[brianhales]

Hi again,

These are busy days for me but I’ll try to respond.

Here’s five insightful comments with some of my thoughts:

1. “All things in the church shall be done by common consent” no question the early practice of plural marriage was not preceded by a vote of the membership.

The New and Everlasting Covenant is not something followers can validate or invalidate by “common consent.” We can individually accept it or reject it, but it is everlasting and transcends our own agency, except for how we will personally respond to it. It includes eternal marriage – sealed unions that last forever. We can each choose to make those covenants, or not, and only ourselves will be affected.

2. “We believe in obeying the law” the Illinois anti-bigamy law of the time was quite comprehensive.

People commonly quote and August 1, 1831 revelation: “ Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land” (D&C 58:21) to suggest that polygamy could not have been authorized by God. But they don’t quote the more specific revelation given two years later (August 6, 1833): “Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil” (D&C 98:6-7). No Church leaders in the nineteenth century believed that polygamy was constitutional (even after the Supreme Court ruled it was in 1889). If we look at plural marriage through their eyes, we can more easily see why they did not see a contradiction (even though loads of people see it today).

3. The D&C at the time denounced multiple wives.

In fact, the language is ambiguous regarding polygamy. The article on “Marriage,” written by Oliver Cowdery and included in the 1835 D&C reads: “Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.” (See 1835 Doctrine and Covenants CI:4 [page 251]; “General Assembly,” Messenger and Advocate 1 [Aug 1835] 2: 163; History of the Church, 2:247.) It wasn’t “crimeS of fornication and polygamy,” it reads “crime of fornication” and “polygamy.” Also, it says “a man should have one wife,” not “a man should have ONLY one wife.” These may seem like small points and I wonder if the loopholes were intentional or not since I think Oliver was always staunchly against polygamy. Regardless, the 1835 D&C does not denounce multiple wives.

4. Would God command something that would require “dodging the question” or (as some would say) “lying”?

The denials are hard to understand, but it is true that Church leaders tried to avoid lying by using creative language. Fawn Brodie called their denials, “circumlocutions” and “verbal gymnastics.” For example, in 1844, one month before the martyrdom, the Prophet stated: “What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I’m not sure they were very effective.

The fact is that Nauvoo polygamists were caught between unconstitutional laws and God’s commandments. Scriptural examples exist where deception was permitted or required in order to serve God’s purposes. Abraham introduced his wife Sarah as his “sister” to King Abimelech, not disclosing she was his wife (Genesis 20:1-7), a tactic he had implemented earlier in Egypt:

And it came to pass when I was come near to enter into Egypt, the Lord said unto me: Behold, Sarai, thy wife, is a very fair woman to look upon;

Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see her, they will say–She is his wife; and they will kill you, but they will save her alive; therefore see that ye do on this wise:

Let her say unto the Egyptians, she is thy sister, and thy soul shall live.

And it came to pass that I, Abraham, told Sarai, my wife, all that the Lord had said unto me–Therefore say unto them, I pray thee, thou art my sister, that it may be well with me for thy sake, and my soul shall live because of thee. (Abr. 2:22-25; see also Genesis 12:10-20.)

Despite these observations, I too am uncomfortable with this slippery slope. It was much worse later in Utah. But I guess it comes down to following the laws of God (as we believe) or the laws of man.

5. Satan’s method is compulsion (as in threatening with a sword) while the Lord’s is love and patience.

God’s method is to command His children and to bless those who obey those commandments: “There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated– And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.” (D&C 130:20-21,)

He is a loving God, but his love cannot compensate for our disobedience: “If you keep not my commandments, the love of the Father shall not continue with you, therefore you shall walk in darkness” (D&C 95:12).

It may boil down to the question of whether we believe God commanded plural marriage in the first place.

---

This is a good question: “…if a teenage niece comes to you with disbelief that God commanded restoration-era polygamy, are you comfortable looking her in the eye and saying that, yes, God commanded these men to treat women poorly, and yes, the proper response on the part of a woman is to accept the bad treatment and make the best of it.”

First, polygamy is not authority to “treat women poorly etc.” Men sometimes have treated their wives (monogamous or polygamous) poorly and it is indefensible. It is true that polygamy creates inequalities. Perhaps we should imagine ourselves as Gods who are creating their own earths. How can there be two genders and complete equality? Factor in Satan who will exploit the gender differences and tell me how you would guarantee equality? Don’t forget the need for order and offspring and sealed marriages in the eternities.

A more specific answer to the question is: “How would you feel at the final judgment to tell a worthy woman she would be denied exaltation because monogamy was the only marriage dynamic in the celestial kingdom and she did not have a husband?”

---

One person wrote: “…billions of people that have not heard the gospel and will have the chance in the next life. By those numerous people accepting the gospel will there not be enough men to practice monogamy in the CK?”

I haven’t seen that data, but I’ve done my own research. Here’s an excerpt from Joseph Smith’s Polygamy vol. 3:

Since Joseph Smith apparently did not defend the idea that there would be more worthy women than men at the final judgment, it is impossible to examine his reasoning and explanatory details. However, it appears to be the only eventuality he anticipated. Analyzing the possibility using demographic data reveals some interesting observations.

For example, the ratio of male-to-female live births over the past three centuries seem to contradict this scenario. Demographers Graziella Caselli, Jacques Vallin, and Guillaume Wunsch observed: “The sex ratio at birth (number of male births per 100 female births) is generally very close to 105. This is one of the very rare demographic parameters that is virtually constant.” According to this ratio 51.2% of births are male and 48.8% are female. The numbers supporting these ratios have been extracted from nearly three centuries of statistical data. From these conclusions one could argue that, at the end of time, there will be a greater number of worthy men than women. There may be, however, some problems with this reasoning.

Early records may have suffered the underreporting of female births due to cultural prejudices that value male offspring over female. Even more important are the lapses arising from illiteracy and inadequate record keeping. Paris researcher Louis Sebastian Mercier wrote in 1782: “All the infants who are born there [in Paris] go to be nursed, half die, and the burial registers of the city’s parishes are not filled with their names; therefore counts should not longer be based on the register of baptisms, nor on that of deaths.” Sociologists Eric Brian and Marie Jaisson acknowledge that “the imperfect nature of registration figures are all well-known to specialists.” Despite these potential weaknesses, more recent data from reliable sources supports a consistent ratio of about 105 male newborns to 100 female.

Nevertheless, examining the ratio and extrapolating that value to the history of human existence may not be justified. Scientists cannot explain the genetic causes of the discrepancy. In Too Many Women? The Sex Ratio Question, Marcia Guttentag and Paul F. Secord acknowledge: “The results from various studies of reproductive biology suggest that a whole complex of factors are apt to have some influence on the sex of a zygote; moreover, at least some of these interact with each other.” Without understanding its root cause, data gathered during the last three centuries may not accurately predict the preceding millennia. Brian and Jaisson also recognize the “oscillatory nature around a near-equilibrium of the two sexes” that could ebb and flow over millennia, rather than just centuries. Three hundred years of data comprise only a small fraction of human existence. Since the phenomenon arises from as yet unidentified reproductive physiological factors, assuming a constant trend for the previous millennia may not be warranted.

In contrast to data supporting a greater of number of male-to-female births are data that indicate a greater receptivity of Christian values among women over men. Multiple surveys during the past century of religious involvement in Christian churches support greater participation among women. In his 1958 book, Religious Behavior, Michael Argyle concludes: “It is obvious that women are more religious on every criterion.” His published ratios of the involvement of women to men ranged from 1.40 to 1.87. Data from his surveys included attendance, claimed religious beliefs, church membership, and overall attitudes.

In 1999, Christian writer Leon Podles concluded similarly in his The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity– “men are largely absent from the Christian church of the modern Western world.” Podles assesses:

The most exact figures for the United States come from the 1936 Census, the last governmental tally of religious affiliation: in Eastern Orthodoxy the ratio of women to men is .75-.99 to one; Roman Catholics, 1.09 to one; Lutherans, 1.04-1.23 to one; Mennonites, 1.14-1.16 to one; Friends, 1.25 to one; Presbyterians, 1.34 to one; Episcopalians, 1.37 to one; Unitarians, 1.40 to one; Methodists, 1.33-1.47 to one; Baptists, 1.35 to one; Assembly of God, 1.71 to one; Pentecostalists, 1.71-2.09 to one; Christian Scientists, 3.19 to one.

More recently, the Pew Forum reported in 2009 the respective ratios for women to men in the United States for several religious activities: “Are affiliated with a religion” (1.09); “Have absolutely certain belief in God or universal spirit” (1.18); “Pray at least daily” (1.35); “Say religion is very important in their lives” (1.29); “Have absolutely certain belief in a personal God” (1.29); and “Attend worship services at least weekly” (1.29). An even more recent study of Episcopalian adherents showed a ratio of 1.63 women to men. In an 1992 article in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Tim B. Heaton discussed the gender distribution of Church members: “Latter-day Saints in Utah, other western states, and the South Pacific have gender ratios of approximately 95 males per 100 females, which is the value for the total U.S. population. Ratios in the Church are somewhat below the U.S. average in the eastern United States, Canada, and Asia, and females outnumber males by a large margin in Latin America and Europe.”

These observations could support an enhanced propensity among women to obey a celestial law on earth as reflected by Brigham Young and other Church leaders. However, they are not conclusive. Just as the birth ratios appear to have favored males 105 to 100 over the past few centuries, the opposite trend for participation in Christianity has favored women to a greater degree. Unfortunately, neither observation allows for sweeping conclusions regarding the preceding millennia. In short, it does not appear that demographic observations can accurately predict whether more men or women will be eligible for exaltation.

Thanks,

Brian Hales

[brianhales]

Hi Again,

I apologize for not responding sooner. I’ve been at Sunstone and the preparations have taken some time.

Let me respond to some comments. I don’t know if it will help anyone, but I do believe that a lot of opinions have been expressed that are not consistent with the available evidence. People are entitled to believe what they want, but I sense that people on this site would like to have the evidence too.

First, there was a quote: “At Sunstone a few years ago, Brian made the claim that there were no polyandrous marriages.” This is accurate. I have never said there was no polyandry or at least it should never have been concluded that I said it.

I have insisted and continue insist that there is no polyandrous sexuality (one woman having sexual relations with two husbands). D&C 132:41-42 and 61-63 describe three polyandrous relationships and label them all adultery, in two cases saying the woman would be destroyed. I believe it is a blanket condemnation of sexual polyandry. There is evidence that this has always been the case in the Church. References to polyandry are few, but when asked in 1852, “What do you think of a woman having more husbands than one?” Brigham Young answered, “This is not known to the law.” Five years later Heber C. Kimball taught, “There has been a doctrine taught that a man can act as Proxy for another when absent – it has been practiced and it is known — & its damnable.” The following year Orson Pratt instructed: “God has strictly forbidden, in this Bible, plurality of husbands, and proclaimed against it in his law.” Pratt further explained: “Can a woman have more than one husband at the same time? No: Such a principle was never sanctioned by scripture. The object of marriage is to multiply the species, according to the command of God. A woman with one husband can fulfill this command, with greater facilities, than if she had a plurality; indeed, this would, in all probability, frustrate the great design of marriage, and prevent her from raising up a family. As a plurality of husbands, would not facilitate the increase of posterity, such a principle never was tolerated in scripture.” Belinda Marden Pratt wrote in 1854: “’Why not a plurality of husbands as well as a plurality of wives?’ To which I reply: 1st God has never commanded or sanctioned a plurality of husbands…” On October 8, 1869, Apostle George A. Smith taught that “a plurality of husbands is wrong.” His wife, Bathsheba Smith, was asked in 1892 if it would “be a violation of the laws of the church for one woman to have two husbands living at the same time…” She replied: “I think it would.” First Presidency Counselor Joseph F. Smith wrote in 1889: “Polyandry is wrong, physiologically, morally, and from a scriptural point of order. It is nowhere sanctioned in the Bible, nor by the law of God or nature and has not affinity with ‘Mormon’ plural marriage.” Elder Joseph Fielding Smith wrote in 1905: “Polygamy, in the sense of plurality of husbands and of wives never was practiced in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah or elsewhere.”

In addition, D&C 22:1 tells us that the new and everlasting covenant causes all old covenants to be “done away.” Hence from a religious standpoint, the legal covenant of a civilly married woman is “done away” as soon as she enters into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. She would not have two husbands with whom she could experience sexual relations, at least so far as Joseph Smith taught. Going back to her legal husband would be adultery because in the eyes of the Church, that marriage ended with the sealing.

Joseph was sealed to 14 women with legal husbands. It is complicated because the 14 sealings were not all the same. Contrary to Compton and Quinn’s assertions, “eternity only” sealings were performed in Nauvoo. That is, a woman whose husband was a non-member, like Ruth Vose Sayers, was allowed to be sealed to another man for eternity only, with no marriage on earth. Sayers was sealed to Joseph Smith “for eternity” only. Of the 14, I believe 11 were of this type. It is strange that several of the women were legally married to active Latter-day Saint men. In each case, the woman made the choice. Lucy Walker remembered the Prophet’s counsel: “A woman would have her choice, this was a privilege that could not be denied her.” Regardless, none of the men complained against Joseph Smith for allowing the sealings.

The three remaining women (of the 14) were sealed to Joseph for “time and eternity,” which included sexual relations. Two were already physically separated from their legal husbands, so there was no change in marital dynamics. The last woman, Mary Heron, is so poorly documented that anyone giving details is simply speculating, unless they’ve found something new (which would be great!).

Another comment on the site is: “So Hales is making the case that Joseph only had sex with 3 wives (Emma would be 4), and that sex was a much more minor aspect of polygamy than others would have you believe. I haven’t read the books, but I’m sure that Compton disagrees with Hales about there being only 3 that had sex with Joseph.” No, those numbers were only prior to February of 1842, the last visit of the angel (when he appears with a sword to command plural marriage). In fact, I have documented sexual relations in 12 of the 35 sealings, with ambiguous evidence in three more. Not included are the two 14-year-old wives, any polyandrous sexuality, and any woman to whom Joseph was not sealed. See appendix E in Volume 2 or go to

http://www.josephsmithspolygamy.com/JSPSexuality/MASTERJSPSexuality.html

Another comment refers to Fanny Alger – “I like the scenario where JS develops strong feelings (love?) for a young woman (Fanny Alger) that lives in the Smith household and enters into a relationship with her. He feels so guilty about it that the idea of polygamy is developed out of his subconscious to assuage his guilt.” The problem is that Joseph Smith never needed to produce any theology to support polygamy. Fawn Brodie misses it by a mile. All Joseph had to say is that the Old Testament Patriarchs (think Abraham and Jacob) did it and I’m restoring it (Acts 3:21). End of discussion. There is no theology of marriage in the Old Testament. Teachings about eternal marriage and those found in the rest of D&C 132 did as much to hurt Joseph’s ability to practice plural marriage as they did to help them. People pushed back on the theology as well as the practice (think Nauvoo Expositor). The theology of plural and eternal marriage is entirely superfluous if he just wanted sex. All he had to say is they did it and I’m restoring it. Antagonists have a hard time explaining why he went to so much bother when he didn’t need to.

I hope this helps and I will try to stop by again.

Thanks!

Brian Hales

[brianhales]

I like Dax’s points.

I think polygamy on earth is sexist and unfair. It expands a man’s sexual and emotional opportunities as a husband as it simultaneously fragments a woman’s sexual and emotional opportunities as a wife.

However, it is also absolutely necessary in the eternities if exaltation occurs to couples only and if there are not exactly equal numbers of worthy men and women. We would need polyandry or polygyny (common polygamy).

It is important to acknowledge the suffering on earth caused by polygamy, but if Joseph Smith’s theology regarding exaltation is true, the suffering in eternity without it would be much great.

Just a thought,

Brian

[brianhales]

Hi – I’ve been invited to this website and have enjoyed reading the comments. I’m also pretty thick-skinned so if someone wants to disagree with me, that is okay.

Regarding why JS practiced plural marriage, I see two issues. First, why was it permitted? JS gave three reasons. First to restore OT polygamy (Acts 3:21; D&C 132:40, 45). I argue this is the ONLY reason he ever needed to give because Old Testament patriarchs never gave a reason for their practice of plural marriage. There is no marriage theology in the Old Testament. Joseph only needed to say, “They did it and I’m restoring it.” Fawn Brodie et al who say JS gave us D&C 132 to satisfy his conscience and justify polygamy are wrong. He never needed to create an eternal marriage idealogy if all he wanted was to expand his sexual opportunities by implementing polygamy.

Second, to multiply and replenish the earth and create devout families for noble premortal spirits (D&C 132:63). Several authors say this is the most important – depicting that plural marriage was all about sex. Respectfully I believe they are in error and would invite them to document the claim. While it wasn’t all about sex (see the third reason below), sex was one of the reasons. I’ve documented sexual relations in 12 of the plural marriages with ambiguous evidence for 3 more. However, none of those 15 women were 14, having sex with their legal husbands, or not sealed to Joseph.

Third and by far the most important reason plural marriage is needed in Joseph Smith theology is described in D&C 132:16-17. All men and women need a spouse to be exalted, otherwise they “remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity,” which is damnation. Polygamy allows all worthy women to be sealed to an eternal husband. D&C 132:61-63 explains how a woman cannot have two husbands but a man can have more than one wife and that the process is for “their [the plural wives’] exaltation in the eternal worlds” (v. 63). Section 132 provides only for there to be more worthy women at the final judgement. It isn’t something I have “figured out” or reckoned, it is just the only option D&C 132 describes.

The second issue is why was plural marriage commanded between the early 1840s and 1890? No other group of God’s followers have ever be so commanded according to the Standard Works. JS reported an angel commanded him. I’ve collected 22 accounts from 9 men and women who knew Joseph personally referring to those visits. (Volume one of Joseph Smith’s Polygamy: History and Theology, chapter . However, no prophet or Church leader (then or since) has explained why it was then commanded and JS’s theology only describes why it needs to be permitted. Church leaders and members have suggested some reasons: (1) Women outnumbered men in the Church in Nauvoo and in Utah [not true]; (2) To bring needed trials and challenges [true but not mentioned by Joseph Smith]; (3) Publicity value [B.H. Roberts’ idea]; (4)To solve the world’s moral problems. [difficult argument to successfully promote]; and (5) Polygamy produces healthier parents and children [even more difficult to defend].

I’ve tried to be concise but hope it doesn’t sound overconfident. I’m happy to discuss any point. I don’t expect everyone to see things my way, but I hope that those that see things differently will bring some historical documentation to discuss. Evidence is important because many authors have taken ambiguous evidence and spun it in extreme ways and their audiences are unaware. So much of what has been written about JS and plural marriage is misleading and inaccurate.

Take Care,

Brian Hales

[Author]

Posts