“Someday my prince will come, / in the Millennium, / and he will say to me, / ‘Will you be number three? / I will be true to you, / and you, and you, and you…’”
So went a tongue-in-cheek song my mom heard sung by young women at BYU when she attended college there. While intended to poke fun at the polygamous past of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the song does reflect an ongoing belief that plural marriages will be a common thing among Latter-day Saints in the afterlife and possibly in the future. My intent in this essay is to challenge the assumption that plural marriage is an essential or even common feature of exaltation. Note that this means my intention is not to challenge the past practice of plural marriage, nor the possibility that it is practiced in and the afterlife by faithful Latter-day Saints with multiple marriage sealings—that goes beyond the limited scope of intention. I am only challenging the idea that plural marriage is necessary for exaltation or the that it is the standard experience in the celestial kingdom.
The official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supports this idea. As stated in a Gospel Topics essay about plural marriage,
Marriage between one man and one woman is God’s standard for marriage, unless He declares otherwise, which He did through His prophet, Joseph Smith. The Manifesto marked the beginning of the return to monogamy, which is the standard of the Church today.[1]
Monogamy is the standard of the Church today. And, as Gordon B. Hinckley added,
I wish to state categorically that this Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. … If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church. An article of our faith is binding upon us. It states, ‘We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law’ (Articles of Faith 1:12)[2]
On another occasion, President Hinckley stated that “I condemn it [polygamy], yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal.”[3] Kate Holbrook (a church historian) spoke at a face to face event at the time Saints, vol.1 was released, stating, “Our church leaders have taught us that monogamy is the rule and plural marriage is the exception. And our Church leaders have taught us that plural marriage is not necessary for exaltation or for eternal glory.” Elder Quentin L. Cook backed up her comments by stating that “In the senior councils of the Church, there’s a feeling that polygamy as it was practiced has served its purpose, and we should honor those saints. But that purpose has been accomplished and that, that it isn’t necessary.”[4] Taken together, these witnesses indicate that monogamy is the standard of the Church today. And while the sealing practices of the temple leave an option open for plural marriage in the afterlife for current Latter-day Saints, the fact that monogamous marriages are the standard in this life would indicate that they are going to be the standard in the life to come as well.
One core concept that is useful in understanding why 19th century Latter-day Saints treated plural marriage as a commandment necessary for exaltation while Latter-day Saints today do not is that God can set things as commandments for limited periods of time. This concept is perhaps most clearly stated in the 1842 “Happiness Letter” that has been attributed to Joseph Smith:
Happiness is the object and design of our existence, and will be the end thereof if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God. … That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said thou shalt not kill,—at another time he said thou shalt utterly destroy. This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed.[5]
While the authorship of the letter is contested, there is enough commonality with other documents and teachings of Joseph Smith recorded or echoed by his inner circle during the Nauvoo era to indicate that it reflects what Joseph Smith was teaching.[6]
In the letter cited above, it states that “This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed.” This is backed up by other teachings of Joseph Smith. For example, he taught in 1835 that “We are differently situated from any other people that ever existed upon this earth: Consequently those former revelations cannot be suited to our condition, because they were given to other people who were before us.”[7] And he wrote to his uncle in 1833 to tell him that “You will admit that the word spoken to Noah was not sufficient for Abraham, or it was not required of <?him?> to leave the land of his nativity, and seek an inheritance in a strange country upon the word spoken to Noah, but, for himself he obtained promises from the hand of the Lord, and walked in that perfection that he was called the friend of God.”[8] Circumstances change and guidance from the Lord can change with them.
The second part of the expectation here is that we follow whatever guidance and commandments are currently in place. Joseph Smith stated that “To get salvation, we must not only do somethings, but every thing which God has commanded,”[9] echoing the statement that “this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God.” In his record of The Vision (Section 76), we read the expectations for exaltation:
This is the testimony of the gospel of Christ concerning them who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just—they are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given—that by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power; and who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true. …
These are they who are just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood. These are they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all, whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical.
D&C 76:50–53, 69–70
Plural marriage is not listed as a requirement for exaltation here. Instead, the expectation is having a testimony of Jesus Christ, being baptized, and keeping the commandments to prepare oneself to receive the Holy Spirit. Circumstances change and guidance from the Lord can change with them, but we are expected by God to follow His current guidance to receive exaltation.
One can see how this applies to plural marriage as it is discussed throughout the scriptures. Most famously, the Book of Mormon prophet Jacob taught monogamy was the expectation for righteous people, with one exception:
This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. … Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none …
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: 23–24, 26–27, 30.
Elder Orson Pratt elaborated on this:
Do you believe that the Book of Mormon is a divine revelation? We do. Does that book teach the doctrine of plurality of wives? It does not. Does the Lord in that book forbid the plurality doctrine? He forbid the ancient Nephites to have any more than one wife. … The Lord, Himself, informs them … that if He would have them practice differently from what He had previously taught them, it must be by his command. It reads as follows: “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.” Thus we see, that a man among the Nephites, by the law of God, had no right to take more than one wife, unless the Lord should command for the purpose of raising up seed unto Himself. Without such a command, they were strictly limited to the one wife doctrine: “otherwise” saith the Lord, “they shall hearken unto these things;” that is, without an express command, they should hearken to the law, limiting them to one wife.
So it is in this church of Latter Day Saints, every man is strictly limited to one wife, unless the Lord, through the President and Prophet of the Church, gives a revelation permitting him to take more. Without such a revelation it would be sinful, according to the Book of Mormon, which this church are required to obey.[10]
The recorded writings of these two prophets indicate that in most circumstances, God’s commandment is monogamy, but there are certain, limited, circumstances in which God commands the practice of plural marriage.
Likewise, we see different expectations for church leadership in regards to plural marriage. The first epistle to Timothy outlines an expectation that church leaders are monogamous:
The saying is sure: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once …
Let deacons be married only once, and let them manage their children and their households well; for those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and great boldness in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
1 Timothy 3:1–5, 12–13
The epistle of Titus addresses the same issue:
I left you behind in Crete for this reason, so that you should put in order what remained to be done and should appoint elders in every town, as I directed you: someone who is blameless, married only once, whose children are believers, not accused of debauchery and not rebellious.
Titus 1:5–6.
In both of these early Christian documents that are accepted as a standard of belief and practice in the Church, the expectation is outlined that elders, deacons, and bishops are “married only once.”
This is different from the expectations under Brigham Young and John Taylor, when leaders in the Church’s priesthood hierarchy were pressured to practice plural marriage. As one revelation recorded by John Taylor put it: “You may appoint Seymour B. Young to fill up the vacancy in the presiding quorum of Seventies, if he will conform to My law; for it is not meet that men who will not abide My law shall preside over My Priesthood.”[11] The law in question was plural marriage. The contradiction of expectations for those who “preside over My Priesthood” between the early Christian church and John Taylor’s administration feels like less of a contradiction when approached with the belief that in most periods of history (including early Christianity), monogamy is the rule and times like the 19th century were exceptions when plural marriage was the expectation set by the Lord in some circumstances.
Given that monogamy is the rule today, the statement that church leaders must “conform to My law” would have the opposite meaning when it comes to marriage status that it did in the 1880s. The same could be said about what it means to be “keeping the commandments,” as required for exaltation according to Section 76. Today, monogamous marriage is the commandment that must be kept to receive exaltation rather than plural marriage.
Section 131 and Section 132 do complicate the doctrinal foundations of this discussion, however, there is insufficient room to discuss those here. Thus, part 2 will focus on understanding how these are interpreted by Church leaders today.
[1] “The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage”, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng. Accessed August 28, 2024.
[2] Gordon B. Hinckley, in Conference Report, October 1998.
[3] Larry King Live on September 8, 1998.
[4] Worldwide Devotional for Young Adults: A Face to Face Event with Elder Quentin L. Cook 9 September 2018 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/broadcasts/face-to-face/cook?lang=eng.
[5] Appendix: Letter to Nancy Rigdon, circa Mid-April 1842, p. 2, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed August 28, 2024, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/appendix-letter-to-nancy-rigdon-circa-mid-april-1842/1.
[6] There is some good discussion of this in Secret Covenants: New Insights on Early Mormon Polygamy, ed. Cheryl L. Bruno (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2024).
[7] Minutes and Discourse, 21 April 1834, p. 43, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed August 22, 2024, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minutes-and-discourse-21-april-1834/1.
[8] Letter to Silas Smith, 26 September 1833, p. 3, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed August 22, 2024, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-silas-smith-26-september-1833/2.
[9] Joseph Smith discourse February 21, 1844, History Draft [1 January–21 June 1844], p. 13, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed November 14, 2024, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-draft-1-january-21-june-1844/27.
[10] Orson Pratt, “Celestial Marriage,” The Seer 1, no. 2 (February 1853), 31-32, https://archive.org/details/seereditedbyorso01unse/page/30/mode/2up.
[11] Messages of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1833-1964, ed. James R. Clark (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965), 2:348.
Polygamy as practiced by the early church members is untenable at scale. If men and women exist in roughly equal numbers, and if men and women attain exaltation in similar numbers, then by definition plural marriage would exude without justification 50% or more of our worthy men.
We see that ill effect in practice with the FLDS. Polygamy is bad for women. It is worse for men. That is why I believe polygamy was never a commandment from God. As with the 116 pages, Joseph kept asking until he got the answer he wanted.
Those are some ideas similar to what I’m thinking for Part 3, though I disagree with your statement that polygamy is worse for men than women.
Did the saints of the 19th century “raise up seed” or as I read it, produce additional children or perhaps truly exceptional children to serve in the Church? I don’t think the numbers back up the additional children argument. If I recall, monogamous couples had more children per wife than polygamous couples. So if it was a numbers game, plural marriage was a failure. If it was exceptional children, well, I don’t see any evidence that the generation(s) born from 1850 through about 1890 as being exceptional in any way. If my suspicions are true, and exaltation is not connected directly with plural marriage, there is no real justification for the practice that we can reasonably point at.
Old Man, the answer is complicated, though you’re mostly accurate in your assessment of that justification. Yes, the more wives in a family, the less children each wife had individually. So, raising up additional children really only applied to the men involved. The caveat is that plural marriage allowed virtually all women in the society to be married, which could potentially allow for more children overall. The fact that the men involved were usually the socioeconomic elite (and the women involved were more often poor than not) did allow for distribution of wealth in a way that could better support children sometimes.
In theory, that means that men who were judged worthy or righteous were able to have more children, though it also meant that the men were spread thin and didn’t get as much opportunity to actually raise the children, particularly once the Raid set in. The claims that the children were exceptional were mostly a response to efforts by other Americans to claim that polygamy was causing Mormons to degrade into a lesser race, though I think you’re right that they weren’t particularly exceptional.
The other justifications hinted at in section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants are mostly around it being part of the restoration of all things and it being a test of faith. I personally don’t think those are great justifications, but they are important ones to the people who practiced the principle.
The children-per-mother statistic is hardly dispositive. Polygamous marriages were skewed toward wealthy men. Had their plural wives entered into monogamous marriages with less wealthy men instead, they might have had fewer children, or at least fewer children who survived. I would like some controls for socioeconomic status to be included in those children-per-mother statistics.
Furthermore, I am aware of instances in my own family’s background of infertile plural wives effectively serving as governesses for their sister wives’ children. They were never going to “raise up seed” of their own, but enhanced the raising up of seed in general (while skewing the data).
Finally, I recognize that by focusing on the seed of wealthy men in support of the idea that the “raising up seed” rationale might have been fulfilled in 19th century Utah, I have provided no support for the notion that polygamy was required for the exaltation of any particular man.
The phrase is “raise up seed unto me” (i.e. the Lord). The argument I’ve heard is that children of polygamous families were more likely to be faithful, so the number of faithful children was increased. I don’t have any data on that, but it does seem plausible. Polygamy separated those who practiced it from society in general, and it was a significant sacrifice.
I’m not a big fan of trying to guess why the Lord told people to do things–that got us in big trouble with the Priesthood ban. On the other hand, the claim that there’s no possible justification is an awfully strong one. It’s basically trying to prove a negative.
Here’s a quote from Richard Bushman speaking in 2007: “And what polygamy seems to have been was a way in which young women without male protection – no father, no older brother, no near relative to care for them – were absorbed into Mormon society. Polygamy went up when the immigration rates went up. And the young women who came into these families in this little town were young women in that position. Not all of them – but that was the single most common type of plural wife. More than 50 percent of them fit this description. So it was a way of caring for people and may have contributed to the resilience of the society.” (source)
I think Bushman was referring to Kathryn Daynes’ book “More Wives Than One.” Something else that needs to be mentioned is the frequency of prostitution in Western frontier towns in the 19th century.
I’m not a big fan of trying to guess why the Lord told people to do things–that got us in big trouble with the Priesthood ban.
Trying to understand something in retrospect is very different than trying to justify an ongoing practice.
I view the church’s move to Salt Lake as its final sectarian phase–where it would flourish in the wilderness and drive its roots deep into the ground before the territory became a state. And I think the practice of polygamy helped to insure that the saints wouldn’t backslide into becoming another protestant sect–at least that may be one of the reasons for polygamy at the time. But how ever that may be, it seems that polygamous families were responsible for nurturing an inordinate amount of faithful members in the rising generation. My understanding is that, for a while there, most folks in higher leadership positions came from polygamous families.
Ah, but Jack, was that tendency for leadership running in families an effect of revelation or simply relation?
A quote attributed to J. Golden Kimball: “Some people say a person receives a position in this church through revelation, and others say they get it through inspiration, but I say they get it through relation. If I hadn’t been related to Heber C. Kimball I wouldn’t have been a damn thing in this church.”
Listen, Old Man…
I’ve been wanting say that for the longest time. :D
It’s probably a bit of both. But however we figure the math, I think we can see the fruits (today) of their faith–how they served to anchor the church. The church has a strong center stake that serves to tether the entire organization as it spreads abroad.
You know me–I’m a 100% optimist when it comes to the Kingdom. And so I can’t help but see the hand of the Lord in the church’s preparations for the future.
“… it also meant that the men were spread thin and didn’t get as much opportunity to actually raise the children”
Polygamy: so many children in the Church without fathers, much like today.
Monogamy is the standard of the Church today.
[Serial] monogamy [in mortality] is the standard of the Church today. The real question is what relationships will be like in the next life. I would think, if plurality were the norm, we would have had Adam and Eve and Betty and Jane and Alice from the beginning as a pattern and example. And, if God really wanted us to be plural in mortality, no laws of man would have prevented it. Since we will enjoy the same sociality in the next life that we enjoy in this one, I believe there is and will be a whole lot of meet, greet, date, pairing off and even some form of marriage opportunities in the Spirit World. After all, there are billions of people who’ve died without the opportunity to be married in mortality. I also think widows and widowers who’ve “moved on” and remarried in this life will be surprised to find their predeceased spouse has done the same.
While polygamous wives unsurprisingly had fewer children per woman than monogamous wives, polygamy did maximize fertility to some degree, since a woman whose husband died while she was still within childbearing years was likely to remarry and have more children as long as she was able. It also meant that elite males were having the most offspring, but since their interactions with those offspring were limited, I’m not sure this really had the intended effect. There is an enduring 19th century Utah story about the polygamous man meeting a familiar looking stranger who turns out to be his son or daughter. Turns out, cultural transmission is about both nature and nurture. One thing to note, polygamy and other sexual experimentation is quite common when a new religion arises. Martin Luther flirted with approving it in some circumstances, and Munster is a notorious example. Here in the US we had the Oneida colony, the Shakers, the Kingdom of Matthias and Mormons. In this respect, polygamy is more or less the conservative course to follow, since it has been widely practiced throughout history, but was it compatible with the American experiment?
Just yesterday I listened to an interesting lecture by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks defending traditional marriage and monogamy, where he made the point that historically polygamy fed monarchy and various forms of autocratic, hierarchic government. Where monogamy was the norm, democratic government could arise and flourish. I think this was the view of the American founders, and the reaction to Mormon polygamy in the 19th century shows that most of the nation agreed with this, Brigham Young did run a pretty tight ship and at least tried to direct things from above, while still insisting that people take care of their own needs. Certainly today church leaders would not get away with telling people where to settle and calling missionaries from the pulpit. At any rate,Mormon polygamy was a relatively short-lived experiment, so it’s hard to say what would have happened had it continued.
Based on my current level of church history knowledge, the leaders/members back in the day for sure thought it was necessary for admittance to the Celestial K in the next life.
Based on what I see the current (last 40 years) leaders/members believe, they for sure dont think it is necessary. (at least most hope it isn’t)
That leaves the “who is right” problem. The old leaders or the new leaders? Some keep it simple and say both were right. God changed the req. for whatever reason. Some must live it to qualify for the CK and some must not live it to qualify for the CK.
My mind, and I am not saying I am right, believes that they 100% believed it and lived it accordingly and then after years of not being able to live it, and generations of leaders telling people not to live it, it went from “we cant live it” to “its wrong to live it” and the current leaders wish we never did. (still causing issues today)
We will probably not know for sure until after we die and ask.
To me, you also have to put on the white board all the other versions they did such as Law of Adoptions, time only polygamous relations, eternal only polygamous sealings, sealing to church leaders for salvation, etc. Did they think all of these provided some sort of salvation? Whatever salvation means to anyone.
I’ve never really done a super deep dive on the subject, again this opinion is based on what I have read so far, mingled with personal beliefs. (AKA guesses)
I, for better or worse, have not inquired a great deal into the subject, partly because I have never been concerned that my salvation is contingent upon it. However, I was reading something, it may have been by a person named J Stapely, that Joseph Smith was essentially using polygamy as a means to unite the whole human family into one, but as with anything in the early stages of the church, there was much collateral, still seen today. Or I completely misunderstood what he wrote, but that is one of the better explanations I have heard. I might also add, not believing polygamy was divine does not exclude you from being a good member, it is not a temple recommend question. I do not give a single fish whether or not someone believes polygamy was inspired. As to if loving polygamous relationships will be honored, I have no doubt God will make it work, likewise, should a woman not want to enter polygamy in the next life, I hardly see God saying, “sucks to suck, beyotch!” Perhaps some may see this as a cop-out answer, saying we can’t know for sure until the next life, but until someone emails me a full report from the after life on the subject, I am content with such an answer. As Ozzy Osbourne says,
Don’t look at me for answers
Don’t ask me, I don’t know
Vic- “not a temple rec question” pretty sure it use to be back in the day. Not that it even matters as temple questions are just the current leaders take on who should get in and who shouldn’t. (front door police)
I think when we get to the other side we will see lots of stuff the church did/does that was not needed but Jesus just rolled with it. Like you said, it will all work out and we will all be fine with it.
Until then, it is fun (for me) to try and make sense of it all.
“Vic- “not a temple rec question” pretty sure it use to be back in the day.”
Perhaps it was. As I said, I am by no means an expert on this subject nor have I gone in depth. I was more using that to express my view that I don’t think someone’s worthiness is predicated upon believing it was divine.
“Not that it even matters as temple questions are just the current leaders take on who should get in and who shouldn’t. (front door police)”
I suppose, I have certainly witnessed changes to the questions, although I would like to think they take the worthiness questions seriously and not at an entirely arbitrary whim. I would also say that some things they ask, as we can agree, I would say determine worthiness. (like perhaps you shouldn’t be an embezzling abuser)
“I think when we get to the other side we will see lots of stuff the church did/does that was not needed but Jesus just rolled with it.”
Absolutely, us mortals have added on plenty of extraneous fluff throughout all church history, and will likely continue to do so. We just need to keep our eye on Jesus.
“Like you said, it will all work out and we will all be fine with it.
Until then, it is fun (for me) to try and make sense of it all.”
Definitely, I do as well, not with polygamy specifically per se, but with other deep mysteries. Some days I think about these things to the point of fatigue. Anyways, thanks for your comment.
I’m going to make an argument that the traditional reading of Jacob 2 is wrong. This isn’t an argument that Joseph didn’t practice plural marriage or that principle that is thought to be expressed in Jacob 2:25-30 isn’t valid it’s simply an argument that when read in context the passage is saying something else.
I suggest that that verse 30 is saying that either the Lord will be in charge of raising this righteous seed (see verse 25) or they can follow man’s ways by using polygamy and concubines to do it. If they choose the latter way than the land will become cursed.
This means that by using the conjuncitve adverb “otherwise,” the verse is indicating an intended outcome for an order given, or else there will be an undesirable outcome as the result.
Every reference in chapter 2 condemns polygamy both anciently and in the current context of the Nephities.
Let me acknowledge that this reading isn’t the most obvious way that it can be read but I think its important to at least understand that there is another way to read this. Once that is done then the real strength of this argument is that it makes the most sense in light of the full context of the entire chapter.