "Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah"
Gospel Topics, Gospel Topics, (2013)After the Manifesto, monogamy was advocated in the Church both over the pulpit and through the press. On an exceptional basis, some new plural marriages were performed between 1890 and 1904, especially in Mexico and Canada, outside the jurisdiction of U.S. law; a small number of plural marriages were performed within the United States during those years. In 1904, the Church strictly prohibited new plural marriages. Today, any person who practices plural marriage cannot become or remain a member of the Church.
Click here to view the complete article
Critical sources |
|
Notes
- ↑ "The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage," Gospel Topics on LDS.org
- ↑ "The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage," Gospel Topics on LDS.org
- ↑ "The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage," Gospel Topics on LDS.org
Notes
Categories:
- Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
- Church of Jesus Christ
- FAIR
- Mormon
- Mormonism
- LDS Church
- Navbox
- Navigation
- To learn more box
- Becoming Gods
- Letter to a CES Director
- Mormon America: The Power and the Promise
- MormonThink
- Mormonism 101
- No Man Knows My History
- One Nation Under Gods
- Questions
- The Changing World of Mormonism
- Book of Mormon
- Needs work