By Brian and Laura Hales
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has generally not addressed the practice of plural marriage, but increased attention on the subject apparently prompted the Church to release several essays on the topic last year. The postings created a frenzy in the media with coverage by major national newspapers, television news, and countless blogs. While the essays were unexpectedly candid, they did not seem to assuage all of the concerns of members as evidenced by the questions and concerns that continue to be expressed. On February 2, 2015, Kirk Van Allen posted a blog titled, “D&C 132: A Revelation of Men, Not God.” In it, he brings up some valid questions, which have previously been voiced by members and non-members in their quest to try and understand this “strange doctrine.” However, he also advances arguments that seem to superficially examine the topic without taking into account important theological and historical contexts. Since this essay is traversing the blogosphere and stirring up a whirlwind, an alternative view of his assertions seems useful.
Lending Clarity to Confusion: A Response to Kirk Van Allen’s “D&C 132: A Revelation of Men, Not God”
I got as far as #2 and could go no further.
2. “When they bring back polygamy …” Do we know that polygamy will ever be commanded again? In the 6000 years of religious history, the only adherents to be commanded were the Latter-day Saints between 1852 and 1890. Upon what basis does anyone assert that it will be commanded again? 3. “If the prophet asked you to practice polygamy, would you do it?” “What ifs” steal joy from our present by causing us to obsess over speculative sadness in a possible future based on unknown variables. Discussing such hypotheticals creates needless turmoil among the Latter-day Saints because there is no data to support the existence of these future events.”
If we listen to past prophets, it sure sounds like polygamy will, indeed, be commanded in the future.
-BY: “The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy”
-BY: “Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men.”
BY: -BY: “Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned,”
– BY: “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy,.”
-JFS: “There is a great deal said about our plural marriage… It is a principle that pertains to eternal life… It is a law of the Gospel pertaining to the celestial kingdom, applicable to all gospel dispensations.”
JFS: “Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential, to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false.”
-D&C 132 says a woman who does not accept polygamy will be destroyed.
-The only reason given for stopping polygamy, according to the Manifesto, was to comply with federal law and prevent church properties from falling into government hands. One must infer, then, that once there is no federal ban on polygamy, it will return to church practice.
-Today widowed or divorced men may remarry and be sealed to their new wife. Women married to these serial polygamists will be required to enter into polygamy.
I know, I know, you will come back with all sorts of reasons why these statements and policies don’t really mean what they seem to mean. But until and unless a prophet gets up at the podium and says without equivocation: “Polygamy is limited practice and is NOT required for exaltation nor does it qualify one for a higher degree of exaltation, BY’s statements notwithstanding. And you women who die and your husband’s remarry in the temple, don’t worry. You won’t be forced to choose between your husband and polygamy” then it is perfectly legitimate, perfectly sound reasoning for members to assume that polygamy may be reinstated and may still be taught as a requirement for exaltation.
You can parse all day long, cite contrary examples and try to contextualize all you want. But until and unless a prophet of the church gets up in GC and clarifies with complete unambiguity, then this idea is not going away. Nor is there any reason you should expect it.
I appreciate the Hales’ efforts to provide context and clarity to the eternally contentious issue of polygamy. However, the best explanation I’ve found for the inexplicable doctrine/practice was written by the late LDS scholar/essayist Eugene England entitled “On Fidelity, Polygamy and Celestial Marriage” (available at eugeneengland.org). I would encourage FairMormon to republish this seminal work because it is a joyous affirmation that monogamy, not polygamy, is the order of marriage in the Celestial Kingdom. It also help me understand polygamy as a modern-day test of Abraham for those faithful saints of the 19th Century. Another writer has pointed out that a “test of Abraham” requires the individual to take an action that directly contravenes an earlier commandment from God. In Abraham’s case, he was commanded to kill his own son (I won’t use the euphemism “sacrifice” to gloss over the real nature of the commandment). Of course, in obeying the commandment, Abraham would have to violate the commandment “Thou shalt not kill.” In commanding the practice of polygamy, the Lord required the Puritanical Saints to violate previous commandments requiring chastity and fidelity. Polygamy was as near to an Abrahamic test as possible without requiring sacrifice/murder. And polygamy remains a sublime test of Abraham today for modern Mormons, forcing us into intense soul-searching about the inspiration of Joseph Smith. Nothing has changed, really.
To date NOT ONE human being in my 20 years of inquiry has been able to show me from the bible that monogamy is the only form of matrimony acceptable to God. Or that God condemned polygamy. Can anyone reading this cite a chapter and verse from the Bible that condemns polygamy as evil or devilish?
The closest thing I’ve found is a condemnation of David’s actions of coveting another man’s wife and of murdering her husband.
I have never heard an argument against polygamy (sexism, lustfull sex, degradation of women , child abuse) that can not also be found in unhealthy monogamous relationships even in the 21st century.
In my personal studies over the years I have come across anthropological studies that claim that throughout the known history of the cultures of the planet earth, less than 20% have been monogamous. And that our culture’s monogamous history is claimed by some, to be traced to the Pagan cultures of the Greek and Roman empires. (How ROMANtic)
If those who believe in the bible, claim that polygamy is a pernicious evil and that monogamy is the only type of God sanctioned matrimony, then I say the onus of proof be upon the claimant. Prove your position using the Bible and the Bible only, that God condemns polygamy and that it is evil, and that monogamy is the only marriage He deems as righteous.
Until then you should shut your mouth in everlasting silence on the matter because the stench of your double standard hypocrisy reeks to high heaven.
Hi Prairie Chuck,
I appreciate the comments. You have enunciated a common misconception regarding plural marriage and it has been very difficult to correct this. God commanded Church members between 1852 and 1890 to practice polygamy. He has given other specific commandments over the millennia like the Law of Moses, burnt offerings, circumcision etc.
Between 1852 and 1890 the Saints were told they needed to be polygamists to receive God’s blessings. It is true. But that does not mean we need to be polygamists today anymore than we need to offering up burnt offerings or covenant with circumcision.
You included two of the most common proof-texts. Statements made between 1852 and 1890, can be easily quoted out of context to create the appearance that Church leaders taught that all men in the Celestial Kingdom would be polygamists. Perhaps the most commonly cited quotation is from Brigham Young who made a statement in 1866 that is very popular with Mormon fundamentalists: “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.” By extracting this quotation from the entire discourse, multiple authors create a proof-text that indicates Brigham Young was saying all men in the Celestial Kingdom are practicing polygamists.
However, earlier in the same discourse President Young proclaimed the more general commandment that the Saints were obligated to follow telling the congregation, “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.” Brigham Young pointed out that the principle of plural marriage, which constitutes one aspect of celestial marriage, must be faithfully accepted by all exalted beings, whether they practice it or not.
Another similar statement comes from an 1878 discourse by Elder Joseph F. Smith. He taught,
“Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential, to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false.”
Alone this quotation can be read to mean that all men, irrespective of when and where they lived, were required to enter plural marriage to be fully exalted, which is a common interpretation by modern polygamists. However, toward the beginning of the talk Joseph F. Smith clarified,
“It [plural marriage] is a principle that pertains to eternal life, in other words, to endless lives, or eternal increase. It is a law of the Gospel pertaining to the celestial kingdom, applicable to all gospel dispensations, when commanded and not otherwise, and neither acceptable to God or binding on man unless given by commandment, not only so given in this dispensation, but particularly adapted to the conditions and necessities thereof, and to the circumstances, responsibilities, and personal, as well as vicarious duties of the people of God in this age of the world. God has revealed it as a principle particularly suited to the nature of the work we are called to perform, that it might be hastened to its consummation. ”
Apostle Smith’s statement that plural marriage is “applicable to all gospel dispensations, when commanded and not otherwise, and neither acceptable to God or binding on man unless given by commandment” is perhaps the best available summary of the eternal position of polygamy in LDS history. It can be commanded or not commanded. Just because it is commanded between 1852 and 1890 doesn’t mean it was commanded in the Book of Mormon, New Testament times, or today.
If polygamy is always required, why do proponents have to use such ambiguous quotations to support it? No leader has taught it plainly, which would be very easy. Even during the 1856-1857 reformation, no leader said every man, irrespective of where and when he lived on earth, must be a polygamist to be exalted. It isn’t a true doctrine.
God Bless,
Brian Hales
Brian,
An additional observation that invalidates Van Allen’s section on THE MATH is that the relative birthrates of males to females is not the same as the ratio of the two at marriageable age.
Looking only at the U.S. Census information, we see that, indeed, in every decade I looked at there were more males in the 0-4 years old category than there were females. Looking at the 2010 U.S. Census, this ratio remains pretty static until the population hits their 20s, when the ratio of males to females begins to decline until around the age of 35 when females become more numerous, a ratio which maintains itself and becomes increasingly more favorable to women right through the 85+ category. The 2000 U.S. Census shows this exact same trend with the ratio crossover point also at 35.
In 1990, the cross-over point was closer to 30 years of age.
In the 1980 U.S. Census, the male to female ratio switched from favoring males to favoring females at age 23. In 1970 it was age 24, and in 1960 the crossover occurred at age 21. The favorability of female numbers in each census was maintained from the crossover point through the oldest recorded category of ages, typically becoming more disparate as the ages increased.
From 1900 to 1950, there were actually double or triple crossovers. For example, according to the 1950 census, females became more predominant at age 20, but then the ratio switched back in favor of males at age 43, then back to women at age 55. Looking at 1910, the ratio goes from male to female favorability at age 16, back to males at age 19, then back to women again at age 74.
https://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html
http://www.census.gov/popest/data/national/asrh/pre-1980/PE-11.html
We can suppose that the impact of war (on men) and childbirth (on women) were the main reasons for the various crossovers. However, in ages where both childbirth and war risks are minimal on fatality, 1990 to 2010, there was only one crossover point and that was between 30 and 35 years of age.
As for the population ratios in the hereafter in the Celestial Kingdom, I think your arguments stand on their own.
When I’ve been in areas where the Church has considered creating new wards and stakes, a prime determining factor has been the number of Melchizedek Priesthood holders. There seemed to always be enough worthy sisters.
Thanks John, great research. It is funny how half-truths can gain such traction on the internet.