By Russell Stevenson
In Kristy Money’s recent op-ed for the Salt Lake Tribune, she urges seminary teachers and parents to “ignore [the] lesson altogether” on Doctrine and Covenants 132—which includes a discussion of the rationales undergirding Joseph Smith’s practice of polygamy. By calling for seminary teachers to ignore section 132, Money would have us silence the teaching of an important aspect of Latter-day Saint history. While section 132 has often raised difficulties for even the most committed of Latter-day Saints, the best solution to these anxieties is not increased ignorance but education, knowledge, and understanding.
Over the past decade, faithful Latter-day Saint historians—men and women who have spent years in the archives—have made venerable strides in creating the kind of faith community that can bear rigorous inquiries into its own past and appreciate its own relationship to broader political contexts. Johann von Goethe warned that “those who cannot draw conclusions/From three thousand years of learning/Stay naïve in dark confusions” and go “day to day undiscerning.”[1] For a people as historically conscious as the Latter-day Saints, Goethe’s poetic injunction holds no less true in matters of the past two centuries.
The study of history ought not be a discipline given to validating our assumptions or even our lived experiences; it demands constant vigilance to ensure that we are not projecting onto the primary sources what we want them to say. When we do, we are not pursuing history but crafting mythologies and perpetuating morality tales, useful though they may be. Immanuel Kant’s quip functions in reverse as well: simply because an interpretation is useful does not mean that it is true.[2]
Money urges seminary teachers to “simply teach that Joseph Smith began practicing polygamy in the early 1830s,” that they should “teach the facts without the spin.” Serious historical inquiries demand that we seek to capture a sense for the man or woman’s values and motivations whether the subject of study are activists such as Harvey Milk and Jane Addams, dictators such as Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, or religious figures such as Mary Baker Eddy and Joseph Smith. Omitting Joseph Smith’s conviction in his own divinely-sanctioned mission does not present the kind of candid history that I assume Money wants to see. How can one seriously broach the historical Joseph Smith without acknowledging that he believed himself to be a Prophet, the very mouthpiece of God? “This is eternal lives,” he dictated in regards to the polygamy doctrine, “to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent.” Joseph Smith enjoined readers to “receive ye, therefore, my law.” Transparency demands that educators of all stripes not merely state that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy but also, explore why he did as well.
Moreover, the same revelation that Money wants us to ignore also provides the proof text that gives Latter-day Saint couples hope for an eternal union and companionship. Whether one wishes to embrace or dismiss the doctrine of eternal marriage, it is undeniable that the Latter-day Saint marriage ritual and its foundational text provide peace, comfort, and fulfillment to couples across the globe. Surely, Money recognizes the kind of emotional pain that would come as a result.
I share Money’s desires to eradicate environments that foster justifications for sexual exploitation. And the best weapons against these evils are not ignorance and taboo but awareness and candor. Latter-day Saints must seek out their history on the grassroots level; then and only then, can the Mormon community hope to make meaning of their rich, courageous, troubling, and inspiring past.
[1]: Albrecht Schone, “Faust—today,” in Hans Schulte, John Noyes, and Pia Kleber, Goethe’s Faust: Theatre of Modernity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 18–19.
[2]: In his Lectures on Logic, Immanuel Kant said that “many things can be true and still useful to man. Not all truth is useful.” See Immanuel Kant, Lectures on Logic, trans. J. Michael Young (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 43.
Russell Stevenson is the author of For the Cause of Righteousness: A Global History of Blacks and Mormonism, 1830-2013.
There are so many reasons that polygamy is mistaken. No scriptural support for it other than Joseph’s purported revelation. It strains at the concept of equality of men and women; polygamy places women in a subordinate, “owned” status. Nothing in scripture supports that view. Some refer to Abraham; but it wasn’t God that “commanded” Abraham to take another wife. The cultural norm of having children was so intense that his wife made the suggestion to take another wife (which wasn’t uncommon, but not a justification; and which she later regretted). The Book of Mormon in Jacob so strongly condemns multiple wives and concubines that there should be no question (the very book that Joseph translated). It was a practice that served as one of the main reason for which Lehi and his family were commanded to leave Jerusalem, to get away from the practice… and, they were NOT commanded to have multiple wives. Many other scriptural examples demonstrate what the church NOW preaches — one man, one woman.
Like Blacks and the Priesthood, the practice of polygamy was something that originated from misunderstanding the scriptures, from trying to justify a practice that was never scriptural, and still creates the uncomfortable dichotomy of faithful members trying to justify something that cannot be fit to any justifiable conditions of eternal principles.
Others will use the example of Nephi being commanded to kill Laban — something that is against God’s command to not kill. Space here does not enable fully exploring this example, except to say the life of Nephi and his brothers had been threatened several times and they had been robbed of all possessions; and it would have been difficult for their journey if Laban had been tracking them down. All the examples of the Israelites going into Canaan is a different topic, but even more problematic. The example of Abraham in sacrificing Issac was halted, was symbolic, and while against the inclination and command not to kill, it was never carried out.
In sum, I am troubled by the continued inclusion of Section 132 in the Doctrine & Covenants, by the continued justification, and by the subliminal if not outright message at one point in time, and possibly in the future, one man can be “in charge” of many women, or their lord. To call it otherwise is simple nonsense. The Church has matured enough to acknowledge that denying Blacks the priesthood was wrong, misguided, unjustly justified, and supports no early arguments for such a practice. Let it be so for this practice as well.
Money’s point seems to be that there is not very much that is praiseworthy or useful in Section 132 or the history of polygamy to teach to high school kids, so if you can’t say something nice don’t say anything at all. The obvious exception to that, as you point out, is the doctrine of eternal marriage, but does seem like a lot of cherrypicking of the section and twisting of the history is required to get anything positive out of it.
Russell,
I’m confused about what you would want to see taught in seminary about polygamy. Do you think that the current seminary manual is historically and doctrinally accurate and complete, or do you think that something different or additional should be taught? What do you think the focus of seminary lessons ought to be? How should the verses about polygamy and historical material about Joseph Smith’s polygamy (including underage wives, polyandry, Emma’s opposition, and so on) be taught in order to be historically accurate in that context?
PS The word “v*rgins” appears to be blocked, which is a little inconvenient for a discussion of Sec. 132.
Brent, I just want to clarify here. Are you saying that you DO hold the Book of Mormon to be a divine work translated by the power of God by Joseph Smith, but you do NOT hold section 132 of the Doctrine & Covenants to be a work of God by Joseph Smith?
Brent, what about this scriptural reference?
2 Samuel 12:7-8
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.
Here we have Nathan, the prophet, speaking for the Lord telling David that He (the Lord) gave him his master’s wives.
I agree that plural marriage is difficult for the women and it was not so easy for the men either. However, it was a practice that God commanded in the Bible and was practiced by righteous men and women. God took wives married to Saul and gave them to David. (2 Samuel 12:8). This passage explicitly says “Thus saith the Lord God of Israel….I gave thee…thy master’s [Saul’s] wives.” (2 Sam. 12:7-8). So we see that it was God who gave David his plural wives. At this time David had not yet committed his sin with Bathsheba and was a righteous man and he already had at least two wives at the same time (1 Sam. 18:27; 1 Sam. 25:40-43; see D&C 132:38-39).
Abraham had plural wives – Sarai, Hagar, Keturah and others.(See Gen. 16:3, Gen 25:1,6) Abraham was righteous and God appeared to him at least twice during the time he had plural wives (Gen 17:1, Gen 18:1). Abraham is blessed and God makes His covenant with him and blesses him to be the father of many nations (Gen 17:1-6) and Abraham is “exceeding fruitful” with plural wives being the means by which Abraham fulfills God’s promise to become the father of many nations.
Jesus said that polygamists Abraham and Jacob will be in the Kingdom of God while others are thrust out (Luke 13:28). Christ affirms this again in the Parable of the Rich man and Lazarus wherein Jesus tells us that Abraham, that old polygamist, is in paradise while the Rich man is in Hell (Luke 16: 19-31). The New Testament calls Abraham the Father of the Faithful (Galations 3:7,9,29) Even Jesus says that the righteous do the works of Abraham (John 8:39).
Abijah had fourteen wives (2 Chronicles 13:21) and yet the Bible describes him as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord (2 Chronicles 13:8-12) and prospered in battle because the Lord blessed him (2 Chronicles 13:16-18)
While I agree that this was a very difficult thing it was commanded by God. Joseph Smith was commanded to restore all things as prophesied in Acts 3:21. It would not have been the dispensation of the fullness of times without that principle. This is the one thing Joseph resisted to the point of being threatened with death by the angel of the Lord if he did not comply. Joseph was truly a very reluctant polygamist.
The Book of Mormon teaches that unless God commands it the norm for marriage is to have one wife. (Jacob 2:27-29) However, the Book of Mormon allows for exceptions to this when it is God’s command. In the same passage it says “For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people [to practice plural marriage]; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. (Jacob 2:27-30).
Joseph Smith received the revelation (D&C 132) and I think it would take another revelation from God to remove it.
Humble Turkey:
Sorry to see that you’re confused.
Should we leave out all things from our historical education that aren’t exactly pretty? Leave out teaching the Mountain Meadows Massacre from Institute Classes on LDS history? Ignore the realities of the priesthood restriction on peoples of African descent? I certainly don’t want that, and I would hope that you don’t want that either.
Wherever one’s loyalties lie–whether you’re a critic or a believer–we must ground our teaching in what the documentary record says and acknowledge what the documentary record does not say. And from the teens I know, they can smell obfuscation and nonsense from a mile away. Be real with them, and good things will come of it.
Amen to that.
Brent, your claim there is no scriptural support for polygamy other than latter day revelation is not accurate. I would direct you to read 2Sam12. In there the prophet Nathan speaks directly on behalf of God, delivering to David a message where God says that He (God) gave David many wives and would have given him even more if that David asked for it. In 1 Kings 15:5 it says that the ONLY thing David did wrong his whole life was in the matter of Uriah the Hittite, yet David had several wives already before then. The law of Moses did not forbid polygamy, it regulated it’s practice, and there are many cases in the OT of men who were polygamous with no condemnation of God and many who were prophets of God while they had plural wives.
In the NT a qualification for being a bishop was for a man to be husband of only one wife, implying that there were polygamous marriages. There is no condemnation of polygamy in the NT, and 1Tim5:16-17 seems to me to implies that it was encouraged that faithful men be given ‘double honor’ which I take as meaning plural wives as a way of caring for widows given the context of the remark.
The condemnation in the BoM is qualified by stating that God could command otherwise. What Jacob condemned was men taking it upon themselves to practice it without authorization from God.
The culture of the day in Biblical times saw every wife as owned by her husband, polygamous or monogamous. And they would relate that back to what God said to Eve as a consequence of the Fall. I don’t think you can blame that on polygamy.
On blacks and the priesthood, BY himself said the day would come when they would have it. Elijah Able, by virtue of his faith was given the priesthood, and BY even made him a 70. Kind of hard to paint BY as a total bigot when he does all that and makes a point of saying the ban was temporary.
David O MacKay and other prophets before SWK sought from the Lord permission to lift the ban and did not receive it. If it was a mistake and not pleasing to God why didn’t God make a point of telling the very first one to ask if they could lift it to go ahead, and why not even be proactive about it and tell BY directly that he was mistaken?
Look in the Bible and you see God promised the gospel would first come to the house of Israel. Gentiles were frozen out, Christ would not preach to them, but he did make an exception to heal a gentiles who showed great faith. Blacks and the priesthood is the same pattern in a different context. When the time was right for the gospel to go to the gentiles, God gave Peter a revelation, likewise with the priesthood and SWK.
God commanded the armies of Israel to wipe out whole cities, sparing none, not man, woman, child or animal. God is well within his right to command such a thing, or to command Nephi to kill Laban. It is not in man’s authority to take it upon himself to shed innocent blood. God made it clear to the armies of Israel that they were to wipe out those cities because of their gross wickedness, and Laban certainly proved himself to less than virtuous. Nephi did not murder, he carried out an execution under authority and command of God.
In the larger context of the scriptures, puzzling and poring over D&C 132 has taught me a great deal of how God deals with His children.
It has also taught me to humble myself, and realize I may not always understand God’s ways.
Why do we need scripture to tell us these things at all? We could believe we are going to be together with our families after we die without scripture and be equally correct right? Why do we need scripture to be authoritative on these matters? It seems to me like we should be able to look at D&C 132 and not have to take it as absolutely correct about everything. It’s okay to teach the message we like from it, and condemn the message we don’t like from it.
Of course one can “believe” anything they want but belief alone does not make it so. God has specified that the power to bind together (binding families together) and to loose, is given to his Apostles. (Matt. 16:19). Without that power marriages do not continue after death. (Luke 20:27-35) Understanding Luke’s account requires taking it in context. The Sadducees rejected Jesus and His apostle’s authority or power to bind and therefore would not be married in the resurrection. However, the binding power that Jesus gave to Peter would result in the binding of spouses in marriage in the resurrecting. That binding power was restored to the prophet Joseph Smith and his successors. Like the Sadducees of old people who reject this same binding power which has been restored to Jesus’s apostles in our day will not enjoy a continuation of marriage until and unless they accept and receive of that blessing.