Joseph the Polygamist

It is troubling, I am unaware of easy answers, and I find that I struggle with it from time to time without reaching a conclusion but with coming to peace with my own faith. I know that this is not a satisfactory answer.

It’s interesting to me that you’d post on polygamy on Easter sunday…

“I don’t like it when critics of the Church portray Church history as if it’s a hidden secret that once members uncover, they leave the fold in drones. It’s insulting and it isn’t my intention.”-Thanks for this. It takes the edge off.

For my own part, I have received enough answers to things that I can put this one on the shelf…

“its practice necessitated the secret endowment ceremony;” I haven’t seen anyone make this assertion before. Polygamy was sometimes used as a litmus test for receiving the endowment, but polygamy did not require it, nor was the endowment somehow an outgrowth of it.

“But the bigger issue is the Church’s inability to put these questions behind it by being open, honest, and circumspect about its origins.”

I disagree with this as well, but it’s not worth arguing over.

When I was young, a family in the ward ‘adopted’ a young, 20-ish jewish man who had been a rabbinical student until recently before they met him. He caused a minor stir within the stake because each Sunday School lesson or talk he was part of, he would point out at least four or five principles that ‘mirrored’ Jewish theology, or explained Jewish practice, etc. . . He was absolutely the darling of at least a couple of entire wards. He was certainly a ‘dehydrated Mormon’ (just add water. . .)

I remember sensing several members feeling that their testimonies were validated by principles he explained, and more than a couple of times I heard that some testimonies were strenghtened.

After about six to eight weeks of investigating, he disappeared, both physically, and from the ward ‘dialogue’. When I finally got an explanation, it turns out that the young man in question was essentially a grifter who made his ‘living’ by sponging off of his ‘fellowshiping’ family. Once he was figured out, he would disappear and find a new family in another stake and repeat the process.

I remember a lot of the points-of-agreement, or concordance that he made (as reported by my parents) made a lot of sense, and actually agreed with a rational reading of the scriptures. What he said was never actually wrong, and made one think about the gospel in a new way. But once he was exposed, none of his comments was ever mentioned again.

My point with this is that once this guys character was rightly impugned, his ‘doctrine’ was absolutely rejected. And I don’t think that this was an unjustified course. But it brings me to Joseph.

Our mythologizing notwithstanding, Joseph was literally ‘with no apparent beauty’; an itinerant, fortune-seeking, uneducated, intemperant, and then, dictatorial, self-aggrandizing, and ultimately (by the legal definitions of the day. . . which haven’t changed much) bigamous rapist, adulterer, and insurrectionist.

So, were we (as a ward) faithless, apostate, or worldly in rejecting the young man? I don’t really think so; but if not, then where does that leave the rest of the world with regard to Joseph?

John H,

You have no idea how much it pained me to read your post. The reason? I was about to return to formal blogging here at BCC (after my inexplicable absence) with a post entitled “Polygamy and My Discontents,” in which I was going to raise all the same issues you’ve raised. But now that you beat me to the punch, I guess I wasted a bunch of my time. Boo-hoo. I guess the moral of the story is that it doesn’t pay to put off blogging when you’ve got something to say. (You said it all better than I would have anyway, so maybe it’s just as well…)

Anyway, it’s interesting to me that your post has prompted comments largely from those disaffected by the very issues you raise. (Perhaps the fact that it’s Easter has something to do with it). In any event, here’s my 2 cents:

My reaction is similar to yours. I have never been bothered much my polygamy itself (though the more I think about it, I’m not sure why), but many of the “details” surrounding Joseph’s practice are indeed hard to deal with. I don’t think I have any good answers. I actually think the fact that he married underage girls is the LEAST bothersome aspect of his practice, given my understanding that marrying teenagers was not as taboo back in the day as it is now (please correct me if I’m wrong here), but Joseph’s duplicity is much harder for me to rationalize away. (I have more to say here, but no time to say it at the moment…)

Another quick point: Within the past 6 weeks, the issue of Joseph’s polygamy has come up for me in two interesting contexts: First, a member of my former ward, who is very, very faithful and a convert of 9 years, approached me at Church and with a troubled tone, asked me how I deal with some of the more unsavory aspects of Nauvoo polygamy, and how those may or may not affect Joseph’s prophetic credibility in my mind (i.e. he was really wondering how they should affect the prophet’s credibility in his own mind). Keep in mind that this guy is very strong in the Church, but he had run across some websites on the internet which had reminded him of his dealing with these very issues back when he originally investigated the Church. I told him that he and I should speak in depth about this at some later date, but then he went out of town for a month and I moved away, so we never had the follow-up conversation. I’m not sure exactly what our conversation would have been like had we had it. I guess now I’ll never know.

Second, my wife’s aunt was supposed to call me last Sunday to discuss a number of thorny historical Mormon “issues,” as she’s been having a really hard time with some of them of late. I am still awaiting her phonecall, and I have no doubt that Joseph’s polygamy will figure prominently in the conversation.

I guess my point is this: Although I don’t have any really good answers, I think we really need some. These issues are troubling for many Church members, not just former managing editors of Sunstone (or those who’ve completely left the Church). I look forward to any good advice from commenters as to how to deal with the issues John raises.

Aaron B

Julie, I have always been very appreciative of your comments, and your perspective. I like you previous post. I’m saying this so that I hope I can come across as sincere and not combative, because I would hate for you to think that I am anything but appreciative of you and your ideas.

In priesthood today, we got to speaking of the changes across the middle east, Kyrgyzstan, and what that would likely mean for the preaching of the Gospel to all the world. There were several very hopeful observations made that portended the eventual spread of the Gospel across the whole face of the earth soon.

I was troubled, though. Time ran out before I got the chance to ask how the group would react to and the Church might deal with an episode where, for example, a small branch of returned Iraqi ex-pat mormons was machine gunned to death during a service in a member’s home or a local assembly hall by a group of conservative Shi’i from a local mosque?

Along those lines, your comment is comforting in our McMansions in the suburbs, to think about while the workday passes, but how useful is it when there are real consequences at stake?

Julie, great scripture, and great ideas. Tough issues, and I wish I had some answers.

I’m just a troglodyte, but Joseph’s polygamy (qua polygamy) has never bothered me much. I suppose the thing that I struggle with most is just the sheer quantity of pretty sensible grounds for throwing Mormonism out the window lock, stock, and barrel. But it doesn’t stop there. Christianity (even the parts that Mormonism doesn’t object to; e.g., the New Testament) is so entrenched in the politics and fiction of the 1st four centuries AD, that a dispassionate observer could reasonably conclude that Jesus himself never existed. And then there’s the basic problem with belief in God in general, which I’m still not convinced is quite rational. This can lead one to conclude that there’s no way to meaningfully believe in God. I generally find apologetic treatments to be distasteful; it embarrasses me to see so many otherwise intelligent people desperately grasping at straws.

In the end, it is not any one piece of evidence. It’s the weight of it all. It’s like the strong circumstantial case against Scott Peterson. There is no “smoking gun,” but the totality of the evidence suffices to squash any reasonable doubt nevertheless.

I really don’t like it this way, and it often makes me pretty uncomfortable. I’m dispositionally sympathetic to logical positivism, and things work best for me when they’re packaged up in tidy, rational packages. But I believe, and there really isn’t any reason why. I just do—it’s an epistemic primitive. I keep working on trying to build a stronger foundation, and at times I actually make progress.

But the polygamy issue? That’s just a drop in the ocean.

Julie,

You do grasp the essence of my question, but the point of it is that it’s not only required that we make those severe choices in the suburbs of Baghdad. The same real issues apply in Austin, Fairfax County, Sandy, and Baghdad, Lahore, and Beijing: Do we believe this man’s story, and the implications that carries with it, or not, for an entire spectrum of reasons. . . and how do we make those decisions?

(But I do like Arturo’s comments. . .)

Responding to Steve’s question, I’m pretty sure Richard Bushman will be publishing something along those lines fairly soon.

Tess,

About a year ago we had the missionaries over for dinner. Afterwards they asked if we would watch “Finding Faith in Christ” with them. After it was over they asked me what I thought. I told them that while I could see how the movie could be viewed as touching, I found it a bit insulting. They were shocked and asked why. I said it was because I felt that the character that was asking questions was portrayed so negatively for asking reasonable questions that were never answered. The most frustrating thing was that I think there are reasonable answers for the questions being asked but no attempt was made to give them. It seemed that the very act of asking questions was not acceptable. I told the missionaries that I wouldn’t feel comfortable sharing this video with some of my friends because I know they have questions and it might be offensive.

So how have we created a culture in which such a movie gets made and most members don’t even see this aspect of it? The Sunday School lesson manuals of the past have told teachers to avoid the issues surrounding OD 1 and OD 2 and just talk about the importance of a living prophet. How sad is it that we are told not to dicuss the substance of these revelations? Especially when they were the basis for changes that nearly all members are happy for. I think that there needs to be a forum for people to ask questions. I also think that if some (or even most) members don’t want to participate in such a forum that is ok. Maybe Sunstone and Dialogue and now blogs provide that, but I do wish there was something more. I think that many people have reasonable, answerable questions that could be resolved with some discussion if there were only a church endorsed place to have such discussions. Of course there are also issues such as the details of polygamy that are being discussed now that at their root do not have easy answers. I have no idea how the Church can have a productive open discussion of these issues with the general membership.

“Can anyone recommend a believing history of Joseph Smith that deals with his polygamy?”

Steve, it depends on your definition of “believing.” Todd Compton is a believer in the Church, and In Sacred Loneliness won the Mormon History Associations best book award. However, Todd does not believe polygamy was inspired, but rather suggests that Joseph was trying to institute ancient principles.

Bushman’s book will indeed address the topic. When he spoke at Benchmark Books a year or two ago, he said that one of his chapters opens by saying Joseph Smith married ten women who were married to other men, and that he sees no way around that fact.

I’d also recommend Newell and Avery’s biography of Emma for her perspective, and Gary Bergera’s book Conflict in the Quorum for the heartbreaking Sarah Pratt story (which Richard Van Wagoner covers in his Dialogue article, reprinted in Mormon Mavericks

This is my first response to a post at BCC, though I’ve lurked here for quite a while. Finally, you’ve lured me into the open.

This is one of those issues that leave me feeling dissatisfied no matter how the discussion goes. The church seems to work hard to distance itself from polygamy at every opportunity, whether it is Pres. Hinckley saying that it isn’t doctrinal, or the Relief Society / Priesthood manuals that fail to mention it even in the context of a past president’s teachings on the family. I hate to say it, but it is as though the church leaders themselves believe that there was something dishonorable going on. And if a previous prophet could be involved in something dishonorable, well, the implications aren’t so good for church presidents that followed. I’d much rather see a direct and honest attempt to address the history of polygamy. It might make the church look more human, but it would also be more believable. At least it would for me.

Great comments, Michael. There is a very strange thing that’s been going on the Church where we’re living somewhere between embarrassment of polygamy and belief that it was inspired. Almost no one wants to see it come back, save for the one or two weirdos who remind us we’ll be practicing it in the Celestial Kingdom.

We definitely don’t like to talk about it – in fact, one of my original comments that I deleted is that in the Church’s correction I link to above, they say that, “Polygamist groups in Utah, Arizona or Texas have nothing whatsoever to do with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” That’s a huge reach at best, or pretty disingenuous at worst. To say that people who believe Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and John Taylor were prophets, and that the Book of Mormon is true have nothing to do with us just doesn’t cut it.

Yet no one wants to admit it wasn’t inspired since that could have some mighty unsavory implications for our earliest leaders. So we say it was inspired but rarely talk about it and when we do, act as if it barely existed at all (even President Hinckley quoted the bogus statistic that only 3% of Church members practiced it). Imagine if we did the same thing about temple ceremony or other inspired Mormon teachings and beliefs. In fact, Brigham Young’s teachings that Jesus was a polygamist and that you have to be a polygamist to inherit the celestial kingdom suggest this wasn’t just a blip on the radar screen.

I want to second the sentiment of Michael and a random John about the value of discussion on the matters from the church itself. I have felt exactly as Michael that some sort of acknowledgement would at least make it appear as if the church weren’t trying to hide anything.

At the same time I don’t know that there a solution to the problem. We all lament the fact that Sunday School and Priesthood/RS lessons fail to address controversial material. But honestly, how could they? Considering the millions of new members all over the world, in addition to the millions of members with weak testimonies in the first place, any such attempts would create much more confusion and chaos than it would peace and understanding.

I also think, however, that if the church is going to continue to grow in the accelerated rate that it’s supposed to, that certain issues are going to have to be addressed eventually. For the mean time, as Julie points out, it seems it’s going to have to remain a test of faith.

I would take issue with the notion that we don’t practice polygamy today. I personally know men who are sealed to more than one woman, so we do practice it nowadays if only in a technical/spiritual sense. Strangely, women are not allowed to be sealed to more than one man, even in the exact same circumstances (death, divorce) that, when reversed, result in men being sealed to multiple women.
This is problematic for me, so I share the feelings of perplexity that many of you have on this board.
What I won’t do is pass judgment on Joseph Smith in the absence of a really clear picture of what was going on at the time. I don’t consider it a copout to not dwell on these things; it’s just that I don’t feel like I can arrive at any useful conclusions on the matter one way or the other.
If I arrive at one of the following conclusions:

1) Joseph Smith had a problem with sexual addiction,

2) Joseph Smith’s sexual behavior was somehow divinely sanctioned,

3) Joseph Smith had no sexual deviance, and evidence to the contrary is based on misunderstandings, lies, or efforts at character assassination, or

4) Some combination of the above,

How would any of those conclusions affect what I myself have seen and experienced? Do I trust my own knowledge and firsthand evidences over the record-keeping of frontier Americans 200 years ago?

Consider this exercise. How many religious beliefs that you have, can you say with some certainty are grounded firmly in fact, in sound doctrine, in logic, and are not speculative or wishful thinking? If I were to estimate that for myself and most people I hang out with at Church our thinking is 80% sound and 20% speculation/daydreaming, it is very likely that our 80% are some very basic principles we believe in common, such as the existence of God, prayer, prophets, etc., since those ideas are sound, intutitive, often verifiable, etc.
On the other hand, the other 20% of ideas we have, may or may not be grounded in reality, such as the girl in my old ward who testified that the Spirit lets her know when to slow down while driving so she can avoid getting speeding tickets. Those 20% of weird and speculative ideas are going to be different for everyone, so if you have 10 people whose thinking is within that 80/20 ratio, the “20%” ideas multiply by 10 while the 80% remains constant. This would result in a 2/5 ratio of sound ideas to speculative ideas among those people.
Apply that concept to frontier Americans, whose ratio of sound to speculative ideas was probably a lot more lopsided in the opposite direction, and you can see how so much of Church history looks so bizarre. You can also see the need for correlation to sift through things over time and make sense of all this raw data, since so much of what LDS people have done and thought over the years simply is not useful for making us better people.
Again, I think the most intelligent and efficient approach to Gospel study is to focus on things I can verify. I also have an inquisitive mind, but I think the ability to inquire is useless and sometimes even silly without an accompanying sense of proportion and ability to prioritize different kinds of evidence.

Daniel wrote: “Strangely, women are not allowed to be sealed to more than one man, even in the exact same circumstances (death, divorce) that, when reversed, result in men being sealed to multiple women.”

It’s my understanding that a woman who had two or more husbands during her lifetime can be sealed to them all by proxy once she is deceased. She would then be given the choice of which one to spend eternity with.

Jaynee

Ben S.,I don’t see the Nauvoo ordinances as indicative of any kind of continuity at all. Prior to creating them, Joseph had emphasized that the ordinances he had introduced thus far were sufficient for complete salvation. The way we understand this now is that we qualify it by saying what he really meant was “the ordinances had thus far were sufficient for complete salvation as far as we now know.” But there are several ordinances that Joseph introduced that we don’t practice at all (e.g., the Kirtland “Endowment”). The RLDS, on the other hand, take Joseph at his word, and they practice the Kirtland “Endowment” (or something darned close to it) in their nautilus temple.

I also don’t see the continuity that you mention in Joseph’s beliefs. It seems to me more like they were all all over the map (this is born out by the sheer number of splinter groups that claim to follow Joseph’s “original” teachings). Moreover, I don’t see any (for example) continuity between the 180 degree turnaround from the anti-Masonic stance of the early 1830s to the pro-Masonic stance of the early 1840s.

Daniel tBS: And what was the point of plural marriage? Was it simply “raising up seed,” as the Book of Mormon suggests?

I wonder if it was God’s way of making sure that the Saints would be utterly expelled from the United States for a time, so that they would be left completely to their own devices so far as survival went. Would the LDS Church be the same thing as it is today if the Saints had never been forced to go to Utah?

Of course, that says nothing about the doctrinality of plural marriage. But according to Section 132, Joseph was headed for eternal damnation if he rejected the doctrine of plural marriage. Can we reject section 132 of the D&C without being subject to the same fate? If section 132 is just a big lie, concocted to justify Joseph’s tendencies to adultery, then such a rejection would have to be a good thing, wouldn’t it? But if it’s not a lie…

Leave the fold in drones? In unmanned planes, guided by remote control? Heh. I like it.

Arturo: I didn’t say the *ordinances* themselves were around early. You’re reading that in to my comments. Nor am I saying that Joseph knew and understood the ordinces early on. Rather, *the elements* the ordinances are centered around are present from fairly early on in JS thought and revelations, at least as early as 1831 in a few cases.

I view the priestly and royal initiation as the central framework of the temple ordinances. Joseph knew quite early that those who inherited the celestial kingdom had to be kings and priests. He knew this at least by Sept. of 1832, because it’s explicit in his account of “The vision” in D&C 76:56.
He knew that there were ordinances that allowed one to (symbolically) ascend into God’s presence. We know this from Joseph’s change to Exo 34:1-4, which tells us that God removed “the holy order and the ordinances thereof” from the first set of tablets. The new book on the JST dates this change to before 1834. Note also on this idea with Moses, that this holy order and the ordinances thereof allowed one to live in God’s presence. Moses tried to teach it to the people, but this higher and last law was removed. (From D&C 84:23, which was received in 1832.)
Joseph later clarified exactly what this was.

August 27, 1843, Joseph taught that “god cursed the children of Israel because they would not receive the last law from Moses.” Ehat et al., WJS, 244. Clarifying the meaning of the “last law,” a different note-taker of the same discourse recorded Joseph teaching here that Abraham “received a blessing under the hands of Melchesideck even the last law or a fulness of the law or preisthood which constituted him a king and preist after the order of Melchesideck” Ehat et al., WJS, 246.
Though the clarification is post-temple, the fundamentals are all there very early. This is not all of JS early thoughts on the topic, by any means.

I stand by my assertion that the elements that became the foundation of the temple ordinances were present very early on in Joseph’s thought and the revelations.

Have you read through both “Words of Joseph Smith” and Andrew Ehat’s MA thesis on the Introduction of the Temple ordinances?

Sigh, drones – that’s just embarrassing. Well, the “n” is near the “v”…

Ben S, everything that Joseph did tended to synthesize as many elements of earlier belief as it dropped or disregarded. So of course Joseph’s reworking of the Masonic ritual incorporated beliefs he’d accumulated since the publishing of the Book of Mormon (that’s one reason, for example, that the JST is such a mess). None of this has any bearing on Joseph’s motivation for creating the ceremony in the first place.

Kurt, Fanny Alger in the unlikely category? I don’t think many people would agree with that. I certainly don’t. What about Oliver Cowdery, who left the church after witnessing Joseph and Fanny doing the dirty?

John H, don’t sweat the typo. We’re no better. It took close to 40 comments before anybody even caught it. I’m grateful to The Practical Mormon for injecting a little humor into the conversation.

So it’s your opinion that the temple is a messy hodgepodge of whatever Joseph could cram in to it in order to cover for polygamy?

You need to shave with Occam a little :)

I have evidence that what became the temple ceremony was around earlier than JS practicing polygamy, which would indicated that he didn’t cook it up whole cloth. You blithely dismissed that in favor of your theory, for which you haven’t presented any actual arguments. You also didn’t indicate whether you’d actually read the sources that lay out my argument more completely.

Such a discussion can go nowhere fruitful…

[/threadjack]

When I was in a singles ward years ago, our stake president was visiting our elders quorum one Sunday and related his experience with studying Joseph Smith’s polygamy and a resulting faith struggle. He simply stated that the more he learned about Joseph Smith’s wives and secret marriages, the more he was questioning his faith and Joseph Smith’s validity as a prophet. He said he was seriously considering leaving the Church over this matter.

He then related that during this time he went to the temple and received a fairly dramatic personal revelation where the Lord settled the matter once-and-for all by stating in absolutely certain and sure terms that Joseph Smith is His servant. The issue of polygamy and secret wives was not discussed. The Lord simply made it clear that He esteemed His Prophet and that settled the issue.

Personally, I haven’t been plagued too much by the question … but I still found hearing this from our stake president to be spiritually satisfying.

The lives of many prophets (ancient and modern) are quite susceptible to skepticism, doubt and analysis. There are things that prophets do that seem utterly unjustifiable and wrong … but that doesn’t necessarily change the fact that they are prophets. I also think that it is still worthwhile to ask penetrating questions about what we learn about the prophets. If my stake president at this time had been unwilling to question, he wouldn’t have received the personal revelation.

Kurt: But, those already unfavorably disposed towards Smith will find whatever evidence they present to be compelling evidence, no matter how circumstantial.

And, those already favorably disposed towards Smith will find whatever evidence presented to be uncompelling evidence, no matter how substantial.

(John H. made this same point, I just couldn’t resist making a parallelism out of it.)

John H, sure the reverse is true. Thats why someone needs to dispassionately sit down and do nothing but collect data and rate the data. No editorial comment, no conclusions, just data collection. As for what we do and don’t like, that kind of stuff doesnt come to bear when it comes to determining whether a source is 1st, 2nd, or 3rd person, or whether there is documentary evidence available. If a guy is the eldery son of the guy who claims to have married Joseph and Fanny, that clearly isnt a 1st person account.

Arturo CareBear, Oliver’s account comes when he is a hostile witness, and he is alleging adultery. I didnt think anyone believed that is why Cowdery left the Church. That quote is what Brodie uses to conclude adultery, and it contradicts Compton’s evidence, which he uses to argue Smith was secretly married. If Joseph was married then it wasnt adultery and Cowdery would have known it. So, shall we orchestrate a debate between Ms. Brodie and Mr. Compton and have them hash out which of the two accounts is more reliable? Let me know how it turns out…/*yawn*/…

Steve Evans, it seems strange to me as well. Granted its a controversial topic, but since when do college kids shy away from controversy? Are there any MS or PhD candidates out there looking for a thesis topic? This one is pure gold and is guaranteed to publish.

Ben S: I have evidence that what became the temple ceremony was around earlier than JS practicing polygamy, which would indicated that he didn’t cook it up whole cloth. You blithely dismissed that…

You seem to have misread me. I believe that Joseph created the Nauvoo endowment by reworking the the Masonic ritual to incorporate Mormon elements, and I don’t see this as terribly controversial. You seem focussed on the source of these Mormon elements, but I don’t think that the source is relevant. I’m saying that one of Joseph’s key motivations for creating the Nauvoo endowment was to allow him to swear people to secrecy about the doctrines he was introducing (this may have, for example, allowed him to introduce them to a larger audience), the most notorious of which was polygamy. Forgive me if I’m being obtuse here, but what does the source of the Mormon elements of the Nauvoo endowment have to do with Joseph’s motivation for putting it together in the first place?

As far as my opinion of the place of the Mormon Temple ceremony in the plan of salvation, that’s an entirely different matter from its origin. But I think it’s generally a good idea to abstain from offering derisive speculation about people’s beliefs regarding core aspects of Mormonism.

I didn’t answer your question about reading because I find such credential touting or reading list comparisons to be insulting and distasteful. But lest it appear that I’m dodging your question: (a) I’ve read Ehat’s thesis, and (b) I’ve read through much of Ehat and Cook.

Kurt, you’ve moved the framework of the discussion about Fanny Alger from plural marriage to adultery. This distinction is only meaningful to those who believe in the legitimacy of polygamy in the first place. And you’re incorrect about Brodie’s account. She considers plural marriage to be a cover for adultery whether a ceremony was held or not. And if you insist on referring to me using the Care Bears or Care Bear imagery, you will soon become the anti-Care bear. At this point, I will have no choice but to refer to you as “Kurt Hate-Bear.”

Arturo:
Thanks for the un-dodge. We will simply have to continue to disagree on these matters.
[/threadjack]

“Forgive me if I’m being obtuse here, but what does the source of the Mormon elements of the Nauvoo endowment have to do with Joseph’s motivation for putting it together in the first place?”

AT: It seems to me that you are making a claim about subjective motivation. If it was the case that there were no-pre-Nauvoo elements to the endowment ceremony, then it seems that your claim would be stronger, because there would be no counter-narrative. On the other hand, if the endowment seems to be the culimnation of a whole series of other theological ideas, then the claim about subjective motivation seems to be weakened. The motive might have been to work out a fuller version of the previously explored ideas. Hence, I think that Ben S.’s arguments provide evidence against your claims as to Joseph’s subjective motivations. I really don’t see what is so difficult to undertand about the structure of this argument.

Ultimately, I think that the either/or nature of the argument you are having with Ben S. is not especially helpful. If you are claiming that the endowment was nothing more than a cobbled together excuse for swearing the polygamy initiates to secrecy, then I think that you are being hopelessly reductionist and simplistic in your reading of the development of Joseph Smith’s theology. On the other hand, I think that you are absolutely correct to point out that the secrecy oaths with regard to the endowment ceremony were tied up with the introduction of polygamy in Nauvoo, and your statements about the existence of two churches in Nauvoo seem basically right to me.

“JMW, AT, et al: please keep the discussion clean. It’s a sensitive topic for many, and off-color or inappropriate comments aren’t welcome.”

I’m not sure what it was that I said that was off color or inappropriate. Whatever it was, Steve, I am sorry. I did not intend to offend or be insensitive.

Mike: BYU has had several “controversial” MA’s in the past, and probably will do so again in the future. I’m thinking specifically of the Adam/God thesis done by a guy who went on to be a religion prof. and write for the Ensign. His thesis advisors were Sidney Sperry and Hugh Nibley.

Nate: Thanks for clarifying my own argument. Certainly it needed it. :)

Nate Oman, I see the question of whether Joseph included pre-Nauvoo elements in the Nauvoo endowment to be logically independent of the issue of motivation. Moreover, I don’t see this argument as ultimately resolvable, since it concerns my speculation about Joseph’s motivations in creating the Nauvoo endowment.

I’m certainly not claiming that the Nauvoo endowment was a cobbled together excuse to swear people to secrecy. Your statement that the “secrecy oaths with regard to the endowment ceremony were tied up with the introduction of polygamy” is a fair characterization. Moreover, the theory I put forth in my comment #29 is meant to tie this in with (a) the creation of the Nauvoo Masonic Lodge, and (b) the use of the Masonic elements in the Nauvoo endowment.

And Jonathan Max Wilson, I looked it up where I remembered reading it in Donna Hill’s Joseph Smith: The First Mormon (I’ve always wanted to write or edit a multi-volume series called, “The Ordinal Mormons.” We’d use Hill’s book as Volume 1. Volume 2 would be entitled, Oliver Cowdery: The Second Mormon. We’d continue from there.) Just a bit of trivia, in Hill’s first edition (which is published by Doubleday), the first entry in the index for “Alger, Fanny” is page 180. On page 180 of Joseph Smith: The First Mormon there is nothing relevant to Fanny Alger. Fanny Alger is, however, discussed on page 180 of the 1971 revision of No Man Knows My History. Interestingly, through some human error, the index to Joseph Smith: The First Mormon became a surreptitious cross-reference to No Man Knows My History.

At any rate, you’re right, and thanks for the correction. It was Emma who reportedly saw Joseph and Fanny’s “transaction” (to use McLellin’s word). But there is more evidence (albeit circumstantial) than just McLellin.

“My basic question: How do we reconcile what we know about Joseph Smith as a prophet and Joseph Smith as polygamist? ”

So, validity of sources and amissability of testimony taken into account, let me try to put the question in a different way (with due nods to Nate’s previous formulation):

Either Joseph Smith was a prophet and polygamy is a revealed doctrine, or Joseph Smith was a conniving sexual predator with a gift for organization.

If one goes with the arguments put forward that “I believe in the church in spite of the problematic evidence because of a personal revelatory experience”, then the correlation, iron-clad orthodoxy in meeting formats and local unit organization, and rigid authority delegations of the sort that the (I forget what the nickname was, but that slew of academics that were ex-ed a couple of years back) spoke out against are completely irrelevant to the legitimacy of the ‘church’. This is important/relevant because I see so little of the churches day-to-day activities referring back to explicit revelation, and a great deal of a deliberate establishment of orthodoxy.

On the other hand, if you are one of the people who say that “I am a mormon because mormonism is the only rationally explanable religion that I have encountered; and that is no small thing”, then you are forced to confront the contradictions between what the church has said, and what it has done, and I think that seems very near impossible.

Again, my question is how do we judge? Do we use explicit, commonly held criteria of truthfulness, honesty, and legitimacy? Or are we really obliged to jettison our basic cultural, societal, legal, and even emotional frameworks in preference to revelation, which 99.99 percent of the time seems to come to somebody else?

Hi, Janey –

It’s interesting that the women haven’t been chiming in more to this discussion, which has taken a turn in the more scholarly direction, rather than evaluating the emotional consequences of polygamy (which is all speculation, of course).

I think in a perfect society, polygamy might work (it works well in the animal kingdom), but, like the law of consecration, polygamy is just too difficult in practice. Can you imagine if polygamy were to be reinstated today? I think some women might welcome it, and for some women it wouldn’t be much of a change from the “serial monogamy” already in practice today.

I think consenting adults should have the option of entering into any relationships they choose – polygamous or otherwise. I think one of the reasons why polygamy in the Church was so distasteful is that it was essentially thrust upon women (and men), who had no choice but to toil under its heavy burdens.

Anyway, if polygamy becomes legal again, it will be interesting to see how the Church will respond.

Anyway, if polygamy becomes legal again, it will be interesting to see how the Church will respond.

I may be wrong, but I believe that in countries where polygamy is currently legal, current Church policy is that polygamists who wish to join the church must become monogamists via divorce before being approved for baptism.

I think that if polygamy were to be legalized in the United States, it is likely that the church would continue with this same policy and that members who entered into polygamous mariages would continue to be excommunicated.

Hey, if polygamy became legal and the Church readopted it, at least some of us spinster types would get married…There wouldn’t be so much pressure on Mormon women to be the Perfect Woman, because men could have three or four of us to cover all the bases. Sounds ideal.

Yeah! I got called a Nazi on my very first posting! That means I win! This is my proudest Internet moment.

—The Practical Mormon

I agree with Kurt, but who wants to view marriage that way? Sort of destroys the whole romantic notion of living happily ever after, when at any moment your husband could bring home an 18 year old hottie and start paying more attention to her than to you.

Kurt – our pioneer ancestors were not blind to the sexual benefits of polygamy. I’ve got this little book called “Does the Bible Approve Polygamy” which is a reprint of a debate about polygamy, and also contains a few talks by the apostles of the polygamous era who praise the benefits of polygamy. I don’t have the book with me, but Apostle George A. Smith mentioned two of the sexual benefits to men: (1) decreased need for masturbation because there should always be at least one wife ‘in the mood’, and (2) men whose wife passes her childbearing years can marry a younger woman, and thus not need to resort to prostitutes after his wife’s menopause.

Obviously, it was phrased in prudish nineteenth century language, but those were his points.

Note that his reasoning reflects the 19th C Victorian assumption that women don’t like sex.

Um, Kurt, polygamy did not raise fertility rates in Utah. Furthermore, in the many modern societies in which mortality in childbearing was common but polygamy was not, there was little difficulty in securing a maid or a wetnurse to raise the unmothered child.

There’s more I want to say on this thread, but don’t have time now.

Actually, Rosalynde, in 19th century England at least (and there’s little reason to think that things were different elsewhere), the death rate among lower class children whose mother died was quite high. Remember Pip in Great Expectations? Families like the Gargery’s (Pip’s sister and brother in law who take Pip in after he’s orphaned) were not in a position to hire a wet nurse, even though (as a blacksmith) Joe would have been reasonably prosperous tradesman. This is why Pip’s sister brags that she raised Pip “by hand.” Pip humorously ties this to corporal punishment, but what Mrs. Joe actually meant was that she bottle fed him. Since milk was both expensive and unsanitary, babies were usually bottle fed with flour and water. As result, roughly 2/3 of babies “raised by hand” died before they were 5 (vs. the baseline mortality rate of 25%). Of course, someone in Joe’s position would also be hard pressed to support two women (and Pip may not have survived two ticklers), but that’s another issue.

Christina, a very good fictional portrayal of the life of female polygamous Utah settlers is Maurine Whipple’s The Giant Joshua. It’s difficult at times, but it’s well worth it. A good nonfiction source is Annie Clark Tanner’s autobiography, A Mormon Mother.

Arturo, thanks for the tip. What I meant by saying I did not “know” what happened was just shorthand for the fact that despite reading and thinking about the topic extensively, I still struggle with understanding the how’s and why’s of the practice, not that I don’t know anything about the historical facts.

Kurt, you seem so ready to accept the practice of polygamy. I recognize that life 100 years ago was different from today, let alone 3,000 years ago. But I wonder if you would be so ready to accept the practice if the tables were turned and you were the one competing with the 18-year-old hottie.

Dear Kurt,

I am reading “In Sacred Loneliness” right now and could not find anything that can be characterized as polemic.

The nature of controversial sex is such that evidence is hard to come by. In the case of Joseph Smith, the evidence is overwhelming that he practiced polygamy. There is also overwhelming evidence that he lied about his polygamous and polyandrous family life. He covered it up. Joseph Smith did not act like an innocent man. This behavior provides the context which gives meaning to the available evidence.

Historians do not subject themselves to criminal law’s standards of evidence. As you presumably know, criminal law has developed the most stringent standards because in the liberal tradition we believe that individuals deserve protections before they suffer the power of the state. It is unreasonable to place the same burden on historical enquiry. Your demand to the contrary probably ought to be considered a polemic.

Cheers, Hellmut

Kurt wrote:

Rosalynde, polygamy didnt raise fertility rates much because it wasnt all that widely practiced (even if 10% of the population was practicing it-which would be a very high estimate-that wouldnt do much to influence a population mean). It was most certainly effective, just look at the preponderance of certain particular last names in Utah associated with polygamous families.

A preponderance of certain last names does not indicate anything about comparative birthrates in polygamous vs. monogamous relationships. If the population had been monogamous but with a preponderance of Smiths, for example, then there would be a preponderance of progeny with the last name Smith. Imagine that a polygamous man was cloned — one for each of his wives. The question is whether those families would have had more of fewer children than the polygamous situation. And my understanding is that the data indicate that plural wives typically had a lower birthrate than monogamously married women.

I also think that reading Jacob 2’s “raise up seed unto me” as primarily having to do with birthrate may be erroneous. I prefer to read it with emphasis on “unto me“, indicating that something about its practice was intended to promote righteousness. (Of course, whether it does so in any given situation is highly dependent on a variety of factors — and this should probably be read as applying collectively rather than individually.)

I’ve thought long and hard about polygamy. (It’s because when I was crying on the phone to my dad about being single he said, “it’s too bad polygamy ended; it was designed to take care of people like you.”) I’ve read early Church history books, and talks by the leaders of the day about polygamy. After a couple of years of research and soul-searching, I’ve concluded that polygamy is a rotten mess in just about every case.

(One case in which it worked well was with my 3greats uncle. His beloved wife had childbed fever after her second child, and was rendered barren. When they were in their late 20s, he married a 15-yr-old convert from England, who presented him with 11 children. They all lived in the same house and visitors never could tell which kids belonged to which wife since there was so much mutual love.)

Polygamy in the Old Testament appears to be more of a product of the culture than anything tied to the Hebrew religion. I’ve never read a story in the OT involving polygamy that even suggests that God commanded a man to take another wife. (Except a few references to God giving wives to David, made by the prophet Nathan after David’s fall from grace.) The only religious obligation that involved multiple wives was to marry the brother’s widow if she hadn’t already had children in order to raise up children to the brother. That was to keep his inheritance in the land – it wasn’t to fulfill a religious practice.

Early Mormon polygamy was hit and miss, as far as liking the arrangement. The people who lived it were deeply committed to their religion, and truly believed God had commanded it.

I believe God used polygamy to separate the Mormons from the rest of the world in those important early formative years. Polygamy is not a sin, when allowed by culture or by God, but neither is it a blessed and happy state. I do not believe there will be polygamy in the afterlife, unless everyone involved wants it that way.

Joseph Smith was very excited about his happily chaotic religion – let’s give the priesthood to everyone (including blacks and women)! let’s marry everyone! let’s tell everyone to be a prophet! let’s all have revelations!

Brigham Young organized and put boundaries on the doctrines exuberantly revealed by Joseph.

The Church’s current teachings about eternal marriage are directly descended from polygamy. I don’t know if the Church’s temple marriage teachings would even be recognizable if polygamy hadn’t come first. The idea that your eternal glory is tied to your marriage is a polygamous teaching that transferred to monogamy. But if the Church’s current teachings about equality in marriage are eternal, then polygamy will have to go.

I think one of the saddest condemnations about the emotional isolation of polygamy is the story of Brigham Young on his deathbed. He died calling for Joseph Smith, not for any of his wives.

Janey, may I please say, what a horrible thing your father said to you.

P.S. My great-grandfather was Heber J. Grant, and his life as a polygamist was not better, nor worse, than non-polygamous religious leaders. He had 3 wives, who lived in separate houses, so it was essentially like running 3 marriages simultaneously. I don’t think this is for everyone, but for some, it worked out fine.

Gilgamesh said: “I believe the doctrine, and am not as concerned about the personal lives of those that brought it about.”

This is the thing I struggle with the most. I have no problem with prophets having faults and being imperfect. But there is such an attitude in the modern church that you have to be a pure vessel in order to receive revelation. Small faults are one thing; constantly breaking the law of chastity and lying about it is another. Why could Joseph get away with behaviour, if indeed this behaviour was not sanctioned by God, that any of us would be excommunicated for?

Actually, those worst off under polygyny would be *the unappealing men,* rather than women. How does that country song go? “Seems like all the good ones are gone.” With polygyny, the good ones were NOT gone; if the more desirable males can have more than one wife, then almost all women can marry and have children without ANYBODY having to marry the guys who are vile-tempered ogres, lazy bums, or drunks.

“Sort of destroys the whole romantic notion of living happily ever after, when at any moment your husband could bring home an 18 year old hottie and start paying more attention to her than to you.”

There’s a solution: the husband doesn’t get to pick the next wife — the current wife(s) does:

Husband: “I want a gorgeous 18-year-old with nice hooters.”
Wife: “Too bad. We’re marrying my friend Hannah. She has a sweet spirit, is a hard worker, and will be a great mother. Plus she’s good at managing money, and we could use that around here.”

Some have stated that the temple ceremonies were originally a way to help cover up polygamy. But what about a source for not only cvering up polygamy but to also be the foundation for the council of 50(yes I know that all were not church members or been through the temple). Most of the main leaders in the council of 50 were endowed and polygamists. And while the temple ceremonies were secret, so was the council of 50. They were planning on building the kingdom of God. They sent out ambassadors(To Texas and other countries) to visit leaders to generate support. They ordained JS a King and a Priest. This continued I believe with other prophets for a time. The only place we see this ordaining or annointing a Priest and King in now in the temple ceremonies. The council of 50 was a very secret and elect group within the church during the Nauvoo period. It later raised its head temporarily in Utah. Just some thoughts.

Wow, the internet keeps going even when I am not paying attention. Brief responses to people who commented to me, and then I am ducking out of this thread.

Arturo, call me the Anti-CareBear, its true, I admit it.

Janey, I did offer alternative E on T&S in a parallel thread, but not on bcc. And youre quite right. When Rachel died in child birth with Benjamin, it was Bilhah, Leah, or Zilpah who kept him alive. I think it would have been a particularly touching story if it was Leah.

Christina, I am not ready to accept the practice of polgamy, given the choice I wouldnt do it. My interest is in trying to understand it, and why something that is so repellant to us today was not all that repellent at times in the past. You’ll never see me running around advocating polygamy as something we should be doing now or something that is cool and groovy. No way. I believe in the Lord’s eyes something like polygyny is intended for a true Zion society, and I do not believe it would work well under any other circumstance.

Grasshopper, I wasnt initially arguing for increased birth rate as much as I was arguing for reduction in infant mortality. Subtle difference, but different nonetheless. Someone else brought the increased birth rate into the discussion and I then commented on it. With respect to your second point, yes the Lord’s intent is to have children raised in righteousness. But, you cannot raise them in righteousness if you dont have any.

Temple cover up, I dont find this a compelling argument at all. There is no need to “cover up” anything. The Biblical view on polygyny is that it is AOK as long as its done right. Just because it had fallen out of vogue doesnt mean anything to God, or Smith. There was both ancient polygyny and ancient temple worship, and in a restoration you would expect both of those to be restored. End of story.

Kudos to all the participants for keeping things above board on a particularly touchy subject.

“Line upon line” can be a messy process.

Good point, and one that bears repeating.

We seem to have a desire not to work out our own salvation, but to have a simple road map delivered to us, without mists or darkness or other obstacles.

Tess, as I understand that passage from the D & C, the man was only “exempt from the law of Sarah” if his first wife completely rejected polygamy. If she accepted the principle of polygamy, she was *supposed to be able* to select the particular wives (probably because she would choose based on what’s best for the entire family, while a man might choose based on shallow physical attraction). I don’t know to what degree this was actually followed.

I have been re-reading the Old Testament lately and have been surprised at how many details I’ve forgotten since my last read. Many of the prophets did rakish or stupid things. And these actions are all laid bare for readers to deal with. The religions based on these texts have survived millennia. A few of you have expressed a wish for more openness in LDS history, and I think the openness of the OT and the staying power of the religions it supports testify that this openness is not damaging.

I’ve put up a related-but-non-poaching post at

http://www.millennialstar.org/index.php/2005/03/29/p525#more525

Ben S. – I don’t remember the source, but I believe the older women that Joseph married were related to good friends/other church leaders. He would marry the sister of an apostle in order to link himself with their family to create a spiritual dynasty.

A comment on OT polygamy: The text in the OT doesn’t say that polygamy was a commandment from God. It appears to be a cultural practice of the time, which God allowed. Specifically with Sarah and Hagar, the story in the Bible makes it clear that having Abraham father a child on Hagar was Sarah’s idea, borne from the guilt she felt about being barren. It was not the Lord’s idea for producing the covenant son, as evidenced by the fact that Ishmael was banished, not given the spiritual inheritance. I think when the D&C talks about God commanding the polygamous relationship with Hagar, we’re getting more of Joseph Smith’s historical reconstruction than anything else.

OT polygamy is not inspired either. The only time you read about God getting actively involved in polygamy is when Nathan is condemning David for killing Uriah the Hittite, and Nathan says that God gave David all those wives. Polygamy was a cultural practice, not a divine pattern. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve and Jennifer.

I also remember reading in one of Laura Ingalls Wilder’s books about her going to visit a friend of hers who had gotten married at 13. So maybe this indeed was not uncommon in the American frontier in the 19th century…

“That first sentence of #113 should read “I’m not _an_ historian . . .”

Yeah, if you’re from New York…

Forgive me for sticking my nose back under the tent…

John H, I am not advocating the same old “we don’t really know what happened” argument at all. Please see my original post on the thread. What I am advocating is a comprehensive and systematic collection and evaluation of all availble source material in a manner that is as objective as possible. With respect to people on either side agreeing on some general conclusions, sure thats fine. That doesnt change what I am asking for. I have never suggested, and never would suggest, that Smith didnt practice polygamy.

Janey, the Torah contains explicit regulations for the application and use of polygyny (cf. Exod. 21:10, Lev, 18:18, Lev. 20:14, Deut. 17:17, Deut. 21:15-17), and there is an instance in the OT Prophets where the Lord is portrayed as being married to two unfaithful wives (cf. Ezek. 23), which granted, is an obvious symbol but an interesting one nonetheless. But, regardless, polygyny was not just a cultural practice that the Lord turned a blind eye to. The fact the Lord would regulate the institution and not prohibit it, is at the very least a tacit approval. And, given the general OT demeanor of vehemently rejecting the Canaanite social and cultural mores, it seems likely the Lord would have rejected polygyny along with anything else like unto it if He really didnt want it, just as he did with all of the other Canaanite funky perverted stuff. These OT regulations tend to butress the comments in D&C 132 as being more than just Smith’s “historical reconstruction”.

…nose back out of the tent.

Do you mind if I ask who your grandfather was? I have Cottam ancestors from St. George, and I’d be interested in adding this story to my family history.

the main problem that i have with polygamy as put forth in mormonism is that it’s not equal between men and women. i don’t think there’s any way around that. like the teaching that women whose husbands aren’t faithful will be “given” to another man in the CK as an additional wife. sure, men and women have different roles in life, but nonetheless i can’t endorse a system that’s as inherently unequal as polygamy, especially when thinking of eternal or celestial polygyny.

“His basic premise was that more women than men will inherit celestial glory and will not be denied all of the blessings of the covenants.”

What is the basis for this idea? Why would this be true? (I’m serious. I have no idea.) The only data point I know is that 106 boys are born for every 100 girls. Unless this ratio changes through history, we’d expect more males than females in the CK, unless there is reason to believe a greater % of women will make it to the CK, but I can’t figure out why that might be.

Anyone?

(and, lest anyone overread me, I think that absent 20th century notions of romantic love, emotional fulfillment, and soul-mates, polygamy really wouldn’t be much of a big deal)

I am completely with Julie in Austin. I’d love to hear a basis for this. The whole more-women-are-righteous-thus-we-need-polygamy is one of the worst cop outs I’ve ever heard. I don’t know why we need polygamy, but I’ll just say “I don’t know” over the more-women-are-righteous bogus answer. It’s frustrating when “we don’t know” gets replaced with all sorts of speculation so that we can sleep better at night. If this speculation does it for you, then great, but I’ll just stick to “I don’t know” like I do with plenty of other things in the Church.

I find it unfortunate polygamy is such a difficult issue for the Church to discuss, though I understand why.

I’ve read numerous pioneer journals and I can’t tell you how impressed I am with the commitment these people had to polygamy.

Although I’m sure they exist, I did not find one personal opinion about polygamy in the journals, i.e., whether they liked it, hated it, or in between. In fact, the only way I could get a sense of their feelings was in the incidents they chose to write about. They might have written about affection for, dislike of, or arguments with other wives; however, I never saw anyone deny the principle of polygamy. In fact it was just the opposite–when it was mentioned it was very clear the pioneers believed it was commanded of God, and that’s why they practiced it, even though it was incredibly difficult for most of them.

It’s unfortunate there’s not a way to convey the extent of these commitments and sacrifices to members today because of the subject matter. I frankly find it one of the most inspiring examples of faith in modern-day religion.

Jaynee

My comments are to be taken in the spirit of reasoning through this. Please don’t take them as a statement of doctrine. I hope that will anticipate some objections.

I understood that it was 107 males to every female, but in my mind it does not necessarily follow that that will affect the basic premise that more women will inherit the CK than men, as I explain below. I suggest this only as a discussion point and would be interested to hear your perspectives. This string is fascinating, and it prompted a very interesting discussion with my wife. Also please understand that I am not laying this down as definitive doctrine, only as a guide to what seems to make sense to me and one that coincides with my understanding of God’s mercy, love and justice.

I am not convinced that when we truly understand polygamy apart from the hypersexualized society in which we live, we will not be in a better position to evaluate its merits. Unfortunately, most discussions on polygamy have a hard time getting away from misgivings about the sexual side of the relationships.

Having explained that, I must say that the basic premise that more women will inherit the CK than men is not based on any definitive statement from the Church or the scriptures. It is based, however, on my personal observations of the church. For example, I have noticed that there are FAR more worthy, single women in the Church than men, and in my mission, far more women were receptive to the message of the gospel than men. I’m fairly sure that Church statistics would bear this out, hence the emphasis in so many missions on baptizing male priesthood holders — this isn’t a preference for men over women, just an observation that far more women are being baptized than men, making the Church disproportionately female. My recently-widowed dad and recently divorced brother have both observed aloud that there seem to be far more worthy, single females in the Church than worthy, single males.

Mike’s comment above conflates equality with sameness. Can we be so sure that men and women are not inherently different such that many women can be with one man but not vice versa? As my wife and I discussed this last night (as a result of this discussion), I asked her whether if a woman truly knew that her husband loved her, would she have a problem with him loving another woman as well. Her response was basically that aside from the sexual relationship, it could probably work. I don’t think that I could say the same about her affections for another man, even putting aside the sexual relationship. The idea of many females to a single male is a pattern that is repeatedly seen in nature — yet it is very rare (I don’t know of any, but I’m sure there are some) to find examples with many men and one woman. Generally, two bulls will fight each other if put in the same field with many cows, but the cows will not fight each other if put in a field with many bulls. (I know, I know, its a crude analogy). I know it is totally politically incorrect to even suggest that men and women might be inherently different and yet still be equal (a la Larry Summers — Ok, bad analogy b/c he was patently wrong, but you get my drift), yet all of my reading of the doctrine and the scriptures seems to suggest just that. I think that this is why more women will be in the CK than men — they are much more spiritual by nature. And this personal observation was confirmed by the remarks of Elder Bruce Hafen and his wife at the J. Reuben Clark Society Banquet in 2002 (the published remarks were by no means complete). Elder Hafen stated quite clearly, quoting the apostles, that men seem to be more adapted to surviving in the physical world, but that Eve was a helpmeet (read help sufficient or perfect or apt) for Adam such to keep him to Godward.

I really struggle with understanding whether it truly is different for men than for women, which I guess is at the core of most of our misgivings about polygamy. Now, I understand that my wife is not the sample set of all women, but I’m trying to figure this out, so no vitriolic responses please. I’d just be curious to hear what you think. Also, a friend’s comment has percolated in mind in respect to this subject — his comment was that we are so hung up here on this earth with ownership being exclusive (i.e., we don’t own something unless we can exclude all others), but he commented that perhaps ownership will be different on the other side (and yes, I am aware of the negative connotations attached to ownership by the women’s movement, but I am simply limited by our language here a la Jean Paul Sartre, so see my meaning please, not my word). Also, I should add that my wife very wisely added that she has always seen this commandment as a means to raise up posterity, rather than as a celestial law required for godhood.

In response to Bob Caswell’s comment that this is a cop-out, I think it is important to note that there are two levels to my faith — those things which are sure and immutable (J.S. was a prophet of God, the Church is the only true Church, Hinckley is a prophet of God, the Book of Mormon is true and Christ is my Savior), and then the other things, which, because all truth may be circumscribed into one great whole and all truth is interconnected, are constantly shifting as I gain new pieces of truth. As most of our musings here are post-hoc explanations for a doctrine that we are not sure we have an answer for, I think it is fair to share ideas that I’ve come to in my attempts to understand. I don’t think this is a “cop-out” as I am convinced that, as Thomas More says in Robert Bolt’s play, “God made man to serve Him in the tangle of his mind.” I think it is incumbent on us to be thinking about why we are commanded to do the things we do, lest we become as the ancient Jews and miss the mark, making the law of Christ into a dead law of works. The trick is to think about them without laying them down as sure things — too many people bring the fragments of truth level in the gospel down to their immutable, sure, unchanging level and thereby get their testimonies shaken by simple things that don’t relate to the core truths I mentioned above. I think that God wants us to be engaged actively in thinking the gospel through — He wants our intellectual development as much as He wants our development in other areas, i.e., John Welch’s elaboration on the idea that God wants us to serve Him with all of our heart, might, MIND, and strength.

Sorry so long.

Daniel, I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I would point out that there are human societies which practice polyandry as well as other animal species which do the same. Also, I would never be comfortable with my husband “loving another woman as well,” as you put it.

I’ve really enjoyed this topic and have actually read most of the posts.

I recall reading some time ago that the concept of “sealings” in Joseph Smith’s day was different from our current conception. That it was basically about linking families together and Joseph even sealed men together in a few cases. Can anyone confirm this? I can’t remember which book I read this in so if anyone else has heard this I’d be interested in the reference. I also think Susan Black mentioned that in my Church History class at BYU years ago. Anyway, the idea made me to wonder if Joseph being sealed to young girls as well as fairly old women wasn’t more about linking them with Joseph, linking families or ensuring the woman’s exaltation or something similar rather than a sexual thing which is so often implicated. I also read that after Joseph died several more women were sealed to him. What would be the purpose of those post-death sealings? I doubt it was to ensure Joseph had plenty of women to sleep with in the afterlife.

Trenden- You’re talking about adoption, which was an application of sealing. See this Ensign article (!) “line upon line” by James B. Allen and this BYU studies article.

The Law of Adoption: One Phase of the Development of the Mormon Concept of Salvation, 1830–1900

Justin–

Thank you very much for that link.

Justin, thanks for the great link. Very interesting. I had never thought about celestial demographics.