The following may be controversial to some; it deals with a controversial subject. This is a flow of ideas with some playful speculation woven in. The jury is still out for me on a great many things, but there are some interesting patterns that seem to open new possibilities.
In the very first chapter of the Book of Mormon, we read about a man named Lehi who lived in Jerusalem around 600 BC and was disturbed by what he saw around him.
He went to God and experienced a vision where he saw and heard many things, leading him to go out into the streets to prophesy to his people and call them to repentance, but that didn’t go too well.
“And it came to pass that the Jews did mock him because of the things which he testified of them; for he truly testified of their wickedness and their abominations;”
1 Nephi 1:19
Pay very close attention to the phrase wickedness and abominations, which appears again and again throughout the Book of Mormon. Repetition should catch our attention, especially exact repetition.
King Mosiah used the same terminology to describe King Noah’s wicked practices:
“Yea, remember king Noah, his wickedness and his abominations, and also the wickedness and abominations of his people. Behold what great destruction did come upon them; and also because of their iniquities they were brought into bondage.”
Mosiah 29:18
Why were the Jaredites destroyed?
“…these people were destroyed on account of their wickedness and abominations and their murders.”
Alma 37:29
Mormon even warns the Gentiles of our day using the same phrase:
“Turn, all ye Gentiles, from your wicked ways; and repent of your evil doings, of your lyings and deceivings, and of your whoredoms, and of your secret abominations, and your idolatries, and of your murders, and your priestcrafts, and your envyings, and your strifes, and from all your wickedness and abominations…”
3 Nephi 30:2
There are many, many more occurrences, too many to list here, but keep this all in mind as we continue.
Lehi leaves Jerusalem, journies across the Arabian peninsula for eight years, and then travels on a long and dangerous trip across the ocean to the Americas.
Upon their arrival in the promised land, the people began to look back to David and Solomon and their whoredoms to justify reviving those wicked practices (Jacob 1:15) in their new civilization.
This doesn’t go unnoticed, and the Lord has some words for the Nephites:
“Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.”
Jacob 2:25
The Lord wasn’t going to have the people that he had just led out of Jerusalem fall back instantly into wicked ways. Read the next verse very carefully:
“For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.”
vs. 31
The Lord has heard the mourning of his daughters in the land of Jerusalem so this multiplying of wives and concubines was happening there too! Not only that, but it was happening in ALL the lands of his people as well. The Lord specifically calls out the “wickedness and abominations” of the husbands of the daughters of his people in every land, including Jerusalem.
There’s that phrase again, “wickedness and abominations,” the exact phrase Nephi uses to describe what his father, Lehi, was testifying against in 1 Nephi 1:19 and that we see all over the Book of Mormon.
The Lord continues:
“And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.”
Jacob 2:32
It’s clear that the Lord has led his people out of a polygamous Jerusalem, and he does not want those same practices polluting his people in the new land of promise.
The Damascus Document, one of the books found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, contains the views of a particular ancient sect that opposed polygamy and had an interesting view about marriage and King David.
They mention three traps that would be an issue for the Israelites, and the first one was fornication or polygamy specifically. It speaks of the “Shoddy-Wall-Builders” who:
“[took] two wives in their lifetimes, although the principle of creation is “male and female He created them” (Gen. 1:27) and those who went into the ark “went into the ark two by two” (Gen. 7:9). Concerning the Leader it is written “he shall not multiply wives to himself” (Deut. 17:17); but David had not read the sealed book of the Law in the Ark; for it was not opened in Israel from the day of the death of Eleazar and Joshua and the elders who served the goddess Ashtoret. It lay buried [and was not] revealed until the appearance of Zadok. Nevertheless the deeds of David were all excellent, except the murder of Uriah and God forgave him for that.
The Dead Sea Scrolls – Revised Edition: A New Translation By Michael O. Wise, Martin G. Abegg, Edward M. Cook, https://books.google.com/books?id=218JbeU2POgC&pg=PA55#v=onepage&q&f=false
There is a lot to unpack there, but they taught that the principle of creation is “male and female. He created them” and looked at the pattern of one male and one female that went into the ark two by two as an example God set.
They also point out that the book of the Law says that the leader of the people “shall not multiply wives to himself” but that David was unaware of this law because the book of Deuteronomy was not discovered until the reign of King Josiah which just so happened to be 25 years before Lehi left Jerusalem!
The timing here is very significant, but it’s beyond the scope of this piece to dig into all the angles; however, think about why it was so critical at this point to get the brass plates out of Jerusalem shortly before the destruction. It was also important to get them out before they could be found and destroyed by the Deuteronomist reformation initiated by King Josiah, which would have surely destroyed or altered the plates.
The Lord, in Jacob’s sermon, reveals that men were multiplying many wives and concubines in Jerusalem in Lehi’s day and in ALL the lands of his people, enough so that God himself heard the cries and needed to intervene.
Because as God says in Jacob 2,
“I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old…For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.”
vs.26-28
And no, verse 30 is not an exception; that verse has been horribly distorted from its actual meaning, and I outline exactly how here in this essay.
What verse 30 is roughly saying is that if the Lord determines to raise up a righteous branch, they must hearken unto his command; otherwise, they shall hearken unto the precepts of men and practice wickedness and abominations.
The Lord again forcefully declares:
“…[the Nephite men] shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.”
vs.33
A “sore curse, even unto destruction,” just like the polygamous Jerusalem that they just fled from?
Jacob reminds his people:
“…ye know that these commandments [to have one wife] were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.”
vs.34
The Lord led Lehi out of a polygamous Jerusalem and Israel while at the same time specifically commanding him and his posterity to be monogamous in direct opposition to the society that they were leaving.
They did so by pairing uniformly with another family so there would be one husband and one wife for each family.
Could the wicked practice of desiring many wives be why Nauvoo was destroyed and Joseph Smith killed by a mob? Could this be why the early Utah church was almost destroyed before finally abandoning the practice? I can’t say, but it is certainly interesting that polygamy was the key player in both of those incidents, and they follow the same pattern in the Book of Mormon.
It’s not hard to see why this practice is frowned upon by the Lord; just look at the fruits as described by Jacob:
“Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.” Jacob 2:35
Even Brigham Young described very similar feelings and conditions existing among the women living under polygamy in his day:
“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 the 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.”
Sermon by Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4., pp. 55-57; also printed in Deseret News, Vol. 6, pp. 235-236
He gave the women two options: “either round up their shoulders to endure the afflictions of this world and live their religion, or they may leave…” (ibid). They had from that day until six months later to decide whether to endure their situation or take a free divorce from their husbands.
Brigham said,
“I will go into heaven alone, rather than have scratching and fighting around me. I will set all at liberty. “What, first wife too?” Yes, I will liberate you all.”
ibid
Imagine being a woman and being told by the leader of your faith that if you don’t like what you are experiencing, abandon your family and the years and years you put into those relationships.
Well, here’s Brigham’s take,
“But the first wife will say, “It is hard, for I have lived with my husband twenty years, or thirty, and have raised a family of children for him, and it is a great trial to me for him to have more women;” then I say it is time that you gave him up to other women who will bear children. If my wife had borne me all the children that she ever would bare, the celestial law would teach me to take young women that would have children.”
ibid
I’m not trying to dump on Brigham here, but these are his actual words. I encourage looking up the original sources and reading them in context to draw your own conclusions. But the stark similarities between the early LDS women and the Nephite women are sobering to me.
Personally, I agree with former church President Gordon B. Hinckley, who said in a globally televised interview with Larry King, “As far as we’re concerned,” Hinckley said, “[polygamy is] behind us, a long ways…I condemn it as a practice because I think it’s not doctrinal.”
Nephi saw our day and had this to say about the churches which shall be built up:
“Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark.”
vs.9
He saw that they:
“have all gone out of the way; they have become corrupted.”
vs.11
He saw that they:
“wear stiff necks and high heads; yea, and because of pride, and wickedness, and abominations, and whoredoms…”
vs.14
There we go the same phrase along with the term “whoredoms” which Jacob and the Lord used against the Nephite practice of taking many wives and concubines.
But surely that couldn’t be our church, right? That’s talking about all the other churches but not us! Well, it doesn’t name any names; it just names the fruits, and we have to ask ourselves if those fruits are or were among us or not.
But the Lord makes a promise to the inhabitants of the earth:
“But behold, if the inhabitants of the earth shall repent of their wickedness and abominations they shall not be destroyed, saith the Lord of Hosts.”
vs.17
Again, compare that with what the Lord told Jacob’s people who were involved in the wicked practice of desiring many wives and concubines:
“For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old”
Jacob 2:33
It is clear that there is a link between the wicked practice (Jacob 1:15) of desiring many wives and concubines and the destruction of civilizations, including our own, if we do not prevent these things from creeping in among us.
There is a way to repent. Jacob’s people repented, and I would even say that the LDS church, to a large degree, repented by abandoning the practice, albeit reluctantly.
That said, the “doctrine” of polygamy still holds ground in one section of Doctrine and Covenants (132) and in our theology when it comes to sealings.
This is a large and complex topic, and the early history of the church is a very tangled web that I have found very difficult to unravel. Where I do find solid ground is the scriptures, and it must be the scriptures that we turn to in order to understand what is happening there first before delving into what people wrote in their journals, oftentimes long after events allegedly occurred and under all manner of conditions.
The Book of Mormon was not written and preserved for our day to deliver inapplicable information.
16 Comments
I really appreciate your work! And feel the Spirit in your responses to replies. I love that the truth about polygamy and Joseph is coming forth in our day. It’s been obscured for far too long. I was a polygamy supporter and Brigham defender for 45+ years until the Lord opened my eyes earlier this year (2023). And it’s awesome to find others like yourself, and Gwendolyn who commented above who has a YouTube channel called Polygamy, An Enemy Has Done This, who have already been studying and looking into this topic, some for decades!! I feel a little “behind” and am trying to keep up! It’s exciting!!!
Hey there brother. Here is my question. On a scale of 1-10, where is your testimony at in regards to the Doctrine and Covenants? If Section 132 is no longer doctrine and shouldn’t be regarded as canon, then what does that mean for other sections? How do you determine what sections (or verses of sections) are doctrinal? The sealing ordinance is basically from section 132 (the OK part). So does that mean half of the section was from God and the other half was from Joseph?
I read in one of your earlier comments to this article that section 132 had ‘suspicious origin’. I disagree with you on that. I read the section on the Joseph Smith Paper’s website, wandered around the internet doing a deep dive on all things Early Church Polygamy, and I’ve read a fantastic book about the context of that time (which is free to read at the following link. I printed it out and bound it) https://archive.org/details/EhatIntroOfTempleOrdinances2 and the way that 132 seems to come about is similar to many of Joseph’s other recorded revelations. He was trying to calm down his (rightly so) upset wife and dictated a revelation and had it recorded and delivered to her.
I adapted different theories throughout my study on this topic, and every one of them was shattered. So I don’t have any theories anymore. I take what was written and said at face value. I believe that Joseph, and the others of the 50, honestly believed that polygamy was commanded of God. I don’t believe there is a distinction between polygamy and plural marriage (in context). I do believe that there will be many men who have more than one wife in the eternities. I don’t think being sealed to multiple women is against God’s will. I do believe being married on Earth to multiple women is against God’s will. I believe that when women had a problem with it and God comforted them with a revelation to obey the commandment of polygamy, that God actually did do that for those women at that time. I also believe that God never commanded polygamy, and that King David will receive Celestial Glory and was forgiven in the case of Uriah.
Anyways, I digressed. To come back around. My testimony of the Doctrine and Covenants is a 2/10. I haven’t taken time to study it to increase that testimony, and I’m partly lacking motivation to do so because I’m so content with the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Just wondering where you stood as far as that book is concerned.
Thanks for your question, sorry for the late reply, been busy.
The Doctrine and Covenants is a collection of revelations, statements, proclamations, etc. Generally speaking, I use the collective voice of the scriptures to judge. I look for patterns and consistency and where something can be corroborated by multiple witnesses, I rank the particular doctrine or principle higher, as well as my own personal revelation.
I am highly suspicious of D&C 132 on many levels. It contains many outright contradictions that I don’t think are defensible. Even if every word was dictated by the mouth of Joseph Smith himself, those problems do not go away.
I don’t take anything written at face value. I do believe that early members of the church honestly believed that polygamy was ordained of God. See there is this idea that it was “commanded” and 132 doesn’t even command it, but says it is an option if a man desires it and if the first wife consents and the subsequent wives are virgins. The early leaders didn’t even follow this pattern.
I don’t make any assumptions about the eternities. Nothing about that has been revealed and I believe it is theologically irresponsible to derive concrete assumptions in that regard, though I think it is fine to speculate and wonder.
The problem I see is that the Book of Mormon is being deliberately twisted to support polygamy when it doesn’t and I wrote a whole essay on that and there is more coming to back me up on this objectively provable fact. There is a clear example of one journal entry from Joseph being clearly changed from anti-polygamy to pro-polygamy. We know that Brigham and the early brethren worked hard to “revise” the early records to degrees that we may not ever know.
I don’t believe that God would ever command anything that is specifically declared to be a “wicked practice”, “gross crime”, “abomination”, “whoredom”, “iniquity”, “filthy”, “lasciviousness”, “sin”, and “fornication” that act like daggers that “pierce souls and wound delicate minds”, “break hearts” and bring about the “slumber of death”, the “pains of hell”, and cause people to become “angels to the devil” and be thrown into a “lake of fire and brimstone” and suffer the “second death.” (All from Jacob’s sermon)
I cannot believe that God would command such things to be done simply to give a little population boost, especially since polygamy actually reduces the populations of where it is practiced. D&C 132 doesn’t even mention population growth as a reason when this is apparently the key justification Jacob 2:30 supposedly gives as to why God would command something that everywhere else curses and destroys the people.
What happened in Joseph Smith’s day is unclear to me, which is why I go back to the scriptures. A deep analysis of Jacob 2:30 reveals that the interpretation that the church ascribes to the verse is incorrect and I believe this can objectively be proven.
Originally, I never set out debunk or change the meaning of the verse to fit any narrative, I just wanted to understand how it meant what we said it did because it’s a very oddly worded verse and doesn’t exactly correlate to the ideas being imposed on it. They even changed the chapter heading to Jacob 2 back in 2013 to remove the idea of it being an “unauthorized practice.”
As I read and reread the entire Book of Mormon, I would learn something new every time I passed Jacob’s sermon. Understanding Hebrew word-linking, grammar, and context revealed a clear understanding of the meaning but I had to set my bias aside.
Now that it is clear what is being said, there is actually 0 support for the practice of having many wives or concubines in the Book of Mormon. And a prophet of God who saw our day made sure to include in every instance that is was a wicked practice and not of God so that we could clearly understand that it is evil.
Once that is understood, we have to examine ourselves through that lens. Joseph himself stated that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth (I’d say that includes the D&C) and that we would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts (commandments regarding morality) than any other book.
For that reason, I cannot accept the taking of multiple wives as doctrinal and must view it the way the Lord does in the Book of Mormon no matter who practices it whether it is David, Solomon, Joseph, Brigham, etc. God doesn’t make special exceptions, he is no respecter of persons and he does not command his people to engage in whoredoms and abominations.
But that’s just how I see it. I can appreciate that others feel differently and if there is some massive piece of the puzzle I am missing I have yet to be enlightened throughout all my study on this subject.
The original purpose of this article was simply to illustrate that Lehi was escaping Jerusalem where God himself expressed that his daughters were being oppressed by this gross crime and that they were take out of Jerusalem to raise up a righteous branch that would obey his command and not these other “things” they dreamed up.
I love the D&C an overall think it is a treasure, I just don’t think that every section or at least portions of some sections are legit; and I feel the same way about the Bible as well.
We have what we have. Whatever form we have these records in is enough for God to do his work or at least to provide the means to prove us at whatever stage of faith we happen to be at.
I don’t spend time comparing myself to others, I see life as a journey between God and myself. I’m just one person and am seeking to promote or enforce my ideas, just share them at whatever state they happen to be in at the moment. That’s what this blog is all about, it is an authoritative source for absolutely nothing.
I post things here from my personal study to simply share. Nobody should take anything I say as the gospel truth, they should pursue their own studies and seek their own guidance from God.
But I enjoy the occasional comments here like yours and hearing your viewpoints. I’m always happy to answer any questions and provide accountability for anything I post here. So thank you for taking the time to engage in an honest and respectful manner, it is much appreciated.
Thanks for your response. I might start studying the D&C and see if I can get a testimony of at least some parts of it (for now I have a testimony on a few verses and that’s about it). I agree that the Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book. It is interesting that so much of the Church’s core doctrine isn’t explicitly stated in the Book of Mormon (the Godhead, Priesthood, Sealing/Eternal Marriage, Plan of Salvation, etc.) But the nice thing about that is any doctrine ignored allows the focus of the book to be that much more on Christ.
I have read your essay, it’s a great essay. Anytime I look throughout Israelite history, I don’t see any justification or indication that God commanded the practice.
You may enjoy this article on Biblical passages regarding polygamy. https://davidwilber.com/articles/understanding-the-torahs-polygamy-regulations. A brief quote from the article “The first thing we need to recognize is the distinction between what Charles E. B. Cranfield called ‘those elements of the OT law which set forth the perfect will of God’ and ‘those elements which, taking into account the fact of men’s sinfulness, indicate not God’s perfect, absolute will, but His will in response to the circumstances brought about by human sin.’”
In addition to commandments given according to God’s perfect will and commandments given to govern people in our fallen state, I think there is a third case to consider when talking about Section 132 (and other aspects of Church history); the Prophet making a bad decision and God supporting the Saints who comply with it (according to His pattern) while working out a course correction ASAP. For example, polygamy ended a mere 13 years after Brigham’s death, it basically started and ended with one Prophet. (By the way, Brigham is actually my favorite latter-day prophet)
I think it’s quite strange that our capstone doctrine (sealing/eternal families) is perhaps the least revealed doctrine in our Church. I don’t know what ‘forever family’ actually means. Many people don’t make a distinction between sealing and marriage. Sealing is viewed as identical to marriage and I’ve heard that we’ll use sex to create spirit children (implying that our wives will be perpetually pregnant). I think that’s a stupid notion. There are only two things I know about sealing: it binds me to God, and it requires a member of the opposite sex. At its essence, the sealing ordinance is how we become a part of God’s family. If, on Earth, we are gods in embryo, then in the pre-Earth life, we were merely the equivalent of gametes, and in the afterlife ‘pregnancies’ which come to full term will emerge as Celestial babies. The entire plan of Salvation is one, giant birthing process. It is the way that God creates exalted Celestial children.
Believing that much about the sealing ordinance is enough for me. It removes all of the Earthly elements of marriage from the equation and shifts my focus to God, which is about as much as I could hope to get out of a mysterious doctrine. So whether all men will have 1 woman sealed to them, or 5000, it doesn’t matter, because it’s about becoming part of God’s family. And if I need to be sealed to many women in order for all who qualify to become God’s exalted children, I see no problem with that, but that’s something to worry about in the hereafter.
In earlier church history, church leaders along with Joseph Smith mentioned how Heavenly Father (whom I love dearly) and Heavenly Mother (whom I also love dearly) are our spirit parents by adoption rather than actual conception. Latter-day Saints often use the book of Abraham to create the notion that we were intelligences conceived into spirits, which may be possible, but Joseph Smith also used the terms Spirits and Intelligences almost synonymously at times. Either way, it’s esoteric doctrine that we cannot know for certain, but I think it’s worth considering that Heavenly Parents could be parents of adoption rather than literal conception. (One last side note on this I’ll offer is the amount of blood that conception has, and the doctrine that resurrected bodies are bodies of flesh and bone but NOT blood. Blood is also symbolic of mortality, so conception is most likely not what we consider it to be even if it is possible as a resurrected being.)
Thanks for the response and the correction on Isaac only having one wife. I completely agree that there are a lot of angles and nuance to this which makes it hard to communicate effectively with written words. It would be fun to sit down for a couple hours and discuss it. 😁
The Book of Mormon does allow for an exception (with a strict condition) in the practice of plural marriage in Jacob 2:30 — 1) to raise up seed, but 2) only when God commands it. That obviously did not apply to the Nephites because Jacob was as clear as could be that they were not to practice it.
I would summarize my position by saying that I believe the doctrine of plural marriage is of God. It has been perverted many times over the course of humanity, as you point out, by David and Solomon, the Israelites in Jerusalem in Lehi’s day, and the Nephites in Jacob’s time among others. I suggest that the Lord isn’t condemning the doctrine but the incorrect and perverted practice of it, by fallible men who at worst used it to justify their lust and depravity and at best tried to put off the natural man and imperfectly serve their wives and children.
I really appreciate your posts and your willingness to share your thoughts and conclusions around your study of the gospel. I always find at least one thing that I hadn’t considered before.
“A couple of hours” just to get warmed up, LOL. You’re right, it is a lot to take in, it’s like a giant puzzle with many key pieces missing. It’s fun to search for those pieces and to think that there has to be some way you can make it all fit.
As for the Book of Mormon’s exception. To your point, this is the official position of the church, at least since 1852. However, in 2017, after a unique couple of years where some very interesting discoveries were made in my own study, I published the results of various insights that I was able to piece together and prove objectively, as bold as that claim sounds, that the current interpretation of that verse is extremely incorrect.
I have that essay here for your consideration: https://oneclimbs.com/2017/01/05/a-proposed-reinterpretation-of-jacob-230/
I respect your position on the matter, you seem like a thoughtful and studious individual, and I always find it interesting to discuss differing viewpoints.
I don’t try to be contrarian intentionally. My views used to be very similar to yours, and they made a great deal of sense to me at the time. It would take quite a while to describe how my views have evolved, but I can say that it was digging deeper into the scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon, that was actually the catalyst. Interestingly, this process has deepened my faith and has born many treasures of knowledge as I have dug deeper beyond the initial paradoxes.
That said, I cannot declare that I have a completely comprehensive viewpoint where every question has an objectively clear answer. I still have questions and am very much still in a process of seeking and discovering. That’s why this blog is called “one climbs” because learning is a journey.
I appreciate your visit to my site and am grateful for your perspective.
The ‘unclean’ animals came by two and the ‘clean’, by seven. Genesis 7:2
Correct, but as Gen. 7:9 says, “There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.” The part “the male and the female” or one male to one female is key here. There were six additional pairs of clean animals (14 of each kind of clean animal), but it was not one male animal and then six other females to that male.
I have a friend who grew up as part of a polygamous sect of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and who later joined the LDS church. He draws a distinction between “plural marriage” and “polygamy”. For him, plural marriage means the God-ordained, holy practice of celestial marriage as practiced by God the Father and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Brigham Young, and Joseph Smith. Polygamy is the corrupted version of the principle where the practice is driven by lust, pride, etc. If you view it with that lens then you can see how easy it would be for someone who is living it righteously to become corrupted, like David, and how hard it would be for anyone in this Telestial existence to live it correctly. I think what Brigham was trying to say in his quotes is that living “plural marriage” correctly and righteously (ie to separate sex and lust from conceiving and bearing children) is very, very difficult but if you aren’t willing to sacrifice and get right with the Lord then you might as well leave because that’s what the Lord is requiring. Just some things to think about it.
Thanks for your input and contributing to the discussion. You have mentioned a distinction between “plural marriage” and “polygamy” and indicated that polygamy is corrupt because it is driven by lust, pride, etc.
The Book of Mormon or Bible do not use those words but simply state clearly, “many wives (and concubines)” and the distinction is between one wife and more than one.
I don’t believe that what happened with Abraham and Jacob (Isaac only had one wife) using servant girls, concubines, to procreate (more aligned with the Code of Hammurabi and not any law of God) meshes with anything in D&C 132.
Jacob had two wives which was allowed by the culture at the time, but this was the result of deception and not any command or divine pattern.
The Book of Mormon flatly condemns having more than one wife very clearly without any exception.
This is a very difficult topic with a lot of angles and passionate feelings. There is a lot to unpack and analyze and I haven’t even scratched the surface of it here but others have and I’ll leave it to them.
My point here in this article is to point out that the Lord explains in the Book of Mormon that he removed Lehi’s people from a Jerusalem that was ripe with people committing wickedness and abominations that included and perhaps even featured men taking many wives and concubines. He went further to expressly command Lehi’s people to only have one wife and threatened to curse and destroy anyone that violated this command. That is the scope of this article.
Now, I do throw a Brigham Young quote to show that even among the Saints, the exact same conditions with the women there, existed among Jacob’s people.
The Lord says that we can know truth by its fruits. It’s worth a continued study with an open mind. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and considering mine.
Isaac wasn’t a polygamist. And neither was Joseph Smith.
I can’t tell you how much I appreciate your insight here about the Damascus Document! I actually emailed a biblical scholar about this recently. I was theorizing how David could have practiced polygamy (which I also see unilaterally condemned in ancient scripture, most strongly in the Book of Mormon), and yet have been a man after God’s own heart. I asked if it was possible that the law was hidden prior to and during David’s day, obscured in a group of scrolls and, because of limited literacy and dissemination, somehow overlooked? Perhaps bringing the scrolls to Solomon’s temple was similar to moving from an old house into a new one–priests went through all the dusty, forgotten corners of their synagogues and gathered up various scrolls, then brought them to the temple. They may not have known what was in every scroll, but assumed those organizing them in the temple would get things sorted there. And perhaps, in the process of moving into the temple, the law was unknowingly set aside, hidden until Hilkiah discovered it. But what you say here makes a lot more sense: it was inaccessible, inside the ark of the covenant. I don’t know what it means that it lay buried though–was it buried underground as a protection, too sacred to open or even see?
I agree with the repetitive words describing polygamy (and would add “filth”). When I read the account of what was happening among Noah’s people before the flood, I see the exact same wickedness and fruits referenced. It makes sense to me, tragically, that the religious people of Noah’s day had persuaded themselves that polygamy was righteous, and were unwilling to give it up. Unlike the Lamanites–who were unbelieving warriors that were promised deliverance from destruction because of their obedience to monogamous marriage–Noah’s peers were all destroyed. The missing piece seems clear to me.
Very interesting that you would ask that question and be thinking along those lines. It appears that you were right. It isn’t specified that the book that Hilkiah discovered was Deuteronomy but it appears that it is almost certain that it was. Imagine reading Deut. 17:17 and then considering David and Solomon. This among other reasons may be why clothes were rent at that time.
It isn’t clear how it was concealed for so long without being discovered, but it must have been an amazing thing to discover and be the first living person (at the time) to read it. It seems that Josiah then set to align with it but in doing so made a number of very bad decisions that didn’t end up saving Jerusalem and even contradicted God’s will. (that’s a whole other story)
First, I have to say that I have checked in on your blog for several years now and have generally enjoyed your thoughtful perspectives and unique insights.
I believe that you’re being sincere in what you write. That being said, I would like to understand your perspective on two things among others:
1. Do you believe in the historicity and genuine nature of the revelation recorded in section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants? It would seem that all of your essays relating to this topic indicate that you don’t hold that particular scripture in very high regard. Do you believe that it is not what it is alleged to be? No axe to grind here. I’m just curious about your honest opinion.
2. I’ve read where you’ve quoted President Gordon B. Hinckley at least twice now on his believing that the practice of plural marriage is not doctrinal. But is that really the correct context of his statement? As far as I could tell, he was answering Mr. King’s inquiry about the groups currently practicing polygamy at the time of the interview, and not the historical practice by church leaders that he so clearly loved and revered, as evidenced by numerous statements made throughout his life and ministry.
Regardless of your answers, I believe as Joseph Smith did that no man should condemn another for his honest belief. After all, this is your personal place to organize a few of your thoughts, and I’m simply here to observe and enjoy the process! 😉
Thanks, Jeff, I apprecate your feedback and the respectful way that you invited a response.
Having studied this subject for about half my life now, I wish that I could say that I have some concrete answers about what exactly occurred in LDS history concerning the practice of marrying multiple wives. There are still too many unanswered questions and if all we have to go with is what we have in front of us, then I believe that it is possible that multiple theories or even a blend of them could more or less be closer to the truth.
1. D&C 132 has a very suspicious origin story to me. I believe that there are numerous contradictions and questionable teachings contained in it; and I think it clearly contradicts the Book of Mormon in at least one key area.
2. I believe that President Hinckley was very careful about the words he used. He was very sharp and on such a key topic, I don’t believe he hesitated in any degree with his response. What he meant, only he knows. But when you say that something is behind us a long way, that seems to indicate that he is creating distance, he condemned it as a practice, and he said that he personally didn’t believe it was doctrinal. The word “doctrine” is a very direct word to use, he could have simply said that the other groups were not “authorized.” You see, according to D&C 132 it IS doctrinal – unless that section is not correct. It was a surprising way he answered that question, but perhaps in that one case, the Lord inspired the words he gave which may be more correct and less like his other views expressed in the past which may have been mistaken and based on incorrect tradition.
I think that I made a series of very strong cases why in 1852, the leaders of the church began interpreting Jacob 2:30 differently and that those interpretations that are still made today are objectively false. Anything I publish here on my personal blog is open to be challenged which is why I invite constructive comments like yours. I don’t delete any criticisms of anything I share here.
Some criticism has been warranted on other posts and I have made corrections, however, no one has been able to refuse any points I have made in that particular essay. I invite anyone who would like to counter any of the claims I make there if they can provide evidence to the contrary. I have no desire to maintain incorrect ideas here.
I’m only 42 years old. I don’t know everything, and at the bottom of any post is a disclaimer that I am not an authority. This blog is simply the opinion of one person thinking out loud.
But overall, my current position of the polygamy issue as of this comment is that I do not believe that it is ordained of God. I believe that the Book of Mormon’s precepts (moral commandments) in regards to men taking multiple wives represent God’s view of the practice which is that it is an abomination and he would never command his children to commit abominations and break the hearts of his daughters for any reason, especially for some sort of population boost which human beings are perfectly capable of doing monogamously (actually more efficiently that way even). I think that reflecting anything off the Book of Mormon’s teachings exposes their true nature.
I am extremely suspicious of the practice among the early saints. I lean strongly toward that being a massive error but on some levels I can understand why something like that could have happened at the time and in the climate where everything was so new and unexpected things were being added to the theological landscape of the Latter-day Saints frequently.
So that’s about where I am right now. You’ll be happy to know that I don’t condemn anyone that believes differently than I do. I never make this a point of contention or debate. When asked about my beliefs, I am happy to share them. There’s still quite a bit of room for other theories here.
One day we will all see clearly together. I’m always willing to accept the truth no matter what other preconceived notions may contradict it.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and I appreciate the respectful online exchange.