What Every Mormon Really Needs To Know About Polygamy

I just want to let you know up front that this may be a little longer of a read than my normal length blogs based on the sensitivity of the subject. But please…please…read it all the way through.

My wife and I have shied away from Section 132 for awhile now. A surface reading of it just doesn’t sit well with most people…but the research my wife has put in on this subject over the last two weeks has blown my mind. She went to God in prayer and analyzed every verse in that section. I wanted to get her feelings, her perspective, her thoughts before I published anything else on this subject.

I published an article called “It’s Time To Stop Hating on Mormons About Polygamy” a few weeks ago in response to the collective media’s commentary on Joseph Smith and polygamy. That piece was more of a reaction on my part. This piece is the result of serious study and pondering and is meant to bring peace to those that might be struggling with the concept.

While my wife was doing her own research…I was busy asking respected friends and knowledgeable church members (many of whom I would consider scholars) one question. “Do you believe that polygamy is a celestial law that will be required in the celestial kingdom?” The almost unanimous answer was “Yes”.

My immediate follow up question and response is this; “Ok…so who taught you that?”

A puzzled look always follows as they say…”well…well…I’m not sure. That’s just what I’ve always heard.”

“Heard it where?” I’d ask.

“Well…I don’t know. That’s a good question”

I’ve been trying to figure out where, how, and why I’ve been taught that plural marriage is an eternal celestial principle. I can’t for the life of me remember why I think that. Is it just Mormon folklore or something someone extrapolated from the Doctrine and Covenants or some Journal of Discourses quotation? Many Mormons will say the same thing…that they’ve heard plural marriage is an eternal principle. But my question is…where did they hear it? Who taught it? And why do so many Mormons believe it?

Maybe it’s time to NOT believe that.

Trying to figure out why Mormons used to practice polygamy is important to a lot of members of the church. It’s been especially difficult for women over the years which is understandable. Valerie Cassler Hudson once wrote that “no woman who has ever felt pain about polygamy is satisfied until her concerns about the hereafter are at least addressed.  No woman who has felt pain about polygamy can honestly strive for a place in the celestial kingdom unless she feels that that kingdom is a place in which she would actually want to live.” (Women in Eternity, Women of Zion,)

portrait of a lonely girl

It’s painful enough to think about in mortality…but to think that it might persist in the eternities is faith shattering for some people. We’ve got to acknowledge that fact and discuss it.

The first thing we need to establish is that when you hear something about polygamy from media outlets or even from other members of the church, you’ve got to keep in mind that they might not know what they’re talking about. Hey! I may not even know what I’m talking about. There are stories, interpretations, and opinions from so many different people that it makes it difficult to know what really happened…and why it really happened.

Here’s what I believe: Plural marriage is NOT a celestial law and it’s NOT required in the celestial kingdom. It’s a temporal, earthly law given as an exception to the spiritual celestial law of monogamy. I feel like it can proven according to the scriptures.

The Lord rips polygamy in the Book of Mormon. There were a few guys in Book of Mormon times that were trying to take multiple wives using David and Solomon as justification for their actions.

“for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.”

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

The Lord is stating that having many wives was “abominable” to Him…and yet the Bible is clear that David was justified in having many wives when He spoke through His prophet Nathan to David.

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

God was not condemning polygamy in David’s day…He was endorsing it. David only got himself in hot water when he went after Uriah’s wife (Bathsheba) and then arranged for Uriah’s death to cover up the baby growing in Bathsheba’s womb.

Again in 1 Kings 15:5 it says that,

“David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.”

Polygamy was “right in the eyes of the Lord” (1 Kings 15:5) and yet simultaneously “abominable” in the sight of Lord. (Jacob 2:23)

[adinserter block=1]

At first glance it looks like an obvious contradiction between the Bible and the Book of Mormon…but we’ve got to ask ourselves if there are any other scriptural instances in which God is commanding or allowing mankind to do something that that is “abominable” but at the same time temporarily accepted or required.

After studying D&C 132 in depth, polygamy…to me… has become less about sex and more about sacrifice. This principle in all actuality requires the ultimate emotional sacrifice. To those required to live this principle…this sacrifice was worse than death. The emotional pain surpassed anything they could have suffered physically.

Good men hated it. (Yes…they did)

Women hated it. (Of course they did)

Joseph Smith hated it and ran from it. (This…he stated over and over again) Then he told others that it would be one of the most challenging thing the saints would ever face.

It is compared with only one other type of sacrifice in all of scripture. The Abrahamic sacrifice. Why?

Most of us have heard of an Abrahamic sacrifice but few understand what it really means. I had no idea how important understanding this doctrine would be to understanding plural marriage.

The Abrahamic sacrifice has a few significant attributes that set it apart from any other kind of sacrifice.

For some reason, God sometimes requires people to contradict and disobey a general commandment that has been given. For instance, a general commandment that has helped people and civilizations for years has been the commandment “Thou shalt not kill”. To “not kill” is the general law that is calculated to bring happiness for following it in this life. But then at times God has required people to break that law in order to follow a temporary law that is an exception to the general law.

Remember the time when God commanded Israel to go after the Amalekites, and “utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” (1 Sam 15:2-3) Can you imagine how those Israelites felt as they had been taught their entire lives that they “should not kill”.

I can’t imagine how Nephi must have felt when he was commanded to kill Laban. Nephi said, “never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.” His entire life of righteousness seemed to hang in the balance as he was faced with this decision to break a commandment that he knew was right and good. He “shrunk” at the idea.

And then there’s Abraham.

Consider what Abraham was commanded to do to his son Isaac. He was commanded to take his and Sarah’s only son Isaac and sacrifice him in cold blood. Imagine the vice that must have crushed Abraham’s heart as he was commanded to do this thing. They waited years and years for that kid and now this seemingly pointless journey to Mt. Moriah is taking place. Abraham knew that one of the most severe commandments was “thou shalt not kill”…and yet here he was raising the knife to his pride and joy. It was the most strenuous test of faith.

Olivier-abraham-isaac

God required these people to follow an exceptional law that is temporary in order to accomplish his purposes even though those purposes were not made known to them at the time. It’s the most spiritually excruciating sacrifice anyone can experience. The general commandment brings happiness and the exceptional commandment brings temporary misery.

I believe that polygamy is one of those exceptional commandments given to men and women at various times for specific purposes. The Lord tells Jacob that he will institute plural marriages for one purpose.

“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

Between reading this verse and the previous verses in Jacob…it becomes clear that the general law is monogamy. Monogamy is never restricted in the scriptures…but polygamy is always restricted unless God needs to “raise up” a righteous seed to fulfill his purposes.

And then we run into Section 132 where the Lord draws an interesting comparison between Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac and Abraham’s willingness to enter into plural marriage. In verse 34, it says that God commanded Abraham to enter into plural marriage. It appears that Abraham was commanded to do this in order to “raise up seed”. Sarah was the one that gave Hagar to Abraham and in doing this…Sarah was conforming to the law that was given to Abraham. In this regard…Sarah was enduring an Abrahamic sacrifice of her own. In verse 36 the Lord draws an instant comparison between Abraham being required to offer Isaac and Abraham being willing to enter into plural marriage. In both cases here…the Lord is saying that it “was accounted unto him for righteousness ” for being willing to depart from the general law to obey the exceptional law as the Lord commanded it.

Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar did not enjoy the exceptional commandment to create a plural family. The Bible makes that really clear. This was the first major test that Abraham had in order to prove that he was willing to do anything that the Lord commanded him. Abraham didn’t want to marry Hagar and have a child with her or else he would have done so sooner. He wanted to be married to Sarah and have a child with her but the Lord prolonged that event in order to test their faith and teach them about sacrifice. As a result of their obedience…they were blessed with Isaac in miracle like fashion.

Unfortunately…Abraham and Sarah were not yet done being tested. Abraham was once again being asked to disobey a general law in order to obey an exceptional law. The Lord tells him to take his son Isaac to Mt Moriah, to bind him, and to sacrifice him. You’ve got to be kidding right?!

Abraham goes as far as to raise his knife and as he does so…the Lord provides an escape. A ram is offered in Isaac’s stead and Abraham’s happiness is restored to him.

[adinserter block=2]

As we go back into Section 132 and in verse 50…the Lord tells Joseph Smith that He’s seen his “sacrifices and obedience to that which He had commanded him” in reference to plural marriage. “Therefore” says the Lord, “I make a way for your escape…as I accepted the offering of Abraham of his son Isaac.”

Why does the Lord use the word “escape” here? That means that the sacrifice that is being required of Joseph Smith will come to an end.

Now this is where people may think I’m completely insane for believing such a thing. Most people would never dream or think that a guy would consider marrying multiple women to be a sacrifice…but to a good man that loves his wife…this would indeed be a sacrifice.

If the Lord is calling plural marriage an “Abrahamic sacrifice” then it will bring comfort to someone that has been required to live the law of plural marriage to know that the final attribute of an Abrahamic sacrifice is the eventual release…or…an “escape” as the Lord put it.

If plural marriage is a painful sacrifice for all of the good parties involved…then why would the Lord require it to continue in the Celestial kingdom. Why would God condemn the practice of plural marriage so strongly…even calling it “abominable” if it was in fact a celestial law. Because based on these scriptures…the “sacrifice” is eventually brought to an end so that happiness can be restored as it was with Abraham.

In no place in the scriptures do I see the Lord eluding to a polygamous requirement in the next life. I see Him condemning it in this life except for at times in which He has needed to raise up seed for His own purposes as a bonafide sacrifice and departure from the general law of monogamy.

Too many people believe that the entire section of 132 is about polygamy and mistakenly attribute the first half about the new and everlasting covenant of eternal marriage to plural marriage when in fact the topic of plural marriage is not even discussed until the second half of the revelation. I believe it is eternal marriage (monogamy) that is required in the celestial kingdom, not plural marriage.

But you’re probably concerned about all the people being sealed to each other right?

All of the reasons someone might bring up as a logical reason to practice polygamy in heaven is complete speculation. There is no doctrine about more women being in heaven or there not being enough time to make babies. No doctrine. Actually…most of the explanations aren’t even logical.

God promised Joseph Smith an “escape” from that exceptional law…so why would it be required in heaven?

Why this type of thinking continues on in the Church is a mystery to me. Heck…I’m grateful for all the media coverage because it’s forced my wife and I to consider this principal carefully and prayerfully.

I think people try to come up with whatever they can think of in order to rationalize why they might have to practice polygamy in heaven without ever realizing that it might not even be required in heaven after all. That it was an exception to the celestial law of monogamy in which husband and wife look forward to being with one and other and only each other in the eternal worlds.

But what about men that have been sealed to more than one woman? Why was Joseph Smith and others sealed to so many women including a 14 year old?

Some of the sealings and marriages that took place during the early days of the church were for assuring familial bonds in eternity and did not involve sex, but then other marriages appear to have taken place in order to “raise up a righteous seed”. That raising up a righteous seed portion is where I believe men and women were put to the Abrahamic test. That must have been insanely difficult for men and especially for women. It’s understandable that those affected by this principle reacted so harshly to it.

Even Joseph Smith says in a very candid way that “I don’t blame any man for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I had…I could not believe it myself.

In the early days…the church was still trying to wrap their heads around sealings. The restoration took place over time and was difficult to understand. Many of the sealings that took place were done as “proxy” or “stand-in” marriages. You had people being sealed to general authorities in every direction to assure their exaltation. Sometimes you had “widows get sealed to general authorities whose husbands had died before receiving the gospel and then the husband sealed to that same general authority as a child” in order to “keep him in the family”. (The Law of Adoption, Gordon Irving, BYU Studies 14 no. 3)

To quote Vallerie Cassler Hudson:

Many women becoming plural wives because of the mistaken understanding that they could not be sealed to their dead husbands and could not gain their exaltation unless sealed to someone as a wife.  For example, women who had never even met Joseph Smith while he was alive were sealed to him after his death; also, one woman had her aged mother sealed to her (the daughter’s) husband shortly before the mother died so that the mother could receive her exaltation.  Wilford Woodruff had over 400 of his dead female ancestors sealed to him as wives.  These practices seem to indicate that the parties involved understood that the man in question was more of a stand-in or proxy so that the woman could receive the marriage ordinance and thus her exaltation, than an understanding that these women were married in some meaningful sense to these particular men for all eternity.  For example, what can it mean to have a dead woman sealed to you, whom you have never met in this life, whose will on the matter you cannot possibly know, and who is in fact one of your great-great grandmothers?  Or to have your own mother-in-law sealed to you as a wife?  Or, in the case of a woman, to be sealed to a dead man whom you have never met, and whose will on the matter you cannot possibly know? These marriages make sense best as proxy marriages.  Indeed, when President Wilford Woodruff announced in 1894 that women could be sealed to their dead husbands (and children to their dead parents) even if the deceased had not been baptized before their deaths, many thousands of sealing transfers took place to rightfully reorganize family lines.

Hudson also points out that from a church manual it appears that there is also a doctrine of “transferability”.

When a man and a woman are married in the temple for time and all eternity and then separate, the children will go with the parent who is justified and who has kept the covenants.  If neither of them has kept his covenants, the children may be taken away from both of them and given to somebody else and that would be by virtue of being born under the covenant.  A child is not to be sealed the second time when born under the covenant, but by virtue of that birthright can be transferred. (Questions Frequently Asked About the Temple and the Endowment (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981), 10

This appears to to be what is happening with all of these sealings. Heavenly Father’s goal is to seal every man and women from “Adam…down to the last man or woman” back to God. The important seal is that of one being sealed back to God as opposed to the devil “sealing you his”. Once a woman is sealed back to God through the new and everlasting covenant, then her ordinance can be transferred to another worthy priesthood holder of her choice.  It makes sense. If she doesn’t want to enter into a polygamous relationship…then there will be someone for her to form a monogamous relationship with and she will be happy. How else could it be?

Someone might say that things will be different in heaven and polygamy might not be a big deal when you get to heaven. That might be true…but if “that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there” (D&C130:2) then many of the saints will not be desirous of living that exceptional law.

I’m not saying polygamy cannot exist in the Celestial kingdom. I’m just saying that I don’t believe that it’s required in the Celestial kingdom. I don’t believe it is the de facto standard in the Celestial kingdom or that it will be commanded of any exalted individuals. In everything that I read in the scriptures and from the teachings of the prophets and general authorities…I see the teaching that if one man and one woman enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage…then they have the opportunity to receive their exaltation. Nowhere does it say that I am required to take another wife for exaltation. I believe a husband and wife can rest assured that if they prefer…then they are perfectly justified living the eternal and generally acceptable law of monogamy.

That brings comfort to me. It brings comfort to my wife. I hope it brings comfort to you.

What I have written here is my opinion. It’s not official doctrine…and I don’t speak on behalf of the church. I love the church and am grateful for the church. My only goal in writing this is to help those that might be struggling with this topic to consider every angle before becoming irritated or depressed about the subject.

I’m sure someone will find some sort of quote to try and prove me wrong or something. That’s alright! Like I said…I may be wrong. I’m like you. Seeking to learn. Seeking to grow. I love to see different angles and I’m happy to always consider additional light and knowledge even if it contradicts what I believe. I don’t know every single quote that was ever made on the subject. All I know is that I’ve found peace through my recent studies and that those studies appear to jive with the scriptures.

For the Church’s official releases on the subject you can visit https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=eng and https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng and https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints?lang=eng

You should also read Women in Eternity, Women of Zion by Alma Don Sorensen and Valerie Hudson Cassler. This book contains some of the best explanations on the subject that I’ve seen yet and is the source from which we were able to see the connection between Abrahamic sacrifice and polygamy. This find was a hidden gem to us.

I believe in my heart that polygamy is a temporal exception to the general and eternal law of monogamy. That it was that way in the Old Testament and that it was that way in the early days of the LDS Church. That it was a sacrifice to those involved and that in relation to the Abrahamic sacrifice, those involved will be offered an “escape” from it if they so desire.

 

Additional thoughts to consider that don’t necessarily fit within the point I’m trying to make in the above article:

1. Something similar happened to Adam and Eve. The were commanded to not partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and yet at the same time they were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth. You can almost feel how painful it was for them to make the decision to partake of the fruit on that tree. They didn’t want to disobey. It was a carefully thought out decision for them to eat that fruit. It wasn’t a mistake. They were breaking one commandment and knowingly bringing great pain upon themselves in order to follow another commandment. They broke that commandment so that each of us could come into the world. It was a sacrifice to them…and there was an eventual “escape”. That escape consisted of the Savior coming into the world to reverse the effects of the fall.

2. You can argue that since Christ had power over his own life and could have summoned “legions of angels” to save him that He actually transcended one general commandment in order to keep His Father’s exceptional commandment to give his life. It isn’t lawful for one to “sacrifice” one’s self but because the Father commanded His innocent son to give His life…He was justified and did not commit sin in following that command. His “release” or “escape” came on the third day as he was raised from the tomb.

3. I’ve always been bored by the seemingly endless genealogies that are placed into the very first chapters of the Bible in Matthew. But then someone pointed out that if you look at the genealogies of Christ, you’ll see that He descended from the “House of David”. Did you realize that the “House of David” was one of the largest polygamous “houses” in recorded history. Interesting that Christ would descend from a polygamous heritage.

4. I don’t know what Joseph Smith’s motives were. How can anyone know? All I’m saying is that people condemn Joseph Smith for the same things they should be condemning the prophets of the Bible for. No one can know of the intentions of the old prophets and yet we seem to just let them slide because of a “cultural acceptance” in their day. What wrong is wrong…and what’s right is right in any period of time regardless of culture.

5. If you believe the Bible then you can’t rule out Isaiah’s prophecy of the last days when he said that “in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.” (Isa 4:1) What does that scripture mean to the Christian world?

6. Joseph Smith said, “ I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord directs otherwise.” and Bruce R. McConkie said “According to the Lord’s law of marriage, it is lawful that a man have only one wife at a time, unless by revelation the Lord commands plurality of wives in the new and everlasting covenant.”

These quotations reinforce that plural marriage is a an “exception commandment” for specific earthly purposes of raising up seed unto God in this life only. In the next life…we’ll be in no rush to “raise up seed” because there will be no time constraints.

7. There’s is no evidence of Heavenly Father having multiple wives in heaven.

8. If you think polygamy is weird…consider the incest that must have had to occur during the time that Adam and Eve were raising their families. Again…if you believe the Bible…you believe that this happened.

9. James E. Talmage was one of the churches greatest theologians. He said in “The Story and Philosophy of ‘Mormonism'”. pg 88: that “The Latter-day Saints were long regarded as a polygamous people. That plural marriage has been practised by a limited proportion of the people, under sanction of Church ordinance, has never since the introduction of the system been denied. But that plural marriage is a vital tenet of the Church is not true. What the Latter-day Saints call celestial marriage is characteristic of the Church, and is in very general practice; but of celestial marriage, plurality of wives was an incident, never an essential. Yet the two have often been confused in the popular mind.”

Polygamy is such a tough topic. It’s tough for anyone that truly seeks to understand it. We may not ever fully understand it but hopefully some of the things in this article help people to look at this topic in a different light.

Lemonade Stand

Lemonade Stand helps businesses around the world grow by building high quality custom websites with transparent internet marketing services and measurable results.

Find Out More

Build Then Bless

Build Then Bless® is a first-of-its-kind cultural operating system for your business or organization that has the power to transform your people and truly change the world.

Join Our Waitlist

122 thoughts on “What Every Mormon Really Needs To Know About Polygamy

  1. Autumn

    I really appreciated this article. I felt that it cleared a lot of things that I have thought a lot about, and not only that, it made a lot of logical sense. My favorite part of it though was a better explanation of the Abrahamic sacrifice.

  2. Utah

    THANK YOU!! I’ve been waiting for this part 2 on this topic. This subject hit home this week as I have a family member struggling with this issue and doubting their faith due to these events. This entire article was an answer to prayers of many. Thanks!

    • Dennis

      I also struggled with this when the church published this. I took it to Heavenly Father in prayer and received a strong answer on this though. I now know better than I did before that Joseph Smith was the Lord’s prophet of the restoration, and that he received this principle from God.

  3. Kris Christensen

    Thank you for this article. You’re intent was to help some who have struggled or who do struggle with all of this and you have helped me. And thank you to your wife for being brave enough to study and learn and help the rest of us.

  4. Liz

    You’ve given me a lot to consider. Thank you for sharing your thoughts, and thanks to your wife for her research and thoughtful input. I felt your focus on the Abrahamic covenant was very appropriate. Also, I can’t believe I never considered Isaiah 4:1 in that light before.

  5. Vicki Silvis

    Thank you for your research for sharing some great information and your insight. I believe the key question here is, while it may be that living the principle is only required as an exception to the rule, we may still be asked to obey it at some point and would we have the faith and obedient nature to do so? As you stated, those who obeyed weren’t necessarily happy about it, but they did it anyway. So as we express relief that we may not have to do it eternally, I think it’s important to get to a place of faith and obedience where we would do it if commanded. I believe that level of obedience is required by the temple covenants we have made to give whatever is asked of us in building up the kingdom. Something to think about.

  6. Brett Partridge

    I enjoyed your points. I feel like there’s value in the separation between “required” and “existing”. One thought I had though was that perhaps a lot of the angst or “abomination” surrounding plural marriage is that in our fallen “natural man” state it’s incredibly hard to separate it from sex. It seems disgusting or so wrong because of the idea of sharing such intimacy with multiple people (and claiming to be “okay” with it). In terms of pure non sexual love, I don’t see anything wrong with one person unconditionally loving more than one. In fact we practice this very thing with children. I think that it’s arguable that being able to love more than one person equally and wholly is a celestial requirement. But that’s very hard to fathom right now in our mortal experience, especially because of the tight coupling between marriage and sex.

    On the topic of “escape” I would add this thought. The Lord provides us with escapes perhaps not because the thing we’re being asked to do is temporary or abominable (but allowed for a short time), but rather because we are pushed as far as our weak mortal faith will take us. Only by tearing muscles down can they grow back stronger. But if you tear a muscle too harshly or quickly it weakens the whole system. Likewise, escape I believe is provided to teach us to trust God and provide us the necessary growth for times in the future when the escape may be further off or nonexistent. This seems most evident in the Savior’s sacrifice. He “could” have called down angels, the Father “could” have intervened. But there was no escape for either of them in this ultimate sacrifice. Perhaps the notion of escape is to protect us as mortals and imperfect individuals and slowly help us grow into the kinds of perfect beings that endure through without the escapes.

  7. Melody

    My testimony of Joseph Smith is weak because I don’t have an understanding of polygamy. Thank you for your time, effort, prayer and contemplation on the subject. My mind, heart, and spirit are eased by your scripture based reasoning above. Thank you.

    I have often wondered about the first point you made at the end of your blog. I was once having a discussion with some Jehovah Witnesses who questioned why I believed that Adam and Eve couldn’t have bore children until AFTER they partook of the tree. I didn’t know the answer! It was just something I always heard and believed. Did they just not have the “knowledge” to do so? Why would God command them without giving them the knowledge to do it? Where does it mention this in scripture? Have you come across this in your studies?

    • Kira Barker

      2nd Nephi 2:22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

      23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

      24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

      25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

      They didn’t know how- their innocence and knowledge was like that of a child before the Fall, and all things would have stayed in the state they were in when created had they not partaken of the fruit. My 6, 3 and 2 year olds can tell you lots of interesting things, but they haven’t the remotest idea of how to make a baby. The fruit was from the tree of knowledge of good and evil- eating it opened their understanding to knowledge they would need to make choices in a mortal world. There had to be a Fall in order for them to use their agency/free will and to grow and become more like God. So, the two “conflicting” commandments were to give them that opportunity. we don’t know how long they were in the Garden before eating the fruit- it could have been centuries. They followed one commandment, then the next.

    • AuntSue

      It is my understanding that there must be opposition in all things. If there is no death, there can be no birth. In the eternal bodies that Adam and Eve had in the Garden, it was not possible for them to also have mortal children. I have heard General Authorities teach that had Adam and Eve not partaken, they would have remained in the Garden forever as they were.

  8. Amanda

    Where in the world do you get the idea that Adam and Eve thoughtfully made the decision to eat the fruit as some great sacrifice?

      • Amanda

        No ma’am. I have grown up in a large Mormon area though and am a Christian. I am guessing this comes from a text other than the Bible?

        • Liz

          That is correct. The Genesis account is fairly short, but we recognize that without the Fall of Adam and Eve, none of us would have been born, disrupting God’s Plan. Leaving the Garden of Eden was a conscious choice that they made to keep the commandment to “multiple and replenish the earth.” That feels like a big sacrifice to me. Leave paradise for the sake of the unborn multitudes.
          To put it as it is in the Book of Mormon “Adam fell that men might be and men are that they might have joy.”
          I’m not sure if that answers your question.

          • Aaron Tunell

            What makes you think none of us would have been born? This is an LDS construct that is not necessarily biblical. In fact, Genesis 3:16 indicates that the Lord was now going to INCREASE Eve’s labor pains, thus indicating she had experienced labor pains in the past…. in the garden.

            Additionally the concept that adam and eve would have been in the garden watching all of the animals multiplying and not be able to figure it out on their own is rather silly.

          • Liz

            Interesting take Aaron, hadn’t thought of those verses that way before. As Amanda pointed out, LDS perspective comes from multiple sources, which we consider ourselves blessed to have. So while I am going to ponder that one word “increase” it isn’t the only idea in the hopper.
            Another thing to consider is even if children were born in Eden, they would live (and not die) without temptation or trials, so they wouldn’t learn or grow spiritually, so their existence would have no point. Just another thought.

      • Amanda

        ThaNas for the link. I find it interesting as we are in a huge Mormon area. I don’t agree and don’t put my faith in any additional texts from the Bible…but always interesting to hear what other people believe. Having grown up with many Mormons, I know quite a bit about your beliefs…just hadn’t heard this one before.

  9. nellie83

    Thank you for what you wrote. Interestingly enough I’ve always felt that Polygamy was the exception not the rule. If it were the other way around, God would command us to continue in the practice. Some might say God wants us to obey the law of the land, and in our articles of faith we say we believe in being subject to rulers in our different countries and obeying the laws of the land. So one could argue that God withdrew polygamy because of that. Had polygamy not been removed it is possible that continued persecution (worse than it was) would have resulted in the deaths of those who were our forefathers in the church. I believe the Lord was ready to remove polygamy from the church already and the laws of the land went hand in hand for it’s time to end.
    As a divorced woman, I am still sealed to my ex…well, in a spiritual sense I’m not because he had his name removed from the church. But, a temple divorce won’t take place unless I marry again. I was sealed to my family at the age of 12 but my father left the church years ago. So, my faith comes from knowing it will all be sorted out in the end. I hope there’s someone for me and I’m thinking I’m probably sealed as a family to my step father instead of my dad.
    Something else you mentioned was not knowing what it will be like in the next life. I think we already know. God gave us our bodies so we know how to govern them, to multiply and replenish the earth, etc. We are told earth will be renewed and receive it’s paradisiacal glory. This is where the celestial kingdom will be. This is where we will live and how we will live. Of course as resurrected celestial beings how we do things and what we do will be different.
    So, sorry to ramble. Greg does make one think.

  10. Lloyd Spiers

    Scripture Five: One Day, the Lord Will Reveal All Things (D&C 101:32–36)
    We may never have all the answers in this life. The newspapers, the cable news networks, and the politicians will be debating the causes and solutions to our modern problems for years. The faithful will look for answers in the scriptures, where the answers don’t change. And one day, the Lord will return and answer all our questions:

    “Yea, verily I say unto you, in that day when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things—

    “Things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof” (D&C 101:32–33).

    Think of the perplexing questions regarding the creation of the universe, the origin of the dinosaurs, and the age of the earth. This scripture assures us that one day, the Lord will reveal “things of the earth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof.” But that’s not all! The list continues:

    “Things most precious, things that are above, and things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, and upon the earth, and in heaven.

    “And all they who suffer persecution for my name, and endure in faith, though they are called to lay down their lives for my sake yet shall they partake of all this glory.

    “Wherefore, fear not even unto death; for in this world your joy is not full, but in me your joy is full” (D&C 101:34-36).

  11. MormonMama

    Am I the only person who just isn’t bothered by polygamy? I’m a woman and a convert to the church. I’ve always known that polygamy was part of the church’s past and at some point I learned about Joseph Smith having multiple wives, although it was so many years ago that I don’t remember exactly when. Polygamy has always just been a non-issue for me. A friend once asked me if I could allow my husband to marry another woman and my answer was “yes” and it still is. I don’t know why it seems so easy for me to accept. I love my husband deeply and I know he loves me. I’m a very independent person and I don’t share well (in fact, I have to admit that I’m very selfish), so you’d think I’d be the last person who could share my husband with another woman. But if I truly believed that God commanded my husband to take another wife (and I would have to ask Him in prayer myself), then it’s a done deal. Of course I’d hope to have a say in who he married. I’d want someone I could like and get along with after all. I’d be thrilled if he married a career woman who wouldn’t mind working so I could stay home, ha ha! Maybe I’m just weird, but if I believed God wanted my husband to take another wife (or many wives), I’d be fine with it.

    • WackyWombat

      I don’t have a problem with polygamy if all of the participants are consenting adults. However, that is not the case with Joseph. I have numerous problems with the way Joseph practiced it.

      1. He did it behind his wife’s back, and when she found out he conveniently had a revelation that god will destroy her if she doesn’t let him marry other women.

      2. He coerced unwilling 14 year old Helen Mar Kimball into marrying him by telling her “If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household & all of your kindred.” After hearing this she gave into the pressure saying, “This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward.” Plus he was 37 years old at the time. Helen most likely hadn’t even reached puberty yet, since the average age of puberty was 17 back then. She wasn’t even born when Joseph married his first wife.

      Source: http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/womans-view-helen-mar-whitneys-reminiscences-early-church-history/11-appendix-one

      3. He tried to cover it all up by ordering the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor printing press that was going to expose him. The recent LDS essays say the same things that the Nauvoo Expositor was going to print. I guess he would be ordering the destruction of the LDS.org web server if he were still alive today.

      4. It violated his own scriptures that say you can only marry virgins, your first wife must give her consent, and the purpose of polygamy is to raise up seed (D&C 132 61-63). At least 11 of his wives were married to other men, therefore not virgins. If the purpose of polygamy is to raise up seed why was he marrying other men’s wives and girls who were too young to have children? I guess he forgot about the commandment “thou shalt not covet they neighbor’s wife” and “thou shalt not commit adultery.” If your first wife must give her consent, why did Joseph hide his other wives from Emma?

      5. Joseph claimed an angel with a drawn sword threatened him with destruction unless he married a bunch of other women. If your spouse gave you that excuse would you believe them? If not, why do you believe Joseph? I thought god valued free agency. Telling someone if they don’t marry a bunch of other women they will be destroyed is not giving them free agency. According to Mormon doctrine the reason Satan was cast out of heaven is because he didn’t want people to have free agency. (Moses 4:3)

      6. D&C 132 calls polygamy the “new and everlasting covenant”, so if it’s everlasting then why isn’t it still practiced today? If you’re thinking it was stopped because it’s illegal now, t was illegal when Joseph did it too.

      7. Throughout the church’s history and even to this day the church continues to whitewash, obfuscate, and flat out lie about the details.

      8. He sent men away on missions, then married their wives while they were gone.

      9. The early church leaders taught that monogamy “not only degenerates the human family, both physically and intellectually, but it is entirely incompatible with philosophical notions of immortality; it is a lure to temptation, and has always proved a curse to a people.” (Prophet John Taylor, Millennial Star, Vol. 15, p. 227). Monogamy “laid the foundation for prostitution and the evils and diseases of the most revolting nature and character under which modern Christendom groans” (Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, page 195). Monogamy “had been so fruitful a source of prostitution and whoredom throughout all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New World, until rottenness and decay are at the root of their institutions both national and religious.” (The Prophet Brigham Young Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p. 128). That’s just the tip of the iceburg. There are many other quotes from early prophets and apostles telling us how evil monogamy is.

      10. He wanted to marry a 12 year old. Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner reported that at age twelve, Joseph Smith “told me about his great vision concerning me. He said I was the first woman God commanded him to take as a plural wife.” — Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner to Emeline B. Wells, summer 1905, LDS Archives

    • melohim

      I guess it’s a good thing that you found Mormonism, and didn’t run into People’s Temple or Heaven’s Gate first… because you seem like an easy sell.

      • MormonMama

        Having faith and trust in God makes me an “easy sell”. Guilty as charged and proud of it! Do you think I’ve never prayed and asked God about the things I believe in? Do you truly think I’ve never sought confirmation from God Himself? If so, you assume incorrectly.

        • treadmillfan

          God has told me polygamy as practiced by Joseph Smith is all wrong. He has made this very clear to me. How come we get different answers?

          • MormonMama

            How is it that people get different answers from God to any question? Millions of people have prayed and received an answer from God that the church is true. Millions have prayed and received an answer that it is not. Is one group deceived, or perhaps is one group not truthfully seeking, or does God give us the answers we are ready for? I think that is something we may not know in this life. I only trust in God.

    • Froggey

      You must not be much of a feminist then. It rankles that there would be gender inequity. I would be fine with polygamy if I as a woman were allowed to have multiple husbands. Women are not chattle, you don’t get to collect us as part of a novelty group.

      • MormonMama

        If by “feminist” you mean that women must be equal in every single way to men, then no, I’m definitely not in that camp. I don’t believe that polygamy makes women “chattle”. I think that’s a very narrow-minded view. Certainly some men feel that way and only want to practice polygamy for such reasons. They will have to answer to God.

  12. Yara

    I think what it always comes down to in the end is: If God came to you and said, “Hey, I need you to___” – Would you be humble and faithful enough to do whatever it might be?

    Growing is painful. Repentance is hard! Finding out that our ways are wrong and converting to God’s ways is a lifelong struggle – but once you change and look back, you’re glad you did! I don’t know if polygamy is temporary or an eternal principle, but either way, I think that if we trust God and are willing to obey all His counsels, we will always be glad we did. I don’t think anything is “required” with Him: we can choose to set the bar as low or high as we’d like. Maybe polygamy brings more happiness than monogamy (How would I know? I sure don’t understand it, and am quite relieved I’m not being asked to practice it today!), or maybe it’s not and we have nothing to worry about. Either way, I trust that God knows what’s best for me and would not be opposed to it if He asked that of me. People who have been asked to do any hard thing will describe the pain they experienced, but does that really mean it wasn’t a good thing to do? Mortality itself is challenging! 🙂

    Thank you for encouraging readers to study and find out things for themselves, and not blindly follow culturally-accepted concepts. I like how much thought you put into this article and love your logic. Thanks!!

  13. Alex Eisenberg

    Greg, what you’re doing here, twisting the scriptures, calling the evil good, and cherry picking scriptures and declarations here and there, is when you defend the indefensible! As simple as that… Were men more valuable than women in the past? Would God approve sex slaves, like Hagar? Yes, according to you! I don’t see your wife’s perspective here much, or even trying to understand the feelings of the women involved. It was simply authority abuse. Consider the dates as well! Yes, just men like Oliver Cowdery condemned his relationship with 17-year-old Fanny Alger, who lived in Joseph house in 1833 and worked as a maid. Joseph didn’t have any sealing keys! What Joseph did would be considered race today: luring and grooming foster girls in order to take advantage of their vulnerability. What you and and others should see is to read those girls diaries (Todd Compton’s In Sacred Loneliness). It’s impossible to accept what Joseph did to Lucy Walker or Orson Hyde! Unless we treat Joseph according to earthly laws and forget about God’s higher laws, agency (Emma’s agency wasn’t even considered) and God’s eternal love for his beloved daughters! Why don’t you explain the events that led to Joseph’s encarceration and eventual death? Yes, it was his polygamy hiding from the public! It’d be more healthy for our church to just accept that Joseph had his weaknesses, like any other man, court accusations in NY and Ohio for sexual-related matters support this.

    • Greg Trimble

      I don’t really know how to begin to answer you but in one area…

      My wife’s perspective is interwoven into the entire article. Maybe she’ll log into here and tell you 🙂

      I’m not calling evil good…I’m not a bad person. I’m just trying to make sense of things like everyone else is…

      • Alex Eisenberg

        Greg, I´m not calling you a bad person. You´re a family man, with a beautiful little daughter, just like myself! I enjoy your posts generally. But you´re not considering all the facts and available information here, being a victim of cognitive dissonance… Would your wife accept you taking multiple wives on her back? God does not lower down his laws, men do!! Joseph said so many times he wasn´t perfect or infallible. Why twisting scriptures and declarations to portray him as a perfect man? What Mormons like me are asking is something the Church has done in the past, which is adapting its teachings to higher moral standards! Just like throwing Brigham Young under the bus with the Race and the Priesthood essay, or even Joseph´s and other Prophets for Lamanites declarations with the ADN and The Book of Mormon essay. Our doctrine about homosexuality has changed and will continue to change, hopefully! That´s what righteous people do, right? Just accept mistakes and persevere!

        • Dennis

          Hagar wasn’t a sex slave, but was given to Abraham by Sarah to take as a wife. Abraham was highly favored of God — Biblically so — and was thereafter blessed enormously, so your contention that he took Hagar as a sex slave is something that you need to reconcile with God. You obviously don’t accept Joseph as a prophet either. You can’t erase D&C 132 by saying that Joseph wasn’t infallible. Please pray about Joseph’s divine calling and you will receive a testimony that will change your outlook on his motives. BTW, DNA matching of Native Americans and Eurasians from the Mideast has now been verified by several scientific sources, as shown here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUSpBw9H0OA

    • MormonMama

      Abraham took Sarah’s handmaid and had a child by her. Jacob married two
      sisters and had children not only with them, but with their servant
      women as well. Yet they are revered by most Christians as great
      biblical prophets. Are you saying they are condemned by God?

      • Alex Eisenberg

        MormonMama, what Im saying is polygamy was NOT commanded by God in the Old Testament! It was a cultural custom taking wives as properties, like sub-human beings! It’s clear those marriages didn’t work! The main wives never accepted it! If you want to believe in a mormon God who values men more than women to restablish such weird and chauvinistic practice good for you. it’s amazing someone with your background still defends that, I’d understand such behaviour coming from a Muslim woman who is still sorrounded by a sexist society that has her self esteem in the toilet… Moreover, the theology behind polygamy doesn’t match what JS did! D&C 132 is a self-serving/convenient revelation, canonized later in Utah by Alpha Brigham to justify his harem! By the way Brigham has been thrown under the bus by the church in other essays!

        • MormonMama

          I don’t know if God commanded polygamy in every instance in Old Testament times or not, but He certainly didn’t seem to condemn it. Abraham continued to be blessed by God AFTER engaging in polygamy. So was Jacob. David was “beloved” of God yet had multiple wives. I don’t think that means God values men more than women. I think God knows infinitely more than we can even begin to comprehend and we simply must trust Him. When I have prayed to Him about polygamy He has spoken peace to me. It really doesn’t affect my life and if it ever does I will pray to Him again to know what he would have me do in that situation. I’m not sure why my peace causes you such dismay.

  14. AuntSue

    Thank you for this discussion. As a descendant of several polygamist ancestors I accept it as a righteous state when commanded by God, and also accept the removal of the “Principle”. Abraham, Nephi and others all were commanded by God at times to break what seemed God’s laws. It does relieve my mind and heart to read this posting, and feels “right” to me. Thank you and your wife.

  15. treadmillfan

    I liked your post and many of your ideas. The one thing that no one seems to address is the deception by Joseph Smith that went into the practice of polygamy. I don’t condemn polygamy per se; as you say, it’s in the Bible and Christ came through a polygamous line. What bothers me is how JS carried it out; how he married many other women behind Emma’s back without her knowledge, many of these women (girls really) who were working in the Smith household; how he consistently used “deceptive language” to deny the practice; how he told young girls they would be responsible for his death by an angel with a drawn sword if they said no to marrying him; how he would promise women he was proposing to that they and their entire families would receive exaltation if they married him; how he told other women that they would lose out on exaltation if they denied him; how he would character assassinate those who rejected him and told others about it. And I could go on with many examples of very questionable behavior. If we believe the historical record, which seems validated by Mormon historians, it was a very ugly time. It is hard if not impossible for me to admire a man who could be so deceptive to his own wife and to the church as a whole. Could your next blog entry please explain how we can feel good about entrusting our eternal salvation to a man who seemed to be able to lie and deceive so easily? Thanks!

    • Fred Yellow

      Excellent article and interesting perspective. I am always amazed how folks in the faith justify, change, rationalize many aspects of the church that seem uncomfortable. I have heard many of these arguments in the past and must say that I am embarrassed to have used many of them in attempting to explain odd occurrences in the history of the church. After much research I have learned that Joseph Smith was not the man that I was taught he was in the LDS church. I encourage all to do further objective research on the Character of this rough stone rolling.

    • Dennis

      Read D&C 132 where Emma is commanded to receive the practice or is condemned. She accepted it at first and then rejected it. Joseph was the prophet of the restoration with the responsibility to obey the Lord and institute this practice at the time, also to bind on earth and in heaven, and to loose on earth and in heaven in this manner for others. Of this particular practice, Joseph was commanded to keep this from the world to prevent the persecution that would come. Jesus also had commanded those he healed to keep those healings to themselves because of condemnation that would follow from Jewish leaders. Pray about whether Joseph was a prophet or not before judging. This is an issue where those who accept him as a prophet, with the responsibilities given him in D&C 132, are going to be fine with him, whereas those who reject him as a prophet are going to ascribe worldly motives. He sealed his testimony with his blood by submitting to jail where he prophesied he would be killed by evil men when he was only 38 years old. I have prayed about this issue and have received a witness from the Lord that he was a prophet. Each person has to look to their Savior for guidance on their own. Hopefully you will do the same.

      • treadmillfan

        I like how you assume I have never prayed about this. “Pray about whether Joseph was a prophet or not before judging.” Yes, I’ve prayed to God and He has told me many times that polygamy as practiced by JS was wrong. I believe in a God that values free agency and would never send an angel with a sword forcing Joseph to practice it. Or, as the essay says “encourage” him to practice polygamy more fully. By the way, D&C 132 says four times that Emma would be “destroyed” if she did not accept polygamy. Why did you use the word “condemned”? That’s what I’ve found, people who defend polygamy try and make it sound not as bad as it was. It drives me nuts that people are willing to blame this awful practice on God because they are unwilling to find any fault with JS. Throwing God under the bus to defend a fallible man. If that’s how you see it, fine, but I see it differently and have received a spiritual witness that polygamy was never of God.

        • guest

          Wow you sure try hard to twist things on this. So you claim that you have prayed about Joseph Smith’s practice of polygamy, which implies that this is an answer that he’s not a prophet, huh? Interesting. Have you prayed about whether the Book of Mormon is scripture? If it is then Joseph Smith must be a true prophet, right? This and many other things could be used as evidences that he was a prophet. It’s interesting that you won’t give a straight-forward answer to my question. You’re the one that directly attacked Joseph Smith, but now won’t say specifically whether you asked God for a witness as to whether Joseph Smith was his prophet or not? Why the hesitancy? I submit it’s because you haven’t prayed about this and received an answer on it. On the other hand, I looked at this and did ask for a witness from God as to whether Joseph Smith was a prophet, and I received a powerful personal answer from Him that Joseph Smith was his prophet. To do this takes faith. You have to believe that God will provide an answer on this point, and that you are worthy before him of an answer. The second point is often the reason many people shy away from praying about this. I don’t know what your reason is, but I do know you’re being evasive. I’m going to give you another chance to DIRECTLY address this point though. As an additional response to your post, I’ll address your statement about us being willing to “throw God under the bus” over this. First, God has commanded many things that you’re likely to judge harshly, considering your current harsh judgments of Joseph Smith. He commanded the killing of whole nations of peoples, including women and innocent children, didn’t he? He twice commanded Abraham to lie and say Sarah his wife was his sister. He destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and turned Lot’s wife into a pillar of Salt merely for looking at their destruction, right? He caused everyone on earth to drown except for 8 people in Noah’s day. He allowed the holocaust, and he allows beheadings, and rape, torture, and murder to occur all over the place today, doesn’t he? Compare this to him commanding Joseph Smith to keep the practice of polygamy hidden? Joseph was given the responsibility to implement this practice, which he did slowly and in a manner that didn’t meet with God’s requirements, for which he was reprimanded, including being threatened with destruction. But hearing the history on this isn’t good enough for you, you’re willing to throw him under the bus over what you think you know about it, right? God has the right to put us through whatever He thinks we need to go through. He has the right to decide how we live and how we die. He asked Abraham — who he saved from being a human sacrifice at the hands of his father — to make a human sacrifice his own son! If Abraham had you as a consultant at that time, I seriously doubt you would’ve told him to go through with it, and yet, that was exactly what he did, and should have done. Abraham had a personal relationship with God, just as Joseph Smith did. God put Abraham through an ultimate test, and Joseph Smith said that this was an Abrahamic sacrifice for him and the saints as well. What makes all the difference is whether he was an actual prophet or not. If you’re going to claim he’s not, then you had better make sure that you have received a direct personal answer from God about this. Gratefully, I can tell you that God has answered my prayers about this in a direct and personal manner that I cannot deny. He’s done this for many others too. It’s unclear whether you have really asked for this for yourself.

          • GovernmentTramplesRights

            We may all get answers to our prayers. The question is: From what source? If we’re living a moral, righteous life, and ask in faith, with real intent, then God will not allow us to be deceived. If we are not, then Satan can answer us just as well.

      • Reva

        I agree with this. A testimony of the Prophet’s calling comes from the witness of the Holy Ghost and not through the teachings of men. No person can judge what is in the heart of another but by the Spirit of God. Joseph has been slandered throughout history and so was the Savior in his lifetime. I believe that those living a higher law will never be understood by those living in the spirit of the world. Their motives cannot be comprehended. The things of God are only understood by the Spirit of God.
        1 Corinthians 2:11-14
        11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

        12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

        13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

        14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

  16. Kate

    This article brought me great peace. I always struggled with the thought that I was supposed to share my husband in the Celestial Kingdom. I was always told that I just need to not think about it now and I will accept it when I am there. That didn’t settle with me. But your article really helped me and I felt peace and the spirit while reading it. Thank you so much.

  17. Sam

    Greg, I suggest you do more research. Your work is not done when you find one book which explains this practice in the most faith-affirming way possible, then you parrot it’s simplistic explanations. That is a gross disservice to the thousands of testimonies which have died on the battlefield of polygamy. Seek out more accurate scholarly work on polygamy from a wide variety of sources and you’ll be much closer to a healthy nuanced view of this practice. Complexity requires nuance, and this issue is probably the most complex church issue. With more research, Occam’s razor provides us a much more informed explanation for polygamy, but one that is so terrifying for members that most can’t even consider it: polygamy IS TRULY troubling, the spirit and one’s conscience confirms this, and the answers provided by the church for thoughtful/faithful people just DO NOT hold water.

    • reqlist

      Her answer was not yes. Joseph disbanded the relief society because Emma was using it to fight polygamy, and the church says she burned section 132, they don’t even have the original copy. Lastly, she denied polygamy her entire life, even going so far as saying Joseph never practiced it in her last will and testimony. This does not sound like a woman who was okay with it to me.

  18. Benji

    Here are the sources you’re looking for, friend.

    1853 | “…the one-wife system not only degenerates the human family, both physically and intellectually, but it is entirely incompatible with philosophical notions of immortality; it is a lure to temptation, and has always proved a curse to a people.” -John Taylor

    1855 | “We breathe the free air, we have the best looking men and handsomest women, and if they (Non-Mormons) envy us our position, well they may, for they are a poor, narrow-minded, pinch-backed race of men, who chain themselves down to the law of monogamy, and live all their days under the dominion of one wife. They ought to be ashamed of such conduct, and the still fouler channel which flows from their practices.” -George A. Smith

    1857 | “Now for my proposition; it is more particularly for my sisters, as it is frequently happening that women say they are unhappy. Men will say, ‘My wife, though a most excellent woman, has not seen a happy day since I took my second wife; No, not a happy day for a year,’ says one; and another has not seen a happy day for five years. It is said that women are tied down and abused: that they are misused and have not he liberty they ought to have; that many of them are wading through a perfect flood of tears, because of the conduct of some men together with their own folly…I know that there is no cessation to the everlasting whining of many of the women in this Territory; I am satisfied that this is the case. And if the women will turn from the commandments of God and continue to despise the order of heaven, I will pray that the curse of the Almighty may be close to their heels, and that it may be following them all day long…You may go where you please, after two weeks from tomorrow; but, remember, that I will not hear any more of this whining.” -Brigham Young [sorry, sisters]

    1860 | “I have noticed that a man who has but one wife, and is inclined to that doctrine, soon begins to wither and dry up, while a man who goes into plurality [of wives] looks fresh, young, and sprightly. Why is this? Because God loves that man, and because he honors his word. Some of you may not believe this, but I not only believe it but I also know it. For a man of God to be confined to one woman is small business. I do not know what we would do if we had only one wife apiece.” -Heber C. Kimball

    1869 | “It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest lived nations of which we have record have been monogamic. Rome was a monogamic nation and the numerous evils attending that system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook her.” -George Q. Cannon [This sounds like a familiar argument.]

    1869 | “This law of monogamy, or the monogamic system, laid the foundation for prostitution and the evils and diseases of the most revolting nature and character under which modern Christendom groans.” -Orson Pratt

    1870 | “We have now clearly shown that God the Father had a plurality of wives, one or more being in eternity, by whom He begat our spirits as well as the Spirit of Jesus His first Born.” -Orson Pratt [Perhaps this is why we don’t talk about Heavenly Mother? There are several.]

    1873 | “Where a man in this church says, ‘I don’t want but one wife, I will live my religion with one.’ He will perhaps be saved in the Celestial Kingdom; but when he gets there he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all…and he will remain single forever and ever.” -Brigham Young [That’s unfortunate for all the monogamous members today.]

    1878 | “If plural marriage be divine, as the Latter-day Saints say it is, no power on earth can suppress it, unless you crush and destroy the entire people.” -George Q. Cannon

    1879 | Apostle George Q. Cannon says in General Conference that monogamy is “a false tradition” that leads to the crime against nature. He argued that allowing men to have multiple wives would decrease temptation to engage in sexual acts with other men. [Monogamy leads to homosexuality? Also not good for today’s members.]

    1880 | “If we were to do away with polygamy, then we must do away with prophets and Apostles, with revelation and the gifts and graces of the Gospel and finally give up our religion altogether. We just can’t do that.” -Wilford Woodruff

    1880 | “We will not end the practice of plural marriage until the coming of the Son of Man.” -Wilford Woodruff

  19. devinvholt

    I don’t know about all of you, but I don’t have enough time in this life to speculate on this, because clearly, that’s what we’re all doing here, and it’s clearly what we will all be doing until we all pass on to the spirit world. I barely have enough time to keep repenting, strengthening my faith, and trying my best to become like the Savior–I’m going to run out of time on doing all 3 of these eventually, so why would I waste my precious time here worrying about something that God (IN HIS INFINITE WISDOM) has chosen NOT to fully reveal to us (I believe this is where strengthening our faith comes in).

    1. Is there polygamy in the Celestial Kingdom: YES. (based on many prophetic quotes and scripture).

    2. Do we have to practice it to go there? WE. DON’T. KNOW.

    If you have received revelation on this subject, then hold onto the peace that God has provided you, but the fact remains: WE. DON’T KNOW.

    In fact, there is a VERY LONG list of topics included under the heading of “WE DON’T KNOW”. Polygamy is one of them. This life is a TEST. When was the last time you were allowed to go into a test with a perfect answer key written by the teacher in your hand.

    This brings me to my last thought, and that is the FIRST principle of the gospel. FAITH in the Lord Jesus Christ. What does Faith mean to you? Because real faith is what we all need to have in this life, not just in regards to polygamy, but in regards to the other thousand things on the great long list of “WE DON’T KNOW”.

    I know 3 things for certain:

    1. Joseph Smith WAS called by God to be his prophet to restore the fullness of his Gospel in our day. Anyone that tries to tarnish Joseph’s name is on very dangerous ground and can come and try to do it in the face of someone who has received a divine witness of his prophetic calling, (Me.)

    2. God loves us more than any of us can even begin to comprehend. In his great and eternal wisdom and love, he has DELIBERATELY chosen to NOT reveal certain things to us while we are here being tested in mortality. We HAVE to have faith in him.

    3. In time, ALL things and all truth will be revealed to us, but here’s the catch: it’s. not. time. yet.

    God Bless All of you.

    • Sam

      I remember seeing things this way. Life was so simple back when I thought that having faith meant remaining in ignorance and convincing myself I was perfectly content with that. (I’m not saying that’s what you’re doing, only saying that’s what I did.)

      • devinvholt

        That’s not faith you were having Sam, and you’re right, that’s not what I’m doing. If you’re saying that there is no difference between Faith, blind obedience, and ignorance, then you do not know what faith is.

  20. BD

    to MormonMama, or what if your husband sealed himself to a few dozen wives (most behind your back, including women already married to other men) before he sealed himself to you, his first wife? Would you be ok with this? This is what Joseph did to Emma.

    • MormonMama

      My husband and I are already sealed, so that part of it is a non-issue. And as I’ve said in another comment, if I truly believed it was commanded of God, I’d be fine with it. In that case, my husband would have no reason to do it behind my back. Joseph may have gone behind Emma’s back, yet she loved him until the day she died, even calling his name as her last word. Seems like she forgave him to me.

  21. Nancy

    I read the journal of a polygamous wife when I was in college. I checked it out of special collections in the BYU library for a paper I wrote. I had always struggled with the idea of polygamy being in our church’s history until I read M. Heywood’s journal. She wasn’t a very pretty lady and didn’t have a lot of hopes to marry. There were many more women in the early days of the church in Utah than men and she was an older (late 30s/early 40s) convert. Her only opportunity to be a mother was to marry. Her husband was rarely with her and she was essentially a single parent, even delivering her first baby in the back of a covered wagon in the middle of winter without her husband. But her children were her ultimate joy. As a woman who only became a mother through the miracle of adoption after many years of waiting, I have caught a glimpse of what a childless life might look like. I believe I would have chosen to be a plural wife if my reward was the miracle of being a mother. I am glad I did not have to make that choice. This woman’s life was one of hardship and incredible sacrifice, but she was grateful for it and even defended polygamy when other women in the town would speak out against it (yes it happened within the church all the time). Polygamy was only practiced by a VERY small percentage of members in the church. You’ll have to check my poor memory, but I think it was somewhere around 7% at it’s greatest. I also believe that polygamy will not be required in the celestial kingdom but I do believe it will have it’s place.

    • Meg Stout

      Martha Spence [Heywood] was awesome, wasn’t she? By the way, her journal is also also available as the book Not by Bread Alone. No need to go to special collections. My ancestor, Mary Bell [Heywood] was one of Martha’s sister wives. In Martha’s journal, she never says anything bad about Mary, which is slightly impressive, given what Martha says about some of the other young women who help her out. According to the family stories, Martha, Sarepta, and Sarah (Joseph Leland Heywood’s three wives at the time) went to their husband and asked him to marry young Mary, as they all loved her and she was very helpful. Mary had been Joseph’s ward ever since her parents died in Nauvoo and was only 16 when the other three wives asked Joseph to marry her. I think Joseph was in his 40s at the time.

      As for the percentage of individuals who practiced polygamy, it was a small percentage of the men, but if you consider women, it is said that as many as 50% of the adult women either were or had been plural wives as of 1870. I think this was in a footnote in the Women of Covenant book. When you consider folks who were related to someone who was in a polygamous marriage, it would be rare to find someone who wasn’t somehow related to individuals in polygamous households.

  22. Brook Gardner

    I found this article interesting to read as well, but it leads me to looking at all God’s creations, there is always the male being able to procreate more than woman, how many children could a man create in a 9 month period as apposed to a woman, and in animals, with a few being able to have multiple children or puppies or kittens? look at the Porn industry (I dont mean literally) the fact that they dont get hung up on multiple partners, which sounds strange but they have gotten past the Jealousy part for the most part but in not a ritchious way for sure. The lord told Solomon“Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.” (Jacob 2:23-24) because they had given in to the woman of the day who were looking for love and power in all the wrong places. they were able to become taken care off this way to become a lover of a king. Being raised on a farm, if you have one pig it wont get as fat as 3 or 4 together, in the like manner, many woman use their control of sex as power over the men, instead of being willing to share. for the love of money it takes less time to please a man than to take a shower… Every woman knows a GOD MADE desire for intimacy is stronger in the man than the woman. why???? If polygamy is brought back which i hope it is, there would not be as much rejection if the wife know’s if they do reject their husbands they can say ok ill be back in a few days, when your more in the mood. Ill bet it will help many marriages become closer as long as they have a christ centered life. It will be this drive and desire that will help man take on the responsibility to care for the wife and kids they are called to support. whats going to happen when the feds bankrupt the welfare system? you know its coming…we all need to learn to be less selfish, polygamy is alive today in other countries. when a family in india joins the church and he has 2-5 wife’s then what has to happen? is that right?

  23. me

    I funny think it’s essential, I know that women who are unwed in the after life can marry a man who is already married, but that’s the only thing plural marriage had ever meant to me. Many of my ancestors had plural wives. To me it had a time and a place much like animal sacrifice before Christ.

  24. Lucy

    Amen and Amen!! This article makes someone do mental gymnastics in order to jusify polygamy.. They change LDS Doctrine so as to never make it line up with what they want at the moment. Jesus is the way, the TRUTH and the life..

  25. Lyndsay Johnson

    I absolutely loved this article. So great. One major question I’ve been praying to have answered was about the contradictory commandments, and the scriptural examples of a general commandment / exception to the commandment with an “escape” was an answer to those prayers. It solidified things in my mind. Thanks for sharing!

  26. Meg Stout

    I see a number of people here commenting about Joseph’s supposed deception of Emma.

    We know of exactly one case where Emma demonstrably didn’t know about a marriage before Joseph entered into it. This was the time he told Fanny Murray (Brigham Young’s sister) that she didn’t know what she wanted. And then he had Brigham seal Fanny to him. Emma got pretty mad about that.

    I’ve been blogging over at Millennial Star about Joseph and Emma for nearly a year now, and lay out a fuller history that is informed by the recent DNA findings. There is reason to suspect that Joseph rarely, if ever, consummated his plural marriages.

    But it is also important to understand why God might have needed Joseph to restore an understanding that women other than first wives could be part of an eternal family. Brigham actually did a brilliant job of explaining this in early July 1843 to some random dude who wasn’t Mormon, before we even see the formal revelation now canonized as D&C 132. Prior to circa 1075 plural marriage was practiced widely, as part of levirate marriage, management of property, and care for the legacy of the dead.

    • BD

      Meg stated: “There is reason to suspect that Joseph rarely, if ever, consummated his plural marriages.”

      Meg, John F. Kennedy had, arguably, at least 13 mistresses. Yet he only fathered children through Jackie, his wife. Does the lack of children with his mistresses prove that JFK did not have sex with these women?

          • Meg Stout

            Of course it was possible for folks to engage in various forms of intimacy that can’t produce children. But if Joseph merely wished to “be intimate” without any sort of agenda, then he could have simply subscribed to the spiritual wifery that so many of his followers had accepted, when taught by John C. Bennett. Spiritual wifery didn’t require any kind of commitment, nor did it require exclusivity on the part of either men or women.

            Given the lack of DNA support for any of the testable cases where Joseph allegedly engendered children outside his marriage to Emma Hale, it becomes necessary for scietifically-savvy individuals to consider how these data might influence long-held non-scientific presumptions.

            Those who are not savvy regarding science may continue to accuse Joseph of gross sexual excess. But know that from this point on such accusations are declarations of scientific ignorance.

    • Froggey

      Both Emily and Eliza Partridge were married to Joseph in secret without Emma’s knowledge and approval. And then when Emma finally DID give approval they had another ceremony for her benefit. Those are just two off the top of my head that Emma was not aware of the marriage before Joseph entered into it.

      And if there were no children from these marriages, then Joseph was entering into polygamy for the wrong reasons. Was not the sole reason for polygamy to raise up righteous seed?

      Let’s be honest when discussing this topic, shall we?

      • Meg Stout

        The way you have heard the history is an inference.

        Another possibility is that Emma was informed regarding the various marrriages Joseph was entering into, and that she selected the first public embrace of plural marriage to be with these two trusted young women who had already proven their willingness to be discrete and satisfied with marriages that didn’t include intimacy.

        Then, surprise, they weren’t satisfied with continuing in marriages without intimacy once these marriages had a modicum of public acceptance. Emma, who knew that pregnant young women in Joseph’s household would be misunderstood by the many who were not yet informed regarding the doctrine of the New and Everlasting Covenant, objected.

        Emma threatened to divorce Joseph, to make sure he understood the depth of her concern over this point. And it seems Joseph offered to give up all, accompanying Emma to her sister’s home 200 miles from Nauvoo. But the Missouri folks came and arrested him, pistol-whipping him. Joseph’s life was only saved by coming back to Nauvoo.

        D&C 132 was written down, and Emma was upset, but if you read D&C 132, you can see that there are plenty of reasons for Emma to want the thing burned other than the discussion of plural marriage, per se.

        After this Emma reiterated her concern about “p”, possibly the principle or plural marriage or polygamy. Still, she told Joseph he could have the Partridge sisters as his plural wives (“E & E P”).

        Joseph, however, had learned how much this bothered Emma. He confided in William Clayton that he believed that if he did take Emma up on her offer to let him be a husband to E & E P, Emma would turn on him and divorce him, as she had threatened in June.

        There were numerous reasons for plural marriage. I would argue that the primary reason for a loving God to request a brief restitution of plural marriage was to make sure Mormons didn’t try to restore the New and Everlasting Covenant without understanding that it is possible to seal families together when multiple spouses have been involved.

        In fact, modern temple policy allows a deceased woman to be sealed to all men to whom she was married in life, and allows a man to be sealed to all women to whom he was married in life.

        Inasmuch as Joseph was entering into marriages that didn’t involved the intimacies that can produce children, he arguably wasn’t doing what he was “supposed” to do. However he didn’t have a chance to life long enough for such intimacies to be “safe” either in terms of his own personal safety or in terms of preserving the hope of being with his beloved Emma.

        Obviously Emma later demonstrated an ability to show gracious acceptance of her husband’s child by another woman (speaking of the son her second husband engendered outside of wedlock), taking the boy into her home and making it clear on her deathbed that she wished Bidamon to marry the boy’s mother.

  27. Meg Stout

    It would be impossible to seal the entire family of mankind together if it weren’t possible to seal a man to all the women by whom he had children. Due to the rules of levirate marriage, it is not required that a woman be sealed to all men who engendered the children.

    As for whether it is required that a man have multiple wives in eternity (and that therefore a woman share her man in eternity), a believe that plural marriage is required in eternity is stupid. It ranks right up there with the idea that knocking on wood means anything at all, or that a black cat crossing your path is bad.

    Mormon teachings indicate that the highest heaven is a place where all the participants must be married. And there has so far been no pronouncement that indicates those marriages will be anything other than heterosexual. However there is no reason to expect that the numbers of men and women will be so disparate that all women will have to share their man.

  28. David

    Greg,

    I appreciate you tackling a difficult and troubling subject. I find it interesting that you were able to have your faith reinforced after reading Doctrine and Covenants 132 because when I taught this section in Gospel Doctrine last year, it perpetuated my ongoing disaffection from the founding beliefs of the Church.

    While you’re a talented writer, I’m afraid that you overlooked (intentionally or not) important resources while you were doing your research. Just because the Journal of Discourses is full of embarrassing gems does not mean we, as Latter-day Saints, should discount everything therein. Did you even bother to investigate what the early church leaders had to say about polygamy? You say that you have heard polygamy is an eternal principle but can’t nail down a source so you think it’s okay to just throw all the past leaders’ remarks on the subject down the “memory hole”? This fits very well with what the church has tried to do for the last 100 years with its history. Maybe that is why someone like me–a returned missionary, past Elder’s Quorum President, Gospel Doctrine teacher on an off for the past 8 years (and I currently still am), in my thirties– never knew that Joseph married anyone else other than his “beloved Emma” until two years ago.

    I would suggest that you spend time investigating the published literature about what has been said by past leaders of the Church on the subjects on which you write. I would also caution minimizing people’s sincere questions and concerns when you write. Just because you have reconciled in your mind topics like polygamy, or blacks and temple marriage, or LGBT issues, or many other topics doesn’t mean that others still have very valid concerns. One resource that I have enjoyed is: http://www.corpus.byu.edu/gc. This website allows you to search ALL the general conference reports going back to the 1850s. I would specifically request you type the word “monogamy” into the search bar of that website and read what the prophets, seers, and revelators had to say about the institution of monogamy–it’s very interesting.

    Your post mentions that the first half of D&C 132 does not deal with polygamy. Interesting. Would you care to defend that claim? Verses 1 and 2 mention that the reason why Joseph received 132 is because of his questions about biblical polygamy. The Lord says in verse 2 that He will “answer thee as touching this matter”. You should also be careful separating polygamy and the “New and Everlasting Covenant”. Maybe you should read what that phrase meant to the Saints in the early days of the Church. Also, can you find in the revelation where it specifically clarifies the verses talking about monogamy and those talking about polygamy? I’m not talking about the chapter heading either, I’m talking about the Lord specifically identifying the difference so we are not confused… because we all know the Lord runs “a house of order,…and not a house of confusion” (D&C 132:8)

    Finally, your analysis of 132 misses the scathing remarks that Joseph (or God–whatever your belief is on who really gave this “revelation”) outlines for Emma Smith. Would you please explain what purpose verses 51-56 have in this revelation. Hyrum urged Joseph to write down the revelation so he (Hyrum) could take it to Emma and convince her of it’s truth. Do you recall Emma’s reaction? Let me be clear, the language used against Emma in section 132 unacceptable. I don’t care if it’s Joseph’s words justifying his years of polygamy or if it’s really the Lord–what was said to Emma is sickening! Read those verses carefully, does Emma really have a choice?

    Thanks again on your well-written blog post. I hope it encourages members to read 132 for themselves to see what is really in there.

  29. Broken bose

    In Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare makes Juliet say:

    “A rose by any other name is just as sweet”

    And in Matt. 5:28, it reads:

    “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

    Polygamy, to be painfully frank, seems to me to be just lust in sheep’s clothing–a vice really, masquerading as a virtue by conveniently providing every woman lusted after the title of “wife” to get around the inconvenienced sin described in Matthew 5:28. The accusation is certainly harsh, but Polygamy it seems, is just lust by another name.

    False prophets always seem to make their indulgences to their natural inclinations into a ‘sacrifice’ or ‘sacrament’ to justify their behavior. Muhammed did it by calling it a specific ordinance that God granted to him alone to take as many wives as he wished (but no more than four wives for every other man), and renown Indian gurus have consistently used their status to indulge their passions. Sathya Sai Baba–who, despite his death a few years ago, still has a following greater than the LDS Church and JW organization combined, and counts among his adherents many heads of state and corporate CEOs. Despite this, a US State department issued a travel warning when Sai Baba was alive informing anyone who visited areas near his Ashram to be cautious because of numerous sexual harassment charges levied against him.

    Without mincing words, and risking offense here anyway, I think a case can be made that Smith is doing the same thing.

    To say that it is a ‘sacrifice’, and ‘difficult’ to do what comes instinctively to most men, seems dubious. A virtuous person is someone who controls his base passions, not one who indulges them.

    ‘Difficult’ would mean having one extra wife for Smith.

    Smith had at least thirty-three.

    For one who claims that the principle of plural marriage was terrible and difficult, he seems to have gotten over his revulsion rather swimmingly.

    From 1835 (and re-issued in 1844 by Smith shortly before his death) through 1876, the DC contained section 101–which astonishingly, condemned plural marriage.

    1835 Doctrines and Covenants, section 101 (re-issued by Joseph Smith in 1844 and included in the DC until 1876):

    “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.”

    Here are some questions:

    If God had really promulgated plural marriage at that time, then why did DC 101 say the exact opposite?

    Why include it up to 1876 if it wasn’t true? And why delete it in 1876 if it was truly God’s Word?

    I’ll ask an even bolder question: was Joseph Smith and the General Authorities providing cover for their activities (or even God’s command) with a lie?

    If you can’t trust the reliability of LDS Scriptures regarding some particular controversial point, then how do you know you can trust it regarding any point–at all?

    There seems to be something greater going on here than just the clearing-up of some past point of controversial doctrine. The entire trustworthiness and credibility of the LDS Church seems to be at stake.

    In particular, the LDS.org essay explains that Helen Mar Kimball was married to Joseph Smith several months before her fifteenth birthday (which is a curious way to say she was only fourteen years old at the time). Looking closer at the story, Smith promised the Kimball family Exaltation to the highest Kingdom should Helen give her assent. And for her family’s sake, she gave it to Smith.

    Next question:

    Since when did Smith (even as a Prophet) have the power to give heaven away for the sake of marriage (in the least), or sex (at the most), with a fourteen year old girl?
    Fathers, if a man who claimed to be a prophet, asked for your fourteen year old girl’s hand in marriage, or else an angel with a flaming sword of death would strike him down, and at the same time he promised you and your family heavenly glory if she agreed, why would you consider this proposition to be any less absurd one hundred and fifty years ago than it would be today? Because he’s truly a Prophet of God? If someone who’s considered a prophet is never held accountable to any ethical standard, then in what capacity can anyone ever disprove the prophetic status of someone who makes the claim of being a prophet? Wouldn’t this be the ultimate cover for any questionable activity? If no one could ever, under any circumstances disprove Joseph Smith’s prophetic status, then how would one ever follow the admonition in Scripture to test or “prove all things” (1 Thess. 5:21) if by default ‘all things’ are permitted?

    If we condemn those like Muhammed or Sai Baba for their sexual allowances, then under what basis would our judgement be credible if we justify those same allowances for Smith?

    Lastly, would I be considered a Mormon in good standing today if I was the same kind of Mormon Joseph Smith was back then?

    What then does morality even mean in the LDS Church if the definition of what a good Mormon is or isn’t, changes so drastically over time?

    I know I’ve said some tough things here. And for those who take offense, my apologies sincerely. I guess I’m asking Pilate’s famous question, “what is truth?”

    I hope we all find the answer to that important question. My apologies again for any offense. God bless.

    • Alex Eisenberg

      You have spoken truth! It’s fascinating that there’s still women defending Joseph’s actions!!! Just as we still see Muslim women defending their rapists!! It doesn’t mean it is morally right!! Religion has proven to be sexist and chauvinistic, since it was created by men, and has been patriarchal since old!!! A few years ago I thought our church was different, but it just turned out to be more of the same!! There’s still women who want to be ideal from a man’s perspective!! I don’t want that for my daughter!!! Thanks for your comments…

      • Dennis

        Religion wasn’t created by men, it was created by God. Reject the Lord Jesus Christ if you want, but know that he has given others a personal witness of the truth, and will do the same with you if you will simply humble yourself and ask him for it in sincere prayer.

    • Dennis

      Assuming that polygamy was about sex is your first mistake. Joseph and other church leaders were reluctant to enter this practice that they considered as the Abrahamic tests. You’re looking at Joseph Smith as a natural man after sex, rather than as a prophet. Have you read the Book of Mormon and prayed to ask God if it is true? Have you prayed with an open heart to ask God if Joseph Smith was a prophet? You assume that he is a false prophet, but have you asked God in prayer? I doubt that you have. The courage to do this comes from having a relationship of trust in your Savior — that he will answer you and won’t allow you to be lead astray while you’re investigating it. I have seen this over and over. People are too afraid of Satan’s perceived power to deceive to ever inquire of their Savior on such matters. The question you need to ask is who do you believe is stronger, your Savior or Satan? If the Lord won’t answer your sincere honest inquiries on subjects like this, then what kind of a relationship do you really have with Him? Before you condemn Joseph Smith as a false prophet, you need to ask God if he was or not.

      • Broken bose

        Dennis, thanks for your response.

        In the Book of Mormon, in Jacob 2:30 it says:

        “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.”

        Polygamy according to the Book of Mormon, was to raise up seed.

        Here are some questions:

        Did Joseph Smith raise up seed with any of his plural wives?

        Then what was the purpose of marrying them if not for the express purpose mentioned in the Book of Mormon?

        Why was DC 101 reissued in 1844 by Smith condemning polygamy if God had instituted and condoned it at the same time?

        Doesn’t this place God’s will at odds with the DC? How is this possible? Or reasonable?

        Why, according to the essays published on LDS.org, did Joseph Smith marry at least twelve women who already had living husbands? With no clear answer from these essays (though some speculation, except to say that sex could have been a possibility within these unique relationships too), I checked the FairMormon website for an answer and their explanation was that God could have dissolved the marriage bond between these women and their first husbands, effectively making those husbands the adulterers if they engaged in sex with their wives!

        Is this really the best LDS apologists can do in defending the truth?

        ________________

        Now to your question: Why don’t I just pray? Don’t I trust Christ?

        The truth is, and I mean no offense, but as a Catholic I believe I trust Him more than you do.

        I trust him when when He said His Church wouldn’t fail (Matthew 16:18). It is frankly the LDS Church that makes the claim that Christ’s House (1 Tim 3:15) has fallen, and that another prophet was necessary to do what Christ either couldn’t or wouldn’t do Himself (like maintain a Church). I also trust that Christ wouldn’t have left us or our forefathers orphans (John 14:18), as the LDS Church must believe if shortly after Christ built His Church on earth, it fell into ruin. Those who desired to follow Christ would have had no place to go. These persons, for 1800 years, would truly have been left orphans. Is this how we’re supposed to believe Heavenly Father would treat His children? And when Christ said that His Words would never pass away, I believe that too. But as a member of the LDS Church, I must believe that His Words have in some way indeed passed away if His Church failed, because He couldn’t fulfill the promises that–with His Words–He said He would keep.

        At the very least, I believe that the Christ I believe in as a Catholic, is greater than the Christ you do as a Mormon, since I believe Christ was both great enough to keep a Church, and good enough to want to. As a Mormon, Christ is lacking in at least one of these two areas, or both.

        Some questions for you.

        Why do I need a testimony first, in order to see that the Book of Mormon is true?

        And why do I also have to take the Book of Mormon’s historical claims on faith?

        If the historical claims aren’t evident (which are easier to show), then why should I assume the spiritual ones are? So why should I believe the spiritual claim in Moroni 10:4 is true?

        Show me the historical evidence that the Book of Mormon is true first, and then I would be more inclined to believe the spiritual claims also. Many others would be more inclined too I would think.

        And that’s the problem with Moroni 10:4. Feelings aren’t evidence–no matter how much we want them to be, or forceful they are. To pray then for a feeling as evidence of anything, is to already assume what you’re still trying to prove.

        Here’s the problem:

        If I have evidence that 2+2=4, but a testimony that 2+2=5, which should I believe? The evidence or the testimony? It is unreasonable to believe the testimony here–just as it is unreasonable to believe that the Book of Mormon is true without first showing the reasonable evidence first in the form of historical, archeological etc., proof.

        When I can verify the things I can see, then it is reasonable to have faith in the things I can’t see. That is the most reasonable process. I shouldn’t have to pray about the Book of Mormon first. It should be the last thing I do after all the rest.

        If the Book of Mormon is true, then the rest shouldn’t be a problem.

        So where is it?

      • Broken bose

        Dennis, thanks for your response.

        In the Book of Mormon, in Jacob 2:30 it says:

        “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.”

        Polygamy according to the Book of Mormon, was to raise up seed.

        Here are some questions:

        Did Joseph Smith raise up seed with any of his plural wives?

        Then what was the purpose of marrying them if not for the express purpose mentioned in the Book of Mormon?

        Why was DC 101 reissued in 1844 by Smith condemning polygamy if God had instituted and condoned it at the same time?

        Doesn’t this place God’s will at odds with the DC? How is this possible? Or reasonable?

        Why, according to the essays published on LDS.org, did Joseph Smith marry at least twelve women who already had living husbands? With no clear answer from these essays (though some speculation, except to say that sex could have been a possibility within these unique relationships too), I checked the FairMormon website for an answer and their explanation was that God could have dissolved the marriage bond between these women and their first husbands, effectively making those husbands the adulterers if they engaged in sex with their wives!

        Is this really the best LDS apologists can do in defending the truth?

        ________________

        Now to your question: Why don’t I just pray? Don’t I trust Christ?

        The truth is, and I mean no offense, but as a Catholic I believe I trust Him more than you do.

        I trust him when when He said His Church wouldn’t fail (Matthew 16:18). It is frankly the LDS Church that makes the claim that Christ’s House (1 Tim 3:15) has fallen, and that another prophet was necessary to do what Christ either couldn’t or wouldn’t do Himself (like maintain a Church). I also trust that Christ wouldn’t have left us or our forefathers orphans (John 14:18), as the LDS Church must believe if shortly after Christ built His Church on earth, it fell into ruin. Those who desired to follow Christ would have had no place to go. These persons, for 1800 years, would truly have been left orphans. Is this how we’re supposed to believe Heavenly Father would treat His children? And when Christ said that His Words would never pass away, I believe that too. But as a member of the LDS Church, I must believe that His Words have in some way indeed passed away if His Church failed, because He couldn’t fulfill the promises that–with His Words–He said He would keep.

        At the very least, I believe that the Christ I believe in as a Catholic, is greater than the Christ you do as a Mormon, since I believe Christ was both great enough to keep a Church, and good enough to want to. As a Mormon, Christ is lacking in at least one of these two areas, or both.

        Some questions for you.

        Why do I need a testimony first, in order to see that the Book of Mormon is true?

        And why do I also have to take the Book of Mormon’s historical claims on faith?

        If the historical claims aren’t evident (which are easier to show), then why should I assume the spiritual ones are? So why should I believe the spiritual claim in Moroni 10:4 is true?

        Show me the historical evidence that the Book of Mormon is true first, and then I would be more inclined to believe the spiritual claims also. Many others would be more inclined too I would think.

        And that’s the problem with Moroni 10:4. Feelings aren’t evidence–no matter how much we want them to be, or forceful they are. To pray then for a feeling as evidence of anything, is to already assume what you’re still trying to prove.

        Here’s the problem:

        If I have evidence that 2+2=4, but a testimony that 2+2=5, which should I believe? The evidence or the testimony? It is unreasonable to believe the testimony here–just as it is unreasonable to believe that the Book of Mormon is true without first showing the reasonable evidence first in the form of historical, archeological etc., proof.

        When I can verify the things I can see, then it is reasonable to have faith in the things I can’t see. That is the most reasonable process. I shouldn’t have to pray about the Book of Mormon first. It should be the last thing I do after all the rest.

        If the Book of Mormon is true, then the rest shouldn’t be a problem.

        So where is it?

        • Dennis

          Hi Broken Bose (name?), thanks for responding. I’d like to continue this discussion on some of your points. 1) Your point about Polygamy being issued to raise seed unto God is correct, and this was what happened with it. Joseph Smith implemented this doctrine slowly however, because he had a wife that accepted it at first, but then opposed it. Although he was called upon to introduce this practice, he was not given specific instructions, but was given some latitude in doing this. He was chastised over his slow and possibly indirect way of implementing it, and even threatened that if he didn’t more fully implement it he would be destroyed. He was also involved in all other aspects of running the restored church, and did a pretty good job all in all, especially given that he faced mobs, imprisonment, and continual persecution. He was murdered at the age of 38 years old (5 years older than Jesus), so let’s take that into account as well. How many children did Brigham Young have through plural marriage by 1844? Not much if any, right? Same with Joseph Smith, and his wife had turned against this doctrine (contrary to what she was commanded in D&C 132), while Brigham’s hadn’t. How many children did Brigham Young go on to have with his wives? A great many. Therefore, we can expect that if Joseph Smith had not been martyred, he would’ve had a great many as well. Polygamy is practiced by several off-shoot groups in the US, and it’s pretty incredible how big some of these are given the condemnation and social aversion there is to the practice today. Why are their numbers so high? Because, just like the Lord stated in the Book of Mormon verse you quoted, it works very well for raising seed!

          2) You said that D&C 101 was reissued in 1844 and that it condemns polygamy. I think you must have the wrong section, because it doesn’t mention anything about polygamy, but is generally addressing the persecutions they had suffered under in Missouri.

          3) As to why Joseph Smith married some women who already had husbands, we don’t know the individual reasons or circumstances for each of these, but in the revelation detailed in D&C 132, the Lord gives him the same power he gave to Peter, which was to seal on earth and have it be sealed in heaven, and to loose on earth and have it be loosed in heaven. This is a grave power, as seen here “46 And verily, verily, I say unto you, that whatsoever you seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever you bind on earth, in my name and by my word, saith the Lord, it shall be eternally bound in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you remit on earth shall be remitted eternally in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you retain on earth shall be retained in heaven.” — D&C 132:46 Look at this wording and tell me that this is not an awesome responsibility. Joseph was made the Lord’s prophet with the sole responsibility to complete the restoration of his church. This included giving and taking in marriage and determining who was worthy and who wasn’t. You EITHER accept him as a prophet on this or you don’t. Which brings me to the next point.

          4) How can you have read the scripture I just quoted and NOT believe you need to pray about whether Joseph Smith was a prophet? You claim that you don’t need to pray about this because you basically trust the Catholic Church to be true. If this is the case then what you’re really doing here is simply stating, “I’m a faithful Catholic, and I believe Joseph Smith to be a false prophet by default. The end.” That would be fair enough, but instead what you’ve done is slammed his character based upon your cursory judgment of the teachings he lived and died by, but have made no real attempt to see things from his perspective. On this subject there are only two views. He was either a true prophet or a false prophet, and the only way to know if he was a true prophet is through direct prayer on the matter. You can look at all the evidence you want for the rest of your life and it doesn’t matter if all of it was completely positive, wonderful, uplifting stuff to you… you still wouldn’t know whether he was a prophet or not. On the other hand, criticizing him by looking through it isn’t going to do if for you either. You may convince yourself that he’s not, but unless you make this a matter of prayer, you can’t say that the Lord has witnessed to you that he’s a false prophet.

          I find your answer about having faith that God didn’t allow the Catholic Church to fall into apostasy to be both flawed and a cop out. Here’s a link showing that the apostasy was foretold both by Old and New Testament prophets: https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/chapter-22-the-apostasy?lang=eng

          But this discussion is really more of a distraction of the heart of the problem, which is that you don’t have the faith to make put this question to your Heavenly Father. I’ve seen this time and time again, and have seen people like you shy away from this with their excuses, and this why I focused on it originally. Here’s the thing, you should be afraid of calling upon God in prayer in the name of your Savior Jesus Christ and asking him for a witness as to whether Joseph Smith is a prophet, and as to whether the Book of Mormon is divine scripture. If you were to do this He would give you a personal witness that this is true. And I’m not just talking about a wishy washy “nice warm feeling”, but rather a real witness from Him. “Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart.” — D&C 8:2 He will show you the truth of these things intellectually, and give you real evidences of them, and he will send you the Comforter that he promised that would spiritually testify of all truth. “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:” — John 15:26 (see also John 14:26) You don’t know how many Catholics that I saw join the church by having this kind of faith in their Savior — the faith that He wouldn’t lead them astray if they prayed to him sincerely, and the faith that He would answer them. I was christened Catholic, but I put this to the test myself and can testify to you that God gave me a personal witness of these things myself. I will stand by this witness before Him on the final judgment day, and praise him now and then for this witness. Do you have enough faith to do this, or are you still going to rely on your own blind acceptance of doctrinal matters?

          • Broken bose

            Hi Dennis,

            Thanks for your reply to a very interesting topic.

            In your first paragraph, you mentioned polygamy was very good at raising up seed.

            But in truth, it isn’t. In studies done on the issue (I believe this point is even footnoted in one of the essays on LDS.org regarding the subject of plural marriage), monogamous relationships in society have been shown to be the bigger child producers when compared to polygamous family relationships. The reason polygamy doesn’t work is because the female population pool is reduced for eligible single men when another man marries multiple women, and because time and resources are reduced in polygamous relationships, the women in those relationships produce fewer children than do their monogamous counterparts–there’s simply less opportunity for those women engaged in polygamous relationships to produce more children. While certainly men engaged in polygamous relationships have more children, those few reduce the total number of eligible mates avaliable to other men–including Mormon men. The result is that a greater number of men in those societies fail to have any children at all. Adhesion to cultural norms is also reduced in societies where polygamy is a standard practice (see Professor Joseph Heinrich’s study done in 2012 on this issue), while crime and poverty increase. The reasons for that are many, but are mainly because single men, not successful in finding a mate (because other polygamous men have depleted their marriage prospects) are not bound by social norms as married men more naturally are.

            You’re making an assumption that if Joseph Smith lived longer he would have had more children. The fact is that while he was married to at least 33 women during his lifetime, he had no other children that we’re aware of. And that’s the only fact that we can substantiate. Making an assumption that he would have had more is not evidence to the fact that polygamy is good any more than my assumption that he wouldn’t have had any more, making it bad. The fact is, Heavenly Father knew when he was to depart this life, and under what circumstances. And if Heavenly Father gave him this principle without letting him fulfill the intended purpose of it, then doesn’t this make God, in a sense, a hypocrite? At least in Joseph Smith’s regard? And again, if the intended purpose was to raise up seed, then why would God resort to a principle that simply doesn’t work? Monogamy has been shown time and again to be the better “child-producer,” and yet God knowing this, gave a precept to Joseph Smith that wasn’t effective in his own life, and wrong in Book of Mormon for its intended purpose.

            You next point had to do with DC 101. In 1835 the LDS Church issued section 101 that expressly condemned polygamy. It was reissued by Joseph Smith a few months prior to his death in 1844 (despite his having 33 wives at the time), and then removed from the DC in 1875, with the sections renumbered there after.

            A few questions for you: If the DC is the Word of God, then how could this section be subsequently removed in 1875, and if it wasn’t the Word of God, then why was it there in the first place? And how would you know the difference between what is or isn’t the Word of God in the DC if a mistake like this was possible–and for forty years?

            Why was this section included in the DC in 1835 if the the Word of God was diametrically opposite to what was actually practiced in the Church (and by Joseph Smith) then?

            And lastly on this point, you said that you don’t know the reasons why Joseph Smith also practiced polyandry but that because he was a prophet, it must have been ok. I’m sorry. This isn’t an answer, but merely a conceit to Joseph Smith’s prophetic status. If your purpose is to convince me of his prophetic status, you’re going to have to do better. This is a man who said God told him to practice plural marriage to make more kids, but he didn’t make any more, with a principle given to a Church that initially hid the practice, about a principle that was there to produce more children but didn’t because it was ineffective. Why would I assume the source of this principle is divine with such a record? Why should I then assume that the one who first expounded this principle is a Prophet of God?

            Your next point was to say that my belief in the fidelity of the truth of Catholic Church was flawed and a cop-out, and then you cite the Old and New Testaments as sources for an Apostasy having taken place. I disagree. Here’s why.

            By citing the Old and New Testaments, you are citing a reference that goes all the way back to Christ and beyond. But if a complete apostasy DID talk place, then there would be no authority available after the Apostasy to vouch for the truth of the Scriptures you just cited. The apostles died before the Old and New Testaments were codified into a single Book. And according to your Articles of Faith, the LDS Church merely accepted the Bible that was already authorized. By the end of the fourth century, there were literally hundreds of epistles and books vying for the title of ‘inspired Scripture’. Here’s the question: If the apostles didn’t create the Bible, and the LDS Church only accepted what was already there, then under what authority was the Biblical Canon discerned and disseminated, and accepted by all Christians including Mormons?

            That would be the authority of the Catholic Church, in the Council of Rome in AD 382 under Pope Damasus. The Catholic Church later reconfirmed the Biblical Canon with several more Councils; at Hippo (AD 396), Carthage (AD 397 and 419), at Florence (AD 1441), and finally the General Council at Trent in 1546. It’s the same set of books that you have in your Bible today.

            Heres the question: If the LDS Church does not accept the authority of the Catholic Church, then why does it accept its book?

            Why does the LDS Church accept the authority of another Church to tell it what the Bible is if the express mission of the LDS Church was to restore the authority it said was lost to discern such things (like the Word of God)? By accepting the Bible, the LDS Church (along with Protestant churches) is implicitly accepting the authority of the institution that produced it, whether it likes it or not. And so are you by citing it to prove an Apostasy.

            In the end, you say all this is essentially because I won’t pray about whether or not Joseph Smith is a Prophet or that the Book of Mormon is true. I believe you base this on your belief in Moroni 10:4 in the Book of Mormon:

            “4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.”

            Again I disagree. And for one reason: I don’t believe Moroni 10:4 is true.

            I don’t believe that real faith is based on any answer I might receive from asking the question Moroni 10:4 wants me to ask. First, because Moroni 10:4 is a circular argument. In order for me to believe in the Book of Mormon, I must first believe that what is said in Moroni 10:4 is true–which is in the Book of Mormon. So the way I come to belief in the Book of Mormon–is by believing in the Book of Mormon. It is no wonder then that those who do as Moroni 10:4 prescribes (no matter it’s mention of Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost who I do believe in), come away with a testimony. It’s simply a self-fulfilling prophecy. It isn’t proof.

            Second, it’s faith without real evidence. Real faith is the reasoned conclusions drawn from all the available evidence. It isn’t belief despite the evidence, which is what a testimony in Mormonism I believe, primarily consists of. The Book of Mormon purports to be a Book about spiritual and historical fact. In Luke 5:23, Mark 2:9, and Matthew 9:5, is the story of the paralyzed man on a stretcher. The Pharisees grumbled when Jesus told the paralyzed man that his sins were forgiven, then Jesus knowing their thoughts, said to them:

            Matthew 9:5

            “For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?”

            Here, Christ elucidates a process by which we can come to know truth (and since the Bible is a Catholic book, I have no problem quoting from its pages). By showing a physical truth that’s difficult or impossible to replicate to the Pharisees (the paralyzed man got up and walked), He gave credence as to why the spiritual claim (that his sins were forgiven), has merit.

            We can apply this same principle from the Bible to the Book of Mormon and ask the question, what unique or difficult physical truths lend credence to its spiritual claims?

            Where is the Reformed Egyptian of the Book of Mormon for instance, like the Hebrew or the Greek of the Bible we can study today? Where are the cities of Zarahemlah or Bountiful located from the Book of Mormon, like Jerusalem (in the land of Judah) or Bethlehem (six miles due South from Jerusalem) are from the Bible? Where are the graves of Lehi or Nephi, like Peter (under Saint Peter’s in Rome), or Paul (in the Church of Saint Paul outside the walls), or John (in Ephesus)?

            Where is the Hill Cumorrah and what evidence is there that cataclysmic battles took place there? At the height of Rome’s glory, roughly four million people lived within the city. The area even today is a trove of artifacts and historical monuments, far and wide. In the Book of Mormon, on the Hill Cumorrah, nearly three million are said to have perished, along with horses, armaments, food, billets, etc., in a concentrated space, and on a single hill. Yet there’s not a trace of evidence anywhere in the world that such huge battles in relatively recent times, ever took place. Simply put, this is impossible were the Book of Mormon true.

            You have chiasmas in the Book of Mormon–and that’s a start. But chiasmas are not unique to the Book of Mormon, as Joseph Smith exhibited this same kind of speech form in his personal words and sermons. It is the greater physical claims in the Book of mormon, like the locations of great places or unique people or things that lend greater weight to those things that can’t be tested, like the promise in Moroni 10:4, or like Christ forgiving the paralytic man’s sins (even if one doesn’t believe that the miracle of the paralytic walking ever happened. The Bible none the less, still establishes a precedent here for believing unique and difficult claims). But when looking at the Book of Mormon, it is these types of evidences that are notably absent.

            Isn’t this discernment process actually how we are supposed to prove all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21)?

            The bottom line is this: If the Book of Mormon were one hundred percent true, then why do I need a testimony of the historical claims it makes as well?

            And third, it is this testimony, when push comes to shove, that the LDS Church looks to for proving any of its claims. That simply isn’t good enough. And that’s because a testimony really only proclaims a belief in something. It doesn’t really prove that what is believed–is actually true. These are really two very different things.

            And finally, in Matthew 7:24, Christ gives a parable of the wise man who builds His House upon a rock, that no manner of adversity can destroy, while the foolish man builds his house on sand. And when adversity strikes this man’s house–great was the destruction, the Bible says. Just a few chapters later in Matthew 16, Jesus calls Peter the Rock on which He would build His Church (which is the ‘House of God’ according to Paul in 1 Tim 3:15), that Christ says the gates of Hell shall not prevail against.

            So if Jesus’ House fell, doesn’t that really make Him–the foolish builder?

            Isn’t that what I’m called to believe in as a member of the ‘restored’ Church of Jesus Christ?

            So to answer your question–no, I don’t believe I’m copping out. I do believe in Christ. And He’s a wiser Man, I might add, than your Christ is.

            I mean absolutely no offense in anything that I’ve said–really, and thanks again for your response. I’ve asked a lot of questions. Let’s keep the conversation going if you like. God bless you.

          • guest

            Broken Bose, I’ll be happy to continue to talk about this. First, your statement that Polygamy isn’t the best way to raise up seed is subjective. Is this about making the most children, or making the most children who hold strong to a particular religious belief? The latter has worked very effectively for many of the current Polygamous groups out their today. If you compare the number of children that they’ve had that hold to their current religious beliefs, you’ll see that a very large percentage remain active in their faith. What do you think the Lord would want here, numbers for numbers sake or numbers of strong believers? I’d be interested in seeing your own Catholic numbers in this as a comparison. I imagine that children born to US Catholics versus those that stay active in your faith has taken a serious hit today. Actually, any Internet search of this shows rapidly declining numbers. One of my great friends was a Mother Superior Nun that converted to Mormonism and converted another Nun through her testimony and friendship. The practice of Polygamy was meant to bring up strong members of the church while increasing the numbers, and if you examine LDS church history, you’ll see that that is exactly what happened. Based on this, your arguments against the implementation of this practice by the Lord falls flat, and your attempt to only look at this in Joseph Smith’s instance is deceptive at it’s core.

            Second, on the D&C 101 topic. This link addresses this topic and shows that you’ve been selective in your accusations and accepted truth on this: http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_polygamy/1835_Doctrine_and_Covenants_denies_polygamy

            You matter-of-factly state what you believe the church did on this, but here your points are disputed and you haven’t reference this. Why do you go to anti-Mormon sources and accept their arguments as fact? Do you think Judas Iscariot’s view of Christ would be accurate? Everyone knows that critics spin and skew things negatively to distract and malign while making their points. Forgive me if I state that this seems to be your real purpose here as non-believer. You claim to be a practicing Catholic, which I’m not doubting, but you’re not here to honestly evaluate Joseph Smith’s claim of being a prophet, because you’ve already reject that. You’re here nitpicking doctrine and you don’t mind repeating dishonest anti-Mormon arguments to do it. Well, lets move on.

            On the issue of a prophesied and fulfilled Great Apostasy, you attempt to dismiss the scriptures I quoted by claiming that because we accepted the Bible that our faith must be false. Interesting take, does this work for you in other discussions? You can write off the prophesies of Peter, Paul, and other early authorities by saying that the Catholic Church put together a Bible and the fact that protestants and others use this today somehow invalidates the words of earlier Apostles? This doesn’t work with our faith, because Latter-day Saints don’t accept the Bible in it’s current form as being complete. There are many missing books that we believe will be added to it when the Savior comes again. Your church included The Song of Solomon that we don’t believe is scripture. Perhaps you’re not aware of the fact that Joseph Smith was commanded to review the Bible and that he also received revelation on it that added to it’s clarity? This is called the Inspired Translation, and is included in our KJV of the Bible. There are many challenges to your belief that the Catholic Church has perpetuated into this present time with the authority that Peter was given to lead the Church. You’ve not only changed the doctrine of the church, but also the offices of the priesthood. You subsequently had Popes that excommunicated each other. You changed the whole nature of God by vote that was settled by a pagan political figure in 325 AD. You’ve also effectively thrown out one of the Ten Commandments (though shalt not make any graven images) and instead allow people to pray to statues. We may have the image of an Angel on our temples, but we certainly don’t encourage anyone to pray to it. I could go on, but I’d digress too far from your original point. You tried to say that because we accepted the Bible as is, that the LDS Church cannot be true. Well we didn’t, and have received criticism from all sources for not doing this. We didn’t accept your books of Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch. Nor do we accept the Apocrypha or Pseudepigrapha, although some truth may be gleaned by studying them with the Holy Spirit. Your claim that the Bible is a Catholic book also discounts the Jews, of whom all of the Old Testament prophets and Jesus and all of his disciples originated from. I find it Ironic that those who slew the New Testament leaders claim to somehow have the true church of Christ, and that they continue to dismiss the prophesies of the Great Apostasy.

            Your next points argue that we can’t merely accept Joseph Smith as a prophet by direct witness of God, as we do, but instead have to examine the evidence. Funny, because this was what the Pharisees argued against Christ. Their need for physical proof actually led them away from Him “They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.” — John 7:52. Examining the evidence was never God’s way of giving men a testimony. Prayer is the way. Christ didn’t like sign seekers, and argued against men trusting in their own reasoning, but you site geography and etc, as supporting Catholicism, when it has nothing to do with it. Mormonism has many of these as well, including the Chiasmus that you mentioned and then dismissed because Joseph Smith became familiar with them after translating the Book of Mormon. Here’s validation based on DNA, which was cited against the church like crazy before it was proved to validate the claims of that Native Americans have ancient roots in Jerusalem. There are many validations in this video link, but even so it is not the way God gives us a testimony of the truth of His restored gospel. If you evidence that you can argue with though, try to refute this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUSpBw9H0OA

            Lastly, you offer an insult and then ask that I not take offense, saying, ” I do believe in Christ. And He’s a wiser Man, I might add, than your Christ is.”. Sorry, but my Christ is not a man, but is the Son of God and my Savior. There is only one Christ, and your refusal to pray over whether Joseph Smith was his prophet doesn’t attest to your faith in him.
            I’m not bringing railing accusation against you on this. I understand your hesitancy. On my LDS mission, I had a born-again Christian lady that challenged me in response to my challenge to her to read and pray over whether the Book of Mormon was true scripture. She promised that she would do this if I would also read the gospel of John and ask God whether I her born-again Christian doctrine was true. This was quite the challenge for a missionary, because if I were to receive an answer that her faith was true it would really throw a wrench into my life at that time as you might imagine. However, I had a personal relationship with God and trusted that I could ask for an answer on this important topic and receive a witness of the truth from him. I accordingly took her up on the challenge and read, fasted, and prayed about this. I received a witness from God on this matter that supported my faith, however, she did not do this and received no answer for herself. It takes great faith to do this. It takes faith in God that he will provide an answer without allowing Satan to mislead, and it takes faith that you’re important to God and deserving of an answer. Sadly, many people can have great faith that God will help others, but lack faith that he will actually answer them. Which one of these people are you? Stop giving excuses and go to Him directly for an answer on this. If you don’t have the faith and courage to do this then what are you doing on these online forums attempting to advise others who do have this?

          • Broken bose

            Dennis, thanks for your reply. Now to some of your points. You said that my thoughts on polygamy were subjective. That’s not true. I cited in my prior reply a study by Professor Joseph Heinrich on the detrimental impact polygamy has on societies that practice it. I also mentioned that the official LDS essay regarding plural marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo admits to the fact that plural marriage does not produce a greater number of children. Here is the link to the essay on the official LDS website:

            https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng#44

            If you look at footnote number 45, it’s says this:

            On the question of children, see note 6 of “Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah.”

            And when you follow the link, it features another official essay on LDS.org. Footnote number 6 of this essay reads:

            “Studies have shown that monogamous women bore more children per wife than did polygamous wives except the first [wife]….”

            And why did the first wife in a polygamous marriage bear more children? Because prior to their husband’s marriage to a second wife, it was still a monogamous relationship.

            So again, how do we know that polygamous relationships result in fewer children than do monogamous ones? Because the essays on your official website regarding polygamous relationships said so.

            So I’ll ask you the questions the essays failed to answer: If polygamy didn’t produce more children (as its stated objective according to the LDS Church), then why was it practiced? Didn’t Heavenly Father know it was ineffective? Then why didn’t Joseph Smith, if he was really God’s Prophet?

            Now regarding your assertion about my slanted take on D&C 101, you cited a fairmormon link, which I looked up. There it responds by saying that most members of the LDS Church didn’t know anything about polygamy at the time. It goes on to say that while Joseph Smith approved of section 101, he didn’t write it. Here’s the part of the old Section 101 in question:

            “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 the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.”(History of the Church, vol. 2, pg. 247)

            FairMormon simply ignores the real question. If Section 101 stated at the time that the Church repudiated polygamy, then the real question is–why was Joseph Smith practicing it? And why were the General Authorities practicing it? FairMormon doesn’t answer. Can you? Are asking the obvious questions really considered biased or anti-mormon to you? Really?

            Now concerning the Biblical Scripture Canon. I’m not sure I’m following your line of reasoning here. I have asked many Protestants online and in person why they believe in the Bible. Nearly to a person the answer is: because it’s the Word of God. I’ll stipulate to that (despite the fact that it’s a circular argument). But my real question to you and to them is, why accept the authority of the Catholic Church (through its councils at Rome, Hippo and Carthage in the fourth century that determined the Biblical Canon) to tell you that the Bible contains the Word of God? If the authority of the Christian Church was broken according to you, then why accept the Catholic Church’s authority to inform you about what the Canon of the Bible is? When I’ve mentioned this to Protestants, the overwhelming majority simply were unaware of the Church, its history and where the Bible actually came from.

            You mentioned in your remarks that this doesn’t pertain to the LDS Church because your Canon is different by removing eight books from the Old Testament and because the LDS Canon is open. First, while the LDS Canon of Scripture is open, the Biblical Canon is not. That is closed. And second, the books you have in your Old and New Testaments come from the same source as does mine: the Catholic Church. You, along with Protestant churches, simply removed books from that Canon. But it isn’t a different Canon. You didn’t select an entirely new Canon based on an entirely different authority. So the question is still pertinent. If you don’t accept the authority of the Catholic Church, then why accept its book? Why accept any books of the Bible of the Catholic Canon? Because when you do, you are implicitly accepting, once again, the authority of the Catholic Church whether you like it or not. And that severely undercuts your own Church’s view of the necessity of a Restoration, does it not?

            Until the Protestant Reformation, and for greater than a millenia, the Bible consisted of all 73 books (which included the Apocrypha) of the Catholic Canon. Martin Luther, under his own authority, removed seven of these books for primarily one reason–he hated the book of second Maccabees, and particularly its twelfth chapter, verse 46:

            “It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.”

            He did not like this particular verse because as a Reformer, he did not care for the theological notion that he was responsible for working out his own salvation; that works along with faith, were both necessary, and that people might still bear some responsibility for their sins after their death (but verse 46 does not conflict with LDS theology I might add).

            In order for him to excise this verse from canonized Scripture, he sought a precedent in Judaism, and found it within the Pharisaical sect because they didn’t recognize second Maccabees either. But in order to maintain consistency with his reasoning behind the removal of second Maccabees,.he also threw out the six other books they didn’t recognize, which constitute the Apocrypha today. There are grave problems with this however. Namely, Luther removed four books from the New Testament also: James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation (he wished to throw “Jimmy into the stove,” as he put it, because he didn’t like James 2:24: “you see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone”). But because he could cite no precedent for their removal, and also because the other Reformers were less amenable (they got cold feet), the four books remained.

            But if he could be wrong for removing four books of the New Testament, then there’s no guarantee that he was right in removing any books from the Old. As a fallible human being (who was wrong in his theological reasoning for removing these books in the first place), he didn’t have any authority to do so, or discernment to know if he was wrong. He clearly was wrong concerning the removal of the four books of the New Testament, while at the same time he accepted the authority of the Catholic Church to also inform him of what the rest of Biblical Canon consisted of outside of these eleven books altogether–which is ultimately a contradiction in his reasoning.

            The largest sect of ancient Jews were the Jews of the Diaspora–and they accepted the Apocrypha as Scripture (they used a Greek translation of the Old Testament,, called the Septuagint). So did all Christians until the 16th century. Two other points I’d like to make. Of the roughly three hundred plus direct quotes from the Old Testament found in the New Testament, roughly 75% come from the Septuagint Greek translation which included the Apocrypha as Scripture. And the earliest editions of the King James version of the Bible first published in 1611 also included the Apocrypha as Scripture. The main reasons why the Pharisees rejected these seven books is because they only had them in Greek (they believed that to qualify as Scripture, it must be written in Hebrew–which also disqualifies the entire New Testament for them I might add since it was written in Greek), and because they were often cited by the early Christians as Scripture, to support the idea that the Messiah had already come, which the Pharisees obviously didn’t support.

            Lastly, you said I lobbed an insult at you by saying that the Jesus I believe in is a wiser man than your Jesus is. I’m sorry you took offense. But the point here I was trying to make is that Christ in Matthew 16 is comparing Himself to the wise man He describes in Matthew 7:24, whose House didn’t fall amidst adversity.

            The wise man in Matthew 7 built His Church on rock. Jesus in Matthew 16 built His House on Peter, which means rock in Greek. The wise man’s house didn’t fall despite adversity. Jesus said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church (or God’s House according to Paul in 1 Tim 3:15). The foolish man’s house fell because it wasn’t built on a firm foundation. But the wise man’s house was built on a firm foundation so that his children could take refuge there, so that he could care for them, just like Christ when He said in John 14:18 that He would not leave us orphans.

            But you say that all I need to do in order to believe that Christ was indeed the foolish man–whose house DID fall–who DID leave us orphans–is to offer a sincere prayer, with real intent, asking the Holy Ghost if it isn’t true.

            Really.

            Dennis, please remind me again. Why would I want to do that?

            I’m just pulling your chain a little. I hope you don’t mind. I look forward to your next reply. God bless.

      • Broken bose

        Hi Dennis,

        Thanks for your reply to a very interesting topic.

        In your first paragraph, you mentioned polygamy was very good at raising up seed.

        But in truth, it isn’t. In studies done on the issue (I believe this point is even footnoted in one of the essays on LDS.org regarding the subject of plural marriage), monogamous relationships in society have been shown to be the bigger child producers when compared to polygamous family relationships. The reason polygamy doesn’t work is because the female population pool is reduced for eligible single men when another man marries multiple women, and because time and resources are reduced in polygamous relationships, the women in those relationships produce fewer children than do their monogamous counterparts–there’s simply less opportunity for those women engaged in polygamous relationships to produce more children. While certainly men engaged in polygamous relationships have more children, those few reduce the total number of eligible mates avaliable to other men–including Mormon men. The result is that a greater number of men in those societies fail to have any children at all. Adhesion to cultural norms is also reduced in societies where polygamy is a standard practice (see Professor Joseph Heinrich’s study done in 2012 on this issue), while crime and poverty increase. The reasons for that are many, but are mainly because single men, not successful in finding a mate (because other polygamous men have depleted their marriage prospects) are not bound by social norms as married men more naturally are.

        You’re making an assumption that if Joseph Smith lived longer he would have had more children. The fact is that while he was married to at least 33 women during his lifetime, he had no other children that we’re aware of. And that’s the only fact that we can substantiate. Making an assumption that he would have had more is not evidence to the fact that polygamy is good any more than my assumption that he wouldn’t have had any more, making it bad. The fact is, Heavenly Father knew when he was to depart this life, and under what circumstances. And if Heavenly Father gave him this principle without letting him fulfill the intended purpose of it, then doesn’t this make God, in a sense, a hypocrite? At least in Joseph Smith’s regard? And again, if the intended purpose was to raise up seed, then why would God resort to a principle that simply doesn’t work? Monogamy has been shown time and again to be the better “child-producer,” and yet God knowing this, gave a precept to Joseph Smith that wasn’t effective in his own life, and wrong in Book of Mormon for its intended purpose.

        Your next point had to do with DC 101. In 1835 the LDS Church issued section 101 that expressly condemned polygamy. It was reissued by Joseph Smith a few months prior to his death in 1844 (despite his having 33 wives at the time), and then removed from the DC in 1875, with the sections renumbered there after.

        A few questions for you: If the DC is the Word of God, then how could this section be subsequently removed in 1875, and if it wasn’t the Word of God, then why was it there in the first place? And how would you know the difference between what is or isn’t the Word of God in the DC if a mistake like this was possible–and for forty years?

        Why was this section included in the DC in 1835 if the the Word of God was diametrically opposite to what was actually practiced in the Church (and by Joseph Smith) then?

        And lastly on this point, you said that you don’t know the reasons why Joseph Smith also practiced polyandry but that because he was a prophet, it must have been ok. I’m sorry. This isn’t an answer, but merely a conceit to Joseph Smith’s prophetic status. If your purpose is to convince me of his prophetic status, you’re going to have to do better. This is a man who said God told him to practice plural marriage to make more kids, but he didn’t make any more, with a principle given to a Church that initially hid the practice, about a principle that was there to produce more children but didn’t because it was ineffective. Why would I assume the source of this principle is divine with such a record? Why should I then assume that the one who first expounded this principle is a Prophet of God?

        Your next point was to say that my belief in the fidelity of the truth of Catholic Church was flawed and a cop-out, and then you cite the Old and New Testaments as sources for an Apostasy having taken place. I disagree. Here’s why.

        By citing the Old and New Testaments, you are citing a reference that goes all the way back to Christ and beyond. But if a complete apostasy DID talk place, then there would be no authority available after the Apostasy to vouch for the truth of the Scriptures you just cited. The apostles died before the Old and New Testaments were codified into a single Book. And according to your Articles of Faith, the LDS Church merely accepted the Bible that was already authorized. By the end of the fourth century, there were literally hundreds of epistles and books vying for the title of ‘inspired Scripture’. Here’s the question: If the apostles didn’t create the Bible, and the LDS Church only accepted what was already there, then under what authority was the Biblical Canon discerned and disseminated, and accepted by all Christians including Mormons?

        That would be the authority of the Catholic Church, in the Council of Rome in AD 382 under Pope Damasus. The Catholic Church later reconfirmed the Biblical Canon with several more Councils; at Hippo (AD 396), Carthage (AD 397 and 419), at Florence (AD 1441), and finally the General Council at Trent in 1546. It’s the same set of books that you have in your Bible today.

        Heres the question: If the LDS Church does not accept the authority of the Catholic Church, then why does it accept its book?

        Why does the LDS Church accept the authority of another Church to tell it what the Bible is if the express mission of the LDS Church was to restore the authority it said was lost to discern such things (like the Word of God)? By accepting the Bible, the LDS Church (along with Protestant churches) is implicitly accepting the authority of the institution that produced it, whether it likes it or not. And so are you by citing it to prove an Apostasy.

        In the end, you say all this is essentially because I won’t pray about whether or not Joseph Smith is a Prophet or that the Book of Mormon is true. I believe you base this on your belief in Moroni 10:4 in the Book of Mormon:

        “4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.”

        Again I disagree. And for one reason: I don’t believe Moroni 10:4 is true.

        I don’t believe that real faith is based on any answer I might receive from asking the question Moroni 10:4 wants me to ask. First, because Moroni 10:4 is a circular argument. In order for me to believe in the Book of Mormon, I must first believe that what is said in Moroni 10:4 is true–which is in the Book of Mormon. So the way I come to belief in the Book of Mormon–is by believing in the Book of Mormon. It is no wonder then that those who do as Moroni 10:4 prescribes (no matter it’s mention of Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost who I do believe in), come away with a testimony. It’s simply a self-fulfilling prophecy. It isn’t proof.

        Second, it’s faith without real evidence. Real faith is the reasoned conclusions drawn from all the available evidence. It isn’t belief despite the evidence, which is what a testimony in Mormonism I believe, primarily consists of. The Book of Mormon purports to be a Book about spiritual and historical fact. In Luke 5:23, Mark 2:9, and Matthew 9:5, is the story of the paralyzed man on a stretcher. The Pharisees grumbled when Jesus told the paralyzed man that his sins were forgiven, then Jesus knowing their thoughts, said to them:

        Matthew 9:5

        “For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?”

        Here, Christ elucidates a process by which we can come to know truth (and since the Bible is a Catholic book, I have no problem quoting from its pages). By showing a physical truth that’s difficult or impossible to replicate to the Pharisees (the paralyzed man got up and walked), He gave credence as to why the spiritual claim (that his sins were forgiven), has merit.

        We can apply this same principle from the Bible to the Book of Mormon and ask the question, what unique or difficult physical truths lend credence to its spiritual claims?

        Where is the Reformed Egyptian of the Book of Mormon for instance, like the Hebrew or the Greek of the Bible we can study today? Where are the cities of Zarahemlah or Bountiful located from the Book of Mormon, like Jerusalem (in the land of Judah) or Bethlehem (six miles due South from Jerusalem) are from the Bible? Where are the graves of Lehi or Nephi, like Peter (under Saint Peter’s in Rome), or Paul (in the Church of Saint Paul outside the walls), or John (in Ephesus)?

        Where is the Hill Cumorrah and what evidence is there that cataclysmic battles took place there? At the height of Rome’s glory, roughly four million people lived within the city. The area even today is a trove of artifacts and historical monuments, far and wide. In the Book of Mormon, on the Hill Cumorrah, nearly three million are said to have perished, along with horses, armaments, food, billets, etc., in a concentrated space, and on a single hill. Yet there’s not a trace of evidence anywhere in the world that such huge battles in relatively recent times, ever took place. Simply put, this is impossible were the Book of Mormon true.

        You have chiasmas in the Book of Mormon–and that’s a start. But chiasmas are not unique to the Book of Mormon, as Joseph Smith exhibited this same kind of speech form in his personal words and sermons. It is the greater physical claims in the Book of mormon, like the locations of great places or unique people or things that lend greater weight to those things that can’t be tested, like the promise in Moroni 10:4, or like Christ forgiving the paralytic man’s sins (even if one doesn’t believe that the miracle of the paralytic walking ever happened. The Bible none the less, still establishes a precedent here for believing unique and difficult claims). But when looking at the Book of Mormon, it is these types of evidences that are notably absent.

        Isn’t this discernment process actually how we are supposed to prove all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21)?

        The bottom line is this: If the Book of Mormon were one hundred percent true, then why do I need a testimony of the historical claims it makes as well?

        And third, it is this testimony, when push comes to shove, that the LDS Church looks to for proving any of its claims. That simply isn’t good enough. And that’s because a testimony really only proclaims a belief in something. It doesn’t really prove that what is believed–is actually true. These are really two very different things.

        And finally, in Matthew 7:24, Christ gives a parable of the wise man who builds His House upon a rock, that no manner of adversity can destroy, while the foolish man builds his house on sand. And when adversity strikes this man’s house–great was the destruction, the Bible says. Just a few chapters later in Matthew 16, Jesus calls Peter the Rock on which He would build His Church (which is the ‘House of God’ according to Paul in 1 Tim 3:15), that Christ says the gates of Hell shall not prevail against.

        So if Jesus’ House fell, doesn’t that really make Him–the foolish builder?

        Isn’t that what I’m called to believe in as a member of the ‘restored’ Church of Jesus Christ?

        So to answer your question–no, I don’t believe I’m copping out. I do believe in Christ. And He’s a wiser Man, I might add, than your Christ is.

        I mean absolutely no offense in anything that I’ve said–really, and thanks again for your response. I’ve asked a lot of questions. Let’s keep the conversation going if you like. God bless you.

    • Thinked

      My concern is that you find it in your heart to do such deep research on the topic. Why? So, because of what you have discovered in your research, you feel sure the Church of Jesus Christ if Latter day Saints isnt true. So what is most important to you–What you know by the Holy Spirit which will testify to you of the truth of all things, — or facts you find when you dig through history? You werent there in the first half of the 1800’s and neither was I. I make my decisions in my life based on what I know from my own experiences. History is interesting, but its somebody else’s sins (or not—we werent there) on which you are basing major choices in your life.

      • Broken bose

        _________________________

        Thinked, thanks for your reply.

        If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the Spirit is where truth ultimately comes from and not from the wisdom (or facts, you said) that come from men.

        But just to be a little snarky, you’re another man–who just gave me more ‘facts’ to consider. So why should I believe you?

        If I can’t consider the facts, but must always accept on faith that Joseph Smith was a prophet, then by what measure can Joseph Smith ever be proven wrong? How could I trust the veracity of what Joseph Smith said and did concerning spiritual truths without being able to “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1) as Scripture asks us to do if Joseph Smith is exempt from any test? Please excuse me for asking this, but what would distinguish Smith from being a liar other than the belief that he wasn’t one? Muslims believe Muhammed was a prophet. Hindus believe Sai Baba was. What really distinguishes your claim from theirs? And if you reject their faith claims based on the facts, then why am I not allowed to reject yours for the same reason?

        In the LDS Church essay on polygamy, the Church admits that Smith married, and even ‘possibly’ slept with as many as twelve wives of other men (even sending one or perhaps two men on distant away missions before marrying their wives). In what other faith tradition would those facts be ignored except your own? He also married 14 year old girls again according to the official LDS essay (and also slept with them according to Helen Mar Kimball, a fourteen year old bride of Smith, in her testimony to a friend) and told their parents that if he were allowed to marry their young daughters in the fullest sense of the meaning, that they would go to the most exalted Heaven. Again, how does Smith–even as a prophet of God, have the ability to give heaven away for the sake of securing the ‘marriage rights’ from the parents of 14 year old girls? And why was this kept secret all while Joseph Smith was engaged in these relationships, with an entry in the D&C stating that the LDS Church believed in the exact opposite (D&C 101, entered into the D&C in 1835 and removed in 1876)?

        Yet I’m supposed to ignore these and other facts in lieu of greater, higher truths. Why again?

        You’ve provided me with no reason to look for higher spiritual truths you believe are found within the Mormon faith other than to say that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

        I have no doubt that you have a testimony that the LDS Church is true. And it’s based on a feeling, or a knowing realization that you’ve encountered or come to understand, that convinces you of that. Still, I don’t see the correlation between believing something is true–and it actually being true, without the facts on the ground as supporting evidence. Isn’t that how we also “test the spirits”? Other than your belief that the Book of Mormon is true, there really is no hard evidence to prove that it is, except for the testimonies of other Mormons who believe it. The same is unfortunately true of Joseph Smith’s status as a prophet of God. If I had the honest belief or testimony that 2 and 2 DIDN’T equal 4, that would of course not make the answer some other number. It wouldn’t matter if the entire world believed it was something else–four would still be the correct answer. Perhaps you’ll answer by saying that God wouldn’t testify to things that aren’t true. Perhaps you’re right, but there is still Islam, and Hinduism that have many more adherents than does the LDS Church who have the same certainty of the truth that you do. And until you can distinguish your faith as the correct one by a show of the facts, then you haven’t shown me anything that distinguishes a false claim from a true one.

        Belief itself really is not enough here. It cannot be. Faith–true faith, is based on reasonable expectations gained from the evidence. It isn’t a belief in spite of the evidence. That’s a description of blind faith–which is what unfortunately what I believe the LDS Church’s beliefs are based upon. That’s where the evidence leads. Those are the facts.

        But still, I’m sincerely open to you providing me with more evidence to the contrary. I’ll leave it to you then to change my mind. So give me the facts.

        Thanks again for your reply, and I look forward to your next one.

  30. Steve Smith

    Interesting article, very good and thought provoking comments. It comes down to each of us gaining our own understanding. I subscribe to it being practiced in the eternities but not necessarily required. However, if you are going to be successful at creating worlds of your own and populating them with spirits, I think you are going to need a lot of help. What we often forget is that our understanding and feelings about things will be much different when we know and understand the big picture, thus acceptance of something as sensitive as polygamy could end up being a very natural and accepted practice. We will someday find out, in the meantime, my hands are full taking care of the one I have, LOL.

  31. Brian

    Here is the main problem. The sealing power was not restored until 1836. 132 wasn’t until 1843. Fanny Alger started in 1831 and she was found out and they were caught in 1833. Joseph publicly denied practicing polygamy in 1844 before his death, but had 40 women, some of them polyandrous and under aged girls. He violated the laws and rules of 132. 132 also talks of the 2nd Annointing, but that’s a different subject. So how can these marriages/sealings be done without the proper authority. Also, you have to look at the bigamy laws at the time and not one one these marriages were lawful. President Hinkley on CNN stated polygamy WAS NOT doctrinal.

  32. MormonMama

    I’m not okay with my husband doing anything behind my back and I never said it was okay if Joseph did so. I’m pretty sure I made it clear in my comment that I would want some say. But my husband has also made it clear that he is NOT comfortable with polygamy, so I highly doubt I’d have to worry about him doing it behind my back. But yes, I have faith, as someone else said. If I truly believe God had commanded it, I would accept it. Therefore, my husband would never have to do it behind my back.

  33. MormonMama

    I disagree. Joseph was human and we all know that none of us are perfect. Joseph made mistakes throughout his life and he admitted to it. Should Joseph have practiced polygamy behind Emma’s back? Of course not, but that’s between the two of them and the Lord. Should Emma have put Joseph in a position where he felt the need to lie to her in order to obey the Lord? No, but that also is between the two of them and the Lord.

    • treadmillfan

      You obviously don’t know the history accurately. Why don’t you read Todd Compton’s In Sacred Loneliness and then come back and comment. Plus, that’s all I would like the church to do, admit that Joseph made mistakes and did not practice polygamy correctly. He even contradicted his own Revelation in Sec. 132 by marrying women already married, and yes, he did have intimate relationships with at least one of these married women, as admitted to by church apologists. This polygamy stuff is very messy and disturbing to a lot of people. You can defend it but I just can’t defend things that seem so morally wrong to me.

      • MormonMama

        I freely admit that I don’t know the entire history of polygamy. I don’t know the entire history of the French Revolution either. I still have a lot of life left and a lot of learning left. And some answers I don’t expect to fully have or understand in this life. I’m okay with that. I just continually seek new information and seek greater understanding of the information I already have. I don’t expect to know or understand everything right this minute. Again, I pray and trust God. I believe that He commanded the early Saints to practice polygamy. That doesn’t mean I believe they always did it in the right way (including Joseph Smith). But I don’t believe that means the principle of polygamy itself is false. It was a true principle practiced by flawed people, and we are all flawed. Peter denied Christ three times. Does that mean everything that Peter and the other Apostles did was all false? Or does it just mean that Peter had a moment of weakness?

        • treadmillfan

          Fair enough, good reply. People like me are just asking others to understand why polygamy is so bothersome and not to condemn those who are troubled by it. But I understand why you’re not troubled. I just wonder if your answer would be the same if you read some of the books that discuss it in detail, like the Todd Compton book (which was cited in the church’s essay on polygamy, so it is not anti-Mormon.) All I know is every time I read about it, a voice in my head clearly states, “This was wrong, wrong, wrong,” But I understand if others don’t see it the same way.

          • MormonMama

            Sorry, I just now saw this comment so I’m late to reply. I definitely don’t condemn those who are uncomfortable with polygamy. Joseph himself was uncomfortable with it. Abraham didn’t seem very happy about taking Sarah’s handmaid. And my own husband has told me more than once that he’s uncomfortable with it. Depending on the circumstances, I might or might not be uncomfortable personally practicing it myself. It’s easy for me to say that I’m okay with it if God commands it, but I know that if it were to actually happen I might find it hard to do (then again, maybe not; I think it’s one of those things I won’t truly know until I’m put to the test). I’m just saying that the concept of polygamy in and of itself doesn’t bother me, perhaps because there are so many Biblical examples of righteous men of God engaging in it. I wasn’t raised in the Church so my feelings on polygamy don’t stem from any particular religious upbringing (I really had very little). I just always took it as a matter of course that some men in the Bible practiced polygamy, just as some men in the world do so today (I’m speaking of non-LDS men in cultures where it is accepted). That doesn’t mean, though, that I don’t sometimes take issue with the WAY it is practiced and I certainly have no animosity whatsoever against those who are uncomfortable with it or cannot accept it. It’s definitely an extremely personal thing with so many factors that come into play.

  34. Joshua

    I wish there was a way to block my friends posting your opinion-filled articles. Every time I see your manner it bothers me. I enjoy reading your opinions, and the insanity that follows inn the comments section, because it is funny to me that someone who dedicated their lives to following prophets and the gospel can spend so much time “interpreting” it. Why does anyone presume that they are the anointed ones who can correctly interpret the correct verses to somehow coexist with whatever they believe. Complete ignorance and arrogance, as usual, from this blog and author. I always tell myself to skip the link on Facebook, but your arrogance bothers me so much that I always read it anyways; and regret the time wasted afterwards.

    • Dennis

      Joshua, you’re coming off as rather arrogant here yourself. I imagine that the discussions you have about gospel principles in Sunday School really bother you as well, if you attend. I love Greg’s articles and insights, and find them to be presented in a very friendly, down-to-earth way. You might be happier if you would stop taking offense where none is given. Just an observation.

  35. Dennis

    “And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.” Apostle Bruce R. McConkie

    • Nick B

      Dennis, Wouldn’t it be nice if life actually worked like McConkie is suggesting? I could claim to speak for god, say the most terrible/ignorant things, wake up the next day and use the excuse that what I said yesterday or the day before didn’t matter, because it’s in the past and I know more now… or that god works in mysterious ways… What matters is what I say today. How could I ever be proven wrong under those rules? I can’t. I’ve rigged the system. And the church is trying to do precisely the same thing. Would you allow any other church the same courtesy? Warren Jeffs, James Strang, Mohammed, L. Ron Hubbard, Jan Van Leyden? Of course not.

      Thankfully, unbiased truth seekers know better. Normal people aren’t going to buy that I’m actually speaking with a transcendent being if what comes out of my mouth is anything but transcendent. McConkies quote may be sufficient to someone who has been indoctrinated over time, someone who wants to believe regardless of the facts, but the true test is how it would hold up to the sincere average Joe of the world. After all, this is supposed to be gods revealed truth for every human soul, right? Do you think their BS meters aren’t going off?

      I think the answer is simple. We are all wandering primates struggling to find meaning. Products of our environment. Wishful thinkers with an innate fear of death. These guys weren’t speaking for god… they never were… they were doing the best they could (sometimes) with the little they knew. And so are the church leaders today. I just wish they would drop the “I do lunch with Jesus” routine and start leading from the front rather than 15 years behind the civilized world. We Mormons deserve nothing less.

      • guest

        Nick, if you want to call yourself a wondering primate, that’s ok with me. But when you criticize Joseph Smith and then say “we Mormons” that’s something else. You either believe that he was a prophet or you don’t. If you don’t then you don’t have a right to lump yourself in with believing Mormons even if you haven’t renounced your church membership yet.

    • Dennis

      He’s also in the Book of Mormon, having come to the America’s after telling his disciples in Jerusalem that he was going to visit his “other sheep”.

  36. MrNirom

    When it is commanded.. then those who are under that commandment will live by the blessings of obeying.. and the punishment of not.

    What many do not understand is that they Lord has given mankind a time when it was required. And when it is.. then all must obey or damnation for that person is a reality. Damnation is the forward progression being stopped. And then when it is not commanded.. or even commanded not to be practiced.. then that law applies.

    So.. why in the Book of Mormon was it not required? If we look at how polygamy was done in the past.. it was to raise a righteous nation unto God in the midst of other peoples who were not of the faith and family.

    If you read in the Book of Mormon.. 2 Nephi 10:20.. you will find Jacob.. the son of Lehi speaking to his people all about the wonderful things that the Lord has done. And then he starts to wrap up his talk and reveals something about the land they are upon.

    20 And now, my beloved brethren,

    seeing that our merciful God

    has given us so great knowledge concerning these things,

    let us remember him,

    and lay aside our sins,

    and not hang down our heads,

    for we are not cast off;
    nevertheless,

    we have been driven out of the land of our inheritance;

    but we have been led to a better land,

    for the Lord has made the sea our path,

    AND WE ARE UPON AN ISLE OF THE SEA.

    21 But great are the promises of the Lord

    unto them who are upon the isles of the sea;

    wherefore as it says isles,

    there must needs be more than this,

    and they are inhabited also by our brethren.

    With the family being upon an island.. and the promise the Lord made to Lehi saying no one would be in the promised land unless he led them there… there was no need to raise up a righteous seed.. as there was no one else there.

    And Jacob makes it plain how it affects the daughters of God.. and he was not going to allow it here.. in this promised land.

  37. Bryse Cooper

    It’s amazing that just because you can’t find “who taught it” that “maybe it’s time we NOT believe it.” The sources have been given to you in the responses already. The lord condemns whoredoms in Jacob not plural marriage. They were living it unrighteously. if doctrine and covenants 132 isn’t clear enough then I suggest studying it further. The lord states:
    “go ye therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved. But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my father, which he made unto Abraham. God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law.”
    The law is plural marriage. Abraham is exalted because he entered and fulfilled the law. This scripture plainly gives us the command to do the same or we do not receive the promise of the father. John Taylor’s son shared a revelation that his father had where the lord stated “I have not revoked this law nor will I for it is everlasting and those who will enter into my glory will obey the conditions thereof, even so amen.”
    Plural marriage is not just a commandment which changes through different circumstances, like some other commandments are. It is an everlasting law that God cannot revoke because it is everlasting, and those who wish to enter into his glory must obey it, whether they fear it or “have felt pain about it”.

  38. shalamabobbi

    Joseph not only paid his addresses to the young and unmarried women, but he sought “spiritual alliance” with many married ladies who happened to strike his fancy. He taught them that all former marriages were null and void, and that they were at perfect liberty to make another choice of a husband. The marriage covenants were not binding, because they were ratified only by Gentile laws. These laws the Lord did not recognize; consequently all the women were free.

    Again, he would appeal to their religious sentiments, and their strong desire to enter into the celestial kingdom. He used often to argue in this manner while endeavoring to convince some wavering or unwilling victim: “Now, my dear sister, it is true that your husband is a good man, a very good man, but you and he are by no means kindred spirits, and he will never be able to save you in the celestial kingdom; it has been revealed by the Spirit that you ought to belong to me.”

    This sophistry, strange as it may seem, had its weight, and scarcely ever failed of its desired results. Many a woman, with a kind, good husband, who loved her and trusted her, and a family of children, would suffer herself to be sealed to Joseph, at the same time living with the husband whom she was wronging so deeply, he believing fondly that her love was all his own.

    One woman said to me not very long since, while giving me some of her experiences in polygamy: “The greatest trial I ever endured in my life was living with my husband and deceiving him, by receiving Joseph’s attentions whenever he chose to come to me.”

    This woman, and others, whose experience has been very similar, are among the very best women in the church; they are as pure-minded and virtuous women as any in the world. They were seduced under the guise of religion, taught that the Lord commanded it, and they submitted as to a cross laid upon them by the divine will. Believing implicitly in the Prophet, they never dreamed of questioning the truth of his revelations, and would have considered themselves on the verge of apostasy, which to a Mormon is a most dangerous and horrible state, from which there is no possible salvation, had they refused to submit to him and to receive his “divine” doctrines.

    Some of these women have since said they did not know who was the father of their children; this is not to be wondered at, for after Joseph’s declaration annulling all Gentile marriages, the greatest promiscuity was practised; and, indeed, all sense of morality seemed to have been lost by a portion at least of the church. Shocking as all this may appear, women that were sealed to Joseph at that time are more highly respected than any others. It is said, as the highest meed of praise which can be given, that they never repudiated any of the Prophet’s teachings, but submitted to all his requirements without a murmur, and eventually they will be exalted to a high position in the celestial kingdom.

    Wife No. 19, or The Story of a Life in Bondage by Ann Eliza Young from chapter 3, pg 65
    http://ia601407.us.archive.org/20/items/wifenoorstoryofl00youniala/wifenoorstoryofl00youniala.pdf

  39. Amy Jeanne Hartley

    I feel a lot the same way you do about his untimely death. You are the only person I’ve come across that has discovered this.

  40. Api Ko Latai

    If the purpose of polygamy is bring forth righteous seeds, where are Joseph smiths seeds…as a matter of fact he has no children from his 30+ wives

  41. Sarah Woodbury

    I just want to thank you with all my heart. This means a lot to me–it is difficult to describe.

    Some of the responses have been slightly hard for me to read, as they seem to dismiss a concern for the topic as a lack of faith or not being able to look forward to a future eternal understanding, or something of that nature. I just hope people can try to understand how incredibly difficult this controversial concept and its unsteady foundations (meaning that the idea that polygamy will exist in the eternities is just an idea) can be for some of us. I love the Gospel and have had undeniable knowledge gifted to me by our mind Father in Heaven. I have been back from my mission for about a year and have struggled quite a bit with this idea. It does not mean I am any less faithful than another member. From my point of view, I have just decided to sit across the table from it instead of pushing it under the rug and telling myself I would know later, while tolerating a general acceptance of something that was difficult for me to understand. Looking at it straight on has been difficult and had brought me many deeply distressing emotions. Honestly, at times, it has made my belief in the goodness of men decrease. It has made me claim that I would not want exaltation if it meant polygamy–I would be content in some corner of the universe, alone, I’d say…I just want people to understand that this concern is real. It certainly does not mean that I am looking for an excuse to leave the church, or have been looking at anti Mormon literature. People responding this way does not contribute to a positive view on having and addressing questions.

    I am just grateful for the way you have put things in this article. Thank you so much. My heart has been suffering at the thought of someone telling me my beloved future husband would have to leave me while I watched him go into a room with another woman. I imagined the door closing and going to my own bed to be alone all night, in utter agony. I know people say polygamy is not about sex, but eternal marriage includes eternal creation, which includes sacred procreation, a bonding force that is given to us with very specific instructions on how we may use it. I just cannot imagine our loving Father in Heaven with many wives. It simply seems sacreligious, in my opinion. I wouldn’t see the necessity of many wives for one man; could this not take away an eternal ability for a woman to nurture children and participate in a relationship of equality as she and her husband create worlds and such? The idea of polygamy has been normalized in many cultures, but it is not righteous unless the Lord commands it. I know that I would not desire the Celestial Kingdom if it meant polygamy; this is not because I am some unfaithful, selfish person that refuses to imagine some “greater love gained in the next life,” but because I am a woman who believes in loving one man, who loves only me, and sharing a deep and sacred bond with only him. This is natural and I do not believe it will be required, or possibly even allowed outside of rare circumstances, in the next life, to be married to multiple people. God is loving and will not require a daughter to have her whole being crushed into an unnatural, eternal submission in order to be exalted. I am grateful for a kind God, who teaches truth and not part truths, even to us in our mortal state. His saying that having multiple wives and concubines is an abomination does not mean it is okay later. It means it is an abomination; as mentioned, some commandments are broken under different commandments, but these times are very, very limited. I am grateful we can pray to our Father for comfort. I love the light of Christ and the beauty of this Gospel!!

  42. Noelle Campbell

    Is it okay to point out that EVERY time polygamy is practiced in the Bible it ends up badly for everyone, especially the 2nd choice women and children. I can’t see that this is an endorsement of it as an “eternal principle.”

  43. Chris

    “I attended the school of the prophets. Brother John Holeman made a long speech upon the subject of Poligamy. He Contended that no person Could have a Celestial glory unless He had a plurality of wives. Speeches were made By L. E. Harrington O Pratt Erastus Snow, D Evans J. F. Smith Lorenzo Young. President Young said there would be men saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God with one wife with Many wives & with No wife at all.” – Wilford Woodruff
    https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Brigham_Young/Polygamy#cite_ref-16

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *